Reviews

6 ReviewsOrdered By: Date
4/10
There is really only one reason to watch this . . .
6 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
. . . and that is only if you like the sight of beautiful woman with nice, bouncy jugs running around the so called African jungle. So no problems there for most males out there.

I watched it as one of those bundled together package. Forget about the plot which is essentially just a flimsy storyline to get our heroine flashing her jugs on screen at every opportunity possible. Just to give you a sense, our heroine swings from vine to vine and climb on top animals at every chance possible for no good reason at all just to let you see her jugs at all angles. Again, no complaints.

The "fight scenes" are laughable and borderline on the pornographic. Our heroine got caught by the baddies at least five times in the movie. On occasions when she has to fight, the "fighting" involves rolling around in the dirt, grunting unconvincingly and basically fighting like kittens. I am surprised no hair pulling is involved. It get so bad that the chief baddie had to remind the "combatants" that "I said, the one that draw first blood wins!" in order to avoid watching anymore stupid fighting.

The witch doctor Kuku was a bloody blast. From being a big, cuddly bear in the beginning, he became manic depressive when captured and then, outright psycho. He spent the whole movie muttering lines with no irrelevance.

Beside Liana (our heroine)bouncing around topless, you also get to see plenty of other Amazonians as well as one woman who decided to jump naked into the lake to take a swim for no good reasons. Yeah, it is that kind of movie.

Watch the beautiful Liane in her bouncy glory. Despite the movie being more than 20 years old, the allure of watching blond women flashing their nice jugs on screen never gets old.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ten 'til Noon (2006)
3/10
Ouch - suck alert
9 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Honestly, people who gave this movie a ten would have given 100 for pulp fiction. This is the level that we are dealing with here.

The movie isn't bad but no way is it like "OMG, the best movie since Pulp Fiction!". Some people have incredibly low expectations for movies, even those of indie variety. Personally, I found my interest in the movie waned after the half-hour mark. The plot defies logic and belief. You have got to hear the part about why the wife did what she did in order "to save her husband". Yeah, right. I guarantee that you would walk out of the theatre thinking, "hmm, now that doesn't make sense at all." This is one movie in which you really need to suspend all logic and belief.

Those who said that the music score is good were probably listening to their MP3 players. It absolutely killed the movie in some parts.

In conclusion, watch the movie only if you have nothing particular important to do. I give this a three because there is one long sex sequence in the motel which is decent.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Witches get hammered
7 August 2007
This is really terrible.

The only redeeming feature about this movie is that the next time people ask me what is the worst vampire movie I have ever watched, I would have a suitable reply.

I think it is filmed on 35 mm so it is already tacky like hell. I wouldn't have bothered commenting but I noticed some fanboys (probably connected to the movie) had claimed that this was the best movie since the Matrix. Let me debunk the myths and lies.

There is nothing good in the movie. Everything yells tacky. The actress is ugly. The fight choreography is the worst I have ever seen. The fight scenes are unbelievably amateurish. Imagine a girl flailing her arms around in a circle helplessly and delivering weak kicks which wouldn't hurt a kitten. Obviously, the director just pulled people off the street to give them roles in the movie.

I know the director did not have much budget for the movie but still better movies have been made on smaller budget before. Unforgivable.
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Three faces of lame
4 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe this movie has a decent rating and won some visual effects award. I mean, the werewolf effects were terrible. Hell, the lake monster effect is cheesy as hell. Jason and the Argonauts had better graphics than the travesty of the lake monster. For a minute, I thought I was playing the God of War II on PS2 except that monsters in GOW had way better graphics.

You have got to see the acting to believe it. Everyone did their darndest impression of cardboard figures. You know in some porn movies, the stars look stiff and talk as if there are something in their mouth? Yeah, something like that. Seriously, you can't wait for all of them to be killed off. The story lines are all cookie-cutters. Nothing you haven't seen before. The whole movie is just one long extended episode of the twilight zone or outer limits. Big deal. I would given this movie a 1 but given that it is obviously low budget and the lead actress is incredibly hot, I will concede and give it a two.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Vampire Bats (2005 TV Movie)
1/10
You got to be batty to enjoy this movie
4 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I have no hesitation to give this a one out of 10. The last time I check, this movie scores a 4.7 on the IMDb; no doubt the work of maligners who abused the ratings system simply because of the presence of Lucy Lawless in the movie. This is crazy. If Lawless strapped on her Xena armour and started dishing out pain to the bats, I might have given this movie at least a 5. However, Lawless only got a broom as weapon in this movie. What did she do with the broom in the movie? She tripped the bad guy. Boo Hoo. Big Deal.

There is no excitement in the movie and I felt like I am getting a lesson in environmental conservation from some greenies. The death scenes of victims are lame. One guy got bitten to death despite just an inch away from the swimming pool and he would have been safe if he just jumped into it. The way they killed the bats are lesson 1 in lame. There is twist in the end. Actually, not a twist but more like a crumple in the script which really doesn't connect to anything. The final scene (3 months later) is completely, utterly and totally unneeded. It looked like they just thought to get Lucy Lawless on screen again for the last time.

Lame and terrible. Xena would not have been pleased.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This film kicks ogres' behind
30 March 2007
You probably have read all the reviews and wonder what everyone means when they say that Wrath is truer to the D&D universe and is better than the first movie (which sucks donkey balls). I will give you an example to clear up any doubts.

When our heroes in Wrath met a lich in the forest, did they battle the lich to death in grand Hollywood fashion? Did they hell! They packed their stuff and run for their puny lives -exactly what any normal D&D adventurer would do when a lich is encountered. Fight a lich? Uh huh. And one of the heroes got frozen and eaten up by a white dragon which is always cool (pardon the pun). The mage is hot too.

This is why we love this movie. Read bad-ass D&D villains that kick major ogres' behinds unlike the idiot beholder in the first movie that appeared for 10 seconds and floated around looking stupid. In Wrath, the balance in the Force is finally restored. I hope the backstabbing, awesome lich made a return in D&D III.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this