MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is one of those rare films that established its place in film history immediately. Praise for the film was absolutely nonexistent, even from the people involved in making it. This film was loathed from day one. While every now and then one will come across some maverick who will praise the film on philosophical grounds (aggressive feminism or the courage to tackle the issue of transgenderism), the film has not developed a cult following like some notorious flops do. It's not hailed as a misunderstood masterpiece like SCARFACE, or trotted out to be ridiculed as a camp classic like SHOWGIRLS.

Undoubtedly the reason is that the film, though outrageously awful, is not lovable, or even likable. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is just plain mean. As a Hollywood satire it is cold-blooded and mean-spirited, but in a hollow pointless way. MYRA takes for granted that Hollywood is a corrupt town, but goes further to attack such beloved icons as Laurel and Hardy, Shirley Temple, Judy Garland and Gary Cooper. The film seems to imply that everything about Hollywood is by its very nature vile. It seems to think that there is something inherently courageous about mocking sacred cows, but doesn't supply a rationale for doing the mocking in the first place. The film is also viscously anti-American and anti-establishment and anti-this and anti-that, but all in a superficial, late-1960's, trendy way. Like CASINO ROYALE; SKI-DOO; I LOVE YOU, ALICE B. TOKLAS and other would-be hip epics, MYRA is a middle-aged vision of the hippy-dippy youth culture. It tries to embrace the very attitude that it belittles. But instead of being cheerfully self-mocking, MYRA makes no attempt to conceal its contempt for everything that comes within its grasp. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has the humor of a bully; there's not a single moment of innocence in it. Its intentions aren't honorable. TIME magazine aptly described it as being "about as funny as a child molester," but it's not nearly as sympathetic.

For instance, poor Mae West bore the brunt of so much of the criticism aimed at the film, being described as looking like everything from an aging drag queen to a reanimated walking corpse. The octogenarian star obviously didn't know just how ridiculous she looked playing a lecherous talent agent lusting after men young enough to be her grandsons or even her great-grandsons. But, director Michael Sarne had to know, but he used her anyway. Why? Because, she apparently was the joke. Just like John Huston, John Carradine, Grady Sutton, Andy Devine and other veteran performers in the film, they are there only so the film can mock their age and use them to trash their film images. They are cast as smarmy self-parodies, as is Rex Reed, the arrogant, fey film critic, who is cast as just that in the film. But the real Reed, the celebrity hound, jet-setting, talk show gossip, can be charming in an obnoxiously funny way; but as Myron, Myra's alter ego, he is just obnoxious. Again, apparently for Sarne, Reed is the joke.

You watch MYRA BRECKINRIDGE and you don't see actors, you see victims. None more so than Raquel Welch. No one will ever accuse Welch of being a great actress, but it is a testament to her tenacity and her appeal that she survived this film and her career prospered. Being in almost every scene, Welch was front and center as a target for abuse aimed at the film, but to her credit, she gives a remarkably nuanced performance. Though, of course, centered between the scenery chewing Huston and the almost catatonic West, Welch doesn't have to do much to strike a good balance. Even so, she renders her horribly unfunny dialogue with a deadpan smirk, with just the hint of self-righteous glee that would do any James Bond villain proud. Legend has it that Welch was snubbed by a condescending West and subjected to repeated verbal abuse on the set by bumbling director Sarne, not to mention being featured in one degrading scene after another, making it all the more remarkable that she was able to give such a cool and collected performance.

The film's only intriguing element is trying to figure out just what the film's agenda is. The whole story is a fantasy fable, which should indicate that it has a moral to deliver, but what that might be is anybody's guess. With all of its talk about destroying "the last vestigial traces of traditional manhood from the race," it would seem to have a feminist axe to grind. But as a feminist, Myra is a monstrous figure, a sexual predator. Besides, Myra isn't a woman, rather she is a delusion of Myron, who presumably is a gay male. That might explain the male rape scene as well as the character's love/hate attitude toward the macho, seemingly straight, deadhead Rusty, but it doesn't explain his/her obsession for and the supposedly lesbian tryst with Farrah Fawcett's Mary Ann. The film is obsessed with sex, but can hardly be accused of being in favor of the sexual revolution; all the sex is treated as being, if not dirty, than at least perverse and degrading. Turning to Gore Vidal's original novel isn't of any help, because it is as confused and pointless as the movie.

And this is a rare movie that actually seems to hate movies. Not just movies as a business, but movies as part of the culture as well. The film itself is wall-to-wall arcane references to old movies, all of which director-screenwriter Sarne approaches with a seething disdain. He has raided the film vaults of 20th Century-Fox and peppered the film with snippets of old films, not as an homage or to provide a social commentary, but to mock the innocence of old Hollywood. How can an artist -- if you generously want to call Sarne that -- make a work of art if he already hates the very medium he is working in? The very effort is totally self-defeating.

MYRA BRECKINRIDGE doesn't seem to be in favor of anything other than being just nasty. It hates Hollywood, it hates America, it hates sex, it hates gays and straights and women and men and old people and young people and Laurel and Hardy and, well, you name it and it probably has a scene showing contempt for it. In a very sad and sorry way, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE may be the first punk manifesto, a celebration of pop culture nihilism.


Seldom seen since theatrical release in 1970, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has become a byword for cinematic debacles of legendary proportions. Now at last on DVD in an unexpectedly handsome package, it is as unlikely to win wide audiences today as it was when first released.

Gore Vidal's 1968 bestseller was a darkly satirical statement. Most filmmakers felt that the novel's story, structure, and overall tone would not translate to film, and industry insiders were surprised when 20th Century Fox not only acquired the rights but also hired Vidal to adapt his novel to the screen. But studio executives soon had cold feet: Vidal's adaptations were repeatedly rejected and novice writer-director Michael Sarne was brought in to bring the film to the screen.

Studio executives hoped that Sarne would tap into the youth market they saw as a target for the film, but Sarne proved even more out of synch with the material than the executives themselves. Rewrite upon rewrite followed. The cast, sensing disaster, became increasingly combative. In her DVD commentary, star Raquel Welch says that she seldom had any idea of what Myra's motives were from scene to scene or even within any single scene itself, and that each person involved seemed to be making an entirely different film. In the accompanying "Back Story" documentary, Rex Reed says that MYRA BRECKINRIDGE was a film made by a bunch of people who hid in their dressing rooms while waiting for their lawyers to return their calls.

The accuracy of these comments are demonstrated by the film itself. The basics of Vidal's story are there, but not only has the story been shorn of all broader implications, it seems to have no point in and of itself. Everything runs off in multiple directions, nothing connects, and numerous scenes undercut whatever logic previous scenes might have had. And while director Sarne repeatedly states in his commentary that he wanted to make the film as pure farce, the only laughs generated are accidental.

Chief among these accidents is Mae West. It is true that West is unexpectedly well preserved in appearance and that she had lost none of her way with a one-liner--but there is no getting around the fact that she is in her seventies, and her conviction that she is the still the sexiest trick in shoe leather is extremely unsettling, to say the least. But worse, really, is the fact that West is outside her era. Her efforts to translate herself into a hip and happening persona results in one of the most embarrassing self-caricatures ever seen on film.

The remaining cast is largely wasted. Raquel Welch, a significantly underestimated actress, plays the title role of Myra very much like a Barbie doll on steroids; non-actor Rex Reed is unexpectedly effective in the role of Myron, but the entire role is essentially without point. Only John Huston and cameo players John Carradine, Jim Backus, William Hopper, and Andy Devine emerge relatively unscathed. Yes, it really is the debacle everyone involved in the film feared it would be: fast when it should be slow, slow when it should be fast, relentlessly unfunny from start to finish. It is true that director Sarne does have the occasional inspired idea--as in his use of film clips of everyone from Shirley Temple to Judy Garland to create counterpoint to the action--but by and large, whenever Sarne was presented with a choice of how to do something he seems to have made the wrong one.

The how and why of that is made clear in Sarne's audio commentary. Sarne did not like the novel or, for that matter, the subject matter in general. He did not want to write the screenplay, but he needed the money; he emphatically did not want to direct the film, but he need the money. He makes it very clear that he disliked author Gore Vidal and Rex Reed (at one point he flatly states that Reed "is not a nice person"), and to this day he considers that Vidal and Reed worked in tandem to sabotage the film because he refused to play into their 'homosexual agenda'--which, when you come right down to it, seems to have been their desire that Sarne actually film Vidal's novel rather than his own weirdly imagined take-off on it.

Although he spends a fair amount of commentary time stating that the film is widely liked by the gay community, Sarne never quite seems to understand that the appeal of the film for a gay audience arises from his ridiculously inaccurate depiction of homosexual people. When taken in tandem with the film itself, Sarne emerges as more than a little homophobic--and quite frankly the single worst choice of writers and directors that could have been made for this project.

In addition to the Sarne and Welch commentaries and the making-of documentary, the DVD release includes several trailers and two versions of the film: a "theatrical release" version and a "restored" version. The only difference between the two is that the final scene in the "restored" version has been printed to black and white. The edits made before the film went into general release have not been restored, but the documentary details what they were. The widescreen transfers of both are remarkably good and the sound is quite fine. But to end where I began, this is indeed a film that will most interest film historians, movie buffs, and cult movie fans. I give it three out of five stars for their sake alone, but everyone else should pass it by.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


I bought this DVD without any previous reference but the names of John Huston, Raquel Welch, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett on its cover. I found the Brazilian title very weird, but I decided to watch expecting to see a funny comedy maybe like "Switch". However the non-sense story is awful and hard to be described. Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed) is submitted to a surgery to change his sex in Copenhagen and he returns to Hollywood telling that she is to be Myra Breckinridge (Raquel Welch) and claiming half the property of his uncle Buck Loner (John Huston). Along the days, Myra and her alter-ego Myron corrupt a young couple in her uncle's academy with kinky sex. In a certain moment, the messy screenplay is so confused that I believe the whole story was only a mind trip of Myron induced by the accident. Unfortunately the beauties of Raquel Welch and Farrah Fawcett are not enough to hold this flick. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Homem & Mulher Até Certo Ponto" ("Man & Woman Up to a Point")


Watching this last night it amazed me that Fox spent so much money on it and got so little back on their investment. It's the kind of disaster that has to be seen to be believed.

I'm sure that the first morning of filming Raquel Welch dusted off the shelf over her fireplace to prepare a spot for the Academy Award she would surely win for this daringly original movie. Oops. That's not what happened.

The infighting on the set was detailed in print by Rex Reed and this helped the movie attain a reputation before it was even released. When it was finally released there wasn't the usual three ring circus of publicity. If I remember correctly, in Houston it opened at drive-ins and neighborhood theatres and never played any of the big venues.

I lay most of the blame on director Michael Sarne, who was hot after having directed (the not all that good) JOANNA, a film with music about young people in swinging mod London.

If I recall correctly, Fox wound up firing him and piecing the film together the best they could. That's why scenes play out in no particular sequence and characters appear and then vanish. An impressive supporting cast (Kathleen Freeman, Jim Backus, John Carradine, Andy Devine and others) is wasted with nothing to do.

To expand it to feature length there are numerous clips from Fox movies featuring stars like Carmen Miranda (in amazing footage from THE GANG'S ALL HERE) andLaurel and Hardy, who never dreamed they'd be playing in an X rated movie.

The X rating is due to occasional language numerous sexual perversions; however, none of the characters seem to be having any fun. Maybe somebody involved with the film had a warped Puritan sensibility and figured that if they could make these things unappealing it wasn't bad to exploit them.

This was one of the "youth" pictures that nearly bankrupted Hollywood in the 1970's. One writer joked that EASY RIDER (which was made for pocket change) was the most expensive movie ever made because so many films followed which tried and failed in the worst way to duplicate its success. Sixtyish, once honored directors like Stanley Kramer and Otto Preminger made movies like RPM and SKIDOO in an effort to attract a young audience. White directors and writers attempted to make films to attract a Black audience. Those movies are locked somewhere in a vault and the two named and many others from that genre have never, as best I know, been out on home video or cable. They're the studios' deep dark secret.

Raquel Welch's performance in this is, all things considered, very good. With the right direction and script she could played the type of sassy liberated women Rosiland Russel and Barbara Stanwyck specialized in. She looks great and has awesome costumes. Mae West is the liveliest seventy-something actress I've ever seen. On the one hand it's kind of heartbreaking to watch her attempt to capture her glory from years gone by, but I'm sure she needed the money.

If you want to see a big budget X-rated movie from this era check out BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (also from Fox) because it doesn't take itself seriously. It's crazy kids playing with the equipment at a major studio. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE tries to Say Something. There just wasn't anyone who wanted to listen.


I have to say I was very curious on viewing this film, and it was considered a notorious disaster when released by 20th Century Fox in 1970. It has also popped up on several critics lists of bad films, and this only deepened an interest, as I just had to see what made this movie so bad.Upon seeing it, I think I have my answers. Although I will say it does make for curious viewing, the acting, direction, and script are so laughingly bad, that the supposed satire is completely missing. Racquel Welch seems to try to carry the film, but after the opening sequence of the sex-change operation, the film goes so far down hill that she cannot handle this task alone. John Huston as Uncle Buck Loner is certainly no help, as he licks and leers at the screen, he sometimes looks like he wonders himself what he's doing there. Rex Reed bounces around as Myron, Myra's alter ego, and even has his own celebrated masturbation scene. Bravo for debut performances! Farrah Fawcett plays a dumb blonde; she certainly seemed convincing in this role. But , of course, arguably the most notorious role went to Mae west. The sight of a 75 year old woman with a plastic face making sexual innuendos seemed more suitable for a horror film. I don't mean to put this cast down personally; but in this film, no one comes out looking good. The direction seems so unassured and non-existent, that the film is not only bad, but boring as well. Throw in some old film footage of old stars, and the movie becomes even more disconnected. To each his own to anyone that enjoyed this, and I was glad I at least saw it, but Myra Breckenridge seems to be the disaster that it was always reputed to be from the beginning.


Anyone who knows me even remotely can tell you that I love bad movies almost as much as I love great ones, and I can honestly say that I have finally seen one of the all-time legendary bad movies: the almost indescribable mess that is MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. An adaptation of Gore Vidal's best-selling book (he later disowned this film version), the star-studded MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is truly a movie so bad that it remains bizarrely entertaining from beginning to end. The X-rated movie about sex change operations and Hollywood was an absolute catastrophe at the box office and was literally booed off the screen by both critics and audiences at the time of it's release. Not surprisingly, the film went on to gain a near-legendary cult status among lovers of bad cinema, and I was actually quite excited to finally see for the first time.

Director Michael Sarne (who only had two other previous directing credits to his name at the time), took a lot of flack for the finished film, and, in honesty, it really does not look like he had a clue about what he was trying to achieve. The film is often incoherent, with entire sequences edited together in such a half-hazzard manner that many scenes become nearly incomprehensible. Also irritating is the gimmick of using archival footage from the Fox film vaults and splicing it into the picture at regular intervals. This means that there is archival footage of past film stars such as Judy Garland and Shirley Temple laced into newly-film scenes of often lewd sexual acts, and the process just doesn't work as intended (this also caused a minor uproar, as actors such as Temple and Loretta Young sued the studio for using their image without permission).

Perhaps Sarne is not the only one to blame, however, as the film's screenplay and casting will also make many viewers shake their heads in disbelief. For instance, this film will ask you to believe that the scrawny film critic Rex Reed (in his first and last major film role) could have a sex change operation and emerge as the gorgeous sex goddess Raquel Welch?! The film becomes further hard to follow when Welch as Myra attempts to take over a film school from her sleazy uncle (played by legendary film director John Huston), seduce a nubile female film student (Farrah Fawcett), and teach the school's resident bad boy (Roger Herren) a lesson by raping him with a strap-on dildo. Did everyone follow that?

And it gets even better (or worse, depending upon your perspective)! I have yet to mention the film's top-billed star: the legendary screen sex symbol of the nineteen-thirties, Mae West! Ms. West was 77 year old when she appeared in this film (she had been retired for 26 years), and apparently she still considered herself to be a formidable sex symbol as she plays an upscale talent agent who has hunky men (including a young Tom Selleck) throwing themselves at her. As if this weren't bad enough, the tone-deaf West actually performs two newly-written songs about halfway through the film, and I think that I might have endured permanent brain damage from listening to them!

Naturally, none of this even closely resembles anything that any person of reasonable taste would describe as "good," but I would give MYRA BRECKINRIDGE a 4 out of 10 because it was always morbidly entertaining even when I had no idea what in the hell was supposed to be going on. Also, most of the cast tries really hard. Raquel, in particular, appears so hell-bent in turning her poorly-written part into something meaningful that she single-handedly succeeds in making the movie worth watching. If she had only been working with a decent screenplay and capable director then she might have finally received some respect form critics.

The rest of the cast is also fine. The endearingly over-the-top John Huston (who really should have been directing the picture) has some funny moments, Rex Reed isn't bad for a non-actor, and Farrah Fawcett is pleasantly fresh-faced and likable. Roger Herren is also fine, but he never appeared in another movie again after this (I guess he just couldn't live down being the guy who was rapped by Raquel Welch). And as anyone could guess from the description above, Mae West was totally out of her mind when she agreed to do this movie - but that's part of what makes it fun for those of us who love bad cinema.


It was the Sixties, and anyone with long hair and a hip, distant attitude could get money to make a movie. That's how Michael Sarne, director of this colossal flop, was able to get the job. Sarne is one of the most supremely untalented people ever given a dollar to make a movie. In fact, the whole studio must have been tricked into agreeing to hire a guy who had made exactly one previous film, a terribly precious 60's-hip black and white featurette called Joanna. That film starred the similarly talentless actress/waif Genevieve Waite who could barely speak an entire line without breaking into some inappropriate facial expression or bat-like twitter. Sarne, who was probably incapable of directing a cartoon, never mind a big-budget Hollywood film, was in way over his head. David Giler's book is the best place to go to find out how the faux-infant terrible Sarne was able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. If there is ever an historical marker which indicates the superficiality and shallowness of an era, Myra Breckinridge provides that marker. It embodies the emptiness and mindless excess of a decade which is more often remembered for a great sea-change in the body politic. Breckinridge is a touchstone of another, equally important vein. Watch this movie and you'll get a different perspective on the less-often mentioned vacuity of spirit which so often passed for talent during those years.

Many reviewers have spoken about the inter-cutting of footage from other films, especially older ones. Some actually liked these clunky "comments" on what was taking place in the movie, others found them senseless, annoying, and obtrusive, though since the film is so bad itself any intrusion would have to be an improvement.

In my opinion, the real reason Michael Sarne put so many film clips into Myra Brekinridge was to paper over the bottomless insufficiency of wit and imagination that he possessed. That is to say, Sarne was so imagination-challenged that he just threw these clips in to fill space and take up time. They weren't inspiration, they were desperation. His writing skills were nonexistent, and David Giler had wisely stepped away from the project as one might from a ticking bomb, so Sarne was left to actually try and make a movie, and he couldn't. It was beyond his slim capabilities. Hence the introduction of what seems like one half of an entire film's worth of clips. The ghosts of writers and directors - many long since passed on - were called upon to fix this calamitous flopperoo because Sarne sure as heck wasn't able to. This was what he came up with on those days he sat on the set and thought for eight hours while the entire cast and crew (not to mention the producers and the accountants) cooled their heels and waited for something, some great spark of imagination, a hint of originality, a soupcon of wit, to crackle forth from the brow of Zeus. Um, oops. No Zeus + no imagination + no sparks = millions of little dollar bills with tiny wings - each made from the hundreds of licensing agreements required to use the clips - flying out the window. Bye-bye.

As for myself, I hated the film clips. They denigrated Sarne's many betters, poked fun at people whose talents - even those whose skills were not great - far outstripped the abilities of the director and so ultimately served to show how lacking he was in inspiration, originality - and even of plain competency - compared to even the cheesiest of them.


This hodge-podge adapted from a Gore Vidal novel (actually one of the great American writers) makes THE MAGIC CHRISTIAN and VALLEY OF THE DOLLS look like Fellini art-works. Raquel Welch, with an incredible body (and she's actually not very tall) in a lead role (except for KANSAS CITY BOMBER when she was quite good) playing Rex Reed's (bad movie reviewer; not critic) alter-ego, only to be surrounded by drag queen (great chick) Mae West, horny John Huston, a young and "naive" Farrah Fawcett (pre-Lee Majors; what a shame), and other various creep-azoids to pretend to spoof WAY too may things has nothing going for it except inter-spliced old films clips (i.e. Widmark in KISS OF DEATH, Lena Horne)...JUST so they can continue to bleed the life out of everyone.

A 2 out of 10. Best performance = ?. It's so bad, it's worth seeing!


THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.

And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does

give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.

Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance.


Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed!!!) gets a sex change from a doctor (John Carradine--dead drunk) and comes out as Myra (Raquel Welch). She then decides to destroy male masculinity (or something like that) and proceeds to teach film history at an acting college run by lecherous John Huston (don't ask) and break up a young happy couple (young, handsome, hunky Roger Herren and Farrah Fawcett--yes THE Farrah Fawcett).

They took a great novel by Gore Vidal that was unfilmable and, naturally, tried to film it. They also hired an English guy with a decidedly Anti-American attitude and hired a bunch of actors with questionable "talent" (Welch, Reed) and embarassed old professionals (Huston, Carradine, Andy Devine, Jim Backus, Mae West), threw it all together and....SURPRISE!!! An absolute disaster.

The film got an X rating at its release (it's been lowered to an R), mostly because of a truly tasteless scene in which Welch sodomizes Rusty (Roger Herren) and a scene in which Welch attempts to have sex with Fawcett.

The movie is very scattershot...scenes jump all over the place and people say and do things that make no sense. It's not good at all but I was never bored.

Acting varies wildly...Reed is horrible...really sad. Huston chews the scenery again and again and AGAIN to a nauseating extreme. Welch is actually not bad as Myra but her lines make no sense so you never know what to make of her. West is hardly in the movie (a blessing) and it's really kind of sick to hear a woman almost 80 years old cracking sex jokes. Roger Herren (whatever happened to...) was very young, handsome and not bad as Rusty. Fawcett is OK.

It's hard to find things to say about this...you just watch it in disbelief. A must see movie--to believe!!!!


I saw "Myra Breckinridge" when it first came out in 1970. I was a healthy 20-year-old at the time, who loved movies and really liked Raquel Welsh. On top of that, I had read the Gore Vidal novel it was based on and thought it was very funny. I saw the movie at a local drive-in and about half way through I was sorely tempted to turn the motor of my car on so that maybe I'd die of monoxide poisoning and not have to see the rest of this shipwreck of a movie. It wasn't "smart" or "trendy", it was gross and sloppy. All the actors were tone deaf and the director didn't have the slightest idea what he was doing. The casting of Mae West was one of the worst casting choices in movie history. As one reviewer here said, her role had nothing to do with the movie or book. Her character in the book is sexually beaten up by the young stud, which would never do for the legendary Ms. West. Oh no, the plot is changed so she sexually beats HIM up, very believable from a 77-year-old woman who looks every DAY of her age. I could go on, but why? It was an awful movie.

Bluto


I never much liked the Myra movie, tho I appreciate how it pushed the Hollywood envelope at the time. Certainly Miss Welch's costume became an iconic image, though I have to wonder if many people who recognize the image really saw the film and know what it was all about -

I rewatched Myra on FMC a couple of years ago and didn't think it had aged any better thru the years. There's a segment about it in the Sexploitation Cinema Cartoon History comic books, where it's given proper credit for putting such big stars in what was then an outrageous production. However, IMHO, the movie is too bitter to be charming, too silly to be a turn-on, and so busy trying to shock that it fails to inform, engage, OR entertain ---


It was a disappointment to see this DVD after so many years. For me the main problem's the uneven script.

While some of it is witty and hip, quite a bit of it is dull, unfunny and lifeless. Many of the gags just sit there, lacking spark and energy.

Of the cast, Mae West and Rachel Welch come over well. Roger Herren in the role of Rusty shines (too bad he didn't make more films). But for my money, there's just too much of John Huston, and poor Rex Reed isn't hardly given a fighting chance. His character seems relegated to skim around on the sidelines, wondering what he's doing in this film.

The low user rating should give an idea as to the public's opinion of this piece. Vidal's original provided much potential that was pretty much wasted. Not even the 'classic' film clips did much. All in all a rather sub par effort, and it's not likely to get much better with time.


Much like Orson Welles thirty years earlier,Mike Sarne was given "the biggest train set in the world"to play with,but unfortunately lacked the ability to do anything more than watch his train set become a train wreck that is still spoken of with shock and a strange sort of awe. Despite post - modern interpretations purporting somehow to see it as a gay or even feminist tract,the fact of the matter is that it was a major disaster in 1970 and remains one today.How anyone given the resources at Mr Sarne's disposal could have screwed up so royally remains a closely - guarded secret.Only Michael Cimino ever came close with the political and artistic Armageddon that constitutes "Heaven's Gate".Both films appeared to be ego trips for their respective directors but at least Mr Cimino had made one of the great movies of the 1970s before squandering the studio's largesse,whereas Mr Sarne had only the rather fey "Joanna" in his locker. Furthermore,"Heaven's Gate" could boast some memorable and well - handled set - pieces where,tragically,"Myra Breckinridge"s cupboard was bare. Simply put,it is overwhelmingly the worst example of biting the hand that feeds in the history of Hollywood.


Two old men sitting on a park bench . I don`t really have a problem with this scene - Only problem is that it`s not a scene it`s the entire movie<br /><br />Yup movies don`t get anymore low concept than this . They also don`t get anymore boring than this either , but there`s worse to come because these two old men are chalk and cheese . One is Nat Moyer who is Yiddish communist while the other is Midge Carter a former golden gloves champion who`s also black . Let me see now , a Jew and a black man sitting on a park bench getting along fine . Well I guess it`s possible though unlikely , but if this film has such an inoffensive scenario why play up to the Jewish stereotype ? Why make them loud tribilistic rabble rousers who take hebrew oaths ? Slightly ironic that the Jews seen at the start of the movie are exactly the type of Jews seen in Nazi propaganda films in the 1930s

Stereotypes aside moi dearz the problem with I`M NOT RAPPAPORT is that it`s written for an entirely different meduim than cinema , it`s based on a stage play and it shows . Walter Matthau sleepwalks through his role as Nat while this commentator almost slept through the whole movie


The premise of an African-American female Scrooge in the modern, struggling city was inspired, but nothing else in this film is. Here, Ms. Scrooge is a miserly banker who takes advantage of the employees and customers in the largely poor and black neighborhood it inhabits. There is no doubt about the good intentions of the people involved. Part of the problem is that story's roots don't translate well into the urban setting of this film, and the script fails to make the update work. Also, the constant message about sharing and giving is repeated so endlessly, the audience becomes tired of it well before the movie reaches its familiar end. This is a message film that doesn't know when to quit. In the title role, the talented Cicely Tyson gives an overly uptight performance, and at times lines are difficult to understand. The Charles Dickens novel has been adapted so many times, it's a struggle to adapt it in a way that makes it fresh and relevant, in spite of its very relevant message.


...but this has to be the worst A Christmas Carol adaptation of all time. And that takes some doing, what with the likes of various Lifetime efforts. Don't get me wrong--I have nothing against Cicely Tyson. I've enjoyed her tremendously in other roles (look at Sipsey in Fried Green Tomatoes, for example). But the script gives her no option but to chew the scenery. And chew it she does, with all the enthusiasm of Tiny Tim tying into a Christmas goose.

Give me the classics anytime: Alastair Sim, 1951. With the exception maybe of Scrooged, all the others are just over-the-top efforts to grasp the past, present, or future Spirit of Christmas.


I first saw this when it was picked as a suggestion from my TiVo system. I like Danny Elfman and thought it might be interesting. On top of that, I'm a fan of Max Fleischer's work, and this started out with the look and feel of his 30s cartoon. With both of those, I thought it would hold my interest. I was wrong. Just a few minutes in, and I had the fast forward button down. I ran through it in about 15 minutes, and thought that was it.

Afterwards, I read some of the other reviews here and figured I didn't give it enough of a chance. I recorded it again and watched it through. There's 75 minutes of my life I'm not getting back.

I can't believe there aren't more bad reviews. Personally, I think it's because it's hard to get to the 10 line comment minimum. How many ways are there to say this is a waste of time?

The movie comes across as though it was made by a few junior high kids ready to outrage the world and thinking they can with breasts, profanity, and puke jokes. The characters are flat. The parody of "Swinging the Alphabet" is lame, essentially cobbling the tune, getting through A - E, hitting the obvious profanity a "F", and then having no idea where to go. The trip through the intestines to the expected landing doesn't work the first time, let alone the following ones.

Across the board, the entire movie is what you would expect from someone trying to "out-South Park" Stone and Parker without the ability to determine what is and isn't funny. This might be amusing if you're high. Otherwise, it's not.


...thankfully he hasn't, yet! This is crude, simplistic student politics made into drama. It needs the viewer to buy into a series of conceits. Conceit 1: That a British electorate could be swung from being basically right of centre to being overwhelmingly far left. Conceit 2: That all debate in the media and the general public is unanimously ended and that the new Prime Minister's only critics are sinister civil servants, MI5, big business and the Americans (naturally). Conceit 3: That this radical socialist PM can solve all union, economic and social problems with consummate ease in a way that unites the nation. Conceit 4: That severing all ties with the US and NATO is a good thing. Conceit 5: That the Soviet Union isn't a brutal and oppressive regime and that we should have had closer times with them back in the 80's. And finally, Conceit 6: That the reactionary forces of the US would actively seek to launch a coup d'etat against Britain.

It's ludicrous and the show only gained the reputation that it did by trying to cash in on some anti-Thatcher feeling in the country and having left wing TV critics singing its praises. When it was made, television was still a hugely popular and influential medium with shows getting huge ratings so a widely talked about drama with a hint of controversy had a good chance of getting a big audience. Ray McInally's performance was great, which is one of the few plus points. History and time has shown the huge weakness in the premise and plot of this show.


The prerequisite for making such a film is a complete ignorance of Nietzche's work and personality, psychoanalytical techniques and Vienna's history. Take a well-know genius you have not read, describe him as demented, include crazy physicians to cure him, a couple of somewhat good looking women, have his role played by an actor with an enormous mustache, have every character speak with the strongest accent, show ridiculous dreams, include another prestigious figure who has nothing to do with the first one (Freud), mention a few words used in the genius' works, overdo everything you can, particularly music, and you are done. Audience, please stay away.


I rented this DVD having seen it while looking for something else. When I saw the title on the jacket I couldn't believe my eyes. I read Yalom's book about a year ago and loved it, in fact admire Yalom's work in general. (I am a clinical psychologist.) I have watched perhaps 30 minutes of this movie and have had to turn it off. I'm not sure if I can take much more. At a superficial level, the faux accents, as others have commented, are simply distracting at best and irritating and vapid at worst. The acting is dull when it should be passionate and comical when it should be serious. The portrayal of Lou Salome is simply flippant, and the brilliant Freud comes off as little more than a schoolboy. I see very little of the book's spirit conveyed thus far. I had hoped to be able to recommend this film to my students. Instead, I will refer them to the book. Imagine that.


My comments on this movie have been deleted twice, which i find pretty offending, since i am making an effort to judge this movie for other people. Please be tolerant of other people's opinion. Obviously writing in the spirit of Nietzsches works is not understood, so ill change my comment completely.

I think this is a really bad movie for several reasons.

Subject: one should be very careful in making a movie about a philosopher that is even today not understood by the masses and amongst peers brings out passionate discussions. One thing philosophers do agree on is that Nietzsche was a great thinker. So making a movie about his life, which obviously includes his 'ideas' is a thing one should be extremely careful with, or preferably, don't do at all. Wisdom starts with knowing what you don't know. One might think this is not a review of the movie itself, but the movie is not about an imaginary character, it is about the life of someone who actually lived and had/has great influence on the world of yesterday, today and tomorrow. If someone tells a story about a tomato, i can express my thoughts about the story itself, but also about the chosen subject, the tomato. There is a responsibility for producers when they make a movie about actual facts. Specially in a case like this and this responsibility was not taken.

Screenplay: One of the first things i noticed were the ridiculous accents. Why? It distracts from what it should be about; Nietzsche and the truths he found. It doesn't help putting things in a right geographical perspective or time! Come on, make it proper English or better yet; German! Even Mel Gibson got that part right... letting his characters speak some gibberish Aramaic in the Passion.

Secondly, it is well over-acted.

3d, Assante is not an actor to depict Nietzsche. Bad casting.

4th, facts are way off.

And so on. Its a waste of celluloid.


I had to stop watching this film (a pseudo-intellectual product for pretentious film viewers) twenty minutes into it because it was mediocre and dull enough to inspire yawns, not to mention that I was soon near tears over the $3.99 I had wasted at Blockbuster. Joanna Pacula's acting and her awfully rendered Slavic accent are sufficiently terrible to set one to gritting one's teeth. I knew that two hours of her would be two hours too many. Both Breuer and Nietzsche are played by unremarkable actors of strikingly few talents. While we're on the topic of talent, Breuer's supercilious assistant appears to have been pulled out of a local acting troupe. She clearly has not learned her craft. In fact, she's really quite awful. All the public scenes looked staged, with the extras walking mechanically about in their Sunday best. Turning this film off was far more satisfying than turning it on. Don't rent this terrible movie. You will be sorry you spent your money.


When I first tuned in on this morning news, I thought, "wow, finally, some entertainment." It was slightly amusing for a week or so... But we have to face it, these news reporters (if one can even call them that) have WAY TOO MUCH "playing around" time.

At first, I thought Jillian was a breathe of fresh air. But seriously, this woman has got not the least bit of journalist in her. She is very unprofessional. She keeps on interrupting Steve when he starts informing the viewers about a certain news report. It's just really become annoying to the point that I can't watch it anymore.

Jillian is NOT a good journalist. Hell, she's more of a celebrity who loves being a celebrity. Hence, she instantly transforms into a celebrity around celebrities whom she's supposed to be interviewing. She's not very professional and quite possibly perceives her relationship with celebrities more important than being a rightfully insatiable journalist- and that's all I can say about her.

Also (disappointingly), this show has more entertainment news than necessary news reports about the world, the government, the US, or something that will benefit and/or serve the public's best interest. They're too focus on sensationalism that everything they talk about comes off as a commercial product. On the other hand, their field reporters are interestingly tolerable...

I believe "Good Day LA" is for young teenagers and celebrities, and it is definitely not for people who actually CARE about the news.

SIDE NOTE: (I'd really rather watch KTLA. However, they try so hard to be entertaining sometimes. They're still a bit dull though. Oh well, I'll stick to NBC's "Today." ABC's "Good Morning America" is also okay... as long as Diane Sawyer doesn't become way too serious.)


Dark Rising is your typical bad, obviously quickly produced horror/sci-fi/fantasy movie. It has a strange, unexplained plot with holes so big you could fit an elephant through them. Most of the time I didn't know what the hell was going on but it didn't really matter, it was a simple demon hunter returns from hell dimension to save campers story with confusing stuff added on about witches and a book of evil with plot elements and characters who make no sense or disappear totally for no reason. The acting is bad but there honestly is not much they can do with this script I am guessing. There is a couple topless scenes which is probably the only reason this bad movie got made (like so many other bad movies). Give this one a pass unless there is nothing else on T.V.


This is one of those horror flicks where twenty-somethings fool around with the dark arts around a camp fire, getting into a heap of trouble for doing so. A portal was opened containing a world of demons known as the Kelippoth of the Sitra Achra by a man whose daughter, Summer, gets kidnapped by something, taken into it. Summer is trained by a mysterious group whose identities are never revealed to battle the demon monsters. This is a portion of the plot which lends itself to scrutiny. Anyway, three wannabee witches, who went to high school together, Renea, the most enthusiastic, serious practitioner in the dark arts, and her lesbian cohorts, Jasmine and Marlene(..it's more or less a passing fad with them, though..) join up with buddies, Jason and Ricky, on a trip in the wilderness where Summer vanished from her home ten years ago. Opening the portal through a spoken text written in an ancient book, a demon is set free, as is Summer, now a warrior babe whose training has led to a very fit and athletic body and skills that have been needed to ward off monsters in the other world.

Low budget contains a loopy, but ambitious story, restraining it into a confined setting. These young adults spend a lot of time running around in the woods hoping not to be fodder for a beast. As can be the case in these movies, the demon stands on the sidelines while the story develops as Summer attempts to remember how everything came to pass, while befriending Jason who wishes to help her restore the lost time. The action is shot mostly in the dark, making any violence hard to decipher. Brigitte Kingsley(and the rest of the female cast for that matter), is some mighty nice eye candy, dressed scantily clad as a female Conan, a gorgeous body we have to pleasure to gaze upon from the moment she appears until the closing of the movie. Some lesbianism(..some kissing and fondling)and nudity spice things up nicely, and the cast seem to be having fun with the goofy plot..it's so preposterous that the silly tone is probably appropriate for the material.

Might be of interest for co-starring World Wrestling Entertainment's "Captain Courageous" Christian(real name, Jason Reso)as one of the group, spoofing his alter ego, as a chicken, quivering at the sound of a snapping tree twig. Landy Cannon is likable as unlikely hero, Jason, a lovestruck, naive young man whose ex-fiancé, Jasmine(Vanessa James)is now bi-sexual and in love with Marlene(..Jasmine's cruelty is in toying with Jason's feelings by hiding her affair with Marlene from his knowledge), while Ricky and Renea attempt to steer him away from this idea that he can rekindle a dead flame that gone out, never to ignite again. The Kelippoth demon is mostly darkly lit, I guess to refrain from showing how ludicrous/laughable it looks if presented in full. The lesbian antics of Jasmine and Marlene(Haley Shannon) is mostly tame, their love making, once alone in the woods up against a tree, is toned down and also lighted using the blackness of night. My rating is a bit favorable towards it, almost solely because of Kingsley, for purely superficial reasons, rather than the plot or film-making. The movie aims to please and is marketed to the boys(and girls who love hot women). I think, though, for the most part, the humor falls a bit flat.


This film has a very simple but somehow very bad plot. The entire movie is about a girl getting sucked through a gate to another dimension then years later it gets opened again by a witch while a group of friends (including the lead actor who is having trouble getting over his ex girlfriend who is one of the other campers along with her new partner... another girl... that's right they're lesbians and there is some nudity of course for no particular reason). Unfortunately demon follows the now adult girl back through. Also unfortunately, none of this is ever explained. Where exactly were they? Where did the demon come from? How did she survive as a child in a place full of evil demons? Who the hell trained her and made her a gladiator type outfit? The acting is terrible I think but it's hard to tell because the writing is so bad maybe there was just nothing they could do with it. I give it a three because the wrestler was pretty good and the effects were pretty fun even though they were very cheap. I would not recommend it, it wasn't quite bad enough to be funny.


This movie is lame and not funny at all. The plot doesn't even make sense. Some scientist who works on the fringes of science opens a doorway to another dimension (maybe hell???) and his daughter gets sucked through it or something, then one day for no apparent reason she comes back and now she has big breasts and wears a skimpy outfit (I guess the demons in the other dimension made it for her?) The main character is a guy who wants to marry his girlfriend but she is gay so obviously she's more interested in her new girlfriend, and they stumble upon this witch spell book (they want to be witches or something???) and the evil spell ends up getting read again which is how the evil demon comes to earth which only the bikini top girl and the spurned guy in love can stop apparently. There is topless scenes for no reason and a guy in it who my boyfriend says is a well known wrestler but his part is completely unnecessary, obviously they made something up just to put him in it because then maybe wrestling fans will actually watch this pointless movie. I'm sure the topless girls doesn't hurt there either. The extra features on the DVD were even more confusing than the rest of the movie, I thought it might help explain what was going on but it actually just made things more confusing. Who are these people and what are they doing? Basically this is a go-camping-to-make-out-then-fight-a-monster movie but there are a bunch of things (like the other dimension and book seller) than make it confusing. I didn't like the movie but it was only like five bucks so big deal. I don't recommend watching it though it was just too stupid, I can't think of any part of the movie that was good.


This series was CBS networks answer to the success of the Big Valley. It was a 90 minute Western just like the ABC program was. While it was an answer, it did not have the stuff to make it past season 2.

The problem really became reality got lost on this show. For example- in one episode, Johnny gets his eye poked out by a stick. Amazingly, by the end of the show, Johnny had healed entirely. Along with that, the stories on this were no where near as strong as The Big Valley.

This is a show that I would not want DVDs of, & frankly hope they are never released. Think since CBS was running out of lots, they re-used many familiar settings. This was one the last western series CBS produced as westerns were not real popular in the 1970's.


I rented this on DVD yesterday and did not realize it was a "character study" type of movie, so I struggled to watch about an hour of it before hitting the Stop button.

Even with a character study theme, I just could not get into this film at all. Perhaps it was my mood in wanting to watch something else, or maybe I had other expectations, but setting that aside, I tried my best to move on to finish watching, but gave up. The actors played their roles well, but the global combination did not come together to keep my interest. About the only interesting thing was the sergeant's gun being stolen and he hurried to buy another one, and spray painted it black to appear as police issue. I think this movie should have been entitled, "Who Stole the Sergeant's Gun?" Scenes were well done but putting them together I once again felt robbed for anything cohesive to keep me viewing.

Since I didn't finish watching it I'd say there is some merit to renting this film ... maybe. To me, it was a waste of good viewing effort and time. I'll leave it up to you to try it, but it's not one I'd strongly recommend.


This is another example of a sucky sequel to a great movie. I highly recommend The Prophecy, but this movie was a dud from the start. The acting was decent all the way around, but the story line was weak and added nothing to the origional. A 4 out of 10 at best.


Everybody knows that Gregory Widen's original "The Prophecy" didn't really require a sequel, but you also don't need a degree in rocket science hanging above your chimney to realize that further cash-ins on this profitable horror concept were inevitable. Part two is a very prototypic example of a straight-to-video sequel, meaning the creative and convoluted plot of the original has been simplified a lot in favor of more action, more witty one-liners and a lot more eerie religious scenery. The only good news is that the producers managed to keep Christopher Walken for the role of Gabriel, and he delivers another gloriously brazen performance that promptly justifies the price of a rental. If it wasn't for Walken's performance (and perhaps a couple of players in the supportive cast like Brittany Murphy and Glenn Danzig), "The Prophecy II" surely would have disappeared into oblivion straight after its release. The movie begins with Gabriel literally getting spat out of hell to proceed with his ongoing War of Heaven here on earth. The purpose of his battle this time is to prevent the baby of nurse Valerie Rosales (Jennifer Beals) from getting born. For you see, her unborn child is the first ever hybrid between a heavenly angel and an earthly "monkey" and the birth of such a superior being would imply the downfall of Gabriel's evil dominion. Thus, just as in the first movie, he engages a suicidal accomplice to assist him and hunts Valerie all the way down to the Eden for the final showdown. "The Prophecy II" is an endurable and occasionally even entertaining movie as long as you don't make comparisons with the original and as long as you manage to overlook the multiple plot holes and errors in continuity. Whenever the storyline becomes too tedious, the makers luckily enough always insert a near-brilliant Christopher Walken moment to distract you. His interactions with the rebellious Izzy and particularly his ignorance regarding modern earthly technologies often result in worthwhile and memorable sequences. On a slightly off-topic note, I often felt like "The Prophecy II" ambitions to look similar to "Terminator II"  Gabriel's resurrection looked somewhat like the teleportation of a futuristic cyborg and the Eden location, where the final battle takes place, looks very similar to the steel factory where "Terminator II" ended as well. Coincidence, I guess? Overall, this is an inferior and passable sequel but still worth checking out in case you're a fan of Christopher Walken's unique acting charisma (and who isn't?).


I personally liked "The Prophecy" of 1995 a lot. Christopher Walken was, as always, great, and even though the film wasn't flawless, it was a creepy and highly original Horror/Fantasy film that entertained immensely. This inferior 1998 sequel is still worth watching, but mainly due to Walken. Walken is one of the greatest actors around, in my opinion, and he is once again outstanding in the role of the fallen Archangel Gabriel, whom he plays for the second time here. Once again, the war between fallen and loyal Angels is brought to earth. Gabriel returns in order to prevent the birth of a child, namely the child of the angel Danyael (Russel Wong) and the human woman Valerie (Jennifer Beals). This child could once be the determining factor of the celestial war... As I said above, Christopher Walken is once again excellent as Gabriel. Besides Gabriel, however, "The Prophecy II" sadly also includes a bunch of terribly annoying characters. The character of Valerie was annoying enough, and Danayel annoyed me even more. The biggest pain in the ass, however was the character of Izzy (played by Brittany Murphy), a suicidal girl who wouldn't shut up. Still, Walken's performance isn't the only redeeming quality of the film. The entire film is quite dreary, and well-shot in dark colors, which contributes a lot to the atmosphere. Gabriel's resurrection scene in the beginning is furthermore quite impressive, and one of the coolest moments in any of the "Prophecy" films. "The Prophecy II" is nevertheless the weakest of the three "Prophecy" films with Walken. Definitely a Christopher Walken one-man-show, entertaining, but nothing beyond that.


The Prophecy II, what's there to say about it? They've completely abandoned the originality of the first film, and simply made a Chris Walken splatter film. It's not even written by the original writer!

If you've seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2 it's a real disappointment...

If you haven't seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2! Go see Nr. 1 to experience something original and fun


It's not often I feel compelled to give negative criticism of a film; after all I often feel the maxim, "if you don't have anything good to say don't say it at all," would be apt advice for the many naysayers we listen to everyday who nitpick at things we like. If it's all the same to you the reader though I feel compelled to point out that with the lone exception of Christopher Walken in a returning role as Gabriel this movie is pathetically HORRID. I say this to you to warn you in advance that even if you are a fan of Walken's deadpan delivery and style or liked the original "Prophecy" that you will be sorely dissapointed. If you buy it, return it. If you rent it, make sure it's only ninety-nine cents.

What's wrong with this movie? A full list would take too long to read and would bore you to tears, but a short summary would be the following: the once rather crystalline clear picture of the relationship between angels and mortals of the first film is ripped to shreds. Gabriel is turned from the rather morbid right hand of God he once was (and in this role he is WICKEDLY funny in the first) to little more than a thug for heaven. Since Walken is so good at playing heavies (we all remember Frank White from "King of New York") he is still enjoyable but the supporting cast is an unmitigated and unconvincing mess of mortals and angels alike who couldn't buy a clue for 50 cents. If you can figure out the plot you're a smarter man than I. One gets the feeling we wander aimlessly from scene to scene just to move the film along to Walken's next big line. By the end of the movie you're actually wishing he'd blow his horn and make the walls of Jericho fall on the people who made this un-natural disaster.

Bottom line - it's an insult to our intelligence that they made a sequel to this film in the first place. The original told the right story, answered the questions that should have been, and left alone the ones you were meant to ponder afterwards. There are no compelling reasons to follow these characters that was in the first - the priest who lost his faith, the little girl who kept the "big secret", the teacher who protected her children - even Lucifer himself was more interesting BY himself in the first film than all the other characters in the sequel put together. I feel sorry for anybody who sees this film and not the first because they'll probably never want to watch the original and that's a real tragedy.


I'll make this short and sweet....this movie sucked!!!!!!

I watched part 1 earlier today and thought it was one of the greatest films ever, gave it 9 out of 10 stars. So I thought perhaps part 2 and 3 would be good sequels, I was wrong. This movie bored me to death and was so different from the first one, it had the plot continue and thats it. It was like bad outtakes from part one or something.

I love Walken, but I felt sorry for him here. I was so happy about Glenn Danzig being in this film, but don't blink you'll miss him. There was a full cast full of crappy actors and people I don't like such as Eric Roberts and Jennifer Beals. However, it was a breath of fresh air to see Ethan Embry, he's one of the funniest people on earth.

This movie will make you like the first one a little less, so don't watch it because you feel you owe it to yourself, being a fan of part 1. I am gonna wait a few days before I watch part 3 and I pray it is better than this crap.

The last scene of the movie with the lightning was one of the most beautiful things ever shown on film. Fast forward or skip to that if you can't stomach the first part.

1 out of 10 stars - this was awful!


I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original.


Where is it written that sequels must suck? Scream 2 didn't! Others didn't! But this one sure did... problems include horrible actors (only Christopher Walken could act in the entire film), bad writing (you will never understand what's going on and I even have done research on the idea of Nephilim before), and just horrible choices for casting. Eric Roberts makes the stupidest Archangel Michael that I have ever seen in my life!

Avoid it like the plague unless you are desperate to see Christopher Walken. In that case just fast-forward to the parts where he is in the film, and avoid the others.

Yech!!!


Can fake scenery ruin a picture? You wouldn't think so, but it actually for me in here. Listen, I have a lot of classic-era movies and I know pretty much what to except, such as the drivers steering immobile cars in front of a screen, etc. But a lot of that hokey business has to do with action scenes. To have fake scenery, fake mountains and flowers shot after shot as seen in "Brigadoon" gets insulting after awhile.

As far as the music entertainment went, this is always subjective. What songs one person likes, another may not so that shouldn't be a big part of judging a film (whether someone likes the songs). I could blast this movie for its corny 1950 songs, dances, romances and characters but that was the '50s and a lot of people liked this sort of things. Musicals did very well in the '50s. Me, I liked the '30s and '40s with the great taps. By the '50s, tap was out and this new stuff - which I can stand - was it. Does that make this a lousy movie? No. It just makes one I didn't care for very much

Despite the good cast, good director and high expectations, this film bombed at the box office, and with me. I should have liked it more, being a dreamer myself and that's a nice part of this story. I am not the cynical type and a nice town and nice people making me feel good sounds awful appeal. Then why couldn't I connect with this film? Part of it also was the dancing. I don't care for the stuff that replaced tap dancing on screen. But - no - the thing really turned me off what that staging. There was no Scotland, no highlands, just a hokey- looking background to make it look that way and it turned me almost from the start. Score one point for today's realism where they "go on location" most of the time.


I remember when I first saw this movie, I was in sixth grade when it happened. Before I saw this, i had listened to the original Broadway recording of it, and I really loved it! But when I saw this, I was like, what the heck?! This movie is missing a lot of the songs from the musical for crying out loud! Who decided to do all of that?!

I really am a very huge fan of Gene Kelly, but this movie is probably the worst of a musical that he ever did! The movie looked more like a Hollywood set than the beautiful Highlands of Scotland. And who the heck decided to cut all of Meg's songs out of the movie?!

I am willing to bet that when they saw this movie, Lerner and Lowe were probably wondering: "Who in the world decided to do this to our masterpiece?" Well they had a right to say that if they did, they were probably mad at the fact that Hollywood turned their great musical into this rather blank movie.

Song and acting wise Mr. Kelly, you passed the audition with flying colors, but you are in a movie that is missing a lot of the text.

So in short, if you want a good movie based on a musical by Frederick Lowe and Alan Jay Lerner, this one isn't it!

3/10


I saw Brigadoon on TV last night (12 Sept 2009). I am 61 years old and have been watching films as long as I can remember. I can truthfully say that Brigadoon stands alone as by far and away the worst film I have ever seen. The accents were shameful. The local children's club would have produced better sets. The characters were so wooden that they probably contracted dry rot from the tears of the patrons who had the misfortune to watch them. It is to be hoped that the stars of this film had hides thick enough to protect them from the embarrassment which they must have suffered on seeing this film. The owners of this tripe should perform a great service to mankind and destroy all copies of this film.


Superficically, "Brigadoon" is a very promising entertainment package. Gene Kelly and Vincente Minnelli, the team behind "An American in Paris", are reunited with a lot of the great craftsmen and women behind their previous collaborations. Gene's leading lady is Cyd Charisse, one of the best dancers of 40s/50s cinema, and unlike the generally superior "It's Always Fair Weather" this film gave them the chance for not only one but two dances. Lerner and Loewe were the rising team behind such future hits as "My Fair Lady" and Minnelli's musical masterpiece "Gigi"; Lerner and Minnelli had already demonstrated their sanguine collaborative juices on the excellent "American in Paris."

What happened along the way? Why is the movie itself such a stupid bore? Minnelli himself didn't want to do the movie, despite his previous warm artistic and personal relationship with Lerner. Maybe it was because the movie's innate conservatism was just a bit too much of two steps forward for MGM and one step backward for Vincente Minnelli. But once trapped in this assignment like the denizens of Brigadoon are trapped within its city limits, Minnelli strove to turn it into something that would be entertaining in a specifically distracting, if not liberating way. The ultimate result is truly horrific to behold.

While aiming for the naive charm of previous Minnelli hits like "Cabin in the Sky" and "Meet Me in St. Louis", the plaid-tights wearing inhabitants of Brigadoon can conjure up none of the illusive nostalgia of those never-have-been locales. Its whimsy doesn't even match up to the glossy luster of "Yolanda and the Thief" or "The Pirate" because the highlands settings seem at the same time too specific for such an exotic fantasy and too generic for real human emotions. The only people in Brigadoon who I at least can relate to are the malcontented man who tries to escape and the unfortunate fellow-traveler played by Van Johnson who accidentally shoots him. The general proceedings in the township of Brigadoon itself are too arcane and provincial even to be attributed to a backwards form of Christianity: they seem positively pagan in their aspect. For example, in exchange for Brigadoon's immortality, the honorable and most generally "good" pastor of the town has sacrificed his own place in the supposedly blessed refuge.

At one point we're assured that "everybody's looking for their own Brigadoon." Suffice it to say the box office for this picture confirms my own suspicion that most of us aren't looking for this kind of quasi-queasy paradise. The premise itself is ridiculous and almost insultingly patronizing, but could work if the players were perfect. But Kelly himself is the most patronizing thing about the movie, and Charisse is horribly miscast as a virginal optimist in much the same way as Lucille Bremer was miscast in "Yolanda and the Thief." Van Johnson does his best version of the classic Oscar Levant sidekick to Kelly (even lighting 3 cigarettes at one point like Levant in "AIP"), and he provides a lot of amusing moments. But it says something in itself if the best part of a big budget extravaganza with all the best talents of MGM is a tossed-off Van Johnson performance.


This movie is phoniness incarnate, a straight 11 / 10 on the phoniness scale. The fakeness of the accents as well as the tightness of the cardigan spandex pants are just staggering. Yanks, although the real Scotland may be just as colourful, if you ever go there don't expect to be given much of a the chance to "dance out" controversies with the locals. Also, don't attempt to sway local opinion through the otherwise fine art of tapdancing.

There are a couple of infectious singing-and-dancing scenes, but the plot is far too cheesy and linear, and the dialogue is often too weak. I also doubt whether anyone would want to be stuck in a timewarped 18.th-century Scottish village in the boondocks rather than gay New York City. Maybe it wasn't such a big sacrifice for that priest to have left Brigadoon, maybe he was just trying to get the hell out of that dump.

Watch it for the fine alternative-reality view of what a Christopher Streed Day-parade in Scotland would look like on LSD. Other than that I'd only recommend it to Hollywood muscial completists.


Celia Johnson is good as the Nurse. Michael Hordern is good as Capulet, though it's his usual neighing and whinnying and not a patch on his King Lear. John O'Conor reads the verse well as Friar Laurence though he never takes it anywhere. Alan Rickman is good as Tybalt, in the first of his "yuk" roles that would make him famous. Christopher Strauli's Benvolio is sympathetic.

The sets are pretty, if not stunning as in some of the other BBC Shakespeare's.

And that's it. The rest is weak to dreadful. Rebecca Saire turned 15 during production, and hasn't a clue about how to act Juliet - she opens her eyes real wide and whines every line in exactly the same way. Patrick Ryecart is poorly matched to her, and his self-regard is inexplicable. The Balcony Scene flows smoothly and uneventfully with zero emotional or erotic impact. Their deaths come as a relief. If I had a dagger, I would have offered it to them hours earlier.

Anthony Andrews is unspeakable as Mercutio, a great shock if you remember his fine work in "Brideshead Revisited." He breaks the mirror of Shakespeare's verse into a thousand shards of two or three words each, and then shouts the fragments in as disconnected and unintelligible manner as possible. In this production, Queen Mab abdicates. Awful.

The director, Alvin Rakoff, shows only an intermittent gift of putting the camera where it will show us what we want to see. The opening brawl is notably incoherent. However there is humor when in a later fight, Romeo apparently knees Tybalt right in the cobblers. Tybalt then grabs the offended region. However did that get through?

R&J is a long play. This version is not recommended for classroom use, or much else.


Have to admit, this version disgraces Shakespeare upfront! None can act except the nurse who was my fav! Juliet had good skills as a teen but she can't give emotional depth to her lines and we really can never connect to her. She's worse doing the scene when she is contemplating drinking the sleeping potion...god stop whining! I would have poured it in her mouth to shut her up! Anthony Andrews...yikes! Considering his other great movies (Brideshead Revisited, Ivanhoe, Scarlet Pimpernel), he's quite a shocker in this one. And don't get me started on Romeo...puhleasssssee! It's still good to see if you're on the hunt to see every Romeo and Juliet ever made in the history of film. Olivia and Leonard's version is still the best, followed by Leslie Howard's version and then the current Leo and Clare!


Easily the best known of all the Shakespeare plays, it has been seriously let down here. Shoddy direction, stagnant studio work and erratic performances spoil a fine tragedy.

In the town of Verona, the Capulets and the Montagues have been feuding for centuries but tragedy is imminent when Romeo (Patrick Rycart), a Montague, falls in love with Juliet (Rebecca Saire), a Capulet. Bloodshed soon erupts...

The studio work, especially in daytime scenes, seriously stagnates the energy of the play. It's a story that, with it's energy, deserves to be shot outdoors. Coupled with this the costumes are hideous, with too many tights and ludicrous codpieces. The stage fighting looks horrendous, with far too much stretching and running around to be engaging.

Patrick Ryecart is too lightweight to be a truly effective Romeo. He manages the character's intensity when the plot gets going but his stately accent and bland, often inexpressive eyes limit his range. It is very hard for the audience to relate to this Romeo. Rebecca Saire is too youthful to be a good Juliet - she captures the character's naiveté but a little more sassiness would have been welcome.

The supporting roles don't fare much better. Joseph O'Connor's Friar Laurence is fine but too many of his best lines have been cut. Anthony Andrews' Mercutio belongs on stage and not on camera. He gurns and gesticulates excessively and looks rather ridiculous as a result. Alan Rickman, underplaying his role, has virtually no presence as Tybalt. He did develop an edge and intensity to deliver some fine screen performances in later years, but that isn't in evidence here. The Prince can be a fine role with his brief appearances but actor Lawrence Naismith fails to give the part any authority on camera. Only Micheal Hordern, in probably his best role in this series, comes out of this with any dignity. His Capulet is well-played and a joy to watch.

See one of the other versions of this story instead.


For my first taste of Shakespeare on stage, I cannot believe what these people did to a perfectly good play.

-Let's start off with the good bit, shall we?-

Alan Rickman is alright, although some of his dialog could have been delivered with more feeling. The rest of the actors needed to pull it together.

Romeo, Romeo, whyfore art thou not dead yet, Romeo? The actor, while not only completely wooden and deadpan, could not read his lines with any gusto at all. He was completely out of focus, had difficulty even looking Juliet in the face, and absolutely NO grace with the lines that he was given. Whoever cast him deserves to be punished. Juliet is almost passable, but she gives no depth to her character,and seems to be completely out of touch with the play. Mercutio was incredibly creepy and completely out of character for the entirety of his dialog. Benvolio was unfeeling and mercilessly choppy with his lines.

I was forced to endure this half-baked production of Romeo and Juliet. The acting was stilted and the costumes were nothing short of distracting. I have seen kindergarten puppet shows with more effort put into them. I only wish that i could give this movie a rating of zero.


This is the first of "The Complete Dramatic Works of William Shakespeare" BBC series I've seen, and if all of them are like this, I might watch no more. Being practically the full text of the play is everything this "Romeo & Juliet" has going for it, lacking in all other departments. Alvin Rakoff reveals himself as a dreadful director, both in the technical and artistic aspects. In the former, because he commits mistakes that even a first grade film student would wisely avoid. Take in consideration, for example, the badly edited first shot of Abraham and Balthasar in the opening scene, or the Nurse's entering of Friar Lawrence's cell, asking where's Romeo with him being so very in front of her that she'd clearly see him even if she was blind. And, in the latter, because every single one of the performers is misdirected, even if some of them are good actors. Rebecca Saire looks exactly the way I've always imagined Juliet to look like, and she doesn't seem to be a bad actress for a teenager, but her performance totally lacks passion of any kind. Patrick Ryecart as Romeo is even worse, being not only as dull as Juliet, but also way too old and not even good-looking, coming across as a combination of Malcolm McDowell and the Chucky doll. Putting them together makes impossible to think they feel anything for each other, let alone being the main players of the greatest love story ever written. Alan Rickman, in his screen debut, plays Tybalt like if he was Darth Vader, which is a huge mistake that takes away the complexity that Shakespeare intended, no character being a hero or a villain but all flawed human beings. This Tybalt is so mean-looking that we don't believe the characters' pity after his demise. As for Paris, I kept thinking of "Prince Valium" from Spaceballs. Only Celia Johnson manages to do the character of the Nurse some justice.

At 168 minutes, this production is unable to make us empathize with the characters, because the characters don't empathize with each other and never seen to believe their own roles. The best screen version is still Franco Zeffirelli's. But, to be fair, this BBC one isn't nearly as bad as abominations like George Cukor's flamboyant geriatric version, or the crime against Humanity that is Baz Luhrmann's feature-length MTV video. 4/10.


I rated Basic instinct 2 high, yet that movie got less than a 4 rating. This film only got a 4 from me, but it has 7.3 from over 600 people. I don't see a reason why they like this film so much.

This film is boring, because it hardly ever leaves those rooms in that broken big house. And it only has a total of 5 people in this film. It is almost two hours long which is totally unnecessary. Many of dialogues are slow and meaningless. The film tone is also dark blue which is depressing to watch. The film can just be shorten to a few sentences.

This film reminds me of "Three times" directed by Hou Hsiao hsien, that one is equally boring, the dialogues are also equally boring. It also has a high rating! I had to stop watching that one after the first story finished.

This film lacks of passion or excitement.


Good films cannot solely be based on a beautiful garden and a hill top. Surprised to see it has won two awards. Extremely overrated. I first saw that kind of films from China, visually stunning BUT also with really something captivating to say, well, more than 10 years ago and I'm sure there are still more coming up. This is not one of them, I'm afraid.


Not very impressed. Its difficult to offer any spoilers to this film, because there is almost no development in the plot. Everything becomes clear in the first ten minutes and from there on its like watching paint dry. The acting seems very poor as well, and reminds me of the old black and white Maoist era films shown occasionally on daytime Chinese television. Although this is difficult to tell with the female role, Yuwen, as the story seems to only require her walking round like a wooden mannequin. It reminds me of fading star Gong Li who somehow got a reputation as a good actress in the West for having a scowl on her face all the time.

Tian Zhuangzhuang's film the 'Blue Kite' was a far better film. But don't be fooled by the fact that Springtime in a Small Town was set in the late '40s. Unlike the Blue Kite, the fact that this film is set in a time of upheaval is irrelevant to the plot itself, the ruins of the town seem to be nothing more than a scenic backdrop.

I wonder whether Tian Zhuangzhuang is simply trying to ride on the popularity of Chinese films in the West and appeal to a foreign audience who can't tell the difference between a film that is 'beautiful' 'profound' or 'hypnotic' and one that is simply tedious and insubstantial.

If any film fits the description of 'overrated,' this is it. I see no reason here to stop worrying about the state of the Chinese film industry.


I'll have to add dissenting comment here. Various reviews I have read compared this movie to the likes of those by Wong Kar Wai or Hou Hsiao-hsien. i.e. one of the admirable flotilla of mandarin goodies that have come our way in recent years. Unfortunately this isn't quite accurate. The film plays out rather like a film school graduate's attempt to emulate these masters. All the pieces are there - the beautiful backdrop, the vaguely minimalist dialogue, the slow swaying camerawork, and male leads, in particular, who spend a fair whack of time sitting around being contemplative. Sounds good but unfortunately nothing is up to par. The dialogue is leaden. The acting is generally unable to lift the characters above type; the married couple and the little sister are particularly poor and uninvolving. Unfortunately when mediocre character acting is combined with a classical "Chekovian" (i.e. very predictable) plot, the results are at best tedious and at worst painful. I couldn't help but see the "Blue Danube" river scene, for example, as verging on genre parody (although the smoggy looking "springtime" sky over the river did provide a bit of black humour...) I actually went to this movie on the basis that Mark Li Ping was photographing it. While the setting is elegant, and the swaying camera attempts to replicate the mood of "Flowers of Shanghai", the film is not in the same league, visually. In fact I must confess that after an hour of wondering whether it was the script or the acting that was ruining the film, I suddenly remembered that I was meant to meet my flatmate for dinner and took the chance to leave (and I can't recall the last film I walked out of). I'm guessing from the reviews that the ending may have left a positive aftertaste but by that point I couldn't care. If you'd like to see something along similar lines done with real talent then I'd recommend anything by the above two directors, for example "In the Mood for Love" or "Flowers of Shanghai", both of which were filmed by the talented Mr Ping (the former with Chris Doyle), and both of which are films masterful enough to inspire years of failed emulations like this. It's not often Mr Hoberman leads me astray, and perhaps you'd rather listen to him, but don't say you weren't warned. Craig.


"Dominique" is one of those films that the expression "slow-as-molasses" must have been invented for. Too many endless and repetitive sequences (how many times do we see Robertson walking down the stairs slowly because he can hear someone playing the piano?). It is ALMOST redeemed at the end by a surprising twist, which, unfortunately, is followed by a second twist that succeeds only in leaving a bad taste in our mouths. Not a very enjoyable film.


Cliff Robertson as a scheming husband married to a rich wife delivers a razzie-worthy performance here if there ever was one; it's as if director Michael Anderson kept yelling "dial it down; think zombie, only less lively" through his little bullhorn as he coached Robertson's effort. The rest of the cast is barely better; Jennifer Agutter of LOGAN'S RUN fame is hardly seen in what should have been fleshed out as a pivotal role. If the quality of the acting was three times better; if some of the more gaping plot holes were filled; and if the pacing were given a shot of adrenaline, then this yawner might be brought up to a standard acceptable to the Hallmark\Lifetime TV channel crowd. As is, its rating is so inexplicably high one can't help thinking chronic insomniacs are using DOMINIQUE to catch a little snoozing time. Perhaps the late-night TV telemarketers are missing a major opportunity in not shilling it as such.


To call a film about a crippled ghost taking revenge from beyond the grave lame and lifeless would be too ironical but this here is an undeniably undistinguished combination of GASLIGHT (1939 & 1944) via LES DIABOLIQUES (1954); while still watchable in itself, it's so cliché-ridden as to provoke chuckles instead of the intended chills. However, thanks to the dire straits in which the British film industry found itself in the late 1970s, even a mediocre script such as this one was able to attract 10 star names - Cliff Robertson (as the conniving husband), Jean Simmons (in the title role), Jenny Agutter (as Robertson's artist half-sister), Simon Ward (as the enigmatic chauffeur), Ron Moody (as an ill-fated doctor), Michael Jayston (as Robertson's business partner), Judy Geeson (as Simmons' best friend and Jayston's wife), Flora Robson (as the housekeeper), David Tomlinson (as the notary reading Simmons' will) and, most surprisingly perhaps, Jack Warner (as a gravestone sculptor) - although most of them actually have nothing parts, I'm sorry to say!


The character acting is a little stiff, as if it is the first time man of the actors have appeared on screen. Unfortunately one of the better actresses, Jean Simmons (played many bit roles on TV, like in Star Trek TNG and In the Heat of the Night), dies quickly and thereafter her acting can be markedly missed.

The lead role is Mr Ballard, as portrayed by Cliff Robertson. Cliff is forced to carry this movie with his body language for most of the time. He doesn't do a poor job, but it is a little overmuch to ask of an actor to plug the oceans of blank screen time during which the characters spend their time NOT talking and also NOT acting. Robertson's most memorable role may have been Ben Parker in the last 3 Spider Man movies (starring Tobey Maguire).

The plot is predictable. A husband murders his rich wife for her money. thereafter the wife seems to comeback and haunt the husband driving him insane until he leaps from a high window (fearing the specter of his dead wife approaching him) on the day he is predicted to die no less.

The second chauffeur Mr Ballard hires looks a lot like an English mark Hamill. Uncanny really! The only thing that stands out is the utter disregard for dialogue. Many minutes pass in quietness, no one speaks, and few act. It is a shame the MST3K guys never got hold of this movie. It could have been much better, if not just as predictable, with more dialogue, or shorter scenes of 'nothingness'.

I kept expecting G'Mork's red eyes to appear from the shadows and proclaim that he works for the "nothing" that inhabits this film.


This movie was o.k. but it could have been much better. There are some spooky moments but there aren't enough of them to make me ever want to see this movie again. There are some scenes you could fast forward through & not miss anything. The biggest flaw is that it is so predictable, & that is the reason why I rated it so low. It's watchable but don't expect anything great.


I think Cliff Robertson certainly was one of our finest actors. He has a half dozen classics to his credit. He does fine here as the heavy, but the direction is so bad and the pacing so tiresome, it never gets off the mark. The story starts off well although it makes me wonder how he could count on his wife hanging herself. Still he mugs well and carries things along. The death knell is twofold. First of all, if we were to take the amount of time characters spend walking from one room to another or one part of the house to another, it would eat up about a third of the movie. Add to that, Robertson's character sitting up in bed in the blue light, looking confused, that might add another chunk. I agree with those that said a half hour shorter would have made it a pretty decent, though insignificant film. The biggest weakness is just a convoluted plot that, when all is said and done, leaves incredible questions. I'm not putting in spoilers, but when it ends, don't think too much. I can come up with ten what-ifs without raising a sweat. It would have been better if it had remained a ghost story.


Judy Holliday struck gold in 1950 withe George Cukor's film version of "Born Yesterday," and from that point forward, her career consisted of trying to find material good enough to allow her to strike gold again.

It never happened. In "It Should Happen to You" (I can't think of a blander title, by the way), Holliday does yet one more variation on the dumb blonde who's maybe not so dumb after all, but everything about this movie feels warmed over and half hearted. Even Jack Lemmon, in what I believe was his first film role, can't muster up enough energy to enliven this recycled comedy. The audience knows how the movie will end virtually from the beginning, so mostly it just sits around waiting for the film to catch up.

Maybe if you're enamored of Holliday you'll enjoy this; otherwise I wouldn't bother.

Grade: C


'Major Payne' is a film about a major who makes life a living Hell for his small group of boys in the marines. This film does not really have a lot to offer, but it provides several hilarious moments that are well-worth a watch. Don't expect it to be a memorable film, however. Just expect to laugh your way through the film and at the expense of other people. The confrontation between Major Payne and the chubby boy were hilarious, and that's really all I remember about the film except for the boys wanting revenge on Major Payne. Again, it is not a great film, and it is probably best watched on a rainy day when you need some laughter.


Sort of family parody blending "An Officer And A Gentleman", "Heartbreak Ridge", "Full Metal Jacket" (and without doubt other movies I am not able to remember now) into a rather dull movie, with some bright spots. The gags are always there where you would expect them, and Damon Wayans's lines are, well, predictable. As I said, unfortunately this movie never surprises you...


If this is someone's "favorite" movie, they need some serious help. There is nothing funny or clever about this crapfest. I haven't seen the original movie this is the remake of (some 1950s film), but it simply has to be better than this newer bastardization.

A major gets kicked out of the military for being a fringe element, and winds up teaching children at an ROTC school. Unfortunately, the major is Daman Wayans... so the children are in for a world of annoying, humorless asininity. Can Wayans whip these losers into shape? Can they get him to become a little more human? The film bombs as most Wayans films do, with only a few sparkling moments. William Hickey gets about one minute of screen time, fair too little. This charming old man (known best to me as a "Tales from the Crypt" actor, known best to you as Uncle Louis from "Christmas Vacation") shines every moment he's on screen, which isn't much here.

Bam Bam Bigelow also makes an appearance as a biker, which fits him perfectly. I wouldn't mind slightly more Bam Bam, but I think he carried the role of "biker" about as far as it could be carried for a military film.

And then there's the attractive teacher, who someone falls for Major Payne even though he treats the kids poorly, has no social skills and is simply impossible to convert into someone you would want to spend time with. She must either be incredibly stupid or incredibly desperate. I'm not sure which (though it would seem "stupid" since the movie makes it clear she gets out of the house often enough).

Wayans had one shining moment: a dance sequence where he performs a series of moves (including a very nice "robot"), and with the help of music from 2 Live Crew. This scene was enjoyable but hardly made up for anything else that made this film dog spittle.

Seriously, avoid this film. If you want to see a film a bout a loser who helps loser kids become heroes, rent or buy "Ernest Goes to Camp". At least he's a lovable loser, and actually funny. Maybe if Major Payne had fought a badger I'd feel better, but he didn't. Forget Payne, forget Wayans... you can do so much better.


but there are not too many of them. Probably the worst "major release" film I have seen in my life. Definitely the worst for this year. There is no point in commenting on the plot, the cast or the acting. The problem is beyond all that. It lays in the absolute stupidity of the annoying kind (not the funny kind) of everything that takes place on the screen. I don't know why I gave it a 2/10 instead of 1/10. Probably, because of Steven Martini. He really did try. Bottom line - 95 minutes washed down the toilet along with a few brain cells. Avoid at any cost.


Did anyone stop to realise what sort of movie they were producing here ? Now let`s a former marine officer becomes assinged to a group of kids at a cadet school so this should be a family comedy right ? Wrong . This is just a gross comedy aimed at teenagers with many bad taste moments .It might have been watchable in an extremely dumb way at this point but I found Damon Wayans voice to be irritating beyond belief . Does he speak like that in real life ? If he does then he has my sympathy but he won`t be getting any of my money from watching his movies


Major Payne was really not very good at all. Despite being funny here and there, the story was ridiculous and the acting was poor. Major Payne's voice and temperament were especially annoying. The idea was ridiculous and the things that the boys had to do in that film were even more ridiculous. I would not recommend this film to anyone.


I view probably 200 movies a year both at theaters and at home and I can say with confidence that this movie is by far the worst I have seen this year (If not ever, however I have not actually seen "Quest of the Delta Knights" yet). This movie is just bad joke after bad joke geared to the 13 year old and because I had he displeasure of viewing it on a bus trip I couldn't walk out.

Do yourself a favor and skip this one in the rental aisle. The four dollars could be better spent on any movie by numbers produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.


Stefan is an x-con that five years ago got married to Marie. Their marriage has been stable until Stefan past catch up with them and he's offered to do a courier job. Stefan's job is a heroin delivery from Germany to Sweden which should go easily.

In Germany Stefan meet Elli, a girl from Bosnia that has been sold to a stripclub owner. Stefan dislikes what he sees and decide to help Elli out of her misery. Due to the fact that Elli's father during the war fleed to Sweden Elli now goes with Stefan to Sweden. To make up with the past Stefan promises Elli to help her find her father, no matter what it takes. Finally back in Sweden the whole situation seems to be more complicated than Stefan ever thought of..

This movie doesn't seem to fit in the ordinary class of swedish movies due to the fact that it's been americanized alot. Regina Lund and Cecilia Bergqvist makes it all average, the effects makes the movie a little too much though. See it and jugde for yourself.


With the releasing of "Farligt förflutet" Swedish film industry has truly hit rock bottom. Stefan (Jens Hultén) has for the past years lived a calm life with his wife Marie (Regina Lund). One day an old friend of Stefan´s arrives with a favor to ask him. Stefan is to do a small courier job. He is supposed to bring a suitcase filled with heroine through the Sweden-Germany customs. Unfortunately things in Germany don´t work out as planned and Stefan is now in big trouble. It is always nice to see a Swedish film that breaks the traditional family-drama pattern. Unfortunately if the people involved in the production have no clue of how a movie is supposed to be written, filmed or cut the result can only be catastrophic. The content can be concluded with: bad acting, an incoherent plot and idiotic dialogs. The only highlight in the movie is the unprovoked sex-scene wit the incredibly beautiful Regina Lund. This lasts for only a few seconds leaving approxamitly 90 minutes of pure, let´s say what it truly is, crap.