Jack Lemmon was one of the finest actors that had ever graced the screen. He could effortlessly switch from dramatic roles to comedic with ease, making most of his peers green with envy. While his performance in "Save The Tiger" is Oscar-worthy, I feel it was given to him as he had missed out on his other opportunities to win the award due to other, better roles that had preceded this current one.

This is also one of those pretentious movies that comes out to basically showcase the talent of the cast, or in this case, one particular member. It's too bad the screenwriter's output didn't match that of Lemmon's. Don't waste your time with this one.


Jack Lemmon was one of our great actors. His performances in Days Of Wine And Roses, The Apartment, Some Like It Hot, Missing (to name the first ones that come to mind) were all worthy of Best Actor nomination. His only win was for Save The Tiger, and that's a shame. He gets melancholy down to a science, but never brings it into balance with the driver in his character. He actually did a similar character much better toward the end of his career in the one-note Glengarry Glen Ross.

As for the movie, wonderful supporting work by Jack Gilford as Lemmon's partner and Thayer David as an arsonist, go for naught because the rest of the script is a muddled jumble of cliched vignettes, angst, neurotic nostalgia, and pointless moralizing. Worth seeing once as a time capsule into 1970's style experimental direction by Avildsen.


This film's premise seems to be that the passing of the World War 2 generation in America, with its apple-pie phoniness and hypocritical morality, was a terrible tragedy. Those awful hippies ruined everything apparently.

What holds the film together are the excellent performances - particularly Lemmon's which is truly remarkable. Otherwise we have a boring slice-of-life drama (just over 24 hours of Jack's life) with pretensions.

I found it a chore to sit through.


The Canterville Ghost (1996).The director made this too sappy a production. Maybe it's the generation, but I really liked the Charles Laughton version. There is a time and place for "emoting" and this production does not translate very well. Patrick Stewart, reciting Shakespeare was very good, but still inappropriate. Would neither recommend nor watch again. The close-ups and padded text and sub-plots were lost on me. Adding extraneous material and scenes takes away from a truly great work. The screenplay writer should find another profession in which to misplace his talent, maybe afternoon soap operas would be a better venue. Check out the really good version and pass on this one.


There is nothing like an Oscar Wilde comedy, and this movie is nothing like a comedy. The melodrama labors from scene to scene and the comedy is completely absent. In the original story, the humor comes from the Americans who are oblivious to the ghostly traditions of Canterville Chase. The American father even offers some oil to the ghost to quiet the creaking chains. Read the book!


There's a certain irony in a parody of the Gothic genre being turned into a mess of clichés by filmmakers who either had no idea what the story's purpose was, or just didn't care. All of the hallmarks of your average family film are present- rambunctious younger siblings, a grumpy teenager who doesn't want to move, unsympathetic parents who are unable to see the apparition, and of course a romantic subplot. The movie has very little in common with Wilde's original story, which was largely written to poke fun at the melodramatic Gothic novellas that were all the rage at the time. If Wilde saw this version, he'd probably laugh- and then of course, write a parody. One can only hope that the children who watched this bland, mass-produced pap eventually discovered the wit and sparkle of the original version.


I was really excited when I read "The Canterville Ghost" would be shown on TV. However, I was deeply disappointed. I loved the original story written by Oscar Wilde and sadly nothing of that was transferred by the movie.


I watched this movie by accident on TV and it was so unbelievably awful I could not switch it off. Every single piece of wit and intelligence has been removed from the Oscar Wilde story by the inept screenplay writer. It barely matters because the dire acting, clichéd camera-work and cloying music would have ruined anything resembling like a decent script anyway. The worst performance comes from Patrick Stewart who comes across as the most hammy, talentless, minor mock-Shakespearean nincompoop as the ghost. "Get thee out of here!" he screams at one stage while waving his arms like a pantomime villain. A truly terrible film and why wonders why Stewart, who can act when called upon to do so, has soiled his reputation by making worthless pieces of crap like this and the XMen.


As a Genghis Khan "fan" I was looking forward to this movie. After devouring Conn Igguldens epic novels about Genghis and reading up on loads of historic records I feel I know something on the subject and was thrilled to share my knowledge with friends via this movie...

That turned out a deception. This movie is practically made up from beginning to end. There are a few things that seem correct but mostly it is pure make believe of the writers. That does not have to be a problem, I like good entertainment just like anyone else unfortunately it is mostly boring. Nothing of the greatness comes forth in this movie.

I would NOT recommend this movie if you know anything on the subject.


I watched this film a few nights ago and it was awful!

Awfully long - even though they managed to skip through the majority of his life!

Awfully boring - the parts they included were long-winded, and for some reason the director chose to cut away from some of the action and left huge parts of the film unexplained!

Awfully inaccurate - the whole'mystical' side to this film was a joke, and last time I checked Ghengis Khan wasn't exactly a nice guy!

Awfully acted - I found several of the characters hard to believe, they were very two-dimensional and lacked and kind of depth!

A saving grace of the film was the cinematography. That is why I gave this film a 2 star-rating rather than the bare minimum! However, if you want to look at something pretty I would recommend buying a picture instead!

All in all this film was an awful waste of my time and money! Please do yourself a favour and give this Mongolian turkey a miss!


I was waiting for this movie for a time. In the first day of the air in Turkey, I watched it. It was totally a disappointment for me. I was planning to watch a historical movie, but the one in the screen was a fictional one. First of all, the main character of the movie Cengiz Han, the great conquer was portrayed like a soft, calm, even a loser one. You can not feel the power in the movie. Historically, the war machine he created was conquered ¾ (even more) of the world know in those years. To do that, Cengiz first unite the Asian tribes. However, in the movie, this loser man is in one scene poor-alone man, and in second scene, he is commanding armies. War scenes were incredibly week. In the final battle, the Mongol horseman were using double swords on their sides and cutting the enemy. : ) As a consequences, me and my friends just laugh at that scenes. Mongol army means Mongol archery horseman. You can not see that in the movie. Another ill thing was the use of fantastic elements in the movie. I do not want to go into the scenes which was portrayed Cengiz as a prophet. We can say in the integrity of the movie, it is acceptable. However, the scenes when the old monk saw the future and go to find the wife of Cengiz Khan after Cengiz gave him a mission is really funny. When the monk died in the desert, Cengiz's wife feel this dead and she find the corpse in the continent. We are talking about the Asia Again we laughed. There are a lot of more things to say but, I don't feel that this movie has value to talk more.


The narrative was clear and concise but overall the film never caught my interest- scenes felt flat and uninspired.. Ghengis khan, historically speaking, had a very interesting/epic life but the film failed to capture that- instead focused on small skirmishes as a youth and a love story I think I've seen disguised in a slew of other films. I never felt sympathy nor empathy for the lead- yes he had to overcome slavery but then seemed to have an easy ride to khan- pillaging, killing and double crossing his way to the top. The one redeeming quality was the photography- the landscapes certainly helped the bleak atmosphere of the film, unfortunately combined with the bleakness of the story- I left unmoved, and disappointed..


The worst film I have seen in the last 12 months. The plot of the story was uninteresting, the movie ended when he became gingesh khan, i always thought there happened something really interesting afterwards. i knew that Mongolia and all the areas where the movie played have beautiful landscapes but the movie didn't profit from that. The jokes where really poor. The narrator, gingesh himself, could have told a bit more about Mongolian history, traditions etc. My co-viewer knew nothing about that at all so he was a bit lost. I was so looking forward to see this film but was really disappointed after all. It was one out of 3 movies I have ever seen in cinema where I considered to leave before the end.


I'm really amazed that this got an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a nomination for best foreign film at the Oscars. The 7.3 rating on IMDb... that's not so much of a surprise, seeing the way IMDb users have been voting recently. I just can't get into a film in which the actual facts about its main character have clearly been distorted, and not at all in a way to make the movie artistic, but rather to make it melodramatic and less boring. Which, it turns out, actually makes it very boring for anyone who was expecting to see a serious and credible interpretation of the life of Genghis Khan. The far-fetched and over-dramatized Mongol often echoes the likes of 300, a film that couldn't be happier to be ridiculously inaccurate; but unlike 300, Mongol takes itself seriously. It's stoic seriousness, mixed with the obvious inaccuracies, is what makes it truly the most boring film I've seen this year; possibly the most action or biopic movie I've EVER seen. The characters were pathetically written. Honestly, I doubt Genghis Khan was as boring and passive as shown in this film. Which is funny to me, because if there's anything that I'd think should be changed for the sake of theatricality, it's making a boring person into an interesting person. The romance between Khan and Borte is similarly boring, simple, and stupid. Also, without giving anything away, Mongol contains the single stupidest scene I have seen in a LONG time- where there should be a good 20 minutes of plot development, the film just skips forward without any explanation. It looked like something out of a Saturday Night Live skit that parodies epic action movies with horrible pacing. (Did I mention how seriously Mongol takes itself?) Meanwhile, it drags like no film I've ever seen before. Even now, I could swear it was three hours long. About 45 minutes into it, I checked the time, being pretty certain that it was almost finished. Besides some pretty scenery and quality acting from Asano (naturally), Mongol is honestly just a disaster. It completely failed to entertain me or enlighten me in anyway. I would never give this film a second chance. And not to sound racist or patriotic or whatever, but give me a trashy and mindless American epic over Mongol any day. At least then I know what I'm getting, unlike with Mongol, where the reviews and ratings led me to believe it was actually something worth seeing.

The saddest thing about how much I hated Mongol is that I have friends who I know, without a doubt, would simply love it.


This film did not excite me. While on vacation in Turkey I noticed that it was playing at the local cinema and decided to take the chance to go see it. The action sequences in the film are well choreographed, however, the story drags during the middle of the film.

One thing that I did not quite follow is how Borte was able to get the money to bribe the guards.

The other thing that I did not particularly like was the missing segment of Khan's life. It did not go into detail as to how the bad guys were able to find him and re-imprison him after he had gone missing for so long.

Overall, I rate this movie a (4) because I enjoyed the action sequences, but they were too few to justify a higher rating as the dialog left me less than impressed...


For Native Mongolian speakers the film lacked emotion and emphasis. Used too many non Native speakers especially Jamukha. Too many diversions from the actual history. Terrible terrible subtitle!!! I wonder where and who did that subtitle. It was both in English and Thai. I wonder how bad the subtitle was in Thai if the English subtitle was soooo bad! Described the one of the greatest leader's life very uninteresting. There are better films made by Mongolian directors with very low budget from 1980's. Honestly, I'm wondering if the film critics of Academy award is that lenient or what? Only good thing was some good CGI in some fighting scenes only moderately... not over the top CGI


First of all I dunno if I was supposed to use my imagination in this film or the director was trying to save money or low on budget! Here we go....

Basically there were so many years and gaps that I don't understand, its like the movie was jumping from 9 years to 20 years to 30 and so much gaps that makes you ask questions how the hell did this happen? and why? I think this is a big flow. Forget the reviews who keeps whining about the history , this movie doesn't have only history facts issues, but also has so many flaws. So most of the people keep saying watch this in cinema you will lose all cinematography like rivers, deserts etc.. thats true they are beautiful thats why I waited for BluRay release 1080p. OK! beautiful scenes but whats the point of that? I turned off the movie after 1 hour and half, I just lost Interest. The movie kept on doing the exact same things jumping in years ( At least Mr. Director put for example, after 2 years after 10 years!) I mean i couldn't watch the movie I lost understanding of whats going on! Anyways i wish i could include spoilers but when u decide to watch this movie, just ask yourself how did this happen? you will know what i mean! Don't watch this movie its a waste of time.


The best part of this DVD is the cover. It goes down hill from there. There was no chemistry between the leads, the kisses looked like something I traded with my grandmother.

The sound was so bad that at least I was spared some of the dialoge.


Well Folks, this is another stereotypic portrayla of Gay life however, the additional downside includes poor acting, horrible script, no budget, terrible sound and let us not forget the impossible storyline.

It is Christmas in New York City and our story immediatly "focuses" on two male individuals, apparently lovers for some time. One of them has not let his parents (the right wing, religious zealot types) know that he is gay (adding to the impluasability of the story 'cause this guy is as efeminant as gay guys come these days) and his parents are coming to viusit him. They will stay in his New York apartment where he and his lover have just decorated for Christmas.

The story continues to develop around the arrival of the parents, who noone will like anyway and - how through only obvious and predictable ways - they come to learn there son is gay. Tears are shed as was my interest in this movie.

The cast of charecters, seemed like an intro acting course at the local community theatre. The lovers in this film are mismatched, and there does not appear to be any cohesion to their union.

The landlord is flat and her attempt to be humanistic in the situation are undercooked and certainly didnt help move the plot any further.

The dragqueen friend who steps to the aid of one of the lovers in his "time of need" is stereotypic and gives a bad name to the unique art of drag.

Although some guys night find one of the lovers to have a nice body (again, stereotypic imagery) it does not help this story.

Stay away from this film, especially if you are considering a purchase. You'll shoot yourself if you do!


The horrific production doesn't qualify as a "film." It was obviously shot on video tape, and very poorly at that! There is a constant screaching sound for the audio(sounds like a bad microphone), which is so annoying that you sometimes cannot understand what the characters are saying. Badly dubbed-in music will suddenly appear in a scene, and the entire editing of this thing rates about a ZERO!

The plot is contrived and ridiculous. A late 20's gay man trying to hide his live-in lover from parents visiting? PLEASE! And the reaction the mother has when she finds a picture of her son kissing his boyfrioend is beyond melodramatic and rolls right into stupid. Talk about a stereotypical view of gay life! The acting is worse than a porno movie, and the direction is very poor!

As far as "production" goes, there isn't any!

This title is simply a lame videotaped attempt to call itself a "Film." There is no heart and soul to give it even the smallest bit of praise.

It's just a stupid waste of time, so avoid it at all costs! BAD ACTING! BAD WRITING! BAD DIRECTING , and the title of "producer" is vanity as this trash probably costed them the price of the videotape they shot it on.

This ametuer garbage has no business getting released onto a dvd as it's deceptive to the cunsomer. I cannot stress how horrible this "SUGARPLUM" crap is!


his has to surely be one of the worst gay-themed films of all time. Who told any of the so-called actors that they can act. Bad sound - bad script - gestures so overboard that they defy reality. A nightclub scene with only one actor and dubbed crowd scenes.

After seeing other low budget films similarly made I was prepared for something innovative - but not plain pathetic.

Parents and friends really should not encourage anyone to make such tripe.

And the DVD - No menu access; its worse than a VHS tape. Once you start you have to watch the whole thing through - luckily the fast forward button works - with this film and DVD nothing else does.


This is a joke, right? This can't be a real film? It's not even a real video? Give any Harvey Milk High School kid a video cam and they could make a better movie than this. The film maker's can't be serious... right? Is this satire? Comedy? Drama gone horribly wrong? The script is about as single-minded and dull as is conceivable. Ten monkeys locked in a room with a laptop could come up with a better screenplay. The dialogue isn't clichéd. Clichéd dialogue might elevate this holiday mess to something akin to camp fun - but it doesn't and it isn't. Worst of the worst - a landlady wanders into a dramatic scene in a private apartment dressed a bathrobe carrying a frying pan like something out of a "Honeymooners" episode. Whaaa??? I have seen better acting from middle school drama clubs. One of the leads is an attractive lunk, the other is not. Both can't even manage a convincing kiss. So much for romance. The supporting players are jaw-droppingly over-the-top.

Everything is underscored by a nauseating soundtrack and the sound seems to have been recorded in a back room toilet. Most of the dialogue is (mercifully) unintelligible.

This stale cinematic fruitcake isn't even worthy of being the next ROCKY HORROR or a gay holiday installment of MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000. It's just plain bad. In every way. VISIONS OF SUGARPLUMS will not dance in your head - they will trample your every expectation. Have an eggnog and stare at mindlessly at the neighbor's holiday lights - it will be time better spent.


GOLD RAIDERS (1951)

A dull western/comedy feature with the Three Stooges (including Shemp Howard at this point, who I've always enjoyed as the "third Stooge") doing their usual schtick, and directed by the normally dependable Edward Bernds, who also did some of their funniest classic shorts -- so one has to wonder, just what went wrong this time? The most probable answer is that what worked pretty good as a 15-minute two-reeler comes up as too much for a 55-minute feature film. Unlike so many of their classic short subjects, GOLD RAIDERS is not worth revisiting.

*1/2 of ****


This is a serious film about black revolutionaries and not really an action film. Billy Dee plays a young man fed up with racism who decides to take things into his own hands. It's fairly gritty and realistic without exploiting the characters but still it's not that interesting either and Billy Dee's character, though maltreated by white authority figures, doesn't really come off as sympathetic. It's also hurt by it's extremely low budget. Still, it's interesting to look at as it's a good depicttion of 1970s social issues.


I must give credit to Billy Dee for trying to pull this off. Knowing this was a blaxploitation film, I started my DVD with a certain expectation. I knew it would be low budget... the acting sub-par... but hoped for a few gems to be sprinkled throughout. If there were any diamonds or gems sprinkled within this film, they were successfully buried under tons and tons of coal... or perhaps overacting. As an actor and filmmaker, I cringed often when potential poignant moments were ruined with atrocious performances. Yet, I must admit, I could not look away. I don't know if this was like a car wreck you can't turn your eyes from, or some mysterious power in the film that kept me there. This film is a good case for an excellent story that was told wrong. If Walter Kronkite were to tell "the Aristocrats" joke, it would be a total flop, although the joke itself is hilarious. Let Dave Chappelle tell it, and we are all rolling on the floor laughing. This film needed a "Chapelle." Now, with that said, if you have the opportunity to purchase this film for the dollar that I did, do it. It is well worth the money. Perhaps I will take another dollar, purchase the rights to this film, and remake it. Who knows... it might not be any better, but it surely can't be any worse.


"The Final Comedown" wants to "say something" about racism and inner-city violence; unfortunately, the message is invalidated by the nonsensical script, the amateurish production, and the heavy-handed polemics. How heavy-handed, you ask? To give you just one example, a black doctor comes out of his hiding place, unarmed, with his hands up in the air, ready to surrender to the police: one of the (all-white) cops says "Don't shoot him, he's a doctor", to which another cop replies: "So what? He's still a n****r", and proceeds to shoot him in cold blood. The cops are portrayed as ignorant, racist killers, even though at the end there are just as many dead people among them as there are among the black people who staged the riot. And this whole event was meant somehow to "sensitize" the white folks to the demeaning treatment of the black folks, when in fact something like this can only breed more hate and violence on both sides. Pamela Jones, as Williams' girlfriend, briefly lights up the screen with her smile and body, particularly in a tender sex scene, and elevates the rating of this movie from 1 to 2 out of 10.


I grew up watching the "Bowery Boys" on the weekends and even at young an age I could tell this was low rent stuff as the name implies. Still it was fun to watch Satch (Hall) get the better of Muggs (Gorcey) after Muggs would beat the crap out him. The East Side Kids stuff were never shown even though it was public domain stuff and probably cheap to run, it was just to low a standard for kids to tune in even though we only had like 5 channels to watch. Enter the year 2005 and I am repossesin about my childhood. I can't find any Bowery Boys on DVD but I found The East Side Kids on disc and also on a public domain website. Thankfully I saved my dough and saw Bowery Blitz on the web for free, and it really really blows. Now I can see there are some Bowery Boys and maybe Monogram bad movie lovers here that gave this melodrama crap a 7 of 10 but c'mon folks, this ain't even trying to be funny. It's an East Side Kids drama, not a comedy so it's no good. The best part was seeing Muggs fight at the end, he reminded me of my grade school days flayling away like a girl when I would get in a fight, it was kinda abusin. Leonard Maltin said in his mini bio that this flick is one of the better ones, so you can just imagine the rest. If you wanna see some halfway decent East Side action see Ghosts on The Loose maybe but the bottom line is usually a comedy team starts out strong in their career and tapers off, these mugs blew chucks early on then slowly picked it up until Hall's antics dominated than they were at best. Still 2nd tier stuff way below the 3 stooges, who they imitate but amusing for those who grew up with them. This feature won't bring back pleasant "Bowery Boys" memories and is best left to Monogram fanatics.


Well, great costumes and a wonderful `feel' for Pre WWII Italy. But what happened here?

Great actors...Kristin Scott Thomas, Sean Penn, Anne Bancroft, James Fox, Derek Jacobi ...if you can't get memorable performances out of this `A List' then the problem with this movie must be blamed on pitiful direction and an inadequate script. I rented this on DVD after having liked "Angels & Insects" (1995) also directed by Philip Haas.

Yipes! I can hardly believe how dull this thing was. It just dragged on and on and no one was able to save the poor thing. This is not even a good intriguing-foreign-dudes-and-young-things-in- pretty-clothes chick flick!

"Tea With Mussolini" Gone Amuck!


Let me be clear. I hate these kinds of movies. I do not like anything where the protagonists are all bourgeoisie English. I find this kind of literature and film awfully pretentious. You will never get me to read a Jane Austen book willingly. That said, the only reason I read W. Somerset Maugham's book and watched the subsequent film was for a class.

Mary Panton (Kristin Scott Thomas) is a beautiful English woman living in a borrowed villa in Florence before World War II. One night after dinning with some of her rich royalty related friends, she willingly picks up an Austrian refugee, has sex with him and ditches, and then he kills himself. As the movie gets further and further, you really want to dislike Mary.

What a load of crap this movie was. First of all, there were many subplots and characters invented in the movie that weren't even in the book. I doubt very much the late Mr. Maugham would've appreciated them. The characters, though wealthy, were some of the most superficial and self-centered people I have ever seen.

The only reason I didn't give it anything less than three stars was because the acting was the only thing redeemable. The always talented Kristin Scott Thomas is perfect for the role of Mary. In fact, I couldn't picture anybody else filling her shoes. Sean Penn and Anne Bancroft also had supporting roles, that were just as good as the lead.

Save yourself the pain of watching this movie.


UP AT THE VILLA (2000) **1/2

WARNING: YOU MAY FIND SOME SPOILERS AHEAD

It's hard to know what is the point in UP AT THE VILLA, a gorgeous but shallow period piece, one of those made with the only objective of earning Oscar nominations for best costume design and art-set direction (one for cinematography and another for score are also welcome). It has the same basic idea of thousands of period pieces produced every year: a good-looking, intelligent woman trying to find love in a strange place to her. She has many difficulties but ultimately finds her happiness in the arms of a man that is not the one that she had an accomplishment with. In this case, our lady is in Florence, some time before World War II. She is an English widow engaged to a rich-but-old man (whom, obviously, she doesn't love). One day she meets another man, who has not a good reputation but for whom she falls in love. Of course there is her friend who will help her for better or worse and a third man- who commits suicide here, in the lady's room, setting up a risky situation for her. Guess how the story ends...?

UP AT THE VILLA is not a bad film. I was always quite interested in the story, but never got excited. The problem is not the slow pacing, but the screenplay. Adapted from a novel, it needs something more spicy, exciting, twists and suspense. Every time you think the story will get warm, it gets cooler again. If you think there is a conspiracy involving the mean police chief of Florence, well, there is, but it doesn't change almost anything in the story. It just keeps going and going, till the predictable ending.

As I said, UP AT THE VILLA is not bad. If it is a bit bland, it never gets sappy and too sentimental. The acting is half and half, but surely convinces. Kristin Scott Thomas made some really bad choices after THE ENGLISH PATIENT (the saaaaaaappy romantic drama THE HORSE WHISPERER and the dull/irritating RANDOM HEARTS). UP AT THE VILLA is undoubtly better than those pieces and Kristin is also better, but she can do more than that. Sean Penn is good as always, even if his character is a big dude. Anne Bancroft is a terrific actress (THE GRADUATE, my God!), and here she doesn't let her character become ridiculous. Now, the supporting actors are pretty bad (Jeremy Davies is sooooooooooo irritating!).

The directing is good, but not audacious. It was interesting to know that the director is the same of ANGELS AND INSECTS (also starring Kristin Scott Thomas), another so-so period drama, but more audacious than this. What matters here are the visuals. Florence is wonderful, the costumes are great, the scenery, the music...

In the end, UP AT THE VILLA is an average romantic drama, but of course it could have been much better. It is watchable and interesting, but don't expect a suspense film- it is not! This film kind of fails because it wants to have some mystery, something to behold... However, there is not much to say mainly because of the shallow screenplay. Now, about the Oscar nominations, don't worry- it will probably get them.


Boring as hell and kind of a chick flick.

It's the story of a neurotic woman who struggles with the concept of marriage as a business arrangement, the romantic nature of a one night stand, and the uncertainty and pitfalls of true love.

Many of the story's motifs are reminiscent of other recent KST movies (e.g. the English Patient), but have far less appeal.

After the first half-hour I started checking my watch, wondering if I'd make it home in time to catch Leno on tv.

I passed up "Gladiator" to see this!?!


can someone please help me i missed the last view moments and i don't want to pay money to see the whole film again. i got to just where they are in the train carriage and she says 'what about that drink now?' and smiles. what happens after that? is there anymore dialogue or action? surely it doesn't just end there? i was a bit bored in the film and kept hoping it would get better. i love Kristen Scott Thomas does anyone remember the UK TV series she was in about some nuns? i am wanting to know the name. Sean Penn was brilliant Madonna eat your heart out! everybody else in fact the film a bit predictable, it was a 'spot a star cast'. the ending took me by surprise i really thought she had burnt her boats.....if you are a fan of any of the stars its worth watching.


UP AT THE VILLA fooled me into thinking I`d be watching something similar to GOSFORD PARK . The film opens at a ballroom in 1930s Italy which is populated by vulgar Americans and uptight upper class Brits , but in truth UP AT THE VILLA plays out far more like a Merchant -Ivory production which is very bad news because it`s a very slow , and I do mean very slow romantic drama with some of the romance being very unlikely . If you like slow romantic dramas you might like this movie . I didn`t


We've all seen bad movies, well this one takes the cake. I've seen that Junior movie box staring back at many times from my many journeys to the horror section at the local video store, and I was a little interested, it looks like it pays some homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, so I thought I'd get it. Mistake! Junior sucks hard, long, and with commitment. In other words it's really bad. Although it does win my award for most creative use of a bikini top. AVOID!!


Heh...I'm surprised this movie still exists in any form, let alone it being available for rent!

This flick is one of the many bad slasher flicks that exist only for the T&A and the cheap laughs. The story line crosses a bit of "Texas Chainsaw massacre" with a screwy mamma-centred back story reminiscent of "Psycho", and a bit of the good old women-in-chains, tough-as-nail-ex-con broads tossed in for good measure - in other words, complete unoriginality wrapped up in half naked women spiced with a dash of utter idiocy! Looking on as the director attempts to make the marsh land of Quebec pass off as Southern U.S. bayou land is sad, I tell ya!

Funny thing for me is, I was actually at the premier of this flick as, at the time, I was pals with Ratchford, the film's "star". It was painful to watch on as Jeremy sank into his seat whilst the flick unfolded its mangled wings.

I'm happy to see that Ratchford, after this sham of a first flick, has grown into one hell of an actor. He can be seen regularly on the Canadian cop drama "Blue Murder", has appeared on "CSI", not to mention his role in the classic Clint Eastwood film "Unforgiven" - we forgive ya, Jeremy! It was a rocky start, but you done good, man!

~T.Paul


1st watched 4/30/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-John Waters): Corny Waters-like comedy musical with some funny scenes and good parts but it didn't make a whole worthwhile experience. John Waters directed this music-filled spoof of the fifties scene with Johnny Depp playing the title role. This movie is very similar with what he did with the 60's spoof entitled "Hairspray" but this one is not as effective. Some of the tunes are catchy, some of the characters are interesting in their quirky Waters-like way, and the portrayals are fine although sometimes overdone. The storyline is similar to the movie "Grease", where there is a good group and a bad group. The guy from the bad group, Cry Baby, wow's a girl from the good group. The good girl then joins the bad group but once Cry Baby hurts her -- she falls back to the good group. This just sets up the ending where Cry Baby tries to win her back. Now, one difference that is expected in Water's movies is that the bad group doesn't appear all that bad all the time and the good group acts like they have a pole up their you-know-what. I definitely saw this in Hairspray, as well. The wacky and goofiness isn't really all that much fun in this movie, though and it just leaves us with a feeling like the movie could have been much better. The prime appeal of the Johnny Depp character is that he's able to make one tear roll down his cheek(thus his namesake) at various times and makes the women fall all over the place for him. This is overused and the basic bottom line is that the movie is OK, but not that great.


Waters's contribution to the world of cinema has to be searched with a telescope, and then when/if something is found (by sheer chance and lots of luck) it has to be analyzed with a microscope.

And after it has been analyzed it would get discarded into the lab's "rubbish bin for totally useless things". One single atom of that microscope is worth all of his movies combined.

CB is etremely campy, and intentionally so. The usual JW stuff: comic-strip dialogue, simplistic plot, moronically cheerful characters, chewing-gum pop, overacting etc. Waters knows that he is incabaple of making a movie of quality, so he hides behind the mask of the "intentionally cheesy film-maker" - which supposedly makes him a special kind of "anti-artist". But in the world of cinema, being an anti-talent often gets mistaken for talent, which is exactly what Waters had hoped for - and eventually got. It's a con act. Charlatans infest the world of cinema and modern pop art; it's a plague.

Perhaps we have John Waters to blame for inspiring Baz Luhrman to make all those horrible, dumb turkeys. It's like a virus: one Waters creates five new bad directors, and then these five each create more, and so on. Where will it end? With "Dancer In The Dark"? Can that bomb actually be topped?


This movie was pure genius. John Waters is brilliant. It is hilarious and I am not sick of it even after seeing it about 20 times since I bought it a few months ago. The acting is great, although Ricki Lake could have been better. And Johnny Depp is magnificent. He is such a beautiful man and a very talented actor. And seeing most of Johnny's movies, this is probably my favorite. I give it 9.5/10. Rent it today!


John Waters owes me 2 hours of my life back. I saw a sneak-preview screening of this way back in 1990, and I'm still in pain. Not before or since have I seen such a terrible piece of filmic waste spewed upon the screen. There is nothing positive I can say about this film. Acting--awful; plot--ridiculous; music--atrocious. Following the movie, my friends and I demanded our money back from the manager of the theater. He explained that, since it was a free screening, he couldn't give us anything in return, no matter how much agony we were suffering through. How Johnny Depp's career survived this trainwreck of a movie is anyone's guess.


Maybe I was to young when I saw it. Perhaps I have not grown up with Grease and Elvis movies.

I failed to get it. I get "black" comedy (Black Adder etc.). I get irony and spoofs. I don't get this one though.

I made it a quest to find out the name of this movie (enlisting the help of people on usenet and the most excellent IMDb Message Boards) so it could be my first 1-pointer. Awful!


This movie was terrible. The acting was lame, but it's hard to tell if someone was acting well since the writing was so bad. This is one of Johnny Depp's worst movies- I highly discourage anyone from watching it.

If you must see Cry-Baby though, I recommend muting it and simply ogling at Mr. Depp for and hour and a half.


The plot of "Open Graves" is very simple:it's about a board game called Mamba,where the players die in real life the same way they die in the game.Laughable death scenes include killings via computer generated crabs and snakes.The characters are cardboard and deliberately annoying and there isn't even a tiny bit of suspense.I liked Eliza Dushku in "Wrong Turn",but she is completely wasted and unmemorable here.The climax with CGI-witch coming from the sea is utterly laughable and stupid.The only reason to see "Open Graves" are some interesting camera angles plus sexy Eliza Dushku.If such movies are the future of horror then I seriously give up.Give me any 70's or 80's low-budget horror flick over this modern piece of crap.A generous 3 out of 10.


OK, so I know better than to watch movies on SciFi . . . er, sorry . . . SyFy. Or shifafa. Or whatever it is now. So sue me. I spent my whole Saturday doing advisory-board brainstorming for a nonprofit. I can be forgiven for flopping into my armchair and wanting to watch some movie I'd never seen, rather than read Proust in the original or learn how to play the oud.

Which is to say, I didn't deserve Open Graves. Of which I saw none, incidentally. Were there any? Did I fall asleep? Why is it called this?

Some icky visuals. Not many scares. As with too many films in modern horror films, no reasons are given--apart from shared humanity--to care about any of these people. Half a point, though, for the legless entrepreneur, who was clichéd but did have one good scene.

It all sort of plays like Final Destination delivered via a board game. The game does have an intriguing look to it, and it involves one of my favorite old conundrums. I'll give it that much. The drawback there is that the game possessed more personality than most of the characters.

As for the end, if you didn't see it coming, then I think YOU fell asleep. Somewhere back around the dawn of the genre.


I have to say this is better than most SyFy outings, but that isn't saying much.

The plot is that someone buys a game that is made from the bones and skin of a dead witch from the Spanish Inquisition (and nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!) He and his friends play the game, only to be interrupted halfway through when the friend who went on the beer run is killed in a way that the game predicted.

What then follows are a series of kills that are typical for a movie like this, or any of the Final Destination movies. It has the puzzle at the end and the interesting subplot with the cop who wants the game to bring back his family... but otherwise, it's just a mess.


Think Jumanji but with a death curse. A bunch of surfer dudes get their hands on a game that takes the life of some one who is playing it. Supposedly it was made from the skin of a witch during the Spanish Inquisition and carries a nasty curse.

Okay, undemanding and just sort of watchable tale isn't anything you haven't seen before.Frankly its a been there and done that story that hits all the right buttons in such away as to have no real surprises. Far from the worst thing that SyFy has run but certainly its not the best. There are better choices out there but if this is your only choice you won't completely hate it.


Low budget mystery. A shot rattles out of the dark and a woman is seen running from that direction. A young architect Jimmy McMillan(Chick Chandler)discovers a dead body that goes missing. The woman in a hurry, Mary(June Clyde), is linked to the death scene; but it is McMillan that has to try and solve the case to avoid serious suspicion. Suspects are six shop owners in the vicinity of the crime scene. All the atmosphere of Film-Noir; but not quite the real thing. This flick musters just enough to be a decent low budget mystery/drama and is a nice little escape. Other players include: George Meeker, Michael Raffetto, Milton Wallace and Rebel Randall.


Unfortunately a boring flick, and obviously the only way to see it is the butchered bootleg Public Domain version, which is so blurry and dark that at times you have hard time making out where the screen is. The leading actors are a nuisance. The man spends most of his screen time trying to appear nonchalant, charming and sexy, forgetting totally what the film is about and that he is a murder suspect because of some dame who played him for a goose to start with. The dame herself merely walks through the flick, being dignified if she's not busy appearing cute. It's a rather badly written stuff, never interesting or witty. No good camera work, no memorable soundtrack, no glamorous actresses or atmospheric sets. It only scratches the surface of the genre, and nothing happens if you miss this totally missable flick.


Most of the positive comments posted here are as verbose as the movie! It takes a long-winded bore to appreciate a wordy and boring film, one supposes. Some have merely called the film "contemplative", meaning slow and devoid of plot, however, one Dutch reviewer hit the nail on the head: this is an important event turned into a dull film whose tone is set in the very first scene. Here a young couple is being shown an apartment by a Realtor who, predictably, talks non-stop and regardless of what else is going on. So does just about every other character!

The only silences in this picture are dream sequences--1930's Soviet propaganda snippets--and they are also its most interesting parts. This tells you something about how watchable the rest of the movie is.

The device of filming most of the scenes in extreme closeup--as if one were looking through a crack in the blinds--gets old fast.


I loved so much last Bellocchio's movie, the masterpiece "L'Ora di Religione". It had a great screenplay, great actors (well, have to say Castellitto is so much greater than others), a brillant use of lights for a great cinematography.

Well, Buongiorno Notte is a different story. Ridiculous screenplay erupting tons of morals (and we could speak weeks about politics, you know we are italians...). Poor cinematography (it's too simple representing '70s dark years with dark colors and dark lights, do some efforts more peoples!!!!). Bad use of music: what's the point of using psychedelia to represent the tragic rationality of Brigate Rosse?

And to all the people who claimed the main prize in Venice, I answer:"Are you nuts????" Maybe the russian film was bad but not as bad as this.

I'm down with the P.E. Don't believe the hype!!!!


Friday Night With Jonathan Ross must have those in charge of Ross rubbing their sweaty little palms together. They know the BBC lacks imagination when it comes to talk shows so when they have Jonathan Ross at their disposal they are quite settled to just sit back and let a half wit command this primetime slot.

Ross Spends most of the show grooming his ego and smiling about how much the BBC is paying him. The show is a complete copy of many US Chat Shows - Leno, Letterman, Conan O Brian, the list goes on - but he and his team have clearly seen what works on the masses can also be done for the dumb masses in the UK also.

The unfortunate situation - he has no competition? Parkinson has gone by the reality is he was never really up to much except grooming a celebs ego. Can't we have someone funnier and slicker on British Screens instead of Jonathan Ross? Once Ross has built up his ego enough he will then proceed to the very boring concept of the stiff celebrities in the green room - so trying to get on with each other. If an A-Lister is present (which is so often the case these days - as there are no other chat shows they can turn to - to promote their latest movie) - he will spend the next hour either flirting with them or trying to be their best friend in the Universe. Sqeamish when he had Ringo Starr on - a man that cares nothing for licking arse - Ross genuinely was begging for his mobile phone number (as common policy on this show is for Jonathan Ross to get everyones number so he can be seen in the right company when not working). Of course Ringo said it how it is - and simply said no I don't like you - dead pan serious.

Ross needs to be axed from all Awards and TV shows - the masses will get over it.


Any evening with Jonathan Ross now means to me his wit in first hassling and upsetting with carefully chosen words a 78 year old man by phone and then suggesting he and Russell Brand should house-break and masturbate him while he slept as a way to say sorry for making obscene phone calls to him. Kinky! And illegal. For a really big laugh maybe next time he should try it on someone he knows well, like his Boss? Or a follower of Abu Hamza? Would he be amused if someone did it to one of his daughters?

Over all the years I've perhaps seen less than 30 minutes of BBC Star Man Ross's chat show because I find him so loathsome, some of the guests I saw were OK though - probably most of them who ever appeared were OK for all I know. As a chat show it seems pretty poor though  what's so chatty about asking Tory leader David Cameron on this TV programme whether he ever masturbated to photographs of Margaret Thatcher? He chatted up Gwyneth Paltrow by simply asking her if she wanted to f*** him. However, Ross's yob mentality was finally totally exposed with the above revelations, and I thought I'd take the opportunity to warn the few decent folk around the world who might not know just how vile this man is and to steer clear of him and his - unless you think all comedy should be "edgy" ie obscene/vacuous. We're not yet all the same here, although BBC and Channel 4 are jettisoning all standards.

In October 2008 Ross with fellow tosser Russell Brand made a series of premeditated sexual obscene phone calls to Andrew Sachs' answer-phone (Manuel from Fawlty Towers), had it broadcast as intended on BBC national radio against Sachs' request and then tried to get Sachs' granddaughter to burn the evidence in case they got prosecuted. A significant number of people over here (probably most of them non BBC license fee payers) found it hilarious and/or that the national scandal had been overblown, but many people apparently still knew right from wrong and 42,851 eventually complained to BBC about the incident. Many unrighteous media fools and others snickered about these 42,851 never having heard the radio programme (and never wanting to) - using their argument they presumably also consider an event such as the Holocaust justified because at the time relatively few people complained to the media, and none of us here now should be horrified by it because we weren't there. The 2 BBC producers initially involved in passing it for broadcast thought it was "very funny and brilliant" comedy and only 2 people complained about Brand's radio programme at the time - which I'm afraid only indicated the moral level his 400,000 weekly listeners had sunk to with the help of BBC expertise. Highly moral BBC tried and failed to use it in mitigation in the later OFCOM investigation. Roll over Aristotle, tell Lord Reith the news! Sachs' agent complained to BBC but was ignored by them until a Tory national newspaper got hold of the story. The penalty for any ordinary pervert doing this would normally be sacking and prosecution, maybe even prison, but while Brand and the Head of BBC Radio 2 were both eventually ordered to resign the multi-millionaire Ross was given a 12 week holiday by BBC's Boss (I suppose that he asked Ross's permission first though if he could dock Ross's pay by £1,500,000, to prevent him from suing) to come back to this programme afresh in 2009 before his contract runs out. All that time to think of more smut and/or more insulting witlessness for his 4,000,000 viewers to admire - but at least he could still chortle his way to the bank as usual to keep his spirits up. Some people think that his position will be untenable and he won't be able to carry on. I think his skin is so thick because the stakes are so high that he will come back unbowed and re-energised with pent up vitriol. (Update 23.01.09: I've just watched the first 5 minutes of his new series - the "most enormous cock-up" - to use his referential phrase - is continuing to allow this sniggering unrepentant law-breaker to take the public's money like this.) But who knows: maybe in the future after the slimy British film & TV industries have comforted him for the moral stance taken by the 42,851 and showered him with awards he will become a Sir for his services to Perversion by the perverts in Government. At the least I hope this pair of edgy deviants sign up with other perverted commercial TV and radio stations and stay there, so I won't be paying for their flouting the law and spouting illegal obscenities in the future. In 2009 OFCOM fined British TV license-fee payers £150,000 for this "sorry" affair - Thanks Ross for offering to pay! Not.

To the apologists: Get a life/sense of humour/sense of proportion! It's not the end of the world having a pair of talentless perverts as your heroes and there's far more important things to worry about in this world, like the price of real cheese! To sum up family man Dross: a comedy genius to apparently millions of people (especially himself), merely a nasty obscene phone caller receiving an obscene wage packet from an obscene multimedia company to others. So much for our society of Political Correctness and Respect! As you should've guessed, it doesn't apply to the rich and famous and never will, but only to the poor. To sum up BBC: Stumbling blindly on from Huttongate, Campbellgate, Dykegate, Springergate, Crowngate, Phonegate now Rossgate I hope its next crisis will be Abolitiongate. I also hope anyone who thinks comedy should be always challenging and pushing back boundaries ie offensive aren't challenged or offended by my opinion of this particular law-breaking pervert, his perverted programmes and his current perverted employers.


***Tip: Have It Read To You, Heres How***

1) Copy And Paste This To Notepad (NOT WORD) 2) Go To. START>ALL PROGRAMS>ACCESSORIES>ACCESSABILTY>NARRATOR

having your testicles ironed.

When Jonathan Ross started his career he was on a show call "The Last Resort" now a days he is the first resort to host anything and anything. TV Award Shows that half the time he is up for nominations in, Comic relief, chat shows, quiz shows, game shows, charity shows, Brighton. Just when you at you wits end and think you can find salvation in the wireless the lisping twang of good old J.R. Hits you like a freight train going none stop from Texas to downtown N.Y. That has lost a hour and is trying to make it up.

About this show (FNWJR).

Its a normal chat show format with J.R. As host and a house band that concisest of four gay men (ha ha ha, ow my aching sides.) and season one had Andy Davis, but he left or was fired to give way to Ross's Ego.

Ross will more less use his guests as props and you really don't hear them speak because of his "Its my ball and I'll take it home" attitude, you also see that the bigger the guest the more he is willing to lie and suck up to them, to get in with the big boys (Like the weak kid at school who hangs round with the bully).

However when a small reality T.V. Star comes on he'll happily humiliate them, asking personal questions about the past and telling them about their lack of talent to get the laughs. Sometimes he will under estimate the popularity of a guest, say something to belittle them and then when the audience act shocked, he will quickly turn and start making himself the fall guy, the best example of this was when "Life On Mars" star John Simm came on and he said how does someone like you get work, your OK looking but not Hollywood good-looking (Bare in mind the Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry was in the green room, he was really only trying to suck up to them before they were even on the couch). When the audience acted shock Ross quickly said "What, I'm bit light headed from wearing that corset, I don't know what I'm saying". If he don't have any low forms of TV life on he'll just dig at the four gay men on the piano with jokes more out of date than his fashion.

Its very much a different story when a Hollywood A-lister or big TV star comes on the show in that he'll tell them stories to humor them. When some actor explains that he was in a support band then Jonathon Ross will say something like "Wow, well he ever I go to see a band i was try to look interested for the support band, to make them feel as though they are wanted" with an underline message being "please like me, I was probably one of the people that cheered you when you was in your band". Top this off with an audience of Ross fans so hooked on every bad old joke and bulling, it really makes for a poor show.

Your better off watching US chat shows instead, they are more scripted but not anywhere near as hard to watch.


Childish storyline ripped off of a lame Hollywood movie, terrible acting, cheesy dialogue, and not quite "up-to-par" sex scenes. That's right another great softcore parody! I enjoyed this film greatly! Sure the acting is terrible, but that part of the fun! The storyline is ludicrous, but some things must be sacrificed when the story has to revolve around girl-on-girl sex scenes. And because it's only softcore (no penetration) the sex scenes were a little bland. But it's like the great god of softcore smut Russ Meyers said "who really cares what goes down beneath the waist." I don't know if I'd agree with Mr. Meyers on this one but what the hell... the flick entertained me for an hour and a half. I give it a C+, it would've been a solid B if they coulda cast more of the girls to look like Russ Meyers actresses. VaVoom! VaVoom!~


Sure, this film was retarded. But you expected that the moment you looked at the cover-box. It's a B movie, and on the T&A factor this movie delivered. Truthfully, it was funnier than expected. While it was by no means a work of comedic genius, like "The Party Animal" or "Orgazmo", as far as B movies go it was worth the watch, if you're into that sort of thing anyway.

Christians and morally-oriented parental groups, this is soft-core adult entertainment. If you don't want your children watching sexual content and nudity, then you should keep your children away from this film.


I'll preface my review by stating that I am not a fan of the independent 'straight to video' genre that owes a great debt to the grindhouse films of the 60's. I don't own any, I've never rented any, so I might lack the appreciation for these tongue-in-cheek, low-budget stinkers that many other people have.

I caught this movie on Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. Please don't ask me why I was watching Cinemax late one Saturday evening with a lady friend. We were bored with World Championship Poker. Some atrociously bad acting courtesy of Misty Mundae (and I wish she wouldn't own up to being from Illinois, as we actually turn out some very bright thespians here) caught our attention. Now normally, the aim of some good soft-core porn would be to get you and your partner in the mood. Some good sex, tongue in cheek humor, and who know what could happen? After about 15 minutes, and a scene where the title character seduces a mugging victim, my lady friend said 'if you want to watch the rest of this fine, I am going to bed so I don't have to. Please turn the volume off.' Here is what I gather from the plot: Misty's character is a sexless nerd who gets bitten by a spider and turns into a super-sex kitten with super web slinging powers that don't come from her wrists. There is some sort of evil villainess involved, who didn't look particularly evil or sexy. Spiderbabe saves the day, has sex, M.J. (who is male in this film) constantly gets propositioned by stereotypically bad gay bikers, and somehow the evil villainess gets pushed off a building to her death.

What was good about this film? It ended.

What was bad about it? Acting to make a third grade pageant look like Oscar winners, a script turned out by people who I picture to be drunken, college-aged sex perverts who wouldn't know what sex is if they took a class taught by Dr. Ruth, special effects that were about as special as someone jumping off a trampoline, humor about as funny as well, I have yet to encounter anything that is lamer. The sex scenes? If we were watching a video, the only thing those scenes would have turned on is the fast forward button. And the action scenes? Some of my old Atari VCS games had better choreography.

Now I know this type of film is supposed to be enjoyed for it's inherent badness. Companies like EI don't set out to make good movies: they have a niche and they target it. My experience as a marketer tells me they are right on the money in servicing their audience. But after my brief exposure to 'Spiderbabe', I for one can say I am not delving into that world again any time soon. Maybe the problem with the filmmakers in this type of genre is this: they spend so much attention to making the films bad, that if they made an effort to try and focus on those things they do very well, they would turn out some very enjoyable 'le bad' Cinema, a la Troma films in the 80's. Sorry folks; the spirit is there, but the effort isn't.

Though I have to admit that "Alice in Acidland" intrigues me


This movie is bad. I saw the rated and the unrated versions. They are terrible!! Now, I know it's suppose to be a low budget, porn spoof of spiderman, but Spiderbabe is just not good at being bad-good. It's not funny! Not funny at all!! I wanted to laugh. I tried to laugh. But this movie let me down. At least the unrated version has lots of nudity to look forward to. And is it me, because Mundae is not a great looking woman. From the waist down she's okay, but on the way up leaves much to be desired. She does look good in that school girl outfit. Please, if you must watch this spiderbabe, rent it first. Rated or unrated, doesn't really make any difference, they're both bad to me!!


This thing, directed by french sensation Patrick Sebastien,is worst than all the turkeys that you may have seen. Forget Independence Day, Kazaam, The patriot, etc... you get the picture, this one's the pits. Sebastien is a TV celebrity in france, (if you need an equivalent, let's say he's Jerry Springer with an I.Q of 13), this is his first movie let's hope it's the last. I hope Troma or someone would distribute this film in the States, so that you guys out there can excperience the French stench at it's worst. Let's cut this short, this is the Masterpiece of S**t.


The director of this movie is a famous french TV presenter, Patrick Sebastien. He likes music and humor for rednecks, and his incredible movie is absolutely in his image. It's the story of a young retarded person, called "Zep" (sic). A night, he sees his sister's SM sexual relation, and decide to do the same thing: he rape the girl who he loves! Zep is placed in a asylum, and his unlucky girlfriend in a clinic. One man will find them. One man will reunite them. This man is a psychologist. This man looks like a Hell's angel. This man is... Patrick Sebastien! With an excessive use of clichés, we'll see how the Absolute Love can break all misunderstandings, and how a humanist doctor can force a victim to fall in love with her rapist. We'll also learn how using sandwiches in order to seduce a girl. Not only Patrick Sebastien thinks that he can do better than one century of psychiatry, but he also impose us a silly left ideology; with the character of the father's girlfriend, a boss, who want to take away the feeble of his girl. Distressing. But it's very pleasant to laugh at Zep (mentally retarded persons are not funny, except in this movie.)


To even say that this film is Sebastien's work at his best just tell you everything you have to know on the man. Sebastien is a pathetic, foolish, not amusing at best, yet highly popular host on french television. If watching any of his shows is just plain torture for any normally constituted human being, his first (ans lets hope only) film proved to be even worst. Sebastien's apology of rape (the victim fall in love with her aggressor) is not only misplaced but plainly unacceptable. I highly suggest you not to bother taking a look at this picture (or any of Sebastien's future features), you would just loose your time...There is something about french television that don't smell right...and this is Patrick Sebastien!!!


If you wish to have a truly traumatic experience, than this awful motion picture (if you may consider to call it that) is for you. A film worse than the postman,sizzle Beach U.S.A, Batman and Robin, Kazaam,fair game...well you get my point.This film directed by French television sensation Patrick Sebastien (Jerry Springer with an I.Q of 25) can truly be considered the worst film ever made. I do hope that Troma or someone in America would distribute it, so that the u.s.a can experience the French stench at it's worth.


One can only sit in utter amazement at this mess of a film and be amused at some of the raves people have bestowed upon it. The biggest problem seems to be the director's inability to make up his mind as to whether it's black comedy, farce or a combination of both. It meanders all over the place in search of direction and has some utterly embarrassing performances that might be better suited to bad sitcom. What a shame to see the talented Dianne Wiest's comic talents squandered and the ever annoying Jane Birkin is so over the top she's more bothersome than usual.

Perhaps a lot of the positive criticism is due to the "quirky French" nature of the film - therefore, it's labeled "smart" or "genius." It's neither. Instead it's bad tripe that leaves a rather rancid after-taste. Merchant-Ivory should stick to the serious stuff as they certainly have no comprehension of comedy.


I don't even know where to start. I did not like it. It did not behave like a story and so much was injected into the movie (the pot brownies, the son was gay (?) the murder was justified, what possible reason could there be in the script for Linda aka Penelope to exist) that was never explained. It was all fluid spilled on a table and left dripping off the counter until it all made a big mess on the floor.

Why did Vanessa Redgrave make a five second cameo? Why did Diane Wiest use her Bullets over Broadway character without the camp-fun? Why was Jane Birkin in the storyline to begin with. The list is endless. The movie ended and we all looked at each other -- like -- did you understand any of this??

I tell ya one thing, if I watched my long lost Dad get murdered I certainly wouldn't be hugging the murderer. Tell ya another thing, if "Bob" broke up with "Bob" what purpose did hiding the son in the closet have? Was Bob going to have sex with Bob in front of the son? How did the murderer contact the son so easily?

If this review sounds confused, it is because this was a waste of film, talent and time. What the heck did the dead shrink have to do with anything!!

Jezz, this is one of the worst films I have ever seen because it should have/could have been better, stronger and it should have made some kind of sense. Any sense. Instead we are given a watered down "Diva" (the film from the 70s complete with a murder) and tired performances reading boring words from a script that is completely insane.

By pass it folks. Or maybe me and the rest of the people who reviewed this film are too stupid to understand it all -- I mean after all it is a french film.


Almost a masterclass in how not to direct a movie. From the misjudged, often incomprehensible script onwards Dr Rey builds on a series of poor decisions that make the film an excruciating viewing experience. Sadly the film never rises beyond a kind of old fashioned, almost misogynistic gay camp in which women are over-wrought, OTT and middle aged and the men are young, vacuous and forever on the hunt for sex. The director was unable to pitch either the tone of the film or the level of the performances.

There is certainly a great deal of 'acting' going on. Dianne Wiest slips into a pale impersonation of her Bullets Over Broadway performance and poor old Jane Birkin flounders in her attempt to give a comic performance. Though you have to pity her as there is very little real comedy here. The whole thing feels like a very low rent version of Merchant Ivory's Le Divorce which, to be quite honest, wasn't very good, either.


...out of this movie.

Sorry to say, this showed at the Cleveland International Film Festival. Our copy did not have subtitles, so I asked the Festival crew if there was a problem with the print received. "Not so..." I was told. "the director wants it this way".

Again, sorry to say, my French is barely high school elective level (more than 3 decades ago). Much of the initial dialog is in French, so I'm sure I missed the nuance and many details in between my understanding of a few key words.

I've rated this a "1", primarily because of the irony of a director who once worked doing subtitles refusing to put subtitles into a movie to be seen by an American audience. Excuse me, even if most Americans wouldn't know where Europe was on a map, not even a film festival audience should be assumed to know "the native language" of a given movie. Even if a few of us don't know Finnish, I would still expect subtitles for the few "dolts" who aren't sophisticated enough to have expertise in the 37 different languages presented. I'll put up with this ego from David Lynch, not from Litvack.


I'll give it a two for Denis Leary. He had some good lines, but that's it. What was the point? Where was the script? Who was supposed to act? A movie needs more than this one has to offer. Save the hour and a half to watch your hair grow, or fall out, whatever the case.


Usually I have a lot of luck with these small scale movies. I looked at the cast. Leary, Lovitz, Delpy, Wuhrer, Estevez. How bad could it be? Unfortunately the answer was...pretty bad. I have a hard time remembering a movie that had such poor execution of a plot that had potential.


What a waste of energy and money. What a waste of what talent there was.

Emilio Estevez was completely wasted and mostly unused throughout. Jon Lovitz was very mildly amusing but pointless. Harry Dean Stanton - why bother? And was it just me or can Kari Wuhrer barely act in this one.

The story was pretty non-existent and really disjointed. One of my biggest problems was the reaction of the characters to the events that transpired. Like the surf "dudes" giving up their lives every time they were threatened in the last half? How about that you NEVER saw them surf once!! The set-up to some scenes took way to long with not enough pay-off to make us give a damn. Nothing in this "movie" felt really true or genuine.

The only good things I can say is some (very little) of the scenery was filmed nicely and a few scenes were mildly interesting. Don't see this when there is so many better pointless movies out there.


Hated it with all my being. Worst movie ever. Mentally- scarred. Help me. It was that bad.TRUST ME!!!


Cheesy 80's horror co-starring genre favs Ken Foree and Rosalind Cash along with Brenda Bakke are some of the featured players in this tale about a haunted health club. Goofy dialogue and some nasty gore effects make this movie watchable. Not bad but no great shakes either.

Recommended for the bad dialogue and acting. B-movie fans only.

B


This is one of the worst anime series I have ever seen. When I watched the manga review in a magazine, I thought it was maybe interesting, but when I got the chapters I realized it was a complete stupidity.

OK, the first 2 or 3 chapters are OK, and the series have an standard. But as the plot advances, it becomes totally incoherent. The series tries to show some mystical based upon the Christian mythologies, but it's a total stupidity. It features some demons and stigmata scenes... Totally nonsense. It seems the series tries to seem deeply-thought, complex or mythologically reviewed, but a watcher with a bit of brain and cultural references, will realize soon all those elements used don't have a real sense: THEY ARE PUT THERE ONLY TO IMPRESS THE IGNORANT WATCHERS!!

The final chapters are full of totally nonsense elements: battles with cat-eared demons, references to a supposed fight between demons, and demons who controls time (with no apparent reason). The final is totally nonsense; an ignorant watcher will see on it a floating final that gives them a place to meditate; but the truth is this: THE FINAL AND THE COMPLETE SERIES IS A TOTAL INCOHERENT AND INCONGRUENT NONSENSE.


To start out with, the script is immitative and inane. The characters are shallow and formulaic. The plot has arbitrary reversals and non sequitors. Baldwin's direction is terrible -- these actors could do better on their own. The jokes and wisecracks fall flat. The shoot out scenes are clumsy and incredible. Baldwin directs himself as the wise courageous hero but spends most of his time in power struggles with women, particularly with the caricatured repressedwoman in their tunnel team who is always asking for and denying reassurance. The conductor suffer from absurd incompetence, being unable to effectively employ a pistol he has come by.Anomalies: a hooded man bristleing with guns stalks through a railroad car, startling people. The next time we see them they are going about their business sitting in their seats, talking, eating, reading, knitting.In the New York subways folks sometimes come on the train to do some musical or dramatic number --- maybe that's what they thought the "happening" was.


This is perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen well over 300 movies in my lifetime. The acting atrocious, the only bright spot seems to be judging the anatomical prowess of the female castmembers. After watching this movie, it is suggested that the viewer not operate heavy machinery or go driving for a period of at least 24 hours. Also a bottle of Valium would be recommended so you don't feel so bad for the 100 wasted minutes of your life. The plot is nothing original, the dialog excruciating, and even the weapons seem sub-par. Do yourself a favor and go to your local Blockbuster and burn whatever copies they have of this horrid film.


Consider "I Know All" Action hero is lighting a cigarette in the darkness. While tries to hide/seek the Bad guys. (Probably to give a signal light to say here I am coming)

That's one of the 100 scenes you can laugh at. (I think the movie should in the Comedy category.)

Awful directing, awful script, Bad Acting, Cheap special effects. (They used a tunnel so they can hide there acting in darkness)

3 out of 10 (that also for making me laugh looking at those pathetic mistakes)


I haven't reviewed anything on here for quite awhile, but after having the misfortune to sit through this rubbish masquarading as entertainment I had to put forward my thoughts.

Normally, however bad something is, there is one redeeming part, whether it is an actor who was okay, a scene that was passable, an attractive cast member, or a general feelgood moment. Unfortunately, that isn't true here, as the film starts of atrociously, with a ridiculous shootout, which was so poor, I thought it was a practice, & two halfwits, otherwise known as the boys in blue chatting beside a school.

One of these idiots was Daniel Baldwin, who not only starred in this, but also actually Directed this garbage, & unlike his brothers cannot act for toffee. Not that he was on his own here, as everyone in it seemed to belong to the acting school of a trained chimp.

Luckily, certainly for me, I only watched an hour of this masterpiece, as the DVD wouldn't work, & was probably made by the same fools who produced this. So if you have nothing to do but watch paint dry do watch this as it is just as boring, & ideal for getting rid of unwanted guests.


I really like Ryan Reynolds and Hope Davis and I actually had high hopes watching this last night on DVD. Mainly as I try to avoid reviews until I watch something myself and form my own opinion Big mistake! My 2 /10 is for the first segment which in fairness is actually quite decent and if they had made the movie about the characters in section 1 alone it may have risen above the 5/10 mark.Once it moved into TV 'reality show' territory it stank to high heaven. Ryan Reynolds captured the essence of an actor on the edge wonderfully but as a gay TV writer and famous games creator / devoted family man he was definitely less effective. From the blurb on the box I expected a flashback thriller along the lines of 'Memento' - unfortunately this is nowhere near that standard of movie.


First, what is really great about this movie:

- Ryan Reynolds, great acting! There are very few actors I really like and for now he is one of them. He has an amazing skill to impersonate characters.

- The soundtrack! Very good music played at the right time.

- The idea of a nine lost in his own world, incapable of leaving.

Still, I give it only a 3 out of 10 for certain flaws:

- Horrible second part. It seems that the director was very eager to make something new, but despite of the efforts it was really boring

- Very annoying character Melissa. I couldn't stand the scenes with her - i.e. it was constantly annoying. She represents everything that is wrong with American woman.

- Terrible explanation of the numbers. The director was so busy with character development, that he completely missed the point of a good story.. excuse me koalas? brr... terrible!

This movie had great potential. The filming is nicely done, the music is really good, but nothing more.

See it only if you are a fan of Ryan Reynolds, or have a lot of time to spare.


*****SPOILERS*********

This movie was truly awful. This woman deceives her employers right from the start and then selfishly proceeds to tear them apart. At the end you see her making a profession out of the trade she'd learned from the father of her "pupil". I put pupil in quotes because the governess never really seems to teach the child anything. She seems to hate her and can't stand being near her. I felt sorry for the little girl who simply wanted to be loved, absent that, it was understandable that she would say and do outrages things just to get attention but the viewer wasn't supposed to sympathize with the little girl, the viewer was supposed to sympathize with the governess who hated her pupil and manipulated and deceived her employers. I just couldn't do it. This was not the story of a self made woman, rather, it was a window into the mind of one who uses others at every opportunity with no other thought for anyone outside of her own family. I couldn't stand the governess! This was a really horrible movie. I only paid one dollar to rent it but even that was too much!


I wanted to like this one - the situation was rich, and the setting unusual and interesting. But the story is swamped with childish female gothic romance elements that are hard to swallow. The director is unfairly prejudiced against the 'goy' characters -- content to let them be grotesque cardboard caricatures -- and inexplicably indulgent towards the homewrecking behavior of the heroine. The potentially interesting power struggle between the inventor and the governess is not really dealt with.

Feminist film makers will get more credibility when they stop manipulating situations to throw all the sympathy to the heroine, and start dealing honestly with issues. This movie more closely resembles 'The 7 Pieces of Gold', another earnest failure, more than 'The Piano' - a real tale of passion.


This movie had an excellent premise, and could have been a fascinating look at racism, attitudes to women at work and male female relations in England early last century. However, it simply turned into a soppy love story. But what was worse, is that the love story was totally unbelievable. The acting was for the most part poor, the direction confusing, but most of all the screenplay and the story were non-existent. The only thing I liked about the film was how dark it must have been before electric lighting. I really got a sense of just how little light one candle puts out.


The Governess was, by far, a very pitiful film. I do not use this word loosely, as it honestly was a poor excuse for a movie. I finished watching this feature with only one word on my mind  "why"? Honestly, you could use this question at the end of every scene of this film and it would seem like it fit. There were so many inconsistencies that lead to a lack of development (both in the story and in the characters) which ultimately lead to a very confusing film with actors walking through the motions instead of giving any explanation. Scenes would occur with no foreshadowing, understanding, or drive to a complete ending. It was as if I was watching several different ideas thrown together without really any resolution. Actors were setting events in motion that did not seem to fit their character or really were resolved. This was my biggest issue with this film. The complete and utter lack of structure to this film brought all specks of foundation crumbling down with a genuine "ripple-effect" being felt throughout the rest of the film as a result.

Let me explain myself further on this lack of consistency throughout the film. I would liken this film to a bowl of lumpy oatmeal that had a zebra in it. It made no sense nor was there any logic behind it all. Minnie Driver was the worst culprit of this deed. Her character's lines were drawn very fuzzy and nearly transparent. She would do things like talk about sex all the time with her sister, but yet she seemed very open to sexual experiences all the time. She has her first moment of passion in this film, and there is no pain or excitement. It nonchalantly happens, and this just didn't seem to fit the original conversation that we had at the beginning of the film with Rosina and her sister. She is a very intelligent woman that accidentally finds a solution to Wilkinson's problem and suddenly wants full rights to his invention? That was confusing and completely random. Is it not obvious to anyone else that her teaching methods were non-existent. Anyone in their right mind could see that she wasn't teaching Cavendish's daughter anything. The sudden and awkward relationship that randomly forms between Driver and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers nearly had me laughing out loud. I thought maybe I had discovered some magic in this film as Rhys-Meyers literally "poofed" into the scene and suddenly caused some unneeded drama. It felt that the director (or writer) was thinking that the original story was going nowhere fast, so by adding this random character we may be able to advance the plot a bit (or confuse the lesser film enthusiasts). Well, it didn't fool me, I saw that he was nearly a "cut-and-paste" character used to strengthen an already weakened story. Don't get me started on the ending, which had no consistency to the rest of the story. Again using the "cut-and-paste" method, the writer of this film needed a way to just end the story, and this was the only solution they could arrive to. It is sad when actors are forced to do things out of character  but I guess that is the name of the game in Hollywood. Fix until completely broken, or at least salvageable.

The remainder of the story was unexciting dribble. There were maybe a handful of neat cinematography moments where you could see that there was one sliver of creativity trying to peak through coupled with some bars of decent, period piece music, but nothing to write to Grandma about. More family structure with some stronger introductions could have strengthened this film a bit more, but as I stated before, by leaving open-ended scenes just lying around the entire film, you will experience a crack in your foundation. What may seem like a sturdy story, will eventually wear down over time, and by the end of this film I felt that the house was crumbling down on top of me. Wilkinson plays his normal self in this film, while Driver apparently did not want to get naked, but everyone else had too (I will have to see a doctor after those images were burned into my eyes  eeewwww). Also, she wore the same dress everyday. That was disgusting and I could smell her through the television. Sex and dirty laundry. Now there is a great film for you! There just seemed to be some potential floating around here, but instead it was just rubbish. Nothing was answered, questions seemed to fall like snow in Alaska, and mediocrity seemed to reign supreme.

Overall, this could have been a decent film that combined the powerful themes of science and love together, but instead it was just pitiful. I cannot stress enough the disturbing fact that characters were going through motions without any sort of pre-explanation. I don't need cinematic moments handed to me like a child, but something should have been done to build a foundation. Just remember the oatmeal with a zebra analogy that I used. If you were as confused about that as I was, then you will completely understand the film The Governess, while if you prefer zebras in your oatmeal  then, maybe this film is for you!

Grade: * out of *****


THE GOVERNESS is a moody period piece, the meandering story of a Jewish woman who, upon the death of her father, sets out to 1830's Scotland, posing as a Gentile to get work to support her family in London.

Rosina - or Mary, as she calls herself in a none too subtle piece of symbolic writing - is a rudderless child, a socialite with dreams of being an actress. She strikes up an alliance with her employer, and by accident solves a crucial problem in his research with photography. Giddy with success, they begin a halting and uncomfortable affair while the eldest son of her paramour falls hopelessly (and inexplicably) in love with her.

And like a child, she fails to understand the consequences of her actions - in the end, betraying those she deceived in order to make a life for herself.

Many claim this is something of a feminist manifesto, but I disagree. Whether intended or not, this film only resonates with me if I think of it as a cautionary tale. In the end, Rosina's greatest disappointment is the truth - that she lied, happened upon a way to help a man she wanted to be both her father and her lover, and in the end contributed nothing but destruction. As such, the end of the film gives me the impression that nothing she did, no one she used, made her happy - and that is exactly as it should be.

Did I need a movie this long and langorous to teach me this lesson? Not at all. On the contrary, had it not been for excellent cinematography, unique score and my hope that she'd get her come-uppance, I wouldn't have stuck with it to the end of the film.

Fans of Minnie Driver will likely be disappointed by her uneven performance but may wish to see it anyway; I doubt young female fans of Jonathan Rhys-Meyers will be able to stay awake for the payoff they expect, and I can't help thinking this holds too little cultural detail to be of interest, even to photography buffs. The 3 points I award the film are solely for its visual style and score. On the strength of their other work, I assume the actors' performances are so disappointing because of a poor script and worse directing, but they are, in the end, unremarkable.


Despite strong performances by Minnie Driver and Tom Wilkinson, this film fails to ignite the imagination of the viewer.

By the way, what has become of Ms. Driver? She had such a potential in the film industry.

This to me was almost like an 1850s version of Yentl without the musical fanfare. With the death of her father, Driver takes a position as a governess to a Christian family, hiding her Jewish identity.

While I realize that this is a period peace, it was awfully dull even for 1850 England and Scotland.

The lady of the house is most irritating with that sing-song voice of hers. I expected her to refer to Driver as dear at any moment. What kind of name is Mary Blackchurch? I know that Driver is trying to pass herself off as a Christian, but does this name signify all the way?

In the interim, Mary finds love with the young charge's father (Wilkinson) and his emotionally unbalanced son.

In the end, the only thing that we see accomplished is that Mary has found a profession to provide for her family-photography. Did we really have to be subjected to what was happening throughout the film?

The early scenes of Judaism practiced in 19th century England and the cholera epidemic at the end could have been played up more. There is a definite underlying feeling of anti-Semitism by the Wilkinson family but that's never allowed to come out.


If I heard the male lead say "This is madness!" one more time I would have barfed. The film is one big cliche, with fake "grind him under your heel" attitudes. Not one male in this movie has one redeeming quality; reminds me of Soviet-era films with strongly politically-oriented messages. I couldn't even understand WHY there was attraction between the leads, nor could I wait for the ending.


Not good. Mostly because you don't give a damn about what happens to all these people. Some comments : 1. I am tired of seeing governesses who never talk to their pupils, never teach them anything and take a tired and annoyed look whenever the said pupil, who of course has been won over in the space of 4 seconds, says something 2. Fine, so Rosina has a father complex and therefore is attracted to her employer. But Charles is completely different in all aspects from her father - if anything Henry is much closer as a sensual, exalted person 3. How could you ever believe that she would be more attracted to Tom Wilkinson than to Rhys Meyer. 4. Hard to believe, if she had been in fact raised as a deeply religious girl, that she would be so careless about sleeping with a gentile after knowing him for 5 minutes.

Some good things about the film : At least she didn't end up pregnant, not knowing who the father was... The whole description of life in the Jewish community in London is good


This movie had potential. If it had been handled differently. What it needed was a different director. That's certain. And perhaps a different leading lady. I just can't understand the Minnie Driver character - or at least how she played it. She was completely unbelievable. I cannot believe she would have liked her performance in this movie either. She was probably abandoned by the director or incapable of delivering what the director was trying to get her to do. I am writing this as I am still watching it. I'm thinking I would have hated to be in her shoes trying to 'act' something I didn't understand. Well, we've just proceeded to the affair she begins with the son (I'm still watching). I'm now beginning to be profoundly embarrassed for everyone involved in this enterprise. If you enjoy watching movies that miss their mark in a big way, then watch this one.


Jane Eyre with full frontal nudity! I was not surprised to see that a woman had had a hand in this awful "woman's picture" and I mean that in the worst possible way. The trouble is, it could have been so good if they had only left out the Jane Eyre stuff and stuck with the vastly more interesting scenes involving the Spanish/Portuguese Jews in early 19th century London. When the sound track music is better than the film, you know you are in trouble. When you fast forward the video because you can't stand the film, just to make sure you don't miss anything, you are in even worse trouble. This film will end up on the romance TV channel where it rightly belongs.


"Hardbodies 2" is harmless, aimless and plot less. I would add "brainless" to that list, but the movie-within-a-movie gimmick, although not done very well, helps it to narrowly escape that label. The scenery has changed from the California beaches to the Greek islands, and the only returning cast members from the first film are Sorrells Pickard (the bearded guy) and Roberta Collins (who at one point falls into a mud pit, bringing back memories of her classic catfight with Pam Grier in "The Big Doll House"). All the other actors are new, but apparently Brad Zutaut is supposed to be playing the same character (Scotty) as Grant Cramer did in "Hardbodies". This sequel lacks the energy and appeal of the first movie, and doesn't come close to matching it in the "hotness" department, either. Of course Brenda Bakke and Fabiana Udenio are both very pretty, but the Teal Roberts - Cindy Silver - Kristi Somers team is unbeatable. "Hardbodies 2" is not the worst of its kind by any means, but if you only want to see one of these movies, the original is the one to get. (*1/2)


This film was produced and released as a successor to a ghastly - although fairly popular - slapstick Californian beach comedy called Hardbodies, but it has little or no connection with the earlier film and is better assessed completely in its own right. It is certainly better than Hardbodies I, and is more closely related to films such as Venus and Summer Lovers which were also filmed during summer in the Greek Islands. The combination of blissful beaches on blue bays with beautiful bare bosoms makes for seductive viewing, but (except for travelogues just designed to help plan your next holiday) even such films require an adequate story line if they are to hold a viewers attention for more than a very few minutes. Venus was underpinned by the legend of the re-incarnation of the goddess, and Summer Lovers had the viability of a "menage a trois" as its theme. In my view both these films were much more successful than Hardbodies II which has a very tenuous story line and depends too much on simplistic semi-slapstick comedy. The use of slapstick quickly becomes tedious, it usually leads to a series of very short self contained cameo sequences that are hard to integrate into an ongoing story line. Mel Brooks achieved this brilliantly with Silent Movie, but few other films have succeeded in the same way, and Hardbodies II unfortunately does not. There is also the problem that the slapstick sequences do not co-habit happily with the idyllic and peaceful scenario in which the film is set. The final airport sequences were no doubt intended to provide a hilarious ending for this film but in my opinion they are an example of the worst type of overplayed slapstick pseudo-comedy. They are also grossly overlong, so I left the cinema with a bad taste left in my mouth. This is a film which could have been much more successful with a stronger story line and with most of its slapstick sequences very heavily pruned. As it was released it certainly does not warrant a viewers rating higher than 3.

	There is little memorable in the acting, but the cast does its best within the limitations imposed by a meagre story line and poor direction - it is in these latter areas that the failure arises.


It's just when a band tours, and only has one original member. It's not the same as the classic line up. All new actors playing the main roles of Rag, Scotty, etc, with Ashby as virtually the only returning face from the first movie. And he was of only minor note of the first flick, serving as the only redeemable group of the three guys that Scotty was trying to assist in meeting females. The film is poorly written, featuring the dumbest dialog this side of Armageddon. Even for a T&A movie, this one is a turkey. Not even die hard low budget 80's films fans would want to sit through this movie, which has no plot, and plenty of bad acting. This film would have been better off never being released. Just plain bad.


The '80's were the best of times and worst of times for James Karin, he starred in one of the best cult horror-comedies with "Return of the Living Dead" and a year later he acts in this piece of.... this bad movie. A sequel to Hardbodies (but not really), has a group of fairly unlikeable characters attempting to make a movie in Greece. Through design or sheer laziness the line between the film and the 'film within a film' is not only blurred, but throughly non-existent from scene to scene (which would be confusing if I were just interested in anything happening in the movie in the first place. Unfunny would be too generous a term.

Eye Candy: Nana, Fabiana Udenio, and many numerous extras get topless; Brenda Bakke shows some T&A

My Grade: F

DVD Extras: Just trailers for "Hardbodies", "American High School", "Strike", "Virgin Territory" (comes in a double-feature DVD with the first film, for the masochistic)


Pointless movie about making a movie. No where near the flesh shown in the original, which was quite enjoyable and even had fun music. Not here.

It's always fun seeing the Pathmark guy though.


Believe it or not, this was at one time the worst movie I had ever seen. Since that time, I have seen many more movies that are worse (how is it possible??) Therefore, to be fair, I had to give this movie a 2 out of 10. But it was a tough call.


Wow, did this episode start on a STOOOOOPID premise! The Enterprise is chugging along when all of the sudden, Abraham Lincoln is floating around in space and welcomes the Enterprise!!!!!!! Is it just me, or is this a really lame-brained idea?! Lincoln comes aboard and they welcome them. Abe suggests they beam down to some barren planet, where they meet other famous dead folks--both good and evil. It seems that a really cheesy-looking rock monster has assembled a team of GOOD and EVIL people to battle it out for supremacy. The whole thing seems really daffy and inherently unfair, as the GOOD side is saddled with Surak--a Vulcan who makes Gandhi seem like Rambo!! Despite a totally AWFUL premise, the action is pretty good and it's great to see overhead shots of obvious doubles fighting it out in this grudge match. But, don't mistake this for high art or deep sci-fi. The bottom line is that the series was on its last legs as a first-run series and this really looked like they dusted off this turkey and filmed it regardless of the absurdity of the premise.


This film follows the life of a great guitar player, who wants to make it big but acts irresponsibly almost to the point of self destruction.

I was expecting the usual Woody Allen witty dialogs, sarcasm and humour, but "Sweet and Lowdown" failed to provide any. The main character, Emmet Ray, is an egocentric, rude, irresponsible and hurtful man. He is so unlikeable, that I do not want to now about him, or care about him. I wonder why a film about him has to be made. The pacing of the story is slow, making the film a terrible bore. Even Sean Penn's great acting fails to revive the film to a watchable level.

I like Woody Allen's films a lot, but "Sweet and Lowdown" is a major disappointment.


This is the first Woody Allen film I've found not worth watching. I think Woody has tried many different genres to interest results but this movie just left me irritated and bored. The music is lovely but don't bother watching this hopeless mock-umentary.


Well, I think I've finally seen my last Woody Allen movie! I read the review in the newspaper and went to see this movie with the expectation of having a good Woody Allen experience (as I've had many times in the past). Well, that was not the case. This movie has nothing to offer. Even with the wonderful performance by the talented Sean Penn - this movie failed. One of the features of his other movies is multiple characters - variety, witty dialogue. This movie basically consisted of only one character - very one dimensional. It had almost no laughs. It probably looked good on paper! I think the only thing special was the performance of Samantha Morton. Now I'll be looking for her movies in the future. So, in conclusion, this movie was a major disappointment. >


Woody Allen (who I have to confess at the outset I have never been a big fan of) directed this quasi-documentary about the life of Emmett Ray (Sean Penn), a 1930's jazz guitarist whose star apparently shone for a while, then quickly faded. Penn does a credible job in the role, portraying a complicated and somewhat neurotic man (not unlike Allen himself, which perhaps explains why Woody would be attracted to this project) who can't maintain relationships, and whose twin passions (aside from guitar playing) were shooting rats at the dump and watching trains.

There isn't a great deal of consistency to the story. It's narrated in a sense by a series of modern-day jazz "experts" (one of whom is Allen himself), who relate their various theories and interpretations of different events in Ray's life. The end result is a wildly inconsistent account of the life of a fictional man who seems to have been given a fairly interesting life story by his creators, who probably should have done a better job with it.

Jazz fans and fans of Woody Allen will probably enjoy this. As for me? The best I can give it is a 3/10.