The Net is a movie I never saw upon release, I remember giving it a pass upon the mediocre reviews and since then perhaps been noticing a snippet here and there when it's been on TV. Seeing it now, fourteen years after it's original release, I'm a little flabbergasted as to how time flies. Being in my mid 20's, it made my childhood feel ancient. I felt as if I should probably do some exercise before my body starts stacking up fat in all the wrong places. Cut down on fat and sugar. Too much coffee and cigarettes.

Anyway, that was the best part of this movie experience for me. I'd say the first 30 minutes of this movie really kept me occupied with retro heaven. Look at those big cans they call computers. Look, they chat in chat rooms! I remember those tank tops! They look.... stupid. And hey, it even stars Sandra Bullock. First billed! Would you look at that.

As a movie, The Net is just an unimaginative, plain and totally routine Hitchockian cat-and-mouse thriller. Nothing archaic about that, they made them then as much as they make them now. Bullock plays a reclusive computer nerd who's job it is to fix software for people who don't get "that whole computer thingy". As it happens, she stumbles upon some delicate information and after her vacation trip ends up with her nearly getting killed by a sexy lay who turns out to be a killer (played by Jeremy Northam, and she should have been suspicious by the fact that they are in an American movie and the guy both smokes and has a British accent!) she gets her "identity wiped out". Her house is empty, for sale, and upon checking it out, it turns out that she now has got a new identity. A convicted prostitute and impostor, no less.

Now you might say that this is improbable. How could they possibly do that to her? Even in 1995, it's impossible! That's true, but back in '95 a lot of people didn't even know what the Internet was. I can see how it's a plot hole you could have accepted back then. What's far more disastrous though is the inconsistencies that have nothing to do with technology. The movie obviously owes a lot to Hitchcock movies (it's one of those thrillers that feature a merry-go-round by night) but Hitchcock always made sure that his movies were plausible. The characters didn't act like confused maniacs when trying to prove their innocence, and the plot didn't conveniently lay down for a structure where one obstacle inevitable leads to the other. The characters also tried a little before giving into the whole rouge chase. Has Bullock's character really no friends what so ever? Couldn't any old high school teacher confirm her identity? Or like... her nearest pizza guy? Oh right, she orders pizza from the Internet. Never mind. You figure the movie out pretty quickly. There seems to be hope in an ex boyfriend. You really think so? You should always count on at least ONE surprise. The Net offers none.

The Internet poses a lot of danger, this movie seems to predict. But, had the movie been made today, imagine the troubles the villains would have to go through to ensure the identity wipe. Not only do they have to do all those boring literal things, she would still have her Facebook membership, with at least like 100 friends or so, and picture tags, not to mention she might be on YouTube or Linked-In, and what about her video blog with like 150 daily hits, or the webcams in her house and recorded video of her in other people's cell phones, webcams, web downloads... her IMDb membership?


Now i have seen two movies by the director Chen Kaige, a very good one (Farewell my concubine), and this bad one, The Assassin. Both movies depict crucial events in chinese history, FMC in the 20th century and TA the first unification of the whole chinese nation in the 3rd century bc. FMC succeds with memorable characters, gorgeous cinematography, convincing sets, good acting and an interesting story. The Assassin fails on nearly every level (okay, the sets are great, the cinematography is good, and the few battle scenes are quite exciting). But...the pathos. Call me a cynic, but too much is too much. If you felt that Saving Private Ryan was too pathetic, be aware, this here will make you sick. The dialogue is lifeless, many lines seem like political statements, subtle or entertaining is this pic not. The film is overpowered by its own pompousness. I am really surprised that The Assassin gets such high votes here on imdb. 4/10


Lots of flames, thousands of extras in battle scenes, lots of beautiful sets. I don't think the plot supported such a vast expenditure. The story could have been told far more effectively and have been more valid, psychologically if there weren't so much macho bombast in the production. Chinese movies tend to be this way, in my experience. and I think this detracts from the film.


I read all of the other comments which made this movie out to be an excellent movie. I saw nothing of the excellence that was stated. I thought it was long and boring. I tried twice to watch it. The first time I fell asleep and the second time I made it to within six minutes of the end and gave up. I suppose that it was mainly my fault going in with great expectation, but I don't think that this would have completely ruined the movie for me. The movie was just bland. It had nothing that was spectacular or unique to it. The plot was not half bad, the action sequences were non-existent, the dialogue forced and the movie just went on forever. I would not recommend seeing this movie.


Los Angeles physician Tom Reed (Vincent Ventresca) survives a tragic auto accident but ends up going to prison in the high desert of California. When his time is up he lands in a small, wind-swept town named Purgatory Flats. His first stop is a bar, where he quickly slams a beer and gets hired as a bartender. So much for ex-cons having a tough time finding work. This is the first in a long line of absurdities that make up the plot of writer/director Harris Done's silly attempt at modern, desert-set, film noir.

His first night on the job Tom meets a sexy femme fatal named Sunny (Alexandra Holden), who hangs out with a family of bad boys: the Mecklins, consisting of Uncle Dean (Gregg Henry) and his two nephews, the drug addicted Owen (Kevin Alejandro), who is Sunny's husband, and AWOL soldier Randy ("90210"s Brian Austin Greer). After his shift is finished there's a shooting, and Dr. Tom just happens to be nearby. He agrees to treat one of the wounded and, most importantly, not tell the cops. I'm not sure that's a good move for a guy fresh out of the pen, but this script (co-written by Diane Fine) has very little to do with logic.

Tom makes a series of poor decisions that get him further and further entangled with the criminally inclined Mecklin Boys, including stealing medical supplies and hopping into the sack with Sunny. Everybody in the theater is screaming, "Don't do it! Walk away", but Tom does it anyway.

In a classic film noir like "Body Heat" or "Double Indemnity" we root for and empathize with William Hurt and Fred McMurray as they get sucked into the web of bright, sexy, devious femme fatals like Kathleen Turner and Barbara Stanwyck. It's not their fault. We'd probably be tempted by all that money or that particular dame, too. But Dr. Tom's weakness seems to stem from stupidity more than circumstances. Sunny is sexy but not a very compelling character, and there's no money to tempt him. You're left wondering if he attended the same medical school as Dr. Nick Riveria from "The Simpsons".

The silly script would have you believe that a redneck's rural home has almost everything you need to treat a gunshot to the stomach, and that one so wounded could easily hop to attention and effectively participate in a fist fight. It gives us an implausible car chase with one of those "The Club" things clamped to the steering wheel. Oh, that oil tanker that just exploded - no one noticed that.

I wonder how such a ridiculous script ever got green-lighted? Perhaps Brian Austin Greer has more juice than I gave him credit for. It's obvious that he took the relatively small role of Randy - a hot-headed murder - to show producers that he had more acting range than he displayed on "90210".

It's also sort of sad to see Nicholas Turturro playing a stereotypical Hispanic drug dealer. He deserves better than this.

If you have an IQ over 50, "Purgatory Flats" will have you shaking your head in disbelief. I'll give it 3 stars for the unintentional laughs and the scenes with the sexy Miss Holden running around in her red panties.


It starts off pretty well, with the accident and the decision not to return to LA. But everything falls into place too quickly. There is a decent plot twist towards the end, but so many scenes that don't make sense. Randy (played by Brian Austin Green) comes home angry and ready to confront people and he takes the time to put on the club, when he parks his car in front of his house in the middle of nowhere? I don't want to spoil it, for anyone who does decide to see it, but the last 45 minutes are ridiculous. Even the acting, which wasn't bad early on, turns bad towards the end. Don't bother unless you want to see how bad it is.


The Movie is okay. Meaning that I don't regret watching it! I found the acting purely and the most of the dialog stupid ("oh no, this was my grandmothers bible!"). It's sort of bad remake of U-turn. A man arrives to a desert town out in nowhere, meets the wrong people and falls in love with the wrong woman. And off cause get's involved in something, he thought he could leave behind him. The movie is quite predictable and there is really nothing new in it. When it's finish, you didn't really care. Most of the characters are stereotypes, specially Brian Austin Green!! All in all just another movie from the states, but okay entertaining on boring Wednesday night. IMDb vote: 4/10


it's the best film that takes the first place at the sickest and an useful films ever made in this poor country. really u people even don't know what the word cinema means and u cast votes for movies, i'm really curious to know how many movies of P.P.P. or L.Bunuel have u seen. The score of this "faield experiment" it reflects a lot of u're way of understanding things and to recognize a good/quality movie when u see it. We the Romanian people have only ONE movie and until this day the status hasn't change & that movie is "Padurea Spanzuratilor". But I don't lose my time thinking how many of you have seen it. That is a movie that respects all the required quality's's of an MOVIE. From the script to the frames and even to the quality/clarity of the picture even are past over him 41 years. I recommend to the voters to search for better movies and then vote. KuDos will See u later .


OK, so this film is well acted. It has good direction but the simple fact is that it undermines what all gay and lesbian people have been fighting for all these years. The straight man "deciding to be gay" and the gay man "Deciding to be straight" I did enjoy it up until the last 20 minutes, after that i got really offended. As what usually happens in these films the straight actors play the main parts and the out gay actors play the secondary straight roles. The leads are played by handsome men but don't let that distract you from the fact that this is a a film that leaves you feeling unfulfilled. All the romance and relationships you hope would happen do not. Unless you are a priest that is in which case god bless straight woman who cure our homos.


This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group "meditations" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.


I found it hard to care about these characters, who were either annoying or insipid, all living their fabulously hilariously urban lives.

The dialogue was excruiciating at times, and at other times the narrative seemed hard to follow - was it me or were entire scenes deleted?

It felt like a poor sitcom somehow turned into a film. The stereotypes and jokes about "men's groups" would perhaps have been funny in the early 90s. As it is, this is where much of the humour of the film comes from - and boy, does it get old fast.

Apart from the attractive Irish man - this film was a dud. And not even in a "so bad it's good way". The last 20 minutes were particularly painful. Perhaps if you've never met any gay people or never thought about homosexuality before, then this film might have something meaningful to say. Otherwise - darlings, you'd still be better off renting The Boys in The Band or Beautiful Thing.


"Go Fish" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.

Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.

Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from "In and Out". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes.

Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.

Pathetic.


The daytime TV of films. Seldom have I felt so little attachment to characters. Seldom have I been made to cringe by such dire dialogue. Nauseous London thirty-somethings mincing round lurid BBC sets spouting platitudinous mulch. Avoid this film as if it were your grandmother's clunge.


I bought this video on a throw-out table at the video store expecting a good cast in what was touted as an award-winning Brit sex comedy. I guess I should have read the finer print. I rarely write a panning review, but here goes.

These actors in gay roles really play games with your memories of a lot of far more worthy films. This comedy was a very cruel joke at the expense of the actors, the theatre-going public and of all the nice films that have contributed to their reputations.

I repeat: is the joke about trashing the actors' other highly respectable on-screen personae with this scurrilously trashy flick? Can the reference to the Austen classics 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Sense and Sensibility' be anything else? How much of a political statement was it to produce this melodrama using these stars? Are we meant to simply take it as a lay-down misere that all actors are gay and thus letting their on-screen roleplay affect our lifestyles is accepting their private homosexual dealings in our faces, too? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. I say NO to this one.


This is supposed to be Charlie's masterpiece, but I will contend that it is actually one of his weaker films. First of all, it's not funny. Not one thing in this movie made me laugh. Okay, there's a quick jump into a box that was a giggle, but that was one of desperation. The Tramp's first - and only - talkie where he speaks (he sings in an earlier film), but his flat dialogue shows us exactly why he was such a joy to watch in "Modern Times" and "Gold Rush" - two films that are at least ten times better than this film. There's literally only one good scene in this film, the one where Hitler plays with the globe like a beach ball. That's it.

Okay, so it gets a lot of praise for being the first film to wage war, even long before we entered the war. Nope. Not true. Simply not true, so that praise can be turned down a bit. The Three Stooges did it on January 19, 1940 with "You Natzy Spy" - ten months earlier than the October release of Chaplin's film - and that movie was actually funny! If you want to watch Chaplin's greatest film, watch this only for reference. And then pop in "Modern Times", "Gold Rush", "City Lights", "Limelight", "The Kid", or even "Tillie's Punctured Romance".


Maybe this was *An Important Movie* and that's why people rank it so highly, but honestly it isn't very good. In hindsight it's easy to see that Chaplin (probably all of Hollywood) was incredibly naive about the magnitude of what was really going on in the ghettos, so you can't fault him TOO much for the disconnect that affects a modern viewer, but the disconnect remains.

More disappointingly, the movie is just clunky; it's as if Chaplin had no idea that movies had progressed in sophistication since the silent era. The set pieces, those involving both the Jewish Barber and the Dictator, don't flow into each other; they just sit there like discrete lumps of storyline that progress in fits and starts, moving SOMEWHERE but never arriving at resolution. Some are funny, some less so.

What charm the movie has is strictly in the person of Chaplin himself. His parodies of Hitler's speeches were the best part of the whole thing, and there's no denying that he had a physical grace that was delightful to watch. But virtually everything he surrounded himself with was ANNOYING. Hannah was TOO DAMN American. The Storm Troopers were TOO DAMN American.

Oooh! Oooh! One more thing! I don't know what purpose was served by having Garbage be the source of evil behind the throne. It almost seems like the film is saying that, if it weren't for malign influences like Garbage, Hynckle wouldn't have been that bad a guy.


*MILD SPOILERS*

In this would-be satire, Chaplin set his sights on the evils of German fascism, playing the twin roles of Tomanian dictator Adenoid Hynkel and one of his subjects, an inadvertent World War I hero and Jewish barber. Through events inspired by both Adolf Hitler and the Marx Brothers, Hynkel negotiates contracts and declares war on neighbouring Osterlich whilst finding time for numerous, oddly flat set-pieces. The dictator's much-celebrated waltz with an inflatable globe is actually entirely heavyhanded, underwhelming and unfunny.

Chaplin should certainly be commended for looking to lampoon Hitler and for speaking out strongly on celluloid - his much-maligned final speech is actually the bold, memorable highlight of the piece - but the film simply isn't sharp or funny enough to merit the praise frequently heaped upon it, nor to demand repeated viewings. The best gags are away from Hynkel's tiresome posturing and involve The Barber attempting to avoid a large spinning bomb (a sequence which steals from the gun tussle in The Gold Rush) and later, with a pot on his head, accidentally walking the plank off the roof of his shop.

Compared to the director's silent classics, The Great Dictator is slow, wildly inconsistent and altogether somewhat unsatisfactory, whilst the barren spells between laughs are often long and difficult to endure. There is no doubt that Chaplin was a genius, but even geniuses make disappointing pictures and The Great Dictator certainly ranks as such.


Chaplin was great a silent comedian, but many silent era stars fell when the public heard their voices in the first talkies. In my opinion, Chaplin's voice simply did not fit his silent characters that made him rich and famous. His career never recovered when sound came to film. Contrary to most of the reviews I have read, Chaplin's lifestyle and politics did not help his popularity with the average viewer who expected to be entertained by Chaplin the comedian, and not spend their entertainment dollar watching Chaplin's political commentary.

Despite Chaplin's awards and knighthood, I would take exception to his "contributions" to humanity. The Great Dictator was made at the same time Stalin's brutal dictatorship was having it's show trials, and both Dictators signed the agreement that lead to invasion of Poland by both Dictators. WWII started in an attempt to save Poland. The Nazi's were defeated in 6 years, but Poland disappeared as a sovereign country. This happened during the time this film was made and the investigations of Hollywood by the Federal government. Had Chaplin included Joe Stalin in this satire,in addition to including the Italian dictator, perhaps he would have had less criticism about his politics by the politicians. The Soviet's mistreatment of Jews and dissidents exceeded the Nazi's in time and numbers.

Judged simply as a film, many of the gags were too topical to be understood by younger viewers, who wouldn't know who Goebbels, Goring or Mussolini were. A classic piece of art must stand the test of time. Classic Greek Tragedy, the Mona Lisa and Beethoven's 9th are still enjoyed centuries after their creation because they are timeless. Films which rely on topical political commentary or currently popular social views usually do not outlast the generation in which they are made. But those that address issues that are common to all generations will probably live forever and receive a high rating from me.

Chaplin, as the writer, director and lead actor must take the blame for what I judge as a dated and tiresome film.

Chaplin's apologists have excused his decision to leave the country that made him rich and famous. If Chaplin found the US so offensive, why didn't he return to his native land. Great Britian fought the Nazi'with blood and money. What did Switzerland contribute in the fight against the European dictators? Switzerland is like a country club that picks and chooses its members based on race and class, and cares little about people who can't join the club.


Adenoid Hynkel, a lowly soldier in World War One, rises in subsequent years to become the ruthless dictator of Toumania. He creates an aggressive, antisemitic war machine and cultivates a little toothbrush moustache. Sound like anyone you know?

From the safety of Hollywood, Chaplin uses this soapbox to exhort Europe to take up arms and defy Hitler and Mussolini. Given that the United States in 1940 had more than a year of neutrality ahead of it, and no strong desire to embroil itself in Europe's civil strife (remember, it was Hitler who declared war on the USA, not the other way round) it is surprising that Chaplin was allowed to distribute this immoderate polemic.

The story involves on the one hand the the vulgar and repellant Hynkel and the reign of terror over which he ineptly presides, and life in the jewish ghetto where every single person is friendly, humane, brave, etc., etc, Chaplin is Hynkel, and he also plays The Jewish Barber, the little hero of the ghetto (The Tramp in all but name). Needless to say, Chaplin writes, directs, stars, composes the music and does the catering.

In 1940 the full truth was not yet known about the Third Reich, and Chaplin can be forgiven for having something less than perfect historical foresight, but even by the standards of the day he gets Hitler badly wrong. A comedian and a sentimentalist, Chaplin tries to ridicule Hitler by making Hynkel silly and hapless. All this does is to humanise him. When Hynkel the not-very-warlike soldier fools around with the big gun and the upside-down aeroplane, he becomes endearing rather than despicable. As dictator, he inspects his subordinates' technical innovations which don't work (the parachute hat, the bulletproof uniform etc.) and these passages are meant to make us think that the real-life Nazis are incompetent and can be swept aside. In fact, Hynkel's regime is made cute and likeable by its bumbling bodgery.

In truth, Chaplin's day had already passed when he made this ill-considered polemic. At heart, he was still a dinosaur of the silent screen (check out the humour, with gags like staggering up and down the street semi-conscious, or the pantomime of the coins in the puddings). The hero Schultz is meant to represent a yardstick of European decency against which Hynkel can be judged, but Schultz looks more like a character from operetta than a Nazi. Is it in any way believable that a Schultz figure (if such had existed) would say to the Fuehrer's face, "your cause is doomed to failure because it's built upon the stupid, ruthless persecution of innocent people"? And how does Schultz come to be in the cellars of the jewish ghetto? If he is the object of an exhaustive manhunt, why does he persist in wearing his Ruritanian uniform? Chaplin did not yet know the full horrors of Auschwitz-Birkenau or Treblinka, but the Nazi concentration camp which he offers us is hopelessly out of kilter with the grim spirit of the age. As usual, Chaplin thinks in terms of 'silent' comedy set-pieces, loosely pegged onto the narrative clothes line. There is the knockabout scrapping with the stormtroopers, shaving a man to the accompaniment of Brahms, and the globe ballet (watch for the segment filmed in reverse).

Paulette Goddard is the unremittingly perfect Hannah. Just as the people of the ghetto are impossibly nice, and the jewish haven in Osterlich is ridiculously idyllic, so Hannah is quite literally too good to be true. Brave, defiant, resourceful, hardworking and (of course) beautiful, she is the canary of judaism in the ghetto cage. "Gee, ain't I cute?" she asks, after the Barber gives her a make-over. Too cute by far, is the answer. She doesn't come close to ringing true, because Chaplin has made her a caricature. The 'wouldn't it be wonderful?' speech which Chaplin puts into her mouth is typical of the author - too wordy, too emotionally cloying.

Jack Oakie is great as Napaloni, the fascist dictator of Bacteria. He brings a whiff of much-needed comic brio to the proceedings, but the film's underlying weakness remains. If Napaloni is silly and ineffective, how can we fear him? And anyway, the stuttering stop-start of the back-projected train is a fine Chaplinesque example of a gag that is persisted with far beyond its comic worth.

And where did the Jewish Barber acquire that immaculate Hynkel uniform?


This show is not in my opinion, good,Then again I have not enjoyed any cartoon from Disney Channel. Except for "The Proud Family" because that so is about a normal female teen This show is very similar to the way I feel about Lilo and Stich the Series. It was a mistake turning the movie into a cartoon because the movie was excellent, the cartoon is terrible. Disney Channel was doing just fine before adding all these stupid cartoons such as Dave The Barbarian, Brandy and Mr. Whiskers, Lilo and Stich the Series, American Dragon Jake long,and where it all started: Kim Possible. The shows would have been better had they come to PlayHouse Disney! As for this particular show Kuzko will never get out of school just as Dave The Barbarian's Parents will never return home, and as Brandy And Mr. Whiskers will never get out of the jungle.


First when does this storyline take place? It has to take place after the first movie because Kuzco knows Pacha and Chicha has her third child but it can't take place after the second movie because doesn't Kronk get a girlfriend or wife or something? You never see her in the show.

Also, why is Kuzco going to school? The whole plot of the show is that Kuzco is going to school so that he can be emperor. But wasn't he emperor before this? And who's emperor while he learning to be emperor? Shouldn't that be Yzma? Or was Yzma fired in this time line already? And if that true why is waiting for him to fail to become empresses? Plus, you know in the first movie he said he was trained from birth to be an emperor by private tutors. So he should kinda know what he's doing.

Kronk. Why is Kronk a student? He's around 25 they stated that in the first movie. He's an adult going to high school. Does everyone think he's a moron? I really like Kronk but I think because of his age and because everyone know that he is working for Yzma he should have been a teacher. Being a Home Ec teacher would be right up his alley.

Malina, is very unlikable. She suppose to be Kuzco's love interest/moral compass. But a lot of time, she comes off bossy and know it all. She commonly says thinks I like "I should be proud because I am pretty and smart".

She has ESP when it comes to Kuzco and knows whenever he's in trouble, when he's cheating, or even when he sings the Hot Hot Hottie song in his head even though she does cheer leading, school newspaper and keeps straight A+ in all of her classes.

She seems more interested in using her prettiness to get Kuzco to do the right thing and do well in school then dating him. In fact, she seems more motherly to Kuzco then a love interest.

Yzma. As I bought up before Yzma is trying to get Kuzco to fail so she become empresses. Not sure how that's suppose to work with being fired and all. Yzma seems to be reliving the first movie in every episode. In almost every show that she appears in she turns Kuzco into an animal in hopes of having him fail a class. (There are only 3 times that I can think of that that didn't happen.) The jokes about Yzma being old aren't as clever in the show as they were the movie. And classic jokes about Yzma are used to death in the show (like the "Pull the level, Krunk!", roller-coaster, and the lab).

Also, some other points that don't make sense in this series. The fact that whenever Kuzco is assigned something everyone acts like this assignment will make him pass or fail the class but he seems to pass every assignment given to him. So why does one assignment matter so much?

Seriously, who is ruling the kingdom while this is going on? Do they have a consul or a steward? You never see anyone ruling the kingdom unless Kuzco has weaseled his powers back or Yzma is empresses.

Why is Kuzco going to a normal peasant school? Shouldn't he learning about how to lead a country, what to do in case of war or something that will be useful to him in the future? I could see taking some normal classes on like farming (so he would know how to prepare the country for a famine or something like that) but knot tying? How is that helpful?

Now I know that someone is going to say "But it not suppose to make sense; it's suppose to be funny." Then they should have more funny things in there. All the funny things about the show have been done already in the movie. Also, if they notice some of these huge plot holes why don't they poke fun at them like in the movie? (For example, when Yzma and Kronk get to the secret lab before Kuzco and Pacha and Yzma and Kronk can't explain how they got their first.)

There are some good points, it is nice to see some of the characters from the first movie in the series like Bucky and monkey with the bug. Pacha and his family are still very good characters with a good down earth feel. I feel that this series would be amusing for younger children.

In conclusion, the series is not as good as the movie that it based on but it may good for younger children.


It pains me to see an awesome movie turn into some lame, repetitive and lazy series. It is filled with plot holes and the plot is confusing, in a BAD way. Whoever the prick writers were that decided to turn such a great movie into this garbage should have done some research, instead of filling it with one-liners and hollow new characters, and the classic jokes from the first movie OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Sure they get a little creative, but its like seeing the same episode with a small twist. Pretty much like listening to Creed, or Nickleback. Kuzco has to prevent himself from failing, Yzma has a complicated plan, but decides to go the easy way to save time and just use a potion, someone questions the monkey and the bug, Bucky appears in the background, Kuzco flirts with Malina, she disses him without sounding like a bitch, Yzma disguises herself as "Principal Amzy" and she calls Kronk, and he forgets that she is Yzma. I admit, this show does have it's moments. Another problem is the fact that Yzma looks younger and Pacha looks....weird. Also, no one can replace David Spade and John Goodman! Their the ones who made Kuzco and Pacha Kuzco and Pacha! Sorry, but i give this show two thumbs down.


Awful, awful, awful...

I loved the original film. It was funny, charming, and had heart... this piece of junk has NONE of those things.

Reused jokes from the original film, stupid plots, bad animation, different voices (with the exception of Kronk and Yzma) that sound NOTHING like the ones in the original (especially Pacha... *shudder*).

The characters are off model, the animation is flat and boring, it's just a bad job all around.

And why is Kuzco a jerk again? I thought he had reformed... but since when are these TV spin offs loyal to the original *rolls eyes*.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing redeemable about this... at all.

Avoid at all costs.


OK from the point of view of an American, who i assume do not know much about rugby this would be an amazing film for them.First of all its got heart, good morals the typical good coach trying to change the bad boy. HOWEVER to us where I come from rugby is the number one sport, it is a way of life it is a game played only by the bravest and the victorious are hailed like heroes as though Americans do for their baseball/basketball stars. Am not really sure if it was the cheap budget or the maybe the director or actors knew very little about rugby and being a rugby fan my whole life i can see than some of the actors didn't even knew rugby existed before acting in this movie. In summing up to me this movie was terrible. If you watch it and thought it was great please make time to go online and maybe Google "All Blacks" this is new Zealand's national team and the ones who made the haka famous. Believe me they will make the Highlands boys look like school girls.


This movie is horrendous. The acting is cheesy and laughable. If you know anything at all about Rugby the match action is boring. In fact any episode of Power Rangers contains more realism than this movie. The 'action' consists of no more than one pass and a shot of guy landing over the try line or being tackled without the ball and hectic hand held shots of who knows what. It's impossible to tell. There is nothing of the excitement, skill and construction of try scoring that real Rugby contains. As for the haka, this is a bunch of yanks trying to imitate a tradition they know nothing about, much like the white rasta character that should have been left out of the film. Next time there's a Rugby movie made we can only hope that people who know Rugby make it.


First off just let me say that I live in South Africa where rugby is our biggest sport by far, and our national side, the Springboks, have won the Rugby World Cup twice, so it's quite a big deal over here. I've played all my life and I'm shocked at the poor attention to detail in this movie! At first I thought it had the potential to be a great movie considering the cast of Neal McDonough, Nick Ferris, Gary Cole and Sean Astin for goodness sake, but it turned out to be a mockery of the sport. They basically mashed it together with your normal everyday American Football movie.

My first problem is that this movie supposedly captures the values of rugby, but the discipline or should I say the total lack thereof during the games are contradictory to this. In the final it looks more like an NFL game with Penning being tackled of the ball numerous times, in front of the referee...that would've immediately led to a couple of red cards, because foul play like that would never go unpunished in by a referee, of that I can assure you! You'd also not be able to find a coach in world rugby who would have so little control over his team. Any coach would take a dump on a players head if he intentionally stiff arms an opposing player or double teams him like they did in the final...red card and certain suspension, full stop.

Secondly, it's absurd that a coach would take a brand new player, who has played wing all of his life I gather, move him to hooker which is a highly specialized position and say that it's for the good of the TEAM?! What?! Hooker is a highly specialized position in the front row where you have to be able to scrum extremely well and preferably be able to throw the ball in at line-out time, which Penning NEVER does for some or other reason. By moving a wing to hooker without any extensive long term training it would firstly lead to your team's demise at scrum time & secondly the poor kid would probably break his neck! How is that good for the team I ask you? Finally, the overall high emotional pitch of the movie is way too much, because even though rugby is a great sport, and it builds great friendships & team spirit, it rarely gets that out of hand & corny. I've seen true-life football drama's with less emotion than this movie & it turned out great, but in this one Sean's (Penning) acting skills is dragged way too far and the movie attempts too force an emotional response out of the audience, which ends up being boring and hard to watch at times.

Hollywood have made some great sports movies over the years, but next time they venture into a sport which has just recently picked up in the states, they should try and do their homework & maybe get some experts into the fray.

DO IT RIGHT OR DON'T DO IT AT ALL!


This movie, like so many others (Remember the Titans, Miracle), follows the basic sports-movie formula: There's a guy, he's a jerk. Jerk does bad. Jerk must play by someone else's rules. Someone else's rules change Jerk, Jerk becomes good. Insert tragedy (Death, drugs, riots, etc.). Tragedy effects Jerk, makes him totally change. Jerk must now play championship game. Lots of close-ups on the sweating players and the balls. Jerk wins. Quote from coach or news or something that explains title. Credits. Weren't you touched? These movies can now be used to sort out the morons of society. Anyone who pays to see this in theatres must be slapped.


Coach Preachy or Straight Sappy. It's bad writing combined w/even worse acting. You can choose to drink the Gatorade of this after school special, but I didn't, not even on it's 20th Toby Robbins/Islander philosophy, motivational moment. It's too much posturing to be entertaining and not substantive enough to be informative. I have respect for the coach and the program this movie is inspired by, but the move itself is awful. As someone who has played rugby for nearly 20 years in the States I had hoped for a better rugby movie (even one that has something loosely to do with rugby). And I can tell you that the Haka performed by a bunch of Haoles and Islanders is not intimidating (much like when it's performed today by the All Blacks, seriously boys, everyone has seen it,it's time to put it away). If you want real intimidation, line up across from a bunch of South Africans (the real eye gouging convicts of rugby). This is a fake and badly done movie about being a genuine and good person.


This film is probably the worst movie I have watched in a very long time. The acting is so wooden a door could have done a better job. The plot is laughable and shallow and the actual "rugby" shown is a far cry from reality. I still don't get the "haka" as portrayed in this poor excuse for entertainment. I am not a Kiwi but I do know that the Haka can only be performed by someone of Maori origin and not by an all-American white boy.

I am assuming that this was made for the American audience so the shallowness and "Disney end'" is excusable but there was hardly any attempt to point out the basic rules of the game apart from the prison side where the main character suddenly takes charge of an American Football game and gets everyone playing rugby instead. The only thing good about this film were the end credits. It would be less painful to spend ninety minutes inserting toothpicks into your eyeballs.


I'm from Australia and have watched with respect the extraordinary culture surrounding rugby union in New Zealand. I can totally appreciate the comments made by Kiwis in relation to this movie. It was a total insult to a race of people and their beloved sport.

Whoever was involved in the making of this atrocious movie should be made to formally apologize to anyone who had the misfortune of watching it. Note: people do NOT kneel down and cry while slowly reciting the Hakka. What a pitiful scene this was.

Are we supposed to feel some kind of sympathy for this idiot who nearly killed his girlfriend, who refused to listen to any advice from anyone with half a brain, then apparently saw the light? What a thoroughly dislikable character (with the visits to children's hospitals doing nothing to redeem his despicable personality).

And why are people even making a movie about Americans playing rugby? They barely even feature in the sport on the world stage, not so much as to even warrant an attempt at making a movie about it (yes, Rugby's a 'world' sport, unlike gridiron and baseball)?


Awful film. Terrible acting, cheesy, totally unrealistic, embarrassing to anyone who has played the game. For a start that guy is not a hooker, he would be snapped in two. As for ''I score, that's my job'' well no it's not. For the the uneducated American audience it might come across as a good film. For me, well, that's a few hours of my life I'll never get back. I read through the reviews and came across one where the guy sounded like he knew what he was talking about. Then I read -

''And while American rugby may never reach the level of talent that New Zealand or South Africa has, third in the world is also nothing to hang your head about''

All I can say is, LMFAO!

Keep playing your American football and baseball, leave the real sports to the big boys.


If the directors/producers/publicists wish to promote a film as "based on actual events" and make a film that is meant to inspire and have meaning then, for a start, to maintain any sort of creditability and integrity, you would want to keep a film as honest as you possibly can.

A team wearing "all black" jumpers and doing the haka in America is just plain dumb. Any half intelligent person would know that the "All Blacks" are the National Rugby Union team of New Zealand and their jumpers are all black and the Haka is performed by them as a part of a traditional Maori dance.

Having such stupidity in a movie, without explanation, merely reduces the credibility of the movie to zero and negates the message and inspiration that the movie is trying to achieve.

The question is "Why"? Why would you do such a stupid thing and for what possible gain?

I can only conclude that the writers or director or producers have seen it on TV before a international Rugby union match and thought "wow, that would be great in our movie, no one will know that it never happened, they're all too dumb to know about NZ nd the all blacks, this will be great."

How would an Americian audience react to a movie made in NZ about Americain grid iron, with a team wearing an American Indian costumes and war paint, doing a native American Indian war dance, running round in circles shouting "oh woo woo woo, oh woo woo woo" react? They'd laugh their heads off!

The people that made this movie and the industry that spawned it really should have their heads read. For some reason the industry thinks that they can "fool all the people all the time".

It's just dumb!


Where to begin? This film is very entertaining if you are new to the wonderful game of rugby, however, if you live outside the US and do follow the game, it is laughable. Various rugby traditions such as the "Haka" which is preformed by the New Zealand "All Blacks" and only by the All Blacks. The leader of the Haka is usually the member of the team with the best Maori pedigree. This is one of the most important conventions of the modern game and has been misused and represented by the writer. The film itself is quite well directed however it is the poor script and over-all execution that lets it down, heavily. Taking into account is is based on a real story, it does posses a great deal of clichés in the storyline. I would strongly suggest that any American interested in rugby watch this film then watch what rugby actually is on Youtube because the rugby portrayed in this film has been distorted and skewed so far from what it really is.


If you`re not old enough to remember Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan here`s the rundown : They`re a couple of film producers and finaciers from Israel who set up the Cannon film company in the early 1980s . The only Israeli to get a worse press than these two was Menachim Begin . Begin probably deserved the bad press but Globus and Golan were a god send to film makers because no matter how bad your script was they`d happily fund your movie and would normally employ directors who couldn`t direct and actors who couldn`t act . In fact you often got the impression that people would just walk up to Yoram and Menahem ask them for some money and they`d oblige without seeing the film maker`s resume . If only producers nowadays were so trusting.<br /><br />THE YOUNG WARRIORS isn`t a Cannon film but Globus and Golan did finance it and it has their signature all over it . It`s badly directed , badly acted , badly edited but it`s the script that jumps out and attacks you with its awfulness . It starts with a bunch of high school jocks getting involved in all sorts of zany pranks , in fact the first 20 minutes of the movie plays out like a sex comedy and it`s something of a shock when THE YOUNG WARRIORS turns into a vigilante movie . But it`s not just any type of vigilante movie like EXTERMINATOR 2 or DEATH WISH 3 ( Notice a connection ? They`re both sequels and they`re both vigilante movies made by Cannon films ) , no siree this is a laughably bad vigilante movie about pretty boy high school jocks and their poodle going on a mission to wipe out scumbags . This film is proof that Globus and Golan were giving money to people regardless of their film making abilities and you have to worry about people who seem to spend their entire reserves on making movies set entirely around vigilantes


There are good-bad movies and bad-bad-movies and enjoyably bad movies...this isn't one of them. This is a movie that doesn't realize just how bad it is.

I saw this at a screening on November 14, 2006 at the New Beverly Theater in Los Angeles as part of the "Grindhouse Cinema" this theater puts on every month. Hopefully presenters Eric Caiden & co. will think twice before letting writer/director Lawrenece Foldes anywhere near them again. What a con man. The guy got up to speak before the film -- you would think he was Orson Welles talking about "Touch of Evil" or some other lost classic. Hardly. Nice of him to take up 20 minutes of the audiences' time with his incoherent rambling.

"Young Warriors" has been described as a cross between "Animal House" and "Death Wish" but if you are expecting something along the lines of imitations like "Revenge of the Nerds" or "The Exterminator" you will be in for one sad disappointment. The script makes zero sense. The direction is so poor the actors looked embarrassed and what can you say when the best thing about the movie is watching a car blow up?

Poor Richard "shaft" Roundtree. In this movie he plays another character with the first name of "John" but that's about the only similarity his character here has to the aforementioned classic. I hope this film allowed him to pay the rent for another month. Other actors who look like they wished they could be anywhere else included Ernest Borgnine and Linda Day George.

This is a complete waste of time. Even the audience did not seem that into it (except for the one spazz-boy sitting in the back who yelled "whoa" every five minutes and his girlfriend who giggled with the fervor of a lobotomized talking Barbie every time he opened his mouth).

For real films about vigilantes, I would suggest the following:

Death Wish I, II, III, Exterminator I, Vigilante Force, Ms. 45, Rolling Thunder, the No-Mercy Man (the latter two being a pair of films presented at this theater a couple of years ago -- probably the same budget as "Young Warriors" but both were a million times better!)


A party-hardy frat boy's sister is brutally murdered by a street gang, sending the young man into a sudden psychotic rampage. He and his buddies massacre half the city to bring his sister back to life.

SAVAGE STREETS was released a year after this film, and was more entertaining. Linnea Quigley, who has a costarring role in this film as the sexy (and briefly nude) girlfriend of one of the guys, also starred in SAVAGE STREETS.

This film is subpar, though it delivers enough escapist entertainment and gratuitous nudity to please its intended audience (me).

MPAA: Rated R for strong violence, nudity, language, and some sexuality.


It begins with a couple of disgusting sex-comedy gags, but soon it reveals its true colors: it wants to be a "Death Wish" clone. I say "wants to" because the script gets so increasingly laughable by the minute that it ends up looking like an absurdist "Death Wish" spoof! From a love scene in a room inexplicably filled with candles, to "heroes" who dress up as commandoes and wave their machine guns because they don't want to attract attention to themselves(!), to bad guys who drive around the city in a black van long after it has been recognized as their vehicle, this film has too many ludicrous points to fit in a list. The other major problem is that you can't tell most of the characters apart; of course, you know who Borgnine and Roundtree and even James Van Patten are, but all the other roles could have been played by different actors in various scenes, and you wouldn't know the difference. (*1/2)


So I give it one star for true quality, but I'd give it an eight and a half for sheer enjoyability. An incredibly strange hybrid of sex comedy and vigilante thriller, "Young Warriors" is just the sort of bad movie you usually hope to find when poking around the video fringe, yet so rarely do. It starts off with about half an hour of wacky hi-jinx, sex jokes, and juvenile shenanigans (including an olive in the martini joke that has to be seen not to be believed). Then the main character's younger sister gets gang raped by a bunch of swarthy bikers (an objectionable scene that keeps me from giving this a 10 for entertainment value - rape is not entertainment!), and the main character gets the rest of his sex crazed frat brothers to help him in a quest to clean up the city, find the responsible bikers, and kill anybody slightly criminal they run into along the way.

It's hilarious, non-stop fun, apart from the very unpleasant rape scene, and is essential viewing to any serious bad movie fan. Trust me - I've put my time in on these things, and this is one of the best. Highlights include a wonderful visit to the library, a great flickering slo-mo shootout in a sleazy bar (with a shot of a guy blowing his own foot off that's pretty impressive), a couple of decent slumming actors (Richard Roundtree, Ernest Borgnine), a couple of semi-famous recognizable faces (Lynda Day George, scream queen Linnea Quigley), and a couple of relatives of famous people (Chuck Norris' brother Mike, Van Patten clan member James). It even has one of those great "What have we become?" type morality lesson endings, although the turning point comes when the vigilante fratboys gun down a couple of kids robbing a store with a toy gun. I've always wondered why that was the catalyst that got the hero thinking; after all, whether they were kids and not hardened criminals, and whether they had a real gun or not, they were in fact still robbing a store, so as far as I can tell, it was just another job well done for our vigilante frat boys, right? Wonderful stuff. Highly recommended, just don't blame me when you enjoy it despite yourself.


The only thing good about this movie is the artwork on the promotion poster by H. R. Geiger. Anti-nuke protesters who all looked like punk rockers of the late 1970s, and somehow became non-violent, (except for their leader, "Splatter") occupy the cities. Fraternity boys descend on the punkers to do some violence on them and turn them into victims. Bad acting and bad plot then descends on the real victim, you, the viewer. I gave this a "2" because a few sexual scenes at least give it MST3K potential.


I'm sure I saw FUTURE KILL for the same reason as most people: the awesome poster by HR Giger. And like everyone else, I was disappointed to find that the movie could not live up to the poster (Giger said that director Moore actually begged him to do it). When I first saw this, at the age of 14, I thought it was the worst movie ever made. I'd still think that if I hadn't seen certain movies on MST3K since then.

The plot has a bunch of annoying college boys driving into the "mutant city" to kidnap a gang-leader for their fraternity. That's when they meet Splatter (Ed Neal), a mutant/cyborg/psycho who kills the gang leader and blames it on the frats as an excuse to hunt them down and seize power. The rest of the movie consists mostly of chases. A hand-full of frats try to battle their way out of mutant city (which I think is supposed to be LA, even though it was made in Texas). There's some pseudo-political stuff about the frat boys' society being pro-nuclear weapons and the mutant-society being anti-nuke. There's talk of how Splatter became a freak due to radiation. Most people develop cancer from radiation, but splatter just shoots spikes and slaughters girls. Yeah, that makes tons of sense. At one point, our heroes rescue a mutant girl from two pro-nuke police, and she shows them "how the other half lives." The other half, it turns out, are all punk kids who dance around to a bad 80s pop-band. So our little epic is both dumb and dated. That's really all there is to it. Frat boys running around in messed up buildings while guys who look like bikers try to kill them... Oh, and it's the future.

I don't think you'll have any doubt about why Ron W. Moore never made another movie. This thing is a real stinker. If you like Giger, buy his books (they have the poster without the horrors of the movie), or just watch ALIEN again. FUTURE KILL is a waste of time that nobody needs.

If this description makes the picture sound good, there's another crappy movie that does the same thing, only bigger and better: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. It's crap, but it blows FUTURE KILL off the screen.


I didn't really know what to expect from "Future-Kill", but I certainly hoped it would be a little better than what I got. I knew the rating was bad and the reviews were unfavorable, but the Subversive DVD-cover illustration looks beyond cool and I can't resist that. For a very long (too long, in fact) time, this film raised the impression of being an unofficial sequel to Porky's with lame, vulgar and offensive fraternity pranks. Five mega-dorks, one of them resembling an exact young clone of Jim Carrey, desperately want to become members of a frat house but their ultimate initiation might just be a tad bit far-fetched and dangerous. They are dropped in the city center with provocative marks painted on their faces, simultaneously with the outbreak of a violent gang war. It doesn't take too long before they are confronted with Splatter, a seemingly half-man and half-machine warrior, who leads a gang of which I never really figured out who or what they were. Were they a government experiment? Cyborgs? Terminator imitations from a distant future? Does anyone care? "Future-Kill" is a bizarre amateur flick with a scenario that leaps from one subject onto the other without any form of logical connection or narrative. The plot borrows vital elements from great cinematic cult classics like "The Warriors", "Escape from New York" and "The Terminator", but the end result is one gigantic Sci-Fi monstrosity. The costumes and special effects are quite pitiable and there's a truckload of cheap and gratuitous nudity. The acting is terrible, but I'm willing to blame the retarded dialogs instead of the cast members. One to avoid at all costs, in spite of really cool DVD-cover art. Resist it!


If you tried to make a bad film, you could not make one worst that this one. I can't imagine anyone paying good money to see trash like this in a theater. The thing that really gets you is being mesmerized in looking at the entire thing just for the amazement of seeing how lousy it could get. The redeeming facet of this film was seeing the words "The End"


During my struggle to stay awake during this borefest, I fought through my near-dosing off to discover some silly plot regarding fraternity schmucks, quite incredibly obnoxiously annoying, running into trouble with a psychotic , radioactively damaged half-human/half cyborg named Splatter who sends his soldiers after them for the murder of their prestigious, politically vocal leader(..for whom Splatter killed himself, setting them up to take the blame so he could become the leader). These face-painted freaks form a group who express their feelings anarchically, though non-violently, living on dilapidated streets abandoned by the "civilized world" voicing their concerns regarding nuclear disarmament. Anyways, most of the film has these five frat goons running throughout darkened streets with graffiti walls, as Splatter and his punks pursue them. Thankfully for these guys, they find a punk chic to assist them on their journey out of this rather ugly terrain with which they're unfamiliarized. This territory the frat guys are immersed is a veritable labyrinth of streets and alleys with the idea of an exit out most difficult particularly when crazies and Splatter's bunch occupy nearly every turn.

Yeah, I was duped like others thanks to the HR Giger poster which is most excellent. If only he had been the designer of this dreck..this is not the case and we, the viewer, are left a film modeled after, of all movies it seems, Walter Hill's THE WARRIORS, except this film doesn't have the style or grit that film has. The film has a plethora of unfunny bits and lame confrontations between the frats and the punks with hand to hand combats often laughable. The setting is rather interesting, and there are some atmospheric uses of neon light, but it's not the environment that's the problem..it's the plot and characters within the environment that grow tiresome. The saddlebags under my eyes weighed heavier every minute this movie continued. Yes, Texas CHAINSAW stars Edwin Neal(..quite a funny voice-man, who has an entertaining interview on the DVD I rented for this flaming turd of a film)and Marilyn Burns have "key" roles as opposing members of their faction against the government resulting in the final conclusion within a building complex at the end. Neal's character Splatter uses these metal spikes which emerge from his metal arm to kill his victims.


Simply put, the only saving grace this movie has is settings, costumes and an OK punk concert. How H.R.Giger must feel about his cyborg picture on the cover of this movie, I wouldn't like to know. Right away, all I could do was make sardonic comments about the films protagonists, I was hoping that the "freaks" in this movie would execute them in gory fashion. I sense SPOILERS a comin'! I was wondering if this film in the spirit of the first 20 min. was intended to be as humorously half-baked as the rest of it? Examining all the obvious political outcries (Police trying to rape a "freak", the discussion of superficialities between the "freak" and the frat boy and the punk concert w/ the female vocalist) and the use of slow-motion in the fighting sequences (which screams "martial-arts coordinator") I just don't know. The character named "Steve" irked me since he tries to pick fights w/ people off the street (he shoulda been mugged and raped) and looks bad when he broke that guy's neck towards the end (want me to show you how to do it?) I must say this though, if they would've developed other characters better than they did "Splatter", this might have gone somewhere. If there was a 0 to give this movie, it would've got it, but alas it's a 1.


This film is worse than Cat People, which I saw during the same week. It has all the 80's style. MTV punk rockers, the real ones who are anti social, not todays PC commercial type, frat boys, and a bad guy called Splater. I really like Splater, and the film does that blue lighting 80's feel, but the rest of it looks like low budget Canadian schlop. I have seen so much of this while living in this great country, and realize these type of movies were made because of Tax breaks. Avoid at all costs.


This movie has the distinction of being the worst movie I have ever seen, and the only film I have ever given a 1 out of 10 on imdb as of yet. I was fooled into renting it because of the cool H.R. Giger cover art on the box. This cover art is the only thing the least bit good about this steaming pile of...

It was about frat boys fighting "freaks" in a strange but not the least bit interesting post apocalyptic world where the cities are in ruins/chaos, but apparently the suburbs are still a safe and wonderful place for young men to haze other men into braindead frat organizations. The most uninspiring performances by boring characters, not so special effects, dreary, un-original scenery and just generally extremely poor quality in all production aspects make this lemon the all time loser on my list.

FINAL RATING: 1/10 I wish I could give it a zero.

Noob Aalox


Very curious that Nichols and Hanks would team up for this, obviously they believe it. Strange because it should carry the title "Charlie Wilson's War the Lie.

How could the time frame leave out the real history that while ridding Afganistan of the Russians the CIA was providing support for the Taliban, and today's World of Terrorism. In 1990, Bin Laden went home to Saudi Arabia as a hero of jihad, who along with his Arab legion, "had brought down the mighty superpower" of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

To avoid any connection to Osama Bin Laden is to say again, Hollywood cares little for Historical Truth. Charlie Wilson, a patriot, hardly, more like a congressman gone amok.


Russians never dropped children's toys filled with explosives over Afghanistan, that never happened!!! Who did invention of that?? Hollywood portrays Russian army as horrible, dreadful troops of evil! That is disgusting!! United States President Jimmy Carter had accepted the view that "Soviet aggression" could not be viewed as an isolated event of limited geographical importance but had to be contested as a potential threat to the Persian Gulf region. The uncertain scope of the final objective of Moscow in its sudden southward plunge made the American stake in an independent Pakistan all the more important. A great deal of damage was done to the civilian children population by land mines.


SPOILER - This film gives away plot points and discusses the ending. I hated this film - mostly for political reasons, but also for moral and aesthetic reasons. Politically, this film glorified war and military technology - blowing things up real good. We are led to cheer as the music swells and the Afghans use our weapons to blow the Ruskies to bits. And no U.S. soldiers put their lives on the line - so it's a fun war. Aesthetically, there isn't a touch of real human emotion in the film, just smug, privileged people being sarcastic, feeling superior, and doing whatever they want regardless of the consequences. And speaking of consequences, the film only makes a few small hits at what the arming of the Afghans actually led to. I had read an earlier draft of this script, and it ended on 9/11 - with Charlie Wilson realizing that things had gone horribly wrong. But that wouldn't leave the audience feeling good. This is a feel good movie about killing Ruskies. And it made me sick.


When the American movie industry tries to critically look at their own government they make damn sure it looks good even when it's bad.

The film does 1 thing right it demonstrates perfectly what is wrong with the American politics. The motto seems to be to f**k with whoever it takes to get things done!!! Mix an American Congressmen, a CIA agent, a Jew and an Arab... just to f**k the Ruskies. Thanks to US for giving us Osama Bin Laden.

The disappointment of the film comes in the face of muddling up the issues: using imagery of Afghan children with no arms and the stories of soviet atrocities and then making a blatant attempt to suggest a link between those and the reasoning behind the American help. Every sensible person knows why the $1,000,000,000 was raised... not the dying Afghani children that's for sure.

As usual the serious issues are covered into facade of bullshit dialogue. "Here is to you, you M***r F*****s" Hoffmam chants at the end, all that's missing is the American flag in the background and the stupid military solutes. The films can not help but leave the aftertaste of the feeling of American pride and glee on how we (the Americans) have saved the world... once again. Not even the last 5 minutes of the film can save it, where an attempt is being made to stop praising yourself and wake up to the fact that its just another American F**k up.

The acting and editing was good though.


The filmmakers neglected to connect the dots--that is, the sequence of events and choices that led from Charlie Wilson and the anti-Soviet mujaheddin to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden and eventually to 9/11. The filmmakers of course neglect to tell us the back-story--why were the Soviets in Afghanistan?--but that omission pales in comparison to their failure to reveal that support for Islamicist extremists in Afghanistan in the name of rabid anti-communism ultimately strengthened the hand of anti-western forces and was a big contributing factor to the mess that we find ourselves in today (9/11, terrorist networks, a prolonged ground war in Afghanistan, etc.). Because these consequences are not spelled out, the movie leaves the viewer feeling sympathetic to Mr. Wilson (hey, check out his latest projects on the Internet) instead of seeing him as an individual whose actions were contrary to the best interests of his country and the West as a whole.


I'm sure that the folks who made this movie think they're doing something wonderfully politically correct, because they manage to criticize U.S. wars in Afghanistan and particularly Iraq by suggesting that the U.S. does war well, but doesn't clean up afterward, thus sowing the seeds for future trouble. Furthermore, they do this without making Islamists the enemy AND without making Republicans the enemy, since it's the Republicans that are in office and are doing this supposedly great thing, bringing down the USSR by covertly supplying a war in Afghanistan.

But seriously now . . . do we really want a movie that repeatedly says "let's go kill some Russians!" like that's the greatest thing a red-blooded American can do? And are we supposed to find this congressman adorable because he surrounds himself with women with big hair and revealing clothes? Even his supposedly smart assistant, who is always dressed professionally, keeps looking at Charlie like he's just the most wonderful, handsomest, greatest guy around. As if she's Nancy Reagan to his Ronnie. Julia Roberts does a bang-up job in her role, but basically women are really demeaned in this movie, and it was really annoying.


The 3 stars are for Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Nothing else and no one else in this movie deserves even a wee smidgen of a star. Well, OK, Amy Adams deserves a wee smidgen, but the smidgenometer doesn't seem to be working, so I'll stick with 3. Tom Hanks...nothing. Julia Roberts...nothing. Mike Nichols...do you see a trend yet? Aaron Sorkin...OMG, not a chance.

I could rant on for several paragraphs about the way Charlie Wilson's War glosses over history, morality, legitimacy and so on, but I don't think any such rant could outweigh the gushing of Aaron Sorkin fans. The rest of you, beware.Spend your movie money elsewhere.

Still, if you're looking for a pithy comment, here's mine. You can put hot fudge sauce on a pile of garbage, but it changes nothing. Garbage is garbage and so is Charlie Wilson's War.


Your time and brains will be much better spent reading or listening to Charlie Wilson's War. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, plays the most enjoyable character in the movie, Gust, the Greek, and he plays him as a eunuch. Gust, in the book, is hard core and completely free to speak his mind. In the movie, he's not even shown as being equally important to Charlie. And poor Charlie is never shown donating blood (which he did every time he visited the camps in Pakistan). In short, the movie is too bland, and the history is too old for our modern time. We don't really care about the end of the cold war and the defeat of the Soviet Union (which happened in spite of Reagan, not as a result of) by a well financed group of people who were extremely willing to fight. Not quite the lesson we need to be hearing and seeing considering how well the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going. (As I read the book, I kept getting that deja vu feeling, except it was present day).


"Love and Human Remains" is one of those obviously scripted, obviously acted, obviously staged flicks which is so obvious that the escape velocity from its contrivances and fabrication is beyond me. Not worth explaining, this amateurish flick tries to cram every clever line, every misanthropic overtone, every peculiar sexual predilection into one film with an absence of concern for making the pieces fit. In short, sensationalistic crap without the sensation...which pretty much just leaves crap.


Love and human remains directed by Denys Arcand is an abysmally pathetic film as it is completely different from the kind of films he has been making all through his career.Making a different film is not an objectionable matter,what is troublesome is the fact that if a film from a master is complete out of tune then it is a really bad event. The film begins on a good note as there is some suspense created. However as the film progresses what is shown is just a futile attempt at creating something meaningful as Arcand shows us half a dozen oddball,whimsical characters whose lives are intertwined with each other.Homosexuality and Lesbianism are not of any consequences here. What is even more bothersome is the feeling of guilt related to the characters who are rather in a fix regarding their feelings towards each other and sexuality.Such a film would be of interest to some who wants to see a different Denys Arcand film.All in all,there would surely not be many takers for this film.


The premise is interesting and the cast does the best it can, but the script and the directorial effort are so poor that it is not surprising that this film was buried--which is fitting given the screenplay. As I watched this, I could not decide which was worse, the screenplay, or the directing. The actors are over the top, the art direction looks like a Disney movie, the music is contrived, and the sentiment so sweet that it gives viewers cavities. It's a bad attempt to imitate "FOur Weddings And A funeral". If one wants to watch comedy that is as flat as a pancake and how poor direction can turn a story into cavity sweetness, this is a good one to watch.


Oddball black-comedy romance featuring a great cast and a less than stellar script. Brenda Blethyn ("Lovely & Amazing") is the title character 'Betty', a woman trapped in a loveless marriage with a man who is obviously having an affair with his beautiful, blonde secretary. Guess who's playing this minor role, yup! Naomi Watts ("Mulholland Drive") must of sandwiched this project in before her superstar status was insured with the blockbuster thriller "The Ring."

On the male side of the cast list there's the woefully miscast Alfred Molina ("Frida") an old-fashioned undertaker who suddenly decides to reveal his desires for 'Betty' which have lain dormant for decades. Perhaps Miramax is hoping Molina's turn in the upcoming "Spider-Man 2" might generate some interest in this little trinket which belongs on the DVD rental shelf.

But the award for wildest thankless performance goes to Christopher Walken ("Catch Me if You Can") who goes completely over the top as 'modern' undertaker with his Vegas-style funerals in a small provincial town. His character must have parachuted into the village because there's little reason for him to exist in this script.

That said, if you'd like to see some top-notch actors engage in some low-brow humor then this one's for you, and if this isn't your cup-of-tea then try renting "Harold and Maude," the ultimate funeral movie that's still funny to this day.


A good idea let down by heavy-handed production.

Quite a bit of the dialogue was unintelligible because of the level of music/background sound, and this didn't help this reviewer. Nor did the Welsh accents, pretty impenetrable at times. Towards the end I lost the will to live trying to follow the dialogue.

This movie didn't know whether to be a farce or a black comedy - and they require different approaches. Some of the incidents were laid on so thick that they only merited a groan, some were so unbelievable even for this sort of plot that they made the story just not worth following.

The acting was in the main good - although the American just came over as a clone of the "Back to the future" mad scientist. The little boy was very good.

I did watch it all the way through but God knows why: I can't remember laughing once.


How better to describe it than scuzzy criminals on TV? And I don't mean in the show COPS; here, they're actually being presented as protagonists.

I don't see any remedial value in this show unless you have a perverse penchant for human tragedies. Whitney Houston is a tragic example of the fallen star; a star which Bobby Brown helped pull from the sky. Bobby Brown is nothing but a low-life criminal. Why watch him? Why does Whitney stand by him no matter how despicable he is? This couple should be locked up and it's a loathsome shame they are making money and achieving a modicum of fame from watching the septic tank which is their lives and the human waste which is their character.


Though not a complete waste of time, 'Eighteen' really wasn't all sweet as it pretended to be. Nor are the ages of the actors they're portraying  18, my butt. McKellen could have actually shown up in the film telling us he was 30 and ask us to believe it. Even Michael J. Fox was more believable as a teen in 'Back to the Future' Parts II and III (okay, maybe not; they're probably equal believability.) If you can get past the obvious age flaw, you'll have either the complete void of acting or simply overacting (Paul Anthony's so called anguish, Clarence Sponagle's Lifetime moments, and even though I do favor Brendan Fletcher, it's best to just watch him, and more, in 'Freddy Vs. Jason,') incomprehensible scenes (a faster than Britney Spears marriage, incest to prove a point and a man who needs help to urinate, but still has one hand free  I'm guessing this was the writer's fantasy,) an entire movie of despicable characters (Anthony might be playing someone that's 18, but acts like he's 12 and some odd "john" thrown in so Anthony's character Pip can save the day  was there really a sex scene in front of a baby?) and practically every character questioning their own sexuality by strange actions/scenes. On the positive side, I did enjoy Ian McKellen's voice-over, seeing a (rarely well portrayed) straight/gay friendship, puppy love (from someone who collects stuffed puppies, that is,) good score, some decent dialogue (love the separation of gays and pedophilia  wish more people would realize that) and acting from the female leads (as well as Cumming.) I can't really recommend it as it's really trying to be too many things  gay tolerance, gay hustling, homelessness, WWII epic, priesthood, first love, flawed judges, etc, etc, etc  on a shoestring budget.


On paper this movie has some chops: a street kid overcoming past trauma, rebuilding his life and succeeding when the world would have written him off. Great stuff, everyone loves a happy ending.

In the theater though, there were some omissions that left the movie dead inside. The dialog was hollow and uninteresting, the characters were almost cartoonish in their lack of dimension and complexity, and why did everyone need to be gay? I have nothing against homosexual themes or characters in a movie but when it's used in this fashion not only is is offensive to homosexuals, it trivializes the lifestyle and cheapens the movie. If the story works without this cheap trick it should have been cut.

Every character seemed to come out of the same cookie cutter form: Each had one major flaw and one minor flaw, every character is good hearted were they succeed or not, and everyone one of them had or is in an abusive relationship with someone.

The most annoying fact of the movie is that they never let you get over that the name "pip" comes from great expectations. They give it to you once and that should be enough. The story shares enough with the Dickens classic to make this fact obvious.

The most interesting part of the film is the story of the grandfather and the cassette he leaves for Pip and how Pip, the main character, learns how to grow up from the lessons learned from the tape. In the end, with lessons learned, Pip confronts his dark past and movies forward with his life.


Four Guys (Jacks) go into the restaurant business with a fifth Guy and lose all common sense. They allow themselves to be abused worse than textile workers at the turn of the century without simply leaving the situation. This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. I just hope I can resell this item to someone who might like it.

It is true that it holds your attention if you can let the illogical plot developments not bother you too much. It is very silly throughout however especially once a stranger enters the restaurant. Who is he? Guess.


If you see the title "2069 A Sex Odyssey" in the video store, BEWARE!! The cover has Tori Wells and three other "80's" porn stars, and has a copyright of 1986. If you're like me (and I hope you're not) you'll think "80's porn? Tori Wells? Alright!" Trickery!! It was made in 1974 and has dubbed German stars! There's nothing inherently wrong with 70's German porn, but it's not my cup of tea, and it's nothing like what the cover leads you to believe you're getting. Once I got past my rage about the blatantly misleading jacket, I watched it anyway. It's a bad, bad movie. Sorry, I guess I didn't really get past the rage.


"The New Twenty" is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Yes, some may argue that formulaic small budget films that strive for less may seem worse, but I would argue that a pseudo-intellectual anti-formulaic "indie" film that pretends to be more is worse.

"The New Twenty" was written and directed by Chris Mason Johnson, and I will never get back the 91 minutes of my life that I wasted on his film.

THE SCREENPLAY & CHARACTERS

From beginning to end, the screenplay failed to provide an anti-hero or hero with a moral core that the audience would want to see succeed or fail.

In story telling, the three dramatic conflicts are man vs. man, man vs. the world, and man vs. himself.

The screenplay focuses on a group of college friends in New York, and is preoccupied with the dynamic of man vs. himself, where each of the film's characters are so self-absorbed in a stupor of depression and self-destructive behavior that the movie atrophies before the audiences very eyes.

Each of the main characters indulge in unexplained bad behavior (heroin addiction with no history as to why the character is an addict; a fiancée who has sex with her fiancée's boss/investor, even though the character is written too smart to have sex with such a sleazy character; a man who begins as a decent guy, but is attracted to a foul-mouthed investor, and converts for some unknown reason into a similar foul-mouthed business jackass; a closeted chubby gay cyber geek, who does nothing, but find dates online; and a gay Asian man who dates an HIV positive older man, but has no scenes establishing why the relationship works and why love develops).

Crucial scenes establishing the cause of the character's addiction, the suffering and self- loathing of the fiancée that might explain why she would sleep with a sleaze bag; the back story that would explain why a decent guy would be attracted to a "Gordon Gecko" type character and become a jackass; a story line for the chubby cyber geek; and more scenes of interaction between the Asian man and HIV positive boyfriend are all missing.

Without proper establishing details, all of the characters' actions seem forced and contrived.

DIRECTION, CINEMATOGRAPHY & SCORE

I found Mr. Johnson's direction to be without a clear point of view, leaving the actors emotionally incoherent.

The cinematography can be described as mundane at best. Mr. Johnson selected small spaces to shoot and failed to catch the grandeur of New York City. This failure created a claustrophobic film, that viewed like the filming of a stage play, and not a film.

The score was embarrassingly absent from most of the film. I assume that Mr. Johnson is to blame, since he could have asked for full score to enhance understanding in each shot.

CONCLUSION

"The New Twenty" is an annoying and unmitigated failure in film-making.


What we're given in this trying-to-be trendy film is a "frat-pack" of college friends, now approaching age 30 (which we all know, of course, their generation thinks of as the "new 20"). Consisting of four guys and a gal, we have thrust at us the following types: seemingly "unemployeds" and frequent drug users, along with one individual who is job successful and one who is trying-to-be. They are all, in their own way, drifting while trying to find both a future and emotional happiness. With one, possibly two exceptions, these are people this reviewer would definitely never care to come close to modeling myself after. There is disappointment after disappointment after disappointment in almost all their lives. Except in the instance of one individual (who appears on the way to finding it), none appears headed toward emotional satisfaction in his/her life. And so, about the only sincere moment in this film is when a knock at the door brings to the person answering it an unexpected and heartfelt "I love you."

With only the exceptions mentioned, these people are the kind hardly deserving or worthy of several hundred thousands of dollars being thrown away in presenting their stories.

PS--Writer/director, Johnson, definitely appears to have a problem with showing gay sexual scenes----with no such problems in presenting more prolonged and revealing heterosexual ones. Why might that be?

****


Talk about marketing. The poster/home video cover of 'The New Twenty' broadcasts a half-naked male in a "Wolfe Video." For those familiar with the gay-themed movies  this broadcasts a "must-see." (I loved reading one reviewer (from another site) stating they had been "tricked" into seeing a "Sodomite" movie. Are you serious? The tagline itself as the word "gay." The Lord gives you eyes, yet you cannot see) That being said, despite the number of gay characters, stereotyped, no less (see: the lonely gay, the AIDS victim gay and the closeted gay) it's more about long-term friendship and characters that grow apart. In fact, if anything, there's more (here's one for Christians to complain about) heterosexual couples having sex outside of, gasp!, marriage. Not to mention backstabbing, drinking to excess and drug usage. I see this more of a made for TV-Logo or Showtime movie than big screen effort. Sure, I loved the cinematography, some of the actors could act and I always love seeing a big-group-of-friends that actually act like they've known each other for a million years. But we've see this all before. Nothing really "new" here. Barely an original idea  hence bringing back the same 'ole "I have AIDS, let's deal with that" for a good portion of the movie and boy, our friend has a serious drug problem, but let's not deal with that until it's almost too late. That's so (US) 'Queer as Folk' and 'Broken Hearts Club,' respectfully. The film deals with a group of college buddies, now grown (in size not minds) who have to eventually grow up and each trying their best while failing. Strangely, as in most of these independent movies, the most interesting, to me at least, was the heavier-set one, Ben. He stole each scene, but, again, there wasn't much to take.


Synopsis Correction: The ending does not show Ben cruising online for guys. He is looking up Arabic Language courses at The Presido Military Acadamy in San Francisco. Perhaps to Join the War in Iraq as a translator, (FYI- many of the dishonorable discharges from "D'ont ask D'ont tell have been Translators (they are now it major short supply) Ben Also spoke Russian. This movie is a good time capsule of life in Manhatten but quite a bit of non reality here. Mostly a good laugh at Lame social skills and the sad portrayal of "Grown up" twenty somethings not developing beyond the college party mode. Also a brief study of the always changing scene in Manhatten.(somehow it Always stays close to the edge of the same B.S.)

Watch together the films "Englishman in New York"" and the "The New Twenty" Both good for Nostalgia. I think the movie "twenty" shows how far the blur between gay and straight as evolved.

These two films are GAY Time Travel For Sure!!!!ENJOY


Ugh. Unfortunately this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. None of the characters are remotely likable, which makes this film difficult to watch. They're all miserable thirty year olds who don't take responsibility for their crummy lives. I was only able to make it through a half hour of the film, so there's a chance things got better afterward, but I doubt it. I can't imagine five people as self-absorbed as they are would manage to remain friends with each other for ten years.

Three sex scenes in the first half hour were also disappointing, as they had no relevance to the plot, and were clearly a gratuitous (failed) attempt to bring some life to this otherwise dull film.

Save your time and money, and skip this movie.


imagine if you took the Christ myth, mixed it with a healthy dose of porn, against a backdrop of bad sci-fi blackxploitation(brotha from another planet like) throw in a dash of after school special, and lots of really bad kung fu fighting. oh and some decent break dancing. with an awesome casio keyboard soundtrack.

and some how they make this even worse than you could imagine. there are at least 4 rape scenes, at least one great car explosion, a buff black guy running around in his undies with an Uzi.

add alcohol and this is the perfect movie.

i mean lots and lots and lots of alcohol


This film almost gave me a nervous breakdown. When I was recovering from appendicitis a few years ago, I had just started teaching in secondary (high) school. The whole teaching business was all a bit nervewracking for a beginner, but to mentally prepare myself for going back into the classroom I decided to watch some rather awful films. The Flintstones was one of the films that I chose, and then I put "King Of The Streets" (the UK title of 'Alien Warrior') on. Just before it finished I found myself almost in tears at the sheer waste of it all...my life, the film stock, the £2 I had paid for it a couple of weeks ago in the Blockbuster ex rental section, the time it must have taken to print the sleeve art, the effort of the editors and musicians involved in the soundtrack (as negligable as their efforts were)...the list goes on.

I love bad films. Let me make this perfectly clear - I LOVE watching crappy films from Blockbusters. Me and my mate Dan used to sit and watch many, many cheapjack horrors and laugh at them. But this was a different type of crappy film. I don't think that anything has come close to this, not even Tobe Hooper's "Death Trap" (which is probably my second worst film in the world). The whole making a car from abandoned parts section nearly killed me; the repetition of music at any available opportunity, regardless of on-screen events; the whole.... AAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! I can't even carry on with this 'critical' dissection, as my gag reflex has started. The futility of that film, even now, three years after I watched it for the first and last time, still renders me speechless (but I am still able to type). The whole "making a car from odd parts" section had me contemplating horrible things.

I implore you, if you are interested in watching this film, just gaze at the cover of the video and imagine the worst possible version of the story synopsis on the back. I can almost guarantee that it won't be even half as bad as this film actually is. Don't, under any circumstances, contemplate actually watching it for any reason whatsoever. Not if you are a Christian and you want to see a Christ allegory; not if you are a bad movie afictionado and you want to experience the true nadir of trash; not even if you want your life to seem longer (and believe me, every second that this film runs seems like at least a minute). Make no mistake about it, this film is unholy. It is the antichrist in video form. As Bo Cattlett in Get Shorty said: "I've seen better film on teeth".


Hargh... this film is so bad it's almost good. Trash at its best. Jesus' bro vs. pimps...come on. I'd say that you'd actually have to see this, it's so bad... my sides hurt when I laughed. I can't understand why this isn't in the worst 100.


I think it's the first time that I go inside a theater and go out so disappointed. There were two reasons why I went to see "Astérix et les Vikings": first as a film buff, and second as a big Astérix fan.

In the end, the film doesn't satisfy any request. It's simply a big animated mess and it proves that the Astérix franchise is going from bad to worse.

In fact, it has been this way since the death of first scenarist René Goscinny in 1977. His faithful collaborator, illustrator Albert Uderzo took his place, but the following books were clearly lacking of the quality that was present during the Goscinny years.

"Astérix et les Vikings" is based on the book "Astérix et les Normands", which was published during the Goscinny reign. The basic story is the same: Goudurix, Abraracourcix' nephew' arrives to the village and Astérix et Obélix must turn him into a real man, while the Vikings come to Gaul in order to discover what fear is, because it seems that fear gives wings.

The similarities end here. What follows in the book is a non-stop series of laughs, gags and hilarious dialog with the result that the Vikings do discover fear and they flee Gaul. The movie is silly, unfunny, fast-paced, corny... Well, just name a default and it has good chances of being applied...

The difference between the book and the movie could be more acceptable if the movie was good. But the new ideas simply crashes it in a bottomless pit. Even older Astérix movies such as "Astérix le Gaulois", which almost transferred the lines one by one without changing them are easily better.

Animation has the quality of other 21st century movies, but it has its faults and any film beginner could find the mistakes. The greatest example is the continuity mistake, where the day follows the night after a fraction of second, in the same sequence.

Imagine. They took animation studios from numerous countries and they still can't get adequate film-making.

The changes of the original story are simply unbearable. And they still could be even if there was no original story. Goudurix, in the movie, has a pet pigeon named SMS and who act as his cell phone (!). Grossebaf, the Viking chief, has a rebellious teen daughter named Abba (!) and she constantly defies her father's authority. There's also a stupid Viking wizard, his cartoonish dumb and muscular son, the faithful bride of Grossebaf who is obsessed with decoration (her name is Vikea!) and... well I can't stand that much longer.

We're far from the original gags from the original book. The biggest problem is the difficulty of transferring the images to the big screen, mainly because the greatest laughs in the books come from the verbal jokes and visual gags which do not have the same appeal on a theatre screen. I remember that the greatest moments in the book were Obélix laughing at the invaders' names (which all finish in 'af') and Goudurix tries to scare them in ridiculous ways.

And if everything wasn't enough, somebody in the publicity staff decided to write on the movie poster that there's an already existing Céline Dion song which would be featured in the final credits. If it was a new song, I could have understood. But using an old song is only another proof that the movie is so badly made that they're ready to do anything in order to attract film-goers.

The only good point for this movie is that it is so stupid and the end is so bad that we just can't walk out of the theater without being left cold. In a summer release, it just can't hurt...

The only other acceptable point of the movie is how Goudurix becomes courageous. His psychological transformation in the book is too spontaneous and not credible, while it's better pictured in the movie and the motivation point is more believable.

So if you haven't seen the movie yet, don't waste your money on it. Grab the book instead.

Oh René, why did you leave us?


This film is a perfect example that a movie can not be successful with a high budget alone. It's obvious that there was a lot of time and effort dedicated into this: the animation is fluid, detailed and superb- the soundtrack isn't too memorable except for the ending song by Celine Dion (at least I think it was her). The musical score is powerful full orchestra material. Kudos to the animators and music composers! 9/10. However, the story and characters fall flat. It feels very 'been there, done that', predictable and plain uninteresting. The characters have distinct personalities but nothing too likable. They annoyed me to no end. I tried really hard to like this, but I didn't care about the story- it was cliché action-adventure plot. There were 'jokes' that weren't funny. It was vomit inducing predictable from start to end. The dialogue was cliché and awful- especially the last line "It's not ... that gives you wings, it's love!" Whatever it was, I remember cringing. I was wishing it would hurry up and finish. I wasn't the only one either- the people I went with thought it was boring. Please watch the Asterix and Obelix Cleopatra film if you're going to watch any. This was a waste of time.


This Asterix is very similar to modern Disney cartoons. Soulless, technically good and the usual in-jokes for adults. Maybe it's because this is the first cartoon I watched after Laputa: Castle in the Sky, but it was quite disappointing.

The plot is contrived and forgettable but it involves Asterix and Obelix going to the Viking's territory to rescue a spoilt teenager who then learns humility and finds love as well. Oh and initially they don't get on but after facing adversity they all share a deep bond of friendship... yadda yadda.

The best bit is to watch out for the little jokes. The Vikings get all the best ones. Such as Vikea (the Viking's chief's wife) giving a list of furniture and skulls to bring back from the next raid. Or the Vikings not knowing the meaning of mercy (literally). Oh, and Olaf the dumbest Viking is actually hilarious (as much for the voice acting as the dialogue).

For example, aboard the Viking ship: (After a speech by Abba, the captain's daughter) Olaf: Who is this new guy? Captain: That's my daughter, cod-brain! Olaf: Your... daughter's... a man?


It's not awful but what a waste... Lousy gags, bad music, poor drawings and animation...

Regarding the impressive number of animators and intervallists on this picture (from, hum... a hundred different studios throughout the world? Come on, how can you expect something coherent when doing an animated movie this way!) I wonder if one guy on the credits = one drawing! The lines are rough, the 3d work inadequate (I'm not against it, but not in this film) But the backgrounds are corrects. The storyline is rather dumb, far from the precise cleverness of the BD, and obviously aimed at an international audience. To distribute a movie all over the world doesn't mean to take everyone in the world for a simple-minded guy... A cultural object is far more interesting when challenging, even when it is a foreign movie (being french in this case it's even worse!).

Some new stuff is doing well (the Olaf character, sometimes, like with the stone explanation, but it's not great) but the modern references are exasperating (music, SMS -not even a verbal joke, just a stupid bird named short message service: does anyone know imagination?). But, hey, it's a M6 / TPS production with some Celine Dion in it... pathetic.

Asterix is underemployed and Obelix talks too much. Goudurix could be great (like in the book) but he is too clearly a "cool guy" having a love affair (with an uninteresting made up female character). In fact, only the vikings (wizard excepted) are funny. Too much action, not enough laughs. The best part of the movie are the end credits. Not the music, but the few stills it contains. BD style. Well, definitely, Asterix is not made to move!


I've always said that there's nothing to beat the original form: the comics. I've been proved right again. This, like all of the other movie takes on the Asterix series, failed to impress. The makers of this movie don't get it that what makes all the other such comic-turned-movies (x-men, superman et al.) ventures successful is that they all deviate from the original comic versions and adapt it to make it more watchable. Agreed, this movie did deviate, in the sense that this movie was a cross of two Asterix books, viz. Asterix and the Great Crossing & Asterix and the Normans. Also, uncharacteristic of the Asterix series (save Asterix and the Secret Weapon) , a love interest for one of the main characters was introduced. All this ended up doing was create a childishly immature storyline. The funny parts were very few and far between. All in all, a total waste of time and money watching this, let alone at theaters, even at home.