A bad movie, but with one reel that is worth savoring. For most of the film, the jokes are bad, the songs are bad, even W.C. Fields is bad. Then there is one sequence with Bob Hope and his movie-ex; the dialogue is witty and the song (a version of "Thanks for the Memories") light, cynical and delightful. Who parachuted in for this one bit? Yet it makes the whole thing worth the original 25 cents admission.


Pauline Kael gave this movie a good review but it is terrible. It is very outdated , the humour is silly and the music is forgetable.In fact it is so silly it is almost embarrassing. It might have been some fun in 1938 but I can not imagine anyone enjoying it in 2003.


Super Troopers was an instant classic. Club Dread, while disappointing to many, had its moments. Puddle Cruisers has fewer moments. I saw this movie on the shelf of my local video store and saw at the bottom that it was made by the Broken Lizard group who made Super Troopers, so naturally I picked it up. I only found one scene to be laugh out loud funny. A far cry from Super Troopers. All in all, I was very disappointed. I would not recommend this to anyone, unless you have an abundance of free time, and really need to kill some time. However, you're better off playing video games, or watching something that might make you laugh or think.


Even though this is the first film by the broken lizard group, it's the last one I saw. Having mildly enjoyed Super Troopers, and managed to sit through the crap that is club dred and beerfest, I was surprised to hear they did an earlier film. Now i didn't sit down with high hopes, but was hoping for a funny campus romp. My friend asked me to keep in mind they are younger (obviously) and its their first foray into film. I did and was still disappointed. Not taking away the acting and comedy skills of the BL guys, they were OK. The whole film was tiresome, clichéd and frankly boring. Some of the other actors in the film were really poor at acting. And the Rugby game didn't even resemble rugby. Poor showing. They improved drastically with Super Troopers and have declined since. Lets hope they get back on form with Super Troopers 2


man was this hard to watch! it was not at all funny, not well made and it had no point or plot to it whatsoever. the acting was horrible. it was not well made at all. it looked like a bunch of kids my age were just screwing around and making a pointless movie. it is by far the absolute worst broken lizard movie. if you are a broken lizard movie like myself you will disappointed and bored to your death. please skip this pointless movie about ugly guys looking for chicks. you will not regret m advice. by the way, don't say you didn't find this review helpful just because you didn't agree with it. thats stupid, like this movie. the only OK scene was when the main guy was playing rugby and got beat the crap out of. i liked that cause i found his character pretty damn annoying.


This movie was the worst movie I've ever seen. No story, no point, it wasn't even funny at all, not sure why people say this movie is hilarious because it sucked SO much!! Felix Bean the main character sucked. Susanna sucked. This movie was made in 1996 and it really was set in the 80s. What else, I'm never letting my friend pick movies ever again. Hmm, the movie cover said it was from the producers from super troopers, who kidnapped them and stole their identities. Wow, what a waste of time. The only minute thing that was funny was Freaky Ricky, he was funny, especially when he and Emily ended up together. That was funny. All and all, it sucked, waste of time and sleep. Wow, never thought a movie like this could be made, so dumb for watching for watching it to the end.


Oh My Gosh!!!! This was the first movie Broken Lizard made as a group (although it just recently came to video), and I have never been more disappointed in my entire life!!! I tell you what, if I had seen this movie before I saw Super Troopers (which by the way, is a kick A$$ movie!!!), I never ever would have watched it!! I had read several reviews online, as well as on the cover of the DVD, that raved it as being,"Broken Lizard's funniest movie ever!" Now if they were referring to Super Troopers as being their funniest movie ever, I would agree nonstop, but not this one. Talk about dry. It took the movie a good 45 minutes to even get going, and by then, I was so out of the mood to watch it, that it wasn't even worth it. Maybe you gotta be high for it to really be funny? I dunno. I love these guys, I really do, but that movie is by far the worst one they've made. Club Dread was a pretty good movie, but this one, just wow. I'd highly recommend Super Troopers if you want a good laugh, but if you want more of a romance, drama, with a few funny spots, I'd say go with Puddle Cruiser. Just my opinion though, everyone is entitled to their own! :)


I found Super Troopers only mildly amusing at best (seemed like a glorified Police Academy ripoff to me), and I rented this movie in hopes of it being better. It wasn't.

The writing is absolutely horrible and the pacing of this film is even worse. It doesn't feel like a whole lot happens in this film, or that it really gives us a reason to give a damn about any of the characters.

The actor who plays Felix is totally uninspired, though possibly due in part to the dialogue he had to work with. In short, this movie just went wrong in so many places.

I get the impression that since films like Clerks, independent filmmakers seem to think that they can make movies like this with long, rambling scenes of dialogue where characters are trying to be funny. But, where dialogue in Clerks pushes the story forward, in this movie, it hopelessly weighs it down. Films are supposed to have a decent balance of action and dialogue, and as tempting as it is for filmmakers to try to have tons of snappy, funny dialogue, it just doesn't always work. Especially if they're not that good at writing dialogue. I hate to say it, but even "Extreme Heist" was more interesting than this movie- and that movie was so low-budget it was shot on video.


I rented this movie because the DVD cover made it look like it was going to be a ridiculous college comedy like van wilder or animal house. I took it to my friend house to watch for movie night. We ended up stopping it 15 minutes into the film, and watched Copper Mountain instead. I don't know if any of you have seen Copper Mountain, but it isn't great either. However, I would have to say that the Alan Thick Jim Carrey Duo made it a more enjoyable watch.

I later finished Puddle Cruiser. This movie was slow and the humor was forced. This movie reminded me of some stinkers that I saw in some of my earlier production classes in college. I was left wondering "was this the film that enabled Broken Lizard to make Supertroopers?" Also how could this movie suck so bad? Supertroopers was good and Club Dread was decent. Don't see this movie!


If you would have asked me 1 month ago how this movie was I probably would have left most of this out, but I am a fan and as any fan I visit the movies sites often well when Super Troopers came out I visited that site after the release on DVD and was hooked yea it's a difficult site to stay on, but the good ones normally are like good families they stick together. What a story this company/comedy troop has.BEGGING people to come and see there movies on street corners,universities, anywhere they can and all for free and after all that to develop a great fan base after a few years THEY CRAP ON IT And decide to close down there website that helped them and was created for the fans, but the worst thing about it....THEY DIDN'T TELL ANY OF THEM. They just decided that they are better than us they want new fans not the fans that helped them get where they are....you know the same fans they begged years ago. Still the smart crew they are they released the best movie with Super Troopers and got everyones attention and thank God for that because after that they have sucked with everything else. Good for you guys way to go mainstream, just remember when you realize your material isn't that good and you have no new fans left you are the ones who crapped the original ones away. FANS MAKE YOU WHO YOU ARE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Never burn your bridges


As Anthony Bourdain said... "I wanted to stick my head in a bucket of lye, pull my eyeballs out and jump off a cliff." This summarizes my feelings about this pathetic waste of human effort. Artless, self- indulgent, thoughtless, and just bad. Bad beyond comprehension. What else can I say? If you are unfortunate enough to be in an area where this piece of idiotic trash is playing, please, please have mercy on soul and avoid at all costs.


First off, I'm in the U.S.

When I first saw this, I thought it was an obvious - and loathsome - rip off of "The Office" (UK). I would have thus awarded it zero stars, but lo and behold, it came out long before the Ricky Gervais series.

Still, it's hard to watch this or any other show with a similar dynamic (including the American "Office") without comparison. It just isn't even close to being the same thing.

I will give it some credit for being original, and ahead of its time. I'll also say that it - and the U.S. "Office" and "Larry Sanders" - are actual satires. The UK "Office" is something grander and more transcendent, as if populated with real people in events that felt like they actually happened. However, unlike this or the shrill Christopher Guest "mockumentaries", it isn't really a satire, while "The Newsroom" definitely is.

Be that as it may, "The Newsroom" still isn't very funny. It's aloof, and self-aware, but with a cast and crew not nearly smart or talented enough to heft the goods. It's weighty comedy being carried on weak shoulders. Commendable, but ultimately not recommended.

--- And what's with the lack of an anamorphic DVD?! I know it was shot in anamorphic widescreen, because I saw the pilot episode on one of our HD channels. CBC, get with the programme. ; )


This show has been performed live around the country with a wide variety of casts. I saw it first in the Provincetown production the first summer it was in P-town (2001)--before it was, curiously enough, banned in that overwhelmingly gay resort (the codes which resulted in its closing have since been amended). I saw it again later in the off-Broadway, long-running production in New York. Oddly enough, the P-town production was far better than the New York one--fresher, cuter, more spirited and funnier--but that was only in the 2001 showing; subsequent attempts to clone the production ("Bare Naked Lads" in 2007) were definitely third-rate. This filmed production features a Los Angelos production cast, and it is, as other comments have suggested, not the best. I would rate it somewhere in between the top-notch 2001 P-town production and the third-rate "Bare Naked Lads" P-town show from last summer.


I'm writing this as I watch the DVD. I grabbed for the laptop and went to IMDb during the first song. I didn't know anything about the movie except that a friend said that the show was supposed to be good. It has a decent Netflix rating too, so here I am.

Maybe on the stage this worked. But I have to say that the sight of chorus boys dancing and singing completely naked just seems silly. And the lip syncing to a prerecorded score adds to the strangeness.

Most of the songs and routines are about aspects of male nudity. This is my idea of nothing, sorry. The score, so far, is generic show tune music. Nothing memorable, or particularly melodic. Everything is to serve the lyrics. Which, I have to say, sound like they were written by a committee. Each song is essentially one extended joke. If the jokes were ten seconds, they might work. These single several-minute-long jokes don't.

I'm now watching the movie by chapters--a few minutes until I get the gist. Kind of in the hopes that one of them will be different, or entertaining enough to keep me from going on to the next scene. Nope.

Okay. I'm finished. So here's what I think. If you have any experience or long-standing appreciation of musical theater, avoid this--it's just not quality. If, however, you're a gay twenty-something and have never seen or heard a musical comedy, you might be entertained. Or maybe this would hold your interest if you've never seen a lot of attractive naked men.

I have.


I absolutely could not believe the levels of ineptitude on display in this production. I honestly thought gay men had better taste than this. I know I do.

The bulk of the blame doesn't lie with the cast, but let's get them out of the way first...the only one with real talent was Joe Souza (plus he had the best bod in the cast). He had a nice, clear theatre-style voice. Okay, and Jaymes Hodges' voice was so-so, but he had a vacant expression in every number. The rest couldn't hold a note in a bucket, even though the music was obviously dubbed in after the fact. Must have been really dreadful hearing them live. They were also all girly-boys except for maybe three. If I wanted to see naked WOMEN onstage I could go to the titty bars. Not sure why anyone would choose to film the L.A. production instead of New York. I would imagine NY has more readily available singing talent, though one would think in L.A. they would be able to find better-LOOKING guys. Apparently not.

But I digress...the real blame here lies with the creators and producers. This score was the most banal, insipid tripe I have ever heard. It sounded like some theatre queens took all their musical cd's, threw them in a blender and poured the goo onto a page. Sadly, I'm sure there are many who can't tell the difference between good theatre writing and whatever this is. I mean seriously, I was laughing my ass off through the whole thing but not at the lame jokes. I think the morbid 'my-lover-has-died-of-AIDS-song' entitled "Kris, Look What You've Missed" was the most hysterical thing in the whole show. Genius writing...Kris / Missed...wow...they ALMOST rhyme...must be a good lyric. And Jesus...the END of that song..."Oh Kris, Ohhh Kris, OHHHH Kris..." OVER AND OVER!!! My other favorite was "You gotta be a Pumpy Junkie Boy to be a Humpy Hunkie Boy"...WTF??? The whole show was full of the most arbitrary lyrics JUST BECAUSE they rhymed. Where did these people learn to write songs? Apparently they listened to Sondheim and said "He's not so great, I can do that"...as evidenced by the retarded "Bobby, Bobby, Bobby" reference from COMPANY in one song. Another irk: why are 20-somethings singing about Robert Mitchum and Tab Hunter? Obviously coming from the mouths of the lyricists and not the actors...again, bad writing.

If you love torture and pain, and I know many of you strange fetishists do, go ahead and watch it. But you've been warned.


That's the worst film I saw since a long time. Historic accuracy is totally non-existent. For example, James Wolfe, who his depicted as an anti-French Canadian, is shown in London during the summer of 1759. Natives are like Indians of a bad Hollywood movie of the 60's : They wear deerskin clothes and ride horses (The Montagnais had never ride horses). The film is taking place in Quebec City, but footage is set in Louisbourg, showing the Atlantic Ocean.

The original scenario was supposed to include the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, but the producers drop this idea saying that costs for uniforms and participants would be more than 4 millions dollars ! I think they never heard about re-enactment.

All the movie is planned to be a new Titanic : an impossible love during an historic tragedy (the fall of New-France). There's even a song performed by Celine Dion at the end of the movie (Yes, I stayed till the end of the movie, but I deeply regret). But the worst thing of all is that this movie cost 30 millions dollars. I just don't know how they spend all this money.

Sorry for my anger, but I'm just too irritated.


This is the one major problem with this film, along with a good deal of québecois' biggest movies: Done in a pretentious way by pretentious people.

It's really sad, but "big shots" movie makers (driving Dodge Stratus...) from this province believes They Got the Thruth, They Know What the Little People Like.

We're not a rich province, every time a big movie like this (30 millions?!!?) is made, it's cutting off a lot of others who won't see their movie made because of lack of governmental help. So it generates mediocrity; only movies from "friends of the family" are going to be made.

I sound angry and I am. I went see Nouvelle-France expecting a journey in the lives of my ancestors, but i found myself stuck in a pool of inconsistencies: french accent (we gotta please our cousins, so f*** our québecois' language)and lack of historical research is only a few. Add a campy love story and the same music score playing again and again and dumb québecois' viewer is gonna open up and ask for more. I'm glad this pretentious piece of s*** didn't do as planned by the Dodge stratus Big Shots... It's gonna help movie makers who aren't in the very restrained "movie business" of Québec.

Rent Cruising Bar instead and have a real good time.

PS: I'll never forgive them for ruining such an awesome title.


Please, do not waste your time and money with this stinker of a turkey.

This is an over-the-top melodramatic love story set against the background of New France (aka Quebec in the 18th century). Or is it an historical saga of New France with an epic romance thrown in? I don't know, and at this point I don't care anymore.

There is a rich story to be told out there about the intrepid French adventurers, rogues and other assorted characters who settled Canada and parts of the US. This is not it. The characters are total clichés, the story is overblown, breathless and devoid of any charm, and before long all the viewer wants to do is get the heck out of the theatre, have his or her head checked, and get hold of his or her anger at being taken in by the hype.

This film was the biggest disappointment of my year in terms of cinema, especially since, as an historian and a French Canadian or Canadian of French descent (or whatever) I am a) a believer in the fact that the story of my people in this country has yet to be told as well as it could on film b) interested in this subject c) a film-lover who thinks cinema these days could do wonders with this grandiose and tragic story.

As I said, do not waste your time with this frustrating bit of claptrap.


A film about an interesting and sensitive period of history, filmed in beautiful surroundings, managed to present an appallingly trivial and clichéd production, grossly clumsy script, poor continuity, intrusive slushy music, sugary casting, and pallid acting.

It was a toss up between the script and the acting as to which was worse. The script probably won - the historical background, backstory and character descriptions were spelt out in painful detail in the dialogue. .. actually words can't describe quite how bad this film is.

In a pre-release screening there was a massive exodus from about thirty minutes in. At about an hour many of those who remained were laughing loudly. I should add I am a Francophile, I am fascinated by Canada, and love historical film. This really was a one off.


It's really a shame to see so many talented people involved in what's happen to be a very waste of talents. The plot is cliché. The directing is too self conscious and the characters are almost caricatures. One of the most disappointing aspect of this film is Gerard Depardieu's performance in the English version (this movie was shot in french and English at the same time). Although he is one of the best actor in the film, he gives the worst performance of them all. I must say that Bianca Gervais come very close though...

On a more positive note I must say that the newcomer Juliette Gosselin gives an amazing performance in both version. Unfortunately that the only good thing I remember about this film...

By the way I must apologize for my not very good English...


Despite decades of tax incentives, in terms of international visibility the Canadian film industry still lags behind most central African and Islamic states (surprisingly few Canadian films are released outside their native shores), and Nouvelle-France aka Battle of the Brave is another example of why. More than any other country, commercial Canadian cinema seems unable to develop an identity of its own and is stuck in pale imitation of other countries' failures. On paper this historical drama could look vaguely promising. There's certainly a rich vein of untapped material in Canada's history as the French and English warred over and bought and sold the colony, though none of it makes the cut here unless you count the odd blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene of characters saying "Wolfe is dead" or "Nouvelle-France is no more" before getting back to the soap operatics. But while this isn't a history lesson, it isn't a drama or the epic adventure the new title promises either: there is no battle in the film unless you count 10 seconds of shelling by a half-dozen re-enactors and one collapsed shed. The town square that is all we ever see of Quebec is a rather obvious flatly lit studio interior, giving many scenes an old TV miniseries look, as does director Jean Beaudin's reluctance to offer much in the way of long shots or even exteriors. What you do get for your money is a simple but drawn-out Harlequin romance about doomed lovers constantly separated by events beyond their control where the biggest surprise is that Fabio doesn't turn up in the cast. It's the kind of film where whenever two characters are about to make the beast with two backs the camera pans over to a convenient raging fireplace or waterfall.

An Anglo-Canadian-French co-production that doesn't so much unite once-warring nations as throw any country with a decent tax break into the stew, this massive box-office disaster was clearly intended to be Canada's Titanic - though someone neglected to tell the producers they meant the film, not the ship - but turns out more like Revolution done on the cheap without the battle scenes, crowds or the few moments that threaten to briefly work in the face of overwhelming odds. The Montreal Mirror described it as "so bad that one can't even find the strength to mock it." That's rather unfair, because while for most of its running time the film looks like a below-par 80s miniseries, the last half hour suddenly becomes very funny, with characters accidentally putting their legs in bear traps, dastardly husbands declaring "You'll never see your handsome lover again, cuckold's honor! You'll pay for this, both of you!" and our heroine accused of murder and - gasp! - witchcraft in a trial funny enough to have been in Demi Moore's version of The Scarlet Letter. Throw in caddish British governors, devious slaves and Celine Dion singing at the end and you've got something that at times almost feels like the kind of film that Timbo Hines was aspiring to (and still managed to miss wildly) with his legendarily inept period version of War of the Worlds, albeit without the staggering technical incompetence.

Leading man David La Haye's versatility seems limited to the number of other actors he can look like throughout the course of the film: he starts out looking like Andy Garcia, briefly adopts the Al Pacino Revolution look, flirts with the clean-shaven Tchéky Karyo style before turning into a younger Ted Danson as his character ages. While his opening scene where he reacts to news of his father's death with an expression that looks like he's waiting for the director to tell him he can go home now promises a feast of bad acting, in reality he gives the impression more of a mediocre supporting actor who's lucked into a lead at the last minute when whoever was originally cast finally read the script and bailed. He shows willing and gives it a go but the grace and charisma the part needs just isn't there. Billie Piper lookalike Noemie Godin-Vigneau's leading lady doesn't exactly set the screen alight either despite occupying center-stage as the peasant girl who is the prey of giggly Vincent Perez's corrupt and perverted Intendant Le Bigot (that really is the character's name), the duplicitous goateed drunken lackey Sebastien Huberdeau and, saddest of all, Gerard Depardieu's bedridden revolutionary dirty old priest in a manky grey-haired wig. It's a truly pitiful sight to see a once great actor at the absolute rock bottom of his game as he shuffles through the motions looking like he's not just lost the will to act but the will to live along with it. He clearly couldn't be bothered to stick around for the English dubbing sessions (or even a couple of long shots where he is very noticeably doubled). Small wonder he talked of retiring around the time of the film's brief release.

Some brief comic relief is provided by Jason Isaacs in his default Patriot mode who overplays Wolfe of Quebec rather like an asthmatic Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker played by Timothy Dalton on speed while Tim Roth's William Pitt stands on the sidelines with the occasional bemused smile of one who's being put up in a rather nice hotel with excellent room service and plenty of days off, though like Colm Meaney's Benjamin Franklin they're both in the film for less than three minutes. (Voltaire and Madame Pompadour pop their heads around the door for a couple of minutes as well but fail to make any impression, comic or otherwise.) The supporting actresses are generally better: Juliette Gosselin and Bianca Gervais as the heroine's real and adopted daughters and a strikingly beautiful Irene Jacob looking for all the world like a young Fanny Ardant are all refreshingly good and deserve much better.


From the title, the tag-line, the plot summary on the DVD etc..., I expected something at least slightly epic, with the historical fiction and the romance concurring to thrill you; that's what they did in Last of the Mohicans for example, and I think they did a superb job. Maybe I had standards too high for this movie and didn't give it a fair chance. But the scenery was barely OK (how could they not come up with something more beautiful when they have such landscapes to work with?), the two lovers had no chemistry whatsoever, and the plot was just so predictable it felt like it had been drafted in 5 minutes by a twelve-year-old -- and not a very imaginative one. Nouvelle-France is a love story set in an eventful historical age. But the history of Nouvelle-France is hardly a side note, and the love story is banal and fails dramatically to make the viewer care for the lovers' fate. Surprisingly, the only good parts about the movie came from something completely unexpected and unadvertised: the relationship between Marie-Loup, the heroine, and her children (one natural, one adopted). If only they'd concentrated on her family and forgotten about the love story, it would have been a much better movie. Marie-Loup's parents should have been given more screen time and character development, the politics going on in Britain should have been more than a three-minute scene with barely any connection to the rest, the rotten baddie should have been either more developed or removed from the script completely (why hire actors like Vincent Perez, Tim Roth or Jason Isaacs to misuse them so badly?) Bad work overall.


From the second the music swelled (second one of the movie) and it was movie-hack tripe, I knew I was in for a very long ride. Horrendously clichéd - (I laughed a lot and knew how the plot ended WELL before the ending) - they didn't use Louisbourg particularly well and the costuming and hair were kinda awful. (My particular favourite makeup moment is that the only way they age Depardieu as far as I could see was by putting a straight hair wig on him, instead of wavy). I could go on about the ridiculous unsuitability of the music for a long time -- the movie could be improved massively by an 18th century score.

(ETA: AH, it's that horrible moviemusic guy Patrick Doyle who's responsible for the score - say no More! He should NOT be allowed near historical movies -- he should stick to 20th century settings.)

The "visit to the notable people portion" was also hilarious particularly his little visit to Madame Pompadour who was not particularly convincingly played.

I thought the only actor who appeared grounded in the century at hand was Michael Maloney as James Murray. He absolutely stole the show for all 30 seconds he was on screen. Tragically, he made you see what the movie could have been.

The love scenes did have some heat - the two leads were stunning together.

The most awful scene for historians is where they're at the big leavetaking dinner in Britain before Wolfe sails and he lifts his glass and says the first two lines of "How stands the glass around" aka "Why soldiers why" as if it's a toast. Absolutely excruciating failure at historicity, much better to leave it out. Thousands of people know the damn song and thousands more believe the rumour that Wolfe and company sang it (probably drunk, not all stuffy like this bunch). Daft.


This was truly the most painful experience I have had in quite some time in a movie theater. I will forego such facile criticisms as 'maudlin' or 'historically inaccurate' or 'horse's crap's crap' because quite simply our sympathies would then immediately go out to these words. If a director's to make a sweeping grandiose love epic, well for god's sake MAKE A REAL DAMN SWEEPING GRANDIOSE LOVE EPIC! Why bother with such laughably unconvincing second rate harlequin romances and such boring interchanges between characters we could care less about when the most decisive battle on Canadian soil is taking place? And for the pompous people thinking 'oh well, this story must center characters!" well you're wrong, dead wrong.


Much can usually be forgiven in period pieces that ask us to recall important historical events and spice them with enough love interest to keep the story going. BATTLE OF THE BRAVE tackles the 18th Century struggle for the control of Quebec (an all of Canada) between the British and the French with sidebars form the new America. It has the makings of a sweeping epic of fascination, but sadly in the hands of writer Pierre Billon (whose script deserves a Razzie award for worst of the season) and the scattered, unfocused, and confusing direction by Jean Beaudin this film is a dud - a two and a quarter hour tedious mess of a film.

Even a cast a fine actors - pairing Noémie Godin-Vigneau as Marie-Loup Carignan with David La Haye as François le Gardeur, adding the lovely Bianca Gervais as Acoona , the venerable Gérard Depardieu as Le curé Thomas Blondeau, and the likes of Irène Jacob, Vincent Perez (ridiculous in period wigs), Tim Roth as William Pitt, Colm Meaney as Benjamin Franklin, and Jason Isaacs as Général James Wolfe - doesn't help. Veteran actors such as these must have cringed at the crude lines written for their characters! Cover the whole mess in a sappy musical score by Patrick Doyle and the result is a long film to be avoided. Sad to say such bad things about a costly project, but be warned....Grady Harp


The actors were not believable, The story was really weak, total sap, and completely predictable. Really disappointed in Depardieu. It was a shame that they did not focus more on the struggle of the Canadian fight for independence. We have seen this love story many times before, only with better actors! We had to wait for the last 15 minutes for a small sense of drama! The soundtrack was totally disturbing. The underscore hit you over the head with sentimentality. But really over the top. The only thing we found OK was the fact that they let the Indians speak their language. And we found the cinematography, of the Indian village relatively realistic.


As a Canadian History major, my first thing to say : HISTORICAL FACTS ARE NOT ACCURATE! How can a producer do that? The deportation of the Acadian wasn't in 1759 when we see Franklin in London, but in 1755! How can he pass that in the movie? The scenes in Londo were useless too. Then for the story for anyone that read "Les Anciens Canadians", you have the story line right there. It's the story of La Coriveau, that "witch". Add a love story too and a tragic relationship between mother and daughter ending. Sure, it brought tears to my eyes. But that's it. Then there's the fact it's apparently set up in Québec City, but it's mostly shot at the Forteresse de Louisbourg. Sure it's a historical site and it's accurate to the time, but it was obvious that the scenes were not all set in Québec City. Overall, if you're looking for a documentary of New France, go get Candad : A People's History, a real documentary on the history of Canda and NEw France. If you want a love story that will bring you tears, a story set up in a wonderful forest, watch New France.


See.. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. There were moments when my heart beat faster, when the hair on my neck began to stand up, when my muscles began to tighten.. but just like a strip tease, I was left with no real action, no resolution, and money missing from my wallet.

Jaume Balagueró and Miguel Tejada-Flores apparently don't know the correct recipe for making a Horror Movie, and as such, utilized the old amateur cook's method of throwing everything into the pot.

This movie is really The Shining, Poltergeist, Amityville, and Hellraiser all rolled into one. Amazing, I know, but true. All the flavors are there, you can taste each of them, they just don't mix well. I'm not gonna go down the list of every thing wrong with this movie; in short, good cinematography, mediocre acting, worse dialogue.

The -real- problem with stealing from so many movie plots and combining them into one movie, aside from the resulting confusion, is while you CAN have several plots running at one time, you can't have several endings. And what does Jaume do when he runs into this problem? Just like a Freshman in English 101, you end your story with ellipses, "The little car vanished into the darkness and ..... THE END" Oooh, spooky. Not really. And very anticlimactic. The ending left me confused and disappointed; almost empty.

Take your $10, go rent The Shining, Poltergeist, and Hellraiser.. scare the pants off yourself, have a great time, and forget that The Darkness ever existed.

-BJamin


What starts out as a passable movie degenerates into one of the most incoherent, UNscary, incompetently made, stupid attempted horror films of recent years.

Absolutely terrible. It's such a derivative mess ripping off every decent fright flick you can think of without successfully producing a single scare. Whether it's copying the recent trend with creepy kids or ghosts walking past the camera or the old school horror of Fulci's Gates of Hell.

The worst thing is there's not even a cat jumping out of a cupboard to make you jump. To be avoided.


This review contains spoilers. I didn't have any expectations about this movie. I pulled it off the video store rack with the movie, "White Noise".

First, the credits for this stupid movie run about 5 minutes into it. The pacing from start to finish is slooooow. The main heroines don't like to wear a bra and the director appears to enjoy the jiggle effect as Anna Paquin descends the stairs. If you like movies for boobies, this one has a low level buzz factor.

Second, it's nice that the movie rips off elements of Lovecraft and other horror genre mechanisms, but in better movies, there is at least some rational or consistently irrational behavior. This stinker tries to establish some sense of modernity and reality but then you have situations where no one calls the police even though they've uncovered a treasure trove of potentially incriminating forensic evidence, and otherworldly rituals are nicely spelled out in a comprehensive book on otherworldly rituals like on Buffy. I was waiting for Miles to show up and give some consultation on how to slay a certain demon type of so and so.

The premise is that it is possible to open up an age of Darkness where creatures that crawl on the ceiling can cut your throat or turn the meat grinder effect on you. Ho hum. To do this you need to have a sacrificial circle and then have seven kids who must have their throat cuts by people who love them. This opens the world to the age of Darkness. At least that's what it says in complete detail in the book of ancient occult rituals. Which raises the annoying question of, uh, well, how did the ones who wrote the book know, and, if this is what happens, would you really leave this information in a book you can take out from the library, much less get it from a library in a world that is not covered already in Darkness, an age brought on by lunatics who could have performed this like much earlier using the "Occult Practices to Bring the World to Darkness for Dummies, 2nd Edition"? It turns out the father in the story is the 7th child, the one that ran away from the ritual 40 years ago; he was released by his father, who is the doctor/grandfather in the movie, who wanted to try the ritual with presumably, other stupid parents, who just wanted to see if dumb sh*t like this opening the world to darkness actually works. The grandpa let the father go because he "didn't really love him". Aduh. Stupid stupid movie written by a moronic director who appears to think he's some kind of Eurofilm Auteur. There's also a scene in the movie where the kid appears with big welts on his face and the mother grabs him and has this total lack of reaction. The whole movie is like this. People seeing really weird sh*t going on and not reacting to it in any sort of normal way. Must be bad plot and direction.

Anna Paquin does her best to play her character realistically without cracking a smirk, and she does look smashing in a halter top, but at several critical moments in the story, her character doesn't bother to call in for back up. You know, more of the same, "I will walk into a likely demonic evil situation without any knowledge of defense or help from others carrying flashlights or firepower even though I sense impending doom." And even dumber as it may seem, even if you bring on the age of Darkness, these creatures who make you bloody can't attack if you have a light source, but they appear as people you know, and tell you to turn off the light source. Reminds me of the video game "Alone In The Dark"; maybe this movie is a rip off of that game's concept.

The best actors in the film are the young kid and Anna. They both die at the end. The entire family dies. The Darkness creatures lead them to their death, but really, the stupidity of the characters in the family was the main cause of death. The other adults could be interchangeable with any other actors from the Red Shoes Diaries series of fine cinema.

So to wrap up, the worst things about this movie are the stupidity of the characters in bumping around blindly in an obviously abnormal situation, the really crap plot (there is an old architect in the story who designs a house with a sacrificial altar hidden in it - the architect has suspected from the beginning there would be occult sacrifices in the house but doesn't tell anyone because, well, no real reason, they couldn't find the kids, but he didn't bother to tell authorities about the HIDDEN ROOMS which he designed into the house but he does like to hang around the house for a 40 year period because he worries about what is going on inside...derrrrh...duuuuh), the hackneyed use of scare mechanisms (more children standing around in the dark or only showing up in photographs, and blood on the wallpaper), and the egotism of the director which when you see him in the DVD features describing his crap work as a new and original rendition, makes you understand where the real horror of this movie lies.

Is it entertaining? At 2x speed on a DVD player with the subtitles turned on, it can be entertaining, until your reach the end and realize the movie is crap, otherwise it draaaaaaaags on. The cinematic equivalent of a fatty shake; the empty calories are horrid.

The movie gives the feeling the director must have seen "The Ring" and wanted to attempt to create something similar in mood, which in this respect, the film fails miserably, and so, also, in this respect, Jaume Balagueró, it is my opinion that you suck at what you do.


Horrendously acted and completely laughable haunted-house horror flick that has an out of place Anna Paquin playing a neurotic teenager fighting off the "things-that-go-bump-in-the-dark" that are plaguing her and her family shortly after moving to their new home in Spain(?!). Little more than a geographically re-planted rip-off of "The Shining" and most notably "The Others", the weak-plotted "Darkness" is basically your typical run-of-the mill B-horror feature with a few predictable lame scares that can be seen by audiences a mile off (so to speak)! In retrospect I suppose I shouldn't have set my personal expectations quite as high for this movie to actually be good considering the well-known fact that it was shelved for nearly three years before finally being released around Christmas of last year in American cinemas across the country to what was ultimately lukewarm ticket-sales and very harsh reviews from critics. When will filmmakers ever learn that there's more to making movies (be it horror or otherwise) than just the fey possibility of a little financial gain? (Turkey-Zero Stars)


If you saw the grudge, a another mediocre ghost movie then you should know what to expect, just worse, a lot worse. This Time instead of being in Japan with all English speaking people we are in Spain with all English speaking people. It is interesting that not one shot of this movie actually looks like Spain and could have been entirely filmed in a studio back lot. Oh and a place with swings, cause there's a good 5 mins of footage of swings with no one on them, oooohhh how spooky.

This one is terrible in every way imaginable. The acting by the lameinator mom and dad don't help matters at all. Anna Paquin is the only person that delivers a decent performance in the film but I hate Anna Paquin so you can imagine my own private hell viewing this film.

There is one good moment in the movie, however, when a villain is trying to explain the convoluted plot to Anna Paquin's character and she doesn't understand any of it and asks a bunch of stupid questions and he blurts out "You IDIOT, you have not understood anything!" lol. Well I happen to understand this film is a piece of garbage. 0 stars.


When you get ahead of a film, you know you are wasting your time watching the movie in question. That is exactly how I felt while I was watching "Darkness." I could see anticipate every twist and turn easily. It is a combination of "The Amityville Horror" and a myriad of films that deal with the occult. It is so silly that I almost found endearing its naiveness. I cannot say I was wholly bored but I found the film way too derivative for my taste. Director Balagueró tries to redo his early Spanish hit "The Nameless," but he cannot pull it off. I admit, a few sequences were creepy enough but I just abhor when I can figure out what is going to happen next. Also, I hated to see good actors like Lena Olin and Giancarlo Giannini sweat so much over this piece of dreck. Finally, Anna Paquin as the star of a horror film? This must be a joke. She is cute but she is one of those good child actors that have become a very monotonous adult actor. You can live without watching this one.


An American family moves to the countryside of Spain to live in an isolated house. Regina (Anna Paquin), the teenager daughter of Mark (Iain Glen), who is sick and has some mental problems, and the nurse Maria (Lena Olin), notes that weird things is happening in the house and with her young brother Paul (Stephan Enquist), but her mother does not believe on her. Reggie decides to investigate with her boyfriend Carlos (Fele Martínez) the origins of the house, and they find that forty years ago, the place was the stage of the death of six children. Reggie decides to ask for support to her grandfather Albert (Giancarlo Giannini) to protect her brother against the house and her father.

I bought this DVD expecting to see a good horror movie of haunted house mainly because of the names of Anna Paquin, Lena Olin, Fele Martínez (from "Thesis" and "Abre los Ojos") and Giancarlo Giannini. Further, I like very much Spanish cinema. In spite of, I found a terrible screenplay, an awful direction and a deplorable acting of excellent actors and actresses. The intention of the story is good, slightly recalling "The Shinning" in some moments, but unfortunately it is badly developed, never being clear, for example, the reasons and motives why the American family moved to Spain or the horrible relationship between the members of the family, mainly the situation between Maria and Reggie. The direction is confused, poorly trying to use dark and shadows to give scary effects to the story. I love Anna Paquin, but her expressionless face never works in this flick. Lena Olin is a caricature of the great actress she is; and Stephan Enquist is too much weak for such important role. Only Fele Martínez has a good performance in his support character. I liked the open end of the story. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "A Sétima Vítima" ("The Seventh Victim")


This movie is so daring it doesn't attempt to hide its similarities to The Shining. It lacks the originality to do so. And when it does, near the end, try to cover up its story of "father goes psycho under influence of sketchy haunted house in a foreign place," it does so by stooping to plenty of other already established conventions and ideas. In other words, it reduces itself to mere cliche. But hell, even I enjoy a good predictable horror or thriller as long as there is an interesting story, one filled with violence and gore, somewhere before the film makes the dreadful turn towards the predictable and trite. Well, this film doesn't have a good story and I was really disappointed with it. What 'Darkness' has going for it is remarkable direction and cinematography. It is a film well-shot and carefully constructed full of fun, creepy angles and shots. What 'Darkness' doesn't have going for it is pretty much everything else. To begin with a minor quibble - the editing in this movie is obnoxious. It jumps from one scene to the next, sometimes pointlessly. For example, the old man in the movie (who pretty much carries the background story, later filled in by another character) is underscored by a hamster running circles. I mean, it looks cool the first time, but why continue to use the same image? I guess you'd have to see it for yourself, to understand what I mean. Another problem with this movie is Anna Paquin's character who essentially whines throughout the film, crying and caring all too much about everything - she's the film's failed attempt at a character-driven horror film. The movie has scenes of overblown sentimentalism and the family drama it depicts is simply not believable. By the end, 'Darkness' is a muddled melodrama, with a non-involving mystery provided with too simple of an ending. And it's hardly scary.


What could have been some majorly creepy stuff ends up being an incomprehensible, nutty motion picture that even the filmmakers themselves probably didn't understand. Had they shown more of the Satanic ritual or whatever, it might have been creepier, but as it stands now, this is a waste of time and brain cells. Is anybody else getting sick of the whole "little kid drawing creepy pictures with crayon" thing? Could there possibly be a bigger horror cliché? Probably not. I know, I know, it's from some different country, and it's far too refined and sophisticated for me to understand, so I shouldn't expect the "plot" to be spoon-fed to me, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. I still say the movie blows.


Why would Burt Lancaster allow himself to play a poor schnook who is ultimately undermined by femme fatale Anna Dundee, played by Yvonne DeCarlo in 'Criss Cross'? The same reason why Robert Mitchum allows himself to be cast as another loser who falls for femme fatale Faith Domergue in the 1950 noir, "Where Danger Lives". Perhaps they both felt it was a good way to show that they had 'range' as actorsthat playing against type, the usual 'tough-guy' role they were known for, would enhance their image as actors who could play any role. But the problem was that roles like Steve Thompson, the pathetic love-sick milquetoast in 'Criss Cross', did nothing to enhance Lancaster's career. Not only is Lancaster completely miscast in the one-note role of Thompson, but there's something inherently unlikeable (and may I say, pathetic) about the film's protagonist in the first place.

'Criss Cross' is an interminably slow-moving film. Among the many unnecessary scenes in the film is at the beginning: the flashback which chronicles Thompson's confrontation with Dan Duryea's Dundee at the nightclub. Everything that occurs in that initial flashback is explained later in the picture: the illicit affair between Steve and Anna, Steve's strained relationship with Martinez the cop and his bad blood with Dundee. If Director Siodmark felt compelled to begin the film with a flashback, why not keep it under three minutes? I think it would have been more effective.

In 'Criss Cross', it takes quite awhile before the protagonist commits himself and steps out of the 'ordinary' world of Act One. That's the scene where he's "passing by' and 'runs into' Anna at the nightclub. And notice how Siodmak spends so much time cutting back and forth between Anna dancing and Steve staring at her? In addition to the cross-cutting, he also spends a great deal of time focusing on Esy Morales and His Rhumba Band than moving the story along.

Up until the crisis of Act Two, the story plods along with Thompson having various uneasy encounters with Anna and then drowning his sorrows at his usual watering hole. At the midpoint of Act Two, he learns that Anna has run off and gotten married to Dundee. It's becoming more clear at this point that one of the film's central weaknesses is that Dundee is never on screen throughout most of the second act. There are no confrontations between Thompson and Dundee during this time and we're left with the rather unexciting machinations between the two lovebirds. As it turns out (and Anna 'explains' this later to Steve), the reason why she left was not only because he disappeared for eight months but she also felt pressure from Steve's mother as well direct threats from Martinez the cop who implied that he would see to it that she ended up in the Women's House of Detention. Anna goes back to Steve because she realizes she made a big mistake with Dundeeit turns out that he's been beating her and she's now scared of him.

One of the silly refrains uttered by more than one character in Criss Cross is that you can never hijack an armored car. But everyone acts so surprised when Steve points out it can be done if it's an 'inside job'! You would have thought that Dundee would have known about Steve's 'profession' as an armored car driver and propositioned him beforehand. But of course Steve needs to make the proposal so that Dundee won't kill him after discovering his affair with Anna (if they're so afraid at getting caught, why do Steve and Anna meet at his apartment where Dundee can so easily find them?). I really got a kick out of Finchley (played by Alan Napier), the 'brains' of the operation. Dundee is so dumb that he has to hire this alcoholic ex-professor type who plots out the heist on a map. Oh there is the matter of procuring the ingredients to construct the gas bombs used during the robbery and of course Finchley is good at that too!

The only really well done scene in the entire film is the armored car robbery. The editing was quite good as it depicted the rising action of a heist gone bad. As the gas bombs go off, the brutality of the gang is shown in high relief when Dundee murders the innocent Armored Car Guard.

The climax of the film is as drawn out as the rest of the film. Why does it take so long for one of Dundee's goons to kidnap Thompson? There's that nurse, then the goon is waiting outside, then he comes in and pretends that he's a friend, Steve falls asleep and finally after he awakes, the goon kidnaps him.

When Steve finally meets up with Anna at the house, we wonder how Anna got her hands on the cash. Did she somehow steal it from Dundee after the heist when he went out to dinner? It's never explained. Even worse, Anna suddenly becomes the evil femme fatale out of the blue. Before, her selfishness and attraction to Dundee can be explained by her perceived rejection at the hands of Steve and Martinez's threats. But after going back to Steve because she fears Dundee, she inexplicably turns on him when he is most vulnerable. Just as there is 'instant coffee', you have 'instant femme fatale'.

In "Film NoirAn Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style" by Silver and Ward, the authors hail 'Criss by Cross' as "one of the most tragic and compelling of film noir". I beg to differ. In order to have tragedy you need characters that have great depth and in order to be compelling you need a story that's plausible. Criss Cross has neither. It's an overrated "B Movie" that somehow has found itself in the pantheon of art house noirs. Once again, the herd mentality has triumphed in evaluating the pictures of yesteryear.


This could have been a good movie if more things were explained. Way too many plot holes to find this enjoyable. The ending in particular is off left field. SPOILER ALERT: How did the kidnapper get back to Dundee so fast and Dundee shows up at the house in a matter of two minutes? Way out of wack here. How did Anna get hold of the money? No explanation at all. If the Pete the cop knew Lancaster was in danger, why didn't he have a cop at the door in the Hospital. This and many more questions remain. Too bad because the premise was there, just bad writing and execution.

Good cast is wasted here. DeCarlo goes from bad to good to bad? Lancaster's character lacks development and Dureya is just blah as the "bad guy".

This could re-made with a cohesive story line and better writing. Of course it would be much more violent with lots of gratuitous sex and everything. The editing would be jerky as well I guess, so let's leave well enough alone.


I agree with the user "SpecialAgentFoxMulder" that this episode is awful- posisbly thr worst of the entire show. Now I'm not keen on many episodes of the later series but this one takes the biscuit! It was unfunny and unoffensive. As for the ending, I'm sorry but it disgusted me more than any other episodes combined.

I mean, the boys think they meant well but the ending was so upsetting- that they think the whale belongs on the moon and over the credits, we see it has died. Wht could have saved the episode was if the pranksters were able to confess for what they did.

There seem to be no outgoing message. Okay, South Park may be guilty of preaching too much and its always nice to see an unpreachign one (such as Make Love Not Warcraft") but this episode was just wrong! Avoid at all costs! Helen xxxxx


Free Willzyx (Stupidest name/title ever) is the worst episode of ANY of the TV shows I watch, which includes X-Files, Alias, All 3 Law And Orders, All of the CSI's, Family Guy, Simpsons, Chappelle's Show, Colbert Report, and more. South Park was for very long my favorite of the comedy shows, because of it's shockingly obscene content and disturbing black comedy. Free Willzyk has NONE of the content I mentioned earlier. It was so tame, so unoffensive it might has well been an episode of Sesame Street. Kyle goes to Sea World where a few of the workers play a prank on him, making him think a whale is talking to him. He BEFRIENDS THE WHALE, actually BEFRIENDS IT. Hello? This is South Park! the same show that brought you "Cancelled", "Chickenlover", "It Hits The Fan", "Death Camp Of Tolerance", and so many more! Not SpongeBob SquarePants! Ugh. I actually watched the whole episode, which is 30 minutes of my life I will never get back. Anyhow, I was extremely disgusted with this episode and I can't believe the shocking decline in the quality of Matt & Trey's work.


I have watched this show for a while, only because of my cousins, and I HATE IT! First, the girls dress in the same style clothes, and they have the same first letter in their names. (Come on, I could to better than that!) Then the villains (spare me), first we have a monkey with part of his (little) brain showing, then we have a (gay) version of the devil, a pink hillbilly, a gang green gang (whit is ironic, that's their name) a spoiled princess (once again, ironic, that's 'her' name) among others. I have also found that there is no male hero in the show. (Not that I'm sexist or anything...) I'd rather watch Sailor Moon, it's much better than this. If someone else wants to watch the show in the room that you're in, find a way to break the television. Believe me, it'll save you a half hour of torture.

Rating: I'm giving this just what it deserves, a 1 out of 10. Whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH THIS!


I always hated this retarded show .I liked the shows of Cartoon Network like "Dexter's laboratory " or "Megas XLR .But I never liked this piece of turd . Basically because it have stupid characters (the good or the villains all seems to be mentally retarded ) they have stupid voices (specially Bubbles .She is supposed to be the "cute " character of the show ,but she is incredibly annoying ) the story lines are very ,very stupid . Some episodes could have been interesting but almost always the show turns childish and corny . There wasn't any likable character ,the music was horrible ,and the animation is the worst that I've seen . Evena five year old boy could draw better ! I don't see why all the world seems to love this piece of garbage . "The Powerpuff Girls " seems to be one of the worst cartoons ever made . Fortunately "Foster Home for the imaginary friends " from the same creator was far away better .


When I first watched this show on Cartoon Network, I found it uninteresting. Then I read a lot of good messages about this show, and I decided to watch it. The show was so boring. Each episode was predictable. More, this show has no logic. Hypersmart girls, who are going to school and sometimes do such stupid things, 99% of episodes start with a Monster attacking Townswille, then Mayor (he is a real fool, he is NOT funny, he is so stupid, that I can't imagine how he became a Mayor). Professor, yes, supposed to be the smartest person in this show, but actually... He even found no difference between monster and his brother. Narrator's comments also make this show boring. Because they also have similar lines in the beginning of each episode and in the ending. Also the animation is very strange. Everything except main heroes is shown in an ugly way. Also in every epsode this show is giving you some life-lessons, and it means that it is oriented on little children, but if you look closer, you will see, that there is a lot of violence and even blood(!!!) during their battles.


Isn't it depressing how the most violent cartoon on Cartoon Network is aimed at girls? While I'm not watching soldiers getting shot and blown up on Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, it would be nice if there was a cartoon or at least something on TV I could watch to satisfy my violent urges. And something that I would not get made fun of for watching. I did see some episodes (I should really be shot for this) and had to sit through the movie (now, where do I find a gun?), and it is quite clear that this lost its spark after the first few episodes. If you like seeing 500-foot monsters that can destroy huge cities in seconds getting slaughtered by toddlers about one foot tall, this is a must-see. But it does get very boring after a while, and with a show like this, even original ideas become chiefly dull. The movie just felt like one overlong episode (I can't remember any of it), and the villain should have been far more intimidating than a green monkey. This show is a laughing stock. It churns out the same basic premise episode after episode after episode, and though it may try to have some mystery and intrigue once in a while, the ending will always be the same - "The Powerpuff Girls save the day!" All is good and nice, but all is very, very repetitive... I give it 3 out of 10 for being the only danged cartoon on CN to revolve around violence, although it is aimed at girls, so I won't be tuning in for it ever. I've established myself as a fan of war and violence films and I won't have that reputation destroyed... 3/10


The story is shortly about the faith-lacking business man priest, Daniel Clemens (Christian Slater), who is looking closer on a case where another priest is suspected for murder. The priest denies he's guilty but at the same time he is not able to discuss the matter due to confidentiality. Enter Daniel Clemens who starts playing cop...

While the plot isn't ridiculous, everything else is. Let's start with the visual side, the cinematography is dull, it looks more like a TV-series than a movie. The camera angles are boring, in fact, there's not a single memorable camera angle in the entire movie. There's no interesting closeups revealing details. And the scene transitions, well, there's not much to say about those, they aren't smooth at all, there seems to be no connection between the scenes than the actual plot. Okay, they did use a transition with music in between two scenes, but there are no interesting visual transitions in the entire movie, the times dissolve was used there was no visual connection between the scenes.

The boring visual part could be forgiven if the film would offer anything else. Unfortunately the film only offers forced wooden acting and clumsy dialogue with no punch. On top of that the film suffers from audio problems, the sound volume is lowered several times in the movie as if the microphones would be too far.

I didn't predict the solution of the film. It could be because the film never gave me the opportunity or it could be due to the presentation, which was so boring I never even tried to figure it out.

Put two plus two together and it equals a B-movie where 'B' stands for boring.


Was the cast and crew on drugs before they started filming this? There was a hole in the plot...so big...nothing could have filled it up. From the first scene when the co-star is late for dinner, was there any doubt where he was and what he had just done? The suspense was over from there. Now, it was going to take another 85 minutes before the mystery was solved. I must confess that the biggest hole in the plot kept me awake for hours, wondering how dumb the screenwriter, the director, Chrisian Slater, Molly Parker, and Stephen Rea could be not to at least explain how our murderer, who was not a lawyer, or a policeman, could go into a locked cell at a jail, kill his second victim, and tie him up from a noose to make it look like suicide??? I kept wondering if I had fallen asleep out of sheer boredom and missed how that happened. If someone can explain it to me, please do...and then, why, for God's sake, did he kill the third victim? Nothing made sense...and yet, someone thought this film was worthy to be an official selection at a film festival. Perhaps it was a comedy and I failed to laugh.


Man alive, is this game bad or what? The graphics are way below par, even if it were on a playstation 1, never mind a Gamecube. The gameplay is pathetic and the camera movements disorientating. What a worthless game!

I totally love Warner's Batman animation and it's cool that they do all the games in this way. Batman: Vengeance could well have turned out great as they got off to a good start by keeping all the Gothic visuals and voice actors but they seriously stumbled when it came to playability and graphics. The result is a boring game that looks incredibly cheap and is no fun to play whatsoever. I really must stress how bad the graphics are. Don't let the color schemes fool you. I've seen better stuff on a Commodore 64.


I am shocked by all the good reviews on the cover of this movie and on IMDb. It belongs in the $2 bin at your local video store. To say that this is a B movie is extremely generous.

Besides lacking a single redeemable character, only slightly better than average acting, and an ugly 80's style picture quality, the script for this film is dull and lifeless. This film is not only boring--it is pathetic. (Admittedly, there is occasionally some mildly interesting chemistry between the two main characters.) Even the final plot twist--rather, the only plot twist--does not save this film.

Rent "Diamond Men" if you must, but do not hesitate to turn it off once you become appraised of its worthlessness. 2 out of 10.


This film was shot in Randolph County in central North Carolina in 1968 when a film crew in the state was a rare thing. The locations were the municipalities of Liberty and Ramseur and the surrounding rural countryside. It is not a particularly good movie. It did have Merle Haggard and it brought life to the hinterlands for a few minutes.

The plot is standard shootemup. The cinematography is that fuzzy stuff that came out of the late sixties and early seventies. The local folks were thrilled to be a part of the enterprise.

If viewers have difficulty finding a copy of this film, a record copy is available in Asheboro, NC.

Actors not credited include Ben Jones, Mimi Pravda, Tommy Hull, Bill Nunnery.


I was living in Barstow Ca. in 1968 when the movie The Killers Three arrived at the local theater. The trailer was enough to get me to pay my hard earned money to see this movie. I was really expecting a Bonnie And Clyde movie and I got Dick Clark playing a shy nerdy guy while Robert Walker and Diane Varsi played an poor attempt of reinacting Bonnie and Clyde. Needless to say it never went over well. Maybe this is why it never made it to video. Even as a kid I was left some what ripped off as I left the theater. After all the best parts where in the trailer of the movie. The movie was dull and pretty much pointless. By the way, Dick Clark gets killed so it wasn't a total let down.


I love the book. It's full of passion, romance, tension... and the movie drags along taking two spunky stars with it. Kylie Minogue was already a major star in Australia, having starred in Neighbours and releasing her first single. The decision to cast her in The Delinquents was surely a marketing ploy. For me, it didn't pay off.

Kylie may have been great in Neighbours, but she was far too sweet and innocent to play the feisty Lola... and, she wasn't of Asian descent as Lola was. Charlie Schlatter was an excellent Brownie, but there was no chemistry between him and Kylie.

By and large, the movie was boring. It dragged on, it lacked the passion of the book, it focused heavily on Kylie and in general, was completely disappointing.


What a dire film. I cannot believe that I actually sat down and watched it. A very, very, very, very, very, VERY pathetic effort, with no redeeming features whatsoever. Hateeeeeeedddd ittttt! The so-called "racing" sequences are laughably awful, and the plot was so bad, I've forgotten it. Part of the film was made at the Spa-Francorchamps course in Belgium in, I think, 1988, during the actual Grand Prix there. I was there and am glad I didn't appear in any of the paddock scenes shown in the film. It could have been good...what a pity.


Is it just me or the fact that the evil racing team is Japanese and that their arrogant star racer is German seem a little over the top? Maybe that is how it is on the international racing circuit but if all America had representing them are chumps like Cody and his mechanic Chris (Peter Berg, who must have been still learning how to act) then I would be rooting for another country. Formula movies can be good but the characters have to be likeable and no one meets that criteria in this movie. To put it succinctly - a very bad movie.


First, let me mention the fact that, in spite of its title («Stories», in plural), there is only ONE Kitchen Story. As to whether Isak died or not at the end, I'm not so sure since, in one of the very last scenes, HIS PIPE is seen lying on the table next to the two cups. On the DVD cover, there is a reference to Tati. It claims that the film is «très drôle: rappelle Tati !» («Very funny: reminiscent of Tati!». The great Jacques Tati relied mainly on mime and silent deadpan attitudes to achieve his comical effects and to offer his critically satiric views of his 1950’s French «modern» society. Of course «Kitchen» does take place during the 1950’s and it does offer some (rather faint) satirical references to the absurdities of bureaucracy and there are some long moments were no words are uttered -– but they are not really funny. Are all these small details enough to make «Kitchen» a «Tatiesque» movie ? This being said, I have to admit that «Kitchen» does deal with the sometimes false objectivity of scientific research versus the «truth» of human subjective emotions. Generally speaking, the movie was agonizingly slow, with nothing much happening -- with barely any «dramatic impulse» : the involving parts were the set up during the first 15 minutes or so, and during the last half hour or so. Indeed, the last segment was -- FINALLY !!! -- interesting and moving. It might seem that it was a short subject, of less than an hour, unduly stretched to some 90 minutes. Now, about the set-up (a «scientific» observation on the behavior of single males in their kitchen): at first it seemed very promising –- with the charting out of the comings and goings of bachelors in their kitchen as a means to determine what new inventions would be most useful to come up with. But very quickly this premise turned out to be just a prologue, an «excuse» to introduce the real subject which was only fully developed towards the end and which was about loneliness and the invaluable bond of friendship. Pity ! I honestly wanted to like that movie. Yes, it seemed so promising when I heard about some of its unusual little «anecdotes» -- which were indeed there and which I enjoyed -– such as the burning of a man’s nose hair (instead of using scissors to cut it off), the «investment» of having a huge quantity of «valuable» black pepper stacked away in a barn, the role reversals (the observant becoming the observed), a man’s mouth emitting sounds from a radio program. And there is also a sick horse becoming the catalyst of half-hidden human despair, the relative importance of right or left side car driving in Sweden and Norway (a reflection of the importance for each of these very close neighboring countries to affirm its individuality ?). Am I the sole person who did not fully enjoy that film ? Does this necessarily mean that I'm wrong ? Perhaps it’s almost generally praised «fine points» were, in fact, «too subtle» for me ? Perhaps... Could my individual views on this movie ironically reflect the very essence of the film itself -- which would be the vital necessity to have the right to differ, to affirm one’s individuality and not to follow blindly society’s trends and opinions ? Each one of us has the right to have different personal views and not to be a slave of the demands of one’s bread-winning «dictatorial» demands: often, we do have other alternatives that would allow each one of us to be useful to our society while respecting one’s inner principles. In short, being true to oneself -– the way that in that film Folke (Isak’s «scientific observer») ends up by giving up his job while preferring to stay in his new friend Isak’s house and help his out with the tasks of his farm ... And so, «Vive la différence», as the French say !


The film starts out great, with a mock instruction film about the habits of Swedish housewives. After that we get a detailed reconstruction of post-war Scandinavia with lots of amazing cars, electronic equipment and interior design; a minimal jazz score, nice cinematography and stylish titling. Also there's some funny Scandinivian rivalry like in Von Triers 'Riget'.

Sadly, after the set up, "Kitchen stories" collapses like the Twin Towers on 9/11.Actors who try to portray the emotion 'jealousy" by just staring in front of them. Corny dialog filled with stale gay symbolism in the vain of: "I don't like white swans, I prefer bears and wolves... u ever tasted bear meat?" The music becomes cheesier than Yann Tiersen at his worst.

It's a pity the director put all the effort in this great set-up, just to screw it up after-wards.


The fun that was present in the other 'movies' has all but disappeared with this third effort, which means the rubbishy production values show through more than ever. Another 2-parter ('The Chinese Web') cobbled together, this one suffers from too much padding, not to mention weak Spidey action taking place in such uninspired locations as a car park, apartment and printing press. Nicholas Hammond is as endearing as ever, struggling valiantly against the drab production and lame performances of the rest of the cast. The plot, in which Peter and Spidey help a Chinese official defeat charge of corruption during World War II by locating three marines who could testify as to his innocence, doesn't exactly scream 'comic book sprung to life', does it?


A man wonders if his hunky co-worker is gay. At a yard sale he finds a ray gun called "Gaydar". You point it at a person, pull the trigger and it tells you how gay they are. He tries it out, it works and he sets out to find out if his coworker is gay like him...

Promising idea ruined by an unfunny script (after a promising beginning) and terrible acting. The entire cast overacts and basically SCREAM their lines at each other constantly. It gets annoying and really embarassing after a while. The saving grace is that's it is short, there's a scene stealing cat (love her fall out of the kitty bed) and Charles Nelson Reilly is hysterical in his brief bit. But none of this saves the movie. I can't recommend this at all.


This guy is a real piece of work. An angry, immature boy in a grown man's body, packing all the charisma of a rock, he goes around to places most people would only wish to visit and does his best to be as miserable as possible.

Give this job to someone else who actually appreciates it.

I could go down an endless list of all the stupid things this guy does in his "episodes," though I'll just highlight the worst: Crete. While the locals are putting up seaside picnics in his "honour," this clown has the gall to act like a petulant, spoiled child. He complains about everything, including the fashion sense of the people who live there. What an imbecile.

When he went to Sweden, he spent at least five minutes feigning incredulity at a bunch of chefs (who probably had better things to do than talk with some dimwit American, like work) because they didn't think Abba was horrible. Everywhere he went, he brought up Abba. This is the kind of talk you'd hear from 13-year-olds who watch too much MTV.

When he was in New Orleans, he got upset that a certain restaurant had better-tasting fries than his, so he "accidentally" spilled some wine on them in order to ruin them. What a strange, emotionally unstable person.

The worst of it all are his clumsy voice-overs, where he attempts in vain to add some kind of perspective on a situation he was too thick and ignorant to appreciate. He tries to use all these "big" words in order to sound like an author, but he's really just a pretentious hack whose lack of awareness has convinced him he has something to say. That, by the way, is probably the one good thing about this joker's TV show. It goes to show you, no matter how inept you are, as long as you take yourself seriously enough, the world will as well.

Then there's the way he speaks with local guides whose English is obviously only rudimentary. He'll use vocabulary any writer--as he believes himself to be--would instinctively know will most likely not be understood by these people. Does he care? No. Self-important schmucks like this Bourdain clown do not use language to communicate; they use it to make themselves look important.

Mcg13jthm's review on this same page is a perfect example of the kind of mind Bourdain attracts--that of a low IQ social misfit. Observe how the reviewer attempts to justify Bourdain's sociopath nature with simple-minded, childish excuses that hardly make sense. "Bourdain may complain but he goes through 'a lot' and, not only that, he was 'forced' to do this show but is trying to redeem himself." A dolt attracts dolts, and reading Mcg13jthm's review should let you know perfectly well whether or not you are the kind of person who'd enjoy this utterly useless, pointless show.

Finally, to add a bit of "fairness" to my diatribe, I admit Bourdain would have been momentarily amusing had I met him in a bar. But as a TV host of a travel show whose purpose is to show the viewer the beauty of other places and cultures, Bourdain is a miserable, abject, hopeless, grim and depressing failure.

A failure.


Very simply, they are all the syndicated episodes and NOT the original uncut/unedited NBC episodes. It is NOT the complete first season, all eps are edited to conform to 21:00 for syndication meaning jokes are cut, an extra commercial fade is included, all of the Harvey Korman intros are not here...very poorly done! Shame on a series I've been waiting for....booooooooooooooooo! If you're a true die hard Mama fan, don't buy this and go to http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/main/help/whv/customer_service.jsp and send them comments on why we're unhappy on this butcher job to a classic sitcom!


well,there isnt much to say about this movie. its simply trash. very poor acting, poor script, and lame story.... well, the actress,(i odnt even know her name) who played mainrole,(not the blond one,but latina one) was acting fine,but the blond one who played the friend of main charactor,,,her acting level is just like highschool play,so as most of other actors in the movie. Also,zombies,,,,very bad acting as well. and,,the story itself has really no point at all. well, if you are really bored and really got nothing to do,but wanna kill time somehow, maybe you may wanna watch this movie,but eventho,there are still millions of better B movies than this crap. its total waste of money and time.


This movie is available as a special "bonus" feature on the double-disc of Horror 101 & Horror 102: Endgame. It has nothing to do with those movies, except it does show that producers/directors Dudelson and Clavell are in a rut. Like those other movies, this one features young people who go to a building where they get trapped inside, and run down the hallways a lot, while they get picked off one by one. In the end one or more characters are revealed to have another identity. This is by far the worst of the three.

Here, people are invited to a Halloween-night only opening of the Museum of the Dead. The museum doesn't have very many exhibits, and they're all sort of ancient central-American related. There are also flesh-eating, infection-spreading zombies in the museum as well as an ancient cannibal warrior and two female warriors.

The movie is very repetitious. It kills people off fairly quickly, to the point you wonder who they're going to have left to kill off - at which point some more people show up without explanation, so that they can be killed.

Amazingly, one of the characters does have a cellphone, and is actually able to call the police, who actually take it seriously and show up at the museum. When one tries to pick the lock to get in, the other tells him that would be "forced entry." If you've got people trapped in a building who are injured, I think that's irrelevant. The cops are also stupid in that when they shoot a zombie in the head, it goes down, but then they shoot other zombies in the chest and they don't go down. They happen to shoot another zombie in the head, and it goes down. They continue to shoot the rest of the zombies in the chest. Stupid.

The opening credits and a nightmare sequence are done in a sort of animation-effect over video, a poor-man's Waking Life sort of thing, but not so cartoonish. It is sort of interesting, however, parts of some of the attacks are done the same way, so there's no logic to it.

Dreadful.


Plot: None. Script: A string of cliches. Acting: Not in evidence. Special effects: Title sequence kind of cool, but otherwise exceptionally poor. Fright factor: Crossing the road is scarier. Cult factor: Only the most desperate cult would latch onto this dog. Can't you say anything positive: I did. The titles were kind of cool.

(Special bonus question ... your idea of hell: Being at a party with people who voted this flop a 7.)


A study in BAD. Bad direction, bad acting, bad writing and f/x that´ll teach you that you´d better upgrade your computer before filming. It´s the kind of flick you used to do totally drunk in your cellar with Dad´s camera when you were young at heart. But YOU certainly would not show it in public when you´re sober again, would you? YOU wouldn´t even view it. Avoid at all costs.


again such kind of zero-budget digital-video cam trash. and again I fell into this trap cuz the title had "zombie" in it (german title: ZOMBIE ATTACK!) the story: on halloween some people visit the "museum of the dead", it's a trap, a crazy doctor wants to kill the people, everything connected to some aztec-cult. so they fight against some zombies in there.

ultra cheap scenery: some corridors with black tape on it. a few dilettantish drawings and a few skulls as you can find them in every fun-shop. no actors, just low-grade models waking around with absolutely no idea what to do. no effects. laughable make-up, your local hobby-make-up-zombie-fan will do it better, some time it looked as if they had not enough money for enough colour, otherwise they just could not do it like this, man, they have to realize the looks of their "zombies". some laughable martial-arts fights with the zombies, slow-motion. just, when the director wants to have it scary he uses some standard digital-video-cam effect where everything is flackering. unbelievable! 0 out of 10!


I tried to love this movie. I really did. Kevin Bacon plays a cerebral palsy victim who is befriended by a 10-year-old girl whose fantasies of digging to China, flying away in a balloon, and so on, are her way of coping with a dreary existence. I admit I did fast-forward through one of the scenes in which the two of them share friendship and simple pleasures while soulful piano music plays in the background. Okay, three or four of those type scenes. Maybe nine or ten. Okay, okay, it was fourteen. But I did sit and watch most of them.


I like Kevin Bacon and Cathy Moriarty, and I love Mary Stuart Masterson, but the movie wasn't good at all. There wasn't a likable character in the picture, and the plot was nearly non-existent.

Ms. Masterson is a great actress, but she just didn't pull off the "tough girl" character. (She had similar problems with her character in THE SECOND DAY OF Christmas.) Perhaps she should avoid these characters, especially those with an obnoxious female child to play off of.

Evan Rachel Wood was unimpressive. Her character was a brat, plain and simple, and no young actress could have given Harriet any positive feelings.

In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't even finish watching this picture. Forty-five minutes of my time is enough to waste.


Diane Keaton is a pathetic actress. She is so boring and phony. She is the same on and off screen. I saw her in an interview with Ellen Degeneres and she behaves exactly the same as she does in movies. Her foolish facial expressions make me want to change channels. She has been in a couple of good movies, but they would have been better had someone else been picked for the part. Steve Martin doesn't add much to the movie either. He over acts as well and also ruins an old favorite. The ridiculous part Martin Short plays only adds more idiocies to the movie. I've tried to watch the movie twice but both times had to turn it off.


This film makes about as much sense as an 'Ozzie & Harriet' or a 'Father Knows Best' episode. An old copy of Reader's Digest (circa 1962) would provide more insight into modern life, or the relationship between a father and a daughter, than this weird concoction.

I was surprised with Diane Keaton. She appears to sleepwalk through the film. (Given the film's title, I realize that hers was a supporting role but even Martin Short managed a distinct, supporting character.)

I can understand the attraction of an imaginary world created in a good romantic comedy. But this film is the prozac version of an imaginary world. I'm frightened to consider that anyone could enjoy it even as pure fantasy.


I saw this movie on video with a couple of friends as part of a teen comedy triple header, alongside Dorm Daze and Going Greek. Obviously we weren't going for quality, but for air-headed entertainment and gross-out gags. Generally we got what we came for, but Wild Roomies really stood out: For being awful.

First impression first, the cover: The Norwegian release cover showed breasts covered up and a bunch of seemingly "crazy" roomies in the background; Brings up pictures of drunken semi-naked teenagers doing bunches of funny stuff stuff doesn't it?- The "crazy" roomies on the cover were not even featured in the picture. And the funny stuff you assume they'll be doing?- Absent as well.

This movie was labeled comedy, which is a bit strange since it not even remotely funny. Relationship drama would be more accurate.

Put shortly the movie is about a young couple inheriting a swanky house in LA, and are forced to get some roomies to make ends meet. These roommates eventually put both the young couple's patience and relationship to the test because they're so "wild". Problem is, they're not. And here lies the problem of this movie: The protagonist couple are so anal-retentive and neurotic that they manage to generate zero sympathy. You'll find yourself rooting for the antagonist roomies halfway through the movie. Add mediocre acting, lame dialogue and boring direction and you got yourself a movie that is best left unseen.

See something else.


I had high hopes for this one after reading the back of the DVD, "In the spirit of American Pie and Animal House..." After suffering through this I realized I just blew $2.50 to rent it. This movie started out slow and just got slower... brief and fleeting moments of levity proved that it was in the spirit of American Pie if you mean "spirit" as a dead thing. not very entertaining or fun! Don't be fooled like i was and expect anything barely watchable because this movie will depress you more than entertain you. "Need to fill up three more lines for this stupid movie that doesn't deserve the effort... what a stupid piece of ignorant crud. This movie wreaked, even the brief nudity sucked!


Roomies is the story of a guy who loses everything except his incredible girlfriend and an idea for a corn dog that he plans to patent and sell. Immediately his uncle dies and leaves him a house and a car, and he gets some roommates in to help pay the rent and gets a job. Then his girlfriend gets drunk and cheats on him, so he goes and writes a book about roommates and becomes famous.

88 minutes. None of these details of the plot are explored in any detail, what you read above is more or less as interesting as the film will be. When his uncle dies there are some breasts on screen, one of the potential roommates he interviews is pretty funny for about 40 seconds. The ending is literally the worst i've ever seen. I want the other 87 minutes of my life back!

I hadn't thought anyone could make a movie with so little merit: Surely there are rules against this sort of thing getting to the public? The script can't be longer than twenty pages, and the budget must have been minuscule because the whole film has about 3 locations and a car. The only conceivable use for Roomies, in my opinion, is if you're holding someone hostage and want to frustrate them beyond human thought. If so, get it on repeat and you'll have a ready made gibbering wreck within the day.

one-and-a-half out of 10


Oh boy.. This movie is so mediocre I don't really know what exactly to write about it.

I think it's easier to write what it's not:

It's not very entertaining. It's not original. And there's not one character in the whole movie I cared about.

Kind of reminds me of a certain reality TV show on MTV, but without any interesting people. It just drags on and on and I could hardly wait for it to end. The only thing that kept me from switching it off was Jennifer Lyons (c:

I thought a long time about this movie to find one good thing to say about it. What I liked was the reminder not to judge a person by the first impression you get (as Holly did when she accused Nicole) which earns it a score of 2 out of 10 instead of a 1.


This is a typical college comedy and its very average. The story is OK but not very entertaining. Its about a unlucky guy named Reno who looses his job, gets his car ripped off and then his uncle dies in a stripbar. His got a girlfriend though (a nice one btw. :-). Anyway this uncle gives him his mansion in LA and mercedes as heritage and soon Reno and his girlfriend moves to LA to this new house. The problem is that they would need some roommates in order to pay the high rent for this house and so the film unfolds...

The movie starts OK and has a few funny jokes here and there, but the suddenly the movie takes a turn straight down to hell... The ending is BAD. Really BAD. It destroys everything about the movie. You will know what I'm talking about when you see the movie...

2/10


A tedious mixture of puerile efforts at humour with romantic relationship melodrama fails to provide this weakly made film with any flavour of reality. As action opens, Reno (A.J. Buckley) enters his apartment, there discovering his girlfriend in flagrante delicto with his roommate, who gloatingly tells Reno "Well, at least it's with someone you know", resulting in Reno's decision to never have another roommate, this decision told to viewers by means of a soon abandoned voice-over. The storyline then proceeds ten months where we find that Reno is indeed true to his word concerning avoidance of roommates, although this appears to beg the question due to his garnering of a live-in lover, Holly (Holly Fields), with whom he has generated marital plans. The plot briefly shifts to a sleazy Hollywood strip club, wherein Reno's Uncle Charley, enamoured of a "dancer" whom he finds eminently desirable, keels over dead atop the club's bar after seeing the unadorned charms displayed by the object of his affections. It is apparent that Charley had been aware of the flawed condition of his heart, because he created a video tape during which his commentary bequeaths his large (and mortgaged) residence in Hollywood to Reno, and we see the latter deciding to, contrary to his vow, interview applicants for two roommates as tenants, with he and Holly sharing the selection process in an organized manner. Following an inane sequence involving bizarre renter candidates, all of whom Reno and Holly unsurprisingly find unsuitable for living along with them in their house they, unknown to each other, each select a renter of the opposite sex, with the lovers manifestly cool toward the choice of their partner. The newcomers (Chad and Nicole) would seem to have little discernible point to their existence other than highly aural fornication with a broad range of partners, and it is not long before jealousy mars the harmonic relationship of Reno and Holly. Reno is bent upon patenting and merchandising a type of sporting travel bag and, as he has given an engagement ring to Holly, the potential success of this entrepreneurial adventure is of great financial significance if he intends to advance his marital plan. Unfortunately, the rapacious team of Chad and Nicole, whose every action is ostensibly laced with lust, is likely to disrupt any future wedding intentions of Reno. Direction is slack, plainly far from fulfilling basic needs of the players, although an erratically composed script provides scant material with which actors may work, and ad libbing falls embarrassingly flat. As a result, the performances are undistinguished, not aided by spotty editing, while the manner of camera-work changes as abruptly and often as a firefly's tail light. Filmed with a low budget and on location, only a modicum of skill is required for the designing processes, but a larger measure of value might have been placed upon the tasteless D.J. background soundtrack, generally blaring and nearly always invasive. A good deal of discussion has been stimulated by the movie's final sequences that are apparently not expected by a viewer based upon what has come before, but in reality these comprise probably the only thoughtful portions of a poorly cobbled screenplay, and bids fair to make the work almost watchable, despite the shabby quality of the production as a whole.


University Professor Justin Thorne (Jimmy Smits) has got it made. A good-looking, sophisticated teacher, with a loving wife and two adorable children. He plays the saxophone, owns an expensive car and his students love and respect him. But when temptation calls, in the form of one of his bright, pretty, sexy and willing students, Jennifer Carter (Naomi Watts), he foolishly gives in. The next day, he is being charged with her rape, and his perfect life could be forever ruined.

When we see an American actor in Australian film, we know we are not in for a masterpiece. But even viewed with low expectations, "Gross Misconduct" is a huge flop. Based on a play with a rather unimaginative title and then adapted into a reasonably enjoyable book, it fails to engage, convince or even remotely interest its audience on a most fundamental level. The script is awkward and unconvincing; the acting is, for most part, not much better. Watts gives an acceptable performance, demonstrating for one of the first times on screen her emotion rawness, but she is the only good thing about the film, which seems almost like even it can't wait to be over.

The direction is not horrible or distracting in anyway, but it is just painfully mediocre. Apart from the afore-mentioned Naomi Watts, who could be forgiven, seeing as this was early in her career, the acting is wooden and gets steadily worse over the course of the movie. The usually reliable Jimmy Smits doesn't seem to have been trying in this one, and who could really blame him? All these small failures, however, only add to the film's ultimate fatal flaw, which is that the focus is entirely in the wrong place. Any empathy for the characters or interest in the outcome is lost in a sea of what is basically soft-core entertainment of an adult kind. By the end, audiences will probably be bored, tired and wishing they'd done something else with their ninety minutes. Unless you just want to see Naomi get naked 4 or 5 times, you could definitely afford to give this nonevent film a miss.


'Gross Misconduct' was one of a series of texts released in Australia during the early-to-mid 1990s that explored the supposed victimisation of the Privileged Heterosexual Male in the age of feminism. This creature only needs look at a Pretty Young Thing, and he's accused of sexual harassment, and his life is ruined. Damn those women's libbers! Grrr...

As my tone might suggest, I don't buy any of this anti-feminist BS, and correspondingly didn't enjoy this film. 'GM' trivialises the issues of sexual harassment and teacher-student relations. Sexual harassment is here the product of a Confused Young Woman's imagination, and those professional boundaries that teachers are meant to maintain ... well, when the teacher is a charming and handsome family man (and played by Jimmy Smits!), well needn't worry about those.

Sexist trash, and even by reviewing it, I'm giving it more time than it deserves.


The credits at the end read "ALL directed by Shigeru Izumiya". That's a fitting way to phrase it because it seems like filmed material from several projects were thrown together somehow, barely even attempting to make it all form one consistent work. It more felt like one of those music clip things that are marketed as feature films to cash in on those video commercials, just that here we have the marketable music and the live performances missing, except for one scene, which may as well be marketed as a weird music video clip in Japan. Whatever.

It makes zero sense. Visually it isn't too special either, although it has its moments (for example the female creature with the "death powder" who is strapped onto a bed base and some morphing sh!t throughout) and it certainly has an industrial-y feeling to it. Usually I'd call the effects dilettantish but what this film offers in this regard is baffling more than anything else. You remember those cheap video effects from 70's and 80's music videos that make them look so dated, like a picture within a picture flying through the screen? There is quite a lot of these kind of effects in this, and without any apparent reason. The most half-assed seeming effort comes in the form of a picture collage. The pictures sort of look like album covers. Whatever.

I don't know what's up with the subtitles of the version I saw. The Chinese ones (or whatever those hieroglyphics are) sometimes seem to show up when nothing is even said and the English ones often show up without the Chinese ones. The English subs talk much about life without death (is it possible?), and a mind without a body, which provides what comes closest to a comprehensible conflict between characters in this film. One guy (a scientist dude) says that life without flesh is death while another guy (a metamorphosing dude) who claims his mind is beyond his body now that he got the "death powder" blown into his face and that he now knows the secrets of the flesh and whatnot; metamorphosing dude is visibly p!ssed off about the scientist dude's claim. Whatever.

Erm, The End - All Written By Perception de Ambiguity


Well I'd have to say that I do own this film and I only like the ending. The movie is boring and slow but the final fight is so funny. Lets just say that if the fake bird didn't attack the main evil guy this movie would be a 0 out of 10. The bird though makes it a 3. If you are truly bored or want something terrible to watch rent this and fast forward to the final battle.