Tarzan1900

This is one of the worst action movies I have seen. I enjoy action films as much as any other but i can't take JUNK.

The only two good actors were Ray Stevenson (Punisher) and Colin Salmon (Black FBI guy; he was the commando leader in Resident Evil) after that it seems every body else was picked at the streets and it shows; and the dialog seems to have been written by an 8 years older.

Jesus now I understand why Thomas Jane and the original director quit the movie.

And the Jigsaw guy was a joke for a villain, he acted like a retard villain from a BAD TV show. And all that fake Italian/NY/mafia accent was pain to the ears. He was not scary at all, he was pathetic. Trust me the Joker from "Dark Knight" beat him fair and square.

I had my doubts when I learned the director, Lexi Alexander, was a first timer on the big screen and my fears come true: she did a disgusting job and the climax of the movie was over in less than 5 minutes. Seriously if you watch the Trailer you see the whole movie in 1 minute.

By the way some good critics here are suspiciously from new users. Do they work for the movie???

In this episode we see a talented and cute 10 years old Jodie Foster sharing the screen with David Caradine.

Kwai Chang Caine (David Caradine) met two men, the young Alethea (Jodie Foster) near a wagon on the road to town, both enjoy a brief moment of friendly conversation but later two outlaws attack the wagon; Caine protect the girl while the driver and his friend fight back the outlaws. After the shooting the driver is dead, and Alethea, confused and thinking it's telling the true, accuse Caine of doing it. Caine is soon blamed for this death and accused of being an accomplice of the fugitive outlaws.

Meanwhile Caine remember his days in the Shaoling temple, and that he used to be as innocent as the girl who blames him. HE and the girl still are friends, she likes Caine but don't want to lie; she honestly believe what she "thinks" she saw: she thinks Caine shot the man.

This is another good episode, well written, acted, and with a moral value. They teach the viewer that sometimes the true is more complex than what it seen at first sight.

Ohh God this movie was so bad! Thanks god I didn't pay to watch it. After more than a year I haven't found a single person claiming that this was any good. This movie is so bad that the only people who dares to post good comment are the Producer (Eduardo Correa) and the Director (Benjamin Lopez a.k.a."estudiob")and that's cheating!! This is what happened when you mix a bad director, bad script, and very bad amateur actors (I take that back! they can't be called "actors"! my apologies to the real hard working actors).

The only good thing about this disaster was the photography, it was fairly good, and the same can be said about the voice sound. But that's it, the rest is unwatchable. The plot is so, so, ridicule, and let me explain to those not from Puerto Rico, this is a 100 x 35 miles island, the simple idea that you can hide and ancient Taino tribe for 500 years is more than ridicule.

But even a ridicule plot can be saved with a good story and excellent performances; Well that's not the case here: first those cheesy dialogs were a torture for the ears, the acting was pathetic and amateur (they put no effort to get REAL ACTORS!), in the so called "dramatic moments" they used "cheesy-80'slike-B-movie-sound effect", and the director has no concept of visual story telling and sense of drama, the whole movie was an stereotypical homage of bad 80's adventure B-movies (just there's nothing exiting in this so called "adventure movie").

This is the kind o movie responsible for the bad reputation of puertorrican cinema. Many puertorricans want to see good movies done at the island; unfortunately most of the times this is what they get and in disappointment the public no longer support their very few local productions, because now "Made in Puerto Rico" means "It's a bad movie".

Bad remake of the Colombian show "Betty-la-fea" (the original title does not use the slash "-", the IMDb does not let me write in Spanish without it); bad low quality remake, bad casting and acting, disgusting sets and decoration, bad photography and directing; Its a attempt to cash on the success of the Colombian show. The original show was a much better quality than this, low budget class show. The more incredible is that the original show was only a few years ago!!, and it's still running at some countries, with great success. Well if you thought that Hollywood was the only place running out of originality and good common sense, you were wrong.

I can't say i didn't like the movie (well I wasn't expecting Shakespiare!!) but I agree it could have been much better: with a clearer plot, more acting and less "attitude", maybe those 30 minutes that it's said the producers cut to make it shorter were really needed; I liked the Daxus character (it was a cool bad guy).

But what really upset me was to see that the director stole e scene from a classic Japanese movie "Shogun Assassin"1980 GREAT MOVIE!!(not to be confuse with the TV show "Lone wolf and little cub"; well the director used the scene in which the boy hangs from a rope over a water well, "frame by frame" but let me tell you the original did it much better, better timing, drama and surprise element.

Want to see a great action movie with swords and a "PLOT" ? see "Shogun Assassin".

Very disappointing "sequel" but it was expected if you have a new director and a new writer; First this director fail to recreate the same darkish, tense atmosphere. The plot was dragged to poorly imitate the original movie; they just took an old script and put "Saw II" as the title,(I'm not sarcastic, they really did it!!) What the hell were they thinking! That's called Fraud!!.

And the more pathetic is that the movie made no sense with the original, in "Saw 1" the "sick games" were supposed to be "winnable" if the player was willing to play and take the pain; in this poor sequel most of the games are "unwinnable" they are designed to kill the players no matter what they do. They never get a chance to win!! This is a revenge movie, not a "Saw" movie. In the original "Saw" the logic was: Take the pain and survive (and learn to appreciate life) Or give-up and die in pain.

In "Saw 2" you don't see any of that, just a bunch of people being killed one by one; they are not given real chances to survive. They are not playing, they are being hunted.

Instead of trying to cheat the public the producers should have put a different title to this piece of junk.

The next time you go to see a "Sequel" make sure it's done by the same writer and director of the original.

When I was a kid, I was a fan of Jon-Erik Hexum, mainly because of his show "Voyager", so I became a fan of his new show "Cover-Up", it was not Shakespeare and it could have been better but it was fun to watch, a kind of James Bond fantasy show. It was exiting, and the show did his job: entertain boys and get girls (and the mothers of some kids) in love with Jon-Erik Hexum. I was shocked to hear that the "Jon" was "playing" with a "blank semi loaded" gun and shot himself. What was he thinking!? well not much obviously!! This 26 years old man, considered on of the most photogenic men in Hollywood, still almost 20 years later, it is hard to find an actor (good actor) with his good look and great body, the man was a Greek sculpture. He had every thing to become a big screen superstar. He made just one mistake, to treat guns like toys, one thing a I leaned since very young "GUN ARE ALWAYS LOADED, EVEN IF THEY ARE EMPTY", an empty gun should be treated as the most dangerous weapon; as a fact many "accident" (the correct word is criminal negligence)are caused by guns that were supposed to be empty. I feel sorry for Jon and his family, but it would have been worst if he had aimed the gun to an innocent bystander. He lost his live, present and future. He stole happiness from himself.

This is a very cool show, OK it is not Shakespiare, but it has his good points, not every show last that long. First Chuck himself, not an Oscar actor material , but we got to admit many people like him not for his movies but because he is a really a very nice guy. The show is simple and refreshing and the outdoor scenes are a nice touch; I'm sick of NY and LA crime settings. Texas was a good idea for a change. The show is well produced, written, and acted, Chuck do his best in acting but that's OK with me.

Do not take it too seriously, is just a healthy entertainment for all ages, with a simple morale tale about good and evil. Do not try to be so critic about it, remember it just a show to entertains with a simple plot, some karate and a morale-tale-formula. And the characters are well done, they are fun to watch.

Some people criticize the show for not being realistic, but not everyone is in the mood to watch, deep drama TV series with complicated plots. Real live is pretty dramatic and complex itself and very very real; then you get home sat on front the TV and ask yourself "Do I want more sad drama, reality and stress?" NO! You turn on to Walker Texas Ranger and watch Chuck kicking some bad guys, while preaching the kids "love your parents, eat well, do sport, and respect the law" Not bad for a police show!!.

I was very disappointed on this one, when I heard that Blade was facing Dracula I said "Cool!" but this was a very pathetic imitation of Dracula, not to mention that it was played by a bad bad actor, he looked more like a WWF wrestlers. I gave them 2 just because it could have been worst.

Blade II was great, well written and very dynamic and Blade vs Nomack was the mos exiting fight I have seen on years. But blade III was awful, with a ridiculous plot, stupid characters, ridiculous dialogs, and BAD DIRECTING, and Blade vs Drake was a pathetic B-movie joke of a fight.

Mistakes on this movie:

1) The plot, it sucks from start to end 2) Those trinity guys, we wanted to see Blade, not the Trinity Club 3) An amateur director, how in hell you let a high budget movie on the hands of an amateur director 4) The bad guys are a joke (played by B class bad-actors) 5) Drake, Blade's counterpart, cant fit the shoes of Frost (Blade I), or Nomak (Blade II); and this Drake was the worst Dracula ever played 6) Not getting one of the directors of the originals Blade or Blade II

I loved this TV show "Ultra Seven"(1967-68) when i was a kid, I saw it before knowing Ultraman was the original, but for me Ultra Seven is much better, It was cool, he transformed by wearing a pair of "sunglasses", and he didn't have the time limit that Ultraman had. Unlike Ultraman, Ultraseven can make himself, giant, normal, or miniature in size. And he had a very cool weapon, a very sharp "boomerang-blade" on top of his helmet.

And the stories were very nice written for a show mostly done for kids (writters: do not under estimate kids) and "Gozilla" fans. Some of the shows were very impressive for me,I had to turned off the TV when he made himself miniature and entered in the nose and lungs of a girl to save her life, well I was a kid. The show was filled with good drama, acting, lot of monsters, space gadgets, and cool monster-kicking action. I think they made a remake of Ultra Seven in the late 70's but I'm no sure, I just say it because the second time I saw the show,the stories where the same but it looked different than I remembered (maybe it just the memory of a 6 year old to blame), it does not matter any way.

I think Ultra Seven and Ultraman inspired the Power-Ranger series (not my favorite show), but if you like them do not miss the originals, they are fun to watch.