There must be an error. This movie belongs with "Plan 9", and a lot others as a quite entertaining, silly diversion. You'll never accept you like it, yet you will watch it whenever it comes out on TV. It's as simple as that.


Oh, man, they sure knew how to make them back then. Hollywood has forgotten the basic ingredients of bad movie making: cardboard steel and the god fearing scientist action hero!

This film was so close to a masterpiece, alas it was not to be, as it failed to feature ray guns and invaders from the Moon. The MST3K version tried to fix this by adding a pilot of a show called Captain Cody, where a guy with a rocket propelled jacket fights bad make-up people from the Moon, but it didn't quite add up.

Also, the comments of the guys in the theater were not nearly as funny as I expected them to be. All in all, a great disappointment.


Awful, confusing bit of crap from South of the Border. I've now watched it twice and I STILL don't really know what was going on. It had something to do with a stupid looking Aztec mummy, a 'human robot' that's the dumbest looking robot I've ever seen bar none, and a woman who is the reincarnation of some ancient Aztec chick. Most of the story is told in a painfully slow and droning manner by an incredibly dull scientist. This guy is a marvelous sleep aid. His nemesis is a fat slob called The Bat, which is a pretty unimaginative name for an evil scientist.

I guess the boring scientist and his wormy assistant dug up the mummy, and what a shocker, the scientist's wife just HAPPENS to be the reincarnation of the mummy's girlfriend. They keep the mummy perpetually in a mausoleum for some reason, I guess so that the overacting bad guy can steal it. It takes him five years to do this, because he's inventing a 'human robot' to steal the mummy, or attack it, or whatever. He's after some treasure that the mummy has, so that he can be rich. But excuse me, if the guy had this huge an intellect and a strong drive to succeed, why didn't he just patent some of his ideas and get rich that way?

Oh, well, I suppose that would make too much sense. Instead, there is ridiculous fight between the mummy and the robot, and it's really hard to tell which one is faker looking or more cheesy. To tell you the truth, I watched this because I thought a film with a name like The Robot Vs. the Aztec Mummy just HAD to be fabulously cheesy. Instead it was just dully awful and mind blowingly confusing.


The Robot vs. the Aztec Mummy was one of the silliest and least believable films I've ever seen. O.K, I can buy that the woman in the film is a reincarnation of a virgin that was sacrificed to an Aztec God. What I can't buy is that the incredibly phony looking mummy and the even worse looking robot. When you want to watch a film like this, you want to see lots of fighting action. But the robot and the mummy fight for about a minute total! Probably worst of all was the dia de los muertos art they had in the credits. It's the worst I've ever seen. Avoid this one if possible.


Like a lot of movies involving little kids, this starts off "real cute" and likable...and then, after about a half hour or so, becomes the reverse.

That's certainly the case here in this time-travel story (which I usually love) where an adult meets a kid who his really him at the age of eight! Great premise and a great lead actor in Bruce Willis, but.....

The kid "Rusty" is a smart-aleck and whiny brat and Willis Rusty grown up now as "Russell" gets abrasive with his constant yelling. That is entertainment? No, thanks.

Young Breslin has gone on to become a very good child actor, being involved in a number of films including "The Cat In The Hat" opposite a more famous child actor: Dakota Fanning.

Overall, a disappointing film, especially with all the good press this movie got when it was released.


First of all, I wasn't sure who this film was aimed at - it seemed like a story for kids but had stuff in it kids wouldn't understand and find boring. There wasn't really much to it, Bruce Willis wasn't stretched as an actor at all. He did a lot of glancing to the side with that half smile of his - unless you are a big fan of his I wouldn't bother. And if it's the story you're interested in (guy who seems to have it all but is lacking emotionally is taught lessons from a child), I would go to see About A Boy. It has everything this film lacked, humor, sadness and reality.


The Kid was born retarded. It pulls in a half-dozen directions, features dialog and action lifted from much older and better-known flops, and might be funny -- if only the writers knew what funny is.

Disney stuff has gotten a lot better in the last couple of decades, but don't let that fool you. They should have given The Kid a wide berth, sang it a lullaby, then ran the train into a ravine. Mercy killing.


what was Bruce Willis thinking when he signed on for this one?? this one made no sense to me.. i was so confused by it, it wasnt funny at all.. I dont even know why Disney made this one.. Bruce is a Great actor whom ive liked for a Long time .. and this disappointed me a lot.. Pass this one by on the video shelf....


I can't emphasize it enough, do *NOT* get this movie for the kids.

For that matter, you'd best spare the adults from it as well.

All right, perhaps I'm overexaggerating a little. This isn't the worst kids' movie... no, let me rephrase that. This isn't the worst movie made by dissilusioned adults FOR dissilusioned adults and somehow marketed towards kids (that would be "Jack", which I've been meaning to review / gut like a fish).

Adults won't learn anything surprising (well, if you must, fast-forward to just before the end credits for a Educational Bit about an Interesting Cosmic Phenominon). We don't usually end up doing as adults what we wanted to do as kids as reality tends to get in the way. Well, duh, I could have told you that (so can four years of college at an art school, but I degress).

I have no idea what the heck kids could possibly get out of this movie. Most likely it will only upset them (we get to watch the moment when Russ was traumatized at eight years old). There's a better movie, "Kiki's Delivery Service", that has essentially the same message but handles it litely instead of drilling it into your head. And the adults will like it too!

By the way, there is a moment in the movie made with amature MST3K-ers in mind, if they think of that OTHER Bruce Willis movie with a sad little kid in it.


After 15 minutes watching the movie I was asking myself what to do: leave the theater, sleep or try to keep watching the movie to see if there was anything worth. I finally watched the movie: what a waste of time. Maybe I am not a 5 years old kid anymore!


Bruce Willis, as usual, does an excellent job.

[warning: may be considered a "spoiler"]

While my friend thought it was good, I kept glancing at my watch during the entire movie wondering when it would end. After seeing such great flicks as "The Patriot" and "Chicken Run" I was really disappointed in Disney's "The Kid."

Willis plays a middle-aged man with a harsh and realistic attitude on putting a positive spin on people's images (he's an Image Consultant). An unknown kid shows up. Yes, it's him but younger, and even Lily Tomlin can see him. At this point I'm reminded of a cross between a poor "Quantum Leap" episode and a bad time traveling flick.

Kid and Willis go through trying to figure out why he's in that time period. They figure it out. They meet Willis when he's older. Nevermind that it never goes into detail how old Willis teleports them between time periods and gets them together to begin with, how he got that knowledge to begin with, how he came to the realization that he needed to do this, and so on.

Basically, it's a very tired, unoriginal, uninspiring plot that has some great actors in it. The good news is that "the Kid" actor is nowhere near as annoying as he's presented in the trailers on television.


There are a few scripts like this one floating around Hollywood; this one is not even close to the best--just the first. This is all production value, no substance, but the Disney name probably will help it. A good idea, a wasted opportunity.


The first few minutes showing the cold and crusty the Willis character were pretty enjoyable, especially with Jean Smart, but it really tanked after that. This is just hackneyed big man and little irritating kid stuff from way back with no innovation at all. I know that the casting probably picked this kid to show that Willis was just as irritating in his younger self, but I found this kid ESPECIALLY irritating and whinney.


I saw this only because my 10-yr-old was bored. He and his friend hated it but of course liked being at the movies. This is the first time I've strongly disagreed with Ebert in many years. There is not a single thing to recommend this film. Willis is good, as always. But the story stinks, is unbelievable, there is no real story, no action, no interesting cinematic sequences, no surprises, and worst of all, the child star is A thoroughly repulsive slug guaranteed to turn off any parent who does not have a dweeby fat slob for a kid. By all means stay away and spare your child - unless you want to punish him or her. There is no excuse for such lousy directing or writing and one hopes these filmmakers will suffer accordingly.


"Fool for Love" is one of the several now forgotten films Robert Altman directed throughout the 1980s. This one, a screen adaptation of a Sam Shepard play that features Shepard in the lead role, just simply isn't very good. Altman made many not-very-good films over the course of his fascinating career, and many times the fault was his. But here I think the fault lies with Shepard for writing such a flimsy play. Altman's direction is assured, the performances are o.k. given what the actors have to work with, but this inconsequential screenplay goes nowhere, and takes its time getting there.

Shepard is Eddie, a stuntman who has a love/hate relationship with May (Kim Basinger). The two fight endlessly over the course of an evening spent in some dusty motel in the middle of nowhere, while a mysterious man (Harry Dean Stanton) who may be either a figurative or literal father to both Eddie and May quietly observes. Randy Quaid rounds out the four-person cast as a gentleman caller.

The only dramatic hook in the entire plot is the suggestion that Eddie's and May's relationship is incestuous. However, this hook feels more like a gimmick than anything. The screenplay doesn't explore their relationship in any detail, and it doesn't use their relationship to explore any more universal themes. Shepard and Basigner create eccentric, mannered characters who grow irritating within the first five minutes; Stanton and Quaid have little to do but provide reaction shots.

The last half hour or so of the film is especially bad, when Eddie's and May's back stories begin to play out in flashback over monotone, somnolent voice over.

Chalk this up to another of Altman's experiments gone awry.

Grade: C-


After reading Fool For Love in a Drama class of mine, I was looking forward to seeing how Sam Shepard's wonderful play would be translated to the screen. Much to my dismay, it was nowhere near as entertaining as the play. The film seemed to drag, the music was inappropriate for the tone of the movie, and all the raw energy of the play seemed to have been sucked out of this film version. It's a shame to see this come out this way even with Shepard's involvement, playing the role of Eddie. Do yourselves a favor...see the play next time it's being performed in your area or simply read the book instead.


I had been amazed by director Antal's Kontroll back in 2003. His first American project, Vacancy, was less impressive but a decent start. Armored is his second feature and while the visual signature is recognizable, the film never rises above the level of a B movie.

It's a shame because the main premise has all the ingredients for twists and turns and the ensemble cast featuring many quality actors should be able to deliver. Antal could have made a great heist film but instead goes for an action flick. Then again he could have shot a cool action flick but it doesn't really deliver in that department either.

What you are left with is one implausible situation after another, a group of poorly sketched characters bicker and fight over a sum of money. If you look past the sharp cinematography, cast and the tight music score, you're left with what could have been a below average direct-to-video featuring Van Damme or Seagal.

This was probably the most disappointing movie for me in quite some time.


At the heart of almost every truly great crime thriller is a carefully considered, methodically planned-out high stakes super-crime, which 9 times out of 10 is committed by a bunch of likable, grey-scale morality underdogs for who life isn't fair, for whom getting back at the man is, well, something worth cheering for. First-time screenwriter James V. Simpson's script for Armored gets this half right. He made extra-double-sure that we've got nothing but sympathy for the recently orphaned, Iraq war veteran Ty Hackett (Stomp the Yard's Columbus Short), who's about to have his house taken away by an evil bank (brother, I've been there). And he gave Ty a good family friend in Mike (Matt Dillon) who is super nice and gets him a job at the armored car company that he works at with Baines (Lawrence Fishbourne) and some weird French dude (Jean Reno). These guys like to have fun and play pranks, but they are also serious armored car guys too, so that means they carry guns and are tough.

After a short while, as one theoretically watches Armored, one might start to think as I did, that maybe - just maybe - this is going to be some kind of awesome, tongue-in-cheek, cornball heist movie with some on-the-nose characterizations that move the story along its natural course, cranking up the personal stakes of all involved in hopes of unveiling a really, really clever plan with lots of potential 'holy sh*t' moments. I mean, the music alone is textbook heist-movie - gritty, edgy beats working overtime as we're treated to close-ups of characters who say things like "As a matter of fact I do," and "Are you crazy??" For 45 minutes or so, the movie had some serious genre-flick potential.

Then things start to really stink. These dudes, these idiots, have no plan. There's no "Ok, here's what we're gonna do..." scene, no blueprints, no explosives, no black van or ski-masks (despite their 'test-run', as can be seen in a trailer). No, these guys are going to steal $42 million dollars from their own trucks (which are only being tracked by HOURLY contact over the radio, despite being equipped with some fancy, big-deal 'GPS technology'), and they aren't even going to sit down and discuss it. Hell, Mike only tells Ty about the plan the night before, which is completely ridiculous. But of course, Ty's got his house to think about so as long as Mike promises that 'no one will get hurt,' he's on board. Guess what, though. Somebody gets hurt. Why? Because, besides driving the trucks into an abandoned factory to hide the money, they have no plan. That was it. That was how far they thought things out. So, naturally, things start to unravel. These cats deserve everything they get for being so unprepared.

This script, frankly, feels like it's like the product of some bad improv game: "Armored Car, robbed by its own guards...GO!" Despite some half-decent buildup that could have maybe taken the film in a few interesting directions, the story just completely falls apart, and pretty soon, NOTHING makes sense, or is even remotely plausible.

When filmmakers don't have a cool "hook" for their heist, their characters seem stupid, and bungling. And when characters are stupid, and bungling, it's hard for an audience to invest in them, and their story. And when that happens, any suspense drains out the bottom of the movie, leaving a laughable, hollow husk.

Skip it. 3/10


I went to see this movie today, with hopes that it would involve an at least half-intelligent story. I was extremely disappointed, as it did not. The plot, and the decisions by the main character, were so far-fetched. I was hoping for a "Dog Day Afternoon"-type movie, but instead got something totally unacceptable. I actually found myself totally hoping for the "hero" to be knocked off, and I nearly walked out of the theater on several occasions when this should have happened but didn't. Heist movies are notmeant to be feel-good flicks, and this one tried to be just that. Every couple of minutes during the second half of the movie, I found myself saying, "no way". Without giving the whole story away, it revolved around an armored car guard who was financially down and out, and whose house was going into foreclosure. He was invited in on a heist, and accepted, only to back down once the action began. Weak.


I am so angry to the point i normally down make reviews with spoilers but in this case I'll make an exception.The first scenes of this movies are weak and then when they get to the meat and potatoes of the movie it sucks. This is one movie were i rooted for the bad guys because the captain-save-the-day was unbelievable and there was no connection to him or nothing to make you like him. The lead actor gave the weakest performance and Laurence Fishburne or Matt Dillon couldn't even save this movie. Sometime there are eye openers or great moments in a film that may not be that great..this movie has none. If you are looking for a movie to see in the meantime while nothing peeked your interest...don't choose this one..save your money.


There is not much to add to what others have already commented, the movie fails hard where it shouldn't, it has no depth in the planning of the heist and the characters are so unbelievable.

One thing that got me thinking, was that although the rest of the gang is trying hard to remove the pins from the doors of an armored truck, because there is supposed to be no other way of opening it, the guy inside the truck, with great ease manages to remove the floor of the truck which happens to have a hole in it so he can get out, and then get back in, without being noticed by anyone, because no one else could think that he could get out from there or even better, that they could have gotten into from there.

Promising but not quite there.


This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The cast was fantastic, but the movie itself was horrible. It was so awful, I had to register just to say how bad it was.

I watched this movie, and I wanted to break it every minute I watched. It could have been great. Had a great premise. If you're going to rob an armored car, and there's a homeless person which sees you, you have to do, what you have to do. For the main character to decide to get a cop killed, and kill his friends and co-workers after the homeless guy was already dead, it's just ridiculous. And yes, I'm sure there will be responses to this about how his conscious got to him, but come on.

The main character crawled out the bottom of the armored truck, no one saw him. He blew up the stash of money and grabbed and dragged the cop right behind the other guards and no one saw him. He was able to get back in the armored car, and no one saw him... This movie had potential, but blew it.

You couldn't pay me to watch this movie ever again! DON'T EVER watch it! Aggravating...


Unbelievably disappointed. The pace was slow. The characters unbelievable and throughout the film as a whole just let me feel bored and unfulfilled. There was no real plot that could keep you revolving around the film and keep you interested. The heist itself never offered any excitement and didn't seem very well though through.

There was not enough depth or background to any character and Laurance Fishbourne's character was one I eagerly awaited for, unfortunately Laurance has no idea how to play the thuggish brut and is much preferred as a likable character. Columbus short one of my favourite actors (in stomp the yard) let me down with his performance, his character was dark and you could hardly see what drove his reasoning.

The only character I think offered anything to the film was Milo Ventimiglia (Peter Petrelli in Heroes). Though his character quite small and insignificant I think his touch added to an all around dull film.

In Conclusion buy the DVD if you want to find a new way to waste your time.


I have to admit that I am disappointed after seeing this movie. I had expected so much more from the trailers. The movie was absolutely horrible. It lacked a real story line and the acting was not exactly the best. Don't waste your time. The movie is not what the trailers lead you to think it is. I would have to say that I don't usually write anything about movies on IMDb (in fact this is my first one) but this movie was such a disappointment that I registered just to let people know not to waste their time or money. The story line is that of a heist that is to happen and it looks like it had potential to be good but the things that happen in the movie are a little far fetched to be believable. Watch another movie instead, maybe the inside man???


How do you take a cast of experienced, well-known actors, and put together such a stupid movie? Nimrod Antel has the answer: Armored. Six co-workers at an armored car business decide to steal a large shipment of cash themselves. But, just as they get to first base with their plans, everything unravels quickly. With a plot like this, you'd think it couldn't be too bad, at least for an action movie. However, in the first 40 minutes or more of this movie we see what appear to be 6 normal, everyday kind of guys. They joke, they laugh, have a few drinks together, etc. Then, we suddenly learn they're planning to rob their own business. The hero Ty, (Columbus Short), is sucked into the scheme because of the cold, cruel world, even though he's a decorated veteran, nice guy, and reliable employee. Oh my, oh my! Then in the last 40 minutes of the film, these former regular guys nearly all turn into money-crazed psychos, willing to butcher each other for cash. In the last scenes Mike, (Matt Dillon), goes on a suicidal rampage for no other reason than to kill his former friend. The viewer has no hint before this ending that these men are this ruthless and bloodthirsty. It's utterly unbelievable and "B movie" is almost too kind for this sort of cheesy plot. I would say don't waste your time--too bad no one gave Laurence Fishburne, Jean Reno or Fred Ward the same advice before making this picture.


A new guard in in the armored truck gig is recruited by his co-workers to steal 42 million from the truck. No bad guys, so no one will get hurt, right? Of course things go wrong and the new guard decides to have a conscience and make things right by saving the life of a dying man.

I'll admit that I didn't really have any interest in this film, but I didn't have any interest in Fantastic Mr Fox either, and that film made my top ten of the year. Armored is even more of a disappointment then I thought it would be. As a heist film, it fails to deliver the goods, it's boring and full of plot holes and leaps in logic that one will hurt themselves thinking about it.

Despite this the film somehow has a really great cast, but the film doesn't even use this to it's advantage. Everyone seems wasted in wooden characters that make stupid choices. Columbus Short is an uninteresting lead that is never charismatic and never makes the audience want to give a crap. Matt Dillon is the mastermind behind the heist and he plays Mr. Nice Guy at first, then when things don't go his way he quickly becomes the villain. The rest of the impressive cast include Lawrence Fisburn, Jean Reno, Skeet Ulrich, Fred Ward, Amaury Nolasco from Prison Break and Milo Ventimiglia from Heros. Non of them do much and when they actually do something, it's without much reasoning behind it.

The film is relatively short, but even with it's running time under 90 minutes, it felt dragged out. How long can you make a movie about a guy trapped somewhere? Phonebooth did a decent job and it was even more restricted. The leaps of logic concerning the plot here are tragic. 42 million and all the security they have are check ins every hour or so? The entire plan from my understanding was to drive the trucks into an abandoned warehouse and hide the money. Pretend to get hit and burn the trucks. They would then walk away with the money. Of course something goes wrong, or there would be no movie right? Through a series of unfortunate events out so called hero has trapped himself inside the truck with an injured officer. The rest of the movie is Dillion and his crew banging on the doors to get in. How very exciting.

The script calls for our hero to have financial problems, he might lose his house, which would in turn make him lose his brother. You see, both their parents died and it's just the two of them looking out for each other. So now he has a reason to join the heist. At first he didn't want in, but his money problems is just the right push to throw him in the thick of things. How convenient.

Armored's whole spin on the heist genre is that it's from an armored truck, from the guys who drive it. After that basic premise, the film falls flat on it's face. I found myself wanting it to end sooner and sooner each time someone spoke. Speaking of the ending, it sucks.

Skip it.


this movie is sooooo bad that it forced me to create an account with IMDb just to warn others about it.

i have been using IMDb for a long time, and many movies have come close to making me want to register to either praise or bash them, however none have ever been that worthy. Until now!

I am a huge Matt Dillon fan. all i could ask myself throughout this movie is "how did Dillon choose this script"? really. i mean there are holes in it larger than Vredefort.

i mean it is a modern day heist movie, not one set in the seventies. For crying out loud, even a child knows that armored trucks have gps tracking and the sort. makes you wonder what it takes to get a script produced in Hollywood.

i could go on for ages, but i wont. believe me when i say this. save yourself the time and give this a skip.

Sorry Matt, I'm still a fan, but this movie sucked.


OK I for one thought the trailer was quite good so was hopeful for this film, plus with the cast line up I was sure it couldn't get less than a 6 in my books. However I got annoyed half hour into the story... just where normal films get good, this film hit rock bottom.

SPOILER * The guy who everyone is trying to help is so caring of other people getting hurt in the middle of the hustle that he turns on his colleagues to save a tramp and then locks himself inside one of the armoured trucks. Not only that, he constantly tries to get other peoples attention by which he ends up endangering more people and long story short, the outcome is that he is responsible for not just the tramps death, but also a police officer getting shot and the kidnapping of his younger brother... oh and all 5 of his colleagues dying disgraced deaths.

But in the end he is HAPPY because he came to his senses halfway through the endeavour, so what if all his colleagues are now dead rather than sticking to the plan and being a millionaire. This film tried to be so politically correct it makes me sick! Ruined a good story. Shame really.


Disappointing heist movie indeed, I was actually expecting a pretty cool cat and mouse stuff going on through out the movie and it does have few of those cat and mouse stuff going on, but it was just pretty stupid. And it basically showed all the good scenes in the trailer, as a matter of fact if you seen the trailer to this, you basically seen the whole film cause it is just that predictable. So basically the plot is about a few armored truck company workers that try to steal the 42 million dollars they are suppose to transport, until one of the members grows a conscience. I thought the movie would be better with it's cast of well known actors, but I was wrong. I mean this isn't necessarily a bad film but it just wasn't that good either or has any depth. This is most definitely a rental at best, just not really worth seeing it in theaters. heist

4.8/10


After watching this for 15 minutes I knew how it would end. Its a cliché film with a stupid setup. I'm a big fan of thief films, but this one does not deliver anything new smart or special. It's about an insider heist gone bad because "hot head-bad guy" shots a bum, and of course "do goody-bad guy" goes on a moral trip. The reason why it's stupid and not believable is. When you've already gone so far to kill a bum, why not just kill the one guy that stands between you and 43 million. They got 45 minutes to stash the money and stage a robbery nobody in there right mind would hesitate to shoot Mr "do goody" and in this case he is a guy they known for a few days.... All and all I was leaning to fast forwarding from the middle of it, but I duked it out and boy do I regret it


One of those movies in which there are no big twists whatsoever and you can predict pretty much whats is going to happen. Matt dillon was awesome once again, but the rest didn't played a bigger part as they should have.

It was exciting in the beginning but kinda slow paced and predictable in the end.Its one of those flicks in which the good guy wins no matter happens.If you have absolutely nothing to do, you can give it a try I personally found it not worth watching. The story could have been more interesting and the director could have made it less of a B-movie by engineering a happy ending.


Dillon, Fishbourne, Reno, should have teamed up for a much smarter effort, because this one slides in the B-Category and could have been done with no-name actors and a much smaller budget, since anyway, 2 armored trucks and a wasted warehouse could not have coasted too much. Since the writers did not manage to come with a smart heist plan, they targeted the dramatics of the situation, but there was not much to exploit there either. Fishbourne and Reno do not bring anything to this movie except the media interest, they're only expensive advertising. Dillon is OK, but this was a walk in the park. The choices of the main character, Ty Hackett, are quite uninspired and the final, with the "reward" is quite childish. Waste of time, money, actors and so on.


The film had it moments, but was disappointing in my eyes anyway. It was a reworking of Trespass (Walter Hill) and so The Treasure Of the Sierra Madre, with less tension, bite and human emotion. There was some nice acting but the story was limp and lacked any real depth. I watched the movie for Mr Reno and Mr Fishburn, neither were inspired and both had little to say or act out of their skin for. This movie has been done to death in the past and did not have to be made, eats up money which could be used on better movies. For an action movie it was sparse of action and as a thriller did not thrill. Better than watching snow fall, but not for me.


The sounds in the movie were so mundane and ridiculous, seriously banging on the door hinges for about 30 minutes really crunches your teeth and makes your head hurt.

i love bad puns more than the next guy, but come on "no blood on our hands" being said about a million times by Matt Dillon' character, and when Matt Dillon's character shoots the bum the lead character which i fail to remember his name because i don't really think anyone cares gets blood on his hands literally.

the background music with the heavy metal guitar ringing an A-chord for about 5 minutes isn't my idea of music, come on i was having the worst headache by the end of this garbage.


A heist film with Jean Reno, Matt Damon and Laurence Fishburne... sounds great on paper? I suspect it must have done when someone green lighted the production of this movie but the end product is terrible!

The story is dull, the action boring, and, for a film that is only 88 minutes it seems to just drag on. I could feel my life slipping away and was sure there was something better I should have been doing... any paint to watch dry somewhere perhaps?

Sigh. I'm a huge fan of Jean Reno, but what on earth was he thinking when he signed up to this? There are so many other great action movies around... go watch one of those and let this movie be best forgotten.


What a bad movie, the premise was all there, the actors were all there. And yet a believable plot, good dialogue, characters to relate to were somewhat missing.

Typical heist gone wrong premise set against a backdrop of everyman being shafted by the system. The lead character Tye and his little brother have been having no luck and their house is going to be repossessed, along comes godfather Matt Dillon (Who does not look much older than Tye so not exactly sure how that happened)to the rescue with a plan to steal money from an armoured van which they work on as security guards. Tye has a brief flirtation with a conscience but decides to go along with it. And thus begins a truly awful hole ridden 30 minutes of unbelievable trash. I will not list all the ways in which this movie was unrealistic but let me point out the major ones:

Because of Tye deciding to be a good guy because a homeless guy became collateral damage, all of his close friends including his godfather die. His godfather who is supposedly family and the man who brought him into the caper at the last minute to help him out dies because of Tye. Tye in the process of thwarting his friends and godfather destroys all the money. The money came from the same bank that was repossessing his house. And yet he chose it over the supposed family of Matt Dillon.

There are many more, needless to say that this film was tripe and I earnestly hope nobody else goes to see it.


Well where do we start, there was a lot of potential for this film with such big stars playing a role. But the whole story was ruined by a horrific plot. This movie did not pan out to be what i would expect, the good guy makes it out alive, i mean co mon nobody wants the good guy to be successful. The ending was cringe worthy and very cliché no thought what so ever, YOU GOT THE PLOT ALL WRONG THE BAD GUYS ARE MEANT TO COME OUT SUCCESSFUL.

If you want to waste 1 hour and 2 minutes of your time spend it doing something else this movie was the epitome of CRAP. I really think the actors did this movie for some quick Vegas cash no doubt about it. SAVE your money watch a better movie.


Armored

The best part about driving an armored vehicle is that if any bums approach you at a red light asking for money, you can shoot them in the face.

And while the armoured guards in this thriller aren't using their protective power to purge the drifter population, they are using their position to fleece their employer.

When newcomer Ty (Columbus Short) lands a job with an armored trunk company, he feels like he has found his lot in life. Unfortunately, however, when he discovers that his co- workers (Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Laurence Fishburne) are plotting to take the $42 M shipment for themselves, Ty must fortify himself  and the funds  inside the armored truck.

A tedious caper with a plodding plot and phoned-in performances, Armored is an utterly forgettable film.

Besides, if you really want to jack millions, it's a lot simpler to just disguise yourself as an ATM. (Red Light)


This looks so good on paper - Matt Damon, Lawrence Fishbourne, Jean Reno, nice right? And a heist with $42 million - sounds like a kick-ass crime movie.

Big disappointment - I reckon the stars got all the money because the production values on this are lousy.

But more than that it the pseudo reservoir Dogs atmosphere when the easy crime goes wrong. It's very much made for TV stuff.

All in all hugely disappointing - it score points for being what it is - but loses them massively for being, bluntly, not very interesting at all...


This movie, despite its list of B, C, and D list celebs, is a complete waste of 90 minutes. The plot, with its few peaks, was very predictable. It was so silly that I cannot believe that I am taking the time to even write a review of it. Flex, to his credit, has grown in his ability to act since playing Michael Jackson in a made for TV movie a few years ago. Tangi, on the other hand, has regressed, as she was more talented in her role as Felicity's flunkie some years ago. As I sat watching this train wreck of a film, with its pitiful production and horrible sound quality, other four letter words came to my mind to qualify what I thought of this film. However, in an effort to keep my writings G Rated, I'll simply say this film is another four letter word starting with an L. LAME!!!


I was at Wrestlemania VI in Toronto as a 10 year old, and the event I saw then was pretty different from what I saw on the Wrestlemania Collection DVD I just watched. I don't understand how the wwE doesn't have the rights to some of the old music, since most of those songs were created by the WWF they shouldn't have to worry about the licensing and royalty fees that prevent shows like SNL from releasing season sets. Its pretty stupid to whine about, but for me hearing Demolition come out to their theme music at a Wrestlemania in person was a memory that I never forgot, and it didn't exist on this DVD. What is the point of them even owning the rights to this huge library of video if they have to edit it so drastically to use it?


Just watched on UbuWeb this early experimental short film directed by William Vance and Orson Welles. Yes, you read that right, Orson Welles! Years before he gained fame for radio's "The War of the Worlds" and his feature debut Citizen Kane, Welles was a 19-year-old just finding his muse. Besides Vance and Welles, another player here was one Virginia Nicholson, who would become Orson's first wife. She plays a woman who keeps sitting on something that rocks back and forth courtesy of an African-American servant (Paul Edgerton in blackface). During this time a man (Welles) keeps passing her by (courtesy of the scene constantly repeating). I won't reveal any more except to say how interesting the silent images were as they jump-cut constantly. That's not to say this was any good but it was fascinating to watch even with the guitar score (by Larry Morotta) added in the 2005 print I watched. Worth a look for Welles enthusiasts and anyone with a taste of the avant-garde.


When a friend once lambasted me for my first movie (a pretty bad videotaped affair), I argued that I could grow; Orson Welles' first movie, indeed, was even worse. He challenged me that it couldn't be, so I pulled out the Criterion laserdisc of (I think) CITIZEN KANE and played HEARTS OF AGE. My friend lasted just a few minutes before conceding the point.

There is a little humor in this short, but it's basically as pretentious as (and perhaps a collegiate answer to) BLOOD OF A POET and other avant garde films of the time. It is what it is: a succession of images with a vague theme, and unless you really enjoy any footage of Welles (in heavy makeup, to boot), this isn't really even worth tracking down.


I was a hippie age 22 in 1965, have seen the play 5 times, have 2 versions of the music, and have read the script many times. Maybe taken as an separate thing, the movie is OK, but as an adoption of the play, it's terrible.

First the good. The songs are sung well, and the production values are pretty good. The homosexual implications in Black Boys, White Boys is cute. The Claude/Berger switch was interesting. Hair is a fluid production, and constant changes in it are inherent provided the basic spirit of it is retained.

But the basic spirit was very much distorted. It seemed like all the producer wanted was to sing certain songs, and fit the story-line to them regardless of what that did to the original intent of the play.

Claude, Sheila, and Hud were presented as a selfish brats who could care less about anyone outside their tribe. Claude destroyed Sheila's parents party (it's hard to believe that she smiled while her parents were being hurt), and repeatedly stole cars. Sheila stole the soldier's clothes and car. Then she left him in the middle of the desert where he would certainly sunburn badly, probably be busted in rank, and could likely die on that lonely Nevada road. Good fun. And Hud found it fine to break his son's heart while yelling at his ex. This is not what hippies were like, not what the play described, and is directly opposite to a love generation.

I've never seen a hippie beg for money. The point was to be self-sufficient outside the capitalist system, not beg from it.

After Berger is thrown in jail for ruining Sheila's party and Claude offers to bail some out, Berger insists on being bailed instead, with no better plan for bailing the rest that hitting on Sheila's parents, and then hitting on his own mommy.

"Be In" has always been a very spiritual point, but here it is wasted on silly brides floating around. Even if this is part of his trip, it ruins a beautiful song. I know they're contrasting "Floating In Space" with the Army. But again, it totally ruins a beautiful song.

While Sheila and Claude are skinny dipping, Berger steals their clothes, laughing "it was fun man" even after he could see both were very annoyed. Then a little later, Berger does one thing that no hippie ever does. He hits Claude. Terrible.

Then they have the perfect opportunity to sing "Starshine" at night in some beautiful SF spot with the stars twinkling down, maybe working into an inventive duet. Instead, the whole tribe sings it in the blazing sun speeding down the road in a convertible (stolen of course).

I was vastly disappointed with the movie in 1979, and I like it even less now. I think it would have been possible to do a reasonably close adoption of the show, but this ain't it.


I've liked Milos Forman's movies since I saw "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Amadeus" (two big masterpieces), but when I saw "Hair", I kept wondering if this was the same Milos Forman. This movie is boring and uninteresting to say the least. OK, the music is pretty good, but on screen it only seems like a bunch of drugged people dancing around (wait a minute... that's what it really is!). In fact, the only interesting part, and the only part where Milos' talent shows up, are the last 15 minutes or so, (SPOILER!!) since when Berger takes Claude's place as a soldier set to the Vietnam war. That 15 minutes are moving and well-directed, but it's a shame that we have to endure so much awful material before that.

Well, maybe this is one of those movies you need to be "on the subject" to enjoy (the subject being marijuana, acid and other drugs the film glorifies). I'm not, so...


I should start off by saying I have something of a love-hate relationship with musicals. Some of them are fantastic, some are downright crap. So I expected Hair to fall into one of those categories. However, it didn't, falling instead in the middle.

The songs aren't brilliant, though the "Sodomy" song did make me smile a lot, and everything is rather dated looking. But the movie didn't draw me in as others have, such as Rocky Horror. Although that's a bad example, since for years I hated Rocky Horror, then all of a sudden I got it and have loved it ever since. Maybe Hair will be the same. Although I doubt it will get as much exposure as Rocky Horror due to the language and nudity content, so I doubt I will get the chance to have it grow on me. Gettit? Hair....grow...oh suit yourself.

Anyhow, I didn't get to see the last fifteen minutes or so due to a technical glitch, which was a shame, since I would have liked to see how it ended, especially after reading some of the reviews here.

Not a film for the casual cinema-goer, but definitely one for musical lovers. I really hope they don't re-make it, though, since I think any such re-make would end up a shallow, pale, PC version of the original.

Worth a look for lovers of the genre.


This film is an insult to the play upon which it is based. The character of Claude has been warped beyond recognition leaving a painful performance that does not even vaguely resemble the original plot. Shame, shame, shame. They have also cut a fair number of the original score of change the context in which the songs are sung. This warps the air of the film and causes the viewer who is aware of how this should be to wince as the writer of this screen play gives Hud a wife,turns Sheila into a spoiled rich girl, characterizes Claude as a cowboy, and kills Burger by sending him to Vietnam instead. If one is not familiar with the original plot I assure you this is not a bad film for you to see, but if you ever wish to see the original or are, as I am, a die-hard fan of the classic play, you would do best to avoid the film altogether. One really must stick to one or the other.


hair, the movie based on the broadway hit,fails to achieve any redeemable cinematic qualities. you cant really take the play and make it a movie. whether one is so tempted by the rock music to see this movie, it really detracts from the quality of a broadway show. worse than seeing sitcom reruns. musical fiasco, and cant believe others rated it so high.


Sadness was the emotion I felt, after the screen went dark. Puzzled, was another. Why would two seasoned screen vets like Matthau and Lemmon sign on to this putrid project? I'm under the impression they didn't read the script, before the cameras started rolling. All the cast is wasted, in this unfunny, uninteresting and unimpressive movie. Sadly enough, this was one of elegant Edward Mulhare's last projects, here as the heavy. Dyan Cannon tries, Hal Linden looks bored, Donald O'connor reciting a few lines laden with profanity. (??!!). I'm not with the "Legion of Decency." My point is they were spouted purely for the strangeness of hearing him use off-color language. That is a desperate attempt to infuse "humor" into a picture. He actually did deliver the film's only morsel of entertainment, when he pattered about on the dancefloor, though. I save my harshest criticism for the leads. Walter Matthau should have known better. He still delivers great solo performances (IQ, Dennis The Menace, etc.). His character, although affable, is rather dull and one dimensional. Seen him once, seen him all. Jack Lemmon gives another one of his trademark, weepy, "just too darn sensitive" male portrayals. When he starts that mode, I vicariously want to hand him a box of tissues. OUT TO SEA is painfully unfunny, and whoever produced this mess should be made to walk the plank.


I never heard of this film when it first came out. It must have sunk immediately. :o) I saw it on cable while sick in hospital so I hardly had enough energy to watch it, let alone turn the channel. Better choice than the Style Channel. ;0(. Filmed on location, this travelogue should have been on the Travel Channel. The plot is recycled from ship board farces of the thirties and forties. The cast seems to have been recycled from the fifties. Donald O'Connor, star of musicals and Edward Mulhare as a card shark. As to the main cast, Walter Matthau is still playing the same part as he did in Guys and Dolls or was it the one about the orphan girl? Wiseacre irresponsible gambler and rounder. But it just doesn't take with a man of his age. As to Jack Lemmon, he plays his part so straight, he can hardly dip and glide when dancing. And as mentioned, Dyan Cannon is outstandingly attractive as another swindler sailing with her mother who thinks Walter is rich, while he thinks she is rich. Elaine Stritch plays Dyan's mother, another retread from the fifties. The most fun is the running feud between Brent Spiner as the domineering and snotty cruise director who immediately spots Walter as a poor dancer, and spends his time trying to get him dismissed so he will have to pay for his free passage. In the end, though he receives his comeuppances. Meanwhile Jack mopes about, meets an attractive woman, with mutual attraction, but their affair is broken up by Walter's lies that Jack is a doctor, when he was actually a retired department store buyer. But finally, the two men take to the sea in a rubber boat to intercept her seaplane and all is well. There does not seem to be any principal player under the age of fifty.


Let's not fool ourselves, okay? We all know that this film was made because of the success of the "Grumpy Old Men" movies. Unlike those, however, this travesty has zero humor and very little heart.

Gloria DeHaven is the sole shining light to be seen. It breaks my heart that she was finally given the chance to show off her skills to a new generation of moviegoers, only to end up in a piece of dreck such as this. There was a touching scene which featured her being stood up by someone she was falling in love with. Her fine performance was the only quality acting going on in "Out To Sea". Everyone else is just going through the motions. 2/10


In 1904 Tangier, a wealthy American woman and her two children are kidnapped by Berbers, murderous desert pirates who scorn the Moroccan government and, by doing so, kidnap "American pestilence", which attracts the attention of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Fictitious historical epic is less a grand adventure than it is a peculiar, somewhat exhaustive throwback to the desert-sheik films of the 1940s (with a bit of "The King and I" interjected, besides). Portraying the cloaked, mustachioed, bloodthirsty leader and his snippy, haughty captive, Sean Connery and Candice Bergen could be acting in two entirely different movies (neither one seems to know how far to carry the camp-elements of their characters and dialogue, and both seem singularly without proper direction). The various (and anonymous) slashings and beheadings which occur are arbitrary: we don't know any of these victims, and the big action scenes become blurry, noisy montages of sand-swept violence on horseback. The pluses: a much-lauded music score by Jerry Goldsmith (Oscar-nominated, but a loser to John Williams' "Jaws"), fine location shooting and cinematography. *1/2 from ****


Luscious Candace Bergen as a prim Victorian beauty, kidnapped by Sean Connery as a devilish desert Sheikh! How can you go wrong? How? Oh, let me count the ways!!! Earthy, primitive Sean Connery, exactly the right man to tame a brittle, classy beauty like Candace, is . . . well, underwhelming in the role. That's because, instead of having dialog about the real issues ("you are a woman . . . I am a man!") he has to babble nonsense about "the will of Allah" and "the wind blows destiny across the desert sands." John Milius, a director known more for the worship of naked male bodies and brute military force than any insight (or interest) in conventional human relationships, has a maddening way of cutting away from his desert lovers every time it looks like Candace might get kissed. Instead of watching nature take its course with two fabulously attractive people in a picturesque landscape, we are treated to endless, (and I do mean ENDLESS) shots of Brian Keith flashing his walrus sized choppers and delivering gritty sermons on the joys of being Teddy Roosevelt. I have nothing against Teddy Roosevelt, but watching him test out his new rifle or make speeches about the heroic death of a big bear just doesn't excite me the way the love story between Candace Bergen and Sean Connery would have . . . if it had ever actually gotten underway! The weird thing is, Milius spends most of his time building up characters and story lines that have no resolution. Candace's two little children in the story both get more screen time than she does. There's no humor, no chemistry, no sizzle, in any of the things that happen to her in the desert. Unless you think it's funny that after weeks of galloping around on horseback her hair is still perfect.

The only "real" moment in the story is when, late at night, Candace Bergen shakes her little daughter out of a sound sleep on soft cushions and says, "we must escape." The little girl turns over and, without missing a beat, replies, "but mother, I was sleeping!" That one line sums up what's really missing from the story. No danger, suspense, or sizzle in the basic story line, of a cultivated lady in captivity. She (and her children) are both so snug and well cared for that it's hard to believe anyone is worked up about their fate.

Mind you, if Candace herself had said the line it might have worked better. If the tension came from her enjoyment of her captivity, (or her delight at being in the arms of Sean Connery) and her guilt about all the trouble being caused by her abduction, then the story would have had some tension. But Milius makes the odd assumption that the audience is just as worked up as he is over whether Teddy Roosevelt will get the chance to prove his manhood three thousand miles away. In the end the pretty lady and her children don't seem to matter worth a damn to him . . . and since they're at the center of the story the whole thing seems rather dry and endless . . . like the burning desert sands.


and I still don't know where the hell this movie is going? I mean really, what is this movie about? Is it about demonstrating Sean Connery's complete lack of Arabic? Is it about showing that if he could play the role of a Moroccan warlord then he was a natural to play the role of Ramirez in highlander? Why was Teddy Roosevelt even in this movie? Why was there so much sand that was put to so little use? Where was there so much table slapping? Why did Teddy ignore the Japanese guy who he was shooting archery with? Did he realize the man was Japanese? Why was no no credible excuse given for Connery's accent? At least Jean Claude Van Damme has an excuse for his French accent, whether it be being raised by French nuns in Hong Kong (Double Impact), being raised on the bayou in Louisiana (Universal Soldier), or having a French mother and being raised in Indochina (I cannot even remember the name of that movie)? Can anyone explain this?


I laughed so much when I saw this film I nearly soiled myself !. Awful acting, laughable effects (super imposed explosions), and dodgy slow motion fighting.

One of the worst films I've ever seen !.


Don't get me wrong. I really love the "arena-martial arts genre", and I get more and more surprised over how many films like this there are out there. This one is one of those, and it's not even close to be one of the best. With Mathias Hues in it, I thought it would be good. He can't save this movie though, and to be honest, he wasn't very good either. Just don't pay attention to what other people say; The fighting scenes in this movie are NOT good at all. I really know what I'm talking about, since I have seen so many movies like this. There are also a bunch of scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot whatsoever. I guess they added these only to make the movie last a little bit longer, in addition to manifest the bad guy as,uuuuuuh.......bad (like we didn't know that already).


This movie is not at all like City of God, you might get the same feeling but it isn't, there's no intense shooting nor intense drug scenes, you get the idea. If you ask me I think this film was a waste of time, there are a lot of other films which gives 100 times better meaning and teaching than "Wooden Camera". Yes I might be the only one to give a negative comment for this film but it's only in my opinion. It's one of those films where I can get the feeling that I'll be blown away but when the credits start to role my friends and I all gave mutual looks, and we all laughed at how ridiculous this movie was. So to conclude this matter, I advise not to watch it.

Personal note - Making Africans talk English was a big mistake. In City of God they used their native language which gave the film much more power and reality.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Yes, this is from Nietzsche's Aphorism 146 from "Beyond Good and Evil". And that's what you find at the start of this movie.

If you watch the whole movie, you will doubt if it was the message that the Ram Gopal Varma Production wanted to pass on. As the scenes crop up one by one, quite violent and at times puke-raking, the viewer is expected to forget the Nietzsche quote and think otherwise. That to deal with few people you need dedicated people like Sadhu Agashe who will have the licence to kill anyone, not just writing FIRs (something unworthy of the police to do, as we are made to believe).

When TADA was repealed and the government wanted to pass newer and even more draconian laws, RGV's "Satya" did the required brain surgery without blood transfusion for the multiplex growing thinking urban crowd whose views matters in a democratic country like India. Within a year MCOCA was passed.

When real life encounter specialist Daya Nayak 'became a monster on the path of fighting them' and was himself booked by MCOCA, "Aab tak Chhappan" was made to heed out "false" impression among the people about this. With it's "you have to be a monster to save your nation" approach.

And people consumed it. No questions raised. Only praises and hopes that they get a Sadhu Agashe in their local police station who will solve all problems and hence let only milk and butter flow all over. Blood? You can ignore.

Every time Israel attacks Palestine or Lebanon, we hear voices like "India must also similarly attack Pakistan". This movie is made for such psychopaths. If you don't give them this, they will probably die out of boredom and LSD and what not.

Hence this game of the passion of hatred.


Honest young insurance agent Ronald Reagan (as Eric Gregg) is optimistic, but poor. His wife, scheming Sheila Bromley (as Nona Gregg), longs for the finer things in life. Describing herself as "not weighted down with tons of righteousness," Ms. Bromley begins to spend more money than Mr. Reagan earns. Bromley obtains the finer things in life, but puts the couple in debt. Bromley is a fun shrew.

Handsome Reagan attracts other women, like perky clerk Gloria Blondell (as Patricia Carmody); but, he doesn't indulge. To pay the bills, Bromley gets tangled up in the insurance fraud racket - which helps get her husband fired. An unemployed Reagan seems to be tempted into a life of crime - will he remain straight up, or get crooked? Clinton Rosemond has an uncomfortable "broken arm" scene.

*** Accidents Will Happen (1938) William Clemens ~ Ronald Reagan, Sheila Bromley, Gloria Blondell


An interesting period picec showing us what was amazing in 1938. Gosh, Ma, a fake accident ring suing for $25,000!!! I guess projected into the 21st century it would amount to a lot of money. The acting would amount to pure 21st century ham. Nice to see the president as a hard-working newcomer.


This film appears to be an exposé of the current trend towards globalization and homogenization in the wine industry. Wineries around the world are more and more either joining large conglomerates (the American producer, Mondavi, in the case of this film) or paying high-priced experts to help them make "the perfect wine"--and as a result, wines are becoming very standard and predictable. To some, this is a good thing (especially since few can afford to pay $50 or more for an everyday wine) and to others this is horrible as the uniqueness of smaller wineries is disappearing. I truly can understand the concerns of both sides and don't think there is a villain or hero in this business. Sure, good and cheaper wine is a nice thing, but like what's happened with beers (with giants like Unibrew and Anheiser-Busch), food (McDonalds), shopping (European shopping malls are almost indistinguishable from American ones) and mega-stores (like Walmart/Asda) are taking away much of the uniqueness of "the little guys". So I definitely was ready and willing to listen to these film makers. However, with a product that is almost two and a half hours long AND a general lack of focus, the film simply became too big a chore to watch and I lost interest. An 80-90 minute focused film would have been MUCH more effective--especially since the average viewer is NOT an oenophile (that's the high-brow word for a "wine aficionado").

On the very positive side, the film makers are smart not to do much talking at all--and simply let those on both sides of the issue do the talking. Plus, the topic is so relevant and timely. However, despite choosing a good style of documentary making, the film simply goes on way, way, way too long and ended up making a very dull film.


Did Beavis and Butthead make this movie? It is just that bad. Truly an uneven and unfair portrayal of "bad" vs. "good" in the wine world. Did you notice the filmmaker trying any of the wines from the featured protectors of individual wines and terroir. The camera work is dizzying at best while the content may put you to sleep before long. This is not insightful journalism. What I got from this movie was that the filmmaker was trying hard to make a point about the globalism of wine by showing, for example, that the Mondavi family owned wineries in all parts of the world. Okay, that is a good start. So, how do these wines compare? Does the Mondavi Napa cab taste like their Italian wines. We never find out because no one in the film comments on this. Instead, there is a lot of innuendo about Nazi's and fascism. Well, those things don't grow grapes. Hmmmm.


i do not understand at all why this movie received such good grades from critics - - i've seen tens of documentaries (on TV) about the wine world which were much much better when (if) you watch it, please think of two very annoying aspects of mondovino : first, the filming is just awful and terrible and upsetting : to me, it looked like the guy behind the camera just received the material and was playing with it : plenty of zooms (for no purpose other than pushing the button in/out) for instance - - i almost stopped to watch it because of that ! secondly, the interviewer (the director i think) is not really relevant : he looks like and ask questions like a boy scout, not like a journalist, even if the general idea and themes would have been interesting, too bad conclusion: overrated documentary, maybe only for guys who do not know nothing about wine => not recommended at all (2/10)


The film is annoying.

Technically, there are too many times you see unfocused and very roughly edited scenes. One could easily get a cleaner film using a decent amateur camera and 100$ video editing software. Down to earth, man on the street doesn't mean sloppy editing. Unfocused scenes that don't contain important statement should have been deleted. The same goes for making sure that the object's head/hand/others stay in the frame. My 8 years old son knows that by now.

The film is way too long. The main point (anti globalization) is understood after 30 minutes, why bother with all the rest. After the interview with James Suckling I pressed the "stop" button. What a waist of time.

The main theme just doesn't work for me anymore. I've seen too many small wineries which produce mediocre, commercialized wines and many big wineries that produce great and unique wines. The movie identifies the small producers as the ones that are producing wines with more Identity, or terroir. The bigger ones are accused of producing "internationalized" or "commercialized" wines. The film is trying to make a black and white statement in a world full of gray tones. However, the movie hasn't proved this claim. They look at a couple of sporadic examples, "tie" some of the big producers (Frescobaldi) with fascism and provided "interviews" with key people. Well, did all the small producers spent WWII in the resistance? Is it relevant to see that Parker has a thing with Bulldogs? The movie is very manipulative and unconvincing.


The filmmakers try to paint the influence of the Mondovis and Robert Parker as a travesty on par with the German occupation of France and the reign of Fascism. But they never find a victim in this film. We hear wine makers, critics and distributors bemoan that while the wine industry grows it becomes increasingly homogeneous. But the film never makes a case that this has resulted in the loss of any good wine or exploitation of any person or culture other than naive Wine Spectator readers with lots of cash. If they want to pay hundreds of dollars for a dull wine, so be it.

If this were a film about the diamond trade, where the DeBeers corporation's market domination results in human suffering, the muckraking style might have been appropriate. But as it is it just comes off as anti-American, anti-modernization and anti-capitalist. Had the filmmakers been around in the 1870s they most likely would have protested the grafting of American vines in the effort to save French wine.


i was looking forward to this, and to be honest there were some bright spots, but it would have worked better if it had concentrated on one story rather than shooting all over the world. The many dogs were a lot of fun but i got bored of the wine fascists pompously whining (;-)) on about their achievements.

I felt it would have worked better as an hour long TV documentary, concentrating on one of the many different issues it explored. The most interesting being the french town near montpelier fighting off a an American wine company's campaign to get rid of the historic forests. A socialist mayor agreed to a deal, a nicely timed election arrived, and a communist mayor was elected, who turned it down, much to the exasperation of the American wine execs...

hopefully the director's cut will be shorter than the original..


I've heard people compare this movie to Sideways. How this comparison was made, I'll never guess because this movie was in no way comparable to Sideways.

These 2 films were as different as Star Wars and the Thornbirds. The only thing they had in common at all was they both had wine as a subject.

Though the interviews in this documentary were semi-interesting, they were ruined by the absolute worst camera work ever...attempted. I've never seen worse camera work in my life and I'm comparing it to home videos accidentally taken by 5 year olds.

I give this two stars, ONLY for the interesting interviews with French wine types and for showing how pushy and corrupt the American wine companies are (Aren't all companies pushy and corrupt?) I'd give it -10 stars (Yes, that's NEGATIVE 10) for the deplorable, terrible, horrible, awful, VERTIGO-INDUCING, 5-year-old-could-do-better camera mess.


Was it really necessary to include embarrassing footage of non-participants in a documentary. And why all the silly dog scenes, and then repetition of all the same silly dog scenes? This film starts with a great promise - to expose the international politics and the business of wine. It got off to a great start and included all the right characters. But the production is a mess. Points started and developed most of the way, then never finished or left with dangling ends. Very poor and disorienting camera work and editing. They should have used subtitles for the British mumbler from Christie's.

Too much fluff and not enough fact for a documentary.

Probably honored at Cannes because of the US bashing (although in my opinion there was too little of it).

We left at the 2:00 hour mark - I have no idea how much longer it ran on.


As noted in other comments here, the camera-work is laughably bad. I am tempted to say that the director of photography is a 7-year-old, but that would be mean -- to 7-year-olds.

Okay, but what about the subject? I was looking for some insight into the state of the wine industry worldwide, you know, Mondovino. What the film is about is a very narrow view of one intrigue in that world: the struggle between Mondavi and the French and Italian wineries that they would like to buy. There is no enlightening narration that would put the whole deal into context, so we are left with the selective process of the director and the interviews with the various characters in this little psychodrama. There's no shortage of despicable characters, or even despicable dogs, in sight. There is a shortage of evenhandedness, however.

Is the director a Marxist? I wondered as I tried to maintain some semblance of focus as the camera dipped, swerved, zoomed in a chaotic flourish. Small grower in France: good. Huge grower in USA: very, very bad. Forget about the hundreds of small wineries throughout North America, Australia, and South America. There is a dead horse to beat here for over two hours.

To learn about the intrigue more, you are better off reading about it elsewhere. And you will be able to sample your favorite wine without feeling sick while doing so.

I suggest a new award at Cannes for Best America-bashing Diatribe.


Oh God! It could be a very interesting film and in fact it is. I would have like to give it a 5 but i give a 2 for my vote. Why? I saw it in a theatre! See this film on DVD or on TV! The shooting is really really POOR!!!!! It keeps shaking all the time, in a completely tasteless framing!

Its really painful to see this very interesting film in a cinema. You got quickly seasick and you have to make some huge effort not to puke on your neighbor 's seat!

It's really a shame 'cos, the story is edited in a non-linear way which is quite rare (and a very good idea!) for a documentary.

Watch this at home!


There were so many classic movies that were made where the leading people were out-and- out liars and yet they are made to look good. I never bought into that stuff. The "screwball comedies" were full of that stuff and so were a lot of the Fred Astaire films.

Here, Barbara Stanwyck plays a famous "country" magazine writer who has been lying to the public for years, and feels she has to keep lying to keep her persona (and her job). She even lies to a guy about getting married, another topic that was always trivialized in classic films.

She's a New York City woman who pretends she's a great cook and someone who knows how to handle babies, etc. Obviously she knows nothing and the lies pile up so fast you lose track. I guess all of that is supposed to be funny because lessons are learned in the end and true love prevails, etc. etc. Please pass the barf bag.

Most of this film is NOT funny. Stanwyck was far better in the film noir genre. As for Dennis Morgan, well, pass the bag again.


I think I watched a highly edited version because it wasn't nearly as graphic as I expected - based on the other reviews that I have heard.

Other than 1. being written by the same person who wrote the original "Emmanuelle" (1974), Emmanuelle Arsan, 2. the lead character being a sexually free spirit, and 3. being set in the exotic locale of Asia, "Laure" doesn't have the same flair as its predecessor.

I just found this film way too talky with philosophical topics that I'm really not that interested in, i.e. the voyeuristic, open relationship between Laure and Nick, "I'm just happy with whatever brings her pleasure"...something along those lines. I cannot relate to this mentality and the film/characters don't really shed any light.

The second half about finding the Mara tribe just seemed as though it were a completely separate film. One that I didn't care for. By that time, I was just hoping that it would turn into a porn so that at least it would keep my interest.

Maybe I just didn't get it.

I'll leave it at that.


This is one of the most awful movies I've ever seen, probably only surpassed by the dreadful and utterly meaningless Blueberry. How can Harald Zwart even have put his name on this crap. I'm feeling every ounce of respect I had for him waning fast.

So what is it about this film that makes it so poor? Is it the story? Yes. Is it the actors? Yes. It it the whole "look and feel" of the movie? Yes.

To start off with the story, my god!It's about as cliché-ridden and predictable as what you would expect from a drunk 14-year old who is late writing his/her paper on "What I did this summer". The feel-good vibe the makers try to achieve just completely drown as we suffer through yet another embarrassing turn to the story.

The actors are amateurs, I know, and thus we cannot expect them to be of the same quality as professional actors. But for this to work, the characters HAVE to be charming and/or funny (preferably both), so that the viewers don't mind the cheeky acting, or perhaps it even adds to the characters. In this case, not even close baby! You start off disliking the characters mildly, and by the end of the film (I think it's about 90 minutes long, although it feels like 4 hours) you have a strong desire to hurt somebody to get your mind of these annoying stupid guys! It should be impossible to find this movie's attempt at humor successful unless you're actually yourself like these stupid hickeys. Their before mentioned lack of talent and credibility as far as acting goes, only makes the foolish and overly simple scenes fall harder to the ground. Even the family of the people involved will have a hard time finding this anything but very, very embarrassing (I'd rather have my sister make a fool of herself on American Idol).

Finally, why cram in a bunch of misplaced Norwegian celebrities? They look even more out of place than the actors, if this is possible. These celebrity cameos just add to the cheap feeling of the film and is in itself a pretty see-through shot in the dark at trying to improve something broken even before inception.

I cannot even begin to stress how much I'd rather watch paint dry than ever watch this movie again...


This movie is actually so poor in its desperate attempts at being "feel good" and casual it really made me embarrassed watching it. I can't imagine how the inner circle of Norwegian celebs and press must have felt trying to pretend to like it at the star-packed premiere. Its great media reviews is a sickening example of how ridiculously small and inbred the Norwegian media scene is. Had a foreign film of this quality reached the silver screen it would have gotten the rain of rotten tomatoes it truly deserves.

The combination of literally amateur actors, home-made style visual effects, awkward dialogue, painfully idle attempts at working class humour and the overly cozy and meaningless plot, really makes this a movie of rock bottom quality. Stay away.


An odd, willfully skewed biopic of Dyan Thomas in which we hear little more than a dozen lines of his poetry. Instead we have to endure a raw character exposée seen through the prism of his proto-bigamous relationship with wife (Sienna Miller) and childhood love (Keira Knightley). Matthew Rhys plays Thomas with sufficient charm to inoculate us against his otherwise repellent self-interest and Cillian Murphy makes up the persistently tense lovetet.

The film never seems to decide on where it's going. There's no arc so much as a viaduct from one end of the war to the other. Maybury seems much more interested in his two female leads (who wouldn't!?) than in the man who brings them together and then divides them. Miller is the choice of the two (I found Knightley competent at best but then I have never found her sympathetic) but they both offer dreadfully inconsistent Welsh accents. Other funny decisions include too much for the inconsequential character of William (Murphy), arty production (eg double crossfades) that is neither impressionist nor symbolic and the old chestnut act of period footage which doesn't blend. 4/10


After I saw this I concluded that it was most likely a chick flick; afterward I found out that Keira's mother wrote the screenplay so that pretty much confirmed it. However, a chick flick can have some appeal to men; this one does not and really seems not to appeal that well either to women (looking at the dismal box office receipts). One item that I believe both genders agree upon is the stupidity of the the scene, in the movie, whereby an analogy is made between the pain of childbirth to the pain of a limb being amputated w/o anesthesia. Though men do not undergo the pain of childbirth we understand that it is a painful process; yet it is a natural pain whereas an amputation certainly is not! Women understand this even better. I suspect some woman was trying to make a feminist statement that is in poor taste. In fact, a lot of things in this movie are in very poor taste. Though movies nowadays are known for having poor taste this one really "excels" in that department. This could have been a good movie that shows the struggles of Dylan Thomas during WWII; and how strong the sentiment was against men who somehow managed to avoid serving in the military then. Keira's screen writing mother tries to show how this sentiment was used against Dylan but really muddles this. Instead we get a chick flick about how two young mothers bond together; sort of. In a way. Perhaps. Somehow. Of note is the fact that a soldier (the husband of the friend of Dylan's wife) is sent back home after serving in combat; yet it is unclear if the war has ended!! A lot of things about this movie are similarly unclear; and though I have stated that already I will do so again as it seems to be the central motif of this mess.


This movie is so dull I spent half of it on IMDb while it was open in another tab on Netflix trying to find out if anyone thought it was one of the more boring, ponderous, gimmicky films they've ever seen. A warning: I actually could not finish it, so these are my impressions up to minute 54.

Keira Knightly gets loads of screen time. As others have mentioned, her mother penned the script (perhaps during some sort of drug-induced stupor wherein utter inanities and emotionless statements about emotions sounded like interesting dialogue) and it seems that the film is a showcase for Knightly. Oops! Although I agree she is lovely (with her teeth unexposed...her barred teeth cause me anxiety and fear) I found her reactions forced and poorly timed. As in, William or Dylan does something cute...pause...HAHAHA from K with dimples and a playful arm jab. Like a minute too late. What? And she cannot match Cillian Murphy's intensity. He somehow manages to really look at her and look as though he is fascinated by her and falling in love with her whereas she seems totally disconnected, almost like she is interacting with a mirror. That must be torture, acting opposite someone who isn't delivering the same level of energy as you. Know what else is torture? This movie.

Knightly does look stunning during her cyclical "I've got 1940s pin curls and a hot dress. Watch me sing!" shots, but what's the point? Is she an altar or an actress? When she talks it's bizarre, "Ooow, Mehster Deelan. Whur eer ya going?" This makes me confused because the accent is so mixed up and unauthentic, yet so thick at times I have no idea what she's saying (or maybe fell asleep). If no one knows who Vera was or cares, or few do, was it so important to give her this supposed Welsh accent? It distracts from all the rest of the action (just kidding there).

This movie seems like someone dreamed a movie, maybe after reading a little Dylan Thomas before bed. But instead of adapting to the waking world was like, "Man, that dream was so interesting" and tried to replicate it. Then someone else cautioned, "Your script needs work. Nothing that happens furthers a story or creates necessity" and the writer is all, "But that's the way I dreamed it!" It's like the rambling fantasy of a child, one of those wild and meandering yarns they spin to get your attention. And THEN William went to a war and then Vera had a baby and then some blond chick drank too much and there were so many airplanes and pin curls and everyone had ruby red lips and...

As for the Dylan Thomas character (so bland that's all I can call him), why didn't he have any lines in this goofy biopic? All he does is drink beer and smoke cigarettes and roll around with Sienna Miller, who is so wild and artistic she'll do a cartwheel in public! Get outta here, you crazy poets! (I realize she is not a poet, but she and Thomas are like this one nauseating unit of crazy guys havin crazy times, like a lukewarm Sailor and Lula from Wild at Heart.) Someone asks in the message board if they should buy this film. I say do it. Leave it on your shelf and only utilize it as a weapon to narcotize children, the elderly, or lingering house guests.

P.S. to Murphy's character...when someone asks if you were "in the sh**" you can say yes, because your war scenes appear to have been shot at a landfill.


i can't believe how dumb this movie truly is. the storyline (written by keira knightley's mother) is what ruins the movie to the extreme. it is straight out dull, absurd, and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...

this movie lagged so bad for most of it, especially at the beginning. the story just kept going on and on about their everyday flirts with each other, often times seeming like a threesome. in this movie, you have an annoying deadbeat couple (the poet and his wife) who are complete total drunks from the start. the wife sleeps around with other men to make ends meet, while the poet is a pervert who thrives on cheap boos and women. the wife, who waaayyyyyy too quickly becomes friends with his former childhood lover (played by keira) suddenly gets jealous, knowing full well that the two were lovers since they were kids. something doesn't seem right here....i mean, come on... get with the program lady! what'd you expect.

bottom line is: former lovers meet again with new wife embracing it, then gets jealous, then former woman lover gets married and her husband gets jealous, bombards the crazy drunk couple's home, crazy husband calls police, and they end up going to court for the man's attempted murder charges. that's it summed up in a nutshell...

this movie had it's moments such as the quality and good acting by cillian murphy, but other than that, i cannot believe i watched it... i complained about it during the movie and some family members watching it with me fell asleep. i decided to give it a chance and i should have stuck to my first instincts.


I just got done watching The Edge of Love (by the way, this is one of the worst titles so far this year) and it felt like a chore. Watching Keira Knightly's unlikable, skeleton-looking character made me cringe even more throughout the coarse of the film.

It took me four nights to watch this it was so boring. The only good thing about it was Cillian Murphy. He's always good/believable and is severely under looked in many films. This, however, was just not good enough for him.

Apart from the unlikable characters, boring storyline, the plot was also emotionally unsatisfying. I felt like I spent my time watching this for nothing (which I did). I should have done the smart thing and turned it off, but I kept it on out of respect for Cillian Murphy and the great cinematography.


This film is about the complicated friendship, romance and deceit between two men and two women during the World War II.

A lot of effort has been put to make "The Edge of Love"look the right period. However, I find this effort too excessive, particularly in terms of the tone of the colours. Most of the first half of the film is processed so much to have a strong bluish tone. It's hard to make out who's who in this tone.

Another detrimental point is the fancy use of image splitting lens. There are many scenes that have three or four images of the same thing, such as three Keira Knightley smiling face or four pairs of arms in embrace. That simply makes the film confusing and hard to follow, instead of being artistic.

As for the plot, it is plain boring. The way the story unfolds is not engaging at all. Sienna Miller's unstable character is annoying. In fact all the main characters are annoying and unlikeable. Keira Knightley's accent is impossible to understand, making it a further impediment to understanding the plot.

I strongly advise avoiding "The Edge of Love", unless you watch a film only to appreciate great costumes, nice sets and lighting.


My god...i have not seen such an awful movie in a long...long time...saw it last night and wanted to leave after 20 minutes...keira knightley tries really really hard in this one, but she cant handle it..dropped her accent every once in a while and didn't have the charisma to fill the role...sienna millers acting gets you to a point where you start to ask yourself: Has she ever had acting lessons? judging by the edge of love shes never been to acting class, but should consider to go in the near future...they both look really pretty..maybe thats what they should focus on in their future career..if they can be actresses everybody can!


This film fails on every count. For a start it is pretentious, striving to be "significant" and failing miserably. The script was banal in the extreme, nobody at any time said anything remotely interesting. It was impossible to care about any of the characters. Knightly was a self-regarding waste of time whilst Sienna Miller was just a waste of time. The bit about the soldier who went off to war was a cliché even before the film Atonement used it. The use of the Second World War as a backdrop was in itself a cliché...the bombs, the sheltering in tube stations etc...employed to import a bit of much-needed drama. Why anybody thought for a moment that this film was worth making is quite beyond my comprehension. It was yet another case of "let's get the costumes looking authentic, never mind about the story, the script or the acting!"


I tried to watch this adaptation, but it was just so awful I couldn't torture myself like that. The performances were quite sub-par, with the exception of Ariel. Fonda was way over the top in a role that should be handled with some subtlety. I have studied Shakespeare and seen many adaptations, and this is, by far, the worst one I have ever seen. I have to wonder why on Earth someone made this film. Shakespeare can, and has been, beautifully adapted in many cases. This is not one of them. If you must watch this film, may I suggest a drinking game? Take a drink every time they go off book from the original idea and two drinks every time Fonda overacts. You should be quite drunk in a very short time.


The (DVD)movie "The Tempest", directed by Jack Bender, was published in 2001. It didn't make its way to German cinemas and neither the director or an actor were able to receive an important award for this movie. The movie refers to the Shakespearean play "The Tempest" which was published at the end of the 16th century. The director tried to create an modern version of this play, but failed. At the beginning of the movie the plantation owner Prosper gets in a conflict with his brother Antonio about the treatment of their slaves. Antonio sets his brother a trip and tries to kill him but with the help of a witch, Prosper is able to escape and flees with his daughter and a slave called Ariel to a small island nearby the Mississippi river. For over twelve years he has lived isolated on this island, till a lucky chance enables him to take revenge on his brother....If Prosper will be lucky you have to find out by yourself.

In my opinion this film is really a bad try to create a modern version of the original play by William Shakespeare. The story of the movie is confusing as well as the characters. Prosper doesn't have the same powers as in the tempest..... END OF PART I


Jack Bender's "The Tempest" is an adaption of Shakespeare's play "The Tempest". Bender transports the plot from medieval Italy to Mississippi during the time of the American civil war. He includes the slavery problem and the role of revenge in wartimes.

Prospero, re-named Gideon Prosper is not the Duke of Milan but a landowner in Mississippi. He learns voodoo magic from the female slave Mambo Azaleigh. He saves her son Ariel, who thus accompanies him into his exile. The island is not situated on the sea but in a swamp near the banks of the Mississippi. There lives an Alligator hunter, a so-called "Gator-Man", who later tries to rape Prospero's daughter Miranda. During the time of the civil war, Ariel wants to join the Union troops to help fighting against slavery. Prospero does not care about the war. He is only interested in his personal revenge on his brother Antony. When Antony and his bookkeeper Willi Gonzo (Gonzalo) try to cross the river, Prospero raises a storm. The Union soldier Frederick gets lost in the swamp and finally comes to the island. He and Miranda fall in love with each other but Prospero won't accept that. Meanwhile, Ariel transformed into a raven by Prospero, finds out that Antony has feigned to ally with the Union but plans to betray them. Antony and Gonzo meet Gator Man in the swamp and conspire with him against Prospero. They kidnap Miranda and Ariel but Prospero freeze them and helps the Union defeat the Southern army. In the end Ariel is free, Frederick and Miranda are bound to marry, Prospero returns to the plantation and Gator Man gets back the island.

Peter Fonda represents Gideon Prosper powerfully and convincingly while the character of Antony stays rather flat. It was no bad idea to perform the Tempest before the background of the civil war but perhaps the director has risked too much. In some parts the story seems constructed or comical. Gator Man for example does just appear without any explanation. That it needs a kidnapping to bring Prospero to his mind and that he loses confidence in his power shows that Bender tried to make Prospero more human but only made him a weak old man without his magic. Prospero's original authority and wisdom is not made clear.

-------------End of Part 1----------------------------


I keep waiting for Peter Fonda to start acting. For someone who comes from such a talented family, it's a mystery to me why Peter Fonda can only play Peter Fonda trying to play someone else. And, that's the good news in this disappointing dog of an adaptation of The Tempest. A string of loosely connected ideas that only suggest a relationship with the Bard's great play is what we're served. The setting is the Civil War and Prospero's (here Guideon's) evil brother looks like an 1890's melodrama villain, complete with Snidely Whiplash moustache. I kept waiting for him to go "Uh ha hah!" which would have been a high point in this dreary presentation. None of the supporting cast was memoriable and Peter Fonda's lack of expression and wooden body movements made the lackadaisical story drag on and on.

The Tempest is the Bard's statement about the rage of man's unjust treatment of man. The only believable character was the Gator man, the Caliban counterpart. The transferrence to the swamp had possibilities but the Civil War setting just didn't make it. All in all, a very disappointing production. I saw it on video and would advise, if you want a Willy Shakespeare fix, save your money on this one. Rent something else, like Branagh's Much Ado about Nothing, or Kevin Kline in Midsummer's Night Dream.


Shakespeare would have been outraged. The writers mutilated Shakespeare's amazing work. Ariel is the only believable acting performance. The African voodoo, secluded swamp, and "Gator Man" character make the movie a mockery of Shakespeare's true Tempest.

Don't waste your eye-sight on this movie.


I suppose I can see why critics give this film two out five stars, it isn't fantastic, but I think it is worth a look, from director Shawn Levy (Cheaper by the Dozen, Night at the Museum). Basically 14-year-old Jason Shepherd (Malcolm in the Middle's Frankie Muniz) is often lying to his parents and teachers, and his teacher warns him that if he doesn't do his creative writing, he will fail his whole semester and have to repeat the grade during summer. So he completes his work, but getting a lift from Hollywood producer Marty Wolf (Paul Giamatti), who hit him on the way to school, he manages to leave his paper with the story "Big Fat Liar" in the car. He finds out from a movie trailer that Marty stole his paper and is turning it into a major movie, so he and his best friend Kaylee (She's the Man's Amanda Bynes) are on a mission to prove Jason is for once telling the truth. Marty of course is too nasty and smug to give Jason's father Harry (Michael Bryan French) a phone call, and he evens burns the "Big Fat Liar" paper. So now Jason and Kaylee are determined to make Marty's life as hellish as possible, until he agrees to call Jason's Dad. They put blue dye in his swimming pool, and orange hair dye in his shampoo, and much more naughty pranks creating chaos for Marty's career. There is the obvious point when Jason looks like he wants to give up, but don't worry, all characters that despise Marty help out in the final operation, and with Jason's parents coming, he wants to finally prove his truthfulness, and boy does he deliver, big style. Also starring Amanda Detmer as Monty Kirkham, Lee Majors as Vince, Donald Adeosun Faison as Frank Jackson, Sandra Oh as Mrs. Phyllis Caldwell, Russell Hornsby as Marcus Duncan, Christine Tucci as Carol Shepherd and American Pie's John Cho as Dustin 'Dusty' Wong. Muniz is likable, Byrnes proves a very surprisingly talented support, and even though he is wasting his time and talent a little, Giamatti is great at being nasty. It is a kids film, so if it seems corny, cheesy or predictable, just keep that in mind, and try to enjoy the performances and slapstick. Okay!


Frankie Muniz plays Jason who is a high school student. His biggest problem is his life is built on small or big lies that puts him into trouble most times. However, he cannot escape from his teacher and he finishes his creative writing homework just before its deadline. While he is biking fast to hand his homework to the teacher, he crushes into a car. As he explains the situation to grumpy man(Giamatti) in the car, he gives him a lift to his school. But the problem is Jason leaves his homework in the car, the other way of saying this is Marty Wolf(Giamatti) steals it.

After a few months Jason goes to a movie and sees a trailer that takes him aback. Because the story of the movie is based on his homework. He tells that to his parents but of course they don't believe him. Especially his father uses words which insults him. Jason decides to go to LA and find Wolf to tell his father that Jason is not a liar. When Wolf refuses it, Jason takes action and ruins his life.

This is the short story of the Big Fat Liar. Well, as a kids movie it might be a light hearted one but there are some errors that even could would ask if that is possible. Such as, having such a small amount of money and going to LA with a friend to sort the problem out, having access to this cinema producer's highly protected house and office, setting up a telecommunications system overnight.Does it seem believable? It does not. Well this is a kids movie but kids are not that gullible.

Big Fat Liar offers some little pleasure to its target audience. Unfortunately, I am not a big fat liar to say that this is a good movie. ** out of *****


This movie just didn't do it for me. I like horror and splatter movies but this one has very little to do with horror. The effects are cheap and when they chop of one of her feet it looks so fake. The same goes for the other effects like the tongue torture and the gut sex. They could have spent of few extra bucks on the effects.

With lots of sex (with pixelization as in all Japanese movies) this is just a sick fetish porn and there seems to be a market for sick stuff like this. While bloodier, for me it fits in with titles like Squirmfest / Purge and the Genki series. These movies feature girls eating and playing with every fluid that comes out of your body, eating bugs and fish in a gross way and having sex with all kinds of weird animals, like toads, eels and... One look at the covers will tell horror fans to look elsewhere. No horror here,just sick and degrading sex scenes.

Horror fans should avoid this one and are better of checking out Guinea Pig2: Flowers of Flesh and Blood or even August Underground Mordum. While these are not great they at least offer a horror experience and Niku Daruma absolutely fails in that department.


Not near as well made as the "Guinea Pig" flicks it was inspired by ("Flowers of Flesh and Blood" or "Devil's Experiment") and not conveying any real philosophy, this video feature, which is barely feature length, adds hardcore sex (with mosaic censoring) to its inspiration. The special make-up effects, which include stomach slitting and disembowelment, are pretty good, if overlit. The amateur feel of the production is a distraction. It all looks cheap and lazy. The lighting is harsh and the sound and editing are sloppy. The simple story involves a porno actress who ends up starring in a real snuff movie. Just when she gets tired of being abused, the real abuse begins. In the film's hero scene, an actor cuts the woman's stomach open in graphic close-up, stuffs his member inside it, and proceeds to do his thing. I didn't find "Psycho - The Snuff Reels" shocking. On the contrary, I found it to be a desperate attempt by amateurs to one-up "Guinea Pig" and its bloody ilk. Interestingly, this was distributed by Aroma, a leading fetish producer.


just watched this "film" and it actually made me want to write my first comment on IMDb.com, even though i've been a user for more than 9 years. the reason that i watched this, is because i like splatter films and sometimes i like to test my limits and see what actually still shocks me. first of all, the gore in this film didn't shock me, not even the idea that someone came up with this and made it into a film - what really shocked me, is that there seems to be a market for this kind of crap. don't get me wrong - i'm all against censorship, but this film seems to me like it was made for some kind of fetish crowd that seems to get off on this type of sh*t.it didn't give you that same kind of disgust and guilt that one felt after watching films like "august underground". that film is terrible to watch, but at least you get the feeling that the filmmakers want to show you how disgusting violence is. in the case of "niku daruma", it seems like it was made strictly to arouse people. i prefer films that shock, because they are well done and thought through, like Gaspar Noe's films, or Takashi Miike's, or Funny Games or Man Bites Dog - those films will stick with you for a while. this film i will have forgotten by tomorrow, and the only thing that will stick with me, is the thought, that somewhere out there, there are people getting aroused by watching this sh*t. if you read this, please check yourself into the next hospital or shoot yourself - this of course does not apply to gore hounds, who just love splatter. you're cool! peace