A shaky hand-held camera was used, presumably to give the film a documentary look, but the effect was so exaggerated that I started to get motion-sickness just from watching it. It looked like someone with cerebral palsy was holding the camera (no offense meant to CP sufferers, but I don't think you would expect to get much work as a cinematographer!) The camera work was so nauseating, and so distracting, that my wife and I considered it unwatchable and gave up on it after 10 minutes of torture. I checked back a while later (it was showing on TV), and it hadn't gotten any better. I suggest giving this one a miss unless you need to get rid of any bad sushi you may have eaten!


Why were there so many people crowding into an evening showing of Roberto Moreira's "Up Against Them All" ("Contra Todos") at the San Francisco Film Festival? "It's about a hit man," my friend said. "Well. . . and it's Brazilian," I added. Beautiful multicolored people, tropical weather, lush rhythms, and a hip gangster plot? Ample enticements no doubt.

Somebody forgot to tell us one little detail: this is a very bad movie, really pretty horrible, and as unpleasant to watch as it is poorly made.

So how on earth did "Contra Todos" get to make the rounds of Berlin, Melbourne, London, Manila, Stockholm, Cairo, Chicago, numerous smaller local festivals, and now San Francisco? Apparently, because of the way the promotional process and the film festival circuit work.

First of all, it won first prize at the Rio Film Festival where it was called the best Brazilian movie of the year. It must have been a bad year; they've had much, much better ones. Next, snappy synopses in catalogs plus imaginary buzz lead to crowded auditoriums and -- since the movie isn't featured anywhere and so avoids close scrutiny by critics -- it keeps going the rounds.

Festival blurbs aimed at promotion sometimes goose it up a lot. A Chicago Festival one called "Contra Todos" "a speedball cocktail shot straight out of Brazil" and referred to Claudia's s boyfriend as the "stud of the slum-like neighborhood." Soninha is "Teodoro's nymph-like teen-aged daughter of burgeoning sexuality." The movie is "shot with the urgency of a frequently hand-held camera" and the director "works up a genuine and palpable sense of frustration borne from domestic desperation and decay." The effect is " unbearably raw and honest," and the movie hurtles "toward a conclusion as dead-ended as the lives on display." Not the best writing, but it sure pumps up the excitement for a certain kind of potential viewer.

"Contra Todos" does concern a hit man, two hit men actually, and a wife and daughter and a born-again Christian girlfriend. It's shot -- in execrably ugly digital video with no talent behind the camera-work -- mostly in a barren-looking poor suburb rather than in one of the teeming "favelas" or village-like Brazilian city slums where such wonderful films as "Black Orpheus", "Pixote," and "City of God" were made, and not in Rio this time, but São Paulo.

The hit man with family problems is Teodoro ( Giulio Lopez) and his partner with a drug problem is Waldomiro (Ailtan Graça). Both actors have a little TV experience as does the actress who plays Teodoro's sluttish blonde wife Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and Silvia Lorenço who plays his pouting, ready-to-revolt daughter Soninha. These actors might make it through the back corners of a few telenovelas. Who knows? -- in a better directed film they might even be good. Aside from them there are some young men who get bumped off by Teordoro or, when he's busy, gangs of thugs. The principals don't work up much presence, even though the camera magnifies their pores.

A couple of observers, one at the Berlin Festival and one at London's, did see this movie's failings but alas they're buried in the Web hinterlands. Henry Sheehan noted from Berlin that the "film" (his quotes) was "the worst of the video works" shown. "The filmmaker seems to have chosen video simply because it was a cheap alternative to film," Sheehan wrote, "and hasn't made any creative use of the new medium" -- nor, he adds, done anything else creative.

Sheehan pointed out the movie's first big mistake: it "starts off as a domestic drama that's supposed to ratchet up when, half an hour into the action, Moreira reveals that the father and one of his friends are professional hit men. Waiting the thirty minutes adds nothing to the movie; it seems like a perfectly arbitrary decision and is, at the very least, a waste of time. But ratcheting up is all Moreira ever does, like a little kid who's gotten a tool kit for his birthday, and goes around banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill." Devastating, but true.

Writing about the 2004 London festival for Kamera.com, Metin Alsanjak tried to look at the positive side but nonetheless gave away the lack of redeeming features in calling the performances "easily the film's best feature." Yes, very easily, given that everything else is so bad. Alsanjak admitted that " this low-budget, violent and seedy account of the lawless in Sao Paulo is devoid of any likable characters, and as a result, of hope. Too dark and cynical to be a telling account of the human condition, the film is not helped by poor subtitling.. ." Alsanjak's connecting Contra Todos to "Dogme" and Mike Leigh didn't help matters.

Apart from that meaningless first half hour in which nothing redeems the boredom of our wait for the first acts of violence -- which, when they come, are just "banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill" -- Moreira clumsily tries to redeem his abrupt finale by adding what appear to be outtakes right after it, followed by an implausible ironic concluding scene where one of the characters gets married. No doubt the director wanted to exhibit the "banality of evil" of low-level hit men in working class neighborhoods, but he can't make the characters, which he sees generically, come alive for us. And the structure of the film shows that he also can't edit his material.

(Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on April 28, 2005.)


I found the pace to be glacial and the original story blown way out of proportion to the content. My wife slept through most of it and I did not try to wake her because I felt she was not missing anything.

When Holmes and Watson enter the house and then are potentially caught, it is unclear how they could hide all of their entry and burglary tools so quickly. It is also unclear how the door to the study is locked, preventing the servants from getting in.

The thing that puzzled me was right at the end when there was a glint in the eye of the broken statute. I have no clue what this was supposed to represent.


At the end of this episode Holmes asks Watson not to record the case for posterity.For a good reason! The super sleuth left his little grey cells(sorry Agatha)at home for this tale. There is no deductive reasoning,no acute analysis of signs at crime scenes. Holmes bumbles along fifty yards behind the plot. The dastardly CAM is finally dealt to by an old frail-in a manner that would have made Charles Bronson's heart swell with pride-six bullets in the breadbasket.In an ensuing chase a pursuer gets hold of one of Watson's shoes.Mercifully the writer didn't decide to tack on the story of Cinderella to lengthen the film.The murderess,Holmes and Watson,escape scot free. Oh well,it is a bit of a change of pace in late Victorian London.A bit of sixgun law:-)


My roommate got the No, No, Nanette soundtrack as a dub on a tape and she proceeded to listen to it non-stop. After it finally totally brainwashed me into submission, I found the songs to be irresistible, especially the famous, I want to be happy, but I can't be happy... But of coarse from the soundtrack I had no idea what the film was about. So the other day I saw a copy of it at the video store and I rented what was supposed to be a long lost version of the film. I was thinking that it was going to be amazing, because the soundtrack is so cute. Unfortunately most of the songs that I loved were nowhere to be found in the video I saw. Now I've never seen the 1930 version of the musical but this version was sadly disappointing because there was very little singing and practically no dancing and beside that the sound was really bad through out and you couldn't really understand what people were saying a lot of the time. Really the only highlights of this film were the outrageous 1940's fashion. Nanette wears this crazy hat with two feathers that stick out like rabbit ears and Kansas Kitty has this bizarre feather muff that she keeps on her fore arm and then has herself wrapped in this net scarf. The one dance sequence is a little weird too with Nanette doing this weird ballet stuff with pin-up girl imagery superimposed on top of her. Actually one more bright spot of the film was the artist Guillespe who dreams of being a fine artist but it currently condemned to drawing pin-up girls for money. I like how Guillespe keeps it old school, and disses Nanette when his masterpiece, the piece that was to make his career, is sold by Nanette for a paltry $5250. Doesn't she realize that that piece was his immortality? Silly rabbit/girl with your feather rabbit ears on your hat. When will you learn? Why doesn't he just pencil in a cigarette before the ad men take the Work away?


This version is likely available at your local dollar store on DVD. The print is not great, nor is the sound, but if you have $1.00 and 90 or so minutes to spare, you'll get your money's worth (which is not saying an awful lot). Anna Neagle is extremely vapid as Nanette. Whatever her charms may have been back in the day, they are not evident in this film. A great number of fine character actors appear in this film (Helen Broderick, Zasu Pitts, Even Arden), but the material falls remarkably short of their talents. Still, it is interesting to see how such accomplished performers make the most of the weak writing. The musical numbers (there are really only two) are quite horrible. Clearly the studio did not feel compelled to cash in on the rich musicality of the original "No, No, Nanette". For what it's worth, the DVD can be had for $1.00. It's worth that much just to say you've seen it.


This sad little film bears little similarity to the 1971 Broadway revival that was such a 'nostalgic' hit. Keep in mind that when Burt Shevelove directed that revival, he rewrote the book extensively. I have a feeling that this screenwriter wrought as much of a change from the original 1925 version as well. I played the 'innocent philanderer' Jimmy Smith on-stage in 1974, and thought this $1 DVD would bring back memories. Not a chance. Even the anticipated delight of seeing "Topper" Roland Young play 'my' part was a major disappointment. Three songs from the play remain, and are done very poorly. Even the classic duet, "Tea For Two", is done as a virtual solo. The many familiar faces in this 1940 fiasco do not do themselves proud at all, and the star, Anna Neagle, just embarrasses herself. When I feel gypped by spending a dollar, I know the film must be bad. Another commentator mentioned the Doris Day version, which is actually called "Tea For Two" and is about doing the stage play (the original, of course), so those who are seeking the true "No No Nanette" might find a more recognizable version there.


Well I just paid a dollar for a DVD of this movie, and it wasn't even worth that. It seems to be from a poor print and is in the public domain, I am guessing.

Neagle - despite her glory, awards, and reputation - is a homely British gal who can't sing or dance or act.

Some of the fine old Hollywood character actors on display here must have thought they were doing a classic. Director Herbert Wilcox (Neagle's husband) always thought Anna was the most exciting and talented femme on the screen. He was mistaken. She was improbably popular in Britain before and after WWII. Her "serious" roles are even more ludicrous than her musical appearance here.

Only a couple of the famous songs are included and neither one is well presented. Skip this one and find the one that stars Doris Day. At least you get some real comedy and professional style dancing!


This film, originally released at Christmas, 1940, was long thought lost. A very poor copy has resurfaced and made into a CD, now for sale. Don't buy it! The film is unspeakably terrible. The casting is poor, the script is awful, and the directing is dreadful.

Picture Roland Young singing and dancing. And that was the highlight.

Perhaps this movie was lost deliberately.


Franco Rossi's 1985 six-hour Italian mini-series of Quo Vadis is a very curious beast, creating an absolutely convincing ancient Roman world shot in matter of fact fashion (very few long shots, no big cityscapes), but playing the drama down so much in favour of allusions to classical literature and history that the story constantly gets lost in the background.

The shifting structure (much of episode one is played out via voice over letters) and lack of narrative urgency makes the full six-hour version simultaneously demanding and undemanding, and certainly far too often uninvolving, but it has something going for it. The two main strengths are the characterisation of Petronius (a thankfully dubbed Frederic Forrest, whose own voice would almost certainly flatten his dialogue) as a man whose spent so long looking for an astute angle to survive court life that he's become incapable of experiencing emotion, and Klaus Maria Brandauer's unique take on Nero as a wannabe actor whose every move and action is calculated on how his 'audience' will receive it. Elsewhere, Max Von Sydow briefly appears in a few episodes, being rewarded with the show's most impressive and genuinely moving scene here he encounters a child as he attempts to leave Rome. It's the kind of thing the show could do with more of, but it seems all too often to flatten every potentially emotional, inspiring or exciting moment under it's relentlessly low-key direction.

Unfortunately Francesco Quinn makes a staggeringly anonymous hero, blending in with the walls and coming over less as a Roman officer than that quiet, slightly gormless but inoffensive guy who works in the same office as you who never says much at office parties - you know, the one who you think is called Dave or something like that. The budgetary limitations are very visible once its Meet the Lions time for the Christians and Ursus battle with the bull is so determinedly low key that it just passes over you before the show just abruptly loses interest and suddenly ends.

Not a trip I can particularly recommend, I'm afraid, but if you do embark on it it's one not entirely without its small rewards.


Don't let the name of this film deceive you, In reality Jake Speed the character is quite possibly the laziest action hero ever known to film. When Jake Speed is not saving virgin girls from evil madmen, which he is often not, he's seriously relaxing. Perhaps this adds to his charm, but in my opinion an action hero is not suppose to "chill out" whenever he gets the chance. Furthermore, unlike other daring heros who usually have an impressive list of talents, this man has none, unless of course you call sleeping a talent. Anyhow, this movie is basically worthless, the writing is sub par and the action, when there is some, is very lame. (The machine guns on the jeep weren't bad, but that's about it) So, if you're in the mood to watch a movie that is a cure for insomnia, then this piece is perfect for you - It has a hero that not only puts himself to sleep, but also his audience.


So what's the big fuss out of making an INDIANA JONES wannabe when you have an actor who's cast as a fictional dude from adventure storybooks who doesn't want to go out on an adventure??? Whoever wrote the script for JAKE SPEED was probably fired, but for whatever reasons possible, this movie greatly lacks in excitement! That doesn't mean it has no action, but look on the dark side of the picture. This has got to bare no resemblance to INDIANA JONES or other action-adventure thrills containing cliffhangers and narrow escapes, and JAKE SPEED was promoted that way using clever propaganda to make me and several others interested in it! Besides, I've never heard of the guy, so who needs his attention?


This could be a strong candidate for "The Worst Flick Ever". Perhaps without the presence of John Hurt, it could be tolerated as a kid-film. However, the TRAGEDY of this entire endeavor, is that John Hurt, one of the screen's greatest actors, diminishes himself in this....I gave it two points just because Mr. Hurt SHOWED UP...I take AWAY 8 points, because he didn't run from it fast enough. As far as the rest of the cast, they are, simply, terrible. Janine Turner, as pretty as she might be, cannot act to save her soul. And the lead actor is, for all intents and purposes, AWFUL. If you can spare yourself this embarrassment, please do so. It's so bad, it almost HURTS.


I would have liked to give this movie a zero but that wasn't an option!! This movie sucks!!! The women cannot act. i should have known it was gonna suck when i saw Bobby Brown. Nobody in my house could believe i hadn't changed the channel after the first 15 minutes. the idea of black females as gunslingers in the western days is ridiculous. it's not just a race thing, it's also a gender. the combination of the two things is ridiculous.i am sorry because some of the people in the movie aren't bad actors/actresses but the movie itself was awful. it was not credible as a movie. it might be 'entertaining' to a certain group of people but i am not in that group. lol. and using a great line from a great, great movie..."that's all I have to say about that."


Alright, I got passed the horrible acting. I got passed the fact that Lil Kim was blasting some cannons and her arms or hands weren't moving, I got passed the weaves, I got passed the colored contacts.

This is what killed it for me: In the scene where the four roses were sitting at the table arguing. Lisa-Raye and Monica Calhoun stand up and, and then Lil Kim gets up to break up any hostilities by saying, "Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Hold up. Let's CHILL OUT here for a HOT SECOND." I am a fan of the western movie genre, and I never heard anyone talk slang like this in any of Clint Eastwood's movies.

If anyone thinks this movie deserves over a 1 rating, please tell me another movie that's worse than Gang of Roses.

I'm through.


This was an excellent idea and the scenery was beautiful but that's where it ends. It seemed like a lackluster Set It Off meets The West. The plot barely made any sense. There were so many characters and not enough time to develop their personalities. There were too may unnecessary things going on that didn't pertain to the plot nor did it help further the story along. There were also long blank moments where the plot could have been explored but was used for silence or unnecessary conversations. The script should have made more sense as well as the directing. I had a huge question mark on my head watching this movie. But the casting was great in my opinion. If you're only watching for eye candy then this is the movie for you.


Must have to agree with the other reviewer. This has got to be the WORST movie, let alone western I have ever seen. Terrible acting, dialogue that was unimaginative and pathetic (let alone completely inappropriate for supposedly being in the 1800s), and oh, did I mention a battery pack prominently displayed on the back of one of the characters? I was waiting for the boom mike to fall in the middle of a scene. And the ending? The least I can say is that it was consistent with the rest of the movie...completely awful. And yes, it did contain every cliché in the book from the slow walk down the empty dusty road to the laughable "let's remember when" shots when a main character dies. Luckily I saw this on free TV. Don't waste your time.


the costumes, the dialog, historical accuracy are terrible. For instance, - Stacey Dash and the hanging scene. The noose was accurate ( as for as I could tell), but that type of noose broke the person's neck. Ms. Dash is left hanging at the end of the rope with no ill effects until the rope was shot. This type of not did not strangle the person, it killed them at the end of the drop.

And right before they go in to rob a bank (in a flashback), they pause on the street for a group hug - with their bandannas hiding their faces - that would have been obvious to people on the street.

The poor editing - that is a battery pack under that shirt and it is obvious, the clip of the "long ride" shows them riding along, then reverses the film.

I did like the fact that they kept the scene with the horse taking a crap - it seemed symbolic. The entire movie was crap.


An absolute steaming pile of cow dung. It's mind-blowing to me that this film was even made. Hip-Hop and old westerns just don't seem to mix. What target audience were these people thinking of when planning this trainwreck.

Not only is the concept and plot a joke, but the acting is atrocious and the fact that some decent actors were even in this nightmare of a film makes their entire careers a laughing stock. The chick from clueless should never be forgiven and she is stripped of any remaining dignity she had. After reading the first ten pages of dialogue she should have been asking which one of her friends was playing this sick joke. After some research, I actually found a list of some other actors who passed on this film: Jada Pinkett-Smith, Denzel Washington, Brandy, Monique, Kim Kardasian, Jenna Jameson, Oprah, and finally Marge Simpson.

Simply put, I would rather stare at a blank TV than watch this movie again.


Oh, come on people give this film a break. The one thing I liked about it was......... Sorry, still thinking. Oh yeah!!!! When John Wayne came and shot up the the bad guys. Oh, sorry, wrong movie, I was thinking of a better quality film. Let me see now, I'm still trying to defend it. Oh yeah, the chick that was from Clueless was in it. Don't put down Stacy Dash. I mean, we all make mistakes. But boy, Stacy, you made a dooooosie.

Hey, one thing that has never been done in a western, even an all female cast, they actually hung a woman from the gallows. That might be a western first. Even though her neck should have been broken and she survived the ordeal, still, you've got to give the director some effort for trying a western first. Also, I've never seen a woman lynched from a horse in any western, although that didn't happen in this movie, I just thought I would give the director another idea for Gang Of Roses#2, which should be made right after Ed Wood's Bride Of The Monster #2. Maybe that was what the makers of this film were going for. Orginality, especially with an all African woman cast and an oriental cowgirl.

Heeey, if the makers of Gang Of Roses want to make a sequel to this mess, you could have such slang like, "Hey, don't you be takin about my homegirls" and "talk to the hand, baby, talk to the hand." You could also have a surfer dude type deputy marshal that says things like, "That gunfight was TOTALLY RAD man, totally." You know things like that.


Who? What? Where? When? Why? The acting was terrible. Very robotic, rehearsed. I have seen all of the actors in this film in better roles. The screenplay was very elementary. By the end of this film, the story line was tied up. And Jeane Claude LaMarre should be tied up, too. So that he never attempts to write/direct another film.


Sistas in da hood. Looking for revenge and bling bling. Except da hood is a wild west town in the late 1800s. I do not remember any westerns like this when I was growing up. What would Randolph Scott say? If he saw Lil' Kim, he might say, "Alright! I have to admit that I tuned into this just to see her. Bare midriffs and low cut blouses are not the staple of the usual cowboy flick, but these are the cowgirls, and they are fine.

Now, don't go looking for any major story here, and the usual stuff of ghetto crime drama are here in a different setting. And, when's the last time you heard John Wayne call someone, "Dawg"? And, I don't remember the Earp brothers hugging and kissing before they marched to the OK Corral.

I watch this on BET, so I missed the action that got it an R rating, but I doubt if I will buy the DVD to see it unless I can be assured it was Lil' Kim in that action.


I should have known when I looked at the box in the video store and saw Lisa Raye - to me, she's the female Ernie Hudson A.K.A. "Le Kiss of Death" for *ANY* movie. Its almost *guaranteed* the movie will be bad (e.g. Congo)if Hudson is in it (with the exception of the Ghostbusters films, which were intentionally campy and bad). Despite my instincts, and the fact that I just saw Civil Brand, yet another cinematic "tour de force" starring Lisa Raye, I rented it anyway. After all, I ignored my "Hudson instinct" on OZ and ended up watching a very quality series so I figured I'd give this movie a chance.

If you are a lover of bad movies, this is a definite must see! This has got to be the most unintentionally funny movie I've seen in a loooong time. The plot is fairly straightforward: Racheal's (Monica Calhoun) sister is killed by a band of brigands (Led by Bobby Brown!) and, like many an action movie before this, she straps on her guns ONE LAST TIME and vows to avenge her sisters death. To do this, she reassembles the titular Gang of Roses (supposedly based on a true story of a female gang) and they go out and exact revenge and, along the way, there's some subplot or something or other about some gold that might be buried in the town. One nice thing I will say about this movie is that from what I could tell, the stars did their own riding and they looked GREAT galloping.

The funniest (albiet unintentionally funny) scenes? Look for when they introduce Stacy Dash's character or when Calhoun's character rescinds her vow not to strap on her guns (replete with a clenched fisted cry to the heavens) or Lil' Kim's character joking with Lisa Raye's character or Stacy Dash's character being killed or Lil' Kim's character convincing Lisa Raye's character to rejoin the gang or the Asian Chick or Macy Grey's character talking bout "The debt is paid", etc. With the exception of Calhoun's Racheal and Bobby Brown's Left-Eye, I can't even remember the names of the other characters cuz I was laughing so hard when they were introduced.

If the director had gone for parody and broad comedy this would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, he tries to take it seriously seemingly without first taking exposition, sound design (in his defense, Hip-Hop is notoriously difficult to work into a period piece), set design, script writing nor period historical research (was it me,or were these the cleanest people with the whitest teeth in the old west?) seriously. Usually when I see a movie that's not so good, I ask myself "Could you have done any better?" This is the first time in a long time where the answer is an unequivocal "YES!"


Hmm, Hip Hop music to a period western. Modern phrases like "cool" and too many others to keep track of. "The sistahs are in tha house"!?French manicured nails on hard riding girls. Microphone packs CLEARLY visible on Li'l Kim's back. I just can't go on with the litany of errors made by the director and editors.

The acting isn't as bad as I've ever seen. The women did well enough with a poor script.

It was weird hearing Louis Mandylor speaking in his native accent.

The girls are beautiful. The costumes fabulous albeit completely incorrect. I just can't believe they would dumb down what could have been a great story. I would feel offended to believe that this movie was loaded with such trappings that it would play well in the inner city.


Pathetic is the word. Bad acting, pathetic script, cheezy dialog and hip hop music & fashion...what the hell was up with that? The directer of this movie acts as bad as the movie he made. If someone would have taken some time and effort to rework the whole thing, it may of had a chance. Bet the studios are still trying figure out how they could screw up up so badly.

The absolute best thing about this movie was Stacey Dash...the Asian chick wasn't too bad neither. These too gals carried the whole movie. If it weren't for them I would have destroyed my copy of this movie.

If any of those who have not seen this yet and had a notion to, don't waste your time...you'll only regret it later.


Wait, don't tell me... they threw out the movie and kept the out takes. You know, This movie could have been shot in a back alley in New York. The "Gangster Bangster" I guess. Gangster Rap, Designer gangster duster clothes including the kerchief which somehow got moved from the neck for protection from the dust storms to the head. I guess it was to protect the head from the heat filtering through the K-Mart hats. "Budget rent-a-horsie", it seems, supplied the horsies. The one bedroom scene where the girl was talking and the guy was mouthing her words.... I though it was him talking. You know, watching this movie just confirms that, it isn't about the acting anymore... its about looks and it's about the money. Couldn't have been too much of that where this movie is concerned. Well, all in all, I think that this movie will go down as the all time worst movie ever made. Just one more thing though, where was Ice T? Did he finally get to go on Oprah?


How is it possible that a movie this bad can be made. Bad acting. Bad script. Just an embarrassment all around. This is just one bad cliché after another.

This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.

This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell.

This movie actually has some big name stars in it. Unfortunately they're singers and not actors.

This movie made hardly any money for a good reason. The appeal of black cowboy movies just isn't there. It's a shame they didn't have a good story to tell.


To be completely honest,I haven't seen that many western films but I've seen enough to know what a good one is.This by far the worst western on the planet today.First off there black people in the wild west? Come on! Who ever thought that this could be a cool off the wall movie that everyone would love were slightly, no no, completely retarded!Secondly in that day and age women especially black women were not prone to be carrying and or using guns.Thirdly whats with the Asian chick speaking perfect English? If the setting is western,Asia isn't where your going. Finally,the evil gay chick was too much the movie was just crap from the beginning.Now don't get me wrong I'm not racist or white either so don't get ticked after reading this but this movie,this movie is the worst presentation of black people I have ever seen!


Some people have made a point of dissing this movie because they question the plausibility of black people in the Old West, Asian people in the Old West or women with guns in the Old West period. Get a grip and read a book. There were quite a few Asians (Chinese), there were quite a few blacks (freedmen) and everybody outside of the gentile class had ready access to guns; it is the second amendment you know. And as far as the use of modern language goes, none of those Westerns people have waxed nostalgic about actually used language that was consistent with the era depicted. Americans had different accents, used different inflections, spoke at a very different pace and used plenty of words and phrases that would be unrecognizable today. Don't blame historical inaccuracy for the fact that you just didn't dig it. Be honest. Maybe you're just uncomfortable with what you're seeing.


Mario Van Peebles pops up for less than a five second cameo. Glenn Plummer shows up a little longer but its a ladies show all the way. Stacey Dash and Lisa Raye have been in better projects. Bobby Brown leers and mugs through his little time on screen. This is how it was pitched...Five tough women shootin' and lovin' in the Wild Wild West. Four black and one Asian. Oh and Lil' Kim is a tough talking' heartbreaker and Marie Matiko can bring in the pacific rim market. We can shoot it for less than 15 million. Straight to video and we'll double but more likely triple our dollars.

Greenlight that puppy.

You got it boss.


This really doesn't do the blues justice. It starts out badly with images from the voyager probe and Blind Willie McTell (or was it Blind Lemon Jefferson? Someone blind anyway) apparently narrating from outer space (?) and telling us the life stories of various blues musicians. Corny as it is, this might be the visually most interesting part of this documentary. Afterwards the only thing to see is actors incompetently mouthing the classic tunes, filmed in fake 20s black and white intercut with the likes of Beck and Shemekia Copeland raping the same songs afterwards. This is a good device to show us why the old Blues greats were really so great, but it doesn't make for compelling viewing. There is hardly anything in here that could justify making it a film and not a radio play. Nobody should be forced to see these badly done reenactments. It's a shame for Wenders, Scorsese and especially for the Blues. Avoid at all costs.


This film is deeply disappointing. Not only that Wenders only displays a very limited musical spectrum of Blues, it is his subjective and personal interest in parts of the music he brings on film that make watching and listening absolutely boring. The only highlight of the movie is the interview of a Swedish couple who were befriended with J.B. Lenoir and show their private video footage as well as tell stories. Wenders's introduction of the filmic topic starts off quite interestingly - alluding to world's culture (or actually, American culture) traveling in space, but his limited looks on the theme as well as the neither funny nor utterly fascinating reproduction of stories from the 30s renders this movie as a mere sleeping aid. Yawn. I had expected more of him.


Watching this film for the action is rather a waste of time, because the figureheads on the ships act better than the humans. It's a mercy that Anthony Quinn couldn't persuade anyone else to let him direct any other films after this turkey.

But it is filled with amusement value, since Yul Brynner has hair, Lorne Greene displays an unconvincing French accent, and the rest of the big names strut about in comic-book fashion.


Just saw this film and I must say that although there was shown in the beginning some effort to produce a decent film, this was absolutely horrible -- but not in the sense that was intended I'm sure.

It was like a child was directing this insult to intelligence with the belief that all would-be viewers are morons OR extremely hard up for entertainment OR both.... Thank God for fast forward! I can't imagine the type of viewer the producer had in mind when making this film. I mean, you have actors trying to be serious, albeit barely, and a script that cries for a total rewrite,.... I just can't say anymore. If Harlequin Romance decided to do horror films, this would be a good effort.

If you found this movie to be entertaining, then I strongly suggest that you seek out some guidance as to the purpose of movies. There is MUCH BETTER fare out there. Join a club, READ REVIEWS, but above all, avoid crap like this.


The Tooth Fairy is set in a small town somewhere in Northern California where Peter Campbell (Lochlyn Munro) has brought a farming property which he is renovating & planning to turn into a holiday inn, he is joined by his girlfriend Darcy Wagner (Chandra West) & her young 12 year old daughter Pamela (Nicole Munoz) who arrive to help for the weekend. While exploring the property Pamela meets another young girl named Emma (Jianna Ballard) who warns her that evil lurks within her new home, she tells a tale of an evil old witch known as the Tooth Fairy who takes baby teeth from children & then kills them. Pamela is worried & becomes even more so when she falls off her bike & her last baby tooth falls out, it's not long before the evil ghost of the Tooth Fairy has her eyes on Pamela's tooth & just for kicks she also decides to kill anyone she comes across...

Directed by Chuck Bowman I thought The Tooth Fairy was just another poor straight-to-video low budget horror film that fails to distinguish itself from the countless other's which litter video shop shelves & fill late night obscure cable TV schedules, basically it's not very good. The script by producer Stephen J. Cannell, Corey Strode & Cookie Rae Brown is a complete snooze-fest for the first 40 odd minutes, nothing of any great interest happen during this period at all & is basically dull exposition as if this stuff was going to surprise anyone. It introduces the character's, sets the Tooth Fairy legend up & that's it. The second half of the film improves slightly but even then it's hardly spectacular stuff, there are a few decent set-piece gore scenes but apart from that it's all very predictable & forgettable stuff. The character's aren't great & most of them are there purely to be killed off, the story has inconsistencies like the story of the Tooth Fairy herself, it says she kills children after they give her their baby teeth so why does she go on an indiscriminate killing spree that has nothing to do with teeth? What happened to her after the prologue set during 1949? Why has she come back as a ghost? Despite being a ghost of some sort she seems very human having to open doors herself & using weapons to kill people, there is no attempt to make any use of the supernatural elements except the ghostly children who are played for maximum sentiment.

Director Bowman does OK, it's reasonably well made & there are a couple of half decent scenes but nothing to get that excited about. There's nothing I would describe as scary or atmospheric in here & don't take any notice of the comparisons between this & Darkness Falls (2003) as besides the teeth thing they're quite different. The gore is OK, someone is shoved into a wood-chipping machine, there's a decapitation, someone has their penis chopped off & the best scene when someone is nailed to a door & then has their stomach hacked open with an axe & their guts slide out.

With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 The Tooth Fairy is generally well made but there's nothing special on show here. The acting isn't anything great but it's not too bad & unusually I didn't find the child actors that annoying so that's something I suppose.

The Tooth Fairy is the usual just below average low budget modern straight-to-video horror fare that seems everywhere these days, if you can find a cheap copy then it might pass 90 odd minutes if your not too demanding otherwise it's pretty poor & forgettable stuff.


Darcy and her young daughter Pamela are heading out to the country where her mum's boyfriend Peter left his doctor's position in the city to become a writer and fix up a bed and breakfast inn. Although this inn has a terrible past and Pamela learns from one the girl's who lives in the town that a deformed witch once reside in that house. They called her the 'Tooth Fairy' as she would kill kids after getting their last baby tooth. This work on the inn, has awoken the 'Tooth Fairy'. Now she has her sights on Pamela and her last baby tooth, but if any gets in the way they face the same fate that awaits Pamela.

This flick's old folk myth of the 'Tooth Fairy' doesn't paint her in a very generous way, as you would believe when you were a child. Don't they just love turning happy childhood memories into nightmares! Another one which did fall into the same category was "Darkness Falls (2003)". I can't compare how similar they are in the premises, because I haven't seen the latter, but I mostly read they have basically share the same idea. For a little straight to DVD film, this DTV effort looks good and has some promising images surrounding the senseless and traditionally by the book plot device. Low expectations are needed, as I wouldn't class it as an success, but I found it be to marginally entertaining.

Cory Strode and Cookie Rae Brown's story or background for this 'Tooth Fairy' character is completely bare with it leaning more towards a slasher vehicle than anything really supernatural. Silly is a good way to describe what's happening in this poorly scripted story, but it never really feels like a fairytale horror. The dialogues can seem rather redundant and morally hounded. While the acting is simply sub-par with the bland characters they have to work off, but director Chuck Bowman offers up some inventive blood splatter and terribly nasty jolts. This kinda makes up for the lack of suspense, the zero scares and generic tone. His direction is reasonably earnest and visually able, where he gets some atmospheric lighting contrasting well with its slick photography. The promising opening scene is creepily effective. His pacing can slow up in parts and there's the odd and unnecessary slow-motion scene put in, but nonetheless it never gets too stodgy with something active occurring which made sure that I wasn't bored.

The make-up special effects provided the goods, as there's enough repulsive gruel and the Tooth Fairy's appearance is especially gooey. The figure of the tooth Fairy can look threatening in its black robe, bubbling make-up and swift movements. Being on location helps carve out a more natural feel and can get atmospherically rich in its sense of eeriness. Child actors can be incredibly annoying, but Nicole Muñoz was decent in her part. Lochlyn Munro and Chandra West are somewhat solid, but can be a little too causal in their performances as Peter and Darcey. The radiantly gorgeous Carrie Anne Fleming is one of their lodgers. P.J Soles shows up in small part as a superstitious neighbour who tries to warn them about the evil that lurks at the inn.

I thought it was a okay time-waster that has a sound concept, which just isn't fleshed out enough and the execution is pretty textbook stuff. Watchable nonsense, but at the same time extremely forgettable.


I was duped into seeing this movie after reading a positive review from another website and man was I p.o'd!!! it took me at least 15 minutes to pick it up off the shelf b/c I didn't want anyone to see me. then another 10 minutes to build the courage to take it to the counter and actually use real money to rent it. I thought that all my stress would pay off by the time I got home to and watching the movie b/c the review I read said the movie was a pleasant surprise; what a joke! if you can make it through the first hour of the movie then your in luck! b/c it's not until then the movie turn's into a horror. don't bother with this one folks, your better off watching "dankness falls"


Stephen J. Cannell apparently decided a few years ago that he would broaden his horizons and dabble in horror. The result, "Dead Above Ground", is an abysmal piece of junk. Now, had I noticed his name in association with THIS particular film I'd have put it back but no, I didn't have my glasses on and therefore I missed it, damn, I really do need to bring those with me while video shopping. First question would be, who the heck is the target audience for this? It's almost like a "scary" kids movie, but then again there's topless babes and some gore and some bad words spouted here and there. The main characters are so cute that you want to see someone, anyone, go after them with farm implements of SOME kind. Seems that a guy opens a bed and breakfast that has a checkered past, a child-murdering witch that collected children's teeth lived there. Probably something the real estate agent failed to mention. Of course now in the modern day there's a little girls ghost around to warn the real-live little girl that now lives there that something bad is going to happen. It does, and there's also two Bubbas that were squatting on that property when the new owner took over so they're out for revenge too. This whole thing has the feel of some made-for-cable junk that's for the kids at Halloween except for, of course, the things that aren't suitable for little kids, so not only is this mediocre, it's confused, too. A big boo and hiss to Anchor Bay for putting this out too, considering their usual track record with fine releases this is a new low. The UK gets a Phantasm Box Set, we get "The Tooth Fairy". Hardly seems fair. 1 out of 10, absolute garbage.


When I saw this movie cover, the first thing I thought was that it was made for video. The second thing that came to mind was how similar this looked to another terrible movie "Darkness Falls", the tale of this dumb witch who killed people in the dark. Unfortunately, Darkness Falls was quite the masterpiece compared to this pile of garbage, and this movie should not have been made.

The film starts off with a small back story for the witch, or, more like a pointless introduction of two little kids who are going to go meet the tooth fairy in hopes of her giving them a shiny new bicycle for their tooth. The opening is filmed poorly, and like the rest of the movie, it's certainly not scary. In present time, the movie is about Peter (Lochlyn Munroe). Peter's renting out his house, and his ex-girlfriend Darcy (Chandra West), and her daughter Cole come to stay there. Cole meets a neighborhood child, and they talk of the Tooth Fairy, and how you shouldn't lose your tooth, or she'll come for you. Unfortunately seconds later, it looks like the Tooth Fairy steals her bike and knocks her tooth out (How ironic). Will Cole survive the wrath of the Tooth Fairy, and will her mother and Peter be able to save her, and rekindle their romance...this is a bad movie, you could probably figure it out.

One of the main problems with this idiotic film is how undefined the Tooth Fairy is. They say she kills you if you lose your tooth, but nope. She's more like a serial killer who kills at random, and if you lose your tooth, you're definitely going to go. She steals a bike, so apparently she's a thief too. I said earlier that the idea for this movie was based on Darkness Falls, but where did they get the inspiration for the Tooth Fairy's appearance? Let's see. She looks like a burn victim, and she previously went around the neighborhood slaughtering children. Hmmm...it's almost as though she's an exact rip-off of Freddy Krueger from the "Nightmare on Elm Street" films. And this is not the worst part of this awful mess, the climax is. This movie might have the most laughable climax (Not literally laughable because I found it more sickening than funny) I've ever seen. Don't see this.

Just a little trivia. Lochlyn Munroe was in Scary Movie, and Jianna Ballard was in Scary Movie 3, and they both were in this, so apparently Scary Movie stars are forced to end out their career with bad scary movies.

My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 80 mins. R for violence.


this movie is similar to Darkness Falls,and The Boogeyman(2005)but it's also much more graphic than both,and not as good as either.it's also slow and fairly predictable.it's also got shades of Deliverance and the Amityville Horror.plus,we get some new age flavour thrown in the mix and some of those scenes come off as a motivational/inspirational sermon.really,this movie is a hodgepodge of almost everything.even though it is gory,the makeup effects are not very realistic looking.in fact they look kinda cheap.aside from all that,there is some really awful clichéd dialogue.and i won't say when,but there is a point where a couple of the character's actions were not authentic or believable,given the circumstances.nobody in their right mind what would have acted this way.once you watch the movie,you'll know what i mean.there's also some gratuitous nudity for nudity's sake.it just wasn't necessary at all.the good news is that the acting was actually pretty good.better than this movie deserves.so,after carefully weighing the evidence,id say this movie was passable,but not good.my verdict for The Tooth fairy:4/10


The only scary thing about this movie is the thought that whoever made it might make a sequel.

From start to finish "The Tooth Fairy" was just downright terrible. It seemed like a badly-acted children's movie which got confused, with a "Wizard of Oz" witch melting and happy kiddies ending combined with some bad gore effects and swearing.

Half of the cast seem completely unnecessary except for conveniently being there to get murdered in some fashion. The sister of the two brothers, Cherise the aura reader and Mrs. McDonald have entirely no point in the film - they could have included them in the main plot for some interesting side stories but apparently couldn't be bothered. The people watching the film know the characters are there for some bloody death scene but come on, at least TRY and have a slight plot for them. The story in general is weak with erratic behavior from the characters that makes you wish they all get eaten by the witch.

Add the weak plot and the weak acting together (the children are particularly wooden) and the movie ends up a complete failure. If only MST3K could have had a go at this one ...


...the child actors were annoying. Also it seems as if the makers on this film were struggling to fill 90 minutes. Decent death scenes, though. If not for the death scenes, this movie would have a very Disneyish feel to it.

The main child protagonist didn't seem nearly as scared as she should have been. If I was in the middle of the woods with a tooth fairy ghost killer type individual, you can bet your arse I wouldn't be out wandering around and riding my bike.

Overall, I've seen worse (i.e. It Waits) but it's nothing I would watch again, or recommend anyone bothering with it unless you're an avid horror collector.


I tried to finish this film three times, but it's god awful. Case in point: mom and daughter drive up to the bed and breakfast,mom stops for gas, crazy gas station weirdos mad at her hubby whose running the B&B try to rape her. She escapes, heads to B&B and instead of hubby going ballistic and she wanting to call the cops, story just continues with lukewarm behavior on both their parts. Wow.

Other action logic deficits abound. Acting is also lukewarm, and the next door neighbor's warning is delivered in a really corny, badly acted moment.

Moments of intense gore/death unevenly interwoven with lukewarm scenes of time-filler interplay between characters.

Less focus on gore, more focus on mood and story would have been appreciated.


The Tooth Fairy is about the ghost of an old deformed witch that lures children to her house to get a prize for their loose tooth and then takes their lives. The first few minutes introduce you to the 1949 beginning of the legend of the tooth fairy and then switches to present day. The worn out horror plot is pretty much saved by the solid acting. They could have done without the Hammond brothers and a few other scenes, but overall the gore scenes were bloody but quick which had a minimizing effect. The eye candy is pretty good for both genders. Camera work is good. Dialog is fair but cheesy. I expected the film to be a bare bones, low budget, slasher with very few redeeming factors. I was surprised by the quality of the film.


Where to begin. This movie started out as something that seemed like a rip-off of "Darkness Falls". An old , disfigured woman living in the woods, giving kids presents for their teeth. Sound familiar? Then it changes. In "Darkness Falls", the tooth fairy only killed you if you saw her. The tooth fairy in this movie killed you no matter what. Why did they need the rocker, his hippie girlfriend or the Bubbas and their sister? I think the movie would've been fine without them. It seems like the producers sat around and decided that they needed to put extra people in the movie just so the tooth fairy would have people to kill. Although, it's nice to see a pretty blonde girl not being portrayed as a bubble-head for a change. Okay to rent, but I wouldn't suggest buying it.


i was enjoying this movie most of the time, but i kept getting the feeling that i was watching a children's movie. i honestly think that somebody wrote a pg script and then, while filming, decided to add in some blood, nudity and language. it was a big let down. there's that believe the children magic that exists in movies like "babe" (the pig) or "angels in the outfield" that defeats the evil tooth fairy. the parents end up believing their daughter about her ability to see the ghost and utilize this skill to supernaturally defeat the tooth fairy. when i bought this movie, i thought it would be a b-film response to the dreadful darkness falls; somehow manage to make a better film with 1/4 of the money, but they don't. they made a worse film and will probably lose the same proportion of money lost on darkness falls.


This movie has one redeeming feature. At one point, after a character is attacked by an ax-wielding fairy, his brother asks him, "Why is your dick over there, Chuck?" After suffering through almost an hour of bad film, this almost made my drink come out my nose.

Some of the acting isn't too bad, but the kids all stink and P. J. Soles should be ashamed of herself for doing this film. The story is weak and nobody does what you think (or what common sense dictates) they should.

Of course, there are a lot of story points that don't add up. For example, in one scene the ghosts of young children must concentrate hard to move a physical object so they can prove they exist, a difficult feat since they apparently can't interact with physical matter. However, minutes later they all pick up branches off the ground and beat the Tooth Fairy with them. Apparently they CAN sometimes move matter and sometimes they CAN'T. Go figure.

Lots of blood and guts, though...a few nice boobs. But this doesn't make up for the deficiencies.

If you want a movie about the Tooth Fairy, go rent "Darkness Falls". I think it's great, though a lot of other reviewers don't share my opinion. At least it sets a mood.


This movie is so stupid it simply goes around the corner and becomes ridiculous. I wanted to watch "Darkness falls" actually and thought that this was the movie. Boy, what a mistake! I fast-forwarded as much as I could and still I couldn't get rid of the boring moments. I just envy the people who was paid to play in or work on this movie. They were actually given money for this crap. Isn't that amazing? I mean in this movie a man gets killed and chopped in a wood-grinder to little bloody pieces and few minutes later the mother and the kid talk calmly at the table as nothing happened and drink coffee. Please! Come on! Who gives money for such crap movies? Oh, and the "tooth-fairy" was lame. Not scary at all and was obvious that it is a bored stuntman wearing a badly made make-up.


First, let's get it out of the way. . . yeah, this film steals a LOT from 'Darkness Falls' (2003). The plot for 'Darkness Falls' goes something like this: The Tooth Fairy, a murderous woman who hides her face due to disfigurement kills people who look at her out of revenge. In 'The Tooth Fairy' (2006), the disfigured Tooth Fairy (who, yeah, hides her face) unleashes her furious vengeance on just about anyone. A little too similar to be coincidence.

But, what must be asked is this: If you're going to directly steal the exact plot from a movie, why choose something as mediocre as 'Darkness Falls'? Sure it made a few bucks at the box office, but that was strictly for the fairly okay theatrical experience the film delivered. A low-budget, straight-to-video movie will not have that same effect. And it didn't.

As I watched the opening 15-20 minutes of the film, my expectations actually rose. There seemed to be at least SOME production value. The story didn't seem terrible, just blatantly ripped off. Past the first scene, we get an okay cast of characters including an ex-doctor with secrets (played by that guy who looks like a Busey) and some hot veterinary student (Jenifer from Argento's 'Masters of Horror: Jenifer'). After those few minutes, however, the film just slowly goes down the drain. It serves all the basic horrible clichés including, but not limited to: some crazy old person with an unheeded warning, the buff dumb jock, the psychic, and the stripper with the heart-of-gold.

One of the biggest problems this film had was its inability to stick with a target audience. It's kind of like the filmmakers wanted to change the tone for whatever character was on screen at the time. When the adults were on screen, it had a more mature feel. When Star (the stripper) and whatshisface (the jock) were on screen, the dialogue went down to a more stupid, err immature, level. When the kid was on screen, it felt like an episode of 'Are You Afraid of the Dark?'. . . only less scary.

Technically, the film is all over the place. The visuals range from fairly good to plain boring. The writing is subpar, as is the acting for the most part. On the plus side, there's some excessive gore at parts (including a fairly cool (yet painfully predictable)) woodchipper scene and a pretty vicious nailgun scene. Also, if you're looking for a bit of the sexy stuff, there's a brief topless scene (but if you want to see this chick topless, there are better films to do that). Other than that, there's not much to bother with when it comes to this film.

If you're a huge fan of 'Darkness Falls' (do those exist?), maybe you can check it out to see the story done in a different way. . . but, that's about the only reason I can find to see this one.

Final Verdict: 3/10 -AP3-


The first episode of this new show was on today, and it was horrible. Not only did Shaggy have a squeaky new voice that made listening to his lines torture, but it's so far away from the original concept and animation style that it's barely recognizable as a 'Scooby-Doo' show.

Even back in the dark days when Fred and Velma were gone and Scooby's nephew Scrappy was there, the team still solved mysteries. This new show instead features Shaggy and Scooby battling a James Bond type super-villain and his henchmen while living in a mansion. There's not even a van called 'The Mystery Machine' (and the teaser for the next episode which promised a transformers type robot car did NOT put my mind at ease). How can anyone take Scooby Doo and make THIS?

The show earns two point for two scenes featuring the whole Scooby Doo gang, all of whom speak with the correct voices except Shaggy, and even then I'm being far too generous.


Scott Menville is not Casey Kasem. That is the first, most important, and most disturbing thing about this attempt at re-imagining Scooby-Doo and company.

Shaggy's voice is squeaky and does not sound anything like he has ever sounded in any of the previous incarnations of the Scooby shows. They've also changed the outfit and the classic mode of walking from the original.

I'm not sure what they're on about yet with the villain angle, but it surely isn't following the formula used in any of the previous Scooby shows.

And the animation style is very bizarre and distorted. I like it, but it's not real Scooby-Doo type animation. But the weird animation used for other WB shows grew on me; this might, too.

It's worth a glance at -- once -- if you can handle the lack of proper Shaggy voice. That right there is enough to jar one out of enjoying the show properly. Besides, I am trying not to be an inflexible, nitpicking fan. Evolve or die, as the saying goes. We'll see how it looks after two more episodes -- by then I'll have formed a much more solid opinion.


Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why "What's New Scooby Doo" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original "Scooby Doo Where Are You".

The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think "Scooby Doo" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of "Mystery Inc" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.

This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as "danger prone". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.

Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic "Scooby Doo" formula that should never be messed with.

As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser.


I grew up with scooby(kinda the re-runs of where are you)I hate scrappy, love Daphne, and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. But this is sad, scooby doo is mystery solving comedy-not bad totally spy's jap anime. i like "whats new", they had to give danger-prone Daphne a makeover sometime :( and try to lose the *sex *drug jokes of many a generation, but this "get a clue" is flat out crap and should not have the Scooby name attached. They even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i'm gonna go watch my DVD of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes


The animation looks like it was done in 30 seconds, and looks more like caricatures rather than characters. I've been a fan of Scooby Doo ever since the series premiered in 1969. I didn't think much of the Scooby Doo animated movies, (I'm talking about the TV Series, not the full length movies.), but some of them were pretty cool, and I like most people found Scrappy Doo to be an irritant, but this series is pure garbage. As soon as I saw the animation, and heard the characters, (and I use that term loosely) speak, I cringed. Also, Mystery Inc., was a team, and without the entire crew to compliment each other, it just seems like opening up a box of chocolates to find someone has already ate the best ones, and the only thing left are the ones nobody wants. What's New Scooby Doo was better than this. If you're going to have a Scooby Doo TV series, include the elements that made the series endure so long. The entire cast of characters, and quality animation. They need to put this one back under the rock from where it came.


Shaggy & Scooby-Doo Get a Clue. It's like watching a much-loved relative in the final throws of a degenerative illness!! Clearly the work of people with no soul, no love or respect for the original work. What in the name of all that's holy were they thinking of? It seems they were trying to go all post-modern and ironic. Instead it's just abysmal swill!! What's the point in taking up a successful franchise like 'Scooby-Doo' if you just going to flush it down the toilet? My son loves the original series - and even some of the spin-off movies - but he can't stand this drivel! And let's face it, you can't argue against the tastes of a seven year-old


I am 17, and I still like most of the Scooby Doo movies and the old episodes. I love the 1990s movies, and recently we were treated to one of the better direct to DVD Scooby Doo outings of this decade, Scooby Doo and the Goblin King, which I wasn't expecting to be as good as it was. Anyway, back to Get a Clue! I watched some episodes, expecting something very good, but from what I saw of it, I wasn't impressed at all. First of all, I hated the animation. It was flat, deflated and very Saturday- morning -cartoon -standard, easily the worst aspect of the series. Even some shows I really hate had slightly better animation. Even worse, Shaggy and Scooby looked like aliens, and I really missed Fred, Velma and Daphne, as they added a lot to the old episodes, when Scooby Doo was positively good. I also hated the character changes, because it seemed like instead of solving mysteries, Shaggy and Scooby were now playing superhero, something they would've never had done in the movies or in the Scooby-Doo Where Are You? show. The theme tune wasn't very good either, I can't even remember it, and the jokes were lame and contrived. Though, I do acknowledge that there is a very talented voice cast, had they had better material, and hadn't been told to sound as different to the original voices as humanly possible, which they did, might I add. In conclusion, I personally thought it was awful, and I am not trying to discredit it, it's what I personally feel. 1/10 Bethany Cox


As a mother of 2 young children who are or should I say have been growing up with the many reincarnations of Scooby I feel well positioned to comment on the historical and current version of Scooby.

If as a family we had not seen any episodes prior to Shaggy and Scooby get a clue we may have enjoyed it as a light weight, nothing special Saturday morning cartoon. But that in essence is the problem it is in it's current format so light weight that it will not have the longevity of the "old" Scooby and gang. I'm sure it may succeed in a quick monetary return but I'm sure the long term buy in of old and young is in very real danger of being lost. My 6 year old son on seeing the new version was really disgruntled and without any prompting said that it looked really badly animated and why wasn't it anything like the last series(Where are you).

Scrappy Doo was an anomaly but still infinitely better than this. Let's hope Get a clue will be apropos with reference to the producers.


I thought "What's New Scooby-Doo" was pretty bad (yes, I'm sorry to say I didn't like it), since Hanna-Barbera didn't produce it and it took a drastic step away from the old series. When I heard "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue" was in the works, I thought it could be better. But when I saw a pic of how Scooby and Shaggy were going to appear, I knew this show was going to be bad, if not worse. I watched a few episodes, and believe me, it is just yet another "Teen Titans" or "Loonatics Unleashed"-wannabe. No longer are Scooby and Shaggy going against people wearing masks of cool, creepy monsters that rob banks. Now they are going after a typical super-villain whom wants to destroy the world. Shaggy and Scooby-Doo have become more brave, too. Also, since Shaggy IS NOT going to be a vegetarian in this series, Casey Kasem (whom actually IS a vegetarian), the original voice of Shaggy, will NOT voice Shaggy. He will only voice Shaggy if he doesn't eat meat, and that was just a stupid corporate-done change to update the franchise, as if the Internet jokes weren't enough. So Scott Menville (whom previously voiced Red Herring on "A Pup Named Scooby-Doo") voices Shaggy here. Believe me, the voice is REALLY BAD! It makes Shaggy sound like a squeaky 10-year-old, and I must agree the voice definitely fits his new ugly look. However, Kasem DOES voice Shaggy's Uncle Albert, which is a sort of good thing. Scooby-Doo, on the other hand, does not look that well. He seems to have been designed to look more like the CGI Scooby-Doo from the live-action movies. Also, Scooby's Frank Welker voice (need I mention Brain the Dog again?) still hasn't improved. Robi, the robotic butler, is practically worse than Scrappy-Doo! He tries to be funny and does "comical" impressions and gives safety tips ("Remember kids, don't stand under trees during a thunderstorm!"), but it just doesn't fit into a Scooby-Doo cartoon. Again, the Hanna-Barbera sound effects are rarely used here. However, on one episode, "Lightning Strikes Twice," they use the "Castle thunder" thunderclaps during it, almost extensively! (Although they DO still use the newly-recorded thunder sound effects, too.) Scooby-Doo hasn't use "Castle thunder" sound effects since 1991. But my question is, why use "Castle thunder" on "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue," while NOT use it on the direct-to-video movies or even on "What's New Scooby-Doo!" (Two episodes of WNSD used it, and it wasn't enough, unfortunately.) If WNSD and the DTV movies used it, then they might be better than this crappy cartoon. The day this show premiered, I watched the first episode, and it was SO bad I turned it off after only five minutes! To get my mind off of this poor show, I rented "Scooby-Doo, Pirates Ahoy!" which came out around the same time. And you know what? The "Pirates Ahoy" movie was actually BETTER than "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue" (and even better than "What's New, Scooby-Doo!") And it looks like the new designs that the characters have isn't permanent to the franchise. The direct-to-video movies coming out while this show is being made use the regular character designs, thankfully. But, whether you loved or hated "What's New Scooby-Doo," I don't recommend it. But if you HATE the old series, THEN you'll love it! (Oh god, I hope the old Scooby-Doo cartoon stay better than this new $#*%!) Anyways, like WNSD, a really bad addition to the Scooby canon.


I have grown up with Scooby doo all my life, My dad grew up with scooby doo. We have just watched the first episode of the travesty that calls itself Shaggy and Scooby get a clue. What planet are Warner Bros on allowing this shambles to air. The characters could have been drawn better by my younger sister. The story could have been better written by my 3 year old twin cousins (who are Scooby Doo fans too). Scooby and Shaggy just aren't!!!!! if anyone but Casey Kasem does the voice of Shaggy it just isn't gonna work folks!!!! trust me.

This program was disgraceful. What's New Scooby Doo is much better. Why change a winning format. Bin this piece of garbage and go back to the true Scooby


What a let down! This started with an intriguing mystery and interesting characters. Admittedly it moved along at the speed of a snail, but I was nevertheless gripped and kept watching.

David Morrissey is always good value and he Suranne Jones were good leads. The Muslim aspects were very interesting. We were tantalised with possible terrorist connections.

But then Morrissey's character was killed off and all the air left the balloon. The last episode was dull, dull, dull. The whole thing turned out to be very small beer and the dénouement was unbelievably feeble.

Five hours of my life for that? My advice: watch paint dry instead.


If you don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.

Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment:

* While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.

* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.

* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.

* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.

* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.

* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.

* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.

* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.

There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story.


I cannot believe that I wasted five hours of my life on this rubbish. The previous five day offering by this author was highly enjoyable and I was really looking forward to this. But most of the dialogue was completely incomprehensible. Suranne Jones was the principal culprit since she either mumbled or gabbled her lines, but most of the rest of the cast followed her example. Notable exceptions were Bernard Hill and Anne Reid, old stagers whose diction was exemplary. Do producers not listen to productions before they are aired to make sure the dialogue is audible? As a result I suppose I lost track of what was going on, and since the original plot line seemed to metamorphose into to the standard them-and-us thing between Muslims and the rest I soon lost interest. The ending was a complete anti-climax. A complete dud.


the writing of the journalists and the required over eager reckless press officer and sobbing grandma was ham-fisted and cliché ridden.

I cant blame the actors, but surely someone must have said "are you joking I cant say this!"

This episode had a press perspective and police perspective, while the police perspective was standard enough, the press perspective and characterization was overdrawn exaggerated and at points insultingly unbelievable.

I notice that this was an HBO co production, if so then perhaps the sledgehammer stereotypes can be explained in that light,

I was completely cringing during the press conference scene. it lacked any credibility and did not remotely ring true. 40 minutes into the first episode and I am still waiting for the suspense.

Skip Five Daysthis. the 2008/9 production with these characters is far better and more suspenseful even if the crime is over the top.

This story had unforgivable moments which can only be described as staggeringly unbelievable.

For a press officer to start a press conference without an investigating officer present to take press questions.

so unbelievable it felt like amateur hour.

I then began looking for Journalists called "Scoop" and for Perry White to make an appearance.

I saw the 2009 Hunter before "five days"made it to Australia, not realizing it was a prequel and was looking forward to Bonneville and McTeer going around again.

Head shakingly awful.


Come on! Get over with the Pakistan bashing guys. Bollywood can not only make brilliant movies- but can seriously affect a generation of viewers.

I am a HUGE Bollywood fan- but anti-Pakistan movies just make me wince too much to enjoy screenplay, cinematography, action sequences- everything.

I'm really happy to see that viewers on both sides of the border are rejecting propaganda, and there are movies like Main Hoon Na out there that have done brilliantly not only because they deserved to because of the quality of its Bollywood masala- but also because it tries to say: give peace a chance and shows that there are crazies out there on both sides who do not represent the masses.


Where to begin?

#1 Amitabh's son, played by Akshaye Khanna, is 30.

Amitabh's been in prison for 33+ years... he

A) Telepathically transmitted the sperm home?

B) Asked a nice Pakistani guard to mail it for him?

C) They allow conjugal visits in secret Pakistani Jails

D) All of the above

E) The producers were having a little too much bhang at

the time they approved the script?

#2) Amrita Rao (Yummm!) wants Khanna - he's yum, yum, yummy... and apparently he wants her - who wouldn't, right?!... But, when her dad gets ratted out, and then killed (I hardly think this is a 'spoiler' as you'd have to be brain-dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he's pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat, leaves her behind to save his dad, never mind her loss, and says (paraphrasing) "If god wills it, we'll meet again"... Basically meaning, "I'm gonna get my dad and MY job done, sorry for your loss - CYA! Buh Bye!" - callus beyond even low-life Hollywood standards...

#3) There are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie, that you can drive all the jeeps, trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. Pass - really, complete and total waste of time - Oh! There is a great dance sequence (yes, only one - as in dance sequence - regardless of quality) great belly dancing - but NOT worth watching just for this.

Rent Veer-Zaara or Lakshya (will Hrithik Roshan ever take acting lessons?) for better Indo-Pak conflict movies... In fact, Veer-Zaara is pretty damned good - 7.5/8 I'd say!


The first half hour or so of this movie I liked. The obvious budding romance between Ingrid Bergman and Mel Ferrer was cute to watch and I wanted to see the inevitable happen between them. However, once the action switched to the home of Ingrid's fiancé, it all completely fell apart. Instead of romance and charm, we see some excruciatingly dopey parallel characters emerge who ruin the film. The fiancé's boorish son and the military attaché's vying for the maid's attention looked stupid--sort of like a subplot from an old Love Boat episode. How the charm and elegance of the first portion of the film can give way to dopiness is beyond me. This film is an obvious attempt by Renoir to recapture the success he had with THE RULES OF THE GAME, as the movie is very similar once the action switches to the country estate (just as in the other film). I was not a huge fan of THE RULES OF THE GAME, but ELENA AND HER MEN had me appreciating the artistry and nuances of the original film.


Spoiler warning.

When the main character's sister is pushed down the stairs, the killer breaks a glass of vodka next to her, to make it appear that she's been drinking. But right before she is killed, tells her sister's business partner (Teri Garr) on the phone that she hasn't had a drink in 4 days. Yet the police never mention the results of a toxicology report! And, the characters talk about her being drunk when she fell down the stairs. Huh? Really bad mistake in this movie, which is pretty awful, overall.

Surprisingly bad, considering the great cast. Some faults: the writing isn't very good, the music is made-for-TV bad, and there is no tension at all because we already know the answer to the mystery from the first scene in the movie.


Chinese Ghost Story III is a totally superfluous sequel to two excellent fantasy films. The film delivers the spell-casting special effects that one can expect, but fails painfully on all other fronts. The actors all play extremely silly caricatures. You have to be still in diapers to find their slapstick humor even remotely funny. The plot is predictable, and the development is sometimes erratic and often slow. Towards the end, the movie begins to resemble old Godzilla films, including shabby larger-than-life special effects and a (well, yet another) ghost with a Godzilla head. Maybe I would have grinned if I was expecting camp.

It is astonishing to see what trash fantasy fans have to put up with - in this case because somebody thought they could squeeze a little extra money out of a successful formula. They won't be able to do it again: the cash cow is now dead as a dodo.


Follows the usual formula in putting a new recruit -- this time the first African-American (Cuba Gooding) after President Truman desegregates the Armed Forces -- through the U. S. Navy's deep-sea diver training program that is run by a racist zealot (Robert DeNiro). If the program weren't bad enough, it's got to be located in Bayonne, New Jersey.

There's nothing wrong with the performances. Robert De Niro activates his Southern accent and shouts gibberish effectively. Cuba Gooding, raised by a stern father as a poor black farm boy in the South, is the expectable paragon of rectitude. The girls -- one could hardly call them women -- are Charleze Theron and Lonette McKee. They have minor roles and are mostly there to argue that their men should exercise common sense. Other decent performers -- Powers Boothe and Hal Holbrook -- have even more perfunctory roles.

That's about it. Almost everything else could have been assembled by a computer. A ship is called a boat. Robert De Niro salutes indoors, uncovered. After a brutal assault on hospital personnel, he's transferred out of his outfit instead of being busted. Somebody shouts "I'm outta here" in the early 1950s. (Maybe it was a common expression at the time. If so, "my bad.") People address each other by rank -- "Lieutenant", "Boatswain's Mate," "Commander," as they do in the Army, whereas in the Navy they are simple "Mister" (if an officer) or addressed by their last name (if enlisted). I didn't bother to check if there was a rank called "Senior Master Chief" in 1950.

Cuba Gooding has a tough row to hoe. Everyone in the Navy, it seems, hates Negroes except for one guy from Wisconsin. He stutters and is held in contempt by the others in his class. It's like the scene in "Animal House", in which the applicant to a tony fraternity is asked to wait in a room with a Sikh, a black man, and a blind kid.

Gooding is an enlisted man, a second class petty officer. He manages to marry a beautiful woman who has just graduated from medical school. In one of their arguments she pleads with him. She just wants to be a doctor and he should join her, quit the Navy, and lead a quiet life. "And just let life pass you by?", he retorts. Yes. Yes, just be a doctor's spouse and let life pass you by. You can wave to it from the golf course in Boca Raton.

These kinds of flicks were common enough in World War II. "Bombardier," "Airial Gunner," that sort of thing. Cheap as they often were, they had some educational features. You learned something about becoming a bombardier or a gunner. Here, the technical details are skipped over, perhaps because the writer knew nothing about them (except Boyle's law, which we learned in high-school chemistry).

I couldn't follow what was happening during some of the emergencies without which a movie like this wouldn't exist. If I got the mechanical problems right, it was because I guessed correctly. The direction is no help either. The movie abounds in close ups, so many that they lose any dramatic impact they might have had. And the emergencies are confusing because they're ill focused.

Why go on? Want to see a better example of this kind of movie? Almost any will do -- except maybe "G. I. Jane", in which the abused hero is a heroin. Try the training camp scenes in "The Young Lions." There the victim is a Jew. Or try "From Here to Eternity," in which no easy sympathy buttons are pushed and the victim is a grown man who refuses to bend and who is active in bringing the conflict on, just like "Cool Hand Luke." No easy excuses are offered, because easy excuses are too easy.

Thoroughly formulaic, and not well done.


Final Score (an average of various classic cinematic qualities- acting, visuals, creativity, payoff, humor, fun, ect):

4.3 (out of 10)

Had "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" come out a few years ago it would have seemed like a bold, serious new direction in Disney animation. However, it comes just a year after the innovative and nearly genius "The Emperor's New Groove" and marks a step back in freeing Disney from it's repetative "Disney Formula". I'm a big fan of the feature length Disney animated films. Have to see them all love it or hate it. "Atlantis" is an animated throwback to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and similar live-action sci-fi adventures of the 50s and 60s. Problem is that this version hardly contains one original idea. It feels like a remake of something, even more so than actual Disney remakes(Tarzan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame). The characters are little more than a walking cliches of the usual suspects that typically populate these type of films (the oddball mechanic, the gung ho general, the sassy tough women). Beyond Milo Thatch (Fox) and Rourke (Garner) the supporting cast is flat-out obnoxious. The movie also suffers from it's succinct pace. Instead of fleshing it out into an epic story, Disney jams a lot in the usually brief running time brushing over opportunities to develop...suspence, characters, anything really. They thow us into this new and wonderous world and barely let us get our barings. The awkward pace sometimes makes confusing what is a relatively simple story. The animation is dark and dreary and cheap. This thing looks like a slapped together saturday morning cartoon. Let's hope they haven't forgotten that 2D traditional animation can still be wonderous. "The Iron Giant" among others proved that.

Negatives: The visuals, pace, and sheer lack of originality.

Positives: Quite possibly the coolest death scene for a Disney villain in a long time. It's the creative highlight of the movie.


If the makers of Atlantis had something to say in this film, its theme was (literally) drowned out by the emphasis on "special effects" over characterization. Almost as if in an attempt to "keep up" with the rest of the summer action blockbusters, Disney has ditched the character-driven, movie-with-a-message approach in favor of a Star Wars "shoot-'em-up" with stereotype heroes and villains.

The art is cartoony and the producers think that they can rely on computer generated images (CGI) of flying fish-craft and submarines to fill the gap. They are wrong, and the days of beautiful, handcrafted animation is fast flying out the window in favor of assembly-line CGI.

This movie is all spectacle with no heart. At times the film comes close to being a good, worthwhile movie, but frustratingly misses the mark so many times by copping out of talking about something meaningful and instead choosing to go with the glitz.

Another problem with the movie is the pacing. It starts confusingly and then begins to rocket along with a choppy story editing style that is not appreciated. The viewer is rushed out of the door along with Milo Thatch (voiced well by Michael J. Fox) and is left thinking "Gee there must be an awful lot of stuff that's going to happen once we get to Atlantis". Unfortunately, not much happens. The secret of Atlantis remains a secret with the story-tellers not really knowing how to explain the legendary island/continent. They are afraid to commit to saying where Atlantis is, even in a fictional story. Is it in the Atlantic? Is it in the Mediterranean Sea? Who knows? Nothing is hypothesized, even from a purely fantasy-based point of view. The viewer will leave the theatre asking themselves "Now what was that all about? What was the point of the movie? Why couldn't the surviving Atlantean's remember how to read when many of them lived through the disaster to the "present" day? And WHY did Atlantis sink?" and then promptly begin to forget about what they saw. There is nothing left to think about or mill over... except the loss of money in their wallets.

The characters and their motivations are equally unfathomable. From the eccentric zillionaire who founds the expedition with seemingly more money that existed on the entire planet in 1914, to the (spoiler) collective consciousness that enters Kida and VOLUNTARILY deserts its people!?! The crew are a collection of quirky, 2-dimensional people of anachronistically (for 1914) P.C. race and gender. The demolitions expert talks like he came right out of a Warner Brothers' Bugs Bunny short. Most of the jokes are gross one-liners that are largely missed by the audience for two reasons: They are delivered at lightning-speed pacing and usually mumbled. The way these supporting players do a moral turn-around near the end of the movie is hard to believe.

While we applaud Disney for trying to create animated movies for adults - and this is the first Disney not to have cute, talking animals or objects - it fails to make the transition. Younger children will be frightened by some of the action scenes and be left in the dark by the large amount of subtitles (when the characters speak Atlantean). In the first five minutes of the expedition, approximately 200 people are killed without a second thought. Obviously Disney thinks that if you didn't know who those people were, then why should you care? Again, the movie has no feelings on any level.

Mulan and Tarzan were the last animated movies produced by Disney that were done extremely well. Sadly, Atlantis harkens back to those failed attempts in the past such as the Black Cauldron and Hunchback of Notre Dame. Disney needs to get back to their roots. A sequel to Peter Pan is coming out shortly but one never knows what the results will be until you see it for yourself. And now that Disney has discovered Science Fiction one hopes that they will realize that that genre must have more than spectacle to it. We also hope that the upcoming "Treasure Planet", a sci-fi adaptation of Robert L. Stevenson's "Treasure Island", will have more heart to it than the unfathomable "Atlantis: The Lost Empire".


I went to see this one with much expectation. Quite unfortunately the dialogue is utterly stupid and overall the movie is far from inspiring awe or interest. Even a child can see the missing logic to character's behaviors. Today's kids need creative stories which would inspire them, which would make them 'daydream' about the events. That's precisely what happened with movies like E.T. and Star Wars a decade ago. (How many kids imagined about becoming Jedi Knights and igniting their own lightsabers?) Seriously don't waste your time & money on this one.