Eleven years ago, Stanley Ipkiss released his true inner self and became the hero of Edge City by finding and wearing the Norse god of mischief, Loki's mask. The Mask helped bring Jim Carrey to the forefront of comedy and reached a very popular status for its originality and just pure fun. Everyone knew how to spell party. P-A-R-T-Y. Why? Cuz I gotta! Now, eleven years later, it seems to me that the same philosophy has been applied to the new movie "Son of the Mask." Someone asked director Lawrence Guterman why are you making this? And he responds "Cuz I gotta!" Unfortunately, that answer doesn't cover it because after seeing Son of the Mask I still left the theatre thinking, "Good Lord, Why?" Guterman and the rest of the people involved in the blasphemous film need to realize that the response given to why are you making this film should not be as simple as the answer to the debate on whether or not to party.

The Son of the Mask begins with Otis the dog finding the infamous mask and bringing it back to his owner Tim Avery, a clear homage to legendary Loony Toons creator Tex Avery. Tim, played by Jamie Kennedy, is a struggling animator who is stuck working as a turtle tour guide for the animation company he aspires to one-day draw for. On the night of the company Halloween party, Tim puts on the mask and transforms into the mischievous, insane character that we all expect. After the party Tim goes home, mask still on and conceives a child with his wife. Nine months later mayhem ensues as the baby born of the mask has remarkable cartoonish powers. Otis the dog, jealous of the baby's attention, puts on the mask and partakes in Tom and Jerry type mayhem to out the baby. Meanwhile, Loki, played by Alan Cumming, is in search for his mask at the orders of his father, Odin.

First off, ill admit that I do respect the fact that this film pays so much homage to the classic cartoons such as Tom and Jerry and Loony Toons, with its Wile E. Coyote type contraptions and the infamous dancing frog type plot. However, this reverence cannot save the film and makes it less respectful and more of a waste of time.

The premise of the movie becomes increasingly silly. Silly is not always a bad thing, but in this movie, the silliness gets to the point of just plain annoying. The characters are not fun to watch, and what's worse, they're not funny. The dullness of the characters can also be attributed to the fact that so much CGI was used. One of the greatest things about the original is that while, obviously computer animation was used, so much relied on Jim Carrey and his exuberant style of just being. Jim Carrey, we were convinced, was an actual cartoon. Jamie Kennedy just doesn't have that kind of ability, a fact that is clear when you watch him wear the mask and his facial features rarely shift. The baby and dog were mostly completely animated which became increasingly distracting throughout the movie. The side story of Loki searching for the mask just became more and more stupefying.

The son of the Mask is a sad sad state of affairs. What I suggest is you go rent or buy the original the Mask and thank the Norse gods, or whoever, for bringing it to us. And will consider seeing the sequel my sacrifice as I continue to ask the infamous question "WHY?" The son of the Mask gets one star, although that star should be divvied up between the classic creators of Loony Toons and Jim Carrey, who will always be, in my book, the mask.


IS there any reason to revive characters 10 years after the fact when the only reason they worked the first time was due to the actors playing them.

Who can replace Jim Carrey or Cameron Diaz -- or better yet, who can replace them at cut-rate prices since most studios know that sequels don't bring in the same amount of revenue as the originals so they cut corners from the get-go.

Where are the good movies going to play if powerful Hollywood studios can clog up 3,000 theaters opening weekend with whatever turds they feel like the general public can be suckered into.

Enough's enough people, this sequel-itis has got to stop and the Hollywood people need to start getting their act together or start distributing the much-better foreign product that's floating in limbo.

Wake up Hollywood, cause the people HAVE woken up and they aren't buying it just cause it's new and shiny. Give us the good stuff and send the rest to the DVD shelves, cause we are taking back the theaters once and for all!!!


I sort of liked this movie, not a good one, but not the worst ever made. Though, everyone else says it is one o the worst movies ever created, I thought it was okay. There are a lot of immature jokes. It wants to be funny sometimes, but fails.

The story is OKAY. It may be a little hard to follow for the younger audiences, though.

The acting is pretty bad. Jamie Kennedy is a horrible actor at most times. At some times, it is even laughable. Alan Cumming is probably the best actor in here. He is funny when he is supposed to be, but some of his lines are god awful.

Oh, and the main bad thing about this movie that I hated was Tim Avery's voice when he is possessed by the mask. The voice is HORRIBLE. Also, the scenes that he is in are so unfunny, that they are almost unbearable. I am sure they could have cut him out, and it wouldn't affect the movie at all.

Overall, you can live without seeing this. It is a nice movie to watch if you have nothing else to watch, though. They definitely could have gone without making the sequel, but it is a decent effort. 4/10


Actually, Son of the Mask did make me laugh a few times...mostly due to the cartoonish jokes that made Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner so funny. The CGI is very impressive and is used extensively in this movie. Garfield, for example, is no where on par for CGI, but I would give it the same vote.

Everyone knows the story...which wasn't that bad for a KIDS movie. Yes, it is a KIDS movie...and therefore should be treated as such. Jamie Kennedy is not very good in his role. His attempts to act "crazy" are not very good and overall acting is poor.

Everyone else is not too bad.

Basically, my 2 and 5 year old watched the whole thing without complaining. At least I was able to sit through this.

There is no way this movie is worst than **shudder** Class of 1999

4/10 for the CGI and a few laughs.


Well I had the chance to view this film the other day. I didn't know what to expect as I never saw the trailer and such... but what I did discover simply by watching the first 10 minutes is that this film is the worst I have ever had the misfortune to see.

I wish I could give it this film a 0 rating. The first 10 minutes were bad but as soon as it goto the party scene I wanted to just enter a coma it was really poorly done. The actors didn't have any direction, there was no real story, I read some reviews that state its good if you have a little child to entertain for 90 minutes etc... but really why should we expose children to this type of film? Its got poor humor, rude and crude comedy at best and focuses on poor special effects to fill 80% of its time. I am sure a few people in Hollywood will be out on the streets after this film bombs.

Also How can 39 people give this movie a 10. I mean get real anyone that gives this movie a 10 either has some mental issue and or works for the film company. This movie should average at 1.5/10 instead of its current 2.3/10 due to the people that ranked it 10. Truly sad.


This movie is a real shame, not just for the plot,the empty performance of the characters, it is for the lack of creativity from the director and all the crew, this is maybe one of the worst movies of all times,and it is hard to believe that is the sequel of one of the most famous movies of the 90's.

I am a great fan of The Mask, when I went to see this movie I was expecting to a movie with a good sense of humor, a movie with a acceptable plot, instead I saw a really bad copy of Chuck Jones and Tex Avery cartoons, the movie was not funny even for my 7 years old sister, so I wonder:What was wrong New Line Cinema???.Was it trying to repeat the success of the first movie, or was it trying to create another masterpiece like The Lord of the Rings???.Because if they did, they were completely out of their minds.


I cant believe it! I thought this is a good sequel when Jim carry in the film has a baby but instead its a film with crappy actors, stupid plot and stupid scenes. This should be in 'crappest films of sh*t in earth'. Thank god the same director did not make this because this is so stupid with some cartoonish parts like the fart was not funny, not the pee and not the dancing! I laughed at this because of how stupid the person made this like homer Simpson making a movie about a doughnut! I wish someone makes a remake of son of the mask with a plot like this! The mask guy (Jim carry) and his wife have a son which is a normal baby. When the baby finds another mask he became the mask, too and the mask guy tries to get his mask back! This is very crap so i'll give it a 1 out of 10. Fu*king sh*t!


SPOILERS

I love movies. I've seen a lot of movies. I didn't think I'd ever see a film that I actually hated. Son of the Mask ruined it. Son of the Mask is so bad I'm not even going to do a detailed comment like I usually do. In fact, I'm not even going to write a lot. I think all of you should know that this movie is horribly awful. And poor Jamie Kennedy. He was awesome in Scream, but now this film! Also, this film takes a SMO-CAN film and turns it into this goofy kids film that not even kids will like. This film also consists of very rude humor. Like the nose woman. She has a nose for a head and when she sneezes white stuff spews out of her nose. There is also an Exorcist parody. Yes, a kid film has an adult parody. Maybe they thought the adults would like it. Quite frankly, it made the film even more cheesier and crude.

Here's the basic, stupid plot. Tim Avery's dog gets the amazing Loki mask and turns into a cartoon dog thing. When Tim is paying more attention to the baby with special powers, cartoon dog becomes a Wiley Coyote ripoff. Then Loki takes the baby with amazing powers and Tim and Loki have a really cheesy animated fight. Tim's wearing the mask. It all ends happy. Too bad this movie is horrible.

Overall, the original the Mask was a fantastic Jim Carrey movie. This, basically is not. Please, please, don't rent, buy, or download this movie. I made a terrible mistake renting this. I don't want you guys to make that same exact mistake. I feel horrible that I couldn't write a detailed comment, but really, what's there to comment on?

2/10 I'd give it a one, but come on, it's basically a kid film.

Recommended Films: The Mask.


Loki, Norse god of mischief, creates a mask that endows the wearer with cartoon-like powers. At the command of his father, Odin, he spends the rest of the movie looking for the mask so that it can cause no further grief to mankind. In the meantime, the possessor of the mask conceives a child who inherits the powers of the mask. Etc. etc. If this sounds like a pretty thin plot line, it is. Add to this the fact that the movie is handled ineptly from start to finish, and the result is very, very bad. You can find worse movies, but you'll have to actively search for them.

For the most part, Son of the Mask is presented at the intellectual level of a pre-schooler, but in light of scenes such as the mask-baby urinating copiously in six different directions, including on his father, this premise seems unlikely. I asked my son who he thought might have been the target audience for the movie, and he responded "Convicted felons," apparently forgetting for the moment that the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

But just making a bad movie is not a sin, or Hell would be overflowing. What makes it a sin is that $72 million was spent on this piece of garbage. To put things in perspective, the day after we watched Son of the Mask, my son and I watched "Good Night, and Good Luck," a movie that garnered six academy award nominations (including best picture), and was brought in for $7 million. That's right. Just one-tenth of the amount of money spent on Son of the Mask. This, then is the sin -- to flush good money down the sewer, when it could have been better used in making watchable movies, or feeding starving children, or for that matter, almost any other purpose. The producers should truly be ashamed of themselves.


OK, about 11 years ago the awesome, funny movie, "The Mask", came out and everyone loved it and now, 11 years later the mask is brought back in this awesome movie right? WRONG!!!!!!!!!! this movie was the stupidest movie that i have probably ever seen!! i mean when i rented it i thought that i would be laughing so hard that i would almost pee my pants like from the first one. but after i saw this "sequal" i barley even let out a chuckle. i mean no offense to the director or the cast of this movie, but what a waste of time and money. so, the plot of the whole story was about this little baby that has part of the mask in him and this evil person is after him for some thing, because that is all i really got, i would have least added some more things to it so it would be higher than a 2 out of 10 stars.


(Contains really bad Spoilers) So what can I say about this....It's a really HORRIBLE and AWFUL movie!!.Too much CGI and special effects....you could tell how fake the ridiculous baby is!!.PLEASE at least go watch "Dungeons and Dragons" which is another terrible pile of TRASH.Son of the Mask makes Dungeons and Dragons way better!!! Uggg!!!!!!!!!!!! Pure Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!I Hate this Trash!! I would also like to say that "Superbabies:BabyGeniuses 2" was also a really stupid movie.Probably just as stupid as "Son of the Mask"."BabyGeniuses 2 was just as fake as"Son of the Mask" and also contains way too much CGI!!

Anyway Yeah...this was a BAD BAD REALLY BAD movie....just please avoid it....Do NOT recommend this to no one...please its just way too ridiculous....makes no sense and really bad plot.The baby peing on his dad was just lame!


There was no need for this movie, plain and simple. The original, although hated by some, was something I found to be actually really entertaining, mainly because it was before Jim Carrey started to really lose his touch, and Cameron Diaz was, well, "Smoooooookin!" 'Nuff said. So why make a sequel/prequel thing? Honestly? Knowing that Jim Carrey wouldn't do it should've been clue enough that it didn't deserve to be created. But then they just make mistake after mistake. Jamie Kennedy. Why is this man still allowed to breathe? The writing and story: terrible. Why would I ever want to see a baby wearing the mask? Moreover why would I want to see it fly? Ever? HOW DID SOMEONE THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?! The acting is despicable, in fact nearly everything about this movie is. I'm trying to keep calm, or IMDb probably won't let me post this. Bottom line: don't watch this piece of trash. Pick up the original, see how good Cameron Diaz looked and how Jim Carrey used to have a career, and laugh. Don't waste even a second of your time on this.


This movie isn't worth going to the theaters to watch, i did and i didn't like it, the effects on the movie are really well done, and you get a laugh here and there, but the story is really bad, it seemed like they had run out of ideas, and what is that of loki and odin getting along? that totally destroys norse mythology, and i guess they forgot that loki's powers only worked during the NIGHT!! If you really MUST see this movie rent it when it comes out, don't go to the movies for this!

They could have done a lot more with this than they did, it felt like they just wanted to do a movie to show off cool animation and effects


-So the weak excuse for a story in the generic waste of time involves a guy that wants to be an animator but can't get his career of the ground. His super hot wife is more successful and she doesn't seem to care that he's a loser but the man isn't satisfied with that and wants to make more out of his life. One day their dog brings them a magic mask that changes his life. Unfortunately for him, the god Loki is looking for his magic mask and once he finds the man with the mask he tries to get it back and that's the whole story. If that sounded exciting to you then someone needs to throw some water on you to wake you up

-This movie is terrible. There's really no other way for me to say it and I just can't stretch it enough. The only good thing about the whole thing was the woman that played Jamie Kennedy's wife who was hot but apart from her there's is nothing about this movie that is worth watching. I know it's meant for kids and that's why it's so idiotic but what about the adults that have to take their kids to watch this trash. Why do we have to suffer through this vile vomit sack of horrid crap. The original mask was a very good movie that had a great mix of comedy and great story telling. This one is a lame attempt by hack filmmakers to cash in on the franchise and judging by the laughable BO gross I'm guessing the franchise won't go on any longer.

-The cinematographer needs to be beaten severely because the sugary colors of the movie will make you feel like throwing up. If there was music, I didn't pay attention to it because I had already punctured my eardrums to prevent myself from hearing the horrid dialog. Then there's the acting or at least what passes for acting nowadays. you could watch an infomercial and see much better acting in that than the one in this movie but I can't really blame the actors since it's the director who deserves the blame for apparently not realizing that the actors needed to do another f**king take. If new line is looking to start a franchise with this then they need to up their game by hiring writers that can actually write and stop thinking that the audience will watch any crap that comes out

-Bottom line if you're a sadomasochistic and you love torturing yourself then please by all means check this out because it is painful to watch but if you're not and you actually like to watch movies that are good then avoid at all cost


Son of the Mask is a terrible movie. I don't like the baby and I don't like the dog. Jamie Kennedy and his wife are a cute couple but that can't redeem sitting through this garbage. Even at only 88 minutes (or so it says), the movie could not end soon enough for me. The only real laughs come at the beginning with a brief appearance by Ben Stain. That's it. The rest is just a rehash of the first movie. Actually that is just an insult to rehashes. Why was this sequel made?? This movie cost millions of dollars to make. Why would I sit through a movie with a baby and a dog intentionally trying to drive the dad crazy? Jamie Kennedy is talented but he has nothing to do in this movie. I am not bothering to be nice to this movie. 1/10


"Son of the Mask" is a terrible excuse of a movie. I went to see this with my friend and I still wish we had seen "Because of Winn-Dixie" instead. I must say that it is partially my fault, as I agreed to go see it with him. Being a fan of the first "Mask" movie (Jim Carrey was hilarious) I had hoped it wasn't as bad as all of the critics said it was.

Ten minutes into the movie I knew it was headed for disaster. Disgusting and pointless attempts at being funny got little seven and eight year old children shrieking with laughter, but the rest of us were left staring at the screen in disbelief.

Finding the movie as repulsive and unfunny as I did is surprising to even me, as I loved "Scary Movie" and "Anchorman", two films which many people I know found crude and offensive. But the thing is, "Son of the Mask" is not funny unless you're under the age of ten.

The film features lots of CGI in it, but it cannot save this piece of rubbish. Whoever allowed this movie to make it to the big screen was probably thinking it had potential, considering the success of its original. Unfortunately, it has none of the laughs, fun, or excitement of the first, creating a mockery of the original movie. I recommend renting the original "Mask" to anyone who is thinking about seeing this one. 1 star out of 10 is generous to this awful mess.


This "film," and I use that term loosely, reminds me of the first joke my daughter wrote, at eighteen months: "P.U., stinky poopies!"

Like that joke, this movie can only appeal to the very young, the very immature, or the very stupid.

That said, there are a few bright spots.

The effects, where the majority of the reputed $100 million went, are kinetic and convincing -- I mean, as convincing as those kind of kinetic CGI effects can be. The CGI baby effects are not great, but I imagine those are very hard to do well... although for a hundred-million bucks, they could have been better!

Moose, the dog from "Frasier," phoned in his usual exemplary performance. Steven Wright did well with a small part. Alan Cummings was, well, Alan Cummings-as-villain, which we've seen before, and Bob Hoskins as Odin was unrecognizable, but enjoyable.

The actress playing Mrs. Avery was cute-as-a-button, as you'd expect, and Jamie Kennedy stunk, as you'd expect. His best role so far was in the Scream trilogy (not to be confused with the Lord of the Rings trilogy), and in Three Kings. He should stick, perhaps, to more subtle forms of comedy. Jim Carrey, he ain't.

The writing and direction were, if anything, worse than Kennedy's performance. I semi-remember one clever (though seven-year-old clever) line that I wish someone would quote accurately for the "Memorable Quotes" section. Something about Avery's proposed costume being the "crappiest crap in Craptown," it was a second-grade joke, but sort of funny in context.

Over all, since there's nothing lower than a "one," I give this film a "one."


The satirical movie website Dateline Hollywood joked that "Son of the Mask" was all a practical joke star Jamie Kennedy played on New Line Cinema for his show "The Jamie Kennedy Experiment." If only. And if only the movie had been half as funny as that satire piece.

"The Mask" was the ideal vehicle for the face-pulling Jim Carrey that so many viewers dote on; it also delighted males over the age of 12 by introducing Cameron Diaz. So having a followup minus both of them was not a good idea, plus you'd have thought New Line would have learned their lesson after "Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd." But no... though to be fair, having an all new cast is in keeping with the original comic (in which the Mask went from owner to owner). As written by Lance Khazei and directed by Lawrence Guterman, however, there's nothing there in return, except a steady stream of admittedly decent FX by the usual squadron of houses (Industrial Light and Magic improving on the "Ally McBeal" dancing baby and their own "Baby's Day Out," with the Tippett Studio, Giant Killer Robots, Digital Dimension and so on in support) and an even greater pandering to cartoon fans by having our hero work at an animation company (responsible for such gems as "Siamese Popes"), naming his character after Tex Avery, and working in not just references to classic cartoons but actual clips.

The trouble is that last approach doesn't really work, partly because most of the attempts to bring cartoon trappings to live action fall flat (especially the cars getting in the party mood) and mostly because the tributes to the Flintstones, Woody Woodpecker, "Duck Amuck" and especially "One Froggy Evening" show up how weak this movie is in comparison. Plus the movie fits in shambolic slapstick alongside strained sentiment (the underlying theme of the story is family; our hero isn't ready to have a son, and his nemesis - Alan Cumming as the Norse god Loki - is far from the apple of Odin's eye... and what Bob Hoskins is doing here as Odin, even after "Super Mario Bros.," is beyond me), and Kennedy just isn't in the same league as Carrey in the zany stakes - though it's not like he gets any help from the script. Also note that unlike Diaz, the very cute Traylor Howard (as the mother of the son of the Mask) doesn't get much to do; giving HER the Mask might have helped the movie.

Further points are lost for throwing away Cumming, Hoskins, Steven Wright and Magda Szubanski; for a suspiciously abbreviated running time (which would account for some gaping plot holes and scenes that seem to be missing); and for an incredibly bad attempt at an inside joke when our hero fails to sell the concept of the "green guy" as an animated TV series - "The Mask" did become an animated TV series in real life, and was a far better follow up than this sequel. The fact that this actually opened in Britain before the US should tell you everything... what with this and "Blade: Trinity," New Line seems intent on cornering the market on dreadful sequels with cast members from "Two Guys And A Girl." What next, "The Butterfly Effect 2" with Nathan Fillion?

Somebody stop this.


"I remember waiting to be born..."

"Vision quest that was the American West."

"We went to a psychic..."

"I'm sure their first reaction is that she's cuckoo"

"...the place is haunted..."

"I think there's another dimension right here."

An artist (Marta Becket) and her husband many decades ago left the hustle and bustle and culture of New York and moved to a god-forsaken town with a population of 10 in Death Valley. There, they renovated a theater--painting it is a very home-spun/folk art manner. And, once finished, she bega putting on dancing performances for practically no one. In many ways, it's highly reminiscent of the Werner Herzog film FITZCARRALDO or FIELD OF DREAMS--though AMARGOSA is a documentary of a real person--not a mythical crazy man like Klaus Kinski or Kevin Costner. Her husband eventually leaves--much of it apparently because of the lifestyle she chose. So, today she lives on with her ten cats and a sanctuary for burros eventually along with her new male companion, Tom.

What you think about this documentary depends on your perspectives. If you are into New Age ideas and open to these sensibilities, then you'll more likely appreciate the film. Her talking about how she remembers her birth, ghosts, vision quests and psychics frankly made the psychology teacher in me cringe and this would definitely be the case for many people. In addition, her burro sanctuary and trying to preserve horses in the desert will most likely appeal to PETA and many other animal lovers, though with my background in environmental concerns and biology, I see the burros and horses as a blight that would destroy the native plants and animals. So on two different accounts, I tend to think quite the opposite of Marta--who is more of a "feeler" and "sensing" individual. Depending on how you feel about all this will definitely color your opinions--and I am pretty sure most people will either think she's a genius or a nut! You'll just have to guess what I think.

Now despite all this, the film is interesting and Marta's life is definitely NOT dull--particularly since in recent years, people have actually begun taking trips to the desert to see her perform. There is a definite following for her and her unusual little world. While I would not be nearly as positive as most reviews, I also can't be as negative as the one review, as there is definite merit to this odd documentary. I like films about unusual people and Marta certainly is unusual! I also appreciate her love of her art and happy life--that is a rare gift.

I teach psychology at an arts school and it sure would be interesting to show this to the staff--where I am pretty sure we'd get a strong positive and negative reaction to the film--probably depending on whether the teachers taught the arts classes or core curriculum! It sure would be interesting.

By the way, and I am not trying to be sarcastic, but when Marta's husband was having affairs, with whom did this occur?! After all, they lived in the middle of no where and I was left wondering where he'd find partners.

By the way, if you'd like to see her perform and/or stay at her hotel, it can be found at www.amargosaoperahouse.com/ . The site is in English, French and German and hotel rates are pretty reasonable as are ticket prices.


I lasted almost ninety minutes through this dreadful movie waiting for some revelation about dance or spirit or inspiration or something and gave up! What possessed the filmmakers to do this? This is an old woman of limited talent who is obsessed with herself and nothing else. To fill in a story without a point we get some stuff about the other folks in her thrall, her aid to burros, and, of course, her ten cats! Do not see this film. And have nothing more to do with anybody who loved it - they do not have a clue. There are fascinating people in this world with wonderful stories to tell and insights to share - but Marta Becket is not one of them. The people I took to this movie say they have forgiven me - but that they will never, ever stop kidding me about it.


I watched this cooking show for a few times before I wanted to pull my hair out. Just one question.....Who CAN'T cook a slapped together plain meal in 30 minutes when everything you need is at hand, already bagged, sometimes pre-chopped and you have very little else to do except chop a few greens. Also, almost every cooking show on TV is 30 minutes and most of these chefs do all of their prep work (except for Sandra Lee), during their show. Oh and yep....they do full meals too.

Love the comment by the guy who hated the "EVOO" comment. Add "DE-LISH" to my list of stupid tag words.

Then you have the obvious....a Loud, gregarious woman who is truly her own best audience. She laughs at her own lame comments, mugs too many times for the camera because she wants to convince us that she's as good as the thinks.

NO she ain't "the cutest thing." She's a 40-something year old woman who isn't DE-LISH.


Forget what I said about Emeril. Rachael Ray is the most irritating personality on the Food Network AND all of television. If you've never seen 30 Minute Meals, then you cannot possibly begin to comprehend how unfathomably annoying she is. I really truly meant that you can't even begin to be boggled by her until you've viewed the show once or twice, and even then all words and intelligent thoughts will fail you. The problem is mostly with her mannerisms as you might have guessed. Ray has a goofy mouth and often imitates the parrot. If you love something or think it's "awesome" (a word she uses roughly 87 times per telecast) just say it. And she's constantly using horrible, unfunny catchphrases like "EVOO" (Extra virgin olive oil!). SHUT UP! What's worse is Ray has TWO other shows on the network! I think this is some elaborate conspiracy by the terrorists to drive us mad. Give me more Tyler Florence! Ray is lame.


I found this movie immensely interesting yet a little jaded, it talks of violence and what there doing, I still don't see the point in becoming terrorists in order to stop the terrorists. We have similar people in the United States and other countries justifying the use of violence and war tactics because they think they are right. Think of the Puritans,and the Christian crusades against the Islamic people during the Medieval times. Lots of blood and death far exceeding the violence of today, the western world has had a negative impact on the religion. I do not justify their actions but western culture in the past has had a very negative effect on some. But still do remember the majority of the Islamic people are PEACEFUL! People of any nation feel some sort of patriotism but to start a war on the fact that I'm right and your wrong needs to be rethought. Again I repeat you cannot stop terrorists by becoming like them.


It's complete nonsense. I've studied Nazism and read many manuscripts from the day - the "parallels" use most of the classic debased apocryphal myths of Nazism and then compare it with complete specious generalizations about what constitute 1/3 of the planet. It's crafted for an audience of Polly-Anna complacency who diet heavily on spoon-fed gibberish, horribly thought out arguments, irrational conclusions, fallacious ideas, and nonsensical logic.

Who made this hit peace? Easy.

When all is said and done; Que Bono? That is, who benefits, in the long run?

You don't. You sacrifice money and rights. Muslims don't, they get our bombs. Try again. Answer this, and you've unlocked a major door.


Brought to you by the following among others:

1- Yigal Carmon (Hebrew יגאל כרמון) is the president and founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)

Yigal's Career:

Colonel, Israeli Army Intelligence from 1968-88 Acting head and adviser on Arab affairs, Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, 1977-1982

2- Raphael Shore is an Israeli-Canadian film writer, producer, and Rabbi employed full time by Aish HaTorah. He is the founder of The Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the idea that the United States faces a threat of radical Islam. Shore is also a regular critic of the media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coverage which he alleges is regularly anti-Israel. (LMAO)

3- Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Funny how ADL supports this hateful propaganda. You can never tell by reading their "Anti-Defamation" name title.

Use your mind and see how objective these people are. They have their own agenda!

I think, therefore I am.


- Contains 1 spoiler, market with: ***** -

Not presenting itself as yet another remake of "The Interview", Five Fingers actually is. Alas, besides maybe the hardship of physical torture, it never adds anything to it's predecessor's accomplishment in terms of suspense, plot or performances. In fact, Five Fingers never gets anywhere near its level.

What I found to be in particular painful to watch wasn't the torture itself, but the way Martijn (Ryan Philippe) acted out his ordeal. To me it looked as if Philippe tried too hard to get his accent right and it made his performance glibly amateur which in turn even dragged down the performance of an otherwise great Colm Meaney. Phillipe's accent btw, being far from anything near Dutch, sounded more like Eastern European.

Besides the acting of Philippi(which to my surprise turned from poor to actually decent towards the end) there is the matter of the flashbacks with the hackneyed Dutch scenery. (If these scenes were set in Switzerland they would have had the cast eat cheese on mountaintops with endless pastures with grazing cows wearing expensive timepieces). Scenery aside, The way these flashbacks pushed the plot didn't work for me at all. It made it being served like French fries at a drive-in and caused the build-up of suspense to flatline.

Admittedly the movie did become more enjoyable as Phillipe's acting improved but I couldn't help being annoyed every now and then with scenes that were just too implausible. E.g.:

************ Start spoiler

At some point (after days) Philippe is almost tenderly washed by the female terrorist. This only to be followed by the brute severing of yet another finger. Why give the guy a wash if he's in for a torture? And the severing of that last finger seemed to only serve the title of this flick anyway, I mean, he was practically begging to have it knifed off. Didn't make sense

************ End spoiler

What ultimately kept me watching was the performance of Fishburn who once again proved to be a brilliant actor but who also had the best part of the script to work with.

All in all one is just far better off seeing "The Interview" with that other Matrix-icon: Hugo Weaving. And when you do, I'm confident you won't find this review that disagreeable.

3.5/10

"The Interview", 1998 www.imdb.com/title/tt0120714/


Five Fingers relies heavily on barbaric, shock value Hollywood tactics to elicit apparently a positive movie-going response. This is where this movie fails throughout, primarily because it is too graphic to be taken seriously. I was repulsed and disgusted that Five Fingers was even made, and essentially had to force myself to continue watching it. Torture in and of itself is gruesome. Even the sounds coming from a room where someone is being tortured are gruesome. But obviously the makers of this stinker of a movie felt that was not enough. It had to go way beyond what was needed, and simply and effectively ruined any chances this movie had of making some sort of valid point. For this reason, this movie came across as nothing more than being self-gratifying. Five Fingers also pretty much relegates itself to a B-movie status solely by its indulgence on manipulation of time. In other words we are shown the present and then the past is revealed in snippets. This is a little bit of a twist of the normal Hollywood manipulation of time. Whereas the viewer normally is shown page 95 in a 100 page script as the beginning of the movie, and then the rest of the flick is essentially explaining the ending, Five Fingers is dedicated to flashing back, which gets quite tiring by the end of the movie. Overall, Five Fingers made me feel stupid for watching the whole movie, because torture is obviously obscene, and it certainly was not necessary to resort to graphic mutilation to make this point. I am surprised that Dick Cheney did not make a guest cameo appearance at the end as some sort of torture superhero. This movie is a perfect example of what happens when an important topic falls into the hands of greedy, mindless dolts.


Boring movie. Poor plot. Poor actors. The movie happens in a room supposed to be in Morocco but actually in some American city! The "Arab terrorists" are the patriots the blonde patriot is the "Arab terrorist"...DAMN!

There is something good about this movie though (that's why the score is 2 out of 10). The director turns the ridiculous stereotype about terrorism the media feeds us every day into the real thing, the terrorists are Americans (or western people if you like).

The movie is divided into two parts. The first part of the movie concerns the Dutchman travel (15 seconds) while the second part is about the staying in the amazing dark brown room (1 hour and something).

The Dutch guy is going to deliver money in Morocco to some "charity organization", gets off the plain, takes the bus and ends up kidnapped in a dark brown room. He is kidnapped with another guy that is shot after telling "They will not shoot at us". The Dutch survivor is forced to play chess with a Morpheus-like Arab guy for so long that you'll learn how to play chess too! At the end the dutch guy reveals his plot not because they cut four of his fingers off but because he is tricked by such a lame game you should watch the movie for!

Good when you are so tired you can't sleep.


Five Fingers is so bad, that I hardly know where to begin. So let me admit first, that I have only seen the first half hour. When the first finger had been chopped off, I thought sleeping a more useful activity. I told my girlfriend the meaning of "five fingers" and she immediately followed my example.

Couldn't the producer, the director and/or the scriptwriter consult a chess-amateur? Like me? They should have used a digital chess-clock and not an analogue. This major goof makes the mental pressure put on Martijn just a laugh. How, when and why did Martijn date a Moroccan girlfriend? Such an affair is very rare in The Netherlands.

Calling me a retard is of course an insult to all those people suffering with a much lower than average IQ. Moreover, as far as I know, retards don't play chess. I do.

The biggest problem is the script of course. Just compare the little intelligent movie Hard Candy. To keep the spectator in a grip, the information must be revealed bit by bit. A nice twist now and then also helps. I understood from other reviews, that there is a big one at the end of the movie. Any smart person can guess what it is. This of course just raises more questions - why is the travel guide killed? Oh my, why should I even care? The whole movie focuses on just one thing: the chopped fingers. The makers have not even learned Hitchcock's lesson: it is thrilling to get a bomb exploded. It is more thrilling to show that bomb ticking. But no, we don't see the paper-cutter until the impossible countdown is over. I will not waste more words on this crap. Go see Hard Candy.


this movie isn't that great...at all but it's good when you want to just laugh, because it's pretty ridiculous :) there are a lot of mistakes in it and it's cheesy. i got this movie for Christmas like 5 years ago but for some reason i've never given it away. i guess i just like it for a rainy day even though i only watch it like once a year. This is a very 90's movie so it's really funny to see how everyone dresses and acts. this movie is good for someone young...although come to think of it, i didn't even like it much when i was like 12 but that's just my personal opinion. the movie was really predictable. i wish it had had some extra weird twists but i guess it was trying to be an appropriate movie for everyone to enjoy. i think it was appropriate for the whole family but Hallie's dress was a bit unmodest but certainly appropriate enough for family material.


Maybe the target audience of this Disney Channel TV-movie will be pleased with it, but if any parents are watching along with the youngsters, they will clearly see that "cranked out" is written all over this production. Obviously it was no one's dream to make this movie, but rather, this was concocted in a board room somewhere, then produced with cold efficiency. There is some talent among the cast, but actors like Dabney Coleman and Jay Thomas don't get much of a chance to showcase their talent. The impossibly cute Elisabeth Harnois is engaging as the First Daughter, but Will Friedle is stuck once again playing another dumb character, though he's not nearly as moronic and annoying as in his "Boy Meets World" role. The background for this movie is Washington, D.C. and the White House, but there is no real "presidential" feel to the film and the Secret Service is made out to be little better than the Keystone Kops when it come to doing their duty. The Disney Channel presents a lot of original TV-movies and most of them are better than this.


If this was nominated for a screenwriting award by the WGA, a professional association of screenwriters, then it's time to hang up the word processor. Astonishingly inept writing, direction, production, at every level, even for a TV movie. No cliche goes unexploited in this jaw-droppingly bad movie. What were they thinking? Does anyone really believe kids are stupid enough to watch this?


Pointless and pretty silly film that is just basically a compilation of clips from horror, science fiction and suspense films. There are unnecessary shots to an audience watching the clips and Donald Pleasance and Nancy Allen are among audience members who turn to the camera and explain why we love horror films. Not a bad idea but all the explanations are obvious ("movie horror helps us deal with real horror", "you are at the mercy of the filmmaker in a theatre") and pretty trite. Also the clips are shown very quickly and the changes are kind of jarring. And, shown out of context, these bits aren't very scary at all. And it's REAL short--I saw it in a theatre back in 1984 and was outraged that I paid $5.00 for an 84 minute movie!

Still, it is reasonably well-edited and Allen and Pleasance seem to be enjoying themselves. For people who have an interest in knowing more about terror this might be fun and interesting. But if you're a horror fan (like me) you'll probably be bored silly. Good idea, bad execution (no pun intended). I give it a 3.


I used to think that "It Came from Hollywood" was the worst movie I had seen that showed clips from horror, sci-fi, crime and drama movies. Of course, I hadn't seen THIS beauty yet.

What's wrong with "Terror in the Aisles"? Four things:

1) It assumes that most of the great moments in shock cinema history began in the '70s when directors like John Carpenter and Brian De Palma came along. And what bones are thrown to the true classics (i.e. - the black and white films) like "Frankenstein", "Dracula" and "The Wolf Man" are either shown with Martin and Lewis or Abbott and Costello alongside or not at all!

2) The clips are most times so brief and out of their originals' place that they just give a momentary shock to the viewer and, for those unfamiliar with these films, will make no sense at all (indeed, the moment where the shark jumps out of the water at Roy Scheider in "Jaws" is shown much to the effect of a sight gag. Whereas, in the original's context, it had power.)

3) Did we really need Pleasance and Allen in the audience reminding us that "it's only a movie" or that most of the violence in the horror movies "is, sadly, against women"? So, is that an indictment against the movie-makers for adding those scenes or the movie-goers who tromp into the theaters and watch the same kind of fodder time and again? Sorry, that's a whole can of worms to open for a more deserving movie.

4) And most importantly, why is the movie so SHORT? It isn't like there wasn't enough of these kinds of movies to use. If they had just opened up their resources and used EVERY available film, they could have had a "That's Entertainment!"-style movie that would have been comparatively more entertaining. Heck, even drag out Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing (Cushing was alive then, mind you) and better yet, even Vincent Price would have been more than willing, I'll bet! What a cheer THAT would have gotten from the audience!

But no... all we're left with is a dreary little flick that pretends to pay homage to these movies but all it does is leave the viewer feeling cheated out of less than 90 minutes with which they could have went and watched a REAL movie. Don't get me wrong; it was good to see what clips they did show, but if they could have just done more with the goods!

Two stars. Another good idea left laying "in the Aisles".


"Terror in the Aisles" might look like the ultimate treat for horror fans but it has, in fact, very few to offer. Granted, it presents a decent and versatile (too versatile?) selection of horror/thriller fragments that are considered classic but ...what's the point? This documentary primarily aims for the horror-loving public so we've pretty much seen all these clips already, haven't we? The only thing really praiseworthy about this project is the editing. If you're into scream-queens, chases by vile murderers and that sort of things, "Terror in the Aisles" has some neat compilations of the most famous sequences. All these different scenes hang together by a lame wraparound story starring Donald Pleasance and Nancy Allen sitting in a movie theater. In between two sequences, the address the viewer and "explain" why we love horror so much. Those speeches naturally are soporific and rather obvious (it's in our nature to be afraid ...bla bla bla) and I fail to understand why many people love the concept. This is worth a peek in case you're a loyal horror fan but it certainly isn't essential viewing. On the contrary: in case you still have to see a classic genre title, beware that bits and pieces of it here don't spoil your future viewing. The main reason why I overall disliked it is because it shamelessly ignores a lot of lesser known, but fundamental (foreign) titles endlessly focusing on "Halloween". This does result in a cool inside joke, however, when Donald Pleasance screams to the screen at his own character.


So you've got a number of models on an island, and one by one they're picked off Agatha Christie-style. We get somebody lost at sea, pushed off a cliff, poisoned by a solvent, driven off a cliff, blown up, etc. Nothing terribly graphic.

Before any of that starts, one woman inexplicably has a dream of a killer in a weird human face mask.

The owner of the magazine is a sleaze who had an affair, and somebody had photos taken of her before she was of age.

In the end, it's all about business, or something,

There's an 80s style montage of a photo shoot, most of the bathing suits being one-pieces, surprisingly. A couple are fairly translucent. There's camera clicks during the montage where the frame of the camera appears as a white square or rectangle within the picture. The photographer is rather bad at framing!


This movie just happened to be on HBO yesterday so I watched it. This was a mistake. I guess I got sucked in and kept watching although it was a lot like a train wreck, terrible, horrible, but somehow you just can't look away. shaudenfraud I guess! ; ).

This is the story of a photoshoot for models on some island in the Caribbean. One by one they are all murdered. One drinks cleaning fluid, one gets blown up on a waverunner, one goes over a cliff...so these are NOT accidents, but for some inane reason the police are never called and no one thinks that perhaps they should "wrap" the shoot and go home, not just in respect for the dead, but perhaps out of fear for their own lives. No. They just continue with their shoot because THAT is what's most important. Forget about the dead models, we have a magazine to produce!

One of the subplots is the Evil magazine owner, played by Lee Majors, Rex is his name. He is the most obvious suspect and every time a model gets killed he twirls his mustache and says "well, I can't say this won't be good for sales", mooo hoo hoo hoo ha ha ha ha". So absurd. Another subplot is when it's revealed that Rex is one of the models baby dady, only when he learned of the baby he tried to convince the girl to abort. She didn't, but always resented him for even suggesting this.

They try to give you false clues and point toward some guy named Raule, seemingly because he's the only one with an accent and "looks creepy".

At the very end (sorry to spoil, but this movie came out years ago so if you haven't seen it by now...) one of the women was found face down dead in the pool. THIS was the Last straw!!!! Vanessa Angel, forget her characters name comes at Rex with a gun, they struggle, the gun fires and now SHE'S dead too!!! While she's laying on the floor his business associate tells him that with all this bad press the magazine will be worthless and it's all his fault. He gets him to sign over the magazine to him. Once he does voila! All the dead models come back to life and you find the entire thing was an elaborate ruse to get back at Rex.

Oy! What a ridiculous movie. As someone else said; if you want to see something like this April Fools Day is far better!


I caught this during a brief run in a Philadelphia theater. Despite its local provenance (and its relation to a hometown tragedy, namely the beating death of Eddie Polec in 1994), I really have to come down hard on this movie. The director, for reasons best known to himself, decided to shoot the entire film guerilla-style, with nonstop handheld cameras and rapidfire cuts. Such technique might work for the scenes of jarring violence, but is utterly inappropriate for the rest of the material, which makes up the majority of the film. A stroll down the sidewalk, a brother-to-brother discussion on a sofa, hell, even a kiss on a first-date are all shot cusinart-style, distracting this viewer from ever being able to enter into the drama. Martin also undercuts his narrative by packing in far too many topics: besides the birth of mob violence, we get anorexia, alcoholism, divorce, racism, parental abuse...did I miss anything? No doubt a better cast (and a better-focused direction) would have knit these threads together, as Martin surely intended, to demonstrate how one moral flaw leads into and sustains a host of others...but good intentions do not necessarily a great film make. Just a sprawling mess. Martin, I know you're from my town, and I'm down with you man, I really am...just do a better job next time, like you did in Two Plus One.


This movie was outright painful for me to watch. I understand that indie films do not have the same resources as other mainstream films. But there are basic elements of film making that typically you want to adhere to. First off, jump cuts. There are numerous in the film's opening 15 minutes. There are shots in which it appears that two separate takes of the same shot were edited together. What I mean by this is a character will say half a line from one take, and the rest of the line is from a different take. Secondly, the dialog. I understand that many writers strive for a very realistic and true dialog for their films. Since this film is very specific to its location, the dialog must be spoken in a specific tone also (example: set a movie in Boston, yet people use west coast slang with a Chicago accent). Even with understanding this, it is still hard to sit through some of the lines these actors present. These are only the two most vivid problems I encountered with this film. There were a few others. I do not mean to sound like a harsh critic who doesn't know a thing. I have years of experience in the film (more importantly the low budget indie film) industry. I also understand that with many directors there is often a method to their madness. I have been unable to discover this method used in this film. This makes it difficult when trying to decide whether I view this film as an example of unique style in film making, or just another low budget, poorly put together film. I honestly hope that it is not the latter. If anyone has any insight into why things were done a certain way, or has any thoughts/views of their own concerning this film, I would love to hear them. Hopefully I can understand this film more and my current opinion can be changed.


this is an example of a movie that can have great potential and is executed very poorly.. i am a fan of kids and thumb sucker and many other so called teen angst films, but this one bugged me.

why is every white kid made into a thug who loves rap, its getting to be one dimensional. the acting was awful but simple since It mainly consisted of just dropping f bomb after f bomb just a bad bad movie if you'd like to see better movies like this : thumb sucker kids bully all

those i think are better so i recommend one of those is you'd like to see a good "teen movie" i hope my comment you found useful and hope you hear future comments from me


**SPOILERS** With the title of the film having the name of the killer fish twice not once you would expect to see them in action attack biting ripping and eating up almost everyone in the cast of characters. Instead you have to wait until the movie is almost over for you to get as much as a glimpse of the Piranahs. Even then all you see is the water bubbling and stirring around as a poor individual disappears under it assuming that he's being eaten, whole and alive, by the fish.

The movie "Piranha Piranha" starts with this scary looking Piranha on the screen as the credits start rolling down but****SPOILER****that's the only time in the movie that you ever get to see the killer fish or fishes you never get to see a Piranha is the movie again. What you do see is a travelogue of Venezuela and it's people and the Venezuelan jungle along the Amazon River basin. Together with a lot of nice and breathtaking photography of the landscape as well as the people and wildlife but that's about all.

There is some kind of a story that has to do with this great White Hunter Caribe, William Smith, which ironically means Piranha in the native language spoken there, is this what the title of the film "Piranha Piranha" really meant? "Caribe Caribe"! The person Caribe is played by legendary Hollywood Hell's Angles biker and all around tough guy William Smith.

At the beginning of the movie this trio of American tourists Jim Pendrake and his sister Terry, Peter Bown & Ahna Capri, and their American guide Art Green, Tom Simcox, are on their way into the Venezuelan jungles to go sight-seeing with Terry taking photos to send back home. Terry is terrified of guns as we learn that as a young girl saw her father get his head blown off by a gun. Even when Art saves her life using one when see's attack by a six foot long diamondback rattlesnake Terry almost belts him for having a gun; which he promised her he wouldn't take along with him on the trip.

At a jungle rest stop, or bar, the three run into Caribe who we first saw catching monkey's in the jungle at the start of the movie. Caribe makes himself more then welcomed by the three with his knowledge of the jungle and his half-baked philosophy about life and death as well as his ability to get them where their going to the local diamond mines deep in the Amazon basin.

Even though a bit strange at first, the guy is so in to himself that he doesn't seem to notice that there are any people around him, Caribe turns out to be a swell and likable guy engaging in a long and friendly motorcycle race through the swamps and jungle with Art. Caribe even shows Terry, who at one time in the movie almost knocked his teeth out, the fine points of hunting and shooting wild game that he believes don't really die but become a part of him after he kills them! A bit crazy but you have to admit this guy's got imagination.

It's much later in the movie that for some strange reason, maybe it was the cheap booze that he was drinking, Caribe suddenly goes insane and become homicidal attacking and raping Terry and then murdering her enraged brother and feeding him to the deadly Piranha's. Trying to escape from the rampaging lunatic and then being forced to have to fight it out with him Art gets beaten up so savagely by the dirty-fighting Caribe that he's almost left unconscious. Just when Caribe's about to finally kill Art he's shot to death by Terry who after experiencing what this insane nut-job is all about finally decided that guns are indeed very necessary and should be used to kill on very rare but life-saving occasions.

Worth watching, if worth watching at all, only for the scenery and nothing else. It's just a shame that the movie has to advertise as a killer fish, or Piranha, horror movie when if it was honest about itself it could have been a more or less average jungle adventure flick with Smith, he does have the build for it, playing Tarzan of the Venezuelan, not African, Jungle


Like the above poster, I got burned on the title thinking I was getting the other Piranha... This movie is everything the above poster said and worse...

Poor camera, lousy acting and just plain horrid storyline...

There was very little here that was even worth watching... How this movie even got released is beyond me.

Make sure the movie you buy is the one you want... and not this one.

The movie I bought was labeled "Piranha" and not "Piranha, Piranha!" which is what it actually is... This is the only way they sold this movie at all.

Peace Out.


I was duped as well. Here I was expecting all sorts of man eating Pirahnas and what the hell do you get.

An hour and a half of nothing, but awkward silences with some weird guy, who isn't weird enough to be scary.

I thought there was no way $5 could be too much for a movie.

Damn I was sooooo wrong. It was very hard to watch the whole thing.

Don't fool yourself. Its not so good that its bad. Its not even that kind of movie.

Its nothing. an hour and a half of absolutely nothing.

PIECE OF CRAP!!!!!!!!


This is just one of those films which cannot justify much of anything that happens. These people are going on a trek: the young girl wants to photograph animals. There really are no Piranhas, but I guess the psychotic hunter guy is the real piranha. Anyway, there are lots of animals and there is lots of driving. There is considerable anti-gun talk, but we all know where that is going. Toward the end, there's lots of action and a rape thrown in. Somebody must pay, and they do. It would have been nice to have a couple of piranhas to sort of fill the thing out. There were lots of monkeys. If you fast forward through the dull parts, you have a tight little five minutes.


This movie was dreadful. Biblically very inaccurate. Moses was 80 years old when he led the people out of Egypt, the movie has him about forty. Moses was about forty when he fled Egypt, was gone for forty years, and was with them wandering for forty years. Moses was 120 years old when he died, and was denied the privilege of crossing over to the promised land. I realize movies use a lot of "poetic license" as the biblical account isn't that long, but, if making a biblical movie they still need to reflect the facts known, and keep the general flavor of the main biblical character, this movie fails in this aspect, and in many others.Even though the 1956 version has its problems as well, theatrically it was much better.


I realise it's very hard to live up to the first The 10 Commandments movie (which was grandiose and personally not a Charleton Heston fan) but wow...this movie/mini-series was disappointing. Even the animated The Prince of Egypt was better.

The one thing that threw me off was Ramses. Compared to Yul Brynner's version, Paul Rhys's version just seemed so weak and un-Pharoh like. The acting really wasn't that great. For a modern adaptation, I was expecting something better. It just didn't look as stunning visually as the first one. I guess they were running on a tight budget or something. There's an occasional voice-over narrator which I found strange and unnecessary. It also broke up the flow of the story. And um...God's voice/lines were kinda weird.


I really wish Hollywood would come up with some new ideas and quick. Instead they go around and recreate and mess up a perfectly good movie with a re-make. This movie is awful from the DeMille version. All the way through this movie I was saying to myself, Huh??? - What???? - I don't remember that part. The only exciting thing in this movie so far was the parting of the Red Sea. And in Heston's version - it was a heck of a lot better than this version. Did anyone else see an atomic or nuclear bomb cloud fade in and out when the Red Sea was being parted? I think I did. Anyway, I Might - Might - watch the last part tonight.

I wish Hollywood would tackle different ideas and subject matters when they are making new movies. Instead of re-hashing old films.

They should of left well enough alone.

UPDATE:

Well I watched the last part. Did Moses make up the second copy of the ten commandments with his own hand - or was I seeing things - please someone - email me and let me know. HORRIBLE


if you're a fan of the original ten commandments, this movie will make you weep inside. granted, i'm only about 1/2 hour into it currently, but it's so painful, i felt it was my duty to warn away real ten commandments fans before they are subjected to this bastardization. i didn't think it was possible to actually make the special effects worse than they were in 1950s when the original was shot, but this 2006 remake proves me wrong. i can forgive some lame special effects, but the craptastic dialogue, melodramatic lifetime movie-style schlockiness, and the stilted we-are-wax-figures-come-to-life acting makes me hope they'll rewrite the plot and drown moses in the red sea.


The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie!


This movie was a waste of 3 hours of my precious time..in the first 10 minutes i was already annoyed as i am familiar with the real version on the story according to the torah (5 books of moses)...but i decided to watch it to get my moneys worth and too see how bad it sucked. Well it sucked..way more then i thought it would. First and for most lets start with the script and characters the skeleton that makes up the body of a movie. If you study torah at all you'll see that the story is all wrong here are some of the distasful mistakes: moses doesn't do slave work because he was in the tribe of levi, moses doesn't kill anybody at mount sinai.. but yet the movie depicts moses being whipped and aaron and himself killing people...reeeealllly not!. When moses speaks to the burning bush he knows who hes speaking too but the movie makes moses look like an idiot, he states that he doesn't know who the g-d in the bush is... whatever|Aaron knews his brother well regardless of their distance growing up, aaron was known for his calm, composed peaceful nature but yet he is depicted as angry and arrogant in this movie. Moses looks like Jesus in this movie.. how ridiculous....pharoah the real one was actually and ugly dwarf who sat upon a pyramid of stairs so he could appear bigger then he was and moses was more then 10 feet and in the movie pharoah is taller then him and hes hot with light eyes! The woman of Am Israel (nation of Israel) covered themselves meaning their hair and bodies and they didn't dance or sing in front of men, they did not participate in the golden calf so they would definitely not dance with a man in public as the movie depicts. Moses's wife Tzipora was married to moses and she therefore covered herself and being as humble as they were did not cuddle or hold hands in public. Batia Pharoahs daughter ( the one who adopts him and saves him from the water) actual converted to Judaism and therefore would have been proud of Moses when he said he was going to go free his people.fast fwd to mount sinai moses comes down the 2nd time with two sets of tablets...with gibberish writing on it..at least put the writing in the holy tongue, hebrew or English and put it on one tablet not two sets.. Bottom line is the movie is horribly written, directed and the characters are all wrong..basically EVERYTHING is wrong about the movie... The old one is inaccurate as well but its more realistic, and they actors are believable. Am Israel Chai!


This movie could have had a lot of potential. Certainly with today's technology, one would expect real special effects. But movies are not made with special effects alone, of course acting is needed. This film lacked both!

First, let me say to those who are upset with this not following the bible: why can't a movie take artistic license? If you want to know about the story of Moses, read the bible. I have seen very few movies that follow a true story fact by fact. Look at of movie from its artistic quailities.

In viewing this movie, you will inevitably compare it to the 1956 version. It fails miserably in that. Heston and Brenner had PRESENCE. They became their roles. You don't see this here.

Even if you don't compare, standing on it's own, this movie to too rushed. Parts where a scene should be developed, it does not. It becomes boring.

My advice: skip this and watch the other. As campy as the other is, it's far and away the better movie.


For a really wonderful movie, you could also try seeing the movie about Saint Francis of Assisi - good for any audience. Best thing I liked about this movie was the Mexico landscape, & it gets the movie up to a 2. I was surprised that these actors didn't have terrible sunburn, they were so were not desert dwellers. And Moses is said to have a speakING impediment, but certainly not here. Even the "miracle" scenes were contrived & un-believable. And what's the point if you can belief anything in a TV story? Talk about dumbing down, I thought this Hallmark-made movie was pathetic, & I can see why others hate Hollywood. I don't, just some of these corporate profit grubbers. You don't have to be any kind of religious to benefit from "Jesus of Nazareth", but for this waste of celluloid you need to be bored, with nothing to do, dumbed-down & religious. And for a real movie experience, try "Short Cut to Nirvana", a very highly rated film.


From the English accents to the so unnecessary violence after violence. Showing Moses as a murderer. People who actually believe in the Old Testament will just sit there and shake their heads. I am not a religious person at all. But even i felt as though the writers of this movie were trying to turn us all against God and the Jews.When Moses picked up that rock and threw the first stone at the woman to kill her for committing adultery. I wanted to stone the writers. I can't believe in this day and age that Hallmark and ABC (Disney) would attempt to show such garbage as this. Don't we have enough problems in this world already?


It is difficult to compete against classic greatness, but once you make that choice and the decision is in play, you need find the best and brightest resources to keep your product top drawer, and on the cutting edge of quality. If your intention is to aim for second or third (or fourth) best, why even try? It is with that, I wonder why this version of the Ten Commandments was written, produced, and aired. I would ask the producers, "What were you thinking? Were you endeavoring to create a projected deficit?" If perhaps the producers were thinking, "We want to examine this biblical story from another point of view..." Then I would say "OK, I watched the show, now what's the point of view?" The premise of this "possible point of view theory" eludes me. I can generally watch programs, and (right or wrong) at least get a sense of what the creators were trying to accomplish. Not so, here. I recognize names such as "Robert Halmi" (the producer) and I can associate his work with some eye catching product; Tin Man, Earthsea, Flash Gordon, Jason and the Argonauts. Low budget entertainment based on myth, history and comic book entertainment. A perfect genre for Sci-Fi Channel. So I still have to ask Robert Halmi..."What was the point of THIS Ten Commandments, What WERE you thinking?" FJS


Nice attempt to bring Shakespearian language alive in a post-apocalyptic setting, but the final result is dreadful. Futuristic Liverpool is not convincing at all; the budget was obviously not very big, but the production designer could have come up with a slightly more creative approach to the matter. Alex Cox has made some good films, e.g. Repo Man and Highway Patrol Man, but i really don't know what he was thinking here. Just an opinion.


i really wanted this to be good as i am from Liverpool where it is set but it truly awful. the acting from everyone involved is cringeworthy the script is terrible absolutly terrible. terrible


Does anyone care about any of the characters in this film? - Or for that matter what happens to them? - I doubt it. That is the key problem - for a tragedy to work we have to care about at least one of the characters and none of them inspire any sympathy or appear to have any redeeming qualities at all.

What may have worked in the 16th Century, certainly does not work in one can only assume 'post apocalyptic Liverpool' if that was indeed what it was meant to be. The problem is the characters in post apocalyptic Liverpool, whilst still driving around in cars, using mobile phones and watching television, have reverted to speaking in Shakespearian language - with a Liverpudlian dialect. Oh dear! Bad enough you might think - but this often lapsed into pure scouse - with comments such as 'eh lah are you a cockney? And was that a Merseyrail announcement during one of the scenes filmed in the underground? Well the good news is that in Post apocalyptic Liverpool - the trains are still running.

The characters without exception are badly drawn, wooden and more like charicatures on the lines of the Joker/Penguin in Batman and Robin except there is no real storyline to speak of - or if there is - it is one that doesn't work in a modern setting where half the sets are gloomy and 'Blade runnerish' and the other half are fluorescent garish or just 21st century normal. Costumes are also mixed up with half wearing their everyday clothes (Parkers are big in post apocalyptic Liverpool - apparently) and the other half wearing costumes from the leftovers of a fancy dress party?

The film explores the ideas of lust, incest and revenge in the most inane fashion imaginable - the tragedy is that this film was made at all.


I rented this movie, after hearing Chris Gore saying something to the effect of "five stars!" on that Attack of the Show show. Well when I turned around the DVD and it showed the 3 stages of hell, well I had to buy it. Just to see the spectacle of a mother yelling at her son to drop her other son into a flaming pit.

I wasn't expecting ECW or CZW for an hour and eighteen minutes, but I was expecting at least a summarized version of what seemed to be the main highlight of this movie. Well sadly there wasn't anything like that. The 3 stages of death part happens right from the beginning, and its pretty much downhill from there. Nothing really happens in this documentary. It was pretty raw, bare and unbiased. Not a bad thing, but there is a narrator in this one. You'd expect him to have opinions on the subject of this documentary, but he doesn't. Which would of been nice to have, a message or reason for this doc.There was no real reason to have a narrator, there should of been just text explaining some of the less obvious scenes.

It doesn't really explain the lives of these wrestlers either. It shows a few moments of some dramatic scenes, which sound interesting, but the reality isn't as great as it sounds. For instance mom watching her son wrestle with light bulbs and tacks, for the first time, at a public park. instead of seeing her reaction to the wrestling, They show her reacting to the camera, instead of say a interview later on, or just actually witnessing her reactions.

Legitamit document wise, this one ain't. The source material was flimsy to begin with. Nothing truly profound or interesting really happens. No conclusion to a few of the more interesting stories, No real point or final thought to backyard wrestling, edited together badly, and its and its basically a cheap, failed rip off of Beyond the Mat.

Wrestling wise, this is pretty boring. the better bumps are at the beginning, and slowly become less amazing and shocking. If you have seen Japanese wrestling, Indie wrestling, or even Backyard Wrestling Dvds, than this wont shock and awe you. If you want wrestling don't make the same mistake I did and see this one. Go get some CZW ECW or XPW Dvds instead.

The only thing I got out of this documentary was how stupid people can be. Not for supporting self mutilation or doing dangerous stunts, but their reasoning for committing these acts. The backyarders seem stupid for wrestling. Most of them are jobless, and probably have a few issues in their head, and wrestling is a type of therapy for them. Than the supporters seem even more idiotic. Mothers basically take the whole "if ya cant beat em join em" reasoning to cope with the fact that their sons are basically killing themselves. School authority figures support their students in their dangerous stunts because its an alternative to joining gangs and to a lesser extend doing drugs, which is kinda funny since that segment took place in a rural town, where like people live 20 miles from one another. People are stupid. Thats what I extracted from this documentary.

If you want to see the reasoning and thoughts to someone brutalizing themselves in wrestling and basically what the back of this DVD promises, get UNSCARRED: the Life of Nick Mondo. Its more amazing, and interesting than the Backyard, and a lot more entertaining. Oh and its actually good.


Uncle Fred Olen Ray once again gives us a little of his Retromedia "goodness" in the form of this soft-core Cinemax non-classic.

A numb-nut pair are out looking at rocks when they come across a swirling vortex a "black hole" as the intelligent dolts put it. Pretty soon an attractive cave girl from one million years ago happens into out time-line and she beds her way into the future. Pretty soon her studly other half makes his way into the future as well and blazes a path through the beds of the future.

Ray again delivers a passable (but barely) smut-fest that has horrible acting but some decent skin. Yeah it's barely titillating but heh! If worse comes to worse it will cure you insomnia.

S10 reviews: 1/5 or 3/10


The VHS cover for The Evil Below makes it look like a cool underwater horror flick. Sadly it's closer to a boring adventure flick and has no real horror elements. It starts off with some divers who get attacked and we see a bit of blood, but that's the only blood in the entire film.

The Evil Below isn't the worst around, but for a horror film it is tediously boring. The acting is decent and to be honest the only thing that keeps you watching is the developing romance between the two leads. There's a few nightmare sequences where it just seems like the director didn't know what to do. I manged to sit through it all (just about) but I wouldn't recommend this film to ANYONE. Horror fans might want a copy for the cool VHS cover, but it's best left at that.


The Evil Below starts on 'The Straits of San Sebastian 1683' as the 17th century treasure ship the El Diablo sinks in a violent thunderstorm. Jump to 'The Straits of San Sebastian Present Day' where two divers are exploring the beautiful underwater coral reefs that are rich in wildlife, the come across the sunken wreck of the El Diablo & explore it but are attacked & killed by something that looks like a vicious eel. Captain Max Cash (Wayne Crawford) owns & runs a boat-for-hire named the 'Vagrant Viking' which caters for tourists who want to fish, dive & generally explore the islands. Sarah Livingstone (June Chadwick) is an art teacher who dives for treasure as a hobby (well we all have to do something to pass the time right?), she hires Max & his scantily clad assistant Tracy (Sheri Able) so she can try to locate the El Diablo & get rich. Talk of sunken treasure excites some of the more unscrupulous members of the local community, as they dodge the criminals & thugs it is brought to Max & Sarah's attention that the El Diablo has a sinister past, a past that supposedly still leaves it's supernatural legacy behind even now...

Directed by Jean-Claude Dubois, according to the IMDb with a little help from star Crawford although the version I saw only listed Dubois, I thought The Evil Below had some potential & is a bit different but unfortunately that's not enough to save it from sinking to the bottom of the sea like a stone. The script by Arthur Payne starts off OK with the two divers being killed by some sort of sea creature but this opening is NEVER referred to again, the creature is NEVER seen again & there are no more supernatural killings. The Evil Below then suffers from a serious & terminal case of identity crisis, it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be as it chucks bits & pieces of various genres in there from underwater adventure, horror, action, thriller, crime & it even has time to throw in a little murder mystery & religious nonsense as well. As a result The Evil Below feels very bitty, fragmented & since the best scene in the entire film is the opening sequence I found myself sat there becoming more & more frustrated at the lack of any consistent horror as it went downhill rapidly & the fact we never see the sea creature thing again. The Evil Below is dull, slow, uneventful, predictable, silly & lacks any sort of charm or intelligence, in short The Evil Below doesn't do anything right that a good film should.

Director Dubois fails to liven things up although he obviously shot plenty of underwater wildlife material as at times I thought I was watching a National Geographic documentary with all the shots of fish, coral & the wildlife in general. Forget about any gore, some blood stained water & blood coughing is about as gory as it gets I'm afraid.

Technically The Evil Below is very basic, it's bland & totally forgettable apart from nice underwater photography of fish. This is point & shoot stuff & as a whole the production values are very low, even the place where this was shot doesn't look very sunny or appealing. The acting is poor, but then again did you expect anything else?

The Evil Below is a poor film, it's basic story is all over the place & it can't decide what it wants to be & as a result it ends up being a mess. Add that to the low production values, the fact there's no gore here & absolutely minimal horror content you have a film that is probably best avoided unless your absolutely desperate & even then surely there are better ways to spend 90 plus minutes of your life...


Max Cash a charter boat captain who works off the Caribbean island San Sebastian is hired by Sarah, who's looking for legendary boat, El Diablo and its stolen treasure that sunk out in the reef in the 17th century. But something seems to be protecting the whereabouts of the ship, as people who knew anything about it are being killed.

I have to agree with those that were under the impression that this was going to be a horror feature. Instead what we ended up with was a low-rent, b-grade late 80s take on 1977 deep-sea adventure film 'The Deep', but with a baffling supernatural origin and an injection of mystery. The story is a tame muddle (so many inconsistent angles don't make a lick of sense and encourages a blotchy pace) and the technical side is clunky. Nice exotic location and under-water photography though. While the carefree performances weren't too bad either. A gruff Wayne Crawford is enjoyably witty and June Chadwick is fair along side him. Sheri Able is pretty much eye candy. There are some bizarre developments that amuse and one or two eerie sequences. However there's a real lack of cohesion. Most of the cutaway deaths happen off-screen, except for the bloody, fitful opening kills done by something unseen. Again just another thing that leaves you high and dry. The music is generic with its thumping cues to warn us of approaching danger and the POV shots get a good working out. Tatty, but watchable.


***Minor Plot Spoilers***

I must confess to having a soft spot for Wayne Crawford. I know little about him, but he appears to have masses of enthusiasm to compensate for his lack of talent. In his films he usually performs multi-tasks - perm any 3 from lead male, director, producer and script-writer - tackling story lines from the sub-basement. Despite this the end product is usually enjoyable fun for the non-discerning.

'The Evil Below' features Crawford as a down-on-his-luck Captain of a ramshackle charter boat, a bit like Bogart in 'To Have & Have Not' - the similarities between the films ends here though.

The story begins with an underwater scene with two divers searching a wreck, before being attacked by an unseen creature - bit like the start of 'Jaws 2'. The wreck turns out to be that of the 'El Diablo', which went down centuries earlier. The ship was manned by heretic priests on the run from Spain, with a cargo of stolen Church treasure. This allows the introduction of various links to supernatural forces with Lucifer and The Armageddon both getting a look in. The films title refers to this sunken Devil-ship, rather than any malevolent sea-creature.

Whatever faults the film has (and there are many) it is fun to watch and competently made. You can't help but like a film which, in the final 5 minutes, copies the famous beach scene in 'From Here to Eternity' and the final line from 'Casablanca'.


This movie was a total yawnfest that took forever to get going, but never really did. It was simply boring to watch, so much in fact I could just never really get into it. This movie is not a horror movie by an stretch of the imagination, the cover of the videotape made it out to be one. Instead it is a thriller type movie with a few elements of horror thrown in as to make the movie more interesting. Of course, it does not help this movie at all. Mostly all I remember is that this movie was kind of like a movie from the 1970's called "The Deep". Bunch of looking for treasure, rival groups that sort of thing. There are supernatural twists in it too, but to tell you the truth I was so bored when watching this movie that I kind of zoned out so I can not really tell you what the supernatural elements were. I kind of remember footprints on the bottom of the sea so maybe it was some sort of walking dead, or that may be me thinking of Lucio Fulcio's "Zombie" movie instead as that one was a horror movie that was set in a tropical island and as outlandish as that one was it was a lot more entertaining than this movie. That day we learned a valuable lesson, never rent a movie based on its cover art.


In this Silly Symphony, a mouse from the country visits his cousin in the city. Most of the short is the two mice exploring the dinner table. The animation is fine, where this short suffers is in a lack of humor. Perhaps I've just seen this "dinner table adventure" in one too many Tom and Jerry shorts. Even though this came first, I just didn't find it that enjoyable.


Very dull, laborious adaptation of Amis's amusing satire. The hero is portrayed not as a likeable loser but a merely oafish cretin. Most of the rest are pure caricatures with only Helen McCrory putting in real quality and providing something of the novel's wit. The period setting is camped up as if it were the 1920s, not the post-war period of horror comics and rock'n' roll. A real dud even by the standards of bad UK TV.


On the plus side this does contain interesting information over a wide range of topics, particularly concerned with Himmler, the SS and their research branch. It also has some good piano music, some interesting footage and some excellent camera work.

However it is a very poor piece of historical work. It has no clear aim to it and the entire thing could be summed up as follows.

Himmler set up a department in the SS for research into the origins of the German race. They went all over the world. They did some things and launched expeditions to all manner of places... (nonoe of these avenues were explored, the results were not shown and the arguments were barely refuted). They wanted to establish that the Aryan race and the German people were one and the same thing through historical proof. They didn't find any. The members of this research group were leading professors, members of the SS and therefore linked to the holocaust, and were seen as OK after the war and went on to lead German institutes.

These facts in themselves are fascinating but they are never explored in depth and no coherent argument is presented in the program that either condemns these people or exonerates them. Nor does this seem to be the aim of the programme, the aim of the program is unclear, it hops from topic to topic. The witnesses, though presented as credible, are few and unsupported.

Sadly this programme does not know where it is going or why and fails to impress. The topics are fascinating but this program tries to take on a huge area of research and consequently appears to not know what is going on. I would avoid this.

Also the 'Holy Grail'is the German bloodline, nothing to do with the Holy Grail of Christian mythology except in passing. Mentions of expeditions to look for the Christian Holy grail are made but never followed through. The title is misleading and the content of this documentary unconvincing and incomplete.


The good news for IMDb is that this movie was so very bad that it compelled me to register and make a comment. I should add here that I'm a film buff who rarely passes harsh judgment. But sometimes a movie is so poorly acted, poorly conceived, poorly edited, with a such a poor story line that it begs criticism.

I'm surprised by all the claims of how superb, brilliant, dark, and beautifully shot this movie was. I can only conclude that the cast and crew are active posters here. The acting was extremely thin. The pace of the movie was agonizing. I gave it new chances at every turn (mostly because I didn't want to feel like I was wasting a Saturday morning in NY), but with every new scene, it dragged longer, delivering characters in which I took no interest, with which I could not connect, for whom I could not empathize.

When I see negative reviews on IMDb of small independent films like this, I sometimes wonder if the poster has a personal axe to grind (something like. . he used to date the gaffer, she dumped him, and now he's going to trash everything she ever works on). But here, nope. I know no one who worked on this film. And I wish it would have been great. But the film wasn't dark (as some have mentioned) or depressing (as others have claimed). . . those suggest that I connected with the film . . . nope, Henry May Long was just too long, empty, and tedious.

That's the Tomas Take on this one.


This film with fine production values features secrets and how friends use each other. Henry May Long is a very well-acted, dimly lit, depressing turn-of-the-century period piece about a friendship between a fatally ill man and a melancholy, indebted junkie. Talky drawing room dramas are not my cup of tea, and all the crying wears thin. Recommended if you like independent, slyly intellectual, slow-paced Merchant Ivory-type features.

I suspected that the main characters were in love, but their connection was so intimated, it didn't really have the emotional impact of 'Brokeback Mountain.' It features some good writing with a scene discussing how to disappear in life, but it is truly a dark and depressing film.


I watched 40 minutes and couldn't bear it any longer  the television went off and I returned to some light reading "Lobotomy for Beginners".

It was hard to say what aspect of this production was most displeasing - dialogue made up entirely of sound-bytes or the acting by numbers.

It was difficult to determine the period in which the drama was supposed to take place. There were throw-away references to Lord Nelson and slavery but Edmund, the cleric-to-be, played by Blake Ritson was the only actor who one could believe inhabited the early 19th century. The other bright-young things had make-up and costumes more appropriate to a 21st century fancy dress party - the bleached-blonde Fanny, Billie Piper being the least credible character.

UK commercial television obviously believes heaving bosoms, pouting lips and deep meaningful looks make a good story. Fortunately Jane Austen had other ideas.

If you want to find out the story of Mansfield Park, buy the 1983 mini-series DVD.


I doubt whoever wrote this screenplay has ever actually read Mansfield Park...or if they have it was not very well. None of the characters are what they should be: Fanny is lively and conscious of her mistreatment, while Sir Thomas, who treated her very well, seems to have accidentally fallen into Aunt Norris' personality. Additionally, a first person narrative by Fanny is highly inappropriate to both the story and her character. Fanny is not an entertaining heroine, and I would contend that she is not meant to be. Additionally, in the movie version, Fanny flirts shamelessly with Edmund from the very beginning, when they have been raised as brother and sister! Austen's Fanny would have shrank from flirtation of any sort, and the novel paints the Fanny/Edmund pairing as highly uncomfortable...as it should be. Unlike some other Jane Austen novels (P&P, Emma), Mansfield Park does not rest on the strength of its female protagonist. It is a very different sort of novel than the others; it is not meant to be a love story. I watched this movie because I have just now finished reading Mansfield Park, and I am absolutely horrified by what I see; Miss Austen is rolling in her grave.


Well, this latest version of Mansfield Park seemed to try and take the edginess of the 1999 theatrical version (outright copied some of the ideas from it in fact), but tone things down a bit to bring it more in line with the original story. Unfortunately, the result is a rather lackluster, and schizophrenic, production. And, as with all the other versions of Mansfield Park out there, the character of Fanny Price is no where to be found. Instead there is a strangely child-like, bleached-blond woman running around who never really fully develops as a character. At least in the 1999 movie the character they call "Fanny Price" is firmly established as rebellious tomboy who is too clever for her own good. This "Fanny Price" is a complete enigma. Someday, I would really like to see a dramatization of Mansfield Park that actually includes a depiction of the character of Fanny as she was written by Jane Austen. A sweet, kind, compassionate girl with a timid personality and frail constitution. She is reserved in manner and painfully honest, but also strong in her convictions, unfailingly loyal, extremely intelligent, and remarkably astute. A bit of a late bloomer, it is not until her eighteenth year that she finally begins to make the transition from awkward adolescent to self-possessed young woman. And she wants nothing more in life than to be of some real use to those she loves most. It's a wonderfully complex character that I look forward to one day seeing faithfully portrayed.


Oh dear! The BBC is not about to be knocked off its pedestal for absorbing period dramas by this one. I agree this novel of Jane Austens is the difficult to portray particularly to a modern audience, the heroine is hardly a Elizabeth Bennet, even Edmund is not calculated to cause female hearts to skip a beat. However I must say I was hoping for an improvement on the last and was sadly disappointed. The basic story was preserved, but the dialogue was so altered that all that was Jane Austen's tone, manner, feeling, wit, depth, was diluted if not lost. If some past adaptions may be seen as dated the weakness of this one must be that it is too modern ('his life is one long party'?????) The cast was generally adequate, but I think Billie Piper was the wrong choice, it needed someone more restrained, I gained no impression of hidden depths beneath a submissive exterior, she was more like a frolicking child. I see I must wait for the BBC to weave its magic once again.


I'm no Jane Austen purist but why make a film like this if you have nothing to say.

Billie Piper was so wrong for the part it is difficult to know where to begin-wrong personality,modern make-up,completely wrong hair (there is no way a young lady of her age would have romped around in public with her hair loose and unbrushed like that),she didn't seem particularly meek nor put-upon by the family and I didn't understand why everyone seemed to think of her as particularly saintly or kind.

The picnic(substituted for the ball) was so low-budget it was embarrassing to watch and missing out the Portsmouth section completely destroyed the point of the piece (as well as losing scenes which could have added a gritty counterpoint to that oh-so-claustrophobic pink sitting room.)

To those responsible:-If you haven't the imagination (even the budget doesn't matter so much as the imagination) to do something meaningful with an adaptation please don't pretend to be producing Jane Austen.

It was about 10% Mansfield Park and 90% nothing much at all

PS Edmund was very good


... when we all know, no one does it like the BBC.

Being an avid fan of this sort of Sunday night watching, i was quite looking forward to this. How disappointed was I! In the first thirty seconds I didn't think it was looking promising and after two minutes i was finding it hard to watch.

However me and my friends persisted only to find bad acting and a complete misunderstanding of half of the characters. The plot was hurried to the extreme and the make up and costumes gaudy and very 21st century in a 'bbc robin hood' style. This modern style may have been able to be placed within sharp camera angles and visually sumptuous cinematography but unfortunately we got neither. The direction felt decidedly sloppy for both acting and shot choice.

After 30 mins we couldn't bare to watch it and went out and rented 'The Prestige'(which is very good btw) Maybe it is unfair that I judge this as I have watched so little of this, but rarely have I felt so compelled to warn people not to watch something! However, me and my friends did think that the house and parasols were pretty- but thats as good as it gets.


Please...if anybody gets the chance to read this BEFORE watching the movie, if it can be called so, refrain from it... do not waste your time!!!! I too watched this film right after finishing the book, and was seriously disappointed... the main character is basically a new made up Fanny, for she shows NO resemblance whatso ever to the book...she's so lively and laughing all the time... if there was one thing the author wanted to set on this was that she was a very shy, introverted character.... please!!!!! All the most important parts of the story, which are supposed to convey to the heppy ending, are simply not taken into account...and the rest made up!!! I think one is better off using the time to either read a little bit of the actual novel or simply do nothing.