Although in some aspects Seven Pounds is solid and interesting in some of its narrative style, Gabriele Muccino's project is rather mediocre. The movie becomes more and more sappy and manipulative as it move toward the end: hearts human and emotional, eyes physical and metaphorical. Seven Pounds is more of an amateurish imitation of Alejandro González Iñárritu's Amores Perros and 21 Grams, with lots and lots of flashbacks. The problem is the story is quite predictable from VERY easily on through the movie. That's too bad, because Seven Pounds could have been as authentically "good" if Ben and Emily had been put in the right hands.


Quite frankly it seemed like seven hours of boredom as well. What is it? What is it about Will Smith that I just can't stand any longer? I guess he just seems too hellbent on being taken seriously and obtaining an Oscar. I understand how bias this is, but unless he undergoes some new acting lessons I can't ever see him winning one. He's a huge name and is therefore generally confused with being a talented and diverse actor. He's just not. I give him credit for trying so hard, and being able to cry at the drop of a hat. That's about it.

Seven pounds was kind of an eyeroller for me, right from the start. The suicide 911 call didn't intrigue me in any way. I wasn't curious to know why he was calling in his own suicide. There were absolutely no surprises. The best I can say is that Will Smith and Rosario Dawson had some decent on screen chemistry. Also, I don't know her name, but the hispanic woman did an excellent job with her role as a scared and beaten wife. Woody Harrelson had very limited screen time, but I'd say he stole the show whenever he was on.

All in all, just an extremely run of the mill unoriginal plot. I couldn't help asking myself the whole way through why I cared about any of these people. Never once felt sorry for 'Tim/Ben'. He killed himself with a jellyfish? Was the only survivor in an 8 person accident? Geewiz..didn't see any of that coming...

5/10 is pretty generous.


I considered myself to be quite melancholy, especially when I watch a great touching and tear-jerking movies. But not for this one (which surprised me!) and it is also really surprising me to see how many people praised this movie so highly.

There are several disturbing facts throughout the movies: 1. Despite guilt-ridden Ben's real intention to save 7 lives to redeem his past, I find it disturbing that the film seems encourage this type of suicidal action. Some people may perceive this is a heroic action and some others think he behaves cowardly, in the end this was a disturbing action to me.

2. The movie story line is over-dramatized, but the logic is over-simplified. Medically, blood type match is required to be an organ donor. Toward the end of the film we learnt that Emily had rear blood type that limited her chance to get the donor within short time period. Nevertheless, it seemed that Ben had the rare blood type, same as hers which allowed him to be her donor and conveniently, despite the rarity of Ben's blood type, he was able to donate not only his heart, but also his kidney, his cornea and his bone marrow which in all cases require not only matching blood type but also tissue antigen.

3. Why the doctors allow Ben's organs being donated despite the jellyfish venom he used to kill himself?

I might be over-analyzing the whole story as after all this is just a movie. However, some disturbing facts outlined above hopefully will help you reconsider your plan to go to watch this movie. If you go for a soap-opera type of film, go for it. But it you go seeking for an intelligent entertainment, give this one a miss!


SEVEN POUNDS: EMOTIONALLY FLAT, ILLOGICAL, MORALLY DISTURBING

The movie was distributed in Italy as "Seven Souls". I was curious about the original title and, after some research, I found out that it refers to Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, where the usurer Shylock makes a terrible bond with the merchant Antonio, who will have to give him a "pound" of his flesh, in case he is not able to repay his debt. Whereas the Italian translation makes Ben's plan something deeply human, characterized by human sympathy, the original one, though cultivated enough to remain unperceived by anyone, makes it, just in its reference to the flesh, something cold, rational, deep-rooted in the physical side of man. Unfortunately, I think that the real quality of Ben's plan is revealed by the original title: it'a a cold machination, aimed at "donating" parts of his body, but lacking any authentic human empathy, at least the audience is not given the chance to see or perceive any pure relation of souls within the whole movie. The only exception is the love-story with the girl, which seems to be a sort of non-programmed incident, to which Ben yields, but incapable of conveying true emotional involvement. I really didn't like the idea at the core of the movie: the idea that a person, however devoured by the pain for the death of his beloved and of other people he himself has caused, takes the resolute decision to expiate his sense of guilt through suicide: besides being improbable, it makes no sense. I would have liked, and I think it would have been more positive if, in the end, Ben had decided to abandon the idea of committing suicide and go on living, thus helping those same people, and maybe many more, just standing near them, and helping them through his presence. He wouldn't have saved their lives miraculously, of course: this would have probably caused more suffering, but I think it could have been more constructive from a human, and moral point of view. There are many illogical and disturbing things: the initial reference to God's creation in seven days (which, by the way, according to the Bible, are six!): what does it mean? And what about a woman suffering from heart-disease which prevents her from running and even from singing without feeling bad, who can have normal sex with a man who, feeling, as it should be, destroyed by the death of his wife and having donated organs and pieces of his body, doesn't seem to feel so much tried, both emotionally and physically, from his impaired condition? The movie is saved by good acting, but all the rest is pure nonsense, not only from a logical point of view, but also from a human and emotional one.


What can I say about Seven Pounds...well I watched on a flight from Seattle to Tokyo and as that flight was long and boring the movie definitely didn't help. Will Smith's character Ben Thomas is almost completely unlikable even with his redemption in the end. The movie's two hour plus run time wastes most of the screen time with random garbage that just strings the plot along as slow as possible. In the movies defense Rosario Dawson's character adds a little life to the film although not much. I don't understand how anyone could actually cry during this film when all I wanted to do was turn it off. Also Will Smith kills himself with a jellyfish at the ended proving that killing yourself with a jellyfish is the stupidest way to die.


Brides are dying at the altar, and their corpses are disappearing. Everybody is concerned, but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening, nor can they prevent it from happening. Bear with me. Bela Lugosi is responsible for this, as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. Continue to bear with me. Finally, the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances, but of course, they can't figure out the improbable motive. Let's just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on... If you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess, you will be treated to Lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered, explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed, and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). Anyhoo - a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen!), and then the fun really starts.

The cinematography and acting are OK. There are a lot of well dressed, very good looking people in this film. The directing is fair, and the script is a little better than the material deserved. Nevertheless, this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b-film fan. The best thing about it.... It does eventually end, but not soon enough.


The Poverty Row horror pictures of the 1930s and '40s depress the hell out of me. God knows I have nothing against low-budget films, but the ones produced in that period have such a dreary, shabby look about them--and, in the final analysis, just aren't very good. "The Corpse Vanishes" is slightly more entertaining than bottom-of-the-barrel dreck like "The Invisible Ghost" and "The Ape Man", but it's no classic. Bela Lugosi, long past his "Dracula" heyday, plays yet another mad doctor; the unbearable Elizabeth Russell plays his wife. They sleep in coffins because, as Lugosi explains to a doubtful young female reporter (Luana Walters), a coffin is much more comfortable than a bed. Ho hum. Angelo Rossitto and Minerva Urecal are also on hand, which might please hardcore fans of '30s and '40s films.


Only the glandular secretions -- and please don't ask for any more details -- of young virgins can keep the rapidly deteriorating body and mind of the crazed old amateur horticulturalist's wife fresh and youthful. Since, like most people except those taking part in medical trials, virgins seldom give up their secretions willingly, Dr. Lorenz (Bela Lugosi) arranges for them to be abducted and preserved. He'll do the extracting himself.

What a great cheese ball of a premise for a low budget horror movie. If The Corpse Vanishes turns out not to be the Havarti of horror, as a plain limburger it leaves an interesting aftertaste.

Sure, the acting is almost awful except for the actors fortunate enough to be playing the crazed dwarf (Angelo Rossitto, who later played The Master in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome); his crazed brute of a brother, Angel (Frank Moran), who grunts a lot and has a fetish for the virgins' hair; the crazed mother of the two (Minerva Urecal); the crazed wife (Elizabeth Russell), who sleeps in a plush coffin and, of course, the crazed doctor (Lugosi).

An enterprising young reporter, Patricia Hunter (Luana Walters) tracks down the doctor because of a strange orchid with a peculiarly sweet odor that had been worn by the victims. When the doctor and his wife invite Pat to stay the night, a raging storm immediately breaks out. That clue tells us some raging violence is about to erupt inside. Since it's well known that in Hollywood at this time all unmarried young women were virgins, Pat may have some unpleasant surprises to deal with. They include dark passages, a crusty laboratory where a near dead virgin is stored, a basement mausoleum and, later, a direct threat to Patricia's own glandular secretions. If she survives, what a story she'll have to give her editor.

If you sample this moist slice of moldy Velveeta (and why not? Don't be superior), don't judge Bela Lugosi by the company he keeps here. He had a huge impact in Dracula (1931), but my favorite movie of his is The Black Cat (1934). As Dr. Vitas Werdegast he's a sad, ironic man protective of his two young friends. When he finally takes a scalpel to Hjalmar Poelzig (Boris Karloff) and begins to flay the man alive, ah, well, it's a great scene.


Just looking at the sets, staging and editing it is easy to tell this project lacked a proper budget. Maybe Bela Lugosi is meant to take your mind off of things like that. Young brides drop dead at the altar after saying "I do". Their corpses are stolen by a renowned horticulturist Dr. Lorenz(Lugosi)and a couple of his freakish minions as his aging wife(Elizabeth Russell)needs injections of the glandular fluids of the young virgins to remain forever young...forever beautiful. An eager local cub reporter(Luana Walters)realizes that each missing bride wore the same rare orchid to the altar; an orchid in which Dr. Lorenz would be most knowledgeable. A typical horror movie storm brews making a visit to the Lorenz estate a bit spooky; especially with a dwarf and a slobbering hunchback on the premises. Other players: Angelo Rossitto, Tristram Coffin, Minerva Urecal and Frank Moran.


Brides are dying at the altar and their corpses are vanishing. No one knows why or who, but an investigative reporter (Luana Walters) notes that each bride was wearing a strange orchid and she goes to interview its creator, Dr. Lorenz (Bela Lugosi). Now Dr. Lorenz is a mad scientist with some strange habits, including sleeping in coffins and injecting his elderly wife (Elizabeth Russell) with the fluid of young brides to keep her young.

The Corpse Vanishes has an interesting premise and a short enough run time that it shouldn't be able to get boring. Unfortunately, while it starts off quite well, it does start to drag before the halfway point and gets rather boring with its clichés and predictable plot.

There are some good things about it-Bela Lugosi is charming and evil and performs brilliantly; Elizabeth Russell is also a beautiful, suave, aloof and very creepy countess; and I'm always a fan of Angelo Rossitto. Luana Walters is also convincing as the reporter here.

It maintains a bit of a Gothic atmosphere and the sets are decent.

But overall, it just didn't manage to hold my interest through the whole picture, and for that, I have to rate it poorly.


Bela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's spinal fluid. Spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s.) You can pretty much guess the rest from here.

There are a couple (well, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.

The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (BTW, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)


"Bela Lugosi revels in his role as European horticulturalist (sic) Dr. Lorenz in this outlandish tale of horror and dementia. The good doctor's aging wife needs fluids harvested from the glands of young virgins in order to retain her youth and beauty. What better place for the doctor to maintain his supply than at the alter, where he kidnaps the unsuspecting brides before they can complete their vows? Sedating them into a coma-like state, he brings them to his mansion to collect his tainted bounty," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. That brief description is much more entertaining and imaginative than the movie.

** The Corpse Vanishes (1942) Wallace Fox ~ Bela Lugosi, Luana Walters, Elizabeth Russell


Now I love Bela Lugosi,don't get me wrong,he is one of the most interesting people to ever make a movie but he certainly did his share of clunkers.This is just another one of those.

Lugosi plays Dr.Lorenz,a doctor who has had his medical license pulled for unexplained reasons.He is however doing experiments to keep his wife young and beautiful.It's revealed that she is 70-80 years old yet Lugosi looks to be in his mid 50's so why he is married to this old woman is never really explained.

Anyway these treatments or experiments involved giving brides who are at the altar being married some sort of sweet smelling substance whereby they pass out but are thought to be dead.Then Lugosi and some of his assistants steal the body on its way to the morgue and take it back to his lab where it's kept in some sort of suspended animation or catatonic state.Then the stolen brides have a needle rammed somewhere in their bodies,maybe the neck,and then the needle is rammed into the body of Lugosi's wife to bring her back to youth and beauty.We never really see where Lugosi sticks the needle or what it is that he draws out of the brides but it somehow restores his wife .Apparently old age makes you scream with pain because Lugosi's wife does a lot of screaming until she gets back to her younger state.Helping Lugosi in his lab is the only good thing about this movie....a weird old hag and her two deformed sons....one son is a big lumpy looking slow acting fellow who likes to fondle the snoozing brides and the other son is a mean little dwarf....little person, to be politically correct in today's world.At night these three just sort of pile up and sleep in Lugosi's dreary downstairs lab.Who these 3 are and how they came to be Lugosi's scared assistants is,like a lot of stuff in this film, never explained.

So anyway a female reporter is given the assignment by her gruff editor to find out where all the stolen brides are going to.She quickly figures out that the one common thing among all the stolen brides is a rare orchid that is found on them.So she asks around and is told that there is a world renowned orchid expert living nearby who just happens to be the one who developed this particular orchid.This expert turns out to be creepy Dr.Lorenz.She quickly tracks him down and upsets his little house of horrors.I'm not sure where the police were during all this but they came in to mop up after the reporter had done all the dirty work.

It seems that Lugosi's movies always had some sort of unnecessary silly plot line that just made the whole thing stink to high heavens.I mean a world famous orchid expert kidnaps brides by sending them a doped up orchid he himself is known to have developed? D'OH!

And then later it's revealed that the young ladies don't even have to be brides for the procedure to work so why would Lugosi keep kidnapping brides from heavily guarded churches for his experiments and create all the attention and newspaper headlines? Why not just grab a prostitute off the street like a normal weirdo pervert would do? This clunker reminded me a lot of another Lugosi stinker,"The Devil Bat"....same silly plot lines and bad acting and same silly 'reporter gets bad guy' deal.

But Lugosi is always good--he is creepy and sinister enough to keep you interested at least enough to keep watching him.The woman playing the reporter was just a terrible actor....she had no emotion whatsoever,she just delivered her lines like a machine gun ,spewing them out as quickly as she could.Everyone else pretty much blew too,when it came to being good actors.

But this thing is watchable ,if only for Bela Lugosi fans.Lugosi was always so intense even when the picture was a dog.He must have known he was doing terrible pictures but maybe he also knew that if he gave it everything he had a little of that intensity might shine through past all the bad plots and bad acting which surrounded him.

And he was right----we horror fans will always have a love for Bela Lugosi.He gave it his all every time he was in front of the camera.We do give two f**ks for you,Bela.


Patricia Hunter: Oh, professor, do you also make a habit of collecting coffins? Dr. Lorenz: Why, yes, in a manner of speaking. I find a coffin much more comfortable than a bed.

Interesting Bela Lugosi (Glen or Glenda, Dracula) vehicle where he plays the mad scientist. I was especially creeped out when he appeared in the bedrooms of his guests when they were sleeping.

Luana Walters (Girls in Prison) was really appealing as a sensual reporter, Patricia Hunter< who was to be a victim, but woman-power trumps evil scientist every time.

2'11" Angelo Rossitto and creepy Frank Moran , who liked to stoke the women's hair added to the film.

Interesting look at a 40s horror film.


A number of brides are mysteriously murdered while at the altar, and later their bodies are stolen en route to the morgue. Newspaper writer Patricia Hunter decides to investigate these mysterious killings. She discovers that right before each ceremony, the bride was given a rare orchid (supposedly from the groom) which contained a powerful drug that succumbed them. Patricia is told that the orchid was first grown by a Dr. Lorenz, who lives in a secluded estate, with his wife. In reality, Dr. Lorenz is responsible for the crimes, by putting the brides in a suspended state, and using their gland fluid to keep his wife eternally young. Patricia, along with Dr. Foster (who is working with Dr. Lorenz on the medical mystery surrounding his wife) try to force Dr. Lorenz's hand by setting up a phony wedding, which eventually leads Patricia into the mad doctor's clutches. This movie had a very good opening reel, but basically ended up with too many establishing shots and other weak scenes. The cast is decent, Walters and Coffin deserved better, but that's life. Russell steals the show (even out hamming Lugosi- who does not give one of his more memorable performances, even considering his Monograms) as Countess Lorenz playing the role with the qualities of many of the stereotypical characteristics of many of today's Hollywood prima donnas. Weak and contrived ending as well. Rating, based on B movies, 4.


Bela Lugosi plays Dr. Lorenz who loves his wife so much that he will do anything to keep her young. This film starts off with a wedding as the bride is about to take her vows she suddenly collapses. She is pronounced dead and taken away by undertakers. Trouble is that these are not real undertakers but body snatchers. A wave of bride deaths at the altar and their body disappearing confounds the police. Enter reporter Patricia Hunter to solve the case. She does track down Dr. Lorenz but he also decides to use her youth to keep his wife young also.


Bela Lugosi is great as usual but the movie is nothing compared to Dracula. He is probably the only one that played a perfect part in this movie but not even a legend like Lugosi could save the badness of the idea of this movie and unlike most old unspenseful horror films this movie doesn't set the mood very well. Even at its worst any of Bela's movies is only mediocre though.


Bela Lugosi as creepy insane scientist who uses orchids to woo brides in order to steal life essence for aged wife. The midget in this film is hilarious!! A lot of freaks, plus a lot of padding and no plot makes watching this film a nightmare. I loved how all the pieces fell together in the end in typical Hollywood fashion. The story never gets interesting, and you feel helpless as you watch.

Usually I'd score bore flicks like this one low, but the midget added just enough creepiness and entertainent to gain a couple more points.


I bought this video at Walmart's $1 bin. I think I over-paid!!! In the 1940s, Bela Lugosi made a long string of 3rd-rate movies for small studios (in this case, Monogram--the ones who made most of the Bowry Boys films). While the wretchedness of most of these films does not approach the level of awfulness his last films achieved (Ed Wood "classics" such as Bride of the Monster and Plan 9 From Outer Space), they are nonetheless poor films and should be avoided by all but the most die-hard fans.

I am an old movie junkie, so I gave this a try. Besides, a few of these lesser films were actually pretty good--just not this one.

Lugosi is, what else, a mad scientist who wants to keep his rather bizarre and violent wife alive through a serum he concocts from young brides. They never really explained WHY it had to be brides or why it must be women or even what disease his wife had--so you can see that the plot was never really hashed out at all.

Anyways, a really annoying female reporter (a Lois Lane type without Jimmy Olsen or Superman) wants to get to the bottom of all these apparent murders in which the bodies were STOLEN! So, she follows some clues all the way to the doorstep of Lugosi. Lugosi's home is complete with his crazed wife, a female assistant and two strange people who are apparently the assistant's sons (an ugly hunchbacked sex fiend and a dwarf). Naturally this plucky reporter faints repeatedly throughout the film--apparently narcolepsy and good investigative journalism go hand in hand! Eventually, the maniacs ALL die--mostly due to their own hands and all is well. At the conclusion, the reporter and a doctor she just met decide to marry. And, naturally, the reporter's dumb cameraman faints when this occurs. If you haven't noticed, there's a lot of fainting in this film. Or, maybe because it was such a slow and ponderous film they just fell asleep!


Bela Lugosi is an evil botanist who sends brides poisoned orchids on their wedding day, steals the body in his fake ambulance/hearse and takes it home for his midget assistant to extract the glandular juices in order to keep Bela's wife eternally young. Some second rate actors playing detectives try to solve the terrible, terrible mystery. Bela Lugosi hams it up nicely, but you can tell he needed the money.

This film is thoroughly awful, and most of the actors would have been better off sticking to waiting tables, but the plot is wonderfully ridiculous. Tell anyone what happens in it and they tend to laugh quite a lot and demand to see the film. I got the DVD in a discount store 2 for £1, which I think is a pretty accurate valuation, anyone paying more for this would be out of their mind.


Ugh. This is a terrible film, full of disastrous comic relief, no scares, and scary leaps in story and plotline. The only creepy thing here is the leading lady's hats. Lugosi was on his downhill slide and it shows. I give this a 1, and this ain't no fun.


Bernard Rapp passed away last year and was a very cultured journalist. Cinema was one of his biggest passions (he penned a vast worldwide dictionary of films) and so he was bound to wield a camera at least one time in his life. But the films he left garnered lukewarm reviews: "Tiré à Part" (1996) in spite of Terence Stamp's sensational performance was very caricatured in the depiction of the characters, "une Affaire De Goût" (2000) was a slick affair even if Bernard Giraudeau delivered a perverse performance, "Pas Si Grave" (2003) was another let-down and "un Petit Jeu Sans Conséquence" is as underwhelming as its predecessors. Its comic potential is exploited in a flimsy way.

And however, the starting idea let predict a twirling, spiritual comedy. A couple held by Yvan Attal and Sandrine Kiberlain who invited their friends is in full moving in a lascivious mansion. To play with their guests, they pretend to part company with each other. And things don't go as planned because the announcement of their separation doesn't surprise them. The two lovers start to ponder about the validity of their couple.

In spite of lush scenery and the promising material he had at his disposal, Rapp's undistinguished directing can't manage to give life to this game with unexpected consequences. The plot follows a well-worn pattern with characters who have specific well-known functions and masks that are unveiled about who they really are. Verbal or situation comic effects often fall flat. A bad editing fades a little more the film with this bad habit from Rapp to abruptly cut many sequences. Even the actors' sincere input in the venture is debatable. They seem to be bored and to recite their texts than to live them, especially Sandrine Kiberlain. The audience is soon caught in a deep torpor.

It's regrettable to say it: Bernard Rapp's films never lived up to his intentions as "un Petit Jeu sans Conséquence" bears witness.


You'd think the first landing on the Moon would be dramatic enough without needing to make up stuff about it. However, this documentary seems to need to cast everything in the scariest possible light. It talks about the risks associated with the lunar module and mentions Armstrong's nearly fatal accident with the training vehicle, as if the trainer and the spacecraft had anything to do with each other. It makes the computer overload problem (the 1202 and 1201 alarms) encountered during the final landing sequence sound like a near-catastrophe when it was just an annoyance and not a risk to the crew at all. And it takes the "thirty seconds" call to mean thirty seconds of fuel left before running out, when it's actually thirty seconds before an abort is mandatory.

If you want to see a documentary or dramatization of Apollo 11, go for "From the Earth to the Moon" or one of the PBS documentaries, but skip this one.


WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS (Not that you should care. Also, sorry for the caps.)

Starting with an unnecessarily dramatic voice that's all the more annoying for talking nonsense, it goes on with nonsense and unnecessary drama. That's badly but accurately put.

We know space travel is a risky enterprise. There's a complicated system with a lot of potential for malfunctions, radiation, stress-related symptoms etc, and unexpected things are bound to happen in largely unknown environments. They knew stuff could go wrong. In fact, stuff had gone wrong. It's called learning. Granted, Appollo 11 wasn't safe by today's standards and there was immense political pressure, but the overall performance of the technology on the mission was impressive.

Assorted mistakes/comments I hadn't even to look up:

1) Nixon prepared a speech in case something went wrong. Well duh. That's what I would've done. It was the apex of a propaganda war, after all.

2) NASA gives green light despite the fact that Appollo 11 will probably blow up. (This is "only" implicit, though.) Yeah, that's why they let people and press watch in almost-real-time.

3) The capsule ejection wouldn't work. Like it didn't work the time a chimp was in it. The one that survived? It was a test launch and the rocket exploded, the capsule accelerated away and landed with a parachute. There's a video of it, you can probably find it on youtube or at least look it up somewhere.

4) One interviewed guy says an explosion would have wiped out a fair part of Florida. I can only assume it was meant as a hyperbole, 'cause if not, I'm just aghast how he could get it so wrong.

5) The technology then was primitive compared to today's standards. Actually, relatively primitive software and hardware is used even today, the reason being that it must not crash. It's even worse for spacecraft, because their computers must be built of comparably large components that aren't that susceptible to radiation. (And the craft itself must be pilotable manually anyway, so a complex steering system like the B2's wouldn't do.) What's with the fact that they were using "TV screens" rather than "computer screens"? It's the same damn technology. Actually TV monitors were and are produced with a significantly higher definition.

6) "If that object wasn't part of the rocket, it could be only one thing." We see where this is going. Apart from the fact that the statement is wrong, who says it wasn't a rocket part? At least an interviewee clears up that if a thing is flying and you don't know what it is, it's by definition an Unidentified Flying Object.

7) The voice-over as well as some misquotes make it seem as though the lander's radiation foil was actually its hull. Which would make it thinner than a space suit.

8) Neil Armstrong's near death during a practice flight is footage I can appreciate; I hadn't seen it before. As I said, any piece of manifest technology can go wrong, especially if it's not been tested sufficiently on account of being, you know, unprecedented.

9)The trajectory discrepancy of the descending lander (due to irregularities in the Moon's density) was at no time acutely life-threatening. Neither was the "fifteen seconds of fuel left", which was, in fact, "fifteen seconds of fuel left before having to abort the mission and returning to the command module".

10) A "catastrophic chain of events" usually results in catastrophe. I really don't know how to put it any simpler. This, however, is a prime example of the rhetoric used.

11) There's a short sequence of one of the astronauts walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid, followed by the voice-over telling us that the reason for this strange behavior "can now be revealed". Turns out, he was walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid. Hilarious stuff.

12) It's mentioned that during re-entry, all contact was lost. This is a perfectly natural phenomenon and it was as well known at the time as it's impossible to circumvent with contemporary technology. Again, the gravity of this is implicit, but very purposely so.

13) There was never a shuttle lost in space itself, while the voice-over presents this "fact" as evidence that Appollo 11 was a pile of crap. Appollo 13 was a near-loss, but the two real disasters happened during liftoff and re-entry, respectively. In any case, comparing shuttles to Saturn rockets is somehow ... well, okay, just plain stupid. Even ignoring that, the successful shuttle missions seem to not have been deemed of interest to the audience.

14) What the hell's up with the UFO? Even in the context of the movie, it makes no sense. Unless you assume it was made for entertainment purposes, aimed at a specific audience (which seems to include people with next to no understanding of either history, science, or rhetorics).

Even the point of the movie is somewhat obscure. Catch-phrases like "covered up until now", "publically revealed here for the first time", come up, but the film doesn't place any blame or offer a lesson or anything, which could be expected of a film so emotionally done. In the good old tradition of sensationalism, there are numerous interview shots and recording fragments that are often out of context or with people that we know nothing about except "NASA scientist". Wow, so the astronauts were very nervous before the endeavor? Fancy that. What does this have to do with the point of the movie again? Oh yeah, which point.

In summary, in addition to being either willfully or incompetently inaccurate, it's not even good entertainment. And believe me, I'm a guy who enjoys his crappy documentaries; this film isn't funny, witty, quaint, it's nothing.


I was hoping for some sort of in-depth background information on the Apollo 11 mission and what I got was some decent interview material with Buzz Aldrin Gene Krantz and other people involved in the mission, linked by over-hyped disaster-predicting sensationalising voice-over in the worst tradition of TV production.

If you could cut out the voice-over and change the spin of the program to a positive testament of how people can overcome setbacks to achieve a goal out of the ordinary then this could've been great - but I feel I've wasted about 45 minutes of my life whilst watching a 60 minute programme. I want those minutes back.


I was expecting a lot better from the Battlestar Galactica franchise. Very boring prequel to the main series. After the first 30 minutes, I was waiting for it to end. The characters do a lot of talking about religion, computers, programming, retribution, etc... There are gangsters, mafia types, who carry out hits. However, Caprica doesn't have the action of the original series to offset the slower parts.

Let me give you some helpful advice when viewing movies: As a general rule, if there is a lot of excessive exploitive titillation, then you know the movie will be a dud. Caprica has lots of this. The director/writer usually attempts to compensate for his poor abilities by throwing in a few naked bodies. It never works and all it does is demean the (very) young actresses involved and I feel sorry for them. Directors/writers who do this should be banned from the business.

If you want to be bored for an hour and a half, by all means, rent Caprica. There's (free) porn on the 'Net if you really want to see naked bodies. Otherwise, move along, nothing to see here.


As a huge fan of only the first 2 seasons of BSG and the stand alone feature BSG Razor I was hoping that this release would return the franchise to its original glory days. Usually I have no problem with science fiction that is mostly dialog driven as opposed to a visual bonanza of special effects. If the script is tight with some original ideas delivered by good actors one can create a profound film with little CGI money spent. This prequel has none of those aforementioned requirements going for it. The virtual reality world created by the terrorist teenagers was both ridiculous & unbelievable. This scene was simply put there to raise the release rating to Restricted. Not that teens don't love virtual reality mosh pits filled with sex & violence & heavy dance music. Its the part about those same teens having the intellectual depth & reason or political & religious passion as to create such futuristic software or become suicide bombers that perplexes me. These kids are definitely not from this planet. The movie plays out like a soap opera with only the last 10 minutes being slightly interesting. The scene with Eric Stolz giving his cyborg a devine conscienceness via the student firmware upgrade was amusing if not entertaining. But this old concept was far better portrayed & much more believable in the brilliant, classic original "Frankenstein" with Boris Karloff. Caprica rips off its only interesting idea from an old Hollywood horror film. No surprise there! Overall this movie was bland & unoriginal & cheap looking, using recycled CGI of Caprica from BSG. I doubt I'll be watching this space soap when it premieres on the Sci-Fi channel. Unless of course I happen to be suffering from a bad bout of insomnia at which time this show would definitely be the cure. Zzzzzzzz


Battlestar Gallactica was so great because it had tight writing, a great look, excellent actors, and interesting stories... AND yeah, had hot men and women running around in and out of uniform.

Caprica was just lazy. Lazy writing. Actors smoking up a storm to give them "character." Outdoor sequences that ruin the feeling of being somewhere else (yes, that is a Ford Focus sitting in the background). Lots and lots of teenage angst. LOTS of gyrating naked women (but in the background. Which I'm sure will be cut for the series) and a token view of some men in towels. None of the actors except Polly Walker took my attention at all. At an hour and a half, I was still wondering when it was going to be over.

So what exactly is it that's supposed to bring me back? The science fiction? It's awfully light on that. The actors? Besides Polly Walker's fine turn, there isn't much interesting being done here. There aren't even any "hotties" in the cast, except for maybe Esai, although for the younger set he's pretty old, since he's over 25.

I loved BSG. I was skeptical when I heard about Caprica, and unfortunately, I think I'm right. I predict a very short run for it as a series unless they really sharpen their pencils over at SciFi and get to work making this more than The OC on another planet.


I had to endure teen-aged, high school angst and family conflict for almost all of the show. I really do not care about high-school girls fretting about their relationships. I've spent my time in Hell dealing with such issues and I care nothing about fictional teenies going through "lite" versions of the horrors I endured. I want science fiction. That's the only reason I'm here. There were a few seconds of science fiction late in the show. We FINALLY see a proto-Cylon. It was good but with one problem. Its red eye-dot would lock onto an object of interest. We all know that Cylon eyedots always scan back and forth, giving the machine a map of the world. The red eye-dot does not ever stop moving back and forth.

I really hope the writers fix this abuse before the second episode.


If you like a syfi soap opera this show is for you, as fare as I am concerned it does not work for me and after watching 3 episodes I just can't watch it anymore. It is boring and slow and for a show that the timeline is based around 100.000+ years ago if you base it on battlestar galactica's timeline for arriving on earth they sure seem to have all the same stuff around like the 100.000 year old Chevy vans driving down the streets and people watching the 100.000 year old popular name brand LCD T.V. sets. It also goes the same with the rest of the sets as well on the show, there is just to much of today's stuff involved in it to not overlook, I think they could have done a lot better of a job to get around these issues and yes battlestar galactica had some of the same issues but not nearly as bad. As fare as the rest of the show it is not nearly as good as BSG was and it is a poor pre sequel to it.


Basically, "Caprica" is the Cylon origin story. The premise of the show is interesting. However, the writers follow so many story lines and clog it with too many POV characters that it bogs down the storytelling. The plot creeps at glacial speeds dissipating what tension it might have had. In any given episode, little or nothing happens.

Daniel Graystone (Eric Stolz) is a military contractor working on a robotic soldier using a stolen chip. Unfortunately, his only working prototype is driven by the AI version of his dead daughter Zoe, who died in a suicide bombing caused by Soldiers of the One (STO), an underground monotheist extremist group.

Meanwhile, Joseph Adama (father of "Battlestar Galactica"'s Commander Adama) is struggling to hold his family together while searching for the AI version of his daughter (who also died in the bombing) in a Machiavellian virtual version of Caprica (which strongly resembles 1930s Chicago).

In addition to the vapid writing, Caprica suffers from a similar problem as many origin stories. We already know how it ends (i.e. the Cylons develop their own civilization and rebel against humanity).


I remember watching the BSG pilot. I can describe that night exactly. I remember what chair I sat in. That show was magic. It came alive. I enjoyed the first two years of BSG. I enjoyed parts of the third year even, and I watched every episode of the fourth year, totally faithfully in great hopes that it would somehow turn around. Well, it didn't.

I watched the Caprica pilot and was enthralled. There was hope for something good here. Then I started watching the regular episodes, and they are getting more and more boring.

It's too obvious, too predictable. It reminds me of the droll political correctness of his last failed show, Virtuality.

Much of his line work on DS9 was good. When he focused on BSG in an organized way, it was good. This was especially true early on when they more or less followed the pattern of episodes set by the first BSG series. When they departed from that after meeting up with Admiral Cain and the Pegasus, it all went to pot. It was like he wrote the rest of the show without knowing where he was going.

Maybe it will improve. Maybe it was just a few weak initial episodes. But I am very, very nervous.


I realize it's not supposed to be BSG and I can handle slow-paced shows if they're interesting but I find myself completely uninterested and bored with this series.

The formula for BSG seemed to be: Action + Adventure + SciFi + Suspense + Mystery + Drama

the formula for Caprica seems to be: Bland Drama + Moderate Scifi

Maybe it will get more interesting but as of episode 3 I can barely watch it. In fact, it's at the bottom of my to-watch list for the week. This is a sad state of affairs. The Syfi channel really destroyed their Friday night lineup. Whatever happened to the glory days of SG1, Stargate Atlantis, and BSG on Friday nights? They had a good thing there.


Of course I was watching BG. I loved S1, I liked season 2, season 3 was OK, and loved the final one. Yay, there is a spin-off show! I didn't know about this at all, one of my friends told me about this. I was really excited.

I watched the first 3 episodes... What a piece of rubbish! Teenage girl drama fest. There is no science fiction... well, hardly any. At the end of every episode we can catch a glimpse of a Cylon. That's all. Who cares this? Did they decide that the next show's target audience will be females under 18? Boring religious nonsense talking, moaning, bitching... and some more.

It is just sad that there is nothing out there at the moment to watch. Stargate ruined, BG over...


What an awful show. Science Fiction fans seem to watch anything anymore regardless of quality. It shocks me that something exceptional like Firefly lasts one season, while garbage like the Battlestar Galactica remake spawns a spin off. This spin off is pitiful in every aspect of the show. The acting is juvenile and uninspired. The characters are cardboard clichés of everything that has ever been in a bad Sci-Fi series. The story is bad. The dialog is worse than a prime time soap opera. The direction is shoddy and the sets are awful. Caprica is a waste of film, a waste of time and a waste of effort. This is one spin off that should have never been made.


Matt Saunders (Luke Wilson) thinks he has found the perfect woman in Jenny Johnson (Uma Thurman), who seems like a quiet but pretty woman, though he soon learns that she's needy and possessive, oh, and she's also the superhero G-Girl, though you wouldn't know it from the things she does to Matt after he freaks out and breaks up with her.

A promising premise is ruined by a mediocre execution. My Super Ex-Girlfriend is still an enjoyable comedy however it relies too much on cheap sex jokes and it ends up being a forgettable experience. What went wrong? The cast and the director could not overcome the weakness of the script and I didn't like the way they played it out. I was expecting the guy to be a jerk and it could have been a female fantasy revenge film. However, they made the guy likable and they made the superhero a psycho. It just wasn't very fresh and after about forty minutes, the film wore out it's welcome. Sure, there were a few funny lines however the weak middle and horrible ending kept it from really breaking out.

Director Ivan Reitman has lost his touch. After a successful run in the eighties and early nineties, he started making crap like Evolution and Father's Day. I wouldn't say My Super Ex-Girlfriend is a complete bust but I don't give him credit for any of the quality the movie holds, which isn't too much. Don Payne did an awful job with the screenplay. The majority of the jokes were lame and most of the supporting characters were just one-note. He also kept reusing a lot of the same jokes making the thing really tedious at times.

A few of the actors were good enough to save the film. Uma Thurman was great as G-Girl and she had many funny lines. Luke Wilson was a bit pale and not very interesting. I don't think he makes for an appealing leading man and he's better in supporting roles like in The Family Stone. Anna Faris was just doing her "Scary Movie" routine and it's getting a little old. She needs a challenge or at least some better scripts. Wanda Sykes is either hit or miss for me. She was great in Monster-In-Law and she was bad in Clerks 2. Here, she is just annoying and doesn't bring anything to the movie. Eddie Izzard was alright, nothing special. Rainn Wilson was just annoying and not funny. Overall, I was disappointed with the movie. It wasn't awful yet it had so much potential and the final result was just so average. Rating 5/10


Ivan Reitman is something of a savior. The most tired plots (Ghostbusters, Evolution) come to life in his skilled hands. Even his occasional flop (Six Days, Seven Nights) show signs of life and humor that make it worth viewing. So I was disappointed that Reitman could not take a fairly original plot (man dumps superhero, superhero gets superpower-fueled revenge), and shape it into something enjoyable. "Girlfriend" is an exercise in pointlessness. The one-trick pony plot is long in the tooth after the first 20 minutes. The film can't decide whether to be romantic comedy or superhero drama. The result is a film the flip-flops between both, with neither aspect being very well done. Uma Thurman is tops, as usual, and Luke Wilson pulls off his role too, though his slacker antics quickly grow tired. What's even more maddening is that, in certain scenes (such as when a very turned on Uma knocks a headboard through a wall), you sense a witty, raucous Reitman opus practically screaming to get out. But seconds later, the magic is lost, gone as quick as the superheroine whose movies disappoints in almost every way.


This is one of the worst movies I have seen recently. When a man says that he wishes he had a super power of being able to orally pleasure himself I pretty much consider the movie to be in the realm of childish 14 year old male fantasies. The bed room scene was over the top and reduced an intimate moment into a farce of biological functions akin to passing gas in public. From the first every other scene was a discussion about how little sex they where getting, how long its been since they got some, when their next sexual liaison will be, and with whom it should be with. On top of that the dialogue and acting was very poor and very forced, not felt, and they filled their lack of content with sleazy sex scenes. This could have been really funny because the concept is actually interesting but it is poorly executed here. Please, do not even think about taking anyone under 16 if you have to go and see it.


if they gave me the option of negative numbers I'd use it. This movie was truly god-awful. I went into the theaters expecting it to be horrible, and it somehow managed to exceed my expectations.

The script was weak, the acting was painful. I wanted to walk out but my friend was driving and wanted to get her moneys worth, I think we were both disappointed.

The growing of the breasts when the girls got their super power and changing of the hair color was just wrong. Eddie Izzard just seemed wrong for the part of super villain, he came off as oddly weak and silly. Jenny Johnsons (Uma Thurman) came off as psychotic and strange, as did Matt's (Luke Wilson) friend Vaughn (Rainn Wilson.


At what point exactly does a good movie go bad? When does a movie go from "watchable" to "where's that &^@_+#!* OFF switch"? Thank goodness for DVDs, like this one, that can be borrowed from the library - for free! Likewise, thank goodness for the "fast forward" switch on the DVD player. I feel sorry for those people who were duped at the box office.

At one point (I've forgotten exactly when because now it's all just a blur), our "hero," Luke Wilson starts running through traffic; I think he was looking for a cab. It was at that point when I gave up, realizing I couldn't care whether he found his ride or got run over by a garbage truck.

The last time the movie was interesting was when Luke Wilson climbs out of the dumpster, hair dryer in hand, and first meets the "heroine," Uma Thurman. That scene ended with the purse-snatching criminal dangling helplessly from the fire escape far, far above the departing Luke and Uma. That was the last time the movie was funny, and when was that scene? Ten minutes into the flick?

Every time the movie tried to become "funny," it couldn't. Every time the movie approached "excitement," it fizzled out, heading in the opposite direction. When a musical score might have helped squeeze life out of this dullard, the sound track stayed empty and silent.

The sex scenes were not needed and were beyond lame; the damage to sets and props unnecessary and childish. When Uma turns into the crazy ex-girlfriend, I felt like I was watching "The 40 Year Old Virgin Meets Pulp Fiction"; that's when I realized that there was no turning back because I thoroughly disliked "The 40 Year Old Virgin" and "Pulp Fiction."

Luke Wilson's sidekick, Rainn Wilson (also seen in the dreary "The Last Mimzy") adds nothing but insult to injury in this awful movie. Rainn Wilson, the King of Television Boredom, should stay with that equally awful medium. Hey, Rainn Wilson! Leave full-length motion pictures alone! Every time Uma's rival, Anna Faris, came on screen, I expected Jason or Freddy or some fright flick monster to jump out from behind the scenery; once you see Anna Faris in "Scary Movie," that's all you ever see, no matter the movie, no matter the medium. The character played by Wanda Sykes was just plain awful and was so out of place in this flick.


What a waste of time and money! My hubby and I saw this movie - after seeing the previews and thinking it "might be funny". WRONG! This movie is about 90 minutes too long. The actors are trapped in a poorly written script and can't get out. The jokes are weak and tired, and not even seeing Wilson's naked behind can redeem any part of this film. The special effects.....aren't. I half expected to see the harness and wires holding up Uma in her flying scenes. And when the effects people apparently could not master the superhero's faster-than-a-speeding-bullet flying or fight scenes, they covered over everything with a swirling vortex of blurred screen - which hid the awful effects quite nicely. Wilson's sidekick was a lame excuse for a man and Wilson had no chemistry with either Uma or his office co-worker. The sex scenes weren't sexy and the funny scenes weren't funny. I guess I just expected too much from these actors. None of the characters were really sympathetic, so I ended up not caring a flying fig about any of them. The only memorable performances were the kids who played Bedlam and G-Girl as teenagers - at least THEY had some chemistry. Overall, a super stinko movie - I wouldn't even recommend it as a rental - it would still be a waste of money!


This movie is being shown over and over on cable lately, so..

There is no excuse for these 2 attractive women to fight over either Luke Wilson or the equally vapid 'villian' in this movie. The female actresses are very cute, and that's the only reason to watch this movie. I suppose it is 'funny' that Luke's even uglier/dorkier/stupider friend is around, but well, that is what we get.

Neither of the female leads would ever, EVER talk to any of the males in this movie for more than 5 minutes. What we get is them sobbing and crying and fighting and so on over 2 guys that were best described in Friday the 13th 4. Dead *@$#


It's easy to see how this below-average screenplay got by in the early sales-pitch meetings at Regency Films (and later with Fox): cross the superhero genre with a comedic take on "Fatal Attraction"...voilà! I don't know how on earth a talented director like Ivan Reitman got involved, unless the pay was just too tempting. A dateless employee at an architectural design firm in N.Y.C. meets a girl on the subway and asks her out; despite the fact she's distracted and unpleasant, he eventually gets her into bed--only to find out later she's the Big Apple's resident superhero, G-Girl. This distaff Superman, with powers bestowed upon her by a fallen meteorite, isn't a fantasy heroine, however...screenwriter Don Payne has conceived her as a needy, possessive, vindictive bitch (he telegraphs this to us from miles away, though Uma Thurman still plays the role for sassy laughs). This is the kind of worthless movie that can't let an insult slip by. Our introduction to leading man Luke Wilson, talking with Rainn Wilson on the train, is accompanied by a sour dig at gays (it prods at us to be assured these two buddies are strictly ladies' men). After being approached by G-Girl's nemesis, who wants to zap her powers, Wilson is told this will make her just an ordinary woman scorned...and isn't that better after all? Thurman's early performances in films like "Henry & June" and "Jennifer 8" showcased an intelligent woman with angular grace and hypnotic poise; her films with Quentin Tarantino helped expose her sinewy hardness and intensity, but that came at a price (the actress has seemingly lost her graceful touch). The picture is exceedingly well-produced and shot, with expensive-seeming special effects, yet nobody bothered to find the humor in this scenario. It's pushy, leering, ugly, and badly-cast. Bloated, frozen-faced Wilson can't tell any of his co-workers that he's dating G-Girl because she made him swear he'd rather have a chainsaw stuck up his rectum. I wonder if writer Payne actually thought that was hilarious...or, indeed, if anyone involved did? * from ****


I'm a huge fan of Ivan Reitman-I loved Evolution and who didn't like Ghostbusters? From the trailer you already know that Uma's character will get dumped by Luke's.So the build-up is obviously towards the moment when she unleashes her superpowers on him.But the pay-off is just not there.The shark tossing did manage to get a (slight) giggle but once again, it was all in the trailer.

No one does breathless quite like Uma and Luke is diet Owen on his good days.If not for Riann Wilson you would sit there with a constipated smile until your cheeks start to cramp.This is a comedy,right?

It's not awful-it just sits there like a stale cracker behind the fridge.This could have been such a brilliant send-up of Superhero movies and Feminism but fails on both counts.Let's see if Jason Reitman can salvage the family name.


I went to see this film yesterday and although i didn't have high hopes for this film, I was still bitterly disappointed! I actually cant believe I spent 96 minutes of my life watching this film...it was THAT bad!!! The storyline was disgraceful and the acting was terrible (even though it had big names such as Uma Thurman in it). This film heavily relied on its special effects...but they personally had no effect on me. I honestly wished id never watched it and I strongly warn everyone against seeing this film. It is a total waste of money and you'll only end up being disappointed afterwards. My advice is to save your money, go shopping, treat yourself, just don't go and see this film... You'll live to regret it lol!


Needed an excuse to get out of the house while paint dried - left the movie after an hour to return and watch the paint dry.

I don't recall ever walking out on a movie before, but I really tried to stay. The script was not up to the cast and just kept "going and going" badly - come on! Uma Thurman doing this stuff? Fairly lame special effects. These were older characters and actors doing superficial horny 20-something lives - just sort of annoying and wrong feeling.

This review is base only on the first hour - it might have gotten better. I just had to get home and see if the paint dried a darker shade than when it went on.


Well I must say this is probably the worst film I have seen this year! The jokes were extremely crude (wasn't expecting it from as PG movie)(Rated PG in Canada) and they weren't funny! With this great cast I at least expected some good acting but I didn't even get that. I am a huge Rainn Wilson fan and this is the first time I was extremely disappointed by his performance. Neither Luke Wilosn or Uma Thurman's characters are the least bit likable and i really could have cared less what happened to either of them. I didn't expect this at all as in the past I have really liked other movies by this director (Six Days, Seven Nights for example) This movie was NOT worth the $10 it cost me and i strongly encourage you not to see this movie. I guarantee that you will be like me begging for this movie to be over.


I have to admit when I went to see this movie, I didn't really have high expectations. But even with my low expectations I was totally and utterly disappointed...

Basically Luke Wilson is a hot shot who tends to go out with slightly crazy girlfriends. There's slight mention of a girl stalking him but that's pretty much it for that character. Which i don't quite mind cause it would probably be just as underdeveloped as the rest of the movie.

So while on a subway Rainn Wilson (who i actually liked before this movie) convinces him to talk to a "hot" girl, Uma Thurman. This is strange to say the least, as everyone can clearly see that Uma Thurman does not belong under the category of "hot".

Rainn Wilson's performance is also far from "hot". Normally I'm all for his acting, but even he couldn't salvage this movie. His character was jumpy, unrealistic and rather annoying. You could never tell if the writers were trying to make him the comical token closet gay guy, or just desperate. It was almost painful.

But anyway, someone steals her purse as she goes to leave the subway, and Luke Wilson being the charming savior he is runs after the robber. Now we all know that Uma Thurman is the superhero, or "G-Girl" as they like to call her in the movie. It still baffles me as to what the "G" stands for, but we'll leave that for the message boards to debate.

The sex scenes I assume are supposed to be funny, but I find myself asking who has sex like that? They nearly throw the bed through the wall because of Uma Thurman's "passion" let's say. It makes my head hurt, but not in the "I'm thinking really hard to understand this" way.

When Uma insults Anna Faris, calling her a "whore" I had no debate with that. Apart from the fact that she can't choose movies properly, she can't act and relies souly on the fact that she's blonde and typical.

Overall I would've walked out of the theater if i hadn't paid $8.75 to see it. The characters are typical and have absolutely no chemistry, especially Uma Thurman. Someone should let her know that just because you move your head a lot doesn't mean you're acting.

Also, the script and storyline could've used either a lot of work or a match and some lighter fluid. I actually started to feel embarrassed for the actors, and their dying careers. Overall, if you value your money, and your self respect do NOT waste your time with this pathetic attempt at a movie.


First off, I would like to point out that the reason why I gave this movie 1 star out of 10 is because there is no option to give it NO stars! it really is that bad! I was never eager to see this film after I saw the ads for it, I ended up seeing it only by chance because some friends of mine had tickets and had one spare so I tagged along. Before seeing it I had a fairly good idea that it wouldn't be genius - the premise seemed far too silly and stupid for anything good to come out of it, but at the back of my mind I was thinking "but there must be something good about it for UMA THURMAN and Luke Wilson do to the film..." not that I think either of them are particularly terrific but they are big-named stars who would normally only do films that would enhance their reputations. However, about 10-20 minutes into the feature I realized that the movie was probably worse than I had at first anticipated. I was shocked at how terrible the script was. It really gave the actors NOTHING to work with, so much so that they really looked like they didn't know what they were doing (especially Luke Wilson). The story was completely predictable - if you've seen the ad then you've pretty much seen the movie! And there was nothing original about it - it pretty much borrows from every 'super-hero' story that has ever been which would be acceptable had the film been set up as a satire of that genre, but alas it wasn't. The direction seemed to be of realism. I got the feeling that the director wanted the film to feel completely realistic and not satire at all, and yet there were some moments in the film that were so unbelievably unrealistic that it would have worked if it were a satire. At one moment in the movie two of the characters seem to die and one of the surviving characters has a line like "Oh well, she's dead...time to move on" and he says it in such a droll voice that it completely didn't make any sense. I found myself checking my watch after about 40 minutes to see how much longer I would have to sit through it. And then it struck me...I began to think "I wonder if the studio have made this picture as a test to see if they can make the worst possible movie ever made, and still pull a large audience..." I couldn't think of any other reason why this film would be made. For movies to be made these days, the script goes to a massive screening process and very very few scripts actually make it to the production stage...I can't comprehend how this one got past the first draft stage... By the end, and exceedingly, dumb-founding-Ly stupid climax, I was laughing heartily - just not at what the film-makers wanted me to laugh at, but instead at how ridiculous and stupid the movie was. Thank God I didn't have to pay money to see it...because that would have really annoyed me!!! Oh, and could I just add, that of the two Wilson brothers, I have always preferred Luke because I think he is a better, more versatile actor...but if he wants to step even further into OWEN's shadow then this is exactly the way to do it...I doubt that he will get many more job offers after this crappy waste of 2 hours!!! and remember, it only got a generous 1/10 because I couldn't select 0!


Oh my god. oh my god, i cant get over this movie. It was god-awful. horrible, terrible! Don't even waste your money to buy it in the 99 cent bin. No, avoid it at all costs I'm warning you!!!

It was the worst movie I've ever seen. In my life. In my life!!

First of all, G-girl? Are you kidding me. Get real that sounds like some kind of new Barbie doll.. Super Women? Are you kidding me. It was so fake fake fake fake. The people of the town didn't even seem to care that there was a flying blonde just zooming her way around the town saving a fire.. Ohh big!

Jesus, was it just me or did this movie seem offensive?? I guess what you need to be a super hero is a couple of double D's, blonde flowing hair, no glasses and a leather skin tight suit?!

If it was trying to be romantic ... than.. god, i don't know. It was horrid, if love means taking some one to an art show and than having sex in a bed AND in the air.. than they totally had love!

It was pathetic, everything went too fast. First that guy was single, than he was dating G-girl.. than they broke up than he dated that Hannah girl.. and.. it just goes on.

I have to say this movie made me wonder.. How the hell did they get this in theaters??!!

Avoid this movie at all costs.


I rented this movie tonight because it looked like a fun movie. I figured that you really couldn't go wrong with a concept of Ex Girlfriend with super powers.

... but the movie was confused and pointless ...

it seemed that at every turn the writer kept throwing junk in. Also the writer kept throwing in way too much toilet humor and sexual situations that only a teenage boy could love.

It seems that it could have been so simple to draw a story out of Fatal Attraction Super hero .. but I guess not.

This is not a fun romantic comedy it was advertised to be. You could not take a child to see it and you would be embarrassed seeing it a date.

If the writer could have done a basic story around the high concept and cleaned it up - the movie might have a fighting chance.

A serious waste of time.

B


I had two reasons for watching this swashbuckler when it aired on Danish television yesterday. First of all, I wanted to see Gina Lollobrigida - and here I wasn't disappointed. She looked gorgeous. Second of all, through reading about the film I had gotten the impression that it featured absurd humor not unlike that which can be found in Philippe de Broca's films. On this account, however, I was sadly disappointed. I found the jokes predictable (apart from a few witty remarks on the topic of war) and the characters completely one-dimensional. Also, the action scenes were done in a strangely mechanical and uninspired fashion, with no sense of drama at all. I kept watching until the end, but I got bored very quickly and just sat there, waiting for the scenes with Lollobrigida.


After too many bad memories, I took to skipping this episode each time it showed up in the Season 2 sequence. I recently watched it again just to remind me why. I've always considered this the worst ST:TNG episode (with the exception of "Shades of Gray," which barely counts as an episode at all).

I keep listening to the clunky dialogue and thinking of the script red-penciled by the author's Writing 101 teacher: "SHOW, DON'T TELL!" From Deanna Troi's pronouncement, and everyone else's constant elbowing reminders about what a charming, dangerous rogue Okona is, to Guinan's explanation about how funny her droid joke is (it isn't), to the who-cares resolution to the conflict, there isn't a plot point that isn't highlighted and triple-underlined for our edification, and there ain't a believable moment in any of it. Unfortunately, Bill Campbell, a charming actor in other circumstances, is too puppy-dog huggable to be the center of the machinations of the plot. On the other hand, it could be that no one short of John Barrowman (Jack Harkness from "Doctor Who") could pull of this underwritten placeholder of a role.

(Zero points, by the way, to the Data subplot. While I think Joe Piscopo stopped being funny decades ago, he and Brent Spiner had nothing to work with here. Although the Jerry Lewis bit was funny in a stupid way.)

On a good day, you may be able to think of this as a charming little homage to a lesser Original Series episode. Me, I'd rather skip ahead to "Time Squared" or "Q Who."


I went to go see this at the Esquire Theatre in Cincy, OH, and - I hate my life now.

Christopher Reeves would have been a more believable boxer.

As a film it was painful, but seeing Bret Carr in person was to see desperation at its pinnacle.

My favorite part of the movie was seeing BC slammed in the face with what appeared to be a "C" battery. The jury is still out on this. It was from a dildo and it was in slow-mo. Yep.

"Shoot the left side of the face only...people become famous by demanding things!" - Bret Carr B. Carr donned a Chicken Suit for a bit of reverse psychology, roaming the streets of Clifton bashing his own film. He should. This is correct to bash the film.

My soul felt chafed after this movie.

Bret Carr is not charismatic enough to be the leader of a cult, or smart enough for that matter. That is the feeling you get from the What the Bleepesque trickle of brainwashed, impressionable neo-yuppies that came to see this Bret Carr Piece of Work.

It's an emotionally draining experience just thinking about writing about this film, so goodbye.

-Anonymous


The Gospel of Lou was a major disappointment for me. I had received an E-Mail from the theater showing it that it was a great and inspirational movie. It was neither great nor inspirational. The cinematography was pretty iffy with the whole movie. A lot the scenes were flash backs that were done in a way that couldn't tell at times what they were about. The voices were often distorted for no reason. Also many of the people in the movie were far fetched. The relationship he has with his ex & son is never made clear. Also the whole movie has most him one way, and then all of a sudden BAM, he is cured and inspiring people. The whole movie seems to show that boxing is one of the things that is bad in his life, making him live his life the way that he is living it, but when he changes, he doesn't leave boxing, he teaches others how to box. Thumbs Down.


Straight to the point: "The Groove Tube" is one of the most unfunny, unclever and downright horrible films ever made. This "comedy" is so void of anything remotely resembling a trace of wit that it's almost incomprehensible that it was even made. I said almost because there are fans of everything after all.

This film isn't even "good" bad or "enjoyable" bad. To put this movie on the same level of entertainment as "Plan 9" or "Robot Monster" would be a crime to those films. Films like that you can actually watch and get a kick out of. But this film is SO bad, SO poorly made, acted and scripted and SO incredible stale, that there just isn't even a trace of "camp" or "schlock" to be found.

Even though this was made before Saturday Night Live premiered, comparisons were probably inevitable. I'm not a big fan of SNL, but this film is worse than the worst SNL skit you can find. And man, that's BAD. Just to keep the men viewers from leaving, Shapiro throws in a pair of breasts every so often, but poorly-filmed breasts from 1974 aren't going to excite anyone these days. Truthfully this film is so poorly made and is such a sleep-inducing excursion, I doubt if they excited anyone in 1974 either.

A man named Ken Shapiro made this film. I swear to God, any ten-year old with a video camera could have made something funnier and more clever. It's just downright unreal - this is truly an unbelievable film. The "jokes" and "gags" are so infantile that even little boys who like to sneak dad's porno mags out at night won't laugh.

I will give this film one thing - the very last sequence, the "dancing man" sequence, where a guy (Shapiro) on the streets of NYC dances to a tune, is easily the best thing in this horrible film. Not that the "dancing man" sequence is that great either - it definitely has its moments of not being clever as Shapiro desperately tries to fill in the time for the entire song - but it actually was somewhat watchable. The part of this sequence where the cop starts dancing with the man is the one sole trace of cleverness in the entire film. No wonder Shapiro put this sequence last - again, while not so great itself, it easily beats anything else in this "film."

Otherwise, this film is such a complete piece of crap, it's unfathomable as to how an actual human being can be so downright cleverless. The name of this film should have been "Ken Shapiro's Craparama." It's amazing that this was made, but many truly talented filmmakers can't get in. However, I will say that I bet the geniuses at NYU would love this movie. Total garbage.


After two long, long opening skits, one of which my brother saw the conclusion coming of and the other totally joke free, we start the fast-forward fest that it GROOVE TUBE proper. Naturally, uber-stupid frat boys who still mainline JACKASS or Tom Green will find the idea of fecal matter coming out of the some tube, SEX OLYMPICS(I really don't need to give you details, do I), and a clown who basically does the "not very endearing clown" bit I think I've seen approxiately ninety times now will eat this up like dung beetles: well, more power to you.

I just want to express that, despite what you've heard, this movie was in no way a model for the many infinitely funnier movies like KENTUCKY FRIED MOVIE or what not. The skit movie had already been done in AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX, and so on. And done way better.


Rented it last night. The opening(2001) ran WAAAAAAAAAY too long. The hitchiker scene served no purpose. Some skits were just retarded. I knew beforehand, Chevy Chase was on for less than 2 minutes. No problem. Here are the best parts:

KOKO, URANUS, BABS COMMERCIAL, Curtis Mayfield song

Total: 7 minutes of good material out of a 75 minute movie

Everything else was either unfunny or stupid as hell.

Let me give you some advice: If you want a crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "Kentucky Fried Movie". If you want a less crude movie spoofing TV and movies, rent "AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON" or "UHF"

Otherwise, don't bother renting this movie. You'll save 2-3 dollars.

IMHO: Ken Shapiro's best movie is STILL "Modern Problems"


Oh dear. While Chevy Chase and the gang at SNL set new highs with the sketch show format this fails miserably at every level. Fortunately Chevy is barely in this at all and can't be blamed for this utter tripe. It seriously is very, very bad. While meant to be a political comment on USA at the time of it's release (1974) it still remains neither funny or acutely observed. The sketches are all way too long and any satirical impact they may have had is lost as they're all drawn out to the point of complete boredom. This is credited as Chevy's movie debut and I'm pleased to say that everything he did after this bettered it. Avoid even if curious.


Hearing about how hilarious this movie is, I finally rent it at

the video store and for 75 minutes maybe I laughed 3 times. This

movie, a collection of skits that make fun of television is an

incoherrent mess. The jokes fall flat, the humor deals with

issues from the 1970's that just aren't relevant anymore, and

the jokes go on way too long (almost like the new SNL skits the

past few years). Yeah, Chevy Chase is in this but maybe of all

about 1 or 2 minutes. I liked the fact that this was very

raunchy and had nudity galore but couldn't it be funny? Do

yourself a favor and rent Kentucky Fried Movie which is a far

superior film made in the


I read all the reviews here AFTER watching this piece of cinematic garbage and it took me at least 2 pages to find out that somebody else didn't think that this appallingly unfunny montage WASN'T the acme of humour in the 70s or indeed in any other era! If this isn't the least funny set of sketch *comedy* I've ever seen it'll do till it comes along. Half of the skits had already been done (and infinitely better) by acts such as Monty Python and Woody Allen... If I was to say that a nice piece of animation that lasts about 90 seconds is the highlight of this film it would still not get close to summing up just how mindless and drivel-ridden this waste of 75 minutes is. Seminal comedy? Only in the world where seminal really DOES mean semen. Scatological humour? Only in a world where scat IS actually feces. Precursor jokes? Only if by that we mean that this is a handbook of how NOT to do comedy. Tits and bums and the odd beaver. Nice...if you are a pubescent boy with at least one hand free and haven't found out that Playboy exists. Give it a break because it was the early 70s? No way. There had been sketch comedy going back at least ten years prior. The only way I could even forgive this film even being made is if it was at gunpoint. Retro? Hardly. Sketches about clowns subtly perverting children may be cutting edge in some circles (and it could actually have been funny) but it just comes off as really quite sad. What kept me going throughout the entire 75 minutes? Sheer belief that they may have saved a genuinely funny skit for the end. I gave the film a 1 because there was no lower score...and I can only recommend it to insomniacs or coma patients...or perhaps people suffering from lockjaw...their jaws would finally drop open in disbelief.


The only film I've ever walked out on. Amazing, since I paid for myself and my date and I'm really cheap. But my brain couldn't stand any more of the dreck being piled on, particularly since I could have written funnier material while tie up and gagged.

From the beginning to the end this film offends. Worse, it ain't funny. It wasn't funny then, and it sure ain't funny now. But even worse, is that this film represents the beginning of the end of really smart, sophisticated comedy. It's juvenile, really sophomoric script and ideas began an era (which continues to this day) where cheap laughs, and sexual innuendo dominate the culture of comedy in film.

Sexual Olympics? What High School kid hasn't thought of that? The beginning of the end.


A repressed housewife (an annoying lisping Angie Dickinson, whose body double treats/horrifies us with an extreme closeup of her delicates) is sexually bored by her husband and decides to branch-out. This directly results in a string of murders that soon involve a high-class prostitute (Nancy Allen, clearly I am in the wrong business if SHE can bring home $600 a night) and her psychologist (Michael Caine). If you are going to watch De Palma rip off (excuse me, "pay homage to") Hitchcock, watch "Sisters" instead of this. "Dressed to Kill," while loaded with style and technical skill, is one of the tackiest thrillers I have had the displeasure of sitting through. The plot is absurd and tired. It does feature some surprisingly effective jump scares and nasty graphic murder sequences that should please any horror fan, as long as they can get past the silly story line, that must have been dated even in 1980.


A call-girl witnesses a murder and becomes the killer's next target. Director Brian De Palma is really on a pretentious roll here: his camera swoops around corners in a museum (after lingering a long time over a painting of an ape), divvies up into split screen for arty purposes, practically gives away his plot with a sequence (again in split screen) where two characters are both watching a TV program about transsexuals, and stages his (first) finale during a thunderous rainstorm. "Dressed To Kill" is exhausting, primarily because it asks us to swallow so much and gives back nothing substantial. Much of the acting (with the exception of young Keith Gordon) is mediocre and the (second) finale is a rip-off of De Palma's own "Carrie"--not to mention "Psycho". The explanation of the dirty deeds plays like a spoof of Hitchcock, not an homage. Stylish in a steely cold way, the end results are distinctly half-baked. ** from ****


I can find very little thats good to say about this film. I am sure the idea and script looked good on paper but the filmography and acting I am afraid is not the standards I would expect from some very talented people. I would doubt that this features highly in their CV Filmography. Michael Caine appeared wooden at times in his role as the Doctor, and at no time no did I actually believe in his character. The plot was unbelievable especially with regard to the victims son. Some of the scenes were very reminiscent of other films, that at times I wondered if it was actually a spoof thriller. The lighting at times was dark and this added to the feeling of watching a low budget movie with some big named stars, wondering why I bothered to watch it at all.


Sorry to go against the flow but I thought this film was unrealistic, boring and way too long. I got tired of watching Gena Rowlands long arduous battle with herself and the crisis she was experiencing. Maybe the film has some cinematic value or represented an important step for the director but for pure entertainment value I wish I would have skipped it.


Anyone who loved the two classic novels by Edward Ormondroyd will be disappointed in this film. All the magic and romance have been modernized out of his original story of a girl who does a good deed for a mysterious old lady, and given "three" in return. Three what? Not three wishes, but three rides into the 1800's on a rickety elevator...

The first novel is Time at the Top. The second is All in Good Time.


There is absolutely NO reason to waste your time with this "film". The original said it all and still holds up. Either read the book or do some research about the story, and you'll realize this remake is ludicrous. Eric Roberts as Perry Smith? His sister could have done a better job! Having been to Holcomb & Edgerton, KS where the story takes place, the sets and locations looked NOTHING like Kansas. The original is riveting, from the location filming to the use of the actual participants, weapons and victims belongings. Unforgettable performances by Scott Wilson and Robert Blake. Soundtrack by Quincy Jones and cinematography by Conrad Hall...The original is available on DVD in widescreen now. Let this turkey die a quick death.


In Cold Blood was one of several 60s films that created a new vision of violence in the Hollywood film industry. Capote coined the phrase "nonfiction novel" to describe the book on which this film is based, and the spirit of that form was carried over into the film script, which he co-wrote. Despite the fact that we were well into the era of color film, Richard Brooks elected to present this film in black and white to underscore both the starkness of the landscape and the bleakness of the story. This is the first problem with the TV remake --color changes the tone of the story. In addition, the confinement of shooting a film for TV makes reduces the options of how the shots are framed and focused. As a result, we lose the dramatic clash which makes the second part of the original film (police interviews, trial, imprisonment, and execution) so claustrophobic. On the small screen, it's just another version of Law and Order spin-offs.

Hollywood's search for scripts continuously takes it back to movies that were successful in another age. Usually, that's a mistake, and this is no exception.

All of the actors are competent. The script is OK. The directing doesn't get in the way. It's just that the movie doesn't work as well as the original precision instrument. It doesn't hook the viewer into the ambivalence toward Smith and Hickock that the original film provokes. At the end of the TV version, we are left with the feeling: "Ho hum, who cares?"

See the original first, on as large a screen as you can, then watch the TV version simply to understand why the first one was such an important film in 1967.

Wouldn't hurt to also go on line and read a bit about Capote and the original book. It will help you to understand the extraordinary effort he put into the material, and also some of the controversy surrounding both the book and the movie.

I actually only gave this a 4 because I save the bottom 3 rankings for true bombs--the kind that enrage you about having been sucked into spending an


Why do they insist on making re-makes of great movies like "High Noon" "From Here to Eternity" and this one?

Why do they think that color is more engrossing to a viewer than stark black and white?

Why did Robert's insist on wearing that dopey, broad-billed, baseball cap?...it made him look like Jim Varney.

Why would anyone spend four hours suffering through this?

Watch the original. Then YOU won't have to ask yourself WHY.


This waste of time is a completely unnecessary remake of a great film. Nothing new or original is added other than Perry's backflashes, which are of marginal interest. It lacks the documentary feel of the first film and the raw urgency that made it so effective. Also painfully missing is the sharp Quincy Jones soundtrack that added to much to the original film. I can't understand any high ratings for this at all. It's quite bad. Why does anyone waste time or money making crap like this and why did I waste time watching it?


As there was nothing wrong with the acting etc etc the writing for the episode is way off for this series phantom or no phantom. It was a waste of 42 minutes to see the martian man hunter. You have to know that in the middle of the 6th series no matter what happens it is not true what is going on and really brings nothing to the story of the series except meeting the martian man hunter again and to waste 30 minutes to do this is by far another case of bad writing in the soap opera of smallville. I really like the show but mainly due to the cast and the 3 or so good episodes each year but who ever is on the writing cast that works or used to work on the soaps needs to be canned. This was by far one of the worst. With in the first 4 minutes you know that what is going on is bogus and anything happening is a dream based on Clark's infliction obviously caused by a phantom zone character and when he wakes up he will win and blah blah blah so the writers don't have to really create a villain that will progress the story line any this week. May as well have added another villain to die in the last episode the martian man hunter was in and made him fly away again or come back and tell Clark he forgot his sunglasses to get a closer look like in this episode and call it a day.


Not that "a film by Ulli Lommel" filled me with hope, but I must confess that ZODIAC KILLER managed to sink beneath my lowest expectations. There is a recent trend among young filmmakers of utilizing digital video for their early projects, which is all well and good for giving these kids the opportunity to create work without spending all their money on expensive film stock. But many of these young filmmakers have also wised up to the notion of filtering the finished movie so that it appears qualitatively more like celluloid. The effect is never perfect, but it helps. Unfiltered digital video really only works for the "mockumentary" style, because it never looks like anything other than video. Therein lies the primary trouble with ZODIAC KILLER. Watching the movie feels like watching a daytime soap opera about a murderer. It does not feel like watching a movie. And what's even more unforgivable is that the Lommel is NOT a young filmmaker. He ought to know better. He ought to know that it's virtually impossible to generate horror (or even suspense!) on video. For the love of god this guy has been directing since the sixties! He may be the only director who has failed to improve over a forty year career in the business. And lucky us, he wrote the script too! So you can expect convoluted actions that mean nothing, unjustified behavior, and at least one truly pretentious plot element that will leave you utterly unsatisfied. Please, please miss this film. You'll thank me later.


At least I was able to enjoy mocking the movie which is surprising since I was barely able to sit through it. In all honesty, my guess is the cover to the DVD case cost more than the entire movie. And saying that it is the same director as The Boogeyman, when a new version of that just came out...nice touch guys, it was misleading enough to rope me in. The only thing that frustrated me more than the insufferable acting of the copycat was his haircut. Usually you only see that kind of hair on a ten year old boy and the character acted like it. The film looks like it was shot by a D+ grad student of some film school excited to use every film technique he ever learned while attending classes....sometimes, less is more buddy. Through out I would get lost by random plot twists that led nowhere or were unexplained. All this makes a bad movie but when the ending doesn't even come close to pulling it together, well, that makes it an exceptionally bad movie. Without a doubt this is the worst movie I have ever seen, and that includes my friends' french final video for senior year of high school, but hey maybe i'm a bit biased, I mean I did get to play an extra. P.S. I don't even think this deserves a star...not even a half. NONE FOR YOU!!


1 is being pretty generous here. I really enjoyed BOOGEYMAN, even though it is not really the BOOGEYMAN promoted on the DVD cover and we all know it! It creeped me out. But this film, it is something else. For being directed by a guy who has been around a long time and directed a lot of movies, it looks like it was shot on a VHS camcorder by a 10 year old! The story and acting are atrocious! David Hess, you have let me down too. After playing one of the most menacing villains in film history, you have resorted to this? The story and acting may have been able to be forgiven however, if anyone had taken the time to make the video look somewhat professional. There are a LOT of shot on video films out there that don't look like it, or at least aren't so obvious that it detracts your attention from the film. I can't say it is the worst movie ever, because I couldn't make it through the entire film, but it is certainly close.


Except people apparently buy into this garbage! As shows like "Moral Orel" have shown, even if you tried to make the most outrageous, over-the-top parody of evangelism you could possibly think of, it wouldn't come close to the hilarity of this show. It's hard to tell what's even going on when you're watching it. Is it a news show? A talk show? Who knows!? They start out by reporting on various international news stories, but at seemingly random points, the news is interrupted by this odd, troll-like little man with a forehead bigger than his entire face, mumbling and laughing and generally being creepy.

Pat Robertson doesn't even seem like such a bad guy at first glance. He just seems like a senile, yet harmless old coot stuck in his archaic beliefs (like most of our grandparents). But this is a man who has called for an assassination, who has befriended and offered aid to not one, but TWO murderous dictators, who has illegally used donation money to run diamond mines, who has SUPPORTED forced abortions in China, and who regularly implies that Caucasians (straight American male Caucasians in particular) are superior to all other races.

Still, this would all be funny, except that he apparently has a large enough fan base to keep his little show on the air 40 years later (either that, or enough money to bribe some TV executives who don't give a damn what they show). The idiocy of the show becomes alarming when you realize that some people, somewhere, must be watching it and hanging onto every word. Even when Robertson has repeatedly shown how corrupt he is, people still listen to him. I don't know if it's funny or scary. I guess a healthy mixture of both.