Move over Manos. Back off Boogens. It doesn't take a Baby Genius to know that Malibu Beach Vampires (MBV for the rest of this tome) is now and always will be (unless someone makes a sequel to Zarkorr The Invader) the worst film ever. The only horror in this thing is watching it. I wonder if this was an attempt for someone to meet babes by casting a movie. If this was the case, the babes ain't babes just like this ain't a movie. It's dreck. No wait. I dishonor the word dreck by calling it dreck. Ulli Lommel (of Boogey Man fame) would call it "uber dreck" or Scheiße. It should be used to torture prisoners. If you find it on a shelf in a video store, back away from it quietly and notify the authorities.


....is where I'm assuming this movie came from. I mean, I've watched plenty of B movies over the course of my young life so far, and I wouldn't even classify this as a B movie. I remember seeing films in my high school mass media class that surpass this one.

So the premise is...a bunch of dancing numbers and goofy crap happens. Women in bikinis, who aren't even that great looking to begin with, dance in the beginning and sing. Guys with hairy chests show up and girls with fangs who are out in the sunlight. I mean, I can barely put together a cohesive sentence just thinking about this movie. According to most people on this site, Manos the Hands of Fate and Pod People are the worst movies (MST3K classics :-D)...I used to be one of them. Then I saw this movie. Usually I don't try to trash a movie too much, but the people who made this really do deserve it. It is THAT bad and THAT unbearable, and I'm assuming the director or an actor in the movie is the only person who rated this a ten.


OK - say some college in southern California has an movie making class. And some dudes were enrolled just to film girls, and they gave them a camera. And then they were drunk/stoned/ or just to plain stupid to actually use a camera, and they turned this in for their grade. AND FAILED.

That is my only explanation for this, this, thing. Good God they left the date and time counter on during some of it. The picture started in new scene way before the sound, and forget about a plot. Well apparently there was one and they had to tell you all about it once the 3 hour introduction sequence was finished. But I am glad they did because I never would have gotten it by watching this.

STAY AWAY from this.


I like bad films, but this thing is a steaming heap. From the shaky cameramen to the horrible sound and devastating acting, don't waste a second on this pile. Fifth graders could have made a better film and first graders could have written a better script. Want a real synopsis? Ugly chicks in neon bikinis dancing for way too long. A disjointed plot made worse by hideous acting. The on-location sets weren't even passable. The church scenes take place in a dance studio, and oh yeah - what's with the two tap-dance numbers that come up out of the blue?

Oh, and the total number of naked breasts, which couldn't have even saved this film - 0. Add this one to the trash heap.


Wow! After the first five minutes of watching this "film", I was quite tempted to put a bullet in my brain, and end my life. It's really hard to describe what exactly this film is about. I honestly don't know what kind of human being would even finance a piece of excrement. The film looks to have either been shot on video or 16mm. I normally don't have a problem with SOV movies, are shoddily made 16mm films, but this was just so awful. And where did they find these "actresses"? I have seen some bad acting, but this takes the cake. Watch the first 5 minutes and you'll see what I mean. BCI Entertainment should be boycotted for distributing this god awful sludge. This has to be the worst film I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. I want my 74 minutes back! If you are able to sit through the first 5 minutes, without either shooting your TV or committing mass homicide, then give a shot. After all, what have you got to lose?


THE OTHER is a supposed "horror" movie made during the 1970s. It is not to be confused with the similarly titled THE OTHERS, which starred Nicole Kidman.

The plot is as follows - a woman with strange supernatural powers teaches her twin grandsons something referred to simply as "the game". One of these twin boys - Niles - is supposed to be "good". The other one - Holland - is supposed to be evil.

The idea sounds interesting enough as an abstract concept and the movie was adapted from a novel. I can only hope the novel was interesting as the movie was incredibly boring from beginning to end.

The execution of this movie is very much like a TV movie of the kind UK residents might see on Channel 5. In fact, this movie looks like it was made to be the daytime afternoon movie for this TV channel. A slight trimming to one or two scenes and this would be a U-rated movie of the kind Disney produce. But even the youngest of children are more likely to be bored than scared by THE OTHER.

You don't need to check out the director's CV to realise horror is not his forte.

Mr. Mulligan relies heavily upon the characters to drive the story. This is obvious from the get-go. I haven't seen any of his other movies but TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a highly regarded crime movie on this site. Unfortunately in THE OTHER, the characters are given too little to do and the plodding script ensures the movie never really takes off in the way one might expect.

The direction is as bland as you could possibly find. Almost every single scene takes place in the daytime! Think about this - a scene shot in the open landscape in rural America during daytime with the camera focusing on vast area. Does it sound scary or atmospheric? Believe me, it isn't. It comes across as something more akin to an episode of LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE than a horror movie. And yes, both the aforementioned TV series and THE OTHER were shot in California.

There is a noticeable absence of danger or malice that makes the whole exercise seem rather pointless.

The ending was clearly meant to be highly disturbing and perhaps influenced that of another movie from this time period. I won't reveal which movie but I'll give 2 clues - a young boy was a main character and the movie is well-known. And I'll add that the concept was used to much greater effect in the latter movie.

The acting is actually quite good and is the only reason why I have awarded 2 stars. The actors playing the twin boys, along with the actress playing the grandmother, all try hard with the poor material they are given.

Diana Muldaur is completely wasted in a thankless role as the mother of the twin boys. Do not be fooled by her high billing on the cast list. She gets very little screen time and her presence just comes across as a ploy to cash-in on her long established TV career in order to help attract TV viewers.

I paid careful attention to the blurb on the back of the DVD cover (of the Region 2 version in the UK). Comparisons were made to THE EXORCIST, which I thought was a complete insult to that movie. There is no comparison. THE EXORCIST had everything this movie should contain but does not - suspense, tension, tongue-in-cheek humour, highly disturbing content, great acting, superb characterisation and viewer involvement. Ironically, THE EXORCIST was made only a year later but in terms of style and execution seems like decades ahead of the bland drama known as THE OTHER. THE OTHER comes across as a work that would have seemed tame in the 1950s let alone the 1970s!

The 1970s was a great era for horror movies with classics such as THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE, THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, SALEM'S LOT to name just a few being produced. For this reason, THE OTHER proves an even greater disappointment.

If anyone finds the synopsis of THE OTHER interesting, they might want to read the book or do a little more research on what the book was about. I would advice everyone to skip the movie.


What a waste of talent -- although it appears that Crudup in real life is a lot more like the vapid, self- absorbed, character-less character he portrays in this disappointing movie.

In art, sometimes the empty spaces reveal more than the painted or created content. What this movie reveals is the unconsciousness and the contradictory/competing, unresolved impulses/consciousness of the film's director/writer. It unintentionally shows the LACK of awareness that a truly evolved, deeply aware character should have and be tormented about in order to deserve audience empathy or sympathy OR the lack of which is used to serve as a cautionary tale to the audience. But this film fails on either level in that regard.

The fact that Cal, the main character (very much an ANTagonist, not a protagonist in the true sense of the word), has no empathy for anyone, especially those most deserving of it (which does NOT include him) and that he has such overblown, entitled, self-pitying, whiney sympathy only for himself, combined with the hallmark lack of remorse and no sense of guilt or awareness of his impact on others -- all converge in this film to make him the epitome of the self-involved, developmentally arrested, narcissistic sociopath -- somehow this is now the gold standard for males on film and in the world at this point and time.

One of his counterpoints (James LeGros) states with a laser-true flash: "I bet you haven't done one good thing in life -- and I bet you won't". It captures the absolute essence of the Cal character. Something the other characters he bulldozes over in the film seem to realize fairly quickly despite the director having stacked the deck to manipulate sympathy for Cal. That is a testament to the supporting cast's talent and skills.

Cal's eventual 'return' has nothing to do with character development, transformation or evolution of consciousness. It has only to do with the ultimate capitulation that until something better comes along, he may as well be back in his comfy cozy status quo of entitled enablement where the living is easy and no one will demand that he grow up--something of which he is willfully incapable and uninterested in doing.

The film could have been pointed and intentional about showing the traps and tragedies -- the devastating effects of this kind of lack of conscience/ consciousness, but it excuses and glorifies it instead -- in fact, it wallows in self-pity right along with the arrogant, selfish, emotionally stunted main character.

(and it sure sent chills up my spine when thinking of the recent revelations about convicted murderer Scott Peterson).

If you want to see Crudup at his most nuanced and full of an exciting potential that has never been truly realized in my opinion, see the underrated 'Inventing the Abbotts' ....


This film was so unfocused, rambling and uneven that it was an effort to watch the whole thing. (I actually thought some interesting plot elements might develop.) This was nothing more than a "coming-of-age" film for the thirty-something generation. Total crap and I have no idea what Julianne Moore was doing in this since it was the only reason I picked it off the shelf at the rental store.


This is one of those road movies that would like to tell you a lotta things about women,the universe,the better life,the terrible solitude of the brilliant architect from Manhattan who severs all links with everyone,including his three years old child -which may seem irresponsible to some-Actually the hero wins hands down when it comes to selfishness and the scene with his old school pal ,which begins as some kind of good old days conversation and ends on a threatening note is the oasis in a desert movie.

The scene with-the-father-who-left-home-when -I-was-a child has been told and told and TOLD.Of course it did not prevent the offspring from making his way of life.And when you see the hero's wife's attitude ,you may think she must never have heard about woman's lib.

The best is the soundtrack which includes superb songs by Willie Nelson,Tom Waits or Bonnie Raitt...But you can enjoy them without this tedious pretentious work.


I am one of those people that respect every film-maker as having achieved, each film I watch I usually respect(although I admit I select carefully) and appriciate for what it is. Not any more. This is truly one of the worst scripts I have seen produced as a film...so much so I felt compelled to warn others off it. The dialogue was truly unbelievable, the main protaganist was about the last person I would be interested in finding out more about. A scene were an old school friend 'tells it like it is' made me laugh only because it was a pathetic attempt to reveal the subtext of an already concluded plot. The direction is glib at best and at worst film-making by numbers. To compare this film to the atmospheric majesty of a film like Five Easy Pieces is a travesty.


The reviewer in Variety said this was "overwritten and overlong", and I kind of agree with it. It has some events that seem forced and unlikely, like when Cal (Crudup once again as the 'lost, vacant, and kind of dull' male) and Julianne Moore find a map of the US in kind of an unbelievable place. The story is one of those 1970's "guy must find meaning in his life" stories, and I found myself imagining Jack Nicholson in his prime playing the role of Cal. The whole "hitting the road to find meaning in life" theme is still kind of interesting though. Does it all really lead back to family? I wasn't so sure. The acting is okay, I particularly liked Karen Allen and James LeGross, who unfortunately only have supporting roles. I'd give it a 'five'.


The worst movie I've seen in a long time. This whole thing rings false, and the Billy Crudup character especially so. The potential for a good story is there, but this movie never comes close to delivering. Every plot element just drifts away.


Lois Weber's film "Hypocrites" was and still kind of is a very bold and daring film. I enjoyed it and was very impressed by the filming and story of it. The priest sees the hypocrisy of the people in his church and tries to show them the "naked" truth. The people are appalled when he reveals the naked statue portraying truth, after failing to lead them to it and the few that did, help along the way. The people do not want to face the truth that they are doing anything wrong, but it shows them putting things before God, going to beach parties acting inappropriate, their materialistic ways, and other things in which the people of our world do that tend to not be morally right. In the end, failing to gain any followers, he must enter into the gates of heaven alone. This film seems to me to be very bold, in the fact that a naked woman is shown throughout it, especially considering the time period in which this film was made. The imagery and symbolism portrayed in this movie I found incredible. The way they made the naked woman translucent and using a naked woman to symbolize the naked truth shows a lot of creativity and art. Showing the different sins of the people as they walked down the road and refused to follow along the path, each with different excuses, setbacks, and/or higher priorities, was a great way of representing the people of today. This film does a very good job of getting the moral message across to its audience. Lois Weber has a tremendous way of capturing her spectators' attention with her creativity, symbolism, visuals, and through auditory. Even the music of the piano throughout this film is very beautiful and fitting with the whole theme.


The story, as I understand, is "based on real events." That can be either good or bad, depending on what sort of license is taken with those real events and how they are rendered.

In this case, the results are enough to gag a maggot. I wasn't expecting much going in -- anticipating a story of rich high-school kids taking an ocean cruise under a stern skipper. That is, what I figured was a coming-of-age movie along the lines of something about boot camp or basic training, the kind in which the drill sergeant says, "My duty is to snap you out of your winsome civilian ways." Well, it IS that, in a way. The kids start out as kids and end up as an organic group. But this is far hokier than any boot-camp movie I've ever seen, outside of a deliberate comedy. Who WROTE this thing? The air is filled with slogans that belong, not in high school, but in the third grade. The dialog offends the ear.

Jeff Bridges usually does a better-than-average job but in this case his performance is mediocre. He brings nothing extra to the part, although given his lines, it's hard to know how he could do much with them. The rest of the cast is undistinguished and a few of the kids are painfully inadequate. There's a lot of tearing up, and considerable crying. The best scene involves a dolphin.

The immature clichés continue to the very end. The Coast Guard is cast in the role of the hard-hearted court at the hearing that follows the disaster. The interrogator does nothing but hit Bridges over the head with his misinterpretations and misconstruction of events. "You let the crew drink alcohol, didn't you?" (A couple of harmless drinks.) "And you didn't punish them, though you punished them for killing a fish." (The dolphin business.) The technical details surrounding the sinking are left murky. What is a "white squall" anyway? And if it's as dangerous as Bridges claims, why weren't the whole crew alerted and wearing life vests? But why go on? If "The Albatross" were a Dreadnaught, it would still be torpedoed and sunk by the ludicrous comic-book script.


As a person who knows the filmed ship and some other ships, too, I cannot see the movie as a movie, only. As a movie is has some great, wonderful shots of the ship, most of them done on an existing vessel - apart of the ones in the disaster scenes, of course, and a certain room under deck. But regarding the story and dialogs I only can call it big crap. Nothing of that would happen like this on a real sailing vessel. No wonder, the film had bad impact on the existing ship - if I didn't know better, I wasn't tempted to do a sailing voyage for sure. Definitely, for Europeans I recommend to switch off once the ship ran aground. After that, the over-emotional, very American part begins which I couldn't bear. The pics are really, really great, no wonder in a Ridley Scott film, but if you can avoid listening to the text, it will become much better.


Duncan Roy's writing and direction is really, and regularly, below par. Actually it sort of stinks. AKA is almost as bad as his recent (horrible, self-serving) remake of Dorian Gray - absurd, contorted dialogue among the 'upper class' characters, at once idiotic and pretentious, amateurish, stilted to its core. Characterisiation and script - and sometimes the acting - is creaky like a school play...but worse, there's a sort of peacock self-certainty about the direction which is just soul destroying when the director clearly hasn't grasped...he's just no good. Diana Quick must be cringing with embarrassment. DR you should just get out of film...seriously.


AKA

Aspect ratio: 3 x 1.78:1 within 2.39:1 frame (Triptych)

Sound format: Dolby Digital

1978: A working class teenager (Matthew Leitch) assumes a false identity and gatecrashes high society, where he learns harsh lessons about the divisions between Rich and Poor.

Autobiographical feature by director Duncan Roy (JACKSON: MY LIFE... YOUR FAULT), an exposé of the pre-Thatcherite aristocracy, as seen through the eyes of a low-rent 'commoner' whose world view is transformed by his adventures amongst the Upper Classes. Unfortunately, Roy's screenplay says very little we didn't already know about the excesses of the idle rich, and the narrative is only briefly ignited by Leitch's relationship with a handsome but self-destructive rent boy (Peter Youngblood Hills) who turns out to be no less hypocritical than the very people he seeks to emulate. Also starring Diana Quick (as an outrageous snob who believes working class people are "embarrassed to be alive"!), Bill Nighy as the black sheep of a wealthy family, Lindsay Coulson ("EastEnders"), Blake Ritson (DIFFERENT FOR GIRLS) and Georgina Hale in a typically flamboyant cameo, flashing her boobs at all and sundry, without a care in the world!

Unfortunately, much of the film's impact is diluted by Roy's insistence on using a Triptych effect (three separate 1.78:1 images are letterboxed within the 2.39:1 frame, each one providing a different viewpoint of individual scenes), which shrinks the image and distances viewers from events on-screen. A long, pointless film, too personal for wide appeal, and hampered throughout by a cinematic process which fails to reconcile the story at hand. A single-image version is also available (framed theatrically at 1.85:1), with the on-screen title AKA: LIES ARE LIKE WISHES.


Unlike one of the reviewers below, I don't think that a great and glittering career should lie ahead for the director of this inept and tedious piece of navel-gazing. Whereas it is good to see a British director attempting to break out of the confines of convention, AKA's only claim for innovative fame rests on the novelty of the triple screen. At first you think that this might prove to be an interesting device, but its only real contribution to the film is to test your eyesight and patience. Seeing the same character from 3 different angles in a 2-dimensional movie does not make it more revealing or complex. If you can forget the triple screen (which, granted, is very hard to do), you then have to deal with the unintentionally hilarious script. The audience is beaten into submission by chiche upon chiche about the British class system. The film has the political and emotional sophistication of an episode of Upstairs and Downstairs. To sum up: the Emperor's New Clothes. And a rather poor outfit, too.


I'm a bit spooked by some of these reviews praising A.K.A. Not only do they sound as if they were written by the same person, but they contain all kinds of insider information that surely you could only find by reading the press book from cover to cover. Please don't tell me that the director is writing his own reviews as that would just be too sad to contemplate.

 Afraid I'm another one of those who hated the film and was surprised by its unapologetic amateurism. Great idea, shame about the execution. And it was most disconcerting to watch so many good actors (as well as some very bad ones including the leaden lead) all apparently thinking that they were appearing in a series of very different films.

 I wish that A.K.A. had been audacious, innovative or just simply interesting. Sadly it was like watching an unintentionally hysterical home video with arty aspirations. A missed opportunity.


I was very interested in seeing this movie despite the article I read about the director in Tattler Magazine. I don't judge movies by what the director may or may not have done. This debut feature was very difficult to watch. I found the split screens to be a distraction to the drama in the film, some of the supporting characters gave bad performances, and the film to be a copy of several other films I have seen. There really wasn't anything fresh about this


What a self-indulgent mess! Duncan Roy's film is apparently autobiographical, however it's impossible to find any glimmer of emotional truth in this chaotic, badly acted and woefully amateurish fiasco.

In a way, you have to admire the balls of a man who through grim determination and a very generous benefactor manages to make a film about his own rise and fall - from abused, working class lad to criminal English lord. However, the tone is either so self-pitying or so arch, that it's impossible to engage with either characters or plot. The raw material is potentially great stuff, however Roy seems unable to tease out the kind of tale that should grab you by the throat, then move you to tears. And it's a complete mystery why it was ever made to be screened as a triptych of images - presumably because a single image would have been too tedious to watch.

It's also interesting to see so many otherwise good actors - Bill Nighy, Diana Quick, Lindsay Coulson - giving career-worst performances.


What can I say about this movie, it really is one of the worst gay themed movies, ever to come out of the UK. I can only imagine the likes of Diana Quick and Georgina Hale, needed the money. What story there is, is such a rambling mess that you loose interest pretty quickly. It's supposed to be based on real life events. Well, all I can say to that one, is that it's an insult to the real life characters. The DVD is out at the moment in the UK. It's available in either the split screen format, which must make it even worse that the full screen version I watch. Gay cinema can be so much better than this, and we deserve more.


I was so looking forward to seeing this at the film festival in Sydney. I left the theater, like many others, before the end credits because I couldn't sit through it any longer. It was badly shot, the sound sucks, and the acting was worse than an episode of The Love Boat. Now I know why this film hasn't been able to find an American distribution company to release it in the United States. This screams of a low budget high school production.


I saw this film without knowing much about it at all. The split screen device was immediately irritating, and things didn't improve for me after the title sequence had finished. The plot, characters and dialogue were all extremely cliched - poor guy from abusive family gets thrown out of home, wants to get out of his 'lot', reinvents himself, changes his voice, dresses in others' clothes, is adopted by a gay man who he proceeds to disgard on his way up to becoming part of an international set of drug taking British aristocrats.

The estate of Patricia Highsmith (talented mr ripley) should be suing the makers of this film. The triple screen to me, together with the over 120 min duration, emphasises the almost non existent editing. Can't decide which image works and is the most powerful, why not show three and hope you get it right with one of them. This gimmick removed any connection or interest I had with any of the characters. Important dialogue was repeated 3 times across each screen, as if to say 'this is an important / moving / deep moment, ok!'.

Don't waste your time.


This movie was so frustrating to watch. The split screens don't allow you to get very involved in the emotions of the actors. I was constantly going back and forth watching all these tiny images that I found myself with wiplash by the end. This is basically a rip off of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and "Timecode" I was very let down with this film makers attempt to be cool. I wish I had walked out like so many other people did.


When I voted my "1" for this film I noticed that 75 people voted the same out of 146 total votes. That means that half the people that voted for this film feel it's truly terrible. I saw this not long ago at a film festival and I was really unimpressed by it's poor execution. The cinematography is unwatchable, the sound is bad, the story is cut and pasted from many other movies, and the acting is dreadful. This movie is basically a poor rip-off of three other films. NO WONDER THIS WAS NEVER RELEASED IN THE USA.


It's so depressing when film makers try to be cool and it's so obvious here. This has below average acting, laughable dialogue, split screens that are difficult to watch, and many goofs in it's attempt to be a period film and autobiographical. This film should be avoided at all costs. I was told not to go and see this film. I wish I had listened.


This is by far the worst version of William Shakespeare's tragic masterpiece I have ever seen. It seems the filmmakers didn't actually read Shakespeare's text. No, they just took what they wanted from the Lawerence Olivier movie. The plot is out of order and slimmed down to its bare necessity, yet there is time for the non-canon Olivier created incest hint between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude. Could we have had the "Something rotten in the state of Denmark" bit instead? Casting is another issue. I understand that the far superior Branagh movie had its weak bits (Robin Williams and Charlton Heston come to mind), but this one has very few good moments. I do like Laertes and Polonius, but the rest of the cast is stale. Mel Gibson's creepy stubble is irritating, and one often wonders if he has any idea what he is saying. Many of the actors seem to have just memorized the part--they know less about what is being said than sophomores in high school.

If you want a version of Hamlet, check out Kenneth Branagh's or even Lawerence Olivier. To be frank, even Disney's Hamlet is better.


Well, to each his own, but I thought Gibson's Hamlet was the most god-awful rendition I had ever witnessed... as subtly nuanced as a paper bag, and as inspired as a telemarketing call. The only reason I watched the movie through to the end was that I held out hope that either it would get better or become unintentionally funny. No luck.

No disrespect for the supporting cast or for Zefferelli's staging, but nothing can make up for the bungling of the main character. I have seen Hamlet well-portrayed as an African prince, as an animated lion, as a rough-and-tumble warrior, as a romantic poet, etc. etc. etc. . But IMHO this portrayal was just a plentiful lack of wit together with most weak hams.


It is one of the joys of Shakespeare that there can be no definitive performances - no single performance can be right', but some can be wrong, and this one is. There are at least two things about Hamlet which cannot be dispensed with: 1. His indecisiveness and inability to take any kind of action. For God's sake that is what makes the play last as long as it does. If you had Othello there instead of Hamlet, Claudius would be dead by the end of Act One. Any production has to try to explain why Hamlet delays, why he is incapable of action. 2. His sexual disgust. His total revulsion at the thought of what his mother and uncle get up to in bed fill him with an utter disgust for all things sexual and this means that any kind of relationship with Ophelia is impossible. At the slightest hint of sex, Hamlet throws up. So, what does Mel Gibson give us? Lusty action-man. You could not get further from the character of Hamlet if you tried. There are lots of ways Hamlet can be played, but this isn't one of them! What I don't understand is since they managed to get such good actors for the other parts - Claudius, Polonius and so on, why couldn't they find one to play Hamlet as well. Mark Rylance in the part would have made this a great film. This Mel Gibson', whoever he is, completely let down the rest of the cast. And lets face it, Hamlet without the prince really doesn't work.


Franco Zeffirelli's ("The Taming Of The Shrew," "Romeo And Juliet," "Jesus Of Nazareth," "Othello") third stab at transferring Shakespeare to the screen works very well, with the casting of Mel Gibson ("Mad Max," "Lethal Weapon" and pre-"The Passion Of The Christ" notoriety) in the role formerly owned by Sir Laurence Olivier (and rightly so; see my review on his "Hamlet," arguably the best interpretation of one of the Bard's timeless (and most quoted) tragedies) and redone 5 years later by Kenneth Branagh as a full-bloodied treatment, explaining its 3 hour 22 minute running time, combined with a dream cast (and a lot of little additions, which were well-chosen and expertly done by the contemporary master of William Shakespeare, Kenneth Branagh, the director of "Henry V" and "Dead Again." Joining the "Lethal Weapon" star are Glenn Close ("The Big Chill"), Paul Scofield ("A Man For All Seasons"), Alan Bates, Ian Holm, Michael Maloney (who would be cast as Roderigo opposite Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Fishburne in Oliver Parker's "Othello" (see my review of Olivier's "stage" version of the tragedy, though he only starred in it) and who Branagh would cast as Laertes in HIS 3-hour version of "Hamlet" (a proper homage to Sir Laurence Olivier and his classic version of the play; see my review on that one as well) 5 years later), Nathaniel Parker (who would be cast as Cassio in his brother's version of "Othello" 4 years later) and Helena Bonham-Carter, who would be cast in "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" 4 years later.

Zeffirelli intended this movie as a homage to Sir Laurence Olivier (who had died 2 years prior to this movie) and it works pretty well, for the most part. What I was slightly uncomfortable with was Zeffirelli's misplacing a lot of lines and in one scene, he gives one of Hamlet's lines to the Ghost. Also, Helena Bonham-Carter DID NOT convince me as Ophelia. She was too dull and unreal, whereas Jean Simmons (who had immortalized the role in Olivier's version) and Kate Winslet (who did an acceptable job in Kenneth Branagh's uncut, epic revisionist reworking of "Hamlet") were good in the role, with Jean Simmons being the BEST Ophelia ever, that's why she was nominated for Best Actress in 1948 (she didn't win-what a shame). Ian Holm said his lines too quickly, not slowly as I expected him to, in a scene with him, Laertes and Ophelia. But then again, I'm more used to Felix Aylmer and Richard Briers' interpretations of the role and I think that they did better jobs than Holm in their respective versions of "Hamlet" (both done by great directors, actors, text-editors, producers AND stars of all their versions of the Bard's work) as Polonius.

The rest of the cast, however, was excellent. The scene where Hamlet confronts his mother was very well done, but Olivier and Branagh heightened the scene to better lengths to create even more emotional intensity and suspense that the scene required.

I recommend this version just to pass the time, but it's ideal as a teaching tool for 12th-grade English teachers (I recommend showing Olivier's version first, then Branagh's and finally this version). Despite the film's "PG" rating, there was really nothing objectionable in the movie. Only what the play called for.

The Best Versions Of "Hamlet" Are:

#1 Sir Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh. Both were so good that I can't decide which one was the best. See my reviews on these versions for more information.

#2 Franco Zeffirelli. This one was alright. It started out alright with a scene not in the play, but should've then progressed to the actual beginning of the play, where a guard cries out "Who's there?" "Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself!!" That scene scares the hell out of you because you're sitting quietly and then-bam!!, you almost jump out of your skin. In short, that scene sets the tone for the rest of the play. HUGE blunder on Zeffirelli's part to omit that scene. It also misplaced a lot of lines (and cut others that I think should've been put in), such as the line where Hamlet says to Ophelia "Get thee to a nunnery, why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?"; that line was supposed to have occurred in THAT scene, NOT where it was placed in the film (after the "To Be Or Not To Be" soliloquy. This version struggles between cutting out too much or too little from an excellent piece of literature. Kenneth Branagh would remedy that 5 years later with his uncut version of the tragedy, making HIS version a more fitting homage to Sir Laurence Olivier, as several of the actors (aside from him) had performed "Hamlet" on stage/or on film many times on different occasions. However, Zeffirelli's take on "Hamlet" IS faithful to the play and THAT's what I was looking for. The setup for the final act duel was the same as in Olivier and Branagh's versions, only that the denouement in Branagh's version was more violent than the denouement of the previous two faithful versions (more in line with the play; Olivier toned it down...and it worked equally well) and stuck more closely to the play, with Branagh throwing in a few harmless touches of his own...to very good effect.

This version is Not Rated.


Admittedly, the only reason I watched this film -- since it's been about a decade since it was released -- was because of Ian Holm; I was intrigued to see his portrayal of my second-favorite character in this play. At any rate, this film is as gritty as anything the Old Zeff has produced since "Jesus of Nazareth." But some of the best parts of the play have been left out. I understand the directing/editing choices, but I don't think that it really does justice to the play. Perhaps I'm too much a purist. I would have to direct people (who have read this far) toward Branagh's version, if it weren't that I despise his tendency toward over-dramatization. All the same, he plays a better Hamlet than Gibson. But then, weren't we all waiting for Gibson to prove himself as an actor? Now, all he's done is to prove that he wants to make films in extinct languages.

...Perhaps the only Shakespearean-worthy acting here is Scofield as The Ghost.


The play has been heavily edited and the order of the scenes has been completely mixed up. The acting is appalling (especially by Helena Bonham Carter) and the cinematography poor.

The result is a slow, confused, boring film which will put those new to Shakespeare off Shakespeare instantly!

If you can't see a stage play then at least see the Olivier version (1948) instead of this drivel!


(This is a review of the later English release by Disney, featuring Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, and co.)

I really wanted this film to be good. Really, really. I'm a huge fan of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, and after seeing all the glowing reviews on this earlier Miyazaki film, I was eager to see it. But I was shocked, shocked I say, at the quality of this film. Those later films boast well-crafted plots, 3-dimensional characters, and the best film music since...well...ever. This film just doesn't come close.

Might as well start w/ the positive aspects, though. Like all Miyazaki films, this one is still very imaginative, with a bizarre fantasy/sci-fi setting, in a post-apocalyptic world where insects are the dominant species. Nausicaa can also boast some far superior animation to other films from its time. (though not as beautiful and fluid as Miyazaki's later films) And the English voice acting is quite well done.

But this film...just...isn't...good... The characters are all cardboard - from saccharine sweet little Nausicaa, to the ruthlessly evil Tolmekians, to everyone in between. Once you've seen each of them for 30 seconds, you've seen all there is. And the fact that the plot just ambles along doesn't help.

Then there's the music... Now, Hisaichi is hands down my favorite film composer, but Nausicaa doesn't do him justice. Half the music is 80's keyboards on overdrive, and it usually enters and leaves so abruptly that it distracts the visuals rather than helping them. I highly suspect that Hisaichi was told to compose a lot of the music before he even saw the picture.

But wait! There's a great message with this film, right?! Let's all save the environment! Too bad that this film hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. There is a scene in which Nausicaa hugs a tree. No, really. I ain't kidding.

It makes me a little sad to talk about how lame this film is. But for some reason all the other reviews on IMDb seem to adore it. And when the characters have to talk to themselves in extended sentences to tell you what's going on, that's lame.

If you're the kind of person who worships anime, enjoys 80's music, and plants a tree every Arbor day, you will probably like this film. Otherwise, save your money for his later films, because they rock big time.


I am partly a fan of Miyazaki's work. I say "partly" because most of his films fall into two categories: brilliant, and boring. Sadly this film falls into the later category.

This film suffers from the same fundamental problems as Miyazaki's recent film "Howl's Moving Castle". An intriguing premise is set up, but then immediately reduced to little more than a backdrop for some unfathomable events that only serve to confuse the plot rather than explain it.

The first third of the film reveals the post-apocalyptic world the story is set in, and actually looks like an very interesting story is about to unfold. From then on things go down hill. The middle part of the film is mostly made up of thinly-veiled eco-propaganda, and the ending is heavily marred by the reliance on the kind of impenetrable spiritualism which ruins a large number of Japanese animated films.

Overall the film feels as though someone ripped out every other page from the script before passing it on the the animators. What is left is something which is visually stunning (although sadly the version I saw was an Nth-generation copy, with poor colour - which gives rise to the common myth that Nausicaa shows her bare bottom when flying), but which makes little sense and ultimately left me confused.


This movie is very difficult to understand, why do the couple want to divorce ? No reason is given, we don't know anything about their life in Lisbon, and even nothing about Marie's job. We may only understand that a certain bore appeared in this life. We don't even know who took the initiative of asking the divorce.

The way of filming is kind of special : I didn't know the director's name before the end of the movie, when I read it on the screen, I understood why it was so slow, only 42 shots in a hundred minutes (I counted them) ! It reminded me of some Japanese movies I saw in the 90's, in fact we must accept that this is the expression of another culture even if the set is occidental. I don't know if this story would have suited a Japanese couple.

One can see the logic of the scenes but the result is a bore, anyway I decided to watch it to the end because I wanted to get the spirit and the meaning of it all. In fact, I only understood that the story of these two beings may not be over yet since the train leaves the station without Marie. This is few for such a long time ! I can't recommend this work.


I usually much prefer French movies over American ones, with explosions and car chases, but this movie was very disappointing. There is no way to write a spoiler because nothing really happens. This French couple has been living in Lisbon for years, and they return to Paris for a friend's wedding. They announce to another friend they are having dinner with that they are going to split. Then nothing much happens, they don't seem to know whether they want to separate or not. I don't necessarily think that their hesitations make for a bad movie, it is very human to hesitate before making such a decision for good, but this could be treated in an interesting manner, giving some flesh to their desires and their relationship, but that does not happen. One gets out of the theater unsure of why these two got together or want to split. The only piece I enjoyed was the conversation with the drunk. That was true to life.


I thought this is an unbelievable boring movie! i heard the director can't speak french and so he left his actors tell what they wanted... Well, Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi is great, as usual but I can't say the same of other actors. They have nothing to say, especially Bruno Todeschini.

They all seem very tired, this being one of the movie plot : tired of being together, of living abroad, of their live in general; so they spend half the movie sleeping in a hotel room. After a while i felt sleepy myself...

I gave 4, because of some very beautiful scenes, including the last one.


(Only light spoilers in here)

Stealing Sinatra is a half-slapstick comedy about dimwit kidnappers, dimwit victims, and a few other side-stories thrown in to eat up some time.

You will see some poor performances all around in this movie. The drama is forced, and the humor makes no sense. Whether you're watching the kidnappers threaten the victim who won't shut up, or a victim's father responding to the criminal's death threat with "Care for some tea?", none of it is believable. This quite comfortably fits into the "wannabe movie" category.

You will also be listening to a repetitive goofy music track throughout pretty much the entire movie. It's quite unprofessional, and adds nothing. It's really just a sad attempt at making an achingly unfunny movie seem somewhat witty.

However, if you're able to look past all of this and suspend a lot of disbelief, you might be entertained by the adequate storyline.

I voted 4/10.


Underwoods goofy story about a young man(Arquette) who convinces his friends that they should kidnap Frank Sinatra Jr. (Nicholas). The film is written ridiculously, direction is odd, dialogues are out of place and scrambled, the actors didn't do it much justice either, Arquette is annoying throughout, Ian Nicholas was nonexistent, Macy was decent, but only because hes a pretty good actor and probably just tried his best not to come out of this project with a totally embarrassing performance, he was at least tolerable. This is a stupid film in my eyes, boring at times, not entertaining, just a film that i wouldn't recommend to anybody. IMDb Rating: 5.5, my rating: 4/10


Yah. I know. It has the name "Sinatra" in the title, so how bad can it be? Well, it's bad, trust me! I rented this thinking it was some movie I missed in the theaters. It's not. It's some garbage "movie" made by the folks at Showtime (cable station). Geez, these cable stations make a few bucks they think they can make whatever garbage movies they want! It's not good. I am as big a Sinatra fan as any sane man, but this movie was just dumb. Boring. Dull. Unfunny. Uninteresting. The only redeeming quality is that (assuming they did stick to the facts) you do learn about what happened to the captors of Frank Jr. Otherwise it's just a stupid film.


I don't know where to begin. Perhaps the whole idea of this movie was just a disaster waiting to happen. There is nothing slightly humorous about a kidnapping. I don't know what was more offensive--the subject matter or David Arquette's "performance". It was like watching a bull get it's penis cut off, although I think the bull felt better afterwards. The filmmakers should find something about Sinatra other than his son's kidnapping to show (like, I don't know, his TALENT AS A SINGER!!!!). His family shouldn't have to relive that horror. Thank GOD it was just shown on HBO and not released in theaters. Please don't watch this if you have any self respect.


Except for the glossy look, this show had little to recommend it. The writing was patronizing and convoluted. Without exception the characters were shallow and unsympathetic. The female characters came off the worst... reduced to spoiled, selfish airheads whose soul ambition was to run around in slip dresses and stilettos, and try to bag a man. This aspect of the show is all the more curious as the series was produced by two women! The acting for the most part was dull and humourless with the cast playing one dimensional characters attacking every scene on the same note. This is not entirely the actors fault. Had they spent more time developing the characters and the storyline, adding a little injection of style and humour, MVP might have been a hit. What we're left with is something flat and vaguely unpleasant.


I love Ustinov's distinctive, literate narration. And the photography is quiet nice. We put the film on for our 3.5 year old who sort of wandered in and out of the room. So for our first viewing, we only saw about 1/3 of the movie and were quite charmed. When we re-watched, sitting down for family time,we were all mortified at the violence and life-threatening situations the poor otter got into. About halfway through the movie, there's a rack of dead, bloody furry animals. Lots of blood, not just a little. Then at the end, there's a wild struggle with a dog, then blood clouds the water. You'd think, given the G rating, that's all you'll see...that they will IMPLY one of the animals died. Nope. They drag the carcass out of the water and show it plainly for several traumatizing seconds. Personally, as an adult I love horror movies and am fine with violent movies ala Scorsese, Cronenberg, Tarantino. Heck, I love the ultra violent Battle Royale. But those aren't kid movies and don't advertise themselves as such. If you are deliberately raising your young ones to see the harsh realities of life for cute animals, then this is the movie for you. If you are like me and my wife though, you might want to spare your child nightmares and avoid this one.


I have never felt the need to add a review to this website until now, but having just sat through the film I felt it necessary to warn parents who may be thinking of showing it to their children. Please don't! This is no Disney film. This film tells us 'life is cruel' and if you show it to your children, in my opinion, you are too.

The video box describes the film as a 'delight for all ages' and the IMDb plot outline describes it as a 'family film'. I just had to find a definition of 'family film' and came across the following: "Usually consisting of comedies or adventures, these films are often based on children's literature and can involve any number of helpful animals, friendly supernatural beings and fantasy worlds, all geared to stimulate and appeal to the imagination. Whatever the situation, there is little or no offensive material and generally a lesson is learned on the way." Not an apt description of Tarka The Otter, which contains some thoroughly unpleasant scenes, totally unsuitable for young children, and an ending that qualifies the film as a 'feel bad' movie. The lesson learned? As I said: life is cruel. Family entertainment? I don't think so. Unless you hate your family, that is.

Another review, more revealing than this but worth reading, can be found by following the 'external reviews' link.


I really don't know much about the Marquis de Sade, not having read any of his book, but I never imagined him as a flaming queen. Carson Kressley of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, or Jack from Will and Grace would have fit easily into the role that Nick Mancuso gave us.

The movie itself was rather thin and seemed more of a parody - or an excuse to show the Paris whorehouse several times with men and women having a good time on the couches in the parlor. What? They can't afford a room? I did find it cute that the Madame (Irina Malysheva) felt she was doing her patriotic duty taking care of the soldier's needs.

The movie was just an excuse to show a lot of breasts - and I mean a lot! Fans of Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) might be interested in seeing him in a different role as Inspector Marais.


The revisionist history -- making the evil Marquis de Sade a semi-heroic romantic -- is mind-boggling enough. But the atrocious acting, amateurish cinematography and terrible dubbing make this film achingly bad. The only reason to keep watching is that almost all the women in the film are gorgeous. And, amazingly, being tortured for days, with hands bound overhead, apparently doesn't detract from a woman's beauty, hairstyle and makeup. My guess is that the producers filmed mostly in Russia, choosing women for their looks -- and willingness to work cheap -- rather than acting ability. If you decide to watch this because you have nothing better to do, or are a film student looking for bad examples, fast-forward through every scene not involving nudity.


This movie is not very bad tjough. But one cannot find anything new about the personality of Marquis de Sade from this movie. The movie tries to stay on the borderline between erotic and insightful and it cannot succeed at either. The cinematography is really bad (straigh-to video quality)


Douglas Sirk's inaugural "women's-picture" weepy for Universal, based on a preachy, dogmatic, didactic novel by the intolerable Lloyd C. Douglas (author of that other beloved piece of crap, *The Robe*). Rock Hudson, in the role that catapulted him to stardom, plays Bob Merrick, a drunken playboy worth untold millions who is more interested in chasing skirts and racing speedboats than in finishing his medical degree. In the first scene, he wrecks his boat on a sumptuously photographed lake. The accident nearly kills Merrick, and thus he requires a rather mysterious "resuscitator machine" to keep him alive . . . meanwhile, across town, beloved surgeon Dr. Phillips finally drops dead from a heart condition. Since the local hospital can maintain only one resuscitator at a time, Phillips dies so that the louse may live. When Merrick learns of this, he tries to make apologetic overtures to Phillips' family, especially to the widow (Jane Wyman, coiffed and clothed in matronly hauteur), but indeed anyone and everyone who knew the surgeon spits at Merrick like a brace of cobras. One doctor on the hospital staff even calls it "a total waste" that the playboy lived instead of the Christ-like surgeon. Hippocrates might have had something to say about that!

These early scenes are where you'll find the typical Sirkian iconoclasm: the director rubs our faces so much in the unpleasantness of middle-class, mid-century America, that one finds oneself rooting for the wastrel playboy to put whoopee-cushions under the ramrod fannies of these moral hypocrites. But, alas, no: the risible plot of the novel must proceed, and Merrick soon finds himself getting converted by God, in the guise of pipe-puffing Otto Kruger, an artist who claims that Phillips made him a better man and even a better painter. (Why don't we see any of this amazing art?) We learn that the intolerably ubiquitous Dr. Phillips would often refuse payment for medical services rendered (though who exactly qualified for these "magnificent exemptions" is never made clear). This is supposed to provide our hero with a whole new outlook on life and an example of personal conduct. Kruger even tries to make it all sound very illicitly exciting: "Once you start this thing, there's no way out of it! It's an obsession . . . a MAGNIFICENT obsession!" So Merrick tries it out by AGAIN pestering the widow with apologetic overtures, but he somehow causes her to get hit by a car. She loses her eyesight. Apparently, Merrick will have several more stations-of-the-cross to trudge past before he can be accounted a decent fellow.

But Sirk continues to sneak in his revenges even as the movie grows more and more preachy. The most obvious bit has to be the presence of Agnes Moorehead as the head hospital nurse and Wyman's friend and unrequited lesbian lover. Note the disappointment on Moorehead's face when Merrick, finally redeemed as a doctor, shows up to save Wyman's life near the end. Hudson's own homosexuality, an open secret in Hollywood at the time, is also used to great ironic effect. He and Wyman -- dowdy and fifteen years older -- generate absolutely zero erotic heat in their scenes together, which, by the way, are purposefully few, presumably because any more scenes between the stars would hopelessly expose this whole enterprise. (One thing we feel certain of: if Rock Hudson was obsessed by anything, it certainly wasn't Jane Wyman.) It's a chronic case of *Tea and Sympathy*. Sirk seemed to enjoy tweaking everyone's noses by having this gay actor -- who was attractive to the innocent ladies of the era -- coolly drift through these exquisitely-colored "women's pictures". In fact, the director worked with Hudson 6 or 7 more times, to best effect in the follow-up to this film, *All That Heaven Allows*, which re-teamed Hudson with Wyman but was also accompanied by a realistic plot. In *Obsession*, meanwhile, we must endure God/Kruger gazing beneficently down from an observation-window onto Merrick and his medical team as they prepare to save Wyman's life, in tandem with a musical score of swelling vocals from a cheesy Hollywood choir.

But to see why Sirk is considered an auteur, check out the scene wherein Wyman explains to her grown daughter that she can in fact tell the difference from night and day. The entire frame is blackened, here: the daughter is barely visible, and Wyman's face is faintly silhouetted against a faint light. She goes on to say that she hates the night because "I know that Dawn will never come again". A great, chilling moment that deserves a much better movie than *Magnificent Obsession*.

4 stars out of 10.


I would like to know the real name of the Lodge where scenes from the movie were filmed. It is truly beautiful and hearkens back to 20's and 30's architecture like the Hotel Del Coronado. I know it was on either Big Bear Lake or Lake Arrowhead and would like to hear if it is still in existence. As for the movie itself, it is truly amazing that Jane Wyman was even nominated for an Academy Award. This must have been a period when she was well liked by her Academy peers. It really would have been interesting to get a true impression from Wyman and the other actors in this movie regarding the script. The script of this movie, like the recent Kevin Costner movie with a message in a bottle, is so unbelievable that it it limits the credibility that the actors can bring to their parts. Rock Hudson can be forgiven. He was never a great actor, was able to get by mostly on his looks and didn't get credible roles until later in his career (Pretty Maids is the exception). But Wyman must have been forced to take this movie through contractual requirements or the studio system.


Daft potboilers don't come much dafter than this, but it's a Douglas Sirk movie which makes everything alright. Except in this case it doesn't. Based on a sanctimonious novel by the sanctimonious Lloyd C Douglas, (he wrote "The Robe"), and already filmed in 1935 with Irene Dunne and Robert Taylor, it's got more uplift than a cantilever bra.

Rock Hudson is the arrogant playboy who not only feels responsible for making Jane Wyman a widow but later is directly responsible for the accident in which she loses her sight. To make amends he takes up medicine, becomes a great eye surgeon and restores it. (No, it sin't quite that daft; he had planned to become a doctor before becoming an arrogant playboy). In between times, they fall in love.

Try as I might I can't quite find the redeeming social commentary and critique of American mores that are supposed to lie just below the surface of Sirk's films, (this one isn't too deep). On the plus side Rock Hudson isn't half bad, (I think I am rediscovering him), and, of course, it looks great, (in Sirk's films people live in rooms the size of cathedrals). Nothing in this film matches the best of his later work and even in soap-opera terms this is definitely daytime TV.


I saw this at my in-laws' house one night when it popped up on TV and my mother-in-law said it was one of her favorite movies. Well, she can have it.

Look, I can enjoy a chick flick now and then, as long as it's good. But this one's extra-sappy, unrealistic, and just plain predictable, despite some decent performances from Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman. It's uncanny how quickly a woman can accept having her eyesight taken away from her. Oh well, they say love is blind...

The neat and tidy happy little ending nearly made me gag, too. And how often did we need Otto Kruger repeating the title? It happened not once, not twice, but THREE times!


One of the more prominent/popular episodes, but clearly one of the worst. A red-shirt female falls for Khan (instead of dropping dead - for a change) and then proceeds to betray Kirk and the Enterprise as if loyalty were a non-existent character trait on the ship. Makes one wonder what kind of psychology tests this supposedly brilliant Starfleet uses to test people when hiring. We have the same kind of absurd lack of loyalty in "Wink Of An Eye", when a red-shirt male takes the enemy's side just because he falls in love! Same as in SS. (However, in that episode the betrayal plays a tiny role in the overall plot.) This is very silly because it once again makes Kirk's crew seem like a bunch of soft-headed, easy-to-impress morons, who - once they fall in love with the enemy - are capable of doing just about anything. The fact that McGivers switches back to Kirk's side doesn't ameliorate the illogic in any way. Lord McGiveth and the Lord McTaketh...

Why is Khan kept behind a regular door when they know he has superior strength? That's one of several ST plot-devices that undermine Kirk's intelligence. Why does Khan hold a knife against McCoy's throat? If Khan is of such superior intelligence then one would expect him to be more wily with the way he carries himself. And what's with a Sikh being played with a Latino accent? Montalban should have been provided with a vocal coach. I was half-expecting to hear "the plaaain! the plaaaain!" in the background at any moment. Why the hell would Kirk (or any ship captain) provide limitless use of the ship's library concerning the innermost technical details of the Enterprise to ANYONE? Is the Starfleet an institution solely consisting of idiots?

SS is a very cartoonish, silly episode, so no wonder Trekkies love it. It doesn't have too many sci-fi elements in it, which is what Trekkies hate the most. It also figures that the ST franchise chose to revive this dull character for the second movie, that way pleasing rabid Trekkies, who were so very disappointed with the first movie which - you guessed it - had far too much sci-fi for the average tiny Trekkie brain.


I have seen this movie and I did not care for this movie anyhow. I would not think about going to Paris because I do not like this country and its national capital. I do not like to learn french anyhow because I do not understand their language. Why would I go to France when I rather go to Germany or the United Kingdom? Germany and the United Kingdom are the nations I tolerate. Apparently the Olsen Twins do not understand the French language just like me. Therefore I will not bother the France trip no matter what. I might as well stick to the United Kingdom and meet single women and play video games if there is a video arcade. That is all.


This movie was alright. Mary-Kate and Ashley play twin sisters (sorry for stating the obvious) who against their will are sent to Paris to spend the week with their rich uncle or something like that.

Right away two French boys (who looked slightly inbred) start talking to them and taking interest. Blah blah blah. It's an Olsen twin movie - we already know what's going to happen between them. Anyway, along with that, the twins meet a FABULOUS French model because they're in Paris, the fashion capital of the world. They make bffs with the model and spend a fun montage of shopping in the city of lights. Yep.

Plotwise, I frankly can't remember what happened. I guess that could say something, but hey, it's an Olsen movie. "Olsen movie" seems to be synonymous with "light entertainment".

Overall, this movie was annoying. I mean, can I really identify at all with two girls who are devastated upon hearing that they're going to Paris? Really? Also, the jokes really weren't that funny. However, I watched the whole movie. So it had to be somewhat entertaining. The fact that it was set in Paris was what probably kept me watching.


I was once a big Olsen fan. I received this movie when I was six and watched it almost nonstop until I was nine. Then it lay on my shelf gathering dust until yesterday. I was left speechless.

Mary-Kate and Ashley play Allie and Mel, two twelve year olds who are sent to spend Spring Break in Paris with their ambassador grandfather. Along the way, they meet, as one might expect, two cute French boys who show them the more fun side to Paris. I guess the two boys were okay, fake French accents aside.

The plot is predictable and the humour is shallow and corny. Mary-Kate and Ashley play two shallow girls with too much make up on their face.

Don't watch this movie if you're not into the Olsen twins or family movies.


A stupid movie, with a stupid plot. Feels like they threw every imaginable cliché in a blender. I especially "Liked" the part, where two teenage girls gets the french president to clean the water. Because we all know how dedicated America is to conservation of the environment. Kyoto, anyone?? And the french chef, who has apparently never seen or tasted a hamburger... This is why people think Americans have no culture. That, and the fact that we meet your kids when they come to Europe to "see the world" (i.e. eat at McDonalds in foreign capitals) They are not as dumb as the two ditsy preteens in this movie, but they have just about the same amount of cultural enlightenment and good manners.


the boys were the most appealing things in the entire movie. the girls were lame and pathetic, i mean, how can they own their own clothing line, dolls, movies, producing studios, and not smell this bomb from far away? in order to gain some sort of responsibility, which i dont really see the sense in the punishment..., they are sent to paris, far far far away from home to live with the so-called strict grandfather who holds an important standing with paris. i cant really remember what he was, so who really cares? the detail doesnt help, the girls are sent to paris to learn something.. so what exactly do they learn when they meet two french boys and are able to manipulate the guy that supposed to watch them so they can meet these guys on scooters? the typical pre-teen movie, having all pre-teens wishing to misbehave and be able to afford the trip to paris or some far away country away from parents? i dont really like the olsens anyways, they never could really shake off the image of michelle, on full house... in case you didnt see that, then you were lucky from the start. (F F-)


OK I watched this movie. Someone needs to kick me. WHY must the Olsen twins insist on subjecting the world to this putrid torture? This was another movie of watching the Olsen twins travel to an exotic location, meet some cute guys,look pretty and have everyone drooling over them.the direction,the plot development,ugh the acting. i don't know about the U.S., but in my country it is considered extremely stupid to hop onto the bike of a guy u met like,10 minutes back. though i'm now convinced that these girls will never learn to act, i really hope that one day we'll get to watch a movie with an original,even slightly plausible plot.


This movie is pretty predictable nuff said....from the delayed kissing scene to the inevitable coming around of grandpa...this is a great movie for the 10-12 age group but beyond that it has no market..i give it 4/10 only because it achieved exactly what it set out to do and nothing more.


Oh yes, I admit I have made myself guilty of the crime of seeing this piece of trash. I can't say I was forced by aliens who pointed a gun at my head, tied me to a chair and made it impossible for me to close my eyes and then turned this awful excuse for a movie on. No I did it with free will. I deliberately tortured myself. Let's go through the fact here folks. - The acting is an insult to humanity. - The plot (if it exists) is ridiculous. - The character development is horrendous - The characters that appear in the movie are so clichéd you would

recognize them in your average comic book. - The editing is sloppy and unimaginative. - The camera-work is low key. - The dialogue is simply the worst in cinematic history. - The directing: well let's say, I bet it wasn't Hitchcock.

Then to add to these facts, there was absolutely no talent involved wath so ever. The director must be smoking crack now to forgive himself for inflicting this poison to the world.

Bottom line: Passport to Paris is one of the worst movies ever made. PERMANENT!


This movie sucks so bad. Its funny to see what a poor story this has, where two pea-brained American twins who know about nothing outside their school can come to another continent, and do unimaginable things there. Its just so stupid and so bizarre. How can they just find two French guys, hit on them and in the end kiss them, not knowing anything about them? More realistic would have been having the guys take them away and rape them, which could have easily happened in such a situation. As for the bit where they make the French President drink 'bad water', that was just lame. I don't think he would have been too pleased in real life. Everything worked out too easily for the girls, and they could have been in real trouble many times in the movie, if it at all depicted real life.

My Rating : 0 / 10


Just what the world needed-another superficial cookie-cutter Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen movie. This movie gives out horrible messages to girls everywhere, complete with stereotypical "junior high" experience. They make learning anything at all seem completely taboo. I can't stand the fake French accents, or those guys on the mopeds racing around who eventually "fall" for the twins. Why am I putting everything in parenthesis? Because its all stereotyped. The twins even complain about not having a stereotypical grandfather. They should be happy they even have a grandfather at all. How does this fit the Mary-Kate/Ashley mold? This one has them fixing up a single guy who (gasp!!) ISN'T THEIR FATHER!!!!! Yes, folks, they actually have a mother who appears for all of five seconds. I haven't even sat through thirty minutes of this and I can already tell how it will end up. This movie is so pitiful, it makes Miss USA seem like an academic bowl. Really.


this is horrible film. it is past dumb. first, the only thing the twins care about is how they look and what boys like them. they are in 7th grade. not to say i am a prude or anything but it sends the wrong message to girls of all ages. being pretty and popular is not everything. but that is what the twins make it out to be. The plot is even worse. the girl's grandpa just happens to be the ambasitor(sp?) to France. He has a co-worker take the girls around paris and they meet two "cute french boys" with motorcycles. they sneek out to meet the boys start to really like them ETC.....they meet a supermodel in process and go around paris with total strangers they think are cute. need i say more? this movie may be cute to 8&9 year olds. the twins play ditsy losers that want boyfriends. it makes sends the wrong idea to girls. the film itself is not great either. i don't recomend this to anyone. i give passport to paris 2/10


Now, I watched this when I was hungover one Sunday and my auntie and uncle were visiting one day with my 2 cousins (one was 11, the other 9). We stuck on the TV and Passport To Paris had just started. My cousins both had said that they watch Two Of A Kind sometimes and I said they could watch the film if they liked. Since I was in no fit state to get up, I just stayed in the living room with them and ended up watching the film! I have to say, as a person who has no interest in those kinds of TV shows or films, I actually enjoyed it... it must have been the alcohol lol but I do admit, it would probably only appeal more to girls aged between 6 and 13, but it was a movie to pass the time. There's always a movie or a show that you don't think you'll like, but for a laugh, you enjoyed it.


Well, first off, the twins are exactly the same. there is no one is girly and one is tomboy (Ashley is taller than Mary-Kate though) and their boyfriends aren't even French, so that is bad because they are faking the accents. Lamo. It is also not that bad, not their best. I am A big Mary-Kate and Ashley fan, don't get me wrong. the storyline is OK and it is funny to watch. it is not the type of movie that you would watch over and over again. But hey, when they made this movie they were still new at the whole making their own movie thing. The girls also act like they are older then 13. but if you are a young viewer this is a good movie. Not so good if you are older than 13 unless you are a parent watching a movie with your kids. then it's OK. Good luck MK+A with your future movies!


Firstly let me get this of my chest I hate Octopussy with an absolute passion. What is so frustrating is that it had so much potential and had a very good opening sequence, unfortunately post the opening sequence it all goes downhill. Firstly there was absolutely no plot to begin with, just an excuse for Moore to tell his corny jokes. Next there are several sequences that would make a Bond fan cringe,for instance the sequence in which Bond turns up to diffuse a bomb dressed as a clown. The villains are pretty poor, Louis Jordon fails to make an impact as Kamal Khan and Bollywood veteran Kabir Bedi is equally poor as his henchman. It's funny that when people debate over what the worst Bond movie is and Octopussy gets overlooked when it can easily give them a run for their money.


I saw Roger Moore huffing it on the scenes that required running or exercise. He was a James Bond who would be most comfortable sitting at a bar telling stories with his fellow British Knights. Nothing against the elderly in age-appropriate roles, but how realistic is it for a frail-looking 58 year old man to be fighting on the wings of planes, hanging off the side of a train, swimming in a swamp with crocodiles, etc.? Aside from the fact that OCTOPUSSY was incredibly silly, vapid, and moronic, the fact that a frail oldster engaged in many death-defying stunts just made it so much easier to laugh at James Bond. By 1983 Roger Moore was clearly looking his age, and he was long past the time when he looked like he could fight with younger men. I saw this movie in the Theater, and the howls of laughter were many and very often. Any credibility that James Bond had built up was gone after OCTOPUSSY.

The only thing missing from OCTOPUSSY was Benny Hill and his supporting cast. Another low point was that the incredibly lame Louis Jordan was one half of the Axis of Evil. Jordan helped to make the whole concept even more laughable. And the Russian General was a total goof. OCTOPUSSY works better as a comedy spoof similar to SPIES LIKE US.

Even the fight scene on the train was just a bad copy of the same train scenes done in many other films by better actors. Take EMPEROR OF THE NORTH (1972) where Lee Marvin & Ernest Borgnine fought all over the top & bottom of the train and made it look exciting and real.

Roger Moore had a thin, frail body in 1983 and yet his stunt double was clearly a younger, taller, athletic & muscular man. Even the hair color did not match. This only made his fight scenes more comedic. The Moore stunts looked like those old low-budget Chop-Socky Kung-Fu movies, especially with the bad editing. The Director seemed to try to make the bad acting and bad stunts better by providing several views of the same stunt. This only accentuated the differences between Moore and his stunt double. The fact that the Train scenes with Moore were shot inside a studio could be noticed from the lighting when Moore was in the shot versus the exterior shots of the stunt double on a real train. Though many of the Bond Movies have to be the worst ever when it comes to editing their stunt-fights. You can usually clearly see that the Bond actor is not actually fighting. Overall OCTOPUSSY has to rank as one of the worst movies ever made, and easily the worst of the worst Bond movies.


An aging Roger Moore is back yet again as Bond, this time trying to find out why Agent 009 was killed, and why he had a forgery of a Faberge egg with him, and where it came from. He ends up in New Delhi India, then in East Germany after finding out about a Russian general trying to detonate a nuclear bomb at a circus, hoping NATO will push for complete disarmament, so he can take control of Western Europe, then the rest of the world.

Despite the way it sounds, this is really more of a romance, I think, between Bond and Octopussy than an action movie, and longish, but still somewhat fun. But there are way too many attempts at humour in this one; at times it seems like it was intended to be a comedy. Also, Timothy Dalton would have been better than Roger Moore in this, so there wouldn't have been so much of an age difference between Bond and Octopussy.

Useless trivia: the small plane used by Bond in the pre credits sequence is now hanging up in a Quaker Steak and Lube restaurant in Clearwater/ Largo area Florida, USA.

**1/2 out of ****


I feel very generous giving this movie a 2 out of 10. Okay, noted that the special effects are, 'okay' and Renny Harlin did make one my favorite genetically-altered-sharks-attack-a-research-station movie, that of which you may know as Deep Blue Sea. Also, the opening credits are done fairly well with a remix of WhiteZombie's "more human then human' and it does go fairly well with what is in the context of this 'movie'. But enough praise, lets get to the reason why this movie sucks so much.

Not since Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark did i ever feel that the special effects in a movie were totally wasted. Okay, our story starts with four guys who are descendants of four different families, each of which possess a never fully explained power from a never fully explained family background that did a never fully explained art of witch craft. Oh and for some reason, these descendants are all 17, all go to the same school, are all on the swim team and all, for some reason or another, sit in bed with their shirts off, sweating and talking to each other on the phone. I have nothing against gays, Gothic or thirteen year old's, but that is what this movie is aimed at...13 year old goth who question their sexuality. Yeah there's girls in it who sit on their beds in their panties or whatever, but how come they don't take their shirts off? hey its only fair.

Anyways, the characters in this movie are told that when they turn 18, they will ascend and be granted new profound, almost god-like powers. But before i go any further, i forgot to mention that when they use their powers, they age slowly and they grow more addicted to it. That explains why they got people in their late 20's to play 17 year old's. Oh and if something needs explaining, don't worry, someone will explain it all in one large piece of dialog. God this movie sucks...where was I? oh yeah, the ascension part.

Okay, apparently there was a super-secret-alpha-one family that the others forgot about or some s#*t like that, i don't know, i was dozing off at this point. But they were written out some how and the new kid at school who is befriending the group is 'secretly' one of these descendants from the fifth family. And I say 'secretly' because anyone who has seen any of the previews of this movie knows that this new guy is the bad guy. He has greater power then the others because he's older i think. Anyways, Bob Loblaw (say it out loud) things happen and we get to the final fight in the movie.

To be honest, I was all game for a witch battle. You know like Saurmon vs. Gandalf or anything along the lines with magic battle, because you know, this is about witches and stuff. Now, when these two witches throw down, its more of like...how can i put it...a very, very crappy version of a Dragonball Z type battle. They throw stuff at each other, talk, throw stuff, talk, throw stuff, talk etc. When i say 'throw stuff' i only say that because i have no clue what the F#%k their throwing at each other. It looks like big gobs of slimy water. God this movie sucks, anyways, when our main witch 'ascends' he doesn't get very powerful at all. He just throws bigger gobs of slimy water. Things happen and it ends in a way that you as the viewer know its gonna end. The good witch wins bad witch loses.

You know how shitty a movie is when the bad guy says something so incredibly stupid as, 'I'm gonna make you my Wiotch' Thats where i wanted to punch myself in the face for sitting through this whole...thing.

Yes, i admit, the thought of witches doing battle, using powers in the modern day does sound kinda cool, but when the execution is this bad, i really wished they didn't make THIS movie. Maybe if it was R-rated, had tit's and threw in more deaths with a dash of gore, it might have worked...might have worked.

If your interested in watching this, don't buy it or even rent it. Wait for it to come on TV or borrow it from your sucker of a friend who bought it. Just don't waste your time with this hack of a movie. If you spend any money on it, there's a good chance your putting an effort towards a sequel to be made by Uwe Boll called, The Covenant 2: Alone in the dark with the house of the dead.


If I were to pitch this movie idea to some Hollywood bigwigs, I'm sure it would sound like this:

ME: "Four boys at a private high school are good friends, AND they are witches."

Hollywood: "That sounds like "The Craft."

ME: "No, no, I said four boys, not four girls."

Hollywood: "That still sounds like "The Craft", just with boys instead of girls."

ME: "OK, but there is this fifth unknown boy that comes into the picture and he wants more power."

Hollywood: "Still not much difference, because one of the girls in "The Craft" also wanted more power.

ME: "OK, OK... I'll make these boys part of the "in crowd", they'll be rich, AND the school is on the east coast.

Hollywood: "Now that sounds original. That is nothing like "The Craft", here's a billion dollars."

This movie was so cliché and uninspiring. Even the manufactured drama between Chase and the brothers of Ipswich was very blasé. A bunch of rich kids, with their biggest problem being what color Bentley they want for their 18th birthday (and 18th car), don't interest me at all, even if they have powers. Every single kid in this movie looked like they stepped out of a magazine, and of course there had to be the gratuitous male nudity and female 80% nudity just to drive home how out of shape you are. I wanted to rename this movie "The Witches of O.C.". Oooh, rich kids and their problems... let me pretend to care.

This film was completely unimaginative and predictable. The final fight was lame and dragged out and the ending was very anti-climatic. This was a movie best left on the cutting room floor.


From the beginning of this film,with it's "The Lost boys" rip off opening sequence, to the bad wire work and even worse dialog ending, this movie slimed along at a snail's pace. "The Covenant" came highly recommended from some of my co-workers, who I am thoroughly convinced were playing a practical joke on me. At least I hope that was the intention and their taste isn't that bad! This movie was not much longer than an hour and a half, yet felt much much longer then that. The story was so basic that it could have been summed up in about 15 minutes, maximum. They could have at least filled the rest of the movie with some entertaining magic or fight scenes, however someone decided,(maybe the director, but I don't know if anyone really "directed" this movie) that it was going to be filled with some poorly executed "artsy" camera shots, and nonsensical scenes of the "boys" swimming and getting into bar fights. About half way through this film I thought that maybe bashing my head against a wall would be more entertaining, and partially to rid myself of this horrible dirty feeling I had for continuing to watch it. . So I did bash my head against a wall, and I did enjoy it more then the movie! I watched it all the way to the bitter end, hoping it would eventually offer me more enjoyment. Nope,my efforts were rewarded with "How about I make you my Whee-aytch!" I vomited, and then just felt embarrassment for the screen writer and pity for the poor actor who had to deliver this drivel. The acting really wasn't as bad as other reviewers seemed to think, but even the most talented thespian could not saved this work, and work it did, on my nerves! I give movies a chance, even bad ones because they usually offer some form of enjoyment, and this actually wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen. After it was over I did feel like watching the movie "Stealth" again and WOW it was so much better this time around! Oh yeah Case in point, don't bother with this movie, really, don't. Watch a few episodes of "Charmed", and watch "The Lost boys" after having a fair amount of alcohol, and you will be a much better person. If you do fall into the same trap that I did and watch "The Covenant", make sure to keep all sharp objects far, far away from yourself, you'll thank me for it.


Anyone who rates this movie above a 3 has a very distorted view of movies, anyone who rated this piece of sh!t 7 or higher, i have absolutely no respect for their taste in movies, and doubt they have ever seen a good one. I am always up for giving any movie a shot and i did with this one, i tried to pay attention, i tried not to let my money go 2 waste but 15 minutes in my friends were laughing at me cause i was listenin 2 my iPod, 25 minutes later i couldn't even watch the overacting that was occurring within the film, so i up and left, i have never ever ever walked out of a movie, until this garbage, Anyone who said they enjoyed it is a liar, or they should be banned from this site. I get so angry when i see a person rate this an 8 when the Godfathers overall rating is a 9.1 its like saying that that movie was close which it isn't.


Most of the critiques on this flick have been pretty damn accurate. It is an hour and half waste of time, following a bunch of very pretty high schoolers whine and cry about life. There is about twenty minutes of magic, and absolutely no scary or thrilling moments. Our actress are treated like pieces of ass, and seem to be perfectly happy with their position. The lead characters, these sons of ipsmith are walking poster boys for any pop culture clothing store. You can't relate with them, hell you barely can understand them. The story steps all over itself and when it finally gets to the final battle, its no more than a volleyball match that doesn't last long enough to make up with this trashed script raped from the O.C.


The TV ads for this movie showed the warlocks hitting a truck head-on, then getting smashed to bits and reforming on the other side of the truck. I thought the special effects were good, but the general style of the movie was wimpy. This is the "Charmed" TV series with three boys instead of three girls.

The big surprise for the three teens who are about to become adults is that there is an unknown fourth member of the clan who is out to get them and consolidate all their power. Besides driving into trucks, these kids can fly up the sides of houses, climb out of windows, push each other into stacks of garbage, and make the veins in their necks pop out. But if they use their powers too often, they become prematurely old and feeble. The father of one of the boys is evidence of this, as he sits in an attic made up to look like a mummy but he is only 45 years old.

The three good warlocks are each filthy rich in his own right, completely spoiled, obnoxious, and annoying. In any public school, these kids would be beaten up every day. Their glares and facial ticks would not cut any mustard with the boys from the hood. Unfortunately for all good people, these Charmed boys were sent to Hogwart's Reform School for the warlocks that couldn't get into Harry Potter's class.

So what was the movie all about? Three teenagers acting out with each other and their girlfriends. One other teenager who envies their power and money and happens to be a lost relative. After a few scenes where the Charmed boys show off their powers and have sex with their girlfriends; the movie gets around to the unknown warlock teen's revenge plot. The predictable stuff happens. The bad warlock ambushes various friends of the other warlocks, and eventually starts attacking them too. The final confrontation happens, and that is about it.

The special effects are not bad, but nothing special. If you like to see fireballs, spiders, and blue veins, then this is a good movie to watch.


I feel really bad for reviewing this movie because I wish that I had only watched it as a concept production. The Covenant looked like it could have been a really original piece, but sadly they lose the great idea in the translation to the screen.

The story follows four (five) teens that are the descendants of the families that started the town of Ipswitch a survivors of the Salem witch trials. They also happen to be a part of the secret sect called "The Covenant". Their power must be used sparingly as it drains their life-force in small amounts and is highly addictive. In theory this would make a pretty good action sci-fi movieor at least an interesting teeny flick.

But there were just too many glaring downfalls that don't allow this movie to reach its plot's full potential. That acting wasn't good, the sound track was mediocre and we found a lot of unnecessary sync issues. For sure the biggest issue is the poor editing job. The movie has little to no coherent flow and makes one fight to keep a mental timeline or any feel of pacing.

The movie has it's moments, but overall was a little disappointing.

A witchy 4/10


The story was disjointed, the acting was not of any callibre you can catagorise. More of a serial pilot than an actual movie. I wanted to like this movie but just could not find anything to like about it. Whatever it was that made The Lost boys so likable was obviously absent here. Altho it tried hard. Plot hooks were clumsily placed amidst what could have been an episode of dawsons creek with dark clothes, and the story arc was going nowhere soon. Very disappointing for me. The end scenes were special effects driven convenience and how the villain of the story planned his whole scheme.. who was he (or she) trying to kid, talk about naive. Stick with films of this kind of genre from the eighties, when they had more of an idea.


OK...before I even start the more or less constructive criticism of the movie I'd like to say a few words which come from the heart... THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!!! DON'T GO TO SEE IT UNLESS YOU REALLY LIKE SWEATY BOY-BANDS AND WOODEN-ACTING, NO-PLOT STORIES.. So, let's go to why I think the movie is so bad: 1. There is not story line. There is no plot. The director tried to create a mystery it the feeling just wasn't there. 2. The whole thing looks like a big, hour and a half promotion for some kind of goth-wanna-be-but-still-looking-like-"BSB"-band... All guys in school have perfect abs, no fat or ugly young people... there is no good looking girl in the movie as well, not one. The main character is either wet in the swimming pool, or all sweaty in his bed... poor guy. Must be awful to go on a date sweating like that. 3. Can those guys do something good with their powers? Anything good? Like put off the fire in that old barn or help his friend who got into the accident instead of just running around breaking things and showing of in front of each other. 4. Wooden acting. The main character only has two expressions on his face. Expression number one: sad. Expression number two: trying to look seductive but still seems sad... In that boy band there are 4 guys: The main characted, his best friend who got into the accident, the blondy, and the fourth one... what was the name of the fourth one? I think he only spoke twice throughout the whole film: once in the beginning ( he said the jumping from the cliff using "the power" won't kill them) and second time at the end when he and the blondy lost the girl... the movie could have been done without him and no one would notice... Anyways, my verdict: 1 is the perfect score for this film. Guys - do not go to see it. There is very little action, no suspense, no hot girls. Girls - a least the actors are good looking... What I would advise you people is to get a soundtreck of this movie - that's the only thing I liked about it.


Think 'Charmed' with testosterone instead of estrogen and you get the general idea for this picture. A very lame story with mediocre effects and an anti-climax ending to let the door open for a part 2. Let's hope someone has the sense to spend their money wiser. I'd suggest a 'Charmed - the movie' because compared to this 'Charmed' kicked ass and I only watched that show to please my girlfriend!!!! Wait and watch it on DVD on a rainy Sunday when you've got nothing better to do. Or better yet download it so you don't waste your money. The first 15 minutes were alright. But the funniest line from the movie and also the only highlight of this movie is when Reid says : "Kiss my ass Harry Potter", while driving of a cliff. Although they are not worthy to kiss Potter's ass, because Potter is way cooler and at least his movies have a story. The Goblet of fire was even scarier than this!!!


A group of four young men, attending a prestigious private school, belong to an old covenant that was formed by their ancestors during the time of the witch hunts of the late 1600s. They each possess a power that ages them whenever they use it and they suspect that a new kid at the academy might be from a family that was thought to have perished long ago. This new guy wants everyone's power for himself.

This not a horror movie as it tries to present itself as. Yes, there is magic and all that supernatural stuff, but this is really just an action movie. A very mediocre action movie. Focusing almost solely on being cool and slick and paying only minimal attention to the plot, which has plenty of sadly unused room for interesting twists. But none were put in and even before the movie is half over you'll know what is being played and by whom.

There are a few good scenes here and there, most notably an exploding car that is magically reconstructed after colliding with a big rig, but that's about it. What's worse is that director Renny Harlin, who has some very entertaining if not smart movies to his credit, relies heavily on blasting metal music and overly sexy leads to carry that film and that makes it quite possibly the silliest "horror" movie since the disastrous "Alone in the Dark." It is not as bad as "Alone in the Dark" since the few slick scenes are actually slick and not ridiculously incompetent, but in the end, the highest this film can hope for is a nice and cozy home on late night cable. 3/10

Rated PG-13: violent action


This movie was Flippin Awful....I wanted those hours of my life back. For god's sake, -stay far away from this awful crumb ball movie at all costs. Its not worth mentioning the title, but the ratings on this movie are pretty generous for a vomit scum movie like this. And where do I begin? The dumb A** kids in the movie.....The zero plot or story?...the garden-variety college/frat boy-esquire scenes of towel slapping? Or the VERY bad acted, teen angst innuendo? $$$#@%@! My god, It NEVER ended!.....I remember thinking I would have rather kissed the movie theater floor, then sit through this one again.

But what do you expect? Most people with the brain power to look up reviews, are not going to be the target audience here at all- so GO SEE Pirites 2 again, or the Jet Lee one, -If your debating to yourself. Look, This movie will just cost you your soul, your money, your energy, and your brain cells. HEED THE WARNING.


Too bad Mike Meyers picked this for his dramatic debut. This film looks like it was put together by a committee that couldn't decide if it was a comedy, drama, suspense, or sci-fi. It starts out sort of playful, then quickly gets darker, and then at the end, apparently shortly after one of the main characters has been killed, the whole family is standing in the backyard laughing about something. It's totally weird and impossible to string together. The acting is extremely uneven, with the older professionals engaging your attention, and then the younger and less experienced actors looking like they are in a high school play. This movie showed me that it's probably harder to make a good movie than is evident from the truly professional fare we see in the first-run and art houses. This would be a good film for a film class to analyze. Plot, character, theme, consistency - they are all either faulty or missing from this film.


The only reason for me for watching this little known Irish film was the question could Mike Myers have played a normal, dramatic character. Well, he could and his acting was pretty good but unfortunately that was probably the only good thing that I can say about this film. In the beginning film follows life of twelve years old orphan Mickey who lives with his brother and sister with their somewhat eccentric grandma. Despite some strong language it looks like a family film but after a while it becomes clearly that Pete's Meteor is a hardly suitable for young audience drama. And the worst is that it is a drama with so much ridiculous and even totally implausible plot. One preposterous story line turns into another and all the time there is no much sense in the events on screen. I suppose when a life drama needs a meteor or what is more something that looks like even more ridiculous spiritual content that's a really bad sign. The characters are not much better than a story. Despite all his troubles young Mickey by no means is not a likable character but it's clearly was somehow we were supposed to care about him and even feel strong sympathy to him. It doesn't work. The same thing with other characters. They are mostly as ridiculous as the story itself with the title character (although he wasn't the main character) as the only bright spot. Towards the end of the movie I still had a strong hope that there is something behind of all that improbability and absurdity. Unfortunately even if the writer of the story had such intentions (and I'm sure he had) in the film they are hidden and practically imperceptible under such a weird script.

Grade: 3 out of 10. Those of you who are interested in seeing Mike Myers as a drama actor can watch Pete's Meteor for that reason but the rest of viewers most likely will be bitterly disappointed.