Square pigs as a way of efficiently utilizing cargo space is the one and only clever moment in "Space Truckers". Believe it or not, Dennis Hopper has done worse, see "The American Way", but this movie is way up there on the "cream of the crap" scale. I think the best way to describe the viewing experience is that "Space Truckers" will please no one. Too cartoon-like too be taken seriously, an almost total lack of humor, and poor character development, virtually assures disappointment. The beer and popcorn crowd might tolerate one viewing, but all others have been warned to avoid "Space Truckers" for all of the above reasons. - MERK


I must admit that this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I thought Dennis Hopper had a little more taste than to appear in this kind of yeeeecchh. If this is supposed to be funny then I gotta look around for a new sense of humor. If you're thinking of buying this movie you'd better think again.


Dennis Hopper must've been really hungry to do this movie. Atrocious special effects, very poor writing, cheesy dialogue, stupid-looking killer bio-robots. Never mind the blatent disregard for science. The awkward scene with the 2 young leads taking their clothes off. The best part of this movie was the pull-start cyber-penis on the wacked-out cyborg pirate captain. 2 out of 10 stars because I'm in a generous mood.


Oh dear! ohdear!ohdear!ohdear!

I love science fiction but this... er... 'movie' just puts space flicks to shame. Every sci fi film I've seen over the last YEAR has been disappointing to some degree, and I'm now seriously reconsidering what genre of movies I actually like in future!! (Maybe I'll watch romance flicks from now on!)

SPOILERS ALERT! (And thats not saying much!)

This flick is so insipidly dumb it rivals Battlefield Earth and Baby Geniuses in sheer badness. The special effects are obviously fake, the Big Mac Truck looked stoopid with its roller coaster seat restraints, the killer robots looked like a more idiotic version of the Power Rangers, a huge fat guy is sucked out of a port hole window butt first and... Space Truck School??? WTF?

Mr Hopper can do better than this. What really stunk were the two good-looking young things who accompany him and run around in nothing but their underpants (??) for an entire two thirds of the flick! The obligatory 'sex scene' (snicker!) between our young heroes was so poorly performed I nearly choked on my tonsils laughing at the TV screen.

The only character worth mentioning is the pirate ship captain/cyborg/mad scientist. He oozed the word grotesque and was predictably sleazy, but I believe he could've been much more menacing. He does and says things which are quite funny (all the best scenes involve him!) so for the captain I give this movie an extra point.

But this flick is so bad it'll make you want to hurl abuse at the TV or maybe throw your TV out the window! It may even kill off a few brain cells and put you into a catatonic state.

CONCLUSION? I like the way the captain struggles to walk around on his peg leg when its obviously a fake peg leg!! I would've given it 0 out of 10, but since he cracks me up with his stoopid antics... this flick gets 1/10!


I'd never heard of this film before I caught it on the telly last night. I do hope it was never given a cinema release as this would be an insult to the silver screen and movie-goers alike.

Was it supposed to be serious, was it supposed to be funny? Why the outrageously basic plot? Does anyone actually care?...

Awful film.

2/10


Okay,

I realize that there are some doubting Thomas's out there...I was one of them...but then I saw this masterpiece of celluloid.

All I can say is that the scene in which George Wendt gets sucked out of the spaceship BY HIS A** left me trembling. I sometimes sit bolt upright in my bed, screaming like an old man on a proctologist's table thinking about it. If the director is reading this... I would pay to be an extra in the sequel.


You've got to be kidding. This movie sucked for the sci-fi fans. I would only recommend watching this only if you think Armageddon was good.


At one point in this waste of celluloid, Charles Dance as some sort of meant-to-be-funny, cyborg bad guy says "If I had an anus, I'd soil myself."

Quite.


There is only one word that describes this film: BAD!! I have no idea why this movie was even made, or how they got Dennis Hopper to star in this film. Stuart Gordon is a better director than this and Hopper is a much better actor. The film is plain stupid. I did like the "square pigs" idea and there was an interesting love scene involving a cyborg, other than that, avoid this film at all costs.


K, one day my father picked up a movie with a 'neat' cover. Got home with my mom and we were like yay lets watch this new movie we never saw before! .. Ok so it started ... interesting start, cool robots and disgusting gore (eek) on a strange planet (actually it was Pluto wasn't it?)... Blablabla I could tell the whole story but I rather not point, WTF NEVER EVER pick up a movie with a lame ass name, and seriously don't EVER I mean EVER judge a book by its cover (err tape..) it looked like an interesting movie HOWEVER it was a slap to the face for sci-fi movies, its DISGUSTING. I mean it was so bad I just started laughing (I swear it tryed to be serious) I CANT DESCRIBE THE STUPIDITY! It killed more then a million brain cells of mine I can't even write a descent critique. ITS THAT BAD! Argh and I wana prepare you for something "strange' *COUGH COUGH* mechanical p3n1$ *COUGH COUGH* Sorry just had to say it, its so funny, think of it as a commedy or a parody of sorts for sci-fi movies. Its classic batman laughs but in a new packaging. What the hell was this director thinking?


If you're one of those people who doesn't really like Sci-fi because of their sometimes far-fetched ideas and surreal world perspectives, you better stay away as far as you can from Stuart Gordon's Space Truckers! It truly is an absurd space adventure, stuffed with eccentric characters, colorful kitsch and ludicrous plot-twists. In all honestyI probably never would have cared for this film, if it wasn't for Gordon's name on the credits. This guy comes pretty close to being a genius in the horror genre, with undeniable milestones like From Beyond' and Re-Animator' on his résumé. Apparently, Stuart Gordon likes his humor as twisted as possible! He already went completely over the comedy-top once (with Re-Animator) but, with the slight difference that the bizarre humor was effective there. Something that isn't really the case for Space Truckersmost of the gags lead nowhere and the entirely exaggerated atmosphere only works in small doses. In the end, all that remains is an occasionally amusing but completely unnecessary mess. Dennis Hopper and Charles Dance (or at least a semi Charles Dance) are always a joy to look at and the still stunning Barbara Crampton has a small role near the end of the film. Crampton was Stuart Gordon's regular heroine in previous horror films. The story of Space Truckers is as silly as they come. Dennis Hopper plays the self-made loner who's fed up with his job. Who wouldn't be when you're transporting pigs across the galaxy for a company named Interpork? He sees his change to flee while bringing his muse to earth. They float into Space-pirates and find out their cargo is meant to wipe out half the universe! Stuart Gordon wisely returned to making horror again after this little escapade. Since Space Truckers, he already made the sublime `King of the Ants' and the absolutely brilliant `Dagon'


About five years ago, my friend and I went to the video rental store to get something to watch. My friend saw Space Truckers on the shelf, and so we got it. Once we got home and started watching it, we realized what an absolute piece of crap it was! A beer can floating in space? A guy taking a dump in a toilet? A guy with a mechanical dick who tries to arouse a women by saying, "Whizz, whizz!"? WTF!!! The dumbest, stupidest, most retarded, horribly throne together piece of trash my eyes have ever been exposed to. My friend and I still refer to it as THE worst movie we have ever seen. Only one other movie has come close to its crappiness (and that would be the stupid Jackie Chan flick, "The Medalion"). If you eyes ever see this piece of junk on the shelf at your video store, proceed to do the following: 1. Take it off the shelf and throw it to the ground. 2. Stomp on it for at least 30 seconds. 3. Proceed to set it on fire in a contained facility (bathroom stall). 4. Lastly, take it to your local hazardous waste management facility immediately so that it may be properly dealt with.

STAY AWAY FROM "SPACE TRUCKERS"!!!!!!!!


How do stories this bad get made. That's not a question. It is a statement.

Here are my problems with the film.

1) Much of the story development was predictable and boring. My emotions ran pretty much in a flat line throughout. There wasn't really much to draw the viewer into the film.

2) The characters were decidedly uncharismatic. One was a loon, another was confusing, and the third was pretty damned boring. There was absolutely zero reason to be drawn to these people. Even though I knew it wouldn't happen, I kept hoping that they would run into someone else, someone more interesting.

3) The physical environment was uncomfortable for me. A trailer??? In the desert??? The desert is a place that most people would prefer not to visit. How is it that these three people end up in the desert???

4) And in the same desert. Did the writer really expect me to believe that the last three people on Earth would manage to find each other within the span of a few weeks out in that desert?

5) Was it really necessary for Ms. Ryan to be in two scenes that required a swimsuit? Hey, she looks great, but it was pretty gratuitous.

Okay, so if I thought it was so bad, why did I give it a 3? I am trying to be as objective as possible. Even though I found Alan annoying, I have to say that David Arnott did a very credible job of portraying a neurotic nerd (the character reminded me of a few of Albert Brooks more annoying roles). Jeri Ryan tried to do something with Sarah, but it just wasn't written very well. Okay, so she was supposed to be a confused, dysfunctional woman. But why? What did it add to the story? Her mood swings left me feeling like I was being jerked (hard!) one way and then another and then another.

I don't often walk out on films, but this one had me contemplating it several times. Stiff, predictable, boring. Proceed at your own risk.

My 2 cents.


I saw this movie in part because of some positive comments here on IMDb. After wishing I had those 90 minutes of my life back, I feel it's my duty to get on here myself and say...Please don't bother watching this movie.

I can't argue with the actors efforts - they did what they could given the material, but that material is dreadful. The pace was deadly - slow, meandering, and you saw everything coming about an hour away, and then it took forever to happen. The dialogue was boring, pointless, not funny at all. The characters were all completely unsympathetic. And the cinematography was, in my opinion, very low quality - the cliché of "character uses home video machine!" was used to very bad effect.

Yes, Jeri Ryan is a cool person. Don't let that sucker you into wasting your time on this film.


Hypothetical situations abound, one-time director Harry Ralston gives us the ultimate post-apocalyptic glimpse with the world dead, left in the streets, in the stores, and throughout the landscape, sans in the middle of a forgotten desert. One lone survivor, attempting to rekindle his sanity, takes food from the city to his bungalow in this desert. All alone, he hopes for more, but with nobody around, he is left with white underwear, and a passion for a local Indian tribe  until the discovery of a camera which opens up new doors and breaks the barriers of human co-existence. Alan, a man of the book, is left on Earth after an unknown disaster. Thinking he is alone, he begins living life his way  until, Jeri Ryan, appears (like she would in any dream) out of the woods, disheveled, and unhappy to find the final man alive to be ... well ... like Alan. Anyway, they try to co-exist, fail, get drunk, and before creating the ultimate dystopia, they run into Redneck Raphael (played by newcomer  Dan Montgomery Jr). Bonds are torn, confusion sets in, a couple becomes a third wheel, and the battle between physically inept nerd vs. brainless jock. Even with nobody left on the planet, it becomes a truth that even the darkest of human nature will arise.

Using a variable film technique, Ralston gives us a mediocre story based loosely on another film entitled "The Quiet Earth" (which I will be viewing next) oddly which he never gives any credit towards. With a borrowed story, I guess he does a decent job of reinterpreting it. His punch seems to be lacking at the beginning while Ralston tries to find his stride, borrowing yet again from other film director's techniques to attempt to find his own. He opens the film interestingly enough, but fails to answer any direct answers. Sure, the final days have arrived, but could there be a concise answer as to "how" or better yet "why" these select few survived. A spookier beginning would have led us stronger into a comical film. The juxtaposition would have been like "Shawn of the Dead", but instead left us feeling like we were watching a "made-for-TV" program. Listening to the audio commentary, I have respect for Ralston because he worked diligently to get this film made, and his passion nearly sells the film, but you could tell from his interaction with the cast that he wasn't as happy with his overall final product. There were mistakes, ones that he pointed out and others that he was ashamed to point out. While this does make for decent independent film-making, it sometimes feels cheap, and in Ralston's case, it was the latter.

I must admit, David Arnott's portrayal of Alan hooked me. He played that wimpy, school nerd, adult role very well. He was funny to both watch and listen to, and thus he became sympathetic to the viewer. He was a key player in keeping the film together, alas, I cannot say the same for the rest. This was Dan Montgomery's first film, and it was obvious  I mean  really really obvious. There were scenes in which I thought the cue card was about to come out and read the lines for him, perhaps even giving us a more realistic performance, but alas, it wasn't the case. Then there was Jeri Ryan. She pulled into her character near the end of the film, which to me, was the culmination of the entire piece of art. She goes from estranged unknown to bitter cranky insane girlfriend by the end. Confused? Again, she fell into her character by the end, giving us just a glimpse of what she could have probably done as her acting matured. Even as the commentary progressed, all that she contributed was a laugh, giggle, or "ohhh, look at that color" moment. While her beauty may sell tickets, one may want to consider knowledge to be just as beautiful. This was her first film, so can I be too harsh?

Overall, this film felt like it was missing something. I though the idea was strong  the premise that even with only a peppering of people remaining on the Earth the evil of human nature still exists. Jealousy cannot be killed by bacteria or bombs (maybe because it is consumed by zinc?) and we as a race will always want what we cannot have. Ralston is not a surprising director, his techniques are flawed and pre-used, but he does know how to make a low-budget comedy. I think our idea of "funny" is different, so that is why I couldn't find myself laughing at many of the bits he found "hysterical". His actors provided the level of acting needed for this film, which was lower than average. His film was loose, meaning that there were elements never quite explained or tackled (i.e. anything with wings survived?!?), which overall harmed the intensity of the film. This was a comedy, but it could have been much darker and much much funnier. For those thinking that Roger Avery was a huge element to this film, as we learn from their commentary, all he was there for was money  the was in essence, the bank for "The Last Man". Don't get your hopes up for any classic Avery moments.

Don't expect more from Ralston  and that is how I will end it.

Grade: ** out of *****


After wasting 2 hours of my life watching this movie on late night television, I went back and reread some of the IMDb material, to remind myself of why I watched it in the first place. In hindsight, the only thing that I can think of is that the genre generally appeals to me. But this movie was a total waste of effort. It fails on every level, and to see that it's described on IMDb as a comedy really leaves me at a loss. I don't recall more than a couple of chuckles. There are more laughs in any episode of Law and Order than in The Last Man. Seriously.

Too much of the characters' interaction just didn't seem to me to have any foundation, and was therefore very unlikely/unbelievable.

If it hadn't been for the almost-gratuitous bikini shots, well, what can I say? Avoid this movie like the plague. Or tape it and just fast forward to the bikini shots. Do not spend even $1 to rent it though.


The only reason I rented the movie was to see Jeri Ryan in it! OMG that was the most boring, pointless movie I've ever seen!!! HOW LAME!!! I mean really, give me a break! After Voyager, I'd hope she'd be offered better roles!!

If I were one of the last people on earth, I would NOT still be living in a travel trailer in the dessert!! This is just such a bad movie!! The thing about the indian tribe and how he compared it every 10 seconds really, really got old. Poor Jeri, better luck next time!


Wow, umm this was a very, how to say it, different type of movie. It calls itself a comedy...but it wasnt really laught out loud funny at all. It was insane. If you are willing to accept that 3 people survive a calamity of a global scale, why not 4? or 5?.....and why did it suddenly end without anything happening??? They could have made this much better by simply having another element in the plot such as a dumpy female for the ugly dude or something.......zinc, riduculous....ahh

i dunno..watch it...it wasnt that bad.....sorta funny at times....i guess...

schneider


Don't be fooled by the other reviewers. Although this film contains an impressive array of talent, the material they present leaves a great deal to be desired. Nat King Cole's 3 numbers are pretty lame and not even close to his later efforts, though he does impress with his piano playing. 'Moms' Mabley is not a bit funny, though I remember her as a very entertaining talk show guest from my youth. Actually, the best performances are from a couple of fat guys who impress with a lively tap dance and a Four Tops takeoff, and the jazz band itself, especially in the number featuring the bass player. The print itself is pretty poor quality, and the wonderful Butterfly McQueen is totally wasted in the wraparound plot.


When I started watching this, I instantly noticed that I couldn't understand what anyone was saying. I turned up the volume. With background noises now booming out, I could hear the voices. Just what are the actors saying? Is the movie not dubbed? Are they speaking Spanish? After some confusion, I realize that it was English. At least, I think so... The Amazing Jess Franco has placed the microphones too far away from the actors. As a result, we cannot completely hear what they are saying. He's done this before. But maybe this is Mr. Franco's intention? By not knowing what people are saying, we are thrown into some mystery about what is going on, and are left with more visual clues... Maybe it's just me, but I would have liked to know what was going on! How about a few hints? The basic premise (I refuse to call it a "plot") concerns a young American exotic dancer named Paula (played by Amber Newman) who has a boyfriend who gets her invited to a small island owned by some sleazy rich people. It is somewhere off the coast of Spain. For this visit, a large cash payment is promised to Paula, which the boyfriend gets. He then escapes from the island, only to return later. Why? Pay close attention to the scene where the boyfriend opens Paula's US passport. Though his hand tried to cover it up, you can see the actress' REAL name, Amber Newman, printed below the photo on the bottom of the passport!! Anyway, back to the "story": There are some other sleazy, rich, beautiful characters visiting the island, all with ambiguous motives. We witness sadistic games (are they real or fake?) and unappealing dining scenes. But the food must be good, as a phony French chef prepared it! There is a young woman servant who runs around naked and never speaks. Is she really mute? And do we care? Of course all the women are mostly naked throughout this film... Oh well, we can at least be thankful that the (50+ and overweight) men remain clothed! In addition to the abysmal sound quality, what I have always marveled at about Jess Franco is his amazing ability to film beautiful naked women in such a way that leaves the viewer completely turned off. This film is no exception  I needed fresh air after watching it!

In conclusion: I am happy to report that regardless of what Mr. Franco can dream up, I am still attracted to women.


I know Jesse Franco is responsible for a wide variety of films, and I mainly go for his horror films, as lousy as they are at times. I guess it was morbid curiousity that drew me to this, and I wasn't even curious enough to finish it. Maybe it got better towards the end but unless you're into lesbian sex scenes (of which there's plenty) then you may want to take a pass. So what exactly can you say about a movie that features a woman that pees in a bowl on the kitchen counter (while standing up)? Just never you mind what that's used for later, you probably don't want to know. If this sounds intriguing to you, then that's your problem but then again you might just like this movie. I myself, am no prude, I've seen plenty of disgusting movies in my day but at least they were done well, and this isn't. Sometimes too much is just too much. Bleah.


I consider myself a fan of Jess Franco and his trash movies, but nearly every time I see one of them, I just see missed opportunities and plots that don't play out well. This film is, unfortunately, no different. The film certainly had a lot of potential, as Franco has fused the intriguing theme of the classic film 'The Most Dangerous Game' with his usual brand of trashy sleaze, but the plot here gets lost too often, and it takes an eternity for Franco to get round to the main point of the movie. With this being a later Franco film, you might be forgiven for thinking that the director would have got better, but actually I've found that the opposite is true; as this and the terrible 'Killer Barbys' are two of his very worst films. The plot focuses on a stripper and her sleazy boyfriend. The pair is invited to a private island by a rich woman and her lover. However, they soon find that they haven't been invited there for social reasons as they are 'released' on the island so that the wealthy woman and her friends can hunt them down for sport!

What attracted me to this film was the front cover and the fact that it was directed by the king of sleaze flicks. You'd think, then, that I'd be pleased that the movie features a plethora of sex scenes and general sleaze; but I'm not. The reason for this is mostly that the sex and sleaze in the film is really boring and most of the time served only in giving me the condition known as 'itchy fast forward finger'. However, my inclination to see everything through to the end ensured that I had to lump it. There was a time when I didn't think girl-on-girl could possibly be boring, but I have since been proved wrong. The only positive I can pluck out the movie really is that the soundtrack is quite catchy, and despite it being silly foreign pop music; actually blends quite well with the sex scenes. I did enjoy the last ten minutes; as that's when the plot finally got going, but it was a case of too little too late and unfortunately, this is a severely lacklustre film. On the whole, I only recommend this film to those who feel they must see all 180+ Franco movies...everyone else should watch Vampyros Lesbos, Faceless or She Killed in Ecstasy instead.


The opening scene of the beach at Fircombe while amusing in itself, unfortunately provides a suitable metaphor for the film - insipid and washed out. It is actually not as corny as most of the others in the Carry On series, but maybe because of that doesn't really deliver much fun. It's a fair bet that the title will appeal to fans of the Benny Hill show but those looking for attractive females in bikinis and miniskirts, while they will see some in this, will probably enjoy some of the other titles in the series, such as "Carry On Abroad" or "Carry On Up the Jungle" more. The emergence of early 1970s feminism is used as a plot device which seems rather self-defeating.


This is definitely one of the weaker of the series of Carry On films. It lacks the usual fun and sparkle and even the cast seem embarrassed by the poor dialogue. By the time this came out, the series was in terminal decline and boy does it show! If you're coming fresh to this series, avoid this one till near the end.


I will admit I didn't pay full attention to everything going on in this film, but to be honest, I don't think it would have mattered. Basically local councillor Sidney Fiddler (Sid James) persuades the incompetent Mayor Frederick Bumble (Kenneth Connor) of Firecombe to hold a beauty contest, to improve the town's image. They face opposition from women's liberationist Augusta Prodworthy (June Whitfield) trying to sabotage the contest, but they do have publicity agent Peter Potter (Bernard Bresslaw) and Palace Hotel owner Connie Philpotts (Joan Sims). Soon enough the young, beautiful wannabe models show up, including Hope Springs (Barbara Windsor), Paula Perkins (Valerie Leon), Dawn Brakes (Goldfinger's Margaret Nolan), Debra (Sally Geeson) and Ida Downs (EastEnders' Wendy Richard). When the girls have cat fights, it does draw away regular residents, but after quite a while of some plodding not that funny innuendos and William (Jack Douglas) having over-active twitches, it does finally reach the competition, and it's just afterwards I couldn't be bothered. Also starring Patsy Rowlands as Mildred Bumble, Peter Butterworth as Admiral, Joan Hickson as Mrs. Dukes, David Lodge as Police inspector, Angela Grant as Miss Bangor, Arnold Ridley as Councillor Pratt, Robin Askwith as Larry, Patricia Franklin as Rosemary, Jimmy Logan as Cecil Gaybody and Dad's Army's Bill Pertwee as Fire brigade chief, Charles Hawtrey had obviously quit the Carry Ons, but where's Kenneth Williams? I suppose seeing Babs and young, beautiful looking Pauline Fowler in bikinis, but for comedy value, this fails miserably, and the overuse of the swanny whistle just gets on your nerves. Pretty poor!


I have seen this movie twice, once a few years ago in college, and again this past weekend. Although I absolutely despised it the first time, I decided to give it another chance. Terrence Malick is clearly a well-respected director, and it seems that the IMDb viewers, at least, think very highly of the film. But, unfortunately, it seems my tastes haven't changed at all.

Where to start? For one thing, Linda Manz's narration is horrific. Her voice is so irritating with that horrendous New York accent (please don't try and convince me that Chicagoans talk that way - they don't). She herself admitted to just sitting down and talking about random things, which does not make her a talented actress. She's not even acting! I came on IMDb expecting to see her ripped apart, since her performance is just so utterly laughable, but people actually seemed to like it! She's simply unappealing in every way - I kept hoping Malick would just kill her off.

The other actors were fine, but certainly nothing special. Adams was probably the strongest in the cast, but she also had the only decent part. Except the old guy - he was pretty good.

Speaking of acting, how could Shepard's character be so ridiculously stupid?? He bought the "brother and sister" act because...uh, why would he buy that? Bill and Abby took every single opportunity to be touchy-feely, as though they didn't realize that their lives depended on acting in a very platonic way. It was just completely unbelievable. And finally, after a considerable amount of time, the Farmer suddenly realizes that, "Oh my god, they're together!" Then he goes after Bill with a gun, but instead seems to trip into Bill's hand and ends up with a mortal stab wound.

Speaking of which, the fate of the characters was similarly stupid (and, dare I say, lazy). Of course Bill has to die - could it be more boring than getting shot in a pond by a pack of cops? Abby goes on with her happy life, getting on a train and feeling really content about the way things worked out. And the irksome narrator randomly finds her deadbeat friend and they wander off into the sunset. But it's okay, because Malick never gave me any reason to care about the characters anyway.

As for the plot, this film drags along endlessly with no real plot twists or development. I can't believe it's only 94 minutes long - I could have sworn I was sitting in my seat for a solid 3 hours. The sudden locust disaster was like throwing the Bible in my face; I'm totally fine with metaphors and allusions, but this was completely over the top. Clearly the message was, "Don't marry for money or bad things will happen to you." Very original.

I understand that "Days of Heaven," like all of Terrence Malick's films, is meant to be a piece of art. And I will certainly agree that the cinematography is simply stunning, and the magic hour shots add a unique aura to the film. But I need more than nice pictures to enjoy a film, and this one just didn't do it for me.


Now don't get me wrong, i love a good film and after watching The Thin Red Line (and loving it) I was eager to track down Terrence Malicks two earlier films, and, having just watched Days of Heaven, my enthusiasm to see Badlands has virtually disappeared.

I have noted much rave about the beautiful photography, but i saw this film on a terribly old vhs tape which made it look pretty awful. All i can say is i hope the photography was superb, because it would have been one of the only things of interest in this film. Not since the Replacement Killers have i fallen asleep during a film. This film felt so long (and it wasn't!), the editing was choppy and disjointed, the storyline non-existent, the voice over was an incoherent ramble, the characters weakly developed, and the whole thing was uninvolving. I know that Malick was uncertain of how to do the film. He consequently shot a heck of a lot of footage then spent around two years editing in an attempt to piece it all together. This is very apparent on screen. Everything looks chopped up, every time a scene seemed to gain some momentum (or some character development) it would obtrusively cut to boring scenes of people doing boring things. It was as if someone had tried to cut together a story out of stock footage of people farming. The few good points are the music and the chase scene near the end, but those things are no where near enough to maintain interest. I would normally let a bad film pass by without being too vocal but when it is so highly over-rated something must be said.

Maybe a farmer would like it...?


DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!

I had to see why all the critics fawn over this movie. I have seen it and still don't get it. The Plot is thin, very thin. After the movie was over, I still did not know the female lead characters name and one of the two male characters did not even have a name in the credits, he is credited as "the farmer". I did not care about the characters, so I did not care about the movie.

The scenery and cinematography were brilliant, but so is the stuff on National Geographic or The Discovery Channel.

I can not recommend this movie to anyone.


Lovely music. Beautiful photography, some of scenes are breathtaking and affecting. But the dramatic tension is lost in a film that is so poorly edited it is hard to know what exactly is going on. At times, the dialogue is incomprehensible. Then there is Richard Gere. He's supposed to be a factory worker who gets into trouble and gets work on a farm. We see dozens of farmhands sweaty and dirty in the hot sun. Then we see Gere, looking like he just wandered away from a Calvin Klein ad. Sam Shepard, another glamour guy, is supposed to be terminally ill. But he looks great. Nice try, but it just doesn't work. Brook Adams try hard but she gets lost in the scenery.The real star is the girl.


Before I begin, a "little" correction: IMDb states that Richard Gere is 180 cm tall. Wrong! I passed by him 10 years ago, and he can't be an ant's a** bigger than 165. I'm 183, and he looked like a child next to me.

Should have been called "Wheatlands"; an appropriate title to complement Malick's previous (and much better) movie "Badlands". This movie shows that not all directors have as their prime objective to entertain. In fact, some of them have as their main objective to show wheat in all its splendour.

The movie is depressing and relatively uninvolving, with the obligatory tragic ending. Nothing more than an average and predictable love triangle drama, with the male two-thirds of the triangle not surviving the movie. Praised for its visual quality; while it does have that realistic 70s feel to it, there are limits to how spellbinding wheat fields can be. You can shoot them with 1500 mm cameras, for all I care, but they are still wheat fields.

Gere, who at first seems miscast as some kind of lower-class factory-worker-turned-Wheatfield-worker, is quite solid, while Brooke Adams appears distant and cool for most of the movie, making one wonder just how much she loved either of the two hunks. But for those looking for a movie that displays all the glorious colours of a field of wheat, look no further: you've found your dream!

If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Richard Gere and other Hollywood intellectual heavyweights, contact me by e-mail.


Days of Heaven is one of the most painfully boring and pointless films I have ever seen. In no way, shape, or form would I recommend it to anyone...unless you're trying to put your kids to sleep or, God forbid, give someone an aneurysm. If I could go back in time and do one thing, I would set fire to the reels before they were sent to theaters. Why? Days of Heaven's plot is simple, but extremely vague. Long sequences devoid of dialogue compose much of the film. The characters are too shallow and ridiculously stupid to relate with. The climax of the story does not touch you: by this time your brain has worked so hard to figure out the plot and the array of hidden metaphors that your ability to think is gone. The only things working are your eyes, and unfortunately, your ears, who must listen to the sound of Linda, the little girl in the story, who talks like a man. I am now dumber for seeing this movie. Don't let it happen to you.


I was shocked to read all these wonderful comments about this movie because I hated it. I stuck it out to the end, but it was painful-- especially having to listen to that voice of the child. As Socact-1 remarked, even though the girl claimed to be from Chicago, she didn't have a Chicago accent-- It sounded more like she was trying to imitate a NY accent--but failed at that as well. I was so confused that I was waiting for the punchline. Of all the wonderful actors who could have played that child, why did they select this one? And why force her to talk like that? It wasn't even just the accent, it was the script, the monologue created for her. The reason I even selected this movie was that the plot idea appealed to me-- this era in history, the type of characters that are poor and uneducated, the setting --and the love triangle. As far as I'm concerned it could have and should have been much better. I was just soooo relieved to read that at least one other person felt the same way that I did about this movie.


Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.

A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.

So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.

Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.

There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.


With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.


Okay, you have:

Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!

Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.

Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)

David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.

and finally:

Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.

Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.

So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?

Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)

First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"

Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."

Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.

Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)

And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."

When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.

To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.

OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)

Great drama.


After three hours in the Cinema hall,the strongest impression garnered was that their is something amiss. What was clear was that the Directors forgot to direct, the actors to act and most importantly the script writer to write. Evervbody shouted without reason and made one cringe. The script moved on and on with lots of avoidable twists and turns ending in now, too familiar Priyadarshan theory of Converging actors at a single point. This theory worked well in Hera-Pheri and Hungama but somehow managed to irritate this time, so did the habit of every actor's incapacity to answer asked of them directly. Simplest questions such as " what is your name would be repeated N times".

Finally what was amiss was that the director forgot that his audience have something called intelligence.


I saw this with high expectations. Come on, it is Akshay Kumar, Govinda, and Paresh Rawal, who are all amazing at their comedy, I was really hoping for a laugh riot. Sadly, that is not what I got at all...

Unfortunately, nothing in this movie really made me laugh out loud. There were times when I chuckled at one or two things, but nothing really made me laugh. In short, it was badly attempted comedy, and in a way, a bit of a Hera Pheri wannabe.

Out of the three main guys, I think Paresh Rawal's role was the most powerful. It wasn't the biggest role, but it certainly stood out more than Govinda or Akshay. Their performances were okay I guess. Nothing special, just mediocre. Though Govinda stole the limelight from Akshay in more than a few scenes. Lara Dutta and Tanushree Dutta also make appearances in this film, and both of them were pretty bad. Lara's role did not move me, or make me laugh, and Tanushree Dutta's character just got on my nerves! The music seems to be the only good thing about Bhagam Bhag. My favourite song is "Tere Bin", followed by "Afreen", which I really liked. "Signal" and the title song "Bhagam Bhag" are also worth a listen.

You either will like it or you won't. And judging by the poor comedy and lack of direction, I don't think you will.


I was all in awe of the film looking at the promos and went to watch it FDFS The film was horrible to say the least

The first scene is good and till they go to London things are funny but slowly the pace slackens and they is nothing funny about it

The Manoj Joshi subplot is funny at places but is unwanted and adds to the boredom

The drugs part is funny especially the monologue of Govinda

The film goes on and on aimlessly just like a small kid has written it

The interval brings a twist in the story but by then i lost hope

The second half starts okay but the way things are handled makes a mockery The entire Arbaaz- Jackie angle is half baked Also how come people don't identify them?

The climax is quite funny though stupid

Priyadarshan is not at all in his elements, from this film he started doing craps and his films got bad and bad Music is good, SIGNAL, TERE BIN stand out and AFREEN too Camera-work is good

Akshay Kumar has white in his stubble and looks old but he acts well though this role he has done many times yet thanks to his natural comedy acting things look bearable Govinda looks out of shape, bad and his act except monologue is boring too surprising from Govinda seems too much pressure on him to comeback and Priyan fails to utilize him Paresh is okay in parts but overall just repeat act Manoj Joshi is funny at places Sharat Saxena is okay Shakti Kapoor is great Jackie Shroff looks overweight and acts in his sleep Arbaaz Khan is bad Lara Dutta shrieks to glory but fails to act


If you're a sane person and you have seen films before then you cannot tolerate this piece of idiocity for more than 20 minutes. And if you do stay there longer then it won't be because you'd expect akshay or paresh (not govinda please!) but because you value your money too much and you want at least a short nap on the plush seating in the multiplex in return of the money they robbed you off! Its hard to believe that the director who gave us a cult film like HeraPheri can fall to such levels.. alright he's repetitive but now he's coming out of all third rate storied and expects us to laugh because he's brought in Paresh Rawal and Akshay Kumar...!No sir this ain't going to work now.. especially with this stupid script of yours!Even comedy films can have meaningful scripts (Lage Raho Munnabhai anyone?).

Govinda doesn't have much to do so can't comment..Akshay Kumar was boring, Paresh Rawal cracked some of the worst joke possible.Lara Dutta had real scope for acting in this one but she fails miserably...the only high point of the film (possibly) is Tanushree's acting!But she's there only for the first 10 minutes.

I don't think this film is worth any more space... (probably not even this much!). So final warning- don't watch it!


Rs.30/- is all I paid as rent for the DVD of the movie and believe me it is not worth it.

Bollywood directors think that showing fools is funny? well it is not. Please grow up.

Here goes a dialog from the movie -'AGAR TUM LADKEE KO IJJAT DOGE TO LADKEE TUMHE APNI IJJAT DEGI'.

Plot is useless, criminals and police alike running after fools. That is it. BHAGAM BHAG.

Well it lived the title, I had to run away from it. :) I switched over to Star Movies and watched Home Alone 2 instead, and had a good laugh.


Bhagam Bhag was a waste of money and time big time! I wonder y Govinda did this movie? Govinda...dude...m your big fan, u have to make right decisions now in choosing movie? i wonder he had any role in that movie.Govinda's role could be given to Johnny Lever. Akshay Kumar steals the show here! Akshay...dud u rock! u have created space in everybody's heart all over the world! Lara Dutta, Tansuhree ....u guys deserve better. Paresh Rawal is good at his witty! overall there were few scene where i laughed...otherwise i was just wondering "y the hell did Priyadarshan made such a stupid movie?" Anyways, lets wait and watch upcoming movie.


This was a Hindi movie. Hindi=Horrible. reasons: cheap dialogues, cheap special effects, cheap directing + stretching a 2 hr max movie into 3 hrs.

%^^^^^^spoiler...little bit%%%%%%%%

Specifically for this movie: 1. dialogues are not funny. they are cheesy, and cheap. Though akshay tried his best acting for which i admire him, comedy was not funny at all! I laughed only 3 times during this movie. 2. first half of the movie was useless to the story of the 2nd half. the 2nd half was the actual story/movie. the first half was time pass/build up. 3. The characters are not developed properly at all. paresh rawal is smart in the first half, an idiot in the 2nd half/rest of the movie. we don't really develop any feelings or caring for akshay, and govinda. their characters are stupid nothing more. they do not seem to struggle in their difficulties. Jokes are funny, but they are not funny in a very serious scene. the characters of the gang and the drug smugglers are cheesy and have been used in last 20 movies. there is nothing new about those characters. Again, they are shown to be stupid for being funny. however, stupid=funny when stupid is the norm throughout the whole movie. the only character that made sense was that of lara dutta with a real story. 4. special effects were crap. at the end, ppl r fallin off the ladder of a fire truck. you notice that they are not actually on ladder in air. secondly, ppl start to fly off when the ladder starts to move around. ppl can't fly off a ladder when its moving...they fall directly to the ground due to something called gravity. 5. the whole movie was dubbed. all the dialogues were recorded after the movie. The actors' lips hardly synced to the dialogues.

There are probably many other reasons why this movie was crap, but i can't remember them. look at this masterpiece of crappy Indian movies by non-intelligent, even stupid, director yourself and you will agree with my review. ppl who like Hindi movies, please increase your expectations for decent quality in Hindi movies.

Let me say that not all Hindi movies are bad. I like some. i did not like this one.

1.5/10 (1.5 for the effort by akshay and lara)


I don't mind sequels; sometimes they're better than the original. However, many times the originals are best left alone....especially when you can't duplicate the cast. One of the big reasons "The Magnificent Seven" was such a hit was the very popular cast.

This is hardly the "magnificent seven," when only Yul Brynner returns as one of the members of that famous group in "The Magnificent Seven." With six of the seven guys absent and replaced by much lesser-known actors, this loses its appeal in a hurry. In other words, except for Brynner, these guys have no charisma! This is a like a championship sports team fielding all substitutes except one.

Brynner is good, once again: fun to watch, fun to hear with that distinctive deep voice of his, but the story, not just the rest of the crew, is lame. This movie should never have been made. In the original, we cared about the "seven;" in here, we couldn't care less.


I'm not sure this film could ever match the first one, even if it starred the original seven (notwithstanding the fact that four were killed). It just doesn't have the spark and chemistry. All the actors seem tired and look as if they are just going through the motions to get their paychecks.

It's interesting how Yul Brynner is "magnificent" in the original film but stiff and unconvincing in this sequel. Yet when he stars in Westworld and Futureworld in the 1970s his character (in the same matching black pants, shirt and hat) evokes the same mystery and presence of the 1960 film's Chris Adams.

There's nothing in this 1966 flick to make it worth watching, even on cable.


"Return of the Seven" has a few good action scenes, and Elmer Bernstein's score is as rousing as ever. Nevertheless, it's a boring film, because it simply fails to involve us emotionally. Mcqueen's absence makes a really bad impression, and the fact that his character here is played by a different (little-known) actor is odd - in a bad way. The characters are not developed, so we don't connect with them - and we hardly care when some of them die. This sequel is a passable but poor imitation of the original.


This movie had potential. The script was not bad, and it presented an interesting dark atmosphere with themes of suicide, patricide, regrets, and--as Chris says--"10 years of going nowhere". It's a sharp contrast to the original MAG7 which was bright, humorous, and even the bad guy was lovable.

It's a very interesting change of tone, and if they had developed the characters more, maybe I would've liked it.

But instead they waste far too much time on gratuitous (and ridiculous) battle scenes, poorly edited together. At one point you see a horse fall, and 5 seconds later you see the same scene again. But not many people would notice that, since there are already 2 dozen horse trips (I'm not exaggerating), and by then we've already dozed off.

Which leads me to the title of my review. This film was extensively cut due to animal cruelty, so chances are (if you decide to watch it) you'll get the watered down, kiddie version. There's a bullfight where the matador stabs the bull, and suddenly as the crowd erupts cheering, there's no bull, just the matador in an empty arena. Like wow, maybe the bull was a Jedi, I dunno. More likely, the scene was cut.

Later there's a cockfight scene where, in the original version, one of the birds gets horribly mauled before a crowd of cheering Mexicans. This was cut. But we still see enough to get pretty annoyed.

But by far the worst scenes are the horse throws. One after the other, you see horses' legs get yanked, sending thousands of pounds of horse onto its head. In one scene, a horse gets thrown, and then while it's squirming on the ground in paralytic convulsions, an explosive goes off right under its neck.

This film was made in 1966 when Hollywood was just starting to regulate animal brutality on film. This is probably one of the last flicks where you can see it happen. So if that sort of stuff it floats yer boat, check it out & you'll get a mild thrill. But if not, you'll either be irritated or flat out bored.


The original title always struck me as a rather overblown definition for a bunch of gun-toting saddle-tramps. Still; their screen presence was at least underscored by a top-quality group of actors to support Yul Brynner. Most were movie stars in their own right.

However; this first sequel was a pale imitation, with a group now composed of largely B and C list players, who were more mediocre than magnificent. It was a similar set-up. Brynner's 'Chris' had to recruit yet another team of gun-toting saddle-tramps to sort out the Mexican peasants' problems again. Another tyrant was giving them grief.

With the originality and freshness of the first movie now spent, this remake had little else to offer. The budget was evidently very limited. This was reflected not only in the cast, but also in the below-par script, which borrowed much from the earlier classic. It was also more than half an hour shorter than John Sturges' original. Yet we still had a reprise of the agonising and moralising that made even the first a little turgid at times. However, here there was no decent acting, action or location work to balance things up. Filmiing was less expansive. It failed to convey the broad sweep of landscapes that were a great part of the original.

Generally; it just lacked imagination. The first movie had been a smash-hit, and this pedestrian sequel was evidently put together as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to cynically cash-in on former success. And it shows. There's very much a 'made for TV' feel about it.

Not recommended.


B. Kennedy tried to make a sequel by exaggerating and amplifyinga gargantuan leftist western (not as leftist as the G. Kennedy sequel, that came after this one).

This is the ugliest film of the two sequelsvery ugly looking. It is slapdash. B. Kennedy made it amplifyingbut without having the genius for that. Hundreds of peons, hundreds of Mexican _compadres, hundreds of women, a desert, barren landscapes, a stormthe largest scale.

Everything in this clumsy sequel, likable only in a weird way, is phony.

The movie itself is very ugly looking. Brynner, who made the best part in the first film, doesn't look good at all in this one.

Rey plays a priest; he will be a political leader, Quintero, in the next sequel of the franchise.

It is true that when you have that many characters you may not need a very interesting storyline; sometimes. E.g., Brynner meets McQueen; then they pick other 'compadres'; or, B. Spencer meets Coburn; etc.. It's fun to see where and how they'll meet the rest of the crew, etc.. But you need at least these several characters. Unfortunately, Burt Kennedy's installment is not very good at that.

Return of the Seven (1966) begins with a bullfighting. Vin and Chris meet there; they decide to rescue the third survivor of the original MagnificentsChico, who belongs to a huge group of 300 peons abducted by the Mexican bandits. We find out the name of Chico's appealing wifeit's Petra. Chris must constitute again a small armyand here we have a Dirty Dozen treatChris chooses his men from the convicts. Another member of the commando is a womanizer, who will take good care of the wives left without husbands. The sexual humor is especially displeasing and distasteful in this film. It strives to seem smart and spicy; it is simply boorish and dumb and gross.

The choosing of the members of the small army was one of the greatest joys in the McQueen film. Unfortunately, in the first sequel there is the most unmemorable of the three crews assembled under the Magnificent Seven's name.

Robert Fuller makes a lousy "Vin";Oates is the smiley womanizer.

In this mockgargantuan attempt, a Mexican revolutionary leader has a gargantuan planhe kidnaps 300 peons and uses them to build a village and a church in the memory of his lost sons. (Useless to say that this insane Mexican revolutionist doesn't equal Wallach's part in the first film.) B. Kennedy bets exclusively on camp and overthetop stuff: ugly landscapes, a thunderstorm, gargantuan lightning ,a desert. A huge battle between the emancipated peons and the revolutionary vaqueros. Of course Return of the Seven (1966) completely abandoned the good sense of the McQueen film.

What is particularly shocking is that this sequel came quite quickly after the original filmyet, everything changed meantime in the way of making westerns.

Both the sequels look weird.


I could have done with the seven gunslingers just staying away. This sequel should never have been done, the first did it all and better. The plot was a turkey, the acting was turkey, the direction, production, camera work... all turkey. Whoever put out this junk should be tarred and feathered. May they not return again!


The great Yul Brynner, who won an 'Oscar', and who has starred blockbusters such as 'The Ten Commandments' among lots of others, ended his remarkable career with cheap backlot movies such as this one, 'Sartana', and such. Regretable, indeed. One should take pity on seeing him making his very best to make this idiotic thing stand. Gone were the days when he was surrounded by Steve McQueen, James Coburn, Charles Bronson, Eli Wallach, in 'The Magnificent Seven', and walked around under the famous Elmer Bernstein soundtrack. It's difficult to make a living out of being an actor, sometimes.


"You know - I've been in some towns where the girls weren't all that pretty. In fact I've been in some towns where they're downright ugly. But it's the first time I've been in a town where there are no girls at all" I am sure the fans of great classic remember this phrase that belongs to Vin... one of the TRULY magnificent seven (from the first movie)...

Now I'd want to re-phrase him here. You know - I've seen some movies where the plot isn't all that good. In fact I've seen some movies where the plot is terrible, but that's first time in my life that I saw the film where there isn't any plot at all.

OK. Maybe my above statement is little bit over the top, but honestly... how one can call the plot a crap that is going on in this movie. The bad guy (oh, don't ask me to give you his name, because I don't remember and his not even somehow close to Calvera who's name and character is unforgettable...) is trying to build the church in the name of his late sons, that were killed in some battle, and this bad guy is kidnapping poor villagers to force them to build the church...

first of all how big must be church to have to force hundreds of villagers to build it... is it some Egyptian pyramid or something? but OK, let's stop here about the plot and absolutely forgettable character of a bad guy and let's say few words about The Seven itself...

Yul brynner's good old Chris, always calm, always silent, talking less but talking wise is gone (unfortunately). Oh no... he's as calm as he was... but now, he's calmness are so fake that you just don't buy it. (imagine, he meets a good old friend Chico, who he must rescue after so many years and there is just a few "hi, Hello" and not even handshake (as far as I remember))... honestly, it looks more like meeting of two strangers in some internet chat, rather then meeting of Chris and Chico. That makes "new Chris" more look like robocop or terminator rather then our beloved wise quickgun...

I won't stop here talking about other characters. There simply aren't ANY... (imagine if strong actor like Yul Brynner is so much fake forgettable, then what will be other characters look like)...

There still are some attempts to give us a background story for each one of them... for example one is women favorite guy, second is a man with dark past who's wife was raped and killed by indians and he since then is killing everyone and everything that is moving... but non of these characters are making any sense or non of them can take your heart.

I remember I was a little child and when O'reilly (Charles Bronson's character) died in the first movie I was crying. Here, I just didn't care about each one of them... even if whole of them with all the crew of the film would die, it seems I wouldn't care more...

So, please, go and SEE THIS MOVIE... I recommend it, because you won't have the other chance to see something worse then it.


The seven collaborations between director Joseph "von" Sternberg and star Marlene Dietrich were so distinct in look and tone, and so different from anything else going on at the time, they almost seem to constitute a sub-genre of their own. Like any genre, they have their outright masterpieces, as well as their absolute turkeys. Time to send Blonde Venus back to the farm.

After the seedily seductive hits The Blue Angel, Morocco and Shanghai Express, in which Miss Dietrich established her screen image as cabaret-singer-cum-prostitute, someone at Paramount decided it was time for Marlene to play a mother. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; as an actress she was up to the part. It's just that nothing else about the format has changed. It's like The Blue Angel plus a kid. Fair enough, the story of a woman who drags her child along on her sleazy escapades is a sound premise for a tragic drama, but that's not the way this is played. Dietrich's journey is played as some kind of adventure, using her wits and accomplices to stay ahead of the law. This is not some cheeky example of pre-code libertarianism  it is just bizarrely distasteful.

Although we may be able to accept Marlene is a doting mommy, there is absolutely no way we can buy Sternberg as a director of warmth and poignancy. In spite of this being one of the handful of pictures for which he also took a writing credit, Sternberg simply fails to get the story-arc. The film's emotional payoff is supposed to be the eventual reunion of the family, but even at the beginning this is not established as something worth getting back to. As usual Sternberg's interiors are dressed and shot to look like either brothels or insane asylums. The Faradays' home is actually quite a creepy, dingy environment, and it's a wonder little Johnny wasn't wetting the bed and asking to sleep with the light on.

But as anyone familiar with them will know, the point of a Dietrich/Sternberg picture is to make Dietrich look fabulous, and in this respect at least Blonde Venus is a success. Marlene is introduced emerging from a forest pool in a bright, shimmering close-up, and even when she is reduced to rags the camera still loves her. The same cannot be said for the rest of the cast, whom Sternberg tended to view as mobile pieces of scenery. The normally likable Herbert Marshall is here reduced to a moody grouch lurking in the shadows. Even the suave and lively Cary Grant becomes just a boring, background blob, and does not seem nearly interesting enough for Dietrich to run off with.

The only standout moments in Blonde Venus are Marlene's song and dance routines, especially the renowned Hot Voodoo number where she parodies her own surreal stage persona by emerging from a gorilla outfit. But even these feel like they have been cut-and-pasted from a different film. Sternberg's fans may hail it as another masterpiece, as they are wont to do, but for the average punter it is a massive disappointment. Audiences of the time did not lap it up as they had her earlier hits, and this heralded the beginning of the end for Marlene's heyday. A year later there would be a new queen at Paramount  Mae West.


Well...there were some great, creamy-smooth facial shots of Marlene, along with her "shocking", gender-bender outfit (plus her not-to-be-missed "transmogrification" from ape into human being); but, overall, the generally unconvincing plot and dated acting -- not to mention the less than engaging tunes coming from Miss Dietrich's "baritone" voice --did little to ensure Blonde Venus a permanent place in my mind's Pantheon of Memorable Films. Cary Grant -- still in the throes of cinematic infancy -- seemed as though he was forever looking to "find himself", while Herbert Marshall was probably never anything BUT Herbert Marshall from the day he was born, until the day he died. Naturally, from an historical point of view, Blonde Venus was fun to watch, so long as one was able to put aside..."great expectations".


The fifth collaboration between Marlene Dietrich and director Josef von Sternberg, BLONDE VENUS is a film that looks great while it's playing but fails to engages the viewer. The plodding storyline of Dietrich being torn between two men, becoming a mammoth cabaret star, and fighting for the custody of her child is jumbled and often feels like bits of three separate films half-baked together. Dietrich is unwisely cast in a rather passive, reactive role for much of the film and her character remains aloof from viewers, while Herbert Marshal is unconvincing as her ill-tempered husband, and Cary Grant is largely wasted as a suave suitor who dashes in and out of the picture. The film does contain some intriguing set pieces (the "Hot Voodoo" number is the high point) that are impressively surrealistic for this era in Hollywood, although it proves to no avail in such a dull, incoherent film.


This was such a terrible film, almost a comedy sketch of a noir film.The budget was low compared to a blockbuster, but still higher than most.But its where they've decided to cut costs that is totally weird.Some actors are at least competent, while others look like they just been dragged off the street.One of them being the lead actor, hes so very bad that i cringed when ever he said anything (he talks through the ENTIRE movie).Then there's the weird costume choices.At the start of the movie all characters are wearing 1930's clothes.They drive a classic car, but the background is a modern day windfarm thats blatantly state of the art.And the costumes and some settings continue to follow this 30's film noir theme.Then BAM in drives a brand new escalade with 24 inch rims....WTF.Same thing again when a guy has a night scope on his rifle, you get a shot down its sight.Hes aiming at a guy with an mp5 and tactical gear on.In a even stranger contrast the locations are brilliant, and seem to have cost more than the rest of the entire film.The camera shots/angles a very good, and show these locations brilliantly in the scenes.The director has a keen eye for a good looking single shot, but no idea how to do much else.

People who should be shot for this film▼

The writer The director The casting agent The costume designer

People who should be tortured to death for their monotone, monotonous nails on chalk board voice.▼

Anton Pardoe- the lead actor, writer, producer If you ever seen the movie Hostel, i wish that would happen to this guy, but he doesn't escape.


This is the first time I feel the need to comment on IMDb, to write some sort of a review and, as it so often happens, it's not because of a really excellent film, but a truly appalling one.

Take the narrating style the youngest might relate to the Max Payne video game series, a cast of virtually unkonwns (which is not a bad thing in itself), poor dialogs, some dark scenes but not many enough, and make a film out of it. Don't worry about the bad acting, the length (way too long), the lack of immersion (the lead character has to be one of the lest interesting I've seen in a long time - couldn't care less if he died) or the often ridiculous solutions they find to certain problems the lead character finds himself in.

I wouldn't have written anything if it hadn't been for another review here, giving it 10 stars. I gave it four, but maybe three is closer to what I feel about it. Not only do I not wish to see it again, but the mere thought of it takes me dangerously close to wanting to kill myself. Oh, and a so called noir film is nothing without a good soundtrack - not the case here. The ending song sounds like it was more suitable to a western movie.

It's not romance, it's not action, it's not noir, it's not good. That would be my review if it weren't for the minimum of 10 lines.


Film Noire is a genre that requires a certain level of tact, cleverness, intellect, and imagery. This movie has none of that, though they really tried hard with the imagery.

It's the kind of movie that your cousin Marky the dump truck driver, who's always talking about how he's going to make it big in the movies someday, would make.

The dialogue is wooden and lifeless. The visuals, while obviously expensive to make, are the work of a director who has tried to be clever and failed miserably due to a severe lack in cerebral ability. The acting ranged from sub-par to just plain bad. The story might have been salvaged by a real writer and director, but I suspect that such people would not have touched it with a barge pole.

About 1/4 of the way through, I noticed striking similarities with the scene in Sim0ne where Viktor, desperate to be rid of his actress, makes the world's worst movie. I figured I'd check IMDb to see if a similar effect has occurred in this movie, and to my surprise it has. I'd almost be tempted to give a 2 out of 10 just because it's exposed the pretentious groupies, but I won't. It's that bad.


Imagine Diane from Cheers, the self centered over intellectualizing character, now imagine she was trying to make a film moire movie. This would be it. If you just looked at some of the shots without any sound you would think Hmmm.. this could be a good film.

Now if you turn on the sound and listen for anytime at all you quickly realize that the person that made the film knows nothing about films beyond what they read in a book. I was continually thinking is this thing a foreign film, it was that bad.

If you don't remember Cheers, then think of Mr. Beans Holiday... remember the DeFoe character that made the horrible movie... well imagine that horrible movie without Mr. Bean saving it. That is what this movie is. I'm not saying anything about what the movie is other than it is an attempt to make a dark moody film about a hit-man going back home.... at least that's about all I could get out of it.


I have seen many movies over the years and I am a big fan of comedies.

But this so-called comedy almost reduced me to tears. It is without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever witnessed, the worst.

I remember hearing about this movie from a friend, and decided to view it. If I could I could turn back time, I would. I will regret for as long as I live, the time I wasted watching this rubbish.

The storyline is so insane; it just makes no-sense at all and leaves you confused. There is a Scottish mob and a German headhunter who are after Pestario 'Pest' Vargas (John Leguizamo), the Scottish mob after $50,000 dollars and the Germans after his head.

In trying to escape The Pest, takes the form of many disguises. But in doing this we witness some of the most annoying, worst, mind numbing acting, dialogue and sounds in cinema history. This movie annoyed me so much; by the end I was full of aggression. I was so angry that I had wasted so much time watching a movie that would surely drive depressed people to almost certain suicide. I mean how can there be hope when a movie like this can be given permission to be made?

I know people have their own opinions, but the most shocking thing about The Pest is that people actually like it. Why? What is funny about a man that is annoying from the very first second to the last? A man who cannot act? Who has an annoying voice and confusing face?

I sat through it thinking the movie would get better, surely it would. It did not. Usually, you want the good guy to survive, but I wanted the Germans or the Scottish mob to find and kill The Pest, anything to put me out of my misery. There is nothing funny, interesting or normal that happens in this movie, its just plain annoying and confusing. The jokes are dead even before they are told. I feel sorry for the cameramen who have no say in how the movie is made, but actually have to film this drivel. I wouldn't be surprised if they are receiving counselling.

If you want to remain sane and part of society, my advice is to never watch this movie. I'd rather lock myself in my room for 5 weeks and go without food and water than watch this movie again!

I don't think I'll ever hate anything more than this.


Only watched this to see Joe Morton in an early role and honestly wished I hadn't bothered, he can and has since, done much better than this crap. Cannot understand why anyone finds this kind of stupidity funny but each to his own; it is an absolute mess and not funny in the least. No wait, ONE line only was funny, where Mr Kent (Joe) and his family are having dinner with this nut job as he's been invited for dinner (Lord alone knows why). Pest to Mr Kent: You know what it's like dog, you've been there Mrs Kent: Not lately, Joe's expression was funny but that's it one line does not make a great comedy and this tat is so far away from being funny it should be consigned to the nearest trash cart, it's only good enough for that. Joe Morton - glad to see you don't appear in rubbish like this anymore; you are far superior and a great great actor.


...un-funny and un-entertaining, possibly the worst movie I have ever had the misfortune to watch. Think 'Ernest goes to..' humour done even worse. Myself and my girlfriend sat through it just to see if it could be as consistently dire as it seems in the opening sequence... Yes it is. Avoid at all costs.


There is a famous short story about a man who becomes the prey of a safari hunter who has lost interest in hunting anything except humans. Its quite good, and its been done and redone in film and TV many many times. Some are notable, but this urbanized version, that injects the tired old racism themes, just flat out stinks. Leguizamo's slapstick is almost as weak as the unfunny script. Chaplin, this guy isn't. There must be people who find a dwarf who cant stop dancing funny, I mean I suppose it is funny in a pathetic freakish way, but its just not enough to carry a movie. You have the usual Nazi holdover or neo-Nazi whatever the heck we are supposed to think, type villain, who's son of course is gay, German accents...get the picture?


I can't believe that there are people out there who voted 10 for this garbage! Have any of you gained access to a computer in the madhouse where you are undoubtably kept, or is there a special colony where especially crass people are secretly imprisoned that I don't know about?

If I was to say what I really thought of this film, none of it would get published.

To begin with its 'star' is a no talent idiot who acts like a bad impersonator of Jim Carrey who has hoovered enough angel dust up his nose to resurface the Sahara desert. His name will be a total guarantee that I will not watch a future film with him in it - even if he plays a rock hidden by a crowd.

As for the 'plot'. One more crime that we can chalk up to the Nazis is that they were so awful that they can be considered fair game as 'baddies' in tripe like this; mere criminals and murderers would have the audience on their side in a trice.

To the people who made this movie - Give up making films and if not then confine yourself to making advertisements, where your efforts will at least have the virtue of being fleeting in duration.

Finally, a criticism of IMDB - Why don't you have the facility to vote 'Zero' for a film? Or perhaps not. To express my contempt for this tripe I would then have to vote double zero, or something.


A friend of mine who has a mysterious knack for finding and - horrors! - liking bad movies recommended I watch 'The Pest.' At the time unaware of just how truly pathetic his taste in movies was, I decided to give it a try.

Bad mistake.

The story, although clearly ripped straight out of any sixth grade English textbook as far as the "manhunter" theme goes, would be amusing under the right conditions - good actors, writer, director, wardrobe, and so on and so on to almost no end. Clearly these factors are absent.

'The Pest' is supposed to be funny, I think. I say "think" because I let crack nothing more than a slight smile throughout the whole film. Not a guffaw, not a laugh, not a chuckle, not even a grin. A smile, at best. And that happened so rarely while watching this film I even remember how often I did smile - maybe 3 or 4 times at best.

So do yourself an immense favor. Never watch this movie. Avoid at all costs.


Ok, I'm normally pretty open minded about movies. I can normally see a good side to a film which has been totally pandered by others. This is an exception.

I won't waste to much energy telling you what happens, but think along the lines of Bill and Ted meets the worst Police Academy movie out of all of them and you won't be far off.

The thing that really got me about this film was the stupid purile racism that was evident throughout. The general theme of latino/black guys = cool, white guys = lame is slightly amusing for the first couple of jokes but when the same joke has been reiterated for the 500th time (not an exageration by the way) it gets both tiresome and offensive.

I spent months waiting for the laws of Karma to get back at John Leguizamo for this film. I had almost given up hope when the 'My VH1 Awards' were screened live in the UK. What followed was Mr Leguizamo performing the rare feat of a comedian bombing on stage. You'd have to be a complete sadist to laugh at him. Ahem. Ha! Ha! Ha!


What a turd! I like John Leguizamo but man this is bad. I thought spawn was the worst movie he had been in, but I was wrong. I like all types of comedy from stuff like Ace Ventura 2 to american werewolf in London. This is a piece of trash.


I am almost tempted to demand my money back from the video store. This movie plumbs the depths of inanity and is almost completely unwatchable. I NEVER bail out of a film early but this was painful to view. A thorough waste of celluloid. My vote 1/10 (it would have been zero).


The sole reason for someone wanting to see this film would be because of John Leguizamo. I remember the previews, and it looked to be another second rate comedy. But the fact that Mr. Leguizamo starred, tried to redeem it. His name, how known it was at the time or not, tried to sell it.

I was pretty disappointed with the performance of Leguizamo. His days on "House of Buggin'" (an "In Living Colour" clone), were his tip-top. There is a fine line between wackiness and idiocy, and we'll just say that Leguizamo crossed it tenfold. He looked like he was trying to be too outrageous and crazy for the camera. As a matter of fact, I'll say that he tried too hard. Madcap humor spilled over into stupidity, and the film was spoiled. I can't say I blamed him, if you were given this opportunity, you'd try as hard if you could, right? Your eagerness cost you dearly though Mr. Leguizamo...

The Pest follows in the tradition of any comedy film, and plays the "race card", and more. No group is left out from being poked fun at. Blacks, Latinos, whites, Jews, Koreans, Germans, homosexuals, and the blind are among those singled out. Again here, things get too overboard, and too much tries to get spoofed in too little time. The resolution of the film takes all of five minutes to clear up and move back to normality.

When you have a film, and you're going to bypass plot and reality for comedy's sake, just make sure it's funny, or all you have is 90 minutes of senseless film. Which would sum up Leguizamo's "Pest" quite nicely...


Obviously, this one doesn't aim for the brain : the so-called "humour" is based on farting and every cliché about any ethnic genre you can imagine, gays included of course, as long as they are not WASP. And a latino cowrote this ? Besides, John Leguizamo does have talent and charisma, but in such a self-indulgent movie it is a definite waste. What the point in trying to out-Jim Carrey Jim Carrey himself ? "The Pest" of the title could then be this movie, almost as funny as Bergman's finest. Prepare to be annoyed, not amused


This movie is pathetic in every way possible. Bad acting, horrible script (was there one?), terrible editing, lousy cinematography, cheap humor. Just plain horrible.

I had seen 'The Wishmaster' a couple weeks before this movie and I thought it was a dead-ringer for worst movie of the year. Then, I saw 'The Pest' and suddenly 'The Wishmaster' didn't seem so bad at all.

Bad Bad Bad. Excruciatingly bad.


I was unfortunate enough to see this movie at a friends' house. What an utter waste of time. What an utter and complete piece of crap this movie is! Absolutely nothing is funny in it, from the shower scene to the insulting and degrading portrayal of Germans. There is no plot, the acting made me gag and at the end, I personally wanted to beat John Leguizamo with a stick. I thought John Woo movies were bad.....this movie is officially the worst movie that I have ever seen.


Just to save you the $3, or whatever it costs to rent movies at your local video store, and the anguishing hour-and-however-long-this-movie-is here's a simple plan. Go over to a friend's house, talk them into renting The Pest for you, watch the first 30 seconds or so and then make up some excuse to leave. The opening sequence is really funny, definitely worth watching. Unfortunately, the other 99% of the movie is horrible. Without the shower scene at the beginning this is one of the worst movies of all time.


John Leguizamo must have been insane if he thinks this was a funny movie. I laughed more times watching Remains of the Day. Pathetic plot, unbearable acting. Horrible music -- Michael Sambello IS a "Maniac."


This is a terrible movie, don't waste your money on it. Don't even watch it for free. That's all I have to say.


This was the worst movie I have ever seen. I have to admit I didn't watch it from beginning to end as cleaning the toilet was more entertaining.

The 'star' was the most unpleasant character I've ever seen, neither funny nor attractive, in fact, creepy and obnoxious are far too complimentary.

It is painful to watch, there is no acting, especially not from the star who behaves as a doped up mentally deficient take off on one of those loud mouthed black actors.

As horrible as it is to watch one of those can't shut up black actors, watching a Puerto Rican one is even worse.

The name of the movie is descriptive, he is the pest. This movie is a must miss.


Obviously, the comments above that fawn over the movie were made by someone who's on the crew. I don't recall ever seeing a movie that's more insulting to the talented actors or the audience watching. In my 30 years of watching movies, this is the only one I have ever walked out of. Bad humor, bad jokes, bad gags, bad editing, bad plot, etc.

Note to producer: It's never funny to hunt humans based on race. Great that you tried to be politically correct by incorporating all races, but you're still hunting humans based on race, and that's sickening.


I actually joined this site simply to write in about this movie. I was sitting in my living room and this movie came on one of the local channels. I made it about an hour through before I simply had enough. Curious to see what the general movie-opinionated public thought of this movie, I looked it up on this site. I was absolutely shocked to see that there were an overwhelming amount of people that thought it was great. I needed to have my say, and here it is: This movie is absolute garbage. It was a chore to sit through. The "jokes" were uninspired rehashes from other, better shows and movies, and Leguizamo's manic portrayal of this obnoxious character should only appeal to age ten and below. That actually may be a stretch even for that age. I'm all for slapstick ridiculousness, but there isn't even the faintest hint of wit or cleverness. I have an idea, lets take bad uninspired obvious jokes and play them at twice the speed. Now that's funny. Ha. Ha.

Movies that you should see that take silly humor and add comic timing and originality: The Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut,...and the list goes on. Don't lose an hour and a half of your life on unmemorable crap.

By the way, I can only assume that the reason that David Bar Katz (the other writer) did VERY little in film after this movie is because he was instantly blacklisted. I'm actually impressed that Leguizamo was able to recover after this mess.


At times when I watch this movie i start to think that the people who made this movie were on drugs.What's wrong with this film I'll tell you Bad Plot,Bad Jokes.Bad Acting and flat-out characters everything just bad.

The movie is about Pest Vargas a two-bit scam hustler who is given the chance at $50,000 to survive for 24 hours by a German hunter who kills people for a living.so now Pest must think of ways to out think this hunter before he gets killed.

I know what your thinking "What The Hell is this?" a another wannabe Ace Ventura trying to get money really this plot is just dull and confusing at times it changes the story plot and you get lost during the film.

As for the funny scenes this film I had a straight face oh yeah I did smile a couple times but nothing laugh-out loud.besides the jokes are corny and seen before it's like watching Ace Ventura meets Dumb and Dumber but bad.

As for character development it's dry and flat.You don't learn much about the main character Pest all you know is he's a annoying scam hustler but that's it he doesn't change his image or be a little smart just corny.as for The German hunter all you is that he's crazy and wants to go back to Germany.really you start to wonder why is this guy living on an island if has money to go to Germany.The hunter's son Himmel fares better but not much.He's really a coward and is snake-obsessed for reasons by the end He stands Up to his father and sides with Pest.

As for the acting no only were there any memorable perforamces but just over the top.For example John Legizomo is so over the top with performance and dosen't fit in his role he's out of place as for Jeffery Jones who plays the hunter same thing but gives a stereotypical performance as well.as for the rest either just no used enough or just over the top.

overall bad comedy that you'll find for $2.00 at K-Mart.


I'd like to start by saying I would not go see this movie again if they were giving out popcorn made of solid gold and the ticket granted me eternal life. This movie was terrible. I can't give this it a truly honest rating because there are no negative stars. The acting is absolutely terrible. This movie is a travesty, based on the classic, "The Most Dangerous Game". If you really want to torture yourself for 90 minutes rent something like Gigli. At least J-Lo provides some better scenery, Ben should pacify the ladies viewing it. I'm not upset about the $7 I paid to see the move, I'd just like the 90 minutes of my life back.

"Can you give me my time back!?!" Samuel L. Jackson, Changing Lanes


Like most everyone who views this movie, I did it for the stars Michael Madsen and Dennis Hopper. The two are extremely underrated and sadly, because of that, have to headline a lot of crap. In this film, Hopper plays a guy who accidentally kills a blackmailer and is offered help from the mysterious Madsen.

The film actually isn't as terrible as it could have been. I've seen both in much worse, both independently and working together (LAPD, horrible film). The direction was pretty poor and the script needed a few re-writes, but both give the best performance possible with the material offered. Also the ending is pretty strong, so you can tell the story had potential. But when a glowing review of a film is, "It could have been much worse", it doesn't say much for the film itself.

All in all, this is one that can easily be skipped if neither of these actors draw you in. But if you're a fan of either or both, give it a watch. They both give strong performances that outshine the obvious flaws of the film. Trust me, there are much worse options out there.


'A comedy of biblical proportions!' Those masters of hyperbole, the movie-tag-line-writers, at it again; the sequel to 2003's Bruce Almighty, raises barely a chuckle. The only thing which raises my interest in this movie above total indifference is its dogmatic Christian undertones. Sorry, make that overtones.

Steve Carrel, ignoring Jim Carrey's good sense to decline a role reprisal, plays Evan Baxter, the smug news anchor from Bruce Almighty, who has just been elected to congress. With a new life in Virginia and the stress of moving into a house the size of the Acropolis, the pressure of all the change takes its toll on his family. His wife (Lauren Graham), evidently airlifted in from Stepford, and three sons (Jimmy Bennett, Graham Phillips and Johnny Simmons), who do a stilted job of looking sad to a piano accompaniment, pray for the family to become closer, and almost out of guilt, so does Evan.

In what must be the greatest shock of all time, God (Morgan Freeman) actually shows up, but does the whole pesky 'working in mysterious ways' thing all over the place by telling Evan to build a Noah-esquire ark in preparation for a great flood instead of just giving him a pool table or and X-box or something. And in true mischievous deity style, he also forces Evan to grow a beard, long hair and wear worn and tatty robes. Now, back in the day I'm sure razors were hard to come by so the beard was somewhat of an inevitability for Noah, but I'm almost certain it had nothing to do with spirituality. Same with the robes; a massive construction job is surely made all the more difficult by such impractical clothing. Couldn't God have conjured up a pair of steel toed boots and a hard hat for the poor guy? Apparently not.

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, I find the idea that God is messing with us somewhat unsettling, and so does Evan who fights him every step of the way. And who wouldn't? God essentially gets him fired, drives away his loved ones, makes him a laughing stock and at one point actually threatens him. Of course God turns out to be right, and the rational, hard working family man who was getting on fine by himself is forced to eat a large slice of bittersweet humble pie. It's almost as if to be left alone by God, Evan had to tolerate and humour him. What kind of message is that?

Evan Almighty does have a highly commendable environmental slant, with the underlying theme being that the Federal Government is blind to the damage being done to the world around us. It is also the first film ever to offset its carbon emissions and this should surely be considered a landmark achievement by a Hollywood studio. Were it not for the trite, condescending banner of American Christianity flying high above it, Evan Almighty could have been an inoffensive family movie, with a praiseworthy environmental record. But with its confused religious dogma and relentless 'blind faith' message, it ranks as one of the most repugnant movies of all time.


I hated this film. Simply put, this film is so bad that I almost want to disregard ever watching it and never again mentioning it. But on the other hand, I can't resist a good bashing. And if there's one thing that Evan Almighty does for the audience it is that it brings out the best criticism.

The film (a sequel to the much funnier Bruce Almighty) starts out by reintroducing the audience to Evan Baxter, a mere supporting at best character in the original film. That's right. This film shows no Jim Carrey or Jennifer Anisten. Not even a small cameo appearance. You know your film is bad when the guy that agreed to do Ace Venture: When Nature Calls won't even have a short walk-on role. But somehow they manage to keep Morgan Freeman as God. While sitting in the near empty theater bored out of my mind at the lack of comedy I couldn't help but wonder how much money it took to secure Freeman for this film. Then it hit me an hour ago. It's just a throwaway role that takes up all of 20 minutes in the 100 minute film. God just pops up in between scenes to tell Evan to build the ark. Sure I know Morgan Freeman won't look at this film in a year and think it's as good as his roles in The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby but it's easy money.

Where was I? Oh yes, the plot. Sometimes it's so hard to keep focused on the plot when you realize that you gave more thought thinking about the plot than the writer of the screenplay did. Anyway Evan (Steve Carell) has apparently left his job as a news anchorman for a job as a congressman. Yeah... with no transition in between. He never turns to his wife and says "I think I want to be a congressman." It just happens within the first five minutes and you are forced to deal with the big transition. Well as a congressman he is to partner for a bill proposed by John Goodman's character when suddenly God appears to tell Evan to build an ark. No "Hey, how you doing? How's the weather?" bit. Just "I want you to build an ark." Evidence of bad writing: Evan determines that God is giving him clues to build an ark after noticing a fan hold up a sign saying Genesis 6:14 when he's walking past his son whose watching a televised baseball game.

That's basically the plot of Evan Almighty. There are some random supporting cast members that do their best at creating comedy but they don't do very well because they aren't given hardly any screen time. It's just your basic run of the mill family building an ark film. Oh and also there's that obligatory scene where a father has to cancel his hiking plans with his kids and wife because he becomes busy with work. They walk off disappointed but they understand, as do all the other times in film this has happened. Just once would I love to see the youngest kid turn to his father and kick him in the chins and tell him "You're a real bastard for canceling your plans with us. I'm going to turn emo now." There's also that drama that you'd expect from the father with his family when they realize (the wife, actually... the three kids have no problem helping dad build an ark) that he's gone crazy and he claims God wants him to build a big boat. But don't worry. His family decides to stick with him. Oops, I just spoiled the drama.

Another problem with this film is that there is hardly any good comedy going on. I know the decision was made to rate have this be a PG film to get a bigger crowd reaction but I don't think I'm in the minority when I think that family humor is more than just guys getting kicked in the nuts and animals crapping. Maybe I'm wrong and that's what quality family humor has been reduced to. And if it is, please bring me more adult comedies so I won't have to sit through anymore of this crap (pun not intended).

The ending is extra cheesy. All of a sudden the film takes a dramatic CGI filled turn that makes me shudder to think how it is a terrible waste of CGI. I bet it was expensive too. Finally after all that waiting we are told why God wanted Evan to build an ark. And boy oh boy I hated the reason why. I'll spare the details but it was like watching or reading a murder mystery and having the killer turn out to be the person who walked behind the main character for one second and had no lines.

Oh and then there's a nice touch at the very end. The song "Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now)" plays over the credits and we are then subjected to the "dancing" of the cast. I don't get it. They spend 100 minutes unsuccessfully making a comedy and then they wrap it up with a thriller. I swear I haven't been that scared watching Steve Carell dance since ... well never. There you have it folks. Evan Almighty is the scariest film of all time.

All in all I thought it was a wasted experience. I'm baffled at all the talented actors (Carell, Freeman and Goodman) appearing in this bore-fest alongside Lauren Graham, the woman from Gilmore Girls that has yet to prove to me that she can act her way out of a paper bag. But most of all I'm surprised at my will power to actually sit through the whole film without walking out.

Rating: * out of ****