Thanks to silly horror movies like "Troll" and the indescribably atrocious cult-favorite "Troll 2", it has become practically impossible to take movies with kobolds, gnomes and various other types of little green hobgoblins seriously these days. Only just recently I watched the 70's made-for-TV movie "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark", which is basically a quite terrifying and serious-toned film about domestic little goblin monsters, and yet I still couldn't help thinking back about the laugh-inducing potato headed critters dressed in garbage bags that were running amok in "Troll 2". Same thing happened to me now. As much as I tried going into "Inhabited" with a clear mindset, unconsciously I kept comparing the supposedly creepy and menacing garden fairies with the badly sculptured goblins of Nilbog! Still, even without all the prejudices, "Inhabited" is a remotely entertaining albeit unmemorable straight-to-video horror flick. It's a cheesy, soft and politically correct pastiche of family drama and Northern Europe mythology. The annoying and murderous little creatures in this movie aren't your plain average goblins; they are "The Huldre": wicked little Norwegian demons that live underground and attempt to chase happy families out of their houses through influencing the youngest children. This overcomes the Russell family as they move into their ramshackle dream house in a remote little town. The cherubic blond daughter of MILF-actress Megan Gallagher starts to behave strangely whenever she hangs out in the cute play house in the back of the garden. She claims her friends are fairies, and even though the sinister handyman also warns for strange occurrences in the past, Gina's parents simply think the girl has troubles adjusting to her new neighborhood. When she keeps rattling about fairies, they arrange an appointment with the acclaimed psychologist Dr. Werner whilst "The Huldre" are slowly coming out of their botanical shelter. Not much special to mention here. The pace is acceptable and the attempts to build up suspense are pretty cute. You understand this is a family-friendly horror movie, so no bloody murder sequences are graphically being shown here. Heck, even the cadaver of the family's pet cat is kept off-screen. This is the umpteenth nonsensical horror movie in which Malcolm McDowell pops up and he practically always depicts an unreliable, greedy and self-centered authority figure.


*Spoilers herein*

Where do I begin with just how silly this movie was? 'Mole sized people, living under the garden attacking residents of a big house'!!! When I first sat down to watch this movie I was unaware that the protagonists where not poltergeists etc but 10 inch high goblins that looked mighty easy to kick hard and far. I carried on watching it because I like to see movies through to the end even awful ones. this movie was terrible. My girlfriend, who went to sleep inside the first ten minutes, apart from finding it a good aid to sleep thought it was hilarious that I had bothered to watch it all.

Tiny goblins even in large numbers (the thought is silly I know) are about as scary and menacing as flat cola. They only managed to trip one guy up 'fatally' and kill a cat before they were blown up, The End. I did mention it sucked right?


I bought this film from e-bay as part of a lot of about twenty horror flicks, all about a dollar a piece. When watching this, my first impression was that it probably was from the late 80s. Later on I began thinking - the Linkin Park posters on the wall and everything else seemed to hint that I was dealing with a more recent film. Realizing that, the flick became an unbearable torment. The last 3 minutes were the longest in the movie history - the film just refused to end. Is there a genre such as "horror for children"? In that case this film is definitely it. If there are parents, perverse enough to want to introduce their offspring to horror, I suggest this would be perfect for kids of about 6-8. The only thing I really liked was Greg Cipes who was much too good an actor for that kind of nostalgic retro bottom part of a drive-in double-bill.


Greetings;

I never thought I would see the day when I would be so disgusted by A movie that it would be a burden to finish it... I was always a fan of horror movies, B'C and C's included. But in this case it's hard to describe how a movie could fail to qualify for any letters in that scale...

The movie is centered on a poorly developed back story, a mix of folklore with an after taste. And to top it up, the performance of the actors is questionable. Horror B movies usually fall in two categories... 1) A gem that was under looked, and under funded 2) So bad it's funny, laugh or your money back. Well this movie falls in between. I wasn't scare, didn't laugh... So I guess if you really need to see it you could but I recommend you don't...


A friend of mine, who is even more into 1970s cult films than myself, recommended this one to me and in fact gave me the copy of it that I watched. However, I was not as enthusiastic about the result as he  or, for that matter, Michael Elliott  was. The film is a hybrid of HOUSE OF WAX (1953) and THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974): indeed, I would venture to say that it served as the basis of the 2005 remake of the former much more than the 'original' did! So, we have a remote and derelict Wax Museum of incredibly lifelike dummies (guess why that is?) with its apparently harmless curator (a hammy Chuck Connors) being 'invaded' by the obligatory group of stranded teenagers (among them Tanya Roberts). He also has a mad brother  shades of PSYCHO (1960) incorporated for good measure, down to the self-same twist  who is supposed to be a mechanical genius (showcased in a 'poltergeist' which unaccountably accompanies the first murder). The film does benefit from a Pino Donaggio score but, being so derivative and not especially well made to boot, essentially ends up merely a redundant (and fairly muddled) genre effort.


This movie takes the plot behind the sci-fi flick "Doppelganger" (an astronaut from our Earth crashing on a 'counter-Earth' on the opposite side of the Sun, and the Cold War totalitarian vibes on that world) and tries to turn it into a pilot for a TV series. However, the whole thing sank without a trace, and TV is probably better off for it.

Everyone here is perfectly adequate in a 'made for TV' way. Cameron Mitchell turns in his usual solid performance. So does Glenn Corbett (who seems to be a kind of poor man's John Saxon) who plays the rugged individualist whose very existence poses a threat to the foundation of the 'World Order' on counter Earth.

But the low budget and low energy and inconsistent script and the lack of any real imagination in the set designs and cinematography keep this Sci-Fi adventure firmly tethered on the launch pad.

I'll give one example: in the original template for this pilot, ("Doppleganger"), the astronauts lose control of their landing vehicle in a thunderstorm, and crash their ship in a truly appalling sequence (it was obvious that their ship was never going to fly again). Then the two astronauts stagger helplessly from the smoking remains of their vehicle in the middle of howling rains and winds, only to be smacked down and overcome by faceless men yelling through loudspeakers.

In "Stranded in Space", the astronauts are sitting in their seats when buzzers sound, things start shaking, and the camera blurs into a blackout (and as a friend pointed out, it was pretty obvious that the actors were simply shaking themselves on their seats, the director wasn't even shaking the camera or the set). I've seen episodes of "The Twilight Zone" and "The Outer Limits" that took more effort to establish mood and setting than this made-for-TV mediocrity.

And that, in essence, is what's wrong with "Stranded In Space". No budget, no time, no imagination...just making the token gestures and hoping the sci-fi Fan Boys' imagination and enthusiasm will fill in the rest. Sorry, guys, it didn't work.

I'm sure that everyone here just finished their work on this one and walked away, and never thought of it again, except as a listing on their C.V. And that's what you, the viewer will do. You'll remember, if pressed, that you once watched a TV movie called "Stranded In Space", but it made no lasting impression on you, and you can't recall too much about it.


A malfunction in space sends astronaut Neil Stryker (Glenn Corbett) off course and headed to something of a parallel world, called Terra, circling the sun exactly opposite Earth. As a being from space would pose a threat to this world's order, Stryker is held until a determination can be made as to exactly what to do with him. Stryker, however, gets suspicious of his surroundings and escapes. With the help of a sympathetic nurse and a old scientist who opposes the government, Stryker will try to board a spaceship and head back to Earth.

Stranded in Space (or The Stranger if you prefer) is another of those 70s made-for-TV movies that was to be turned into a regular, weekly show. In this case, it's easy to see why it didn't make it. First off, there's nothing new about the show's set-up. It was undoubtedly designed to follow the same formula used by The Fugitive or The Incredible Hulk or Planet of the Apes. You know, a stranger constantly on the move going from one town to the next taking whatever odd job he can all the while being pursued by a government agency or newspaper reporter. It's a formula that's been done to death. The second strike against Stranded in Space is its lead, Glenn Corbett. Could this guy come across any less likable? I was rooting for him to get caught. Without sympathy for the main character, this kind of show would never work. Finally, this is supposed to be science fiction. Just because everyone is left-handed and someone has hung three fake looking moons on the horizon I'm supposed to jump to the conclusion that this is some distant planet? So it's a mere coincidence that they all speak English, dress just like people on Earth, and drive Plymouth Furies? Yeah, right.

The lone highlight for me was the inclusion of Cameron Mitchell in the cast. Sure, it's difficult to watch him in something this dreadful, but you know the old saying - any Cameron is better than no Cameron (yeah, I've never heard it either).

As with a lot of these 70s made-for-TV movies, I watched Stranded in Space courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I wouldn't call it a great episode by any stretch of the imagination, but there are a few good jokes along the way. So in the end, while I rate the movie a 2/10, it gets a 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.


Stranded in Space (1972) MST3K version - a very not good TV movie pilot, for a never to be made series, in which an astronaut finds himself trapped on Earth's evil twin. Having a planet of identical size and mass orbiting in the same plane as the earth, but on the opposite side of the sun, is a well worn SF chestnut - the idea is over 2,000 years old, having been invented by the Ancient Greeks. In this version the Counter World is run as an Orwellian 'perfect' society. Where, for totally inexplicable reasons, everyone speaks English and drives late model American cars. After escaping from his prisonlike hospital, the disruptive Earthian is chased around Not Southern California by TV and bad movie stalwart Cameron Mitchell who, like his minions, wears double breasted suits and black polo neck jumpers - a stylishly evil combination which I fully intend to adopt if ever I become a totalitarian overlord. Our hero escapes several times before ending up gazing at the alien world's three moons and wondering aloud if he will ever get home - thus setting up one of those Man Alone in a Hostile World Making a new Friend Each Week but Moving on at the End of Every Episode shows so beloved of the industry in the 70s and 80s ('The Fugitive', 'The Incredible Hulk', 'The Littlest Hobo' etc.) The curiously weirdest bit though was the title sequence. Somewhere between 'Stranded in Space' first airing (under the title 'The Stranger') in 1972 and the MST3K version in 1991 it somehow acquired some footage from the 1983 movie 'Prisoners of the Lost Universe'. So in 1991 the opening credits for 'Stranded in Space' run under a few shots of three people falling into a matter transmitter and vanishing. It's a sequence that has nothing to do - even thematically - with anything that is going to follow.

Just to add to the nerdy B movie confusion, one of the actors in this nailed on footage, Kay Lenz, later appeared in a 1994 movie called 'Trapped in Space'. Knowing this fact could never save your life but it might score you very big points and admiring looks from fellow trash movie enthusiasts - if you could ever work out a way of manoeuvring the conversation round to the point where you could casually slip it in without looking like a total idiot...


The storyline of "The Stranger" mirrors somewhat the 1969 film "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (made by Gerry & Sylvia Anderson of 'Thunderbirds' and 'Space: 1999' fame). A parallel-universe Earth is the premise of both films. But there is a difference. Where the world in "The Stranger" features a totalitarian regime out to squash the freedom of the citizenry, "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" merely showed a true mirror world where handwriting, roads, houses, machinery of every kind, and of course internal organs were all in reverse (or mirrored) order. So, the similarity of parallel Earths is the only connection of both films.

Similarly, the TV series "Land of the Giants" came before both of those films, having run from 1968 to 1970. It featured a world that was nearly parallel to the Earth with the exception that the planet was populated by giants 12 times the size of the humans who crash-landed there. The idea of a totalitarian government out to capture and contain the 'little people' was similar to the premise of "The Stranger" more-so than the premise of "JTTFSOTS". Perhaps because of the similarly to "LOTG", a series to "The Stranger" was shelved. Had it turned into a TV series it would have been a sci-fi version of "The Fugitive," with star Glenn Corbett being chased by the baddies from week to week, hiding out in different locations, etc. BTW, a stronger script could have helped this film along.


I'll start by confessing that I tend to really enjoy action movies (military or other). I'm a guy. But this dreck was awful. I saw it for free, showtime or hbo and still feel I paid too much. It was a prolonged episode of general hospital.

I gave it a 1, only because 0 or 0.1 was not possible. How or why 59 others would give it a rating of between 5 and 6 boggles my mind. Unless they are all family of the cast or crew.

It might be, this movie was so bad many bailed out.......and as such, were too uninvested to bother.

I'm sorry for repeating but the 10 line minimum seems silly, for what essentially boils down to a warning.........in hopes of saving others the 2 hr black hole, this movie represents. Trust me, stare at a blank wall, they'll be more action.


It is so bad, I can not tear myself away. I keep asking myself, "Why?" "Why?" with every scene.

There is no continuity, but then again if you want to make a very overtly homosexual movie with a fetishistic attitude towards all things Big, Big boats, Big Boys, Big planes, then you don't have to worry about things like plot or character. I am baffled, and very concerned that the CAG looks so much like Richard Pryor. It seems wrong to put a Pryor look alike in such a terrible movie. But I can't tear myself away. This movie is the first movie I've ever reviewed. That is how phenomenally bad and bizarre it is. It motivated me to join this site. I have counted 50 main characters. Perhaps if I was stoned I could follow this, but as it is, I feel like I'm in some kind of never ending bad dream, where it is always 1988, and we were the greatest cocktry on earth.


Not only have I read the book and watched the movie, but I was stationed on the USS John F Kennedy when they filmed this. Needless to say, Film crews and actors can be trying to people trying to do their jobs. Now, about the movie. As a career Navy man, I was pretty upset on how they showed life on board an Aircraft Carrier. I could pick apart the inaccuracies throughout the movie (anyone that has lived on a carrier could), but that would take pages. One scene that stands out in particular was when they were in the CIC (Combat Information Center) and they were watching a RADAR contact move across the screen. Each time the contact moved, it beeped. Unfortunately, that equipment doesn't beep like that (I was a technician on that equipment). The book was based upon fact, the movie wasn't. The follow on TV series was just as bad and the Navy finally realized that support for this series would just make them look bad. If you're a Navy person, watch this to see how a movie about carrier life is seen from the eyes of Hollywood. If your not a Navy person, watch Midway or Top Gun, at least those movies are entertaining and based upon fact.


The horror of this made for TV film was that it didn't end with this one. It spawned a regular weekly series that was even worse than the pilot/movie. Most films about various professions have some type of realism to them and of course are jazzed up to make it exciting. This had none of that. If the intent was to make in "Camp" then it succeeded. It resurfaced on cable a couple of years ago and failed again. Richard Jaeckels performance as the Master Chief who does it all was the only redeeming part of this film. Campier than the Batman series of the 60's.


I hoped for this show to be somewhat realistic. It stroke me as just another mainstream show after I watched it. I didn't feel the characters at all, is this Americas glamorized idea of how terrorism operates? The main character doesn't act like a fundamentalist at all, and how he passes for a terrorist is beyond my comprehension. Neither of the other terrorists managed to appear genuine. One of the members, a blonde all-American white boy, would never be accepted by Muslim terrorists in real life. Another member, a french ex-skinhead, doesn't quite fit in an Islamic terror movement. On top of this the terrorists have sexual relations to white American housewives, which I find very strange. This is just another stupid misguiding American TV show. It is about just as realistic as Prison Break.


Very dull show. Whats worse, its very racist. The white guys are dumb idiots and the only romance is between a black guy and a white woman. There is nothing interesting about this romance, it is not exciting, it is not fun, they don't even seem to care for each other at all, its more like the writers and directors wanted an interracial thing going on. Why this is so popular in media today? It is social programming and will lead to no good, there is always tension when too many people want the same thing. This show is not worth the 20 bucks for the season, its a waste of time and harmful to society. At least when they use TV shows to sell products they are more discreet, selling whatever agenda here is quite obvious, and without clear thinking some may feel wrong to oppose it, but some of us know better.


Yeah, there's a "sleeper" watching Sleeper Cell and it was me. After reading comparisons to "24" (like on the cover of the DVD), I expected a fast-paced action romp. But nope... this series just putts along. In my groggy half-awake state I would think, "He's gonna... " and, poof, it would happen... "Guess that van is gonna roll off the... " and there she goes.

And so on.

And why would Darwyn, in extra-deep cover, pursue a babe? Could it be, perhaps, to provide a little T&A? Hey, that works for me, hence four stars rather than three.

This show is no "24". I've watched "24". Sleeper Cell, you're no "24".


I thought sleeper cell was interesting, and exciting to watch, up until the last episode, when nothing happens, its F****** BS, you Americans portray Muslims as terrorists, and the Americans as hero's, its the other way around, i hate it when every American TV show ends up predictable, i was hoping the bombs would go off in that stadium, but i knew it would'nt, it takes the joy out of watching it when you know that the good guys are going to save the day, yet again, Americans are the biggest terrorists, g bush the leader of them all, he is to blame for 9/11, and I'm P***** off that you keep throwing these shows at us, which are all the f****** same! i've a good show about terrorism, its called " The Whitehorse" and bush himself the cell leader, its the same with 24, how ever 24 was good, sleeper cell is a mock and should never make a season 2, its F***** joke! and so are you American producers.


I've been looking forward to watching "Wirey Spindell" since having happened across Schaffer's "Fall". Unfortunately, I found "WS" to be a wandering, unengaging, boring bunch of claptrap pieced together with, what apparently is Schaeffer's signature, a mix of story, narration, and poetry. The film recounts the sexual and other experiences of a Manhattan man about to be married through self-narrated flashbacks. Like beads on a string, Schaffer apparently has strung together every little sexual life experience, while neglecting to tend to the beauty of the necklace. The result is a disjointed rambling story about a boy growing up which fails to engender empathy and leaves the viewer disconnected, unsatisfied, and with a bad after taste which taints the mechanical feel-good ending. A mediocre indie and a step backward for Schaeffer.


Seeing as how I am a big fan of both "Fall" and "If Lucy Fell", I came to "Wirey Spindell" with high expectations. I am not sure I could have been more disappointed. This had it all, weak dialogue, weak performances... you name it I was let down. Oh well, better luck next time Eric.


This is supposed to be the story of the life of a man named Wirey Spindell from age 8 through to 36 told in narrative by the character at each age point in his life. So for example, when he's eight, it's the eight year old's voice that is doing the narration; when he's in junior high, it's that one doing the narration, etc. That's about the only interesting thing about this movie. It looks like each actor playing Wirey is a separate character. Not only do they not look alike, their life experiences don't seem to match up.

Avoid this movie like a bad cold.


I usually can tolerate twisted movies, but this one is really a sick obsessive self-absorbed movie!

Firstly, the writer/director is totally a self-absorbed guy full of sick jokes that are not funny at all. Secondly, he is also a sick pervert who manipulates and poisons children's mind! I can't believe my ears when I heard the sick and perverted monologues spoken by the kids!

I really feel sorry for Zane Adlum and Devon Matthews. They are both very talented, but fell prey to Eric Schaeffer's dirty little-known movie!

And what the hell happened to Eric Mabius' good looking face? I mean, he met this girl that he's supposed to marry, but he wasn't in the wedding! In fact there is this bald guy in his place! Did time really fly that fast?

Anyway, don't waste your time to see this movie, unless you want to be poisoned and manipulated by one sick Eric Schaeffer!


Alright, so not every Australian movie is all that good. Yes, maybe there have actually been very few with much merit. Take Away however is an absolute bomb, qualifying as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I wanted to like it. I figured I'd give it a fair go. I've even met one of the screen writers Dave O'neil so I feel kind of a traitor giving this movie a bad review, but... The plot is fairly thin (I won't bother relating it... read the synopsis), which I can forgive: there are plenty of movies that can cover that up with a few decent jokes. Unfortunately, Take Away's jokes cover its plot up like a $2 prostitute's skirt. Probably the only laughs that came from the 6 other people in the cinema was at the poor acting and dialogue. Take Away goes down like a week old Dim sim ... You might understand that joke if you see the film but the joke's not worth it.


Someone told me that Pink Flamingos was, in a word, "insane". Now I'm doubting whether this guy actually ever saw it, because that isn't the way I would summarize it in one word. Disgusting, absurd, um, more disgusting...would do it. Every time you think it can't get any more filthy, it does. One of my particular "favorites" was when Divine had her birthday party and when the cops came to bust it up, they were butchered and eaten by the guests. I admit that it's one of those movies where it's so grotesque you simply can't look away, but this is by no means a creative work of art. It's pure shock value.

On the upside, it makes the Jackass guys look like a bunch of pussies.


if i could rate it a zero i would , coming from someone who likes shock/exploitation films of the time and Waters overall i must say this is useless.

It does nothing , serves nothing , an idiot with a camera and a urge to prove his cleverness by rebeling against social standards is all this comes off as.

Its entirely amateur , both in principle and execution , it doesn't have a point , its digusting for the sake of disgusting ,obscene with the wit of a neanderthal , its useless.

Someone said Waters was probably "chuckling" over all the bad press and disgust others gave with this film , but why? If i made a short film depicting a man in a bathroom taking a sh*t for ten minutes straight surely it would receive the same accomidations but why would i be proud or "chuckle" at that?

Would it be because i am so unintelligent that i have to resort to this so i can say "HA! Take that censors and mainstream! Im so rebellious ill do whatever i want and film it!" No.

Waters shouldn't be proud of this mess , fans of waters shouldn't watch it , its useless , that is , without any use.

Its doesn't even fit under the criteria of art for arts sake.

To like or defend this movie is to defend something that was designed purposely as being anti-culture to be pushed for the mainstream audience , in modern terms this film is the Hot Topic of films.

Useless and Obsolete. A Poser film that demands it be acknowledged as rebellion .


I have seen most of John Waters' films. With the exception of several of his very early ones which are not available, I have actually seen just about all of them, so it's obvious I am a big fan and it's certain that I have a high tolerance for the gross and irreverent in his films. While way over the top and disgusting, I adored FEMALE TROUBLE and POLYESTER--two monumental tributes to bad taste and excess that are seriously funny films. So I am certainly NOT squeamish and can take most of what Waters has to offer. However, in PINK FLAMINGOS he has created a film so repellent, so unfunny and so offensive that I couldn't even stand it. In his other films he made before he became more mainstream, they were funny. Yet here, the humor just isn't there as it seems the intent is to shock the viewers and not entertain them in any way. I am glad that after making this film, Waters' sense of humor improved, as Divine consuming dog feces (as in this film) is shocking but not the least bit entertaining. My advice is to skip this film and just pretend it never happened and then watch his infinitely better films of the 70s and 80s.


I guess I was prepared after all the years of hearing about it. First heard about it from Siskel and Ebert. When they said Divine ate excrement, I had to look it up. Then a friend told me about it in 1991. She said also that her parents saw it when it first came out and that her mom almost dumped her dad over it! So by the time I caught Pink Flamingos on Sundance today, I was prepared. For the most part.

I still couldn't help but be surprised by the anal close-ups and the blowjob scene. That said, the only characters I sympathized with were Edie and the egg man. Her crying scene early in the film, though over something frivolous to normal people, actually makes me sad. Though she sure wasn't pretty, she had a cute voice. I was happy for her and the egg man, and they actually touched me.

On the other hand, the acting in this poverty-level production was not good. And as for the script, just how does John Waters come up with this stuff? Well, at least it's different.


The only reason I haven't given this film an awful rating is because I feel that it was such an awful film in every aspect that it deserves at the very least a 2/10; for not trying.

The plot is the least of your worries as you are slapped in the face with over the top language and scenes like 'the singing arse-hole' in a poor attempt to shock and disgust. Seen as the main aim of this film is to shock and the main body of it didn't achieve this, the final scene disgustingly manages to erase the memory of this shockingly pointless film and fulfil its aim to be the most filthy film ever.

A really low budget film, awfully acted and the dialogue is shockingly bad.

I give it 0/10 really !!!


After seeing Forever Hollywood, it would be natural to want to see a John Waters film. At least, one get to say that they have joined the legions of cinema cognoscenti who have experienced the unique cinematic stylings of perhaps the best known non-mainstream director. It's worth the effort, and PF is a lot better than Eraserhead,and there is a certain campiness about his films which his followers find addicting.


This movie was playing on Lifetime Movie Network last month and I decided to check it out. I watched for the first 20 minutes and then shut it off b/c I am sorry but plot holes that are integral to a movie's plot make the movie nothing but garbage.

The movie is about a woman who accidentally runs a child on a bicycle off the road, leaves to get help, returns only to find out that it's being called a hit and run and there's a hunt for the 'monster' that hurt (in the end killed) her.

This is a movie about a female in an affluent neighborhood who has 2 small grade school children and who is an active, sociable woman and yet in order for this movie to work, it needs to be believable that she does not own a CELL PHONE. Sorry, but that's complete BS especially when everyone else seems to have one - they used theirs to call 911 when they found the girl lying on the side of the road - when our lead female left the scene of the crime to go phone 911 at some payphone. When the lead female comes back, the ambulance is already at the girl's side and there is chatter about how horrible the person is who hit and left her.

Just DUMB. Sorry but I am not willing buy that this woman doesn't own a cell phone which is needed for the movie to work. Please don't insult my intelligence movie, thanks. Maybe if this took place in 1970 or 1960, I'd buy it but it's clearly a present day (1999 at the time) movie. ..but wait, if she had a cell phone, there would be no movie. Pfft.

The woman clearly knows about technology since she had computers in her house, ones the kids played games on so all the movie had to do was make her cell phone dead in the car, making her resort to another way to call the cops.. leaving out a cell phone altogether just created a ridiculous plot.


Thomas Vinterbergs "De Største Helte" is yet another road movie without the most important element of a film: a good story. The characters are not very original and not particularly interesting. Especially Thomas Bo Larsen is a pain in the neck, playing the same role he has played in the past few years and which he repeated in "Festen" - it seems as if he thinks acting = being angry and screaming at other people! The film doesn't make much too sense and isn't very funny either - although it tries hard to be "kooky" and "weird". If you're going to make a road movie, why not add something original to the genre?!


The DEA agent's name, Anslinger, is a nice inside joke - this is the name of the former drug czar who almost single-handedly made marijuana illegal.

Despite this bit of book knowledge, the writers go on to have the farmers harvesting and selling fresh undried leaf, rather than cured buds.

Additionally, I always find it amusing that movie makers never seem to be able to find real marijuana plants for filming. You would think there would be a business that would make real looking fake ones for the movie business or maybe they could film a couple of scenes in Amsterdam or Switzerland. I suppose that's asking too much for the budget.

Probably the most interesting thing about the film is the attempt to cover the notion of exactly what is right and what is wrong in society and how the law treads that line and yet tries to do justice in spite of it.


(Spoilers) "Cash Crop" goes something like this. Down-on-their-luck farmers grow pot to make ends meet. DEA agent blows into town. Farmers hide the pot. DEA agent leaves town. End of story.

This flick features solid performances by some second tier actors, mediocre direction, and a so-so screenplay...but it ain't got no story. And since the story is the foundation of every drama, "Cash Crop" is an utter failure. Too boring to recommend.


I caught this on Cinemax very late at night...nothing else was on so I pretty much had no choice. Bottom line, terrible plot, slow, waste of good film and actors' time. To make it short, don't even bother with this one. It's too bad we can't give zeros as a rating; this one really is not worth even a consideration!!!


This is the dreary tale of the self absorbed affair between two unlikable people, one of whom is married to someone else. It ranks high on my list of most boring movies ever, and I'm a die hard romantic. My husband opted out after the first hour of its three, by which time little had transpired. The desert scenery is spectacular, with the endless sand and the sunshine on Katharine's golden hair. However, cinematography does not a brilliant film make, unless it's a National Geographic travelogue. The magnificent Saharan scenery in this ill conceived tale is like putting perfume on a pig.

The movie revolves around a badly burned, dying pilot named Count Laszlo de Almasy, who is left in the care of a Canadian army nurse, Hana, during World War II Italy. He appears to remember little of his life but through a book in his possession, his story is VERY SLOWLY revealed, with the help of a man from his past named Caravaggio, who mysteriously appears at his deathbed. Almasy was a Hungarian cartographer employed by the Royal Geographical Society to chart the Sahara Desert. He entered into an affair with the wife, Katherine, of a fellow explorer who proved to be a British spy. Meanwhile in the present, Laszlo's nurse has her own affair with a Sikh nicknamed Kip, who is involved in the dangerous work of disarming mines.

My quarrels with this movie are many, length and tedium for starters. I don't fault the acting in particular, it simply isn't a good story. Caravaggio seems unnecessary, his connection to Almasy sketchy. He provides a torture scene but appears to serve no essential purpose in the film.

The core problem is that the two parties of this affair, Almasy and Katharine, are woefully unsympathetic characters, shallow and dull. They simply aren't very nice, thus there is no one to cheer for. Almasy is cool, aloof, haughty, and eventually disgustingly possessive of another man's wife. Katharine is likewise detached and nasty, not to mention having a deplorable lack of guilt or feeling whatsoever for her imperfect but loving husband...apart from managing one minuscule tear at the corner of her eye when he dies.

This is a tale of LUST rather than love, with such pearls as 'I can still taste you'. Almasy ridiculously vocalizes to a colleague his erotic obsession with the indentation in his beloved's neck, surely more indicative of a focus on Katharine's body. The victim of this unrepentant adultery is the hapless husband, Geoffrey, who is treated as little more than an unpleasant nuisance. It's all quite sordid and disgusting, Katharine's charade of feeling faint so that these lovers can indulge in their much vaunted unbridled passion, all as Silent Night is being sung in the background. I'm not sure whether the intent was to contrast the carol's purity with their selfish lust, but I definitely was not impressed by the sacrilegious undertone. We have full frontal nudity with Katharine, but their sex scenes come across as cold, selfish, lustful, and sometimes downright hateful...not warm, loving, giving, nor even truly passionate. If either of these two feels any emotion for the other, it is a totally selfish one and definitely NOT love, as I define the word.

Almasy's return to the Cave of the Swimmers to retrieve the body of his beloved comes across as contrived rather than moving. Katharine must have expired only moments earlier as she shows excellent colour and barely appears dozing, not at all corpse like. Of course this is all for dramatic effect, as the romantics watching this tale (normally I'd be one of them) would not appreciate a decaying, putrid corpse. In order to retrieve his adulterous lover's body, he has betrayed his comrades & the Allies by giving his maps to the Nazis, the English being cast as the villains of the piece. Regardless of whether or not he's keeping his final promise to Katharine, his traitorous act is not something I admire much.

Kip seems a pleasant fellow and Hana generally likable, but their romance is not in the least engaging, merely a brief wartime fling with the parties indicating little trauma upon parting. Moving back and forth between the two settings (past Sahara Desert and present Italy) proved distracting and unpleasant but really, both stories were dull as dishwater. The only spark of interest in the whole picture was Kip's tense mine disarming scene.

Not being totally heartless, I did have some sympathy for the current Almasy's severely burned and dying state. However, perhaps my major complaint with this film is the euthanasia at the end when Hana obliges her patient by giving him a morphine overdose. We are supposed to feel that this is justified and morally acceptable because she obviously has affection for Almasy, cries while she is preparing the deadly syringe, and reads aloud from his allegedly passionate Herodotus book to console him as he's dying.

The amazing director David Lean's masterpieces should not be insulted by comparison with this pathetic, immoral tale. Yes, Lawrence of Arabia also has a desert, but in Lean films (Doctor Zhivago, Brief Encounter), those engaging in affairs are sympathetic characters exhibiting admirable restraint, guilt, and some regard for the betrayed spouse, as opposed to the total self absorption of this pair. In Ryan's Daughter, the cuckold husband displays touching loyalty and forgiveness.

This movie is a supposedly intellectual, enormously over rated bit of boring and disgusting drivel that unfortunately passes itself off as a great love story. Its Best Picture Oscar does not speak well for the Academy. For those who wonder why people are so hard on this movie, the answer is simple. It's awful.


I am not surprised to find user comments for this film full of gushy nonsense, such as that this film "[proves] that when it is predestined, love will find a way." I begin in this way, not to criticize a specific reviewer, but because this citation so typifies the hyperbolic, uncritical treacle that was poured out over this film, even before it hit the theaters. Even the best of films do not "prove" anything, nor are they intended to. The best films entertain and move the viewer, and "The English Patient" fails on both criteria.

I remember the studio's promotion of "The English Patient" very clearly: "From the producers of 'Amadeus' and 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,'" it grandly announced. An ignorant or careless listener might miss the crucial word, "producers," in this disingenuous statement and mistakenly associate the director of "The English Patient," so very inappropriately, with the truly great director, Milos Forman. Such a comparison is offensive to the memory of Mr. Forman.

While the novel by Michael Ondaatje upon which the film was based, is a good one, it is unfortunate that the film failed to capture any quality of the book in any way whatsoever. Aside from plot elements that seem only coincidentally similar, the film bears little resemblance to the novel.

Despite misgivings which began when I heard that shamelessly misleading promotion, I went to see this film in the theater. As it began to unfold, I realized that the rendering of the novel's peculiar magic had failed, that the actors knew their words but not their characters, and that their characters were flat, dull, and unengaging. The film was a complete travesty of Ondaatje's novel and a completely still-born cinematic artifact of the worst description.

Those who gush over this film are very apt to speak with adjectives like, "sweeping," and "grand," and "hypnotic." Well, it is none of those. In fact, not even Ondaatje's fine novel could be described as "sweeping" or "grand." It could be described as "magical" and "hypnotic" -- yet these are precisely the qualities that the film so utterly failed to deliver. It is almost as if Minghella had, as a reader, entirely missed what was valuable in the novel and could grind out on celluloid only a pale, skeletal version, a version that not only missed the spirit of the story, but that focused on the wrong characters. He produced a filmic transliteration that not only had no respect for story's metaphors but no apparent cognizance of them, as well.

Minghella took the central focus away from Hana and Kip and put it on the Patient and Katherine Clifton, thereby missing the narrative trail of the novel as well as the "essence" of it.

Ralph Fiennes and Kristen Scott Thomas put in unengaging, uninspiring, uninvolving, unemotional performances that were obviously intended to convey a great, driving, passionate love-affair to the viewer, but which in fact delivered only an inexplicable, perfunctory liaison between two flat, shallow, uninteresting adulterers. Both actors are physically and emotionally inadequate and unexciting, and neither performance provided the viewer with the great emotional response obviously intended by Minghella's grandiose and overblown presentation.

The "grand, sweeping, David-Lean-like" qualities to which the many undiscriminating reviewers of this goofy film love to refer simply is not there. The comparison to David Lean ("Dr. Zhivago") is positively insulting to yet another great director. Take, for example, the "Patient's" sandstorm scene, which is no doubt one wherein these "grand, sweeping" qualities are believed to have resided (or should have resided): the sandstorm is not grand -- it is not even convincing. The subsequent burying of the characters in the automobile and their emergence after the storm, which no doubt was supposed to affect the viewer dramatically and emotionally, completely lacked either drama or emotion --in fact, because it was so patently weak, it had an air of comedy about it where comedy was clearly out of place.

This film failed. It failed as a rendering of the novel, and it failed as a film. It seems to have been the "anointed Oscar vehicle" of the year (joining such over-trumpeted filmic slosh as "Kramer vs. Kramer" or "Terms of Endearment"). One can only thank God that even the hype-driven Acadamy

had the good sense to present the Best Actress award to Frances McDormand for her truly deserving performance in the truly excellent film, "Fargo." There was not a single performance in the execrable "English Patient" that was not either embarrassingly horrid over-acting (Willem Dafoe) or truly forgettable, mediocre acting (Fiennes and Scott Thomas).

Why this non-entity of a film retains a coven of fanatical (and clearly tasteless) devotees will remain a mystery. Fortunately, the sands of time will bury this mediocrity of a film permanently, and it will not, thankfully, have the strength ever to dig itself out.


OK, what was this story about again? I am afraid that I never read the book and frankly, this was one of the most confusing movies that I have ever tried to watch in a long time. I get a bit confused on the number of flashbacks between the nurse, the patient and the man with no thumbs. The film didn't even really explain what they were looking for in the desert until they found it; or even how in the world they all knew each other to come together.

After recently seeing the "Pride and Prejudice" movie with Colin Firth, I have been trying to do a study on his film career by watching other movies of his, and bluntly, other than "What a Girl Wants" I am not finding much where he played in that was any good. I am definitely not saying that HE wasn't good. He is really one of the best actors I have seen in the modern day film, but the content and quality of the films he plays in have a lot to be desired.

"The English Patient" is another perfect example of where the director, writer, and crew are just too close to their subject matter to see that the viewer is not getting the picture  literally. The entire movie seemed to be to showcase Ralph Fiennes as a dramatic actor with long periods of emoting that was a bore. Nothing is really explained and every one of the subjects from the beginning seems to need a psychoanalyst evaluation!

Kristin Scott Thomas' character seems to enjoy describing erotic stories standing in front of a totally male audience and titillating other men other than her husband; Colin Firth, who plays her husband, does not necessarily have all his marbles in place and is supposed to be a secret agent  I guess; and Ralph Fiennes walks around like a Roman Mr. Darcy (sorry, Colin!) who thinks he knows it all. The rest of the cast is cast (pun intended) to the four winds as the plot wanders on.

The subplot of the mental stability of the nurse (Juliette Binoche) and her motives and involvement with Naveen Andrews is another confusing element that leaves the viewer with an unsavory taste. But of course, the viewer is still reeling how in the world the first two characters (Thomas and Fiennes) ended up having sex the first time anyway. What was the attraction? There was no chemistry and no build-up. Just a slap, bam, thank you!

And isn't it romantic that Fiennes ended up a traitor helping the Germans by giving them maps to the desert? (sarcasm)

To describe this movie, I would have to simply say, "How to impress your gynecologist with your mammograms and cheat on your sweet, adorable husband who loves you."

The final unbelievable section of this plot is to fathom how anyone would choose Ralph Fiennes over Colin Firth. Firth had very little opportunity to demonstrate any of his acting talents  in fact, when watching the movie, I thought it must have been one of his first. The scene where he had been waiting for his wife all night was perhaps the only two second clip that is worth seeing in the movie. At that, I have no interest in watching it again.

The best scene I liked was the plane crash where Firth is trying to take them all out. Too bad he missed! It would have saved an extra twenty minutes of even more fruitless film. Aerial desert scenes were pretty neat, though.


It is beyond me why two million Danish people each week sit down to watch this terrible show. The dialogue is terrible and not realistic. The characters are hollow and simplistic. There's a tough man, a tough woman and a sensitive man. The writers actually say that they have modeled the characters after Greek mythology! Give me a break! All the characters are of course brilliant policemen. When I have watched this show I have longed for "District Hill Street" and "NYPD Blue". These are brilliant shows, and "Rejseholdet" is a lousy copy. This program is a symptom of the disease Danish television is currently suffering from.


Wings Hauser and son, Cole Hauser team up to make a film about Neo-nazi thugs targeting a gay man, and terrorising a city. Wings plays the hero, and his real-life son is the villain. Fairly low-budget film that has not many redeeming features, and for some reason, no one has seen it! Perhaps because it is quite a laughable and ridiculous film, and the studio realised this! Maybe Wings Hauser himself prevented the distribution of 'Skins', after seeing it himself! Maybe people just didn't want to comment on such a bad film! Oh well! I generally like Wings and Cole as actors, but this was a film that they both should have skipped. Wings directed, wrote and was the lead actor in 'Skins'! An extremely bad and stupid film! 1/2 out of *****!


I watched this film awhile ago and the only thing i can remember about the film is how absolutely horribly outstandingly bad it was its definitely in my top 5 worst films i have ever seen.And to think i had to persuade my mates to get this film out at the video shop,my reputation has been shot to bits because of this film will my mates ever trust me again?i doubt it,they always say don't judge something by its cover,they were right when i saw the cover to skins/gang boys i thought wow this looks great as it had a load of skin heads on the front cover running riot with metal bars.Don't WATCH THIS FILM.i can't think of anything else to say the acting is bad the story is bad its just bad.


I am a big fan of The ABC Movies of the Week genre. I am only 27, meaning I wasn't even born until after the series ended, but I am trying to collect as many of them on DVD as possible. I have about a dozen or so. I had read such wonderful things about this film, both on here and elsewhere, that I was really excited to see it. I just received my DVD in the mail today and watched it anxiously. I'll admit that the first one or two phone calls did give me the creeps - that boy's voice would give anyone the creeps! But it began to ware off fast and the entire divorce subplot was stupid. I also figured out that Michael Douglas was the antagonist about a half an hour before the movie ended. As soon as that story was told about how Elizabeth Ashley's character had locked up his mother, I knew something was fishy. Plus, didn't anyone ever think to ask him why he happened to suddenly appear that night when the fire occurred in the barn? I'll admit that I thought he was coaching a boy at the school to make the phone calls. I didn't guess the mute boy part or the pre-recorded tapes (did they ever say whose voice that actually was? I doubt Douglas could ever get his voice that high?).

I am only giving this movie a four out of ten because I actually liked most of the acting in it. Ashley especially is great.

It's a shame, because this movie has such a great premise, but oh well, thats what happens sometimes when one gets his or her hopes up for a movie too much.


After starting watching the re-runs of old Columbo movies, I thought they would all get about the same vote from me (6). But apparently I'm now starting to see differences in the movies. It happened in some of just previous episodes, that showed some pretty genius directing, and it shows in this one, but in the negative way.

The movie was so boring, that I sometimes found myself occupied peaking in the paper instead of watching (never happened during a Columbo movie before!), and sometimes it was so embarrassing that I had to look away. The directing seems too pretentious. The scenes with the "oh-so-mature" neighbour-girl are a misplace. And generally the lines and plot is weaker than the average episode. Then scene where they debated whether or not to sack the trumpeter (who falsely was accused for the murder) is pure horror, really stupid.

Some applause should be given to the "prelude" however. In this episode, a lot of focus is given on how the murderer tries to secure his alibi and hide the evidence etc. I really liked that. But alas, no focus on how Columbo reveals all this. And the "proof" that in the end leaves Columbo victorious is the silliest ever.

Rating: lies between 4 and 5


After a snowstorm, the roads are blocked and the highway patrolman Jason (Adam Beach) comes to the diner of his friend Fritz (Jurgen Prochnow) and advises his clients that they will only be able to follow their trips on the next day. Among the weird strangers, Jason meets his former sweetheart Nancy (Rose McGowan), who has just left her husband in Los Angeles. Along the night, without any communication with his base, Jason faces distressful and suspicious situations with the clients, and finds some corpses, indicating that among them there is a killer.

"The Last Stop" could be an average thriller, but the screenplay is simply awful. Most of the characters are despicable persons and the motives of the surprising serial killer are never disclosed, and the viewers have no further explanation why the killer decided to kill the guests. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Encurralados" ("Trapped")


I saw this movie while surfing through infomercials and late-night 80's sitcoms on tv one night at 2 in the morning. I must say, I didn't expect much, and I didn't get much. Although Rose McGowan is hot, her performance and the performance of the rest of the cast was not Oscar-worthy, to say the least. This movie has its ups and downs, and does have a nice couple of twists at the end, but in all honesty it was awful. Not even a typical slasher movie. No gore, no sex, no nudity, no real violence. Just bad acting. I'd give it a 3 out of 10.


Put the film down and back slowly away. The acting rivals a highschool play, the plot is treadworn, and the production values are slightly higher than community theater. The goofs are so plentiful that it becomes a laugher. Rooms are switched around, the dead move, dogs are used for wolves, men shot point blank with .45 caliber pistols are able to walk and ride snowmobiles, blouses button and unbutton without human touch... this is a baaaaaaaaaddddddd movie. I nearly passed out when I saw the average rating. There is no accounting for taste. BTW, there is no nudity.


this attempt at a "thriller" would have no substance at all! Some may state that this movie "has it all?" Autism, arson, robbery, lost love, a bag of money, cut throats, murder, blood, a snub nosed revolver, clenched teeth groaning, boobs (various definitions can be used), large flashlights, tribal people, a brother duo attempting to out-portray "dumb and dumber," white wolves, fight scenes that resemble "happy slapping," snow mobile(s), a large tracked vehicle, and a motel under renovation? All this, with an "Enyanesque" melody toward the end ...

Perhaps my rating is a bit harsh, but one viewing will certainly be enough for the sane cinemaphile with nothing else to do.

Yeowza!


Bette Midler is the best thing about this movie. It is a POOR second to the original from 1962 with Natalie Wood as Gypsy. The songs were done much better in the original and the costumes were better. Bette's voice was great and she looked better in most of the costumes compared to Cynthia Gibb. Only someone who has not seen the original would think this a good movie.

There was not enough of a change between ugly duckling to beautiful girl. When Natalie Wood was Gypsy she only was seen as beautiful when she got into the dress with her gloves for the first time to perform in the burlesque show. When she has her hair down and then magically it is all done up beautifully and she looks so elegant, it is an important aspect to the movie because it is also the first time Gypsy sees herself as something special and that she might actually be a star, not just a poor substitute to her sister. And the scenes where she slowly becomes more famous were rushed through. It was an important part of the movie and they butchered it. It is critical to show her becoming more comfortable with her future as a stripper and the costumes are amazing in these scenes in the original. It was a huge let down to watch it unfold in this movie. I was completely disappointed and had it not been for Bette Midler I would have shut the movie off.


Such a highly-anticipated remake of a cherished musical classic and such a bitter pill it was to have to take. Very, very hard to swallow...all of it. It didn't have an ounce of believability anywhere. And when you don't have a Rose, you don't have a show.

Bette Midler seemed born to play this part. Yet, all she was able to produce was a cute, funny, glitzy, trademark Bette Midler...weighed down with all the familiar Midlerisms. Roz Russell has nothing to worry about. She can rest in her grave knowing she is still the definitive Mama Rose (of film, anyway).

I thought Midler was really going to put it across this time...to throw herself into what is one of the greatest musical roles of all time...like she did in "The Rose." But, no, she played it safe. She played herself. She made Rose a total dinner-theatre cartoon. Even her songs were uninspired. It was maddening to watch, knowing Midler has the talent to rise above her money-making schtick. She showed promise only once in this "Gypsy" and that was with "Rose's Turn." But, by then it was too little, too late.

A sincere Cynthia Gibb as the titular heroine gave the film its only true spark and when the role of Gypsy outshines that of Rose, you know there's trouble in River City.

A huge, huge letdown.


The film was disappointing. I saw it on Broadway with Bernadette Peters and she was outstanding. Maybe as she, herself graps on to the end of her musical career, her condtion of desperatation lands her in role that she flaunts, re-invents and triumps as her own. Bette's singing is always belted, always flat and lacking to show her ability as an actress. To be entertaining, this performance was dying for a stronger lead and a stronger cast, so that the others would be memorable in Bette's absence. Another criticism: she smiles directly into the camera every time she start singing! I know it is musical theater, but please leave some grace sociale-- Middler cannot perform like Liza or Streisand might in a retrospective tour - out of character and out of context.


Let me start by saying how much I love the TV series. The nature of class war was always going to be a subject worthy of poking fun at, but this TV series exploits it better than most. The chemistry between Yootha Joyce and Brian Murphy was always electrifying and the writers wrote almost entirely flawless episodes every time. In my opinion, it is the best British sitcom of the mid to late-1970s, surpassing the likes of RISING DAMP, ROBIN'S NEST, ARE YOU BEING SERVED? and so on. With the ON THE BUSES series having finished a few years earlier, GEORGE AND MILDRED became the next pride and joy of ITV (or ITV 1 as it's now known), enjoying a four-year run on the channel.

The movie however is absolutely terrible in almost every respect. The general essence of the TV series has almost entirely been stripped by the writers of this abysmal movie (who anyone will immediately notice are not the same ones who worked on the series). As one commenter has already pointed out, Mildred lacks the sharpness she had on the TV series and does not come across as anywhere near as overbearing.

The plot, instead of focusing on the class war with the Fourmiles that was the very foundation of the TV series, actually writes out the Fourmiles almost entirely after the first half-hour. The plot, if you can call it that, consists of George and Mildred going on holiday to some hotel and getting mixed up with gangsters. First rate talent in the form of Stratford Johns, Kenneth Cope, David Barry and Sue Bond are all wasted here. Most of these are well past their heyday and all of them look very embarrassed as if they very well know that the only thing worth hanging around for is a paycheck (which probably won't be much).

The jokes and gags in the movie (if you can call them that) rely heavily upon traditional British farce, including mistaken identities, embarrassing situations, poorly-timed slapstick, characters losing control of what is happening to them and general confusion. And it all fails miserably. As another commenter has pointed out, it seems as though the writers of this movie have never seen an episode of the TV series and instead crafted out a something resembling a CARRY ON romp. The scene where George is stripped down by Sue Bond's character is particularly out of context.

A mystery surrounding this movie is the BBFC certification provided - 15. Just why is it rated 15 when all there is to see is harmless, non-vulgar entertainment?

Not surprisingly the era of sitcom spin-of came to an end not long after this movie was released (shortly after the sad death of Yootha Joyce). And the company behind this movie, Hammer, well known for producing first rate horror movies back in the 1950s to mid 1970s, soon disappeared into total obscurity.

All in all, the movie is a near total washout. My advice - skip this and stick to the TV series. You won't be missing anything, I assure you.


George & Mildred - The Movie lacks the talents of its TV writer John Mortimer who brings the close quarter cut and thrust of George's class war with the Fourmiles alive.

The plot is cut from standard spin-off cloth - hit-man/mistaken identity - and has as little tension as there are laughs. The producers should have taken a leaf from Rising Damp, (also 1980)which was also bought to the big screen after the TV series demise, and kept much of the story in familiar setting.

Yootha Joyce died in 1980 but she should not be remembered for this creaking piece of work encumbered as she was by her illness. Mildred lacks the sharpness of her TV incarnation; cutting asides and withering looks largely directed at Georges lack of libido. George's sputtering incredulity also gets lost in the more expansive sets. This is not to say that they were much to shout about. The budget for this movies looks pathetically small; a restaurant they go to is clearly a new semi-starched house with some Christmas lights adorning the front door.

For fans of 70's British comedy or those who just want to revisit an old TV companion from their youth this film can add nothing to the experience and they should just stick to the first four TV series out now on DVD.


George and Mildred is a truly unfunny film. This attempt to translate the successful TV series to the big screen was a dismal failure, as is so often the case.

The wit and clever one-liners from the TV shows have gone missing. The plot is a typical English farce of confused characters and mistaken identities, which is neither funny enough nor weird enough to provoke many decent laughs.

Die-hard George and Mildred fans might want to see this final episode of the pair's output (Mildred died of hepatitis before the film was released), but others should invest their time more wisely.


G&M started a the odd couple downstairs in Man About the House and went on to amusing the nation in their own sitcom.

What was the typical small-scale personal charm of the couples chemistry on the small screen, G&M's transferral to the big screen was as appalling as genuis's Morcombe and Wise, and countless fine TV shows.

Unfunny. Unsatisfying and featuring an ill Yootha Joyce who died before the film was released.


GEORGE AND MILDRED was a spin off from the mid 1970s sit-com MAN ABOUT THE HOUSE . Though I haven't seen the series since it was last broadcast I do remember it being fairly amusing with most of the comedy arising from the eponymous couple going to live beside the snobbish Fourmile family , a sort of LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR without the cynical racist gags .

Having seen this " big screen version of the show " I find myself asking what it's a big screen version of ? Certainly not of a popular mid 70s sit com of the same name . For some reason the movie jettisons all character interaction from the television by having George and Mildred leaving the street where they live behind and getting caught up in a plot involving some serious gangsters who want something George has inadvertently picked up and which leads to some cringe making situations and lines like:

" Did he give it to you "

" No that's the first time a man has resisted my charms "

" I meant the envelope "

You do get the impression that screenwriter Dick Sharples ( Who never wrote an episode for the original sit-com ) has never seen an episode of the source material and has got the show confused with the CARRY ON series of films . In many ways it resembles the same mistakes of the latter LOST IN SPACE movie in that it has absolutely nothing in common with the series that spawned it


This adaption contains two parts:

1. The "now" time, when Gulliver is at home in England and soon is put into a mental asylum by the Evil Dr. Bates

2. The "described" time, in which Gulliver describes his travels.

The times are interspersed with a very choppy tempo, which makes willing suspense of disbelief far more difficult than it would have been if the movie simply would have discarded that part, and followed the book as written. In the book, there is no Dr. Bates, no asylum, and Mrs Gulliver gets very little mention. The travels - in plural - are depicted as one in the movie. There are several movies covering the topic of sane people dumped into asylum by some nasty person out there, look at them if you want that stuff. The "now" time part adds absolutely nothing to the story's value, is a complete invention by the movie adapters, and takes valuable time from the real story. All the time when this was going on I was longing for the next bit of real travel to be shown.

So much for the drawbacks. The parts which actually are part of the real story are well done, and the CGI is really well done for its time. Many small (and a few medium-sized) parts of the real travels are simply cut out, but that does not make the story halt. This is AFAIK the only version which depicts all four travels, and for that the movie should get special mention.

The two interspersed parts get approximately equal time. I rate the first part 0 out of 10, and the actual travel coverage as 8/10. Averaging out, I give it a 4/10. If only they would have cut the rubbish and focused 99% on the actual travels, since that cut would have freed up a lot of time much better spent on filling in the details cut from the travels.

Why some adapter think that he is gifted enough to improve upon Swift's work, I do not know. My best guess is that CGI was so costly back in 1996 so that the movie company felt a need to incorporate a lot of filler which did not need elaborate sets, GCI, etc. in order to keep total costs under some limit, while at the same time producing a mini-series which clocked in at some set number of minutes.


Cultural Vandalism Is the new Hallmark production of Gulliver's Travels an act of cultural vandalism? Not literally. After all, not a single copy of the book is burned. But if this is the only Gulliver people are exposed toand to many it will bethose people will not get anything like what Jonathan Swift intended. Were Jonathan Swift alive, Hallmark could be sued for moral rights violations and they'd lose. That's a good way to think before starting a project using someone else's ideas.

Swift's masterpiece is an extraordinary vision of humanity. Through his hero, Gulliver, he travels to places that make him feel big, small, shat on and human. The little people in Lilleput are small in every way. Petty and stupid, they fight, the big-enders and little- enders, interminable wars of annihilation over which end of their soft-boiled eggs are opened at the breakfast table. Sounds a bit like us.

I forget most of the rest: it's been years since I read it. The TV show reminded me of a few things and, on the bright side, it made me want to read it again.

This gift to mankind has been shat on, like Gulligan under the boughs beneath the vulgar yahoos, and Danson, Steenbergen and especially two great actors, Peter O'Toole and Edward Fox, ought to be thoroughly ashamed. Some "Creative Person" got the bright idea to put the focus on "the star:" Gulliver, played by Ted Danson, whose acting is just plain bad. He portrays Gulliver as insane. All his travels were made up. Weeeeel. Yeeeaaah! Of course Swift made up Gulliver! Naturally, the lands he visited were imaginary: that's called fiction. His purpose was to talk about humankind and our, often awful, relations with each other. The travels of his imaginary character to imaginary lands is his method. But these people treat imagination as a disease and anyone who has a moment that Hallmark couldn't turn into one of its anodyne cards is suspect.

I can sure see why Hallmark would produce this crap. It's so bad that O'Toole, always profound, seems as little as his Lilliputian character. He's in character, of course, while commenting on the character simultaneously, as many, if not all great actors do. Informing the character sheds light on it. Our light completes the character. It becomes three dimensional through this act of psychic triangulation. Most actors do this very subtly, like Hopkins in "The Remains of the Day." Others, like Nicholson, in most things in the last twenty years, play the two parts pretty broadly apart. Nicholson actually plays on the relationship of his two points and with us too: with him it's all cat's cradle and he, chuckling away, holds all the strings. Great fun, as is O'Toole. But something here is lacking. He is shouting into a megaphone (as great as ever) and all one senses is a hollow shell standing under him.

That's because it is. Look up "anodyne" and there ought to be the word "Hallmark" as a synonym. Harmless, bland, inoffensive: Hallmark is the doll who can't pee because she has no genitals: it is the norm, the average, the person of no distinction. Hallmark's hallmark is to have no hallmark. I never suspected that such people despise those who have imagination quite so much. Suddenly, Pound's "Disney against the meta-physicals" stands out in bold type. Or Einstein's "Men of genius always will be violently opposed by mediocre minds." Indeed, anyone, to this mediocre type, who has an answer to any question other than "a)" or "b)" is suspect. Who more distinctive then that a man who journeys to the darker places of the human soul and shines his little flashlight to illuminate what can be found there? Hence the act of vandalism. The Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan, the Palestinians the oldest synagogue in the world at Jericho, the barbarians the great statuary of the Classical age and these things are obviously vandalism. Hallmark endeavors to protect us from foreign foes by undermining our own culture; the one that feeds and sustains them. And us.

Please buy a copy of Gulliver's Travels wherever you live, and read it. Or order it online. I like to use ABE Books.


By strange coincidence I've started to watch this move straight after Brice de Nice and the good thing was that not many movies could be worst than Brice de Nice, so I was really looking forward for something better which would make me forget this horrible flop.

Unfortunately OSS-117 again left me disappointed - I don't know, maybe it's just problem with translations, but since "Diner de Cons" I haven't seen ANY French comedy that I would call really good. Even when I look at the reviews on IMDb only people from France are giving the OSS-117 high notes...

For me this movie didn't really work - in some parts is as funny as real Bond movies, in others jokes were a little bit too predictable or too corny.


The plot: Four people are caught in an elevator. One is a business man, the annoying kind who is aggressive and complains about everything and everyone and is a walking-talking sample of distilled stress and hostility. Then there's his colleague, a woman who is much more pleasant in her character. A teenage rebel who just broke into a coke machine and by his mere presence drives the businessman mad, and an older guy who just stole 100,000DM make up the rest of the cast...

The movie is all about how they cope with their problem, as time goes on and on without any success in reaching the outside world, as the lights go out, and as the cables begin to snap one after the other....

And yet, it isn't too exciting. The characters are stereotypes. The story is stupid and unlikely (how could so many things go so wrong in just one elevator?). You don't like the characters very much, you just hate one of them. And all the twists and turns in the plot are not contributing to the excitement, they are just stupid excuses for filling yet another few minutes with dialogue as the screenwriters keep running out of inspiration and ink on a full-length movie set in an elevator.

Let's just hope "Phone Booth" will be a better effort...


Edge Vs. Michaels-Boring in general (loved the sweet chin music into the chair) 4/10 Taker Vs. Heidenreich-One of the worst matches I've seen, predictable as hell 1/10 Tripe Threat WWE match-Why do I watch them, nobody ever wins a championship at the rumble, its not the main event. Liked it when Show drove JBL through the wall. 3/10 World Heavyweight Championship-Pretty OK match, kind of more a beat-down by Tripe H than a match, but I was happy to see it after watching crap. 5/10 Royal Rumble-Good Rumble,Liked the brand showdown,the Hassan thing, and the end. 7/10 Overall still crap. Why does anyone watch the rumble???


OK, so it's a silly movie, but I think they knew that when they made it. And there are some neat little twists on the otherwise tired, overdone "Godzilla"-type genre. Borrowed a tape just because I knew someone in it, but I did loan it out to a couple pals, who also kinda liked it.


Aliens let lose a giant monster named Zarkorr, then send down a hologram that looks your average stupid teenage girl to tell postman, Tommy Ward (Rhys Pugh, in the only movie you ever see him in) that has been chosen to fight. Also if he loses the plant goes doom, so he goes off to fight Zarkorr the Invader! This movie is bad, very bad. So bad it you need negative numbers just to gave it a rattan. Horridly written, bad directing, way below Power Rangers over-the-top wooden acting that you're just whiting for a horde of Lumberjacks to come out of no where and cut them down! And don't get me started on the theme song at the end. The people who made this stemming pall of S$@# should not be aloud near a camera or any thing to do with films. Zarkorr is a cool looking monster that should have been in a movie a million times better than this one. Do your self a favour and don't see this movie, it's 80 or so minute of life. The actors that are in this never worked again by way.

3/10


Zarkorr is one bad movie. This doesn't even rate in the so bad its good category. It's just bad. From the (lack of) set design to the acting to the special effects, everything about this movie stinks. For starters, the film looks like it was filmed in just empty rooms with a couple of props thrown in to make it look good. Then we get acting that is so bad that it makes a high school play look like it was an Oscar candidate. And to top it all off, there's the special effects that are so bad that they look like an amateur pulled them off in their garage. The towns that the monster is supposedly crushing look like my nephew's train set. So obviously fake that they scream out at the viewer. The only good thing about the movie is the monster suit. Its just too bad that they spent all their budget on that and left nothing for the rest of the film. And maybe a decent script would have helped too.


This is an utterly forgettable picture. A friend of mine picked it up in a bargain bin at a local rental place for $.50. He should have demanded a refund. Or at least a discount.

The plot is something like this: A giant monster threatens the earth and aliens decide that the most average human being on the planet must be chosen to save the earth. Thus a tiny holographic space alien appears before a postal worker and tells him that he's "it."

The devil is in the details when it's time to rate a movie, and on that count Zarkorr! The Invader fails miserably. The monster Zarkorr only has a few brief moments on the screen, totaling maybe 5 minutes tops (with a generous estimate). The cute alien hologram has even less screen time and might be the most interesting character to look at, and only because she's wearing a "teeny bopper" stereotype outfit, complete with a teasingly short pleated skirt. The climactic final battle with the monster is over before you can say "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over." In the next moment you are left to ponder whether you've just experienced a train wreck or if someone just drained 3 pints of blood out of you.

Admittedly though, this movie did deliver one line that my friends and I to this day still repeat and laugh at and was about the only bright spot in this otherwise abysmal picture. As the cast of "protagonists" is being "interrogated" by the fuzz, one of them responds to the questions with the statement "What are you, some kind of a question asker?" It is delivered in such a preposterous manner that if you're sitting with a group of friends (who won't be your friends long if you actually talked your friend into watching this) you may actually experience a howl or two of incredulous laughter.

While this is no Manos or Eegah (It's not even bad enough to be classically bad) this movie will still bore you with its awful dialog, unimaginative characters, and nonexistent special effects and still deserves to inhabit the bottom 100.

1.5/10


This movie stinks. IMDb needs negative numbers in its rating system to properly evaluate this turkey. The acting is either wooden or over the top; the film was apparently NOT written by anyone in particular; and the monster scenes were mediocre at best. Even as a movie driven solely by the monster scenes, those shots were so disappointing that they could not inspire any sympathy for the rest of the movie. I want the 80 minutes of my life back that this movie stole.


First, let me make it clear that I'm a big fan of bad sci-fi, especially when it involves gigantic, city-stomping monsters. But this one is so fantastically lame that I can't even like it for being bad. They apparently didn't shave enough money off the budget by skimping on the props (the only prop we have to indicate the size of the alien girl is an oversized novelty pencil, available at Spencer's Gifts for about fifteen bucks), they also decided not to outlay for concept or plot. The monster DOES look okay, in my opinion, but it doesn't have enough interaction with the backgrounds, i.e. not enough destruction to suit most fans of the genre. The general rule of giant monster movies is: If you don't have a lot of fake-looking buildings to smash, then you'd better have another fake-looking monster to wrestle with. This movie has neither. I can't make my final complaint about the movie without giving away the ending, but suffice to say the origin of the monster, and the method found to get rid of it, just don't hold water. Not even as well as most of these movies. Skip it.


Explores the frontiers of extreme boredom. Life in a small Canadian town in winter as an experiment in extreme sensory deprivation. Absolutely nothing happens as viewed through the eyes of a blank, deadpan, totally uninteresting protagonist. Viewers of this film should be prepared to hallucinate in the style of "Altered States".

In a groundbreaking study, David Snowden found that he could predict Alzheimer's thirty years in advance by comparing the autobiographical essays of nuns as they entered the convent. Those who eventually suffered the disease wrote in simple direct prose. The essays were quiet and contemplative with little optimism or episodes of joy.

Now, why did I mention that? Perhaps , my mind begins to slowly unravel watching this interminable, autobiographical, contemplative film which shows, in simple direct style, the bleak and stoic life of a small community, living next to giant slag heaps of asbestos.

This film became popular at the height of the Quebec separatist movement because of its presentation of this community as permanently wounded victims. Tragically, its writer-director was soon diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in the early 1980s and apparently committed suicide.


I had to watch this one for my Canadian cinema course and I was told that it was considered to be the "best Canadian film." When I watched this I really did not agree, considering I've seen a lot better ones. I understand that there were Canadian themes and messages, but the fact that the characters and the plot were so disconnected with me (as a spectator) it made me not really care what the film was trying to tell me. The plot was too dry. The characters did not have many positive personality traits, but this is to emphasize the messages, not to tick off spectators. This film shows a little about the history of Quebec. Not a very interesting film; it definitely does not deserve to be put on such a high pedestal.


I only rented this stinker because of its relatively high ratings. It totally sucked! I cannot imagine how anyone would think this a good movie - even an OK movie. None of the characters had ANY redeeming qualities of any kind. To varying degrees they were each selfish and mean-spirited - or abused and damaged personalities who hadn't a clue about the spirit of Christmas (when this takes place!) I know Canadians and like them - but I cannot think that even THEY would think this a good movie. I'd rather a sharp stick in the eye than watch this offensive movie again. A colossal waste of time and money. Do not believe the person who wrote the opinion that it was "worth watching." This person probably would enjoy having a dentist drill their teeth without anesthesia, too. Don't mean to be unkind but for the life of me I cannot imagine what this person was thinking. Unless they had ulterior motives. Maybe s/he was the director or the producer. If so, I'd like to ask them to give me back my money. If your money is important to you - save it instead of renting this piece of drek - or rent something (anything!) else. I'm running out of good reasons NOT TO rent this film. If I were Canadian I'd be ASHAMED that it's supposed to be a favorite Canadian flick. If so, I would say that those who think so are definitely in need of great quantities of powerful drugs. YECK!


1940's cartoon, banned nowadays probably because of the 'Black Beauty' gag, in which Daffy rides a black person as if it were a horse.

The whole story takes place in a bookstore, where the characters of the books come to life every evening. So we have, among others, the Ugly Duck (Daffy) and the wolf of Wallstreet. They wind up in a chase after the wolf tricked Daffy with a phony duck (hence the title).

And chase is all there is in this little cartoon, that doesn't have any real appeal nowadays. Only fun if you're a true fan of the Looney Tunes I guess...

4/10.


Well, the episode I just watched had the older "Gastineau Girl" whining about why people keep mentioning her husband (Mr Gastineau, a famous American Football player apparently). She seems unwilling to accept that he's the only reason she isn't flipping burgers, she married someone famous and that's why she has cameras pointed at her.

When challenged by an interviewer to explain what she actually does, she gave a wonderfully circular reason for why people should pay attention to her: "I work really hard on my reality TV show". Then she said "I'm not a celebrity... I'm a personality."

I'm not quite sure who this series is meant to appeal to, except people who've had all their intelligence removed. It's certainly no role model to anyone except gold-diggers as the two stars do nothing but spend money, and all it tells you about rich people is that they have no money problems.


For a while it seemed like this show was on 24/7. Then apparently there was a second season or some other kind of continuation of this horrible show about the two most vapid and conceited people who have ever been filmed. All the other comments have captured the essence of these two selfish, haggish, airheads perfectly. Not much less can be said about them besides what everyone else has said.

I doubt these two ladies have souls, and more than likely they made some kind of Faustian Bargain in order to get their lizardly snouts on a television series. May the fates protect the human race from any more exposure to the Ghastly Girls!


I remembered this awful movie I bought at Camelot music store in the summer of 1989 when I was visiting my Grandparents. It was a time when I had just discovered movies like Re-Animator, From Beyond, The Return of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. I was ready for all the horror/gore genre had to offer.... or so I thought! I was only about 12 years old at the time so I really don't remember it all that well. I remember a psycho running around with a corkscrew killing people, and a couple of cops (I think) who were riding in a car that wasn't actually moving, but being rocked side to side to look like it was... true cinemagic. I also remember it being the worst film I had ever seen up to that point and I promptly threw it in the garbage.

Something tonight made me think of that movie (I can't believe I actually remembered the name), so I jumped on imdb to see if it was listed. To my surprise... IT WAS! And a full other 5 people have seen it.... Amazing. Even though I remember hating the film at the time I sort of wish I had kept it hidden away somewhere because I'd love to check it out again for a laugh (it would probably make a good drinking game movie). Anyway, I'm glad I'm part of the elite few that's seen this little "treasure". I would love to pick it up somewhere for a couple of bucks.... but beware, this is not a recommendation... it is awful... it's just for nostalgia.


I bought this movie at a garage sale when I was like 15. I hated it then, and watching it again, just for the hell of it, it's even worse now. You can hear the director and cameraman in the background yelling commands like "Zoom, zoom, zoom!!!". The are no special effects, just a raw piece of meat that is supposed to be a brain. This is utter crap, and i originally thought it was a one of a kind home movie or something that I bought. But this was distributed elsewhere and it's just really weird to know that other people have seen it. Whoops I need 10 lines....well....this can be an interesting thing to watch to see how no-budget movies were made before the invention of digital cameras. This sucks. Actually, yeah do watch this just to see if you can sit through the worst. If you can make it through this you can make it through anything.


I've already commented on this film (under the name TheLegendaryWD). But I see there are others who have commented since. All I can say is: WHAT THE F**K!?". I cannot believe that a whole 16 people have commented on this film or even seen this movie. Add to that the fact that a couple give it great reviews (probably the makers of the film who went to one of those places in a strip mall that provide internet service and wrote a good review - seeing as how there is no way they could or would pay for their own internet provider... just look at their movie). Although I still admit I got a soft spot for this movie. I thought that some of the other people writing about this one might have it confused with another... until I read the reviews... especially the person who identified the tag line on the front of the box: "The Ultimate in Frontal Lobotomy" (what the f**k is that supposed to mean anyway? "frontal" lobotomy?)... I totally forgot about that until I read it in the review. People, we are a select few... I say we meet once a year to view this film... wait, does anyone still have it? If anyone does have it please contact me... I'm dyin' to get drunk.


The worst film ever made, bar none. Give yourself a pat on the back if you can possibly sit through every excruciatingly painful minute of it. Except for the bit where the hard-luck loser turned deranged psychopath from forced medical experimentation pours his pea soup on the doctor's head and laughs like any good raving lunatic should...that's all.


Hard to believe that director Barbet Schroeder once did the majestic and very funny Maitresse (1976), and now only seems to do "by the numbers" Hollywood thrillers.

This is very lightweight John Grisham material, crossed with the plot of a TV movie. Bullock is Cass Mayweather, a feisty and independent crime investigator specialising in serial killers. Ben Chaplin is her reserved police partner Sam Kennedy, and together they make an uncomfortable duo. Not good, when two unbalanced college maladriots (Gosling and Pitt) decide to send them on a wild goose chase - by planting very clever and misleading forensic evidence at a crime scene.

Fair enough, but while Bullock and Chaplin fail to create any sparks, we also have to endure a several dull overly-melodramatic flashbacks illustrating an important event in Cass's history. Then of course there are the frequent shots of a cliff-side log cabin where there's absolutely no doubt the OTT ending will be set. Oooh... the atmosphere.

Watch any episode of CSI instead. It's to the point and far more exciting.


Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.

***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.


There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.


Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.

The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.

"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .

Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....


From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!


So, I'm wondering while watching this film, did the producers of this movie get to save money on Sandra Bullock's wardrobe by dragging out her "before" clothes from Miss Congeniality? Did Ms. Bullock also get to sleepwalk through the role by channeling the "before" Gracie Hart? As many reviewers have noted before, the film is very formulaic. Add to that the deja vu viewer experiences with the character of Cassie Maywether as a somewhat darker Gracie Hart with more back story and it rapidly become a snooze fest.

The two bad boy serial killers have been done before (and better) in other films. As has the "good guy partner trying to protect his partner despite the evidence" character been seen before. In fact none of the characters in the film ever get beyond two dimensions or try to be anything but trite stereotypes.

One last peeve - using the term serial killer is false advertising. Murdering one person - even if it's a premeditated murder - does not make you a serial killer. You may have the potential to become a serial killer but you are not a serial killer or even a spree killer.


At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.


well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.