The French either make pro-Marxist films or anti-Marxist films - with a few in between. "Merci pour le chocolat" is the latter of this genre. From the opening credits telling the viewer what music is going to be played and by whom it was who composed you know that you are going to be swathed in middle class pretension. It is an old man's film with an excess of 40's plus people. It is also directed by an old man along with an old crew who have nothing to say about life to the viewer. The plot is not only banal but preposterous. How many films reveal the plot through dialogue only to repeat the same message via flashback some five minutes later? Maybe the director and actors had a low retentive capacity? In truth their is no tenable plot at all. It is riddle with holes like a good piece of French cheese.

Whether intentional or not, it is a film about the bourgeoisie. At least a third of the film focuses on the piano and the pretentious twaddle espoused in each scene. I concede it has some well framed shots though they couldn't have used a steady-cam in this film - it would have woke them all up! Other than it being a nonsense story, the film allows the upper middle class to parade their values and vanity in a very comfortable Swiss location. A telling line of the film is when Rodolphe Pauly tells Anna Mouglalis that she need not lock her car while in the resort! Oh dear me.

On the DVD, Miss Huppert makes a comment about shedding a false tear for a scene. Smirking she says: "Like they do in the American Actor's Studio!" I think Miss Huppert and the rest of the cast could learn well from the Actor's Studio.

If there is one statement that stand out in my mind it is when Huppert remarks 'we are having friends for the weekend and all the servants are away'. No doubt they had all escaped from the mind numbing set lest they be associated with such an appalling film.

Safety Medical Note. In the film they show a hot water scald being covered with ointment and a bandage. This should never be done. Only cold water should be used.

Minus 10 marks.


The dominating conflict is between a couple of fine actors (Huppert and Dutronc) and the horrible script. Evidently, the actors lost, since the director/screenwriter Claude Chabrol eventually forced the leading couple to follow this worthless piece of sick imagination to the letter. Fortunately, the powerful performances by Huppert and Dutronc dramatically improve the overall quality of the movie, which miraculously gains the depth and humor. As for Chabrol's persistence in keeping the film bland and illogical, it reaches the climax in the final scene, which is so incredibly poor that you will wonder which pills he was taking himself while directing it.


Something does not work in this movie. There are absolutely no energies between the actors. In fact, their very acting seems frozen, sometimes amateur. Also, the script is not convincing and not reliable.


I think it is very interesting this movie is called a thriller. It is anything but thrilling.

Most of the time you hear piano sounds. Then you hear piano sounds. Then some people talk about facts which do not concern anybody.

Then again piano sounds.

To be honest, this movie was the reason for me to register at IMDb, because I think this movie is one of those which humankind has to be warned of.

Spoiler: By the way, the most action-like part happens when a can of hot chocolate is spilled.

Also very interesting: The "actors". Yes, the quotes are intentional, as you can think, because they do not act. They play piano and do smalltalk, but it's not acting they do.

I think before this movie I never left a cinema and felt angry. Really, this film made me angry. Angry for the time and money I spent on it.


This movie was a waste of time. It looks nice, pretty settings, nicely acted, appears earnest and seems to be leading somewhere so you stay tuned awaiting a meaningful payoff. It doesn't happen.

It surprised me that so much effort could be put into a movie, it was clearly very professionally done, and have an outcome that seems nothing short of a b-movie.

Save your precious time and see a good french film like Les Visiteurs (funny), Jean de Florette or Manon of the Spring. I can't recall the language in Europa Europa, but that's another Great film--heavy but very worth viewing.

This film appears to promise a lot but delivers nothing.


For any wrestling fan, this is the wrestlemania to forget. No logic to the matches, some garbage gimmicks (doink the clown, and the Giant Gonzalez) this was a forgettable PPV something rare for the WWE(F). The logic of Hogan winning the world title at the end made no sense, and many people feel that alone help put the nail in the PPV. From the meaningless gimmicks of the roman soldiers, to simply some real bad wrestling (doink vs Crush being the worst match) to simply bad match making (Scott "Razor Ramon vs Bob Backlund, how can you have one of the greatest mat wrestlers, making a comeback, and working his first wrestlemania, face a power wrestler who was undefeated at the time), this is a PPV that even the WWE has since admitted, was way below what the expected. just all around a stinker


I liked the whole set up with Ceasar's Palace, the Roman guards, and announcers in togas. This event also marked "the passing of the torch" as far as the voice of the WWF goes. Gorilla Monsoon who had done the play by play for every WWF PPV up to this point opens up and gives the typical introduction making it look like he's there to announce another PPV. But then introduces Jim Ross who is making his WWF debut and JR continues to do the WWF commentary to this day. But outside of that, this event is pure garbage. Good ol scientific wrestling has been thrown out the window and enter the birth of gimmicks. This to me was the event that the WWF started to go down the toilet, and didn't recover until the attitude era of the late 90's. Here's a review of the event.

IC title match: Tatanka (Challenger) vs. Shawn Michaels (champ): An okay opener, but given what Shawn is capable of, it was very disappointing. I have no idea why the WWF was hell bent on putting Tatanka over. They should of realized that Shawn was the future and Tatanka was just some hyper wrestler in an Indian Gimick. The ending of the match itself was very lame. Shawn grabs the ref and pulls him out, then gets called for a count out. While it was fun watching Sherri get beat up afterwords, this match just was forgettable. Shawn had to carry this match and had trouble doing it.

The Stenier Brothers vs. The Headshrinkers: Steiners get the win via a Franknsteiner. This match had it's moments, but the crowd just didn't seem into it. There was no heat behind it, I think it was a match just to throw two tag teams in.

Crush vs. Doink the Clown: TERRIBLE! TERRIBLE! TERRIBLE! This match completely sucked. Two very lame gimmicks. A clown and a Hawaiian dressed in bizarre colors. The ending caught everybody by surprise. In the upcoming months, Crush turned heel and Doink turned face, but none of the fans seem to care. Sadly, this was not the worst match on the card.

Razor Ramon vs. Bob Backland: You got a brand new heel that is very over going against a wrestler who was forgotten about 10 years ago. The fans snicker and laugh when Backlund comes out. And like Hogan/Rock in WM18 and HHH/Owen in WM14, the heel wrestler gets louder cheers in the face. Thankfully this match was short. The right guy won, but I wish they had Razor totally beat the crap out of and squash Backlund rather than winning by a small package out of nowhere.

Tag Team Champion Match: Ted Dibiase and IRS (Champs) vs. Hulk Hogan & Brutus Beefcake w/Jimmy Hart I still would like to know the full story on what happened to Hogan's eye. Oh well. The crowd was really into this match, but it had no flow to it what so ever. Hogan and Beefcake were clearly suffering ring rust given that both wrestlers had been on the shelf for at least a year. Dibiase, being the great technical wrestler that he was, did help to carry the match from being a complete waste. The ending was a surprise with Dibiase and IRS getting the win via DQ. But to please the crowd, Hogan and Beefcake did their usual playing to the crowd at the end like they had won the match.

Lex Luger vs. Mr. Perfect: The best part of this match was the four hot chicks that accompanied Lex Luger to the ring. Other than that, this was completely forgettable. The Mr. Perfect gimmick was born for a heel role and he just lacked the heat as a face. And Luger is just a waste of time no matter what gimmick he's in. Luger wins via a backslide despite that Perfect's feet were in the ropes. Then Perfect spends the post match getting his butt kicked. First Luger knocks him out with the running elbow. Then when Perfect regains consciousness he goes back to the dressing room to find Luger only to get the crap beaten out of him by Shawn Michaels, setting up an HBK/Perfect feud that had the potential to be a classic but the WWF misused.

The Undertaker vs. Giant Gonzales: ABSOLUTE CRAP!! What was the WWF thinking bringing in such a horrible wrestler as Giant Gonzales. Sure he had size, but I'd rather watch the Brooklyn Brawler in a match than him. This isn't even worth commenting on.

WWF CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH: Bret Hart (champ) vs. Yokozuna (challenger) You have one of the greatest technical wrestlers of all time going against a guy who's only advantage is that he's a gigantic lard ass. Bret was able to carry the match, but a rather predictable ending with Mr. Fuji throwing salt in Bret's face.

POST MATCH: Yokozuna vs. Hulk Hogan Pure crap right here. Hogan comes down to the ring for no apparent reason and Mr. Fuji challenges him to a match after Yoko just won the title. Even the die-hard Hulkamaniacs find this to be total BS.


1993 was a time of change in the WWE but for this Wrestlemania they decided to wind back the clock as Hulk Hogan returned, along with his good friend Brutus Beefcake, who had been out of wrestling since a paragliding accident in 1990.

This was not a great event. Only two matches had any real build and the whole thing came off as being rushed. The in ring action wasn't great and the twist at the end, which I'll discuss later, really wasn't the earth shattering moment the WWE hoped it would be.

This forgettable night started off with Shawn Micheals defending his Intercontinental Championship against the undefeated Tatanka. Tatanka had beaten Michaels a couple of times leading into the fight. Michaels had a new manager, Luna Vachon while Tatanka was accompanied by Michaels' former manager and future WWE Hall of Famer Sherri Martel. Tatanka won by DQ. Michaels kept his title and went straight back into his feud with Marty Janetty, which had been put on hold just for Wrestlemania. Why, I have no idea.

Next up saw the Steiner Brothers (Scott and Rick) defeat the Headshrinkers (Samu and Fatu) with Scott scoring the pin after hitting Samu with the Frankensteiner. Good match.

Doink the clown needed help from another clown to win his match against Crush. A second Doink distracting Crush when he was in complete control and allowing Doink to get the pin and the victory. Doink was an entertaining gimmick character, who got old rather quickly.

Razor Ramon easily defeated the returning Bob Backlund in the next match.

This brings us to the first in our double main event. As the Mega Maniacs Team of Hulk Hogan and Brutus Beefcake, with the newly turned good guy Jimmy Hart in their corner, took on Hart's former buddies Money Inc (Ted DiBiase and Irwin R Shyster). This was a fairly sketchy finish. Beefcake, as mentioned, had been in a paragliding accident requiring full facial surgery and had wrestled the match with a face mask on. Shyster ripped the mask off him and beat Beefcake to a pulp. The ref went down, Hogan grabbed the face mask and knocked out DiBIase and Shyster and then Hart, who was wearing a referee shirt, counted the three. Another ref came down and reversed the decision, declaring Money Inc winners by DQ.

Next up Lex Luger or the Narcissist as he was also known at the time defeated Mr Perfect. This match came about because Luger was being managed by Perfect's old manager Bobby Heenan. Perfect had is feet on the ropes when he was pinned, but the ref missed it.

The Undertaker picked up a lacklustre DQ victory in a pretty poor match against the Giant Gonzales. THe Undertaker had earned the ire of Gonzales' manager Harvey Wippleman in 1992 and Taker had defeated his big monster Kamala at Survivor Series. Wippleman vowed revenge and took it at the Royal Rumble as Gonzales attacked Taker, costing him the match. Gonzales dominated Undertaker in this match, but was DQ'd for choking Taker out with chloroform. Weird finish to a bad match.

This bought us to our main event as WWE Champion Bret Hart, seriously challenged as champion for the first time, put his title on the line against Mr Fuji's unstoppable monster Yokozuna. Yokozuna controlled the early going, but Hart resisted and then took control. He had Yokozuna in the sharpshooter, surely he would give in and Hart would be established as an heroic hero after taking out the big monster. But Fuji had other ideas, throwing salt in Hart's face, rendering the Canadian helpless as Yokozuna got the pin.

What a downer ending. But wait here comes Hulk Hogan. He's checking Hart to make sure he's OK. Suddenly Fuji challenges Hogan to a WWE Title right then and there. Hogan accepts. Fuji throws salt towards Hogan, but hits Yokozuna instead. Hogan hits the leg drop and wins the match and the title. What did I just watch? And so, what most fans thought was going to be the night we either saw Hart establish himself as a giant killer, or Yokozuna establish himself as an unstoppable monster, we instead saw Hulk Hogan pick up a meaningless title win. A title that he would not defend for three months. As a matter of fact this was the only match Hogan wrestled for the WWE before the King of the Ring PPV in June 1993.


UGH!...this is the worst Wrestlemania hands down....no good matches.....Hulk Hogan rears his over tanned bald head yet again in the main event, the spot light hoggin scum!....not one thing note worthy on this tape, oh..I take that back...this is Jim Ross's first WM...but other than that....it has nothing worth seein....a major bust...

1 out of 10 stars WOOF!!!


The worst Wrestlemania ever.

This had no must see bouts and many crap ones at that. This took place in Las Vegas and WWE made it's employees dress up like Egyptian gods! They even changed Howard Finkels name to Finkus Maximus, which probably doesn't mean anything. The sight of seeing Jim Ross in that terrible gown still gives me nightmares to this day and I'm 21 years old, so you could imagine it when I was 7 years old! Bobby Heenan was funny though.

Matches included The Undertaker vs Giant Gonzales in a p*ss poor match, The Headshrinkers vs The Steiner Brothers in a useless match, Doink vs Crush in a comedy match and a boring match featuring Razor Ramon vs Bob Backlund. Hulk Hogan teamed up with Brutus Beefcake to battle Money Inc. You could clearly see Hogan had a black eye. In storyline purposes Ted DiBiase and IRS beat up Hogan while he was playing poker or something like that in the casinos, which is a poor storyline, but in reality, Macho Man Randy Savage hit Hogan because Savage thinks he's like The Hulk (no pun intended) no not the wrestler but the film character.

The main event consisted of Bret 'Hitman' Hart facing off against Yokozuna in a very boring main event match. Mr Fuji threw salt in the face of Hart and Yoko won, but not until Hogan came down and squashed Yoko in 21 seconds.

Overall Grade - E


These writers are trying to re-create the characters they have on "scrubs" in a different occupation however the characters they are stuck with have no charisma or acting ability not to mention the writing seems poor and effortless. These guys are trying to create something that would be good if the writing wasn't so disgusting which is leaving the shows only lifeline to be two attractive teachers that that are barely keeping it alive. The humor in this show seems like it is trying to target an audience with an I.Q. of 40 or below. Another reason why this show is becoming a failure could be that the writing on the show "scrubs" is excellent and this show has to follow it up leaving the viewer in an odd position not knowing whether to cry or to just lose hope in new sitcoms all together. This is just my opinion but i think these guys should stop now before they humiliate themselves anymore than they have already.


I love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.

Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.

It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).

In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.


I was watching TV one day with a friend and we caught the last twenty minutes of "Going Bananas." Believe me when I say it was enough to get a good judgment of the film. The first scene that I saw was the monkey, the kid, the fat guy, and the black guy who looked like Dave Chappelle, flying around in a crop duster thousands of feet in the air. While everyone else was solemn about the journey, the monkey seemed to be on some kind of drug binge where he kept shouting something that resembled the English word faster. They then landed on a twenty yard long dock in Africa. After a heart felt goodbye where the monkey cried (Hahahaha), the "villains" of the film appeared. They were tearing complete ass in their vintage Cadillac when the evil monkey took an Air Jordan leap form the dock onto the boat that was sailing away a clean 40 yards away and made them sink their beautiful car into the Pacific Ocean. After seeing this film, I have a new purpose in life; to find the midget who played the monkey and stab him in the eye with a fountain pen.


A good friend of mine one said: "A monkey is funny, anytime, anywhere." There is one exception to this: GOING BANANAS. It is quite simply the WORST MOVIE I have ever seen. It's worse than PLAN 9, worse than THE BEAST OF YUCCA FLATS. It is TERRIBLE. The talking monkey gag gets old after about three minutes, and believe me that's all there is. Make sure you have a bunch of people around to revive you after you go into TOXIC SHOCK from GOING BANANAS, the worst movie ever.


I somehow failed for a few years to see this film, although it has been quite successful and generated a lot of discussions in Israel. I am sorry that I did not postpone indefinitely seeing it.

The theme of 'Kadosh' is a very real and painful one for those who know the Jewish religious world - the place of women in the orthodox family and society. The basic situation that sits at the premises of the film is possible, the problem is that the way it is brought to screen and the 'solution' that the conflicts described receives in the movie is wrong. Gitai does not seem to have too much sympathy for men in the religious world, but his approach of picking characters that are either fanatic, or unable to express their human feeling makes the whole story seem simplistic. Neither does he a much better service to his women characters, although here at least he shows more sympathy and he also enjoys the participation of two beautiful and gifted actresses in Yael Abecassis and Meital Barda. Overall Gitai's vision is too one-sided, his cinema means are too basic, he focuses on the technical details of the Jewish religious life, which may be interesting for people who do not know them but are really not relevant at all in the context of the whole story. Starting from interesting premises what we get here is a boring film which seems longer than it is, with a very static way of acting, obsessive use of music that plays in the same register not only from a musical but also from an emotional perspective and a very inconclusive if not even confusing ending. What difference between this film and 'Ha Ushpizin' inspired from and describing the very same social landscape and which succeeded to transmit human feelings on the screen. In 'Kadosh' there are both too little cinema and too little human emotions.


The one line summary is actually the punch line of a very old joke that begins "what is a Jewish porno film?"

While this film had its interesting moments, it was far too slow moving and did not do enough to explain to those of us in the audience unfamiliar with orthodox Jewish custom, exactly what was going on and why? How many people who came across this film would know that the bathtub the female characters were washing in is in reality called a "Mikveh" which is a ritual bath used to cleanse spiritual uncleanliness? The same question might be asked of why the bride was walked around the groom a dizzying number of times while her face was covered just prior to the marriage vows being performed. These two examples are but two of a large number of such moments that remained completely unexplained to the uninitiated audience.

This film does have its touching moments along with expressions of great love and emotions. The characters are presented very authentically right down to the number of garments an ultra orthodox Jewish male must wear as well as the religious rituals he must engage in upon awakening in the morning to begin his day. The attitudes orthodox Judaism has towards women in general and wives in particular is both intriguing and at times maddening. This is another reason why more explanation is needed if this story is to be understood in context.

I recommend this film to people who are familiar with orthodox Jewish tradition and ritual as well as those who might be interested in getting a brief peek at what the lives of people who practice this way of life is like.

The story itself about two sisters who in their own ways rebel against "the system" is of moderate interest at best.


Here is a film which clearly banks on being marketed as exotica to audiences unfamiliar with its subject matter.

An attempted hybrid of fiction and document, "Kadosh" clumsily falls in between the chairs. As a documentary, on the one hand, it is neither accurate nor insightful. To realize its sloppy handling of detail, one needs to go no further than the opening scene where it is quite obvious that the ultra-orthodox protagonist does not know even so much as how to properly put on his t'filin. More generally, the tedious rote-style presentation of details (in this case of Jewish ultra-orthodox ritual) is the role of a manual, not of a good documentary; the latter should provide an organizing principle (a gestalt, if you will) for the viewer, so that she may emerge with a better understanding of the viewed. This clearly does not happen here, as ultra-orthodox ritual is being made even more enigmatic. The director seems to have done a decent job explaining it all verbally during the film's release campaign; cinematically, however, this is a severe case of stuttering. As a fiction-feature, on the other hand, it suffers from flatness of character, simplicity of plot and bluntness of message. At some points I felt I was watching a cartoon. (e.g. the wedding night consummation scene - without going in detail into angles, positions and dimensions ... well, technically this could not possibly be a realistic portrayal of human sex, savage as it may be.)

There are no subtleties in this film. The clever manipulation of hints, stimulating the viewer's imagination and thought into taking an active part in the cinematic text, which I believe is a mark of a good feature, is completely absent. On the contrary: watching the movie I felt, at times, as being force-fed again and again with the same already chewed-up and way-too-obvious content. It is, indeed, as director Gitai himself put it in an interview, an architectural "shifting objects in space", and then coloring the scenes with the appropriate emotions when called for and advancing the plot on its appropriate and predictable track; but the spark, that creative, duende-like dark, inarticulable spark (let's not forget "Kadosh" is supposedly a tragedy), that which casts on a two-dimensional screen the spell which turns it into an extension of the viewers world, is missing without a trace. Perhaps a work of a visual-engineer, perhaps of an unsophisticated ideologue; definitely not of a true filmmaker. What I saw was a passion-play for animated issues rather than flesh-blood-and-complexities real people. The acting, by and large, failed to transcend this directorial flatness of an idea forced (at times even tortured) into film. One notable, though relatively minor, exception was that of the mikve-lady and the mother, both played by the excellent and seasoned Lea Koenig.

It takes more than strict adherence to a winning formula (namely, a serving of exotica, plus heart wrenching yet simple melodrama, plus a popular agenda, preferably politically correct) to tantalize my interest buds. The bottom line here, all being said, is that for a considerable portion of the movie I was simply bored. In spite of the novel, perhaps even pioneering achievement of using an ultra-orthodox neighborhood as a movie set, for which Mr. Gitai and his crew deserve all praise, I found "Kadosh" way too Nadosh (Hebrew for "trite").


As a writer and a lapsed Orthodox Jewish woman, I was let down tremendously by this movie. The dialogue is hackneyed and wasteful, the characters, too engaged with lines ranging from the wrackingly prosaic to the stunningly melodramatic, aren't allowed to expand into genuinely textured individuals. The one-trick musical score tries to make up for the blandness, swooping portentously into the silence to jar the viewer and the script out of protracted catatonia.

Like an adolescent revolutionary on a self-righteous tirade, this film is blown away by the wisdom of its revelation--patriarchy is wrong--and thoroughly squanders its energies, hammering on this point. The resultant artistic crime is a complete lack of imaginative development; the moral crime is the reduction of human beings to caricatures: martyrs and grotesques.


The film is a gross misrepresentation of Orthodox lifestyle and practice. NEVER will a Jewish court enforce a divorce between childless couples. Although the concept exists in Jewish law, the conditions are too numerous for it to actually ever take place. Childless couples do find it difficult to cope with their childlessness in a community where children are a very important part of life, but nowhere are they "rejected" by their community as depicted in the film. They are treated with extreme sensitivity. In fact, many great Rabbis have lived their entire lives without children and never considered divorce.

The depiction of Yosef, a horrible human being, is meant to - perhaps subconsciously - show the behavior of a typical orthodox male. In reality, it is as typical as a violent drunkard rapist is typical of secular society. Both exist in their own worlds and both are despicable.

It is surprising that so many people form their opinions about a society based on a MOVIE (by someone who is personally biased against a community). I have always thought that it is only the Orthodox, because of their narrow-mindedness and insular lifestyle, who judge all secular people based on the violence and immoral conduct they read about in newspapers or see in the movies.


My mother told me not to go to see "Kadosh" -- but who ever listens to one's mother?

I was so turned off by it while I was watching I thought I must have lost my feminist credentials on the way into the theater, so I checked with card-carrying feminists the next day. No, they also thought it was much more an anti-Orthodox screed than a pro-feminist statement, painting the Orthodox as equal to the Taliban.

While this Israeli movie is careful to show that the sect the story is about is the ultimate ultra-Orthodox Messianists, it is so nasty as to be unbelievable (plus that the non-fanatic Orthodox rock-'n'-roller(!) one of the sisters is in love with is incredibly sexy--even in Israel that must be fantasy).

The theater was quite crowded, so there's a pent-up curiosity to see Israeli movies; too bad this vicious movie is the one getting wide distribution. This was almost enough to drive me back to insipid Hollywood romantic movies.

(originally written 4/29/2000)


I don't know what Chasidik movement was this film about?I saw this film a year ago.I am an Orthodox woman, living in an Orthodox Chasidic? community And I can tell you I was offended by this movie!It's so far away from the reality, it's scary ! The director could at least hire a Chasidik Rabbi for a brief consultation, before making a "Realistic" movie about ultra -orthodoxs! For example Meir's Davening (Morning Prayers)! Or a Jewish wedding, or a Mikveh ( ritual bath ) customs.

Movie is loaded with technical inaccuracies..but it's not them that bothered me. It's the spiritual side. Orthodoxs are portrayed next to Taliban. Woman are powerless, while men are the ultimate rulers ! Please!No one can force a Jewish girl to the Chuppa against her will ! We ,Orthodoxs,also, live by the law (Halacha ) which clearly states man's responsibilities towards his wife.No beating and no raping,also!And no man ( even Rabbi)is allowed to peak at the woman in the Mikveh.And Balanit is not to place a hand over woman's head,while she's taking a ritual bath, the idea is to immerse the whole body at one time! Director was clearly trying to bash Ultra Orthodoxs ! But could he do so at least in a nice and more educated manner?

Love story? Cute ! But not credible.Dialogs are long and boring.The ending sucked totally.For all that drama I was at least hoping for a nice ending ,for all that sitting I felt I deserved it! Obviously someone was trying to make a nice consciousness soothing movie for less observant Jews, or for Non- Jews, perhaps..(look at those Fundamentalist, they are so evil and mean...)and they succeed! Long thing short: Was hoping for a nice Europien (Kane level ) movie, got instead a tradition bashing, unrealistic,mistakenly guiding junk. I mean , today,we live in a time of a free will as never before. Everyone has a right to choose. Malka chose a rock singer.Rivka made her choice.Meir made his. Many people from non observing backgrounds are choosing Orthodox Judaism these days.Because,in this mad world Religion might be a nice gateway !


The movie opens with a scene that simply could not be. A man wakes up and while his wife remains in bed, he begin his morning prayers in his bedroom while his wife sleeps peacefully. Morning blessings are recited, but only the ones Gitai finds controversial. the rest are conveniently omitted. then while in philactories and a tallis he kisses his wife good morning!! This is not an accurate depiction of jewish prayer in any home, let alone a chassidic home. Amos Gittai is not interested in accurately portraying chassidic life. He is interested in adding to his ever growing list of melodramatic and empty films. The mikka (ritual bath) scenes are far from accurate and his jewish wedding was laughable as it does not even approach the atmosphere of a chassidic wedding. I have many problems with the chassidic way of life, but i have no use for Amos Gittai's commentary on these issues. He would have you think that the chassidim are all dense comformists with severe bouts of depression. I may not agree with the chassidic lifestyle, but i acknowledge that chassidic life has many layers. Amos Gitai is blinded by his own secularist pseudo-intellectual stubborness and is therefore, incapable of portraying an accurate depiciton of chassidic life. Aside from his poor research and unbalanced portrayal of chassidic life, Gitai fails in other aspects as well. The plot is full of holes, the dialogue loaded with silence, the soundtrack is too repetitive and the acting while at times powerfull was too often loaded with melodrama. The movie drags on and on and the ending is not worth sticking around for. watch if you must, but be warned. If you want to learn about chassidic life go to the communities and talk to chassidim. Do not rely on Gittai's film!


This movie is best enjoyed amidst a large audience with the giggle-fits.

Very frequently the characters in KADOSH are seen staring ahead intensely at nothing. Very intense unhappy faces, very pensive, very serious. During these moments there is very serious sounding music just to make doublely sure the viewer realizes that the scene being watched is not about fun and games.

The more entertaining portions of this film come in between the many pensive stares. We learn that the women of the KADOSH community have two duties. One is to breed as many male babies as possible for their husbands. The second is to stay employed so to free their husbands from having to work. What do these men do with their ample free time? They pray. And we learn that at home they pray out loud, "I give you thanks for not creating me as a woman." And at their place of worship they pray to give thanks for possessing functioning male genitalia.

Along with the praying there are many scenes of frenzied antics, screaming, and endless head bobbing and bodies rocking back and fourth, and mixed in with everything are many intricate and bizarre (or simple but just as odd) ritualistic activities.

The cream of the unintentional comedy comes from the sex. The imagery of an hot and bothered man actively exchanging body fluids with his wife in bed while attempting to keep his beanie from falling off his scalp is unforgettable!

Every sex scene is funny, but one that stands out is when a husband rubs his face against his beautiful wife's (Yaël Abecassis) feet. Oh yes, we are finally entering the land of sensuality... but NO! The feet rubbing stops before anything happens and the husband begins his autistic looking head bobbing and body rocking until the scene ends!

There are three attractive females in near states of undress, however KADOSH contains absolutely no nudity. Technically, there is some interesting imagery and pleasing uses of light and colors by the director.

For a more believable, educational and entertaining treatment of the plight of being an unclean female unworthy of holding a book in a world where respect is measured by the speed by which a man can cite a phrase from ancient writings, I suggest Barbra Streisand's YENTL.


It is apparent that director, writers and everyone else knows nothing about their own religion or the people who practice it. This movie is endlessly flawed and overall a complete crock.

For instance, there is a scene where the rabbi enters the woman's ritual bath while a naked woman is bathing, puts his hand on the head of a woman there and blesses her. This is complete mockery of the laws, in this scene alone some of the laws broken include: Modesty, a rabbi would never enter a ritual bath house while there are woman in it.

Improper contact, a rabbi would never put his hand on a woman's head, not to mention that it is not the way a blessing is given.

The woman from the ritual bath is dunking a naked woman by pushing her head under the water, the laws regarding ritual bathing require the entire body to make direct contact with the bath water; this means nobody should be in contact with the person bathing, certainly not pushing them under!

There was more just in that scene alone, like dunking 13 times (where does that concept even come from?) not to mention the rest of the movie was a total fallacy. It is scary what ignorance can concoct!


And again, Columbia Pictures decides to merely make "hash" using the original version with Curly and without any of the gags or jokes to boot! Toward the end of this pitiful flick when Joe gets stuck riding the bull, the studio didn't even make much of an effort to re-record the sound for if you listen carefully you can still here Curly going "Woo woo woo woo". Also, when Moe and Larry throw the darts in order to "slow the bull down so he can get off", that's lifted right from the original because you can actually see Moe and Larry "magically" appear 15 years younger. Why oh why did Moe allow all this to happen? It's a burning question that probably can never be answered because as far as I know, in real life he was quite sensitive to any type of criticism and had rather high standards for his work, as also did Larry, Curly and Shemp. Don't waste your time on this one.


This short subject is a remake of the Three Stooges' 1942 film "What's the Matador?", about the boys' trip to Mexico and their bullfighting adventures. Although the original short was made during the Stooges' peak period, it isn't that memorable and I believe it is one of the more mediocre films with Curly Howard.

Having established that, I believe that "Sappy Bullfighters" is just pathetically awful, like all the other shorts with Joe Besser. Moe and Larry never should have hired Besser, because his whiny, almost feminine character was completely wrong for the violent comedy of the Stooges. His 16 films with Moe and Larry marked the nadir for the team, and those shorts are embarrassing to watch. This short was released in 1959 and was the team's swan song with Columbia. Maybe Besser was a nice guy, but he was all wrong as the third stooge.

I won't review any more Besser shorts, because I would just be giving the same scathingly negative review over and over. Do yourself a big favor and don't watch this. Instead, try to catch "In the Sweet Pie and Pie" or "Hoi Polloi".


The Three Stooges are arguably the greatest comedy team in film history. For that reason alone, they deserved a much better ending at Columbia than they received with this short.

"Sappy Bullfighters" is just not good. Granted, this is not all Joe Besser's fault. I personally feel that some of his shorts are fun enough, simply because of the departure from the Stooges usual fanfare that they contain, and for the fact that Larry is sometimes showcased more. However, this short just will not do. And the fact that one knows that it is their last short that was ever shown, well that just adds to the overall disgust.

This film just epitomizes how short subjects were on their last dying breaths during this time and how little effort went into making them. This short is so sloppy. It is a simple re-make of a Curly short, "What's the Matador?", filmed years before. As if this fact wasn't bad enough, the studio actually threw in footage of Moe and Larry from the original (which was filmed nearly 20 years prior). Are these things not obvious? Laughable or sad? You be the judge.

Another part of this short that makes it miserable is the fact that it is basically a Joe Besser showcase, with him showing that all he is (at least in this film) is a Curly-wanna-be-gone-completely-wrong! Moe and Larry have little to do in this short. As a Larry fan, I also must say that I feel it a bit disgraceful to have Besser get to use the joke that Larry originally popularized in the short "Ants In The Pantry". To see Besser say "I can't see, I can't see!" and have Larry say the simple "Why can't you see?", while Besser gets to quip "I got my eyes closed", is just wrong on all levels.

The two brave soldiers who stuck it out for all those years, Howard and Fine, have so little to do in this short. There are hardly any funny bits with them. The only thing that qualifies is Larry hiding under the bed of a jealous husband, attempting to be "Pepe", his dog.

One can't blame the dynamic duo. Larry and Moe give it their all. No matter how ridiculous things could get (and I'm sure they had their opinions by this point in their careers) Howard and Fine never gave anything less than their best. Their efforts do not pale from 1934-1959.

I often enjoy many shorts that some will dismiss as horrible. I'm all for their more "experimental", unusual shorts. At least those contain new ideas. However, this short, I think everyone can agree, is just not good.

Thank goodness TV later discovered the boys after the shorts department closed. Had they been forced to go out in THIS fashion, well that would have been a gross injustice to all the years they invested in making audiences laugh.


How pointless, hideous characters and boring film. Saved by brief sex scenes, mad witch, gorgeous desert island and Brooks body. The plot is tenuous, the characters are shallow and unlikeable. Having said that I did manage to watch it all, mainly because I was totally transfixed by the jiggling and kind of hoping that her character would come good in the end. The film was well shot, well directed but perhaps the casting let it down in some ways. Disappointing. Really summed the review up in the first line but this website dictates that you need to write 10 lines minimum. It would be better to spend the time watching another film.


A holiday on a boat, a married couple, an angry waiter and a shipwreck is the reason to this films beginning.

I like boobs. No question about that. But when the main character allies with whoever happens to have the most fish at the moment, mostly by having sex with them and playing the role of the constant victim, my anger just rises to a whole new level. Take two guys (a husband and another man), put a pure bombshell woman in the middle of them, ad a deserted island, subtract all her moral issues, ad a whole bunch of moral issues to the men and mix it in a big bowl of arguments, fish and a zippo lighter and you will come up with a piece of junk movie like this.

The acting is, I would say, good. There are some bloopers but not many as far as i could see. The main female character makes me sick. This is due to her lack of moral values. The man with the most fish get's her attention. Even though one of them is her husband, she sees no problem with being unfaithful with (Manuel) the other man because "I must do it to survive". How can you justify having sex with another man for fish when your husband is 30feet away? And he won't even benefit from it? The female character has absolutely no problems to justify anything that she does. If she doesen't get approval for her actions, she's a victim.

I recommend everyone to see this movie. This is the kind of movie that will make just about everything else you see this year a pleasant movie experience.


I can only assume the previous posts came from execs at the production company...

Attended the UK premiere last night. Zane and Brook attended (they probably knew I was gonna be there) and are undoubtedly stars, but what a turkey of a film. I felt sorry for them at times, when the audience erupted in laughter at what were serious 'thriller' scenes.

But perhaps I was missing the point. Perhaps an element of tongue-in-cheek was intended. If so, pure genius. If not, career genocide.

On the plus side, Zane always shines, and Brook can actually act a little. As the other half said (as we ran out the cinema, avec broken ribs), they can be forgiven for this film as they both seem like nice people! The scriptwriter, however, should be marooned.


Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.

Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.

First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...

They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...

Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.

Terrible, skip this one please.


did anyone notice?when miss brook went skinny dipping,she left the water wearing white bikini bottoms and yet had previously taken it all off to join cabin boy.this could have been a good film without miss brooks phony accent and a year on the island please.how come that Kelly looked always clean and ready for a FM photo shoot.what started out with premise turned in to soft porn.and billy Zane come on,you cant be that hard up for film offers.check out dead calm.also when the people took her away ,how come she scoffed her face and after all that time didn't feel like throwing up.i suggest billy find decent scripts,Kelly stick to photo shoots and cabin boy play the son of Zorro in a future sequel.


If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the "villain" not be more sympathetic than the "victim". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???


It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married.


What the heck is this about? Kelly (jennifer) seems to drop all moral behavior as soon as she arrives to the island. She finds this Juan P (Manuel) existing and exotic, though she witnessed when he slapped his ex in the face, which he also justify later on in the movie, right or wrong? These two guys are the first to find each other on the island. Kelly are totally lost in every sense and the great Juan P can fish and built a somewhat house. Mr handyman. They seem to have a great time. Then Billy Zane (Jack, Kellys characters husband) shows up and of course, two days without knowing what his wife has been doing whit this gorgeous Juan P, he is a little bit jealous. Billy Z is the stereotype rich guy and maybe not the nicest man in the world. He dislikes Juan P (for hitting his girlfriend at the pier, who can blame him? Hes also is arrogant, but he paid loads of money to rent that boat and Juan P who is the waiter/everything cant even fetch him a beer whit in 20 min. Wouldn't you be upset? Yet Billy is probably the guy you want to punch in the face if you meet him. But at the same time, he is, not to be blamed for, suspicious about the scuba goggles Manuel has. Kelly and Billy just lost some dear friends! How convenient he just happens to have them, no matter what!). However, for some strange reason Kelly likes this girl hitting Manuel and starts to hate Billy for being jealous. OK, Billy is overreacting, thats for sure, but Kelly isn't doing much to convince him either. She spends more time with Juan P and even wants him to sleep with them since hes been so nice (and even though Manuel yelled at her and calling her things for asking him some intimate questions. But Kelly is SO forgiving...). Yeah right. And then she starts to have sex with this Juan P. It should be said that Kelly and Billy seems to have a working relationship before this island incident, at least, they have intimate sex on the boat and talks like people do when they like each other. Now, you can think that this scenario is possible. But for real, is it? Are you cheating your husband after two days on a coconut island just because hes jealous and acts like a drunk in the bar? (i wouldn't disagree if there relationship was really bad but the director doesn't give much hints if thats the case). For Christ sake, Juan P hasn't really shown himself being a good person. Catching some fish and built a wood house to get into someones panties, is that showing a good side? Not trying to befriend Kellys husband in anyway (which would be very simple by letting them be alone most of the island-time, simply be respect) He doesn't care about their relationship (and Kelly cant figure that one out), he just want to have sex with Kelly. Kellys character is just not trustworthy (if she was stranded with Billy and another attractive girl, wouldn't she be upset or what?!). Or maybe she is? Billy Zane plays a not very nice person, and Juan P isn't actually much better if you really think about it. And poor Kelly is so confused, and believes having sex with Juan P will solve everything because her husband is so strange and so aggressive towards poor Juan P? So... for all of you who reads this... What do you think about it? If you where the Kelly character, would you consider cheating on your husband, knowing one day you'll be back in real life, and all of a sudden Billys maybe not that horrible person after all. Hes just too jealous. And if you where Billys character, what do you say, is he totally wrong in his behavior? And Juan P character what do you guys really think of him. One thing is for sure. Manuels exist! Ps... The voodoo thing is so totally wrong here! What the heck was that about?! Seriously! Anyone tell me?


Thankfully I watched this film alone, enabling me to fast-forward through the worst scenes (aka most of the film, actually). OK, some of it is not all bad, with partially good photography (even some of the under water scenes) and at times not too bad directing. But it still doesn't save the incredibly poor script and way worse acting. Additionally, when I don't find the movies "hottie" to be all that, even the wannabe-sexy love making scenes get dull. Really dull! And for the drama: You know it's always a bad sign when you get to dislike all of the characters so much you really don't care who lives and who dies.

If you still haven't gotten tired of the reality series Survivor, you may find something to your liking in this movie. If not, stay well clear!


"Three" is a seriously dumb shipwreck movie. Masquerading as a psychological thriller, it's closest relative is the monumentally superior "Dead Calm" (also featuring Billy Zane). "Dead Calm" provided well drawn characters to root for in the form of Sam Neil and Nicole Kidman's grieving parents attempting to re-define their relationship on an ocean cruise. They end up being terrorised by Zane's adrift psycho-killer. It provided sharp, increasingly ratcheted suspense, a scary feeling of claustrophobia in open seas as the cat and mouse game of life and death unfolded.

"Three" suffers from poorly drawn characterisation (the audience doesn't care what happens to any of them), a stupid and unnecessary voodoo plot device, a total lack of suspense or excitement and some thudding, hammy performances from the principal players. Zane in particular goes way over the top in an irritatingly mannered fashion. In "Dead Calm" he was menacing, wired and seething with barely controlled sexual violence. Here he is bombastic, petulant slimy, and unravelled. And where does he get his seemingly inexhaustible supply of dry cigarettes and cigars? And how come his lighter stays full of juice for over a year? Ms Brook is very picturesque, stunningly pretty, but both her chest and rear appear to have been wildly over-inflated by some sort of life-raft pump. They do, however, succeed in acting with more skill and conviction than the rest of her. Dramatic actress, in the purest sense of the term, she is not. The guy playing the voodoo-hexed Manuel, the third component of this sorry triangle, could have been replaced by a lump of driftwood - no one would notice. In fact, judging by his complete lack of ability to deliver dialogue in any meaningful or dynamic way, driftwood represents a potential improvement in the casting stakes (excuse pun).

Plus sides: the scenery is nice and the cinematography (above and below the water) is credible.

I'm guessing this had a very limited (if any) theatrical release or went straight to rental and retail DVD. The reason for this is it's not very good. If you want something decent along these lines, get "Dead Calm." It was made by people who knew a bit about cinema.


First off, I just watched a movie on SHOWTIME called Survival Island. It says it was a 2006 movie with Billy Zane and since I like him and couldn't sleep I thought I would check it out. Looked interesting. Watched it, and decided to look up on the IMDb who was this new face Juan Pablo Di Pace and OMG I could not believe it, this movie has been renamed THREE and will be a new movie?? It is playing again in 1 hr and 30 mins on Showtime Channel again and this date is May 28 and EDT or Florida time. You can check your showtime listings by title and see it. I wont get into details so you can see the movie but at one point there is a lady in a white bikini that goes into the water taking it all off, you see her naked body.... when she runs back out of the water you see her bottoms on. Funny, there are a lot of other mess ups too. I can't believe by coincidence I decided to look up this movie... Go figure! Wonder if the people renaming it sold it to some movie studio to put out but it is already playing on Showtime, ha ha. Good laugh. I give it 1-1/2 stars. C-, D+ movie.


How much do I love this film?! Now I'm not a fan of bad films, but I do love a film that is so bad it's good. This is one of those. Juan Pablo Di Pace has a great butt, looks fab on screen, and definitely doesn't make a bad turn at his acting debut (I believe). Billy Zane is suitably mean and moody, though I still constantly feel that there is something more in him. I felt it in Titanic, the look on his face when La Winslet spat on him for example, totally broken, shocked, and put-down ... fierce! Kelly Brook is a pretty face ... no seriously, I think that's it! It's worth catching this to see one really hot guy, some big bra fillers from Brook, nasty growling from Billy, laugh at the dialogue, revel in the scenery and madness of the whole affair ... I'm gona go watch it again now - yes, I bought it!!!


By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). "Three" AKA "Survivor Island" keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.

In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals.


this is the worst film I've seen in a long long time, never mind the fact that so many useful things keep appearing on this island "how convenient!!!!", the acting is beyond poor from the outset, its like one of those really badly scripted soft porn films on channel 5, a complete waste of time, and i cant remember the lead actors name but i cant believe he still gets work!!! I've never seen him act "I've seen him in lots of films... But I've never seen him act. here are a few of the blaringly obvious errors, apparently petrol lighters still work even when they've been soaked in sea water!!! also according to this film you can walk into the sea naked but come out wearing bikini bottoms (I'm guessing the camera man and editor were students)there are plenty more errors but I'm ranting now, besides its no so much the errors as the cast the script and the whole film avoid at all costs


It's a shame that quality actors like Baldwin and Booth have to succumb to lousy stories and scripts just for the money. But, hey, it's a cruel world...

This is just another one of a long line of assassin thrillers that use all the usual narrative twists to try to make it appear more appealing than it is. Sure, it has some nice locations, it's a slick production, there is some good camera work and editing, and it's fairly well paced, overall.

So, what's the real problem? Quite simply, the whole premise is just totally unbelievable. However, instead of spoiling a rotten story for you, I'll let you find out what it's all about, that is, if you can get through it. I managed, but only because I like Baldwin and I kept hoping that it would get better.

It didn't. And, it had one of the most anti-climactic endings that I've seen for a long time. In fact, maybe never...

But, it's harmless fun, I guess, if you've got nothing better to do.


Second Nature will not go down as one of the worst tv movies of 2003, but perhaps the worst of All Time. Formulaic, derivative, and every performance phoned in, from far, far away. Everyone associated with this project should have a hard time looking in the mirror.


The movie was awful. The production company should be required to pay a fine for wasting electricity transmitting this nonsense.

There were too many holes in the plot. Why would the DOJ send a killer out to assassinate a world leader? If they weren't the DOJ, why would they send someone they thought would not do the job? To quote Butch Cassidy, "Who are those guys?" Apparently, the director does not know either because he never told us.

The characters were unbelievable. They did not behave in any way that seemed to fit who they allegedly were. With the exception of the doctor, none of the characters were particularly compelling or likeable.

If you want to waste money on the electricity required to watch this movie, feel free. Otherwise, run the opposite direction.


As usual, leader Leo Gorcey (as Slip Mahoney) and "The Bowery Boys" are hard-pressed for cash. After unsuccessfully trying to sell their old jalopy, the lads look for help at the local bank. There, hapless Huntz Hall (as Sach) has his picture taken by pretty photographer Teala Loring (as Cathy Smith). But, since the shot was snapped during a robbery, it makes Mr. Hall look like the prime suspect. With pals Bobby Jordan (as Bobby), William "Billy" Benedict (as Whitey), and David Gorcey (as Chuck); Mr. Gorcey wants to clear Hall, and collect the $1,000 reward money. "Bowery Bombshell" goes through the motions, with Ms. Loring a main strength.

**** Bowery Bombshell (7/20/46) Phil Karlson ~ Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Teala Loring, Bobby Jordan


I'm always interested to see neglected movies that appear to have good credentials, but in this case the film's neglect appears justified. Evidently based on some actual incidents during WWII, the film just doesn't connect with the viewer for some reason that it is not quite clear to me. One very likely reason is that - in the print I saw on TCM, anyway - none of the scenes where the Germans talked among themselves were given titles. This interesting directorial concept - to let the non-German speaking viewer just guess from "context" what the Germans are saying to each other - is, in my book, an utter flop and helps to lock the viewer out. Also, the way the movie begins - just dropping us into a very confused situation without much setup - is disorienting. Brian Keith is pretty good here, but the reputations of "The Great Escape" and "Stalag 17" will not be challenged by this flick.


Great piece of fiction played as if factual. Tonight I was looking at the Birdman of Alcatraz. Robert Stoud was not a model meek prisoner and he was in jail because he was pimping and a customer did not pay up. Once he got into jail he was so uncontrollable he spent most of his time in solitary confinement or in the prison hospital. Killed a few people in prison too. This movie reminds me of the Birdman of Alcatraz but even worse. Robert Stroud did write books and he did contribute to society in someway. And the BOA had some hints of Strouds lunacy. BUT this guy Henry Young who Murder in the First is suppose to be about was a a known bank robber who took hostages and beat them up in more then one robbery. He wasn't some poor guy who stumbled into a grocery store which just happened to be a post office and took some money. This man was a hard core criminal. He also killed a person 3 years before he went to Alcatraz. He killed another person in jail not because of the solitary confinement which ended over a year before the murder. The real story of his life would of been more interesting. They did not even get the warden thing right. You can't be a warden in 3 different prisons at the same time. And by all accounts the warden in the movie was a pretty stand up guy as wardens go. Plus if my math is right the Warden played by Karl Malden in the BOA is suppose to be the same warden in this movie. Oh Boy. Not only that, in this movie we are to think poor Henry committed suicide. And he wrote the word Victory. Not true..he might be alive right now. He was sent to Springfield where Robert Stroud was also a medical center prison then Walla Walla for another murder he committed and then was released and jumped parole in 1972, never to be found. Maybe he is hanging out with that CB Cooper guy who jumped out that airplane in Washington state after committing a bank robbery lol. Now the acting was very good. Kevin Bacon is in that class of actors which include Jeff Bridges and Dennis Quaid, the vastly underrated actors club. Gary oldman well they just might of made-up the warden part so he could play it because he was great. Christian Slater still somehow sounds like Jack Nicholson, I am not sure if that is a good thing or not. Bacons wife Kyra Sedgwick was in the movie I think just because she is his wife. I like her though but not in this flick. For some reason I felt this movie when it first came out was suppose to be a special project for Kevin Bacon. I feel he could of taken a person who is truly a victim of the penal system, there sure is enough of them and spread some light on their plight. Other then picking a psychopath to show as a victim.


Let me begin with a personal note as a film and television buff, more on the enjoyment side of life: I love what James Woods can do and has done, and I always love Melanie Griffith, and Natasha Wagner was very good in this awful, miserable, stinking "true crime" essay.

Whoever really wrote this film apparently never spent any time talking to real criminals with real criminal talents: yes, some thieves are junkies but they have very short careers as thieves. Truly successful thieves are seldom caught because they don't do "junk" or any drugs before going on a score ( job ).

The James Woods character was true to this paradigm in the beginning of this film, and then the script fell apart completely. He turns into a raging, alcoholic lunatic .... nice work for a high-strung guy like Woods, maybe, but not in the least bit believable.

Most criminals are lazy. If they wanted to work they would work.

These people in this film are beautiful, self-indulgent, drug-addled narcissistic losers. They couldn't pull off a real score in the real world, the real world where a big and beefy security guard who beats the living hell out of a skinny kid ( as happens in the early scenes of this "DOG" ), keeps him beat down and doesn't let him up. Ever.

How many ways did I find to hate this film ? Many. Even totally vulgar people -- like most sneak thieves and junkies -- have a larger vocabulary than these cretins. And the 'rip-off' scenes with the neo-Nazi bikers ? Puhlease. All rednecks ain't neo-Nazis and those who are neo-Nazi speed dealers just ain't that dumb !!

This film earned a two because Natasha Wagner was extremely good in her role as Rose and because Melanie Griffith still has 'that something special,' or at least she had it for this brutal and offensively stupid film. I'm not one to sing praises of real criminals for any reason, but the reality of these criminal types in this horrible film is that they'd all be dead or in jail by Act 2, Scene 1. Watching a lousy Zombie movie would be time better spent than this .... thing ... and I hate zombies.


I find myself alarmed that people are not so critical of a work that deserves criticism. The many similarities, both structurally and literally, with 'Amadeus' aside the 'Copying Beethoven' deliberately chooses the easy path by putting audience before art. And therefore denying the world a discerning, intelligent and creative work.

Now consider the following: Is it not possible that the real story of the creation of the ninth symphony may actually be an engaging and powerful story itself and equally so in a dramatic telling? Beethoven was completely deaf by the writing of the symphony  isn't that more interesting? How WAS the symphony conducted? Wouldn't it be great to know? So ask yourself, what possible motivation could a filmmaker have for introducing a woman as the copyist? If there was a copyist, he would certainly be a man. What was his story? (please try to be a little critical here even if you like the invention of a woman composer).

Fantasy should be much MORE than a distortion of reality to serve a writers purpose. For those who find themselves comparing and justifying the invention of Anna Holtz with the invention of Salieri's claim to have murdered Mozart in 'Amadeus', consider that he confessing to a priest in a lunatic asylum (Schaffer uses this device to great affect in the film). 'Copying Beethoven' may have worked if Anna was a figment of Ludwig's fevered imagination. But we are meant to believe she is 'possible'... Yes and that Strauss was assisted by aliens.

Most of the positive reviews I've read here so far are often expressions of a DESIRE for the film to be good; almost a deliberate amnesia. Remembering the film for what you wish it to be rather than what it is.

For those who believe that fantasy justifies the means then consider you are not only accepting an inferior interpretation of real events but also sacrificing the truth for the sake of a triviality.

Finally, a short note on the acting here that may surprise some of you. Ed Harris is NOT good as Ludwig Van Beethoven. Does that shock you? He looks awkward throughout the film, much like an actor dressed up, but off set and standing at the catering table. Most of his lines are said as cues rather than replies to Anna Holtz's lines (i.e. he is not listening to the actor). He is quite clearly an actor masquerading as the character rather than BEING the character.

Really, how many times does Beethoven have to roll in his grave before we get it right? Just ask yourself, would Ludwig approve?


I made a big mistake going to see this film. That's the lottery of going to see films I guess. After five minutes you just knew it was going to be a clunker, and I fought quite hard to stay in my seat - the old "lose two hours of your life" kind of feeling.

The fundamental problem is that, without even mentioning the whole "historical accuracy" thread of reviews, the script is achingly, painful, bad.

The first thirty minutes could have been spread out to an hour to give a plausible, real, plot development. Instead, it lurched from from one undramatic "dramatic" event to the next. Having the girl cry at the start of the film makes no sense because the audience has no emotional attachment to anything at this point. And that whole walking off into the sunset through the long-grass field at the end, what the hell was that about?

Not even the excellent Ed Harris could save this one. You could almost feel his pain at some of the lines he had to utter. The most fabulously awful one was, for no apparent reason, he stares at the girl as she copies his work in his apartment, she looks up, it all goes a bit fuzzy romantic kind-a lighting (or am I dreaming), and he says, with authority in his voice,

"WASH ME."

And she gets up and washes him, with a sponge. "Wash me" WTF? That's hilarious.

And then there was the music. The long extended session when it was just Beethoven conducting and the 9th Symphony pouring out of the surround sound in the cinema and the choir waiting, waiting, standing there silently for what seems like forever. And then, finally, launching into enormous sound. It was spine-chillingly wonderful and dare I say it, it brought tears to my eyes.

So that is where the film picked up two stars. The only part of the film where Beethoven got to say exactly what he wanted to say.

And I believed him.


About your terrible movie copying Beethoven. As a professional musician it's my duty to watch every movie made about any composer and Beethoven is one of my favorites. When Hungarians and Americans meet, it's a terrible combination of empty over the top emotions combined with the worst taste possible. You proved it in your terrible b-movie. The only thing that carries the movie is the music. Of course you didn't bother to look further than the good but in my taste contrived performances of the Tackacs quartet, but OK I have to admit that the performances at least have quality as contrast to the movie you've made. It starts of with the dying DEAF Beethoven who perfectly understands Anna who is merely whispering. Beethoven's hearing during the movie get's better by the minute, but that must be because of some vague divine thing. Then there is the quite impossible semi-pornographic "eyes wide shut" double-conducting scene which is totally over the top with the luscious Anna and the crying nephew in the end (who also cries in the deleted scenes with constant red eyes, my GOD what a performance). And as culmination the rip-off from Amadeus, with Beethoven dictating music to Anna not in notes but in total nonsense, which she understands perfectly but no-one else in your audience even trained professional musicians will understand. Of course your reaction will be that negative response is a response at least, but I can assure you that Beethoven himself is turning in his grave because of your worthless creation and with reason. This so called homage is blasphemy and I am so sorry to have rented one of the worst movies ever made even though it's about my favorite subject. Ed Harris and others, you cannot comprehend the greatness of Beethoven in your wildest dreams and certainly not after a couple of lessons in conducting and violin playing. That's the trouble with you Americans: you think you can grasp everything even when it takes a lifetime of hard work. Yeah we can do it anyway! Remember that a good product comes with hard labor, talent, devotion and professionalism. All these you creators of Copying Beethoven lack. See you in kindergarten.


This film is the proof that a good actor is nothing without a good direction. Ed Harris is awful. How could you cast an actor built like Rambo to play the "Maestro"? He shows no credibility at all and overplays Beethoven. Most of all, long hairs doesn't look good at all on his head. The main actress is missing all the subtleties needed for its character. The camera shots are cheesy and too conventional. The lights are to close of the characters feelings. Bad casting and cheap direction. Too bad! The only scene that worth the movie is when Beeth (I hope you don't care that I call him trough his nickname?) is turning the girl's song to a joke. Any way, I hope that Harris could find his way back to true movie where he can really shows his hairless talent.


Yes, I realize that half a dozen other reviewers have called this movie "Copying Amadeus", but it cannot be said enough. Scenes seemed to have been lifted directly from Milos Forman's script with only superficial changes. You can expect to see:

-The maestro's arrogant scene ("I am the voice of god. Everything else is meaningless!")

-The maestro making fun of the mediocre composer's work (complete with raspberries & simulated flatulence, just like in Amadeus)

-The mediocre composer's dialogue with god ("Why do you instill me with music but deny me the ability to compose?")

-The musical dictation from the deathbed scene ("Common time. Begin with the violins... cough cough")

-and the list goes on...

The problem is even worse. Not only were these scenes shamelessly copied, they weren't even done very well. Jeepers, if you're going to rip off an original, at least you should try to improve upon it in your own creative way.

No wait, there's something even worse than that. It's the fact that the director tried to beat the story of Mozart into the story of Beethoven. Folks, Beethoven was not a crass, vulgar slob the way this movie portrays him. Furthermore, Beethoven was not a babbling idiot who takes pointers from his copyist, a 23 year old music student. Unfortunately, films like this are responsible for butchering history.

And another thing, Beethoven (in real life) never called it the "Moonlight Sonata" the way he does in the movie. That name was given by a confused critic some years AFTER BEETHOVEN DIED, and unfortunately it stuck. But Beethoven's original title was "Quasi una Fantasia".

AND ANOTHER THING, when Beethoven (in the movie) yells "B-flat! B-flat! B-flat!" and hits the note on the piano, he's hitting a white key!

AND ANOTHER THINGGG!!! Beethoven (in real life) was completely deaf for several years before the composition of his 9th Symphony. This movie shows him as having barely a minor disability (saying "what?" every other line, just enough to be annoying).

AAAND!! ANNNOTHER!!! THINGGGG...!! The American accents...! Oh never mind. Just... never mind. I've wasted enough time on this already. Go see "Amadeus" again. Then, if you want to see an interesting biopic on the life of Beethoven see "Immortal Beloved" which takes poetic liberties, but at least they're interesting ideas. Lastly, if you want to see something on the lighter side, check out "Impromptu", a film about Chopin. But aside from those three, I've never seen a good homage to a classical composer.


I expected so much more than what I received from watching this movie. It is not that I object to literary license, (if that is what it should be called) especially when there is no overt attempt to say "based on a true story." But this movie is about Beethoven -- a real historical person who is so widely known and so deeply embedded into our musical experiences and I expected the movie to be true to history at least in the primary elements. This movie took such great exception from the historic record it could only disappoint.

My assumption (because I had not researched the movie at all) was that it was true. Half way through, I stopped the movie to look it up on IMDb. The rest of the movie was a remarkably different experience. I was relieved that this was not accurate with history because it was so hard to believe a major portion of the story. To enjoy this movie, I was required to recognize it as a fantasy, a "what if it was like this" story. The movie lacked this honest disclaimer.

What disappointed me most was the fictionalized conducting of the 9th symphony. The very concept portrayed in the film stretched my imagination to the point of incredulity. I ended up doubting anything was true to history other than Ludwig van Beethoven and his relationship with Karl van Beethoven.

I really enjoyed the performance of Ed Harris - an exceptional actor who knows how to play a role and keep himself out of it and that was about it and for that I give it a 3/10.

Those who portend that this movie is as good as or better than Amadeus have not a clue about either either composers life and are looking only for what this movie really is, for in the end it was a cheap novel of a story - pulp fiction.


Awful!

Despite the good performance of Ed Harris, Diane Kruger, and the strong budget (the reason for the 3 stars), the movie is by far the worst I saw about a composer, and the worst edition of a masterpiece of music. I agree with some fictional stuff to upgrade a biography, that otherwise couldn't be so "charming". This was done in AMADEUS with best results, but this B copy here is a flaw. Beethoven had a strong personality, but was a sensible artist. Here in this movie however, he looks much more as Mike Tyson! I wonder also, whether despite his deafness, he heard all the whisperings in the last scenes (may be a cochlear implant?). I prefer to listen to the ninth on a CD with some nice maestro. Today most of them conduct modern Wagnerian orchestras. By the way: I gave Amadeus 10/10!


Trite and unoriginal. It's like someone watched Immortal Beloved and Amadeus and decided to mix them together and, in the process, steal other formulaic plot parts from other movies to make another one. As with most historical movies nowadays, there are some inaccuracies as history is manipulated to better suit the story, which is understandable for the most part. For example, during the remaining days of Beethoven's life, it was necessary for other people to write down what they needed to say in order for him to understand them. That, of course, would have been a nuisance to have to show on screen. The script, although filled with some quotable lines, doesn't quite capture the feel of that time period and, coupled with some bad acting, seems rather contemporary. Diane Kruger is nice enough to look at but she still has lots to improve on her craft. Ed Harris doesn't work for me as Beethoven and I mostly blame Gary Oldman for that. Overall, not a very good interpretation of the musical maestro's life. Better just find yourself a copy of Immortal Beloved.

http://iwascalledclementine.multiply.com/reviews


I am a music lover and was excited to see this movie. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. I was ready to walk out half way through the movie. I didn't identify with any of the characters, which meant that I didn't care what happened to them and lost interest in the story completely. On the good side, Ed Harris looked exactly like Beethoven, and the 9th Symphony is always a pleasure to hear, so that made part of the film bearable. Also the parts where they talk about the bridge almost redeemed the entire movie, but it couldn't sustain me through to the end. The actors did what they could with what they had to work with, but the screenplay just wasn't adequate to make it even remotely interesting. The bit about "wash me" was utter rubbish. I wonder how many takes the actors had to do on that one (I wouldn't be able to say those lines without bursting into laughter.) Anyway, such a shame, it could have been so much better.


For a movie I was really looking forward to, I was very disappointed. I had no expectations of this being another Amadeus, but did expect a more significant portrayal of Beethovens last years.

The performance by Ed Harris was superb, but the story line was so weak that the film simply moved from one dreary scene to the next with no continuity.

The only enjoyable part of the film for me was the performance of the 9th, and from that point on I could quite happily have walked out without finishing.

I left feeling very dissatisfied and still have the feeling that something important was missed.


From Kreestos:

The dialog is terrible, awful, drivel. Acting poor. Many plot flaws. I don't recommend this at all.

From Wikipedia:

Artistic licenses The working manuscript of the score is attributed to two copyists [1], both of whom were male, not female as depicted in the film.

The copyists neither contributed to nor altered the score. In fact, they were berated by Beethoven for any deviation that occurred from the original score.

The movie is set in 1824 during the composition of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Throughout the movie Beethoven is shown to be hard of hearing but quite capable of understanding people who speak loudly. In reality, Beethoven had lost much of his hearing seven years earlier (1817). Beethoven never experienced permanent deafness; his condition fluctuated between total silence and terrible tinnitus. The Ninth Symphony was composed at a time when Beethoven's hearing had deteriorated severely. At this point in his life, most of Beethoven's conversations were facilitated by the use of notebooks. It can be argued, however, that he was also able to read people's lips, evidenced by his insistence that people face him when they spoke to him.

In the film, Beethoven makes an allusion to the Moonlight Sonata. This is an anachronism as the Sonata No. 14 "quasi una fantasia" was not named "Moonlight" until several years after his death.


Am I the only person who saw and remembers Amadeus. Every scene in "Copying" has its counterpart in the Milos Forman, Amadeus - from the galloping carriages accompanied by frenzied strings, to the entrance of Anna through the dark hallway preceded by the man with the key, to the very dialog of the conclusion with Anna at Beethoven's feet a la Salieri before the dying Mozart. Does no one else recall the dialog in that script:

Salieri "Time?" , Mozart "Common time". ....."We begin with the strings..." and so it "copies".

Remember Cynthia Nixon leaning against a door jamb, tears falling down her freckled face - same scene, just replace her with Beethoven's nephew. Even the scatological humor (fart jokes) are the same. We even have a cardinal followed around by a plate of sweet cookies which recalls Salieri in the banquet hall. Does no one else remember? !!!!

And the scene where Anna cries to God "Why did you give me this gift?"... Salieri said the same thing!

And beyond all that we have a juvenile script with an opening exposition that reads like the character identifications you'd find in a children's story. "I am Mr. Beethoven. I am the composer...."

And what, after all, is the purpose of the bridge builder? Other than to juxtapose the technical against the artistic... a comparison that is not at all developed - probably because it has no meaning, especially when it comes to Beethove who was a master of the technical.

There's only one great scene - the playing of the ninth. First, the music, which of itself takes you to tears. But then, there is the highly erotic interaction of Anna the copyist keeping time and Beethoven conducting which surpasses the most explicit sexual intimacy. So intense, it's almost embarrassing.

But, please - the rest of the film - Where is the world's collective memory? You have seen this all before .... and better!


According to "Lucien Rebatet" in his "Histoire de la Musique" (Robert Lafont, BOUQUINS 1973 page 338) Beethoven's character was not very compatible with women. He had quite a number of "Platonic Passions" with female members of the "Vienese Aristocracy" to whom he dedicated some "sonatas". But Musicians , even composers did not qualify for Husbands of "Fine Ladies". Haydn was a "servant" of Prinz Von Esterhazy, Mozart died from drink or Poison and Bethoven was according to Rebatet a frequent customer of "street prostitutes" in Vienna. A British biographer, Newman says that Beethoven contracted syphilis, before he was 40. That he became deaf because of that, is possible, but not certain.

The Ninth Symphony was premiered on May 7, 1824 in the Kärntnertortheater in Vienna, along with the Consecration of the House Overture and the first three parts of the Missa Solemnis. This was the composer's first on-stage appearance in twelve years; the hall was packed. Although the performance was directed by Michael Umlauf the theater's Kapellmeister, Beethoven shared the stage with him quiet.

So what remains of this "Female Fantasy". Ed Harris interpretation and characterization are quite good, but too linear, based on the Painting by Ferninand Waldmüller date 1823. I have it in front of me. It shows a man that despises (perhaps hates) the World. With good reason.


The original Body and Soul (1947) is a masterpiece. John Garfield, Ann revere, Lilli Plmer, William Conrad, Canada Lee...and filmed by one of the greatest cinematographers to ever grace the screen..James Wong Howe. This remake is abominable. In spite of the presence of Rod Steiger, Joe Mantegna and Jennifer Beals there is nothing of value here and it is a shame this product bears the same title as the brilliant original. Only the main character's name, Charlie Davis, is the same in both films. I don't think there are any redeeming qualities in this remake. I am amazed that Rod Steiger participated. This may be the only bad film he ever made. Maybe he needed the paycheck.


After the suicide of his father, Charlie 'Kid' Davis (Ray `Boom Boom' Mancini) accepts the invitation and advice of his friend Tiny (Michael Chiklis) and travels to Las Vegas with him trying to become a boxer. On the road, they meet Gina (Jennifer Beals) hitchhiking, they give a lift to her and she becomes Charlie's girlfriend. Johnny Ticotin (Rod Steiger) is convinced by Tiny to be Charlie's couch, and the powerful agent Alex Dumas (Joe Mantegna), after watching him fighting, becomes his manager, promoting Charlie's career. This movie is so boring that it indeed does not deserve to spend much time writing about it. I do not like boxing, but sometimes I watch some worthwhile movie about this theme. But this one is horrible! Predictable, full of clichés, having an awful lead actor, a pure waste of time. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): `Corpo e Alma' (`Body and Soul')


My only question is: Why did they make this movie? Did they have a script or did they make it up as they went along? Boom Boom doesn't look like a Charley Davis. John Garfield probably turned over in his grave if he saw this.


My guess would be this was originally going to be at least two parts, and thus at least a quarter longer, because otherwise how can one explain its confused, abbreviated storyline. I was never completely lost, but I was often partially lost and usually unclear on character motivation. The movie feels as though joining plot points were dropped to squeeze it into its time slot.

If it were longer, it might make more sense, but it still wouldn't be much good. The movie's most interesting idea is of the war between Zeus and Hera as being a war between the male and female, but the movie drops the ball on this, making Hera's followers fairly horrible while not being clear on what Zeus' followers do or believe. The movie is also interesting because you don't see the gods and there's no real certainty that they exist. So it's got a couple of intriguing ideas, but it doesn't do anything useful with them.

Bad dialog, cardboard characters, and one interesting scene involving Hercules and his three antagonistic sons. Not unwatchable but also not worth watching.


I thought there might be some level of worth to this movie, and sat through the whole thing. I can summarize by saying it left a bad taste in my mouth.

The movie started out OK, I think the initial characterization of Herc was true to the myths. Both as a child and a young adult he started out pretty strong but not the brightest bulb. But later on he somehow transforms into a charismatic speaker beloved by all. Huh?

Other problem: terrible CGI. The satyr looked OK, but the rest of the critters just looked terrible, especially the hart, the phoniest looking beast in the movie. And how come Leelee Sobieski's skin was sometimes golden, sometimes normal? The worst part for me--and everyone should cringe at this--was the twelve labors of Hercules. Because the producers obviously didn't want to cover all of them; maybe they thought us primitive screw-heads watching this garbage couldn't count that high. Instead of the TWELVE labors of Hercules, we got the FIVE labors of Hercules. Yes, the five labors! WTF?!? He did't even finish the last one, so it was really the 4 1/2 labors! Just terrible. I'll take Hercules: The Legendary Journeys over this piece of crap any day of the week.


Eh. I watch this movie in class because someone taped it and brought it in. I was expecting some half hearted attempt to portray the Herakles myths, and because the commercials for it looked serious, I was expecting something that was halfway decent.

Ten minutes into the film, I realized that it was utter CRAP. The only things in the film that are halfway true to the myth are the bare(and I mean bare) minimum. Parents, half brother, and labors seemed to be named correctly. Other than that, the rest of the film seemed to be one giant inaccuracy.

I would say that this was not much better than the Disney version of the film. The Disney version was made for little kids, therefore wasn't too serious. This movie, with all the sex, violence, and nudity, was clearly intended for an older audience, yet the story presented in this was nearly inaccurate as the Disney film.


I don't know how expensive was the creation of this movie but the effects were awful. Half of the movie was filmed on stage in front of a movie canvas (that's sure that blue box wouldn't look so artificial). When they traveled on a boat, the background canvas was moved imitating the movement of waves but the characters weren't moving. The CGI effects: terrible (I am not sure but I guess the effect were created with Paint and made a GIF sequence of them - next time the creators should hire a professional CGI maker team). It looks like the CGI creator would have drawn on the picture strip with shaky hands. Awful, that's sure. When I first saw the trailer, I thought it was created in 1983. One of my friend told me the correct date: 2005. My jaw dropped, I was so shocked, I thought he was kidding. People, I recommend you to skip this movie, the story is also twisted, you won't enjoy it.


This is easily the worst adaptation of Greek mythology I've ever seen. It utterly fails as an adaptation of the original myth, inventing silly plot twists and reducing the 12 labours to... 3 or 4, I think. It makes up utterly needless things to try to integrate other myths in clumsy ways which bring into question the writers' having ever read the myths, like changing birds to harpies, lions to sphinxes, the Oracle of Delphi to Tiresias, and bulls to a pedantic version of Proteus, even integrating aspects, never seen outside of Sam Raimi's entertaining series, concerning his first marriage, to a woman with the co-opted name of one of the Furies so it sounds appropriate to the period.

I could accept much of that, but it also fails completely in pure film standards; most painful is the dialogue, leaden, portentous pseudo-Shakespearean tripe. It is a poor re-interpretation of the myths, making a sad attempt at the kind of post-modern revisionism that Crichton's "The 13th Warrior" attempted in regards to the Beowulf legend, while still including the strictly mythological elements such as clear interference from the gods and magical super-strength. A sad, sad failure of an entertainment experience, who I'm sure many of the quality actors involved regret deeply.


I survived the first hour of this and came back for the last ten minutes, just to say I saw the end. If you want *real* mythology, flawlessly executed, look for Armand Assante's "The Odyssey." Great storytelling doesn't need to be tweaked - the stories are fantastic on their own. I only hope Sean Astin needed the money. And Sophocles and Ovid must be whirling in their graves - wherever those may be.

At least with Sorbo's version, the tongue was poked relentlessly in cheek - we knew it was mostly balderdash, but perhaps enough interest was generated in the backstory to send someone to the library.I'm surprised Halmi could turn out something so amusing (the TV series), and follow it with something so devoid of quality.


Paul Telfer, who plays Hercules in this TV film, has to be the hottest thing on two legs EVER. Wow.

But this film is a 100% distortion of the Hercules story. Just like "Troy," this film has nothing to do with the original story. Zero. What makes it especially insulting is that they actually contrived a gay character just so people could hate him, making him as dastardly and evil as any character in the history of TV or cinema. This is triply insulting since Hercules may have had a wife, since that was the expectation of those olden days, but he also had at least a dozen male lovers. So it is ironic that they should create a gay royal adversary character for this film. No, not ironic. Evil. The creators of this travesty should hang their heads in shame.


"Embarassing" is the only word to describe this laughingly awful production. From the blatant disregard of the source material (sure to infuriate anyone remotely familiar with mythology) to the predictably insufficient production value, this entire mini-series is a train wreck.

The cast (which includes some good actors, whom I pity) delivers the illogical dialogue in the same generic "European" accent so common to bad epics. Worse is the lack of originality in almost all other aspects, from costume and set design (blurring together styles from across time and space) to the score (which seems to poorly mimic many recognizable classical tunes as well as "Lord of the Rings"). Most offensive of all are the visual effects, which single- handedly prove that if you can't afford to do them well, WRITE THEM OUT.

It pained me to see yet another legendary tale bastardized by a cheap "adaptation." Maybe one day, someone will do it right.


I hadn't heard anything about this project until I saw that it was going to be on, so I watched it with a completely open mind. And, gee, the cast is full of strong players.

Unfortunately . . . it's awful. I don't mean it isn't good; I mean it's extraordinarily bad -- sometimes laughably so, but mostly it's just boring. Its strongest appeal comes from having attractive people as naked as US network TV will allow, but it's all tease and no substance, and having nymphs as backup characters can't justify several hours of bad TV.

There are two basic problems that the cast can't overcome. First, the script is *awful*. Yes, making changes to the Hercules myth (which is certainly not a single monolithic story in the first place) is traditional, but this version is relentlessly dull and much too frequently dumb (and sometimes downright head-shakingly peculiar), with terrible pacing, bits borrowed from here and there (and several parts seemingly belonging in different films), and truly awful dialogue. The dialogue is frequently unbearably bad, in fact, to the point where you feel embarrassed for the actors. Sean Astin, apparently now typecast as second-banana, seems especially burdened by one awful line after another. There's no consistency of tone or atmosphere and little cohesion to the plot.

Second, most of the special effects are really bad. REALLY bad. There's occasionally a decent bit of CGI, but mostly, again, you feel really embarrassed on behalf of the cast. I have no idea what the budget for this project was, but it sure looks like crap compared to "Clash of the Titans" or even "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and doesn't even compare very favorably with the old Lou Ferrigno and Italian 'spaghetti' Hercules movies. Just painfully miserable.

There are plenty of other problems -- the story is needlessly complex and can't keep up with itself, and Hercules himself isn't presented as a very interesting character. Almost everyone who doesn't have a European accent tries to fake one of some kind, which is not merely amateurish and dated but never really made sense in the first place: drama doesn't become better just because the actors use British accents, after all. But the terrible script and equally terrible effects sink the whole thing right off the bat.

In fairness, "Hercules" was apparently intended as a four-hour miniseries but truncated (for this airing, anyway) to a three-hour TV movie. I don't know what they cut, but it's possible the edits made things worse. I don't think you could make "Hercules" good by adding to it, but that doesn't mean that the continuity, say, hasn't suffered from the network edits. There's no way I'll watch the USA version to see, though.