Four best friends young male chauvinist pigs (with the emphasis on pigs) meet weekly at a NYC diner to recount their dating sexploits in this misanthropic and visceral comedy. Peet is the common denominator who dates the three bachelors in the group which leads to conflict and the inevitable "whipping". Although the film's premise has potential and there are some funny moments to be had, overall the flick doesn't work especially in the end where the girls are made to appear no better than the guys which runs contrary to the crux of the story. One of those one-man band flix with a dozen producers, "Whipped" is likely to be enjoyed only by the kind of young males who think "The Man Show" is Emmy material.


Every Sunday, a trio of buds get together at a NYC diner to boast about their sexual conquests of the night before. Sometimes they're joined by a newlywed ex-comrade and hoochie hunter who hangs on them like a puling barnacle. They're unabashed horn dogs/corn dogs and Mia, who witnesses them on the prowl, decides that they need to be taught a lesson, dammit. Ergo, she'll date and dump - why not? All three of them!

Gasp. What a wild idea. What a radical, naughty gal. Women now have the right to date and sleep around as much as they want to. As much as men do, even!

There is one solitary laughable element in "Whipped" - namely the fact that not once, during the amigo's detailed discussions of their bodily functions and the tantric talents of the bed partners they trash, do the other customers in the diner turn around and say, "Dude, we're trying to EAT here." Indeed, a heh-heh gag has an older lady eagerly weigh in on the useful sexual properties of certain beverages. A big fat Kermit the Frog "Sheesh" to that.

It's truly unfortunate that a buddy movie with a great setting, a smart, cute heroine and three possible pairings had to have such a cop-out ending.

P.S. - 30 "whip-oosh" sound effects to the screenwriter for use of the phrase "You go, girl". It was tired in 2000, and it's tired now.

Save your time and watch some "Sex and the City" reruns...


Personally, while I'm able to appreciate really good movies, I also have a strange ability to somewhat enjoy even the most crappiest of crap. You know, those times when you just want to sit there and watch some horrible cookie-cutter action movie to kill time. This is the only movie that I can remember actually shutting off in the middle, and I have absolutely NO intention of going back to finish it. The plot was so contrived and predictable, I was calling out what the next scene would be easily (and I'm usually not very good at this). The actors were horrible, I've seen better acting in middle school plays. Even the scene cuts were bad, the flow was all wrong.

This movie is like a parody that forgot the funny.


First and foremost, Zorie Barber (Zeke), might be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. As a character that's supposed to be a hip, Village writer into the martial arts and proud of being mysterious, why is he so hyper, over-dramatic, and plain horrible? Did he know anything about his character before they started filming? Did the director? Don't the martial arts teach discipline? Aside from that, this film misses the target with its lame jokes and seen-it-already gross-out humor. Hand in toilet? Trainspotting. Masturbation? Hmm. Fast Times at Ridgemont High, American Pie, the list goes on.. .Bad dialogue: In one sequence, Eric says "it's none of my business but . ..." and 30 seconds later Mia says "why is this any of your business?" Bad editing: At least five minutes worth of film are wasted on NYC traffic shots.
It's also impossible to believe that the four main male characters would be a tight-knit group of friends in any world. I can't comment on what makes everyone laugh, but if you enjoy low-brow, basic bathroom humor and insults, by all means, enjoy. If you want something a little smarter but on the same lines, see Boomerang. If you want a solid what-goes-around romantic comedy, go for The Tao Of Steve. But anyone who thinks Whipped is witty and an accurate portrayal dating, well, I cannot agree at all.


I like movies about morally corrupt characters, but this was too much. The acting wasn't great, but that wasn't the real problem. The issue was the sinking feeling I got in the pit of my stomach about 20 minutes into the film. These characters were hollow. They had almost no depth, and what little they did have was devoted to the cruelty they displayed to each other in the guise of friendship. Exploring the darker sides of a set of characters can be fascinating, but you have to give those characters actual personalities or they are just cardboard cutouts. These characters were cardboard and the picture they gave was just ugly.


I just watched this movie last night, and I HAD to put a warning out for anybody else considering to see this film. In a word - don't. I seriously feel like this is something that a screenwriting student would have written in a Quentin Tarantino/Eddie Murphy phase, i.e. every other word was a curse word. I don't have a problem with profuse cursing, as in "Good Will Hunting", provided it helps to delve more into the characters. In this case it was just hollow banter with the attempt to draw an occassional *gasp* or laughter from the audience. The three lead characters are all their own unique stereotype, the wall street jerk, the coffee house jerk, and the "I'm-Not-Gay-Just-In-Touch-With-My-Feminine-Side" slightly-less-of-a-jerk. You just don't give a damn about any of them! They are all shallow, unredemable losers who you WANT to see lose. For those who dare, this film does have a couple funny moments, the very beginning, and the very end. The toilet/vibrator scene is funny in a sick kinda "Uh, yeah" way. Really though, I would only recommend this film to my worst of enemies.


Hands down the worst movie I have ever seen. I thought nothing would ever dethrone Last Action Hero, but this does easily. The movie is about 3 single guys who meet on Sundays to discuss their sexual escapades from the weekend. A fourth guy - who is married and - that used to be a part of the group shows up and talks about what he and his wife do. Nothing works in this movie. The jokes are not funny but they are repeated throughout the movie. The big kicker at the end of the movie is laughable. Avoid at all costs.


"Whipped" is one of the most awful films of all time. It is a mean, hateful piece of garbage that had me forcing myself to stay in the theater more than any other movie of 2000, besides maybe "The Grinch." It is not, as people have called it, an insightful portrait of modern relationships. That would be a little film called "High Fidelity." Whereas that movie was honest and sympathetic, "Whipped" is hostile, cynical, misanthropic cinematic poison. Avoid this like so many plagues, unless you want to see how truly bad a "comedy" can get.


For months preceding the release of this movie you saw it advertised in all sorts of print media, so I patiently waited for its video release to see what all the hype was about. After it was over I had to apologize to my roommate for occupying the VCR for the last hour and a half to watch such a horrible movie. It essentially fails because it is a character based movie about unredeemable characters. With the possible exception of Amanda Peet (whose only redeemable quality is that she is Amanda Peet) you cannot stand any of them. The film relies on its dialogue which is sophomoric, moronic, and crude. The only slightly amusing character is Eric, whose portrayal of the sole married member of a group of friends is dead on. The final twist, designed to make you laugh at the three main characters, only instead inspires the same kind of resentment towards Peet. All in all, only rent if you are desperate or possess a dark sense of humor.


This film is not funny. It is not entertaining. It does not contain one single second of originality or intelligence, nor does it lead you to take the slightest interest in the characters or situation. Added to that it's about as juvenile a movie as anything in recent memory. It's as if a group of 14 or 15 year old high school kids who had never actually met or had any type of relationship with a real girl had sat down and wrote a movie based on their incorrect fantasies about what being an adult man would be like. This movie is boring, obnoxiously mind-numbing, and at times offensive and disgusting. At most, it contains one or two moments that make you laugh. Also, it seems twice as long as its 85 minute running time.


This movie lacked... everything: story, acting, surprise, ingenuity and a soul. Fifteen minutes in, I was staring at the screen saying, "How could all of these guys get together and consider themselves friends (even without the girl)?" Another fifteen minutes in, I was praying for as much Amanda Peet as possible. When a bad movie quietly rears it's ugly head, eye candy is a nice consolation. But there wasn't much of that! Cheated on all fronts!


"Whipped" is 82 minutes long. This review is 82 words long. Three unlikable New York Lotharios, ruthless "scammers," end up wooing the same woman, played by Amanda Peet, with disastrous results. That applies to the story and the film. Too sophomoric to be misogynistic, flaccid and ridiculous, "Whipped" mixes the philosophies of shock jock Tom Lykis with Penthouse letter fantasies. Though technically proficient it's dated, grating, poorly written, mean, and obvious. People don't act like this. People don't talk like this. Really.


I was looking forward to seeing Amanda Peet in another good role after recently renting "The Whole Nine Yards"--easily worth the rental, by the way--but this wasn't it.

I remembered that the trailer for "Whipped" was somewhat funny and the plot about three oversexed New Yorker twenty somethings all falling for and getting manipulated by the charming Ms. Peet was worth a shot. So, I convinced two friends one afternoon to come see this movie with me. This review is my penance.

In the first act we have the three lead studs, recounting their conquests in a diner. What should have been funny, or at least telling, comes out rather pathetic. Was there any redeeming quality about the three men and their encounters that we were supposed to get out of this?

[And while I don't mind movies that are cheerfully vulgar, I kept wondering why no one in the diner turned around when the studs talk loudly about sexual and scatalogical details. They do this every week at the same diner? You would think someone would complain. Oh, wait, I forgot: two other diners do notice in one scene. But this is just a setup for a punchline. Everyone else in the diner is deaf.]

The second act has the three studs all falling for Mia and then developing brain rot, failing to ask each other or her about what's really happening between the four of them. And I kept asking myself, as the studs keep acting like they have been, what redeeming qualities does she see in them to stick with them longer than one date? Does she start out with brain rot? I kept hoping for Eric's character, the married buddy, to become something more than simply the annoying punching bag in this act. His role is clearly to dispense advice on being married. But why do they even bother to talk to him when they won't talk to each other? And his advice? Sheeesh!

The third act resolves what plot there is but by this time I was looking at my watch. My friends told me they were still waiting for something genuinely funny to happen and I had to agree. The Scene That Explains All was adequate and managed to explain all of the questions and mysterious dialogue bits throughout the movie but we were just checking them off a list. ("Oh, okay, that's why Brad had that happen and Jonathan says this and...")

What laughs we made were from the stupidity of the plot than at anything amusing. Even the outtakes during the credits weren't very funny. Ultimately I was left with nothing except a desire to warn people away from this movie.

Rating: 3


Bad acting. Bad writing. This was a poorly written film. It's too bad because it had some potential. It's not even close to American Pie or Something about Mary as previous comments might have you believe. Rent it at dollar night from you local video store if you're kind of bored.


This movie will be a hit with those that enjoy sophomoronic, mindless, explicit bragging about sexual exploits and F... in almost every sentence. Like a good plot? Like comedy? Like romance or other human values? Stay away from Whipped. It was so bad I left after about half an hour. I saw two kids slip in that looked to be about 10 -- very harmful -- this deserves an X.


I see quite a few positive reviews on this board, trying to revive this film from its lackluster status and starting a cult following. I see the usual ranting--"I guess this movie is just not for the easily offended," "This movie is not Shakespeare," etc. Guess what? Neither was "Road Trip"! And I laughed my a** off during that movie! There's a way to make a crude, tasteless comedy and deliver laughs; and there's a way to...just make it crude and tasteless. "Whipped" tries to be "Swingers" without the wit or intelligence. It seems to have been written through the puerile eyes of a 14-year-old boy. For God's sake, the characters in this movie are supposed to be white-collar, upright citizens--and they talk like some of the idiots I knew in freshman year of high school! The dialogue is laced--more like drowned--with four-letter words. You would think that people of their status would have SOME degree of intelligence--and a more extensive vocabulary. Just watch a Whit Stillman film and you'll see the difference. Not to mention the fact that the dialogue sounds totally unrealistic and downright cartoonish. If you know any successful, white-collar businessmen who speak like the characters in this movie--please let me know and introduce me to them. Their annoying sexual banter is equivalent to that of standard locker room chat among teens just arriving at puberty. There is absolutely NO insight into relationships, sex or...anything!!! It's just a poor excuse to showcase an array of extremely--and don't take the word "extremely" for granted, because I mean it with all my heart--crude gags. These are gags with no substance. Gags that are meant more for groans than laughs. The scene at the end between Amanda Peet and her girlfriends was totally un-called for and totally unconvincing. There are some movies that involve interaction among females that were written by (straight) men and play out wonderfully. This scene involves a barrage of sexual metaphors and gestures. It involves the kind of dialogue you can never imagine leaving a woman's mouth. It was one of those noticeably-written-by-a-guy scenes. I wasn't believing it for a second.

"Whipped" is purely a sick male fantasy that's as flat as it is annoying. I got (very) few laughs out of this utterly forgettable comedy, and those were probably a result of desperation. When you're not laughing for a long period of time, you desperately look for humor in the most trivial things. So I wouldn't mark that down as a positive.


BEGIN SPOILER: Fitfully funny and memorable for Mr. Chong's literal roach-smoking scene: Chong coolly mashes a stray kitchen cockroach into his pipe's bowl, lights up, coughs and hacks violently for a seeming eternity,then with perfect aplomb and not skipping a beat, re-loads the bowl properly, re-lights, re-tokes. END SPOILER. Alas, I began to lose faith less than half-way through the proceedings. It occurred to me that the lackadaisical duo are way obnoxious and less than relatable. I have come to appreciate the relative sophistication of contemporary stoners, Harold and Kumar. I simply prefer brighter company. Yet, the movie is probably a perfect fit for baked frat bros or those viewers who are so feeble-minded as to be outwitted by a stoner when they-- the former are sober. Notable guest appearance by Paul Reubens spouting obscenities in pre-Pee-wee form.


One of those el cheapo action adventures of the early 1980s that used to fill video rental stores solely to be taken out by adolescent boys in the hope of a cheap thrill.

Woeful down market attempt to cash in on the Death Wish phenomenon by substituting a moderately attractive woman for the visually challenging Bronson. Acting is terrible, sets are cheap, the baddies are, well, bad. Identification with any of the characters is unlikely.

Only redeeming feature is modest amount of gratuitous female nudity, a smattering of which is full frontal. Other than that, you can leave it...


An apparent vanity project for Karin Mani (who?), as a hottie Charles Bronson going around wiping up the 'scum' that mugged her parents, or grandparents or something, and impressing young hunks with her karate skills. In a pivotal scene she intervenes to stop a rape and a moron cop throws HER in jail, so after a couple cool shower scenes and some abortive prison-dyke seduction she has to take the law into her own hands blah blah blah. I guess there were a lot of movies like this? The script is dumber than usual if you can believe that. Mani comes off as exactly the kind of showbiz type that would co-produce her own Death Wish starring role, and I find that type sporadically endearing, but the movie is an ungainly apparatus. Competent actors would be wasted on the scumbag roles here, and would actively undermine the fantastic mincing-incompetent DA and a judge that has got to be the producer's uncle.


Please humour me if you will, for a minute while I read you the back of the ALLEY CAT VHS box. It says that:

In this part of the city every street is a dead end- on every corner something to buy- in every alley another way to die- To survive you're got to be the best- just like the Alley Cat. Alley Cat- this lady owns the night. On the streets where even the predators become victims she knows how to survive- Cross her and you've run out of luck. Alley Cat- This animal is aroused.

Now isn't that one of the most pathetic blurbs you've ever heard in your life? Whoever wrote that must be insane if they thought such a awful description could tempt us into viewing the video. Yet unfortunately, whichever faceless individual was responsible for that tragic use of English was doing their job only too well.. the movie contained within the little plastic case IS as bad as it sounds, and then some.

Karin Mani plays the title role, and the script basically tells her during every given scene to either a) Pout like a goldfish b) Kick male butt or c) Show off her feminine 'attributes'. No complaints about the latter, but in terms of the other two.. let's just say she isn't much of an actress, and is even less convincing as a martial arts expert. But even Meryl Streep with Cynthia Rothrock's body (what a scary thought) would fail to save this movie. The unfolding of the plot is boring beyond belief, as we get one ineptly directed fight sequence after enough, pausing only for hysterical courtroom shenanigans and the occasional gag-inducing love scene with the interestingly named Robert Torti. The camera-work also follows a similar path of shame, with far too many unneeded close-ups and continuity errors abound.

The part that I think really sums this scum-bucket of a movie up is where our heroine is sexually assaulted, and finds herself testifying in front of a corrupt judge while her rich-kid rapist leers at her from the box. Not only does he get off scot-free despite the overwhelming evidence against him, but she herself is then jailed for daring to protest about the verdict in front of his Honour. Behind bars, she then has a group shower, a lesbian crush, a couple of cat-fights and a nice, sweaty game of volleyball before being released on bail to continue her battle. This ten-minute section has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, and the screenplay grinds to a halt to encompass it. I can only imagine the producers wanted to add a bit more T&A to the mix, and came up with this needless sub-plot as a means to achieving that end.

Which kinds of begs the question, is this an exploitation film, or a serious drama? Neither, is my response to that.. it isn't sleazy or camp enough to appeal to fans of Troma-style cinema, and it certainly doesn't make the grade as an exploration of one woman's fight against the system.. purely because it is so appallingly made. So who on earth would want to see it? Lunatics, I guess.. or IMDb reviewers who stay up till 3pm and watch any old rubbish on the box while trying to get to sleep. Sadly on this occasional I failed, and the horrors will stay with me for quite some time. Don't make the same mistake I did. Have a hot milk, or something.. 1/10


Mary Pickford becomes the chieftain of a Scottish clan after the death of her father, and then has a romance. As fellow commenter Snow Leopard said, the film is rather episodic to begin. Some of it is amusing, such as Pickford whipping her clansmen to church, while some of it is just there. All in all, the story is weak, especially the recycled, contrived romance plot-line and its climax. The transfer is so dark it's difficult to appreciate the scenery, but even accounting for that, this doesn't appear to be director Maurice Tourneur's best work. Pickford and Tourneur collaborated once more in the somewhat more accessible 'The Poor Little Rich Girl,' typecasting Pickford as a child character.


A routine mystery/thriller concerning a killer that lurks in the swamps. During the early days of television, this one was shown so often, when Dad would say "What's on TV tonight?" and we'd tell him "Strangler of the Swamp" he'd pack us off to the movies. We went to the movies a lot in those days!


Without question one of the most embarrassing productions of the 1970s, GAOTS seems to really, REALLY want to be something important. The tragic truth is that it's so entirely valueless on every level that one can't help but laugh. Reaching in desperation for the earthy elements of Ingmar Bergman's films, it follows a city couple's day in the wilderness...they walk along a shady path, allthewhile pontificating like a U.C. Berkeley coffee clatch. Almost every line of tarradiddle dialog delivered here is uproariously bad("I feel that life itself is made up of as many tiny compartments as this pomegranate....but is it as beautiful?") After what seems like an eternity of absolutely nothing happening(well...OK...we are treated to some nudity and a tepid soft sex scene), there is finally a VERY anticlimactic confrontation involving a pair 'Nam vets who are making the nature scene and performing some pretty harsh folk ballads with an acoustic guitar.

Nothing at all eventful or interesting happens IN THIS ENTIRE FILM. I thought the Larry Buchanan picture "Strawberries Need Rain" was a weak example of a Bergman homage. "Golden Apples" is every bit as bad, but the ceaseless random verbiage it presents makes it memorably awful. 1/10


I used to review videos for Joe Bob Briggs' legendary "We Are The Weird" newsletter. I saw a lot of stinkers, but this by far was the worst, and the years have not been kind - it remains the most indecent crime against cinema I have ever witnessed. Don't get me wrong - CAGED TERROR is nominally more technically competent than, say, MONSTER-A-GO-GO or THE GUY FROM HARLEM or something of that ilk. What solidifies its claim as Worst Movie Of All Time for me is its unique blend of bare proficiency with crippling pretension. Is it a Vietnam commentary? An ecological protest? An incitement to race riot? A study of man's inhumanity to man? A novel exercise in padding nature footage out to (nearly) feature length? In short: a hep young urban professional (possibly the most loathesome screen character ever) somehow seduces a nubile Asian-American associate into camping in the woods with him. After brow-beating her with quasi-philosophical clap for the better part of an hour, they run across two wandering veterans, the unforgettable Jarvis (a righteous brother) and the Troubadour (guitar-toting Manson Family reject). Hey, a plot twist! Tension! Action! Suspense! Well, no, just a climactic getting-locked-in-a-makeshift-wire-chicken-coop-and-lightly-belittled scene. The victim in question stares listlessly at the captors and mutters, "No... no... please... don't..." Meanwhile, Jarvis addresses the Troubadour as "Trouby" once every two minutes, bringing to mind nothing so much as the alien star of Juan Picquer's POD PEOPLE. That's about all that happens in CAGED TERROR, and such a synopsis perhaps makes it seem almost tolerable. But trust me, I've seen thousands of movies in my life, and this one has remained, for the past eight years since I first saw it, the absolute worst. (I pop it in the old VCR once every two years or so just to reassure myself, and reassure myself I certainly do.) I think the element which makes CAGED TERROR so particularly hateful is this: very little happens, and although what little does happen happens quite poorly and quite slowly, what truly makes it compulsively unwatchable is the suffocating sense that the filmmakers REALLY, REALLY WANT to shove some kind of message down your throat. But because CAGED TERROR is so incompetent and ineffectual, what was intended as a civics lesson becomes a crash course in intense viewing discomfort. This film is 75 minutes long and feels like three and a half hours. It's terrible, truly truly terrible. Folks, trust me, I saw GHOSTS THAT STILL WALK and this one is worse. Go see it! You'll thank me. And curse me. Just for the record, my favorite line: (In CAGED TERROR but perhaps EVER) "Yeah, well, you probably think the Song of Solomon was an allegory for Christ's love for the church...!" (NOTE: Must be delivered in a tone of concerted condecension.)


This film turned up on local TV here in South Africa recently and I thought that I'd warn even those who enjoy watching B grade bad movies (which I do)that this is not even amusing. The plot concerns a couple visiting a house in the country. Some strangers appear and .... The problem is that most of the film, obviously shot in the early seventies, consists of extreme wide shots of people walking, in real time and awfully slowly, from A to B. This makes the film tedious in the extreme and the expected blood and gore payoff just never happens. I am really curious - how many people have actually watched this from beginning to end?


When I was in school I made a film about a couple roaming around in the trees and talking, and I realized halfway through editing that this was not just a failing aesthetic strategy but a cliché of Canadian cinema: sodden lyricism married to vacant, metaphor-burdened stabs at social commentary. But whatever my own film's failings I feel much better after seeing this...this...thing. For one thing, mine ran 20 minutes, not 85, and had more content at that: every pointless bit of business here is fawned over for four, five, six relentless minutes. The male lead is just incredible, a brow-beating, loudmouthed creep given to outbursts of drama-class improv in between philosophical insights culled from the U of T pub, and he is given lots and lots of space to make us hate him. Admittedly if he weren't such an a**hole then the third act would make even less sense, as a couple snarky dudes show up to provide distant and thoroughly unhelpful echoes of 'exploitation' values; but it doesn't make it any easier to watch the caged creep whimper "please" in closeup until the magazine runs out. I take back what I said about AUTUMN BORN, which at least had the courage of its own misbegotten lechery: this cinematic crater is and will remain the very worst Canadian movie of all time. At least, I really really hope so.


I saw this movie a couple years back. I could'nt sleep and there was nothing on. So I peeped it. What really gets me is it makes no sense and thats why its disturbing. Richard gets tied up in chicken wire and Jarvis starts making out with Richard's girl while she's unconscious. Then Jarvis's buddy Troubador is playing some stupid song on his guitar. By the next morning it shows Richard's girl talking to Jarvis and Trouby and then she walks back to Richard and looks at him while he's still tied up. Then they play some happy music and the movie is finished. I mean what happened? Did they brake up? And what was she saying to those 2 guys(Trouby and Jarvis)? Its to puzzling and to poor to. I can't stand movies that are disturbing and don't make sense. This was the worst film i've ever seen since the 90's version of Lord of the Flies.


Basing a television series on a popular author's works is no guarantee of success. Yorkshire Television learnt this the hard way when in 1979 they bought the rights to the books credited to Dick Francis, three of which were broadcast under the collective title 'The Racing Game'. Mike Gwilym was Sid Halley, a former jockey turned private eye following an accident in which he lost his right hand, only to have it replaced by an artificial one. Gwilym suffered from an acute lack of charisma ( and looked like one of the bad guys ) while Mick Ford ( who played the irritating Chico Barnes ) made me think of a horse's arse whenever he was on screen. For six weeks, this less-than dynamic duo charged about the countryside, foiling nefarious plots to fix races, usually by the same methods - blackmail, kidnapping riders or doping horses. Yorkshire Television threw money at the show, but to no avail. Violent, sexist, far-fetched and repetitious, it was quickly carted off to the knackers yard.


The one reason I remember this is that it was shown the week after Nigel Kneale`s brilliant QUATERMASS serial was broadcast . The trailers made heavy emphasis that the main character had a mutilated arm which had me hoping he`d be like Victor Caroon from THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT stalking the streets of London .

No such luck because THE RACING GAME is just a rather drab thriller with the gimmick of having a hero with a physical disability trying to get to the bottom of investigations of corrupt horse racing . I suppose if you`re a fan of Dick Francis you might enjoy it but setting it in the context of the late 70s when THE SWEENEY had just finished and THE PROFESSIONALS was still being produced , there`s something lacking about THE RACING GAME . One trailer featured a car over taking another on a motor way , if it`d been a trailer for THE SWEENEY you`d see Jack Regan over taking a car and beating a confession out of the slags who`d done a blag while THE PROFESSIONALS would have over taken a car and blown away the terrorists inside . I think that sums up what`s wrong with this series


'The Fox and the Child' is the new film by French director Luc Jacquet, who brought us the Oscar-winning documentary 'March of the Penguins.' It focuses around a young girl (wonderfully played by Bertille Noël-Bruneau) and her blooming friendship with a fox.

There are some truly mesmerizing moments here; badgers mucking about, a lynx chasing the fox through a snow-littered forest; one scene in particular when the fox is being tormented by a pack of wolves is quite intense and even frightening at times. However, there's simply not quite enough of them.

Beautifully shot; the cinematography is dazzling. The bubbly kind of look of the film is wonderful. It's undeniably a very lush production.

The English version is narrated by Kate Winslet, but what little dialogue there already is has been very poorly dubbed. The score is also far too fluffy, or at least it is for my liking; and the screenplay, while subtle, seemingly jumps from one scenario to another, ultimately leaving me almost baffled.

While there's a nice moral at the heart of the film, and the rather quiet performance from Noël-Bruneau is quite lovely, the real star is the fox. Those captivating moments focusing solely around our furry little friend are tremendous. However, again, there's simply not nearly enough of them.

- To keep up to date with all the latest in film, including reviews, news, discussions and more, be sure to visit www.mybluray.com.au


This film has little to recommend it, though that little being the breathtaking scenery, cinematography and direction of wildlife, it is difficult to bring up its weak points in the company of such rave reviews. It is precisely these things, however, that make the lack of a satisfactory plot and its execution so disappointing.

I watched this with my children and none of us was too impressed by the end. Yes, the pictures were great, the broad landscapes across the forest and mountains magnificent, but what was going on in the foreground? The rather dull narration of the stupidity of an insipid girl who learns all too slowly a very basic lesson about befriending wildlife - and gets off quite easily given the track record of that sort of thing. It is certainly not a new story, in fact there is nothing remotely novel about the way it is told, and we have all seen this before, and, indeed, much more eloquently by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry.

The only thing really to be gleaned from this film is a sense of how to work with these wonderful lenses and forest lighting; the rest is a waste of time.


At the beginning of the movie, the beautiful photography and the scenes of the fox were amazing. However, the story was so very slow and boring. And then the little girl begins to domesticate the fox, which leads to tragic events. We live in the forest, and frequently see foxes. One thing anyone should know is that you leave wild animals to be wild, and enjoy them from afar. This movie sets a terrible example to the children who will be watching it, in trying to make a wild creature into a pet. I do not know what the point of the story was supposed to be. Even after the terrible events with the main fox, the little girl was still wanting to play with the kits. Does she never learn her lesson? And there are other scenes featuring predator animals to the fox, which only adds to the trauma inflicted on children watching this movie. What a disappointment this movie was. And what a horrible story it tells. The final narrated dialog was so stupid, by which time my wife and I were screaming at the TV! I absolutely hated this movie, and would never recommend it to anyone!


I went to see this movie with the most positive expectations. I had seen Jacquet's previous movie (march of the penguins) and had heard a very positive review of this one on the radio. However, I was severely disappointed. Most of all, this movie is terribly boring. Literally NOTHING happens. I tried to describe the content of the movie to a friend, and we both ended up laughing because I could only stammer things like "well then the winter comes, and then spring, and then there's an eagle, and a river, and one time it is dark, and the girl goes into a cave, and another time the fox has babies" and so on. After about half an hour I began sighing, yawning, rolling my eyes, cursing the reviewer at the radio station, and hoping that it would be over soon. But the movie went on and on. When it finally ended I had sunken so deep into my chair that I must have looked somewhat similar to Stephen Hawking. The most annoying parts of the movie are (a) The girl, who is obviously there to give children someone to identify with. She wears the same clothes throughout the entire movie (one year), and shows exactly two facial expressions: Joy and Seriousness. She is cute, no question about that. However, a movie about the beauty of nature like this one would have done better without her all-too-human presence. I found myself constantly hoping that she might get eaten by a bear, drown in the river, or something similarly terrible. (b) The commentary by the girl's adult voice, which tells us nothing but negligible, obvious, boring, redundant things. (c) The music, which is desperately lacking subtlety. When the girl is happily jumping around, the music jumps around, too. When the fox is threatened by an eagle, the music becomes threatening, too. It reminded me of the very early days of film-making, and was just too predictable to enjoy. Admittedly, many of the children who saw the movie with me did obviously like it, at least they got somehow involved. Thus, my warning concerns adults only: If you are over ten years old, avoid this movie. You can get a better (and cheaper) sleep in most other places.


What an unusual movie.

Absolutely no concessions are made to "Hollywood special effects" or entertainment. There is no background music, not special effects or enhanced sound.

Facial expressions are usually covered by thick beards and the Spanish language is a strange monotonic lilt that sounds the same whether in the midst of a battle or talking around a campfire.

I sort of viewed these movies (parts 1 and 2) as an educational experience, not really something to go and get entertained by. Its quite long and in places dull.

But I suspect that given the lack of any plot development, I don't think its very educational either.

Its also difficult to perceive any story from the movie dialogue - it would be a good idea to read up a little on the history so that you can understand the context of what is happening, since for some reason the director didn't see fit to inform the audience why Che's band was moving around the way they did - as a result there seem to be groups skulking around the woodland for no particular reason and getting shot at.

I would have loved to give this movie more stars for somehow generating more empathy with me and developing depth of character, but somehow all of the characters were still strangers to me at the end. The stars it gets are for realism and showing the hardships of guerrilla warfare.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

This second instalment of the Che films moves the story forward to the late 60s, where the man has now moved his resistance fighters into the hills of South America, surviving without enough food and water and with tensions mounting between the group. Everything comes to a head when he crosses the border into Bolivia and the government forces step up their campaign to bring him down.

Without the flitting between time and places of the last film, Soderbergh's second instalment focuses solely on the action in the hills, and manages to be an even duller experience. And more pretentiously, the score has been drowned out, giving the second instalment more of an unwelcome air of artsieness that proves just as alienating. There's just an unshakeable air of boredom to the film that never lets up. You can't fault Soderbergh's ambition or Del Toro's drive in the lead role, it's just a shame that somewhere in the production things managed to take such a disappointing turn. **


Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!


The second half of Steven Soderbergh's revolutionary bio on Che Guevara deals with his last campaign to export revolution to Bolivia. In order to maintain his saintly visage of Che Soderbergh conveniently leap frogs the mass executions he presided over after the revolution in Cuba and the folly of his Congo adventure ("This is the history of a failure" he writes in the preface of his Congo Journal) to concentrate fully on Che's attempt to rally support to rise up against the government in Bolivia. It would turn out to be a disaster and Guevara's final act.

What plagued the first chapter follows suit here as Soderbergh slows his film to a crawl to study the beatific countenance of the contemplative Guevara once again being played like James Dean in East of Eden by Bernicio Del Toro. The problem is Guevara has little success in gaining converts and he soon finds himself and his starving comrades being swallowed up in the heart of darkness Bolivian Jungle. Unlike Werner Herzog in the magnificent, Aguirre, the Wrath of God Soderbergh fails to utilize the jungle's metaphorical possibilities to heighten the desperation of the guerrillas. He seems more concerned with keeping Che's nimbus above his head than exploring the panic setting in on the dead enders. There is one Herzogian moment where Che sits astride an obstinate horse kicking and screaming to get it moving but overall Soderbergh's mise en scene remains flat, sloppy and uninteresting.

In both of his films Soderbergh shows he is clearly a Che groupie and because of it his focus remains myopic and narrow. He spends too much time building his monument to Che and too little in developing his relationships with key players in his saga, especially Fidel Castro. Making matters worse he does it with a slow and dispassionate approach that never catches fire. One would think he was steeped in enough Eisenstein and Vertov to realize that sweeping change is showcased a lot better with sweeping style.


Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.

It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.

None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole".

Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.

Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life!

For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by

1. never providing most of Che's story;

2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition;

3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events;

4. barely developing an idea, or a character;

5. remaining claustrophobically episodic;

6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts;

7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and

8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success!

Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.

The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.

Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.

Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).

The rest of Part2's "woods" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.

Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ("I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.

Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.

David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was "uneven", Part2 actually "goes rapidly downhill" from there, "charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail", which "...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".

Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.

The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10)


It is incredible that with all of the countless crimes that have been uncovered and laid unequivocally at the doorstep of Marxism, from the Berlin Wall to the Gulag archipelago to the Cultural Revolution to the Khmer Rouge, one still finds admirers of Communist totalitarianism in Hollywood and are still making propaganda in its favor. It just shows the moral depravity of Hollywood.

In this particular film a psychotic murderer is glorified. Needless to say that neither his crimes nor his psychotic proclamations were included. That both the director and the actor expect audiences to sit through this seemingly interminable propagandistic film demonstrates the tunnel vision that they have in regards to their object of worship.


i think that's this is awful produced and directed movie. Benicio Del Toro shouldn't work in production of movies, he should put accent on his acting and that's it. Steven Soderbergh missed the whole point of the idea about revolution, about it's ideals, and most important about life of Che Guevara and so on. Camera is awful, like someone with 2 day working experience is shooting with it, music is ...i don't know..is there some music in the movie???? i will not recommended this piece of sh.. to no one. It's just wasting about 4 hours in front of the TV or whatever.... I can't figure out how can someone rate this movie more than 3 stars. DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER....DISASTER Don't watch please. Save yourself from this misery of "movie"


What I found so curious about this film--I saw the full 4 hour roadshow version, is how oddly dispassionate it is. For a film about 2 very charismatic men--Castro and Che, engaged in a gargantuan political struggle, it's almost totally devoid of emotional fire. The scenes between Benicio Del Toro and Demian Bichir (who is at best a second level actor,with a slightly high pitched voice) have no drama or depth and basically come down to Castro telling Che: go here, go there, do this and that, with no explanation as to what effect or use this action will result in. Odder still is there is an actor in the cast who has the requisite power to play Castro--Joaquim de Almeida, but he's shunted aside in a minor part in the second half. Without the tension or passion that you would expect to fire these men and their followers, the film becomes a dullish epic-length film about hairy, bearded men running through various jungles shouting and shooting to no particular purpose or end. Several of the reviews I've read showered praise on the work of director Steven Soderbergh while ignoring the actors almost completely. (One in fact spent more time talking about Soderbergh's new digital film camera than the plot or actors or the fact that it's entirely in Spanish with English subtitles.)This is an odd, odd thing to do since a) Soderbergh was only a hired gun on the film and b) it's no more than a competent job of work, with an unremarked upon nod to Oliver Stone's JFK in the black and white cut up camera-work when Che visits New York. If you can imagine Reds directed by Andrew McLaglen instead of Warren Beatty, you'd get an idea of the dull competency of this movie.


The first part, Che in Cuba, is about that portion of his life. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded (remember that Che was a physician). It ends as Castro wins the revolution; Che never gets to Havana. The second part, Che in Bolivia, is about guess what. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded.

When I realized this was supposed to be an "epic" (I never knew *anything* but the title before it started), I naturally thought of the greatest epic of them all, David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia. More of that later.

Not to be a racist, but aside from what I've already mentioned is the fact that there are too many characters who are, well, indistinguishable -- unknown Hispanic actors who look alike, especially considering they all wear "Che" beards and all wear Che fatigues. This results in the viewer not being able to identify with anyone other than Che, Benicio del Toro (even Fidel has a very minor role). While del Toro's terrific, think of "Lawrence" with Peter O'Toole as the only discernible character: no Alec Guinness, no Omar Sharif, no Anthony Quinn, etc. You get the idea.

Because the other characters are interchangeable, this results in a loss of reference. When top aides of Che are killed, you feel no remorse since you don't know who they are. Even when Che is killed (I don't think that's a spoiler), there's no empathy from the audience -- he's just killed.

He's too one-dimensional to relate to as a human being. Aside from being a revolutionary and second only to Jesus in moral rectitude, the only thing we learn about Che is that he's married with five children (he tells another character that near the end). What was his motivation? A complete enigma.

Maybe Soderbergh is purposely aping Lean. Like Soderbergh's Che, Lean never lets us know anything about Lawrence, the mystery man of Arabia. But at least Lawrence had a friend (Sharif) and associates (Guinness, Quinn). He was as courageous as he was insecure -- i.e., had human qualities. Che is like a machine, about as warm as The Terminator.

Earlier this year there was another war epic, Mongol. Che makes Mongol look like It's a Wonderful Life.


(48 out of 278 people found this comment useful, and counting...)

People are such suckers for image and looks - as much as for the intellectually hollow "idealism" that lurks behind Communism. Che's charisma and looks have as much to do with his iconic stature as the misinformation that has been spread by Leftist propaganda (such as this movie) about him.

I don't know what's worse: being captured by one of Che's murder-squads or having to sit through 4 hours of this typically Soderberghian garbage. The question isn't why this pet-project was made but what took them so long. By "them" I'm referring, of course, to Left-wing Hollywood and its "secret" love of Marxist tyrants (Lenin, Castro... take your pick). I am fascinated that it took decades for one of Tinseltown's least talented liberal directors to finally take on such an irresistibly biased propaganda project. Where was Oliver Stone all these years? Robert Redford? Tim Robbins? Warren Beatty? Alan Pakula? George Clooney? Barbra Streisand even? It's a mystery. All these overrated "artists" have often indulging themselves in similar, politically one-sided projects, yet somehow Che Guevara, who is arguably the most popular and well-known Communist, hasn't been a film topic of theirs yet.

"Guerrilla" has all the hallmarks of an American truth-bending story of an epic scale; there is as much factual detail to be found here as in other similar Hollywood big-budget political fairy-tale bios such as "Malcolm X" or "Gandhi", i.e. almost none. The movie stars Del Toro as the famous Argentinian revolutionary. Nevertheless, however controversial and criminal this man's actions may have been, one thing nobody could take away from him: he was an intelligent manipulator who came from a rich family - which is why Del Toro fits the bill only visually. Del Toro may be an interesting, charismatic actor and he may resemble Guevara physically, but he exudes no intellectual qualities whatsoever, hence he makes Guevara come off as too primitive. Casting such mediocrities as Bratt, Philips and Franka Incompetente only underlines the director's lack of sound judgment.

The movie is to the most part extremely slow (no surprise there), and visually uninteresting. Even a director as brilliant as Kubrick would have carefully considered releasing a movie that goes beyond the 3-hour mark, so it's quite telling that this Soderbergh, who has only made one or two solid movies and early on in his career, would think that His Oceanic Grandness was up to the task. If you think the film's length indicates that a bulk of Che's life has been shown here - then think again. Soderbergh focuses on Che's last phase, and a lot of the movie is tedious jungle nonsense, full of Guevara's alleged idealism. (Psychopaths don't have ideals.) I do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteemed director has to have to actually choose to ignore some of Che's earlier life. Did he actually consider it too uninteresting? A massacre of 600 people holds no interest for the viewer, huh? Amazing. Some much better directors than this over-praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biographies into a 4-hour movie.

Soderbergh, in a sense, becomes an accomplice by never addressing the negative, dark side - which is more than 90% - of Guevara. By spreading this kind of historical inaccuracy, consciously ignoring the ugly truth (God forbid he should taint the holy image of Che), Soderbergh proves himself not a humanist - a fake image which most Hollywood and pop music personalities struggle very hard all their careers to uphold - but the opposite: that he cares only about ideas, never about the people on whom these ideas are tested (like on guinea pigs). Soderbergh and the like are elitists of the worst kind; such people often have a latent contempt for the "proleteriat" (what a stupid term) they're supposedly siding with.

Half of all students around the world wear Che's image on their red and orange shirts, but without ever knowing why. He has become an iconic figure for clueless, uninformed, very often young people, who think that by having this man's face on their chest that somehow makes them appear "edgy", intellectual, hip or interesting. In reality, wearing a Che shirt only underlines one's overall shallowness and total disinterest in self-education. (Wouldn't YOU want to find out more about a person before you start advertising his/her face to the world?) Wearing Che's by-now cliché image has become as common as having a Bart Simpson coffee cup. All those "Che-wearers" probably know more about Marge's blue hair than they'll ever read up on about Fidel Castro's dead ally.

After everything that'd been done in the name of Marx, one would think that these mongrel "ideals" would be finally laid to rest. It seems mankind will never learn. Stalin, Mao, Kim Il, Pol Pot, Castro, Milosevic, Ceausescu, the Iron Curtain, a hundred million dead, more than a billion ruined physically and/or mentally through this system... so none of that matters, huh?

The fact that Del Toro won a Cannes Award should only surprise those who are absolutely clueless as to how Cannes and other European festivals work - and vote. Hint: Sean Penn headed a jury not long ago.

For my music-related rants, go to: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Fedor8/


This "documentary" is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. The fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of April 2002 in Venezuela, something even we venezuelans don't know for sure.

There are ways of lying, and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge.

The venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences, and they take advantage of that. For instance *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* they show pro-Chávez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for?) in a way of saying they didn't kill anyone, but didn't bother showing the images we all saw here, of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that "empty" street. They can't explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over Caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace, something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the President. A few days after the "coup", the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the National Assembly (our Congress) why didn't they act against the snipers and he said "'cause they weren't there to act against the president", isn't that a confession?

There is so much more, the fact that the highest rank military announced that Chávez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because "that's politics" and nowadays is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Chávez' administration.

It would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this "documentary", made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old Hugo Chávez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs, when the truth is that 60-70% of people rejects his government, and that percentage includes the poor.

I hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies.

Nazi propaganda has returned!


In this movie, Chávez supporters (either venezuelan and not-venezuelan) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country.

They did not say that the conflict started because of Chávez announcement firing a lot of PDVSA best workers just for political issues.

They did not say anything about more than 96 TV interruptions transmitted by Chávez during only 3 days in "CADENA NACIONAL" (a kind of confiscation o private TV signals). Each one with about 20 minutes of duration.

They did not tell us anything about The quiting announcement made by General en Jefe Lucas Rincon Romero, Inspector General of the army forces, who is a traditional supporter of Chávez. Even now, in despite of his announcement, he is the Ministro de Interior y Justicia. After Chávez return he occuped the Charge of Ministro del Defensa (equals to Defense Secretary in US).

They did not say anything about Chávez orders about shooting against a pacifical people concentration who was claiming for elections.

They did not say anything about the people in this concentration that were killed by Chávez Supporters (either civilians and Military official forces).

They present some facts in a wrong order, in order to lie.

They did not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats are even now claiming for an elections in order to solve the crisis and Chávez actions in order to avoid the elections.

That's why i tell you.... This movie is just a lot of lies or a big lie.


Recently, I saw the documentary "The revolution will not be televised", also know as "Chávez: inside the coup". At first I thought it showed a genuine inside view of events during the Venezuela coup of April 2002. What bothered me though was the fact that the tone of the narration and the accompanying music were suggestive, and that at no point any criticism was expressed about Hugo Chávez. This is peculiar because if a documentary is giving an non-biased account of what happened, there should have been some of that too. After all, Chávez certainly is not a saint. Fortunately, since the documentary is several years old, a lot of additional information is available on the internet nowadays, and it was not difficult to find for instance "Urgent Investigation about Chavez-the coup by the 5 European TV Corporations who financed the film which presents blatant falsehoods about Venezuela." It lists the many errors and intended or unintended falsifications in the documentary. (Just use the title as a search string in Google, you will find it). Another interesting document was the video registration of a presentation of the findings of the many errors in this documentary, "X-ray of a lie". To me it seems to be a good counterweight to "Chávez: inside the coup" It's available at video.google. I strongly advice you after watching "Chávez: inside the coup" to look at "X-ray of a lie" and then form your opinion. My conclusion is that Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Brian were (knowingly or not) part in Chávez-propaganda.


Remember a film you seemed to enjoy in the past that doesn't quite meet those same feelings as an adult? That occurred to me when I went back to school..the National Lampoon's Class Reunion. The film has a perfect opportunity for laughs, but surprisingly wanders aimlessly as we see a bizarre collection of characters such a woman who sold her soul to the devil and can shoot out flames of fire from her mouth, a man who appears to be a vampire, and a lunatic killer dressed as a woman and wears sacks over his head. You have the class president who believes he's the best thing since sliced bread(but as we see in the film, he's a coward and joke), a couple of pot smokers who don't even know they are at their own class reunion, and a man named Gary for whom know one even knew existed(and no one can seem to remember his name..this is the one running joke I enjoyed). There is a plump pervert who likes to grab women in inappropriate places, a deaf and blind woman who has a screeching holler when calling for her dog, and the cook(you know her from "goonies" and "Throw Mama From The Train")who loves to place food on people's plates with her hands! The film is essentially about a nutcase who is(or at least attempting to)taking revenge on his classmates for a gag they pulled on him(they arranged for him to sleep with his own twin sister!). The film follows the characters as they search for the killer canvasing darkened, trashed hallways of the old high school. They were told of the killer by his psychologist who seems a bit odd himself. The film has a few good gags that work(pretty much early on), but the film slowly gets worse each passing minute. The film's true problem is that it really doesn't know where to go. The film is pretty much a one-joke premise for it has unassured direction..if it really has any direction at all. The cast is enthusiastic enough, but the material they are to make funny just doesn't have the quality to hold any interest. It's a curio for fans of early 80's comedy relics that are forgotten(this one rightfully so).


If it wasn't for the performances of Barry Diamond and Art Evans as the clueless stoners, I would have no reason to recommend this to anyone.

The plot centers around a 10 year high school reunion, which takes place in a supposed abandon high school(looks more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick), and the deranged student the class pulled a very traumatizing prank on. This student desires to kill off the entire class for revenge.

John Hughes falls in love with his characters too much, as only one student is killed as well as the lunch lady(Goonies' Anne Ramsey). We're led to believe that the horny coupled gets killed, but never see a blasted thing! This is a horrible movie that continued National Lampoon's downward spiral throughout the 80s and 90s.


Anyone who thinks this film has not been appreciated for its comic genius must have been smoking with the two stoners in the film. This film is NOT under-rated...it is a bad movie.

There should be no comparisons between this film and The Naked Gun or Airplane since the latter two films are well written and funny. Class Reunion is neither of those things. The sad thing is it had such potential (good cast, good story lines) but the good jokes are few and far between. The scenes that were supposed to be funny came off more annoying than amusing. The stoner guys, the vampire, the blind girl...NOT FUNNY. The only funny character were Delores (the one who sold her soul to the devil).

National Lampoon has made some really good films (Animal House, Vacation) but this isn't one of them. I certainly expected more from John Hughes.


Stereotypical send up of slasher flicks falls far short as supposed entertainment. Gerrit Graham, Michael Lerner, Zane Busby, and in fact the entire cast are totally wasted. Lame jokes abound, and every punch line is well telegraphed. The dumb one liners come at a fast pace, and almost every one falls flat as a squashed grape. The musical numbers only contribute to the boredom that sets in and lingers for the entire movie. Another negative is the claustrophobic setting entirely within the walls of an abandoned high school. Avoid this and seek out one of "Lampoon's" truly funny films like "National Lampoon's Golddiggers" - MERK


The biggest National Lampoon hit remains "Animal House", and rightly so. It was funny, raucous and good-natured.

The exact opposite of every other National Lampoon film. Including "Class Reunion".

PLEASE do not be fooled by the inclusion of Stephen Furst ("Flounder") from "Animal House". Or by the fact that John Hughes wrote this jumbled mess. This reunion is about as hilarious as root canal and twice as painful.

One star, and that's being generous. Then again, I always thought most of my old classmates were demons, vampires and serial killers, too.


NATIONAL LAMPOON'S CLASS REUNION was a flop when it was released. It didn't stay long in theaters in my big city. Why? Because it's BAD!!!!!

Not bad in a good way but bad in a really painfully unfunny way. The entire cast of actors were mostly unknowns then and have remained unknowns after this turkey.

The idea is actually great (a parody of slasher flicks) but the execution is sorely lacking in every aspect.

Just avoid this "comedy". Your time is more precious than spending a nanosecond watching this embarrassing misfire.


This movie is about as underrated as Police Acadmey Mission to Moscow. This movie is never funny. It's maybe the worst comedy spoof ever made. Very boring,and dumb beyond belief. For those people that think this movie is underrated god help you. I give this movie * out of ****


This movie is rated a classic on sentiment not on any quality of movie-making. It moves from the unlikely to the unbelievable, from the unrealistic to the ludicrous.

The unbelievable plot revolves around an attempt by two British soldiers and a Hindu gofer to rescue a third soldier who has been captured by insurgent Indians. In the later scene we see a full regiment with drum and bagpipes marching into an ambush. In the British army, a sergeant does not order up a rescue attempt, and if you get past that, he does not attempt it with only one other soldier and an Indian servant when there is a full regiment on hand. The Indian insurgents are so incredibly inept it is laughable...there are hundreds of them but they can't hold their prisoner or kill the two rescuers, of course not. At one point we see the British soldiers throwing blocks of stone down from the battlements at the insurgents, who are scattered around the mountainside in ambush...one would have to have an eggplant for a brain to think this would do any damage. After Cary Grant as the rescued prisoner is shot, he lies on the floor looking around at the water boy...hardly the actions of someone who has been shot in the back. The water boy bravely blows a bugle (which comes from nowhere) to sound the alarm...this he does by standing up high on a wall so he can be seen and shot by the bad guys, and we shed a tear as he keeps trying to sound more notes as he is repeatedly shot and the bugle call breaks up into feeble squawks...instead of blowing the bugle while hiding behind cover as anybody with half a brain would do. This scene has deservedly been parodied in comedy sketches. If they wanted to make a Buster Keaton comedy, they should have hired Keaton and done it better.


Not one of the better pokemon movies.

Two legendary pokemon come into the story. You do get to see how strong Celebi can be, though he turns evil first.

Suicune also makes an appearance, he didn't seem that powerful.

The Marauder didn't have many strong pokemon at all, except for that taranitar? Some fight scenes with his pokemon may have made it better.

Ash and Pikachu meet the much younger Professor Oak, though they don't realise it. Misty I was thinking had it at the end but she didn't get close. I saw this in the credits.

Don't expect much here, the worst of the series so far.


The movie seemed to appeal me because of the new type of Pokemon Celebi. But the plot was out of course and didn't have as an interest as the other movies. It was a waste of money and time. The same corny humor and cliche bad guys. The movie was of no use to make if you wanted to make Pokemon famous. The movie should better not associated with animes such as Dragonballz, Digimon, or Yu-Gi-Oh. The drawing and settings are of no level rising to the standards of original anime. It is a shame even to talk about this movie. I bet Pokemon fans will be disappointed with the outcome of the movie and give up on Pokemon. Digimon is more of an anime and doesn't fall anywhere close to Pokemon.It's second movie is coming out late 2002.


Wow. This movie bored the pants off me when I saw it. Bland, pointless and unmoving.

Apparently, Ash and co. can travel through time with the help of "The Spirit of the Forest" ('Princess Mononoke' much??) There, they meet a dorky kid named Sam, and the "plot" begins.

So Tom (Ash) and Huck (Sam) get high with nature, become hippies and try to free Celebi (the "Spirit") from some weirdo hunter guy. I don't even know what else went on. It all went by in a blur. Ash's friends were hardly in it, and all the fight scenes were boring.

After saving the day, Ash and his infamous friends, must return to their time, while watching Sam float away with Celebi (that scene was just creepy. O-O;) Then, after returning to their time, Ash learns that his new friend is actually his rival's grandpa. And I think that's it. Pretty retarded isn't it? If you love your children, you won't expose them to this. (1 out of 10.)


Many of the lead characters in Hideo Gosha's 1969 film "Hitokiri" (manslayer; aka "Tenchu" -- heaven's punishment) were actual historical figures (in "western" name-order format): Ryoma Sakamoto, Hampeita Takechi, Shimbei Tanaka, Izo Okada, ____ Anenokoji. The name "Hitokiri," a historical term, refers to a group of four super-swordsmen who carried out numerous assassinations of key figures in the ruling Tokugawa Shogunate in the mid-1800s under the orders of Takechi, the leader of the "Loyalist" (i.e. ultra-nationalist, pro-Emperor) faction of the Tosa clan. What was this struggle about? Sad to say, you won't find out in this film. "Brilliant History Lesson" indeed!

No, Gosha is much more interested in showing you the usual bloody slicing and dicing and (at absurd length) the inner torment of the not-very-bright killer Izo Okada than in revealing actual history. Sakamoto, for example, was someone of historical significance, considered to be the father of the Imperial Japanese Navy. The closest Gosha comes to providing a history lesson is the scene in which Sakamoto, whom Takechi considers a traitor to the Loyalist cause, comes to Takechi's mansion to try to sway him ideologically. He begins by talking about the international political situation, with foreign warships in Japan's ports and a Japan that is too weak militarily to defend against them. Want to know more? Sorry. Gosha cuts off this potentially fascinating lecture in mid sentence(!). So much for informing his audience about a turning point in Japanese history.

The film left me in utter confusion about the aims of the two sides in this struggle. For the two and a half centuries that the Shogunate held central power in Japan, it was an institution dedicated to preventing social change, to preserving the feudal relations of society. It was fearful of outside contamination, both ideological and technological. In keeping with this spirit, it outlawed firearms, those instruments of "leveling" in Europe and the Americas, with which a peasant could have stood up to a samurai. Throughout this period, the Emperor was nothing more than a spiritual figurehead.

But, in the towns, which stood in neutral zones between the feudal fiefdoms, a new class of merchants, landlords and craftsmen was developing -- the class known in Europe by its French name, the bourgeoisie. Inevitably, as this new class gained strength, it chafed against the many confines of feudal society. As in Europe, the king (Emperor) became the central figure in the bourgeoisie's struggle for power against the feudal aristocracy. But a political leadership does not always fully understand the interests of the class it serves. When the outside world arrived with a bang in 1853, in the form of U.S. Admiral Perry's "Black Ships," the ruling elite of Japan was thrown into a crisis. Their military was no match for these foreigners. Also, they had heard about the havoc the British and French imperialists were wreaking in China. What should Japan do to save itself from the fate of its weak neighbor? Surprisingly, some elements within the usually isolationist Shogunate were inclined to open trade with the foreigners in order to obtain some of their advanced technology. This is the point of view represented (just barely) in the film by Sakamoto. On the other hand, the Emperor-loyal ultra-nationalists, represented by Takechi, believed they could keep out the foreigners by force, if only they could prevent the other faction from "selling out the country." (Sound familiar?) Thus, the assassination of key Shogunate figures is in order -- and away we go.

Takechi's motivations were, for me, the film's biggest puzzle. Gosha suggests that he is fighting mainly for his personal advancement rather than for the Loyalist cause. Can we take this to represent the tenor of the Loyalists as a whole? (Do you care?)

Several reviewers have compared this film favorably with "Goyokin," which Gosha made in the same year. But, where "Goyokin" is a crackling, suspenseful, adventure yarn, with a hero worthy of sympathy, "Hitokiri" is plodding, nowhere near as compelling and lacks such a hero. Sakamoto could have been this film's hero but we are not allowed to know him -- nor what he stands for -- well enough for him to achieve that status.

In view of his wonderful scores for five previous Kurosawa films, Masaru Sato's score here was very disappointing, sounding like something rejected from a "Bonanza" episode.

Barry Freed


To heighten the drama of this sudsy maternity ward story, it's set in a special ward for "difficult cases." The main story is Loretta Young's; she's on leave from a long prison stretch for murder. Will the doctors save her baby at the cost of her life, or heed her husband's plea for the opposite? Melodrama and sentiment are dominant, and they're not the honest sort, to say the least. For example, just to keep things moving, this hospital has a psycho ward next door to the maternity ward, and lets a woman with a hysterical pregnancy wander about stealing babies.

There are just enough laughs and sarcasm for this to be recognizable as a Warners film, mostly from Glenda Farrell, who swigs gin from her hot-water bottle while she waits to have twins that, to her chagrin, she finds there's now a law against selling. An example of her repartee: "Be careful." Farrell: "It's too late to be careful." Aline MacMahon is of course wonderfully authoritative as the chief nurse, but don't expect her to be given a dramatic moment.

The main theme of the film is that the sight of a baby turns anyone to mush. Even given the obvious limitations, this film should have been better than it is.


After watching many of the "Next Action Star" reality TV eps TiVo taped this gawd-awful tripe for me. For some bizarre reason - and I only have myself to blame - I watched the whole thing, hoping that there would be *something* unique in the entire movie. After so much hype about Joel Silver's "Midas Touch" with action flicks, he might want to make sure he bones up on his alchemy.

First, the only redeeming value of the entire film was Billy Zane, and even he couldn't lift the slipshod writing out of the crapper. Having said that, Zane's performance falters about 2/ 3rds of the way through, as he doesn't even seem to know what else to do other than look smug.

Can't blame him here, though. The writing, quite frankly, sucked. Let's take ideas from "Rat Race," "Enemy of the State," "Terminator," "Midnight Run" and any bad gambling film you can think of and simply rehash it. And who's brilliant idea was it to have TWO bridge chase sequences in a ROW?

Sean Carrigan, the "man of the hour" of "The Next Action Star" shows all of the strengths and weaknesses the casting directors mention during the entire run of the series. A one-note johnny, Sean plays the dumb good looking jock very well, but struggles with shouldering the weight of the film. Quite frankly, we never quite seem to care about whether he lives or dies by about mid-way through, as Carrigan fails to provide a reason for the audience to even like him. His dumb-but-lucky routine gets old as there really isn't anything about the character to root for.

But Carrigan is a dream compared to the wooden, rigid Corinne Van Ryck de Groot. Did Howard Fine really tell her to pretend to be a Terminator for the first half of the film? I don't think so. I kept expecting her to quote Arnie. Her character "performance" can be compared only to the dramatic depths of "Freddy Got Fingered," though not nearly as well-developed. The camera loves her in dark, shadowy limousines, but in the harsh light of day her demeanor sucks all energy off the screen. Jeanne Bauer showed more natural life in her five minute bit part than Corinne showed at any part of her screen time.

Ultimately, Sean has the rugged good looks to provide a good lead in an ensemble cast, but shouldn't have been left to do this one solo. It was simply too big of a task for him. "Next Action Star" colleague Jared Elliot may or may not have had better luck with some more dynamic characterization, but it's hard to tell given Jeff Welch's lame script. Someone should take Welch's iMac away from him before he hurts himself or anyone else. And finally, Van Ryck de Groot simply was outclassed and way out of her reach, even for complete shlock like this.

Joel Silver should be ashamed.


HAH! So this is the movie that the "Next Action Stars" were getting into. Well I'm glad that I didn't participate and didn't win...

Isn't it funny how one can just look at the first 10 seconds(!) and make up ones mind about a movie? I mean, come on! Just look at those titles!? I watched this movie(or part of this "teleplay" since it was produced for TV and we couldn't bear to watch the whole thing) one evening while doing my military service and the audience with me was the typical hodge-podge of average guys that once in a while watch series like Las Vegas just for the girls in the show. so the bar wasn't really high, the most watched movie in my group was Girl Next Door (and it wasn't because of the great script ;D . But this movie's total lack of originality, acting, scripting, and just about everything else that makes a movie good made it pretty easy to switch channel to Las Vegas (or was it CSI? don't remember...) without any complaints by the rest of the group. And that is rare(!) For heavens sake! Don't by this movie! If it's on TV, then yes, watch it. And contemplate on it. My conclusion? well, since Joel Silver has indeed produced some of the best action-films out there (Die Hard, Matrix 1, to name some) I can only say that producers don't give the film it's quality, they provide money for the directors. And to sell this movie just because it's a Joel Silver movie is just a desperate attempt to conceal the obvious flaws of the crew who really made it.


It is unbelievable that a script as cliché and completely absurd could make any screen even the small one. The dialogue in this movie makes Catwoman seem like a high culture classic. Billy Zane plays the bad ass harmonica playing, Elvis impersonating, gunslinging, martial arts master who gambles on the life of a down-an-out former football player turned gambling addict played by the winner of NBC's craptastic show "Next Action Star." His performance is as cold as ice and not in a cool way. The "film" takes place in Vegas, and since people play poker there the writers felt it was a perfect setting for a movie about a guy trying to survive 24 hours against an omnipresent, wealthy gambler who has offered his target $2.4 million if he can make it through the day. And so the hunt ensues. A hunt reeking with unimpressive explosions, construction yard settings, shoddy cinematography, and one-liners containing the word "bet" or "gamble." The female winner is also tossed in the mix, but for what reason I have no idea. Oh but don't worry "NAS" fans the losers make their memorable cameos as well. The surprise ending will knock your socks off if you love predictability or plagiarism. Joel Silver should reevaluate his decision to sell out even more. I wish he could give me those two hours of my life back.


This was the worst movie I have ever seen Billy Zane in. I understand that this movie was mainly to showcase the new comers, who did pretty good for newbies, but over all, the movie was not believable.

With all of the gunfire, you would think the police would have intervened. Even the coin being a bug on Sean was stupid. The way Sean suddenly realizes the coin is the bug, was not realistic.

Looks like this movie was slapped together fast. Poor job. Get a better writer.

The count down to the end was not in sync with anything. It took longer to fight. And what a coincidence that each time Billy was going to blast Sean, he'd be out of bullets. Once, I can believe, but not twice.

Actually, Billy's character was goofy. It was so stupid when Sean punches him out at the end. It was like a comedy. Bad! Bad! Bad!


Maybe television will be as brutal one day. Maybe Big Brother` was only the first step in the direction Stephen Richard Bachmann` King described the end point of. But enough about that. If I spend too much words talking about the serious background topic of this movie I do exactly what the producers hoped by choosing this material. It's the same with The 6th Day`. No matter, how primitive the film is, it provokes a discussion about its topic, which serves the producers as publicity. Let's NOT be taken in by that. The social criticism that is suggested by that plot summary is only an alibi to make it possible to produce a speculative, violent movie, more for video sale than for cinema.

I didn't read the book. I don't dare criticising Stephen King without having read him, but when I saw the film I thought they couldn't make such a terrible film out of a good book: In a typical 1980s set with 1980s music and some minor actors Arnold Schwarzenegger finds himself as a policeman running away from killers within a cruel TV show. The audience is cheering.

Together with Predator`, this is definitely Schwarzenegger's most stupid movie. 2 stars out of 10.


I am probably one of the few who actually read Stephen King's book, the one this movie was based on. After reading this excellent work, I could not wait to see the movie version of it. After viewing the movie, I was TOTALLY disappointed. The only thing that this movie has in common with the book is the title and the names of the characters. In the book, Schwarzenegger's character is put on a game show. The main object is to survive. But he's not in an arena. He's set loose in the city and has to escape the game show's (I guess you'd call them) villians, who bear absolutely no resemblence to the movie characters. This premise built much tension and suspension and ended greatly with the climax. The movie was absolute garbage. There was no cinematic quality to it. I totally respect Arnold Schwarzenegger as an actor, but he messed up with this one.


:::SPOILER ALERT:::

Soooo, Arnie's really a good guy, but after an incident with some fighting in a helicopter and some disobeying of orders, he's sent to jail (or rather some sort of work camp). He escapes, but after a short while he's caught once again. This time ends up in a freakish reality show in which he's supposed to run for a while from a bunch of tough guys with different themes, and eventually die. But we all know Arnie, and we all know that he's tougher than even the toughest of tough guys.

I really wanted to like this movie, being an Arnie-fan and all. However, "The Running Man" contains too many flaws that really annoy the crap out of me. E.g. The reconstruction of Arnie's fight inside the helicopter, where the shocked audience is showed a short summary of the incident, complete with 5-10 different camera angles. This means that the military helicopter in which Arnie flew was equipped with almost 10 cameras filming the crew members, one of which _inside_ the eye of one of the crew members Arnie beats.

There are other flaws also, and the plot, which in theory seems to be very interesting and innovative, works for a while, then it sort of creates a pool of stupidness and unrealism in which it drowns.

The acting can't really be said to be anything better than sub par, with Arnie in the leading role, doing an average Arnie performance. The rest of the cast get by without being especially good or bad.

The special effects are OK, without being impressive.

RATING: 3/10


I read the running man from Kings books as Bachman and I felt for the main character John and his family. This movie could have been SO much more. The trouble? It was set during the big action movie craze. I watched the movie and was in pain during the whole thing. I felt nothing for the character and less for his cause. Yes it had funny scenes (or laughable) though I think that it did not save the movie in my eyes. If you read the book you can feel the climax and the fire in the heart of John as he gets his final revenge.

I give this movie a low number. It may not have been this low if I had not read the book.


I am a big fan of Stephen King. I loved The Running Man. So obviously I was very excited that someone had made a film of it. And when a local network showed the film, I was in heaven. I was all ready for a night of fun!

The first indicator that something was wrong was when I noticed that someone had cast Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could simply not believe that a man who got famous for films filled with runnin' an' shootin' could play a more cunning part, as was described in the book. I still was convinced that this would be a good film, however. Who knows, maybe Arnold had some hidden talents?

Well, he didn't. I soon found out that the only reason he was even cast was because someone had re-written the entire story to MAKE it about fightin' an' shootin'. Yup, it was a standard Arnold-film: hero is done wrong, hero solves problems by flexing his mighty muscles and scaring everyone away and hero gets the girl.

I was stunned. This is NOT what the book said at all. I know that books can't be put on screen literally, but this didn't even have ties to the book. Stephen King should have openly denounced any affiliation with the film and he should have forbidden using the title The Running Man for this shameless waste of film. I don't say it often, but this film was BAD. If I weren't at home watching, I'd have tossed rotten tomatoes at the screen. Once again: bad.

(Note that I used 'someone' a lot. I did this because I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed to have worked on this and I don't want to embarrass them even further by naming them here)


argh! this film hurts my head. and not in a good way.

maybe it's just my growing hatred for the action genre, but even as a kid when i would swallow tripe like Navy Seals, i still regarded this film with dislike. now i utterly despise it.

take one fairly good fast-paced story. keep the title and throw the rest away. instead use some half-assesd future gladiators storyline thats so full of plot holes the whole things in danger of collapsing (why is there a rebel base in the middle of the arena, what about the cameras? why have clearly marked footage of what really happened at bakersfeild in an unguarded room?)

the whole film screams eighties, from the truley awful score to the goofy shiny costumes. ugh.

don't watch this film. i know some people liked it, but some people get off on being peed on and i don't understand them either.


This was a waste of 75 minutes of my life. The acting was atrocious and the plot was ridiculous. It revolves around an evil lesbian who gets rich married men to have sex with her, and then blackmails them for money. One of the victims is a candidate for DA, which is causing problems in his relationship with his wife. Another is a plastic surgeon, also married, and the evil lesbian happens to seduce this guys wife too! Meanwhile, the evil lesbian's girlfriend doesn't really like her sleeping around. It ends in a happy ending where all is forgiven. The women get naked a lot too, mostly in situations that stretch reality. bad bad bad.


this became a cult movie in chinese college students, though i havnt watched it until it is broadcasted in channel4, UK.

full of arty giddy pretentions, the plot is mediocre and unreal; the 'spirit' it wants to convey is how independent artists 'resist the commercisliation of music industry' and maintain their' purity of an artistic soul' and wouldnt 'sell themselves for dirty money'. that is really giddy and superficial; the diologue are mainly pathetic. acting is poor. sceenplay is full of art pretention. it is a fantasy movie for kids and that;s all


I have to admit that by moments I had to laugh at how bad that movie was... But the laughs were too few and since this whole thing was in no way a parody, it felt more like an insult to the viewer's intelligence. The worst acting I have ever seen from any of these people...


Imagine, its, say 12-1am - your at home, your bored, your not tired. This scenario occurred about, say 4 or so years back..I turned on the TV and flicked over a few channels and found that this film was on. OH MY WORD this is the worst film I have ever seen! A runaway car that cant be stopped (cos the brakes have been cut or something) in caning it down the freeway - whats gonna happen?! This film was so bad its actually funny - I think the stunts cost about $2 to make, there was one instance where a baby/small child is being winched from the car by a helicopter - in an attempt to excite the viewer - a conveniently placed bridge is nearing ahead...THIS IS THE BEST BAD BIT OF A FILM EVER - it shows the child narrowly missing the bridge but it looks so bad - you can almost see the make of the dummy that they used - total low budget classic! Cant remember the end of the film, though but I bet it was GREAT

I doubt they will ever show this film again so I'm glad I got to see this piece of trash!


This 1997 film-blanc classic tale of smoldering passion has achieved its well-deserved legendary status as one of the screen's greatest sagas of a doomed and hopeless love. The pervasive, ongoing and progressive magnetism between Judge Reinhold and what's-her-name is sure to set many a viewer's heart a-flutter with memories of one's own first crush. The brilliant screenplay dangles this embryonic affair-to-be in front of the enraptured audience, sitting transfixed as the abstract, almost-expressionist cinematography deep-focuses on the just-under-the-surface desires that ebb and flow between the principals. You can cut the sexual tension with a dull tire iron.

A tiny drop of perspiration on the end of a nose catches the bright sunshine, and leaves no doubt as to its significance. Scenes like this abound and bear watching again and again. As with "Jane Eyre" and "Rebecca" (to which this masterpiece is so often compared), the closeups of the actors' faces as they experience the slow dawning of the great love-that-is-not-to-be will haunt you forever.

The now-classic RC soundtrack score, with its creative and unique use of solo synthesizer, emphasizes the emotion that drips throughout like a leaky crankcase.

If I had any criticisms at all by mentioning what I consider a minor flaw (and dared to risk the wrath of the millions of fans who hold this classic so dear to their hearts), I would say that the hallmark of "Runaway Car" - its sense of mounting sexual tension - is briefly broken by the highway scene, which now after repeated viewings seems just a bit overlong (and probably even unnecessary?) to the eternal, bittersweet tale of Love Interrupted.

Dare I advance what I perceive as the tiniest of flaws in this critically-acclaimed triumph of modern cinema? 'Citizen Kane' had its 'Rosebud' . . . 'Runaway Car' should have its catchword as well. Perhaps the film could have opened with an extreme closeup of Judge Reinhold saying something such as "A car is an extension of its owner!", and the rest of the storyline could then be dedicated to parsing every syllable, subtlety and nuance of that phrase. Had that plot line been done, this film could have topped "Titanic" at the Golden Globes that year, I'm convinced.

My one regret? That I didn't read the novel first.


this film has it all; the deft camera work, reminiscent of martin scorcese, or oliver stone, the tight acting of 'heat', the explosive action of a jerry bruckheimer movie, the witty dialogue of a tarantino script and the epic feel of say, 'the godfather'

the judge reinhold character displays a fiery temperememt, yet also shows real emotional depth and intensity. his performance reminds me of robert de niro's portrayal of jake la motta in raging bull.

the action scenes are truly breathtaking, not since bullit has a movie depicted such high octane, yet stylish car scenes. The special effects push the boundries of technology and filmmaking to their limits. Independance day set the standard that this movie clearly has matched, and greatly surpassed.

overall, great acting from its a list cast (like an oscars night party invitation list!), classy locations, gripping action, and a tight script.


This movie is so bad it hurts. The car doing 30 mph when it's supposed to go 100... the shift lever that's stuck (in Park!), the nurse that drives for almost 2 hours with the cell phone on the shoulder...can't any of the 2 morons take this damn phone? There's nothing credible in this crap. I would be ashamed to be seen in a movie like this!