Probably one of the worst movies ever made, I'm still trying to figure if it was meant to be fun, but for sure I had no fun at all. Maybe the movie lost something during the english-italian translation, dunno, for sure I miss the guts to watch it again in original version.

My rate for it 2/10, and I feel like I'm being pretty generous (let's say 1 point is for Liv cause she's a nice babe, and the other point is for those decent actors that got trapped into a worthless, useless and pathetic movie)

Take Care

Alex


I don't usually watch Hollywood dribble, but I was dragged along with some friends to see this one, which turned out to be amusing in places but totally devoid of any originality. Don't worry, you won't have to think - Tarantino-like storyline leaves enough over-obvious hints for us to correctly predict where this one's going about fifteen minutes before every "twist" - I sat there worrying that the film was building up fairly nicely for a Hollywood flick but that it would have nowhere to go at the climax. And boy were my fears realised - YMCA couldn't save this one, but Liv Tyler almost did. I suppose being male and in my twenties helped, but she delivered a really good performance - obviously she didn't have to do much except look absolutely stunningly over-the-top sexy, but what she did she did well! McCOOL'S is certainly not going to go down as one of Hollywood's great successes (or should I say "shouldn't" because the mainstream American film industry is not going anywhere at present, and hasn't for a decade at least, save the odd hit like AMERICAN BEAUTY, TITANIC and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, and even those had major flaws), but if you're a teen male, do yourself a favour and see Liv - she is one hot chick. Rating: 5/10. See also: anything by Quentin Tarantino, any American teen film over the last decade, anything with sex as its main selling point.


I give this piece of Hollywood trash 1 out 10! Seriously! I mean, I like comedy as much as the next guy. I also can take just plain stupid comedy and actually sit back and laugh with it. But this film had nothing to laugh at OR with.

I like nearly all of the actors in this film. So I thought I'd overlook what many people told me about it (my fault for not listening). I was just mortified at how stupid this script was! Just ridiculous and not even in a funny way. The only funny scenes were in the previews that everyone saw in the theater when seeing other movies or on TV. I was very disappointed and I really would like to know why these otherwise relatively good actors would read this script and then still sign up to be in it! Bad decision on their parts...

*********************MAJOR SPOILER************************

Okay - here's my biggest question on this film.......If the characters are looking back on this story of Jewel (Liv Tyler) after the fact....then how can Paul Reiser have gone to a therapist remembering the past!?!?!?!? He dies in the last scene by being crushed by the dumpster!!!! Can anyone answer me that?!?!?!?!? Major goof on the part of the film makers.....Nobody noticed this?!?!?!?!?!?!


One Night at McCool's wants you to think it is a hip and clever black comedy. It pushes its "quirky" characters and "outrageous" situations at the viewer like a crack dealer making overtime. The premise is about a gold digging woman, named Jewel who dates men to get them to steal and sometimes murder, so she can have all the worldly possesions she so desperately desires. You know, this wouldn't be a bad strategy, if she chased after rich guys. This film really wants one to believe that a foxy con artist would waste time dating bartenders and Andrew "Dice" Clay. Please. That major flaw in Jewel's scheme is really the only entertainment to found found in this stinker (and that's unintentional). Watching it, it is not hard to believe there could have been a good movie inside it somewhere. One Night at McCool's just could not decide what direction it wanted to take, so just sat in the middle of the road like a dead armadillo. It tries to be sexy but no clothes are removed on camera, and the few scenes of body head are dreadfully pedestrian. There is one recurring scene where a hitman is asking the protaganist (played by Matt Dillon) about how the sex is with Jewel. It seems like Matt doesn't know, neither do the viewers. Why was he dating her anyway? One Night at Mccool's also wants to be funny. Sorry, bizarre coincidences and misunderstandings didn't even work on Three's Company. What's worse is that this movie really seemed like it was going for a dark atmosphere to accompany its comedy. Kind of like a sophomoric Coen brothers film but its shallow script could not play subtlety, nor could its lackluster dirction sledgehammer in any shocks. What the audience is left with is a film that seems to busy trying to please everybody and just losing any appeal along the way.


Horrendous "comedy" in which a beautiful, crazy woman (Liv Tyler) "comedically" destroys the lives of three men (Matt Dillon, Paul Reiser and John Goodman). Dillon hires a hit man (Michael Douglas) to kill her. What is happening to comedy? The year 2001 has produced some of the worst comedies ever (Saving Silverman, Sugar and Spice, Freddy Got Fingered, Tomcats, etc etc). This is one of the worst. There's not one, repeat, not ONE funny moment in it. The jokes are either stupid, unfunny, smutty or real sick. Also there's a strong hatred of women in this garbage--the only main female character (Tyler) is constantly used as a sex object. Also extreme, bloody violence is thrown in at the end. The only bearable moments come from Reba McEntire as a psychiatrist and Andrew Dice Clay in two roles--both psychos. Dillon, Goodman and Reiser have hit an all-time career low with this--the only way to go is up. And poor Tyler! She quit doing intelligent, gutsy independent films for THIS? And DOUGLAS???? What was he on when he agreed to this? An utter piece of crap--to be avoided AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!!!!!


I'm afraid I only stayed to watch the first hour of this movie as it really seemed to me to be mindless TV-trash and a waste of talent. Liv Tyler plays a sumptuous beauty, but her acting skills are not yet sufficiently developed to give the part any real kick. As she slowly seduces a bartender into a life of crime it is difficult to feel any real concern over any of the characters. Even John Goodman delivers his weakly comic lines with an absence of panache, as if the witless humour needs to be recited slowly in case anyone misses the joke. The ending is supposed to be good, but the starter and main course left me with no appetite to find out.


This is one of those star-filled over-the-top comedies that could a) be hysterical, or b) wish that you had gone to the dentist to have all your teeth pulled instead. Unfortunately, One Night at McCool's is a classic "b."

Goldie Hawn recently commented about "Town and Country" that it's a big problem in Hollywood that they start with hiring the actors and putting together a deal before a script is completed. You have to figure that not only did they go into this picture without a complete script, they also mangled it daily. Maybe we need to send cards and letters to the heads of all the studio that say, "It's the script, stupid."

This is also one of those movies where you find yourself feeling sorry for the actors most of the way through. They're working their asses off trying to make all this seem hysterical, but they know most of it is going to be accompanied not by belly laughs but by the sounds of the crickets you can hear inside the silent theatre.

Is it an unmitigated disaster? Not entirely. There are some smiles along the way, mostly due to the efforts of the actors. I probably would have gone out of the theatre thinking, "Eh. It was okay." So why the undeniably hostile tone in my review? The ending. If, as it's been noted, the rest of the movie is just all a setup for the ending, then it misses spectacularly. I really wish I could speak specifically about it, but I hate people who give too much away (even in warning). Suffice it to say that as soon as you see John Goodman behind a bent-over Paul Reiser (nothing given away here. It's in the trailer), get the hell out of the theatre and go out thinking, "Eh. It was okay." The rest of the movie is tacked-on and creatively bankrupt. And you'll be appalled that there will actually be people laughing at this mess.

If you loved "There's Something About Mary" or "Meet The Parents" (both GREAT movies), then don't bother to see this movie. Go have those teeth taken care of instead.


'It's supposed to have got good reviews' says the g/f. If so, I can't find them. She goes off to sleep and I endure. Michael Douglas as a good ol' boy - now there's a new one. Matt Dillon all screwed up. John Goodman losing his cool. Paul Reiser running around in BDSM leather. Oh it's a riot all right.

The hitch is you're probably going to lose interest pretty soon on. Liv Tyler plays the femme fatale and critics complain she might not have the register for her part. But it's immaterial: this movie is not about character development. In fact I'd go so far as to say there's no character at all. What you're supposed to appreciate here is the plot.

No one is 'bad' in this movie. Some people wonder why all these 'stars' - Reba's even in here for goodness sake - sign up for such a junky project. Odds are they thought it would be fun. Maybe they did have fun. Who knows? Hey - maybe they got paid good too.

But you have to fork over money one way or another to see this turkey. And that's probably not a good idea.


Before I took a job as a reviewer, I never went to films like this, and thus remained blissfully unaware that at the soul of the Hollywood film lies a deeply woman-hating spirit that thrives on putting its knocking little knees on the silver screen for all to either empathize with or revile. Or is this just a particularly bad year? An ugly trend?

Here we have yet another seemingly sweet, innocent, beautiful woman turned lethal weapon. The kind that cautions us that beneath every pair of batting eyes and nesting instincts lies a wild-eyed beast guaranteed to make everyone's life within 50 miles a living hell.

This month's specimen is Jewel Valentine's (Liv Tyler), whose simple dreams include having her own little house, a backyard fountain, and a mondo home entertainment system. Unfortunately, Randy (Matt Dillon, in his first film in 3 years), the dim-bulb bartender she picks up at McCool's one night intending to rob, is less materially oriented. The kind of guy who drinks beer out of a toilet plunger, he prefers to hunker down in his dead mother's house with few creature comforts save his snowglobe collection.

In that same low-rent bar, the Devil in the Red Dress also bumps into Randy's cousin, Carl (the highly amusing Paul Reiser), a lawyer with an ego the size of St. Louis. When things go south within hours, enter the widowed detective with a heart of gold (John Goodman). The result? Three men sustain big, bad crushes on the leopard-clad progeny of Steven Tyler and Bebe Buell-crushes that make them do things that common sense would normally contraindicate. Like get involved in the first place.

Multiple points of view and flashbacks patch together the front-page news about how easy it is to fall victim to one's libido, especially if you're male. As each of these men relates his perspective to a confidant, his desire to possess The Jewel colors the `truth' of the situation. About 70 minutes later, things come together in a reasonably amusing way. But it's amusement from the same source that tells you that the stuff on the popcorn actually tastes like butter.

MCCOOL'S is the first film by Norwegian commercial and music-video director Harald Zwart, and his pedigree is clear during some of the fantasy segments, including one about a car wash, soap and a hose that you can probably extrapolate. It's also the debut project from the production company owned by Michael Douglas, who's found his niche as a toupeed sleezeball in a bingo parlor.

Dillon and Tyler are unlikely to win any gold statues for this one, though given the one-dimensionality of their overdone film noir-type characters, you can't really fault them. Several minor roles drag out unexpected guests--Reba McEntire plays Carl's psychiatrist, and Andrew Dice Clay doubles as both the hoodlum Utah and his even-scarier brother. (Finally, an outlet for all that aggression.)

This film unwittingly speaks volumes about the dynamics between men and women--or men and their mommies. But ultimately you'd probably find more lasting psychological truths in a Bugs Bunny episode. I will say that it's better, funnier, more sophisticated than other recent gems like TOMCATS, but should we really have to choose what to see based on what ranks lowest on the misogynism scale?


I rented this film because I enjoy watching things with Lauren Graham in them. Well, she was the highlight. Everyone else seemed complete separated from the picture. You kept looking around you at those watching the film with you going, what? However she provided some clarity, as she was the only normal character in the picture, which actually isn't saying much for the film. Personally it was too far fetched for me. However, I am glad I rented despite the fact I would never want to own it. I still feel that Lauren Graham proved to be a strong actress and even thought she was not the main character, she seemed to steal the movie. My husband and I were happier and cared more about her character ending up with Josh's character than we were about the two main characters.


This movie was SO stupid~!!! I could not bare to watch the rest of this movie..... To think that the spoiled bitch suggested to see other people, then walks right into another relationship 5 minutes after the agreement was made.... I really felt sorry for the guy, but then again, for a guy like that to even consider letting his fiancé see other people, to go along with her grand idea, well, I'm sorry but, he deserved what he got~! And she was definitely not the best fish in the sea either, he can do way, way, way better.... She had no tits.... to hips.... no nothing~! And you had to have known that she wanted this right from the start... 5 years~??? How on earth did they last that long~???


I am shocked and amazed to find reviews short of miserable for this horrible film. I rented this "movie" or feces, whatever you wish to call it, with several friends and after thirty minutes we had to stop watching. Just listening to the dialog left a horrible taste of sour milk in my mouth. This film was about as intelligent as an ass pimple.I hope I never see that bra-less, raggedy Anne look alike (Julianne Nicholson) again.It was like watching the most putrid pilot for a sitcom that will never make it to television, but instead of being a quick but painful 30 minutes( all I could bare)this was an excruciating 90 minutes.


I like Wes Studi & especially Adam Beach, but whoa is this movie a load of pretentiousness. Ponderously slow. Overly cryptic to the point of obfuscation, not because the plot warrants it but because there is almost no plot. Even less in the way of characterization. This is almost like one of those creaky old Charlie Chan mysteries (the cheaper Monogram studio versions) with lots of red herrings & oddball characters (like the old ex-senator with the checkered past who is now a recluse) & loads of people getting killed over objets d'art that you wouldn't look twice at in the mall. Great scenery, though. Pretty hair on the redhead, too, although I never did figure out what she was doing in this at all. Neither could my wife. Sheesh, at least the old B-movies had the decency to be short.


There is NO Esperanto in this movie

I watched this movie specifically because IMDb lists Esperanto as one of the languages used. But IMDb is mistaken about the languages used in this film. There is absolutely no Esperanto at all. It's almost all English with a couple of words of Navajo. Do not watch this film if you're looking for Esperanto movies. Other options instead are "Idiot's Delight" (with Clark Gable) which has a bit of Esperanto, "Incubus" is all Esperanto (although completely mispronounced), and there are some Esperanto street signs in Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator." There was supposed to be some spoken Esperanto in "Gattaca" as well, but I never heard any.

Aside from that, the other reviewer is right. This movie is a complete mess.

Spend your time elsewhere.


The action was episodic and there was no narrative thread to tie the episodes together and move the story forward. The plot plods along. With few exceptions (e.g., Graham Greene) the acting was uninspired, and pedestrian at best. The actors seemed to have something on their minds, other than the scene they were in. It is boring to observe a man driving a car through the semi- desert country of this movie's setting, whether he drives poorly or well. Such scenes are typical of the level of tension in the video. So there was nothing about this video to engage or draw the observer in, to make him or her care about the characters and the out comes. I am doubly disappointed because I rented this movie based on the reputations of the executive producer (Redford) and the writer of the novel on which it was based (Hillerman). I note that the jewel box reports that funding is provided by PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as Carlton International. I would hope that this video was as disappointing to them as it was to me and my wife, to the point that they will not fund any more disasters coming from the same source.


Seriously Reality Charity TV These producers must think that the masses are full of non-thinkers.

These shows are called reality, which means they are suppose to resemble something real, with truth or facts.

I suppose the characters are really acting in all the pathetic-ness.

At one point I wonder if these type of shows decrease or increase the collective unconsciousness.

We live in a world that already contains individuals that are not authentic.

Is it necessary to promote an inauthentic way of being?


for me,this is not a good TV show,animated or otherwise.it is however,annoying to the nth degree.there are a few reasons for this,in no particular order.first,the intro of one of the most pointless,and annoying characters ever,Batmite.this character serves no purpose for the show,whatsoever.maybe it is intended as comic relief,but it doesn't work out that way.next up,the Joker.i thought it was really ridiculous to have his character let loose with that ridiculous laugh after almost every sentence.talk about repetitive.this gets old really fast..also don't think the had the right actor to voice the character.it just doesn't sound at all like the joker should sound.lastly,they made Robin look like a complete dork.other than these problems,the show isn't that bad.but these are big enough problems to drastically lower the likability factor.for me,"The new adventures Of Batman" is a 3/10,at best.


This film is cringingly bad. You can tell that all the actors are embarrassed to be associated with such a truly terrible movie. There are obvious budget constraints but with a little thought and attention to detail the movie could have been so much better. For example: check out the scene where Mickey first goes to the mortuary and is talking to his friend the pathologist whilst the murdered taxi driver is lying on the slab. You can actually see the corpse breathing! What, couldn't they afford to hire a half-decent extra that could hold his breath for a 2 minute scene?!


Hardware Wars rips off EVERYTHING in Star Wars. But if you are planning on doing any parody, you need to do it just a bit better than this. Not that there is anything wrong, per se, with Hardware Wars, but if you spoof, do it well, or not at all.


In efforts to make a somewhat comedic yet serious movie about the art of growing marijuana, Stephen Gyllenhaal (director) fell a few bong rips short of a good movie. While the cast is nothing short of amazing, this movie is extremely hard to sit through. The acting of Billy Bob Thornton, Ryan Phillipe, Jon Bon Jovi, Hank Azaria, and Kelly Lynch couldn't even save this movie from failure. It would be wiser to flush three single dollar bills down the toilet then to check this movie out at the local video store.


I think Homegrown is a bit of a misnomer for this movie - more like "Plantation Grown" - but it doesn't have quite the same ring to it. My guide described it a comedy, but the pathetic travails of these hapless buffoons is not my idea of a belly laugh. More in the genre of the farcical thriller/drama. The characters developed well enough - an all-star cast made it oh-so promising, just a shame the plot was patently absurd. Ted Danson provided a fine cameo as did Jamie Lee Curtis in her walk-on part. Jon Bon Jovi has this amazing ability to measure THC content in the front seat of his car! I guess if you imbibe a few beforehand you should be able to sit through this one - not for the gun shy paranoid types though.


I usually don't consider turning a movie off unless it's REALLY bad. Homegrown is a movie I wish I hadn't even turned on. The plot is interesting but the acting and writing are too low key. I didn't care about the characters. Any movie that has drug use and gratuitous nudity as its highlights is not worthy of praise. The characters spent their time getting high and believe me, that's the only way to sit through this movie.


Though Stephen Gyllenhaal is a good TV director with a few good full-length to his credit, "Homegrown" is just a mess in its script and direction. Despite performances from Billy Bob Thorton, John Lithgow, Kelly Lynch, Jon Bon Jovi, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Ted Danson, a cast this good couldn't save the film.

Gyllenhaalics will know that Jake and Maggie are in the film but you don't see Jake very well and Maggie's only in it for 30 seconds as babysitter tipping off Lithgow's character about a bust. It's not even a lowbrow pot comedy as the film was intended to be. It just wasn't funny.


So many films are now in a Genre described as "Comedy/Thriller", as was this one. A fine cast, interesting premise, but what an unpleasant film to watch. Into Hemp films? Then either "Saving Grace" or "Lock, Stock..." are far more enjoyable films. Rating: Just 2 out of 10 Roach Clips


horrible! All i can say is that is movie was horrible. I came to watch this movie half expecting some good acting. All i got was a horrible movie. This movie deserved to stay on the cutting room floor. I do not recommend this movie to anybody. I have seen better porformances by the actors.


It's Valentines Day and we decided to stay in, have a nice dinner, and watch this movie on TCM instead of going out. We're in our 40's - 50's, love romance, and are both "softies" but this movie just bombed for us (it's hard to imagine that it was nominated for Oscars, etc. but I guess that was then). The cinematography was beautiful but for the most part the movie as a whole is terribly dated. Jennifer Jones' character made so many references to her being Eurasion that we started counting and after a while we were giggling every time she said it. Add to that the "theme song" played incessantly throughout the film and we couldn't wait for it to be over so we could watch the evening news.


This love story between an American journalist and an Eurasian lady doctor does not contain much conflict, since she is largely Westernized (having studied in London), nor any fireworks, since she behaves rather restrained. What little interest the story manages to raise is knocked down further by their wooden dialogs. They are supposed to be two cosmopolitan intellectuals, but talk as if the words are put in their mouths by a Hollywood hack who is not much of one himself. The movie also suffers from an amazing lack of realism - a completely deserted beach in crowded little Hongkong, overrun by a million Chinese refugees? And a presumably accomplished American journalist in his 40s who doesn't know what a hysterectomy is? Hollywood ideas. Finally "the song". After hearing it an estimated twenty times throughout the movie, starting right with the credits, it tends to loose some of its emotional impact, sorry to say.


This film looks great, and that's about where my praise ends. "Love Is a Many Splendored Thing" came out in the very schizophrenic year of 1955, when candy-coloured nonsense like this co-existed with trail-blazing artistic fair like "Kiss Me Deadly." As a trend toward smaller, socially conscious films like "On the Waterfront" and "Marty" established itself in the mid-50's, other directors felt the need to stick with the unchallenging, pandering melodrama that classifies so many other films from that decade, and "Love" is one of the latter.

This is the kind of 50's movie where the Technicolor is used to its garish utmost and the lighting is invariably high-key; even scenes taking place in a dark room or at night are brighter than the average sunny day. I never want to hear the theme song again, as it's played frequently enough over the course of the film to last anyone a lifetime, and I certainly don't want to hear it sung by the shrill, ear-piercing choir that belts it out over the end titles. Jennifer Jones and William Holden are passable, but really anybody could have played these parts. Jones' role is horribly written--her character is incredibly inconsistent, and it seems as if whenever her character is required to make a decision about something, the screenwriters flipped a coin to decide what that decision would be.

People will undoubtedly tell me I'm taking this film too seriously, that I'm unromantic, etc. But I loved "All That Heaven Allows," released the same year and just as cornball in its own way, except that Douglas Sirk is able to turn melodrama into an art form, whereas Henry King (director of "Love") is not.

I'm usually able to enjoy bad melodrama, but in this case I was just bored.

Grade: D+


Frankly I met real Han Su Ying before and seeing her portrayed by an American actress which has no resemblance of anything Chinese makes my head spin while I am watching this movie Why can't Hollywood get Nancy Kwan instead .... at least its more true to the story...cos for goodness sake...Dr Han Su Ying is Chinese I know cos I have meet her in person

and looking at the whole cast....so few Asian faces in a movie about a Asian love story makes me wonder too

I think the acting is good but without real Asian faces in a Asian love story makes the plot so corny and a whole load of Baloney

its just like another movie I know of ' THE CONQUEROR' imagine my eyes pop out when I see John Wayne as Genghis Khan!!!!!

and to make matter worst ....how on earth can a man born an bred in MONGOLIAN STEPPES come up with a Alabama southern accent??? !! and a cheap imitation of anything Asian

Good Grief

I am not surprise that one day I will see Dr Martin Luther King Jr being played by One of the boys from the black and white minstrel show

Would love to see that

and laugh the whole roof off !!!

Cheers


Seeing this movie in previews I thought it would be witty and in good spirits. Unfortunately it was a standard case of "the funny bits were in the preview", not to say it was all bad. But "the good bits were in the preview".

If you are looking for an adolescent movie that will put you to sleep then Watch this movie.


This is a film with a lot of potential, well done and acted, with a rather week and inconsistent script. A young woman with two children moves to her mother's cramped apartment, because the husbands flat on top of the workshop where he cuts up stolen cars is aggravating their son's asthma.Husband ends up in jail when an ex pat's stolen car is traced to his shop, ex pat ends up being kind,generous and naive shmoe(and rather cardboard and we learn next to nothing of him ), but ends up with the girl, who "trades up" despite being sexually satisfied only by her husband. I expect this film to be successful in Czech, where it will be welcome due to its obvious premise - "Them ex-pats may have money, they may even get our women, but they're old, soft and our women want to be satisfied,we may be poor, but ... . Now if only could Evzen keep Marcela satisfied so she would not need to play with herself, or if he already had an existing family in Italy ... but that would complicate things.


Spheeris used this documentary to push a stereotype of punks. This documentary is biased and guided, not objective. The cutting techniques that jump from interview to interview may be used to take the spoken word of interviewees out of context. When you watch the film, the sticking idea that comes from the interviews of the punks is that they are pretty dumb. Band members and other punks seem to be of low intelligence and unable to explain their motives or give detailed or coherent answers or even answers at all. I highly doubt that if some of those who were interviewed knew what Spheeris was creating or saw the final product would allow themselves to be included in the project. This film puts punks in a bad light by making them seem unintelligent and simple-minded. Spheeris' film should not be taken as a representation of the L.A. punk scene. If you want to see a good punk documentary watch "Another State of Mind" featuring Youth Brigade and Social Distortion.


Okay, you hippies are probably wondering what I have against an "education" and "informative" show like "Barney"? Well, I have a lot of hate against it for these reasons:

1. It teaches that having a personality and individualism is immoral. No one on the show has a personality. Everyone dresses alike, talks alike, acts alike and dances alike. Even in the episode called "Being an Individual", kids try to tell Barney about what they like and EVERYONE on the planet should do what I like. Do you wanna teach your kid that being an individual is wrong?

2. "A Stranger is a Friend,You Haven't Met" Episode. While seemingly harmless, the show's producers soonfound that it could also be extremely dangerous for young children. In fact, several young Barney-lovers from across the U.S. fell victim to pedophiles, who were using the show's friendly message to lure children away from their parents. The episode has since been pulled, but the damage had been done. So called "Innocent" mistakes in programming, like this one, clearly show why parents need to watch television WITH their children.

3. IF your not happy all the time, you are a bad person. No one seems to show any other emotion but happiness, no matter which situation they are in. If the child's parents get mad or sad for some reason, the child may think of Mommy or Daddy differently. Not a good message at all.

4. Magic solves everything! Seems like every problem is solved by magic. At least in shows like "Fraggle Rock", it teaches us that magic CAN backfire at it is best to solve problems on your own. Does Barney teach this? NO, of course not. There HAS to be magic in there. And the problem is, a lot of two year olds cannot tell fantasy from reality, and might think their parents, siblings or relatives can use magic to solve everything, yet become confused when they CANNOT use magic and think they are weird. Another boner pulled again.

5. Barney makes no distinction between stealing and sharing. He has even specifically said that "stealing is okay if the person you steal from doesn't mind". Kids can learn that if you really want something, stealing is a perfectly acceptable way to get it. This is not something that preschoolers need authority figures to tell them.

6. "If I just have the right thing, I can solve all my problems." Whenever the kids have a problem, Barney gives them whatever they need to solve it. The message being sent here is "Don't try to think to solve this! It's too much work, and the solution probably wouldn't work anyway. Just use this." Because of this, children could stop thinking through things (Barney said it was too much work) and become dependent on the "right" object. (The right shoes, the right food, the right computer, the right exercise machine...) This is obviously a good message for the Barney marketers, but it's not good for preschoolers.

7. The message that cheating is okay. In another episode the children are involved in a contest to carry a peanut on a spoon without dropping it. One child puts peanut butter on his spoon, and easily wins. The child is then rewarded for his creative thinking, when the child in fact bent the rules, and changed the game so that he could win. This teaches that cheating is good, you win and people think that you are creative, when in real life you will often be disqualified, or worse, and severely disliked by other competitors who played by the rules.

8. Do the kids in this show eat anything else besides cakes, cookies and candy? That teaches that it is okay to eat tons of junk food and avoid healthy food, despite Barney's so called "Health Food" song. Other than that, EVERYONE in the show eats junk food. No wonder there are so many obese kids in America and Europe.

And finally....

Most other kids' television shows teach creative problem solving well, without having to resort to "magic". Barney could also have done that but instead decided to use the method that was A) best for the marketers and B) took the least time and money for scripts. It's a blatant sellout that shows just how little the Lyons Group actually cares about children.

That is my rant for you all.


Barney teaches kids nothing!!! Here are some 3 reasons why you shouldn't let you kids watch this show: 1. Barney teaches kids that we should think EXACTLY like each other to get along.

2. Barney teaches kids that you shouldn't be sad, and if you feel sad, EAT LOTS OF ICE CREAM!!! 3. If you make people pity you they will give you what you want when you want it.

Barney is just a Fat doll who told kids strangers are your friends. He should NOT be trusted. And he is high every day!!!, he constantly GIGGLES!!!! DO NOT WATCH THIS SHOW!!!!!!!!!!! Your kids will thank you when there older


I don't get it. I just don't get it. "Barney and Friends" has been lambasted by millions through the years, and I will admit, I was one of those lambasters. Any child who watches this show doesn't realize that what they're watching is just a piece of trash. Barney is very annoying, and very selfish. Add Baby Bop, and it gets even worse. Add B.J., then you have a very creepy television nightmare. Then, you get the children. They're old enough to know what Barney is trying to teach them! What are they doing there in the first place? It would be funny if Barney and his friends appeared on the Jerry Springer show. That would certainly be one of the wildest moments in television history! Even more significant is that this show marked the beginning of the end of public television as we knew it, as we have seen less and less of the more informational and interesting public television programs that aired in the 1970s and the 1980s. What a BIG difference a selfish son of a gun makes. When this show leaves PBS, a big sigh of relief will be felt among millions of people, but a huge dent will have been made in the annals of television history. A message to Barney himself: You may not realize it, but YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED.

In a nutshell, there are other choices. Better choices.


"I hate you, you hate me, Barney stole your SUV with a great big bunch and a kick from me to you wont you say you hate me too?" "jingle bells batman smells grandma had a gun shot Barney and made him pee and now there is no more barney the moron" Now why the heck would come up with a idiotic show like barney ???????? So what I'm saying is Barney is a retard from the underground world? And the kids on this show are like 12 years old. If i were them i wouldn't believe this stupid idiot called barney.Now producers why do you believe this crap that barney says? They are always happy. That is stupid.they should be sad sometimes. am i right? bottom line barney is so stupid who watches that ugly creature.


Barney and friends...the Dora the explorer of the 1990s.

OK, i'll admit it. as a kid, barney was my ultimate hero. i had my barney plush toy and i used to watch the same barney episodes over and over on videotape. maybe cause it was so sugar coated and mind-numbing.

However, by the time i turned 7, i started to hate barney. everyone at school would Dis barney, and i went along with it (mainly because it was funny) and it's what little boys do. but a few years later, I discovered something else about barney that i will never forget.

a person known on the IMDb as Angel_meiru did an Essay for school, explaining the dangers of watching barney, and he or she posted it in the message boards. a lot of those dangers made sense.

Barney is a dinosaur who can magically come to life during a day at school. he is supposedly educational, or so Sheryl Leach (Barney's Creator) says, but really, all i can remember him teaching me, is that magic can solve anything, which is not true.

to end off this comment, I'd like to tell you a little story. There was once a young boy who watched a particular episode of barney. one day, he was alone, when a stranger lured him into his car and drove away with him. i don't know the outcome (but it's safe to assume the child died) but why was he abducted in the first place? because he watched the Barney and friends episode titled "A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet."

0/10


OK, when I was little (and I mean like 2 or 3, not 6 and 7) Barney was one of my favorite shows. I then grew out of it and threw all my old Barney tapes away. So one day as I'm flipping through channels, I see that Barney now takes place in a caboose, and I thought "Um huh is this the right show?" Once I realized it was, I freaked. Why did they change the show's setting from a school to a CABOOSE? Ever since then, the show has been absolutely terrible, and the only reason I'm giving it a 2 is a) because I'm nice, b) because of Riff, and c) because in the old times the show was tolerable. Now I just hate it. HATE IT.

2/10


Barney is just awful. As many of the other reviews on this show say. I'm not one to disagree with them (I won't). Because I hate this show just as much as they do. They use kids that look like they're in sixth grade, cheesy plots, horrid dialog and really crappy special effects. Not to mention that big purple dinosaur himself. He makes every other kid show look like award winners (Sesame Street has won awards, that I know about).

Please, just watch Sesame Street, Thomas the Tank Engine or even the Teletubbies. Avoid both, this and its movie (which I also reviewed). They are both extremely crappy and are inappropriate to anyone (even little babies).


That someone could have conceived this nonsense and then got it produced is incredible. That it actually aired on television and advertisers actually PAID TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH IT is mind boggling. This stomach-wrenching excuse for kid's programming is almost too vile to comment on. I've burned -- yes burned -- any Barney tapes that people have given my son. To find this awful programming in my library was an unpleasant surprise. And where, tell me where, do they get those smarmy kid actors? Have their parents no sense? Those kids will be on drugs before they're teenagers. Geez. The final insult is that I have to add this extra line to the review to get it on IMDb.


Barney and Friends is probably the worst kids show that I have ever seen. It teaches kids nothing, the songs are corny, it is not educational and the characters are just plain agitating. I am not one to disagree with those who hate the show. Honestly, I have seen more negative than positive reviews for this show. 75% of the reviews are negative and there are some really mature people. This show contains no educational value or age-appropriate educational material whatsoever. More reasons why I dislike this show is because of the crappy plots, cheesy dialogue, horrid special effects and the abysmal story lines. Besides, it says that you should eat junk food if you are sad and that strangers are your friends. Saying that is a "model of what preschool television should be",as expressed by Yale researchers Dorothy and Jerome Singer, is a load of crap. They don't know what they're talking about. I would never recommend Barney to anyone. Te reason why some kids keep crying for or get addicted to junk is because of this show poisoning the minds of children everywhere. For people(parents/children) who seek real preschool mater, switch over to Nick Jr. and watch "Super Why!" instead. It's far more better than this turd and Five TV once had the nerve to put it on "milkshake" but thankfully took it off. I highly advise everyone to keep far away from this show as possible. Parents, I highly advise you to keep your kids as far away from this show as possible. They'll thank you later.

BOTTOM LINE: Don't Bother Wasting Your Valuable Time With This Stupid Show. It's Utter Garbage. -10000000000000/10. Grade: Z. Avoid Like The Plague!

Thanks for reading.


I AM NOT LYNNE BATES MY NAMES IS RITICHIE BUT LYNNE IS MY MUM I'M JUST USING HER ACCOUNT! Barney and Friends, (Or Barney, as it is called here in England) is the corniest show ever. I never really liked it, It had been about for 3 or 4 years when I was born, so It was nothing new. My friend, however, loved this dildo of a show. I was about 6, and I was at his house once, and he had a Barney VHS tape playing on the TV. I turned the power off, and he burst into tears. GROW UP ITS A TALKING DINOSAUR FOR CHRISTS SAKE! Anyway, I happened to catch the Barney movie on TV later that year, and I loved it. I got the VHS of it a few months later, and I wore the tape out I loved it so much! I gave that tape away a few years ago now, but I loved it at the time. But the show! My god the show was bad! Several kids fell victims to paedophiles because of this butt plug of so called entertainment! Never again, never again! Its not just me who hates Barney, either! 85% of all the comments on this show are bad, and and just look at the amount of You Tube Poops and videos that take the mess out of Barney are on You Tube! And don't get me started on Blow Job BJ! Why the hell would the producers dare give a character such a sexual name! Yet another subliminal message in a kid's show! And that Baby Bop is the worst thing since Osama Bin Laden! All in all, I give Barney and Friends MINUS 1000 OUT OF 10!


Barney is that idiot dinosaur who (unfortunaltely) didn't go extinct with the other dinosaurs many eons ago. Instead he sings stupid songs and has stupid morals about life that are 100% worthless and/or extremely dangerous: that is "STRANGERS ARE YOUR FRIENDS YOU HAVEN'T MET YET!". The reason why I say he's evil? Well, on YouTube, there's a video of a Barney song about toy balls. When it's played backwards, it comes out as "WE'LL ALL COME HANG YOU! LET'S STAB THE KNOCKERS!". Don't believe me? See it for yourself! I also read on another review that they are now reading out PC folklore and fairy tales. Now that is just stupid with a capital S! I mean, really! Anyways, I don't recommend letting your kids watch this filth as it contains stupid morals like strangers are your friends (as said before), there is never a reason to be sad and if you are sad eat junk food, being an individual is taboo, magic can solve all of your problems and heaps of other ridiculous crap.


Being a child of the 1980s, I grew up with numerous educational as well as diversionary programs (or both), and continue to learn so much from them now that I admire the wisdom of those who worked on them. After learning that Sesame Street, to name the best example, was not solely responsible for the fact that I could read at an adult level before I could walk, it only increased the level of disgust I feel not only towards the Lyons corporation and its product, but those who defend them, too. As if I had faith in those we assign to protect us or our children to begin with, the fact that Barney & Friends still pollutes our airwaves after more than a decade later is a discredit not only to the FCC, American commerce, and its makers, it is a discredit to all of humanity. In a world where I can be harassed without recourse by the police, welfare services, and child protection agencies simply for being born different to those in power, yet broadcasters are allowed to pump this drivel into my home uncontested, you have to ask what is wrong with people.

You see, in a world where we are expected to behave like adults and account for ourselves, what we say to our sons and daughters is of importance because it will often have consequences long after we are gone. Not only are our attempts to make our children more normal, more alike, more think-alike, potentially devastating, what we end up teaching them to be normal has a big part to play, too. So the question becomes one of what Barney is teaching our children to be normal. Apart from lessons such as that we are not good if we do not have good feelings, or that someone will change the rules to make us happy when we come up short, other shocking things we are shown on the Barney show include Barney molesting children. The issue of child abduction and child molestation is a big one in our society, and has been ever since we started trying to pretend it was not, but that would qualify as one of the most inappropriate ways in which to present the topic.

So far I have only mentioned the inappropriate and emotionally damaging lessons Barney himself presents. Adding to the problem is the children shown on the show. I use the word children loosely here, as the range of ages shown goes as low as three years and as high as fourteen. Yet no difference in emotional response is shown at either extreme. Fourteen year olds react to Barney and his proposed situations in the exact same way as five year olds. Experts in childhood and adolescent autism especially consider this an incredibly foul thing to expose children to. Adults on the autistic spectrum who faced increasing problems as their needs were not only not met but flat-out ignored have a tendency to watch this and feel an urge to do the kinds of things with Barney that would make fourteen year olds cry. As irreverent and sick as shows targeted toward the elder-child market such as You Can't Do That On Television were, they stamp all over Barney by demonstrating that not only do different ages respond to the same thing in different ways, so too do different people.

So in response to mdmireles1295, I have to say that I hope like hell they do not have children. For every time I see a parent showing their child this drivel, it gives me an overwhelming urge to report them to the police for child abuse. And I speak as a man whose entire upbringing was dominated by abuse. They might sing about manners, loving, caring, or sharing, but the examples they show are not only so lopsided as to be the opposite of educational, they are so devoid of realism as to become dangerous, as The Light Triton has already pointed out. The kind of lessons children learn from Barney are that people do not vary, feelings must be suppressed at all costs, and rules are entirely arbitrary. When compared to the lessons that variation is what makes the world go around and even the most bitter feelings have a purpose that television taught me as a boy, it still boggles the mind that the authorities have yet to step in and yank this trash off the air. If a parent did to their child what Barney does around the world, they would face criminal charges.

Hence, I gave Barney my favourite two out of ten score that I give to all rubbish with absolutely no redeeming value. In a world of adults that know how to properly respond to their children, it has no place.


I didn't watch this show that much when I was little. And I think I only watched 1 episode which was about Railroads I believe because I liked trains and still do. Even then I thought it was a baby show. I mostly watched Arthur. The songs are pretty weird too. And I don't think it's that educational either. They just sing some dumb Nursery Rhymes. This is a dumb show, any adults who like it are crazy! If you want some good kids shows, watch something like Arthur, Mister Rogers Neighborhood or even better Pee-wee's Playhouse. I thought Sesame Street was boring when I was little but even that is better than Barney. Trust me, this show is pretty dumb, there are other Kids Shows that are better than this one. I can see many of the reviews here that a lot of people don't like this show. Now there are some mature people. I hope they take this show off air soon.


When I was a younger(oh about 2)I watched Barney for the first time, and liked it. BUT, back then I didn't exactly have a brain, either. And now I look back and see what a horrible show "Barney" really is: First of all, EVERYTHING on that show is creepy. Barney, the main character, is a horrendous 9-foot tall talking, purple dinosaur that teaches 13-year-olds about "imagination...."(*shudders*) B.J.(I know what your thinking about his name.)Is a smaller yet creepier yellow dinosaur that is put in to be "supposudly" cool. But in fact, he is the exact opposite. After watching a few episodes with B.J. dumbly trudging in with his slightly turned back cap, and making a few no-so-funny jokes, I wanted to scream. Baby Bop-oh-oh-god!(*vomits*)oh-oh-OH-anyway Baby Bop is the worst idea of a character EVER. She is a green triceratops(it's a dinosaur) that carries a yellow blanket. Her remarks of "hee-hee-hee" and Barney's praises cries of 'super-deeee-doooper", make it hard to sit through each episode, as the Seventh graders learn about shapes and manners.

And that, my friend, is what makes this show truly horrible.


I was a little to old for this show I was 6 when it first came out. First off when I was a young child there were a few children's shows that were on sesame street which I did watch and learned from, but other than that there wasn't much else. My Cousins were all born a few years after me 7 years was the first one more came latter. Barney was a very big part of what they watched. When I first saw this show I told my grandmother how it doesn't teach anything just uses magic to fix everything. I was 9 at the time, how many 9 years old have any idea what is really going on with a TV show. More and more that I saw or heard what the teachings of Barney were the more and more I told people how bad the show was. The funny thing is my parents who had a young child in the mid to late 80's which was me by the way. They agreed and said the same thing as I did. The sad thing about this is my cousins who are older now 13 and such still agree with what they saw. Its not cheating its creative, its not right to think differently than what someone tells you to. Its o.k to steal if the person wont find out or mind that it is gone. Lets be honest with ourselves, Barney is out to make money not teach children anything. The more flashy the program the more inclined children will be to watching it. Children are stupid not because they are not educated they just do not know any better, second Barney put on a show and parents bought it. I never believed that TV could affect people the way Barney does. If you have a young child read to them watch a show that teaches them numbers, do not let them get involved in this show. Barney is like smoking once is to much, smoke a few and your hooked let your kid watch this show they are hooked and one day their kids will watch the same crap and buy the same crap you bought


Okay, I agree with all the Barney haters on this site. I think Barney and his friends are all ugly looking and obnoxious and the show is very lop sided and unrealistic.

But the thing that ticked me off the most is how Barney presented Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals on his show when talking about same sex parents and relatives. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if the creators of this show didn't use so many derogatory stereotypes of homosexuals. I mean, not all gay men wear mascara and love the colors purple and pink, and not all lesbians are ugly and manly looking with a bosom that sags to their abdomen. As a bisexual female, I just think this is terrible for a children's show. If this were South Park, I wouldn't mind it, because South Park is for people who can distinguish fantasy from reality. A lot of people who watch Barney are little kids or handicapped people who can't usually distinguish fantasy from reality.

And now that I think about it, Barney sort of comes off as an ugly gay stereotype himself. Let's see, he doesn't have a girlfriend, he's pinkish colored and wears clothes with sequins (yes, it's true) on it. If you claim to be for the rights of gay and bisexual individuals, then stop making a mockery out of them in front of people who don't know any better. If Barney went black-face and ate fried chicken and watermelon at the same time, the show would be pulled off the air before you know it.

I give this show a negative one out of five. Don't show your kids such hateful crap. There are children's shows out there that are so less insulting.


What should have been a dramatic tale of life on the river Murray turns out to be a silly, soppy romance about an English refugee (Sigrid Thornton with Aussie accent) who falls for the larrikin first mate (John Waters) of a paddle-steamer.

The first half of this four and a half hour mini-series shows some promise, but it soon falls flat as it becomes predictable and thin. Some real verve and spark was needed in the plot to give the movie some life. Gus Mercurio's early exit didn't help as his character seemed to me to be the only interesting one.

Perhaps the longer T.V. version has more depth, because this video translation certainly lacked it.

Sunday, June 27, 1993 - Video


I rented this movie from a local library without having any prior knowledge of the book it is based on or the movie itself, purely based on the chance that it's one of those rare, overlooked gems that one can discover from time to time and really enjoy.

Unfortunately this is not one of those movies. I am not sure if this is a movie driven by sentimentality or worse, deliberate agenda, but certain elements of it made it impossible to immerse. It is supposed to portray a struggling immigrant worker community which tries to cope with the difficult realities of their life. That is a fine premise and it could have made for a gripping story, but the execution just made me alternate between getting annoyed and amused at the ridiculousness of it.

Here we have a community of simple farm workers who migrated to the US in search of employment and who get used and abused repeatedly by evil white men. And when I say evil - I mean EVIL. All white people in this movie are sinful, racist, sadistic, abusive devils whose sole purpose in life is sexual depravity intertwined with exploiting the poor immigrants. It would be a sad story if it wasn't so unintentionally grotesque and therefore hilarious.

The portrayal of the immigrants is also a poster-worthy example of exaggeration except that it goes in the opposite direction. The immigrants are saintly, clean and could serve as ointment for boo-boos and ouies the world over. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw these "field workers" presumably digging in the ditches all day with their notoriously clean clothes and chiseled hair cuts from a top notch hair salon. A little restraint and a more unbiased hand at the helm could have made this a much better movie evoking some intended emotion rather than sarcastic snickers.


Looking for something shocking? Okay fine... the imagery is that. That's about it. This film attempts to make deep connections with the audience through various symbolism and just ends up being annoying. I am not quite sure if the director's purpose was to truly portray some sort of deep message to his audience, or if he just sought to shock the hell out of them with gore, sex and violence. I am thinking that it was probably the first...but in the failed attempt..it simply ended up to be a piece of artsy garbage with lots of blood, some obnoxious characters, and an over reliance on religious symbolism. If you're looking for some independent film to critique for its attempted use of metaphor...have at it. If you are looking for a gore flick that will make you queasy and uncomfortable... here you go... If you are looking for a film that will irritate you to no end because you realize that in the end, the message was stupid...the movie was stupid... and you will never get those minutes of your life back..this is surely the film for you!


you know, i always fancy disturbing or strange movies, especially when they get shown at the fantasy film festival in hamburg, germany. but subconscious cruelty was probably the worst film i saw this year. will this comment contain any spoilers?

no, because i just did not understand this movie. but well, what can you expect from a flick that was introduced to a festival crowd "we (the guys from the festival) know that not all of you will watch this one until the very end"...

i like splatter movies and i also like movies with a strong graphical language. but this? there are a lot of bloody scenes in this one, but why? what is the director trying to tell us? is he saying that we lost all morality and all religious feelings? or is he saying that incest will always end in a disaster? who knows - i do not.

if you want to watch a movie that keeps you thinking for quite some time - watch it. but don´t expect to think "wow, i got the message" - i did not get it...


This film has to be one of the most boring films ever made. The only thing I liked is using Argento-esquire lighting in most of the scenes. The music is awful and the pace is so slow that you can watch it at 2x the speed and even then it would be slow. The story doesn't exist. It doesn't even have any shocking scenes.

It is classified (on this site at least) as a horror, but it's not. It's a sort of an art film exploring the dark side of the human nature. If you are into that kind of thing and can stand the slow pace, then watch it, but I'd rather recommend you something Japanese (e.g. Ichi the Killer) I think that the only reason this film was never in theaters is a fear of audience committing collective suicide caused by the huge amount of boredom generated by this movie. These 80 minutes of it's length would've been better spent watching the paint dry.

I gave it 1/10 simply because there is no 0 in the pull down menu


I´ve seen this at the Fantasy Filmfest in Cologne and left the cinema halfway through this "movie" (with a bunch of other people), so maybe I´m not the right one to comment on it, but I think the fact of leaving "S.C." is reason enough to do so. "S.C." is a different film. People who need a coherent narration, characters or a plotline won´t find anything in this one. It´s supposed to be an experimental film, relying on the power of images. But these images have no power. They are so forced in their intention of simply grossing people out, that they have nothing else to say. The gibberish of the off-narrator is simply boring, the visuals are cheap. OK, the effects are good, but if that´s the only thing, why care? Husseins film wants to be shocking and thought-provoking - instead it is boring and annoying in its non-creativity. Note: Not every movie without a story is art and there is absolutely no creativity in breaking taboos anymore - especially not if everything is executed as bad as in "S.C.". I´d suggest director Hussein should either visit a psychiatrist or a filmschool, before he mistakes crap for art again. Note: I never want to see a baby getting slashed during birth again.


Critics are a strange kind of people. Some of them are common people like you and me. Some of them are not. When a critic say Subconscius Cruelty is beautiful I wonder where they did grow up? What's beautiful with filming a field, some clouds or a tree with an old camera if you can't do it with style and capture the mood of the environments. Karim Hussain for sure can't. I've seen kids do better footage than Karim manage to do in Subconscius Cruelty. But that's not the worst part. The worst part is the whole recording, I refuse to call this a film, is just a bad excuse to picture nudity and extreme torture, rapes of both sexes, masturbation, sperm, pissing, cannibalism, child-murder and much much more. I love gore/splatter and I love horror. This ain't neither of those. This is utter crap and if my comments make just one single person skip Subconscius Cruelty it's been worth it. Always remember that your life won't last forever, don't waste two hours of precious time on Subconscius Cruelty. You've been warned.


For the people who have compared this TRASH to the brilliance of David Lynch etc... please listen to your carer when they say... DONT USE OTHER PEOPLE'S PC WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION!

This is complete and UTTER POO! There is NO art here. This is some person trying to make a name for himself with a cluster of gross out ideas which he was not clever enough to enforce into ONE main idea so instead he went for the easy option.

Any one with half a brain could sit at home and conjure up some controversial images to shock viewers, but it takes a person with true imagination to be able to make it into a movie people WANT to watch.

I am a LOVER of shock cinema. I have seen OR OWN pretty much all you can get... And I can strongly advise to anyone who LOVES the world of movies to steer WELL CLEAR of this garbage.

This one is ONLY for people who like to over analyze what they are watching, OR for the 17 year old first time drinkers who dont know any better.

0/10!


First, I would like to admit that Chokher Bali was not my cup of tea. This movie was evidently not targeted toward the masses. It's the type that critics would enjoy watching. The hype and publicity were quite misleading.

I was expecting something very dramatic like Devdas. Understanding that the story and time-period demand it, I found the movie extremely slow-paced.

I'm a die-hard Aishwarya fan, and I regret to say that I thought she was miscast. The role of Chokher Bali required an actress who can portray herself as subversive, not innocent and naive. Everyone else gave a good performance. Tagore's depiction of the human condition does come across the celluloid to give the movie an interesting theme.


Bardem is great. Actresses are great. But Amenabar did not have to do it like this. It is OK that he defends his position on the euthanasia, an extremely delicate issue. But doing it like this makes him lose his point: the movie is a false, offensive to the intelligence, full of tricks and even sometimes extremely boring. Some scenes are advertising material, more than a movie. Women are incredibly attracted to this mind-sick man who wants to make someone to kill him, not understanding the implications of that. He seems not to care about no one and thank them for their caring, love and attention. I think that Amenabar might have make people think about this issue in a different way but the way he chose to do it I believe is not correct. He could have make his point more powerful exposing the other side of the coin without mocking it.


Great. Another foreign film that thinks it's Fellini. On top of that, we have to have more propaganda about murdering disabled people.

I see no reason why we have to be inundated with these thinly disguised euthanasia commercials.

I found nothing redeeming about this film. What can be redeeming about a man without the courage to carry on, in spite of some adversity. It does not take courage to commit suicide. That is the action of a coward. Sharing this "wish" with his woman simply inflicts her with the same illness he has. If this had been a film about a man's courage to go on, in spite of his problems, similar to the Jill Kinmont story, that would have made it a great film.

If you're interested in seeing true courage, check out the movies about Jill Kinmont, the former skier who was disabled after a bad ski accident.


There's something rotten about this film, and basically the way it turns a sinister and twisted character into a hero by exploiting our sympathy with his admittedly horrible situation. Sampedro, like many who have lost hope, chooses suicide. The fact that he has been contemplating it for more than 26 years probably makes his condition worse, but the belief that we should do whatever anyone asks, even if it means ending a life is in my opinion profoundly wrong. What a contrast to the uplifting example of the scientist Stephen Hawkings, who suffered a far worse condition for far longer! Yet with the morals upside down, the film revels in hero worship, and the people who disagree with are painted in simplistic idiotic terms. There's little room for subtly especially in the encounter with the priest(deliberately manipulating the real life encounter which was with a much younger priest). In that way I suppose the film is on a par with Riefenstahls Triumph of the Will. The insidious idea is that everyone should have to right to take their life, when they feel they cannot live it anymore. It makes no difference whether you are physically or psychologically damaged, there are people evidently who believe you have the right to choose. The same people are likely to make a case for abortion. Its all part of the current trend to get the suffering or sufferers out of sight, brush it under the carpet, mammy will say its. OK, and we all feel very happy with ourselves. So we go down the slippery path of believing that some lives, just ain't worth living, and then we'll decide that as some people can't really decide for themselves then we'll bring in the state to decide for them. Enter Adolf Hitler straight from that other Oscar contender "der Untergang". Hitler of course believes that he carrying out exactly what Nature does in disposing of the weak. Under his regime, there were forced abortions among the "weaker" strains", the mentally handicapped were quietly put away and the Jews were "humanely" liquidated by using gas. He would have applauded this film, and why not for it is in line with his philosophy..."some lives are just not worth living". I differ from Ramon Sampedro, Hitler and all the people involved with making this film. Human life is sacred, it is not a right, it is a gift and an obligation. Nobody chooses to be born. Then who can choose death. Its not about religion, its about protecting the weak and helpless, something this film does a lot to undermine!


This might have been an excellent flick. However, as many other people think so do I. It is poorly done due to the languages transfer. If the entire movie must be read then it kind of takes away from the movie and becomes something else. It does have an excellent rating as far as I am concerned and I couldn't wait to rent it. But, once I did it was a real let down. Out here in Boardman, Ohio I could not find an English version to anything similar. This movie was also compared to Dark Hours and this we will not get to watch in Boardman, Ohio. It is not available. So I guess we will never know how good the movie actually was.


Dakota Incident has to be one of the strangest westerns I've ever seen. Not good, but definitely strange.

A driver-less stagecoach rides into the town of Christian Flats with all passengers killed. It's scheduled to go on, but very few for obvious reasons want to risk the Cheyennes on the warpath out there. But Linda Darnell, Regis Toomey, John Lund, Whit Bissell, and Ward Bond each have their reasons for going on. And Dale Robertson who killed John Doucette in a gunfight after Doucette and Skip Homeier shot and left him for dead in the desert, is so anxious to go he's willing to drive the team.

Of course the Cheyennes attack the intrepid group of passengers if forced into a dry wash for cover. Who will live and who will die is the remainder of the film.

Dakota Incident came at the very end of Republic Pictures before Herbert J. Yates pulled the plug on his little studio. Westerns were their specialty, but normally of the kind Roy Rogers made. This would not have been a Rogers product.

In fact it's beyond belief. The characters aren't ground in any kind of reality. Whit Bissell is taking back ore samples from his claim, but Robertson discovers it's iron pyrites, fool's gold. Toomey is a guitar playing cynic who goes mad from thirst. Darnell is after a cheating manager of her's, but really doesn't know what to do when she finds him. Lund is looking to bring in Robertson who committed a crime he took the rap for, but has to bring him in alive. For that he'd require help, but doesn't have any.

But the worst is Ward Bond who's a United States Senator on his own peace mission to the Cheyennes. In real life Bond was a most right wing individual and I'm not sure this wasn't some kind of a caricature of what he would perceive as a liberal. He's really quite the fatuous fool, but I think that might have attracted him to the role.

I tried to get into Dakota Incident, but couldn't. And the ending was a bizarre fantasy to say the least.

Give it three stars for the cast involved.


Scenarist Frederick Fox's sometimes memorable dialogue and a study cast of old-pros cannot save this lukewarm western about whites pinned down in the desert by a band of bloodthirsty Cheyenne Indians. Other than his occasionally catchy dialogue, you won't find any surprises in Fox's screenplay about this run-in between whites and Indians. The characters in "Dakota Incident" generate only minor interest, certainly not enough to make them stand-out as much as some of Fox's choice dialogue. Unfortunately, good dialogue is Fox's only contribution because this conventional little sagebrusher withers with a lackluster ending that contradicts its previous 80 minutes. The ending is as contrived as they come and lacks credibility. Most of the characters are sympathetic, but some just plain lack common sense.

Dale Robertson is appropriately tough and leathery as outlaw John Banner, one of three bank robbers who has to shoot it out with his low-down, no-account partners. Veteran western character actor John Doucette (Rick Largo) fares the best of the badmen, while Skip Homeier, wasted in an inconsequential role as Banner's brother Frank Banner, later dies from an Indian arrow. Doucette tries to gun down Banner at the outset of in the action, but our left-handed gun-toting hero fakes his own death, tracks down Largo down later and slaps leather with him in a town called Christian Flats. Naturally, Largo bites the dust this time, but Banner makes an interesting discovery. One of the passengers on a stagecoach from Christian Flats to Laramie turns out to be none other than the bank teller from whom he stole the money. Not only is John Carter (John Lund) on a quest himself to find Banner, but also he wants to clear his own good name with the bank that has issued wanted posters for his arrest. Evidently, the authorities have mistaken and enlarged Carter's role in the robbery. Carter is prepared to take Banner to Laramie and turn him over to the law, but Banner has other ideas about Laramie. Banner's ideas change when he crosses paths with Amy Clarke (former Twentieth Century Fox beauty Linda Darnell) who wears a bright red dress and still packs quite a bosom. As everybody else here has mentioned in their reviews, Republic Studio's Truecolor brings out the RED in everything, from Darnell's fetching outfit to the blood spilled on the ground. The problem with director Lewis Foster's handling of this run-of-the-mill oater is that everything bogs down after the stagecoach loses a wheel and our heroes hole up in a dry wash to defend themselves against the Cheyenne. The good guys and the Cheyenne eventually run out of ammunition, but "Dakota Incident" never runs out of clichés. Ward Bond has several interesting moments as a politically correct politician who defends the way of the redskin. By the time that this 88 minute dust-raiser concludes, you'll feel like you've been trapped in a gulch and menaced by marauding Cheyenne yourself.


This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen.

We are supposed to like and be rooting for an arrogant, know-it-all, trashy bank robber, played by Dale Robertson, and a coy tease played by the extra-ordinarily beautiful Linda Darnell in a fire engine red dress. She must have been sewed into that bodice!

A Senator in the film thinks Native Americans and whites should try to come to an understanding, the bigots, however, win the day. I could barely sit through the endless dialog of bigotry that issued from the other characters mouths.

Except for Wounded Knee and Dances with Wolves there are few films that give a positive portrayal of American Indians, and very few old westerns do. This one is exceptionally bad in that regard.

The romance between Robertson and Darnell set my teeth on edge, as he came swaggering in, forcing a kiss on her, while she plays the old hard to get game.

There are scenes that are unintentionally humorous, such as the characters obviously not really riding in or on a stagecoach in several shots.

A puzzlingly humorous incident in the storyline is Linda Darnell's character going to great lengths to purchase tickets for the stagecoach, only to then demand a horse to ride, minutes later, for no apparent reason.

Another humorous scene is when the stagecoach comes to a screeching halt at the sight of a cowboy hat lying beside the road, and not only that, but then ALL the passengers pile out for a look-see.

1 star.


I want very much to believe that the above quote (specifically, the English subtitle translation), which was actually written, not spoken, in a rejection letter a publisher sends to the protagonist, was meant to be self-referential in a tongue-in-cheek manner. But if so, director Leos Carax apparently neglected to inform the actors of the true nature of the film. They are all so dreadfully earnest in their portrayals that I have to conclude Carax actually takes himself seriously here, or else has so much disdain for everyone, especially the viewing audience, that he can't be bothered letting anyone in on the joke.

Some auteurs are able to get away with making oblique, bizarre films because they do so with élan and unique personal style (e.g., David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky). Others use a subtler approach while still weaving surreal elements into the fabric of the story (e.g., Krzysztof Kieslowski, and David Cronenberg's later, less bizarre works). In Pola X, Carax throws a disjointed mess at the viewer and then dares him to find fault with it. Well, here it is: the pacing is erratic and choppy, in particular continuity is often dispensed with; superfluous characters abound (e.g., the Gypsy mother and child); most of the performances are overwrought; the lighting is often poor, particularly in the oft-discussed sex scene; unconnected scenes are thrust into the film for no discernible reason; and the list goes on.

Not to be completely negative, it should be noted that there were some uplifting exceptions. I liked the musical score, even the cacophonous industrial-techno music being played in the sprawling, abandoned complex to which the main characters retreat in the second half of the film (perhaps a reference to Andy Warhol's 'Factory' of the '60s?). Much of the photography of the countryside was beautiful, an obvious attempt at contrast with the grimy city settings. And, even well into middle-age, Cathering Deneuve shows that she still has 'it'. Her performance was also the only one among the major characters that didn't sink into bathos.

There was an earlier time when I would regard such films as "Pola X" more charitably. Experimentation is admirable, even when the experiment doesn't work. But Carax tries nothing new here; the film is a pastiche of elements borrowed from countless earlier films, and after several decades of movie-viewing and literally thousands of films later, I simply no longer have the patience for this kind of unoriginal, poorly crafted tripe. At this early moment in the 21st century, one is left asking: With the exception of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, are there *any* directors in France who know how to make a watchable movie anymore? Rating: 3/10.


I wish Depardieu had been able to finish his book and see it become a dazzling success. At least he'd have wound up with something.

The film struck me as pointless, rambling, and very stylish, like some other recent French films. Not to knock it. Most recent American films are pointless and rambling and have no style whatever. We should be grateful, I suppose, for photography that evokes a European city in the midst of a wind-blown Continental winter, and for elliptical conversations that challenge our ability to understand what's up.

But there can be too much of a good thing. Golubeva is found stumbling around near the sea in the middle of the freezing night, carrying on in a bad accent about dreams and such. (There are a few sequences of dreams that include things like swimming in a river of blood. You'll love it if you're Vlad the Impaler.) Lots of people die. Catherine Deneuve dies in a suicide by motorcycle. I don't know why. Golubeva's young girl dies too, and I don't know why she dies either. She gets slapped in the face, falls to the pavement, and dies.

There is supposedly an explicit sex scene too. I'll have to take their word for it because, although it is stylishly photographed, it is stylishly photographed in almost complete darkness. Don't worry about the kiddies being shocked. They'll probably be asleep by this time anyway.

Depardieu isn't a bad actor. As we see him deteriorate from a carefully groomed handsome young man -- well, handsome except that his nose can't seem to get out of his way -- to a limping, murderous, hairy physical wreck, we feel sorry for the guy. Golubeva has a wan pretty face, with enormous half-lidded eyes and wide cheeks, like a doll. Her next movie should be a remake of Lewton's "I Walked With a Zombie." Then there is this mysterious guy who leads a band. I guess it's a band. As far as I could make out, the band is made up of about a dozen drummers and a dozen musicians playing electric guitars. Every viewer will find the resultant sound interesting but uncultivated listeners fond of "easy listening" might not enjoy it. If you don't like the music, there's a payoff involved because the sinister composer and leader gets whacked over the head with Depardieu's walking stick.

I must say, I found it barely worth sitting through. (And it's a longie, too.) At times it was like waiting in your car at a railroad crossing while a long long freight train rumbles slowly by, sometimes stopping entirely. I wish it had had a few jokes.


This movie is so unreal. French movies like these are just waste of time. Why watch this movie? Even, I did not know..why. What? The well known sex scene of half-siblings? Although the sex scene is so real and explicit, but the story it is based upon is so unreal. What is the use of it, then? Can you find easily in life, half sibling doing such things?

Did I learn something from this movie? Yeah: some people are just so fond of wasting time making such movies, such stories, such non-sense. But for those who like nihilism, nothingness in life, or simply a life without hope, then there you are.. you've got to see this movie.

Only one worth adoring, though: CATHERINE DENEUVE. She's such a strikingly beautiful woman.


(Spoilers)

Oh sure it's based on Moby Dick. Totally obsessed and it destroy's him. It's a total folly. The movie starts off rather well, but by the end of the film, everyone else is destroyed and the main star's mind is a blank.

The supposed half sister is never convincing. Some very poor lighting effects. Music is interesting. But little else. It took me over a month to finally finish the darn thing. I suppose if you like Being John Malkovich, you might like this. But where as BJM was a great movie that I just didn't want to watch again, Pola X is a movie I just hate to high hell. The only possible excitement in the film is the gratuatious incest sexual scene towards the end of the film. (Hopefully yer not thinking of Catherine either.)

This movie is severely boring, depressing, and poorly directed. Not highly recommended. If if you like french movies. (go watch Crimson Rivers instead)

4/10

Quality: 5/10 Entertainment: 1/10 Replayable: 0/10


I won't lie, I rented this film because it was an "arty" film with some possible explicit sex. I got that scene and Catherine Deneuve's (briefly shown) breasts, but the rest of the film is just the usual long pretentious European art films with lines like "Did I have a mother or father, I don't know" (paraphrased). Usually delivered in long soliloquies.

If you are curious about the transition of "art" to porn, might be an interesting look, with use of the fast forward button (I was still too slow!)


I enjoyed Carax's "Les Amants du Pont Neuf" and was therefore expecting this film to be of a similar standard. Well, the first 10 minutes were OK, but then it disintegrates into a rather pretentious journey of a young man looking for the essence of life. A sad disappointment.


It's difficult to express how bad this movie is. Even in the 1950s when intellectual searching for the meaning of life was fashionable and beatnik rejection of physical comforts, clean clothes, haircuts, etc. was a common reaction to the smug middle-class mores of both the USA and western Europe, this movie would have been a stinker. The plot is a mishmash of several dei ex machina (if that's the correct Latin grammar); the acting consists of deadpan stares broken by occasional hysterics (by the male lead as well as the females); the gratuitous view of Catherine Deneuve's (or somebody's) breasts are worthy of a Budweiser commercial; the repeated cacaphonous orchestra rehearsal in the abandoned building is I'm sure heavy with meaning in the director's mind but to me is just one more stupid symbol thrown into this meaningless movie -- I'm ranting because my time has been wasted watching this scam excuse for an art flic. The scenery is beautiful and the sex scene is hot -- but underneath his clothes, this king has no substance.


Pretentious claptrap, updating Herman Melville (!), about a young man's vaguely incestuous relationship with his aristocratic mother getting transferred to his long-lost sister who has been raised by gypsies. Or something like that  not that anyone really cares to unravel its multi-layered plot decked out with pornographic sex scenes, pseudo-symbolic imagery (the siblings swimming in a river of blood) and other bizarre touches (a gypsy child repeatedly insults passers-by in the street until she is anonymously beaten to death, the deafening music of a rock group utilized in the demolition of old buildings). Considering the source material and the presence of Catherine Deneuve (who at least gets to bathe in the nude), I was expecting a lot more from this one; apparently, there's an even longer TV version of POLA X out there


I'm accustomed to being patient with films because I've generally found it usually pays off. But a few works take tedium to new levels and enter the realm of provocation...."Last Year at Marienbad" comes to mind. Well, "Pola X" ain't no "Last Year at Marienbad". I can count on one hand the number of films I've walked out on over the years. "Pola X" achieved membership in that august group. In my defense, I believe I made a valiant effort to stand my ground - hoping things would turn around. However, I finally threw in the towel just shy of the 90 minute mark - quite respectable under the circumstances. "Pola X" does not come anywhere near living up to the promise of Carax's earlier work. After a 10 year hiatus, that must have been bitter for him indeed. Melville is still spinning in his grave!


The movie contains a very short scene of Deneuve in a bathtub. She looks absolutely stunning for a lady age 56, but this is the only saving grace of the movie. Otherwise, it has a mindless, unmotivated script and the lead actress has none of Deneuve's appeal. The director apparently watched too many Peter Greenaway films and Pola X comes across as a student's imitation of the Greenaway style, without any of his inspiration.


French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! Léos Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clichés of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: "Here am I, darling!" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say "etepetete", what means something like "être-peut-être", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: "There's no escape, there's no escape!" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?


First, I don't see how the movie is on any "best" list or how it won any awards. Compared to La Pianiste, which is also on a "best" list, La Pianiste is gold. This movie lacked so many things, on so many different levels, but I can't quite explain why I disliked it so much. The lead actor was annoying, I felt as though I never knew what was going on, and I was BORED!! Even though this was supposed to be some worthwhile life change that Pierre was starting, I wanted it to end.... as soon as possible. Why did it have to be his sister and cousin? Ugh. And why did Thibault get mean? He just bipolarly turned mean. And also, was it me or did I miss the whole purpose of what that guy in black was all about? Who were all those people playing music in the big basement of the big warehouse? Why did they have all that weird equipment and the guns and all those extra rooms for people to live in? I mean this in all seriousness, but does incest happen a lot in French culture? European culture? I took 5 years of learning about the culture and I never heard anything about that!


You would probably get something like this. I'm translating movies for a living and this is the first movie in my 5-year working experience that I found offensive to my intelligence. Of course, there are stupid Hollywood movies about drunken teenagers on a spring break, but those movies don't even claim to be serious works of art. But when someone strives for greatness and poetry, but delivers a muddled (and often ridiculous) story, a bunch of disparate scenes, pretentious dialogue... Then you get the worst kind of a movie that some other reviewer very accurately defined as "pretentious crap". To those who find this movie intelligent or even masterful, I can only say - it's your intelligence and your imagination you obviously used to try and make some sense of this pitiful attempt (it's in our human nature to try and make sense of things) .

One more thing: I can tolerate political incorrectness very well, I'm all for artistic freedom and suspension of disbelief, but the Slavic female character was just too much. I wish someone told the director that it's kind of ridiculous (even in an unrealistic art movie) to portray a Slavic woman as a half-articulate dishevelled creature connected to the forces of nature, probably due to the fact that she had spent her entire childhood looking at the stars and milking cows on a three-legged stool.


A ridiculous movie, a terrible editing job, worst screenplay, ridiculous acting, a story that is completely ununderstandable...

If God was going to decide if movies should continue to be done, judging by this one, the entire world movie industry would now be dead...

A wonderful movie to show that cinema should not be done by people who "think" they can make movies.

I am still wondering who are those two gipsy girls who show up in the movie for over half an hour, and are never introduced to us...


I had to read I Know Why The Caged Birds Sing in my English class and we watched the movie after finishing it. After watching the movie, I regret seeing. It completely took away any of the impact the book had. The scenes made no sense in their sequences, the acting was horrible, and it seemed as though the screen writer never actually picked up the book but opted for the cliff notes instead. I was outraged at how the movie ended. Almost half of the book was cut out and certain aspects were extremely important to Maya's growth as a person. If you have read ...Caged Birds, this movie will ruin the experience of the book so I warn you not to see it.


The story overall, though quite graphic, is actually decent and reasonably interesting to readers. However, the movie was absolutely dreadful. The story was good, but the acting was terrible. I was crying the whole time because i knew i could never get my spent time back. Don't see this movie. If you do, bring a pistol with a bullet in it, and a few bullets if you're going with friends. I feel sorry for everybody who had anything to do with this film. I also feel sorry for everybody who had to watch the film. Avoid this film at all costs, and if your mother forces you to watch, kill her. Hahahahaha! See! I'm a psycho now!!!! IKWTCBS turned me into a psycho!!!!


I bought this movie for about 2,5 dollars at a local flea market. I thought that with the cast present in this movie (Ice-T, Rob Lowe & Mario Van Peebles are all OK), it would be pretty good. Boy, was I wrong. This movie annoyed the hell out of me. Almost every scene drags on too long. The scene where Rob Lowe is watching this girl singing and dancing in a bar lasts forever! It was one of the worst scenes I have ever witnessed in a movie. The rest is no picknick either. My guess is when they finished the movie, they only had 30 minutes of film, so they made everything last 3x longer.

Conclusion: The current 1,9 rating here on imdb is right on the money. This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Go watch some paint dry for 1,5 hour instead of watching this!

If you want to see some better movies made by this director, watch 'Mean Guns'(with Christopher Lambert & Ice-T) or 'Postmortem' (with Charlie Sheen) instead.


this is the worst movie ive ever seen. And i have seen lots of movies. Me and my friends rented this one a wendsday evening. Man we had lots of fun. This movie is the worst most boring crap ive ever seen. But it makes you laugh! U will lay on the floor rolling around tryin to get some air. You wonder why? Just rent it and check for the keyboard playing girl at that sleazy russian bar. My mother would make a 1000 times better movie about her feedin the cats.


Honestly, I didn't really have high expectations for this movie, but at the same time I was hopeful. Having it be directing by Albert Pyun - one of the more well known b-movie auteur's - didn't exactly raise my hopes. I mean how many Albert Pyun flicks rank that highly? Yeah, exactly ... but still the movie advertised a decent cast. Rob Lowe, Burt Reynolds (pre-reborn stardom), Ice-T and Mario Van Peebles.

It all amounts to squat however as the movie is so boring and moves so slowly that the energy just seemed to drain right out of me the longer it went on. It runs over 90 minutes, but it's telling a story that could have been told in 30 minutes flat. I don't know what Pyun was going for here. I mean the movie drips artsy-like style, but it's a blur at times and maybe I'm an idiot for expecting more from Pyun this time around. Here he seemed to actually have a budget and a potentially great cast for the material, but it's all wasted. Crazy Six isn't much of an action film, it's not much of anything really.

I guess what's the saddest here is the fact that I found the end credits the most entertaining part of the movie. The music score is actually half-decent with some smooth female vocals too, but the rest is a complete waste and the less said the better. Avoid.


Crazy director....Yeah, you need to be crazy to make a near movie. Rob Lowe was bad in his character, Ice-t is always bad and Burt Reynolds had nothing to do in the movie. Crazy six is an unknown movie, with some known actors...this is pretty weird. A bad movie with some good actors in it. It looks like the bad movie did an influence to their performance...It did! Crazy people.....I give it *and a half out of *****


Do not rent this movie. I ended up buying the "previously viewed" tape of this for $4.00. That was close to the price of a rental, so thought, I might as well buy it. I'm tossing it out after I finish this review. The movie which stars Lowe, is a music video with few lines of dialogue, slow moving shots and poorly done editing. I thought I'd be seeing a mindless action flick, which is what I wanted to see, I didn't even get that. This movie is an exercise in slow moving shots, no script, close-ups, terrible edited, and a poorly developed plot. I can't believe that is actually ends with a scene in which they think the audience cares about the characters. By the end of the movie, we still don't even really know who they are. Believe the hype, stay away.


Yeah, that's right. If I were to ask my friends this question: "What's the worst movie you have ever seen?" They might reply something like "Armageddon" (can you drill the hole?!?), "Shriek", "Plan Nine From Outer Space", "The Medallion", "Scooby Doo" etc... No - Don't get offended by this by thinking you have seen something that might be in the same department of naturally produced human fertilizer that this movie is in. If the worst movie you can think of is, let's say so bad it really pisses you off; then you know nothing my friend.

Crazy Six... I remember the day me and a buddy of mine went to the local video store to rent a movie. Both of us had already been through most of the movies in there, and on the "new movies"-shelf we see it staring at us. "Wow, there's some good actors here man. Says something about mafia, lets just get it and get out of here". This was without doubt the worst movie mistake in my movie loving life. It was also the worst mistake for everybody else: movie lover or not.

Watching this movie is as fun as watching a glass of ice cold water (or ice-tea....) until it reaches room temperature. Watching this movie will make you dream an eternal dream of death, if death is just blackout light and nothing, and then you realize you are just staring at your TV-monitor. Not staring. You are actually paying as much attention that is humanly possible. This is no joke.

This movie is the perfection of making a bad movie. It's not the kind of bad you can watch, point and laugh of, its the kind of movie that is so bad you actually have no chance of ever get out of your memory. Unless perhaps you use electric shock therapy to clear out the brain. .... ... (Hey! That might be something similar to how I remember me and my buddy felt after watching it....)

Best regards from me to you Albert Pyun.

-Joergen


I'm actually too drained to write this review -- bad movies always do that to me -- but I feel obligated, as if it's my civic duty, to warn anyone who might be considering purchasing or viewing this god-awful mess-of-a-picture. Please, please, just take my word: this is one you'll want to stay away from. It's so boring and dull, so insipid and uninspired, such a poor excuse to assemble any familiar talent. Burt Reynolds? Wasted (despite his best efforts). Ice-T is barely in the film, and when he does appear on screen his performance is so restrained and muted that it becomes crystal clear that the director, perhaps intimidated by Ice's intense stare, didn't know what to do with him. Rob Lowe, as the title character, has never displayed so little on-screen charisma. Mario Van Peebles should be ashamed of himself; his performance is, in the saddest sense possible, a joke. Surely, Satan himself signed Mario's check for this film. The plot is as weak, half-baked and annoying as all the music involved (the utterly boring club song seems to continue on, literally, for the first third of the movie). The film's look will prompt one to seriously wonder if the Director of Photography was also forced, like one of the film's forgettable female characters, to smoke crack from a pipe duct-taped to his mouth. And if you're looking, at least, for stylized, shoot-'em-up-type violence you'll get none here. This film, I assure you, I promise you, has Absolutely no redeeming qualities! Please, I implore you, Avoid this Flick! Don't put it in and get suckered into believing that its pace will pick up, it'll get better, and evolve into a decent denouement. It won't. It don't. It can't! It sucks! Now, you have been warned, and I can now go to bed (It's 3am - please forgive any resulting errors this admonition might contain) -- knowing my conscience is clear, because I've done my civic duty for my fellow man!


the worst movie i have ever seen i didn't even watch it all i just fast forwarded it to Burt's bits and then the end!!! he is the only reason to watch this!! i have to admit to owning a copy as i am a HUGE Burt fan (stop laughing) and needed it for my collection i wouldn't care when this movie came out i had a nightmare renting ti as my local store only had 2 copies and fans of all the various stars always beat me there, imagine my disappointment when i sat down and watched this movie!! THERE ARE JUST NO REDEEMING QUALITIES ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!! Absolutely NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO LIKE ABOUT THIS MOVIE!!! this movie became a running joke between myself and a mate Burt's worst!! Rob Lowe's worst WORST HOUR AND A HALF OF MY LIFE


Crazy Six is torture, it must be Albert Pyun´s worst film. Even Blast and Ticker are better! I can´t believe how boring this film is! How this even got greenlighted? I saw this movie about 3 years ago and the only thing I remember is how bad it was. This isn´t good bad movie, it is simply bad, bad, bad, bad, bad movie.

1 out of 10 (½ out of *****)