Well, what can I say.

"What the Bleep do we Know" has achieved the nearly impossible - leaving behind such masterpieces of the genre as "The Postman", "The Dungeon Master", "Merlin", and so fourth, it will go down in history as the single worst movie I have ever seen in its entirety. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is impressive indeed, for I have seen many a bad movie.

This masterpiece of modern cinema consists of two interwoven parts, alternating between a silly and contrived plot about an extremely annoying photographer, abandoned by her husband and forced to take anti-depressants to survive, and a bunch of talking heads going on about how quantum physics supposedly justifies their new-agy pseudo-philosophy. Basically, if you start your day off meditating to the likes of Enya and Kenny G, this movie is for you. If you have a sense of humor, a crowd of people who know how to have fun, and a sizable portion of good weed, then this movie is for you as well. Otherwise, stay away. Take my word for it.

The first thing that struck me about "What the Bleep do you Know" is that is seemed to be edited and put together by the same kinds of people that shoot cheap weddings on camera, complete with pink heart effects, computer-generated sparkles across the screen, and other assorted silliness. Who let these people anywhere near a theatrical release is a mystery to me. I guess this is what too much Kenny G does to you. The movie was permeated with cheesy GCI, the likes that you or I can produce on our own computer via over-the-counter video editing software, but never would, because it's just way too ridiculous.

The script was _obviously_ written by someone with no writing experience whatsoever. Not only were all the characters and conversations cumbersome and contrived beyond belief, but the "writers" felt like they had to shove every relevant piece of information, or rather disinformation, which is what most of this movie was all about, all the way down your throat. Well, given the target audience, that may not have been too bad of an idea. The main character, for example, spends half the movie popping pills. Apparently, though, it was deemed not convincing enough, so there are at least a couple of dialogs in throughout, which refer to her anti-anxiety pills specifically, just in case the viewers should not be able to connect her overacted pain and suffering with little white pills she takes whenever she feels down. The acting... Well, I've seen better acting in Ed Wood movies, and no, this is not an exaggeration. Heck, the little play I was in when I was 12 featured much more inspiring acting than this. It really did.

The story is interrupted here and there with a bunch or random talking heads, a strange mix of kooky scientists, kooky doctors, and self-proclaimed mystics, go on and on about how quantum physics supposedly provides an "explanation" for how ever man or woman created their own reality just by participating in the experience of life. Reality, you see, is a probability-field of a bunch of different possibilities, and is only set in stone once you the Observer chose to notice it. What happens when more than one Observer Observes they didn't say, but then again who cares. Listen to Enya, meditate, Observe, and you shall be God, and nobody gives a damn about such silly and archaic things as critical thinking, logic, etc. All reason is immediately dismissed as people being stuck in their ways and unable to achieve a "paradigm shift" and "go down the rabbit hole". Furthermore, the Heidelberg Uncertainty Principle supposedly is proof positive of alternate realities, parallel universes, and such.

Speaking of rabbit holes, the analogy permeates the movie. All of these people keep talking about going down rabbit holes. I'm not sure what that had to do with anything else they were saying or showing, but one thing I'm certain of is that it somehow involves anal sex. Actually, the movie is _extremely_ anti-sex. Throughout, sex is presented as dirty, ugly, and anti-enlightening.

In any case, the talking heads talk, the main character achieves harmony and enlightenment by painting hearts all over her body with a magic marker, and proceeds to walk around with an even stupider look in her glazed over eyes than she started with.

I want 2 hours of my life back.

Here's a couple of random quotes which I happened to remember:

"What I think of as unreal has become a lot more real to me, and that, which I used to consider real, is oftentimes a lot less real than the unreal." - Some talking head on the spirituality of quantum physics.

"What does it take for one man to have an erection? It takes just one thought. Nothing changes on the outside, all the changes are within. An yet he has an erection" - Some self proclaimed mystic, head of her own school of enlightenment.

[while looking at herself in the mirror] "I hate you! I hate you! You're fat! You're ugly! I have you!" - main character, the fat and ugly photographer.


If you're a layman interested in quantum theory and string theory, read "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene of Columbia University, and "The Universe in a Nutshell" by Stephen Hawking of Cambridge.

Recipe for #$*!:

3 parts bombastic New Age pontificator, 2 parts pseudoscientist, 2 parts real scientist

Mix together until ingredients are indistinguishable from each other and spread on celluloid thin enough that there is no discernible substance.

Serving suggestion: barf bags.


I was extremely suspicious of the ideas presented in this movie, but being relatively ignorant of quantum physics aside from what I recalled from the excellent "Short History of Nearly Everything" and what I was able to choke down in "A Brief History of Time," it sounded interesting at times. However, the obvious nonsense of the story of the Indians being unable to see the ships of the explorers was ridiculous. I really started questioning what was being shoveler at that point, but then the clincher was the revelation that one of the speakers was actually "channelling" some loony named "Ramtha" completely upset the applecart for me.

What a waste of two hours.


A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.

Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into "that sort of thing," I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.

In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only "unifying" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the "authorities" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.

As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the "story" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word "Pollack" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as "Pollack." And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.

The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap.


If you want to see intelligent, philosophical discussion of human possibility and potential, watch "Waking Life," which is brilliant. "What the #$*! Do We Know" is all over the place in its focus, poorly directed, poorly written, poorly acted, utterly devoid of any art direction and completely annoying. It wasn't thought-provoking or entertaining in the slightest. The inclusion of that rambling freak "Ramtha" in this film is reason enough to avoid it. Isn't it strange how the filmmakers choose to look over the fact that this woman worships some 2,000 year old Atlantian god or something? What a flake that old chick is, and what a total waste of my time and money this movie was. The people responsible for this film should not be allowed to make another movie ever again.


If you want to learn the basics of quantum mechanics, spend your $9 on a used textbook, not this movie. I'm a little worried that the money I spent is being used to buy Kool-Aid for shipment to Guyana.

I don't think the directors really got any point across, but it looks like maybe they were trying to make several: 1) Science can explain everything we do, meaning that our lives are deterministic; 2) Science can't be used to explain everything we do, meaning that we have free will; 3) Science is, like, really cool, brother; 4) We are God; 5) The world exists only in our minds; 6) Sarah Norman is a tough role to follow and 7) here, put this tiny paper square in your mouth and you'll see some really groovy stuff.


Pathetic attempt to use science to justify new age religion/philosophy. The two have nothing to do with each other and much of what is said about Quantum Physics in this mess is just plain wrong.

Examples? Quantum theory supports the ideas in eastern religions that reality is an illusion. How? Well, in the world of the subatomic, you can never definitely predict a particles location at a specific time. You can only give the odds of it being precisely at one spot at one time. Also, the act of observation seems to affect the event. Solid particles can pass through barriers. All of this, so far, is accurate. But then they assert that that means that if you believed sincerely enough that you could walk through a wall, you could indeed do it. This is complete poppycock. Instead, the theory asserts that at our level, it is possible for you to walk through a wall, but it is merely by chance and has nothing to do with belief. Also you'd have to keep walking into the wall for eternity to ever have even the remotest chance of passing through the wall, the odds are so astronomically against it.

This is but one example of how they misrepresent the science. But much more annoying is the narrative involving an unhappy photographer, played by Marlee Maitlan. About halfway through the picture it becomes so confused as to be incomprehensible. Something to do with negative thoughts leading to addiction and self-hate. There may be some truth to that, but Quantum physics has nothing to do with it.

Plus, string theory is the hot new thing in physics nowadays. Instead of wasting your time with this dreck, I suggest you rent The Elegant Universe, an amazing series done for NOVA on PBS that gives you a history of physics from Newton and gravity to Ed Witten and M Theory in only 3 hour-long episodes. Quantum mechanics is explained there quite well if you want to know it without the fog of metaphysical appropriation.


I'm still trying to decide if this is indeed, the worst film I have ever seen - A very disturbing problem with this film is that real scientists are interviewed, but their footage is edited to make it look as though they support the ideas of the many BSers who populate this film. The BS to signal ratio of the interviews is about ten thousand to one - at the end, the interviewees seem to be saying, "We want you to _think_ !!", but they themselves are too lazy to do simple research about things they assert as fact.

If you feel that you are open-minded, and wish to expand your consciousness, please be open-minded enough to read some actual books about quantum theory: "Einstein's Universe", Nigel Calder (a slim volume, not a challenge), "The Cosmic Code", by Heinz Pagels. If you can't bring yourself to read a book, please don't complain to reviewers about being "open-minded".

To recap, this film is just unbelievably bad.

You know what's a really good film which questions the nature of reality? "Thirteenth Floor", directed by Roland Emmerich, with Craig Bierko, Gretchen Mol, Vincent D'onofrio. Smart, sexy, thought-provoking.


"What the Bleep Do We Know!?" was one of the worst times I have spent at the movies. It was less of a movie and more of an after school special, but at the same time nothing special at all. The attempt at a narrative in which they grounded their ideas was absolutely pathetic, which almost anyone will tell you. Marlee Matlin in her underwear just shouldn't happen. I won't dwell on it. What I will reveal is a criticism that many are unable to formulate. This movie, while tedious, also suffered a tremendous flaw in reasoning. It was horribly contradictory because it took such a manipulative, become a creator of your life, manifestation of abundance, shoeless piece of propaganda. Interconnectivity is explained as a large party of our existence. However, the movie encourages that we control our surroundings with our minds. It completely neglects that there are other people with minds that could be controlling us, which seems to be more the case. Or at least the structures in which we exist greatly limit us. In this way, the movie was inappropriately solipsistic. Solipsism and interconnectivity just don't mix unless you're God almighty. If you are, you will be impressed (?!?) by all the neat things this movie will reveal that You can do. If not, you will be sorely disappointed, a moron, or perhaps both. Also, the title is so ridiculous, I have trouble warning people not to see the movie because I feel retarded mentioning it by name. Shame on everyone involved.


Another cult strikes again. This isn't a spoiler, because the REAL ending comes after you research the folks who brought this overly-long, pseudo-scientific infomercial...Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.

When any religion/philosophy needs to hide behind an OZ-like screen of deceit, I walk away. Thank Ramtha I watched a borrowed copy of this movie on the recommendation of a "friend"...to have wasted precious resources on this New-Age lobotomizer would have been tragic. I can only hope that they "truly believe they can walk on water" enough to take that guidance to it's "logical" conclusion...in other words; walk, drown...or shut up :-) As a movie...it deserves a strong "1" on it's entertainment value, especially for creating the most dislikable character in film history (the photographer's roommate...eeeeeek!). If you must see this film, borrow it from one of the brainwashed folks who recommended it.


I agree strongly with some of the other critics of this film. I found it incredibly silly (at best) and downright misleading, misinforming and harmful (at worst). Like others, I found this film to be an awful mix of "real" science and pseudoscientific, New Age propaganda.

As a psychologist, I was especially offended by Candace Pert's contributions. True, I was not a fan of hers before this film, but her discourse on the "consciousness" of cells was one of the best examples of taking a term ("consciousness") that has a predictable meaning to most people and using it in such a distorted manner as to cause it to obscure rather than clarify. It is an old Orwellian mind-f**k that the master himself described so well in his superb essay "Politics and the English Language." To refer to "consciousness" in this manner--indeed, to refer to this film as "based in science" in general (which is its clear intent)--is to use language in the same manner employed by Stalin when he labeled his slave-states "democratic republics" and Hitler when he called his party a "socialist workers" movement.

I don't claim to really understand quantum physics. I know enough about it to know that to really understand it would take considerable study. Ah, but we Americans do love "instant enlightenment," and that's what this mistake of a film tries to accomplish. If it ASKED questions, that would be one thing, but it clearly attempts to ask and ANSWER them, which no film could possibly do simply because we are far, far away from the answers (if they indeed exist).

By the way, ethically this film needed a disclaimer about the association of several "expert commentators" with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (and TM), not to mention J.Z. Knight, who often speaks in her "Ramtha" voice. (I'm always amazed at this channeled 10,000 year-old Atlantean superman's grasp of 21st century concepts and terminology. But then again, this film argues that the past, present and future are all one and the same, so if Ramtha existed in Atlantis 10,000 years ago, I suppose he could exist now and tomorrow. Only, then how come his financial advice has been so incredibly bad for his followers? Oh, I forgot, I'm the creator of "good" and "bad" advice, so it's all my fault, not Ramtha's.)

What a mess.


At first glance this documentary/fiction/cartoon is quite entertaining and thought provoking. Of course, when something provokes thought, it can then be scrutinized. The reality is this movie combines metaphysics with innuendo and baseless conclusions. The link that "What the Bleep..." would have you see between science and spirituality is, in fact, not rooted in science at all. The Transcendental Meditation study mentioned in the film claims that meditation by a group can reduce crime in a given area, Washington D.C. in this case. In reality the HRA (Homicides, Rapes, and Assaults) crime rate was about 30% higher in 1993 than the average crime rate between 19881992. There was absolutely no decrease in the homicide rate during the study. In fact, each and every claim that links metaphysics to science can and has been debunked.

My conclusion from this information is that this movie is either a poor attempt to indoctrinate people or a joke. Either way, I suggest that you do not waste your time.

If you are looking for a long winded movie about science that could provoke thoughts, you might consider Mindwalk (1990).


I will admit that I'm only a college student at this present time, an English major at that. At the time I saw this film I was a high school student--I want to say junior year but it may have been senior, hard to remember. My experience with quantum physics goes pretty much to my honors physics course, an interest in quantum mechanics that has led me to read up on the subject in a number of books on the theoretical aspects of the field as well as any article I can find in Discover and the like. I'm not a PhD by any means.

That said...

This movie is simply terrible. It's designed to appeal to the scientific mind of the average New Age guru who desperately wants to believe in how special everybody is. My mother is such a person and ever since she's seen this movie she's tried to get all her friends to see it and bought a copy of the film. I attempted to point out the various flaws and problems I'd seen with the films logic and science--and they are numerous--and she dismissed my claims because "oh, so a high school student knows more than all those people with PhDs." In this case, apparently so.

Leaving behind the fact that earning a PhD doesn't necessarily require that a person be correct or, in fact, intelligent. Leaving behind the fact that my basic understanding of physics is enough to debunk half the film. Leaving that behind, the film makers completely manipulated their interviews with at least one of the participants to make it appear that he supported their beliefs when, in fact, he completely opposed them.

I could go on and on but I think intuitor did a really good job of debunking the film so feel free to read that if you care to do so.

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/bleep.html


I went into this film expecting it to be similar to The Matrix or Pi. Boy, was I wrong. Yes, there is a poorly written, poorly acted plot in the movie (with CG animated cells and peptides to boot). However, the real focus of the film are the "expert" talking heads spewing out new age feel-good hogwash in between plot segments.

Sure, it stars off innocently enough. There is a little bit of real quantum physics in the beginning. It states, for example, that electrons exist as both particle and wave, and that an atom is mostly empty space. However, the movie takes a giant (and unscientific) leap, saying that sub-atomic quantum effects happen on large scales as well. The talking heads take it even further. According to them, the following are true:

-When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, the natives were unable to see his ships because their minds were incapable of perceiving something so different. -Meditation can reduce the murder rate. -With positive thought, you can walk on water. -Your thoughts can change the formations of ice crystals in bottles of water.

And hey, that's only in the first 40 minutes!

Watching the movie was torture. This film felt like a movie they would show you to get you to join a cult. After doing my homework, I realized that it basically is just that.

On the other hand, this could be seen as a campy comedy (albeit one that's not funny).

Save your time and money: don't see this movie.


I didn't know much about this movie before I watched it, but I heard it had something to do with quantum physics so I was interested. What I didn't know is that this is NOT ACTUALLY A STORY but a bunch of New-Age blowhards who love the sound of their own voice talking about how little they know about basic quantum mechanics. I say it belongs more in the Documentary category than Comedy or Drama.

Marlee Matlin is in the movie, in order to give this New Age symposium *some* sort of a storyline. Her portions of the film feel horribly tacked on and are meant to display the speaker's thoughts so we won't die of boredom. Matlin has a real job as a photographer, unlike the New Age hippie that crashes on her couch. We get to listen to nameless people ramble on about what quantum physics all "means" to them. The one bright spot in this movie was the speaker from India (I assume), but I think he showed up for the wrong film.

It looks like Barbara Eden really let herself go and she goes on and on about how quantum science has something to do with her crazy New Age beliefs. It looks like Quark from DS9 was running low on cash and he also makes a brief appearance in the film. There is a lot of whizbang CGI we're supposed to be impressed with; cells in the body are shown as dancing jello molds, because the filmmakers have apparently seen Flubber one too many times.

People in the movie say that the Arawak people on San Salvador thought Columbus's ship the Pinta was invisible because natives had never seen clipper ships before, as if people today had any way possible way of knowing. Of course they leave out all of that information and just say "Columbus's ships were invisible to the Indians in America." The film takes many such arrogant leaps. Thomas Young did a double-slit experiment around 1805 and found that light can look like a particle some of the time, and a wave some of the time. Of course you'd never *know* this from watching this stupid film because the only reference to it is that "atoms can be particles and waves." And that must mean that people can pass through walls, walk on water, and never grow old if they just wish upon a star!! Then I'm sure Marlee Matlin could stop being deaf if she just *believed* hard enough. I'm being sarcastic, but this film is chock-full of false hope and beliefs that the people espousing them don't really hold.

These are New Age kooks who have grabbed onto Quantum Theory as if it reaffirms everything they believe about meditation, zero point energy, crystal healing, etc. If these snake-oil salesmen truly believed the crap they were selling, couldn't they just *wish* their paychecks into existence instead of appearing in this joke of a film? We get to listen to another nameless man, with no credentials that we know of, talk on his couch in front of a fireplace (or TV screen) about how he creates his own life. Every time he was on the screen I wanted someone to rush in and throw a pie in his face. These people take themselves WAY too seriously. Some other balding guy in a suit says that nobody ever *really* touches anything because there's a magnetic force preventing it at the quantum level. If only someone had walked onto the screen and kept punching him in the stomach, screaming "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" A moral relativist in the movie claims that there's really "no such thing as good or bad." So apparently it's OK that Hitler gassed millions of Jews to death? Another person says that there is "no such thing as love." It's just a chemical and that we really don't love people, we're just addicted to the chemical rush we have when we're around them. I suspect this guy is doing this film as community service for being addicted to heroin for so many years.

We are witness to a truly pathetic sequence where two young adults walk around a wedding reception, seeing everything like RoboCop. They evaluate if women are cows, dogs, or foxes, and a sexual position pops onto the scree. Marlee Matlin gets drunk at the wedding she's supposed to photograph and the next day decides to love herself and take a bath because she's a beautiful and unique snowflake.

I liked when the film said people often find evidence for their pre-conceived notions. Perhaps in this review I'm only seeing what I want to see, but I TRULY wanted to see these people get pies to the face, and it never happened.

If you've never heard of any of the ideas presented in the film before, you may find them interesting, but there are better sources for all of the ideas here. If you want to watch a good movie that talks about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, go see The Man Who Wasn't There. If you want to read a good book about Quantum Field Theory, read Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. If you want to see a film that talks about different philosophies with imaginative visuals, see Waking Life (although it can feel boring, self-important, and pretentious at times). All in all, you should go and read Quantum Psychology or Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson instead of wasting your time on this movie.

I normally have a very hard time giving movies a score from 1 to 10, but this one was a very easy for me: 1/10 Stars.

The movie's title is true. The people in this film don't know #$*! Hands down, the worst movie I've ever seen.


This movie frequently extrapolates quantum mechanics to justify nonsensical ideas, capped by such statements like "we all create our own reality".

Sorry, folks, reality is what true for all of us, not just the credulous.

The idea that "anything's possible" doesn't hold water on closer examination: if anything's possible, contrary things are thus possible and so nothing's possible. This leads to postmodernistic nonsense, which is nothing less than an attempt to denigrate established truths so that all ideas, well-founded and stupid, are equal.

To quote sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick, who put it so well, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."


What The Bleep Do We Know is a deluded and haphazard look at the mysteries of the universe. We are presented with a parade of apparent experts (none of whom are named) who ramble and pontificate in a thoroughly unscientific manner. Their interviews are chopped up into aggravatingly small segments and dispersed throughout some flashy cgi and banal mini-plots.

The film pilfers themes from science, philosophy, theology and politics, minces them together without any regard for accuracy, and then somehow extracts a few prosaic and absurd conclusions. We are led to believe that quantum physics is telling us the purpose of our existence, and any other difficult to answer question the film-makers would like to point their finger at.

It is riddled errors and logical non-sequiturs. How did we start at quantum mechanics and end up with this pseudo-scientific spirituality and mysticism? It's like saying 'two plus two equals four, therefore I can move objects with my mind'.

There is nothing original in this film, and almost nothing that is accurate. Any discriminating viewer will be annoyed by heavy-handed editing, intrusive and pointless special effects and general lack of substance. Educated viewers will be frustrated to tears by the violence done to science and every other subject this film touches on.


Ridiculous. This movie is actually a vehicle for the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. If you are wondering who the *bleep* Ramtha is: "Ramtha is a 35,000 year-old spirit-warrior who appeared in J.Z. Knight's kitchen in Tacoma, Washington in 1977. Knight claims that she is Ramtha's channel. She also owns the copyright to Ramtha and conducts sessions in which she pretends to go into a trance and speaks Hollywood's version of Elizabethan English in a guttural, husky voice. She has thousands of followers and has made millions of dollars performing as Ramtha at seminars ($1,000 a crack) and at her Ramtha School of Enlightenment, and from the sales of tapes, books, and accessories (Clark and Gallo 1993). She must have hypnotic powers. Searching for self-fulfillment, otherwise normal people obey her command to spend hours blindfolded in a cold, muddy, doorless maze." John Wheeler, one of America's finest theoretical physicists, would roll his eyes about this movie. He has in the recent past criticized parapsychologists for their misuse and misinterpretations of quantum theory. This movie does the same thing as those fools.

There is a great review of this movie at Skeptico. I recommend anyone considering watching this movie read it first before contributing to a cult's coffers.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html I noticed one reviewer here at IMDb say to take this movie with a grain of salt. It will take enough salt to kill a horse to wade through the garbage-thinking of this movie.


I can't believe that the City of Muncie is so hard up for attention that they would embarrass themselves by allowing this show to be done there. This show is like a slap in the face to real hard working law-enforcement officers. I have never before in my life seen anything so stupid in my life. If they had billed it as a comedy that would be one thing but to say it is reality is nothing short of a lie. I only saw it once and was appalled at what I saw. I wanted to see the little guy get into a foot-chase with a bad guy. What a joke that would have been. Nothing on the show was even close to the real world. The city of Muncie, the Police Chief, and all the officers should be hanging their heads in shame and should never want o admit they come from that city. No wonder it didn't stay around on TV


Not an altogether bad start for the program -- but what a slap in the face to real law enforcement. The worst part of the series is that it attempts to bill itself as reality fare -- and is anything but. Men and women that dedicate their lives to the enforcement of laws deserve better than this. What is next, medical school in a minute? Charo performing lipo? Charles Grodin assisting on a hip replacement? C'mon...show a little respect. Even the citizens of Muncie are outing the program as staged. Police Academy = High School Gym? Poor editing (how many times can they use the car-to-car shot of the Taco Bell in the background?), cheesy siren effects (the same loop added ad nauseum to every 'call' whether rolling code or not), and last, but not least -- more officer safety issues than you could shake a stick at.

If I want to see manufactured police work and wise-ass fake cops, I would watch RENO 911.


What a poor image of Professional Police Officers is displayed on the Television in the watching of this alleged Reality show. One can only hope that the actual reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause that leads to the totality of the circumstances involved to make a "stop" , then the "Pat Down" of the outside of one's Garment, then to be able to articulate why the officer went into someone's pocket and retrieved contraband, was cut out of the scenes, because if it wasn't, the arrest in most places are going to be tossed, should they even get passed a supervisor. A report of a warrant over the radio does not constitute the actual existence of the warrant unless the person dispatching has the original warrant in hand. If the dispatcher is reading from a computer printout, it is good enough for an arrest, but it does not necessarily mean the warrant is still in effect. Since I haven't seen a Dis-claimer from CBS (I may have missed it), CBS could be in trouble.


SPOILER WARNING: There are some minor spoilers in this review. Don't read it beyond the first paragraph if you plan on seeing the film.

The Disney Channel currently has a policy to make loads of movies and show one a month on the cable channel. Most of these are mediocre and drab, having a few good elements but still being a disappointment (`Phantom of the Megaplex,' `Stepsister From Planet Weird,' `Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century'). Every once in a great while, they make something really, really great (`Genius,' `The Other Me'). But once in a while The Disney Channel makes a huge mistake, and gives us a real stinker. This month (December 2000) The Disney Channel featured `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' which I thought was terrible due to poor writing and worse acting. Apparently, `The Brainiacs.com' was rushed out a few days before Christmas to get a jump on the holiday, because the plot has to do with toys. They even paid for a feature in the TV Guide, so I thought it must be better than the norm. I was in for a complete shock. Only Disney's `Model Behaviour' has been worse than this.

The plot was more far-fetched than normal. I usually let that slide, but here it just goes too far. Matthew Tyler gets very sick of his widowed father spending most of his time at work. His father owns a small toy factory that has taken out large loans at a scrupulous bank to stay afloat. Time and time again, his father has to skip out on the plans he makes with his son and daughter. Matthew decides that the only way he can spend time with his dad is if he becomes the boss and orders him to stay home. He gets a hair-brained idea to create a website where kids all around the world can find and send him a dollar to invest in a computer chip that his sister is inventing. That whole concept is full of fallacies. When kids send in millions of dollars, Matthew opens his own company's bank account and buys up most of his dad's business's stock. He is the secret boss, but he doesn't reveal this to his dad, but instead presents himself at board meetings as a cartoon image through a computer. That image itself is so complex (and ridiculous) that it isn't possible for someone to create it at home, much less someone who comes across as stupid as Matthew. To make a long plot short, Matthew orders his dad to spend more time having fun and doing stuff with his kids, but a federal agent shows up inquiring about Matthew's company, as it is fraudulent.

There's so much wrong here. As mentioned, the stuff they do here is impossible even for true geniuses, which these kids are not. The website, the cartoon image, the computer chip, even the stuff they are being taught in school, are far too advanced for these kids. The acting by most of the cast, especially Kevin Kilner, is terrible. Some familiar faces are wasted. Dom DeLuise plays the evil bank owner, but his part is a throwaway. He has one good scene with Alexandra Paul (who shows she has the ability to act) in which he explains his motives, but nothing more. And Rich Little is wasted in a small role as a judge. There's even some offensive and uncalled for anti-Russian jokes. But the greatest atrocities are the hard-hammered themes. These themes show up in many of The Disney Channel's films, but never before have these ultra-conservative messages been pounded so strongly. The typical `overworking parent' idea is really pushed hard, and after delivering it inappropriately in `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' seeing it again sours my mood. Family relations are important, but Disney must stop this endless preaching, because working is important to maintaining a workable family, too. Except for cancelling activities thanks to work, the father didn't come across as that bad, but I found it offensive when the grandmother told him `I don't like what I see.' Just as bad is the preaching of the idea that all single parents MUST marry if they want to raise their kids right. Enter Alexandra Paul, whose character, while important to the plot, is there solely to be the love interest for the father. This offensiveness only proves that the Disney brain trust lacks the brains to avoid scraping from the bottom of the Disney script barrel. Instead of letting this movie teach your kids how to commit serious fraud, wait for the next Disney Channel movie. It has to be better than this. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.


That's right! Under 9 on average, but maybe under 12s for some others! I was 11 when I originally saw this on video and at such youth I wasn't able to notice the shoddy cartoon-quality or the fact that those classic characters we have all grown to love are Not the same or as good to see. Just about everything is so 2D here! Belle is, I'll agree, not even beautiful but just a plain-looking woman with tinted skin, she wears the same bright blue dress all the way through with not one glamorous dress on, Wardrobe is to say the Least, annoying - my ears may bleed if I had to listen to her everyday! Lumiere, in both the original and the Christmas edition was suave and elegant, but here he is a womanizing, unfunny twit! Cogsworth, despite being the no-nonsense housekeeper he is famous for, is a complete sh-t and the most insufferable character I'd say! He always seems to find shutting that unbearably grating pie-hole of his very difficult in this one and whose clock face should really have been used for turning back in time to the unforgettable two film in this series! Poor, poor Mrs Potts was not brought to life by Angela Lansbury (one of my favourite classic actresses) but by Anne Rogers who captured none of Mrs Potts' character, no offence to her! Not if she did her best! When the beast roars it sounds so horrifically fake with clearly no additional roars, snarls or growls by a microphone. I am aware that this is only a third feature following two other films so of course it wouldn't be as good but I'm sure that more of a contribution wouldn't have hurt the Disney artists who, indeed, have achieved such remarkable styles of animation over the years. It's alright, I guess, and I do watch it sometimes though only when it suits me. It's quite difficult to make a recommendation for you reading this because it depends on how old you are but remember this will not at all be what you may expect following the earlier spectacular movies! And to think that on my video of it the text on the back cover said "boasting brilliant animation"! It's a nice little flick but for one thing it's also highly poor and, for another, those 3 words ought to have been saved for the next re-release of the original!


Disney has now made straight-to-video sequels to a good bunch of their many animated features. Two of these were made for their 1991 classic, "Beauty and the Beast". Well, these ones aren't really sequels, as they are both set in between the events of the first film. The first of these two straight-to-video films was "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas", which seems to be disliked by quite a few fans of its theatrical predecessor, but I think that can usually be expected with sequels. However, this second one, "Belle's Magical World", is definitely inferior.

The film features three short stories, all of which take place while Belle is in the castle, and the place is under the spell of the enchantress. The first is "The Perfect Word", where a misunderstanding at the table between Belle and the Beast leads to trouble, and neither wants to be the first to apologize. The next story is "Fifi's Folly", where Fifi and Lumiere's fifth anniversary is coming up, and Lumiere is unprepared, so Belle helps him. However, Fifi sees Lumiere practicing romance with Belle, and thinks they're actually in love. The film ends with "The Broken Wing". In this story, Belle takes care of a bird with a broken wing, but a bird in the castle will probably mean trouble if the Beast finds out, as he hates birds!

The plot description I gave is for the original VHS version of Disney's third "Beauty and the Beast" movie. Apparently, in the DVD version, there is another story added called "Mrs. Potts's Party", but I've only seen the original version. However, since I highly doubt that one story would stand out as a classic over the rest, I see no point in watching the special edition. Anyway, the first thing I will say about "Belle's Magical World" is that the animation is very 2-dimensional compared to what we're used to from Disney, which would obviously disappoint many people. I didn't like "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" that much, but you certainly can't say the same about its animation. I'm sure the stories in "Belle's Magical World" could entertain many kids (mostly younger ones, I think), and each story has a moral, so they could also teach them some valuable lessons. However, for adults, the film really doesn't have a lot. I personally didn't find any good humour in it, found that the constant conflict between Belle and the Beast got tiring, and the stories did not impress me too much at all in any way (they're not very well written). In "The Perfect Word", the way Belle says to the Beast, "You're acting rude... and foolish!" is a bit cheesy, and I think there are quite a few other cheesy moments in these stories.

By the time this straight-to-video movie first came out, I was around eleven or twelve years old. I don't know what I would have thought of it at the time, as I had lost interest in Disney by then, and it would be years before I would gain any of that interest back. Even when this movie was first released, I think I was a bit past the age group it was aimed at. I never saw "Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" until a couple months ago, but unlike that film, I never even heard of this one until recently, I think just after seeing the first sequel to Disney's 1991 hit. Well, as much as I like the theatrical original, I wouldn't have been missing much if I never became aware of this film's existence. For little kids, I'm sure "Belle's Magical World" can be highly entertaining, and probably somewhat educational with its morals, but I do not recommend it for adult Disney fans.


This movie is possibly the cheapest, cheesiest, and poorest sequel ever made.

Yet, it is the funniest and most idiotic movie by Disney, and will guarantee laughs at the sappy stories and lame plots from start to finish.

It's a group of short stories that seem like bad fanfictions.

*SPOILER ALERT* The first one's all about Beast and Belle being petty over a pathetic argument. Then, three loser new characters decide to patch things up by forging a letter of forgiveness to give to Belle. Part way through this little episode, Belle has wall eyes, which made my siblings and I laugh so hard. Then, she and the Beast fight more over the letter... and later learn the meaning of forgiveness. How old are they??? Certainly old enough to know the meaning of forgiveness.

Then, the next one's all about Lumiere being the world's biggest dope when it comes to romance. This coming from the man who could woo anything female. And they make FiFi a psychotic villainess who tries to kill Belle, and winds up getting off scotch-free by the end of it. What a message to send the kids!

Then, the next one's all about Mrs. Potts being angsty. And the next one after that's all about Beast becoming overly possessive of a bird, to the point where he just seems downright silly.

The animation's so ugly, it kills. There are at least 100 mistakes you can plainly see... and the coloring is awful.

Belle's a simpering sap who blubbers whenever something goes wrong. Plus, she's petty and very different from the usual Belle.

And the side characters are annoying... (I mean, Cogsworth and Lumiere fight almost all the time. I know they did that in the movie, but it was overdone in this.)

But the worst character is Mrs. Potts. She's ruined in this. I can't even describe it. Just buy it and see for yourself.

I give it a 1/10 for the sap, but I give it a 10/10 for comedy.


I didn't feel as if I'd been raped like I did with THE ENCHANTED CHRISTMAS,but BELLE'S MAGICAL WORLD is still the antithesis of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Like CHRISTMAS,BMW hates its audience,although not to such an extreme degree. It's ugly,uncanonical,idiotic,and the writing is horrifically bad.None of the stories work. These are not the characters we loved from BATB at all,they're a bunch of pod people. I wanted to dissect it,but after a few minutes,I gave up,because no one in their right mind would take this claptrap seriously. What we have here are three stories. "The Perfect Word" is an overbearing,ponderous study of forgiveness. "Fifi's Folly" only works if you can accept that Babette's name is actually Fifi and that she's a closet James Bond villainess and that Lumiere is an idiot concerning women. "Broken Wing" (or "Broken Wind" as I like to call it) is probably the most heinous of the bunch. Beast hates birds? Since WHEN? Don't watch this crap- every copy of this video deserves to be cremated. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is still a cinematic classic,a transcendent celebration of love,art, intelligence and the human soul.


The trailers get you to the movie, but the movie just wasn't worth my 8.50.. it has some good effects, but the storyline.. yech, i like tommy lee jones and will smith as actors, they have both done some good films, but i wish they hadn't added this one to their resume's. To be honest, the book is better..


Men In Black 2 was a real disappointment for me. While the actors did a pretty good job, especially Smith, there just isn't a cure for a poor script once in production. The movie really had a "sequel" kind of feel, playing off partial events of the first film. The story was, in a word... bad, at best. It wasn't thought out well, and seemed very choppy and incoherent at times.

In the first flick, the MIB Organization had a kind of "elite" force feel. You had a few special agents, and it had a "clandestine" kind of feel to it. In the sequel, the MIB Organization has a JROTC Summer Camp vibe.

The movie wasn't terrible or anything.. it just lacked the "coolness" (for lack of a better phrase) of the first movie. A lot of the same old humor was recycled from the first to the second, and didn't really add any originality to the MIB Universe.

A perfect analogy would be Episode 1 to the first 3 films. Was it decent? Yeah. Is it worthy of bearing it's title? Not really.


I'm surprised that anyone involved with the production of this series would actually admit responsibility. The script is so unfunny it must have been written by someone who failed the entrance exam for the Canadian Comedy Writers' Union (and that's saying something!). Get out your binoculars if you want, but there's nothing resembling a joke in sight. Ronnie Corbett must have been flat broke to demean himself with this rubbish. The rest of the cast are so lacking in any kind of acting or comedic ability I'm amazed it lasted past the first episode - correction, past the auditions. All I can say to those who are amused by it is that they must be very easily entertained. And it's obvious that the production costs must have been all of ₤100 per episode. And just in case anyone thinks I'm commenting as a foreigner who is unfamiliar with English humour, I must add that I am indeed English.


Honestly, I was disappointed in "Expiration Date." Super clever title and interesting premise, but I don't think it delivered. What was it about? The main character's desire to reconnect with his Native roots? Or, more likely, it was his need to overcome his fear of death. But, he wasn't set up as someone who has lived his life in fear -- it seems as if his life was going fine, but since doomsday is approaching he should now start worrying. I didn't buy it. Meanwhile, the supporting characters in the film didn't seem to have needs that blended into an overarching story. They were all just doing their thing, running parallel to the main character. Also, what was treated as a "curse" looked more like a coincidence. Who cursed the family? Why? When? Finally, why didn't he just plan on staying in his apartment all day on his birthday? Those are my criticisms, but I did love the shots of Seattle, cinematography was beautiful, acting was good in the times it wasn't outstanding.


OK, it's very rare that I complain something I got for FREE. So I guess this movie pushed me over that limit. I saw it at the Hollywood Cemetery for FREE and walked away very very disappointed. One audience member's question to the director about using the Native American references just as "bookends" instead of being weaved into the movie better, basically says everything that this movie FAILED on.

NATIVE American REFERENCES--- The Native American references felt really out of place and contrived. It's obvious that this director and writer tried tackling an arena they never played in before. They should have stuck to the old adage of "write about something you know". IF they are in fact versed in this it certainly did not show on the movie or the beauty of this unique culture was not given proper justice.

Clichés and ON THE NOSE--- I agreed to see this film on the basis that it was an indie. So I held it to higher expectations. "Little Miss Sunshine" was an indie and saw it before it became so popular. Before it even came out to wide release I was already raving how it's going to be a hit. UNFORTUNATELY I could not say the same about "Expiration Date". "Sunshine" took us to cliché incidents but the filmmakers were so clever at their approach that the outcome would take us to a different direction avoiding the trap of being a "cliche". This movie on the other hand had no way of not falling in the trap because it was already TRAPPED from the start. The psycho mom's antics, the Hendrix couple, etc.

I hate to say it, but the best and WORST movie I've seen this year were both indies. "Little Miss Sunshine" being the best and this movie being the worst. I wish I could say otherwise.

But I do congratulate the filmmakers for having such a good turn out from their family members at the cemetery.


I don't know what that other guy was thinking. The fact that this movie was independently made makes it no less terrible. You can be as big a believer as you want... the majority of this film is mindless drivel. I feel i have been insulted by having to watch the first 40 minutes of it. And that alone was no small feat. Not only is the acting terrible, but the plot is never even close to developed. There are countless holes in the story, to the point where you can hardly even call it a story anymore. I've never read the book, so I can't critique on that, but this is the first review that I've written here and it's purpose is solely to save all you viewers out there an hour and a half of your life. I can't remember the last time I couldn't even finish watching a movie. This one really takes the cake.


This film fails to capture any of the mystery and intrigue that the book offers. The main point of the book, the insights, are hardly even touched upon, leaving the viewer wondering exactly why everyone is making such a big deal about them and why they are willing to risk their lives.

The character development is not good at all. No background or personal development leaves the audience not really caring at all about what happens to them, and so the action sequences fall flat.

The search for the manuscripts ends abruptly, and with no real explanation, not leaving any sense of satisfaction as to what the whole search was for.

This is one of the worst adaptations of a book I have ever seen. It is horrible and a waste of time. If you have not read the book, skip the movie and read it. If you have read the book, skip the movie and reread it.

It is almost as if the point of making the movie was to discredit the book, that is how poorly done and ridiculous this movie is. It is a shame too, because it could have been good had they capitalized on it at the height of its success and they probably would have been able to get a good screenwriter and some good actors.

Please don't waste your time, READ THE BOOK!!!


Bingo is the game, bullshit is the name. Rarely has the screen been smeared with such a blown-up hodgepodge of half-baked conspiracy theories, puritan prudery, and new-age gibberish. The bulk of the story is set at Viciente, a Cristian resort in the Peruvian jungle. Think Tolkien's Rivendell meets Star Trek's Planet Baku, inhabited by dimwitted followers of a not-so-mysterious, but surprisingly narrow-minded cult of love and peace. Thanks to gruesome acting and tacky production design (the rainbow-colored visualization of the mysterious all-healing "energy" is particularly hideous), "The Celestine Prophecies" looks and feels like a discarded 1980s "Twilight Zone" episode. Factual errors regarding church history and nomenclature abound. I can't believe Hector Elizondo agreed to be a part of this. Maybe it was made without his consent, Bowfinger style. May the Lord have mercy on the director, the screenwriter, the author of the novel, and the poor souls who see the movie or read the book.


I read the book Celestine Prophecy and was looking forward to seeing the movie. Be advised that the movie is loosely based on the book. Many of the book's most interesting points do not even come out in the movie. It is a "B" movie at best. Many events, characters, how the character interact and meet in the book are simply changed or do not occur. The flow of events that in the book are very smooth, are choppy and fed to the view as though you a child. The character development is very poor. Personnallities of the characters differ from those in the book. The direction is similar to a "B" horror flick. I understand that it would take six hours in film to present all that is in the book, but they screen play base missed many points. The casting was very good.


The film gives a rather condensed version of what is contained in the book, which as far as I can tell by doing some research and investigative fact checking is largely a work of fiction. In reality, there are no ancient scrolls and if the author was hard pressed I'm sure he'd have to admit he's never laid eyes on any scrolls in ancient Aramaic found in Peru. These "valuable" texts written as usual by anonymous, were destroyed by the evil "truth haters" in the church and in the local government. That's rather strange, as all kinds of New Age crap comes out each year---hundreds of books, dozens of movies--and the Roman Catholic church doesn't seem to me to be hell bent on destroying the movement which it probably views as I do, a total crock of doody. I'm no fan of the church, mind you, but at least the ancient texts which they base their faith on are real.

It's a typical pattern of scam artists and religious hucksters to claim to have seen or translated ancient documents which unfortunately got destroyed by "evil" men or in Joseph Smith's case, got taken back to Heaven once translated. Therefore, the actual texts cannot be found in any museums like the Smithsonian, nor the translations checked by specialists in ancient languages like Coptic or Aramaic. It's a scam. In one sense, I admire anybody smart enough to come up with a great idea and make millions off it, but I couldn't do it myself, as I've no desire to mislead the public with more New Agey hokum.

Occasionally, a genuine ancient text does get found hidden away and lost for years. The Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic text, was discovered and after carbon dating and diligent study of the text, deemed authentic by experts. The Gospel of Judas was referenced as heretical around 300 C.E.. No church documents from that time mention any Celestine Prophecies as authentic, heretical or anything else.

We are evolving towards something--that much is true---but the optimism in the Celestine Prophecy is based on nothing but fiction and lies, and a philosophy built on a foundation of lies, like a castle built on sand will collapse. The harsh, ugly, overpopulated, cruel world of Blade Runner is more likely what it'll be like over the Horizon, than some Utopian Hippie Commune where all is love and peace! I tell people the truth and they hate me, but tell them what they want to hear, even if pure piffle, and one can make millions. The Celestine Prophecy is what the world wants to hear. Too bad it is a castle built on sand. Don't get me wrong. I wish to God, the Celestine Vision was reality, only it's not. No ancient philosophy at any time expressed ideas given in the Insights with the modern concept of spiritual evolution going hand in hand with biological evolution. These New Agey ideas did not exist in the ancient world and did not exist until Darwininan Evolution became well-known. That means the ideas in the Celestine Prophecies cannot be older than the 1800s C.E, and do not go back to the early B.C.E period or near the time of Jesus of Nazareth. This type of claim by New Agers is not at all unusual. Wiccans claim their brand of magic and witchcraft -- the "old religion" goes back to the stone age, when in reality no Book of Shadows has ever been known to exist prior to Gerald Gardner who lived in the 1900s and was the buddy of Aleister Crowley.

New Age gurus tell lies and claim their ideas are based on ancient teachings, when the ancients would thumb their noses at such absurdities that are preached by Gurus today. Why do they do what they do, perpetrate such fraud? Simple: there are millions of dollars to be made, and the modern Guru acquires power over his or her followers. They compete fiercely and have a strong hatred for their competition despite their claims of love for all things. Each New Age group bitter opposes the others. It's a struggle for your minds and your wallets.

But learn one thing from me, that is actually similar to one of the insights, learn to follow your own instincts and look for guidance from within. That I can agree with wholeheartedly.


I must admit I do not hold much of New Age mumbo jumbo. When people "exchange energy" I always wonder how much kJ is actually exchanged and how it may contribute to solving the global warming problem. When energy "is enforced" I always wonder how they managed to violate the laws of entropy and still are without Nobel prizes. When people feel how well instinct enables them to flawlessly navigate through the complexities of life I wonder how they fail to do a simple thing like finding the train station.

But then again, this is not the first movie with plot holes and most of them I find perfectly acceptable and entertaining. If this were the case with "The Celestine Prophecy" I wouldn't burn this movie down, but unfortunately it isn't. Every actor seems to be bored out of his head and unable to grasp what he are actually supposed to be doing on location. This results in many "Ah-s" and "Oh-s", like I tend to do when talking about quantum physics with somebody who actually knows what he is talking about and pretend to understand.

The direction is uninspired as well. You might expect something more from the guy who did "What dreams may come", but hey, I supposed he got well paid for the job and adopted the attitude of a New York taxi driver: "It's your money, buddy.." The only one who seems to be having fun is all-time bad guy Jürgen Prochnow. Not only does he have a job, he is one of the few actors in this movie who may have a few wise cracks at this eternal and terribly boring New Age chatter.

This movie is much like one of these dinner dates when you find out that your date is actually a horrible bore who seems to be unable to shut up. At one moment in time it seems the words turn into small ping pong balls that are thrown to your head incessantly until it hurts.

If you want to have a good time and have to choose between this movie and sticking safety pins in your eyelids, take my advise: choose the latter.


My dear Lord,what a movie! Let's talk about the "special effects" first. Don't get me wrong here, I am not one of those effect fanatics but I was truly thinking that superimposition was a practice of the long gone past, mainly the 60's. So for some time I thought they might have recorded this movie a long time ago and it took them forever to cut and release it. But as far as I know they did not have cell phones in the 60's...

What I am looking for in movies is mainly a good story with a really good message. Acting is secondary, effects are secondary, I do not even mind a few little inconsistencies. However, in a movies like this bad acting, incredibility, etc. add up to make a bad movie even worse - that's what happened for me with the Celestine Prophecy.

My wife said the book was actually really good and even though I am not into all that spiritual stuff I can somehow see that it can be brought across in a believable way - the movie failed to do so.

There could be one single reason to watch this one though. If you really love cheesy movies it'll be the right one for you. If the IMDb stars were for cheesiness instead of quality I MUST have rated this movie ten stars.

By the way, three stars are for the fact that there are worse movies out there, like "Critical Mass" (look up the comments on that one - hilarious). The Celestine Prophecy is at least entertaining to a certain degree.


Amateurism best describes the film adaptation of the best-selling philosophical novel "The Celestine Prophecy", which follows the spiritual awakening of an out of work teacher in a mysterious village in Peru. Home video quality actors present so-called characters spewing overwrought exposition and metaphysical hokum, while the film is propelled by the extremely heavy-handed direction of Armand Mastroianni. Even though there are visible attempts at measuring up to and interesting fans of stronger fare in the vain of ABC's "Lost" or Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code", the filmmakers are hardly up to the task. This film reeks of ill-conceived mass consumption spiritual propaganda, and the results are so awful few can wade through this mess to spot a real point.


Boring. Minimal plot. No character development. I went into this movie with high expectations from the book. It COULD have been an awesome movie. It COULD have probably become a cult classic. Nope, it was a giant let-down. It was poorly cast and had horrible special effects. It was difficult to determine who were the bad guys: the rebels or the military or the church or all of them? I am still left puzzled by certain mini-plots from the movie. I am left dumbfounded as to certain aspects of this so-called "prophecy", which is never really FULLY explained. I felt like I was watching a corny episode of a mini-series on the sci-fi channel. It seemed very much like a made-for-TV movie. Don't go see this movie. It is a waste of time AND money.


The movie was TERRIBLE!!! Easily the worst movie I have seen in the past few years. One of those movies I will be able to tell people for the next three years that it was the worst movie I can think of. Thank you for giving me an answer to that burning question "What is the worst movie you have seen?" Answer: Celestine Prophecy. Trust me...I read the book, enjoyed the message and was excited to see the movie, but then, they treated the audience like we are r*tarded. There is no story and the story that is there is crippled by too much magic and coincidence. It is too bad they have to spell out the nine prophecies and can't simply weave them into a story that is entertaining to follow. They didn't spend any time on character development and it was easy to not care if any character died. It was embarrassing to be one of the few people who stuck around until the end of this incredibly boring movie. The book is pretty boring too but I enjoyed the parallels that could be seen in everyday life while you read the book. The film does not offer the same opportunity and I would suggest not seeing it if you want to continue to hold the words of the book close to your heart. DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE. Trust me.


I have just seen this movie and have not read the book. The good thing of the movie is that at some parts it gets you thinking for a little while on the spiritual subject, evolution, sincronicity and your part in the world.

However, the movie's immersion is easily broken and there is very little rapport between the viewer and the characters. It is very clear that the book looses a lot in this movie version. The events that were suppose to show sincronicity taking place are almost unrecognizable. A lot of reasoning has to be done for the viewer to see that the scene indicates a coincidence, and even more to imagine that it has something to do with a greater purpose.

Enlightenment scenes are visually poor and do not create the better feeling that it was supposed to. Do you recall the enlightenment with Keanu Reeves (in Little Buddha) ? Well, this is nothing like that.

Most scenes are poorly executed. There are a lot of scenes that really don't develop the story and also do not help in creating an atmosphere.

The better actors in this movie, namely Hector Elizondo, Joaquim de Almeida and Jürgen Prochnow cannot save it. The first 2 seem to have gotten more scenes than their characters should in an attempt to save the movie, and because they were paid more, but this does not work. Most of the scenes are not really necessary and do not help the story at all.

Jürgen does good in his scenes and sells as an evil guy (as always), but the script does not help him at all. The scene where he first tries to convince John (Matthew Settle) to join him is just bad script. The execution of the scene when he dies in an explosion is absurdly bad executed. The flashbacks throughout the movie cannot even be commented.

Overall this movie is a big waist of time, read the book! I have not read it, but it is probably a billion times better than this, it has to be.

It is so bad that I had to write my first comment in IMDb.


This delectable fusion of New Age babble and luridly bad film-making may not "open" you up, to borrow one of the film's favorite verbs, but it might leave your jaw slack and your belly sore from laughter or retching. Based on the best-selling book by James Redfield, first (self) published in 1993, this cornucopia of kitsch tracks the spiritual awakening of an American history teacher (Matthew Settle) who, on traveling to deepest, darkest, phoniest Peru and sniffing either the air or something else more illegal. Namely what he discovers is a schlock Shangri La populated by smiling zombies who may be nuts or just heavily medicated, perhaps because they're often accompanied by a panpipe flourish and an occasional shout out from a celestial choir. Although there's a lot of talk about "energy," that quality is decidedly missing from the motley cast whose numbers include Thomas Kretschmann, Annabeth Gish, Hector Elizondo and Jurgen Prochnow, all of whom are now firmly ensconced in the camp pantheon. For those who care, the plot involves the military, terrorists and the Roman Catholic Church; Armand Mastroianni provided the inept direction while Mr. Redfield, Barnet Bain and Dan Gordon wrote the hoot of a script. In short, easily the worst film seen in 40+ years of viewing movies.


This movie is just not worth your time. Its reliance upon New-Age mysticism serves as its only semi-interesting distraction. The plot is one that has been re-cycled countless times.

I was only prompted to even spend the time to put in a comment when I noted that some have tried to prop-up the reputation of this drivel. Their motivation & objectivity is dubious, since they encourage you not to look at the movies faults, but at its well intentioned message of New Age consciousness.

So would it be alright for some twenty to thirty Evangelical Christians, or Islamic Fundamentalists to pour in positive ratings about movies/television that support their views? In spite of the poor qualities of production, or the lack of truth in any of its supposed historic basis? I hope not.

I am sure the followers will come right behind me to say flowery things about this movie, in spite of the truth.


I read the book and the book was fascinating.

This movie, it's direction, the screenplay, and the acting were totally insufferable. I cringed at the lack of a screenplay that could not follow the novel, a novel that has all the action, simplicity, and courage to illustrate a temerity of a great possibly fact based story.

I can see why this movie was not released to the general public in most cities. Would not ever recommend this film to anyone I know.

Simply, one of he worst adaptations I have seen transformed into a plot less exploration of heaven on earth.

The cinematography was indeed the only highlight. But, how could that fail when filmed in an beautiful country such as Peru.

To prospective viewers, do not waste your time or energy on this flop.


I went to see this movie with a crowd that consisted predominantly of "spiritual" New Age types, who, quite unlike me, very much enjoyed this movie---although according to those that also knew the book (apparently there is a book that contains more of this nonsense), the movie is not quite as good. So, if you tend to think of yourself as "spiritual", believe in or at least can tolerate stuff like "aura" and "astral body", and don't mind the frequent use of the term "energy" outside of the context of physics or technology, you might actually like the movie, and will likely even more enjoy whatever book it is apparently based on.

However, if you are mostly in touch with the physical universe, if your ability to suspend disbelief is easily exhausted by inane New Age nonsense and plots based thereon, if in addition to that you have a low tolerance for cheesy lighting effects to denote the happening of spirituality, and perhaps even expect reasonable non-wooden dialog an acting, then this is my recommendation for you regarding this movie: Stay. Away.

Don't even think about it. Tonight, this movie displaced Dungeons and Dragons as the worst movie I ever personally saw in a movie theater (I do not count movies I went to see with the expectation of them being bad, such as Plan 9 etc.). At the same time, it raised the grand total of movies I almost walked out on to two (D&D being the other one). I do not walk out on movies, not even on this one, but I should've when I first saw the visual depiction of an aura, because the New Age BS keeps on getting thicker and thicker from that point on.

The plot is about a group of people involving themselves with some old prophecies, in a quest for spiritual enlightenment and aiming at bringing mankind to the next step in its evolution. Or something like that. They actually talk about this spiritual stuff being the next step in human evolution, which should make anybody who has even the faintest idea of what human evolution is cringe. The movie is shock full with whoppers like that. Occasionally people beam to what they would certainly describe as "another dimension", or perhaps "another plane", only to become invisible to those around them who haven't yet reached enlightenment. Goodness.

At the end the director patronizes the audience by rolling the "insights" making up the prophecy, painfully slow, presumably so that we can memorize them and leave the cinema as better, more enlightened individuals.

Good things about the movie? Some very pretty nature shots, and some decent supporting performances by Elizondo and de Almeida.

I honestly can say that it seriously affects my ability to take a person seriously if they consider this movie interesting or acceptable. It really is el cheapo spiritualism of the most naive kind, and unless that's your thing, you better do something else with your time and money.


If you want to see a movie that terribly mixes up one Latin country with any other Latin country, "The Celestine Prophecy" is a good example: 1. Perú, not even in its most violent times, has not shown polices or soldiers as much as in this film. This showed a country like El Salvador when Civil War. Since I'm a Peruvian who lives in Lima (the capital of Perú), it was too funny to me seeing the police guards here, there and everywhere. 2. If you have a car in Perú, and you want (or need) to be a taxi driver, just post a sticker with the word "Taxi" on the front glass of your car and you can drive freely in Peruvian streets (there are taxi companies, but their rates are quite expensive). No need of yellow or a black/white squared band on the doors of your car. Well, taxis in this film have that band, somethin that you will never see in Perú. 3. Peruvian people are not Caribbean styled clothing. For example, when a taxi driver comes out, he was wearing a "Guayabera" (Cuban shirt), a white hat, and 40's mustaches, like Clark Gable. Not one Peruvian man looks like that, please! Perú is not the Caribbeans! 4. A scene shows a woman on a street with a quite long skirt, like the typical folklore dresses in Latin America. Take a walk anywhere in Perú, and you'll never find a woman wearing like that, unless you are watching a typical dance. 5. Cast could've been better: I can not deny Héctor Elizondo is a great actor, but he's not a Latin actor (his father was Basque and his mother from Puerto Rico, but he was born in New York) and his Spanish is not fluent. It's notorious Spanish is not his first language. There are dozens of very good Latin actors who could've performed as Cardinal Sebastián. Petrus Antonius (General Rodríguez) was also a bad choice for a "Latin Police officer". It was so funny seeing Elizondo and Petronius in General Rodríguez's office. They looked like two English or American students in a Spanish class, making their best effort in order to pronounce Spanish. Unsuccessfully, of course. Castulo Guerra was better in his Spanish. A "Peruvian" officer, who announced Cardinal Sebastián, spoke a quite funny Spanish too. There are very good Peruvian actors, like Augusto Alvarez-Calderón and Christian Meier (just to mention two out of many Peruvian actors), who could've performed with excellence. 6. I admit that a fictional movie can let itself a license inventing cities or, even, countries. But, please, when creating a name, be careful when using a foreign language: The town portrayed in this movie should've been called "Vicente" and not "Viciente". Vicente is a male name, and Viciente has never been used. 7. I disagree one user, who says that this movie was filmed on locations in Perú. Not one location is Peruvian, although the production has used in excess posters showing "Inca Kola", the Peruvian soda. As not few American films, this one must have used any Latin country. After all, for American producers or directors, a Latin place is identical to any other Latin place. 8. In the first scenes, when John (Matthew Settle) flies to Perú, he's supposed to arrive to the only one international airport in Perú: Jorge Chávez Airport (in Lima, the capital). Actually, believe me, it must be any airport in the world, but Peruvian airport. And, of course, in Peruvian airports there are no military or police guards. 9. When this John takes a room in a Peruvian hotel, this one has a fan and, obviously has no air conditioner. Please, this doesn't happen in no hotel in Perú(and other Latin countries), unless you get a 1 star hotel! 10. The rebels who fight against the government are... ¡Colombians! Their accent was, with no doubt, from Colombia. For casting them, the producers should've hired Peruvian actors. In few words, it would've been cheaper filming in Perú.

I could go on with more examples out of this film, that led me to give it a "1" (awful) vote, but I fell asleep after about 20 minutes from its beginning. But dear producers: It's not a tragedy: There are many worse movies with not few mistakes. Just let's remember "Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal skull" and indescribable Disney's "The Emperor's new groove". The list of bad films could be endless...


At first, three words: READ THE BOOK! Really guys - this demonstrates the difficulties of genuine rendition of esoteric matters. I loved the book and was utterly disappointed of the film. It was ludicrous, with half a heart and the story bad explained. The novel - in the first place! - wasn't meant to focus on an adventure! That's only the surroundings. In the film, the focus reverses to just that and the message has taken a back seat! Additional, the visual effects to show the energy of all living things and the elucidation of the events at the end were parsimonious! They screwed it up! ... I'll never watch it again!


I have never seen anything as awful as this movie for quite some time. The movie was boring, long long and awful plot. The special effects sucks like hell - It's like watching a movie back in 1999. It's a total waste of an hour and a half of my time. Matthew Settle's performance was quite bad. I saw him in Band of Brothers playing Lt.Speirs, he wasn't THAT bad. In fact not bad at all. But in this film, his acting wasn't convincing enough, it was quite bad and there wasn't any chemistry between the rest of the crew either. Plus, his eyes seems empty like he's not feeling it. It surprised me, really, because he was good in Band of Brothers.

Anyway, don't even bother to watch this movie. It's a big big BIG waste of time. Even if you had to kill an hour or two, get something else to do besides watching this movie. Trust me, you'll regret it!


I actually went to see this film in a theater, but what a complete waste of time and money! Bad acting, I'm sorry to say, did not help to enjoy this rather sticky screenplay.

Some friends told me to go and see this film, since James Redfield, the author of the book, was very heavily involved in the screenplay. They had really enjoyed the book, so the movie just had to be perfect. Well maybe I had my hopes up a bit too high, but I absolutely hated this movie! It was predictable, too sweetish to a point that I actually left I had to vomit and worst of all there is going to be a sequel! Do the world a favor and stop this abominable crusade.


I actually didn't enjoy this movie.

I saw it at a camp, and we didn't rave about it, we laughed at it. Sure, some parts are touching, but the acting is terrible, the effects are terrible, and the whole overall movie idea is terrible (now, I know it was based on a book which I haven't read, but I hope that the book was better than this, because frankly, I thought that this movie was very bad and boring). Like I said, I went to it with a bunch of people from a camp, and we were excited to be there, plus I got a caffeinated drink, but nonetheless, I struggled to stay awake. The only thing that kept me up (other than my fear of being embarrassed once I woke up) was the gunshots, that were quite pointless as well. I just really didn't like it.


This movie is nothing but a religious tract promoting classic Hinduism and New Age Occultism dressed up with Western images to be swallowed by those who are ignorant of foundational religious comparisons. Basic tenants of Hinduism contain elements of reincarnation. (Some of the characters appear both in the present time and also in the 1600's) obviously reincarnated. God is an impersonal force. Animal life and plant life are all the same. (This is Pantheism). Redfield has tried to mix Eastern Mysticism with Western Christianty. His attempt at syncretism may fool or confuse those who are not seekers of truth but this movie is a feeble excuse for any ultimate reality. As the ad in the old Berkeley Barb used to say for $10.00 will show you how to start your own religion. As one famous prophet has said, "Use the Force Luke".


slow, incomprehensible, boring. Three enthusiastic words that describe the movie of the book. This is surely a case where the movie should never have been made at the expense of the book. The best part of the movie was the scenery, excellent. The worst part was the slow moving interactions of the actors which combined with endless meaningful glances. The editing is abrupt and patchy. However, despite this, the actors worked very hard at least trying to be a little believable with a terrible script. It was startling that although set in Peru there was hardly a person of Peruvian descent wandering about the set - even in the flashback scenes depicting Peru in the 17th century. If you have any sense of history, try to avoid this movie.


The book that this movie is based on seriously changed my life. But saying this movie was a disappointment is an understatement. The acting, directing, cinematography, and storyline were all horrible. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. I've told countless people about the book but will now be telling them all that they should definitely not see the movie! I did not expect the plot to follow the book exactly, but they have left out too many key components of the book. The movie tried, but failed, to deliver a powerful and inspiring message and only demeaned the central theme of the prophecy. While putting myself in the position who had not read the book, I saw the Celestine Prophecy as a bunch of hoaxy B.S. I am thoroughly disappointed with Redfield for the way this movie turned out.


I agree with the majority of the comments I have seen written. I grew up watching Seseme Street before a lot of the people who have written comments were even born. I was born in 1964, so I was 5-yrs-old when Seseme Street was introduced to television. The show taught me my numbers (The Count), spelling (the Muppet), and about life. I liked all the old characters (Big Bird, Oscar, Grover, and Cookie Monster) and don't quite understand why they had to change. I understand that everything has to change in some way, but to make Cookie Monster into a "veggie monster" to promote healthy eating. The show has introduced new characters and monsters since it's inception, why not make a separate "veggie monster" that talks/discusses the benefits of eating a varied diet with Cookie Monster. But, back to my point. I grew up watching the very beginning of Seseme Street, my now 20 yr-old daughter grew up watching SS with me along side her, and we discussed Mr. Hooper dying, although he had died prior to her being born, as well as other topics on the show. I saw the episode as a older child, and still remember how well they portrayed the event, much like real life. And I'm sure it hit the cast extremely hard as all deaths and losses effect families. You saw this on the show and it allowed parents and children to discuss very difficult events. The show has talked about traditional families, adoptive families and combined families. It's one of the few shows that actually discusses these scenarios. I now have a 5 yr-old daughter who really doesn't watch SS. I've tried to watch the show a couple of times, but, it really is not what it used to be. The Elmo 1/2 hr with Mr. Noodle is absolutely ridiculous. Like many people have said, it doesn't teach anything. It's geared for the less than 18 month old (maybe), and isn't even funny. I always prided myself on watching SS as a child, teen, and adult with my own child. Now on my second go-round, I really have a hard time watching SS. The topics that were discussed: death, marriage, non-traditional families, new to neighborhoods, moving away were related to children and adults in a manner easy for 2-99 year old to understand and relate to. Now, there are NO concepts taught, minimal counting, only the occasional mention of the alphabet. It is NOT the same SS, from an original watcher of the show. PLEASE if any producers from the show read these comments, return the show to its foundation. New concepts have never been a problem with SS, they just used to have a better way to incorporate them into the show.


My husband and I bought the Old School Sesame Street DVD's for our daughter and I have to say, I don't let her watch the new episodes on TV, because I find ALL of the characters annoying. Baby Bear AND Telly? OMgosh, How ANNOYING and useless blabber can someone think of for their 'skits'? Elmo? Give it a rest not every kid likes him, once again, annoying and doesn't teach my child ANYTHING. Mr. Noodle? what a reject. I think the one time I turned the 'new' show on for her, she and I were left dumber than before. The show has Definitely taken a wrong turn. I remember the Yip Yips, Kermit's Breaking News, 1-2 2 Little Dolls, Mumford the Magician, Bert and Ernie, Grover the Waiter, all the GREAT EDUCATIONAL skits of OLD SCHOOL S.S. Sesame Street has suffered a direct hit of boredom and dumbness since Jim Henson's passing in 1990. The show no longer has the educational, funny and interactive skits it used to. I find the new versions simply unbearably annoying and full of useless non-educational blabber. Way to go S.S. producers/writers you have yet another cartoony show for the parents to sit there non-creative, non-exercised kids in front of so they'll get out of their hair. Per Producers/Writers : I suggest you whip out the old muppets and start taping similar content to that of the first Sesame Street's. Lord knows I sure don't want my child talking like Baby Bear or Elmo.


"A death at a college campus appears to be a suicide but is actually a cover for murder. The dead man's roommate finds himself embroiled in a mystery as he tries to uncover the truth behind the young man's murder. Twists and turns, as well as some false leads, makes this a tough case for our collegiate hero to solve, let alone (keep) out of the clutches of the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

The stars may be bigger than the movie. Handsome Charles Starrett (as Ken Harris), who has a small "lingerie" scene, became one of the top western stars of the forties, peaking in "The Return of the Durango Kid" (1945). The man playing his father, Robert Warwick (as Joseph Harris), was one of the most respected actors of the teens, beginning with his performance in "Alias Jimmy Valentine" (1915). Watch out for red herrings.

**** A Shot in the Dark (2/1/35) Charles Lamont ~ Charles Starrett, Robert Warwick, James Bush


SPLIT SECOND might have been a good movie. A story about a "road rage" homicide, has a very young Clive Owen giving a pretty good performance; BUT...but....

Unfortunately, the filmmakers undercut their own movie with idiotic camera-work and truly awful editing. The camera jumps all over creation in an unsuccessful attempt (I suppose) to reflect Owen's stress from business, family, and traffic. What this actually does is to give the viewer a headache.

Since the filmmakers cared nothing about making a good movie, but only to impress each other with their idiotic photography, one ought not waste time on this travesty.


I won't describe the story, as that has been done elsewhere. We are great Clive Owen fans, and when our Netflix recommended the movie, we were intrigued.

No wonder we had never heard of this "movie", because it was a BBC Television movie back in 1992. Hence, the poor production values, grainy image , jerky camera work and poor sound.

But, you don't really mind the mechanics, because the story itself will put you to sleep. It's an interesting human story, but not at all compelling, and there is hardly any ending. You don't really care for the characters as their lives are as boring as your life watching this tedious movie. Save the two hours and do something to make the time more worthwhile.


This Worldwide was the cheap man's version of what the NWA under Jim Crockett Junior and Jim Crockett Promotions made back in the 1980s on the localized "Big 3" Stations during the Saturday Morning/Afternoon Wrestling Craze. When Ted Turner got his hands on Crockett's failed version of NWA he turned it into World Championship Wrestling and proceeded to drop all NWA references all together. NWA World Wide and NWA Pro Wrestling were relabeled with the WCW logo and moved off the road to Disney/MGM Studios in Orlando, Florida and eventually became nothing more than recap shows for WCW's Nitro, Thunder, and Saturday Night. Worldwide was officially the last WCW program under Turner to air the weekend of the WCW buyout from Vince McMahon and WWF. Today the entire NWA World Wide/WCW Worldwide Video Tape Archive along with the entire NWA/WCW Video Tape Library in general lay in the vaults of WWE Headquarters in Stamford,Connecticut.


This film has nothing whatever to do with the Sphinx, and the title is just a come-on. The story concerns an imagined true and concealed tomb in the Valley of the Kings, of King Seti I, second pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty, New Kingdom period. It is not a bad yarn, and a great deal of the film is shot on location. Even the scenes in the Winter Palace Hotel lobby in Luxor were really shot there, and not in a studio. The second unit stuff is endless, and they must have been let loose on Egypt for weeks. Frank Langella is very good indeed as a sophisticated Egyptian. He should take it up as a sideline. The film is essentially ruined by one of the world's most irritating actresses, Lesley Anne Down, who plays the lead. She spends the whole film wondering how she looks, are her blue eyes refracting light at the correct angle, do all the fellas lust after her, etc. Having started life as a model at the age of ten, what hope could there be for her? She epitomises everything that is most revolting about female vanity and dim-witted inanity. And to think that this film was directed by Franklin Shaffner, who won an Oscar for 'Patton'! He allows this terrible actress to whimper and simper through the film, hysterical one moment, flirting the next, in a kind of hurricane of idiocy as she reels from one man to another, either screaming or making bedroom eyes, it matters not. She is supposed to be a young Egyptologist. But she has never been to Egypt before! She takes a taxi to Giza and catching her first glimpse of the pyramids, gushes in ecstasy: 'But they're so BIG!!!!' Barf! OK, so that was the script, but she takes to the banality too readily, giving the impression that it is her natural element, which I don't doubt for a minute. Elements of the story are sound. There is, indeed, a serious problem about a black market in antiquities there. True! Well done! The novel by Robin Cook, which I have not seen, may be OK for all I know. It was fun to see the name of Cyril Swern as sound recordist on the film, as I knew him pretty well long ago. Stanley Kubrick's step-daughter Katharina is described as 'draughtswoman'. I wonder what that means? Maybe she did some set work. Anyway, the antiquities in the film are pretty good, actually. And we get to see lots of the Cairo Museum and numerous scenic locations. They actually go inside King Tutankhamun's Tomb! I don't imagine that would be allowed today for a movie. A lot of inappropriate scenes take place in mosques. That would not go down well today, but in 1981 such things were not on the agenda. The music for the film is absolutely appalling, worse than Lesley Anne Down in fact! But there were sound track elements which were surprisingly authentic, one being the cacophony of traffic noise of Cairo, which is accurately rendered in the background, and would make anyone who knows Cairo chuckle nervously. Also, the loudspeaker calls to prayer are there the whole time, another touch of authenticity. Why didn't they get this right? It could have been good.


Rather foolish attempt at a Hitchcock-type mystery-thriller, improbably exchanging espionage for archaeology and based on the Robin Cook novel; incidentally, I’ve recently acquired another adaptation of his work – COMA (1978) – in honor of the late Richard Widmark. For the record, director Schaffner had just made THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978) – a similarly fanciful but much more engrossing suspenser and, unfortunately, SPHINX was a false step from which his so-far impressive career would not recover.

Despite its scope and reasonably decent cast, however, this one proved a critical and commercial flop – mainly because the narrative just isn’t very thrilling: in fact, it’s quite dreary (feeble attempts at horror – the archaeologist heroine having to put up with entombment, rotting corpses galore, and even an attack by a flurry of bats – notwithstanding). Lesley Anne-Down is the lovely leading lady, stumbling upon a lost treasure – it’s actually been hidden away by a local sect to prevent it from falling into the hands of foreigners, who have appropriated much of the country’s heritage (under the pretext of culture) for far too long. Sir John Gielgud turns up in a thankless bit early on as the antique dealer who puts Down on the way of the loot, and pays for this ‘act of treason’ with his life.

Typically, it transpires that some characters are the opposite of what they claim to be – so that apparent allies (such as Maurice Ronet) are eventually exposed as villains, while an ambiguous figure (Frank Langella, whom I saw at London in early 2007 in a West End performance of “Frost/Nixon”, which has now been turned into a film) goes from Down’s antagonist to her lover and back again, as he determines to keep the wealth belonging to Egyptian high priest Menephta a national treasure.


Some nice scenery, but the story itself--in which a self-proclaimed Egyptologist (Lesley-Anne Down) visits Egypt and, in the course of doing Egyptologist things in the most un-Egyptologistic of ways (e.g., flash photography in the tombs, the handling of old parchment, etc.), uncovers a black market turf war and somehow (in the span of two days, no less!) becomes that war's jumpsuit-wearing epicenter--is more puzzling than any riddle the Sphinx ever posed. Down is simply awful as the visiting British scholar (that she seems to know absolutely nothing about the culture of Egypt and even less about antiquities is the fault of the writers, certainly; but that she's annoying as all get out is her own fault entirely), and the rest of the cast, including Sir John Gielgud and Frank Langella, seem as downright confused by the proceedings as I was. In short, not what you'd expect from Schaffner (Planet of the Apes, Patton) and co.

Worth watching for a laughably dated scene in which Down rails against all male scholars, blaming them for her failure as an academic, while bathed under the softest light Hollywood could muster. To top it off, she spends the next hour of the film shrieking and harried and running into the arms of any dude she can find. Wow, talk about your performative irony!

*Note to would-be Egyptologists: take a year or two of Arabic in grad school. It'll really help out in the long run...