I have no idea what on earth, or beyond, could have possibly made Sam Mraovich believe that this would have been a worthy project to undertake. Ben & Arthur is one of the worst movies ever made. In fact, I see no reason why it should not be at #1 on the Bottom 100. For although I have not seen, for example, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (#5 at the time of this publication), I would venture to guess that that film is considerably better than this oozing wound, because even in its vapid dismalness at least Baby Geniuses 2 was professionally made. By contrast, everything, and I do mean everything, in this film is completely unprofessional.

The movie is intended to be an attack on the Christian Right's supposed bigotry and hatred toward gays. And I do emphasize "intended." Not only does it completely and utterly fail at its purpose, it also leaves an ugly scar. Instead of creating a compelling and realistic portrait of a gay couple's struggle against a society that largely opposes them, it creates tired, crass stereotypes of each party involved. Ben and Arthur, the namesake couple, are portrayed as two crude, sex-starved, and hopelessly romantic cardboard cutouts who marry when the laws change to allow them to do so. This meets with the opposition of Ben's brother Victor, a Christian minister who, like all Christians (as this movie would have us believe), is loud, prying, stupid, and violent. He tries to kill Ben and Arthur after his associations with them get him kicked out of the ministry. Just like in real life. And if you think that's dreadful (it is), you haven't seen it all.

The actors (?) here manage to completely destroy any vestige of credibility in this movie by saying their lines as if they were narrating a YouTube home comedy video. But not even Daniel Day-Lewis and Marlon Brando as the title characters could have saved this clunker, for there would still be the matter of the completely inane and laugh-inducing dialogue that fills every minute of the movie. Every scene has at least one awkward or misplaced quote. For example, in one scene, Victor tries to complain about not being able to have nieces or nephews because of his brother's homosexuality. But instead of portraying this idea clearly, he spits out the stupid, utterly confusing, whiny-sounding line, "You know what, I'm never going to have any nieces or nephews, okay, because you're so F***ED UP!"

Even more glaring is the complete lack of production values. Yes, I know this ain't The Dark Knight, but even amateur film makers should know some basics about special effects and editing. For example, six dots of red cake dye do not suffice for realistic bullet wounds. People do not teleport across a room between takes. And objects do not fall FORWARD when shot!

Do not waste your money on Ben & Arthur. I don't care if you're 7, 17, or 107. I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi, or undecided. I don't care if you're "just curious." I don't care what pathetic reason you may have to be tempted to buy this dung-heap. Stay away, far away. This movie's only redeeming quality is its ability to be used as a Frisbee.


Sam Mraovich should never be allowed to touch a camera again. If he does he should be arrested on the spot...at the very least for petty larceny. Anybody who pays even a dime to rent any of his garbage should file a claim and be compensated. This was innocently my first viewing of his "work"...and it will my last. Ed Wood looks awfully good to me right now.

When I return this piece of crap to the video store, I will personally ask that it be taken off the shelf. An active supporter of gay cinema, I am incensed and angered that this warped, exceedingly untalented man-child be allowed to distribute and package something like this, with a coltish pretty boy on the cover (Jamie Brett Gabel, who, thankfully, has no other acting credits in IMDb) and an interesting synopsis on the back used as bait, and then market it as a "movie" rental. Trust me, this has no place being on any rack anywhere; it is simply not a movie in any sense of the word. Offensive, irresponsible junk such as this can only be detrimental to the efforts being made to promote and support gay cinema (hell, gay rights in general!) For those tempting to rent this out because of the cover, you WILL be disappointed. Gabel is not as flattering to look at on film as he is on the cover, and he appears once or twice without a shirt -- that's it. Instead, the homely Mroavich inflicts on us his own disgusting, sorry-looking dough-boy nakedness.

This "thing" he "assembled" is a reverse vanity project for Mraovich. Both he and his friend Michael Habousch (who, I understand, puts out similar sleazy garbage) are terrible in this. Mraovich is purposely posing as a complete no-talent (in all fields), desperate to grab onto any "loser" attention he can for himself. He is to be pitied.


Let me first state that I enjoy watching "bad" movies. It's funny how some of these films leave more of a lasting impression than the truly superb ones. This film is bad in a disturbingly malicious way. This vehicle for Sam Mraovich's delusional ego doesn't just border on talentless ineptitude, it has redefined the very meaning of the words. This should forever be the barometer for bad movies. Sort of the Mendoza line for film. Mr. Mraovich writes, directs, and stars as blunt object Arthur Sailes battling scorned wives and the Christian forces of evil as he and his partner Ben "dead behind the eyes" Sheets struggle for marital equality. As a libertarian I believe gays should have a right to get married. Ben & Arthur do more harm to that cause than an army of homophobes. The portrayal of all things Christian are so ugly and ham-fisted, trademark Mraovich, that you can't possibly take any of them seriously. Arthur's brother Victor, the bible toting Jesus freak, is so horribly over-the-top evil/effeminately gay that you have to wonder how he was cast in this role. That's because Sam "multitasking" Mraovich was also casting director. The worst of it all is Sam Mraovich himself. When you think leading man do the words pasty, balding, and chubby come to mind? Sam also delivers lines like domino's pizza, cold and usually wrong. The final tally: you suck at writing, directing, acting and casting. That's the Ed Wood quadruple crown. Congratulations you horrible little man.


This movie is just truly awful, the eye-candy that plays Ben just can make up for everything else that is wrong with this movie.

The writer/director/producer/lead actor etc probably had a good idea to create a movie dealing with the important issues of gay marriage, family acceptance, religion, homophobia, hate crimes and just about every other issue effecting a gay man of these times, but trying to ram every issue into such a poorly conceived film does little justice to any of these causes.

The script is poor, the casting very ordinary, but the dialogue and acting is just woeful. The homo-hating brother is played by the most camp actor and there is absolutely no chemistry between the two lead actors (I think I've seen more passion in an corn flakes ad). The acting is stiff, and the dialogue forced (a scene where the brother is feeding the detective his lines was the highlight).

I'm just pleased to see that the creator of this train wreck has not pushed any other rubbish out in to distribution, and if he is thinking of doing so, I have some advise - JUST DON'T DO IT.


as an actor I really like independent films but this one is amateur at best.

The boys go to Vermont for a civil service yet when the plane lands it flies over a palm tree - were the directors aware that palm trees are not in Vermont? Pines yes - palms no. And the same for the wedding service - again nice grove of palm trees.

When the boys are leaving VT they apparently could not get a ticket on any major airline since the plane that is filmed is Federal Express. Did they ship themselves Overnight in a crate? Come on guys little details like this separate an indi film from totally amateur.

The Christian brother is far gayer than Arthur with his bleached hair and tribal band tattoo. The two should have switched roles.

The minor characters are laughable and overact something terrible.

Applause to the directors for making a gay film but pay some attention to your locations and casting next time


Just watched this after hearing about how bad it was and wanted to see for myself. Seriously, even if you read all the negative comments on here you will be nowhere near able to comprehend how awful this film actually is, although it has to be one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen! Never bothered to post a comment on here before, but this piece of crap really warrants it.

Firstly the entire plot is ridiculous and nonsensical. Brother of the lead character (either Ben or Arthur, I forget which is which, and frankly it's never very clear) wants to stop some kind of gay marriage by killing everyone in sight - because homosexuality is abhorrent to Christians, but apparently mass murder isn't. Then there's some other crap thrown in about one of the gay couple's ex-wife trying to force him to remarry her at gunpoint. This leads to nothing, but provides us with one of the funniest lines of dialogue in the whole "film" - "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! That's who makes sense!". Brilliant.

Then there's the acting, which is just atrocious. It must be seen to be believed. My personal favourite is the apparently stoned civil rights lawyer woman, who is clearly reading her lines off of something, yet still managing to mess them up. Enough said. The gay couple couldn't be less convincing. There's the vaguely attractive and completely gormless guy, and his boyfriend who looks like that little cartoon dough man of the bisto adverts. Only fatter. And less talented.

The "film" has also been filmed by someone who is incapable of holding a camera even remotely still, and the number of mistakes throughout is amazing. The whole thing kicks off with the fat main guy in bed with a pair of boots on. Yep.

But anyways, we all know how terrible this thing is, so I'd like to highlight some of the most priceless comedy moments that the "film" provides.

- When the fat guy sets the church on fire and then prances like a six year old girl across the car park to make his escape. Hilarious.

- Mildread! No idea what relation she is to the main characters - sometimes they know her, sometimes they don't, but she pops up in a couple of scenes nonetheless. Hilarious.

- The stoned lawyer. Already mentioned her, but she's so funny she's worth another mention.

- The evil brothers dinner of crackers that he lays on for his guests.

- The evil brother's anti-gay potion.

- The evil brother's cats.

- The ending, which I won't give away because it MUST be seen to be believed. I warn you though, make sure you're not eating at the time!!!! The tub of lard main character/director/producer gets naked. It's foul.

Basically, Ben and Arthur is indescribably bad, but unintentionally the most comical thing you'll see for a long time. Literally, nothing is good about this excuse for a film, the goon of a director even manages to make the opening credits into a joke by writing his own name about 15 times.


Oh man, what was Sam Mraovich thinking? What was anyone who was involved in this "film" thinking? Mraovich is the head of nearly everything of "Ben and Arthur": Director, writer, producer (also EXECUTIVE producer!), caster, lead star- you name it, he did it. And he (Mraovich) sucks more than anyone has ever sucked in every department of film making.

So what is wrong with this film? Everything. The film is about two gay lovers, Ben (Jamie Brett Gabel) and Arthur (Mraovich- *groan*). Ben and Arthur want to get married in a world where everyone basically hates gay people. To make things worse, Ben's crazy "ex-wife" (they don't exactly divorce), Tammy (Julie Belknap) is steaming mad that Ben's left her for another man and demands Ben that they get back together (saying that she can be gay, too!) and Arthur's Christian devoted, excessively hypocritical, equally batty as Tammy brother, Victor, is hell bent on making Arthur turn straight and then try to kill him after he gets kicked out of his church.

The film is absolutely chock a block with so many goofs (ie. Ben and Arthur fly to Vermont to get married- they go there on Alaska Airlines and Vermont has palm trees; they fly back on a FedEx cargo plane- hope they were comfy in a wooden crate, plus many, many more) and plot holes to boot (Victor calls killing Arthur "The Final Plan" which later changes to "The Final Deed"; Arthur and the private (intern) detective drive the same car, blah, blah, blah). The "actors" are all very bad and are way, way over the top; the script is laughably horrible(one such example is "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! I make sense, that's who makes sense!") and there so much more wrong with the "movie" that I can't write them all down.

However, the most laughable yet unbelievable thing about "Ben and Arthur" is that Sam Mraovich thinks that he has created something that is truly fantastic (see his fake reviews for "Ben & Arthur" and obvious comments by him on YouTube.). Mraovich is narcissistic and his arrogance blinds him from seeing how awful anything with his name on it really is.

So, to conclude, forget every bad film that you claim is the worst movie ever- "Ben and Arthur" will knock them right off that title, even Paris Hilton movies look like "The Dark Knight" compared to the monstrosity known as "Ben and Arthur".


Phew--I don't what to say. This is a film that could be really good a with a bunch of stoned viewers. Some of the acting reminded me of John Waters' early offerings. Perhaps I should take that back--I don't want to insult Waters' ability as a director/storyteller.

I particularly loved the lawyer taking about the "full faith and credibility" clause. It's "full faith and credit," by the way!

This also reminds me of "The Conrad Boys," where the main actor is also the writer, director, film editor, etc. Those sort of multi-involved undertakings such as that are probably best left to very seasoned film professionals who would have the technical ability (albeit a stunt, some might say) to pull something off like that.


I don't know what it is about this movie- director Sam Mraovich somehow messed up just about every little aspect in this movie. I would normally say that this is a movie that should not exist, but this movie may be the most important of all time. This movie should exist for the sole purpose of being without a doubt 'The Worst Movie Ever Made'. I've seen bad movies in my lifetime, but this somehow breaks what I considered bad into something much more hard to imagine.

Everything in this movie is hilarious, but the single funniest thing is that Mraovich himself considers this to be a great movie.

Oh wow...


Worst film ever, this is a statement that people here on IMDb often throw around. Whether it's an Uwe Boll movie, bad classics like Manos The Hands Of Fate or the latest no brains summer action fest from Michael Bay, people are often quick to jump to the sudden conclusion that on the board they're posting that there is nothing worse in the movie world.

I envy these people, because they're blissfully ignorant and unaware of how deep the rabbit hole of crap movie making really goes. There are films out there so bad, so hideous, so unintentionally hilarious and so ridiculous that cults form around them to celebrate their awfulness and their discussion boards are the kindest places on the internet due to everyone agreeing unanimously that said film is really that bad.

Ladies and Gentlemen, i present to you Ben and Arthur, an 85 minute gay epic that is so utterly bad that it's a lot like a violent car crash, you know it's awful but you can't stop looking at it. The brainchild of self proclaimed "hollywood actor, director" and may i add beached whale Sam Mraovich, this film is legendarily terrible. Let me give you a hint of how ego driven this project was. Mr Mraovich not only directed this film, he wrote it, produced it, executive produced it, scored it, edited it and then finally starred in it. This is a man so blinded by his own ego and so believing of his non existent genius that like someone with an ugly child he fails to recognise just how catastrophic his bastard creation really is.

Everything in this film fails on an epic level, the acting is the worst you will ever witness, the plot is the most ridiculous, the editing and cinematography is the most amateur and even the music is like nails on a chalkboard. I'm aware i've gone on a bit of a tangent here, but please believe me that this film is really as bad as i describe it, i would say this film is horse crap squished into a film reel, but the truth is it wasn't even shot on film, it was shot on a digital camcorder not much better than the one sitting in your closet right now gathering dust. Don't get me wrong, i forgive low budgets for films provided the concept is interesting, for example as much as i disliked it The Blair Witch Project proved that low budgets can still lead to an atmospheric interesting film. Ben and Arthur does not have a good concept to fall back on, even if this film was shot on a budget of 20 million with Hollywoods finest actors it would still suck, the plot is that atrocious, and the characters are even worse. One of the main characters Arthur who is portrayed by non other than Sam Mraovich is one of the most whiny loathsome little turds ever put in a film. You'll dislike him within 5 minutes of the start of the film and by the end of the film that hate will have turned into outright loathing. Apparently Mr Mraovich forgot that we're supposed to root for the hero.

I don't want to spoil all the gut busting hilarity you'll experience watching this film (which i urge you not to pay for) so i will give you two tame mild examples of how stupid this film is, tame and mild as in amongst the least offending mistakes in the movie. In one cut we hear one of the main characters say how "they know a good lawyer and will give HIM a call" the shot fades out then fades back in and this HIM they spoke of earlier is actually a woman, quite a spectacular mistake to make in post production i think. The second is simple, seconds after seeing this transsexual lawyer the characters are told to fly to Vermont, we then cut to a shot of a plane landing amongst palm trees in a sunny area. I've never been to Vermont personally but i'm certain you won't find any palm trees there.

Imagine this kind of stupid amateur inconsistency stretched to nearly an hour and a half combined with ridiculous dialogue and plot and then multiply it by 10 and it still won't fully prepare you for Ben and Arthur. Imagine the absolute worst film you've seen in your life and imagine it being even worse and you still won't be on the same level as Ben and Arthur, this film is really that bad.

However we should be glad in a way, films like this are a true rarity. They give us hope that one day we can become film makers ourselves or that we can be screenwriters. Simply because we'll have a new found sense of confidence due to the fact that we'll know that nothing we produce no matter how amateur could be as much of a suck fest as this.

The real worst movie of all time has finally been discovered, and it is called Ben and Arthur.


What can I say, this is a piece of brilliant film-making that should have won an Oscar. A copy should be kept safe in a secure vault for posterity. It should be required viewing for all high school students across the world. Sam Mraovich is a genius, perhaps the most genius writer/director/producer/chef/babysitter/walmart greeter to ever grace the cinema world with his art.

Where do I begin with this one? Every millisecond of Ben and Arthur was so completely breathtaking! And Mraovich as Arthur, wow, he is so attractive I'm surprised he didn't go for Mr. Universe. I couldn't contain myself during the nude scene. I loaned this movie to my brother and he called me on the phone saying how Arthur's nude scene turned him gay. I am totally supportive of course, because of this film and it's beautifully crafted lessons in tolerance. Why just yesterday I burned down a church and I wrote "for Sam and Arthur" in its smoldering ashes.

The cinematography was the best thing about this film. When that Fed-Ex plane took to the skies amid the palm trees of Vermont, I wept! Why, I never even knew they had palm trees in Vermont or that people could travel on Fed-Ex planes before this film. It opened my eyes to a new realm of possibilities. This film inspired me to enroll in Sam Mraovich's school of Screen writing, Acting, Directing, Composing, Casting, Producing, Production Design and Real Estate. I just want to say, "Thank you, Mr. Mraovich. Thank you for bringing this creation into the world. We can never re-pay you enough."


When the film began, I was shocked to see it was filmed using a cheap video camera! In fact, the camera shakes and looks worse than the average home movie. Even direct to DVD films should have production values better than this! Heck, a large percentage of the home videos uploaded to YouTube have better production values! All too often, the film seriously appears to be made by sticking the camera on a tripod and turning it on--with no camera person! Closeups and anything resembling camera-work are absent in some scenes where they might have worked and in others there are too many or poorly framed closeups. Yecch!

The film is about two gay men who want to become married. As if was made almost a decade ago, their only option was marrying in Vermont--times have definitely changed. However, the recent acceptance of gay marriage cannot in any way be attributed to this film--if anything, it set the gay marriage supporters back instead of helping as the movie stinks and never really tries to seriously address the issue. According to the film, religious people are one-dimensional idiots who carry Bibles EVERYWHERE and shoot people as well as wives who have gay husbands are narrow-minded when they learn their spouses have been living a lie--go figure. I'm sure glad it gives an honest chance to both sides on the issue!

The bottom line--nothing about the film shows any professionalism at all and I even hesitate to call this a film. It's more like a home movie and doesn't even merit a listing on IMDb or even inclusion on IMDb's Bottom 100 list of the worst rated films of all time. The acting is horrible, the writing is horrible, the direction (if there even is any) is horrible, the camera-work is horrible and the plot is horrible. It's a home movie!! There is nothing positive I can say about this in any way except that it makes the films of Ed Wood seem like Oscar contenders in comparison and I am sure the ghost of Mr. Wood is smiling every time someone watches this mess!

I don't care if you are gay or straight--this film is not worth your time and I don't know how they managed to create DVDs of it. I assume one of the actors burns them on his home computer during his free time! Seriously, this gives new meaning to the word 'bad'!

By the way, if the one lady in the film WAS a real lawyer, wouldn't the ability to read be an important prerequisite?! I'm just sayin'.

Finally, with gay marriage being such a serious and important topic, can't we have a film that's BETTER than THIS that addresses the issue?! This one, sadly, only invites laughter.


Oh, Sam Mraovich, we know you tried so hard. This is your magnum opus, a shining example to the rest of us that you are certainly worth nomination into the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (as you state on your 1998-era web site). Alas, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. With Ben & Arthur, you do just that.

Seemingly assembled with a lack of instruction or education, the film's screenplay guides us toward the truly bizarre with each new scene. It's this insane excuse of a story that may also be the film's best ally. Beginning tepidly, the homosexually titular characters Ben and Arthur attempt to marry, going so far as to fly across country to do so, in the shade of Vermont's finest palm trees. But, all of this posturing is merely a lead-in for BLOOD. Then more BLOOD, and MORE AND MORE BLOOD. I mean, there must be at least $20 in fake blood make-up in the final third of this film.

The film in its entirety is a technical gaffe. From the sound to the editing to the music, which consists of a single fuzzy bass note being held on a keyboard, it's a wonder that the film even holds together on whatever media you view it on. It's such a shame then that some decent amateur performances are wasted here.

No matter, Sam. I'm sure you've made five figures on this flick in rentals or whatever drives poor souls (such as myself) to view this film. Sadly, we're not laughing with you.


I tried to like this program; I really did. I even bought the pilot film, first on VHS and later on DVD. However, I couldn't get into this story because its two main characters: "David" (Bruce Willis) and "Maddie" (Cybill Shepherd) just seemed to in love with themselves, for one thing. I admit was some clever dialog in the shows, which was a key part of the success of the TV program, and I did appreciate of lot of that dialog.

Basically, this was almost like the old screwball comedy movies of the '30s and '40s with male versus female. You get lots of arguing, accusations, yelling and screaming. A lot of people apparently love that sort of bickering, but I hate it, so I never got on the Moonlighting bandwagon.

Only Allyce Beasley as the hapless aide "Agnes," was entertaining. It's too bad she had such little air time. Shepherd was nice on the eyes and I suppose women would say the same for Willis, but too much arguing between the two finally turned me off.


This is strictly a review of the pilot episode as it appears on DVD.

Television moved out of my life in 1981, so I never followed the series or any part of it - which means that I'm immune to the nostalgic charm that Moonlighting appears to have for most reviewers.

(Possible spoiler warning)

The pilot of Moonlighting is your basic "caveman meets fluffball" yarn, where a "charming" red-blooded he-man manipulates a misguided woman into realizing what she really wants and needs. The premises that the script's "wit" is based on must have already felt stale around 1950. It also contains some frankly bad writing, as in the scene where Maddie demolishes the furnishings instead of shooting the villain, strictly in order to prove herself the inept female in need of masculine assistance.

I often feel that Susan Faludi overreacts in seeing male chauvinist conspiracy in simple entertainment, but in this particular case I'm all with her - Moonlighting has BACKLASH stamped all over it.

In one sense, however, this DVD is a must for all serious Bruce Willis fans: in addition to the pilot episode, it contains the screen test that landed Willis the job. Both features show to what amazing extent Willis' acting ability developed between 1985 and 1988/89 (Die Hard 1, In Country). Impressive!

Rating (and I _am_ a Bruce Willis fan): 2 out of 10


The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu starring Peter Sellers in a spoof of the characters created by Sax Rohmer is an injustice to the end of Sellers' career. The plot was very simplistic, and if done the right way could have been handled nicely, but instead it was poorly executed. Part of the reasons why this film wasn't that good was the poor dialog, cheap laughs, choppy directing, and an awkward feeling that the film was somewhat incomplete.

The acting, on the other hand, was really the only thing that kept my interest during this mixed up picture. I found Sellers portrayal of diabolical Manchu brilliantly done, with the occasional lines that will be remembered. For example, there is the scene where Fu Manchu is confused which henchman is which in which he says "Ah, you all look the same to me." I hate to admit it, but I laughed out loud with that line.

Then of course a fistful of strong supporting characters really caught my attention with the likes of Helen Mirren as the backstabbing constable, David Tomilson as Sir Roger Avery (his last film as well, not a way to end a career), and Sid Ceasar (who gives a rather whimsical performance of Al Capone's relative who works for the FBI). These characters also kept me watching.

The sets were also nice. Oriental designs and English society in 1933 was depicted with elegance in this dud-of-a-picture.

In all honesty, my advice to you is to watch the film if you are a Peter Sellers or Sid Ceasar fan. Otherwise, you're better off settling on chewing aluminum foil.


I can hardly believe I watched this again last night after more than 25 years...

Some time back, I watched 6 Fu films in a row... Boris Karloff, and all 5 Chris Lees. The last 2 Lees, both directed (and I use that word loosely) by Jess Franco, were abominable. At the time, I skipped this one, remembering that, in some ways, it was EVEN WORSE.

Well, I watched it. NEVER again. You know what's worse that an abominable film? A really WELL-MADE piece of S***. And that's what FIENDISH PLOT is. It is a VERY good-looking movie. GREAT production design, sets, costumes, music, photography, editing, mostly good cast, some decent acting...

...and absolutely, positively, one of the WORST SCRIPTS in movie history!!!!! AAAUGH!!!!! The first minute of the film is so deceptive... one might mistake this for a decent movie. And then they start singing "Happy birthday to Fu"... and it goes downhill. Having Burt Kwouk (of whom his master says, "Your face-- is familiar.") accidentally pour out Fu's elixir vitae to put out a fire, resulting in his being condemned to torture, burial and having one of his ears cut off, was the closest thing to funny they had. It was like someone decided they wanted to do a "campy" film-- so ridiculous it would be funny. RIDICULOUS, it is... FUNNY... it AIN'T. At all.

It's sad, because it's clear in the first few minutes that someone did a LOT of research into the Fu Manchu series in order to get so much of it "right". With a different script-- either a really FUNNY one, or a dead SERIOUS one, they might have-- could have-- SHOULD have-- had a classic on their hands. A film that could have made one forget the horror of those Jess Franco atrocities... instead of making one want to dig them out as masterpieces, by comparison.

There was a period in the late 70's when a whole slew of classic 30's characters were revived in movies that were universally awful. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Charlie Chan, even Doc Savage. I'm not sure, this one may be the worst of the lot. It took great self-control not to fast-forward over whole sections of it, especially any scenes containing Sid Caesar (FBI chief who was also Al Capone's cousin-- you see what I mean?). It isn't just that the ideas in the film aren't funny... they often make NO SENSE whatsoever. Like when they "audition" police officers to impersonate the King and Queen, and we wind up seeing people "audition" dance-hall routines like singing, dancing, and riding a unicycle. How many drugs did the writers of this thing have to take for any of this to make sense to them?

As I said, a shame... and a real waste of all that talent, including that of Peter Sellers (who played both Fu and Nayland Smith), Burt Kwouk (who'd been in a Chris Lee Fu film in his time), Helen Mirren (the police woman who shockingly falls in love with the villain and damn near steals the last half-hour of the film!). I begin to wonder if anyone will EVER make a "proper" Fu Manchu film, or if fans will have to settle for Karloff's being almost the ONLY one?


It is true that some fans of Peter Sellers work may be disappointed with this, his last venture. But surely any fan of Sellers will find delight in all of his films, simply because of the man's huge talent. and The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu is certainly no exception. Unfortunately this would prove to be Sellers last film, (it was even released after his death), but it's still nice to see how the man had managed to keep his irreplaceable talent right until his untimely demise. And not only do we get one Sellers, but we get to, for Sellers plays not only the title role but also his nemesis, the equally bizarre Nayland Smith, the detective on the hunt for the crazed 168 year old Fu. The story is equally outlandish as we follow Fu's outrageous antics to make his age-defying elixir and also Nayland and his group of associates trying to prevent him. Just like any of Sellers greater films, the film comes with a guaranteed impeccable performance from him, as well as many of his familiar-faced co-stars - David Tomlinson, Sid Caesar, John Le Mesurier, Clive Dunn and Helen Mirren to name a few. It's also nice to see Pink Panther stalwart Burt Kwouk (Cato) enjoying a cameo with Sellers - albeit playing the same role, but still nice. The story is indeed pretty ridiculous, as are many of the characters involved, which classes this as a film strongly under the Goon influence. And, although it never reaches the heights of Goon comedy, there are plenty of amusing jokes that seem to point in the right direction. The film failed commercially on it's initial release due to the entire world mourning after Sellers' death (the film was released less than 3 weeks after)and there is always that sorrowful thought lurking in the back of your mind when viewing it that this was Sellers last film. It's far from a great film - it's often slow, too ridiculous, and sometimes the jokes simply aren't there - but it is nevertheless enjoyable - if only for another top rate performance from Peter Sellers.


There's no getting around it-- this movie is terrible. I've seen the old Christopher Lee/Fu Manchu movies, I'm familiar with the characters and it's serial origins, but it's still just godawful. However, Peter Sellers' genius still shines through with his portrayal of Nayland Smith, with echoes of sadness, tragedy, and strength simmering through a stoic facade; it's a performance I place on par with Peter Cushing's portrayal of Van Helsing but done in a tenth of the cumulative screen time of all Cushing's "Dracula" movies. If the movie was done in a more serio-comic vein like BUBBA HO-TEP by way of the 1960's AVENGERS TV show, this could've been something special. If you're a Fu Manchu or Peter Sellers completest, this is something you need to see, but it's a pass for anyone else.


Even if one didn't realize that Sellers was in poor health at the time of filming and passed away before the film's release, THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU would be painful viewing. It is supposedly a lampoon of Sax Rohmer's famous Oriental villain but it lacks any focus. The potential for satirical commentary on the anti-Oriental overtones of Rohmer's concept are ignored. Indeed, the movie employs racist insults. There are hardly any actual jokes or gags, just mostly actors behaving idiotically and spouting dreary lines. It is especially distressing to see Sid Caesar forced to spout curses and racial slurs for attempted laughs. Most of the other actors embarrass themselves as well.

And then there's Peter Sellers. He plays the dual roles of the sinister Fu Manchu, who is trying to concoct a formula to regain his youth and his stalwart British foe Nayland Smith. Sellers isn't one hundred per cent bad; he conveys a quirky warmth as Smith when he discusses his fetishistic attachment to his lawn mower and he's oddly moving as Manchu when he expresses his love for English music hall entertainment. But most of the time, he plays both roles with a weary grimness, thus further sabotaging any comical possibilities. Sellers' routines where he revitalizes his fading strength with electric shocks are particularly excruciating; he seems too convincingly agonized to be funny.

A few genuinely witty lines, an apt slapstick bit by Burt Kwouk (Cato in the PINK PANTHER films) as one of Manchu's minions, and Helen Mirren's amusing musical numbers cannot salvage this mess. If anyone wants to understand why Peter Sellers is considered a comedic genius, they won't learn anything from THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU.


Ok so here's the basic plot. It is 1933, Peter Sellers is Dr Fu Manchu, a 168 year old Chinese man who has lived quite a long time. The film opens with his birthday in which he celebrates by drinking a special elixir that (even the film never mentions) prolongs his life. Well on this occasion the elixir is clumsily dropped by an assistant (Kato if you remember the Pink Panther movies) and he orders his minions to then go find 6 rare items to make the elixir. This creates a global man hunt in which his henchmen end up robbing museums of diamonds and venturing into London, to meet up with Dr Fu's nemisis, a retired Scotland Yard detective Nayland Smith, also played by Sellers who tries to stop him in what is suppose to be a witty comedic adventure.

This was apparantly Sellers last full length feature film that he made before he died. The terrible tragedy is that he was in it. Sellers who is such a gifted comedian and has had memorable 'funny' roles in the Panther movies and particualrly in the movie 'The Party', is anything BUT that in this film. This film was absolute torture to sit through and I couldn't even finish it. He completly DIES and I kept cringing while watching Sellers performance. After coming of the great work of 'Being There' a year earlier how, I mean HOW can he make this and HOW did this thing even get made??? Like one person mentioned the first 10..15 minutes are ok but then it is ALL DOWNHILL...

Avoid like the plague.

Rating 1 out of 10.


....shut it off. The prologue with Fu Manchu's birthday, and the opening credits of the assassins training, is amusing. Then it drops off faster than hair sprayed with Neat. Look for a cameo by Cato in the beginning, with a figurative wink at the audience.


It's one of the funny things about being young that one can be fooled easily by advertising. I have spoken before on another film,in which the commercial for the (comedy) film makes it seem funnier than it is. Seeing the ad for this in 1981 made me think this was going to be a wildly funny film. What I and my brother who went and saw it with me didn't know is that the scene used in the TV ad was the very last scene in the film!

Since this scene is the end result of all that came before in the film,I can only guess that there was nothing else funny to use! The last scene is,thanks to a youth potion,Dr. Fu Manchu turns from a long bearded old man,into a bright young Asian/Elvis like rock star! (With back up singers no less!)

Set for no real reason,in the 1930's,Peter Sellers does his best with the material at hand but he's not given any really good reason for his "comedic" moments. The rest of the actors were just plain dull and my brother and I sat all through this barely laughing at anything. It was only natural that we were expecting a "Pink Panther" type comedy,Peter Sellers was so great at that.

It's a pitiful shame this was his last film before he died. His appearance on the Muppet Show was more entertaining than this ill-conceived flop. Still,I don't fault him. I fault everyone else involved for not trying to make a better film of this. 2 stars is being generous!!


This may not be the very worst movie Peter Sellers ever did (I think that laurel goes to "The Prisoner of Zenda") but it is surely the most depressing. Sellers, especially sans makeup as Nayland Smith, looks like he has just undergone chemotherapy. As Fu Manchu, he looks hardly better and spends most of the film (with the exception of those strangely disturbing scenes where he gets jolted with electrical currents) on the verge of collapsing under the weight of all that makeup. The supporting players also look tired and run down, and Sid Caeser's presence is offensive even without his constant references to "Chinks!" (One bright spot: this would be one of the last times a major motion picture would portray Asians so insultingly ... or, for that matter, star a non-Asian as one!). The film seems surprisingly cheap, with soupy photography and drab sets - even the whiz-bang Elvis number at the end looks cut-rate. Only the stunning Helen Mirren and the tall, thin, nervous guy who get his pants wet add any sparks of life to this sad affair. All in all, this film provides an eerie premonition of a great comic's death, and an even eerier documentation of his dying.


I don't have much to say about this movie. It could have been a wonderful tour-de-force for Peter Sellers, but it is one of the most tragic misfires in movie history. That it was Sellers final movie makes it all the more painful.

The terrible screenplay, direction and shockingly wooden performances all come dreadfully together to make this one of the most unwatchably awful movies ever made.

I wish so much that I could find even a snicker or a chuckle buried somewhere in this pile of putrid blubber, but it's a lifeless, humorless disaster. The truth hurts.

Peter, why couldn't you have stopped at BEING THERE?


An unfunny, unworthy picture which is an undeserving end to Peter Sellers' career. It is a pity this movie was ever made.


This is not an all-around terrible comedy, but it is very DULL. It has barely any laughs, and it wastes its lavish production values. There is one poignant moment near the end, when Fu Manchu offers a dose of his elixir to his "nemesis" and tells him that "You've been my one worthy adversary; and now we can start all over again". That scene, however, along with Burt Kwouk's amusing cameo in the beginning, are the only memorable parts of the movie. (*1/2)


The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu (1980). This is hands down the worst film I've ever seen. What a sad way for a great comedian to go out.


I actually saw this movie in the theater back in it's original release. It was painful to watch Peter Sellers embarrass himself so badly. The story was incredibly lame and difficult to follow, and the ending was ridiculous. It was just sad to see how the mighty had fallen. I won't say that I'm a huge Peter Sellers fan, but I did thoroughly enjoy the Pink Panther series and I felt that he gave a strong performance in Being There. But this film should never have been made. From what I've read, he pursued producing this film against the advice of the people around him. Fine, but that still doesn't excuse the studio actually releasing the film.


This is, quite literally, the worst movie I have ever watched in my life. It may be the worst movie possible. Some movies are so bad that they're good; this movie is so bad that it goes past enjoyable camp and simply becomes unwatchably awful. It is the anti-enantiodromia. We bought it with the intent to heckle, and all of my family gathered around for a fun evening of clever remarks; instead, we sat in stunned silence, pitying poor Peter Sellers.

This is worse than the animated Lord of the Rings. It is worse than the Matrix sequels. It is worse than Krull. It is worse than any Batman movie.

Do not, under any circumstances, let this movie approach within ten feet of your television.


... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10


There isn't one decent scene.

Amy Adams gives one of the worst performances of all time. Proof that you a can start anywhere. The guy playing Sebastian sucks, too. He doesn't even look much like Ryan Phillipe. More like Joshua Jackson. The two other girls are terrible, as well.

Then the dialogue is also crap.

Sebastian (About to have threesome): If you cant beat them...

Virgin Girl: Who says you can't beat 'em?

Lame.

The ending contradicts the entire plot of the original. In the first film, it is clearly stated that Kathryn and Sebastian never had sex. One of the reasons Sebastian wanted Kathryn so bad, aside from the fact that she's played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, was that she was "the only girl he couldn't have and it killed him". She was a tease who liked playing with him. The fact that she never gave it to him increased his wanting. Then in this P.O.S., it implies that he CAN have her, along with a girl on the side. What? And we don't even see the sex, either. It's implied, making it not only stupid, pointless, and contradictory, but worthless too.

And in the first one, Kathryn rejects Sebastian because he fell in love, making him a loser. Even though he won the bet, that crumbled his chances. Then in this excrement, he looses AND falls in love. So she doesn't screw "losers", only complete losers? Another thing: it's stated that Sebastian has never been in love, so what do you call the thing with Virgin Girl?

Then at the end, virgin girl is all of sudden revealed to be Kathryn's evil lesbian lover (dun dun dun) and, like I said, they go into a lame offscreen threesome. Stupid.

There's several other plot contradictions. Did the writer even see the first film? A 5 year old can point his stuff out.

After the threesome, Sebastian has sex with the blonde virgin, corrupting her innocent mind in the back of a limo while Kathryn and Virgin Girl Turned Evil Lesbian In Lame Sudden Plot Twist sit in the front, listen, and smile evilly into the camera.

The end...

Seeing Sebastian become the ass hole he was in the first one could have made an interesting film. I guess all it took to make little Sebastian bad was a threesome with two hot girls. Interesting.


If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is "baby face". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing.


Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.


They had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as "down boy", or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled this movie.


Basically, Cruel Intentions 2 is Cruel Intentions 1, again, only poorly done. The story is exactly the same as the first one (even some of the lines), with only a few exceptions. The cast is more unknown, and definitely less talented. Instead of being seductive and drawing me into watching it, I ended up feeling dirty because it compares to watching a soft-core porn. I'm not sure whether to blame some of the idiotic lines on the actors or the writers...and I always feel bad saying that, because I know how hard it is to do both...but it was basically a two-hour waste of my life. It literally amazes me that some movies get made, and this is no exception...I can't believe they'd make a third one.


Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.

The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.

Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.

There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.

This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.


I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.

The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...

They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad...


The first Cruel Intentions, the original, is my favorite movie of all time. It was an absolute masterpiece. So how on earth could they make a sequel so downright bad. Sarah Michelle Gellar was perfect in the first movie. In this one, Amy Adams sucks. She is terrible. And couldn't they have found a chick who actually looked like Sarah Michelle Gellar? At least the same hair color!!! i mean come on. Robin Dunn isn't as bad as Adams, but he is absolutely terrible when compared to Ryan Phillipe. The Sebastian in the first film is devious, deceitful, and much more evil than the Sebastian in the prequel. And what is up with the story line. It basically goes like this...

1- Sebastian has a bad rep at his first school, so the movie says, although it mentions nothing about him and his dating life, and how he has been with girls 2- Sebastian moves to New York, and just suddenly decides he's going to turn himself around. He "falls in love" with Danielle (might i remind you that in the original, Sarah Michelle giller says quote "you broke up with THE FIRST PERSON you ever loved because i said to- so how can he have been in love in the prequel???). And he's all nice and charming, and all "good person", as he turns down sex from the chick his dad was doing.

3- He does a complete 180, and ends up in a threesome at the end of the movie, and then seducing Cherry.

I mean, its terrible. And i loved the first one so much. I haven't even seen the third one yet. I hope to god its better than this prequel.


This so-called prequel is just a badly made remake to to a better version of Dangerous Liasons. The plots are identical as is most of the script. I loved the book its based off of, and I loved the first movie, but I'm not even going to bother with the 3rd movie. The pointless banter between the two main characters in the prequel was completely predictable and unoriginal, and...I just can't stress how bad the movie was. If you don't want to take my word for it, just watch it, and you'll see what I mean. If you've read a review that says that 'If you likes the first one, you'll like the second one' the only reason that is is because IT IS THE EXACT SAME MOVIE! Although the plot is not even as good. They took so many lines from the first movie, Its hard to tell which movie you're watching.


I was mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this.


From the very opening scene you will notice just how hard they tried to mimic the very smart and powerful 'Cruel Intentions', and how flat it landed. You'll also notice what a terrible choice they made by casting Robin Dunne as Valmont... Then in the second scene, you meet the two best things in this movie, Amy Adams and Mimi Rogers as Kathryn and her mother. That is, if you can get past the fact that Kathryn wasn't blonde in the first film... Then the movie goes on, you see the cheap romantic story from miles ago, and you notice Sebastian has already met an Anette in the past, here called Danielle, and a Cecile, here called Cherie... How original is that for a prequel. Then it turns into a low budget 'Wild Things' type of film with lots and lots of oh-my "twists". As I mentioned, Robin Dunne was a very bad choice. Not that he is a bad actor, he's good.. He just doesn't have the charisma Ryan did. Amy Adams, who is in my opinion one of the most talented young actresses of our time, once again delivers. But with all the talent in the world, there is no way one could save this trash. As a whole, this "movie" feels like a 'Beverly Hills, 90210' episode. The score has been stolen from 'Cruel Intentions' and 'Jawbreaker'... Yes, they used the score from JAWBREAKER... Couldn't they at least leave that one alone?! You'll want to pass this one. If you want more Cruel Intentions, watch Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons.


What can I say about Cruel intentions 2? Well, I can say in all honesty, I will only watch this film again if I am fastened to a chair and have my eyes opened clockwork-orange-style.

The film 'stars' Robin Dunne (No, I never heard of him either), whose awful impression of Ryan Phillipe made me cringe throughout. In a case of terrible casting, Dunne attempts (and fails) to carry off playing a handsome charismatic, charmer. Since the actor is not handsome, nor charismatic nor charming, the character is left wholly unbelievable. Amy Adams, (she was in an episode of buffy one time), tries to pick up where Sarah Michelle Gellar left off and bring scheming Katherine to life... However, Adams is not that good a an actress and her performance was flat and lacking in any real emotion, often she looked like she was reading cue cards just off camera. There were two good actors in the film however, Barry Flatman (Saw 2 & Saw 3) and Mimi Rogers (Mrs Kensington in Austion Powers), made very good and entertaining performances as the parents of Sebastian and Katherine and are the only reason why I rated the film as a 2, not a 1.

The film itself is a poor version of the original, with such lows as carbon copy's of dialogue and mimicked scenes which lacked the originality of the previous film.

I think that as a TV show, it might have worked, but if it had been recasted with people who could actually act in the main parts.


When I first started watching this movie last night on Cinemax, I was shocked that it had been made. Cruel Intentions, in my opinion, was one of the best teen-oriented films made in years. This prequel had certain things incongruent with the original. (Sebastian's father married into wealth, then why does he have a rich Aunt on long island?)

Then I found out today that it was not really intended to be a new movie, but rather a television series, Manchester Prep. After hearing that, it made sense to me that it wasn't the same as the movie, just as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is different in TV form.

I think that Roger Kumble most likely added the ending that this movie had, AFTER the series wasn't picked up by Fox. It just seems like something that would happen too fast (Sebastian becoming the male version of Katharyn) and I just don't know where they would go with the next episode, since it wouldn't be leading to the 1999 Film (Which the newer ending is directed right towards.)

One thing I didn't like was that it suggested Sebastian and his father had married into the wealth, which isn't typically looked good upon in this area of new york, and sine Katharyn's mother was just an adult version of her, it didn't seem like something a woman in her position would do, marry a man not of her social class.

As a prequel this is fairly lame. But I would have been interested to see where this had gone as a series.


Alright normally i am not as harsh on sequels especially if the first film is done well and was ultimately a good movie. As for 1999 i feel that one of the top five films was Cruel Intentions. It had everything a great movie should have except for an original story, being adapted from a novel it was still damn good. On to Cruel Intentions 2 which was supposed to actually just be the opener for a series based on the film called manchester prep. Which must not have happened. Actually after seeing this trifle of a film i can understand. Before the thing started i was like at least the writer and director Roger Kumble did this one also. Well 1 minute into this movie i was disappointed. It starts off with a rehash of the opening of the original with a different twist sebastian instead of putting the shrinks daughter's naked picture on the net he puts the schools principals wife in the school directory naked. This would have been alright if the lady was not like 50. And basically the rest of the movie is a wannabe carbon copy of the original. Which i understand the if there is nothing wrong with it leave it the way it was. But you can not do that with a movie. This actually being a prequel i gave it a chance just to see how they turned out like they did in part 1. But with Sebastian being more or less just a prankster and Kathryn being a herself and turning sebastian into the sexual predator he was in the real story, this movie had no foundation to it. Whoever did the casting on this thing was way off. They could have at least tried to get people who looked like the original cast but no, they just hired a bunch of not even really good looking actors. I am using this term although i dont know why. They for sure didnt do any in this movie.

All this movie is a bunch of one liners that dont even match the wit that the original had, well some of them did but that was just because they were from part 1. Another bad point was in part one you could understand the need for them to act out for attention because there was no involvement from teir parents this one had them in it and they were poorly used, as if to show why the kids are like this. It didnt work though. The best thing though about the original was that the cast had chemistry they took you into this world. The on screen tension that was there made the film what it was. This thing Really ruins the experience of the first one stay way from this.


I was willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number "2," I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed.


This movie was like "The Disney Channel after Dark." Take out the "aren't we naughty" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe "Saved by the Bell" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished.


Christ, oh Christ... One watches stunned, incredulous, and possibly deranged, as this tawdry exercise in mirthless smut unfolds with all the wit and dexterity of a palsied Galapagos tortoise. Can such things be? Does this movie actually exist, or was I the unwitting guinea pig of some shadowy international drugs company, sipping my coffee unaware that it had been spiked with a dangerous hallucinogen? I've seen a lot of films, and a lot of bad films, but nothing prepared me for this; by the end of it I was a gibbering, snivelling wreck, tearing at the carpet with my teeth like a dog, clawing at the walls, howling till my lungs were sore. I pleaded desperately, frenziedly for mercy (to whom this appeal was made, I don't know), and longed with burning desire for the soothing balm of Ozu Yasujiro. Sweet Weeping Jesus, the memories... sometimes they come back to me. When I'm at my most vulnerable, when I'm least able to handle them. I shudder, I break down in tears, I bite my fingernails till my hands are slathered with blood, but I can't quite banish the awful flashbacks from my mind. I'm haunted. I'm damaged. I'm a shell of a man.

The other user comments here suggest that I am not alone in having undergone this terrifying experience, which can only mean one of two things: a) the film does, in fact, exist, or b) I am but one victim among legions of an international conspiracy of truly sinister proportions. What is quite mind-boggling is that some people seem to have enjoyed their ordeal, or at least have not been left traumatised by it. Perhaps they're part of the operation. God damn them, the maniacs! God damn them all to Hell!!!!!!


This review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!

While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).

Also, the tie-in with the photography/"You could be a model" comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3.


There is a reason why certain films go straight to video and of course the obvious reason is that if its too naughty for theater audience then release straight to video. Of course it really wouldn't be fair to the films that are good and yet they are also released straight to video. This one is not an exception although the film has good actors or at least actors with potential: Amy Adams (am Oscar nominee and talented actress), Robin Dunne who deserves better or at least a better agent, and Sarah Thompson who deserves roles that are a departure from teen melodramas. The film is also misstated: this film takes place before Cruel Intentions so therefore this film is actually a prequel and rather stupid one at that. This was a waste and its really a film that is in the same level as soft core porn and pay-per-view masturbation films. Fortunately for the actors, hopefully they will be able to erase this from their resumes. So if you are looking to see something naughty, but don't have the courage to buy porn then rent this film as a starter.


Who actually created this piece of crap this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my life it is such a waste of time and money. I hate it how they create low budget sequels featuring D-Lister actors and a storyline so similar to the 1st one.

I found this movie in the bargain bin sitting right next to Wild Things 2 and Death To The Supermodels for $2.99 what a fool i was to actually think that this could be good instead i watched in disgust as poor acting stereotypes ripped of the storyline and script from the 1st one.

Whoever thought that this straight-to-video production was actually even a half decent film you must be on crackd or something because I think what pretty much most of the people who've seen this film thinks WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!


I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.

Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.

Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.

This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.


I don't usually write a comment when there are so many others but this time I feel I have to. I have spoken of taste in another review, saying it's all in the eye of the beholder but when it comes to this film, if you like it, it simply means you have bad taste.

I love films. I loved "Isle of the Dead" which is pretty much an unknown B&W film. I even liked "Scream" and "Scary Movie" I liked these films because they have, if not a lot, at least something good about them. I appreciate 99.9% of the films I've seen because they tell a story which I haven't heard before, and most directors only make films with a good storyline. Throughout this film I was thinking "Where is this going?" (even near the end) "Where did they get these awful actors from"? "Was that supposed to be a joke?" and suchlike. With the obvious twist looming I was sceptical, but hoped it would perhaps "make" the film and prove I hadn't wasted my time. I was sadly mistaken. The storyline was bad to begin with and the twist actually ruined any glimmer of hope there was. Here's a rundown: Storyline  much like the first film, which was alright, this one is slow and sparse with no audience relation to the characters or the situations. The situations are cringeworthy and shallow and completely boring and predictable. The twist was terrible, it didn't make me feel a thing, like excitement or WOW. Just "My GOD." There was nothing in the bulk of the film that you could look back to and think "Oooo wasn't that clever" because it wasn't. In "Fight Club" there are flashbacks at the end showing bits where Tyler's true identity was cryptically shown, and when you watched it again you saw more, it really was a work of genius, how it was written, laid out and directed. This was a meaningless attempt at an awesome twist. I think it was "wild things" that had like a pretty poor double twist and I still liked the film because the rest was OK and it wasn't trying too hard to be a big twist. Its like the CI2 writer thought it was gonna be the best twist ever. But really, its just a bad story with a bad twist dumped on the end. The film ended almost immediately afterward, with the whole film void by Sebastian's whole story build up meaning nothing and a horrible half forced, paedophilic ending with a particularly young and innocent acting girl. Acting  the actors in this film are appalling. Almost as bad a "Sunset Beach." - Extremely corny and badly performed. It's not even so bad it's good like "Hunk". The worst acting I thought came from Amy Adams who played Kathryn, it was a rigid, pathetic and badly thought out performance by her. Robin Dunne was also poor. I haven't seen "American Psycho II" yet, but no doubt his laid back "cool" style has ruined that film also.

I can't even say it is a good film for teens, as its not. If my son or daughter liked this film I'd be ashamed. But they wouldn't anyway, as they would take into consideration all the things that make a good film, which this film has none of. Really. I'm disappointed that some have said "you might not be in the age bracket for this film, and so dislike it" I like all the films now that I liked as a teen and had very good taste. Also, do you really think that when you reach 20+ you suddenly don't like any teenish story lines? No. I liked "Mean Girls" and other generic teen films, and watch "Beverly Hills 90210" all the time. There's no excuse for poor directing, acting and screenplay I'm afraid. Besides, I was 16/17 when I first watched it. If anything, being older just makes you a better judge of a terrible film. I can't believe anyone can give it 10/10 either, one of my favourite films is "Memento" and I gave it 9 as I know there can be better. It is a shame for this site that people do that, give 10s flippantly, or don't get the films/show, and so give it 2.

Anyone who liked this film really should vary their taste, and perhaps their lives, and with this realise that this is the worst film EVER made. (worse than "Loch Ness")

If you aren't a teenager with bad taste, or simply don't have bad taste you will absolutely hate this film.


Okay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE!

If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* "Kissing Cousins" ?????? What kind of line is that? "Slipery when wet" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH!


I've seen this movie today for the first time and I never heard of it before, probably because of it's poor message.

First of all, the directing itself is quite good, the actors played well and the CGI (I'm not a fan of CGI) is magnificent. But that alone doesn't make a movie. No story at all, no message behind beautiful exploited talents.

Or do I have to make people remember, the art of a director is not only your vision but to know how to tell a story. And this is what's missing the whole 7 minutes.

There for a simple 4 rating.


Friz Freleng's 'Speedy Gonzalez' was the second cartoon to feature the title character after Robert McKimson's 'Cat-tails for Two'. In that cartoon, Speedy has been an ugly little creature with a big gold tooth but by his second appearance the famous design had already been adopted. Despite looking significantly more handsome, Speedy never developed into much of a character. A big hat, tremendous speed and a bad Mexican accent do not a classic character make and that's pretty much all Speedy ever had going for him. Nevertheless, the cocky little mouse proved enormously popular and went on to star in many shorts including some truly abysmal films from the studio's latter days. While these early Speedy shorts are better than those later atrocities in which he was frequently (rather oddly) paired up with Daffy Duck, they still leave much to be desired, relying on predictable gags usually based around a similar chase formula. In this self-titled episode, Speedy is recruited by some other mice to steal cheese for them from the local factory which happens to be guarded by Sylvester the cat. Although he brings the extra weight of a star turn to the cartoon, Sylvester's role here could just as easily been filled by any other generic cartoon cat. His personality is sapped by his being forced into the predictable. undemanding role of pursuer. This was always a problem in the Tweety cartoons too but Speedy makes an even duller adversary thanks to his detestable cockiness and the blatant impossibility of his capture. Poor old Sylvester would be forced to appear alongside Speedy for many years to come. Despite it following a pretty basic formula and featuring minimal laughs, 'Speedy Gonzalez' won an Oscar and a thoroughly undeserving star was born.


Seriously, I've read some of the reviews on this film, and I have to ask, were you people watching the same movie.

Yes, I give the set directors a lot of credit for being able to recreate 1930 vintage Los Angeles, but so what?

None of the characters are likable, the story seems aimless, Karen Black is simply not a very good actress. Donald Sutherland is just icky. (and his character "Homer Simpson" makes me wish for the animated version. D'oh!) Then you had the creepy child actor, the creepier Billy Barty, and so on.

This is one of those films cinema buffs love and the rest of us look at each other and go, "What the heck!"


A propaganda film for the Palestinian "cause". If you were expecting an unbiased documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you will need to look elsewhere. If you are an anti-Semite (or merely an anti-Zionist---nothing wrong with advocating the destruction of a country, right?) or uncritically in support of Palestinian goals (e.g., mass murder, the destruction of Israel), this is the documentary for you. Should make for an entertaining evening on college campuses around the UK and US. However, any informed and intellectually honest person would be outraged at the sheer number of lies presented in this video. I just hope those who truly are unaware of the situation aren't corrupted by this anti-Semitic filth.


The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.

It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel "occupys" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.

The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.

Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.

All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer.


It's been said several times - not least by me - that watching an Eric Rohmer film is like watching paint dry; it seems that Monsieur Rohmer resents this (he doesn't deny it, but then how could he, he just resents it) so much so that his new movie, which may also be his last, Inch Allah, is set so far back in time that it's like watching woad dry. Those wonderful people who gave you the Nouvelle Vague, Cahiers du Cinema have already named it one of the best films of 2007 so that should give you some idea. Reality is not high on Rohmer's agenda so that in 5th Century France we have at one extreme a château that would not be out of place in the Loire valley whilst the only other dwelling we see is a rude wooden hut. The story involves nymphs and shepherds and as he often does Rohmer has cast it with unknowns who just happened to be passing so that the overall effect is that the annual class play at a school for Special Needs pupils was captured on film by accident. One is almost tempted to say 'Come back Godard, all is forgiven' but even this woeful production can't make me utter those words.


How do I begin to review a film that will soon be recognized as the `worst film of all time' by the `worst director of all time?' A film that could develop a cult following because it's `so bad it's good?'

An analytical approach criticizing the film seems both pointless and part of band-wagon syndrome--let's bash freely without worry of backlash because every other human on earth is doing it, and the people who like the film like it for those flaws we'd cite.

The film's universal poor quality goes without saying-- 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' is not without competition for title of worst film so it has to sink pretty low to acquire the title and keep a hold of it, but I believe this film could go the distance. IMDb doesn't allow enough words to cite all the films failures, and it be much easier to site the elements 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' does right. Unfortunately, those moments of glory are so far buried in the shadows of this film's poorness that that's a task not worth pursuing.

My impressions? I thought I knew what I was getting into, I had been warned to drink several cups of coffee before sitting down to watch this one (wish that suggestion had been cups of Vodka). Despite my low expectations, 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' failed to entertain me even on a `make fun of the bad movie' level. Not just bad, but obnoxiously bad as though Jobson intentionally tried to make this film a poetical yawn but went into overkill and shoved the poetry down our throats making it not profound but funny . .. and supposedly Jobson sincerely tried to make a good movie? Even after viewing the 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' promotional literature, I have trouble believing Jobson's sincerity. Pointless and obnoxious till the end with a several grin/chuckle moments (all I'm sure none intentional)spiced the film, and those few elements prevented me from turning the DVD off. So bad it's good? No. It had just enough 'I can't believe this is a serious movie moments' to keep me from turning it off, and nothing more.

Definitely a film to watch with a group of bad-movie connoisseurs. Get your own running commentary going. That would've significantly improved the experience for me. So bad it's Mike Myers commentating in his cod Scottish accent on it as it runs, to turn this whole piece of sludge into a comic farce "Ok dare ma man, pass me annuder gliss of dat wiskey".


Rounding out the 1929-30 all-talkie "Our Gang" release schedule, "A Tough Winter" features two storylines. First, Wheezer and Mary Ann, home alone on a wintry day, decide to make some taffy. Little Wheezer relays the directions to Mary Ann from a radio cooking show. The problem: Wheezer relays information from different shows and Mary Ann ends up putting soap in the mix! Funny moments occur when the rest of the Gang shows up to pull the taffy - and end up getting it all over the house!

The second storyline deals with Stepin Fetchit, a neighbor/handyman of the Gang, and his interactions with the Gang.

"A Tough Winter," to my knowledge, has never been shown on television, although it is available on home video. The reason for this is the Stepin Fetchit characterization which shows a shifty, sly, and slow-moving character. "Our Gang" producer Hal Roach called Fetchit a "skilled comic" and used this "Our Gang" entry as a pilot for a Fetchit comedy series that never saw the light of day. Understandably, Fetchit's characterization is offensive to many people today, which explains why the film has been shelved.

Although there are some funny moments both with Fetchit and the taffy, "A Tough Winter" is a plodding and meandering effort. If one positive came out of this film, it was that the Hal Roach Studios grew confident and experienced in making talkies. The sound in the film is good, and some of the sound effects used are very funny. For this reason, this film in part paved the way for the excellent 1930-31 "Our Gang" films.

3 out of 10.


This Hal Roach comedy short, A Tough Winter, is the ninety-ninth in the "Our Gang/Little Rascals" series and the eleventh talkie. Bascally a showcase for black comic Stepin Fetchit who gets special billing here, we see him going to his shack where the gang hangs out. Farina retrieves a love letter from the mail for him and is told by Stepin to read it since he can't read it during the day as he goes to NIGHT school. It happens to be from his sweetheart in Tennesse so now Farina has to have his ears stuffed with cotton since it's too hot for him to hear! In another room, Weezer relays instructions to Mary Ann of making taffy from the radio but because he keeps running back and forth to the kitchen, he misses the lady announcer's segue to rice pudding and Spanish tamale confusing Mary Ann with additions of Tabasco and Lux! After the concoction is completed, Jackie and the rest of the gang help themselves with the awful tasting but very sticky substance as everyone gets stuck on the walls as a result. As they all try to clean the mess, Stepin works in the basement on various pipes and electrical outlets that mixes variable appliances' functions such a telephone that vacuums, a vacuum that rings, and a refrigerator that plays music! The End. What I've just described portends the meandering nature of this "Our Gang" short that served as the pilot for a potential Stepin Fetchit movie short series. It's just as well that it never took place as Fetchit's characterization of the lazy Negro was amusing only in small doses and would be considered highly offensive today. Many of the scenes I've just described are good for some laughs though the final sequence was so confusing that the results were just too blah for me. So in summary, A Tough Winter is a curio worth seeing at least once. By the way, Stepin's real name was Lincoln Theodore Perry.


What a wasted cast.

This is one of the most disappointing films I've seen.

Usually Roger Ebert does not let me down, but I feel cheated after seeing this movie.

The only thrill is seeing Elizabeth banks in her bra. That is a sorry statement about this movie. It held so much promise, but it was like dry humping a transvestite.

This is self absorbed tripe.

I cannot express deeply enough my bitterness at having sat through this movie, and hope I can forewarn you of the same disappointment.


I thought they should have called this movie "Whites" instead of "Heights". Godawful...the kind of film that makes people hate New Yorkers. People who are so self obsessed and think their lives are so important...give me a break. Such a lily white cast that Glenn Close was the most ethnic character in it, this film was crying out for someone real to come in and steal it...and so they introduce, get this, a character even whiter than the rest of the cast (I thought he was an albino at first)who's supposed to be Welsh!I'm still trying to decipher that accent! Intellectually dishonest...this movie is the kind of film that's able to fool so many people into thinking it's worthwhile because it has the trappings of something more ambitious. Better to fill the theaters with MI5-10 than with this pretentious crap...must have been a better play because you can't fall off the floor.


Pam Grier stars as Coffy. She's a nurse who seeks revenge, on the drug dealers who got her sister hooked on bad heroine. Like any 70s Blaxploitation flick, you can expect to see the racist bad guys get their just desserts.

There were scores of these films made during the 70s, and they were really demeaning to both black and white audiences alike. This is mainly due to the vicious racial hostility in these films, and the degrading, stereotypical characters. Especially the female characters.

Other common threads between Coffy, and other films of its type, include brutal violence, corrupt cops, car chases, a generous abundance of nudity, and sex-crazed gorgeous women. Not to mention urban ghettos populated by drug-dealers, pimps, mobsters, and other criminal scum.

Pam Grier, was the undisputed queen of 70s Blaxploitation heroines. She was magnificent, being both tough-as-nails, and drop-dead gorgeous. Like in her other films, Pam outshines the other characters, in Coffy. In fact, Pam is so charismatic on screen, that these sorts of films are unwatchable, without her as the main character.

If you like Pam Grier, you're better off seeing her other films, like Foxy Brown, or perhaps Friday Foster. These films have much less empty sleaze, than Coffy does. Pam's character in Coffy, degrades herself way too much to get the bad guys. Pam's characters in her other Blaxploitation films, don't stoop as low to get revenge, as Coffy did.

I'd say, only watch Coffy, if you're unable to see any of Pam Grier's other films. Otherwise, Coffy is a waste of time. Only Pam's talent as an actress, makes viewing Coffy bearable.


Far from providing the caffeine kick you'd expect from a film that shares its name with the most energy-boosting of warm beverages, Coffy clunks about and never really rises above being just a ropey revenge tale. Indeed, if the movie was a cup of coffee, it'd be rather weak and watery, littered with a few undesirable dregs and lacking in a lingering aftertaste. Sporadically it hits the spot, but otherwise it isn't the hot action-drama it hopes to be.

Plot-wise, Coffy is a nurse who takes the law into her own hands and delivers hard justice to the drug-pushing, lady-pimpin', mob-suckers that hooked her younger sister into a depraved, sick state. Socio-political commentary on the plight of urban black youths in America is prominent in Coffy, and it makes for some thought-provoking stuff as Coffy crusades against the political corruption and white establishment racism that profits and acts as a parasite off the targeted Afro-American minorities. Sadly, the timely messages are undermined by the film's poor quality and lack of focus. Coffy's ideas are important, it's just that they are not well-aimed.

One of the plus points of Coffy is the presence of Blaxploitation icon Pam Grier. Grier goes at her role with gusto and makes for an appealing action heroine as she shotguns down the scum in her often spectacular acts of vigilante violence (how do you deal with a house full of hoods? Drive the car right through the front door!). It's just a shame that the storyline wavers on occasions, wasting time squeezing as much sexual exploitation as possible. The low budget can't have helped, but neither does the fact that for a Blaxploitation flick, Coffy lacks groove. Just as the issues are undermined by the lack of quality, consequently the entertainment and excitement are also skewered by moments of dullness and misdirection.

The total result is workmanlike and wooden. We get a hip heroine but not a hip movie. It's a shame as Coffy has its moments and should rightly be regarded as a key film in the Blaxploitation craze; it just never ascends above being an average, lukewarm number.


Poorly-made "blaxploitation" crime-drama aimed squarely at the black urban market of the early 1970s. Pam Grier stars in the title role, that of a nurse who becomes a one-woman vigilante after drug-dealing thugs make Coffy's little sister a junkie. Violent nonsense plods along doggedly, with canned energy and excitement; only Grier's flaring temper gives the narrative a jolt (she's not much of an actress here, but she connects with the audience in a primal way). Not much different from what Charles Bronson was doing at this time, the film was marketed and advertised as crass exploitation yet still managed to find a sizable inner-city audience. Today however, it's merely a footnote in '70s film history, and lacks the wide-range appeal of other movies in this genre. *1/2 from ****


The reason this is such a bad movie is because it is so very badly written, and this is entirely the fault of the hack novelist Robert James Waller, also author of Bridges of Madison County. The writing is bad because the plot is perfectly trite and the dialogue is wooden and implausible. A failing couplea blocked American writer and a pretty Mexican woman with a history of which she is ashamedare swept up by a strong, self-directed criminal, and after a few adventures (mostly terrifically violent) alternating with scenes that show the warmer side of the assassin, she leaves the impotent partner for the killer, who, bad as he is, sees her more clearly than anyone has before. Nothing can help this movie succeed, not even the seamed face of Scott Glenn as the killer, not the appealing latinity of Giovanna Zacarías as Luz, and not even the stalwart performance of Harvey Keitel as the CIA specialist assigned to track the killer down. A serious waste of time.


An OK flick, set in Mexico, about a hit-man (Scott Glenn) who hitches a ride with struggling American writer and his Mexican girlfriend after a hit. He pays them to take him to the border  but things get out of hand.

It starts well enough, but quickly struggles and dies.

**SPOILER**

The eventual relationship twist is badly set up and difficult to believe. An absence of passion, and essentially no reasoning behind her leaving one man for the other, made it ridiculous - and the ending was predictable and dull.

**END SPOILER**

Harvey Keitel is the US agent on the hit-man's trail, but he seems a little confused as to how boring and slow the script is...


Terrible!!! I don't want to be too negative but this film has an IQ of stupid monkey.What a disaster.I just couldn't believe how bad this movie is.The dialogs are just very strange and off topic,the camera work at times just horrible,the music at times like a soundtrack for Lawrence of Arabia,I just watched this film to see how much worse it can get.Some of the side kick "actors" are total disaster.Sorry but all my thumbs and toes and anything that can hang downwards on my body is falling to the ground. Harvey Keitle is a great actor but who knows maybe he is in financial crunch to take a part in such a fiasco film. . . . . this movie should have been presented to all the students in all the film schools just to teach them a lesson of how not to make a film


It's not a terrible movie, really, and Glenn and Keitel are top-notch actors. Further, they do an acceptable job with the very weak script. The scenery is lush and the plot has some interesting twists. Further, I umderstand why these actors and the crew made the film, they are professionals and they get paid for it. But I do wonder why studios spend the time and money to make a film and then don't release it for theater audiences? Even if a film is a box-office flop, surely it makes some money. If you are a fan of Keitel or Glenn, rent the video or catch it on TV, as did I. Granted, the movie won't help solve the immigration quandary with Mexico, but the experience is far better than 90% of the standard TV fare of today.


Are we talking about the same movie? This movie is totally ridiculous, the plot is disgusting and completely without logic. Its a typical straight to DVD/TV-movie including all the necessary ingredients for a horrible movie experience: Over-acting by has been actors, side steps from the plot that are left unexplained, THE GIRL SHOWS HER T*ts(why, god, why??), people do not react to things as they would in real life. I'm not even gonna bother you with details, it would take all night. Well, OK, just one: If two people were murdered in front of you as you were walking down the street, one of the victims practically dies in your arms, his blood spurts from his head-wound all over you, would your first concern be; "Oh, he left the world and the last thing he saw was my angry face!"? My thoughts goes to Harvey and his lost career.


Saw this movie recently and had higher hopes. Not so much based upon the director, who hadn't made a cinematographic release before, but more based upon its cast. Harvey Keitel, Scott Glenn and Craig Wasson (lead role in Body double, a Brian De Palma masterpiece) have all starred in great movies. Not together though, and this fact hasn't exactly changed because of this one.

The film is unbelievable, very predictable and cliché. The only thing that might make it slightly appealing is the selection of locations on which it's been shot. In my humble opinion: don't waste your time on this one.


One of the worst movies I ever saw. My only thought was: "how can I get my money back from Hollywood Video". This is no way worth four dollars, or any dollars. I think it was an attempt to rip off The Mexican, or Vin Diesel's movies, but it failed miserably to do this.

The acting was terrible, I felt sorry for the actors that they couldn't find something better to do with their time. The story was ridiculous. We were calling out the lines ahead of the actors, it was so predictable. The Mexican accent of the leading lady was insultingly exaggerated, worse than a cartoon.

Skip it.