Before launching into whether this film is worth your time or not, I should inform you I've never seen another adaptation of Carmen, so if you're looking for a review on how it ranks amongst others, this might not be of much use to you.

The only time I've come across Carmen was on the car stereo when driving through Spain on a family holiday when I was a teenager. I didn't pay much attention to it because I didn't like opera at the time and I didn't know any better. The story has been around for 150 years or so. Do I feel I've missed out after seeing this movie? Yes, mainly due to the plot, but also because if all the actresses who played Carmen looked like Paz Vega, I would have all the adaptations happily sitting in my DVD collection.

Directed by Vicente Aranda (who also co-rewrote the story with Joaquim Jordà), the story is told through the eyes of the original author Prosper Mérimée, a French writer making his way through 19th century Spain. He comes across José (Leonardo Sbaraglia), a delinquent soldier and one of many men who fall in love with Carmen (Paz Vega), a sultry, sexy, bedazzling gypsy woman, who has the mouth of the devil, the temper of a 'toro' and who recklessly leads men to their doom. The moment she meets José, she is attracted by his stand-offish behaviour. But she hooks him, reels him in and lets him go, many-a-time. Until one day, José is wanted for murder. Carmen persuades him to join her band of gypsy smugglers. They seem to be settling, she's fallen in love with him, but she meets the charming Escamillo, the bullfighter. Can José hold his jealousy in check, or does it destroy him?

It's a beautiful,seductive story, something that resembles, almost, a Shakespearian or Ovid plot, with the portrayals of immense passion and emotion that can make or break us and transform us to do things out of character. It's poetic, fiery, and above all, slutty. I was left hanging on, I didn't know which way it was going to turn. I always hoped that José might change Carmen's dirty little ways. I won't tell you if he succeeded or not.

The above synopsis is what I took away from the film, but I was not impressed by the film itself. It was only after I watched it that I dug a little deeper into the story and I realised how much of a missed opportunity Aranda had made of retelling Mérimée's classic. It was a shallow, slutty period-drama blunder, that saw Paz Vega spend a lot of the time partially or completely naked (not that I'm complaining about this in particular!).

First of all, the acting was poor. I was not impressed by Sbaraglia as José. I'm still unsure whether he was a weak actor or José was supposed to be a weak character, I've not read the book. He's supposed to be a man who with burning desire for Carmen, but he spends much of the time looking confused, jealous and a bit dim. Paz Vega was slightly better as Carmen. I was convinced by her hardened, wicked character, although I have seen more convincing performances by her in other films, such as Zapping and Lucia y El Sexo. She seems too pretty to play a gypsy woman (not that I've come across many Andalusian gypsy women), so in a way, the role didn't really fit her. The other actors in the film weren't great either. They seemed to do everything half-heartedly. The story is passionate, emotive  they looked half-arsed, as if they couldn't wait to get out the tight 19th century costumes they were wearing.

However, the costumes, I was impressed with - one of the redeeming factors of the film. I like Spanish culture, I liked the soldiers' uniforms, the top-hats and the women's Flamenco dresses. They fitted the time well. That's all I can really say about that. Sorry, back to the criticism.

The script, as stated above, was co-rewritten by Vicente Aranda and Joaquim Jordà, and done so badly, so much that it would leave Mérimée turning in his grave. It was boring. It didn't make best use of José's intense passion for Carmen (or maybe that was just the acting). There were cheesy lines piled upon one and other, Satan and devil connotations everywhere, amongst the millions of swear words. I know the Spanish are partial for the odd swear word, but the film was littered with puta, 'whore', in literally every line Maybe it was realistic in 19th century poverty-stricken Seville, but the story itself didn't need it.

The editing and camera work was dull and ordinary. There was only one bit I actually liked, and that was when the camera follows a fly close-up in mid-air, which lands on Carmen's face. That was good. But the rest? Boring.

To conclude, it is sad to see such a great story go to waste with unconvincing acting and directing. If you're a literature teacher, by all means let your class watch this adaptation to get an idea of the story. However, only the male half of the class will be paying any interest to the film, thanks to Paz Vega. Otherwise, stick to the opera version (even though I hate musicals). I give this film 4, just for the fact I love the storyline! And Paz Vega!


Carmen is a prostitute that lives seducing and stealing soldiers of the Spanish army; she is, without any doubt, the best femme fatale at the moment. When a man resist her charming attentions, she decides to do everything to destroy him. At the end, he falls in her web and he will be forced to make all the things he ever hated only for being with Carmen. Despite Paz Vega is very beautiful, she doesn't seem a gypsy (as Carmen is) and neither her acting nor Sbaraglia's are good. The story results very boring, and, in most moments, it is very absurd, while intending to appear truthful. in the same way are the scenarios and the Special Effects, despite not being but they are not but acceptable, and too much artificial for a historic film as it is. To sum up, boring and bad, with a very absurd development, there are much betters thing to watch.


When I saw this in the cinema, I remember wincing at the bad acting about a minute or two into the first scene, then immediately telling myself "no, this has to get better". It didn't. The performances are pretty uniformly teak 'n pine and no, there is NO sexual chemistry in this film whatsoever, just the awkward posturings of a reasonably comely, discreetly talentless actress who seems born to grace the cover of "Interviú" and not much else besides. If the scriptwriter thought that making Mérimée a character was a stunningly original creative ploy he perhaps ought to get out more. And Aranda, if he'd given the matter a bit more thought, would have realised that the story of Carmen is just CRYING OUT for a thoughtful, iconoclastic, parodic deconstruction, not this leave-your-brains-at-the-turnstile affair of ersatz passion and comic-book dialogue. This is contemporary Spanish cinema at its worst.


This movie has been promoting in everywhere in Spain with a huge publicity campaign, after watching it, you realise that someone has stolen your money. Paz Vega is horrible as Carmen, she´s not natural at all and she looks like she´s making a fashion magazine cover in all the shots ("the best" is when she as an andalusian woman ...¡can speak basque and fluently¡, Leonardo Sbaraglia is much better than her as Jose, but the story is very slow, the plot don´t work, and the screenplay is really very very bad...I think Penelope Cruz (the film was written for her)would have been a much more credible and sexy Carmen.

What a waste of time and money


Like the other guy said It sux , you can count the words that have been said in that entire movie on one of your hands, Too nudity , she got naked like 7 or 8 times in a 1 and a half , well past the nudity you'll find a porno behind that film , He f**ked her all movie long, bad acting, bad story,bad language, Carmen was swearing all movie long , so you get out of that movie, pornografic scenes and dirty language, A lot of gaps in the movie, a big silence every now and then The only good thing in that movie is the beautiful places were it has been shot, otherwise it's an hour and a half of your life that you'll gonna waste so if u gonna watch that movie Good luck It really Sux


Dull acting, weak script...worst spanish movie in years...I was

attracted by the (naked) beauty of Paz Vega, but as an actress

she's useless, you almost can't understand what she's saying...

About the story there's not much coherent to say...we heard of it

before, but as this is a "modern Carmen" we find a few changes: -The french soldier is now a basque soldier. -Merimee himself is a character in the story. -Carmen is a dangerous "bandolera" in love with a famous

"matador" and she can speak fluent basque...

Can anyone understand this mess?


Another pretentious film from Vicente Aranda. If "Juana la loca" shinned of the same, at least its quality was superior (mainly thanks to the great performance of Pilar López de Ayala), but "Carmen" is boring and full of topics (ardent brunette with a dagger in the stocking, poor man dragged to madness due to passion, Sierra Nevada gangs, "toreros",...)

Obviously Paz Vega is a pretty woman, but about its talent there're more doubts, and Sbaraglia role is so stupid that results almost incredible. The script is weak and and Aranda's presumptuous character influences the entire film. With these ingredients the result could not be good.

Not the worst film I've seen, but a complete failure, in my opinion.


Another bad spanish picture. This is very baaaad. I only save the photography and the music of José Nieto. The rest of the film is the worst I've seen in years. Paz Vega is horrible. Don't see it.


The plot for a movie such of this is a giveaway. How can you go wrong with a gay plot line and all the colors and music of India - a story like this writes itself. I'll watch most anything, but this was unwatchable. The sad thing is, the white folks are the most colorful in the film. Vanessa was a riot with a mouth like a sailor, and Jack was great eye candy, but everyone else was so boring. Saeed Jeffrey, who was exceptional in My Beautiful Landrette, did what he could but the story was so boring. The saving grace was really the background music, which made it OK to laugh at the film, instead of with the film, or not at all. There are many other better gay movies, ethnic movies, just plain movies. I give a lot of low budget movies a pass, but this shouldn't have been made, or should have been made by someone else.


For those expecting the cover art and story outline to indicate another entertaining Bollywood Indian production, beware: no musical dance numbers or songs of production value exist to brighten the mood in this rather tired story of arranged marriages in the British Indian culture - with a few variations thrown in. As written by Roopesh Parekh the script jumps around topics worthy of discussion only to cover them up with routine avoidance tactics. Harmage Singh Kalirai directs like a traffic cop, trying to hold together the disparate subplots to the point of Keystone Cop tactics.

Jimi (Chris Bisson) is a medical school student who is gay and has a lover Jack (Peter Ash) and they live with Jack's obese, alcoholic, loose morals aunt Vanessa (Sally Bankes) and Sally's chubby daughter Hannah (Katy Clayton). Jimi's family is visited by the Patel family from Delhi who bring their beautiful daughter Simran (Jinder Mahal) to England to find a husband. Jimi's parents (Saeed Jaffrey and Jamila Massey) and his grandmother (Zohra Sehgal) decide Simran is the girl for Jimi to marry and arrange an engagement and wedding in the custom of Indian ways - without consulting Jimi. Jimi discovers the plot and is too spineless not to go along with it, a decision which enrages Jack and infuriates Vanessa. Hannah tells a 'little lie' to Simran (that she is Jimi's daughter) and the wedding is off. When Jimi's parents visit Jimi's house they discover the drunken Vanessa, are repulsed by her, but eventually decide that for Jimi's happiness they will go along with the fact that Vanessa has given them a 'granddaughter' and decide to use the marriage preparations as a wedding for Jimi and Vanessa. Jimi convinces the very reluctant Vanessa to go along with the idea and before long Vanessa is dressed in a sari, prepared for a wedding, and Jimi, terrified at what he is doing just to please his parents, includes Jack as his best man. At the wedding the truth comes out and to Jimi's surprise his family adapts to Jimi's true self and the day is saved by simply being truthful.

The cast copes with this silly bit of nonsense rather well and there are some good performances: Chris Bisson and Peter Ash are attractive men and play their roles well, albeit without any indication at all of a loving relationship (the director seems terrified of showing the least suggestion of intimacy between the two men); Sally Bankes provides most of the laughs as Vanessa; the rest of the cast repeat the stereotype roles they've played countless times in Indian movies. This is not a bad film - it has its moments - but it is just too superficial and tired to make us care about any of the characters.


As the film reviewer for a local gay magazine I automatically get sent any dreck if it happens to have a homo in it. Chicken Tikka Masala is churning on in the background as I write this. I gave it my undivided attention for 53 minutes before I found myself involuntarily shouting - like a Tourrette's sufferer -"This is the sh**test film I have ever seen". We're just coming to the emotional climax where the son is giving some coming out speech to his father at his wedding. Father seems to be taking it quite well. An attempted honour killing at this point would at least have livened the film up a bit. And made it funnier.

I didn't particularly like Beautiful Thing, for example, but could at least see why other people did. It was made with some professionalism and I seem to remember it had at least a couple of good lines. The lack of wit in this film is quite astounding - even the most mediocre sitcom will tend to have recognisable jokes. The nearest this movie got to being funny (at least in its first 53 mins) was the subtitled comment delivered to the fat unattractive female lead "Look at her with her legs wide open - she's like the Mersey Tunnel." Completely witless and I didn't crack a smile but I could imagine someone with a low IQ (who perhaps works in a chip shop) enjoying it.

I'd imagine it's some Lottery-funded atrocity. If not I can at least console myself with the fact that the backers will lose a substantial amount of money as even a low-budget British film will still set someone back a couple of million. Seriously, if I met the most handsome bloke in the world and, on going back to his place to make sweet love, I found a copy of this in his DVD collection ("Man, I love this film") I'd probably kick him in the nuts and leave forthwith. And this from someone who's gone about six months without any of the aforementioned sweet love.

Oh Lord I hate this film.


I am at a loss to find the words to express how bad I thought this film was. The initial precept was promising, but in all respects afterwards it was totally awful. Let's run through the main points. Plot - good initial idea but truly terrible development. There were many points when I thought "no, nobody would do something that stupid". The ending was amazingly anticlimactic. Characterisation - all of the characters were either completely bland or grotesque caricatures. I keep trying to think of one that wasn't - possibly the mother, but that's it. Music - intrusive, inappropriate and generally terrible. Direction - totally amateurish. Cinematography - doubt they've heard of it. Camera angles / stability / zoom levels often really bad. I am totally bemused at how this film has scored so highly. It's the worst movie I've seen at the cinema for years, if not ever.


I don't even know where to begin...

It's is not worth typing a review so I will just quote what another user posted because I agree thoroughly, but I give it 1 / 10 instead of 2 / 10 "I am at a loss to find the words to express how bad I thought this film was. The initial precept was promising, but in all respects afterwards it was totally awful. Let's run through the main points. Plot - good initial idea but truly terrible development. There were many points when I thought "no, nobody would do something that stupid". The ending was amazingly anticlimactic. Characterisation - all of the characters were either completely bland or grotesque caricatures. I keep trying to think of one that wasn't - possibly the mother, but that's it. Music - intrusive, inappropriate and generally terrible. Direction - totally amateurish. Cinematography - doubt they've heard of it. Camera angles / stability / zoom levels often really bad. I am totally bemused at how this film has scored so highly. It's the worst movie I've seen at the cinema for years, if not ever."


I was an extra on this film but wish i wasn't because its rubbish. the worst thing about this film is the music but the acting, script, editing, directing and story are terrible as well. the main reason its bad is because the budget is so low and the only way to make good film on a low budget is to have a good script. the script which should have been ripped up before the film was made isn't funny, i didn't laugh once. what did make me laugh is how makers probably think the most important thing was getting the film made, who cares if its total rubbish. the film needed about million pound more budget and a better writer. the only reason i didn't give the film one out of ten is because i felt sorry for the guy who is gonna lose a few hundred grand making this, if you do go and see it just make sure your drunk at the time. ha ha


Saw this on French TV today and was most disappointed ! The film starts off reasonably well but nothing is elucidated and at the end we are no farther forward than in the beginning. As to seeing the husband for the murder of his wife, this is just not plausible. You need tangible proof to convict someone and a minimum of evidence. In this case there is none at all so it just is not plausible. Remember the old adage "innocent until proved guilty". The fact that a woman has disappeared without trace is no proof that her husband killed her. So I really don't know what kind of point this film was trying to make. The outcome is totally illogical and incomprehensible, no incriminating evidence is revealed to the spectator. So quite frankly, viewing it is a complete waste of time. After all, a film must be entertaining .... this is completely untrue in the case of this one and I suggest it be irrevocably consigned to the dustbin where it belongs !


There are those who gripe that this is NOT the opera, but then they don't quibble with the film of CABARET that was not the original show either. All films of musicals/operas are and have to be "adaptations" or they don't work. CABARET took more liberties with the original show than did the film of PORGY AND BESS and yet it kept its original integrity, reworking the material, and is judged an artistic success. The same holds true for PORGY AND BESS- it reworked the opera into a dialogue/song libretto because audiences at the time loved musicals but stayed away from the few echt filmed operas. It would have been economical suicide for Preminger to produce a film of the opera - it would have lost a fortune for the Goldwyn Studios.

That said, this is a fine adaptation. The acting is excellent, the Oscar winning scoring of Andre Previn is magnificent, as is the choral singing, and the individual vocal achievements are incredible. Robert McFerrin (dad of popular musician Bobby McFerrin) dubbed Porgy and Adele Addison dubbed Bess. While Sammy Davis Jr. sang his own songs in the film, his recording contract would not permit his voice to be heard on the soundtrack album, so Cab Calloway recorded his numbers (spectacularly) for that release. Brock Peters' bass/baritone is extraordinary and Pearl Bailey is her own unique self. Diahann Carroll, although a singer of fine note, has the small role of Clara which required a high soprano, so old reliable Marni Nixon dubbed her singing.

The Gershwin Estate hates the film and refuses to grant the musical rights, although the dramatic rights are in the public domain. This sort of hate feud held up the video release of CAROUSEL for almost fifteen years (although in that case it was the dramatic rights that were in litigation) and is currently preventing both PORGY AND BESS and ANNIE GET YOUR GUN from being released on video.

Of all the stage productions given film versions, it is these latter two which are the sole holdouts to video. Only a campaign of letters to the Gershwin Estate in NY might loosen up the reserve.


I bought this DVD as part of a set of 50 "historic classics." It's hardly a classic, and as the plot was updated to the time of its release, is not historic either. The actual title on the DVD is "Indecent," and additionally subtitled "The Private Life of Becky Sharp." Myrna Loy is not very convincing, although in her defense she is saddled with an awful script and trite dialogue. As with many early talkies, and especially ones made by smaller studios, there is little skill demonstrated by the cast and crew. Loy does wear a few gowns that are quite stylish, but her costumes and make-up in the later scenes are overdone. The one saving grace is a tolerable performance by Billy Bevan, who plays one of her many suitors


A girl is looking for her soul mate-- this movie was very strange-- lots of sequences that look like an hallucinations. Tommy Lee Jones is the only stable one in the picture. It was hard to figure out what the director was trying to say-- Most of the time the main character is dressed in weird clothes and makeup. A weird combination of reality and madness.


This movie is of interest to the fans of the famous rock group "The Band" in that singer/ keyboardist Richard Manuel appears in several scenes. It looks to me like the movie might have been shot some years before 75, judging by Richard's looks. Interestingly, Jones would later act with The Band's Levon in a considerably better film "Coal Miner's Daughter." Anyway, you really need a special reason to outlast this tough to watch Art film. Alas, the famously sensitive Manuel would commit suicide. I've never heard how he ended up in a movie. Four of the five members of the Band would appear in another bad film "Man Outside."


This film is a disaster from beginning to end. 75 percent of the movie is made from scenes taken from HERCULES & THE HAUNTED WORLD and HERCULES & THE CAPTIVE WOMEN badly edited together with original scenes that do not add up to anything but a complete rip-off. I'm a big fan of those two movies and seeing scenes taken from them, re-edited and re-dubbed with nonsensical dialogue made my head spin. These kind of cheap producers tactics to make more money by duping unsuspecting audiences basically killed the Sword & Sandal genre back in the 1960s.

There is one memorable scene in the new footage and it's the one when Hercules fights with the bad Hercules. The fight is albeit cool and Giovanni Cianfriglia, who plays Antaius, definitely stands out. He makes a memorable nemesis to Herc. But the rest is borderline embarrassing that was probably shot in a day.

Avoid at all cost!


This movie is just crap, I cant put it differently. Since the very beginning one knows is going to be crap.

The story, dialogue, acting, special effects, make-up, pretty much EVERYTHING sucks. I like vampire movies and I know they will never be Oscar winning movies but this one is not even worth seeing, I can't believe how somebody produced this thing.

It's not even about vampires, it's more about a dream/reality experience. The development of the movie is incoherent, the motivation of the characters is... Doesn't exist, everything seems like a big joke. Maybe that's what they tried to do, but I sincerely doubt it. I wish I knew what they tried to pull but it just backfired, it's definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life (and I've seen many bad movies, but nothing compared to this) Please, make yourselves a favor and do NOT watch this.

P.S. It's also full of clichés! P.S. 2 Bad Script, Bad directing, Bad cinematography. P.S. 3 I bothered commenting on this as a favor to everyone.


This movie is probably one of 3 worst movies made in history. I rented this by chance, without reading reviews, and wow, do I regret it. Really has no plot, doesn't really follow the vampire genre. Just plain god awful. Watching this movie will taint your enthusiasm for vampire movies. I felt like the writer/director/producer went on this drug binge and had hallucinations and tried to recreate it on film. Whole time I wanted the movie to end.. but the ending was even more whacked.

If this review can save just one person from watching this crap, I felt my time spent on registration and writing this review was well worth it.


Once again, I fell for it, in my roots I crave a fun and gory horror film, even a vampire one. Even if it's stupid, as long as I get my fun gore in the mix, I'm a happy camper, it doesn't take much. So I saw the cover of "Bled" over at Hollywood Video and was kind of curious what it was about, it looked kind of interesting, so I decided to rent it. Why? Why do I always fall for it? Not only did this movie not fulfill the satisfaction I needed for my gore and senseless violence and nudity, but I was bored out of mind. This movie has the kahoonies to say it's a vampire movie and it's really not! I'm so close to going back to the store and begging for money back because this is one of the rare times I actually turned the movie off.

An artist meets a vampire, I think, dunno, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck he was but his name was Reinfield, so I'm assuming maybe he's a cockroach eating guy who likes to freak people out? I think, I dunno. Anyways, he thinks the artist has a certain flare for darkness, so he gives her a drug to go into an alternate fantasy where a vampire exists and needs blood to become alive? I think, I dunno. So her friends get excited and decide they wanna try the drug too, I think, I dunno. So after they decide to try the drug, things get weird, the fantasies are real, I think, I dunno, and the vampire is now enjoying the will big breasted girls in scandly clad clothing. I think, I dunno. But a couple of the girls really end up being vampires? I think, I dunno.

Sorry for all the "I dunno's", this is possibly one of the worst reviews I'm going to write, but that's because this movie was just awful, boring, and confusing. I love just seeing these wanna be actors who you can tell are waiters looking for that "big break". Not too smart that they fell in the cliché of the horror genre, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, in this case, they really should have read the script. Because the movie, the look, the feel, the acting, everything about this movie was just bad, I really recommend that you just pass the movie if you see it at your video store. This possibly could have been an interesting movie with it's concept of a different dimension, but why did they pick this director to display his "creativity" if he even has any? This was a bad movie, just stay away.

1/10


Bled is a very apt title for this As you watch it you will feel your life being bled from you . The cliché in horrors is about people doing exactly what they shouldn't ( going down into the basement or going up into the attic) Then the trouble ensues Take heed then DON'T watch this film .Show the brains that victims in horror movies never do Stay clear Do not enter .And if you need anymore incentive This film? is as bad as the worst Uwe Boll film I mean ,The house of the dead bad. I have often thought about entering a review of a film on I.M.D.B. and ,after watching some based on the comments herein ,I discovered I guess everyone's entiled to his/her opinion. Please trust me on mine


I rented this movie today... worst movie EVER. It was a total waste of time and a horrible story. The acting was horrible, especially by the actress of "Sai". She was so bad it was ridiculous. I can't tell if it was her bad acting or because the character was just that stupid in the first place. I can't even get my mind wrapped around just how awful and pointless this whole movie was. I'm surprised someone even thought it was a good idea to FILM this movie and bother to release it.

If you're looking for a good Vampire/Horror flick.. this is not the movie for you. Move right along! It's a waste of time and money. Heck, I wouldn't even DOWNLOAD this movie if someone PAID me.

This movie is so bad it doesn't even deserve a "1". I wish I could give it a "0"!


simply i just watched this movie just because of Sarah & am also giving these 4 stars just because of her,on the other side This movie was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Theacting was horrible. The script was uninspired. This was a movie that kept contradicting itself. The film was sloppy and unoriginal. its not like I was expecting a good film. Just something to give me a jump or two. This did not even do that.

he worst thing is that, the more I think about the overall plot, the less sense it actually makes and the more holes we keep finding. A real shame really, as I'm fairly sure that there was a good idea lurking in there somewhere...

I'm perhaps being a bit harsh giving the film a 4/10 but given the actors involved and again SARA obvious writing talent, this film really should have delivered far more.


What on earth? Like watching an episode of Neighbours after drinking two bottles of cough medicine- nightmarish and making no sense at all. I was waiting for the clever part where everything fits into place and saves the film. Maybe it was there and i just missed it, or was lost on me.

My strongest suspicion is that it is a thinly veiled attempt to market a new drug thats about to hit the streets. I wouldn't say "don't watch it" but I will say its pretty poor on every level- like am dram in high def. Whack. Unless you drink two bottles of cough syrup. Then it's just dandy.


Bled starts as young female artist Sai (Sarah Ferooqui) meets a mysterious yet charming man named Renfield (Jonathan Oldham) & they end up back at her studio apartment where he gives her the bark of some sort of tree which is used as a hallucinogenic drug when melted down. Sai quickly becomes hooked as she is whisked into an alternate fantasy reality which involve Vampiric creatures. Sai's photographer friend Royce (Chris Ivan Cevic) becomes concerned about her as she drifts further from reality as she becomes addicted to the drug, can Royce her kick the drug or will it end up ruining her life & why did the mysterious Renfield get her addicted to the stuff in the first place & do the elaborate fantasy dream like trips have any significance?

Co-produced & directed by Christopher Hutson this anaemic arty Vampire flick is pretty much 95 minutes of tedium & is throughly deserving of all the bad comments. The script was written by the interestingly named Sxv'leithan Essex (how the hell do you even pronounce that anyway?) who is also credited as production designer & his unusual name is actually more interesting than anything that ever happens in Bled, I would guess that the makers set out to make a very serious fantasy based horror film with a strong moral message about the dangers of drugs, drug addiction & date rape drug at it's core. The majority of the film is spent on the drug issue with Sai's initial introduction to the drug, how great the first time was & how she becomes hopelessly addicted which eventually destroys her, her life & her friends lives. It's never explained where she keeps getting this drug from as Renfield only gives her a little bit during their initial meeting but hey, who cares? The first twenty odd minutes of Bled are really boring & dull, the following hour or so aren't much better before a mess of a final ten minutes which involve a Vampiric monster & Renfield making a reappearance. The moral elements are patronising, the fantasy elements seem like an afterthought & the horror is none existent. There's also the dialogue which is awful, every sentence tries to be profound, have loads of hidden depth & just tries to have so much meaning that it becomes tiresome to listen to.

The concept of the film is terrible & so is the execution as there's absolutely no gore or violence to speak of & the entire thing is set inside an apartment that doesn't appear to have any lights. The fantasy setting looks a little better but it's sparsely seen & underused. There are no scares here, no atmosphere & to make matters even worse the makers have decided to used muted very faded colours which I just hate & find annoying, what's wrong with a nice colourful image? It seems to me to be a fad with current filmmakers who seem to think that it automatically makes a film cool or adds atmosphere which it most certainly doesn't, more often than not it just makes your film look dull & drab as evidenced here with Bled.

This probably had a low budget & was shot in Los Angeles & it has reasonable production values but it's all so dull. The acting didn't impress me, I didn't care for or about anyone which is never a good sign.

Bled is a terrible Vampire film that goes for psychological horror as well as physical with all sorts of parallels to real life dug addiction & what it can do to little or no effect because the whole thing is so dull. There might be an audience for a film such as this but considering the other comments not that big a one.


Pretentious horror film that looks like a soap opera gone goth about a drug that send you to a fantasy world where strange creatures lurk. The film has some good imagery but its odd mix of whats real and whats not doesn't go anywhere. Worse are the vague pronouncements in voice over from one of the characters. It seems to herald a more serious, more meaningful film, but I don't think they even got into the serious or meaningful territory to begin with so trying to over sell the meaning comes off silly. There isn't a great deal to say, people talk, take drugs have visions...they talks some more. Its not bad so much as pointless and dull. The dull is the sin here and the reason you'll want to avoid this.


worst. movie. ever made. EVER. I have no words to say about it.. other then it truly had no point, no plot, no... anything. sheer crap!!! I don't know how everyone in the movie didn't shoot them shelves after watching it.... .... .... ... .. I love vampire flicks and mysteries, and alternate abstract outside the box films, and.... this was non of those. I mean what the crap!!! I cant even tell you what the film was about cuz I still don't know, and I just wasted an hour and ahalf of my life watching it... bottom line.. I think the maker of this film just wants everyone to do drugs. thats the only thing I got from this film. please don't watch this... I mean for a " sultry sensual vampire flick" there wasn't even the to be expected nudity you'd get from a vamp flick. anyway back to my point.... this movie blows. go set yourself on fire instead.... .. ..


simply i just watched this movie just because of Sarah & am also giving these 4 stars just because of her,on the other side This movie was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Theacting was horrible. The script was uninspired. This was a movie that kept contradicting itself. The film was sloppy and unoriginal. its not like I was expecting a good film. Just something to give me a jump or two. This did not even do that.

he worst thing is that, the more I think about the overall plot, the less sense it actually makes and the more holes we keep finding. A real shame really, as I'm fairly sure that there was a good idea lurking in there somewhere...

I'm perhaps being a bit harsh giving the film a 4/10 but given the actors involved and again SARA obvious writing talent, this film really should have delivered far more.

This movie is just crap, I cant put it differently. Since the very beginning one knows is going to be crap.

The story, dialogue, acting, special effects, make-up, pretty much EVERYTHING sucks. I like vampire movies and I know they will never be Oscar winning movies but this one is not even worth seeing, I can't believe how somebody produced this thing.

It's not even about vampires, it's more about a dream/reality experience. The development of the movie is incoherent, the motivation of the characters is... Doesn't exist, everything seems like a big joke. Maybe that's what they tried to do, but I sincerely doubt it. I wish I knew what they tried to pull but it just backfired, it's definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life (and I've seen many bad movies, but nothing compared to this) Please, make yourselves a favor and do NOT watch this.

P.S. It's also full of clichés! P.S. 2 Bad Script, Bad directing, Bad cinematography. P.S. 3 I bothered commenting on this as a favor to everyone.


Dubbed beyond comprehension, the HBO version of Lumumba is a disastrous rendering of what looks like what was once a decent film. Some scenes simply don't make sense in English and the actors bring zero energy to their voice reading. Add in the self-censorship involving CIA operative Frank Carlucci, and you have a film stripped of both its drama and its power. Here's hoping the subtitled version gets to American television screens at some point.


So I rented this movie hoping to learn about the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the beginnings of its independence from Belgian rule. I was excited to become familiar with the figures involved in its history, mainly Lumumba and Mobutu. I wanted to see how the new Congolese government attempted to bring together the various groups opposing colonial rule, the political motives behind each one, the reasons behind Belgium's decision to give the DRC its independence, and also how the United States and the former USSR were involved. Sadly, all of my questions went largely unanswered. My belief is that this movie was made by people who, through a passing familiarity with the story of the DRC's fight for freedom, saw a story filled with drama and emotion, and decided to exploit it. They then proceeded to try and stuff all the dramatic points into a storyline, briefly filled them out with dialogue, went to the set and shot it. I could be wrong, but if so it's all the sadder, because then the makers must have simply become too tied up in getting everything in, and ended up glossing over all details in an effort to create an encompassing history. Whatever the reason, the fact is that the movie could be a timeline of sentence-long statements and facts printed on the screen. The film goes through each major occurrence, and tells the viewer point-blank the main idea of what's going on, completely smoothing over the actual details in favor of getting across the big things. For instance, there is the scene when Lumumba is captured by the increasingly rebellious army controlled by Mobutu. In the situation the soldiers have three possible viewpoints: one that sympathizes with Lumumba, one that vilifies Lumumba, and one that stands in the middle, sympathizing and yet obeying orders. Correspondingly, there are three soldiers that speak in the scene, uttering lines that unadornedly show their points of view. Then, to avoid dealing with the actual tensions that these opposing viewpoints bring up, the scriptwriters simply inserted some random shooting, more army guys show up and they just end up beating everyone up. This is the extent of the reflectiveness of the movie. Most of the time, each character simply states their basic motives, the other characters respond with theirs, and that's that. There's little telling through actions; even the things they say are direct the point of painfulness. It's hard to believe that the people represented actually acted like that. Also, in the trend of this directness, things like political tension between factions is reduced to simple acknowledgement of the fact-- we never learn what these factions are, what they're fighting for, their power, basically anything except that they exist. The characters likewise are one-dimensional and flat; unfortunately I don't know whether Lumumba was actually a freedom fighter passionately devoted to ideals of Congolese unity, but after an hour or so of the movie I certainly didn't trust it to tell me so. The DRC, like many developing countries, has a complicated and important history, especially in the period leading up to and after independence. But the telling of these histories will not be useful unless there is recognition of the intricacy of the situations. Lumumba fails to give proper attention to these details, and ends up telling the viewer little except the most general of outlines.


This movie is the last straw in a list of films I have seen this week that have pushed me over the edge and forced me to join IMDb and spread some warning to the public. It was absolutely horrible. The film was drawn out and painfully boring. The sound, effects, and even picture quality seemed like they came from Willow (1988) or maybe even Conan the Barbarian (1982). The battle of Bannockburn was absolutely absurd. This "largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in the British Isles" made me snicker. There wasn't even a coherent formation at all, just a few guys with spears and horses running right through them. The scenes of Douglas, especially in the last battle, were simply horrible, as was most of the acting in the film.


The murder of the Red Comyn in Grayfriars Abbey was a long way from one of the most horrendous things ever done in the Scottish War of Independence and fights (and killing) in churches wasn't unusual at all. Not that much later Robert Bruces wife, daughter, two of his sisters were captured during a fight in a church in which people were killed. And comparing it to the massacre of Berwick in which the English slaughtered at least 8000 non-combatants (some, yes, in churches) is ridiculous.

That said this is not a well-made movie. It is slightly antidote to the absolutely RIDICULOUS sniveling representation of Robert Bruce in Braveheart. Whatever Bruce was, it wasn't a wuss.

Too bad that they didn't do a better job of this because someone should make a really GOOD movie of a war that is so amazing that it sounds like something someone made up going from complete defeat at the Battle of Methven to a secret return from hiding to a long guerrilla war to Bannockburn. This isn't it though. Poorly made and to a large extent poorly written and acted. Too bad!


When my Mum went down to the video store to rent a film for the night my sister and I learned a lesson, to always company my Mum to the video store! In fact the only reason why she chose it was because Colin Firth was in it and she *cough* thinks he's a good actor!

It starts off with some beautiful veiws of Africa and then goes DOWN AND DOWN AND DOWN, AND DOWN. After this film I was very surprised that Colin Firth got as far as he did since this pointless film could destroy any actors career.

The story is about a divorced women who's son is trying to matchmake her to a man called Matthew Fields who he met whilst impressing his friends because of his large house.

Nimi the divorce does not like Matthew at all and is going out with the local vicar who does not like her son John.... and the same with him!

I am sorry if you disagree with me and i hope i haven't offended you but to all the people who haven't seen this film, I leave you with one word of warning, DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!


You know, I really have a problem with movie lists. I was reading Maxim magazine a while ago and they had a list of the 50 Greatest B-Movies of all time, and knowing me, I of course have to go through and watch them all and write reviews of all of them. This is why you see reviews of movies like Gator Bait and Barb Wire and Coffy on my list. So I noticed H.O.T.S. at the video store the other day and recognized it from Maxim's list of the 50 greatest B-movies, and I decided to rent it and check it out. My only consolation is that I rented it because I recognized it from a list of B-movies, so I already knew it was going to suck.

Given the type of movie that it is, I can't say that H.O.T.S. is a total failure, since it is nothing more than a late 70s T&A film, and it never pretends to by anything else. The only place where it strays widely from its objective is in a ragged subplot involving a couple of ex-cons who have stashed a lot of stolen money in the house that the self-named H.O.T.S. move in to, because this subplot has absolutely no place in the movie. Despite the fact that the rest of the movie is as well, this subplot is completely superfluous and unnecessary.

The story is based on a couple of rival sororities at the beloved F.U., which exists as one of those Universities that contains a grand total of one sorority until the rejects form their own in order to get back at the snobs in the other one. This new sorority, Help Out The Seals (H.O.T.S.), is a sorority supposedly based on helping seals (the seal subplot is another one that doesn't really belong in the movie, and little attention is paid to the meaning of that name beyond having a seal running around here and there throughout the movie).

This is going to sound weird, but there was actually one scene that I was pretty impressed with in this movie. One SHOT that I was impressed with, I should say. About midway through the movie, one of the girls in Pi, the rival sorority, is pouring alcohol into the punch, and she pours some for herself in a glass and drinks it. Oddly enough, what she does as she drinks that alcohol reminds me of something that Charlie Chaplin would do, which really brightened up the movie. Obviously, nothing in this movie comes close to anything that Chaplin ever did, but that shot alone raised my score for the movie from a 2 to a 4.

As a whole, however, the movie is exactly what you would expect it to be, a lot of people running around looking for excuses to take off their clothes (I liked how the remove-one-piece-of-clothing-for-every-score in the football game at the end was one of the GIRLS' ideas. Riiiiiiiiight), and not much thought is put into much of anything else. There is, for example, a scene early in the film when a couple of the Pi girls pour hot sauce into the refreshments at a H.O.T.S. party, accidentally getting caught in an incriminating photograph (the girl taking the picture didn't realize that she photographed them at the time), although the photograph never comes up for any reason later in the film.

I've seen movies like this before, it's kind of like Gator Bait but without the violence and the rednecks and Coffy wasn't far off. Even Barb Wire is much the same, just with a bigger budget and more silicon. Thankfully, Maxim's 50 B-movie list contains only a few more comedies, because while these cheesy teen T&A films are entertaining every once in a while as bad movies with the occasional semi-nude scene, after watching H.O.T.S. I think I've decided that I like the bad horror movies better than the bad comedies. I'd rather watch a lot of terrible actors pretend to be scared than pretend to be funny.


The glorious Edward gets to move up in the world when his supervisor tells him that he can drop those filthy Swedish drama movies and head up stairs to the splatter and gore department. Excited along with his big anticipations for the new type of movies he soon will be going to edit, he asks all sorts of questions, about the wage, his workspace and lunch brake. Well, not really. Edward is maybe quite the opposite. Calm, stuttering guy, on top of that, he got glasses. With the exception when he's insane. I guess that created a much creepier atmosphere.

Evil Ed is with all reason a Swedish movie, but somehow a magical force came across the good actors and turned their lovely Swedish accents into stereotypical American voices. I guess that's some of the expertise an actor needs these days. The acting is very.wooden, as in they are inflexible, not bendable (well hey, what did you actually expect?). On top of that the movie has a jamming techno theme song, sounds like its E-Type. In any case, this only makes the movie experience worse. Since I'm fairly harsh against this movie so far, there will usually be a breaking point where I tone the level of happiness up. But there's really not much to say. The blueprints look good, but somehow 'Hanz' spelt coffee over it and partially destroyed it. That's how I look at this movie. If the movie ended where Edward is taken to a mental institute and they refurnished the parts from where he goes insane and kills people, the result would have been much better, but that's just my radical view. I would also like to see more footage from the lose limbs movies.

There are also illogical things to discover in this piece of movie. Let's to say that the actors really are American, living in America, why would they then work on a Swedish movie, like Edward did? And also, that delivery man, why is it that he never uses the doorbell which is located directly beside him? Instead he goes away with tapping softly at the door. Good old Edward really got some good ears to hear all that while he is editing.

Anyway, this movie had its moments, it's just a shame there were not that many. But that doesn't mean I would not recommend it. It's a rather cheap movie, go ahead and buy. It's almost like I see a pattern for the price and the movie. On the other side; if you like watching dubbed movies getting crappier by the second this might be IT. My verdict would then be a rock solid 4.


Calling this film a decent or enjoyable horror tribute is far too optimistic. Heck, you can't even refer to it as a nice spoof of the genre because it's way below average ( it's funny, but not "haha-funny, you know). But still I'd say to give it a look. If only for the huge amount of trivia elements in it. By the way, all those people who're complaining about this movie here in their comments have only themselves to blame. When you see the DVD-cover of this film, you should already know that it's not going to be on the same level as "The Piano" for example, so don't come complaining afterwards...

Evil Ed could've been something but the totally screwed it up. I suppose the main idea behind this film is criticism towards the growing 'cutting-committee' in horror nowadays. It shows an editor named Edward who's slowly (well,not too slowly) going nuts by seeing all the violence and gore in the movies produced by his company produced. The big boss is named Sam Campbell...Funny, isn't it ? Personally I also expected a character named Bruce Raimi, but to my surprise there wasn't. Anyway, this guy became rich by making movies called "Loose Limbs". They feature ( and I'm not kidding you! ) scenes in which a girl is getting raped by a BEAVER (?) and then gets shot in the head by a bazooka !!! Now, who says horror isn't original anymore ?

With all the gore and the 'loose limbs', it's hard to believe it but it really gets boring very quick. After a decent first 25 minutes, Evil Ed turns into complete boredom and never recovers from that. The only think left to do then ( besides pushing the eject-button, of course ) is look for the obvious amount of references to other, much better horror films. I saw scenes obviously stolen from The Evil Dead, Silence of the Lambs, Braindead and several others.And there's a huge amount of classic horror posters on the walls to admire as well.

Evil Ed finds it origin in Sweden. I'm convinced there's a lot up talent there, far North ( take the Danish "Nattevagten" as an example )...but none of them talents joined the cast or crew of Evil Ed. Only to see if you're in a dumb mood and you don't want to use your brain at all.


This Swedish splatter movie tries to parody/imitate American horror films such as "The Evil Dead", "Gremlins" and others. Writer/director/actor/cinematographer Anders Jacobsson and writer/producer/actor/makeup effects supervisor Göran Lundström (did I miss something?) were obviously inspired by Sam Raimi. But the camera work is a bad copy of what can be seen in "The Evil Dead" and elsewhere. Some other users have written that they enjoyed the humor of this film but I didn't.

The film rather disturbed than entertained me. It tries to combine suspense and comedy and the final product just left me with a feeling of oppressiveness although it wasn't scary or shocking at all. The combination of different genre elements made this film very strange. I was never sure if it was meant to be scary or funny.

The story is quite inventive except for the showdown at the hospital but I didn't like the way it was staged for the reasons mentioned above. The gore & make up effects are considerably good and at least the "Loose Limbs" sequences were quite entertaining because in these scenes the film-makers didn't try to mix scares and jokes.

All in all a strange film that you will either hate or love. Rest in pieces, Evil Ed.

My rating: 3/10 (made me stick to American productions)


Once in a while i like a good horror movie, so i thought this would be a splatter and gore movie. but it was a boring boring movie, maybe because i have seen a cut version, because there where only two things that where a little splatter, one time where some ones cuts someone arm of and where some one shots an arm of, but that where the only things. Wismaster for example had more cool senes then evil ed, its more a boring ed than a evil ed. and some actors where lousy to.o


A swedish splatter movie? Has the world gone insane?

Probably not, but it's still not a common sight in these days with swedish gore-flicks, the b-movie business in Sweden seems to have troubles these days, long gone are the golden days of "Rymdinvasion i lappland". And this movie seems to have some troubles on its own: it's just too much talk in it, it still manages to be somewhat amusing mainly for the good FX, which are great for a b-movie. The script and most of the acting is still pretty bad though, but that actually don't matter that much, it's supposed to be a gore flick and nothing more, that's where it goes a bit wrong for some reason. There's is simply not enough blood to fill the void.

Every person who know about Gert Fylking will have a good laugh over his role as a sgt. though. I nearly laughed my ass off. It's really that hilariously bad.

Besides the good parts I've listed there's really nothing else to recommend here unless you're starved for swedish B-movies.

4/10


This flick is TERRIBLE! It sets out to disgust and make you laugh, but it fails horribly. The director obviously has no sense of slap stick gore comedy, and the actors are like nothing I've ever seen - lacking both acting talent and flair of comedy. Even their attempt at the English languish is really sad, and actually the down right peculiar Swedish accent, in which the incoherent dialog is spoken, is probably the most comical and enjoyable thing about this film. Even the gore i awful and unconvincing. If you crave gore comedy, I'd suggest you turn to classic fare such as the evil dead series or even brain dead if you must. We all enjoy a bloody good laugh, but this is ridiculous!


Actually I feel like having my review be that one word. My friend, whose opinions I almost always trust about movies, especially horror movies, warned me NOT to rent this no matter how tempted or bored or desperate to see a new horror movie I was, because it was a complete waste of time. Unfortunately I haven't talked to him in a while, and I was in a hurry to pick a movie, and thought, 'what the heck, how bad could it be?' WHY don't I learn? What was I thinking? Did I think it would magically turn into a better movie while sitting there on the shelf for years waiting to be rented?

The 'plot' concerns a guy who edits films for some company. His boss is a jerk. The guy who had the job before him went insane and blew himself up in the pre-credits sequence, so for some reason the boss picks nerdy 'Ed' for the special project of editing "Loose Limbs" splatter movies. He never says what Ed is supposed to edit, but I guess that doesn't matter. Ed is upset by some of the clips, working on them up at this house all by himself that the boss has decided to relocate him to for no apparent reason. He asks his boss if he can stop or do another project, but his boss doesn't care. He starts to slowly go insane, supposedly from watching the clips, and wants to carry out the gory murders in real life. Or has he been this way all along? Please note that I am making this plot sound much more deep, interesting, and coherent than it actually is.

We don't care about the characters at all, or have any sympathy for them, or even hate the bad guys. The plot is really, really boring and predictable. The splatter isn't even that gruesome or creative-this is NOT worth renting just to see the gore, because what there is isn't interesting or original.

All the 'tributes' to Sam Raimi just come off like really bad ripoffs, and no-one in the movie is anywhere near good looking enough as Bruce Campbell, so you can't distract yourself with that. I think an "Evil Dead II-Dead by Dawn" poster is only prominently displayed in one scene in the hopes that Sam Raimi will be flattered and not consider any sort of legal action. A trained chimp could have written a better screenplay. Every time I hear lines like "Are we having fun...yet?" (which even Bride of Re-Animator couldn't pull off without making me wince) I start feeling like picking up some sort of deadly weapon myself. Characters just appear out of nowhere with no explanation, wandering in only to get killed. This might be OK if the movie was even remotely amusing or entertaining, but it was all I could do to keep from fast-forwarding through most of it. Fortunately I chose to pay some bills and balance my checkbook at the same time the movie was playing. Trust me, it did not require my full attention-I still felt like 90+ minutes of my life were wasted just by having this on in the background.

Don't watch it, no matter HOW tempted you are-you'll hate yourself for wasting your money. Horror fans will be completely disgusted by how incompetent it is. Even those who haven't seen too many splatter movies should stay away, as there are so many movies out there you could rent that are much more well worth your while. If you want something brainless, low-budget and fun, rent something else. Complete waste of time with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Be smarter than I was at the time and don't be fooled by the "Warning-Not For the Faint of Heart" on the box. You have been warned!


Not as bad as some people say...This is a unofficial Bond movie and a remake of "Thunderball", written by Kevin McClory (co- producer in "Thunderball"). Well, the cast is very very interesting, Maria Brandauer is a great Bond- villain, Kim Basinger and Barbara Carrera are just like the "original" Bond- girls, plus Rowan Atkinson and a truly great Edward Fox, who looks really refreshing in the "M" role. In fact, the whole movie is refreshing and gives some new impulses. Sean Connery does it once more confident and charming, except that he looks a little bit too old. But alright, he is the original Bond and it was great to see him once more in this role. The locations are also typical- Bahamas, France, etc. The only thing that really fails is the music score, the song "Never say never again" is O.K., but the theme song is just missing. All in one, a nice try to make a difference from the comic and silly Roger Moore movies like "Moonraker". Only if there was another story, "Thunderball" was a excellent movie and really did not needed a remake


Though some would prefer to comment on the value of Bond movies in the connection of learning frequency, and while most of the jargon that tends to limit Bond to a meager 007 following has been exploited beyond all reasonable contention, there are several redeeming plausibilities that extend the credibility of Sean Connery in this doubling role that had seen its counterpart adaptation in part of a previous performance by Jessica Tandy in Driving Miss Daisy. While Connery had been less visible in the latter, his woman-seeker qualities had maybe not cast a frown on the face of embittered spectators as it would in this latest rendition which, to most involved, approached the 007 theme with kind resentment, albeit while the general flavor had been altered. Great for those who interest others while faking to be who you're not!


Sad in every aspect, this poor excuse for a career boost for Connery was neither that nor the hit Warners wanted it to be. Overlong by 20 minutes and filled with embarrassing moments for everyone involved, this film and "Robocop 2" are proof that Irvin Kershner did not have any real control over "The Empire Strikes Back." Connery hadn't been in a hit since he bowed out from Bond in 1971, but this didn't bring him back at all. "Octopussy" was released several months before this film, and easily outgrossed it. Imagine that - a Roger Moore Bond not only better than a simultaneous Connery release, but outgrossing it (and compared to "Never...," "Octopussy" is on par with "2001."

The worst Bond theme song, even worse than "The Man with the Golden Gun," pointless scenes that drag on pointlessly (with the worst example being that ridiculous video game sequence - MY GOD - WHO CARES?!), and the most atrocious collection of non-talent as far as the fabled "Bond Girls" go. Does anybody SERIOUSLY think Kim Basinger is attractive in this movie? There were girls in my high school who could never get dates who looked better than she does in this. And Barbara Carrera - just plain stupid - but the way Kershner has directed her to prance around all the time didn't help her out any. She is the seedling that would become the very impressive "Onatop," which was about the best feature of "GoldenEye," but that doesn't mean anything as you laboriously struggle through this film.

Casting Leiter as a black agent was an excellent idea, but the buddy-loke interaction Connery and he are supposed to have is awfully bad. Two actors never appeared so clumsily linked together - witness the scene where, to escape local authorities, they strip to their boxers and pretend to be out exercising - I can not imagine another scene in any movie that tried so hard so fruitlessly to get a laugh.


This is more than just an adaptation of Bond: it's a plain rip off! With mediocre character sketches that Ian Fleming would not have approved of, this film goes down as the worst 007 movie. An older (even haggard) Connery tries to relive his past 12 years later. The result is a humourless, tacky version of the classic hero. Give me Roger Moore any day!


Connery climbs aboard the Moore buffoon train in this stinker of a movie. Tossing away everything that made Bond successful in the first place, this movie further degrades the Bond character throwing him into the category of Inspector Gadget. Get Smart this ain't. There is no style here, only second rate actors performing on cheap sets. It's a shame that Connery couldn't lend an element of class here but it doesn't come across. Everything here reeks of mediocrity, including Connery's bad toupee. Perhaps if I was snowed in and given the choice between watching "Never Say Never Again" and "Howard The Duck" I would choose the former. If you want the real James Bond, pick up any Ian Flemming novel.


Thunderball and Never are two of the biggest box office misses and Never is a surprise farce from Empire Strikes Back hero Irvin Kershner. Klaus Maria Brandauer seems to steal the show, when, in the midst of the unfolding plot, Bond's mission turns more to Hollywood romp (Sometime around when Basinger comes in). How about Klaus Kinski? I still think that the casting of Largo makes or, as is evident in both films, breaks the story. Worst of all is the attempt to pass off the aging and very hairy Connery off as the sex symbol he indeed was in the '60s. The '80s was a barren time for Bond flicks mostly, though For Your Eyes Only is a great title. At times, when I happen to need to waste some time over the holidays by watching this film in the often string of Bond re-run festivals, I think the best attribute of the film is its score, and I'm not into soft '80s 'jazz'.


It only took one viewing of this dog, for me to say "Never again!" It's so profoundly unmemorable that I had to read other people's reactions to it before I could remember anything beyond (1) it was awful, (2) Connery should have quit while he was ahead, and (3) the film included a total gross-out bit involving faking a retinal scan through the most gruesome (not to mention horribly inefficient) means possible.

Actually, I've never understood why anybody would prefer even the best of Connery's Bond films over even the worst Moore or Dalton outings. Or Lazenby, Brosnan, or even David Niven, for that matter. I personally found Octopussy and Moonraker, among other "canonical" Bond films, to be far more entertaining than this, and probably for the very same reasons why others deprecate the Moore Bond films, namely their wry humor, and their willingness to surrender to the preposterousness of the whole basic Bond milieu.


I bought a tape of this film based on the recommendation of other IMDb users and have to say that I was very disappointed. I'm a college professor and showed this movie to my class; they unanimously voted that it's a terrible film. I guess that if you like the old Dark Shadows series, then maybe you'll like this. (I liked Dark Shadows when I was a kid in the '70s, but now I think it's just awful). The first half hour or so at least has the virtue of some fidelity to Wilde's novel. After that, the story veers wildly off course, at least as compared with the 1945 MGM version (which won two Oscars). Nigel Davenport as Lord Henry is really about the only thing watchable in the whole production. A lot of the other acting is bad, the music is melodramatic, and look of the film is terrible. Actually, it's not a film at all--it was obviously shot on video and has that characteristically claustrophobic BBC look about it. The opening scenes are particularly poorly lit, the women's costumes are terrible (the men look all right), and a lot of the characters--including Dorian--seem to have 1970s rather than Victorian hairstyles. The movie does well to include a lot of Wilde's dialog, but the voice-over narration in the voice of Dorian contains a lot of rubbish that directly contradicts Wilde's character. I'm a big Oscar Wilde fan, and I fear that he must have rolled over violently in his grave when this monstrosity was made. Its only improvement over the 1945 version is that the homosexual subtext is definitely more apparent, without being heavy-handed. I haven't seen either of the more recent versions, but if one is interested in seeing the story well told, I would have to recommend the 1945 MGM black-and-white over this one.


I was supremely disappointed with this one. Having just read the wonderful Oscar Wilde story, I had hoped for at least a little of the magic to translate onto the screen. Well, there was none. This version played like a condensed, dumbed down Reader's Digest movie. Not only did it feel rushed, it was cheapened and needlessly re written. Major characters and plot points were either changed or completely removed. I appreciate the difficulties in trying to bring a novel to the screen, especially on what may very well have been a limited (TV) budget, but there is no excuse for mangling a great story in this way. I thoroughly recommend reading Wilde's tale of the depravity that exists under even the most beautiful exteriors. But I cannot advise anyone to rent this travesty.


By-the-numbers, Oscar-hungry biopic about the late, great singer Ray Charles. There is one -- exactly one -- great scene in *Ray*. It occurs during a flashback to Charles' youth, after the boy become completely blind. Running into the sharecropper house which he shares with his mother, he trips over a chair and sprawls on the floor. He cries out for his mother; she, in keeping with her philosophy that a person should "stand on their own two feet", observes silently and pensively from the kitchen, waiting to see if the boy can fall back on his own resources. The boy proves to be up to the challenge, using his ears and memory to locate a kettle on a stove, a nearby fire-pit, the grass blowing in the wind outside of a window, the scuttling of a cricket across the plank-board floor.

The movie pauses, here; it expands; it breathes -- even if for only 40 seconds. The scene is a much-needed respite from Taylor Hackford's otherwise noisy film. By "noisy" I'm not referring to the music, which is, of course, excellent. I AM referring to the sound effects (big BOOMS! preceding yet another flashback) and the inane dialog ("I'm speaking to you as a FRIEND, Ray," etc.). On the visual side, Hackford is equally and pointlessly flashy: sepia-colored filters over the camera lenses during the flashbacks; whirling-dervish 360s from the camera-crane, etc. etc. All the modern amenities. What a horrible cinematic style is displayed in *Ray*! -- a style all-too-common in wanna-be "important" movies from the past decade or so (Scorsese's *Aviator* is stylistically very similar to this movie). These gimmicks are employed to obfuscate the cliché-ridden screenplay. Some of us won't be fooled.

Some of us also are not quite prepared to accept Jamie Foxx's performance as anything more than superb mimicry. Granted, Foxx eerily resembles Ray Charles: he walks like Charles, talks like Charles, and even twitches like Charles. Foxx's imitation of the singer during live performance is technically perfect. I'm not begrudging Mr. Foxx his Oscar; he deserved it. (It was a pretty weak field this year, anyway.) But one wonders if Foxx really UNDERSTANDS Charles. The actor does achieve one great moment when he insists on trying out the smack that his band-mates are shooting up: he registers, if only for a brief moment, a disgust at the unfairness of being blind and a life of darkness. The movie seems to want to dramatize the struggle within Charles between the bright salvation of music and the oblivion of heroin, with his blindness as the battleground between those two compulsions. But the damn movie just won't take the time: it bounces along from triumph to triumph, never really pausing for any insight into the man. One has to STRETCH to find the dramatic tension; one must supply the drama FOR the movie. One must, in other words, imagine a better movie than this one.

In its rush toward a glorious conclusion, *Ray* introduces, then dodges, several excellent ideas for a movie: his early days on the "Chitlin Circuit"; his bold musical innovations for the Atlantic label; the problem of his addiction to heroin; the inevitable artistic compromises attendant upon overwhelming success; the man's importance to the Civil Rights struggle (touched on in the movie for, oh, about 3 minutes of screen-time), and much more. The filmmakers are too lazy to focus on any one of these elements. Two-and-a-half hours of watching a man overcome one adversity after another may make us feel good, but such a movie is not necessarily a grand work of art. This sort of approach certainly provides no deeper insight into the film's subject -- and shouldn't insight be the real goal of a movie like this? If I had wanted a laundry-list of Ray Charles' accomplishments, I'd have simply Googled him.

3 stars out of 10 -- the extra 2 stars strictly for the music.


This is the first recorded effort to put sound with a movie, and a the oldest that, obviously, is still in existence. This historic piece of film is the opening segment in the "More Treasures Of The Natural Archives" DVD.

It's only a 15-second clip of a man playing a violin in front of a huge recording cylinder. Next to him are two men dancing. Near the end, another man walks on the stage. William Dickson, the director of this experiment, is the violin player. This "movie" had several titles over the years but the sound experiment was not really a success. It took over 30 years from this point to the synchronize sight and sound to the point where something could be issued to the public for entertainment. However, this was a start, no matter how primitive it came off.

For more of the technical information and history of this film process, see the other review here by "Boba Fett1138."


Director/screenwriter Allan Burns seems to have patched two different scripts together before coming up with this minor outing: a comedy about infidelity and a melodrama about loss and sabotage. It results in a wincingly unfunny film. Christine Lahti plays a crass, cynical TV news reporter who makes friends with aerobics instructor Mary Tyler Moore and is soon having dinner with Moore and her family--only to discover Mary's husband (Ted Danson) is Lahti's secret affair! Burns has a strange, stop-and-start rhythm to his dialogue which is neither realistic nor effective (just increasingly annoying, because nothing important ever seems to get said). Rail-thin Moore, looking alarmingly frail in her leotard, has a radiant smile but doesn't convince as Danson's wife, and Danson gets stuck with a paltry, thankless role (he's just there to be a cad). The movie attempts to cover all the bases in a classic case of overreaching (woman's role in the workplace, the TV news-biz, the cheating family man, the working wife and mother who wants more, a woman's need for female friendships, et al), but nothing substantial comes out of these ideas since Burns only half-heartedly examines the issues. As a writer, he is surprisingly free of punchlines, but is devoid of a purpose as well, and the heavy plotting just gets all fouled up. *1/2 from ****


This is what used to be called a "women's picture" and later a "chick's flick" when times and movies got more juvenile. The plot is just soap opera for women and will only appeal to those types. The only appeal for most guys is if they wanna see a too rail-thin Mary Tyler Moore in leotards. (If you're of a certain age, like me, that might still be enough to give it a look.) Otherwise MTM gives another of her typical by-the-numbers performances that she's been giving since the early 70s when she took it to heart that she was America's Sweetheart. Christine Lathi gives another of those abrasive and unpleasant performances that seem a real part of her as a person and probably only appeal to those of that type. (Sorry, but it seems true.) Ted Danson is too young as MTM's husband and usually gives off a slightly creepy appeal unless he has an acting partner who can soften it. And it doesn't happen here. Allan Burns wrote & directed and probably got it all through because he worked with Mary before, wrote it as a project for her, and she had the juice at this point to get it made. There seems no other purpose to it.


Boring, utterly predictable soap opera. Mary Tyler Moore is married to Ted Danson who's having an affair with Christine Lahti. Moore is friends with Lahti and doesn't know about the cheating. Danson dies in an accident and Lahti is pregnant with his baby. YAWN!

I'm ashamed to admit I paid money to see this in a theatre in 1986. I liked all three stars but even their considerable talents couldn't pull this off. I CONSTANTLY knew what was going to happen. Like another poster said--this plays like a PG-rated Lifetime movie.

It does have Lahti swearing nonstop at one point and even Moore lets loose once! Also there's a pointless shots of topless women playing football (!!!). Other than that it's TV friendly. The only good thing about this was Timothy Gibbs playing Moore and Danson's teenage son. Very handsome and quite a good actor. That aside there's nothing to recommend this. You've seen it before...and done better. It's obviously been forgotten. Skip it.


This four-hour miniseries production is about two hours longer than necessary, primarily because the filmmakers seemed not to have a clear idea how to adapt a novel to the screen. They seemed not to know what should be kept in and what might safely be left out. The film opens with Sir Walter reading from the Peerage book that is his primary solace in his troubles. This introduces the family - all of whom we get to know intimately over the next four hours anyway - but serves little other purpose. Similarly, the scenes where the Musgroves lament "poor Richard" serve no purpose but to drag the story down. Some of Austen's actual dialogue is allocated to different characters and some of her narrative is recycled as dialogue that falls awkwardly from the tongues of the characters. There is some fill-in dialogue, too, and this is uniformly dreadful. The scene where Charles Hayter is boring Henrietta with his concerns about getting Dr. Shirley's curacy was only barely interesting as narrative in the book; as a scene in this production, it is stultifying The scene on the Cobb, when Louisa falls and is "taken up lifeless!", is entirely without urgency, and I wondered whether Wentworth's line "Is there nobody to help me?" might have been directed at the writers, as well as the other actors.

This production often looks and feels like a play that has been filmed, rather than an actual film, and this is most evident in the acting, which is the opposite of subtle: booming delivery of lines, exaggerated gestures, and actors who have no idea what to do with their hands, feet, or faces when they are not speaking their lines. Charles Musgrove stands in his parlour, feet shoulder width apart, and appears to project to the balcony (if there were one) when speaking to the other people in the room with him. Louisa Musgrove's face, when not actively simpering or giggling, seems to be in confused repose. Louisa is a giddy, giggly, ditzy creature, and I did not for a moment believe that Wentworth would be interested in her.

The costumes are a mixed bunch, but mostly awful, and Anne Elliot's green tartan gown is quite possibly the most hideous alleged period costume ever devised. We are given the dates at the beginning of the show - it is the late 1790's or perhaps very early 1800s - and yet many of the costumes seem to be of Victorian design, and thus about 60 years too early! The hair is just so wrong that I won't even mention it here. Except to say that I won't mention it. :-)

This production does do some things right, however. Mrs. Smith is given her proper importance, and her history with Mr. Elliot, his dissipation and his intrigues, are fully addressed. I was also pleased to see the fleshed out "reconciliation" scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end, which are precious reward for the reader but were glossed over in the 1995 production.

If you love the book Persuasion, and even vaguely like the 1995 movie, don't waste a moment (or a penny) on this production; you will find it sorely wanting.


Okay, if you discount the production value, the ugly outfits, and the big hair, this adaptation is still far inferior to the 90's version. First Ann Firbank (playing Anne Elliot), is literally ten years too old to play this role and her acting leaves much to be desired. Amanda Root (playing the same role in the 90's version) can express more in her big, brown eyes than Firbank can with her entire face in a four hour production. Anne is turned into a peevish, whining, boring character (and what was with the scene during the `long walk' where she stops to spout off poetry?). Henrietta and Louisa looked so much alike that the only time I could tell them apart was when they stood next to each other (Henrietta was taller). And Louisa! Never was there a more obnoxious character! It was ridiculous to think that Wentworth was supposed to be interested in her. She is supposed to be high spirited and pretty and charming, not stupid and silly with her ridiculous laugh that's like nails on a chalkboard. When she starts to chant, `to Lyme, to Lyme, to Lyme,' I started yelling, `shut up, shut up, shut up!' The best part of the movie was when Louisa falls those three feet at the cobb because I knew I wouldn't have to see her anymore in the movie. Speaking of the fall at the cobb scene; it was the mose poorly acted, badly directed and edited scene of the entire film. How does a person fall three feet down, land on her feet, and still be knocked unconscious?

On the plus size, the character of Elizabeth was much closer to the book than in the 90's version. They also put in many more scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end.

I'll admit, I have bought this movie, even though I knew how sub par it was, but I'm a huge Austen fan, so I'll buy any movie adapted from one of her novels. Watch this move if you're morbidly curious, or to appreciate the 90's version even more.

The bottom line is, this version may follow the letter of the novel, but the 90's version follows the spirit.


Well, Anne is way way too old. Wentworth looks younger than she and he should not. Louisa is much too young and too cheerful Oh sister Mary is way too pretty. She is supposed to be average, not pretty. When this actress complains the way Mary should all I think is that she is too pretty to be a complainer. Lady Russell is too Old. This is crazy. If you read the novel, she is Anne's older more mature friend, maybe as old as Annes mother would be which would be around 18-20 years older than Anne- so around 50 NOT 70! Its crazy, doesn't fit. How come Anne is so darn happy in the beginning? She smiles when she says "oh the worst is over, I've seen him now the worst has passed" yeah right. OK if anyone has seen the 1995 Roger Michell version than you cant compare these two. That one is right on. This one is way off. Read the novel and you'll know what I mean.


Oh yes, I have to agree with the others who describe this as appalling. The acting in this four hour feature is uniformly bad, so bad to the point that I find it impossible to believe any of the actors in this production could possibly earn a living as an actor. I still wonder who did the casting. Each delivers their lines without appearing to have any kind of engagement or emotional investment with any other character. None appear to have a true relationship, family or otherwise, with another. The direction is also appalling and any action scene is laughable and unconvincing. Were the film editors asleep?

The costumes appear authentic to the Regency period but the fabrics look 20th century and colors (especially the blue colors!) are jarring and I don't believe were available in early 19th century fabric except perhaps in silk.

Also the hair: the men have obvious 1970s haircuts, and the women have "big hair"---especially the woman playing Anne Elliot.

All the female characters, young and old, are quite lovely but this doesn't make up for the lack of acting abilities. The actress playing "Anne" looks as though she is in her forties while Anne Elliot is supposed to be 27 years old. I mean, where was the makeup and lighting crew if we were to find the woman playing Anne believable? She spends much of her time gazing pensively with her eyes at the level of the horizon whether indoors or out. I wonder still what that was suppose to convey. Regret perhaps? Yes, this production is regrettable!

The actress playing Louisa was truly appalling. She screams, squeals, giggles, and leaps around like an ill mannered twelve-year-old (my apologies to anyone twelve years of age reading this) that I found myself eagerly awaiting the moment when she knocks herself out. How this behavior is suppose to attract an adult male is beyond me. Most would back off when she first opened her mouth to giggle and shriek.

The actor playing Captain Wentworth portrays someone so bland and colorless one wonders why any woman could pine over him for eight years.

The rejoining of the pair at the end is not convincingly done or explained. How did they get together again? Not because Louisa was in a coma; that is certain. No, there has to be more than that and it is not explained in the film.

I rate this production two stars: one because it is Austens' work, and the other because some of the outdoor scenes were lovely. The only reason I could watch the entire production is that I was off sick with the flu and I got it from the library.

If you enjoyed the book see the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I would recommend this film even if you have't read the book.


Oh, my. Poor Jane must have done the old rolling-over-in-the-grave thing. Even allowing for poor production values for the time (1971) and the format (some kind of mini-series), this is baaaaaad. Whatever else you do with Austen, the dialog should sparkle (even in this, perhaps her most serious work), and melodrama should be strictly out of bounds. Alas, not the case with this production. By the time you get to Anne's "Frederick, Frederick, Frederick," you'll either be laughing or crying. Unless you're just out to visually "collect" all extant films of Austen's work, you can skip this one. If you do watch it, however, there are small consolations: The actresses playing Anne's sisters each do a wonderful job with their roles.


Usually when BBC releases a TV series one is used to a certain satisfaction guarantee. Usually the TV series is splendid, even if the story is boring, you can trust the acting will make the it worth while. When I came across, Persuasion, here at the local library, I was looking forward to an enjoyable evening, cause I read the story.

I'm glad I read the story first, otherwise I would not think highly of it. Further was I relieved to learn that the production date of this TV series was from 1971, since I thought, until that moment, that BBC had lost it. It is really bad, and should be used in acting schools as a horror movie.

The only positive thought I have about this series that the people in this film are not likely to appear or be involved in any BBC or other product this century other than the young Musgroves sisters, who apparently were taking their fist steps in acting, and doing remarkably well under the direction otherwise given.


The comparisons between the 1995 version and this are inevitable. Sadly, this version falls far short.

The casting is uninspired and the acting wooden. One gets the impression the director did not read the book,so did not understand the characters.

Sir Walter Elliot is portrayed as pompous but his inadvertent silliness which Redgrave brilliantly captured (in the 1995 version) is nowhere to be found.

The Musgrove sisters are so unlikable, one doesn't understand why Wentworth or anybody else would give them a second glance.

The relationship between Wentworth and Anne is devoid of feeling.

In the 1995 version, Hinds and Root managed to convey the depth of emotion the two of them felt towards each other with their body language and facial expressions. In this one, it is hard to understand Anne spent years mired in regret unless one has read the book.

This production does not capture the emotional complexity of the main characters' relationship.

In the scene where Wentworth walks in on Anne and Mary having breakfast, it seems to the viewer, as Mary thinks, they are only slight acquaintances.

In the 1995 version, when Wentworth walks in (the first time he sees her in years), the tension is thick. Resentment is coming off Wentworth in waves, while Anne is almost overcome.

In this version, while Wentworth is courting Lousia, it is as if he is truly invested, the undercurrents are missing. In the 1995 version, the viewer sees Wentworth's anger at Anne. He is flaunting his courtship in front of Anne, as if to say, "see what you gave up, I don't need or want you anymore".

Yet he still cares if she suffers, as the scene where he asks his sister and the Admiral to take Anne back to house illustrates. In the 1995 version the viewer feels Anne's shock that he would care if she was tired, we also feel Wentworth's discomfort that he does still care. In this version he just walks on with Lousia as if nothing happened.

The pivotal scene where Anne is conversing with Harville about who loves longest, man or woman, is totally botched. The actors are just reciting lines with no emotional investment.

When Anne reads the letter from Wentworth, it is as if she is reading a grocery list.

Contrast this to the 1995 version, where the viewer feels Anne's joy at her second chance. We are there with her as she reads the letter. The director had both actors reading the letter and you hear both their voices. Wentworth is full of frustration, passion and hope, while Anne's is at first incredulous then evolves in to joy.

This production has more scenes after the revelation, probably because it was needed to explain to the viewer what just happened. The 1995 version didn't need to explain, we knew and rejoiced for the characters The only thing this production has in it's favor is it kept the Mrs. Smith sub plot intact, while the 1995 version did not.

The 1995 version however did include part of Austen's original ending. The scene where Wentworth is commissioned by the Admiral to find out if Anne and Mr. Elliot will want to move back to her house (which he & Mrs. Croft are renting) after they marry.

This is a production to avoid at all costs.


This is not a good movie at all. I cannot believe that after fifty years, this movie gets the National Award when there have been such gems from Marathi cinema that have been so systematically ignored. This is a very overrated movie that got very, very lucky. It was given the National Award, harvested the popular opinion and now is going to represent India before the international audience. Anyone with even a marginal understanding of good, quality cinema will know very well that this will not even be nominated at the Oscars.

I cannot understand where to start. There are just so many things that are wrong and lacking in this movie that it amazing it even got considered for the National Award. That this movie is awarded as the best movie to come out this year goes to show the biased judgment of people who hold the reins of Indian cinema and the diminutive understanding of the people who blindly appreciate this movie.

The topic chosen is great. It is important that such movies be made  but only by people who are able to handle them. Sandeep Sawant does not measure up to the task  not even close. His direction is jumpy, confused. There is no clear thought process. He tries, but is not able to explore the depth of the characters, especially the grandfather. He is not able to show the initial horror, anxiety and then hopeless detachment and yet the insurmountable courage of the grandfather. He wastes our time in the hospital when we should have been shown the time pair spend together. He is trying to cram in everything without any priorities. He does not understand his subject properly and that really counts against him.

However, the cast does not help Sawant either. Worst job  Amruta Shubash. She is a terrible actor and a terrible choice for this or any sensible acting job. How did she get 'Tee Phulrani'? Extremely lucky and/or extremely influential and/or extremely pitiful casting. Having said that, she goes out of her way to do an even terrible job in this movie. Her act of the MSW should have gone to the more responsible actor  Sonali Kulkarni. Amruta Subhash did not understand it. MSW's work under constant emotional stress and yet it is important for them to project a calm, strong exterior, as this is reassuring to the patients. Amruta Subhash's Asawari seems even more scared and in need of support than the people she is working for.

Second worst  Arun Nalawade. I have never seen a more wooden face in Marathi film industry (it is abound and everywhere in today's Hindi cinema though). He is the producer and so he chose himself; no second thought, no consideration. Any good actor would have jumped to play this role even if he had to pay the producer's to do it, but Arun Nalawade would not let anyone else do it. Over ambitious and obtuse, he contributes to bring down the movie more than everyone else combined. His acting lacks research and even the basic acting skills. My choice for this role would be Vikram Gokhale.

The music is uninspired. The movie is technically lacking. It could well have been an FTII project job.

On the up side; brilliant performance by Ashwin Chitale. It is amazing that such a young boy could give such a respectable performance. He put many of today's actors to shame. Unintentionally maybe, but he brought his own innocence to his character and that made it a memorable performance. Also, Sandeep Kulkarni really gave a very believable performance. Really put in all his efforts and it shows. The script too is well written.

'Shoestring budget' cannot be a valid argument to praise this movie. Lack of funds dogs all of the Marathi movies. Cricket and Hindi movies sponge all the money and the rest are left to fight for the scraps. It is a sorry state of affairs but yet not reason enough to praise any immature movie that comes out. 'Doghi' was brilliant movie and it too was made on a shoestring budget. 'Doghi' also lacked technically but it was well researched and well made. It was abound in details and supported by wonderful performances by everyone and that made it rich cinema. Why did it not receive the accolades it so very deserved?  only proves my point of biased judgment.

Lack of research and not of funds, is what makes 'Shwaas' such a bad movie.


Shwaas may have a good story, but the director is utterly devoid of talent. He does not know when to stop. When the story calls for people to act confused, there are ten minute scenes of people miming the act of confusion. When the story calls for a little background history, there are ten minute scenes of Konkan's greenery. When the story calls for a kid throwing tantrums... you get the idea.

Not to mention the extreme closeups so that you can count people's nose hair. There are movies that should be seen on a big screen, this movie should be seen on a 13" TV. Also Amruta Subhash who plays Asavari is the worst actress I've seen in quite a long time. A normal human being would need to practise overacting for years to achieve what she does so effortlessly.

I give it 4/10 solely because the subject matter is different, and the story is not bad. The fact that a movie like Shwaas gets to be India's entry to the Oscars tells volumes not about the state of Indian cinema but the state of Indian judging committees. A movie is not good just because its subject matter is arty.


If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story and the south, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.

I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.

Then Alexandra Ripley came to "fix" this by showing us exactly how perfect and mighty Scarlett could be, and of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back even when she had an important affair with someone else (nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind, I am sure).

The story between these points is in my opinion just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.

If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.

Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.

I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try.


As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.

The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world.

Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.

I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there.


I've read the book 'Scarlett' and was expecting a good movie the first time I saw it. I'm afraid to say that I was disappointed. The movie did not follow the book and made many changes that I did not like.

One of the changes that I did not like the way that Lord Fenton was portrayed. It made no sense to make him out to be a bad man. The way that things ended between Lord Fenton and Scarlett was a lot different and their whole relationship was too intimate.

There was also a lot less confrontation between Scarlett and Rhett in the movie than was originally written in the book. The movie sent the two in two completely opposite ways and they did not seem to cross paths often enough to make it seem like there still could be love between the two. A fine movie, but I believe that it certainly could've been better than it was, had it more true to Alexandra Rippley's book.