Pete's Meteor. I seen this referred to as "authentic" and a "gem." I caught this movie on a Saturday afternoon. I kinda wished that I didn't.

Apparently this was noted as being Mike Myers' first dramatic role. Unfortunately it had to be this movie. The first thing you'll notice that Pete's Meteor suffers from is a complete lack of plot. Or rather, a bunch of little subplots that aren't really connected and don't go anywhere. Young orphan Mickey lives with his younger brother and sister with their grandmother. A meteorite lands in their garden and is eventually collected by a scientist named Hugh. Despite the title of the movie, Mickey is the one who lays claim to the meteor, and the "storyline" actually has little to do with the meteor in any shape or form. From here on out, several other characters and subplots are introduced. But like I said before, they don't really go anywhere.

Things go from cute family movie to dark thriller pretty fast, when Pete (Mike Myers) is introduced and starts to play a role. Micky blames him for the death of his parents, though we're never really told what happened or why. Hugh has romance problems because his girlfriend can't get past his cosmic fascination. And Pete's drug-related past starts to catch up with him and temporarily draws his own girlfriend and the rest of the cast into the mix when shady characters start trying to kill him. This would seem to be the main plot, until you realize it doesn't even have a role until halfway through the film, making everything else feel like pointless filler. Hugh's girl problems, Mickey's bad behavior, the meteor...what on EARTH do they have to do with this? Not much.

So the 'plot' is disjointed and half of it is pointless. But a good cast of characters can save it, right? Keyword: good. The majority of characters are terribly unlikable people, most of which you'd like to see die horribly. At least, I know I would. Despite the title, Mickey seems to be the main character, which is a really bad move once you see him in action. He is one of the WORST little kids I've seen in a movie, with an extremely bad attitude problem. He 'borrows' a car, harasses and talks trash to Hugh (an adult) for taking the meteor, actually attempts burn the man's house down when he doesn't get his way, and even tries to stab Pete with a knife. You'd think a kid like this is on his way to the jail house. Unfortunately, one of the worst things about this movie is that Mickey never gets what's coming to him. I'm not sure at what point you're supposed to be sympathizing with his character, because he's always a nasty little brat. He's the ringleader for his brother and sister, so they predictably end up taking and backseat and just following whatever he does. Amazingly, they're pushed back so far that I can't even remember their names. They might as well not even be there.

Their grandmother is pretty much a borderline alcoholic. She tends to be just as nasty to Hugh as Mickey, and likes to push people out of her house and give them evil glares when she's not chugging down liquor bottles and drinking herself silly. Pretty ridiculous when you take into account that she's supposed to be taking care of three children. Her issues with alcohol are never really addressed, though she does collapse from time to time in the movie.

Hugh is one of the few likable characters in the movie, but that's only because he's the punching bag for the majority of characters and takes their mess without giving it back. The kids treat him nastily but he always comes back and tries to teach them and do nice things with them. He's got a taxi driver girlfriend who seems to take every aspect of his life as a scientist as a personal offense, attempting to leave him several times in the movie when he goes off into his cosmic lingo or does something to prove that he isn't exactly on the same wavelength as the rest of the characters (thankfully).

Then there's Mike Myers as Pete. Pete, despite having the only solid purpose and plot in the movie, is extremely underused and doesn't play any kind of role until the second half. It's unfortunate that Myers got stuck in such a position for a dramatic role. Even when Pete is getting screen time, half of it is just Myers running through dark alleys and hiding in small corners. And even though he was the only real point to this movie, when his plot line brings the movie to a close, it's a strange, unfulfilling conclusion that has all the characters laughing on a good note with a quick and strange explanation behind the title of the movie, making you wonder if they were just performing in the movie you were just watching.

The only thing worth seeing in Pete's meteor is Mike Myers' role as Pete, and that's if you can wade through this disjointed mess long enough without lashing out at another human being due to the extremely unlikable characters and nonexistent plot line. No sir, I didn't like this one at all.


As was mentioned by others, could there be any other reason to see this film other than to see former "Wayne's World" star Mike Myers play a serious role? The story line is interesting but lacks development and is sabotaged by loose ends and bad characters. If there was any good scenic shots of Ireland then it would give it another reason to see it. But instead it focuses on a little normal village that is obviously surrounded by the 'green pastures' of the Emerald-Isle that are often shown in Irish films. If there was any cultural 'spice' to admire the "Irish personality" it would be worth seeing, however this could have almost been shot in England. Too bad for Myers, but this one fails to please or satisfy the heart of anybody who ever wanted to visit the land of Guiness.


This is probably the worst film I have ever seen. Mike Myers tries to be a dramatic actor and fails miserably. The children, who have the major roles, are almost impossible to understand and are really unpleasant characters. It was not even worth the price of the rental.


This movie is simply bad. First of all the story is just weird and it's not good written. It leaves you with questions when you're finished. Sometimes that's OK, but not in this case.

The acting is nothing to write home about. The adults does a OK job, but the kids, taken in consideration they are kids, does not a good job. I thought the lead role, Ian Costello as Mickey, was worst. Well, to be honest I'm not sure that was the lead role. Never quite figured who this movie was about. Mickey or Pete.

There were some shots that stood out, but over all there were nothing exiting about the cinematography. The sound, however, was better. There was a nice score. A little adventure kind of score, though this didn't look like an adventure film to me. It had some elements of an adventure film, but it was more of a drama. However, it was hard to tell who this film was meant for. Children? Hardly. There is too much language and violence for that. Adults? I don't know. It had to many elements of a children's movie in it. It was like a adult movie in a children movie wrapping.

The story was just weird. I don't have much of an idea of what it really was about. You was thrown right in to it without knowing anything, but there were all the time references to something you felt you should know. The fact that the children's parents were dead for instance and that Mickey blamed Pete for it. You expected to get to know what happened , but you never got.

All together this movie was bad and a waste of time. There was no drive in it. Nothing to really move the story forward. This is not what you spend your Saturday night on.


This film is one of the worst adaptations of Pride and Prejudice ever filmed and if Jane Austen were alive, she would demand that her name be removed from the film. Austen's novel is only superficially a story of the development of true love between Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy. It is also a commentary on the class structure of Regency Britain. This film focuses only on the love story, thereby disappointing viewers who hoped it would do justice to the novel.

There are numerous problems with the historical accuracy of the film. In the film, the dance at which Darcy snubs Elizabeth is not the refined dancing done by the gentry, to which the Bennet, Lucas, Bingley, and Darcy families belong, but is rather the dancing of the lower classes. The gentry would not have been dancing as if they were at a peasant barn dance. There are costume and hair problems, too. The custom of the period required married women to wear white cloth hats to cover their hair and for women to wear bonnets when outdoors. Women of the Regency period were not so liberated as to forego the bonnet requirements in public. The worst historical inaccuracy is the early morning meeting of Elizabeth (in her nightgown and coat) and Mr. Darcy (sans cravat and vest) at which they admit their love for each other. This is an unforgivable liberty with the novel. No respectable young woman or gentleman would venture out of doors in such a state of undress or seek to meet someone of the opposite sex at such an early hour.

But the worst thing of all with this film is the mangling of Austen's dialogue and the atrocious modern dialogue. Austen's dialogue needs no assistance from a writer who thinks he/she can write like Austen. The writer of the non-Austen dialogue not only lacks Austen's talent but also has no feel for Austen's style. The juxtaposition of the two styles is jarring.

As for the acting, the best is done by Judi Dench, who clearly understands the imperiousness of the aristocracy. Brenda Blethyn takes some liberties in making Mrs. Bennet less awful than Austen's portrayal. Her portrayal is interesting and seems to work. Donald Sutherland is miscast. His affected British accent is terrible and he portrays Mr. Bennet too much as a father of the 20th century and not a father of the late 18th century. Matthew MacFadeyn's portrayal of Darcy is flat. I can't imagine anyone falling in love with his Mr. Darcy. Keira Knightly is a pretty Elizabeth, but her portrayal of Elizabeth Bennet is far too modern. Knightly focuses on the Elizabeth's forthrightness, but her portrayal completely lacks an understanding of the social mores and conventions of the time. She would have done well to actually read the novel before attempting to portray Elizabeth and to do research on the behavior of women of the period.

If one is making a period movie, one must be true to the period. This film needed an historical adviser who actually knows something about the Regency period. It also needed a writer who has a better appreciation and understanding of Austen's text. I can only hope Emma Thompson decides to do a film of Pride and Prejudice in the near future to erase this abomination from our minds.

The best thing that can be said about this film is that it contains many pretty scenes of the English countryside. Chatsworth is well used as Pemberly (as it was in the 1995 BBC adaptation). But pretty scenery and pretty actors cannot save this film. True fans of Austen will rush home to watch their DVDs of the far superior 1995 BBC production with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth or to read Austen's text in order to wipe this version from their minds.


Well Wright may have made a gritty depiction of life around 1800 - as he so repeatedly and anally goes on about because of when it was written as opposed to published - but it is HIS not Austen's and shouldn't claim to be an adaptation.

Mrs Bennett looks like a rural washerwoman. This is a pampered woman - they have servants (remember the book scene with the servant dressing the hair, etc)? But Wright portrays her with rough reddened skin all down her chest, rough hands and working in the kitchen. And the pigs wandering through! If he wants bucolic, he should try Tess.

Mr Bennett - the script makes too cuddly and modern and ignored the weakness in him. The scene where he stops Mary playing is supposed to make you cringe - not pass in seconds. If it doesn't - don't include it.

MacFadyen is very weak in the part and seems to be doing some kind of Pride by numbers acting. The first proposal he looks like a nervous schoolboy rather than a man overcoming his pride to make a proposal beneath his station. Most of his lines, he could as well be reading a shopping list.

Lydia is awful. Completely over the top with excessive shrieking and skipping. Indeed, Knightley plays Elizabeth more like the giggling inane character Lydia actually is in the book, at times.

And Elizabeth. Half the time Knightley is, clearly, mimicking Ehle's voice and intonation - close your eyes to see what a copy it is. And in her role you see Wright's major error - there is NO PREJUDICE.

From the first encounter with Darcy she clearly fancies him. When he comments to Bingley on the attractiveness of the women in the hall she initially looks hurt - not shocked and affronted. The latter should set up the prejudice side of things. And when she and 'caroline' are prancing round the room she comes across like a tease, obviously all over him. And by virtually cutting out Wickham you don't get Elizabeth invested enough there to set up the prejudicial aspects falling out of that relationship.

And apparently it is Caroline not Miss Bingley. And Mr Bingley happily wanders into Jane's bedroom. And and and - Wright can boast about how great he is with period all he wants. But a few panorama shots of rural life (which show the preference for Hardy) don't excuse him the glaring blunders all over the place.

The cinematographer - who clearly wants awards - should have been reined in. He veered between Bronte and Hardy throughout the film - and wasn't the last proposal shots/lighting from Tess? The need to see Darcy walk along through the 'scape with unkempt shirt was just dumb. But most importantly - when going between those 2 very different landscapes they forget the most important one - Austen. (She'd have laughed out loud at the Elizabeth = sad, therefore = rain, running through to picturesque folly, wet Darcy rubbish).

I admit I found it impossible the watch the film without using the book as context. I was prepared to give it some leeway as it had to provide the story in a short space of time. But to forget fully one half of the core of the book in prejudice and Darcy to continually look more constipated than prideful, made it almost unwatchable. I could only see it as a mess with generally poor performances (when Knightley wasn't aping Ehle she was gurning or skipping or both and only calmed down a couple of times to indicate she does have some promise - but faffing about on swings to convey emotion isn't a substitute for a poor script and poor direction) - although for some it was simply a case of bad script.

Tom Holland alone would escape censure. While he toned down the comic aspects of Collins, he did turn in a very interesting approach. Dench does superbly the schtick she can do in her sleep whether it be here or in Oscar Wilde - but this was supposed to be Lady Catherine De Bourgh NOT Lady Bracknell. She was just a little too sane.

The shortened length could have been handled by a competent screenwriter, surely? Not characters filling in story gaps and helping along the audience all over the place. Elizabeth couldn't have come up with the £10k figure. And while they wanted to cut time with her learning of Darcy's involvement in Wickhams marriage the lines didn't fit with Lydia. It was the worst case of incongruous exposition in the piece.

It really is appalling stuff. Anyone who reviews it saying it works well in the context of the book is someone I frankly don't believe has read or understood the characterisations in the thing. Wright seems to think his characters are in the 1990s not the 1709s from their behaviour. I'm not convinced he has read the book - he certainly doesn't understand it. He doesn't understand Austen's acerbic wit or lightness of touch - he certainly made a dull plodding film out of it.

What is possibly worse was the sad pathetic need of the chick lit lovers to need the 'I love you, I love yous' all over the place so they can sigh and get off on it. The fact that it has no place in a work by Austen is apparently irrelevant.

Anyone who reviews it as a film alone? Well, more difficult for me except I would note the poor acting, the weak Darcy, and the gurning skipping inane irritation of the whole thing. If you are going to adapt you can change a lot - but if it loses the spirit and key motivations, then don't insult the book by taking it's title.


If you have never heard of Jane Austen, seen the original movie or the 1995 BBC adaptation, or even seen a pop up version of the book, then this farcical attempt to show this classic love story may be considered vaguely endurable.

From the opening scene, this film must be remembered for its awful acting, abominable miscasting and complete lack of the classic wit of Jane Austen.

Whoever decided to cast actors (with the exception of the excellent Judi Dench) who have obviously never heard of Jane Austen, let alone read her, should be punished! Keira Knightley grimaces and grins through every scene, and came across as being so obnoxious that no-one would want to marry her! Darcy looked as if he was trying to remember his lines throughout the whole film and the rest of the Bennet girls were interchangeable in their lack of portraying their characters as they were originally written.

This version failed to show the proper Pride and Prejudice that both Darcy and Elizabeth suffered from and, at the end of the longest two hours of my life, who cared whether they got together or not! Absolutely abysmal - even the too few minutes of Judi Dench cannot save this rubbish. I cannot think of anything good to say about this film apart from that it eventually ended!


I went to see suspecting I would hate it, I did. Everything about it was wrong; it was like they were filming a different book. Granted the locations and houses very lovely (if not a little miscast-yes even the house were wrong for their parts) Keira was too modern, dull and frankly I found it unpleasant to watch her. Were everyone else sees Darcy as a sex god the writer of this saw him as sexually frustrated and inadequate. Bingley was stupid and dippy (he isn't meant to be) and the Bennett's were shown to be destitute and for some unknown reason farmers, this is incorrect and ludicrous. The very idea that Mr Bennett would answer the door in his night gear with the rest of the family dressed in their underwear to in the middle of the night is stupid. They had servants. Mr Collins was not repulsive and greasy merely stupid and obnoxious, Georgina Darcy was ugly and old and Miss Bingley wore a sleeveless dress, what! As if! It is Historically inaccurate and even the ending is unsatisfying. I could go on for days. I hated it so much as not only was it nothing like the book but I fear that for many people it will be their fist experience of this great novel and it will give them the worst possible idea of it. The BBC version is so superior it's not even funny and everything about this version is an insult to its memory. In short if you must see it be sure you have read the book first or seen the BBC version other wise you will be lead done the deluded road that this is what it's like, which its not!


Sorry to say but was disappointed in the film. It was very very rushed, as I suppose you can understand a movie length version of Pride & Prejudice would be and I felt that a lot of the major scenes were glossed over just to get through the story. As the movie is so rushed, unfortunately you don't get to really know about and feel for each of the characters much at all.

Not only that, this movie is Boring. I say that with a capital B. 1/3 of the way through I started yawning and couldn't wait for the movie to be over. As I have read the book and watch the BBC version, I knew how many scenes had to go, before I could finally leave the cinema. Mr Darcy whoever he is in this movie, definitely can't act. He looks also too young to play Mr Darcy. Every word that comes out of his mouth is rushed like he needs to get through the script or something. Where is the build up? At first, he seems confused with everything. He is just bizarre! It all looks put on.

Was trying not to compare to the Colin Firth version but if you love that version, you will most likely be disappointed anyway.

The costumes are absolutely shocking. Where are the corsets? I know Elizabeth is poor, but I think she still knows how to dress as some sort of ladylike fashion, and hasn't been brought up in a squaller. Her dresses indicates she might be the poorest peasant in all of England.

I didn't agree with a couple of scenes in the movie in the fact, that I don't think it would be considered proper in that society for men to do such things, honestly Mr Bingley who has wealth should know better. There is some things that are said that sound too modern for the period this movie is set in, and not at all like Jane Austen. Bingley's character is shockingly donee, to me he behaves like a simpleton, not a character to like and respect. What about that laugh of his!!! I Wickham hardly has a presence and Mr & Mrs Hurst and a couple of other characters have no presence at all. Keira did okay, but it just ain't the same.


Maybe if you've never read any English literature or only ever watched the Hollywood version of any book you might find merit in this awful film. It has the directorial and scripting skill of Shoreditch. The BBC 1995 adaptation is both very enjoyable and close to the book and captures the atmosphere between Elisabeth and Darcy very well.

The characters in this production are badly miscast, Sutherland as Bennet seems a total buffoon. Bingley likewise acts the fool and it is imcomrepnsible that he my be a friend of Darcy. I can't imagine how Judi Dench could have accepted the role, maybe she thought it was a surreal comedy version.

Quotes from the book are thrown in out of context. Huge chunks are missing, the important episode with Wickham is glossed over.

Mr Collins is however very good, and towers above the other members of the cast.

The only good thing is we didn't pay to see it. Wait for the DVD and use to keep a table from wobbling.


From the film's first shot - Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet wandering reading through a field at dawn, thus invoking all the clichés cinema has developed to address the phenomenon of the strong-minded rebellious female character in period drama - I knew I was in for something to make me want to kill myself.

Joe Wright seemed not only to have not read the book, but to be under the regrettable misapprehension that what he was filming was not in fact Jane Austen's subtle, nuanced comedy of manners conducted through sparkling, delicate social interaction in eighteenth century English drawing-rooms, but a sort of U-certificate Wuthering Heights. Thus we were treated to every scene between Elizabeth and Darcy taking place outside for no apparent reason, in inappropriately rugged scenery and often in the pouring rain. Not to mention that Jane Austen, and in particular P & P, is not about passion, sexual tension or love. It's about different strategies of negotiating the stultification of eighteenth century society. Which was completely ignored, so that the Bennets' house was a rambunctious, chaotic place where everybody shouts at once, runs around, leaves their underwear on chairs, and pigs wander happily through the house; the society balls become rowdy country dances one step away from a Matrix Reloaded style dance-orgy; and everybody says exactly what they think without the slightest regard for propriety.

The genius of Jane Austen lies in exploring the void created by a society in which nobody says what they think or mean because of an overwhelming regard for propriety, and the tragic predicaments of her characters arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications enabled by that speechless gap. So both the brilliance of Jane Austen and the very factor that allows her plots - particularly in this film - to function was completely erased. Subtlety in general was nowhere int his film, sacrificed in favour of an overwrought drama which jarred entirely with the material and the performances.

It was so obviously trying to be a *serious* film. The humour - which IS Pride & Prejudice, both Austen's methodology and her appeal - was almost entirely suppressed in favour of all this po-faced melodrama, and when it was allowed in, was handled so clumsily. Pride & Prejudice is a serious narrative which makes serious points, yes, but those serious points and weightier themes are not just intertwined with the humour, they are embedded in it. You can't lose Jane Austen's technique, leaving only the bare bones of the story, and expect the themes to remain. Not even when you replace her techniques with your own heavy-handed mystical-numinous fauxbrow cinematography.

Elizabeth Bennett is supposed to be a woman, an adult, mature and sensible and clear-sighted. Keira Knightley played the first half of the film like an empty-headed giggling schoolgirl, and the second half like an empty-headed schoolgirl who thinks she is a tragic heroine. Elizabeth's wit, her combative verbal exchanges, her quintessential characteristic of being able to see and laugh at everybody's follies including her own, her strength and composure, and her fantastic clear-sightedness were completely lost and replaced with ... what? A lot of giggling and staring into the distance? Rather than being able to keep her head when all about her were losing theirs, she started to cry and scream at the slightest provocation - and not genuinely raging, either; no, these were petulant hissy fits. And where the great strength of Austen's Elizabeth (at least in Austen's eyes) was her ability to retain integrity and observance while remaining within the boundaries of society and sustaining impeachable propriety, Knightley's Elizabeth had no regard whatsoever for convention. Furthermore, she seemed to think that wandering around barefoot in the mud in the eighteenth century version of overalls established her beyond doubt as spirited and strong-minded, and therefore nothing in the character as written or the performance had to sustain it. An astonishingly unsubtle and bland performance. In which quest for blandness and weakness, she was ably matched by Matthew Macfayden.

Donald Sutherland as Mr Bennet seemed weak, ineffectual and permanently befuddled without the wicked sense of humour and ironic detachment at the expense of human relationships that makes Mr Bennet so fascinating and tragic. His special bond with Lizzie, as the only two sensible people in a world of fools, was completely lost, not least because both of them were fools in a world of fools, and that completely deprived the end of the film of emotional impact. Mr Bingley was no longer amiable and well-meaning to the point of folly, but was played as a complete retard for cheap laughs, and the woman who was playing Jane was so wildly inconsistent that she may as well not have tried to do anything with the character at all. The script veered wildly between verbatim chunks of Jane Austen - delivered with remarkable clumsiness - and totally contemporaneous language which would not be out of place in a modern day romantic comedy.

Just get the BBC adaptation on DVD and save yourself the heartache.


I think it is saying something that the Bollywood "Bride and PRejudice" stayed more faithful to the source material than this 2005 Hollywood version did. I also laughed more at the Bollywood version. (Mr. Kholi? Priceless!) If you have read the book or seen the 1995 BBC version (and liked them), you will be in for a nasty surprise going in to this film then. My friend however, who had seen neither, was mildly amused by the film. If you are a JAne Austen purist though, or even a film-goer who dislikes historical inaccuracies, it will be painful to sit through this.

Ugh, the script. The script was the biggest problem. I imagine the actors wouldn't have fared half so badly if they'd had a decent script, perhaps penned by somebody who actually loved Austen's work.

What travesties were committed? Well, you'll be forced to endure such incredulous lines as "Don't you dare judge me, Lizzy!" and "Leave me alone for once in your lives!". Not only are such lines far from anything that could come from Jane Austen's eloquent pen, but can anyone honestly believe words like that spilling from the mouth of a genteel young lady from the Regency era? The usage of modern colloquialisms is one of the many irritating ways that the screenwriter butchers the book. The writer also decided to give characters lines that, in the book, were said by a completely different characters and all for no apparent purpose. Worse of all, when they do try to stick a bit closer to the book's writing, the screenwriter has a nasty and unnecessary habit of rearranging Austen's phrases and substituting awkward synonyms for her already perfect words. It was as if the screenwriter sat down with the book in one hand and a thesaurus in the other when writing the script. Stick to Austen's words; she did it better than you! I assume all of this was done in a "revisionist" spirit and in an effort to distance this film from the iconic 1995 BBC version. However, for me, it also made a travesty of the true spirit of Austen's most beloved work.

The casting did have potential, though it was quickly dashed away once the script kicked in. But Keira, giggling excessively and baring your crooked teeth does not equal charm and vivacity! And I think Mr. McFayden, though I find him tolerably handsome enough, misread his script and was under the impression he was playing Heathcliff and not the formidable Mr. Darcy. I really did enjoy Brenda Blethyn, Kelly Reilly and the actor who played Mr. Collins. Their interpretations were really rather refreshing.

Oh, but Donald Sutherland! Somebody described his performance as seeming like a hobo who had accidentally wandered onto the movie set and I must say it is an apt description. And can somebody tell me why they fashioned Wickham after Legolas? Though he was in the movie for under two minutes, I daresay, and without his impressive archery skills to perk up the movie.

On a wardrobe note, I would kill for Miss Bingley's dresses because they were sumptuous and would fit in more with the modern century. (A sleeveless Regency evening gown? Please! More Versace than Austen, that is sure) And poor Keira, all of the budget went to her salary and not her wardrobe! Oh, and I'm sure they eventually caught the bastard who stole the one hairbrush from the movie set. Unfortunately, they didn't catch him soon enough to comb the actresses' tresses before filming rolled.

In short, with this new Hollywood version, bid adieu to Austen's eloquence, subtlety and wit because you'll be getting the complete opposite.


Let me begin by saying that I adore the book and loved the A&E miniseries. I was hoping to love this film, and I was absolutely willing to allow it a moderate degree of artistic license in interpreting and abbreviating the actual story. However, this film scarcely resembles the original book. If only "the names had been changed to protect the innocent," I would have possibly enjoyed the movie as simply an entertaining, if inaccurate, period piece.

Unfortunately, putting the name "Mr. Darcy" on a character who is emotional and weak, giving the name "Elizabeth Bennett" to a reckless, snippy, often teary-eyed hoyden who cares nothing for the rules of society, and making "Mr. Bingley" a wide-eyed dimwit absolutely destroyed the idea that the director had ever read Jane Austen's original story.

There are some really stellar moments in this movie -- perhaps a total of 10 minutes are truly excellent. Charlotte's explanation of why she accepted Mr. Collins' proposal begins beautifully. She is 27 years old (quite near the hopeless-spinster age in those times), she is becoming a burden on her family, and she is not romantic. She only wants "a comfortable home." However, the beautiful dialogue is ruined when she blubbers, "Don't you judge me, Elizabeth. Don't you dare judge me!" and runs off in tears. Later, you see Charlotte kowtow to Lady Catherine de Bourgh, which was not at all in her character as described in the book.

Another good moment is when Darcy catches Elizabeth in his home while she is touring the area with her aunt and uncle. It was well done in the A&E series, but the film version with Keira Knightley made the audience feel acutely how very humiliating that moment must have been for Elizabeth. Very nice.

The ending also illustrated a level of affection between Elizabeth and Darcy that was not shown as obviously in the miniseries. I actually appreciated that scene, simply because I like to see a happy ending, rather than just know that it took place.

Altogether, though, this movie eliminated the subtlety that was such an integral part of Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The characters speak in a jarring combination of Austen's dialogue verbatim and modern phrases and colloquialisms. Information that was only alluded to or suggested in the original work is blatantly stated in this version. Yes, time was a concern. It's only a short movie, yada yada. But turning a complex, beautiful book into a superficial love story is ridiculous.

Some have commented that they loved the moment when Darcy first sees Elizabeth, because it is so obviously a case of "love at first sight." Love at first sight? Huh? One of the best aspects of the book is that Elizabeth is not supposed to be a traditional beauty, and Darcy comes to love her for her wit and liveliness ... he literally "loves her for her mind."

This version also had a moment (during Darcy's first proposal) when the two are yelling furiously at each other, while leaning closer ... and closer ... and almost kissing ... but they suddenly step apart. Ugh! What a sad cliché. They're angry and disgusted with each other, but so attracted that it doesn't matter that (at the time) they don't even like each other? Ridiculous!

The characterizations were all so far removed from those described in the book that it really was like a different story. Mr. Bennet was dour, Elizabeth usually acted just as silly as her younger sisters, Charlotte was emotional, somewhat unintelligent and desperate for a home of her own -- unlike the intelligent, slightly scheming woman with an abundance of common sense who is portrayed in the novel. Jane and Elizabeth's relationship is merely topical, instead of the deep-rooted love and admiration they are supposed to have for each other.

All this I could have accepted as merely poor interpretations of the novel, but I refused to accept all that in addition to the many, many historical inaccuracies. Miss Bingley walked around scarcely clothed (her dress looked like what the others would wear as tight undergarments). Elizabeth walked to Netherfield with her hair down and allowed to fly all over. The family lazed about one morning, though mornings were supposed to be reserved for calling on acquaintances (or being called on at your own home). Elizabeth walked outside barefoot in her nightgown. And in a really appalling scene, Bingley walked into Jane's bedroom and conversed with her (and sounded like an idiot) when she was ill.

Most people would feel these are minor points, but I simply wanted either A.) an historically accurate film, or B.)an accurate representation of the characters in the novel.

The director/writer/whoever sacrificed accuracy, subtlety and a good story for a trite tale of love at first sight. I can concede that those who have not read the book or who are not familiar with the social conventions of the time could very easily like this movie, and there is nothing wrong with that. I simply couldn't overcome my desire to see a film that involved more than just two pretty faces.


While the new Pride & Prejudice film is gorgeous to view, and the soundtrack is lovely, we are not seeing Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The film is for some reason set back in the early 1790's, rather than the Regency period where the novel is set, as scholars have long shown. The Bennets' Longbourn estate is ram-shackled and looks like Cold Comfort Farm. Yet the Bennets in the novel are gentry class; they own a farm, but the pig does not walk through the house, nor is the farmyard of manure and chicken droppings contiguous to the home. Scenes are re-set from the novel,and lest we forget, Jane Austen placed scenes in certain locations for a reason. For example, the film puts the big Darcy proposal scene outside in a storm in front of a Neoclassical temple, as opposed to inside the Collins' parsonage: Why did Jane Austen put it in the parsonage? Because while Lizzy and Darcy speak with total, if brutal honesty to each other in this scene, the Collinses have never shared an honest word. Why the rain and the outdoor proposal? It looks like Jane Eyre meeting Rochester! And when Elizabeth walks across a windy field to stand on a cliff and view the panorama, one expects her to cry, "Heathcliffe" at any minute! Austen has been Bronteized! Judy Dench is a GREAT actress, but Lady Catherine is supposed to be tall and striking. The petite Tom Hollander is a brilliant actor: but Mr. Collins is described in the novel as tall and heavy-looking, which suggests that his terrible dancing with poor Lizzy is elephantine. Matthew MacFayden is another favorite of mine from MI-5 on A&E; in P&P, however, he is more the young Heathcliffe, never smiling--though Austen observes in the novel that Darcy smiles at Lizzy quite a bit, and she realizes this when she sees his wonderful smiling portrait at Pemberley--a portrait that in this movie is for some reason replaced by a sculptured marble bust.And much of Austen's dialogue is changed to modern speech. Mr. Bingley has been turned into such a clown that one wonders why Darcy would have him as a friend and why Jane Bennet would love him. The bottom line is that while this is a great movie to watch and hear, it deviates from Jane Austen's novel so much that any student who watched it, thinking she could substitute viewing for reading, would fail!


I've spent quite a while going through all the reviews for this film. I'm in total agreement with almost every reviewer in saying that Noah's Ark is crap, crap, crap, crap, crap! Don't the executives at NBC have any class? I feel sick to my stomach for actually watching both parts of this mini-series. The script is so dumb, so pointless, and yes, TOTALLY INACCURATE! I can understand making a few changes for dramatic purposes, but this film changed just about everything in the story. God himself is going to go through the trouble to kill off the entire Earth's population, but he somehow misses one guy that's sailing around trying to sell stuff to Noah. Give me a break! And what was up with Noah's sons acting like Indiana Jones, saving girls in distress? If all that isn't bad enough, there's the part where God apologizes to Noah and says "I'm sorry Noah, I was wrong". Newsflash NBC, GOD CAN NOT BE WRONG! This film is the most tasteless and disgraceful Biblical film ever made.


NBC had a chance to make a powerful religious epic along the lines of "The Ten Commandments" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told," and instead they chose to make some halfhearted cartoon that was more like "Waterworld" than anything else. I don't recall a Bible passage where Lot turns into a pirate and attacks the ark, nor do I remember one where Noah's son develops a serious friendship with an orange, nor do I remember Noah being some crazy old loon who suddenly acts like he's commanding a naval fleet and runs around shouting nautical terms like "hoist the mainstay!" This was possibly the worst marketing decision in history. Obviously the majority of people watching this were going to be Jewish and Christian parents with their kids, so why on earth make the movie so offensive to those people? If they were intentionally trying to offend, why not advertise it that way and at least reel in the right audience?? I hope they make a REAL Noah movie someday, one done seriously and thoughtfully, one that actually appeals to people and makes money. Until then, don't waste your time with this trash.


This movie could have been an impressing epic, but the makers seem to have done their utmost to make it appear foolish. Even God Himself is not spared in this movie, in that His words are drenched with childish jokes. The result is blasphemous and annoying. Only people who don't care to see a cheap parody on the biblical story may perhaps watch this film without embarrassment. The makers of this tasteless production should see 'Il Vangelo secondo Matteo' (The Gospel according to Mathew), a film of Pier Paolo Pasolini, who shows that it is unnecessary to pervert the words of the Bible to make a good story; the most impressing result is obtained by a sincere rendering of the plain text itself.


I'll dispense with the obvious review of factual inaccuracies. They are too numerous to name. A much shorter list would be what they got right. 1. Dude named Noah. 2. Ark with animals on it.

If you want a much more accurate portrayal of Noah's Ark and the destruction of Sodom, go rent "The Bible" (1966). It depicts the story of creation through Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son Isaac. It's a much better movie, and it may be that the abomination called "Noah's Ark" (1999) drove you to seek just such a film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060164/

I really couldn't stomach watching the whole movie. From reading other comments, I can see that even the atheists found it grossly inaccurate. As a Christian, it was intolerable to me. Possibly the worst movie ever made. No real point to this movie either, except maybe to showcase their sub-par computer animation.

Was it a complete waste? Maybe not. God can use evil to work good.

Romans 8:28 says, [28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Genesis 50 says, [20] But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

In the second example, Joseph's brothers meant to kill him, but God turned their evil into a very great good. He may have done the same thing with this movie.

People were so astonished by its lack of Biblical foundation, that they probably broke out the dusty old Bible and read the story for themselves. To find out about Lot and Sodom, they would have to go the whole way up to Genesis 19 before God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah. By then, they have read almost half of Genesis, so they might want to finish. The next book is Exodus, which the movie "The Ten Commandments" was based on (and much more accurately). If they have seen that movie, then Exodus becomes an easy read. So now they have read at least two whole books of the Bible, just because they watched a pathetic movie about Noah's Ark. I'm sure this actually happened to someone out there.

God works in mysterious ways.


This is one of the worst mini-series I have ever seen on TV. I sat through the first half hoping it would improve but it only went from bad to worse. Needless to say I could not bring myself to sit through the torture of a second nights viewing. What was Jon Voight thinking when he made this?????


Sorry about that. But if you have seen this "epic", you will obviously know of the utter disregard for the actual text of the Bible. Now, I'm not exactly the next in line for sainthood, but I do know the basics. And the basics were this. God wanted to wipe everyone of the face of the Earth because he believed they have been corrupted to the point of no return. He chose Noah, the diamond in the rough, and his family to be spared due to their uncorrupted ways. Noah builds an ark as instructed by God to house he, his family, and two of every creature while he floods the rest of the planet. Those are the basics. In this movie, you have other people roaming around the seas such as peddlers and pirates. But I thought that EVERYONE was wiped out. I guess the executives at NBC have never been to church. There are other inaccuracies, I'm told, but being the average Joe, I have no idea what they are. Sorry. Back to the movie, it was inaccurate, as stated before, the acting stunk, but some of the effects were good, I'll give it that. But as a whole, I've seen a better and more tasteful rendition of the story done as a little scene on The Simpsons. God help the NBC executives come judgement day. 3/10


Dramatic ? Yes......Historically accurate ? Not Quite !.... This movie twists the Bibles details of the deluge by placing Lot meeting Noah during the building of the Ark. Fascinating time travel for Lot made in part by NBC !....being Lot had not been born until 2136 BCE, 234 years AFTER the floodwater's (2370BCE)....Thats like having George Bush meet with William Shakepeare ! And whats with this guy floating around selling items & nicknack's to Noah ?

You can make a movie based on historical facts dramatic, but don't twist it around placing people where they weren't....especially when it comes to Gods Word.


I could not believe what i saw...(once) brilliant actors appearing in this dire effort that should never of been made. The plots are dreadful and the dialogue appauling (at first i thought it was a spoof), and the acting abysmal. Everything about it is bad, from the cheap sets to the phony backdrops, a bunch of paintings enlarged. Respectable filmakers struggle to get their vision realised, yet this blasphemous, pathetic attempt at a mini-series makes it to our television's, with 3 oscar winners making appearances. I can only guess everyone involved somehow hurt the writer and director and were forced (maybe at gunpoint)to star in this worthless T.V. trash.


This is the most inaccurate and disgraceful biblical film i have ever has the misfortune to watch. I would like to know why anybody on earth could enjoy viewing this. I am so surprised that a big name like Jon Voight would agree to act in this disgraceful piece of garbage. Many people who may not have read the bible will now be mislead by believing this film was accurate and the thought of that really bothers me. I think the makers have a lot to answer for. The worst thing is that, i believe nobody could make such obvious mistakes with a biblical film, since they can research the bible for the truth, so i believe the makers deliberately twisted what the bible says, and that is something nobody has the right to do and i find that very offensive. There are no words strong enough to describe exactly how i feel about this.


If you are going to make a movie from any book, be sure that the characters are consistant with that book. This movie not only defied the Biblical story that has been told for thousands upon thousands of years to children one way or another, but it clearly took liberties that no adaptation would probably ever try. At least the Lord of the Rings is close enough to the books that people understand the story more if they read the books than this "Noah's Ark" tried to.


This move is terrible. They took Gods word and made a mockery of it. The acting was terrible too. Why bother doing a story on something from the bible when your not even going to tell it correctly. There were not just a few changes but the whole thing was wrong. Do not see this movie.


I just wanted to say that I was very disappointed after seeing this movie! I was expecting a Biblical story visualized with great special fx, etc. but during the film I found out that this was an absolute disaster... it wasn't biblical at all... only the boat and the animals were similar to the story... if you want a visual 'translation' of the Bible version of Noah then DON'T go watch this movie!


How can so many blundering decisions can be made. All that waste of resources!Its an idiotic story to begin with but theres no need to make it worse.A loose interpretation? Are you kidding! it diminishes my regard for Voight and Coburn.I hope they were paid well.


Who wrote the script for this movie, the staff at Disney Studios?! This is the most inacurrate adaptation of any story ever! I wanted to laugh at a few scenes and cry at others, and that was only because of how pitiful it was. I'll have to hand it credit, it did have a few funny scenes, but I could've spent better time with my evening. Very seldom do I turn off a movie after only a quarter of the way through.


Even though I have great interest in Biblical movies, I was bored to death every minute of the movie. Everything is bad. The movie is too long, the acting is most of the time a Joke and the script is horrible. I did not get the point in mixing the story about Abraham and Noah together. So if you value your time and sanity stay away from this horror.


How offensive! Those who liked this movie have probably never opened a bible. I can imagine those at NBC saying, "OK. Let's make a movie to appease those pesky Christians, but they'll never know the difference if we don't have anything factual or in the correct chronological order." Well, they were wrong. Anybody associated with this atrocity needs to find a church and repent for their involvement in this blasphemous atrocity. I only gave this movie a 1 because I couldn't give it a 0.


Oh boy. Where do I begin on this piece of slime? This is one of the few real high-budget films on my list that I've actually seen fit to give a 1 rating, and that's not for the production values, which are pretty high. This movie has absolutely no respect for the account in the bible, and treats the whole story as laughable fantasy. I could not recommend it to anyone, except to see how low as a society we have become...

For the first thing, Noah was absolutely not friends with Lot. Anyone who actually read Genesis could tell you that Abram was who they were thinking of. The writers were just trying to pad out the story with the whole Sodom/Gommorah subplot, and it seems out of place because it is. Noah is treated as a prudish goofball ("You were kissing! You were kissing!") but at least it's a step up from Voight's hilarious overacting in Anaconda.

However, these offenses pale in comparison to the heretical treatment of God in this movie. God is portrayed as a petty, incomprehesible being who changes his mind at the slightest whim. ("I'm one eternal perfect, but I can be wrong") What? Where are they getting this from? This kind of God...no one should ever pay any attention to, much less worship, praise, or love. What the director's saying in this, I do not claim to know. I just know that a responsible treatment of Noah's Ark should not take such an easy way out. Shame on these people.


This rendition of "Noah's Ark" has set Hallmark's (and Turner's) reputation back about 100 years. However, the production has it's bright side...a learning experience for neophyte movie entrepreneurs in "how not to make a movie"

Where in the annals of Biblical literature and common sense can one find these quotes and situations:

"Ok, boys, let's saddle up." "It's too bad that God created the sun to shine only during the day when we really needed it at night." "We're not kissing...we're only whispering in each others' mouths."

Lumber for building the Ark with "Georgia Pacific" stamped on it. Metal nails. Kids flying kites. A peddler (how can James Coburn sleep after this) selling Chinese hats. Pirates attacking a wooden Ark, which they wished to capture, with flaming tar balls of fire shot from catapults. Glass bottles of wine (Noah was in a continual state of inibriation. It was a miracle that he could see the Ark let alone build it.) Lady Godiva (Mary Steenberg in a blond wig tromping around the Ark on a white horse...still rated G) Warding off Biblical pirates with an iron (teflon-lined?) frying pan. Landing on Mount Ararat after having passed through the Straights of Hercules.

etc., etc., etc.

Special effects...you've got to see them in order not to believe them.

The list goes on. This movie must not be missed; but if you want the full TV version, you must call NBC for the screen version...but only if you agree to absolve NBC of all responsibility of ever having aired the thing in the first place. Only the expurgated version exists in video stores (no pirates, etc.)...that is, those video stores that dare to stock it.

Marvin Cohn


This film is a completely inaccurate depiction of the real story of Noah's Ark. The producers probably did not even read the Bible. This is the worst movie I have EVER seen! Noah's wife was never mentioned by name in the Bible, but the writers of the film "gave" her the name Naamah. This movie depicts the destruction of Sodom a good 1000 years before it happened, and what about Gamorrah? It too was destroyed at the same time Sodom was. (Maybe the producers thought that not including Gamorrah in the story and showing the city of "Sodom" as in you-know-what would raise more eyebrows.) This film is utter filth and mocks God and the Bible. It is a wonder that any true Christian would want to participate in the production of this abysmal, hideous, reprobated mockery of the Bible.


I think Hollywood should seriously consider NEVER doing another "Biblical" film again, if Noah's Ark is going to be the norm. Aside from the horrible, completely uninspired acting from the whole cast (Voight and Steenburgen undoubtedly rue the day the agreed to do this film), the time line has been completely rearranged. I also missed the part in Genesis about the pirate fight on the deck of the ark or the traveling salesman coming by on his paddle boat. Hello? EVERYONE else was dead except for Noah and his family according to scripture. God stacked lumber and added plans to build the ark when Noah questioned how?? I also don't remember reading anything about Noah's wife constantly nagging him during the 40 days, or Noah wandering around glassy-eyed and dazed all the time. The script writer obviously had very little knowledge of the book of Genesis, or just didn't care that his abomination of a story completely mocked it.


I've seen some Bible-based trash. This one tops it all. To make matters worse, it lasts about three hours. A horrible waste of time, unless you want to match your kid's biblical knowledge against the innumerable aberrations. Do yourself a favor - take a walk in the Sahara instead. Since I am required to give you a ten line statement of why not to watch this movie, let me just say there is absolutely no redeemable quality to it. God's conversations with Noah are ridiculous. The whole thing has a stench of "let's make the Biblical account look retarded." The basic logic goes, if they spent the money on a biblical film, why not make it worthwhile? Since the basic logic is not met, something is amiss. The movie starts with a disclaimer about Poetic Licenses taken...that is the understatement of the century. Poetic rape. But then, poetic would be an unmerited favor.


Recently I borrowed a copy of this mess of a movie, which took me three sessions over three days to get through. That's another comment in the making.

But what I wanted to comment on first was the carelessness on the special features of the DVD. It included a game of memory, which asks the player/viewer to match up pairs of animals in order for them to board the ark. However, every time it reveals the chosen animal, the screen prompts the player to find (or congratulates the player on finding)"it's mate." This is a spelling error since it should be "its mate" as possessive pronoun, not a contraction for "it is." It is an annoying error to keep repeating 16 or more times to finish a game. Of course, it's a kid's activity really, but teaches kids incorrect spelling.

And, oh yeah, the game never changes. It is the same game with the same locations of the same animals each time. Plus it doesn't keep score, like the number of moves it took to solve the game. So there is no lasting value or challenge to it. It's just a feature to list on the packaging.

Simply put, there could have been more thought and care put into this "special" feature, just like there could have been more thought and care put into this muddled film.


How this film could be classified as Drama, I have no idea. If I were John Voight and Mary Steenburgen, I would be trying to erase this from my CV. It was as historically accurate as Xena and Hercules. Abraham and Moses got melded into Noah. Lot, Abraham's nephew, Lot, turns up thousands of years before he would have been born. Canaanites wandered the earth...really? What were the scriptwriters thinking? Was it just ignorance ("I remember something about Noah and animals, and Lot and Canaanites and all that stuff from Sunday School") or were they trying to offend the maximum number of people on the planet as possible- from Christians, Jews and Muslims, to historians, archaeologists, geologists, psychologists, linguists ...as a matter of fact, did anyone not get offended? Anyone who had even a modicum of taste would have winced at this one!


NBC should be ashamed. I wouldn't allow my children to see this. I definitely would tell my church to stay away. This movie is proof as to why NBC has always been a 3rd rate network The producers, actors, and writers should get on their knees and beg God's forgiveness for making this work of fiction. There were no pirates. Noah's wife didn't parade around on the deck of the ark. The ark had NO deck. Lot wasn't even born when this event took place. Did anyone attached to this project try reading the Bible? There were more than two animals of each type taken. Read the story in Genesis. How could anyone bring this to any screen, small or large!


I was so excited to see the cast in this movie that I was completely surprised at how completely WRONG this movie was. I love John Voight but I have no idea what possessed him to be a part of this travesty. The Biblical accuracy was completely non-existent and I honestly could not stomach watching the movie with my children. My kids stood astonished because even THEY know that Lot was not even thought of when Noah was building the ark. I think that NBC should be ashamed of themselves for allowing producers to make a mockery of the Word and cause even more confusion in a world that barely knows the truth as it is... PLEASE DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE!!! I have considered burning my copy but I have every intentions on writing the producers and sending them the scripture references that they SHOULD HAVE read before making this movie!!!


This is pure CRAP, and probably the worst Biblical theme film ever... Absolutely inaccurate, I mean, they've put Sodom and Gomora BEFORE the great flood. They've described Lot as a friend of Noah although he lived after Noah. To make things worse, later Lot became a pirate and attacks Noah's Ark during the flood!!!??? And what's with the merchant who comes along on a boat which is moved over the water with a bicycle mechanism??? And exchanges alcohol for a food and water, and then Noah is portrayed as alcoholic!? Mockery, and continuous blasphemies one after another, and it goes on and on, and on... Film maker and all participants surely secured themselves the front row in hell with this garbage...

Please stay off this crap, because you will save yourself nearly three hours of your life.


I have wanted to say this since I first saw the movie, I still will not allow any of my children or grandchildren to watch this. At least not until I tell them and they understand that it is completely fiction. The only thing that I saw that was correct was that animals went onto the Ark, everything else was false. Lot and Noah fighting on the ocean like a pirate movie. Make sure you tell your kids the real story before you allow them to watch it, but really, until they are old enough to understand that it is not real they may have a messed up vision of the Bible. This was the worst Bible movie I have ever seen. Bruce and Evan Almighty were much better and had more to teach. Let your children watch those


Just when I thought nothing could be as offensive and/or irritating as a Billy Mays infomercial, I had the intellectually shattering experience of renting this piece of garbage. Peter Barnes and John Irvin should be brought up on criminal charges for smuggling this script into the public venue. The actors need to be charged as accomplices, serving no less than a lifetime away from the public eye.

This production offers the disclaimer, "For dramatic effect, we have taken poetic license with certain facts", or some such inadequate statement to fully brace you for the absolute repugnant rewrite of a Bible story which needed no drama added. What they did add was enough to make your I.Q. drop three full points for every five minutes of viewing time.

The "poetic license" taken, invents characters so bizarre, you'll recognize nothing but the names of a few, and, of course, the ark.

For some reason, Noah and Lot are both living in Sodom, so maybe Abram was vacationing in Switzerland on a skiing trip. Lot's wife, played by Carol Kane, is a harpy, and when she's turned to a pillar of salt, Lot breaks off her finger and carries it around in what appears to be an empty baby food jar. If that's "poetic", I'm a kumquat.

When Noah - who has now begun drinking wine in quantities that could help float the ark - whines about the tough job of the building project, he awakens one morning to find that God has delivered enough precut lumber to lighten his burden. At least I think it was God. It looked like a delivery from 84 Lumber, neatly stacked and bundled. Maybe 84 Lumber is really an agent for God????? Rather than bore you with the cargo being loaded, I'll regale you with the account of the pirate attack on the ark. Incongruous, you think? This movie is filled with such insulting nonsense. After an untold time on the waters, Noah spies a pirate ship heading right for them. And who might the salty sea-captain be? Well, duh, it's Lot, of course! My only surprise was that his uncle Abram wasn't aboard. If you're going to slaughter a plot line, slaughter all of it. The piracy attempt is unsuccessful, and the swashbuckling was pathetic, not poetic. I think it was around this mark that my nausea prevented me from punishing myself anymore.

An ugly, senseless, moronic distortion of anything remotely resembling a Bible account. On a scale of 1 - 10, this movie is premeditated mind abuse. Stupid and insulting, you'll be more entertained by reading the Yellow Pages.


Disney-like entertainment with some un-Disney-like moments of graphic violence and sexual references. Lousy comedy alongside cliché-ridden moralizing. Noah as Abraham, Lot as his wicked buddy. Laughable special effects. Overdone acting with bad timing. Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed before the Flood? Strange twists and too many sub-plots the Bible doesn't mention. God as a doubting father who just needs to be entertained by whistling before deciding the world has to be saved from disaster.

B-movie wannabee director John Irvin adds another failure to his worthless list of poorly-directed movies that seriously lack plot and direction.


After seeing Shootfighter 1, and the buckets of blood they shed, I was ready for another rousing jaunt of open handed heart massage, and chiropractics in a cage. But nooooooo, this was like the Barney version of the first movie, with that lamer from the Karate kid. At least Bolo Yeung still kicks booty, although he needs to do more movies like Bloodsport and Caddyshack.


A bad bad movie... terrible plot, hinges on Bolo Yeung's charater, but he speaks maybe 20 words in the entire movie and only has one fight scene - still in great shape considering he was also in the kung fu classic "Enter The Dragon" Interesting to see William Zabka ("Johnny" from The Karate Kid) in another martial-arts role.


Visually, this film is interesting. Light is literally thrown in a way, together with cinematography and an alluring introduction before the titles, that had my hopes up at the start, but then - a b-movie is a b-movie is a b-movie, no matter how much spectacle is seen. This film surrounds the life of Albert Fish, one of the most well-known serial-killers in the world. Active around the start of the 20th century, Fish's life is hastily and blurry dealt with before before he started killing children at an old age. This film is based upon two tracks: Fish's life and that of William F. King, lead investigator of the case. What saves this film from becoming a Hallmark spectacle and debacle of the usual sort, whenever films about serial killers are concerned, is the direction, which is a double-edged sword; director Scott L. Flynn sheds focus enough upon the b-actors not to let their flaws shine through too much, but at the same times created a truly dull and stereotypical view of the American police through the King-angle. Sure enough he dealt quite thoroughly with Fish's meet with Grace Budd, the 10-year-old girl that he killed, even though I'm not really sure if her mother was the media-crazed person that Flynn really tries to emphasise that she was. I miss more psychological diving into Fish, not to mention the very little time which was spent on Fish's post-capture. All in all, interesting for those who are into serial-killers, but mostly a let-down; however, if the director will make another film about another serial-killer, I'd definitely see it in hopes that holes were patched-up.


There's something strange about the antisocial sentiment you can find in some Cheech And Chong material. One of the songs in Up In Smoke, well, I often wish more songs these days began that way. But in this excuse for a video, the stoner duo are showing us the videos for four songs from their album of the moment, also titled Get Out Of My Room. You hear a voice-over during the opening credits in which some anonymous producer describes the record as being a novelty recording that will just take up room on the charts. Unfortunately, this opening voice-over hits the nail right on the head.

Most music recordings endorsed by the RIAA seem to keep to a rule of putting the best material early in the album. Often, when one gets past that first song, the discerning listener notices that the recording has little, if anything, to hold their attention. Bands that defied mainstream convention, on the other hand, often saved their best material for last, or at least spread it evenly throughout the disc. In this case, Cheech And Chong appear to have decided to hedge their bets. The opening piece, Get Out Of My Room, is a hilariously-themed song with an incredibly bad video. Many a viewer of a 1980s music video will find the sloppy direction somewhat nostalgic. Cheech's conception of British punk is also incredibly funny.

Where it all goes downhill is the second number, I'm Not Home Right Now. Nothing kills interest in a song quite like repetition, and it's tough to get more repetitive than this aural turd. Honestly, one feels the urge to slap Cheech in the face and tell him that we get the idea, he isn't home right now, so please move on. The next song, along the theme of love being a strange thing, is the absolute rock bottom not only for this collection, but for Cheech And Chong in general. It's almost as if this song was made for the sole reason of padding out the album's running time.

Fortunately, the stoner duo saved the best for last, but it is also curious to note that Chong is completely absent from this cut. Born In East L.A. is a simple number based upon the old Bruce Springsteen number that mocks Reagan's view of multiculturalism. As one is regaled by Cheech's tale, one has to wonder how many poor schleps who couldn't speak a word of Spanish were deported to Mexico simply because their skin wasn't bedsheet-white. Racism was an integral part of America's culture in 1985, and it remains so today. If anything, it has gotten worse, so one has to wonder what Born In East L.A. would be like if it were written in the current era.

Unfortunately, two cuts does not an album make, especially when there is so much boring filler between them. The interviews before Get Out Of My Room, for example, are quite funny. Not side-splitting like much of Up In Smoke, but funny enough to justify their existence. Unfortunately, the two middle songs are reflected in their making-of footage. Boring song makes boring filler. If you cut out the middle half-hour of material from this video, you'd have something substantially better.

I gave Get Out Of My Room a three out of ten. They are earned by the first and last video. I'm pretty certain that the stars look at material like this today and wonder what they were thinking.


I got this for my birthday in a box set under the name Broke Skull. Well, after watching one on the DVD and being pleasantly surprised, I popped this sucker in. It was worse than I had expected, and I didn't expect much. This movie is basically a convoluted story about a guy who dies and comes back to life with the mob, and other bull crap. There was some interesting ideas in this that were never followed up on. Now everybody has been saying there was a lot of gore, can somebody tell me were? I saw a bad effect of a head being crushed, brain tissue (or something...), and blood coming from the penis area two times. I have to say the the part were the guy gets his man hood bitten off made me squirm, that was the only good thing about this movie. And that gay sex scene was just thrown in there for no reason. The acting in this was Atrocious, really, it blew. That Asian chick was annoying, then the annoying Mexican boyfriend who comes in to just be killed. I say if you get this in a box set, that is fine, but don't spend any money on it, at all.


We picked this up as a part of a Brentwood set, under the title "The Broken Skull." Shot directly onto video, with widely varying sound and lighting quality, this movie winds up with a hyperactive quality that may inspire the viewer to feelings of nervousness, confusion and irritability - and not in a good, "Evil Dead" kind of way.

Without going into spoilers, what appears at first to be a simple revenge ghost story becomes increasingly convoluted and bizarre. While there are some interesting ideas here, the overall effect is likely to leave you scratching your head and saying "hunh?"

This is a very, very gory movie. The gore effects range all the way from full bloody head appliances to a silly Video Toaster effect that has to be freeze-framed to be (dis)believed. The "Fangoria" level of gross-out effects in this film is really amazing and should likely please the gore-hounds while making anyone with a weak constitution feel a bit on the queasy side.

The Broken Skull is also an extremely noisy movie. It features not only ambient noises (captured by mikes and not replaced in post), but there is a lot of shrieking. No, no, I mean a LOT. A lot, a lot! Characters scream, wail, howl and yell, chitter and laugh maniacally. Turn down the volume if you value your eardrums and your nerves! But you can't fault the cast for their enthusiasm, they really eat up the scenery and sometimes the effect is rather entertaining. In particular, the actress playing a certain Vietnamese immigrant delivers all of the above with a remarkable amount of gusto.

In fact, very few of the actors were wooden. Some of them may have overacted a bit (oh, just a wee smidgen!), but most of them are certainly fun to watch go off. The cast is ethnically diverse and kudos to the filmmakers for that. The two middle-aged white women, however, are two of the most spiteful, exasperated characters since the shopkeeper in the MST3k classic "the Brute Man." Just watch them seethe at all the other characters, it's fun!

In closing, the Headcrusher may not become a horror icon on a par with Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers or Freddy Kruger (or even the Leprechaun), but we can definitely say this ... this was a movie.


I don't think it really matters too much what the plot of this movie is about, the main thing you'll notice is the extreme amateurishness of the entire production. The acting is what you'd get if you chose people at random off the street. The sound is really annoying - a medicine cabinet closes with all the gusto of a gunshot going off in your ear, while at the same time the dialog is perhaps one-fifth as loud. Miscellaneous on-set noises dominate the soundtrack to a huge degree, with dialog taking a distant back seat. The theme music sounds as if it was about a quarter done when the movie was released, as large portions of the film don't have any music at all. Camera-work can best be described as a gnarled mess, with close-up shots where a medium angle would be much better, cameramen walking around and jostling the camera every which way, absolutely no attention paid to framing any scene, they just shot everything from whatever position it was most convenient for the cameraman to stand. If the cameraman was a foot taller than the actors and you end up looking at the tops of everyone's heads, well, so be it. Editing is just a butcher job; Everything is tossed together in the most abrupt manner possible, nothing flows or transitions in any sense of the word. I don't know if this was shot on video or perhaps a rented camcorder, I tend to think it was the latter.

I only made it about three-quarters of the way through this thing before I turned it off, I just got so annoyed at the low quality of the production I couldn't take it anymore. It's like a ninth grade audio-visual class project.


I admit - I was lured to this one from the hype - and I didn't stop to consider the sources. "one of the best indie exploitation flicks of the year (1999)", shocking", and " a must have ".

Well - I wasted my money. But not all was bad in this movie. THey at least got the gore right, as well as some of the most unique methods of murder seen in a long time. There is even a storyline (kinda) and that is about it.

But for an exploitation film there is a surprising amount of content - but no exploiting. We get gay sex - sorta. We have 3 inter-racial babes - maybe. We have a psychotic Vietnamese hooker - nice back, oral sex (ok that made me wince) and some female version of Gene Simmons (I don't get that part). We have an honest to goodness Capone - rates among the best of the actors in this film - that is not a compliment. And finally we have a government conspiracy thrown in to - I don't know - try to connect the vengeance/random/theme killing by Jimmy boy to make the Vietnamese psycho seem sane??????? If nothing else this movie proves that the Italians and the Americans do not have a lock on this type of movie. The Latinos can make crap as well as the rest of them. Kudos goes to anyone involved in this accomplishment that overcame it and made a career for themselves.


The Calu-what now? Yeah, I thought it was a stupid name as well. Chris Carter remains blissfully unaware of the scum in his writing staff. Starting off with the usual cheery X-Files teaser (a baby getting run over by a train) this episode... well I can't really say it goes downhill because to be honest it was never going uphill.

Poorly written, with us feeling no pathos for any of the characters (except maybe that baby at the start) the writer makes us hate characters before brutally killing them off, it's the worst technique ever. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the characters of hate them? Don't ask me.

Not only is it boring and un-scary, but it's like watching a really bad Omen sequel with overblown and disgusting death sequences and rotten special effects (although to be brutally honest, that's the least of my worries).

Sara B. Charno began her X-Files career with a whimper and thankfully ended it with one as well.

Verdict:

In the words of my maths teacher Mr. Laverack: "Horrible, Awful..."


wow, this movie sucked.

This movie was a embarrassment to the original sandlot.

Everything about this movie was awful.

The acting was horrendous. Every part except the part of the 'mexican' sandlot manager was terrible.

Luke Perry, though only bit parts was absolutely awful. This was is worst role ever. Even the kid actor playing him as a kid was someone you'd want to punch, even in the end, lol.

This movie reminded me of those kid movies that go that extra mile making a part goofy way beyond the funny stage. The humor was for 6 year olds.

If your over 12 and want something worthwhile to watch, skip this movie and watch a sitcom instead.


Just in case the title didn't give it away - this movie is garbage.

Short review? Yeah.

I decided to spend as much time writing this review as Hollywood probably decided to put into the script. I doubt it'll be published considering how poorly I worded everything but if this is and anyone reads it -- stick to cherishing the first Sandlot movie. It completely surpasses its predecessors in every single way. The sequels aren't ever worth buying or seeing and everyone involved in making them should be ashamed for ruining what has to be one of the most classic, original films of our childhood.


First off, this movie is not near complete, my guess is that someone actually bothered to steal every other page of the script.

The movie contains bizarre time-travels without notice, inconsistent dialogs, misplaced details all over, the music isn't very bad at all, other then misplaced tracks, and besides the fact that the volume goes up and down between the different tracks. The cutting-room did a descent job actually, and that says a lot. Missplaced sound effects ruin the tension, though.

Luke Perry does what he does best, just looking worried, and occasionally coughing up punchlines from hell.

I seriously rate this movie as the worst of 2007, and i've seen a few bad ones. Do not spend money on this one, it's not so bad it's a laugh, it's worse. Ratings above 1 star, should render a blacklist at IMDb, because it's a damn lie.


This movie was absolutely terrible. The only explanation I can think of for the good reviews it received from some here is that they were written by people in the cast. It was actually painful to watch this movie. Even my grandchildren (ages 6-13) could not bear to watch it. As far as I know, this movie never made it to theaters and for good reason. It's as if some people were sitting around having a beer and said, "Hey! Let's make a movie. Who wants to be in it?" It's that bad. Besides Luke Perry, who is only in a small part of the movie, I did not recognize a single other actor. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it is in this case. I liked Sandlot (I) and I generally like stupid and silly movies but this movie doesn't have a single redeeming quality. The people who wrote it don't have the slightest clue as to how children think, talk, or act and the movie is a disjointed mess of terribly corny lines and stupid jokes. I rarely write negative reviews but this is the worst movie I have seen since Man's Best Friend and it's definitely one of the ten worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you rent it, remember that I warned you. The fact that some people actually rated this movie as being good is a sad commentary on their taste and intelligence. I'm not exaggerating.


I find it amazing, that so many people (probably Poles) have voted for this movie, giving it such grades (mostly tens). OK, the movie was fine, funny, but it was nothing special on the other hand. The only good thing about Kiler is the dialogues, rather not comprehensive for non-Poles. Screenplay is primitive, the acting (except for Jerzy Stuhr as Ryba) - awful. It's too much ado about nothing - fortunately it's not included in the top 250. P.S. The sequel "Kilerow 2-och" ("2 Kilers") is on the way and it's just the same story.


I can see what this film was intending to do. Unfortunately it just never quite completes the deal. The "reality crime" aspect works fine and the shots are all first rate. In fact quite a few of the scenes are incredibly evocative in a moody sort of way. Notably the silhouette of the detective talking to the beat up woman, the scene of the detectives going through the garbage, and the father tying flies. On occasion s few scenes bog down in too much dialog. Instead of showing the viewer the writer treats it too much like a book. But the real problem lies in the editing. The story does not flow. It fails to make a whole out of the sum of the parts. In the end you are confused as to what is actually happening. Those who like this sort of detective movie like to follow along, piecing together the puzzle at the same time the lead characters do. With such poor editing it is difficult if not nearly impossible to do this.


This movie certainly is a weird one to say the least. The basic plot is 3 old business associates invite 2 strangers into their home for returning a lost wallet with 10 bucks in it. The two whom show up fall in love. The 3 older business men die and come back as ghosts to try to help the two younger guests out. Okay so that may make sense but then we have 3 old guys whom apparently have some bread living together..slightly weird here...Harry Carey plays his part way off base you can't tell if he is a nice guy or really a prick. I mean really, make up my mind I can handle it. Then there is Richard Carlson playing James Houston from Texas....hmmmmm, He sounds way more like a southern gentleman from Kentucky than a person from Texas. This one isn't even close.. Then we take the 3 ghosts whom would stand a better chance of helping the New Orleans Saints win a play off game than actually helping out...In fact they are really no help at all and why they are even in the film is beyond any scope of knowledge.. Silly film in which a cast of characters act totally out of character..You can avoid this one..


I bought this because it was $1.99 and Harry Carey was in it and a friend of mine was in it, and for $1.99, how bad could it be? Then I read some comments here on the film and began to get excited -- maybe this really was a lost gem, one of those terrific little B-movies everyone had forgotten about but which deserved to be resurrected. WRONG! I'm not sure how anyone else can give this thing the praise it got from some quarters here, but I found it one of the most tedious and blatantly bathos-filled movies I've ever seen. And I'm not talking about Richard Carlson's hokey Texas accent (straight from the Georgia part of Texas, I guess). It's just dumb. No one in the film behaves like a real human being. No one. And no one does anything believable or interesting. It's not even a cliché-fest. It's just 80-something minutes of frames going by. It even managed to make Harry Carey, Maria Ouspenskaya, and C. Aubrey Smith boring. Now THAT'S unbelievable.


First of all, let me say that I am in no way denying the importance of the subject - quite the opposite. I am Polish and I have been aware of the Katyn massacre for quite a long time (in fact, two of my family members died there), so I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, I was disappointed.

I think the main problem lies with the script, which encompasses too many subplots and characters, none of which are properly developed. The characters are painfully one-dimensional; their stories are intertwined, but lack overall meaning. In my opinion the cast doesn't really have a chance to show their ability. The exception is Andrzej Chyra, portraying Jerzy - the only interesting character. I wish the story was more focused on him.

As a result, the film lacks emotion. Before seeing it I thought I would be moved, if only for sentimental reasons - but in fact I was watching it with an odd sense of detachment throughout, except for the final execution scene. It is done well and its placing is interesting and provides a climactic ending, although the idea of the Lord's Prayer being recited in unison by the executed officers seems a bit far-fetched.

To conclude, I suppose the film may have some educational value for those who are not familiar with the portrayed historical events, but in my opinion it fails as a work of cinema.


Oh what a disappointment this movie is. I can't believe it was directed by Wajda. There's practically no plot and 90% of the movie consists of various people walking in and out of the screen, weakly trying to interact with each other while talking about the Katyn massacre. The most interesting part comes right at the end, but by that time I simply stopped caring while trying to suppress my yawns.

Almost the entire movie is filmed with a hand-held camera, which is supposed to convey the feeling of "personal immediacy" but there's nothing personal or immediate about most of the movie. Instead, the constant jerking of the camera made me seasick. To be fair, there are some great shots too (no pun intended), but nothing that makes you go "Wow!".

If you're not familiar with the Katyn massacre, the movie will leave you scratching your head. If you are familiar, you'll be scratching your head too, although maybe for different reasons. Basically, the movie states and restates over and over again that it was the Soviets who murdered thousands of Polish soldiers in 1940. This point is hammered repeatedly as though someone in the audience needed to be convinced of this basic historical fact. However, the movie never tries to explain as to WHY they were killed. After all, tens of thousands of Polish soldiers in the other Soviet POW camps were not harmed and were released in 1941. It is also never explained adequately HOW MANY people perished, although the figure 20,000 is thrown in a couple of times.

The acting is adequate with only Komorowska (old woman) and Chyra (Lt. Jerzy) giving noticeable performances, but they get to act for maybe 10-15 minutes in total. Certainly not enough to carry the whole movie. Many other actors seem to have been chosen more for their matinée looks rather than their acting abilities, but I won't mention their names. Suffice to say that they are definitely NOT the Oscar material, so any claims that this movie was "robbed" of the Academy Award are simply laughable.

The tone of movie is wrong as well. On one hand it tries to be an accurate historical drama, on the other it resorts to cheap anti-Soviet propaganda such as showing a Russian soldier tear up the Polish flag and using it to clean his boots. Then there are some puzzling scenes which have absolutely no bearing on the plot, such as a couple climbing on a roof or the liquidation of the Krakow University.

There are many missed opportunities to make this movie more interesting, such as adding a political angle to the story, or showing the German discovery of the graves, or even portraying Anna's trip from the Soviet occupied part to the German occupied Krakow. All of these aspects could have been the major part of the movie, but instead they're reduced to a couple of minutes. In the end, we get a collection of loosely fitting, confusing, boring scenes about the reaction of Poles to one of their greatest tragedies of WWII. Not very compelling and not worthy of Wajda at all.


I'm guessing that the movie was based on a hefty book. Given the number of characters and subplots during Katyn, I thought that the movie creators, perhaps the writer or director, intended to create an epic movie. But really there wasn't enough time to properly spend on developing characters or story. Aggravatingly, there were many unrelated side-stories that could have been edited out.

In relating the events leading up to the mass-murder of all these intellectuals and officers, I don't think the movie explained any reasons why murder was necessary. Was it political? Philosophical? Revenge? The interesting part of historical movies are seeing personal motivations or emotions. Instead, the murderers of Katyn seemed like automatons, controlled entirely by Stalin, who's appears occasionally framed as a charcoal sketch. The portrayal of the Russians and Germans seemed entirely one-dimensional. (Are Polish people just that angry at the Russians?) Besides being badly edited and biased or at least unrealistic, choices of music and cinematography felt mismatched to each other and to the movie itself. I don't think you can really shoot an epic war film or war event on hand-held camera. (But if the director went with a character-driven story, perhaps by focusing on a single family, maybe the handy-cam approach would have worked better.) And if you use really dramatic music, it needs to be better balanced to the type of shots made.


This movie is a shame especially considering Andrzej Wajda is not an amateur, but professional director. However this movie fails to deliver anything you could expect.

First of all -- I am Polish, so I can tell all the background story, because I read books. But how can you tell there is even a war from this movie -- bunch of people are going back and forth, some soldiers are shouting... This is really The Second World War or soldiers are on vacations?

Acting and dialogs -- poor, miserably poor. A.Żmijewski, D.Stenka, M.Komorowska, W.Kowalski, A.Chyra fit in their roles, the rest of (Polish) cast is out of the place (most notably M.Ostaszewska, one of the leading characters, what an unfortunate choice). 99% of the dialogs are not spoken, they are just put there, actors had difficulties to perform and it is no surprise considering what odd things they had to say.

And this leads us to the most disappointing issue -- you can't feel it. Everything is so theatrical, artificial. There is no real life, there is no feeling in it. There are a lot of original footage from the WWII and, guess what, the material is much more powerful, dramatic, than what A.Wajda did.

I can see only one positive -- despite historical mistakes (like acronym ZSRR; it was made for post-1945 propaganda purposes, to please Polish that ZSRS was gone, and now there was ZSRR, but in 1940 there was no ZSRR!), luckily it is undoubtedly shown killing in Katyn was done by Soviets (yes, it is a fact, not some controversial gossip). Great, two hours for 5-10 minutes scene.

Anyway -- time and potential wasted. This is tragedy of epic proportions, will to fight in 1939 (barely shown), not declaring war against Soviet Union by Polish authorities (sic! not shown here), imprisonment of soldiers shortly after, living in the outrageous conditions (not shown here), hope and fear what will come next (barely shown) , and then... extermination. Hand to hand with Germans -- Soviets were exterminating Polish nation, aimed at people who constituted the backbone of Poland. Unfortunately they succeed, and the results are still visible to this very day.


First let me say I'm not someone who usually cringe at the fact of having to think while seeing movies, I love Tarkowsky movies for example, Berghman is also a favorite.....but this? The positive points can be summed up easily: the photography is splendid, and the music is perfect....does it make a good movie? I used to think so, but this one is a perfect example of one that (for me) doesn't make it.... maybe it's because I'm too dumb? possible, but I don't think so.... Tarkwosky for example also used very long shots, but what he never did was filming 5 minutes of the exact same image of two people walking (and I mean just their heads, because in this movie there are a lot of those shots, but sometimes it IS effective), the general result is plainly boring, even with the intelligent undertones (which are done in a way that, while intelligent, is above all very pedantic)

you also always feel that the director is making some of the long shots not for the aesthetic, or symbolic effect, but just to spare on budget....

I'm very disappointed in this film, because I really liked the first 30 minutes or so, but it just went on and on, without even keeping the same level as in the first scenes....

While reading the very praising comments on this page, I also get the feeling some people just try to see much more in the movie than there is to it...when a movie is slow and arty, it doesn't necessarily mean it is very profound....yes it is an allegory on musical theory placed in the context of a small town, which is quite interesting on itself, but it does NOT make a profound movie....except for people who absolutely want to make some sort of intellectual masturbation out of it, but then it's not what you find in the movie, but what you find in yourself....an exercise that, in my opinion can be made much more effectively while watching "Stalker" or "Solyaris" than Werckmeister Harmonies, that owes much to Tarkowsky, but cab never equal it's level....


This self-important, confusing b+w "film" watches like an infant on a very bad acid trip. You're dealing with something that reminds you of a piece of rotting lettuce that accidentally fell out of the back of a garbage truck: no one cares to touch it because it will probably be washed away on its own down the storm drain. There's no room for plot when you've got "visceral imagery" and "subtle" allegory. To me, it seems like the director tries to make the next great art movie while begging for intellectual accolades. I didn't bring my beret either. Watching this, I felt almost insulted since the "film" does such an effective job of distancing itself from you.


What a drawn out painful experience.

That's over two hours of my life I will never get back.

This Film Festival Director's delight - is awash with overuse of the long slow shot....however - that's not the only thing that makes a script.

Avoid this movie at all costs.


I generally LIKE Sion Sono's work, but this movie was completely retarded. But sadly, not retarded enough to make it entertainingly retarded. I just sat, mouth agape, wondering when it would end. The plot makes only a whisper of sense. I think it was intended to be campy. I mean, haunted hair extensions - how could it not be? But the humor, such as it was, fell flat. Not funny. Not scary. Not gory. I would say perhaps Sono was a hired hand on this project, but he appears to have written this boring trash as well. I still need to fill a couple more lines, what else is there to say? I suppose I could finish by saying: Better luck next time, Sono-san.


The threesome of Bill Boyd, Robert Armstrong, and James Gleason play Coney Island carnys vying for the hand of Ginger Rogers, a working gal who sells salt water taffy. With the outbreak of World War I, the threesome enlist and pursue Ginger from afar. The first half of this RKO Pathe production is hard going, with the three male leads chewing up the scenery with overcooked one-liners and 'snappy' dialogue that quickly grows tiresome. The second half concentrates on action sequences as the US Navy pursues both a German merchant cruiser and a U-boat. These sequences are lively and well-filmed, but overall this is an overlong and unsatisfying comedy-drama with a flat ending. For fans of the stars only.


...at least during its first half. If it had started out with the three buddies in the navy and concentrated on the naval action scenes, it would have been a much better and tighter film. The second half of the film is worth it, especially for the action sequences and close up shots of early 20th century ships, but it's like a dull toothache getting there. Also, don't watch this film just because Ginger Rogers is in it. She has an important role, but it's a small one.

The film starts out showing three New York City buddies working the tourist trade and also in good-natured competition for the hand of Sally (Ginger Rogers), a singing candy salesgirl along the avenue. World War I breaks out, the three buddies seem completely indifferent to the struggle, yet enlist in the navy anyways. The one of the three with the least industry as a civilian (Bill Boyd as Baltimore) winds up the commanding officer to the other two (Robert Armstrong as Dutch and James Gleason as Skeets). To make matters more complex, Sally has fallen in love with one of the three, but doesn't have the chance to tell him before the three sail off to war.

The film is a little more interesting on board ship, mainly because of the close shots we have of the ship itself, and also because the chemistry among the three buddies is believable. However, James Gleason at age 49 looks a bit long in the tooth to be a swabby, especially when the sign at the enlistment office said you had to be between 17 and 35 to be eligible.

One real obvious flaw in the film that made me believe that everything outside the naval scenes was slapped together with minimum care is the costume design, or, I should say, the lack of it. In the scenes in New York just prior to WWI we have everyone dressed in the fashions of 1931 and everyone driving the cars of 1931 - no effort was taken to bring this film into period.

In conclusion, if you watch the few scenes with Ginger Rogers in them and the last 45 minutes involving the naval suicide mission, you've seen everything here worth seeing. The rest is padding.


The story isn't very strong. Don't expect a "Bourne identity" kind of movie. It started of strong, Tara speaking Russian and it even sounded credible. (Not that I'm the Russian language expert.) Moscow had that darkish depressing look what gave this movie potential, I still believed in it. To bad it only took about half an hour to see they really missed the spot with this one. Acting was poor, maybe because the story itself was not very strong. There is this part in the movie where Gordon Patrick (Nick Moran) is having a conversation on the phone with the C.I.A., like you're listening to a Chinese synchronizer. W.T.F!? Too bad, the writer didn't even take little effort to give the main characters depth. Also, bit of a cheap and easy ending.

Plus point is almost every scene where Tara Reid is in. Not that she's acting that well, in fact, she doesn't. But she really looks great in this movie. Overall, it was a bit of a disappointment. Rental material.maybe.


Over acted, heavy handed, full of speeches, preachy, on the nose, and over stylized in a way only MTV could be guilty of, Stop-Loss is agit-prop garbage. I expected a lot more with talented young actors such as Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ryan Philippe, but Screenwriter/Director Kimberly Peirce does a hatchet job of portraying the ill effects of war on American youth. I'm sure she did some work researching the Iraq war and the young men fighting in it, but you'd never guess it from watching Stop-Loss. In many ways this mess reminded me of Catherine Hardwicke's Lords of Dogtown, an equally inept, overly stylized, TV movie-like waste of solid subject matter.

http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/