Basic structure of a story: Beginning, Middle, End.

Sometimes this structure is played with, and we get Memento or Irreversible and the story plays backwards. Sometimes it's just not linear, a la Pulp Fiction. Regardless, they all have a beginning, middle and end.

This is the first film I have ever seen that doesn't have an end.

Beginning: Girl's best friend is expelled.

Middle: Girl needs to cope without best friend.

End: Non existent.

Not that having an end would've saved this film, but at least it would have been complete.

It's an exercise in apathy; we get a party-mix of characters, and they all turn out to be duds. Boring, vain, vapid and pallid imitations of people.

And here's the action within this film: NOTHING HAPPENS. Nothing at all happens. Mischa Barton tries to talk with a plummy English accent, Dominique Swain whines a lot and Brad Renfro receives a blow job from some old guy. End of movie.

By the time the credits rolled, I had a horrible feeling that many prisoners must feel: periods of time, those precious minutes of our life, have just been wasted.

The only passable point (and that is a very emphatic ONLY) is Brad Renfro. He acts well. Lacey Chabert I tend to like, but no luck here. Due to good work in other films, I will forgive Mischa Barton this travesty, but I hope all cast members were slapped in the face for their involvement.

Please, I implore you. Avoid. Don't fool yourself into thinking "I'll make up my own mind". My sister told me to never see this, and I ignored her, wanting to make up my own mind. That was a bad decision.

I have never hated a film. There are many I don't like, but I have never hated a film. Until I saw this.


Eghads, what a bad movie. Tart is perhaps the very worst movie I've seen all year, and I've run across some doozies. There is nothing redeeming about this trash, from the characterization to the direction to the plot. Even the usually brilliant Dominique Swain couldn't save this movie. None of the characters are in the least bit sympathetic, with the possible exception of Eloise (wonderfully portrayed by Lacey Chabert, the only bright spot in this dismal failure).

*******Possible Spoilers********

The main problem with Tart is that it rambles on without saying anything. It staggers about drunkenly instead of leading us along the path of the story. It also introduces numerous potentially tantalizing details (the hypochondriac brother, the mother's possessions constantly being repossessed, the anti-semitic classmate, the other classmate's murderous father) without successfully exploring a single one of them. And just when I finally thought that there might be some sort of resolution for the characters, the movie crashes to an unexpectedly violent end.

I left the movie feeling that it was trying to tell me something, but with the strong impression that the message was forgotten before it could be communicated. This is an obvious first film from a writer/director who really needs to spend much more time working under more established film makers before foisting any more of her work on an unsuspecting public.

I gave this film 1 out of 10, and I'm usually very generous, even with bad films.


TART is the worst movie I've seen this year, and that includes both the Affleck/J.Lo bomb GIGLI and the Rob Zombie borefest HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES. I don't know if that's a fair comparison seeing that TART was made two years earlier and probably has a budget half that of even the low-budget 1000 CORPSES. Regardless, all three movies suffer from the same shortcomings: horrible script, horrible acting, horrible direction.

*** SPOILERS *** (although I honestly don't think there's anything to spoil)

TART is about a group of super-spoiled private school kids. Most of them reside in super-sized apartments along New York's hyper-expensive Park Avenue, thanks to the finances of their neglectful parents. The film showcases the aimless life of one of the students (Cat) as she discards her only true friend (as frivolous a person as she was) in the pursuit of the "good life" with the in-crowd. That, of course, leads to sex, drugs, and music that is substantially worse than rock & roll. Everything is overly dramaticized in the way that truly bad movies usually are. Cat's first sexual experience leads to her being branded a tramp and ostracized by her newly acquired circle of friends; her first encounter with drugs leads to her nearly being dumped down a garbage chute after her cohorts believe her to be dead from an overdose. No heavy-handed messages there, he said sarcastically.

That's mainly what the "seen it before 100 times" plot entails. Other minor, and even less interesting, plot details include one friend who steals jewelry and trinkets from all the others, a wild child who lives life on the edge (and finally falls off of it one night in the EAST Hamptons), an anti-Semitic British chick who ends her close friendship with Cat the moment she finds out Cat has a Jewish father, and Cat's strained relationship with her single mother who tries unsuccessfully to get Cat to appreciate the privileged life she has. The thief turns out to be an irredeemable lowlife. The "wild child" is played as a toned down version of one of the Hilton sisters. The British girl disappears from the film after the break-up. The mother/daughter relationship is seen as totally inconsequential until the film's final schmaltzy scene, where she and her beleaguered mother have a reconciliation of sorts. *yawn*

*** END SPOILERS ***

About the cast and crew.... Dominique Swain came on the scene strong with her role as the underaged seductress in 1997's highly watchable LOLITA and FACE/OFF. Her performances were strong enough to land her on quite a few "ones-to-watch" lists at the time. She was 17 at the time and I hope that they will not be the best roles of her career. If she takes a few more roles like the one she takes in TART, it very well may be.

I've only seen Bijou Phillips in one other film (BULLY) and I swear her performance in that one was nearly identical to the one she gave here. I'm not sure if she's incapable of giving varied performances or if it was just a coincidence her roles in the two were so very similar. My guess is that the former is true. I sense this woman possesses very little talent as far as acting is concerned. Here, she is the actress tapped to portray the watered-down Hilton sister. That she gives such a weak performance is amazing considering that she grew up with, and remains friends with, the real-life Hilton sisters. She's essentially playing a version of herself in this film, and doing a damn poor job of it.

As for writer/director Christina Wayne... I know nothing of her other than TART was her first, and only, film project to date. With a first effort like this it is no wonder her career in show business was short-lived.


Movie Title - Tart

Date of review - 5/26/02

Year of movie - 2001

Stars - Dominique Swain, Brad Renfro, Bijou Phillips (barely), Melanie Griffith (barely)

NeCRo's Rating - 4 skulls out of 10

May Contain spoilers

Plot

An "outcast" Dominique Swain wants to be with the "in" group and so she abandons her real friends and joins them.......much annoying rich people talk occurs. Acting

ugh, I guess I got what I wanted in that Dominique was ok, but man, the rest of the cast besides maybe Brad Renfro were bad or at least not interesting or likable at all. I know some could say that the others were good because they made me hate them....trust me....I like unlikable chars but this group is unlikable because they can't convincingly be bad people.

It figures that the only other people I got this for were barely even in it and that is Melanie Griffith and Bijou Phillips, but the little time they had they were ok. Melanie spoke maybe 2 lines, but at least Bijou had a good character although small.

Violence and Gore

My mind was constantly under attack from horrid dialogue and very very annoying characters, that's violence enough!! ok there was one bludgeoning with a rock which was ok.

T&A Nudity Factor

hahaha, they couldn't even add in any nudity to help spice up this movie, probably because no one would want to bear their body for this crap. If they are going to expose themselves they should do it in a movie where they will be remembered as their character and not for "oh hey I heard she gets naked in this one."

Overall View of the movie (review)

ok ok I know I pride myself on being the person who can like most if not almost all movies or at least find some good in it. Well this movie is one of the few I really struggled to find anything worth while in. The problem with this movie is that it is so damn annoying. I already have a deep hatred for snobby rich people attitudes and that didn't help either. All this movie really is, is just a bunch of rich people sitting around acting depressed and stupid. I can't stress the annoyance factor enough. This movie tries to rehash the tried and true "In group" plotline which can usually be done ok with little difficulty.

Why do I not have a pic from the movie or the box cover? Well I felt this movie didn't deserve that glory so I decided to put a pic of the reason I rented this, and that reason is none other than Dominique Swain. Yes I too was wooed by her in Lolita and thought she was so good that I decided from then on to check her out in any movie in which she acts. At least I keep my promises and yes I have seen the majority of her movies, minus a few hard to find ones. She herself is a great actress and I would defend her actively, but man she chooses some of the crappiest movies to star in. This movie and Smokers are both in the same boat of crappiness, but at least Smokers had a cool idea for a story and even some real good scenes.

Also the dvd box tries to fool you into thinking that this movie has stars as well in it by putting Melanie Griffith and Bijou Phillips names on the front of the box. If there's one thing that P****S me off it's a movie that plasters the names of stars on a box to make you think "wow it has ____ I wonder how good ___is in this one I saw ___ in that movie and thought she was great!" only to have the big names in the movie for a total of maybe 10 minutes between the 2. Bijou actually had a part that semi-meant something. Melanie on the other hand, only has 2 lines about.... Granted I don't like Melanie that much, but this is about ethics and not star acting.

Out of all this mess though props must go to Brad Renfro for turning in an ok performance along with Dominique. Brad may be one very messed up kid in real life, but at least he can act. So the only reason this movie gets any skulls is because I got what I basically wanted which was Dominique Swain and Brad Renfro. Also I had the added pleasure of seeing underrated actress Bijou Phillips make me like her even more. So even though I was annoyed throughout I still came out with some positives, although this was pretty hard this time.

I recommend you to ONLY see this if you've seen Lolita and know how good Dominique is or if you are some offbeat fan of Brad or Bijou. Uber Melanie fans will be sorely depressed. Also if you're a fan of crappy movies like me, please do not assume this be a guilty pleasure because you will feel guilty alright, for the money spent on buying or renting.

Some movies are "so bad that they are good" as the saying goes. What they forgot to add was "so bad that they are good (to pass up)."

NeCRo


The box to this movie totally misrepresents itself. The cover shows a view of legs & panties in a short skirt. The title is `Tart.' The synopsis on the back of the box made it seem as though Cat, the main character, was an outcast who became one of the popular students, but that popularity lead to a bizarre lifestyle that she could not escape from. Everything that the box built this movie up to was a horrible lie. I expected a sort of crappy, direct-to-video version of `Heathers' targeted at the teenagers of today.<br /><br />Let me tell you what `Tart' was really about. Yes, this really is the plot; so if you don't want to know what happens, stop reading. We have one unlikable, boring rich girl. This unlikable girl's best friend is a skank. The skank gets expelled from school, so the unlikable girl befriends some British girl. This leads to the unlikable girl dating this boring guy, who the box refers to as the `most popular boy in school.' If that guy was the most popular guy in their school, I wish I would have gone to that high school, because I could have kicked the crap out of him. Anyway, as any movie will tell you, the most popular guy in school is invariably a murderer or drug addict or thief, or in this case, all of the above. Anyway, everyone ends up disliking the unlikable main character because she is Jewish. Then the most popular guy in school beats her best friend, the skank, to death with a rock because the skank caught the most popular boy in a homosexual act. The unlikable girl's stoic mother and hypochondriac younger brother are there for her at the end. Oh, and the entire movie is about snotty rich kids and their horrible parents too. Gee, what is wrong with that? That sounds like a fantastic movie! Well, that's what I thought. But you see, there are NO likeable characters in this movie. The main character is boring. The filmmakers made her average, while during the film she keeps spouting off about what a freak she is. The skank is not skanky enough, and has little screen time. The popular guy is nothing to write home about. The popular girls are just your run-of-the-mill rich girls. There are no moral lessons. Cat, the boring main character, is not a freak, does not ever become one of the truly popular girls, and (worst of all) after all the crap she goes through, she thinks she is still too good to befriend the only nice girl, the dorky girl. To be honest, I have no idea why the movie is called Tart. I kept asking, who's the tart? Is she the tart? Are they all tarts? At 94 minutes, theoretically this is not a long movie. But after actually watching this awful waste of a VHS tape, and not knowing who the tart was, I was surprised that the movie was only an hour and a half. The movie felt like it was two hours and some change. After a while, I was hoping the movie would be about pop tarts. At least when you look at a box of pop tarts, you know what to expect.


Just once in a while you see a movie so mind-numbingly awful that you have to comment on it. This was that movie. Poorly scripted, acted and totally unbelievable. It's movies like these that show you how good the banal Hollywood trash usually is!


I only wish that I had the good sense to turn this movie off in the beginning when I knew it was terrible.

Instead I gave it the benefit of the doubt and waited for it to get better.

Don't make the same mistake I did.

The title has nothing to do with the movie. The movie has nothing to do with the real world. The plot has nothing to do with a plot. The acting consists of a guy who wants to be John Cusack, but can't pull it off. The lead is a girl who tries to be Claire Daines. Sadly, she can't pull that off either. They are in love, although god only knows why. And by the end I was hoping that they would all kill each other off just so I could believe none of these kids would ever taint the world again.


As a rule, I try to find as much in films as I possibly can to enjoy them. I made no exceptions with "Tart", doing my very best to appreciate it for what it was. But no effort, no matter how great, could possibly redeem this pitiful excuse for a movie.

It failed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the cinematography was directionless and ineffective. Secondly, the script reached depths of 'poor' that took it well and truly beyond the 'so bad it's good' category. Thirdly, the acting left mind-blowing amounts to be desired - it was appalling, it really was. Anyone who saw Mischa Barton (seen here as the remarkably terrible Grace, a character so poorly invented and realised that Ja Ja Binks doesn't seem so bad) as Devon in John Duigan's "Lawn Dogs" will wonder what went wrong between then and now. Perhaps, had she been given a character worth bothering with, and a modicum of direction, she at least might have given this film ONE redeeming feature. Alas, such was not the case. Finally, the film seemed to have no point whatsoever, expressing nothing, achieving nothing. Really, I wonder why Christina Wayne bothered.

"Tart" made a feeble attempt to be something, and failed. The result - a film, sadly, so bad that it's just very, very bad. Don't bother - it really isn't worth it.


For the first time in reviewing films, I found myself immediately uninterested in this story. I don't know if it was the way that it was filmed or the story behind the characters, but it felt bland, overused, and completely unoriginal. Within the first thirty minutes, I found myself rather apathetic with all the characters and the story. I felt as if I had seen this structure before, and Tart was providing nothing new to surprise me. After thinking that it may just be my mood, I stopped the film and chose to start it fresh in the morning, but the same feeling persisted. I just didn't care. That is not a good sign. The characters were bland. When I say bland, I literally mean that by watching them develop, you will never have any flavor hit your palate. The story seemed recycled, nearly to the point of plagiarism. Now, I am not saying that Christina Wayne stole this story, but she added nothing fresh to the perspective. The casting was horrid, the underlying symbolism and themes were so far lost that no critic could find them (nor the characters), and the stories were vague and sloppy. You knew nothing about anyone or anything, and instead of pushing more emphasis on the characters, we instead found ourselves with drugs, minor sex, and money pushed into our faces. These are themes we have seen in every film since the dawn of film time, yet somehow could not be creatively captured by Wayne.

What immediately pulled me away from this story? It was mainly the characters. I have seen most of Brad Renfro's work, and honestly he needs to redefine himself. Director Larry Clark has defined him, and oddly he cannot get out of that stereotypical character. Within the first twenty minutes of Renfro's screen time I was bored. I knew exactly what he was trying to portray and why. It was spectacular nor impressive, just repetitive. He needed to bring some excitement or suspense to his role, instead of just blandly playing this random socialite. Without a strong character, the final climax of this film comes instead as a letdown. Renfro did not showcase the best of his abilities in this film. While I am on the subject  nobody showcased the best of their abilities. What is going on with Dominique Swain, outside of Lolita, I don't believe she has really emerged as an actress, and following-up with roles such as Cat Storm doesn't help. Bijou Phillips was the only actress that I witnessed actually try to bring something remarkable to the screen, sadly due to everyone else's horrid acting, she was lost. Rambling here and there, and honestly nearly forgotten about during the second act. Melanie Griffith was a pointless cast and most of this film's budget probably went to her TWO scenes that she was in. Maybe the rest of it went to the random guy from The Kids in the Hall, who desperately needs to place himself far away from this project.

My biggest problem, outside of the acting, was the pacing of this film. Nothing, and this is hard for me to say, but nothing gelled together. There were so many sub-stories happening throughout the course of the film that no actual substance was formed. The robberies, the teenage "angst and woe", the wealthy socialites learning how horrible real life is, the random Kids in the Hall guy, and even the ending just felt rushed and horribly edited together. With this shoddy craftsmanship the whole story never really formed any true shape. Family structures were never defined, characters were never given any emotion, and all we are left with are bits and pieces of honest leftovers. Wayne did not complete the task at hand.

While I hate to put the entire burden on the director, with this film I am left with little choice. With a horrid title that just screamed the complete opposite of what this film was about, with amateurish directional ability the cast pretty much was able to give every emotion in every scenes, leaving us with disgusting acting and poor developments, and with vague storytelling it is hard to place any "good" behind Tart. This was a film I had heard nothing about, and after viewing it I can see why. All Wayne has done with this film is random take excerpts from other films that have done a better job of defining all the elements above and cut all together to make the film Tart. It is hard for me to say this, but Wayne ruined this film. While I don't believe there was much to fully take from the story, any remaining elements of excitement were drained as Wayne took the helm. While most of the time you can credit some of the story, perhaps strong acting, or even the music, in Tart you can credit nothing. From the opening sequence until the end, I felt like I was swimming through very lumpy oatmeal. No consistency, no strength.

Overall, this film is a waste of your time. If you are searching for some deep symbolic elements or possibly some banter on our society, you will not find it in this film. While I know that was what Wayne was attempting to show, the final product seems like it was edited on an Etch-a-Sketch. It was an embarrassing film to sit through, and encourage nobody to pick it up. Wayne threw to the wind all the teachings of her Columbia University education and destroyed two hours of my life. Avoid at all costs!

Grade: * out of *****


SPOILERS!

I gave this film 2 out of 10 for 2 scenes that I will never forget.....by the way, my husband rented this surprising non-blow 'em up almost chick looking flick...but I guessed why when I saw the cover....girls in school uniforms....duh....lol....ah well, men if ya can't beat 'em join 'em.....;-)

Bijou Philips, one of my favorites on the indie screen...too cute......not only gets into bestiality (her toy dog is the best lesbian in town according to her bubbly outrageous character)..that would be the first worthwhile scene..

Then she enters a restroom in a lovely gown & goes into a stall....after a bit she gets up, goes out to the party she & the pathetically sad 'Cat' character are at,& hands a shiny silver ice bucket to the host of the party...the host looks in her precious silver ice bucket and says, "oh my god it's poo."

I love Bijou Phillips myself for her creativity and unusual movie choices, this would definitely be one of them....and um, I would rent it for the poo scene if I were you.....I am not a big poo jokes fan, but it definitely puts the 'party people' in their place (they didn't look like they were having a good time anyway.....lol)...You will never forget these two scenes...hmm, but is that what we want in our databanks?....Maybe you shouldn't follow my advice at all....lol

Dominique Swain is kind of squirrelly & sad in her confusing nonsensical role in 'Tart'. I don't know, I can't decide if I like her because she is so into indie films?? Indie films are awesome & all but couldn't she pick a few good ones? I am going to check out a few more of her movies and reserve judgment.... but this one was, (pardon the reference to beasts) a dog.....


It was so disjointed - it seemed to jump from place to place - and the "thief" was obvious. It was a poor man's (not to mention high school) "Less than Zero". I would pass on this movie as it has very little to add. So many issues are left unresolved, and that's okay - but the fact that it jumps around to the point where you wonder what's exactly going on is terrible. The voice-over is needed because the movie doesn't work on its own. Avoid this movie, and watch something else about rich teen angst. I'm sure there are plenty of others to watch. Don't waste your time on this.


Why do people make bad movies? Didn't anyone working on the picture know that what they were making had no point? There is something about this picture that threw me off, besides the fact that I found this "movie" to be unrealistic, pathetic, and POORLY ACTED. I admire them for the try, but the "actors" in the movie at times seem to be trying to hard and no single character has substance or says anything mildly intelligent. This movie deserves zero stars. But I did not have that option, so it gets a 1.


"Tart" is a pathetic attempt at film making which wanders around and among a bunch of Manhattan teens exploring all the usual teen preppie stuff...sex, drugs, and classical music almost completely without story, focus, or purpose. Griffith is in the film for about 2 minutes while Swain dutifully works her way through another in her long list of dog flicks. Nothing in this films works and Wayne should consider getting a real job. Not recommended for anyone. PU! Ugh! (D)


I'm not even going to waste more time describing how bad this movie is. Bottom line: It was horribly acted, had enormous plot holes and went absolutely NOWHERE. The only good thing about it was the description my digital cable gave for the movie: "A married man with a struggling business has a fling with his secretary." Huh?? Wrong movie apparently, although it may have made things slightly more interesting if any of the description were true.

--Shelly


I wish they would just make a special section in the video rental stores for movies like this. The section would read: "Movies for lonely older men who like to watch young girls being naughty and wearing fetish clothes" I guess dominique swain, after lolita nd now this, is establishing herself as the queen of the dirty old man genre.


This film has recently been televised by Turner Classic Movies. It may have been considered racy in its time, and may have made money, but even the most die-hard Jane Russell fan will find it hard to sit through this dreck.

There are many movie musicals from the 1950s which can withstand the test of time, even though dated by current standards, but which can still be enjoyed because of good music or dancing or an amusing plot. "The French Line", however, fails at all of these aspects.

It doesn't matter that Russell was a fine singer when she is given lousy vocal material. The entire cast is dragged down by a boring, trite plot and dialogue.

It's not even worth recording and skipping through to only the musical numbers--they're crummy.


Jane Russell was an underrated comedienne and singer (see SON OF PALEFACE and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES), but you'd never guess it from her display here. A real stinker, produced by Howard Hughes in his all-too-successful effort to kill off RKO Radio Pictures.

The movie kills its first opportunity to show off sexy Jane when it places her in a bubble bath and then has her chastely singing "I'll Be Switched (If I Ain't Gettin' Hitched)"--and it's all downhill from there. In her autobiography, Russell apologized for the movie's number "Lookin' for Trouble" because it was supposedly so risque--nowadays you could show it on The Disney Channel. (By the way, said autobiography has a jaw-dropping photo of Russell in a bikini, far sexier than anything


The first Shiloh film was enjoyable by adults as well as children. This one starts with about an hour of filler where not much happens, with stilted dialogue; only in the last act is there any significant action that really moves the plot along. The dog is still cute, though, and young kids may enjoy it.


This is an adaptation of an Edith Wharton work, whose writing is amazing. Sadly, this movie never shakes the feeling that these 20th century movie people don't grasp the 19th century repression and desperation Wharton's work depicts. Ward and Dalton aren't so bad, but Alicia Witt's wooden performance made me wince. She was supposed to be playing the restless element of the story, but she stood like a stick the whole movie long, and I never believed a word out of her mouth. When she asks Sela Ward "Why can't I move you?" near the end of the film, I couldn't help but answer: "That's what I've been wondering for the last hour and a half!!!"


Slow-moving ponderous movie with terrible acting on the whole - but lovely locations & clothes to admire, and, of course, Timothy Dalton, who does a compelling job, as always. I wanted to laugh out loud at the voice-overs - so silly!! But Dalton is always worth watching, even in bad movies, a wonderful actor, older now, but still very handsome and masculine. This movie is worth viewing only to see him....and he seems like he wandered into a bad dime romance novel, poor fellow. Your time would be better spent watching Mr. Dalton in 1970's "Wuthering Heights" or the early 1980's BBC version of "Jane Eyre". Poor Sela Ward, so lovely, but so wooden.... surely she's been better in other movies.


Return to Sender, a.k.a. Convicted, is almost imperfect. The one good thing about this particular film was that I was never bored. That being said, the reviews that hail this movie as a low-budget success may not have watched the same movie that I saw.

Rather than write a review and tell you what happens and what works and doesn't work, I will simply comment that nothing works. There are plot holes in this movie that you can drive a semi through. The acting in the film is not very good, although that may be a result of a script so poorly worded that it could have been ghost written by George Lucas. There was no need for exceptional sets or costumes for this particular movie and everything seemed appropriate. Did I mention that there were some plot holes? By the end of the movie, you are wondering how a blind guy can be such a good shot with a shotgun, why Kelly Preston trusts Aidan Quinn, why she would fall asleep the night before her client is supposed to be killed, how Aidan Quinn can drive 400 miles in such a short time with a car that keeps breaking down during the rest of the movie, why Aidan Quinn didn't by a fifth instead of a bunch of nips, etc.

With all that being said, this is certainly a B-movie, and a terrible one at that. The unfortunate thing is that it just isn't bad enough to be good. If you value your time, please let this serve as a public service message to stay away from this one.


This was pretty bad - from bad acting, bad technical details, bad camera shots, and bad audio (even though I was watching a DVD, sometimes I couldn't hear what they were saying, sometimes it was blowing my speakers, even within the same conversation). The plot was predictable, and the characters consisted of mostly unbelievable neurotics, bi-polars, and caricatures. Character development was awful... the bratty little sister (why was she even written into the script?), the nagging mom (again - what purpose?) the whiny girlfriend (why didn't he dump her long ago?), the 'dark suits' gang (how original - couldn't think of a better name I guess), the drug dealer's hot girlfriend (gotta have a hot Latina if your going to have LA gangs I guess, but really...), etc etc Can't believe I watched the whole thing.


Don't get fooled by the 'awards' and the comment below. This is just 1 poor movie. The way George Katt played his character (the soft gangster) makes it very annoying to watch. The conversation in the opening scene is a dramatic display of this. De in the rest of the film the character's head seems to be somewhere else. His emotions don't match with the things that happen in the film.The things he says as a voice-over doesn't add anything to the film. It just makes Zeus an even more spineless character with is head in the clouds.

The story and the film was put together with a total lack of fantasy. All parts of the film were poorly stolen from other modern directors. Let's hope Jon Rosten will use his own style and ideas for his future films.


Wow, this movie really sucked down below the normal scale of dull, boring, and unimaginative films I've seen recently. The acting was poor and robotic. The story was so bland you could have summed it up with a simple 5-minute short. Audio was so poor and dirty it was hard to even listen to; perhaps it was unedited from the camera it was shot off of? I'm not sure which movie the 3 glowing reviewers were commenting on, but it wasn't this one. Perhaps the director had his hand in seeing that his film received a good review, at least before the real reviews started to show up.

Save your time or you'll just be wasting your time and money on this film. Absolute suckage!


This movie was terrible not only was the plot weak, but the acting was unbelievable bad, and at times pathetic. Very unrealistic dialogs people in real life don't talk like this and there is no emotion or feeling in anything said very monotone except for the almost indistinguishable whispering that constantly occurs. Even the editing is bad the cuts are terrible. The camera work was sloppy and shaky on close ups even sways back and forth during conversations. There is nothing positive about this movie and George Katts needs to be working on heavy machinery or anything where he doesn't have to converse with other humans because he clearly doesn't know how to. How did this movie win/ get nominated for awards oh my god!!


Everyone's already commented on the obvious fact that the first few comments were obviously from people who either had a stake in the film or had friends/family who had a stake in the film, and that's okay - if I'd made a movie, all of my family and friends would be in there complimenting it, too. In all honesty, there are some good things along with the bad things in this movie. Unfortunately, the bad things far outweigh the good. Good: The overall plot was mildly interesting. The music was overall pretty good. Several of the songs (when you could hear them) were actually pretty cool. The only musical issues I had were: #1) the first suspense scene with some sort of quiet instrumental (it really seemed to take away from the suspense), #2) the song being played when the lead characters went to an outdoor party at a friend's house and #3) the songs that were good were too quiet, especially when a heavy metal song was playing in the background while Danny Trejo hung a man (sounded like a pretty cool song, but it should have ripped out across the scene when Danny Trejo got froggy). Now for the completely bad stuff: The script was atrocious. I mean, HORRIBLE. I've seen smoother dialogue in a Star Wars movie. Advice to the writer from a part-time writer and full-time movie buff: When you write dialogue, ask yourself, "Is this something that people would actually say?" Honestly, the script was laughable. I want to slam the acting, but with that kind of writing, it's hard to know if they have talent or not. The mildly interesting plot was seriously hampered by the crappy dialogue. I know it was low-budget, but words don't cost money - if you have a good script, even semi-competent actors can pull it off. This movie didn't seem to have either, but hopefully the director will get a second shot at making a better film.


My mom brought me this movie on a DVD. A guy in a rental recommended it. But in fact, this might be the worst movie I've ever seen. You know, I didn't expect much from this film, but it didn't have a good story, it wasn't even funny and it was senseless. I was looking forward to see Christine Lakin in this movie because I loved Step by step. Even she was a huge disappointment. The story was completely unreal. One of the party guys is dead (he wasn't dead in fact, he woke up later), the house looks like there exploded a bomb and there are 2 guys who have 3 hours to handle everything. But then there comes a homosexual, policeman... There is a total mess till the end and the guys managed to tide up and everything in like 15 minutes??? Come on, just be realistic at least. Waste of money. Really...


I could crap a better movie. This is a waste of time and money. it makes me sick that movies like these are actually getting made and the people making them actually think they're good. I happen to like teen comedies, when they're done well. This movie, however, takes this genre to a new low. With movies like this, people think it's actually okay to make this filth and ask unsuspecting people to pay money to sit through it. It's sadism.


This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I can't believe people actually a) write scripts like this b) have a budget to make a film c) actually expect it to be successful. Words can't even describe how horrible this film is. I enjoy my fair share of teen movies, but this didn't even come close to being funny. In fact, it was funny for the sole reason that it was so horrible. I can probably count one (maybe two) parts in the film where I even managed to squeeze out a chuckle (other than the laughs regarding how bad it was).

Renting this was one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made. Its been a day since I've seen the film, and I'm still in shock regarding how horrible it was. Avoid at all costs.

2/10


If you liked William Hickey in "Prizzi's Honor", he resurrects his character, as Don Anthony in "Mob Boss". This is a very weak "Godfather" satire with few laughs. Stuart Whitman looks perplexed as to what he's doing in this schlock-fest? Morgan Fairchild's performance is one of the better efforts in the movie, and that alone is not a good sign for sure. Eddie Deezen vacillates between "Three Stooges" slapstick and a bad Woody Allen imitation. Fatally flawed, "Mob Boss" is so derivative that boredom quickly overcomes comedy and the film drags on with car chases, hidden weapons in a restaurant bathroom, and numerous other nonsense. - MERK


Ever once in a while I run into a movie that is so embarrassingly bad I wonder why movies exist. This is one of them. This is a terrible attempt to parody The Godfather with annoying cartoon sounds, and bad dialogue. Eddie Deezen is just plain annoying as Tony, an annoying twit who upon his father, Don (William Hickey)'s request, takes over the family business. Tony, as I said, is an annoying little twit. This makes the whole movie a complete mess. The movie is terribly daffy. It's too cartoonish. The main point I'm trying to make is that you can't make a parody of an acclaimed drama like The Godfather with so much cartoonishness. It doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, you have to take a parody of a dramatic movie seriously. If you don't take it seriously, it will feel too much like a parody. The thing about doing a parody is that you can't seem too much like you're doing a parody. You have to make it seem like you're taking the movie at least a little bit seriously. It also feels like they're just mocking Woody Allen, and that's what makes this movie absolutely terrible.


That's about the only redeeming quality in a movie that otherwise insults the viewer's intelligence by losing track of time, plot, and reason for being produced.

Plus, how that guy with the glasses ever got a gig in Hollywood is beyond me.


I recently had to watch this for a project in a Sociology class and thought it was absolutely the worst movie I have ever had to sit through. It was like bad a bad cinemax movie with all the "good bits" taken out. Bad acting, the fake documentary set up, nonsensical plot, and rudderless direction all combine to make a terrible, terrible film.

The female characters are basically only there to be sex objects. Consider this exchange: "He's hot." "He has a girlfriend." "Do you have a girlfriend?" "No." *girl takes boys hand and leads him behind some bushes. boy comes out and sits next to other boy, girl saunters off* "Did you hit that?" "No, I didn't want to take my pants off." "You're stupid." Another girl shows up when the boys are going to Beverly Hills, gets in the trunk with one of the boys, and when they get pulled over by a cop, you see the car bobbing up and down.

A homosexual pervert, a trigger-happy Clint Eastwood look alike, and what seems to be a luchador mask all add to the inanity. One of the boys gets caught by a cop, no one cares. One of the boys gets shot, no one cares.

Someone said the dialogue was mostly improvised, and it shows. Just awful. I would never recommend this film to anyone.


Look, don't get me wrong I love independent films but COME ON! I could barely sit through it without wanting to kill myself. the director had absolutely no talent and he turned something that could have been OK to a F***ing Nightmare. I am a punk enthusiast myself and even the music sucked. the acting was crap.

I am usually a bleeding heart for these low budget films but this one, this one didn't even try. Please don't waste your precious time and money. I am sorry to be so harsh but come on! it dragged on and and on and on. Remember when the kids got into that party with the weird cupcakes and the watermelon martinis? how did they just blend in? It made me frustrated how they could just go anywhere they wanted and get into trouble and have sex and a "meaningful conversation" with whoever they wanted. I know im blathering but my mind is just buzzing with everything I hated about this film.


I've never been a big Larry Clark fan, but somehow, I've been dragged to almost every single one of his movies. Now, I like independent films, and I grew up very much into punk rock, and I'd like to say that this film is disappointing to both audiences. Not every punk song incorporates "Oi!" into its choruses, as they do in this particular film.

But the real problem with this film is that it switches moods every fifteen minutes or so and lacks any kind of cohesion. Clark has made his living pretending that his fictionalized stories are "how kids really are," and as such, you'll allow him ten minute scenes of stupid dialog that go nowhere, because that's the cinema verite feel he's going for. However, when he shoots a ridiculous death scene (pick any of them, save for the opening drive-by), the over-stylized attempts at what I assume is intended to be black humor are completely out of context, ridiculously shot (in most cases, far worse than a student film) and absolutely ludicrous in terms of the story. John Cassavettes and "Date Movie" make poor bedfellows, as the forays into the latter style take you out of any kind of reality to remind you that you're watching a movie - a really, really bad one at that.


Larry Clark is not renowned for his talents as a writer or a director, but he has made some undeniably important films. Kids, Bully, and to a lesser extent Ken Park all achieve their intended purpose: shock, revulsion, and even disgust. These films are uncompromising in their content and use their controversial nature to expose very serious problems in modern youth. Kids exposed us to the proliferation of A.I.D.S. and sexual promiscuity among the young. Bully touched upon similar issues. Ken Park dealt somewhat ham-handedly with sexual abuse and suburban ennui. Irrefutably, all of these films exposed something horrifying and left a bad taste in your mouth.

Wassup Rockers is about a group of poor Hispanic skateboarders from South-Central Las Angeles who go to arbitrarily go to Beverly Hills to skate. That's it.

Wassup Rockers is nothing.

It has no substance. It has an essentially nonexistent narrative. And, like Kids, it features a cast of first-time actors who were drawn out of the films setting. However, unlike Kids, none of them have any semblance of talent. There is better acting in porn. This film features, without a doubt, the most terrible performances I've ever seen in a feature film. One can respect Larry Clark to exposing these young men to the film-making process, but these kids are absolutely cringe-worthy, folks. Might I add that apparently these gents also produced the soundtrack, which features some of the most dismally inept garage punk you'll ever hear- my advice is to pop a couple of migraine pills before you enter the theater, or you'll regret it afterward.

But then again, it's not like they had much of a script to work with. Every line that is uttered is a contrived, pathetically-delivered, and irritating beyond all measure. The story itself is ludicrous. It starts out reasonably enough, but soon slips quite unexpectedly into sheer absurdity. This begins of course with a capricious sexcapade with a pair of rich white girls, followed by a series of clichéd National Lampoonish encounters, characters being killed off for no reason, and finally resulting in a ridiculous anti-climax. Shots go on much longer than they need to. Be prepared to watch people fall of skateboards for about fifteen minutes straight, overlong, lingering shots of characters doing nothing or skateboarding down streets. But then again, with the script at a scant 32 pages they need as much useless filler as possible. Perhaps Wassup Rockers would have worked better as a short film.

Anyways, I could go on like this. This is the worst film Larry Clark has made yet. For those of you who are interested in seeing a Clark movie if only for his shocking pederast antics, look elsewhere. This is by far the tamest film he's made yet, and it's also the worst. It's flat out horrible. Like, Uwe Boll horrible. Definitely the worst one I saw at the festival.

1/10


There's nothing to say except I want my time back that this movie took from me. I'm not racist against Latinos. Hell, I'm half Brazilian. I loved the movie Kids. It doesn't make any sense. These kids just go around and do nothing. They're not even good at skating. The whole time I'm just waiting for something, anything, to happen! but it doesn't. NOTHING happens the whole movie. Did I mention they suck at skating. I might make a movie called beat up rockers, and the whole premise will be about kicking the sh*t out of poser moron punks like these kids. I'm not even going to get into it, this movie sucks. Please do yourself a favor and burn this movie if you come in contact with it so some other poor soul won't make the same mistake.


It starts out like a very serious social commentary which quickly makes one think of other Clark movies like Kids, Bully, etc. But then just as quickly, it unravels into a direction-less mess. Who is the main character? Is this a serious film or some Gregg Araki-esquire over the top goofy film? Is this a skate documentary with moments of dialog inserted? I have no clue. I found myself watching the clock and wonder when this turd was going to end. I kept thinking there would be some big shocker culmination which never came. I cut a good 20 minutes out of the movie by fast forwarding through the pointless skate scenes. Yes, it illustrates the changing landscape between the have's have not's. I got it way back in the beginning. Kids and Bully was done in such a way that I actually felt like I was observing the realities of that group of friends. Wassup felt very staged, poorly constructed and ever worse acting. Teenage Caveman, which Larry didn't write but did direct, was terrible. But at least it felt like it was suppose to be a terrible movie that didn't take itself seriously. Wassup Rockers was just plain bad.


Pick a stereotype, any stereotype (whether racial, sexual, cultural, etc.), and I bet you'll find it in Wassup Rockers. Do you think that all Hispanic teenage boys are stupid, hairy, inarticulate, and dirty troublemakers? Are Hispanic girls sex-crazed, easy, ass-baring sluts? Do Black people all want to start fights and carry guns? Do all gay people throw themed parties with pink drinks and ask young boys to model for them? Are all White teenage girls rich, stuck-up princesses who are bored with White teenage boys and are looking for something a little more dangerous? If you answered "yes" to any of the previous questions, you, my friend, are a bigot, and you will LOVE Wassup Rockers.

Director Larry Clark likes to shock his audiences (I was 15 years old the first time I saw Kids and I think that's why I'm still a virgin), but Wassup Rockers isn't shocking it's just bad. He tries to be edgy and realistic with his minimal dialog and body-hair close-ups, but these characters and this story are completely unrealistic.

Simply put, Wassup Rockers is a teenage boy's fantasy. What 14-year-old boy doesn't want to be a skater who gets in trouble, crashes parties, drinks 40s, and is told by the hot, rich, White girl that his uncircumcised penis "looks dangerous?" Besides that demographic, I really don't know who's going to enjoy this film.


**Possible Spoilers Ahead**

Whenever fans of bad movies congregate for more than a few minutes, a name that invariably comes up is that of Larry Buchanan. This amazing director has given us remakes of other turkeys (ZONTAR THE THING FROM VENUS), cheap-jack crime dramas like A BULLET FOR PRETTY BOY, and tawdry conspiracy flicks like DOWN ON US and GOODBYE NORMA JEAN. THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a humdinger to say the least. Overlooking the fact that Loch Ness is extremely long and narrow, Larry filmed this howler on a wide and round California lake. Early on, the film boasts some dazzling (for the budget) underwater photography and creates some atmosphere in spite of itself. Then it degenerates into windy dialogue uttered by no-name actors with lapsing Scottish accents, not to mention a soundtrack that will do nothing for the much-maligned bagpipe. At one point, campers sing "You Take The High Road, I'll Take The Low Road," just to throw in one more Scottish cliche. If Scottish people ever decide to jump on the Political Correctness bandwagon they'll sue Larry Buchanan over this film, his surname notwithstanding. The monster looks like a giant papier-mache puppet and it makes the dragon in Beanie & Cecil look terrifying by comparison. In one unforgettable scene Nessie takes to land and, to evade some patrolling soldiers, the fifty-foot long critter tries to hide behind a tree-and the soldiers don't see it! THE LOCH NESS HORROR is a true mind-boggler that must be seen-several times--to be believed.


Something strange is happening in Loch Ness. The water is crystal clear, nor cold. A giant robotic plastic monster emerges and kills Scots! What is this movie?! First, I love reading stories about Nessie, sea monsters in general. When i saw this for sale, i thought it was a cheap rip off of jaws. No. It was terrible! The story was pointless, acting was 100% garbage, the only up side was the cool mechanical Nessie they used. It was full of inaccuracy, wrong locations, and bad everything. Not worth your while, just leave it on the shelf (or garbage can) you found it on. On second note, This film was shot in Cailifornia, not Loch Ness, a major diss to Nessie fans.


OMG, another bad film by Larry Buchanan. That guy did not learn to stop, did he? First, he gives us zero budget sci-fi movies and lies about famous dead people, and now he is exploiting the Loch Ness Monster as being vicious.

The "plot" is basically about some southerners of the USA pretending to be Scottish camping out at Loch Ness. Alas, out on the fishing hole, oops, I mean lake of Loch Ness, there is a killer inflatable monster that clams itself to be Nessie, going out of its way to kill people for no apparent reason.

I am surprised that the crew of MST3K never heard of this movie. Yes, it is that bad too.


I think this is one of those few movies that I want to rate it as low as possible just to pay it a compliment.

I haven't seen this movie in about 25 years, so I really can't say that much about it. It still seems to be very hard to find on video. But I remember my brother and I stumbled upon it somewhere in the toxic brew of late night UHF channel television of the mid 1980s when I was about 10 years old. So I've never actually seen the beginning of the movie, but I saw most of it. The first thing I remember is this couple is sneaking out of a campsite and they're rowing to an island to make out, and then they get attacked by an insane Scotsman in a kilt with an axe! They manage to escape from him but get attacked by the Loch Ness Monster, which in this movie is just a head and a neck with no body. The eyes and the mouth of the monster don't even move, it looks like a piñata.

I mean I had just literally never seen anything on this magnitude before and it totally blew my mind. I had seen some bad movies on TV in the early 80s but I had never seen something so totally inept and so casually and thoughtlessly constructed that it seemed like the people who made it spent less time and effort on it than we did watching it. I had already seen some of the Troma films and that type of thing that tries to deliberately be "campy", but this was the pure and real stuff and it was my first encounter with truly great bad film-making. This movie was like the last gasp of the drive-in era and I caught a whiff of it just in time. Actually when we were watching it, we couldn't figure out if it was made in the 50s or the 70s. Turns out it came out just a few years before I saw it.

Later I came into contact with Mystery Science Theater and found out about a lot of the old B movies and serials, but I had already seen it in this movie. The movie is so funny that I had never even laughed that hard at the Monty Python crew or Bill Murray or any comedian. After seeing this movie I was always trying to search for the "good bad" movies and I got a lot of my friends into it. But this movie was and basically is an impossible one to find. I never really found out what it even was or who Larry Buchanan was until the 1990s when IMDb took off and the internet took off and information started getting passed around. But this movie still needs to be discovered by a lot of others who might appreciate its transcendentally bad qualities. Look for it.


What can I say about a movie as bad as this? The people who made this movie, didn't even try to make the monster in it look realistic. You never see more than its head, and the head is just a giant puppet that has little movement except for when it opens it mouth to roar. And the sound they used for the roaring is the best part. At many points in the movie it sounds exactly like a TIE fighter flying over! I couldn't believe that when I first heard it and had to rewind several times to make it sink in. Other than the terrible looking monster and the noises it makes, there isn't much more to this film except for a few corny attack scenes and the crazy Scotsman attacking the kids trying to have an intimate moment in his castle. Still, it's watchable if you like this sort of trash. I know I do....


A few buddies and myself have the strange hobby of seeking out really horrendous and utterly obscure (for a good reason) horror flicks and then subsequently watching them under the influence of mind-broadening consumer goods like alcohol and/or soft drugs. Surely a lot of people do this, but they watch movies like the "Godzilla" remake, whereas we torment our eyes and brains with stuff like "The Loch Ness Horror". And, eureka, this is a prototypic bad movie! We open traditionally, with bag pipes music during the opening credits. This is, of course, to emphasize extra to us dumb viewers that the story is supposed to take place in the Scottish highlights and not in director Larry Buchanan's birthplace Texas. For that exact same reason, the cast members are seemingly also instructed to overact tremendously and talk with talk with atrocious accents. The American marine biologist Prof. George Sanderson arrives in Loch Ness with some brand new and highly sophisticated sonar equipment to track down the whereabouts of the legendary monster in the lake. Meanwhile, there are many other parties hanging around the lake, like a group of kids on a Science Camp (what a boring way to spend your vacation), retired army generals looking for a Luftwaffe plane that crashed in the lake during WWII and a bunch of thieves and failed scientists that are steeling the monster's egg. You would think that these numerous sub plots bring some diversity and excitement in the plot, but unfortunately that's not the case. "Loch Ness Horror" is an overall boring flick with only a couple of noteworthy elements. The monster itself, for example, is a delightfully cheesy creation with cute eyes and a smoky breath. His teeth also glow in the dark, which is quite useful when you're dumb enough to go out on a boat ride in the middle of the night. Near the end of the film, the remaining cast members were more interested in the lost Luftwaffe plane than in the monster, so it was about time to wrap it up. "Loch Ness Horror" is carefully recommended in case you're a fan of bad B-movies from the 80's, but be advised that it contains an overload of senseless dialogs and a bizarrely rushed ending that makes it look as if the film suddenly ran out of budget.


I completely forgot that I'd seen this within a couple of days, which is pretty revealing in itself. The umpteenth version of Gaston 'Phantom of the Opera' Leroux's locked-door country-house mystery, I had heard that it was an engaging and witty update. So it appeared from the likable title sequence and a few neat touches in the opening scene, but the film very quickly ground to a halt and became vaguely tedious and wholly unsatisfying.

As a mystery the major problem is that it is fundamentally unsolvable by the audience: like the worst Agatha Christies, it depends on a character appearing in the final act with a wealth of background information that we have not been privy to. As a film, be it comedy or thriller, the crucial problem is that characterisation is almost non-existent. With the exception of the killer, everyone is a face-value version of the typical suspects in the typical country-house murder story - reporter, endangered heiress, suspicious fiancé, scatterbrained scientist father (a surprisingly poor Michel Lonsdale), etc. There's no depth and little of interest, and the frequently over-ripe or misjudged performances don't help. You frankly don't care about anyone in it, so there's no jeopardy or suspense. Only Claude Rich and, in the last reel, Pierre Arditi get anything to work with, and only in the last reel does the film get close to a sense of resonance that is too fleeting to be really effective.

For the rest, we get endless exposition and a couple of ineffective would-be comic set pieces (a promising one with a photographer trapped inside a grandfather clock is just too poorly thought through to pay off), with Dennis Podalydes reduced to Irving the Explainer for the last third of the picture. I'm not fond of country-house movies or Agatha Christie style whodunits, so those who are might cit it a lot more slack, but I found it a poor show. As Rich says when the mystery is revealed, "It's all rather something of a disappointment."


Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear!

To think that films such as this were made, and probably enjoyed by thousands at drive-ins really boggles the mind. How innocent we were in those days.

To put it bluntly, this film is crap. The hero is so wet you can hear his squishy damp footsteps in every scene. My Lord, but he's just one of a whole slew of awful, awful actors that appear in this turkey. No wonder MST3K picked it. The story, such as it is, centres around a stock car driver (who is so incompetent, you really believe it is the actor driving the car) that he gives up and "gets in with the wrong crowd" Oooooh! Scary stuff. However, the wrong crowd turn out to be the biker equivalent of The Three Stooges and their "hand-me round" slut of a biker chick. As an example of how lame this whole thing is, the writers obviously wracked their brains to come up with a frightening name for the biker gang - if four people can be called a gang, that is. The result? The gang is called Satan's Angels! I kid you not.

Such dire acting and dialogue, along with ridiculous scenes, make for a wonderful beer and chips movie. But otherwise its just the worst kind of rubbish.

As I said. Once, this may have been considered good. But today it just makes you laugh (and cringe) with every minute that goes by. Avoid it except for a good laugh. And make sure you're more than half-drunk too!


Legendary pop star Steve Alaimo ("Don't Let the Sun Catch You Crying") stars as an unlikable stock car racer whose career has hit the skids (ha ha) because he constantly crashes his car (or as he laments, "I'm tired of being run down by every grease monkey that gets behind the wheel"). He falls into a bad crowd of humorously inept Nazi bikers, improbably named Jeeter, Banjo, Fats, and, er, Linda. Fats is the most likable of the bunch; he took a surfboard to the back of the skull and now only communicates through grunts, sort of a Harley Davidson Leatherface.

Anyway, Steve is fooled by the cops into catching the dastardly crooks in the middle of one of their bank robberies. The gang only robs banks for "kicks, man". I guess they give the money to charity. Steve fails constantly, the bikers get greasier, and the whole thing never comes off as daring because it's so dull. This movie looks like it was filmed through a grease-soaked paper towel. Not since "Necromantic" has a movie so trampled my soul.

The guy who played Fats went on to direct "Deranged", the Ed Gein biopic starring Robert Blossom.

Anyway, in summary: Wild Rebels: Hilarious on MST3K, dreadful everywhere else.


Wild Rebels is fun in a bad way, but also frustrating due to the actual good, or at least workable, elements in the story. It deals with a race car driver (Steve Alaimo) who gets mixed up in a group of bikers called Satan's Angels, who hang around a lot until they decide to rob a bank. Meanwhile Alaimo also gets recruited by the cops to report back to them what the Angels are up to and where they'll rob next. It's not even that the film is really too 'dated', though it does of course carry the significantly crude and stupid music in the film (from the band on stage in one scene, to Alaimo "performing" if you could call that drek that, to the regular generic score).

It's just that there's not more care taken by the filmmaker into putting a little more logic, direction, and better actors for the parts. As it is I didn't have a major disliking towards the film, as I did with the Hellcats, but it almost left me a little indifferent to it all, too. What could come through as being unpredictable only comes through with stupid things like the name of the Florida town ('Citrusville' ho-ho). So it's not completely un-worthy then of its Mystery Science Theater 3000 status as of late. The commentary is good on the movie, even if once or twice I almost wanted to hear what the characters on screen were saying in case it might have some worth. Wild Rebels might be more of a good time if you've got a six-pack and low expectations, but as it is I wouldn't watch it again.


This is basically your run of the mill violent biker flick complete with nifty slangs, crashes, and music. OK, so just slangs and crashes. It's a slight notch above much of the other fare featured on MST3K but it's still the equivalent of driving a nail into your kneecap: slow and painful. To give away plot would exhaust my energy so I'll just say you're better off skipping this one.


I just caught "Wild Rebels" on one of the "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" archive compilations, and this movie was so bad even the MST3K crew couldn't make it entertaining. There are some MST3K "targets" that were films whose concepts were so dippy they couldn't possibly have been good movies (like "The Green Slime"), and others whose basic premises could have been made into genuinely entertaining films if their filmmakers hadn't bobbled them in the execution. "Wild Rebels" is a film whose basic premise DID make a good movie three years earlier, when Don Siegel directed his remake of "The Killers" at Universal. Both films are about a failed racing driver who's seduced by a femme fatale into driving the getaway car in a robbery masterminded by the woman's boyfriend -- only in "The Killers" the driver was John Cassavetes, the woman was Angie Dickinson and the criminal mastermind (cast wildly but successfully against type in what turned out to be his final film) was Ronald Reagan. Steve Alaimo, Bobbie Byers and Willie Pastrano are quite a comedown! But what REALLY makes "Wild Rebels" an awful movie is the direction by William Grefé (note the accent over the final "e," present in his on-screen credit), which has absolutely no sense of pace whatsoever and seems to let every shot run at least half again as long as it needs to to make its dramatic point. It's only a pity that someone didn't do a mocking commentary on this movie now (in 2009); the comparison between Steve Alaimo's hairdo and Rod Blagojevich's would have been irresistible!


If you decide to watch Wild Rebels, don't expect anything deep and meaningful. If you're looking for a film that explores the relationships and structure of a motorcycle gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for an expose on the breakdown of the American educational system and the problem of juvenile delinquency, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. If you're looking for a movie that examines how undermanned rural police departments are when facing a well-financed, well-organized gang, Wild Rebels is the wrong movie. But if you're looking for an absurd movie filled with scene after scene of unintentional humor, horrendous acting, a paper-thin plot, and community theater style production values, Wild Rebels is the right movie.

Wild Rebels is the story of a down-on-his-luck stock-car driver named Rod Tillman (Steve Alaimo). After a fiery crash (which Rod walks away from completely unscathed despite having only a cotton pants and a London Fog style jacket for protection), Rod decides to give it up. With no plan for his future other than to wander aimless through the back-roads of the South, he stumbles on the Satan's Angels motorcycle gang (a gang being three of the stupidest guys to ever zip up a leather jacket and a woman they seem to share). This group of hoodlums spends their time terrorizing a rural town in Florida by committing such atrocities as stealing a newspaper from a neighbor's mailbox. These bumbling idiots need someone to act as their driver during some larger crimes they have planned. Apparently, these three Einsteins can only drive vehicles with two tires, not four. So they recruit Rod to perform feats of daring that only an experienced stunt driver would be capable of like keeping the car in the middle of a gravel road during a low-speed chase. Eventually, they hold-up a bank, get into the aforementioned low-speed chase, and have the lamest gun battle with the police ever put on film. I could go on forever, but you get the idea.

I hate the term "so bad it's good", but that seems to aptly describe Wild Rebels.


"Wild Rebels" was probably a fun second film at a drive in movie triple feature 40 years ago. It hasn't aged very well, but it was never meant to age well; it was obviously intended to be disposable, forgettable fun from its inception. Taken on that level, it's a good example of the biker flick genre.

Several elements help distinguish it from the dozens of similar films being churned out at the same time. The 'hero', 'Rod Tillman' (Steve Alaimo) comes off as somewhat of an unimpressive 'Everyman' - he's not especially brave, tough, talented, or handsome (although he does win a fight with a tough biker gang member halfway into the film, and the girl gang member chooses to help him over her fellow gang member at the end of the film). The soundtrack is quite well done, featuring a nice 'Ventures' style bass/drum riff that keeps things moving and saxophones and brass charts that pep things up quite a bit. And although the script is pretty shallow, all the actors inhabit their cardboard characters convincingly and with a fair amount of energy.

There are plenty of careless technical gaffes: terrible 'day-for-night' scenes that occur in broad daylight, squealing tires in a swamp, fire sirens mistakenly stuck on the soundtrack instead of police sirens, a bank sign made of duct tape on a ceiling tile, a Luger that sounds like a Winchester 30-06, shotgun blasts that cut down people 100 yards away, a detective killing a biker on a 3rd floor landing from the ground with a revolver with a 2 inch barrel.

There are a whole bunch of goofy story elements : Linda (the girl gang member) disables a bank guard with a drug-filled syringe, the final shootout takes place inside a lighthouse (!), police roadblocks don't actually block roads, the police apparently never heard of ducking, and the police detectives apparently never heard of planting bugs or having their undercover guy wearing a wire.

But the plot chugs along, the cameraman knows what he is doing, the pacing in most scenes is pretty good, and there are some nice, zippy one liners and dialog exchanges here and there that keep the energy level up. (My favorite: "Man, you're messing with private stock! (ie, Linda)" So no, don't seek this one out or anything, but if a copy of the MST version should fall in your hands, you should have some good, shallow fun watching it. Vastly superior to "Five the Hard Way" or "The Hellcats" or even 'Girl In Gold Boots' (three other MST covered counter culture movies).


Probably the biggest thing about Wild Rebels that hurts it the most is the hero. He's got LOSER written all over him, but that doesn't stop him from "getting the girl." Probably one of the world's worst race drivers imaginable, he decides to stop racing after he crashes his car. Well, his new job is racing still, as a bunch of biker types pick him to drive their getaway car as they commit crimes. There's nothing really to endear you to Rod, even the situation he's thrown into is pretty stupid. In the end, at the lighthouse scene, you'll wish that Rod gets killed with all the bikers. Get this: He's shot twice, once in the arm and once in the leg, and still manages to crawl up the stairs a little. If only Jeeter had better aim...

Avoid this one unless you're watching the MST3K version.


Previous reviewer Claudio Carvalho gave a much better recap of the film's plot details than I could. What I recall mostly is that it was just so beautiful, in every sense - emotionally, visually, editorially - just gorgeous.

If you like movies that are wonderful to look at, and also have emotional content to which that beauty is relevant, I think you will be glad to have seen this extraordinary and unusual work of art.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it about an 8.75. The only reason I shy away from 9 is that it is a mood piece. If you are in the mood for a really artistic, very romantic film, then it's a 10. I definitely think it's a must-see, but none of us can be in that mood all the time, so, overall, 8.75.


CONTAINS "SPOILER" INFORMATION. Watch this director's other film, "Earth", at some point. It's a better film, but this one isn't bad just different.

A rare feminist point of view from an Indian filmmaker. Tradition, rituals, duty, secrets, and the portrayal of strict sex roles make this an engaging and culturally dynamic film viewing experience. All of the married characters lack the "fire" of the marriage bed with their respective spouses. One husband is celibate and commits a form of spiritual "adultery" by giving all of his love, honor, time and respect to his religious swami (guru). His wife is lonely and yearns for intimacy and tenderness which she eventually finds with her closeted lesbian sister-in-law who comes to live in their house with her unfaithful husband. This unfaithful husband is openly in love with his Chinese mistress but was forced into marriage with a (unbeknownest to him) lesbian. They only have sex once when his closet lesbian wife loses her virginity.

A servant lives in the house and he eventually reveals the secret that the two women are lovers. Another significant character is the elderly matriarch who is unable to speak or care for herself due to a stroke. However, she uses a ringing bell to communicate her needs as well as her displeasure with the family members. She lets them know through her bell or by pounding her fist that she knows exacly what's going on in the house and how much she disapproves.

In the end, the truth about everybody comes out and the two female lovers end up running away together. But, not before there is an emotional scene between the swami-addicted husband and his formerly straight wife. Her sari catches on fire and at first we think she is going to die. However, we see the two women united in the very last scene of the movie.

The writer/director of this film challenges her culture's traditions, but she shows us individual human beings who are trapped by their culture and gender. We come to really care about the characters and we don't see them as stereotypes. Each on surprises us with their humanity, vulgarity, tenderness, anger, and spirit.


This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its "Sita" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's "An Unmarried Woman." They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion.

Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.

Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's "Khandar", Gautam Ghose's "Paar", Benegal's "Ankur") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays.


This was a great film in every sense of the word. It tackles the subject of tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity, the binding concepts of duty and so on. At the heart of the film is a touching love story that goes beyond such limitations of the society which the two protagonists find themselves. The film is well-acted and genuine, completely believable from beginning to end, unlike most Bollywood flicks. The main faults of the film as I saw it was first, that the two lovers seem drawn to one another not necessarily by a natural affinity for each other as much as the fact that they are stuck in dead-end marriages with no passion and no rewards. This may play a part in the sexual awakening of the characters, but most people stuck in the same situation will not "turn homosexual". It seems clear from the beginning of the film that the two characters are quite heterosexual -- when Radha does her scene at the end of the movie with Aashok, she makes it quite clear that "without desire she was dead", and the implication was that if he had desired so, he could have fulfilled her quite completely, and also when Sita seemed very disappointed when her husband seemed to not like her. Such situations do not turn people into homosexuals -- they may seek comfort in others in the same position, but inthe film it is not at all made clear that they are lesbians from the beginning -- quite the opposite. Some people are bisexual, it is true, but most tend to be either hetero- or homosexual. In the case of the ladies in the film, both had insensitive jerks for husbands . . . if this had not been the case, would they have naturally found the need to express their desire in a relationship that they may have otherwise not have considered? The film ignores this. The other fault is the naming of the characters . . . the names Sita and Radha seem contrived deliberately to shock and outrage (imagine a film in America depicting a gay relationship between a man named "Jesus" and another named "Paul"!) by using names associated with various Hindoo scriptures. The film is strong enough to stand on its own and needs no such devices in my opinion. At any rate, the faults do not take much away from the power of the movie. It is indeed a very touching and powerful story -- the images and characters will stay with you a long time after you leave the theatre.


A stunningly well-made film, with exceptional acting, directing, writing, and photography.

A newlywed finds married life not what she expected, and starts to question her duty to herself versus her duty to society. Together with her sister -in-law, she makes some radical departures from conventional roles and mores.


Overall, a well done movie. There were the parts that made me wince, and there were the parts that I threw my hands up at, but I came away with something more than I gone in with.

I think the movie suffers from some serious excess ambition. Without spoiling it, let me say that the obvious references to the trial by fire in Ramayana, is way beyond what this movie stands for. The Ramayana is an epic. Not a 200 page book that puts down women in India. The movie is about two girls married into a very distinctive Indian family. While the basic tenets of the "unwritten laws of the family tradition" seem to be that of conservative India, let me assure my reader that I (having lived in Delhi for 12 years) found entire parts that just did not ring those bells. I mean some things and some actions are very true, but some other stuff is just way off the mark. Especially today.

Delhi is complicated. India is complicated. The director tries to simplify both. And fails pretty miserably at that.

Why in English? Can you imagine a movie about American Indians in English. Or the French speaking in English. Seriously jarring. Even the servant spoke in fluent accented English (albeit with a hint of colloquialisms in the language for "believability").

But the chemistry between the leads is palpable. If you like it hot, this is a movie for you. I think that is the biggest saving grace - the development of a true real life love story.

If this film was about Radha and Sita, then it would have got full marks from me. And in being about them, it could have made a subtle statement. But this movie goes out there to say this is what India is, and this is what Indian society is like. And in that respect it succeeds as much as it fails. Just take everything you see with a pinch of salt. The dark secrets of India are not being revealed. Just two girls are falling in love. Just like it happens everywhere else.


Now I do understand that this film was not meant as an indictment against all Indians but it is an amazing film because it dares to investigate the hypocrisy that some Indians have concerning their women and sexuality. I have known for some time that sexism is very common in this society (with women being murdered because the husband's family doesn't want them any more after his death or because she had a small dowry as well as the frequent killing of female fetuses because they are seen as a curse instead of a blessing). I also realize that some from this culture will be greatly offended by the film, but the bottom line is that there is some truth to the subject matter--even if the film was so strongly attacked when it debuted in India a decade ago. As a result of the extreme misogyny in the movie, most Western audience members will be shocked or at least be emotionally pulled into the plight of the ladies in this film.

Although I am a male, am not rabidly feminist and I am straight, the film had a strong positive impact on me and it is NOT an agenda film that can only be enjoyed by Lesbians and "man haters". In fact, I don't think the film is promoting hatred of men or homosexuality but instead gives a credibly argument how in the case of these two ladies it was the only reasonable alternative due to their wicked husbands. Yes, I use the word "wicked" and mean it, as both husbands living in this large household are intensely selfish and have no regard for their spouses' sexuality. In many traditional societies this is indeed the case and women are doomed to an empty emotional existence.

One husband married a vivacious young woman, Sita, out of family obligation. This arranged marriage is uncomfortable for them both but in the beginning Sita makes an attempt to connect with her sullen husband. However, he sees himself as a victim and could have cared less about Sita--and he continues to have an affair with a liberal-minded Chinese lady. To make matters worse, he did nothing to hide the affair and made no apologies. In their dead marriage, sex was purely meant to produce children and there was no way Sita could have any of her sexual or emotional needs met. And unfortunately, he could have cared less.

Another husband was married to a lady who was infertile (Radha). Oddly, after initially trying to have children, they have gone the next 13 years without any sexual contact whatsoever! It's because this man has decided to become an ascetic (i.e., in Hinduism, a person who gives up the pleasures of the world to gain inner enlightenment). Now his wanting to do this was all well and good IF he was not already married and had obligations for his wife. However, being married, this was an incredibly selfish act and like his brother, he assumed his wife had no sexual feelings nor did he seem to care. The closest he would allow her to him sexually was to sleep next to him--as having her next to him helped teach himself to "overcome the desires of the flesh". This must have brought nothing but frustration to her.

So, you've got two neglected and normal women living in the same household who long for emotional connection as well as an outlet for their sexual needs. Eventually, these needs bring these sister-in-laws together--at first, just emotionally but later sexually as well. The movie was brilliant how it got me to look at and understand how in some cases homosexuality is inevitable and even healthy compared to a life of emotional desolation.

Late in the film, when the intensity of their sexual relationship is discovered, it leads to a not totally unexpected reaction from Radha's "enlightened" husband--a man who seeks religious insight and peace yet is so wrapped up in himself that true insight and growth is impossible.

This is a very challenging and adult film. While there is very little nudity, the subject matter is very adult and this is not a film to show your kids. Very disturbing indeed is one minor character who masturbates in front of an old paralyzed lady--as I said, this is NOT a film to let your kids watch. However, for a mature audience, this is an excellent and highly erotic film that will get you to think.

The film features good acting, complex characters, excellent writing, lovely mood music and a slow pace that might annoy some, but which I found rewarding. The only serious negative I cannot blame on the movie itself but on the idiots who released this on videotape. This is because although the movie is in English, the accents are quite strong at times and it's not always easy to understand what's being said. BUT, and this is the worst part, there are no closed or open captions--including them is a must for Western audiences. If you do watch this film, see if you can find it on DVD or hopefully a newer release on video will have captioning--mine sure didn't.

By the way, director Deepa Mehta (a popular female director) has made several other wonderful films such as EARTH and BOLLYWOOD/Hollywood. A consistent theme in her films is the conflict between traditional Indian culture and expectations and Westernism--with a strong emphasis on female characters. Not surprisingly, this West-thinking lady makes her home in Canada and is divorced--a truly unusual woman to say the least. For a similar film that explores traditional culture meets Western culture, try another Canadian gem, EAT DRINK MAN WOMAN.


There are questions that sometimes hover over us and have no answer. Two women progressively find themselves ensnared in each other's arms (as corny as the expression sounds, that is exactly what happens) and fins that they cannot answer their own question as to what defines their relationship when their very own society has no name to what they are. Deepa Mehta's somewhat mis-titled FIRE is the first of a loosely connected trilogy, here linked by the theme of the elements, and more symbolic than consuming. Fire as uncontrolled erotic passion does not make an appearance here, since the women -- the older and more feminine Radha (Shabana Azmi) and the younger, more masculine tempered Sita (Nandita Das) come to realize they share a lot more than common ideas and affection for each other and stand for what they believe is their passion for each other despite the opposition faced by their very traditional husbands and families. As in WATER, FIRE is deeply spiritual, even if it technically falls into the mode of sentimental melodrama (where WATER, much like the weight of the word, carries a stronger meaning that ultimately transcends its definition). Even so, it's a very beautiful picture, and a strong voice from a strong director.


I finally watched the third film in Mehta's trilogy: "Fire". To begin, I'd say that "Water" was the unquestionable masterpiece, on all levels. Fire comes next with Earth close behind in order of quality. Fire: there is so much going on in this film that I'll need a few more viewings to drink it all in. The writing is superb, the script creating friction that starts the entire process of "heat" from the beginning until the end when it really does erupt into a fire, the conflicts moving into complete rupture of relationships.

Mehta is one brave lady: she sees with a clear eye much that is jaundiced, false and repressive about the great society from which she came from. India is rapidly changing these days but much of this is economic change. That she met with such ferocious opposition to the making of "Water" after having had the script cleared, shows that there are still many taboo subjects which Indian people more than less cannot look squarely in the face, cannot examine or discuss them. Worse, if someone like Mehta has the courage to hold up a mirror to these issues, she faces death threats. So, as much as India thinks of itself as a pluralistic, tolerant society, the facts are not always so. Whereas "Earth" was merely a historical setting of the carnage of the civil war after Indian independence, Fire and Water are pointing at personal, social and religious issues, which as I say are considered so strongly (in a negative sense) that an open artistic dialog is still many years away. As I write this "Water" is scheduled to actually be shown in India later this year. I'll believe it when I see it.

Fire confronts a similar sexual and emotional conundrum that I saw in "A price above rubies". Whether it's arranged marriages (which it used to be like among Jews about 150 years ago, or like it is among many modern Indians), they have the risk of having a bad match forced upon both men and women; or, just plain loveless marriages..... However, this is not the real issue. Mehta is clearly impatient with the totally rigid religious attitudes that either keep widows in misery (Water) or else keep women enslaved to loveless marriages (Fire). I am no expert regarding either the secular or Hindu laws concerning divorce. The film seems to imply that the stigma (of divorce)is almost as bad as the sad marriage. In any case Mehta's film is a very moving, powerful attempt at sexual discourse that holds modern Indian relationships up to probing scrutiny. That all three of these films have made themselves felt in India as an unwarranted attack on their culture sounds to me like the predictable clamor of a repressive mindset. Mehta is forcing the issues to be looked at no matter how much flack. I admire her work and cannot highly recommend her films enough. Superb, disturbing, provocative, taboo shattering.


one of best movies ever...Fire...it is not much about sociological description of India today...it is the mind blowing use of light that never stops, never becomes...normal...even when...in this sense the movie is almost unique...both leads are of very good quality...the origin of Das as a street performer are pretty obvious...her performance is a superb "cammeo"...but the use of the light...I have look at it and looked at it, again and again...still mind blowing after ages...nothing torrid in the story...rather "pure" way of facing the subject...in a way it is sad that in the bizarre world we live today, a major art work is usually known as a gender film...Fire can stand face to face with Dryer's Jeanne D' Arc or Ichikawa's Biruma no Tategoto or some of the major Kurosawa movies, just to name "some". Wish my input could help a little this movie to its deserved way to fame.


While the romance in this film is an important aspect, it is largely about the role of responsibility and duty in modern Indian. All of the major characters were well fleshed out, and had their own "inner life". I recommend this strongly


It is more a subtle story of the fact that in Indian household how most decisions are taken by the man, how no attention is paid to the desires of the lady, for example how even when the husband and wife sleep together it would be a test for the husband whether he can control his desires, not to give the woman pleasure. And in such a type of scenario, women invariably have two choices, either to accept all this and take it into their own life, which is usually the case or not accept this and try to mould things to satisfy themselves, which makes a movie!

Fire is a brilliantly directed story of the second option, which women choose for themselves, no sacrifice, not to serve anybody else, rather a decision for their own good. Somehow the whole idea of justifying lesbianism didn't find an acceptance in the Indian audience but if one looks the whole movie from an angle of self-expression, then the whole debate doesn't even arise.


Its a very sensitive portrayal of life with unquenched or constrained desires. What does one do with desire in a culture and society with rigid norms? One husband finds outlet with the immigrant - since immigrants don't belong or aren't accepted, they don't need to conform and dam their desires. The other husband looks for solace in spirituality and tries to evaporate his desire into nothingness. It fails - of course - and he breaks down in the last scene for multiple reasons. Sita still cared enough for him to find that moment to let him know that he is not responsible for her deviant outlet to her blocked desires. The mother in her still couldn't find the strength to destroy his myth. She sees him as a child who is glorifying himself in his lust-control but should she give him the opportunity to finally grow up? Both the wives find courage and togetherness through their shared rejection by their husband.

But the final act of rejection was by the grandmother - she could not break free from her rusted mindset to accept Sita's desire. A decade and more of receiving care was not enough to break the shackles of her culture.

Seems like it was easiest for the househelp to let his desires flow - since he's anyway damned by his culture - being at the bottom of the hierarchy. Since there is anyway no respect and expectations, might as well taste sin.


I admire Deepa Mehta and this movie is a masterpiece. I'd recommend to buy this movie on DVD because it's a movie you might want to watch more often than just once. And trust me, you'd still find little meaningful details after watching it several times.

The characters - except for the grandmother perhaps - are all very balanced, no black and white. Even though you follow the story from the perspective of the two protagonists, there is also empathy for the other characters.

I think the IMDb rating for the movie is far too low - probably due to its politically controversial content.


This was a bold movie to hit Indian cinemas when it was released. The first movie to perhaps openly depict lesbian tendencies amongst Indian women. The leading actress of Indian cinema Shabana Azmi added substance to the movie with her hot passionate scenes with Nandita Das.

The movie oozed with sexuality and the director used sex in the best way possible. The sex was not for erotic purposes but was in the context of the movie. The scene where Nandita Das loses her virginity to her husband certainly was the first of its kind in Indian cinemas.

Good acting by all the actors especially Nandita Das amidst criticism from the Indian public


'Water' (2005), the final part of Toronto-based Indian film-director Deepa Mehta's elemental trilogy has been finally completed, almost ten years after the release of the very first controversial element, 'Fire' (1996), which was followed with a slightly lesser controversial sequel '1947: Earth' (1998). Mehta made her directorial debut with a 24-minute Canadian short film 'At 99: A Portrait of Louise Tandy Murch' (1975), but it was her Canadian feature film about the life of Indians living in Canada that brought her fame back in east, her country by birthright, 'Sam & Me' (1991). Recognition internationally came in the way of 'Camilla' (1994), starring Bridget Fonda, along with the actress who in 1990 won an Oscar in Best Actress in a Leading Role category at the age of 80, paving the way for middle-aged actresses to still have hope, for her portrayal of a stubborn old Jewish woman in 'Driving Miss Daisy' (1989), late Jessica Tandy.

'Camilla' dealt with a friendship between two women from two other ends of the human lifespan, a May/December friendship. 'Camilla' was Tandy's last picture; she died the very same year.

International fame followed Deepa Mehta in 1996 with the release of the controversial 'Fire', which spread with rage among the false patriotic consciousness existing Indian extremist. Having already explored friendship between two women in 'Camilla', in 'Fire' Mehta went a step further to portray a more intimate relationship between two lonely neglected women. Set in modern day India, the suburbs of the capital city of New Delhi, it shows two brothers and their wives, the elder brother (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) having joined a weird Hindu sect leads a life of celibacy, faithful to his guru of sexless existence. The younger brother (Javed Jaffrey) is having an extra marital affair with a Chinese woman (Alice Poon). Thus, both the wives, Shabana Azmi playing the elder brothers wife and Nandita Das the younger wife, find themselves neglected in their own way. One forced to lead a celibate life, thanks to her husband's eccentricities, and the other whose only interaction with her husband is through sex, and nothing more. Living in a world of in-laws and being the only two outsiders in the family, having nobody else to confide in, the two women fall in the arms of each other. Thus comes the issue of lesbianism. If there were an outside man's shoulder to cry on, there most probably would have been chance for them to fall into the arms of a man, but having no one else to confide in, their need for each others support is quite obvious. It does not necessarily state that all neglected women would end up taking lesbianism, it just happened to exist with regard to the two women in this context. All in all, the movie is excellent, and delves far deeper than just two women rolling in bed. The key focus isn't lesbianism in the movie, but the plight of modern day neglected Indian wives, even in the capital city, the two female characters just happen to have a sexual relationship.

Two years later, Deepa Mehta's second installment was the element of mother earth, released in India by the name of '1947: Earth',yet another excellent movie by a great director, this time in the Hindi language, unlike 'Fire', which was made in the English language.

Now Deepa Mehta has managed to complete the trilogy, despite a lot of problems, having released the final installment recently, 'Water'. No doubt it would be just as great as the other two.


For all that has been said about the subject matter, and the controversy that surrounded it, please do not overlook what I feel to be the most important part of the film: the salient struggles of everyone to keep their pride through their trials. Whether dealing with self-imposed male braggadocio, a sexual reawakening, or even life itself, everybody is human.


Deepa Mehta's "Fire" is groundbreaking, bold, and artistic. A masterful social commentary on the plight of the women from conservative, upper middle class Indian households, this is a film no one should miss. Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das give stellar performances by underplaying their characters as much as possible. A.R. Rahman's music is the work of the genius and almost plays the role of another character in the film. Mehta uses Rahman's score and together, they create such amazing sound montages that effectively portray the views of the world around Radha and Sita whenever they look to each other for support. This film is not about lesbianism as many have branded it. Lesbianism is just a part of the film. It is unfortunate that most people tend to write the film off calling it taboo instead of giving it a chance and looking at its real meaning.


The theme is controversial and the depiction of the hypocritical and sexually starved india is excellent.Nothing more to this film.There is a lack of good dialogues(why was the movie in english??). There was lack of continuity and lack of passion/emotion in the acting.