PWT20

Not as captivating as Unforgotten, Happy Valley, or even Shetland.

As a Canadian (no UK connection), it was a bit difficult for me to understand understand with the heavy Scottish accent. I probably missed <25% details, nothing major, but again it was difficult with the slang.

Main character is obviously troubled with a dark past, but I felt that his problem was left unresolved come the end of the series. He was not a super charismatic character, so I didn't feel connected to him and his obsession to solve the sex crimes.

Flashbacks of his past took away from the main plot, but you get a glimpse to his contributing addiction. Subplots were uninteresting.

Overall, I'm surprised this show rated as high as a 7/10. It's the kind of show that I had playing in the background while I did other things.

Tbh, a bit overhyped. Native Scots can correct me if I missed that much to garner a lower rating.

Apparently, the budget on this "film" was $1000. Not sure how they blew all that money as it literally looks like a film that you slap together in grade school!

Technically, it is terrible. No lighting kit, home movie-type camera used.

Acting is amateur. Again, harkens back to a school project that you do with your classmates.

No plot. Just follows a bunch of girls on a road trip to a concert. They never get to the concert, but they stop and eat/drink at a bar a bunch of times. Nothing happens until the last few minutes of the film and even that is not worth sticking it through.

You have been warned!

Unless I was trying to do something new with the zombie genre, I wouldn't even bother making a film because at this point, it's been beaten to death. So I'm not sure why the filmmaker even bothered with Theatre of the Dead.

The film starts off promising enough, but it became too predictable and dull. I didn't care for any of the characters, so I didn't mind as they were killed off, one by one.

Acting, technical aspects of film were solid, but storyline is lacklustre. Again, nothing new is brought to the table.

SKIP this one!

I watched this movie under the pretense that it was a 70s exploitation a la Jess Franco. It never delivers.

The plot lines are completely convoluted. I wouldn't really be able to sum it up if someone asked me what it was about. There was no depth and I didn't care for any of the characters.

Simply put, NUDA PRINCIPESSA sets up the audience to think it's a sexploitation, but there's only unsatisfactory nudity. At other points, it feels like it's going to turn into a giallo, but no one is killed.

* * * POSSIBLE SPOILER * * * A good example would be the character of Gladys. Throughout the film, she keeps on saying how attracted she is to Princess Mariam, how the Princess casts some kind of magic spell over her. But do they ever get together? NO! Does anything ever come out of this attraction? NO! Same goes with everything else in this film.

There is just no purpose in LA NUDA PRINCIPESSA. It's a void that you should completely avoid!

Having watched a few nunsploitation flicks (consisting of Italian or Spanish), I would say that this film is on par despite the fact that it's Japanese.

There are also keys scenes associated w/ nunsploitation films, i.e. lesbian nuns, nuns beating themselves or being punished for sinning, and nuns succumbing to temptation of some sort! I wished that there were more of certain scenes than most, but they were all done quite explicitly without being full-on. A some parts it reminded me of a WIP or chicks-in-chains flick, but they're all pretty similar.

There's actually a decent plot w/ a bit of a twist near the ending.

Can't be taken to seriously though because it's definitely offensive for the ultra-conservative.

If you're into nunsploitation and how it exposes the hypocrisy in the church, School of the Holy Beast is definitely worth checking out!

I think I watched a highly edited version because it wasn't nearly as graphic as I expected - based on the other reviews that I have heard.

Other than 1. being written by the same person who wrote the original "Emmanuelle" (1974), Emmanuelle Arsan, 2. the lead character being a sexually free spirit, and 3. being set in the exotic locale of Asia, "Laure" doesn't have the same flair as its predecessor.

I just found this film way too talky with philosophical topics that I'm really not that interested in, i.e. the voyeuristic, open relationship between Laure and Nick, "I'm just happy with whatever brings her pleasure"...something along those lines. I cannot relate to this mentality and the film/characters don't really shed any light.

The second half about finding the Mara tribe just seemed as though it were a completely separate film. One that I didn't care for. By that time, I was just hoping that it would turn into a porn so that at least it would keep my interest.

Maybe I just didn't get it.

I'll leave it at that.

WAVES OF LUST demonstrates the old adage, "What Goes Around Comes Around".

The story is nicely developed with well-rounded characters. And it is easy to sympathise with the existing/developing sexual tension between the 2 couples and within the couple themselves.

This is a fairly difficult Deodato film to describe, as it is vastly different from the other films of his that I have seen: HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, or the more recent and disappointing, THE WASHING MACHINE.

WAVES OF LUST is a dramatic-thriller, but not without its flaws, i.e. What happened to the unsolved death of Giorgio's colleague? (I guess the ending was his revenge.) What happened to Silvia? Did Irem/Barbara just no longer care after she fell aboard? Despite these loose-ends, I still think it's worth watching to see the interplay of the characters.

Btw, it rates fairly low on the smut level. Maybe I watched an edited version?

This was one tame yawn of a "nunsploitation".

There were like a coupla boob shots, one feeble, forced-looking lesbian kissing scene, and apparently one "rape" scene. I just thought they were all held-back or censored.

Here's the breakdown... ACTING: Okay, very subtle CHARACTERS: No real development, sympathy towards any of the characters, devil is lame. STORYLINE: Just plain ol' flatline. Nothing really happens.

The nun apparently being "possessed by the devil" is just uninspiring and cheesy. Don't buy the plot line that she's a "bride of Satan". It's a crock.

Uneventful, waste of film. The appeal of the title is definitely better than the actual film!

My bro & I picked up this DVD based on a positive review by Rue Morgue which was written on the cover. Boy, was RM WRONG!

Bottom-line was that this film tries way too hard to be "indie" by concentrating on elements like the music, wannabe quirky characters, and comic book additions - neglecting the basic foundations of good storytelling.

The results? Another throwaway horror flick that you SHOULD graze over at your local video store.

Here's the bad stuff: - no character development. I basically didn't care who turned into a zombie or who survived. Characters also had little to lose.

• ANNOYING country music interlude. A reminder of why I hate country music. At first, it was cute, but then it became annoying, like everything else in this movie.

In the end, any potential this movie had was wasted due to the attention that fell short in the storyline dept.

I hate movies like this. The acting, cinematography, and SFX are all fine, but when the credits roll, I cannot put my finger on what was missing.

Usually, that "missing" element is a sloppy storyline, with absolutely no character development, and in this case, just too much going' on.

8 Questions I have about SHALLOW GROUND - in no particular order: 1. Why is this movie entitled, "Shallow Ground"? With the exception of the very end, this title makes absolutely no sense.

2. Is the bloody boy good OR bad? At first, he seems bad, as he's covered in blood, writes "NO ONE LEAVES" in blood, and causes the young cop to kill the prisoner.

3. Why is everyone abandoning the town? This is never fully explained.

4. Who is/are the shadowy figure who hangs naked women up on pullies in the forest? Are they and the widow one in the same person? 5. Who exactly is the KILLER? The shadowy figure dressed all in black? The widow who is seeking revenge? The blood-drenched boy? OR the various townspeople? There are way too many possibilities and this severely weakens the film.

6. Why is the female paramedic killed? There is no rhyme or reason as to why certain people are killed, re: the molester in prison, the gf of the sheriff, and her father are just some examples. ONE reason should be used in order to kill someone off, i.e. either to avenge the wrongful death of the widow's husband/daughter OR avenge evil townspeople, not a bit of both.

7. What was that crazy widow doing with the dead bodies? I'm talking about the fish hooks, straps across their mouths, and putting them all at cocktail tables in that parlor room.

8. How could this movie receive such praise? 9/10??!! I could go on, but this movie had potential, and then the writer decided to squeeze in more info. than a Stephen King television mini-series. Convoluted at best.

Genre rules exist for a reason. And Luigi Cozzi's "The Killer Must Kill Again" is a good example of what happens when you try to break those rules.

In the extras, Cozzi stated that he was sick and tired of not knowing who the killer in giallos are...until the very end. The suspense, not to mention the various red herrings in traditional giallos, to me, is one of the reasons I find them so intriguing.

However, Cozzi attempts to make a "giallo" showing who the killer is right from the beginning. NOT GOOD. At first, it seems to work, but as soon as that couple steal the car in which there's a dead body placed in the truck, it's all over.

A good portion of the movie is the killer tailing the car thieves. Then I lost complete interest.

If you ask me, "The Killer Must Kill Again" isn't much of a giallo. The killer is revealed, the killings aren't artful, the script is over all the place (seems like 2 different movies), and the sex is bland.

Stick to the rules!

Even though there are pages upon pages of comments, I just had to leave one myself because I didn't care much for this movie. And I really wanted to voice my opinion on it.

The main issue that I have with "Million Dollar Baby" is probably that there is absolutely no attempt to entertain. Instead, it just drones on (monotone voice-over included!) and there are too many elements of the real, i.e. non-victorious ending, that it just got incredibly BORING for me. "Old Yeller" w/ boxing, that's all I have to say!

Maybe that's the point, to mimic something real. But what was up to the letters to the daughter? Or that retarded guy who hung out at the gym everyday? Swank was believable as an underdog boxer who just wanted a chance and would stop at nothing to get it. Eastwood, okay...but a bit wooden, never truly "breaks down" like I thought he would. Freeman, I didn't really understand anything he was saying.

AM I MISSING SOMETHING??!! Or is everyone else on CRACK??!!

First of all, I was expecting "Caged Heat" to be along the same lines as "Ilsa, The Wicked Warden". Boy, was I wrong! In no way is this film 70s exploitation, "chix in chains", or "women in prison". Sure, the plot consists of a bunch of women in prison, who wear street clothes btw (quite comical), but NOTHING happens.

There aren't strong rivalries, no one tries to seduce the warden or doctor in order to try and escape, and no inmates make out. There are 2 shower scenes, that I suspect is just recycled footage, but no fights breaks out / no one is seduced here - or anywhere for that matter! Aside from the lack of plot, unconvincing, unsympathetic, and flat characters, a couple of inmates that do manage to escape actually return to the prison in order to "free" their fellow inmates??!!

PUH-LEASE, the movie should have just ended off with the escapees riding off into the sunset...as opposed to letting this mess continue!

I feel scammed.

More pure and utter junk...revisited. I watched the Japanese version (made-for-tv & the actual film), didn't like either, so I'm not sure what possessed me to watch this recent American remake.

*** MINOR SPOILERS *** The "scares" in "The Grudge" basically consists of startling the audience with long-haired, blueish-white skinned Japanese faces that appear from nowhere, sudden noises, and knowing of a character's impending death by scare.

No character development, no real plot line, and no scares, "The Grudge" is just one scam & disease of a film!

I just hope that there aren't talks of a part 2 for this thing 'cause I'm sure enough people were ripped off the first time 'around.

Enough said, "Spookies" = simply crappy.

Due to improper lighting, most of the film is too dark to view. Aside from bad lighting, I didn't care about what was happening or who was going to die next.

Too many kinds of monsters, all terribly costumed, in one film. It would have been better if there was a focus, a sharper script, any character development, and perhaps if it were another movie altogether! Contrary to another comment posted, there is absolutely no "fun factor" AT ALL.

Complete waste of time!

now that I got your attention, lemme make an awful movie with "sex" (or equivalent in a foreign language) in the title in the hopes that will entice more people to see it! And to make matters even worse, let's not even put ANY sex in the film whatsoever.

Contrary to Franco's title, "Sexo cannibal", there is absolutely no sex in this film - only 2-3 topless women. (So those of you waiting for the booty romp, you can try elsewhere.) This film is The Worst Cannibal Film that I have seen out of Deodato's "Cannibal Holocaust" (1980) and Lenzi's "Cannibal Ferox" (1981) in that there is no social commentary, none of the characters go through any change, and it's just pointless.

*** MINOR SPOILERS *** What I find HILARIOUS is how the explorer who goes back into the jungles in search of his daughter who has been "adopted" by a tribe of cannibals hasn't aged a single day. Yet his daughter looks to be about 10 years older than the last time they saw each other! I would think that if your daughter is kidnapped, you'd want to look for her ASAP...and not wait an entire decade.

Another incredulous point is how little attention was paid to the casting of the cannibalistic tribe. Sure, they're extras, but c'mon it shouldn't be THAT difficult to find native-looking people, is it?? The extras that were cast were pure honkey. Plus, their tribal face make-up looked more like that of a clown. Totally BOGUS!

Other than to listen to the usual cool, swanky music that accompanies Franco's films, there isn't a reason to watch this "Sexo cannibal". It's simple a tossaway, wannabe exploitation that doesn't bother to exploit anything. Instead, I would recommend either Deodato or Lenzi as they at least provide crucial, intelligent, social commentary.

More bore than gore. More thriller than horror. "Schizo" was incredibly slow-paced and the bits of gore (minimal in my opinion) and nudity (less than the gore) that did come did so too little too late.

"Schizo" is an ineffective thriller that just droans on, with no character development, and on the predictable side.

Although the killer uses black gloves once, this is about the only element of giallo that you will find in this British horror - of which I am not a BIG fan.

There's not much reason to watch this film, unless you have nothing better to do.

If I was an acting coach, I'd bring this film in and advise my students that all the what-not-to-dos as an actor can be found within this one film.

The acting is absolutely dreadful. I haven't seen acting this horrible since the parents in "Degrassi Jr./High"! Case in point: Angela's mother or whoever that lady is that ships her off to camp. Or when Judy tells off Angela - it's something out of a Russ Meyer film! Oddly enough, the acting had a kind of "Reefer Madness" quality to it.

The casting is also terrible. The campers almost appear TOO YOUNG to recite the script. At one point, there is a camp counselor (in her 20s) who asks out the camp director (who is at least 50)!

The script and plot line are totally disjointed. Angela's family was killed in the beginning, so what? Gay dads? WTF? So many pointless scenes. Whadda waste of film! It's a jigsaw puzzle that a blind person tried to piece together. And there are many, many missing pieces.

The only good points that I can mention are: Angela's creepy stare - her acting though is another story, mood music - way too much at times, and the cheese factor.

If you're totally bored and don't mind sittin' through an 80s, cheese, camp-slasher, be my guest. Otherwise steer that powerboat away from the dock of "Sleepaway Camp"!

When I brought up acquiring "Gleaming The Cube" (1989) on DVD to friends, they mentioned the film "Rad". Upon recent viewing of "Rad", it pales in comparison to "Gleaming...", staring Christian Slater. The only similarity both films share is that the main theme circles around extreme sports, respectively BMX and skateboarding.

The plot, characters, and script are all totally lackluster. For example, it is never explained WHY "Helltrack" has to take place in this small hick town. (Unless something happened while I was playing Spider Solitaire!) And there is no sympathy for "Cru" to take his SATs, is he even in school?

"Rad" just sucks. So unless you have the time to 1) hunt this film down, 2) wanna watch a man in a wig, stunt-doubling for Lori Loughlin, &/or 3) want to see just how people can "dance" while on BMX bikes, DON'T DO IT!

And what's this with it being released on DVD? Why-oh-why?