"Riders of Destiny" was the first of several westerns Wayne made for the Lone Star arm of Monogram Pictures between 1933 and 1935. In this entry, the producers try to make the Duke into a singing cowboy called "Singin' Sandy Saunders with hilarious results. Any Wayne fan knows that the Duke couldn't have carried a tune if his life had depended on it. His voice was apparently dubbed by Smith Ballew whose deep baritone sounds nothing like Wayne. Wayne looks awkward and uncomfortable in "performing" the musical numbers. Thank heavens the singing cowboy experiment soon ended.

As for the movie itself, it contains a standard "B" western plot of the fight over water rights between the villain (Forrest Taylor) and the local ranchers. Duke, of course plays the hero. He had not yet developed his on screen character and still looked like a poverty row cowboy.

Also cast in the film were George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as the heroine's father, Cecilia Parker as the heroine and Yakima Canutt as "one of the boys" who performs his "falling from the racing horses under the wagon" stunt while doubling Wayne. Both Canutt and Hayes would go on to appear with Wayne in most of the other entries in the series. Canutt, in particular would have a profound effect on Wayne's future development teaching him, among other things, how to move, fight and look comfortable on a horse.

As "B" westerns go this one isn't too bad, however, I have to give it a failing grade because of the "singing".


Not the best of the Lone Star series, but it moves along quickly with good performances.

Introduced as "Singin' Sandy" in the main title, John Wayne as a 'singing cowboy' isn't successful-- you never even see a front close-up of him while he's 'singing.' The actual singer is the director's son, Bill Bradley, who warbles away sounding like many popular singers of the day such as Hutch or Joseph Wagstaff.

The film features: Cecilia Parker (also seen in "The Lost Jungle" serial, "Tombstone Canyon," and as older sister Marian in the Andy Hardy movies) doing her best Katherine Hepburn-- "Really they mustn't; really I'm not"; Al St. John, before he literally became "Fuzzy" filling all his available screen time with his characteristic business of hat flipping, head and chin scratching, grimacing, and gawky physical gestures and movements; George (pre-Gabby) Hayes as a gentle pipe smoking father; and Forrest Taylor, minor vet of 395 movies and TV shows, playing the oily villain with string bow tie and prop cigar.

Fun or odd moments: Yakima Canutt's great 'under the stagecoach' trick; the 'gay' scene when Singin' Sandy ties Bert and Elmer together face to face, drags them roped to his horse, and dumps them at Kincaid's office, where Kincaid says, "You're a fine pair of lovebirds!"; Denton's rapturous comment after an atrocious song and guitar playing performance by 'Sandy,' -- "Ummm. I could listen to that all night!"; Kincaid's reply, We won't go into that," after being told by a rancher "You've got the soul of a snake!"; and, of course, he utters the immortal, "I've made Denton an offer he can't refuse."

The plot of the movie is saved by Sandy's tricking Kincaid, and later saying the three magic words in many of these films: "I'm from Washington." FDR has saved us from the Depression! (Is that why the villains are always either bankers or in real estate?)

The shootout sequence is taken from the earlier Bradbury film "Man from Hell's Edges" (1932). All of the Lone Star westerns are special because of their unique mixture of interesting characters, the troupe of actors and stunt people, and the spin on the clichés and repetitive back stories and situations. This one ranks a little low, marred by the inappropriate and mis-used "Singing Cowboy" gimmick. I'll give it a 4.


I'm in a film class and i know that i don't know everything about film but truthfully this is one of the worst, stupidest, retarded and waste time, movies that i have ever seen and i saw NAPOLEAN DINAMITE. they are both equally terrible. Conrack is boring and nothing interesting even happens in the film its not really a heart warming story and Pat Conroy overcomes nothing! I'm not saying there should be fighting and crap blowing up but it would liven up this more than bland film. the kids they fond to act in this film may have been the real kids from yammacraux island they sounded stupid and couldn't act as as far as i am concerned this was a stupid idea for a book and an even worse idEa fOr a movie I don't know why this movie was even made, deviantly top five worst movies of all time.


I really enjoy this genre but The Cell was one of the worst movies I've ever been unfortunate enough to watch. While about 25 percent of my audience wandered in and out of the theater during the viewing (or left entirely) I was dumb enough to stick it out. The main problems with this story (there were too many to list all) is that with this type of film you have to do two things... one, provide fear of the killer (being that they catch him twenty minutes into the film that's gone) and you must give the victim whose life is at stake (the girl in the tank) enough character development that you actually care whether they get to her in time or not. Not only did I lose track of the girl, I was given such little insight into her that she was only a blurry face and when I did remember she was part of the story I really didn't care what happened to her. While the visuals were interesting in an LSD flashback sort of way, they often times made no sense and this should be a lesson that visuals can't make up for lack of a good story (see Phantom Menace for another example) Finally, does anyone know or care what was up with the women kneeling in that field and staring at the sky? Ridiculous.


As I said the idea itself was great and it had plenty potential. I was truly sad of discovering that this was another typical American mass movie: "We are in this for the money..." If only the producers had had more time to actually MAKE the movie. This one was not finished when they let it out...


If you like to watch movies because they are pretty, you should be okay with this one. If you like to watch movies that start out with a good guy trying to catch a bad guy, then reveal clues to the motives of each throughout the movie, skip it. At the end of the movie i still didn't know why Stargher killed the women the way he did. When you set up such a ritualistic serial killer it would be nice to know where the rituals originated from. In Dreams was a similar pretty movie with a serial killer which also wasn't the best, but at least the whys of how he killed the girls was explained. They also hinted at a dark background for Vaughn's character but didn't explain, didn't really say why Lopez's child psychologist was so much better suited for this task than the rest of the people they interviewed, didn't give much of an explanation for the little kid's problem, etc. If the rest of the story is compelling, I don't care about details like how Stargher afforded all the fancy electronic equipment and underground chambers or why the FBI wasn't checking to see if he owned any other property or had access to out of the way places while they were waiting to see if the whole entering the killer's mind thing would work, but I do like to have a sense of what motivates the serial killer in a serial killer movie when he kills in such a complex manner.


I love exotic science fiction/fantasy movies but this one was very unpleasant to watch. Suggestions and images of child abuse, mutilated bodies (live or dead), other gruesome scenes, plot holes, boring acting made this a regretable experience, The basic idea of entering another person's mind is not even new to the movies or TV (An Outer Limits episode was better at exploring this idea). i gave it 4/10 since some special effects were nice.


Why do the powers that be continue to cast Jennifer Lopez in unbelievable roles? She was excellent in Selena, and pretty good in Money Train, which both cast her in roles where she could basically be herself. However, roles like this just draw the line. I could never see Lopez as an FBI agent (see Out of Sight for that unremarkable performance), but as a psychotherapist? Give me a break!

Basically, Lopez plays the aforementioned psychotherapist, who is involved in virtual reality experiments in which she enters the minds of her patients in order to help them sort out their issues. When she enters the mind of a comatose serial killer to help save one of his victims, she breaks all the rules to try and crack the insanity of his inner mind.

Lopez's acting here is typically below average. I can't get over that high-pitched squeak of a voice she has. She's no Julia Roberts, but yet she comes across on screen as though she believes herself to be on the same playing field. Well, she's not even in the same stadium. Sure, she is a very sexy lady; however, that isn't going to carry a film, and it certainly doesn't carry this one. With anybody else cast in her role for this film it would have been excellent, especially if it was cast with someone who could lend more credibility to the character.

Having said all that, this film is visually stunning. The colors are fabulous, and the story line isn't half bad in a B-movie kind of way. The audio here is superb as well. This movie gains some points for the fairly original storyline, and major points for how it looks and sounds. Unfortunately, the acting and poor casting bring it down a few notches.

My Rating: 6/10


Wrestlemania 2 is the only Wrestlemania|thank god| to be held at three different locations, and While it was an interesting idea, it didn't really work. There are only really two matches that really struck out, with the rest being decent, or most of them, pretty terrible. There are some entertaining celebrity's on hand, like Susan Saint James, Ray Charles and Cathy Crosby, but the experience was a waste of time for the most part. The British Bulldgos Vs The Dream Team match, is worth the price of admission itself, but you can honestly see that anywhere.

Matches.

Nassau Coliseum.

Paul Orndorff Vs The Magnificent Muraco/W Mr.Fuji. For the time it had, and despite the crappy finish, this was surprisingly bearable stuff, with the crowd being really into it. Crowd chants "Bullsh*t" at the end. That being said it did nothing for either's career. Match ends in a double count out with them fighting outside the ring

2/5

Intercontinental Championship Match. Randy Savage|C| Vs George "The Animal" Steele. Not that great wrestling wise, but heavily entertaining due to the antics involved, and some great comedy from Steele, besides savage can wrestle a potato and make it look interesting. Savage wins when he puts his feet on the ropes, for leverage.

2 1/2 /5

Jake "The Snake" Roberts Vs George Wells. For a throwaway match, this was better than it should have been, but it's too short to make any impact what so ever. Roberts wins with the DDT, pulling out the snake afterwords, which disgusts Saint James.

1 1/2 /5

Boxing Match. Mr.T/W The Hati Kid&Joe Frazier Vs Roddy Piper/W Lou Duva&Bob Orton. A huge failure in my opinion. I was bored senseless throughout this, and while it may have been a marketing success, it certainly didn't succeed at entertaining me. Lot of Rowdy chants are noticeable as well. T wins by DQ, when Piper slams T.

1/5

Rosemont Horizon

Women's Title match. Fabulous Moolah|C| Vs Velvet Mcintyre. Ends too quickly, before it even gets a chance to start, making a record for quick pin fall, as far as Woman's matches are concerned. Moolah wins when she takes advantage of Velvet's missed splash from the top rope

0/5

Corporal Kirchner Vs Nikolai Volkoff/W Classy Freddie Blassie. Big pop for the Corporal. Stupid match up, with boring offense from both involved, while being much too short to matter. Corporal wins when he whacks Volkoff with Blassie's cane.

1/5

Battle Royal. William Perry and Andre get the biggest pops. This is pretty entertaining stuff, despite all the NFL talent involved. It's also noteworthy for Bret Hart's 1st ever Wrestlemania appearance. Andre wins when he chucks The Hart Foundation out.

2 1/2 /5

Tag Team Titles. British Bulldogs/W Lou Albano&Ozzy Osbourne Vs The Dream Team/W Johnny Valiant|C|. Absolutely tremendous match, that is one of the best wrestlemania matches of all time. You won't have time to catch your breath, with all the maneuvers on hand, and the excellent in ring psychology. This is pure wrestling at it's finest, you cannot call yourself a Wrestling fan, if you dislike this match. Bulldogs win when Dynamite Kid collide's heads with Valentine

4/5

Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena

Ricky Steamboat Vs Hercules Hernandez. Pretty decent match up here, with both men putting on solid performances. Hercules is a nasty brute, with above average skills, and it contrasted well with Steamboat's high-flying style. Steamboat wins with a high-flying cross body off the top rope.

2 1/2 /5

Adrian Adonis Vs Uncle Elmer. Terrible match, with annoying comedy involved. The fans love Uncle Elmer, but I do not. Adonis wins with a top rope maneuver.

0/5

The Funk Brothers Vs Tito Santana&JYD. Pretty solid match here, with a lot of memorable bumps taken from Terry Funk|the one through the table was something else for that time|. I would have to rate this as my 2nd favorite. Funks win with help from Jimmy Hart's megaphone.

3/5

WWF Championship. Hulk Hogan|C| Vs King Kong Bundy. Decent pop for Hogan. One of the most over-hyped matches in Wrestlemania history. Hogan can't wrestle worth a lick, and Bundy is not that great himself. The violence was brutal for the time, but Hogan's superhero act is kind of annoying, and there are too many boring moments. Hogan wins when he escapes before Bundy.

1/5

Bottom line. Wrestlemania 2 is a failure in most aspects. Die hard wrestling fans should see this once, but you really don't have too. There isn't enough here, to satisfy a true wrestling fan. Vince blew it on this one. Don't be fooled by the hype of the main event, it really is a boring affair, like most of the card. Not recommended, and ranks as one of the worst Wrestlemania's, outside of the brilliant tag title match.

4/10


*POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD*

I'll only say what hasn't already been said here (and I'll continue this for the rest of my WWF/WWE comments).

If you're going to have a Women's title match, at least make it interesting, rather than just a squash to put over the current champion. I guess Moolah couldn't handle an intense match but they wanted to have the legend in a WrestleMania.

I thought the Killer Bees were wasted in WrestleManias, especially here. I became a fan in 1989, about a year after the B. Brian Blair was gone and Jim Brunzell became a canvas back. So I didn't realize for a while that they were a top tag team, even top contenders.

But I loved seeing Bill Fralic in the battle royal. He really came into his own here, creating a cocky heel character in a pre-match interview and even making an elimination in the battle royal. Besides Steve McMichael and Kevin Greene, he is the only professional athlete from my generation with any respect for wrestling (anyone remember Dennis Rodman?). And what was with the Hart Foundation's ridiculous green tights?


This was the worst Wrestlemania in history. The only good matches were Ricky Steamboat vs. Hercules Hernandez, and the tag title match between the British Bulldogs and the Dream Team (this one bordered on classic). Everything else was either poor or awful. The idea of having three host cities was unnecessary, confusing and messed up the fluidity of the show. The celebrity guests were terrible on commentary, especially Susan Saint James.

If you're interested in the mid 80's WWF, you're better renting or buying Wrestlemania 3, or just about any other PPV for that matter.


Although Humphrey Bogart got star billing in King Of The Underworld, I'm willing to bet he didn't thank Jack Warner for it. In fact this film was one hollow crown.

King of the Underworld was supposedly a remake of the Paul Muni film, Dr. Socrates, but given Humphrey Bogart was in the cast, the character is written more like Duke Mantee in The Petrified Forest. He even has an English writer along in the person of James Stephenson.

Kay Francis and John Eldredge are a pair of married doctors and Eldredge pulls off a tricky bit of surgery on one of Bogart's henchmen. Bogey's a man who appreciates good work done on his behalf and gives Eldredge $500.00 and there's more where that came from if he plays his cards right. Eldredge who has a gambling problem sees a good way to get some undeclared income.

But when he's killed in a raid on the gang's hideout, Francis is also thought to be involved by the law and the American Medical Association no matter how much she protests her innocence. It's no good and she and her aunt Jessie Busley move to a small town to get away from the notoriety.

Of course the notoriety and Bogart and an itinerant Leslie Howard like writer in Stephenson all meet up with her again. But Kay is plucky and resourceful to say the least.

Bogart's character was ridiculous, no wonder the poor guy was screaming for better parts. He's a gangster who both shoots down people without mercy and gives his henchmen hotfoots just for laughs. He's concerned about his image and therefore kidnaps writer Stephenson to ghost write his autobiography and of course confesses enough to burn him in all 48 states. And then let's Kay Francis completely outsmart him, hard to believe he was king of anything.

Definitely one of the lesser works for either of the stars.


This movie is a cinematic collage of gangster clichés. The writing is grade z and the plot and story are constructed without care or logic. It a messy pastiche of stereotypical gangsters (think of Bugs Bunny cartoons) and silly supporting characters (the lady doctor and the writer). There are much better Bogart films out there. In fact, Bogart looks like he slept through this performance. He puts very little effort into this character. I think the directorial advice he received was something like "He's a bad guy. Act bad". This guy is the era's equivalent of Darth Vader; obvious, evil and the anti-hero. Don't waste your time with this one.


Following his role in the fine caper SEVEN THIEVES (1960) – which I’ve watched several years back – Edward G. Robinson seemed to be stuck playing elderly criminal mastermind types (apart from the odd juicy role as in THE CINCINNATI KID [1965]). I’d previously watched the pretty good “Euro-Cult” effort GRAND SLAM (1967) and, apart from this, I’ve yet two more similar titles from Italy to check – one of which was directed by future goremeister Lucio Fulci! Anyway, this is the kind of international production – featuring American and Italian actors and a British director – which was prevalent during the 1960s; it’s harmless and easy-going in itself but hardly memorable and definitely overlong – especially since to procure finance for the heavy-duty equipment required for the heist (such as an army tank and an airplane!), the gang involved have to pull a variety of minor thefts first.

The gang, of course, is an incompetent lot led by an American (Robert Wagner) and his bimbo girlfriend (Raquel Welch) – the others are a ‘pacifist’ black man, a perennially hungry Italian and a diminutive Englishman. They try to induce an ex-gangster (Vittorio De Sica) to turn over his fortune to them, except he’s destitute…but, under the auspices of “Professor” Robinson, he proposes instead a caper of 5 million dollars’ worth of platinum! Needless to say, the gang members don’t trust one another (Wagner instructs Welch to seduce De Sica so as to get the name of their fence in Morocco – where they are to retreat after the robbery), or else bungle the job (commissioned to hold up a restaurant, the Italian can’t resist sitting at table and order a multi-course meal for himself!). Amusingly, in the face of similar failures, De Sica tries to show them how they used to do it in the old days – however, ostensibly holding up a petrol station, it transpires that the owner is a nephew of his and he merely asked to borrow some cash!

The central heist sequence is typically elaborate: while the gang, including Welch, ‘take’ the train transporting the platinum, Wagner kidnaps pilot Victor Spinetti and his airplane. When the job is done, he fully intends to double-cross De Sica – but neither his partners nor Welch herself are willing to go along with this, so he’s forced to relent. Coming from the time when crime didn’t pay, the gang contrives to lose all their stash in mid-air when the plane’s bomb-bay doors are accidentally opened…


I've got as much testosterone as the next bloke, and Raquel Welch at her finest is certainly worth a look; but the fact is that a cardboard cut-out could act better, and an hour and half of Ms. W showing off her considerable assets does not a movie make.

Considering the cast, it's surprising that it's as bad as it is. I've never been a big fan of Wagner, and his tough guy Harry is about as convincing as a 9-dollar bill. Godfrey Cambridge and Vittorio de Sica, both of whom I usually enjoy, seem to be sleeping through their lines; and as for Edward G...well, I can only assume he was there for the paycheck.

This film is a mess: from non-existent plot, through stop-start action and unfunny script to puerile slapstick and annoying 60's 'caper' music. If it weren't for Miss Welch, I'd have given it a 0.

That said, she is a treat to the eyes - even better than her delicious cameo in 'Bedazzled' - and for that reason alone I gave it a 3.


If this movie were in production today it would probably have the christian right-wingers screaming 'child porn'. It is far from a great film, in fact it is rather pedestrian. However, if you have an imagination and a fond remembrance of youth and first love I recommend it.


Last fall (of 2001), I took a film class that was taught by the director of this movie (Mark Hoeger). His vast knowledge of filmmaking, his ability to dissect any scene of a film, and his winning of an Academy Award in some obscure category seemed to give him more credibility than your average independent film director. When he mentioned during one of his classes that he had just finished directing a film called "Full Ride" and was in the post-production stages, my interest was piqued. However, that would be the last I would ever hear of that film project. Until last week...

Last week, I saw in a TV listing that "Full Ride" was going to be showing on the WB network. This immediately raised a red flag, as I can't help but associate WB with teensploitation shows such as Dawson's Creek, Charmed, etc. PLUS, the fact that Full Ride was going to be released straight to TV wasn't too flattering in itself. But, nevertheless, I set aside that time and sat down to watch my former film teacher's creation.

After two hours passed and the end credits began to roll, I thought long and hard about what I had just seen. What I had just seen was a typical WB-quality show stretched out to the length of two hours. In fact, it almost seemed as if this movie was made with the sole intent of only showing on the WB network. Critiquing this movie will basically be like critiquing a typical WB show.

Where to begin? The characters are shallow, the story is cliche in every sense of the word, the scenes are completely contrived, and the character development is forced and unbelievable. This movie just screams `unoriginal.'

The main character, Matt Sabo, is some hot shot from the wrong side of the tracks (literally) who plays solid high school football as a fullback, but then fizzles off into a life of crime. He is then offered a chance at a full ride scholarship instead of going to jail. Obviously, without much of a choice, he agrees to play football with an all-star football team, but is not excepted among his peers because of his poor team spirit and bad attitude.

Then comes the love interest. Of course! Where would this predictable fanfare be without a love interest? She comes in the form of Amy Lear (played by the beautiful Meredith Monroe). She is actually a likable character, as opposed to the ever-so-abrasive Matt Sabo, so we almost applaud her when she rejects him at first. But, of course, the inevitable comes to pass. She falls for him, changes his attitude towards everything, and all seems good and happy. But now it's time for conflict!

Earlier in the movie, Amy makes it clear to Matt that she doesn't want to score with him, because it would be `shameful' to her and her mother. This is much to Matt's dismay, and his football buddies (yes, they eventually warm up to him) who bet him he wouldn't get any. But, of course, Matt eventually comes to accept these terms and decides he's not all about the nookie. Here's where the exciting plot thickens. If you don't want me to ruin this surprise, then skip ahead.

[BEGIN SPOILER]

Matt finds out from some local guys that apparently Amy Lear always tries to score with a guy each year from the All-Star team so that she can try to use him to escape her small town life of working in a cafeteria (which is baffling in the first place) and make it to the big city. Suddenly realizing he's been used and that his love was a sham, Matt it tempted to turn back to a life of crime and leave the football camp before `the big game.' Amy tries to reassure him that she was really in love this time, but he's too hot-headed to buy it. So what will Matt do? Will he take her back? Or will he go back to robbing gas stations and being an all-round jerk? I won't ruin the super-ultra-surprising ending for you.

[END SPOILER]

So, if I somehow got you pumped up for this movie, please realize that that was my sarcasm and not genuine enthusiasm. This movie is an uninspired version of `Varsity Blues' or `Summer Catch.' And that's not saying much. There's hardly any comedy to save it and the characters are too shallow to care about. So what do you have left? Not a whole lot.

What I most disliked about the movie was how much of an unflattering picture Hoeger painted of Nebraska through this film. It seems like he was trying to capture the essence of rural Nebraska and teenage life in the small towns, but his approach is all too stereotypical and shallow. The characters' high hopes for making in `the big city' and the actions they take to do so are greatly exaggerated, and it only further cements the stereotype of Nebraskans being a bunch of hicks living in farm communities. I am unsure of whether or not Hoeger's intentions were good in trying to put his home state in the spotlight, but I think he ended up with a very shameful product. If Hoeger wanted to portray Nebraska in a favorable light, he should have taken a note or two from Alexander Payne. While Payne simply chooses to use Nebraska as a backdrop for his films, Hoeger integrates it into the plot of Full Ride and becomes so entangled in his awareness of where he's shooting, that he ends up churning out superficial garbage that would seem to come from an outsider. If Hoeger actually lived here, you'd think he'd know better than that.

All in all, I am completely disappointed in Hoeger's first big film, and I hope that next time he can combine his knowledge with a little bit of originality to create something different and thought-provoking.


This is movie is really bad. I like to flip on the TV while napping and this movie looked like it would be something good to sleep through, and boy was I wrong. My body literally woke me up from sleeping and said "Hey... this movie is awful... you gotta watch it". I love bad movies with bad actors and stupid plots. Something about unintentional comedy gets me going. This movie is impressively crappy. I really don't know how to properly express it aside from recommending you watch it just to see how bad it is. I mean, seriously, you should watch it with people. I was making the best jokes outloud during this movie and no one was there to hear them.

Worse than Swimfan. It's that bad.


Excellent example of the disaster that happens when you combine a challenging script with two actors chosen for physical appeal. It is rare for me to be consciously aware of the acting during the first viewing of a movie because I try to just go with the story and save the analysis for the second viewing. In the case of "Full Ride", the acting was so weak that the movie was impossible to appreciate as a story; I was too busy (during first and only viewing) alternating between laughter and nausea.

Fortunately for most individual members of the cast, pretty much everyone in the ensemble is weak, the individual talent limitations do not contrast with any actual competent acting. Riley Smith and Meredith Monroe are at least well matched physically, finding common ground in looking far too old for the credible age of their characters.

Unfortunately the script requires especially intense and convincing performances to portray their characters which just exposes Smith and Monroe's staggering lack of talent. On the positive side, they know enough to not look directly into the camera and they do not stutter.

Better to have used a less attractive pair who could physically pass for the proper age. The basic story is not particularly original, just another variation on "An Officer and a Gentleman", but it would have provided a nice showcase for a talented pair of "teenage" actors.

Then again, what do I know? I'm just a child.


After seeing the movie, I feel the father and the mother are both reasonable person, although not perfect at all. On the contrary, I don't like the author, and his two sisters.

Is a person's journal an accurate portrait of herself? No. Most of time people only write problems in her journal because she want to solve the problem. So a journal is always a more negative side of a person. In this movie, the author judge his mother's life by her journal. Not a wise choice.

The author's elder sister is so ugly, external and internal. First, she said her father's second marriage is "not fair" for her mother. Then, she said she doesn't love her mother. So, she don't love both father and mother. I doubt she love anybody in the world. Her face is so ugly, just a reflection of her heart. Through out the movie, I feel the author and his sisters are lack of love and respect to their parents. However, I feel the father are mother are very loving to their children, even the author try to portrait them as cold, deceitful person.


This documentary is rife with problems.

How arrogant is it to make a documentary about your own family? I understand you think the subject is interesting. I was bored with it. This isn't a fascinating story to me, and I don't know why you would think it was.

I don't want to come off as mean, but I have to say: Most of the people in this film are just not attractive. And that's OK, not everyone is pretty. But your camera technique, to stick the lens in their face so you can't help but be overwhelmed by their unpleasant appearance because it is filling your 47" TV, is not enjoyable. I had to put my hand up half the time to shield myself from the warts, wrinkles, bags under eyes and yellow teeth. Really, I'm trying not to sound inhuman, but pull the camera back so its not like total strangers are breathing in my face.

The camera work in this "film" is rank amateur level. It's the kind of camera work you see from everyone with a camcorder at a family picnic. Uninteresting framing, unsteady, even static shots are done carelessly. Put a little effort into it, if you're going to do this for a living.

I honestly can't see what the big deal is about this thing.


The director seems like a good, solid man. His parents struggle with the same issues we all cope with. They strayed from each other. They loved each other. They misunderstood each other. And the poor audience has to sit through ninety minutes of what is possibly the trials and tribulations of one of the most boring families ever to come out of Long Island.

There are few interesting choices in this documentary--the music is banal, the filming uninspired, and the story is the same story that has played out on every Birch Street in every town in America. I don't mean to sound too harsh--seldom has a sweeter, more well-intentioned documentary been made. The director is the kind of man with whom you'd want to be friends. You just wish he had struggled as much presenting the material as his parents did keeping their marriage alive.


Tamara Anderson and her family are moving once again, as her itinerant painter father chases his next landscape. Fifteen years old, she is in her rebellious stage. Already angry at her father for their frequent relocations, her anger is exacerbated when her mother is suddenly confined to a sanatorium for tuberculosis. Her mother's absence causes Tamara to lash out at her father and seek comfort in religion, the boy next door, Rusty, as well as the spirit of the dead teenager who used to live in her rented house.

The story is modest to a fault. It's oddly paced, and even during its emotional scenes there isn't any tension. The actors portraying the parents are fine. Alberta Watson is incredibly charismatic as the sick mother, and Maria Ricossa is particularly effective as the guilt-ridden mother of the dead teenager. But Katie Boland, as Tamara, is too amateurish to carry the movie. The dialog is very natural and Boland can't quite pull it off. She has her moments and when she hits them she can be good but there were too many times when she came off awkward. One can see her thinking 'ok this is what my line is and this is the face i'm supposed to make' rather than actually reacting to the other actors. She's not the only one, Kevin Zegers as Rusty and Megan Park as his sister Brenda also suffer from stilted delivery but at least they're in fewer scenes.

If done right, the screenplay could have made her an affecting movie. And it has it moments but much of it is bogged down with an amateurish lead performance and flat directing.


I was wondering what possessed the organizers of the Victoria Film Festival to include this film in their program. I guess they must have agreed with the others who have reviewed this film. I, on the other hand, consider it the worst film I have ever seen. It starts with a bad script, full of holes, and dialog so unlikely it's embarrassing. Ideas are introduced, then dropped with no development. The acting left me totally cold and uninvolved. The set decoration was appropriate for the time, but a decorator's nightmare. The only way the characters could love this house is if their previous homes had been ghastly. The attic looked as if the items had been thrown in for the scene with no attempt to create the look of a real attic that has been filling with junk over the years. The photography was leaden and lacking in variety. Save your money for something worthwhile.


This is by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers "San Pedro Beach Bums".

My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a "walk". The end result was straight out of Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks" sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.

And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left "The View". As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.

Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women.


Tyra Banks needs to teach these girls that it's not all about being beautiful on the outside. The inside counts for something too. A lot of the past winners have looked semi decent but are horribly cruel and starting trouble for the other girls. I see Tyra less involved with the girls in every season. About the only thing worth watching Top Model for is Mr. Jay Manuel. Recently, Tyra had a contestant who was a pre-op transsexual. I felt that she should have done more to encourage her. It was obvious that she had insecurities about her original anatomy showing through her feminine look. Tyra should have given her tips or perhaps she could have sent resident Trannie Ms. Jay to help the girl out. Instead, the contestant was met with harsh criticism and not enough positive criticism. It's a shame because I truly enjoyed the first 3 seasons. There's a reason why Project Runway has all 4 seasons out on DVD and Top Model only has 1 season on DVD. It's called taste. Top Model seriously needs a lot of revamping an some more humanity.


In watching this off and on for a few seasons, two things come to mind: One - wondering what kind of girl wants to be a "model" and two - run to the nearest ice cream store and have a low fat sundae.

I tried to be a fan because I liked the idea of this reality show competition. No other "famous" model thought of this, and it is very admirable for Tyra Banks to do so. But as the series goes on and on I've come to the conclusion that this is a sorry lot of folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Women shouldn't watch this, teens should stay clear of it unless they're doing book reports on the subject.

Many women try out for slots to compete for "Americas Next Top Model". They live together, cat fight together, cry together, get put through pointless modeling shoots with pointless modeling people and fashionatas and get eliminated and almost all of them claim, "You will see me again". Heck, I'm trying to see what happened to the ones that DID win, actually.

This is the dream of some girls, and good for them. In watching this I hope the other girls that see this and run like Hades the other way - like to college.

I just happened to watch more of this recent season because of the "ploy" of full figured models joining the group. That even made me think more of this as a sorry lot of folks. The "full figured models" were no more than average sized ladies competing with what I think is the thinnest group of models they ever chose - so of course that would make them look even fatter - a "ploy" fashionatas use all the time. Bad, bad, Tyra and crew.

But to be fair, "Americas Next Top Model" is not about "full figured" models, it's about projecting an imagined image a beauty that can be mass marketed and sold as the ultimate in beauty - and this show is just looking for the next fresh piece of meat to add to the mix. Hence the name of the show. Hence the sorry lot of judges, photographers, associations. Hence Tyra and her consistent "this was me" plugs every camera angle you can get. But then again, that IS the one thing I like about this show - the ex-model giving others who wouldn't have the chance -- a chance to enter the doors. But after that...everything else is status quo for that industry which is why there are no surprises or week to week interest in the program.


Tyra & the rest of the modeling world needs to know that real women like myself and my daughter don't care to see all the ridiculous modeling to sell something. Weird locations, too much makeup & too much skin is not necessary. Sex does not always sell when you are selling to women. The same goes for the horse stomping runway walk that looks unnatural. People come in all shapes & sizes & they need to have that on the show. My daughter has a 36" inseam, is tall & slender & a size 5, I am more average at a size 12. We would like to see both- I can not picture how something would look on me when a size 2 is wearing it, it will not fit the same way on me. I do not buy magazines anymore because they are one sided on this matter. We would really love the show to consider women of all sizes. Thank you.


I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.


The CinemaScope color cinematography of Leon Shamroy is quite remarkable here,including his use of colored filters for

various scenes. The Alfred Newmann Score has to be the most sensual and seductive score Hollywood ever produced. It's a shame it is no longer available on CD. The actors, however, never rise to the occasion. The accents are so varied, from the subdued British of Ustinov and Purdom to the Hollywood of Baxter and Mature that it seems a true hodgepodge with no central vision. Tommy Rettig is jarringly American. Acting styles span the range from zombie-like to stilted. Only Ustinov as a conniving one-eyed servant steals the show - what there is of it to steal. The premise - the story of a young Egyptian doctor, seduced and abandoned by the rich - and the parallel theme of the cult of the single God, Ra - persecuted by the authorities, has its interesting points. But when the film's plot fades, it is the haunting music and visuals that remain.


I am surprised that so many comments about this film are positive. Having read the book several times (and all the other historical novels by Mika Waltari) there is no way to say much good in this film. If I forget the origins of the story I might consider it a reasonably good epic. Of course to bring such a brick of a book to the big screen is a task not to be envied, but it could be done with class. I can't understand why even the name of Nefernefernefer had to be shortened to just Nefer. I love Peter Ustinov as Kaptah and Marlon Brando probably would have made a better Sinuhe but the overall attitude is too Hollywood to ever make justice to the book. Mind you Mika Waltari left the Premier of this film in the middle of the showing. That's how much he liked it.


In comparison to other "sand and sandal" fare, The Egyptian leaves much to be desired. The film is very LOOSELY based upon Mika Waltari's well researched novel, which centers around the Egyptian physician Sinhue's adventures at the court of Akhnaton as well as his travels throughout Canaan, Minoan Crete and Africa. Unfortunately, due to the moral strictures of the time, much of Sinhue's story (which is rife with romantic and sexual exploits) remains on the cutting room floor and instead, the audience is treated to reels and reels of Victor Mature's wooden acting. Even Gene Tierney  a leading lady "staple" of the time  can not manage to look nor act her best in this flick and gives a rather somnambulistic performance which can only be justified by the fact that the actress was having some serious psychiatric problems at the time. There is a great deal of rhetoric and theological machinations over the idea of monotheism vs. polytheism, but Michael Wilding is so tiring as the revolutionary Akhnaton, that one is surely cheering for someone to off him and restore the old religion before the second reel. My advice: buy the book from E-Bay, rent something more entertaining like Solomon and Sheba and then call it a night!


Ho humm - - - More of nothing. If you are a long-time Rush fan you know what this video contains: loathsome songs from the past, the "BIG 3" hits from the 80's and their "last-ditch" efforts to remain contemporary. They do succeed in making fun of themselves by beating the critics to the punch by portraying themselves as "dinosaurs." Unfortunately, they FAIL at protecting themselves from embarrassment. Close-ups of their faces only add to the fact that these guys HAVE BEEN.

If you are have been following (as much as you can stomach) the band for a couple of decades from the 70's, then you know there is no new material here. Same old, same OLD: 1) Neil avoids the press, 2) no real behind-the-scenes (Geddy looses his SHOES?! Give me a break! Even HE thinks it's absurd!) 3) no new insights.

A better video would have been to show the CREW setting up for 3 or 4 hours  just let the camera run. And stop changing camera angles every 2 seconds! I understand the director wants to try to do something artsy. But then offer a full concert version of 2 or 3 shots the VIEWER can choose. We know what the band looks like  let us see what WE REALLY want to see.

Do yourself a BIG favor: RENT this movie first.


All right, let's be realistic about this. Nobody goes into a movie produced by WWE Films (whose owner has challenged God to a wrestling match), directed by a former porn director (the man gave the world the Between the Cheeks trilogy), starring a wrestler named Kane, and expects a little slice of art on a golden platter. If you do then you probably need to find something other than watching movies to occupy your time.

So what exactly are we to expect from a movie like this? Well, here's what I was looking forward to:

1) Bad acting. 2) A fairly non-existent, clichéd storyline. 3) Kane walking around with a scrunched, sour face that indicates his nostrils just found the potato salad he misplaced a month ago. 4) Tons and tons of gore.

Well, if you're hungry for some "so bad it's funny" entertainment then this might satisfy your appetite because it delivers on all counts.

Obviously, movies like this are best seen for free, but if you do choose to sacrifice box office bucks then have some fun and make a game out of it. The filmmakers are nice enough to introduce us to each of the annoying delinquents by flashing their names and legal offenses on the screen. This makes it easier for you to write down which ones you want to see killed and in what order. You and your friends can see whose predictions are most accurate.

I also suggest that you and your pals write down every single moment of stupidity and inanity that you can find. Tally them up at the end and see who comes up with the most. I think my grand total was 107; can you beat that? I personally want to know how after 35 years and a fire does this abandoned hotel still have electricity, running water, and a working elevator?

I know, I know, the filmmakers are assuming that if you pay to see this then you obviously don't put much thought into what you spend your money on and therefore likely won't put much thought into how silly the movie is, but that doesn't mean we can't point it out and laugh at it.

I also like how the city wants to turn this huge hotel (which would be condemned and recommended for demolition by any sensible inspector) into a homeless shelter and they think the best way to get it cleaned up is to give eight punks a few mops and brooms. Uh-huh.

I think you pretty much know what to expect, but I feel the need to provide you with a couple of warnings. First, if you hate crowd interaction no matter the movie then you might want to stay away. The people in the audience acted like they were at an actual wrestling show. Shouts of "Kill him, Kane!" and "I hope you die first!" and "Chokeslam!" echoed through the theater, showcasing what I hope is NOT the best of what America has to offer. I usually don't appreciate such audience interaction, but for a cheesefest like this I thought the commentary added to the entertainment value. However, I can see how others could be annoyed by it.

Second, and this shouldn't even warrant explanation, the film doesn't shy away from the gore. If watching a big ugly dude rip eyeballs right out of their sockets doesn't scream "fun night at the movies!" for ya then you know good and well to save your dough.

I must say that I was a little surprised by the extreme lack of dialogue on Kane's part. I wasn't expecting him to put on an acting clinic, but I was hoping he'd have some cute little catchphrase like "Say goodnight" (his character's last name is "Goodnight") right before he killed a victim. Instead he uttered four words in the entire film - "Nooooooo!" and "I see it." But hey, he delivered them flawlessly!

If I were a bad guy in a movie then my catchphrase would be something like "Place your BETTS!" or "All BETTS are off!"

It'd rule and you know it. We need a new genre term for bad horror films like See No Evil that induce so much unintentional laughter that you almost have to label them comedic. Feel free to send me your suggestions. For now we'll just call 'em HOR-larious!


Eight teen convicts are brought to the abandoned Blackwell Hotel to clean it out as community service. They soon discover that it's the residence of a hulking psychopath (Kane) who has a thing for pulling out and collecting eyeballs. It doesn't help that the guard watching over them (Steven Vidler) has had a previous run-in with the beast four years earlier.

A guilty pleasure of mine are slasher films. Most of them are poorly directed and acted but they still hold some appeal and entertainment value. See No Evil is a good example of this. It features atrocious writing and acting but the death scenes are pretty good and the movie proves to be entertaining. The premise sounds like a mixture between Friday the 13th, Saw 2 and Halloween: Resurrection. I really liked the idea but it didn't work out too well. It was really just a bunch of clichés and everything was predictable. Screenwriter Dan Madigan just focused on the death scenes and nothing else apparently. The death scenes themselves are pretty good and gruesome. Director Gregory Dark did a good job with them and he came up with some creative kills.

The acting is pretty bland and unremarkable. This is because all of the characters are one dimensional and we don't know much about them. It was hard to feel for these people because they were pretty unlikable. Kane is surprisingly mediocre. I was expecting his on screen presence to be scarier but he didn't do that good of a job. A second rate Jason Voorhees, if you will. The rest of the actors are relatively unknown and this film will probably neither help nor hurt their careers.

While the death scenes are gory, they aren't necessary scary. There's really no suspense just some gory death scenes. Because of this, the movie doesn't hold much of a repeat value. Also, if you don't like slasher films then don't waste your time with this one. It will do little to change your opinion. In the end, See No Evil is a decent slasher film but it is generic and forgettable so it's not exactly worth watching. Rating 6/10


The first official release of World Wrestling Entertainment's film division is a pretty basic horror/slasher movie called "See No Evil" starring Kane, one of their big men wrestlers known for having an intimidating presence, hard-hitting moves, and one of the most convoluted backstories in wrestling. And let's not pull any punches here; while this movie is promoted as the greatest horror movie of all time (mostly by WWE), it goes without saying that after having seen this movie, I can confirm it as one of the greatest comedies of all time.

"See No Evil" sees a bunch of juvenile delinquents sent to a hotel so they can clean up. Of course, a monstrous murderer (played by Kane) also happens to be living in this hotel and we all know where that goes. Without giving away too much of the movie plot, this film has all the semblance and structure of an early-1980s slasher flick with most of the clichés intact, but without any of the scares that those films accompany. And that's sort of the main problem with "See No Evil". It tries so many of the tricks implied by its predecessors in the genre that it comes off as predictable; veteran horror fans will easily recognize some of the gimmicks ahead of time and even those who have only seen a few flicks should tell what happens next. It's too generic to be scary.

The movie's gory, no doubt, but it's only there for the effect. The dark atmosphere instilled in the movie gives off that feel of terror initially, but as you get towards the end, it somehow feels out of place and gets tiresome quickly. The death scenes don't come off as gory and horrific as much as they do laughable, although some of them are pretty inventive.

And the acting in this movie is pretty bad too, as the main characters aren't developed enough for us to care when they eventually do get axed. Some can't even portray fear properly; they just scream and cry in a vain effort to emote. So when they die, it only adds to the comedy because you don't care enough about them that you simply consider them the equivalent of Starfleet Redshirts to the monster Kane.

As for Kane, he simply portrayed his movie character the same way he portrays his wrestling character, only he uses axes and hooks instead of hellfire and brimstone. There's no doubt in my mind that Kane can be a great fixture in the horror genre. He has the look and presence for it; he just needs better material (specifically a script that isn't written by someone who writes wrestling shows) to work with.

Now, despite what may seem like a harsh review, I actually enjoyed the film. It's one of those laughably bad movies that you can't help but sit down and enjoy. My main gripe with the film, again, is that it's simply an exercise in filming gory kills and doesn't have any frightening or shock moments. I enjoyed it, but I enjoyed because it was easy for me to laugh off some of what was supposed to be scary moments in the movie. If that happens because it was supposed to be that way, the movie would have been rated higher. But it didn't. It got laughs because it's a B-movie and it doesn't help that the director's previous experiences was porn flicks and music videos; not exactly overcomplicated things to direct anyway. Nonetheless, I enjoyed it tremendously.

If you don't mind a fun B-movie or funny horror film, I'd highly recommend "See No Evil." If you are a true enthusiast of the genre, I'd wait until the DVD comes out before checking it out. Everyone else should probably go watch something else.


After watching this movie, I have nothing but contempt for any of those who were involved in the making of this abysmal film. For one, as a general comment, the storyline was literally unbelievable and filled with incredible clichés all around. The same obviously goes for the dialogue which panders to the lowest common denominator and manages to offer absolutely zero unpredictable original lines. The acting was terrible as well with Kane showing, throughout the entire movie, at the very most 3 separate and distinct emotions. Even the use of modern special effects failed, as each prop was easily distinguishable from its real life counterpart. Overall, I would not recommend for anyone to even think about viewing this feature, as it will most surely waste 83(not even 90!) minutes of your life.


Another movie with a star of a wrestling. So far I have noticed....wrestlers can't act on the movie screen. This movie is no exception.

The action is dreadful. It makes you laugh at what they say, and they can't be serious, they try to act scared but they fail and look stupid. The acting is horrible, possibly from the bad director.

The plot was stupid....Just some people get placed in a hotel because they're criminals, and they get randomly killed off. The movie is stupid all the way through, making it one of the worst I have ever seen.

The only think and this is why I give it a 3 and not a 1 is because of the way Jacob Goodnight dies. The pole through the head and the stories of him plunging was awesome.

Overall this is a really horrible movie, and you definitely shouldn't waste your time with it.


I got stuck in traffic (I live in Sicily) on the way to the theater (at a military base) to see Superman Returns, was 15 minutes late, and the only other movie playing was "See No Evil", there was no poster up for it, and just a short description of the movie on the schedule...but my girlfriend and I decided to check it out...As soon as I saw it was produced by WWE I just knew it was gonna be awful. The few people in the theater were laughing most of the time, and it was the first movie that I honestly considered walking out on, and I've seen "The Ringer"...okay, I would have walked out of that one, but I was too busy sleeping. The death of the bad guy at the end was pretty good, but other than that, it was just stupid.


I had no idea this movie was produced by "WWE". Wrestling is lame enough. Why did they have to soil their name further by making a movie as crappy as this one was?? I found it to be a complete disappointment. If i had of known this movie was going to be as stupid as it was, I would have stayed home and done something more entertaining. Sure, I'll give them the credit of the cool effects; but the killer didn't seem as scary as he could have been. He lacked a number of things. But I'll let you point them out for yourselves. The plot was a great idea, just could have been done in a much better way. Maybe in the future, WWE will stick to its moronic wrestling and stay out of the film industry..


OK, lets start with the best. the building. although hard to believe it had electricity and running water after 35 years and a fire, the gruesome walls and odd items found throughout were interesting. other than that, its not worth it.

as far as the bad, its done by WWE films. WTF? is that supposed to make you want to see it? if anything, stay away. horrible, horrible idea for them to make movies and allow Gregory Dark to direct it. bad choice. the previews beforehand were more interesting and entertaining.

i cant even begin to discuss how bad this film is. untalented actors & a disappointing, vague storyline. apparently many of the actors are from that show "all saints". its a wonder why i haven't ever heard of them or their show. other than that, the bus driver, which you never even see, just him closing the door, has had more action that just about everyone together. at least he handles stunts for some decent films.

i like to see scary movies, i really do. but this one blew so much, the entire audience was laughing at it and cheering the characters on halfway through. very annoying. the child behind me was yelping more during the previews of other horror films.

this is not a film to see, even less if you have to pay for it.


Porn legend Gregory Dark directs this cheesy horror flick that has Glen Jacobs (Kane from WWF/WWE/ whatever it calls itself nowadays) in his cinematic debut. He plays Jacob Goodknight, a blind serial killer who's forte is taking people's eyes out. The plot, be it as it may, has a group of troubled youths cleaning up the historical hotel that GoodKnight resides in and subsequently being offed by him. Hemmingway it's not. Starts of as fun dopey B-movie, but soon gets too tedious to be enjoyable. Glad I went in with pretty low expectations, but even those weren't met. How can you have a porn king directing and still suffer from a lack of nudity??? for shame.

My Grade: D-

Eye Candy: Samantha Noble bares her ass briefly


The Cheesiest movie I've ever seen, Not scary, just bad. 1st movie made by the WWE, and trust me,the only person this movie might appeal to is wrestling fans. It has terrible acting and The worst directing I've seen yet.I Found myself laughing at the storyline, and bad actors. I saw that the WWE people tried really hard to Put a lot of the wrestling moves in the kills, and Several camera effects. I think they copied a lot from silent Hill. This movie's not engaging either, so If you do see it, you're gonna find yourself tuning out because of it's lack of Suspense. The ending's the worst, No matter what, you'll come out wanting your money back


Compared to the recent gore flick HOSTEL, which this movie reminded me a lot of-- I would say that See No Evil is slightly better but not by much. The very complex plot involves a handful of delinquents who are sent to clean up a rundown hotel for a shorter jail sentence. The kids soon end up being killed off by a lumbering religious psychopath who is cleansing them of their sins (I guess). The one thing I dreaded most prior to seeing this was the fact that it stared a WWE wrestler, Kane. He ended up doing a decent job considering he only had 2 one-word lines in the movie. There are a couple fairly gory moments, mainly involving eye-gouging and a quite memorable scene in which a girl gets a cellphone shoved down her throat-- probably the most effective demise in the movie.

I can't say that this movie really shows us anything new and is definitely far from great. Can't recommend it.


By the standards of Hollywood this movie was filmed and edited as Hollywood movies are and therefore looked like a movie you would get out of a big-time production studio within Hollywood. Thats where anything remotely close to having Hollywood standards ends. This was THE WORST MOVIE I have EVER seen in MY LIFE! I am not joking. The story was so unbelievably stupid and unrealistic that I could not contain my laughter in the movie theater through the course of watching this film. I know what you're saying, "its a horror film its not supposed to have a good story it's supposed to scare you." Well let me tell you something, the movie is not even scary in the least bit. Its too full of stupid bits that cancels out the little suspense there may have been. The acting was awful as well, along with the scariness of the murderer, who you constantly see through flashbacks locked in a cage jacking off. Throughout the movie I kept getting a sense I was watching something that was thought up, written, produced, and directed by a high-schooler who watches too much pornography. Please, don't see this movie, spend your $8.50 on other things, like a snow cone, which would be much more worth your while.


A wildly uneven film where the major problem is the uneasy mix of comedy and thriller. To me, the unusual premise is clearly a comedic one, and they should have gone for an all-out comedy. For example, Rock has some funny lines but occasionally he is too unlikable for a comedy. The scene where Betty's husband gets scalped is too nasty for what should have been a less violent comedy. An even better example is the Hollywood leftist writer preaching to us tritely through Freeman's character, early on, about the plight of the Indians; I mean - yawn! They should have given Freeman something funny to say in that segment, but that is of course much more difficult than to simply write him a boring PC speech.

There is yet more New Age PC-ness in the form of the ending: the girl not only doesn't get the boy - she gets no boy at all; in fact, the message is that the girl needs no boy at all! Bit of a feminist statement there. The first half-hour is weak, but the movie gets better - ironically - once Zellweger gets to Kinnear. I say "ironically" because I'm not much of a fan of Kinnear's, though he's solid here. Zellweger is very cute, as usual; she has the sort of all-American cute looks which should appeal to almost every guy, and I have to wonder why more of such women aren't "represented" nowadays, instead of the dogs who inexplicably became stars, such as Diaz, Roberts, Aniston, Lopez, or Barrymore.

Since the movie tries to be very serious at times, I have no choice but to criticize Freeman's character which is the gangster's equivalent of the movie world's hooker-with-the-heart-of-gold. There is also absolutely nothing in the relationship between Freeman and Rock to suggest even remotely that they were father and son.


I was pretty enthusiastic about seeing this movie when it came out. Commercials for it made it look quirky and I generally like Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock, and the combination of the two seemed like an interesting idea. Sadly, I was terribly disappointed with Nurse Betty.

Personally, I've usually found that graphic violence and comedy don't go all that well together, and the only directors that have ever combined the two successfully, in my opinion, are Tarantino and the Coens. There isn't that much violence in Nurse Betty, but what violence is in it made me feel kind of weird when I was supposed to laugh. Of course, for me, part of the problem was also that there didn't seem to be many places where I was being asked to.

The film doesn't much work as a drama, either. Renee Zellweger's Betty, the story's protagonist, is clinically insane and impossible to relate to in any real way. I will say Zellweger acts the role quite well, and Freeman, Rock, and Greg Kinnear all do good jobs too. The problem is in the writing; Freeman is the only person that gets to play an interesting character. It's really too bad. 3/10


Okay, this movie starts out and it *looks* like it's going to be a cute comedy about a completely obsessed soap opera fan. She has no touch with reality whatsoever outside of the soap (sort of the inverse of the main characters in "Pleasantville") and runs away to Los Angeles to meet a fictional character. Well it is a cute movie... but at the same time, it is ALSO a dark, very violent movie about two hitmen who are out to kill Betty for reasons way to complex to recount here. Either plotline would have been enough on it's own, but "Nurse Betty" contains both stories at once, and the effect is very jarring. I didn't much enjoy it.


Renee Zellweger is radiant, but the rest of this movie just does not work. It's like a hamburger-jello-mold salad--interesting idea, but who ever thought it would actually work on film? I like director LaBute's two previous films--they were mercilessly honest and chillingly funny. This film manages only to be merciless and chilling--with jumbo dollops of the cutes. (As high concept, think: the Doris Day-Rock Hudson movie Sam Peckinpah might have made--now reduce your expectations to match the present, mass-produced state of Hollywood.) That actors as talented as Freeman, Kinnear, Eckhart, Vince, and Janney ALMOST make their scenes come alive is a testament to the immensity of their talents to rise above material that just does not cohere. I would have found Freeman's corny, feel-good-about-yourself speech at the end of the movie funny (in a Lynchean way) if it weren't for the nagging suspicion that this unconvincingly tacked-on moral is meant to be accepted seriously.


To sum this movie up, it is LaBute carrying his sadism over into the realm of comedic farce. The predictable result is that he is constantly stepping on all the jokes by insisting on surrounding them with blood-curdling violence and extremely hateful characters. There is also evidence of his continuing efforts to insult and ridicule everything in sight but then to apologize for it with weak gestures to the PC. Basically the movie just doesn't work, its plot is beyond contrived, the characters are one-dimensional cliches, there is no consistency or development of anything, and the comedy (where it is not totally out of place) is the worst kind of High Concept drivel.

Morgan Freeman and Renee Zellweger are completely wasted on characters that seem like parodies of studio-driven audience pandering--no matter what, make them likeable, neutral (and neutered), and full of moral platitudes. Crispin Glover is in here just long enough to convince you that he doesn't belong in movies anymore. Chris Rock actually has negative chemistry with fellow hitman Freeman--it's as if they are acting in different rooms even when they are two inches away from each other. In effect, Chris Rock seems like a digital insert. At least he isn't as annoying as Jar-Jar.

LaBute's 15 minutes may well be up by now. It's already looking like he's overstayed his welcome.


Little did I know that when I signed up the the "all pay channel" package with Direct TV that I would face a movie like this. It came on right after another movie we had been watching... and I was a teenager in 1981 so am not sure where I was at the time... but I missed this movie.

I also can't believe we left it on. It is kind-of funny as it takes you back in the time machine to the early 80s... but I think even then this would have been a painful movie. It was just... well... "too cute"! ET was "cute" in a way... but not obnoxiously cute... and stupid.

When I see a movie like this... I come on onto IMDb to see what others say. I am blown away that this thing was nominated! Wow... the movie industry has come a long way since the 80s! Oh well... it did show some old actors... btw that is the other thing I was surprised about... the lineup... not a bunch of no-names... but some real actors/actresses. Must have been in their drug days! Anyways... odd, interesting, bizarre, and makes one happy they grew up!


I really wanted to like this movie, but the pacing was just way too slow.

It was a nice story, but it was really like watching a slug race.

The movie would have been better served, if it had some more action. I don't mean anything grand, but at least something in the background.

It could have also been helped by songs that set the tone/mood of the more lengthy periods that were absent of dialogue.

It's been about 10 years since I've seen it, so I may have to give it another chance.

3/10 or *1/2(out of four)


If you like bad movies, this one's a real treat. Kaufman & Peters stagger around in robot costumes, escape slavery only to wander aimlessly, and find true robot love. I believe this is the first movie that ever made me consider walking out. I should note I was 12, and could be entertained by shiny objects.


"I presume you are here for damage to your mental circuitry." - VAL

Mike Nelson made me watch this...he mentioned it in his book, "Movie Megacheese." I asked myself, "Why would Mike Nelson steer me wrong?" I now know why the bots never trusted Mike Nelson.

The music is by John Williams, which is probably part of his payment to the Devil. In fact, I'm sure anyone who worked on this movie is probably in league with ol' Slewfoot, or is now cursed, from the Executive Director down to the guy who ran the catering truck outside the studio. Don't watch...for the love of God...don't watch!!! Not even making a copy and showing someone else will un-curse you...I'm doomed now, I understand this. I accept this. But save yourself...


My wife and I saw this in the theater when it first came out.

There were only 3 couples there and we all walked out about the same time.

This is the only movie I have ever walked out on.

It was just painful to sit through.

The theater actually stopped us on the way out and asked if we wanted a refund.

Never had that happen before or since Pleae do not rent this You will really regret it I am really sureprised by the vote summary Perhaps personal tast has something to do with it


I thought of this movie when i watched pluto nash...why..because both movies have randy quaid playing a retarded robot, this movie made years earlier but probably written by a screenplay writer that drank the same biotoxic coffee or something like that...Whoa...AVOID AT ALL COSTS even to pay tribute to the late great Andy Kaufman is hard to do here...find another film or just watch taxi reruns on latenight tv...his latka gravas character is so much more loveable...TANK YOU BERRY MUCH


The first thing that struck me about this movie was the terrible acting. The whole cast was so uniformly inept at delivering their lines that I started laughing at the awful dialog midway through the film. An even bigger issue with this movie is that at no point do we ever find out what motivates the actions of each character. The one somewhat redeeming aspect of the movie is Halfdan Hussey's innovative visual effects. However, as eye-catching as they may be, they do little to make up for the gaping flaws mentioned above. A dreadful script mixed with community theater level acting does not make for a pleasant viewing. I was honestly shocked at how bad this movie was.


Some Plot Spoilers Ahead.

The Nashville Network's so-called rebirth as "The First Network for Men" is a complete disappointment, as was its block of adult cartoons. The new Ren and Stimpy was just plain awful, "Gary the Rat" mediocre at best, and "Stripperella" pretty unwatchable. This cartoon is mostly boring; if "Ren and Stimpy" suffered from gross-out overkill, "Stripperella" lacked any decent shock gags, funny witless gags, clever gags, or gags, period. The concept is bad to begin with: Pamela Anderson, a stripper-cum-superheroine, saves "The City" from an assortment of goofy supervillains. This cartoon seems like an homage to superior wacky superhero spoofs, like "Darkwing Duck" and "The Tick," but without those cartoons' wit and good writing---or even good storyboarding. "Agent 0069" tries to vacillate between being goofy and sexy, but she is neither, and this cartoon's failure to make her one or the other brings this series down.

Watch your taped episodes of "The Tick," and see what a real superhero spoof cartoon is like.


After watching this movie on tv, I looked it up in the IMDB and imagine to my surprise a user rating of 7.6! This is not a good film. Especially bad is the editing; the poor way the story jumps from one point to another was amateurish and a huge distraction. It's not very fluently done. I do agree that the acting was fairly decent, especially Kelly Kapowski, and that the story was intriguing enough.


Alien Express is one of the worst movies I've bothered to experience.

The plot is predictable. The aliens look like rubber sock puppets. The effects would have been mediocre in the 70's, but are just atrocious by today's standards. Couldn't they take a shot of a real train instead of using an obvious model?

The acting isn't great but, really, the dialogue is the worst part. It gouges its way into your mind. "Don't you die on me. Not now." If you ever manage to suspend disbelief long enough to be absorbed into the movie, you'll rapidly be jolted painfully back to reality by the aliens, the model train, or the clichéd dialogue.

The only reason I didn't give this movie a "1" is that it doesn't deserve to be rated so badly that some poor suckers might watch it for the pleasure inherent in a truly bad film.


"Eh-heh eh-heh hey, dude - look at these aliens. They're like - biting the humans and stuff! Eh-heh eh-heh eh-heh"

This must rank amongst the worst movies of all time. It's utter drivel for anyone with a modicum of a brain. Sure, you have the reviewers on the payroll who give glowing reviews and vote highly for this abomination but it's easy to tell who these sell-outs are. Their reviews are TOO good. To give a movie like this even a mediocre review claiming it had some B-movie remedial appeal would be a glowing review! Calling this a great movie tips the hands of the corporate shills.

But enough of that.

This movie had about all the bad characteristics a movie can have without being SO bad that it's enjoyable just to laugh at. The old Japanese 60's monster films had a quality that this movie lacked. At least in those 60's films you could laugh at just how bad the rubber monster suit looked. Or laugh at seeing the strings holding the space ships, how the models dangled on the strings and how the flames curved UPWARDS out of the back. Those movies made fun of how BAD they were. Alien Express (aka Dead Rail) seems to actually think of itself as a GOOD movie - which makes it incredibly absurd.

The effects were awful by today's standards. Beyond awful. However not quite as bad as the 60's monster movies hence they lacked the comedic appeal. The plot and dialogue were about as sophomoric as I've ever seen, made even worse by being every bit as predictable as you might expect. I won't even point out the plot and logic holes in this one; it just wouldn't be fair to this pitiable plot (plus it would take to long to even get started). Most of the acting was awful; Lou Diamond Phillips must have been very desperate to agree to touch this one.

SciFi Channel is rapidly becoming the "cheap thrills channel", producing movie after movie without an iota of concept or intelligence in the lot. I can only wonder - why bother?

Don't bother with this tripe. It doesn't get any worse.


This is a truly awful film. Lou Diamond Phillips simply calls this one in. The use of miniature models of the train are laughable. The plot seems to develop on the run (there is an alien on board; oh, and an eco-terrorist is on board too; oh, and the conductor is dead and the train is out of control; oh, and the train is going to run into another train one hour ahead; oh, and that train has nuclear waste on it...). I mean, come on really! The alien monsters are not scary (although there are a lot of them), and the acting is abysmal. Check out the guy playing the "next President" - do you really think he could be President? For goodness sake, he has spent his whole acting career playing bad guys!


I know it sounds crazy but yes, I am a huge fan of House Party 1 and 2 (and proud of it!!). I hated part 3, and then here comes part 4. I was like are you kidding me with this? Kid 'n Play are nowhere to be found in this movie, and that would've been okay, had they not foolishly entitled the movie House Party 4, as if it was in any way, shape, form, or fashion related to its predecessors. Every time this movie comes on late at night on USA, I shoot my TV with a rifle. Quite frankly, it really is just that atrocious. *hurling*

As the only remaining fan of Kid 'n Play that will actually admit to being a fan (tee hee hee), I was appalled. Remember that stupid little boy group Immature? They snuck their way into House Party 3. Okay, fine and well but how can part 4 be just about them and nothing else and it also seems like they're not even the same kids from part 3. *confused!!!!* House Party fans: do yourself a favor and stick to House Party 1 and 2 and Class Act. Beyond that, everything else is ridiculous.


(Spoilers Ahead!) This same exact plot from this movie has been done before. It has been done in Ferris Bueller's Day Off! Marques "Bat Man" Houston plays sick. His gullible parents believe him. His sister knows that he's faking, but she still must go to school! She is mad. He has a party with his friends while his parents are away. By the time his parents get home, he is sick again and his parents never found out about the party. I like Immature better when they were in House Party 3 and still immature!


I've never saw the first three, but I know they're all better than this...trash. It's about some kid who throws a party. Wow. Sounds amazing(sarcasm). Is it? NOOO! It starts off with a kid laying in bed and he's getting woke up by his mom. So, the kid pretends to be sick so he doesn't have to go to school. He goes to his uncle's house and rounds up some people and throws a party. I didn't laugh at all while watching this trash. I can't imagine someone sitting down and writing down this dialogue thinking "Man, dis !@#$ is gunna be big, yo!" Makes me wonder if they even had a script for this movie. I watched this knowing it would be bad, but usually watching a bad movie makes me feel good because it gives me something to make fun of. This just disgusted me. TWO THUMBS DOWN!


I saw House Party 1-3 and I loved them but this one wasn't funny at all.First it can't be a House Party movie without Kid n'Play right? This one sucks and it was more like a black version of Ferris Bueller's Day Off than a House Party movie.Second who the heck is John-John?These new character's can't even compare to the ones from the other three movies.Now i know why they put it straight to video.It has horrible music, weak plot, untalented actors,and no hilarious jokes at all.My advice,watch this movie at night only if you can't get to sleep.They should have ended the series after House Party 3 since Kid'n'Play separated after that one.I hate this one am glad my local video store doesn't have this film and never want to buy it or want to see it on Comedy Central either.Just because Chris Strokes has talent managing an up-and-coming R&B group doesn't mean he has talent directing and producing films am I right or what? Finally, the female characters were all dressed up like cheap two-dollar hookers throughout most of the flick.IMX separated a year after this flick got released probably due to the failure of this film and are all but forgotten nowadays. In simplier terms this movie just plain old sucks!!!!


I too am a House Party Fan...House Party I is my favorite movie of all times. House Party 4 is a disgrace to all of the HP's and to Kid n Play...This was supposed to be part of a series really..there was nothing about kid n play in this movie or any of the other veterans..yea kid n play was probably too old to be throwing a House Party movie b/c its kind of focused on teens..but kid n play could have at least made a cameo appearance ... you can tell how good it was b/c it didn't even make it to the movie theaters. Immature was in House Party 3 so it made sense for them to carry on the legacy...but they should have represented right...they should have left it at House Party 3. I am 27 years old and I have been watching House Party I since I was 11 when it came out in 1990(16 years ago) and I have been a fan ever since. When I first seen House Party 4 I was like what are they really thinking about...There was nothing familiar about this movie that would compare to the previous 3 movies.. I thought it was a black Ferris Bueller days off.


Watching this movie, you just have to ask: What were they thinking? There are so many noticeably bad parts of this movie, you might get the feel that its intentionally poor, as some sort of joke.

I think the worst part about the film is the directing. There are so many bad uses of camera angles and other cinematic elements in this movie that are laughably bad. The funniest example of this would be in the beginning where the party guests are receiving their invitations by email - The same camera angle is used for each shot (which last an awkward 2 seconds a piece) and the same computer screen with the same desktop/window/program etc appear. It even looks like the thing is shot on the same set each time. The whole sequence was also completely silent, with no music, or sound effects. Overall, it was a poor way to convey the idea that an email was being sent all over town.

If you listen closely, you may notice that the music sounds very similar to other movie sound tracks. This is no surprise- most songs, including the one that opens the movie, are in fact slight alterations of scores from other movies (See if you can guess which ones). Also, I noticed that the music is not played by a real orchestra. It sounds like its been written and played through a low end midi keyboard. If you are familiar with the LucasArts SCUM adventure games, the timbre of each instrument sounds like something from the IMUSE engine.

Everything else about the movie just plain sucks. The acting is terrible. The script is derivative (Ferris Beuller?). There is no joke in the movie remotely funny, unless you see the whole film as one big joke, being played on a paying audience. Don't rent this. Don't even watch it when it's rerun on comedy central. Just forget this - it's terrible.


I'm not sure why the producers needed to trade on the name of a somewhat successful movie franchise because the title suggests that it is a sequel to the first three movies..which it is not. Even though Marques Houston did appear in "HP3", he played a totally different character (he was, eight years older) in this film. Okay...so Reid and Martin weren't the most talented and couldn't carry a film all by themselves..but to trade on the HP franchise seems to me that there could have made some sort of reference (albeit minor) to the earlier movies. I'm sure everyone who wanted to see it was "hoodwinked"--into thinking that they were seeing a sequel--not a totally different film with a familiar name. And I'm sorry...Kym Whitley is not funny, and could not hold a candle to the late Robin Harris, Ketty Lester, or DC Curry in the earlier films. Although Meagen Good and Mari Morrow are a substantial visual diversion...I have to give this a THUMBS DOWN!! Just naming the film "Down to the Last Minute" would have been OK. Furthermore, the Hudlin brothers (who produced the first three movies) were not involved in the making of this film.


I've seen a lot of bad movies in my life. Date Movie. That was bad. But this...this is just...it's not good. House Party 4 is the worst movie ever. It's as simple as that. It's basically Ferris Bueller with black people in it. Oh, and it's not funny. It's awful. So awful. Chris Stokes may be a superstar on BET, but he's an idiot. He can't write a comedy. Or a horror movie. I like to refer to him as a blacker, lesser-known Uwe Boll. Except Uwe Boll's films are funny awful, if you know what I mean. You can invite some buddies over, pop in Alone In The Dark, and have a great time laughing and eating snacks with your buddies. Chris Stokes is like that, except if you invite friends over to watch House Party 4 with you, no one will be laughing. Not even the biased token black guy or the illiterate jock. I'm serious, I didn't laugh once throughout this whole movie. The acting is terrible, and the movie looks like a bad indie film. What was the budget for this movie? 5 damn dollars? I mean, what the hell? This movie just sucks; don't waste your time with this crap. It's disgusting.


In all honesty, I haven't seen this film for many years, but the few times I have tend to make parts of it stick in my memory, as anyone who has seen it will understand. I first saw it as a child at a YMCA Halloween party in the early Sixties, and it scared the hell out of us kids, in a fun way. I remember feeling genuine anxiety about the unknown thing lurking in the maze. I can't risk giving away the ending, except to say that it was surprising, to say the least. I remember vaguely the entire audience of young boys letting out a big scared holler, followed by laughter when the terrible secret was revealed. The ending has been seen by most viewers as one of the greatest unintentionally funny climaxes to a movie in film history, and yet oddly moving, in a way. You have to see it for yourself, which is not easy these days. I don't know if it's available on home video or not, but it would still make a great Halloween feature for both kids and adults.


Wow. Not because of the 3-D imagery, which at times was used nicely to provide good deep imagery, but what a lame ending! The end of the movie just seems to implode on itself. This film has got to be one of the goofiest movie monsters ever and one of the most pathetic attempts to try to explain it. The misogyny of this film is painful as well. If you are looking for a bad 50s sci-fi film to laugh at (aka 'bot fodder), go for it. Otherwise, look for better films.


I like all different types of movies, so this is not a bash on romantic movies from a guy who only likes The Matrix etc etc.

I just felt it was a lousy movie. I don't feel that there was enough buildup of the characters to fall in love. They were there for a few days and while dealing with a severe hurricane and major issues in each of their lives, Richard Gere and Diane Lane fall hopelessly and helplessly in love?? It isn't realistic. This movie didn't make me buy into it and feel it emotionally and that is something that you look for in a good plot. Some emotional connection. If someone can relate to them falling in love that quickly, without any true substance , than so be it. You are neither right or wrong. Different strokes for different folks.

Another very unbelievable component to the movie was Diane Lane's very rude teenage daughter becoming nice and sympathetic at the end of the movie. Does a teenage girl who is that miserable and aggravated at her mother for not getting back with her cheating husband going to just have a switch turn on and be nice? This movie, in a nutshell, had some big names, but to me, was a major disappointment.


Let me get this straight:

"Hotshot plastic surgeon loses a patient on the operating table while removing a cyst from her face and ends up falling in love with recently separated bed and breakfast hostess within about 24 hours of meeting her due to her solid advice on bedside manner."

Wow. Move over "The Notebook", there's a new kid in town.

Where to begin. Well, how about the depth of this "relationship"? I think we can safely sum up the foundation of this undying love in the following steps:

1. Exchange polite pleasantries over a bite of salad. 2. Drink copious amounts of Jack Daniels; play basketball with old food 3. Provide glib, unsolicited advice to each other on your crappy lives. 4. Make love during a hurricane. 5. Devote your lives to each other via airmail.

I noticed George C Wolfe has "The Hairball" and "United Kanye West Project" in his dossier. Would "stick to your genre" be too harsh? Enough said. I think most would agree that the best love stories make us cry, or laugh or even hope. But the reason they are able to do that is that, somewhere during the storyline, we really start to care about the characters we're watching on screen. To make us care, there must be time spent developing these characters...their lives, their history, why we're watching them now. Wolfe didn't seem to want to "waste our time" with such trivialities, and instead provided us with all of about 8 minutes of background information on each character before hurling us into an intense one-on-one interaction between two ACTORS we've all come to adore, but two CHARACTERS we could care less about.

For one brief tender moment when Richard Gere exclaims that he doesn't expect her to listen to his problems, and she invites him for dinner, the viewer sees a glimmer - a beginning - of something special between these two characters. But instead of being allowed to enjoy the anticipation and playfulness of "what happens next" in the wonderful, unpredictable joy that is courtship, we are instead pushed headlong into a love affair between two people we hardly know.

Let's face it. We have all heard cheesy one liners in Romantic films. But the reason we cut some slack to Bogart in "Casablanca" or Nicholson in "Something's Gotta Give" is because our hearts and minds have been lifted to the heavens and dragged through the mud and back again with these characters, and by the time they deliver the line, we're so deeply involved with their plight, we don't even notice the cheese factor. Since Wolfe doesn't allow us to love or even like our protagonists, all we're left with a fromage sandwich and a few snickers in the audience.

Wolfe takes the old Hollywood director's phrase "cut to the chase" much too literally here. As each stilted one liner is delivered by our cast, the viewer is left wondering if director Wolfe is subliminally saying to the audience: "c'mon. it's a Richard Gere romance. just buy in."

It is as a result of this stunning lack of character - or relationship - development that the film's climax fails miserably to tug at our hearts. When Gere's character dies, I felt like I was watching the news about someone I didn't know passing away. Or watching a ladies' eights rowing race during the beijing olympics. Just. Didn't. Care.

Epic. Fail.


If you read the book before seeing the movie you may be disappointed like I was. The book was great and I was sure after seeing the movie preview that the movie would be great as well, however I felt like I was watching a movie where the director and cast did not even read what these characters where like. The movie is short and they do not really ever make us feel that these people were truly in love and felt like sole mates. Even if the movie did not go in the same direction as the book at least they could of made the romance between these two characters feel more intense. I think both Diane Lane and Richard Gere were perfect for these two characters and they have good chemistry however they just did not develop a long enough storyline for us to see how they longed for each other. The book was true love story and I think this movie could of been a lot better.


My husband brought this home from the video store, so I could watch something while stuck home sick. The sort of sick where you could never concentrate on a book, but a sorta silly, light, romantic flick sounds just right (that, and a bowl of chicken soup). Well, he meant well.

My first thought (as some others post here also) was that the house MUST be fake...it's not only isolated alone on the beach, but set on moorings into the loose sand, and so close to the ocean that the surf waves go directly under the house! This looks so obviously dangerous (in hurricane country, in THE FALL), so potentially disastrous that I was sure filmmakers had simply CGI'd the whole thing (or used movie magic to plunk a cute B&B into the surf).

But I have to tell you guys, thanks to "teh interwebs", I can say that the house, "Serendipity" is very real, is indeed near Rodanthe and except for some window dressing and shrubs, appears mostly as it does in the film. You can rent it yourself, off season, for $1710 a week (or about $3850 in summer)! Go for it! But...interestingly, the house has severe problems. The second thing that struck me after "would be washed away" was "what about the plumbing/electrical? in that surf?", and sure enough, "Serendipity" was condemned for a break in the sanitation, caused by overwash from the ocean. (They are rebuilding.)

And the house isn't from the "Civil War". Not to mention that Viola Davis, playing "cliché black best friend" (thankless role for a fine actress, last seen in "Doubt"), is not remotely old enough that her GRANDMOTHER could have built anything in the Civil War! HELLO! that was 150 years ago! Try great-great-GREAT! (In reality, "Serendipity" was built in 1988, laughably recently.)

The basic film is built on a typical Nicholas Sparks weeper, which means a lot of coincidence and trite predictable happenstance. It is also aimed in a very pandering way towards "women" -- you know, us women who love B&Bs, fusty antiques and knick-knacks...who dream of romance and guys who look like Richard Gere and dancing in the moonlight. Don't give us plot, or thoughtful character development; just set up some mechanisms and bring on the love scenes!

Gere plays a plastic surgeon, who lost a female patient during a routine surgery for a benign cyst on her cheek. Of course, she died of an overdose of ANESTHESIA, so you wonder right away why the surgeon is guilted up and not the anesthesiologist! HELLO! where is that guy? Why is the wrong doctor feeling guilty?

Gere has come to pout and confront the woman's husband, and is staying at the remote B&B...who should be there, why the ONLY OTHER PERSON IN THE INN...Diane Lane! She's a lonely divorcée, with rotten kids, and an ex-hubby who wants her back. While she's trying to decide about that, the cliché best black friend has her subbing as hostess at the B&B.

Now, in the real world, if this set up ever even happened, the doctor would look like Ernest Borgnine...and the lonely divorcée, like Rosie O'Donnell. He'd spend his vacation horndogging 22 year old girls on the beach, while she sulked and thought about going on a diet. But this isn't the real world; I digress.

The couple confess all, fall in love, a hurricane hits...they make love, fall in love, he has to go away, he dies and she cries a lot about that. The end.

There, I've saved you from it; now you don't have to torture yourself or any male acquaintances (husbands, sons, boyfriends) from sitting through this tripe. Very wearying.

Someone else asked why Diane Lane, a perfect tiny woman (whom filmmakers seem to love to cast, because she's just pretty and thin enough that most women would like to look like her, but she's 45ish and not over-the-top, so she isn't threatening) is constantly covered in big tarp-like shawls. This would make sense if she was chubby, but she isn't.

Anyways, someone throw a pretty, paisley shawl over this film. So we don't have to watch it. Conclusion: read a book, unless you are too sick. If too sick, go to sleep.


Richard Gere and Diane Lane star in a chick flick romance with the sort of ending I get really angry about...lets just say its not my cup of tea, just like the dime store romances are not my cup of tea.

The plot has a doctor stopping at an inn and meeting a woman that he has a deep but brief affair with. He goes off to meet his estranged son and she goes back to her life.

Well acted and well made the filmmakers forgot to get a real plot line. This is the stuff of dime store romances that makes the women swoon and the men shake their head in disbelief. I wouldn't be so adverse to the film as a mindless romance, except that the film takes a turn in the final reel that is so out of left field as to be completely unbelievable. Why must certain types of movies do stupid things like this? It really ruined it for me.

If you like romance give it a shot, though wait for cable.


Frankly, after Cotton club and Unfaithful, it was kind of embarrassing to watch Lane and Gere in this film, because it is BAD. The acting was bad, the dialogs were extremely shallow and insincere. It was well shot, but, then again, it is a big budget movie. It was too predictable, even for a chick flick. I even knew from the beginning that he was going to die in the end, the only thing I didn't know was how. Too politically correct. Very disappointing. The only thing really worth watching was the scenery and the house, because it is beautiful. But, if you want that, watch National geographic. I love Lane, but I've never seen her in a movie this lousy. As far as Gere goes, he's a good actor, but he had movies like this, so I'm not surprised. An hour and a half I wish I could bring back.