Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Aaron1375 I saw this movie quite often when I was a young child, unfortunately I have not seen it since the 1980's so forgive me if I can not remember all the details of this flick. The title is rather funny though, as from the title I get the image of Gimli from the Lord of the Rings films and other drawfs doing the river dance or something. However, that is not the case as this movie is about some sort of creature from what I remember, and this creature is virtually unseen throughout the movie as it is confined to a rather monster infested finale. There is also a scene in which one guy is running from the unseen monsters and ends up somehow in really hot boiling water where part of his face gets burned away. However, a lot of the film is very forgettable as I am having the hardest time trying to recall plot points and stuff of that nature as most of what I remember is the monsters final attack at the end rather than any of the other scenes aside from the aforementioned guy above. So as much as I liked this movie as a kid I, that may be just a case of really enjoying cheesy monsters so I will give this movie a five and remember it for what it was unless I happen to catch it on television or something.

kamas716 I liked watching Deborah Raffin. And Peter Fonda gave a decent performance as the drunken pilot. But, overall, the movie sucked. However, it was better than the book, which is usually pretty rare thing to say.Deborah Raffin is always good looking. But this didn't really give her much breadth or depth of performance. Peter Fonda was decent. He provided the comic relief as the continually drunk helicopter pilot. I read the book in high school as it was suggested by my literature teacher as similar to Jurassic Park in concept (which I had just finished reading). It wasn't really. And the writing was vastly inferior. The movie improves on the story, but not by much.If you've got nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon but contemplate your navel lint, it might do for a couple hours of entertainment. Otherwise, avoid it like a root canal.

Whovian Last summer I picked up a copy of Geoffrey Household's novel, DANCE OF THE DWARFS. I had recently taped the film on late-night TV and figured someday it would be interesting to compare the two versions of the work. I have now read the book and watched the film, and I must say that a comparison is difficult; if I hadn't known from the credits that the book had inspired the movie, I'd have thought the few vague similarities between the works were pure coincidence! The novel is written in the form of an agricultural researcher's journal and, while it has its flaws, manages to be suspenseful and to introduce some interesting ideas. The film, on the other hand, is a painfully unthrilling adventure movie reminiscent in many ways of the unfortunate 1985 remake of KING SOLOMON'S MINES. The most tragic difference between the book and the film is that the interesting and graceful creatures of the novel have been replaced here by guys jumping around in rubber suits. The novel wasn't that great, but it didn't deserve this horrible treatment.

karkinos This was pretty much a character driven movie. I watched the entire movie only because I found the characters interesting. The acting by the main characters was fine given the constraints of a low budget horror flick. I would recommend watching this movie only if you want to see another good examine of the uncouth man uncivilizing the resistant and cultured woman. Otherwise, try to ignore the weak "special effects".