Ed Wood, perhaps the worst film maker of all time left us gems that are SO bad, they delight, being unintentionally funny and therefore charming and innocent.

James Lay, and his financial backers (Mom and Dad, it seems from the credits) have created in 'Dreamland' a film just as poorly made as any Ed Wood film, but lacking any charm or innocence. Dreamland simply stinks, and about the only good thing about this 90 minute waste of time is the certain knowledge that James Lay and his fellow perps will never make another picture again.

I must mention some of the dramatic lengths some of the crew took to avoid being associated with this horrible picture. I'm sure the production controller, once seeing the completed film, demanded to have his or her name changed in the credits to 'Donna Snartlebutt' and the accounting done by 'Brutus'. One can imagine 'Brutus' with his roll of 5 dollar bills paying the crew at the end of a shooting day.

I wont mention the many technical problems with this pathetic little videotape, but I must mention a few commentaries that compare this slag to the work of David Lynch. You know you have turned out a real stinker when you have your mom log into IMDb and post such astonishing BS - no one , save violent mental patients, could -ever- mistake 'dreamland' with -anything- produced by Lynch. What a horrific slight against Mr. Lynch and his work.

Go back to film school, Mr Lay.


Maybe James P. Lay knows what do to in the sound department if a director supervises him.

In 'Dreamland (2007)' however, he cannot accomplish anything as a writer or as a director.

There is absolutely nothing in this film, no story, no character building, no events, no atmosphere, no plot, no twists, no acting that deserves that name.

In any of those departments this movie is billions of light years behind any short film that has some actual thinking in it, even a one minute one.

It has nothing to do with any of David Lynch's works!

I actually think it could be used as mental torture or as negative propaganda material against the West.

Recommend it only to your worst enemies!


I cannot BELIEVE anyone is giving this film a good rating. In addition to the terrible acting, thin (nonexistent?) plot line and slooooooooow pace, this would be the movie to watch if you were really TRYING to fall asleep. The writer's and director's brains must have been fried eggs to ever have concocted something as abominable as this. Based on the plot summary on the DVD case, the premise really sounded promising. But within the first ten minutes I knew it was a lost cause. If you want to see a REALLY creep take on the Area 51 idea, check out the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes". Dreamland will soon fade away as all pathetic films of its ilk do. NEXT!!!


This film has absolutely no redeeming features. It's not even worthy of being in the 'so bad it's good' category - it's simply bad. Badly acted, badly shot, badly written, badly directed, terrible sound recording and the whole thing is just incredibly amateur. Quite how this got a release is beyond me.

Oh, and could someone PLEASE tell the lead actress that if you're playing 'mad' that does not mean that you should constantly fiddle with your hair - in a film that was generally irritating, this was probably one of the most irritating things of all.

On the plus side, I think this is the only film ever to feature a Nazi carjacker ...


...I can't believe there are actually people here who recommend this movie... This is such a slow POS going absolutely nowhere. Oh yeah OK it goes somewhere, but you see that coming from miles away. Acting: Really really bad, maybe the bartender was kind of OK. Editing: BAD! I suppose the editor was told "we need at least 90 minutes", cause half of all the scenes could have gone in the bin. Music: don't get me started on that, the lousiest score I've ever heard. Who is that singing in the last scene for crying out loud?? Directing: oh my, IMNSHO David Lynch sucks, but someone trying to copy him sucks even harder. Skip this one.


This film was utterly horrible. Stupid premise, and horrible acting by all. Whoever wrote this trash should be hanged. Reminds me of a hack student film, BUT WORSE. Who ever produced this should give up now. I know opinions are subjective and all, and some may think this "fantastic" as some think "Dune (1984)" was fantastic, well get off your horse and watch some real films. OK, the acting was tolerable, and with better direction could have been far better, but it didn't so it suffers. I don't know how much more I can say about this waste of film, other than to totally trash it. Anyways it was horrible and I recommend to avoid it like the plague, if you come anywhere near "dreamland", rent the movie beside it instead.


I know this film was shown on local TV when I was a kid, but I can't remember whether I watched it or not; seeing it now, considering how utterly forgettable it is, I still don't know  so I counted it as a first viewing! There have been several films featuring the title character, a creation of visionary French author Jules Verne; these include: 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA (1954; with James Mason in the role), MASTER OF THE WORLD (1961; Vincent Price), MYSTERIOUS ISLAND (1961; Herbert Lom), CAPTAIN NEMO AND THE UNDERWATER CITY (1969; Robert Ryan) and THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND OF CAPTAIN NEMO (1973; Omar Sharif).

This version stars Academy Award winner Jose' Ferrer. However, even if the premise itself isn't half-bad  awakened from suspended animation in his submarine, "The Nautilus", and finding himself in modern times, Nemo adopts all his ingenuity to aid the U.S. Navy in defeating megalomaniac scientist Burgess Meredith  it emerges as easily his most infantile adventure yet! For instance: five seconds into the film, Meredith's assistant  donning a steel mask  rants that "The World Shall Be Ours!"); equally hilarious are the zealous gesticulations of the similarly decked-out midget, whose task it is to fire The Professor's all-important "Delta Beam" - and how about those android-type minions aboard Meredith's vessel who never seem to do much of anything?!

Ferrer manages to maintain his dignity throughout, but Meredith is an embarrassment (in what is virtually a retread of his Penguin characterization from the 1960s BATMAN TV series and film) where the budget was so tight  mostly invested in bland production design and shoddy special effects, no doubt, and both evidently influenced by STAR WARS (1977)  that, apparently, they couldn't even afford him a decent costume (he looks positively idiotic wearing a tie in a sub)! The supporting cast includes Mel Ferrer (playing a saboteur in the vein of Joan Fontaine from another Irwin Allen production, VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA [1961], and who engages in a swashbuckling routine with his namesake inside the engine-room of "The Nautilus"), Lynda Day George (unsurprisingly, she's the only female character around) and Horst Buchholz (as the King Of Atlantis  for whatever reason, Nemo is obsessed with locating the famed Lost Continent).

By the way, having been reduced from a three-part mini-series for theatrical exhibition, the film obviously feels choppy  though one is still able to discern where one episode ended and another began.


This has to rate as one of the cheesiest of TV shows in a long time.

Jose Ferrer played the title character, Nemo. He did the part justice and certainly looked the part. But nowadays, it strikes me that the Nemo he was made up to be bore more than a passing resemblance to Captain Bird's Eye, from the TV commercials. Or maybe it's the other way around.

His nemesis, Professor Cunningham, was overacted brilliantly by Burgess Meredith. He never seemed to get over his "Penguin" days from Batman. Although he doesn't do his Penguin "quack" here, he is without parallel as the maniacal Professor. Only John Colicos, of Battlestar Galactica fame, chewed up the scenery better as a maniacal despot.

I never can recall what the grudge was between Nemo and Cunningham, but it must have been severe, since the Prof. never missed a chance to try and scupper Nemo, and vice-versa.

The effects were nothing special, though Prof. Cunningham's submarine was way better looking than Nemo's. It also had a crew of strange, fish-like amphibians that served Cunningham and did his every bidding.

However, the most memorable aspect of the whole show was Prof. Cunningham's secret weapon. The Delta Beam! He was forever saying "Fire Delta Beam!", whereupon, a fishy crewman would horribly overract the motion of firing the weapon by use of a full shoulder shrug. Truly priceless! They don't make them like this anymore, and perhaps just as well. But like other series of this era, for those who remember it, it will always have an affectionate, if cheddar-covered, place in our hearts.


You'll feel like you've experienced a vacation in Hell after you have sat down and watched this horrible TV movie. This movie is an exercise in over-acting (very bad over-acting) to situations that made out to be more than what they are. I won't give away the plot, but once you realize why the people in this film are running from the native man in the film you will demand the two wasted hours of your life back. The only plus is seeing Marcia Brady running around in a bikini!


It is easy to tell early in this movie exactly what will happen, and who will die. It is about 4 women and a man who on a vacation. This was made during the end of the ultra Nazi seventies, when blonde women were supposedly ultra American survivors and brunettes were all deserving of death.

This movie, like the others of that era, contrives to bring this about, and the viewer knows this. There is no mystery or suspense. The people squabble, but everything is so predictable for the prejudices of the time, it is laughable.

The five people happen upon two savage young characters, and go nuts. Everyone is nuts, so that the director-writer team can justify their Nazi propaganda.

For some reason, the guy is attracted to the blonde, who is really not much to look at, and ignores a super hot looking brunette that any heterosexual man would go nuts over. One must remember that in the seventies, movies were meant to appeal to women and not men.

Totally crap and totally depressing.


Can there be a worst film? Even Ed Wood at his horrific worst couldn't come up with something this bad. Cheesy, stupid, long-winded, preposterous...and those are the good points. I saw this trash back in the early 80's when I was incredibly bored to begin with, and actually sat through the entire thing without blowing my brains out, although that probably would have been a more pleasant experience. I actually remembered it because it was so bad. It makes me sad in a way because some of the best directors got their start by making TV movies (ie Spielberg) and it was a wonderful way for them to get their initial material before the public, but crap like this just totally killed the entire process.


Meet Cosmo (Jason Priestley), a nerdy young bookie content with his boring life crunching numbers for the mob and living in a stark basement apartment at a senior citizens center. His only recreation is watching TV and the occasional tryst with his quirky prostitute pal, Honey (Janeane Garofalo). But one day all this changes, when the mob boss is killed and the well-regarded Cosmo is selected by the smooth and persuasive new chief, Gordon (Robert Loggia), to become a full-fledged hit man. It's an offer the reluctant Cosmo cannot-repeat, cannot-refuse, and he quickly trades in his mundane, solitary existence for a crash course in revenge under the tutelage of veteran mobster Steve (Peter Riegert), a relaxed, suburban bon vivant who relishes the job's maximum pay and minimum hours. In no time, Cosmo surprises both himself and mentor Steve by displaying an absolutely uncanny aptitude for the work. Though he's never touched a gun before, Cosmo proves to be both a crack marksman and, after an initial wave of moral hesitancy, a cool, detached killer. Soon, Cosmo is dispatching deadbeat clients with speed and style and his natural flair with a gun quickly establishes him as an invaluable addition to Gordon's mob.

Reality gets in the way though, when one night, while being massaged by Honey, Cosmo admits feeling a bit uptight and she recommends he try yoga to relax. Cosmo takes her advice and joins a nearby yoga class taught by a beautiful young woman named Jasmine (Kimberly Williams). Cosmo is instantly taken with the kind and gentle Jasmine, who soon becomes drawn to Cosmo. Now if she can just get rid of her pesky, abusive boyfriend, Randy (Josh Charles), maybe she and Cosmo can actually start something. Cosmo, using some of the "skills" of his new trade, eventually persuades Randy to disappear and his relationship with Jasmine takes off.

Writer/director M. Wallace Wolodarksy, a two-time Emmy Award-winner for his work on "The Tracy Ullman Show" and "The Simpsons", has fashioned a script fusing his three genre loves: "I like comedies, gangster movies and romances," explained Wolodarsky, "so I essentially smashed together all three to create this film." But what he's come up with is a film so disjointed and improbable that it looks just like a very long sketch on Saturday Night Live. It's monotonous tone doesn't so much match it's droll sense of humor, as underline the fact that a lot of money was spent on a vehicle for Jason Priestly to blithely shatter his nice guy image, which doesn't even fully succeed because he plays his character not as a nerd, but as a laconic zombie. A nerd may be naive, but a nerd has passion. Passion for inwardly directed things. But Priestly plays his character as mentally deficient, almost the anti-Forrest Gump. Unfortunately, "Coldblooded" doesn't have the sense of scope to actually BE the anti-Forrest Gump.

Peter Riegert (Local Hero, Animal House) turns in a fine performance as usual, and Kimberly Williams does her best with what she has to work with, but Janeane Garofalo (HBO's Larry Sanders Show) is practically wasted in her role as Cosmo's friend. Probably not for long, though. Garofalo has all the enthusiasm and charm of an apple waiting to be picked and it's just a matter of time before she'll be given a meaty role, hopefully doing a tag team thing with Marisa Tomei.


A wonderful semi-humorous homage to Expressionistic black and white films of folks like FW Murnau, Fritz Lang, Carl Dreyer, Marcel Carné and others. Allen plays a character caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare, at first thinking he is part of a vigilante group trying to catch a killer and slowly realizing that he might be a suspect. The writing is a little forced (this is, after all, Woody Allen trying to be a coy Kafka), but the point is made, and no harm done. The cinematography is interesting, about 100 shades of gray, but make sure you watch in a very dark room with a good screen, or details will get swallowed in the fog. This is an amusing little movie with a few laughs that are actually snorts of "uh-huh". The acting is fine, considering the odd vehicle, and it's worth watching if you are big Woody Allen fan. Also of interest to those knowledgeable about Expressionistic films. I'd give this a 6.5 out of 10.


"Shadows and Fog" is surely one of Woody Allen's weakest films, right up there with "September" and "Hollywood Ending" (though nothing Allen has done equals the awfulness of "Anything Else").

"Shadows and Fog" is Allen's homage to the German Expressionist style of film-making, all stark and stylized light and shadow and...you guessed it.....lots of fog. But you can tell Allen got caught up in the technique and the parody and forgot to make a movie that anyone would care about.

Luckily, he made "Husbands and Wives" the same year, so things weren't a total wash for him.

Grade: D


It may be, although there are still two or three I've missed. This film constructs an interesting nocturnal cityscape, reminiscent of so many foggy scenes from Sherlock Holmes movies, and populates it with sinister, Kafka-esque characters. Into their midst, the movie drops Mia Farrow, who sounds like she's still playing Hannah, and Woody Allen, who seems to be reprising his nebbish role from Play It Again Sam. Are we supposed to laugh at his stammering and hand-wringing? I suppose I would, if the rest of the movie were clearly a comedy, but it's not. At least I don't think it is.


If good intentions made a film great, then this film might be one of the greatest films ever made. The film has great actors, a master director, a significant theme--at least a would-be significant theme, undertone of fifties existential world-weariness, aerial scenes that ought to have thrilled both senses and imagination, and characters about which one might deeply care. It is about patriotism and about patriotism in a healthy way.

Not quite ten years after the film, I knew Air Force officers who taught my R.O.T.C. classes at university. They were intellectuals. They thought deeply about their work. They has senses of humor. One had been a crew member on the first plane to drop a hydrogen bomb. I have wondered if any one of them died in Vietnam. I imagine that they flew missions there.

Regrettably, the film fails. The movie lacks visual interest, drama, expression of feeling, and celebration of the very patriotism that underlines the narrative. No actress has been worse used that June Allison in this movie. Her Susan Holland is a woman that one would flee, not embrace. Col. James Stewart (who as then a colonel) makes a good stab at this role as Lt. Col(and later Col.) Dutch Holland. But the most interesting thing he does in the role is bite into a sandwich. I'm not kidding. Stewart was good as biting in sandwiches as he did in The Spirit of Saint Louis.

One might think of Ted Williams, but I don't when I watch Mr. Steward in the role. I do think of William Holden as Lt. Harry Brubaker in The Bridges at Toko-Ri . The comparison is not good for Mr. Stewart, who seems wasted in this film.

Footage shot from a B-36 looks like outtakes from commercials for an airline. Though beautiful, the aerial shots are mundane. For the time, they might have impressed viewers. The crash in Greenland involves unexciting modeling You expect the outcome to be good.

The undertone--the subtext-- for the film voices the tedium that Air Force flight crews must have felt during their long missions and the banality that the Air Force used to make its business--well business like any other business. One imagines how a La Nouvelle Vague director might explore this theme and then one begins to think about how someone with imagination might have filmed this movie. Little moments are missed.When crews returned from long missions, the members of the crew got a shot of scotch and a massage before debriefing the mission. Showing that might have helped.

Banality was the image the Air Force wanted and Mr. Mann accommodated the brass. Maybe, in that sense, the film works, but not for me.

I mourn when I watch the movie, because I think all of us, director, actors, crew, viewers, and members of the armed services might have enjoyed giving and getting much more than we get here.

I don't think that this movie had to be Dr. Strangelove or 2001, both of which it presages, but it had potential never realized. Yet, I enjoy watching it. I think of the airmen on their long missions and the ground crews in isolated places. There is a certain sense of honor celebrated here and I celebrate that honor.

I certainly understand why people who praise this movie here and other places appreciate it. If there were no intentional fallacy, it would get a 10 from me.

.


This film reeks of production line planning. It appears like the filmmakers looked at recent hit movies, and threw spaghetti on the screen - Jimmy Stewart! June Allyson! Anthony Mann! Baseball! War! Baby! Airplane! - ROLL 'EM! - The film does address the age of the Stewart/Allyson performers; though, I'm certain we are still supposed to think they are much younger.

There are messages in "Strategic Air Command" I found curiously shocking and offensive, but I'll stick with one truly wretched element: The happily married couple is challenged when Mr. Stewart's character makes an important decision without consulting his wife. In the film's most dramatic scene, she calls him on it. It ends completely unresolved - Allyson is crying her heart out on their bed, and Stewart walks out on her. NO discussion; he simply says he is correct, and walks out on his devastated wife. For all he knows, she could slit her wrists.

Later, Allyson apologizes for questioning her husband's decision.

Unbelievable!

Stick with Stewart-Allyson in "The Stratton Story" (1949).

** Strategic Air Command (3/25/55) Anthony Mann ~ James Stewart, June Allyson, Frank Lovejoy


An anonymous film which could have been directed by anyone at all.Where is Anthony Mann,the director of such classics as "El Cid" " the naked spur" or "the man from Laramie"?

There are marvelous shots of planes in the clouds,lovingly filmed.The story is very trite ,and almost completely devoid of dramatization.The couple lives an almost routine life and the user who complains about June Allyson's choice for the wife ,IMHO,totally misses the point.With her less-than-attractive look,her hoarse voice,she was the perfect housewife the screenplay needed.At the time,women were barefoot and pregnant:there 's not one single woman among the base staff,even in the desk jobs -.All they had to do was worrying about their hubbies ,who were fighting for democracy and against an Enemy whose name we never hear ,but in 1955,it was not hard to guess it.

One wonders why a young person who has never seen a Mann movie should choose this one among all the great movies he made.


This is a low grade cold war propaganda film crossed with a soapie. It may have some long-term significance as a snapshot of 1950s US thinking, but there is little else to commend in the mawkish storyline, wooden acting and grating style. There are some interesting photos of long-gone aircraft, but that was not enough for even this aircraft enthusiast to leave it on the screen for the full length.


Firstly, let me make it clear that I love aircraft, and usually any film with them in is worth watching - and I've sat through some shocking ones. However, the same is not true of this film. James Stewart is an excellent actor, but he is wasted in this Strategic Air Command promotional film. The acting is mediocre, and the direction is weak. I had to stop watching this awful rubbish about half way through. This was despite some really good, maybe even the best, aerial photography. The trouble is, even for an aviation nut like me, making something out of the shocking aircraft featured (B-36 and B-47) just grates on the nerves too much. It's a shame that the film wasn't made when the B-52 appeared, then the superlatives used for the aircraft in this film would have been valid. Then I might have been able to sit through it. Perhaps I'm missing the point of the film, which may be the angst suffered by loved ones while their beloved are on active duties. In any case, it could have been done much better. Recommendation? Well worth missing.


This film is a load of crap. It's quite disturbing to see that anyone is able to say that this is one of the best films of the year. What can I say? Bad acting, bad action scenes which becomes really comical in the end. Pardon me if this was a comedy, then I didn't understand it. If it was I regret laughing of the tent scenes! Do yourself a favor - go to bed instead of watching this! Good night!


I was told about this film from a friend who saw it late night during the week He told me it was so bad that I had to see it! So I went on an auction site and bought the film. This is probably the worst film I have EVER seen. It makes you laugh when it really shouldn't. Terrible acting and terrible storyline. Plus he looks nothing like Michael Jackson?!

I still recommend buying this film as its one of the funniest things you will ever see. Van Peebles is a joke in this film.

Robots cant bluff... PSYCHE!

I have to say though the special effects are actually amazing... PSYCHE! DVDs were probably even out when this film came out but if I had my way it would be a straight to VHS release yes people it is THAT bad!


Solo is an action movie about a Terminator-like android that is constructed and trained for the military. When a flaw is discovered, he is issued to be deprogrammed. Rather than face death, he chooses to flee into the jungles of Central America, where he takes refuge in a village. The military chases him into there, leading into a big action feast.

Mario Van Peebles does a decent performance the android. His movements and gestures look mechanical enough to get the job done. Actual scientific realism is abandoned in order to make a good action hero. And it works out; the action scenes aren't that spectacular, but they aren't all too bad either. The acting from the other characters is pretty bad, but I was not expecting anything too good. The special effects were decent as well.

Solo is decent as an action flick, but very forgettable. It lacks the substance that most movies possess. But if you just want to pass a couple hours without much thinking, this will get the job done.


The novel WEAPON which serves as the basis for this atrocious piece of garbage is one of the best techno-thrillers to come down the pike in a long time.The character of SOLO, who is NOT supposed to look like a human, is a wonderful creation and it was simply awful to see him reduced to just another Terminator-clone with Mario Van Peebles horrendously trying to "act" like a robot. There is NOTHING worthwhile about this film.

Why does Hollywood insist on snapping up the rights to excellent novels and then butchering them? There are so many things wrong with SOLO that listing them seems as unfair as inviting a man with no legs to a brisk game of Hopscotch. Avoid this awful film and seek out the 2 novels by ROBERT MASON that feature the awesome character of SOLO. The books are WEAPON and an excellent sequel SOLO.But don't pay any attention to this awful dreck of a film.


Solo starts as a team of US soldiers go into Soth America to blow up a rebel airstrip, joining them is a robot named Solo (Mario Van Peebles) who can use any weapon ever made, is fifteen times stronger & ten times faster than any human being. Something goes wrong though & Solo refuses to kill innocent civilians which Colonel Frank Madden (William Sadler) isn't happy about, back at base & General Haynes (Barry Corbin) orders Solo to be shut down & reprogrammed. One of Solo's main directives is self preservation so decides to escape back into the South American jungles where Colonel Madden & his men are sent in to recapture it...

This Mexican American co-production was directed by Norberto Barba & one has to say Solo is awful. The script by David Corley was based on the novel 'Weapon' by Robert Mason & is one cliché after another, robots were popular at the time Solo was made in Hollywood & at the box-office so Solo rip-offs the likes of Robocop (1987), Universal Soldier (1992) & the two Terminator flicks as well as having the same setting & basic story as Predator (1987). This is the usual rubbish about an emotionless robot who grows a sense of humanity while being around people, at first he doesn't know what a joke is or why one person would care for another but by the end he develops emotions & starts to befriend people, sounds like Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) to me. The character's are poor & Colonel Madden in particular is given absolutely no motivation for hating Solo at all & why he would kill other US soldiers & disobey orders to destroy it. You know I saw this on cable telly last night for free (thank god I didn't spend any money on it) & I looked it up in the TV guide & do you know what it said? My TV guide described Solo as a 'dire sci-fi action starring Mario Van Peebels' which when I think about it is a perfect description of Solo. In less than ten words my TV guide has hit the nail on the head, I mean it's a sci-fi action film, it certainly stars Mario Van Peebles & it's definitely dire. Enough said really.

Director Barba doesn't do anything particularly special here & the action scenes lack any real excitement & the sci-fi elements are virtually none existent apart from the fact Solo is a robot. So the military lose Solo & Colonel Madden is sent in to recapture it right? I'm not being funny but wouldn't the military have put a 'self destruct' mechanism inside Solo in case something like that happened? Surely at the very least Solo would have had a tracking device inside it so the military would at least know where it was at any given time? I'm not being funny but these people can come up with a walking talking robotic soldier but they are not clever enough to realise that a tracking or self destruct device might be useful if anything went wrong? The violence is mild, there are a few OK fight scenes but this is pretty weak stuff really.

Technically the film looks alright & is competently made, it was actually shot in Mexico. The makers of the Dolph Lundgren action flick Agent Red (2000) edited footage from Solo into that film. The acting is poor, Van Peebles was the perfect choice to play an emotionless robot... William Sadler deserves better than this, it was only a few years prior he was staring in the fantastic Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990).

Solo is a really bad sci-fi action flick which is basically a huge rip-off of big budget Hollywood sci-fi action films like Robocop, Universal Soldier & the Terminator films. Not recommend & I'm going to start & pay more attention to my TV guide when it comes to choosing films to watch...


I had the dubious opportunity to view this movie on TV. It's the perfect example of how to take a terrible script and turn it into one of the worst films ever made. Not only is the acting bad and the effects terrible, the movie has more logical holes than ten pounds of imported swiss cheese.

I would highly recommend this film as an example of how NOT to make a movie and what director not to use in one of yours.

I turned off the TV during the last ten hideous minutes of the show. Calling it "pathetic" is a gross understatement.


When you see Barry Corbin in the cast of a movie, you can never be sure if it will be a classic or trash. Guess which category SOLO falls into. Apparently derived from a popular sci-fi novel, WEAPON, SOLO stars Mario Van Peebles as a human-looking robot who decides to think for himself and is thus targeted for elimination. He hides out in a Mexican village, obviously to save money on locations and extras. Paying in pesos is cheaper than paying in dollars, I suspect. William Sadler is along for the ride, as one of the robots and soldiers sent to destroy Van Peebles. Van Peebles manages to beat them all with ease, of course, while Corbin watches all this with bemusement from afar. The movie is a horrible ripoff of the THE TERMINATOR and CYBORG series, and apparently has little to do with its source material. It is horribly written and acted, and the big fight at the end if downright comical. Van Peebles, a decent actor elsewhere, is a scream as he pretends to be a robot covered in synthetic flesh. He looks like he is doing the Robot Dance most of the time.


Solo is a poor film - that cannot be ignored. The acting for the most part is very wooden (the only exception is Adrien Brody's performance as Solo's creator Bill) and the story is slight enough that you would probably forget it WHILST you where watching the film. That said, such films are more about the action than the plot/acting and, as such, live or die by the action set pieces - that after all is the point of such films - to give 14 year-olds something to smile at whilst the adults watch films of actual substance. And even on this Solo fails to deliver - what little action there is is poorly done, dull and uninspired. After seeing the trailer for this on television I was hoping for something along the lines of Predator with a robot replacing the Predaot. Instead I got a fairly lifeless action film with a poorly constructed attempt at depth by taking on message that robots can feel too. Watch Terminator II or Predator instead.. both classics that this film desperately wants to be except it lacks the inspiration or, to be fair, the budget.


Mario Van Peebles tries to go the Jean-Claude Van Damme route and play a renegade robotic soldier who goes AWOL to preserve himself, however the government isn't going to take this lying down, so among the simplistic plot Van Peebles protects villagers from the rebel forces and defeats a improved version of himself in this disappointing film. This blatant rip off of Universal Soldier (Which is far more fun then this) simply goes nowhere. The main problem is that the movie is so unbelievably inert. Van Peebles just waits around and there just isn't enough ass-kicking to justify a viewing. On the other hand the movie does sort of resemble a competent version of R.O.T.O.R although where as that abysmal bad movie was hilarious, this one only yields occasional laughter in its laughably unconvincing action sequences. Also like R.O.T.O.R it makes no sense in its narrative and basically the movie is awesomely boring. Plus the villains are disappointingly weak and basically the movie needs an actual action scenario to work, because the material is too dull. In all regards Solo is a very weak film.

*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)


You know I only watched 15 minutes of this film, so I can't really describe how great it is. I mean the concept alone is so original and intriguing it just did not let me go. Then there is the mass of academy award winning people involved here plus the academy award nominated director. YOU JUST CAN'T miss. I mean imagine it is the middle of the night and you're not sleepy yet. This film comes on. You watch it and are shocked. It is so brilliant, so original it is so GREAT. It will feel to you that half an hour later you've turned off the screen, but as you go to your bed you see it's only 15 minutes after midnight. ENJOY!!!

3 out of 10


I didn't have much high hopes for this one. Before seeing it, the story yelled "stereotype" at me.

I mean... come on! It's so stupid the plot line about the innocent android that realizes that the people who created him are immoral, then decides to change everything.

I had to see it three times. The first two times I fell asleep because I was so incredibly bored by it. It's very rare that movies bore me so much I fall asleep during them. The third time I forced myself to watch it, simply to be able to warn people about it.

I got the distinct impression that the people responsible for this mess had tried to take all the cool/neat things from other scifi/action movies, and put them together to make a kick-ass movie! They took the android/robot, lots of action, thin story, stereotype characters, and a big fight in the end and threw it together. Unfortunately, the movie sucks. The acting is so wooden you could build a house out of it, the storyline/plot is absolutely laughable, the camerawork and editing is horrid, the direction is non-existent, and to top it all off, everything is so cliche and ridiculous that it just annoys the hell out of you.

I was left with the feeling that I could've spent the time watching this one doing something much more creative, like trimming my fingernails, or watching the grass grow.


I am usually a big fan of Pacino (Scarface, Serpico, Devils advocate) but since Scent of a woman he pretty much plays the same role and shouts a lot. This movie had no endearing characters to warm to. Brandon played by Bongo McConnahey is the least likable of the bunch. He nowhere even approached a real human being. Pacino was hopelessly unlikeable and my goodness how old is Renee Russo? The only high light of this wretched mess was the hot hooker with the perfect lipstick and she has like 10 lines total. Even the usually reliable Jeremy Piven was utterly unlikeable.

Note to writers of movies, they do not usually work unless one of the main characters is at least a bit likable (noteable exception Scarface). As the movie closes and old Brandon is at the airport my only thought was, please let a plane crash into the airport and kill Brandon.


I went into this movie determined to like it. I usually enjoy dramas like Wall Street, Glen Gary Glen Ross, Boiler Room, etc...I went into this movie thinking I would be on the edge of my seat. Plus, I am a big Pacino fan.

What a piece of garbage. Quite possibly the worst movie I have seen in five years. This makes Pacino's debacle in Any Given Sunday actually look good. First, half the movie is watching Matthew McConaughey lift weights. OK, we get it. You are in shape Matt. We don't need to see every other scene with you pumping iron, shirtless.

Secondly, how many plot holes are in this movie? Why introduce the phone call from Brandon's long lost Dad and never address it again? What was the point of his Mom hanging up on him - why even have her call to say he is sending her too much money - what was the point of that? The guy from Puerto Rico who lost 30 million? Also, since sports betting is illegal in NY, and its acknowledged its illegal, how can they possibly guarantee everyone's bet at the end?

This was simply a very poorly written script. It had potential, but it was devoid of a coherent plot. I thought Pacino learned his lesson about script selection after Any Given Sunday, but apparently not. My Gosh, this is the same actor that starred in the Godfather!

Don't waste your money.


Very poor script and acting. I was very surprised that the director was able to convince his cast with his empty story that tells us nothing new. All is in the cliché of the "mentor" and the "talented immature pupil". The characters aren't' even interesting nor sympathetic. Artistically it is as empty and insignificant. The colours are very impersonal and light. Only the poster may be appealing. Al Pacino tries very hard to give depth to his character with no success. Too bad because the sport betting can be a really interesting subject to which many could relate. But I can't have a complete comment on this movie any way as i got out from the theatre 20 minutes before ending. Everything was so predictable that it was a waist of time...


This movie was utterly and unequivocally terrible. The plot was so predictable and boring and the script so corny and pretentious that by the end I wanted to stab my eyes with the nearest pen.

Normally I don't write reviews, but I was astonished by the number of positive reviews it got. While I admit that the acting was okay at some parts, the script's deficiencies more than outweighed the decent acting. The only reason I watched this was because a few of my friends were watching it, introducing it as most likely the worst movie ever made, judging by the trailer. We were not disappointed in the least. Its only saving grace is that it contained my new favorite pickup line:

BRANDON: I just want to get to know you.

GIRL: You just want to get into my pants.

BRANDON: I want to get into your mind, your heart, your soul. I don't see you wearing any pants in this equation.

Overall, I would rate this movie as the worst movie I ever saw that took itself seriously.


For all the cast and crew who worked on this excuse for a movie, another payday in L.A. For any audience hoping for a fair return for the price of admission, a huge waste of time and money. The saddest aspect of this ugly exercise (to me) is that we are watching an extremely talented actor, Pacino, seemingly playing a parody of himself. That's what remained with me as a total mystery. I can fully understand the need for movie industry people to work and thus make a living. What I fail to comprehend is an artist of Al Pacino's talent prostituting and embarrassing himself with this level of mindless junk. Hopefully he'll choose projects of better value in the future...and for value, save your time and hard earned money. Skip this!! Let's send Hollywood and Al a message.


Al Pacino was once an actor capable of making a role work without resorting to constant use of profanity. In other words when he could act, he didn't have to talk like some street junkie. McConaughey must have been impressed by Pacino because he became a promoter of the "F" word also. This might be the kind of society that they actually live in, but most of us have the common decency to watch what we say in mixed company. I don't recall the exact words that a professor used in explaining the constant use of profanity, but it was something like this. "It shows a lack of intelligence, poor language skills and disrespect for all those that have to listen." Maybe it is time that Al takes some acting courses again to sharpen his talent. Oh yes, the movie... Probably the worse thing that McConaughey has played in. Hopefully his next role will be in the company of more talented people. Rene Russo as always was hot.


I will leave it to my bettors, uhh, betters here to gape and gawk at this wonderful wonderawful movie, and just say that I thought it stunk. The great thing about this site is you always get a variety of views, and seek them out, by all means. No telling what you will come out of the film with. For me, the ones who saw through the simplicities and shenanigans of it have my money. There was one, dead on perfect when he pointed out the two grand moments of the thing, which belong to Pacino. The meeting and the airport. Other than that, well, what a waste of time. Utterly. Pacino is just doing the same thing over and over and over, he would have been better served by taking the performance down about five notches at about the level of his protégé. Everybody always says, but this movie could have been so much better. Sure they all could have been. But really most of them just should never have been made. Including this one.


Another entry in the Pacino-As-Mentor sub-genre. You know the drill: young hotshot with hubristic flaw (in this case, Matthew McConaughey, trying to jump-start a flagging career by latching onto Pacino's coattails -- hey, it worked for Keanu and Colin, didn't it?) is discovered by glamorous and delightfully corrupt father figure (Pacino, natch). Young Hotshot learns from Father Figure all the ins-and-outs of a lucrative yet degrading career (this time, it's football handicapping). Father Figure plies Young Hotshot with money and hookers and power, but we all know that this decadent state of affairs is on a collision course with dissolution and despair . . . that is, until the Young Hotshot finds his moral center by rejecting the Father Figure and all, or almost all, that he stands for. (Clearly, Stone's *Wall Street* pretty much set the ground rules for the Pacino-As-Mentor sub-genre.)

We are also meant to take these latter-day Pacino films as a parallel to reality. Again, you know the drill: Living-Legend Actor demonstrates his unquestioned superiority as compared to an Inferior Young Actor. The latter may bear and grin through the process, but he must recognize that he isn't going to get any of the good lines, much less get a chance to chew major scenery before the denouement. Now it must be said that there are actually two good movies in the Pacino-As-Mentor canon: *Scent of a Woman* and *Donnie Brasco*. In the former case, it was a one-man show, anyway; in the latter case, Pacino had met his match as a scene-stealer in the person of Johnny Depp. However, those two movies were serious-minded, not merely an exercise in showboating for showboating's sake. Pacino has made damn certain that his younger co-stars in the films since *Brasco* are nowhere near as charismatic as Depp. By the way, none of this speaks very well about the Living-Legend Actor. Like his contemporary De Niro, Pacino has spent the last 10 or 15 years resting on his laurels. *Two for the Money* is the worst example yet, worse even than *Devil's Advocate*, which at least had the virtues of featuring a naked Connie Nielsen and being chronologically prior to this movie. Well, this is what happens when you're crowned King too damn early -- just ask Marlon Brando. Frankly, I've seen one too many Al Pacino films with the same plot -- and the same overacting from the star -- to be charitable any longer. Did I say "none of this speaks well"? Actually, it's humiliating for everyone involved, including the paying audience. No one's going to accuse Matthew McConaughey of being a Shakespearean actor, but even he doesn't deserve the role of second-fiddle to this intolerable old show-off, with the added implication that he, McConaughey, will never measure up to the Greatness That Is Al.

I've not wasted space on the plot particulars. If you want a synopsis, IMDb provides a no-nonsense summary, though I think I laid out a fairly comprehensive summary in my opening paragraph. Basically, you've seen this movie before. Many times. The particular milieu in *Two for the Money* is the seedy world (underworld, really) of sports handicapping. Pacino runs an office of "bet advisers" -- that is, middlemen between you and your bookie -- and even has a cable TV handicapping show, co-hosted with several of his top guys. One thing the movie got right was the sleaziness of these type of shows . . . but one detail they got dead wrong was the constant use of the words "gamble" and "gambling". If you've ever seen ProLine or other shows of similar ilk, you'll NEVER, NEVER hear Jim Feist and his cohorts say the word "gamble". They ask you to call their 1-900 number to get their picks . . . but if you were from, say, Mars, you'd have no idea what you were supposed to do with those picks. "Gamble" is the F-word on sports-handicapping TV shows -- strictly verboten.

Gambling is against the law, you know.

1 star out of 10.


Just finished watching 2FTM. The trailers intrigued me so much I actually went to see it on opening weekend, something I never do. Needless to say I was very disappointed. The story has so much potential and it's frustrating to see it get screwed up. I really feel the problem with the movie was the directing and Matthew McConaughey. First off I am not a MM hater, I thought he was awesome in both Reign of Fire and Lone Star. I enjoyed his performance in those movies without having to see him with his shirt off 3-4 times. Yes we all get it that he a good-looking guy with a nice body, but I think most people knew this 10 years ago when he came on the scene in A Time to Kill. Showing him with his shirt off pumping iron like a sweaty madman 3-4 times in the movie is totally unnecessary. I think one time would have been sufficient. It wouldn't surprise me if they threw those unnecessary scenes in so girlfriends and wives would be willing to tag along with their significant other, no woman wants to see a movie about sports gambling, unless......Enough about that, let's get into his role. I feel his acting was very forced and he didn't seem very comfortable. I know his character was supposed to be this charming southerner, but his lines were corny and cheesy. It was almost like he was referencing Days and Confused lines a few times! In short, I didn't like his character even though I was supposed to. The accent, his shirt off, corny pick up lines, weak sales pitches. His character was just too much of a tool, as Brandon or Jonathan. Pacino and Assante were great, but that' no surprise. Piven is fun to watch as Arie....oooops I mean Jerry. I just feel this movie was very commercial and put together poorly. It's insulting that they could take a great story, and throw in crap ingredients to try and make it a box office success. 1. Cool story that appeals to the male man 2. Hunky Hollywood actor for female women (make sure he has numerous scenes with shirt off lifting weights) 3. Al Pacino with 4 great speech scenes, and 25 great one liners 3. Every character shall be dressed in thousand dollars suites and have an extremely dark tan 4. Jeremy Piven to play the same character he did in Entourage and Old School 4. Throw in Armand Assante to seal the deal 5. Plot, good writing, character development, and intelligent casting are unnecessary

This will be good enough for most people, but not me! Anybody who disagrees with me, ask your self this. Would this movie be much better if: A. Directed by Sodeberg B. DeCaprio or Ed Norton as Brandon instead of MM

I will probably be part of the minority in thinking this movie sucks. I realized this when the woman next to me started crying during the ridiculous ending scene of Pacino shedding a fake tear while embracing Russo. The financial success of this movie will ensure one thing. The movie going public gets what the movie going public wants, big budget crapola.


Pacino, and Maconadump really hit the mark with this stinker. I swear, I am an avid movie goer and fan. I have been a fan of most of the people in this abortion at one time or another. Until now. The story-crap The acting- crap(Rene Ruso-Major League was good) The plot-crap The subplot-garbage The teenage attempts to relate to sports betting-junk

I have vowed to watch Romy and Michelle's High School reunion 2 times a day for the next seven days as my punishment for not turning this colostomy bag of a movie off after 10 minutes. I was out of town for a seminar, and this pile of mung cost me $9.99, and 2 hours. I have been cheated. This director should be in jail for fraud.

Get with me if you have other review questions. I am always right.


This is by far probably the worst film Al Pacino could have starred in. The movie had no real plot. It kind of careens into 24 different directions. It seems that the target audience for this film are people from gambler's anonymous.Mat Mcconaughey's character is not believable enough to be Pacino's protégé'. So he won a few bets for some degenerate clients as a sideline to a shitty job recording on a 900 service. Does that automatically supposed to convince an audience of his skills? It was just plain stupid to think of. The trailer did promise to show us how he makes his sure-shot picks but after going through the whole film I have yet to see what skill if any he ever had. If you want skill try looking at Robert de Niro's character in Casino now that is showmanship. At some point in the film, Mat's character picks his winning bets at a flip of a coin. Anybody could do that. Al Pacino seems to talk a lot and I mean blabber mouth in your face dialog. I think that style started with Scent of a Woman and worked for him because he finally won an Oscar but now I think its just irritating. He seems to be always sermonizing. He does do a mean act of portraying a man having unstable angina (that's an impending heart attack) its typically reminiscent of his acting in Godather part 3 which he plays the aging,diabetic mafia don corleone but other than that Pacino's talent is wasted on this film. Rene Russo is just plain eye candy for this film. She's kept in shape and shows it off in the tight clothes she wears throughout. This film is plain crap. Do not waste your money on it. It is much worse than the gambling picks of Mats character in the film.


Please do not go see this. I did have several laughs throughout this movie, but they were all due to unintentional comedy.

There were only three characters in this movie, so it was amazing how bad the character development was. Pacino played Pacino again and was aggravating most of the time. The scenes in this movie seem like they were put together from 20 other bad movies by a really poor editor. There is no continuity and I found myself wondering why I didn't leave 15 minutes into this.

I would suggest never seeing a movie directed by D.J. Caruso. This really was awful.


Well to do American divorcée with more money than brains buys a rundown villa in Tuscany. (Much more money; whilst having to dicker over the price, she subsequently manages to cook sumptuous buffets for her workmen and wander around Italy indefinitely with no job or apparent means of support.) Interminable boredom and the inevitable Italian lover ensue; this is a chick flick in the most pejorative sense of the term. Lane acts like an unskilled clueless teenage ingénue throughout - which dynamically clashes with her seriously fading looks - along the way smashing into a variety of (mostly Italian) cardboard stereotypes, dykes, divas, senile contessas and gigolos among them. Bloated with unnecessary scenes, the most ridiculous being a clumsily inserted and pointless recreation of the fountain scene in 'La Dolce Vita'. (A similar conceit was used in an effective and appropriate narrative context in 'Only You', Norman Jewison's vastly superior ode to Italy and romance). 'Tuscan Sun' may be the most vacant piece of cinema of the last decade, despite its admittedly well-lensed panoramas of Italy. Bonus negative point for the extraneous lover parachuted in at the last minute to provide requisite Hollywood ending for its targeted audience of Oprah-brainwashed housewives. Avoid at all costs, unless, of course, you view Oprah and Dr. Phil as pinnacles of intelligent discourse.


Yes i really found this film distasteful.

I didn't like the Sandra Oh character, she really annoyed me. It is unlikely she would be accepted into rural Italian life due to the fact she is non-white. this was a bit of PC nonsense.

the film is also offensive to Italian men. For instance, the one man she (Diane Lane) has an affair is turns out to be a caddish cheat. But guess what: at the end your typically plasticky American brick-head turns up, all cheesy white smile and tan, and she finally finds what she wants all along: a real American man, and now she has colonized another part of the world.

In fact, this film is quite racist in its depiction of Italians and the way it subjugates them as either smarmy lotharios or backward peasants.

the photography was good but the film and its attitude were trash.


Ridiculous, nauseating doggerel with terrible acting; ineptly, superficially, and condescendingly trawling all the most banal clichés about Tuscany and Italy, divorce and midlife. The main actor nervously grimaces her way through the film, struggling to portray the appropriate level of smug, self-congratulatory self-pity the worthless character and script call for. I'm sure the book was bad, but it can't have been this bad! The camera is permanently fitted with a vomit-yellow "Tuscan" lense filter (perhaps the Tuscan sun wasn't Tuscan enough?), which they forgot to remove when the scene shifts to Rome and (how imaginative!) the Amalfi coast. You've never seen the white marble of Rome's Vittorio Emmanuelle monument looking so yellow... I mean Tuscan. One of the worst movies ever, and therefore quite worth a look.


Diane Lane is beautiful and sexy, and Tuscany is gorgeous but this film is no better than mediocre and that's being generous. The story line is grafted onto a travelogue and remains thoroughly uninvolving.

Set in (let's say) a suburb of Newark, the plot would be deemed ridiculous. All that saves the movie are the Tuscan countryside and occasional scenes set in Florence and Positano, and a film of the while-the-sun-sinks-slowly-in-the-west variety would have served better to show what it certainly one of the loveliest locales in all the world.


The movie had no excitement and does not have anything to hold your interest. The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! How can a movie be romantic if the girl never gets a the right guy until the last seen in the movie, than the movie ends??? Maybe part II will be romantic, but somebody else will have to risk wasting their money! I have nothing else to say other than do not waste your time!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!! The movie had nothing exiting,funny,dramatic or romantic about it!!!


This movie was supposedly based on a non-fiction book. I'm not sure what book the script writer(s) read to write their adaptation but it has absolutely nothing to do with the true life adventures of Frances Mayes in Italy. Instead, it is an uninteresting tale that takes liberties at every juncture to bash men. Note the following examples:

********************************************************************

SPOILER DETAILS

********************************************************************

Bash Number One : Lane's husband cheats on her and her marriage ends in a divorce.

Bash Number Two : Lane ventures into a local Italian town and is promptly solicited by every male on the street.

Bash Number Three : Lane is saved from the horny town folk men by a charming gentlemen. She falls for him after consummating an afternoon of love making. She later finds out that he's already attached and cheating with her.

Bash Number Four : You have to broaden your horizon for this one because the reference is definitely is in the movie. Her lesbian couple friends decide to have a baby by invetro (SP?) fertilization. I am told that in most lesbian relationships, you have one person assuming the female role and another assuming the male role. In the movie, after the female has been made pregnant, the "male" lesbian decides to run out on the relationship because she can not handle it.

In conclusion, this movie has nothing to do with the book that it was supposedly based on.


This movie was thoroughly unwholesome, unsettling and unsatisfying. Apart from a few nice shots of Italy, there's nothing to recommend this movie. As usual, Hollywood draws the wrong conclusion from a fractured existence--the _next_ guy you meet, whom you sleep with after knowing for a few hours, _he_ must be Mr. Right. As for humor, there is some in the movie, but I can't see how anyone could possibly label this a romantic _comedy_ since about three-quarters of the movie is totally depressing! My recommendation? Skip it in the theaters, wait till it comes out on DVD, then skip it there also. I want someone to give me back the two hours I wasted watching this dreck, drivel, dross.


This is just another one of those "American finds romance with charming foreigner in exotic European locale." This genre has been cinematically bankrupt since the 1950s, yet they continue to churn them out. I let my girlfriend talk me into seeing this - bad idea, we both hated it. If all you want to see is Tuscany, try watching "Stealing Beauty" with Liv Tyler - a marginally better movie.

This types of genre movies are very Hallmark Greeting Card-ish.


If you're a North American 'TOURIST' looking for a 'TRAP' here it is. Was this "Trading Spaces visits TUSCANY?" There were way too many stereotypes. Little attention was given to character and plot development. YAWN. Highlight of the film: the flag throwing. Poor guy! I thought he was going to loose an eye!


If you feel like wasting 86 minutes on a film that makes no sense, is badly written ,with a bad plot and bad acting then this little gem is for you. Recommended for those who are about to fall asleep. Major annoyance will be felt by the awake viewer. Do not pay to see this movie!


Got to confess right up front that I didn't watch this entire movie. I missed the first hour during a Sci Fi Channel broadcast. Or was I spared the first hour? The other reviewers sum this one up nicely. It was badly conceived. Badly scripted. Badly acted.

But the worst thing for me was the ADR. The entire film, which appeared to have been dubbed, sounded like it was done in somebody's garage. There was a voluminous echo to the words, which just served to make the bad dialog hang. And hang. And hang. Even a made for TV movie should have recognized this.

And the idea that alternate dimensions are differentiated by color saturation went out in the 80s, folks.


The Bermuda Triangle ,we are told in this waste of celluloid, is the portal to another time and dimension and can be crossed using cheap special effects by bad actors spouting inane dialogue

I simply was unable to decide who the makers of this excresence thought would be its target audience as it seems impossible anybody could derive even a modicum of pleasure from the outcome Avoid-its not even bad enough to be good.


This is the worst movie that I have ever seen. At first i thought that it was going to be good because I'm interested in the bermuda triangle, but instead it was terrible. All it did was offer a bunch of lame explinations that didn't make sense (if time moves differently there how come the woman didn't age, and her son aged rapidly), and have a horrible sappy ending. Next time the guys who made this go to Bermuda they should take all copies of this movie with them. Please everyone vote for this movie so it can get on the worst movie list.


On the positive, I'll say it's pretty enough to be watchable. On the negative, it's insipid enough to cause regret for another 2 hours of life wasted in front of the screen. Long, whiny and pointless. And I'm not saying this to be mean, I really wanted to like this film, it seemed to have everything going for it, had the so called "buzz", and was a hassle to track down besides. Had a little more effort gone into it on the story side, I believe this would've been amazing. And I expect the team behind it will produce wonderful work in the future, they clearly have the ability. But I recommend waiting for their future efforts, let this one go.


With NBC's "Thank God You're Here", the network may be trying to replicate the successes of ABC's improv sitcom, "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" in which host Drew Carey would judge the performances of a handful of cast regulars asked to improvise scenes of some kind. In the NBC show, Dave Foley and co-host Dave Alan Grier oversee a handful of notable comedians who must improvise their way through various scenes which all begin with "Thank God You're Here." It takes itself far too seriously (why must viewers be repeatedly reminded that the actors have never seen the sets before), both co-hosts seem less then enthused. After watching the continuously sub-par, unfunny attempts by the actors to solicit some laughs, I am left wondering whether the live audience is genuinely laughing at what transpires, or whether they, too, are improvising. Expect this time slot filler to be a very short-lived one.


This show is terrible. I cannot get over the complete waste of great talent this show contains. This is not entertaining improvisational acting, it's just a cheap attempt to throw someone famous comedic actors onto a stage and have them perform a poorly improved scene. I have actually done improv work as an actor, and this show is not improv.

What the audience is actually laughing at (if they're actually laughing at this show at all, it looks quite fake) is the embarrassment of the guest star being lost like a deer in headlights. The dumb, completely unrelated things they come up with are what people laugh at. And if it's not part of the scene, the actors will tell them that it's wrong! I find this show is disgrace to the art, and makes me cry for shows like Whose Line is it Anyway, which had great talent, great improv games, and on top of everything else, didn't make me want to change the channel.


THANK GOD YOU'RE HERE is painful, positively painful. The title is apt, in a sense, if aimed at the large studio audience paid to laugh like they were watching the second coming of the Marx Brothers. And trust me, they are paid.

As creatively barren as the entertainment industry has become, I refuse to believe that NBC brass really have faith in this turkey. Rather, I think THANK GOD YOU'RE HERE is what all of you get who didn't watch, or didn't appreciate STUDIO 60, which previously graced the peacock network's Monday night lineup. You want to turn your nose up at caviar, fine. Here's some lovely Alpo direct from Menu Foods for you to slop around in.


Talk about creepy. If you really want to sit down and watch this episode where the girl who was in Firefly later on gets kidnapped there's entertainment for you, but only if you like this sort of thing. I don't so I thought, to be frank, this episode was appalling. Thankfully it's one of a few duff episodes in Season 3, and the only Charles Grant Craig episode, so you don't get much of this sort of thing in Season 3. So, overall verdict? Just read the summary at the top. This is a strong contender (Hell Money says hi!) for worst episode of Season 3. To be honest though, I hadn't really expected much. I wish I could Oubliette this episode altogether. That's one thing they got right: the title.


When Jan Svankmajer lets his imagination run wild, get ready. You're in for dark, harrowing films like "Alice" and "Little Otik," or short gems such as "Down to the Cellar" and "Jabberwocky." All of those are excellent films that represent disturbing, surrealistic film-making at its best.

On the other hand, when Svankmajer attempts to make a political statement of any kind, you're advised to leave the room in a hurry. Svankmajer's films in this vein tend to be both adolescent and preachy, presenting straw-man caricatures in repetitious fashion to express his pseudo-brilliant insights.

"Lunacy," unfortunately, is very much this latter type of movie. Cartoonish ideas and characters are stretched paper-thin for an appalling two hours. There are a few moments that briefly hold interest, but these few oases are separated by vast deserts of boredom.

If you found Svankmajer's dreadful, monotonous short film "Et Cetera" brilliant and hilarious, you'll probably love "Lunacy." If you've never seen a Svankmajer film before, please start elsewhere.


It starts quite good, but after a while you start to expect more from this film than you are actually getting. Everything becomes unclear and unclear it stays. Czech filmmakers were good 20 or more years ago. But after they transfered to Capitalistic country, here it is, Czech unofficial but well known mentality ... COPYING ... COPYING ... COPYING of everything they consider good, when they see it in another movies or countries or elsewhere. I think that this is a good example of making "art" and "politics" and "horror" and "humor" and "film" and money. And it remains me of the /One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest/, which can not be compared to this film in the way of ART and ACTORS and STORY and POLITICS. I think this film is boring. It could be done better. At least, they tried. Sorry guys. :-( CANOT NOT Recommend


Although allegedly autobiographical, this movie demonstrates very little insight both into the protagonist's psychology (resulting in a flat, fragmented characterization) as well as into larger-scale historical processes, and my hope of either learning something new or improving my understanding of contemporary Iran remained unfulfilled. Instead, I found my sensibilities somewhat dulled as a succession of bearded Islamic villains replaced each other taunting, torturing or killing the wantonly victimized prototypical middle-class Iranian whose Western cultural sympathies were patent (and whose exoneration the movie quite blatantly seeks.) The deeper understanding the movie does seem to demonstrate is that of the mass-media market, as it serves to nourish prevalent occidental folk-ideologies (i.e. a "crowd pleaser").

What redeemed the movie from being outright boring was its creative animation - genuinely minimalistic imagery which, nevertheless, always kept the screen rich, expressive and unambiguous - no small fete for which I do give it some stars.


The only good thing about Persepolis is the shadows created in the German Expressionism-style of animation and a hint of history. This movie bored me. It was about a woman dissatisfied with her culture who tries everything else and then goes back to her roots. Here she finds great discontentment once again and finally leaves for final to let everyone else in her country figure out the situation and what they will do now that she is not there to support them. It comes to no conclusion and leaves us with a feeling that this woman has no loyalties. Mind you, she is torn between cultures and doesn't have enough of a background it seems to figure what is important and real. She is listening to ever-so-many voices and will most likely end up a world citizen of some kind than one with any ties to her native culture of Iran. The only thing I received from this movie was angst.


i will be honest and say i gave up on watching it somewhere mid-way and then fast forward with a few breaks. then i came back here and read many of the reviews already made....

maybe is just me, and i can not help it, but this cartoon to north American society seems to have a purpose of "lets save them from themselves" and iraq comes to mind right away. it seems to me that this is a justification, or part of, for another invasion with "good intentions".

the lady to me seems a self indulged person and i frankly got annoyed at her portrait of trying to raise pity and "feel" for her. well in this case this could never happen because, just like a history teacher has already mentioned here, i NEED to know how come her family was so wealthy above average, manage to keep that ( were they playing both sides maybe?)and send her to Paris!? now, if this would have been made after a poor girl's biography i could see myself having certain emotions. but as it stands + its release timing this is just pure propaganda movie; even worse, since its cartoon, it overplays the "soft" side of tings too well for its own good , in order to possibly be taken serious.

besides there are those clichés regarding gays. well, a woman that fights toward winning her rights should not have at least some compassion for the underdogs of society just like her??? the message is obviously self indulgent from the view of a ruling class member.

i only give it 2 stars because its production and related stuff. a propaganda movie obviously has interests in convincing-manipulating my thoughts and therefore generally is well done appealing to certain visual emotions that i can not deny i might have as well.


25 August 2003 League of Extraordinary Gentlemen:

Sean Connery is one of the all time greats and I have been a fan of his since the 1950's. I went to this movie because Sean Connery was the main actor. I had not read reviews or had any prior knowledge of the movie. The movie surprised me quite a bit. The scenery and sights were spectacular, but the plot was unreal to the point of being ridiculous. In my mind this was not one of his better movies it could be the worst. Why he chose to be in this movie is a mystery. For me, going to this movie was a waste of my time. I will continue to go to his movies and add his movies to my video collection. But I can't see wasting money to put this movie in my collection


This is the only movie that I can think of where after it ended, I was seething with anger at the waste of money and time on the part of myself and everyone involved in making it. No wonder Alan Moore refused to have anything to do with V for Vendetta (a phenomenal film) after this debacle.

It's not bad in an entertaining way, like Showgirls. It's bad in a way that makes you want to claw your eyes out. Plot holes the size of planets. The worst script in memory. Horrible acting by decent actors. Visuals that should be great, but somehow flop.

It could have been so good...


"De Dominee" is based on the life of a real dutch gangster,Klaas Bruinsma! In the movie he is called Klaas Donkers! I have my doubts that events presented in the movie have something to do with what really happened! But that doesn't really matter! Because it failed to grab my attention! This movie bored the crap out of me! It lacks substance and style! The substance part could have been forgiven if the acting was any good and if the director tried to do something original! Without the substance you at least have to bring some style or decent action! Don't we need to be entertained? It would have helped if the director had seen more gangster movies! It is obvious that he didn't! Otherwise he wouldn't have made this the way he did! This movie got a lot of publicity because of a little scandal surrounding Klaas Bruinsma and a member of the Dutch Royal family! This scandal has nothing to do with the movie what so ever! Without it "De Dominee" never would have been successful! I am sure of it!


To begin with, I have to admit I've never been a big fan of the Dutch movie-genre. Unfortunately watching De Dominee hasn't made me change my mind. It shares some common flaws, like having a plot that's too predictable and linear for my taste.

Worse however is that the cast has their dialogues as if they were stage-actors in a play. Unfortunately this is common too in many Dutch movies and, at least to me, makes it impossible to feel any kind of involvement with the main characters.

The actor that plays Adri (I'm sorry, I forgot his name at the moment) is at least delivering a decent performance, and is one of the reasons I don't rate this movie even worse.Another reason is the fact that at least it seems to have had some budget, and the production seems professional.

Ironically the fact that the acting is often too articulated might not be so much of a problem if you don't speak Dutch,although I already warned you that the plot isn't spectacular either, but at least it might make it an acceptable movie to watch.


After some quite OK Dutch action flicks, like Lek and Van God Los, Gerrard Verhage wants to make a movie about the life of a Dutch mobster. Well, mobster is a big word for Klaas Bruinsma. He isn't a real international big guy like George Jung (Blow) or Pablo Escobar. He is just an Amsterdam lowlife who made some money by selling soft-drugs. Things are often blown up in the Netherlands, and this movie is just an other example. But even then, the movie could be very nice if the story was okay told. Now there are major jumps in time: one day KLaas is just an ordinary drug-boy, the next shot he seems to be a big player in the drug-scene. Nobody knows how's that possible (except for those who read the book). The acting is really bad, the non-Dutch movie-watchers get to see one of the worst actresses in the Netherlands: Chantal Janzen. When you think she finally gets naked, then you are watching a stand in model. So: bad acting + bad montage + crap story = De Dominee.

Please don't watch it, even if other people say it's good, because it isn't. I've warned you.


The brands in this film, like Suit Supply, take away from the story, cause it's supposed to be set in the eighties. It's not a very thrilling film. Also, the single from Intwine on the soundtrack is very bad, it has a chorus that is repeated numerous times', like "I'm a cruel man, I take it all away, I'm a cruel man I'm here to stay.." Jeeez couldn't those asswipes have come up with something better than that? I guess they wrote it in a couple of minutes..

It's really annoying, just like the product placement in this filmproduct,that cashes in on the controversy and publicity around a criminal who should not be a celebrity like he is now made out to be, but should be forgotten like rats ought to be.


Eliza Dushku is a very talented and beautiful actress. She manages to be the rock-steady centre of "Tru Calling" but that's not enough to rescue her TV series from mediocrity. It's a real shame that a woman as attractive and talented as Dushku should go from a meaty supporting role in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" to this clunker.

Unoriginal and desperately trying to be hip, "Tru Calling" fails to excite on any level above hormonal. The eponymous heroine spends a lot of her time running hither and yon across what must be a very small city, in order to avert the deaths of good-looking corpses-to-be that she's already met in the mortuary where she works. Despite all the running she does, she always arrives looking like she's just stepped out of a portable air-conditioned dressing room.

In every episode, Eliza Dushku and the rest of the cast struggle to breath life into the bland, characterless screenplays but it's a pointless exercise. "Tru Calling" just lies on the slab, gazing lifelessly at the ceiling.


Tru Calling was good but it could have been great. The concept was intriguing and allowed for seriously strange and frightening story lines that might have been explored in future. Unfortunately the writing and an actor let the show down.

The writing wasn't too bad but there were holes. In episode 13, "Drop Dead Gorgeous", an incredibly toxic poison was supposedly used to kill the victim. This was so toxic and killed so quickly the victim had no time to run or even scream for help. Yet there was no plausible explanation for how the killer obtained such a powerful poison.

In episode 15, "The Getaway", the off-duty policeman responded unrealistically. In the second diner scene he (meekly) tells the robber to drop the gun and when she doesn't follow the order, and in fact turns the gun in his direction, he allows it to turn into a standoff and then escalate into a hostage situation  the very situation he'd been warned about. His response should (would) have been to shoot the robber when she failed to follow his order and upon her turning the gun on him. There are other faults in the stories but I'll leave it with these two examples. In spite of the writing faults I did like the show.

The other problem I had was that I just could not accept Eliza Dushku in this roll. In my opinion she is too inexperienced and lightweight to carry this part. She never walked anywhere, she marched; and far too often she came to an abrupt stop on her mark.

She also lacked any really emotional facial expression or intonation. She either has a pensive look or a cute smile; rarely are other emotions apparent. When she tries to appear dramatic she begins her line looking away and 'then' turns her eyes to her fellow actor. Or alternatively she begins her line looking at her opposite and then looks away. Both are annoying when done as a replacement for true emotion. An example of her lack of intonation is in episode 20, "Two Weddings and a Funeral", during her second wedding speech is devoid of emotion (eg. hearts in our hearts).

I liked all of the other actors in their respective parts and they were all believable. With improved writing and a lead change Tru Calling might have made it.


The only thing it has to offer is the interesting opposites of Tru and Jack, their choices and viewpoints, and the philosophical questions that it raises. Tru feels that she is helping people who aren't supposed to die, and Jack feels that they are supposed to die, and she is messing with fate's plan, or the universe's plan, or such-whatnot.

But she is obviously able to change things, so there is obviously no such thing as fate in the series' metaphysics. Jack has no basis for believing that there is. And very conveniently, Tru never asks him the right questions. Nobody does. Which obviously proves that the makers of the series don't have an answer.

There simply is no plot!

Instead, they leave it murky in order for the series to be able to continue with it's boring girl stuff, only occasionally interrupted by Tru and Jack's racing against each other towards ends that are unknown...

It turns out that there is nothing to any of it. A teenage pop series with that pretends to be something else.

Your time will be better spent sleeping.


I usually don't write reviews for shows unless I've seen them in full. However, there were so many positive views of this show on here I felt it was necessary to balance it out with a bit of realism.

This show is hysterically bad. I don't think it was meant to be, but it is. I see that there's lots of praise being showered upon the show, and I honestly can't understand why--- this show is so poorly acted, the dialogue is so awful, and the plots are thin around their holes.

I think that this show is interesting in that it is a definite litmus test of your standards. Some elements of the show work, and perhaps those elements are just more important to some people than those that don't work, which make the show nearly unwatchable to people like me.

If you enjoy making fun of a show as you watch it, anticipating clichéd lines and such, this can be an enjoyable show to ridicule, if you have that sort of time on your hands.

The pilot is a pretty fair example of the whole show. If the nonsense saccharin cliché ending doesn't leave you in a dumb shock, then this may be a show for you.


Or anyone else have noticed the fact that first bunch of episodes are inspired too much by 90's flicks?

I mean seriously wife who is trying get someone else to murder his rich husband so she can claim his assets. Med students who are temporarily stopping their hearts to reach memories that are lost; Flatliners. Bunch of college bodies getting together again to reminisce on the old days but are not fully comfortable because they did something in the past, Very Bad Things? Groundhog day is one of my all time favorite movies. Sadly enough the writing staff behind his turd is bunch of lazy bastards who can not come up with their original scripts.

Noble idea totally fubarred in it's execution.


I awarded this presentation 4 stars. They are all for the script, which has been butchered beyond recognition in places. What can possibly be said? They took one of the finest plays written in the last century and methodically robbed it of its heart, humor and humanity. I don't really blame the actors, who are probably doing their best with shoddy direction and incomplete characters (because the very complete characters of the stage version have had their insides -- and insights -- ripped out). I do very much blame the director, who seems to strain to find ways to undermine the script. There are so many awkward pauses, awkwardly re-staged moments and awkwardly re-imagined line readings in this TV movie that at times, I forgot ever loving the play. I'm not one of these people who thinks that genius plays are automatically inferior on film (quite the contrary), but this particular genius play has been tremendously under-served by this outing. Now I hope they'll make a *real* film of this play. The world deserves it.


From the start this film drags and drags. Clumsy overdubs explaining the history, monochrome acting, boring sets, total lack of any humanity, verve or style. The actors look as if they are drugged. Potentially an interesting story completely wasted. Surely somebody realised how bad it was at some point in producing it?


I simply cannot understand how any Who fan, or just plain anyone could find this awful, lazy, poorly written abomination even remotely funny. It is so embarrassingly below par that it qualifies as a genuine tragedy. The potential for this was huge, it could have been great. What a shame that all that acting talent, the sets, the props, the goodwill of everyone involved was so pathetically wasted by a script that should have been burned.

There is an obvious lack of any rigorous production and quality control here. Like those hammy Hollywood movies (mad mad mad world, casino royale) where the stars are just mugging for each other and 'having a great time' which basically means picking up a cheque for doing nothing.

I could have written a better Who send-up in my sleep. In fact I have, while awake though. I did it in Year 10 in high school and performed it with a bunch of classmates. It was better, I look at it now and the gags are funnier. Steven Moffat YOU ARE A NO TALENT BUM! What a waste, what a wasted opportunity. Makes me want to cry....


Tonight's film course film was The Legend of the Suram Fortress and during its 87 minute running time it managed to quickly jump into my top five most difficult films of all time. That's difficult to watch; films so different to everything else that you're seeing something totally alien. A brief synopsis would be: a group of Georgians are trying to build a fortress to defend themselves from invaders, but every time they are about to put on the finishing touches, for no readily apparent reasons it collapses. So they go and see a fortune teller who advises them that if they want to get the fortress to stay standing, they need to find a youth, a tall blonde blue eyed boy to be buried into one of the walls during the construction and his presence will ensure that the construction job will be completed smoothly. And sure enough in those closing moments there he is gladly being smeared in cement and eggs, giggling as he's buried alive, with only his mother to grieve.

It actually a fairly simple story. But the director, Sergo Paradjanov, working in Soviet Georgia in 1984, not too long after leaving a fifteen year jail term, doesn't follow any of the film making rules we are used to. There are very few close ups. Very often the action we need to be following is hidden in the bottom left hand corner of a landscape shot, extra-ordinarily easy to miss. There are very few close ups and at times its hard to tell whose doing what to whom and why. Every now and then the film goes off on digressions which have no relevance to the main plot and generally serve to confuse the viewer. The music is utterly mad, with found sounds, on screen instruments and church organ dropped in seemingly at random. At times when nothing seems to be happening, someone will break into a jig, almost playing time until the next scene comes along. But infuriatingly there is an obvious cinematic voice behind it all so you're compelled to try and understand the message whatever it is. One of those times when your eyes are glued to the screen simply because you can't believe what you're seeing.


I understand that people have different expectations of low-budget, arthouse movies. I also know that John Sayles has a sort of glow about him, that earthy, intellectual anti-hollywood vibe, a la Tim Robbins, the Coen brothers and Atom Egoyan, that makes him a darling with the critics from the get-go.

But this is not a good movie. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

It meanders. It has too many characters. Its tone is uneven, its point of view is muddled, the acting is all over the board, from naturalistic to over the top. It lingers for long moments with minor characters we don't care about and cuts away from tense scenes just when things are getting good.

It misses the mark.

The worst flaw in the movie is that the two closest things to a protagonist, Edie Falco's Marly and Angela Bassett's Desiree, are straight-jacketed in characters that have no drive. Marly is an apathetic drunk, steeped in her life's own inertia. Desiree is a woman trapped in her own repressed pain. When your two main characters' world-views can be summed up with the phrases "I don't care" and "I want to leave here," why should the audience give a rat's patootie?

I'll be plain: Sayles writes funny dialogue. He's very adept at crafting a scene. The problem is, these scenes don't go anywhere. There's no spine to the movie. No drive. The movie doesn't create rooting interest in any of the characters. In my opinion, he's also too preachy about big bad corporate America gobbling up the little guy.

If you want to see a quality "small" movie, see David Lynch's "Straight Story." Pass this one up.


This is a movie from Toilet Pictures. If the name of the production company is any indication how stinky a movie is, then this would be it. I think I'm not really a fan of horror movies, not that I'm chicken, but rather this year alone, I haven't been genuinely spooked by what's on offer so far, be it from the West, or from Asia. 9:56 is no different, great premise, but poor execution, relying on clichéd techniques (I think these are the only tools of the trade available?) to try and elicit some heart thumping moments.

Se-jin (Ko So-young) is a lonely career woman, who one day notices that some apartments in the block of flats opposite hers, undergo blackouts simultaneously at precisely 9:56pm everyday. No, she's no voyeur, but a series of unexplained deaths in the neighbourhood, including one which she encounters herself on a subway, start to draw her deeper and deeper into the mystery surrounding these deaths.

With horror movies, there's always a pseudo-logical explanation within the movie about how the spooks come about. That's just about the most interesting thing that happens in the film, the unravelling of the "Truth", although it won't take seasoned film lovers to guess the plot halfway through. Which of course makes it a very unsatisfying experience watching this movie.

There's a myriad of characters like the wheelchair bound girl, and the neighbours who take turns to care for her, as well as a schoolgirl, detective, a mentally challenged boy and a spooky train commuter. But following genre formula, these folks are there usually as fodder for deaths, or in this case, pointless red herring characters whose sole aim by the filmmakers is to mislead the audience, nevermind if they convolute, or add little to forward the plot.

And don't get me started on the techniques employed here. Quick cuts, sudden appearances, long hair ghouls (ahhhhhhh, so passe!) who can't move properly, copious amount of blood like it flows down a mountain for free, and the list goes on. But credit to the sound engineers for creating some ear piercing bone crunching sounds used each time the spooks move, though it seems like a one trick pony.

Don't waste time on this, even if you're a horror fan. It's a complete waste of a promising premise, and in the end, you feel like you've just be taken on a ride. A very long and painful one to endure. It's high time for some innovation in this genre, otherwise one film will easily look like another, with ugly long haired monsters moving funny but with the ability to make sudden appearances accompanied by loud sounds. Oh, and can someone oil those doors while they're at it as well.


A woman finds herself caught up in an apparently inexplicable rash of suicides. Then again, are these really suicides? It seems as though there's a ghost on the loose. Guess what? The ghost has long black hair that hides its face, and it moves about with its head or arms twisted this way or that, making for a very weird looking specter. Recurrent theme music plays from unexpected locations to announce the arrival of the ghost, and bizarre sound effects--which resemble the sound of small twigs being snapped--always accompany this hapless spirit. Does any of this sound familiar? Well, if you've seen a few Asian horror movies in the last 10 years, it should. Borrowing heavily and unabashedly from "The Ring", "One Last Call" and a few other recent horror hits, this film tries to carry an uninteresting and worn-out plot to a climax, but we've seen it all before. Avoid it unless you're desperate or haven't seen any other Asian horror movies in the last 10 years.


I have no respect for IMDb ratings anymore. I think a bunch of Mormons flooded the website and voted for this. This is not an artistic movie, it is Mormon propaganda. Nothing wrong with that, but the plot outline and the way it is described is totally misleading. If you are a bible thumping Christian or a Mormon, watch this movie, you'll love it and think it is truly amazing. For anyone else, don't bother, the story is so contrived, random stuff happens that really doesn't follow in a coherent way. This guy tries to commit suicide cause he sleeps with his neighbor. Are you kidding? What a pussy! Anyways, this is an awful movie.


I had heard good things about "States of Grace" and came in with an open mind. I thought that "God's Army" was okay, and I thought that maybe Dutcher had improved and matured as a filmmaker. The film began with some shaky acting, and I thought, "well, maybe it will get better." Unfortunately, it never did. The picture starts out by introducing two elders -- Mormon missionaries -- and it seems that the audience will get to know them and grow to care about them. Instead, the story degenerates into a highly improbable series of unfortunate events highlighting blatant disobedience by the missionaries (something that undeniably exists, but rarely on the level that Dutcher portrays) and it becomes almost laughable.

Dutcher's only success in this movie is his successful alienation of his target audience. By unrealistically and inaccurately portraying the lives of Mormon missionaries, Dutcher accomplishes nothing more than angering his predominantly Mormon audience. The film in no way reflects reality. Missions are nothing like what Dutcher shows (having served a Mormon mission myself I can attest to this fact) and gang life in California certainly contains much more explicit language than the occasional mild vulgarity.

The conclusion, which I'm assuming was supposed to touch the audience and inspire them to believe that forgiveness is available to all, was both unbelievable (c'mon, the entire mission gathers to see this elder sent home -- and the mom and the girl are standing right next to each other!) and cheesy. Next time, Dutcher, try making a movie that SOMEONE can identify with.


This very finely crafted film commits the unforgivable (which is ironic, given the film's theme). No one coming into this film knows what they are in for. Worse than that, 3/4 of the way into the film, no one still has any clue of what they're in for because everything up to that "moment" is a different movie.

As a front-row fan of Dutcher's first two films, easily competing for the Best 2 Mormon films to date (competing with Saints and Soldiers and, now, New York Doll--saw that at a screening), Dutcher had me wanting to see his film for a very long time. I was there. I wanted to believe, believe that I'd see the next great Mormon movie, one that would hold the Numero Uno spot for a very long time. But no. Three-fourths in the film took the sharpest of left turns and dragged me through something that I never wanted to go through. He takes on the Mt. Everest of all moral issues, yea, both of them, with little time or emotional capacity left to adequately address them, but instead waves them both off with a nod towards Jesus as if that will make all things well, instantly. (True it is that Jesus saves. Don't accuse me of not believing that. That's not Dutcher's problem.)

Is the film shot well? Indeed. Do the actors act? They acted their pants off. Was the music appropriate? All but whatever was over the closing credits. Everything about this film was superb, except the story, which was so dank and wrong, that all else doesn't matter. (I learned "dank" from New York Doll, very decent show, by the way.) The third act of the film was neither desirable nor pleasant nor faith affirming. I know Dutcher was bending over backwards to make it so, but I was so far shoved out of the movie at that point that nothing, no thing, could have brought me back. The preposterous unbelievability of dozens of details in the final minutes didn't help. Anyone who's been on a mission knows what I'm talking about, especially anyone whoSpoiler Alertis familiar with events surrounding someone being sent home from a mission early for moral and/or psychological reasons. It's as if a parallel universe suddenly sprung up where normal rules or behaviors suddenly don't apply.

There are a million things good about this film, but they were created and beautified only to be trampled upon and thrown away in a knee-jerk fit of "ooh, this will really get them" elitism. Hence, unforgivable. I can only hope that when Dutcher puts the finishing touches on his next film ("Falling", apparently), that he remembers that film critics can only buy so many tickets and that it's the fans that pay the bills. That's why the first God's Army was such an unqualified success.

Dutcher's shock and awe approach proves that when it comes to the Big Issues he is in way over his head, having neither the spiritual nor creative maturity nor business sense necessary to take them on. I praypray!he learns his lesson and that years from now he and we all look back, with a chagrin, and rejoice that he pulled his head out of where the Light doesn't shine and really, successfully, takes on those and other issues and changes the world forever because of it.


I was sorely disappointed in this movie. Twice I was temped to walk out because segments of the movie were so demoralizing and depressing. The movie has elements that allude to all the seamy things in life (pornography, murder, suicide, fornication, hatred, gang warfare). The graphic nature of the violence in this movie was particularly disturbing.

And Richard Dutcher does a great disservice to the LDS Church in portraying missionary attitudes, commitment, spirituality, and obedience as unfocused and lackadaisical.

My biggest objection to this movie, however, was that it is the exact opposite of a feel-good movie.

Dutcher's God's Army One was okay. His Brigham City was quite good. This movie, in terms of casting, acting, and drama was his best. But in terms of being inspiring or uplifting it was as awful as it could be. In fact, this movie so demoralized me that I am sorry I went. I have lost interest in ever again supporting Dutcher in an LDS-themed movie with a ticket purchase.


I can't believe some of the comments here in the reviews. The film is dated of course, and from our comfortable viewpoint in the age of CGG a lot of the special effects are deeply unconvincing now. But even allowing for this, Helen of Troy is so bad that it is almost laughable.

The scripting is awful, just awful, with no characterisation at all. The performances suffer as a result, you can see the likes of Hardwicke and Andrews writhing in an agony of embarrassment as they deliver the most ridiculous shallow trite codswallop lines. The writers seem to feel the need to explain almost everything in a dreadful didactic screenplay that allows the viewer to decide nothing for him/herself at all. The beginning of the movie spells out the historical background as if no one had ever heard of ancient Greece; I know they had American audiences to take into consideration, but the patronising way we are told everything twice to make sure we understood the action is really awful.

I honestly can't believe the comments above describing this movie as a great epic film. Even allowing for the comparatively primitive cinematography and the relative sophistication of today's audience, this movie truly stinks.