This is a new approach to comedy. It isn't funny.

The joke is that this, in and of itself, is supposed to be funny.

The story is based on a French short story, located in Paris, and the characters have French names. Louis Aubinard, for example ... played by ... Bob Hoskins? The movie also stars the equally French Jeff Goldblum and Natasha Richardson. The situations are similar to and the characters perform as if in those Carry-On movies from years back.

I believe these are also jokes - to cast these actors who make no attempt to act French in any way, to have them cavort in the manner of broad English dance hall comedy, and to leave the whole bloomin' mystery unexplained to the audience.

In the humour department, this is practically the Algonquin Round Table, isn't it?

The movie tries to be charming and quirky, and I guess these characteristics are sort of funny. Not as funny as Duck Soup or Love and Death, perhaps, but funnier than The Deer Hunter or The Battleship Potemkin.

It is an example of personal filmmaking. It makes no real effort to reach out and share with the audience, but stays true to its premise and its internal logic. Although all the situations are unbelievable, they are logical within the film's own bizarro world.

I generally like this kind of eccentric movie, but I found this one to be paced too slowly, to be dull-witted, tedious, and to provide too few pleasurable surprises or genuine wit. It just kind of meanders in predictable and sophomoric ways, and wastes some wonderful talents along the way. It has to be the low point in the career of each of the major stars, who are all otherwise distinguished players. I found it to be the biggest waste of talent since The Betsy, and I wish I had never seen Goldblum and Hoskins in this thing.

So, call it an interesting miss, and pass on it as a rental unless you really have a lot of time to kill.


Relentless like one of those loud action movies. The entire cast seems to be on speed. I didn't quite get the director's intentions if any. I wonder if she's ever seen a Stanley Donen, Vincent Minnelli or even a George Sidney musical. Structure, please! This is one hell of a mess and I loved Abba. The costumes the unflattering photography - unflattering towards the actors but loving towards the locations) The one thing that makes the whole thing bearable is the sight of Meryl Streep making a fool of herself. No chemistry with her friends (Christine Baranski and Julie Walters) think of Streep with Lily Tomlyn in the Altman film and you'll understand what I was hoping for. I was embarrassed in particular by Pierce Brosnam and Colin Firth. The audience, however, seemed to enjoy it so it probably it's just me.


There's no better way to describe the HORRENDOUS experience that's to watch Mamma Mia: Hitler must be looking up, saying to the pseudo-director Phyllida Lloyd 'You monster, what have you done?'

Everything about the movie is wrong. Just Wrong! Even its success, which is unexplainable. I can understand when those crappy parody movies, like Epic Movie, make their minimal share of money and turn profit just because they're cheap (of course they are!). But when something like Mamma Mia makes 450 million dollars worldwide, you think 'what the hell is wrong with the world?'

And to think we have Meryl Streep, one of the greatest alive actresses of the world, in it? What was she thinking? 'I need the money', she could say. Well then, sell one of your grandchildren, even that would be less embarrassing. It's not that Meryl is good in a disastrous piece of, err, 'movie'. She's also disastrous! When she sings, even though she's got the vocals, it's ridiculous. Worse than her only Pierce Brosnan. He used to be James Bond. Now he's singing Abba in a purple spandex during the credits of the worst movie ever. Really? And when I mention Abba, not that I have anything against the band and their music. Though it doesn't help them when actors started singing (badly), dancing (worse) and the extras join then (They pop out of nowhere! Frequently!) to present one terrible musical sequences after the other. You wanna cry when the music starts. And I love musicals! But this is the first in the genre where you PRAY for actual silence.

I could keep going. The list goes on forever. You could write a Stephen King novel with the complete list of mistakes in this movie.

To sum up: go watch it! Really! You've got to witness to understand!! And since it's already a huge success, who cares if it makes a few more dollars from you? And it's not liking you're selling your soul to the devil. Meryl did that before. For the whole mankind. And now the world must end, because we've committed the ultimate evil and we must be destroyed.


Everyone knows the so-called plot, so let me cut to the chase.

Forced frivolity. Miscast performers working hard to have fun so you can have fun. The brilliant Meryl Streep gives it a great try. Pierce Brosnan just plain embarrassing. Inexplicably set on a Greek Island. Lots of squealing, shrieking women. Lots.

It was a silly juke box musical on stage, now it's a big, splashy, poorly shot screen juke box musical. If you like ABBA, so-so. If not, an assault on the senses and an insult to whatever intelligence you're left with when you exit the theater. I readily admit that I didn't really want to see this movie and went with some friends who did, but for the love of God. Why does my gender shriek and squeal to convey delight? Ever sit next to a table of women who have had too much to drink and are absolutely determined to have GREAT night out on the town? That's the feeling of this whole project. It just felt so good when it stopped.


I don't know where most of you were at, but where I watched the film we didn't have people singing as some have told they experienced, we had people laughing, mostly at the campy plot line, the horrible dance sequences and the singing of the likes of Brosnan. The only people in the audience who seemed to be enthralled with the film were the seventies generation folks who were some how reliving the past with the songs. I was a DJ in the seventies and even went to the ABBA concert at Northlands Coliseum in Edmonton in Sept of 79, so I did appreciate them then and I still do now. But this film should have gone the same way as their marriages and ended in divorce. The sequences were so poorly staged, the dubbing and editing absolutely horrible and this has to be Meryl's worst production. I cannot believe an academy award winner would stoop so low as to do this piece of garbage. So save your money, wait for it to come out on DVD and then maybe spend your money on something better, like cat litter.


I love musicals, all of them, from joyous Oklahoma, to Poignant Porgy and Bess, to the touching romantic "Damn Yankees." And I know most of the songs, sometimes singing them spontaneously, with a crowd or humming them alone.

In a "real" musical, as differentiated from this vaudeville show, every song is painstakingly crafted to fit the exact moment. It is an expression of sadness, regret, love, joy or exaltation--a natural extension where mere words fail. So, in Guys and Dolls, "My Time of Day" describes the adventurous life of Sky Masterson as it is about to be compromised by the most unlikely woman. Every song in this brilliant exemplar of the genre sets a mood, or develops a character, creating a phantasmagoria of place, turned absolutely believable by the self disclosing evocations of song.

For this lover of the Broadway Musical, and their adaptations to the screen during the last half of the 20th century, Mama Mia is somewhere between satire and a cruel fun house distortion of the genre. There, the songs of these musicals advanced the often elaborate, often delightful, plot lines. While here, the songs, simply picked up from a collection, only interfered with the shaky premise of the film.

Perhaps most of those viewers who are making this film into a monumental success simply have no exposure to the art form of 20th century Musicals. They have no idea of the magic performed by writer and lyricist that can turn a dance hall floozy into someone whom we know and love, as achieved in "Sweet Charity."

Let me offer an apology for the arrogance of this review. Perhaps, another day, another mood, I could have gotten into it, and not have been so critical in this review.

But I can't help but imagining what Richard Roger, Oscar Hammerstein, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin and so many others could have done even with with this silly premise. I think about it, while the memories of seeing this film is fresh, and I can not help but to mourn the great loss.


After sitting through this film, I have decided that it is one of the WORST movies I have ever seen. I knew it the moment I was subjected to three teenage girls screaming and overacting when they (OMG!) meet again, and then watching the same thing, only done by women old enough to be my mom. And that was only the first few minutes. Yeesh. So here are my comments...

1. Middle aged women + ridiculous dance moves complete with hip thrusts and over the top costumes = not a good idea.

2. Pierce Brosnan could not sing his way out of a paper bag. Nor could practically anyone else in this pile of excrement, for that matter.

3. The songs were so random. It was obvious to me that they were thrown, willy nilly, into the incredibly contrived and STUPID plot.

4. My three year old nephew could have written a better script.

I was either cringing or laughing derisively during the movie. And I normally really like movie musicals. Of course they are bound to be a bit corny...but this was ridiculous. What a waste of talent. I mean, you have great actors and actresses in this movie...I am embarrassed for them that this is now a part of their career. I regret wasting my money and time on this piece of crap.


This movie is pathetic not because it's poorly directed, acted, sung, danced, filmed, etc ... but because it's really difficult to ruin a movie using an ABBA soundtrack - yet, unfortunately, this is the only thing the movie succeeds in doing. The musical presentations in the movie, SouthPark, was much better than in Mama Mia. The director of Mama Mia is proof that you don't need talent to be a director - all you need are ABBA songs.

Just to give a sample of the awfulness: An aging Meryl Streep is shot with close-ups in the harsh sunlight singing and just ruining the song with all the distracting wrinkles on her face. Why do that to one of the most talented Actresses out there?


Having avoided seeing the movie in the cinema, but buying the DVD for my wife for Xmas, I had to watch it. I did not expect much, which usually means I get more than I bargained for. But 'Mamma Mia' - utter, utter cr**. I like ABBA, I like the songs, I have the old LPs. But this film is just terrible. The stage show looks like a bit of a musical, but this races along with songs hurriedly following one another, no characterisation, the dance numbers (which were heavily choreographed according to the extras on the DVD) are just thrown away with only half the bodies ever on screen, the dance chorus of north Europeans appear on a small Greek island at will, while the set and set up of numbers would have disgraced Cliff Richard's musicals in the sixties!Meryl (see me I'm acting)Streep can't even make her usual mugging effective in an over-the-top musical! Her grand piece - 'The Winner Takes It All' - is Meryl at the Met! Note to director - it should have been shot in stillness with the camera gradually showing distance growing between Streep and Brosnan! Some of the singing is awful karaoke on amateur night. The camera cannot stop moving like bad MTV. One can never settle down and just enjoy the music, enthusiasm and characters. But what is even worse is how this botched piece of excre**** has become the highest grossing film in the UK and the best selling DVD to boot? Blair, Campbell and New Labour really have reduced the UK to zombies - critical faculties anyone???


I cannot remember a more trivial, mind numbing and shallow film in other words a real chick flick of the worst kind. How can anyone watch this film and recommend it to others ? Only if they don't like admitting they made a mistake. It seems to summarise the worst of female aspirations. No real substance to it all happy and shallow. Yeah that'll please the masses. Well not this member of the masses. What a trivial load of drivel. I wanted to leave the cinema within 5 minutes of the start. And to think I paid £7 to see this ! I think this does however represent the dumbing down of cinema as with most media these days. So I like a bit of reality in my musicals call me sad or what ?


I do not remember, at least in the last ten years or so, a movie that I have liked less than Mama Mia. From the non-existent acting to the atrocious singing, I was cringing at least once per minute. I don't believe I could even recall one brief segment that I tolerated. I do know that I will never watch this disaster again. I cannot believe that with such high expectations due to the talent - Colin Firth, Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, that a movie could be such a flop. But to see the lack of acting skills shown, the seemingly drug-induced dancing, and then, horrors of horrors, to hear the singing of Pierce Brosnan(!), I cannot see how this movie will not make it into the hall of shame. Definitely, a movie that never should have been made, and just in case you missed it the first time, one that I will never watch again.


The supposed writer and director Mr.Dhawan has copied almost the whole plot of the blockbuster Hollywood movie "HITCH" starring Will Smith. Many scenes are also exactly the same. The plot was just copy pasted and some low grade humor(probably mr.Dhawan's own creation) and frequent dancing was added to increase the movie time to local standards.

Although Salman khan and Govinda's acting did give us some smiles, however it does not suit legendary artists like them to be a part of plagiarism, specially when they themselves keep telling people to stop buying pirated discs!


The Movie is not bad in itself...till you see the original movie Hitch(2005) starring Will Smith. The movie is a straight copy with even the dialogs for most part of the movie simply translated from English to Hindi! The plot in the original is tightly executed. The Hindi version fails to keep the viewers interested. The over-the-top kind of comedy of David Dhawan seems to have gone overboard with Govinda hysterically shouting at all times...sometimes more time is spent in understanding the reason for that than the plot. :)

If you know English, which I assume you know given that you are reading this, see the Hollywood original. At least watch "Hitch" if you have watched Partner to be able to compare. This is the least we can do to support the creative geniuses whose work, I am sad to say, is shamelessly lifted by "inspired" people like David Dhawan.


This movie was recommended to me so we went to see it together. I wouldn't call it a movie, it's more like a combination of 10 different unfinished, illogical stories, which are not all that funny. There're several characters in the movie who looked important in the beginning, and they just disappeared from the story. He's just trying too hard to fit everything in 2 1/2 hours. I left the show without wondering what happened to this and that guy.

I think this movie is just an extended version of "Hitch", padded with a lot more characters and dancing.

If this is the best movie that this couple has ever made, then I'm pretty sure I'm not interested in any of his previous ones.


This movie is widely admonished as being a copy of the Will Smith feature Hitch. That movie was dull.

This movie isn't so much dull as unbearable. Govinda looks way past his prime. He is not at his best doing roles like this. It is similarly unconvincing as his performance in Deewana Mastana.

Salman Khan is at his eye-aching "best". And that's in the few scenes where he remembers to put clothes on. It could only have been through nepotism that this eye-sore's scenes could be saved from the trash bin of any movie's cutting floor.

Another case of Bollywood embarrassing itself with it's shameless cloning. Another case of the Bollywood audience majority embarrassing themselves by making this a hit.


First of all let us discuss about the story. It is a copy of the movie "Hitch" with an added Indian Flavor to it. One guy, who is a Love guru, and another man who is seemingly a sucker when it comes to ladies, and how this seemingly sucker becomes a charmer with the help of the love guru forms the story. Salman Khan is the love guru, and Govinda is the lame guy.

Now coming to artists' performance, Salman Khan overacts throughout the movie, he tries to be funny, but fails big time. You can see Salman shouting throughout the movie, no real acting is seen in his performance. Govinda pairs opposite Katrina Kaif(Oh, my god, she is one heck of a girl. A real Beauty)is in real life a 50 year old dude, and Katrina is a girl in her early twenties. In the movie Govinda looks like Grandpa of Katrina Kaif. What a pity! Coming to Execution of the movie. This movie feels like a B-Movie, and a poor imitation of the movie Hitch. Where Hitch looks like a movie with a purpose and depth, this movie is shallow and purposeless, nowhere there is justification or clarity.

Just forget this movie, for it is nothing but boring, typical Bollywood fare. Actually I give 3/10 because this is the lowest I go.


Honestly, I have to admit that I go and see certain stupid films based on the hype they have generated or are currently generating. This dumb Salman Khan & Govinda feature is one of those stupid films. Okay, by now we've all seen 'Hitch' starring Will Smith as a date doctor trying to help out odd people find true. Then why would we need to see Salman Khan re-enact this? Therein lies the $64,000 question. In case you were wondering, Govinda plays the oddball in search of the love of his life (an unreachable socialite) played by Katrina Kaif.

Lara Dutta is along to play Sallu's Eva Mendes, and Sallu's real-life love Kaif pretty much plays her character like every role you've see her in thus far, no stretch no acting required. And for nearly three and a half hours we get tortured with spoofs of other Bollywood films and characters or better yet we get treated to low rate performances of past hit films. Rajpal Yadav co-stars. F


There wasn't a 0 in the voting option so i was compelled to use the next available figure.

It is a sad day for bollywood when such type of movies which have star-cast actors is nothing more are than a bunch of juvenile acting, and an awful script.

This movie is nowhere near to be called a clone of Hitch. Salman khan with his usual take-off-you-shirt theme and Govinda with his in-humorous laughs. If somebody had told 2 decades ago that I would be writing a comment on Salman (after his success with Maine Pyar Kiya), I would have written him/her off.


Talk about over acting...!!!! not just by Govinda, but also by Salman and Lara....The direction was awful. The first half hour you would pretty much want to switch the movie off..because this movie is a real stinker (mark my words.

I liked Govinda in some o his comedy roles like Haseena Maan Jaayegi, Jodi No. 1, Akhiyon se Goli Maare and Jis Desh Mein Ganga Rehta Hai and this does not compare to any of them. And Salman Khan should not do comedy roles at all!! He sucks. He does not know how to do comedy. The only good comedy role he did was in Andaz Apna Apna, which was brilliant next to Amir Khan.

There were so many 'overly done stupidly unfunny' scenes in this movie that make you want to take out the DVD and burn it so no one else in your house watches it ever again.


This is another Bollywood remake of a Hollywood movie. Hitch...If I'm correct.

The film has some great moments which will have you laughing out loud which frankly only come from Govinda who has become a legend within Indian Cinema and will always bring his A game in terms of comedies. Another bonus is Rajpal Yadav; who is hilarious as the gangster who mimics 'Don', an Indian icon of cinema. Lara Dutta is a plus...I know I sound shallow but its mainly because I have a soft spot for her, she tries to be funny but its seems to be forced. Her acting is weak...but she still shines. Salman Khan is atrocious, he tries to bring the cool, charming depths but fails miserably, he over acts and keeps shouting for no apparent reason.

'Thats not acting mate, thats called being mentally challenged'

Katrina Kaif is just bad...not very good at anything. No charisma, no talent..and I don't see why people consider her pretty... The plot was far fetched and I had a hard time believing that Katrina's character was remotely attracted to Govinda. The only good thing is the music...'You're my love' was the best in the soundtrack.


This is not a good movie. It is a tried remake of the English movie 'The Hitch'. But it insults the original one. This is hardly a movie you expect from a veteran director like 'David Dhawan' who is credited to directing good movies like "Raja Babu", "Coolie No.1", "Hero No. 1"...

The main theme for this movie is taken from "The Hitch" with some changes so as to appeal to the Indian audience but somehow the story and the screenplay is not convincing enough. Plus the acting from the lead roles i.e. Salman Khan and Govinda is pitiful. It seems that they need the slightest provocation to remove their shirts to reveal their bare chest. I do not consider this fascinating and least of all comic. What was the director thinking ? Added to this the viewers have to bear the case of Govinda's Over-acting. It was simply unbearable. I ADVISE THE VIEWERS TO WATCH IT AT YOUR OWN RISK. My rating of 2 for this movie could be considered to be a very generous one.

Instead I would advise the viewers to watch the English movie "Hitch" which is a lot better.


Soon after this movie was released,Salman Khan was handed over a 6 Year Imprisonment.(Read further to know why am i mentioning this.)

And i heaved a sigh of relief.Not that i was happy that he got jail for something which because he was a celeb but i was happy cus this meant No more Salman Khan movies,no more his histrionics and no more over hyped Acting(read Overacting).

This movie made no sense whatsoever.

The scene where the kid belonging to one of the family makes a rocket which was voice activated .According to the movie script it would chase anyone.But ultimately it finds only Salman Khan Bare Chested. Well this is what happened.

The Rocked gets activated in another foolish way and you have to have an IQ of .001 to believe that. Then it chases Salman Khan ,who was on his water scooter and the chase continues unless he is done with all the possible stunts he could show to foolish audience. (In my regard all those people who have given this movie 5 and above ,unless they are paid to do that.)

Another of breath taking ,unbelievable scene was at the end when all the arrangements about the marriage is made and Salman Khan with Govinda in Disguise comes and stall the marriage by another of those highly unwanted songs .Later on even though everything is done and ready a mere confession of govinda and Katrina Kaif to katrina's Father and Bingo . Everything is fine and Govinda marries Kartina....

This made me wonder if convincing was so easy why did not they do that and tortured us for so many hours and wasted my Money.

This movie is must avoid and don't even think it had any scene worth watching . The plot is way too disconnected with characters popping from no where and ultimately vanishing..for ex Choota don...What a waste of characters.

After this movie i took a pledge that i would not watch Salman khan Movies for the rest of my life unless it wins an Oskar...(hahahah...which means i would never watch)


I just don't know how this stupid, crap, junk, garbage & good for nothing film is a blockbuster. It was so boring with a very, very weak (or no) story-line and wasn't even a jot funny. The film was about 135 minutes of only a paragraph of story about Prem (Salman Khan) is a love guru and is helping hapless & romantic Bhaskar (Govinda) to get the girl he wants. I'm not saying that I didn't like the film because it wasn't funny or anything, I will accept a movie that is not funny but has a decent story. The only two reasons why I can say it's a super-hit are:

1. Salman Khan & Govinda are on-screen together but there first time together was in Salaam e Ishq which was a flop so it can't be. But it was a really good movie.

2. Salman Khan's name is Prem and all the films with that name have been a hit including Maine Pyar Kiya. So it's just luck.

I heard that it's a remake of Hitch, I've not seen it & I'm glad I didn't. Music is OK the only good songs are Do you want a partner, You're my love & Soni De Nakhre but what is the use of it in a really bad film, that too, if you have someone like Katrina Kaif who dances with two left feet? She is completely crap. Neither she knows acting, language (her voice is always dubbed for her), dance and always fails to impress. I do not like her one bit she was even disappointing in Koffee with Karan. Overall Partner is a disposable film with a disposable actress Katrina Kaif. Its better off that she is kicked out of Bollywood and never comes back again.


David Dhawan copied HITCH and such an unofficial copy The film isn't even 1/2 as funny or amusing as the original it's boring with forced stories like the Lara track of having a child and no hubby Plus there is an unwanted stupid Chota DON and David tries to choke drama too but the film looks disjointed, boring

Songs just pop in, so does romance and everything barring some funny Govinda scenes, the dance before interval nothing else is worth mentioning The last few scenes are quite funny but there tend to get too long

David's direction is as bad as MAINE PYAAR KYUN KIYAA, he needs to change his style or attempt something good Music is saving grace, some songs are good but the situations seem forced

Govinda looks overweight and seems too loud and screams his lines in initial reels but he gets into the groove and gives his best in the office and the scene with Salman in his cabin and towards the end

Salman just plays himself and his nasal tone plus his fake style of acting is a headache

Lara is avoidable, Katrina is fake as usual

The kid overacts


If you are planning to watch 'Partner' and are on IMDb reading reviews about it, you have already wasted too much time over this stupid, idiotic, awful movie.

It's a horrible, horrible, horrible copy of the movie 'Hitch.' I choose to ignore all the other warnings and bad reviews I had heard about this movie, and wasted a precious 20 minutes on it - I thought that after all its David Dhawan who is making it, and it has Govinda - how bad can it be? But after 20 minutes of watching this nonsense, I couldn't take it any more, and turned off my computer.

Overacting by everyone in the movie, stupid dialogues, total time waste - I gave it a 1-star rating because that's the lowest you can do. If I could go lower, I would have given it a -100 rating.


I didn't know what to expect when I started watching this movie, by the end of it I was pulling my hairs out. This was one of the most pathetic movies of this year...in fact, in the last ten years. David Dhawan should just give up his career as a director. I am yet to come across one original script that David Dhawan has worked on. This one was a complete bit y bit rip off Hitch. I have nothing against remakes as such, but this one is just so lousy that it makes you even hate the original one (which was pretty decent). I fail to understand what actors like Salman and Govinda saw in this script. I read somewhere, that this was supposed to be Govinda's comeback vehicle. If thats true, then only God can save his career. Salman just overacted to the hilt. Govinda who I think is an actor of very high caliber was completely wasted. Katrina Kaif and LAra Dutta had nothing to do apart form wearing designer clothes and smiling for no rhyme or reason. Please stay away form this one!


I was really geared up to watch when two of best movie critics tagged this movie as a 'laugh riot'. But the movie turned out be disappointing.

You will be advised to watch this movie keeping your brains at home but you simply can't ignore the flaws and the shortcomings.

1. The missile scene was total stupidity.

2. Katrina Kaif and Govinda pair looked awful. (He's 49 and she's just 24... more than double of her age) 3. Salman's comedy is less of acting and more of overacting.

4. Songs are good but interrupts the pace of the movie.

5. Some scenes were deliberately attempted by the movie makers to be funny, and 6. Poor and flawed story.

However, there are few pluses- 1. Govinda. Great Individual Performance.

2. Some scenes are actually quite funny.

3. Kattrina Kaif. Looks and Acting keeps on improving with every film.

4. Rajpal Yadav's Don sequences. Though under-utilized but hilarious.

So 4 good points, 6 bad ones.. this one gets 4/10.


I watched this movie only coz it was expected to be yet another entertainer by David Dhawan.

Bad Bad comeback by David Dhawan.he has made lots of funny movies in past which made no sense but none of them was a crap bag!! What a waste of talent and beauty it was?Donno why actors agree on doin movie like this.

There was not a whit of practicality in this movie.The movie is below par and not at all justifies the standard and potential Bollywood has.

The only thing worth watching in this movie was katrina but we don't need to watch a movie like this to see her! Being a remake of Hollywood flick Hitch its clear that bollywood directors cant even make a proper remake. I consider this to be the worst ever movie I hv seen. Awful 1/10


The movie is nice Well pictured, but no originality...

this movie is directly copied from "The Hitch" where Salman plays like a Date Dr. like Will Smith, and Govinda like some fat jerk, who is desperate to get in love with her boss by the end the movie comes to an old Indian Flimi style, the bride's father doesn't like the bride's lover and gets some other groom, and Govinda the bride's lover comes in the end and saves her from the new groom and a fancy dance and stuff.

the comedy was real good, no doubt when the hitch meets Hindi would be more funnier....

Ultimately worth a watch but when it comes on TV after few months...


A dull stroll through the banalities of Mormon prosthelatizing. Utterly un-funny. A testament to the widely held theory, that in order for bathroom humor to be funny, it must necessarily be vulgar; it also bolsters the claim that a close relationship with Jesus makes you not funny. More propaganda than film, don't worry about any touchy social issues coming up at the dinner table after this one. The saving grace of this movie is its accurate portrayal of young Mormon females as particularly attractive. Oh well, its your $7.50.


This movie has a look and feel of many "Fresh" directors (closeups and focus on the emotions being experienced by the actors). The point of the film was presented from many angles and expressed well by the relatively inexperienced cast. The point being "Have faith in Jesus Christ and the Morman Church" Oh, and if you read or hear anything contrary to the teachings of the Prophet, it is just Haterade. (Fuel for Hatred)


Okay, I sensed that a film by Mormons, about Mormons, for Mormons would be a disaster waiting to happen, but little did I know how so very painful it would be. A little known fact is that Mormons have always made exceptionally fine propaganda films. The Church's official cinematic campaign has produced rare and lasting gems that transcend the Mormon community, including the wonderful short film "Cipher in the Snow" which ended up making the rounds as an educational film in the late 70's. Then there's Neil LaBute's disturbingly masterful ouvre....

However, the success of these films depended largely on the fact that they didn't focus on Mormons or any specific Mormon theology. Instead they opt to focus on a universal theme and deal with it on a basic human level. "God's Army" abandons any pretext of universality and runs headlong into the stilted and myopic world of the orthodox. While this might be enough to alienate anyone but the most devoted Mormon, director Richard Ductcher's ineptitude as a filmmaker and his juvenile approach to storytelling are sufficient grounds to judge "God's Army" unwatchable by almost any standard.

Dutcher's own appallingly wooden acting sets the tone for his army of the least interesting Mormons you're ever likely to meet. Of course the cast's sorry performances aren't helped any by Dutcher's pathetic script. He should be given credit for not avoiding some of the more controversial aspects of the Church, but, as can be expected, he conveniently frames these controversies in a sympathetic light. It should also come as no surprise that most of the answers to the Church's darker side are addressed with little other than faith. At one point an African-American missionary is scolded by a black couple for joining a church that was segregated up until 1978 (some ten to twenty years after nearly every congregation in the most degenerate parts of the deep South had already done so). Instead of addressing the Church's actively racist history, perhaps the sorest spot in Mormon theology which even Church leaders don't defend anymore, Dutcher's troubled character instead ponders Joseph Smith's murder--an obvious and perhaps outrageous allusion to lynching. Top off this syruppy milktoast with third grader leper jokes passing as comic relief and you have a strong case for the revival of silent films.

If you knew little about Mormons before watching this film, you might become prone to avoiding them at all costs. If you are Mormon, this film offers absolutely nothing to be proud about.


Director / lead actor Dutcher revels in this look-at-me film, wherein he attempts to gain worldly acceptance for tarnishing the otherwise very upbeat world of Mormon missionaries. Some of the acting is fair. But some roles are unrealistic, i.e. the ominous (rather than fatherly) Mission President, etc. The film does give a fair look at how some missionaries may struggle with their faith, but the actual missionary program he claims to represent is far from his concept of it, in terms of being upbeat, cohesive, and inspired. The only inspiration I see in this film is Dutcher's self-inspiration. The film is slow and boring, and the shooting and screenplay look like a college student project.


let me first just say that in the past, i have been a huge carlin fan. i think george is one of the smartest people and best comedians on the planet. what made george so great in the past was his ability to look at things in his own twisted way, and give us his unique perspective on those things. it wasn't always meant to be funny, but you always respected his opinions, because they were presented in such a clever way. but you are all diseased is just a long rant. he doesn't give us any unique perspective on anything, he just gives us a long list of stuff that he's p.o.'d at. there is no insight, no cleverness, just an old man complaining for one hour straight about things that we have all complained about. and on top of that, it wasn't even funny. you are all diseased appeals to dumb people who can't handle anything more advanced than something simple and direct. i don't mind anger fueled comedy, but george could have done so much better. i really hope that george carlin's next show will live up to the quality that george has shown in the past.


It is a movie which sheds the light on the begging of the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation of Palestine but it does not show the real feelings of the people back then and how they were tricked into believing that they could return to their home soon , it does not mention the massacres committed by the Jews like Der Yassine and how they tortured and killed and destroyed the family of any Palestinian freedom fighter it lacks the credibility about the real Palestinian struggle and about anything Palestinian , however it has something about the suffering of Palestinian citizens ending up as refugees in the nearby Arab countries , the movie focuses on the story of the man in coma he is now in the present time and through his story we see the film . The movie is just telling the life of one person and has some nudity scenes which are irrelevant to the story.


Pepe le Moko, played by Charles Boyer, is some sort of international criminal mastermind wanted in countries throughout Europe, and to stay free he holes himself up in the Casbah, a mysterious part of Algiers where even the police are reluctant to go, until a senior officer is sent from Paris to capture le Moko once and for all. For le Moko, although the Casbah allows him to remain out of police custody, it also becomes a sort of prison at the same time - a place he can't leave, because the moment he does, he knows he'll be arrested.

Boyer's performance was good, and I can understand why he was nominated for an Oscar. He captures the essence of such a character - a perfect combination of very dangerous and yet very classy at the same time. The movie itself, unfortunately, was quite a letdown. A number of parts of the story seemed inconsistent, of which I'll mention two. First was the idea that the police wouldn't enter the Casbah. That was stated pretty clearly at the beginning of the film by the local commander, and yet repeated references in the movie suggest that in fact the police did enter the Casbah fairly regularly. So, neither the suggestion by Commissioner Janvier that the police wouldn't enter, nor the statement by Inspector Slimane (also a decent performance by Joseph Calleia) that they could get into the Casbah but not out seemed to make much sense. I also found it difficult to believe that le Moko - hardened criminal mastermind that he was - could be so quickly swept off his feet by Gaby (Hedy Lamarr) to the point where he entertains the local populace by singing love songs and then leaves the Casbah to find her, essentially giving himself up. I understand the irony of the final few scenes, of course, as Pepe leaves the freedom of his prison (the Casbah) only to find real freedom in his capture (because he's shot and killed by the police.) I just found it impossible to believe that someone like le Moko would fall into such a trap.

This is worth watching for Boyer, and to a lesser extent Calleia, but the story is disappointing and inconsistent. 3/10


Algiers is not a classic, it is a perversion of the wonderful original Pepe le Moko, directed by Duvivier and starring a much more attractive and charming Pepe, Jean Gabin. If you want to fully experience the Casbah and the characters in Algiers, I recommend you don't even watch this movie and see Pepe le Moko instead, for it is much more elaborate, more beautifully filmed, the lines are not clichéd and the characters adhere much more to reality. Furthermore, the ending is so dramatic and key to Pepe's character that you'll find the Algiers version intolerable. Although Algiers does an almost excellent job mimicking each scene, the acting falls short as does the credibility of the characters. Plus, the wardrobe is truly breath-taking in all scenes, particularly Pepe's in the last scene and Gaby's (at all times) but also when she's on the boat. Frankly, Algiers is cheap as far as imitations go.


Atmosphere and droll dialog don't redeem this overrated classic. Boyer is a French thief hiding in the Casbah of Algiers while the police try to figure out how to get him out. Meanwhile, he falls for Lamarr and tries to find a way to escape. The film is slow to get started and never really goes anywhere. Reminiscent of Casablanca in some ways, it's completely lacking any larger theme than the wanted man seducing a good woman. It's all talk-talk-talk, with endless scenes of Boyer swaggering among his idiot cohorts and Boyer wooing Lamarr in the shadows. Personally, I didn't care for Boyer's character for a minute, so the tension was utterly nonexistent.

Stock 1930s character actors stumble thru the mushy plot as Boyer's henchmen--guys who clearly do not belong in Algiers. Sigrid Gurie is the wildly-overacting jealous girlfriend of Boyer. His brazen womanizing in front of her doesn't bode well for any future he might have with Lamarr.

Especially bad is a long sequence in which an underling comes to tell Boyer how another henchman was captured. It sounds exciting... too bad we didn't see it for ourselves. The ending is completely anticlimactic and seems to be remarkable only because it is not a Hollywood happy ending; that doesn't stop it from being sappy.


Eric Idle, Robbie Coltraine, Janet Suzman - it should have been almost impossible to go wrong. Of course it has some funny moments - the scene in the showers when Robbie Coltraine echoes Lon Chaney Jr's ghastly werewolf line "I can't help myself" is hilarious. But ultimately the plot, script and direction are flat as a pancake and as tired as a 90 year old nun after 180 "Hail Mary"s. When I was a child, Carry On films filled this niche slightly better, which is a really sad indictment of a film with such a promising cast.


This film has been compared to the hilarious British comedy "A Fish Called Wanda", although I can't see why. The only connection I can find is the Monty Python one (Eric Idle in "Nuns", John Cleese and Michael Palin in "Wanda"). Otherwise the two are incomparable.

Idle and Robbie Coltrane are two gangsters who want to get out of the business before they end up dead, so they decide to rip off their boss and make for Rio. When the getaway goes wrong, the two are forced to take refuge in a convent, as nuns.

What at first promises to be a riot soon becomes a predictable, average movie with the usual tasteless sex jokes and bland humour. Once again there are the occasional high spots, but neither cast nor crew manage to inspire proceedings. An attempt at a "Wanda" type manic finish fails too, along with the effort at "men in drag" humour, which is hardly surprising. When you think about it, men trying to be women is funny, men trying to be nuns is ridiculous.

Friday, April 22, 1994 - Video


Coltrane and Idle are members of a bank robbery gang who double cross their leader during a robbery. They hide out in a nunnery school and disguise themselves appropriately to avoid detection from the mob and the police. Alot of catholic humor and slapstick but the script is kinda thin as are the laughs.. There is a GOOD shower scene though... on a scale of one to ten..4


Does anyone remember BRAVEHEART ? It starred Mel Gibson who also directed and was scripted by Randall Wallace . The film contains over 200 errors . Does anyone remember THE GREEN BERETS ? That`s the John Wayne western where the Duke saves a homestead called Vietnam from a bunch of injuns from the commie tribe . If you watch WE WERE SOLDIERS you can`t help but be reminded of these two films .

First of all what`s with that Scottish lament that`s played three times in the movie , four if you count the end credits ? I mean what`s the connection between Scotland and `Nam ? Maybe Wallace is using it in the vain hope that because BRAVEHEART was bombarded - Undeservedly I might add - with several Oscars then so might this film ? Whatever reason it`s included it really jars . Gibson plays Hal Moore as a cross between William Wallace and John Wayne and I was expecting him to say something like " They`ll never take our freedom - The hell they will " and it`s impossible not to notice other similarities with THE GREEN BERETS like the subplot of a journalist picking up a gun and turning into a warrior and Moore telling the journalist about guilt in a scene almost identical to the one seen in the Wayne movie

When not reminding the audience of other movies WWS also fails to stand on its own legs , it`s based on real events in 1965 but seems to lack an integrity needed to do the story justice , it never feels like 1965 and lacks a sense of time and place probably because it was filmed in America not Asia . Hal Moore might have brushed up on the French experience in Indo-China but if that`s the case then he was unique because the American military went out of their way not to read up on the French Indo-China war , indeed when asked about the previous conflict Westmoreland replied he had nothing to learn from the French " Who haven`t won a war since the days of Napoleon " so I was confused as to the portrayal of the NVA in this movie , when in 1965 the American high command , brimming with hubris held the North Vietnamese and VC in contempt . It`s like history has been rewritten in order to show the rice farmers of Vietnam are superlative warriors . They are , but very few Americans believed this in the mid 1960s<br /><br />There`s a couple of other things that confused me like how the wives back home get telegrams telling them their husbands are dead ? No bodies are shown being flown back to base and no one on screen is seen referring to who`s been killed in the La Drang valley . Likewise we`re not seen reinforcements arrive on screen so how do we suddenly see the Americans out number the NVA ? I put these down as directorial/ editing blunders on the part of Wallace who doesn`t strike me as much of a director , and his biggest problem seems to be communicating the horror of the battle . Take the scene where the American burned to a crisp is flown away screaming " Tell my wife I love her " . This should have an emotional impact similar to THAT death scene in PLATOON but here there`s no impact . In fact I found the scene cliched and patronising , and he`s not the only character to mouth the words " Tell my wife ... " while mutilated or dying , I counted at least two other characters use the phrase . Did characters actually say this at the battle ? I`ve no idea but since Randall Wallace wrote the script I do have reservations

I sat in shocked awe watching APOCALYPSE NOW , PLATOON and THE KILLING FIELDS made my eyes water , I laughed at FULL METAL JACKET , I kept looking at my watch with THE DEER HUNTER , and after seeing WE WERE SOLDIERS I felt totally patronised


So many people have taken shots at Platoon and Born On the Fourth of July among other calling them "leftist propaganda film." Now its my turn to take a political shot at a movie. To me this movie is very imposing on certain religious beliefs and on its political views.

The acting and writing was a little to clichéd for my liking. Mel Gibson seems to like to play in these unnecessary violent films and proves it once again by teaming up with his partner Randall Wallace for yet another one. Throughout this movie there was this garbage prototypical "Just tell my family I love them" or "Tell Ronny to pray before hoe goes to bed" lines. The was so overloaded with this garbage retread lines that I felt like I had to vomit. How about that scene were Gibson's wife goes to do her laundry and this "no colors" applies to what to put in the washing machine. Its in the mid-sixties was she some how stuck under a rock not noticing the racism around her. Another scene is were Gibson's daughter asks him what war is and the scene is shot in such a trivial matter.

The directing displayed this all perfectly. The countless scenes of Gibson and his family or soldiers praying. I'm fine with showing that once or twice but after a while I wonder if the movie is trying to shove something into my head. How many scenes with the American flag at its finest hour were shot with the melodramatic music on. The director also makes it seem like we won some sort of victory in Vietnam. What exactly was won their. The cinematography was the worst of it with the slowed down scenes see the American flag in the distance scenes spread throughout. I love America but movies like this seem to glorify every little thing we do.

This may seem like a rant and maybe it is but I cannot stand it when a movie like this makes people who are not religious are not so patriotic that they will agree with anything their country does look bad. This movie to me is narrow minded and limited in so many aspects. To me it says if your not Christian your wrong. Would God or Jesus want people to kill I don't think so. To me this movie was offensive. At first this movie was funny with the countless clichés and overacted scenes but then when I looked at what this movie was trying to say or not say it was really frustrating to watch. I guess though it is my fault that I chose to watch this movie. I hope no one takes this comment offensively because I am not criticizing religion or patriotism but some of the narrow minded people who are so into both and discount everyone else.

If you want a real depiction of the Vietnam war watch Platoon, Born On the Fourth of July, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter or The Killing Fields. Even Full Metal Jacket which I absolutely hated was a better depiction. I have read a quote that in context says a true patriot does not go with everything the government or country does but questions it when its wrong. A real patriot loves their country too much to see it do bad things.


I've read all the complimentary posts on this muddled semi-noir and am puzzled at the high regard for what seems, in the cruel light of 2007, a very sloppy late-RKO assembly-line product. All that endless documentary footage of fish, waves, fish, waves has little to do with the central conflict and just pads the running time. The editing is downright careless: Scenes just end, and are followed by other scenes that have little to do with what preceded them. The dialog bears the stilted traces of the Odets origins: high-flown metaphors that never could have come from the limited imaginations of these workaday people. But what's really surprising is how horribly overacted the triangle is, on all sides. I love Stanwyck, but she snarls and contorts and lashes out wildly -- an undisciplined performance several notches below her standard. Douglas, overplaying at being lovable, then goes onto a would-be murderous rampage and is similarly hammy, as is Ryan, snarling and shouting most unnaturally. The less interesting second couple at least provides recognizable human behavior: Keith Andes, whose character is kind of a Neanderthal by today's standards, nevertheless is smooth and persuasive as Stanwyck's (much younger, one presumes) brother, and Marilyn Monroe, as his girlfriend, is natural and unaffected. On Monterey's windswept coast (and all that Monterey footage, while largely irrelevant, is interesting as a document of what the town looked like), amid all the overheated hysteria, these two are islands of sanity. A final point, and a spoiler: Perhaps the Breen Office mandated it, but does anybody believe the happy ending for a second? Stanwyck may temporarily have regressed into being an obedient wifey, but I give the marriage a month.


Big disappointment. CLASH BY NIGHT is much to talky and stagy and the dialog doesn't resonate as true coming from these characters. This is melodrama at its peak. The acting is truly over the top and very unreal. Only MARILYN MONROE and KEITH ANDES as supporting players give this film any zip. Wish they had more to do. I'm somebody who looks at details in films. Two big questions...1 Who is watching the baby the entire day when Stanwyck and Ryan are together and Douglas is working, then breaking up a fight in a bar with is father? 2. When Stanwyck is packing to leave town, why is she seen packing at her brothers place where she hasn't lived for at least two years? Also, when everyone goes to the projection room at the Theatre, who's taking care of the baby again? Such details really irritate me and cause me to give films much lower ratings. What were the writers, directors and everyone else connected with the film thinking? Nuf' said.


Ok, so I saw this movie at this year's Sundance, and I was sorely unimpressed. It took a good fifteen minutes of footage before there was an edit or a line of dialogue that made any sense, and it took another 30 minutes before the ham-fisted script gave way to a working plot that wasn't contingent on a close-up of Ryan Gosling's smile or contrived moralizing. After the first 45 minutes however, the script blossomed into a watch-able albeit not completely entertaining or thought-provoking. The highlights certainly include both Gosling and Morse's acting, Gosling being an up-and-coming star, and Morse being an extremely well-established character actor with a good feel for disparate emotions. As a sidenote, after the screening I was talking a little smack about the movie to some of my friends when David Morse walked right behind me--He looks like the nicest guy in the world, but he's a solid 6'2" and probably outweighs me by 50 pounds. I removed my foot from my mouth and promptly changed the subject.


Here's what's good about "The Slaughter Rule:"

--Ryan Gosling, Clea Duvall, and David Morse all give great performances. Gosling is, as always, pretty darn outstanding. The locales are often breathtaking.

Here's what's bad about "The Slaughter Rule:"

--Everything else. The script is horribly muddled. And while I can certainly appreciate a non-"feel good" movie, this movie is just boring. Great performances can't make-up for a movie with a stupid premise and a script that is filled with throw-away lines that often don't even make it sense. Just getting through the first hour became a chore.

I stuck with it because of Gosling, but eventually I did myself a favor and changed the channel. Spoilers on here relayed the ending to me. I didn't miss much. Do yourself a favor--if you want a good Gosling flick, check out "The Believer."

My score: 2 out of 10.


So, as far as I gather, this episode is trying to make a statement about how real-life villains are very bad people, and this is just as scary as the paranormal. The "paranormal" imagery associated with the villain, Donnie, is purely symbolic. He's actually just a normal human being.

The problem is that I just don't buy it. Donnie is simply not scarier than the paranormal. He's not even that scary at all. As a guy who seems confused and weird rather than malicious, likes dead girls and hair, and has only newly become a murderer, he's significantly less disturbing than most well-known real-life serial killers (eg: he's like a VERY watered-down version of Ed Gein). Which is why Scully's horror at seeing nothing but bodies with hair and nails cut off (something not too different from a normal personal hygiene routine), before anybody has even been killed or hurt at all, is completely out of character. She sees things a hundred times worse in almost every other episode and hardly flinches.

So, as Comic Book Guy says... "worst episode EVER!"


I saw the movie after checking its rating on IMDb. Back then, it was at 8.0 and I thought, "wow! That must be a good one". I thought wrong. The beginning of the movie actually keeps what the plot promises, but then it goes exponentially down underneath its basement. I think without the character of Richie Nix, it might have been alright - although he is the reason the story line takes the course it does. The character is just too extreme for my liking, and hard to endure. Also, the journey the main character takes from the beginning of the story till its "climax" at the end is partly irrelevant and could easily have been omitted - the alternative is, I just did not understand the movie.

Although I must admit that it is "easy watching", and I had no problems sitting through the whole movie, when it had finished I was somewhat unimpressed by the ending. All in all, rather mediocre.


Well, Killshot is not awful, but it comes close. Production values are decent and the main actors do a pretty good job (except for Rosario Dawson in a wasted role), but the story is just pathetic. I don't know if the Elmore Leonard book had such dumb characters,since I haven't read it, but I'm guessing that the book was supposed to be at least slightly humorous. The movie has no detectable humor. After the first twenty minutes, you'll be yelling at the screen, "Oh, come on! Nobody's THAT stupid!!" In a nutshell, and without any spoilers, everybody acts in a manner convenient to the plot, which makes no sense anyway. A very frustrating and unrealistic movie, which may account for it sitting on the shelf for as long as it did.


Following the whirlwind success of The Wrestler (see my review), Mickey Rourke had this "gem" head straight to video. Every copy was rented for months and I even heard some good buzz around it. So months later I caught it on a movie network and sat down to watch it. First of all...one of the locations in the film (Walpole Island) is a place I used to visit on a regular basis as a child because we lived very, very close to the reserve. Cool huh? That's about where the coolness ends with this dud. I mean the story is decent enough to warrant a four and even the direction is not bad but the performances are just awful, and downright ridiculous with some truly wasted star power and Mickey $%#@*&! Rourke playing a Native Canadian/American hit-man?!?! What in the Lord's name were they thinking?? He doesn't even resemble Native blood and his attempt at the generic Native accent made him look even more ridiculous. They could have went anywhere with this story...they could have hired a Native actor, or changed Rourke's character, how about a white man raised by Native parents? Instead they made Killshot a complete and utter joke.

As you may have caught Mickey Rourke "stars" in Killshot, I use that term loosely. I have never liked Rourke much although his Oscar winning performance was decent enough. This shows and confirms my dislike for him. He looks bored, constantly bored, and his lame attempt at portraying a Native is bordering on insulting I would think. He makes a decent cold blooded killer but then the story never explores that part of him which is totally backwards to the story. Diane Lane, although well respected in Hollywood, turns in another drab performance. She has had her moments but overall she just usually doesn't take off in any one performance. She looks like she is going to be great but then when she isn't, its even more disappointing. Thomas Jane plays her protective husband. I've always felt Jane deserves a bigger career than he has. I think he's got action star in his blood. All said and done his performance in Killshot is actually not bad. He doesn't take things too far and he's tough and almost heroic in a way. Him and Lane manage to have decent chemistry but he doesn't get a lot in the way of his character. I have absolutely NO idea why Rosario Dawson A) did this movie and B) had a character at all. Her character is absolutely useless and had no point to the plot or story making any performance she would give equally as bad. I have rarely seen a character who is supporting so incredibly useless. The only redeeming character and performance in this film is that given by Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the deranged mini killer who wants to team up with Rourke's hit-man. Gordon-Levitt is over the top crazy and entertaining and his character is actually engaging. If this film had been entirely about him it would have been a smash. He literally saves this from utter crap. His performance is almost worth watching this drivel for.

Oscar nominated director...whoa wait? Yes Oscar nominated director John Madden (I think the football coach could have done a better job) helms this mess. I have actually never seen Shakespeare In Love, but I remember the critical acclaim it received and it surprised me because the direction in this film and with the characters was downright awful. Screenplay writer Hossein Amini has done nothing I recognize but apparently has been slated to write the next Jack Ryan movie and after this mess I can't even imagine why they'd want him. I understand this is based on a novel and I really hope the novel is worlds above this mess. A little bit of action and some sort of hokey attempt at an emotionally charged story of a hit-man and his partner and the mess they get involved in. Unfortunately unless you're a HUGE Rourke fan or really love Joseph Gordon-Levitt then there is no reason to put yourself through this pain. I did it for you and I still feel the pain. 4/10


There are many distinct problems with the movie "KillShot". For one, there are way too many coincidences. The husband is a hunter and just happens to be hunting on the day that the main killer shows up, with someone the killer knows. Okay I will take that one. The kid calls the real estate agency that the wife works for and asks for money to be ready when he comes to get it. Okay, I will take that one as well. Before he goes to get the cash he decided to rob our killer, who doesn't kill him but decided to go with him on the job. It's starting to get real weak. Then they show up, on the same day that the husband has an interview with his wives boss. No one is there but the wife and the husband who has decided to make his way into the empty office. They make their way into the office and the professional killer just assumes that they are talking to the right guy. That is just in the first 15 minuets.

There are a lot more holes in this movie then I care to talk about. Why the killer didn't just kill everyone at the real estate agency I don't know. Why he didn't shoot the woman on her porch, I don't know. Why he kept letting that dumb kid make all those stupid moves and mess a whole lot of crap up, I don't know. Why the girlfriend was even in the movie, I don't know. Why he decided not to pocket the gun and just leave it out on the counter, I don't know. Why they even went into the witness protection program, I don't know. What I do know is that the Casting Director did a great job, the Director of Photography did very good work, the Location Scout picked great locations, and the Production Designer was worth every penny. So my advice for anyone that is going to pick a script that is going to be so well worked by the crew, make sure that every attempt to kill someone by the hit man is not foiled by a peak through an open window.


Ugh. Even the ever-popular Diane Lane could not save this movie, and the most exciting thing about the movie was seeing if Rourke's face would move. One has heard so much "gossip" about his botched face lift, etc., so like an accident on the side of the road, we just had to slow down and see the wreck. The plot was thin. Here we have a very professional mob hit man who somehow latches on to a wild and uncontrollable punk/crook, and throughout this movie we're wondering why this guy stays with this idiot, let alone gets together with the guy in the first place. Then the crime that was not even committed has the pro to go after the witnesses. He would have popped them right then and there. But then, we would not have had a movie then, would we? And why did the realtor even agree to the extortion? There were more holes in this flick than in my colander. The acting was horrid, the entire movie predictable down to the minute, and even the ending. And so much could have been done to make this a much better movie. But if you have about 90 minutes to kill and not have to use any brain cells in the process, then this movie is just what the doctor ordered.


Truly appalling waste of space. Me and my friend tried to watch this film to its conclusion but had to switch it off about 30 minutes from the end. And i can count the films I have switched off before the end on one hand.

The script and direction are leaden and deeply uninspiring. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the script in a pile of cast off scripts from 1983. For example the irritating scroat threatening the real estate guy from his house phone. I mean seriously. The police would be beating his door down in minutes. The scenes and events just wash by you like turds in a river. It is difficult to understand the actual thrust of the film. The narrative flicks between characters in a seemingly random manner breaking up the pathetic attempts at building the characters. Oh and what "characters" they are. The protagonist played by Rourke is dreadful. He could have just sent a cardboard cut out of himself and stayed in bed. After 60 or so minutes of the film I had built absolutely zero attachment to this character. He is neither sympathetic nor hateful. Just a disfigured dummy from a shop window blundering through every single scene. His motivation is impossible to discern from his generally mumbled and emotionless delivery. Is he happy? Is he sad? Angry? No idea. Just those same dead eyes staring out at you from a disfigured chunk of flesh. And the native American theme is just awful and pointless.

The good guys are at best unlikeable. A dull white collar stereotype and a simpering neurotic ex-wife stereotype. Cue archetypal wife with shotgun face off with bad guy, "you aren't going to shoot me" that is both tiresomely unoriginal and annoying.

The richie nix character seems interesting at first but soon descends into an irritating one sided psycho character. Which seems at odds with the seeming intention of making the bad guys in some way sympathetic or at least realistically motivated.

Roasario Dawsons character starts with some promise but soon descends into a sickening and childlike parody of the gangsters chick scenes from Jackie Brown. You really want me to believe her character was SO attracted to Rourke's? Or worse she is just a floozy who sleeps with anything that moves? Realistic female characters FTW!

In summary a complete mess of a film. Hopeless characterisations and performances. A leaden and hackneyed script along with uninspired direction. And ultimately extremely dull. Its not even comedy bad either. Laughing at Rourkes haggard face gets pretty old after sitting through the first 15 turgid minutes of the film.


I decided to watch this movie in order to fall asleep. It kept me awake, so it was interesting; however, it was pretty bland.

The acting was good. I don't think any of the actors did a bad job. Mickey Rourke is as believable as an over-the-hill hit-man can be. The dialogue in this movie does not provide much opportunity for these actors to show off their full potential, but they still shined.

The atmosphere was great. Music was good and colors matched the mood that the director wanted to paint for the viewers. Even the weather enhanced the mood of the movie. Everything was well done.

The failures of this movie are in its story development. The storyline with the mafia vs. Blackbird doesn't get enough attention. The storyline for Carmen and Wayne's divorce doesn't get explained. The FBI seems to work extra fast here. Is there no paperwork for all these processes? Is it really that easy to dig up your brother's body from his grave, burn the corpse, and have it be identified as you? There are too many loops in the storyline for me to give this movie anything higher than a 4 out of 10 rating. I wouldn't recommend this movie to people unless they're really bored and have smoked some really good weed. Even if WoW is down for maintenance, go find something better to do than watch this movie.


I am so disappointed in this movie I can't express it. I was so excited when I started watching this film to see Mickey Rourke all leather faced and that kid from Third Rock From The Sun acting like I psycho. I thought, wow, this is going to be a winner, freakin' Natural Born Killers style. And it got better. The production value was great, the directing was great, the acting was great, the cinematography was great, and the plot was, well, the plot, well, what WHAT PLOT? About half way through this film I was pulling my hair out yelling "What the hell is going on?" and I mean that quite literally? Nothing makes any sense whatsoever. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Aaaaaaahhhhhhggg!!!!


Mickey Rourke hunts Diane Lane in Elmore Leonard's Killshot It is not like Mickey Rourke ever really disappeared. He has had a steady string of appearances before he burst back on the scene. He was memorable in: Domino, Sin City, Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Get Carter. But in his powerful dramatic performance in The Wrestler (2008), we see a full blown presentation of the character only hinted at in Get Carter. Whenever we get to know him, Rourke remains a cool, but sleazy, muscle bound slim ball.

This is an Elmore Leonard story, and production. Leonard wrote such notable movies as taunt western thriller 3:10 to Yuma, Be Cool, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 52 Pick-Up, and Joe Kidd. This means that we get tough guys, some good, some not so good.

It also means we get tight, realistic plots with characters doing what is best for them in each situation, weaving complications into violent conclusions. Killshot is no different. Tough, slim ball killer Rourke stalks unhappily married witness Lane. Think History of Violence meets No Country for Old Men. It is not as intense, bloody or gory as those two, but it is almost as good. If you like those two, including David Croneberg's equally wonderful Eastern Promises, you will like Killshot also.

Director John Madden has not done a lot of movies. His last few were enjoyable, if not successful: Proof, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Shakespeare in Love.

Diana Lane hasn't had a powerful movie role since she and Richard Gere gave incredible performances in Unfaithful. Lately she is charming and appealing in romantic stories such as Nights in Rodanthe, Must Love Dogs, and Under the Tuscan Sun. Here she is right on mark, balancing her sexy appeal with reserved tension.

This is a small part for Rosario Dawson. Yet Dawson does a good job with it. You see a lot more of Lane, including an underwear scene to rival Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut.

While you are in the crime drama section, also pick up Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, and Gone Baby Gone, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. The last has wonderful performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney.

Killshot flopped at the box office. More is our luck. It is certainly worth a 3-4 dollar rental, if you like this genre. 6/20/2009


Let me first state that I rarely review movies, I only comment if I'm blown away or disappointed in something that I thought was going to be good. Killshot was a major disappointment on so many levels. The script was horrible, the acting was sub-par (espically coming from heavy weights like Rourke and Lane) and the editing and effects were comical, (blowing up cars etc. etc.) Rosario Dawson had a horrible role, I can't believe would even accept it, it was such a misuse of her talent I can't even put into words. I should have know after I saw the trailer for this movie 3 years ago and it kept being put on the shelve that their was a serious problem with this film.......... B movie all the way.........don't bother unless your really bored........


Diane Lane, Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson & Thomas Jane.....Not a bad cast in my opinion however they were totally wasted in this movie.

There was no real direction, there were no unusual turns, in fact the whole movie was very predictable from start to finish. Mickey Rourke had a really annoying sidekick who did nothing but irritate you from the start. Rosario Dawson was totally wasted and there was hardly any point in even having her character in the film.

I really do believe this is one of those straight to DVD movies that everyone will forget about very quickly which is a shame as the movie could have been so much better.


Most predicable movie I've ever seen...extremely boring, I feel like I've seen a hundred movies with the same storyline as this one. Acting is OK at best, there's no action really and there is definitely no thrills. Capable actors with terrible script i think it could have been written better by a 10th grader. Felt like more of a chore to watch because I was hoping that there would be something in this movie that was going to set it apart from all the other garbage but this fit right in on the heap. The whole movie I was waiting for something good to happen but it never came. I never rate movies and I never review movies but this movie was so bad that i had to log in here and post a review to try and save a few poor souls from wasting their time (and/or money) with this movie. I pirated it and wish I never even wasted the hard drive space. If I spent 10 bucks to see this in theaters I would kill myself.


Based on the Elmore Leonard novel of the same name, Killshot suffers from a lack of focus, direction, and creativity  all elements which the original story likely had, and negative test screenings forced severe edits, (including the complete excising of a character) resulting in a film that feels almost nothing like a Leonard story. Far too many characters populate a storyline too simplistic and straightforward (not a typical trait of the author's work) and the focus continually switches between two hit men who are difficult to like and a troubled couple who don't command our sympathy. While the story itself provides precious few twists and turns, sadly by the end of the film its appeal still remains a mystery.

Washed-up hit-man Armand "The Blackbird" Degas (Mickey Rourke) follows a strict code during his missions that inadvertently sours his latest assignment. Now on the run from his former employer, he haphazardly joins forces with inept misfit criminal Richie Nix (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to gain some quick cash by extorting a wealthy realtor. When struggling couple Carmen and Wayne Colson (Diane Lane and Thomas Jane) are privy to the thieves' blundered plot, they are forced into hiding as the crazed killers will stop at nothing to silence the two witnesses.

Killshot proves that being based on an Elmore Leonard novel isn't grounds for immediate success or even a promising adaptation. The characters, situations, and even resolutions in the film are all tired and unoriginal and only very randomly hint at something more. It's not that there wasn't potential, especially when Rourke's black-garbed, calm and collected assassin perfectly executes a hit during the opening scene  purpose and principals are just continually abandoned as each minute ticks away. The style and manner in which each character is introduced is the most intriguing; visually the roles of Bird and even Wayne are fleshed out befittingly, giving immediate interest and depth to personas that typically end in a creative impasse.

The pairing of the cold and calculating Black Bird with the irrational and explosive Richie is an enticing combination (comparisons to Fargo would be extravagantly too kind), except that each character seems to slowly lose track of the traits that kept them initially interesting. As Richie starts picking up the more experienced killer's habits, Bird loosens his grip on his own methods of murder. Regardless of what he sees in his momentary lighthearted fling with Donna (Rosario Dawson), it's hard to imagine that his final confrontation with panicky Carmen would provoke a confession of his true nature and subsequent carelessness that drastically affects his outcome. Likely or not, this is Killshot's unfortunate downfall  and little entertainment can be garnered from these characters who steadily lose their originality by continually contradicting the habits that once made them intriguing.

- The Massie Twins


I'm sorry guys, all who thought this film could be something great, I'm afraid you would be disappointed.

The standard, the movie wanted to set is completely ruined by some very simple plot. So simple, that the movie is not evolving until the end. I asked myself if the plot wasn't about the action but about the main character (played by Mickey Rourke), but I found that the character was inconsistent - either he is a professional killer or some guilt haunted brother. But both don't go together, because the kid he tries to guide poses him in dangerous situations where no professional killer would put himself. Now, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is a good looking actor, but he played his character a little unnatural. I didn't believe his acting, it looked like the director tried to pull out of him some personality he couldn't provide. And he didn't have to, because his less crazy behavior was creepy enough. The only one whose acting was great, was Diane Lane. If not her, i would give this movie 1 star.

In conclusion, I expected to see some well played movie and some interesting plot. And I completely blew it with my high expectations.


Unfortunately House of D is just awful, with a ridiculous plot, terrible writing, some mediocre acting, and in fact just about everything else about it is sub-par.

Tom flees NYC to somehow survive as a lone child in Paris, and manages to convince the beautiful Parisian girl he eventually marries that he's French, despite a poor grasp of her language. She's shocked when years later he reveals his "secret" to her! Riiiight!

He then "gifts" his tale of woe to his own son, and who we are expected to believe thinks that's just the greatest birthday gift a dad can give his 13 year old boy. If only such things were so easy! David Duchovny miscasts his own wife Tea Leoni in the role of his mother and strikes out yet again. Leoni makes me laugh as a comic but she's just plain wrong for this role.

One of the problems with that is none of the characters are sympathetic. I just didn't give a damn what happened to any of them. I did rather hope that Robin Williams and his trademark "child in a grown-up's body" schtick would fall into a Village pothole, but alas, it was not to be and we had to endure his simpering performance all the way.

Anton Yelchin and William's daughter Zelda were not bad, but I suspect the rave reviews others are giving them is simply because they weren't anywhere near as bad as everyone else in this movie. They weren't great, let me put it that way.

There are so many silly and contrived aspects to this film - Erykah Badu, the bicycle, the Catholic school and it's staff of morons, the conveniently stupid characters, etc - that this review would go on for ever, so I'll just finish up by saying that House of D is a very poor movie, and I'm almost embarrassed for Duchovny.

The thing that really annoys me is how I was so strongly encouraged by online "friends" to see this that I traveled a long way to do so.

I would not have been so annoyed that this movie is so bad if I'd just wasted a couple of hours down at the local movie theater, but instead I lost a whole day, and discovered that my so-called "friends" are either stupid or dishonest, because this is an awful movie!


An American boy goes to Paris after his mother commits suicide, becomes and artist and then discovers himself and returns to the States so he can make things right with his former friends.

I have to think that the people who are rating this movie so highly are all X-Files fans, even though there are no aliens or serial killers in it. Don't be fooled, this movie blows chunks.

The story is incoherent, with little or no explanation of what people are doing or why. When you do get an explanation, it doesn't fit the story that went before it. What it does is bore you. For all the acting talent in the film, it just isn't interesting. I spent the whole movie wondering when sex-addict Duchovny was going to bang someone. Maybe he was doing it behind the scenes; they should have filmed that instead.

What comes across is a story of a self-obsessed artist worrying about minor incidents in his life and wanting to make them right somehow - even though they didn't seem that wrong to begin with. There aren't any particularly interesting or shocking revelations, despite the mention of a big secret in the first few minutes. It's just a guy thinking that his life is as interesting to you as it is to him. It's not.

I saw in the trivia that Duchovny claims he wrote the script in a week, that's entirely believable. The guy can act, there's no doubt, but writing and directing are obviously beyond his talents.

Why Hollywood keeps greenlighting these self-discovery stories is beyond me. I discover myself in the shower every morning but I don't bother making a movie about it. Mine would probably be better than this one, though; at least there would be some nudity.


They say David Duchovny took six days to write the script for this movie. That sounds about right.

This movie is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I've seen Gigli. It's not as bad as Gigli, but that's like saying Saddam Hussein wasn't as bad as Adolf Hitler.

Tom Warshaw has been living in France with his French wife and 13-year old son. He has been pretending to be French all this time. He reveals to his wife that he is actually American. For some reason, this comes as an earth-shattering reveal for her, despite the fact that she always commented on her husband's American accent. Also, their son - remember, he was born in France and never knew his father was American - speaks perfect American English without a hint of French accent. That's just one of several huge plot holes in this movie.

The main bulk of the movie is a flashback to Tommy's youth in New York City during the 1970's, as he explains to his wife why he has been hiding in France. His best friend as a boy was Pappas, a retarded adult played terribly by Robin Williams. I assume Duchovny thinks that "retarded" is someone who is just sort of dumb, because Pappas comes off only mildly slow at times, while other times he comes off as just Robin Williams. Yes, Williams actually fits in his tired improv schtick although he is supposed to play a person who is mentally slow.

Tommy's mother, played by Duchovny's wife Tea Leoni, is a pill-popping nurse who is distraught over the recent death of her husband. Leoni does a good job, but she mainly just smokes a lot and yells at Tommy for things that don't seem to be too important. The script didn't give her much to work with. Tommy also befriends a lady (whom he calls "Lady") who is in prison and offers him advice through her jail window (this house of detention is called "House of D" for short, thus the title). Tommy has no qualms yelling his personal problems out loud on a city street so this incarcerated felon can offer him advice, and he does so many times without care.

I don't want to bore you with the entire summary of the movie, but plot holes are abound in this film that tries way too hard to be touching but comes off as, well, bad. Real bad. Real real bad. Near the end of this train wreck, the script gets cornier and cornier and ends with a laughably crappy ending.

Critics tore "House of D" apart and rightfully so. I can't believe some people actually like this movie. It is a painful film to sit through and I felt weak afterwards - not from emotion, but from how terrible it was.


This is a movie with a wonderful concept, but very weak writing. It should never have been released with out at least three more re-writes (assuming it got any). The story is too loosly held together, and there are too many 90 degree turns in the story to make it a cohesive movie. It would be great to see what a decent screen-writer could do with the story.


If you are having trouble sleeping or just want to take that nap in the afternoon but just can't seem to drift off, pop in this movie. The only neat thing about this movie are the electric planes. Aside from that prepare for some sweet zzzzz's. It boggles the mind how big name stars such as those in this movie can be part of the one of the dullest movies I've ever seen. Now, if you will excuse me, I will finish my nap.


This movie was strange mainly because the plot was so incoherent. The title refers to a vicious wind which renders the surface of the earth almost uninhabitable when it blows, but this seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with what was going on. The movie seems to be an extremely poor rip-off of Bladerunner ie rogue android being chased by bounty hunter(or ruthless cop in this). Luke Skywalker turns in a surprisingly good performance as afore-mentioned rogue cop. Nothing seems to be resolved at the end of the movie, we never find out anything of any substance about the android or what his intentions are. There is one baffling scene where Bill Paxton(who has kidnapped the android) plays one particular song in his cardboard airplane for no particular reason(the song is called "Shape of things", by The Yardbirds). This happens again in a later scene where the same song is played for no apparent reason. Does this song have any relevance to the movie? Don't think so.


This film fails on many many levels. The script is the first failing, and as I understand it, if the script stinks, there's nothing that can fix that. The plot is boring, after the first 45 minutes, I'm looking at the counter on the DVD saying to myself, "how much longer?" The cinematography is pretty awful. I'm not sure how bad the transfer was to DVD, but it looked like a VHS copy. Also, the sound was bad. I realize this isn't going to get remixed for 5.1, but yikes, it didn't even sound like it was in Dolby Stereo which had been around for almost a decade when they cut this film.

Slipstream was far too similar to both Mad Max and Blade Runner for comfort. Because of the lack of decent special effects and high quality dialog, it is extremely disappointing. If I recall, the pointer scene took place during the last 20 minutes, usually it should take place in the first 20. Most people will be totally confused as to what the heck is going on until the final 20 minutes.

The film's music was excellent in parts, and then completely inappropriate in others. Elmer Bernstien did the scoring, but it sounds like someone else had a hand in sticking in 'other' stuff elsewhere as it doesn't match the overall good orchestral score (with some synthesizer music.)

There were great actors cast, Bob Peck, Mark Hamill, Ben Kingsley, Bill Paxton. And they did a great job breathing the little available life into their characters. (Well, Paxton's character was pretty stupid, and the whole movie was centered on him. I'm not sure a heroic stooge is a good choice for the main character who carries the film.) Again, a major flaw with the script.

Thank goodness I watched this from a mail order DVD service, and not the theater. Overall a major disappointment for Sci-fi fans, or fans of Paxton, or Hamill. 90 minutes of your life, you'll never get back.


The story and the characters really REALLY needed work. The world idea is kind of neat, but no one bothered to develop any of it either through exposition, or through the plot. Despite the cheesy notes at the beginning of the film, it makes sense that you wouldn't use exposition, since no one is new to this world. And yet, when Matt Owens (Bill Paxton) and Byron (Bob Peck) stray off-course and get lost, and get introduced to the wind-worshipers and the fat, lazy, rich people in the museum, we don't get any real idea of who these people are, or why we should care about any of them. Smart films have ways of developing this simply by having the characters live in the world. Simple things, like ordering a drink at a bar, or talking about something in the past -- these are the kind of things that make the film world memorable, not endless shots of crappy planes, and cheap CG effects of someone trying to do loops in an ultralight.

If this is too difficult for you, here's a little tip -- pare down the multiple locations. If everything's becoming disjointed because you're pulling up to often, stay in one place for a little while and have the characters talk a little. All the superfluous crap should be removed. Get rid of the entire wind-worshipers scene. Get rid of the stuffy museum people. Get rid of all the crappy flying crap unless you can make the wind relevant to the story. Have the entire thing set on a big plane, or something. Just get people talking about something we care about.

Hey, get rid of Bill Paxton. Have the film center around Tasker's character and his relationship with the robot, Byron.

Indeed, the biggest problem of the film is that we don't care anything about anybody, because no one takes the time to either explain their motivations or delve into their characters. We don't like Matt (well, because he's played by Bill Paxton, among other things). He's a scoundrel, who doesn't redeem himself enough, except to let the android, Byron, go. And this action has even less meaning than most because of three key points:

1. Byron is a murderer. 2. Byron is indestructible 3. Byron can leave any time he damn well pleases.

We try to like Byron, because there's a kind of pathos there, but it's largely undeveloped. All we're left with is a whiny, glassy-eyed robot guy who's acting is subdued and wooden one moment, and practically zany the next. We don't know why or how he develops emotions, but we do know for a fact that he's murdered someone. We don't know why he murdered someone, or the circumstances of this grisly event, because it isn't developed. We can't feel pity for him if we don't know the story. All we know for a fact is that he murders people. And he likes Bill Paxton.

We don't hate Tasker enough (partly because he's played by good-guy Mark Hamill), since while gruff and ruthless, doesn't do anything out of the ordinary for his character -- a post-apocalyptic peace officer. Sure he kills Montclaire (Robbie Coltrane) and his team, but they are drug dealers, on their way to grow poppies for heroin. And they shoot at him first. He doesn't kill anyone who doesn't get in the way, or who does not try to physically harm him first. That goes equally well for the final confrontation in the museum. He uses a smidge of police brutality against a lazy dilettante (F. Murray Abraham is wasted in this role), and everyone else draws a gun on him.

I really don't understand what's the deal with Belitski (Kitty Aldridge), Tasker's partner. After only an accumulated 10 minutes with Matt, she's ready to switch sides, despite her shouts of loyalty, and despite Matt's trash-talking her, and punching her out. If that's love, then I'll choose hate any day.

Really. Paxton's character is about as lovable as Simon in "True Lies", or Pvt. Hudson from "Aliens". Does anyone fall for him in these movies? No. Why? Because he's a loud-mouthed idiot, and a loser. Why put him at the helm of this film?


The quote above just about says it all for "Slipstream". I should have bailed out of this film after the first half hour, but decided I ought to be fair and give it a chance. I won't watch it again, so if anyone with the temerity to do so can get back to me with the number of clichéd lines in the movie, I'm sure it will set a record.

Some otherwise fine and talented actors got mixed up with this clunker; Mark Hamill portrays a futuristic bounty hunter and Bill Paxton is his quarry. Paxton's character has hijacked Hamill's prisoner, an android taking his name from the poet Byron (Bob Peck). Tasker (Hamill) shoots Owens (Paxton) with a dart containing a tracking device so he and his companion Belitski (Kitty Aldridge) can keep tabs on the pair. The real question though is why didn't he just fire the device at Byron thereby cutting out the middleman.

If you enjoy scene after disjointed scene with tedious characterization and artsy fartsy pretense, then I suppose you'll find something of interest here. But you can't convince me that the film makes sense on any level. Scenes of a futuristic Stone Age make way for high society snobbery, but the pinnacle of poor taste is reached when Paxton's character is displayed following a night of revelry with hickeys all over his torso. If anyone thinks there's some hidden meaning here, you're really stretching.

Patiently waiting for the frame proclaiming "The End" to come into view, alas, even that was denied. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then so is understanding; this movie had neither. Yet there was a single redeeming feature as the closing credits began their run - an awesome view of a half dozen hot air balloons. Apparently the film was keeping them afloat.


Combine good casting, bad writing, good orchestral scoring, bad dialogue, and good story idea with lots of potential but is never realized then you have Slipstream.

Just bought the movie for a buck, it is worth it, but not much more.

Good to see Mark Hamill act again.

There should be a decent sequel made to remedy the damage from the original. Or at least give it the proper attention it should have received in the first place.

Berstein's score gave demanded your attention from the opening credits, however, the long shots of slipstream planes and the even longer revealing of interesting plot points mutes his attention getting score.

It is really easy to dog a movie like this, after all it is by the producer of STARWARS and the director of TRON and a tremendous cast but it is what it is. And that ain't much.

Favorite Line- "We're going to make it, ha-ha!...(BOOM!)"


Yeeee-Haa!

I have seen it argued that most American Movies are cowboy movies in disguise; that Hollywood is so in love with it's only truly original creation that it keeps reinventing the cowboy myth. I'm not sure I totally buy that argument but Slipstream is evidence in support of the theory; it's a cowboy movie with aeroplanes.

Actually it goes one better than that. It's a Spagetti Western with aeroplanes! Substitute the planes with horses, make the android a priest and this movie would be indistinguishable from any one of a dozen Italian Spanish semi-arty "shoot-'em-ups with pretensions" of the Seventies.

The film isn't as BAD as I had been lead to believe by some of the reviews I had read here but it certainly wasn't good.


Wow !! I didn't even know about this movie until I was searching for the name of another Mark Hamill classic (Time Runner). Some things are better left unknown. Mark Hamill's role is quite ... limited. I would compare his appearance in this movie to all those appearances of Vincent Price and Christopher Lee in those bad horror b-movies of the 60's and 70's. In those movies, they appeared in the the first and last 5 minutes of the movie. Memorable acting by Mark with such great lines as "Don't try to run. You're under arrest." Did I mention he says that EXACT thing more than once. Bill Paxton fell into an Uzumaki type spiral of drugs and booze after Aliens, because he ended up in this movie after waking up on the set after a binge session. The HAIR .. the HAIR !!! .. Priceless Bill. Truly should have been "GAME OVER" for Bill .. but somehow .. he got treatment .. and went on to better??? movies. This movie blows. It is more dull and boring than The Crazies. At least that movie was crazy... this is just boring. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE SOBER.


The film has so much potential which was not developed. Mark Hamill gives a good performance and so does Bill Paxton. The scenery is beautiful and the ultralight aircraft are neat. The problem with this film is that the story is way underdeveloped and the plot goes nowhere. The film at certain points almost puts you to sleep. I give it 3 out of 10 stars for the flying scenes.


I saw this film when it first came out in the cinema. We were all looking forward to seeing Mark Hamill relaunch his career, but we came out wishing we hadn't bothered. Many people walked out after about half an hour - I wish I had too. The basic premise seems okay, but the plot was ridiculously involved and tortuous, and runs out half way through. Its completely unmemorable, and not a film you want to have paid money to see. If you're really bored and it's on TV, then it'll help you kill a couple of hours (or help you to nod off!). 2/10


AWFUL wot more can i say i remember seeing it in the cinema (see how it sticks painfully in the memory)as a 16 yr old lad. Mark Hamill was the older generations skywalker and wasn't great at that, he was worse in this. Plus a dour soundtrack by Then Jericho AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH. There is one film equally as bad as this i saw in the cinema Arthur 2 on the rocks. Funny how that question "What is the worst film you have ever seen is?" is easier than "what is the best film?" which incidentally varies between The Italian Job (original), Untouchables, Casino, Things to Do in Denver, Goodfellas (getting a sense of what I like??? - this will fool you!) Finding Nemo, Pirates of The Caribbean and Moulin Rouge! Please Never Watch this film or it will stick in your memory too!


But then again, what ever is? I picked this up at my local 99cent store for, you guessed it, 99 cents (plus tax). I remember seeing this on video as a teen and thinking it was a cool flick. Too bad the film and my memories don't match. Regardless, its not a too horrible way to blow a couple hours, and it is neat to see some vintage Bill Paxton and Mark Hamill. Blah.... Blah.... Blah.... Man, oh man, I CANNOT think of anything else to say about this flick... (Just filling space to meet the ten line rule...) Good golly, this is pathetic, just how bad is this movie that the best I could come up with in regards to it were five frickin'lines of text? So anyway, ten lines of text, eh? Hmmm, ten lines are hard to come by when you can't remember squat about a film you just watched.


My overall feeling about this film is that it was a slow, drawn-out, structureless wander through some of the worlds genuinely unfortunate situations with a bit of redemption and an obvious message. The film is composed mostly of fairly uninteresting video footage of the countries he visits with bad reenactments, all slow-mo'ed down to a snails pace and overlaid with depressing music. Certainly some of the materials and interviews contain some compelling stories, but unlike what the description on the back suggests, it wasn't so much the victim's story that's being told as it is the director's, Mr. Ripper, and he doesn't tell it well. This film could have included longer, better interviews with the people themselves, letting them tell their stories. Instead Mr. Ripper indulgently draws the story towards himself making it some kind of personal journey, and unfortunately it doesn't end up being much of one. I never really got a sense of any growth as he explores the subject, and he never indicates what about the subject pulled him in in the first place. He just drags us from one place to the next, brushes lightly on the situation and characters, hangs around showing too much uneventful slow-motion footage of people just walking around the streets, then moves on to his next destination. He does this over, and over, and over again without any real development. I felt like this film could have been cut down to 45 minutes but it's drawn out to close to 2 crushingly slow hours. We feel morally obliged to care about the topic, but the director's self-indulgent, meandering, uninspired delivery of his journey makes you grow numb after a while.