Not just because of that theme in the movie. Which was one of the lame excuses for something reminiscent of plot. No.

I watched this, knowing I would not like it. I HATE numerology. Whenever someone starts going off about patterns with numbers I feel the urge to slap them. My own brain starts hurting out of empathy. And fully aware this is a movie just about that topic, I couldn't resist the urge to watch it and maybe get a good laugh. But it wasn't funny. Just exactly the dumb sort of "Isn't this totally scary and yet amazingly cool?! I can turn any crap into 23!" dialog I was afraid of. As soon as the son started to chime in, I knew this movie is a turd, no matter what happens. But I hardly ever stop watching a movie I started. I sat through it. I enjoy the pain.

The movie pretends to mock numerology under the disguise of showing how obsession can end badly. But it rides that wave as much as it's supposed to crush it. I don't see that message. I only see characters raving about a stupid number with little plot to justify.

Top that off with the usual "surprises" - trying to put another twist to throw you off, that makes no sense, and you almost believe it due to the quality of the narration up to there - and you get one hollow piece of movie-making. That just happens to be centered around the topic I despise. If only it did not try to be serious and rather had been some hilarious movie with actors I don't give a damn about. But I was starting to like Carrey...while it's not his fault, he is trying. It's not even good for watching with a bunch of friends and mst3k the hell out of it.

My expectations were low enough for someone to trip on them, but this movie managed to live up to be one of the worst I've ever seen.


The movie starts good, it has a thing going for it. About 1/3 into the movie things go downhill. Carrey starts obsessing about the number 23 because he sees it everywhere. So what? Thats no reason to go nuts and start writing stuff all over your body and on walls.

The acting by whoever is playing his son is bad. From the get-go, as soon as he hears of his fathers obsession, he jumps on the bandwagon and is hysterical about it. Totally unbelievable. I hope I never see this kid in another movie again.

Its a waste of time watching this movie. Grab another. Boring piece of ... well. The number is killing him? Give me a break. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say it is equally disappointing.

3 / 10.


There was a time when Joel Schumacher was ranked quite high on my list of favorite directors. Back in the late 80's and early 90's, when his name was attached to several great films like "The Lost Boys", "Flatliners" and "Falling Down", he truly was one of the most gifted directors in Hollywood. Then came the stupid "Batman" sequels, unfortunately, and after that it seemed as if every potentially sublime screenplay turned into a gigantic mess in Schumacher's hands. Both "8MM" and "Phone Booth" could have been much better films and even the incredibly imbecilic concept of "The Number 23" should have been processed into a slightly more compelling and entertaining movie. Literally from start to finish, "The Number 23" desperately attempts to be a mysterious and uncanny thriller and therefore uses all the dreadful clichés from the big book of cinema history, including heavy-voiced narration, flashbacks, disorderly structure, characters with multiple personalities, numerous plot twists that grow increasingly absurd and sinister asylum settings. Nothing helps, however, simply due to the sheer silliness of the basic formula and the clearly uninspired engagement of cast & crew. As much as you try to associate with the lead character and be open-minded regarding the insane theories, this still remains a movie about a two-digit number and two-digit numbers aren't scary. Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey in a rare non-comical role) is a bored animal trapper whose wife Agatha gives him a bizarre book on his birthday. The book tells about all sorts of devilish theories and strange coincidences that are linked to the number 23. Walter almost promptly identifies himself with the book's protagonist (a sleazy detective investigating a grim case of suicide) and begins to spot copious examples of the 23 enigma in his own private life. I did some research on Google and Wikipedia and, apparently, this whole 23 numerology nonsense really exists and certain people honestly believe that most catastrophes and accidents are directly connected to this evil number. Well, that's just  crazy! But hey, I'm not here to judge people's beliefs and fears, regardless of how demented they are, and I can only share my humble opinion on a movie that is based on an out-and-out berserk enigma. "The Number 23" is not suspenseful, in spite of several gloomy set pieces and nasty make-up effects, and never at one point manages to make you contemplate about the role of numbers in your own life. All cast members perform below their normal capacities, but it was still nevertheless a joy to see the lovely Mrs. Virginia Madsen in a relatively big production again. Definitely not recommended in case you're looking for a solid and creepy evening of thriller fun, but endurable and not entirely without merit.


One would make you believe that this game is about a man obsessed with a number. And sure, it's an interesting subject - can a person become so obsessed by something marginal as a simple number that he completely loses touch with reality and becomes hopelessly delusional and paranoid?

Well, perhaps someone will make a movie about that sometime. This one unfortunately doesn't have anything to do with the above, never mind what the trailers (or even the movie itself) would like you to believe. I would like to say that this number is just a MacGuffin, but it isn't even that. It's pointless. A gimmick. A hook for unsuspecting audience.

Well what IS the movie about? A dog-catcher (Carrey) who becomes obsessed with a cheesy noir crime book because he feels it somehow reflects his own life. There. Sure, the character in the book - detective Fingerling (sigh) - is (for some reason) obsessed with number 23, and Carrey himself becomes obsessed and starts seeing the number everywhere.. but it's just padding, and totally irrelevant to the story. In fact, you can cut out all the 23 references and have the main character(s) obsess about cheese or something and you'll have the exactly same story. It is painfully obvious that all the "23" stuff was written in waay after the story was already finished, rejected and sent for "rewrites".

Which would be OK.. I guess.. if the movie wasn't dull, dull, dull. Half of the movie is narrated, for chrissakes. You aren't watching the movie, you are listening to Jim Carrey narrating the movie. About a quarter-in Carrey starts reading the book, and from then until the horribly cliché ending we are forced to watch "real-life" scenes from dog-catcher's life (where nothing happens) interspersed with narrated artsy film noir-ish "book" scenes which will either leave you snickering or just plain depressed. It's like a poor man's "Sin City" with all the violence cut out, narrated by Carrey and shown in slow-motion. Ugh.

This is a simple case of a C-movie script somehow being filmed with an A-movie cast.. probably because of the "number 23" hook which I guess sounded intriguing enough on paper to warrant the premium Hollywood treatment. However, since - as I said already - the movie is about number 23 as much as it is about cheese production in Switzerland, one cannot feel anything but cheated.

I give "Fingerling - the movie" 3 out of 10, because I guess it didn't insult my intelligence as much as "Forsaken" did or made me downright suicidal like "Battlefield Earth" did and the bottom of the scale must be reserved for abominations like those. But fear not, this is still a pretty lousy flick.


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I didn't go in with high expectations, but as soon as it started I thought it might be o-k. It wasn't. Jim Carrey seemed to try, but he spoke all his lines as though he were some diabolic cartoon character. The other actors all seem to try their best but are kind of wooden. The plot has a good basis, but the melodramatic lines make it dull and kind of stupid. I was laughing during the whole second half of the movie, and after five minutes of that I got tired of that. Most plot 'twists' you could see from several miles off. It's just not worth watching. I really wish I hadn't wasted my time with it.


So, this starts with at least an interesting and promising basic idea, goes on and on with tension, Carey in a good untypical role but in a less than you expected performance, weak direction from Joel Schumacher match with some plot holes, the "detective scenes" show us the luck of creativity. If you don't have great expectations (because of the negative reviews) maybe you will enjoy this . At the end they offer to us a lesson about morality (for those who remember "Falling Down") and the "Family Joy and Cure" that ruins every possibility to be kind and find the film watchable P.S. It's obvious who is the "killer"! I wonder why W.Sparrow (Carey) didn't resolve the mystery from the beginning of the film...


A couple move into their dream home, unaware that it and its neighbours have been built over land formerly used as a cemetery. The film is said to have been based on a true story, although how much of it is supposed to be true is not disclosed. The plot is hardly unique - see Spielberg's 'Poltergeist' (1982). Within a short time, they experience various supernatural phenomena: these range from the disturbing - mysterious shadows, the serious illness of the daughter - to the frankly ridiculous - toilets continually flushing and garage doors going out of control. There is little depth to the story: once it has become established that the land had been used as a cemetery, we do not learn anything more. The plot does not seem to develop. The characters are not particularly well drawn or in any way memorable, nor is the atmosphere particularly special. The film could be disturbing to some viewers. There is no sense of catharsis or any kind of positive message from it.


Bathebo, you big dope.

This is the WORST piece of crap I've seen in a long time. I have just stumbled onto it on late night TV and it is painful to watch. Really painful. How does something like this get made?? Horrible, horrible, horrible! OOOOOO ..... The toilet is flushing by itself again! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! 1992 doesn't seem like that long ago to me, but watching this makes it seem like 1952. I mean its horrible. Please don't waste your time on the drivel!

Scary old black man telling them not to build the pool in the yard. Scary! Scary! How does this stuff get MADE???


This takes place on Fire Island back in the 1970s. A couple Peter (Craig Dudley) and Buddy (J. Will Deane) are throwing a 4th of July party at their house. Unfortunately their relationship is falling apart and they have to get ready for a house full of very strange guests. The rest of the movie chronicles the party and what happens between Peter and Buddy.

OK--I'm a gay man but I was 8 back when this was made. If this is a true view of what gay life was in the 1970s, I'm glad I wasn't around. From the puzzling opening credits which shows kids playing in the sand (???) this movie slides slowly into disaster. There's a guru (Robert Case) who talks nonstop about nothing of any importance. I wanted to gag the guy halfway into his first LONG speech. There's the young kid Danny who is there for his first time. There's the lesbian couple (who do nothing--except one strips for no reason). There's the leather queen. Worst of all is the effeminate man named Jimmy (Jimmy Foster). We're introduced to him and his friend (whose name I never got) when they get a flat tire. They basically scream and screech for 10 minutes and have NO idea how to fix a flat. I know some people find this funny but I found it offensive and pretty sad. The party itself is full of people you would never want to know. It's like being dumped in a party full of bad actors playing obnoxious people. With the sole exception of Dudley no one can act.

This may be valuable as a portrait of what Fire Island was like in the 1970s...but it's pretty dull viewing. This gets a 2 only for the frequent male nudity of some very nice bodies.


They give you the set up then bore you to death with a constant cat and mouse chase. The main characters are involved in one constant stand-off where they threaten each other, every five minutes or less. And I'd like to see the police force that would let one of their cops pull off the A. Garcia bit. It's like some local cop walking Charlie Manson out of prison to go get a cup of coffee. Get real!


Well the plot is entertaining but it is full of goof. To summarize things up, cop/dad badly wants to save his son from cancer but the only way is by getting the transplant from the criminal(Michael Keaton).

well criminal agrees BUT escaped in the hospital while the transplant was going on and the police and the cop-dad is not allowed to shoot at the criminal in order to save his son. (dead criminal-no transplant-dead son).

well, the police in this movie doesn't have a brain, in case they never heard of a TAZER to knock off the criminal without killing him. end of movie, as simple as that.

But it when all crazy and stupid including the death of 2cops and a few doctor getting burned up pretty badly.


I really wanted to see this film - I thought the plot was really unique and intriguing. A cop (Andy Garcia) has a son who is dying and needs bone marrow replacement in order to live. The only match is a convicted serial killer, who escapes from jail. To save his son he has to track down the killer.

Michael Keaton plays the convict in one of many disappointing aspects of the film. Keaton is a great actor at times but here he is pretty much boring. It's over-the-top to the point where you just stop caring.

Garcia is better but tries too hard for a film that isn't up to par. Barbet Schroeder (at one time such a promising director with films like "Barfly" that amounted to pretty much nothing in the American market) directs well enough - I honestly thought the script was the culprit here...it's just a big mess.

The film ultimately wastes a lot of good material, good actors and a good director - all because of a faulty script. What should have been a tense and thought-provoking film is just a Hollywood action dud.


I can't believe I watched this whole movie. Another "Ishtar" in that I kept waiting for it to get better, which never happened. The sound is terrible, going from too low to hear the conversations, to blaring sound in seconds. The plot is absolutely implausible, the acting is mediocre, although Keaton does his usual good job as a mental case, although being typecast in that role could certainly be considered a negative. The director knows absolutely nothing about hospitals, medications, science or anything of a technical nature. "Sociopath"???? I wonder how they came up with that diagnosis? There are so many errors, goofs and things wrong with this movie that if one were to list them all it would possibly set some kind of record. Demerol as a general anestetic? A motorcyclist on the freeway wearing a non DOT/Snell off-road helmet. San Francisco??? Paper walls move when tapped, helmets just appear out of thin air, guns point one direction but hit things in another, lighting appears and disappears and there is barely a scene in the move that doesn't contain some kind of error. My wife, who is an RN in an Oncology unit finally left the room before the end of the movie so upset over all the medical errors. I gave it a 2 only because of Keaton's acting, else it certainly would have gotten a 1.


This movie is absurd. Absolutely terrible. Michael Keaton and Andy Garcia must really have needed the work to do this movie. The plot is totally not believable! Michael Keaton agrees to donate bone marrow to the dying son of a detective, but then escapes. He manages to elude the police throughout the hospital - not believable that he would have so much knowledge of the hospital. He takes an extremely convoluted route to get out of the hospital, blowing up the power generators and a pedestrial bridge (why?). And to top that Andy Garcia (father of the dying boy) and a doctor help the criminal so as to get the bone marrow. The plot is such baloney! Maybe the worse movie I have ever see.


This is one of those movies where I was rooting for whoever could end the movie the quickest. I wanted to see the cops kill Keaton AND Garcia just to get it over with. Basically, this is the deal--Two cops have to die and a third has to get horrible burns on his face for Garcia's son to get a bone marrow transplant from convicted killer Keaton. Is it worth it? No!


Having broken into a secret database file for matching DNA serums,federal agent Frank Poo (Andy Garcia)discovers the only person who can save his son's life is a psychopath,played by Michael Keaton . However,when a serum transfer at the local hospital goes terribly wrong,a certain Mr.Poo has to do everything in his power to ensure the madman stays alive in order to make the inevitable transfer possible. By the way,his name is'nt really Poo,I just feel like calling it him. Despite the original concept at hand,this is an implausible and turgidly unexciting action thriller.I've never been a big fan of Andy Garcia,and granted his charecter here is'nt that attachable,this movie winds up all the worse.The action sequences are handled pretty disappointingly,and the ending sucks pretty bad. Having done a great villain in Pacific Heights,Keaton's psychopathic bad guy here is a let down,providing a madman too funny and charismatic to be deplored.Brian Cox is also wasted as Garcia's firm and frank superior.


This is a movie that should have been a mini-series as it tries to get too much information in too small a space. The whole story is constantly being bombarded with sub-plots, character introduction and meaningless pieces information that go nowhere. There is a underlying plot where boy meets a girl, she has doubts but gets married anyhow and then her doubts surface and she goes to see if they are real. They turn out not to be but her husband won't believe that she was not unfaithful and her almost boyfriend doesn't want her as she was not unfaithful to her husband. With that said there are no less than 1000 sub-plots and character introductions that make this plot almost incomprehensible. In the first 15 minutes you are inundated with so many things and situations that you just stop caring. You don't care about any of the confused and screwed up cast that drifts in and out of the story like vultures feeding on a corpse. Each one comes in and takes some interest away from the viewer. After a half-hour, and completely disinterested, I stayed and watched the remaining two and a half hours out of pure morbid curiosity. I couldn't imagine where it was going but like staring at a fire I just couldn't get up and turn it off. The production values are superb but the resulting movie is a waste of time; wash your socks instead.


This movie was a complete disaster for me. There is one thing that movies must have in order to be watchable, and that is *some* psychological credibility of characters... unfortunately, here, this is not the case. The main characters behave irrationally most of the time, and even if they have some reason for such behavior, it is not revealed to us by the director. Sophie Marceau's character is particularly irritating, making pictures of everything throughout the whole movie, when one could expect something more rational (for example meeting with her mother in the hospital)... and why exactly did she marry this guy? (no, this is not a spoiler) The plot at times seems like ripped off some soap-opera, and while the actors' performance is not bad, this does not help much. All in all, I just could not find a way to connect with this movie. Not that I tried too much after the first hour, though. I have never walked out of cinema during a movie, but this time was the closest in my life so far.


I have seen this movie but not in a single sitting. What happens it that it is playing on the TV, I watch for a few minutes, find that I have take all that I can take and then leave the room. During those few minutes I do not laugh once, experience no pleasure in what I am viewing, and find myself more depressed that angry. Interestingly, I am told the psychological states are incompatible, that is, one cannot be angry and depressed at the same time. This movie tests that theory.

I think part of the problem is that I spent nearly ten years in Chicago so as I am watching the scenes I am thinking of my own experiences in that rotten town and thus I am clearly bringing a lot of my baggage to the piece. It is entirely possible, I am willing to concede, that if you are not a Chicago denizen you will find the piece amusing. If so, I envy you.

And yet. John Hughes set his films in Chicago and those movies worked for me. I think the difference is that Hughes was a first rate writer. I think it obvious he knew how to comically balance his situations, as well as make his characters both sympathetic and believable. In a comedy (as distinguished from a farce) this balance vital. And it is not easy to achieve. If it was everyone would be making great movies and we would not have to fret as we do in the real world wondering when genius will ever appear. In "Adventures in Babysitting," it doesn't. I hated those characters.

There is a difference, profound and real, between sympathetic and simply pathetic.

For me every scene in this movie is a clunker. There is no humor, no humanity, no people one can recognize. Just actors reading their lines as if it all they can do to restrain themselves from screaming them out, certain that finally hilarity will ensue, this time for sure! It's like watching the antics of very bad comedians. It's embarrassing and after a while, usually at the point when I get up and leave, I start to feel pity for all concerned, which is a kind of emotional connection, I suppose. Elizabeth Shue is terrible. She doesn't act, certainly not act comically, and it's entirely possible she can't. But lord how she tries. She looks older than 17, and acts way younger like a seven-year old straining in a school play certain that this is how one gets an award. And she is not alone. It is as if everyone cannot relax and let the tale flow. As if everyone simply has no idea what they are doing.

Now, this was an early effort for Chris Columbus and he clearly would improve and having better writers (e.g. John Hughes himself) certainly helped, so perhaps some forgiveness is in order. But the film just reeks of desperation. Yet like I said it may work for some. If any of the above appeals to you, and it clearly did some of the reviewers, then go get the DVD and knock yourself out. Otherwise, avoid this mess like you would a dark Chicago alley where as you hurry by you can only see shadows and hear muttered threats.


I would not recommend this movie. Even though it is rated G and is clearly for kids there is quite a lot of swearing (including the dreaded 'F' and 'S' words). This kind of language doesn't offend me particularly but in a kids film? Come on.

There was also quite a bit of implied sexual content, between one of the early adolescent male characters and any willing adult woman who came along - including a prostitute!

The acting was as good as it gets in this genre of film but the story line was very very cheesy and even my four year old remarked that it was 'stupid'.

Despite having Elizabeth Shue, this film is definitely not worth checking out if you haven't seen it.


To this day, I have never seen Elizabeth Shue in anything else because of the stench of this movie. Poorly acted, poorly plotted and racially Neanderthal, it took place in a Chicago where every black person apparently lived in a blues club. . SPOILER AHEAD. . . . . ..

SPOILER: Her "blues" solo was even more painful to watch than her clueless acting and the intro into it - 'Nobody leaves without singing the blues' -- was as dumb as a post. The children her character was babysitting were insufferable and well before the movie's end I was wishing for something horrible to happen to all of them.

I have to say though, there is one special thing about this movie; it takes a lot for a movie to offend me but this smoldering piece of tripe did what Chopper, the Phantom Menace and Catwoman could not -- make me sick to my stomach.


I can't believe this movie has an average rating of 7.0! It is a fiendishly bad movie, and I saw it when it was fairly new, and I was in the age group that is supposed to like it!


There are many mysteries in life. For example: Why did any of the people other than Carrot Top agree to appear in this movie? Why did anyone distribute this movie? Why did anyone pay money to see it? I guess none of these questions will ever be answered, but one thing I know for sure, this movie is one of the worst ever made with a budget this big. It would already be bad, but the addition of Carrot Top's "humor" makes it even worse. The only entertainment one could possibly get from this movie is to burn it, smash it, or otherwise destroy it in an amusing fashion. If you were to rank it against every movie ever made, it would be right between "Problem Child" and "Biodome". Nuff said.


This movie is stupid. There's no getting around it. But so is Dumb and Dumber. Mind you, Dumb and Dumber is significantly more funny than this. However, I for one love seeing stupid movies (Tail Sting) and laughing with a group of good friends over how bad it is. Call me callous, but see this movie, and you'll find that the only way you can laugh at it is if you laugh at it instead of with it.


So I turned on HBO which I just got thinking that it would have some quality movies and I saw this. Carrot Top is so unfunny it's nauseating to watch. I've seen unfunny movies before but I think I find this one so impossible to watch because Carrot Top seems to think he's hilarious. Watching this movie is really like watching a movie designed for 5 year olds with crazy, over the top overreactions replete with ultra stupid jokes that only a 4 year old would appreciate.

What is amazing is how some other talented actors actually signed on for this project, such as Larry Miller and M Emmet Walsh. If you've ever seen Carrot Top's absolutely horrible MCI commercials (or whatever they were) then this is more of the same, just worse. It's a slapstick fest that is a waste of a high budget that could have done something, saved homeless people... anything but this. I'm not sure it's in the bottom 50 of all time but for the $10 million spent it's a disgrace.


The humor is non-existent in this loser of a movie. Carrot Top plays a surfer dude inventor who consistently blows the rent money on his goofy, useless inventions. Then he helps an old guy broken down by the side of the road, and voila, he's inherited a major corporation. And on and on and on past the jealous relatives, humanizing the corporation, hostile takeovers, the obligatory love interest.. aargh...let's just say this movie is virtually unwatchable. What Carrot Top has accomplished is to convince me never to go to his stage shows.


"Chairman of the Board" is a ridiculously stupid film from the popular comic Carrot Top (also seen on the 1-800-COLLECT commercials). He plays a surfing inventor who comes upon a man who has a flat tire. Top helps him out and a few days later discovers the guy's died and has given his company to the comedian. Even if someone else was in Carrot Top's role, it still would have been bad. The jokes (which are constantly rigged throughout) are terrible and the idea of a romantic "plot twist" should have been discarded. DO NOT WATCH!!!


Masterpiece. Carrot Top blows the screen away. Never has one movie captured the essence of the human spirit quite like "Chairman of the Board." 10/10... don't miss this instant classic.


This is without a doubt the most poorly thought out movie in history. The invention gags by Carrot Top are some of the most awful attempts to be funny in recorded history. I am not familiar with his other work, but if it is half as bad as this then I am just going to cry. I give this movie 1 out of 30 billion stars, and may God have mercy on the souls of those responsible.


Yes, the votes are in. This film may very well be the Plan 9 From Outer Space for our generation. But whereas Ed Wood's film, for all its flaws, retains a certain charm despite it all, this film defines the word "charmless" to the nth degree. In fact, I'd suggest to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary to cite this movie as a key example defining the that word in the next update to the dictionary.

Carrot Top is a performer of such abysmal ability that normally rational people that I know once they hear his name become homicidal maniacs dedicated to wanting to kill Mr. Top as soon as possible. Indeed, if one goes to Amazon.com and look at customer reviews for Carrot Top's movie and other performance DVD, one will find several that could be construed as death threats to Mr. Top.

One other curious fact about this film, I recall that Mike Nelson, the head writer for MST 3000, in his book Mike's Mega Cheese about movies, good and bad, said he saw this film and shortly afterwords couldn't recall a thing about it, including the title. Obviously Mike was suffering a classic reaction to trauma. Viewing this atrocity was so soul numbing, Mike Nelson had to block it from his mind. (Evidently, in a later chapter in his book, Mike Nelson had recovered his memeory of this film. From the review he offers, Mike Nelson was definitely not grateful for the recovered memory.)

The only comment I offer about the film, and it is not a spoiler, it's simply God's honest truth, it's not funny. None of it is, not even a nanosecond of it is funny.


First and foremost this movie has the stupidest plot of any movie I have ever seen, and unfortunately I had to see this one. I was flipping through channels one day and stumbled upon this lousy excuse for a movie, and it confirmed what I have been saying for a long time. Carrot Top is not an actor, and IS NOT funny in the slightest sense. He acts like he's a great comedian and thinks he commands the audiences attention. Frankly he has the acting ability of a 10 year old class clown, scratch that less than a 10 year old's ability to compare them to Carrot Top would be a grave insult upon their good name. This movie tries to be funny using dull one liners which all seem to have been lifted from 50's cartoons. By the end I would have done anything to erase my memory of this movie, but sadly the memories stay with me. The only thing I can do is to warn others to never to watch this movie. However it proves the rumors true Carrot Top can't act worth a damn.


Bad Movie! Bad! Go stand in a discount bin. Carrot Top should really stick to low lit comedy clubs. It's movies like this that make old Jerry Lewis films look like Shakespeare and John Agar like John Barrymore. Coutney Thorne-Smith (a fine talent)is absolutely wasted. Her purpose seems mainly to look pretty and oblivious.

The only enjoyable things about the movie is seeing Raquel Welch doing an Alexis Carrington type role, and Estelle Harris as a harridan of a landlady. The only way I can imagine someone thinking it would be a good idea to make this (beyond sophomoric) film, is if the producers' fourth grade child was allowed to pick the script. Well, maybe his third grader. What this film really needs is to be rubbed in the noses of its creators.


This should not have been made into a movie. Everything about it was idiotic and I don't think I laughed even once. There were bits and pieces that were okay I guess but that's about it. A lot of parts were strikingly similar to a lot of other movies which did them a hell of a lot better. There were some famous actors/actresses in this but no one did a good job, they must've just not cared. This is one of those movies that tries to have a "cute" ending but it was so idiotic that it literally had no redeeming values. Carrot Top is probably the worst comedian out there right now. Do yourself a favor and steer clear of this one!

Final Decisions:

Movies : NOOOOO!

Purchase DVD : Absolutely not!

Rental : Only if you've seen EVERYTHING else and have a free coupon but even then it's still not worth your while.


If you like stupid jokes and a terribly predictable storyline, then perhaps this movie is for you. Courtney Thorne-Smith, Jack Warden, and several other members of the supporting cast actually have talent, but it was completely stifled by the paper-thin script. This is a generally boring and joyless time waster of a movie.


Should I have expected anything other than putrid from Carrot Top? This was on of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is by far the worst comedy I have ever seen. "Chairman of the Board" did not add humor to my attitude, rather it enraged me. That's right, Carrot Top is such a bad comedian that I became enraged that this man is making movies.


This movie is terrible. It's about some no brain surfin dude that inherits some company. Does Carrot Top have no shame?


Carrot Top's "Chairman of the Board" and his AT&T commercials are living proof that fly-blown fecal matter is available in the color orange. Not FREELY available, however, as HBO charges for such garbage. Blehhh! The saving grace of COTB is that it surely fills suicide hot-lines across the country, perhaps providing employment for thousands of telephone therapists who lost their jobs when recovered memory treatment was discredited, although (sadly) Carrot Top probably contributes to his sponsor AT&T's bottom line with the increased phone traffic from devastated HBO viewers. I can visualize the hordes of traumatized TV viewers, phone in one hand and fully loaded .45 auto in the other hand, dialing out of last-minute desperation before walking off the plank of life to escape the specter of COTB's orange-haired monster echoing in their synapses like the agony of searing, irreversible meningeal swelling.


Or at least forceable retirement! This movie is awful, horrible, terrible, rank, rotten, putrid... well, you get the idea. Do NOT under any circumstances watch this piece of decaying garbage unless you have a death wish, because it's sure to kill you. (I only survived because I missed the first half hour.) Carrot Top is a bad comedian, and an even worse actor. I cannot BELIEVE he got anyone to fund this huge waste of time and money. It just goes to show that some people have no scruples if they think they might make a buck or two (literally... I can't imagine this made more than $2!).

And someone please tell me what possible motivation Courtney Thorne Smith (a halfway decent actress, certainly above this at any rate) had for signing onto this steaming pile of dung. Was she THAT bored during that 3.5 second dry spell between Melrose Place and Ally McBeal? Or did she owe some kind of karmic debt to the Most Annoying Person on the Face of the Planet (aka Carrot Top)?

I give this a 2/10, and that's probably way too high. I try to save my '1's for movies that make me vomit, and since I didn't see all of this one my stomach contents thankfully stayed contained. I don't think I'll be watching it again to find out if it's really worth a 1!


Is this a bad movie? Don't take my word for it. Consider the following press reports of people who tried to watch this movie:

· While he was watching this movie, the brain of Mr. Harold Faber of Sandusky, Ohio, forcibly ejected itself from his skull at over 200 kph and preceded to squirm across the floor shrieking NOOOO NOOO NOOOO.

· Mrs. Louise Robbins of Enid, Oklahoma, a 69-year-old retired homemaker, committed ritual seppuko with a butter knife while watching this movie.

· Ms. Janine Hosmer of Columbia, South Carolina, gave birth to a severely deformed baby while watching this movie, although she had not been pregnant.

· While watching this movie together, Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Wells of San Franciso, California, spontaneously exploded with such force that Mr. Wells's left tibia was later found embedded in the wall of a house in Marin County.

There have been many similar incidents.

Of those who did not suffers more serious effects such as those detailed above, at least 75% became incurably, violently, and understandably insane after viewing this movie. Of the remaining 25%, most had already been insane before viewing the movie; the remainder were either blind and/or and deaf or in a persistent vegetative state.

I'm not saying don't rent it, if you want to. I'm just reporting what was in the papers.


This is what they came up with for prop comedian Carrot Top's first feature film.

A stupid surfer (carrot dude) inherits an R&D enterprise from an old kahuna (Jack Warden). Things go less than swimmingly, but get much worse when the company is threatened with a hostile takeover attempt by corrupt corporate raiders. The most implausible thing about this movie is that smart-girl Courtney Thorne-Smith would find this red-headed step-child fascinating in the least (but then, he just inherited millions). 'Classic' moments include comic Larry Miller drinking sweat from a plastic cup.

Funny comedy? Try UN-funny toilet humor, and that's exactly where this belongs - in the toilet... flush twice.


People don't seem to agree with me that movies can be bad and good at the same time. The same type of people that see a movie with Carrot Top on the cover, surfing through a frickin office and continue to watch the movie with serious expectations. Is Carrot Top funny? Of course not. Was this movie anything special? Of course not. It was a dumb movie and everyone assumed so simply based on what they know about Mr. Top. Movies like this, or Kazaam, or Killer Klowns From Outer Space and pretty much any movie Pauly Shore has ever been in are not meant to be taken seriously and because of this, they really shouldn't be considered some of the worst movies ever made. You watch them either expecting a dumb movie that's hilariously bad or you are like six years old and genuinely think Carrot Top is hilarious.

Please people if you ready know Carrot Top is retarded and you want to watch a serious movie and bother writing a serious review....don't watch this. Picking on this movie is like picking on a 5 year old for not knowing the alphabet.


This movies shook my will to live why this abomination isn't the bottom 100 list i don't know.

My life was saved by the healing power of danny trejo.

Worst movie ever, i dare you watch. It's like a 90 minute collect calling commercial, only much much worse. i rather watch the blue screen it's that bad really


carrot top in a full length movie, enough said. only reason this doesn't get a one is through my personal voting system of only one 1 and one 10, and this is no extreme ops. horrible god awful. there are some movies that are so bad they are unintentionally funny, then there are movies that make you physically unwell and then there are those that lead to serious contemplation of suicide. burn all copies of the movie, shoot anyone who had non creative input on this movie, torture anyone with any creative input and as for the star, there are only so many things that can be said online, but he should be begging for the final ten seconds of existence with a severed head by the time the work is done.


Before I sat down and watched this film on HBO, I wasn't expecting nothing but a few laughs here and there and all together a stupid and common plot. Well, that's exactly what I got out of it, except that I was somewhat satisfied at the end of the movie. I wasn't expecting it to be, I thought it was just going to be another hour and a half that I had on my hands to waste. Well, it was, but still it was somewhat worth it. The whole plot was very stupid, cheap acting, and some of the lines were very very dumb. Otherwise than that, it still had it's funny moments, even though not many.

All in all, if you're going to rent this, don't. Watch it on television. I gave it a 4, I was generous because it made me laugh, but yet it was still pretty stupid.


There is a reason Chairman of the Board got a 2, (which is too high) this movie flat out is one of the worse movies of all time and I seen my share of rotten films. Chairman of the Board stars two of the most annoying actors/people today, Carrot Top and Courtney Thorne Smith. Carrot Top just isn't funny anymore and wasn't in this piece of trash. Courtney Thorne Smith isn't any better, just watch "According To Jim" and you will see a prime example of what I am talking about. Chairman of the Board got a 1 from me, because that is low as you can go it is that bad. I am a little shocked that this piece of junk isn't on the IMdb bottom 100 somewhere, I would put this in the top 5 on that list, but its slowly working its way there.


I didn't really get this movie because I'm not some perv like you, who is into lesbian stuff.

The girl in the red wig tries too hard to be funny (her lips are SO silicone!), but she's really lame and insecure. She tries to come off like a surfer-guy (better than dressing slutty, but still weird and definitely unfashionable); the movie doesn't explain why she's trying to pass herself off as a man. Oh, right, to "get" the poor, dumb girl. I forgot. She makes all these dumb inventions which are not funny, and she's a really lousy actress. Plus, that waif look is so OUT!

This dumb blond girl from Melrose Place plays(surprise) a dumb blond.

She thinks the girl in the wig is a guy! They even make out! Ewww! I guess that part was sort of funny.


Why wasn't this voted for Best Picture of 1998? This has to be the best movie ever. It makes something like Citzen Kane look like utter crap, come on, Citzen Kane wasn't even in color! I love this movie, it has to be the best movie I've ever put money down on. I am still shocked that it wasn't nominated for ANYTHING!

 If 10 is the highest you can give it, I give it 20!


Despite the famous cast this animated version of Dickens tale is the borest I've seen. Enough that I zapped away in he first commercial break. The characters didn't appeal to me at all and the animation is looking cheap.

I'll give this movie a very low rating. Give me the Disney version anytime.


"Season on the Brink" is one of my favorite books of all time - an insightful unflinching look at Bob Knight and his Indiana Hoosiers. And Dennehy is one of my favorite supporting actors of all time. So I made a point of watching this adaptation.

It disappointed on every level. Dennehy's performance was less than inspired, and he seemed unprepared to play Knight - like he had accepted the role just prior to filming. The rest of the cast isn't much better.

And it was obvious that this was ESPN's first movie. It was poorly directed, poorly filmed, and the lack of budget was obvious anytime games were being simulated (smaller gyms, empty seats, etc.) Skip this adaptation and read the book - it holds up well to this day!


Its obvious ESPN drools whenever Knight is in the news, but did they have to make a freakin' movie about him? This was THE worst attempt at a serious dramatic movie I have EVER seen. It had it all: terrible acting, terrible dialogue, ridiculous casting, cheap sets, etc etc. It looked like it was shot on a $10 budget. Cummon, whats up with the game scenes? Were they in a middle school gym? And the lighting, well, let me just say it was ridiculous. And Brian Denehy as Bob Knight? Give me a break. Denehey looked like...Denehy in a red sweater, nothing more. ESPN lost a lot of credibility with this flop attempt. They poured millions of $$$ in advertising, then the premier was a huge dissapointment. Bob Knight is not a subject that can be covered in a 2-hour movie. ESPN blew it. Even Knight himself thought it was more stupid than anything else.


I watched this with great trepidation, and my trepidation was well founded, it seems. What was this movie about? Knight? The season? The Players? What? It was all over the place all the time. It had no tension (sorry, we all knew Bobby was going to curse and throw things) but Brian Denehy, a fine actor, comes across as mailing in the anger and delivering zero tension. Cheaply shot, like a MacGiver episode. Contrast this Thanksgiving main course with the job HBO did on the Don King movie "only in America" to show how to do sports biopics, warts and all. Notice that ESPN promoted the hell out of it and then never showed it again?


This movie probably seemed like a great idea in pre-production. "Let's make a movie about one of the greatest and most controversial athletic coaches of the modern era! And let's cast Brian Dennehey as Coach Bobby Knight!" That's where this movie went terribly wrong. Why cast an actor who bears no semblance of the man he's portraying? And then, why let this actor turn his character into not Coach Knight, but Brian Dennehey in a red sweater? As I sat watching this movie on ESPN, I didn't find myself believing this man was actually Coach Knight. He didn't look like him, talk like him, act like him, or even walk like him. I could not get past this fact, and thusly, I could not enjoy the movie. When Paul Newman and Robert Redford were cast as the outlaws Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, we didn't care if they were accurate historical models of their true characters because most of us had never even heard of these men until we saw the movie. But, with someone as visible in today's media as Coach Knight, you have to do better. When Anthony Hopkins was cast as Nixon, it was the same situation. But, Anthony Hopkins made us believe he in fact was Nixon. Dennehey didn't even try. What might have been a great movie was turned sour by this. Besides the fact that this movie tried to do for the four-letter word what "Saving Private Ryan" did for dismemberment, it stunk. Too little of the real Coach Knight and too much profanity for the sake of shock value turned this movie into a "season to turn off half-way through the broadcast." The only good thing about this is that it was television movie. I didn't have to waste my hard-earned money on this piece of trash.


This movie is TRASH from the word go. First, it gives an account of a season that took place 16 YEARS AGO! Who cares? This movie had about as much depth as a bottle cap. It makes a complex person like Bob Knight into a cartoon character.

Swearing doesn't bother me, but I'm still amazed that ESPN showed a movie with more cursing than a Kevin Smith movie on a basic cable channel. The F-word was dropped at least 20 times before the first commercial break.

This movie was terrible and anyone associated with it should be embarrassed. I rate this on the same level as Jaws IV - The Revenge and Everybody Wins...2 movies that are in the Crapfest Hall of Fame.


When just days away before the film's premiere, its screenwriter backs out of the project, and demands his name to be removed from the credits, you know that this does not bode well.

The books, on which "Wiedzmin" is based on, have great potential for a vivacious fantasy film  "Geralt de Rivia is a witcher; his sole purpose is to destroy the monsters that plague the world. But not everything monstrous-looking is evil, and not everything fair is good" But all that didn't matter, when a polish film crew, with a low budget, and no, or little appreciation for Sapkowski's work, decided to make a 13-part mini-series out of it. The two-hour film is a by-product of their actions, to maximize the profits.

It's not hard to point out in this case, what makes people label this film as bad. Plot (incoherent, thanks to cramming it with too many stories), acting (below average, with exception of Zebrowski), dialogues (bland), editing (choppy), special effects (unbearable) and choreography (poor), add up to the film's overall bad experience. Only the soundtrack, done by Grzegorz Ciechowski, brings out the beauty of the world of "Wiedzmin", which was never brought to the screen. Even Poland's grandiose flora and fauna (where part of "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" was shot), a crucial element in almost ANY fantasy film, were not used up to their full potential. The more I think about this dead loss, the more I'm running out of words. At least, it's a comfort to know, that Marek Brodzki, the director of "Wiedzmin", has directed only one film ever since (in addition, in Germany).

For now, we're left with top-notch fantasy stories and a fantastic computer RPG (released in 2007) referring to the Wiedzmin books. But I'm sure that one day, justice will be done for the Wiedzmin saga, and we'll be treated with an equally good film adaptation soon enough.


Well, for a start, I must say that, here, in Russia, a saga of Geralt of Rivia is known and loved. Andrzej Sapkowski - a gifted writer, or, maybe, even genius of some sort - created one of the most realistic, honest, cynical and God d@mn well written fantasy worlds in a history of literature. And when such amazing material gets in a right hands well, see RPG game "Witcher" and you will understand what I am talking about.

"Vedmak\Wiedzmin" is an excellent example of the opposite outcome.

Lack of budget. Lack of directing. Lack of good script.

These three whales of Disgusting Movie Making sunken this movie, ate it alive. Acting is good, sometimes even more than good but for god sake it can not save this project.

I still have some faith though. I still hope that someday a new Vedmak movies will be created and entire world will see magnitude and breathtaking splendor of Sapkowski's books. p.s. But before that a Uwe Boll must be eliminated. Just in case, you know


the movie is simply horrible (2/10). Although actors are trying their best (well sometimes that isn't much) special effects are ...let me put it this way it would be better if there weren't any.

The script is based on Sapkowski's prose, so it should be the biggest advantage of this movie. Sadly it's the opposite. There is nothing left of the original atmosphere. And it's all very chaotic. Maybe they just had too much material to show in 2h time.

Anyway if you would like to see this film I would recommend you to look for the TV series (same title, same actors, even the plot stays the same) that was made in the same time the movie did. It is so much better (9/10) and the story there actually make sense:)


Brodzki's creation is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. First there was a book written with a great humor. Book that has numerous fans who would be happy to supply help when producers for some reasons decided to employ people who hardly heard of the book in the first place. Then came a script as humorless and full of nonsense as possible. At the same time the script was written in a way to allow only those who actually had read the books to understand anything of the plot. Not that anything in this movie made much sense anyway(ex. "I'm like an ice shard. You can burn yourself" said Yennefer as a word of warning - warning that logic is something this movie seriously lacks). To add to that we have to mention that no matter the amount of money that was supposedly spent on the movie everything looks like an amateur production with two (2) computer effects one of which is a see-through dragon. Even the costumes look as if the were borrowed from a really poor theater. That is the better ones look this way. And to add to that we have a few 'naked scenes' put there only so they will be in the film because they have no explanation in what one may mercifully call plot. The movie has only one strength that can hardly make up for the rest - music is not bad. Though if I was to choose I'd prefer to have it separately. It sounds better if you don't have to look at this failure of super production.


There are three main problems with the film. Or rather there are three reasons why it isn't even a contender worthy of more serious consideration.

Firstly, and this was always going to be true, it's not nearly as good as the books. However, at least we could have expected to reflect some of the Sapkowski's wit or depth.

Secondly we have the production. Fantasy movies are, in my opinion, the hardest to produce well. Everything from the props through costumes, scenery, stunts and (especially) CGI is substandard.

Finally, and this is many be very subjective, I just can't quite take the acting seriously. I wasn't brought up in Poland so I can't really judge- it may me my lack of familiarity with films in polish. All the same the lines seem very amateurishly delivered... The casting could be better as well.

In summation, the only possible redeeming feature of this film is the remainder of the plot shining through: not unlike a diamond ring on a rotting cadaver.

On a separate note I heard that the books are coming out in English. I haven't seen them yet but I can't imagine how one would even begin to translate them... I would ask the English-speaking reader to bare this in mind when judging the book.


a very mediocre film based on a superb series of stories and novels. I hope Somebody, someday will be able to film it the right way. In the meantime, look for the books (by A. Sapkowski), a very inteligent, postmodern fantasy. By now there should be a translation in english, there translations in german for sure.


Yes, that's true. That movie is a horrible piece of... you know what. Almost all fans of Sapkowski's books in Poland think the same. The truth is that polish cinematography can not afford producing fantasy films. It's a shame when you compare "Wiedzmin" and "Conan the Barbarian" for example. I hope no one outside Poland will ever see this nightmare.


not many people outside poland have had an opportunity to become familiar with andrzej sapkowski's brilliant writings. he's very popular in poland for his fantasy short stories ( i believe none of them has ever been translated intrto english. alas!). to make a long story short, wiedzmin - the main character of sapkowski's books - is a traveling monster slayer, a man of extraordinary strenght and skill: he's pretty much your favourite tolkien-style cool guy. unfortunately, no one would figure this out after watching the film. 'wiedzmin' the movie is nothing but a collection of random scenes, featuring wiedzmin and other characters from sapkowski's writings, but not eben remotely resembling the plot and dramatic pace of the original. event the fact that some of the shots in the film show attractive naked women does not add any quality to it. the movie gets worse and worse with every minute, and does not even meet the requirements of 'so bad it's actually good' category. if you really are into fantasdy and want to learn something about wiedzmin, read the books instead.


I grabbed La Bandara because it reunited Jean Gabin and Julien Duvivier, whose Pepe le Moko is a noir masterpiece. I'll give it a few points because Gabin is in it, but the clumsy plot, cheap sets and the ludicrous Annabella making like an Arab princess put the film on my `to sell' shelf. If you watch it, you'll find yourself asking, why didn't the idiots build the fort *around* the well, instead of a deadly few yards away from it. And why use tin roofs in the middle of the desert? But by then the sheer perversity of contrivance that makes up the script should numb you to any further contemplation.


Usually when a television biopic is released on a celebrity, its, at the very least, campy (i.e. Cybill Shepherd as Martha Stewart, Lauren BaCall as Doris Duke), this is the most horrendous, cheap, and BORING television movie ever made. If VH-1 is going to make a television film, they have GOT to spend a little more money on them. Flex Alexander--though gifted with the Michael voice--is not a great dancer, does not resemble Michael one bit, and does not even have his mannerisms down. VH-1 would have done better by hiring an actual impersonator, that way when see Michael go into get plastic surgery, he doesn't actually come out looking EXACTLY the same. Why should we be taken aback at the shrinking of Michael's nose when its exactly the same size as in the beginning of the film? The woman playing Elizabeth Taylor cannot act and looks nothing like her, and don't even get me started on the woman as Janet Jackson. Terrible script and a severe case of miscasting needs to keep VH-1 from producing any more movies. Flex Alexander would have made a much better JERMAINE JACKSON rather than Michael. Costumes? Trashy ripoffs. Neverland? Spliced together footage from news docs. Don't bother with this one....its not even remotely worth it. The one good piece of casting--the actor portraying Joseph Jackson and MAYBE the actress as Lisa Marie Presley, though she should have been more tomboy than girlie girl.


The main word that comes to mind when considering this film is "dodgy". This is a low-quality film biography of one of the most iconic performers of all time. The Gloved One deserved better.

Before getting into the meat of my thoughts on this biopic, I have to say that there are two things I found effective. First was the use of actual fan footage and interviews at certain points in the film, especially in the scenes depicting the first set of child molestation allegations. I feel that this contributed a certain authenticity that was *severely* lacking throughout the rest of the film. Second was the sequence depicting the courtship of Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. I will not comment on whether I believe the marriage was a sham, but by many accounts, it was a relationship where care and affection existed between the two parties involved. That really came across in this film; Flex Anderson and Krista Rae had decent enough chemistry to pull it off. These successful points are enough to keep Man in the Mirror away from 1-star status.

That said...there was very little else here that worked. Very few of the actors looked like the people they were supposed to portray, most egregiously those playing Elizabeth Taylor, Janet Jackson, and Diana Ross. Also, the absence of Jackson's music was a huge loss. How can you effectively tell a story about him without his music?? I understand that they were unable to secure the rights to it with this being a low-budget, unauthorized production; it seems, though, that if you can't have the man's music in a film about him, you might as well pack it up and go home, because you're missing out on an extremely important part of his life story.

This film's characterization of Jackson bothered me a little, too. I won't argue that he was troubled and may have been a few fries short of a value meal, but here, he was portrayed as something close to mentally disabled. I don't believe that Jackson, known to have been a shrewd businessman, would have been quite as naive about how the adult world works as he was made out to be in this film.

Finally, the way this film was written was nothing short of disgraceful. Many lines or exchanges of dialogue were either extremely corny, like Michael and Janet's "Tinkerbell" exchange, or nonsensical, like the "Blanket of love" comments made by Michael. Also, the screenwriters don't exactly have a knack for subtlety. There was a lot of telegraphing of upcoming events ("What could possibly go wrong??" sorts of lines) and extremely overt hammering of themes and motifs in the film (if I'd heard the word "believe" one more time...). This is what ultimately hobbled the film as something that could be considered awesomely bad.

Perhaps when we are a few years, or even a decade or three, removed from Jackson's death, someone will be able to bring his story to life in a more deserving film. By that time, we might have a better perspective on his life, and someone will be able to present a truly thoughtful examination of who Michael Jackson really was and what he's meant to the world of entertainment. This very dodgy biopic was not that film.


I am speechless, honestly I cannot understand how anyone could have conceded to a script like this, cast anyone in the film let alone direct it. The fact that I am writing this review feels like an insult to my fingers, this film should be thrown in to the dustbin rather than be reviewed. I am disappointed in Flex Alexander for even thinking about accepting such a POOR EXCUSE FOR A SCRIPT let alone essay the role. OMG! I think I just insulted the word "essay"...uh yeah I did. Y'know what, the less said about this mindless drivel, the better. You have been warned, nobody warned me I had to experience the horror myself. WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK.


This movie is like so many biopic TV movies I have seen: formulaic, exaggerating, poorly acted, and most importantly, happening too soon.

What I mean by that is the movie was filmed and, for that matter, aired before Michael Jackson's acquittal from his child molestation charges, which I think was one of the most significant periods of Jackson's life and career so far. It probably would have made a great ending to this docu-drama. However, this movie already bites off more than it can chew, cramming too many details in this overly ambitious project.

It's no doubt that Michael Jackson has led perhaps the most interesting life so far of any musician, let alone modern day pop star, to date, and his story would probably take six Behind The Music specials to tell accurately. This movie tried to tell too much in three hours, and needless to say, it failed.

Flex Alexander did what he could in playing Jackson, but he came off more like an SNL caricature by the likes of Tim Meadows and Amy Poehler. It would admittedly be pretty hard to find someone who accurately portrays Jackson without meeting with the King of Pop himself and studying his methods of madness. On a shoestring budget, though, one can only depend on what they see in the tabloids, and those do not necessarily give an accurate representation.

Furthermore, the director's efforts to make Alexander look like Jackson are completely foolish. The Caucasian makeup on Alexander's face makes him look more like a reverse minstrel show, and everyone who has been in a grocery store knows that Jackson's nose is not as big as Alexander's. It's also amazing to me that the film documents Jackson going under the knife to get cosmetic surgery, yet in the next scene, Alexander still has the same size nose. This kind of suspension of disbelief that the director expects can't hold up to TV viewers in the 21st century.

It was even more distracting when footage of the real Michael Jackson (i.e. the time he hung his infant child over a balcony in Germany) was interspersed into the movie in real time. It was a nice try, but it just didn't work.

If this movie as it is was released into theaters, it would gain a profit only because of its tackiness. It even pales in comparison to "Mommie Dearest", and that's saying a lot. Above all, this was a movie that was probably rushed into making, like many TV movies that aren't on HBO. It could have been done a lot better if it had just told of one aspect of Jackson's life. Even if it just covered the child molestation allegations, it probably would have been done a lot better and would have even been more intriguing.


The writers and creators of this film should actually be sued... For polluting the world with this crap! "Man In The Mirror" is in fact beyond horrible! Way, way, way beyond!

...and people, I'm not just saying that because I'm a Michael Jackson-fan! Or due to the fact that this is truly one of the most retarded depictions of his life I've ever encountered!

I'm saying it because this is a waste of time, money and celluloid! I feel ashamed of myself just having seen all of it! That's 1 hour and 26 min of my life I'll never get back! I'm telling you; watching grass grow is literally more entertaining than this film!

Consider yourselves warned!


Even though i sat and watched the whole thing,i must say it was not good.it was all over the place,with big chunks of information missing about how things developed and even inaccurate at some bits too.If you know nothing about Michael , you wont understand a thing.You have to rely on your current knowledge of the man in order for some bits to make sense..Acting was a bit dramatic, Flex Alexander looked nothing like Michael which was a put off for me and towards the end he literally looked grey.saying that portraying Michael as somewhat naive but highly positive, gentle and loving individual was okay even though they still made a fool out of him time to time.If you want to watch MJ's life story check out "An American dream". It is much better but the only thing is it will cover up to "Bad" era. I have no doubt that they will eventually make a big budget movie of MJ's life story, cos Michael You rock ;-) !!!!


Okay, first of all, I missed like the first 15 minutes of the movie, so I missed credits and stuff. SO when I finally got to it, I was like "Who the hell is this dude?". I found out it was Flex like hours after watching the movie.

Flex didn't look like Michael Jackson. Not one bit. He couldn't dance like him, or move like him, the only thing he almost had was the voice. People commented on Elizabeth Taylor, but I can't really comment on that because I don't know much about her.

The whole movie was like just plain wack. The dialogue sucked. The cinematography-if it can be called that-sucked. The soundtrack sucked. The acting sucked. Yes even Flex...I'm so upset about it though. I didn't want it to suck. I'm so sad that Flex got told he can get away with it. But the whole thing looked like dress-up. You know? It's like, nobody looked like they were supposed to except for Joseph Jackson.

The concert sequences just sucked. I'm sorry, but Flex just can't dance like Michael. I mean, like what the hell was VH1 thinking? The makeup didn't even match like the time of whatever Michael was going through. For example, in the movie he was still dark when Neverland got raided the first time around. In real life, MJ was white as hell. There was some sort of stupid delay in his skin discoloring.

The movie wasn't boring, well for me it wasn't. It wasn't really anything. I was just so upset about everything that was wrong with it. I wanted to see how it turned out and if Flex could redeem himself. He didn't, really. The only part I found like a bit interesting was the whole Lisa Marie thing. When they fell in love. That was nice. But I had to turn my face away when they kissed. Heh. And only two parts made me collapse with laughter. The first time was when they cut from Michael with short hair, you know the Thriller era, to Michael with long flowing hair from the Dangerous era AND HE WAS STILL BLACK! That was funny. The second time I laughed was when they showed all of the posters and memorabilia of Michael but they had Flex's face instead! It was so funny.

Overall, this movie was cheap trash. It was simply two hours of dress-up and could have been so much better. But no, VH1 is cheap. Watch if you want. But this movie is not funny, considering the ridiculousness of it. I came out of it feeling angry. And when I found out it was Flex, I just started to feel so bad. So...watch if you want.


This is absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen. I hope the REAL family and other portrayed characters have lawyers suing the hell out of VH1 for there portrayal. The acting is horrible, the writing is worse and the portrayal of characters is scary. Its supposed to be a drama, but it was a comedy to me, you have no choice but to laugh at the bad acting. I usually like Flex Alexanders acting but this time he has completely missed the mark.

You could argue he took this role for a couple of laughs himself, because it was so horrible. If you really want a dramatic movie for the night, DO NOT CHOOSE THIS ONE. But if you are in for some laughs over bad acting and stupid writing, Tune in. Other than that, don't waste your time.


Where the hell did VH1 find the scriptwriter for this movie??? Out of high school? This movie tries so hard to be sympathetic to Michael Jackson, but instead, turns him into a horrible, tacky caricature. All the lines are filled with clichés but surprisingly the acting wasn't bad. As usual, this is a bad movie with pretty good actors. The actor that plays Michael Jackson, jeez, I feel sorry for him! I think he did the best he could with the weak script. I didn't mind that Flex did not look like Michael Jackson, I thought he did the best he could, but later on when he had all that white make-up on, oh man, did he look yucky! The other actors that played Debbie Rowe, Priscilla Presley and Elizabeth Taylor were pretty good. Except that the actress that plays Liz Taylor looked too young and healthy to be playing Liz. The actress that plays Diana Ross didn't look at all like her and I couldn't figure out who this woman was until much later on in the movie.

This movie does a disservice to everyone who is on the side of Michael Jackson, or against Michael Jackson. It doesn't do anything to change anyone's opinion. As a matter of fact, the only opinion anyone will have after watching this movie is, oh God, this movie really, really sucks! And where the hell is Michael Jackson's wonderful music and songs? There are none to be found in this movie. I love the soundtrack to this movie anyway and I'll probably purchase it if I could.

On the lighter side though, this is a very funny, campy movie! It's a great time waster if you want to watch something light that won't trouble your brain too much. I'll probably watch it again, because it just is so entertainingly bad!


This is based on Michael's life from 1983/4 till 2004. Flex Alexander did a good performance but looked nothing like Michael. I feel Michael was portrayed as a stupid person which I don't believe he was (even though he trusted the wrong people at times). I thought Flex Alexander looked Chinese when they made Michael look white. I think Latoya should of been portrayed in this, she was always pictured with her brother in the 80's. I never thought any of the supporting cast looked like their counterparts. There were some things that were inaccurate Lisa-Marie Presley's son looked about 4 in the wedding scene even though he was not yet 2 when Lisa and Michael got married. Also when Michael says to his mother Katherine he thinks he and Debbie should marry if she is carrying his child, it was Katherine's idea for the two to get married.


You might suspect that the plot of this movie was written in the process of filming. It begins as a "punks versus vigilante" movie, but in the middle of the film, the plot changes abruptly when the vigilante turns to be an honest man with his honest girl and his honest gym and has to fight the corrupt "businessmen" who want to turn the gym down at any cost to build a mall or something. Then, the plot changes again, and we forget about the corrupt guys. The villain now is the friend of the leading man, who thinks he is a Ninja. The guy becomes "crazy evil" and wants at any cost to win a Martial Arts Contest. Seeing this movie is like having a nightmare with the television on.


This movie was filmed in my hometown and I was acquainted with many of the "actors" in minor rolls. Most of them were students at the local karate school and even at the time it was filmed we all knew what a stinker it was. It was interesting however to see it being made. Most of the places it was filmed at no longer exist, such as the nightclub, the pizza shop, etc. The "world premiere" was held at The Akron Civic Theatre and we all laughed hysterically at how inane it was. I personally believe it's the worst movie ever made but it brings back many fond memories for me. Watch this movie with a word of advice...enjoy it for what it is..a very low budget, poorly made , karate flick.


Yes, it might be not historically accurate(actually only 6 soldiers of 9th rota were killed there), and yes, it has some mistakes and exaggeration(bended machine gun? come on! or the that "history lesson" about how Afghanistan was never conquered by anyone - educated Russian officer would know history much better than that - take for example British campaign in Afghanistan). And yes, it does not have multi-million dollars Hollywood-style special effects, but it's strongest point in showing soldier's life there, their relationships and their feelings when the best friends are being killed in front of their eyes. In my opinion 9ya rota really does a good job showing all those things.

Again, movie has it weaknesses, but, in my opinion, it appears to be one of the strongest Russian movie for the past few years.

8/10


First, I'm sorry for my English. Second, the true story of this episode: 39 soldiers, operation "Magistral'". 6 soldiers were killed. Hundreds of insurgents were killed too. Within 10 years the Soviet Army has lost less than 15 thousand person and killed over 900000 insurgents and civilians. There is no insurgents without permanent help of USA The veteran of war: "Traditions. There are no traditions in this film. There is no military oath, there is no first jump, no farewell to the Fighting Banner. There is no delivery of awards and medals. There is nothing sacred. There is only a hatred to Soviet army. Being in this area on investigation, we have revealed start-up jet shells by insurgents . An exact place could not define. So gunners have asked to give easier square. Also have covered it. Through pair minutes. Here it was the reality of fights. So there was no feeling "oblivion". These feelings have appeared then. Already on other war and in other state (Chechnya). Others were children. More kindly. More humanly. And "prapors" were as fathers. Well and culmination fight - full orgy. Shooting in anywhere. Mental attacks young Ben-Ladens, not killed both not broken through. And full absence of mutual aid. That there was a main thing on this war. Even Americans accused us of inadequate application of force against insurgents. And here it is direct on the contrary. In the summer 1981 I about myself have firmly solved, that personally should fill up a minimum 50 insurgents. As a result accepted "plan" has been under-fulfilled, and on a demobilization I departed strongly contused and malicious as fig. After returning the first months there was a feeling of that I not was at war up to the end, not business there have completed all how follow. There was any vague, but an oppressive sensation of discontent with itself and caustic irritation. Such here night ideas, can be and out of place at all. Officers really in film are not present absolutely. In occasion of that, what is the time they spent with staff. On fighting-is constant. New Year on fighting. From where did they take beds? In mountains? And so on..."

If you want a fairy tale about war, "9 rota" and "Shtrafbat" is for you. If you want truth, you must see "Come and see" or "Batallions Ask for Fire".


The main problem with 9th Company (9 Rota) is that it is not sure whether it wants to be Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket. The attempts at Spielberg sentimentalism are embarrassing, such as the burley sergeant crying in a field of red flowers!!! The training sequences have none of intensity or realism that Kubrick gave them in his masterpiece.

A further bone of contention is that the Afghan fighters are called Ghosts because they strike and are hardly ever seen. Here they attack a Russian strong hold almost in formation with no attempt to use cover. I am sure tactics have move on since Waterloo.

Every scene in this film has been seen before in other war movies and done considerably better.

I have to ask: Why do all talented marksmen need to chew on a match?

Finally, I am always suspicious of a film that starts with no narration yet needs to qualify the end.

"We won!" ...errrr....... no you didn't.


I borrowed this on DVD from a friend the other day. I didn't really know what to expect. I haven't seen a lot of Russian movies, and i don't think i've ever seen a Russian war movie. Maybe that made me expect something different, something more along the line of an imagined Russian mentality. But whatever those expectations came from, they were put to shame as this is a quite ordinary war movie.

The whole formula of following a few young people from their recruitment, through training, to deployment and through some battles, is well known. We have seen it done both many years ago, as well as more recently (as with Jarhead). Sure, there's a difference here because the movie is about Russian soldiers instead of Americans as is almost always the case. But in general this could just as easily have been a Vietnam-movie. I guess that just underscores my feeling that Afghanistan was the Soviet unions Vietnam. A country that should have been a pushover for a superpower made the war drag on for years with terrible loss of life both for soldiers and civilians.

The good points in this movie i felt were good photography (there are some beautiful ambiance shots) and decent effects for what i guess must have been a rather low budget movie. What made me disappointed is mostly the story itself. It just doesn't manage to stir any emotion in me. Mostly because the character development is lousy. And to really feel something when people are gunned down you have to make them people, not just faceless cardboard cutouts. They fail to do that in this movie. Also it's overly long, and that seems to a kind of trend lately. In my opinion a movie that's more than two hours long has to have a lot to offer, and this movie doesn't cut it. Also there is a disturbing music that's put like a wet blanket over every scene. Especially in the action scenes this is highly disturbing, not that you need action-music but something more than just slow keyboard-music would be nice. Otherwise the production values were good enough, that was not where the problem was.

I don't know how to view this movie. As a reminder of the fact that no matter where you are, war sucks? That Russian film-makers have already watched too many American war-movies to make something original? Regardless of which, this movie is rather clichéd, lacks in spirit and while it has acceptable technical qualities, it lacks in script and character development. In the end it just becomes another of all those war-movies that fails to make you think, and fails to add something to the genre. I've seen a lot worse, but a lot better too. I rate this 4/10.


"The polar Express " was an awful movie .What makes this movie worst is the hypocrisy to present itself as a innocent ,sugary and harmless tale for children about the "true " meaning of Christmas . I never read the book of Chris Van Allsburg in what it was inspired ,but the most disappointing is that it was directed by Robert Zemeckis ,the same who made the great "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?",a excellent movie where he proof that the animation could be appreciated for kids and adults equally ,while in this movie it seems that he was victim of his own ambition and he give too much importance to create impressive level of detail than a interesting story .I'm sorry to say this ,but "The Polar Express " have so much artistic level as a publicity campaign of a video -game or toy . Everything in this movie seems to be so lifeless : the characters could look like humans ,but they don't have nothing of life on them ,and they have a malevolent touch in their eyes .

But the worst ...is the "message" in this movie .You could see it at some parts of the movie ,and believe me ,it was vile .Take for example one scene ,where one kid refuses to enter to the Polar Express . Notice that the character that looks like Tom Hanks makes a gesture like saying "you are stupid to don't accept my offering " .Second ,when the girl says that the toys are so "warm " and things like that . All the damn movie the kids keep talking about how big would be the gifts that Santa would give to them . There is even a song about the gifts !the vagabond is a irrelevant and weak character . And ,in the last scene the character seems to "discover " the true meaning of Christmas : and what would be ? what do you think ? the gifts ! many Christmas movies are close to say something like it ,but "The Polar Express " it's a ode to the materialism and greed . Seriouslly ,I refuse to call it a "children's movie " , because if is that what the kids would learn ,I don't want to think how would be our future .


This movie is awful. It creates characters not in the book, and some of them are ethnic or racial stereotypes. Including an obnoxious little Jewish boy and a politically correct little black girl. Not to mention the Yiddish speaking elves. The book was a simple story about belief, and this movie is a dark, ugly, and needlessly scary movie about nothing.

The animation is superb, but the story has been ruined by Hollywood.

The good thing is that this movie will take a bath in the box office and maybe producers will learn to keep from tampering with a story that needs no improvement. Hanks was overdone and i don't see why there couldn't have been other actors' voices be used.


The Polar Express. Director Robert Zemeckis, I love Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, Contact, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (NO QUESTION MARK AFTER THAT MOVIE TITLE!!). And Tom Hanks, one of my favorite actors. The reviews of this movie were almost unanimous saying that this is an instant holiday classic. Ebert & Roeper give it two ENTHUSIASTIC thumbs up! Even Ebert's written review gave it a full four stars! Wow... OK... this I gotta see! But wait... the motion capture used looks really weird. Hmm... maybe I'm NOT so interested in seeing this anymore.

"Well, you comin?" says the train conductor to the boy in The Polar Express. The boy is reluctant at first, and the train begins on its course without him. The boy soon changes his mind and jumps aboard just in the nick of time.

Now, most of you have probably decided to not jump aboard this train and wait for the TV Train or Rental Express (hee hee, I'm so witty and clever). I, on the other hand was like the boy who was skeptical at first, but jumped on to see what the fuss was all about.

I just wasted $10 and two hours of my life.

I can't even begin to explain the pain in my stomach. The Polar Express was so painful to sit through it's not even funny. There's no story. There's no pay off. You sit there through these series of events and you wonder "is there any point to all this?" It'd be one thing if the scenes were entertaining... but they're not.

This movie is void of any emotion, any soul, any ounce of plausibility, and most of all: any fun. This movie is NOT FUN.

And let's talk about the way these characters look for a second. Saying that it's the same technology (motion, I'm sorry, "PERFORMANCE" capture) used to make Gollum is a real shame because Gollum was Believable!!! Photo-realism just does not translate well in this medium. You're using animation, why not design the characters to be more expressive? Or why not just film it all with real actors? They certainly COULD have. We as people know all too well how we walk, talk, interact with things. Seeing it on the screen done unconvincingly is not impressive. Caricatures done convincingly is all the more believable, as The Incredibles has proved. The result of The Polar Express now is as if they took corpses of dead children and turned them into puppets. They're moving and talking, but where's the heart? Where's the soul? That's what we're seeing on the screen. UGH UGH UGH UGH UGH! This movie is so horrible!

There's a scene early in the movie where the boy takes a girl's train ticket from her seat because she got up and left it. He wants to give it to her but you sit there going "why??!" Just leave it.. she's coming back! He of course loses the ticket and "adventure" ensues. And then there's a boy who's stuck in the back of the train all the time, and they bring him hot chocolate, but he can't come up and join the rest of the kids? And then there's this annoying "know it all" kid with the voice of a 35 year old. It's all so very disturbing.

Oh and there's songs! One girl goes into the back of the train where the lonely kid is. He's singing a song to himself. And then she interrupts and joins in! They end the song as they're holding hands, looking into each others eyes as if they were lovers. Very awkward. I won't even go into details about the song about serving hot chocolate while waiters dance around the train. "keep it hot keep it hot!" The one scene where Tom Hanks slides on his knees with his arms stretched up in the air has to be one of the most memorably BAD scenes in the history of bad scenes.

I have to stop now or I'll just kill myself. I need to watch something crappy to cleanse the palette. Yes... crappy is better than The Polar Express.

"The one thing about trains, it doesn't matter where you're going, what matters is deciding to get on."

Don't get on this one. For the love of God, I have decided for you! This is just another film taken from a children's book stretched incredibly thin into movie form. It happened with the Grinch and The Cat in the Hat and those were horrible also. But who can blame them? I bet if I took the book, The Berenstein Bears' Too Much Junk Food, and turned that into a feature film, it'd probably be pretty dull also. But at least... there'd be a story and a point, which is what The Polar Express is so lacking of.


Much like Final Fantasy, if you look at a still shot - it doesn't look so bad. But when the people start moving, it's utterly horrifying. Uneven jerky motions, frightening lack of emotion, and lack of a feel of life in the face gives me the creeps. The characters do not even appear ALIVE/organic.

I saw a preview screening with my daughter, who actually fell asleep! She was not at all engaged. For the record, I thought her to be easily engaged by both Pixar-esque films as well as a number of the 'bad' 2D films like Sinbad.

The lighting is painful, giving the children the appearance of holding a flashlight under their chin at a campfire. The lip syncing is bad - worse actually than Final Fantasy.

I also seriously question having Hanks play five characters.... this was a major distraction throughout the film. The role of the conductor is eerie - although in a way I just can't pinpoint. It reminds me of my father's fake "phone" voice when greeting clients.

I think this is why the multiple roles are distracting - you are accutely aware that the voice is the same, but yet distinctly different. It gives each character the feel of being ACTED, as opposed to being real human characters. The illusion of reality is broken by the multiple role playing of Hanks. I've seen the technique work - a la Eddie Murphy, but Hanks just can't come close to pulling it off with a voice alone, given the horrifying animation.

I would not waste my money on this - wait for the rental.


I know most of the other reviews say that this movie was great, but I have to disagree.

Sure, it's a good book! It was actually one of my favorites when I was verrry little. But it's just not meant for theaters. Maybe for a little half-hour short, but I don't see how they can turn a short kiddie book into a whole feature film.

It is a cute movie, but I would only recommend it for really little kids. Older kids will have no interest it. Adults may have a little more interest if they watch it with their young ones. But anyone ages 7-Adult will have a snore-fest.

Sorry if you disagree with me, but this is my opinion. :)


I am not kidding: there's a scene in this movie where a hobo hits his head on a tunnel keystone and explodes (with no fireball, though) into a million pieces! It made some kid in front of me scream in terror! ...In a G-rated film!

This film might serve to convince children that Santa Clause is EVIL! His helpers are ugly, misanthropic, over-the-top and mean! When Santa (here an anagram of Satan!) appears, all 200,000 elves begin singing "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" as though it were a Druid war chant. Then, in the reflection of this movie's "Rosebud" object (a jingle bell that whispers hints of why you can't hear it ringing: "doubt....doubt...)), old Saint Nick appears, looking like a stoic Donald Sutherland, his face glowing like Moses' from "K10C". When we hear him speak, his thundering voice sounds less like a jolly old elf, and more like James Earl Jones' voice slowed-down about 20%. Frightening!

The syrupy music is out-of-place, boring and repetitive. It doesn't follow any emotional threads (as in "Titanic's" very effective score). It just seems thrown in at certain points in order to generate feelings of warmth and magic. It fails to stir, partly because it doesn't match the imagery of the film. There are some musical train wrecks (no pun intended) where, out of nowhere, the eerie, symphonic score slams abruptly into happy, child-voiced POLKA about the title locomotive. It just makes the whole movie sound like it was rushed into production!

Finally, I agree with some other reviewers about how, well... "dead" everyone looks. It does seem a little macabre at times. The motion-capture technique is good for allowing the Kings Island-like roller-coaster train sequences to look convincing from a distance, but up close, "real" actors should have been used. Overall, nice eye-candy for killing time in front of the TV, but not much else here.


I do think Tom Hanks is a good actor. I enjoyed reading this book to my children when they were little. I was very disappointed in the movie. One character is totally annoying with a voice that gives me the feeling of fingernails on a chalkboard. There is a totally unnecessary train/roller coaster scene. There are some characters and scenes that seem scary for little children for whom this movie was made. The North Pole scenes with Santa and the elves could have been cute and charming. There was absolutely no warmth or charm to these scenes or characters. It usually doesn't work to make a short children's book into a feature film. This movie totally grates on my nerves.


I don't see the point. It's ponderous. The animated people are creepy (look up uncanny valley). Scenes go on and on and on for very little purpose. The plot is skeletal and must be padded out with lots of meaningless dramatic, screaming roller coaster rides, as if Disney or Spielberg were planning an amusement park ride based on the movie. Most of the characters are annoying and unlikeable. Some of them keep showing up as if they will have something important to add to a climactic scene. They don't. They just vanish with no lasting impact. Somebody summed it up as "if you don't believe in Santa Claus, you'll be kidnapped on a train on Christmas eve." That pretty much sums it up.


I like underdogs. So, 12 years after having first seen Star Trek V, and thinking it was bizarrely bad, I gave it a second watch, hoping I would find some redeeming quality which I missed the first time around.

I didn't.

The writing is half-baked, and although at first the quality of the acting is stable enough to keep the movie on its feet (albeit shakily), the further we get into the plot the sillier it gets. The last quarter of the film is just plain ridiculous. What was even worse, from the original cast's POV, is that this was the first ST movie to be released AFTER the franchise returned to television with Next Generation, and the average episode of Next Generation would put this to shame* - including the special effects! What an embarrassment.

The Final Frontier isn't thoroughly wretched - I gave it 4 out of 10 - but it's so far below the standard of its predecessors (yes, including the first one) that the only reason I can think of to watch it is because you'll appreciate the other movies more.

* unless it's an episode with Troi's mother in it.


What is it with studios like Paramount that have a proven hit film series on their hands, and figure it can screw around with the budget and formula? Paramount spent less on this film than they did on TMP, which doesn't sound bad until you realize that there's a 10 gap between when the films were made. The $40 TMP cost to make would be equivalent to about $75 million in 1989. This film is the reason that Shatner has never been given a fair chance to direct other films, as well. Every time he turned around, the studio was slashing the budget and making demands regarding the storyline. The fact that this was the one storyline that Roddenberry and Shatner could agree upon for the most part made the freshman directorial task tough enough, but after all the machinations were done, all anyone ended up with was an uneven story and a load of badly executed special effects not worthy of the original series, much less a major motion picture. The most glaring examples: - All of the Phaser effects were severely ashed out and fake-looking. - The shot of the Enterprise going into the great barrier was so obviously a still-frame shot being zoomed away from. At least the popsicle stick that held the Enterprise cut out up was successfully matted out. - God "chasing" Kirk up the mountain... Egads, they may as well have just cut in shots of Godzilla climbing the volcano at the end of "Godzilla 1985," and used thumbtacks to scratch the emulsion off of the film to make electric bolts come out of his eyes at the imperiled Captain Kirk.... Yes, friends, I have a real problem with the look of that last scene, especially.

Thank goodness Star Trek VI was such a redeemer of a film...


I find it almost touching how Star Trek fans try desperately to like this film in spite of its unbelievable number of flaws.

To begin with, none of the familiar characters are really in character so to speak. Scotty is depicted as a bumbling tinkerer instead of the competent engineer he was in the original series. Uhura...Gods, I can't even think about what they did to her character. All of her dialog was painful to listen to. McCoy seemed like a neurotic stepfather to Kirk instead of his trusted friend. Spock...well, let's just say that Leonard Nimoy was terribly wasted. He was given bad dialog ("I do not believe you have grasped the gravity of your situation Captain." Gravity, get it? Get it?) and made almost into a buffoon. Kirk...oh man, don't get me started. William Shatner is a hammy actor to begin with, so to allow him to direct really is to invite disaster which is what we got.

The plot is beyond ridiculous. Giving Spock a brother is a pretty desperate story line and unnecessarily soap operaish. But hey, let's go with it. The search for God. Again, a weak plot basis. You don't think so? OK, let's go with that too. So assuming that the two aforementioned plot elements are sound, what's wrong with the script? Well, for one thing, it recycles way too much. The Enterprise, for example, is yet again, not working properly. Are we to assume that Starfleet would send a grossly malfunctioning ship with a skeleton crew into a potentially dangerous situation just because they want James Kirk to handle the situation? If that's the case, then why not put him on a better ship as an adviser? Adding to that...the crew is grossly incompetent. Scotty has the ship in pieces (and apparently is cloddish enough to bump his head knocking himself into unconsciousness WHILE there are hostiles on board!), no one seem to notice the Klingon ship decloaking at a crucial moment (despite the fact that the sensors are clearly showing the ship in weapons range) and the crew all seem way too familiar with each other. In other words, there is no sense of discipline. If this is the flagship of Starfleet, then it's a wonder that the Klingons hadn't already overthrown the Federation.

As to the personal struggles with pain, it was crap. Lawrence Luckenbill is a competent actor, but even he couldn't save this turkey. In short no one could. Of all the people involved, I imagine Leonard Nimoy is the most embarrassed by it. I hope he is, anyway.

Thank god the original cast didn't bow out on this cloddish opus.


This was so bad I can't even review it. So I'll jot some sentences about what I witnessed, and it'll be up to you to decide.

Captain Kirk, with toupee and tubby gut, is rock climbing Yosemete's El Capitan. Spock meets him halfway riding on a floating skateboard-like hovercraft. Kirk falls. Spock flies down, catches him inches before Kirk hits the ground head- first.

Later, that night, Spock, Kirk and McCoy are eating beans around a campfire. Spock likes the beans. Then, Kirk and McCoy sing "Row Row Row Your Boat", and want Spock to join in on the three-way harmony. Spock doesn't want to sing. And later that night, he disagrees. "But life isn't but a dream, Captain". Should I go on?

Okay... A renegade Vulcan, who happens to be Spock's half brother, leads a revolt on a sandy planet - taking hostages. The crew of the enterprise land on the planet, and Uhura, pushing fifty-five and weighing two-hundred some-odd pounds, lures the natives with her bare legs. But they can't trick the brother, who claims he can find God.

He kidnaps the crew and the Enterprise. They go to a planet where a big bearded apparition, claiming to be God, spits fire at Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Spock's sibling, realizing it isn't God - but is really a form of himself - or something - joins with the apparition in order to destroy it and... sparks fly.

Then, after stuff happens too complicated to explain involving Klingons who resemble Lorenzo Lamas...

The Three Amigos - Kirk, Spock and McCoy - return to Yosemite (did I mention, Kirk was wearing a GO CLIMB A ROCK T-shirt?). With Spock playing some kind of funky Vulcan guitar, they sing "Row Row Row Your Boat", this time all three harmonizing as the credits roll.