I must not have seen the same movie as the one the comments refer to here. First, I think they should have serialized Ghost Story if they were going to film it at all. The truncated version they come up with was awful. I felt the performances were mannered and so much was left out of the story that the performances of such masters as Astaire, Douglas, Houseman, and Fairbanks seemed hammy. Alice Krige was superb as Eva, though. Craig Wasson is a good actor but he was only adequate as the protagonist. The decision to cast Patricia Neal and to truncate her role was not a good one. Imagine what Anne Bancroft would have done with that character! I blame the script, which was poor. The production values were dark and the pacing was slow. A disappointing, pedestrian effort.

The book is one of the five greatest suspense/horror novels of the 20th century, IMHO. But the movie was disappointing, although a great introduction for Krige.


All that talent.....but when ya have poor direction, and a WEAK screenplay, it doesnt matter WHO is in a movie. Very tired attempt at telling a tale..which was actually interesting in the beginning, but then QUICKLY fell apart toward the end....to bad.


Ghost Story has an interesting feminist revenge tale premise, A-list veteran actors, colorful flashbacks with nifty look-a-like youthful counterparts of the old men. scary staccato music heralding the approaching horrors, atmospheric New England winter weather, and an excellent charismatic actress in the title role. Ghost Story could have been much more effective in black and white and in eliminating some of the more lurid special effects, and to presenting a more cogent screenplay (we should not have to be wondering about why the two trailer-parkish acolytes are in the script) The biggest detriment of the film is Craig Wassan (definitely separated at birth from Bill Maher) who from perhaps editing or just bad acting, is totally ineffective. He seems to "specialize" in wide-eyed, wide-mouthed reaction shots; not a lot of personality here. The revelation however is Alice Krige, pale-faced, enigmatic, terrifying underneath the placid exterior. However, her Eva Galli is creepy even before she meets her fate; I mean, a young woman who says things like "I'd like to take a bite out of you" or "Dance with me, you little toad!" is already not in the land of the living. Ghost Story would have been much better in a low-key, Val Lewton mode. The overdone special effects completely undercut the chill factor.


This is another film I missed out on Italian TV as a kid: notable for its quintet of ageing stars, most of whom had never made a horror film in their life (Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., John Houseman and Patricia Neal), it deals with the men’s long-concealed past crime coming back to haunt them. It takes the form of a ghostly dead-ringer for the girl they all loved (Alice Krige) but whom they were forced to dispose of after an unfortunate incident when she humiliated their egos! Fairbanks, who was the one responsible for the deed, has twin sons (Craig Wasson) and so Krige directs her revenge upon them as well. Soon one of the latter, Fairbanks himself and even Douglas and Houseman all wind up dead. Therefore, the remaining Wasson and Astaire decide to confront the ghost at the scene of the crime where they also have to contend with a couple of sinister tramps who somehow do Krige’s bidding! I was looking forward to seeing these veterans on their last legs (Douglas died before the film had even premiered though, by that time, he had already completed another role, while it proved Astaire’s own inauspicious swan-song) but GHOST STORY went through too many changes of mood – while maintaining a sluggish pace throughout and emerging overlong into the bargain – to be anything but a failed curio. Having dollops of sex (including full-frontal nudity from Wasson!) and gruesome make-up effects muddled the waters all the more and marred the old-fashioned elegance inherent in Jack Cardiff’s (another notable of long-standing) cinematography.


This film gives new meaning to the term "uneven", giving us a few intriguing characterizations offset by an awkwardly realized plot that relies on a few well-placed stingers to deliver the majority of the thrills.

The plot concerns a group of men who harbor a secret that has caused a curse to be visited on them in the form of a ghostly female apparation that causes death. She also may be seducing their sons.

It is quite a spectacle to have all the notable veteran actors together in one film, but unfortunately they're not very convincing, particularly the scene where Melvyn Douglas goes off the deep end begging the others to listen to him. It's no shock then that the actors who play these same characters in their youth are terrible, especially the giggling Ricky. They deliver the worst "gee-aren't-we-all-drunk" scene I've ever watched.

The movie has a few saving graces, namely Dick Smith's great ghost makeups (however misplaced they are in this film), and Alice Krige's fascinating performance as Alma/Eva. I've never read the novel that this film was taken from, but I intend to after reading some of the other reviews on this page. You don't have to have read the book, however, to realize that this is only a shadow of the original tale. There is a good story here, but it seems lost somewhere, amid exposition that shows the men having nightmares over and over again and making unsubtle references to the secret they all share.

As it stands, it appears as if there was about half an hour of footage removed from this print, particularly near the climax. After all...how is it that Fred Astaire manages to mount an excavation of the pond so quickly? What did Gregory Bate and the kid have to do with Eva? And while we're at it...what the hell was she, anyway? Why did letting her out of the car cause the apparition to disappear? If it was an apparition, how could it have sex with two men and have them not know?

These and other questions will never be answered, at least not by this film. Unless some restored footage is discovered somewhere, it will probably forever remain a curiosity with some oozing makeup, bizarre sex scenes and nudity, and a few attractive performances.


This story had a good plot to it about four elderly men that share a deadly secret concerning a young woman that they met 50 years ago. After all this time, the young woman returns to seek revenge on the men. This story occasionally made me nod off during the movie in the middle of tiring elevator music and the ever so consistent thunder storms. But it is well worth the wait in the end when we find out just who the mystery woman is that keeps plaguing the old men in their dreams and interfering in a young man's life. The most of what I liked in this film was the suspense in which the young woman appears to the men just before their deaths. The special effects were something. Every time I heard her call out to them I would think "Not that face again." But it was a good movie, I just wish that the pace was not as slow or the acting not as tiresome. And what I also liked about the movie was the flashback of the 20's, very authentic as well as the costumes being original.


Maybe it's because I read Peter Straub's wonderful book before seeing the film, but I was terribly disappointed by this movie. In my opinion, the filmmakers removed everything that made the story interesting and unique, and replaced it with more common Hollywood-style elements.

It's too bad, too, since this movie has a terrific cast, particularly Fred Astaire, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Melvyn Douglas, John Houseman, and the then-largely-unknown Alice Krige. They're just not given very much worthwhile to do.

In fact, I was all for leaving halfway through, but a friend convinced me to stay to the end, as he was sure it had to get better. He apologised to me during the closing credits.


This movie strayed too far from Straub's novel for me to enjoy. Barely made it to the middle of the film. Besides changing Don Wanderly from Edwards nephew into his son, the removed most of the major scenes and a number of characters that gave the novel so much life. What was left was trash. Straub's version was far superior to this poorly executed film. I don't think casting did all that great a job on picking the Chowder Society members either. Hopefully someone will come along and actually remake this film correctly in my lifetime. I just hate when Hollywood butchers the works of talented authors because they think their version so much better. Makes me sick.


No serious spoilers, but some very minor ones.

"Acacia", a Korean contribution to the ever popular Asian horror wave, concerns a husband and wife who decide that they're getting on a bit and decide to adopt a child. The child, who has an usual obsession with the dead tree in the family's garden, eventually disappears when the couple eventually have a child of their own and the aforementioned tree seems to hold a grudge against the family itself.

And that's about it. The film moves at a snails pace, clocking in at over 100 minutes with 80 minute material. It is essentially a thin family drama with a creepy tree, and there is very little in the way of scares, just shots of the tree with weird mumbling noises playing over the top. However, the idea of the tree being the child's mother is a pretty original one, but it isn't exactly exploited to its full potential. This sort of separates "Acacia" from much of the new wave it belongs to: films like Ju-On and Ring tend to do the opposite, and milk bland ideas until they are red in the face.

The film does begin to get going towards the end; however the realisation of the child's fate and the parent's actions not only dampen the earlier curiosity of the story, but are revealed with such machine gun editing that it's difficult to take in all at once. The final sequence is undoubtedly creepy, however it feels like too little too late.

Overall, the film does not feel too much like a Ring cash in, however with the "film renaissance" that Korea is currently going through, I couldn't help but feel this film could have been so much more.


Having just watched Acacia, I find that I have to agree with the negative reviews here. I like Asian, and Korean horror, and I had great expectations for this film. Man, was i disappointed. Watching this, I kept thinking "surely they just do this to catch me off guard later on", and for a while I expected something ingenious to happen. However, I slowly realised that the film really is that bad. It is the cheapest cash in into the Asian horror market I have seen so far.

The basic story is perhaps not even that bad, but the way it is filmed it seems like the most laughable plot ever. The tree as a 'scary' device might be okay if used cleverly, but all the filmmaker does is giving us different shots of...yes, a tree, over and over again. He seems to hope that the tree will do all the work for him in terms of tension and build-up, but it just feels like what it is: shots of a tree. For goodness' sake!

Slow build-ups can be very effective, and a film that presents the viewer with only few glimpses of what is wrong might deliver good scares, but not Acacia. Sure, we get a glimpse of a child on a tricycle disappearing around a corner, and, yet again, meaningful shots of the tree from above, or underneath, or the side, but these scenes are just not scary. They feel silly, especially because you realise that the director means them to be scary. They simply aren't.

Apart from that I agree with some of the other reviewers, that the characters are ridiculous. In particular the one character's 'descent into madness' is laughable. However, what really breaks Acacia is the terrible editing. Its hard to see why scenes were cut together the way they are, but it's bad, and it kills any spark of interrest it might have had. It also makes me feel patronised, because I can see what they are trying to achieve with it, but I cannot believe that they think I would fall for such cheap ploys.

There are lots of great Asian ghost films, and lots of bad ones, but this is by far the worst I have seen. They must have been going through the list of 'what to put into ghost movies', and ticked them all off, but in the end they forgot to add the actual movie.


As far as Asian horror goes, I have seen my share of disappointments along with some of the creepiest sh*t imaginable... "Acacia" doesn't really qualify for either of those categories. It had a few moments of tension and was interesting to watch, yet I couldn't help think that there should have been a tad more to this story. The film deals with a childless couple who decide to adopt a kid who appears to have a fascination with trees. He develops a bond with the Acacia tree in their yard and seems to communicate with it. Then, during a fight with his mother involving their new birth child, he storms off after threatening to find his dead mother who is now a tree. When he doesn't come back, the parents send file a report and wait, while the neighbor girl believes he somehow inhabits the Acacia tree. The pacing is rather slow and the ending gets a bit weird, but I have to recommend this as a slightly enjoyable effort, though the story feels a little flat. Hell, I can't really make up my mind on this...


From the acclaim it got I was expecting more from a Korean horror if it's going to be viewed in the same caliber as A Tale of Two Sisters, as some other reviews have stated. This movie isn't in the same caliber except in budget spent on special effects. Think Amytiville horror. With a tree and sparse dialogue.

If you're going to have a movie with limited dialogue, the plot line and characters have to carry the film. This film could have been told quite well in a 30 minute short film concept, 2 hours with a lot of staring at trees and terror scenes that make you not only not scared, but detract in a "What the..." sort of way does not a good horror movie make.

Those people who are stating that this film gave them lasting impressions must literally have heart attacks when decent horror films lay it in.


I'm a fan of the horror movie, regardless of which hemisphere it comes from. I know what to expect from the West, the East and most horrors in the middle. So I received the DVD of 'Acacia' in the post and looked forward to a slow build of ever increasing tension and scary children with odd, disjointed movements hiding under duvets.

The major selling point for this film was that it has a far more linear story line than many of this ilk - you get who the characters are, where they are from and what they do. You get the baseline information (nice couple, can't have children) and realise that the premise is just too normal for something freaky NOT to happen.

And then comes the bad. The number one complaint is that the story is OBVIOUS. I got it pretty much the moment the kid hugged the tree. I knew where the film was going and was even able to predict the order of death and for what reason.

The editing is shocking and unfortunately, not to the benefit of the film. Even were I still pondering the events, tension isn't allowed to build because the director seems to have gotten a new editing suite for his birthday and wanted to use it as much as possible.

And my final gripe is this....the tree was unnecessary. This would have been a perfectly good tale of subtle horror with just the couple breaking down over the death of the child - the titular tree bought nothing new or exciting to the film. So I'll finish where I started - my overall impression was 'Oh.'


Oh how awfully this movie is! I don't know if it is a horror film or a drama, cause the story and the both genres are not established very well! The story is not moving, it is slow, boring, and sleepy from the beginning to end. This movie really bores me! But I really liked the camera work, it is authentic, fresh and clear, the acting is great too, the little boy was the great performer in this movie, but it hasn't made me to jump from my seat. But this movie makes me grab a pillow, lay on the bed and sleep until the credits roll...

Boring! Not worth watching! I tell you, this movie sucked!

1/10


A moderately interesting start, some pretty scenes in sixteenth-century Japan, and a promising idea. But the execution? The comparison that springs to mind after about fifteen minutes is "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death." Really. A specialist in "Oriental history" who doesn't speak any Japanese, walks on tatami without removing her shoes, and is generally dumb as celery? Please. This looks like a student film: the sets are risible, the acting (except, perhaps, for the title character) close to wooden, the plot utterly arbitrary. At least "Cannibal Women" was funny! This is best watched with someone who knows something about Japan, just to watch disbelief repeatedly crawl across their face.


Remember those terrible war movies your grandmother forced you to watch 25 or so years ago on your old VHS recorder? "The Fallen" is just a bad executed remake of those movies! The story is terrible, the direction is terrible, the editing is terrible, the music is terrible, and all together make an unbearable nightmare.

It is also terribly slow! Very slow! I tried to sleep while watching it but I couldn't do it because I had nightmares of it.

Please don't watch this movie! It is THAT bad! Ten lines is a lot so I don't know what else to say.

Press the eject button NOW and you wont regret it!


For starters, I once met the director when he was going to WW2 re-enactments with a period movie camera and making videos of the events which looked DARNED good. I really wish he'd kept that up. Because as much as I applaud what he accomplished on a clearly "next to nothing" budget, when I popped out the DVD, I just wondered why I sat through almost two hours of nothing. There's no real plot to speak of, you don't really care what happens to the characters (maybe the Italian troops and some of the Germans), and the ending is yet another "art film" commentary on the futility of war. I could have told someone how it would end once I got through the first ten minutes. I KNEW the Germans would have a few heroically volunteer to fight to the death, I knew most of the Quartmaster GIs would be killed, it was just too darned obvious! And while I'm on the subject, I was shocked to see so much of the Axis side done well, yet the GI side done comically. All the character development was clearly for non-English-speaking roles. The GIs simply got shafted hard in this film. And I can't help but wonder if they even had someone on the set who understood how the US Army works? The phrases, terminology, actions, were clearly written by someone with no knowledge of the American military at all. Had I now known who had directed this film, I'd have sworn it was directed and written by a German...


What on earth was that? My family and I just waisted 2 hours of our life for this piece of rubbish !!! There was no plot, no tension, only a lot of boredom !!! My kids could do better movies with our video-camera.

But maybe we just did not get the point of the movie...oh wait, my mum did. She was the only one who liked it for the following reason: "At least a film with no cars screeching..." If you are looking for a war-film with no fighting in it, is still interesting and gripping and has a strong anti-war-message, then you should watch "The Trench".

I give this film 3 out of 10 because it is good enough for an afternoon-nap and because I am too nice...


I've rent the movie because i'm very fond on war movies and on the cover picture i've read " better than save private ryan"....mmmmm ...i thought cool! guys....is just a ridiculous movie. Almost fun. Nothing to do with a proper war movie. I want my money back! Why the f...k the peoples lies??????????? F NO SUBTITLES They tried to make everything cooler with the light....but they didn't make it. Sorry about this.....but the movie is awful. The italians are shown as "Mafia e mandolino"

The American as stupid farmer The Germans as even more stupid farmer.

The actor are ridiculous and unprofessional.

Please....please......


I've never written a comment on IMDb before, but this movie was so bad it left me little choice but to warn you not to waste the two hours of your life. As an avid WWII historian, I don't even know where to begin on how historically inaccurate this movie was. Carbines with Korean War bayonet lugs, K98k's missing cleaning rodes and sight hoods, German uniforms that didn't exist, the list could go on forever. Added that it's loaded with flaws, has literally no plot or climax, and acting on par with your local high school theater. The epitome of cheesy.

PLEASE...there are too many good WWII movies out there to waste your time on this junk.


First there are some plot holes in this movie. We see in the very beginning a kid dies from playing the game. But who was tied up in the mail truck delivering the package which contains the game? How did the driver place the package into the mailbox when he was lashed to the steering wheel? It is not like he was Mr. Fantastic. Wow that in just the first 15 minutes... The actors are second rate, take the "Bad Guy" played by Patrick Kilpatrick (who?) exactly he has appeared in one episode of everything on TV and some secondary roles in poor movies (like this one). So most of the acting is like TV dramas, I can live with that, but the graphics or special effects are horrible. The disembodied "Game" voice sounds like a poor clone of Hal from "Space Oddessy 2000". What they called Zombies looked more like shadows jumping around like monkeys from "Planet of the Apes". The Aliens had transparent bodies like the shadow zombies. In most cases, the movie was just predictable as it had no hook or hidden agenda going. The story was a good idea but like most good ideas discussed over lunch was never developed beyond that good idea stage.


Well, the first thing I saw after looking at the DVD box was "Best Screenplay" and thought this would be a good rental. WOW, was I mistaken! I'm sure at one time there was a good movie in here, but after the incredibly poor acting and "video game" production values, this ends up looking like Tron's retarded half-brother. The first scene sets up the overall atmosphere of the entire movie. Five minutes into it, you'll be asking yourself, "What the Hell am i watching?", and it will just snowball from there. An awful soundtrack that makes every song sound like Rob Zombie's "Dragula" rounds out this miserable piece of crap into a laughably bad movie. On a side note, #3 most romantic quote in a movie - "I think you're the final destination."


OK, this movie wasn't good at all. Video games aren't what I would brag on if I was over the age of 15. Cool to play games, but writing a comment about video game players may like this movie for that it is, that is strange. Just play a video game, don't make up a sorry story about getting trapped in one. I use my cell phone, I hope I don't loose my girlfriend in that. Grease being the worst ever? OK, Grease has a very well thought out story along with being a musical. Even if you don't like musicals, anyone would say Grease is good. My brother plays video games all the time and he watched 30 minutes and left because it was so awful. I feel asleep.


Hmmm, not a patch on the original from Shaw Brothers. The fighting is average and looks very clunky. The story line is as to be expected from a 70's Kung Fu film, confusing and daft. Stupid voices for women,dubbed in posh English accents for men. i turned this off early and i love martial arts flicks. Get the original, its so much better than this average movie, don't be fooled, i bought the wrong flick what i wanted was the Shaw brothers movie. i have just started commenting, I'm only doing foreign and martial arts films this is just the beginning of my movie collection, i personally own most modern martial arts flicks. Hope you don't waste time watching this one, its for die hard fans of 70's Kung Fu only.


I rented a copy of this one from Netflix -- big mistake. The DVD version titled "The One-Armed Swordsmen" was produced by madmen who thought that the fighting sequences would be appreciated better pasted all together in one big chapter than as part of a consistent, sequential story. Some of the story was left in separate chapters, which you can select from the main menu, but the DVD is still a mess. Don't rent or buy it. Not that there was anything wonderful about the original story, an absurdly complicated piece of nonsense. Much as I liked seeing Wang Yu in his prime again after all these years, this one is an utter waste of time. I've had dish detergents that made a better film than this. What the chopped-up DVD version shows us is that no matter how silly a Chinese script may be, you have to see some sort of story to care about how the fighting sequences turn out.

But "The One-Armed Swordsmen" does offer you do the chance to see both Wang and Shaw Brothers stalwart Lo Lieh beating up smirking pretty boy David Chiang -- it's always a pleasure to see that happen. Lo plays a sort of second-string villain here, and serves as a prime example of why some people really need orthodontists. he film is also graced by the participation of Taiwanese actor Chang Yi as the magistrate.

Another comment above mentions the obligatory fight-in-the-inn scene (there are two, in fact) where Wang and Chiang are attacked by a pack of comical barbarians using what look like cavemen weapons, making Bruce Lee noises while they fight. None of this makes any sense, but that's okay if you're not expecting any clarity or common sense. It was fun to watch anyway.

Another peculiarity of this production is that there are no significant women characters. There are a couple of female roles, but they play no serious role in the action or the plot.

If you can find a copy of the original Shaw Brothers One-Armed Swordsman movie, the one which explains why he has only the one arm and why he uses a broken sword, go for it.


this is by far one of the most pretentious films i have ever seen. it is a tight slap on the face of some Indians who speak in English and were looking at the mirror. disgusting. the bubble gum version of the 1970s politics of the north Indian plains. the message - the educated English-speaking Indian tried to save the poor beggars of India in all earnestness. it ignores the fact that the poor beggars are also capable of and are saving themselves on their own.

as a love story its okay. the problem is that the love story and character development is based upon a completely fraudulent version of politics.


This film is supposedly about three young idealistic people, two of whom join the Naxalite movement and blah blah. It is really just another film about some beautiful, rich people trying to decide who they should bed next; the peasants and naxalites and the political struggles of the era merely serve as a picturesque backdrop. Literally, as we don't hear the villagers say a word, never mind learn anyone's name, thus they occupy the same 'role' as the 'natives' in old Hollywood films. The movie is also dull, and the story does not actually get us anywhere - except to various bedrooms. We are apparently supposed to admire the artsiness of it all, which merely means no good song and dance routine, which would not have saved the film of course, but might have at least alleviated the boredom.

My friend Japna was annoyed at the immorality of the whole story, not the bedroom bit but the whole pointlessness of the story. The message seems to be that ideals are not worth pursuing.


The movie uses random events of historical significance as its backdrop and willy-nilly criss-crosses the lives and time-lines of its 3 central characters. To what purpose, one may ask? The problem with this film is that the script becomes the 'story', not characters or their lives.

It starts off with a bunch of rich, aimless college kids (and a couple of not-so-rich too) drawn into the Naxalite movement. Affair, rejection and separation follows. People go their own ways, seemingly. Only till the heroine forces herself upon them. Not once but twice. After a pause in the 'Movement', the next hurdle for these 3 is the Emergency imposed on the country by Indira Gandhi. Lots of political figures roam around for no obvious reason. The sub-plots are too contrived and don't add up to make a logical whole.

The movie tries to impose a false pace but never reaches a true rhythm. Barely coherent at times, there is no maturation and growth whatsoever in the arcs of the 3 ex-college buddies. Even after they are presumably married, engaged, settled or whatever, they are ever too eager to just ditch it all and head off to a village to have sex with the ex-lover or ex-flame. What fertile imagination the screen-writer possesses. So many 4-letter words are used without any rhyme or reason that its downright abusive!!

Chitrangda Singh has a horrible American accent that she doesn't try to hide. Its hideous hearing her mouth cliché-ridden dialog like 'Whats up? I didn't think you'd come' (this, after the hellish nightmare she's just been thru) or, in the beginning, 'I appreciate your concern but I can take care of myself'. Yikes. What kind of clown wrote the dialogs for this? She invites her friend in to have a cup of 'South Indian' (no less) coffee, wishes someone Good Morning and then is wished Good Night by someone else in the family. Now whats up with THAT?!?

The countless uncredited villagers and tribals are the best actors. The editing is really erratic with too many cuts. Obviously trying hard to make a bold statement, Sudhir Misra screwed up big-time on this one.


It would be quite easy to make this movie sound fun: a call girl gets shot in the forehead by a North Korean spy, but survives. The bullet that is embedded in her brain makes her long for knowledge, as well as sex. Unbeknownst to her, she walks away from the shooting with the cloned finger of George W. Bush in her purse, a key which can unlock the power to use nuclear armaments. Just call it a romp, and at least a few people will show up to the theater. I'm not sure how many did go to see this four year old film when it opened in New York this past April, but I sincerely hope not many. It sounds like a light and playful pinku flick, but it has art-house pretensions and is really just incredibly boring. Many pinku films in the past have been successful in their artistic aspirations, but this film's aspirations just make the time that elapses between the sex scenes excruciating. And then the sex scenes aren't even good! I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff in dirty Japanese movies. I've never seen this country produce something with sex this dull. The Spice Channel is more imaginative. The only worthwhile thing in this movie is the body of the lead actress, Emi Kuroda. Otherwise, this is pure torture.


Okay. I really tried to tap into the (so called) silly & surreal humor that this film sets out to be. I'm told that the Japanese version of this film is much shorter than the one shipped to America (go figure!), and has less political references. Apart from all that, I found this sexual/political farce just as boring and pointless as standard porn. The central female lead is easy on the eyes, and could actually act. I would love to see her in a non pink film where she could actually flex her acting muscles (and no,not the ones you're thinking of). It's obvious that Japan can (and does)produce just as much crap as other countries. I couldn't recommend this to anyone, with the distant possibility of someone who has a Jones for Asian porn. Go see a real Japanese film.


My wife and I met doing a professional production of "The Merry Widow" in 1982 -- in English, but a straight translation.

Only the very basic skeleton of the original plot is visible in this "adaptation". Most of the characters have been deleted, along with the entire B plot, and all but one of the characters remaining have been renamed. Most of the characters in the movie aren't in the operetta, either. The action has been moved from Paris to, at first, Washington, DC, and then to the fictional country of Pontevedro, which the movie has renamed "Marshovia", and only later to Paris. The net result is that we don't reach the beginning of the original play until about 45 minutes in.

And the main source of tension in the plot is deleted, too. In the original, years before, Count Danilo and the heroine were very much in love, but his family refused to allow them to marry because she was poor; it's his broken heart that has rendered him a careless playboy. Now that, as a widow, she's the richest woman in the world, she still loves him, and he still loves her, but his pride won't let him admit it to anyone, even himself, and she must spend three acts playing mind games to break him down. The trope of the aristocrat with money problems who won't admit that he's in love with a rich woman for fear of what people will think supplied the main plots of a substantial fraction of Viennese operettas for decades after the 1906 "Widow". In this movie, they've never met before, which rips out not only the heart of the whole thing, but nearly all the comedy.

Lamas does a pretty decent job, though.

An interesting musical point is that several times we hear a snippet or so of "Trés Parisien", an extra song written (in English, despite the title) for the London première, which was not, as far as I know, usually found in American productions until the 1980s or so.


I feel terribly sorry! Where the Lubitsch-pic was enchanting, marvelous, full of spirit and elegance, this one here is only - colored! Lana looks like 51 (in fact she was 31 at that time, but obviously depressive) and tries to play a shy and dull girlie. Think of Jeanette McDonald, who gave the role of the widow a double-faced depth by "playing" with Count Danilo. That Lana had to play an operetta although unable to sing - crazy! She only sings one song - the title role of an Lehar-operetta, that is really funny! The only really good thing is the great waltz scene at the end: glamorous! And - after watching this scene - have a look at the introducing waltz scene in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"! Any similarities?


This is not exactly what I would call a Mad Max film, after seeing Road Warrior and experiencing the excellence of that film, I felt somewhat disappointed after seeing this. It supposedly started out as some kind of kids in the wilderness film, and was merged with the Mad Max franchise(bad idea). The casting was not exactly the best, I mean come on Tina Turner? One of the main problems with this film is that there are no good villains. No Wez, no Humungus, not even a decent Toecutter! Nothing really even happens, if you are going to plan on seeing this sub par action flick (can it even be called that?) make sure you see Mad Max 2 or Mad Max, or better yet both. Another problem with this film is that there are too many people, even the Thunderdome battle sequence is dull, Max doesn't even kill anyone! The music is bad, the characters are bad (not in the good way) and after seeing this film, it left a very bad taste in my mouth.


Every time I've seen this movie I get the same impression: some parts of it are so amazingly stupid/bad that they crack me up, they aren't intentional, and there are a lot of them; the rest is just plain bad, stupid and/or irrelevant. A movie like Evil Dead gets credit for being bad at it's own expense because it's the intended result-it' stupid and cheesy because Sam Raimi succeeded at what he was trying to do. This movie doesn't have that excuse, it's stupid and cheesy because the filmmakers failed so miserably. The crap result gets heaped on top of the crap writing and crap performances to make it a shame that the lowest rating a movie can be given is one for 'awful.' Watching this movie has the same effect as listening to a Billy Madison essay--"Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it." I should be able to give this movie something around a -5.


Like the previous two 'Mad Max' films, 'Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome' is not exception to the violence and strange plot. Mad Max is in a post-war society where he must destroy master blaster and get the children to 'tomorrow morrow land'. This is generally a warped film with Peter Pan references and Tina Turner, methane-pigs, and odd characters. I got very bored by watching it all, and it offered nothing to me. I did not feel inspired after watching this film; the only decent thing about this film were the extremely-odd characters that got picked off in various ways throughout the film. It's too weird for me, and it was much too dull.


Intelligent summary, isn't it?

If Mad Max was something of a simple, straight forward, nothing special but nothing wrong either kinda film, they totally made up for it with it's sequel, The Road Warrior. So, in theory, with a third great film it would've been a great trilogy... now, it's not!

Such a huge disappointment Beyond Thunderdome was! It's main premise is pretty cool, with an 'underworld' (think a mix between Metropolis and The Time Machine), but it all isn't carried out with too much conviction. Add the obnoxious Tina Turner and the no good story-line of the people waiting for a plane, and this is just one huge stinker.

Maybe they can brighten things up again with part 4 (although that one is just probably gonna be 1 huge budget-explosion kinda thing), because this just isn't right.

3/10.


Even allowing for my unabashed love of the first two films in the franchise, and sweeping away any sort of biased leanings I might of had for the character of Max, I just can't bring myself to rate at average this cartoonery waste of space that so nearly soils what had gone before it.

Gone is the rugged nasty streak that brought feeling to the character Mad Max Rockatansky, gone is the impacting feeling of desolation in an apocalyptic world, and more crucially, gone is director George Miller's passion for the franchise. The dreadful score matches the cartoon heart of the film, it seems that the makers didn't really know what to do with the amount of cash given to make this third {and thankfully last} instalment. Sure the stunts are spot on {to be expected by now}, and of course Miller manages to paint a barren desert landscape by purely lifting from what he has done before. Yet he clearly struggled for fresh ideas with the action since The Road Warrior's crowning glory of the Petrol Tanker pursuit is replicated here, only he uses a train instead!!.

It's just a very poor show that may have seemed like an ambitious turn of events back in the mid 1980s; but when viewing the three films together now, Thunderdome just comes across as a director losing his edgy approach whilst sadly getting caught between the mix of comedy and fantasy action. And the truth is that neither of those genre slants would have worked singularly, in the context of this series, anyway. I give the film 3/10 purely for one real good Thunderdome fight sequence, while the stunt men here deserve some credit at the very least. But this is the third time I have tried to like this film, and as glutton for punishment as I undoubtedly am, I wont be trying again, ever.


I watched all three mad max films in succession for the first time a few days ago and was left bitterly disappointed with the third instalment. it destroys the fine work of the first two films with weak and cheesy action and a story line that turns the apocalyptic Australian wastelands into a comical sand pit one would expect to see in a children's adventure movie. the character of max is unrecognisable from his dark and cynical persona seen in the previous films and changed into a predictable uninteresting saviour that left me feeling betrayed. if you haven't seen this film yet then simply don't. Let the story end with the road warrior and save yourself a very painful hour and a half. (spoiler alert) the other major issue i had with this film that truly left a bitter taste in my mouth was the flying man. we had already seen him in the road warrior where he had helped max and yet when he reappears in thunderdome it looks like the two had never met. whether he was supposed to be a different character or a relative of the road warriors gyro man i do not know. however it was not explained and is a weak element in this overall weak film. 2 out of 10. doesn't get a 1/10 because of the thunderdome fight.


Originally I wrote what was a sarcastic,scathing review of this pathetic piece of dung,but every time I submitted the review I got "this contains a very long word which is not allowed", also words that were not misspelled were judged incorrect.

Now the word that was judged too long was never identified.After numerous attempts at eliminating words eventually I got the sneaking suspicion that the IMDb site is politically sensitive and set to reject certain words automatically.Nothing I wrote was obscene or racist in itself.But after eliminating all of the longest words the same message was repeated again and again,also words that weren't judged misspelled were all the sudden considered misspelled!

The pc police are everywhere.


This is without question one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, it is also one of the most unintentionally hilarious. I like to compare it to Plan 9, in that it can be so bad, so awful,so dumb, and such a waste of time that I find myself laughing out loud.

One of my biggest problems with it is that it's a complete ripoff of Robin Hood, and let be honest and say that I love Robin Hood with Errol Flynn, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. But let's face it, from the forbidden love between Peck (who is definitely slumming it. Although in all fairness this was still a good few years before the masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird) and the female character (who is so forgettable, apparently, that I have forgotten her name.), to the final scene where the good guys dress up as monks to fool the bad guys screams "ROBIN HOOD" all over it.

However, I don't think the film isn't worth seeing. On the contrary, I think that this is one of the funniest movies I've seen in years, even if it was unintentional.


This turned out to be more of a women's romance-soap-suspense film than what I hoped it was....simply a tense thriller. Yes, the final 20 minutes were suspenseful but much of the previous 75 bordered on being just plain tedious.

Ruter Hauer was a little too subdued, not playing his normal intense character. Natasha Richardson sports somewhat of a dumb look most of the time and her character was very unappealing.

The story is so-so. It's not as bad as I'm making out, but it sure isn't anything I'd watch again, and the back of the VHS describing this movie was misleading.


Everything you do in this world should make at least a little bit of sense. Unfortunately very little of "Delusion" makes any sense. Jennifer Rubin is adequate in her role as the main squeeze of hit man Kyle Secor. Secor on the other hand overacts to the point of annoyance. Jim Metzler, the embezzling yuppie is very unbelievable as the novice, revenge seeking, adversary. When Jennifer Rubin gives back the money she has carefully been concealing, all credibility flies out the window, and the guns pointing final showdown between Secor and Metzler is beyond ridiculous. Avoid "Delusion", unless you are delusional enough to believe the misguided positive reviews here. - MERK


"Delusion" is what you experience when you watch this flick and then believe you saw something worthwhile. This flick, which tells of a trio of semi-psycho travelers who are up to no good somewhere in the CA desert, is amateurish and just plain stupid. The film suffers from an awful story, a lousy screenplay, and some terrible direction just to mention a few of the deficits. If the flick has anything at all going for it, it's B-movie diva Rubin's even performance. Don't waste your time on this turkey. (D)


Now I remember what the 'indie' filmmakers were ripping off before Pulp Fiction. It was David Lynch, right?

I hunted this thing down to see Kyle Secor. What a waste of a perfectly good Bayliss. It was so painful to watch him, sort of like when someone you love is horribly sick and there's nothing you can do.

Nearly every cliche in the book: the desert, the psycho, the quirky mob boss, the biker, Tracy Walker (who fortunately was only in one scene, but I kept expecting him to reappear and say something strange and profound like "If a man wants to know where he's going, he's got to look at where he's been," or some contrived garbage like that). I have a theory as to why so many indies are short on location in the desert. I think it's because they can save money on lighting.

If you like to be in pain, find this movie and give it a viewing. If you're a fan of Kyle Secor, watch reruns of Homicide on Court TV. If you want a good, quirky road thriller, check out Wild At Heart.

There is a reason that no one has heard of Delusion! My god, what a waste of a good title.


The Hindi remake of Mrs Doubtfire starring and directed by Kamal Hassan is a somewhat shoddy version, and not as good as expected.

Kamal Hassan clearly struggles with Hindi dialogs, even after all these years, and cannot handle even one scene effortlessly. The guy has aged and should give it a rest. Hassan doesn't bring anything new to the role or to the character as say, Dustin Hoffman does to Tootsie, or Marathi actor Macchindranath Kambli does to Mavshi's (aunt's) character in "Moruchi Mavshi" (Moru's Auntie, comedy play).

What was the kid doing playing with firecrackers when it wasn't Diwali? Most of Chachi's romantic 'cross-connections' -- Vs Amrish, Paresh and then Johny Walker, seem redundant to the main storyline. Tabu's bathing scene was unnecessary. The family is North Indian but must be reminded of Karva Chauth night by a 'Maharashtrian' Chachi. Yeah, right.

The fine acting skills of not one but four actors namely Tabu, Om Puri, the late Amrish Puri and Paresh Rawal have been wasted in this film.

Watch the original Mrs Doubtfire -- clean, crisp and crackling with fun, quite unlike Chachi 420.


Like most musicals of the era, one must check reality at the door. Broadway MELODY of 1938 is not remotely believable nor plausible, but kind of fun in its strange way. This movie is really just an excuse to execute the talents of the stars. Some scenes just happen as if they were in a review, not a plot driven movie.

Judy Garland shines and it's a pity she has so little to do unless much was left on the cutting room floor.

One of the most inane happenings are the way Eleanor Powell get a lead role in a Broadway show and Robert Taylor says it's going to be work, work, work from dawn til dusk. Several scenes go by and there's no work, no rehearsals...NOTHING. She needs money to win a horse in an auction. She has no money. Isn't she getting paid while she rehearses? Taylor has to borrow money to help. He's supposed to be a big time producer. He has no money??? Anyway, that's just two elements in this strange story.

The musical numbers are quite wonderful which saves this from being a total loss. Broadway MELODY OF 1940 is much better as is Broadway MELODY OF 1936.


All I can do is echo the sentiment already expressed by some of the other commenters. This is CITY OF GOD meets HAPPY DAYS. The bipolarity of the ruthless thug (one minute a ruthless killer, the next minute a Luv's diaper commercial) is completely unconvincing. You can approach it in one of two ways: (1) A gritty, realistic movie turned sappy; or (2) a sappy, ABC-afterschool-special with profanity, violence and animal cruelty. Either way it just don't fly, do it? Why then has it received so much praise? As others have implied, it gets the "conscience vote" from the west. Show us pictures of poverty to contrast against our fluffy, double-wide theatre seats and 44-oz cokes, and we'll applaud in a heartbeat. But--oh--don't forget to candy coat it, because the bitter pill of reality (tantalizing as it is) is hard for us to swallow.

I'm terribly disappointed that this film would receive so many awards and accolades, especially when there are far more deserving works of film out there. All I can say is: beware of any film that receives awards (Hollywood Oscars = sweeping, syrupy tripe. Cannes Film Festival = beard-stroking, artless propaganda). To find the real gems, you'll have to work hard at it.


This movie looked like it was rushed to release for some reason. Definitely not a well made movie. So unbelievable. The scenes where the President (Holbrook) were downtown and walking among the people were a farce. There would not be a chance for the common folk to be within 30 yards of the President in that situation in real life. If it wasn't for the blood and profanity, this was shot like a TV movie. It could have been decent if it was done differently. Holbrook's (President) talents were never realized in this movie. Shatner's acting is okay. The production values in this movie leave a lot to be desired. Overall, I think most people would be better off not wasting time to watch this affair.


This was included on the disk "Shorts: Volume 2"--a rather dull collection of short films. Shorts are among my favorite style of films but somehow the people assembling this second collection had a hard time finding quality content--and it wasn't nearly as good as the first volume or other shorts collections.

This short film feels like it's woefully incomplete. There is a story, but so much in unanswered that the viewer, like me, feels a bit left out and unfulfilled.

The film begins with a woman, her boyfriend and her Westie (that's a dog, by the way) going to a lonely beach. The lady speaks with an accent that, at times, is a bit difficult to follow. Given that I am hard of hearing, I sure would have loved if it had been closed captioned. Anyway, the boyfriend goes for a swim while she naps. When she awakens, her dog is gone. She panics and makes the guy follow her all about looking for the dog. They spend most of the time arguing and being disagreeable. Then, out of the blue, they stop to have sex. Later, they find the dog--end of story.

As far as the characters go, both seemed rather dysfunctional and unlikable. She was a fussy and demanding lady and he seemed to have contempt for her. When you wondered why they were together, their little sex break showed what bond kept them together.

Some might like the characterizations--I kept finding the people irritating and unreal--more like caricatures than people you might meet or know. Also, the payoff for all this just isn't worth the wait (unless you want to see the guy naked).


I'm not surprised that this film did well at the Hamptons Film Festival. It is a shallow film that would appeal well to shallow people. Two actors pretending to be actors in a relationship who fight and look for a lost dog. The film is allegedly exploring the dynamics of the relationship, however, the relationship is far too petty to merit any such exploration. This couple has one dimension: they fight, they tease, then they make love and fight some more. There brief moment of tenderness does not reveal any possible reason that these two would be involved with each other given their venomous and volatile relationship. Beautifully shot, excellent score, but without anything of merit in the script or characters, this short is just that.


Do these guys take have a computer kick out these same plots over and over again, only the names, places, and faces are changed to prevent complete boredom. Hubby is handsome and rich, but too busy to pay attention to his gorgeous wife. A situation she constantly tries to remedy. Her friend/neighbor has the same problem so they become interested in each others hubbies--the grass is always greener. Throw in a sexy scheming made who has designs on everybody and you get a lot of stripping and dipping and a salad bowl of an unintelligible plot.

The quality of bodies is pretty high here, although not much in the way of "contact", even simulated is shown. Good late night erotica if Jay Leno can't put you to sleep.


Based on the comments made so far, everyone seems to either hate this movie or love it. I think it would be fair to point out that although this is not a GREAT movie, it has its interesting moments. For one thing, it was filmed on location in Colorado (was it Breckinridge or Telluride? I can't remember, but it is in the credits). The location is absolutely stunning and spectacular. It's beautiful, even to me who lived in Colorado for several years.

Next, it has Disney's penchant for wonderful character actors. Harry Morgan has never been in better form than when he plays in a Disney movie. He is literally hysterical. Also, remember the wonderful Mary Wickes? Although she has a "bit part" in this movie, she is great, as always. If you don't know who she is, think of the animated Disney version of Hunchback from Notre Dame (she was one of the gargoyles), and she was also the most interesting nun in "Sister Act", as well as the best nun in "The Trouble With Angels." She has always been a great character actress and most character actors never receive the recognition they deserve.

In addition to character actors and all-star casts, in the 1960s-1970s Disney may have not had the "greatest" movies, but, if you really watch some of them from beginning to end, you will NOTICE that every movie has some really funny or hysterical moment in it. The entire movie may not be funny, but there is always a comic gem (at least 1 or 2) in every single "live-action" movie Disney ever made. Whether it's Harry Morgan in one of his bellowing tones of voice, or Tim Conway floundering around, or Joe Flynn giving one of his priceless looks of horror, it is all good. The whole film may not be good, but there are ALWAYS hysterical moments in every Disney film from this period that I have ever seen. Disney in this time period always managed to make a person smile, despite the dumbness of the film.

Bsed on these comments, I disagree with viewers who say every Disney movie in this time period is awful. That statement it not quite accurate. Rather, it is easier for me to give credit to the funny moments and overlook the weaknesses in the plots.

Some live-action Disney movies are true classics (Old Yeller, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Mary Poppins), but for those that aren't, I am able to appreciate them for what they were -- good clean family fun in a time when movies had become vulgar, crude and offensive.


"Snowball Express" from the Disney Studios isn't quite as dated as some of their output from this era. There are no hippies or hot-rodders, just dull-as-dishwater Dean Jones inheriting a ramshackle hotel/ski-resort from a deceased relative. When Jones and family pull into a sleepy Colorado town, the folks who give them directions--looking like extras from "Deliverance"--are curiously vague about the hotel (we expect it to look like a one-room shanty), but actually the accommodations are very nice. Jones' teenage daughter has a sour look on her face throughout (which doesn't prevent one of the local yahoos from leering at her), and of course clumsy pop Dean Jones is a regular stumblebum on the slopes, leading to a lot of pratfalls in the slush. Perhaps this square scenario might've benefited from some magical whimsy, for this script is a frozen stiff. * from ****


This movie was pointless. I can't even call it sci-fi, since that requires more from a movie than merely taking place in space. "Max Q" isn't even set in space for the entire movie. The story/plot is unoriginal, the cast isn't anything to write home about, although it would be strange with a top cast in a mediocre film... Furthermore, it's not particularly exciting or well-told. At least it's evenly balanced in a low quality sort of way, in that nothing or no one stands out. Everything is equally bland. I usually find some quality in "space flicks", even if it's just 90 minutes of semi-lame entertainment bordering on low-budget pathetic, but "Max Q" didn't even give me that satisfaction. All in all , a complete waste of time.


I'm sorry, but this really does feel like a modern day Apollo 13 knock-off. Totally implausible (at least Armageddon FELT like a comic book! This felt like a bad High School film project), acting was about as cliché as one can get, and....landing a space shuttle on an LA freeway? Come on. Seriously. Jerry, what were you thinking? And all the clichés: The pregnant astronaut's wife, the nosy reporter who gets in everyone's way, the stalwart manager with "Go Fever". And it's one thing to twist the laws of physics or politics or whatever to make an entertaining story, but at least make it GOOD! Fact and science were totally butchered for this. The space shuttle doesn't have fuel tanks in it's wings, and even if it did, it couldn't steer by shifting fuel between them (and neither could a DC-10).

If you like bad acting, bad storytelling, low realism, and cheesy clichés, this one can't be beat!


This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.

Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.

I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!

And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.

The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.

I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.


The plot was not good.

The special effects weren't.

The acting was... not very good at all.

Like others, I felt there were numerous holes in the plot that you could fly, well, a space shuttle through.

I thought the ending was rather unbelievable.

By the way guys, about the "blow torch in space".

Blow torches have their own supply of oxygen (Hence the name "Oxy-Acetylene torch"). Two hoses run from the torch: One to an acetylene bottle and one to an oxygen bottle.

So a "blow torch" would work just fine in space.


Some famous stories are prone to being moved to another epoch and, as such, becoming an embarrassing TV-movie. Oscar Wilde's Canterville Ghost is one of them. This TV movie for kids is utterly cheap, concerning acting, character work, credibility, directing and even concerning the modest special effects. As often, the question arises: what was this made for?


This is a bad film, as its central message is very muddled and the plot seems like it was the result of merging several disparate scripts. As a result, it often makes absolutely no sense at all and certainly is not a film Miss Dunne or Mr. Huston should have been proud of making. However, the film IS worth watching if you are a fan of "Pre-Code" films because it features an amazingly sleazy plot that strongly says that nice girls DO put out--even if they aren't married and even if their partner IS!!

The film begins with Miss Dunne as a social worker assisting troops heading to Europe for WWI. In the process, she meets a scalawag (Bruce Cabot) who eventually convinces her to sleep with him. She becomes pregnant and he then goes on to the next unsuspecting woman. However, Miss Dunne does NOT want him back, as she realizes he's not worth it, but later her baby dies at child birth. While all these very controversial plot elements are used, they are always alluded to--almost like they wanted the adults in the audience to know but hoped that if they phrase it or film it in just the right way, kids in the audience will be clueless (after all, films were not rated and kids might attend any film at this time).

Surprisingly, this entire plot involving a stillborn baby and Cabot ends about 1/4 of the way through the film and is never mentioned again or alluded to. It was as if they filmed part of a movie and abandoned it--tacking it on to still another film. In this second phase of the film, Miss Dunne unexpectedly begins working at a women's prison (though we actually never really get to see her doing anything there). What we do see are countless horrible scenes of severe abuse and torture that were probably designed to titillate. And, as a result of all this violence, Miss Dunne goes on a crusade to clean up the prison and becomes a reformer and famous writer.

But then, out of the blue, another type of film emerges and the women's prison reform business goes by the wayside. Dunne meets a judge (Walter Huston) who is married but he desperately wants her. Now throughout the film, Dunne is portrayed as a very good girl--even though she did have unmarried sex with Cabot (she was more or less tricked into it). But now, single Irene, who is a tireless reformer and good lady begins sleeping with a married man. He tells her that he and his wife are estranged and are married in name only, but she never thinks to investigate if this is true, and with his assurance, off flies her clothes and they are in the baby making business! BUT, while she's pregnant with his love child, he's indicted for being a crooked judge. He assures her he's innocent, but he's convicted and it sure sounds like he's a scoundrel--using inside information from people that have come before his bench in order to amass a fortune. Then, in the final moments of the film, Miss Dunne tries in vain to get him freed and vows to wait with the child until Huston is released. The film then ends.

So, we basically have three separate films AND a bizarre early 30s idea of what a nice girl should be like. I gathered that she should be a strong-minded working girl who instantly becomes an idiot in her personal relationships! This really undoes all the positives about Dunne's character and it's really hard to imagine anyone liking the film. A strong women's rights advocate might easily be offended at how weak-minded and needy she was and religious people might see her as totally amoral or at least morally suspect! With a decent re-write, this could have been a good film or at least interesting as a lewd and salacious film, but it couldn't make up its mind WHAT it wanted to be and was just another dull Pre-Code film.


What can have been on Irene Dunne's mind when she accepted the role in this distasteful account of a woman of negotiable morals? Certainly, the Irene Dunne of the 1940's, whose reputation as a faithful Roman Catholic who publicly abhorred smut, and shunned any film scripts or Hollywood society, that might be even be remotely construed as corrupting public morals--would never have become associated with such a dubious project as this.

Perhaps, New York's Cardinal Spellman, in his private audience with her, gave her a good dressing down over this role? That we will likely never know, inasmuch as she never spoke of it in later years, though she did denounce her morally suspect, (though quite successful) 1932 film, "Back Street" as "trash".

Certainly by the time she received the distinguished St. Robert Bellarmine Award in 1965 for exemplary public Catholicism, "Ann Vickers" was no longer recalled by the general public.

Suffice it to say that "Ann Vickers" works neither as entertainment or social commentary.

Miss Dunne's role as an adulterous social worker, who sleeps around, (between reforming prisons and writing a best seller on correctional rehabilitation) doesn't dovetail with her temperament or on screen demeanor, and one keeps suspecting that the whole thing is a kind of tongue in cheek gag, (what else can we think when we witness a montage of Miss Dunne's sympathetic beatific gaze superimposed over a shot of a female prisoner being scourged?) By films end, she has renounced careerism in favor of marriage, (to crusty convict Walter Huston no less--and what kind of lunacy would ever conceive of pairing these two romantically?)

Irene Dunne completists will no doubt wish to see this curiosity, if only for the chance to hear her promise to rehabilitate a cocaine addict under her charge: "I'm going to get you off the snow cold turkey" !!!

Well, if nothing else such sordid goings on, do present her light years from her usual milieu of operatic trills, furbellowed chiffon and strawberry phosphates--cocaine addiction not being the first subject one associates with the irreproachable Miss Dunne.


I rented this type of "soft core" before, but I can honestly say, I wasn't expecting this to be in the same type as "Rod Steele: You Only Live Until You Die"--which was both sexy AND funny. It had a good script, a sincere leading man, and a sense of purpose. It also has Gabriella Hall who is hot. The reason why I didn't expect this movie, was because the box was missing the "Must be 18 to Rent" Sticker. I was looking for more "cheese" and less "cheesecake."

First of all, I think movies shouldn't be allowed to start with "actors" rehearsing for a part at a talent agency (or wherever "actors" rehearse). In this movies seeing the "actors" rehearsing highlights the lack of preparation that went into acting out the real characters in the movie.

Okay, having found out that this WAS a soft core movie, I didn't necessarily turn it off and demand my money back. But, the dizzying way the extended video "erotic" scenes are added to what was probably a late night pay-cable release are very annoying and easy to fast-forward through without the sustained quality of, say, Rod Steele. You know they must've had some money, because I think some of it is filmed overseas.

I will have to say the main actor trying NOT to spill the invisibility potion on himself is one of the most baffling acting jobs I've ever seen. And, I've seen Torgo from Manos! It may actually have been worth the dollar rental fee (that and Gabriella Hall). Still, there are better corny movies to rent with your friends.


After just viewing the movie, I must say this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. This takes my worst movie award away from Komodo, which is no easy feat. It is neither a porno nor a legitimate film and it gives them both a bad name. The acting, camera-work, plot, script, and sound are all awful. My personal favorite part of the movie is the duck asking the bartender if he has any grapes. Why was a joke such as this put in the film? Was the director thinking; "I need a humorous scene to balance out the great acting so I will use some lame ass joke I read on a Laffy Taffy wrapper." Another retarded part is when Norman spills the invisibility potion on himself as he attempts to keep it from spilling. Why did they even bother to give the film a NC-17 rating, were they hoping to get as large of an audience as possible? At least if it were rated X it would be more sexual and therefore taking the viewers focus away from the overall low quality. I pray for someone who worked on this panty waste of a flick to respond.


i was surprised after watching this piece of crap , if you have seen an episode of TOM and JERRY in which jerry pours some liquid onto him and becomes invisible than you are likely to see the same cartoons with added EROTIC topping a man becoming invisible and doing S*i* is the conclusion of the movie. involving too much sex in a cartoon themed movie doesn't increase its worth :( , and most of all i was surprised when the same cartoon ending was used to show up the Mr.Invisible and that was really awful i must say , flour drops off the rack and our very own Mr.Invisible becomes Visible "watch ZACK and MIRI make a porno" i bet you wont get bored,

1/10 from me


One would think that anyone embarking upon a followup to the groundbreaking Naked Civil Servant of 30-plus years ago would at the very least try to honor the original with some kind of inspired vision, but no. Here we have a sort of biopic of one of the most stylish people of the late 20th century that itself boasts no style whatsoever. True, the filmmakers have assembled some outstanding actors - and handed them a chipped mug of drab gruel to work with. Everything in the infrastructure of this film is wrong, starting with the script, which is another one of those TV-movie condensations of great lives wherein every other line is a "famous quote" by the subject and every other scene is an in-your-face introduction to the next pivotal character in the subject's life. We get Swoozie Kurtz as a PR maven who promotes Crisp as a stateside entertainer; Denis O'Hare as the editor of a gay periodical who hires Crisp as film reviewer, becomes somewhat alienated from him when he appears indifferent to the passions of 80's AIDS activists, and then returns to the fold as a compassionate friend of the dying octogenarian; Jonathan Tucker (in a fine performance) as a shy, insecure painter of gay-themed canvases who is befriended by Crisp; and finally Cynthia Nixon as performance artist and Woman-About-Bohemia Penny Arcade who, intrigued by Crisp's persona, offers him a spot in her traveling cabaret act. Nixon is a persuasive and gifted performer but is given no chance by the script to embody the down-to-earth and streetwise Arcade. Crisp spent the last 20 years of his life in a one-room flat in an old tenement building in Manhattan's East Village. He famously said that he never cleaned because "after a few years the dust doesn't get any worse," or something like that. But looking at the depiction of that flat in this film you'd never get the flavor of that dustiness. He frequented a local coffee shop on a busy avenue and would be seen pretty much each day of the week sipping tea and watching the world go by. In this film we get a diner that looks like something on 12th Avenue by the Hudson River. Most of the "streets of New York" scenes have a sterile, unreal look with no sense of the period.

The soul of this film is the great John Hurt in the title role. After nearly 35 years he can still grasp the essence of this peculiar post-Edwardian Englishman and put it across to third millennarians. His every line, every gesture is exquisite. In the later scenes he even modulates his vocal projection to suit that of a person whose life is winding down toward death. Crisp wrote shortly before he left this realm that when one grows very, very old one's skin takes on the character of a smelly overcoat that cannot be removed and one longs for death. One senses that feeling in Hurt's performance. So, for him and him alone this film is worth a look.


In this follow up to The Naked Civil Servant we see the final years of Quentin Crisp's life in New York. John Hurt is again Crisp (come on who else could play the part?) and its a role he inhabits to the point of disappearing. For me Hurt is Crisp and I've always found it very hard to take the man himself because Hurt was more him than he was himself. Its masterful performance. His equal is Denis O'Hare as Phillip Steele, Crisp's long time friend and confidant.

Unfortunately outside of the performances the film has little to recommend it. To be certain the film gets the details right. Filmed in and around New York the film the film looks and feels like New York and its environs, but dramatically its kind of inert. Its Crisp talking to people being witty,trying to come to terms with the world as it is (he ended up regretting some poorly chosen words concerning AIDS) and dealing with the infirmities that old aged thrust upon him. Quentin the man is always interesting, but his life as portrayed is really not.

I am disappointed by the film. I've always admired the man and his unique point of view. I just wish he was better served by this film about his life.


I saw this last night at the Tribeca Film Fest and holy god was it bad.. From the script to the editing to the acting to the cinematography-- none of it worked. Not to mention the set design/costumes were so distractingly wrong for the time period (it spans the years from the late 70s up until 2006 or so). Even John Hurt, who's usually an amazing actor, was so over-the- top ridiculous. Granted, Quinten Crisp is an over-the-top guy to begin with, but Hurt was given nothing to work with here. I don't know much else to say except the audience I saw it with absolutely loved it.. so maybe it's just me. But audiences love anything at film festivals when they're sitting next to the director and all the actors. It's not a very accurate test of how good the movie is or how well it will play. Personally, I thought this movie was terrible. On the other hand, it was so terrible that it was hilarious. Get drunk and give it a shot when it's on HBO in 2 years, if it ever makes it that far.


This must be the most boring film I ever saw. The only positive I can say about it is that thankfully I didn't pay to see it. We were given a free showing in school and everyone in the audience just sat there embarrassed wondering when the fun would start. This piece of junk is a badly filmed, way too long film. The actual idea on why making the movie took about 10 seconds to present. The only ones who can be interested in this film are those who lost their jobs and want to know why. They might find some of the interviews interesting. A different edit might have made an interesting documentary of this, but I doubt it, the interviews shown were not engaging in any way. As it is, it is just a tragedy, both to behold and to be a part of. AVOID THIS FILM AT ANY COST!


Can you people please stop believing everything this man says. Get

your facts straight before you start praising this liar. He's not even

from Flint. He just says that to keep his "blue collar" look. He's

from a rich suburb next to Flint. I mean he went to a private school.

His parents paid for him to go to school. Wow, that sure does seem

like they suffered a lot from Flint going to the dumps. He was also born in Canada. Oh wait, that makes him a Canadian citizen. I wish he would just move there. Instead he lives here in his 1 million dollar New York apartment. Thats working class right there. I sure can't wait for his DVD set to come out. I want to here him talking about how big corporations are bad. Where will I get those dvds? Oh yeah, at Target and Wal-Mart. The two biggest corporations in America, which were also the only two stores allowed to sell them.


Leni Riefenstahl would be embarrassed by the disgusting propaganda Moore tries to call "humor". That this movie, and Moore's other prevarications, actually attract admirers proves that, alas, it's possible to fool some of the people all of the time.

Let's see if we can bait foreigners. Let's see if we can extol obsolete factories. Let's see if we can add to the sum of hatred in the world. Let's see if we can pretend we're funny. Let's see if we can out-isolationist Charles Lindbergh. The only thing Moore lacks in comparison to Lindbergh is a medal from Göring.

Admittedly, in this film, Moore had a bit of self-deprecation to his schtick. In this film, Moore mocks Roger Smith, CEO of General Motors, as an aloof, uncaring elitist. Moore could do that in 1989, but now that Moore has surrendered himself to aloof, uncaring elitism, this characterization of Roger Smith has an ironic twinge. Who really wouldn't rather be Roger's buddy than Michael Moore's?


During university, our Philosophy professor, Mr.R, played us "Roger & Me" in its entirety. This was at a time when the obese misfit was still pretty much unknown; a charlatan-in-the-making, a soon-to-be-household-name who was still busy honing his fact-bending skills and still learning how to manipulate the easily impressed, the pathologically paranoid, the mentally ill, the sexually frustrated, the illiterate, the semi-literate, the clueless, and the laughably gullible among ye.

As we finished viewing it, I thought: "Yeah, it was somewhat entertaining - in a totally daft Bugs Bunny kind of way - but what an ultra-biased, anti-Capitalist propaganda turkey that has no objectivity whatsoever this is; its sole purpose being to take cheap shots at people and ideas which the film's creator has pet-peeves for. This isn't a documentary by any stretch of the imagination." However, our beloved Marxist professor was absolutely thrilled with R&M, and we ended up not only NOT criticizing any aspects of it, but Mr.R actually spent the remainder of class praising its "qualities". Just so we understand each other, the words "propaganda", "viewer manipulation", "left-wing Extremist", or "selective fact presentation" never exited his perpetually smiling mouth... And just to remind you: this was supposed to be a philosophy class, not INDOCTRINATE YOUR STUDENTS WITH YOUR OWN POLITICAL B.S. course.

Anyway, now I get to the really interesting aspect: this professor, Mr.R, is now a highly successful screenwriter in Hollywood. He has written several left-wing scripts with A-grade stars in them.

The moral of the story: those are the kind of people for whom all doors are open in Hollywood.

Michael Moore is a talentless filmmaker (which he proved beyond a smidgen of a doubt with "Canadian Bacon"), but being a Marxist liberal opens doors to just about anyone. Tinseltown is teeming with rabid pro-Chavez extremists, hence why political brainwashing through simplistic portrayals of reality has been part-and-parcel of the Hollywood experience for many decades now.

Embrace this demagogue and you've betrayed your own brain forever.


I was forced to watch this film for my World Reigonal Geography class. This film is what is wrong with America today, instead of figuring out the best way out of hard times or situations we would rather complain about how it is someone else's fault. This film goes through the downfall of Flint, Michigan and blames it 100% on General Motors. In the process of doing so Moore goes to great lengths to make the executives of General Motors out to be villains just because they are doing their job in a capitalist society. Moore films several evictions throughout the film and does not ever even ask once if the person is being evicted because of a GM layoff. Additionally, he never interviews the landlords of the tenants filmed. Moore goes to great lengths to twist historical events to fit his political agenda in this film of pure propaganda.


That this film has such a low IMDb rating is not surprising. In our post-Enron era, do we really need any more reminders of America's obsession with the greed creed? The topic has become so politically charged that a lot of viewers not only are not going to be entertained by movies of this sort, but will respond with barely concealed rage. It was all I could do to sit quietly through this cinematic memo of corporate corruption without extracting the DVD and smashing it into a thousand pieces.

What's really irksome with these kinds of films, including "Purpose", is their pretense that behind the glitter, there's some meaningful message that makes the film worthwhile. In "Purpose", I found no such meaningful message. What I did find was a story that idolized the materialistic trappings of capitalistic power and wealth. The two main characters, nauseating in their glibness, do very little actual work. Instead, they party, they play golf, they strut their coolness, they sound "hip" with dialogue straight out of MTV-culture-speak: "rock my world", and "Now get back to partying; that's an order". John is smug, self-important, shallow, and smirks a lot. Robert, who wears funky little glasses, is even worse.

The film includes two youthful garage geeks, who look and sound like they're right out of the film "Antitrust" (2001). Stereotypes are played for all they're worth, and in this film also include chic-looking computer equipment, and Barbie doll chicks on hand for those occasions when our can-do future billionaires need some relaxation after all that heavy-duty partying. And with the time-bound images and dialogue that such a story necessitates, can you imagine how dated this film will be in fifteen years?

About the best I can do for this waste of cinematic celluloid is to say that it does have some nice aerial views of San Francisco. The film would have been a lot more enjoyable, a lot more entertaining, if they had ditched those odious characters and that repulsive story, and simply flown us viewers around in that little plane for the film's duration.


Computer savvy John Light (as John Elias) goes from Stanford drop-out to successful young Dotcom-era tycoon. But, Mr. Light's sneering success could be short-lived, with partners like ambitious Jeffrey Donovan (as Robert Jennings). Mr. Donovan used to bed down with Light's girlfriend, Megan Dodds (as Lisa Forrester). Donovan wants Light to know that binge drinking and casual sex don't have to end in college. After reading a naughty Internet sex session, Ms. Dodds shines Light on. He may lose is "Digital Dreams" Internet empire, too! Veterans unsuccessfully trying to lending dramatic gravitas include red lollipop-sucking Mia Farrow (as Anna Simmons) and quick-drawing, computer-hating Hal Holbrook (as Tom Walker). Ms. Farrow looks sweet with her lollipops.

*** Purpose (2/21/02) Alan Lazar ~ John Light, Jeffrey Donovan, Mia Farrow


Ham-handed homage to honest hacking. Felt good in a soft-core way about equivalent to its mild pornography, until its vapid lack of technical and economic reality, emotional and moral sophistication became apparent.

Basically a muddled '90s remake of '85's "Real Genius", with fewer and stupider geniuses, and a cynical bad ending.

Perhaps this movie would appeal to someone delighted by the thesis that becoming a billionaire is so easy it's almost accidental. Or perhaps to technical types who like seeing themselves depicted as cool and sexy. Speculating about the reasons someone might like this movie is certainly more interesting than the movie itself. The movies closing credits song is more interesting than the movie itself.


This film tells the true story of escaped black slaves who found their own mountain-top commune as free men in 17th-century Brazil. The story is interesting and edifying. However, this film -- as a film -- is terrible.

The soundtrack is not period music or tribal music. It is Afro-Brazilian pop music from the early 1980s. Battle scenes are fought to the sounds of cheesy pop rhythms best left to the disco or bad cops dramas. Admittedly, the lyrics are folk-ish tales of the slaves' heroism. The special effects are absurd. Rather than invoke the mysticism of African religion and atavistic beliefs, they merely make the film look cheap. They are completely unbelievable, and I don't mean merely in a sense of verisimilitude.

Life within the commune of Palmares could not have been the way it is portrayed in the film. For this society, as shown in the film, is one-part kibbutz, one-part Afro-pop festival. Moreover, it is almost embarrassing to watch the director play upon the clichés of blacks as talented singers and dancers who simply want to be happy. He portrays daily life as a series of dance parties in which the freed slaves paint themselves bright colors and whirl around to the strains of '80s pop music. On the other hand, they have an abundance of beautiful food, but the viewer hardly sees any work being done. The king inveighs against private property in a hackneyed and clichéd way. When a man complains that people are taking the vegetables that he has grown over many months, the king says, "What comes from the earth belongs to everyone, as the earth belongs to no one. If they need food, they have a right to take yours."

I am glad that I learned about this episode in history, but I am relieved that a film with such low production values and that trades upon such worn stereotypes would likely not be made today.


Dreadful, stupidly inane film dealing with corruption at the Louisiana Purchase Lumber Company.

Everyone in the state of Louisiana seems to be corrupt and inept. A member of the college's English Department can only sign his name with an X.

When it appears that a straight laced Senator (Victor Moore) is coming to the state to investigate, everyone there tries to blame the innocent but foolish Bob Hope character.

Is it any wonder that Vera Zorina did not get the part of Maria in 1943's "For Whom the Bell Tolls?"

Naturally, the corrupt officials along with Hope try to show pictures of Zorina with Moore so as to ruin him politically. Moore marries the head of the restaurant who he had insulted when he asked for a ham sandwich. He thought the reason that she was upset was because it was a kosher restaurant. This is the extent of humor is this absolute mess of a film.

When Hope tries to defend himself in Congress, he does a take-off of James Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." By then the film is too far gone for any good response.

The music and lyrics are both absolutely terrible. That song praising Louisiana, sung in various ways, is absolutely terrible. Irving Berlin had something to do with the music of this utterly terrible film?


My wife and I couldn't even finish the film. Truly, it was rather painful.

First, the historical accuracy is compromised not so much by the events themselves as the ridiculous one-dimensionality of the characters. For instance, Augustus takes the "burden" of power only with great reluctance. Indeed, he is portrayed as if he's some sort of great humanist and believer in democracy.

Second, the camp! My lord, the dialog is horrifically bad. I recall the soap opera my mother watched when I was a child having better dialog than this. The constant exposition and pontificating grates upon the ears like fingernails on chalkboard. Ugh. (Okay, I exaggerate a bit, but the dialog truly is bad.) The HBO series Rome is superior for no other reason than that its characters were at least believable, regardless of their historicity.

Rome was also wise enough to know they couldn't stage epic battle scenes. The creators of this film did not. When Caesar attacks Munda, the battle scene is practically farcical.

I will grant that the costumes are perfectly good. The sets are fine, though their CGI backdrops can be a bit jarring at times. The sound is bad, thoughboth in terms of the music, the foley work, and the dubbing of so many of the side characters.

Anyway, it's completely not worth renting. As a history major, I was hoping for an alternative approach to Augustus than HBO's Rome, which, I feel, failed to capture his overall "feel" quite as well as they did Caesar or Antony. Instead, I should have just stuck to my reading.


This is a voice of a person, who just finished watching the second season of Rome, almost at one go, and grabbed the opportunity to see "what happened next" - this film conveniently takes off where Rome ends. If you find Rome an abomination, a foul mouthed screw-fest of little historical accuracy, then you might enjoy Imperium: Augustus. But, if you feel Rome is a good thing, if you enjoy the complicated intrigue, the ambiance of decadence and the work of the actors, then Imperium will obviously appear to you as an overly timid, superfluous and tedious soap opera with not many redeeming factors.

There are some actors who for my taste look somewhat better than these in Rome. I especially disliked Rome's image of Cleopatra as a drug-soaked sex addict. There must have been a great deal of strength and dignity in that woman, and the actress in Imperium suits the part much better. O'Toole and Rampling are good, and so are some others. But then... If you have come to know - and love - Atia as the super cool bitch, you'll find the depiction of her in Imperium - as a tear-jerking mother goose in an apron - absolutely ridiculous. There are supposed to be some bitchy characters in Imperium, but these actresses rely heavily upon staring at the men and nothing much more. You'll find no interesting female characters in this epic. There's also the painfully comic Maecenas, whom we see as a screeching drag queen, even though there is little historical evidence that he was such (he's once referred to as "being effeminate in his pleasures" in the annals).

The interiors are rather meager and rely on clichés upon clichés. Cleopatra's big hall looks like something out of a computer game or a children's play room in an Egyptian theme park. There's a looooooooot of really poor 3D graphics, not up to 2003 standards.

The action is presented as a series of flashbacks the aged Augustus is reliving. So we get a quick look at some historical events, some of which are presented well, whereas some are not. An disproportional amount of time is wasted to show Livia as the "eternal flame" of Augustus. This affair doesn't sizzle for even a moment, the dialog is superlame and everything is seasoned with tacky tear-inducing musical score. Whatever amount of reality the show aims to capture, every last shred of it is destroyed by the dry synchronized dubbing (most of the actors are non English speakers).

Everything is lukewarm in this epic. True, there are more historical accuracies than in Rome, but dramatically speaking, it's plain boring. The characters lack depth and the dialog sharpness. Camera-work is often reduced to static shots, and lighting offers nothing to please your eye.

There's really no-one to love and no-one to hate in Imperium. Regardless of whether you liked or disliked Rome, there are much better films and miniseries around. Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire would be one thing I recommend.


In terms of historical accuracy, this is the absolute worst Roman film I have ever seen. The list not only of errors but of plot ideas that are flat impossible would run longer than the three-hour film, but just to give you an idea...

Julius Caesar and Augustus are presented as liberal Democrats, taking the side of "the people" against "the nobles." This is patently absurd. The Caesars were as noble as you could get. Their interest was in consolidating power and stabilizing a country that had been wrecked by 150 years of civil war. There had been reformers, notably the Gracchi brothers, who lived about 100 years earlier, and to some extent advocated for the rights of ordinary citizens.

There are several scenes that are utterly ridiculous, if you know anything about the period. "Cleopatra", with Richard Burton, will give you a much better idea of how events unfolded, fanciful though it is.

Historical accuracy is one thing. Acting and dialogue are something else, and here this film veers perilously close to being a bad junior high school production. I burst out laughing several times, especially when Julia, the daughter of Augustus, meets a lover. They clutch passionately, as she breathes: "My father..." "Ah, your father, your father.... your father would disapprove." Peter O'Toole is at his worst, forced to gnaw his way through some very pompous and silly lines. The actor who plays Augustus as a young man is such a nebbish --- and the character is written as such --- it's impossible to envision him as the cunning, crafty, Machiavellian politician who created the Roman Empire. Here, he's just a whiner who has to be told what to do most of the time.

Charlotte Rampling does manage to emerge from an underwritten role as Livia, Augustus's wife, with dignity. Had she been given a fuller role to play, she might have rescued this production from absurdity.

There is some nice photography and battle footage, helped by plenty of standard issue CGI. Oddly, this was made for British TV (and appears to be a British-Italian co-production) but is labeled with an "R" rating.

The DVD picture is excellent and the Dolby Digital soundtrack is very nice, although you only notice it during the few action sequences, as the movie is mostly talk.

Almost any Roman movie, even "Cleopatra" or "The Fall of the Roman Empire", has more historicity --- to say nothing of compelling drama --- than this bizarre Classics Illustrated, Jr. adaptation. This one gives new meaning to the much-abused phrase, "Based on a true story." In this case they could have said, "Suggested by real events."


For several reasons, this movie is simply awful. Other posters have listed some of this movie's historical errors. Well, I have a layman's knowledge of Roman history and even I found the inaccuracies flagrant. I usually forgive errors in historical movies because I understand that the purpose is to entertain not educate. And shrinking a long saga down to a two hour feature requires some, let's say, historical license. But this movie goes well beyond mere rounding.

There's worse. To tell a story from a distant period, the movie uses flashbacks which just make the story more confusing. Unless viewers have some prior knowledge of the period, they will quickly be lost. In addition, the movie was obviously filmed simultaneously in Italian and English with various actors being dubbed later. At times, the actors seem as if they were in completely different movies which were then edited together. In fact, this is not far wrong. The actors were obviously pasted onto a cheesy computer generated ancient Rome.

The only reason I give this boring mess any stars is because I always find Peter O'Toole entertaining. But that is no reason to rent it. If you are curious about Roman history, there are much better movies available.


What a stupid waste of money! 30,000 square feet of rebuilt ancient Rome, 2 millions cubic meters of 50 feet tall buildings, 10,000 costumes, 2 years of works, an International Ancient History Committee (sic!), some first class actors and actresses . The final result? An empty TV-movie for a single-digit IQ attendance.


What can I say about this? Such a big Prestige-Production - but in the End? Wasted Time, wasted Money.

This work a disaster is historically seen. Only some examples:

* Augustus often is named 'Gaius' - his First name (Pronomen). But the old Romans don't used this Name. Correct would be the Surname (Nomen Gentile and Cognomen) or the 'Octavian', 'Caesar', 'Augustus'.

* Livia was shown as tyrannic Wife. But this historically wrong.

* Iulia was shown as nice young woman - but she wasn't one. Adultery and (maybe?) Prostitution and arrogant behavior was the cause of her banishing.

* She wasn't at the dying bed of her Father. She never was allowed to leave her banishing. And she was at this time around 50 years old! Not as young as she was shown. In the same Year Augustus died she committed suicide, because Tiberius stopped giving her a Pension.

* Augustus was much more scruplesless then in this Movie shown. But Author and Director seems to believe Augustus' own 'Res Gestae'.

What remains? Historically extremely doubtful, bad acting, bad built and equipment - 2 Points out of 10 - one for Peter O'Toole.