The blame of this terrible flick lies with the director, Martin Campbell. After viewing a few of his credits in later years, this must have been one of his first directorial gigs. He had a more than decent cast to work with but unfortunately he had no idea what he was doing. There were scenes that made absolutely no sense at all. Where was his head...............was he on drugs? I was looking forward to this movie just because of Oldman & Bacon. Maybe it was a short shooting schedule and Campbell just had to "bang it out". I can't imagine that the story that Campbell directed even came close to the story that the writer wrote. Oldman & Bacon, along with the rest of the cast, must have slid under their chairs if they went to the screening. As one poster pointed out, Karen Young did do a pretty good fight scene with Bacon. She really did 'let loose'. It's unfortunate that I have to fill in more space just to stay within the guide lines of what the IMDb requires because I really don't have anything more to say about this uninspiring film. One does not have to be forced to be a 'windbag' when criticizing a terrible flick and wish that the IMDb would change the amount of words to fill up a critique.


4 out of 10

A somewhat unbelievable storyline with some haunted-house type "shocks" that really don't fit in.

Gary Oldham's performance is very erratic...not so much the quality of the performance but the consistency. His character does not behave in a consistent manner. Sometimes calm/relaxed/methodical/thoughtful, sometimes violent/loud/almost crazed. It's just not believable.

Have many 80s movies dated badly? Will they be more enjoyable 20 years from now?


Man kills bear. Man becomes bear. Man/bear meets bear. Man/bear stays man/bear after meeting bear. The End. Seriously, that is the entire plot to this movie. Yes, I simplified it to an extreme, but you get the picture. I just wish I maybe had not have seen it.

The 'man/bear' alluded to is a Native American Indian that kills a mother of a cub. And while that can be touching, it certainly lacks to really draw in on the potential conflict between the two parties. Plus, there was a certain misuse of the two moose in the film. But that is beyond the point.

Overall, very much under par. Certainly needed a lot more to be entertaining. Maybe more laughs from the secondary characters and more drama between the two main bears. Thats what separates bad films from the good ones. "D"


Recycled and predictable plot. The characters are as memorable as the story line. We came in few minutes late and only saw the end of the opening scene which turned out to be a good thing since it was too intense for a 3 and a 4 year old. Overall a disappointment.


The animation is great, I'll concede to that. But Disney perpetuated every stereotype we Alaskans have been trying to overcome for the last two generations. And the names, I mean, come on...Sitka, Kenai, Tanana & Denahi (cheesy takeoff of Denali)?! Those are real places where real people live! And the real people these real places were named for are probably struggling out of the Earth seeking vengeance over this trite little flick. Disney, you're based out of California & Florida, right amidst the rest of the states that still treat us like a foreign country. If you can't stick to what you know, at least hire and/or work with people who know what area you're trying to caricuture. Maybe then it wouldn't be so insulting! :(


Being a great fan of Disney, i was really disappointed when i watched this garbage.The animation was pretty,and the backgrounds were amazing,but i believe that good animation does not make up for a weak script,and weak story. I'm gonna have to disagree with the people who say it is not suitable for children.Yes there are some deaths in the movie but isn't death something that children should at least be exposed to? But i digress. The script is riddled with bad puns and lame jokes...the kind i could expect from most dreamworks movies. The music was soppy,the morals forced(and forced without any charm whatsoever.)and the characters would burst into song at totally inappropriate times.The characters were also cold,and i really couldn't muster up any form of emotion towards them(bar irritation). I am a great fan of jungle book,Aladdin,and emperors new groove, but this Disney movie was a total and utter waste of time.....do not watch it!!!


As an avid Disney fan, I was not totally impressed by this movie, certainly not motivated enough to catch it in the theaters. I am, however, so glad that I caught it on DVD and watched the special features.

You MUST check out the "Moose commentary": the entire movie can be viewed with commentary from Rutt and Tuke, the comic relief moose of the story, who are voiced by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas. Two veterans of the famous Second City comedy troupe ad-lib - in character - for an hour and a half about a movie that they are clearly fond of. I laughed the whole time. The enjoyment I got from this commentary completely made up for the tepid reaction I had to the film itself. Do yourself a favor and listen to it!


Here is another low quality movie from the "Disney" company. There is no more Disney spirit. The story is boring. All emotions are fake. It is not cute or moving. Disney company was at a time a sort of magic company which provided dreams for children. It is now all about making money. Shame on the people who exploit Disney name for their personal benefit. It is the fall of an empire. And, by the way, Pixar is NOT Disney !


for everyone who has read this book, Fanny Price ends up maturing into her own woman, a beautiful woman...with a brain. Le Touzel looks like she is on medication. Terrible acting, she just ruins it! Henry is a little tall for his character. He is also too effeminate. Mary Crawford is brilliant. Edmond is a little too old. Mrs. Norris is hysterical- OK, this casting decision works. Rushworth is also perfect. Yates looks too effeminate also. But, Le Touzel is simply horrid. This is not a good character for her. Poor Fanny! I would recommend this movie only because it includes an almost complete textual account of the language Austen uses in the novel. The 1999 version is much more fun but terribly incomplete. If they could redo this version with a better suited actress for Fanny it would be fabulous!


This version of Mansfield Park, while being extremely accurate to the novel lacked the compassion I felt for Fanny which is crucial and central to this Jane Austen story. This was due to the total lack of acting ability by the actress, Sylvestra Le Touzel. She had no appeal and at times appeared to be either lost in space or out of her depth. The scene she has with her uncle where she breaks down in hysterics was hysterical. She badly overplayed that crucial scene and I actually felt sorry that Henry Crawford ever cared for her.

The polar opposite is the portrayal of Mary Crawford by Jackie Smith- Wood. What a wonderful actress, in a very difficult part to make that character witty and self-centered, selfish yet vulnerable to love.

I have always loved Fanny. She is mild mannered but with an implacable sense of what is right, and who she thinks is worthy of respect and admiration. The Fanny in this adaptation is too meek and subservient with hardly a thought of her own until near the end of the series. As much as I wanted to like this Fanny....I just could not.

I suggest skipping this version of Mansfield Park for the real thing...the Novel. Fanny will not disappoint...you will Love Her!


The whole exercise is pointless. Why make the film at all? The lighting is ghastly, but the sound is just a joke. Like a high-school production. Whoever put the budget together for this film should be drawn and quartered for allowing it to be made without the proper budget for soundmen with equipment fit for recording.

So much dialog is unintelligible due to losses in echo or the lack of proximity to the mic. Economy should have been made on any other area. The whole production is lifeless and just LAME with such amateurish half-arsed production. It lacks warmth, clarity, and has no design to it.


Okay, I haven't read the book yet but I have to say that the lead character was miscast. How can I say such a thing haven't read the book you ask? It's simple. As a viewer of this miniseries, I grew irritated by the mannerisms, gestures and look of the lead character, Fannie Price. It's one thing to be a good person but it's quite another to be a stick in the mud creature who disdains from looking anyone in the face or otherwise meeting their gaze. Apart from the overdone "Susan B. Anthony" profile, she seemed resolute in refusing to look at another person. The scene where Edmond is pouring his heart out to her, she is looking straight ahead the whole time, forcing him to do the same. As a result, it was just awkward and I just couldn't fathom anyone being in love with her let alone both Henry and Edmond. Many have said it was true to the book, if that is the case I find it hard to believe that Jane Austen would create such a character as her lead heroine. It's possible to create a character who has been put upon by others and succeeds in earning their trust and endearment but the portrayal of this character in this miniseries just didn't do it for me.


This movie is about a young girl who goes to live with her rich cousins falls in love with one of her cousin, and reject the advance of a amoral suitor who brings trouble on the family. After seeing the 1999 version and reading the book, I decided to watch the older version. I found it did stay true to Fanny character in the book, but it was also boring character. Fanny character played by Sylvestra Le Touzel was lackluster; she often appeared to be about to faint. I also did not like Robert Bourbage who played Henry Crawford. I could not imagine him being interested in Fanny or her cousin Maria. Jackie Smith Wood who played Mary Crawford was okay but the wig she wore was so ugly. I lost interested in her acting and I kept staring at her wig. I kept expecting it would drop off her head. I could also see a slip of her real hair under the wig.


This is a big disappointment. The main problem is the acting. Sylvestre le Touzel is pretty poor as Fanny, and the rest are not much better, everybody is very stilted and unnatural. Also the camerawork is very 1980's ie cramped and jumpy, compared with the likes of 1995's P&P, for example.

The script is, if anything too faithful to the book, and there are some cringe worthy expressions that should have been cut.

In every way this is far inferior to the recent film version, which though it took huge liberties with the book, seemed far more faithful to the spirit of the book and was far more enjoyable.


I always try not to be harsh while criticizing something that I didn't like, but after watching this mini-series I was so disappointed that could not help my irritation. On the one hand, it is true that series stayed faithful to the novel and of course I found that very nice, but on the other hand terrible casting, poor acting, especially of key characters  like Funny Price, impression of stage play, I mean theatrical way of acting makes you irritate from the beginning to the end. I am sure with this budget, even if it was low, could have been done something much better and worthwhile. it is up to you to watch this series, but personally i don't advice you to spend your time on this disappointing ecranization.


total crap.

I was kind of excited to see this as it is the only film version I have seen of Mansfield Park. I suffered through the first four episodes but when it came to the proposal scene between Henry and Fanny I snapped and had to turn it off. Whoever employs this Sylvestra Le Touzel lady has got to be both blind and deaf cause the woman is the worst actress I've ever seen in my life. The whole thing is just bad, bad, bad. I don't know. I just don't know why people who write Jane Austen screenplays seem to be incapable of giving her work the respect it deserves.


OK enough already. this is a terrible piece of television. the camera work is appalling (do i have to remind you of the crunchy gravel so loud you can hardly hear the actors speak) lady bertram has the most annoying voice in the entire world. anna massey is 'acting' in such an unbelievable fashion. and the lack of chemistry between fanny and edmund is beyond beyond. also the bertram girls aren't pretty enough, and the guy playing henry crawford is awful. to say the camera work is dodgy is an understatement. i watched this adaptation over Christmas, and i think under any other circumstances i would not have been able to endure this, and certainly would have not been able to justify the wasted time.

i am a fan of faithful to jane adaptations. so i could not bear the film adaptation or the recent pride and prejudice movie. but see any other adaptation instead, even emma is better than this.


This horrible action  sci-fi movie is a crap. I have just spent 90 minutes of my life watching one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The story does not make any sense, there are lots of flaws in the screenplay, the characters are badly developed, the unknown cast is horrible, the lead ham actor seems to be too old for his role. I was induced to buy this VHS, which has a magnificent cover, and see this crap due to the illogical IMDb User Rating and some "ten stars" reviews. I have just checked the authors, and each one of them has just one short review (of "L.I.N.X.") issued in IMDb, and nothing else. Why are they promoting such a garbage? My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "L.I.N.X. Conexão Letal" ("L.I.N.X. Lethal Connection")


Keep away from this one. The worst thing is the appalling story. There seems to be an intent to convey some subtle spiritual/love/friendship message but it is so pathetically devoid of any substance you can't help but cringe. In addition, the majority of screen time is a far below standard story of thieves, criminals and our hero(es) dealing with some alien time travel artifacts. I know you are asking for trouble when dealing with time but the story is more full of holes than usual. Also you have: cheap sets, bad acting and some of the worst music arrangements in the history of the moving picture, overpowering, cheap, abrupt and disjointed. All I can say is "Man alive ! This film is bad !"


I find the critique of many IMDb users a little harsh and in many cases find that they crit the movie from a very professional viewpoint and not that of the guy on the street that wants to sit and watch something just to GET AWAY from it all.

In this case however I have to say it was BAD. I am a SciFi junkie and there was NOTHING in this movie that grabbed me for even one second.

There was no proper storyline. I may be an idiot but I still do not know where the GOVERNMENT was that was so worried about these pieces.

The pathetic attempt by the main character to put together these 3 pieces is scary. Half the time the two pieces were already in place and he simply had to add the third. A 3 year old kid would have been able to put them together.

This movie was BAD.

Dominic


The worst thing I have ever watch.

The movie is pure trash. All the things is bad on this movie. The direction, screenplay, arts, cinematography, cast or anything else.

May I say more?

The main character is an boy. It has to have 20 years of age approximately, but the actor who plays the role looks like 30 years old, in addition he is an very bad actor.

The editing tries to save it, but with that very bad material in hands they can't do miracles.

As I said, the cast is poor, the text is poor, that it doesn't help the actors.

I learned how to "do not" make a movie.


There is nothing wrong with showing an old man falling in love with a young girl. Lolita did it. American Beauty did it.

But. They did it subtly. They did not make it so apparent from the start that the director is gearing them up to make them fall in love with each other. Not as naturally as two people would (Age no bar) but forcing them to be around each other as if they were SUPPOSED to fall in love.

All in all, there should have been chemistry. It would have solved the biggest problem. People with reservations against the subject would also have been engrossed and perhaps convinced. It would have become the perfect love story, no matter the impracticality.

I found it difficult to believe Jia's character at times. What I found more difficult to understand, is why Vijay - a photographer and an artist, who seems serious - would have had an interest in a girl so frivolous. Unless he himself has some frivolousness hidden in himself, which did not come out at all.

There is a lot of use of Dutch angles or angles in which the frame is tilted. It is generally used to show something unnatural or something that might lead to something that is not right. So RGV is himself calling the relationship unnatural.

The camera angles, background score, editing, and even the juxtaposition of shots and symbology emphasises and overemphasises their relationship. Is the Indian audience so dumb that we need to be told something in 10 different ways for us to understand? Especially when the two of them were dancing together... it was apparent what was happening. What was the need of slowing the scene down with dramatic background music? I feel the subject was very well chosen. But Verma should not have made the film with the fact in mind constantly that this is a controversial subject. If it is, then handle it delicately, why don't you?


This movie did not give Mr. Bachchan justice. He is a great actor and I was very disappointed in the movie and there was not much plot to it. Matter a fact this is the first movie I have ever been disappointed in with him in it. It starts out with her coming to his home with his daughter and he is a photographer. He takes pictures of her in the garden has she's hosing herself down. He is a sixty year old man that has nothing to do but to take pictures of this girl. The movie makes no sense. The whole movie is about her chasing him around and her telling him how much she cares about him. Then his daughter falls and he has to take this girl around places so she is not bored and is daughter finds out. I just didn't think this movie was up to Bachchan's standards. He is better than this movie. I always pictured him as an upstanding person and then I seen him in this movie and I couldn't picture him in this movie. The movie didn't hold my interest at all. I couldn't wait until the movie was over. And you won't either.


Good attempt at tackling the unconventional topic of May-December romances. However, the treatment is totally unrealistic. Sure, sixty-year old men can and do fall for younger women, but they're usually adult women with whom they share common interests and values and viewpoints ... not neurotic, immature near-underage girls. Of course there are exceptions, and they come close to being called pedophiles! Sorry RGV, but it's not credible that a sane and accomplished sexagenarian would throw away a comfortable family life and become a joke to his peers ... all for an 18-yr old that doesn't have a practical thought in her head and that behaves like an unstable escapee from a mental institution. You don't have to have a PhD in Psychology to see that Amitabh's character is seduced by sex, and that the young woman has unresolved abandonment and daddy issues.

As for the recurring scene of Vijay perched on the edge of a cliff, contemplating suicide, that's about as close as he comes to having anything in common with Jiah, by behaving like a smitten teenage boy.

On a positive note: the actors did a good job, and cinematography good.


Amitabh and Jiah Khan, raised great expectations, by their press conferences, though it was quite easy for the critics, and the fans too, that after all, this much hyped, Ram Gopal Verma Factory product, is going to fall flat on it's face, in all the probabilities ! Why, because Jiah was so immature and childish, and Bacchan, mixed up guilty, and unsure . they themselves didn't know, what the hell they were talking about, to the press, keeping up with the tag line, that some love stories are not to be understood, or some such rubbish ! Why the title is Nishabd ? Ramu needs to refresh his knowledge of Sanskrit, as Vidhu Vinod needs to study Mahabharata, tagging in line, another glorious flop of the year, Eklavya ! Comparison with the Sweet hearts, and Lolit's is inevitable, as the so-called plot line is supposed to have inspired by them. but sadly, Ramu has hardly made any serious effort, to delve deeply into the psyche of the aging, and the young ones. is lolly pop sucking the ultimate indicator of the innocence ? and contrary to that streak of childishness, the leg show at the dining table, with a Vijay, that is Bacchan in that role, bursting into squeals of shameless laughter incessantly after wards ? this girl, is in fact at her seductive game, luring poor Vijay to think, she is in love with him. the legs,too are skinny enough, and that act of putting the water hose through the legs, is down right obscene. it's beyond any one's understanding, how can a girl , coming as a guest to some body's house, can be so brazen, brash, and over powering ? and why the hell that stupid wife, played by Revathi, remarkably well, though scripted poorly, and characterized unrealistically, encourages her own husband, to dance with a sexily saying young girl ? that part of Vijay, trying to gain some refreshers to his humdrum life is absolute bullshit. because, apparently it seems that he is happy as he is, with a well settled life, and a hobby to recreate. This reminds of Blame it on Rio, the older daddy, and his young love, superbly played by Michael Caine. Bacchan looks terrible in close ups, and over all, where as kevin spacey and Jeremy Irons looked debonair and handsome, which is why the young chicks some times get attracted to older men, for their charming persona, compared to the vulnerability of young boys of their age. only good thing about this movie is those green , sprawling land scapes , winding roads, and pleasant cinematography. no substance, or even any sparkling show of emotions, drama , or even intriguing, stormy sex like in Lolita, this shallow movie has no wonder, fallen flat on it's face, and had to be wound up from the screens during first weeks ! next time round, before mindlessly copying any such theme from Hollywood, Ramu should do his home work, and Bacchan should think twice ! you can not fool all the people at all the times, Mr. Bacchan!


And the worst part is that it could have been good. But something horribly wrong. First thing first, they should not have cast Amitabh Bachchan in this film at all. He is too much of an Icon to tackle such a delicate and controversial topic let alone the role itself.

Secondly, Ram Gopal Varma ought to be ashamed of himself for taking the classic story of Lolita and turning it into a pathetic predictable slut-fest. His Lolita is named Jia (played by newcomer Jiah Khan) and when we meet her, she is devoid of any inkling of stolen innocence or that delicate naivety that one would normally associate with the complicated tale of the original Lolita who in the original story, gradually becomes nymphet. Varma's Jia is already a whore with her eye on the prize even even before the camera meets her. And he exercises no chastity in the way his films his leading nymphet. From constant panning shots of her crotch to fixations on her vulgar gestures and mannerisms, Mr. Varma makes sure he has left not one person in the audience less than uncomfortable with his voyeuristic pedophile camera angles.

Oh and let's not talk about the non-existent chemistry between Jia and her so-called friend Ritu (Bachchan's character's daughter). These girls are supposed to be best friends yet look like worst enemies even before anything goes wrong between them. Nothing they do together is believable until they become enemies. Maybe Mr. Varma should have worked on that aspect of his script rather than focusing on destroying any credibility Amitabh Bachchan might have had left as an actor.

The worst part of the movie is perhaps the subservient portrayal of the character of Bachchan's character's wife. Her role was so underwritten and ridiculously wooden that it's impossible to actually feel any pity or concern for her. I actually felt like reaching into the screen slapping her for not reacting like any normal woman would. Instead she just stood there looking Irritated and Helpless, as I imagine much of the viewers of this film might feel after watching this train-wreck of a film. Watch at your own risk.


this is by far the most pathetic movie Indian cinema or any cinema has come up with.it is totally a piece of crap.the story line odes not hold any water. it is shameful that such a respectful actor has stooped to such a low on making such a disgraceful movie. the little respect he had is lost forever. he should have retired longtime ago instead of making a fool of himself and loosing all the self respect. i would not recommend this movie to any one. furthermore i would suggest that Amitabh should retire already. I wonder how IMDb has given some recommendations to this movie. there are no movies so horrible that any recommendations could be made. seeing such movies as Devdas in the same line as this movie does a grave injustice to a decent movie. its overall i could say shameless.


This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie. This movie is stupid and i hate it!!! i turned it off before it reached half i hate this movie. Amitabh sucks in this movie i wanna throw eggs at the person who directed this movie.


Nishabd means wordless. This must be the condition of the script before the shooting of this film started and therefore throughout this film cries for content. What you go for is an unusual love story between a 60-yr old man and an 18-yr old girl and what you get are very usual, very common events that neither excite nor surprise. So what we are left finally is with picturesque locations of Kerala shot brilliantly by cinematographer Amit Roy and camera friendly histrionics of newfound Jiah Khan. This does not cover up for lack of a concrete script. Producer-Director Ram Gopal Varma who has such a good track record of films needs to pull up his socks. As far as Mr. Bachchan goes, I don't want to discuss him in context of this film.

While reviewing, I am feeling loss of words. I am left speechless rather wordless !

Personal Opinion : This film can be compared with an equally bad film released some time back called BLACK. I don't see the difference between the histrionics of lead characters in both the films. What did you say just now- That was a world-class cinema blah blah, and I don't have any taste. Well, take a walk. No I don't mean literally but actual one to the theaters showing this film. Because in that case you might find this film an Oscar-level material.


Good cinematography, good acting good direction...cannot justify a story that is not and cannot be acceptable to any society. Amitabh has often used the media to make this junk sell able by saying that -- if such an incident happens...then what? I would like to ask him if such a thing happens for your own child or your grandchild (say girl child) then what will you do? I think every parents will have to take special care before interacting with any 60 year old neighbor if you have one -jia- with you. Such films should be banned and discouraged otherwise you inspire more more Nithari cases. Such acts are villainous and villains in films are punished..that should be the moral of the story and not glorify their act or them.


The production year says it all. The movie is a marauding mess of politically correct leftwing feministic selfappreciating drivel, of a so heavyhanded symbolic variety that comes across as ridiculous today. Every scene has the purpose of shedding light on one of the burning issues of society, mainly the role of females in the working community, the role of women vs men, women as sex objects, consumerism, politics, war, etc. Every scene is commented upon by the inner dialogue of one of the main actresses, or by turning the scene into a surrealistic joke. I have no reminiscence of any plot, or who the main characters actually were. It is the sort of movie, where consumerism is mocked by having a couple make love in a furniture store sales window while the sales agent delivers his speech, or where a revealing interview of a stage actress turns into a fullblown striptease act, for "of course" the offensive gentlemen of the press is the equal to a raunchy club audience. Then we move swiftly on, as we need to see war erupt in a peaceful forest, we need to see multiple inflammatory feministic public speeches being drowned in the (male) blowing of cars horns or rioting crowds, and of course we need to see cinema newsreels of Stalin and all the other usual suspects. You get the idea. But all this does not matter at all. The movie is an unsurpassed piece of eyecandy for any (male) Ingmar Bergman aficionado. A movie boasting leads Bibi Andersson, Harriet Andersson and Gunnel Lindblom at the height of their beauty makes this reviewer surrender completely and just drivel  and also delight in watching them so generously use their acting skills in a movie I had never heard about before today. It is hard to believe how especially the face of Bibi Andersson owns the screen every single time she appears. The cinematography is gorgeously orchestrated bw, often revelling in an overexposed (?) dimensionless whitishness, and you just never grow tired of watching the performers. How absurd, that a movie made with so much consideration for the feministic agenda, tirelessly advocating that women should not be viewed as merely an object of desire, has nothing better to offer the 21st century viewer than a parade of stunningly beautiful babes. As mentioned, I am not complaining. I could rewatch it tomorrow.


Mario Racocevic from Europe is the only user who has posted a comment so far and covers the major points to the film.Yet again another difficult film to purchase in the UK.I had to go through "Midnight Video" who have a Swedish branch.I went to the post office and bought by mail order this and a similar title at only SKR30 a title.

This film goes under many "a.k.a's" depending on when and where it is marketed.I had previously purchased "The Bloodsucker leads the Dance" (which you will find if you search on Imdb under "people" and input "Krista Nell").The actor who plays the Count on his private island in the latter film had his words dubbed from Italian into English by an actor with an unmistakably mournful and rather tired sounding voice.I smiled when I heard this same voice dubbing on the English soundtrack as the police inspector who is investigating the murder of the prostitute killed in the copse in the subject film.My choice of course was to see another outing by the delicious Krista Nell.

There are quite a few rather inconsequential sub plots in the movie involving blackmail/extortion, sleazy affairs with girlfriends' mothers, a motor cycle chase resulting in a gangland hit, a gangrape by a "client's" motorcycle friends, sleazy photography, cross dressing by transvestites etc. which give a flavour to this film summarised in a word - SLEAZE, (but artistic sleaze).The aforementioned contributor liked this film but the lowly rating suggests other Imdb fans did not albeit without explaining their "wheres and whyfores".Personally I thought there were too many subplots and not enough put into the main story and the relationship of these subordinate characters to the central plot and the development of their screen characters.Also a professional film editor was sorely needed as some of the scenes appeared to last far too long, having made their point, so that the film appeared to drag in places; e.g. the scene of the dancing transvestite.Krista Nell appears in one fruity scene with a client but this too is but a vignette and I was left wanting more from her, the director and the screenplay.

I love the political incorrectness shown in older films (this is 30 years from its making) e.g. smoking in offices and the way some characters react to each other in the office!I would suggest 4/10 as a more realistic rating and I have awarded it as such.


That was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Why would someone make a movie about getting away with murder!?! Mr. Allen again plays the only type of character that he's able, the sexually stunted man who can't get the girl. Get a clue, Allen, there's a reason that's the only character that you can successfully portray. Stir clear of this movie! It's a waste of time, unless you want to know how to successfully murder someone. I feel sorry for the actors who say 'yes' to Woody Allen. Look at his cast, and tell me how many of those people are still working. My respect for all of the actors, who work for him, immediately goes down, because they chose to participate in the film.


I don't see why everyone loves this film so much. True, it does have good intentions and meaning, but you cannot compensate for such a poor script. Woody Allen is a brilliant filmaker, but I'm afraid this is just a piece of garbage. It's extremely predictable and the subject matter is all too visible. I happen to be a huge Woody Allan fan and love most of his work, but this I cannot recomend.


A few words for the people here in germen's cine club: The worst crap ever seen on this honorable cinema. A very poor script, a very bad actors, and a very bad movie. Don't waste your time looking this movie, see the very good "mutantes verdes fritos anarquia radioactiva", or any movie have been good commented by me. Say no more.


A family of dirt-farmers moves out west.

The head of Walnut Grove's newest motley brood is named 'Charles'. He works at the mill sawing lots of lumber, though who in hell he thinks he's cutting all that wood for is a mystery, because none of the folks in all of township have enough money to buy a splinter, much less a two-by-four.

Running the town is the 'Olsons', a rich but stupid clan that relocated to these parts in order to rake in all that dough they make selling eggs for eleven cents a dozen. They have two children, a boy, 'Willie', and a girl, 'Nellie', whom between them, have only one saving asset... Nellie is hot and it's fun to spy on her when she takes a bath in the crick.

The town preacher is also the village idiot because he thinks he's really something special to this backwoods covey of country dillweeds, when in reality, they can't stand his boring sermons and the only thing they pray for on Sunday is for him to fall off the nearest cliff as soon as possible.

The town doctor is a dinosaur who saw his better days about 20 years ago, but he hangs around anyway so he can give free breast examinations to the old hags that live in town. Unfortunately, the only time these ancient hot mamas get down on their knees is to pull a loaf of bread out of the oven to give to the Doc for his services. But that's OK with Doc because he knows these old wenches give good bread.

Bringing up the rear of this colorful collection of country cow-chips is Charles' wimpy wife 'Carolyn' and their three girls, 'Mary', 'Carrie', and 'Half-Pint'. Mary is another hot chick who all the guys sneak a peek at whenever she takes a shower or a crap. Carrie is an annoying little kid, but stick a cookie in her mouth and you won't even know she's there, in fact, where is she?... oh, there she is... she's in the yard playing with a pack of cigarettes... how cute! Half-Pint is the town's youngest screw-up. She may not have a brain or any kind of a body to speak of, but she can spit farther then any boy in the whole freaking school.

It's a great town, Walnut Grove, where someone is always falling off a roof or getting run over by a wagon wheel, and it's beautiful, too, made up of one building... the church/school-house/town hall/pool room. Ah, it gets a little hairy on the prairie, but that's OK, especially when Mary is taking a bath in the crick... that's when you can see how hairy it really is.


Some people like to tell you that Deep Space 9 is the best of all the Star Trek shows, because it stresses character development and continuity, and features a more complex background and ongoing plots. In some ways this makes it more satisfying, but in many ways the show fails entirely.

The series starts out as a soap opera on a space station, with two entire seasons of generic science fiction stories balanced with banal subplots about the characters. The characters are a good bunch, and most of the actors are decent, but I think the writers tried too hard to make them "normal". By "normal" they actually mean "ordinary and tedious".

At the end of Season Two we are introduced to the Dominion, who hang around menacingly for a while before finally going to war with the good guys in Season Five. This is the main "story arc" of the show, but it only takes up a fraction of the entire series. We still get lame stand-alone episodes, heroes still get stranded on weird planets for forty-five minutes, and there's an awful lot of low-brow comedy featuring the greedy, goofy Ferengi. A lot of episodes are merely dull, and some are unwatchable.

The Dominion, DS9's main villains, are bent on galactic domination for the convenient reason that, well, they just don't like anyone. The entire war is presented with a naive lack of moral complexity and imagination. Impressively pyrotechnic space battles appear with great frequency from Season Three onwards, but these are carried out in ludicrously simplistic ways, such as two huge fleets of super-advanced starships flying right at each other and blasting away. The writers of DS9 (including the talented Ronald D. Moore, later of "Battlestar Galactica" fame) spiced up their monotonous show by starting a war, but at heart it is still a pedantic soap.

DS9 remains a very frustrating experience. The continuous story is too flat and obvious to be really gripping, and the characters never truly develop in interesting ways. "Babylon 5" and "Battlestar Galactica" both fulfilled the promise made by DS9, and did everything much better. For Star Trek, stick with the original and the Next Generation.


I didn't like watching DS9 compared to other Star Treks even Enterprise, but I didn't like Babylon 5, and now I know why. They are the same show. I just read the old news that Paramount stole the idea from the creator of Babylon 5, but they chose not to sue for a reason I don't know or care, but seeing as a Star Trek series is based off another even nerdier show is just to much to bare, now I will condemn anyone who even mentions the DS9 when talking about the series. Original, TNG, and Voyager are my favorites in that order. Before I didn't understand why everyone thinks DS9 is great and I didn't, but know I know. It's also because the captain has a real anger problem, and I hate people that act cool, but freak out, out of no where; and he seems to on every episode.


Although normally my preference is not for romantic dramas, seeing this film left me a little short.

It had promise, the characters and relationships could have been explored much deeper than they did, yet the story seemed not to understand the direction it wanted to take.

The comparisions and parallels within the story, especially the three generations of women in the family, had a lot of potential, but somehow didn't fully extend itself. It could have made the film much easier to relate to and attach to which is the aim of any film about lost-love and life regained.

IMHO, I think the film suffered from a lack of direction in the writing, although Harry Connick Jnr and Sandra Bullock did try desperatly to breath a little life into otherwise flat character outlines.

It's not that this is a bad film, some parts leave you understanding the reasons for various plot developments, its just that this film is underdone, and a little flat overall.


Everyone I know loves this movie, but I am afraid that I don't. I hated this film so much that I had to turn it off mid-film because of the repulsion. Way too much time is spent on weepiness and emotional bedlam, the point of the Bullock character being devastated by her divorce is jackhammered into the viewer's head excessively. Enough already!! And why didn't we hear more about her ex-husband? He is portrayed as nothing but a suit who comes by once in a while. Something must of made her want to marry him, what was it? What is it about him that makes her so devastated upon their divorce? More time could of been spent on that rather than yet one more shot of Bullock lying crumpled on the bedroom floor. The dialogue is stilted, cliched and terrible, much like one of those corny "ABC Afterschool Specials" or something. There is no imagination or creativity about anything in this film, it is all very predictable and therefore boring. This movie also goes into overdrive on the cutsiness factor, very stupid and not funny like it was supposed to be! This is just another one of those horribly done "I am woman, hear me roar" films, much like "Waiting To Exhale". If you want to see "I am woman, hear me roar" films that are truly entertaining, original and well-done, then see "Gas Food Lodging" or "Ruby in Paradise". Skip this crap!! I give "Hope Floats" 3/10.


Hope Floats with Sandra Bullock is a real disappointment. The story starts off ok. Her husband cheats on her and she finds out on national television. So she has to rebuild her life. Here it could have gotten interesting or built up in a story line, but you become so bored with it. She moves back with her parents and Harry Connick Jr. who plays Justin begins hitting on her. The two have no real chemistry at all, yet your supposed to get the impression that Justin is in love with her. The movie ends the way you figure it will but you wish it hadn't ended like every other kind like it. They had a good start with this movie and could have turned it into something watchable but instead its a movie that you definitely want to miss.


This movie was a dismal attempt at recreating a crucial time in English history. The film version of Cromwell's growing involvement in the War is marginally accurate but the overall historical accuracy of this movie was way off. This film implies that the war was started over religious differences but the Civil War was in no way Catholic versus Protestant: both sides were Protestant. Cromwell was never present at the battle of Edgehill, nor did he ever "save the day". The royalists did not win, the battle ended in a draw.

As another reviewer has noted, Cromwell was certainly not one of the "Five Members" who were to be removed from the House and arrested.

Overall, this movie was decent. The producers tried WAY to hard and it didn't turn out so great.

definitely could have been better.


Throughout the 1950s and into the 60s, 70s and even into the 80s, a slew of war films were produced in the former Yugoslavia, glorifying the heroism of the "Partisans"  civilians who turned out to fight a guerrilla war against the invading German forces. Hajrudin Krvavac, who's generally only known in Eastern Europe, directed quite a few of these "partisan" stories; unfortunately, only a handful of them were ever exported to the rest of the Europe and the United States. "Battle of the Eagles" is a rare, low-budget look at the formation and exploits of the Partisan Air Force.

Marshal Tito decrees that a Partisan Air Force must be formed to combat the German Luftwaffe in the skies over Yugoslavia. A group of former pilots join forces with two small biplanes and begin raiding enemy bases and convoys; over the course of several months, more pilots and planes join the ranks, eventually forming a formidable air force. Maybe it's history, or maybe it's fable  whatever it is, it sure isn't convincing, but a cast of great actors sure try to make it work.

The film opens strongly with a well-shot German air raid on defenseless partisans. The nuts and bolts of the plot come together almost immediately, and for a short while the audience is treated to a rather patriotic series of scenes. Then the action starts, and this title quickly becomes yet another low-budget, by-the-numbers adventure. All of the characters are familiar clichés: Major Dragan (played by a well-meaning Bekim Fehmiu) is our typical patriotic, heroic leading man. He blasts away at strafing planes with a machine-gun and even has an aerial duel with the villainous Klauberg (Radko Polic), a completely predictable and corny climax with an equally predictable outcome. The rest of the partisans are familiar: Ljubisa Samardzic ("The Battle of Neretva") is a Zare, a hotshot playboy; Bata Zivojinovic ("Hell River") is Voss, a veteran flyer who comes out of the woodwork now that his country needs him; and Rados Bajic ("The Day that Shook the World") is Dalibor, a young messenger boy who moves up through the ranks, eventually becoming a seasoned combat pilot. The characters and their stories are familiar to any war fan, and Krvavac doesn't try to build upon these stereotypes. The cast does a fair job, and despite the two-dimensional script, every player is engaging and fun to watch. Bajic, in particular, has some great moments  when he's going to take his first flight as a gunner, and later, when he is forced to land a plane after the pilot is killed. The plot merely consists of a string of air raids against the Germans, and subsequent retaliatory acts.

Krvavac handles the action sequences competently with a mix of actual footage and miniature effects. Unfortunately, the miniatures are so cheap and false-looking that the transitions between actual aerial photography and toy planes are jarring and laughable. Some of the strafing and bombing scenes look shockingly real, while dogfights involving scale models, complete with action figure pilots, are just plain pathetic. Sometimes smoke puffs from the "machine-guns" are so big that the smoke engulfs the entire model plane. Worse, the editors often superimpose shots of fighters over real footage. Although the aircraft are usually in proper perspective, they're surrounded by a distracting glow which hinders any attempt at realism. All of this action is set to an incredibly familiar and annoying score by Bojan Adamic.

"Battle of the Eagles" also suffers from a very poorly edited English-language release. To begin with, 28 minutes of footage is missing  cutting the film from 130 minutes to a mere 102. The missing segments were carelessly excised, and the cutting looks very sloppy. Music cues are abruptly cut off and scenes are abandoned before they are resolved. In the last third of the film, the story falls apart, and only some badly-needed action scenes can try to save it from total incomprehensibility. Then, there's the dubbing all of the scenes revolving around the Partisans are dubbed in English (rather poorly, however), yet several lengthy scenes remain in German, without the benefit of subtitles. The film might have made much more sense had the German-language sequences been excised instead of crucial scenes revolving around the Partisans.

On the plus side, Krvavac handles the outdoor footage quite well. There is never a moment where the audience feels like they're on a soundstage. In particular, the German Luftwaffe bases are expansive, complete with dozens of Messerschmitt fighter planes and extras costumed in leather flying jackets. The scenery is fresh and green, and Krvavac isn't afraid to shoot scenes with extremely wide angles or from far away simply to convey the scope of a battle or long trek. A German ambush of a partisan unit early on in the picture stands out, as does a sequence where Zare and Dalibor escape from an enemy base.

As it exists on home video, "Battle of the Eagles" is just another of many stories about the Yugoslav Partisan movement. There is nothing to set it apart from the rest of the crop, and the terrible special effects and drastic editing put it a notch below acceptable. Try to avoid this one unless you can find a full-length copy.


It really amazed me to see that someone would take so much time to assess such a bad movie. The beginning (of the film) had some truth in it. The Partisan "AF" was started in 1943 when two communist pilots from the Croat Ustashi AF deserted, together with their observers, in Breguet 19 and Potez 33, respectively. The aircraft saw some action in strafing and hand-bombing, but didn't last very long. One crew was killed and the other survived, the pilot being killed later while flying a Spitfire Vc. The real Partisan squadrons were established when RAF detached two of its (Yugoslav) squadrons of Spitfire Vc and, Hurricane IIc , respectively, manned by Ex Yugoslav Royal Airforce pilots, and allotted them to Tito's forces on the Island of Vis. Even those were never engaged in air-to-air activities, but strictly for ground support. So the film was one giant cow manure, to put it mildly, and the lowest point for its, otherwise not at all bad, director. By some quirk of fate I was present on the filming of the last sequence of the movie, when dozens of German aircraft were destroyed (Yugoslav 522 trainers, used also in the flying sequences) on the Mostar military airport. The pyrotechnics were impressive, and the Scotch served lavishly by the film crew was even better. Otherwise, the film was a shameless lie was and frequently joked about by the contemporary audience.


Playmania is extremely boring. This is the basis of the show. Mel or Shandi ask extremely easy questions that a 2 year old could answer at an extremely slow pace. This show lasts for 2 hours and they probably only play about 10 games in that period. People may like this show because the hosts are eye candy, but they're hotness completely is destroyed by the fact that they are so friggin annoying.

During the show they mention that we need more players a million times. The top 5 surveys that they do probably takes about 20 minutes out of the show. This show is probably one of the worst game shows ever made. One of the reasons they probably don't have callers is because the show is so cheap with the money. The most money I've ever seen them hand out was $210. I wouldn't be surprised if this "game show" is canceled by the end of 2006.


The female hot numbers on this show are breathtaking. They can also talk like there's no tomorrow. Otherwise, this show would go into the toilet quickly. How much money do they make on all the people who text in, with that hope to be called back to win, $100.oo, or whatever. Boy, now that's a scam!!! Can I buy stocks in this money maker??? Let's face it, with the technology of now, thousands of people could be calling every minute. And, with ten thousand channels and nothing worth a crap on, thousands of people watch this show. "Oh, I know this answer!", is probably a super common line among the listeners. With these super hotties constantly saying the 'lounge' needs callers, I think it's a bunch of B.S. Frequently, someone who does get through, sounds amazed that they're actually talking to the host. Many of them sound depressed and worn out by probably waiting so long and trying so many times to get on and score some pocket change. Wow, the producers must be just raking it in. No wonder there are so few commercials. Commercials are only on to give time for more (primarily losers) to text in and wait, and hope, and dream, and fantasize about--- what? --- winning enough money for a tank of gas and a dinner at Mc..something? I only watch it now & then on my brothers TV, because he likes to watch it when he's on the computer. I'll sit there for 15 to 20 minutes and look at Mel (one of the tastiest looking women on TV) and laugh at the scam that's in front of me. Then, I have to leave; even if I don't! People who have an active life, can only take this show in extreme moderation. Mel, get yourself into the movies, or TV sitcoms, or something. Many of us are infatuated with you! Even with the super cu-ties, I'm amazed this show is still on!


This show can most accurately be described as TV Bubble-Gum: It's chewing, it has a good taste to it, and it lasts a long time. But, like Bubble-Gum, it can leave a bad taste in your mouth after a few too many chews.

This show features very simple questions that take the form of simply games, like Hangman, guessing a simple phrase or guessing items on a short list. Callers are the contestants, and anybody can play.

The questions, though, are terribly easy. There's some techno music pumped into the background that's fashioned into a continuous loop. It never seems to get old, but it never adds much to the show anyway. The hostess, however, regardless of which one that it, is extremely personable, pleasant enough to watch and can make some very amusing facial expressions. I rather enjoy that British woman.

But there's nothing to this show. It's simplistic and uncompelling, although it can be entertaining if absolutely nothing else is on.


First, a warning. 'How to Marry a Millionaire' comes prefaced by an apparently random five minute orchestral performance of 'Street Scene', a Gershwin-lite piece treated with the full pomp and ceremony of, well, Gershwin. Sitting through it takes some patience. If you have the DVD, rest assured, you can skip forward. You won't miss anything.

The film itself is one of the perpetual disappointments of 50's Hollywood, a movie so bolstered by major star-power, opulent mise-en-scene and perfect high-concept that failure seems inconceivable. The title alone is perfect. Generation after generation, however, are forced to ask themselves - how is this so limp? The script is an albatross about the production's neck, a dead, smelling thing that chokes everything and everyone before they can really spark to life. There are no comic situations, just isolated moments that play for laughs. Whenever an actual comedy scene threatens to develop, the movie quickly moves on to other, less interesting things. A case in point - the scene where the three leading ladies each bring a date to the same fancy restaurant. One of them, short-sighted, refuses to wear her spectacles out of vanity. One of the dates is married. A classic Hollywood farce set-up, surely, complete with mistaken identity, angry wife, and probably a pie in the face for somebody? Well, no. Instead, we cut between the three dates as the ladies react 'comically' to things their partners say. Hit the punchline, and cut to the next limp joke. If in doubt, have Marilyn walk into a wall. Where's Billy Wilder when you need him?

The three stars are almost a perfect diagram of the life cycle of the classic Hollywood screen goddess. This was one of Marilyn Monroe's breakout films, and the camera just eats her up, even though the script gives her nothing to do. She's so luminescent she almost seems newly hatched. Lauren Bacall, on the other hand, had been a major star for nearly a full decade, and she knows how to dominate the screen even when in frame with Monroe. She gets the only thing passing for a real role, and delivers the few good lines with a cynical snap - given the right material, she could have brought this thing to life. She's a curiously ageless actress - when she lies about her age in the film and claims to be forty, it isn't instantly ridiculous - and far less girlish than her co-stars, giving her a convincing authority. Betty Grable was far from ageless, and had a good eight years on her co-stars, putting her near the end of her Hollywood career. There's an air of desperation about her at times, stranded on screen with nothing but a toothpaste smile and a few scraps of comic timing, unable to play her real age but fooling no-one as a contemporary of this new, sharper generation of actresses, relying on the same old schtick that had served her throughout her career (for Marilyn-doubters, seeing the two juxtaposed in this movie helps to throw Monroe's subtlety and - yes - intelligence into sharp relief). She's also lumbered with the dead wood in terms of male co-stars (although all of the men - even the great William Powell - are guilty of lazy performances); she's unable to strike any comic sparks off them. Better to have given her role to the under-utilised Monroe, who could be funny all by herself, and left Grable with the repetitive Mr. Magoo routine.

That the movie is as enjoyable as it is can be put down to the luscious Hollywood production, the sort that renders even the twee likes of 'By the Light of the Silvery Moon' watchable. But somewhere, buried beneath the flabby jokes and professionalism, lies the rough outline of a sharp, cynical comedy about the business of marriage that Bacall could have made sing - and new generations of movie viewers will sit down with 'How to Marry a Millionaire' in expectation of that movie, ready to be disappointed all over again.


Maybe in its day this movie was special. But five decades later it seems quaint, just another cinematic relic of the dreadful 1950s. Stereotypes abound in this fluffy story about three female gold diggers who set up shop in a Manhattan penthouse, in an effort to attract wealthy husbands.

I don't mind the shallow theme. But the film's premise is lame. And the execution is worse. It's a romantic comedy, but I found little to laugh at. The plot point about an extremely nearsighted bimbo is about the only clever element of the story. Overall dialogue is flat, and so too is the delivery. And the script structure is disconcerting. The plot keeps jumping back and forth among the three ladies. It's as if the writer couldn't quite blend the ensemble roles. The result is a plot that seems choppy.

Marilyn Monroe was a good choice for her role. But Lauren Bacall was too old for the role she played. And Betty Grable, with her squeaky voice and awful hairdo, was just plain annoying.

Color cinematography is conventional. But there were lots of shots using rear screen projection, contributing to a dated look. The visuals are made even worse by costumes that reek of cheesy 1950's "glamour"; they are just awful. Viewers must endure a fashion show, a plot point that amplifies how the film's director was smitten by those trashy glad rags.

And then there is that orchestra. In what is arguably the worst film opening in cinema history, the first part of the film has an orchestra playing some dreary-sounding tune. At first, I thought I was watching the introduction to coming attractions. But no, it's actually part of the film. And the orchestra plays on, and on, and on. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, whatever to do with the story. What were they thinking?

I enjoyed Marilyn Monroe, with her breathy voice, as she bimbos her way through the plot. But the film would have been far better if they had dumped the other two ensemble roles, dumped that orchestra, enhanced the comedy dialogue, and downplayed those gaudy, cheesy costumes.


The premise of the movie had much going for it, however, despite the novelty of models selling off someone else's furniture to live the high life, this movie has nothing going for it. The characters are cardboard. The dialog is so painfully scripted, it's hard to sit through, and if there were any jokes in the movie, I missed them. Marilyn Monroe's walking into walls because she doesn't want to wear glasses is completely unbelievable & not funny. Grable's stupidity is also too ham-fisted to be believed. Bacall's gold-digging is so forced, it's annoying to listen to. Why anyone would want to sit through this is beyond me.


This two and a half hour long film was shown recently at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) at a 10 PM show. There was a scheduled 1 AM show after that, but wondered if anyone was going to stay awake to see that until 3:30 am. The opening scene is of a man walking in a field, and it lasts four minutes of movie time. It is an ominous sign of what's to come: a good 144 minutes more of pretty much the same. There is a scene of a man and a woman against a wall, standing in the sun. It is repeated 15 times, with very sparse dialogue. Occasionally, these very long slow sequences are interrupted by shocking stills, such as a close up of female genitalia, shown for one full minute of film time (audience crowd laughing in the last 20 seconds, as to say, "what's the message?"). The story resembles Dostoyevsky's novel "The Karamazov brothers", in which a cretin falls in love with a woman of easy morals. In one of the rare instants in which the crowd was laughing (more in desperation to try to justify having been there already a full two hours to see nothing happening) was when the statement by a british tourist that he couldn't see things clearly since the Eurostar train was traveling at 180 miles an hour, was translated by the translator with automatic switch of units of measure from English System to Metric system to "they couldn't see things clearly since the train was traveling at 300 kilometers per hour". What was amazing about this movie is that the quality of cinematography reveals that alot of money has been spent on it. This was no film kitchen 8-mm experiment. It was carefully planned, structured, acted, montaged. Yet, I got so little out of it. Some comments indictated on the excruciating detail, such as the minutae of a dandling key chain on a door just opened. Okay, it was noted, but what was the purpose? Some corageous people in the audience walked away after the first hour. The rest remained out of curiosity: there must be something happening at the end. There never was. And maybe that's what the film is about. All the movies at the theater are action-packed. This one wants to be different. There is nothing happening.


The director infuses this film with false depth by repeating a gimmick throughout the film. EVERY single shot in this movie is 3 times longer than it needs to be. You could easily cut out 1.5 hours of this agonizingly long 2.5 hour film without eliminating: one word of dialogue, one image, one event, or bit of movement.

This was one of the most gratuitous wastes of film I have ever seen. Other reviewers have called it pretentious, which is an understatement. L'Humanite is pseudo-intellectual trash designed to be anti-Hollywood so that the Cannes judges could assert their independence from the Oscars.

The IMDb reviewer states: "Unlike Hollywood movies - which usually force the audience into overdrive - this forces the audience to slow down and look at some of life's tiniest and most mundane features in great detail." You would have to be catatonic to stare at some of these images this long and move as slowly at these characters. This isn't real life unless you are heavily medicated.

Finally, I felt that Schotté's portrayal was a sad rip-off of Peter Sellers' masterful "Chauncy Gardner." He uses the same facial expressions and postures. He even gardens! In many respects there are parallels between these two movies. The main difference being that "Being There" moves along and doesn't rely on shock and gimmicks to create a meaningful experience while questioning various things we take for granted in life.


European films may be slower-paced and less plot driven than American films, but this takes it way too far. It also show a whole bunch of incompletely drawn characters doing inexplicable things. It's not fantasy, it's not even surreal, it's just awkward and bad.

What's the message here? That people in France are pensive and gaze morosely a lot? That they like to watch other people having sex? They they spontaneously scream or touch a stranger on his neck? Do not wear a watch when seeing this film, as you will be astonished at how little is explained or learned over huge stretches of time.

This is the story of a "police superintendent" who is deeply troubled by the brutal murder of a little girl, though actually he seems troubled before then. He is not merely upset at his own personal tragedies, but apparently mentally quite slow, behaving very much like a learning-disabled six-year old child. He stares blankly a lot, walks with arms rigid like a little kid, speaks in meek, simpering, tones, behaves quite oddly in all of his interactions (though no one seems to notice or care, even when it is supposed to be police business). He's not a troubled cop, more of an outpatient. Picture Andy Kaufman's Latka character on Taxi, but without the humor. He is not only not believable as a policeman he is not believable as an adult. That he won an award for this interpretation of his character is truly amazing -- unless he was playing the part exactly as written and the fault lies with the weirdos who scripted this thing. The plot is clearly secondary. Do not expect to see anything remotely like what police would do if a little girl was found murdered. This not that important, though the implausibility of their behavior is sort of insulting. The problem is that the rest of the film makes no sense either. That leaves the long lingering close-ups of fields, vegetable gardens, people's faces etc. The ending struck me as especially ridiculous -- totally unsupported by the events leading up to it -- unless you think, "What's the worst way this film could end?"

There is lots of sex and nudity, which is supposed to mean something. You want vaginas? You'll see vaginas. Not to worry, it's art. It has deep meaning, what I am not sure. And the protagonist, despite his innocent weirdness, seems to have some sort of homoerotic neck or jowl fetish.

Finally, the subtitles are in white and frequently appear on a white background -- very hard to read many of them. On the other hand, there isn't much dialogue, so this isn't a big problem. There is also very little sound -- not even ambient sounds you would expect to hear -- in the film, contributing to the emptiness of the whole experience. The old Woody Allen would have had a field day parodying this work.

That this is an award-winning film is sad. I would hate to see the losing films.

Enjoy.


I saw this film at the Edinburgh Film Festival, and would not recommend it. It is two and a half hours long, during which nothing much happens at a wading-through-porridge pace.

The main characters are gormless and totally lacking in charisma or personality. No-one smiles at all during the film (neither would I if I had their lives), and although Domino seems to have a healthy sexual appetite she doesn't seem to enjoy sex at all.

The whole experience is depressing and ponderous, the director lingering over each scene in a way that drove me crazy rather than striking me with the beauty of his technique.

Too many questions were left in my mind: why does he sniff the Algerian man's head? Why does he levitate? What is he looking at over the allotment fence? Why does he kiss Joseph? Why did we go and see this rubbish rather than ordering another bottle of wine in Bouzy Rouge?


A trio sit at a restaurant table and stare wordlessly into space. Later, they lean on a rail and stare across the Channel at England. A man works a hoe repetitively in his garden, only his head and upper torso visible on the screen. A man and a woman watch another man peeing against a stone wall. Each of these silent shots lasts for roughly one full minute. Absolutely no information is imparted that could not be given to us in about one quarter of the time. The editor must have been half asleep. I know I was.

The movie open with a startling shot of the raw vagina of an obviously dead body. One's gorge rises. But then the policeman (Schotte) exchanges a few words with a neighboring couple and begins to tag along after them and the case is forgotten for the next half hour while Schotte and his friends trade unfunny insults with each other and with strangers. Eventually the thread of the case is picked up again but proceeds slowly, almost aimlessly, following the stylistic pattern already established.

Sometimes in movies like this, the location shooting provides a kind of atmosphere that compensates for the dullness of the story, but not here. The houses of the French village are attached to one another in long rows. The house fronts abut the pavement directly, with no steps. The fronts show virtually no decoration and are pretty much indistinguishable. The flat farmlands are featureless. What might have been one of the more interesting episodes -- a visit to a stone fort on the coast -- bores the trio until they begin behaving like snots and are asked to leave.

The acting is minimal. Nobody seems particularly anxious to say anything. No jokes are made. Nothing amusing happens. The policeman has a face almost as interesting as Randy Quaid's. The babe, a tall hefty blonde, looks like the kind of shot putter on steroids that the East Germans used to field at the Olympic Games.

I sat through more than an hour of it before giving it up. Maybe I'll take a crack at it some other time. Unless I've missed something or unless it turns into some deranged Monty Python routine towards the end, I don't think you'll get much out of renting it.


The main character, Pharaon, has suffered a loss of his wife and child in the pre-film past. He deals with with by just shutting down emotionally. Too long a movie, too much time spent on Pharaon's inexpressive face, too much "road time" (one of the banes of TV: filling time with moving cars, trains, etc.) Long scenes of him doing trivial - sometimes totally inexplicable, nonsensically trivial - actions with neither reason or emotion. His best friends Joseph and Domino are not much more, their relationship based on sex (this film perhaps gives new meaning to the phrase "gratuitous sex"); Domino and Pharaon's mother are the two characters who display some emotion, but not much. It is hard to tell with all the characters in this movie: is it indifferent acting, indifferent writing, or simply indifferent characters portrayed by good writing and good acting. Characters in this film talk very little to anyone; it's little wonder their emotionally isolated, which is all the more bizarre because it's clear they live in a neighborhood where the people are friendly and know each other.


I can't remember when was the last time I have been so terribly disappointed by any movie. Probably I expected too much happening (in a way you can expect action in dogma style movies of course). But there is just nothing going on in here. Luckily I was watching it at home and could switch channels whenever the silence and dumb/numb faces started to kill me. And that was very often! It really isn't too much of a pleasure watching ugly people who don't talk and move slowly, stroke pigs and french kiss men, not to mention ugly bodies having explicit sex. If only it made any sense... the whole murder situation is ridiculous; seems like it was only created to show one more vagina since zero characters are capable of actually solving the crime. Having only four pseudo developed characters and a movie going nowhere it is pretty soon obvious whom the director picked as a killer. And that makes no sence either. Despite all the boredom and suffering I must admit that it somehow touched me in an unexplainable way. Maybe you should check it out yourself though I don't recommend it.


Just had the misfortune to see this truly awful film.

Think of that scene in Magnolia at the end with the slow pan in on that woman. Now, remove the pan, add breathing and unshaven men to the mix, and you have what the entire 2 and a half hours of Humanity was

The Inspector is a true dolt, not even a dolt, just a dim witted, slow moving simpleton. How they ever solved a crime is beyond me.

Obligatory sex scenes are awful, and gratitious.

Eventual villain of the piece (he raped and killed an 11 year old girl) is signposted very early and no surprise unless your are similarly dimwitted.

Uninspiring camera work.

The director was there saying that it is up to the audience to provide their own interpretation on the proceedings. I assume he also meant provide their own dialogue (there is bugger all - adding to its boredom level), inventive camera work (just static shots, totally stripping away the obvious beauty of the landscape the film is being shot in) and plot!

Truly awful.

0 out of 10.


This French film is supposedly about a creepy, dim-witted cop who investigates the rape and murder of a young girl in a small town. However, the film is really about nothing and it takes forever to say nothing. If it takes a character ten minutes to walk from Point A to Point B, the film spends ten minutes showing this walk, and these are the "action" scenes. There are also static shots that last for minutes, making the viewer wonder if he accidentally hit the pause button on the remote. The script has enough material for a 20-minute movie. The movie lasts seven hours or so. You do the math. The actors were apparently amateurs and it shows. Note to self: never see a Dumont movie again.


Although this movie has a slow, dream-like, almost mesmerizing pace, and an interesting, though possibly not entirely accurate, description of a rural French constabulary's criminal investigation practices and personnel, I find it, ultimately, impossible to recommend. I think this movie is simply a setup piece to advance one person's -- the director's, one presumes -- disgust with heterosexuality. Certainly, human sexuality in all its forms can have their revolting moments, no denying that! But to choose the bad uniformly at the expense of the good, as this film does at every turn, suggests a warped sensibility at work. In short, if you enjoy watching homo-eroticism masquerading as compassion, and the depiction of heterosexual lovemaking and the female form in a hideous and degrading light - then this movie is for you. I don't , and it wasn't.


L'Humanité is a murder mystery. These movies tend to be popular,

and the 6.9 rating it currently has suggests that it has been, too.

Unfortunately, this movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

A few non-spoilers, for instance, include a 5-minute scene

wherein the main character eats an apple. And another 3 minutes

where he breathes.

In case you were wondering, this is not, in fact, art. Neither is it a

commentary on humanity, which from the title it seems it is trying

to be. It is, in fact, boring. There are numerous attempts in this

movie to say something about humanity. One might think to

onesself, "How would I comment on humanity?" And the most

obvious and boring answers will of course be sex, love, and death.

Not that these options are uninteresting when done well - just that

they are the canonical options. For sex, this movie does its best to

make it unattractive and disgusting. In your first five minutes -

hence this is not a spoiler - you will see the bloodied vagina of a

murdered 11-year-old girl; it's a murder mystery, remember? Later

on, a few people throw themselves at each other and have what

the director would like us to believe is "raw" sex, but in reality it's

contrived and overly symbolic - but worse yet, uninterestingly so.

I enjoy being disturbed by movies. This movie showed me why:

Disturbing movies usually show something inside of someone,

their humanity, which they did not know existed and are a bit

scared of. L'Humanité tried to do just this and failed, and I walked

out of the theatre not disturbed, but disgusted, thinking that I had

wasted my time in the theater, despite having seen the movie for

free.


I think the cards were stacked against Webmaster, because right from the start there was this itchy feeling, like something was wrong but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Then it hit me. Dubbed. For a little while, they managed most of the lines either as voice over or off screen, with just a little hint here and there, until it became painfully obvious. This is the kind of dubbing that grates on the nerves, with nothing even remotely funny about it. I hate dubbing, but at least, however misplaced, martial arts films badly dubbed tend to have a sense of humour about it.

What I wanted was a film about a hacker doing actual hacking and stuff like that. Maybe like a reverse side of the table of the movie Hackers (being about the person trying to keep them out instead about the people trying to get in). What I got was some poorly written, nonsensical at times murder mystery with a ton of bad chase sequences, a supposedly inept hacker who was neutered without his little ego, and a director who obviously didn't know how to handle a camera. I just wanted to reach in there, grab the camera from the guy, and shoot the dang thing myself. The editing wasn't much better. The acting? Well, I guess if the lead guy didn't have such a bad script to work from, he'd be at least watchable. The main bad guy was OK, too, but pretty much everyone else was a joke. Dubbing didn't help, but the acting was pretty bad even taking that into consideration.

Before I get into more bad, let's perk up to a few good things. Well, one or two. Despite the rudimentary graphics, I rather enjoyed the cyberworld stuff, what little there was of it, and would have much rather watched a movie mostly about, in, and around that than the tepid surroundings outside in the 'real world'. The falsifying thumbprint thing seemed kind of cool, but ended up being rather useless in the scheme of things. The heart gadget, which reminded me of Guillermo Del Toro's Cronos, was interesting, though as a plot device ripped directly from the pages of Escape from New York, it was horribly conceived in the long run. There's one point where the bad guy is unconscious and our hero is right there. Why didn't he try the bad guy's thumb print then (since the heart device was thumb activated)? Nonetheless, some interesting gadgets and cyber stuff, if only they could have been utilized better.

Now, who here dares compare this movie to Blade Runner? Both films take place sometime in the future and there's some kind of off kilter type of romance in it, sort of, in both films. There's the investigation of a murder, but I've seen many a film with a murder at its center that are nothing like either Blade Runner or Webmaster. Identity, for instance. That's about where the similarities end. Period. There is no comparison, just as there wouldn't be between Blade Runner and Hackers. Ridley Scott is a brilliant director with a great mind for art direction and knows some fundamentals of film-making, like where to put the camera. Webmaster is cheap, and not just because of the budget. It's cheap because of bad writing, and because it more often than not takes the easy way out (like writing in a character who barely appeared in the first place to save the girl in the end to get her to Point B by herself without the Hero, so that he could do his thing. Very convenient. Or, the attempted sympathy factor for a character we have no reason to care for. Or, inane things like the car set up to stall them just enough for someone to get away.).

It tries to be hip, it tries to be exploitive, it even tries a twist ending that's not the least bit surprising, and it tries to be thrilling. But a bunch of near identical chase sequences, bad writing, editing, horribly shot, bad acting, etc. does not a thrilling movie make.


A desperate attempt to make a "film-noir" sci-fi thriller, but the movie falls short. It has no believable plot, some of the key actors were a joke (NOT Lars Bom, he is cool!). I did like the "access restriction by bandwith maximizing" though. I finished it on principle, but went home with the feeling of having lost two hours of my life...


The only thing romantic about this movie is the pain and anguish of romance. If you are expecting this cinematic adaptation of another Nicholas Sparks novel to follow the surefire formula of previous films, such as "Message in a Bottle," "Nights at Rodanthe," and "A Walk to Remember," think again. Nobody dies from an accident trying to save somebody else and the romance here doesn't transform these characters. If anything, it makes them even more miserable than they were.

A soft-spoken Special Forces Army Sergeant, John Tyree (Channing Tatum of "G.I. Joe"), has a memorable two-week fling while on leave from the military with an impressionable college girl, Savannah Curtis (radiant Amanda Seyfriend of "Mamma Mia"), who is spending spring break in South Carolina. Savannah doesn't drink, smoke, but she tells John that her head is filled with profanity. Inevitably, John and Savannah topple madly in love with each other and launch an endless exchange letters of love letters that are sleep-inducing by any standard. Tyree is off in the world serving the military in some godforsaken corner of the globe while she is away at college perusing his letters in class. Just as they are getting hot and heavy between them, suicidal terrorists crash planes into the World Trade Center. John reenlists along with his buddies in a wave of patriotism without discussing the option with Savannah.

Meanwhile, another guy, shaggy but likable family friend Tim (Henry Thomas of "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial") who has a motherless, autistic child named Alan becomes the object of Savannah's sentiment. She is the kind of girl who helps build houses for the less fortunate and wants to start a summer horse ranch for autistic children. She delays what seems forever before she finally contacts Tyree with the eponymous letter. Indeed, she dumps him for a man with a disease! Later, she confesses to John that she knew the sound of his voice would have broken her resolve to marry Tim, so she doesn't make that fateful call. Predictably, John agonizes over Savannah's lack of communication. During a routine mission, our hero takes a couple of terrorist bullets in the back and winds up in Germany. While all this is transpiring, Tyree is trying to come to terms with his own coin-collecting father, Mr. Tyree (Richard Jenkins of "Step Brothers"), who suffers from Asperger's Syndrome. It seems that his father is on his last legs after John gets out of the hospital. The lead female character lacks a shred of respect and her betrayal of Tyree amounts to a pretty low blow. Tyree, his father, and Tyree's commander, Keith Robinson, are the only sympathetic characters in this long distance epistolary romance.

"Dear John" gives new meaning to lethargic love stories. Yuck!


I had high hopes when I went into the theatre-- having seen the trailer I was as hyped as the next person to see great talent participate in the making of a story with a beautiful premise.

However, it's disappointing to see this talent laid waste by the poor composition of songs-the words are chunky and cheesy, probably because it was composed with a more western theme. I wouldn't find it difficult to imagine the same melodies with French or English lyrics. In Mandarin, they just sound strange.

The musical items were also cut together badly-- far too quickly to be enjoyable, and the shots of the actors looking anguished lasted far too long.

The special effects are the next disappointment. Suffice it to say, it is highly obvious where the special effects start and stop.

It's not Moulin Rouge, and it's not In the Mood either, inspite of the occasional (and very similar) slow waltz theme. Altogether, and hour too long to tell a simple story.


I was truly looking forward to this title. It sounded and looked fun. The idea of someone making a cheesy 50s monster movie could have been worth a few laughs, but instead this title only bores. First off, there is almost no Froggg in the entire movie which is the biggest disappointment. I have to sit through 75+ minutes of lame drama and dialog to get a few glimpses of the Froggg humping a bare breasted chick. Why? On top of that the film lacks any sort of fun plot. I mean give me something thats a bit more interesting than just a bunch of talking heads. I wanted to see some hot chicks search for the creature in the swamp, I wanted to see some cuties dragged off to his lair in desperate need of rescue (Creature from the Black Lagoon stuff), I wanted to see a few goofy action scenes of the Froggg going on a killing spree, or it maybe escaping a silly trap. Something exciting! Geez, have fun with it, be creative! Who wants to sit through endless and tiring dialog scenes in a creature flick? My advice to the filmmakers: Keep going, your concepts are good, but your execution needs to be a lot more inspired. Have some fun with the creature, put the humor in the action and most important...put more creature in a creature movie!!!


Talk about your wild life. Barely a B-movie, but what the hay...corny Sci-Fi and lesbian sex. From the mind of writer and director Cody Jarrett, a cheesy slice of fun. A chemical company is dumping waste that is causing mutants in a fish farm. The hot Kristi Russell stars as Dr. Barbara Michaels, an EPA agent sent to investigate this environmental dilemma. She just happens to enter a lesbian relationship with bartender Trixie(Ariadne Shaffer)and their love scenes are about as good as this film gets. A man-size frog incites chaos; causing a car crash, raping the chemical company boss's daughter, raping a girl under the bleachers at a football game, stiff-arm tackling a runner in the football game, raping a nun...all before being shot twice in the chest after an antidote was found all ready. The special effects...well, not special; a guy in a rubber frog costume without the genitalia to prove himself. Tough tadpoles, do you still want to watch it? Go ahead, but bribe any witness to secrecy.


This was one of the worst films I can remember seeing. I am sure I have seen worse, though, if that mitigates me slamming it.

The humor isn't funny, there are stupid stereotype jokes that, again, aren't funny. I was a captive audience on a plane and viewed this film. It was a complete waste of time. I enjoyed Martin in earlier films, but not this one. Same for Queen Latifah, she was excellent in Chicago and in Set it Off she was good too, but this role was horrid.

I mostly credit the failure to the bad writing of the script. I feel strongly you can't save a formulaic, unfunny script with decent actors, this movie as a case in point. Still, all involved should have been wise enough to not participate in this film. I am just amazed that something so bad can get greenlighted, made, released theatrically, and promoted.


Steve Martin looks like he's had a face lift. Something very strange about his face. I usually like anything Steve does, but this movie comes off as trashy not funny. Didn't think Charlene encouraging him to be rough with his wife was a good message to be sending out to teens watching this film.


Hollywood will stop at nothing to make money on a film even if they have to keep dragging out stereotypes and putting them in the most impossible and stupid situations. This effort is a clear example of that and I really do believe in my heart that a film like this is racially irresponsible. Story is about a divorced lawyer named Peter Sanderson (Steve Martin) who has been chatting with a lady on his computer and when he finally meets her she turns out to be the opposite of what he was expecting. Charlene Morton (Queen Latifah) is a stocky black woman who has no intentions of dating Peter but instead wants him to look at her case where she was convicted of robbery. He wants her to leave for good but she keeps popping up at inappropriate times and to save his job he reluctantly agrees to look at the facts involving her case.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Peter has his kids staying with him and Charlene turns out to be helpful in raising them but suddenly a news bulletin announces that an escaped convict named Charlene Morton has broken out of prison. Peter tells her to leave when the FBI comes snooping around but he figures out that she is in fact innocent when her old boyfriend shows up and threatens him.

This film is directed by Adam Shankman who keeps things moving at a nice pace and it is a good looking film technically speaking but the script is just so improbable and every character is a stereotype to the point that a 1970 film called "The Landlord" is clearly more in tune with race relations than this mess. I have always been a big fan of Martin and I think he's one of the most talented persons around but he loves to work constantly and at times just seems to pick any script handed to him. On the other hand, I've always had a problem with Latifah and the way she barges into the life of Martin is so over the top that she instantly becomes ingratiating. Basic premise that Hollywood loves to use is the hip black person showing uptight whitey to loosen up and then pass on some street logic that will help them with their lives. That's basically what the story is here but of course they have to let Martin dress black and overact like a retarded Eminem because Hollywood knows that this is what viewers want. Well, I was pretty much insulted by everything in this film and it's not because I don't have a sense of humor but unfortunately (For Hollywood, anyway) I use logic and common sense when I watch a film. Yes, I enjoyed Eugene Levy's talking jive but are we really suppose to believe that he would be instantly attracted to Latifah? I guess weirder things have happened and how many times does a main actor get shot only to be saved by something in their pocket? Wouldn't a cell phone shatter if struck by a bullet? Even if your the most die hard Martin and Latifah fan I wouldn't recommend this. I know I've said this before but this isn't an attempt to make a good film, it's an excuse to try and make money!


4 out of 10.

This film was neither funny as a whole nor was it even worthing investing any kind of emotion into the characters. Eugene Levy is probably the most funny.... The rest of the cast do their jobs, but the story never really gets very deep and there are a lot of holes in the plot that never get filled. This just wasn't very much fun, despite being funny at times.


Steve Martin has always had my respect for being a very funny comedian and a pretty good actor, and I loved "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" and "Bowfinger" --- but "Bringing Down the House" definately isn't one of Martin's funniest works, and it doesn't even seem as if it's trying to be, which is just plain sad...

I don't know; maybe I didn't like this movie because of the fact that I rented it along with "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" and "Phone Booth", both of which are excellent films, or maybe it's because I'm used to so much better from Martin, or maybe it's just because I'm in a frickin' bad mood today...Regardless, this film just wasn't very funny or entertaining, and I never managed more than a smile or a weak chuckle at the film's gags, which is really a shame, since the previews of this comedy were SO promising! I was expecting "Bringing Down the House" to be an all-out comedy bash, and I certainly expected more slapstick comedy and inter-racial laughs from Martin. Instead, we're 'treated' to seeing Queen Latifah jiggle all over the screen, trying to do her best with her totally uninspired character. The funniest thing in this clunker is Eugene Levy, but even he doesn't get the screen-time he deserves.

I would've really liked to enjoy "Bringing Down the House", but I didn't and I'd find it very difficult to recommend it to anyone but the most die-hard Steve Martin fans. Skip this one and rent "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" instead...

You'll have a much better time.


C'mon, let's put aside the sophomoric humor that we can find in racism and be honest...it isn't funny. I was appalled at the fact that the two main stars would agree to do a film that was so offensive and so detrimental to race relations, and I'm not referring to the obvious black/white commentary in the movie, but to the slams towards other ethnicities, such as Betty White's characterizations of the hispanics. Should we just chalk up her agreeing to do this movie as a sign of senility...is she too old to distinguish comedy from stereotypical trash? Or is it the fault of the writers? How about the third assistant makeup person??? Nope, the fault is with us for perpetuating this kind of crap (in the guise of comedy), that hollywood will continue to feed us until we have the decency to say enough is enough...racism is for real and it isn't a laughing matter. We're all different, let's celebrate that diversity, not poke fun at it and promote divisiveness.


(very serious spoilers)

this movie was a huge disappointment. there are so many problems i dont know where to start. so, i'll talk about what is good about the film.

the cast was great. steve martin delivers a really funny performance of a middle-aged, upper class, uptight white guy. queen latifah plays a big, beautiful, urban, black gal. and eugene levy, well he pretty much plays himself. add betty white and jean smart and you have a great cast - everyone played their parts really well. and if watching these guys for 1.75 hours is worth $8 to you, then you wont be disappointed.

but the movie makes a lot of serious mistakes. first of all, there are enough racial stereotypes and racial jokes to offend everyone. all the white people are uptight bigots. all the black people are ghetto ebonics-speakers. the blacks are hip, cool, with-it and poor. the whites are nerds, stiff, and rich. (except eugene levy, he is clearly taken with queen latifa and "speaks the lingo" - so latifa nicknames him a "freak". so - if you're a white man and you like black women and you know street slang you must be a freak). the movie is littered with overt racial slurs towards the black cast members and in return the whites are depicted as morons and boobs.

putting the race card aside, lets look at the major flaw in the film: they destroy latifa's character. she comes to martin's home under false pretense, but martin takes a liking to her anyway. she's supposed to be wrongly accused of robbery, martin takes up her cause. 3/4 of the way through the film we find out latifa's character escaped from jail. so, our sympathy for her goes out the window.

there is no real plot. the movie plods along from scene to scene with latifa showing up in some place where she's "not" supposed to be (like a country club or martin's house) and martin trying to hide her. thats the running gag. then in the last minutes of the film they decide that they're going to finally deal with latifa's assertion that she was wrongly accused of bank robbery. martin goes under cover as a homeboy to extract a (let's face it, unusable) confession from latifa's ex boyfriend, and everyone lives happily ever after.

finally (but there is a lot more wrong with this flick) this movie appears to be a hodge-podge of clips from other movies. the premise is clearly borrowed from another martin movie "the house-sitter". where goldie hawn comes to live with martin and shakes up his stodgy middle-class life. martin and latifa meet online - ala "youve got mail". the whole "quirky nanny fixes rich man's life" goes as far back as "the sound of music" and "mary poppins".

i wouldnt see this movie again for free.


The previews were so funny that I couldn't wait to see this movie. I just got home and I have to say I couldn't have been more embarrassed at this movie. Yes there were times where the jokes were funny, but the stereotypical roles were painful. Joan Plowright is a fine actress but the scene with the "negro spiritual" was just in poor taste. Needless to say the laughs were few and far between in the movie house for a largely white crowd (I was one of a very small handful of blacks).


Being a long-time Steve Martin fan, it hurt to see him in a movie with such a cliched script. The screenwriter must have just rented some videos and taken a piece here and a piece there - it certainly is about the least imaginative movie I've seen in a long time - I knew exactly what was going to happen in each scene as soon as it began. The African-American stereotypes and slave references are pretty offensive as well. But the thing that was the worst for me was to see Martin in a movie without a trace of wit. He probably is one of the most intelligent actors and here he totally sold out to a totally dumbed down script. He must be behind in his alimony to be in such a lame effort.


After seeing the previews awhile back, I looked forward to seeing Steve Martin in a comedy that I thought might be a keeper. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Problem was, the previews were the only funny parts to the movie. The rest of the movie was pretty much a bunch of junk, scenes that have been done to death and characters we've all seen a thousand times.

This movie was proof positive that if you put enough cash on the table, you can talk anybody into anything. Steve Martin is a favorite of mine but this one was a big clunker. The only actor in the movie who was worth watching was Eugene Levy; he was the best of a mighty lame group.