Directed by E. Elias Merhige "Begotten" is an experiment with a few interesting ideas that don't quite succeed in what they were trying to do. The film is a 76 minute ultra slow, questionably effective, irritating experience that tries to present an intriguing philosophy about the creation of the Earth and human nature.

It opens with god presented as a chair-bound psychopathic man who tears open his stomach using a knife. From the guts, blood and human waste Mother Nature emerges. She proceeds to impregnate herself with the dead god's semen. Later she gives birth to the Son of the Earth. A retard who is constantly abused a group of cannibalistic people whom I believe to be the representation of mankind.

"Begotten" takes a twisted and disturbing look on the origin of life. Demonstrating the self-destructive nature, violence, lust and greed that have become a trademark for mankind. The problem in the movie come from two points. One is that the film is just too slow in it's exhibition. What we get is a good thirty minutes spent on showing how the Son of the Earth is constantly shaking naked on the ground while at the same time being molested and tortured by mankind. Such tasteless prolonging gets boring pretty fast and lacks the punch in delivering a blow to the viewer's senses.

Another point is "Beggoten's" visual appearance and sound. The grainy, inverted, black and white low frame cinematography enchants the disturbing factor of the plot, but such novelties often work in only short periods of time. Then gradually begin to lose their effect as the audience becomes accustomed to the look. The audio suffers from the same problems. It's constant repetitive and similar sounds become annoying so fast I had an urge to turn off the volume. "Begotten" loses it's charm shortly after it begins. It tries to be original and creative but it fails to expand on the ideas hinted by the vague plot instead it repeats the same scene again and again.

The conclusion is that "Begotten" is stuck in one moment. Even though plot-wise it tries to move forward, the visuals and audio remain the same throughout. Showing the same action in a slightly different way with just slightly a different sound. A gimmick cannot alone make a movie. It also needs pace and variety, something Merhige seems to have forgotten.


Good lord.

I'm going to say right off the bat, I only watched 20 minutes of this movie. As I am a hardcore Eraserhead fan, the "what, you can't watch a wierd black and white movie with little-to-no dialogue?" defense does not apply. I simply can't watch TERRIBLE weird black and white movies with little-to-no dialogue.

This movie is what happens when you give an angsty goth-child with no talent and nothing to say a camera and budget, and let him/her put as much meaninglessly offensive imagery on screen as possible. It was clear from the start that this film should have been 5 minutes long (assuming it should exist at all). Shots that should last a few seconds drag on for minutes, because the director has "I-Just-Love-The-Sound-Of-My-Own-Voice" syndrome, and refuses to cut to another shot until the entire piece of footage has been viewed. From the moment the girl in the mask started masturbating the corpse of "God" (the opening scene of the film! joy!), I knew it was only a matter of time until I turned off the tape. After at least 10 minutes of a different corpse being pulled around, twitching, on a rope, by a gang of cloaked mystery-men, I knew it was time to give up. Rarely do I give up on a movie. I sat through the entirety of Blair Witch 2: Book Of Shadows, albeit not happily. This did not deserve the 20 minutes I gave it.

If you're an Eraserhead fan, do NOT let simple-minded comparisons to said film con you into renting this piece of amateur trash. Allow me to refer you to Tetsuo: The Iron Man, for a watchable and enjoyable piece of incoherent black and white weirdness.


Wasted is just that, a waste of time. MTV is churning out made for TV movies at quite a clip nowadays. A friend of mine recommended this and i rented it, needless to say i will not be pursuing anymore recomendations from her anytime soon. This movie shows the rollercoaster of drug use. The problem is, you really don't care about any of the characters due to lack of believabilty and their own self discipline. This movie is in a word, annoying to watch, from the terrible camera angles to the quality of dialogue and pacing. The 'digital' format tries for realism, but comes up distracting. If you want a true scope on drug use watch Requiem for a Dream.


There were two things I hated about WASTED : The directing and the script . I know I`m opening myself up to ridicule but Stephen T Kay`s direction is too much like a .... like a .... well like a MTV pop video . It`s shot ( I think ) on digital video against an intrusive soundtrack , often out of focus and often with rapid cross cutting . If you`re not a teenager you`ll find many segments of WASTED unwatchable due to the stylistic approach . As bad as the directing was it was the script that yanked my chain . The story is told through Samantha , a poor little rich girl who spends much of the film talking through voice over ( Strange how the voice over never seems idiosyncratic enough to have come from the same character ) telling us of the pressure of her exams , the pressure of home life , her social solitude and it`s all this that led her to take drugs . It`s for similar reasons like parental break up that her two male friends ( I thought she was supposed to be lonely ? ) to start taking drugs . Oh poor little Sammi in her nice house and her problems how my heart bled for you and your chums - NOT . What WASTED doesn`t mention is that no matter what someone is addicted to , be it drink , drugs , nicotine or chocolate that person has to work at becoming an addict , they`re not a victim of external forces , they`re commiting an act of free will . Both TRAFFIC and TRAINSPOTTING made this point very well , people become addicts because they want to . To portray them as victims in any way is wrong patronising and very possibly dangerous

By the way , if MTV are anti drugs will they stop playing videos from stars who freely admit taking drugs ?


4 realz son my game iz mad tite yo I cant wait 2 get on dis show and roll up in da club n do it real 905 style wit mad models n bottles, son!

No, I'm just kidding. This is a sad show, created by, and for the enjoyment of, sad men. Men who are so neutered by modern existence that they channel their frustration into the clubs, where they eke out fleeting self-validation preying on chicks in hopes of getting their little wieners touched to try and dull the sting of loneliness and make them feel, even if just for one night, as though their seat on the Board of the Sausage Party of Toronto is a little less permanent.

I read some comments on here saying that this show represents Canadian TV's finally stepping up to stand on a par with American TV or somethingorother. Well, that's not aiming short at all. It's like, Yes! Pat yourself on the back, Canada -- you've finally cracked the elusive formula for such groundbreaking American content as "Studs", "Change of Heart", "Elimidate" and "The Fifth Wheel". See, the real brainchild here is tacking "...meets Candid Camera" onto the pitch. Genius. And there's nothing that straddles that thin line between fratboy camaraderie and latent homosexuality like a group of grown men taping each other on hidden camera, admiring each other's "game" up in the club. The man-love on display here is so palpable they should really consider rechristening it "Keys to the Steam Bath".

On a side note, how interesting that the folks who gave this show such glowing reviews seem to have registered an IMDb account for the express purpose of doing so (I guess I'm guilty of employing the same means to do the opposite here.) My personal favorite is the one enthusiastic reviewer that claims to hail from the "United States" who gushes that "Now it's clear that the talent in Canada has the ability to produce American quality television."

Smooth.

But why even bother manufacturing online buzz? You can't really get cancelled, after all -- you're on the Comedy Network in Canada, baby! The viewing public will go on ignoring your show for years to come. In all likelihood you'll be just fine, coasting comfortably along that proverbial plain of mediocrity with the majority of the Comedy Network's original programming.


GAME.... Huh... game. I'm not even sure the bloody hosts of that particular reality-game know what the term 'GAME' means, let alone the bloody PLAYERS in the game!

An aspiring PUA would look at that and think... Hmmmmm... What the flying FORK was that useless excuse for a demonstration of seducing women? I've seen my neighbours DOG seduce women with more panache than that! And it is one UGLY bloody dog! And its main approach tactic is to frenetically hump legs!

I challenge the frustrated chump hosts of that show to a SHOW-down; a demonstration of their SO-called pickup ability... Can they deliver? If one is to view that piece of un-reality-drivel, then you would realise, No, these grandstanding, mentally-masturbating, suck-me-darling-boyfriend, wanna be hosts of Queer Eye or something similar (not that there's anything wrong with that...), are unable to un-shrinkwrap their penises long enough to provide a demo of a REAL pickup.

As you lovely North-Americans say: "...'Nuff Said!..."

A message from Down Under... with Love....


This is just what we need, a show about the people nobody likes in high school or in university. Man or Woman. People objectifying others and congratulating themselves for doing so is exactly the opposite of intelligent thinking. And this show is just disgusting for doing exactly that.

So four men sit in chairs and watch two other guys try and pick up women to have sex with them. And in the end one of the two wins, great...just f-n great. I'm also supposed to accept these four douche bags as being "judges" of people's "Game". The term "game" has got to be the most moronic thing to come out of modern English since the term "Bling Bling", added to the fact that these men are called the "experts" just makes me want to throw up whats left of my respect for modern culture. These are not god damn role models, they are the result of MTV culture coming to bite us in the ass. If you enjoy the bullshit spilling out the sides of this monstrosity then you probably think Paris Hilton and Britany Spears have talent. Its not true and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking so.

And for all those people who will say that I would like this better if I got laid, or that I'm just jealous. Go screw yourself, because its obvious that a REAL girl certainly won't.


This is possibly the worst thing I've ever seen on television. First, I'm pretty sure it takes itself entirely seriously, and I tend to be pretty good at recognizing satire. Second, it displays Aristotelian levels of chauvinism; in one of the ads for it, one of the "playas" describes women in terms of "quality". Third, every contestant I've seen on it (six, I think) was a dim-witted meathead of the variety likely to possess a Facebook with "BONING U" or "WOMEN" entered under "Here For". To paraphrase Roger Ebert, this doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel, nor deserve mention in the same sentence as barrels. The closest thing to a redeeming feature I've experienced with regards to Key to the VIP was having a female friend reassure me that the male cast were indeed the opposite of attractive, in both physical and mental terms.


Though it pains me to some degree that I'm bothering to christen the comments board for this new series - mainly because I'd hate to give the false impression that there's actually any semblance of public interest in it - I feel compelled to throw in my chips on this one.

To put it simply, never before have I felt so persuaded to root for a TV show's swift and merciless cancellation based solely on the merit of its promo ads. And, in case you're wondering, I'm a dude.

Listen, Comedy Network: though your existing original programming is already, shall we politely say, of a 'questionable' quality (I'm looking at you, "Girls Will Be Girls") you have truly outdone yourselves on this one. Whoever green-lit this thing could not be further out of touch with what's cool right now.

Best of luck.


yeah..that's what the station disclaimer states after the commercials for this show "some scenes may be disturbing to some viewers" .

It is beyond disturbing. The validation of this whole display of ego framing and chauvinism is in the fact it is on the COMEDY channel. Yes..a comedy true and true. A JOKE. To see these 'playas' go through their rigid charade really spells out what is wrong with society. Especially the meat market bar scene. Both sides, the male and female, are equally as weak and desperate to be mingling among this superficial atmosphere. The club is obviously one of those Cigarette corporation sponsored plastic coke scenes. These people do have a choice, and that is what makes it even more of a joke.

These slick ricks try too hard. They glisten with their own groove grease. That's OK. It's a lesson on video tape for the new generation of how NOT to focus on a potential heart interest. Hopefully that facade will crumble along with the Bush/Harper administrations. Problem is, who's lined up after these characters fade? The bastard children of the one night stands?


It's too bad these guys, the so-called judges, are such jerks, even the nominally "sensitive" ones. It's the self-congratulatory tone that really makes me sick though; these guys don't have any perspective on their behaviour. I think the real problem, though, is the quality of the contestants. Not a single smooth or truly charming one in the lot. They pick the most pathetic girls out of the crowd because they're the only ones these guys have a chance with. Let's see some real players trying for a truly unattainable girl, and maybe you have a show. Otherwise, you have a revolting half-hour of self-love. And real sexual tension takes two.


1) Men over the age of 25 that refer to themselves, without irony, as having "game", or being either a "player" or a "baller". Gentlemen, from here on in it's a swift descent into starring in your own real-life version of "A Night at the Roxbury".

2) Saying "The V.I.P." The term "V.I.P." in and of itself isn't bad, but when preceded by "The" it instantly becomes part of the Douchebag Dictionary. This goes double for white people.

3) People that make TV shows based on stuff that they don't know isn't cool and then go on IMDb posing as "fans", (...right...) moreover, one of whom is from the "United States" (hey, me too!) to bitterly insult members of their potential audience for inevitably thinking their show sucks. Minus 1 additional demerit point if they employ any variation on the oh-snap-nice-one-bro justification that "If you don't like the show you obviously can't get laid."

4) Canadian Hip-Hop/R&B sensation Massari...a random addition to the list at first glance, but at the end of the day Massari gets the gas face for the simple reason that his particular brand of low-rent American-aping uncool and general Aqua Velva douchebaggery dovetails with the overall sensibility of "Keys to the V.I.P."

5) Last but not least, "Keys to the V.I.P."...for all the above reasons and more.


After having seen this show a few times; I am thoroughly offended as a female that there are so many stupid, women out there that fall for this bullshit. Im a little more mature than some of the "players" in this show, but am still appalled that the whole dating game has been boiled down to a gameshow: where goofy dudes can score points on their lame ass attempts to pick up chicks. If young guys are watching this and using it as a learning manual: Don't!!!. Save yourself the effort and hire a prostitute if all you are after is a piece of ass. Maybe there are girls out there with the same mind set;but some how I don't think so.


this show just sucks. i don't think i even need to say it or why because judging by the number of comments already i am just repeating everything. keys to the vip is like turning on your TV and having it throw poo at you. that is exactly what it is like i am not even exaggerating even a little bit. these guys are so stupid, not funny and not smooth with the ladies that it's not even funny-casue-its-stupid. i sat through four episodes and i want my two hours back. where do they find the contestants because they are obviously deficient mentally. if i was the man who came up with this idea for a show and put it on TV i would do the world a favour and jump off the tallest building i could find. how does garbage like this get on TV? especially the comedy network shouldn't a show on something called the comedy network at least be a comedy show or maybe be funny so often?


This show is pathetic. I can't even begin to imagine how anyone with an IQ greater than that of a can of split pea soup that's past its expiration date can willingly sit through this garbage for an entire half hour. It is one of those rare shows that is so mind-numbingly awful in every respect you can honestly say you are less intelligent simply from watching it. I conducted a study and found that the average person loses 10 IQ points for every fifteen seconds they watch this show. That is second only to another Comedy Network abortion, Popcultured (19,863,221 IQ points per second lost) and pretty much a tie with Girls Will Be Girls. Keys to the VIP owes each and every one of us an apology. Whenever I watch this travesty of a show, I feel sad for society. How is it allowed to continue?


Keys to the VIP is just another one of the horrible T.V. shows that you can and will see on this station. The show is terrible with guys claiming to be real players competing against each other (there are two of them competing in each episode) in stupid games where they try to get girls at a bar to talk to them, get girls numbers, and so on. The judges are four other guys who also claim to be expert pick up artists but they also seem like just huge d-bags just like the contestants. The show is not funny at all and not even interesting, it is just boring watching these guys desperately try to convince us what awesome players they are (talking even more about the four judges than I am about the contestants). Nothing funny has even happened in the shows I have watched and the shows are obviously rigged. Do you really think they have invited all these people to the club, got them to sign releases, and get them on tape while these guys carry out the same stupid games with them? It's not reality at all it is just stupid, it probably even tapes in the day time. Somebody else on here wrote how they knew somebody on the show and it was all fake well yeah that is obvious, it's a fake show and even with actors it's still not funny. One of the worst shows I have ever seen.


A professional production with quality actors that simply never touched the heart or the funny bone no matter how hard it tried. The quality cast, stark setting and excellent cinemetography made you hope for Fargo or High Plains Drifter but sorry, the soup had no seasoning...or meat for that matter. A 3 (of 10) for effort.


Most of the films I really like are art-house fare and seldom appear on the box-office top-ten lists. That said, I found "Northfork" utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what it was even about. Writing in the New York Times about a different film, Stephen Holden once observed that some people seem to think they can throw just anything up on the screen and have it work as a fairy tale. I thought of that review several times while watching "Northfork".

On a scale of one to ten, I gave it a two.


There is nothing I hate more in a movie than pretentiousness, and this is one of the most pretentious films ever made. It's self-consciousness is obvious in every frame: "see what a profound, sophisticated film we are making," the director and screenwriters seem to be saying to us, and to themselves they say, "lets's see how we can bore and confuse the audience even more." I would rather watch the worst film by Ed Wood or Edgar G. Ulmer than something like this. At least they were giving us honest trash, and at least their films, in their own atrocious way, were entertaining. This film is about as entertaining as a root canal without anesthesia, and thus is tantamount to torture.

Have these screenwriters ever heard the word 'story?' It doesn't appear so. They have a concept, they are able to create an atmosphere, and they were able to assemble an excellent cast and elicit good performances from them. And for what? To bore us for an hour and 45 minutes? Nothing really happens in this film. The only exciting part, and this lasts only about two minutes, occurs when one of the soon-to-be-evicted homeowners starts shooting at the state employees who come to tell him he has to leave. But nothing comes of it. Too bad he didn't keep shooting until he hit the screenwriters. The only redeeming features of this film are the acting and some beautifully photographed scenery toward the end. 3/10


This is one of the best looking films of the past few years. The fact that it was done on a virtual shoestring ($1.8 million or so they say on the DVD:they infer that they ended up with even less financing) makes it all the more impressive. Not simply the photography, but the design and particularly the locations (Eastern Montana) which are at once authentically American and otherworldly.

Too bad there isn't a coherent movie to go with it. An extremely promising setup of the last 48 hours of clearing out a rural town in 1955 before it will be flooded for a dam is washed away with pretentious mumbo jumbo alluding to angels and a dying child. And what is presented as the "real world" is hopelessly arch. Note to the Polish Brothers:the Coen Brothers are funny-you are not.

No doubt many cineastes will find "Northfork"'s abundant symbolism and inscrutability as marks of some sort of profundity, the sort that sophisticated types wrestle the night away with in coffeehouses while the braindead masses watch "Charlie's Angels" or something. (Sigh) If you insist....

In the meantime, recommended only as a case study for filmmakers for its' impeccable technical credits and photographic beauty.


If this movie had a point I never discovered it. A very depressing movie which supposedly is about the final evacuation of the residents living in a dam site area on the Northfork River in Montana. The problem is that there is no actual Northfork River in Montana. There are several north forks but they are branches of other rivers which divided into north and south forks.

	The opening scene of the movie is a coffin bobbing to the surface of the lake but the scene is never tied into the story and the viewer is left to speculate as to its meaning. But much is left to the viewer's speculation in the movie. Another example is when a team of dam employees responsible for the evacuation of the residents arrives at the dam headquarters, another group of people are departing. Some remark which is almost inaudible is made about these people which makes no sense whatsoever and there is no followup in the movie to explain it.

	The movie is butchered into several stories and the film keeps switching back and forth between stories which is quite disconcerting. And the stories are weird. In one of them the occupants of one property refuse to be evacuated because they are living in a home that is built like Noah's Ark.

	Another senseless story centers around a sick orphan who is dying and somehow he is sharing his presence with a house full of ghosts and in an orphanage with a priest at the same time. If anyone can figure out what the ghost story was about the author must have explained it to them.

	The scenery was stark and the sun never shines. There are snowy mountains in the far distance. I guess the purpose was to set the mood. The time period is set by the fact that the evacuaters all drove Ford sedans of the 1946-48 era although the events are supposed to have occurred in 1955. The acting was mediocre. When I saw the billing for this movie it said that Darryl Hannah was in the picture. If she was, I didn't recognize her but I surmise that she was the ghost lady.


I tried to be patient and open-minded but found myself in a coma-like state. I wish I would have brought my duck and goose feather pillow...I apologize to all of the great actors in this movie. Maybe it takes a degree from MIT to understand the importance of this movie.


The frustrating thing about a movie like this, with a true potential for greatness, is that it almost enjoys being heavy-handed. We speak of allegory, of metaphor...but the truth is, there's no getting around the fact that there is absolutely no plot or real character.

At a certain point, we most know who the people are...even if we never understand where they are going. The sheer pretentiousness wore me down every time I tried to grasp a truth in this film.

Call it beautiful, great and awesome...I just call it "cheating." All style and no substance. Sure, it's a matter of taste...but I would never take a confusing modernist pastiche of symbols and splashes over the spiritual clarity of Jean Cocteau or Renoir. But if it works for you, I'm all for it. Art is a personal thing, I guess.


"What symbolism!" exclaimed a woman as we exited the theater after viewing the Polish brother's paean to Ingmar Bergman. Some symbolism is there all right. But not much. "Northfork" adds up to some fine acting weakened by dreary cinematography that fails to make any coherent statement and a muddled story that irritates rather than enthralls.

Northfork is a town facing extinction after a new hydroelectric dam goes into operation. It's the early to middle 1950s and a squad of identically dressed state agents, all looking as if they had just answered a casting call for "The Untouchables," have the job of relocating recalcitrant dwellers who fail to appreciate both their immediate peril as well as the proffered bounty for moving. An exciting anti-development movie is always a possibility but let's get real: rural electrification is one of the greatest advances in bringing decent living conditions and a boosted economy in American history. Dams can be built without forced relocation? Not in this country.

But this film is less about the plight of homeowners than it is a fantastical creation of a dying young boy's escapist imagination. Nick Nolte is the priest who tends to the lad and much of what he says might have been interesting if the sound was clear enough to hear.

Alternating between the black-suited evacuation agents (working for "lakefront" land when the dam creates that valuable acreage) and a phantasmagorical collection of weirdos, the film develops neither theme coherently or even interestingly.

The cinematography is poor. A washed out, subdued and depressive color permeates the whole film to little dramatic purpose. There is no reason for this vast terrain to be depicted so bleakly. Indeed, a contrast between largely untouched natural beauty and the massive and grim solidity of the evolving dam and power plants would have been very effective.

4/10.


Pretentious storytelling such as this always uses the same technique: 1) Throw opaque, unstructured threads around to perplex the audience. 2) Deal only in `big' topics such as life, death and God. 3) Make it appear profound with scenes of life, death, sky, etc. 4) Depend on an intellectually weak audience to give you the benefit of the doubt. 5) And finally, laugh all the way to critical acclaim.

This movie is pretentious faux-intellectualism at its boldest. Not only do these filmmakers not answer any questions, they're afraid to pose the questions to begin with. The film is held together by wisps. Directions are raised and dropped awkwardly. Pop cultural references are jolting and arbitrary. There is so little to point at, that any critical stabs will miss.

Critics who found an intellectual base to this movie are afraid to admit the truth: they have no idea what this movie is about. Good news: neither do the filmmakers. Satisfying attempts at answers to profound questions about human existence demand wit, intellect, poetry, and genius. Sadly, this movie demonstrates none of these traits.


'Northfork' is what is wrong with indie films. For all of their hard-edged commentary and attacking big subjects studios won't, this is the sacrifice we make. For nearly two hours I was subjected to the torture and pain of a film that starts by wandering like a blind man in a new place and ends without covering any new ground and thankfully dies.

There are parallel stories that detail a dying town and a dying boy. Two men dressed in black (one of them James Woods) must coerce the remaining inhabitants of Northfork to leave before a dam opens up and floods the town. The other story has a boy returned to the priest (Nick Nolte) that gave him to the parents. He is dying and is visited, I guess, by angels. Among them Anthony Edwards with bizarre spectacles and Daryl Hannah in a bizarre costume reminding me of the pirate shirt from Seinfeld.

Though this is the "plot," it is not what the film is about. The film is about nothing. It does nothing, says nothing, goes nowhere, and has nothing interesting to show. Perhaps by design, more likely an after-effect of the pretentious, surreal, David Lynch wannabe - we're an important artsy film can't you see - style of direction. The entire movie is filtered through a gray, bleak backdrop that, I suppose, fits a film about death. Instead, it simply makes the film that much harder to watch.

If you want to see a film about men in black, see either 'Men in Black' films, neither too impressive but compared to 'Northfork' they are lifted to 'Citizen Kane' status. If you want to see a film about a boy dying watch 'Lorenzo's Oil.' If you want to see a film that has the destruction of a town through water watch 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' If you want to watch a film better than 'Northfork,' there are hundreds. If you want to watch a film that is worse, there are only a handful. 0* out of ****


This is the most boring, pretentious, and stupid film I have seen in a long time. I saw it at the Academy in Beverly Hills, and there were quite a few people in the lobby who had left the screening and were seeking refuge there. All were solemnly shaking their heads and looking as though they had been to a funeral. What a waste of time and money. Even worse are the critics who gave this pretentious blimp good reviews. What's with them? Are they just afraid they won't be considered "hip"? Were they bribed? This film is staggeringly bad. Don't take a date to it expecting to have an in-depth chat at the Cheesecake factory afterwards. If going to see this film was your idea, she'll browbeat you and hold it over you the rest of your life.


Usually I'm the one criticizing the twenty-something Neanderthals for not being able to appreciate a film unless it has plastic t*ts, gunfights and car chases. However, in this case the film might actually have been improved with a few of those additions. At least I wouldn't have gotten bored after an hour and changed channels.

I don't mind surreal, and I certainly don't mind having to pay attention to find subtlety or hidden meaning, but there should be some point to the whole thing. I didn't get the feeling that even the writer or director really had a broad vision of anything but were, instead, just so self-absorbed in their own pretentious visions that they became deliberately scattered. Or perhaps they just got confused themselves. Either way, I don't care. It bored the crap out of me for just over an hour with no saving grace.

Although a whole pack of other viewers have filled up this site with excited ravings about the alleged symbolism and masterful cinematography, I must respectfully disagree. Perhaps I didn't mince through enough film classes to appreciate some inspired techniques not visible to mere mortals ...

Or perhaps this movie was just crap.

I give it a "1" and file it next to "Ishtar."


First the easy part: this movie is pretentious crapola!

It put me in mind of "Magnolia". And then I thought "Wow-- somebody made a movie even dumber and more irritating than "Magnolia".

I know nothing about the Polish brothers, but this film seems to have been made by someone who learned a lot in film school but knows nothing about storytelling. The trite plot elements and sledgehammer symbolism are bad enough, but the dialogue is just pathetic.

Detailed comments would just be a laundry list of failure. The parts that are supposed to be funny or satirical are not; the "elegaic" parts are nice coffee table pictures with mediocre music; the "emotional" parts are simplistic.

The worst thing is that the movie shows no love at all for the characters, except for a little cornball dignity in the priest.

I still can't believe the respect some people have given this picture.


This is a good time to say how good I think of this site: it gives me the opportunity to feedback all the frustration I lived for two hours, awaiting for something to happens, for something to be said, to be shown, to be insinuated subtly, for a symbol, an idea, whatever. No, just long, endless violins, alternated by a tired piano. Tired voices, tired actors and bored characters and situations. Boring is the long death of the mind, and this movie is, from that point of view, a public enemy. How many thousands of live hours will be still stolen to another thousands of innocent spectators. I don't claim for my money back, just for my time and the time of persons I invited to watch this thing... oh God !


I was fairly lost throughout most of this film, and I am the one who usually understands the works of such enigmatic cinema greats as David Lynch (Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me) and Darren Aronofsky (Pi). Not to say that Northfork doesn't make sense on some level, it just doesn't combine to form a wholly coherent film. As time passes from watching the film, its themes and intentions become clearer, but during my initial viewing, I was really confounded, and I find that this is the major fault of the film...its lack of direction. The plot centers on the town of Northfork, Montana in the year 1955. The town has been emptied and will soon be flooded to make way for the creation of a hydro-electric dam. The major problem is that not all of its inhabitants are willing to be evacuated and relocated. A group of men are hired to coerce the remaining residents out of the town before it will be drowned, and for the most part they succeed amidst some fairly odd situations and townspeople. Simultaneously, the film tells the story of Irwin, a very sick young boy (or is he a fallen angel?) whose adopted parents gave him back, due to his illness, to the Northfork orphanage that they adopted him from. Father Harlan (Nick Nolte) cares for the dying Irwin, but Irwin imagines (or does he?!) that a group of angels (including Daryl Hannah and Anthony Edwards) have arrived in the desolate and empty town looking for a fallen angel. Irwin has scars on his back and on his head, and he tries to convince the angels that his scars are where the humans amputated his wings and halo. Oh yeah, and during all of this there is a strangely surreal walking animal on stilts that roams throughout the backdrop of the landscape. There are a lot of other small events that happen in the film, but none of them end up amounting to much more than momentary intrigue. One can appreciate the artistic quality of the film (it's obvious that the filmmakers cared deeply about this film) and its rich cinematography, but the film still tries too hard to be different and then gives up and whimpers to an end without making much of a statement. Like I wrote earlier, it becomes clearer, long after viewing, what has possibly taken place in the film. Irwin is dying, and so is Northfork, and in coping with his own loss and death, Irwin has most likely created characters, from ideas he gets from the objects that surround him at the orphanage, to console him as he is abandoned and his life nears its end. But then again, maybe he really is an angel, and he has found his kind and can now return home. I must emphasize that there are some truly beautiful moments in the film, heartbreaking, vivid and full of loneliness and sadness. Unfortunately, the film as a whole just ends up feeling disconnected and somehow incomplete.


I should live this film, but I don't. It won international awards, it is foreign (I usually like such films) it is slow moving (again something I like) and it has no gratuitous sex or violence. the problem is that it is boring. We have two friends from the same village in Turkey one "successful" the other not. the unsuccessful one comes to Istanbul to stay with the successful in an attempt to get a good job at sea. Both live lives that are unfulfilling, pointless and petty.

Well, it isn't the first time this kind of film has been made. I didn't see anything new being added to this tired theme. There are long takes that are just someone standing and looking at the sea or sitting in a coffee shop or watching TV. I do understand that this kind of thing is there to show the emptiness of their loves, While it does do that I got the idea in the first 15 min. I don't need to be beaten over the head with it for the rest of the two hours.

The symbolism is also a bit heavy handed. the plate of live minnow type fish with one off the plate and flopping around in its death throws. Symbols are best when they are not obvious but are there, in the background, creating a mood just slightly below the viewer's awareness.

The film is so apathetic, that it doesn't even rate a score of 1, so I gave it a 2. To rate a 1 takes a talent at being bad. This film didn't have that much energy.


I can't think of anything, I repeat, ANYTHING positive about this "Movie"! The whole 1 hour 45 minute movie could be shrunken into a short 5-minute movie! In most scenes, there is absolutely nothing going on and it seems just the camera was left on recording on purpose only to increase the time of the movie! All you see is someone in the background walking around or watching TV with no specific subject or even talk what so ever! I just feel I've wasted 105 minutes of my, my family's and my friends' weekend for nothing! If a movie is poorly made or the scenario isn't great that's whole another story, at least it leaves you something to discuss about but about DISTANT, I just have to call it a "Movie" because it was motion pictures recorded by a camera.

If you haven't seen it, imagine a 105-min long movie based on two-three lines of story! What will you end up with? 5% of content and 95% of fillers! That's exactly how "Distant" was at least for us! Actors did a great job acting roles that had nothing special in them, they barely talked or showed any special emotions! I picked up this movie in the comedy section of a store relying on what I read on the back of its cover. I'm still wondering what was funny in it other than our face after watching the movie.


This movie is about a depressed and emotionally constricted man has a distant relative move in with him in his apartment in Istanbul. As time passes, their relationship becomes more and more strained until finally he begins yelling at his house guest--who is out of work and doesn't appear all that eager to find work. That's most of the movie in fact. The problem is that although emotionally constricted and depressed people are VERY withdrawn and non-communicative, they don't make for a very satisfying movie. That's because most of the time he (and his roomie) just stare into space and say nothing. I think all these flat moments could have been shortened to make a 30 minute movie--I certainly wouldn't have minded.


There seem to be many fans of this movie here, but I found it boring, slow, meandering, and pointless. And I watch and enjoy plenty of art-house and independent films, so I wasn't expecting an action movie. I didn't sympathize with either character. The guy from the countryside was a bad guest and didn't seem to be trying very hard to find a job, and his relative in Istanbul was humorless and closed off emotionally.

In an interview on the DVD, the director says that the movie is about a common situation in Turkey - the person leaving in the countryside because there are no jobs and coming to Istanbul and staying with relatives while trying to find work. That in itself is interesting, but the movie wasn't.


Don't get me wrong: I enjoy art-house movies, low-budget flicks, character studies, and foreign movies. Unfortunately, I couldn't enjoy this one -- glacial pacing, complete lack of plot, and characters that you can't dislike enough to hate, but you can't tolerate enough to like.

For me, Distant was like watching the cutting-room floor footage of a reality show -- all of the scenes which were deemed too uninteresting which would normally not make the final cut, were the only scenes included. A camera in my apartment with two of my friends ambling around for hours does not an interesting movie make.

Distant certainly makes the watcher feel that way -- long stretches of no dialogue (nearly 10 minutes before the first word is spoken from the credits) can be made to work (2001 comes to mind), but for me, something else compelling needs to happen to draw me in.

If you're the kind of watcher who can sit through a movie and be content with movie analysis, perhaps it will work for you. However, if you're somebody who chooses to watch movies to relax, expand your mind, or be entertained, you should probably look elsewhere.


Bad, ambient sound. Lots of shuffling. Loooong pointless scenes. Eg: guy sees interesting woman in lobby. Manages to stay there and watch her under the guise of waiting for the building supervisor to get a package. Says nothing. Stares creepily. More shuffling and other irritating ambient noise. Wait. Wait. Wait. Guy says nothing. Woman looks frightened or at least slightly disturbed about it and rightly so. Manager comes back with package. Guy goes up to the apartment with the package.

Another example: the guy and his host sit around watching bad TV. More ambient noise and shuffling. Wait wait wait wait. Guy wanders off to bed. If you can stand to sit through any more of this movie, you get to watch them watch TV again later.

If you want a story, any dialogue, entertainment, or a well crafted film, look elsewhere.


I've seen comments from Turkish people (which I'm not) saying this movie is fantastic and accurately portrays Turkish life. All I have to say is... Turkey must be one of the most boring and depressing places in the world, because in my opinion, that is exactly what this movie was to me. If I were Turkish, I think it would have had a greater impact. But if you're not from Turkey, I would advise you not to waste two hours of your life on this.

"Distant" seems to lag on forever. Many scenes are painstakingly long with little or no purpose. I don't understand the director's objectives in even including many of the scenes. It is pointed out that the director used his own car, apartment, and friends in making the movie...Well guess what? It shows. It looks low budget. The acting is poor. If it's a cultural thing then so be it. I just don't understand the purpose of basing a movie on this story. It's unbelievably boring.


Silly and violent thriller that is a rip - off of 'Deliverance' but without any charm and intelligence. The plot is ridiculous and the cast seems to be tired and anxious to be free of this obnoxious entry. This movie is a solid example of a bad plot and a very, very bad idea all the way. It's a shame to see good actors like Thomerson and James make a living in a mess like this.


No idea how this is rated as high as it is (5.8 at the time of writing) but this movie was absolutely horrible. The acting wasn't entirely bad but it really had no point whatsoever and the overall quality was poor. Its obviously a B movie (or a C if such a thing exists) and it looks like it was made over a weekend at a friends house or something. Im all for low budget movies and I generally watch any I come across but this one is really really bad. I mean like "The Fanglys" bad. I don't know what else to say but trust in this as I have indeed sat thru this horrible horrible movie and I can save you the effort... Don't bother. Seriously... Just don't.


This is a little slow-moving for a horror movie, but the quality is better than you might expect for a director's only effort on IMDb. The camera work and lighting were both surprisingly good, and the acting  although variable  is better than is often found in Indie genre flicks.

As the lead, Robert Field is rather stiff, which is especially unfortunate given that his character, Claude, is the film's narrator as well as the centre of its action. However, it was the entry of Christopher (Brandon deSpain) that I considered the turning point of this film  and not in a good way. A twist is introduced in a clumsy fashion, and slow-moving becomes drawn out and overly wordy.

On the up side, Pete Barker is consistently entertaining as Father William. He's the easy stand-out in what is a fairly ordinary offering. While the first half hour caught my interest, I ended up feeling quite disappointed in the way things played out.


Sometimes you just have to have patients when watching indie horror. If you can just toe-tap your way through the slow-paced early scenes, sometimes a real gem will present itself... This (unfortunately) was not the case with "Satan's Whip".

Written and directed by Jason Maran, "Satan's Whip" attempts to drag us along on a boring snore-fest of a film, with no real pay off at the end. I'm guessing that the black & white (and blue) cinematography must have been for a reason, however it is never explained why the majority of the blood is blue, and I found this increasingly annoying as the film went on. The story in itself is not that bad, and actually had some originality and decent content but the acting is simply pathetic. This, combined with the slow-pacing and lack of any real (red) gore made "Satan's Whip" one to forget quite quickly. I will give it a "4" rating for some witty dialog that made me chuckle, but alas that could not save this boring waste of my time.


Just saw this movie yesterday night and I almost cried. No, it wasn't because it got me utterly petrified, no. It was absolutely HORRENDOUS! Sometimes, you see movies that make you wonder what will become of the human race in the near future - this movie is one of those. It's as though the writer, actors, director, et al, just came together and copied and pasted scenes of their favorite horror flicks, zipped it all together and said "hey, here's Satan's whip!!!" After seeing this movie, I could not help but be tormented by the sight of people whom call themselves "actors"; waltzing around like they're some kind of talented artistic interpreters... do not be fooled they suck! Don't bother wasting your time or money!!!


This was without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever see, yet once I started, it was just like the really bad car wreck on the side of the road - you can't help yourself, you just have to look. My EYES !!! The acting was awful, the production was awful, the filming was awful, awful, awful, awful. I was glad the priest got chopped, would have loved to have done it myself because of his POOR acting. I mean suck-ful acting to the tenth power. I would have cheered if Chris had just axed the lot of them before turning it on himself. And what was WITH that freaking wig from hell on his head?! I sincerely hope no one got paid, I mean if getting paid were to be considered here, they should be paid to never attempt another film project again, everyone that was involved, never, never again. That was just a huge piece of garbage that I am embarrassed to say I just had to keep watching until the very end. Don't watch it, it's about an hour and a half of your life you will never get back, and then you'll have to spend time registering on this website so you can write a comment like I am doing now, which you must do as a catharsis in order to survive the aftershocks of having viewed this film (and I use the term "film" loosely here).


The people at ABC forgot to do their biographical research... so many scenes were just plain wrong! The actor playing JPII was very rigid, there was no personality there. It is very very obvious that this movie was on the bottom of the programming totem poll, the move is so low budget. The script is terrible. Conversations like: "You must follow the rules" "No, the people are starving." Lame. Plus, the movie was jumping like crazy from event to event in order to fit it into the two hours. Terrible! A better use of your time would be to watch a PBS documentary on JPII. Also, CBS put out a miniseries on JPII that is better than ABC by far. JPII was a wonderful man, and it bothers me to think that my grandkids might get a hold of this ABC movie and think that THAT is what he was really like!


I saw that this movie was coming out and could not wait to see it. I have to say I was very disappointed with it. This would have been better as a mini-series. The whole show seemed very rushed. They did not explain things very clearly. At the end they showed John Paul II, alive and well and the next scene he was dead. Never any explanation as to what happened. (We all know what happened in real life) I think ABC dropped the ball big time on something that could have been great. In all I think this movie was a blur. It seemed like a drunken monkey jumping around from one point in John Paul's life to another point never explaining how or why things happened. Such as when his older brother leaves, it was never explained that his brother was a doctor and that is why he left home. Also when his father dies, all we see is his father lying on the floor and that was that. I was very disappointed with the over all movie.


Not finding the right words is everybody's problem in this vaudeville-type urban comedy. They don't know what to say, and they don't know how to say it, which is why they embark on the potentially humiliating enterprise of pre-arranged speed dating. Unfortunately, they all come across as cardboard characters rather than real people. The story follows a conventional three-act structure: getting to know the sizable cast in their sorry single lives, the actual dating circuit, and a final stretch of romantic fallout, showcasing some of the new-found couples' follies. Because it's all so predictable, I'd say that as a narrative, "Shoppen" is a failure. As a comedy, most of the time it's too goofy to be really funny. Thumbs up to Kathrin von Steinburg. She stands out from the soap opera crowd as the aloof, independently wealthy Miriam. Great makeup on her too (Verena Weißert): Heavy eye shadow meets skin-tone lip gloss, creating a brooding and bohemian, yet girlish effect. Thumbs up also to Stefan Zinner as the Bavarian love machine and Tanja Schleiff as the hot nutritionist. They bypass the communication challenge by way of the timeless body language of copulation.


This feels like a feature-lenght treatment of a comedy-routine that could have also been told in a ten-minute short. Also, technical credits are sup-par. The film really feels like a film school diploma project.

The cast is a mix of seasoned stage pros and talented newcomers but the problems is the superficial scrip. Their lines feel constructed, exactly like cued TV show material.

The director fails to take his protagonists seriously, therefore we are not touched by their problems and conflicts.

The film has been cleverly marketed and offers a unique selling point, but in the end the film disappoints on all levels.


Well, I have to admit that this movie brought some occasional laughs to my face. OK, but that does not make it a good movie. Most of the characters are terrible stereotypes and truly unconvincing. Not all of them give great acting performances, but some really try, but fail because their characters are badly written. The perfect example is Julia Koschitz: She changes her eating habits from one talk to the other, on one talk she does not drink alcohol on the next she is allergic to champagne, she feels too beautiful for most people (in fact she is) but still ends up with the "perfect" fit concerning the looks, and refuses to give some more "realistic" guys a chance, and so on... The end is very cheesy, although I like one of the final scenes, when everybody finally stops talking and the director gives us a chance to catch our breath again. Shoppen is basically a movie that offers some cheap laughters (mostly because it is about sex and relationships, I assume) and maybe some short entertainment. Still, the whole picture is one big stereotype and nothing is really special about it.


Even though I tried to avoid German films recently, positive reviews lured me into renting this one. There I stand fooled again by German media which has been hyping domestic flicks over and over again. To me it is no wonder no one abroad wants to see this crap. The idea to make this film is no idea at all (I guess some fool read a women's magazine article about speed-dating). In short: The characters (which are none), dialogue and content are so stunningly trivial, trite and cliché-ridden, I continued watching because I could hardly believe what I saw. BTW to call the flat theses mechanically delivered by the figures (certainly from the aforementioned magazines) dialogue, would be simply incorrect. Acting is so over-the-top, I can't remember worse than that on screen in a long time. You have to guess the director had/has no clue at all. Amazingly distributors and producers around the country are still wondering why German films (with rare exceptions) generate no interest world-wide. Why? Because it's waste of time and money.


1 thing. this movie sucks BIG TIME..i was into singaporean comedy when Chiken Rice war came along. But, this time, even Gurmit Singh (well-done) acting cant pull this one of. A total failure of following HK's Shaolin Soccer. Next time: do ur own thing!


Okay, so I'm Singaporean and I would like to say that it's time to stop stereotyping Singaporeans and making such films. Some of the actors/actresses actually have talent, but sadly it wasn't shown much in this film. I was fidgeting in my seat when I watched this, being quite young at that time, my parents dragged me along to see it. Honestly I could say that I was going to fall asleep. And there was this arrogant westernized boy whom just got on my nerves. Overall a boring film, and a general waste of the actors' talent. I have seen better Singaporean movies than this. Chicken Rice War was good. However, I cannot believe that this one would be considered a better Singaporean film. Sorry, I wouldn't recommend it.


To soccer fans every where -- stay away from this movie. It was so baaaaddd! Lame acting, lame script, lame soccer and no directing! I rented this movie during my stint in Asia and was appalled that this was considered one of the better Singaporean films. It was just nonsensical and thoroughly boring. There are thousands of rich, exciting stories in Asia. Why write a bad story about over the top and stereotypical Singaporeans?


Why is it that Instant Noodles aren't instant, this was the perplexing problem I placed in the lap of the one legged angry Sherpa; he angrily retorted that noodles weren't his bag, equally I replied "What bag?" He looked further perplexed.

Some of you will be wondering, why has the Sherpa only one lower appendage.

The Sherpa, who we shall call Sherpa 5, for data protection reasons, injured his toe. "How!?!" I hear you ask, I will proceed, as we have learnt from the review of Donkey Punch (2002) Irene via sly nudges and dirty winks etc tried in vain to teach the slight peculiarities of checkers to all the angry Sherpas. Sherpa 5 who is known only for his violent tirades against democratic principals during the post revolutionary years of the now United States of America and it's consequential affect on the mind sets of it's population in the post modern empire that now exists, through the invasions of countries smaller than it, got carried away in a river of violence due to his lack of comprehension of checkers. According to an eye witness , he sprung around like a feckless banjo string at Mardi gras wielding a stick with nail through it, after the struggle that ensued 5 llamas were each found to be missing their left testicles, 3 Sherpas were discovered spooning beneath a gooseberry bush and Sherpa 5 had the nail stuck in his big toe.

A Sherpas lifestyle is as modest as a nuns, with only rudimentary health care facilities at 15000 ft above sea level. Consequentially when the first aid hut was opened only an IOU for a tin of spam, and some crotchless knickers were found. Sherpa 5 hopped around like a dark on a noose in agony, until Irene burst forth like a cock from a hen house and suggested soaked his ailment in llama spit. Sherpa 5 agreed to the procedure , to sedate him, a bottle of 100 yr old Glenfiditch was produced, some say it was left by an angry Scotsman, who is thought to be an ancestor of the angry Sherpas. One under the influence, the toe was bathed until ridged, dressed with Irenes slightly soiled diaphragm and some blue tack. Some of you may feel that this procedure wouldn't do the Sherpa any good and you would be fully vindicated for holding that view. Only four days later gangrene set it and a week later the leg was removed through the use of even tighter elastic bands


Hollywood has made a lot of strange movies over the years, but none stranger than this. WHY this movie got made I will never know, nor how Paramount could have thought it would sell any tickets in 1947. It is the strangest mix of genres I have seen in a long time, a movie that truly does not know whether it is trying to be a serious war drama or a Viennese operetta comedy.

It tells the story of a British spy trying to get a poison gas formula out of Germany in the days just before WW II began. Ray Milland, a fine actor, is stuck playing the part like an escapee from Monty Python, all very exaggerated English prep-school dialogue. In Germany he meets a gypsy, Marlene Dietrich, who helps him to travel under cover as, of course, another gypsy. She plays her part like the typical Viennese operetta gypsy caricature, as do the other "gypsies" in the movie. But there are also Nazis, who are not funny at all. And then Milland finds he is starting to think like a gypsy, and that is not treated as a joke. Sometimes the music is for a light comedy, sometimes for a drama. Every time the Nazis show up, the film score plays Wagner, which is funny by itself.

This movie could have been a comedy, or it could have taken the plight of the gypsies seriously and done a serious job of showing how the Nazis treated them. Both are hinted at in this movie, but neither pursued. What we are left with is a truly strange mish-mash of genres that must have embarrassed everyone (except the director) involved.

Bizarre.


Silly comedy casts an embarrassed-seeming Ray Milland as a British officer in World War II Europe escaping German confines and taking up with a man-hungry gypsy woman, played by Marlene Dietrich. Slowly-paced, overlong, and miscast: the leads are far too old for this type of juvenile fodder, although Marlene shines in her solo moments. It took three scriptwriters to adapt Yolanda Foldes' book for the screen, but this material must have already seemed dated by 1947--it smacks of something Ernst Lubitsch might have turned out in 1939. The scenario is musty, and the stars have absolutely no chemistry together. ** from ****


42/100. Often referred as "Tarzan with clothes on", but it's not at all in the same league as his far superior Tarzan series. Basically, The Jungle Jim series became a Tarzan replacement for Johnny Weismuller, after he started getting too out of shape for a loincloth. In Jungle Jim, he is fully clothed. It can't compare to the Tarzan series in any way, not in acting, screenplays or quality of production. It's pretty hokey stuff. This one is the first the best in the series, and that isn't saying much. Too much stock footage is used, and it is so obvious. The score is overdone, and the plot is lame and the production is so poor it makes it hard to watch at times.


Seems like some of the previous reviewers has seen another movie than what i saw earlier tonight... Actually, this movie is the reason why i registered at IMDb. Sure Bobbie Phillips can "fight" and for that i give this movie a 2, but the rest of this movie is just pure crap... The acting is bad, the plot is bad, the camera angles are bad, and the effects are bad. Sure the actors are in physical good shape, but they cannot act! Sometimes i enjoy watching bad movies for the laugh, but this movie had no charm and after i saw this movie i was filled with regrets for seeing it. Sure, if you would like to see mediocre fighting without anything else then this movie is for you. If not then stay away from this film! PS: Sorry for any spelling mistakes... i am just tired as a cause of this movie!


I just have to say that this was the third worst movie I have ever seen right after the attack of the murder tomato's 3 and starship troopers 2. It wasn't just dialogs or the paper walls or even the guns shots which just automagically disappeared with no holes in the walls. It was the horrible acting. No wonder that I have never seen these actors before they all probably slept with the director(s). I think i'am being nice to this movie now but that is only because i'am to tired from screaming at the movie (just saw it). My advice is to buy as many DVD's of this movie as you possibly can and burn it so no one ever can see this horrible waste of time, money and film ever again.


There were very few good moments in this film. Only a couple of characters were fleshed out and not that well. There were plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. The pace creep-ed along like an old man. There were many moments that the film never came back to like Coco stripping. What happened to her? How about Garci's sister? Is she better now? What about Leroy? We learned absolutely nothing about him. What about the electronic piano guy? How about the rich girl that got an abortion? What happened to her? That was an interesting subplot.

Overall this is not a good movie and I recommend another musical that was in this film. LET'S DO THE TIME WARP AGAIN!!!!!!!


No matter what you've heard, "Fame" is not a good movie. It's not worth the investment of over two hours to watch stereotypically troubled teens dancing, singing, learning, and staring at girls in the dressing rooms.

Every cliché finds a cozy little home in this movie. There's a gay teenager looking for acceptance. That would have been great if it had been treated as anything more than a secondary plot point. There's a ghetto kid who has too much attitude-- what, was I surprised? And guess what? They all want to become big stars, finding fame and fortune, and they'd all be willing to crawl over their own mothers' smoking corpses to get it.

Oddly enough, this film is remembered for its music. But in actuality, the only moderately good song is "Hot Lunch Jam," which is still too cheesy to be of any real quality. The two most popular songs are nothing, either. "Fame" is meaningless fluff drowned out by the sheer spectacle of a massive dancing-in-the-streets scene. And "I Sing the Body Electric" (what in Bubba's name does that even mean?!?!?!?!?) is just an incomprehensible joke.

Bad acting, tasteless dialog, and hack direction (it is, after all, from the director of "Evita") are only marginally helped by Michael Seresin's appropriately ordinary camera work. But cinematography alone cannot carry a movie, especially one as uninspiring and pointless as this.


Fame did something odd. It was not only a musical that was created originally for the screen (most are based off of Broadway musicals), but it spawned a TV series and a Broadway musical. Let me correct that sentence. Fame is not a musical. Musicals have song numbers in order to advance the plot or to show characters' feelings. The singing in this music is not used to do either; in fact, there's no use for it at all. People just randomly sing to fit in with the plot. And that's not the type of musical I know.

The so-called plot of Fame has an onslaught of characters (who are all introduced at once-last time I saw that in a movie [Gosford Park] it had disastrous results) who audition for, and get into, New York High School for the Performing Arts. All of them are in for different reasons-i.e. acting, singing, etc. Quote-unquote drama unfolds as these middle-aged people pretending to be teenagers go through their four years.

My largest complaint is that the high school is supposed to be selective. After all, it's a free college, and they can't let everyone in. So how is it that some people who are really bad get into the college? Obviously so that drama could ensue between all of these different people. And why is the person top billed not even in the movie until near the end, for no reason at all, except to make us feel uncomfortable? There's many unsettling situations that these untalented people get into, yet you can't feel bad for them because you don't know who they are! These relationships occur between people whose names you don't know. And these characters realize things about themselves throughout the course of the movie, yet you don't realize that, because you don't know what they were like in the first place.

As for the singing, it pops in randomly (and is supposed to be humorous?) and does nothing. When the title song is sung, it's played in the middle of a street and before you can say Ferris Bueller everyone's in the middle of the street dancing wildly and off-beat to it. The song itself is fine, but the whole scene, like the whole movie, is unnecessary. Fame is an unpleasant movie, to say the least. I would say more, but most of the movie has thankfully gone out of my head. Just don't see it. You'll be doing yourself a favor.

My rating: 2/10

Rated R for language.


My wife and I both remembered this film being a lot better than it is. When we rented it last weekend, we wondered if we were watching the same movie we had seen 22 years or so ago. We both agreed that we were probably remembering the TV series, which, in its one-hour segments, was compelled to actually wrap up plot lines. This movie leaves many loose threads, as has been mentioned by others here... basically every main character's story line is left unresolved.

Gotta like the title song, though.


This was on TV last night. I painfully forced my way through it, and barely made it through. First of all, except for Leroy, Hilary, and possibly Coco, NONE of the other students we are supposed to care about have any discernible talent. It's like HSPA had no standards, just sign on the dotted line and you're in.

The story lines were grating and obvious. Doris was just impossibly awful. The gay guy was such a thrown away cliché (funny how that school had only one gay guy, right...) I liked the Leroy character, but calling your teacher an obscenity and then vandalizing the school should have sent Leroy packing. Lisa looks like she'd rather be anywhere else, and since she wasn't any talent, I wonder why they kept her.

I would have rated this one star (awful), but the music wasn't that bad, and I did like the premise. It just would have worked much better if the students had been attractive and actually had some talent.


This film was produced by Producers Releasing Corp. (PRC), among the so-called "Poverty Row" film studios of the 1930s and 40s. So you can imagine how little money was spent making it.

The music is forgettable. Cast member Gerra Young does exhibit an operatic-quality voice, but is sort of a discount Deanna Durbin. The IMDb database doesn't show any other film appearances for her, so let's hope she was able to move on to some kind of position in Grand Opera.

The opening credits for the print recently broadcast by Turner Classic Movies indicates this film has been preserved by the National Film Museum. This immediately begs the questionWHY?

Are their resources so plentiful that they can afford to preserve junk? Some low-budget or B musicals of that era have redeeming features which make them worthwhile. This film has none.

In my opinion, skip this movie. It REALLY wastes an hour of your time.


I have seen Shallow Grave years ago, and *that* was one of those movies I kept in memory for a very long time. It was intense from beginning to end and with plenty of sudden twists. But all of these made sense.

I can't tell the same about Dead Bodies. Above the title is a subtitle that claims it to be "even better than Shallow Grave". This is a big lie.

Dead Bodies looses strength and gets far less convincing during the movie.

Two supporting characters for example, turn out to be a whole lot less innocent than they first appeared to be. That could work as a surprise, but it didn't surprise me. I could see it coming minutes before, and *that* is a big difference with Shallow Grave.

Another thing I have to mention is that characters in this movie often respond not very realistic. They behave like that more often when the movie gets to it's end.

I would have found it far more interesting if some of the characters would have stayed completely innocent, not knowing what is going on. It would have been better for the contrast with for example Tommy and his friend who have to carry a *huge* secret with them.

But no, for some stupid reason the makers of this movie decided that all characters should show their darkest sides. It does not work in a movie like this.

The end felt much like an open end. It left me with an unsatisfied feeling. I expected a whole lot more of it.

At first I would have given this movie six stars because it is not entirely a bad movie. I liked watching it. Most of the time.

But occasionally I saw some really poor acting and unrealistic scenes and because of the disappointing open end, I stick to four stars this time. And because it turned out to be a mistake that I have spend my time and money to it. Unlike Shallow Grave, I will probably forget Dead Bodies very soon. It is just not such a special movie.

The makers could have done a far better job with this movie. It is a shame that they did not.


This belabored and sloppy spy melodrama featuring two buffoonish (one idealistic, one drug addled) California kids dealing secrets to the KGB never seems to get enough steam up to sustain any tension and suspense before it dies a very slow death over two hours later. John Schlesinger's finished product gives the impression that he was asleep in his director's chair most of the time as the film lags and the actors sleep walk, save for the highly annoying over the top performance of Sean Penn.

Childhood altar boys and friends Chris (Tim Hutton) and Daulton (Penn) devise a plan to sell secrets to the KGB when Chris lands a job that allows him access to top secret government materials. Disillusioned by what he sees as US meddling in foreign affairs the idealistic Chris and the drug hungry Daulton make contact with the Russians and begin to funnel them classified materials. When Chris decides he wants out things begin to unravel at a lackadaisical pace.

The eighties were not kind to distinguished director John Schlesinger. In the 60s and 70s he had a series of critically acclaimed films in both England and America but then came Honky Tonk Freeway in 1981 and it marked the beginning of the end. The Falcon and the Snowman more or less put a lid on it. Lacking the suspense of Marathon Man and the quality performances (Hoffman Voight, Christie, Jackson, Finch, Olivier) he had coaxed from leads in the past Falcon goes in circles most of the way.

Sean Penn chews scenery from start to finish in such an obnoxious fashion you find yourself encouraging his torturers to do more to him. Tim Hutton is governed by his limited acting chops and most of his scenes show a need for more rehearsal time. Lori Singer as Hutton's girlfriend plays it mute most of the way with Schlesinger content to film her vapid expressions. When she does emote you understand why. Only David Suchet as the KGB handler with a piercing eyed introspective presence and restraint acquits himself well.


Based on the true story of two young Americans who sold national secrets to the Soviet Union in the height of the Cold War, "Falcon And The Snowman" wants to be both suspenseful and philosophical, and winds up falling short in both departments. It's less le Carré than who cares.

Timothy Hutton stars as Christopher Boyce, a former seminarian who, disgusted by Watergate and the middle-class values around him, is probably the wrong guy to be hired by a company running spy satellites for the CIA. Sean Penn plays his drug-dealing pal, Daulton Lee, who makes himself Boyce's courier, delivering secret files to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. An offbeat synth-jazz score, lack of sympathy or emotional attachment for anyone, and lots of scenes of guys getting angry in rooms all combine to deaden what could have a decent moral-dilemma thriller.

It's really Penn's movie despite the second billing; his character gets to talk turkey with the Russians while Hutton plays with his pet falcon. Hutton looks like they woke him up five minutes before they called "action". With Penn, it's a crapshoot whether you get a brilliant performance or an over-the-top one. Here, it's a bit of both, but more the latter, especially in the second half when Lee switches from coke to heroin. He screeches. He snorts. He crashes Russian embassy parties. He gets pummeled with telephone books. He spits at himself in a mirror, a big goober he must have been saving for a paparazzi. "I don't know who my friends are anymore!" he cries out. It's exhausting to just watch him.

Penn seems to have modeled Lee somewhat on Dustin Hoffman's Ratso Rizzo from "Midnight Cowboy", complete with overly nasal line readings and constant eye shifting. John Schlesinger directed this film as well as "Midnight Cowboy", but he seems to have had another Hoffman film in mind, "The Graduate", throwing up scene after scene of Boyce and Lee poolside, trying to decide how to live their lives in their gilded cage. Too bad no one suggested plastics.

From the opening shots, news footage of American decline juxtaposed with Boyce and his bird, "Falcon" makes clear it is a message movie, though the message itself is far from clear, probably because the characters never come into focus. Is Boyce supposed to be an idealist? Or is he just a mercenary? Hutton and Schlesinger don't seem to know, which makes it harder for us. Meanwhile, opportunities to establish some suspense, like Boyce stealing documents from the top secret "Black Vault" where he works or Lee playing games with the Russians, are interrupted by jump cuts to scenes of the pair with their families and friends. It's the normalcy of the story that Schlesinger finds interesting, but it's the least interesting aspect for us.

Good stuff: It's interesting to see a film that works the 1970s vibe so early as this one, referencing Maria Muldaur and Tang. Dorian Harewood, memorable in "Full Metal Jacket", has a nice turn as Boyce's paranoid colleague Gene, who shows Boyce how to make margaritas with a shredder but has some serious 'Nam issues beneath his partying exterior. Macon McCalman is also fine in a totally different way as the no-nonsense boss who gives Boyce his high-security job. David Suchet as the Russian embassy official who deals with Lee makes for a fascinating blend of menace and amiability.

But "Falcon And The Snowman" stands or falls on the the question of the two title characters, and neither the actors nor Schlesinger are able to mine much in the way of answers. Worse, after more than two hours in their alternately feral and catatonic company, you don't really want answers. You just want those credits to roll.


The film begins with Ingrid Bergman and her two freaky servants arriving in New Orleans from Paris. Apparently years earlier, her mother was involved in a scandal and Ingrid returned in an effort to irritate kin who would have sooner forgotten she or her mother existed. That's because she reasons if they are shocked enough, they'll pay her off to get rid of her. Then, with this money, she will leave New Orleans and seek out a millionaire somewhere else, as she poses as a Countess. Along the way, Gary Cooper shows up and looks totally out of place as a love interest.

It's amazing that this film wasn't the reason that Ingrid Bergman's film career plummeted--her performance and character were THAT bad! Instead of the classy and demure female she usually played in films, she is probably one of the most annoying characters in film. Her fake Contessa was shallow, demanding, unpredictable and stupefyingly dumb. How she was able to vamp ANY man seemed a mystery, as she seemed less vampish than just plain nuts!! I am not exaggerating to say that she behaved, at times, like someone with a combination of a severe mental illness and a personality disorder, and all these together make me think "who in the world would fall in love with this mess?!". Frankly, I couldn't stand watching her histrionics and narcissistic behavior and she looked more like a guest on "The Jerry Springer Show" than a leading lady! Confusing, awful and overacted are words that come to mind when I think about her role.

The rest of the cast is, frankly, overwhelmed by Bergman's ranting and hysterics. While Gary Cooper is generally an excellent leading man, he is dominated by her and just looks lost. And, oddly, they cast two total weirdos as her entourage--Flora Robson and Jerry Austin. Ms. Robson is best known for her portrayals of Queen Elizabeth I, but here, for some odd reason, they coated her in makeup and the end result looked much like the love child of a cigar store Indian and Aunt Jemima! Her face was very wooden, she sported odd eyebrows and she dressed like a slave. As for Mr. Austin, he was a dwarf and while this shouldn't be held against him, his role was written like he was a court jester--a very, very thankless role for someone who is "vertically challenged"! Overall, the rotten acting, writing and limp direction make this one of the big stinkers of the age--nearly as pointless and dull as such famous turkeys as PARNELL and SWING YOUR LADY.


This movie is way too long. I lost interest about one hour into the story. Saratoga Trunk tells the story of Ingrid Bergman, who is an the child of a prominent New Orleans man and his mistress. After her mother dies in Paris, Bergman comes back to New Orleans to scandalize her father's "legitimate" family and to blackmail them. She meets Gary Cooper, who is likewise seeking revenge against the railroad tycoons who cheated his father out of his land in Texas. She draws him into her schemes, and the movie climaxes at a Saratoga resort. Long and boring, but worth watching if you are a Bergman or Cooper fan. The midget Cupidon provides the only bright spot in this meandering story.


Anna Christie (Greta Garbo) returns to see her father Chris (George F Marion) after 15 years. He is the skipper of a boat and she stays to travel with him. During this time, she meets Matt (Charles Bickford) and they fall in love. Matt and Chris don't see eye to eye and Anna has a secret to confess.....................

What a boring story......it starts badly with George F Marion and Marie Dressler playing drunks in a bar. The scene goes on forever and they are both terrible. Its also hard to understand them. In fact, its difficult to understand the whole cast. I missed whole sections of dialogue between Bickford, Marion and Garbo because it is incomprehensible! Garbo is obviously something special as you are drawn to her every time that she is on screen and her presence gives this film the 4 stars that I have given to it. But nothing really happens - its a boring story with atrocious accents. You'll do well to stay awake.


Mild spoiler in the second paragraph.

Anna Christie was Garbo's lackluster 1st talkie. She and Dressler look like the only people who know what they're doing in this movie. The old guy who plays Garbo's dad (George F. Marion) in the film is soooo ah-noying!! All he does is stumble around drunkenly in a totally fake way and yell about "dat old dah-veel sea". He blames Garbo's "past", his whole life, and Everything on the sea! He comes across as stupid x 10. Charles Bickford is Matt, the rough 'n' tumble sailor Garbo falls in love with, and he's fine in his role, but nothing really outstanding.

The best part is when Garbo unleashes her "terrible secret" on Bickford and her dad. Finally, Marion stops talking about the evil of the sea and beats his head and fists on the table in perfect time with Bickford. Then soon he goes on a tirade about the sea.

I had to practically force myself to finish Anna Christie. It's too melodramatic in many parts and creaky. There are many good early talkies but this is not one of them. If you haven't seen Garbo before try something else before Anna Christie, like CAMILLE or GRAND HOTEL.


The most famous thing about this movie is that this was the first time Garbo talked in a motion picture. Aside from that 'milestone' (if you want to call it that) this is a movie that doesn't go beyond creaky melodrama, with Garbo trying her best not to fall asleep.

The plot involves Greta Garbo returning to her Father after 15 years abroad. Her father, who is a captain on a barge, is happy to see her, even though she's acting a bit cagey. She soon falls in love with a grizzled seaman, who also notices that something, a barrier if you will, is holding her back.

Anyways, the two fellows don't particularly like each other and soon come to blows over Garbo, when she diffuses the situation by revealing her Big Secret which is no surprise to us, if you've read the video box (damn you MGM!!) Garbo is nothing but arms in this movie, she acts and acts flailing her arms about, and gets grating quickly. The two male leads are alright. Probably the best performance comes from the classic silent actress Marie Dressler, who plays the drunken captain's even drunker girlfriend. What a performance! It's too bad the tagline couldn't have read, "Dressler Talks!"


This could have been a very good film, a very interesting look at ancient tradition and oral history, but it should have been a short subject. As it is , it moves at a snail's pace; sure that's part of the life being portrayed, but this was unbearable. I fell asleep watching them make soup and that was a highlight.


The opening scene makes you feel like you're watching a high school play. But I've seen high school plays with better acting! Every line was delivered so obviously that I felt like I was watching actors work instead of seeing characters. I found the character development to be poor and the acting very forced! I found that 25 minutes into the movie, I really didn't care what happened anymore because the plot was overly obvious and I was bored. I kept hanging in there, waiting for the film to redeem itself, but it never happened. Sister Theresa was overly sweet, even for a nun, yet appeared impulsive and slightly manipulative. All in all, I was mighty disappointed.


We were waiting in line to see The Good Girl, an excellent movie starring Jennifer Aniston, when some lady came up with this cheapo mock twenty dollar bill advertising MANNA FROM HEAVEN. "Come see this movie!" she said. "You'll love it!"

She then introduced us to the director of the film. Now, this should have been our first clue. I mean, in how many cinematic situations do you have the director of the film standing out in the lobby begging people to see it? "Is this a Christian film?" I asked, not really caring one way or the other. I love Jesus. No shame in that. "No!" she said defensively. What a load of crap.

This movie is BAD. So bad. And it's not only because of the obvious Christian agenda, but because of the terrible dialogue, acting that alternates between wooden and overexaggerated, and the obvious lack of an editor. The film is way too long. Had it been an hour and a half, then maybe (just maybe) I wouldn't have had to visit the suicide prevention center after seeing the movie.

Actually, I lie. See, after an hour of this garbage we snuck into SWIMFAN. At least with SWIMFAN we know it's garbage before going in to see the movie. We know to brace ourselves. And SWIMFAN has hot half-naked people. The only thing half-naked in this film is the desperation of the stars involved whose obvious lack of script offers is anything but hidden. And the actress who plaid the nun? It's called a personality. Get one.

The people shamelessly begging for ticket sales in the lobby told me that if I liked MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING, then I would *love* (their emphasis, not mine) MANNA FROM HEAVEN. Right. More like, "If you like GLITTER, you'll love MANNA FROM HEAVEN." And Mariah could actually outperform any of the clowns from this flick. If that's not an insult, then I don't know what is.

I've railed enough. Go see indie films, but don't see the bad ones. This is definitely one of the bad ones. MANNA FROM HEAVEN is in need of some divine intervention.


1st watched 2/18/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Leon Leonard): Fair adventure movie based on a novel by the author of Moby Dick fame, Herman Melville. This movie is about the captain of a ship who had stolen the eyes(that were extremely rare black pearls) from a native tribe's God sculpture and hidden them somewhere that only he knew about before leaving the Island of Tivi. He got very sick and was on a secret voyage to go back to the island to retrieve the pearls for himself while others(like his daughter) thought that he was going back to be treated by the local medicine man. Others didn't know the reason for the voyage. A stowaway actually knew the real reason for the trip -- to return the eyes to their God. The silly part is that the pearls were hidden very close to the statue and all this time the natives ran their tribe without their God having eyes(causing them all kinds of problems). Along the way, we are treated(for some reason) to a short underwater nature show with an electric eel fighting a local octopus(I guess only Herman Melville knows what this was all about). Once they get to the island, the Captain dies but passes the whereabouts of the pearls to his daughter but she also gets the sickness curse as well. One of the bad guys finds out where the God is housed and convinces the daughter to go there and steal back the pearls but at this point the good guys find out what's going on and a fight ensues. I won't tell you the results of the fight or the ending, I'll leave that up to you to find out if you want. As I said earlier, the movie was OK, but some very silly things that I've already mentioned lessened it's impact. I wonder if that new "Pirates of the Caribbean" got some of it's plot from this one ---hmm black pearls, a curse( I wonder) Well, it doesn't matter, those elements didn't make for a very good movie in this case or the other. It seems they would learn they're lesson, but with the money rolling in on that newer movie I'm sure they won't. Oh well.


Oh, Man, talk about the effect of advertising. Apparently, all that you have to do to enjoy box office succes is title your movie after a revered 19th century novel. Horrendous acting, directing, and cinematography in this sham of an effort.


The movie starts off with Reeve (Ekin) and his assistant fighting same vampires. This scene is probably the best out of the entire movie. The rest of the movie unfortunately is cheesy, highly unrealistic and a Buffy the Vampire Slayer ripoff. The ending also sucks big time.

Some moments such as the scene where Gypsy and Helen (played by popular Chinese duo band Twins: Charlene & Gillian) fight over a stuffed teddy bear are particularly cringeworthy. The storyline is also lame, surely they could have come up with something more scary than a book called "Day for Night".

Some good parts though. Jackie Chan and Anthony Wong make the movie bearable with their comical roles. However, the good bits just end there. Charlene & Gillian (from Twins) have never been able to act well and annoy you to pieces and "the friendly but wussy vampire" role was unfortunately given to Edison Chen who is a talentless pretty boy.

Rating: 4/10 --


This movie reminds me of Harry Potter - not the style but the marketing strategy. There may be part 2 , part three...until one day the product life cycle finishs, of course on the condition that the part one has a commercial success. so many things seems to be hidden and thus the story looks quite incomplete. the action design is boring. set design is ok but not fine. perhaps Edison Chen would be a big star one day. He really looks charming even on big screen. The most impressive is still Anthony Wong. 4/10


Now really can u call that a movie. I knew some of the movies that Japanese people do are good for nothing but this bad? I mean com'om i fell a sleep three times at this movie. No horror at all, some tiny percent (0.2-0.5) comedy. Action let's just admit that it has some but the scenes are poorly filmed, the actors are pathetic. None of the actors did a good job in it's own role. The were not convincing. The script is also awful. I mean this movie may be great, REALLY, but for the 60's(in not 100% sure.) I recommend NOT to see it, unless you want to get so bored as i did. I can't quite figure hot this movie got it's rating. It's OVER, OVER, OVER RATED!!!. This is a PERSONAL opinion of course. I don want to offend anyone but who could like this crap? So i hope this helps someone NOT to loose some time "enjoying" this movie. Nevertheless it's your choice!


TWINS EFFECT is a poor film in so many respects. The only good element is that it doesn't take itself seriously. Other than that, this is not really a movie, but rather a merchandising tool for the film's two stars, popular pop idols in their native Hong Kong.

The film itself is poorly constructed and acted. The direction offers up some silly martial arts, which is odd since the action director (and supposedly co-director) is Donnie Yen. Like many Hong Kong films geared for the teen audience, the major fanbase of "actors" like the Twins (the two girls who stars in this film) and Ekin Cheng, there is so much bad music to prod the audience into believing certain scenes are funny, clever, etc.

The final conclusion: It's all for naught. Even as a fan of Hong Kong movies, this is a poor film. Not funny enough, not serious enough, and just generally too bubble gum fake for its own good.

3 out of 10.

(Go to http://www.nixflix.com for a more in-depth review of this movie and other foreign films)


To identify this movie as a vampire movie would be technically correct. Simply because it will suck the life right out of you.

Vampire Effect is an insult to movie-buffs everywhere. The plot is almost non-existent. The make-up is just plain awful. And the acting is just not there.

I have to wonder if Jackie Chan owed someone a huge favor to be convinced to appear in this film.

My wife picked up the movie at the rental store because it had a picture of Jackie Chan on the front (as though he was playing the lead) and thought that a good JC flick would be fun to watch. This movie was interesting to watch in the same way that you can't help staring at the car wreck when you drive by. You realize very quickly the movie isn't going to get any better but, you keep watching wonder just how bad it will get.


Quite possibly one of the greatest wastes of celluloid of the past 100 years. Not only does it suffer from a painfully (and enormously predictable) disjointed script, but it's clearly a carbon-copy of Alien II. Within five minutes I had correctly predicted who would die and who wouldn't (and in which order). The special effects are laughable; there is a scene where one crew member is mauled (unconvincingly) by two Krites that look like a pair of teddy-bears, and the sparse humor is misplaced and dire. There are better things to do with a VCR remote than use it to watch this movie.


Anybody who thinks this film is great, desperately needs their head seen to. It strikes me that this film was made as a joke. It has no good points whatsoever. The props cost about $10 and the entire set looks like it could fall down at any time. Why do films like this get made in the first place? This also had two of the most annoying characters I have ever come across in the young boy on the spaceship and the redneck from the twentieth century. This film is almost as bad as "Cool as Ice" starring the incredibly talented Vanilla "misunderstood" Ice.


i'm watching this horrid film as we speak. it is possibly one of the worst movies ever aired in my house. i'm sitting here with 3 friends and they agree. its not scary. its not funny. its not dramatic. it contains nothing appealing whatsoever. we are 49 minutes in the movie. we've only seen 2 critters. only one person has died. this movie is one big letdown. nothing about this horrible, horrible movie has made me want to watch the rest. i'm getting a movie hang over. i hope that everyone who had anything to do with making this movie dies. i don't just mean the actors. i mean the director, producers, the presidents from the studio that financed this movie. it is in full, the worst movie ever. it should make the IMDb worst 100 movies of all time. at number 1.


I saw a great clip of this film, which I'll talk about later, and then the cast list, and thought I might as well give it a go. Basically, a down-on-his-luck bartender, Randy (Matt Dillon), his cocky cousin Carl Harding (Paul Reiser) and murder investigation Detective Dehling (John Goodman) all have something in common, they have seen the girl of their dreams (whether married or not), and they would do anything to please and be with her, even die. All three met/saw her "one night at McCool's", the bar that Randy worked at, they have no knowledge of each other, but all three cannot stop thinking of Femme Fetale Jewel Valentine (The Lord of the Rings' Liv Tyler). All three are telling their stories to someone they hope will listen to their pretty intense and revealing stories, Randy talks to hit-man Mr. Burmeister (Michael Douglas, who co-produced the film), Carl to psychologist/psychiatrist Dr. Green (Reba McEntire) and Dehling to priest Father Jimmy (Richard Jenkins). They confess all details of what they have been willing to do, their sexual contact with her, and eventually they are all brought together in one place, all intent on being with her, and all involved with the final shootout that leaves one dead, one running away (and eventually dying) and one stunned, and the unexpected guy she chooses (but at the same time obvious, cos it's sex-obsessed Douglas). Also starring Andrew Dice Clay as Utah/Elmo and Sandy Martin as Bingo Vendor Woman. If I had to pick a favourite moment, it would definitely be what was mentioned at number 11 along with Cool Hand Luke on The 100 Greatest Sexy Moments, where Tyler copycats the woman washing the car with suds all over herself, and in front of Goodman, very sexy! Apart from that, not the most memorable film. Okay!


Wow. I watched One Night at McCool's yesterday, and all I can say is, "Wow."

Here I go. MAJOR SPOILERS.

Would you like a summary of the plot, just to see how stupid and pointless this movie is? I would never tell anybody to watch it, unless I was out to inflict pain upon them. Anyway, here's a glimpse (or a huge chunk) of the plot.

Randy works for a bar, McCool's. He meets up with this woman named Jewel who convinces him to, surprisingly, have sex with him. Her ex-boyfriend ends up trying to rob them and gets killed. Randy and his cousin and the detective at the scene of the crime all fall for Jewel. She, being the mascot of stupidity, uses every one of these guys to get what she wants, involving a DVD player. Randy hires a hit man to kill her, and eventually the detective is killed by the ex-boyfriend's psycho brother and the hit man and Jewel take off.

Seriously. That's it. I left hardly anything out, except for a few more sex scenes and a nearly-pornographic scene of Liv Tyler as Jewel using a hose to flaunt her sexuality.

What was the point of this movie? To be honest, I think it was so that the producers and directors could show off their male urges. Which I think is absolutely uncalled for and just plain stupid. When I watch a movie, I want a plot. I want characters. I don't care about sexy woman flaunting anything they might have. Something should happen in a movie, for goodness' sake. This is as bad as Fight Club.

It gets even worse. John Goodman is the detective devoted to the higher being. I myself wondered why Goodman would play in something so outrageously pitiful as this, but then I remembered that he was in O Brother, Where Art Thou? as well. His reputation just went down a notch.

Liv Tyler was an amazing actress in the Lord of the Rings series. In this movie she is nothing more than an unintelligent slut who wants nothing but her way. Her reputation has gone down seven or eight notches, to me.

I am amazed, simply AMAZED that people would work so hard to make something so stupid. The music is absolutely crappy (having "YMCA" play while John Goodman's character is being killed doesn't really fit), the characters are totally unlikeable, the plot is one of the most stupid ever conceived by man, and to top it off, it doesn't even fit into any genre. The closest it gets to is pornographic comedy. If it was even supposed to be funny. Which it wasn't.

I think I'm done ranting now. But let me just assure you that nobody in their right mind would ever, ever want to see this movie. Unless they lust for Liv Tyler as much as the characters do, that is.


This was really the worst movie I've ever seen. Anyone who has seen it will know what I'm talking about. I saw it on Starz, so thank goodness I didn't waste my money. Please everyone, don't waste your time. I'm really suprised this wasn't straight to video.


The intertwined points-of-view can come up as a good idea in some movies. Here it is a total mess.

But the total mess begin with the story: a video-clip bummy wants to shoot a light comedy with a pernicious noir-like female character. She is gorgeous and no men could resist to dive and crawl and suck her toes. She is all the more materialist, looking as if butter wouldn't melt in her mouth.

The movie does melt away in its own pretentiousness: being smart/funny/good-looking. Phalocretinism at his best. White trash only, please.