This series, made for Televisión Española (TVE) is basically a series of chapters in the life of an ordinary family in 1968, primarily as seen through the eyes of the youngest son.

Based on a background of historical events, such as the May 1968 student uprising in France, the decaying Franco regime, the war in Viet-Nam, the rise of imperialism, and others specifically related to Spanish life at that particular moment, one might regard this series as a simple compilation of characteristic foibles which make themselves so apparent in this kind of entertainment.

Generally treated in a lightweight vein though not lacking in certain moments which might be called dramatic, the series would seem to be aimed at people of around fifty who can rember those times, as, it should be stated, anyone younger either chooses to ignore such happenings or is busily occupied in other things.

The best thing that can be said of this series is Ana Duato's rôle as mother of three children: she plays the part of the total housewife of the times really well, manifesting that peculiar Spanish penchant, especially noticeable among women, of letting all her thinking and her doings be carried forward by the impetus of her heart, without any resorting to the use of the brain. As we say in Spain, common sense is one of the least common senses. Imanol Arias offers very little, apart from not being his usual stereotyped hard policeman as in other television series. Indeed, as an actor, he should not be trusted in anything which is not a TV series. His resources are too limited; however, his part as father of the working-class household is not at all bad.

Not really recommendable for other audiences, even Spanish-speakers in Latin America: the themes are all too parochially related to a specific spot in contemporary Spanish history, such that if the viewer was not living here at that time he will miss most of the references. It is even probable that certain situations which cause a few Spanish smiles would not mean anything to other viewers.


This film has possibly, the worst title for a stooge short ever dreamed up. Somewhat fitting, given the actual fifteen minute content.

I can do without any of the "Shemp A.D." stuff, but I will admit to having a few LOL moments from the two-man comedy offered by Moe and Larry in some of the new footage (and kudos to those guys for trying to give it their all, considering the position they were forced into in even making these dogs).

Another bright spot to this and the last A.D. debacle "Commotion on the Ocean" is the decided lack of screen time for Joe Palma and the back of his head. No attempts to have him speak or flap his arms like a chicken(see "Hot Stuff"), may be worth an extra rating point.

2/10


!!! Spoiler alert!!!

The point is, though, that I didn't think this film had an ending TO spoil... I only started watching it in the middle, after Matt had gotten into Sarah's body, but then I became fascinated by the bizarreness of the plot, even for a Channel 5 movie... and couldn't possibly see how Matt wld end up happy. What about his fiancee? At one stage looked like he was gonna get with his best friend, surely icky and wrong... and then the whole 'oggi oggi oggi' thing does NOT WORK as a touching buddy-buddy catchphrase, tis just ridiculous... so was going 'surely he can't just come back to life? and yet how can he live as a woman?' and then the film just got over that by ending and not explaining anything at all!!!!! What's that about??? I was so cross, wasted a whole hour of my life for no reason at all!!! :) but was one of the funniest films I've ever seen, so, swings and roundabouts


I fail to understand why anyone would allow a sub-par director to put drivel like this onto celluloid. This movie has already been made at least two other times that were better than this ("Here Comes Mr. Jordan" - 1941, and "Heaven Can Wait" - 1978). The only saving factor for figure skating fans might have been some nice ice skating done by a professional cast of skaters, but this just does not happen. The closest thing the audience sees to good skating is when Tara Lipinski's character takes a turn on the ice for a just a moment. Others like Nancy Kerrigan and Elvis Stojko are hidden in the background and do not do any figure skating at all. There is not much real emotion shown, and there is not really any reason to tune in to this obviously Made-For-TV Movie. My advice: rent the original.


Nice movie and Nicholle Tom does a fantastic job playing the "guy in the girl's body", she really does it well.

A sort of teen version of many other movies, but well done.

Well casted, from "Matt" to "Matt2".


it's hard to tell the actors from the non-actors. Bad American movies can be spotted by all the youngsters prefacing every single line of dialog with "You know what?" Bad Canadian movies can be spotted by all the youngsters ending every single line of dialog with "Eh?" Have we learned nothing in a century of filmmaking? Cannot the entire weight of millions of wannabes descending on Hollywood with scripts and reels in hand rescue us from these horrible TV-movies-made-to-order?


A Mexican outlaw (Tomas Milian) steals gold from a stagecoach along with some other Mexicans and Americans. The Americans double-cross the Mexicans and leave them all for dead. The one outlaw survives and looks for revenge in this film that has jack-all to do with the original Django (the distributors only named it "Django Kill..." to squeeze a few more bucks out of more gullible people. What we have here is a slightly below standard western that's too surreal to be that enjoyable. and as such I can't really recommend it to all but the most hardcore Spahetti Western fan.

My Grade: D+

Blue Underground DVD Extras: Part of BU's Spaghetti Western Collection. Uncut; "Django Tell" (20 minute documentary); Poster & Stills gallery; Talent Bios for Guilo Questi & Tomas Milian; Theatrical Trailer

3 Easter Eggs: Highlight the hidden gun on the extras page for Trailers for "Django", "Run, Man, Run", and "A Man Called Blade"; Highlight the hand on the main menu to get interviews on the formation of a rock group; and a hidden gun in the Language/Subtitles menu leads to the story of how Tomas Milian almost got killed for being anti-communist


I have only seen this movie once, when I was about 14 years old, but I was thrilled that they made a movie about the 45th Division. Being from Oklahoma and especially now that both of my sons are members of the 45th, I would like to see it released on a DVD. I may sound a little bias but the 45th Division sometimes does not get the recognition it deserves today. The History channel always talks about the other infantry divisions when it talks about WW2 and Korea but you rarely hear it mention the 45th. One of the scene that really stood out for me was when the had the Indian Code Talkers at work and the puzzled look on the German soldiers faces when they could not understand this language. I am glad that all of the Native American Code Talkers are getting the recognition they deserve.


It's hard to believe that a movie this bad could actually be released. The dialog was unnatural. Especially poor was the portrayal of the relationship between the boy and his future step-father. I guess you could say that they succeeded in producing awkward dialog, but what was said seemed false and artificial. The suspense just wasn't there. The music was about as bad as it gets. The only reason I watched this movie was because I live in the Death Valley area and was curious about what locations would show up on the screen. Fortunately the movie was on TV and so I didn't waste any money renting this sorry excuse for a film! I honestly believe that most amateurs could put together a more captivating plot than was presented here. It's too bad that the time of an entire film crew was wasted on such trash! I guess the only positive thing I can say about the movie is that some of the scenery was good.


It's boring.

It's slow.

Where are the nasty and brutal murders? Where is the tension that is supposed to scare us? This is like watching Sesame Street without the funny characters of Ernie and Bert or Grover.

It's really lame.

Maybe it was the writing...maybe the direction...maybe the acting, maybe the editing, maybe the cinematography, maybe the special effects, maybe the makeup.

Maybe all of the above brought this to something barely able to keep your eyes focused on.

I wanted to get scared...not bored.

This didn't scare me...it didn't even interest me...I had more fun watching the time on the microwave instead of watching this film.

Don't bother to buy it..and if you see it on television by some freak chance, there is no need to tuck the kids asleep.


Years ago, I used to watch bad movies deliberately. Somehow I missed this one. No gesture rings true. No facial expression fits the scene or the action. I've never heard such inappropriate music for a film. At the final scene, I was rooting for the car to run over that ridiculous kid - one of the worst child actors ever.

Only one name in it I ever heard of - Wilford Brimley. He must've been very hungry to take this part.

DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!!


. . . and that is only if you like the sight of beautiful woman with nice, bouncy jugs running around the so called African jungle. So no problems there for most males out there.

I watched it as one of those bundled together package. Forget about the plot which is essentially just a flimsy storyline to get our heroine flashing her jugs on screen at every opportunity possible. Just to give you a sense, our heroine swings from vine to vine and climb on top animals at every chance possible for no good reason at all just to let you see her jugs at all angles. Again, no complaints.

The "fight scenes" are laughable and borderline on the pornographic. Our heroine got caught by the baddies at least five times in the movie. On occasions when she has to fight, the "fighting" involves rolling around in the dirt, grunting unconvincingly and basically fighting like kittens. I am surprised no hair pulling is involved. It get so bad that the chief baddie had to remind the "combatants" that "I said, the one that draw first blood wins!" in order to avoid watching anymore stupid fighting.

The witch doctor Kuku was a bloody blast. From being a big, cuddly bear in the beginning, he became manic depressive when captured and then, outright psycho. He spent the whole movie muttering lines with no irrelevance.

Beside Liana (our heroine)bouncing around topless, you also get to see plenty of other Amazonians as well as one woman who decided to jump naked into the lake to take a swim for no good reasons. Yeah, it is that kind of movie.

Watch the beautiful Liane in her bouncy glory. Despite the movie being more than 20 years old, the allure of watching blond women flashing their nice jugs on screen never gets old.


Wow, I swear this has never happened to me before. I only watched "Golden Temple Amazons" yesterday and already I haven't got the slightest recollection of anything that happened in this film. That's how brilliant this movie is, I guess! By now I only remember being lured into watching it because of the incredibly attractive DVD cover art, showing a torrid drawing of a voluptuous Amazon preparing her bow to fire at an unspecified target. I often get fooled by appealing DVD covers  especially Jess Franco ones  and I still haven't learned to resist even after literally hundreds of awful experiences. Oh well After reading the other user-comments, some parts of my memory returned although I still suspect to confuse this film with another Jess Franco masterpiece I watched the day before, namely "Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro" (and, yes, that one had an awesome DVD cover as well).

"Golden Temple Amazons" opens with a posse of hot white African Amazons  I am aware of the contradiction but don't blame me  slaughtering the parents of a fragile young girl because they were trespassing the turf with the intention of stealing the golden treasures from the temple. Several years and hormonal changes later, the girl returns to the jungle to get her revenge. She's accompanied by a bunch of sleazy adventurers who are less interested in the act of vengeance but wouldn't mind taking some gold back home. The rudimentary premise is obviously secondary to all the showcasing of ravishing female nudity and gratuitous sleaze. Analía Ivars, Eva Léon and the other nameless Amazons are all regular Franco choices and willingly walk around with their breasts proudly exposed. You better enjoy gazing at all these perfect female curves, as the rest of "Golden Temple Amazons" is a boring and incompetent mess. There's hardly any violence or action and no less than half of the film is pure filler, bits and pieces of National Geographic documentaries edited into the story and that sort of stuff. The awesome DVD cover would definitely be a great addition to your collection, but opening the box is utter pointless.


Trite and tiring, the one-liners almost made me cry. My 4 year old left the room and ended up doing a puzzle. I don't know what age group this was written for, but the writer himself/herself didn't even want credit. As for the song, it's mildly amusing. At least it was a decade ago. There are many Christmas movies to watch. Although I've seen some many more times than this, they are still enjoyable. Whenever this comes on, I try to encourage my child to watch something else. One positive note, that allowed a vote of 2 instead of 1, is that it encourages good moral values. That would have been encouraging, if anyone were watching.


If we really want to get serious and find Osama Bin Laden, then we should take this stinker down to Gitmo and force the detainees to watch it. They'll be singing within minutes. Of course, I'm sure that making them watch this god-awful dreck violates the Geneva Convention in several ways.

Look, my 5 year old daughter isn't allowed to watch TV at home. So take her to her grandparents or cousins and she's a little TV zombie. She got up and walked away after about ten minutes. That's how bad this is.

You know, when the person responsible for this garbage was a young writer, I bet he or she had dreams of the great American novel. Now they have to look in the mirror every morning with the realization that they wrote what is possibly the worst hour of television in the history of the medium.

And we wonder why the rest of the world hates us...


I like a good novelty song. No, I take that back. I love a good novelty song. I absolutely despise GGROBAR on the other hand, and have from the first note I ever heard. When I found out someone had made a cartoon based on it, my head almost exploded. Now that I have seen it because my kids begged me, I wish my head had exploded. It would have saved me from the excruciating misery that was this cr@pfest. First of all, making an hour long show based on a three minute novelty song is a ridiculous idea. To stretch a song like this, which had to pad like crazy just to be that long, into an entire hour, is even more ludicrous. This was poorly written, cheaply animated, poorly acted...the list goes on and on. Dear God, is this ever bad.


Never I have seen a movie so terrible that i've gone insane. It was a HUGE waste of time seeing this crappy film. There are a lot of things i hate about this movie: The songs is so terrible (yet a little bit catchy) i hit my head on the wall(especially from the song 'Grandpa is gonna sue the pants out of Santa' which i hit 10 Times *shrugs*), the character design, and that evil, greedy, and Bitchy cousin Mel.

I cannot stand her for one second, she has got to be one of the most bitchiest person i've seen. Even though i kinda like her southern voice.

The only bright-side is that Austin Bucks is played by the person who is the voice of Liquid Snake from Metal Gear Solid.

I would not recommended to people to watch for the holidays as it was a HUGE disgrace for x-mas.


This is supposedly a story in which a GROWN MAN tells a story about his youth. Yet, you see things like personal computers, e-mails, faxes, etc, which are items used in the late 20th Century and early 21st.

So when is this guy supposed to be telling this story - in 2020. Gee, I wonder how advanced we are then. How about telling us that.

Also, there are several legal issues which also make no sense. In the courtroom scene, the story falls into the usual pratfalls of surprise evidence, which is inadmissible in any real court of law in this country. Also, Grandma would have to be missing at least seven years in most states before to be declared officially dead.

Congratulations Elmo Shropshire. You are now officially a SELLOUT.


Lame, ridiculous and absurd. My 6 year old son talked us into watching this rubbish. Tripe stereotypes and themes not appropriate for children. The antithesis of the commercialism of Christmas is not socialism it's Jesus.


i saw this with my with my kids they love it but i don't she did not get run overfed by a reindeer in the song, but what the heck in this crappy movie she got hit by the sleigh, it's like what the heck why why, when my kids heard the sinked they thought it was good but we they watched this they were like this "daddy why did Granny" thats how my kids say grandma, any way my kids said this "daddy why did grandma get hit by a sleigh" i told them that the movie was crappy they agreed, it's sad why would any one name there dog "Doofas" that's just dumb & when every one dressed in black that looked so so i mean Daphne looked like a dang emo goth girl every one looked like Goths & in the song they found grandma on the ground i think she died in the song, but in this weird crappy movie she was gone i think they should take this show off OK every one would love this i give this a 1 out of 10


Leslie Nielsen is usually someone whose movies I really like (even critically panned flicks like "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" and "Wrongfully Accused"). So the fact that I'm slamming "Mr. Magoo" should show that it's a piece of junk. It casts Nielsen as the myopic title character, something gets planted on him, and he makes a mess of everything. It seems like the combo of Nielsen and director Stanley Tong (behind two of Jackie Chan's movies) would make this one hilarious movie, but it doesn't; it seems like they just have people to do anything, and there's no real humor here.

So, the original cartoon with Jim Backus providing the voice was worth seeing, so avoid this movie. Leslie Nielsen has also done much better, so there's no reason to waste your time on this. Also starring Kelly Lynch, Stephen Tobolowsky, Ernie Hudson, Malcolm McDowell and Miguel Ferrer; they probably don't wish to emphasize this hunk of junk in their careers.


Give director Stanley Tong of Jackie Chan's Super Cop and Rumble in the Bronx, and what do you get? You receive a series of kung fu fights and a lack of Magoo-like madness.

The limited plot has Magoo (Leslie Nielsen) put into an international plot, where he steals a world-renowned gem. Of course he has no idea what he is doing. In fact, he has no idea that he had the gem.

Within thirty minutes you could get very bored watching this. There are some very funny moments though like when he is cooking the chicken. You will wish that you were as nearsighted as Magoo. Its a fun movie to watch but its quite a disaster! You have to love Leslie Nielson because he was made some very funny movies. This isn't his best, but he does a good job playing Magoo. I thought it was a funny film, and it should be recommended to young children because they will probably think that its very funny.


Leslie Nielsen hits rock bottom with this absolutely horrible comedy that is the worst mainstream film that I have ever seen. There is nothing to like about this film, as it is essentially a one-joke film, and the joke isn't all that funny. How many times are we supposed to laugh at an almost blind man making a fool out of himself? That's not funny, that's just pitiful. Nielsen seriously needs to start refusing some of these pathetic scripts, and Stanley Tong needs to stick to making Jackie Chan films, because it doesn't get much worse than this.


This morning, I found myself unexpectedly remembering that this movie existed. I found myself thinking, "Oh yeah, there was a Mr. Magoo movie, wasn't there?" This is more surprising because I remember following the controversy surrounding this movie (advocacy group for the visually impaired said that this movie was demeaning). I even went to see this movie on the day it opened, because I am a fan of both Mr. Magoo, and Mr. Nielson, and thought he would be an excellent choice to play Mr. Magoo. I even remember the opening animated credits, because I thought that they were pretty amusing.

After that, though, its all a complete blank. I think its a pretty sad statement about any movie that it is so lame, so bland, and so utterly without merit that you can't remember ANYTHING from it. I understand that Leslie Nielson isn't always known for appearing in first class comedies, but I saw him in "Spy Hard," in "Scary Movie 4," and "Police Squad 3" and none of these were great movies, but I came away at least remembering *something*. Mr. Magoo, though, is a complete blank.

I find myself wondering now if all the controversy surrounding the film wasn't actually generated by the studio that produced it, in the hopes of generating at least some small amount of interest in an otherwise totally worthless movie.


This movie had terrible acting, terrible plot, and terrible choice of actors. (Leslie Nielsen...COME ON!!!) The one part I considered slightly funny was the battling FBI/CIA agents, but because the audience was mainly kids they didn't understand that theme.


I left the theater, and I was only 10 years old. That's how bad it sucked. The plot was horrid and the acting was worse. Leslie Nielson should be ashamed of himself and so should the person who made this movie. I was only 10 years old when I went to see this catastrophe with a friend and even at that young, innocent age I did not laugh once at the movie. We (me and my friend) still laugh about how bad the movie was. We ended up going into the 'R' movie my parents were in. Bottom line -- this flick was fricking bad. Mr. Magoo -- more like Mr. Ma-who? This movie could have scarred me for life had I watched the popular cartoon on television as a child but luckily I had never seen it, so i was spared the agony but I will never get back those precious minutes of my life that I wasted.


Only one word can describe MR MAGOO - slapstick. Unfortunately this isn't no AIRPLANE. Looks can decieve, and that's exactly what MR MAGOO does. Based on the old cartoon, Leslie Nielson plays Magoo, a bumbling near blind man whop stumbles upon a pair of jewel thieves. Now he must hunt them down using...blindness basically. And that's all this film plays off. The blindness of MR MAGOO. Now maybe if they had some funny jokes involving this, but pretty much it's just one of those " droopy dumb grin on your face because you're too ashamed to admit you payed to see this" films.

 But MR MAGOO isn't as bad as it's hacked up to be. It's at least got some funny jokes, and it's good wholesome fun for the whole family (Nielson tried to make a "NAKED GUN" for families in MAGOO, but it's no where near as good as that). So see it once, you might hate it, you might love it, whatever. I personally didn't hate it, but I sure didn't like it, or even rate it "okay." 2/5 stars for MR MAGOO-

JOHN ULMER


After seeing this film I felt sick to my stomach and if I had seen one more minute I would have had to rush to the bathroom and vomit til dawn. A sick film that was NOT funny and was NOT worth the money, any money at all. If anybody ever wants to see this movie don't! Your kids will never forgive you and will claim sickness for a week. So if you value your child's education and want to stimulate your child's mind please don't see this movie. I beg of you, DON'T!


This has got to be the worst movie I haver ever seen Nielson in. This movie just does not have what he needs to be funny. I think the reasons that the Naked Gun and the like movies is that they did not require Nielson to be funny. He just played the roles as straight as he could while all of the comedy that went on was mostly visual. But when you put him in a movie where he has to be funny, he isn't. The movie had only one good part, and this may be considered a spoiler by some, and that the beginning credits were animated. If the whole movie had been animated, it might have been good. I had no intention of seeing this movie when I saw the ads for it, and the only reason I did see it was because the tickets were given to me by someone who won them in a radio contest. This is the first and probably only movie I have ever walked out on. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a score of -100.


Horrible Horrible movie, i still can't believe my friend talked me into seeing this! No plot, bad acting, unfunny scenes, and very very stupid dialogue. All i have to say is that this movie is the worst movie i have seen and it's worse than Halloween III which i gave 0 stars too. So i give it 0 stars and a 0 out of 10, well on here a 1, but you get the point.


I enjoyed the Mr. Magoo cartoons I saw while growing up. And I enjoy Leslie Nielson's comic skills. So, I thought, this marriage must produce a funny child.

I couldn't have been more wrong.

This movie was just awful. I don't recall a single funny moment. This is one of the two or three times (in hundreds of films over the years) I've wanted my money back. You will leave this film dejected because you won't ever have that time back to use in a better way. In a comedy, the plot must draw in the viewer and serve as a framework for gags. This plot does neither. It just kinda lies there, gasping like a beached fish.


I know it's rather unfair to comment on a movie without seeing the complete piece - but I am going to anyway! I waited for a laugh, I tried to give it time. I think 20 minutes is long enough to wait in a comedy for a laugh. My laugh never came, so I gave up.

It's stupid humour, not so stupid that you have to laugh, though. It isn't anywhere near that high grade. Let me correct that, it's just *stupid* - not stupid humour. They may have intended for certain scenes to be funny, but they weren't. I suppose, if you were really bored you could somehow blend the movie with a hallucination and end up with a mildly entertaining experience.

A very pathetic effort.


Do not see "Mr. Magoo." It is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Leslie Nielson was not funny in it. He has not been funny since the Naked Gun movies. Well it won't take long to figure out that this is not a Naked Gun movie! The movie's plot is ridiculously foolish. Nothing in the entire movie was funny. The first few minutes of the film were animated to look like the old Magoo cartoons. I wish the movie would have stayed that way.


Leslie Nielson is a very talented actor, who made a huge mistake by doing this film. It doesn't even come close to being funny. The best word to describe it is STUPID!


A typical old b&w film. The dialogues are sometimes good, but too often - especially in the second half - they get naive, sometimes awfully naive, occasionally close to the point where they are unintentionally comical. The first third, with its background information on Ladd's Gatsby shown with a series of interesting flashbacks, is the best part of the movie. But once Gatsby moves into his new villa and makes his moves on Betty Field, the film gets overly melodramatic. The ending is yet another cop-out ending; I don't know whether the novel itself contains this dumb, clichéd ending or whether the movie's producer made some changes to it, but I've always considered car-accidents to be a poor way to add drama to the conclusion of a story. I've seen this plot-device a million times (or if it's not a car, then it's a fall from a horse); the writer doesn't know how to end the story but he knows that he wants it to be dramatic, so he adds in a car-accident. Lame. And to make things worse, the accident is outrageously coincidental and preposterous, both plot-wise and time-wise; plot-wise because Field's husband's mistress (Winters) gets killed by Field, and the fact that Winters sort of rushes out from the gas-station into the street as though she'd never noticed in the years that she had lived in it that there was a dangerous road right across her house - and, of course, at the very moment that she comes out she sees Ladd's car and mistakes it for Field's husband's car and then shouts "Over here! I'm here! Run me over and make the ending tragic that way!"; time-wise because Ladd and Field get involved in an accident at the very day when they are preparing to tell Field's husband about their affair. Basically, there is just too much forced and artificial irony in this accident. It also doesn't exactly help this movie how Winters's husband, Da Silva, goes on a revenge mission to kill the guy who ran over his wife; he basically does this by walking around like a zombie, going from car to car looking for scratches, and acting very badly indeed. Both Da Silva's acting and his character's behaviour throughout the film are awful and confusing, respectively.

Scott Fitzgerald was upset on a couple of occasions how his novels were adapted for the screen by Hollywood's screenwriters, and - although he was dead long before this movie was done - he might have been right to complain, judging by this film's naive script. Or, maybe his novels are even sillier and more naive than this film, and were actually improved upon by the screen adaptations. Or, the films are pretty much like the novels. I could, of course, read this particular novel to find out, but I just can't be bothered. Fitzgerald's name doesn't exactly inspire me to read any of his books (and I don't mean the way his name sounds.) He was certainly no Heller, Clavell, or Twain. More like Hemingway  a lot of noise about nothing.


Hollywood has churned out yet another garbage that's wildly overhyped and underwhelming on a first-time viewing basis. Hannibal is bad, terrible, inept, lame, droll, idiotic, contrived, laughable and utterly atrocious (no pun intended). Minor spoilers follow...

This movie has huge logic holes - more than any Bruckheimer/Bay movie - or for that matter - any movie that exemplify the indulgence of Hollywood exaggeration. It's a slick Hollywood production designed to cash in on Hannibal Lector mania, directed by "so-somber-he-takes-this-way-too-seriously" hack director Ridley Scott and produced by a hack Italian producer with an inflated ego whose credo is "doesn't matter whether film is s**t, money is good".

I can't get over the fact that acclaimed screenwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian wrote this tripe adapted from a lame and pretentious book by a good-novelist-turned-hack-author Thomas Harris. David and Steven - well-known and immensely talented screenwriters - wasted their effort on a poor screenplay in exchange for fat paychecks. Another factor in the disappointment of this film.

There are too many ludicrous scenes to list that are laughable in clunky execution and poor logic e.g. Starling/Pazzi cell-phone in the midst of Lecter pursuit that turns up Inspector Pazzi as the victim. Not to mention laughably bad dialogues delivered by Tony Hopkins with a smirk and Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta and others who cannot act with the straight face. Hopkins gives the true meaning of "scenery-chewing" along with hammy acting by Gary Oldman as a deformed psychopath bent on exacting revenge against Lecter.

The gore effect is good, but only serves to repulse rather than provide suspense which is notably absent from Hannibal. The predecessor - Silence of the Lambs - is more believable with tension and suspense. Suspense is what made Silence of the Lamb work as a spectacular mix of psychological horror and thriller, not to mention superbly written and tensely directed. The "brain dinner" sequence is so laughably fake it borders on self-parody.

The ending is kinda blatant and idiotic - are we supposed to believe that Lecter is still a menace to society with the last shot establishing his glittering eye glaring at you? Ooh, scary...


I have witnessed some atrocities of cinema. In the past couple of years, it seems producers and directors are bent on making films that drive me closer and closer to insanity. Hannibal was not an exception. I wasn't expecting much, when I went in to see the movie. The book was ridiculous, and the saying, "The Book is always better than the movie" did not assure me at all that this movie would be anything but trash. But what I came to see was a movie that made all other bad movies seem better in comparison.

 Usually, when I see a terrible movie, I find myself more amused than anything else. Sadly though, I could not even laugh at the sad excuse for a film that Hannibal is. The movie was filmed with promise, I guess. It had Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, and Gary Oldman. And for directing, there was Ridley Scott. There have been movies with significantly less talent that have been tremendously better. There was so much I would have cut from this film that I doubt anything would have remained. It was pathetic. The storyline was so ludicrous that it seemed like a complete idiot had written it. What's worse is that the book was even crazier, and there were some scenes that were too extreme to be included, which is sad in the case of a movie where

***SPOILER AHEAD***

Ray Liotta's brain was being cooked in pieces. That scene more than any other made me want to cry, because it tarnished its predecessor to such a monumental level. Silence of the Lambs was one of my favorite films of all time. But Hannibal was a two hour plus joke. This movie should only be watched, if people want to learn how not to write a good movie.


Synopsis: the sequel to the acclaimed Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal is a big budget production that totally fails to deliver; not only is it not as clever as its predecessor, it is not even a splatter or suspense or horror movie, just a totally boring time waster. Do not be fooled by the media hype, and particularly the stories about people throwing up in cinema and being mentally scarred for the rest of their lifes because of the brain - eating scene: in the movie it just comes across as laughably bad SFX. Why so many people in this forum are claiming that H is "not all bad" and "worth watching on the big screen", etc., is beyond me; and it is not "so bad it's good" either, it is just plain boring. I normally respect other people's opinion, but in this case I have to say that they clearly can not tell **** from Shine - Ola. Maybe they have fallen prey to the media hype, maybe they have never seen a Ridley Scott movie before and were impressed by his excessive use of back lighting, smoke and the ubiquitous AC fans. H is totally devoid of suspense; instead we get endless scenes of Lecter swanning through an English - speaking Firenze, a totally unconvincing and uninvolving plot with more holes than a fishing net (after seeing H, I actually lay awake half of the night trying to find all the holes in the plot, and when I wrote them down I quickly filled 6 pages in small type before forcing myself to stop). Rather than wasting your time and money on seeing it on the big screen, I would advise you to wait until it comes on TV in a couple of years; and then to go to bed early.

1 / 10.

Below are a couple of extra bones I have to pick with Hannibal:

- H _is_ the sequel to SOTL, despite what some people in this forum are claiming. And even though SOTL was a very tough act to follow, there are sequels which _are_ en par with their predecessors (SOTL itself was the sequel to Michael Mann's "Manhunter", based on Thomas Harris' "Red Dragon", and even though the first episode was a very enjoyable film, SOTL was even better; another example would be the Alien series initiated by H's director Ridley Scott -- so much for the theory of diminishing sequels). In any case, being a sequel is no excuse for a film being utter crap.

- This movie has a renowned director, it is based on a novel by the same author as SOTL, the cast is strictly A - list, great cinematography, big budget, first - rate script writers, yadda, yadda, yadda, and the end result is simply a fart in the church. So what went wrong? I think a lot of the blame has to go to the film's producer, Dino DeLaurentiis. Here is my interpretation: DDL produced "Manhunter", which, despite of all its qualities, was a commercial flop. Disappointed, he gave the rights for the Hannibal Lecter character to Orion -- for free, allowing Jonathan Demme to make SOTL, and the rest is cinema history. DDL then had to wait for ten more years (he is now 81) until Thomas Harris finally came up with the sequel novel. I think at this point DDL had lost all interest in making a good movie and was desperate to finally get his slice of the the cake before he pops his cork.

- Another aspect that I find thoroughly annoying about this flick is that it is being given so much undeserved hype in the media; I mean, it is boring, yet one of the highest - grossing productions ever, so there is no need to give it free publicity. And while most reviewers harp on about how Dantesque the scenes in Firenze are and why Jodie Foster did not participate, the simple fact that this movie is an utter, utter, UTTER flop goes unmentioned. But there is more: not only is Hannibal being hyped through the roof, it is also being used as a media agenda setter for a plethora of "documentaries" (usually the left - overs from similar productions in the wake of SOTL) about serial killers, cannibalism and profiling. However, not only does H not even pretend to be realistic; Lecter has also ceased to be a serial killer (he now only kills out of necessity, or to help Clarice Starling), profiling is not even mentioned (because we already know HL, so there is no need to create a profile) and there is also no cannibalism: Lecter feeds the drugged - up Paul Krendler his own brain, so that makes it (erm) unaware vivo - auto - cannibalism. Try making a documentary out of that.

- Much has been said about the acting: mainly whether Julianne Moore can replace Jodie Foster, and Anthony Hopkins (who plays the lead Hannibal Lecter) is usually given a lot of praise. I think all of these discussions are moot. There are several of my favourite actors in this movie (namely Liotta, Oldman and Moore) but the script simply does not give them anything to work with. Same for Hopkins: there is no development in his character, and he is not being challenged in any way. And by the way, he plays nearly identical characters in all of his movies, only that in H he has to do the odd bit of murder and is getting paid the tidy sum of $ 11 Million to do it.


Hannibal must be the most God-awful movie I have seen in a long time. In fact, I want my money back. What a waste of time. No plot, minimal character development, questionable motives, poor dialogue, sub-standard acting. What else can I say? If you haven't seen it don't bother. I wouldn't even hire out the video and if you happen to come by it on TV... change the channel. The only reason anyone might have to see this movie would be to see whether the gratuitous violence lived up to all the hype (which quite frankly is why they added it). If you want to see some gug eating his own brain, then fast forward to that bit.

What was the purpose of this movie? Its like someone just asked 'I wonder what Hannibal is up to these days' and we just went along for the ride. He is free in the beginning and he's free at the end. In between is a lot of self-indulgence on the part of Anthony Hopkins and the film makers. Julianne Moore tries valiantly to inject some life into her Clarice, but they gave her a sub-standard script and as far as I'm concerned she was set up to fail.

In my opinion this is just a very very bad story in every sense of the word. The only reason it made so much money was because of the senseless violence they added, which at the end of the day leaves you more with a feeling of contempt than the horror you are supposed to feel.

I give it a big fat RASPBERRY!


*Hannibal SPOILERS* Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is back... for a travesty of a movie! Now he's in Italy, appreciating our food (including people, such as Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini)), but comes back to the States for Clarice (Julianne Moore) and to even the score with a former victim, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman).

Let me tell you, this movie does not deserve to be spoken of along with Silence Of The Lambs and Manhunter, because it's truly, completely, absolutely, totally BAD.

I mean, the scene near the end with Ray Liotta's cranium being opened and him forced to eat part of his brain sautéed? WTF? Then, why the HELL was everybody so annoying (including Clarice)? And why did the story keep going nowhere? I suppose that this is the 'teen' chapter of the Hannibal series; terrible, stupid, gory for gore's sake and totally embarrassing.

Don't watch it, especially if you love any other of the Hannibal movies (SOTL, Manhunter, Red Dragon, Hannibal Rising).

Hannibal: 1/10.


One of the worst theatrical movies of the year, if not all time. Anthony Hopkins belittles himself by even appearing in this joke. I can't believe David Mamet and Ridley Scott's name appear on this travesty. The best career move Jody Foster ever made was turning this one down. Julianne Moore was as emotionless throughout as a female Keanu Reeves. Gary Oldman was of course, his brilliant self. He is a crippled victim of Hannibal and the make-up is so good, I didn't know it was Gary until the final credits. but eaten by trained boars??? Give me a break! Rumor has it that he didn't want his name even mentioned in the credits. And frying and feeding his own brain to Ray Liotta...I was laughing at the absurdity, no make that stupidity of this flick at this point. I haven't seen so many people walk out of a movie since Who's That Girl.

Pay someone else to go for you if you must, but miss this one AT ALL COST!!!


I'm a big fan of Thomas Harris,I read all his novels at least 5 times and Hannibal's the book I really love the most.Therefore the movie was my biggest disappointment and I really don't get it why some folks here give it a nine or even a ten.Either their demands are very low or they haven't read the book or both.Even if I hadn't read the book I'd still consider the movie as absolute average and I'd give it a five. The creepy,mysterious atmosphere from the novel doesn't appear one single time in the movie,when I saw it first in the cinema I even fell asleep.Why was Margot Verger, a very important character, totally omitted? Why was Barney shown as a dumb ignorant whose only ambition is to earn money? And most of all, why was the psychological process Starling went through in the end,caused by the drugs Lecter applied to her,descended? Not to speak about the fact that the ending was omitted,too,and totally changed? Well, the reasons why Jodie Foster refused to play Starling again are well known and I accepted it,although like surely many others I'm very disappointed 'cause I identified Starling with her.For stories like Red Dragon,The silence of the lambs or Hannibal that possess such psychological depth, it is very important to identify with a character when they're adapted for the screen,but as the Germans say, that's "snow of yesterday". Ridley Scott did some incredibly good movies but with this one he doesn't live up to his name. Jonathan Demme had exactly the right feeling for the plot, the characters and their relationships towards each other in The silence of the lambs, he should have done Hannibal,too.My only comfort is that I've seen the movie only two times,it's long ago and thank god for that reason I'm able not to see the scenes from the movie when I read the novel. I'm so sorry but I really can't recommend it to anyone.


I completely understand WHY this movie was made. Silence of the Lambs was an incredible film - a gruesome thriller with a superb story and high jump-factor....

What I don't understand is why THIS movie was made... and why Anthony Hopkins agreed to reprise his role as Hannibal the Cannibal in this terrible and dissatisfying film.

There's no possible way to spoil the movie any further than going to see it could, but for those of you who prefer to waste your money, DON't READ ON. The film is absolutely horrible. It's so bad that the transition from Jodie Foster to Julianne Moore becomes a non-issue.

The only way to truly enjoy the film is to set your watch and leave the theatre exactly two hours into the film, because up until that point, it's quite an interesting thriller. The reparte between Moore and Hopkins is comparable to Hopkins and Foster, and the performances by the other characters are pretty good. But literally at the two hour mark, the film degrades into nothing but a cheesy D-grade horror flick...it's sick, and it's stupid and almost like the crew ran out of filming time, and threw together an ending in one day of filming.

Initial buzz over the Thomas Harris' book's unsatisfying and bizarre ending led director Ridley Scott to order a re-write... and, honestly, having seen the film AND read the book's finale, I don't know which is worse.

Please - don't waste your money OR time on this film, unless you're prepared to leave EXACTLY at the two hour point, because that's the ONLY way you'll feel satisfied about the saga of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter... continuing the mystery that made the first film, and the wait for this one, so great.


Well, 1st off I haven't seen "Silence of the Lambs" yet.... but, I think that I would have become sick if I would have seen it before this piece. Not from the gruesome violence but, from the lack of everything else. Anthony Hopkins was very good as Hannibal and I really believed that he was as psychotic as he played himself off to be but, from the reaction of the audience around me, the film was filled with cliches from "Silence" which left me lost at points where others were laughing at what was on the screen.

Now, I heard that the movie would be very gruesome and if the director wanted to gross folks out... he did it... but, only in 2 sequences? I mean, if you want it to be gruesome and I mean, so gruesome that you're going to play the film off of that... you need more than 2 sequences.. I always see it as a film has to either become that cinematic jewel which will ultimatley take you to another place and time or either go over the top (which most of the time is done in bad taste). But, this film left me sitting in my chair and falling asleep at times.

Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore are the stars of the movie, right? Well, with the exception of Hopkins, I didn't feel that way.. Who cared about the stupid Italian police officer? I definatley didn't. So, really the film is left with a big hole talking about a guy who dies anyway. I mean, come on.. who cares?

In a nutshell, the movie is good if you want to see Lector and Starling once again but, if you're going for a really good thriller... you'll jump once and be grossed out maybe twice. Depends on your level.

Thinking about how much money this movie will bring in... there will probably be another "Hannibal" made and this movie probably won't be on video until the fall. If you must see it.. wait and save the $3.50 - $4.00 and get it on video. Don't spend the big bucks on this film.


The only reason I didn't fall asleep during this movie is because the seats were not that comfortable. Hannibal is BORING>BORING> BORING and BORING!!! This film is just dreadful, not because of any violence or graphic mutilations. It's actually quite tame in that regard. The story moves at the speed of a lazy snail. I have the feeling that director Ridley Scott just phoned this one in. The actors are all fine they just needed some direction. The music score is also very annoying. It's especially noticeable since so little is going on in the film. It does look good but that's not enough reason to see it. By the way did I mention that it's BORING?


With a little dressing up, this movie could be served for Thanksgiving dinner. Not only is is boring, implausible, historically inaccurate and poorly directed, the best actors were the bit players (mainly because they had so few lines to say). A waste of time, even for war fanatics.


I have to admit I was deceived by the title and the summary on the back of the box. So I popped it in the vcr and kept waiting... and waiting... and waiting for something good to happen. But of course, it never does. The makers of this film should be tied to a chair and made to watch "Saving Private Ryan". Maybe they would learn something.


Ty Cobb is, by far, the most interesting and belligerently insane athlete to ever live. His baseball career was unparalleled in absurd statistics, brilliant strategy, and pure unadulterated violence. Every game he played in was a spectacle in human ability and cruelty. So of course, the film about him deals with none of that, instead focusing on the writing of his biography by author Al Stump. Now this isn't such a horrible idea in theory, as Cobb himself slid even further into paranoid dementia as years progressed and the stories of his crazed outbursts even as a senior are shocking even by today's desensitized standards. But instead of focusing on these events, which I guess was simply too interesting, the film is a pseudo fictionalized road film with clichéd a clichéd plot that will cause any knowledgeable Cobb fan to cry vinegar tears.

Tommy Lee Jones does quite well as a crotchety Cobb, but somehow manages to overplay his cartoon supervillainy. Most stories about Cobb are barely believable, but to make him even crazier seems both impossible and unnecessary. Robert Wuhl, portraying the writer Al Stump, is a dark vortex of nonexistent talent. He sucks the life out of every scene, trying to make this film his own Nagasaki. There is a reason we never see him as a leading man anymore (Arliss doesn't count. It's barely a show). Even the played out, inevitable "role reversal" of Cobb and Stump by the end is made even worse by his pure inability to utter words that don't sound like a poor book on tape narration voice.

For all the awful writing and bland film-making on display, there is one sequence which stands out as so far superior to the rest of this failure that accepting it's from the same film is near impossible. A hyper stylized flashback sequence displaying Cobb's overpowering psychology and brutal athleticism while actually playing the game of baseball is pure brilliance. The camera moves in bizarre fashion and the whole event seems like a dream due to the unique playing style of the monster Cobb. Every slide, hit, and tackle are rendered even more forceful due to enhanced sound, and Tommy Lee Jones OWNS the intensity of the master player. It makes the viewer drool over the possibilities of a true biopic of Cobb in his prime with the same actor. It's worth watching the film for this incredible few minutes alone, just to see what could have been.

I may be slightly unfair to this film due to my own knowledge of Ty Cobb and wanting it to be something it isn't, but to make such boring, neutered movie about this maniac is nonsensical. I'm glad Ron Shelton's career has slid ever since.


Over all, it was a real good movie. Though all the actors, besides Jones, sucked. By the time I was half was through it I was really getting tired of seeing 'Al'. Only change I would have made to it would to have more flash backs, possibly with the real Cobb.


I don't know about the real Cobb but I got the distinct impression that the filmmakers' aim was to try to soften his jagged edges and reputation, not give us a true portrait of the man himself. In the movie, besides a few racist remarks, he's shown to be just another hard-nosed, cantakerous old coot (he's so full of life!) with a heart of gold(more or less). This is also the worst acting I've seen T.L.Jones do(he brings nothing new or subtle to his stereotyped character). He just doesn't flesh out Cobb in a way that pulls me into the movie. Not for one minute did I forget that it was Tommy Lee Jones on the screen pretending to be Ty Cobb. Robert Wuhl didnt impress either. The "comedic" elements in this movie were just distracting and didnt ring true at all. A bloody waste of time, it is


Cobb. It sucked. I learned nothing about the man I had not heard before. The performances were over the top. A scene where Cobb and Al are driving down a snowy road in search of women in Reno has to be one of the worst conceived scenes in recent memory. It's just plain STUPID and unentertaining. The flashback sequences were terrible. And they used the same sequences OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. If I saw the same shot of Cobb fighting with someone at a base one more time, I would have become physically ill. By watching this 'movie', we get to learn NOTHING of what it was like in Cobb's era. We learn nothing about his relationship with his players, nothing about his days as a manager, nothing about his relationship with his family members, other than that `they don't like him'. I thought when I sat down to view this film I would learn SOMETHING about the era of baseball in which Cobb played. Instead, all I got to see was a retread of how Cobb hated everything and everyone, and how they hated him. Boy, what a great movie (sarcasm intended). Cobb is portrayed as a constant liar in the film, so which one of his stories is supposed to be accurate? Who knows? Who cares? No one will after viewing this piece of crap. If you decide to rent this film, make sure the fast forward button on your VCR is working, as you will be tempted to use it repeatedly. Hopefully someday someone will make a GOOD film about Ty Cobb. I liked this film about as much as the people in it liked Cobb, which is to say - I HATED IT. Now I know why I found it in the RENT ONE GET ONE FREE section of the video store. I think I will ask for my fifty cents back from the video clerk, since I can't get back the time I wasted watching this trash. Oh well, what could I have possibly been thinking about a movie that would feature Robert Wuhl.


As someone who loves baseball history, especially the early 20th century in which Cobb was a main figure, along with a ton of colorful characters, I was looking forward to seeing this baseball film. Well, it wasn't a baseball film, which was disappointing. No, it was just a sportswriter's account of being with Cobb in the ballplayer's later years while the two collaborated on a book. Even at that, this could have been a more appealing movie than they made it.

Granted Cobb was anything but a nice guy, an extremely talented player but brutal in that he would do anything to beat you....and he was viscous, intimidating and had a lot of demons to fight. He was so hated his own teammates tried to hinder his chances of winning a batting title one year. Nonetheless, this an over-the-top portrayal of the man. It makes him into something almost cartoon-like.

Watching and listening to an old man rant, rave and profane for two hours is entertainment? No, it isn't. Some day, I'd love to see a real biopic of Cobb showing him in his ballplaying days and if they want to portray him as an evil guy, so be it, but the way they did it here with just a bitter, blasphemous old man making an ass of himself in front of a reporter is not fun to watch.


I have to admit that in spite of all media promotion and being nominee for Oscar, my expectation from the film was not so high before watching it. And I really found what I expected; a film trying to be likable for both for conservatives and liberals in Turkey, trying being authentic for foreign spectators and enough funny for all. But it should be understood that it is not possible to be favorable for everybody, therefore film stays as average for all.

Whole movie is telling a story occurred within 24 hours. To fit the short story in a full movie length, some scenes are added without a connection with the main story. These are mostly the ice-cream selling scenes to the eccentric local people (i.e. goat herdsman, old women etc.), and each of these selling scenes are tried to be interesting to the spectators by skits with comic dialogs. The subject is mentioned as a universal problem: Struggle of a local producer-tradesman against holding companies and monopoly, but this was the interesting subject of twenty years before. Most of the readers will remember the "Hero grocer against supermarket" from Ferhan Sensoy in 1980's. This was the correct story at correct time. Shortly the story is not strong enough and worth to be a movie as by now.

Except some gibbers due to local accent, the performance of cast is so successful. The leading role is played by Turan Ozdemir with excessive body language but anyway he is successful too.

On the other hand against limited budget, appreciable efforts of director and players are obviously giving a good mood to the film. But this is not resulting a film well enough either to compare with Italian neo-realists or worth to be Oscar nominee.

Note: In the real life, normally the Ice-cream seller would stop his own production and be the dealer of one of the competitors of Manda brand.


Although promoted as one of the most sincere Turkish films with an amateur cast, Ice-cream, I Scream is more like a caricature of sincerity.

The plot opens with the dream of Ali, a traveling ice-cream salesman in a Western Anatolia town, in which he sees himself becoming successful using the same marketing methods of big ice-cream companies. He dreams of playing in his product's TV commercial with beautiful models in bikinis, dancing around him. As his dream turns into a nightmare, he wakes up with a big erection next to his gargantuan wife, who rejects to make sex with him for 6 years with no apparent reason. Is it because he is not successful in his job? Apparently, because he says he was selling better in the old days when there was no pressure from global ice-cream companies. But this is what he says; we actually don't see him suffer that much: he still sells good, traveling the neighboring villages while his apprentice stays at the shop, selling ice-cream to the people in the town. Ali blames big companies for using sweetening and coloring agents while he is using real "sahlep" (powdered roots of mountain orchids). Ali buys a motorbike with a bank loan to be a traveling vendor, and gives ads to a local TV channel which prefers to broadcast even the news bulletin in local dialect. His wife is not fond of his ways of doing business, they always quarrel, and Ali threatens her that he may do very bad things in a moment of frenzy.

In a very successful day, his lousy bike is stolen by the misbehaving little boys of the town. In search of his stolen bike, Ali goes to the police, blames the big companies for the theft, but, of course, nobody takes him seriously. Annoyed by the nagging of his wife, Ali goes to a tavern and becomes drunk. One of his friends at his table, a wannabe socialist of the town, gives a didactic speech and criticizes globalism, and with no real connection, jumps to the subject of global freezing. Ali returns home and decides to kill himself with poison. His wife wakes up and prevents him. An old neighbor takes him to a night walk and advises him about life. According to him, Ali can even sell hot sahlep drink if the world faces with global freezing. When he returns home, suddenly we see that his wife understood his value, treating him like a hero and praising his manhood. Meanwhile, the thief boys got sick eating too much ice-cream. They confess to the doctor that they stole Ali's bike. Ali forgives them and there comes the happy end.

Although the plot may look promising in a way, it's the story-telling which makes this film insincere and cheesy. First, the director doesn't show much of an effort to tell the story visually; everything is based on dialogs. And the dialogs never stop to show us that cinema is actually a visual art. Even Ali's troubles are not convincing because we don't see it, we just understand it from his words. The director markets his film as a righteous fight of Ali against big ice-cream companies, but there is nothing in the film about big companies. We don't see their pressure enough. The film actually ridicules Ali for believing that big companies are behind the theft. And when his motorbike is found, it solves every problem: Ali becomes a happy and powerful husband. Not a real criticism of globalism.

Second, the film is cheesy because of the crude humor. Maybe the people of that part of Turkey is cursing so much and making so many vulgar jokes in their daily life, but vulgar language and crude humor are not enough to make a film funny. I may have accepted it if they were both vulgar and "clever" but they are not clever jokes at all, they are just cheesy. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe American people may like oriental version of American Pie style humor. But American Pie never had any claim to be a nominee for the Oscars, or to have a political message! If you think that you can laugh by just seeing a man's big erection in his shorts (and we had to endure this joke twice!) or an old villager woman saying "f**k you," then you may find this film funny.


I walk out of very few movie screenings and this movie managed to become one of those that I couldn't bear to watch any longer. As far as the awards it won goes, the ones awarded by Turkish festivals are not credible in my opinion. My only explanation for the Queens festival award was to think that somehow a layer of comedy was "gained in translation" as the subtitles helped distract attention from the horrendous performances.

At the beginning of the screening I attended, the presenter briefly talked about the history of Turkish cinema and at one point mentioned that early Turkish cinema was appropriately named "stage cinema" since many of the filmmakers and actors involved were people from the theater scene.

Ironically, this movie falls right into that category. English speakers reading subtitles may think that Turkish is a naturally loud language and attribute all the yelling in the movie to that, but observant native commentators will immediately notice that all the actors are performing with exaggerated loud voices. You could attribute this to the amateur nature of all actors, but the biggest source of "yelled-out-dialog" is the main character, played by the only professional actor in the movie. Not surprisingly his background is in theater. My guess is that in response to his loud delivery of lines, all other amateur actors raised their voices as well, hence turning the whole movie into a series of unnatural performances.

Put on top of all of this a storyline that develops at a snail's pace, you get an extremely boring movie.

I have to say I also have a personal problem with Turkish movies that depict entirely rural life with shallow uneducated characters. Ever since "Zugurt Aga", one of the best Turkish movies ever made, Turkish filmmakers seem to be not able to avoid the appeal of the rural part of the country. This is only interesting in small doses and if it is as beautifully orchestrated with excellent writing and directing as in Zugurt Aga. Most often, however, it is extremely boring and frankly somewhat embarrassing to native "urban" Turks. Rural communities make up a neglected, undereducated part of the country, and while this provides good material for comedy, it comes at a huge cost to Turkey's image.

A western audience member whose only exposure to Turkey is this movie will undoubtedly think that Turkey is like Afghanistan. I wish filmmakers would realize this and let go of their passion for the stories of the "rural man" and stay loyal to the majority of the country, who live in cities that put metropolitan areas in Europe to shame.


This very loose retelling of Carmen begins on a high note with a smoldering, sexually-frank dance between Senaglese prisoner "Karmen" and her female prison warden, but the vibrant opening minutes never ignite into any coherent film. One minute Karmen is all sexual predator, the next she is dancing in protest to her unfair government, and then suddenly she is a smuggler on the high seas... Although the film deserves kudos for postulating the first carnivorously bisexual "Karmen," the broad strokes it paints are so vignette-like and unsupported by any narrative coherence that the film comes off as a schizophrenic, undisciplined melange of "Basic-Instinct" meets "Bound" meets an African version of a Bollywood musical.


I gave this 2 stars out of a possible 10.

I went into this not realizing what it was - and discovered it is apparently some kind of African musical - since people break into song every few minutes.

None of the songs rhyme, most of them aren't really saying anything sensible, and they all have the same non-existent tune - if you could call it a "tune."

Karmen is a tall, spectacularly built young woman, with the longest braids I've ever seen. [The actress looks as if she has probably done some modeling.]

The film opens in a women's prison, although not like any prison I've ever seen or heard of -- the inmates wear whatever they wish - and seem to be having a party.

Karmen does some frantic dancing, and the woman warden of the prison, Angelique,[a magnificently handsome woman]is definitely erotically interested. She and Karmen dance together. Later Karmen visits the warden's room and they make love - unfortunately the scene is not detailed, and is very short, although there is some nudity.

Karmen then escapes from the prison and next we see her dancing in front of another group where a man, named Lamine, maybe a Colonel - it was never really clear who he was, watches her. He is with a young woman who dislikes Karmen's seductive dancing and there is a dance-off between the two women.

After that the story [such as it is] becomes even more muddled.

With Lamine in jail, out of jail, and who knows where.

Karmen may be involved with a group of smugglers or thieves.

There is more singing. More dancing, and a scene of Angelique obviously suffering from heartbreak.

The film muddles its way to a finish, and I heaved a sigh of relief that it had ended.


For a film made in Senegal, based, I guess loosely on Carmen, the book, by Prosper Merimee, this film doesn't achieve a mere resemblance of the story that has been made famous as an opera and as other films.

Ms. Gai as the Karmen of the title is very good to look at. Her fiery dancing smolders the screen, as is the case with her torrid love scene at the beginning of the film.

This is a Karmen that aims to please to all genders, but a real Carmen, she is not!

We would like to see Ms. Gai in other films in which her talent is better used than here.


For this movie, based off of a TV show, and a serious finale. I thought that it was a lousy way to end off a serious. 'M*A*S*H Goodbye, farewell, and Amen' was pretty good, but not this one. Unless you really love the series (Like myself) skip this movie.

I was a loyal fan of the show Even Stevens, but the plot was too gimmicky, and Dave Coulier, man, that guy hasn't done anything good...well, ever. They shouldn't have used Tim Meadows, he's a great actor, but he was too good for the script.

I thought the movie was pure cheese. I would give it a 4.5/10


A previous IMDb reviewer has stated that 'Rafter Romance' is a 'rip-off' (that's the other reviewer's term) of a German musical called 'Me By Day, You By Night'. Apparently that reviewer is unaware that *both* of these films have borrowed their premise from 'Box and Cox', an English play written by John Maddison Morton in 1847. This play deals with two tradesmen who rent the same room from an unscrupulous landlady, each man believing himself the sole tenant. Because the two men have different work schedules, the ruse is not discovered straight away. This play was once so popular in Britain that 'to Box and Cox it' became a common term for an arrangement in which two people willingly shared accommodations meant for only one person.

The innovation of 'Rafter Romance' (and its predecessor) is that the two tenants are now a man and a woman, who inevitably develop a romance. As is usual in these cornball movies, the guy and the gal detest each other until they fall into each other's arms. Hoo boy.

The landlord in this film is played by George Sidney, a character actor who specialised in playing Jewish stereotypes that were meant to be sympathetic. George Sidney was never as annoying as the odious Harry Green (the Jewish equivalent of Stepin Fetchit) but Sidney's depictions of Jewish characters are still exaggerated and embarrassing to watch.

The single most notable thing about 'Rafter Romance' is that, to my knowledge, this is the earliest Hollywood film to make reference to Hitler and the rise of Nazism. At one point in this movie, landlord Eckbaum (Sidney) discovers his teenage son Julius engaged in chalking swastikas on the walls. Eckbaum and his son are clearly meant to be Jewish. Admittedly, nobody in Hollywood in 1933 had any real idea of what Hitler was planning for the Jews in Europe ... still, it's surprising to see a film depicting a Jewish teenager who thinks that swastikas are a joke. His father is, quite properly, angered by this display of the Nazi symbol.

A very shameful aspect of Hollywood history is the documented fact that all of the major Hollywood studios continued to do business with the Third Reich as late as 1939. Hollywood's leading ladies were medically documented as 'Aryan' so that their films could be distributed in Nazi Germany and Austria. For the same reason, Hollywood's leading men were documented as 'Aryan and uncircumcised'. Except for Darryl Zanuck at Twentieth Century-Fox, all the Hollywood studio executives who colluded in this policy were Jewish ... but clearly had no objection to doing business with Hitler. I'm surprised that 'Rafter Romance' contains a scene depicting swastikas unfavourably, as this sequence would have rendered the film Verboten in Germany and Austria. (Maybe the scene was cut out for German release: it isn't crucial to the movie's plot.) Apart from this, the movie contains nothing notable. Robert Benchley does his usual unfunny befuddled characterisation: I've never understood the appeal of this man. I'll rate 'Rafter Romance' 4 out of 10.


When watching this movie, with it's deterministic cause and effect, wall-to-wall clichés and hackneyed sentiment, can anyone be so naive as to think that this is actually how Barrie's life played out? You watch it in a posture of disagreement. Hollywood biopics aren't based on the individual lives anymore, they're just rewrites of previously successful biopics. If Hollywood made a movie about your life it would be filled with such perfect synchronization that you'd barely recognize your own story. Any personal complexity would be obliterated by some all-explaining, simplistic backstory. Your story would resemble "Rocky" because it's the only life-arc Hollywood knows how to produce anymore. We couldn't leave the audience pondering anything left open-ended as they exit. This movie doesn't trust an audience to figure things out without being led to them. I perceived the captain hook/mother reference eons before the movie literalized it for me. I could see the 25 kids twist coming for days.

This is a completely average movie. Not horrible but not great. Hence it's likely to be showered with a few Oscars next year. There's nothing the Academy likes better than congratulating itself for finally noticing patterns put in place over the previous thirty years.

From the New Yorker article "Lost Boys" by ANTHONY LANE:

"Arthur Llewelyn Davies, also adored his boys, and it may be unfair of "Finding Neverland" to omit him, for streamlining purposes, from the scene; by the time that Johnny Depp meets Kate Winslet, she is already a widow, whereas Arthur was very much alive when Barrie first entered the consciousnessand, little by little, the homeof the Llewellyn Davies family.

"Finding Neverland" is a weepie. From the moment that Barrie met George and Jack, and started to ponder the means by which they might be rendered immortal, the story is sad, but the reality is even more dismal: 1907Arthur Llewellyn Davies dies from cancer of the jaw. 1910Sylvia dies of lung cancer. The five boys are orphaned; Barrie is made their guardian. 1915George is killed in the First World War, fighting with his regiment in Flanders. 1921Michael, an undergraduate at Oxford, is drowned while swimming with a friend. The two bodies, when recovered, are found clinging together.

On April 5, 1960, Peter Llewellyn Davies, by then an esteemed publisher, threw himself under a subway train in London. We should not presume to read a mind in torment, but we may note in passing that, if he had lived another month, he would have reached the centenary of Barrie's birth and thus, one imagines, a fresh flurry of interest in "Peter Pan""that terrible masterpiece," in the words of Peter Llewellyn Davies.


With some films it is really hard to tell for whom they were made. Huevos de oro seems to aim at the well educated Spanish middle class. There must be many inside jokes in this movie which you will not understand if you are an outsider. This can be pretty annoying.

Symbols and references to art and popular culture abound, the movie alludes to the work of Salvador Dalí, Luis Buñuel and the Surrealists in general, a certain infatuation with bidet baths seems to point to Duchamp's ready mades. What's more, the main character has also a knack for karaoke tapes with songs of Julio Iglesias. But why all this is mixed together in a rather pretty but also gratuitous way simply eludes me. I can only guess that it all serves to highlight the vital, impetuous, boorish vulgarity of the main character who the director seems to admire and despise at the same time. How all the really pretty women run after him (the main character, I mean) is slightly disconcerting.

The movie has three parts. It starts in the Spanish enclave of Melilla in Africa, where Benito, the main character, does his military service, apparently in the corps of engineers. Then it moves on to the resort town of Benidorm in Spanin where Benito just wants to build the highest skyscraper of the place and become a vulgarized Howard Roark. For the last part a defeated Benito moves to Miami, Florida, presumably in order to start a new life". But the change of places is not really explained satisfactorily. It is also somehow irritating that there is no character development and that the movie descends into a soap opera modus without being convincingly ironic. It must be said that Javier Bardem acquits himself very well playing the young stud who grows limp and deflated.

I purchased this movie because I am interested in townscapes. And Benidorm is a kind of a special place, townscapewise. In this aspect Huevos de oro satisfied me only partially. In Jess Franco's She Killed In Ecstasy (1970) this specific location was used in a more rewarding way.


Thank God I have fast-forward. I think this is a movie about a guy who rises and falls. Whatever: It's a stupid cliché. It doesn't make any difference. There's this guy, javier Bardem, who constructs buildings or something. It doesn't matter. He is handsome, this Javier Bardem. Who cares? I think there is a car wreck but I watched this in fast-forward, so ...who cares? Car wrecks and handsome heroes who struggle back from them smells like a melodrama to me. Javier likes someone , but he marries Maria de Madeiros instead.She is magnificently, poetically beautiful, with a heart-shaped face. Then Javier has an oral-interface with Maribel Verdu, who washes her vulva, beforehand, for some reason. You would think Maribel Verdu, with her hand-washed vulva would be sexy. No, she is not. This is a tedious story about a bunch of people who don't interest me. Javier, Maribel, and Maria have a threesome: How boring. This film is annoying. I think this might be a minor THEME of (some) Spanish-language movies: The rise and predictable fall of a little guy who succeeds against the odds. Let me just clear this up: this is a high-class melodrama or perhaps soap opera. It is not worth your time, except for a laugh.


A bit too much Mediterrenean machismo for me. The cast was beautiful, lovely to watch in all of the romantic scenes. The locale was beautiful with azure skies and azure water. It just was not convincing to me that such an egomaniac crud bent on nothing but his building, could attract so many beautiful, vulnerable, women. Only in the Mediterranean I guess. Certainly in no world I am familiar with. The macho men were really obnoxious, and I found it difficult to believe that the female characters could have anything to to with them for so long. The screenplay, cinematography, directing, etc. was set up to deliver a Class B film, the central effort being on showing scenes of beautiful exposed female breasts. It was aesthetically nice for a while but it could not sustain a very mediocre film.


In this film, there is a loose plot of a man (Bardem) who wishes to obtain financing for his construction business, and marries a woman he does not love (the wide-eyed Maria de Medieros) in the process. He maintains his passionate relationship with his first and true love, and ultimately gets entangled in his own romantic web. He never gives up his juggling act, until the three main characters come face to face. The film results boring, with lots of free sex (well, both girls are really good), all the reactions in the film are absurd, incoherent and of course, too much stupid. None of the characters are believable, which makes the movie a little annoying. Anyway, the acting is surprisingly good for such a bad directed film, which makes it a little interesting, but, if you can, watch another film please!


Director Kinji Fukasaku is perhaps best known, in his homeland at least, for his Japanese gangster films, a series with which this movie shares a number of characteristics. Violence and political intrigue are themes throughout both Shogun's Samurai and Battles Without Honor and Humanity, and both feature a lead character who finds his loyalties challenged by betrayals. Both films also feature a large number of characters who seem to have little purpose but to die, and since so little is done to develop them, their deaths have little impact when they do come. This film has other flaws as well. The makeup, costumes and sound design are distractingly poor, and the battle scenes were substandard as well, inferior to other samurai films of earlier years (Seven Samurai comes to mind).

Sonny Chiba plays the Sonny Chiba character in Shogun's Samurai, the no-nonsense master swordsman who strides through the film, scowling menacingly. What a guy; he even gets to wear an eye patch. If you were expecting to see the legendary Toshiro Mifune, you may be disappointed; his appearance amounts to little more than a cameo, and just when it appears that his character might do something interesting, he disappears for good.

Overall, the strengths of the film are its story, which is infinitely more comprehensible than those gangster films, and the challenges posed to traditional concepts of good and evil. Two brothers are challenging for the throne of their recently departed father, who may have had some help on his way out. Early on, it looks as if we will be faced with a couple of characters who couldn't be more clearly good and evil; after all, the older brother stammers and has a birthmark, the sure sign of a villain. Eventually, however, it becomes clear that in a winner-takes-all struggle for power, there are no heroes and villains, only winners and losers.


I have seen nearly all the films of Kurosawa and dozens of other Japanese films as well. Compared to these other films, this is a rather average to poor film. The plot features two warring brothers--neither one of which I cared much for--and it is very confusing keeping up with who is allied with who. The music and cinematography is pretty good, but the special effects, at times, are terrible--rubber heads flying off with about the same realism as the average high school play! On top of these complaints, the ending of the movie completely DESTROYS and UNDERMINES the entire picture. It turns out that the end isn't true but was completely "fudged". What's the point of this, then? If you HAVE seen this film, understand that there are MANY better films out there, so don't give up!


"Yagyu ichizoku no inbo" (let's just say "The Shogun's Samurai") is somewhere between horrifically boring and mind-bogglingly painful to watch. As an historical epic, it could have had so many more chances to be a rich saga... but it's really no more than just another cheap '70s action flick with a based-on-real-events story and an eyepatch-sporting Sonny Chiba. Before this movie's halfway point, I was even tempted to commit seppuku! The music is like a thousand dogs in heat wailing in your ears to a tune composed by Ennio Morricone (that's not an insult towards Morricone). The use of zoom lens cinematography is more nauseating than fascinating. And in terms of action, it's really nothing more than a series of brutal attacks and oh-no-they-didn't shocks. What a terrible movie.


If you're in the mood for a really bad porno with no good porn combined with a really bad horror movie, this movie is perfect for you. However, if you breathe air, make sure you spend your time watching anything but this. The acting is crappy. The "plot" is crappy. They try too hard, and the whole time I was waiting for the one good redeeming scene that might make the movie worth watching. Nope. Stick with the scrambled cable.


I see that C. Thomas Howell has appeared in many movies since his heyday in the 80s as an accomplished young actor.

I bought this DVD because it was cheap and in part for the internet-related plot and to see how much older C. Thomas Howell is; I do not recall seeing him in any movies since the 1980s.

In just a few words: what a very big disappointment. I give some low budget movies a chance, but this one started out lame. Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, this elusive woman is chatting with an Asian guy in a chatroom. They basically stimulate themselves to their own chat, she then insists on meeting the participant in person. She meets him, has sex, ties him up and then murders him in cold blood. The plot then deteriorates further.

The plot is thin and flimsy and the acting is very stiff. Do not bother renting it much less purchasing it, even if it is in the $1 DVD bin. I plan to take my copy of the DVD to Goodwill. I am truly amazed that any of the prior reviewers here gave this movie a bad rating.


I have seen this movie last week during the Berlin Film Festival and had medium-high expectations. - The director is Bertrand Tavernier and I was familiar with some of his previous work in French cinema. I actually enjoyed some of his earlier movies. -The cast: Tommy Lee Jones, John Goodman, Peter Sarsgard, Mary Steenburgen... I was looking forward to see all this talent on screen. -I wasn't familiar with the book it's based upon and I hadn't read anything about the movie beforehand but I was told that it was an investigation movie set in the Deep South (we've seen a lot of those in the past, maybe this one's gonna be as good as the others...)

2 hours later, the end titles appear: THANK GOD IT WAS OVER!!!! - The plot is beyond comprehension. If you've read the book, you have a significant advantage. There were too many minor characters and there were a lot of useless plot arcs. We didn't understand a thing! - The accents. My God! Tommy Lee Jones' accent is decent but I still have nightmares from Mary Steenburgen's Cajun-French singing... - Poor casting in my opinion. I can't believe old man Tommy Lee Jones can beat the crap out of a linebacker-built goon... And I'm not afraid of John Goodman. - Who were these people?!? We barely understand who all these characters are and what they do. There's a bait shop? Tommy Lee Jones has a girl from Guatemala? Blörg! - The comedic attempts were pathetic. The funniest thing about the movie was probably its "action" and "suspense" scenes. They were horrible. No thrills. Bad acting (Can Tommy Lee Jones make different faces or is he like Derek Zoolander?)... - And then there's the sci-fi stuff. No spoilers but it gets ridiculously and annoyingly weird.

I usually don't write any comments on IMDb but I thought the movie was so bad and disappointing that I felt compelled to share my opinion. But that's just me...


Being one of the founding fathers of my regions monkey movie club(this also includes apes/chimps and orangutans) I am reviewing this film from a monkey movie standpoint. Afterall it is a whole summer of monkeys, 100+ days for monkeys to do what they do best, cause mischief, shenanigans, hyjinx, solve human problems and teach us about ourselves.

The story is simple enough. In short poor boy needs money for stuff he wants. Luckily there's a few monkeys(chimpanzees) that have a bounty on their head that would get Boba Fett or Dog's(Duane Chapman) blood flowing. As the boy tries to catch the monkeys he learns about himself, his family, his grandpa, the local weirdo, flirts with a girl twice his age and learns the beast way to deal with bullies is to have someone point a shotgun at them.

There within lies the problem. So much focus is put on the boy that the chimps just don't get the screen time they deserve. The chimps are not as talented as the chimp(s) that play Jack from the M_P trilogy or the legendary orangutans that play Dunstin or Clyde(1 or 2). So don't watch this movie expecting to find the next big thing in the Chimp genre. The chimps hit some sweet flips which is what the film needed more of. There is an epic scene of the chimps breaking into the poor families house and destroys all the things they worked so hard for. Serious monkey movie enthusiasts will want to rent the film for this scene alone.

So in closing this movie is not for the serious monkey movie enthusiast. I wouldn't recommend this movie to families as it encourages a childs rebellion against their parents. I can only recommend this film as a rental for hardcore monkey loving adults and well supervised children.


I am in a movie club at my school and I was forced to sit and watch this utterly dismal film. The film's story is not dismal, but the entire movie itself is exceedingly dismal. The acting was absolutely dreadful. The children were overly whiny. A metal pole could have done a better job. I wanted desperately to fall asleep, but because the television was so loud, I was kept from peace. The monkey's are neither cute, nor are they funny. The drama is laugh-worthy. I cannot remember when I saw a more dreadful film. The story is weak, thin, predictable, and completely fake. The adults try to be good actors, but they just can't seem to break through stereotypes. The girl even appears to want to leave the film via falling off a hill during the movie in order to leave it, I don't blame her. Micheal Anderson should publicly apologize for this film. Not just to me, but to everyone else who was forced to sit through this awful film. In fact, I apologize to you. Even if I had nothing to do with this project, I apologize for this film, because this means at least someone will. This film even surpasses the dismalness of films that of Rob Schneider and the Cheetah Girls. I would even go as far to say that it is even worse that Hilary Duff's collection of films, but that's pushing it. Just please don't see this film, or else you'll be pushed to write a review similar to this one on how awful this film is. I'm very sorry.


When I saw this movie three years ago, I thought it exemplified a lot of the traits found in Singapore art-house movies: slow-moving, with a minimal of plot and dialogue, depending on film composition to make it work.

During then, amongst local cineastes, the inability to appreciate "Be With Me" is tantamount to panning "Citizen Kane" or any of Ozu's late films. I've no idea how "Be With Me" reached such hallowed heights in Singapore's cinematic consciousness, but I always felt that Khoo's "12 Storeys" is a better film, even though the latter film does not boast as good a cinematographer as Adrian Tan, Khoo's DP for "Be With Me". "12 Storeys" has a story that better relates to most Singaporeans and has bite too, something that "Be With Me"'s threadbare wistfulness doesn't have.

"Be With Me" is basically a barely interlinked trio of narratives strung together into a film by Khoo and his screenwriter Wong Kim Hoh. It deals with a security guard who falls in love with a girl whom he only sees in the distance; two girls in a horoerotic relationship; and the story of deaf-and-blind Teresa Chan.

"Be With Me" is very well filmed by Tan, using a Varicam camera. The film compositions are masterful. The film, almost entirely silent, has next to no dialogue. Characters move around, not in a realistic manner, but almost as if they are models under the instruction of a director, almost always looking into the screen and emoting: either loneliness or sadness. Unfortunately the characters don't act against each other. This kind of film has been seen before many times: in Tsai Ming-liang's films, in Khoo's protégé Royston Tan's "4:30" and elsewhere. Sadly, its ultra-slowness (essentially plot less) and use of a lento piano soundtrack simply doesn't appeal to me.

To criticize "Be With Me" seems almost to negate the inspirational story behind it, that of Teresa Chan, who is blind and deaf and yet lives a fulfilling life despite all this, yet I'm afraid this film doesn't do anything much to me. I'm willing to applaud Chan's steadfast and courageous march in life and Tan's striking cinematography, but for a better take on the same subject-matter with more meat (without the two other tedious and distracting subplots), try Werner Herzog's "Land of Silence and Darkness" (1971).


'Be With Me' is almost the ultimate wallpaper movie. Just leave it running in the background. chat amongst yourselves and return to it whenever you like and at some point it'll end.

Alas, as I watched it alone, and so I felt like I almost watched the world's worst, longest and most drippingly sentimental beer commercial by the time I just about managed to keep my eyes open as the end credits rolled; and I then managed (just a) a few more moments of wakefulness to witness a 'Thank you' to the movie's sponsors - which included Asia Pacific Breweries. Aha! Methought: How surprising is *that* - given all the shots of Tiger beer interspersed throughout this most forgettable washout of a movie?

Meanwhile, dialogue spurts between individuals with occasional stabs at depth, but all too usually nothing of any particular advancement to the movie's overall story is said or witnessed. It's as if one could switch off at any moment and return at any later point and you'd really have missed nothing which would have been an unmissable contingency, or part of its plot, as far as the movie's overall progression was concerned. Thus the ultimate "wallpaper movie"!

Well I wonder... What movie were those who positively reviewed this one watching? I wonder and continue to wonder... It certainly couldn't have been this arty to the point of artless Singaporean excuse for a camera's rolling. Allegedly, 'Be With Me' is supposed to be woven around the themes of "love, tragedy and redemption". But all I witnessed was boredom, a half baked screenplay with a smattering of gormless text messages, and the only redemption was that which occurred when this utterly useless movie ended. What a wistful waste of time, it ended up being! It was also said that the characters in this movie were fictitious except for Theresa Chan who is a "remarkable woman who has triumphed over adversities..." Well, no disrespect to Ms Chan, but given that she was such a marvellous & amazing character, why at all did the screenplay have to involve the stories of other characters without the most tenuous attempt to connect their lives together? Yet it still proved to be an almost insufferably boring movie whose highlights included the credits rolling. Rather than tying in the fates of all characters, I really felt that the movie ended up attempting the near impossible and evidently fell between stools as far as any viewer engagement could be concerned.

I am generally an art-house movie fan and don't usually object to slow pacing (of which here there is no shortage, believe you me!!). I hate such movies as 300, Transformers, Fight Club, but consider, e.g., Eric Rohmer as a great film maker. So I hope that puts my criticism into some perspective. Nonetheless, there was no redeemable feature whatsoever in the entire movie's conception and delivery which could prevent one's eyelids slowly drooping downwards as each minute of 'Be With Me' dripped by. Watch this movie if you need to feel like wasting time. Otherwise your life would be none the richer for having missed it. 3/10


I literally ran to watch it, expecting a film that will make me cry, or touch my heart.

What I found was not heart-rending, but a lame exploitation of 1 strong human character.

Interwined between a pair of young lesbians and an obese man.

In a setting that is substantially devoid of sound not to mention acting of the most common.

It was not entirely BAD, as I have seen worst - and I left the cinema $10 poorer but wiser - that a FILM well advertised is not the same as a FILM WELL-MADE.


This movie is about 3 stories put together revolving around 3 separate individuals. One of the worst movie that is available and even better if it is not available.

The Good : 2 pretty lesbians actress 1 true and touching story about Theresa Chan

The Bad :The main story that revolves around the blind and dear woman Theresa Chan does not need to be told in a movie format and more appropriate in a documentary format. No linkage between the 3 story lines. Minimum DIALOGUE in the film, substituted by SMSs and CHAT programs on PC. No cultural insight by the movie and it makes you forget even before you step out of the cinema.


With actors like Depardieu and Richard it is really a hard task to make a dull movie. But Weber is a master in setting a slow pace and making supposedly funny scenes without any wits and depth. This movie is high on story but low on character. You never get to know any of the characters except for superficial slapstick. Unfortunately Weber has no idea what slapstick is all about. His style could be described at hit and miss. Of course some people laugh when they see someone slip on a banana peel. Weber directs his humor at this lot. It is a shame how bad he uses good talent. Many good french comedians have been wasted away by mediocre directors.


For those of us who are part of the real world of ballet - this film is completely ridiculous. Ivan Kirov was basically a gymnast, not a ballet dancer. Viola Essen at the time was with Ballet Theater, now American Ballet Theater, and a reasonably good dancer, but except for Dame Judith Anderson, the acting is amateurish and Checkov is completely over the top .... embarrassingly so! I saw this film at age 14 and at that time, never having seen a ballet, I was very impressed. However, later in life, long after I had completed my own career as a dancer - I purchased the video tape of it, curious as to what it was like after so many years. I couldn't believe how naive Hollywood could be about the world of ballet. But it was made in the mid 40s, before The Red Shoes or The Turning Point, the latter giving a true picture of the ballet world. The entire cast of Spectre have now passed away ... Ivan Kirov (not his real name)dying at age 79. It was his one and only film, thereafter being kept by a Chicago business man .. so the rumor goes.


I do not find this show at all funny. I actually think it is much worse than any of the other terrible Disney channel sit-coms right now. Charlotte Arnold is an interesting choice to play Sadie, because she can't act. The jokes on this show are terribly unfunny, and it makes it even worse when the only cast member that has a little bit (and I mean little bit) of acting talent is Justin Bradley as Sadie's brother Hal. Jasmine Richards and Michael D'Ascenzo portray Sadie's friends. There both really stupid and just terrible actors. Two words that can really describe this show is terribly corny. It's corny humor that only little girls find funny because their brains have not developed yet. Now I've explained my hatred for the acting and the horrible humor, what's next? The whole premise of the show is a stupid idea. She changed again (not so sciencey an Ben-loving) and suddenly nobody recognizes her? It's moronic. In summation, I hate this show, however little girls who do not have a concept of funny will enjoy it, so I guess that's what they're going for over quality. Although i can say as much as, the first season is clearly better than the second.

BOTTOM LINE: JUST DON'T WATCH ANY OF IT.

My rating: Awful show. TV G. 30 mins.