Actuarial Science Movie Reviews

Rutger Hauer must have been really hard-up or hankering for a little recognition to even bother making this awful movie! Frankly, I have never really thought much of Hauer. He appeared in "Blade Runner"... So what!
This movie is so bad it's unwatchable!

OK I'm the first to admit this dvd is ... but unfortunately so are the actors and the production is not action but very bad impersantions of russians, the pic quality and sound are good but there is no plot to this film, you can normally show any cheap action movie to me and I will find some type of plot or enjoyment, however this is a very low budget ... movie, after watching for 45mins it was totally unbearable, if any one wants my copy please contact me with your details, its yours free because its truly ...

Ok,the story is predictable but the style of filming is very original done by director tibor takacs.A futuristic tale about two former buisnesspartners who become eachothers worst enemys. Hauer plays very explosive and convincing,proving he can go up with the best when it comes down to this genre. The moscow scenery was a trendy choice by takacs,but in the end the movie was lacking deepness in the plot and characters.

This truly and utterly stinks. Awful acting (I thought Keanu Reeves was wooden, but this is a whole forest of Z-list actors), abysmal plot (not only could this atrocity be written on a beer-mat, but you'd have space to write two more of these stinkers in the space left over).

Avoid!

I think that most sci-fi fans would enjoy this film but in comparison to some of the TV shows we now have, the graphics really don't stand up. No, effects aren't everything but they help.

The plot is really very interesting - a guy writes a book and everything gets totally out of hand. Thousands are corrupted by the book and live their lives through its teaching - but this brings about a war and chaos ensues. Our heros get sent back in time to stop some baddies who've also escaped back to 1998. That's the gist of it anyway.

So, we've got a good overall plot, but there is a LOT of inconsistency - one woman's hair changes dramatically from scene to scene, so my family were all laughing at the supposedly touching parts of the flick. Watch out for some stupid lines, such as "Take us to your computer", which I don't think they even meant to be funny!

Overall, I didn't mind the film. The best thing about it was probably that it made me laugh even though it really isn't a comedy. It was a good idea which fell flat on it's face but I could just about cope with it. There is also not any extra material with the DVD except a trailer, which was a little annoying - when you buy a DVD you expect something more than a video and I didn't think it offered much in that respect.

The very worst thing about this film is all the swearing in it. At one point, a guy just swears a whole sentence out and you had to laugh because it was so ridiculous. That was the only time the swearing was remotely funny. It was uneccesary and didn't add anything to the film - it just got really annoying! Even if you don't mind swearing, I think it would begin to grate on your nerves eventually.

So, the verdict: You decide, it's low budget but good for a laugh, especially if you're a sci-fi fan, however the bad effects, bad lines and constant swearing could put many people off.

The first 30 minutes of Total Reality are great. Big spaceships thunder across the screen (and your speakers) whilst being attacked by lots of smaller ones. In the meantime an attack force boards one of the biggies and lots of shooting occurs whilst the battle rages outside. It's great stuff and gets your adrenalin going. But it's a real shame the film didn't hold my interest afterwards. The goodies are forced to go back in time to track down the baddies who also went back in time. Some quite exciting set pieces (with big explosions) keep the excitement going but then melodrama and some pretty poor acting start to take their toll. I know this isn't a mega-budget film but you don't need big bucks to keep the pace going. The film slowly starts to run out of steam. What a shame. But it's definitely worth seeing if you like space battles and there is another BIG spaceship at the end.

The title indicates a genre populated by movies such as "Armageddon" (seriously funny Bruce Willis) or "Deep Impact" (straight to the end of the World - almost). Well, only the title could indicate quality. The characters are cast in a grey, two-dimensional plot which offers nothing but repeated yawns. I actually didn't manage to view through in one night. As for technical quality on DVD: Forget it!

DO NOT CONFUSE THIS MOVIE WITH ONE BY THE SAME NAME ABOUT THE END TIMES. IT IS NOT THE SAME MOVIE. NOT A GOOD MOVIE, NO POINT TO IT.

Mindless, numbing garbage -- plain and simple. Don't get ripped off by wasting money on this completely ridiculous FLIM!

I purchased this movie based on it's title and because James Arness was in it. The title sounded good and I have seen James in a number of movies from the 50's (e.g., The Thing, and THEM) so how could I go wrong. Well - the movie starts out slow, drags in the middle, and the prehistoric creatures (a couple of big lizards) don't even show up until the end of the movie. It will be hard for me to watch this one twice.

Before making a career out of the TV show "Gunsmoke," James Arness appeared in a series of classic 1950s science fiction films, including THEM!, THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD, and INVADERS FROM MARS. TWO LOST WORLDS, an unfortunate mess, was not one of them.

TWO LOST WORLDS tries to be too many things at the same time; it has pirates, ranchers, melodramatic lovers, and intensely annoying "cute" characters like Salty, a dreadful walking stereotype who's supposed to provide comic relief. No one will complain again about Jar Jar Binks from STAR WARS EPISODE I after seeing this turkey. The DVD's packaging promises "Prehistoric Time's Most Awesome Spectacle" and shows two dinosaurs slugging it out. We do see lizards that are supposed to be dinosaurs about 45 minutes into the film. They may be onscreen for about 2 minutes tops. Not exactly truth in advertising.

Image Entertainment has been releasing DVDs of old curiosities to cult fans for a couple years now, and largely I've been glad of it. TWO LOST WORLDS, however, has nothing to offer to even film fans who believe in the old adage "this is so bad it's good". The movie is barely an hour long -- a scant 61 minutes -- and offers no special features outside of a list of other James Arness movies. Consider carefully whether you really want to spend the dough on this film.

Wow. Gathering together miles of stock footage, using leftover sets and costumes, and with a narrator whose dialogue HAD to be written by Ed Wood (c'mon, NO ONE else could write like that!), this is one of the most stupefying flicks I've ever come across. The "clipper ship" has the most Freudian bowsprit I've ever seen (certainly nothing like those actually USED), but don't worry - nothing stays on screen for more than a couple of minutes. The pace is downright frantic - clipper ship, pirates, battle, wild kangaroos, sheep, period-costume ball, another ship, another pirate battle, burning ships, lost island, "dinosaurs", volcano, back to the original clipper. All in about 60 minutes! Yikes!

This one may be of some interest to older Detroit-area viewers because the co-star is Bill Kennedy. Bill used to host a daily TV afternoon movie (back in those halcyon days before everything was syndicated to death), trading in on his days as a B-movie actor. He also gets the funniest scene in the movie, when, after having a large (styrofoam) volcanic boulder bounce off of him, he lays down, tells Arness to "take care of Elaine", then jerks his head to the left in the quickest "death scene" I've ever seen. Worth the price of the DVD just to see THAT!

The dinosaurs? Sheesh - must have been used from somewhere else, because they look VERY familiar (in a cheesy Irwin Allen way). But they're just stuck in with less than 15 minutes to go, and have NO bearing on the "plot". Without them, this would have been a "pure" costume-drama. With them, hmmmm, not much improvement.

Not really recommendable unless you want to try out your skills as an MST riffer. (This would have been a GREAT show, with enough extra time for a short!) A bit faster paced than "Lost Continent" (what isn't?), which was made the same year, but LOOKS 30 years older due to the 1830's setting and relentless costuming, and nowhere NEAR the rewatchability factor. Worth a look if you can get it cheap just to see Bill Kennedy and his howler of a death scene.

This is perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen. It looked like it was filmed with someone's camcorder. All of the actors were so over the top and bad, you were embarassed for them. I spent 5 dollars renting this from Blockbuster, and 2 minutes in to it, I was like, "Is this a joke?"

There are parts of PSYCLOPS that are really fun but it really suffers mostly from trying to house to many plots.
Fortunately PSYCLOPS looks like the director and cast had a real fun time making it which helps alot.
But PSYCLOPS loses alot of cohesion when it skips from being an H.P. Lovecraft styled thriller into a zombie movie and then into a mad scientist flick. My favorite part was the brief bit when one of the character enters another dimension and encounters a monster. I was dissapointed when the monster did not do away with her cuz that character was WAY annoying.
There is also a wiccan character in the film (always a mistake) who is played by Liz Hurley (not Elizabeth Hurley). Liz Hurley is actually really good as the wiccan and plays the character in a way so that you can never tell what is going on with her. You can't tell wether to trust her or not. But wiccans always make me think of THE CRAFT. Or some fat woman in a moo moo talking about nature rituals.
The other cast members are extremely irritating, with the exception of the muscle bound guy with glasses. He at least acts with enough competence to read his lines well.
The other two girls are just dreadful, with zero personality, and lines like, "Oh my God, how wierd is that...Oh my God!!"
My problem with these kinds of female characters is in real life I would cross the street to avoid coming in anyway near such stupidity. The fact that they talk through a HUGE portion of the film really becomes dreadful after awhile. You'd have to be really WHIPPED to wanna hang around these two girls.
So I never really care when characters like this are in danger. In fact this movie would have been much better with their swift removal. I'm always sitting there thinking, "Oh gee, the mad scientist is gonna finally kill that idiot. What took him so long?"
Anyway, I did enjoy this movie for about 20 minutes. Then I forced myself to watch the whole thing, admittedly skipping through a lot of the latter part when one of the JERSEY GIRLS is strapped to a table and the viewer is supposed to care about her.
I'm all for T&A appeal but at least try to cast someone who does not sound like a young Margaret Hamilton crossed with a big haired Jersey girl.

this is a very boring film. It has potential for camp, but doesn't utilize it. Is this the same Fred Olen Ray who directed the classics "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers" and "Bikini Hoe-Down"? Where is the humor in this flick?

It has the look of sci-fi T&A, but practically no T or A.

The acting, as might be expected, is horrible (althouth the lead is pretty and engaging), but so is the dialogue and plotting. What is John Carradine doing in his cameo?

I had the opportunity to see this film BEFORE it was released.
I got so lucky because the female lead in this movie, Sandy Brooke, was my STEP-SISTER at the time, so the whole family was anxious to see it. I still have the PRE-RELEASE version on tape.

I DO wish that the makers of the film had had a little bigger F/X budget. Some of the F/X shots in this movie came from "BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS". Others from the TV series "BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25th CENTURY". I really hate it when film makers do things like that.

I have to agree with "A VIEWER from North Carolina", STAR SLAMMER had the potential for camp, but didn't quite make it. HOWEVER, I do NOT think it's awful. It's a good movie if you want to have a few chuckles. As I said, it's a "GROANER", but that doesn't make it AWFUL! (I say that with love Sis, just in case you read this review)

Some of the fun of this movie comes from knowing a few of the BEHIND-THE-SCENES secrets. For Example: the actress who portrayed the Warden of the "STAR SLAMMER" supplied all her own wardrobe!

I have to tell you a true story; the poster art was so cool I had to see this picture, yet what I got was the biggest disappointment next to The Avengers. The film starts off with a great idea and the opening scenes show good promise when the crew of a nuclear-armed space station has to react to World War 3. A few months later they have to bail out when an earth-based hacker discovers they might have a load of nukes onboard. Once on ground one of their party falls prey to an unknown predator while the other two have to contend with a gang run by a teenager. The rest of the movie is a bore as it turns into a cheap Mad Max/Road Warrior knock-off.

Like many of these films, they all lack the one element that made Mad Max so great, non-stop action. This movie is boring and looks cheap. The only cool thing is the opening scenes and the super cool poster. I wonder why this would even be released on DVD, as I can't remember a single actor I would recognize.

For many years, when I was asked what the worst movie of all time was, I would answer DefCon4. Without hesitation or a second lost trying to decide. DefCon4 was the easy answer.

I have not seen DefCon4 for many years now, and have come to call this period of time "the age of reason". And while Dracula: Dead and Loving It has seemed to take DefCon4's place as the most rancid piece of waste that I have ever seen, I still hold a special place in my lower intestine for that movie.

This movie is rewatchable,...there's alot to be said for that. Basically a post apocalypse theme with pretty thin plot line,...but the action and "actions" or should I say post nuclear war behavior is more than entertaining and almost funny if it weren't for the very real themes concerning lack of food and killing. Definately watch this film whether you like nuke films or not.

This title is so bad that words simply can't do it justice... but I'll try. This is low-budget filmmaking at its absolute worst. There's no effort made toward character development or logical plot. Everything in this smacks of someone simply putting a movie together for the sake of putting a movie together... and I'm not even sure profit was the motive here, that's how amateurish this film is.

Malcolm Genesis offers a review on this title that, quite frankly, I must call into question since all of his reviews are for films by Dan D'or and G. Phillip Jackson (the producers of this film and the others that he reviews). The fact that Mr. Genesis knows a little too much about these guys makes you wonder how truthful the review really is. My suggestion to you is to take a look at all the other reviews, including this one, that pans the film. Trust me on this, there's a reason why we're giving it a thumbs down.

I hardly know where to begin. It was like watching the worse car wreck you have ever seen in slow motion. The story, well I don'tquite know what the heck this thing was about. The effects were pretty good, but that just makes this whole mess sadder. Quite possibilythe worst movie ever made. Im not talking plan 9 form outer space bad, at least plan 9 was funny. Must be seen to be believed { ITS REALLY THAT BAD ] But don't waste your time

I normally write good stuff when I've picked up a film by Roger Corman working with Daniel Dor & G. Phillip Jackson and it's sometimes hard to know who's responsible for things turning out how they do. In many ways this film -clearly a low budget effort, is just fine. Particularly so given that it all happens in outer space. It's solid sci-fi fare with good FX, excelent suspense, and a story that will become relavant as they keep building that International Space Station.

The idea is that an astronaut on board a fictional Russian built space station is being held ransom by a succesionist state in Russia (it's implied they're Chechnians, but they never say). So suddenly we have a killer on board the space ship, his job is to sabotage the station and drop the flaming wreck somewhere into America- America will blame the Russians, the Russians don't want that so they will do anything they can to negotiate with the guy and save the station.

Problem is, our on-board terrorist stopped caring a long time ago, he just wants his spectaculare firey crash, and he no longer cares about politics. So it's up to one person aboard the station to stop our madman. I won't say more so as to not give it all away, but the suspense gets sufficiently intense at some points and we don't know who the bad guy is for for some time.

In many ways the script, credited to Vincent Monton is a rip-off of the much more succesful Corman/Dor/Jackson picture "Falling Fire". Director Eli Necekov has a nice visual style, but the secondary cast is out of his control. Michael Pare and all the cast in the space station do well enough. If you like sci-fi on the low-budget end, I'm OK recommending it.

Awful movie that tries to blend cheesy humor with soft core sex scenes. But the mix doesn't work at all. The only redeeming feature is the presence of the amazingly beautiful Amber Newman. She's the only reason to watch this.

Nothing ground-breaking in this soft-core title from the usually reliable folks at Full Moon. The DVD contains some funny behind the scenes material, but that's about it. This is supposed to be the special Director's Cut, so, I hate to see the chopped up version. Lose this one and pop in Castle Freak one more time.

Not good acting. Some Sex scenes not too hot. Last one is best between Amber Newman and the captain. As he is having sex with her from behind her bare foot is touching his bare foot. He has pleasured reactions on his face while shs barely has none. 2 Stars.

This set a record in my life's movie-watching experience: I rented it three times, always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and three times I couldn't stay awake through the first hour.
Asimov's story is a classic; this is a classic dud.

When I first read Isaac Asimov's short story "Nightfall", I was stunned and left gasping at its powerhouse of a closing. When I finished watching the filmed version, I was also stunned and left gasping--but for quite different reasons. All the mystery and beauty of the short story that sought to explain a millenia old phenomenon of a planet's first and last nightfall was not only lost in the movie, but even on a technical level of competence, from the wretched directing of Paul Mayersberg to the incompetent acting of David Birney and David Carradine, this movie quite unintentionally presents both a challenge and a dilemma to those whose job it is to pass judgment on its merits. For truly abysmal efforts like ROBOT MONSTER or PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, these efforts nevertheless retain the saving grace of something that clicks with the audience, whether that something be the excessive exuberance of John Barrows waving his arms in a gorilla suit from ROBOT MONSTER or the perversely androgynous heavy-handedness of director Ed Wood in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. Even 'bad' movies can have a style of their own that comes into play usually late at night in a marijuana filled college recreation room. But what separates the fun of enjoyable bad movies from the torture of having to sit through garbage like NIGHTFALL is the deadening seriousness of the collective hands of all concerned from director to writer to actor. In such movies as this, there is nowhere to be found any lightness of attitude or just plain old fun. It is as if such films serve only to remind the audience that there are indeed moments in our lives that call for infinite patience while someone drives sharp needles under our fingernails. Yet, I do not want to have to pay for such dubious pleasure. With films like this one, I did.

I love Asimov. When I wandered the aisles at the local rental yard, I though "cool - Asimov!" and rented it.
I really do want my money back, in fact, I want to be paid for my time wasted. I didn't know a movie could possibly be this bad.
This is THE movie that convinced me to never rent anything without checking online reviews by others beforehand. What a TOTAL INSULT TO ONE OF THE GREATEST SCI-FI WRITERS OF ALL TIME. The man who fanticized positronic brains in the '50s which still exist today in the "Data" character on Star Trek, TNG.

I still go to that video rental store, and when I see it still available on their rack, I feel enraged that someone might get [a bad deal] like I did.
There needs to be a warning label, like what is required on a pack of cigarettes, alerting the buyer or renter of the absolutely dangerously putrid nature of this film.
This is THE film that will convince amazon.com to extend their "star" rating system to not only include zero, but negative stars as well.

If only I could puke in plain text, you would see it here.