You can never have seen either film and still know that The Jerk Too is a disaster. The question is not, "How did it get made," because if you throw money at anyone and tell them to make a film, they will do so.

No. The question is "Why, oh why, did Steve Martin allow it to be made?" I think he needed the money to fight a nuisance lawsuit and was determined it not cost him anything. He knew the sequel was going to be so frightful, that out of pride, he wouldn't even count it's royalties as income.

The only way this sequel could not be an embarrassment is to have had Carl Gottlieb and Steve Martin revive the nation's favorite poor black family.

And "dcreasy2001" (aka Mark Blankfield?): It's just transparently obvious that you worked on this film in some sad capacity, and the only way you can feel better about your involvement is to be the sequel's lone cheerleader as an IMDb user comment. I was praying for you to veer over into satire, but alas, you were really making an effort at spin. Why not 10 stars?


This is a typical 70's soft core sex romp in the Russ Meyer genre, though perhaps less outlandish than some of Meyer's work. This film has higher 'production values' than many of it's contemporaries, suggesting a larger budget. It's plot, writing and acting are straight out the B zone, though. Of late, this film has become a mainstay of B movie channels (such as "Drive In Classics") in the 500 channel universe. If soft core is what you are in the mood for, this is as "good" as anything else in the B range. Don't expect Polanski though, Sarno is just Sarno. Nothing more, nothing less. Jennifer Welles performance as the "mother" is perhaps the best of the cast. None of the actors in the film went on to greater fame, unsurprisingly. Confessions of a Young American Housewife is far from the worst example of it's kind. It is watchable, if this is your type of film. 30 years ago, this would have been an avant garde and riske film. You can see more or less the same kind of thing on Showtime/HBO series these days, and in prime time.


Oh dear, Oh dear. I started watching this not knowing what to expect. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There were times when I thought it was a comedy. I loved how the government's plan to capture the terrorist leader is to air drop in one man, who is unarmed, and expect him to capture him and escape with a rocket pack. If only it were really that easy. I've finally found a movie worse than "Plan 9 From Outer Space".


STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

Some plutonium's gone missing and some very nasty people now have the means to develop a bomb capable of wholesale destruction- so Josh McCord (Chuck Norris) and his cocky young protégé Deke (Judson Mills, a different actor from the previous film) with the assistance of Josh's adopted daughter Que (Jennifer Tung) set out to stop them.

This was another film that dealt with terrorism a year after the events of 9/11. Filmed in 2001, Norris himself even commented afterwards how eerily the plot line to the film resembled what happened in downtown New York that day, so there'd have been those that would have been in the mood for a film where Norris and his side-kick kick some terrorist ass if nothing else. Other than that, it's as interchangeable as anything Norris has ever been in. It makes you wonder what the original did to warrant a sequel in the first place, and whether if this one could get made a President's Man 3 might come out sometime soon.

If you've seen one Norris film, you've really seen them all and there's really nothing new or unexpected that happens with this one, but at least you know what you're getting and, like I said, it might have been just what some needed to let off some steam. **


I saw this movie the first time at about twelve o'clock on a Saturday evening. It really is the perfect time for this one. I have never, EVER seen a movie that was actually more predictable and drenched with stereotypes. If you want to see a thrilling action movie, don't watch it because you might lose the will to live halfway through. However, if you want a good laugh, please watch it! I even bought the Chuck Norris 3DVD collection thanks to my enjoyable Saturday night. What especially struck me is that évery scene that would be expensive to make was copy-pasted from a Discovery documentary or an old TV-special on the US Army. Furthermore I was amazed by the fact that they didn't put the slightest effort in making the production look real. Afghanistan is, as far as I can remember, nowhere near any sea and yet with a single click Deke escapes from the terrorists sand-castle with his jet-pack and is taken away by a submarine (probably Discovery). Later on in the movie, Deke throws an Islam terrorist against the wall. In the slow motion scene you can beautifully see the long hairs of the Korean stuntman flap in the air when smashed against the wall. Gotta love it. I recommend you watch it with some friends and a good amount of beer though, only then you'll understand why I've been mad enough to spend 6,99 euro's on the box.


OK, so, Chuck Norris somehow found a way to get this sequel produced. I have one question-why? Who read this script and said, "Sound's great! Original!" This movie is regurgitated crap that I wouldn't tarnish my toilet bowel with. Of course it is another story, following in the tradition of MIA, Invasion USA, Walker, Texas Ranger, Delta Force and so on in which Chuck Norris, of course, is the one man who can same America from some bad guys. He doesn't even need a gun most times. It's stupid patriotic jargon that stales the mind. Big surprise that the only one who will direct these Norris film's is Chuck's son Eric. Eric Norris has primarily worked on all his father's films and TV shows. Doesn't this strike anyone as a sign that he has no directing talent? Afterall, he's directing the same people as before in the same stories as before...only difference is the characters' names. If this is supposed to make me patriotic and cheer for the USA, than our country is in much worse shape than I ever imagined. Hopefully, this will be the nail in Chuck Norris's acting coffin.


***THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILER(S)***

I'm not a big fan of Chuck Norris as an actor, but I worship him in all other ways. He also have his own fan web site with "Chuck Norris facts" that is really entertaining. But this movie looks like someone was joking with the audience putting all those "facts" into one movie. I really don't remember when I wasted my time more than with this "action". I don't know what's the worst this movie can offer you: unoriginal and thousand-times-made plot of terrorists who are trying to nuke US by smuggling nuke on US soil or perhaps that "great" dialogs and Chucks words of wisdom about life and everything else. Someone may find the worst that terrorists actually speak English in everyday life. It's a never ending list of crap. Not to mention huge amount of archive footage used in film, that is kinda annoying. The chief terrorist send his comrades message through the media when he is captured and the only guy smart enough to see the treat is: Chuck Norris, of course. NO ONE else in America is not smart enough to see that! And the whole action in capturing chief is just ridiculous. One man is sent to walk through a whole terrorist camp UNARMED (I'm lying, he had a KNIFE), escapes his stalkers with JET PACK and then para glides for few hundred, maybe even thousand kilometers to nearest shore (Afganistan border is 450 km far away from nearest shore), where he is rescued by submarine. I hoped that at least fighting scenes will be good, but that's even more funny than the plot. If you didn't know, 85% of terrorist are masters of some martial art, but Chuck and CO beat the sh*t out of them. Not only they kill them easily, they can kick and throw them away by a single move and the bad guys fly few meters like dolls. You may ask me did I watch this movie to the end? I did. Why? Because I just wanted to see who, of these two super heroes, will defuse the nuclear bomb of few hundred megatons and size of a MICROWAVE. And then I realized what fool I am. Of course, it's Chuck's movie after all. And not only he singlehandedly defuse nuke with tweezers, but he do it - TWICE!! I could write a book about all the stupid things in this movie, but I would spend my life spawn.

So, makers of this movie made another Chuck Norris fact to be added on his web site: Can Chuck Norris defuse nuclear bomb? Yes and he can do it twice!


Wow, my first review of this movie was so negative that it was not excepted. I will try to tone this one down. Lets be real!!! No one wants to see a Chuck Norris movie where HE is not the main character.There was a good fight scene at the end, but the rest of the movie stank. I have to wonder if old Chuck just can't hang with the best any more. Has he slowed down so much that he has to turn out junk like this and hope that his reputation will carry him through the entire movie? Chuck is an awesome martial artist, and as we have seen from Walker, Texas Ranger, a fairly good actor, but the trick is to combine both of these qualities in his movies, and this one does not. Very Disappointing for us Norris fans. Chuck, stay as the main character in your movies, because this does not work for you...Gary


Too bad Chuck Norris has gone to TV. He made some good movies before he hit TV. This is a typical TV movie intended to pass the time. Unfortunately it wastes Chuck's talent as an actor. I hope he returns to the big screen some day.


In the standard view, this is a purely awful movie. However, it rates a near perfect score on the unintentional comedy scale. I can think of few actual comedies that make me laugh as hard as I did watching this movie. Andy Griffith's ghost dressed in Native American garb dancing sends me into hysterics everytime. I wouldn't waste the gas or energy driving to the video store to rent it, but if you happen to be laying on the couch at 3 in the morning and it comes on TV, check it out.


This is just horrible, really horrible trash. Yes, we've got beautiful naked women dancing and having sex. But while this may work in the mechanism of a porn movie  may have even been a hit as a porn movie  this tries to mask itself as a "film" with actual things to say, with real emotion and struggle. It isn't. It's an excuse to get some girls naked and have a fun time. I'm sure all of these women (and men) in this particular movie could have faired decently in the porn movie business of the 1970s . . . but not in the actual movie business.

The acting was hackneyed, so bad, I mean real terrible. The writing was even worse. I can't lay all blame on these actors  they had nothing to work with. The very broad structure or plot of the movie could possibly be done and done well with good writers and competent actors. The very broad structure or plot is that of a psychotic man who spends his time shooting people from afar, as a sniper. These shootings were motivated from men not respecting their women enough. If there was more writing - better writing, much better writing - and less gratuitous sexual imagery we might have something to work with.

This movie should have been shot, made and marketed a hardcore porn movie all along; it would have made more money. It practically is a hardcore porn film already, and it remains the only non-porn movie I've seen that shows a male erect penis.


1st watched 12/26/2008 -(Dir-Eugene Levy): Corny comedy murder mystery with very few laughs. The movie appears to be based on an earlier Italian movie according to the credits but was re-written by two fairly popular American romantic comedy writers. But this one by Charles Shyer & Nancy Meyers does not cut it compared to their other efforts. The story is about a couple of down-and-out traveling Americans, played by Richard Lewis and Sean Young, who stumble upon a lost dog and hope to make a fortune in reward money after seeing an ad in the paper for the dachsund's return. Upon trying to return it, they see a hand sticking out of a garage door at the lady's residence that they believe is attached to the rest of the dead body of the woman who is supposed to give them the money. They freak out and instead of contacting the police and telling them the truth they make out like runaways from the scene expecting to be framed for the murder. The other characters in the film are met on a train prior to this and hang around a Monte Carlo gambling resort doing various things to be pulled into the story. The other cast members include character actors John Candy, James Belushi, Cybill Shepherd, George Hamilton and others. After the police find out about the death, they start questioning the main characters and, of course, they have to work thru their goofy lies to figure out what really happened. None of the character actors mentioned earlier can bring this movie out of it's mediocre state despite some funny moments mostly provided by the Belushi/Shepherd couple. This isn't a horrible movie, it just isn't that good. There are plenty of average movies out there and this is just another one for the pile. Try it, maybe you'll like it, probably you won't.


First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.

I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!

The real "Crime" (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in!


Mix exotic tropical locations, babes in skimpy attire, explosions, good-looking Dudley Do-Right clones, a movie star with his best years behind him (Martin Sheen), a little martial arts and a sexy villainess (Tracy Lor.....er, sorry...Tracy ELIZABETH Lords) and you'd think you'd be in for some escapist fun. Not so! This is a dreary TV movie and even though it likes to promote itself as a "Charlie's Angels" deal,it is nowhere near as good as the original series or even the gawdawful, irretrievably stupid, recent C.A. movies. This abomination is best described as a THIRD RATE Andy Sidaris film. Nowhere near as much fun as Andy's "Hard Ticket To Hawaii", although some of the fight scenes are decent enough. The girls spend too much time posing and trying too look prissy and it gets annoying after a while. There's better genre stuff that this out there. Oh yeah, and the "babes" aren't as hot as they like to think they are. Terrible soundtrack...when it's there.


Yes, this movie has kids going to space camp and it starts out okay enough as you have the kids meeting one another and learning the ropes. Then they introduce Jinx, a robot that could not possibly exist in 1986 as they do not have anything with that kind of artificial intelligence now. Kid becomes buddy with robot and robot repays the kid's kindness by shooting him and a group of other kids in this camp into outer space with a very limited oxygen supply and radios that do not have the signal to reach into space. This camp is also not very fun as these kids are put to real training and the instructors get all over them for failing missions or not doing the right things. Give it a rest, they are there for fun, not to become astronauts just yet, just give them the experience of space flight not a military like camp. However, you do get to see Joaquin Phoenix in a fairly early role. So in the end a movie that tries to be realistic in some areas, but with the introduction of Jinx and other factors you might as well had the kids battle space aliens on top of everything else that was happening in the movie as that would have made the movie a bit more enjoyable at least for me. Probably for a few others as well, who else would like to see Kate Capshaw's face ripped apart by some strange super alien creature.


Rumor has it that when the NASA Technical Advisors to this film were asked to keep the picture believable, they laughed for several hours. After all, unless you are a politician or work/crew the shuttle, you are not going to get in the shuttle. Furthermore, Space (Cadet) Camp is in Alabama, not Florida.

The truth is everyone on Earth will win multi-billion dollar lottery prizes before the events depicted in this film ever become possible. This film was meant for kids, and had to have been written by one, because they are not aware of the myriad restrictions and requirements regarding access to KSC/CCAFS.

This is the most useless film of all time, and it was a well deserved flop.


I was in second grade, 12 years ago. I remember it clearly. We were learning about space. All little kids want to go to space, right? Well, after I saw this, I was so scared to death that I would 'accidentally' get flung into space by some psychotic robot with a one track mind. I had no idea that this was a movie. I thought it was some news program or something. I guess it was my own version of when people were freaked out by the radio program 'War of the Worlds.' So, recently, I get this movie again to watch, realizing my favorite actor, Joaquin Phoenix was in it (then known as Leaf Phoenix). I can tell you, I was laughing at the dramatic parts and laughing even harder at the acting. I mean, when Andy is in space, she moves in slow motion, did you ever notice that? I don't think being in space makes you talk that slow or think that slow.

The best part is when Andy is knocked unconscious by the oxygen tank, and begins to float backwards as the security doors close. Little Max is trying to pull her in. Suddenly, we get a major close up on Max's face as he shouts (in slow motion) "Whaaaaatttt'ssss happpeniiiinngggg?!?!?" I had no idea.


OK, forget all the technical inconsisties or the physical impossibilities of the Space Shuttle accidentally being launched by a quirky robot with a heart of gold. Forget the hideous special effects and poorly-constructed one-dimensional characters. Just looking at the premise of the story. The very reason for the film to exist in the first place, and you will see just how badly this film was pieced together.

I know 9 year olds that look at this insult to the intelligence and just laugh at it. The story is horrible. The acting is comical and the message its trying to show is incomprehensible. And whats worse, is that the cable Movie channels KEEP SHOWING IT! Its on twice a day every two or three days! Why does anyone in their right mind think that people would want to see this painful piece of celluloid multiple times, much less to see it at all?

My recomendation is dont even bother spending the energy to watch this thing. Its just not worth it.


Space Camp, which had the unfortunate luck to be planned around the time of the Challenger accident, deserves such luck. The "stars" make a mockery of acting, Lea Thomson actually being turned sideways, when asked for more than her usual wide-eyed innocent smile, presumably to mask her risible attempts. The movie is at times hilarious, when it begins to ask far too much of you. A small boy keeps a multi-million dollar robot in his closet which breaks when given too many commands by the hordes of cliched dorm-mates. This hackneyed and unlovable machine, "Jinx", is a major player in the ridiculous premise of the movie, which seems part Short Circuit, part 2001 by the Airplane team. I shan't bore you with this, suffice it to say you can only laugh when faced with it. Having said all of this, it is enjoyable to watch, in a SeaQuest, Saved by the Bell kind of way. The romance and technology, beware, are as unbelievable as each other. Also, if you're an eighties freak, its unmissable for the amusing performances of Kate Capshaw (Willie from Temple of Doom) and, obviously, Lea Thompson. Also, Joaquin Phoenix puts in a dodgy turn as a sort of wannabe Goonie who befriends Jinx. Do not go near this movie if you are not a fan of trash.


I cannot believe how uneducated this movie is. It's like watching police academy, except it's with people that have no clue of what they are talking about, and...Wait, there is a stupid robot that is supposed to be a sidekick. I can understand suspension of disbelief, but this is just complete stupidity. Not only is there no plot to this movie. It's like watching someone that pretends to be a doctor, throw non-medical words around as if they were chief of staff at a major medical facility. Plus the people are wearing clothes that are un-befitting for a space program. I feel like I'm watching a valley-girls "b" movie, in space.


I'm not going to bag this film for all the myriad technical f|u|c|k|u|p|s, it would take two days to outline how the whole thing isn't even remotely possible. Others have pointed out all the relevant stupidities already.

Given all that, I still could have sort of enjoyed it, if only they hadn't included all the maudlin, nauseating, infuriating, Disneyesque sentimental crap, which is so out of place anywhere, but nowhere more than out in space, where the tiniest mistake can mean instant death.

The "crew", as well as the "real" astronaut were equally guilty of putting all their fatuous nonsense ahead of everything else. It completely ruined any value the production may have had left.

I'm surprised NASA let this garbage out so that so many people would get so much misinformation about something so important to them. If you haven't seen this yet, save yourself the irritation. Watch Apollo 13 again. At least that tried to be sort of real.


This film should have been fun. A young Lea Thompson, a young Joaquin Phoenix... and Terry O'Quinn. In space. But it dragged on, had unlovable characters and had no target audience.

Some kids go to a space camp and are accidentally launched into space by a robot friend of theirs (named, appropriately, Jinx). The space scenes are then long, repetitive (the same accident happens twice) and either cheesy or frightening depending on your point of view. Adults will be bored and cheesed out, kids might be scared as the way this was filmed really leaves an eerie sense about it.

There is a budding romance, but unlike the shuttle -- this never takes off. Why it is included in the first place is unclear, except maybe to add extra tension between the characters - but it failed if that was the idea.

A young Lea Thompson should be quirky and attractive, right? I mean, "Back to the Future" is great. But no, she was irritating and average-looking. Not someone you'd want to date, have as a friend or even consider as a role model. Joaquin Phoenix? He's really lucky he ever appeared in movies again this performance. Maybe he can act like Mikey in the Life Cereal commercials, but he doesn't seem to know how to be a normal boy. He doesn't fit in on screen and I don't think we can identify with him at home. I actually would have been happier if he had never returned to Earth.

I don't recommend this film to anyone.


Here's why the Jane Show won't work. Once again Canadian bonehead producers and writers can't create a sitcom without putting some kind of different spin on it. I guess these people don't watch a lot of T.V. from the U.S. which has the sitcom model down pat. No, here we have to do something different, we have to make the A story absolutely absurd and then have a meaningful B story to try to make up for it. The characters are two dimensional and the story lines are way over the top: Forklift races??? give me freaking break. Here's a little advice for the writers of the show, Don't write funny situations, find the funny in situations. And remember, you have to be born with a sense of humor to write truly funny stuff, not just be an improv monkey.


I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.

The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point.

The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really.

The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one.


This film is self indulgent rubbish. Watch this film if you merely want to hear spoken Gaelic or enjoy the pleasant soundtrack. Watch for any other reason and you will be disappointed. It should be charming but isn't - it's just irritating. The characters are difficult to care about and the acting is poor. The stories within the film are also charmless and sinister. I was expecting a heartwarming family film but this also held no appeal to my fourteen year old daughter. It is rarely that I cannot see a film through to its conclusion but this one got the better of both of us.

Although the film is set in current times it has the look and feel of a cheap East European film made during the Cold War. There isn't even enough in the way of beautiful Scottish scenery and cinematography to redeem it. A real shame because as a film this is an embarrassment to Scotland.


Birthday Girl doesn't know what it wants to be - is it a comedy,, is it a drama...it just doesn't know. What could have been a very funny or touching film ends up in no-man's land. The premise is original enough to have warranted a script full of interesting scenarios but hardly delivers any and ends up petering out. This is a real shame if you look at the cast - it's very solid all the way through but they don't get the chance to shine. Very disappointing.


It seems that the intention of the film was to show the aggressive (maffia-like) character of Russians, or at least of those Russians able to travel outside their big country; that it is too easy to rob a bank in England; and that British police is so inefficient that it cannot find the person who robbed the bank even when these subjects are leaving the country by air. In addition, Nicole Kidman and the supposed Russian colleagues spoke a language not yet identified anywhere, probably spoken by Aliens in the Ural mountains, but far to be the Russian one. So Nicole, if you really want to talk Russian, kindly go to Moscow or St. Petersburg and keep yourself busy learning Russian language grammar and its pronunciation.


This film's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. However, the resulting movie is absolutely dire! Admittedly, this is not the worst film ever made, or the worst film this year, but it came damn close!

The main issue is the film not knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, teen-porn? The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, but the film is a mess. What starts out as a mildly interesting "comedy" (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes totally in reverse, and degenerates into a very dark and distasteful misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman should know better, and Ben Chaplin is wasted! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the money.

This is a bad film in pretty much every single aspect. It's not funny, it's almost so sexist that you could almost forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright nasty. A film to be avoided, unless you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their films!


this movie is the worst ive seen.. nicole kidman really dissapointed me.. this movie has nothing. i would not watch it again even if it were the last movie on earth. great actors but bad script.


Nothing in this film interested me. I thought the actors were asleep while they were performing. That's not laid-back Stanislofsky method, that's just walking-through and saying lines, I'm afraid. Kidman's performance is sad. The story is, however, mildly entertaining if you want to put up with the bad acting.


This film features Ben Chaplin as a bored bank employee in England who orders a mail order bride from Russia, recieves Nicole Kidman in the mail and gets more than he bargained for when, surprise, she isn't what she appears to be. The story is fairly predictible and Chaplin underacts too much to the point where he becomes somewhat anoying. Kidman is actualy rather good in this role, making her character about the only thing in this film that is interesting. GRADE: C


If you really have to watch this movie because your girlfriend is in a romantic mood, let it be boy. But prepare yourself by bringing your hp if it comes with a radio.

After having watched such a good movie as Arisan (2003), it is terrible to see what they come up with again in Indonesia. It seems that the only idea is to make money, but no one seems seriously to work on the image of Indonesia in the world of entertainment. That it is a 'global' world doesn't seem to come up in the minds of those who make movies in Indonesia. And since the Indonesian public swallows everything that is presented to them as 'Made in Indonesia' with a flavor of the west, they get away with it.

OK, the story is nice to begin with. And it could have developed into a nice flick. But did the director never think about the fact that a musical needs first of all live music OR at least good playback, and secondly good choreography? In this movie, the playback is SO BAD that it makes you wanna cry right there in the cinema. Every single word you hear is followed seconds LATER by the actor or whoever sing playback, and it is extremely annoying while watching the movie.

The choreography is as if they planned to make a movie about morning gymnastics, but in the end thought it would be nice to turn it into a musical... They only forgot to change the choreography. It is hardly dancing you see, they jump here and there, throw their legs up in the air, and that is about it.

Well, at least there's a happy ending.... But if you can convince your girlfriend that a nice candlelight dinner is much more romantic, DO SO!


What's with Indonesian musical movies? Never have I seen Indonesian musical movies like the ones made in Bollywood. They miss the spirit of the story and just a bunch of 'what they called' poetic lines.

This story about love of two kids who are separated and then meet again after a few years of changes has no special remarks. It's a simple story plot (but it's quite focused though) with 'meant to be' musical story lines here and there.

Confusing characters that should be saved by brilliant acting are neglected. The main actress may try to live up the character, but it's the best that she could do, trying. As for the casting, I don't feel the necessity to put a Balinese student in that story and of course, that's not the only unnecessary characters.

The strange thing is, why would I want to watch this movie? Maybe because of the mangoes...


I wonder who, how and more importantly why the decision to call Richard Attenborough to direct the most singular sensation to hit Broadway in many many years? He's an Academy Award winning director. Yes, he won for Ghandi you moron! Jeremy Irons is an Academy winning actor do you want to see him play Rocky Balboa? He has experience with musicals. Really? "Oh what a lovely war" have you forgotten? To answer your question, yes! The film is a disappointment, clear and simple. Not an ounce of the live energy survived the heavy handedness of the proceedings. Every character danced beautifully they were charming but their projection was theatrical. I felt nothing. But when I saw it on stage I felt everything. The film should have been cast with stars, unknown, newcomers but stars with compelling unforgettable faces even the most invisible of the group. Great actors who could dance beautifully. Well Michael Douglas was in it. True I forgot I'm absolutely wrong and you are absolutely right. Nothing like a Richard Attenborough Michael Douglas musical.


For those who never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage and their only exposure to the story was this film, this film is OK as movie musicals, nothing special, just OK. I have seen the show on Broadway 4 times and even auditioned for a touring company of the show once and for someone who pretty much memorized the original production, the 1985 film version is so dreadful on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, for those who have never auditioned for a theatrical production, let me assure you that IRL when you audition for a play, the director, producer, and choreographer never ask personal questions and don't give a crap about why you wanted to become a performer. A real theatrical audition, whether it be for a play or a musical, rarely takes more than five minutes. If you're auditioning as a dancer, you get shown a 64-bar dance combination once, you do it, and then they decide immediately whether you're in or out. Michael Bennett's original concept of the show was to flesh out the lives of dancers and introduce to the uninitiated the passion for performing and why so many sacrifice so much for so little. The play is about these dancers. First of all, director Richard Attenborough took so much focus off the dancers by beefing up the Cassie/Zach relationship and by casting Michael Douglas as Zach. In the play, you NEVER see Zach...he is just a voice in the back of the theater and his relationship with Cassie is barely touched upon. Cassie shown in the cab in traffic trying to get to the audition and upstairs talking to Larry (a character who is not even in the play)was all added for the movie and took so much focus off what the story is about. Major musical numbers were cut or rethought. The opening number in the play "I Hope I Get It" shows all of the dancers doing a jazz and ballet combination and then people get eliminated. In the movie they jam three hundred dancers onstage together and show them in closeup to disguise the fact that they have cast people in the film who can't dance (can you say "Audrey Landers"). "Goodbye 12, Goodbye 13, Hello Love", a brilliant vocal exploration of these dancers' childhood's jaundiced memories was reworked as "Surprise, Surprise" mainly a vehicle for the late Gregg Burge as Richie. The show's most famous song, "What I Did for Love" which in the show was a touching allegory sung by the entire cast about what they give up to dance, becomes just another standard love song in the film, performed tiredly by a miscast Allyson Reed as Cassie. Jeffrey Hornaday's choreography for the film is dull and unimaginative and doesn't hold a candle to Michael Bennett' original staging and when you're making a movie about dancers, the choreography has to be special. There are a couple of good dancers in the film, the previously mentioned Gregg Burge as Richie, Michelle Johnston as Bebe, and Janet Jones as Judy, but they are hardly given the opportunity to show what they can do, yet Audrey Landers, who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time, is given one of the show's best numbers, "Dance 10, Looks 3." I will admit that the finale, "One" is dazzling, but you have to wait almost two hours for that. I would say that if you never saw A CHORUS LINE onstage, this film might be worth a look, but if you are a devotee of the original Broadway musical...be afraid...be very afraid.


I saw the original "Chorus Line" on Broadway God knows how many times and felt the passion, despair and joy come from this live experience in the theater. Michael Bennett knew he would have to re-imagine "Chorus" for the screen but could never figure out how to do it. If the man who came up with the show is stumped - that should answer your question. There are some shows that are simply made to be seen live - with an audience. However, Richard Attenborough fresh of the musical work of "Ghandi" and dancing with animals in "Doctor Doolittle" ended up directing this film which bore little to no resemblance to the stage show. Horrible songs were added (Surprise! Surprise!), great songs were dropped or given to other characters (which didn't make sense). Michael Douglas was mis-cast. People that couldn't dance tried to act and there was the sexy "Landers" woman who couldn't sing, act, or dance - I guess she had just finished being Ghandi's wife. The dances by Jeffrey Hornaday look like nothing more than schlock from "Flashdance" rejects and nothing works. I sat there stunned at how something so riveting and emotional could be drained to nothing. If you truly love this show and it is coming back to Broadway in 2006 - see it but don't think that the long running musical event that was "A Chorus Line" has any thing at all to do with this film.


I admit to having been a fan of the original stage production. I never saw the movie version until very lately on cable, and watched it with anticipation, to see my memories brought alive again, because I adored the original show. Imagine my dismay.

This has to be the worst translation of a Broadway show to film ever made. They changed the story, they changed the songs, they lost the soul. I was expecting a trip down memory lane, singing to the extraordinarily touching Music and the Mirror, At the Ballet, and Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen. Not! Not only did they adulterate the music to an almost unrecognizable point, but they messed up the storyline, adding songs and exterior plotlines (hello Cassie and Michael Douglas) not present in the original, and injecting "drama" where it wasn't necessary. The original had enough pathos on its own. If you were a fan of the original Broadway show, don't bother. I'm sorry I wasted my time, and diluted my memories, watching this tripe.


On Broadway, A Chorus Line was pure magic. From the second the show opened with a spectacular burst of energy to the truly grand finale, a joyous curtain call of all those chorus members who we grew to love during the course of the show, we were totally engaged - captivated by the intensely personal stories, some funny, some clever, some stirring, of this chorus line. The movie is another matter entirely. The focus is now on the director - and WHAT an ogre he is! Every time the film switches to Michael Douglas, there he is with a bitter, sour expression, barking out questions and orders, screaming and yelling whenever he gets the chance. Yikes!! That changes the dynamics of the story. On Broadway, the director was indeed an imperious offstage presence, but he was also sort of a theatrical device to allow the stories of these amazing strong/fragile/intriguing/hilarious chorus line members to be told with insight and clarity. There is a reason this work won the Pulitzer Prize! And actually in one of the only moments the director appears, he is there to comfort the young Puerto Rican Dancer after we hear that dancer's heart-breaking story. He appears again to ultimately express his genuine affection/ concern for Cassie. But in the movie, from the second Douglas' director starts bitterly barking orders, the chorus line members' stories become secondary. It's like they are in a lousy profession, where a jaded director instead of showing the joy at creating a new exciting theatrical show, is jaded, exhausted, furious at having to audition these chorus members. On stage, there was ALWAYS the excitement of the show. Here in the movie practically from the word go, you feel sorry for everyone involved. During the course of the musical, we desperately wished every single one of those chorus members well, and how happy we would have been if they had all gotten the job! But of course that couldn't happen. But in the Finale when they all came back in glorious costume with those amazing spinning mirrors on stage, sometimes reflecting us in the audience, in our hearts, and we know, also in the hearts of all those chorus members both accepted and rejected, they were on stage forever dancing in a profession they loved so much, bringing magic to the theatre. In the movie, after all the misplaced story lines and emphasis, that magic becomes totally diluted. All we feel (even with the exact same curtain call), is that some of the members got a job with a mean-spirited director. So they all come on the screen and are dancing again. Big deal.


Yes, I was lucky enough to see the long-running original production of Michael Bennett's hit musical. It was an amazing experience and I paid to see the movie when it hit theatres back in 1985. It is awful. Almost everything fails. First off, Attenborough (a fine actor, a good director with the right material) is a sorry choice - almost as bad as when John Huston was hired to mangle ANNIE. The camera is always in the wrong place - they chop up the songs and the CASTING!!! They are awful - the power of the play was these dancers - these hungry, talented performers just wanted a chance to show what they could do and when they got their chance - you couldn't take your eyes off of them. But this cast just gets by dancing, does a "nice" job singing but none of them spark one bit. In fact, look up the cast on IMDb - none of them really went on to do anything much. (OK, OK, Janet Jones married Gretzky - sheesh). So this cinema trainwreck does not capture for one second the magic, the desperation, the passion of the stage musical. A total strike-out! (But even though they try to smother the music - the great music still rises up at times and reminds people how great the score was).


I'm not a stage purist. A movie could have been made of this play, and it would almost necessarily require changes... comme ci, comme ca. But the modest conceits of this material are lost or misunderstood by the movie's creators who are in full-on "shallow blockbuster" mode. It would be hard to imagine a worse director. Perhaps only Josh Logan & Jack Warner could have ruined this in the same way Attenborough did.

Onstage A Chorus line was a triumph of workshopping as a production method. Dancers answering a casting call found themselves sitting around shooting the crap about their stage-career experiences (very 70s!). Then Bennett and Hamlisch took some time, handed them a song and cast them as themselves. ...astonishing! Unbelievably modern. The 'story'of ACL is (in turn) about answering a casting call for a play we never have a complete view of, because the play doesn't matter. It was meta before the idea was invented, 25 years before Adaptation noodled with a similar idea. ACL was also another in a reductivist trend that is still alive, & which is a hallmark of modern creativity: that technique itself is compelling... that there's more drama in an average person's life than you could ever synthesize with invented characters. What a gracious idea. The stage play had one performance area (an empty stage) and three different ways to alter the backdrop, to alleviate visual tedium, not to keep viewers distracted. The space recedes and the actors stories are spotlighted. It worked just fine. That was the point. All these ideas are trampled or bastardized. Set-wise, there wasn't one, and no costumes either until the the dancers came out for their final bows, in which the exhilarating "One" is finally, powerfully, performed in full (gold) top hats and tails, with moves we recognize because we've watched them in practice sessions. The pent-up anxiety of the play is released --- and audiences went nuts.

After Grampa manhandles this, it's like a mushed, strangled bird. He clearly has the earlier, respected All that Jazz (and Fosse's stage piece Dancin') in mind as he makes his choices. Hamlisch's score was edgy & interesting for it's time, but time has not been kind to it. It's as schmaltzy as "jazz hands." And that's before Attenborough ever touches it. He's remarkable at finding whatever good was left, and mangling it.

A simple question might have helped Attenborough while filming this, "Could I bear spending even a few minutes with people like these?" A major issue for any adaptation of the play is how the 4th wall of theater (pivotal by it's absence in theater) would be addressed in the film format. There's never been a more "frontal" play. The answer they came up with was, "I'm sorry.. what was the question?" The cast has been augmented from a manageable number of unique narratives, to a crowd suffocating each other and the audience, and blending their grating selves together. I was well past my annoyance threshold when that annoying little runt swings across the stage on a rope, clowning at the (absent) audience. The play made you understand theater people. This movie just makes you want to choke them.

Perhaps Broadways annoying trend of characters walking directly to stage center and singing their stories at the audience (Les Miz, Miss Saigon) instead of relating to other characters started here. But the worst imaginable revival of the play will make you feel more alive than this movie.

A Chorus Line is pure schlock.


If you were to judge based on the movie alone, the committee that gave the stage musical "A Chorus Line" a Pulitzer Prize, and Broadway audiences that kept the war horse running for 15 years, were all on heavy narcotics, because one singular sensation this film certainly is NOT.

What possessed anyone to think that Richard Attenborough was the right fit for this material utterly mystifies me, but he makes a musical that is almost entirely about movement just sit on the screen like a lump of clay.

Not content with the original score the way it was originally written, someone decided that what the film really needed was a brand new song to give the movie some zip. Thus we are assaulted with the Oscar-nominated(!) "Surprise, Surprise." Well surprise, surprise, the song stinks, and so does the movie.

Grade: D


I first saw the live musical at the Denver Center For The Performing Arts and it was absolutely mind-blowing, Stunning and had such fantastic continuity of plot and dialogue that I liked it much more than most musicals that I have seen on the stage. The interesting thing is that you NEVER got to see Zach's face. He was always in the dark but his presence was powerful and guided the direction of entire production. Whe I heard they were making a movie from it, I waited with bated breath, but when I watched the movie version I was so bummed-out disappointed that I felt I was cheated. The movie lacks the captivating mood set in the live production and it never allows you to be completely in close touch with every character. Personally, I would like to see the live version again and if that should ever be revived, I would wholeheartedly recommend that you go out of your way to see it. It will be one of the most memorable experiences you will enjoy.


This is one of the worst film adaptations of a musical ever made. The stage version of A Chorus Line is wonderful. This movie misses the mark in almost every way. Even the casting is baffling. Take Audrey Landers as Val. "Dance 10 Looks 3" is Val's song. Val's story is that she is a great dancer but a 3 in the looks department. Yes, she finds a solution, but ultimately she's a great dancer. What do the brilliant filmmakers do? They hire an actress who can't dance and is famous for looking great. Way to miss the boat.

Then there's the choreography. I'm sure Michael Bennett was turning over in his grave. Why didn't they use his choreography? It really can't be improved upon.


This may be the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical ever. Even the music has been destroyed. Attenborough knows nothing about theater - almost every shot and moment ring false. I will say, though, that it is almost bad enough to be funny.

The hairstyles are remarkably dated. I can not for the life of me understand what is meant (conceptually) by opening the film with an exterior of the theater where "A Chorus Line" is playing. Are we to think that these people are auditioning for "A Chorus Line," which contains the stories about the people who are auditioning? Oh no, the show is collapsing on itself.

I saw the original production, and have listened to the album hundreds of times. Why, oh, why, did they do this?


Michael Bennett and Nicholas Dante's Broadway show ran for years, but evidence of its power and charisma is lost in this movie adaptation, which most likely stems from the choice of director (Richard Attenborough, as far from B-way as you could get) and lead actor (Michael Douglas, who plays a director-choreographer like a slimy corporate lawyer). The slim story, about a grueling audition for a Broadway show which turns into a therapy session for the actor-dancer-singers, is pushed right up on us, with loud, brassy talents playing to the rafters. Nothing is modulated or subtle, particularly a laughable subplot about a ex-dancer returning to the theater and butting heads with old-flame Douglas. The over-eager hopefuls are filled with promise and heartache, but their personal stories of angst are a little embarrassing; this, matched with Attenborough's sluggish pacing, spells disaster, and even the now-famous songs fail to break through the artificial wrapping. *1/2 from ****


I recently bought the DVD, forgetting just how much I hated the movie version of "A Chorus Line." Every change the director Attenborough made to the story failed.

By making the Director-Cassie relationship so prominent, the entire ensemble-premise of the musical sails out the window.

Some of the musical numbers are sped up and rushed. The show's hit song gets the entire meaning shattered when it is given to Cassie's character.

The overall staging is very self-conscious.

The only reason I give it a 2, is because a few of the great numbers are still able to be enjoyed despite the film's attempt to squeeze every bit of joy and spontaneity out of it.


By the time this film was released I had seen Chorus Line on stage 4 times, and had been anticipating most eagerly the long-rumored production of a film of the story. My wife and I were in line hours before the box office opened on the day the film was released. It was not just a disappointment, it was a kick in the abdomen.

First, the story was "moved outside," so to speak, by including scenes not in the confines of the theater. Those confines are a large portion of the meaning and impact of the story.

Second & Third together (assign your own order): one of the original songs, with very dynamic dance number, was removed; a song which was NOT in the stage production was added. Say what ?? I'm confused!

The only reason I gave this film 2 stars instead of 1 is my admiration for the talent and hard work of the performers. I've now seen Chorus Line on stage 6 times, and wouldn't mind seeing it 6 more times before I die. It is superbly written, with wonderful music, and heart- wrenchingly true stories. If you want to see a musical which includes a great "cattle call" audition, I recommend All That Jazz. If you want to see the story of A Chorus Line, see it on stage.


The Broadway musical, "A Chorus Line" is arguably the best musical in theatre. It's about the experiences of people who live for dance; the joys they experience, and the sacrifices they make. Each dancer is auditioning for parts in a Broadway chorus line, yet what comes out of each of them are stories of how their lives led them find dance as a respite.

The film version, though, captures none of the passion or beauty of the stage show, and is arguably the worst film adaptation of a Broadway musical, as it is lifeless and devoid of any affection for dance, whatsoever.

The biggest mistake was made in giving the director's job to Sir Richard Attenborough, whose direction offered just the right touch and pacing for "Gandhi." Why would anyone in his or her right mind ask an epic director to direct a musical that takes place in a fairly constricted place?

Which brings us to the next problem. "A Chorus Line" takes place on stage in a theatre with no real sets and limited costume changes. It's the least flashy of Broadway musicals, and its simplicity was its glory. However, that doesn't translate well to film, and no one really thought that it would. For that reason, the movie should have taken us in the lives of these dancers, and should have left the theatre and audition process. The singers could have offered their songs in other environments and even have offered flashbacks to their first ballet, jazz or tap class. Heck, they could have danced down Broadway in their lively imaginations. Yet, not one shred of imagination went into the making of this film, as Attenborough's complete indifference for dance and the show itself is evident in his lackadaisical direction.

Many scenes are downright awkward as the dancers tell their story to the director (Michael Douglas) whether he wants to hear them or not. Douglas' character is capricious about choosing to whom he extends a sympathetic ear, and to whom he has no patience.

While the filmmakers pretended to be true to the nature of the play, some heretical changes were made. The very beautiful "Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love"--a smashing stage number which took the dancers back to their adolescence--was removed and replaced with the dreadful, "Surprise," a song so bad that it was nominated for an Oscar. Adding insult to injury, "Surprise" simply retold the same story as "Hello, Love" but without the wit or pathos.

There is no reason to see this film unless you want a lesson in what NOT to do when transferring a Broadway show to film. If you want to see a film version of this show, the next closest thing is Bob Fosse's brilliant "All That Jazz." While Fosse's daughter is in "A Chorus Line," HE is the Fosse who should have been involved, as director. He would have known what to do with this material, which deserved far greater respect than this sad effort.


For anyone who has seen and fallen in love with the stage musical A CHORUS LINE, the movie is a shoddy substitute. Not only are songs cut, but unnecessary plot twists added, new dance sequences choreographed, and, let's face it, Richard Attenborough just doesn't know how to film dancers.

Onstage, Michael Bennett's A CHORUS LINE was just that: Michael Bennett. His idea, his choreography, his direction, his gift to Broadway and the rest of the world. It was two hours of hard-hitting, in-your-face realism that really made you feel for these "boys" and "girls." The movie, however, lacks empathy and depth: the actors look like they are auditioning for A CHORUS LINE rather than actually auditioning. Every move, every line of dialogue seems so weighted and planned; Michael Douglas, especially, as Zach is too in control for us to believe that he is this extraordinarily bitchy choreographer. Even when he throws his temper tantrums, you never quite believe him because every gesture, every accented word, every nuance is so obviously rehearsed. And as for him not dancing: Kevin Kline auditioned for the role of Zach on Broadway. Michael Bennett loved his reading, but Kline couldn't dance and ultimately lost the part. How I wish they had done the same for Douglas! A CHORUS LINE is supposed to be a show about nobodies, and aside from a few recognizable faces (Vicki Frederick, who played Cassie on Broadway, as Sheila and Khandi Alexander, of TV's NewsRadio, as one of the many auditioning dancers) you're not supposed to KNOW any of these people. Because you DO know these people. Having a star in any of the roles is a terrible decision: when you focus on Michael Douglas and his ranting instead of on the girls and boys on the line and their stories, you lose something.

It is truly unfortunate that the best sequence in the show (Montage: Hello Twelve, Hello Thirteen, Hello Love) is cut drastically to make way for a terrible new song entitled "Surprise, Surprise" that surprisingly received a nomination at the Oscars. Cassie's "mirror dance" has a new song and tragically boring choreography -- one wonders why they bothered to shoot a movie version at all if they were going to mess with a working formula this much.

For fans of musical theatre and those who enjoyed the stage version, this movie is a sad mockery of everything they cherished and loved. For those who never got to see the original production, either on Broadway or on tour, this movie is the only reference they will have to go by. And they'll have to wonder just how it got to be the longest-running musical in Broadway history -- until a little show called CATS overtook it in the late 1990's. But THAT is a different story, and don't even get me started there.


Hi, Everyone, If you saw "Singing in the Rain," you remember the scene of Gene Kelly dancing in the rain. You also remember the dance number of Donald O'Connor, "Make 'em Laugh." If you saw "Royal Wedding," you will remember Fred Astaire dancing on the ceiling. If you saw "Jailhouse Rock," you will even remember the title dance number choreographed by The King himself.

That is what is missing here. There could have been some blockbuster dance numbers in this presentation. The closest was Chuck McGowan's "I Can Do That." the mere fact that you have some talented people on stage moving together does not make a great dance film. Richard Attenborough was to blame for this failure. He pointed the camera at the stage and thought that would be a good thing.

Yelling at people auditioning for a part in a Broadway production is not entertainment. Michael Douglas would be just as badly cast if he were in a Western or a comedy. He is OK when he is in a Michael Douglas movie where we see him yelling at someone we would like to yell at. It does not work here.

The cast was good except for Michael, of course. A good movie could have been made even using the songs that were in the stage production, but someone should have thought about how to film it.

Next time they do one of these I hope they call me first.

Tom Willett


This film is regarded by some as a classic - I've no idea why. It is terrible to the point of being laughable. The only saving grace with this movie are the delivery of cheesy lines that are so toe curlingly embarrassing that you have no choice but to laugh at them.

There are a couple of good songs and good choreography in this film, but SO WHAT! There is no plot, it is set in a theatre with no change of scenery, and Michael Douglas is as depressing as ever. My brother once forced me to watch this film, because he said I wouldn't believe how bad a film can get! He was right.

Normally with a film this dreadful I would recommend that people shouldn't watch it, but in this case I think people should, as it will put every other bad film you've seen in perspective.


i was lucky enough to see A Chorus Line when it came to my city.. i was younger then.. but it was an Excellent play.. so would someone please tell me why in heavens name did they have to make a movie out of it.. and why Michael Douglas ??? He didnt suit the role.. this movie really sucked BIG time !!!

my advise is NOT to rent this movie.. save your money for something better like "Cats" ....


A pale shadow of a great musical, this movie suffers from the fact that the director, Richard Attenborough, completely misses the point of the musical, needlessly "opens" it up, and muddies the thrust of the play. The show is about a group of dancers auditioning for a job in a B'way musical and examines their drive & desire to work in this demanding and not-always-rewarding line of work. Attenborough gives us a fresh-faced cast of hopefuls, assuming that they are trying to get their "big break" in show business, rather than presenting the grittier mix of characters created on stage as a group of working "gypsies" living show to show, along with a couple of newcomers. The film has one advantage over the play and that is the opening scene, showing the size of the original audition and the true scale of shrinkage down to the 16/17 on the line (depending on how you count Cassie, who is stupidly kept out of the line in the movie). Anyone who can catch a local civic light opera production of the play will have a much richer experience than seeing this poorly-conceived film.


Awesomely improbable and foolish potboiler that at least has some redeeming, crisp location photography, but it's too unbelievable to generate much in the way of tension. I was kinda hoping that Stanwyck wouldn't make it back in time because, really, she was saddled with the wet, in more ways than one, husband,and she had an idiot child as well..why NOT run off with Meeker? But the nagging question remains..what sort of wood was that pier support made of if a rotten piece of it pulled off didn't float? Stanwyck, always impeccably professional, does the best she could with the material but it's threadbare.


Just a dumb old movie. First Stanwyck's son gets his foot trapped in a really dumb way, and then her husband gets his foot trapped in another really dumb way. In an effort to save him, Stanwyck gets unlucky, yet again, and comes across an escaped convict. She has a chance to kill him but fails in a very dumb way. In the end her husband is saved, and Stanwyck tells us through narration what the dumb message of the movie is. All's well than ends dumb.

I could never figure out how an unattractive woman like Stanwyck ever made it as a leading lady in Hollywood's glamour-oriented Golden Era; that nose is so beautiful So photogenic The film is mercifully short, running a little over an hour. It's as though the director sensed that he was making crap, so he thought it best to keep the crap short.


Well, my goodness, am I disappointed. When I first heard news of a remake of Robert Wise's 1963 film, "The Haunting", I had a fear that it would be ruined by an abundance of summer-movie sized visual effects. But, deep down, I had faith. Surely, with such a talented cast intact...De Bont and company will not ruin a film, who's original was a fantastic and frightening movie that understood the delicate art of subtlety. Well, subtlety, where are you now!!?? My fears have manifested...a promising movie has gone wrong. Yes, Eugenio Zannetti's production design is jaw-dropping; the movie is wonderfully photographed; and composer Jerry Goldsmith can never EVER do wrong. But, the script puts it's fine actors to the test..asking them to deliver the kind of stilted dialogue that is only spoken in movies. In the end, the always wonderful Lili Taylor is the only performer to escape with some dignity...and that's just barely. But, the crime of all crimes is that the horror is shown to us. We can no longer use our imaginations, feel that horrible dread of fear of the unknown. No, we get some visual effects to SHOW US what we're supposed to be afraid of...and you know what? As wonderfully realized as they are...the visual effects come off as sort of silly. And the climax is a phantasmogoric mess...but things had gone terribly wrong long before that.

Everything in The Haunting is overdone and overblown. I'm afraid there are no real thrills or creaks in this old haunted house monstrosity...only groans. Check out the original instead.


For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.

For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.

Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.

Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.

For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer.


The Haunting, if you have seen the original, you know a great ghost story, it's perfection on film. It's a haunting tale of 4 people who go into a haunted house and with the simple trick of sound and movements, it terrified people. It still remains effective to this day if you appreciate film. So when The Haunting was remade in 1999, a lot of people pretty much had the same reaction "WHAT? WHY? WHAT THE" But in my opinion if a remake is respectful enough and just wants to reinvent the story for the newer generation, I'm pretty cool with it. This is definitely not the case, this is just a disrespectful boring shame that will waste your time and I guarantee will deliver no scares pfft! PG-13, what where they thinking? Not much apparently.

When her mother dies and her sister evicts her, Nell receives a phone call, telling her about an ad for an insomnia study run by Doctor David Marrow at Hill House, a secluded manor. Upon arrival, Nell meets Mr. and Mrs. Dudley, a strange pair of caretakers who do not stay on the property after dark. Shortly thereafter, two other participants in the study arrive, wild Theo and "bad sleeper" Luke Sanderson along with Doctor Marrow. Unknown to the participants, Doctor Marrow's true purpose is to study the psychological response to fear. Each night, the caretakers chain the gate outside Hill House, preventing anyone from getting in or out until morning, when the caretakers open the lock. There are no working telephones inside Hill House and the nearest town is several miles away. Doctor Marrow revels the story of Hill House. The house was built by Hugh Crain, Crain built the house for his wife, hoping to fill it with a large family full of children, however all of Crain's children died during birth. Crain's wife killed herself before the house was finished, and Crain became a recluse. The first night, Theo and Nell begin to experience strange phenomenon within the house, including odd noises and inexplicable temperature changes. Nell is confronted after the main hallway is vandalized with the words "Welcome Home, Eleanor", and becomes extremely distraught, setting out to prove that the house is haunted by the souls of those victimized by Crain's cruelty. She learns that Crain built his fortune by exploiting kidnapped children for slave labor and murdering them when they were of no more use to him. He then burned the bodies in the house's fireplace to hide any evidence. She also learns that Crain had a second wife named Carolyn, of whom Nell is descended. Everyone thinks she's crazy while Nell is convinced this is where she belongs.

Seriously, I suggest you stay away from this film, it's really stupid and pointless. Not to mention the actress the played Nell, Lili Taylor completely annoyed me, her performance, her look, just everything about her, don't get me started on things I would do just to not see her in film again. Catherine Zeta Jones just didn't fit in her role as well and Liam Neeson, a wonderful actor wasted talent once again. The effects are way over the top and too computerized, I just can't believe that they would trash a wonderful classic with this crud. Believe me, if you are going to be afraid of something, be afraid of seeing how you can turn a great ghost story into an annoying piece of overblown stupid. Oh, this film is already hurting me, just don't see it, it's bad.

1/10


Considering the original film version of 'The Haunting" is in my top ten films of all time' I approached this adaption with trepidation. I was right to be cautious as this film is a poorly written and badly executed load of old tosh, all those involved should be ashamed. the original was terrifying to me as a child for one reason! you see nothing. Robert Wise used innovative camera-work and superb lighting to generate fear and this is why it work's. The shame of the new version is that it relies on clever special effects and pyrotechnics to get from A to B, sadder still is that the ingredients were there (actors such as Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta Jones) to do something different. This film should only watched as an example of studio butchery!


This poor remake of the 1963 classic starts reasonably well, then replaces suspense with muddled and pointless special effects. For example, in the original, one of the most chilling moments occurs when Nell and Theo are lying side by side in twin beds, listening in terror to the noises outside their room. Nell tells Theo to let go of her hand because she is hurting her. Nell then looks across at Theo, who is several feet away and realises that it was not Theo holding her hand. In the latest version, Nell is lying alone in bed, when suddenly she dives out and slides across the floor. It is only when she tells the unseen force to stop pulling her that we realise what has happened. And can anybody explain what Nell's final words mean - "It's about family. It's always been about family"?

The one redeeming feature is Lili Taylor's performance, but even this cannot save the film. Catherine Zeta-Jones demonstrates once again that, beneath her pretty exterior, there is little depth. In the original, Claire Bloom subtly suggested her lesbian persuasion. Zeta-Jones, however has to spell it out, for example, by asking Nell if she has a boyfriend - or girlfriend.

Definitely one which should be consigned to the pointless remakes graveyard.


So it starts with a beautiful old house in the country. You have a group of people who get asked to come to this house and (not surprisingly) the caretakers always lock the gates at night for no apparent reason. Anywhoo, the people laugh, joke etc. This Dr tells them a spooky story of this woman and some kids. They get scared, they start to feel stuff. Oh no, a girl see's s ghost. Some more talking then this huge ghost comes and etc etc. This girl finds out that this ghost killed little kids and that she must free their souls, yeah yeah, blah blah. She does but, oh no, she dies as she does. And goes to heaven whilst this evil ghost goes to hell. Two people survive and escape the house. The script is terrible because a guy gets his head chopped off and Elanor (the one who dies saving the kids) says "oh no". The acting is wooden, the effects are crap and the set is a couple off rooms used over and over again. Basically if you like laughing at badly made films watch it, but if your looking for a scare then definitely give this film a miss. I was extremely disappointed when I watched this. A very big let down. My sister (who gets sacred very easily) got bored in this film it is appalling.


The original movie ( dated 19??)did not show any "monster" , it just SUGGESTED scary "things" , .

This version however shows every aspect of a "sick minded ghost" , including unnecessary special effects .

The "mystery " ,as presented in the original movie , was the most scary part : one simply did not know what was causing the weird things that happened. By showing the face of the "old man" , this Mister has completely disappeared. Even worse : the special effects ( crying wooden children faces) is ridiculous. This is a stupid remake , too obviously spectacular to even be close as scary as the original


The Haunting is yet another bad horror remake with phony overdone special effects and a big cast of on screen favorites and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever except maybe for the cinematography.Yes remakes aren't all bad but remakes directed by Jion Da Bont definitely are.I suppose that the A-List actors (Liam Neeson,Catherine Zeta Jones,Owen Wilson)are there to distract us from the boring plot,ridiculous special effects, and terrible attempts at scaring it's audience however this is a movie not a tabloid magazine we don't care whose in it we care about the characters and story two things this film missed.The storyline is like taking the classic novel The Haunting Of Hill House and ripping out four chapters and then using whatever's left for the film it is so boring and a lot of it is unexplained.The characters are pretty thin and while the acting is good you don't really care about any of the characters at all.Lily Taylor gives a horrendous performance and sounds like she's 8 years old when delivering her lines not to mention what a horrible screamer she is.Lily Taylor isn't made for the horror genre at all.The ghosts are stupid and cheesy, they look like a bunch of Casper The Friendly Ghost's and the ghost of Hugh Cain looks like a fat guy dressed as the grim reaper for Halloween with a smoke machine.There is this creature on the roof of one of the rooms that is a giant purple mouth and it's not even funny unintentionally just plain sad.The house is pretty and well designed that is probably the only positive thing about this movie it looks nice but that doesn't save it from it's brutal everything else.I can honestly say i felt like i was wasting my time watching The Haunting on TV for no price so I would've been even more pi$$ed if I had paid to see it but luckily it was on Scream Channel.Overall The Haunting is a boring remake that tries to overwhelm you with bad special effects, a poor attempt at horror.


This movie was one of the greatest movies ever made,,,, it had everything to make a movie great. Incredible acting, awesome special effects...... oh wait I must be thinking of a good movie. Well this wasn't one of them, it just plain sucked.

What I want to know is, what kind of bone head would think that this movie was a 10. When I casted my vote there were 206 out there, god knows what goes on in their head. Now as for any other vote, a 8 or 9 was even too high, but a 10??? Come on, what made this movie sooooo good to give it a 10? I know these are the same 206 that thought that Jean Claude Van Damme is a great dramatic actor.


Somewhere in his non-fiction book DANSE MACABRE, Stephen King suggests that one secret of writing scary stories is to avoid showing your readers exactly what horrible thing is waiting behind the door to get them. If at last the door bursts open and a bug ten feet tall lurches through, the reader may be a little scared, but he'll also think, "Well, I can deal with that. At least it wasn't a HUNDRED feet tall." There's nothing more frightening than what lurks, unseen and unknown, just on the other side of that tightly closed door, waiting to get you.

THE HAUNTING is so completely misconceived that director Jan De Bont more or less starts off his movie by metaphorically throwing open that door himself and yelling: "Look, everybody, look! It's a ten-foot-tall bug! Isn't that SCARY?!" The law of diminishing returns immediately kicks in. By the end of the movie, the director is, so to speak, jumping up and down, banging his CGI pots and pans madly, and hoarsely screaming: "Look, everyone, look! Here come ten HUNDRED-foot-tall bugs! ... And now, here come a hundred THOUSAND-foot-tall bugs!"

The filmmakers apparently believed that special effects alone could compensate for all the other shortcomings in this endeavor (and there are many). They can't and don't. In fact, impressive as they are, the special effects are so insistent and obtrusive that the distracted viewer winds up staring at them -- whether in admiration or annoyance -- instead of being immersed in a story.

For me, the nadir of this film's sheer stupidity comes when a statue, with "blood" gushing from its mouth, tries to drown Liam Neeson (as Dr. Marrow) in a fountain. The filmmakers clearly didn't know what to do with this alleged idea once they had it, so they just have Neeson thrash around in the water a bit, flailing his arms and going glug-glug. By the next scene, the good doctor has apparently dried himself off and, ho hum, forgotten all about the annoying incident.

Shirley Jackson's novel seems to have been dumbed-down into this ridiculous screenplay by a committee of low-IQ teenage stoners who thought the way to frighten people was to make every effect bigger and louder: "Okay, next, let's, uh, make the ceiling, you know, look like a creepy face, and, uh, come down on her ... and all these spiky things, like, trap her in the bed."

The sole saving grace of THE HAUNTING is that it at last becomes so awful that it's actually funny. By the time Owen Wilson (as Luke Sanderson) fell on the floor and then went on his Magic-Carpet Ride O' Death, I just about fell on the floor myself, laughing.

Badly constructed, witless, grotesquely heavy-handed, utterly unbelievable, and filled with clunky dialogue and pointless scenes, this vacuous HAUNTING is a textbook example of how NOT to make a horror movie.


They screwed up this story! In the end Nell is all heroic and taking on for the team to save all their asses from Hill House and a bunch of nonsense like that! They added heads getting chopped, wires cutting peoples faces, and the ceiling turning into a giant hand! What the hell is that about??? I own and love the original movie, I read the book and I love it! The reason why the original movie and the book are so great is because it scares you so much without even showing the ghost. There is no gore. There is no ceiling hand. It is only the ghost ad how ghosts can truly kill a person. They cannot kill us, they cannot throw us about the room or fly a knife into our head. No. They can only drive us mad. Taking away all our senses of security. Nell was a selfish woman. She only wanted good things for herself. Yes, she cared a little for the others, but not too much. David Self and Jan de Bont have taken a crap on this great story! I hate this damn remake!


The Haunting. A remake, of course. The original was a creepy psychological thriller, and one that has improved with time. Compared to this 1999 remake, it's a classic. There is no character development here, only caricatures (the slut, the authoritative brain, the "I'm gonna get us outta here" fellow, the oh so sensitive bookworm). But, seeing as how the were banking on the special effects being the "star", I guess characters that you can empathize with are a secondary concern. Unfortunately, the effects are laughable. Mewing cherubs, stretchy doors, irritating dead children that can't speak plainly ... and an idiotically sappy ending that does it's darnedest to give you a new age enema of butterflies and rainbows. Ill take my Skittles orally, thank you. Bruce Dern, I've liked you since "The Cowboys". Stop it.


How viewers react to this new "adaption" of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards "special effects" being the first and last word in how "good" a film is, are going to love it.

Things I did not like about this adaption:

1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is..."We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too."

2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been "born bad". No, instead, this "doctor" got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their "insomnia" (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.

3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies "some houses are just born bad", this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first "victim" died before ever setting eyes on it.

4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's "history")...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.

5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.

6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.

7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no "companion", and there was no nursery. There was also no "Grace" (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).

In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word "house" for "movie"!): "This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!" My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one.


The Shirley Jackson novel 'The Haunting of Hill House' is an atmospheric tale of terror, which conveys supernatural phenomena in an old mansion. The atmosphere is well set out, and the chills are staged well. A haunting masterpiece.

The 1963 chiller 'The Haunting' stays closely to the book, but also adds its own details to the plot. Fortunately, these are very few, and so the terror of the book and the chills are executed even better on the screen. The black and white photography only adds to the creepiness of the movie. Excellent!

And then, Jan de Bont made this. In 1999, the remake of The Haunting hit the cinemas - if you could call this a remake. Why they had to make a remake of the 1963 movie is a mystery in itself, but for the moment, lets look at the film itself.

It starts off averagely, as most horror movies do. The set used for Hill House is beautiful, and oddly mysterious, and for a few minutes, it seems as if the film is actually going to be quite a fair re-telling. And then, the first scare comes: a loose harpsichord wire slashes a woman's face (Dr. Marrow's assistant). This is hilarious, and truth be told, it nearly had me in tears.

From then on, the film just spirals downwards. The acting seems to become somewhat wooden as the film goes on, with Owen Wilson's character being particularly irritating (so it's such a relief when he's decapitated by the flue).

The special effects practically make this movie,, which is a shame, because most of them are incredibly cheesy and look very dated. Examples of these are many, so I won't bother listing them.

So, all in all, I, along with hundreds of others, strongly recommend that you watch the original chiller, or, as an alternative, buy the novel by Shirley Jackson. But please, stay away from this. And, if you do decide to watch this, watch it on the TV (as a lot of the channels love to screen this film, and not the original) or rent it cheap, but please don't buy it, whatever you do. Don't waste your money!

Final rating: 4/10


There were only two things that kept me interested in this film: I was waiting for Owen Wilson to die, and Catherine Zeta Jones.

This was basically a one woman show. Catherine Zeta Jones was just there to provide eye-candy. Liam Neeson was totally wasted in this film. Like Jones, he had no role at all. The film was all Lily Taylor (Ransom, Ready to Wear). She was the only one that had any real part in this crappy script by David Self. OK, it was his first one and he did redeem himself with Road to Perdition.

I don't know what director Jan de Bont's problem was. he did a great job with Speed and Twister. he really fell down on the job here. Maybe he was still recovering from the disaster Speed 2: Cruise Control. He should thank his lucky stars for The Wild Wild West, else this would be the worst picture of 1999.

Avoid at all costs.


It's my opinion that when you decide to re-make a very good film, you should strive to do better than the original; or at least give it a fresh point of view. Now the 1963 Robert Wise telling of Shirley Jackson's remarkable novel "The Haunting of Hill House" is worth the price of admission even today. Now fast forward to 1999 and the re-make. I was left shaking my head and asking, why? The acting is wooden, the story unrecognizable and the whole point seems to be to replace the subtle horror of the original with as many special effects computers can generate. I had heard that this update was bad; but couldn't believe it was that bad, considering the source material. I was wrong. After watching this and saying to my wife how awful it was, she said; "Well they got your money!" She's right, don't let them get yours. If there's no profit in making lousy re-makes, maybe they'll stop making them or come up to a higher standard that doesn't insult their audience


Pretty bad movie offers nothing new. The usual creaks and moans attempt to make-up for a muddled, but thin story. Acting is barely above pathetic. Why Liam Neeson signed on for this is anyone's guess. Owen Wilson truly turns in one of the worst performances in recent horror-movie history. Catherine Zeta Jones is fun to look at and not much else although Lili Tayor did an above-average job. The special effects were fairly memorable and the house itself was breathtaking and hauntingly gorgeous. However they can't makeup for the poor acting and the storyline which appears to have been thrown together at the last minute. Don't bother.


I don't even know where to begin on this one. "It's all about the family." That has to be the worst line of dialogue ever heard in a "horror" movie, although this couldn't be a horror movie even if it tried!!! Ugh!!! And I know that Owen Wilson is a better actor. He needs to stop playing the token guy who dies in every action movie (Anaconda, Armageddon). After all, the man did co-write "Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore." He does have some talent. Also, Lily Taylor should stick to indie films. She has no place here. Finally, Catherine Zeta-Jones should become a porn star. There's no room in legitimate acting for her. I'm serious. One of the worst movies I've ever seen, EVER.


Effect(s) without cause is generally not possible in the real world but in the world of Hollywood remakes, not only is it possible, it's required. The Haunting has been given the computer treatment courtesy of a 1st-class cinematographer-turner-director who once showed promise (Jan de Bont- Speed) but has since produced a string of big budget garbage (Twister, Speed 2).

Actor are superfluous in a movie of this type and they seem to realize it. Liam Neeson and Cathrine Zeta-Jones act like they wish they were anywhere but in this film. Lili Taylor makes an attempt to add something to the proceedings but whatever that something might be is unknown since the script feels like half of it is missing. Events just happen, good and bad ghosts show up with no rhyme or reason and then the story just ends with a most unsatisfying non-event meant to wrap up the previous 90 minutes of inanity.

There really isn't even reason to see this for the effects since we all know that anything can be put on screen now. Why not watch effects in the service of a good story instead of just for their own sake?


The script for this movie was probably found in a hair-ball recently coughed up by a really old dog. Mostly an amateur film with lame FX. For you Zeta-Jones fanatics: she has the credibility of one Mr. Binks.


I have yet to read Shirley Jackson's novel, something of which I've been meaning to do for quite sometime. I am sure it has got to be scarier than this film. I remember jumping once when I watched it the other day, although I cannot recall the scene.

The special effects are great and I watched this on DVD, but I am sure in the theatre it must have been an awesome sight. After the first few special effects are done with I was waiting for a story to develop.

I figured this movie at the least has to be loosely based on the classic novel, so a good story should be there, but it wasn't. I was relegated to staring at the gorgeous Catherine Zeta-Jones character throughout the movie basically because there was nothing much else to watch. Lili Talor was such a suck character. I did not like her one bit, something about whiny people. Also, the guy in this film reminded me of the cartoonish Dudley DoRight with his voice and face. I could not relate to the characters at all. Quigon, ahem Liam Neeson did an admirable job trying to get through this movie with some type of acting.

Half to three quarters of the way I was just dying to go see a campy Friday the 13th or a Scream Queenish film! At least there is some type of entertainment value. If there is no story there at least they fill it up with gory deaths or attractive females. This had nothing.


The 1963 version of "The Haunting" has been one of my favorite horror films for years, so I anticipated the release of this 1999 remake with a good deal of trepidation. It hardly seemed that any follow-up could exceed or even equal the original masterpiece. Unfortunately my worries were well-founded: This movie stinks.

I don't know what the people involved in this film were thinking. Jan De Bont, who seemed to have had a fluke when he directed the excellent "Speed," does as poorly here (or perhaps even worse) as he did with the much-hyped duds "Twister" and "Speed 2: Cruise Control." Hey Jan, stick to cinematography, would ya? Liam Neeson is adequate in his role as the doctor-pretending-to-be-a-sleep-psychologist -- I don't think he is capable of turning in a truly bad performance -- but even he cannot save a lame script and weak story. Catherine Zeta Jones proves once again (as she did in "Entrapment") that she lacks the acting ability to rise above the material that is handed to her. The female lead, who did great in an episode of "The X-Files," looks lost here as Eleanor, an insomniac hovering on the edge of sanity. And that blond guy, whoever he is, is more wooden than the laughably strange statuettes of children carved into the woodwork around the house. I don't think he changes expression once during the entire film.

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

The reason the first movie worked so well is because we were never sure whether the house was truly haunted or whether the manifestations were a result of Eleanor's precarious mental state. No spirits are actually seen in the original, leaving much up to the imagination--a hallmark of other great horror films like "The Changeling" and "The Blair Witch Project." In this updated version, we of course get tons of CGI ghosts, which basically (in the face of the weak script/plot) make the movie totally unscary. The f/x aren't even that great, considering they were done by ILM. The frozen breath looks particularly fake. The effects in the underrated Peter Jackson film "The Frighteners," which I saw just before this one, were a lot better. The wooden carvings of the children, which are supposed to look creepy, just look silly (especially when they scream), and the CGI monsters are nothing to write home about. Rather than providing a relief from the bad acting, bad direction, and bad writing, the effects only add to this mess of a film.

Some particularly dumb scenes: When the three other characters break into Eleanor's bedroom, and none of them seem at all surprised to find a huge scowling demon hovering over the bed. The scene where Eleanor "sees" the former lady of the house hanging from the rafters... the acting here is particularly bad. And last, but not least, the unintentionally hilarious bit where Wooden Blond Guy utters an uninspired shout of what is supposed to be anguish, leaps up on a piece of furniture, and starts slashing away at the painting of the old, evil guy who built the house. We actually get some satisfaction in this scene, as seconds after his attack, Blond Guy is dragged over to the fireplace by the ghost of the old guy and promptly gets his head cut off by the flue. It was the only part of the movie I enjoyed.

In sum, stick to the original 1963 "The Haunting." 3/10 stars.


I am not sure why I like Dolph Lundgren. I guess seeing him on screen makes me feel that anyone who works hard can succeed regardless of talent. That is a good feeling for all of us who lack talent. Some of the other reviews point out how dumb Detention is, but many neglect to point out the positives.

Any movie where at least one annoying teenager gets killed can't be all bad. Why do so many movies that have a cast of teens always need to include the stereotypical teens? Aren't there any other kind of teens? Does every group of teens have one angry black guy? One genius nerd that nobody likes? One slutty girl who is very friendly and (in this movie) pregnant? One disturbed anti-social white kid from a broken home who everyone agrees is talented (but what is the talent?). And one laid-back black kid who is in tune with the Universe and so cool that all the other neurotic kids trust him. Then add a couple of generic expendable teens of any color. They don't say much but get shot at some point.

Detention would have been better if the bad guys had gotten to blow up the school. Preferably with the writers inside. The dialogue is bad, and the plot is worse. When the bad guys (and girl) finally hijack a van full of drugs, then they sit inside the van making out. They drive the van to the school because they want to re-paint the van at the school's paint shop, but they never get around to re-painting the van. By the way, it would have been easier to just put all the drugs in another car or two cars or another van or a truck and drive away without repainting the Police Van. They also never move the drugs or sell them or do anything else with the big score.

For some reason, they decide they have to kill the kids and the teacher (Dolph Lundgren) even though when the villains take over the school nobody is remotely aware of it because it is after school hours. The handful of people still in the school have nothing to do with painting vehicles, so why go after them?

Anyhow, the best part of this movie is that the villains are all armed with numerous machine guns, and they keep finding the teens (including a guy in a wheel chair) and they keep shooting hundreds of bullets at the teens and usually miss. Towards the end of the movie there is some bloodshed. For every time someone gets shot, there must be at least three hundred bullets fired that miss. The stunts are pretty bad.

I read one of the reviews that says that this movie had a budget of $10 Million, and I am amazed. When I saw the movie I figured maybe Lundgren had done it as some kind of charity work for some film school where he is the teacher. Like maybe this movie was their end of the year exam. It was a test to watch it, but I passed.


Cheezy action movie starring Dolph Lungren. Lungren is a one time military man who has retreated into a teaching job. But the changes in the neighborhood and the student body have left him frustrated and he decides that he?s going to hang it up. Things get dicey when while watching over a bunch of students in detention some robbers take over the school as a base of operation for an armored car robbery. Its Dolph versus the baddies in a fight to the death. Jaw dropping throw back to the exploitation films of the late grindhouse era where bad guys dressed as punks and some of the bad women had day glow hair. What a stupid movie. Watchable in a I can?t believe people made this sort of way, this is an action film that was probably doomed from the get go before the low budget, fake breakaway sets and poor action direction were even a twinkle in a producers eye. Watch how late in the film as cars drive through the school (don?t ask) they crash into the security turret (don?t ask since it looks more like a prison then a high school) and smash its barely constructed form apart(it doesn't look like it did in earlier shots). What hath the gods of bad movies wrought? Actually I?m perplexed since this was directed (?) by Sydney J Furie, a really good director who made films like The Boys in Company C. Has his ability failed him, or was this hopeless from the get go and he didn't even bother? It?s a turkey. A watchable one but a turkey none the less.