Charlie (George "Norm" Wendt) and Rhonda ("Just Say" Julie Brown) are a pair of cheerful, murderous aliens who become stranded on Earth and stumble upon a tiny western town. They become deputy sheriffs and dish out a deadly form of justice to speeders, murderers and others, while getting on the bad side of some of locals (led by Wayne Grace). Meanwhile, their sexy alien daughter (Anastasia Sakelaris) arrives in a skimpy/shiny outfit with her black human husband (Christopher M. Brown) to find them and TV reporters and government agents turn up to fill up time.

From what I can tell, this is a deliberate attempt to cover every possible genre (comedy, sci-fi, horror, western...) in one movie, and what a stupid, unfunny mess it is, despite energetic acting from the two stars. The script is downright atrocious.


the real plot...

A group of post-Civil War prostitutes seek alternative housing in FORT BOOM. Lacy Everett and a close-knit family of call girls have been eating date expired sausages for days and plan to move into the former Fort McMillian. Locals warn the women of eating more of the dated sausage. Because there is a vicious pyromaniac loose in the area and he refuse to shuttle them out to the property. When they finally arrive at their destination, they discover their stomach is full of gass after all the bad sausage. It is not long before they learn why their new home is called FORT BOOM.


This movie is about a group of women (perhaps not of the highest repute) who are heading to a small fort to take over a recently departed uncles property where they plan to set up shop. Upon arrival in a nearby city they find no one will go there (even though its only 15 miles away), so they walk. When they get there they find there are no soldiers but a good amount of people who have taken over use of the fort and built up a small city nearby. They soon find that something isn't right here and Fort McMillan (Ft. Doom as the locals call it) is in some serious trouble.

Rather than go into the plot line I will make some comments about things I noticed about the movie. First off the acting is very flat, only a few of the people seem to be real enough to believe in. My first though was poor acting, but at the end I watched some of the outtakes and these same people became alive. So my only thought left is this is how the director wanted it. On top of the bad acting I have a great problem where the people don't react right to a given set of circumstances. Take for example no one would take them to Ft McMillan for any price even though its only 15 miles away. Yet when we arrive at the Fort we find it is well maintained by a decent population of people, all of whom must get supplies from some one, not to mention mail etc. It is supposed to take place in 1867, yet we can see the railroad car has electric lights (they aren't on at least) and a locomotive engine that is at least 30 years later, not one of the general style of locomotives so popular at that time. There are also places where you can see paved blacktop, (and maybe a car at one point, didn't want to bother to go back and look) and other anachronistic items. If they had followed the rules of the "world" they made and let the actors be actors it might have gotten a 4 from me instead of the 2 I gave it, and they rewritten it about 4 more times it might have done even better.


Alleged "scream queen" Debbie Rochon and her group of frontier prostitutes travel west to the title location and encounter grisly killings that turn out to be the work of a cult of ex-Confederate psychopaths attempting to resurrect the south through pointless massacre.

Action and suspense take a backseat to loads of boring dialog and uninteresting character development.

Billy Drago is good in the thankless (not to mention pointless) role of the town mortician but everything else about this wannabe slasher western is extremely poor, including the town and the fort, both of which look like modern made western tourist traps and costumes that look like they were bought at Party City.

Do yourself a big favor and watch Ravenous instead.


An interesting premise, and Billy Drago is always good as a dangerous nut-bag (side note: I'd love to see Drago, Stephen McHattie and Lance Hendrikson in a flick together; talk about raging cheekbones!). The soundtrack wasn't terrible, either.

But the acting--even that of such professionals as Drago and Debbie Rochon--was terrible, the directing worse (perhaps contributory to the former), the dialog chimp-like, and the camera work, barely tolerable. Still, it was the SETS that got a big "10" on my "oy-vey" scale. I don't know where this was filmed, but were I to hazard a guess, it would be either an open-air museum, or one of those re-enactment villages, where everything is just a bit too well-kept to do more than suggest the "real Old West". Okay, so it was shot on a college kid's budget. That said, I could have forgiven one or two of the aforementioned faults. But taken all together, and being generous, I could not see giving it more than three stars.


I bought this 'film' from a gas station in the 3.99 bin for one reason: Billy Drago, who is one of my favorite actors. He is terrifically creepy and good, but that's where it stops. The movie itself is a dirt cheap, gratingly awful attempt at a horror western, and manages neither, never mind a successful merging of the two genres. The acting besides Drago's is so bad I wanted to put the couch cushions over my ears, the production values are nonexistent and the script , I don't even know where to start.

Avoid at all costs unless you are a die hard Drago fan like me.

Terrible, shameful unforgivable.


Royal Rumble 1988 bored me pretty damn good. The rumble itself is pretty uneventful, filled with mid carders, and a winner that really had no point in winning, and why on earth did The Young Stallions Vs The Islanders main event? half the crowd left. Jessie Ventura sounds bored, through half the thing, and you can tell when he mentions he finds the development of Hogan Vs Andre more interesting. McMahon and Ventura don't have the chemistry of Gorilla and Jessie.

Ricky Steamboat Vs Ravishing Rick Rude. Heavily disappointing match, with too many rest holds, and too much of a sluggish pace, sink this one. When it picks up like crazy in the last 5 minutes, it's too little, too late. Steamboat wins by DQ.

2 1/2 /5

Next is up Dino Bravo attempting to set a new bench press record, with Ventura spotting him. Horrendous segment, with no entertainment value what so ever. Ventura is not nearly enough to carry this segment, and even McMahon admitted it was boring. Controversy or not, I wasted enough time on this crap.

0/5

WWF Woman's Tag Team Championship.

2 out of 3 falls.

The Glamour Girls|C|/W Jimmy Hart. Vs The Jumping Bomb Angels. This is the best match of the night, no I'm not kidding!. Very exciting stuff for Woman's wrestling, and you'll be hard pressed to find stuff this good, now a days. The Jumping Bomb Angels were way over, and the crowd went ape sh*t for their title win.

3/5

Contract signing between Hulk Hogan and Andre The Giant. Hogan gets a decent pop, but there a few noticeable boo's for him, probably because its in Canada. A bit too drawn out for my liking, but it was necessary for the storyline. It got it's point across, and had some effective moments, but a lot of the times, I kept saying "Get on with it". Both sign, and Andre slams Hogan's head on the table, and pushes the table on him.

2 1/2 /5

Royal Rumble Match. Very weak Royal Rumble, probably due to awkward pacing, and the true lack of star power. I think Vince was testing the waters with this one, and it showed. Ventura seems uninterested, and I don't blame him. Crowd clearly wanted Roberts to win, yelling DDT almost every 5 minutes he was in there, and while Duggan got a good pop, I don't believe he was the winner they wanted, and where did this take his career? Nowhere. Bret's 1st ever Royal Rumble, and he made an impressive showing. It wasn't terrible, but it was quite lackluster, and it didn't have enough to make the show, considering this was what the show was based on.

2 1/2 /5

Hogan has an interview with Craig DeGeorge. Standard Hulkster interview, but not with the same craziness, and outrageous remarks he usually pulls.

2/5

Ted and Andre get interviewed. Andre claims he will deliver the Championship to Mr. Dibiase. Short, but effective.

3/5

2 out of 3 Falls.

The Islanders Vs The Young Stallions. Crowd is completely dead for this, and half of them bolted for the exit's. It's quite dull, and had no business being in the main event. Jessie and Vince seem bored, and argue about other things while the match is taking place. Islanders win, due to taking advantage of Roma's injury.

2/5

Bottom line. Historically important I suppose, but there is really nothing to see here. This was just a starting cue for great things to come for The Royal Rumble, and while you can see glimpses of potential here, there is nothing on here, going out of your way to see. I usually recommend everything once for Die Hard Wrestling fans, and considering it's the 1st Royal Rumble event, I suppose I have too, but prepare to be bored a lot of the time.

3/10


With Al Jolson at the height of his popularity and Warner Brothers's the Jazz Singer having been the highest grossing film of 1927, it was inevitable that the other studios would churn out a few vehicles for their own Jolson-esquire characters. But while the Jazz Singer was a sensation for its being the first part-talkie, the Matinée Idol lacks the singing voice of its star (the now obscure Johnnie Walker), and has to make do with just his visual antics.

The Matinée Idol was an early directorial assignment for the renowned Frank Capra. Capra's first couple of full-length features for Harry Langdon reveal a very showy, excessive style, which made Langdon's already mediocre slapstick almost unwatchable. A couple of pictures later and Capra has learnt to ease off a bit, with some fairly regular and decent camera-work. However he still shows no aptitude for shooting physical comedy. The longest comic routine - the stage performance - seems to have a few good gags, but it's all cut up into lots of different camera angles, and there is no chance for the comedy to flow naturally from the performances. Theoretically, a good portion of the jokes are in the intertitles, but there are far too many of these and none of them is especially funny.

Of course, Capra would eventually mature into a fine dramatic and romantic director, and you can see him beginning to develop in this respect. He cuts down the line, closing in on Walker and Bessie love in the scene where she first lays eyes on him in his Don Wilson get up, neatly establishing the wordless connection between them. Then there is some beautiful and tender framing of the couple in their scene together at the masquerade, which is all very reminiscent of the love scenes in Capra's early 30s output.

Johnnie Walker, Columbia's answer to Al Jolson, is not an exceptional talent. His comic timing is good but there is nothing to make him stand out. Bessie Love on the other hand is a pretty good actress too, with a very expressive face. Kudos to her for getting involved with the physical comedy and losing her dignity with the boys. There's also a good role for Lionel Belmore, that rotund and jolly character actor who seems to turn up in absolutely everything in the late 20s and early 30s.

The Matinée Idol is one of those pictures that has gained more than its fair share of attention thanks to its director later having made a handful of masterpieces. In and of itself it is a very uninteresting piece, and like most of Capra's work before he met Robert Riskin, a disappointment.


Role-reversal remake of 1942's "The Major and the Minor" has Jerry Lewis stepping into the part originally played by Ginger Rogers, but unfortunately this anemic outing is missing a lot more than just Ginger. Lewis attempts to pass for a child when boarding a train; he's successful, but the deception leads to a string of comic and romantic confusions. Sidney Sheldon adapted the screenplay, tossing in musical moments for Dean Martin (playing yet another in his stable of second-bananas) and a jewel-robbery subplot (which is dire). Diana Lynn, who played the wily teenager in the original film, plays Lewis' love-interest here. She's cute; Jerry isn't. *1/2 from ****


The movie isn't too bad, up until...

The main problem is with the ending, so it's a pretty major spoiler...

For the time it was made, it's a beautiful movie, and does get a lot of it right.

However...

In the book, Sam succeeds and lives his dream, whereas in the movie, he gives up and goes back to the city, completely destroying the "you can do what you put your mind to" theme of the book.

This movie is a desecration, and instead of remaking classics that don't need redone, the Hollywood types who haven't any better ideas should do this one, right this time.


I hardly know where to begin.

Huge continuity issues, bad acting, etc. For example, Sam is supposed to be far from any people yet you can see the ski slopes cut into the mountain next to his head.

But the most fundamental problem is that the essence of the book, Sam's adventurousness paving the way to improve the lot of his entire family, is not even touched upon. Instead, in the movie, he gets ticked off at his family and leaves his wealthy parents to be by himself and, when he gets tired of it, he goes home. Where is his development? Where is the arc?

If you have never read the book and can get through the hokey 60isms (double/triple/quadruple visions of the falcon) and terrible production quality (crackling, ahem, fire, winter winds stopping their howling for the dialog and then restarting, etc.) I guess it *might* be OK for an 8 year old.

But compared to the sophistication of the book it is a terrible disappointment.

Read the book instead.


This movie is one of the poorest adaptations of a fabulous book that I've seen. Jean George's novel is a fantastic book that I think is an outstanding read for any child. I can't give the same endorsement to this movie.


Ouch. This is one ugly movie. Not only is it badly acted, but it absolutely destroyed the book as well. Horrible. How you could mess up such a classic book is beyond me, but they sure did. Don't even think about even renting this.


I guess there are two ways to make a movie with kids as the intended audience. You can either say to yourself a) "Let's make a movie that kids today will love!" or b) "Let's make a movie that I would have loved when I was a kid!" The second approach explains why Steven Spielberg often make movies that appeal to a younger audience. Prime examples are E.T., The Goonies or Indiana Jones. That Darn Cat is an example of the first approach. You see these flat, unbelievable characters saying things that is supposed to be funny but isn't. The plot itself is enough for a ten minute short, but instead it goes on and on. And although I'm not a kid, I don't quite understand what in this movie is supposed to be fun for kids? The clumsy cops chased by a dog, the old lady with a tweety bird or Christina Ricci's sarcastic oneliners? One actor showed a spark of talent with his very acrobatic humour: Doug E. Doug playing the FBI agent.


I was 12 years old when I saw the original film (I lived in Italy and the Italian title was "FBI, OPERATION CAT!") That was a fun film and not just for kids. This awful remake it's pathetic even for a 5 year old! What possessed Disney to ruin their reputation and the memory of a lovely film I don't know and I just can't believe it. Even the title song in the original film (both original version and the dubbed Italian version) was extremely nice and creating the mood for the story. On this remake the title song is even worst than the movie itself. It was just nice to see Dean Jones even if for just a cameo appearance, he was a regular on the great old Disney's films. I cannot honestly see anything else positive in this remade movie.


Chris Ricci sleepwalks her way through most of this, but then quickly takes on an air of boredom and disdain - much as I did when watching it. Without her this would be no more than a cheap kids' movie, but at least she does add an air of quality. There are few, if any, more visually striking and charismatic young actresses in the business.

There's not much wrong with it as long as you accept it for what it is - a cheap Disney re-make aimed at very undemanding children. I could watch Ricci all day so I'm probably oblivious to many of the movie's shortcomings, but unless you too are a Ricci fan, a cat-lover, or very small child, I doubt you will find this very entertaining.


The Disney studios' remake of their own 1965 slapstick classic concerns a clever feline leading an F.B.I. agent to a kidnapped woman. Christina Ricci gives a churlish, let-me-outta-here performance as the cat's owner and the fed is played by Doug E. Doug, embarrassingly over-the-top, like a human cartoon. A pair of rich neurotics (Dyan Cannon and original "Cat" cast member Dean Jones) are funny and the formula-plot still has a little juice left in it, but the handling here is so heavy and lugubrious, and the cat is so lifeless, that it's strictly D.O.A.

* from ****


But I still enjoyed watching her, so I gave it a 3 instead of a 1. Her expressions are priceless. Some of the other cast members (e.g., Michael McKean) are really slumming, too. The cat himself is somewhat amusing. Aside from that, the movie is all cliche, culminating in a much-too-long car chase. (It's also at this point that the movie becomes unnecessarily crude, having been very "family" until then.)


This remake is entitled "That Darn Cat", but D.C. the cat is more of a sideline than the major character. Patti Randall was not likable at all in this remake either. She reminded me of one of those high school Goth jerks you read about who have been angry since the day they were born, so they end up opening fire on the rest of the school one day. The federal cop, Kelso was okay, but not as good as the one in the original. I guess Disney was trying to make Christina Ricci and Doug Doug (or whatever goofy name he has) into stars, but they don't hold a candle to Hayley Mills and Dean Jones in the original. I'm an animal lover and a cat lover and I don't blame D.C. for the remake being so much more inferior to the original movie. After all, they nearly cut him out of the whole movie. All in all, a very poor remake.


I really enjoyed the first film and when it turned up again, without thinking, or checking, I took a family of friends to see it. I was ashamed that I had enthused so much about it to them.

Disney processed the original film just like the human body processes a delicious meal - takes in something good and turns out ... well, you know. And by having a dark-skinned person as the FBI man, the results of fingerprinting the informant were subdued.

Taken as an isolated film, I suppose it is not too bad if one likes that weird sort of thing, but when one has read the book or seen the first film - horrible!


`It's as if this town has the power to suck your brain right out of your head.' -Patti

Patti (Christina Ricci) is a sarcastic teenaged girl, bored with her all-too-average little town. Bored that is until a woman is kidnapped and she finds what she believes to be clues to the poor lady's whereabouts. Now, with the help of her precious cat `D.C.' and an inept FBI agent (Doug E. Doug) she must find her.

That Darn Cat is a bad movie. It is quite foolish and it has humor that often falls quite flat. There are, however, a few buds of talent in it. Doug E. Doug was good in Cool Runnings. His performance as `Senga' was really funny. Here he is wasted as the bumbling FBI agent. He does have a good scene when he imitates the cat, though. Micheal Mckean plays Patti's father. His character must be the most understanding parent to ever live. This poor guy has his expensive cigar crushed, gets arrested for picking up his own cat, and gets bitched-at by his snippy wife and STILL doesn't get angry at his daughter for causing all of his troubles. I wish my old man was like that. The only real good performance is Christina Ricci's. She entertaining as the ever-annoyed Patti, but her occasional very bad dialogue pulls her performance down. You might also recognize Peter Boyle (Young Frankenstein, Everybody Loves Raymond), the old lady from Wings and Cliff from Cheers, in this movie. This is a movie that all these actors would probably like to forget. Even the cat isn't very good... I really can't recommend 1997's That Darn Cat. Some young children (under 8) might enjoy it a bit, but every one else should look elsewhere. If you're looking for a good Christina Ricci movie, I suggest Addams Family Values, The Opposite of Sex or Sleepy Hollow. If a fun family film is what you're after, try Snow Day, instead.


this movie wasn't good. i thought it'd be a cute disney movie just like the original. wrong. it was awkward for christina ricci, whom i expect so much more than this, you could just tell by watching. i think doug e. doug did the best he could. sit 5 year olds in front of the this, any older, and they might start to fall asleep.


I am really at a loss as to how anyone could give this movie a 10 (or even more than a 2!). It is full of bad lines, bad acting, bad slapstick, etc. I never thought I could see worse acting than the purposefully badly acted scenes at the beginning of UHF, but this was it. And just when you think it can't possibly get any worse, it does! Over and over again! You actually could have watched this in a theater? It wasn't worth free on TV! My 4-year-old and 1-year-old liked it some, but they wanted to see the cat more and the cat was almost never on.


The only entertaining thing that I found about watching this movie was listening to Star Wars coming through the wall of the movie theatre (yes I go to a really bad movie theatre). This movie is so mind numbingly bad that I think I would rather have my eyes scratched out by a cat rather than watch it again.

Let's compare it to the original. One is charming, funny, exciting, well acted, and one of the best movies ever made, the other is so far from funny that all you can do is hope that your eyeballs will fall out so you don't have to watch any more. I'm sorry Christina Ricci is a fine actress but cannot compare with Hailley Mills, and don't even get me started on Doug E. Doug in a part one occupied by the amazing and absolutely charming Dean Jones. Dean Jones' tiny part in the new version is the only partially redeeming part of this movie, and it is the only reason I can justify a 1* rating (also because the imdb doesn't go into negatives).


Ladies and Gentlemen, may we present the worst of all Disney remakes. Although the name of this movie is "That Darn Cat", it should have been "That Darn Teen" or "FBI Agent". The cat didn't get any real good scenes, Ricci's character was more annoying than funny, Doug E. Doug didn't get any good lines, even Dean Jones's cameo role couldn't save this movie! The only really good characters were the town's only two auto mechanics, but their scenes were only brief. In all, I'd say that if you are considering watching this movie, go get something more intelligent like a Barney video.


This is definitely a "lesser known" comedy short from the 1920s. The only reason I saw it was because it was on a DVD by Kino Films featuring non-Laurel and Hardy shorts featuring Ollie. They are interesting and historically important, but also generally average to below average for the style film. Compared to shorts by Chaplin, Keaton, Arbuckle and Lloyd, they are definitely a step below them in quality and humor. Also, the accompanying music was pretty poor by the standards of other silent DVDs. I ended up turning OFF the sound due to the inappropriateness of the music to set the proper mood. But, despite this, they are still worth seeing.

I've gotta be honest about this short. It was the last of 8 on this DVD and by the time I got to it, I was pretty bored with the mediocrity of 7 of the 8 shorts. So, it is possible the film might be A LITTLE better than a 4--but certainly, if this is the case, no better than a 5! The film is a pretty standard short about an incompetent bellboy. Nothing especially interesting and there are certainly MUCH better silent shorts out there.


Not too long ago I bought a cheap VHS tape entitled "Just Rambling Along" supposedly featuring Laurel and Hardy. Being somewhat familiar with their output and not recognizing this title, I made the agonizing decision to part with a whole dollar and buy it. Upon playing it, I identified the film as HOP TO IT. Of course, Mr. Laurel was nowhere in the cast, making the packaging of this product criminally deceptive. Even worse, the quality is terrible. It looks like it was duped from an 8mm film source. It did have a somewhat appropriate musical score. Actually, in all seriousness, the tape is worth a buck if you just want to get an idea of what the movie is like. In my opinion, it is a decent but unexceptional short. IMDb should add JUST RAMBLING ALONG as an alternate title for this film, which incidentally was the name of a 1918 Stan Laurel film!


On one Thursday evening at 10:00pm, my local west coast ABC affiliate aired the pilot episode of "Northern Exposure". The ABC Network usually airs "Men In Trees" in that time slot but the program was preempted for a live sporting event.

Despite both shows are set in Alaska and filmed on location in the Pacific Northwest (Exposure in Washington state, Trees in Vancouver, BC), re-watching "Northern Exposure" (as well as few episodes of "Sex and the City") reminds me how disappointed I am with the poorly conceived hybrid "Men in Trees".

Anne Heche can be a good actress with the right material. Unfortunately her role as a writer who ends up in a small town in Alaska grates on my nerves. Perhaps because I feel that Heche is miscast, I am not convinced of her "fish-out-of-water" character.

I also cannot help but feel that the supporting cast fits the typical quirky stereotypes. The hot-looking local, the kindly bar owner, the bush pilot, the local police officers, the dim but well-intentioned radio DJ, etc.

The only stereotype that may have been broken was teddy bear and veteran "ER" actor Abraham Benrubi as the local bartender in love with two different women. Considering that one of the executive producers is filmmaker James Mangold, (his movies "Heavy" and "Cop Land" had lead characters who were large men) then I am not surprised why Benrubi was cast in a non-typical role.

Nonetheless, I can see why there are a lot of dedicated viewers who love "Men in Trees". It fits the quirky niche for television audiences. I wished the show could find its own voice instead of borrowing ideas from better shows.


I am a huge fan of Northern Exposure. Men In Trees is a complete knock-off of Northern Exposure. There's the city-folk from New York stuck in a remote backwoods town (Marin Frist / Joel Fleishman). She immediately doesn't hit it off with a local (Jack Slattery / Maggie O'Connell). The town only has one pilot who is not often available. Ther is only one radio show. And the entire show is about quirky people with sincere and odd relationships. Too many parallels. Just like Northern Exposure except one obvious demographic has been altered in each character. I'm bored. Give me something new to think about.

On the upside, the writing is pretty good. But if this was a school project, it would certainly have earned the stamp of plagiarism.

Perhaps people who love this show were sheltered from the dedicated creativity and hard labors of Joshua Brand and John Falsey.


This show is awesome and we have been enjoying it thoroughly. Set in Alaska, I don't agree with the homosexual content on tonight's show. I feel that you are pushing too hard to bring New York to Alaska. Its one thing to have a New Yorker struggling in the Alaska wild, but to try to turn the Alaska town into New York? This is a nice show about dainty women and true Alaska Men and to bring a same sex couple into the mix is throwing the balance way off. Alaska should be Portrayed as a man and New York as the woman. I think the first 9 shows have the perfect balance with what you all are doing. Can't we have a nice show without the imbalance of nature.


Why is Guy working for Buddy? Probably because Ari was not around in 1995. Why does Dawn want to be with Guy? For access to Buddy. Why does she stay with Guy? I am not sure.

There are bunch of things about this movie that I am not sure about. But, Kevin Spacey is an excellent, verbal tsunami as Buddy Ackerman  and totally believable because he is a great actor.

Frank Whaley's Guy is certainly out of his element working for Buddy  he wants to write and make meaningful movies, not be a gofer that is verbally abused for getting Equal instead of Sweet & Low.

Michelle Forbes' Dawn, who also wants to make meaningful movies, seems way out of Guy's league.

The ending leaves a lot to be desired.


I was recommended this movie by one of my film-making friends, and was therefore expecting something good. Sadly, I was very disappointed by the first half -- ah, a movie about a wimp taking revenge on their a**hole boss, how original -- and watched the second half on fast forward hoping to find something that would justify the 45-odd minutes I'd already wasted. But all I got was the 'shock' ending...

The basic problem is that this is a movie which seems unable to decide what it wants to say, and says whatever it does say (hard to tell what that is) badly. Great acting does not save a bad script full of characters I can't care about.

Now maybe if I didn't moonlight in the movie industry I'd be shocked to discover the dumb politics and exploitation going on behind the screen, but as it is my feelings are as summed up above: 'Ho Hum'.

2/10... would have been 1/10 if it weren't for the acting and the paper cut scene.


The role of Buddy Ackerman is no stretch for Kevin Spacey. He's played version of that character many times other, better films. This is fortunate because it gives his performance a certain resonance without which Buddy would be as flat and incomplete as all of the other characters in this pointless little farce. The script leaves little time for plot or character development, resembling a porn flick in its rush to get to the "good stuff". The difference is that here the "good stuff" isn't people pleasuring each other but inflicting pain, making it appropriate viewing for young adults.

Of course there's nothing wrong with a porn flick if you want to watch people having sex, and I guess there's nothing wrong with "Swimming with Sharks" if you want to watch people undergoing physical, emotional, and psychological torture. But if you're looking for incisive satire, interesting characters, or anything else that even attempts to engage more than your basest passions, you should probably look elsewhere.


Talk about false advertising! What was this doing in the comedy section of my video rental place? I think there was maybe one laughable part in the movie. I can appreciate black comedy, but this had only the blackness without any comedy. The movie was generally disturbing and un-funny. Yes, Kevin Spacey was good as Buddy and the rest of the cast was also good, but generally the movie falls apart because we don't really see a good enough reason for Guy (Whaley) to lose his mind so badly. The ending was disappointing as well. What would Buddy's motivation be for letting Guy get away with what he did? This isn't really explained AT ALL. Why would Buddy go for such a plan? Wouldn't it be more like Buddy to screw Guy completely by turning him over to the police? The ending didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me no matter how I looked at it.

Generally, I disliked the film despite the good acting. Spacey essentially chews scenery for most of the film, but towards the end he gives Buddy a bit of needed humanity. The story just wasn't as good as the cast.


There's something wonderful about a "revenge" film. Everyone wakes up in the morning believing he/she is the star of "the movie," and that anyone who interferes with one's own personal agenda is in some way the enemy. Revenge plot films work particularly well if a person has low self-esteem. Rather than fighting back in the moment, the "hero" draws upon built-up inner anxiety to engage in a single act of power in an attempt to restore equilibrium. Quite naturally, in the "real world" this type of revenge seldom relieves the tension because life is not a movie; after the revenge is enacted the actions taken have their own consequences. A good revenge flick helps people ignore this bitter pill. In the movies the end credits roll and all responsibility resolved.

"Swimming With Sharks" is advertised as a comedy, no doubt an act on the part of the producers to figure out just how to sell this oddity. It's dark, but it isn't dark comedy ("Company Of Men" and the works of Todd Solondz come much closer). Parts of the film are so brutal they pre-date the current "torture-porn" genre everyone is so obsessed with ("Saw", "Hostel"). There are some laughs. There are laughs in "Saving Private Ryan" too, but it isn't labeled comedy.

The intrinsic problem with this film is that it hasn't earned its revenge case. It is ostensibly about a young man who is abused by his boss and eventually takes his boss hostage to "pay him back" for all the mistreatment. The hero (aptly named "Guy") is an "everyman" so vague we know literally nothing about him...what does he do with his spare time? Does he have friends/family? How did he get where he is? What are his interests (this becomes a running motif through the film, no doubt inspired by the film's author's own struggle..."What do you want?", the answer to which we are denied by a vague, cheat of an ending)? It's very difficult to care for such a character, even if acted well (even Tom Hanks becomes a creep in the wrong roll, such as "Punchline"). Kevin Spacey as the boss, "Buddy," is supposed to be a monster but he's too charismatic as an actor. The best laughs came when he abused his assistant--he seemed almost as surprised as the audience probably is at what Guy will endure. When Kevin's character is being tortured, the view taken suddenly becomes empathy for him. Guy is suddenly filmed as a leering monster without rationality. At this point any message the author had has been lost; there's no "hero" in this film, ergo, no reason to care at all.

It's not a stretch to assume this story is based on the author's own troubled career in the film business. I worked for a similar boss and can vouch that it's not that far-fetched. I had similar wish-fulfillment fantasies at that time and thought that I was justified. I thought you could win over the most beautiful woman in the story (actually, the ONLY woman--there seem to be all of about four people in the universe of this film) just by being your eager, naive self, that eagerness won accolades and that a boss abused you because he was a mean person. Time and tide have revealed the truth that most "monsters" are really just the demons of an individual's personal psyche and resentment is usually based in the self. As the film points out, if Guy was so unhappy he only had to leave. The film doesn't offer any denouement at all, "surprise" ending notwithstanding. We still know nothing about the protagonists, we can't even be sure anything they said was based in fact and everyone magically gets to have his cake and eat it too. In short, there was no point to this story at all other than to point out that (shock!) the film business can be pretty brutal.

There are plenty of good films that tell solid and satisfying revenge-style fantasies, both the feel-good variety ("9-to5," "Working Girl," "The Devil Wears Prada") and not so much ("War Of The Roses", the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes"). This isn't one of them--despite a fun turn by Benicio Del Toro in the Emily Blunt role from "Prada" and some interesting work by Spacey and Michelle Forbes, this is a frustrating, mean, confused and slightly dull creation of self- indulgence from a director who has, one hopes, "worked it all out" by now...


Yes, this review may contain spoilers, but you'll thank me for it. This is the worst film I've seen in quite some time. I came to this board expecting to see the same response I had, but inexplicably, there are several people who love this film and Spacey's performance in particular.

Some will chastise me for saying it, but I find Kevin Spacey's acting quite limited despite the world's admiration for him. I felt like I was watching a meaner version of Kevin's "American Beauty" role. His character in this film is ridiculously overacted, all the way down to his laughable insults he throws at his assistant.

There are all-world trite and boring scenes like when Spacey is tearing into Whaley about bringing him Equal instead of Sweat and Low. Somehow, I suspected this particular scene was supposed to be funny, but by this time I was ready to hit the stop button (this is approximately 20 minutes into the film).

What about the faux-homage to "Resevoir Dogs"? Whaley proclaims, "I think I saw this in a movie once," as if he's going to cut off Spacey's ear. But what does he use to cut him? An envelope! That's right, he's going to give him paper cuts! That has to be one of Hollywood's all-time worst scenes, and the fact that the actors and director tried to carry it out with a straight face makes it even more appalling.

I will admit that I didn't see the end of this film (my DVD mercifully locked up about a half hour before the end), but anyone who wishes to say so could spare me the line that I missed a great twist and everything would have made sense. Well, I don't care what happened in the end, because it could never make up for all that bad acting and relentlessly over-the-top dialogue. I even got the feeling that the actors themselves wanted to get out of this film as bad as I did.


Ugly, heartless Hollywood crap that expects nothing but ugliness and heartlessness from its audience. The scenes WITHOUT Spacey reveal how truly awful the film really is. But the scenes WITH Spacey are just so entertaining that you hang on in there right to the end. Yes, he could play this part in his sleep but he does it so well, he's such a joy to watch, so believable and marvellously monstrous. Enjoy it for his performance, but don't expect anything else from this movie. If you want to see a great film about the evils of modern Hollywood, check out Robert Altman's "The Player". This sad little potboiler is not remotely in the same league.


I tried to like this movie. I love Kevin Spacey and I knew the other guy from his role as "Big Brain on" Brad in Pulp Fiction. But I just didn't care about the characters at all. Kevin Spacey is a prick through the whole movie and even finding out some horrible things that happened to him, I didn't like him. Especially the ending---that made me hate him even more. This was like watching a bad car wreck. Spacey played a prick well (he does it all well), but other than that, I don't recommend it.


Ill-tempered, verbally abusive movie studio chief runs his male assistant ragged with nit-picking requests, keeping the young man firmly under his thumb with constant threats of unemployment; after a year of office-terror, the working stiff finally cracks. Writer-director George Huang has possibly bit off more than he can chew here. His "Swimming With Sharks" isn't a diatribe against Hollywood, nor is it a tribute to the hard-working underling...instead, it's stunt film-making with a twist, a one-trick pony with tunnel-vision. The surroundings don't look or feel like Tinsel Town (perhaps due to a limited budget), and we never get a sense of this stressful environment as a movie-making entity (it could be a realtor's office in the Valley, for all we know). Lead Kevin Spacey, who also served as one of the film's producers, gives a controlled and focused performance as the power-mad mogul whose ego is out of control; he does good work, and yet the character doesn't ring true. We learn so little about him and his acquaintances that his important position and high-ranking status fail to jibe with what we do see; who does this man answer to? what drives him beyond humiliating others for sport? what projects is he juggling aside from the one script we see passed around? The film is so emotionally stunted and underpopulated, it begins to seem like a stage-play padded out for the big screen--and yet one without enough characters or motivations in it. Perhaps Huang wanted to keep things simple, but instead his movie looks like a half-baked project which needed a lot more insight, humor, and atmosphere. ** from ****


This movie was a low point for both Jason Robards and Sam Peckinpah. Major plot points are taken directly from Sergio Leone's masterpiece "Once Upon a Time in the West" (released two years earlier and also featuring Robards): A man finds a watering hole is found in the desert, being the only water for many miles in every direction, he plans to build a 'station' around the hole and to ensure there's a love interest, he falls in love with a prostitute. To this add an intemperate preacher, bad music, silly fast action shots, even sillier T&A shots - and there you go. There is little question why it failed at the box office. The real question is "how did it make it that far?".


Tug-3 is absolutely right. Although I am sure that Mr. Osmond wanted to make a sincere, heartwarming Christmas movie, this one is as cynical and creepy as they come. The religious significance of Christmas is forgotten and replaced with cute kids, clueless grownups, and dopey villains. The production values demonstrate that this was either filmed on a shoestring or by truly inexperienced filmmakers-- I suspect the latter, unfortunately. The worst part, oddly enough, really is the music. You would think someone with a long-standing musical career could do better than the title song, but you would be wrong. Even my mom didn't like this movie, and she likes the Osmonds AND sappy stuff.


This gawd-awful piece of tripe is all over the place. The script is bad, the plot is bad, the acting is bad. There are a couple of decent actors in it (Charles Durning, eg.), but the director got nothing out of them. The plot line has Santa, feeling dejected and thinking no one needs him any more, taking a little girl across country to try to get her father back together with her mother. It includes a con-man in a Santa suit with a stuffed parrot on his shoulder (played by "Isaac" from The Love Boat), the world's largest elf (played by Bruce Vilnach - a very funny man, but no actor), a hardened factory owner who works his employees overtime on Christmas eve, and a sleigh race where someone cuts one of Santa's skis trying to win. If the plot sounds bad, it's worse on the little screen. If you see this movie coming up next, run, do not walk, to your television and unplug it. You may want to boil your television to remove any remaining infection. If you accidentally watch more than 10 minutes of this, you may have to burn your television, and have the cable company install entirely new lines.


Amanda Bynes is an enormously talented actress, and I've really enjoyed all of her roles in the past, especially in the fantastic "She's the Man." For that reason alone, "Sydney White" was a huge disappointment for me. The real reason for my dislike of this film is the poor use of characters. In a good fun teen comedy, its perfectly alright to have a cast of all fairly reality-based teen characters. In "Sydney White," this idea is thrown out the window.

Amanda Bynes makes a fine Sydney, but she is really lacking in a lot of what usually makes her sparkle as an actress. I blame this on the script, which makes her character too bland and restrained, and on the hair/makeup department, which gives her a detestable plastic look and an annoying hair style. The seven "dorks" that Sydney eventually befriends are far worse. They are so dorky that it's impossible to like them or even respect them as characters. They're essentially repulsive gag fodder. As is the story's "Prince Charming," who is completely unbelievable as a character and is about as cheesy as can be.

Perhaps the film's biggest star-to-be (with the possible exception of Amanda Bynes) is Sara Paxton, who's actually very good as the conniving Rachel Witchburn. It's just a shame that the script-writers didn't make her a bit more gray than black.

The plot is basically that of "Snow White." What kills it is that it is too blunt and obvious a re-imagining. The connections to "Snow White" are thrown at us so much throughout the film that they are ultimately annoying and overblown. Prince Charming is unrealistically charming, the "witch" is far too despicably witchy, the seven "dorks" are too dorky, and Sydney is just too pure of heart. Now, this is not to say that the movie is all bad. Though Bynes is forced down by the script, she still has her moments. As does Sara Paxton, who brings physical comedy to the max in her scenes. Sydney's room-mate, named "Dinky" is also great fun as a character. It's a somewhat funny film at parts that is ultimately just too cheesy and clichéd to recommend.


I rated this one better than awful because I liked seeing Jonathon from Buffy in something again -- even if it was the same role.

First, the concept is kind of cute for a short, but not an entire movie. The writing was forced and contrived. I have the feeling that the movie suffered the most during editing.

Second, Amanda Bynes always looks like her eyes are crossed -- even when she's not trying to do it. She's just not funny. She always plays some sort of misfit girl who triumphs by being herself -- ironic, considering Amanda seems to always be a caricature. I would actually like to see her in something serious. I really want to give her a chance, but she is always cast in these trite roles where she wiggles and makes faces and somehow that's a good thing?

Finally, the whole "I'm a Dork" segment was ripped off from Revenge of the Nerds. There was nothing in this movie that was unpredictable.

Shame, shame, shame.


My 15 year old daughter asked me to watch this movie with her on Cable TV. As someone who saw Revenge of The Nerds in a movie theater, I found this movie to be an extremely predictable remake of it. The Nerds were simply replaced by Dorks. I drove her crazy by being able to predict precisely what would happen in each scene. The cast was cute, especially Amanda Bynes.

Screenwriter Chad Creasey should be ashamed for writing such an obvious remake of an early 1980's flick. The title should have simply been "Revenge of The Dorks." Perhaps the sequel will be Revenge of the Dorks 2.


It is fitting that the title character in Sydney White is defined from the beginning of the film by her awkwardness because the film, like the character, tends to begin every scene with a well-meant but inappropriate statement, then backtracks inadvertently making it worse and leaving the viewer in total confusion.

This scenario gets old quick. Now imagine a hour and a half of this, throw on the most predictable storyline imaginable; add some vague Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs references and Amanda Bynes blinking in wide-eyed puzzlement and you have Sydney White...for more of my review http://www.helium.com/items/1433421-sydney-white-review


It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened.

The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.

I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.

Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned...

What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.

Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.

I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?

Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.

Avoid it like the plague.


My wife and I watched this abortion from its beginning. I hated it immediately but my wife became hooked on it for a couple of years.For me it just got worse and worse and the characters were all without question dreary and depressing without any redeeming features. My wife then grew tired of it and we stopped watching altogether. Occasionally I catch a clip of it or pass through it when channel surfing.There is always someone yelling at someone else or doing something dreadful. There never seems to be any lighter moments or happiness of any kind. That was always my main gripe with it when we first watched it- no humour. The writers seem to have no idea about drama - they seem to think conflict IS drama, and of course that is only one element of it. Light and shade is sorely needed and actors who can bring something to it. I am sure the actors in Eastenders are competent but they have nothing to work with. It must be the most depressing acting job in showbiz. I fail to understand why the British public watch it and love it. What on earth does it say about our psyche? I have heard it said that it is "just like real life"-its nothing like my life or anyone's life I know, otherwise we would be flinging ourselves from high buildings or under public transport. The themes it tackles are far from family viewing but still are shown pre-watershed. I love series like Breaking Bad or The Wire but I would not expect to see them at 7.30 or 8.00 in the evening. The programme is trash writ large and should be avoided at all cost.


I spent three months living in the East End of London in the latter half of 1987, when the show had been on the air for almost two years. It was considered a running joke there.

Why? Because it had an all-white cast. Every cast member and extra in the first couple of years was white.

The street where I lived was a long one, with over 800 houses, and to the best of my knowledge I was one of only three or four white faces living on that street. We were on the corner of the Indian and Turkish "quarters", and even if you excluded those two races the Asians and Afro-Caribbeans outnumbered the white people twenty-to-one. Plus, of course, of the very few white people who *did* live in the area, the vast majority were Scots like me - a "Cockney" accent was never heard.

That wasn't a racist rant, just a simple statement of fact. The BBC either couldn't be bothered crossing London to do their research before writing this soap, or else they only had white actors available and decided to bluff it out.

Either way, as I say, in the East End of the time, we considered it a comedy show. :-)


Eastenders has gone full circle from unmissable in 1985 to totally abysmal now. It's such a bad reflection of the nation this crap tops the ratings.

The ideas for plots can consist of nothing more trivial than putting ever characters name in a hat. The first two out (regardless of their sex) will sleep with each other, the 3rd & 4th out will have a fight in the Vic, the 5th one will be arrested, the 6th develop an addiction, 7th get pregnant etc etc.

The producers are clever though. The 30 minute show is only actually ever comprised of 3 lines.

1) Someone will walk in the Vic & say "What's goin on?" 2) Someone else will stand up say "leave it aht" (out) 3) Then a woman will say "Doan choo come in ere 'n' insult mah fam'ly"

That's it. That's every show. Apart from the occasional "Get it sort-id / Is it sort-id?"

The show was once a realistic portrayal of East End folk & their way of life. The buffers came off when 1) They extended it from two nights a week & 2) The Slater family turned up. How they attract viewers is beyond me. The Kat character symbolizes everything that's gone wrong with society, treating anyone else like something she's pulled off the bottom of her shoe.

The people who vote her the best character, in these polls, must the same as the ones that vote Jamie Redknapp 'Best Sportsman' despite the fact he hasn't played a game for 3 years.

What I can never understand is if the show is the pinnacle of British TV why do all the biggest names leave? Ross Kemp, Martin Kemp, the list is endless.

How long has the longest couple's marriage lasted, with them being faithful to each other? Yes, people leave, but until the script writers realise that characters, couple can be interesting & likeable without sleeping around the show will continue to deteriorate. An episode last week had 3 separate plots of exactly that. And Zoe & the doctor top even Lofty & 'Shell' as 'Most Unconvincing Couple Ever to appear on TV.'

Yes, Eastenders is the most watched show, thats undisputed. But many external factors contribute to that. 19.30 / 20.00 is the perfect time of day to gain the most audience figures, it has an omnibus edition for 2 hours, and more than that, millions of the viewers watch it, out of nothing more than habit, but if they were completely honest to themselves, they would admit that (in 2002, more than ever), it can be absolutely pitiful.


I don't know how people can watch this - the only people who enjoy watching this are those who have no feelings and emotions and enjoy watching people die, houses burn down, car crashes, babies die, and cast members being killed off every week. Its the most absurd thing on television and i still don't know how it pulls in the ratings. Its so depressing. I can imagine the writers sitting down and saying - 'so who shall we kill of next week then' or 'whose house shall we torch in a months time?'

Its the most depressing, absurd and most stupid thing on TV at the moment, and i cant understand peoples motives for watching this depressing pile of crap anymore


I think this programme is a load of rubbish. All they do is argue and slap each other across the face and they call this acting?! These people get paid lots of money for this and most of them can't even act to save their lives. Also, the story lines are awful and after watching it for a few minutes, I am bored with it. I like the way that Harry Hill takes the mickey out of it on his TV show 'TV Burp' e.g. the weak joke "The Princess and the Pea isn't exactly Shakespeare is it?" that had Sonia and Naomi in stitches. I don't see how that is funny. I think this is a waste of everybody's money for their TV licence so this can be shown 4/5 days a week. Isn't there anything better than this?


This soap is worse than bad: it's poisonous. Of the many television shows that have had a corrosive influence on British society over the past twenty years, Eastenders is the prime example. For two decades this show has celebrated the oaf, the thug, the wide-boy, the tart, the gobby, the violent, the sexually-incontinent, the criminal, the ignorant, the unambitious ...

How many times has someone or other remarked that Eastenders "mirrors life"? Life on which planet, exactly?

It's written about "working-class" characters, as imagined by middle-class people who have taken a course in creative writing. Eager to show to their middle-class peers how familiar they are with the "working-class" they dream up the lumpen rabble that is the citizenry of Eastenders.

This has a toxic effect on some minds less well-equipped than others to handle fiction, and so we find members of the real population assuming the attitudes and demeanour of the inhabitants of Walford.

Thus, it came to pass that Eastenders mirrors life; but only after life had been hoodwinked into mirroring Eastenders.

Other soaps have followed in EE's footsteps, filled to their stinking gunwhales with ugly, potato-faced, shaven-headed, pot-bellied characters, scowling at each other and issuing threats constantly. This is the proletariat as perceived by the writers who produce this trash. The writers will grow rich on the proceeds of such output, and will go on to enjoy the finer things of life in their rarified enclaves. Meanwhile, the burgeoning number of new, TV-induced drones will proceed inexorably toward cultural bankruptcy.

And there you have the new priests and the new creatures of the early 21st century. Much of this is due to the immeasurable power of that illuminated boxful of dancing pixels in the corner of your living-room. It's your fault, gentle reader: that's what you chose as the only window through which to look out from your prison.


If this is classed as 'real life' of London, then the producers must be on different planet.

It is the most depressing, suicidal, dark, dingy, dross on TV.

Everyone is fighting, everything has nasty under tones running through it, nothing is done for genuine reasons.

If you want a real life picture of people in London or the UK, then this programme is by the farthest from reality.

There is not one good word I can say about this programme. The only certainty is that will be a great big fight over Christmas dinner.

Even the characters are totally unbelievable!


The other lowest-rating reviewers have summed up this sewage so perfectly there seems little to add. I must stress that I've only had the Cockney Filth imposed on me during visits from my children, who insist on watching the Sunday omnibus. My god, it's depressing! Like all soaps, it consists entirely of totally unlikeable characters being unpleasant to each other, but it's ten times as bad as the next worst one could be. The reviewer who mocked the 'true to life' bilge spouted by its defenders was spot-on. If anyone lived in a social environment like this, they'd slash their wrists within days. And I can assure anyone not familiar with the real East End that it's rather more 'ethnically enriched' than you'll ever see here. Take my advice - avoid this nadir of the British TV industry. It is EVIL.


Licence fees to watch this trash, And pay for it with hard-earned cash? Humourless, no hint of laughter, God knows how it won a BAFTA!

We've now been subjected to "Eastenders" for twenty years. When, oh when is the Great British public going to see this awful soap for what it is? Crass Pap! This programme no more depicts reality in the East End of London than everyday life in Beirut, and never has done.

The Eastenders I know (the real ones) are kind, courageous, hardworking and loyal. And one of their greatest attributes is humour. It was the Eastenders who went through the worst of the London blitz and still stuck two fingers up to Hitler. And what do we see on our screens for five days of the week (including an omnibus)? Nothing but a bunch of moaning, wailing, "dead from the neck up" wimps, who seem to do little else than sit in a pub all day sniping at each other. What a great advert for Britain that is!! Do the writers actually believe this garbage they're pumping out? Obviously the woolly-minded section of the public does, but then I've heard that apparently anyone can be brainwashed into believing anything.


Now the television schedules (in England, at least) are crammed with home improvement, bargain-hunting, house-hunting and cookery shows in the afternoons, the chances of any of the terrestrial broadcasters digging out a complete obscurity like this to occupy a couple of hours of screen time on a slow afternoon are slender, to say the least. But back in the eighties, the BBC did just that, and guess what, I watched it. And it's a testament to the overwhelming weirdness of this Hungarian-American co-production that I can still remember large chunks of it, over twenty years later. To begin with, the eponymous hero appears briefly during the opening titles, only to vanish again for at least half an hour. (Imagine AN American TAIL re-edited so Feivel is nowhere to be seen, and you'll appreciate how confusing this is.) There's a supremely bizarre bit of animation where one of the characters gets his elaborately waxed moustache tweaked and stretched, complete with a boingy sound effect that causes him to go boss-eyed. Probably hilarious if you're stoned, but to a child, quite disturbing. Speaking of which, the infamous 'hippo cull' scene is represented in an abstract manner - clouds in vague hippo shapes are struck by lightning - but it's still pretty unpleasant. In fact, this film is pretty cold and uninvolving throughout, a sad state of affairs hardly helped by the strange-looking production design, all muddy colours, wobbly lines, bloated forms and that uniquely European bleakness reminiscent of Jan Svankmajer, only not as compelling. Then, to cap it all, we get songs by the Osmonds! This isn't so much an awful film as a deeply misguided one, not so much phantasmagorical as a rather bad trip.


"War is in your blood" Rambo says early in the film, "don't fight it". Say, what? Is the scriptwriter taking the Mickey out of Sly? It is impossible for any person with a primary school education to miss the joke here. Yet, Stallone utters it without a hint of irony.

The same lack of humour applies to the movie. Rambo IV is an over-the-top, idiotic actioner that would have been funny without intention if it weren't sickeningly violent. A redneck fantasy of the basest kind where villains are so villainous, it is not enough just to kill them  you have to dismember them with relish. Stallone stops at no blue-collar cliché to make his point. It is not enough for the chief villain to be feed-them-to-the-pigs, throw-babies-into-fire kind of sadist. He is also a pedophile homosexual.

What is happening to IMDb? Is it taken over by the Rifle Society? How can this loathsome excuse for gross exploitation rate that high? I like a good action movie as much as the next man, but this is not entertainment  this is pornography of violence that trivializes and ultimately denigrates the real tragedy of Myanmar. The only good thing about the movie is that Sly doesn't take his shirt off. For this I will give it one star...


i hired this movie out from my local movie shop, not really expecting anything to flash or fancy. Since it was a "B" grade movie, made on a very tight budget. The opening scenes of the film were rather original and so was the plot and thats what made me hire the movie out. However the film becomes very boring and frustrating at points. The story had plenty of holes in it and the acting had its fair share of disappointments as well By the end of the film i was praying that a higher power was going to strike me down where i laid as i was extremely bored but more importantly frustrated with how the story turned out. i still don't understand what actually happened and i don't particularly care. in conclusion the devil would cry in disgust to know that Hell (his domain ) was used as a basis for such a crappy film.


11:11 a.k.a. Hell's Gate (2004) is another bad horror movie that tries too hard to be something it's not. A young girl has an imaginary play mate. One day whilst out in the fields playing with her friends, a couple of fugitives visit her parents and whack them off for no apparent reason. The young girl runs off and hides from the bad men. Years later, the girl grows up into a woman with problems. Losers at her school (looking like repressed homosexuals) flaunt their manhood in front of her when she rejected one of them. The girls hate her and life in general is miserable for her. A secret from her past returns to visit her. Who or what is it? Why does everyone hate her? What's her Guardian's problem with her? To find out you'll have to watch Hell's Gate.

The new title makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't know why people are given money to make such bad movies. This film is not even good enough to make fun of. It's a head ache inducing mess that'l confuse anyone who tries to make some sense out of it. Not worth your time.

Not recommended.


First of all, this movie is so confused that it is almost impossible to summarize it, since I myself did not understand this horrible story. Further, the unknown cast, leaded by an actress called Laura Mennell, is simply awful. The expressions and screams of the character Sara Tobias are laughable and ridiculous, confusing grimaces with acting. Last but not the least, there are many favorable reviews about this flick in IMDb as follows:

- Top Notch- Can't wait to see more of the directors work  the author has only one review in IMDb on 24 September 2004;

- Incredibly shot, amazingly intense  the author has only one review in IMDb on 12 August 2004;

- Not your typical blood and gore, in fact better. 7/10  the author has only one review in IMDb on 13 February 2005;

- As intense as Asian horror!! - the author has only one review in IMDb on 14 November 2004.

Coincidence? Or are they the parents, relatives, friends or people hired by the production to promote this crap? My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "11.11  A Nova Profecia" ("11.11  The New Prophecy")


What can be said about such a pathetic movie ?

- Very bad acting ! The main actress seems to know only one facial expression : fear mixed with weakness. Like a poor beaten dog... The other actress (the one who plays the evil) looks like the female double of Ozzy Osbourne, with an awful red wig. The other actors are so pitiful that they don't even worth being described.

- There's absolutely no plot. The story begins with possibilities but goes nowhere : we don't know anything about the meaning of "11:11", nor who Rayden really is, excepted the simple "she's evil" or "she's a child of Apocalypse"... which is not an explanation. We don't know why the parents have been killed, what kind of danger is growing and why Sara was chosen. As the film goes on, we just watch pseudo-scary scenes, with a bad music. Moreover, the end doesn't tell anything : we just see two possibilities as if one of them was a bonus scene or the director's cut... There's no plot, so no possible interpretation.

- "11:11" is just full of clichés ! It is so obvious that i couldn't help laughing. For example : the deserted library or the bathroom scenes, ghost silhouettes walking with a blast of wind, ... there's even the fashionable "little scary girl" as in "Dark Water" or "The Ring". Of course, the main character is bullied at school and looks like a stereotyped Gothic girl (dark hair, red lips, skinny, black clothes). Is it an obligation to make her credible ? I don't think so. The psychology of Sara is so few developed and so typical that it doesn't make her credible, nor endearing.

- Terrible direction : as i said, nothing original, everything has already been seen a thousand times and is used here without any real purpose.

- There are some funny incoherences. For example, i don't know if "ghost science", "paranormal course" or whatever is taught in American universities... In Europe it is really not the case : teachers talking about negative energies or using "unmaterial" creatures sensors... ridiculous. Also : how can you watch a movie shot in the sixties with a Super-8 camera on a computer screen without spending hours of your time for a digitalization (in the movie they watch it immediately on the computer screen) AND how can you, on this old film, isolate a tiny detail then zoom in and see a perfectly identifiable face ? I wonder if the director has ever tried to digitize an old analogical film...

Eventually, "11:11" just worths being watched if you like to laugh at silly movies, or maybe if you want to fall asleep on your couch... But it's an expensive way to fall asleep !


Well This was a complete waste of celluloid. The preview was promising but after watching the movie, it looked like the preview *was* the whole movie. No plot, no clear storyline, just some misplaced suspense. It looks like the director tried very hard to create an atmosphere of mystique and fear, but still there are gaps to be filled. Why the drugs? Why the number 11.11? (Btw. As Sarah enteres the library, the clock says 11.14) What's the connection to the murder on the parents? What's the role of this Rayden woman? Is she one of the children or not? Who are those children anyway. There is a lot of material lying around to create the ultimate cult movie like "the Omen" but the director just leaves them lying on the floor without digging into the story. Even "the Blairwitch project" was more scary than this one. All the gaps you hope to be filled like in "The Butterfly effect" stay open as the credits start rolling.. OK. Off to the next movie...


Wow, what a bad film. Not frightening in the least, and barely comprehensible. The plot doesn't hang together at all, and the acting is absolutely appalling. What's that line from a famous critic? "She runs the emotional gamut from A to B." Yup. That about sums it up. Not even good for camp value! I wasn't expecting Oscar material, but this? And gosh, her friend's a ghost? You'd have to have the IQ of particularly stupid mollusk not to see that one coming.

This film (and I use that word loosely) is an insult to the movie-going public. If only someone involved with it knew how to string together narrative! This gets a 1 out of 10, simply because there's nothing lower. On the bright side--at least it's not a full two hours long.


The film starts well enough. It is a truly terrifying scene as a couple of fugitives on the run from the law tear apart an innocent family living in a secluded country cottage by killing the mother and father. The young daughter only manages to escape with the aid of a mysterious spectre, who kills the two aggressors while she covers in a downstairs cupboard. Then, we catch up with her 15 years later as a drug-addled student researching the supernatural, living with her promiscuous aunt and being looked after by a mysterious redhead. She has no real friends, was almost raped at a party and keeps having bizarre visions which no-one else can see. So yep, life is grand. Things get a lot more pleasant when she has a falling out with her mum's sister, who is later found dead in a bathtub under suspicious circumstances with 11 etched into her forehead. Hmm, I wonder who the police's main suspect will be? This is quickly followed by more deaths, all linked by their relation to our heroine having been on bad terms with them before their passing. Could she be the culprit, or perhaps the explanation could be something of a more ethereal nature? Clue: If you think the former, you've picked up the wrong movie from Blockbuster. Go back and get the correct one, short-sighted gimp.

As I said, I was all ready to fast-forward to the good parts, safe in the knowledge that I wasn't missing out on anything but a mediocre suspense potboiler. But the first ten minutes grabbed me, and I decided to give it a chance. I was quite pleasantly surprised: it certainly wasn't a masterpiece but the acting was good enough and the script kept throwing up intriguing situations of which I looked forward to finding the solution to. Alas, 45 minutes in, I realised my attention start to wander during a long sequence where the main character is walking round a library, doing nothing. We then get a cheap scare, followed by quarter of an hour of goddledegook about the paranormal between her and her new hunk of a boyfriend. Things only got worse from there, as the promising beginning is thrown out the window as we get one unconvincing plot twist after another, followed by an ending so anti-climatic it's like being promised the moon and ending up with a teeny weeny meteorite instead. Pathetic.

If it was bad all the way through, it would have been far easier to swallow. The fact that it starts at a canter and barely ends with a whimper is not just disappointing, it is heartbreaking. How can something which began so promisingly end up being so formulaic? I don't know, and I don't particularly care. I'll just give the writer and director a bit of advice for next time: Don't spend 5 weeks writing the first part of your screenplay, then 5 minutes finishing the rest. You tend to notice these things in the final product when you treat your project as sloppily as you have here... 3/10


Bad plot, bad acting, bad direction.

It had possibilities but just didn't achieve anything.

This film looks like someone started with an idea, googled a bit of info and then tried to flesh an hour and a half with lots of night shots and bad suspense music.

Others had to stop watching because they were scared 2/3 of the way through - I had to take a break purely because I just didn't care anymore.

Reminded me of an episode of Days of our Lives with marginally more suspense.

Just bad.


I know a couple people who look just like the lead actress in this film (or, at least, like the character she portrays.) They all give me the creeps and I would be the last person to ever lend one of them a gun or even a sharp knife. She has one mean and ugly-looking expression. If you can conjure up a bit of sympathy for her, let me know.

Of course, I might have the same expressions of concern and fear if I had an imaginary friend who had been killing off my real friends and acquaintances for the last 15 years.

And for our European friends on the IMDb, I'm saddened to say that, yes, some colleges and universities in the US teach courses on paranormal phenomena, relying on the pathetic defense that it represents "academic freedom" and open inquiry.

This film is not worth your while. You will have no sympathy for any of the characters (except for Aunt Lydia, who gets offed pretty early) and the plot makes no sense.


Newly released on DVD in the US; just stay far away from it.

I usually give plenty of room for stupidity in horror films; I'll settle for nearly anything remotely suspenseful, supernatural, spooky, or even just a vaguely interesting concept. This one simply stank. I knew there was trouble when Sara's "best friend" in college, who had considerable screen time, wasn't even listed in the credits on IMDb! I wasn't surprised not recognizing any actors, but that character ("Daysha" or "Day-Glo" or whatever her name was) apparently didn't even exist!

I'm so embarrassed that I actually paid a rental fee for this garbage; deeply, deeply ashamed...


If you see this film in the TV listings just ignore it. If you're looking for something scary you'll be better off watching reruns of the X-Files.

Previous comments referencing the incredibly poor acting by the female lead are dead on. She is almost unwatchable. The sum total of her range includes 'whiny and scared' and 'whiny and not scared'.

I am the kind of movie buff who enjoys a good 'bad' movie. But this is ridiculous. There is no direction. The plot is as simplistic as the set of numbers they keep throwing at you and much like that set of numbers, it ends up having no meaning in the end.

Your time will be better spent if you turn off the TV and give your dog a bath.


Good lord! This movie needs to have a new classification on its cover "watch only if you have absolutely nothing else to do!". I am disappointed. I was looking forward to a good horror movie over the weekend...needed an adrenalin rush and that awesome tingling sensation going down my spine. But this movie didn't do it. A reasonably good story but pretty awful acting, dialogue, and filming. It was disjointed and sometimes outright silly. We had actors looking at the wrong direction of the camera, people talking out loud (by themselves) and narrating what they feel and what is going to happen, shadows of equipment in some shots, silly clichés like "I just need you to hold me" in the totally wrong places and situations. Thank you for allowing me to offload and sorry if I'd offended anybody but it was a waste of time and money.


Years ago, Sara, a young girl witnessed her parents being murdered, now as an adult she suffers from various mental ailments (did I mention she has an imaginary friend?) This film lulls the viewer, not into a sense of tension, mind you, but rather a sense of sleepiness. Deathly boring, I found it hard to sit through as I could feel my eyelids growing heavier and heavier with each endless minute of mindless prattle and supposed 'mystery'. Is Sara going crazy? or is it the paranormal? A better question would be, Who cares? And the answer to that, no one. No one at all. Skip this film, save yourself some time better suited to do other more worthwhile tasks.

My Grade: D-


Was a college acting class exercise filmed and released as a movie? The formulaic posturing and stylized drivel of a "horror" soap opera for people who don't like horror films but wish to be able to tell that friends that, yes, they did see a horror movie. It even features soap opera music.

Do books falling off library shelves scare you? Do doors shutting terrify you? Then this flick is for you. Have you ever been kidnapped? Yeah, most of us have. When you were raped, was it simply ignored, because the rapist was the cool kid? What's scary is not this movie but this filmmaker's view of the world.

And then the little twists aren't even original. This is a film for people who've never seen a horror film before, who don't want to see one now, and who want to see another flick about everyone conspiring against the weird kid.


This quirky and watchable film is the story of a deluded dentist who starts out on his mission or crusade to fight tooth decay in the back and beyonds of Patagonia. Hailing from Northern Ireland, via New Jersey, the main character, Fergus, sees his crusade as a mission of mass importance and approaches it with all the enthusiasm, vitality, discipline and attention to detail one would expect from a trained dentist. Which adds to the hilarity, as his grand plans unravel and gradually fall to pieces as he goes from disaster to debacle in the Patagonian outback on the back of a customised motor bike or his, er, mobile dental unit. We never get to meet his wife, nor the rich philanthropist who is sponsoring the ill-fated mission, but, we do get a solid display from Lewis. Fans of his work will not be disappointed with his very believable performance as the deluded dentist who is gallantly adored by the, innocent but sexy, 18 year old female lead who tags along on for the *ahem* ride.

This film is not for everyone and I can understand why it wasn't pushed by the suits. It's a low budget, sometimes charming, always disarming, mildly amusing and instantly forgettable film that sets out with low expectations and almost succeeds.


This is the worst work ever of Daniel Day Lewis..... I can not believe that in the same year he made this awful movie and My left foot..... Please stay away from this movie....this is a movie only for Argentine people as a curiosity... The plot is impossible to understand...... The writer thinks that in Argentine all the people speaks in english... Of course the Patagonia bring a very good frame for the photo shooting of the film, but that is not enough reason to see this movie.... I repeat , only if you are very fan of Daniel Day Lewis, or if you want to see the south of Argentine, part of the Patagonia, and you do not have enough money to travel yourself.......


In a word, god-awful... too many plot holes.. um, yeah... Who takes their kid to dig up a dead body in the middle of the night? and what's up with his wife stealing the skeleton.. who does that? why, exactly did the shrink stab himself in the neck? and that whole dog thing.. i mean, really! Having Sparrow narrate from the beginning also just completely destroyed the suspense for me.. i mean, if he's narrating the story, clearly he's lived to tell it, so there's no chance of him getting offed.. where's the suspense there?

Of course, you expect plot holes in a film like this. But, there are so many I lost track of the story completely because of them. What kind of name is Fingerling? Or Toppsy? Why did the wife dig up the body? (Who does that?) or go into that crazy spooky asylum alone? and where'd all those candles come from? Why does the writer have his PO BOX in the freaking book??? I mean come on... And the book just happens to find its way to the bookstore next door to the wife's bakery?? Way too convenient... Oh and Happy Birthday Honey, here's a book about a serial killer.. What a THOUGHTFUL gift! The book is like 20 pages long, half of which are blank, and it takes him freaking FOREVER to read it. If he's truly obsessed with this book, wouldn't he have read it all in one shot?

A bit convenient for him to bump into his future wife (carrying a cake!) about 23 seconds after being released from a mental hospital.. how old was he playing? 36??

Was I the only one at the end rooting for the bus to actually run the guy down? Not good when you're rooting for the protagonist to bite it in the end.

It seems like this was written by committee.. I imagine that the first draft probably had nothing to do with the number 23... It seems as if they needed a gimmicky hook to bait the audience into thinking there was some supernatural thing going on, when in the end it really didn't seem to have anything to do with anything. I mean, I wasn't expecting the Godfather or anything, but everything about this film was a total let-down. Without all the numerology stuff, this movie could actually have been OK, instead of some hackneyed Se7en knockoff.

Not scary, unintentionally hilarious and otherwise a total snoozer.


This movie has no respect for the viewer's time. It takes a 15 minute story and stretches it into 95 minutes. In order to achieve this, they have to use a very slow narration and have everyone run around with some implausible frantic angst. By the time this movie showed anything interesting in the plot, I just didn't care. The problem is not in the acting, but instead the pacing. The story is just weak. Jim Carrey is a capable actor, but his attempts to inject light humor into a serious role is just out of place. His style of humor is not generic, so he comes across as a watered down version of himself. The number 23 causes great grief and frustration to the people in the story, but the justification for this is never logical. At most it's just mildly interesting. Jim Carrey has far more ability in a serious role than this movie reveals. Don't waste your money seeing this in the theater. Rent this movie if you've had problems sleeping. If you are still wide awake after 10 minutes, then you liked it more than I did. I was not fond of the lighting and artistic aspects of the film making either. A lot of passive visual eye candy was thrown at the viewer with lighting or effects and it did little to enhance the already weak story.


Apparently, a massive head wound is the cure for homicidal tendencies, turning a murderous sociopath into a lovable and oafish dog catcher. Also (this ones for the ladies), it seems that the front gate of a psychiatric hospital is an overlooked hot spot for meeting potential mates. Those are just two of the approximately 23 absurdities we're supposed to accept for this movie to have any meaning. I love movies and I believed, as I'm assuming many Americans do (forgive me if I'm wrong), that Hollywood turned out the best product. I've come to learn how sadly naive and brainwashed I was and 2) how much more sophisticated European/Asian Cinema is in comparison to its American counterpart.

I watched this allegedly disturbing psychological "thriller" the night following a viewing of a Japanese movie called Suicide Club. As the camera faded on Walter Sparrow's happy little family enjoying some quality time around a prison visiting room table (not to mention the patronizing voice-over extolling the virtue of "doing the right thing"), I suddenly had an epiphany. I had just finished watching a movie that left me feeling as though I'd just had a glass of water when I really wanted a beer. My thirst was sated, but it was strictly utilitarian. The premise was mildly interesting, but the story itself, with its innumerable "coincidences" (How do we explain her finding the book? We'll just say something like,"...Or did the book find her?." They'll buy that), gaping plot holes (why did wifey take the skeleton?), predictability, and obligatory happy ending, turned out to be just another Hollywood hack job. Additionally, the casting of Jim Carrey was justwrong. At any moment, I felt he was capable of breaking into some shtick from one of his stupid comedies or In Living Color. Jim Carrey as a tattooed hard-boiled police detective who enjoys bondage and rough sex? Didn't buy it for a second.

You want disturbing? Deeply disturbing? Watch Suicide Club. The story surrounds the mysterious mass suicide of 54 school girls. The film opens with a group of giggling high schoolers mulling about on a subway train platform. We then watch in horror as they line up, hold hands, and happily throw themselves in front of a fast moving commuter train. Needless to say, much chaos ensues. That's as far as I'm going to go with the story line because I encourage the reader to see the film. In fact, I'm not sure if I could outline the plot even if I wanted to. What begins as a straightforward mystery quickly descends into a madhouse of grotesque imagery. Did I understand the movie? Nonot initiallylike many of the foreign films my girlfriend has introduced me to. So naturally, I thought it was "bad." But this one lingered in my mind. I went to bed thinking on the film and awoke the next morning and looked it up on IMDb. I read some of the viewer comments and was astonished at 1) the insights others had derived from the film and 2) the fact that I had so thoroughly missed the whole point of the movie. I realized that I was so used to being spoon fed the "message" from Hollywood, that when confronted with a film that actually required the viewer to participateto actually think for themselves, I was totally unequipped. It's as if I had been conditioned to "check my brain at the door" of the theater.

Am I saying that Suicide Club is the greatest movie ever made? Of course not. It has its flaws, many of which were reported adroitly by the IMDb reviewers. Am I saying that all American movies are bad and all foreign movies are good? Againof course not. My point is that there's a whole world of film-making outside of Hollywooda body of work that engages the viewer; forces them to think and questionmovies that don't telegraph plot twists, follow a strict linear sequence, and above all, don't insult the intelligence of the person watching. I look forward to expanding my mind while exploring this new world of film that doesn't "do the thinking for me."


This is the most stupid movie ever made. The story is laughable. His wife and kid think he's insane. Then they don't. Then it turns out he is and I think they knew it all along. There is a dog named Ned that causes some problems and I think it's all his fault...so does Jim Carey. God only knows why Virginia Madsen took this role...this is a career sinker. I think the target audience for this is 11 and 12 year olds. And that adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for 8 and 10 years olds which also adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for really dumb 23 year olds. Or maybe really dumb 32 year olds because that's 23 in reverse. Or maybe 46 year olds would enjoy it because half of that is 23. I think looking up things on the internet about the number 23 would be more entertaining than this movie, unless you wanted to see a comedy.


"Fate" leads Walter Sparrow to come in possession of a mysterious novel that has eerie similarities and connections to his life, all based around the number 23. As the story unfolds in real life and fiction, Sparrow must figure out his connection to the book and how the story will eventually end.

The Number 23 offers an intriguing premise that is undone by a weak execution. The film just failed on many different levels which is pretty disappointing because it held so much potential. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was filled with silly sequences and laughable dialog that just killed the mood of the movie. It seemed like the screenwriter had a good idea, he just didn't know how to develop it to stretch over a ninety minute running time. The second half of the film was running low on ideas, the twist was pretty obvious and the ending was awful.

Joel Schumacher is responsible for one of the worst movies ever and he did redeem himself a little with Phone Booth and a few other films but The Number 23 reminds me that he's still capable of making a stinker. He has the movie drenched in style but he just can't get a good focus. He moves the film at a clunky and slow pace. He switches from reality to what's actually happening in the book which quickly got annoying. The actual book in the film that's titled "The Number 23" is an awful detective story and the audience gets stuck listening to Carrey narrate it which just bored me to tears. When Carrey is finally done with book, we get stuck watching him run around trying to solve the mystery. At this point, the audience has lost interest and there is no real tension. We impatiently wait for the movie to reach it's horrible ending and unconvincing explanation before celebrating that film has finally finished.

The acting was mostly average and pretty forgettable. Jim Carrey was clearly just sleepwalking through his performance and he didn't even seem to be trying. He was either completely over the top in some scenes or just very wooden. His narration was a complete bore to listen to and he put no life inside his character. Virginia Madsen did the best she could with a limited role but she needs to pick better scripts. Logan Lerman was pretty bland as was Danny Huston. Overall, The Number 23 was an awful thriller that offered more laughs than suspense or thrills. Rating 3/10


The Good

Carrey is good actor and he proved it in "Man on the Moon" and in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". But hey, what can an actor do without good story and proper directing. He can do "Number 23".

The Bad

Joel Schumacher is poor, overrated director and he proved it in almost every movie he made. What he did with Batman is just disaster, but probably Batman movies supposed to look good. Well, they didn't. Instead of Gothic and macabre we got Disneyland. Sure "Falling Down" was great but can You ruin the film with Robert Duvall and Michael Douglas AND with excellent script? No You can't.

And so good actor and poor director finally met and made "Number 23"...

The Ugly (23)

I know that it's stupid to begin with but... Fingerling's subplot (almost half of this movie) looks exactly like intro to another chapter of Max Payne2. VoiceOvers, quality of detective story itself, quality of the characters, even colors, mood and music, editing, and sound mix too! Perhaps it works for the game, but surely it doesn't in the cinema.

Mise en scene is so bad that it becomes funny. It's not even annoying. Carrey reads walking down the stairs in park? Why? Is it natural? No, but it looks good. Why Suicide Blond covered walls in her apartment with white paper? If she just wanted to kill herself? There is no logic in that, but still it looks good. Guess what it, it doesn't look good at all. It looks unnatural instead.

All female characters are Flat. Why is that so? Who cares, let's go on with the story.

Who is this Fingerling? Private eye on the suicide? Hardly believable.

Scenes when Walter Sparrow is arguing with his wife about weather book is really about him could be the best part of this movie. Instead we get Moulder/Scully routine. Disappointment.

Interiors has no sign of people living in them, except the significant objects (shoes, photos etc.) Hard luck.

Dialogs ain't that bad. But what about V.O.? Well that's another story. "There's no such thing as destiny. There are only different choices". Captain obvious to the rescue! "Number was coming after Fingerling. And now it was coming after me". Cliché. And so on.

It's obvious that average housewife would break into public building in the middle of the night. Successfully and undisturbed.

The subplot of the dog dragging main character to the graveyard. This is so old trick and so comfortable for writer, and that it should have been banned. I mean it!

Flashbacks and editing similar to "what happened in last episode of X-files" isn't the best way to present the most interesting part of the movie. Is it?

I wish I could say that this story deserves a better fate, but it doesn't. It makes no sense. Told in chronological order is weak and unbelievable. All the time we have undeveloped characters trapped is chain of situations which are nothing but badly written fiction. This could be fun, but - since whole movie is dead serious - it isn't. To many coincidences is just bad for every story. And the "mystery"? It's predictable and easy to guess.

Losing touch with reality is great theme for good movie, but I never saw any of that in Hollywood's productions. If You're interested in the subject just watch "Repulsion" by Polanski or something by David Cronenberg, "Spider" or "A History Of Violence" both of that movies deals with similar problems that "Number 23" wanted to show. Wanted, but failed.


** out of **** stars

Let's see...14 divided by 20 times the square root of 13 equals 23, which was my departed grandmother's favorite number and the year she was born, 23 minutes past the 23rd hour. Assign the number any way you choose and ooh be very scared. Be EXTREMELY scared when you throw in a brain-dead looking mutt to go with 23, and you have Schumacher's latest attempt at a dark suspense fest with The Number 23. Oh yeah, 23 is also my record in Cuervo shots at my favorite dive on 23rd street in the 23rd state in the union.

Carrey carries the film to about it's halfway point, then we lose sight of him, not caring much. Don't look for any crazy expressions to come from the comedian Carrey, as you have seen in The Mask and Me, Myself and Irene. No. And don't expect an embodiment of a character as he did with Andy Kaufman. This role is a sad and peculiar devolvement for Jimbo. Where's The Riddler when you need him! I know, we don't need him. Virginia Madsen, like usual, is underused as the supportive, speculative and peculiar wife. Her talent, like Carrey's, is suppressed, and it's almost painful to watch her try to rescue her underdeveloped character from near anonymity.

To give credit where credit is due, there are a couple of interesting scenes in The Number 23 that showcase some very crafty cinematography. They are arresting enough on their own without having to be convoluted within the incoherent narrative of this silly story.

I don't know about you, (and I realize this is a work of absolute fiction) but I don't know of anyone who often reads his novel in a dank, dark basement, or spends his time at graveyards on a regular basis like Carrey does in this movie. Schumacher keeps his film dark and blood-red and gloomy and rainy and smoggy and gloomy and rainy and dank and on and on and on from beginning to end. Even Flatliners and The Lost Boys had a little more daylight in them, and we're talking about medical students obsessed with death and teenage vampires!

If you feel like watching this film, even if it's out of mere curiosity...make sure you do it while enjoying about 23 catnaps, that way you can kill 23 birds with one stone.


What the hell was this? I'll admit there were some scenes that caught my eye such as the 23 bullshit where the protagonist sees or calculates the number 23 everywhere he goes, but that was pretty much the movie in a nutshell?! For crying out loud this was supposed to be a suspense movie and being labeled as a psychological thriller I would have expected it to have at least some catastrophic effect on the mind but instead what did we get? We just got something as shitty as an animal control guy finding himself in the middle of a mid-life crisis and his journey to redemption. Kinda like an old-man flick if you ask me. I probably should have just rented Wild Hogs, it wouldn't have made a difference. I mean who are we kidding, they should have made someone else the killer of that girl. By juxtaposing Sparrow with the protagonist of that book The number 23 they were pretty much giving out the movie to the viewers by hinting that he was the killer all along. How would that have shaken our heads? Shame on all of you voters who chose to show some generosity towards this wretched piece of work you call a movie and kudos to most of the critics who concurred with my reaction.