Why is it that virtual "x-rated video game" women can speak through their mouths but virtual fighting game champion Dante has to use a combination of telepathy and over dramatic facial expressions? I feel that either they needed to cast someone who looked more villain-like (Michael Bermardo's big brown doe eyes don't exactly strike fear in the hearts of well.. anyone except for maybe casting directors who consistently cast him as either a villain or a heroic 'bad boy'.) OR they needed to just let him use his real voice (and move his mouth), and maybe give him a costume that would not make him stick out like a sore thumb when walking down the street. (but of course this is the future and we must assume that bad fashion taste is considered the norm.)


If movies where virtual reality characters come to life and they are all either male tough guys or female eye candy sounds good to you, then perhaps this movie may not be a total waste of film. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of people will find this to be an absolute bore, with little acting talent, and even less of a script. Yes, Athena Massey is nice to look at, but that is the only positive thing that I can say about this disaster.


I have watched this movie on and off since it started playing about 1 hour ago, and i have to say, thats an hour of my life i wasted and will not be getting back, The acting is crap and the scripts need a serious look at, and whoever wrote them needs to be slapped, perhaps the TV will explode and put me out of my misery..... The only good thing about this movie is that for guys and girls it has some good eye candy in it, though, most of which i wish would disappear, as far as the movie is concerned, the special effects as sh*t, Dante? who thinks a guy dressed in skin tight leather pants and half a leather jacket is scary, he looks more feminine than most of the women in this movie, the voice of Dante is pathetic, nobody finds it threatening or scary AT ALL..... please TV i beg you to blow up!!!!!!!!!!


This movie has got to be the worse movie i have ever seen. I only watched about a half an hour and i just shut it off. The cars in this movie look like two geo metro's front ends smashed together. This movie isn't even good for laughs. The only time i laughed was when Dante kept saying in funny voice, "Nobody can beat Dante, Muhwa hwaa." I said holy god and shut it off. Bad, Bad movie. 2/10


Don Wilson stars as a cop who enjoys the occasional virtual reality fighting game, however things go wrong when the people behind the game decide to take virtual reality to a new level by making real people from the video game, okay actually they make the cybersex models as prototype but the main bad guy from the video game awakens and starts killing people and now the only man who can beat the guy is Don Wilson, who in the mean time falls in love with the cybersex model. Actually with all things considered my biggest confusion was trying to understand if the people brought over from virtual reality land, were robots, human, cyborgs or just some type of unidentified computer program. It doesn't matter since this is all just an excuse to watch one of the worst actors ever butcher dialog as if he were running a deli. Don Wilson's complete lack of charisma is the film's biggest flaw since one just doesn't like the guy, he's too goody-goody, his voice is too high pitched and doesn't look very impressive in the action sequences. What saves this bore-fest from my lowest rating is Athenia Massey who looks super hot in high cut outfits and who gets occasionally naked. Also on-board is Loren Avedon (A good martial artist), Stella Stevens and Michael Dorn as the main voice of the bad guy but their efforts are in vain as they are all concealed by the very bad acting of Wilson. Another flaw which is the film's biggest mistake is a lack of action, as we are asked to watch the story unfold but aside from Massey's nudity and maybe some unintentional amusements due to laughably unconvincing acting, there really is nothing of interest. This also extends to the action sequences in which are flatly choreographed, badly directed and completely drained of all possible excitement. Making this virtually unwatchable.

* out of 4-(Bad)


First off, the initial concept of a lost fortune in gold bars discovered in a New Zealand lake, inside a downed World War 2 plane is a great opening. What follows is nothing but cartoon like drivel. Men chasing men, cars chasing men , helicopters chasing men, helicopters chasing boats, boats chasing boats, for the better part of an hour, the most boring nonsense, with absolutely no advancement to the story. Special mention must be made of the chop shop editing, as many scenes seem to have been spliced together in random order. The acting by all concerned is an embarrassment. One last thing, the picture quality and sound quality is so bad on this DVD that you will be appalled. - MERK


At the opposite end of the spectrum from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is David Hemmings' utterly inferior adventure regarding the salvage of a World War II-era plane with a valuable cargo. Assets include beautiful New Zealand settings, Brian May's energetic music score and some dandy helicopter flying and jet boat chases. The bad, however, far outweighs the good. Donald Pleasence hams as perhaps never before; half of his dialog is almost unintelligible. George Peppard attempts an Australian (I think) accent, then gives it up halfway through. Lesley Ann Warren is at her most irritating. Ken Wahl is, well, Ken Wahl. The dialog is painful to hear and Hemmings' direction is largely inept. The script is not only obvious but terrible. Jokes fall flat, scenes carry no punch and continuity is virtually non-existent. According to the end credits, two men were killed piloting jet boats during the making of the film. What a waste.


Yeah, I know his character was supposed to be a drunk, and he may have been just acting goofy. But something tells this critic that Mr. Pleasence really was drinking a lot and was intoxicated during his scenes in the film. Basically everything he says is slurred and often unintelligible. Or maybe it was just the poor productions values... hard to say.

Anyway, The Race for the Yankee Zephyr is a film that just doesn't work. That's a shame, too, since the film has a terrific opening and a generally interesting plot. Ultimitely the production values are just too low and the action just too sparse for this New Zealand adventure to deliver the goods. The story deals with a US war plane which is filled with gold, money, and medals, which crashes into a lake in New Zealand during WWII. The plane remains lost for about forty years or so until it somehow washes ashore and a drunk (Pleasence) literally stumbles onto it. At first he gathers up all the purple heart medals and tries to sell them in town, actually getting $75 apiece for them! Little does he know that once he sells them, the local jeweler gets on the phone and starts trying to track down info about the plane. Before you can blink, all of the attention brings a wealthy scumbag (Peppard) and his henchmen into town and they quickly try to force the old guy to give up the location of the plane since they know there is much more on it than just medals. The old drunk's business partner (Wahl) and his daughter (Warren) then race out to try and claim the fortune before the bad guys can get to it. The resulting action just isn't as fun as you'd hope it would be.

The acting is rather awful, save for Pleasence. George Peppard tries to do some kind of (I guess) Austrailian accent, but it is hardly convincing. Lesley Ann Warren isn't too bad, but Ken Wahl is really bad. He's basically doing his best impression of Michael Pare on his worst day. And that's saying something. Hopefully he made enough money on this film to fix his front teeth which looked a bit crooked. I don't recall if he'd had them straightened by the time he was in Wiseguy. The rest of the cast are pretty untalented. Probably mostly locals who never did much else. I guess the biggest problems for me were the lack of action for much of the film, and the lack of danger. The villains are just too nice and goofy to be taken seriously. And honestly, there are NO helicopters in the film that look like the ones on the DVD cover. And none of the boats in the film have teeth painted on them, either.

The film does have its strengths, though. The beginning which starts off as a newsreel and then becomes part of the story was a nice touch. Brian May's score sounds a little too much like the one in Mad Max 2, but he included a nice little march they play for Pleasence in some scenes. Sounds just like the one in the Great Escape! There are some neat helicopter stunts and a great boat chase that apparently killed three stunt men during filming. The scenery, despite the grainy look of the picture, is still quite beautiful. The thing you'll remember most is the drunken antics of Donald Pleasence, though. He was almost enough to save this film. Almost. 4 of 10 stars.

The Hound.


This movie was bad but it was so bad that it may reach cult status in the distant future. A sort of film-noir meets Plan 9 From Outer Space. The story was, well, there wasn't actually a story. There is a place reserved for the Ed Woods and Russ Meyers of the world and this film proves it. "So bad it might be good" is the best way to describe it. I seriously doubt if this movie will be picked up by any legitimate distribution company therefore it is unlikely to see wide release.

I will add that I expect to see more of actor Ron Carey. He made the best of what he had. The rest of the acting, if I can call it that, was quite forgettable. I have seen worse from big studios with vast budgets.


This movie wasted 2 hours of my time and just make me wanna scream: "LAME". Nicholas Stoller write the movie "Yes Man", but direct "this" maybe he should stick with writing.

I am so disappointed because I heard all the great review. I was expecting something like knocked up. They say this is from the maker of "Knocked up"? why can't I see the resemblance? but this just felt like a shallow, overdone-theme kind of movie for me. I am so disappointed. Actually it's not bad if you consider it as your-average-chick-movie, but that character of the "band guy" just get on my nerves

Maybe I was just not paying enough attention to the movie, but yeah they have some funny lines and scene, but i don't felt the originality. And the ending make the movie a little bit better. At least the ending is not some boring cliché one.


I gave this movie a chance only because it had very good reviews. After seeing the trailer I thought - what an unfunny movie full of clichés. But I decided to give it a shot because trailers often don't portray the movie very well. What a waste of time... The movie is worst than the trailer and after spending 2 hours watching it, I couldn't recall one single line that made me laugh. The funniest parts of the movie were the CSI parodies, but that also is pretty passé. I couldn't relate to any of the characters nor hope that they will be together, because I found them utterly stupid. The plot is extremely predictable and inconclusive. Unintelligent comedy for people who are either still in high school or feel that way mentally.


I endured this film just to satisfy my curiosity. It has to be one of the worst films I have ever sat through. I am amazed that this film currently has a 7.5 star rating. The acting is awful, script is non existent and the characters are so predictable and hollow. For a funny film I cannot remember even snickering once and fail to see how it could be defined as a comedy. Do yourself a favour and stay well away from this dross and check out some more worthy alternatives that would give you far greater pleasure. Check out films like the holiday or 27 dresses, these movies would offer a far more satisfying cinema experience. I sincerely hope more educated film goers vote negatively for this film, in the manner it genuinely deserves there bye giving it a more realistic rating that other film buffs could base their judgement upon. Come on folks let's be fair to everyone concerned and give those involved with this film a true reflection on what it is they have produced - an extremely mediocre picture that deserves to be forgotten very quickly.


This film is an abomination of all that is worthy in film making. The lead actor surprises his audience by not actually acting at all. We have to watch almost two hours of his bland soulless face. The jokes are all lame I never laughed once it was Saturday night there were 5 of us having a beer all up for a laugh and then we put this on and you could feel all the warmth and colour being drained from the room. The film ended and the mood was ruined so we all went our separate ways, ruined the night ! OK so pros and cons. Pros beautiful setting in Hawaii, looks good on bluray. Cons worst acting ever; you can tell everyone concerned is just thinking about payday. Predictable poor plot. Zero character development. Forced jokes which fall flat. Many shots of the guys penis which to be fair acts better than him and has more charisma. May all makers of this film hang their heads in shame and hold their flaccid manhoods cheap.


Sitting in a big wing chair with a huge book in his lap, the one and only Bela Lugosi looks into the camera and, in a dreadful vocal delivery that sounds as if he were mocking a reading of Shakespeare, intones sloooow-ly: "Man's constant groping of things unknown, drawing from the endless reaches of time, brings to light many startling things; (snicker); startling?, because they seem new (Lugosi's eyes now bulging, with raised eyebrows, and mouth sneering, he continues) but most are not new, the signs of the ages" (cue a visual of lightening, accompanied by the sound of thunder which then continues to rumble for an astonishing 86 seconds).

And so begins what is arguably the worst film ever made. This "movie" almost defies description. Told in semi-docudrama style with an unseen narrator explaining the plot ... such as it is ... the story revolves around the vicissitudes of a man named Glen (Ed Wood, Jr.) who cross-dresses; hence the reference to Glenda. The film has no real structure. Instead, it consists mostly of a random assortment of vignettes that may ... or may not ... relate to Glen or to the cross-dressing motif. One long sequence consists of some unknown woman wriggling on a sofa, followed by a man whipping a woman in what we would today refer to as S&M.

Then, at odd moments Bela reappears, for no apparent reason, and babbles more inane dialogue, like: "When he's wrong because he does right, and when he's right because he does wrong; pull the string, dance to that." Huh?

About twenty percent of the film's visuals consist of stock footage, accompanied by a VO that relates to the story motif but not the visuals. Hence, we see stock footage of: bustling city streets, freeway traffic, a thunderous herd of buffalo, and a playground full of kids. But it gets worse. In a film about cross-dressing, we have 58 consecutive seconds of stock footage of a foundry furnace making hot steel, and 84 consecutive seconds of battle scenes from WWII.

Even the simplest items are botched. In one scene we see a newspaper headline that reads "Man Nabbed Dressed as Girl". Underneath the headline, which has clearly been glued or pasted on, the article is about ... taxes. In one of my favorite scenes, an off-screen woman spouts out: "airplanes, why it's against the creator's will", in a voice that sounds like she's just inhaled helium.

Except for the performance of Lyle Talbot, the acting is uniformly horrendous. Production design is cheap looking and drab; (but you gotta love that tacky wallpaper). The editing is sloppy. Most of the background music is suitable only for 1950 style elevators. The B&W cinematography has way too much contrast. And the costumes look like something that came from a thrift store.

This film is so bad it makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Citizen Kane", by comparison. I just don't know how one could make a film any worse than Ed Wood's "Glen Or Glenda". But thankfully, it's got Bela Lugosi in it. Every time he opened his mouth, and gazed into the camera with those big, bulging eyes, I about fell on the floor laughing.


I agree with one commentator who says that it's really impossible to review Glen or Glenda? objectively. If one does so, the film on its merits would have to be rated as fairly terrible given the hilarious, convoluted dialog, the generally mediocre to poor acting by the cast as well as the zero production values. Yet, such an assessment does not capture the absolutely riveting experience of watching this film as it unfolds. It isn't the fact that the subject of the film is transvestitism and that it was a controversial lifestyle choice in the 1950s. It's not even the plea for tolerance of people who embrace alternate life choices that fascinates except as an historic relic.

No, what makes Glen or Glenda? still a fascinating film after 50 years is that Ed Wood laid his psyche bare in a way that so-called auteur directors like Hitchcock or Godard, despite their vastly superior talents, never did. In Glen or Glenda, Wood isn't afraid to reveal his own deeply conflicted feelings about being a transvestite despite the plea for tolerance for it through out the film. Indeed, the conclusion of the film suggest that Ed Wood's Glen character will be able to "kill" his Glenda female counterpart by transferring the feelings of love and affection Glen has for his feminine counterpart to his future wife, Barbara. The psychiatrist even reassures Glen and Barbara that as Glen makes that psychic transference, Glenda will disappear. So, while Wood could plead for tolerance of transvestites in general, he wasn't so sure of desiring it for himself.

Moreover, Wood wasn't afraid of throwing everything else that crossed his mind on the screen. He did it with whatever stock footage he could get his hands on. If it didn't cohere, so what? What the viewer saw in Glen or Glenda especially was Ed Wood's imaginative world in all of its fundamental strangeness.

The only comment I wish to add to my comment above is that my two-star rating is based solely on the objective evaluation criteria cited in the first paragraph. The oddly memeric effect the film has despite its technically atrocious qualities I don't think can be rated.


and generally speaking, you will eventually have to research this little gem. When describing I Changed My Sex, or Glen Or Glenda as it is better known, I must echo the thoughts of Andrew Smith, who so hit the nail on the head when he wrote "If you haven't seen any of Ed Wood's other movies, this one is a completely bewildering experience. If you have seen any of Ed Wood's movies, this is still completely bewildering". The film is both hilarious and tragic, yet it moves with a strange rhythm of its own that leaves one in no doubt that its author knows and means every word he is saying during its running length. Wood, bless him, had some of the loftiest ambitions as a director, wanting to promote peace, understanding, and even acceptance, in the 1950s of all times. When Tim Burton recreated a viewing of Glen Or Glenda by studio execs for his biopic, he showed the execs laughing and telling each other that this had to be a put-on. More than fifty years later, there are still people fighting just to be given the kind of respect that the "normal" take for granted, so I say it most certainly is not.

No, the real comedy in Glen Or Glenda is the sheer ineptitude Wood displays in composing his message. Directors frequently use stock footage when they can find some that suits their purposes, and can be edited to fit with their own footage. Ed Wood used stock footage indiscriminately, and Tim Burton's biopic celebrated the fact with a scene in which Wood as played by Johnny Depp bets that he could make an entire film out of stock footage. Sadly, the real Ed Wood died before he had a chance, but Glen Or Glenda is the closest he ever came. The IMDb states that twenty percent of this sixty-something minute film is stock footage, and it is never difficult to guess which footage. Footage of busy highways, planes flying overhead, poor lightning effects, soldiers doing their thing, they're all used in a haphazard manner, sometimes repeatedly, and they often only have a loose connection to the story Wood is trying to tell. Had Wood been able to sit back and think about what he is trying to do for a while, there is no telling what kind of heights he could have achieved.

Wood himself appears in the film as the titular character, a confused transvestite who imagines himself as a woman named Glenda. Aside from the daring manner in which he attempts to make his point, Wood makes one hideous woman. Having found myself out on the fringe of a society that thinks I am "disabled" and need to be "cured" myself, I honestly found myself hoping for the best outcome for Wood's character. In order to make his point, however, Wood weaves in short stories of two other transvestites. One of them takes the extreme step of enduring a sex change in order to become a woman, the other finds himself so disenfranchised that he fears being arrested again so much he commits suicide. The scary thing about this film is that if you edited out the transvestism and substituted such disenfranchisements as my position on the autistic spectrum or such things as schizophrenia, very little of the film would even need to be changed. That is how little society has learned since Ed Wood was a boy.

The other significant personality in Glen Or Glenda is Bela Lugosi, whom Wood shoehorned into the film. Speculation varies upon Wood's motives, but the accepted theory is that Wood wanted to help revive Lugosi's career, and would do anything in order to achieve this. With the exception of taking his time to carefully construct a good film, that is. In Glen Or Glenda, Wood makes usage of Lugosi that was best described in Flying Saucers Over Hollywood as "bizarre". Lugosi plays a character billed as The Scientist, but comes off more as an omnipotent puppet master. People who have not seen Ed Wood films before the biopic will think Tim Burton made up the "beware of the big green dragon that sits on your doorstep" speech. If anything, Burton was being restrained about which bizarre speech to use in depicting Wood-ian dialogue. Nothing can prepare you for seeing the speeches in their original context, not even Criswell's hilarious ranting during Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Observant types will also note the presence of Delores Fuller, Wood's girlfriend at the time. Again, Burton dramatises her reaction to seeing the script for the first time, whereas the film portrays her as being accepting and forward-thinking. I cannot help but feel that Burton's portrayal is more accurate, as Fuller looks extremely uncomfortable in her role. She only appears for about fifteen minutes, but her delivery seems so mechanical, so lifeless, that she somehow manages to seem less talented than her cast-mates, if such a thing is possible. Whether Wood's direction was better-focused in this case than usual is hard to determine, but if the ability of the support cast to leave the stars (with the obvious exception of Bela) in the dust is any guide, then it should come as no surprise that Fuller would only appear in a very small role within one other Wood film. That she went on to write a number of hit songs tells you she made the right decision to stay behind the camera. While Wood would appear before the camera again, it was never as more than a cameo, a walk-on, or a bit-part.

I gave Glen Or Glenda a one out of ten. I generally only give this rating to films that are so bad they become entertaining as a result. Bold and well-intentioned as it was, Glen Or Glenda fits that description to a T.


"Glen or Glenda" was Edward D. Wood Jr's first attempt at directing a feature film. For this he chose a topic near and dear to his heart...transvestism, the "art" of a man wanting to dress in women's clothes. To his credit, Wood tried to deal with subject matter that was largely taboo in 1953. Unfortunately, Wood had neither the budget nor the know how to make the film.

The story opens with a prologue by Bela Lugosi that makes little sense and then moves to the discovery of a dead transvestite Glen/Glenda (Daniel Davis aka Ed Wood). Inspector Warren (Lyle Talbot) with the help of psychiatrist Dr. Alton (Timothy Farrell) tries to understand why a man would want to live (and die) this way.

Glen is engaged to Barbara (Dolores Fuller) and is reluctant to tell her of his obsession. And that's it. We see endless stock footage shots of anything from freeway traffic to soldiers landing on the beach, interspersed with shots of Wood walking down the same street dressed as either Glen or Glenda and looking longingly at women's clothes in a store window. Poor old Bela, who was down on his luck and befriended by Wood, keeps popping in throughout the story. I'm not 100% sure but I think Bela's scenes were added for his name value after the body of the movie was completed.

To add to the confusion of Lugosi's narration, Farrell as Dr. Alton also provides off screen narration. Lugosi keeps saying, bevare, bevare...take care, take care, as well as, some gibberish about snakes and snails and puppy dog's tails.

The story also deals with a transvestite who has a successful sex change operation and tries to explain the difference between that person and Wood's character(s). The dream sequences are laughable. A wedding sequence in which someone dressed as the devil appears is a good example. Wood also gives us an apparent rape scene with the actors(?) fully clothed but leaving little to the imagination, risqué for 1953.

This film along with Wood's other "classics" were so bad that they became embraced by the public as cult classics over the years. For that reason, they have survived to this day.


Whew! What can one say about this bizarre, stupefying mock-u-mentory about Ed Wood's cross-dressing fantasies?? Well, one word that comes to mind is incoherent! Wood uses raw slabs of innocuous, incidental stock footage, and then builds a "story" around them - and what a story!! Wood himself stars as Glen, a regular Joe who just happens to enjoy lounging around in his fiancee's lingerie and sweaters. I think what Wood wanted was a plea for tolerance for all the Glens of this world by showing that Glen is just like all of us underneath, only in angora. Ummm...ok. But then, we get this very bizarre montage of some horny devil, a chick in bondage, some rude, pointing people, some moore stock footage, and finally an emaciated Bela Lugusi,playing some kind of twisted, invalid Puppetmaster. Lugosi is a howl, spouting out such rubbish as "Beeevaaare...the beeeg greeeen dragon that seeets at your doorstep: he eeeets leeetle boys, puppydog tails, and beeeeeg snails!" Um, ok, Bela... :=8/ There is a strange, twisted type of Wood logic going on here. Afterall, he does remind us that "7 out of 10 men wear hats, and 7 out of 10 men are bald". Hmmm, must be that alien/cross-dressing/habidashery cowspiracy-thang!! Glen or Glenda stars a plethora (whatever that is...) of reliable Wood schlock-actors, including Lyle Talbot, Delores Fuller, and Timothy Farrell, and Wood manages to coax every bit of wretched, amateurish non-talent out of each one. Everybody by now knows Bela's sad story: by the time Wood used him for this flic, he was probably jonesing for another fix and needed the moolah, but even for him this is depth heretofore unreached. One of the MooCow's favorite Wood mooments comes with the stock footage charging buffalo scene - it is sooo loopily demented!! The MooCow says "Puuuull de schtriiiiings", and git yer hooves on a copy of Glen or Glenda - you won't believe it! :


Let me say this about Edward D. Wood Jr. He had a passion for his work that I wish more people did have. If we all had the optimism and the commanding hope of Ed Wood, the world would probably be a much better place. Being familiar with Ed Wood's story and having seen the most wonderful biopic "Ed Wood" (1994) several times, I admire his boldness and his strives for the job he loved; I still admire his never-say-die attitude. He had a love for directing that I wish more people in modern-day Hollywood had.

But that doesn't make his movies any more fun to watch. And "Glen or Glenda," his first and most confessional film, is probably his very worst.

"Glen or Glenda" is a deadening cult movie about a cross-dresser named Glen (played by director/writer Ed Wood himself) who despite his love for his fiancée Barbara (Dolores Fuller), cannot seem to conquer his lust for transvestitism, in which he dresses in women's clothing and a wig and thus becomes...Glenda! Glen/Glenda's story is narrated by a doctor and he too is talked and watched over by a mysterious character called "The Scientist" played by veteran horror star Bela Lugosi. Oh, and there's also some sub-story about an Alan/Anne character who becomes a transsexual based on the Christine Jorgenson story, upon whom this movie originally titled "I Changed My Sex!" was previously to be based.

Have I dropped your jaw yet? Well, as much as I want to warn you off this picture if you've never seen it, I would never tell a lie about a movie and there is not one word of falsehood in that plot synopsis I just gave you. Every thing in it is true. This is a movie about cross-dressers and transsexuals, a topic that does not sound very appealing to begin with and is not done in a very appealing manner. I'm sure that with a good screenplay, and a good director (it had neither) that "Glen or Glenda," despite the subject matter, could have been a very moving picture. It is a confessional movie on Wood's part, as he was a transvestite in real life as well as on screen. But once again, that does not make it a good movie...or a watchable one for that matter. "Glen or Glenda" is a jumbled, disorganized mess of a movie that sinks into new trenches in the realm of bad cinema. It makes no more sense than does its notoriously silly scene where Bela Lugosi screams "Pull the string!" over inexplicable footage of stampeding bison. The majority of the movie is narrated in a monotonous voice, reminding me of some very bad short informative films I've seen before. It's like one of those really bad short films expanded into a seventy-minute feature and twice as dull. We sit there for ages waiting for the plot that never comes. There is no real attempt to even build energy with the camera being locked down in one position for many grueling minutes and long stretches of time where nothing at all happens. The only moments that are worth anybody's time are those of Bela Lugosi who manages to bring some light into these dark trenches. I guess Lugosi is supposed to be like the deity of the film, but personally, I couldn't care less who or what he's supposed to be. I'll tell you what he was: A gifted actor who wound up making trash. But he and Wood were very good friends and liked working with each other, so good for him.

I will always admire Edward D. Wood Jr. for his passion for the cinema, but I will never as long as I live admire his movies. A film critic once called Ed Wood's movies "innocent fun" but I think even that is questionable. Innocent? Yes. Fun? No, sir. And if "Citizen Kane" is the Mount Everest of the cinematic world, then "Glen or Glenda" is probably the Mariana Trench.


I saw the biopic of Ed Wood many years ago. Tim Burton payed loving homage to this extremely untalented but yet enthusiastic filmmaker.

Then I saw Plan 9 and it actually tickled me to no end. A silly story, kind of bad production values but still entertaining and even funny.

Then this. What can you make of it. Well, since Wood has been reported as being a cross-dresser it is startling to see a movie that deals with it like a cartoon. Yes, there are some stabs at teaching the audience something about the subject but mostly this is some kind of really twisted self-parody.

One of it's problems is that it has a hundred points of view. On one hand it is a plea for tolerance. Another portrays transvestism as a disease. And finally, it tells the audience: "Okay, if you are schocked now, then wait until you see this!" The problem must have been that Wood had to compromise in order for the film to be made. You can almost sense it when you see the opening title from the producer: Personally supervised by... So, where are we. This is neither a serious subject movie or an all-out schocker.

The entertainment value is practically nil. The wooden voice-over is mildly amusing but only because it sounds so misguided. This was made in the 50s though, so one can argue that was brave making a film that even mentioned the word transvestites. It all comes down to what the film itself is trying to advocate against. Schock. The rape scene, while mild is there simply to do that.

So, sorry. This is a misfire but the discredit is not Wood's alone.


Considering the film’s reputation as truly the worst of the worst, I was looking forward to watching Wood’s Crappus Opus (my word); it’s not necessarily any more inept than the other Woods I’ve watched – however, being from the REEFER MADNESS (1938) school of film-making, GLEN OR GLENDA doesn’t come across as readily ‘enjoyable’ as his genre efforts.

Also, this surely emerges as Horror legend Bela Lugosi’s nadir (his first of three ‘collaborations’ with the director): one wonders whether he was really aware what kind of film it was (considering the actor’s history of heavy medication and the sheer senselessness of his cameo). Besides, Lugosi’s idiosyncratic delivery is perhaps at its most awkward here…though Wood’s script is mostly to blame for this – given the impossible dialogue (with repeated nonsensical allusions to “puppy-dog tails” and “big fat snails”) he handed the ailing star! By the way, Wood himself plays the central role (under the pseudonym Daniel Davis) – and, being just as worthless in this area, proves to have been an all-round dog!; Dolores Fuller – his wife and co-star – was similarly untalented (she would also appear in JAIL BAIT [1954])…but, at the very least, the image where the latter finally lets Glen wear her angora sweater did give Tim Burton’s affectionate biopic ED WOOD (1994) its famous poster!

Incidentally, the latter film features a presumably fictionalized meeting between Wood and Orson Welles – well, for all intents and purposes, GLEN OR GLENDA constitutes Ed Wood’s CITIZEN KANE (1941) given its gleeful propensity for gimmicky narrative techniques: in fact, the barest thread of plot is padded with stock footage galore (many of it irrelevant, such as the bewildering instances of S&M) and inane dream sequences (highlighted by the presence of an impish demon sporting outrageous bushy eyebrows that would make Martin Scorsese weep with envy)! The film’s sincere attempt at a plea for tolerance and psychological probing into the affliction/phenomenon of transvestism is, however, sabotaged at every turn by the sheer amateurishness of the approach.

For what it’s worth, the edition I watched was the “Extended Re-issue Version” which included six minutes of ‘depraved’ footage (directed by W. Merle Connell) censored on original release! Furthermore, my copy went out-of-synch every so often (which forced me to rewind it slightly to get the audio back on track) – though, thankfully, this was the fault of the source conversion to DivX as opposed to the film itself.


Directed and written by the famous/infamous Edward D. Wood Jr, using a pseudonym(Daniel Davis)playing the lead role of Glen/Glenda. This is an almost radical documentary about transvestism; Wood himself being a transvestite with a fetish for angora sweaters. It seems miles of stock footage and an incoherent Bela Lugosi is used to stretch this odd and awkward film to 67 minutes. Police inspector(Lyle Talbot)seeks enlightenment from a psychiatrist, Dr. Alton(Timothy Farrell), to better understand the emotional and disposition of transvestites.

Also in the cast: Delores Fuller, "Tommy" Hanes, Captain DeZita and Wood's sister Evelyn. Of note: Farrell also acts as narrator. And Fuller later helped write songs included in the Elvis Presley movies BLUE HAWAII, KISSIN' COUSINS & KID GALAHAD.


I just recently watched Ed Wood Jr.'s autobiographical movie Glen or Glenda for the first time after having heard so much about it for so many years. Nothing I had read or heard about this film could prepare me for what I saw. This has to be the most bizarre movie ever made. Stampeding buffalo, women in bondage, Satan prancing around and Bela Lugosi, rambling only as he can, "Bevare, Bevare....pull the string, pull the string...", it was totally insane. The acting was atrocious and the dialog was unintentionally hilarious, exactly what one would expect from an Ed Wood film. Having said all that, as horrible as this movie was, I have to give Wood credit...he was way ahead of his time. You have to remember that when this movie was made transvestites were not even discussed in public, much less the subject for a movie. I have read that Wood was a transvestite in real life, and I'm sure this movie was based on his own experiences. It was sad to see Bela Lugosi having to say the ridiculous lines he had to say for this film, but it was kind of Ed Wood Jr. to at least give Mr. Lugosi an acting job at a time in Bela's life when he was penniless and a drug addict and no one else in Hollywood would hire him. If you have never seen this film then you have to see it, especially if you are a fan of Ed Wood Jr.


As many know, this is the feature film debut of Edward D. Wood Jr. as as a writer/producer/director/actor. I have been a fan of Ed Wood for several years now. While I don't like this as much as some of his other films it was probably the largest insight that the cinematic going public gets of Wood during his life. Everybody knows that he was a transvestite. This film is about changing one's sex and how being a transvestite can create conflict in relationships with loved ones. This film is way ahead of its time in dealing with this subject matter and how it deals with it. However, the film still contains Wood's usual pitfalls of bad dialog, meaningless stock footage, and hokey special effects. Throw in Wood's usual overdose of Bela Lugosi hamming it up and you have Wood's first attempt at being a director.

The plot is that a police inspector goes to a doctor after he discovers the body of a transvestite who committed suicide for advice on how to avoid further problems along these lines. The doctor tells him the story of Glen, who is also a transvestite. Glen wants to marry Barbara, but can't bring himself to tell her about his secret. He also tells the inspector about Alan who undergoes a sex change because he is really more suited to being a woman. Bela Lugosi plays a scientist who seems to add some kind of running commentary on what is going on (Lugosi's part really isn't well defined and proves to be most likely a vehicle for Wood to have a star in his film and Lugosi to get some cash).

All in all, the movie shows the hallmarks of Wood's career. It was obviously shot on a very low budget and has quite a few things thrown in rather haphazardly. It definitely has the "it's so bad, it's good" feel to it. However, I do have to applaud Ed on his progressive thinking in making this film. Transvestitism and sex changes were not extremely open subjects in the early 50s. Wood took a big risk in making a film that portrays transvestites as people who are not sexual deviants and putting a more human face on cross-dressing.


Like other movies from the worst director ever, Ed Wood, this movie is very bad but because of that it is also very funny. May be not for everyone, but I laughed a lot. It is a strange thing when you enjoy a bad movie. How do you rate it? As a movie very low, as entertainment at least a little higher.

The movie tries to explain what a transvestite is and it does this through a scientist (Bela Lugosi) and an inspector (Lyle Talbot) who talks to a doctor (Timothy Farrell) who knows about these things. The doctor tells the detective two stories and that is what we, and apparently the scientist, see. The doctor tels these stories because a dead transvestite is found, suicide, and because of a headline in the news paper about a sex-change. The first and longest story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) who is in love and about to marry Barbara (Dolores Fuller) but he has never told her he like to dress as a woman, when he is named Glenda. The movie tells the same thing over and over again, especially the fact that a transvestite is not necessarily a homosexual. The movie almost says that being a transvestite is not a bad thing, but being homosexual is, since it keeps telling us the fact that a transvestite is not a homosexual. The second story is about a transvestite who really wants a sex-change and not just wants to dress up as a woman, but it is much shorter and less interesting.

A couple of things make this movie very bad, and therefore laughable. How the story is presented is the first thing, the way the same things are told over and over again and the conclusion of it all are others. This is not where it ends. The acting is very bad, especially Dolores Fuller seems to be reading her lines directly from a little screen somewhere. Every thing she says is funny. The whole dialogue actually gave me quite some laughs.

There is also a sequence where someone walks into a room. The door stays half open and we see something hanging on the wall, not completely straight. Then the door, in what seems to be the same shot although we know it is not, is a little less open and suddenly the thing on the wall hangs straight. Ed Wood didn't mind to leave this kind of continuity errors in his movie. May be a good thing, because basically it is just another laugh for the modern audience. I think you understand that it is a bad movie and I think there is a good chance you will laugh at the ridiculous mistakes as well.


There's a part of me that would like to give this movie a high rating. Considering that it was made in 1953, this is a very courageous movie about transvestites, tackling the issue fairly seriously and sympathetically (and offering the viewer a lot of information on the subject) and trying very hard not to stereotype. The movie clearly makes the point that transvestites are not homosexuals, and that aside from wearing women's clothing they lead a relatively normal life. It deals with the pain of not being accepted in society - the plot revolves around a police officer (Lyle Talbot) desperately trying to understand the issue because of the recent suicide of a transvestite. So, you have to give everyone involved with this movie credit for taking on such a controversial (in the context of 1953) subject.

Having said all that, I'm also sorry to say that this movie is absolutely dreadful. In trying to portray Glen/Glenda's (Edward D. Wood) pain, the movie falls into silly (and at times surprisingly - again given the era - sensual) fantasies that make the story very hard to follow. The acting is wooden at best. None of the dialogue comes across as real; the actors look and sound like people reading speeches written by others. And - worst of all - there was no point to having Bela Lugosi in this movie. This was another of the increasingly embarrassing roles this poor man took on in the latter stages of his career. "Pull the strings; pull the strings," poor Lugosi's character (called The Spirit in the credits, but really coming across as more of a mad scientist) kept crying. And nothing he did really seemed to have much connection with the rest of the movie.

For artistic merit, the movie doesn't really deserve much more than 1/10. However, for the courage involved in just putting it out, I'll give it a 3/10.


Bela Lugosi as God? Transvestites discussed in a movie in the straight-laced 1950s? By golly, this must be an Ed Wood film.

Watching this movie, I felt a combination of guilt, pleasure, and nausea all at the same time. The story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) and his cross-dressing alter-ego Glenda. Somehow, if this movie were made now, I could see Kevin Kline playing Glen/Glenda. Notice how all the cross-dressers' alter egos are versions of their male name (Glen/Glenda, Robert/Roberta, etc.). It attempts to sympathetically portray it as the mental disorder that it is, rather than as a graphic perversion.

Somehow, Wood manages to sneak in bondage and S&M sequences into his initial story of Glen/Glenda. Along with these racy scenes, Satan himself shows up, obviously having a bad hair day. The dialog and pace are nonexistent, but the film is enjoyable in its context -- the weird world of Ed Wood.

Sterno says put on your favorite lace panties for this one.


First of all, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever, Plan 9 From Outer Space not withstanding. Coleman Francis deserves that title. I present Exhibit B, Glen or Glenda.

The first half of the movie consists of a surprisingly thoughtful exploration of crossdressing, especially since it was made in 1953. The last 15 minutes of movie are also not bad as well.

This is not to say the movie doesn't have problems. Bela Lugosi was totally extraneous, intoning odd lines. Poor Bela looked like even he wasn't sure what was happening at times. The acting was decidely wooden, though no worse than a period Universal B movie. The long dream sequence that makes up the middle of the film was totally bizarre; more like a vaguely menacing stag film than a dream sequence. The Alan/Ann story, the supposed original focus of the film has a tacked on quality about it.

No, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever. He was able, at least for part of this movie, to make an earnest social statement. When Coleman Francis tried to do that in Night Train To Mundo Fine (aka Red Zone Cuba), it just ended in chaos. Glen or Glenda is at least watchable without Robot help.


I approached this movie with the understanding that it was one of the worst flicks ever made. I sat down to watch it with this mindset, and was pleasantly surprised.

It's not great. It's not even that good; in fact, it's pretty poor. However, it's not as bad as I had been led to believe, by a long shot. It's pretty inept, and, evidently as a cost cutting measure, a lot of stock footage is pressed into service, a lot of which has no apparent relation to the narrative.

What it is, however, is an intensely personal movie made by a man who evidently did not have the skills or the funding to do his idea justice. Before you discount _Glen or Glenda?_ out of hand, examine your own artistic skills. Me, I'd love to be able to draw, but anything I try to sketch comes out like stick men. I'd love to be able to sing, but all I do is frighten young children.

Wood had an idea, and unfortunately he didn't have what it takes to make it work. However, this was an incredibly daring movie for the puritan 50s, however exploitative or incoherent it may appear at first glance.


In order to describe what's seriously wrong with this movie it has to contain some *spoilers* so if you're going to see it and expect to be surprised, don't read this!

I liked everything about this movie except the plot; and in a thriller like this believable plot is essential. It is well acted, if a bit slow moving, and the camera work and Portland scenes are exquisite for a low-budget, unpretentious picture. The dialog is very good.

Mason is seriously withdrawn youth who works at a telemarketing company selling insurance. His high school buddy, Berkeley, is his employer and looks after him like a brother despite the fact that Mason is quite obviously mentally ill. Mason has nightmares which send him gasping and fumbling for his inhaler. His visions and nightmares suggest that he has had serious problems with good-looking women in his past, and the movie seems to be suggesting that he may be a serial killer of women. He meets a perky, pretty girl named Amber and he sketches her in his notebook. She takes a liking to him and poses for him so he can paint her portrait. He sees more of her and begins to awaken from his withdrawn state, almost becoming halfway human. Then something goes wrong. Amber finds sketchbooks with drawings of other girls and she begins to wonder. She becomes frightened and pulls away. We are wondering if her sudden coldness is going to push him over the edge. His behavior becomes more erratic.

This is the setup for the revelation. In order to explain how this movie goes horribly wrong I have to explain what happens. *Another spoiler warning!* In order for this plot to work we have believe that Amber, a really outgoing, pretty young girl is going to go for a seriously emotionally disturbed young man who, at least at the beginning of their friendship, has a vacant stare and can only speak in monosyllables or doesn't speak at all. He's way beyond nerdy, he appears on the verge of total catatonia. Yes I know, girls can be attracted to all kinds of weirdos, but usually the Charles Manson type or punk rockers, guys with some kind of evil manic energy. Mason is practically a zombie, he's hardly there at all. Any perky young thing would cross the street to avoid him. It is just not believable that this girl is attracted to him. Moreover there is no credible reason for Berkeley to indulge the crazy Mason, that just isn't believable either.

But wait, there's a revelation. Amber fails to show up at Berkeley's house for Christmas dinner where Mason is expecting her and Berkeley, his old buddy, has to tell him that Amber and all his other former girlfriends, the ones he drew in his many sketchbooks, don't exist at all! She and all the others are merely figments of his twisted imagination: he dreamed them up.

Well, this explains why a normal cute Amber would go for Mason, she's just a figment of his imagination. This could have been the final revelation of the movie with the proper preparation and setup, but alas, it's not. At this point Mason runs back to his apartment and finds Amber there...he's enraged, he kills her. But now we are given to understand that Amber was in fact real, not Mason's imaginary girlfriend.

In the end, after being given proof that Amber actually exists and that Mason killed her, Berkeley has to admit that he was wrong, that he misjudged Mason. This would work if Mason had been halfway sane from the beginning, but because we the audience always suspected him of being totally deranged and possibly a killer of women it is no surprise to us. We suspected what he was all along and can't understand why Berkeley couldn't see it. But then we are once again left to wonder: if she was real, why Amber would be attracted to the catatonic Mason?

To make the ending worse, we are never given to understand whether all the other of Mason's girlfriends, the ones in the sketchbooks, were real or was Amber the first real one? And if the others were real, did he kill them too? What did he do with the bodies?

The problem is that the filmmakers just didn't know what to do with the material. Perhaps there could have been a way to straighten it out and tell a credible suspense story, but this movie is not that.


Decent but overrated dramatic thriller, film attempts to depict the spiraling out-of-control inner demons of a tormented artist. The problem is, not a single relationship illustrated on screen is believable, and plausibility appears to have been thrown out the window. The title character is so difficult to relate to making it's rather impossible to imagine any of the on- screen characters emotionally invested in him either. The conclusion is also fairly predictable; there are certainly enough clues provided from the get go to indicate exactly where the story is headed. Choosing to entirely suspend one's belief in the situations or the relationships, the film itself is well acted (especially by the leads) and manages to create some nice tension as the story unfolds. As a metaphorical feature there is some food for thought, and had the script been stronger, there's certainly potential here that could have been put to better use.


OK, we got JP from Grandma's Boy and Chuck from, well Chuck. I thought this movie would be quite good based on the reviews, and it did start out pretty high on my movie scale, but about halfway through it was just dragging out for so long I kept losing interest. I actually got so bored, probably because you can see right away what's going to happen in the end; the story is actually quite thread-bare, I skipped over 15 minutes and didn't miss a thing! This film should have been a short work, maybe around 45 minutes to an hour max. It starts out good and finishes good, too bad the filling is bland, boring, dull, and lacks everything but time. Some people say they like it for the music; I don't care for jazz and I don't go see movies for their score, I go for the story and when that's drawn out... well, ratings drop in my book.

Bottom Line: Good open, great close, boring filler. Story was cool, but if you don't know what's going to happen a quarter of the way through, you haven't seen too many thrillers.


As a true lover of film I must advise you to avoid this appalling effort,, God knows how funding was approved, Seriously this is one cinematic experience which delivers zero dramatic tension and plods along until nothing happens again and again and again ,, The only connectivity is two scares which at least keep you awake Possiby the worst film I have ever witnessed and the acting by the female lead is bordering on criminal intent. One blessing with modern technology you can fast forward and watch it on 12x and it will only last 25 minutes, ,, And you won't miss any of the plot

No idea how people find this at all interesting and some are giving it high marks !


First off, this movie leaves you in a limbo mood wise. You don't know what to feel. So much so that you don't feel bad for Caines character when his son gets murdered (which was actually mostly due to bad editing). The script was too bland. None of the situations matter as you watch them. The soundtrack, or lack there of (if there was it wasn't good enough to even remember) does not help it one bit. Only good surprise to this movie was Andy Serkis' performance. It was on par if not better than Caine's. The story would have probably gone better off if Serkis would have killed him. Because quite frankly you don't feel any kind of redemption in the climax. Just a feeling of lack of feeling, if ya feel me. Basically this movie massively lacks draw. Leaving the audience alienated throughout the entire thing.


On paper this looks a good film . Michael Caine plays a tough and ruthless boxing promoter who's son is up for a title eliminator . The pity is that when the story is transferred from paper to my television screen it loses a certain everything . I had hoped we'd be seen emulating his definitive role in GET CARTER and as the film progresses it does seem to take on the qualities of a tough gritty revenge thriller but the whole tone of the film jumps around so much you'll be confused as to what genre it's trying to fit in to . For example Caine ( Who you can't believe in as Billy " Shiner " Simpson , he's simply Michael Caine ) has a laugh out line as he refers to someone as " Hattie Jacques " then in a supposedly humorous moment has his henchmen break someone's arm . Oh how I laughed . I mean it's supposed to elicit a laugh the way it plays out on screen isn't it ? But these seems at odds with the way the rest of the film plays out

Obviously director John Irvin doesn't know what approach to take with Scott Cherry's screenplay . Irvin isn't a bad director and is well regarded for his war films such as THE DOGS OF WAR and HAMBURGER HILL but he's ill suited to this type of violent drama and one can't help but feel he might have been intimidated somewhat by a living legend like Caine . Caine does give the impression he's just doing it for the money and the well known faces in supporting roles like Landua and Cranham are basically just cameos who could be played by anyone


A vehicle for Michael Caine. Its fairly well written and there's some OK acting in it but, really, it's a mess - not funny enough, not frightening enough. It's a flaccid modern cockney thriller.

I like the premise - that even in the refracted moral hinterland of East London people do do things for the right reasons. A surprise result to the first proper fight Caine's old-school Billy Shiner has promoted inflames his paranoia. The second half of the film has him chasing shadows to deal with the disappointment of the outcome of the first.

MY greatest disappointment was in director John Irvin's failure to make more of the relationship between Shiner and his lieutenant/filial substitute Frank Harper. Harper's, a British Tom Sizemore, understands his role well whilst those around him seem to have ignored it. Pity. 4/10


Michael Caine might have tried to make a larger than life character to a successful degree but the whole storyline and Character's around him where not likable or interesting at all. It was all very Boring and somewhat predictable. Martin Landau , a favorite actor of mine had a nothing role.He was useless. Michael Caine got a bit irritating after a while and the film couldn't decide if it was a comedy or a serious thriller. Caine tries hard and good on him but i felt the direction and storyline let him down. Don't waste your time. It starts off well for the first 10 minutes and then that's about it. A film for Die Hard Caine Fans Only. Stay away from this One...


The emergence of Quentin Tarantino and his dubious influence on the likes of Guy Ritchie may have triggered the wave of appalling British gangster flicks we've been bequeathed over the past few years, but one of our most famous acting exports only serves to perpetuate the cycle by lending his considerable name to trash like this. I only wish he'd taken a moment to consider before choosing this project for the same reasons of personal gain he admits he often employs. It's not only stifling HIS talent, but possibly the promise of future originality from British films.

Not one of this film's characters are likeable or even remotely realistic, and the dialogue consists of the usual empty threats and colourful language. Caine doesn't give the material any more effort than it deserves, either. If this was meant to be in the style of a tragic fall from grace a la "King Lear", it would've helped immensely had I cared about the ultimate fate of the principals, instead of just wishing that they'd get mired in the quicksand of life and dragged under almost immediately.


Not every movie with lesbian chicks and vampires, touching our favorite trash/cult genre is nice. Unfortunately this movie lucks of originality and the performances do not come up with the trash standards. Seem the creator's intention to make it cult it failed. Trash movies are trash movies because it happens. You cant create in purpose this kind of films.I don't know if Mr Creepo is a legend (first time i heard his name) BUT if he is i wonder the reason...

Awful. Even the lesbian scenes are pathetic so any fans of erotic x-ploitation films will not be satisfied, as there a thousands of movies better than Barely Legal Lesbian Vampires.


Bad. Personal opinion? The folks who made it? They knew that when they made it. To star in this movie, again my opinion, you needed to meet three criteria ... #1: You had to own your own Goth style clothing and jewelry. Makes wardrobe both easier and cheaper that way. #2: You had to be able to remember and repeat your lines with out cue cards. Note that I didn't say you had to do it well. Saves on time and paper work. #3: You had to be willing to get naked. Gives an R rating and thus bolsters sales. Want to watch a better movie? Easy. Get a camera and some of your buddies together and do it yourself. Trust me, you won't do any worse. As vampire movies go, well, this one sucks. And a hint here for people like me who like to look for little oddities in movies ... Consider the link between vampires and crosses. Now, take a look at the symbols and names on the headstones in the cemetery portions of this thing were filmed in. Ed Wood couldn't have planned that kind of an accident any better himself.


I have to preface this by saying that I LOVE watching bad movies that are entertaining. This movie delivers 100%. It is hands down the worst movie I have ever seen. It is full of crappy stock footage of random stuff in a city (people walking, traffic, the skyline, etc.) that doesn't tie into anything. Then there are the overly long 'sex scenes.' These involve lots of petting and frequent rubbing of socks on each other's bodies. These are in no way erotic and are the closest thing to horror you will find in this movie. This is especially true for the shower scene where two of the so called 'barely legal' girls who couldn't be a day over 40 are spraying each other with blood but there is also a crew member squirting blood in the from the outside while one of the girls keeps smiling at him. No one had to memorize any lines for this movie, if they aren't clearly reading cards then they have a magazine in front of them they keep glancing at while they struggle through awkward dialogue. Then there's Mr Creepo. He throws Ed Wood's name around like he can somehow compare, but he is far far from anything of that quality. He walks around a cemetery babbling about random things that went wrong in the movie which really helps the complete lack of flow the movie already had going on. We couldn't stop laughing during this movie (except during the sex scenes where we were grossed out and occasionally horrified)

I give this movie a 1/10 for going so far above and beyond all my expectations for a horrible movie.


Awful, waste of time. There is no camp or trash value in this one. Seen better amateur movies done by 10 to 12 years old kids in movie clubs.

How on earth someone can spoil movie about vampires and lesbians?

It's not a movie to put together a few vampire / sadomasochism enthusiast in a same room and just shoot it.

Could not find anything good about the film. There was no plot, no real actors, no real special effects, no humor. A few overweight Goths touching each other cannot be called a sex scene. Nothing at all.

Well, cemetery was nice but one should shot a vampire movie during dark.

Purpose was probably good: make a trash movie in a spirit of Ed Wood. Problem is that one cannot make a bad movie intentionally. It takes talent and an effort to make a "real" movie. Ed Wood might have lacked money but he sure had effort. These guys lacked everything. Ed Wood was a genius compared to these guys.


In the process of boring you with the wordy, rambling storyline and the complete absence of character development, it manages to enforce a few negative black stereotypes out there. At one point I was wondering if Jesse Helms co-wrote the screenplay.


I could not believe it. This film was a total wast of time out of my life. The title is appropriate. Love didn't beat the hell out of me, this film did. I kept watching and watching and waiting and waiting and hoping for something, anything to happen. And nothing ever happened! Nothing!! Terrence Howard couldn't even save this lame piece of work called a film. It was dark, and confused and I didn't get who killed the girlfriend in the end. The tone and pacing of the film was supposed to be building to a dramatic climactic ending. This only served to confuse the audience because the movie just plodded along going no where. If you want pure torture, watch this film.


This movie isn't even good enough for the $1 bin at the grocery store.

I only purchased it because Terrence Howard was in it. Guess he couldn't be too choosy about his roles during this time.

The movie in itself was hard to sit through. It seemed they were grasping at straws with a storyline. The "guys night out" had to be the most boring I've ever seen. One minute they are talking and the next reciting poetry? Even the arguments were hard to follow. Most of the acting lacked any depth.

I have no idea what they were going for with this one but they certainly missed the mark.


This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. They said this was the man's answer to Waiting to Exhale...All I'm going to say is that we really didn't respond at all. I couldn't believe that it was actually made. The director should choose another profession, because he can't make a movie. The script wasn't good. It made no sense and was very messy. Bet movies are much better than this was, and I was horribly disappointed to see the talented actor Terrence in this bad excuse of a movie. If I could turn back the hands of time I wouldn't go back to Media Play to never buy the movie, I would just keep it wrapped sitting on the shelf, instead of wasting my time watching it.


This is far the most worst film I've seen this year from Bollywood so far. I may not lie, my wife liked this film very much. It was not Bobby Deol or Arjun Rampal what made this film become unbelievable, but it was Amisha Patel. She performs the role of a blind woman who get in trouble when she almost fall from a mountain where (luckily for her) the hero Arjun Rampal comes to rescue her (in the middle of nowhere). It amazes me here how a blind girl is aware of danger when she is about to fall from a mountain, because she cannot see her environment. From this scene I started to watch the movie very closely and in every scene there was a flaw in the acting of Amisha Patel. The way she plays a blind girl is very bad. The only way she does that is by not to look into the eyes of the person she talks with. When I saw this film, I respected Rani Mukherjee more with her performance in the movie Black. Amisha will never reach this level in performing as an actress.

Anyway, she falls in love with Arjun Rampal. It is the cliché story. Sudden Arjun gets killed by a man who is madly in love with Amisha. Amisha is in despair, but then Bobby enters the movie. He also falls in love with the blind girl. Bobby Deol is a great actor in my point of view, but he cannot pull the film to a higher level where Amisha Patel buries it deep into the ground. I must say Bobby deserves better roles in better movies than he got so far. Bobby grew in acting from the first movie his lovely daddy gave him. He was so bad in acting in Barsaat, but when you see him acting now, you get the shivers and believe every word he says. Only a movie with high potential like a Yash Copra film has to meet his way.

Okay, when Amisha also falls in love with Bobby, someones enters her life. Arjun Rampal is not dead! Who believes this crap? I don't. Why didn't they give his role to one of the ugly guys from the movie family (Shushant Singh or Aryeman Ramsay) and give Bobby a role in one of the blockbusters with Amitabh Bachchan? I'm sorry if my comment sounds like a cry for an actor like Bobby to give him a great role, but he deserves so much better than a movie with Amisha (bigscreen t.v. face) Patel. This movie was so awful, that I regret buying it.


A sadly predictable, clichéd story about a woman who was no better than she should have been. Sadly, too, the screenplay is by the once-great experimental novelist John Dos Passos, from an original by French exotic potboiler Pierre Louys. This time Marlene Dietrich is Concha, a manipulative, cold-hearted Spanish beauty. Don Pasqual (Lionel Atwill) raises her from the cigarette factory, but she ditches him. He warns his tall young friend Antonio (Cesar Romero) against her, but to no avail. A duel ensues, Concha reproaches Pasqualito for trying to kill the only man she ever cared for, so he doesn't: he points his pistol at the sky, but Antonio shoots him. But instead of going off to Paris with the young victor, she goes back to the man who would have died for her. With an unexpected bit by Edward Everett Horton as a Spanish Governor. Dietrich plays the part of a Spanish woman by moving constantly, twisting at the waist and posturing and then twisting back, flouncing, tossing her head, and so forth. And she makes faces, and has a curl in the middle of her forehead. The photography is strangely crowded: no outdoor scene can be shot except through a tangle of bare trees, no interior scene can be shot without so much busy detail that it's almost impossible to follow people moving across a room, no consecutive scene of Dietrich can be shot without a major wardrobe change. The carnival scenes are so full of confetti and streamers it's almost like an underwater scene in the Sargasso Sea.


Marlene Dietrich is magnificent as Concha Perez, the temptress who drives all men to despair in Josef Von Sternberg's "The Devil is a Woman". Her performance has nothing to do with 'acting' in any conventional sense but she's incandescent, a true star in full command of her material. But she's the only good thing about the film, (she's so good she keeps you watching this dross; I doubt if any other actress could have done the same).

The story is an appallingly lame melodrama, (surely Pierre Louys' novel was better), in which Dietrich's amoral Concha ruins the lives of two friends played by Lionel Atwill and Cesar Romero with a stiffness bordering on petrification. And for Von Sternberg it's an ugly looking movie, (maybe in keeping with its fairly ugly subject matter). Bunuel, on the other hand, thought enough of it to remake it as "That Obscure Object of Desire" with a greater emphasis on the surrealist aspects of it all, down to casting two different actresses in the same role. Neither film is either director's finest hour and while the Bunuel version may be the better film, it is Dietrich's 'performance' you remember.


This movie basically uses spousal rape as one of its main comedic devices. Now I turned it off at the point when he literally ties her to the bed and rapes her, but I cannot really imagine how that was eventually turned around into something endearing and funny. This movie not only squandered a wonderful cast and was consistently unfunny, it actually managed to be rather brutally disturbing and misogynistic. How so many people seem to find it a sweet family flick is beyond me. "I sure enjoyed canning those apricots last night" is not a funny joke when you know it refers to forcing an unwilling virgin to have sex with you in the hopes she will eventually learn to like it. Watching a peeping tom jerk off is not family fun. I honestly feel worse off for having watched half of this creepy "comedy" and am totally baffled by these positive reviews.


I never thought a movie could make me regret the fact that I subscribe to the HBO service. Now I know better! Jack is usually one of my favorite actors but not even he could rescue this part. Not that he tried. Jack plays his usual Wiitches of Eastwick type character. Unfortunately it doesn't transfer over to the American southwest. He is about as believable a cowboy desperado as Pee Wee Herman. There is no edge to the performance and for that reason the comedy fails. He is almost to goofy. The remainder of the cast was worse. Timing in delivering lines is apparently something that the leading lady had not perfected as of 1978 and the others appeared to be just happy to be there. My recommendation to those of you interested in seeing this movie is that you save your valuable time for something like watching paint dry.


For some unknown reason, 7 years ago, I watched this movie with my mother and sister. I don't think I've ever laughed as hard with them before. This movie was sooooo bad. How sequels were produced is beyond me. Its been awhile since I last saw this "movie", but the one impression that it has stuck with me over the years has been, "They must have found the script in a dumpster in the backlot of a cheap movie studio, made into a "movie", and decided that it didn't suck enough, and made it worse. I'm pretty sure that they spent all the budget on camera work and the so called "special effects", and then had 13 cents left toward the script AND to pay the "actors".


If you are a six-year-old boy who's into dinosaurs, you will love this movie. If you are anybody else, you'll be rolling your eyes about every 15 seconds. If you want to start picking on things like the acting, the special effects, the dialogue, or the absence of a coherent plot that makes even the slightest amount of sense, you'll have plenty of material. If all you want is a safe dinosaur fantasy movie for your kid, it will do just fine. That said, there's a lot of kids' entertainment out there that's much smarter, and some of it is even bearable or enjoyable for adults. Unless your child is in an uncompromising dinosaur mood, you're probably better off looking for something else.


In one sense, I kind of liked this movie because of a 'mindless', positive atmosphere it sort of conveys. I had a problem with an aspect of the plot, but more about that later. First, the characters were a little goofy and one dimensional. The 'good people' had similar physical and character traits and the 'bad people' had similar physical and character traits ... hmmm. The basic storyline was OK (pretty simple and standard) - nothing too exciting or objectionable. The main attraction was, of course, the miniature dinosaurs - kind of a nice fantasy element to have. However, they had a very minimal presence in the movie.

Outside of that, the movie kept a brisk pace and didn't get too bogged down in any one place. I liked this about the movie.

The problem I had with the plot had to do with the the idea of "stealing". I think this movie may not have been thought out enough - something's wrong especially if this is a kid's movie. I'll keep the next sentence abstract to not be a spoiler (skip it if you're worried). The 'good guys' do some stealing and they don't have the same info the audience has - so it's just stealing and that's kind of a bad thing for a kid's movie.

Overall, if you have kids, because of a questionable plot aspect I'd consider passing. However, this whole movie is pretty low key anyway so it may not matter. Pass this one if you have any other interesting choices.


Eugene O'Neill's 4 and a half hour 1927 play brought to the screen in less than two hours. The play's combination of symbolic dialogue and gothic melodrama hasn't aged very well and the cast has some difficulty with it, especially Norma Shearer's Nina and Ralph Morgan's Marsden. Clark Gable as Ned Darrell comes off better but mostly because his is a gruff character not given to the philosophical musings of the others which better fits Gable's range. Once the plot settles down to the love quadrangle and the audience adjusts to the voiceover asides the film does become more enjoyable. The technique used here for the asides is another problem. On stage the action froze while the actors spoke their thoughts to the audience. Here they're done as voiceovers. You'd think that would work better but since the action no longer freezes the actors are forced to pause speaking and grimace at the camera to match the emotions in their thoughts. Plus it's difficult for any movie buff to watch this film and not think of Groucho Marx's hilarious parody version in "Animal Crackers." Added to these drawbacks are some cuts made for censorship reasons (Nina's promiscuity is soft-peddled and there is no mention of her getting the abortion that is more central in the play) and a wretched score (uncredited) that sounds like background music to a turn-of-the-century weepie. O'Neill called this film "a dreadful hash of attempted condensation and idiotic censorship," and although "Strange Interlude" is nowhere near as great as his later "The Iceman Cometh" and "Long Day's Journey Into Night," it certainly deserved better than this.


Eugene O'Neill is acclaimed by some as America's leading playwright, but for things like The Iceman Cometh, Long Day's Journey Into Night, The Emperor Jones. Strange Interlude was a piece of experimentation he concocted where the characters on stage, look aside to the audience and say what they really are thinking and then resume conversation. It was a nine hour production with a dinner break on Broadway, so you can safely assume a lot has been sacrificed here.

For the screen the voice over regarding the thoughts is used for all the characters. It probably is a technique better suited to the screen. Sir Laurence Olivier did very well with it in his version of Hamlet. But Bill Shakespeare gave Olivier a lot better story than O'Neill gave his players in this instance.

Players like Clark Gable, Norma Shearer, Ralph Morgan, May Robson, etc. are a lot more animated in most of their films than they are in Strange Interlude. The story takes place over a 20 year period. Norma Shearer is a young woman whose intended is killed in World War I. She starts playing around quite a bit, although that part is not shown in this version. She makes the acquaintance of Alexander Kirkland and his friend Clark Gable. She also has as a perennial suitor, Ralph Morgan, a friend of her father's Henry B. Walthall.

She marries Kirkland, but then is warned by his mother May Robson and shown that insanity gallops in that family to quote another literary work. Since Kirkland wants kids and Shearer and Robson think Kirkland's train will slip the track if he doesn't get one, Gable is recruited for breeding purposes. Of course you can see all the complications this can cause and O'Neill explores them all.

Gable is so terribly miscast in an O'Neill production, but he was an up and coming player at MGM and did what they told him. Shearer does what she can to lift a very dreary story, but she seems defeated at the start. Best in the film is possibly Robson who puts some real bite in her dialog.

Strange Interlude ran for 426 showings on Broadway in 1928-1929 and starred Glenn Anders and Lynn Fontanne in the Gable and Shearer parts. Perhaps no one could really have saved the film because two years earlier, Groucho Marx lampooned the stuffings out of it in Animal Crackers. After seeing what he did, I don't think the movie going public took it too seriously.

And since it's not the best of O'Neill, neither could I.


The movie gets a score of 3 because it dared to be so very different. It features a cast acting while you can hear their thoughts and desires! This is truly a weird film and an experience I won't forget. The only problem is that the experiment, though in some ways interesting, is generally quite dull and unengaging. In fact, it's amazing that a Norma Shearer and Clark Gable film could be THIS dull! The film is based on a Eugene O'Neill play and it really does seem quite stagy. In fact, it would have been best just to keep it as a stage production--it just didn't translate at all to the big screen.

So this movie is only recommended to die-hard cinemaniacs and those who love Gable films so much they just have to see all his films!


A four-and-a-half-hour O'Neill play gets boiled down to a little under two, and much of that running time is devoted to actors with frozen expressions on their faces as they read their characters' thoughts in voice-over. It can work onstage, but it looks hilariously stilted in this soap-opera adaptation, which soft-peddles its heroine's bad behavior and never explains why she has so captivated so many men. Norma Shearer and Alexander Kirkland, overacting ludicrously, are outclassed by a naturalistic Clark Gable--he's the only one who makes the frozen-face technique work. It gets even funnier when Shearer's and Gable's son, a surly moppet, does the frozen-face shtick. There are also Frank Morgan's brother Ralph as an unsuccessful suitor, given to soliloquizing "poor Charlie!" over and over again, and a young Robert Young and Maureen O'Sullivan. By the time they show up, the voice-overs have largely been abandoned, and it plays as a ripe soap, with a sentimental fadeout that actually plays "Silver Threads Among the Gold" as background music. Robert Leonard's direction is stodgy and he shows little facility for reining in hyperactive actors. It's certainly entertaining--there's nothing else like it, unless you count Groucho's satirical parody in "Animal Crackers," or an old Mad Magazine satire that rendered Shirley Booth's sitcom "Hazel" a la "Strange Interlude". But it isn't good.


I can only guess that this movie was an experiment that misfired. Years earlier, it would have been moving images accompanied by music. Later, it would have been sound added to silents. Eventually it would have been Technicolor, Cinemascope or Imax. This movie must have been a misguided attempt to introduce a new element to the talking picture. During all the emotional scenes, the character stops in mid dialogue and their inner thoughts are narrated while they gaze off into the distance or appeal to the camera. This interruption is painful at it's very least. Imagine these top tier actors trying to look busy while the narration drones on. Painful. I have no idea who came up with this gimmick, but it was the only time I ever saw it used - and for good reason. In every scene the actors were forced to roll their eyes, wring their hands, or overact to such a degree, I actually wondered if this was really a comedy.

The story is a hopeless soap opera that takes place over a couple of generations. Norma Shearer, disappointed in love, searches for a reason to live. She has a friend, played by Ralph Morgan, who worships her - but she takes him for granted. She is attracted to a doctor, played by Clark Gable, but he is self absorbed and isn't interested in her. She settles for a weakling that needs her desperately. She marries him only to find that there is insanity in his family and she can never have a child with him. Along comes the doctor who selfishly pops a bun in her oven, only to find out later that he loves her after all. The child builds confidence in her husband who becomes a success, but she realizes that it's really Clark she loves after all. Confused yet? Forget the rest, just watch a couple of episodes of "As the World Turns" and it'll all become clear.

If your are ever forced to watch this movie, hold out for the final scene. The gyrations of the actors put Harold LLoyd to shame. It is not to be missed.


This is a piece of Hollywood product that should have never left a film can. Dialogue without a plausible thought, plot without a point, staging without skill, directing without direction, and acting without the worth of some backwater high school's freshman class play. The entire cast should have been arrested for over acting.

But otherwise, okay!


This film is supposed to be about the frustrations of film making. It certainly frustrated me with its endless boredom. The setting is an attractive Spanish seacoast resort with his usual large cast. The script is very poorly written or maybe there was no script. Just all ad-lib.

A far superior film about the frustrations of film making is Francois Truffaut's "Day For Night" made in 1973. It shows all the delays and how the cast can misbehave in an intriguing manner. It doesn't bore the viewer and you gain sympathy for the director who somehow must complete the film.


I have loved the book "A Little Princess" for most of my life, and was very excited that there was a movie. But I was appalled at this adaptation. Not only is the acting wooden, and the plot a convoluted mish mash of various incidents in the book, but the theme is all wrong. The real theme of the story should be that a girl can be a princess only when she behaves like one, as Sara does when she gives 5 of her 6 buns to a beggar child, even when she herself is very hungry. The theme of the movie seems to be that all girls are princesses, which cheapens Sara's actions considerably, and seems more like it should be written on a Hallmark card than applied to this story.

There are many other things wrong with this movie- too many to list, but here are just a few of the larger ones: This story should be set in Britian in the mid 1800s, not America during the first world war. Miss Minchen is harsh to Sara from the start, making her actions when Sara is left penniless much less startling than they would be if she was syrupy sweet at the beginning, as she is supposed to be. Nowhere is it mentioned that Becky is black. Sara's father does *not* come back, he is dead. It is his closest friend, and collaborator in the diamond mines who finds Sara, and restores her to her proper place. In fact, the diamond mines are not even mentioned at all, though they are the source of Sara's wealth.

All through everything that Sara has faced, she always acts like a Princess, giving what she can, and forgiving those who hurt her. She would never have called Lavinia a "snotty two faced bully". Such a thing is completely out of character for her, and undermines the entire philosophy that she is to be well behaved no matter what.

This is by far the worst adaptation of a book to the screen that I have ever seen (with the notable exceptions of "Ella Enchanted", and "Anne of Green Gables the Continuing Story")The plot of the book is wonderful, and skillfully written, so I do not understand why the director felt that it needed to be changed to make it interesting. I would suggest that anyone wishing to know this story should watch the 1987 version, which is far superior. Or better still, read the book. It will be more worth your time than the hour and a half wasted on this version on the movie.


I absolutely despise this film. I wanted to love it - I really wanted to. But man, oh man - they were SO off with Sara. And the father living was pretty cheesy. That's straight out of the Shirley Temple film.

I highly recommend THE BOOK. It is amazing. In the book, Sara is honorable and decent and she does the right thing... BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT. She doesn't have a spiteful bone in her body.

In the film, she is mean-spirited and spiteful. She does little things to get back at Miss Minchin. In the book, Sara is above such things. She DOES stand up to Miss Minchin. She tells the truth and is not cowed by her. But she does not do the stupid, spiteful things that the Sara in the film does.

It's really rather unsettling to me that so many here say they loved the book and they love the movie. I can't help but wonder... did we read the same book? The whole point of the book was personal responsibility, behaving with honor and integrity, ALWAYS telling the truth and facing adversity with calm and integrity.

Sara has a happy ending in the book - not the ridiculous survival of her father, but the joining with his partner who has been searching for her. In the book, she is taken in by this new father figure who loves and cares for her and Becky. And Miss Minchin is NOT a chimney sweep - that part of the film really was stupid.

To see all this praise for this wretched film is disturbing to me. We are praising a film that glorifies petty, spiteful behavior with a few tips of the hat to kindness? Sara in the book was kind to the bone and full of integrity. I don't even recognize her in the film... she's not in it.

Good thing Mrs. Burnett isn't alive to see this horrid thing. It's ghastly and undeserving to bear the title of her book.


I really wanted to love this film. I have read the book to my daughters and we all loved it. The book is marvelous. This film is very far from the book. The book is splendid - this film is an awful adaptation.

In the book, Sara is honorable, kind, strong, and NEVER does anything spiteful to get back at anyone. That's the POINT of the book! She behaves as a "princes" regardless of circumstances. An important part of behaving like a princess is to not return unkindness. It is to behave honorably regardless of how you are being treated.

In the book, she endures much and touches the lives of others. Other people change their behaviors after they witnessed her kindness and ability to endure without sinking to spite and vengefulness. Sara does what is right simply BECAUSE it is RIGHT.

Outside of the bakery, she comes upon a beggar girl who is more poor and hungry than she is. She has half a dozen hot buns. She is VERY hungry. She gives one bun to this wild looking little girl huddled on the doorstep of the bakery. When she sees how ravenous the girl is and watches her gobble the bun, she gives her another. She continues to do this until she has given 3 or 4 I think - I don't remember how many.

The baker is watching through the window. She is so moved by what she has witnessed, she takes the beggar girl in and raises her as her own daughter. Other people are similarly influenced by Sara.

And in the book, her father has died. The man next door is her father's partner - he has been looking for her. Her father did not lose his money after all - the man is thrilled to find Sara; he takes her and Becky into his home and raises them as his daughters. And Sara has her full inheritance, of course.

Miss Minchin is not a chimney sweep. In fact, she remains in her same post at the school. But she is humiliated as Sara has told her new guardian of the cruel treatment she received. And Sara does speak to Miss Minchin in the end - Miss Minchin is trying to minimize her treatment of Sara and Sara with a calm steadfast demeanor, instructs Miss Minchin that she had been cruel.

There is no comeuppance for Miss Minchin. She continues on in her miserable existence. It does not matter - what matters is that Sara has a home with a guardian who loves her - and her dearest friend in the world, Becky, is now for all intents and purposes, her sister.

The book is about love and honorable behavior under the worst of circumstances. It is about self control and humility. It is a wonderful book. This film does NOTHING to capture the true story and messages of the book. My wife was so disgusted with it, she wanted to leave the theater in the middle, but we decided to stick it out. We were not rewarded.

I cannot for the life of me think of a reason the film makes should alter this excellent book in such a bad direction. Perhaps it was the influence of the ghastly screenplay from the book that Shirley Temple acted in. I don't know - but this film is so far from the book in character and values that I do not recognize it.

Don't waste your time - buy the book. It is unforgettable... even for a dad!


I was looking forward to this so much, being a big fan of the book. However, when it came out I remember thinking it was one of the biggest wastes of money and time I've ever spent at the cinema.

In principle, the acting, the sets and the music were excellent, and are the main reason why I'm rating this a 4.

In this version, Sara is a little too self-sacrificing for my taste. There is no way she would have deliberately lied to Miss Minchin just to stop her punishing the other girls; in the book she makes a point of describing lies as "not just wicked, but vulgar."

There's also far too much of a Disneyfied ending for me; Sara's father coming back from the dead and all of them trotting off into the Indian sunset. While the book does have a happy (and critics might say equally improbable) ending, it doesn't leave you thinking, "Oh puh-leeze."

About the only things true to the book were:

1. Sara's father being a soldier 2. The lines between Sara and her father ("Are you learning me by heart?"/"No. I know you by heart. You are inside my heart.") 3. Sara's friendship with Becky, and her 'adopting' Lottie (although this last one wasn't developed as much as it could have been) 4. The changing of her room by adding various luxury items. That part was brilliantly done. 5. The basic core - a rich girl being flung into poverty suddenly - is there, but that's about all that is.

People might say that this adaptation is more for the younger audience. Possibly. All I can say to that is I have two cousins - aged 7 and 12 respectively - who were big fans of this film until they read the book.

If all you want is a 'feel-good' family film, then this delivers. If you're looking for a film that actually tells the story of A Little Princess (in fact, if you've read the book) don't waste time with this one. It's such a shame; with a cast like this, if they'd stuck to at least the basic story it could have been fantastic.

Am I harping on about 'read the book' this and 'read the book' that a little too much? Very probably. But if someone attempts to adapt a book - especially such a classic - into a movie, then they should at least have done the same thing. Preferably more than once.


Milla stands out in this movie because of her personal sense of style and the way the clothes hang on her. I have learned to hate that crumpled little three-year-old face she makes whenever she pretends to cry. It makes any points she is trying to make as a serious actress drop off quickly. Of course, in a movie with a BALDWIN and Denise, she still shines as a mature actor person. David seemed to be doing Woody Allen by way of Howdy Doody. Not a single word or gesture in the entire movie seemed sincere or even sincerely acted. "How Harry Met Sally" and "Two Weddings and Funeral", even "Sleepless In Seattle" had scripts, locations and ACTORS. The script seemed to be a string of bad and crude gags separated by a LOT OF TALKING. The locations seemed to be within a few blocks of each other. There are only two actors in this dishrag of an indie flick, Milla and the lady who played the chick who was into the stars. I watched most of this through the first time with the sound off, just watching Milla. That subscript gag was old the first time I saw it and it's a silly rip off of a song in "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying".


Owen (David Krumholtz) and Chloe (Denise Richards) are a youngish couple living in Manhattan. Owen is a moderately successful magazine writer while Chloe is an aspiring actress. Happily for her, Chloe gets big role on a sitcom and temporarily moves to Hollywood. Missing her, Owen books a flight to LaLa Land, as a surprise. When he arrives at her set trailer, however, the "house" is shaking, as Chloe and her hunky co-star are having a little romantic tryst. The writer and the actress are through. Hurt and mad as a hatter, Owen goes back to NYC. Sympathetic friends decide to set him up on a blind date with Nadine (Milla Jovovich) to get him out of his sulky funk. But, it goes badly, as the duo mix like oil and water, mostly due to each having a strong personality and Owen's huge shoulder chip. Yet, over the next few months, astonishingly, Nadine and Owen become pals, who confide in each other and hang out. Can it turn into something more? Well, who the heck cares! This film is so STUPID that most folks will yank it out of the DVD player after the first ten minutes. The script is pathetic, dismal, and, oh, stupid, too. Then again, Krumholtz gives a very obnoxious and offensive performance as well. Jovovich is not much better but who could look good with the lines she has to spout? William Baldwin, too, reaches a career low with his crude and sex-crazy role as Owen's brother. The only cast member who is any good is Richards but she must cringe when she looks back at this one. Okay, the costumes and production values are adequate. Then, too, there is ONE clever element in that, occasionally, the characters will speak their lines but cartoon bubbles will appear above their heads with the words of what they are truly thinking. That doesn't save the film from "bomb" status. Don't be stupid, dear film and romcom lovers. Do not rent, buy, or borrow this gigantic turkey. I am the stupidest person on earth, today, for watching this THING until the bitter end.


Writer/Director Brian Burns has obviously seen a few romantic comedies, and he seems to think that he's discovered the formula for success: plenty of location shots in New York (preferably in the winter), allusions to old Hollywood films (especially musicals), enjoyable musical soundtrack. Alas, all of this is mere compensation for Burns' lack of talent as a writer. (The great mystery of many writer-directors making independent films is not why they cannot get on with major studios, but how they get any backing at all for their films.)

Normally our interest in romantic comedy is motivated by the lead characters, but the couple in this film simply has no appeal. This is not the fault of either David Krumholtz or Milla Jovavich; their characters are just poorly written. What we respond to in such classics as When Harry Met Sally or Annie Hall or older films such as His Girl Friday are quirks and flaws of the lead characters' personalities. Lacking the ability to create individuals, Burns gives us an after-school special inspired by Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.

How anyone can see Burns as the successor to Woody Allen is beyond me. I did not laugh once during this film, and the screen-play is full of echo chamber dialog ("I want to paint the town red." "You want to paint the town red?"), which is the most tell-tale sign of someone who has no business writing for a living. In one of the early scenes, we see Krumholz's actress girlfriend filming a mindless TV sitcom. It's the only moment in the whole film that the dialog feels right; maybe that indicates what Burns talents are really suited for.


Seeing that this got a theatrical release nowhere around the globe, it only serves as a reminder of were the careers of those talent-free ladies Denise Richards and Milla Jovovich went. It also is a particular grating kind of movie, the kind that think they are smart, funny and original while being poor in every aspect. Full blame can go to Brian Burns, who wrote and directed this potboiler. His script takes a quite unoriginal situation and goes exactly nowhere with it. The situations develop completely without any inner logic, besides that of a desperate scriptwriter. Characters are thinner than cardboard cutouts, behave stupid and without any real motivation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the inclusion of Mrs. Richards. We don't believe her relationship with David Krumholtz's character for one minute and the way she is brought back into play after the one-hour mark is particularly pitiful. Why would anyone fall for a egocentric, self-obsessed, arrogant b**ch like this in the first place, much less a second time? Especially after having supposedly found his..erm...true love? And if any of these things aren't enough to completely sink this movie, than the central couple is. The coupling of Krumholtz and Jovovich is only slightly more believable or developed than the Richards-one, but it is to no avail. There is no chemistry, no spark, nothing that we might loosely accept as a credible couple. Worse, these two central characters are particularly annoying and irritating, doing annoying and irritating things the viewer finally has no interest in, whatsoever.

Overall, a very poor showing. Even die-hard rom-com fans might want to pass on this one, as there are dozens of movie made with more skill or more charm.