Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Friend or Foe (2002)
Should be called "Foe or Foe"
The question-and-answer sessions were pretty interesting sometimes, and the final question-and-answer round was fun to watch. It was these question-and-answer sessions that really made the game anything interesting at all.
What ruined Friend or Foe was the Trust Box round. Both contestants in each Trust Box round can vote Friend or Foe. If both vote Friend, they split their pot equally. If both vote Foe, they both get nothing. But if one votes Friend and the other votes Foe, the Foe gets the entire pot and the friend gets nothing.
It happened a good 99% of the time, where both contestants in each Trust Box round would state syrupy cases on why they should both vote Friend, then stand there giving each other unbearably fake and cheesy smiles, and then Kennedy reveals their choice and they both voted Foe and go away with nothing. This was one game show where maybe 1% of the contestants actually won a single dime... even the winning two contestants because they both give ridiculously fake smiles and both vote Foe. Of the 1% where any Friend votes were given, it was 90% Friend - Foe and only 10% Friend - Friend. As Carmen-5 said, double Friend votes happened but they were so rare you could count them on one hand. Even Friend - Foe votes were uncommon as too many people were greedy.
This show had a short run because so precious few of its contestants ever took home any winnings whatsoever. The question-and-answer rounds made the game, but the Trust Box rounds broke it. Almost nobody wanted to share, and as a result, both got nothing... not even plane fare home. There was no element of luck here... it was all a matter of trust and greed. Trust was in short supply, greed was abundant. Friend or Foe was a reasonably good idea that was ruined by Aesop's fable of the dog with a steak that saw its reflection in the water. After too many dogs grabbed for the others' steak and ended up with no steak, all the other dogs got the message and walked away from the pond.
Marauding spider wreaks havoc? Not really...
A well-meaning doctor develops a serum meant to increase the world's food supply. He keeps several test subjects in a laboratory. The serum is making the subjects grow steadily larger... one subject, a tarantula in a glass enclosure, has grown to the size of a German shepherd dog after 22 days. But, one day the professor's assistants double-cross him and a fire breaks out in a fight. The glass enclosure housing the tarantula is smashed with a chair, and the spider quietly walks out of the enclosure and escapes from the burning lab into the desert.
There's just one problem. The tarantula is still getting bigger... and bigger... and bigger. Before long it's practically as big as a football field. And just like any living creature, it needs to eat... it gets hungry. Well, if you're a tarantula spider the size of a football field, where do you go to find food? It's not like you can bring a club members' discount card to the local Horn & Hardart for a 25-ton bag of Purina Spider Chow (tm), right? This one decides to visit local cattle and horse ranches to sample the livestock... and the human ranchers keeping these livestock don't like that very much. But that's too bad for them-- to a spider acting on pure instinct, trying to feed itself, a human being a fraction of your size is just another kind of prey. And so the mayhem begins...
For a 1950's horror movie, this is a classic. Although black-and-white, the photography is excellent, the effects in making the spider appear colossal are superb (for 1950's f/x technology), and the actors can actually-- gasp-- act! And the best part? PETA didn't picket the movie even though in the context of the storyline, the spider was as much a victim as all the people who got squashed trying to stop it. Moral of the story? If you want to create a growth serum to provide more food for the world... test it on fruits and vegetables.