Michael-Bay Movie Reviews

You could probably watch this movie a dozen times and still be unable to completely follow the story. For some reason the continuity and artistic merit that were present in the original "Graveyard Shift" are completely lost. The story is a bizarre tale of the return of Baisez, the vampire who was introduced and supposedly destroyed in the original movie. Baisez is doomed to walk the earth as a ghost-like being until he can find a body he can posses. Sounds simple enough but the story jumps all over the place, taking place on a movie set. The thread of continuity completely unravels through the course of the movie and by the end you are left completely unclear as to what exactly happened. The bizarre part is the movie is nonetheless interesting. I would only recommend it for diehard fans of the genre.

The Understudy: Graveyard Shift 2 is a haunting study of lust, love, and how some people would trade their immortal soul for one shot of fame. Camilla Turner is a young aspiring actress who, while talented, seems to only be able to get bits parts in low budget horror movies. On the set of her first starring role(Blood Lovers, about a vampire pool player), She meets a mysterious, seductive young man named Bezzai, who tell her he can make her star...... for a price. Camilla manages to get Bezzai cast in the lead role, and from then on, she and the other cast and crew mem-bers start exhibiting strange behavior. and the events that take place behind the scenes begin to echo the plot of the movie they're shooting. When Matthew, Camilla's fiancee' and the film's editor slowly figures out Bezzai's true nature, then the race is on to save Camilla before it's too late A first rate cast, crew, and director, plot, and film within a film scenario makes this independent gem a cut a bove the average low budget horror film.

Having read the book and now seen the film, still dissatisfied with the ending, but won't spoil it for you. Good characterization around a strong tale. Sophie Ward plays the unhappy, lonely Alice, ripe for an intense relationship with Clodagh, the persistent local extrovert who pursues her. The very talented Kerry Fox obviously enjoys the role, but not even she can carry a jarring change in personality mid-way through. And the writers fail her badly with some cliched, melodramatic lines towards the end. But Sophie Ward is luminous as the blossoming Alice. She manages some extremely difficult emotions with an admirable honesty, and skilfully portrays Alice's changing circumstances. As for art mirroring life, I doubt that she imagined when she played this role that it would be so true for her. Sophie's real life 'ending' was a whole lot braver than Joanna Trollope could manage. Certainly worth seeing for quality acting by the main characters, and a sublime supporting cast. END

This writer's work has been "bowdlerised", that is, expurgated, andheterosexualised as to be acceptable for mainstream cinematic viewing. The scriptwriter, producer and director (all women, incidently - for shame) are directly responsible for the way that Ms Trollope's novel about self-discovery, via an unsuccessful marriage and cathartic love affair, has been transformed into a cautionary tale about the kind of woman your mother warned you about. Upon discovery of the affair in the film, Alice (our heroine) goes to her husband and asks for a second chance; in the book, she asks for a divorce. In the book, Alice is a weeping wreck and Clodagh (the 'other woman') determined to show her how to appreciate herself and life; in the film, Alice is post-natally depressed and Clodagh a shallow seducer. In the film, Alice harangues Clodagh for not concealing their relationship; in the book, Alice says she would like to tell everyone. In the film, everyone wants a piece of Alice; in the book, Clodagh loves her as she lets her go, reluctantly, to find her own way. And Alice loves Clodagh as they let each other go, knowing too much emotional baggage would not see them through. In the film, Alice drives 'off into the sunset' (and then...?); in the book, Alice learns to be sufficient unto herself. I rest my case; a good queer story, skewed straight. Hand out the awards to Sophie Ward and Kerry Fox (yay, fabulous Kerry, fellow Kiwi!) who, not for a moment compromise their acting (including some sumptuous lip-locks) to a skilfully doctored script. And another award for Joanna Trollope's excellent story. Watch the film - it's well worth it. And read the book to find out what the author REALLY intended.

I have to say that I was quite disappointed in this movie.I was hoping to see more bloodshed and action.This movie was too long and drawn out.There were more love scenes in it than I anticipated.I did not see too many trailers for this movie,just heard a hype on the radio.Before watching this movie,I had no idea Japan had attacked America because we stopped providing them with Oil supplies.So,I guess Oil for all countries is a big deal after all.The acting was shoddy.The characters were not as believable to me as I had hoped them to be.Maybe it was because they did not get this huge salary to play their parts in this film.When the fighter pilots went over to Japan in the bombers,I was quite upset.It was not their job to go and avenge the Japanese in their suprise attack on Pearl Harbor.I could have sworn the movie was strictly about what took place in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7,1941.The story line kept changing and it made it difficult to stick with.I kept moving my chair and was itching to leave.If producers were going to continue the film with our boys going to Japan,there should have been another two hours of movie time to show the film where our bombs built by openhelmer were actually made and dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WW2.

This disappointing and emotionally bankrupt take on Dec. 7, 1941 pulls out every manipulative trick in the book -- the soldier who comes back from the dead, the love triangle, the hokey ending -- and yet still fails to ultimately engage the viewer.

The 40-minute battle scene, seen as the best part of the movie by most reviewers, is undeniably stunning. But for all of the technical prowess and craft displayed, the combat itself takes on a video game-type quality lacking in the visceral emotions that one would expect to experience in a war movie. To me, this was the Disneyfication of Pearl Harbor. One of the most brutal days in American history, and yet most of the blood is not up close and in your face, it's comfortably in the background, perhaps not to offend their apparent target 15-year-old girl Titanic audience. Even the hospital scenes have a gauzy white sheen between us and the wounded, a technique that does not work and further removes us from the action. The scenes of soldies being strafed while swimming in the water could have been far more powerful, but in this rendition the bodies look like ants on the screen. Worse yet, unlike in Titanic, where we came to know the cast and were thus interested in their various fates, the main characters here are removed from the action, until they stage an improbable (but somewhat true to history) aerial defense with two planes. To the viewers, the deaths of thousands of soldiers has about the same impact as a laser rifle striking down a Storm Trooper in Star Wars, because we don't know the soldiers in the thick of the action -- they are merely fodder for the special effects.

As far as the ship capsizing scenes, it was extremely Titanic-derivative.

The love story, which takes up an astounding 2 hours of the 3-hour epic, is neither horrible nor good; it's simply pedestrian. You don't spend $200 million on a movie for pedestrian, do you? There are plenty of hokey plot developments, oodles of laughable dialogue, and some bad accents thrown in for good measure.

The thing about this movie is, despite all of my complaints, I actually came out of the theater thinking that it was pretty good -- a three star flick. But over time, the visual impact of the special effects fades and you are left with disappointment in a war movie that wasn't, a $200 million mediocre piece of schlock that gets its by-the-numbers two stars, but ultimately a missed opportunity for greatness. (I would have loved to see the James Cameron version of P.H.!)

By the way, watching this movie on video or DVD will likely lessen the impact even more, since those special effects will be reduced and those ant-soldiers will become dust-mite soldiers. If you are going to watch P.H., at least watch it on the big screen.

Last week, I saw Apocalypse Now Redux, which, while it shares a three-hour-plus length, is ten times better than Pearl Harbor. If you want to see what a real war movie looks like, do yourself a favor and watch Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece.

First off, I would give it 2 1/2 stars instead if I could. Apparently the same one or two people have written most of the last couple of dozen reviews, and they REALLY didn't like it. Its good points-the special effects are GREAT, it has a good cast, and it concerns an important event in our history which deserves to be remembered, especially appropriate now that the U.S. is at war again after suffering another sneak attack.

Its bad points-it's WAY too long, it's too sappy and sentimental, there are too many unlikely coincidences in the story, and it doesn't try hard enough to provide all the pertinent facts about the attack. Showing Dolittle's retaliatory raid on Japan at the end was a good idea, but it made it a bit long. If they had cut out at least half of the sappy love triangle, it would have helped move the story along and reduced the length to a more tolerable level.

The two main characters are loosely (VERY loosely) based on two American pilots who managed to get airborne during the attack and account for 5 Japanese planes between them. Apparently just shooting them down wasn't dramatic enough in itself, so the movie has the two Americans nearly flying into each other to get two Zeros following in pursuit to crash into each other. That is perhaps the most ridiculous moment, but there are a few others. Nevertheless, I found the movie overall to be enjoyable enough to watch. However, if you really want to watch a well-done film about the attack that is historically accurate, without the burden of a plodding love triangle, buy Tora! Tora! Tora! and just rent this one, or catch it on the tube.

I have to say that I was quite disappointed in this movie.I was hoping to see more bloodshed and action.This movie was too long and drawn out.There were more love scenes in it than I anticipated.I did not see too many trailers for this movie,just heard a hype on the radio.Before watching this movie,I had no idea Japan had attacked America because we stopped providing them with Oil supplies.So,I guess Oil for all countries is a big deal after all.The acting was shoddy.The characters were not as believable to me as I had hoped them to be.Maybe it was because they did not get this huge salary to play their parts in this film.When the fighter pilots went over to Japan in the bombers,I was quite upset.It was not their job to go and avenge the Japanese in their suprise attack on Pearl Harbor.I could have sworn the movie was strictly about what took place in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7,1941.The story line kept changing and it made it difficult to stick with.I kept moving my chair and was itching to leave.If producers were going to continue the film with our boys going to Japan,there should have been another two hours of movie time to show the film where our bombs built by openhelmer were actually made and dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WW2.

This disappointing and emotionally bankrupt take on Dec. 7, 1941 pulls out every manipulative trick in the book -- the soldier who comes back from the dead, the love triangle, the hokey ending -- and yet still fails to ultimately engage the viewer.

The 40-minute battle scene, seen as the best part of the movie by most reviewers, is undeniably stunning. But for all of the technical prowess and craft displayed, the combat itself takes on a video game-type quality lacking in the visceral emotions that one would expect to experience in a war movie. To me, this was the Disneyfication of Pearl Harbor. One of the most brutal days in American history, and yet most of the blood is not up close and in your face, it's comfortably in the background, perhaps not to offend their apparent target 15-year-old girl Titanic audience. Even the hospital scenes have a gauzy white sheen between us and the wounded, a technique that does not work and further removes us from the action. The scenes of soldies being strafed while swimming in the water could have been far more powerful, but in this rendition the bodies look like ants on the screen. Worse yet, unlike in Titanic, where we came to know the cast and were thus interested in their various fates, the main characters here are removed from the action, until they stage an improbable (but somewhat true to history) aerial defense with two planes. To the viewers, the deaths of thousands of soldiers has about the same impact as a laser rifle striking down a Storm Trooper in Star Wars, because we don't know the soldiers in the thick of the action -- they are merely fodder for the special effects.

As far as the ship capsizing scenes, it was extremely Titanic-derivative.

The love story, which takes up an astounding 2 hours of the 3-hour epic, is neither horrible nor good; it's simply pedestrian. You don't spend $200 million on a movie for pedestrian, do you? There are plenty of hokey plot developments, oodles of laughable dialogue, and some bad accents thrown in for good measure.

The thing about this movie is, despite all of my complaints, I actually came out of the theater thinking that it was pretty good -- a three star flick. But over time, the visual impact of the special effects fades and you are left with disappointment in a war movie that wasn't, a $200 million mediocre piece of schlock that gets its by-the-numbers two stars, but ultimately a missed opportunity for greatness. (I would have loved to see the James Cameron version of P.H.!)

By the way, watching this movie on video or DVD will likely lessen the impact even more, since those special effects will be reduced and those ant-soldiers will become dust-mite soldiers. If you are going to watch P.H., at least watch it on the big screen.

Last week, I saw Apocalypse Now Redux, which, while it shares a three-hour-plus length, is ten times better than Pearl Harbor. If you want to see what a real war movie looks like, do yourself a favor and watch Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece.

First off, I would give it 2 1/2 stars instead if I could. Apparently the same one or two people have written most of the last couple of dozen reviews, and they REALLY didn't like it. Its good points-the special effects are GREAT, it has a good cast, and it concerns an important event in our history which deserves to be remembered, especially appropriate now that the U.S. is at war again after suffering another sneak attack.

Its bad points-it's WAY too long, it's too sappy and sentimental, there are too many unlikely coincidences in the story, and it doesn't try hard enough to provide all the pertinent facts about the attack. Showing Dolittle's retaliatory raid on Japan at the end was a good idea, but it made it a bit long. If they had cut out at least half of the sappy love triangle, it would have helped move the story along and reduced the length to a more tolerable level.

The two main characters are loosely (VERY loosely) based on two American pilots who managed to get airborne during the attack and account for 5 Japanese planes between them. Apparently just shooting them down wasn't dramatic enough in itself, so the movie has the two Americans nearly flying into each other to get two Zeros following in pursuit to crash into each other. That is perhaps the most ridiculous moment, but there are a few others. Nevertheless, I found the movie overall to be enjoyable enough to watch. However, if you really want to watch a well-done film about the attack that is historically accurate, without the burden of a plodding love triangle, buy Tora! Tora! Tora! and just rent this one, or catch it on the tube.

I have to say that I was quite disappointed in this movie.I was hoping to see more bloodshed and action.This movie was too long and drawn out.There were more love scenes in it than I anticipated.I did not see too many trailers for this movie,just heard a hype on the radio.Before watching this movie,I had no idea Japan had attacked America because we stopped providing them with Oil supplies.So,I guess Oil for all countries is a big deal after all.The acting was shoddy.The characters were not as believable to me as I had hoped them to be.Maybe it was because they did not get this huge salary to play their parts in this film.When the fighter pilots went over to Japan in the bombers,I was quite upset.It was not their job to go and avenge the Japanese in their suprise attack on Pearl Harbor.I could have sworn the movie was strictly about what took place in Pearl Harbor on Dec 7,1941.The story line kept changing and it made it difficult to stick with.I kept moving my chair and was itching to leave.If producers were going to continue the film with our boys going to Japan,there should have been another two hours of movie time to show the film where our bombs built by openhelmer were actually made and dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WW2.

This disappointing and emotionally bankrupt take on Dec. 7, 1941 pulls out every manipulative trick in the book -- the soldier who comes back from the dead, the love triangle, the hokey ending -- and yet still fails to ultimately engage the viewer.

The 40-minute battle scene, seen as the best part of the movie by most reviewers, is undeniably stunning. But for all of the technical prowess and craft displayed, the combat itself takes on a video game-type quality lacking in the visceral emotions that one would expect to experience in a war movie. To me, this was the Disneyfication of Pearl Harbor. One of the most brutal days in American history, and yet most of the blood is not up close and in your face, it's comfortably in the background, perhaps not to offend their apparent target 15-year-old girl Titanic audience. Even the hospital scenes have a gauzy white sheen between us and the wounded, a technique that does not work and further removes us from the action. The scenes of soldies being strafed while swimming in the water could have been far more powerful, but in this rendition the bodies look like ants on the screen. Worse yet, unlike in Titanic, where we came to know the cast and were thus interested in their various fates, the main characters here are removed from the action, until they stage an improbable (but somewhat true to history) aerial defense with two planes. To the viewers, the deaths of thousands of soldiers has about the same impact as a laser rifle striking down a Storm Trooper in Star Wars, because we don't know the soldiers in the thick of the action -- they are merely fodder for the special effects.

As far as the ship capsizing scenes, it was extremely Titanic-derivative.

The love story, which takes up an astounding 2 hours of the 3-hour epic, is neither horrible nor good; it's simply pedestrian. You don't spend $200 million on a movie for pedestrian, do you? There are plenty of hokey plot developments, oodles of laughable dialogue, and some bad accents thrown in for good measure.

The thing about this movie is, despite all of my complaints, I actually came out of the theater thinking that it was pretty good -- a three star flick. But over time, the visual impact of the special effects fades and you are left with disappointment in a war movie that wasn't, a $200 million mediocre piece of schlock that gets its by-the-numbers two stars, but ultimately a missed opportunity for greatness. (I would have loved to see the James Cameron version of P.H.!)

By the way, watching this movie on video or DVD will likely lessen the impact even more, since those special effects will be reduced and those ant-soldiers will become dust-mite soldiers. If you are going to watch P.H., at least watch it on the big screen.

Last week, I saw Apocalypse Now Redux, which, while it shares a three-hour-plus length, is ten times better than Pearl Harbor. If you want to see what a real war movie looks like, do yourself a favor and watch Francis Ford Coppola's masterpiece.

First off, I would give it 2 1/2 stars instead if I could. Apparently the same one or two people have written most of the last couple of dozen reviews, and they REALLY didn't like it. Its good points-the special effects are GREAT, it has a good cast, and it concerns an important event in our history which deserves to be remembered, especially appropriate now that the U.S. is at war again after suffering another sneak attack.

Its bad points-it's WAY too long, it's too sappy and sentimental, there are too many unlikely coincidences in the story, and it doesn't try hard enough to provide all the pertinent facts about the attack. Showing Dolittle's retaliatory raid on Japan at the end was a good idea, but it made it a bit long. If they had cut out at least half of the sappy love triangle, it would have helped move the story along and reduced the length to a more tolerable level.

The two main characters are loosely (VERY loosely) based on two American pilots who managed to get airborne during the attack and account for 5 Japanese planes between them. Apparently just shooting them down wasn't dramatic enough in itself, so the movie has the two Americans nearly flying into each other to get two Zeros following in pursuit to crash into each other. That is perhaps the most ridiculous moment, but there are a few others. Nevertheless, I found the movie overall to be enjoyable enough to watch. However, if you really want to watch a well-done film about the attack that is historically accurate, without the burden of a plodding love triangle, buy Tora! Tora! Tora! and just rent this one, or catch it on the tube.

Pearl Harbor is a pretty rediculous tale. Hollywood strikes again with a war movie but a stupid love tale. This film, depending on which way you want to look at it, should not have been filmed.

If Pearl Harbor was meant to be historical docudrama of what actually happened that day, the money they spent was a waist. No one should ever try to make a Pearl Harbor movie, there's one out there that tops them all: Tora! Tora! Tora!

Tora! Tora! Tora! is ALL fact, except for maybe one or two scenes. Everything that happens in that movie REALLY happened in reality. Pearl Harbor, however, tells the tale of two lovebirds. Stupid... To add to this, the battle scene isn't even that great. Not that it is terrible, but it could have been better.

To start, the Japanese Zero planes were NOT green. They were silver. The makers of the film had them green so they would "show up better." Several shots of soldiers being strafed by swimming or bodies floating in the water are from a distance, hiding you from the scene. However, there are parts that are very good.

Back to my main point, if this film was made for a drama but in war, why choose Pearl Harbor? Why not some battles in Europe or something? It's not as if that love story was real, anyway(and if it was, it was corny).

All in all, Pearl Harbor is overrated. If you see Pearl Harbor to see a battle scene, go ahead, but it takes an hour and a half to get there.

WHAT A JOKE! the only message in this film is : "Japan-BAD, USA-GOOD! it's OKAY if more than a MILLION Japanese CIVILIANS die (and are still suffering + dying till today due to radiation exposure) but it's BAD BAD BAD if 2,000+ American NAVY boys die"

you know what.. right after the scene where the Japanese dropped a missile at one of those ships, the credits should have started rolling.

i'm giving it a 2 star for the battle scenes that had pretty impressive cinematography. the rest.. a complete waste of time. ben affleck should be thrown out of the film biz.

Take this for what it is: a film to watch, enjoy, cry and laugh and love the characters and leave feeling good. This is not intended to replace your history book, make you think deeply, or promote some sort of philosophical discussion. You are to gawk at Ben and Josh, wish you were Kate, marvel at the special effects, cheer for Cuba, and go home. If you have more expectations than that, you'll be fine.

I was very excited to hear that this movie was coming to theaters! I have been a fan of the cartoon show since my youth. I must say, I was disappointed in this movie.

First, one of my pet peeves is deceptive trailers! A good portion of material from the trailer was either left out entirely or rushed through as a flashback or afterthought. This movie has the air about it that budgets ran dry and rather than scrap the movie altogether, it was rushed to production.

Disney needs to raise the bar on their live action movies. This was as much of a disappointment as Snow Dogs. If you are going to produce a movie based on a book, comic book, television show, etc., from a by-gone era, it would help if a fan of the material was involved in the production in my opinion.

See this one once, but save your money on the video. Maybe they will release the old cartoon on DVD. I would buy the whole series!

i wouldn't really reccomend this movie for the older crowd who remember the 80's cartoon series. i think it was cool to learn the stuff like how he became the gadget guy. the acting was great! i agree with someone i saw that said in this movie the letters should self distruct! that would be hysterical. im sorry but i just couldn't accept that inspector gadget is self sufficient in this movie. in the cartoon series penny and brain were always having to save her uncle's butt! they should have gone more closely to the show! oh well. it's fun and a little funny because as usual matthew broderick is cute and funny and charming! maybe part II will be more closely tied to the show... but overall i would rent it not buy it. but your little boys, ill bet will absolutely love this movie!

Well, I'm 10 right now buy when I was 6, the trailer scared me to death. Like the part when Gadget got captured by claw and took of his shirt and it just looked scary when I was 6. Well, after 4 years, we rented the DVD and watched it. Not as intense as it looked like when I was 6. I used to watch the TV show when I was 4. Just to tell you if you are 10 or older it will be sort of cheesy but watch it if you want to see the movie really bad. Only Rent it.

Lucio Fulci might have made great films (that I haven't seen), but this sure as hell isn't one of them.

Not much of a story. Priest hangs himself and somehow opens up the gates of Hell and zombies slowly begin to squirm out and kill innocent townsfolk. The police nor the victim's families can understand the crime scenes but are sure that Bob, a rumored sex offender, must be the perpetrator of these bizarre deaths. Then a young woman and a reporter set out to find the city where the dead are awakening before All Saints Day, when a whole bunch of zombies will walk.

This movie is a major bore. The music score drags tediously through the death scenes, eliminating the possibility of a legitimate scare. Then the gore is so sloppy, that what many fanatics regard as intensely shocking, is just laughable and ineffective in enducing real nausea. Though, the same can't be said for the performances in the film. I did remember feeling queasy during nearly all dialogue-driven sequences (save some mild inconsequentials with Mary and the washed-up journalist).

To put it bluntly, there is a part of you (all those of you who are sane) who will wish you were being drilled yourself then endure the torture of having to watch this film. The only visceral quality in any way related to it is the contempt you'll feel for it, and especially for it's creator.

This movie was EXTRMELY slow but not to the point where it got boring but at times it really did. I was very upset about the gore scenes. The Gut spewing was good but the brain sqeeze and the ehad drill well wasnt very appeling. Everyone says "his brains are getting drilled out" when it is clearly through the top of his cheek. But there was some scenes that didnt make this bad. The movie gives you a dreadful feeling, which is very effective because movies arent like that these days.

Rated X for some repulsve gore and general creepyness

Absolutely no sense can be made from this, but that is like so many other horror movies. The end makes you say "huh?" Their are much better Italian horror/zombie movies out there.

What can I say that I bet hasn't been said about Satanic Rites of Dracula that hasn't been said before. By now Hammer had run way out of steam with there Dracula films, and Christopher Lee wanted badly to get away from the role. While the film isn't the worst Dracula/Vampire film ever made, it in no way adds up to the other Dracula films that Hammer made. As a matter of fact it's sad that in the same year Hammer's Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter came out, which in my mind could have saved Hammer and there vampire films for good, giving them a new hero and line of vampire films to play with, this film and the VERY VERY BAD Legend of the Seven Golden Vampires had to come along and put the nail in Hammer's coffin. Oh well, at least for the last time we get to see the always great Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing play roles that they by now had down pat, even if the lines and set up are campy as hell. Watch this one just for a good laugh to see how low Hammer Films had gone from it's heyday in the 50's and 60's to the low points of the 70's. This films gets 2 stars just for the fact that it has Lee and Cushing in the film.

This has to be the worst of the Lee-Cushing Hammer Draculas. One has to wonder if they had a film - lame - and they said - HEY lets put Lee in his cape in here and we will make money. Idiots! Sorry, I love Lee, Cushing and the other Dracula films but Hammer was in it for the bucks here and nothing else. The fact it was released under various titles tells you something, Satanic was one, but there was "Dracula is Dead and Well and Living in London" or uninspired "Count Dracula and his Bride". I mean that is ALL they could come up with?

Sequel to A.D., charming Joanna Lumley takes over from Stephanie Beacham as Van Helsing's granddaughter. Cushing is back as well. So bad it's sort of good...lol. Count Dracula decides to wipe out mankind with a super-plague so he can finally die? Well, I am sure they thought it sounded good on paper.

Of interest to Lee-Cushing fans, but others will yawn.

Hammer films is famous for producing some of the most effective vampire films ever. This, however, is not one of them.

Our protaganist this time around centers himself amidst a group of supposed witches in a coven. One finds out shortly what the purpose of this group is for and what Dracula intends to use their services for.

In short, this makes for a very poor plot and low budget effects, we only see Dracula approach one female victim and even then we are spared the horror of her fate.

For reasons that are only purley historical was this released on DVD. Hammer fans will be disappointed by this installment, and one can see why that studio shortly thereafter ceased making films.

Rhino-worshipping jungle brunettes dominate hapless jungle blondes who strive to be free in this fantastic nonsense-movie. For a film with such a simple dynamic, there are a surprising number of diversions from the main plot. These are very entertaining (dances, weddings, catfights) although they're obviously filler, padding out the film to feature length with eye candy. Definitely a late-night or rainy Saturday afternoon feature.

Some reviewers have said that "Prehistoric Women" is missing 16 minutes of footage, but that's incorrect! Actually "Prehistoric Women" is the American version that runs 16 minutes longer (90 minutes) than the 74-minute British release, titled "Slave Girls." THIS IS THE U.S. RELEASE - THE LONG VERSION. Thanks Anchor Bay!

Not to be confused with a low-rent American movie of the same name made in 1950, Prehistoric Women was written and directed by Hammer producer Michael Carreras in 1966, on redressed sets left over from Hammer's One Million BC.
Definitely an excuse to find a way to reuse the sets, and no dinosaurs this time around, but the film is so outrageously, unapologetically campy that it's complete bliss.

Terminally sincere great white hunter David touches the sacred horn of the statue of the White Rhino while in Africa, and is transported back in time, where he discovers a tribe of White Rhino-worshipping brunettes, who have enslaved all the blonde women, and sent all the men to an even worse fate doing hard labor.

Martine Beswick is just great as the evil and cruel queen Kari, who chooses David for her love slave. Unfortunatly, David has eyes for innocent blonde slave girl Saria, and....

This flick has everything, wildly loopy Amazon dance numbers, sacficial rituals, catfights, jungle action, babes in fur bikinis, outrageous dialog ("Cruelty is what makes me cruel!"), and a climax where the White Rhino comes to life (who cares if it moves like it's rolling on wheels....besides, no real rhino could have such an wonderfully phallic horn). Beswick puts a lot more into the role of Queen Kari than one would expect from this sort of movie--she definitely has more commanding presence (in more ways than one) than Raquel Welch, for example.

It's obvious director Carraras didn't take any of it with an ounce of seriousness, even though it's all played as though it is. His original working title was "Slave Girls of the White Rhino", which I think is a much better title than Prehistoric Women. Still, a sheer, delerious delight.

Anchor Bay's letterbox transfer is great (and is featured on the VHS tape as well as the DVD). The letterboxing is vital for this flick, since for some reason Carreras decided to go against typical Hammer practice and do this one in genuine widescreen Cinemascope....probably because you can fit a lot more prehistoric babes in one shot that way.

This movie is a silly, but very charming effort from the sixties, my favourite decade. It is a little scary and very sexy at the same time. It has: great soundtrack, gorgeous gals, beautiful sets, talented actors and actresses, a wonderful mood and MARTINE BESWICK, one of the most amazing women who ever entered the silver screen. A tale of adventures iin the kingdom of the prehistoric ladies, presented in a TOTALLY SIXTIES-STYLE. A MUST for everyone who loves campy flicks!