This mess starts off with a real tank running over a car, intercut with images of a toy tank. This is followed by a family driving home from a birthday party without saying anything. The unexplained tank and the untalkative family take up, I swear, over 10 minutes of film. Finally, the family sees a car after it has been in a wreck and decides to report it to the proper authorities, only to find that the citizens of the town are all hiding in their houses, and the cops are hiding in the police station. Interesting? Almost. When the town folk come out due to the family's presence, we learn that both the writer and editor are conspiring to substitute suspense with incomprehensible storytelling techniques in the hopes that the audience's inability to tell what's going on will somehow bring unease upon the audience... and it works! ... but not in the way they thought it would. I was very uneasy with how bad this movie was, but not scared at all. The dialogue is composed of things that make little sense. Not in a fun David Lynch sort of way, but a sort of I-walked-in-during-the-middle-of-a-boring-conversation sort of way. Over the course of the next hour, we learn that the movie-makers try to bore us into being afraid by showing tediously mundane scenes combined with the above-mentioned "what's going on?" type scenes.

The plot involves something along the lines of gentle-looking old folks putting children into a trance through the power of Satan and then bringing them to a party to play with toys, and an even more sinister intention, and it's up to a group of white men (everybody's white in the movie) to grab their guns and save the day, and a tag-a-long eye candy woman who whines at the drop of a hat. They look for the kidnapped children by looking in random places and yelling the kids' names.

This is a great horror movie for any person who has never seen a horror movie because that person is frightened by the mere thought of Satanism, Paganism, Wicca, or even Catholicism due to a lifetime diet of brainwashing from the Trinity Broadcast Network. This represents Satanism as elderly folks in Halloween costumes with candles while mingling at a party, in front of an Ankh. Replete with a priest spouting completely made-up nonsense about Satanists, while calling them "Witches." The message that anything that isn't Protestantism can be all thrown into the same category for easy condemnation.

About 30 minutes of footage is wasted to show mediocre elderly actors awkwardly babbling overwrought pseudo-Satanic gibberish corny enough to make a teen Goth blush, almost always in Olde English, and sometimes in Latin that may or may not be made up words.

Highlights include a guy laughing at the idea of little green men for a solid 3 minutes, a family staring out of the windows of their car without talking for 10 minutes while listening to elevator muzak. A priest studying Satanism for 4 minutes with ooh-so-scary drawings of demons to scare the Church Lady crowd. Random shots of dolls. Random shots of children. Paint instead of blood at every chance. Film School level dream sequences. Introduces unimportant characters who do nothing before they exit. Sometimes, they act as if the Nothing that they're doing is a big deal.

The directing is sloppy at best. An example of the directing includes a scene at the beginning where a man and woman are kissing and the man pulls away to look lovingly into her eyes and some dark red paint falls on her cheek. Looking up, they see that it's not blood, but droplets from a girl's snowcone. Snowcones are ice and colored / flavored water, and would not have produced droplets of the same texture as paint, not to mention the fact that her snowcone was a bright reddish-orange. Hackneyed writing, certainly, but made even worse by the bad directing. It then cuts to an alternate shot of the man, woman, and girl and shows that she's standing about four feet away from them, so the snowcone wouldn't have dripped on the woman even if she'd held her snowcone out over the woman's face. Way to go, editor! Of course, the acting is blah. The acting by the whole cast could be put on a scale and balanced perfectly between overacting and underacting.

The director's most offensive technique is to give the actors no motivation and then go out for lunch as the unblinking eye of the camera leers as the actors make fools of themselves.

And, FINALLY, after all that, we get to an ending that would've been great had it been handled by competent people and not Jerry Falwell.


This movie is full of pseudo deep thoughtfulness and it's cloying in its writerly-ness, that includes a canned ham voice-over and some unbelievable dialogue. Dialogue that is tinny and tone deaf the way Spike sometimes (not always) is when writing "certain" characters. For those that like nonsense films like Pieces of April and One Hour Photo, this is another one for you.

That said, this comment is nothing against Ryan Gosling who has shown his awesome chops in The Believer. A film that proves that movies are a director's medium, and when a movie is rotten it's fair to say the fault lies there and not in the actors.


This movie states through its protagonist that the world is essentially sadness and pain and those that ignore this have blinders on. One can argue whether this is true or not. But even if you accept this as true, the movie's ending either A) disputes this by saying there can be some good in tragic situations or B) forgets this and uses a cliched montage in order to leave the audience feeling uplifted.

That the movie metaphorically acquits its protagonist by presenting him as a sympathetic character despite any evidence for that sympathy shows contempt for the supporting characters who were the most compelling in the film.

So what you have in this film is a script that is not consistent in its theme and direction that does not bring the ending into sync with the rest of the film. There are excellent performances given by every member of the cast especially Spacey, Olin, Martin Donovan, and Ann Magnuson. It's a shame that they weren't supported by a better writer/director.


Not much actually happens in this movie. There are a few pivotal moments, and everything else is talking about a crucial moment that takes place before the movie began. The primary mechanism used in the story is the flashback. Flashbacks can be used very well, but they aren't here. There is zero indication when flashing back or forward, and there are only weeks separating the events, so context as a scene unfolds is the only way to know when something happens. Perhaps this was intended to add a sense of mystery in places, but it was largely annoying.

If you are interested in watching a 100 minute on-screen discussion of the why's of things and a lame questioning of good versus evil, enjoy. If watching close-ups of a mostly vacant stare on Ryan Gosling's face for much of the movie appeals to you, you're in luck. Sadly, I can find no reason to recommend this movie. Oh, and as another review indicated, Spacey really is only in a cameo role here, and plays with a disinterested detachment that you've probably already seen.

*** The rest contains spoilers though a few big points are held back ***

First, the killing of the so-called retarded boy happens before the movie opens, and we never learn what happened exactly. The implication is that he was killed to stop the deep sadness that was communicated through the boy's eyes. There aren't many other unanswered questions as the characters beyond the boy and the lead are very one-dimensional.

As for what is with the lead character... Another review suggested he is crazy. I agree he isn't 'right', but don't know that I'd call it crazy. It seems that the movie tried hard to convey that he was either autistic or retarded in some way, because he sure seemed slow and unable to grasp the obvious. Either that or they were going for a neglected youth with some detachment disorder and/or who was heavily medicated. As always Ryan Gosling is good at conveying something to the audience, but it seems exactly what was deliberately left up in the air in this case. This movie provides no answers, just questions, but it was a sufficiently bad movie that I really didn't care.


For those of you who have never heard of the movie until now (of which, I presume there are many lucky people who haven't), I'll summarise it for you. Ryan Gosling plays the titular character of Leland, who also serves as the film's narrator (a la Kevin Spacey in American Beauty, but without the intelligent observations on life). Leland goes to jail for stabbing a retarded kid to death, and the movie attempts to figure out why he did it. He seems to be a nice boy (if not mentally absent), and is portrayed by Gosling with a complete lack of violence, anger, or agenda (and if you're waiting for him to reveal his sinister side later in the movie, don't waste your time-- it's not that kind of movie). Once in juvenile prison, Leland goes to classes taught by Pearl Madison, ably portrayed by Don Cheadle (who is incapable of anything but quality, even when in bad movies). Pearl attempts to unlock the mystery of Leland in an attempt to figure out how such a kid could do such a thing, and so he could write a book about it later (along with being a juvenile prison teacher, Pearl is also an aspiring author).

The relationship between Leland and Pearl is the driving narrative behind the film, as their talks unveil Leland's past to the audience. However, to call it the central focus would imply that this meandering film had one. It does not. The United States of Leland boasts an impressive cast, which seems to be to the detriment of the film. It seems as though writer/director Matthew Ryan Hodge (don't worry that you haven't heard of him, he's never done anything) had to give EVERY character a personal story arc and personality flaw in order to get the actors to play them. Most of these traits and stories are clichéd, and most go underdeveloped and unresolved.

I'll try and break them down here: Martin Donovan and Ann Magnuson are the parents of the slain retarded boy (I love how the movie kept calling the kid "retarded", never "mentally disabled". That part made me laugh inside), they apparently have a cold relationship, because all suburban marriages in contemporary cinema must be cold. Their other two kids are Michelle Williams, who is apparently an aspiring actress about to attend college, and Jena Malone, who plays the same troubled teen-archetype she always plays, this time with a heroine addiction. Malone was also the girlfriend of Leland, which gives him his link to his victim. Williams' boyfriend, who was orphaned and came to live with the family, and is a baseball player looking to go to the same college as his girlfriend, is played by Chris Klein. He ends up doing more with his character than any of the other bit players, managing to steal the movie at times. Lena Olin is Leland's mother, who seems to be perpetually sad for some reason. Kevin Spacey (also the executive producer) is Leland's cold and absentee father, who is a famed novelist. Eventually, Sherilyn Fenn will show up to put a wrinkle in Leland's story-- if you even care at that point. Oh yeah, and there's a drug-dealing ex-boyfriend, a couple of fellow juvees, and a co-worker of Pearl's with whom he has an affair on his long distance girlfriend with (played by Kerry Washington).

Sorry if all that synopsis and character breakdown took so long. If it seemed meaningless and boring, then you've just experienced a bit of what I did during the 108 minutes I spent watching the movie. But the unruly supporting cast of over-wrought clichés is the least of this film's crimes. The biggest one is that the whole exercise is entirely pointless. We aren't given a fascinating look into a troubled mind, we aren't given an effective explanation, we aren't given much of anything. Given that it sucked so much, I'm gonna go ahead and spoil the ending for you so that you never have to see it: Leland stabbed the retard because all Leland could see in the world was sadness, and wanted to spare Corky (or whatever the victim's name was) the sadness in his eyes. It's like the worst emo band in the world made an album, and titled it "The World Is Sad, So I Killed A Retard". Oh, and Leland dies in the end, in a sequence so reliant of unbelievable coincidences that it would have ruined the movie, if the movie didn't already suck. Of course he dies in the end, because that made the movie so deep.

I'm giving the movie 2 stars, because the actors themselves all did a pretty good job with the junk they were given. The scenes with Cheadle and Gosling together were even interesting on some levels. But, to paraphrase the film itself, you have to believe that movies are more than the sum of their parts, kiddo.


Every once in a while, an indie comes along that has an awesome cast and a story that sounds really interesting and can't-miss, but the movie sucks. Some recent films belonging to this unfortunate category are "Levity" and "The Safety Of Objects", and now here's "The United States Of Leland".

Said awesome cast includes Ryan Gosling, Kevin Spacey, Don Cheadle, Jena Malone, Lena Olin, Michelle Williams, Chris Klein, and Kerry Washington. Gosling plays Leland P. Fitzgerald, the teenage son of a famous author (Spacey) who commits a disturbing and unforgivable crime (murdering a retarded child), but doesn't remember it and doesn't seem to have any sort of motive.

Don Cheadle plays a teacher in juvenile hall who is trying to understand Leland (and also exploit him by writing a book about him), and Jena Malone is his ex-girlfriend. We see their deteriorating relationship (due to her heroin addiction) in flashback. Sounds like an awesome little drama, huh? I thought so, too.

The fact is that this movie is just badly, badly written. The dialogue and narration are painfully pretentious and laden with irritating platitudes about "life", the characters are all two-dimensional indie cliches, and while it does manage to make Leland sympathetic in some ways, it glosses over his crime.

For the most part, there's no problem with the acting. Gosling (who was Oscar-worthy in "The Believer") is a tremendously talented young actor, but the way they're written, none of these characters (least of all Leland) even feel like real people, so there's not much he can do but mumble his ridiculous lines and look sad.

Jena Malone is the most memorable. She has one of the most expressive faces I've ever seen. Even playing an underwritten character in a bad movie like this, she can break your heart with one look. When she's got good material to work with (as in "Donnie Darko" or "The Dangerous Lives Of Altar Boys"), she's really amazing.

But this is not good material. Maybe after a massive rewrite it could have been something worthwhile, but as it is, "The United States Of Leland" is ponderous, inert, and for a movie that seems in love with how "deep" it is, it's really shallow.


I'm sorry but I cannot even partly agree with some comments on this awful piece of sh...

English is not my native language, because I'm a German citizen, so please do not blame me for inappropriate grammar structures or something *gg I cannot understand why this movie got such a high rating? 6.3??? Are you kidding me? This movie has completely no sense, not even a seem of good acting...

When I looked at the comments on The Da Vinci Code, which has - I think - nearly the same rating, I had to bang my head on the table , because I watched 00 Schneider directly after Sakrileg, and oh my god , there are worlds between them.

The majority of the posters in this board tears every hyped movie to pieces while rating this crime of movie making with a 6.3 and denominates Helge as a genius. Of course , he knows how to make money, but I think the main aspect of your opinions is the fact, that German isn't your native language and you just ignore - or rather don't notice the bunch of crap which is said in the sentences. OK , I must confess that some scenes ARE funny, but all in all , a 6.3 is just too much for my compatriot ;)


Insane really. Even if you haven't seen the original George Cukor movie with Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell, Paulette Goddard, Joan Fontaine and a cast of a thousand other stars you may dismiss this forced, politically correct, depressing comedy. Depressing for many different reasons. Meg Ryan for one. What has she done to herself? Her face can hardly move. That alone puts her miles away from Norma Shearer. Annette Bening should be suing the DP and Debra Messing, what the hell was she doing here? Actresses with no connection in the public's subconscious trying to pass for friends, totally unconvincingly. Eva Mendes in the Joan Crawford part is an outrageous piece of miscasting. What a terrible idea! Her character is like a trans-gender performer without any taste or subtlety. Bizarre to think that a woman adapted and directed this women.The only positive things I can mention are a short but very funny appearance by Bette Midler and Cloris Leachman as the housekeeper.


As a Spanish tourist in Los Angeles and a fanatic movie lover I committed a terrible mistake. I went to see "The Women" The remake of one of my all time favorites. I've seen the original many many times, in fact I own it. My rushing to see the remake was based on Diane English, the woman responsible for "Murphy Brown" My though was: how bad can it be? She must know what she's doing. Well, I don't know what to say. I don't understand what happened. The Botoxed women is a rather depressing affair. Meg Ryan or whoever played Mary - she looked a bit like a grotesque version of Meg Ryan...another actress perhaps wearing a Meg Ryan mask - she doesn't bring to the character nothing of what Norma Shearer did in 1939. The new one is a tired, unconvincing prototype of what has become a farce within a farce. The "friends" Annette Bening, Debra Messing, Jada Pinket Smith are as disconnected as anything I've ever seen and if this wasn't enough: Eva Mendes as Crystal, the character created by Joan Crawford in one of her best and funniest performances. Eva Mendes's casting is really the poster sign for how wrong, how ill conceived this commercial attempt turned up. I didn't give it a 1 out respect for Candice Bergen and Cloris Leachman


I believe an entire book can be written about the odyssey to remake the classic film on which this film is loosely based. When Hollywood first started talking about such enterprise, the reaction was always negative because there were just too many aspects that could have gone wrong, starting with the solid ensemble that made the original unforgettable, and that's exactly where things begin souring here, with the selection of actresses that otherwise can do remarkable work, but that are not suited to the parts, and sadly enough, have been directed with the heavy hand of a director that doesn't understand or appreciate the source material.

It seems as if there is no focus or direction, or as if the direction that has been taken is to obliterate anything that was good about the original film. This is called an updating, as in let's drain the story out of humor, snappy dialogue, and any interesting premise. Most of all, let's prove that women have come a long way, except that the problem is that we don't really get (at least by watching this film) where the women are truly going.

For starters, casting Meg Ryan in the central role proves almost fatal to the movie because somehow she seems to have locked herself into some sort of limbo where women don't really change appearances, even after 20 years of working in the movies. Her Mary which proved to be a difficult role in the 30's, somehow grew from her interaction with the other stereotypes, like Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz" by learning, observing, and realizing that she had a choice in the matter. It might not have been a choice that women would celebrate nowadays, but it was fun ride, and part of the fun, was the catty, silly, sometimes slapstick routines that elevated that movie into the realm of the sublime. In here, we are down to earth with a thud. By changing the nature of Sylvia, the film has lost a lot of its spark, and it isn't in anyway Annette Bening's fault. I couldn't help but admiring how she tried to save this sinking ship and got a sinking feeling as she struggled with the horrible lines she was handled. Thankfully I entertained myself by looking at some of her terrific outfits and kept reminding myself how talented this lady really was. Her Sylvia is wise but flawed, and she could have been a great creation. Unfortunately Ms. English wasn't paying attention to her own work and loses control of the one character that could have turned the film into a fresh direction.

Yet that wasn't the biggest blasphemy of them all. In the original, we have Joan Crawford doing probably one of the best performances by a woman. Her Crystal is legendary, with conniving lines, incendiary moves, duplicitous maneuvers, and some very sexy poses. She was the link between the male and the female, and through her we knew what the whole catastrophe was about. She provided the tension between men and women. She was dangerous, sexy, the ultimate femme fatale. A woman of intelligence that we feared and admired, and most importantly, we wanted to destroy to save our heroine. Eva Mendes, as gorgeous as she is, is two dimensional in this outing because of weak writing, and once again, some bad casting.

There are more atrocities in the film, such as the addition of a terrible role for Mensing as the dedicated mother who lives for having babies, and the rather annoying lesbian turn by Pinkett. Then comes the biggest waste of talent in the movie, as Bette Middler, who is a little unrecognizable in her make up, shows the spark of what could have been. Her acidic delivery reminds us of the contemporary angle the film could have taken. Her words revive and put a big of much needed naughtiness in the film, and it is exciting to see that it could really fly, then she is gone. She is in the film all of six minutes, and she fades away in the middle of the muddle.

Here is a movie that raised our anticipation level and truly disappointed us, a film that could have joined the successful "Sex in the City" who made an amazing transition to the big screen because it respected its source material and didn't compromise. It gave us more, bigger and better adaptation. It truly updated what had made it successful before. "The Women" in its present reincarnation needs to go back and rework itself, much like "The Hulk" did it this year, find more suitable performers, a really good writer, and most of all, someone who truly treasures what good movies are about.


First, I should say that I've seen the '39 version at least 100 times; know all the dialog, and have read the '36 play, which is different from the '39 and contains nuggets of gold of its own. This version is as flat as a Lifetime movie on adultery. There's a reason you haven't seen an expensive campaign of TV ads for it. According to Entertainment Weekly, Bening hated the catty tone of the original and how the women spent the whole time going to war on each other. GUESS WHAT??! That was Booth's intent. It was a slick, theatrical take on gossip, adultery, and back-biting among a set of well-heeled Manhattan socialites. The crowd that made this new version had no intention of honoring the original source material. They pick at it weirdly, putting in half a scene here and half a scene there that come from the first version. Bette Midler (who is in just a few scenes and acts the old Countess part in a broad, grinning style) doesn't have any context in this version. She mentions going after "Buck," which is a key element in the original -- then he's never mentioned again. This movie is so dull that I'm not going to over-analyze it, but here are a few things that I found unbelievable: > Mary Haines bragging to her domestic staff: "I can suck the nails out of a board!" Right. Great writing. Norma Shearer could've done a line reading on that & gotten an Oscar nom, right? > A COMPASSIONATE Sylvia Fowler!!!??? Annette Bening got what she wanted, and the movie just sort of withers away. Claire Booth used Sylvia as the comic engine that swept through the play. As portrayed immortally by Rosalind Russell, she was an ignorant, spiteful woman who rattled off reams of petty, ridiculous, irresistible dialog that is still classic and quotable. She wasn't above biting Paulette Godard's ankle. The 2008 filmmakers decided that this character had to die. In killing her off, they killed the movie.


To say I was disappointed is an understatement. An amateur film made by professionals. I was about to leave the theater in two or three occasions (something I've never done)I was stopped by Cloris Leachman really. She rings true, the only one I should say. This new women are less modern than the George Cukor women of the 30's. This ones are "acting" for us trying to be with it but their "conflict" is exactly the same as it has always been, in movies anyway. The fun of the original was based on a crisp, vitriolic and very funny script. A masterful direction and an unrepeatable cast. All the elements that are missing here. TV actresses mingling with models and Oscar nominees/winners. There wasn't anything organic about it. The whole thing felt like a put on, improvised in the moment without a clear objective. 2/10


I really wish I had read everyone's review before going to see the movie... it was one of the most excruciating films that I've ever seen. I was ready to leave the theater 5 minutes into the movie; I should have followed my instinct. The movie offered nothing new or clever, it was boring and very cliché. I was surprised to find that it was directed by a woman! The characters did not represent any women that I know, they were boring, bitter and melodramatic. The movie was unrealistic and depressing and a waste of time and money. And the actors looked tired, poor make-up and hair styling. It was recently compared to the Sex and in the City movie; it was not even half as good. My suggestion, do not see this movie!


I saw it tonight and fell asleep in the movie.

That is something that I have not done since - I have never fallen asleep at the movies.

I LOVE the original and have seen it several times and recommend it to everyone. This may have been the problem but I do not think so, because there were a couple of bright spots that showed if done right they could have made this movie work.

Bette was under used and Anne was over used and miscast.

I do not know why English or anyone for that matter let this go out in that condition.

They billed this as a Sex in the City but better? Not a chance I liked Sex in the City a lot and was disappointed by this movie.

So do not waste your money on this movie - go see anything but this!


I've never seen the original movie others have commented on, so my perspective is just about this movie without comparison.

I found the message of the movie to be,: if you only worry about yourself, all will be right with the world, everything will fall into place, your lovers will love you more, your friends will respect and like you more, your employers will want you more, pay you more and even your own children and parents will love you more.

I find this message to be reprehensible and totally false.

Kudos for the very funny birthing scene at the end; there isn't a mother out there who won't laugh during that scene.

Overall a very disappointing movie plot. I didn't find myself rooting for anyone in this movie. I thought they were all pathetic self absorbed individuals that I just didn't care what happened to them and that's not a movie people want to see.


I was very disappointed by this movie. Ms English who says that she is a fan of the original movie seemed to have taken a great piece of artistic work, and transformed it into a flat-lined "ho-hum" you've come a long way baby production. I tried to like Meg Ryan's Mary Haines, but she was just boring. She didn't seem to feel anything about her husband's affair. There was no emotional struggle, no deep hurt. In the original 1939 movie Norma Shearer's Mary Haines felt betrayed, shocked, vulnerable, confused and angry. The 2008 production was more about some fake sisterhood theme, (Actually my wife's words)and didn't make you shed a tear or even chuckle. The only performances that were note worthy we're of Debra Messing, and Bette Midler. (I wanted more of Bette.) There was really no protagonist in this movie. The Sylvia Fowler character had too many sub themes to it. And Crystal Allen had no fire. The remake of the department store encounter with Annette Benning, and Miss Mendez was Luke warm. Also the pacing was slow as well. Obviously the 1939 version needed to be updated, but this one wasn't it. The reason that the original version worked so well was that the characters were dealing with "man" problems. A subject by the way which isn't out-dated. The magic of the original movie was that the movie was about both sexes, while you never saw the men.


This film could have been a decent re-make, and gosh knows it tried (or Ms. English tried). Assembling talented actors together with a successful & experienced writer/director should be a formula for a decent film. But Ms. English's experience - according to her IMDb bio - is exclusively limited to television work, and it is glaringly obvious throughout this film.

I am surprised that none of the reviews I have read mention what I found most unlikeable about this film, and what kept it from reaching even a portion of its potential: it looked and felt like it was made for television. To give some credit to Ms. English, many of the jokes that simply did NOT work on a movie screen would have been terrific on TV (and maybe a laugh track would have helped). So much of the camera usage and the lighting would have played out fine on TV but looked awkward or odd on a big screen. If the whole film had been chopped up into a mini-series or a sit-com, I think it could have worked. But this is cinema and sadly Ms. English's talents didn't translate. I cringed at so many different points in my embarrassment for the actors & the writers that I felt like I came out of the theater half shriveled! Meg Ryan is her usual perky, cute self (except for the awful plastic surgery she has had on her face), but where did she have a chance to use her talent?! She has made films where she doesn't recreate her stereo-typed role and done them well... but not here. Annette Bening seemed to simply go through the motions - such a great talent and yet such a poor performance! I enjoyed the other women characters but they were more caricature than substance, and it was sad to see. What worked in this film in the 1930s doesn't translate to the 2000s, and no one helped Ms. English get the changes & updates or subtleties right. If only she (as writer, director AND producer) had reached out for some assistance, I think it could have been good. But it was not.

It's so frustrating to go to a movie that has good stars and a good writer or director and come away feeling it was a waste of everyone's time & money! This New Yorker cartoon I saw yesterday is appropriate: A few movie execs are having a meeting & the caption reads: "Let's remake a classic with worse everything!"


This movie is not a comedy. It is not even funny in the "this movie is so bad it's funny" department. Rather, it is just plain bad. Other reviewers mention the bad lighting, but beyond that is the abundance of bad plastic surgery.

Meanwhile, a lot of great acting talent was wasted on a poor screenplay and uninspired direction. The main characters are one-dimensional and boring. (It is hard to feel sympathy for any of them). It is also hard to see the four characters as close friends. It seems like just a bunch of women thrown together, pretending to be close.

I won't list all of the problems with this movie, as it doesn't merit that much of anyone's attention. (Nor is it worth the time it takes to watch it).


Imagine a film the complete opposite of Lawrence of Arabia, instead of having an all male cast, it has an all female cast. Instead of being set in the barren deserts of Arabia, it is set in the bulging metropolis of New York City. And instead of it being one of the greatest films ever made, it is one of the most pointless, boring and forgettable.

The film concerns Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a perfect wife and mother, the envy of all others in her high society Manhatten social circle. She is painted as a women bearing the weight of the world on her shoulders, despite the fact she needs a live in nanny and housekeeper to cope with her one child. But I don't want to be too hard on her, Mary does all this whilst taking a liassez-faire attitude towards the fashion designing job her father has given her. This idyllic lifestyle cannot last forever though and things start to crash in a very real way.

Mary's husband is cheating on her and her father fires her for not working hard enough. She is quite naturally upset and breaks down a little.

Mary needs to bounce back though, for the sake of her impressionable young daughter and for herself. She does this through rehab, hair straightening and designing her own line of clothes; though amazingly for this kind of film, not a montage. Mary succeeds; her daughter loves her, her mother loves her, her friends love her and her husband decides he loves her now. She decides to take her cheating husband back after realising it was her fault he cheated, as she didn't dote on him enough.

The films one saving grace is that it doesn't go down the "all men are evil" route.


I have never seen the original 1930s version of the film, but this remake is one of the worst I have seen from a major production studio in years. Seeing actors such as Meg Ryan and Annette Bening, once near A level talents, sleepwalk their way through poorly scripted roles is painful. There appeared to be no desire to be in front of the camera for anyone in this film.

Jada Pinkett Smith and Debra Messing play worthless roles that have no bearing on the plot and add no entertainment value. Jada Pinkett Smith's character is used as nothing more than a ploy to appear modern, having an African American lesbian character, but in actuality she is there to just look cool. There is no actual reason why Messing in this film other than to fill out the amount of women in the original I take.

The side characters played by Eva Mendes and Debi Mazar are stereotypical female characters, with Mendes portraying the vixen looking to steal the wealthy but bored and mildly neglected husband and Mazar covering the gossip roles.

The movie is boring, lacking charm, humor, or sympathy for any characters. It almost felt like the movie was a punishment for everyone involved, whether in front of or behind the camera.

There is one glimmering hope in the film, however little it is allowed to shine surrounded by the dim and dying stars around it is Cloris Leachman. Leachman is still an amazing talent that brings her remarkable charm and humor to the film, in the small role that she has.


The Women (2008) by Diane English is sadly such a waste of talent. With Annette Benning, Candice Bergen, Bette Midler, Cloris Leachman whom I like and enjoy in everything I've seen them, and Meg Ryan, Jada Pinkett Smith, Debra Messing, and Eva Mendes who may not be my favorite actors but are nice to look at, how could the movie be boring, predictable, embarrassing, sloppy, and simply bad? It was made by Diane English who is known as the writer of the very successful TV show Murphy Brown, and it is her first movie for which she wrote a script. The movie has been a labor of love for English who had tried for many years to make it happen and I respect that. I even found the scenes with the supporting players, Bergen, Leechaman, Carry Fisher and Bette Middler in short but memorable cameos, funny, smart, and enjoyable but in general the movie is a second hand "Sex and the City" which was released few months ago. I did not find Sex and the City very good when I saw it but next to The Women, it was simply brilliant. At least, Sex and the City spared us the long and tasteless scene in the hospital's delivery room where one of the characters' was having a baby and her friends were there supporting her. Poor Debra Messing, what did she do to deserve that nightmare she was put through and we, the viewers together with her? The movies like "The Women" give the whole genre, chick flicks, a bad name. It is nothing wrong with the genre, but why is it so difficult to make a really good comedy about female friendships and hardships, about dealing with marriage, motherhood, and proving yourself professionally? These are all very compelling and important subjects any modern woman can relate to. Why making movies with the lines, dialogs, and situations so clichéd, predictable, not funny and insulting that they will be forgotten as soon as the movie is over?

After I saw the new movie, I checked out from my local library the original The Women and I truly enjoyed it. The story was told much better 70 years ago, and kept my interest all the way. The old movie had a real star power.


George Cukor's The Women remains one of the glittering gems of 1939, Hollywood's most golden of golden years. The film crackled and sparked and it's absence of males was a subtle touch, hardly noticed because of all the fine entertainment.

Flash forward. We see Fifth Avenue in New York City, in front of Saks. Large crowds bustle along the Avenue...but something's off. The shot reveals only well dressed (attractive and young) women. Creepier than I Am Legend, the visual concept continues, inside the store and later at a large fashion show. What NYC fashion show doesn't have at least 5 gay men? The "no men" rule is rammed down our throats creating an alien world, off balance and distracting.

Enter Meg Ryan, first seen digging in her garden wearing a ridiculous get-up complete with her retro curls and flailing arms. I immediately sympathized with her husband and could understand why he looked elsewhere. Later in the film she morphs into an older Jennifer Aniston look and keeps her arms at her sides. This seems intentional as if to say "Look! I can still be relevant!" Ryan's character is loaded down with a coven of miss-matched friends (insert Sex and the City comparison here) who, if it were real life, would despise each other. Annette Bening plays the power bitch, who during the course of the film realizes her life's dream doesn't really make her happy. Jada Pinkett Smith is the power lesbian, all atitudinous with no use for any of the men who aren't there. Debra Messing is some sort of baby factory that eats a lot. Eva Mendes is an odd choice for the bad girl to say the least. She looks fake, acts fake and any humor she tries to demonstrate falls flat. Someone's comment on here that she looked trans-gender was spot on. Other various stars show up, to rearrange the furniture on this Titanic.

The only thing that would have saved this would have been the brilliant casting of Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. They could have named their price, tucked their tongues firmly into their cheeks and pulled off something very clever and profitable. But no, Hollywood thinks of itself way too highly for that kind of exploitation. Instead we're given this thing that lumbers along awkwardly with no sparkle. Entire sections of dialog from the original are lifted and plopped down into a scene with awful results. At one point Ryan exclaims something along the lines of, "This isn't a 1930's movie!" No Meg, it's not.


Director/screenwriter Diane English's 2008 update of George Cukor's 1939 MGM classic comedy unfortunately shows more mothballs than its predecessor. Based on Clare Booth Luce's shrewdly observant 1936 play on the relationships that evolve among a strictly female group of pampered Manhattan socialites, the story would seem ripe for a contemporary remake. Instead, because of English's thematic overreach, the production comes across as an extended therapy session with a paucity of wit. What's more, the diverse lifestyles of women today have been reduced to sitcom-level stereotypes in this movie, and the original play's central conceit of eliminating men from the storyline seems even more contrived given the openly pansexual evolution that has occurred among men as well as women since the 1930's. To add insult to injury, the recent big screen adaptation of HBO's "Sex and the City" did this sort of sorority-style dishing much better and with far sharper fangs.

The skeleton of the original play remains as the story centers on wealthy Mary Haines, who gave up her promising clothing design career to become the devoted wife of a Wall Street financial wizard. Like "Sex and the City", she is surrounded by three best friends - Sylvie Fowler, a successful, cutthroat magazine editor in the mold of Miranda Priestly in "The Devil Wears Prada" (yet another film this echoes); perennially pregnant Edie Cohen representing the stay-at-home wife; and Alex Fisher, a lesbian author who seems to represent every repressed group generally excluded from such an exclusive clique. Through a mouthy manicurist, they find out Mary's husband is having an affair with man-eater Crystal Allen, a perfume girl at Saks more than willing to break up a marriage as she struggles to become an actress. The rest of the plot doesn't matter much since it becomes a series of scenes focused on sisterly bonding and bickering, none of it very illuminating and without the satirical zing that buoyed the 1939 movie.

Looking strangely youthful at 47, Meg Ryan seems to play Mary in a manner that tries to resuscitate the goodwill she engendered in the 1990's with "When Harry Met Sally" and "Sleepless in Seattle". It's not that she isn't age-appropriate here, but her familiar sprightliness seems at odds with the character's passive nature. Annette Bening fares somewhat better in the scene-stealing Rosalind Russell role of Sylvie because she has proved to be adept at conveying hardness while masking vulnerability, but her character goes through such a trite transformation that it undermines the actress' performance severely. Poor Eva Mendes has to play Crystal as a shallow, transparent shopgirl versus the smart, hard-edged cookie Joan Crawford got to play. Debra Messing and Jada Pinkett Smith are scooted way to the sidelines as Edie and Alex, respectively. Much better are Candice Bergen as Mary's savvy, supportive mother and Cloris Leachman as the non-nonsense housekeeper.

Probably reflecting the lackluster box office response to the film's release, the 2008 DVD doesn't have a robust set of extras. There are two deleted scenes - one with Crystal and her friends having a girls' night-in as a contrast to Mary's elaborate garden party, and the other an extension of Bette Midler's cameo as a multi-married Hollywood agent counseling Mary during a late night at a yoga camp. Two featurettes round out the extras" "The Women: The Legacy" about the history behind the film from the original 1936 play, and "The Women Behind the Women" which has the cast and crew speak endlessly about female self-empowerment and self-image. The irony is that this version of "The Women" directed and scripted by a woman takes such a patronizing look at women.


I went along to this movie with some trepidation; the original is a masterpiece of both writing and acting and unfortunately my fears were realized. This is a humorless piece of work and I sat in the theater waiting for the wit and humor to begin- I'm still waiting, it seems. Updating the storyline to the present time just didn't work and the altering of characters an absolute travesty- why did they introduce Bette Midler's character when she disappeared just as quickly as she arrived; the related character in the 1939 original was an integral part of the plot. The women in the cinema laughed a few times but nothing touched me as being funny with the exception of a line from Meg Ryan talking to her mother about her situation and telling her that 'it's not like a 1930's movie'- I sorely wished I was viewing the 1930's version. It was all too touchy feely 'sisters stick together' and really needing some of the acerbic wit and clever dialog from the original play- I still watch the original movie and pick up a line that I have never caught before. There is no sense of closure to this new version, and whilst the 1939 movie is politically incorrect by todays standards, each thread was tied up and when the movie ended- it did so strongly. This remake should be labeled with a warning for any viewers- if you know the original, don't bother: I felt cheated by losing part of my life in a cinema watching this unmemorable piece of fluff. Bring on the Jungle Red!!


Saw this movie last night. I don't usually comment good or bad, as I think movies are like books in that there is something for everyone and everyone is different, tastes vary, yadda yadda. This movie was bad. By the end I thought, oh my, this is testing my patience. How many women really look and live like this when they hit "rock bottom" and if I could just borrow some cash from mum and carry out to live my fashion designing dreams - gosh, life would be great! I was out for a nice chick-date flick with my girl (my darling hubby likes watching movies together and I knew this wouldn't be his thing), something light and easy on the senses, but this was one bad movie. We are intelligent and interesting movie watchers and this movie wasn't that. Annette Benning is a great actress, she held her own. Bad. Bad.


No! no - No - NO! My entire being is revolting against this dreadful remake of a classic movie. I knew we were heading for trouble from the moment Meg Ryan appeared on screen with her ridiculous hair and clothing - literally looking like a scarecrow in that garden she was digging. Meg Ryan playing Meg Ryan - how tiresome is that?! And it got worse ... so much worse. The horribly cliché lines, the stock characters, the increasing sense I was watching a spin-off of "The First Wives Club" and the ultimate hackneyed schtick in the delivery room. How many times have I seen this movie? Only once, but it feel like a dozen times - nothing original or fresh about it. For shame!


Updating of the Clare Booth Luce play and the 1939 movie is a major disappointment. The cast of women is excellent, most of the individual scenes work but nothing hangs together. There is no connection from scene to scene almost as if the film was crafted in parts and then assembled in a vacuum. Granted the story of a woman dealing with her husband's infidelity and how she is helped and hindered by her friends is a less shocking one now in an age when divorce is so common, but at the same time its just as timely as ever, I just wish they could have managed to connect all of the pieces together because as it stands now you really don't feel pulled along by the plot. Wait for Cable.


This is, in simple terms, one of the worst films ever made. The story goes way beyond being tasteless and judging by the actors performance, they know it. There just in not one single redemming quality of this film. Patrick Swayze will have to overcome some major obstacles in his career, before people forget about this turkey.


Well, I fell for it. I saw the box for this at the video store, and mistook it for "Girlfight", which I'd heard was great. In my own defense, the titles are similar, and they re-did the cover art for the box so it looked almost identical. Anyway, to sum it up, they obviously re-did the whole cover packaging/promo to capitalize on the buzz/success of "Girlfight". I popped it in and got a bad feeling when they started showing trailers for low budget straight-to-video flicks, and even worse when a music video of the main song for the movie, which sounded like elevator music and featured corny slomo clips from the movie preceded the main feature. When I saw the first few minutes and Maria Conchita Alonso showed up, I knew I'd fallen for it. (don't get me wrong, she's a talented actress, but I knew she wasn't in "Girlfight", the movie I'd been under the false impression I was renting).

So, apart from me feeling sort of cheated and mad at myself for not looking closer, the movie was OK. The plot involves Belle, a young Latino woman who is the daughter of an ex-champion boxer. One of her close friends is a female boxer, who--and I could see all this coming sooo far ahead of time it was really a drag--gets seriously injured during a match with a mean champ named "The Terminator", who resembles a female version of a bigger, more pumped up Ike Turner. Of course, Belle decides that the only thing to do is to become a boxer herself and avenge her friend. She lives with her caring, supportive yet protective Dad (her mother died of cancer when she was younger), who just happens to be a cop. Her love interest, also caring and supportive yet protective, is also a cop who works with her dad. Hmmm, they both have jobs that put their lives in danger in the line of duty...wonder what's gonna happen? She starts training and meets a sleazy manager who of course, pretends to care about her but just wants to exploit her. The actor they hired looks like a very low-rent Cary Eweles and is so young he barely manages to have a mustache. His acting was also really, really bad. I'm not even going to go into the plot any further because anyone who has seen Rocky, or almost anyone, knows exactly where this movie is going and how it will end.

This was not a completely terrible movie. Most of the acting was OK, and the lead actress was very good. There were good, strong female Latino role models. The final fight scene did get me sort of interested, even though I knew everything that was going to happen long before it did. The actress that played "The Terminator" did a great job of being unlikeable enough that I really did want Belle to kick her a$$, and rooted for Belle-again, although there were absolutely no surprises. My favorite moment (maybe the only moment where I wasn't mad at myself for renting the movie by mistake) was when Belle slaps her sleazy manager after he's shown his true colors, yells at him, and then turns away only to suddenly fake a punch and watch him cringe back in fear, showing that she is really the one in charge.

The dialogue was really, really bad, my main complaint. One of their attempts to be witty was someone discussing boxing saying "size doesn't matter" and the female replying wryly, "now where have I heard that before?" Other lines that are supposed to have dramatic impact are "The doctors told me I may never walk again!" "Come on, you know you can trust me!" and "Your mother would have been so proud of you". I could go on and on. Nothing you haven't heard a million times before in bad soap operas or movies-of-the-week.

Maybe I'm being too mean-the filmmakers did make an effort, and I did sit through the whole thing voluntarily...but only because there was nothing else to watch while I worked out. You could do worse (especially if you are looking for a movie with strong female characters) but you could also do much, much better.


It's about time for a female boxing flick, but this one ain't it. Though the acting isn't too bad, the predictable storyline and silly dialogue pretty much ruin this one from the get go. To top it off, the boxing scenes display zero tension. Come on! How hard is it to make a boxing match seem exciting??!!


I hired the DVD yesterday and first of all it started bad, it's 4:3 aspect ratio film, and it just keeps getting worse, the acting is so bad and the movie itself is way to predictable, I was like watching the movie and said to myself: this going to happen next and guess what happened? right...

if you want to see a good action boxing movie, don't watch this one you'll end disappointed on this low-budget movie like I did. go and see Ali its way better!


Woa, talk about awful. Do not waste your time. I wish I had seen the other use comments first.

I have to admit, I didn't watch the whole thing. It was just too horrible. The worst, sappiest dialogue... I could go on and on. But what really made it unwatchable was the direction. The poor actors. You can't even tell if they have any talent because they not only have pathetic lines to speak but the director gave them no action. If you check the director's filmography on this site you will see why this film didn't have a chance.

This would not even be good as a made for TV flick.

Ouch!


This movie was a complete waste of time. The soundtrack was bad, story was lame and predictable, and the acting was terrible. One of the worst 25 movies I have ever seen. After the first ten minutes, the rest of the film was completely obvious.


This movie was terrible! My friend and I were so bored by it we fast forwarded through the last half of the movie just to see what happened. It's the typical sports thing, she either wins or she loses. The only remotely interesting thing was when the one guy refers to someone as a Veg-e-tab-le. That will be a line my friend and I bring up for years to come reminding us of this colossal cheesy cliche waste of time


With all of its technical flash, the 1993 "Stalingrad" movie is very disappointing. Before watching it I had read non-fiction accounts of the Stalingrad campaign and had seen a lot of documentary footage and photographs of the actual battle and its participants. I don't think that any movie can really succeed in depicting the titanic struggle and suffering that actually occurred, but I still wanted to see what a relatively recent German movie production would be like. While there are a few good elements of this movie, overall it is a failure. To me the worst aspect is that it includes substantial anachronisms, and also some very contrived and clichéd elements, most glaringly in some encounters between a German officer and a Soviet woman.

Also there are some ideological elements in the movie which result in very distorted perceptions, including what amounts to a caricature of a German chaplain, some overblown class-warfare messages, and problematic depictions of "good" vs. "bad" Germans. Certainly the German Armed Forces of World War II included men who were able to maintain some decency throughout the war, and others who did very bad things, but the attempts in the movie to show this contrast are very simplistic and childish. I give "Stalingrad" credit in the sense that it doesn't completely portray German troops in the simple demonic quality which is the stereotype that many people now have, yet the movie includes stereotypes of its own, such as an almost too-good-to-be-true infantryman who has attitudes more akin to the 1990's than the 1940's, and two completely evil infantrymen and a rear-echelon officer.

Some recent movies such as "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" are frequently praised for their "authenticity" in depicting graphic scenes of combat, yet these same movies are deeply flawed and distorted in their depictions of the attitudes, values and behaviors of 1940's soldiers and civilians. "Stalingrad" and "S.P.R" have major and minor characters who lack the unselfconscious stoicism that was common among regular people during the World War II period. Certainly soldiers throughout history have been notorious for their frequent grumbling and occasional cynicism, yet the self-absorbed, talky and touchy-feely characters in both of these movies are something else, and are much more prevalent in our world of today than they were in the 1940's. While many people these days like to denigrate war movies from the 40's and 50's which present more patriotic messages and aren't as graphic about combat, many of those earlier movies such as "Battleground" are much more accurate in their depictions of typical soldiers' attitudes, and they are often successful in showing the horrible effects of war in more indirect ways.

One well-done part of "Stalingrad" is a battle between German infantry and Soviet tanks, which does a reasonable job of capturing some of the horror and confusion in such combat.

"Stalingrad" does a poor job though of showing the common look of the frontline soldier. Part of this might be due to the difficulty in finding thin, haggard-looking extras in our pampered and well-fed America and western Europe of today. Also, too many of the German troops in the movie don't wear their uniforms and equipment properly, and don't display the professional bearing that was common in the German Wehrmacht even during the years of German defeat. If you want to get a good idea of how the actual German troops looked, I recommend the following documentaries which contain footage of the Stalingrad campaign: "The World at War," "War of the Century" and "Russia's War." Also the books "Operation Barbarossa in Photographs" by Paul Carell, "Stalingrad" by Geoffrey Jukes and "Stalingrad" by Paul Carell contain a great many helpful photos. Books written about the battle by Antony Beevor and William Craig are recommended also, and the latter one is especially good about the common soldiers and civilians on both sides.

Relatively recent movies which, in my opinion, are much better than "Stalingrad" and "Saving Private Ryan" in depicting attitudes and characters of persons during World War II, and the general feel, look, horror and grittiness of that war, are "Der Untergang" ("The Downfall") and "Talvisota" ("The Winter War"). While "A Bridge Too Far" and "The Longest Day" cover events on the Western Front rather than in the East, they are also excellent war movies, and stick very close to factual accounts. The latter two movies lack some of the grit that is more prevalent in more recent films, but they compensate for that lack with their other strengths, including truthfulness.


The horror. The film about the Nazis - the Germans. The murderers of babies, young girls rapists ... For that they regret? What are they interested in doing thousands of miles away from Germany? You do not come to mind is? Fascists are now good Samaritans? Think, killed, tortured, 27 million people. No, of course, they do not want. They were forced to Hitler, he gave each of them, and forced to kill: every fourth inhabitant of Belarus peace, all Jews, Gypsies ... Killing the Slavs. The facts: At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, when taken prisoner by fascist (German), they were defiant and brazen. We kill you all, and so on. Since 1943, when they were taken captive, they suddenly became anti-fascists and peaceful peasants who were forced to Hitler, and personally. For such films should be put to prison for life for the glorification of fascism.

If you want to see what they did, yet went to Stalingrad, then watch the movie "Come and see" (1985).


One would think that with the incredible backdrop of WWII Stalingrad that the writers would come up with a script. Nope. There is NO story here! It's like porn, vignettes of violence interrupted by pathetic, rote, and meaningless dialogue.

A bunch of Germans march around shooting and getting shot. Slowly there are fewer Germans to march around, shoot, and get shot. Then there are no Germans to march around, shoot, and get shot.

Pretty bad.

Chilcoot


Do people rate this movie highly because it's a foreign war movie???

To me it's nothing more than a bad Hollywood war movie in German.

This movie is so bad on so many levels. To even mention it along with Platoon or Full Metal Jacket is absurd. The battle sequences are pathetic, the dialog and acting atrocious.

This so called group of "storm troopers" are regulars in the Wermacht. Not SS troops. There is so much wrong with this movie it's sad. Bad editing, bad acting. It's got it all.

The movie goes on and on and on as though the audience should be made to suffer as much as the soldiers did.

I read in a review that the this film had a $20 million budget.

For real? Where was it spent? In the fake train car sequences? In the pathetic "special effects"? Ugh.

As a WWII history buff, and WWII movie fan, I found this movie to be a serious disappointment.

For an excellent alternative war movie check out "The Beast". (Not a WWII movie, but still outstanding)

Don't bother with this one.


I don't know, maybe I just wasn't in the mood for this kind of movie, but it was full of trite melodrama. It was too long and seemed at least mildly disjointed (granted, I didn't pay full attention...). For a more entertaining depiction of the battle of Stalingrad, see Enemy At The Gates. True, some pretentious folks will scoff because it's a Hollywood film, and doesn't show "the gritty reality of war" like this "wonderful foreign film" does, but it has better flow and is all around just more fun to watch. Besides, there are already enough contrivedly "gritty" war movies, and this one just seemed amateurly done. But hey, you might like it, so go right ahead; it just wasn't for me.


I love Das Boot. I hoped for something along similar lines -- a realistic war movie, portraying soliders and civilians on both sides as real people, with both the joy and pain of combat.

Unfortunately, Stalingrad appears to have been written by a third grader and directed by a fifth-grade student. Major pieces of the movie simply appear missing, leaving it completely disjointed. The dialogue in translation is ridiculous, but appears no better in the native tongue; you only have to watch the actors' faces during the bad moments of dialogue to realize just how bad this movie is.


The war in the East,as the Germans referred to the WW2 Soviet-Nazi conflict, was a war of annihilation on the part of the Germany. 90% of the German army were in the Soviet Union fighting. Their ultimate aim was to wipe out the so called "sub human (Untermensch)" Russian population and colonize the mainly empty country with German settlers after they had won.

Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners."

Here we have the German army presented as innocent victims and not as Nazi mass murderers. When are modern German film makers going to be honest and face up to the past?

Better see the Russian film "Come and See" instead!


What a sucky movie. This is without a doubt a low-class B movie. The German elite StormTroopers assault Russian bunkers en masse like an old WW1 battle. The acting is mediocre, the plot thin and threadlike. It's hard sometimes to follow where it's going. The action sequences are pretty worthless (when it shows any), except for the fact that they do use authentic equipment/vehicles from WW2. This is in NO WAY on the same level as "Saving Pvt. Ryan" or "Platoon". Lots of worthless attempts at character development, which lead nowhere. Old theme good officer/bad officer that's highly predictable. Even the action sequences look like a 12yr old kid set them up. I could have directed better. Too bad this is the same guy that did "Das Boot (The Boat)", because that was a dang good movie. He must have partied too much after that success because he sure lost his touch when it came to this film. I bought it on DVD, better to rent it instead.


I don't usually like TV movies, I reckon that if the thing was any good it would make it to Hollywood. This one though is better than average, pretty high production values, a few interesting story twists and some nice shots of NYC (along with Toronto) hold the interest.


As bad as they get. This film commits the fatal error of making the viewer not care what happens to characters. The two women in this flick are so stupid that you begin to root for the bad guys so this thing would end.

This film is one of the few that was so bad that I had to turn to another channel.

Put in highbrow language, this film lacks verisimilitude. People, not even people from Ohio, simply do not act like this. Well, maybe the writers do.

There is not enough beer in the world to make this film bearable.

F903


A really wonderful cast and very talented technical crew wasted their valuable career time, and our equally valuable leisure time, by bothering to support this utterly predictable and plainly formulaic piece of commercial junk. The movie is based upon a really good and very topical idea but both the producers and the director simply applied the standard Hollywood 'disaster movie' formula and thereby ruined any potential value from the production.

An unusually high tide and very strong gale conditions combine to produce a record high storm surge that overwhelms London and floods most of the Thames Valley. The plot centers around a heroic scientist (Tom Courtenay) who alerts the authorities of the danger and ultimately saves the day, a glamorous female police chief who runs the entire show and an embattled Deputy Prime Minister (David Suchet) who tries to look important.

But it's all so unreal that one feels like an extended tea break after just 30 minutes. The young glamorous female Police Commissioner demands complete authority over the army during a declared State of Emergency and gets it (as if!). The experienced General is just pushed aside like a complete moron who has to lick her boots because of her obviously superior capacity. The trouble is that our female supremo, whilst now responsible for millions of lives, spends most of her time worrying over the fate of her two daughters who have taken a trip to South West London and haven't telephoned to say they were alright. So our mighty woman sets her staff to look for them and decides that the sole priority for all the army and the rescue services must be South West London and not any other quarter of the city. Of course the Minister, the Army and the entire entourage accept her prioritization without question. One can only assume they all had property there. When her children are eventually found after endless reports and efforts by her staff she is told by our male hero, 'Thank God they're safe, that's the main thing'. Never mind about the millions of others or all the other responsibilities she was supposed to control; as long as her own kids were safe everything was alright.

This film is just another excuse to push the same old female chauvinist sexist clap trap that women are the clever, mindful, caring and clearly able leaders whilst men are good for nothing except physical bravery, mindless strength and very specialist knowledge. And yet the one simple instruction that she could have given the populace; namely to go to the nearest tall building and calmly go up to the 4th floor or above and await instructions when the waters recede was never given by this female super hero - or indeed anyone else. The whole problem was so simple to solve and yet millions of people apparently didn't think of simply going upstairs! Pathetic rubbish.


There's something intriguing about disaster movies. The simple, primal premise can lead to several great stories. Granted, most disaster movies tend to explore familiar territory instead but I can usually live with that.

Unfortunately, Flood probably marks the low point in the history of this sub-genre. Robert Carlyle is undoubtedly the star of the movie, even though screen time is split between different locations and characters. He gives a barely decent performance. As well, Joanne Whalley is very uneven. Veteran actor Tom Courtenay (he played in Doctor Zhivago for heaven's sake) is particularly bad. I mean, his timing is completely off most of the time and his characterization is extremely poor. What an embarrassing performance for that man. The rest of the cast ranges from decent to really bad with one exception: Jessalyn Gilsig, whom I thought might be there as a plot device/eye candy gives by far the most convincing performance. Doesn't mean much considering how bad everybody else is but still nice to see that she cared.

The script is really bad, confusing and cliché. Some of the worse lines I have heard in quite some time are delivered by the actors one after the other.You've seen this story a thousand times. It employs every dramatic hook and tear-jerkers you've seen in "Outbreak", "Armageddon", the Poseidon movies (original and remake) and many others.

The direction is awful. No sense of timing, nothing inspired. The shots are bland, dialog and action both fail to flow. Editing is bad but how do you edit such a mess? Without a doubt, this movie tried to rely way too much on (rather poor) CGI. The human factor, the drama and struggles of the characters are glossed over. Scenes where the characters must actually face the flood are rare and poorly done. The made-for-TV feel gives nausea. Some guy is supposed to go down a rope from an helicopter? No problem, let's show him inside a helicopter and make a really poor cut/editing job and have the next frame with him safely on the ground, in the most obvious way possible.

The movie score is rather poor. All over the place, no timing.

The ending is probably the worse I have seen in quite some time. Very much like they ran out of ideas. Scrap that, you can't run out of something if you never had it in the first place. Must have ran out of budget.

This is a really amateur job. I give it a 2 for using London as a location, which is a nice change, for Gilsig being actually decent in a key support role and for the few CGI shots that were decent (those of the water closing in on London and the gates).

Do yourself a favor and check out Day After Tomorrow or just about any disaster movie before this one. This includes older classics like The Towering Inferno.


Oh but this is woeful. One good actor after another turns in lamentable dialogue in half hearted fashion under what must have been incredibly pedestrian direction to consider it acceptable. I like Robert Carlyle and Joanne Whalley is one of my favourite actresses, Tom Courtney can act well when pushed and David Suchet is a professional of the highest integrity but they all wallowed around like fish in a barrel of watery gin. I swear Courtney was inebriated, on painkillers or both.

Was there a good performance in the whole thing? Well yes, David Hood as the junior underground engineer whose mate got washed away looked like he was taking the thing seriously and credit to him for that, it can't be easy when "all around are losing theirs" so to speak, or maybe his scenes came under the direction of the assistant director ( if there was one) I just don't know what these people were doing in a film that was this poor ( other than paying the bills, obviously) I can't begin to say how disappointed I am in them. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!

Any positives other than David Hood the third... yes The aerial shots of London largely submerged were very well done and the effects artists responsible deserved better than to have their fine work punctuated by such a shallow story,if you'll forgive the expression, as those few people that do see them will do so on a far smaller screen than would be to best advantage.

What's going on here? why are British film makers trying to imitate such characterless, spectacle driven, tabloid level genres as the disaster movie and then doing it even worse than the Americans. Gritty realism, character integrity, the capture of real emotion in a way that makes you feel it and care... The Family Way, Spring and Port Wine, Get Carter, The long Good Friday, Trainspotting....Don't get me wrong I like a bit of escapist hokum. The real "Italian Job" , The Adventures of Tom Jones; but oh that it should come to this, there was more realistic drama in Carry On Camping.


On the face of it this film looked like it might be really good - it isn't.

The cast is pretty good, but most of them seemed embarrassed by the whole thing. The real disaster in this film is not the flood, but the script. It attempts to include every cliché in the book, all done incredibly poorly. The ending is very abrupt, but this is a blessing in disguise. Congragulations if you make it that far.

All three main male actors (Carlyle, Courtney and Suchet) would surely agree that this is the low point in their careers. I hope they got paid a lot of cash, because none of their reputations come out in tact.

The special effects are quite good, but the same thing was done to much better effect in The Day After Tomorrow.

In short, a pointless exercise. Don't waste your time.


The production values for this film make it fall short of Hollywood blockbuster status, and the script makes it fall short of cult status. What is left is a tired formulaic attempt at the disaster movie genre that will disappear with the ebb tide.

A decent cast, are either miss cast, or cannot be bothered.The beautiful Joanne Whalley is unable to bring any gravitas to the role of Police Commissioner Nash who wears the most irritating matching waist clincher above her skirt.

Jessalyn Gilseg plays the heavyweight part of Director of the Thames Barrier with all the conviction of a fairground candy floss. Her Canadian nationality and accent were presumably drafted in to appeal to a transatlantic audience. It, and she, fails.Her initial appearance in a tight fitting pink jogging suit as she arrives at work is risible.

The part of the "Siren old git who was right" is played by Tom Courtenay as though he is acting in his sleep, and the various plot twists that are designed to energise his son, played by Robert Carlyle, struggle to get any response from him.

Nigel Planer looks determined to commit ritual hari kari for his failings as Met Office Director, or for his acting, or both, and only David Suchet emerges with some credit for his role as Deputy PM.

There was enough in the story, and the cast and the effects to have produced a decent effort. Alas that did not happen.


You would have thought, given how much this overblown pile of rubbish must have cost, that the budget could have stretched to a decent scriptwriter. Instead, they seemed to have opted for a bog standard Hollywood 'Paint by Numbers' disaster movie plot and dialog. The only cliché they seem to have missed was the Cute Kid. But every other one is there. There's the sullen hero, flung together by fate with both his ex wife and estranged father. There's the doting Dad and the rebellious teenager.There's the 'Professor that everyone thought was wrong until it turned out he wasn't'(Played appallingly by the normally excellent Tom Courtney seemingly in the grip of some powerful drugs), plus the comic duo wandering about in the deserted underground railway.

I sat down to watch this full of anticipation. The cast is, as noted, amazing. Yet within minutes it became clear how bad this was going to be. Stuff this useless should come with a warning. Something along the lines of;

'This film may have been made in Britain but was aimed at the American market. It therefore contains tired clichés, stock characters, stilted dialogue and a plot so lame brained and simplistic that even George W Bush could understand it.'

Avoid.


'Flood' is a prime example of how throwing good actors and cgi at a film will do little to compensate for a rubbish script. The basic premise is fine: what if a freak storm threatened to send the sea straight over the Thames flood barriers and engulf London so fast that most of the inhabitants would probably never get out in time? It's basically the New York segment of 'The Day After Tomorrow', but that shouldn't make it any less of a film. However, the script just isn't there. It's merely functional, flat, and lacking in depth. Great British talents like Robert Carlysle and David Suchet to name but two do their level best with what they've got, but their characters are two-dimensional cyphers, like something out of an old Marvel comic. and it'd be frankly easier to turn back the tide. Not that every actor gets let off the hook - Tom Courtenay seemed capable of only one emotion throughout the film, but then he wasn't given much of a challenge.

I applaud any opportunity to see some non-Hollywood disaster flicks for a change, and I don't expect zillions of dollars spent on rendering ultra- realistic graphics. However there's no excuse for shonky writing - especially from a country that has produced some of the best science- fiction ever made on next to no budget at all. This is the kind of half- hearted B-grade fluff the Sci-Fi channel produces, and that's hardly a target to aim for. If like me you are such a fan of disaster films you're still tempted, do yourself a favour and watch it with some friends. Better still; don't bother.


This awful effort just goes to show what happens when you not only use computers to generate the effects, but also let them devise the plot and write the script. Someone somewhere has obviously come up with a new bit of software that asks a few questions then churns out four hours of loosely connected clichés, lousy dialogue and a collection of stock characters that you end up wishing had all drowned in the first five minutes.

Tom Courtney took the prize for worst performance. Saying that he was wooden would be an insult to trees. It's hard to fault Robert Carlyle in almost anything he does, but the odds were stacked against even him in this one, especially since he was for some unaccountable reason required to adopt a gor' blimey London accent.

A complete washout.


Topical? Certainly. Entertainment? Probably - but only on removal of any shred of the viewer's common sense. Reality? Only in so much that it was made on this planet.

How thousands of people were supposed to have died as a result of a 5-metre wall of water in a city liberally littered with buildings in excess of 25 metres high is quite beyond me. Carlyle's line to the effect of "How could anyone survive that?" when the shot shows forests of buildings with several floors above the water is completely laughable. Further, if someone commits themselves to an area (under water) where one cylinder of air is not enough (i.e. they are going to die), why not use the simple expedient of taking more than one cylinder? Clearly, the writer thinks that people in stressful situations cannot count beyond one (one cylinder, one floor).

Rather than watching this tripe, you would be more informed and entertained by throwing the DVD away and reading the pricing information on the cellophane outer wrapper.

Pitiful, truly pitiful, and a terrible waste of the on-screen talent.

As for the sexist propaganda suggesting that only women can see through the problems to illuminate the solutions to be effected by the expendable men: yet more PC 'tosh'. Small wonder that First Blood, Delta Force, Navy Seals and other such movies of little or no merit will always have a following while this blatantly politically-motivated bilge is peddled.


I really do not joke when i can honestly submit that this film is not suitable for Sunday night viewing on ITV4.

The underground scenes are just awful when London is supposedly under 30ft of water, Robert Carlyles character is drab. The Police commissioners outfit reminds me of something Kate Moss threw up and Nigel Planer looks very VERY old, in fact, I am worried that he may have had suffered a stroke whilst filming.

The father of Robert Carlyle who was 'right all along' has obviously been necking too many Ketamin and whilst he has a major part in this awkward journey, he deserved to be killed off way WAY before he was caught pretending to be Kate Winslett (Titanic) whilst dangling over the Thames Barrier.

I'm sorry Film lovers but avoid at all costs.


Miscast, badly directed and atrociously written, this is watchable if you have an hour or two to kill or are suffering from insomnia, but only just. Robert Carlyle fully realises his potential as an actor of supreme mediocrity with only one expression to his repertoire (that of a chronically constipated football hooligan nursing a crippling inferiority complex), which he manages at times to alter slightly by flaring his nostrils and baring a row of skewed yellow teeth (this to indicate anger, tenderness, grief, surprise, horror, hilarity, compassion, etc.) In his role as "the best marine engineer in the UK" and son of a university professor he is about as convincing as my neighbour's cat. Tom Courtenay, equally miscast, slurring and mistiming every line, appears permanently soused to the eyeballs, and would seem no more able to tell a flood from a puddle of his own urine if he were standing in it. All in all, another silly attempt on the part of the British to imitate Hollywood pulp at its most rubbishy. The dialogue is a series of badly-delivered clichés; the action is disjointed; the plot is pointless and amputated; and the characters, if you can call them that, do not even make it into the basic two-dimensional sphere of their American counterparts.


I don't normally write reviews, but for this film I had to. I'm shocked at the acting talent in this move going to waste... the script was appalling... the editing awful... and the plot very thin. You spend the first half of the movie wondering who is talking to who and what on earth they are doing. The latter half of the movie slows down slightly, but has no depth or feeling. The only saving grace is the nice, but still limited cgi, and the location being London. I gave 3 stars for that, and the fact the actors still tried to do a good job with the drivel they were given. If you fancy losing a couple of hours of your life with mediocre popcorn disaster movie entertainment, by all means, this is the movie for you. But I would recommend doing something else with your time instead, like watching the real archive footage online! :) http://www.weatherpaparazzi.com/flooding.asp


I usually like these dumb/no brain activity movies, but this was just too stupid. There were way too many clichés and the plot didn't really make much sense. There were a lot of loose ends and the ending was extremely poor and abrupt. We didn't even get too see if the big master plan worked. We only got too see the main character sob over his dead farther, the professor (that died because of stupidity (see below)).

One scene annoyed me particularly. Why did the professor only have about 5 minutes of oxygen in his container when he went to manually override the dam? And if they only had oxygen containers containing 5 minutes worth of oxygen, why didn't he bring two or three of them? Then he would have survived that was bloody stupid. The movie is pretty full of such stupid things. I can not recommend it at all.


Well as the headline suggests this is not the particularly good movie i was hoping it would be. i thought it would be great with mr fully monty man himself but tragically not. From the beginning i literally lost interest immediately when 2 women are just making tea and then suddenly she points out there is random water coming from under the door, then bam a full on flood through the route of the house its hard to believe they didn't notice the rising water level outside or at least heard it. Sorry for this to sound like a rant but it really grinds my gears and has affected me. Most acting was poor and the story tried to copy nearly every cliché to each disaster movie ever but just failed in that sense. CGI was poor i could do a better job using ms paint, directing poor too, and at the end i didn't care about 1 character at all!!! don't waste your time people no wonder it was released straight to DVD. Well thanks for reading xxx


This movie follows in the tracks of The Riddle for an all star British cast in a downright awful movie! Poor cgi effects, poor editing, poor direction, a cast that i hope were well paid as this will be a nail in many a careers coffin.

Nigel Planer should've donned his Neil wig once more & gone out with a laugh at least!

It was like a particularly long & drawn out episode of "Torchwood" but without the camp fake Canadian doctor fella...it had the same overly dramatic music though, perpetually repeated, in a vain attempt to drum up some tension.

Oh the humanity!


The digital effects were done on the cheap and the action sequences lack suspense. This was essentially made for TV and it shows. David Suchet looks bored and Nigel Planer looks down right embarrassed! and as for Robert Carlyle's Dick Van Dyke London accent, no comment! If you want to pass away an hour or two when you've nothing on then it will do. If your going to buy the DVD wait a few weeks and pick it up in the bargain bin at Asda, cos thats where its heading! If the budget was bigger and Richard Doyle's book followed more closely, then it could have been something special, but as it stands its a bit poor. Watch the trailer instead! Or read the book and see what could have been.


I'll put it straight to you, this movie is dead boring. It's about a flood, that's it. Blah blah a little about family, blah blah blah politics, blah blah blah boring.

Blame it all on the weatherman, poor sod. The Deputy Prime Minister Campbell is a hard-ass that expects everyone to be clairvoyant, a most irritating character.

If you are from the United Kingdom, or anywhere that it may flood, then you might like this film. It's sort of like earthquake movies are most appreciated where earthquakes happen.

This is not really an action film, where the weather is the enemy and you must conquer, or outrun it literally, it is more like a time-bomb that must be disabled.

Looking at this movie, it is understandable why the UK thinks the world is overpopulated, it isn't, but for them it is.

Really, the movie is about as exciting as picking scabs and I can't recommend it. It's over 100 minutes, far far too long.

The problems with the film; I won't get into them beyond this because the film doesn't deserve such dissection. Hint to you Londoner's - buy more boats. If you bring children to this movie they'll either fall asleep or become uncontrolled bored screaming demons.


In addition to all the negative reviews: I was amazed to see that at the drop of a hat somewhere, somehow a CCTV-camera was summoned at a most unlikely location, to show the 'crisis'-team (''Look Maaaaa-aaam'') what was going on, notably near the Thames-barrier, where the professor is hit at full (wind)force against the head by a heavy object and subsequently lives to tell the story. Otherwise I was unable to shake off the image of some actors as portrayed in other films/programs: I said to my wife: 'Hey, that's Neil, from the Young Ones' (Nigel Planer) and 'Did they summon Hercule Poirot for help?' (David Suchet). To add to the disgrace of this film (shown in two parts on ITV UK recently), ITV showed the telephone number of the Environment Agency after each episode for worried viewers, living in areas 'at risk of flooding'. How low can you as a broadcaster go to treat your audience like that? What must the Environment Agency have thought?? (''Oh no, it's Mrs Jones from Hull again. She says she was right all along, she saw it on ITV'').


This film was just on two nights running on ITV1.. dear oh dear. Someone actually bought this on the strength of Robert Carlylse.. OK, I missed the start.. but what I did see was so bad I thought, no... I watched in embarrassment for the stars who were in it. Nothing was based on reality, I doubt things would progress as they did in this film. Everything was poor about this film. OK, cgi.. but no reality. The write up gave the impression of a cliff hanger end..sorry, I wasn't impressed. Yes, formulaic. Couldn't guess the end. From what I saw the military had the upper hand, people doing the heroic stuff were given next to no time to do their thing, it just wouldn't have happened that way? It was worse than leave your brain at the door. It was annoying.. as someone else said.. yeah, right.. of course that would have happened... not!! The credits mentioned Quebec and Canada.. so it was a co production, missed the third party concerned.. I'll have to check back on this site. I'm not usually this critical, but this annoyed me.


It was inferred by a previous poster that the military would not be subordinate to the police in a disaster as depicted in the film. In fact the military role would be to supply aid to the civil authorities when requested to do so. The civil authorities would retain primacy. In practise the Army would need 48 hours or so to mobilise themselves, there not being much Army presence in London, especially with current overseas commitments. Even then they would be dependent on calling in the TA.

As for COBRA, we were given the impression that it was a full governmental emergency department in its own right - even reference to a Met Police Cobra Division. In fact COBRA stands for Cabinet Office Briefing Room "A". It's just the room where the PM or DPM meet their advisers to discuss the current emergency!


Oh dear, Oh dear! What were they thinking of? Terrible script, terrible acting. I don't even feel sorry for the actors... they took their cheques to the bank and smiled happily.

Since when did an air shaft from Charing Cross pop out at Bank? Why are vehicles crossing Tower Bridge going in towards the City when the surge hit? Why is Tower Bridge not crowded when the city is being evacuated? How does Carlyle dive into a raging torrent.... and survive? I could go on... and on.

There is no real sense of urgency in the command room. They might just as well be waiting for the England eleven to come back onto the pitch after the tea interval at Lords.

It says something when I await the adsbreaks to learn more about diarrahoea treatment with eager anticipation.

Totally abominable trash!


This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen; I gave it one star simply because it is the lowest score possible. Whoever thought Flood would ever be a good film? The director and cast should be ashamed and then it dawned on me this could all be part of a shambolic scare tactic. Only propaganda could be this bad.

The redeeming feature of Flood is that it's ghastliness and shameless formulaic storyline make it funny. If only the characters had the same depth as created by the flood itself, yet they galumph from sound bite to sound bite without any emotional response whatsoever.

The sad thing about this film is that it could have been so much better, informative, imaginative and tense. Flood has the amateur streak to found in many recent British films where a more focused use of funds would have made for a better entertainment.

Where was Smithee?


This film was total rubbish. I was sitting watching this absolutely furious that this was funded. They most definitely spent all their budget on the special FX rather than the script writer and director AND some of the actors.

First the acting was bland and rubbish. The story was not relatable to the audience enough. Rather than being from the peoples perspective of the storm, the narrative was told more from government figures and the army, which really isn't a way to connect to them as most of us hate politicians anyway. The writer attempted to add a human element to the unrealistic characters by adding the little subplot about the father and son, which failed completely.

As for the directing...oh god, his techniques to try and create tension and unease are repetitive and over the top. The sped up camera movements and then the sudden flash bolt pauses on a characters face when something horrendous has happened was pathetic.

The only reason I watched it till the end was to see the special FX. Which is a bad thing as special FX shouldn't make the film it should only amplify the story and experience. There was no story.

I really wouldn't bother watching this, total trash and an embarrassment to the British film industry.


I was struck by the awful acting and script for this movie. All the characters seem rendered immobile by personal issues - rather like deer in headlights. They dither around whining and moaning about their emotions when decisive actions need to be taken. I found myself yelling at the TV screen trying to wake them up to their situation and DO SOMETHING! The plot line is implausible. Every time there is a key decision to be taken by a lead character, one of the other characters has to bring up all the problems with the obvious decision as though to further render the decision more difficult - it is a tried melodramatic ploy and just wants to make you groan. Clearly the import of the decision is obvious - you don't need to treat the audience as idiots. Overall - there is just too much emotional melodrama in the whole movie.


Avoid this movie. If you are expecting "The Poseidon Adventure" (1972), you may experience nothing more than a case of the 'bends'. This film offers nothing more than two extremely-long, and drawn-out, hours of complete boredom.

The cast members act as if they are angered by the irritation of a bathtub of water overflowing on a bed of an insignificant's petunias. The script is totally unrealistic, and the film does not even have the feel of a disaster movie. In fact, everything about this movie is bad, with the exception of Tom Courtenay. It is unfortunate that such a fine actor got swept away, by a flood of misrepresentation, to appear in such a washout. When this movie was being made, the Poseidon must have turned over, in its watery grave, in a sea of shame. And, Shelley Winters will rise again, from the dead (direct from the Poseidon), to haunt anyone who dares to see this pathetic movie. I rate this film a 1 out of 10, but it really deserves a zero. This movie will make you want to avoid, or completely turn against, water. And, it will leave a bad taste in your mouth. It may even make you want to see "Jaws" (1975), and befriend a great white.


After huge budget disaster films set in America like The Day After Tomorrow and Deep Impact, it was refreshing to see something on a smaller scale like Flood.

Using mainly unknown actors and actresses and actually focusing on England it was a welcome change of pace to seeing The Empire State Building being demolished.

However, this is not a strong film on any basis. Whilst being fairly shocking seeing all your favourite London landmarks being demolished by a very fake CGI storm surge, Flood doesn't really deliver on anything else.

The performances are bland, being saved from the pit of hell by David Suchet and his refreshingly calm performance as the Deputy Priminister. He is perhaps a little too calm for what is going on in the film, all that fake water gushing around London must have made him pretty annoyed.

It is understandable that the effects weren't going to be as good as TDAT and DI, but the CGI was at best, average.

Bland, disappointing and sometimes even tiresome. Watch it if you must, but watch something else straight afterwards.


I really tried to give this film a chance but when I realized that most of the film was being told by a bunch of boring officials walking around and talking on phones, I knew it was over. A lot of this film also looked like stock footage. That's just lame.

The camera person kept like doing these quick short zooms for NO REASON! It bothered me so much but I was just wondering why in the heck did they think it was a good idea. It doesn't add anything to a static scene of two people talking. This isn't NYPD Blue or some cop show or something.

How could they have not realized that telling this type a story from conversations of people in conference rooms and what not, is BORING?!! Did they not watch this mess? Anyway, this was just a really boring movie and it does make it seem like whoever made it doesn't understand good storytelling in film.

Darn stock footage... that's just wrong.


I'm sorry, but this movie is just way to shallow for me. In it, Perez is a taxi dancer with boyfriend Keitel trying to make it as an actress. First of all, what the hell is a taxi dancer? Even after sitting through this, I still don't know. Oh yeah, Perez also inspires DeLorenzo to follow her like a lovesick puppy. There's no reason behind the love, it just kind of happens. There are times when the characters and events really try to pull at your heartstrings, but it rarely works. The only character you really do feel anything for or with is Keitel's character, and that's only because he does such a good job with it. Any other actor and the character would have been just like the others.

The script is basically an uninspired rehashing about how hard it is to make it as an actor/actress. It's been done and said before, the language and dialog sounds like it was written by a street pimp. The ending is...well, I don't want to spoil it. Let's just say it feels unsatisfying. I'd be more upset if the story was any good to begin with. The directing is average with nothing truly wonderful, but nothing that is really painful to watch either. To reiterate the acting, the only one that does anything worth watching is Keitel. Though I could have lived on without seeing him in tiger print bikini underwear.

Oh yeah, Eddie Bunker shows up. As random as that mention is, that's how random it is in the film. And Tarantino does his director buddy a favor by showing up for about 20 seconds.


I registered at IMDb solely for the purpose of warning others about this movie. Hwo does anyone ever get funding for projects like this? That's the mystery. Farewell to Harry might be the worst movie ever, except that I tried to erase the others that rival this blathering idiocy. Bad plot, not-credible logic runs throughout. I can't spoil this movie for you by revealing anything that would make your experience less enjoyable. There is nothing enjoyable about this movie. I have the CD and will send it to you for free, it is that bad. First come, only served. If I know you, this offer is void, because I wouldn't inflict this movie on anyone, not on purpose. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.


While the dog was cute, the film was not. It wasn't the premise, or the theme that was a problem. The premise had great possibilities for humor and pathos both. The theme is a worthy one. Helping other people is more important than amassing a fortune.

Sadly, the adorable dog, the unique premise, and the theme were undercut by poor acting, stilted dialogue, and amateurish filming.

Even my youngest child who will sit through almost anything gave up before we had gotten halfway through. How many times can that dog run up and down the same hallway? I can't spoil it for you, as I never saw the end. It just was not worth watching all the way to the end.


If you ever plan on renting (hopefully not buying) this movie, think again. It was as if Gary Busey had a gun to his head and was forced to act or die. I only wonder if Busey was arrested for something and was sentenced to play in this movie because I just don't see the guy that acted so much better with Keanu Reeves in Point Break play in this disaster. It was a feel-good movie, but there are thousands of other feel-good movies that make you laugh without wanting you to get your money back.

The only reason I would ever tell someone to rent this movie is to watch this movie is to see Gary Busey jump up and down like a monkey. If you want a good funny movie, pass up Quigley and go rent Spongebob or something.