Okay, as a long time Disney fan, I really -hate- direct-to-video Disney sequels. Walt HIMSELF didn't believe in them. He believed in "AND THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER" being the end of it. But this one...REALLY ticked the taco. There were so many ripoffs of other Disney films in this, it wasn't funny. Quick summary, if you don't already know...: Melody, the daughter of Ariel and Prince Eric, is born. Ursula's sister, Morganna (who basically looks like Ursula, if she were to dye herself green and go on the Ally Macbeal starvation diet) shows up and, after trying to do the newborn tyke in, and failing, prophesizes doom for the characters. After that ordeal, Ariel goes into a lapse of being like her father, and refuses to tell Melody about her mermaid heritage, and later on, forbids her to go near the sea. Well surprise surprise. Melody finds out, being the stubborn brat she is, and runs away, then makes a deal with Morgana to become a mermaid, in exchange for something. (Gee does THAT sound familiar?) She becomes one, but in her half of the bargain, has to retrieve her granddaddy's Trident and bring it back to the sea witch. While doing THIS, she runs into a couple of outcast animals, a penguin and a walrus named Timon and Pumb--huh? wait...no! that's not Timon and Pumbaa! or is it? Could of fooled me. Anyway, i'd like to reveal more, but pretty much anything that could be guessed to happen does. OK so...long story short. This movie "borrows" too much from other (better) Disney films...and does it horribly. Come on...Tip and Dash? Why not just make Dash obscenely flatulent and make it an even more obvious ripoff! Ugh. Not to mention, the total character butchery of Ariel's persona. She's gone from being a freespirited, headstrong woman, to a clone of her father. Not good at all...they're basically telling us the sweet, firey little mermaid we've known to grow and love is dead. Plus Melody herself isn't such a great character either...she's damned annoying! And bratty! Not to mention what they've done to Flounder. Ugh...anyway if you decide to see this piece of created-mainly-for-profit-reasons, no-imagination, Eisner-sponsored c******t, I suggest maybe waiting 'till its on the Disney channel or some other tv station. Because, it's not even worth the price of a rental.

 * out of ***** stars.


I'll say it again: this movie was totally lame. Kids will like it, sure, but adults...doubtful. The whole thing was basically a rehash of the original, which is to be expected, since they pretty much explored the whole concept in the first movie, but still, did they have to completely rehash the entire movie? I mean, everything is re-done from the Little Mermaid. The worst part of it is Morgana "Ursula's crazy sister" who appears out of nowhere and threatens Melody, which is ridiculous since Triton is there with his magic trident. Why didn't Triton do anything about it? Because the plot required him to do nothing. I could go on, but I won't. The whole thing is a shameless attempt to rake in more money from the Little Mermaid, and was obviously thrown together without any thought, because they knew it would sell. Overall it is a terrible waste of time.


I loved the first Little Mermaid. I know the songs, I love the characters and I love the story. I can't say anything like that about The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea. It was terrible. Let's start with the story. The plot was a reversed copy of the first movie. Same situations, except in reverse! Ariel wanted to live on land, her daughter Melody (creative name) wants to live in the sea. Ariel was tricked by Ursula, Melody is tricked by Ursula's sister, Morgana. Ursula had a sister?? Not sure where that came from. Besides being a strange copy of the first movie, this movies plot seemed tired and was uninteresting compared to the first movie. Now the characters: 1. Ariel- What happened to her??!! No longer the spunky, headstrong teenager we all knew and loved from the first movie, she has now "grown up" and her personality went down the drain. Her singing voice wasn't as strong either, due to either Jodi Benson being a lot older, or the songs being so terrible that her talent was wasted. 2. Prince Eric- While he didn't have a lot of personality in the first movie, like all Disney princes, somehow his new voice and his very few lines made him even more robotic. To top it off, he just can't seem to defend himself, and Ariel becomes the tough one of the two. 3. Sebastian- Say goodbye to the lovable crustacean from the first movie, because a whiny, aggravating little crab just took his place. He also had no good songs in this movie. You can almost forget the glory he earned from singing the incredible "Under the Sea" and "Kiss the Girl" from the first movie, and it is very sad. 4. Flounder- They destroyed him!! He is not cute anymore, his voice is terrible, and he has kids now?? Who's the mother??? 5. Morgana- She appears to be Ursula's sister out for revenge against her mother, who always picked Ursula over her. So she plans to get King Triton's trident to become the new ruler of the sea. Sound familiar? Anyway, she's a very cliché villain and falls short of Ursula's greatness as a villain. She epically fails at witchcraft, she's not very tough, and not threatening at all. 6.Melody- Ariel and Eric's daughter. Ironic name because she, unlike Ariel, can't sing. Her voice is annoying, her friends (a walrus and a penguin?? Really?!) are not funny or likable, and she's exactly the same as Ariel, in reverse and not as likable. Skip this one. Don't watch any Disney sequel except for Lion King 2. This movie butchered the classic that lives in all our pleasant memories. I will look back at this movie and just laugh.


I had such high hopes for this film because I loved the original so much. It seems that Disney, however, is trying to perfect the art of crappy straight-to-DVD sequels. They deserve a razzie. Several, in fact. I thought the idea had merit, but the music was absolutely awful and the story wasn't much better. What happened to the great music Disney used to have in their films. Mary Poppins, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King...even Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They've made so many great movies over the years that it's really sad that they've sunk to point of making sequels that aren't even good enough to put in theatres.

I hope this movie is not an indication of things to come for the Walt Disney Corporation.


Though I've yet to review the movie in about two years, I remember exactly what made my opinion go as low as it did. Having loved the original Little Mermaid, and having been obsessed with mermaids as a child could be, I decided I'd take the time to sit down and watch the sequel.

Disney, I've got a little message for you. If you don't have the original director and actors handy...you're just looking to get your butt whooped.

In the sequel, our story begins with a slightly older Ariel and her daughter, Melody. My first big issue was that Eric and the rest of the crew sang. Yes, I understand that Disney is big on sing-and-dance numbers, but really, that's what made Eric my favorite prince. He was calm, collected, and a genuine gentleman that knew how to have fun. And he DID. NOT. SING.

And then there's the villain. Oh, how could we forget the shivers that coursed down our spines whenever Ursula slunk onto the screen, terrifying both Ariel and audiences around the world? Unfortunately, that gene was not passed on to her seemingly useless sister, Morgana. Nothing was ever, EVER said about Morgana in the first movie; she just pops out of nowhere, trying to steal the baby. Oh, how cute. The younger sister is ticked off and instead of going after the trident, decides to kidnap a month-old baby. Gag me.

Other than being a flat character with no sense of originality in her, Morgana was just very unorthodox. The same plan as her sister, the same minions (who, by the way, did not scare anyone. I had a three year old on my lap when I watched this movie, and she laughed hysterically.) She had no purpose being in there; I'd like to have seen Mom be the villain. I'm sure she would have done a better job than Little Miss Tish over there.

King Triton held none of the respect he'd earned from me in the first movie, and don't even get me started on Scuttle, Sebastian and Flounder. Triton was a stern but loving father in the first movie, and in the second, it's almost like he's lost his will to knock fear into the hearts of his subjects. Scuttle, once a comic relief that made everyone laugh with his 'dingle-hopper' (yes, I'll admit it; I did call my fork a dingle-hopper from time to time after that). In this film, Scuttle's all but forgotten. A supporting character even in the first, he at least added something to the movie. He was rich with a flavor the others didn't have, and in the sequel, they all but stripped it from him entirely. Sebastian was still the same, but twice as worrisome as before. Disney, don't do that. Don't even try to mess with our favorite crab. Or our favorite little fat fish, who becomes a dad and has a multitude of very annoying children. He's fat, and he's bland, and he looks like he's going to flat line any second.

The walrus and penguin were unneeded, and after a while, you just start to resent everyone. Especially Melody, who has no depth to her whatsoever.

And one of these days, Disney, I'm kicking out of my life.

If I didn't love your originals so much.


This was the first sequel I'd seen (apart from Return of Jafar) and I honestly thought before watching it that it would be close to the original. I was horribly disappointed.

The storyline was, basically, the first script with a few extra characters and the situation turned around. Ariel and Eric have a daughter, Melody who isn't satisfied with life on land. She wants to become a mermaid. However, Ariel has kept her past from her daughter because she wants to protect her-and when Melody finds out she's upset and angry. And she then decides to run away, and she becomes a mermaid. So she's happy swimming around, and Ariel sets out to find her-as a mermaid.

The story doesn't sound too bad written down, but the clichés and repeats of situations from the first movie are just too obvious. And adding the fact that Melody is, overall, extremely annoying, and the movie becomes almost unbearable.

There's also a whole load of other new characters-Tip and Dash being two of them. They aren't too bad as characters in themselves-just try not to think of Timon or Pumbaa! The songs leave a lot to be desired too, they just don't have the same magical energy as the songs from the original did. The animation obviously didn't have a whole load of work put into it either-in parts it's jumpy, and not much imagination is used for the characters movements.

Another piece of advice-try to forget about Ariel's original character while watching this movie. The beautiful, rebellious, curious teenager has 'all grown up' into a bland, boring wife and mother, and her trademark red hair is all tied up. This is much better viewed if you've never seen the original-you'll have nothing to compare it to.

However, all in all, it could have been worse-it's not as bad as certain other sequels, such as Cinderella II. But it's not in the same league as the original. But it for your collection if nothing else but if Disney go on like this they'll lose all their older fans.


As a child the first installment ("The Little Mermaid") was my favorite movie. It was filled with great characters, songs, and a fun family film. A week or so again I watched this movie for the first time. I believe that this movie was like most sequels and didn't surpass their original. I think that I feel this way possibly because I had high expectations and I have grown up. However, it is not a bad film.

It starts when Ariel has just given birth to a beautiful child, Melody. Eric and Ariel feel threatened by Morgana (Eurselas' sister), so they build a large wall around their house which lies on the sea. As Melody grows up she begins to wonder outside of the walls where she is forbidden to go. Trouble stirs up as Morgana tries to take control of the seven seas.

I don't want to give away any of the movie so you have to see it to find out. I did like that the voices are the same and again wonderful singing. I think this is a good family film though overall!


The Little Mermaid is one of my absolute favorite Disney movies. I'm sorry to say, however, that Disney completely messed up when they made this sequel. I'll admit it has some good points to it. The songs aren't bad, and the animation is clean and clear. There is some humor, I'm sure--I don't remember, because after watching it I immediately banned it from appearing before my eyes again. The worst point of this movie is the plot. In this movie, Ariel becomes her father. She forbids her daughter to go near the sea (yes, out of fear), just as she was forbidden to go near the land. I personally think that, given her past, Ariel would maintain some of her headstrong ways and not treat her daughter like she herself was treated.

Besides this fact, Ursula was replaced by a non-scary, pathetic sort of sea witch (the underfed, forgotten sister) who is more comical than scary. She, too, has some little underling to do her bidding--but she's not scarier or worse than Ursula. Ursula spoiled us with her believability for badness. This sea witch is a joke.

To make matters worse, Flounder is a fat, deep-voiced father (no longer the cute guppy we all know and love) and Eric's voice is not even done by the same actor (something that always annoys me in a remake/sequel). (His voice difference was very obvious to me, by the way!) I felt that the only reason this movie was made was so that Disney could catch a few fast dollars, something I hate to think about a corporation I actually really do enjoy. I felt that this plot lacked imagination. I know that this act (child following in the footsteps of a parent) happens, but Ariel was different. That was what we loved so much about her. She had a dream, she fell in love, and she made that dream come true. Until she appeared in this movie, that is. Then she became just like the other adults. This isn't the Ariel I know. And I don't like her.

I know of some children who have enjoyed this film, and I know some adults who didn't mind it, either. But for me, and for all of you out there who have the utmost love for Ariel, please don't see this movie. The Ariel we know dies within, resurrected only for a song or two and one final scene that actually isn't bad (where she accepts the water back again)--although she takes very little part in the ending, regardless.


This is a movie that is bad in every imaginable way. Sure we like to know what happened 12 years from the last movie, and it works on some level. But the new characters are just not interesting. Baby Melody is hideously horrible! Alas, while the logic that humans can't stay underwater forever is maintained, other basic physical logic are ignored. It's chilly if you don't have cold weather garments if you're in the Arctic. I don't know why most comments here Return of Jafar rates worse, I thought this one is more horrible.


Disney goes to the well one too many times as anybody who has seen the original LITTLE MERMAID will feel blatantly ripped off. Celebrating the birth of their daughter Melody, Ariel and Eric plan on introducing her to King Triton. The celebration is quickly crashed by Ursula 's sister, Morgana who plans to use Melody as a defense tool to get the King 's trident. Stopping the attack, Ariel and Eric build a wall around the ocean while Melody grows up wondering why she cannot go in there.

Awful and terrible is what describes this direct to video sequel. LITTLE MERMAID 2 gives you that feeling everything you watch seemed to have come straight other Disney movies. I guess Disney can only plagiarize itself! Do not tell me that the penguin and walrus does not remind you of another duo from the LION KING!

Other disappointing moments include the rematch between Sebastien and Louie, the royal chef. They terribly under played it! The climax between Morgana and EVERYONE seemed to be another disappointment.

I will not give anything away, but in 75 minutes, everything seemed incredibly cramped and too much to handle. An embarrassment to Disney, LITTLE MERMAID 2 is better left to rent and laugh at. Then you can prepare for the rest of the other sequels Disney is going to drown you in later on.


When I was younger, I thought the first film was really good in childhood, so I decided to see the sequel. This is an example of why some films shouldn't have sequels, because the first film is usually best, and it is. Basically now that Ariel and Eric are married they have a daughter who isn't allowed outside the house because they are worried about the sister of Ursula (the octopus legged villain from film one), Morgana getting to her. When the kid gets out she asks Ursula's sister to turn her into a mermaid, like her Mum was. This makes Ariel go back to the sea to find her. The same good voice artists, it's just the story that could have had a bit more thought. Adequate!


It's a good thing The Score came along for Marlon Brando as a farewell performance because I'd hate to think of him going out on Free Money. Not what his fans ought to remember him by.

Brando in his last years is looking more like Orson Welles and Free Money is the kind of film Welles would have done looking for financing of his own work. Brando is the warden of a local prison which in America, when it's located in a small rural setting is usually the largest employer in the area. That gives one who is in charge a lot of clout.

Unfortunately he has one weakness he indulges, his two twin bimbos otherwise known as daughters. Even when they get simultaneously pregnant by a pair of losers, Charlie Sheen and Thomas Haden Church, their hearts still belong to Daddy.

Not to fear because Brando's willing to give them jobs in the prison where they work under conditions not much better than the convicts have. What to do, but commit a robbery of a train which goes through the locality every so often carrying used money to be burned by the Treasury.

Although Free Money has some moments of humor, for most of the time it's quite beneath the talents of all those involved. Some of them would include Donald Sutherland as an equally corrupt judge and Mira Sorvino as his stepdaughter, but also straight arrow FBI agent.

Of course these people and the rest of the cast got to work with someone who many rate as the greatest American actor of the last century. Were it not for Brando's presence and were it some 40 years earlier, Free Money would be playing the drive-in circuit in red state America where the populace could see how they're being satirized.

Or a feeble attempt is made to satirize them.


I still can't believe this movie. They got so much unbelievable things in it, that it's hard to believe anyone wanted to make it.

The story is a joke, but in the sense of being funny, but more like no story at all. How can you mix a slapstick comedy with a train robbery, a prison movie, town conspiracies, sex-jokes and a FBI-agent? You can't.

Beside the terrifying directing the most noticeable thing are the actors. I watched this film and thought: 'Is this really Marlon Brando? No, it can't be. (5 minutes later) Is this Charlie Sheen? Wow, maybe Brando is true. (5 minutes later) This can't be Donald Sutherland. (5 minutes later) No, not Mira Sorvino. This movie is too bad for all of them. (At the end). No, no, no, this can't absolutely not be Martin Sheen!!! Not for 10 seconds of such a movie.' Then it was over and I down with my nerves. SO many good, oscar-winning, usually convincing actors in such a stupid, dumb, awful movie. I rarely wanted to know so much how they came to act in this one. They couldn't got so much money.

Only just an unbelievable silly idiotic movie.

3/10 \ 1/4 \ 5 (1+ - 6-)


Marlon Brando had long since lost interest in acting when he made this film. His performance as "The Swede" is the worst of his career, and that is precisely what he intended it to be. He doesn't overact. Instead, he simply acts in a bizarre fashion and pokes fun at his embarrassingly gargantuan girth. The scene where Brando climbs over the toilet stall is probably the worst, funniest moment in the history of cinema. As we witness him fall head-first into a toilet, it is hard to believe that we are watching the same actor who starred in A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, and The Godfather.

I guess the real question is why Marlon behaved like this in his later years. Was he sick of the movie business? Did he just like making a complete and utter fool out of himself? I guess we'll never know. But this film serves as a fascinating study as to what bad acting is all about.

On that note, watch fellow acting veteran Donald Sutherland as he struggles to deliver his lines, embarrassed at himself for agreeing to participate in this travesty.


This Charles outing is decent but this is a pretty low-key performance. Marlon Brando stands out. There's a subplot with Mira Sorvino and Donald Sutherland that forgets to develop and it hurts the film a little. I'm still trying to figure out why Charlie want to change his name. Every movie with "Charles" has been pretty bad.


Watching Marlen Brando on screen is like watching a master carpenter chiseling intricate details into a piece of mahogany. Brando's acting is the ONLY thing that makes this movie watchable. The plot is inane and laughable (not comic). The other big name actors seem to be making desperate attempts to give the characters they portray some modicum of humanity... these characters have the humanity of wet cardboard. Everything about the technical side of this film is either mediocre or just plain awful. The director throws freeze-frame and slow-motion shots about with impunity. The incidental music is cartoonish and destroys any hint of dramatic effect. It's not something I really look for in a movie, but even the wardrobe was way off. The venerable Brando couldn't take focus away from the awful rags they had him decked out in. I've heard this movie called "David Lynch-esquire" and "irreverently funny"... it is neither. David Lynch films are borne of wicked creativity - this film was in no way creative. And don't confuse irreverence with stupidity.


I watched Free Money last night & it was the longest 90+ minutes of my life. With such an intriguing cast, I really thought that I was in for a treat - especially since I'm a Brando fan. WRONG! What a waste of talent. It's almost embarrassing to watch at times (like the cattle prod scene), & there were so many missed opportunities for humorous setups (why didn't they show Charlie Sheen's character going back to tow Brando's truck?) Ugh. It tries to be a slapstick comedy, but I just wasn't buying into it. Skip this one. Only for die-hard Brando fans.

I'm giving it 2 out of 10 because I still think the worse movie ever made was Skidoo.


This wretched movie shows that not even some of Gollywood's best can salvage a true landfill deposit..

I could spend much time describing everything that was bad about this effort, but that would require more time and I've already wasted 91 minutes watching...IT.

Looking at it now, after Brando's death, shows how tragic the life of one of our greatest actors had become.

Donald Sutherland? Why?

I have to fill more lines to get this accepted. I have to fill more lines to get this accepted. I have to fill more lines to get this accepted.

Don't waste your time with this movie. I'm overdue to do something interesting. Bye.


I think it's a great movie!! It's fun, maybe a little unrealistic, but fun and dramatic!! I would like to see it again, if they were showing it in TV!! Just 1 question: Are we still talking about the same movie???


*Can anybody tell me WHERE is the COMEDY ??!!

*(Charlie Sheen) is a very weak comedian, (Thomas Haden Church) is looking so feeble (with him !), and the whole thing is so thickheaded !

*They tried to make a live comic book which turned out to be super bloody comic nightmare and it wasn't even funny? Like the plan's scene in the bathroom; it was so good with its cinematic imagination but there is nothing more.. except PAIN !

*Donald Sutherland ??! His relationship with his daughter ??!

*This is actually a kind of work which they made it just to made it and earn some money from it , but it became such a crime when THIS money would be robbed from the very us whom got deceived by so low art work and an entertainment had absolutely no entertainment AT ALL !

*Well, it would've been uglier if it was big production and starring Brando in his golden years with a REAL star.

*The Sheen's family in here. Just be aware of that !

*Anyone who found themselves admiring this movie or -God Forbid- loving it ! Then you must go directly to therapy before you become more dangerous and hurt anybody else !

*(Brando) undoubtedly is a genius but the movie isn't ! And he wasn't intending to be one in here after reading this for sure !! But the main big problem is that no one else ever worked in this thing trying, or wanting, to be a small time smart or even good !!! (Sorry I'm crying now ! The movie's torturing is unbelievable !).

*There is a scene where (Brando) hitting (Mira Sorvino) by her shoes ! That was so realistic !? Maybe he was seeing himself in her so he was punishing himself for being in such a crap !

*For the milliard time : This one could've been better (or less worse !). The script, till the train's heist, was nice and I just imagined that they'd escape to have some chase like it's another (Smokey and the Bandit) but with (Brando) as the sheriff. In fact any of those chimeras was much merciful than what I've watched !

*Why this masterpiece didn't receive any Razzie award ?! You want to make me believe that there was lower movie than THIS ? I do not think so ! It's a situation where the Razzie's supervisor must himself win one for his negligence !!

*Martin Sheen is here also as a guest star maybe for supporting his failure son but ironically the father was as failure as his son ! and why is that ?! Well ! Because I hate Martin Sheen maybe more than I hate comic movies weren't as good as its ambition !

*It's not a comedy movie, NO.. It's a horror one !, and I just hate horror movies especially those which have been propagandized as comic ones !

*Name good thing about it? Hmmm ! Well, this one compared to another Marlon Brando's monster movie (The Island of Dr. Moreau - 1996) would be close to (Casablanca) !!

P.S : if you still want to know what are or who are precisely the bad, the ugly and the very ugly in this movie.. Just pray your last prayers and go watch it.. May God Help You !


Such great actors such a disappointment. Marlon Brando plays and awful character, the movie is not funny at all, a subconscious message can be seen "IT IS A DAMN CRAP!!!", "IT SUUCKS SO BADLY!!", "THROW YOUR TV THROUGH WINDOW", and so on. It is simply disgusting and irksome. In addition to foolish plot, sense of humor, there is something else. The way the rooms are decorated, the colors. It makes me sick, everything is so colourful that it might cause epilepsy. Usually I do not care about the decoration in movie but this from "Free Money" made me angry. Avoid at all costs! "Free Money" - probably for Charlie Sheen, Sutherland and Brando, but a viewer gets nothing! One watches it at cost of sanity.


In all my years of film-going, only once have I walked out on a film, and that was the dreadful "Stay Tuned." Fortunately, the cinema refunded the ticket and I went to see "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" instead (a minor improvement). That film is "Gone With the Wind" compared to "Dick," a comedy so unfunny that it nearly became the second film I ever walked out of. "Dick" was so unfunny it was even impossible to laugh AT it, let alone laugh with it.

Granted, paying to see a movie with a title like "Dick" suggests that it will be filled with inane "dick" jokes and wind up a huge letdown, and yet I had high hopes because of the notable cast (Daniel Hedaya, Bruce McCullough, Dave Foley, Kristen Dunst, etc., etc.) and a premise that at least promised something fresh. What the film delivered was, as portended, four woefully predictable "dick" jokes, comic timing suffering from jetlag, and a premise that wore thin after the first five minutes. In short, it was the Watergate scene from "Forrest Gump" stretched--nay, laid on a rack and mangled--over 90+ excruciating minutes.

As soon as you understand that the two main characters--airless, insipid squealers who gasp and roll eyeballs incessantly--will participate in every major Watergate event, you begin to mentally check off the plot as it progresses: 18 and a half minutes erased from the Nixon tapes, CHECK; the Deep Throat meetings with Woodward and Bernstein, CHECK; John Dean getting a change of heart and testifying, CHECK. The process drags out more languidly and about as engaging as the real Watergate affair with about as much laugh-getting to boot. And though it posits to be an amusing re-deconstruction of the events leading to President Nixon's resignation, it turns into a paint-by-the-numbers, choose-your-own-adventure, fill-in-the-blanks comedy that says very little and entertains even less.

Even the film's strong point--the aforementioned cast--is bewilderingly unproductive here. The most disappointing of all is Harry Shearer as G. Gordon Liddy. Trapped as he is behind the thick Liddy moustache and strait-jacketed in this numbingly morose screenplay, Shearer mumbles a few lines, tries desperately to leer from behind the prosthetic nose and eyebrows, then disappears. Dave Foley, one of the comic masterminds from Kids in the Hall (two others, Bruce McCullough and Mark McKinney also appear in this film--ah, the blessings of nepotism) fares badly as well. His H.R. Haldeman occasionally lends a much-need lightening of the funeral plot, but the funniest thing about him is the buzz-cut he sports--perhaps the films funniest bit of all. And then there's Daniel Hedaya as Richard Nixon--oops, I mean "Dick." (Ha ha how amusingly funny.) He manages to play a solid Nixon, avoiding the pitfalls (such as overdone make up, rubbery nose and false teeth a la Anthony Hopkins) while preserving the essence (the vacillations between human tenderness and coarseness). I seem to be forgetting someone . . . oh yes, the two stars of the film, those over-bubbly teenagers. Can't remember their names, perhaps because I have repressed their performances. Nothing could be farther from funny; nothing could be more painful than having to endure their deliverly that ran the gamut of "hyperactive" and "super-hyperactive" with an occasional "pouty" tossed in.

This film seemed to be a bad excuse to string together a 70s soundtrack and parade outrageous period clothing, both of which seem to be the norm these days for films and TV shows set in the "Me Decade." But the clothes and the music wind up being an ersatz substitute for true characterization and plot, a kind of extra-plot shorthand that the producers hope will compensate for anemic writing.

The only possible use for this film is years down the road when any one of its talented cast appears on David Letterman or Conan O'Brien. This dreadful cinematic excretion will be dragged out to embarrass and hopefully humble the stunned guest star. The sad thing is that the real bad guys in all this--the writers and producers--will be far from the cameras gaze, possibly cooking up another disaster such as this.


I guess I've seen worse films, but that may be becuz I'm so jaded by how standard these bad horror movies are. The killer monster thing is really really bad, basically its a guy in some kind of green body suit. There is much worse acting as far as B movie go, but don't think for a second this was anything stellar, hell no. It actually did have a plot with substance, but was still pretty stupid. Basically its just a bad low budget horror movie. But at least its not as bad as titanic, that movie sucks balls, this one just sucks. The blood looks really fake in this movie. Thats one complaint I have about all the horror of the new millinium, low grade gore, looks stupid. A good gruesome death scene with really fake blood is so stupid. At least there was a nice shower scene


Well, what can it be said about this disaster? I watched it because it aired on cable. I regret for wasting my time but at least I didn't waste money.

The creature is the cheesiest you can get! Please, you need to be very generous not to get angered by the CHEAP Halloween costume. Oh well, there are also displays of horrible acting, f/x, and dialogues. The confrontation with the creature is unbelievable, you can't get a more pathetic scene.

This is the worst you can get from direct to video flicks. "Creature Unknown" makes FULL MOON PICTURES movies look like "Halloween".

Avoid this one at all costs, please. The only "positive" thing about this trash are the sexy women.


Really a terrible movie. It's to be expected, though. Clearly a low budget: nothing all that innovative, an actress (if you can call what she does "acting") who always has roles with nudity in a shower scene, a man in a reptile suit almost modeled after predator, a cabin in the woods, etc. But there are some redeeming points. Although the story is not new, for the most part, there's a few parts that aren't so regurgitated. For one, the black guy doesn't die when he's attacked (the first time) and he isn't even one of the first couple to die. But that's minor. More importantly, there's a very interesting twist regarding Kat's experiments and Wes & Steve that I didn't see coming. When Steve told Kat he knew what she did, I believed what he said and what Kat replied with. But when the creature revealed who he really was, I was pleasantly surprised at the novelty of the revelation. It could be because of my lack of experience with the genre, or that it's a genuinely clever twist.

Either way, the movie's pretty bad and don't watch it if there's anything better on... Unless you're in the mood for a cheap scifi flick.


The monster from Enemy Mine somehow made his way into a small mountain community, where he has taken up residence. He's being hunted by a female doctor-turned-vigilante who is out to exterminate him. This female assassin, who looks like a refugee from a Motley Crue video, rides around on a motorcycle and tries to save a bunch of kids who have chosen to have a Big Chill weekend right smack dab in the middle of the monster's turf. Decapitations and lots of blood are primarily in place to draw attention away from the story which limps along like a bad version of the Island of Dr. Moreau (and yes, it's worse than the one with Val Kilmer).


There's hardly anything at all to recommend this movie. Chase Masterson is always nice to look at and actually can act, though her role in this clunker is a waste. Unfortunately the rest of the cast ranges from bad to mediocre. In a lot of films like this someone will shine through the material and you make a note of them for future reference. No such luck here. Creature Unknown" a clichéd monster-on-the-loose flick with the kids getting knocked off one after the other. The monster is a man in a rubber suit which hearkens back to the days of Paul Blaisdell. So bad it's good! The rest of the show is just so bad it's bad. A little humor might have made this more palatable, but everyone plays the deadly dull material straight up. There is a twist or two at the end, but by then you won't care anymore.


You know the story..Pretty kids alone in the woods,when BAM!something starts cutting them up.

Well this crap is no different.A bunch of kids return to a cabin where the male leads twin brother disappeared for years before.Suddenly an "UNKOWN CREATURE" stars cutting them up,and their only help is a doctor/biker.

To say this film was bad is an understatement,it's smut! The acting was horrible.

The creature looked very cheesy. And as all films do these days they try to get you with a twist ending,which they do not!

There is one bright spot to this film- LOST star Maggie Grace as the female lead.


"Steve"(Chris Hoffman)gathers a group from high school for a reunion at the cabin location where his twin brother Wes went missing. While they are there, a reptilian creature in the shape of a man(reminded me a lot of the Gillman from CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON)awaits in the wilderness choosing the right time to pick them apart one by one. A biker, Ellen Ripley-type time female bad-ass, Kat(Chase Masterson)has an underground military bunker she practices experiments in, while it also serves as a place of safety from the thing on the bloody rampage. Kat knows more than she's telling(she also suffered the loss of a child), but there's another novelty twist most of the group have no idea of. This creature might just be more human than they realize..and it's former identity might shed some light on a deception only one other person has been hiding since Wes' death. Kat holds the key to many of the mysteries that unlock as the group remains near the cabin.

Thankfully, a large portion of the film stays away from the creature which leaps in the air while we also see a hazy screen when we look through it's eyes. The film has Dawson's Creek-type melodramatics which often hinder any real tension that needs to build in a little monster movie. The direction is very bland leading to a relatively dull experience instead of eliciting scares. The cast is rather life-less and uninteresting. Pretty Maggie Grace(THE FOG remake) might be the only draw for this film.


Well this movie is amazingly awful. I felt sorry for the actors involved in this project because I'm sure they did not write their lines. Which were sometimes delivered with slight sarcasm, which lead me to believe they were not taking this movie seriously, nor could anybody who watches this obnoxious off beat monster slasher. While watching this " Creature Unknown" I could not help but think that there was not much of a budget or a competent writer on the crew. But, if you go into watching this for a laugh you'll be happy, the movie is shameless to mocking itself because i cant see how anybody could look at this and be proud of pumping this straight to DVD clichéd wanna be action thriller/horror movie fightfest to light.


Imagine The Big Chill with a cast of twenty-somethings whose characters are all unlikable, and an iguana-like man-lizard chasing them around and you have an idea of the foolishness herein. On the positive side, the movie does not skimp on showing the monster. There's no peek-a-boo shots, or nighttime scenes where you have to imagine what he looks like; he's right out there folks. Unfortunately, the design and construction aren't that inspired. A little bit of mystery might have helped. Mind you, I've seen far worse, but if you're going to have him out on full display for a lot of the flick, your monster better look damn good.

Spoiler Ahead!!!

Oh, and there's a twist ending involving the supposedly dead brother that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. This came as no surprise given the shoddy writing of the script. As for the acting; well let's just say it wasn't painfully bad, but I don't expect we'll be seeing many of these kids in future cinematic outings.

Gore quotient: 2 out of 5; Nudity quotient: 1 out of 5; Intelligence quotient: Negligible


Creature Unknown is the right word for this movie. Or maybe it should be called Unknown Movie. This movie is a piece of crap right from the beginning. It has a really stupid "plot," really pathetic "acting," and so-so "special effects."

Some thirty-something year old "post-teens" are trapped in the woods with a mad, reptilian, rubber-suit creature lurking around endlessly. What you get with this movie is a bunch of talk and precious little action. You have girls walking through the woods talking, and then you have guys (with heavy mascara on) walking through the woods talking. The whole thing is so boring!

The creature itself is rarely seen throughout most of the movie. When it is shown the picture is distorted to mask the fact that it is a man in a rubber suit, and the movement shows that it is a suit, hence the reason for the blurring and distortion of the image.

This is NOT a good movie in ANY since of the word and the ones here who have praised it are most likely the people that were picked up off the street to "act" in this truly stupefying movie! Skip this one for certain!


I purchased this film for $5 in a bargain bin at my local video store for one reason only, Chase Masterson, but I should have crumbled up the five, thrown it in a toilet and flushed. The film is about a bunch of twenty somethings that peaked in high school and reunite on the anniversary of their idiot friends death, who got drunk and wandered into the woods and died. There problem is a reptilian monster is hunting them down one by one. The acting is abysmal, these worthless people were apparently cast offs on shows like 90210 and Dawsons Creek. The directing was on par with a twelve year old and the script was probably done by a thirteen year old. The entire set looks like someone's backyard in Malibu. The people on here that have praised this film are obviously friends of the director and/or actors. Avoid this pile of garbage at ALL costs.


The Western society has been fed ideas about India being a poor country. Movies like these only make those beliefs stronger. Such illustrations make it all the more difficult for Indians to be accepted abroad. Agreed there are poor and homeless in India, but why is there no representation of educated people if not the successful ones.

I totally hated the idea of the movie portraying Patrick Swayze as another Mother Teressa. In my opinion this movie has shown India in a very bad light giving wrong notions. It is unjust to discuss only one aspect of the society. Exactly the reason why people ask me, "When we go to India, can we hire an elephant right outside the airport so we do not have to walk on the roads so full of filth and snakes?"

Those who want a second opinion on contemporary Indian society should watch "Monsoon Wedding".


When evaluating documentaries that focus a relatively small group of Ugly ultra right wing and conservative groups like this in the USA you must consider the following. The United States of America with its population of 270 million and its complex history as an aspiring democracy and its hopes and desires to uphold Human Rights that it has its failings and downside. It is of course expected that extreme right wing groups and ultra conservative groups exist in sizable numbers however relative to the size of its population they are very small and isolated . On a per capita basis Europe, Britain and even Australia have similar right wing groups in fact on a per-capta basis the actual size of Neo-Nazi groups in Australia is actually higher than in the United States of America. It is for the above reasons that it is unjustifiable to demean and vilify the American people and their level of debate in Educated American Society by very fraudulently and deceptively presenting this ultra-right wing bunch of psychopaths as being representative of American Society. By doing so Greenstreet, deliberately chose small and isolated groups at opposite ends of the spectrum to construct an image of America that is an outrageous and deliberate sensationalist lie. This film is clearly designed to inflame and pander to the views of people who harbor this subconscious and morbid hate the American people and way of life under the guise of spurist fashionable and cliché idealist left wing ideology. This film was made for profit not for furthering the truth about American Society and the Human condition. Greenstreet can make documentaries that focus on ultra right wing conspiracies, the Military Industrial complex but fail miserably to present an intelligent and balanced factual debate let alone alternative solutions to the failings of a vibrant democracy. Movie Show is exposed as Anti American by its support for this trash. SENSATIONALISM at its worst anti -USA garbage shameful.


Most college students find themselves lost in the bubble of academia, cut off from the communities in which they study and live. Their conversations are held with their fellow students and the college faculty. Steven Greenstreet's documentary is a prime example of a disillusioned college student who judges the entire community based on limited contact with a small number of its members.

The documentary focused on a small group of individuals who were portrayed as representing large groups of the population. As is usual, the people who scream the most get the most media attention. Other than its misrepresentation of the community in which the film was set, the documentary was well made. My only dispute is that the feelings and uproar depicted in the film were attributed to the entire community rather than the few individuals who expressed them.

Naturally it is important to examine a controversy like this and make people aware of the differences that exist between political viewpoints, but it is ridiculous to implicate an entire community of people in the actions of a few radicals.


I was one of the few non-liberals who showed up to see Steve's video. It was quite an experience... in propaganda film-making and boredom.

I was hoping the film might be an actual documentary of Michael Moore's visit to my local school, UVSC, but it turned out to be another liberal, slash-and-burn effort to slam conservatives and the local religious community. It sure seems self-serving for a filmmaker to make a documentary that only reflects his preconceptions on issues.

What's more surprising is to see all the '10' votes his homeys have posted here. Did they even see the video? Golly gee Batman, this must rank with All The President's Men! Their ratings are as obvious as the bias in this film.

Yeah, like stacking the votes at IMDb will help a lame movie. Maybe my vote will help balance this out.


Not only does the film's author, Steven Greenstreet, obviously idolize Michael Moore, but he also follows in his footsteps by using several of Moore's Propaganda film-making tactics. Moore has expertise in distracting the viewer from this focus though, while Greenstreet is obviously less skilled here.

Having been privy to all of the issues surrounding Moore's speech at UVSC, I was disappointed to see that the major complaints of the community -- that Moore was being paid $40,000 of the State of Utah 's educational funds to basically promote John Kerry's campaign and to advertise his own liberal movie -- were pushed to the background by Greenstreet while lesser issues were sensationalized.

The marketing methods for this video have been equally biased and objectionable... promoting the film by claiming that "Mormon's tried to kill Moore". Not only is this preposterous, but it defames a major religion that Greenstreet obviously has some personal issues with. I followed Moore's visit very closely, and all of the major news agencies noted that Moore's visit came and went without any credible security problems or incidents in Utah.

Greenstreet has banked on this film to jump-start his film-making career to the point that he has even dropped out of film school to help accelerate this. This seems to have been a severe miscalculation though, since Moore's visits to roughly 60 other colleges and Universities across the country in 2004 diluted interest for this rather common event. Greenstreet's assumption that American audiences would be interested in this film due to the promoted religious and conservative angles doesn't seem to be well founded.

Even the name of the film, This Divided State, is somewhat of a misnomer since Utah voted overwhelmingly for Bush's re-election and thus appears to be more politically unified than any other State. The division in the movie title seems more indicative of the gulf that exists in Greenstreet's ideological differences with his religion and State. If anything, I find a humorous correlation between the religious angle of this supposed documentary and Woody Allen's hilarious contention in Sleeper (1973) that, "I was beaten up by Quakers".


When i looked at this years Wrestlemania's match card, i was SO stoked and unable to control myself because i was full of excitement.

It starts...and it ends.

I'm sitting there, angry to hell because of how much i wanted my money back. I mean, you watch Wrestlemania 22 (one of my favorites) which will go down as a classic and then you expect the same and get the average garbage they have every now and then. The one moment in the entire show that ruined it for me was when HBK tapped out!!!! That very moment of HBK losing to JOHN CENA!!!!!!!!!! John Cena is such a loser/poser. It almost ruined Wrestlemania 22 for me when he beat TRIPLE H! I couldn't watch WWE after seeing Wrestlemania 23. I'm starting to watch it again (luckily). I again have faith in WWE after Wrestlemania 24 (the greatest i have ever seen) which was a pure classic Wrestlemania. It definitely made up for 'Mania 23 and gave us lots of memorable moments as well.

If you have watched ANY of the Wrestlemanias before this one, like the ones that turn you into fans (Wrestlemania 20 turned me into a fan), PLEASE don't watch this and make the same mistake i made and leave WWE behind. And if you DO watch it and are angry, start watching it again and watch Wrestlemania 24, it is absolutely classic.


This was one of the worst Wrestlemania's I've seen. It just didn't stand out at all, really. Card wise, I thought it was going to be pretty good, but every match just seemed to fall short.

Chris Benoit vs. MVP One of the better matches. Benoit carried it. I just didn't think MVP was that great, but Benoit saved this match.

Kane vs. Khali Wow, these two guys don't mix. Or maybe it's Khali and any other person alive don't mix. Awful match.

Melina vs. Ashley I'm not a fan of female wrestling.

ECW Originals vs. New Breed I was excited about this match, until I saw it. Really, Really disappointing.

Edge vs. CM Punk vs. King Booker vs. Jeff Hardy vs. Matt Hardy vs. Mr. Kennedy vs. Finlay vs. Randy Orton Absolutely the worst MITB match so far. Just a major let down, to many people in the ring at the same time. It just didn't live up.

Bobby Lashley vs. Umaga O.K. not extremely impressive, but not the worst of the night.

Batista vs. Undertaker This was maybe the best match of the night. Very, very, very nice to see something good for a change.

John Cena vs. Shawn Michaels I really feel like this match deserved to be last. People make a case for Batista vs. Undertaker, but this match was just as good. I am starting to get sick of seeing Cena win every match though. It's getting a little old. Now, I have to say, I feel this match is the best of the night, but I'm a huge Shawn Michaels fan, so I'm a little biased. Batista vs. 'Taker may have been better, but I'm biased, so...sorry. The last two were undoubtedly the best matches of the night and most everything else really came up short.


Honestly, this is easily in the top 5 of the worst movies I have ever seen. Partly, because it takes itself so seriously, as opposed to regular light hearted trash, this movies wants you to be emotionally involved, to feel for the characters, and to care about the alleged conspiracy. None of this ever even comes close to happening.

****MILD SPOILERS******

There are 3 main reasons why this movie is so terrible: 1.) Incoherent and totally non-sensical plot. 2.) Annoying style-over-substance "MTV" camerawork. 3.) Moronic characters and plot holes.

Allow me to elaborate.

1.) Apparently, when this movies was being made, they couldn't decide whether to make a movie about church conspiracies, the stigmata, or possession. So, guess what? They combined them! An aetheist gets possessed by a dead person, who then makes her exhibit the stigmata so as to expose a church conspiracy. How a regular person is able to transcend death and possess another human being through his rosary is never explained, nor even talked about. Now, instead of just saying what he wants to say, he gives her the Stigmata. WHY? Why not just spit it out? Instead, we get treated to scenes of screaming things in harsh voices, carving cryptic messages on cars, and writing messages on walls. Apparently this priest was also a violent guy, because the possessed young lady also wigs out on one o f the characters, while talking in that cliched, harsh, "possessed" voice that we all have heard countless times. This also starts to tie into my second complaint, because whenever the young lady gets the stigmata, she also defies the laws of gravity by floating into the air, and tossing everything and everybody around her as if they were in an earthquake? Why does this happen? Who knows!?! My guess is that the director thought it looked "cool".

2.) This movies contains dozens of shots, in slow motion, of course, of birds showing up out of nowhere and flying off, and most annoyingly, of water dripping. This woman's apartment is constantly dripping water! CONSTANTLY! Logically, the place would probably fall apart with this many holes. To sum up this complaint, towards the end, and for absolutely no reason, the camera cuts to shots of water dripping, in slow motion, in reverse!! WHY!?! I have no idea! It has no relevance to anything, and once again, I'm betting it's because the director thought it looked "cool".

3.) One of the main characters says he became a priest to explain away holes in science. This doesn't make sense to me. I would think that going to church would be enough, but no, he has to go through the entire rigamarole of becoming a priest. I just don't buy it. Secondly, there are lots of plot holes, a few of which I will elaborate on below. For starters, when she first gets the stigmata, the scene ends with her laying unconscious, bleeding. Next, she's in the hospital. Who called the ambulance? Another one is towards the end, when the previously mentioned "scientific priest" character is talking to the spirit who is possessing the girl. He says, "Take me as your messenger!" Not a word for word quote, but you get the idea. His response? "You have no faith, only doubt!" So, because of this, he possesses an aetheist! An aetheist has no faith, far less then any scientific priest! And then, there's the fact that the object of this movie's conspiracy, this Lost Gospel (of St. Thomas, I believe) is available at local bookstores. The characters are willing to kill to supress this document, but you could walk down to a bookstore and buy it. Maybe this is supposed to take place in an alternate history, where it isn't wide known, but the movie never tries to tell us this, or to even hint that this is an alternate happening of that document's uncovering.

In closing, this movie is terrible to a spectacular degree. It is my arch-nemesis, which I feel the need to insult every chance I get. I loathe it. Final Grade: F


I didn't really know what this movie was about when I went to the theater to see it (hype about the Satanism etc etc etc) as the trailers in the last movie I saw looked pretty interesting.

Oh dear, Roman Catholic mythology? Not my idea of a good scare and honestly, I just felt like watching a really good, scary movie, not some loosely plotted religious farce that tries to score cheap thrills by having some chick getting bloody every few minutes!

I'll try to keep away from the spoilers (!) but I found it very odd that an Atheist, who gets a string of rosary beads from a deceased priest, could suddenly end up with Christ's wounds (aren't stigmata supposed to be deeply religious??) I mean, she hangs out with losers, does loser stuff, behaves like a typical rebel et al, and here she is displaying the wounds of Jesus Christ?? Come on!

Scenes of her crucified, head thrown back, screaming, blood everywhere, became rather tedious after seeing it a dozen times. It was neither frightening or scary, just repulsive. It did, however, become quite painful to watch - those flicking scenes were highly annoying...

CONCLUSION: If your a Catholic, defintly don't see this. If you're not, still don't see it.


Spoilers.

First off, nothing really happened in this movie, other than a woman bleeding inexplicably. Second, it wasn't scary. Third, it had the worst soundtrack of any movie ever. Let me elaborate. The sound was edited by either Beavis or Butthead  I'm not sure which, so let's just go with Beavis. The movie gradually gets more and more quiet and the people mumble and mutter, forcing you to turn up the volume (I watched this at home). Then Beavis blasts some really loud sounds with supposedly scary/shocking images, forcing you to quickly lower the volume again. This occurs many times until, mercifully, the movie ends. I can picture Beavis laughing vulgarly from behind the two-way mirror while watching the test group franticly reaching for the remote each time. If you have children and prefer to watch scary movies after they fall asleep, this one is a big mistake. But then it's a big mistake anyway. Here's a thought  if you're going to make a horror movie, at least add a gratuitous beheading, a 19-year-old blond girl who screams at the top of her lungs just before she can take off her sweater, the shadow on the wall of someone being eaten alive just out of the camera range, a cat being thrown at the camera to scare the audience, some drifty weirdo with a maniacal laugh, or a monster who looks like a stage hand covered in aluminum foil (a la TV's Lost in Space). These people didn't even try to scare me. They just wanted to hurt my ears.


I am a kind person, so I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1. It was without a doubt the worst movie that I've seen in a long time. There was very little plot and the deeper interesting areas that were touched upon i.e. what Jesus may really have wanted us to know, were glossed over and instead we were given heavy visual doses of sadistic punishment inflicted upon our heroine (Arquette). Total crucifixion in the first 15 minutes would have been more humane to both her character and the audience. The acting was barely there and the direction was uninspired. And, if I saw one more drip of water or dove flying toward the camera, I may have started screaming louder than Patricia.


I find it hard to believe that anyone would put this movie in the same context as the Exorcist. Where the Exorcist was subtle and creepy, Stigmata was blunt, clumsy, and way too formulaic.

This is one of the most visually beautiful films I've seen in a while, but the imagery does not make up for the downward spiral of patronizing exposition that makes it unbearable.

My interest in this movie was peaked when it was compared to The Exorcist, and my visit to the official web site increased that interest. The web site had many tales of "actual" stigmata throughout history. However, scene by scene, the movie is so obsessed by its quest for "genuineness" that it becomes comical at first, then outright hard to watch toward the end. I began getting suspicious when the priest charged with investigating potential miracles walks into the beauty parlor where our would-be heroine cuts hair and, evidently, flirts with priests.

The plot: A woman without faith in God begins receiving the wounds of Christ (the Stigmata) and is baffled and upset about the ordeal. A priest is sent straight from the Vatican to investigate the case. Is Frankie possessed by Satan, or a vessel for Jesus Christ?

The only miracle in this film is that it finally ends.


I'm always suprised on how different all people are and how for almost every movie you get both extremes. People who think it's the best movie and people who think it's the worst.

Stigmata wouldn't be the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's up there. First of all the sound. The producers spent more time on the soundtrack than the editing. It was so loud when the soundtrack was playing and no one was talking and then when Patrica was talking in her monotone voice, she could hardly be heard.

I usually like Patrica and Gaberial, but they were both flat in this movie. Patrica had basically 3 emotions. Quiet, in great pain, or really angry she has stigmata. The first was the predominate one, the second involved screaming pain, the third involving raising her voice. It was loudness that distiguished the three and not emotion.

Maybe I missed a lot of the deep meaning and subplots everyone was talking about, or maybe I was distracted by the terrible filming and MTV like style. When you watch a 3 minute video you need fast cuts and slow motion to convey a quick story, in a 2 hour feature film, it's nauseating. I fail to see the meaning of her seeing that women across the steet and dropping a child. And no Pittsburg does not rain that often!!

I think maybe a real story, with something to say could have been intended, but all the budget was spent on buying music and the equipment to do slow rain drop shots and renting that gorgous apartment that Ms. Arquett lived in that they ended up firing the guy with the story.


A hard to find film which coasts on the still pervasive mythology of Senator Joe McCarthy as a political demon king. Boyle (as Joe) gives a compelling but historically inaccurate portrayal of the Wisconsin Senator, the caricature McCarthy many take as the real one. Meredith, as wily Army lawyer Joseph Welch, who outsmarted McCarthy at the Army hearings in 1954, is very good, as always.

In fact, McCarthy and Cohn were quite right in worrying about the appalling security situation in the Army, and the 1954 Army hearings became enmeshed in the smokescreen used by the Army to deflect the investigation away from their security failings, which the committee were investigating, by counter-charging that McCarthy and Cohn were trying to get favours for their staffer, David Schine, whilst in the service.

The film is self satisfied agenda driven polemic, based in the pervasive myths which have passed for the truth with many people for decades-that the "red scare" was essentially phony and McCarthy, HUAC etc were always blasting away at the wrong targets, being no more than lying, career ruining publicity hounds, who were trampling over the constitutional rights of startled innocent liberals, who were accused of being security risks/communists.

People who know little about the matter still feel confident in repeating misinformation on McCarthy and the "red scare" to this day-Clooney's Murrow hagiography is an example. The misinformation is pervasive, no wonder people have swallowed it. A recent obit of Budd Schulberg in the serious left wing UK newspaper "The Guardian" headlined that the Hollywood writer "named names" "to McCarthy"- perpetuating the lie that McCarthy "investigated" Hollywood as head of HUAC-the truth being that McCarthy was never even a member of HUAC and he had little interest in the politics of Hollywood types-his investigations were confined almost exclusively to arms of the US government.

The mythology about the "red scare" being baseless is now completely exploded by recently opened Soviet and US government documents, if anything McCarthy and co underestimated the sheer scale of Soviet and fellow traveller infiltration in the US, but decades of public misinformation about this period will be hard to correct.

One day maybe some really brave Hollywood soul will make a movie telling the truth about how many American men and women clandestinely aided the mass murderer Stalin, and worked to impose his vicious system of government on the western world, giving an accurate account maybe of Joe McCarthy's career-but I won't hold my breath. Till then, we have this mythical, drunken lying scoundrel of popular imagination so familiar in the media...."Tail gunner Joe".


The title says it all. "Tail Gunner Joe" was a tag given to the Senator which relied upon the ignorance of the public about World War II aircraft. The rear facing moving guns relied upon a latch that would prevent the rear gunner from shooting off the tail of the airplane by preventing the gun from firing when it pointed at the tail. When the Senator was practicing on the ground one day, he succeeded in shooting off the tail of the airplane. He couldn't have done that if the gun had been properly aligned. The gunnery officer responsible for that admitted, in public, before a camera, that he was responsible -- he had made the error, not the Senator. The fact that the film did not report that fact, shows how one-sided it is. This film was designed to do one thing, destroy the reputation of a complex person.

A much better program was the PBS special done on him. He was a hard working, intelligent, ambitious politician who overcame extraordinary disadvantages to rise to extraordinary heights. He made some mistakes, some serious mistakes, but shooting the tail off an airplane was not one of them.

The popularity of this film is due to the fact that the public likes simple stories, one=sided stories, so that they don't have to think.


This movie is a horrible distortion of lies and exaggerations that were put together by the most shameless lunatics to ever work on a TV movie. The story is wrong and a complete lie. There is nothing in this movie that accurately portrays Senator McCarthy. It's just a horrible scam and it amazes me that anyone associated with this production ever got another job in the industry. The marxist-leninists who wrote this trash did so in order to attack a man who has been vindicated by history and their fear that anyone would dare to destroy communism. Unfortunately for these communist nut jobs, Ronald Reagan took over where McCarthy left off and they couldn't stop him, thus the end of the Soviet Union and its' cohorts.

Never, ever watch this film if you're looking for truth regarding Sen. McCarthy. Read Ann Coulter's book, "Treason" for a better look at the truth about Sen. McCarthy.

It will also help if you read about what really happened to Senator McCarthy by reading http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1996/vo12no18/vo12no18_mccarthy.htm


I only watched this film from beginning to end because I promised a friend I would. It lacks even unintentional entertainment value that many bad films have. It may be the worst film I have ever seen. I'm surprised a distributor put their name on it.


Personally I would advise people to stay clear of this movie. It's on the whole a bore to watch and the fighting is poorly choreographed. Slow and not very convincing. If you buy the Hong Kong Legends DVD release of this movie, then the only thing worth listening to is the Bey Logan audio commentary.

But in any case, since when has there ever been a Ninja film worth watching. I cannot think of one and frankly do not wish to.

Overall, when it comes to Movies, I have one golden rule: Avoid any films that contains the word 'Ninja'.


This makes the third Errol Morris movie I've seen, and I'm increasingly not liking his style. He seems to find very interesting and varied characters, great personalities to create documentaries for, and then with tongue-in-cheek editing make fun of everything they are about. It's never really a direct caricaturation of them and Morris seems most of the time to be saying, "But no, no, these people are really fascinating, really!", but there's always these subtle little canted angles and not-so-subtle editing techniques that show that Morris seems to be mocking them behind their back.

This movie tracks four people who break the traditional boundaries of organic separation... a man who studies African hairless molerats to find that they are amazingly ant-like, a lion tamer, a man who keeps a garden full of animal-shaped shrubbery, and a robot designer. The general theme of the film seems to revolve around the question of what designates animal, human, and life features? So the title of Fast, Cheap, & Out of Control doesn't really seem to mean anything in terms of the movie... right? Except of course Morris seems just a little disturbed by these individuals' passions (he might call them "obsessions") making synthetic designs on life. I share not that fear and honestly don't appreciate some of the connections Morris makes in the film.

But I stress his subtlety. With no voice-over narration and leaving the words entirely to the interviewees, it's not as if Morris ever pounds that anxiety onto the spectators' collective head. Instead he mixes circus footage and ant footage together often at times when they're taken out of the context of the circus and the ants, showing a sort of collective absurdity behind what all of these people are talking about. I don't find them absurd, I find them all very neat and interesting individuals.

Unless, of course, he didn't intend such juxtapositions, which means he's just a bad craftsman instead of a silent subverter. Considering none of this films I've seen so far have particularly impressed me, I don't really care to find out what he's trying to do.

--PolarisDiB


so altogether i found this documentary to be strange and really pointless. i know it got awards and things, but i personally did not enjoy it too much. there was no humor or drama in it to keep you interested, just a bunch of wierdos and their jobs. some of the people in are rather different which isn't a bad thing, it just didn't leave a good impression on me. i was thoroughly bored by this movie, no offense to my creative writing teacher. the circus theme throughout the whole movie was kinda cool but i didn't get it, and robotics and lion taming is definitely not my thing. the green animals thing was neat, i really liked the garden lots of colorful flowers, but how did these four jobs connect? it just didn't make much sense to me why someone would make a movie about that. But if you are into stuff like this you might enjoy it. who am i to stand in your way. I am just forewarning you about possible suffering.


I found the documentary entitled Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control to be a fairly interesting documentary. The documentary contained four "mini" documentaries about four interesting men. Each one of these men was extremely involved with his job, showing sheer love and enjoyment for one's job.

The sad part, I must say, would have to be the subjects in which these individuals worked/studied. They were interesting for about five minutes, afterwards becoming boring and lasting entirely too long.

The video was filmed in a very creative way though. I very much enjoyed the film of one thing with a voice dub over another. It played out excellent and also coincided nicely with the music.


Sorry, I just didn't find the subject matter as compelling as the filmmaker did. The robot guy and the mole rat guy were pretty interesting, although Morris didn't really tell us much about them. The other two subjects were a bore. And the supposed "connections" between them didn't hold up.


A broke would be screenwriter and his would be agent (Tom Wood and Arye Gross) are forced to live in a self storage facility run by an eccentric and intimidating manager (Ron Perlman) whom they come to believe is the serial murderer that is terrorizing the city, the "Costume Killer" (so named because, after injecting his victims with Windex, he dresses them in silly costumes). They convince him his life story would make a great film and gather together a group of misfit wannabe film makers (John Considine, Joe Pantoliano, Kristy Swanson) and discover that the art of movie making can be murder.

There is more to this movie but it was unfortunately left on the editing room floor and it shows (rumor is the studio wanted a "lighter" dark comedy). Our loss (and the actors, who all do fine jobs and deserve better) as this has the makings of an exceptional black comedy but only rises to mediocre cute.

If you're a Ron Perlman fan this is absolutely worth getting just for his performance. His comedic timing is excellent and he has the chance to do some really great impressions (he wasn't kidding when he said on the Hellboy movie commentary that he needed an intervention when he gets into Jerry Lewis mode). He's just simply fun to watch in this one.

David Dukes also shines in a two-scener (but pivotal) role.


The first 30 minutes of Tinseltown had my finger teetering on the remote, poised to flick around to watch something else. The premise of two writers, down on their luck, living in a self-storage-space "bin" was mildly amusing, but, painfully bland.

The introduction of the character, played by Joe Pantoliano - the big deal movie guy, that lives in the park and sleeps in a lavatory, offered hope and I decided to give it a few more minutes. And then a few more until Kristy Swansons introduction as a budding film director & borderline nymphomaniac, added a bit of spice. Her solid acting performance raised her presence above and beyond just a very welcome eye-candy inclusion.

Ultimately, the obvious low-budget impacts on the film with poorly shot scenes, stuttured pace and slapstick handling of certain moments. Some of my favourite movies of all time have been low budget, Whithnail & I being one that also deals with 2 guys with a dream, but down on their luck.

However, for my money, the actors save Tinseltown from the "Terrible movie" archives and just about nudges it into the "could have been a cult movie" archives. I laughed out loud at some of the scenes involving Joe Pantoliano's character. In particular, the penultimate scenes in the terribly clichéd, but still funny, rich-but-screwed-up characters house, where the story unravels towards it's final moments.

I can see how Tinseltown was a great stage play and while the film-makers did their best to translate this to celluloid, it simply didn't work and while I laughed out loud at some of scenes and one liners, I think the first 30 minutes dulled my senses and expectations to such a degree I would have laughed at anything.

Unless you're stuck for a novelty coffee coaster, don't pick this up if you see it in a bargain bucket.


"I just viewed this movie last night and I don't think I will ever think the same about any of the actors involved, because this movie will stick in the back of my mind."

The above statement can be thought of as a good or a bad thing. I mean every time I see Tom Cruise or Demi Moore in a movie, I think of "A Few Good Men" which is a good thing. Now, every time I see Ron Perlman or Kristy Swanson, I will think of "Tinseltown" which is a VERY bad thing.

I picked this up thinking that it might be something intelligent or at least make me chuckle and with Arye Gross and the aforementioned Swanson and Perlman, I thought that it at least wouldn't be bad. You could tell the movie was made on a budget the size of Wheeling, Indiana (Where? Exactly.), but maybe they used every dollar to make a good movie. WRONG.

This movie is NOT funny or entertaining in any sense of either word. It is just there and lasts for 84 excruciating slow minutes.

The characters are paper-thin. You almost care about NONE of the characters, and since the leads are two struggling Hollywood writers with a dream that is all the two struggling writers with a dream who wrote this need you to know about them. Okay, the two REAL writers know all about there onscreen versions of themselves, so they figure so does the audience. They don't even think about character development, except for trying to tie there story back to "Gilligan's Island".

The plot is unoriginal. Two guys live in a storage center, where one of them stores a bed, and there are about twenty other people living there, too. The rest of the story is contrived and stupid. Have you seen "National Lampoon's Favorite Deadly Sins"? The second story with Joe Mantegna is about a television writer who can't find a good story to make a TV movie about, so he creates one. Now substitute the television writer for a screenwriter, morph Mantegna into to annoying actors half his age, and take away the comedy and you have this movie.

The actors try. Kristy Swanson is in the movie for maybe 10 minutes and still gives the best performance in the movie. She is still hot, but it would help if she would actually STAR in a movie instead of constantly making CAMEOS. As for everyone else, I don't think it was the actors fault because they have BAD material

Go watch the National Lampoon's movie, but stay away from this movie.


I am amazed with some of the reviews of this film. The only place that seems to tell the truth is RottenTomatoes.com. This film is awful. The plot is extremely lazy. It is not scary either. People out there who think that because it stars Sarah Michelle Geller it is somehow like The Grudge should forget about it. This film is more like Dark Water, except it is even more predictable and slow moving than it. I was extremely disappointed with this film. It didn't scare me nor interest me either. Let's face it , this type of plot has been flogged to death at this stage e.g. the dead trying to contact the living - Dragonfly, What Lies Beneath, Ghost Story, Dark Water, Darkness, The Changeling etc.etc. It seems to me that the only ones writing original horror films nowadays are the Japanese and the Koreans. The films that are coming out of Hollywood, like this, are cynical exercises in money making without a shred of respect for the viewer. They're just being churned out


OK i will admit, it started out very pleasing and good, but then it just dropped downhill, i cannot believe Sarah Michelle Gellar could have even finished reading the script after about 5 minutes into the movie, the only reason i actually sat through the whole movie, was i wanted to see the twist at the ned, and to my surprise, well, folks i cannot even tell you if there ven was one, because the end just leaves you confused, and then the credit role, i was like what the hell? this did not deserve a theater run, i am sorry, but it didn't i mean it was horrible, the only reaso i gave it a 4 is because it had a few jumpy parts...thats it! you can watch it, im not telling you not to, hey you might even like it or even love it! but if you hate it, don't say i didn't warn you!


Think of the ending of the Grudge 2 with the following :

- a man who repeatedly says the word Sunshine - a cowboy - a love story - Sarah Michelle Gellar cutting herself - and a creepy mirror

OH AND UNDERWATER SEA ANIMALS...yay...

not a good movie... I seriously did not enjoy it whatsoever. The poster for the movie is extremely misleading as well and I found that it was just to suck people into watching it...I can't believe i went.

Save your time and money...go watch Saw III...a film where the writing makes you feel like there was effort put into it...

Im Mike and Im out


Let me start off by saying I am not a fan of horror movies. I never watch them.

Let me tell you about my experience...

The only reason I watched this movie was because my girlfriend and her friends wanted to see it over Happy Feet.

...I never saw Happy Feet, but I am sure it is better than this...movie? Anyway, we didn't actually expect it to be good...we actually went in just to laugh at it. Cool with me...I have a problem with ruining the movie for other people in the theater but since it was just other couples talking and making out, it did not matter.

After 15 minutes the 2 other people left to go sneak into Borat, a movie I would have gladly seen again over this. The movie was not scary, and not stupid so it would be funny...it was just boring. It wasn't terrible like "Baby Genuises" terrible, it was terrible like...not entertaining at all. Avoid.

Now I am no expert, but it seems the problem with the horror industry these days is that you can have a PG-13 horror that is boring and not scary, or you can have an R gruesome horror movie that either is too bloody or too disgusting for people.

You want a PG-13 horror that sucks but is funny? See "The Grudge." Avoid this movie like the plague...because it may literally bore you to death.

0/10


How do comments like the one that was the headline by high school girls even make it on this site, this was the stupidest movie I have ever seen, it was ridiculous, how can any moron sit there and say that just because a movie makes you jump it is a good movie, that might be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard, I could sneak up behind you and go "Boo" and it would make you jump, but that does not mean I am qualified to write or direct a movie, not to mention "they tied everything together at the end" is not a good reason for a movie to be well received. What kind of movie would it be if they didn't tie everything together, I guess that would make it half a movie, not a whole movie. So basically this idiot girl is complimenting them for finishing the movie, well I love how the youth of today hold the media and production companies to such a high standard. No wonder the political system of this country can get away with whatever they want, we have idiots like that coming up in our country, what would happen if this girl actually ends up leading something someday, that is a scary thought. Get a life and go watch a real movie sometime, try Shawshank Redemption or On the Waterfront, or something like that, and don't comment that it was "boring" after you see it, just use what little brain God gave you to analyze it a little.


SOME NOT-SO-SPOILY SPOILERS AHEAD

Why do people, when they are disoriented or sick or scared at a club, cut through the middle of the crowded dance floor on their way to the bathroom?

Who in their right mind would hide under a bed when someone breaks into their room?

How often do you knock on a stranger's door and when they don't IMMEDIATELY answer, you open the door, walk in, shout a few hello's and then start going through their stuff?

If you were being pursued by someone you just discovered was a murderer, what would you do? Quietly sneak off and hide under a wooden platform or among metal implements? Run, quietly of course, to a ratty old barn or other decrepit structure?

I could be talking about almost any thriller that's come out in the last few years, but since this is the "The Return" page, obviously I'm talking about "The Return." I saw it free because I work at a movie theater and make a point of screening all the "scary" movies. I thought this one was tolerable... aside from the well-worn clichés. Sarah Michelle Gellar is really drab and looks kind of "Huh?" through most of the film. The details of the plot are slowly given out as the movie progresses and it's almost enough to make it interesting except there wasn't enough explanation as it moved on and so I was almost lost until the last 2/3 of it.

If you're a die-hard thriller fan, it's worth seeing at least once. If there's nothing better at the theater and you really want to watch a movie, eh, I guess it's worth a matinée ticket. If you thought the trailer made it look like an interesting movie and you can't wait... wait.


This was far and away the worst movie i've ever seen in my entire life. It was slow, boring, not scary, not funny, not dramatic, not entertaining.

Sarah Michelle Gellar was up to her old playbook of empty expressions of fright and shock. She couldn't sell her character nor could anyone else in the picture.

For those who thought the Grudge was 'kind of alright' then don't go see this unless you get enjoyment out of wasting your time and your life.

I saw this movie for free by the way so I don't want this to come across as a rant from a guy that lost 8 bucks on a terrible movie. It was free, it still sucked, I hated it.

Avoid.


This is by the far worst piece of cr4p I've ever seen in my life. It barely made sense. It wasn't scary at all (unless you class scary as loud noises and screaming?) Sarah-Michelle Gellar needs to stop with these sh1tty horror films. I think everyone else in the cinema agreed with me when i shouted "SHITE" when the credits rolled up.

On my list of the worst movies ever made this is how it would go:

1. The Return 2. Cabin Fever 3. Silent Hill

The reason i made Silent Hill 3rd is because it showed some frightening scenes, but the rest was absolute cr4p. Same with cabin fever, made no sense, but the return topped that list. Its worse than Silent Hill and Cabin Fever put together


My friends and I went into this movie not knowing what to expect, but hoping for the best. When we came out, we were only slightly more informed on what the plot of the movie actually was. Though not the worst movie I've ever seen, I definitely do not recommend spending your money to see it in theaters. Maybe have a friend rent it for you (it's not even worth the rental cost, either) if you really want to see it.

When a movie is so convoluted that you have no idea what's going on until the last five minutes, there's really not much that can be said in its defense. The acting was decent, more than you'd expect to get from this movie, and some of the shots were good, but it was all bogged down by a lame plot and poor script.

This movie was actually so bad that as soon as it got out, I went and purchased a ticket to see a good movie just to cleanse my mind. I recommend that all of you just skip the first step and go see a good movie instead.


I just got back from the film and I'm completely appalled. This movie is an absolute mockery to all of mankind. The theatre I was in maybe had 4 other people. This movie was recommended to me and I couldn't believe that this person liked it. I can't believe that any sane human would like it. There was no plot NO PLOT AT ALL. It was a joke. How can you make a movie about nothing. This movie only goes to show why Hollywood is in such a shambles. I can only just look at the spiral of the "Horror Movie" industry and giggle. What a travesty to all filmaking, this is true of all the new "teen horror flicks" Grudge,Boogeyman,Ring,Saw series. It is all such trash. Don't support this kind of hogwash!


The Return is one of those movies for that niche group of people who like movies that bore and confuse them at the same time. Sarah Michelle Gellar plays a lame buisnesswoman who does not kill vampires or get naked at all throughout the movie. I was willing to put up with this, however I was not willing to put up with the worst editing ever combined with pointless flashbacks. At the end it turns out she crashes her car into herself when she was young. Or maybe I'm wrong and that was just a flashback. With this movie it's impossible to tell. Can you believe the same dude who made Army of Darkness produced this crap? A much better idea is to stay at home and watch Army of Darkness on Sci Fi channel. That movie had it all: sluts, zombies and a dude with a chainsaw for an arm. The Forgotten didn't even have one of these things.


I think a round of applause is in order for whoever pieced together the trailer for Rogue Pictures' latest release, 'The Return'. I myself, along with everyone else have been duped into believing it is in fact a horror film. On the contrary though, its actually a supernatural thriller. Too bad it is not the least bit thrilling.

'The Return' stars Sarah Michelle Gellar as Joanna Mills, a young woman who has had personal problems since the age of eleven. It was at that age that she began having haunting visions depicting the murder of a woman whom she has never met. While in Texas on a business trip, she is led by these visions to the murdered woman's hometown, La Salle. There she comes face to face with another person who has frequently appeared in her visions. A man by the name of Terry Stahl, who is played by Peter O'Brien. Joanna is now on a desperate search for answers. A search that could in the end result in her very own murder.

I really don't know where to begin here folks. Which should I mention first? The atrocious acting, hideous directing, or the terribly bland story? No matter which one I choose my point behind each is the same: they simply suck. Adam Sussman's screenplay is downright moronic. Its not interesting. Its not compelling. Its just plain unpleasant. I kept waiting for something to jumpstart the "film" (I've placed quotations around film because I don't believe 'The Return' deserves to be called an actual film due to it's foulness.) and at least give it some slight chance of hope, but nothing ever happened. I was left out in an unbearable cold to freeze. Not even stellar performances from the actors themselves could have saved this disaster. Of course they probably knew this having read the script then agreeing to do the "film". I assume this is why the acting was so awful. At least that's what I'm choosing to believe. I really hope the cast doesn't pride themselves on their performances. They need immediate medical attention if they do.

Now the directing was unmistakably bad, but I can't quite crucify Asif Kapadia entirely. (Well I could, but I won't since I'm such a nice guy.) I look at 'The Return' as a test for Kapadia because for all of you that don't know, this is his first full-length feature "film". He's just getting his foot in the door and still learning. Next time around, well if there is a next time, hopefully he will have improved vastly. The only thing he was able to accomplish here was almost completely duplicating the visual style of Marcus Nispel's 2003 re-make of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Now that's nice the "film" was given that, but unfortunately he still won't be receiving any kudos from me for that. Copying someone else's work isn't something I consider to be praise worthy. (Even if it is from a film I very much enjoyed.)

I think Jim Sonzero's American re-make of 'Pulse' will now have to fork over the title of Worst Film of the Year to 'The Return'. It beyond question is deserving of the title in almost every imaginable way. Now I don't doubt this will make a small, and I mean very small, profit. No matter what though, it won't surpass or even parallel the fluke success of Gellar's previous acting effort, 'The Grudge'. On that note, there's one last thing I'd like to add. I can honestly say I had never been embarrassed to have been seen leaving a theater auditorium until seeing 'The Return'. That is something I never wish to experience again, along with the "film" itself.


I just saw this movie yesterday...I cannot believe the reviews on this site. The ones that give it over one-star must be Buffy fanatics. Well, I am a Buffy fan of the first order, but I know crap when I see it. On every level, this film is terrible. Technically, much of the time you don't know where you are in this movie, even within one scene, it jumps POV like crazy for no reason. No logic whatsoever in cinematic terms. Emotionally is bleak for bleak's sake and attempts to be a psychological thriller when it is just confusing. Throwing nasty-looking red-necks in your movie is a cheap way to convey "atmosphere". I ran out of patience with it a long time before the last act, but I was having too much fun with my friends doing MST3K riffs to turn it off. Since leaving Buffy, SMG has had 2 successful movies, if even listing "Scooby Doo" on your resume could count. Gellar is a fine actress, but she (or her agent) sure can't find a vehicle for her. And Mr. Shepard, if you are having trouble paying your mortgage, I'll send you a few bucks if you promise to not appear in a movie like this again! ( Also, the estate of Patsy Cline should sue for defamation! )


The films of UPA are surprisingly well rated on IMDb despite the fact that the animation quality is light-years behind that of Looney Toons, Disney and MGM at their prime. Sadly, due to rising costs in making pretty cartoons with high frame-rates and lovely backgrounds, the UPA style (which debuted about 1950) began to dominate in the late 50s and 60s. After all, the films were dirt cheap to make and they'd received several Oscars to "prove" that the cartoons were now mainstream. So as a result, lousy animation was becoming the norm and this trend wasn't reversed until the 1980s.

This UPA film is one of the early ones. The characters are very simply drawn (any simpler and they would have used stick figures) and the backgrounds were ugly--simple line drawings with colors added in a very slap-dash manner (often with a sponge and rarely completely filling the items).

As for the story, it's a jive story with a strong jazz style attitude. Some will love this, others will just find it very, very loud. It's the traditional "Frankie and Johnny" story and because of the shootings and all, it's probably not a great film for the kids. Heck, because of the animation and jazz, it's not a particularly good film for me, either! Some will read my review and no doubt think I am a crank (which I am, to a degree). However, I love animated films and a little of this minimalistic UPA style goes a very, very long way and you can't seriously consider them great works of art--just very, very quickly made cartoons. Ignore the Oscars and try watching some classic cartoons or something--anything else!


I watched this film for 45 minutes and counted 9 mullets. That's a mullet every 5 minutes. Seriously though, this film is living proof that formula works. If it ain't broke, it don't need fixin. A streetwise-yet-vulnerable heroine, a hardened ex-cop martial arts master with a heart of gold and a serial killer with 'issues'. Pure magic.


An update of the skits and jokes you would have seen on a Burlesque stage in the first half of the 20th Century. It's a string of several jokes acted out. Some of them you could tell your Grandmother, some of them not, but it's a fairly safe bet she's heard them all before. For what it tries to be, it's not too bad. Before you rent it, remember that it's an older style of entertainment and has more value as history than as comedy or titillation. Robin Williams has a couple of bits, but he's interchangeable with the other players.


No real plot to this one, just a series of short skits acting out some VERY old jokes. I chuckled once or twice in the beginning, much to my chagrin. But even at only 73 minutes this film wears out it's welcome before too long and becomes stale and tedious (with some nudity sprinkled in here and there to keep you awake). Still as bad as this movie is (and that's pretty putrid), it's a comedic gem compared to pretty much ANYthing by Aaron Seltzer & Jason Friedberg (Date movie, Epic movie, Meet the Spartans) Also the song is sadly kind of catchy in a sad way.

Eye Candy: 11 pair of tits, 3 bushes, 3 asses

My Grade: D

Code Red DVD Extras: Original trailer for this film; and trailers for "Beyond the Door", "Dead Pit", "the Farmer", "obsessed Ones", "Power Play", "Sole Survivor", & "Wacky Taxi"


Spoilers... if such a thing is possible... . . . . . . . As a rabid Robin Williams fan, I felt it necessary to buy this film as first on-screen appearance. Wow... I could not imagine a more mind-numbing movie. Essentially, the movie takes one bad joke after another that your uncle Artie would tell you after dinner and dramatizes them. Robin Williams plays a lawyer in a 30 sec skit.

I'm all for bawdy humor, but this humor wasn't pleasantly vulgar, or ribald... it was just mind-numbing. There are no redeeming qualities to this film, other than Robin Williams fanatics, like me, who simply have to own every piece of film.


....as to the level of wit on which this comedy operates. Barely even reaching feature length, "Can I Do It....'Till I Need Glasses" is a collection of (mostly) dirty jokes. Many of them are so short that you can't believe it when you realize that THAT was supposed to be the punchline (example: the Santa Claus gag); others are so long that you can't believe it when you realize that they needed so much time to set up THAT punchline (example: the students' awards gag). And nearly all are directed without any artistry. Don't get me wrong: about 1 every 10 jokes actually manages to be funny (the iron / phone one is probably my favorite). There is also some wonderful full-frontal nudity that proves, yet again, that the female body, especially in its natural form, is the best thing on this planet (there is some comedic male nudity as well). And I agree with others that the intentionally stupid title song is actually pretty damn catchy! But none of those reasons are enough to give this film anything more than * out of 4.


When I saw this movie, circa 1979, it became the first movie that I ever walked out of in the middle. There is nothing worse than comedy that just misses being funny, and this misses every time (although I can't speak for the last 25 minutes of the movie). There was nothing original about any of the skits. While I enjoy racy humor where appropriate, these skits were needlessly vulgar. What was even more irritating was that this movie was advertised as "Robin William's first movie", capitalizing on his new found fame in the "Mork and Mindy" television series. Yet his role turned out to be so minor that you cannot even notice him on-screen.


Can I Do it 'till I Need Glasses? at the very least proves the point that anyone can make a movie. Talent is not a consideration. The folks who unleashed this wretched pile of spewing vomit upon the world, lack any semblance of talent, taste or intelligence. The target audience must consist of the recently labotimized, and infants who play with their own feces. Anyone else would be far too world wise to get even a snicker out of this film. It consists of a series of sophmoric skits in which the punchline does not even extend to the obvious. It ends at the ludicrous. The jokes told are the types of jokes that elementary school children tell (usually potty or sexually related) where they don't know the meaning of all of the terms they use. You know, like the one about daddy's car and mommy's garage. To apply any sterner method of criticism would be pointless, since the usual standards of acting, writing, direction and such have never even been heard of by the creative "minds." behind this mess. Not to be judgemental, but anyone who enjoyed this film should seriously reflect upon their purpose on this earth.