Here in Australia Nights in Rodanthe is being promoted in the same class as the Notebook. Quite frankly what a lot of rot.

This film is a like a recipe. On paper we have all the right ingredients... Richard Gere normally perfect in this genre, Diane Lane an old favourite from "Under Tuscan Sun" and "Unfaithful", ocean side location, solitude and yet the movie sucks. At the session we went to yesterday afternoon a women next to my wife fell asleep and half way through the movie got up and left! The main problem is there is no build up or credibility to the relationship in the first place. And perhaps there are too many long faces and downbeat if you like histories that Gere and Lane's characters bring to the movie. There's hours of those balanced out with perhaps 5 minutes of what we can to see... romance! There's no warmth from Gere's character, Lane looks dreadful at the start of the movie and all washed out. So as the viewer we cannot really connect to the characters.

Others here say the book is great. Well be it the screenplay, direction or production someone here has made a real mess of this movie. It's like the scenes and the buildup are a deck of cards except instead of being in the correct order they've just been thrown together all over the place.

Very disappointing... save your money for when it hits the video shops and even then wait for a good deal when it goes to the weekly rate.


This is one of the more unromantic movies I have ever seen.

Casting: Richard Gere is just too old looking for romantic lead roles anymore. Diane looks a bit eager to please and frowning as usual but she seems unconvinced by the romance herself. Supporting cast not too memorable.

Story: The medical drama he has to deal with is unconvincing and is not interesting. The story is weak - not enough happens to make a movie about. There is nothing new to say or no new way to say it here.

The setting is a little bleak and the house it is set in is unattractive.

NOT destined to be a great one to remember.


While I am not a woman, I can enjoy a chick flick if its good. This one however is beyond bad. You have the by the book story, girl is getting divorced, boy with issues shows up. BOOM magic happens and his demons are banished as she realizes her life has a new purpose.

Now while I can believe that kind of thing might happen, I am not an idiot. It wouldn't happen over a weekend of geriatric rumpy-pumpy, it would take time. Yet here the producers know they only have 1 hour and 30 minutes so they force the changes of the two to happen, I suppose a night of getting hammered and a night of gramps and granny going at it like dogs in heat might be enough if you believed romance novels were the gospel... but most people don't.

Now, if that isn't enough... the producers remembered that a chick flick needs to make the viewer cry... well they tried to make you cry with the two senior citizens getting jiggy with it by failed... so how could they hit you again? Why I know, lets kill off one of the characters for no good reason at all except that a random death will surely bring a tear to the eye.... and now lets have the teen daughter magically bond with heart broken mom for no reason besides the fact that it would be nice (completely unreal, but who cares).

So there you have it... girl find boy, boy find love, death finds boy and mom cries.... what a movie - NOT.


Lonely, disconnected, middle-class housewife in the midst of a divorce seeks solace to reflect on her immediate future. At some sort of bed and breakfast by (well, literally in the sea) the ocean that for some sort of odd reason she subs for the owner. Enter lonely, arrogant Richard Gere. He is a plastic surgeon. He is the only guest at the inn in the sea. Diane Lane is the lonely housewife. You'll never guess these two fall immediately in love. A tropical storm makes them true lovers.

The subplots in this melodrama make little or no sense. The locations, photography are fine. Gere remains one of the most over-rated actors in cinema and does not disappoint. Ms. Lane must've needed the money, but phones in her part with grace.


I had high hopes for this film, even though I had not read the book. Richard Gere and Diane Lane together--should be good already. But the film does not deliver on the promise. I kept waiting for more depth to the characters and there wasn't. I have no problem with the fact that it only took a weekend for them to fall in love. That can happen. But we never really get to know the characters. I would have liked more focus on them. The film reminded me in places of Bridges of Madison County, and that film was far better. I really felt for the characters in that film, and there was a chemistry (much more passion) between Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep that there wasn't between Gere and Lane. Each of them are very good actors in his or her own right. Simply not the right movie for them together.


Not quite a bomb? The only thing missing was the enriched uranium. Actually the script "may" have worked if the lead roles had been cast with younger actors, but the dramatics of an aging Diane Lane acting as if she was a teenager (or even a twenty-something) was too much to stomach. Every time she (Adrienne) would jump into the arms of Richard Gere and then pull both heels up behind her, you could almost see the grimace of pain on his face as he was probably thinking, "Oh, my aching back...this babe sure doesn't weight 125 lbs. anymore!" Anyway, both characters were distinctly unlikeable, especially Richard Gere's: a self absorbed plastic surgeon (Dr. Paul Flanner) that was on some kind of "soul quest" after a botched operation left him with a dead patient (an older woman from a small farm). Then there was her angry husband and son he had to deal with to explain what happened. Dr. Flanner is on his way to meet said angry husband (at the husband's request) when he meets up with Adrienne. She is recently split from her unfaithful husband (shock) and is helping out a friend by watching her beach-front cottage rental. Of course, that's where Dr. Flanner ends up staying and they both end up falling MADLY in love (especially after she finds out he is a rich doctor AND a plastic surgeon). In between romantic interludes and a nauseating song/dance routine that Lane (Adrienne) performs while listening to an old LP (no CD's?), they both try to figure how their lives got so totally screwed up. Dr. Flanner was also not much of a father and has a son (who is also a Dr.) who resents him for not being there for him while he was growing up. (Naturally Dr. Flanner was more interested in his medical career at the time rather than raising an impetuous, distracting boy.) To make a long (predictable) story short, Adrienne helps Dr. Flanner face his inner demons as well as confront said angry husband and son of the woman who died on his operating table (after going in for a "routine" cyst removal of the face). Dr. Flanner is FINALLY able to tell the husband (played excruciatingly sympathetic by Scott Glenn) that he is sorry for what happened - even though it was all the fault of that danged anesthesiologist. "I told him she was too old for that much juice!" Glenn's character,(Robert Torrelson) appears to accept Dr. Flanner's apology. It's hard to tell because his emotional response is so passive by this time that you wonder if if he is even hearing the good Dr. at all or thinking about some acreage that he needs to plow. Ever more circumspect, Dr. Flanner then decides he needs to visit his son (who is now practicing medicine pro-bono in a third world country) to mend their relationship. Unfortunately, that means he must temporarily bid adieu to Adrienne. Of course, while entertaining the natives in Timbuktu, he writes a love letter every hour on the hour to Adrienne (who nearly swoons like a school girl every time she gets one) and tells her that the hardest thing he ever had to do was to tell her goodbye. Evidently, apologizing to Robert Torrelson for his wife's death was the second hardest thing. In the end he gets killed in a freak mud slide (poetic justice as in mud pack?) and she is left with just the memories of what could have been...hopefully no more Gere/Lane sequels!


*Warning: 1 tiny inconsequential spoiler* You're right. This was no Bridges of Madison County. As soon as the lonely woman and Richard Gere checked into the big empty hotel, it was a foregone conclusion something kind of fun would happen. The question is: how will it come about? The answer is some stupid connect-the-dots story not worth sitting through. In one supposed bonding experience, they get drunk and clean out the cupboard of old cans.(That was my spoiler.) And the next day they put them back. LOL It wasn't compelling AT ALL. I'm an old married lady like the one in the movie and MY friendships are more interesting than HER romance with Richard Gere. LOL . . . It did have that advantage. You walk away and go, oh brother . . . even I could have written something more believable than that. I guess my life isn't quite as dull as I thought it was if I can scoff at a romance with Richard Gere. LOL! And that friend inherited that totally contemporary, probably computer-generated mansion, resting half in the ocean, from her GRANDMOTHER who built it AFTER THE CIVIL WAR??? Maybe her grandmother is Oprah and this was WAY after the Civil War? And yes, WHERE WAS THE EMAIL? What alternative universe do these people live in? I never want to see another movie that pretends we don't have email, and facebook,and texting. And OK, maybe these people have a horrible aversion to delivering news over the phone, but don't ask me to believe anyone in this age of instant communication that someone just drops into your life without calling first.


We thought this was one of the worst movies ever. I had to volunteer to watch the end. The romance was not believable; the characters were not developed; the love affair made hardly any sense; it was miscast; and scenery was absolutely stupid because it was either (my opinion) like the ADAMS FAMILY GOES ON VACATION...just creepy, gypsy and cheesy; and the OUTERBANKS does not look typically like those houses on the surf; and who would spend the night in one during a hurricane if it was not theirs. Also..it was not realistic. hurrricanes give you plenty of notice to batten down the hatches.

Also the friend was superfluous; and did not match the story What did the civil war have to do with the outerbanks anyway? I also have to mention the wardrobe...did D. Lane have to have a scarf/pashmina/shawl on in every scene? It was overdone. She looked good enough to not have to hide things; without making them obvious like with light slacks.

Lastly I am concerned with the impact on our landfills when everyone has to dispose of this stupid, and I mean STUPID movie!!!! Don't fall for the hype on this one!!!!!! We did. Not even watchable.


This movie is the final straw. As two dedicated fans of the romantic comedy, this movie has finally made us realise that nothing good has come out of this genre since Love Actually. There was nothing good about the film whatsoever. It was an affront to love, death and everything in between. Including horses and beaches. There was absolutely no chemistry between the characters. This movie took the spark out of Nicholas Sparks. Diane Lane cannot act to save her life. She was unconvincing in her laugh, cry, and dance. And she needs a better haircut. There is no reason to watch this movie. Save yourself. The romantic comedy is officially dead.


Every great romantic comedy needs conflict between the romantic leads to lend suspense, anticipation and allure to the plot. This story falls completely flat in this area. There is no conflict - at least none that would inhibit the eventual joining of the two lead characters, and so suspense is flat, there is no anticipation, and there really is no allure at all.

The chemistry between Richard Gere and Diane Lane is representative of friendship at best, and with the talent of these two particular actors, I was quite surprised. During the movie, I expected them more to play a game of checkers and chat about the weather than see any moving passion.

While I'm a fan of both actors, I do believe that the casting in this movie was off - or, perhaps the direction was off-base and it impacted their deliveries. The writing was very weak, which also might have impacted the performances; most certainly, the script could have used some help from some Harlequin writers who have real experience putting the heat in romance.

This movie may be worth watching on a rainy Sunday afternoon, but only after it's on the cheap shelf.

(Sorry Diane Ladd and Richard Gere).


This is probably the most uninvolving film I've ever seen. I watched it because I have a soft spot for Leon (everything else Besson has done has been just awful, in my opinion, with the exception of the script for Wasabi) and Jean Reno. It's a testament to just how bad this film is that Reno, one of the most charismatic and effortlessly affable actors (admittedly he's just starting out here) can't make this film, or the moments in which he is on screen, watchable.

It's all very film-schooly: black and white, no dialogue, people doing things for no apparent reason, people chasing each other while in turn being chased by a shaky camera. And, predictably, none of it is entertaining.

It's not a "French Mad Max" as some people have claimed (actually, I think they mean "Mad Max 2") - that is a superficial comparison based only on the fact that both films have a post-apocalyptic setting, and is just the kind of comment you'd expect from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Mad Max 2 was pulsating, Mad Max 2 was exciting, Mad Max 2 was worth your time - Le Dernier Combat is none of these.

I know it's supposed to be cool to like arty black-and-white French films and equally cool to say you saw something in them that other people did not (or you managed to sit through it without feeling drowsy), which is why I wouldn't trust anyone who claims to like Le Dernier Combat, because I see nothing of worth in it whatsoever; it asks for so much and gives nothing back. I found myself drifting from it after about five minutes and it never did anything to regain my full attention. Anyone who can sit through it undistracted isn't human, or, at the very most, is psychotic. (Actually, they're probably just trying to seem "cool").


Lame B-horror that takes itself too damn seriously considering its subject matter concerns an aging old dear who has been turned into a creature of the night by a lodger who has come to rent a room from her. When said lodger is killed off, Mom has to go out to feed on her own and that causes some family strain and also garners some attention from the authorities.

My main complaint is that this film should have brought THE FUNNY. It failed to do so although it did have some mild gore and schlocky creature makeup effects to keep the B-movie crowd happy. I've seen worse but I wouldn't give this one a rec--4.5/10.


Mom begins at night in the middle of nowhere, at what looks like a wooden building in the desert. A pick-up truck pulls up & an angry Father chucks his slutty daughter Virginia Monroe (Claudia Christian) out & leaves her there, but she isn't alone as the shadowy figure of Nestor Duvalier (Brion James) watches her from a short distance. Virginia tries to make conversation but as she grinds a cigarette out under her Leopard print, thigh high, high heeled boots Nestor grabs her by her throat & drags her off into the darkness. Nestor then rips her top open, turns into a monster & starts to eat her innards. Virginia is the latest victim of a serial killer that have Lieutenant Carlo Hendrix (Art Evans) & the LAPD baffled, or at least that's the message a local TV news reporter named Clay Dwyer (Mark Thomas MIller) is telling his viewers. Clay is happily living with his pregnant girlfriend Alice (Mary Beth McDonough) & therefore his Mother Emily (Jeanne Bates) has a spare room going which she decides to rent out to the 'blind' dark sunglass wearing Nestor. Unfortunately for Emily she accidentally knocks Nestor's sunglasses off which reveal he has strange coloured eyes, Nestor then turns into a monster again & bites Emily turning her into a flesh-eating monster just like himself. Nestor takes Emily out to train her, they find a suitable homeless bum (Rory VanSaint), murder him & eat his guts but Emily's son Clay has witnessed the whole thing & he must choose between doing what is right & his love for his Mother who now just happens to be a grotesque bloodsucking & flesh-eating monster!

Edited, written & directed by Patrick Rand I thought Mom was a pretty awful film. Looking at some of the other comments on the IMDb & the genre listing it has been given it appears many seem to think that Mom is a comedy horror. Well I can tell you now that I didn't see any comedic elements in Mom at all because there aren't any, unless they are very subtle. The only thing that I can assume is that people see comedy in the actual situation which Mom presents, that being an old lady turning into a flesh-eating monster & the predictable problems & emotional angst that it causes to her son who finds out. There are no jokes (apart from naming a prostitute Beverly Hills (Stella Stevens)), slapstick humour or anything even remotely funny in the film itself & as far as I could see it is played totally straight throughout it's 90 minute run time. So with there being no comedy in Mom that must mean there's lots of horror right? Wrong, Mom sucks & is painfully slow to watch especially after the first thirty odd minutes which consist of Nestor turning into a monster a couple of times, biting Emily, showing her how to hunt for food & Clay finding out. Until this point Mom was moving at a fairly decent pace, had some OK special make-up effects & had me interested, unfortunately Mom runs for another hour which is basically the emotional crap suffered by Emily's Son, the eventual breakdown of his marriage & him being torn between love for his Mother & the fact that she's a flesh-eating monster. This part of the film is incredibly slow, boring & as dull as dishwater even having the nerve to resort to a clichéd role-reversal scenario where Clay tells his Mom to go to her room & stay there locking the door behind her, telling her off & putting bars over her window so she can't escape her room. Mom's script totally ignores the monsters origins & ask's us to just accept that this thing exists without giving a single reason why we should, no matter how silly an explanation might have been I think some background to the monster would have helped. Technically Mom is bland & cheap looking, although I can't say it's badly made it's very average stuff all the way with nothing that particularly impresses or anything with which I could make fun of to pass the time. The special make-up effect's on the monster are OK but their used in very quick flashes, blink & you'll miss them. Don't be fooled by any fancy video box artwork like I was, the monster is only in it three times maximum & all of those are within the pacey first thirty minutes. There isn't much gore either, a severed arm, some brief intestine eating, a burnt body & a drill in someone's arm is all we get. The acting is OK but please Mr. Brion James what is that dodgy accent all about!? At least James had the good sense to know he was in crap & sensibly opted to be killed off early on in the proceedings, everyone else are nobodies expect the black Lieutenant who was also a black police officer in Fright Night (1985) but you may recognise him from Die Hard 2 (1990), he made Mom & Die Hard 2 in the same year?! Talk about opposite ends of the spectrum! Overall there is nothing by which I can really recommend Mom as a horror film & it certainly isn't a comedy as far as I'm concerned. Very poor, very disappointing & yet again I've been conned by fancy video-box artwork with lots of stills of cool looking monsters. Definitely one to avoid.


This movie has to be one of the most boring and stupid movies that Perrugorria have done.

It looks like a commercial from beginning to end. The ¨director¨spent the whole time on a tripod, it doesn't have pace, rhythm. It's illogical. what a mess. You can tell what's gonna happen since the first 15 minutes, and the ending...Wow

------spoiler-------

Jesus Christ, how the hell Perrugorria got shot? Are you serious? Worst scene of someone getting shot ever!

------end of spoiler-----

Bad directing, bad script, bad acting...Really bad overall. I wouldn't recommend this movie at all. It's a waste of money and time.


I have just seen Caribe a couple of nights ago at the annual Vistas Film Festival held here in Dallas, and I must express my discontent. The opening caption tries to tell us that the film is a portrayal of the current invasion of South American countries (Costa Rica, in this particular case) by North American oil companies, and the negative effects, both economic and environmental, of this invasion. The main characters are a married couple who live a simple, pleasant life maintaining a banana farm. Right away, a woman arrives and announces that she is the wife's half-sister. I'm not going to go into specifics about this (and to be honest, I don't feel that I'm spoiling anything with this review), yet another key point is that the company to whom they distribute their bananas drops them due to budget demands in a poor economy. So, the main conflict that is supposed to be addressed in the movie is of the husband between the rock and the hard place, trying to preserve his livelihood. On one hand, the Reynolds oil company has basically offered him employment and financial compensation (basically a bribe) to use his public influence to encourage the town to allow the company to begin drilling in their town (compromising his standing with the community and the community itself). On the other hand, he is faced with being dead broke, but on the side of his community, protesting the drilling. Given the length of this film, it would have been ample time to explore the issues just described, but it just doesn't happen, and I'll tell you why. You will notice that this film has won a couple of awards so far, one for direction and an audience award. I'm not going to pick apart Esteban's direction, it wasn't bad or good enough for me to be all that passionate about writing anything. The audience award was at a film festival in Spain, and for it to gain an audience award, I'd have to imagine that Spanish people just dig soap operas. In fact, Central and South America dig soap operas as well, I know that much. I assume that Esteban was either aiming to take advantage of this or that he himself digs soap operas, because that is what unfolds over the course of this film, so much to the point that it kicks the whole oil company plot to the side, almost as if they imagined halfway through the making of this film that it had become tiresome, because it seems like at least three of the supporting characters have had their back story and character development severely compromised to make room for more sex and crying scenes. The only true villain in the movie is one of these three characters, and at no point do you actually get to find out who the hell he is. It's almost as if they cut his screen time just short of taking him out of the film entirely. From time to time, they toy with the oil against community plot, but these are digressions at best. What we see a lot more of are scenes of passion, jealousy, betrayal, adultery, etc. These themes saturate the story to such a degree that the oil company 'sub'plot becomes unnecessary. It's almost as if this was a stunt to legitimize a romantic drama (soap opera) by throwing in a little political relevance. Nevertheless, the film gets so caught up in the romance that it ultimately doesn't know what to do with itself, resulting in an ending so tacked on that you're left wondering what it is that you've been waiting around for, or if there was ever anything to begin with. Here are two things that I think could have saved this movie: either cut out the half-sister or cut out the oil company. It's obvious which one of the two they were more interested in. Or, perhaps if Caribe had been an hour longer, they could have worked this all out. Regardless, I'd have been fine with a straight-up soap opera and I think that the subject of oil companies exploiting foreign nations is in dire need of addressing by the film community. Caribe is both and neither. These two angles could have worked together had they been balanced accordingly, but with a romantic plot running around in circles and taking up almost twice as much time as necessary at the expense of an oil plot that's barely been established to begin with, both sides suffer. Best of all, the romance plot is never even resolved. I'd like to say I'd watch this movie again to see what I've missed, but I have a strong feeling that I already know what it is. As far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't matter if I saw Caribe ten more times. I've missed it because it is simply not there.


This movie was produced by the biggest producer in Costa Rica. Although their authors brag about it as a the biggest movie in Costa Rica ever made and their actors even dare to say that they didn't get an Oscar Nomination due to it's political relevance with oil (-he he, right) ...Well, this is all a lie. This movie was supposedly based on a book written by Carlos Salazar Herrera about a love triangle (super cliché soap opera-like subject) and it secondary story is about an oil problem on the Atlantic Coast of Costa Rica with an American oil company who wanted to explore oil deposits on the region, but at the end it never was approved by the government. Now, it may have some nice footage about the beaches, but that's it; nothing bigger than that... it is all in the camera. Most of the actors are lousy, except for two or three. The rest lack of sense of what acting means: they overact most of the time. The story is completely common and cliché, worthy of a cheap Mexican soap opera as I said.. because the crew advertised it as a protest movie about oil, but 80% of the movie is based on a stupid love triangle. The script is nothing impressing, it is very simple and the dialogs are not very thought. It has also got some editing problem on a couple of scene changes... but besides that is pretty decent. The director did an alright job, I mean, he is not like an Oliver Stone,but he did his job with the resources he had handy. I would like to question him why instead of using Costarican actor he spent most of the money on foreign ones.. I mean after all they bragged about being an 100% Costarican Production... that's what you at least expect. Final the end is is not well done, there are flaws and details that don't match or are useless. Besides being the most elaborated movie in all Costarican history, I think it's mediocre. You can make way more interesting and better pictures with less cash. Never heard of "Pi"? Anyway, if you are curious about Costa Rican or Central American movies, this one will do, but you are definitively not missing anything.


I happened to catch this movie on late night TV. I saw the opening credits and thought this looks good. Well I was very wrong. While not excruciatingly bad (it had some funny and tender moments)it lacked any sense of cohesion.

It started off well enough with Kathy Bates'character having a midlife crisis of sorts when her husband leaves her and her singing idol is murdered. But Kathy has played these disaffected women so well before - think Fried Green Tomatoes. The problem wasn't Kathy, it was the clueless screenplay that wandered all over the place. It was as if the writers must have been thinking what will we do next. The script also felt very contrived.

Some others who have posted comments on this movie have wondered why it didn't receive a cinematic release. The main reason I think would have been to avoid embarrassment and the critics would have murdered it.

Having said all that I thought the small woman who played Maudie was fantastic and stole the movie, not to mention how beautiful she is.


Opening with some blatantly reused footage from 'Kit for Cat', 'Tweety's S.O.S' fails to live up to that classic cartoon. Instead, we get an example of Friz Freleng's Tweety and Sylvester series at its most generic. Unlike Chuck Jones's Road Runner series, which strived to introduce new jokes to the same setting, Freleng's series seemed happy enough to recycle jokes as long as the characters were in a different place. 'Tweety's S.O.S', then, basically amounts to "this time let's put 'em on a boat". It's not an entirely weak cartoon. There are a few good jokes, mostly involving Granny's glasses, but they are outweighed by gags you can see coming a mile off (the seasickness routine) and it all builds to another of those endings where someone else other than Tweety says "I tawt I taw a putty tat", a joke that worked well once but has diminishing returns. 'Tweety's S.O.S' will probably please children who enjoy virtually any cartoon but for big kids like me who are looking for more than the same tired gags it's definitely one to avoid.


Sylvester the cat stowaway upon a ship that Tweety bird happens to be on with his owner Granny. Oh I don't even have enough words to convey how much I disdain both the Tweety and Granny characters. They simply are not funny to me and made this short quite the chore to sit through indeed. Sylvester is a great character on his own, but there's only so much he can do when confronted by the sheer awfulness of that accursed bid and senile old witch of a Granny. This animated short can be found on disc 4 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1 and features an optional commentary by Micheal Barrier.

My Grade: D+


Nothing special to see here, the animation has being outdated and the plot is a typical futuristic era. This film has an original story, but if it doesn't have an original plot or characters, so in my opinion it's not worth seeing. I'm not saying that the movie was bad, it was just a typical anime story and I thought I watched this movie like a thousand times. So if you are looking for something original see another thing.


I had the misfortune of seeing this crapulous effort on television a few years ago. Suffice it to say Michael Gross phones in his performance, and Hasselhoff is the least convincing thief/psycho...EVER! If you have a couple of hours to kill, watch it and prepare to laugh.


"The Duke" is a film based in the heart of the British aristocracy where an old Duke (John Neville) dies and to avoid his large property and the vast riches to be taken from him after death by 2 devious aristocrats (Oliver Muirhead and Sophie Heyman); he passes his Dukeship down to his dog. The dog's "best friend", an American girl named Charlotte (played by Courtnee Draper) whose parents die becomes orphaned by the former Duke due to him being her great uncle. A young chef named Florian arrives, with him and Charlotte instantly connecting creating a romantic sub-plot which in its own way, acts as the under tone for the main plot line being the activities of Hubert, The 'Duke' and his many activities and love interests with other dogs. All this is watched over by James Doohan who plays a Butler who is determined to try and serve his old Duke by doing his best to serve his new master, Hubert. Doohan acts as the older character there to comfort and advise the younger ones whilst he over looks and performs various ridiculous tasks under his new master. A fine comedic performance mixed with elements of drama to end the career of a fine and influential actor.

Though from the technical viewpoint, I dislike this film as I only watched upon discovering James Doohan's role. Though the plot is good, elements of the writing and directing have to be obscured. Ignoring the absurdity of a "Doggie Duke", I personally dislike the over use of comedic and outrageous jokes upon the 'bad' characters due to their ludicrousness. The dependence on hygiene related humour as you like is much too apparent and general silliness of many characters doesn't appeal to me. The director, Phillip Spink uses mid-long shots too often with either an overdubbed voice or affecting the overall sound quality. Plus, the acting of Muirhead and Heyman, whilst good at the dramatic and romantic sequences, fall drastically short fulfilling the wholesale requirements regarding the role.

But, as a mature movie fan, I find it easy to be over critical of a simple family film designed to make you laugh. I can admit I found certain bits funny and other bits touching along with a plot that may be far-fetched, but has definite connections. I do not recommend this film to mature movie fans but I do highly recommend it to Dog lovers, families who wish to enjoy a funny film for their child and James Doohan fans who wish to see 'Scotty' in his final role.


Even those of us who like cute animal pictures --- and I abhor them ---would be hard pressed to find any merit in this abysmally bad travesty of a film. Perhaps inspired by "101 Dalmatians" with its smart and loyal dogs, its dumb and devious humans and its absurdly "happy" and predictable ending, the alternate title "101 Turkeys" springs to mind. That would just about cover everyone involved in its unfortunate production. I dismissed it as some inane Hollywood perversion of British customs before learning, to my horror, that it actually is a Canadian film, done in Victoria BC, that phony British theme park of a town, while sucking tax dollars out of Ottawa ON, that equally phony pit of Canadian mediocrity. Let me count the ways it is bad. The dizzy plot? The asinine script? The dismal performances and sophomoric direction? The cloyingly clever animals? The endless clichés and predictable slapstick? On second thought, neither I nor those browsing the IMDb have time for a complete catalogue of its failings. Yet were I to detail its merits, this space would remain blank. Trust me, it is bad; a signal monument in the vast pantheon of truly terrible (Canadian) cinema. If you have seen it already, my condolences. If you have not, stay away from it as you would SARS or bubonic plague. Or other movies with cute animals. Don't even let your children see it lest their tiny minds be warped by the even tinier minds of those who financed, fabricated and filmed this frightful folly. Perhaps tonight, when I retire, I will have a nightmare with ghastly fanged beasts springing from the bed table as I flee in frantic flight. I hope so. It will be a far far better thing I do than watch this beastly banal boondoggle. But then, I might dream that I had to watch it a second time and the sheer terror and cold sweat of that makes me want to stay up all night, trembling at the very possibility of seeing it again even as a bad dream. I might even find something worthwhile to watch in its stead. Maybe "Godzilla" or "Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes" Perhaps the instruction video for my built in vacuum cleaner.


Okay, now I am pretty sure that my summary got your attention and my commenting that Zazu Pitts is Satan is not without some basis. Let me explain. The film at first appears to be a dandy B-movie about an evil organization called "the Crooked Circle" and their vow of revenge in the form of murder on a rival organization dedicated to solving crimes. While this is very odd (especially the idea of a club of private citizens who solve crimes) and COULD have been interesting, this film falls apart despite a rather impressive list of familiar supporting actors. Why? Well because Zazu Pitts (never one of my favorite actresses) spends most of the movie whining just like Olive Oyl with a bad toothache!! While murders are being committed, people are being kidnapped or whatever, you can always count on Zazu whining at full volume--almost like someone's obnoxious 3 year-old who wants everyone at a party to pay attention to her! At the same time, she's NOT an integral part of the film but received top billing. Why she is even there is beyond me--I assume it's just to whine and yell. As a result, I found the movie practically unwatchable and it was completely ruined. Now you probably know why I referred to this actress of dubious talent as "Satan"! I'm sure that when the actors in this film saw the final product, they, too, felt pretty much the same way I did about her horrible overacting and amateurish performance.

This film is in the public domain and can be found for free download on the internet. I can see why.


Spike Milligan was one of the funniest men I've ever seen, and a huge influence on my life.

This movie is limp and awful, and does his memory no credit. The script is cluttered and preserves too many lines from the book intact (the leg jokes here are incomprehensible). The actors' performances are uniformly ineffective, a great cast wasted, and the lead, Sean Hughes, delivers Milligan's belligerent hostilities in a plaintive whine, which misses the point completely.

The gentle pacing is a killer as well. Farce should accelerate towards the end. The Goon Shows often did, the novel "Puckoon" definitely did, but this film, if anything, slows down just when you want the various elements to smash together in a final climax.

Milligan narrated an abridged audio recording of "Puckoon" in 1980, with T.P. McKenna, Dermot Kelly, Norma Ronald and Jack Hobbs. Now, that's funny. Ten minutes of that is funnier than this whole film. I believe the LP was transferred to CD, but don't know if it's still in print.

There is a movie of "Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall" with Jim Dale and Arthur Lowe. It too is a godawful mess, but it's funnier than this thing.

It's possible that Milligan's spirit is too rambunctious for the screen. The other reviewers here are indulging in politeness and wishful thinking. This film fumbles virtually every opportunity and never misses a chance to disappoint.


technically, this movie would have had it all: decent actors, a nice landscape, no obvious sights of a lack of budget, a celebrity like richard attenborough. the plot summary also sounded promising, suggesting a satire on silly bureaucracy and common people outwitting it.

however, it never delivers. the plot is simply too illogical. throughout the whole movie, not one person does a single sensible thing. mad politicians, ridiculous soldiers, brain-dead villagers - all just hustle from one incredible situation to the next. what they all do never makes sense in a context beyond the current scene.

of course, this kind of movie has to be absurd and exaggerated. however, it's also supposed to have at least one instance to point out the madness behind splitting a city in the middle. actually, there are (at least) two attempts, which unfortunately fail: the main character, who doesn't seem to have a clue about what's happening to him, and the "writer", who occasionally cracks jokes from the off that might be considered funny by an audience consisting solely of 12 year olds.

what i found most impressing is that the movie tries to be funny all the time, but didn't made me laugh once. i've seen several bad "funny" movies, but until yet every single one of them featured at least 2 or 3 good laughs. so in this sense, "puckoon" is really remarkable.

if you want to see a great movie with a comparable plot, check out "brazil". don't waste your time on "puckoon".


When I first looked at the back of the cover of this film, it seemed like me and my friends could be looking forward to 82 memorable minutes. And it certainly was memorable. Puckoon was the kind of movie where you keep asking yourself how this was possible. How it was possible that it was released on DVD at all. Out of all of the movies available at the video rental store that night...we might just have picked the worst. And yes, they had Tomb Raider. Absolutely nothing in this movie amused me even slightly. Who came up with the idea that it would be funny if the narrator could change the story by suggestions from the main character? Out of all the stupid things you can totally ruin a movie with, this is now my favourite. The character Foggerty, the village idiot, played by Nickolas Grace is the most annoying character since they started making movies in color. If there is one single movie that you definately not should see this year, please let it be Puckoon, cause I don't think it can be any worse. I still wonder if this just might have been the worst way I have spent my money, and take my word for that I have made many lousy purchases over the years.


This was a mish mash of a film that started out going nowhere, got lost on the way then suddenly found a plot in the last 5 minutes when the title character is FINALLY introduced. There were so many ugly, mutton-chopped guys in this film, I lost track of who was the owner and who were the overseers. I have a theory about the casting though; all the bad guys were played by ugly actors (and one ugly actress) and all the good guys/victims were played by beautiful actors. Indeed the actors who played the ultimate victims, the slaves, were gorgeous as was the innocent priest's daughter, while the plantation owner, his minipulative mistress and his overseers were pretty hard on the eyes. On purpose? You make the call.

I hung in there till the end and some others might be able to make it as well. If you just want to look at bare breasts, there are plenty of them here and if you have a slave/master fetish then you'll love this film. Otherwise, watch it once, vomit, shower and never speak of it to anyone.


The Italians are undeniable masters in the questionable "art" of ripping off and imitating movies. What they do is take an innovative, money-making and foreign concept, maintain the basic plot and just add a whole lot of action, sleaze and political incorrectness. But what to do when the non-Italian original is already a reputedly notorious film and quite difficult to surpass in terms of slop and controversy? Well then, I guess, you simply disregard everything in terms of story-building or stylishness and fully focus on making something that is practically a porno movie! This Italian turkey was inspired by Richard Fleischer's successful slavery-saga "Mandingo", released one year earlier, but since the makers were even too lazy to think up a different title, you shouldn't expect anything that even remotely resembles a narrative depth, character drawings, unsettling atmosphere or thought-provoking statements regarding cross cultural relationships. "MandingA" is pure and simply a sexploitation effort where the plot only develops itself throughout the last ten minutes, in other words when you stopped caring a long time ago already. The characters in this film are a gathering of despicable bastards, which is of course to expect when you're dealing with wealthy and obnoxious white folks running a plantation in South America. The elderly and supremely sleazy owner of the place is a widower (who probably also won a couple of "Moustache-of-the-Year" awards) who exploits and extendedly whips the slaves working for him. His mistress, who if I understood correctly is also his cousin (?), is a genuine bitch of a woman who enjoys provoking arguments and sneaks out of the house overnight to copulate with crucified slaves. When the plantation owner's son returns from Europe, after approximately 25 minutes of purely wasted running time, the plot slightly begin to develop itself at last. The handsome young man has sex with the bitchy woman a couple of times (even in front of the slaves, supposedly to "demonstrate" how their masters do it) but eventually he falls in love with the cherubic preacher's daughter. His romantic preference obviously makes the bitchy woman mad with anger, and she plots a horribly cruel act of vengeance that will alter life on the plantation forever. Hey  I just realized this brief description of the plot actually makes "Mandinga" sound like an interesting film! Well, it's NOT and I apologize if I raised anyone's anticipations. It's an incredibly boring and hideous film to struggle through, but if the themes appeal to you, then definitely check out the aforementioned "Mandingo". Much rather than sick exploitation, that film is a truly insightful portrait of one of mankind darkest history pages and it was also a properly produced film, with real actors, great music and impressive filming locations. "Mandinga" has nothing, absolutely nothing to offer.


Trading on the success of the 1975 hit, this film is a cheaply made story of a plantation where Massa gets down with the slave women, and the Missus gets down with the big black stud, and with massa'a son also. In fact, there is so much getting down going on, that I really don't know why anyone bothered to get dressed.

So, if you want to see white women rolling their naked bodies all over tied up slaves, or you just like a movie with tits on display every five minutes, then this one is for you.

There is a funny/sad story in here, but it only comes at the very end so as to not interfere with all the hot sweaty sex going on on the plantation.


Italian rip off of Mandingo and The Drum is a badly dubbed Italian life on the plantation yarn. Lots of people who don't look like they belong in the American South wear badly tailored costumes and wander around locations that look nothing like the American south. The plot has something about the romance between a rich man and a certain young woman, the jealousy that ensues and the tragedy that follows. The film promises hot steamy sex and lots of twisted violence but nothing ever really comes of any of it, its all tease. Its all probably racially insensitive, I couldn't notice since its artistically bankrupt. The final twist is at best laughable. A major turkey.


1st watched 3/17/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Mario Pinzauti): Silly, sex-filled master & slave having too many intimate relations movie. This movie seemed to care more about the sex than the story and kind of worked the story around the sex. Laughable dubbing of the original Italian language in the version I watched with ridiculous ending where the attempt is made to give an anti-slave statement(or should I say one line). What a waste of time for everyone who watches this trash.


I actually was looking forward to this movie. After reading a number of reviews before the release, it sounded like a genuinely nice film, one that was beautifully filmed and one with an interesting cast (Nicholas Cage, Penelope Cruz and John Hurt.)

Well, it might have been all of those things BUT it is so boring that I defy almost anyone to sit through this in its entirety and keep attention. Also, Cage's attempt at speaking with an Italian accent is embarrassingly bad. He's such a good actor that I cringed every time he spoke in this film.

'Disappointing" seems to be the most-often word used by reviewers here to describe this film, and I totally agree.

I guess it didn't take long for word to get out about how bad this movie was because, like Cage's accent, it did not do well.


I give it a 2, because of the beautiful Mediterranean Greece, otherwise it would be 1. When Nicholas Cage came into with his first lines, I thought he was just kidding. Cage as an Italian ?? I'm sorry, but very wrong actor who's acting is also BAD, not to mention his Italiano accent. The story is very loose, it might have been good, but with other actors and obviously with other screenplay. The camera is great, photography also but why the hell did you cast Nicholas Cage and Penelope Cruz for the role. Please don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Cage, he has some really great movies, but he obviously isn't for every role. It's really a pity that the cast wasn't better set, because the story has potential.


In 4 words, Captain Corelli's Mandolin was "completely out of tune" with the book. The novel provided sufficient character background to understand the relationships and personal challenges the characters needed to overcome; the script writer chose to ignore the details. In ignoring them (e.g. the priest's role initially as a buffoon, but later as a spiritual leader, the fiancee's inability to read until taught by a socialist rebel, the bomb experts advice to Corelli and his eventual ironic demise), the story and characters fall flat.

This was the first movie that I've ever walked out of midway through. Interesting cinematography, great actors do not MAKE a film; the story does.


An awful travesty of the Greek resistance. Senorita Cruz badly miscast as a Cephalonian Greek girl (there are plenty of attractive good English speaking Greek actresses so why pick a Spanish lady for one of the leading roles and with an English actor as her father, supposedly a Greek doctor!? Many of the supporting cast are well known actors and actresses from Greek theatre and TV series. The only foreign actor, to my knowledge, who has successfully portrayed a Greek was Anthony Quinn (as the Macedonian lignite miner Zorba in Zorba the Greek, as the plutocratic shipowner in the Greek Tycoon,and as a Greek colonel in the Guns of Navarone.

There is some historical truth reflected in the film. People who remember the Italian occupation of the Ionian Islands agree that the Italians were not harsh, unlike the Germans who succeeded them. Also Mussolini's forces, as hinted in the movie, had been defeated by the Greek army in the Albanian campaign. After the Germans intervened in the Balkans they allowed the Italian military to occupy certain parts of Greece, so the refusal of the local government to surrender to Italian forces, rather than to the Germans. as portrayed in the film is quite plausible, although I am not certain this actually happened.


This is supposed to be based on Wilkie Collins' _The_Woman_In_White_, but the only resemblance it bore to that story were the characters' names, the time period, and the settings. If they were going to change the story so thoroughly, I don't understand why they needed to keep up the pretense that it came from Wilkie Collins. Go read the book. It's much better.


Having first read the novel, I don't mind,for the purposes of filming, how differently it is scripted, as long as it adheres to, or at least includes, the plot. For reasons known only to Hollywood, important parts of the story are completely ignored, and a different story line added. The reason this novel passed the test of time, is, no doubt, due to the interweaving of both the characters, and plot, as a whole. To interfere with this structure, is to destroy the intricate balance of the story line, and therefore the intension of the story teller. Although a matter of opinion, the casting of this film leaves a lot to be desired. Characters, described as very fat, should, at least, be made to look portly, to allow for the character to have credibility. The days of slavery can't be over, or surely, actors of this calibre would have been in revolt, at such a travesty of the story. The face of Marian Halcolme is described as being manly in appearance,... Tara Fitzgerald's very feminine appearance doesn't ring true. Again Laura Fairly is described as being 'fair', if not 'ethereal', so, with dark hair, she does not quite fit the impression gleaned from the novel. ....Badly done, Hollywood!

J. Hunter


OK, so one night me and some friends decided to get really stoned and watch a movie. Unfortunately for us, we chose 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' I have never laughed so hard in my entire life. This movie is beyond bad. I have literally pooped out better films than 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' (I poop films)

The highlight of this movie, for me at least, was the opening sequence, when Ernest is making silly faces. When they showed him with a head the size of a peanut, I lost it. Perhaps I found this so funny because at that point I was the most high. Perhaps you are right.

If I had to guess what George W. Bush's favorite movie is, I would guess 'Ernest Goes to Africa.' Never before have I seen a movie rely more on 1950's stereotypes of people of color. There were times when words escaped me and I just stared in awe.

As I was watching this, I couldn't help but wonder, is this movie meant for children? Do literate adults actually watch this? How could there possibly be a whole franchise of 'Ernest' movies? Is this really my life? Is this real?

I hated this movie.


I honestly don't know where to begin when reviewing a movie as pathetic as Ernest Goes to Africa. Aside from two or three good laughs dispersed throughout the film, there is nothing positive about this hour-and-a-half waste of time and life. It is incredible that someone was able to round up a group of people willing to act, film, and edit this piece of trash, and even more incredible that this is the eighth installment in the Ernest series.

During the opening credits of the movie, we see Ernest posing next to various African objects, such as wooden masks and the heads of African animals, making faces and gestures that would probably make most 3rd graders laugh. This opening scene gives the viewer a taste of Ernest's frequent attempts at humor, and demonstrates how his comedy falls flat 95% of the time.

The first thing that really hit me about this movie is how bad the acting is. Everyone in the film is a typical C-movie actor, but Linda Kash stands out as especially terrible. She is the epitome of overacting; all of her lines are delivered with shockingly inhuman enthusiasm that you'd find only in a middle school play. Most high school theater students probably could have replaced these actors and delivered a more powerful performance. Jim Varney at least displays some comedic ability every now and then, but for the majority of the movie he just acts like a complete retard, trying to be humorous by making stupid faces and speaking in different voices.

Ernest Goes to Africa begins in Africa, where an archaeologist has stolen two priceless gems from an African tribe. The gems then make their way back to the United States, where an unidentified man is seen running from several henchmen through a flea market. He hides them in a bucket of "two for a dollar" items, and then runs from the scene. Ernest is looking for a gift to buy for Rene, a waitress he likes, so he goes to the flea market and of course buys the priceless gems. He later takes them back to his house, paints them, and glues them together to make a yo-yo. He gives the yo-yo to Rene and she explains that they can never be together because he is just an average shmoe, and she wants a man of adventure. Rene and Ernest are tracked down by the henchmen, and are then brought to Africa to be kept as prisoners.

Most of the movie really doesn't make sense. Once Ernest is in Africa, he falls out of the truck that they are carrying him in and lands in a river. In the next scene, we see him as a Hindu servant named "Hey You." His skin is dark and he is wearing a loin cloth. At first, I thought Jim Varney was playing another role in the film in addition to Ernest, but I immediately recognized Ernest's idiocy once Hey You began to speak.

Another scene that sticks out in my mind as being completely ridiculous is the car chase scene in the African wilderness. Rene and Ernest have taken an ostrich farmer's truck and are being chased by the henchmen. Driving at about twenty miles per hour on a fairly straight road, both henchmen are shooting at Ernest, who is in the back of the ostrich farmer's truck. Ernest, on the other hand, is throwing ostrich eggs at the henchmen and their driver. The henchmen never hit Ernest once during the five minute chase, but Ernest is able to fend them off by hitting them and their driver in the face, making their car swerve off the road and explode in a giant column of smoke. I should also add that Ernest is slingshotting the eggs, two at a time, from a large bra.

The set design is also incredibly poor in this movie. There is a large portion of the film in which Rene and Ernest are walking in Africa, trying to find civilization. During their hike, we see them walking through fields and jungles, which probably could have been shot anywhere in the United States. The fields are simply plain grassy fields, with no indication whatsoever of being anywhere near Africa (they could have at least digitally added some African trees in the background), and the jungles look like the woods of rural Connecticut with papier mâchè skulls, vines, and thorns hanging from trees. According to IMDb.com, the film was actually shot in South Africa, but I still wouldn't believe that at all.

The movie goes on and on, Ernest joke after Ernest joke. The rest of the movie doesn't really make any sense either; the African tribesmen all speak English for some reason, and Ernest is later challenged to a "Battle of Truth" by the lead henchman, who is suddenly dressed in an outfit that resembles that of a ninja, yet also somewhat resembles that of a bondage submissive. The henchman has a table of axes, swords, knives, and maces before him, while Ernest has a table with a sandwich, a teddy bear, and a few other worthless items. However, Ernest wins the battle and somehow ends up saving the day.

Overall, this movie is painful to watch. I couldn't handle it in one sitting; I had to stop halfway through and do something productive for a few hours to compensate for the brain cells lost while trying to appreciate Varney's humor. They should really put a Surgeon's General Warning on the box to let people know that they will in fact be slightly more retarded upon finishing this movie. I would have to say that out of all the movies I have ever seen, none comes close to being as pitiable as Ernest Goes to Africa.


There's considerable amount of money behind this production, so the look of it is very good. It includes some interesting appearances by Gilbert Roland, Eddie Burns, and a brief cameo at the beginning by Christopher Lee. There are a few exciting gunfights, and a humorous bit or two - the satire on Django, the Man with No Name, and Sabata is amusing, especially when they are given the names of failed presidents of the Mexico revolution.

The trouble is, there isn't any purpose in satirizing the Spaghetti Western as is attempted here. The key element in the Spaghettis is IRONY, which easily blends into comedy; in fact the source of all Spaghetti's is Kurosawa's Yojimbo, which is universally recognized as one of the great black comedies of all time, and most Spaghettis easily slipped over the edge into real comedy of a very sophisticated variety. Perhaps the best evidence of this is found in the Trinity films, which are both openly Spaghettis and openly slap-stick comedy. So why bother satirizing a genre that - by its very nature - satirizes itself? Consequently, I found the whole enterprise essentially unconvincing. None of these characters were people I would ever care about, the story was generically cliché, and the production values only reflected the money involved, not the passion of the director. Over all, a banal and futile effort to cash in on the phenomenon it mocks.


Lately, I've been watching a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the present. There are some great low budget spaghetti westerns from the late 1960s and early 1970s. This movie had all the elements of a decent western: a good story with talented actors and everything else. Although, it's a spoof of this genre, and for me the way it was done just didn't work and made for a disappointing movie.

This movie can easily be divided into two parts.

The first part is great; it has a great opening scene and an interesting story develops of a bounty hunter (a.k.a. the stranger) going after a bandit who is going after a large bank shipment guarded, in part, by a banker. Over the course of the movie these three characters form shifting alliances in an attempt to get the money. There are subtle comic nods to the contrivances of earlier films from this genre, but the comedy doesn't disrupt the overall story.

The second half of the film is where the comedy goes over-the-top and essentially ruins the movie. The turning point is right at the part where the barmaid causally scolds the dwarf to stop shooting the customers as she goes about waiting on other patrons seemingly oblivious to the four dead bodies laying about the place. From this point onward the movie shifts from a decent spaghetti western with comic undertones to a stupid-silly spoof.

There are three horrible fist-fight scenes (one at the river, one in the market and one at the baths) that follow in rapid succession as if one wasn't bad enough. The fighting is so fake it's ridiculous, and since the sound is out-of-sync with the picture it makes it even worse. In the market fight scene the banker bounces about the place on hidden trampolines and twirls around on poles like he is in the circus; it's clownish. Although, the worst part of these fight scenes is the music; it's this light-hearted, sprightly mix more suited for a square dance or a cheesy episode of 'Hee-Haw'. These scenes practically derail the main story.

Overall, this movie was disappointing because it had a lot of potential as a decent western, but the comic turns just mucked it up. If you want to see a good western spoof then see 'Blazing Saddles'. If you want to see a good spaghetti western, then avoid this movie.


The film begins with a dandy gunfight, where three bandits are quickly gunned down by a bounty hunter--a bounty hunter who bears more than just a superficial to the Man With No Name from the Clint Eastwood trilogy (FISTFUL OF DOLLARS, FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE and THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY).

Immediately after, you see this man in a gold train filled with Union soldiers. Naturally, the shipment is attacked and the soldiers all fight like blind guys, so they are quickly neutralized. However, in a twist, one of the bandits cheats the gang leader (Gilbert Roland) and rides away with the gold. Soon, Roland catches up and is about to find out where the gold is hidden. But, just at that moment, the army turns up and kills the traitor....bummer. However, the Man With No Name wannabe thinks Roland knows about the treasure and perhaps a medallion given to Roland by the traitor holds the key. A strange banker, also is thrown into the mix. All three want the gold and all three seem pretty macho.

Overall, this is not a particularly distinguished Western. Much of it is the plot, some of it is that George Hilton (a Uruguayan despite the American sounding name) isn't as interesting as Eastwood or some of the other premier Spaghetti Western stars but most of it is because the soundtrack simply sucks. So often the music doesn't even come close to matching the acting and it seems almost randomly added. Plus, it just isn't very good stuff as well. This clearly isn't the work of Ennio Morricone--music master of the Spaghetti genre.

Overall, just a time passer--and not a particularly good one to boot.


Undoubtedly, the least among the Spaghetti Westerns I've been watching lately: basically a low-brow rip-off of Leone's THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY (1966) with three disparate characters outwitting one another (and occasionally forming shaky alliances) in their search for hidden gold. Leonard Maltin rated it a BOMB; while it's harmless enough, it's also totally routine and, fatally, the three main roles are stereotypes, that is to say, uninteresting: Eddie Byrnes is a bank employee with ideas regarding his consignment being transported by train; Gilbert Roland is the "legendary" but ageing Mexican bandit (his frequent lapses into Spanish when excited are quite corny!) who, apparently, is still irresistible to women; George Hilton as an enigmatic bounty hunter tries too hard to emulate Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name figure. Director Castellari - whom I saw at the Italian B-movie retrospective held during the 2004 Venice Film Festival, where he came off as the most pompous of the cult movie directors present! - shows little genuine feeling for the Western (on the strength of two above-average Franco Nero efforts in the genre, I ordered his collaboration with Castellari KEOMA [1976]...I'm keeping my fingers crossed now!) and the film's tongue-in-cheek approach is equally lamentable.


ANY GUN CAN PLAY (2 outta 5 stars) Totally routine "spaghetti western" starring that guy who used to play "Kookie" on "77 Sunset Strip". The plot is some convoluted nonsense about some stolen gold coins and various gunmen of dubious motivation trying to track it down. This is one of those "lighthearted" westerns... which means lots of labored attempts at "comedy"... and some really atrocious music during most of the action sequences (you can tell this isn't Ennio Morricone's work). George Hilton plays a bounty hunter called "Stranger"... but he doesn't leave much of an impression... he just doesn't have the style of Clint Eastwood or Franco Nero, who are able to do a lot with a sparsely-written character. The ending is a complete homage/parody of the ending of "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly"... though it's barely amusing enough to be considered a "parody". The highlight of the movie is the first 5 minutes... which features actors patterned after Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and someone else (Is he supposed to be Eli Wallach? Franco Nero? It's not very clear...) who are confronted by Stranger. It's an amusing in-joke for fans of Sergio Leone fans and spaghetti western aficionados... but I imagine no one else would see the point.


Unlike the other spaghetti Westerns, this one has characters that almost make sense, and can be identified to some degree. It still has the goofy gunplay of other spaghettis Westerns. A spaghetti, by the way, is another word for a Western with no plot, no characters you can care about, and goofy gunplay that doesn't make a bit of sense for the era, and relying on great music to make audiences feel something. This one is more lighthearted, like the ones that Bud Spencer and Terence Hill made together. They, too, were superior to the junk made by Eastwood and others, which sado-masochists make their friends watch, if they get a chance. It looks like everyone had a lot of fun making the movie, too. It was good to see a giant actor like Gilbert Roland, who wasn't even mentioned on the movie rental box, yet who was clearly the biggest name. His character was very enjoyable. There is a three way standoff at the end, which is much superior to the one it spoofs (The Good the Bad and the Ugly), simply because the characters are at least a bit likable and a bit identifiable. Not a good movie, but has a bit of fun to it.


This is a classic example of what happens when a sit com is on TV for far far too long. Everything gets tired and the jokes start getting repeated over and over again. OK, from the start, the first couple of series were quite good. You had an Entertainment Manager (Simon Cadel) being pursued by his deputy played by Ruth Madoc, a cleaning lady wanting to become a yellow coat, an alcoholic child-hating Punch and Judy man, a bent Jockey, and a stand up comedian. As said earlier, it started well but went on way too long. Once Simon Cadel left it went downhill fast, you were getting dire story lines, and a new entertainments manager who Ruth Madoc (again) threw herself at. When a comedy is all filmed in one place there is a limit to the number of jokes that can be cracked. Unfortunately this went on so long every joke was cracked 3 or 4 times over. If this comedy had been stopped after 2 series it would have gone down as an all time classic. As it is, it will be largely remembered for the dreadful last few series.


OK, yes I know I'm a Philistine, and I have no knowledge of, nor love for opera. I readily admit that I might feel differently about this film if I did. But I don't. So, for those of you like me, skip this one unless you want to look at the pretty (sometimes unclothed) girls. For what it's worth, I thought the first segment with Theresa Russell (who I didn't recognize) was the best of the lot.


First off, let me say I wasted Halloween movie night by watching this garbage. Second, let me inform you that the current DVD available by Shriek Show is not uncut, so you gore hounds will be very upset. Third, that one scene is the highlight of the film and since it's been cut, well, you see where I'm going.

I know a lot of horror fans dig this movie. It is atmospheric, shot in the woods with some very nice scenery, waterfalls and such. But after the opening kill, which has a very brutal shot of a machete being jammed through a hunter's crotch, you get no real brutal kills after that. And, with a slasher movie, you sort of want that. At least, I do. The director and co. do nothing new with the killer in the woods idea, several of this type of movie were all made right around the same time in the very early eighties. The only thing this has going for it is that you don't hate the actors as much as you might in other films. They are sort of likable. The kids have a reason for being there: one of them owns a deed to some property on the mountain. But what is not explained is why his family has property there. There is no cabin or house, so why buy property in East Jesus, especially if you aren't a hunter or whatnot? Well, I'm sure some people do buy land for camping purposes, but that just seems unusual. Anyway, two squealing backwoods inbreds show up and start stalking the campers and picking them off one by one. And, as I said before, you get pretty much nothing in the way of decent deaths after the machete kill in the beginning. The ending has a sort of off the wall kill by Connie, but even that isn't enough to save this from being almost equal with the completely forgettable film, The Forest, which is mind-numbing.

If Shriek Show had been able to get a real uncut print, then this review might have been a little more forgiving, but this is the day and age of uncut/unrated DVD releases of old obscure films for cine-hounds like me. When you slight us, you get the crud review. Sadly, the presence of the great fatherly George Kennedy is the only highlight of this movie to set it apart from the other garden variety trash that was churned out back in the day.


Even before this film it is clear to see that Ali G has become the exact character he set out to parody. I am not a fan of Sacha Baron Cohen's character anyway but was curious to see how a man of so little talent was able to convince universal studios to fund a near 1 and a half hour feature film out of a 3 minute joke.

A paper-thin plot is just a torrent of penis and marijuana jokes and I must admit I did cringe when I saw such respected thespians as Charles Dance and Michael Gambon stoop so low for employment. Saying that I must admit (even if I am quite ashamed to) that I did raise a titter on more than one occasion, and however bad this film was it was never boring, and never once did I consider switching it off (mainly due to the gorgeous Rhona Mitra). Saying that, only watch this film if you are a teenage lad aged between 14 to 17 and you find dick jokes hilarious.


When I went to see this film, let's not say that I had high expectations. But merely that I had a faint hope that this full length feature would have at least some of the hilarity and wit of TV's "Da Ali G Show".

But as one might expect, this cannot translate from a half hour TV show to a 90 minute film. The movie had no appeal what so ever, and resorted entirely to toilet and juvenile sexual humour. Basicaly, I should have ditched it halfway through but was silly enough to think it might somehow improve by the end, how wrong I was. I loved the show but hated the movie. This movie is only for those who find fellatio by canines amusing...


MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS For about the last four years I've been a keen fan of Ali G. Sacha Baron Cohen is undoubtedly a very funny and intelligent guy and, in my view, his best creation is Borat who's as funny as Hell and quite shameless in what he does and says to people.

Anyway, to the movie. I didn't bother paying money to see this in the cinema; I suppose because I didn't expect a lot but when I hired the DVD recently, I found the whole thing pretty sad. The best part of Ali's taking the mickey out of others was largely missing and the script an plot was pretty damned awful; hooking all the car batteries together to blow a safe - REALLY!!??

This movie goes to show I think that some things can run for too long and definitely don't translate to the big screen. The movie also had that syrupy sweet ending that I've come to expect from British films. Where have all the good British movie making ideals gone to? That said, there were the odd very funny moments such as the dog in Ali's bed and Ali's audience with HM the Q with the "Shaven haven - RESPECT" remark.

So, in summary, I am an Ali G and Borat fan and I have enjoyed many of his interviews (notably the one with Anita Roddick of the Body Shop) but this movie fell really flat with me. If there's to be another movie, I hope it's a whole lot better than this lot of old tripe.

Weasel100

Canberra, Australia


I have absolutely no idea why I watched Ali G Indahouse except for the fact that Salon seemed to think a crime was committed by not nominating Sacha Baron Cohen for a Emmy for his work on Da Ali G Show. It is a sure bet that I will never watch that show as there was absolutely nothing funny about the movie. Comedy? Torture was more like it. It was just about the stupidest thing I every watched. I will admit that I was captivated by Rhona Mitra. I had not seen her in anything. She wasn't on The Practice during the time I was watching, so I guess I will have to check out Boston Legal one of these evenings to see how she does in something that may be worth watching.


Ali G was funny at first. His interviews were fresh and original. The idea of a mock gangster wearing OTT clothes and using street wise lingo was appealing at first.

But this film is just a rehash of old jokes, the humour was mainly childish and revolved around the male sex organ for the most part. The film claimed good actors like Charles Dance, but their talents were wasted as they played silly 2-d characters. It is not 'terrible' but isn't really funny at all a second time. It could be said that the movie was Ali G's last bastion of comedy. After that he ran out of steam.


My god how bad this is. Who is this impostor pretending to be Ali G? Avoid this at all costs. It replaces the smart multi-layered satire and humour of his show with down and out toilet humour.

This was obviously an attempt to get him known in the States before he released his show there on HBO.

One commentator here pleads that we not judge the movie on the merits of the show due to the difference in the mediums. While it is true that the standard format of the show could never have been transferred to the big screen Mr Sacha Baron Cohen could have ensured the smart use of his comic style in a more conventional movie storyline. Instead we have this mess, which in all honesty has nothing at all to do with Ali G except for the packaging.

Terribly disappointing. Go seek out the DVD's of Innit, Aiiii, or Bling Bling for some real Ali G.


If I compare two films with Sacha Cohen, Borat and Ali G then Ali G is immeasurably better. I'ts no master piece, but it's a film at least. Borat is complete garbage and I do not understand how it rated better then Ali G.

I cannot put my finger on it, there something wrong with the Ali G script: half of the jokes are as if written by a 15 years old, not by an adult scriptwriter. And a number of jokes including Mr Cohen's lower body are quite tasteless.

But the film actually comes together as a comedy and there are some valid jokes too that are funny: such as how Ali G becomes a member of government for doing something scandalous and stupid in the public (sadly true in today's western society: people get careers for doing stupid things in public), also Ali's advice about immigrant policy and some others.

Ali G overall remains a sympathetic character, even though a kind of mentally underdeveloped for his age. But it's OK to watch,it's quite funny.

But never ever watch Borat, it's awful and makes every intelligent movielover sick.


Bean, Kevin & Perry, UK TV creations that have made successful transitions onto the BIG screen. Now its Ali G's turn and I m afraid to say this is not one of them!

Ali has always been obscene but funny with it. This film was extremley sick and not funny at all. Scenes involving bestiality, gay sex and paedophilia should not be portrayed for entertainment's sake.

Ali G In Da House is rubbish and deserves making very little money.

1 out 10


Don't tell me this film was funny or a little funny. It was a complete disaster, and one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Ali G is only funny on Channel 4's Ali G Show. After watching his performance, all i can say is He is not made for Movies. With a Daft script, or more like no storyline, there's nothing to keep you entertained. Full of annoying, unrealistic character's this movie is a complete garbage all the way. At the end of the film, Ali G gives a speech. He mentions, if you hated this film, tell people it was good. Not even the speech could save the movie, He probably knew its gonna be a stinker. I would of given this a 0/10, but the minimum start is 1. Overall, Don't even waste your time on this rubbish.


I had already heard of Ali G in Madonna's music video "Music". I always think he's funny. (In fact, he really is.) Just last year I always thought of buying a VCD of "Ali G Indahouse". That's why some months later, I bought it cheap and I started watching it.

But the movie surprised me. My older brother and I were expecting it to be a great laugh-out comedy. It turns out that "Indahouse" is just a stupid piece of garbage. It was really really bad. It also contains explicit sexuality content and very crude humor. It also didn't made me laugh, even just a big smile. We definitely hate that movie. Oh by the way, I have plans to sell it.

Ali G was really different in his movie compared to his TV shows-- in such a negative way. Maybe he wasn't really well-focused and enough serious to make this flick. Just because there's some sex scenes in it doesn't mean it's freaking hilarious (because sometimes, too much isn't that laughable anymore). For the first time ever, I was disappointed at him. That really made me sad rather and happy.

I gave this movie 1 over 10. Actually, I really want to give it a 0 rating. It's one of the worst movies I've seen in my entire life. I wouldn't recommend to anyone who wanna watch good comedies that aren't too explicit or horrible.


I like Ali G's show, I believe the guy has comedic instinct, but hasn't (yet) developed it to a talent.

The movie is a little worse than I was expecting. I don't find Ali-G offensive, just stupid. Jokes for 5-year olds, some good, some terrible.

If you want to watch a movie that seems "offensive", but is actually funny, see Tom Green's 'Freddy Got Fingered'.

2/10


it really is terrible, from start to finish you'll sit and watch this ridiculous idiot, thinking hes cool when he's really not, rubbish plot line, terrible acting and complete waste of time and money, do NOT bother.


After seeing this piece of crap you will know why the limeys drive on the left side of the street...this movie is an absolute NO-BRAINER! The jokes (if this is the right word for it...) are mostly sub-standard (about 98%) and do miss any punch-line at all. Save the money and get drunk. You might enjoy this movie being totally wasted, perhaps!


I say this. If you want to see art, you go to an art gallery. If you want to see a movie, you go to a theater. Trying to intertwine art and film proves disastrous in "Where the Heart Is". An interesting cast is totally wasted in this embarrassment. You like Dabney Coleman, see "Short Time". You like Crispin Glover, see "Bartleby". You like Uma Thurman, see "Kill Bill". Above all, if you like Christopher Plummer, see "The Silent Partner", because his character here, is a terrible embarrassment. In fact this entire production is an embarrassment. Sure the human artwork is intriguing for a few minutes, so make a short, but do not subject an audience to pointless nonsense, masquerading as filmed entertainment. - MERK


I'm a Boorman fan, but this is arguably his least successful film. Comedy has never been his strong suit, and here his attempts at screwball farce are clumsily done. Still, it's almost worth seeing for Boorman's eye for talent: this is one of Uma Thurman's first starring roles, and as always she is ravishing to watch. (On a sad side note, Boorman wrote the script with his daughter, Telsche, who died a couple years ago.)


Hard to imagine what they were thinking of when they made this movie (i.e., the writers, directors, producers, actors, editors, etc.). Christopher Plummer, veteran of 129 movies, frolics along among scores of other actors with apparently no more motivation than to collect a paycheck. I guess there is nothing wrong with that, but once they are paid that doesn't mean anyone has to watch it.

It bugs me that there are actually good reviews for this movie here at imdb. Art? If you want to see art go to an art gallery, don't watch this movie. Comedy? Watch a re-run of the Flintstones, about the same plot with less time wasted.

Dabney Coleman gives his usual performance, for better or worse. And some of the young actors may have gotten some good experience from doing this movie. But Plummer???? It was embarrassing to watch his performance, in fact I was positively transfixed on him throughout the movie, knowing this was Plummer of Sound of Music fame! I see from his bio that he called Sound of Music "sound of mucus", so guess he didn't like it as much as the 100's of millions who liked him in it.

I wonder if today he was asked, how do you rate Sound of Music compared to Where the Heart Is, what would he say.....?

Probably something like "Where the Money Is"....


"Jaded" offers a premise with potential as it looks at the rape of a woman by two other women and ask the question "when is rape not rape?". Unfortunately the flick seems to suffer from bad direction as it slogs through legal minutia while trying to weave some kind of story with a handful of foul mouthed and poorly portrayed characters only to end abruptly. "Jaded" is lame stuff only for the bleary-eyed couch potato in the mood for some dark drama.


I had this movie given to me, and have to admit, I am glad that I did not pay money for it.

The back of the box makes it seem like some kind of sex triangle, with 2 women trying to seduce her. But the reality in this movie is far from that.

In reality, the main subject is the victim of a vicious and sadistic rape by the two other characters. There was absolutely nothing in this that I found interesting at all.

Even movies like Silence Of The Lambs and Wild Things (which the box tries to compare this movie to) were riveting, because of the unexpected turns and suspense.

But Jaded has none of this. It concentrates on the rapeists and the sick relationship with the boyfriend of one of them. And the persuit of a videotape that may prove the victims story is true.

While it does show that same sex rape is possible, it is not a movie worth watching.

If at all possible, pass this movie up at all costs.


Outside Sweden you are not expected have seen this movie. Happy you. The cast includes several actors that are important part of modern the Swedish movie history. And still..

Seems like Peter Dalle only had a an idea lasting for about 20 minutes. Robert Gustafson is totally misused in this movie, trying to copy a younger Gösta Ekman. Ekman, by the way, is the only actor fulfilling the expectations.

Credit that can be given is for the photo, splendid idea using black and white. Music is OK.

But over-all it's a waste of god actors and the time of the audience.


Set in 1945, Skenbart follows a failed Swedish book editor who decides to take a non-stop train to Berlin. Unfortunately for everyone around him, he's a walking disaster, causing mayhem everywhere he goes. The train also holds a man and his mistress scheming to murder the man's wife (who's also on the train), a soldier on his way home, two gay elderly gentlemen, an angry train conductor, two nuns, a bunch of refugees, and even more people.

Meant as a mix of noir-ish thriller (which it does quite well - at least to begin with), and comedy, the film fails with both. It doesn't sit right as the film changes tone with every new scene. And as the train races towards its final destination, the film turns more and more bizarre, ending on a truly surreal note.

The good bits are wasted in a myriad of pointless plots and characters. Skenbart is packed with famous Swedish actors, no matter how small the part is. It feels like the filmmakers rang everyone they've ever worked with and offered them a part in the film. Too bad that the performances are just as bad as the script (act your lines - don't read them!).

The comedy is more or less slapstick, with the same jokes repeated over and over. The pace is incredibly slow at times (quite often, actually) with on scene in particular dragging on for about ten minutes for no good reason. The screenwriter also seems to think that swearing is a good way to replace decent dialogue. The film looks great though, in moody B&W, but it's wasted on such inept film-making in every other department. [1/10]


If I could give this movie a negative rating I would. The humor is the cruelest I have ever seen in a film. Horrible things happen to good people and people who have already suffered horribly through no fault of their own. There are 2 plots, neither of which supports half of a film. Where is the "depth" others see in this movie? That no good deed goes unpunished? That only the heartless can succeed? The film does start well and the black and white is very moody and well done. The acting is very good and convincing witch makes the cruel humor even more horrifying. If you think that the 3 Stooges are too nice to each other, if watching the beheading of a kidnap victim with a Bowie knife is a real thigh slapper, if you thought "Schindler's List" was hilarious, then this movie is for you.


Don't see this movie! It's... repulsive! The start is indeed very good, but in the middle everything falls and I really regret spending 80 crowns (about 11 dollars) on the ticket! Peter Dalle should consider this as his last chance to gain peoples interest. AWFUL picture! The only bright spot is the splendid work of Robert Gustavsson, Lena Nyman and Gösta Ekman.

Hope you take my advise... The picture is rubbish.


As a South African, living in South Africa again after a 32 year stay in the UK, I am sorry to say that this movie is a huge disappointment. The three main problems I had with the movie was a) why Swank and Ejiofor - an American and a Nigerian - to play the leads. This country is bursting with talent and has no need of imports... b) Gillian Slovo has been trading off her Struggle credentials for years now. She's a very mediocre writer and even her novel doesn't stand up the flaccid direction of Mr Hooper... and c) Hilary Swank again, such a great actor, as proved in Million Dollar Baby (but that's Eastwood too), here dressed in the contemporary New York style whilst roaming freely around the poverty of the Karoo. Where was the consideration and sensitivity needed by the costumer and director? Yes, the film is ultimately moving - how could it not be? - but the overall mood at the conclusion is one of tremendous letdown. Heart's in the right place but needs a pace maker.


Arthur Hunnicutt plays a very stereotypical role as a mountain man (probably the Ozarks) who goes hunting with his favorite coon dog. However, the dog appears to be drowning when Hunnicutt jumps in after him. It becomes obvious pretty soon that despite Hunnicutt and his dog roaming about after leaving the water that they both died in the water--as no one responds when he talks to them and sees and hears people talking about his and the dog's death. Yet, oddly, Hunnicutt is REALLY slow on the uptake and it takes him a while to understand they are talking about him! I think this was actually done as padding, as there really wasn't enough material to fill the half hour time slot.

Later, in the "surprise twist", he comes upon Heaven--or at least his concept of the place. He's invited in, but since they won't allow dogs, he has other ideas! Overall, reasonably well acted but of dubious spiritual value! With no twists or irony, this episode is a bit dull--not "Twilight Zone-y" enough for my tastes.


who's responsible for these "behind the scenes" things? who are these actors? did they crawl out from beneath rocks? 'yuks, lots of yuks!' no. no yuks for me. only loathing and shame that i am a human being. i have to avert my eyes from the set, it's so embarrassing. in fact, i changed the channel.

i've always had a problem with robin williams' non-stop 'i forgot my lithium today' rantings, but at least he's funny once in a blue moon. watching someone who isn't funny at all impersonating robin williams is like having each tooth in your head pulled slowly and sadistically, without novocaine, for all eternity.

please stop making these absolutely horrifying TV movies. please.


Drab, dreary and a total waste of my time. The plot is incomprehensible (so don't think about it too much). The acting is odd and wooden - I would have sworn that they were all professional body builders trying their luck at acting, but that might be an insult to body builders. There are no interesting special effects to redeem this disaster, but lots of fires, explosions, a gratuitous sex scene, etc. The only thing that caught my attention was that it takes place after a war between the US and Iraq that somehow goes nuclear...hmmm. Is Roger Corman psychic? Let's hope that "Iraq" was just a lucky choice for Corman and that the rest of his scenario doesn't come true.


Where do I begin? The story was so bad, it must have been written in a high school film club! The acting was so wooden I felt sorry for the actors! One actor even reminded me of what a deer must look like when staring into a car's headlights! Another actor has this constant look of being constipated! But it was the dialog that takes the cake!

Our hero says to his captors - all holding submachine guns - if you lay a finger on a female prisoner you will be dead. Moments later, the strongest guard, built like a truck, and the only women prisoner go at it. When our fearless leader, who has this very annoying raspy gangster voice catches wind of this transgression, he calmly walks up to the guard, while machine guns are trained on him, and in a split-second snaps this giant guy's neck like he was breaking a tooth pick! He then gets back in line while all the villains with their machine guns do absolutely nothing, but essentially yell at him!

I could go on and on! This movie is camp gem; and if you have any sense of humor, it's guaranteed to make you laugh so hard your eyes will tear!


Without being really the worst science fiction film ever made, or the worst I have seen, 'Time Under Fire' is still much under average. The premises and the first 10-15 minutes are not that bad, it starts as a X-Files story, combining Bermuda triangle mysteries with time travel. Pretty soon elements of other genres (too many) mix together, but the story never takes off beyond the level of interest of a TV series. Soon, 'Time Under Fire' quickly degenerates into a series of clichés, not only mixing altogether too many genres but also being unable to create anything memorable in suspense or special effects that would help viewers remember the movie until tomorrow. Acting is bad, and the rhetoric lines in the script do not help at all.


This must be the first movie I've rented and not seen to the end. Complete garbage! The acting, the plot, set and wardrobe looked like it came from a porno movie with a plot. Not even a B move.


Set in 1976 for no apparent reason other than to keep the set dressers busy, 'The Box' was directed by Richard Kelly ('Donnie Darko'), and stars Cameron Diaz and James Marsden as Norma and Arthur Lewis, a young couple who are supposedly struggling financially even though they both have successful careers--she as a high school teacher, he as an optical specialist at NASA's Langley, Virginia, Research Center. They have one child, Walter (Sam Oz Stone).

One day the Lewises find a parcel on their doorstep, containing a black box with a big red button. There is a note from a 'Mr. Steward' indicating that he will return at 5:00 PM to explain about the box.

The mysterious Arlington Steward, played by Frank Langella, shows up at the appointed time, nattily attired in an elegant Savile Row suit. He is polite but businesslike, however his most noticeable feature is his face, half of which appears to have been blown off and improperly attended to. Langella is the only thing worth watching in the movie, however he is unfortunately upstaged by his own makeup, which resembles that of Harvey 'Two Face' Dent (Aaron Eckhart) from Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight.' It's like the elephant in the room: one can try to ignore it, but it's more than a little distracting.

Steward explains that he will return in 24 hours to collect the button. If, during that time, they decide to unlock and push the button, he will give them $1 million cash. The only catch--and it's a big one--is that somewhere a stranger will die. It might be across town, it might be on another continent, however Steward assures them the victim will be someone unknown to them. As a show of good faith, he leaves them with a crisp $100 bill, theirs to keep whether they push the button or not.

Arthur and Norma are skeptical, believing the whole thing to be a scam or an elaborate hoax, however it isn't long before they begin to wonder what would happen if they did push the button? Would they really get a million dollars? Would somebody really die? Weary of the speculation, Norma slaps the button. Nothing happens. However, their initial relief gives way to alarm when Steward shows up the next day with a briefcase full of cash. They decide to call the whole thing off, however Steward tells them it's too late. "You've already pushed the button," he explains. As Steward's limo pulls away, Arthur notes the license number, which he later discovers is registered to the NSA (National Security Agency).

At this point the film begins to veer deeply into unfollowable territory as the secondary characters start springing nosebleeds and flashing peace signs. Meanwhile, the town becomes invaded by pudgy, slack-jawed geeks in bad shirts who start following Arthur around like an advance scouting party for a race of zombie alien nerds. Arthur eventually becomes trapped by the menacing bookworms in the library (?), where Steward's spinsterish wife shows up--whom we haven't seen till now--and informs Arthur that in order to get out of the library he must step into one of three vertical columns of cheesy-looking digital water effects. 'What happens if I choose the wrong one?', Arthur asks, seeming far less baffled than he ought to be under the circumstances, and certainly far less baffled than the audience is by this time. 'Eternal damnation,' the spinster says ominously.

Arthur steps into the middle column of digital liquid effects, and after a brief absence suddenly appears, still in his water cocoon, hovering over Norma's bed. When she wakes up and sees him, the water bubble bursts and Arthur tumbles onto the bed in a shower of water which, oddly enough, continues to drip from the overhead water pipes just out of camera range while a sodden Marsden and Diaz flop around on the bed.

It's confusing, I know.

We eventually learn that Steward was once the public relations officer for the NSA, until he was struck by a lightning bolt that destroyed part of his face. He was pronounced dead, but later came back to life, having been transformed into a sort of superman who now serves 'the ones who make the lightning,' and whose powers have enabled him to take over the CIA, the NSA, and NASA all by himself.

And what is the point of all this nattering rubbish? Apparently, Steward's mission is to subject humans to a kind of biblical character test (e.g., the 'Binding of Isaac'), to determine whether humanity is worth saving. If enough people pass the button test by refusing to push it, Steward's god-like overlords will spare the race. Unfortunately, those people who do push the button, such as Norma and Arthur, must be punished for their moral spinelessness, to which end they are subjected to a series of dreary 'Lady or the Tiger' ordeals that play out like one of those 'Saw movies,' except without the entertaining gore or the benefit of a coherent plot.

'The Box' represents the sort of pointless mental masturbation that freshman philosophy students like to blather on about after a few beers. Richard Kelly's tedious exercise in existentialist pettifoggery eventually collapses under the weight of its own incomprehensibility; the tortured melange of insupportable ideas eventually congeals, as with the mixing together of too many colors, into a meandering gray goo of a film as insipid as one of those narcotizing in-flight movies the plot of which suffers no more or less from having been interrupted by a leisurely nap.

There is a point in 'The Box' where Arthur, who is a technically-minded guy, becomes curious about how the button works. Opening up the unit, he is disappointed to find nothing inside.

Having seen The Box, I know exactly how he feels.


A box with a button provides a couple with the opportunity to be financially free, but the cost is the life of someone they've never met. This is a very tedious film to watch. Richard Kelly, who wrote and directed it, decided to make a film without any payoff. You are taken on a ride of slow build ups, one after the other with minor revelations at best. At certain moments, I thought to myself, this will have major significance at the end, but nothing does. The film just leaves one thinking, "This story could have been told in 30 minutes, without all the stretched out nonsense." I will hope you avoid this god-awful film and maintain your sanity by doing so.