Comes this heartwarming tale of hope. Hope that you'll never have to endure anything this awful again. *cough* Razzie award *cough*

I disliked this movie because it was unfunny, predictable and inane. While watching I felt like I was in a psychology experiment to determine how low movie standards could get before people complained. When I requested my money back at the end of the movie I was informed that because I watched the whole thing 'I wasn't entitled to reimbursement'. I was told by the assistant manager that several people had complained and gotten refunds already though.

The movie summary is pretty basic. The midget thief steals a diamond and the poses as a baby to elude police. Underneath this clever outline however, lies a repertoire of original, fresh and hilarious skits. Or not.

Ask yourself the following: Do you like to see people getting hit by pans? Do you like fart jokes? Do you like to see midgets posing as babies threatened with a thermometer in the anus? Do you like tired racial jokes? Do you think babies say 'goo goo goo goo goo gaa gaa'? Do you drool?

If you answered 'yes' to any of the above then this movie is definitely for you. Although it has been billed in some places as 'The Worst Movie of the Decade', there is probably a movie or 2 that are worse...somewhere. I can't say for sure. I gave this movie 2 stars because we all know a review with only one star would indicate bias on the part of the reviewer and then the review wouldn't be taken seriously.

This lowbrow comedy is intended for a less intelligent audience and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone. Save your money for something funny.

Respect


This was the worst movie I've ever seen in theaters. It was just a compilation of recycled material. People getting hit in the head is not funny. People getting kicked is not funny. After the third time a guy got kicked in the balls not even the youngest audience member was laughing anymore. It just got tired fast.

I went with my younger sister. She actually laughs out loud at King of the Hill but this cinematic masterpiece bored her. I'm not surprised. The story is pretty lame. A midget thief steals a big diamond in what was definitely the easiest heist in Hollywood history. Then he hides out with a family pretending to be a baby. I know it sounds exciting but that's the whole story. Say those two lines over and over for 1.5 hours and you'll get the picture There were predictable jokes galore. I really felt ripped off after seeing this. I wasn't expecting much and I was still disappointed. I wish Keenan would just hire some decent writers to write jokes and/or his next script. This was even worse than White Chicks if that is possible. I've seen high school plays that were better, and cheaper.

There wasn't anything positive about this movie. I don't like my entertainment to be dumbed down.


Ripping this movie apart is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's too easy. So I'm going to challenge myself to acknowledge the positive aspects of Little Man. First, I'm impressed with the special effects. It really did look like Marlon Wayans' head was attached to the body of a little person. I never doubted it for a minute.

Secondly, I loved some of the unexpected cameos. David Alan Grier played an annoying restaurant singer, and his renditions of "Havin' My Baby" and "Movin' On Up" were priceless. John Witherspoon, who, coincidentally, played Grier's father in 1992's Boomerang (if you remember, he "coordinated" the mushroom belt with the mushroom jacket) now plays Vanessa's father in Little Man. So that was fun.

Beyond that, this movie is about as believable as White Chicks. How dumb is it when even the doctor can't tell that it's a 40-year-old man and not a baby? He's got a full set of teeth!!! How is it possible that no one seems to notice that it's not a baby? Little Man is so bad that there's a Rob Schneider cameo. And please, if you're stupid enough to waste $8 on this movie, at least do me a favor and DO NOT bring your children. This movie is way too sexual for small children (lots of jokes and innuendo about sex, going down, eating out, etc.), and I felt embarrassed for the parents who brought their kids to the screening I was forced to endure. If you insist on seeing an idiotic film, as least spare your children the pain and suffering.


I've now just realised that by watching this film I have lost valuable precious moments of my life I will never get back. Thsi film isn't just poor its dire. It reminded me of every stereotypical black sitcom ever made.

I regret watching this film.

Flixmedia reckons its a race issue, apparently "White" people don't like it because it doesn't have white actors. Mate, I think you'll find the reason why no one liked this was because watching paint dry is far more entertaining and funnier then this pile of drivel.

Please stop making crap films


When I saw that IMDb users rated this movie the bottom 250 movies, I thought it was too harsh but little did I know that the low rating was absolutely correct.

I am a big fan of the Wayans brothers. I loved their Scary Movie 2 and even enjoyed White Chicks. Little Man, however, had very few laughs and the jokes were stale.

Obviously, the joke will revolve around Marlon Wayans, who plays a grown midget that was recently let out of prison. He and his partner, Tracy Morgan, steal a diamond meant for a gangster. Things go awry and the midget has to place the diamond with an unsuspecting couple played by Shawn Wayans and Kerry Washington. In order to get the diamond back, the midget pretends to be an abandoned baby left on the unsuspecting couples doorstep. Of course, he is taken in and the drama begins on quest for the diamond.

The movie has some actors and actresses from Saturday Night Live like Molly Shannon and Rob Schneider as well from In Living Colour. All these talents, however, cannot help the poor script and the jokes which simply was not funny.

The special effects to make Marlon Wayans to look like a midget was OK. I mean, it was not 100% believable but it was OK...nothing great. I just wish that the Wayans brothers had put more effort into developing a script with good jokes rather than trying to shore up their poor script with cameos from their famous comedic actors and actresses.

Wait for it on cable or television. It really is not worth any amount of money.


...Ever. This is the bottom. I am not joking. The theater should've had a warning of some kind. 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here' would've been fitting.

I don't have the words to describe accurately the hell that this movie is. Its debilitating stupidity even fails to amuse. This movie is definitely aimed at some of the slower turtles in the sandbox. The story was blatantly stolen from a 10 minute Bugs Bunny cartoon and then stretched like Mr. Fantastic to 90 excruciatingly painful minutes.

I remember when the Wayans's were funny. I guess the pressures of Hollywood for them to produce produce produce are to blame for the poop that churns out at a consistent rate. I'm sad and offended that they think we are stupid enough to enjoy 90 minutes of kick-in-the-balls jokes with a thin plot based on a cartoon.

I disliked nearly everything about this movie. I won't spoil anything but the baby is actually a midget with Marlon Wayans's face poorly superimposed over the midget's body. What I DID like was the ending. Not the movie's resolution, but the actual end where we all stood up and walked out.

I gave this movie one star, but it clearly deserves less. I don't feel that the six minutes they spent writing the script is worth a star. This does deserve a Razzie and I pray to God it gets it.

When are people going to learn; if you stop paying to see this idiocy they will stop pooping it out. Seppuku is a reasonable alternative to this film. Avoid it at all costs. You have been warned.


There was a Bugs Bunny cartoon titled "Baby Buggy Bunny" that was EXACTLY this plot. Baby-faced Finster robbed a bank and the money in the carriage rolled away and fell into Bug's rabbit hole. He dressed up as a baby to get into Bugg's hole to retrieve the money. The scene in "Little Man" where he's looking in the bathroom mirror shaving with a cigar in his mouth is straight from the cartoon. This was a hilarious 5-minute cartoon; not so much an entire movie. If you are really interested in this, buy the Bugs Bunny DVD. It's was much more original the first time (1954). Plus you'll get a lot more classic Bugs Bunny cartoons to boot!


There are some extremely talented black directors Spike Lee,Carl Franklin,Billy Dukes,Denzel and a host of others who bring well deserved credit to the film industry . Then there are the Wayans Brothers who at one time(15,years ago) had an extremely funny television show'In Living Colour' that launched the career of Jim Carrey amongst others . Now we have stupidity substituting for humour and gross out gags(toilet humour) as the standard operating procedure . People are not as stupid as those portrayed in 'Little Man' they couldn't possibly be . A baby with a full set of teeth and a tattoo is accepted as being only months old ? Baby comes with a five o'clock shadow that he shaves off . It is intimated that the baby has sex with his foster mother behind her husbands,Darryl's, back .Oh, yea that is just hilarious . As a master criminal 'Little Man' is the stupidest on planet earth . He stashes a stolen rock that is just huge in a woman's purse and then has to pursue her . Co-star Chazz Palminteri,why Chazz, offers the best line: "I'm surrounded by morons." Based, without credit, on a Chuck Jones cartoon, Baby Buggy Bunny . This is far too stupid to be even remotely funny . A clue as to how bad this film is Damon Wayans appeared on Jay Leno the other night,prior to the BAT awards and he did not,even mention this dreadful movie . When will Hollywood stop green lighting trash from the Wayans Brothers . When they get over their white mans guilt in all likelihood .


It's here. finally a movie comes out that I can honestly say is worse than Larry the cable guy: health inspector. Yet I'm willing to bet the the wayan's brothers(hilarious) will make more money than I ever make in my whole life on what is sure to be one of the top five worst films of all time, outside of my fifth grade outside the class re-enactment of romeo and Juliet. I mean really WHY would anyone ever ever see this movie unless they were paid to. The comedy is weak and all even remotely funny jokes from the flimsy plot were surely revealed in commercials. Final word is this movie was a terrible letdown for me. And the commercials looked so promising...


Like some of the other reviewers have alluded to previously, I'd like to know what moron actually read the script and went', "Yea!!! This is it. This is the next film we are going to green light!!" And whoever that person is, should have his or her head examined for actual brain activity. Because whoever is responsible for actually dishing out money to have this made after reading the script, well, I'd love to give you my email address and maybe you'd like to just give away some more money. This film is atrocious in every way.

The Wayans are funny, at least they can be. They have made some good films and had some incredibly funny performances along the way. But in here, not only does the premise defy all logic, not only is the acting terrible, not only is the entire movie offensive from start to finish, not only is the direction as amateurish as you can find, but they actually want you to pay to see this film. Maybe if it was free...naaah, it would still be a waste of time.

Usually I'd be inclined to write some long winded, detailed review about why this film is so bad, but just suffice to say that let my brevity do the talking. This is the lowest common denominator film making and it is about as unfunny as a heart attack.

0/10..makes my top ten list of worst films of all time!


This movie is most possibly the worst movie I have ever see in my entire life! The plot is ridiculous and the whole "Little Man" crap is just so stupid. The entire movie is unrealistic and dumb. Let's face it, It's just a "Black Comedy". This is just a pointless horrible piece that should have never made it to theaters. The jokes are not funny and the acting is horrendous. Please, I beg of to you save your money than see this worthless piece of crap. I had to endure sitting through Little Man for an hour and a half wishing my eyes would bleed. I am disgusted that something like this would even be thought of! Who writes this crap? The actors have NO talent what so ever, how do these people get into Hollywood? They are making money off this junk!


This is exactly the reason why many people remain homeless . . . because stupid producers pay their money to make awful films like this instead of donating if they can bother!

This film is even worse than white chicks! Little Man has a lame excuse for posing a character midget as a baby. Story is awful considering it was written by six people. The idea still wouldn't be too bad though, if it was original and not a rip-off of a cartoon episode. it has funny moments but some of them are way over-done and some are just stupid. The acting was very, very bad. So was the directing. Anyone involved in this film should be ashamed of themselves. it is racist and very offensive to midgets. I mean, instead of showing sympathy to them, the film-makers make fun of them! It really disgusts me how they do it. They see midgets being just like babies. And for a character who is a midget, pretending to be an abandoned baby just to get a diamond from a certain family. That is its lame excuse for showing something like that. It just was not worth it. Don't watch this film. It is a huge waste of time and money.


"Little Man", now on DVD, is a Wayans Brothers flop. It's the tale of a smaller than a midget criminal played by Marlon Wayans, who hides a diamond in a lady's purse after a heist. He and his partner Tracy Morgan cook up the genius plan to disguise Marlon as a baby and plant him at the lady's home. He then goes through all sorts of "Home Alone" or "Child's Play" like mayhem to get the jewel back and be treated like a baby. I was surprised by how low the humor was in this film. The jokes have been done in other places so many times, that they aren't cute or funny. I almost think the movie might have been funnier if they didn't use CGI and used the small actor who Marlon's face was pasted over. In watching the deleted scenes (minus CGI) this actor was funny in a Mini-me like way, but they chose a different route. A few cameos and Tracy Morgan make some funny scenes..Spend your rental fee $ on Borat if you want some real laughs these days.

http://mcmusicnotes.blogspot.com


America. A land of freedom, of hope and of dreams. This is the nation that, since its independence, has striven to bring democracy, prosperity, and peace to the entire world, for the good of all mankind. There are times, however, when one cannot help but wish that the American's would just stay on their side of the Atlantic.

This 'movie' (and I use that word with some reservations) evokes these feelings with an intense purity. This vision of hell follows the adventures of Calvin, a freakish jewel thief who was created by attaching the severed head of Marlon Wayan onto the body of a two foot-high dwarf. After inadvertently dropping a large diamond into the handbag of Vanessa, a career-woman who is reluctant to have children, Calvin realises that in order to recover the diamond he must ingratiate himself with her. So, as any normal man would, Calvin dresses himself up as a 2 year-old and parks himself upon the poor woman's doorstep, where he is discovered by Darryl, the broody husband of Vanessa.

Darryl incongruously falls for Calvin's disguise despite the fact that the 'baby' has a full set of teeth, stubble, a tattoo, a knife-scar, and the sex-drive of a 16-year-old. Even more absurdly, Vanessa doesn't see past Calvin's baby-wear either and actually attempts to breastfeed the diminutive pervert. This wretched assault upon the soul of mankind attempts, and fails, to find humour in rape, scatology, sexual assault, and paedophilia, however, in a dishonest attempt to transform itself into a piece of 'family-entertainment' the Wayan brothers stir in a sickening amount of sentiment and flawed morality.

The brothers dim attempt a Freudian rehabilitation of their thieving rapist by revealing that he "had a bad father". Repeatedly hitting Darryl in the crotch enables Calvin to develop the loving father-son relationship that both he and Darryl have always wished for. As if this wasn't ridiculous enough, Calvin's attempts to sexually assault Vanessa somehow convince her that it is selfish for a woman to indulge herself with a successful career, and that instead she should spend her life playing the role of the housebound little-woman, who spends her time alternatively squeezing out babies and cooking for her husband.

In this movie the Wayan brothers have mixed their crass and twisted form of humour together with the clichéd sentimentality that has infected much of Hollywood's recent body of work. Additionally, they are endemic of the current generation of black comedians who are responsible for transforming African-American humour into a poor and wretched shadow of itself that over-indulges in fart-jokes and crude sexual gags. By rights these two should be legally barred from picking up anything even remotely resembling a camera ever again.

Unfortunately the current artistic and moral bankruptcy of American cinema means that by this time next month they will undoubtedly have filmed two sequels and be making millions of dollars from tacky merchandising deals.


What's the point of reviewing a movie like this? It's painfully and embarrassingly bad, not even in a way that allows you to make fun of it.

Movies like "Little Man" depress me. They represent film at its most disposable. This movie was made for a bunch of 18-24 year old dipsh*t frat boys who the studio was hoping would come out and see it on opening night before word leaked out about how bad it was, so that the film could quickly recoup its investment.

A hundred other filmmakers with great ideas probably couldn't get their films made because resources were going toward making this puddle of vomit.

Grade: F


I was not impressed about this film especially for the fact that I went to the cinema with my family in good faith to see a film which was certificate rated 12A here in the UK. To my dismay, this film was full of embarrassing sexual jokes. (Which is not a problem to me as an adult, but not good for watching with children). This film at times was very crude at times with fart jokes, getting hit in the groin etc... and for the most part of the film not very funny.

The premise of the film is that Calvin Sims who is a 2inch midget, gets out of jail and steals a giant sized diamond but is then forced to put it in a womens handbag. So the rest of the movie sees him passing himself off as an abandoned baby, getting into this womens house so he can get this diamond back.

Up until now, I have enjoyed most of the output from the Wayans Brothers - but this film is certainly taking the biscuit.

A Bit of good advice - wait till it comes on TV or Cable


I can catogoricaly and unequivocally say that in all my 51 years on this planet that is the worse (supposibly children's) film i have ever seen in my life.

I took my three grand children to see it and even they were struggling to raise a smile during the all tortuous 90 mins. The sexual indendoes i will leave for another day but they were as tasteless as the film. They should pay YOU to watch it not you pay them. It's truly truly awful, there is no other way to describe it. The people that made this film should be brought to task for taking money under false pretences.

Aplogise for my spelling mistakes but i am so upset that it spoilt the time i had with my grandchildren Regards, Stephen


I think its pretty safe to say that this is the worst film ever made, When I saw the trailer on TV i knew right from second 1 that this would be a piece of **** and it would be best to avoid it, but I somehow got dragged into seeing this by some friends, I walked into the cinema with low expectations but i was hoping there would be a couple of cheap laughs to keep me awake during this film. The so-called "jokes" in this film bring a cringe to the face, they are mostly comprised of people taking hits to the face and balls, the baby looking weird and acting like a horny gangsta and the typical race jokes we see so often in todays garbage comedies. The film is obvious and the story is not only impossible to believe but also predictable and dull. The characters are extremely annoying and heavily stereotyped. I never want to have to see this **** film again, I'd rather take a bullet to the foot than be exposed to this piece of fuckwood ever again. If anyone I see says they liked it i will physically punch them in the face


So, has it really come to this? Are we, as consenting adults, to blame for the next generation of cinema-goers lack of cinematic understanding and celluloid capability? Concerning the Wayans and Co. latest addition to the moving pictures scenario; Little Man. This United Kingdom P.G. (Parental Guidance), anyone under the age of twelve must be accompanied by a responsible adult, certificated movie, is the epitome of what has now developed into the worse case of dumbing down since cigarettes were "wiped out" from pictures of movie icons of the 1950's.

The predominantly under twelve's audience here who, some without grown up supervision too, sat there, obediently, taking it all in, oblivious to their subject and the partly grown up features that Little Man portrays, in part at least too. Movies, in general, can do better than this poor attempt, while this nonsense is getting them in while they are still young and fresh, the biggest fear for the future of Cinema is that a child's ignorance just might carry on through to a grown up bliss. Cinema deserves more than this, and so do its ever growing, and in the literal sense too, audiences, this blatant cash cow feeds on the ever-impressionable minds of the young.

There is no Cinema experience here, no open eyed wonder, no awe-inspiring respect to the magic of movies'. There is nothing but bewilderment and contempt, for the lack of substance, originality and its delivery of mind less tedium and parody of everything that is so now ultimately wrong with the Hollywood machine, for the sake of a quick buck, we must endure our future cinema audiences to the likes of this archetypal disaster movie.

Will this have the likes of Hitchcock, Fassbinder, Leone, Kubrick and Schaffner reeling in their graves? Money they all liked, no doubt, but talent and exuberance for perfection and quality, and to a vast degree, respect for their profession and audience, they were never short off. We are seeing, once again, with the works of the Wayans clan another cliché of bad taste, while the likes of White Chicks (2004) were in no doubt a stab at the bourgeoisie of American society. The irony here is that the two leading protagonists, played yet again, by the Wayans brothers, are so much undercover, that all recognition is non-existent, this makes for a better movie too, and it is the actor Terry Crews that gives White Chicks its substance and personality, not the Wayans.

Yet again, with their pastiche of 1970's Blaxploitation movies, as with the 1988 movie I'm Gonna Git You Sucka, this to can be seen as a comical and amusing movie, with heavy weights as Isaac Hayes, Jim Brown, Bernie Casey and the gorgeous actress Ja'net Du Bois. The point being, that Little Man has absolutely no persona of any kind what so ever, he is shallow and narcissistic, with no appreciation or value toward his followers, he quickly dives in takes your money and before we know it, has hidden himself within the cogs of commercialism. There is no recognisable effort as to where our money has been spent, after Scary Movie (2000), things could only have gone up, but alas they did not, no great pondering of artistic value and no doubt that the instalment from these intrepid movie moguls' next movies shall be straight to video, one can only hope.

The Wayans seem to have created a movie genre all by themselves, to a certain extent; they have bludgeoned to death the movie parody, they have watered down each and every avenue and with their inevitable style. They have slowly destroyed the reputation of the last one hundred years that Cinema have given us, may the ghosts of movies past be ever so humble in their judgement, as their growing audiences, so far, seem to be, for when the bubble bursts, may they be as understanding too.


Since this picture is classified a "pure entertainment" work and since there are already many comments on it, I'd like hereby to address something relevant to the abuse of humour. We can see that Marlon Wayans is playing the joker role in this film. Certainly as long as he has been involved in the casting job, he has always been acting as a little man-an actor can change his customary dress but can hardly change his physical appearance-and the latter one can be an advantage when necessary. However far away from what I expected, I saw an image very disguising, pretending to expose different aspects of the baby life by mistake of a forty-year- old criminal. And with a ridiculous happy ending. So what is the point? Many elements are mixed up, some principal ones are violence, sex and criminal activities, amongst which the story is badly composed and to some extent, lack common sense: where is Vanessa when the peace of her house is violated and her husband's life being pursued? In addition the diamond is even bigger than the world's No.1 Cullinan! But the most sickening facet is the continuous attempt to make up the little man as a superman by showing his physical weak points. And they call it humour. A diamond is precious, hard and fragile; it cannot be cut by any other material but only be conquered by the hot blood of a male goat. Hence it's no more a diamond but pieces of debris.


When watching little man , you'll spend its running time trying to figure out its many plot holes . And thats not a good sign because this film is supposed to be a comedy ! Your supposed to be laughing at it !! But will you ? Probably not.

The main problem with little man is its concept- its far too ridiculous to accept (even as a cartoonish comedy ), so when the loud , laboured and over the top jokes kick in , they make the whole thing seem ten times stupider than it already is.

"But its a comedy " some of you might be screaming. Thats true but thats no excuse for such a dumb plot.I mean come on , think about it if you saw a baby with A GROWN MANS FACE , wouldn't you be the least bit suspicious? And if calvin wanted to hide the diamond so badly, why didn't he put it in a nearby shelf instead of a random womans hand bag? And how can a qualified doctor NOT recognise that calvin is a grown man ? i mean seriously...what ?

"Its not about the plot , its about the laughs" you might be screaming . Well heres the thing see, there are hardly any laughs in little man and that just make the dumb ass plot stand out all the more.

If you really want to watch a wayans brothers comedy with a belief suspending plot, stick to white chicks because at least that had a few decent laughs.What ever you do steer clear of little man.


This piece of crap, since I can't call it a movie, can be summed up by the following.

-Stereotypical black criminal with black midget partner get in trouble -Black Midget pretends to be a baby with a fully developed adult face, body hair and genitalia -Black midget is mistaken(somehow) by man and woman who happen to want a baby -Black midget than goes on to commit acts of physical and sexual violence, demean white people wherever he sees them, and commit more crimes -Happy Ending

Honestly, it could have been a good satire if it hadn't been directed so shallowly and had such talentless bastards star in it.


'SherryBaby' is quite a painful and sordid melodrama set in Jersey, the story of a young mother who is out of jail on probe after a drugs-related conviction and fights to stay clean, to find a place for herself in life and especially to win back the love of her kid daughter who is being taken care by her brother's family. The only reason the film is to be watched is Maggie Gyllenhaal, an actress at the top of her career, who fits very well in the role and carries the whole film on her shoulders. This is not enough however, as the story line is too simplistic and expected, and the emotional emphasis is put on the wrong place - I kept asking myself all over the picture whether I am supposed to be sorry about the ex and maybe future drug addicted mother as the director and script-writer wanted, or about the innocent kid who is in the middle. Even Maggie Gyllenhaal's acting could not convince me that I should not care more about the kid.


This is a simple tale but it feels very manipulative. It lacks pathos for it does not leave a room for imagination or a personal thought or time for reflection.

The animation is well done but I feel like it is too presentational. I would have preferred more images from behind, more space in the background and maybe then this would not feel so kitsch to me.

But for a Hollywood style film it works OK but it is very derivative of Aardman films and this is bothering to me. Perhaps a longer film will test if this maker can do without the voice-over.

I think the voice over is too glib.


I can see the guys doing the budget preparation for this flick. "Well lets see now, we spend 50% getting Dirk Benidict, cause Battle Star Galactic and the A-Team were cool. The we spend 40% making a Demon Costume, never mind that the Demon is supposed to be incorporeal in the script. And we spend the rest making the movie." This was pretty bad and VERY cliche.... Have a loved one present when watching (or bring a good book)


I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because I think "The Wild Women of Wongo" is worse. This is an exercise in patience. It's like having your teeth cleaned by a bad dental hygienist. There's no plot. There's no logic. There is certainly no acting (although the shark has some quality dialogue). We don't wonder about anything. We don't know how people got where they got. It's always amazing to me how things like this even get released. I agree with the previous writer that it isn't even funny bad. I know. It's about 90 minutes long and that will fill up about that much space on a DVD collection. It's like a paperweight. Or a bad painting you bought at a starving artists' sale. It covers the crack in the wall.


This is one really bad movie. I've racked my brain and I cannot come up with one positive comment to make. The acting is atrocious. I've seen more believable performances on cable access. The plot is ridiculous. Stolen diamonds, secret recordings of the President, and a shark that attacks anything that gets near it should have made for cheesy fun at the worst. Night of the Sharks isn't even so bad it's good. The dialogue sounds and is delivered as if it were written seconds before it's filmed. And to top it off, Night of the Sharks has the worst soundtrack I've ever heard. I'm surprised my ears didn't start bleeding from the 80s techno synthesized sounds that someone actually bothered to record.

From everything I've read, the Italian film industry was dead by 1987. Night of the Sharks is like a final nail in the coffin.


-SPOILES- Lame south of the border adventure movie that has something to do with the blackmail of a big cooperate executive Rosenlski the president of Unasco Inc. by on the lamb beachcomber David Ziegler who's living the life of Reilly, or Ziegler, in his beach house in Cancun Mexico.Having this CD, that he gave to his brother James, that has three years of phone conversations between Rosenlski and the President of the United States involved in criminal deals. This CD has given David an edge over the international mobsters who are after him.

The fact that James get's a little greedy by trying to shake down Rosenlski for 2 million in diamonds not only cost him his life but put David in danger of losing his as well. Ropsenlski want's to negotiate with David for the CD by getting his ex-wife Liz to talk to him about giving it up, Rosnelski made a deal to pay off her debts if she comes through. David is later killed by Rosenliski's Mexican hit-man Tony, with the help of a great white shark, who just doesn't go for all this peaceful dealings on his boss' part.

Tony had taken the CD that Liz left for his boss at a local hotel safe and now want's to murder James, like he did David, and at the same time keep the CD to have something over Rosenlski.

David who had secretly hidden the diamonds that James had on him at the time of his murder is now the target of Tony and his men to shut him up for good. David also wants to take the diamonds and at the same time give his boss Rosenlski the impression that the CD that David had is lost but use it later, without Rosenlski knowing who's behind it,to blackmail him.

The movie "Night of the Sharks" has a number of shark attacks in it with this huge one-eyed white shark who ends up taking out about a half dozen of the cast members including Tony. David who's a firm believer in gun-control uses knives high explosives and Molotov cocktails, as well as his fists, to take out the entire Tony crew. Even the killer shark is finished off by Tony but with a hunting knife, not a gun. When it came to using firearms to save his friend and sidekick Paco a girlfriend Juanita and his priest Father Mattia lives from Tony and his gang guns were a no-no with David; he was more of a knife and spear man then anything else.

The ending of the movie was about as predictable as you can make it with David thought to be killed by the one-eyed shark later pops up out of the crowd,after Rosenlski was convinced that he's dead and leaves the village. David continues his life as a free living and loving beachcomber with no one looking to kill him and about two million dollars richer. to David's credit he had his friend Paco give Rosenski back his CD but under the conditions that if anything happened to him his cousin, who Rosenlski doesn't know who and where he is, will shoot his big mouth off and let the whole world know about his dirty and criminal dealings.


What's to like about this movie???

It is in colour!

It has some impressive underwater photography!

It has a rhythmic musical score in the background that works well at times!

So 3 out of 10!

Sometimes the music is speeded up! Especially when the shark or the baddies are about to move in!

Sometimes it is slowed! As if to convey to the audience it's about to be time for sympathy!

As another one bites the dust! As if in a "spagetti Western" this has much similarity to!

It's not that the Italians can't produce quality productions! There was a series of TV movies with a heading like "Octopus" numbered about 1 to 7, screened on SBS TV in Australia in the 1990s about mafia-type conflicts! And they were excellent! But alas, you won't find it here!!!

I assumed it was made about 1960s! Sadly it was 20 years out of date, as evidenced by a funeral scene near the end!

Then there was the razor-sharp bite of the speedy shark that makes for a red dust repeatedly emerging in the bluish waters!

Amidst it all, either in bar-room brawl or in observing the latest sea-side bloody demolition by the relentlessly hungry shark, the mate of the hero looks on through his glasses of little concern, as if he too was bored in his relentless role amidst a lack of much evidence of plot or anyone's character development!

At least the hero indicates a fleeting concern belatedly, for his ex-wife!

But of course, even if the music fails to awaken our realisation, we have the sinister sound in the baddies' voices, as if to nudge us that another dark deed is about to emerge!

And near the end, someone thought of a twist! Just when we thought it was all totally predictable! But stay tuned, folks, for you may find another twist! If you are watching closely! To, more or less, warm your heart!

Follow the advice of the hero, and have a few beers along the way! It'll make your viewing of "Night of the Sharks" more enjoyable!

Then you'll be ready for something like a "007" movie to ease your way back into reality when this is over!!!


Despite some moments in heavy rain, an encounter with a drunk as well as an organ grinder with a gypsy and a monkey, and a stay in a sanitarium, this Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle silent comedy short with support from Buster Keaton and Al St. John is only fitfully amusing though there is a quite funny sequence of Arbuckle in drag flirting with Buster that's the ultimate in "meet cute" scenes especially since it's one of the few times we see The Great Stone Face smile and laugh in the movies! Also, many scenes seem to have been jump cut edited possibly because of overuse of the film stock. Still, if you're an Arbuckle or Keaton completist, Good Night, Nurse! is certainly worth a look.


This isn't one of Arbuckle's or Keaton's better films, that's for sure. Fatty's wife is tired of all his heavy drinking, so she takes him to a sanitarium where a psychiatrist (Keaton) claims to have a guaranteed cure! Well, once there, Arbuckle accidentally eats a thermometer and is taken to surgery. Then, he escapes and is chased about the place where he meets a cute girl who also wants to escape. Finally, despite staff chasing them about, they escape at which point it becomes apparent that the girl is crazy and Arbuckle is soon recaptured. However, he awakens and everything AFTER the surgery has all been a dream--there was no sexy crazy girl and Dr. Keaton isn't as big an incompetent as he seemed in the dream.

A lack of humor is the biggest problem with the film. Sure, making fun of mentally ill people is pretty low, but in its day it was guaranteed laughs. I'd laugh, too, if there was just something funny to respond to! A lot of energy and that's all.

FYI--during one of the chase sequences, Fatty wonders into a race for men over 200 pounds (wow, what are the odds of that?). And, shortly after this, he backs into a post on which the number 5 was just freshly painted. As a result, the five is now on the back of Fatty's shirt and he looks like a regular participant. HOWEVER, the number SHOULD have appeared backwards on Fatty's shirt but came out front-ways--a mistake, as they should have realized the mirror image would have been a backwards 5.


Man oh man! What a piece of crummy film-making! But this is a guilty pleasure from my childhood even though I hate to admit it. They showed this movie on my basic cable system all the time. Where I grew up in San Jose, California (right on the border of Cupertino) we had this thing called The G Channel on our cable system. And they basically showed the same one movie over and over and over again. Wanda Nevada was one of those movies. I fell in lust and love with the young Brooke Shields and loved her dopey adventures in the Grand Canyon in the 1940s. The script makes almost no sense, the direction is poor, the few highlights are that Henry Fonda makes an appearance, a lot of dialog that's so bad it's good and a nice Carole King song played over the end credits. Maybe you have to be stoned to truly enjoy this flick. And hey, everybody knows there ain't no gold in the Grand Canyon!


Peter Fonda is so intentionally enervated as an actor that his lachrymose line-readings cancel out any irony or humor in the dialogue. He trades sassy barbs and non-witty repartee with Brooke Shields as if he were a wooden block with receding hair; even his smaller touches (like fingering a non-existent mustache on his grizzled face) don't reveal a character so much as an unsure actor being directed by himself, an unsure filmmaker. In the Southwest circa 1950, a poor gambler (not above a little cheating) wins an orphaned, would-be teen Lolita in a botched poker game; after getting hold of a treasure map promising gold in the Grand Canyon, the bickering twosome become prospectors. Some lovely vistas, and an odd but interesting cameo by Henry Fonda as a grizzled canyon man, are the sole compensations in fatigued comedy-drama, with the two leads being trailed by cartoonish killers who will stop at nothing until they get their hands on that map. Shields is very pretty, but--although the camera loves her pouty, glossy beauty--she has no screen presence (and her tinny voice has no range whatsoever); every time she opens her mouth, one is inclined to either cringe or duck. *1/2 from ****


Wanda Nevada is a pubescent fantasy movie using circa 1979 ideas of what constitutes illicit romance for 13 year old girls. Script, pacing, and direction are uniformly awful. Action sequences defy belief. Characters speak with the simplified diction one usually finds in films aimed at the under 10 set, but also includes multiple sexual references involving Shields' character as well as graphic deaths.

The movie wants to be a comedy on some level but is never funny, an adventure picture but plot and action are insipid, and a children's movie but introduces pedophilia and child rape as real possibilities. It also wants to be a buddy picture, a coming of age picture, a ghost movie, an Indian spiritual movie, a travelogue, and a western. The overall affect is of massive stupidity with a nasty twist. Wanda Nevada is a complete waste of time unless you want to see a good many terrific shots of the Grand Canyon. That it manages to do just fine.


Any movie in which Brooke Shields out-acts a Fonda is going to be both an anomaly and a horror. Shields actually is only bad because she's youthful, inexperienced, and clearly not well directed by her co-star. Peter Fonda is bad because, well, because he's bad. I liked him in Ulee's Gold, years later, but Lord above, he's awful here. Not that anyone else is good. There's not a single performance (outside Henry Fonda's delightful cameo) that is even passable. I've never seen a movie with this many bad performances. In the case of Luke Askew, the chief villain, it's clear this is because of poor dialogue and direction, as he's done good work in the past. But his partner, played by Ted Markland, is an embarrassing ham. The writing is just bloody awful, and the actors cannot be faulted for the terrible things they have to say. But they say them so badly! The editing and direction are worse than pedestrian. Shots are held way too long for no dramatic reason, or cut off before the impact of the scene can be realized. This picture was far worse than I'd imagined and would have been utterly forgotten (and probably never even made) without the participation of a couple of famous names. One bright spot: the cinematography in the Grand Canyon is exquisite, capturing the beauty of that area in a way even big-screen Imax productions have not quite done so well. And finally: either this is a bad version of Paper Moon, with a lovable pair of father-daughter types, or it's a bad version of Pretty Baby, with a considerably more icky romantic relationship between a forty-something and a 13-year-old. It suggests more of the latter than the former, and thus is pretty disturbing.


Beaudray Demerille(a weak Peter Fonda, who also directed), an aging gambler, wins young teen Wanda "Nevada"(pretty, but not talented Brooke Shields) in a poker game. Together the unlikely pair(of course)embark on a search for Indian gold in the Grand Canyon.

That's the story and there really is no need to search for a deeper meaning in it. It just isn't there. The acting is very weak too, which was quite a surprise given the fact that Peter Fonda was in the lead.

If you're looking for something interesting in this film, take a look at the nice scenery and some good looks of a young Brooke Shields. Her character however is so irritating(especially at the beginning)and dumb, that she never quite comes off as sexy or appealing. Too bad, but, given the story, I doubt anything more could be made of this. I wonder why Peter Fonda directed and starred in this film. He must have even talked his father(Henry Fonda)into a (useless) cameo in this ridiculous mess. Unfortunately, this was their only film together. Couldn't Henry be in EASY RIDER for example? 3/10


I rented this movie because it falls under the genres of "romance" and "western" with some Grand Canyon scenery thrown in. But if you're expecting a typical wholesome romantic western, forget it. This movie is pure trash! The romance is between a YOUNG GIRL who has not even gone through puberty and a MIDDLE-AGED MAN! The child is also lusted after by other leering men. It's sickening.

Peter Fonda is portrayed as being virtuous by trying to resist his attraction to Brooke Shields, and her character is mostly the one that pursues the relationship. He tries to shoo her off at first but eventually he gives in and they drive off as a happy, loving couple. It's revolting.

I don't see how this movie could appeal to anyone except pedophiles.


Quite average even by Monogram standards, this mystery (a remake of The Sphinx) has an oddball plot which is not unraveled to much effect -- you'll see through it after about ten minutes. The two leads have some nice breezy dialog at the outset, but John Hamilton is hopelessly dull as the villain (perfectly cast Lionel Atwill originated the role) and Warren Hymer's nitwit shtick is pretty annoying. However, it's worth sitting through for a five-minute appearance by the incomparable Mantan Moreland as Nicodemus the janitor, who gets the better of the defense attorney during a hilarious courtroom appearance. You've got to hand it to Bill "One-Take" Beaudine; he wasn't much of a director, but he would always punch up a routine programmer with some goofy vaudeville.


I just came back from "El Otro" playing here in Buenos Aires and I have to say I was very disappointed. The film is very slow moving (don't get me wrong, I enjoy slow moving films!), slow to the point of driving you crazy. All you hear is Julio Chavez breathing heavily throughout the whole film. This is a poorly made film, but more importantly, it is a film without a lick of inspiration, I felt nothing for the story or its characters.

"El Otro" was made only for the sake of making a film... making it forgetful. I would advise you to pass on this one, if you want to see good Argentinian films, look for films by Sorin.


Guy walking around without motive... I will never get those two hours of my life back. The guy kept on assuming identities and cheating on his pregnant wife. What was I thinking? How did this win a price anywhere? I understood he loved his father but other than that the movie was completely senseless to me. What was the purpose of walking so much and going to the funeral of a stranger for no apparent reason. How did this enrich his life??? Why did we have to see the dying old lady on her underwear????!!! Why???!!!!

I though it would be deep or about something more interesting. I do not recommend the movie even to leave on while sleeping...


I just finished watching "El Otro". I have always taken my hat off to Julio Chavez's performances, as he is a great actor, but this movie is really depressing and slow. I guess that it would have been even worse if it wasn't for Julio. Anyways, this is definitely a film that you will never understand if you are not from Argentina, and even if you are, I would advise you not to rent this movie in order to have a nice time with your girlfriend, boyfriend, family or friends... it is really depressing and incredibly slow, and the plot does not make a lot of sense neither. Probably the director wanted to show the fragility of the human life, but what he does is bore and impress the audience with scenes that shock you a little bit. It gives you something to think about, but not in a good way. Overall, I definitely didn't like this movie.


The title should have been "The walker". That was only he did walk.

There was nothing on the movie that was good. The description of the movie doesn't really comply with the plot.

The only thing that I can get from the movie is that he was a good son, but a low life terrible person.

I'm sorry that I expend my money and time, on this movie. I saw people leaving the theater in the middle of the movie. I stayed hoping that it will better....what a mistake. I got worse.

If there is a suggestion that I can make to he producer is to re-direct his life to another field, because making movies is definitely no his cup of tea


The title should have been the walker. The guy expend 90% of the movie walking. He doesn't know what he wants, or what he is. Go through life stealing peoples identity for nothing. He gets no benefit, no money, nothing pretending to be another person.

No body was able to understand why he was pretending to be somebody else.

The only thing that was clear in this movie is that he love his father and was a good son. But the rest was crap.

May be director is a looser that would like to be somebody else. But what he really should do is to get a real job, because after his movie, I don't think he has a chance to make as a movie producer.


This movie could have been so much better, especially considering the talent. Larenz Tate's portrayal of Frankie Lymon was not good, especially in musical performances. He doesn't lip sync well and his stage mannerisms are Larenz Tate, when he should have been Frankie Lymon. The portrayal of the women as a bunch of gold diggers has Hollywood written all over it. The powers that be obviously pushed it, but it only made the characters more unrealistic. The positives of the movie were Miguel Nunez's portrayal of Little Richard, and the cameo of Little Richard himself. Lela Rochon is eye candy, as usual, even in a conservative role. It's too bad that the talents of Halle Berry and Vivica A. Fox were wasted. The whole Frankie Lymon saga was fascinating in real life. Too bad this film was a wasted opportunity.


After reading all of the rave reviews about this film and a few that give it a so-so. I finally decided to throw in my no cents worth. I agree with most on the point that if it hadn't been for Lauren Lewis and Chris Ferry it would have been a disaster. Filmed in Mariette OH. just north of Dogpatch where all the real talent fled south down I-77 years ago, at least as far as a tank of gas would allow. I did get a chuckle from reviewers who subtly claim that they cerebrate a little better than most by claiming they followed the plot without an inkling of confusion. This wee tale by the Brothers Crook is like an old record with a skip in it. As an American I understand the difficulties Ind film artists have to face. A trip to Romania would have wiped out the budget for sure. Lets face it this whole film was a loop de loop of Claire in the gas station, Claire on the side of the road, Claire under the bleachers, Claire in the house, Claire in the cornfield, Claire at school. Claire here and Claire there. It almost became monotonous and would have if she had not been the best actor in the cast. Josh and Jeff have to make a living but don't write a two page script and turn it into an hour,twenty flick. Before writing another screenplay about dreaming ghosts watch an episode or two of Ghost Whisperer or something and get a little background. All of the cast except the above mentioned and a couple of others were engaged in their first and last film. Also, there is an appearance by co-director Jeff as he is in all his films. Just like Alfred Hitchcock, eh? One thing the film had going for it is that the cameraman seemed to have a fixation on Lauren Lewis' derrière. Well, with all sarcasm now satisfied I still recommend the film for the horror buff just to see this young actress in the formative time of her career (I hope)and that Chris Ferry has established himself as a villain worth watching.


Salvage is the worst so called horror film I've ever seen. There is nothing remotely horrific about it. It doesn't deserve to be in a genre so fine. First of all i don't see how so many people can think this piece of crap such a great movie. If I wrote something as boring and utterly ridiculous as this i would be laughed at and too embarrassed to subject others to the stupidity of it. Second: the acting is terrible and the lead actress is excruciatingly ugly. Third: the story sucks, its been used before, and the excuse that its a cheap movie is no excuse. Read the summery on the back of the case, it reveals the whole story. I do not recommend that you watch this movie unless you have 80 minutes to waste on something that will leave you regretting that you watched it. I feel really bad for those Crooks and the irony of their name. All hail Anthony Perkins!!!!!!!!!


Salvage: 4 out of 10. Groundhog Day meets a Christian Coalition horror film. Okay maybe it's not that bad. But it is close.

Claire (played by Alicia Silverstonesque Lauren Currie Lewis) is stalked and possibly killed by a serial killer (Chris Ferry who is quite menacing and brutal). I say possibly because she wakes up and it was all a dream.. Or was it? (Cue music)

The basic problem with the film is that these fifteen minutes of plot (Done quite well the first time) is repeated over and over again. And since Claire wakes up every time and every scene is clearly a dream or alternate reality I just stopped caring what happened to Claire and started wondering what lame twist at the end was going to pull this together.

I was rooting for a séance (which honestly would have made more sense) but instead got one of those too obvious by half surprise endings (Think the Village or Below) Yup the film collapses faster than Donnie Darko's directors cut. All the great twist endings in horror movies The Sixth Sense, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Happy Birthday to Me worked because the audience wasn't expecting a left field explanation. (Heck even the canoe ending in the original Friday the 13th was worth a jolt)

Salvage on the other hand screams twist ending with every scene change. Other nagging faults is the one note piano soundtrack (Though the featured songs were decent) the obvious time padding (Claire doing the dishes, Claire's mother's subplots), the way Claire says "hello is anyone there" every time she thinks there is a serial killer around.

Also some of the secondary acting roles (In particular Claire's mother played by Maureen Olander who resembles a Mary Kay zombie) shows the first time actor low budget roots.

Both too clever by half and not nearly clever enough Salvage keeps your interest if only to see how they are going to fix this mess. Problem is they really don't.


I love horror movies. I can even appreciate most cheese (face it, 9 out of 10 horror films these days ARE cheese), but this was just ridiculous. Terrible acting, terrible writing, completely hollow and unbelievable characters (no Meisner actors here!) and a total lack of sufficient body count. I wish I could SALVAGE the 79 minutes of my life I just wasted. At least the Crook brothers are aptly named. The only good thing about the whole film was watching the Alicia Silverstone wanna-be get punched in the face. How this EVER made it to Sundance is completely baffling to me. Most of the plot was absolutely unrealistic, even by slasher film standards. I mean, COME ON! Who would rush out to get a cheap earring 10 seconds after a creepy stalker guy just left their doorstep? Lame.


One of the worst films I have ever seen. Got so bored that I switched it off midway through to watch the news. When I switched it back on, I fell asleep. The film starts with a dream, continues with a dream, and ends with a dream. Then there are a few more dreams in between. Come on, what is supposed to keep me interested in that? A film needs to have a reason to be interesting. The minute you felt the film was only a dream is when any sensible film-goer switches off. Ever had someone insist on telling you their dreams and what it means to them? This is it!!!

Absolutely awful.


This film just goes around in circles, and the viewer does not know where they are. At first I thought..mmmmm, could be kinda cool movie this, but it just drags on and on, and eventually you don't know what's going on. The lead female is a good actress and played her role well, and the psycho fella, is creepy, but after a bit you don't really care what happens, because this film just drags on. Shame really, this could have turned out a lot better.

Would say though that the lead female and psycho fella, will have a good career ahead of them , but will they remember this film, for making them known, or for being the film they regret they ever made.


This movie is very important because suggested me this consideration: sometimes you can wish to be sick ... sometimes you can wish to have a syndrome ... sometimes, for example, you can wish have Goldfield Syndrome... that way you'd not remember this boring movie ... and above all you'd not remember Adam "superfluos" Sandler... sometimes, simply, you can wish... have rented another movie...

My vote? 3 out of 10. My suggestion? If you are neither a fan of boring romantic comedies or Adam Sandler (...it's a joke don't exist Adam Sandler's fan...I want to hope it), save yourself... Someone to save? Drew Barrymore. ... perhaps.


Millie is a sap. She marries a rich guy named Maitland and they have a child. She then catches him cheating on her and divorces him...but lets him keep the kid she claims to love. Back then in the early 1930s, she would have been entitled to hefty spousal and child support but lets the guy off amazingly easy...with no support...what a sap! Later, when she has a boyfriend and life seems pretty good, he turns out to ALSO be a cheat! Wow, does she have a hard time picking men.

As a result of these bad relationships, Millie changes. Now she's a wild party girl--doing everything she can to distract herself from her hard luck. Suddenly, many years pass. Millie's daughter who she left early on in the film is now 17 and oddly fashions haven't changed one bit. An old friend of Millie's (yes, it's another evil man!) is now pretending to be the daughter's friend, but he has lecherous designs on her. Millie promises him that if he touches the girl, she'll kill him. Take a wild guess what happens next!

Overall, the film is a confusing and often bizarre mess--a bit like "Madam X" but much, much less focused. So often Millie's motivations and actions seem to make little sense. And, the film seems to have a little of everything tossed into it--so long as it substantiates the notion that all men are pigs. Unusual but not particularly good.


How the hell did they get this made?! Presenting itself as a caper comedy, the misbegotten "$" is essentially two hours of people mumbling sentence fragments. The usually dependable Warren Beatty looks drunk, and the usually hilarious Goldie Hawn acts like she's on depressants. As for Gert Frobe, his most famous role - Goldfinger - was infinitely more admirable than his character here. Not even the guy with the champagne bottle of LSD can save this litany of worthlessness.

Am I comparing this movie to "Plan 9 from Outer Space"? I wouldn't do such a thing even if someone paid me. "P9FOS" was idiotically made but ended up hilarious; this was idiotically made and causes you to feel like your brain just melted out of your ears. Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn made up for this when they co-starred in "Shampoo", but then they co-starred in the dreadful "Town & Country". Maybe they just shouldn't co-star in movies. All in all, I would rather have my skin torn off than have to watch this again. Awful.

Maybe they should remake it with Jackie Chan. Then I would pay to see it.


The pakage implies that Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn are pulling off a huge bank robbery, but that's not what I got out of it! I didn't get anything! In the first half there's a new character (without introduction) in every other scene. The first half-hour is completely incomprehensible, the rest is just one long, annoying, underlit chase scene. There's always an irritating sound in the background whether it's a loud watch ticking, a blaring siren, a train whistling, or even the horrible score by Quincy Jones. There are a lot of parts that are laughably bad, too. Like, the bad guys chasing Beatty on thin ice with a CAR! Or, the police arriving at the scene roughly fifteen times. I really hated this movie!


This has the absolute worst performance from Robert Duval who sounds just like William Buckley throughout the entire film. His hammy melodramatic acting takes away from any dramatic interest. I'm not sure if this was deliberate scene stealing or inadvertent but it's the only thing I can recall from a truly forgettable film. This picture should be shown in every amateur acting class of an example of what not to do. Thank God, Duvall went on to bigger and better things and stopped trying to effect a cultured accent. He is a good character actor but that's about it. Klaus is so much better. His performance is muted and noteworthy.


This is by far the worst film I have seen in my entire life. The acting is poor and the storyline is almost incomprehensible. Whether or not you like lightships or any ships for that matter is irrelevant. As for special effects the film has none. The whole film crew were probably on the boat out in rough seas rather than in a studio and when some of the men are "stabbed" (if you can even call it that) their reactions are totally unreal. The guns are more quiet than a mute. How this film could have one two awards puts serious questions to the state of the human mind. Well thats about it. This review is probably more fun to read than the film is to watch. If anyone is considering watching it or buying it I would seriously advise you against it for obvious reasons. I have said that it includes a spoiler. If the fact that some people get stabbed and a gun gets fired is a plot giveaway. I suppose it is because they are the only good parts of the film.


Shiner, directed by Christian Calson, centers around three "couples" and their relationships with obsession and violence. Pretty good start as far as I'm concerned. Interesting. The couples break down into a heterosexual couple, two heterosexual male friends and a straight guy being "harmlessly" stalked by a gay man.

The "het" couple really don't have much of a role in the film. There are some scenes that show how they like to be aggressive when having sex or playing around with each other, but seem to have no real purpose since the are so marginalized. My assumption is that they represent a more day to day illustration of how sex/violence are integrated in a couples life. The couple aren't very aggressive and it's not even shot in any kind of erotic way. As characters, they don't add much to the theme or plot.

The two male friends make up the bulk of the plot. They engage in some gay bashing of sorts by convincing a homosexual man to have sex with them in an alley. This escalates into violence. And the violence changes them. It becomes a means of sexual gratification. And their need for violence t release grows as the film progresses. The main problem I had is the violence is not convincing. Never once does it seem that any of the characters is in any real danger. It just doesn't work. Given that the whole theme of the film is about the characters' relationships with violence, this is a major problem. Unfortunately, the make-up doesn't help either. Sometimes, it's okay, other times it is very bad. In one scene, I really wondered why one of the characters had rouge smeared on his face. Confusing.

The more interesting pair of the characters is the "stalker couple." Here Calson seemed to have more to say and was able to develop a more coherent storyline. Perhaps it is because the characters seem to develop more and have resolution at the end. Shiner may well have been much better if it had stuck with these two.

I appreciate that Calson wanted to achieve a lot with this film. It is admirable. Most low budget flicks don't aspire to much. I don't think Calson achieved want he was aiming for. Myself, I found nothing particularly controversial or unsettling. Shiner was unconvincing. This doesn't mean, however, that the director can't achieve something with his next film.

He seems to have something to say.


What an unfortunate mess is "Shiner." I wanted to like this over-the-top, anti-film aspirant, and in fact found a number of moments with powerful resonance. Sadly, those moments are few and far between. While I appreciate some of what Calson was attempting, any advantage aspired to by bare bones, no budget cinematography was destroyed with some truly atrocious editing that benefited the movie not at all.

While bad acting abounds in low budget (and big budget) cinema, Shiner has some remarkably bad performances that are nearly painful to watch. In particular the "straight" couple Linda and Young Guy. These are the two most poorly written characters offering almost nothing to the story. The acting is so abysmal and neither actor seems capable of resisting smirking or cracking up as they drearily drop their lines with an appalling lack of skill. The choppy editing almost lends the feeling that these roles were entirely gratuitous and dropped in to avoid the films being stereotypically cast as an oddball gay film. It would have been better off as such.

With all that is going wrong for it, there are several performances that seem to capture what Calson was hoping to get. In particular the story centering on Bob and Tim. These are the two most richly drawn characters and offer the most rewards with genuinely captivating performances by Nicholas T. King (Bob) and David Zelinas (Tim). Tim is a boxer with some serious issues. Remarkably low self esteem is disguised by an almost cartoon like arrogance that he wears like armour plating. Obsessed with Tim, the seemingly harmless yet ultimately creepy Bob, stalks the boxer in classic cat-and-mouse fashion. When the tables are turned and hunter becomes the hunted, the resulting in the film's only genuine emotional catharsis. In a film so artificially hard-edged (that's a compliment) one character MUST have that revelatory break through (or breakdown, as the case proves here) and the final confrontation between Bob and Tim provide Zelinas and King opportunity to display some real acting chops.

As played by Scott Stepp and Derris Nile, Tony and Danny seem to be the focus of the movie, and despite some bravado moments of their own (including one truly disturbing scene revealing the sex/violence obsession), but they can't seem to escape a cartoon-like artifice and it's difficult to look at - or beyond their seeming one note symphony and find anything other than the obvious.

Ultimately this same raw material could (and should) be used to tell this story in better fashion. Alas, there really isn't much to recommend this yet, the performances by Messrs. King and Zelinas, really do offer something special and a glimpse of what might have been and are ultimately worth seeing.


I saw "Shiner" on DVD. While I was watching it, I thought, "This is a really bad porn flick without the porn." I also thought, "Whoever wrote this has some real issues." Then I watched the director/writer Carlson explain his process as a special feature. Yeah, it was real special.

The emphasis of the film is placed on two alcoholic losers who hit each other to get off. They are marginally attractive. There is frontal and full nudity. These factors probably account for the film being seen at all.

The most upsetting element of the film is the gay bashing and the subsequent further gay bashing of the same victim who tries ineptly to exact revenge from his assailants, the two drunken losers. Not only is the subject handled absurdly and badly from a technical point of view, but the acting is horrendously bad.

Then there's the boxer-stalker theme. This is really insane, not just absurd. This hunky boxer is somehow traumatized by the persistent attentions of a fleshy momma's boy who works at his gym's parking lot. This is in LA, mind you. The boxer is so traumatized that he turns up at the stalker's house, strips in front of him and gets excited in the process.

Well, all I can say is, why would a boxer who is at heart an exhibitionist be so traumatized by the attention of a stalker? It simply makes no sense. And, I'm afraid, some psycho-dynamics actually do make sense, if you take the time to read about them. However, bad scripts seldom make sense at all.

The director/writer seems to have thought that this film represents a considerable minority within the gay community. Well, he may be correct, I suppose. We may never know, since that minority would be so dysfunctional they would hardly be able to get organized enough to ever get to an obscure gay film festival or DVD store, the only two places they could possibly find this turkey. Thank goodness for that.


I question its importance to Queer Cinema as it seems to be more about having a homosexual encounter via violent behavior than making any clear statements regarding homosexuality and violence.

Three tales are tangled together in a rather sloppy manner. I found myself trying to untangle the messy narrative in the first 15 minutes, that alone didn't sit well with me. Weak plot points were endlessly repeated as though we might not have gotten it the first 10 times.

There was a feeling of padded dialog throughout the film. More like a 45 minute Boy's Brief short rather than a fleshed out full-length film. It had a certain erotic flair, male nudity and sex appeal but overall the sum did not equal its parts.

The 1st part: Boxer/Stalker storyline was the strongest and yet it too felt like it had been pulled thin. Bob has been following Tim for four years and only now is he confronting him? I felt as though their cat-mouse game was not developed enough to merit its conclusion. We needed more information about them and less Parking Lot/Locker scenes with Tim relentlessly saying "What do you want?"

The 2nd part: Danny wants his buddy, Tony, to beat him up while he jacks-off. Tony doesn't seem to mind, but he doesn't even appear interested in exploring the implications of his homo erotic hobby -- not even after they do it in the nude. This tale lacks the all-important transition from "I'm a straight boy smacking my guy friend around for fun" to "I think I might be gay and hitting him because I'd like to spread his ass and do him S/M style." A very important thing to leave out.

Clearly these stories each could have conveyed their points in half the time. The 3rd part with the man and woman slapping each other around adds to that thought. Furthermore, it was unnecessary and added nothing to the film. Yes, the actors did a fine job under the circumstances and the four male leads were very sexy. The make-up (bruises and cuts) however was on par with a grammar school talent show.

There wasn't enough meat to this story to have any impact on the gay politic. The film made no statement, squandered time, and is not engaging or worthy enough for thoughtful investment. Its fatal flaw is its amateurish approach, that makes it ultimately impossible to take seriously.


If you want to watch a film that is oddly shot, oddly lit, weird stories of these men (and one woman) who enjoy beating the crap out of each other, if you want to enjoy a story that goes nowhere of these two guys, one a boxer and the other a gay man, then you should watch this film.

After watching this film, I almost felt as badly bruised up and cut up, like the director (of the film) himself beat the hell out of me.

This is a movie where one is not meant to watch for plot or for great acting, this is a film to gawk at in horror and wonder. A lot like watching an airplane crash or a train wreck.

If you want to watch a great movie, a good movie, a "B" movie, or even a mediocre movie, this movie is not it.

A warning to all who watch this film, please don't eat beforehand. You might want to puke by the end of the film.


OK. So it's a low-budget "film" (I used the quotes because it was shot in Hi-8 video). The acting is universally horrid, the makeup is laughable (the blood looks like it came from Sherwin-Williams and I've seen more convincing bruises made from halloween ghoul kits), and the lighting generally looks like they used someone's borrowed Toyota pickup to shine headlights on the actors.

I might be able to forgive these low-budget traits if there were some actual content, if a movie made an attempt to tell a story. But this collection of video footage can boast of no plot, no real characters, and no momentum. It's a self-indulgent mess.

And don't worry -- no spoilers here, 'cause there's absolutely nothing to spoil.


This is the most ludicrous and laughable thriller I've ever seen. Oh....where to start....

Plot (what little there is): Clayton Beresford Jr. (Hayden Christensen), a young billionaire, with a bad heart is desperately in need of a transplant. Clay has been secretly engaged to his mother's PA, Samantha, played by Jessica Alba. On the night that these two secretly get married, it just so happens that a heart donor with the same rare blood type is found. Go and figure the odds of that one! Once on the operating table, Clay finds out the anesthesia isn't working, and he can feel everything and hear everything.

Fortunately Clay seems to be able to filter out the pain of a razor sharp scalpel cutting open his chest by simply concentrating on his memories of Samantha, which we are told he's doing through an annoying voice-over which never seems to stop.

If you didn't burst out in laughter yet, you will surely start to when you see the surgical scenes.

How could a young billionaire agree to have a heart transplant performed by one surgeon, one nurse, an attending physician and an drunk anesthesiologist? There were more people in the room when my wisdom tooth was getting pulled. Not to mention the medical behavior, which is too preposterous to be taken seriously...the operating room isn't even kept sterile...people are practically able to just walk in and out of the room without even having washed up... During the operation the viewer gets to hear Clay's thoughts, none of which are too fascinating. Ah...but here's what it's all about ...the doctors are trying to kill him in order to take his money. Believing him to be unconscious, the villains speak freely. Gosh! What will happen?

Well... at least there's no interference from anyone else in the hospital, while an incompetent doctor who's got four malpractice lawsuits running against him is performing major heart surgery. Not even Clay's overprotective mother seems to be able to check on his status. The only one interested in keeping updated is Samantha...but oh no...could sweet Sam be in on it....You'll quickly find out through some Scooby Doo dialog...

In the end, it wouldn't even matter whether or not Clay underwent anesthesia awareness, because the end would have turned out the same way in both cases.

If you can ignore the feeling that the director/writer is trying to make fun of the patients who fell victim to anesthesia awareness, maybe there's some dumb fun to be had...

Enjoy...


I just saw this movie last night and, being someone who had very low expectations to begin with, was still disappointed. The most glaring error in this abomination of a movie is that the main plot point (the guy being awake during the surgery), had NOTHING to do with the outcome. It would have ended the same way regardless. So, what was the point of this? Who knows. Also, this surgeon had 4 malpractice suits against him and he didn't think people would ask questions if a patient died on his table? Give me a break. Jessica Alba is completely talentless and Christiansen is almost as bad. The whole thing was just laughable from start to finish. I'm fairly certain that if you could feel someone cutting through your chest with a scalpel, you would be in more pain than that.


First of all, the big named actors must need the money... The surgical scenes were laughable.... and surely they must know that people who have a little knowledge of medicine would find this utterly absurd......Anesthesiologists do not leave the room during a heart transplant....nor do they do the surgery in a tiny room devoid of instruments, heart lung equipment and sterile techniques... just a joke... couldn't concentrate on the story line because of all the stupid surgery scenes... no blood, no personnel and then the hero doc coming in and taking over... it is not a film for thinking adults....Also the budget must have been limited... the street scenes were OK but who was the technical adviser....Seems like it was directed by a total idiot.. Save your money and wait until it comes out on DVD and Don't rent it..


From the beginning this movie did have a few flaws. The main character played by Hayden Christensen is a the rich young mogul who has inherited his father's considerable wealth and power, and he is struggling to both fill his father's shoes and cut the apron strings mother (and co-executive) keeps too tight. He also has the problem of having a heart condition and waiting in the limbo that is the organ donor registry. There are also minor back stories which your first instinct is to mostly ignore that become important later, such as his friendship with his surgeon (Terrence Howard) and his romance with a middle class girl (Jessica Alba). Uncreative story lines, but not bad enough to ruin the movie. The only real "oy vey!" moment was the name of Lena Olin's character. Overbearing woman named Lilith...subtle!

The surgical scenes are not at all censored. I appreciated that, people who find surgery scenes scary might not. The horror of being awake during anesthesia was done well at first. You watch in emotional agony as Christensen screams inwardly through the chest incision and the rib spreader. The moment of irony from the trailers then comes where while he is one of the unlucky few to be awake during anesthesia, he is also luck in that it helps him learn that his surgical team is planning to murder him.

The big twist, however, is very predictable and sends the film delving into the conspiracy and his memories of the little signs which were there but he, like us, initially missed.

There are two more twists at the end involving his relationship with his mother. One is an impressive gesture by Olin, which comes of as unimpressive due to poor writing. The other is a secret about the family's past which seemed very tacked on and pointless.

The initially well done anesthesia awareness drama gets lost in the poorly written conspiracy drama. There is a one final attempt to bring it back which falls flat, taking the entire movie with it.


I was very surprised to see that this movie had such a good rating, when i checked it on IMDb after seeing it. This really is one of the worst movies i have ever seen and i have seen many bad movies. It looks like a good movie in the beginning, but when he comes into surgery i couldn't believe how bad it got. This voice-over destroys EVERYTHING! Just imagine you are being cut open like that and then listen to what he says. I saw the movie in German so i don't really know what he said in English, but ironic stuff like "Yeah right, it doesn't hurt.."?...what is this? Telling yourself "think about something else" and then forgetting your pain by just thinking about your girlfriend is just...stupid. And his mother...how the hell does she figure something like that out? Someone comes to tell her, her son died in surgery (what she kind of had to expect). Plus she found some letters in Jessica Albas bag. plus that "she knows the hospital" stuff... and then it takes her "one second" to figure it out? What the hell?^^ And the ending...why does the police bust them? The patient died in surgery, thats all that happened. That drunk doctor doesn't know anything else either...and then they bust them all, even the girlfriend??? Why??? Despite all that i think Christensen did a bad job, but that doesn't really count for me...those mistakes and stupid things i wrote about above are the problem. I watched this movie with some friends and we all were VERY disappointed... As i said, one of the worst movies i have ever seen... Just don't watch it ;)


Hayden Christianson and Jessica Alba two of my least favourite actors of this century team up in what is quite possibly the flattest attempt at remake the already dire The Butterfly Effect. Awake is so dull and so utterly uninteresting that you'd be better off asleep. Terrance Howard still recovering from the diabolical August Rush puts up a decent fight as the sadistic doctor who seems hell bent on killing Christianson and after viewing his performance I would gladly assists.

Alba, still recovering after Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver surfer. Is naturally disastrous and equally unwatchable as she always was. Only once has she ever been rather brilliant at that was in the safe hands of master director Robert Rodriguez in Sin City. Could it possibly be that Jessica alba isn't as poor of an actress as most give her credit for and is is possibly that her acting abilities are being weight down by a poor script. If so then that would explain Awake. What with a script that would shame that of Plan 9 from Outer Space.

Jessica Alba, Hayden Christenson, and Terrence Howard star in first-time director/screenwriter Joby Harold's nerve-jangling psychological thriller about a man who experiences the frighteningly common surgical phenomenon known as "aesthetic awareness," in which those laid out on the operating table remain acutely aware of what is going on around them despite remaining completely paralyzed and unable to cry out for help. When a successful young young man (Christenson) goes under the knife and realizes that the anaesthesia hasn't quite done its job, the horror quickly sets in as his worried wife (Alba) waits anxiously and a terrifying drama unfolds in the operating room.

Hoping to do for operating tables what Final Destination did for planes, this first effort from director Joby Harold pivots on a blood-frosting conceit. The pre-credits sequence tells us one in 700 people suffers from a phenomenon known as 'anaesthetic awareness', where the patient remains conscious but paralysed during surgery. One such unfortunate individual is Clayton Beresford Jr (Hayden Christensen), who finds himself wide awake during a heart transplant... and he can feel every single slice.

Intermittently inventive as it probes away at his tortured psyche, Awake fails to inject true terror into its novel premise. Spiralling from chilling simplicity into absurd conspiracy, it's hindered by stilted turns from Christensen and Jessica Alba. You'll wish you'd popped a sedative before watching

VERDICT: Awake is at very best extremely undemanding. A pull no punches film that undoubtedly looked better on paper. As a film though its awfully generic and extremely derived. Awake fails to inject terror into its novel premise. The end result is really quite lousy. Alba and Christian are the very least of your worries as the films main flaw lies in its inability to scare its audience. Awake is a film you'll most likely sleep through.


After watching Awake,I led to a conclusion:director and screenwriter Joby Harold made Awake with the intention of laughing at the spectator,for the simple fact the movie is full of ridiculous elements.Awake has a lot of plot holes and it is full of absurd and ridiculous elements(for example,the hospital uniform the spirit of the main character uses...did the ghost of a doctor leave it in the floor ?).The concept behind this movie is slightly ingenious but all the plot holes and the absurd things make of this a stupid and crappy film.With the exception of the great Lena Olin,all the actors bring bad performances.Hayden Christensen has zero expressions and the same applies for Jessica Alba.The extraordinary actor Terrence Howard is enormously wasted on his role.Awake makes a laugh of the spectator.It's so ridiculous and full of absurd things that it's impossible to take it seriously.My recommendation is:skip this crappy movie.


******SPOILERS******

The unfunny radio quiz show host Kyser and his mediocre band are the excuse for Lugosi, Karloff, and Lorre to pick up a paycheck in this bland, sporatically watchable haunted house spoof. Lugosi is a mystic whose seances are exposed as a fraudulent attempt to bilk an heiress' fortune; Karloff is the butler and Lorre is a professor who exposes fake mediums, but it turns out that they're both in conspiracy with Lugosi.

Of course, Kay Kyser and his band of 30-something year old "kids" uncover the truth with the minimum of possible humor along the way. Not recommended to any but the absolute horror completist.


There is something in most of us, especially guys, that admires some really working class small town "real men" populist fare. And Sean Penn serves it up for us with a cherry on top. Hey, A lot of people use Penn as a political whipping boy, but I don't rate movies or actor/directors based on politics or personality. That is what right wing commentators like excretable faux movie reviewer Debbie Schlussel does. While acknowledging he is one of our best actors and a good director, I think this picture was a simplistic piece of aimless dreck that he has atoned for since.

Okay, you have the gist of this there is this good cop, a small town trooper, Joe, played against type by David Morse, who in the opening scene chases some guy on a country farm road in big sixties cars. The bad guy stops, gets out, shoots at him so Joe has to blast him dead. There was no explanation what drove this man to do such a desperate violent thing and the dead man's parents do some redneck freak out at the police station while Joe feels real sad and guilty that he had to kill someone. So we know that Joe, the farmer forced off his land into a cop job, is a good basic sort of guy. Then his brother Frank shows up, he is a sadistic, amoral bully, fresh out of the Army and Nam where the war got his blood lust up. Some people here and in other reviews called him just an irresponsible hell raising younger brother and Sean was trying to make some point about what our John Wayne tough guy culture and war does to otherwise good people but what I saw was an amoral, sadistic bully who enjoys hurting and ripping people off. Then there is mom and dad, Marsha Mason and Charles Bronson, who do the requisite turn as old fashioned country couple, then die off; she by illness and he by shotgun suicide, to advance the story for us. Both times Frank the bad guy is away being a miserable SOB. But good Joe brings him back to Podunksville from jail so Frank can straighten his life out by welding bridges and living with his utterly stupid screaming trashy pregnant wife. But Joe has a nice wife, played by Italian actress Valeria Golina, who is Mexican and Sean uses this as an exercise in some affirmative action embellishment of goody Joe and his real soulfulness underneath his uniform and crew cut. For me, that was an utterly pointless affirmative action subplot that Sean uses to burnish his tough guy creds by sucking up to Mexicans because Mexicans are so tough and cool.

But Frank is bad and we get the requisite events like stealing friend's car, robbing gas station by beating the clerk over the head then torching the car and all those cool things that hell raisers do. Then there are the mandatory 8mm film childhood flashbacks of young Joey dutifully moving the lawn and cowboy dressed Franky jumping on his back and wrestling him and yadda yadda so we all know what deep bond there is between the two of them.

So the film meanders around with a lot of small town schlock to warm the heart of any red stater. Accompanying the film was a great soundtrack of good sixties songs like Jefferson Airplane and Janis Joplin which were totally inappropriate, except for the 60's era effect, to win the hearts of old hippies. The worst offense is that, since the movie was inspired by a Springsteen song, "The Highway Patrolman", that song was not included.

So Joe's brain dead wife goes into labor and Joe runs off to the bar to get loaded and spout some populists drunken victim's spiel about how tough things are while good Joey comes to drag him back to his wife. The bartender is good Ole Ceasar, played by Dennis Hopper. So Viggo - Frank whigs out for no particular reason and beats his pal Ceasar to death after good Joe the Cop leaves.

So Joe has chase his bad brother down and I was so hoping that he would do the right thing and blow that menace to society away. Instead we get a scene where his brother stops ahead of him in some old 50's junker on some lonely road at night, and little Franky in his cowboy suit and cap guns gets out of the car to face good Joe, the kid from the 8mm flashback home movie sequence. Oy, such dreck! Then to top off this drecky sap fest, there is some Zen crap about the Indian runner, who is a messenger, becomes the message, ala Marshall MacLuhen? See what I mean, Sean has done much better than this so don't be afraid to miss this one.


I don't like Sean Penn's directing very much, and this early work, The Indian Runner, is no exception. The movie has no core, it's colored with a kind of redneck, anti-authoritarian tweeness that in all honesty taints most of Penn's work, his latest work even more so than the earlier. Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Clint Eastwood, Sean Penn, the whole lot seem to produce such fundamentally banal product, ostensibly in some allegiance to honesty, but ending up being, for the most part, glorified pro wrestling matches, and moralistic, almost as if Hallmark cards had developed a line of Hell's Angels greetings, and make me long for the days of Deliverance, which is a fine movie. Viggo Mortensen's acting is much, much more believable here than that ridiculous Eastern Promises thing he did with Cronenberg, and that's about it. The movie is dead meaningless, and seems to be an exercise, a series of techniques, more than a story. Kudos for Charles Bronson, however, who proves he can act. And I wanted more of Sandy Dennis' character. A lousy 3 out of 10 for this The Indian Runner crap.


Thin story concerns two small town brothers and their struggles over family honor. David Morse is the responsible, straight-laced cop and 'good' brother; Viggo Mortensen, the 'bad' boy, is a former soldier and ex-convict. As an actor (particularly in his earliest years), Sean Penn seems to have modulated his performances under the Method. Turning first-time writer and director for this arty, obtuse drama, he works his script and characters out through the same methodical process, slowing the pacing down to a crawl (ostensibly so we can catch every nuance and inflection). This approach might be fascinating if there were three-dimensional characters to care about, but photogenic Morse and Mortensen aren't really convincing as siblings. Worse, we expect more from prominently-billed veterans Charles Bronson and Sandy Dennis, who hardly get a chance to come through with anything interesting. The picture is balky with turgid sequences, a wobbly narrative and confusing editing (always slanted to point up the artistic excesses). Penn's tricks with the camera show off a talented eye, yet they are mostly an irritation. *1/2 from ****


Penn takes the time to develop his characters, and we almost care about them. However there are some real problems with the story here, we see no real motivation for the evil brother's behavior, and the time line is screwed up. Supposedly set in 1963, the music is late 60s/early 70s. The references and dialogue is 70s/80s. The potential for a powerful climax presents itself, and Penn allows it to slip away. But even with all these difficulties it is worth the watch, but not great.


There is only one thing essential to thorough appreciation of The Indian Runner. Unzip your trousers. Peek inside. Is there evidence of a Y chromosome? Okay, you'll do.

This film has all the male requisites: blood, guns, car chases, fond women, death, multiple tattoos, cigarettes, liquor, violence, pyrotechnics -- what have I left out? -- oh, yeah, blowtorches.

As a woman, I seriously hope Sean Penn regards this as a `when I was a child...' kind of effort. Since he both wrote and directed the thing, he's nearly solely responsible. An uneven cast (Viggo Mortensen as usual demonstrating brilliantly how the job's supposed to be done) tries to save Penn. Too late. The lines and action are there. Even devoted, skilled acting can't change those.

I found this movie puerile and silly, as well as predictable. The dialogue staggers along -- Sandy Dennis has my respect for trying to breathe life into a woodenly maternal monologue without motherly authenticity. Then she dies. After a bit, so does the protagonists' father, played by Charles Bronson. Their absence is hardly noticeable.

At intervals, the pyrotechnics, etc., noted above appear to liven things up and scare the audience into thinking something significant is occurring.

If you're male and under 25, you may adore this film. Plan to return to it at 35. Think you'll still like it?

I don't think so.


you can be fooled by your first impressions. as in, initial reactions to a movie, for example. as in, the first time i saw this movie i was bedazzled by the idea of it (first of all, i love black comedies). could even - despite being male, myself - empathise with the feisty girls' fervor to see their husbands deceased without delay. was tripped up by my own face-value (and, i do mean "face-value") response to nicolette sheridan and a couple of the other delicious dames in the picture. it just goes to show you that you've gotta step back from a situation sometimes and see that it's bad (and not "bad good," either): the reason i'm giving this movie a "4" rating is because of ms sheridan and her gams (the rest of 'er is pretty good, too); but this movie has all the hallmark TV movie characteristics - which means you'll be disappointed if your a lover of movies made for the big screen. the story contains plot holes you could run a tunnel through - and i'll generally overlook holes in a plot if the overall thing does it for me; and i just experienced an incredible letdown the second time i saw it. i don't think it's a total waste of time, but....


DEAD HUSBANDS is a somewhat silly comedy about a bunch of wives conspiring to bump off each others husbands`. It`s by no means embarrassingly bad like some comedies I could mention but it never fufils its potential . Imagine how good this could have been if we had the Farrelly brothers directing Ben Stiller in the role of Carter Elson .

Oh is Carter based on Jerry Springer ? Just curious because the catch phrase on Dr Elson`s show is " look after each other and keep talking "


When I rented this movie, I had very low expectations......but when I saw it, I realized that the movie was less (a lot less) than what I expected. The actors were bad (the doctor's wife was one of the worst), the story was so stupid...it could work for a Disney movie (except for the murders), but this one is not a comedy, it is a laughable masterpiece of stupidity. The title is well chosen except for one thing: they could add stupid movie after Dead Husbands! I give it 0 and a half out of 5.


So, this movie has been hailed, glorified, and carried to incredible heights. But in the end what is it really? Many of the ways in which it has been made to work for a hearing audience on the screen do not work. The fairly academic camera work keeps the signing obfuscated, and scenes that are in ASL are hard to follow as a result even for someone who is relatively fluent. The voice interpretation of Matlin's dialogue, under the excuse that Hurt's character "likes the sound of his voice", turns her more and more into a weird distant object as the film goes on. Matlin does shine in the few scenes where her signing is not partially hidden from view. But nonetheless, most of the movie, when this is a love story, is only showed from a single point of view, that of the man. As Ebert said, "If a story is about the battle of two people over the common ground on which they will communicate, it's not fair to make the whole movie on the terms of only one of them."

The idea that an oralist teacher who uses methods that have been imposed in many deaf schools for decades would be presented as "revolutionary" is fairly insulting in itself. His character becomes weakened as a credible teacher as the movie goes on. Drawing comedy from a deaf accent is, quite honestly, rather low. And his attitude towards the male students of his class is pretty symptomatic of how he seems to act with women: as an entitled man. A party scene involving a number of deaf people including a few academics meeting together leaves him seemingly isolated, in a way that's fairly inconsistent with his credentials: I have seen interpreters spontaneously switch to asl between each other even when they weren't aware of a deaf person being in the area, and yet somehow he feels like a fish out of the water in an environment his education should have made him perfectly used to. As a lover, he seems like a typical dogged nice guy, including his tendency to act possessively afterwards. And yet the movie is, indeed, only really seen through him, as everything his lover says is filtered through his voice.

The scenes involving the other deaf kids are, in general, wallbangers. The broken symbolism fails, the dance scene, the pool scene, even the initial sleep scene which is supposed to carry some of it - all these scenes that try to hint at the isolation of the deaf main character are broken metaphors, at best: many hearing people I know do dance on the bass beats that deaf people feel (instead of squirming like copulating chihuahuas), and going to take an evening dive for a hearing person is rarely an excuse to make a deep statement on the isolation of deafness (no, seriously, when I go swim, I go swim)...

It also fails at carrying the end of the play, instead making it a story of a deaf woman who submits to a strong man. Even though the original play ended with a more equal ground, where both have to accept each other as they are, and where he has to finally recognize her real voice is the movement of her hands, not the vibrations in her throat.

And for all the breakthrough that it may have seemed to be, Marlee Matlin remains Hollywood's token deaf woman to this day.