1978 / 101 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

The movie begins with a chilling scene. A young woman is screwing her boyfriend when she really should be babysitting her little brother. Suddenly, an unseen man in a mask stalks her and her boyfriend. He walks around the house, picks up a knife, and finds them. The boyfriend, uh, comes a little early and then leaves. The young woman angrily puts on her shirt…and is then stabbed by a maniac, from that maniac’s masked point of view. The maniac walks downstairs, holding the bloody knife…just as his parents get home and pull off his mask to reveal…a seven-year-old boy.

Now that I have your attention, let me add that this is the creepiest moment of the entire movie. In fact, I feel bad for revealing it to you. I’m sorry. If you see me on the street you can punch me in the gut. But I just name that off so that I can warn you, as creepy as that is, there really isn’t much that achieves that level of fright throughout the course of this movie.

The movie then cuts to about ten years or so later, you see, and we follow several young women as they smoke pot and babysit and drive around town. One of them is the very young, and very beautiful, Jamie Lee Curtis. She is our protaganist. Anyone who has even looked at the back of the “Halloween” box knows that much. She’s pretty and she’s smart and she seems to care about the little kids she is babysitting.

And then the young boy from the beginning of the movie (Michael Myers, as if you didn’t know already) escapes from a mental institution in the middle of a rainstorm and everything goes straight to hell. He comes back to his home town on the anniversary of his slaying, hoping to kill off a few more inattentive babysitters. After all, everyone has to have a hobby. Donald Pleasance plays Dr. Loomis, the fearless doctor who either wants to get Mike back and rehabilitate him, or just pump a couple rounds into him and be done with it.

Naturally, Jamie Lee and Mike Myers (not Austin Powers, you idiot, but, well, now that would be pretty scary too, judging from the shitheap that was “Austin Powers 2″) cross paths. Horny babysitters, high on weed and too dumb to realize that they should be running out of the house, start dying left and right. Pretty standard, really. Sure, this is the movie that started the whole slasher movie trend, and it was trend-setting, to be sure, but that doesn’t make the stupid situations that these people get into any better. It doesn’t make the scene where Jamie Lee bangs on the door of a house to be let in and escape the killer (only to have the old lady inside turn out the lights and forget she ever saw Jamie) any less unconvincing and stupid. And it doesn’t make a person groan any less when the killer who is supposed to be dead pops up again and again and etc.

It may have started these horror movie conventions, but that doesn’t make those conventions look any fresher here than they do in a movie like “Nightmare on Elm Street” sequel. The only reason I rate it as highly as I do is that Jamie Lee is a pretty decent actress and because it creates an air of genuine eerieness with use of spare, haunting music, creepy fog effects, and a creepy mask for the killer. But it’s still no “Exorcist”.

Incidentally, trivia has it that the killer’s eerie mask is nothing more than a William Shatner mask painted white. Now that IS scary.

1961 / 110 Minutes / Not Rated
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Yojimbo” is a totally different genre of film from any that I am used to or have seen before. It is an “Eastern”. And it is extremely cool.

What, you will undoubtedly ask, is an “Eastern”? Has Dale finally gone off the deep end? Was Dale ever in the shallow end of the pool to begin with? I can only answer one of these questions (though, were I to hazard a guess, I would say that the definition of “Normal” and myself were never more than casual acquaintances). As far as I see it: an “Eastern” bears many similarities to a Western. Except that the characters drink sake, eat with chopsticks, look cool in ponytails (no white man has ever quite done that one) and carry samurai swords instead of pistols. The characters deal with ideas like honor, loyalty, and those old saws “right” and “wrong”. In this way, they are a lot like the characters of your standard “Western”. Instead of cowboy hats, they wear kimonos and robes. The hookers look more like geishas than like Miss Kitty from “Gunsmoke”. And in place of riding a horse, everyone just hoofs it.

The hero of this film has no name and, also like Clint Eastwood, he is one of the coolest men in all cinema. Toshiro Mifune plays a samurai who is now left to wander from one place to another with no real agenda. He goes where the wind blows. At the beginning of the film, he comes to a fork in the road. He throws a stick into the air and, when it lands, the direction in which it points is the track he takes.

The stick must have been a diving rod for scum, because he winds up in a small village in which everyone is either a coffin maker, a warlord, or a gambler and most of the gamblers are dead. Two war lords are fighting for control of the town. They prosper and fight. Everyone else either joins sides or ends up dead. Most of the time they do both. Our hero, or antihero, is now faced with the dilemma of which side to join up with in order to make some yen. He can’t quite decide, apparently, so he has fun in joining with one side and then the other, never quite joining up but just helping them out and flirting with the idea of taking sides.

Toshiro Mifune is very captivating in this film, not to mention the coolest man ever to wield a samurai sword. He seems like an amoral fiend, yet there are flashes of decency here. He has two friends in town and a lot of enemies, yet there is always a smile mere inches from his face. I truly love the scene in which the men he has sided with are in a room plotting his betrayal and murder and he sits outside the door, listening and taking it all in with a smile on his face. You can just tell that this is not the first time he has been in this situation. There is hardly a situation in this movie, however, where he does not manage to keep his cool. He is a cool character, but he does get emotional. He is a bit mean, and yet he is also the nicest guy in town. He’s a complicated man and I loved every minute of it. Mifune is great here, as good as a certain Eastwood fellow was in the movie “A Fistful of Dollars” which was based on this one.

The plot of this film is ingenious, with allegiances being made and broke and deals being struck and torn asunder at the seeming drop of a chopstick. Despite the fact that I had seen this story done twice before (I saw “A Fistful of Dollars” and even the largely regrettable “Last Man Standing” before I saw this one, even though this was the granddaddy of them all) I was still riveted by it and not quite sure what was going to happen next. I was hooked, in other words. By the effortless direction, the great editing (the wipe technique is put to marvelous use here, and it has never been done better) and the wide angle panorama of the events and the photography. This film is a remarkable meditation on what it means to have honor, what part morals play, and what sort of a man it takes to kill for a living.

It’s also got some extremely exciting action and sword fights in it, as well as a sneaky sense of humor. If you are serious about movies, you can’t go without seeing “Yojimbo”. A lot has been said about Akira Kurosawa and, judging by the strength of this picture, none of it was exaggerated.

1999 / 105 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

First and foremost, I must warn you: this is a dumb movie. Its situations are pretty boneheaded. Some of the things the characters do during the course of this movie would disqualify them for the operation of even plastic utensils. Very little of this movie holds up even under half-assed scrutiny.

Yet, it’s all somehow entertaining, and I think that is due directly to the actors involved.

“Double Jeopardy” is the story of a woman triumphing over evil or witless men. (Well, it is). All the men are either incompetent or downright scum. Starting with Ashley’s husband, a callous and heartless SOB who fakes his death and makes sure that Ashley is framed for it. Ashley is then sent to one of the nicest prisons I have ever seen. Nobody in the prison likes her, they tell her so, but aside from telling her that they don’t like her, they don’t really do anything to her. They don’t even put her hand in warm water while she sleeps. I’ve seen more vicious summer camps in movies. In fact, the prison is sorta like a summer camp. The women all make baked goods, sleep in cots and make lots of phone calls. When she gets paroled, she tracks down her husband because one of the women in the prison told her that, if you are accused of killing your husband and he isn’t dead, you really can kill him. Now, I am not entirely sure, but I don’t think that was what our founding fathers had in mind when they designed the constitution.

Or maybe they did.

JEFFERSON: What if this chick’s husband fakes his death and pins it on the chick?

WASHINGTON: Is this chick hot?

JEFFERSON: You bet.

WASHINGTON: Then she can pop him.

JEFFERSON: Really?

WASHINGTON: Why not?

JEFFERSON: Alright, I’ll put that in there.

Sorry, easily sidetracked there.

Anyway, once she is out of prison, Ashley commences tracking the evil husband down. This is where things get even shakier than they were. It takes Ashley a whole three days to track the bastard down. If it were that easy, don’t you think the cops would have figured this out by now? I mean, come on!!!

I wouldn’t dare give away the rest of the movie for you, but if you have seen any movies like this, then you probably know what will happen anyway. During this film, I half-expected Ashley to say to Tommy Lee: “I didn’t kill my husband!”, to which Tommy would, no doubt, respond: “I don’t care!”

So why am I still rating it so highly? Because it still entertains, thanks in no small part to Ashley Judd’s performance. She believes so totally in this character and invests so totally in the situation, that it is difficult for us in the audience not to do the same. Not to mention Tommy Lee Jones. By now, he could play this sort of character in his sleep. In fact, he probably has. He’s the master at playing men tracking innocent and plucky fugitives.

There is a lot of fun to be had while watching this movie, however. Some of it is suspenseful, mainly because we grow to like poor, besotted Ashley and we want to see her come through in the end. In fact, we’d enjoy it even more if our pesky brains didn’t get in the way.

Which reminds me of another bit of unbelievable business about this film: If you were married to someone who looked like Ashley Judd, would you get rid of her, even if there was two million dollars in it for you?

I didn’t think so either.

1979 / 153 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Some say that “The Godfather” is Coppola’s best movie. Some even say that it’s the best movie ever made. Don’t get me wrong, “The Godfather” is pretty damn cool. I’m not saying it isn’t. I’m just saying that it isn’t Coppola’s best film. Not by a long shot.

I have just watched “Apocalypse Now” for the second time in my life, and I must say that I short-shrifted it the first time I saw it. I have a history of that. Sometimes a movie… well, it just doesn’t quite hit you the way it should upon first viewing. Sometimes it is necessary to give it a second shot, to see what that yields. In the case of “Apocalypse Now”, it yielded quite a bit.

“Apocalypse” is the story of two men who have either hit the very edge of madness or are full-blown into it. It is about one man’s quest to find and kill a high-ranking general who has made himself something of a god in the wilderness of Vietnam. It is his search for the reasons why the army wants this man dead. It is also the search for his own soul. It is a bizarre film, and that, I think, is why it may be the best war movie of all time. War itself is a bizarre concept, yet it is part of our humanity. How else can you explain the fact that we have gotten involved in so damn many of them. We are prone to violence against each other, both on a personal scale and on a national scale. It is part of our genetic structure, perhaps. “Apocalypse” explores this and, like the greatest of great movies, allows you to make up your own mind on the subject.

“Apocalypse Now” is a harrowing, thrilling, sometimes humorous journey up the Vietnam river, back in time, and through the dark heart of humanity. It is said that Coppola himself went on something of a dark journey just to get the film made. The film is based upon the novel “The Heart of Darkness” by Conrad, but it has other literary allusions as well. It is part “Odyssey”, even part “Huckleberry Finn”, but it is also something unique, daring and wholly original. The screenplay takes the Vietnam experience and presents it to us as no other film has. Maybe it helped that the war had just ended and was still so vivid in so many minds. In fact, during the screenplay stage, the war was still going on. It takes the war and makes something mythic and symbolic and yet utterly realistic and plausible at the same time. The cinematography of the film is the true star, no offense to Martin Sheen and Marlon Brando, who are bothe quite good. The cinematography uses each shot to create a visual poem about the brutality and dark nature of man. It presents us many images and lines which have become part of the collective moviegoing consciousness. Lines like “The horror” or “I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.” But until you have seen them in the proper context, you have no idea what you are missing. The helicopter attack and the boat inspection scenes in particular drive home both the viciousness, the thrill and the sheer unfocused lunacy of combat.

Then again, what do I know of combat? I’ve never even been in a schoolyard fight.

“Apocalypse Now” is a journey for the viewer as well, taking them to a place they have never seen before and letting them go, bruised and shaken and mesmerized on the other side.

1999 / 86 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

What if a gun suddenly developed a soul? What if it started to question its place in the world? What if it learned to love?

Those are the questions brought up by the movie “Iron Giant”, and a more wonderful movie could hardly be demanded. Parents are always bemoaning the sad condition of modern children’s fare, yet they stayed away from “Iron Giant” in droves while flocking to movies like “Flubber”. Why? Maybe because this one did not bear the Disney mark of so-called quality. I don’t know.

The story of “Iron Giant” is set in the 50’s. Nuclear paranoia is widespread and the entire country is on the verge of panic. Even the small town of Rockwell, Maine, is not immune to the atomic hysteria of the nation. Into this town drops a huge, iron man with a taste for metal. One night after the metal man has eaten the family’s TV antenna, young Hogarth Hughes follows the metal man’s tracks into the woods and comes face to face with this gentle giant. The two of them soon develop a friendship. After all, what kid wouldn’t want their own enormous pet robot?

But soon, a government agent is sent to the town to investigate the strange goings on. The agent has Commies on the brain and sees the Iron Giant as a threat, a danger, a weapon sent to destroy the American way of life. He means to find the robot, destroy it, and get a promotion. Oh, and defend the safety of Americans everywhere.

This film is a wonderful parable, one of the better animated films to come out in a while. The animation is beautiful. It is lifelike, very well drawn and it has a personality. The story is very compelling. You need not be an appreciator of fine animation, or a kid, to be drawn into this clever parable. Although kids will have fun watching it. As I said before, what kid wouldn’t want their own giant robot for a pet? And as the film goes on, you may find yourself caring about these animated people more than you care about the people in most live-action films.

Now that is something of an achievement.

This film was made by Brad Bird, a veteran of “The Simpsons”, and there are many little comic touches that help to illustrate that. Especially the “Duck and Cover” film that the kids watch in a classroom. It also was made by Warner Brothers, rather than Disney. As a result, there wasn’t a lot of expectation for this movie. I know that I didn’t expect a great deal from it. It also means that all the standard Disney touches are not on display here, and I found that refreshing. There are no cutesy, wisecracking, animal sidekicks. There are no big musical interludes that are getting worse with each subsequent Disney endeavor. All this film has to boast is a great deal of heart, and a solid story very solidly told.

In the end, I think you will find these virtues to be more than enough to make “Iron Giant” a winner.

1999 / 105 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Just in case you were wondering: this movie is not as good as “Jaws”. I know that is a shocking discovery, but sooner or later we all have to face up to these unpleasant facts of life and it’s better that you hear this from me before it is too late.

From the plot you should know that this film is garbage. A group of scientists (who have obviously never seen the movie “Jaws”, read the book or even watched the Discovery Channel) want to bring about a cure for Alzheimer’s. Of course, they experiment on animals. But what animals do they choose to experiment on? Why, sharks, naturally. The film makes up some B.S. excuse as to why this is feasible, but if you are anything like me, you will be laughing too hard to pay attention. Of all the animals on Earth that could be chosen to make smarter, I would say that sharks would just about be at the bottom of my list. But, you know, I never went to Fake Movie Science School.

There is only one reason that a movie like this exists and that is shark attacks. The sharks attack, people scream, someone gets munched. Sharks attack, people scream, someone becomes dinner. Routine, really. And, of course, the film can’t be bothered enough to actually make us care about the people on the smorgasborg. In “Jaws” the reason we get so uneasy whenever a main character goes on the beach is because we care about them and we don’t want them to end up as a slick of blood floating atop the water. I like Roy Scheider and don’t want to see him end up as chum, for example. But any of the characters in “Deep Blue Sea” could easily pass through the bowels of a Great White and I wouldn’t flinch. In fact, I had a running list of people I WANTED to see become late lunch for the CGI sharks. Especially L.L. Cool J as a born again Christian with a foul-mouthed parrot. Oy!

But lame characters aren’t the only thing this movie has. Oh no, there are lots of other faults on display here. The effects are cheesy. The situations are never resolved all that cleverly, or in a way that distinguishes this movie from any Direct-to-Video piece of crap. The dialogue is only sporadically horrible. But when it is, oh brother, is it ever. I can’t walk through the aisles at the video store and see this movie without thinking of the line “You ate my Bird” and breaking into gales of mad laughter.

But this movie isn’t entirely awful. Despite itself, there are some genuine surprises along the way and one or two moments generate tension despite themselves. And at least the movie knows that it’s a B-movie and nothing more, but it doesn’t have quite as much fun with this knowledge as movies like “Warlock” or “Tremors” have. And it does have a scene in which a very attractive British girl strips down to her skivvies to avoid being eaten (I don’t exactly know how that works, but hey, she’s almost naked, so who cares?) so I have to acknowledge that at the very least. This movie doesn’t pretend to be a great movie. It just aspires to the level of dumb fun. Think of it this way: sometimes you are in the mood for a lobster bisque or caviar…. and sometimes you just want a Twinkie. Well, folks, this is one stale Twinkie.

But still: if you want dumb fun you could do a lot better. If you want a B-movie that actually excels to the level of greatness, you could check out “Tremors” and make yourself very happy. And if you want to see a movie about shark attacks, well…. Renny Harlin or Steven Spielberg? Who do you trust?

1957 / 87 Minutes / Not Rated
Reviewed by Jason Jones

If you’re anything like me, you never expect to find any sort of meaning in a sub-ninety minute film. So you can imagine my surprise when I stumbled across this diamond in the rough, known as “Paths of Glory.”

In a mere 87 minutes, director Stanley Kubrick does what “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Thin Red Line” could not even begin to do in twice the run time. He shows the effects of war on all levels of the military. From Generals to foot soldiers the effects are often incalculable, which is something that Kubrick is able to capture in this film. But enough with the ass kissing. I assume you are wondering what this movie is all about. So let’s get to it.

“Paths of Glory” is set in the midst of World War I on the French side of the battlefield. In particular it deals with the attack upon an objective known as “The Ant Hill,” and the repercussions of that attack on the French army.

Colonel Dax (Kirk Douglas) is the man given the impossible task of taking ” The Ant Hill” by his superiors at French headquarters. The attack is to be overseen by one General Mireau (George Macready). Knowing there is nothing he can do to prevent the attack, Dax carries out the mission, which results in a total failure for the French. The General, incensed by the soldiers apparent lack of effort in his eyes, demands a court martial on the grounds of cowardice. He has his way and three members of the French army are selected to be put on trial on the aforementioned charge.

Dax, a lawyer in civilian life, takes it upon himself to defend his men. What follows is a brilliantly engineered defense by Dax, which can end in only one result from the jury. But will it be the firing squad or freedom?

This film really surprised me. I really didn’t know what to expect from it when I watched it last night. Having seen the film. I can now say that it is a truly powerful film, that runs the emotional gambit, as it takes you along for the ride.

In addition to the message of the film I was particularly impressed by the performance of Kirk Douglas as Colonel Dax. You can tell that he totally immersed himself in this role. He is very commanding, particularly during the court martial trial. I had never really seen him in anything in his earlier years in film, so this performance was a definite breath of fresh air for me.

If you ever get the chance to see this film, take the opportunity and run with it. You will not be disappointed, as Kubrick once again proves that he is the master.

1999 / 95 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Don’t let the kids read this review. Are they out of the room? Really? Okay, then let me level with you: this movie is not only a piece of shit, it is a piece of shit that has been lit aflame and rolled down the hill.

I had high expectations for this film. The trailers looked funny. The first one was a wonderful, hilarious, witty film and one of the best comedies in a decade. I also like Mike Myers quite a bit. His other movies have a wonderful sense of the bizarre, a great oddball, Monty-Python intelligent idiocy to them. They also had a great deal of charm.

Mike seems to have lost all of that before making this movie.

The original script to this film is even pretty damn funny. Download it from Drew’s Script-o-Rama (or Daily Script, which is my personal preference) and you will see what I mean.But the movie is your average, David-Spade-ish, every-fart-joke-in-the-book fiasco. Where the first one had wit, this one has toilet humor. Where the first one had charm, this one has horrible product placement (Worst Product Placement of any film Ever! Come on, boys, step up and get your award!). It amazes me that the man responsible for the hilarious sendup of product placement in the first Wayne’s World (remember? “Try these” “Ah, Nuprin! Little, yellow, different.”) could stoop to this. Did anyone really think it was funny to have Fat Bastard (here is a waste of film) singing the Chili’s Babyback ribs jingle? He’s doing it in 1969! He wouldn’t have even heard it!!!!!! I could forgive such a faux paus, had it been funny, but this one was certainly not funny. Yes, the first film had some toilet humor too, but it was Tom Arnold mistaking Austin killing a man for Austin being constipated. It was NOT Austin drinking a sample of Fat Bastard’s stool.

Mike mugs his way shamelessly through the entire movie. Heather Graham stands around looking basically confused. Seth Green seems to be waiting for his paycheck. Only Verne Troyer as Mini Me adds any life to the proceedings. He’s a wonderful little imp that the first film would have used to delightful effect. Here, he shows up, gives the finger and we laugh. The fact that we do laugh indicates how sad this movie is.

I admit, I laughed a time or two, but it was the sort of laughter you are ashamed of, not the sort you welcome and want to experience again. The cameos by Tim Robbins and Willie Nelson, among others, were welcome surprises. It’s just too bad they could not have been in a better movie.

In short, this film is a missed opportunity across the boards and the fact that they are making a third one, in the vernacular of Wayne Campbell, makes me want to hurl.

1999 / 135 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Just as some movies improve on repeat viewings, some also get worse. Such is the case with “The Phantom Menace”. It is amazing that something that was such a fun ride in the theater can prove such a disappointment in one’s own home.

Without the benefit of THX and a humungous screen, the film’s shortcomings become astoundingly obvious. I watched the film in total disbelief. This is it? This is the thing that was so fun I went to it four times? No, this can’t be it. Unfortunately, this IS it and, boy, after sixteen years… what a letdown.

The first thing that becomes painfully noticeable is the dreadful dialogue. Good dialogue crackles, adequate dialogue flows naturally, the lines in “The Phantom Menace” clunk. You can actually hear them hitting the floor. The sentences often do not even seem to connect with the one that came before it. “Are you completely brainless?” “I spec!” “The ability to speak does not make one intelligent.” Ouch! This sample should be included in a how-not-to-write-dialogue book. It’s the sort of thing that would be in a first draft but would be improved on later revisions. However, it’s in this finished movie.

Another problem: character motivation. There is none. Would Anakin’s mother go from being dead set against her son being in a pod race to telling everyone that he was their only hope within a minute? I don’t think so. And what about Darth Maul? Why is he evil? No reason is given. He simply is. If George had taken the time to back Maul’s malice up with a motivation, he may have been a better adversary. At first, I thought the fact that you had no idea how Darth Maul became Darth Maul or why he was doing what he was doing added an impenetrable sense of menace to things. Now, I just think that it demonstrates the laziness of the plot.

Characters from the old trilogy show up, and I was happy to see them there, but aside from R2D2 saving the Queen’s ship, they are given nothing to do. They are just there to remind us of the old movies, which were much, much better. They are like the cameo appearances in a “Cannonball Run” film, and they serve the plot even less.

Another problem was that George did not seem worried about acting quality when casting the movie. Yes, the old movies were not on a par with Citizen Kane where performance was concerned, but there were no actors as howlingly awful as Jake Lloyd (being a kid is no excuse, I can’t act either, but at least I don’t try to) or the man who plays the Queen’s chief of Security. You can actually see him watching for his cues.

The special effects are good, but the mouths of the creatures do not match to what they are saying as well as the old puppets did. And, speaking of the characters, everyone was so eager to hate Jar Jar that they forgot all about the Trade Federation. Their mock-Oriental patois is actually offensive. Not only that, but it is lame. It has no real purpose and it does nothing for the plot.

The pod race is still an impressive spectacle, the Galactic Senate is still amazing, and the scenes with the Jedi Council are the best of the movie. Watto is a wonderful little slimeball, I still like him, and he has the best lines. Liam Neeson does a fine job, considering the limits of his lines, and Ewan McGregor actually makes you believe that he IS a young incarnation of Alec Guinness. And the light saber fights are still a lot of fun. Although you can’t help but think that it would have been nice to see them kill something other than battle droids. That gets kinda old.

Once the novelty of seeing a new Star Wars movie wears off, what are we left with?

Ultimately, we are left with a cold, heartless mess. There are moments of that old magic still fluttering around in here somewhere, but they are few and far between. I liked it at first but, ultimately, I was left feeling as though I were swindled by a very good con man.

1981 / 116 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Jason Jones

What a pile of shit this is! This waste of celluloid is what I would call a vessel of idiocy. The dissection follows below.

This movie stole time allright. It took two hours of my life and flushed them right down the proverbial shitter. I feel like a lesser man for having seen this crock of shit.

To be quite honest with you I don’t remember a whole hell of a lot of this movie. Which I take as a good thing. So I will try to take the small fragments that are cluttering my mind and try to make some assemblance of order out of them.

Who the hell am I kidding? There is no assemblance of order to this movie. What little plot there is involves some dwarves, a map, and some stupid kid that you will not care about in the least. There is one faint glimmer of hope in this movie by the name of David Warner. His interpretation of Satan is rather hilarious, as he makes half-handed attempts at doing whatever it is he’s trying to do.

This movie is so bloody worthless that it makes Sean Connery and the incomparable John Cleese look like rejects from “The Phantom Menace”. Even Captain Panaka wasn’t this bad.

I am running out of ammunition. Maybe if I watched it again, I could site examples of the utter worthlessness that exists in this movie. But I am not going to put myself through that for you, or anyone else. I would let someone “Lieutenant Dan” my ass before I would watch this mercilessly bad piece of shit again…………Ya’ know. I don’t even want to refer to this as a movie. It would sully the good name of movies everywhere. What in the name of blue fuck was Terry Gilliam thinking when he shat this film out upon the silver screen? I hope he was doing some experimental drugs at the time, otherwise there is no excuse whatsoever for this mess.

I would not recommend this film to my worst enemy. It would be too harsh of a punishment. I think candlewax on the nipples or bamboo under the fingernails is much more civilized than unleashing this pile of shit upon any earthly being I know of.