The comedic might of Pryor and Gleason couldn't save this dog from the tissue-thin plot, weak script, dismal acting, and laughable continuity in editing this mess together. It has a very few memorable moments, but the well dries up quickly. As a kid I remember this as a Luke-warm vehicle for the two actor-comedians, but there was always something strange about the flow and feeling of what was being conveyed in each scene and how this ties to the plot overall. Watching it again after many years, it screams schlock-a-mania. I'm not so concerned with the racial controversy, as I wouldn't mind seeing a movie take that issue on with a little levity. The most obvious fault to me is that the scenes are laid out like a jumbled, non-related series of 2 minute situation comedy bits (any not very good ones at that), that were stapled together by the editor after an all-nighter at the local watering hole. Characters change feelings and motivations on a dime, without rhyme nor reason, between scenes and within scenes, making this feel as though no one had any idea of what to get out of the screenplay. Not that it was any gem to start with. I feel bad for the two actors whose legacy is marred by this disaster that should never have been made. Maybe my sense of humor has become too refined...


The only redeeming quality of this overlong miscast melodrama is the scenery of southern France and the voice of Nana Mascouri singing the theme song. Stephanie Powers is miscast and betrayed by a phony accent. As has been pointed out, she is too old to play an 18 year old and looks far too young as a grandmother with a college age granddaughter? Lee Remick is good although she also is ageless in her later years. The talented Joanna Lumley is under utilized and also manages to look forever young when her middle aged son (Robert Urich) finally marries Grandma Stephanie Powers. Stacey Keach's ceaseless arrogance makes you wonder what these women saw in him. Don't know how any viewer could relate to his excessive portrayal? The most credible performance is given by Ian Richardson, who makes the rest of the cast look like rank amateurs. It strains credulity that the handsome male suitors in this epic would remain ever single while they patiently await the subject of their affections to finally consent to accept them. Can anybody believe that handsome Robert Urich would remain single for decades waiting for Stephanie Powers to finally accept his endless marriage proposals? The WW2 engagement between the Wehrmacht and the Marquis is laughable. To begin with, the Germans did not occupy the Provence section of France until late in the war, it was controlled by the Vichy French puppet government. We see the French resistance staging a daylight raid on Mistral's villa to steal sheets after which they all lounge under a bridge waiting for a lumbering truckload of Nazi troops to surprise and annihilate them? If you want to see a well acted mini-series set in a foreign country, don't watch Mistral's Daughter. A far better alternative would be The Thorn Birds.


Usually, I don't think Hollywood productions are fit to be called film, so I call them 'movies' instead. But this piece of elephant manure, is not even fit to be called a movie, hence the quotes in the title.

Where shall i start? 1. If this isn't the start of geriatric casting, it sure is the epitome of it. Stefanie Powers is supposed to play someone even LESS than half her age, she's supposed to play an 18 year old, and she is FORTY effing TWO!!!!

2. A horrible and stupid mindless portrayal of Paris and France, where we see cliché characters such as: the sympathetic grumpy shop owner, the bitchy queen of models, the fairy god mother ex-queen of models, etc. This film is surpassed only in this respect by the Da Vinci Code, (which reviewers correctly determined was a comedy).

3. It's highly and utterly ridiculous to have no nudity in a film about a time and a place where nudity was so common place, especially if the whole focus is about that

4. The horrible accents!!!

5. The Nana Mouskouri elevator-music!!!

I could go on, but i think this is enough. And I was able to make these observations after watching this crap for just half an hour, WHILE surfing the internet and talking to my friends about math equations ... I mean ...!!!!!

I invite everyone to add to my list. :) :P :D


I just saw this movie, and I have to say that it was a big waste of time. The girl who played Eva (Ellen Fjaestad) can't act at all. She read her lines very un-naturally, and she had a very un-natural facial expression through the entire movie. Rosanna Munter who played Petra on the other hand, is a natural. She played her part with great perfection.

SPOILERS! The story was simple - we've seen it many, many times before. She breaks up, he finds another, she get jealous, he breaks up with the other girl and they end up back together in the end. There were no surprises at all, one knew that Eva would break up, and that Adam would "hook up" with Petra. The only thing that nobody saw coming was that Petra told Adam to go after Eva at the party. She became all serious, which is a side of Petra the viewers hadn't seen earlier in the movie, and told him to win Eva's heart back, which was really cute.

Besides Rosanna Munter, there isn't a single actor who gives a memorable performance.

This is a mediocre movie with mediocre actors, so I don't recommend it!


This was a strange kind of film about a low-lifes in New York City and centering around a main character (the title name, played by Brad Pitt) who thinks he''s a Ricky Nelson-type musician, except he has no real talent.

It's kind of fun to watch until a profane tough New York City-type woman with horrible accent enters the picture and takes over. That ruined the film for me. It must have been Catherine Keener, who usually plays tough and garbage-mouthed women.

The hairdo on Pitt - an exaggerated Pompadour - was fun to look at. I can picture Johnny Depp playing this role better. One last note: it odd to hear a film made in 1992 (other than Woody Allen's) with just mono sound.


This is absolutely the worst movie I've seen all year.

First, I will say that the acting was very good, and by all of the cast.

This was apparently meant to be very offbeat, and in that regard it succeeded. By the same token, the story revolves around a self-centered wannabe, who is a clueless, talentless chronic liar, whose source of self confidence comes from a pair of leather slippers.

This was worse than watching a car wreck.


I think this would have been a much better film if the Cajuns had been portrayed in a more believable light. My family is from the southeast region of Louisiana and I live in southeast Texas (about 20 miles from Lake Charles). I have never heard the people I grew up around talk like these folks did. The Cajuns were portrayed as backwards rednecks. Most of the Cajuns I know are well educated, proud people and don't sound uneducated at all when they talk the way these people did. All in all it was an OK movie, with great scenery and music. I understand that the writers were from Lake Charles, and have knowledge of the area, but for the love of all things Cajun, please have the actors study the language, live amongst the people you are portraying and get an all around understanding of how they are before you go trying to act like them. In my opinion, when the actors make you believe they are that person, it's a much more enjoyable movie!


OK, anyone who could honestly say that this movie was Great or even Good is either delusional or knows the Director, Writer and Producers and is trying to boost the buzz on this film. I watched the movie because a friend of mine worked on it and it was Horrible. I'm an actress and have worked in the industry for a while now on big films and even independents and this movie bored me to tears. The reason I'm being so harsh is because this film was clearly a different take on "Of Mice and Men" and they should sue because it is such a horrible rip-off of the story. In an industry where Hollywood seems to be creatively bankrupt...for someone to take a classic book and film "Of Mice and Men" and destroy it with a new spin bugs me so much. The actors, the accents, the dialog and the direction were amateurish and the writing was dismal. I mean if your going to take a new spin on an existing story make sure its just as good or better than the original to make the new spin justified. Did not like this movie at all.


This is one of the weakest soft porn film around. I can't believe somebody wrote this stupid story before making some changes. The guy Mike is a major wimp and moron I can't believe he didn't want to take a shower with his bride-to-be Toni and be in a threesome with the french photographer Jan. He does do a threesome with Toni and Kristi but that was short I hate that every time in Soft Core Porn Films threesomes between a woman, a man, and a woman is short but a girl-girl thing is about an hour. To the makers of these films have the threesomes alot longer this film should've have two threesome scenes not one but two.


A drama at its very core, "Anna" displays that genuine truth that all actors age, and sometimes, fade away. Anna is a character that believes America is her safety net, her home, and it can do her no wrong  but she refuses to belittle herself to do work she doesn't believe in. She is hard-nosed, optimistic, stubborn, and arrogant when it comes to her life, yet not afraid to let others in, yet drop them at a moments notice. Anna flip-flops between personalities, which makes this film ideal of an aging star, but not idea of the viewing audience. "Anna" has been praised for its star Sally Kirkland, and her ability to get "grungy" for the role, but a month into 2008, "Anna" does not remain a staple of film culture. It is dated, dull, and formulaically chaotic.

Director Yurek Bogayevicz has a message hidden within "Anna" about the falsehoods of Czechoslovakia, both politically and socially, but Kirkland refuses to let them upstage her. Bogayevicz is not afraid to play with the camera, to use wooden frames to allow Kirkland to stand out, and he is not afraid to lessen the surrounding characters so that when you walk away from the film, it is Kirkland you remember. If it isn't obvious, this film didn't sit well with me. From the opening of the first act and deep within the second, "Anna" felt like a high school theater production. The characters were non-existent, there was no enlightening pre-story, and there was no definition of time or place. There was Sally Kirkland, stubbornly saying that she is better than the other actresses vying for the same lifestyle that she wants. Randomly she encounters a friend, a young girl that has also traveled a long distance to get to America for the glitz and glamour, and two of them (within the span of 20 minutes) build a friendship that could break all walls. It is emotionally boring and unbelievable. Again, randomly, we meet Anna's boyfriend Daniel (played by the weak Robert Fields), who brings nothing to the table in terms of definition or character  only to boost the attention onto Kirkland's Anna. Through the course of nearly two hours, we watch as more random acts coupled with unnamed characters intertwine together to feebly create a story that is held together by loose threads  and SALLY KIRKLAND. Arg, it pains me to continue to say this but "Anna" could have been a fantastic film had Bogayevicz presented equal time between Anna, Daniel, and Krystina, but instead we are forced into a one-sided game where emotional scenes speak louder than plot.

Is this where Charlize Theron found inspiration for her beauty-less role in "Monster", or Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball"? Was Sally Kirkland one of the early actresses discover that by letting themselves go for a character Oscar will shine in their direction? Throughout this film I was disgusted by Kirkland's portrayal of Anna, and Bogayevicz's lack of excitement for anything else fluent. Bogayevicz gives us an Anna that doesn't work hard for her parts, doesn't care for others, and is generally mean spirited  yet we are to feel sympathy for her? Near the beginning of the film, she forces what she wants to do onto others, and gets upset when she doesn't get her way. Sure, aging actresses my have that appeal to them, but Kirkland creates a more childish character instead of a mature one. That is where "Anna" could have improved. If this was a mature Kirkland, I would have gobbled it up, but this stammering childish Anna was impossible to believe. While my favorite scene was near the end where Anna goes to watch one of her older films playing (included is absurd make-out characters) and the film burns, this scene is also one of my least favorite. Anna has made a phenomenal life for herself, creating films and building the dream, yet when anyone else wants to enter that spotlight, she gets jealous and outraged. This didn't make for a character I wanted to stand behind nor win Oscars. Coupled with the classic 80s background synthesizer, the outrageous over-the top wardrobe, and the displaced ending (where did that come from and what happened??)  "Anna" slipped far in the scope of amazing cinema. It was a show-piece, an opportunity for an aging star to yell at the world one more time. In this one it worked, but I don't think I will be fooled again.

Overall, I cannot say that I was impressed with this film. "Anna" is not a film about an aging film star; it is about Sally Kirkland, and ONLY Sally Kirkland. Bogayevicz tries to do more with the story, but fails either because Kirkland will not allow him or he just realizes that there isn't enough to support a full story. There are one or two decent scenes in this film, but nothing that promotes this film as innovative or influential. Bogayevicz did not create a character that audiences would believe, tear up for, or dedicate a Sunday afternoon with  he created an annoyance. Kirkland wasn't Anna, she was an actress playing her a bit overdone and crusty on the sides. Perhaps I missed the scope of this film, but what makes films like this work is the cooperation of everyone involved. That wasn't the case here. In "Anna", Kirkland orders Daniel to act like a dog (apparently as a symbolic act) and yet during the entire emotional scene, I couldn't help but think that was what Kirkland was like to those on the set. She didn't make this into a film, she transformed it into her own production, and because of it "Anna" failed. I cannot suggest this to anyone  from one Czech to another  skip it!

Grade: * ½ out of ***** (for that pesky theater scene that creeped me out)


It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminicä la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.


This guy has no idea of cinema. Okay, it seems he made a few interestig theater shows in his youth, and about two acceptable movies that had success more of political reasons cause they tricked the communist censorship. This all is very good, but look carefully: HE DOES NOT KNOW HIS JOB! The scenes are unbalanced, without proper start and and, with a disordered content and full of emptiness. He has nothing to say about the subject, so he over-licitates with violence, nakedness and gutter language. How is it possible to keep alive such a rotten corpse who never understood anything of cinematographic profession and art? Why don't they let him succumb in piece?


Yes, he is! ...No, not because of Pintilie likes to undress his actors and show publicly their privies. Pintilie IS THE naked "emperor" - so to speak...

It's big time for someone to state the truth. This impostor is a voyeur, a brat locked in an old man's body. His abundance of nude scenes have no artistic legitimacy whatsoever. It is 100% visual perversion: he gets his kicks by making the actors strip in the buff and look at their willies. And if he does this in front of the audience, he might eve get a hard-on! Did you know that, on the set of "Niki Ardelean", he used to embarrass poor Coca Bloss, by telling her: "Oh, Coca, how I wanna f*** you!"? She is a great lady, very decent and sensitive, and she became unspeakably ashamed - to his petty satisfaction! And, as a worrying alarm signal about the degree of vulgarity and lack of education in Romanian audiences, so many people are still so foolish to declare these visual obscenities "works of art"! Will anyone have ever the decency to expose the truth of it all?


Terminus Paradis was exceptional, but "Niki ardelean" comes too late. We already have enough of this and we want something new.

Big directors should have no problems seeing beyond their time, not behind. Why people see Romania only as a postrevolutionary country?

We are just born not reincarnated, and nobody gives a s**t anymore about old times. Most people dont remember or dont want to remember, and the new generation of movie consumers dont understand a bit. This should be the first day of romanian movie not the final song - priveghi! Maybe younger directors should make the move.


this movie begins with an ordinary funeral... and it insists so hard on this ordinary funeral feel that i lost interest within 5 minutes of watching, and started skipping scenes. it seems to me whomever made this movie is afflicted to the extent of becoming trapped in a permanent morbid trance, unable to contemplate anything else but death and destruction. well, i ain't one of the dark kids from Southpark, i want a movie that within 10 minutes gets me well into an interesting story, i won't sit and watch 10 minutes of nothing but preparations for a funeral.. my grandma on her last years was fascinated by funerals, perhaps she might have enjoyed this "movie".


I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.

What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: "You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu".


I find it rather useless to comment on this "movie" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ...

Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian "movie" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called "Romanian reality" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).

Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this "movie" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.

On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : "How NOT to make a movie."


It's very sad that Lucian Pintilie does not stop making movies. They get worse every time. Niki and Flo (2003) is a depressing stab at the camera. It's unfortunate that from the many movies that are made yearly in Romania , the worst of them get to be sent abroad ( e.g. Chicago International Film Festival). This movie without a plot , acting or script is a waste of time and money. Score: 0.02 out of 10.


A note to all of you budding film writers: Study this film. If your dialog reads like the dialog in this film, please shred your script and try again.

I didn't have high expectations, but was intrigued by the description indicating there was a mystery at the Christmas Ornament Factory. The Mystery is resolved very early and the film becomes a straight romance. I almost stopped watching it at 5 minutes, 10 minutes, and at the first break. My spouse , who is the Hallmark & Lifetime fan, gave up at the first break.

Forest River is a company town - the main business is Aikens Ornaments, who make all manner of holiday decorations.The patriarch of the company has recently passed away, so the companies future might be in question. We soon meet Noelle, who would rather be on Wall Street than Main Street, and the mysterious Justin, who gets a date with Noelle after a large snowman she is inflating crashes into Justins car. Once we meet Alison Aikens, doing due diligence for the Board, we have our story setup.

If you can't nail all the story arcs by the first commercial break, you haven't seen enough of this kind of Holiday film. Maybe that's a good thing.


They should have named this movie ...Blonde women that needed to get their roots colored. Also the main character, geeze, the too tight sweaters. The giggling. Thought the guy did a good job though. I keep hoping we'll find a good 8 star Christmas movie to watch this week. The dart throwing. Had to laugh at that too. We've still got 3 more on the DVR to watch, maybe we'll get lucky. Oh yeah, I figured the guy out pretty quickly and nailed it when he picked up the flowers and then drove out with his cousin. I told my daughter they were on their way to the cemetery. And how stupid was it that the two gals followed them there spying on them? Creepy.


Some of the worst, least natural acting performances I've ever seen. Which is perhaps not surprising given the clunky, lame dialog given to the one note characters. Add to that the cheap production values and you've got a movie that doesn't look like it even belongs on television. One doesn't expect much from a Lifetime movie, especially one this old, but this is nearly unwatchably bad.

Plot-wise, it's a dreadful, clichéd romance of a type even Harlequin would consider beneath them. It's possible to guess how the remainder of the movie will go by simply watching the opening couple of scenes. Surprise, the only female character who gets any focus and the mysterious stranger end up falling in love.


Four years after making his directorial debut with the art-house snoozer "Welcome To L.A.", Alan Rudolph shows us what he really wanted from Hollywood was to be one of the guys. "Roadie" is a frat-boy fracas complete with barroom brawls, horny harpies, Art Carney in a souped-up wheelchair...and Meat Loaf at the wheel. Meat Loaf (playing Travis W. Redfish!) is actually a rather charming presence on the screen, and perhaps in a smaller role (in a better movie) he might indeed be ingratiating, but Zalman King's script is full of stereotypical redneck humor and helpless Meat Loaf is kept wide-eyed and moronic. Alice Cooper, Roy Orbison, Hank Williams, Jr., and Blondie all make appearances--and all look embarrassed. They certainly should, "Roadie" is one bad trip. NO STARS from ****


The first look on the cover of this picture, it looks like a good rock n roll movie. But don't let the cover fool you, or the fact that Alice Cooper and Blondie is in it. The storyline is just horrible, and so is the acting. Plain and simple: BAD

It's not a movie about a roadie, its just a thin love story, so awful that you see right through it. The only good thing about this movie, is the soundtrack.Some good songs, and that is why I give 2 out of 10. If it wasn't for the music, it would of been 0 out of 10. Meat Loaf is a horrible actor(at least he was in 1980), and the girl who plays the groupie isn't even good looking! This movie was a huge disappointment for me, because it makes a lot of good promises.


Where to begin? How best to describe just how awful this movie is???

Let's start with the campy hick humor. It isn't very funny. Add a bunch of musicians impersonating actors - Meat Loaf is horrible and Deborah Harry is even worse. Pity poor Art Carney, who should have known better than to do this movie.

And then there is the plot. A roadie whose life goal is to work an Alice Cooper show meets a girl whose life goal is to be a groupie for Alice Cooper. At least they get what they want...

And then, just when the movie should end, they can't come up with a more plausible last scene than a - well, I won't ruin it for you if you really want to see the movie.

There are certain actors that let you know that this is going to be a "B" movie or perhaps worse. Gailard Sartain is one of them for me - and he has a more prominent role. That's a sure sign that the movie probably won't be very good. If nothing else, the movie lives up to the low expectations - even exceeds them by being worse than poor.

Let's just say this. This is the movie against which all bad movies are compared. And none are worse than Roadie.


What on earth has become of our dear Ramu? Is this the same man who made Sarkar, Satya, and Comapny? I refuse to believe so. If AAG was Ramu's most ambitious project, he has clearly jumped off the high cliff he has ascended by giving the industry some of the greatest works of all times. This movie is made to fall like a brick. I was cringing to leave the theater, but I was forced to sit because I wouldn't have been able to take my car out of the parking lot before others also left. Else, nothing would have made me sit beyond interval.

This movie is nowhere close to Sholay. It doesn't even come near it within a mile. I believe Ramu surely loves The Godfather more than Sholay, since Sarkar was a classic piece of work. I read Ramu's interview a couple of days back, in which the interviewer said that Ramu doesn't sleep for more than 4 hours a day, that too not at a stretch. I completely agree with this now, as his lack of sleep has probably taken its toll on the movie.

There is no power in the performance. Amitabh Bachchan doesn't even look scary. He looked more terrifying in the few posters and wallpapers I saw earlier. Ramu's favorite Nisha Kothari did a fantastic job in Sarkar because she didn't have many dialogs (in fact none if I remember clearly). She opened her mouth in this movie, and has found a place in history. The new guy playing Jai's role seems to have that brash look, but didn't manage Jai's role at all. I cant go on... Im sorry... my pain is too big for me to manage right now.

I promised myself throughout the movie that I will watch the original Sholay once more just to see that it is still there.

Bottom Line: Horrible movie. The media and critics are going to cook Ramu's goose. And just to remind all readers once more, I am one of the biggest Ramu fans, and even I cant spare him for this act.


Ram Gopal Verma has proved himself as a very innovative and competent director. He had done a remake/reworking of Godfather with Sarkar, and succeeded tremendously. Ditto for Lolita which he made as Nishaabd.

Sholay is been the movie he repeatedly says has inspired him the most. Unfortunately, he has managed to make a disappointing and ultimately boring remake.

The acting ranged from decent to very good, with Amitabh Bachchan being suitably menacing as the villain Babban.

The songs were awful and forgettable. The Mehbooba Mehbooba song came off as a second rate music video.

The worst part was the pacing, and the dialogues - which were forgettable.

Watching the movie in a theatre, I found myself waiting for the intermission, and then for the ending. Some viewers were wise not to wait, and were seen leaving throughout the duration of the film. Ultimately, one of the worst movies made by Ram Gopal Verma.


This so called remake is terrible. I went to see this tonight.. on the first day as the anticipation and hype was too much for me to handle. But within the first half an hour, we knew that this is a disaster. It not only does not match the hype created but also insults the original blockbuster. The script had loopholes, the editing was untidy quite a few times. Mohanlal who is an excellent actor did an okay job. Amitabh was alright.. the director wanted to portray how evil his character is but he went a bit overboard which resulted in it being forceful. Ajay who is especially smooth in these kind of roles was also a disappointment. Lets not even get started about the new guy Prashant.. one wouldn't be proud to start off a career with something like this. Rajpal Yadav who was thrown in for a few laughs couldn't even get a smile out of anyone because of his forceful humor and the shrill voice. Nisha Kothari proved that she is one of the worst actresses we have today. All in all, RGV who I thought was one of the most talented and gifted directors India has had.. failed miserably. He took up such a huge challenge and responsibility to remake what is known as the best Hindi movie ever and made a mess out of it.


If you have seen the Sholay of 1975, Don't watch this movie. If you have NOT seen the Sholay of 1975, Go WATCH IT. But do not watch this movie. This movie has all the ingredients that could possibly have gone wrong with making a remake of Sholay.

Amitabh 'Babban' Bachchan plays the role of a psycho villain to the best (Probably the only 40 mins of the reel that shouldn't be burnt). If you remove the rest of the movie and just watch amitabh play around with his character, it would still be worth a watch. But as Insp. Narsimha, Mohanlal doesn't do justice to his talent. Ajay Devgan(Heero) is extremely mundane and the only reason i think, they cast Prashant Raj in the role of Raj is because he has a striking resemblance to Amitabh of his young days. Sushmita Sen carries herself well, with grace and make-up. But the award for the "WORST performance and any role till date" must go to Nisha Kothari. She manages to degrade her acting to such levels that even high-school drama would would outshine her performance.

If you have a mortal enemy, take him to this movie. :)


If the scale went negative I would be happier. Seeing Sushmita Sen was nice, and Nisha Kothari has a bright future but the producer and the director ruined any and all enjoyment in this story. The choice of angles, choice of lighting and well everything distracted from trying to remember what is the story. Oh, if the songs and dances haven't caused you to rip your ears off your head, first. The film could have been made twice at 1.25 hours, and been pretty good, kinda like "Seven Samurai" but the director and writer didn't go that direction, even if the "townsfolk" finally find their backbone and want to help. This movie fails on so many levels: editing, writing, photography angles, style, lighting, script - name any aspect of this film - it was BAD - probably the food from the caterer was bad too. I have never in 6 years of watching Indian (Bollywood) movies seen something this badly made.


What's happening to RGV? He seems to repeat himself in every movie. Has he run out of creative ideas? If he has, time to take a back seat. Went to see the movie with great anticipation - of course not once did I imagine it would be anywhere near the original. I knew it wouldn't, the promos said it all. But even then I thought it would be a great RGV treat, after all isn't he the same guy who directed Sathya and Company? Or is he? I have my doubts after watching Aag. I am not going to talk about the plot or the story, as most of it is taken from the original, if you are really dying to go and see this one, you could play a fun game with friends: identify the scenes from the original one and give ratings of your own! So Veeru becomes Heero (how corny is that?), guess Heeru wouldn't sound that great. Ajay Devgan is quite a disaster as Heero, the comedy is strained and the slurred talk that really was effective in Company sounds fake. The chemistry between Heero and Gunghroo (Nisha Kothari) doesn't exists at all. In fact the more charming Nisha tries to be the more irritating she becomes. This reaches a peak by the end. Raj is in fact not bad as compared to the others, he is a guy to watch in the future. I was really disappointed with Amitabh Bachchan as Babban, he looks like a caricature of Gabbar Singh. There is a scene where he is drinking something from a bowl all covered in a shawl, instead of inspiring fear he looks like a beggar with his bowl. The only performance that really stood out was Mohan Lal as Inspector Narasimha. I am afraid I don't have the patience to write more.


i saw the film and i got screwed, because the film was foolish and boring. i thought ram gopal varma will justify his work but unfortunately he failed and the whole film got spoiled and they spoiled "sholay". the cast and crew was bad. the whole theater slept while watching the movie some people ran away in the middle. amithab bachan's acting is poor, i thought this movie will be greatest hit of the year but this film will be the greatest flop of the year,sure. nobody did justice to their work, including Ajay devagan. this film don't deserve any audiences. i bet that this film will flop.

"FINALLY THIS MOVIE SUCKS"


this is the first time I'm writing a comment on a movie on IMDb. but i had to write it for this one. its 3 hrs of unadulterated torture. from the starting u get the idea that the movie is gonna be bad. the acting is pathetic. I'm a big fan of Ajay devgan (loved him in bhagat singh) but he is at his worst in this movie. amitabh seems to have worked hard for this one, but somehow the fear is missing. prashant raj is a non actor. and the most irritating part of the movie is nisha kothari. i have no clue why the director took her in this movie. the background score is repetitive. somehow i felt that ramu tried to repeat a sarkar, the color theme, the background score, the camera angles, but it didn't work. PLEASE Don't WATCH IT


This film was absolutely...ugh i can't find the word oh wait... crap! I mean when it started i was like yeah this looks good and then after it was so boring. I nearly fell asleep and it had nothing to do with the fact that i caught a late showing because it was utter filth. Ram Gopal Varma has tried his best but the cast could never live up to the cast of the original Sholay i mean what was he thinking doing a remake. What was he trying to do? Be like Sanjay Leeli Bhansani and win all the awards next year like he did for Black? Ajay and that other guy were good especially the other guy who played raj because out of all of them he was the one to look at. What was Amitabh doing? He's destroying his own dignity by doing all these stupid films. First Nishabd then Cheeni Kum then Jhoom Barabar Jhoom and now this i mean hes got to gather a bit of his money and move as far away from Bollywood as possible before he loses all his respect and I'm telling you he's already past half his way. I mean all this is really good for the other actors like Shah Rukh Khan who's getting a really good name now because of the recent downfall of Amitabh. I never really liked him because he thinks he's God and i just knew Abhishek was going to be in that movie.

If you want to save your £17.75 and spend it on something good go watch Heyy Babyy because that's just the funniest movie ever and it's number one in the charts!


First of all sorry for giving even a rating of 1 to this movie (nothing less than this available). The film fails in every department be it screenplay, direction, characterization or acting.

1) To start with, the name of the movie is really C class (though the movie itself match up to the name). 2) Amitabh Bachchan tries his best to live up to the character but the weak script coupled with pathetic direction ends up making him a humorous character. 3) In Sholay Gabbar Singh has reward of 50,000 on him (which was convincing). Here in Aag the figure was 100 crores for Babban (Amitabh Bachchan but poor man was beaten by our so called hero's and had only few men bikes to commute (with all automatic guns). Making a Sholay like movie in Mumbai type setup in modern time doesn't look convincing. 4) As for Nisha Kothari, somebody needs to tell her that she doesn't know acting. Why is Ram Gopal Verma casting her again and again ? 5) Mohanlal was good but there is hardly anything for him to do. 6) Sushant Singh and Rajpal Yadav who are great actors are wasted in the movie. 7) Legendry role played by Lila Misra (Mausi of Basanti) in Sholay is replaced cheaply in this movie by some Gangu Mummy. Ramu please grow up and understand that there needs to be some intellect in your movie. Enough of stupid characters in your movie like Shiva and Aag. 8) Should not say anything about modern Jai and Veeru..pathetic to the greatest extent.

To summarize, I was shocked to see this movie because it looks like a cheap and comic translation of original classic. Please don't waste money and time on this movie. I think watching Aap Ka Surror (which I thought was the worst movie possible) would be a better idea than to see this horrible package of stupid characters, bad songs and miserable direction.

Thanks, Saurabh


I, like many other Bachchan fans, having been eagerly awaiting the remake of Sholay. This movie was not it. Thank god they didn't let them use the name "Sholay" in the movie title. Ram Gopal's remake is not worthy of the title. The camera work, the locations, the costumes, the totally out-of-place dancing, the dialogue all combined to make the worst movie I have ever seen. You wonder if the cast of actors agreed to make this movie because they needed money and Ram Gopal was paying a lot of money for the cast. The only non-paid actor, the ant, was the only resemblance to the first movie. Abishek's role was totally ridiculous, did he need money to pay for the wedding to Ash? Save your money, your mind and your time, don't bother with this movie or the DVD when that comes out.


Something somewhere must have terribly gone wrong right at the time when the director was perceiving this plot. The movie, that was supposed to be the remake of one of the most loved movies in cinema, fails to deliver in every aspect of movie making. The best of the artists could also not pick up the tuning, that simply goes on to show that the movie in itself was a grave mistake.

The editing is poor. Direction is crap. Acting is out of this world(omg)! The characters who are supposed to look scary force people to laugh on the stupidity of their dialogues and costumes.

I wouldn't watch the movie even if someone paid me the cost of the tickets or even gave me a free burger with it.


I can't come up with appropriate enough words to describe the horror I felt sitting in that cinema watching Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, the director's half-hearted attempt to pay tribute to that classic Bollywood western, Sholay. The biggest problem with Varma's remake is that he doesn't even try to make a credible film. It's evident in every single frame of this movie that Varma's heart is just not in it. What you see on screen is a bad joke at best, a gimmick on the part of the filmmaker, and it pains you to see what little regard he actually shows for a film he claims he's been a fan of all his life.I've seen several bad films over the years, but I can't remember one that's been as much of a torture to sit through as this one. Consider yourself very brave if you're able to survive the entire film, because it tests your patience like few films have before.Varma may borrow his plot and characters from the original film, but his version is trite and hollow and doesn't have any of the spirit and energy of Sholay. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is actually a mockery of that timeless gem because it turns out to be everything that the original film was not - way-over-the-top, too-long-too-boring, and entirely mindless. Much-loved moments from Sholay are parodied by Varma and for that you want to wring his neck. One of the most memorable scenes in Sholay in which Dharmendra as Veeru climbs up the watertank and threatens to jump down to his death is turned around in this film with Ajay Devgan playing Hero, pulling a pistol to his head threatening to shoot himself. How you wish he'd pulled the trigger and spared us all the agony.Not only does Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag fail as a remake of Sholay, it's a pretty bad effort even as a stand-alone film. The eardrum-damaging background score sounds more like someone clanging vessels in the kitchen, and the camera-work alternates between dramatic and head-spinning. Partners in this terrible crime of bringing this ridiculous film to screen are the film's mostly dead-as-wood actors. Sushmita Sen as Devi the widow takes both her role and the film too seriously, punctuating her lines with pauses, staring into camera for effect, and generally performing like her life depends upon it. Mohanlal as Narsimha, struggles with his Hindi dialogue and looks embarrassed to be delivering some of the stupidest lines in his illustrious career. Newcomer Prashant Raj playing Jai-equivalent Raj has no acting chops to speak of and can't strum up any of the brooding intensity Amitabh Bachchan brought to the part in the original film.As Hero, the new-age Veeru, Ajay Devgan is entirely hopeless, failing miserably in his attempts at comedy. But the film's weakest link, easily the most shocking casting decision is Nisha Kothari as Ghunghroo, who steps into the shoes of Hema Malini as Basanti, the endearing airhead from Sholay. Nisha Kothari is not only the worst actress in this country, but possibly the worst actress in this whole wide world, she gives the word annoying a whole new meaning, and she makes you want to slit your wrists every time she's on screen. And then, there is Amitabh Bachchan playing Babban Singh, Ramgopal Varma's version of Hindi cinema's most popular villain Gabbar Singh. The only actor in this ensemble who recognises the film's over-the-top tone and plays along accordingly, Bachchan constructs a menacing character who is a treat to watch. He's meant to be a comic book villain who snarls and sneers and hisses and hams, and he does all of that to good effect. But because he's trapped in such a doomed enterprise, his performance doesn't really help elevate the film in any way.No surprises here, I'm going with zero out of ten and two thumbs down for Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag, it one's of those painful movie-watching experiences you wouldn't subject even an enemy to. It's not like Varma hasn't handled a remake before. With Sarkar he gave us a smart, gripping take on The Godfather, and it's a pity he's made this Sholay bhature out of such a much-loved classic. Ramgopal Varma Ki Aag is his worst career decision ever, it's also a dark spot on his resume he'll be embarrassed of forever. I suspect this film will go down in movie history as Ramgopal Varma Ka Daag.


This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen in the cinema!! Could not wait for it to end. To make matters worse it is given a 12A certificate so you do not see anyone getting shot, just bodies slumping to the ground, even Babban getting killed was cut out!!! Too many scenes were cut to bring in the younger viewers as I think the makers knew it would flop disastrously!! Amitabhs acting was great but that 'Basanti' wannabe and the other idiot who plays Devgans mate can't even act. Devgan was wasted!!

I would not watch this for free again and I advise all others who read this to do just the same YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!


OVERALL PERFORMANCE :- At last the long waiting AAG hits the screens. Unfortunately, it couldn't set progressive fire in the audience. The first best thing to talk about the movie is The idea of remaking the mighty SHOLAY. And Varma made a nice choice of changing the total backdrop of the movie. If he repeated the same Ramghad backdrop, people will again say there is nothing new in this. Different background is appreciative but the way he presented it is not worthy. Right from the start of his career with SIVA in Telugu, he had been using the same lighting and kind of background. I seriously dunno this guy Varma considers about lighting or not or may be he has no other lighting technique other than like gordon willis GODFATHER. It's all DUTCH DUTCH DUTCH DUTCH. Why would some body use so many Dutch angles and extreme closeup shots!!!!!!! The shot division is lame. Characters couldn't carry an emotion, performances are not to their mark, Storytelling is worse, Background is really really terrible.

Babban:- Amitabhz been over prioritized to his job. VARMA produced great villains like Bikumatre, Bhavtakur Das, Mallik Bhai but this time he failed in carving the all time best characters of Hindi Cinema. There's no comparison of Gabbar with Babban. Babban is a more psycho rather than a villain, still he has a soft corner for his brother ( It's a gift in this movie). Amitabhz performance is not to his mark. His appearance itself is pathetic. The scar on his nose, symbolizes forgotten villains of black and white cinema. What ever they worked on Babban is not successful. Babban is no comparison with Gabbar.

Narsimha:- The first best thing about this character is not to put audience in suspense about his hands. If varma did that , it would be like teaching ABCD to a Bachelor degree holder. Itz good he opened the secret early. But the flashback is pathetic. Varma couldn't use a great actor like mohanlal to his mark.

Durga:- The only character with betterment. This character has been improved with satisfactory changes and was used according to the story.

Heroo, Raj, Ghunguroo:- No body bothers or at least considers these character. The utter failure of movie starts when director could not work on the close friendship between our heroz. These characters carry nothing to this movie.

RAMGOPALVARMA:- His quality is degrading, diminishing. AAG totally can be treated as a C grade movie. Sholay is a fire of revenge, problem of a town, meaning for true friendship and highly appreciated nuisance and fun by Dharmendra. AAG never carried an emotion with its characters. Storytelling is too weak that it could not make audience feel sympathy for the characters. Don't compare AAG with sholay, still u will not like it.

If you dare watch this movie. You will be burnt alive in RAMGOPAL VARMA KI AAG


Truly shows that hype is not everything. Shows by and by what a crappy actor abhishek is and is only getting movies because of his dad and his wife. Amitabh as always is solid. Ajay Devgan as always is shitty and useless and the new guy is a joke. The leading lady is such a waste of an actor. Such pathetic movie from such a revered director and from such a big industry. With movies as such I have decreased the amount of bollywood movies I watch.

RGV has been making very crappy movies for a while now. Time to get different actors. Hrithek anyone? Bollywood needs Madhuri and Kajol back. Every other leading lady is a half-naked wanna be. Pffffft.


I must tell you right up front, I am certainly NOT an authority on Bollywood films and have only seen a handful. However, if you've never seen one, DON'T start with this one! I have greatly enjoyed the ones I've seen up until this one, but I just couldn't stand this one. I also must tell you up front that I could not finish this film--it was that annoying. So why was it so annoying?

1. There is a character named 'Rambha' in the film. He is even more annoying than Jar-Jar Binks--which I never would have believed would have been possible. He is so #@^!# annoying!! He spoke in a falsetto voice and I think was meant to be comic relief. Instead, he just grated on my nerves and wanted him to die...slowly! His voice, his mannerisms and his obnoxiousness--he just didn't seem to shut up and dominated every scene he was in--and he needed to die!

2. The heroes had the amazing ability to dodge AK-47 bullets with ease. I kid you not--there was a scene where several unarmed guys took on a small army of guys with these assault rifles!! And, again and again, they avoided taking a single bullet AND beat up the ruffians!!! This made Stallone's actions in "Rambo II" look mundane!!

3. The film was so gosh-darn loud, in your face and intense--it practically made my brain bleed!! It was as if the film were made by people under the influence of meth!! Crazy camera angles, INTENSE music and action, action, action...this movie is clearly designed for someone who can't take a movie with plot and wants nearly 100% action.

4. The two main characters and their actions and motivations made zero sense...none whatsoever!

Perhaps if you are the most ardent action and Bollywood fan you can stand this film, but as for me I can see why it's on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list. Wow...this film is bad AND intensely bad!!


Once in a while in Indian cinema there comes along a movie like Sholay that changes the way the audience perceives a good movie. And den just once in a while(hopefully) we have a RGV ki Aag that breaks all the standards and creates one of its own. A standard so low, it can never be broken. Ram Gopal varma manages to take a melting pot of talent and create a dish so stale u can smell it from a distance. To take a classic like Sholay and assassinate it is totally unforgivable and I can't believe he almost called the movie RGV ki Sholay. Although Sholay had a lot of folklore elements in it, the movie managed to build on its plot by merely defining the characters so distinctively that they lived on forever. What Aag does is take these characters and mess them up so badly u'll need a contest to pick the worst. The realism element is totally missing and what the movie ends up providing is a bunch of "actors" parading along in a plot less and seemingly unrelated set of events. One star for this film is a ridiculous waste of a vote. its time for RGV to wake up to the reality of his failure and conjure up another "different" plot that can be categorized under cinema.


Sholay: Considered to be one of the greatest films. I always wondered if they would ever remake being the classic it is. That was the time RGV announced this movie and I was somewhat excited to see it. I always thought that maybe this will be a good movie, but every week we would here RGV change something. And the movie is a very B-Grade movie, something that I had not hoped.

I really tried looking for positives, but I promised to keep Sholay out of my mind. The cinematography is awesome. The movie tries to be its own. But that is the up side. The action sequences are weak. The screenplay had potential. The biggest flaw is editing. None of the scenes excite you. For example, the comedy sequences felt very out of place and forced. Ironic because comedy was just as entertaining in the original. And none of the characters are developed. And no scenes will linger until the end. And the ending was very disappointing.

The biggest question is acting. Amitabh Bachchan was good as Gabbar Singh, nothing great. It seemed as if they concentrated too much on his look, that the character only looks menacing, but you don't get creeped out. Mohanlal is barely in the movie, but he impresses in his few scenes. Ajay Devgan was decent. It wasn't so much the performance, he gave it his all, it was the weak script. Prashant Raj is very confident, and has potential to make it far with better movies.

I had most expectations for Sushmita Sen, who was probably the best of the lot. She was expressive, but this still was not enough. Nisha Kothari surprised me. She seemed disinterested for the most part, but her emotional scene after her friend's death was quite good. Seems as if she needs to find a director who will help her talent, not her cute looks. But what disappointed me most was chemistry. Ajay Devgan and Prashant Raj didn't look like friends. Ajay-Nisha were not a strong couple. No passion was to be found between Sushmita and Prashant. And Amitabh and Mohanlal did not the hateful passion they needed.

As for songs, they pretty much suck. Urmila's Mehbooba was too overblown and I pretty much slept through it. It was however nicely danced. The Holi number was enjoyable, but not memorable. Same went for the other songs. For someone who looked forward to this movie, I was heavily disappointed. I had high hopes for RGV because of his Jungle, but seems as if he lost his talent during the shooting of this movie. But hopefully he regains his talent for Sarkar Raj. But this movie is best forgotten. All the positives still do not make up for the boring movie it is.


Iam a Big fan of Mr Ram Gopal Varma but i could not believe that he made this movie. i was really disappointed.

Ram Gopal Varma Ki Aag doesn't come anywhere close to the real Sholay. It does not leave a lasting impression on a viewer. Ram Gopal Varma fails to create chemistry between the characters . There is no camaraderie between Heero(Ajay Devgan) and Raj(Prashant raj). There are hardly any scenes with more than two people in the frame together. The sequence outside the courtroom with Amitabh Bachchan and Mohanlal face off is remarkable. Amitabh Bachchan should not have done this movie. Ajay and Sushmita sen was trying their best but no use. Rajpal Yadav's voice modulation - ineffective and rather pointless. Mohanlal did full justice and proved it again that acting is all about facial expression and body language. Rest of the cast was below expectation. The comedy situation which was adapted from the original sholay fall flat in this movie.

Ram Gopal Varma could have worked upon the script but because of the controversies surrounded against the movie he messed up and just for the sake of making he made this Aag. But there is no fire.


I downloaded this movie yesterday through an internet site the Quality was kinda good! I was watching the movie with high expectations (though i knew it was a flop), especially as the film has superstar Amitabh Bachchan playing the role of a villain.I though at least actors like him would have done some worth to their roles.But unfortunately Mr Bachchan failed to impress as villain this proved that nobody can compete AMJAD KHAN's magic Rgv's trial to re-kindle the past backfired royally! Sholay, the old one is a milestone in Indian cinema with an all-star cast, cult dialogue, stylish cinematography and a brilliant soundtrack which is still a hit with present generations too.A good actor like Ajay Devgan's TALENTS ARE wasted and his performance was average.Prashant Raj, a newcomer doesn't know what acting is . Nisha Kothari proved she is one of the worst actresses we have I don't know how she is still in RGV's crew Urmila & Abhishek seen in a song with no excitement and passion Mohanlal tried his best and Susmitha Sen's work was good i somehow liked her work in this movie It was a Total carnage of the original Sholay


In a variant of Sholay , Ram Gopal Verma ventures into what can be called an unknown territory where the blockbuster takes a new shape. The Thakur goes south.Mohanlal as Narsimha the police inspector whose family has been killed seeks vengeance Madrasi style. The accent is totally South Indian in contrast to Thakur from the north. The severing of the hands of Thakur by Gabbar is also cut down to the fingers in Aag. So make up costs are cut down because there is no effort to hide the hands instead only a long shouldered Kurta covers up for the cut fingers. Moreso in the climax where the Thakur uses his legs and says"Tere Liye to mere paer hi kaafi hai" here Narsimha uses his finger stubs to fire a gun and kill the villain. Babban, the new avtar of gabbar is also different. He is not from Bihar or UP. He is Bambaiya. Gabbar's infamous laugh is also in two instalments this time and is more subdued. Babban asks for Diwali instead of Holi and romances Urmila the replacement of Helen in Mehbooba. he also dances and enjoys dancing with Abhisheh who plays Jalal Agha in Mehbooba.Babban is more intelligent this time. He tosses the apple and asks the question that made Isaac Newton discover laws of gravitation. Basanti is more verbose than the Auto driver Ghungroo. Nisha Kothari cannot play the auto driver and looks too artificial using words like 'entertain' and 'too much' with gay abandon. Viru was fun whereas Ajay Devgun is a misfit for the role. The God Speaks to Basanti incident and the shooting lessons and the Koi Haseena song and the water tank sequences are painful. The water tank turns into a well and the drunk Devgun is so bad in the sequence that the audience would have wanted him to commit suicide. Jai was composed and serious. Prashant Raj is better than the others because we do not expect anything from him. But he also bungles on the Mausi sequence. He is not as romantic as Jai with the mouth organ . Jaya's role played by Sushmita changes careers. A pure housewife turns into a doctor this time plunging into full time social service after her husband is killed. She too lacks the pain that Jaya displayed. Her flirtations with Jai are more open this time. Samba gets a bigger role this time as Tambe. He does not have to point guns and answer questions of Gabbar this time. He follows Babban wherever he goes and is a bodyguard with more visibility outside the den. Horses give way to Jeeps and auto. The Gabbar's hideout here keeps changing and Ramgarh becomes Kaliganj. All in all it is more of a spoof than anything else. RGV comes up with his own interpretation of the classic. But we remember the original so well even after three decades that our minds refuse to accept stylized versions and changed dialogues. So we call it a spoof. So Mr.RGV(Sholay ) and Farhan Akhtar (Don) and JPDutta(Umrao jaan) stop making remixes and start making originals.


This movie should not be watched as it was meant to be a flop. Ram Gopal Verma first wanted to make this a remake of classic bollywood movie "Sholay", but after having problems with the original makers decided to go ahead with the project and... i guess leave all the good parts of the movie (acting, script, songs, music, comedy, action etc) out and shoot the movie just because he already happen to hire the crew. Waste of money, waste of time. After making movies like Rangeela, Satya, and Company he pulled a Coppola (Godfather) on us; What were you thinking RGV? Anyways, the story is, though hard to follow, is almost like the Old sholay. Ajay Devgan playing Heero (Beeru, sholay) and Ajay, new kid on the block playing Ajay (Jay,sholay). Both "bad yet funny" friends help a cop capture a bad guy first. Later in the movie, now Retired cop hires them as personal security and safeguarding from the hands of a very most wanted Bubban played by Amitabh Bachan. In case you haven't been watching Bollywood movies, the Good guys win in the end. There I just saved you 3 precious hours of your life!


I cannot say that Aag is the worst Bollywood film ever made, because I haven't seen every Bollywood film, but my imagination tells me that it could well be.

This film seems like an attempt at artistic suicide on behalf of the director, and I for one be believe he has been successful in his mission. No A-list actor outside of this film would risk sharing the same billing as him for all the humiliation this film is bound to carry with it.

But lets not just blame the director here, there is the cinematographer, who looks like he's rehearsing for the amateur home movie maker of the year award. There is the over dramatic score, that hopes to carry you to the next scene. The lighting man, who must have been holding a cigarette in one hand and light bulb on pole in the other, and hoping that the flame burning off the cigarette would add to that much needed light in every scene. And, of course the actors! Some of them are by no means newcomers, else all could be forgiven here. The ensemble of actors in Aag were put together to promote a new beginning and dimension to the re-make of India's most loved movie of all time, 'Sholay'. One must not forget that these actors were not forced in to this film, they are A-list and willing participants to something that, let's face it would surely have had high and eager public expectation??? So it begs the question, Amitabh aside (for now), did the other actors really believe their performances even attempted to better the original? Did Amitabh Bachchan read the script and believe that people would remember his dialogue in this farcical abomination of a film? Don't be stupid, of course he didn't, this was a demonstration to the public of how much money talks hence can make actors walk.

I truly hope everyone involved is satisfied with what is truly a vulgar attempt to remake a classic film, which only succeeds in polluting everyone's mind when they watch the original.


its a gem movie if anyone who hasn't seen movie sholey he cant understand what is going on there. a thakur call men for catching a big terrorist who is like god and even police don't know abut him but these ppl do.

biggest advantage of film is its speed u never know what is going on and the part is completed. actors are at there best of worst acting and actress is here for time-pass of songs. and what u cant forget is the cool dialouge which seems to come in very long time but u cant understand them so easily try hard for that and last word i haven't seen movie complete due to a brain roast so plz tell me ditz end if it have


Not as bad as some are making it out to be, though obviously pathetic compared to the original. In my opinion Amitabh was great as the villain Babban Singh - try not to compare to Gabbar in the original as they were clearly not going for the same effect. Other than some mediocre action scenes however, the rest of the film is flawed. Character development was poor and the development of the story was hopeless, with many loopholes, and missing pieces of information which i wouldn't have known if i hadn't read the back of the DVD case. The worst part of the movie was the support roles from Nisha Kothari and especially this new dude called Prashant Raj. Nisha is just plain annoying from the time her lips first open. As for Prashant Raj - seriously who is this guy? where is he from and why on earth was he present in the film studio for anything other than to serve drinks?. His acting ability is zero and he has the same tone, dialog delivery and staunch expression in every scene, whether it be action, comedy, or even a scene when someone has just died. Ajay Devgan was average, at least his expressions changed which is more than i can say for his mistake of a companion. overall, RGV's Aag is worth watching for Amitabh's solid performance, and also a very sexy Urmilla Matondkar in a special appearance.


Please Don't hate me but i have to be honest, watching this movie, i had a lot of fun,,

It's a Movie with a Stupid Cast and Stupid Songs!!!

Unnecessary songs!!! Mehbooba... A Total Insult to the Original One Holi.... well.. it was OK! due to the Tradition Every Movie got to have one!! Chad Raha hai Nasha Whatever... Very UNNEEDED stupid Song jee Le... Sounded like a Playboy Song Stupid Song...

Other than Songs. The Movie was OK This was Ram Gopal Verma's Own Adaptation... If you think like that you will like this movie

Well this movie only Depends on the Viewer and on his judgement whether he/she thinks this movie is total Copy He/She would want to hit her Head on the Cinema Seat OR if he/She Thinks of the Directors Own Look he/she would be relaxed and take a look at this movie

Anyways I looked at both ways i would Congratulate and Abuse Ram Gopal for this Disaster that he made...

Well Some other Things that bothered that The CAST was Incredibly Bad

Amitabh Bachchan As Babban/Gabbar (Amitabh in his own Movie Remake Funny what was the Director Thinking) Ajay Devgan As Heero/Veeru(Bobby Deol Could have been Better) Prashant Raj As Raj/Jai(Abhishek was Meant for this role Despite doing a Special Appearance in the Mehbooba song) Sushmita Sen As Radha/Durga(Jaya Bachchan was Right Tabu was Right for this Role) Nisha Kothari As Ghungroo/Basanti(I think Esha Deol would have been Great) Mohanlal As Narishma/Thakur(Mohanlal Is So Cute....Oops Sorry hehehehe, He Was OK I could not Think of anyone)

The Movie would have Even FAIRED a LIttle if the Cast was OK

I movie wasn't even exciting, the movie was just OK , Just for watching

The Overall Rating

Direction... 8/10 I Got to him some credit Cinematography... 9/10 Script... 3/10 BAD Scripting Songs... 5/10 Unnecessary in the Movie, could have been better, Easy on the Ears on to be played in PC's and IPod's and Stuff Cast... 1/10

Total ... 3/10

Syed Shabbir Aly Naqvi from Pakistan


Designed only to annoy (or amuse) any self-respecting intelligent person. If the director's intention had been for the viewer to dislike the title character, then it would have been okay, but I know that there is no such thing as a Hollywood director who'd make a critique of America's pro-Marxist 60s movement, especially not a filmmaker from the 70s. There is so much idiotic dialog going on here, that sometimes I wondered if I wasn't actually watching a comedy. You wouldn't be at fault for thinking that this is a satire  that's how naïve the movie appears. Spacek has been in her share of Leftist movies which brings me to the obvious, inescapable conclusion that the redhead hick is one of those Hollywood liberal morons. But, I mean, aren't they all? Nice boobs, but s**t for brains.


The first one was the best. The second one sucked because the dialog was terrible. Although, the storyline wasn't so bad (in fact, all story lines are good and bad). Throughout the movie, I dosed off a few times. I know that Jackie Chan is a great martial arts expertise, but not a good actor in Rush Hour 2. Chris Tucker, too, wasn't good. And Zhang Ziyi, what can I say, a few lines, terrible acting (But that's based on her script). All the characters there were not that good. But, some of the things I like in Rush Hour 2 is always the action and less sex scenes. I know that Jackie Chan doesn't do those things which is good for him.


"Jason Priestly stars as 'Breakfast', a psychotic jewelry store thief whose grip on reality is frighteningly precarious, according to the DVD sleeve, "With his accomplice 'Panda' (Bernie Coulson), the duo make off with a carload of cash, a result of a tip-off from beautiful cashier 'Ziggy' (Laura Harris). Her reward: to hitch a ride with the out-of-control duo so that she can meet her long-lost father Francis (Stephen McHattie). But he's on a suicidal quest to even a score with his former boss (Louis Gossett, Jr.) and has the cops hot on his trail. Rage, murder and revenge are about to collide!" Stay out of their way!

*** The Highwayman (4/28/00) Keoni Waxman ~ Jason Priestly, Laura Harris, Stephen McHattie


For the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would make a movie like this. The plot is tired, the acting is strained, the language is consistently foul and at times the over use of the "F" word seemed like a lack of dialog was prevalent so 'let's throw in another couple of "F's" for good measure, that's what the American public wants to hear'. Gossett was particularly foul and seemed to enjoy his part. Forget this c__p, rent 'Shrek" and have a good laugh.


I can see why Laurel and Hardy purists might be offended by this rather gentle 're-enactment', but this film would be an excellent way to introduce children to the pleasures of classic L & H. Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain acquit themselves reasonably as the comedy duo and there's a reasonably good supporting cast. I enjoyed it.


Yowza! If anyone who loves Laurel and Hardy can watch this movie and feel good about it, you're a better person than me! This movie, while a great attempt at 'imitating' Laurel and Hardy through appearance, sound and routine, falls very short of honoring them, or even being a movie of any substance. I blame Larry Harmon. Dialogue is torn from old L+H movies and planted in unrealistically, the plot is muddled with useless characterization of the other needless co-stars, Pinchot's accent was bizarre for Stan, and while Sartain did an excellent job with Ollie's accent, he tried too hard to create the wonderful mix that was Mr. Hardy. Where was a (good) musical number? Editing is choppy, acting is stiff, lines are horrid, physics are -implausable- (although perhaps they were TRYING to give it that feel of cheap sets?), and overall it's a terrible thing to witness. It's even more painful to watch than ATOLL K, where the legendary duo did their last film in awful 1950's era writing and photography. Do yourself a favor and watch as much of the ORIGINAL Laurel and Hardy films as you can, and learn how things WERE. You know what a MAGNATE is, don't you? Stan Laurel did not perpetually reply with semi-moronic quips at every sentence.

I pity anyone who thinks that THIS was a decent update/honor of the boys. Where was THE CLASSIC THEME SONG?!? Why ruin 'Here's another fine mess'? Why skip 'any the wiser'? Why was there a pointless gaggle of co-stars?! WHY MISS GULCH FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ???? WHY MUST LARRY HARMON BE IN IT? WHY BOZO!? And did THE LEARNING CHANNEL help fund the thing?

I mean, really. Fart jokes, for God's sake.

FART JOKES.


Who was George C. Scott? George C. Scott was a renowned actor. Practically any movie that he's been in is the better off for it. Now ol' George had absolutely NOTHING to do with this movie..., but he once said something that describes said movie to a T.

I don't recall his exact words, but he basically said that Great Writing can Save Bad Acting, But Great Acting CanNOT save Bad Writing. Never has this little observation been truer than in "The All New Adventures of Laurel & Hardy: For Love or Mummy".

The casting of the two leads was absolutely perfect. Bronson Pinchot (Laurel) and Gailard Sartain (Hardy) not only look the parts, but they do an exceptionally good job at mimicking the real deal (mannerisms and all). This movie should stand as a lasting testament to their talents. That said, this movie falls flat on its face when it comes to (you guessed it) WRITING.

Aside from the opening dialogue between Pinchot and Sartain (which was very "in character") and a brief gag involving a taxi, this movie is an absolute chore to sit through.

PROBLEM # 1: Too much time and effort went into the plot.

I don't want to know why the mummy wants to kidnap the pretty British lady. What I WANT is to see Stan and Ollie (or at least, their stand-ins). Way too much screen time was devoted to explaining the plot or to the not-very-funny secondary characters that said plot revolved around.

However, even if this movie had been all jokes, that would still leave us with...

...PROBLEM # 2: Most of the jokes are what I would call "watered-down" slapstick.

What do I mean by "watered down"?

In slapstick, a character gets hurt in an exaggerated way for comedic effect (ala Looney Tunes, 3 Stooges...,or how about Laurel & Hardy?).

In "watered-down" slapstick (as I define it), a character gets mildly hurt or inconvenienced, and the filmmakers play that up for comedic effect.

Maybe an illustration would help:

In Looney Tunes, Daffy Duck gets shot by Elmer Fudd. His bill falls off and he puts it back on. That is classic slapstick.

In this "gem", Ollie accidentally bumps into some people. They turn around, tell him to be careful, and continue on their merry way. That's not slapstick. That's not even funny. That's just...boring...and this movie is full of these kinds of jokes. It's as though they're this movie's bread and butter. The writers and directors just take these dull moments and act like they're supposed to be funny. Granted, the example I just gave is the most extreme case, but I can only cut it so much slack.

Long story short: The film just doesn't work because the script fails to capitalize on Pinchot's and Sartain's abilities to impersonate Stan and Ollie. Instead, the script capitalizes on plot exposition and lame jokes. Watching this movie is basically watching two excellent impersonators who were given no real material to work with.

Not a good movie, but an incredible sleeping aid.

I say give this one a miss and stick with the real deal (just so long as you steer clear of "Atoll K" and "Be Big").


This "film" is a travesty. No, wait--an abomination. NO, WAIT--this is without a doubt the absolute WORST film ever made featuring beloved characters created and established by other actors.

I thought "Inspector Clouseau" with Alan Arkin (!) instead of Peter Sellers was ludicrous and sacrilegious, but even daring to "remake" Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy is asinine and money grubbing.

Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy have been dead, respectively, since 1957 and 1965. Why anyone would even begin to imagine that suitable updates for L & H would be in the persona of Bronson Pinchot and Gailard Sartain is beyond me. I tuned in fully expecting to be horrified and embarrassed and I certainly wasn't disappointed. Everyone involved in this pathetic, moronic, disgrace should be blackballed from anything and everything associated with Hollywood and film-making. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS--YOU HAVE BEEN DULY WARNED.


This is far worse than those awful Laurel and Hardy cartoons of the 60s. They were terrible, but at least they were simple ripoffs of a then Stan and Ollie resurgence. New audiences had rediscovered the pair's comedic genius and the cartoons were mind-numbing garbage geared to cash in on children's interest. It was to be expected. But, how does one even attempt to rationalize this work of... I can't even think of a word. I'm sure the makers hoped it would somehow inspire another Laurel and Hardy revival, but you can't inspire interest in the past with a shallow and unfunny caricature of what made the original so appealing. The impressionists (I hesitate to call them actors) do a Vegas act and that's where it belongs. The plot is even flimsier than those used in the old days, trying to stretch out two-reel ideas for a feature. If this film was someone's first exposure to the REAL Laurel and Hardy, I'm sure that viewer would dismiss the original duo's reputation as senility gone amok. The only movie I hate worse than this is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. And, you know, these filmmmakers basically did the same thing to Stan and Ollie.


This is the kind of film one watches in gape-jawed, horrified silence, and yet continues to watch, mesmerized, as if watching a train wreck in slow motion. And yet, in the back of your mind, thoughts are churning: "Who on EARTH green-lighted this garbage?"

Some of the preceding user comments say things like, "A good way to introduce children to Laurel and Hardy" -- an insult to children everywhere. That children would need some sort of training plan to learn to love slapstick comedy shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of children the world over. Others have commented on the faithfulness of the two stars' characterizations of Laurel and Hardy to which I would respond: so WHAT? One would think that the rash of movie BOMBS based on beloved series (Rocky and Bullwinkle, Avengers, Flipper, Mod Squad, ad nauseam) would have taught Hollywood that there are some things that simply can't be recreated. The films of Laurel and Hardy are readily available on video: why bother with this?

As for F. Murray Abraham, a fine actor of stage and screen... well, all I can say is, he must have been in trouble with the IRS.

Run, don't walk, away from the television if this trash comes on!


I put this movie on in the hotel room to entertain my children the morning we were leaving to go home, because I had packed away all their toys. (Toddlers don't like to watch "Regis and KAthie Lee" or "The View.") My four year old found one scene funny, but told me the rest of it was "too silly." This is a FOUR YEAR OLD, folks. Anyone over the age of, say, nine will want to kill their television rather than let this one play itself out.

To say this movie is bad is like saying the Holocaust was a little mistake. There are no words for how ridiculous and utterly terrible this "film" truly is. The acting is bad, the plot is stupid, and the script is pathetically unfunny. Since this is supposed to be a comedy, the fact that you cannot even laugh at the badness of the movie makes it even worse. Bronson "Balki" Pinchot is the worst with some weird fake accent (Irish-Pakistani-Bronx-Cockney-Cajun as far as I could tell), but all the characters are awful. I haven't watched a real Laurel and Hardy film in ages, but I KNOW that they HAD to be way better than this. What is the point of ruining a classic comic duo with... this?

Bottom line: derivative garbage. Avoid at all costs unless you have some freaky Bronson Pinchot fetish. 2/10


I have seen most, if not all of the Laurel & Hardy classic films. I have always enjoyed there comical stupidly, even after watching it over and over again. This new film attempts to bring back the classic with two new actors who resemble both Laurel & Hardy, however fails miserably for various reasons. One of which is how out of place their cloths are (still early 20th century) however are both portrayed in the 90's setting. Some of the former dialogue was brought back, however it also fails miserably to come close to the classic series. This film could very well be the worst film I have ever seen and should be pulled off the shelf and locked away forever. The real Laurel & Hardy are surly spinning in their graves at such a bad imitation.


Even if it were remotely funny, this mouldy waxwork of a film would still be soberingly disrespectful. Stopping just short of digging up the boys' corpses and re-enacting 'Weekend At Bernie's'  but only just  producer Larry Harmon and the director of the frickin' 'Ernest' films use holding the copyright as an excuse to crap all over Stan and Ollie's legacy. Gailard Sartain does a fair Ollie impersonation but Bronson Pinchot wouldn't reach tenth place in a Stan lookalike contest; even if they were both spot on the film would be no less detestable. The less said about the surrounding catastrophe the better. Makes 'Utopia' look like a dignified swan song.


Brief summary: This movie demeans everyone it touches. That means you.

First off, let me say I'm not a purist, and this might have been funny for a few minutes. The impersonations are not bad. But overall it's just dull and excruciatingly not funny. A few simple jokes are repeated over and over again.

It's clear that this movies only exists to squeeze the last few dollars out of the now-trademarked Laurel and Hardy. The producers cannot have any real regard for their place in film history, or their talents. This is what offended me the most.

Of course, my daughter liked it, so I'm also a failure as a parent ;)


That's the sound of Stan and Ollie spinning in their graves.

I won't bother listing the fundamental flaws of this movie as they're so obvious they go without saying. Small things, like this being "The All New Adventures of Laurel and Hardy" despite the stars being dead for over thirty years when it was made. Little things like that.

A bad idea would be to have actors playing buffoons whom just happen to be called Laurel and Hardy. As bad as that is, it might have worked. For a really bad idea, try casting two actors to impersonate the duo. Okay, they might claim to be nephews, but the end result is the same.

Bronson Pinchot can be funny. Okay, forget his wacky foreigner "Cousin Larry" schtick in Perfect Strangers, and look at him in True Romance. Here though, he stinks. It's probably not all his fault, and, like the director and the support cast - all of who are better than the material - he was probably just desperate for money. There are those who claim Americans find it difficult to master an effective English accent. This cause is not helped here by Pinchot. What is Stan? Welsh? Iranian? Pakistani? Only in Stan's trademark yelp does he come close, though as the yelp is overdone to the point of tedium that's nothing to write home about. Gailard Sartain does slightly better as Ollie, though it's like saying what's worse - stepping in dog dirt or a kick in the knackers?

Remember the originals with their split-second timing, intuitive teamwork and innate loveability? Well that's absent altogether, replaced with two stupid old men and jokes so mistimed you could park a bus through the gaps. Whereas the originals had plots that could be summed up in a couple of panels, this one has some long-winded Mummy hokum (and what a lousy title!) that's mixed in with the boys' fraternity scenario. I can't claim to have seen every single one of Laurel and Hardy's 108 movies, but I think it's a safe bet that even their nadir was leagues ahead of this.

Maybe the major problem is that the originals were sort-of playing themselves, or at least using their own accents. It at least felt natural and unforced, as opposed to the contrived caricatures Pinchot and Sartain are given. And since when did Stan do malapropisms, and so many at that? "I was gonna give you a standing cremation"; "I would like to marinate my friend." Stop it!

Only notable moment is a reference to Bozo the Clown, the cartoon character who shared Larry Harmon's L & H comic. Harmon of course bought the name copyright (how disconcerting to see a ® after Laurel and Hardy) and was co-director and producer of this travesty.

Questions abound. Would Stan and Ollie do fart gags if they were alive today? Would they glass mummies with broken bottles? Have Stan being smacked in the genitals with a spear and end on a big CGI-finale? Let's hope not.

I did laugh once, but I think that was just in disbelief at how terrible it all is. Why was this film made in the first place? Who did the makers think would like it? Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen, an absolute abhorrence I grew sick of watching after just the first five minutes. About as much fun as having your head trapped in a vice while a red-hot poker and stinging nettles are forcibly inserted up your back passage.


The reviews I read for this movie were pretty decent so I decided to check it out. BAD IDEA! This is another movie about a ghost out for revenge against a group friends. The story is stupid, mix two parts Ringu with one part Prom Night, a sprinkle of I Know what you did Last Summer, and add a tiny dash of Single White Female - now blend until completely nonsensical. There is nothing new to this plot, and revisiting the clichés I've grown so fond of wasn't even entertaining this time. This movie jumps to and from the past too much, and once I made sense of it all I realized it still didn't make much sense. Characters go from sane to psycho killer in the blink of an eye. Speaking of characters, they are all your stereotypical favorites - the greedy selfish lawyer, the egocentric actress, the has-been baseball star, the video voyeur, the bitter girl, the spooky quiet chick, the 'nicer-than-nice' nice girl, a freakin' black cat... and I didn't care about any of them. Perhaps a better writer could have made the movie work, there were some decent scenes in it, but overall this movie was a mess. I should also mention a certain 'video tape' that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to shoot.

This movie isn't the worst Asian horror has to offer by far, but it is still pretty bad. If you just want to see some creepy images in the dark, or just want to laugh out loud at some over the top acting, or just want to yell "you're stupid!" at a movie screen, or just want to have another Asian horror flick up your sleeve when someone asks you how many you've seen - this movie is for you.

Those seeking a decent plot look elsewhere.


I'm afraid that I didn't like this movie very much. Apart from a few saving graces, it's nothing to write home about.

J-horror has boomed for the last five-six years but the films themselves have on more than one account been repetitive and carbon copies of a previous success. This is one of them.

Basically this is a supernatural slasher movie. The beginning is promising with chilling scenes from a morgue where a dead girl has her eyes graphically sewn together, but soon after opens them. However, after that, it's quickly downhill for this flick.

To be kind I will start with the things I like about "Gawi". On the plus side, the visuals are gaudy and the movie looks great for it's type. For those who like their horror movies gory there are a few nicely executed (no pun intended) murder scenes. We also get a few good suspense sequences/set-pieces.

However, there are quite a few drawbacks also...

First of all, and my major complaint about this movie, is that the plot skips and jumps forwards and backwards in time with an alarming intensity. Usually that's not a problem for me, but here, where the students look exactly the same no matter what age they are, I was confused on more than one occasion.

The performances are okay I guess (a little hard to tell when you don't know the language), but seem a little stiff. And for a horror movie, I don't think it was scary enough. For a while I was quite bored actually.

Being a fan of giallo movies, I was expecting quite a lot from "Nightmare", but unfortunately I was quite disappointed.


The following are some of the most blaring problems with this movie: 1) Clichés abound. Seriously, awful "twists" are everywhere.

2) The narrative jumps around in time, which would be fine if done well, but it's not.

3) Lame characters that don't develop so much as either remain utterly static, or drastically change for no good reason.

4) Big one: HORRIBLE ACTING. Over the top from nearly every person.

The following are some of the best points from the movie: 1) The lead is damn good looking.

As I see it, there are only two kinds of people who would be into this movie: a) People who can sit through 90 minutes of tripe simply because the lead is attractive.

b) People who often think to themselves, "I like Hollywood dreck rife with clichés and overacting, but if only I could watch it in Korean..." There's a lot of good Korean cinema out there, so why waste your time with garbage?


We see a body of dead girl in a morgue with the coroner trying to close the eyes of the girl, but whatever he tries they won't stay open. After this we move into the future and we follow a group of former school friends who hide a terrible secret, but suddenly they start getting picked off one by one in many grisly ways. Through flashbacks we learn of this awful suicide of a shy girl who was trying to be one of the group, but she was shut out by them because they dug up her past and found out some weird occurrences. So, is she back from the grave seeking revenge?

Oh what a great and always spooky story! Well, that's what I hoping I could say. And 'hoping' was as good as it got. This is an forgettable, so-so supernatural horror flick that I actually watched before, but I went in thinking it was my first viewing. So to my surprise it hit me when I started picking up on certain things, but like I said it's quite a forgettable mix that it felt like a first viewing again. "Nightmare' is just another type of it's field that adds a 'few' changes to the gruel. Oh, please give me something that's a bit more fresh. It doesn't have to be entirely original, but this is one formulaic and at times quite tired J-horror flick. Even though it strings along the usual ghost story involving you guessed right an evil looking, vengeful chick spirit.

But in spite of my negativity of it being the same old, same old story and jolts. This one kind of entertains when its being grisly and popping in some creepy visuals. The deaths are vividly displayed with bite and some originality. While, the gloomy atmosphere alienates the audience with it's murky lighting. The first scene involving the spirit terrorising one of the girls is one blood-curdling experience, but really when it's not trying to shock you. I found it rather coma inducing and I thought about getting some shut-eye. That might be harsh, but it just didn't go anywhere of any interest between those shock moments. You could say that because the supposed mystery is really not much of one, the unsure story is just simply flat and the characters are a self-centred bunch that you don't really care what happens to them. The disjointed story should have focused more on the spirit than that of these bland characters who have one unconvincing group relationship. It just overplayed its cards by becoming overly muddled and taking too long to get going that when it comes to the climax it's just plain ludicrous. The film's haunting ending is a high point, though.

The film looks fine, although it could have done without the snazzy, quick fire editing and the music score was a bit overbearing in playing up the mood. The performances tread a fine line, but Gyu-ri Kim is strong in the lead role.

It's nothing new and it shamelessly steals ideas, but if you can look past that it delivers some nasty thrills. Although, I found the handling of it rather lethargic, despite the odd effective chills. A standard effort all round I guess, but still it's equally missable.


If you appreciate the renaissance in Asian horror, don't bother with Gawi. The film scarcely deserves mention alongside A-list work such as Ringu, A Tale of Two Sisters, Cure, and Ju-On (or even such good material as The Eye or Inner Senses). Those films brim with subtleties, unexpected imagery, rich characters, and a decidedly non-Western take on what's frightening. Gawi is strung together with the leftover limbs and organs of everything that has made American horror lousy for the past twenty-five years.

The film tries to blend Asian ghost story and Hollywood slasher flick, but it's a bad fit. One aesthetic is bound to smother the other; guess which? Having no story of their own to tell the filmmakers loot Ringu for an evil-child subplot, but the situation is hopeless. Clichés, crap characters, witless plotting, a dull ghost, ho hum.


In reviewing this film I can only go by my experiences as a weekend warrior doing my basic training in July, August, and September of 1971 in that garden spot of the earth, Fort Polk, Louisiana. Take the High Ground was not anything like I remember basic training.

But one has to remember at the time this was post Korea which ended in a stalemate, but it was a conventional war as we knew them. It was not Vietnam, a jungle guerrilla war where we kept pouring draftees into an endless pit. The draft at that time was an unwelcome, but accepted as still necessary for the country's defense.

Richard Widmark is a veteran of Korea now assigned state side to train the troops to go overseas. The film is about one of his training cycles and the men of the platoon he has to train. They're the usual kind you would find in just about any war film from the previous decade.

One thing I will praise Take The High Ground for is the fact that MGM recognized our army was now an integrated one with the presence of William Hazard as a black recruit in the platoon. It was in keeping with the spirit of the times which were a changing.

But I will say that a recruit like Russ Tamblyn would have been cured of his smart mouth from day one. Richard Widmark would have not risked death or becoming a eunuch in order to give Jerome Courtland confidence with a weapon. And no way would have he worried so much about Robert Arthur deserting. He's have just let the MPs deal with him.

Of course being shot in and around Fort Bliss and El Paso, Texas did give Take the High Ground good authenticity. But view it as an army recruiting film and you can certainly understand why the government so eagerly gave cooperation back in the day.

I do remember the drill sergeants having their little conflicts which you could pick up on when you weren't worried about them getting on your case for something which was 95% of the time. But there ain't no way that Karl Malden would have slugged Widmark out in the open during training in front of several witnesses among the recruits. Both would have realized that would have undermined authority, something the military just doesn't let happen.

I wish I could have said something better about Take The High Ground because I certainly like its talented cast, it's talented director Richard Brooks, even the silly theme by Dimitri Tiomkin and Ned Washington, fresh from their Oscar a year before for High Noon. The film actually got an Oscar nomination for Best Screenplay and story by Millard Kaufman. It must have been for Kaufman's vivid imagination.


Being the only movie I was able to see at this year's "Nordische Filmtage" at Lübeck, this year's festival will be remembered as a all-time low for me.

This movie, which was announced as an erotic thriller, is nothing more than a sick piece of crap! Excuse the language, but there aren't any decent words to describe it.

First of all, the actors are not the best. But even better actors would not have rescued the movie. E.g. the plot: after the first 15 minutes it was quite clear that John was sick, the neighbour girls were not real and that he killed his first girlfriend. The so called "sex-scene" was nothing else but disgusting (hitting each other until blood flows for me hasn't anything to do with sexuality), but unfortunately that were not the only disgusting images to be shown. Everything else was copied by other directors like e.g. Lynch, but of course without their geniality.

So, to summarize the whole film and to save other viewers time and money: guy loses girlfriend, girlfriend turns back home, guy kills girlfriend and becomes mad afterwards, guy imagines hot, but crazy neighbour girls, guy has very disgusting sex with one of them (or so he thinks), in the end he realizes, he is crazy and his girlfriend and her new lover lay in his apartment all the time... bad story, bad actors, pictures, that make you want to vomit...

1 out of 10 (1 point for the fact, that you realize how good you can understand Norwegian if you learned Swedish - at least one benefit of the evening - and you can't choose 0 points here).


Interesting idea and storyline which didn't quite work.

When you see the film, maybe you will feel as dissatisfied with the ending as I did. I didn't really know who to root for in the movie, Taye Diggs looked bored as the detective, the rest of the characters seem so one-dimensional and unpleasant.

If the victim Alicia(Mia Kirschner) had been more of a nice girl, we might actually have enjoyed seeing the plot unfold and the perpetrator brought to justice. The problem was that she was as bitchy as the other girls, turning from sweet girl to conniving opportunistic cokehead. I can't understand the moral message of this film, and as a detective story and thriller it doesn't work.


Geez, another Lifetime movie, but once again isn't exactly the worst movie in the world, but far from the best. I think the main problem is that it's pretty obvious who is responsible for what, and it's generally fairly predictable. Worse yet, some of the flashbacks ended up being confusing, and the viewer is left wondering "Okay, how much am I supposed to care?" One thing I did like is that the movie goes to show you that it's never THAT simple as "the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad", and sometimes it IS evil vs evil rather than good vs evil. Hadley didn't do what she did out of a sense of justice, she did it because she considered herself entitled to a job for being family, AND to eliminate the competition. As for Alicia, it simply proves that a victim isn't always a good person. Some of them really do "have it coming", even if "it" was a painful, horrible death. "The Burning Bed" is a great example of this, but the difference is that the vile man in "The Burning Bed" got exactly what he deserved. But, did Alicia "have it coming"? Some will say that she did, but others don't agree, and the law generally doesn't either.

As for acting, it's a mixed bag. Some do a good job, like Mia, but others just came across as indifferent to their roles. They were mostly wooden or simply not convincing. The music was pretty cool though and some of the scenes are nice and steamy, especially if you like girl/girl action. The movie isn't badly shot at all, but given its glaring weaknesses, the strengths are in background, unfortunately.

I've heard rumors of a sequel, but given the years, I doubt it'll happen. But, I wouldn't be surprised if a sequel suddenly appeared. If Alicia is as EVIL, conniving and horrible as people say, then I don't think she'll be thinking, "YAY! I woke up from a coma! Oh, Hadley was responsible? Oh! That's okay! I totally forgive her and want the charges dropped!" No way Hadley would be in jail for long anyway, if she even does any time since no murder actually happened.

Anyway, worth checking out at least once!


I rented "New Best Friend" hoping for a movie similar to enjoyable teen thrillers such as "Gossip" and "The Curve". Instead, "New Best Friend" is much more like "The In Crowd", in which there are no thrills and the acting is incredibly phony. "New Best Friend" is boring, and the events during the movie are the same. Skip this movie...it's a waste of time.


Not very interesting teen whodunit saved from being a turkey from some decent performances. The main cast consisting of Taye Diggs, Mia Kirshner, Dominique Swain and surprisingly Meredith Monroe are all good but the story is not very original.