A college professor is working on creating zombies and, wouldn't you know it, things go horribly wrong. Next thing you know, the whole campus is overrun. Thank goodness there's a pair of uber-commandos trained for just such a situation. Too bad they must be accompanied by a group of moron-commandos, lead by a rapper (he doesn't even bother trying to play a military guy, he just responds to his superiors as if he were rappin' wit' da homies in da hood). The high point of this part of the movie is the locker room scene. The male and female moron-commandos share the same locker room, and apparently military regulations require all females to wear black bras and panties. Hey, if you can't make a good movie, at least you can have women in their underwear. My hat's off to the film makers.

So, after much discussion of how well prepared these moron-commandos are for the job (Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq), they all get killed off in fairly short order. Their biggest downfall seems to be that it never occurs to them to turn any lights on. A typical encounter has them walking into a room and seeing someone at the far end. Human or zombie? Can't tell. Flip on the lights? No, moron-commando protocol requires them to walk up to the person, making sure to hold their gun in such a way that it can be easily knocked out of their hand, and well, you know the drill. The demise of Sergeant Major Sticky Fingaz is especially fun - my favorite scene involving a rapper in any movie I've ever seen. Luckily (and again, hats off to the filmmakers), the hottest babe among the moron-commandos manages to survive. Her and the female uber-commando both wind up in tight T-shirts for the remainder of the movie. Now this is how a military operation should be performed! There's a bunch of running around, punctuated my humorous stuff like the uber-commandos being unable to get through a simple ventilator grating (it obviously is a thin piece of aluminum that you could easily put your fist through). This necessitates a plan to rub zombie guts all over themselves, and even though we've seen nothing in the movie to indicate that zombies locate their prey by smell, they're good enough to immediately begin sniffing the zombie guts and let our heroes go.

A few other funny bits - the Paris Hilton gag, the "Can you hear me now?" gag, and the fact that although the zombies immediately bite secondary characters, main characters are able to fight their way through dozens of them without being nibbled on. Another chuckle is provided by Mr. Fingaz, who can't seem to pronounce the word 'tourniquet' (toe-no-kit?).

Overall, it's somewhat amusing. Could have used some more interesting characters, but for a Sci-Fi Channel original, I was mildly impressed.


So many of these types of movies out these days. This zombie flick falls into the major "cheese" category unlike the far more polished dawn of the dead, and day of the dead. In all fairness those 2 movies were major studio releases with big budgets behind them. But they were also good movies. A low budget movie can still be good if only they would stop accepting and using the worst scripts around. Whoever wrote this movie must have been drunk the whole time.

This movie had so so special effects and a very un-even plot line. The one major difference from other movies of its type is the time it takes for people to transform into zombies. In this one, it seems to take just seconds for them to die and then turn into a zombie. Yet with the ease this "infection" spreads you can have zombie blood all over you and not even seem to be at risk for infection, and believe me the people in this one get covered in blood.

The main problem I had is that our 2 main stars at times were walking around dozens of zombies and didn't get bit. When everybody else turns into zombies amazingly quickly these 2 were swarmed by zombies when they were even unarmed and were able to come out of it without a problem. Our hot chick star even survived a missile strike on the building she was in. I was laughing out load at that point. Unarmed, having like 10 zombies on her and a missile hits the building yet she manages to get out without a scratch? OK sure....

Also whoever advised these people on how special forces behaves obviously never spent any time in the military. They should have watched a movie like Blackhawk down first to get at least an idea of how they behave in combat situations.

One soldier was a fat overweight SPECIAL FORCES private. LOL that was a good one. Another kept going up to zombies thinking they were survivors, even putting his weapon down at one point. These guys are in there to fight zombies and they were acting like the soldiers from the movie Stripes. Special Forces, lol...

Then they get to the point at which they try to explain the zombie girl in the rubber room and the whole thing gets very confusing. The explanation is muddled and does not even follow the first movie. It made no sense at all.

The only thing I liked was the Anti Bush jokes. The military lady at the beginning told them that the order came down from the Vice President to the President and at the end it was the Vice President from an "undisclosed location" giving the orders. That was the best part of the movie for me.


This fake documentary is flawed on a lot of points, it's badly made, has uninteresting characters but the biggest problem I have with it is the basic premise.

This film uses the idea that H.P. Lovecraft has traveled to Italy and that some of his work is based on real supernatural events that he witnessed. I'm willing to go along with the notion that he traveled to Italy (only for suspension of disbelieve) but that some of his work is based on reality and that Insmouth exist is total nonsense.

First of all, Lovecraft didn't believe in the supernatural, in his letters he clearly states that he considered himself a mechanical materialist, his monsters where there to show that humans weren't so special after all. Another myth used in this film is that Lovecraft was an expert on the occult, he wasn't, all his knowledge on the subject came from the most basic sources.

So we end up with a film about people jelling at each other a lot and when we finally see the monster, it's so bad that you can't even laugh at it, you just feel a pain in your love for horror.

After seeing the film Frankenstein Lovecraft said that he felt sorry for Mary Shelley because he felt that her work was butchered. I feel sorry for Lovecraft.


This film plays like a demented episode of VH1's "Where Are They Now", or "Behind The Music". In the first half of the movie (that depict his "glory days") Abbie Hoffman is unintentionally portrayed as a sort of delusional rock star. You know the kind; the poseur lead singer, the pretty boy, who didn't write any of the music, doesn't have a clue, but gets all the glory for nothing and chicks for free. Consequently he takes his success for granted, abuses it, and ultimately destroys it along with himself. Indeed Hoffman's glory days ended abruptly when he was busted for dealing cocaine, skipped bail, and went into hiding.

The second part of the movie deals with that time in hiding. In it we see Hoffman as a pathetic crybaby endlessly blaming everyone, anyone, but himself for his downfall. Eventually the times pass him by completely; and he can never to come to grips with that. How sad. THE END. End credits roll and OH NO! We learn that Abbie Hoffman eventually committed suicide in 1989.

I'm sure this is not the image the filmmakers intended for Hoffman in making this movie. Given that Tom Hayden and Gerald Lefcourt were involved, I'm sure they intended this film as some kind of homage to the life of a man who was after all, an icon of the 60's and of the Left's anti-war movement. In this they have failed miserably. The film presents Abbie Hoffman as a mindless caricature. We are never told about what drives him. How did he arrive at his views? How did he manage to capture the imagination of a whole generation? How did he organize such a vast movement? Why at the height of his fame did he get involved in dealing cocaine? Why? Who knows, and since the filmmakers don't seem to, ultimately who cares?


Let me start out by saying that I am a huge fan of Abbie Hoffman and have read Steal this Book and Steal this Urine Test. Also am a even bigger Jerry Rubin fan. But his movie was a discusting pile of rubbish that made a very PG version of Abbie Hoffman. The director took no chances into making Abbie Hoffman interesting in this movie. They despicted Stew Albert as a F***ing cartoon chjaractor devoid of intellegence, the man was a proffesor at Berkley for christsakes. Ok they did a horrid casting job for Anita Hoffman, did a Horrible job casting for the Jerry Rubin character. I just guess the movie doesnt fit the news flashes that I have seen of Abbie or the books that he wrote. The movie just didnt fit and upset me. Oh yeah and theat is the absolute worst voice over I have ever heard of Richard Nixon. This is one of the few movies that I have ever rented that I could not sit all the way through because, I have a passion for Abbie Hoffman and his discruntled band of Yippies and this movie was just plain badly done. And it hurt me that now when people see a movie about the yippies they will see a terrible adaptation, and not get a true sense of reality. Instead they get a hollywoodized palanthra of crap.


The trouble with this film, like so many other films that fail, is the script.

The script is so unfocused it flounders around all over the place. What IS the story here? OK, it's a biopic but I think everyone will agree there is no way that an entire life can be condensed into 100 or so minutes. Some selection and editing is required but this script just didn't select or edit enough. It didn't render Hoffman's life down to one or two definable pivotal moments or themes that the audience could identify with and, through them, 'get' the bigger picture of the whole man.

The movie wanders from being a straight plodding 'troubled genius' biopic, to semi-docu/mocu-mentary (using new shots faked up to match archive footage), to sub True Life Sob Stories Movie of the Week (the whole "I'm bringing up a son who doesn't know I'm his Dad" shtick), to political conspiracy theory movie etc. etc. It just never makes its mind up what it wants to be, and the half-hearted Citizen Kane like narrative structure (reporter interviewing people from Hoffman's past) is soon abandoned which leaves the film even more unstructured and flabby than it starts out.

The movie is full of moments and incidents that contribute nothing to the story and could well have been cut to leave room to expand something more important. The whole scene in the psychiatrist's office after Vincent D'Onofrio pounds the window screaming "I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman! I'm Abbie Hoffman!" ("I'm acting! I'm acting! I'm acting!") could have easily been cut. All that happens is the psychiatrist says "You have bipolar disorder here's some lithium.", and the two women in his life say "We could see you weekends more often." and bang! That's it. No more mental health problems. It is such a laughably pointless tokenistic scene it could easily, and should, have been dumped before it was shot. The scene where they all get high and watch newsreel footage from Viet Nam and Hoffman phones GOD? Pointless. Tells us nothing about anything. Yet, when it comes to a pivotally important moment like the drugs bust, the film making is so hurried the situation just comes out of leftfield and doesn't make any sense to the audience. Suddenly he's dealing in heroin? Where did this come from? Why? What is going on here?

I, being a middle-aged leftie, would guess I am sitting well within the target audience for this movie but even I got fed up with the portrayal of 'The Man', 'The Pigs', 'The Fuzz' etc. as brutal, be-suited, unthinking, hippie-hating androids. It may have been like that in 60's America, I don't know, I wasn't there, but in film terms it was cheap clumsy polemic.

Having said all that Vincent D'Onofrio was convincingly charismatic as the younger Hoffman and I could watch Janeane Garofalo in anything, even reading a bus timetable, though she just wasn't right for this part.


Want a great recipe for failure? Take a crappy, leftist political plot, add in some weak & completely undeveloped characters and then throw in the worst sequences a movie has ever known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash).

The result is 'Steal This Movie,' a cinematic experience that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places never before conceived.

This movie utterly blew chunks at my face for its entire run time. Words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not 'Plan 9 From Outer Space.' This is a long, boring and sad waste of time. 'Steal This Movie' is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. It depresses me when I realize that people *actually* took time out of their lives to act in this tripe, if you can call it "acting." But then again, when you have poor direction, poor writing, poor EVERYTHING - "acting" is the last thing to criticize.

This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really wish I could somehow destroy every copy of this film so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Robert Greenwald, for giving me newfound respect for every other movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy and/or boring.


There is nothing good to say about this movie. Read Revolution For the Hell of It or any of his other writings. Abbie was often dismissed as the clown-prince of the '60's, but he was a man of ideas who used his cleverness, his sense of humor and pop culture, and his flamboyant personality to get attention to his ideas. The media too often concentrated on the man, not the ideas, and that's the problem with this movie, too. Later in his life he did suffer from depression. But this flick is like a National Enquirer version of Abbie. He deserves better. If you don't know Abbie or his times, this movie won't help.

 This film lies. I give it a zero.


This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen, it did not left out a single clichee one could imagine about a Hollywood-so-called-Thriller. The protagonist is a loving father & a private investigator who is engaged in a special task: finding out if a suspected "snuff" movie is real.

Certainly, he get's involved deeper & deeper, smeary pornoshops (run by mexicans) & sex theatres are his field of investigation as he's searching for the murderers of the woman in the "snuff" movie. Assisted by a "smart" (he read a book) sexshop employee, he's catching up with a murderous bondage-film producer and his personal perverts who are responsible for the film... ...and what do you expect? They are portrayed as the simple evil, no need for explanations, backgrounds, history: they are the bad ones, and he's the purifier. Boom. Killer of the killers. End of film. Is it that bad? Yes, I'm afraid so.

Ironically, "machine" (the mega-pervert who did the killing) is even pointing at his ridiculous character: In the last scene, our hero forces "machine" to put off his leather mask (yep, of course he's wearing one) and recognizes that "machine" looks just like the normal 08/15 guy from the street. Then "machine" says: "blablabla I'm not a monster, my parents never abused me, I had a nice childhood, I just love to do what I do!"

I just love to kill people. Yeah, sure, "everybody loves killing people" (Bender). It's not only the total lack of character what made this film so boring, it's also it's ugly "I have to kill these people"-attitude which makes you sick. In one scene, our hero has tied up one of the killers and tries to shoot him...but he can't. So what does he do? He calls the mother of the killed woman, says that her child is killed and asks her whether she loved her child so much that she wishes to see the killers dead. The mother cries yes, she'd love her child, he goes back to the tied killer and slaughters him.

To come to the point: This film is breathing the foul air of lynchmob-supporters (certainly the police does not play any role in it), moralizes in a ridiculous form against pornography, does not take it's characters serious and wastes your time with a stupid plot. Probably the only good thing about this film is that it does not try to pseudo-psycho-analyze ... even that would be too much plot.

Don't waste your time with this.


These days, Ridley Scott is one of the top directors and producers and can command huge sums to helm movies--especially since he has films like ALIEN, GLADIATOR and BLADE RUNNER to his credit. So from this partial list of his credits, it's obvious he's an amazing talent. However, if you watch this very early effort that he made while in film school, you'd probably have a hard time telling that he was destined for greatness. That's because although it has some nice camera-work and style, the film is hopelessly dull and uninvolving. However, considering that it wasn't meant for general release and it was only a training ground, then I am disposed to looking at it charitably--hence the score of 4.

By the way, this film is part of the CINEMA 16: European Shorts DVD. On this DVD are 16 shorts. Most aren't great, though because it contains THE MAN WITHOUT A HEAD, COPY SHOP, RABBIT and WASP, it's an amazing DVD for lovers of short films and well worth buying.


I saw this short film on the dvd for Ridley Scott's film, The Duellists. There was no introduction by Scott before the film, it just started right up.

 Boy and a Bicycle is hardly an example of Ridley Scott's other work, it bears no resemblance. The film shows a boy, played by Tony Scott, riding around on a bicycle. Guess what? That's pretty all that happens. The boy rides around, rambling on and on with pointless, confusing dialogue. The film was shot in black and white, and since it was directed by Ridley Scott, I expected some cool cinematography or visually-striking sets. Instead, I was treated with nothing. This film isn't even good for a first effort. However, I recommend that any fan of Ridley Scott should check it out at least once.


This is a fact that this is the 1st Saudi feature film to be shown in cinema theaters but not in Saudi Arabia for a simple reason we don't have cinema theaters in our large kingdom .. not only one cinema theater! The government forbidden opening cinema theaters after the Islamic extremists OR the religious police (or both) asked for closing it in the late 1970s & the early 1980s .. accusing the 7th art with encouraging wrong sex relationships and stuff like that .. I don't see a powerful reason why we don't open cinema theaters!! .. we have many videos stores throughout the kingdom, we watch movies in the TV from some satellite channels, we can install the "Showtime" set channels and after all movies in general seems harmless in many ways .. I know many people how go to neighboring countries only to watch a couple of films .. I personally went to Bahrain several times only to watch films in theaters because watching it there is big fun unlike watching a movie home. Saudis pay the most expensive cinema ticket in the world, we travel to watch movies while the rest of the world have cinema theaters around every town. This is one of the problems that we are having!! ..

The movie is produced and presented by Rotana Filmed Entertainment which is a major company belongs to the Saudi tycoon-prince Alwaleed Bin Talal (the 8th richest man in the world).

The movie's title is a word means literally "how are you?" but it is also a slang means "what's up!", sometimes used as a slang to say "bad" about something and sometimes is used as a slang to tell someone politely to mind his business & not to interfere in someone else's affairs. Anyway, I think they meant (how are you) & (what's up!) in the same time, I could be wrong though.

Male actors are from Saudi Arabia like Hisham Abdulrahman who is very famous and has some popularity after winning 1st prize in Arabian realty show more like "American Idol", he works in some TV programs like the Arabian version of "Cash Taxi" .. the other famous actor is Khaled Sami who is funny and has a very good sense of humor .. other actors like Mishal Al-Mutairi, Turki Al-Yusuf and Ali Al Sabea are less famous and they work on some TV series shows. Female actresses are non-Saudis and they did a very good job speaking the Saudi accent .. Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan in leading role & Emeriti actress Fatima Al-Hawsani .. not that we don't have Saudi actresses but are few and not that good.

A Saudi critic " Rja Al-Mutairi" who writes for Alriyadh Newspaper (the most popular newspaper in the kingdom) wrote about it saying: "lets not expect much of the 1st Saudi feature film. It was born in unusual circumstances therefore we can't judge it under the usual standards like any other film. It is a fact that the movie hit a huge financial success in its 1st opening days only in Kingdom of Bahrain. The movie is fresh and is about a Saudi family deals (interacts) with controversial fresh issues inside the Saudi society like: women driving cars, the low-shallow thoughts about the arts, the guardianship of the society by a certain group & the differences between being conservative and being an extremist. The ideas are good but you feel you are lost in the middle of the movie. One of the movie's advantages is the beautiful music score by Rajeh Dawood which was good but sometimes it doesn't match or express what's in the picture. Turki Al-Yusuf did a great job .. his performance was the best alongside with Mais Hamdan .. the biggest loser is the leading actor Hisham Abdulrahman who came behind the supporting actors Mishal Al-Mutairi, Ali Al Sabea and Khaled Sami who did a good job within the limits of their roles.

after all, " Keif al-hal?" even with all of its disadvantages still an OK movie and it is a very good 1st step of Rotana .. and the movie became the speech of people and streets which is a golden goal to make a strong debates inside the Saudi society about movies in general until they become aware of the importance of the 7th art and other arts"

PS: there is another Saudi filmmaker "Abdullah Almohaisen" claims that he directed the 1st Saudi movie titled "Shadows of Silence".

I haven't seen the movie yet .. I hope I've been helpful.


Total disgrace! Truly awful! The screenplay and dialogue is a joke, and combined with a director who doesn't have a clue about life in Saudi Arabia. It's not a surprise, quite Saudi film ha, the director is Palestinian-Canadian, the writer is Lebanese, the lead actress is Jordanian, and the shooting took place in Dubai, and all those elements show very well to make the film far from representing the Saudi society. Yes it contains some Saudi cliché's, the stuff we see in cartoons in the newspapers everyday, but that's about everything. The film had the opportunity to show real problem with Saudi society, or at least give us something new and genuine about the youth troubles and concerns in Saudi Arabia, instead it copied and pasted from here and there, and the result was a mess. Even the supposedly love story in the movie doesn't exist or at least we haven't seen it. The only bright side in this total debacle is some good acting from the supporting cast. The veteran Khaled Sami was funny in a badly written role as the grand father, which he is clearly got miscasted, for he looks younger than the actor who plays his son. Also the actor who plays the fanatic brother's role, Turki Al-Yusuf, has done well, in fact he was the best actor in the film. The rest of the cast, being professionals for long, did an OK job, but the lead actor Hisham Abdulrahman was just bad. He had one look of a little adorable bobby for all situations. He couldn't even say his lines in a proper manner. He has charisma that made him win the title of Star Academy, a very famous reality show, and he is good in interviews and TV shows, but he was just the weakest link of this film. The lead actress I didn't mind very much, but even she acted badly in some scenes and overplayed her sensuality in unneeded way.

The Film was a huge hit, Saudi flocked in thousands to neighboring Bahrain and Dubai to attend it when it was screened there, and it made a tone of money, then it was screened in pay per view, then in broadcasting TV, and that was in a span of a few weeks. This was to cash on Saudis eagerness to homegrown entertainment, but alas; the film was neither homegrown, nor entertaining.


what a shame our first movie is so bad .............................. hi sham , what did you do in this movie:( . . it is awful! and the director :( .. there is no story in this film . i had sleep when i was watching this film .. It is a disappointment, and the majority of the crew is not from Saudi Arabia. Supposed to be a comedy movie, but it lacks the essential elements in Comedy ,

I know it first experience of cinema in Saudi Arabia, but I expect better from Kaif Al Hal !! The only positive in the movie is the presence of some talented actors who did not help much text to explode their talents Finally.., iwant to know your comment about this movie guys... is it bad or what?


This Movie as the 1st KSA's movie should be active to their people and show the good thing on them. Otherwise, we see in this as Rotana's cast want show religion's people in Saudi Arabia as Terrorist and stupid in fact their not they are very peaceful and smart. About the director is not even less good. The Grandfather in movie is very younger than the father, everyone notes that. And the girls who not Saudi by the way show our girls as pitches looking to man to satisfy their needs. Hasham was just another part of furniture at act he did nothing to imagine only when he said to his lover I love you and yell to his friend don't talk to strange girls >>>>>>> really funny or really stupid

The Father was so not moving only set their and he watch this movie as not one of cast and only word he said "A5zo Al Shai6an". The Weird Thing in this movie is when the girls were set in restaurant in family's part, there voice in behind young man talk to his girlfriends "kiss me" many times >>>>> Is that happened in Saudi Arabia when the girls and boys grow up good and Muslem not bitches and adulterer. Any Saudi have patriot in his heart will not allow to see this stupid movie


This film revival right march in a bad film industry and Saudi Arabia, I want to know how the director was able to stand in front of people of the industry after he making this film, work was so very bad, we do not know how cinema Saudi companies such as Rutana and other does not support yang Filmmakers in KSA like UAE We hope in the future to prosper film industry in Saudi Arabia But without such intervention Fools traders and idiots make us bad movies do not benefit the reputation of cinema in Saudi Arabia is like the Roman and Iranian cinema At the same time, please makers simple experimental cinema in Saudi Arabia such as Abdullah alayaf And others to achieve the dream of a good film industry to participate in festivals world away from the major companies interventions stupid


This piece of crap doesn't worth a critical review so I'll write some information for those who don't know the background of this movie. First off all it is not the first Saudi movie, they used this wrong info for commercial purpose (they lied!). Second they made it for money not for anything else so they picked the jerk (Hesham) who won Star Academy (like Big Brother) it is a popular show and the jerk Hesham is popular but dumb, cheesy & untalented then picked the famous Kuwaiti actor Mohammed Al Sairafi (also dumb & untalented) but has a popular (count how many times I'll use the word "popular" then email me to get your prize, however..) has popular show and the Jordanian actress Mais Hamdan who appeared in POPular comic show CBM (unfunny) so she is famous * PoPular! Then they picked some Saudi actors for .. blah blah blah. The funniest thing is the director! He is Canadian with Palestinian roots (I believe that the identity of the movie is the identity of its director) .. wait a minute! The screen play was written by an Egyptian screenwriter (very awful one!) with some help from Lebanese critic (famous as critic but actually he is a money collector!). This group of the multi races (money slaves) doesn't know anything about the Saudi culture they don't represent it but when we know who is behind this garbage all our questions will be relieved! Waleed bin Talaal is Saudi prince and (B U S I N E S S M A N) who doesn't care about the Saudi culture or Saudi people he even doesn't live in Saudi Arabia (even if he lives he will live in his own world, his world is far far far away from the real world the people world) so he doesn't know anything or care about anything except raising his endless fortune.

*Not Saudi movie(not anything movie).

Screw them all.

Beep out of 10!


The amount of hype and the huge success this film has encountered is evidence how desperate our people are towards a good independent Saudi film. In fact the huge success of "Tash ma Tash" is also an evidence.

I'm not going to start of how important film making is, as it is obvious to those with half a brain how films have changed the world.

And I'm not going to say how much our society needs a bunch of films to clear out a lot of issues we have in our country. Religion, politics, women's rights, education, general health, terrorism, Law and many many more.

Along came news about the fist Saudi movie which should've been a remedy to some of the issues we have, especially towards the youth. Instead we experienced a bald movie for that matter.

The ignorance and naivety of the script was obvious. It was as if a 13 year old had written it.

Now I've heard that the budget for this film was huge. I would like to know where the money went, huh? The effects were really ugly, the editing was poor. The script was "kharabeet". You really don't know what the story is and what the director aims at from this film.

A note on the actor who played the religious brother, his performance was good but with bad direction. Another thing with the role of the religious friends he had, that is not how religious guys act here in Saudi Arabia! They are not "Evil" as this film intends. In fact they are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet with some really uncommon way of living, and that is what should've appeared in the film.

The youth are following the religious here because of a reason, and that is the youngsters are the most passionate and sentimental. And with the well formed principles the religious live on, the youngsters follow them. Again, this is what should've appeared.

We need another "First Film" with a Saudi Writer, actor, director, composer, even cameraman. So that they all work with passion towards their experiment, not just for the money!

And we should do what Shakespeare did hundreds of years ago, we should include phrases from the Qur'an in the script of the movie. As the people in our society still see art as a form of sin, the challenge a Saudi movie maker is facing is changing the mentality in that angle.


I am a big MD fan. But, I call it like I see it. This film limped along. The plot was preposterous. Gaining access to heads of state in this movie is easier than gaining access to the the local grocery store. Come on! Tone Loc has the emotion of a wooden plank. Loosen up! The editing is choppy. The actors, and I use the term loosely, sound as if they are reading their lines on valium.

This movie could have been better. Dudikoff has potential, but he chooses scripts that just scream,"Stinker".

If you want to watch a good Dudikoff movie, may I suggest Crash Dive or Avenging Force. If you have never seen one of his films, this is not the one to introduce you to his work. You will walk away with a bad taste in your mouth and think all of his projects are this bad.


As a bit of a Michael Dudikoff fan I sat down to watch one of his good old-fashioned actioners - I'm still waiting.

The film is based around a group of US commandos trying to get rid of a bunch of Syrian terrorists who have taken over a nuclear reactor. Maddie Reese (Felicity Waterman) was an English member of the commando unit and of course she became romantically involved with Tom Dickson (Dudikoff). I must ask since when have the Brits had female SAS members - as far as I know if they are ever needed they are got from other sources. Even if they did I can pretty much guarantee they wouldn't be as wet as Maddie Reese. I would also think that Tom Dickson would be a little more responsible in his position - or have I lost the plot?! I know there is always the romantic angle in these films as it helps provide the feelgood factor, but does it have to be throughout, especially when there's more important things to be taken into consideration - like nuclear warfare!

The signing of the treaty on the US aircraft carrier intrigued me. The "sacred pen" as carried by one of the supposed TV news crew - are there were no security checks to find out who or what goes on board one of these ships, especially with the calibre of people that was on it. Mind you if there was, I suppose there would be no story.

I could go on, but when it got to "inner body bomb defusion" in order to safely remove a bullet I gave up on the action drama movie bit and enjoyed it for the comedy it actually was.

By the way, would a news reporter really say "Downtown Damascus"??


This film is unbelievable on any level. It fails as an action film because no one would be fooled for a moment that the props, actors and scenery are realistic. It fails because even the most gung-ho would see through the hollow chauvinism portrayed by the film, a hypocritical might is right mentality.


I only watched the first twenty minutes of this movie and personally I think that this is the worst movie to be made in the recent years.

The plot was so bad that it might have been possible that a 10 year old kid wrote it. The acting was also sloppy with pretty much an unknown cast and not only that the action sequences especially at the first half of the film were so terrible it was unbelievable.

I don't know how the producers obtained the budget to film this movie but the production company must be regretting it by now.

To anyone who may come across this film in the near future, I advise you to steer clear of this joke of a movie.


Ivan The Terrible is more a filmed stage play than a "big-screen-opus". Citizen Kane - a similar work in many ways - is quite the opposite (in the way we come to expect such fare) in that it has lots of location shooting for example.

Acting is meant to convey a character's motivations and thinking to the audience; if it succeeds in making you understand the character, what does it matter HOW it was done? And considering the low amount of action, how else is one to express events that influence the story, and consequently the characters' machinations and decisions other than "exaggerated movements"?

As well, there's a historical level why the acting style should not surprise. The rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany and USSR forced film-makers who stayed behind to make films the way they knew how. As they were prevented access to more modern works that showed cinema's evolution and techniques, they only used what they knew.

The Nazi's control of government in Germany destroyed the great German film industry of the 1920's, due to their total control over that film industry. And propaganda films can only "entertain" German troops so much; hence the need for popular German silent films of the 1920's, for example. So a lot of Ivan The Terrible film's techniques would have been derived from such captured German films supplied to the film crew (as mentioned in other comments).

There was no confusion anywhere and though personally it was found over-hyped, it is by no means a bad cinematic experience - and definitely NOT amongst the worse films ever. The acting is fine, and part of the cinematography excellent (even by today's standards; more below). Definitely not a popcorn flick; one can't leave their brain outside this one's door. Dated perhaps and very symbolic - only worth watching on the big screen if one is unable to view the films with the lights off at home, for many of the cinematic elements will be lost in these films' chiefly B&W experience. It all depends upon what expectations one walks in with...

WARNING - SPOILERS: Do not read the following comments, in case they influence your personal view of the film(s).

...and if one does not mind the obvious communist propaganda (as opposed to capitalist propaganda). For Ivan is how Stalin saw himself - obvious in his influence on the film's direction (see other comments) - and anyone with a world historical awareness outside the US perspective will definitely understand this. Maybe Ivan was an earlier incarnation of Stalin, or maybe not; this is more a diatribe on Stalin and his motivations, decisions, loneliness, promotions of lackeys, etc - using the persona of Ivan - than any true historical record of Ivan. Also note the obvious use of particular colours in the sequel: Red (for the USSR) in the banquet scene. And perhaps blue (for the USA) during certain shots when the usurper wears the crown?

But it has many excellent visuals such as the profound use of shadows, or the exterior shot of the populace coming to beg Ivan's return to Moscow.


Well I will come clean and admit that I was forced as part of my history degree to watch this film, and then write a short film review as part of my grade.

Yet even if I had watched the film alone, at my own discretion I found it extremely boring and absurd. The style is dated beyond its years, and the acting is farcical. Rather than use dialogue they instead exchange eye popping glances at each other, or sometimes into thin air. For me, such over the top acting does not convey any greater emotion, and after seeing an extreme close up Ivan's face for the hundredth time I was praying for the film to end.

The most disappointing though is how wrong Ivan's character is. This man was nasty, his bodyguard's murderous thugs and his character cowardly. For me the film was nothing but a piece of Stalin propaganda, inaccurate and dull.


Well, "built" Doris Day (as Ethel S. "Dynamite" Jackson) is mistaken for thespian Ethel Barrymore, and falls in love with dancer Ray Bolger (as S. "Sam" Winthrop Putnam). Older Frenchman Claude Dauphin (as Philippe Fouquet) also digs Doris. Honestly What were they thinking? - This wildly inappropriate musical does feature Ms. Day prettily singing the standard "April in Paris", and others. Certainly, there nothing as good as her Columbia recordings from the time; and, nothing approaches Day's stunning and forthcoming "Secret Love". Although the material does not serve him well, it's nice to see Mr. Bolger performing. Some of the musical numbers are obnoxious.

**** April in Paris (12/24/52) David Butler ~ Doris Day, Ray Bolger, Claude Dauphin


Sorry folks, I love Ray Bolger's work but the one thing he ain't is a leading man. Maybe if you pretend he's the last man on earth, this romantic plot might work but come'on now !

Here's a movie that exists simply to showcase the title song which was a big hit for the Basie Band the year before (1951). And some pretty nifty singing and dancing save it from being a total disaster.

However, the story line is pathetic, even by 1952 musical comedy standards. And the other songs are equally as forgettable as Evening In Paris cologne. The dialogue embarrasses the stars, Day & Bolger. Only Claude Dauphin's Boyeresque charms keep his character three dimensional.

So, how to enjoy this movie on video ?

A.) Fast forward through all the dialogue...

B.) Surrender yourself to Doris Day's vocals and Ray Bolger's loose-limbed footwork. And don't miss Dauphin's hilarious take on a rain-soaked, windswept reprise of "April In Paris"...

C.) Finally, keep a couple of bottles of Cabernet chilled and handy.

Bob Raymond


This one is a cut above the usual softcore T&A, with the spirit of a dead actress returning to claim the film role she believes is rightfully hers, and using the body of an aspiring young actress to do so.

As always, the gorgeously sexy Amber Newman the is main attraction; her sensuous presence overshadows the mildly attractive, Shauna O'Brien

Plot: *1/2 out of ****

Sex/nudity: *** out of ****


There are bad movies, movies that are horrible, and then there's a tiny, rarified body of movies that are so horribly bad that, even after seeing them just once, the sheer awfulness makes it impossible to forget them even decades later. This is exactly such a movie, and it's hard to believe that the original film in this series was actually quite good. Let's see, George Kennedy, the cigar chomping "tough guy" mechanic of the original has somehow been promoted to airline captain, and, after the Concorde comes under missile attack (don't ask), he resorts to stunts like shooting a flare gun out the cockpit window despite (presumably) flying at Mach 2, all the while doing the sort of wild high-G evasive maneuvers that would have ripped the wings off any real airliner, never mind the effect of the passengers! But the absolute worst part of the film, at least to dedicated airplane buffs like myself, is that this atrocity "starred" one of the coolest, sexiest, and most technologically remarkable planes ever to fly. The Concorde (or, just plain "Concorde" as its pilots refer to it) deserved far better, this abomination is the equivalent of taking a high class beauty like Audrey Hepburn and putting her in a "Porky's" sequel. Thankfully, the release of the ever hilarious "Airplane!" the following year brought the whole "Airport" franchise to a well deserved halt, as anyone even contemplating a fifth installment would have been laughed to death by studios and movie fans alike.

1/10


OK, here is the deal. I love action movies and generally have no problem suspending a great deal of disbelief over plot holes or other implausible actions. However, this movie went far beyond minor flaws and went straight to the ridiculous. Let me get this straight. The police send a notorious gangster and cop killer (along with a number of other prisoners) on a bus with a grand total of two guards. They then are forced to stop at a precinct where precisely two cops are working, one of which is a day away from retirement and the other is a burn out. Apparently the building was about to be shut down so somehow the police decided that everyone else in the entire precinct got the night off for new year's eve. Right. But wait, it gets better. Gabriel Byrne shows up to take out Fishburne before he can rat him and other dirty cops out. (although we never find out anything about their relationship or dealings). Interestingly, the cops launching the assault on the precinct are in full SWAT gear with night vision goggles, assault rifles, the whole nine yards. Later on they even bring in a helicopter with MORE people in full gear. I'm not a cop, but I'm pretty sure you can't just waltz out of the station with an entire swat platoon worth of equipment without someone asking what you are doing. And the police helicopter??? In the supposedly terrible winter storm??? Also, no one near the precinct happens to hear or see this major siege going on with flash grenades and heavy rifle fire going off? I mean seriously, come on. I know this is set in Detroit, but even there it would raise suspicion on a supposedly top secret mission. I also love the fact that they find a Tommy Gun in the evidence room and somehow the gun still works and has bullets that are still intact and usable.

I could live with some of these problems if there weren't other glaring issues also. For one, the opening couple minutes of the movie are shot nicely in a very frenetic and hyperactive way and I thought was going to set the tone for the rest of the movie. Unfortunately I was wrong. The remainder of the film has no sense of pacing or tension or drama. The "characters" don't relate to each other in any way which is probably largely due to the fact that they aren't particularly interesting. There isn't enough interesting action to make this a good action movie, and there isn't enough character development/storytelling to make this a passable thriller/drama. The "relationship" between Hawke/Fishburn is the only thing that the director even tries to make interesting or intense. Oh and by the way, the final scene in the wilderness? Uh, I thought this was in the middle of a run down industrial section of Detroit and suddenly we are in the woods?? The acting isn't terrible in this movie, it is just that the directing and writing are atrocious. I really enjoy some of Hawkes, Fishburne, Byrne, Dennehy's other movies but this one is terrible.


I was looking for ATTACK on Precinct 13. There, the film is THAT memorable. Who is the star of this? Ethan Hawke or Matt Dillon (I can't tell who the lead actor is, that's a pretty big point against the movie right there) Gabriel Byrne (who could't have needed the money this badly could he?) Drea De Matteo is stunning but only because of her amazing body. It took me ages to finally work out she's Joey's sister off "Friends". I agree that the so called SWAT people attacking the station are pretty crap, as far as tactics go. We were even taught better basic skills than this in RAF basic training.

Avoid this, even the snow doesn't want to fall on a bus full of prisoners! Very bad continuity indeed.

Avoid like the plague!


**Maybe spoilers** **hard to spoil this thing more then it is, but just in case** Gee's I don't see how anybody could have liked this re-make!! It was like a "made for T.V" show and still pretty lame for that. Lots of fake snow, bad acting by top stars, bad action and that crazy pine forest in Detroit. What the heck??!! I didn't really think this would be a great movie but I was hoping to be entertained. Nope, we fell asleep half way and had to finish it up the next day. I could have skipped the rest easy(but then I would have missed those great piney woods!) I'm so glad I missed this at the theater! Bad enough to have wasted $3.50 at the video store. And I am a lover of cop, action and drama films. This was a very stinky 1 out of 10 stars. Give me the original any day!!


This movie examines the now infamous Wannsee Conference where top Nazis gathered to discuss the organisation and implementation of the "Final Solution" First off, I want to say I was amazed to see Kenneth Branagh play a Nazi. With the slicked back blonde hair, he certainly looked the part but he didn't really act the part well. There was none of the menace & cruelty and in the end, he came out looking like a grinning cheerleader, keeping the meeting going. The real Heydrich would not have let the conference get out of control the way it did in the film.

The best performance of all was undoubtedly Colin Firth who played Dr William Stuckart, the man who wrote the 1935 Nuremberg race laws and who gave "legal respectibility" to everything the Nazis did. Firth's performance was stunning, the main vocal opponent to what Heydrich was proposing. The best part of all was when he was verbally dressing down one of the Nazi thugs. The thug muttered "I'll remember you" and Firth replies "you should! I'm very well-known!!" The film is historically accurate but let's boil it down to what it really is - 90 minutes of a group of men around a table discussing, shouting and bragging. There's no excitement, no real conflicts (except the brief argument). It's just 90 minutes of talking! Same room, same table, same people.

I'm not sure if the DVD is worth the money. I for one felt short-changed.


This is yet another pseudo-intellectual "let's make the Nazis look real bad" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of "The Wannsee Conference" would have been much more interesting.

"Conspiracy" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too `staged' and the presentation too `common'. It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily `solved'.

Another thing is the tagline: "One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour." As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).

Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering `leaders' and politicians.


This is yet another pseudo-intellectual "let's make the Nazis look real bad" movie. The Nazis were pretty bad, no doubt - most of already know that. However, that does not necessarily make every movie on the theme good. A Discovery Channel presentation of "The Wannsee Conference" would have been much more interesting.

"Conspiracy" falls on its ass between two categories: documentary and drama. It doesn't cut it as a documentary, the movie is too "staged" and the presentation too "common". It doesn't cut it as a drama, the characters are too shallow and conflicts too easily "solved".

Another thing is the tagline: "One Of The Greatest Crimes Against Humanity Was Perpetrated In Just Over An Hour." As the movie shows the Wannsee Conference the meeting had nothing to do with reaching a consensus on the final solution. The decision on the solution had already been taken by the SS. The sole purpose of the meeting was to make all significant stakeholders commit themselves to an already established plan. There were no decisions or plans made at the Wannsee Conference. There was only threats and coercion (some needed less than others).

Finally: One thing the movie does show (although in no exceptional manner) is, man has a tendency to turn to culture and aesthetics in an attempt to hide for himself the fact that he is committing appalling atrocities. This is seen in most powermongering "leaders" and politicians.


This was an absolute disgrace! The worst dramatisation I have ever seen. German officer's with a spotless English accent, they didn't even attempt to be German. How were we supposed to take them seriously? Garbage garbage garbage! Leave the German acting to the likes of Ralph Fiennes & Liam Neeson in future.


For a movie that was the most seen in its native South Korea for most of 2004, it was a huge disappointment. Shows that Hollywood is not the only place where people can make over-emotional, melodramatic movies. The film was over 130 minutes long but not a lot actually happened and everything that happened was pretty much what one expected, the plot was that transparent. Granted if one himself was Korean, one would perhaps get into it more, but for me it didn't do much anything. Suffice to say that as the case tends to be with Korean cinema, the plot revolves around the relationship between the northern and southern parts of the peninsula. South Korea decides to recruit and train an elite assassination squad from death-sentence prisoners to kill Kim Il-Sung.

A tedious plot doesn't bother me much if the characters are good but unfortunately that is not the case this time around either. They are stereotypes and most of the acting is mediocre and too often just over the top as it tends to be in Korean cinema. Too much time is spent on the numerous montages and the characters remain distant, one dimensional cardboard cuts. They should've spent more time establishing the characters and less showing us how tough and cruel the training and the soldiers are.

One thing it does remind us of, is that a lesser of two wrongs is still wrong.


Where do I start? The plot of the movie, which is about a love between two high school students during wartime, while one is a living weapon, and their struggle to maintain that love is a very good plot. It is based on a manga by Shin Takahashi which was also turned into an anime in 2002, both of which I have yet to read or see.

This review is about this live action adaptation however. Sadly, this honest to goodness was a terrible movie. It isn't as if one could site certain aspects, and say, for instance, the budget is at fault, or the acting is to blame. It is, sadly, a series of underwhelming and ineffectual elements that bring this film down.

The acting is poor. Not to say Aki Maeda and Shunsuke Kubozuka are bad actors, but they didn't have much to work with, and seemed miscast. Neither seemed to have the physical range to draw the viewer in the story as well as being too old for their parts to a distracting degree.

The script was weak, the leads act unrealistically, and behave irrationally. The film also plays for the heartstrings, but ends up being predictable, all the while not being compelling, and under-developing the characters. There are also pacing issues.

Visually, it is unremarkable. The film uses green screen heavily and unnecessarily in too many scenes. The other special effects also have a cheap look to them, especially where minimalistic practical special effects could have been used. There is also no visual flair, as if there were no cinematographer or art designer to make the scenes look consistent and stimulating.

The music and sound effects were fine, but unremarkable.

Overall, the movie isn't devoid of enjoyment, and fans of the series shouldn't be discouraged to see it at least once just for the sake of completion. People unfamiliar with Saikano, this probably isn't the place to jump in as it isn't a very good movie or melodrama. It isn't the movie or the cast and crews fault, it just isn't inspired, and that is what kills it.


My first impresson of the Saikano: Live Action movie trailer (viewable on YouTube), was "Wow, this could be perhaps one of the few better live-action anime adaptations."

This time I was just wrong! Simply put, the live-action Saikano movie was a puzzle missing a number of pieces; put together just enough to get the vague image of it all.

*STORY*

The movies story vaguely follows the anime and manga, but the movies story is just the frame of a car, rather than a complete automobile. It seems that many parts of the story originally in the anime were left out, altered, or completely changed. In fact the ending is completely different from the manga or anime endings.

Characters especially; many left out or had a different feel. The connection between Fuyumi and Shuji is reduced to that of Shuji knowing her because she's the video store lady. Chise's character felt too strong already and only uttered the infamous I'm sorry a few times in the movie. Same can be said with Shuji. We lost the shy uptight yet tall male lead, the song he hums, and his frequent action of calling Chise silly. Other characters like Tetsu and Akemi had a different, toned down feel to them. Perhaps the dropping and toning down of other characters was to focus a lot more on Chise and Shuji, which it did. Way too much. Expecting a lot of sweet action scenes like those in the trailer? Well don't! Those in the trailer plus a few minutes, is the only amount of action you will get. So much of the movie is talking that while I was browsing thru the movie before watching it all, I thought I had gotten a regular Asian romance drama.

Pacing was way too fast. In the film, we see the famous scene of Chise armed with small wings and a chain gun arm, in just a little less than nine minutes of beginning it. There is very little time to get to know the characters and connect with them. What they should have done was split it into two movies, or even a trilogy. If it had been not as many things would have to be changed or dropped.

But again the movie behaves like a frame. The anime was more of a complete automobile because even if all those little details and such are minor they can really add up.

*PRODUCTION*

-Visuals- Visuals were disappointing. So much of the special effects turned out looking quite cheesy especially the CGI. Sadly, they were like those found on Sci-Fi channel movies. They are bearable and this movie isn't for the effects.

-Music- Music was average. Much of it was orchestral background music except there were really no themes. The film has dropped the addicting song that Shuji in the anime was always humming. A noticeable piece of music though is the ending song, heard in the trailer. Not a bad and somewhat beautiful song. Its a shame that it was not integrated into the movie as itself or an orchestrated version of the song.

-Casting- Saikano's casting was also so-so. The main star was Chises actor Aki Maeda, who is most famous for her role in the Battle Royale films. The actor that played Shuji was pretty good but they took away the glasses from the original character. Oh yeah and Tetsuo looks like Lupin the 3rd.

Unlike what I've heard from a few others, the acting in the live-action Saikano was not that bad. I rather feel at fault is the way the story was laid out and cramming the series into just a two-hour film.

*What can be learned from the live action Saikano:*

-CGI- I really wish the CGI in Saikano hadn't been that bad. But even with just that, we could have gotten a few more fight scenes! Probably the most anticipated live-action anime adaptation Neon Genesis Evangelion most likely wont suffer since they currently have WETA Studios assigned to do the effects.

-Modernism- Fuyumi owned a video shop. Chise used a audio cassette player to listen to music and gave Shuji a mix tape for his birthday. Why? This movie is made in 2006! Not only that in the movies reality they can create such a thing as Chise so it cannot take place in the 90s! The future is an age of CDs, DVDs, and MP3 players. Hopefully in Evangelion, Shinji will have a Sony Walkman MP3 player. NOT one that plays cassette tapes.

-Story & Pacing- As mentioned earlier, the Saikano movie moved too fast and forced the story to drop out many details. It was a smart move upon ADV Films and whoever else, to make Evangelion into a solid trilogy thus allowing more time to retell the story as true to the original as possible.

-Characters- Leave most of the character designs alone and let those classic quotes be said! What if the live action Evangelion didn't have Asuka's "What are you, stupid?!" or Shinji's "I mustn't run away!" Sometimes as small as they seem, those frequent quotes add and are who the characters are.

*CONCLUSION:*

All in all, the live action Saikano movie had potential. It really did. Those you who aren't fans and see this movie: you will be reluctant to start the anime or manga (so don't watch the movie first!) People who saw and liked the anime/manga, don't get your hopes up on this one. Studies show you most likely will be disappointed. It was still fun to see the anime come to life in the live action adaptation but it could have been so much more.

Reluctantly, I give the live-action Saishu Heiki Kanojo (Saikano) a 2 out of 5.

As Chise says, "I'm sorry"

~NekoTakuto


This movie is so stupid that I want my $2.99 back that I paid for!! First this movie starts off with a bunch of wooden actor geeks with fill in talent like they got picked off the street somewhere because the "real" actors either did not show up because of the laughable script or they just couldn't get anybody desperate enough to do this movie! The music in this movie is enough to put you to sleep, flute music made for faerie's dancing in the wilderness wouldn't even be good enough for this movie! And the guy dressed up as Satan looks like he's all dressed up in a K-Mart Halloween special costume! There are no dead scenes except a few lame scenes. When I saw what the terrible killers looked like in those bath robes with Nosferatu faces I just laughed! This is what the whole town is supposed to be running away from once a year! This movie is one of the worst demonic movies I have ever seen. Avoid this one!


This movie is... horrible and wonderful at the same time. I first saw it when I was about 13 or 14 years old, so it has a great deal of nostalgic value for me. In this movie, Cesar Romero actually plays the character of Octavio, the man who "discovered" Santana. There are also two other actors, Monte Markham (plays Sam, who is trying to save his daughter) and Peter Mark Richman (plays the priest), who have large filmographies, and these are the only performances that are okay. The rest of the acting and the movie itself have all of the B-film qualities that some of us cherish.

I recently spent 2 years trying to acquire a copy of this movie, and it is almost nonexistent. I am assuming that it was discontinued very shortly after its release. But I did eventually find a copy and paid a pretty penny to acquire it. If you happen to come upon Judgement Day in a video store (unmistakeable with a cheesy green "satan" on the cover), count yourself among the blessed who live near one of the few video stores that still has a working copy. A must see for those of you who like to laugh at cheesy attempts at a scary movie.


Movies like these do not need sequels. Part of the advantage of Don Bluth moving away from Disney is that he didn't need to suffer their endless tirade of straight-to-video, poorly animated cash-in sequels. But apparently it was someone's brilliant idea to make a sequel to "All Dogs Go to Heaven," so we get this.

Charlie Sheen replaces Burt and he's not really as good. Most of the film is just a poor excuse for a sequel and it isn't nearly as dark, different or entertaining as the original.

I feel sorry for future generations who are going to have to suffer endless sequels like this without ever knowing what it was like to have a time when Hollywood didn't totally rely on successful films as a crutch to release banal crap.

Please, no more sequels to kids films that don't need 'em.


How could they take such a beautifully animated gem like Don Bluth's All Dogs go to Heaven and bastardize it with a charmless, cheesy, uninspired sequel. The haunting music and delightful characters are gone, now replaced with tacky animation and an unimaginative plot.

The Pros: Charlie Sheen is sometimes fun as Charlie, but he lacks the charming tough guy attitude that brought him to life by Burt Reynolds. I did particularly enjoy the songs "I will always be with you" and "It's too Heavenly here".

The Cons: There seems to be no connection between this and the original. In the beginning Charlie is chums with Carface, but wait a minute. Isn't this the same character who was responsible for Charlie's murder and kidnapped the sweet little orphan he loved? I guess that all changes in Heaven but why isn't Anne-Marie even mentioned? If Itchy makes it to Heaven, wouldn't Flo and Killer make it too? What is with Annabelle the whippet's voice? In the original it sounded feminine and charming and in the sequel it sounds like a whiny, bitchy, parrot. The new characters aren't all that great (except Sasha). And the animation is better compared to a generic Saturday morning cartoon. The constant cartoony "humor" is flat and unfunny and the "heart" just doesn't work when compare to the original, which had such a moving unsubtle touch that makes me cry every time.

All Dogs go to Heaven is one of my all-time favorite films. How Don Bluth allowed this sequel to be made is beyond me.

BOTTOM LINE: Not all sequels go to Heaven.


All Dogs go to Heaven was a quirky, funny movie; With good name talent who's voices lended an adult familiarity to a cartoon basicly for kids. It was just interesting enough to be likeable by adults aside from something good for the kids to watch.

Unfortunately ADGTH2 is a valueless sequel trying to make a bit of cash rideing on the coattails of the first. Charlie Sheen is a passable replacement for Burt Reynolds in this second movie and Sheena Easton's voice in a few of the movies lovely but forgettable songs makes her a worthwhile pick as a co-star for this. Add Dom DeLuise from the first movie and you'd think this would be a decent mix to make this sequel at least relatively decent compared to the first one.

Unfortunately even with the addition of other good voice actors such as Bebe Neuwirth in the horrible role of Anabelle, this movie cannot be saved from the atrocious production values and animation skills (or lack thereof) present all over this movie. Horrible editing, syncronization of the voices, and flat out spaces where characters mouths should be moving to dialouge but are not combine to make this movie look like a college interns animation project instead of the decent sequel it could have been.

All in all i'd say unless you were a very big fan of the first movie i'd give this a very large PASS.


First, they ruin it with the uniquely bad animation quality, then, they get voices that sound nothing like the original. They make sooo many movie mistakes. When Sasha is singing in Count Me Out, the drummer disappears and then reappears, Itchy's shirt keeps changing color, his hat keeps changing position, one of the bridge is white, everyone in the background appears fat, halos keep changing colors and appearing and disappearing. Even heaven appears different. I don't give a damn if this is a low budget film, they shouldn't cut corners on animation. They completely ruined the first ADGTH. The only good thing about this movie was the soundtrack.


I think that this is a disappointing sequel. I miss a lot of the old characters (King Gator, Anne Marie, etc.), and I don't like it due to the fact that not even half of the original voices are back to do the characters. A lot of personality was lost in Charlie, and the villain Red is not even half as bad as Carface was in the first one. If you're a big ADGTH fan like I am, it's worth seeing just to see how the story is continued, but don't count on it being 5 stars in your book.


If you just watched All Dogs Go To Heaven, and learn that there's a sequel, don't watch it. It's horrible. It's absolutely awful. They rush the characters to develop. Sasha, for example, begins singing about how you can count her out for love. And at the end, this seems more like a dramatic romance flick than a comedy-adventure film. They rip Charlie out of his character and replace him with a gushy, soft, but still rebellious version of himself.

The humor behind Carface's character is just completely lost. He's a totally different dog. He doesn't have a cool voice anymore, he isn't that villain you love to hate anymore, he's just a wimp voiced by none other than Mermaid Man from Spongebob. Speaking of voice actors..

Charlie has a completely different voice. And while it isn't horrible, I don't like it. It's terrible in comparison to the excellent job that Burt Reynolds did for the character in the first film. Dom DeLuise is wonderful as always, as Itchy. That character stays true, and that's why this film gets a 3/10. Purely because Dom DeLuise was still voicing Itchy.

Oh, and my last complaint. I know Ann-Marie's movie was done and gone, she has parents now, etc, but did Charlie completely forget about her, or what? No mention at ALL of her in the second film. I mean, even a small mention from Itchy would have been acceptable. (ex. "Charlie, we have to get back. You can't take care of every kid that needs rescuing.) Or something of the sort. I mean, he died living with her, she deserves some kind of mention.

Don't watch this if you're looking for a wonderful sequel.


I loved All Dogs go to Heaven so much that I went to see the sequel in the theater, and I can't remember being more disappointed by a movie. The story stank worse than an over-aged sack of manure. I mean, come on! How could Carface possibly imagine being able to get revenge on an animal so much bigger than him, no matter how angry he was. Plus depicting Satan as a CAT?!?! How cliché can you get? So much for the story. Is it any wonder that Don Bluth, Burt Reynolds, Melba Moore, and Vic Tayback wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole? The animation was absolutely wretched. The colors were all washed out, and I can't count how many times I was able to see through objects that were supposed to be solid. It had to be the worst animation I've ever seen! I usually like animated movies, but not this BOMB!


I'm glad that I did not expect too much when I saw this sequel to one of my favourite childhood films. The storyline was dull and unconvincing as were the characters, and I was disappointed that some of the characters in the original were not in this sequel. I also did not think that the characters themselves were similar from the previous film. Charlie had changed, and now, he has a girlfriend. The first film had some good music, but the music in this film was unmemorable. In short, this film just did not do it for me. And, looking at other user feedback, it looks like it didn't do it for a lot of you. It's not worth watching.


... because this is yet another dead one. Lifeless voice acting, second-rate animation, contrived and un-funny songs (although the bit sung by the Devil would have been worthy of Tim Curry), and a weaker plot than Land Before Time 99: Fossils On Parade.

I have to admit, I haven't seen the first film. I'm not a big fan of movies involving Heaven or dogs, especially not in combination. Still, I hope to see the first one soon, as there HAD to be a reason someone would create such a God-awful sequel.

If I didn't get this movie for free, I wouldn't have it at all. For a 'heaven' flick, the only good thing in this was the Devil. 2/10.


This movie is very scary with scenes where the Devil uses Gabriels horn to open Heaven and pull the good angel-dogs out and imprision them on Alkatraz. The devil sings and dances to a few songs about the joys of being bad, and at one point, eats a live rat.

We got this movie free with a pizza. You get what you pay for.


Having watched all of the Star Trek TV series episodes many times each since the 1960s, most being quite good to superb, and only very few being mediocre, my opinion is that this one is the worst of all.

In fact, I think it's so poorly executed as to be an embarrassment to the series. It's not that the story is so bad, although it's not particularly outstanding in any way, but the acting is just abysmal on the part of the two lead characters, meaning those other than the regulars in this case. Barbara Anderson gives her weakest performance ever as the daughter of a mass killer, and who is on a mission of a sort. She practically calls in the role from a phone, and shows no real emotive abilities here. Although usually she's never used as more than a pretty face in most of her film/TV roles,usually small parts, she has done much better.

Arnold Moss as her father gives new meaning to the term 'Ham' and is the only actor ever on a 1960s Star Trek episode that outdid William Shatner in this area, and actually makes Shatner look superb by comparison. And he gets to play a Shakespearian actor no less, which gives him more impetus to overact, and he does so.

Other than these two leads being so weak, the story is such that anybody with any sense at all can tell who the killer is within the first 15 minutes. I say this because I told my brother the whole plot ending at the first commercial break when we were watching the original 1966 broadcast as pre-teens. His reply was, Yeah, you're right.

Skip this one and watch the much superior Menagerie episodes which were originally televised right before.


Somebody decided to make a "black version" of Airplane.

Somebody decided to make a really, really bad "black version" of Airplane.

Somebody decided to make a really, really bad "black version" of Airplane that ran out of humor after the first twenty minutes.

Somebody decided to make a really, really bad "black version" of Airplane that ran out of humor after the first twenty minutes and instead spent all of its time insulting the intelligence of the audience and the cast.

This movie managed to violate the laws of physics by sucking and blowing at the same time. If nothing else, it deserves to be remembered for that accomplishment.

It's not a black thing, it's not a white thing, it's just a bad thing. A really, really bad thing. Picking it apart point-by-point would be a waste of time. The best thing that can be said about the movie is that there was a purple airplane in it. Do yourself a favor... go buy a picture of a purple airplane, and you will have gotten the best of what this movie had to offer.

This one definitely goes under the category of "What the !^@@&*! were they thinking????"


After a humiliating experience on an airplane, Nashawn Wade (Kevin Hart) sues the airline and uses the money he wins to start up his own full-service airline. What makes his different is that it has sexy stewardesses, an on board dance club and no less than Captain Snoop Dogg in the cockpit.

Soul Plane is a very racist comedy except it is only occasionally funny. Soul Plane has been described as an "urban" version of Airplane. The problem is that Soul Plane doesn't even come close to achieving the laughs of Airplane. The jokes in Soul Pane are too offensive and they are mostly unoriginal. I would be lying if I said I didn't laugh since there were some funny moments. However, I was expecting more and I left the theater disappointed.

I would compare Soul Plane to Airplane 2. The latter was just a rehash of the first film while the former is just a rehash of outdated, crude jokes. There is really no creativity behind the movie and there are only a few fun spots. However, I don't think Soul Plane is "bottom 100" bad. Right now, the movie is ranked at number 82 and that's a little harsh. I'm not saying this is a good movie but it isn't a terrible on either. The running time is only 86 minutes long so it isn't too much of a pain to watch. For stupid comedies, you can do a lot worse.

No one in the cast is very good but they all seem to be having fun and this helps. Kevin Hart was very annoying as Nashawn. He had a few funny lines but he is a very poor leading man. Snoop Dogg, who was mildly funny in Starsky and Hutch, completely flunks here. Tom Arnold was actually tolerable and that was the film's biggest surprise. The most annoying person in the movie was Ryan Pinkston. He was not funny at all and he will never be funny. The funniest cast members were Missi Pyle and Mo'Nique. They gave the best lines and they made me laugh the most. In the end, Soul Plane may fit the bill if you're looking for a stupid comedy but it would probably be better if you just skip the film. Rating 4/10


I wholeheartedly agree with Greg in Ontario. I saw this movie today with a friend who actually went to the theatre manager afterwards and told him "That was possibly the worst movie I have ever seen." I have seen a LOT of movies with this person, and he's pretty forgiving, so I was actually shocked. (The manager gave him a free pass!)

I was offended by much of the humor in the film (yes, the baked potato scene was on the top of the list!). My friend and I are white and saw the film with a primarily black audience. For awhile I thought, maybe I just don't get this movie because I'm white. Then I realized NO ONE was laughing. The writing was bad; the direction was bad; the timing was almost non-existent.

There were a few funny moments, there was just WAY too much time between them. Even Airplane Two was funnier than this, and that's saying a lot.

I was so dazzled by Snoop Dogg in Starsky and Hutch (as Huggy Bear) that I felt I was sure to enjoy this movie. Nope.

DL Hughley was funny, as usual, but his role was rather small. Tom Arnold had a few funny moments as "the white guy", but most other attempts at humor fell far short of the mark.

Sadly, I was not able to award this film a rating with negative stars.


I hate to comment on something I didn't finish, but if I spare one person what I sat through for almost an hour before turning it off in disgust, it will be worth it.

I decided to watch this with an open mind, knowing it was on the bottom 100.

Bad idea. I usually love crude humor, or can at least tolerate it. I love so-called "black" comedies. I'm not easily offended, either.

It started off okay and quickly went downhill. I laughed a few times (for example, when the main character got stuck in the airplane toilet), but that was it and didn't compensate for the strong disgust I felt.

I didn't laugh when the dog got sucked into a jet engine. I usually can't see the humor in animals dying (except in Animal House). I didn't laugh at much else of the nastiness, either. I turned it off after an incident involving a blind man and a baked potato that I don't care to repeat the details of, only that the wave of nausea still hasn't passed over me.

Simply put, it was smut-filled and simply not funny with barely any plot. This is one of the times when if you don't have something nice to say, you should get the word out.

Don't say I didn't warn you.


Frankly I did not think there was anything humorous about this movie. It was really lame and poorly done with no plot whatsoever. Surprisingly it got some chuckles from me at the beginning with the Malcolm X terminal and that was about it. Seriously Soul Plane made even the worst movies such as Gigli look like a Emmy winner. This movie is really not worth seeing unless of course you were blind like Johnny Witherspoon who played the blind man in the movie (another sad character). I cringed at majority of the stereotypic jokes and ruining Tom Arnold and D.L Hughley by casting them in this movie. This movie could be summarized in just one sentence. Nashawn wins $100,000,000 and creates his own airline, sex, drugs, homosexuality, more sex, drugs, did i mention sex? If I could I would rate this movie in the negative integers, however, the beginning was amusing which brings this movie to a 1/10. Doing the "t bag" pfft!


"Soul Plane" is a horrible attempt at comedy that only should appeal people with thick skulls, bloodshot eyes and furry pawns.

The plot is not only incoherent but also non-existent, acting is mostly sub sub-par with a gang of highly moronic and dreadful characters thrown in for bad measure, jokes are often spotted miles ahead and almost never even a bit amusing. This movie lacks any structure and is full of racial stereotypes that must have seemed old even in the fifties, the only thing it really has going for it is some pretty ladies, but really, if you want that you can rent something from the "Adult" section. OK?

I can hardly see anything here to recommend since you'll probably have a lot a better and productive time chasing rats with a sledgehammer or inventing waterproof teabags or whatever.

2/10


This movie wasn't too funny. It wasn't too horrible either. Just a fun ride aboard the Soul Plane. It's a black-owned flight service with a kick-ass disco, beautiful bar, and pumping stewards. The plot takes you through the whole idea of a black (not race or color, but 'style') -owned plane with the same style of black humor. At times, there are some great rare scenes like when the main character uses the 'normal' lavatory in the 'normal' plane. Check that out. There are lulls, however, and I find it most in the character who played the Soul Pilot. Watch to find out who it is. All in all, it's a fun movie. Tom Arnold adds to the fun with his 'cracker' attitude. This is one movie to watch when playing poker, when you're drunk, or just vegging.


This "movie" and I say this lightly, is nothing but pure trash. I feel sorry for those people that actually wasted their money to go see this in theaters..I saw a screener of the movie from a friend and I've regretted it ever since.

As a black woman, I am EXTREMELY embarrassed to have seen this. More so, I am extremely horrified that people of other races may have seen this as well and might believe it to be behavior of black people in general. It's full of stereotypes against all nationalities and genders, horribly vulgar coarse jokes and lame one-liners bleated out by somewhat well known African American comedians who should have known better after reading this script! I must also mention the numerous rap and hip hop singers/rappers that populate the movie like it was an overlong music video---they had absolutely no place in the movie. I guess they were the "Jiving & Singing Minstrels?" HORRIBLE.

The "writers," producers and whoever had the stupidity to fund this "movie" should all be shot or locked in a room and forced to look at this crap nonstop for the rest of their lives. DO-NOT-WATCH-THIS- MOVIE!!! It's time wasted out of your life that you can never get back.


Well to start with I'm straight up as black as black gets, and I can tell you it's very sad when black people think a "black movie" sucks. I can't say i've ever seen a movie this badly directed or a worse story line.

Snoop is my dawg and all but he wasn't feeling this movie at all, I don't know how much they paid him to be in this bucket of crap called a movie, but i hope it's enough to wash the smell out.

I'm all about supporting a bothers movie, but this one was bad, really really bad. It blew chucks in every aspect, no real plot, story sucked, cast couldn't act and the best one there was the white guy!

I almost demanded a refund on my way out the door of the theatre, half the crowd up and left before it was over, I'm still wishing I had too. Save yourself some pain and go see something else, anything else...


Wow this really is stereotypical, terrible trash. i feel sorry for anyone who may have wasted their money to see this.

i am pretty sure i did not laugh once during this whole movie, i just cannot believe they would make such a terrible movie.

i will now be more wary when i watch late night movies.

this is most definitely the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. i am not saying it is the worst movie in existence (though it could be), but i don't think i have seen anything so stupid and unfunny it my life. it makes the Scary Movie series look intelligent.

1/10 i'd give it a 0 if they would let me


I gave Soul Plane the benefit of the doubt and thought there would actually be something of comedic value in it. Im not black, but that does not mean I cant appreciate black comedy. I know that because I happen to enjoy watching the Wayans Bros, Good Times and other series.

I've seen crap movies and Im not easily repulsed. As for Soul Plane, I didn't even bother finishing it. Don't know if they managed to land the plane and I couldn't care less. It would be unfair to say I didn't find some parts funny as I did laugh, but I also laugh at Youtube videos of skateboarders falling on their nuts so that doesn't say much. The men in the movie were like a bunch of howling horny hyenas in mating season looking to "get some" whenever and where ever possible. And we wonder why all those stereotypes don't seem to disappear. To summarize: Soul Plane makes the Harold and Kumar series look like The Godfather.


This movie was just horrendous. How could anybody like this movie, and for the ones who liked it because of the jokes, they should really take a long hard look in the mirror and ask themselves if stereotypes are not bad. Ignoring the face of the racial stereotypes, this was just awful. It never had its moments, if it paid homage to 1980's, "Airplane!", it needs to pay some more. Awful acting, terrible script writing, even for a movie with Mo'Nique or Tom Arnold. This movie was bad from the beginning, but people might have seen the whole thing, by the thought that the plane would crash. One of the worse movies ever, stay away.


my friend made me watch this awful film.. ugh.. it was so stupid...

its about some black guy who gets a plane company and turns it into a stupid pimp thing

with snoop dog acting as pilot for god knows why.. this movie is trashing white people and having many racist stereotypical events making fun of

Asains white people and trying to make the movie seem like all black people are cool pimps and all white people a losers... and black people get all the girls blah blah blah and so forth..

i despise my friend for making me watch this movie.. i kept saying "GOD TURN IT OFF!!" and he's like "NO I BET SOMETHING FUNNY IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN" we did end up finally turning it off half way through.. thank god...

i recommend this movie to people with very very poor taste in humor..


Hmph. Soul Plane supposed to be a "black comedy" spoof of a much well known movie, Airplane. This movie, is black comedy done at it's worst. Stereotypes can be funny, and a lot of times they are. But in this picture, it's disgusting. Okay, you have clubs, sex, drugs, everything crude that people associate with "urban" culture today.

Tom Arnold's appearance in this movie, is this movie's saving grace if it ever had any. DL Hughley should have never accepted the script. Kevin Hart makes a poor leading figure here... his appearance in this movie will probably grow annoying to many. Method Man and Snoop's appearance were by far, their worst.

I am just happy that I didn't pay to see this movie...


This could quite possibly be the worst movie ever made, up there in a league with movies like "Howard the Duck," "Plan 9 From Outer Space," and "Ishtar." I don't understand why I decided to see this movie, as it was a waste of my life. I also do not understand why one would like this movie, regardless of their sense of humor. The acting is among the worst I've ever seen, as is the writing. The characters are all stupid, and there is not one funny scene in the entire movie. Tom Arnold is quite possibly the worst actor ever-- this movie proves it. There is nothing worthy about this movie. Don't rent it, don't watch it, don't even say that it looks interesting. It's bad enough I saw it.


The movie starts off relatively well and seems to be getting somewhere when an African American passenger sues an airline for negligence. There is one scene in which his pet dog gets sucked into the engine and thats really a sad thing. But the way it is portrayed makes it difficult for one to figure out if that was an attempt at crude humor or really a tragedy to reflect on the extent of negligence? After this point, they clearly ran out of ideas. If you stuck around long enough, you will soon be treated with one of the worst movies ever made. It is basically a highly racist sequence of smoking dope, toilet humor, styling of each and every segment of the aircraft to reflect African American pop culture and pretty much nothing else. You'd think that the only 3 white passengers onboard would lead to some hilarious consequences but nothing of the same happens. They were basically just added to show how badly they could initially be treated and later be accepted into the hood if they behaved. Avoid.


I watched this movie with my boyfriend, an avid hip-hop fan and he was really really looking forward to catch the "soul" vibe the movie claimed to have. Boy, we were dead wrong. When I finished watching the movie I felt two things: remorse and relief. Remorse because I regretted wasting my time to watch this awful piece of dung, and relief because I watched it free on cable.

This movie really really gives a bad name to black people, by putting so much awful stereotypes that I believe all smart black people everywhere has been trying to spell off. I'm Asian, and I feel very very sorry and sick for those who made this movie. What more to say? Bad writing, even worse acting, and horrible storyline.

Even if you're bored to death and has no other choice, don't watch this movie. Seriously. The movie really has nothing to offer, except if you want to see things like minor illegal drinking, animal slain, women degradation, and overall: A REALLY REALLY BAD-OBNOXIOUS-SICKENING-AWFUL MOVIE. Yuck.


With awful movies like this one being even considered let alone being made, it's very easy to see why Hollywood is in such serious trouble with bad plots and worse remakes all the time.

I guess the viewer is supposed to be laughing their rear ends off over the 'black' in-jokes, the 'pimped up' look and the 'Bling'. It's so incredible 'over the top' and so bad that is even past the 'So bad it's funny again' mark and have plummeted right into 'totally embarrassing for anyone involved'.

I'm very, very sorry for every single minute I wasted on this one. I want my time back !

Save yourself the agony, do NOT watch this. The only reason for me to give even 1 point in the rating is that 0 wasn't an option.


I'll be honest-- the pimped out purple plane with Snoop Dogg at the helm is an amusing visual gag. It would have been a decent concept for a 30 second commercial, or maybe a 3 minute music video. But the producers have committed the age-old concept comedy sin of stretching 30 seconds of material into an hour and a half of film, and the results are predictably lame. The remainder of the 89 minutes are filled with the typical gamut of racist and sexist humor and fart jokes, offensive and-- worst of all-- painfully unfunny. The threadbare plot screams under the weight of its contrivances. Best to be avoided unless you are drunk or stoned.


Alright lets break it down. Why is this one of the worst films ever? Because there are so many answers to that question I'm having a headache. Come on...Cracker World? Mr. Honkee? The part with the Arab guy? its just awful, i didn't really care about the whole white racism crap, but when they did that thing with the Arab guy, i wanted to get the names of all the writers. Its really not worth watching 3 seconds of this movie. It isn't even funny-bad which was my first interpretation. I hope the person who directed this movie doesn't commit suicide, but it seems likely, i don't see any other options.Don't EVER watch this movie, if you watch it, u cant say u died with no regrets.


This is a movie about a black man buying a airline company and turning the company into a African-centric over the top airliner. They even portray the owner as not only being in control of the airline, but also controlling part of the air terminal at the airport. One day this guy wins $100 million dollars a the next time you see him, he is walking all over the airport acting like the owner of the airport. Everyone calls this movie a parody, but nothing about this movie shouts parody! This movie is a flop and will forever be in the $4.95 bin at Wal-Mart.

I can't even come to terms to why MGM would waste 16 million dollars on this movie. This movie doesn't even warrant straight-to-video status. The writers (one black and one white) should be blackballed from Hollywood forever. Not only do they over-stereotype blacks, they portray them as ignorant human beings. I would be ashamed of going to a movie that constantly humiliates me. Don't waste your time at the video store, wal-mart, pay-per-view, or on a Sunday afternoon when the movie is shown on TBS.


The Emperor's (Richard Haydn) dog is betrothed to Johanna's (Joan Fontaine) dog. However, when Virgil (Bing Crosby) arrives in town to sell a gramaphone record player to the Emperor, his dog is attacked by Johanna's dog. After a revenge attack where Virgil is banished from town, a psychoanalyst insists that Johanna's dog must confront Virgil's dog so that she can overcome her doggy fears. This is arranged and the dogs fall in love. So do Virgil and Johanna. The rest of the film passes by with romance and at the end, Johanna's dog gives birth. But who is the father.......?

The dog story is the very weak vehicle that is used to try and create a story between humans. Its a terrible storyline. There are 3 main musical pieces all of which are rubbish - bad songs and dreadful choreography. Its just an extremely boring film - Bing has too many words in each sentence and delivers them in an almost shouty, irritating manner. Its not funny............ EVER..........but its meant to be. Bing and Joan have done much better than this.


Intended as light entertainment, this film is indeed successful as such during its first half, but then succumbs to a rapidly foundering script that drops it down. Harry (Judd Nelson), a "reformed" burglar, and Daphne (Gina Gershon), an aspiring actress, are employed as live window mannequins at a department store where one evening they are late in leaving and are locked within, whereupon they witness, from their less than protective glass observation point, an apparent homicide occurring on the street. The ostensible murderer, Miles Raymond (Nick Mancuso), a local sculptor, returns the following day to observe the mannequins since he realizes that they are the only possible witnesses to the prior night's violent event and, when one of the posing pair "flinches", the fun begins. Daphne and Harry report their observations at a local police station, but when the detective taking a crime report remembers Harry's criminal background, he becomes cynical. There are a great many ways in which a film can become hackneyed, and this one manages to utilize most of them, including an obligatory slow motion bedroom scene of passion. A low budget affair shot in Vancouver, even police procedural aspects are displayed by rote. The always capable Gershon tries to make something of her role, but Mancuso is incredibly histrionic, bizarrely so, as he attacks his lines with an obvious loose rein. Although the film sags into nonsense, cinematographer Glen MacPherson prefers to not follow suit, as he sets up with camera and lighting some splendidly realised compositions that a viewer may focus upon while ignoring plot holes and witless dialogue. A well-crafted score, appropriately based upon the action, is contributed by Hal Beckett. The mentioned dialogue is initially somewhat fresh and delivered well in a bantering manner by Nelson and Gershon, but in a subsequent context of flawed continuity and logic, predictability takes over. The direction reflects a lack of original ideas or point of view, and post-production flaws set the work back farther than should be expected for a basic thriller.


Leon Errol handles his double role of Uncle Matt Lindsay and Lord Basil Epping superbly, but I have trouble liking the "Mexican Spitfire" Series because they all are contrived to produce mistaken identities, and these are telegraphed way in advance. Errol is funny as the stuffy Lord Epping, but I would have preferred a lot more wit and much less repetition.


SAIMIN

(USA: The Hypnotist /UK: Hypnosis)

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Dolby Stereo SR

Following a series of bizarre and apparently unrelated 'suicides', an experienced Tokyo detective (Ken Utsui) enlists the help of a young psychoanalyst (Goro Inagaki) who believes the victims were acting on a post-hypnotic suggestion. But their subsequent investigations reveal an even darker force at work, linked to a young girl (Miho Kanno) whose life has been blighted by sadistic abuse...

Based on a novel by Keisuke Matsuoka, this densely-plotted mystery takes inspiration from a variety of sources (Italian gialli, traditional Japanese ghost stories, etc.), though some of the images in the climactic showdown reveal a more immediate influence: The recent commercial success of Hideo Nakata's RING (1998). For all its ambition, however, SAIMIN is a routine potboiler which stumbles badly after a powerhouse opening (the 'suicides' are particularly impressive, despite some feeble CGI effects), though director Masayuki Ochiai - who co-wrote the script with Yasushi Fukuda - rallies proceedings for an extended finale in which the narrative's startling secrets are finally revealed. Ochiai is best known for his film adaptation of novel-turned-video-game PARASITE EVE (1997) - which also starred leading man Inagaki (a member of Japanese pop group SMAP) - and while SAIMIN echoes that movie's strong visual sense, it falls short as drama, and most of the characters are mere ciphers, undermining the storyline's emotional pay-off. Which is a shame, because the final half hour is galvanized by a series of dynamic set-pieces - most notably, a concert hall sequence in which Dvorak's 'New World' symphony is transformed into an instrument of murder! - and Ochiai is well-served by an excellent production team. However, those lured by the promise of gory carnage may be disappointed - the film is long on atmospherics and short on splatter.

Performances are varied, due to the script's limitations, but Kanno (TOMIE) is outstanding as a young woman suffering from multiple personality disorder - which, the subtitles on the print under review assures us, isn't recognized as a viable medical condition in Japan! - who falls prey to a sleazy TV hypnotist (Takeshi Masu), a prime suspect in the murders. Inagaki is bland in a one-dimensional role, and he's constantly upstaged by Utsui, a veteran performer whose career stretches back to the "Sûpâ Jaiantsu" series of the 1950's.

(Japanese dialogue)