Reviews (99)

Long film
I have not seen the shorter version, and can give no comparision between the two cuts.
I bought the movie because I was impressed with Luc Besson's other films, such as La Femme Nikita and Leon. The story is about 2 divers, deep free diving divers. Very deep, very dangerous. The competitiveness and relationship between these 2 men is most definately love-hate, with Reno's charactor not being able to be himself without his competition and friend.
Very long, as stated perviously, with 49 minutes of footage added, the picture moves along at a fair pace. This is not an action move. Even the dive sequences are not fast paced; they move to where you are moving with them, down to their deep depths which they are certain will challenge them, but not kill them, or at least fairly certain. With Arquette's character, we are introduced to the love interest. Reno warns his friend to avoid her and concentrate on his work, but he is in to her in a very big way.
I am not sure who to recommend this film to, but it is definately worth a look.

Unfortunately, the Director's Cut left me feeling empty.
Well, I've read the other reviews and I find myself most decidedly in the minority. The movie is good, but it's not great. On the other hand, neither is it terrible. My first experience with The Big Blue was the American version, cut shorter and with Bill Conti's score in place of Eric Serra's. The Director's Cut (D.C.) is both longer and darker.

Okay, I'll say it. I like the American version better. Period. It was, perhaps, my all-time favorite movie. But things have since gone downhill. Eric Serra's music is good, don't get me wrong, but I don't feel that it has the emotional impact of Conti's. Yes, we're talking about something very subjective here. If the D.C. is your first experience with this film, then you'll be lucky enough to enjoy it without having to compare and contrast. However, for me, something was missing in this new release. I found many of the extra scenes superfluous to both the story and the character arcs. For example, there's an added humorous scene midway through the film that exists, supposedly, to show that Enzo likes to take chances and flex his masculinity. I agree; the scene depicts just that. But there are plenty of other scenes that do the same thing; this one is redundant. (On a side note, the endings of each version are virtually identical -- don't let someone tell you otherwise. Ultimately, this movie is about a man's struggle to choose between Humanity and Nature, and that message remains unchanged from one version to the next.)

Regarding the scoring, there are points in the D.C. where a given scene just didn't work for me with Serra's music (sometimes Besson chose no music at all, and the silence that falls over the action is absolutely stifling). I don't believe that Serra's score did the movie justice. Conti was able to capture the flavor of the film much more easily, yet without being disrespectful to Besson's message. At best, Serra hit the mark only five times out of ten.

To be fair, I can't honestly say that my take on the D.C. is based solely on its own merits, as I saw the American version first. I'd suggest that you watch both and decide for yourself. Of course, it might prove difficult to find the older one these days (outside of rental stores, that is).

In short, I was disappointed that they didn't come out with a DVD that had both the American and Director's versions. I realize that'd be more expensive, but it would've been a nice touch (and I'd have paid extra for it). I'm glad I saw the D.C., but I'd much rather own on DVD the American version and I regret that I now think less of the movie than I had previously. I would have given it two and a half stars, but it wasn't bad enough to warrant a solid two, considering how much I loved the American version; despite its flaws, this is still a pretty cool movie.

ETMR - The Big Blue
1. Humanity: Many critics claim the central themes portrayed by the two male protagonists are the search for freedom and the proclamation of one's individuality. Yet both Jacques and Enzo are undeniably not free, having self-imposed chains tied both to the sea and their fantasies about the sea. In what ways does the film express the dangers of escapism and sentimental loneliness?

2. Implications: All three characters are tied to their worlds. Enzo is trapped in his status as the best, Johanna cannot move beyond her desire for a normal life with Jacques, and Jacques is unwilling to depart from the last words of his father. Do you think this film romanticizes these issues, or criticizes them?

3. Evolution: Besson (the director) stresses the super-human qualities of both men. Do you think these qualities are tied to their fate with the sea, or do they have a choice about their fate?

4. Realism: There is a magic realism in the film that cannot be ignored, form the magnetic pull of the ocean, to the unhuman mysteries beneath. Without these magical elements, does the movie stand on its own as a piece of reality?

5. Stageplay: Much of the acting in the film is overdramatized, from the sensual yet sentimental plumbings of Johana, the deaf silence from Jacques, to the heavy and bawdy nature of Enzo. Do the actors work together in a cohesive whole, or do they jarr the story and create separate entities upon themselves?

Please put the Original US Version on DVD!!!
Like many others who discovered this well overlooked film many years ago, I was greatly disappointed in the Director's Cut. For starters, the US Version's Music Score surpasses the European Score by leapyears and this Director's Cut uses that cheesy synthesizery European Score. :-( Secondly, the additional footage simply adds a little more pointless skin in the form of nudity, but adds little or nothing to the overall story except about 50 minutes of your time. It feels like it's dragging compared to the original US Version and often gives you more information than you wanted - sometimes it's best to not tell the audience everything and let them fill in the blanks themselves. The original US Version is one of my favorite films of all times, but this updated Director's Version doesn't make my cut because the extra stuff is pointless and long and the European Soundtrack is horrible!!!

Universal Truth: Review from Power vs. Force by D.R. Hawkins
[Refers to original theatrical release.] "We've made [kinesiological] calibrations of various kinds of records of athletic achievement, including movies. Of all the movies about sports studied, the French film 'The Big Blue' produced the highest calibration. This is the story of Jacques Mayol, the Frenchman who held the world record for deep-sea diving for many years (until very recently). The movie calibrates at the extraordinary level of 700 (universal truth), and has the capacity to put viewers in a high state of consciousness -- the manager of one movie theater that showed it described audiences wandering out lost in silence or crying with joy they couldn't describe." David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D, from "Power vs. Force", page 173 ... Read more

Amazon.com

Jean-Jacques Annaud's The Name of the Rose is a flawed attempt to adapt Umberto Eco's highly convoluted medieval bestseller for the screen, necessarily excising much of the esoterica that made the book so compelling. Still, what's left is a riveting whodunit set in a grimly and grimily realistic 14th-century Benedictine monastery populated by a parade of grotesque characters, all of whom spend their time lurking in dark places or scuttling, half-unseen, in the omnipresent gloom. A series of mysterious and gruesome deaths are somehow tied up with the unwelcome attention of the Inquisition, sent to root out suspected heretical behavior among the monastic scribes whose lives are dedicated to transcribing ancient manuscripts for their famous library, access to which is prevented by an ingenious maze-like layout.

Enter Sean Connery as investigator-monk William of Baskerville (the Sherlock Holmes connection made explicit in his name) and his naive young assistant Adso (a youthful Christian Slater). The Grand Inquisitor Bernado Gui (F. Murray Abraham) suspects devilry; but William and Adso, using Holmesian forensic techniques, uncover a much more human cause: the secrets of the library are being protected at a terrible cost. A fine international cast and the splendidly evocative location compensate for a screenplay that struggles to present Eco's multifaceted story even partially intact; Annaud's idiosyncratic direction complements the sinister, unsettling aura of the tale ideally. --Mark Walker ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Interesting Medieval Movie
Sean Connery plays William of Baskerville, a 14th cenutry Franciscan Monk who comes to an abbey high in the Italian Alps and investigates a series of murders that surround a mysterious book.

A young Christian Slater plays his companion/student. Connery is similar to a Sherlock Holmes, using very modern methods of investigation during this dark ages period.

The Monastery is home to all sorts of creepy monks including Ron Perlman playing a hunched backed simpleton. William find himself the target of heresy charges by a vengeful cardinal portrayed by the villian F. Murray Abraham.

The movie is somewhat slow but not in a bad way. It's a dark but thought provoking movie with religious overtones. Throughout is an on-going battle between William and some of the older monks. It seems the older Monks want the book supressed because it's a comedy and comedy is thought to be the work of the devil.

I've heard that the movie doesn't hold a candle to the book, but since I've never read it I have nothing to compare it to.

The film shows Connery's richest & diverse acting talents !
From the opening scenes you are mesmerized at the story and characters throughout this movie. The setting takes place in an old Italian Monastery where several Monks have died in mysterious ways and Connery, as a fellow Monk of the Order, is called in to investigate what is behind it. I was especially enlightened to this movie when on a trip to Europe I took a Rhine River Cruise and had actually visited the German Monastery where the movie was shot. The props created for the altar scenes are still there for visitors to see. As this movie unfolds the plot thickens testing your wits as to what is really going on in this remote monestary, heightened by the intervention of the Grand Inquisitor because the movie takes place during the period of the Inquisition in Europe. The acting is superb because the casting was excellent. The movie has enough historical fact and content that the viewer will learn something about medieval history as well as being entertained. If you are a Connery fan you will enjoy this movie for its content and story line. As with any GOOD actor you know Connery will not become involved in a bad script, you will not be disappointed with this Monk that he portrays. See it, rent it, buy it for your home library, you will watch it over - and - over again !!!

A Winner in Every Way
I have seen this fine film 5 or 6 times and each time I see something new and fascinating in it. Umberto Eco's novel was a complex story to adapt to a major film, and this was done with skill and intelligence by Andrew Birkin, Gérard Brach, Howard Franklin & Alain Godard. The idea of such a tragic murder solved with only the tools of the time is nothing short of brilliant. I am wondering how much the BBC television series "Cadfael" with Derek Jacobi is based on this motion picture. Both are superb in their own way.

If you enjoy a film with mystery, brilliant performances, gothic photography and magnificent art direction, you will enjoy this masterpiece. Be warned, however... you will require an attention span. This is not a film kids will understand.

Excellent adaptation.
How do you take a long and very dense book, and turn it into a cohesive and quickly-paced film? The makers of THE NAME OF THE ROSE answered that riddle.

All around, this film has everything going for it. The performances are compelling and right on--no one acts like a 20th Century actor trying to act 14th century. The setting is gorgeous, although the squalor of the less fortunate is vividly conveyed. The intricate almost Escher-like quality of the labyrinth within the monastery is an amazing feat of set design and engineering.

Most of all, it's the script and direction that carry the day. Given how much information had to be siphoned and sifted from Umberto Eco's novel, the screenwriters and director Jean-Jacques Annaud masterfully created a taut and convincing murder mystery without getting bogged down in the details. The only time I thought it did was during the dragged out Inquisition scenes. However, these scenes did represent what was at risk for these characters. All in all, this is a marvelous film which murder mystery fans or fans of period pieces will want to have in their collections.

Rocco Dormarunno, author of THE FIVE POINTS.

Dark Rose
1986's The Name Of The Rose is a dark, deep mystery set in the unusual setting of a medieval Italian abbey and is based on Umberto Eco's bestseller. Sean Connery stars as William of Baskerville, an English monk who is sent to the secluded abbey to investigate a murder. Along with his apprentice Adson von Melk (a young Christian Slater in just his third film), they dive into the case in which more dead bodies start turning up. F. Murray Abraham (in his first film after winning the Oscar for Amadeus) plays Bernardo Gui, an icy inquisitor who gets involved in the case, but whose motives are questionable. William struggles to solve the case against the intense religious fervor of the time and the film tries to show the conflicts between religion and justice. Director Jean-Jacques Annaud captures the dark and dank feeling of medieval times and captures the period well. The cast gives strong performances, especially Mr. Abraham in yet another menacing role. ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Interesting Medieval Movie
Sean Connery plays William of Baskerville, a 14th cenutry Franciscan Monk who comes to an abbey high in the Italian Alps and investigates a series of murders that surround a mysterious book.

A young Christian Slater plays his companion/student. Connery is similar to a Sherlock Holmes, using very modern methods of investigation during this dark ages period.

The Monastery is home to all sorts of creepy monks including Ron Perlman playing a hunched backed simpleton. William find himself the target of heresy charges by a vengeful cardinal portrayed by the villian F. Murray Abraham.

The movie is somewhat slow but not in a bad way. It's a dark but thought provoking movie with religious overtones. Throughout is an on-going battle between William and some of the older monks. It seems the older Monks want the book supressed because it's a comedy and comedy is thought to be the work of the devil.

I've heard that the movie doesn't hold a candle to the book, but since I've never read it I have nothing to compare it to.

The film shows Connery's richest & diverse acting talents !
From the opening scenes you are mesmerized at the story and characters throughout this movie. The setting takes place in an old Italian Monastery where several Monks have died in mysterious ways and Connery, as a fellow Monk of the Order, is called in to investigate what is behind it. I was especially enlightened to this movie when on a trip to Europe I took a Rhine River Cruise and had actually visited the German Monastery where the movie was shot. The props created for the altar scenes are still there for visitors to see. As this movie unfolds the plot thickens testing your wits as to what is really going on in this remote monestary, heightened by the intervention of the Grand Inquisitor because the movie takes place during the period of the Inquisition in Europe. The acting is superb because the casting was excellent. The movie has enough historical fact and content that the viewer will learn something about medieval history as well as being entertained. If you are a Connery fan you will enjoy this movie for its content and story line. As with any GOOD actor you know Connery will not become involved in a bad script, you will not be disappointed with this Monk that he portrays. See it, rent it, buy it for your home library, you will watch it over - and - over again !!!

A Winner in Every Way
I have seen this fine film 5 or 6 times and each time I see something new and fascinating in it. Umberto Eco's novel was a complex story to adapt to a major film, and this was done with skill and intelligence by Andrew Birkin, Gérard Brach, Howard Franklin & Alain Godard. The idea of such a tragic murder solved with only the tools of the time is nothing short of brilliant. I am wondering how much the BBC television series "Cadfael" with Derek Jacobi is based on this motion picture. Both are superb in their own way.

If you enjoy a film with mystery, brilliant performances, gothic photography and magnificent art direction, you will enjoy this masterpiece. Be warned, however... you will require an attention span. This is not a film kids will understand.

Excellent adaptation.
How do you take a long and very dense book, and turn it into a cohesive and quickly-paced film? The makers of THE NAME OF THE ROSE answered that riddle.

All around, this film has everything going for it. The performances are compelling and right on--no one acts like a 20th Century actor trying to act 14th century. The setting is gorgeous, although the squalor of the less fortunate is vividly conveyed. The intricate almost Escher-like quality of the labyrinth within the monastery is an amazing feat of set design and engineering.

Most of all, it's the script and direction that carry the day. Given how much information had to be siphoned and sifted from Umberto Eco's novel, the screenwriters and director Jean-Jacques Annaud masterfully created a taut and convincing murder mystery without getting bogged down in the details. The only time I thought it did was during the dragged out Inquisition scenes. However, these scenes did represent what was at risk for these characters. All in all, this is a marvelous film which murder mystery fans or fans of period pieces will want to have in their collections.

Rocco Dormarunno, author of THE FIVE POINTS.

Dark Rose
1986's The Name Of The Rose is a dark, deep mystery set in the unusual setting of a medieval Italian abbey and is based on Umberto Eco's bestseller. Sean Connery stars as William of Baskerville, an English monk who is sent to the secluded abbey to investigate a murder. Along with his apprentice Adson von Melk (a young Christian Slater in just his third film), they dive into the case in which more dead bodies start turning up. F. Murray Abraham (in his first film after winning the Oscar for Amadeus) plays Bernardo Gui, an icy inquisitor who gets involved in the case, but whose motives are questionable. William struggles to solve the case against the intense religious fervor of the time and the film tries to show the conflicts between religion and justice. Director Jean-Jacques Annaud captures the dark and dank feeling of medieval times and captures the period well. The cast gives strong performances, especially Mr. Abraham in yet another menacing role. ... Read more

Reviews (70)

So dull it's almost mindnumbing
The original Hellraiser was one of the scariest and finest horror movies ever crafted. Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 and Hellraiser 3 were... well, let's just leave it at that. Anyway, Hellraiser: Bloodline marks the first installemnt of the series under Dimension/Miramax films (a year or two before we'd be introduced to the first Halloween movie under the studio), and by the time you see the words "Directed by Alan Smithee" you know that this horror movie will be anything but horrifying. However, Bloodline does have a few things going for it that saves it from landing in a garbage dump: Doug Bradley returns once again as Pinhead and gives his best performace since the original film, the storyline attempts to trace the secrets of the "box", and most of the special effects are pretty well done. However, Bloodline is not without it's flaws. While the idea of tracing the origins of the box sounds like a good idea, the storyline is convulted and sometimes confusing and there are quite a bit of things never explained, not to mention Bruce Ramsay seems to be a bit over his head in his three different roles. Also, and this is my biggest complaint of the film, is that Pinhead is on screen for far too long. Bradley is entertaining as Pinhead, but he's just not scary anymore. Remember the first time you saw the original Hellraiser? Remember how seeing Pinhead the first time scared the absolute hell out of you? Bloodline just doesn't live up to that because now Pinhead is a comedian (just like Freddy Kruger turned into in the later installments of the Nightmare on Elm Street series) without much menace. All that aside, Hellraiser: Bloodline isn't the worst Hellraiser movie (Hellraiser 3 anyone?), but I strongly suggest watching the original before seeing this or any other Hellraiser film.

Pinhead is so exquisitely empty
When I first watched this movie, I felt the director was quite justified in choosing the Alan Smithee moniker for himself. After a second viewing, I find myself much more favorably inclined toward this fourth film in the Hellraiser series. It's still somewhat disappointing, but it is not unwatchable; if nothing else, Pinhead gets more great lines than ever before. Long before Jason journeyed into space, Pinhead was there. Bloodlines opens in the year 2127; Dr. Merchant, descendant of the man who created the diabolical puzzle box, has hijacked the space station he designed and has just summoned Pinhead and his diabolical minions into his trap when the station is boarded by the military and the doctor taken prisoner. With demons roaming free on the station and time running out for Merchant to complete his plans, he tells the story of his family to a young female soldier named Rimmer in an effort to convince her to let him finish his work.

We are transported back to what I assume to be 18th century France, where a toy maker named L'Merchant has been commissioned to design a puzzle box for famed magician/occultist M. de L'isle. The toy maker watches from outside as de L'isle and an assistant kill and skin a young woman and use her, in conjunction with the powerful box, to summon a demon. Realizing that he is responsible for creating a means of opening the gates of hell, L'Merchant sets about designing a machine to destroy demons such as the beguilingly beautiful enchantress Angelique. He does not live long enough to succeed, but the curse and the memories of what he has done are imbedded in his bloodline. The story then jumps to 1996, where architect John Merchant has designed a huge room intriguingly similar to the puzzle box. Angelique soon arrives and summons Pinhead. The Merchant bloodline is doubly important to the Cenobites-while it holds the danger of building a machine to defeat the demons, it also holds the secret for opening a permanent doorway to hell. Now things start to get interesting, as Pinhead soon tires of Angelique's reliance on temptation; to him human acquiescence is much more easily obtained by terror. The culmination of this part of the history is quite satisfying; declaring that "I am pain," Pinhead goes about proving the deep truth of his assertion. Finally, we return back to the future space station and watch the ultimate culmination of events set in motion hundreds of years earlier, the final showdown between the L'Merchant bloodline and the demons the family unwittingly invoked.

Although the story has multiple weak spots, some delectable gore somewhat offsets it. One of the two decapitations here is particularly impressive, as is the blood that flows freely in the home of the mad M. de L'isle. The demon princess Angelique is a captivating counterpart to the familiar Pinhead, although I agree with Pinhead that terror is much more effective (not to mention entertaining) than temptation. Bruce Ramsey plays three members of the Merchant family, but I think the roles would have been better played by three actors. Doug Bradley is, of course, wonderful as Pinhead, and I was quite glad to see him get so many lines this time around. His musings on suffering and pain are music to my horror-attuned ears, none more so than his impassioned reaction to the pitiful pleas for divine mercy of ridiculously cast and incredibly annoying identical twin security guards: "Do I look like someone who cares what God thinks?" One almost feels compelled to applaud when Pinhead states the obvious fact that "I am so exquisitely empty."

This movie is much less carnally gripping than the first two Hellraiser films, but do not dismiss it out of hand. I actually find it more enjoyable than Hellraiser 3. What initially seemed to me to be quite awful has now become a film I appreciate and take delight in. Just don't take this movie too seriously; after all, it is just a game, and it is most definitely time to play.

"I...AM...PAIN"
The Hellraiser franchise holds a special place in my heart. I will never forget the first time I saw the opening chapter in the series of films inspired by Clive Barker's nightmarish visions. Watching the original "Hellraiser" now is a mixed bag-some of those special effects look a bit hokey, but others still come across as chillingly effective. Who can forget the glistening visage of Uncle Frank? The lascivious Julia? Or the first appearance of the ominous and verbose Pinhead? The second installment improved on the first, as the film whisked the viewer away to the abode of Pinhead and the Cenobites. A gruesome, perverse picture, "Hellbound: Hellraiser 2" raised the expectations about future entries to a fever pitch. Up next came "Hellraiser 3," a personal favorite of mine even though legions of fans have subsequently disowned it. The series moved into the latter stages of its career from this point forward, taking bold steps in an attempt to expand far beyond what viewers had come to expect. The series continues today with at least two further sequels in the works. Will they find an audience or will the new arrivals fall flat on their faces? Fans will probably grumble even as they queue up to watch.

"Hellraiser: Bloodline" took the risky step of moving the storyline into space, a cringe inducing idea at first until you actually watch the movie. Who can forget the nightmare that was "Leprechaun 4"? Fortunately, only certain segments take place on a spaceship. The majority of the film heads back to the past to explain the origins of the Lament Configuration, that dreaded box which hundreds of seekers have opened only to find the Cenobites waiting for them. Dr. Paul Merchant (Bruce Ramsey) locked himself away on the spaceship because he wants to destroy this infernal device once and for all. A group of marines arrives on the ship to take the "mad" doctor into custody. During his detainment he tells a dark story about his family's history, about how his ancestor Phillipe Merchant designed the box in the eighteenth century for a decadent French nobleman who wished to plumb the dark depths. The box does its job, horribly so, conjuring up a demon named Angelique (Valentina Vargas) who promptly carves up people left and right. Unfortunately for Merchant, the box somehow curses his bloodline. Every one of his descendants will suffer because of the Lament Configuration.

The movie moves to the modern day-our modern day, not the year 2127 on the spaceship-to focus on John Merchant (again, Bruce Ramsey; he plays all three Merchants), an architect fascinated with the drawings passed down through the family from Phillipe Merchant. Again, Angelique turns up. But this time so does good old Pinhead, and he's bringing along some reinforcements. A huge battle ensues over the Lament Configuration, with the underworld's minions seemingly banished for good. We, having seen the events on that spaceship, laugh at such optimistic thinking. The finale to "Hellraiser: Bloodline" moves us back to the ship for a final showdown between Merchant, the marines, and the Cenobites. More gooey gore shows up to turn the stomach before the film slides quietly into the credits. Even if you end up hating this movie, you have to admit that the gore quotient reaches nauseating new heights.

"Hellraiser: Bloodline" is an uneven film anyway you slice it. Director Kevin Yagher withdrew from the production after his studio heavily interfered in the project. Thus, the film carries the dreaded "Alan Smithee" label, a moniker all too familiar to moviegoers in the know. The result of this turmoil behind the scenes set the movie adrift, so someone decided to just slap the whole thing together and dump the final result in the video stores. That's a real shame as "Bloodlines" has at its center an interesting premise for fans of the series: how the box came about and how it was first used to conjure up evil. The movie boasts a few new Cenobites in the form of a clacking toothed dog and a fused pair of security guards (Watch and see how this comes about. Gross.). Pinhead even turns up to toss off a few new witticisms. I especially enjoyed the line that goes something like "Do I look like someone who cares what God thinks?" You can always rely on Pinhead to say something memorable. Unfortunately, he doesn't show up in this movie nearly as much as we would like, a problem that only gets worse in parts five and six. Still, some Pinhead is better than no Pinhead at all, don't you think?

Give up on the idea of the series ever returning to the original themes so eloquently portrayed in the first and second films. Those days are gone forever as sequel mania long ago destroyed any hope of maintaining Barker's original inspiration. I generally watch new Hellraiser films for the glimpses of Pinhead and the jaw dropping gore effects. I found the "Bloodline" DVD a bit disappointing in the extras department. There aren't any, actually, beyond a trailer for "Children of the Corn 666" (yet another horror series deteriorating into utter banality) and a promo for the "Scream" box set. An Alan Smithee commentary track would have been nice-we could have finally heard from this mysterious man after all these years! Seriously, give "Bloodline" a chance. It's not great cinema, but it sure beats a lot of the dreck floating around out there.

better than the third one
it is alot better than the third one and isnt quite as good as the first one.
This one still has some sillyness in it though.

hellraiser origins
I liked this movie alot! Even though clive barker moved from director to producer he still put the effort forth for the 4th installment of hellraiser. This movie goes into how the box came about, and it's origins. If you are a horror fan, you might like this movie. If you're an initial clive barler fan, you might not like it. It's not his imagination you see, it's Kevin Yagher, and Joe Chappelle's. Rent it, before deciding to buy it. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

If you love bad movies, this ones for you!
I don't understand how these other reviewers can actually say that this is a good movie on it's own right. The fact is, it is absolutely terrible! Starring the Barbarian bros., the only reason one could have for watching this movie is to make fun of how moronic it is. However, although the movie is one of the worst I've seen, I give non-credit where non-credit is due, and I believe this is worth watching because it is SO unintentionally helarious. Five stars! ... Read more