This was just telecast here in the U.S. Others have commented on the faithfulness (or lack of same) to the novel; the 1983 BBC version is far superior on this and all other counts. Given the scope of the novel, it should not have been condensed to 85 minutes. Key sections have to be rushed or alluded to, or omitted; there barely enough time just to get in the chronology of events, so character development has to be sacrificed: we cannot get much of a sense of who the people are, which robs us of what makes Austen so great.

One major negative for me was the cinematography, which I thought was just awful, and quite literally sickening. The camera is constantly doing ultra-closeups, and swirling around and around in circles. Maybe on a small TV box this is OK, but on our 40" hi-def screen it was so literally dizzying that both my wife and I had to look away from the set repeatedly (my Dramamine supply had run out). Of course, this did distract from the rather lackluster I'm-just-reading-what's-in-the-script acting (isolated scenes are nicely done, but not enough to save things).

Adding up the score so far in the Complete J.A. Sweepstakes: I'd rate "Northanger Abbey" a success, because of superior direction and production values (and the story lends itself better to short treatment), "Persuasion" OK (though not the equal of other versions, with condensation again being at fault), both far ahead of this attempt. I will hope for better in the two remaining novels in this TV Reader's Digest Jane Austen; like others, I am thankful they left P & P alone!


Why bother, ITV? Admittedly, Mansfield Park is the most difficult of the novels to "get," and Fanny is certainly the hardest to like, but... If one is going to take it on, then have the courage to risk being true to the book and its rather complicated spirit. And for heaven's sake, have the guts to cast Fanny as she was written: A prissy, good-hearted, sweetish, whiner! Mrs. Norris wasn't nearly as awful as she should have been. And what the heck happened to Portsmouth? The contrast between Fanny's rather dubious family and family home and the splendors of Mansfield is key to, well, so many aspects of Fanny's refusal of Henry, her uncle's rejection, Henry's near transformation to a good person, etc., etc. Again, given the complexity and challenges of the novel, why did they bother? It's beyond me...


Why did they have to make such a dreadful adaptation? The whole "Complete Jane Austin" series as a part of Masterpiece Classics looks like a huge disappointment. Characters are totally miscast and there's no chemistry on the screen. The whole thing feels rather rushed. The 1999 movie release based on the same novel seems like a masterpiece compared to this. I really want to forget it. I'm really happy though that "Pride and Prejudice" won't be re-made as part of this project and we will see the iconic and magnificent Colin Firth and Jennifer Elle as protagonists. if you skipped this "Mansfield Park" production consider yourself lucky!


I've read plenty of Jane Austen in my time and approve of several cinema/TV adaptations but this one we just don't need.

Rating is a 2 as I wouldn't say it's awful just so boring you will feel like you've wasted 90 minutes of your life. Dull script matched by even duller acting. I've heard Billie Piper is OK in Dr Who (not a fan so can't confirm) but in this she just sucks. There is absolutely no chemistry between the leads. This is Austen, it's supposed to be a romance!

Please don't let this put you off Austen or historical dramas. There are plenty of better programmes to view.


For a teenager who has never read Austen, this adaptation might be fine. But only for them. This is a disjointed "Cliff Notes" version of Mansfield Park, and if you have not seen another version or read the books parts of it would be head scratching.

Why has it been so hard to do a good adaptation of this book? The one in the 1990s took such liberties that it barely seemed to be the same book - the mindset was completely modern and prurient.

Here we have Billie Piper who looks like a pretty country wench. She has a charming personality that develops nicely - but she has flagrantly died blonde hair, with black eyebrows and - through much of the pic - dark brown roots. So much for unspoiled cousin. It is incredibly distracting, and the rest of the cast is in the greasy hair, rumpled clothing genre that shows a real disrespect for period accuracy.

One thing is good here - Haley Atwell is the best Mary Crawford of all the versions. She is note perfect, flirtatious without being at all modern or suggestive, flippant and completely without any moral or ethical compass. Henry here is actually good looking enough to be a slight temptation for our heroine.

Jemma Redgrave takes one of the most interesting roles in the story and manages to make her actually boring until her last scene - much too sensible. This is just a production that really missed the mark, a real low for Austen fans.

The only serviceable version is the one with odd duck (perfect for the role) Sylvestra La Touzel (despite the very very gay Henry Crawford - he's just laughable).


Rozema's 1999 adaptation of Mansfield Park is far superior to this ostensibly slightly more faithful film. The 1999 film is reviled by many Austen purists, but I admire the job Rozema did in making Mansfield Park her own. It may not be strictly Jane Austen's Mansfield Park, but at least it was well-written, beautifully shot, and well-acted by a superior cast. I don't see how Austen purists can be any happier with this 2007 version from ITV (and rebroadcast on Masterpiece Theatre/PBS). The screenplay is shoddily pasted together and dumbed down to boot, the production values are lackluster, and the cast (apart from Jemma Redgrave and Blake Ritson) are largely guilty of bad acting. I can't think of a worst miscast than Billie Piper as Fanny Price. Her look was all wrong (bleached hair and dark brows??) and her talent simply wasn't suited to the material. Sir Thomas looked constipated the whole time. Michelle Ryan as Mariah was on autopilot, as were the actors who portrayed the Crawfords (when I think how superior Alessandro Nivola and Embeth Davidtz were in the '99 version, I just kinda shake my head).

I haven't seen the 1983 version, so I can't comment on it, but I'd advise anyone who's curious to give the '99 version a chance. Read the novel before or after and make up your own mind.


Is it just me or are most of the actors in this adaptation miscast age-wise?

Jemma Redgrave, although a superior actress, seems as if she should be joining her children instead of nodding off on the couch. (I would have loved to see Brenda Blethlyn in the part, her connection to the latest Pride and Prejudice notwithstanding.)

Blake Ritson and Rory Kinnear were the only two whom I felt lived up to their characters in spirit and performance. Every else looked confused or out of place.

Luckily, I'm not very familiar with Dr. Who (I've only seen a few episodes so far) or it would have definitely soured this further.

Too bad Mansfield Park has not yet seen its due on screen (either large or small). This novel requires the talent of a Robert Altman to balance all the complexities of the characters successfully.


Mansfield Park, in its second half, is my favorite of Austen's novels, and Fanny Price my favorite of her heroines, so I'm saddened by the unhappy fate she's suffered in her big- and small-screen representations. The only good reading of the character I've heard was done for radio by Amanda Root, who gave it the same quality as she did the character Anne in the film of "Persuasion": a stern, sure, heartfelt moral centeredness. If the actress had been younger she would have been good visual casting as well; but the Fannys that have reached our eyes to date have more resembled, respectively: Mary Crawford; Ruby the scullery girl; and (in this incarnation) a jovial serving wench, or possibly tart, with her high moral principles pulled down a peg.

Well, I had hoped for better, but had feared worse. The serial had a solid Edmund, in an actor who was best at likable saps, and the perfect, i.e. perfectly abominable, Mrs. Norris; otherwise it was dullish. The film, which was apparently intended as a deconstruction or some other bad theatrical idea, came off as a mixed-up burlesque. After such disappointments, and the more recent disappointments of this production's sister pieces (the new "Persuasion" and "Northanger Abbey"), I couldn't help but have mixed expectations for this one; and on the whole, it left me feeling slightly better disposed to it than not. It condensed the novel intelligently, and in the end left me with much the same feeling, as a comic-book version might. On the other hand, to do so it had to rework most of the characters, except the Crawfords, and it incidentally diminished or eliminated most or all of the most memorable things in the book, including its most famous character and what should be, if it isn't, its most famous scene.

The character is the officious Aunt Norris, always ready to direct other people in what to do, but always managing to avoid having to do any of it herself; here one gets no sense of that at all. And with her goes much else: her remark that cuts through Fanny, "...considering who and what you are"; Sir Thomas's discovery that she has forbidden Fanny a fire in her room all these years, and his roundabout apology for her; Fanny's honesty in acknowledging, during a visit home, that Aunt Norris, for all her faults, could manage the household better than either of her sisters. But then, that entire trip is missing from the story, and so is most of what goes on at the theatrical rehearsals and most of what discomfits Sir Thomas on his return; and in fact Sir Thomas himself, and his wife, are different from what they were. Above all, the scene in which Crawford proposes to Fanny, one of Austen's most complex, is simplified to a bare telling; missing from it is Fanny's staunch upholding of what she knows to be right, and what she knows to be very probably true, against all the distractions Crawford and anybody else can throw at her. To a male reader, now no less than when it was written, it reveals with unmatched clarity--unmatched, at any rate, as far as I know--what a woman goes through in trying to deal fairly but firmly with a man she has reason to distrust. It's a brilliant scene, in the novel; on TV it's just a scene.

And, Fanny, oh, Fanny: when will we see your like?


I agree with several of you that this film was rather boring and dull. I found myself disliking the main character and the following actors/actresses that came in the scenes. The camera work was non pleasing itself. Random shots and shaky film scenes made me quite annoyed and I turned the film off. I will make up my time by watching the 1999 adaption and hope that it fits agreeable along with Sense and Sensibility; Emma; Becoming Jane; and Pride and Prejudice. I've only a few others to watch besides these films but I believe they were done in great taste. The music was kind of out of place with the film also, reminding me of another show I had seen this year. It was called Hex and a show from BBC. I came across it one night on the web. I rather liked the first season but the second season was dry and pulling things out of thin air that should of stayed with the clouds. I found the main male character who was Henry in this film out of place. Perhaps I just do not like his way of speaking or his stature. Well I would not recommend this film to anyone unless they were going to have it muted and they wanted to look at the fashion of the era, or the way homes were kept at the time. Again I will watch the 1999 version and hope it is a better and does Jane Austen some justice to her writing.


I started to take a critical view on this adaptation within the first few minutes but as a dedicated Jane Austen fan I persevered through to the end... However, this is not a programme I would recommend to someone unfamiliar with her work as I don't think it does the book justice, nor makes particularly entertaining television in its own right. There was something about this adaptation that lacked believability - many of the costumes and even the actors did not have an authentic look and I found the acting to be, at times, poor. There is no doubt that the actors were all very good-looking, but this didn't provide enough variety to create really diverse, memorable characters. It was far too static being set entirely in the same location and missing out Fanny's return home, which is one of the most interesting parts of the story. The best actor was Blake Ritson, who captured the wholesomeness of Edmund very well, and the Crawfords were effectively cast too. I do like Billie Piper as an actress, but this role did not suit her and was much better played by Frances O'Connor in the 1999 version who gave overall a far more subtle and convincing performance. Jane Austen adaptations will always provide a love story to leave you feeling good but unfortunately, this is one of the worst I have seen.


As a fan of nearly any period drama, and at that a huge Jane Austen fan, I was horrified by this adaption. As a fan of the 1999 version of Mansfield Park, I was constantly comparing the two and this fell far short. It felt hugely rushed and very one-dimensional so that it became boring very quickly. There seemed to be no subtly to the relationships, particularly that of Fanny and Edmund, and little atmosphere despite being set in a beautiful location. Despite having looked forward to the Jane Austen season since Christmas I turned this off after an hour and went to bed. I will be interested to watch the adaptations of Persuasion and Northanger Abbey, of which I have no much-loved version, to see if they still manage to bore me in such a manner.


What a crappy movie! The main character in this movie was supposed to be born and brought up in Canada, yet he had a thicker Indian accent than his parents! Is it just me or does Uday look gay in this movie? Also, do all the chicks in Canada dress like sluts? At least that's how it is in this movie. All the females are dressed like strippers. Don't waste your time with this one! The only good thing about this movie is the setting in beautiful Vancouver. Wonder why Bollywood is going through a slump? It's because of movies like this. I miss the good old' days when Hindi movies were actually entertaining!I couldn't even finish this movie because it was so bad. I think Bollywood needs to stop trying to replicate the style of Hollywood because it's just not working out. They need to stick to their roots because that's what makes Indian movies entertaining.


this is the worst film i have ever seen and what disappoints me the most is that this is yash raj film so at first when you see the promos you think yes thats definitely another yash raj hit But when you see the film your eyes will water with disappoint the storyline is stupid and dumb we've seen it many times boy is soon to marry and falls in love with a girl blah blah blah. if you do see this pathetic film don't go with you family there is too much exposure and kiss scene. i don even see why you would go to see it on your own. overall this is a disgraceful disgusting and anything else which is bad and starts with a d film don't go to see it you'll end up hating yash ji and yash raj films


It is definitely not worth spending either money or time. It is the same hackneyed plot of a guy and a girl meeting and falling in love. But this is with a western touch. But it fails miserably in either depicting a love story or giving it the western touch. Never do we feel that the hero and heroin are in love. There is no depth to either of their characters. Probably, with a better cast, some justice could have been brought about to the characters. Finally, it is a movie with no fun, no acting, no theme, no plot, no comedy , no action, no thrill, no romance (i associate romance to something more passionate). Definitely not a movie you would want to go with your family. Overall, if you are looking for a movie with some content, this is definitely not an option. I shall wait for the day when bollywood movies are something that i can wait to watch and i can refer to my friends as a "must watch" movie.


Yash Raj films are so funny, whatever works they follow it yet they are called the best production house?

Seeing Bhatt films working they copied the formula, bikini and everything plus casting low actors like Uday and Tanishaa

The film is so horrible it makes you cringe

the jokes are so bad and horny it makes you slap them Uday resembles a gay plus a monkey

Tanishaa resembles an idiot

The director thinks we all are idiots Arjun Sablok takes the audience for granted Music is saving grace Camera-work is good

Uday Chopra hams like an idiot, Tanishaa looks like Kajol in K3g if Kajol was annoying der then Tanishaa is worse the rest are okay


Neal N Nikki is voted on of the Worst films of the year by Planetbollywood. Its hard to believe the famous Chopra's have produced this lousy movie. It was presented as a movie for the family, but turns out to be a ridiculous sex comedy. Nor does it make you laugh, but cry of boredom and nor does it have any sexy girls to make the film look sexy. The title song is the most annoying song of the decade, I'm the Neil, I'm the man, rock star superstar. Uday Chopra is one of Bollywood's worst actors ever with no acting talent. After making many Super Flops, and not receiving any movies from a producer rather then his Family. He gives a total crap performance, that bores you to death. Tanisha, who is and will always be known for being Kajol's sister, gives a dreadful performance. Both actors have the most annoying chemistry, and are very immature for their age. It has a special appearance by the very cute Richa Pollad, in a pathetic role. The ending was so daft and stupid, I cant believe i actually paid money to rent this crap.


I'd give this film a 1/10. This film is devoid of common cinematic substance and concentrates way too much upon the current "skin trend" in Bollywood movies. I'd definitely not recommend teenagers to watch this movie. What really makes me feel dejected is how could such an impressive banner like Yash Chopra Films ever succumb to such an awful production? They have perhaps forgotten to keep in view that there is a larger audience than "adult" audience too, which when exposed to these sort of gross movies,may wreck their growing mind set and succumb to things devoid of sense and recognition.

On the whole, films must not only be entertaining, but also must comprise of some sense as well. Certainly, this film is an immense disappointment to Yash Chopra fans, especially me myself. I am really disappointed over the plot, acting and everything else. Why can't people put in some substance that can be cherished after confronted with in the films, at least for once throughout the film? The point is clear. I'd like to put my opinion in short: "Horrible - Disappointment - Lot of Adult Material - Lack of sensible "substance" - Lack of normal psyche - Worthless - Could grab a Cornetto or a Temptations chocolate instead"


I agree that this movie is about sex without any seduction or love. In fact, it makes sex seem so boring and makes me wonder why bother. I actually don't think at all this remotely speaks of how Canadian Indian second generations feel about sex. At any rate, did you know the first hotel/drunk idea was copied from a Korean movie, Yopgijogin gunyo, made in 2001 or thereabouts? That Korean film was actually brilliant as comedy but at the same time compels the audience to reflect on the complexity of man-woman relationships and man-woman difference in experience and thinking. I mean most of the Neal N Nikki hotel/drunk segment was emulated take by take. Can't Bollywood movie makers try to make originals only, please? Seriously, I never enjoyed a Hindi flick that is a copycat. The ones I enjoy have always spoken Indian feelings through Indian cultural means.


I did have some expectations from this film because 1. It was a Yash raj production 2. When the songs were first shown on TV, they seemed catchy 3. The star(??!) cast was new. Well, I must tell u that I just couldn't sit through this movie. Uday, (with his red lips-what were the make up artists thinking???!) tries hard to look cool but fails miserably. I won't even get started on his acting (if u can call it that). 'Cleavage queen' Tanisha with all her screaming and ranting n raving just makes you want to pull your hair out in frustration. I think Uday was slightly more tolerable than her! She seriously needs to take acting lessons from her sister. The story is pathetic...the same old tried and tested formula. Absolutely no originality. There is nothing worth watching in this movie. Makes me wonder why it was made in the first place!


Oh my god, WHY, did I waste my precious time on this film? It is pathetic, waaaay OTT and unrealistic, and one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. Yes, MY LIFE. I am embarrassed for Yash Raj films, the poor guys have to live with the horrible news that yes, they produced this terrible film.

This is by far, the most, trashy, sexual, eyebrow-raising movie I have ever seen by Yash Raj Films. I cringe for them, I really do. Along with the terrible acting (or NO acting, for that matter) by Uday Chopra, combined with the lack of talent of the "Look At My Boobs" Tanisha, Neal 'n' Nikki has not one good thing about it at all. Even the music is not upto the standard left by YRF. The director, Arjun Sablok, did an embarrassingly bad job here.

Honestly, I expected more. Much, much more.


This movie is not worth anything. I mean, if you want to watch this kind of stuff, flip to Hollywood movies! This totally is a disgrace to the Bollywood name. Neal N Nikki seriously sucked! Never watch this movie. As for the actors, it appears the acting genes skipped a generation. Tanisha couldn't have worn less and Uday Chopra obviously was just picked because he was the director's spoiled son. (All of that Halla Re was amazingly stupid) The songs are eh, and I hope the director did not spend to much money on it...... Bottom line, I hated the movie. Do not let your kids watch it, and if you have it in your house it is a stupid movie so discard it! Buy the CD, if you must. (As I said, the songs are eh.) At least it is better then the movie.


This movie is very modern and forward. It is about 75% in English. It is aimed at English-speaking multiplex-going young audience. Basic plot is similar to DDLJ. Acting is below average.

Unfortunately they are portraying a wrong picture and setting a bad example for the youngsters. Tanisha is shown drinking from a bottle, or taking shots of tequila about 5-6 times in the movie. The director does not even acknowledge she is an alcoholic and has a drinking problem. All through the movie she only wears bikini tops whether she is at work, at a beach or at a wedding. The heroine of the movie doing this makes the youngsters feel this behaviour is acceptable.

The less that is said about failure of Uday Chopra doing Shahrukh Khan's DDLJ role of arrogant girl-chaser, the better. The movie is about equality of sexes. But equality should not be about making the same mistakes, instead about doing the right to do the right thing. If men have been shown as chronic Casanovas in movies, does not mean women should also portray same behaviour.

Even though the movie is made in light-hearted fun spirit, it promotes so many wrong social notions in the name of being forward, that "fun" part of the movie makes no impact. Not even in Canada women dress like this, or guys behave like they have shown in the movie. It is certainly not a reflection of Indian society or even Canadian society. Perhaps they should have a disclaimer at the beginning stating, "All characters and events in the movie are imaginary and do not reflect the actual culture of the cities and countries mentioned in the film." The only good thing about this movie is the length, 1.5 hrs, thank god.


If this is film noir, then noir must be French for glacially slow. Take a cast of completely unlikeable characters, give them nothing to say, punctuate the whole thing with gratuitous ultra-violence, and you've got the formula for an aggravated Dash. Could be subtitled "Sleazy Hollywood types attempt to make money from Chinatown rip-off". Bruce Dern's one minute part is orders of magnitude better than anything else in this flick. By the way, I didn't like the film.


A special unit of four police detectives are dispensing justice in their own unique way in 1950s Los Angeles. Nick Nolte plays Max Hoover, the unit's lead officer and his partners are played by Michael Madsen, Chazz Palminteri and Chris Penn. Also starring are Melanie Griffith, Jennifer Connelly and John Malkovich among others. Quite an impressive list of names. Unfortunately that is the only thing even remotely impressive about this film.

Our story begins when young Allison Pond, played by Connelly, turns up dead in a remote area of town currently under development. Our band of four detectives is called in and it is immediately obvious that Nolte's Max Hoover is going to be taking a very personal interest in this case. We will soon find out that Allison, in addition to knowing Hoover quite well, was also involved with some rather important military and government types who may have had reason to want her dead. But who exactly was involved and why exactly would they want this seemingly harmless woman dead? Hoover and crew set out to find out. Sounds like an interesting premise but unfortunately it goes nowhere.

Despite the impressive array of names, the acting here leaves much to be desired. Nolte is overacting, Madsen seems incredibly bored, Palminteri and Malkovich come off as caricatures, Penn has hardly anything to do and Griffith is dull as can be. By far the best performance is Connelly's in all too fleeting flashback sequences. The dialogue throughout the film is forced and wooden. The sense of drama you would expect from a mystery of this type is missing altogether. Nothing dramatic really happens. In fact nothing at all seems to happen for the bulk of the picture. Instead we just slog along towards a rather ludicrous and incredibly disappointing climax. When the "mystery" is solved you may find yourself saying, "Oh come on now, is that all there is?" But it gets worse as after the mystery is solved we get a completely ridiculous and utterly unbelievable action sequence. And even then we are made to suffer further as another awful, badly acted, completely unnecessary scene is tacked on at the end. And then mercifully it is over. And not a moment too soon.


The four LA cops in fedoras driving around in a big black convertible look faintly absurd, and even more ridiculous when it turns out that Nick Nolte, the dumbest-looking of the lot, is in charge. The writer never manages to create a spirit of camaraderie among the squad members, and the director fails to wring articulacy out of the man-mountain Nolte. Foprget questioning anyone. Nolte's character lights a cigaret, gets mad, and beats interviewees to a pulp. His methods get him nowhere, until at one point in the action he is wandering from tossed residence to tossed residence with his mouth open and his brain shut. He smashes up an FBI squad, and throws two military officers out of a plane in flight, with only a vague report of anger at HQ and no punishment at all. At the end of the film he is as gormless and muscle-bound as he was at the outset. How he managed to get a beautiful whore to fall deeply in love with him is a mystery, as is the eternal devotion and tragic sense of betrayal expressed by his jobless wife. Two interesting shots in the picture: one, of an atomic explosion, the other of a gigantic crater, ostensibly caused by a Bomb. It's almost as wrecked and puffy as Nolte's face.


I saw this movie on the shelf at Blockbuster and thought it looked cool. The DVD case touted so many great actors and I wondered to myself, "Why have I never heard of this movie?" Then I turned over the case and saw the director, Lee Tamahori, and thus the answer began to explain itself.

First of all I want to defeat the idea that a great cast equals a great movie, but more importantly, I think I should explain why this movie is so terrible. Okay, the script is awful and full of one dimensional characters. This is the worst role I've ever seen Chazz Palminteri play and I'm surprised he would do something this ridiculous. However, under-appreciated yet talented actors must earn their money. Palminteri plays a one dimensional police detective who comes off about as dumb as a C-movie mob henchman. Him, along with the lead detective (the poorly directed Nolte), the great but simple Michael Madsen, and the late Chris Penn (whose role along with Madsen's was completely thrown away) make up an elite squad of LA detectives tasked to rid the city of mobsters sometime in the late 30s or 40s. The movie introduces this squad as cops who will break every law to make sure those who think they're above the law don't operate in their city. At the beginning of the film the cops rough up a local restaurant, grab an alleged mobster (William Peterson) and take him to a place they call the Mulholland Falls. They toss him off one of the cliffs on Mullholland Drive and this is supposed to demonstrate how serious these guys are about ridding the city of crime. Whatever. This was nothing more than a cheap excuse to use a crappy title that's designed to make you think of LA and its famous sites. Somewhere later on they find the dead body of Jennifer Connelly and the plot begins.

On to the direction which was nothing short of amateur and WEAK! Aside from the fact that the characters were B-movie quality, the overacting by those such as Treat Williams, the guy who plays the chief of police, and the awful Daniel Baldwin are just a few highlights that made this movie seem like it was Lee Tamhori's first film. There's not one good performance in the movie aside from maybe Melanie Griffith, who some might argue was the worst in the movie (she won a Razzie for this film). In the end, it was her character that was not that great and she really didn't have much to work with.

As with any bad movie, it all begins with the writing, and this script was no gem. Plot is formulated simply on the basis of setting up the next scene and never takes into consideration characters' motivations. The way the characters behaved was unbelievable. Cops taking the law into their own hands is believable within the right circumstances (see LA CONFIDENTIAL) but in this case it looked like these guys could get away with anything, including murder, and never bat an eye about cleaning anything up. I guess we as an audience are just supposed to assume that no one saw anything and that people won't ask questions. Everything about the story is predictable and is spoon fed so well that we understand everything that's going to happen a good while before the characters do. However, it doesn't make us feel smart, but rather makes us angry at how stupid the hero is, despite the fact that there aren't any heroes in this movie.

In the end, the best component of the movie was the great score by David Grusin. From the beginning, it invoked a since of CHINATOWN, which quickly faded when I realized how unbelievable just about everything in the film was. It didn't surprise me to learn that it made a whopping eleven million in the box office. What I will say is that this film is worth watching for a few laughs. Nick Nolte's acting is like an unsuccessfully domesticated junkyard dog and I laughed every time he tried to be serious. I also nearly fell on the floor at each of the slow motion shots used in the film (I think there are three with one during a key fight scene). When you have to use slow motion in the heat of a dramatic moment, you clearly have some problems. So, even with my negative criticism, I will recommend this movie solely for the purpose of enticing laughter, that is, if you appreciate the good movies like LA CONFIDENTIAL.


I went to see this film at the cinema on the strength of its potentially interesting subject matter, good cast, a director who had previously done the highly-rated "Once Were Warriors" and my liking for noir-ish films set in L.A. in the Forties and Fifties. I would argue that I am reasonably easy to please in this film category; I appreciate the classics of the genre but I will sit through and enjoy a half-decent if derivative effort as well. However, I found this film completely unbearable.

Despite a good situation in which to place the story, nobody seems to do or say anything remotely interesting or entertaining in the whole two-hours plus of this sorry mess. Good actors are wasted in endless scenes of dialogue ranging from banal to embarrassing. The narrative is slack and drags unbearably, and none of the events it depicts is handled well enough to do anything other than bore the audience to death. There is no drama, no atmosphere, no tension, absolutely no entertainment value and by the end I simply didn't care what happened because I did not believe in anything in the film.

L.A. Confidential came out a year later and regardless of whether one version of the story is more true-to-life, the latter film deservedly gets all the plaudits for its excellence in every department. Mulholland Falls by contrast fails in every department, a fact made all the more tragic by the amount of talent involved. If they ever show this on a plane I will still walk out.


William Petersen (that C.S.I guy) has a small uncredited role but it's the best part of the movie. His character comes across smart ass and tough, and it's a fun surprise to see him in this. He has a range that allows him to play just about anything. After his 5 minutes, it goes from looking cool to just nothing much. It leaves you hoping that his character will reappear in the movie but after 20 minutes you give up hope. The movie itself is pretty poor. Worth a watch on TMN or a pick up at the library but not much more. Too much of it reminds you of L.A Confidential except that where that movie starts to get complicated upon itself, this one is so loose, it steers everywhere but where it should. 2 out of 5 stars


I rented this movie, because I noticed the cover in the video rental store. I saw Nolte, Connely, Madsen, 40's time setting, and thought "hmm, can't be too bad." Unfortunately, after watching it, my impression was "not too good".

Its kind of a Chinatown ripoff, but the worst part is that other than Nolte, the other members of the squad didn't get enough screen time. But its a decent movie to see once I guess. And Melanie's role was small enough that she wasn't given a chance to be a nuisance.


I was hoping this would be a good weekly vehicle for Tim Curry, one of my all-time favorite performers. Alas and alack, it is NOT. There doesn't seem to be any chemistry between anyone on the show, the dialogue is decidedly uninspired, and even the laugh track appeared to be laboring. Brutal.


This film is absolute trash and proceeds to become even worse towards the, very protracted, end!

The plot is confused and laboured, the actors have a couldn't care less attitude (maybe they were paid in advance - bad move, or knew they weren't going to get paid), and the sets were featureless, boring and cheap.

I fell asleep twice and actually decided to not bother with the last 5 minutes as I assumed the actors would have fallen asleep themselves by then. More unrecoverable life time wasted!

If you must watch it, then take it to the bedroom and forget the sleeping pills for once. But maybe you'll need an antidepressant instead!

Sometimes it's good if celluloid degrades.


Watched this months ago on Netflix Instant and left a review there.

Let me say, most of the other reviews are very accurate. This movie was bad writing, bad acting and bad directing. I too, had liked Russell and Pare "back in the old days" and was very hopeful for them. In my Netflix review, I mentioned that I lost interest in the film and proceeded to wash the dishes and make a sandwich, yet still watching the movie from the kitchen. When I did return to the living room, I was very confused as the last 5 minutes of the film unfolded. I even rewound it to make sure I was not missing anything. This film totally crapped out on how to do a "twist" ending. I suspect that the idea sounded good, maybe the script was intriguing, but the budget was so non-existent that sets were really lacking. And yes, I suppose all those "bad sets" were an effort to give the viewer a clue. All it told me was "low budget."

Anyway, the reason I came here, was because over the weekend I saw a review of Shutter Island, and with what the reviewers were saying, or not saying, lead me to believe that Shutter Island is the same deal, only with a budget 50 to 60 times more! (Actually I have no idea how much Dark World cost, but I HOPE they didn't spend more than 1 million!)

So, that being said, I kinda thought that if someone reworked the script a bit, got a bigger budget for a better "look" (whether that meant a better scenic designer, or better post coloring, just someone with a vision,) they could remake Dark World into a passable product. Now it sounds like Shutter Island is doing that. Looks like they got the vision right, but the scripting could still be off. Money can't buy everything, but it should in Hollywood!

PS My 2 star rating is for Russell and Pare.


Once upon a time Theresa Russell made a few halfway decent movies, so I keep hoping that one of her efforts from the past decade or two will merit a rating of at least 6 or 7 (out of 10). However, DARK WORLD is just the latest in a string of disappointments. The first 90 minutes are very hard to watch. The lines are delivered by the lead actors as if they are being read at a first rehearsal or even a casting session (in which the actors are doing it for the sake of their agents, but do not really want the parts for which they are perfunctorily reading). The sets and props seem "off" somehow (what kind of a police department would allow a detective to have a whole living room wall shelved full of case file holders?). The screen is constantly cluttered with meaningless time and datelines, which appear with no rhyme or reason. Now, if the scriptwriter were standing here after the lights go up from a film fest screening, they no doubt would crow about how all these shortcomings are REALLY clever clues to the plot turning topsy-turvy in this misfire's final five minutes. Well, for those audience members whose only other movie experiences are TV: THE MOVIE and SURFER, DUDE; they might be bamboozled into nodding their heads in agreement. But it is hard to believe that ANYONE who has seen 10 or more movies in their life--and is not a close friend or relative of a DARK WORLD cast or crew member--could fall for such a lame canard. Despite what the d.v.d. box might lead you to believe, this movie has about as much resemblance to SUNSET BOULEVARD (dead narrator device) or Hitchcock (schizophrenic protagonist device) as a drained Jim Beam bottle refilled with urine has to booze!


The film starts out with a narration of the protagonist explaining certain crimes occurring all over the city and then we get to know that the hero is a cop who is either suspended or has probably retired. I did not have the patience or the interest to verify the above before commenting. If there is a stereotype for narrators to have a deep, sleep-inducing voice then, it is high time to put an end to it. I seriously fell asleep and did not bother to shut the movie down either. Am still trying to figure out what the movie was all about and why there were no outdoor shootings. A third rate TV Serial will have more number of sets compared to this crap of a movie and I still pity the actors and producers involved in this huge bullshit of a movie. It ought to have been produced as a normal TV serial or maybe even as a local theater drama instead of putting it out on the big screen. Total waste of time and money. The movie was supposed to be in production for a long time and it would have been better to have left it that way.With redundant sleep inducing dialogs and sets, this is the worst movie I have come across.


When George Sluizer was told he could direct an American version of the book "Het Gouden Ei"/the movie "Spoorloos"(outside Holland, this movie has the name "the Vanishing" too), he was told that this would only go through if the ending was changed - He was told that 'the American Audience' wouldn't approve the original ending. Of course, the original ending is much better, and without it, the movie loses its impact. Because I have already put this in the trivia section, I won't give the original ending and keep my comment spoiler-free. If you want to know the original ending, watch "Spoorloos" or read the book. This movie is absolute rubbish, and the first Kiefer Sutherland movie I don't like. Watch the original Dutch movie, which is one of the best thrillers in the world.


Skip this Hollywood version, a real piece of garbage. A cheap insult to the brilliant original "Spoorloos", or by the English title also called "The Vanishing". It completely misses the mark in typical, grotesque Hollywood fashion, usually due to a bunch of talentless, corporate bean counters who haven't the vaguest idea about anything artistic, they just look for the "successful formula" and want it applied to everything to glean a profit. Much like the awful "The Scarlet Letter" made in 1995, which twisted the original story around so much to suit the MacDonaldsland crowd, that it became an aberration, not even a bastardization, but a pile of goop that has been sort of shaped similar but does not look, feel or even remotely resemble the spirit of the original. Except that movie at least had Gary Oldman, who is interesting to watch in anything he does. This dog has nothing going for it, even the usually very talented Jeff Bridges is an embarrassment. Great tragedy is not nor never should be "the feel good movie of the year" but rather takes one or more of the sadly much too frequent tragic events in life and allows the reader/viewer to draw meaning and insight into the human condition.

Do yourself a great favor if you're looking for a rental and skip this grotesque garbage and pick up the original made in a Dutch/French collaboration in 1988. That is a great film. This is a horrific mess.


George Sluizer's original version of The Vanishing aka The Man Who Wanted to Know offers one of European cinema's most quietly disturbing sociopaths and one of the most memorable finales of all time (shamelessly stolen by Tarantino for Kill Bill Volume Two), but it has plenty more to offer than that. Playing around with chronology and inverting the usual clichés of standard 'lady vanishes' plots, it also offers superb characterisation and strong, underplayed but convincing performances.

Unfortunately, I can only assume that when it came to the remake, Sluizer was so determined that no-one else was going to get the chance to ruin his film when he was perfectly capable of doing it himself, but few people could have anticipated how comprehensively he trashes his own work. His career never recovered from this disastrous misstep.

Chief culprit is an astonishing performance by Jeff Bridges that has been over thought through in every detail to a truly disastrous level. A friend who produced one of his earliest movies noted that Bridges was a great instinctive actor as long as you stopped him thinking about what he was doing, and this film is the proof of the pudding. Every movement is overly mechanical in its precision, making him look like a rusty clockwork toy, while his voice is a bizarre mixture of Tootsie, Latka Gravas from Taxi and a Dalek who have all been taking elocution lessons from Dok-tah E-ville. No banality of evil here, just a looney walking around with an invisible sign over his head saying "Please. Let. Me. Kill. You. Thank you. For your. Consideration.' But the blame really needs to be shared out here. None of the performances are good: often, they don't even look good  Keifer Sutherland looks more like a baby hamster than a distraught man at his wits end in the hurried scenes at the gas station, Nancy Travis flounders badly and Sandra Bullock makes no impression at all as the object of his obsession. Not that they're given any help by either director or writer Todd Graff. The script is particularly weak. The chronology has been altered to put the focus firmly on Bridges at the expense of the couple at the opening of the film. Worse is the rush the film is in, draining the life and character from each scene in its race to get to the next. Rather than the high/low mood shifts in the couple's relationship or the apparently casual but careful establishing of the feel of the location, we just get a couple of arguments that give you the impression that he's probably better off without her. As for the new and improved happy ending  standard woman chased by nutter in the woods jeopardy stuff complete with lame 'let's end on a joke like a TV cop show' moment  best not go there which is advice that holds for this entire trainwreck of a movie. Even a shockingly bland and uninspired Jerry Goldsmith score can't do anything for this one.


I know it's hard for you Americans to find European films on video/DVD, particularly from the 80's but please seek out the original version of the Vanishing - title Spoorloos (1988) - and you'll see why the Hollywood version of The Vanishing screws up bigtime, particularly at the finale.

I really like Sandra Bullock, Kiefer Sutherland and particularly Jeff Bridges, but this is just so so lame compared with the original. What where they thinking? Can you imagine Seven with a happy ending with Gwyneth Paltrow running happily into the arms of Brad Pitt in the finale? The whole point the original was such a major international success was because of the shocking finale. So why do you accept this kind of shyte remake? Really, avoid this and GET THE ORIGINAL.


*spoiler alert!* it just gets to me the nerve some people have to remake (and i use the term loosely here..) good movies. in the american version of this dutch thriller, someone decided the original ending wasn't pasteurized enough for american audiences. so what do they do? they create a new one! a stupid, improbable, i-pretend-i'm-dead-but-come-to-life-again-so-the-good-guy-can-kick-my-butt- some-more kind of ending. do yourself a favor and get the original one.


If I had to pick the most depressing movie, try to be suspenseful I've seen it'd be this one. I know about how good the original is supposed to be, it had better be better then this one. The movie's so dark and depressing but it isn't interesting to watch either-I've seen depressing "thriler" type movies that were saved because of the suspense to counteratc and balence the dark quality. Vanishing didn't have that, This was so disturbing to watch to begin with and there was nothing positive to make this a classic type movie. I think another IMDb poster got it right in saying this genre has just seen thrillers done in a far superior way. I completely agree-I would recommend skipping this one-maybe I'll watch the original some day but I doubt it. I give this a 2 out of 10.


This is the most frightening film ever made in Hollywood. It is a cautionary tale of how to take a European masterpiece and suck the life of of it until it is a dry husk like an insect carcass on the the windowsill. Frightening because it reveals how the world of Hollywood really works: ignorant money begetting dross. It makes me wonder how many great films could populate the corridors of my memory if the Hollywood process had not leveled them to forgettable mediocrity. Cry for the murdered children! See Spoorloos or read The Golden Egg, if you dare, because they will come back to you forever in the idle moments of your life: when you're walking along the street and you see a 'missing' poster; in ordinary-looking parking lots; when you hear the Tour De France on the radio; and, especially, when you you think "what's the harm?" in wearing a sock with a hole in it on a perfectly ordinary day.

If only I could give this a zero.


Man, what an awful film. As with many terrible films, the structure of its awfulness lies in the script. This is such a pathetic attempt at a psychological thriller that it gives the entire genre a bad name. Okay, here's one major problem: Sandra Bullock's character is abducted by Jeff Bridges in his car at a busy convenience store in broad daylight. Somehow, her boyfriend Kiefer Sutherland doesn't find a single witness to this act and subsequently spends most of the movie completely clueless as to her whereabouts. Come on! Personally, I find this completely insulting to even the dimmest of audience members. Yet we are forced to buy into this nonsense. Of equal frustration is the poorly explained motive for Jeff Bridges's actions. His character is a bit of an eccentric academic, to be sure, but far from the sociopath who would do these things. He goes through about ten minutes, give or take, spilling his beans to Sutherland as to why he has performed his cruel actions. But the explanation itself lacks even the most elementary sense of logic. Therefore, no intelligent audience member can really believe in the possibility of his evil. And if you subtract that element from the story, the entire thing falls apart.

Also of major concern: -Jeff Bridges using a weird, pseudo-French accent for no reason.

-The entire boring subplot involving Nancy Travis, most especially her saving the day by turning the tables on Bridges.

-The crazy woman who somehow manages to remember Jeff Bridges' license plate number despite also thinking that the Lucky Charms leprechaun is real.

-Sandra Bullock's character's name, Diane Shaver, conveniently re-scrambles to form the word "vanished". Are you friggin' kidding me?? -The logistical impossibility of drugging, abducting, and burying (in a very remote location) a human being within the span of forty minutes (as Bridges specifically alludes to).

This is a movie that made me remember the fictional, impossibly stupid (yet very successful) Donald Kaufman character in Adaptation. Many screenwriters are brilliant, inspired artists. Some are just bozos who convince the nitwits running the studios to make their drivel. This particular script is so stunningly dimwitted that Donald Kaufman himself would have managed to sell it. Unfortunately for all of us in the real world, Todd Graff actually did.


I've watched this movie, after having seen the original "Spoorloos" a few times, in anticipation of the chilling ending.

I can't even begin to explain the anger and disappointment that I experienced when the ending came, and went, and the movie continued to have a happy ending. What a waste of time it was watching this US remake...

If you have a choice, please skip "The Vanishing" and watch the Dutch original "Spoorloos". The suspense is very well built-up. You feel the frustration of Rex, in search of any trace of what might have happened to his girlfriend Saskia, after she entered a gas-station and never returned to his car. The search takes him three years, and when he finally gets in touch with the person who knows the truth about what happened to Saskia, he must agree to undergo the same thing that Saskia has undergone. The ending leaves you speechless in your chair....


A couple are split apart during a vacation. Early scenes lead us to believe Barney, Jeff Bridges' character, has kidnapped the girl in an unexplained but premeditated abduction. The film plays out some years later where, despite a new love interest, Jeff (Kiefer Sutherland) is determined to solve her disappearance.

The storyline is definitely intriguing but there have been some really bad decisions made during the making of this film, culminating a pretty shoddy piece of work.

OK here we go. The abduction scene - aside from two major continuity errors there is a point where Sandra Bullock and Kiefer Sutherland are made to perform a little signed-pet-love-ritual that's drowned in over-sentimentality to the point of nausea. We know they're in love; the "I do solemnly swear never to leave you" speech only moments prior was ample thank you. Jeff Bridges' robot accent is another example. What is that for? Starman is back and it seems after a decade on the planet, he's turned nasty. The entire plot is then able to be resolved by the introduction of a needless character who, by a rather fortunate twist of fate, has quite miraculous powers of observation. The climactic sequence itself has essentially been done before only much, much better. It's riddled with further annoyances and another blinding continuity blunder. I could go on but something positive needs to be said. At a stretch, Kiefer Sutherland is the only one to save face with a fairly decent performance.

The 1988 original of the same name (changed from the Dutch title 'Spoorloos' for English speaking audiences) was recommended to me, only for an online rental company to send me this later Hollywood version by mistake. I was surprised to find both having been Directed by George Sluizer and would be interested to know his motivation for the remake. I am reliably and thankfully informed it is of a much higher quality in all areas including plot. Horah for that, but it really doesn't take much doing.


A real insult to the original "Spoorloos", which is one of the most genuinely disturbing films (and I intend this as a compliment!) I have seen in the last years.

Where the original is chilling and brilliant, the remake is flat and even boring, especially the "happy end" finale takes away what little suspense there was in this film in the first place.

While such a distortion (especially grafting a "happy end" which wasn't there previously) is quite frequently the case in "Hollywood" remakes of European art-house movies and could've been expected, the biggest disappointment lies in the fact that this inane mess was created by the very same filmmaker who did the original "Spoorloos"...

Why Mr. Sluizer decided to ruin his masterpiece in such a fashion is beyond me.

Avoid this abomination at all cost, as it might spoil the original for you even if watched *after* that, let alone the other way round...


I can't believe this movie has 6 stars on IMDb. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen that wasn't an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The plot is predictable. I couldn't bring myself to care about any of the characters. The dialog is cheesy. Several moments in the movie actually made me groan out loud (including Kiefer Southerland's crazy neighbor and the incredibly lame joke that ends the movie). Jeff Bridges' accent is goofy - I can't tell what country he's supposed to be from. It has to be one of the least thrilling thrillers I've ever seen as well...after Sandra Bullock's character disappears, absolutely nothing happens to advance the story for a good 45 minutes. I would give this movie a negative amount of stars if I could.


There are just so many things wrong with this movie.

Jeff Bridges weird accent.

Rita's ability to crack the password code

The entire script

The ending - esp the last scene when two coffees are brought to the table for Jeff and Rita and the publisher. J & R laugh and say "We don;t drink coffee anymore". Well, why did they order it then??? They obviously did. If they didn't and the waiter brought everyone a coffee by default there would have been three coffees.

Total Tosh.


This movie was so poorly acted. What was with Jeff Bridges accent, horrible and unbelievable. Was it supposed to be French, Scandinavian?The script was lame. To have the heroine trip over the grave of her boyfriend while running from the Jeff Bridges character...are you kidding me? How convenient that Jeff brings his dirty shovel in the house after he disposes of bodies in his lawn. Do these people just not believe in calling the cops? Okay...I'll get into the car with you, why not? DUH! Why was Bridge's daughter obsessed with making her dad have an affair, is her mother that evil or just plain dull? I did not see the original, it would be hard to make myself after seeing this movie.


George Sluizer's remake of his own - superior - film is a complete waste of time. Why was it even attempted? Kiefer Sutherland plays Jeff Harriman, whose girlfriend (Sandra Bullock, who only has a small amount of screen time)is abducted at a service station by Barney Cousins (Jeff Bridges). Now, Barney is portrayed as the kind of guy that no one would trust in a month of Sundays - he lopes about like Frankenstein's Monster but without the sympathy, and Bridges' acting is totally awful. Sutherland comes across a little better when his character turns detective with the help of new love interest Rita Baker (Nancy Travis).

A major problem with this version of 'The Vanishing' is its obvious need to cater to Hollywood audiences by avoiding the bleak ending of the original film. Here the ending is happy which seems forced and unbelievable, and completely wrecks the story. However by this time the damage has been done as Jeff Bridges turns the bad guy into a huge laugh.


Most American remakes of European films are pretty poor, but this is in a league of its own. In fact this might even be the worst (Sandra Bullock) movie ever made. I daresay I might have passed it off as just another innocuously bad Hollywood thriller had I not seen the Dutch original, SPOORLOOS. The altered ending here is stupid enough (and executed with particular ineptitude), but a far worse crime than that is removing all the intelligence and depth of character that marked out the original as a classic. The real horror to be found here is in the fact that the same man who directed SPOORLOOS is responsible for this atrocity. Will the real George Sluizer please stand up?


More suspenseful, more subtle, much, much more disturbing....


In Thailand, the Americans Connor (Colin Egglesfield) and his girlfriend Amanda (Meredith Monroe) quarrel in a Muay-Thai fight, and Amanda leaves Connor alone. She asks the direction of the hotel to a stranger, indeed the mean vampire Niran (Don Hetrakul), and she is bitten and kidnapped by his gang of evil vampires in motorcycles. Connor joins to a clan of "good" vampires leaded by Sang (Stephanie Chao), trying to save Amanda from the claws of Niran.

I expected that "Vampires: The Turning" were a good movie. The locations and the cinematography are beautiful; the very heavy music score is excellent; Stephanie Chao is gorgeous and attractive; but unfortunately, the screenplay and the director are terrible and the very loose costume of Meredith Monroe does not help her fallen breasts. The story is very short, and the unknown Marty Weiss uses long scenes with motorcycle race, fights and boring flashbacks to complete a minimum running time for film. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Vampiros: A Conversão" ("Vampires: The Conversion")


Even though this was set up to be a showcase for some kickboxing and swordplay, "Vampires: The Turning" (VTT) could have aspired beyond that. Because it doesn't even aspire to be a good vampire movie, VTT fails to deliver any punch that it may have been attempting to.

Using the idea of an 800-year-old thai vampire was interesting, but the story about progeny she mistakenly brought into existence (and now must wipe out) actually reminds me of Gizmo and his plight in "Gremlins," and that isn't a good thing when it come to a vampire flick.

Stephanie Chao is attractive and serves as the "good" vampire very well, but her lack of any accent grates when you realize that she's an 800-year-old vampire. Added to that, when she tells Connor he's "a young soul," she doesn't deliver the line with much of the weight you would expect from an "old" soul. Attractive, but not believable.

Meredith Monroe was more believable in her role but, for a "Dawson's Creek" alum, you would think she would have more screen time. The question of whether Amanda succumbs and "turns" is the most compelling reason to continue watching this movie, and you never get it. You get a tease of it, but you never actually get any type of development out of the characters for that plot device. It's a cheap way to play your audience, folks.

If you want something that is a good vampire movie, go find Lugosi's "Dracula," and if you want a sexy vampire movie, you have dozens of flicks from Hammer with a lot more strength than this one. In the end, if you want good or sexy, this isn't the place. This is just forgettable.


This movie "Vampires: The Turning" isn't even really worth the 2 out of 10 I'm giving it. The movie, is very predictable from beginning, up to the very end when our hero kills the leader of the Vampire Slayers. The use of music in this movie was even bad, it kept playing as if you were to expect something significant to happen at any second, though it never did. The acting, was B-Rank at best... And the movie was just, dull. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 is because the story, had potential though it ended up unable to deliver. Oh, and did I mention the wardrobe? The wardrobe for this movie was obviously cheap to "non-existent" because our hero, and his girlfriend (whom he's trying to save throughout the entire movie) wear the same outfits through the entire movie. I'd suggest this film only if your really bored, and don't have a good wall with fresh paint to watch dry. ~Dave, the Horror Cowboy


There's a good story well hidden and never really used!

The film is short and overly dependent on action and thematic photography; somehow, character and story development have been forgotten. What is left is muddled and superficial.

Turn off your brain and watchyou will probably find that the time goes quickly enough, but unless you are the sort of person that finds soaps deep and meaningful, you are going to get no real satisfaction from this film.

Watch only if you have nothing better to do and then only if someone else pays for the video rental.


An in-name-only sequel to John Carpenter's Vampires, this movie takes place in Thailand and involves a sect of bad vampires, who enjoy killing people, and a sect of good vampires who do not. While it's an interesting idea to set a vampire film in Thailand, the writers don't seem to do a lot with the exotic locale. This film could just as easily have been set in Los Angeles. Which brings me to my next point, which is that this seems a lot like Blade Lite. We've got the rock soundtrack, the martial art battle scenes, a dance club bloodletting and, of course, lots of sharp objects going through vampires. What we don't have is the budget and talent. Yes, the hero is a good martial arts fighter, too bad his acting wasn't as good, and there's plenty of decent wire work, and tons of revved up fight sequences, maybe too many. The problem is they just don't have the same impact as the ones in any of the Blade films. Perhaps it's just that the film has a "been there seen that" feel to it.

However, for me the biggest problem was that the filmmakers didn't take enough time to establish the relationship between the lead, played by the buff and bland Colin Egglesfield, and his girlfriend. She gets snatched at the very beginning of the flick after a whiny exchange with her boyfriend. We have no vested interest in her welfare at this point and no reason to believe that her boyfriend would be willing to risk his neck to save her. Now that's a major drawback when that's the major thrust of the plot.

In the end, you could do worse than waste 85 minutes of your time with this, but I can think of a lot better things to do with your time, like renting any of the Blade movies.


I watched this movie tonight and I do need to say that it is horrible! I expected it to be great, because you know, usually we don't have many movies about Asian vampires mixed with Asian culture; but already in the beginning it started in a bad way: the introduction of the movie seemed not to have an end! The plot is so weak and if you take the fights and the soundtrack off, you really don't have anything useful at all! The director of this film doesn't look to have some important notions about how much time to spend in introduction and flashbacks for example.( not to mention some other things)

For people like me, who wants to watch a great vampire movie, I really recommend to watch ''Lost Boys'' or ''The Interview with the vampire''.


The plot is simple: an American couple is in vacation in Thailand. Somehow they are attacked by the 'almighty' Chinese vampires, and the girl is kidnapped by the big boss of the vampires. This is OK till now. The girl's partner is left to search for her. And now the horror begins. He comes upon a strange group of semi-vampires or something (they only drank animal blood). These vampires are in conflict with the bad guy for about...800 years. However, with the help of the 'good vampires', the guy begins to search his girlfriend.

Now the fight scenes begin, what a karate movie without fight? Another thing i have noticed is that the vampires are very ugly guys. I mean....a vampire is an old-fashion guy(he is alive since...for ever), he's got style. There are also modern vampires, but in this movie, the vampires are....weird. Like, come on, they ride a bike, they are all dressed in leather and they destroy everything in their way.

The worst thing is that you can clearly see that this movie it is an low budget one. The script is boring and the actors aren't too talented. The music is pretty good, but the effects are not that great.

To sum up the movie it is not that great, but if you have a free afternoon, watch it and tell me if i'm right or not.


Well I watch tons of movies and this one really sucked ... BIG TIME. I am sure we are all sick and tired of the low budget ploy to make Vampire Movies using some "Martial Arts Teacher" turn "actor" type of movies. I am also so tired of the guy knowing some form of fighting technique and then able to fight his way through a somewhat boring Movie. I forced myself to watch it and one of the main reasons were that the Lead Actress is quite Pretty (Ha-Ha) Well I hope this helped a bit and if you have time and want to give your Brain a rest Watch it!!! Well hopefully one day this type of movies will not be released but then hey where will all the Low Budget actors go :-)

The movie also contains many Bloops but that I will leave to you to find because it adds quite a bit of fun while watching and also if you a bit of a perfectionist it will bother you ;-) Cheers!!


Firstly, I'll admit I haven't seen Vampires: Los Muertos, but I've seen the original Vampires film and love it. I rented this film having heard nothing about it. I didn't expect to be impressed. I wasn't.

I love the idea of shifting the action to the far east, which should have opened up a lot of new avenues for the action sequences as well as the story line, but not enough was made of this. The fight scenes and the motorbike chases were painfully boring.

There were some parts I liked, like the way the slayer team weren't shown as heroic good guys, as they were in the first movie.

I'd been hoping since I saw the old Hammer movie Legend Of The 7 Golden Vampires a few years ago that someone would one day make another good Asian-based vampire film. This was not it.


This movie is really bad. The hero can't play. You see too much that he learned his walking moves by heart. And believe me, he walks a lot. For 45 min, nothing happens. He only walks to places and gets out..... Like if the story was so short that they had to extend it by adding useless and boring "looks-like-a-suspens" scenes.

Dialogues are very poor. I counted around a lots of "hello's" and few "hang on" on the 1st part.

Blood is orange like the Mercurochrome you put on kid's blisters. And scenes are not following themselves. A bloody neck on a scene, a clean neck on the following.

The story could have been improved. Yeah I mean what the hell is the story?

Martial arts? Where? Is that martial arts? Watch how hesitant and slow are the moves!!!!! If giving a kick and receiving a punch is called martial arts, then I am Bruce Lee!!!!

The only good point I have found is on fight scenes : They don't play with zoom and fast switching scenes that gives you headache in most of action movies.

There are plenty of low budget movies that are great. That one was just to make money. Nothing else.


Man oh man, this was a piece of dog sh#t. I read a few reviews on here after seeing the case in the local video store, and thought to myself........ Ah this seems like a half decent movie.Vampires.Swords. Thailand.How can you go wrong? Right? No,no,no way f*cking wrong. Jesus, if only I could gouge out my eyes and not remember this film, I would be happy. The lead actor had THE whiniest, gayest voice ever.Man!It really was bad...."Amandaaaaaaaa....","I gotta save my girlfriend...." F*ck off! My buddy and I actually changed the Audio Track on the DVD to Portugese just so we didn't have to hear the guy's voice. Subtitles and all...and this IMPROVED the film. I'm serious, if your anything like me and wondered what this film was like..STOP WONDERING. I have the answer. WORST VAMPIRE MOVIE EVER! No good action, no good gore and only the smallest smattering of nudity. Just pure sh*t for 90 Mins. Don't rent this,buy it,think about it,or watch it at 3:00am. It just doesn't cut the cake......at all....in any way. F*ck this movie and watch All Anal 7: Real Deep Cover. You'd have a better time. I'm sure.


I watched the world premiere of this on the Starz Action channel. They call it Vampires: The Turning. The plot was a little confusing. There is a voice-over in the introduction about an 800 year war, and I didn't quite understand. The movie is about a young couple somewhere in Asia (maybe in China, I don't think the movie specifies). The couple has an argument and Meredith Monroe runs off and is kidnapped by a biker gang of Vampires. The boyfriend finds a group of vampires that don't kill humans, and enters into a battle with the bikers. A human group of slayers somehow get involved, and the final fight sequence takes place during a solar eclipse. This movie is not related to either Vampires or Vampires: Los Muertos. Confusing, but decent action. Four out of 10 stars.


....so why on Earth would I see 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men'? Answer: Johnny vegas and Mackenzie Crook. Vegas I have seen live and thoroughly enjoyed. I think he is an intelligent and unique intellectual comic who manages to retain extreme oafishness. Crook I know only from probably the greatest comedy of the last 10 years along with 'Alan Partridge', 'The Office'. As Gareth he was simply hilarious, and I was interested in how he would convert to another character on the big screen.

OK. So me and the boyfriend went down to the multiplex last night and the film was very funny, only because the mediocre nonsense dialogue and banter Ferris and Dave had was delivered with aplomb and enthusiasm by the talent of Vegas and Crook. They are destined for better things (have done better already infact) and I even believe Vegas would make a decent straight actor. The trite scenes where he says he misses his wife came almost close to touching, although the **SPOILER** tacked on scene at the end where he is taken back by his wife needed to be lengthened, it just wasnt believable. And throughout the film Vegas only appears to miss his wife 2 or 3 times.

The film became grotesquely unfunny and plain old, well, grotesque, when sex was mentioned. Not, I add, when it was shown on screen. Tolly's gratuitous explanation of what was in his sandwiches and why was not even slightly funny, and just made me feel a little bit ill. Also totally unneccisary was the inclusion of the character of Jeremy picking his nose, before showing a close up of the bogey on his finger. Just him picking his nose would have raised a smile, he was a pathetic character and it would have just made him look as low as possible, but showing the snot close up was just not needed and was rank.

One scene I did think was hilarious involving sex was Vegas in the threesome. His blokish conversation with the second bloke just highlighted the fact that threesomes arent always endless ecstasy. Not that I'd know.....

That's about all I can say really. I will end with this, and this is actually my main critique of the film. This is supposed to revive the British film industry. It is no 'Trainspotting' that is for sure....it isn't even a 'Love Actually' (you'd have to have a heart of stone not to throw up at that one), and 3 million pounds really could have been put into a better project. 'Mike Basset England Manager' was a wonderful little known British comedy and was made for far less than 3 million. I only hope that the BFC will learn from 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men' and not get so gratuitous in future. Although the terrible reviews this film is getting are only enhancing the box office takings. :-)


Sex Lives of the Potato Men is about the sex lives of several men involved in delivering potatoes. So there are no surprises there. It is, in fact, pretty much what you might expect from the title: that is, it's a quirky comedy involving sex and potato men. At times the film works. It's an edgy, sometimes uncomfortable comedy about the lives of some rather unimportant and rather average men who are having problems of various sorts with women. Where the film clearly does not work, and why it failed at the box office, is that the quirky, uncomfortable parts are perhaps just a shade too quirky and uncomfortable. Instead of laughing during the scene of a man suspended from a basement ceiling masturbating over another man while he makes love to his wife, I think most of us just kind of groan awkwardly and wonder what Andy Humphries was thinking. Well, perhaps we are shown what he was thinking all too clearly.


Ever watched something so awful you just have to keep watching to be sure it really is as bad as it looks? This is one of those films. It was slammed by the critics on it's release, not least for the way it was funded. I caught it on TV last night and gave in to curiosity.

In the event, it is what it says on the box, no more nor less: low level humour, crudity, very much in the 'Carry On...' vein but with 'adult' language. Indeed, it harks back to the 60s/70s UK porn industry, cheating punters by promising real sex and not delivering (spot the nipple?) That whole tawdry era is lovingly recreated here but with modern cinematography.

It has the benefit of Mackenzie Crook (The Office, Pirates of the Caribbean and much more) and also Johnny Vegas. The chip shop girl is genuinely sexy. Beyond these unexpected positives, it does leave me wondering what happened to England. Junk food, low paid work, council estates, desperate lives. As a bonus, there are some nice shots of leafy Birmingham. Foreigners might find it informative about British attitudes and aspirations. Overall, though, I still feel disbelief that I sat through it.


I watched this film with a sort of dangerous fascination, like a hedgehog trapped in the headlights. There is no doubt that (even if you enjoyed it) it's a bad movie, but the important question is why? It has a good cast; it's lively; it's prepared to tackle sex head on, with some of the characters actually getting some of it here and there, which is unusual for a British comedy. It also has Johnny Vegas and Mackenzie Crook, Marmite performers agreed but they've have had their moments in the past.

What it's principally lacking is charm. The characters are impossibly idiotic, unbelievable and alienating, so that instead of a film of Men Behaving Badly the producers have made Game On. Any mediocre writer wanting to make a film about the sexual attitudes of dozy, sexist British men would have got hold of a few copies of Loaded, Zoo or even Viz to read Sid the Sexist and the thing would have written itself. Instead, the producers clearly tried to make up some moronic, difficult to care about, characters. Character comedy - as opposed to slapstick etc - only works if the audience can recognise some human truth to the situation. But watching this film is like being told an annoying joke that you know is not going to end up funny but you can't stop it.

Sadly, the film is also poorly made. The plot structure is weak, there's little character delineation or development, and many of the scenes aren't funny. Time after time the same lame reggae chips in to divide scenes, pointlessly and gratingly. There's a lot of needless repetition - when you've done one joke about parking outside a sex party you don't need to do it again. One wonders what the UK Film Council saw in the script.

This is a world where most men are rakes, and most women are continually up for it. The Apartment and Alfie satirised much the same world view, but the producers of this film accept it without criticism. Thus they've ended up with a kind of inferior update of Confessions of a Window Cleaner. Somebody British needs to have another go at this kind of thing, and do it properly  a good next project for Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright I think...


I found myself watching Sex Lives Of The Potato men with a furrowed brow, puzzled why so many talented and witty comedians decided to be involved in a film so totally devoid of humour.

Poo and wanking jokes are funny when you're eleven. Eighteen plus and you begin to lose friends around the water cooler.

Maybe some enjoyment could be had from this movie if you're the kind of person who frequently plays practical jokes involving dog mess, brown bags and matches, or maybe partake in 'man' competitions on nights-out by imbibing companions' vomit/urine etc when you're not back at your parent's basement punching your teenage wife.

Even then "Sex Lives..." it's hard to recommend. Perhaps if you're really weirdly into masochistic cranial surgery and spend your evenings happy slapping the elderly or watching toilets flush, you might think a close-up of a bogie is worthy of cinematic distribution.

I'd discuss characterisation, narrative or performances had I not zoned completely out following the lengthy tuna-paste/vagina comparison.


The Daily Mail's Christopher Tookey had some choice things to say about this film, among them "watch it all the way through its 82 miserable minutes, and I guarantee you'll be shaking your head and asking: 'Have we really descended to this?' Yes, we have, for if ever a movie testified to the utter cynicism, tastelessness and moral corruption of those who commission and make British movies, it is this abomination". Tookey continues "aimed squarely at oafs with unwashed underwear, filthy minds and knuckles that graze the pavement when they walk, this sex comedy is so sordid, unfunny and malodorous that it is enough to put you off sex, and indeed films, for life", before concluding "Sex Lives of the Potato Men is not merely a truly vile film, it is symptomatic of a new national culture of instant self-gratification, yobbishness and sadism that is now being celebrated on screen". Normally I don't listen too closely to the critics, but in this case, Tookey was bang on the money. This film goes beyond bad, indeed, it goes beyond being merely unfunny and enters some bizarre parallel universe where every painful minute drags on for an hour and where the definition of 'hilarious' seems to be 'saying tw*t in a Brummie accent'. It's depressing to anyone with half a brain who grew up with the Goodies, Monty Python, Spitting Image, Not the Nine O'Clock News and Fawlty Towers.

Ideally, Sex Lives Of the Potato Men would have quietly vanished after its cinema release and joined the equally dire Vix spin-off The Fat Slags (2004) and the ill-starred All Saints vehicle Honest (2000) in the celluloid graveyard, but as it seems destined for endless late night schedule-filling screenings and misguided "best film EVER!" raves from people who should know better, so I must apologise in advance for trying to right a wrong that the British film industry, in all its wisdom, has inflicted onto an undeserving world. Yes, I really am sorry to bring this one back from the celluloid dead, but I actually remember thinking "It can't be as bad as the critics said it was"...but, as God is my witness, it was WORSE.

Acting - dire from start to finish, special mention to Mackenzie 'Albert Steptoe's legs on a young man's body' Crook.

Soundtrack - cut and paste 'ladrock', mostly ska-based lager-lout-friendly pub jukebox piffle which brought back horrible memories of seeing those chirpy cockernee doin' the Lambeth Walk to a watered-down imitation of the Specials knob-shiners Madness on every single comedy / variety programme in the eighties...and 'Ace Of Spades' by Motorhead as the title music? What the hell...trying to evoke memories of one of the most genuinely exciting scenes ever offered by The Young Ones, indeed, ever offered by ANY comedy show?! Cheap shot, way below the belt.

Script - written by a 12 year old who's just read every single back issue of Smut and Zit in one long Red Bull-fuelled session...SURELY? C'mon, no real, proper, worldly, grown-up person could possibly set this kind of retarded hogwash on paper? And Mark Gatiss was in it...Mark Gatiss...the least annoying member of the League of Gentlemen and Goodies fan taking part in such a towering heap of fly-blown cinematic excrement? 'One of the brightest British comedy stars'? Not any more he's not! On the subject of League Of Gentlemen, somebody give me a pair of lead-lined diver's boots and Steve 'face like a collapsed rectum' Pemberton and a long weekend in a soundproofed room before I die...PLEASE...

Cinema, British or otherwise, just doesn't come much worse than this. Kent Bateman's The Headless Eyes (1971) is a new-wave masterpiece compared to this repugnant smut.


There are no spoilers for this film as nothing could be written that could make it any worse! The dictionary definition of "puerile" should now read: "sex lives of the potato men"! Unless, that is, you like dog poo and mucous; in which case - this is the film to see! Johnny Vegas et all - what WERE you thinking!


Sometimes when a film is panned by the critics one just has to see it to see if it is really as bad as the claim, well in this case it was. I believe it was meant to be a sex comedy but it was neither sexy nor funny, I think I chuckled once when Johnny Vegas failed to vault a roadside fence and that was it.

The film follows the lives of four men who deliver potatoes for a living, each of them has a problem with their sex lives; Dave has left his wife and seeks out an old flame who once invited him for a threesome a few years before, Ferris is living with his mother in law who treats him as a sex object, Tolly has an obsession for involving strawberry jam in his encounters and Jeremy claims to be in a loving relationship but is in fact stalking some poor woman.

The tone of the jokes varies from tasteless to "I don't believe that anybody could write that" an example of the the latter being when they tell a small child his father has died in a car crash, then for the punch line when the boy asks how his mum is they tell him she is in a coma. The blame for this all lands squarely at the feet of the writers, the actors obviously made a poor choice agreeing to be in this film but I didn't think their acting was all that bad... not that it was all that good either. Surprisingly for a fairly sleazy film about sex there is no nudity and the sex is never erotic.

I certainly wouldn't recommend seeing this for any reason other than morbid curiosity although judging from other reviews this seems to be a love it or loathe it film, I suspect it would be better watched after a few beers and with your mates.


Oh Sex Lives of the Potato Men, what foul demon created thee? This is a film that you watch, smirk a little during the runtime and then when you mention it to others having seen it, you just cannot help but smile as you talk. But it's not that Sex Lives of the Potato Men is actually a funny film and one that inspires you to smile when talking or thinking about it, it's just that the film is so bizarre; is so insulting and is no shameless in its attempt to get across a meek laugh to do with sex and sex lives in general that you just cannot help but have your mouth break out into a grin. Do bear in mind that what follows the smirk is a sinking of the head; a consequent shake of the head and a raise of the index finger and thumb to both eyebrows as you gently rub them in an attempt to reminisce about your time watching this trash.

But that's what the film is, it's trash; it's very brave and shameless trash but trash none-the-less. Whoever came up with this idea, put it to paper and then spread it around the industry trying to get it made must either be very brave or very desperate. It's strange to have a film that is most definitely 'about' something but one that does not have, under any sort of circumstance, a decisive narrative. This follows on from that idea that most of European cinema is artistic and its stories are ambiguous and open-ended and themes take precedence over most other things. In Sex Lives of the Potato Men, the same situation and technically the same joke are replayed over and over again and that is an ideation that consists of: 'sex is a very, very funny thing.' These ideas are perhaps more suited to an American film so it's no wonder that after a while watching this film, things start to feel a little out of sorts.

The film begins and ends in the same manner, creating a feeling of a circular journey; a circular journey that has gone absolutely nowhere and absolutely nothing has been achieved. Three blokes sit around a table talking and what-not. Their boss joins them and the conversation is limited to whatever crude and disgusting stories, situations or scenarios each can possibly think of. The odd thing here, being that whenever one man says something nasty, the other grimaces but has an equally filthy story to give in return creating a contradiction in what these men find to cross the line and what they do not. The men are Dave (Vegas) and Ferris (Crook), two people joined by Tolly (Coleman) whenever the film sees fit to throw in a third face to crack some more nasty sex jokes or break some peculiar stories. They are employed by Jeremy (Gattis), a man who has deeper issues and problems but issues of which the film is more concerned with exploiting for the sake of humour rather than study.

So what's the situation in Sex Lives of the Potato Men? The three to four men are in a crisis and for the duration of the film, we will adopt the role of the hapless fly on the wall as we witness what foul play these people get up to over the period of about a week. If the humour revolving around Dave and Ferris is disgusting and repulsive, then for Jeremy things are just spooky. It all begins rather innocently and it appears there is a female he likes and one who equally likes him in return but when the essence that Jeremy is merely a stalker creeps in, that's when the jaws drop. The character of Jeremy is used and put across in a way that makes unrequited love and stalking in general merely look 'funny'. Jeremy sits in his apartment listening to classical music and writing out letters of abuse to Ruth (Davis), echoing some sort of psychotic persona more associated with Hannibal Lecter writing his letter's to Clarice in 2001's Hannibal. But whatever sympathy we might have for him at this point is rendered absolutely false when, later on, it is revealed the true origin of their relationship. Suddenly, we as an audience feel cheated into feeling a mite sorry for him earlier on and for whatever reason he did do what he did in the first place just seems cowardly and distasteful. To say what it was would ruin whatever few surprises lurk within the film.

Quite sad how, in one of Jeremy's letters, he writes about something-or-other exclaiming it to have "No artistic vision  just one big mess". I hate it when words said by the characters echo the film they're in. Sex Lives of the Potato Men does not explore someone's psyche or particular interest in a fetish or why they feel the need to go around having as much sex as possible, it just uses them as a front to pile on ridiculously unfunny jokes and situations. Rather than take group sex and explore what drives a person to seek it down, it makes a daft joke out of it (tickets with numbers on!?); rather than get into the mindset of a fan of Sadomasochism, the film has someone hang from a basement ceiling and warn everyone of 'incoming salt and vinegar' as he climaxes. Ferris covers his face in disgust and the camera fades to the next scene without too much of a fuss. It's a relief the film got to no audiences abroad. This is one section of British culture, indeed of the British mentality that I pray will be confined to our shores and ignored accordingly.


Now i like Johnny Vegas which is a good start, I also enjoy toilet humour

Such as Young Ones and Bottom etc. This however failed to bring even a

small smile to my face. The story follows Johnny around after his wife

chucks him out (how he got his good looking wife and kid i dont know)

as he attempts to shag anything that moves. Failing normally. I was looking forward to this but found it to be totally boring and a waste

of my time altogether. Unless you are stuck for something to do for 90 mins apart from wash the car then dont bother.....


The unfunniest so called comedy I've ever seen

Not a patch on the naturalism of the hilariously dare Twin Town

Vegas I ;like normally but this script is so dire so predictable so well English in the worst way (In recent years the English films have been awful all of them) Ireland at least produced the commitments, Scotland with Braveheart and Trainspotting 2 stand out great movies and Wales had Twin Town, Zulu, Last Days of Dolwyn , Torchwood, Doctor Who and Under Milk Wood etc

The comedy is paint by numbers, the actors are dead men walking because there is no characterisation and no originality and it's just so unfunny

England is falling behind no matter how many grim up north movies they produce. It's the old class system that destroys English films. The Oxbridge graduates spewing endlessly clichéd scripts about working class people they've never lived with. It is pathetic. Monty Python wasn't funny, neither was anything from Oxbridge.

Let guys like Jonny Vegas and Peter Kay, Rob Brydon, Billy Connolly or write their own dialogue and forget the archaic failed class system let the working class people and the real talent that comes through the system properly take over the writing and the British and English film industries will rise again what next prince Edward to write a modern day Oliver Twist?


The other day I showed my boyfriend a great movie, Stand By Me, a movie I have shown to many people and they absolutely adored it, but for some odd reason he didn't like it. He lends me a movie called Backdraft and he tells me that he's shown it to many people and they loved it, instead I hated this movie. I don't think I've hated a movie so much in a while, how this movie has even a 6.6 rating is beyond me. I couldn't keep up with the five million stories here: Billy Baldwin becoming a fire man, the random sibling rivalry, the random love story(s), the who's being an arson story, the investigator, the fire who has a personality of it's own. I just have a problem that this movie can't keep up with all these stories, they didn't balance out well enough make the film interesting. I would have just preferred if this movie was about being a firefighter or the investigator and how he came to be one or what it is exactly he does and why.

The movie tells the story of a group of Chicago firefighters, two brothers. Stephen "Bull" McCaffrey, the elder brother, is obsessed with the beating of the fires that he fights. Brian, the younger brother quit the fire fighting academy school several years before, then embarking on a number of other unsuccessful careers before returning to become a firefighter. He is looked down on by his elder brother who expects him to fail in his newly chosen career as a fire fighter. Donald "Shadow" Rimgale is an arson investigator who is dedicated to his profession. He is called in because a number of fires that have occurred have somewhat similar connections. .Martin Swayzak is an alderman on the City Council. He has obvious hopes of being elected to mayor, but has had to make a number of budget cuts to the fire department. Many of the rank and file firemen believe that the cuts that he has made are endangering the lives of the firefighters. However, Swayzak is initially successful in portraying the fire department as bloated and ineffectual after firemen are repeatedly being killed in blazes.

I just couldn't get into this movie, I don't know how anyone else could, it was incredibly unrealistic and portrayed firefighters all wrong. I loved how they had every action cliché in the book to match this action flick. I just felt also like there was great talent wasted on such mediocre roles, Donald Sutherland, great actor, but such a strange role that could have been taken by a lesser known man who had the upcoming talent at the time. I know Ron was going for great quality, but I think him casting such huge actors in small roles was a mistake for this film. I even had to joke my way through while watching this movie commenting how the doctor in the background was probably Kevin Spacey. The fire was so unrealistic and the movie was just so out there, I didn't enjoy it and honestly wouldn't recommend it to people, I'll stick to the recommendations in my relationship from this point on.

2/10


I loved this movie when I was a teenager. LOVED it. It hasn't grown up with me, though. Maybe that's because it's a melodramatic load of old rubbish, full of macho posturing, cheesy dialogue, overwrought slo-mo and characters saying 'Goddammit' a lot. The lumpy narrative blobs gracelessly from one character to another, one plot strand to another, without ever bringing it all together, and it doesn't help that William Baldwin's mono-expression of a performance is wet enough to put out every fire in the movie's overlong runtime. Robert DeNiro and Donald Sutherland are worth watching, but no one's really at the top of their game here, and the women folk get particularly short thrift. The only real impact comes from the impressive firefighting sequences, and Hans Zimmer's majestic score, which remains one of my all-time favourites.


If You can watch a film without worrying about the plot, or corny acting, then Backdraft is definitely the one.

However, if, like me, you like watching films that you can believe, then Backdraft has some serious flaws. It doesn't offer anything new, and there are hundreds of 90's action films that follow identical formulas, whilst not being quite as clunky.

After two firefights, i'm thinking, this has got to go somewhere else, i mean, how many big fires are there in one city? Surely firemen do other things, such as getting cats out of trees? Well I was wrong, and the repetition continues again and again, up until the end.

A good aspect of the film is the fire itself, well filmed, and I must say i felt quite hot while watching it, which suggests that two hours of watching fire without a story or acting would have been more suited to my taste.


The basic plot is good and can be engaging. The music is so great that it became the theme music for the TV show IRON CHEF (though it is WAY overused and too intrusive in the movie). So, how did this movie end up so poor?!?! Well, the plot was about 95% predictable and the characters were about as 1-dimensional as possible. And the dialog?! What person would actually allow themselves to receive credit for coming up with the STUPID macho bull-crap that purports to be dialog? You get much greater realism from most cartoons! The bottom line is that this movie has some good points but is so marred by hackneyed clichés and rotten dialog that it quickly becomes tiresome. And, this is a shame, because firemen deserve a better tribute than this mess! If you don't believe me, look at the number of goofs listed on IMDb for this movie--WAY in excess of what you'd expect to find. They just didn't care enough to work out all the kinks and problems. So, as a result the movie seems rushed and in need of a re-write and re-editing.


The man who gave us Splash, Cocoon and Parenthood gave us this incoherent muddle of cliched characters, poor plotting, you've-got-to-be-kidding dialogue and melodramatic acting? I guess everybody has a bad day at the office now and then. He's allowed.


When I first watched this film, I thought that it would be rally good, because it featured my favourite actor of all time. He gives a sterling performance, though it is fairly obvious he didn't have to life more than half a finger to make the róle work. He is the only good thing in it, unlesss you're into explosions and American dream-working class hero trash (which I'm not).

I don't get it. How can this film get away with being so naf. That bit with the little boy being rescued, I mean, come on! You can't tell me that he would have been rescued without the fire-guy wearing any goggles (I know for a fact that it would have been pitch black in there and you can't see for more than a couple of feet infront of you) and no breathing equipment (he'd have choked after 2 minutes!). This film was just bad, OK?

Why Robert? WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY????!!!!

Sorry if this is your favourite film.


Beautiful images, propaganda and history as toy. The ingredients of this film, good, interesting but with many shadows. Politicall shadows. Jefferson is more than the hero of a mythical America. He is silhouette of a vision about life and society, an extraordinary thinker, teacher of large part of North America. In film is only Superman. The delicate contour of ideas are crushed. The subtle birth of essential truth is forgotten. And Jefferson is basic instrument for create a good image of American realities. The end,triumphal and fake, romance and heroic, is gun suicide of a story who may be tall with more wisdom. And the war against "Avatar" is another gray stain. For one who heard nothing about Jefferson, movie is a good beginning. For the others - disillusion. It is like the precious silk of a tailor. But the tailor is fascinating about silk and the clothes are only ordinary cloth. So, a sad experience. Slices of beauty and boring lakes, patriotic lesson and the crush of expectation. A film who must impressive. And the ash of a story who could be magnificent.