In an attempt to bring back the teen slasher genre that was taken away by spoofs like Scary Movie and Shriek if you know what I did last Friday the 13th, Valentine fails. Why did people like Halloween? Because it was original, new and went beyond anything that's ever been done. Why did they like Scream? Because at least it made sense. Valentine is just a stupid slasher-flick that has hardly any gore what so-ever. The plot is so similar to Halloween and Urban Legend it's not funny. And the moment the killer comes on screen, you know who it is, it's just sssssssssssooooooooooooo predictable. The teen slasher genre is DEAD Get over it!

0 out of 10


Firstly, there are some good things about this film, but it's all cliche slasher stuff combined with a teen movie. In the advertising of this movie, that I've seen, a large emphasis was on the fact that Denise Richards is in it, but she's a poor actress, and not as good looking as people try to make her out to be (not that that has anything to do with the movie). And what's with that look she gives everyone? Perhaps it's part of the character, but like I said, the acting... Still, the writing is fine. You know who it is all throughout the movie, and you can almost predict what is about to happen, but not in an irritating way. I think the book it's based on is probably good, judging by the plot line, but next time I'll read the book to find out rather than watch this.


This stalk and slash turkey manages to bring nothing new to an increasingly stale genre. A masked killer stalks young, pert girls and slaughters them in a variety of gruesome ways, none of which are particularly inventive.

It's not scary, it's not clever, and it's not funny. So what was the point of it?


Valentine is a horrible movie. This is what I thought of it:

Acting: Very bad. Katherine Heigl can not act. The other's weren't much better.

Story: The story was okay, but it could have been more developed. This movie had the potential to be a great movie, but it failed.

Music: Yes, some of the music was pretty cool.

Originality: Not very original. The name `Paige Prescott' Recognize Prescott?

Bottom Line: Don't see Valentine. It's a really stupid movie.

1/10


This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although it

was a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,

not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richards

was again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)

we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie and

judge it yourself.


The Good: I liked this movie because it was the first horror movie I've seen in a long time that actually scared me. The acting wasn't too bad, and the "Cupid" killer was believable and disturbing.

The Bad: The story line and plot of this movie is incredibly weak. There just wasn't much to it. The ways the killer killed his victims was very horrifying and disgusting. I do not recommend this movie to anyone who can not handle gore.

Overall: A good scare, but a bad story.

** out of *****


Its plain to see why the makers of Scary Movie found it so easy to spoof these 'teen slasher' movies. They are so unbelievably formulaic. And if Valentine had been released a year or so earlier, I'm sure they would have been spoofing this film too - that's if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the Screams, I know what you did last summers, and Urban Legends.

Valentine offers nothing new to this genre, except a better than usual ending which, of course, leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel. As always, a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women, killing the main character's friends, one by one, in typically over the top style. Lots of T&A on display, no character development, bad acting, and overly elaborate bloodshed.

The thing I can't stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as 'who done its?'. The thing is that they aren't because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked, and tells the main character who's friends have now all been murdered. Usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg. main character's mother's uncle's fishing partner kicked his friend's father's dog). Everybody still left alive throughout the film is a 'suspect', but they are more 'Red Herrings' than suspects. As we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed.

Valentine followed this formula almost to the letter. ***************SPOILER!!!!!! (mini spoiler anyway)*************** In Valentine the motive was not revealed, but more, left for you to think about given that the film didn't quite conclude in the typical 'teen slash' way. The issue is only part resolved, and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody. Will the killer want more, or were the demons truly vanquished?

This still didn't make Valentine a good film, instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual, which still doesn't count for much. To anybody thinking of making another film along these lines, please don't. Originality is so important, and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Are all teen slasher flicks suffering from a drought of originality? It awfully seems so. First of all, this is a noble premise that could've been utilized well. A rejected young nerd who grows up, stalks and murders all the girls who tortured the hell out of him when he was in junior high? Can't say you had nothing to work with. But this film goes through the same motions as all the other recent slashers. Everything from the score to the camera angles allow us to predict exactly when a false alarm is coming and exactly when the killer will strike. We know the pattern by now. These stupid slasher movies push the credibility envelope more and more by the minute. Let me ask you something: Who, in their right mind, is going to surprise a friend of theirs in a dark, dreary morgue in the middle of the night and just surprise her out of the blue while she's all alone and surrounded by corpses? Does that make any damn sense at all?

"Valentine" is only occasionally innovative. One good shot involves the butchering of Denise Richards' character. She gets trapped inside a pool and the killer pokes at her with a chainsaw. There's some good songs in the soundtrack, including one cool track by Orgy. The music video is contained in the special features section on the DVD.

Even the acting is mediocre at best. The actors all sleep through their roles. Of course, David Boreanaz is often stoic, even in his portrayal as the title character on "Angel." Denise Richards is a fine actress, though, and she keeps a stoneface throughout the movie.

"Valentine" is just like you'd expect: pretentious, implausible, forgettable, cheesy and without a good scare in sight. Don't even bother.

My score: 4 (out of 10)


here was no effort put into Valentine to prevent it from being just another teenage slasher film, a sub-genre of horror films of which we have seen entirely too many over the last decade or so. I've heard a lot of people complaining that the film rips off several previous horror movies, including everything from Halloween to Prom Night to Carrie, and as much as I hate to be redundant, the rip off is so blatant that it is impossible not to say anything. The punch bowl over poor Jeremy's head early in the film is so obviously taken from Carrie that they may as well have just said it right in the movie (`Hey everyone, this is the director, and the following is my Carrie-rip-off scene. Enjoy!'). But that's just a suggestion.

(spoilers) The film is structured piece by piece exactly the same way that every other goofy teen thriller is structured. We get to know some girl briefly at the beginning, she gets killed, people wonder in the old oh-but-that-stuff-only-happens-to-other-people tone, and then THEY start to get killed. The problem here is that the director and the writers clearly and honestly want to keep the film mysterious and suspenseful, but they have no idea how to do it. Take Jason, for example. Here is this hopelessly arrogant guy who is so full of himself and bad with women that he divides the check on a date according to what each person had, and as one of the first characters seen in the film after the brief history lesson about how bad poor Jeremy was treated, he is assumed to carry some significance. Besides that, and more importantly, he has the same initials as the little boy that all the girls terrorized in sixth grade, and the same initials that are signed at the bottom of all of those vicious Valentine's Day cards.

It is not uncommon for the audience to be deliberately and sometimes successfully misled by the behavior of one or more characters that appear to be prime suspects, and Jason is a perfect example of the effort, but not such a good example of a successful effort. Sure, I thought for a while that he might very well be the killer, but that's not the point. We know from early on that he is terrible with women, which links him to the little boy at the beginning of the film, but then in the middle of the film, he appears at a party, smiles flirtatiously at two of the main girls, and then gives them a hateful look and walks away, disappearing from the party and from the movie with no explanation. We already know he is a cardboard character, but his role in the film was so poorly thought out that they just took him out altogether when they were done with him.

On the positive side, the killer's true identity was, in fact, made difficult to predict in at least one subtle way which was also, unfortunately, yet another rip-off. Early in the film, when Shelley stabs the killer in the leg with his own scalpel, he makes no sound, suggesting that the killer might be a female staying silent to prevent revealing herself as a female, rather than a male as everyone suspects. But then for the rest of the film, we just have this stolid, relentless, unstoppable killer with the emotionless mask and that gigantic butcher knife. Director Jamie Blanks (who, with all due respect, looks like he had some trouble with the girls himself in the sixth grade) mentions being influenced by Halloween. This is, of course, completely unnecessary, because it's so obvious from how badly he plagiarizes the film. The only difference between the killer in Valentine and Michael Meyer's is that Michael's mask was so much more effective and he didn't have a problem with nosebleeds. This stuff is shameless.

At the end, there is a brief attempt to mislead us one more time as to who the killer is (complete with slow and drawn out `and-the-killer-is' mask removal), but then we see Adam's nose start to bleed as he holds Kate, his often reluctant girlfriend, and we know that he's been the killer all along. Nothing in the film hinted that he might be the killer until the final act, and these unexplained nosebleeds were not exactly the cleverest way to identify the true killer at the end of the film. Valentine is not scary (I watched it in an empty house by myself after midnight, and I have been afraid of the dark for as long as I can remember, and even I wasn't scared), and the characters might be possible to care about if it weren't so obvious that they were just going to die. I remember being impressed by the theatrical previews (although the film was in and out of the theater's faster than Battlefield Earth), but the end result is the same old thing.


This movie in away was super-clever. It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made. Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original. What is valentine anyway? It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier. There is nothing original in Valentine.

I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off. 1.Prom Night 2.Carrie 3.Scream 4.Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.

I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.

Valentine had no chance of being a good movie. How come every horror movie has to have a "suprise" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene. One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.

Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this. It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit.

Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.

*1/2 (3) -J.Leonard Rollins-


Well the reason for seeing it in the cinema was that it was a sneak preview, else I would never have seen this terrible teenage slasher movie. I mean haven't we had enough of this yet? Scream and Scary Movie at least did not take them self serious! The plot sucks, and the acting is the worst I've seen. (Only Godzilla can compare, which is also the only movie that competes in being the worst I've seen in the cinema with this one.)

There is so many plot holes in the story, and the girls are so alike, that you don't even now who has been killed, and who has not. (and you don't care.) The only of them I knew in advance was Denise, and she was the most talent less actress I have ever seen in this bad excuse for a movie.

Stay as far away from this movie as possible. (2/10)


"In 1955, Tobias Schneerbaum disappeared in the Peruvian Amazon. One year later he walked out of the jungle...naked. It took him 45 years to go back." Supposedly, "Keep the River On your Right" is "a modern cannibal tale". In reality, anyone looking for some insight into cannibalism will be sadly disappointed. The first half of the movie is more like a travel log of New Ginuea, mostly touting the native art. The second half relies on still photos of a Peruvian cannibal tribe, but really that's about it. Unless of course, you are interested in home movies of a Jewish wedding, or Schneerbaum introducing his former male lovers. I give up. Big disappointment and not really "a modern cannibal tale." - MERK


So, where are the cannibals? Those intrigued by the title and the 'real cannibal' appeal of this film will be let down. Instead, we are shown a strange man and his re-visiting of a Papua New Guinea village full of natives, one of whom was his lover several decades prior. The man, Tobias Schneebaum is New York Jewish as they come and somehow, this is intertwined with the documentary as he appears in his yamika in several scenes.

There are no real cannibals here: only stories relayed by some of the natives and by Tobias himself. Not all together a bad film. Very interesting and great cinematography. Schneebaum remains highly likable throughout and provides us with a fascinating glimpse into a life that is about as far removed from Western Civilization as one can get.

It's just not what it claims to be on the cover and in the plot summary.

4 out of 10, kids.


Well, where to begin? I guess I can start with the general complaint regarding the way in which this film is marketed. Call me ignorant for not knowing of Schneebaum's book before viewing the documentary that has been based off of it and decide that I have been living under some kind of a rock, but don't blame me for picking this movie up since the title and the description on the box makes no note of the fact that this "documentary" is actually a companion to said book. Yeah, I felt quite stupid after viewing this little flick seeing as how the reason as to why I sat down to watch it in the first place was to get a good serving of a "Modern Cannibal Tale." I mean, am I a fool for expecting this film to actually cover most of its story on the behavior of cannibalism in jungle tribes? I certainly didn't expect an hour and forty-five minutes of one old geezer kissing his own ass by whining about every little detail of his dull and worn out life. I certainly didn't expect the insipid directing and I most notably did not foresee myself laughing so hard at Tobias Schneebaum and all of his off-putting glory.

Schneebaum is indeed unlikable. The old man just rambles and bitches the entire film making the whole picture a personal tale of his even though he isn't even that interesting a character to fill a story. Oh really? He was a cannibal? Ninety percent of the movie is focused on next to nothing regarding Schneebaum's dirty past. The only time that we really get to see some cannibal action is when Tobias finally breaks his little silent treatment about what happened to him in Peru and say that he had "a small piece." That's it, folks. Ninety minutes of bull later and Tobias Schneebaum is a cannibal by three inches. It's like calling a movie "The Life Of A True Don Juan" only to see that the only the time the protagonist of said film did something sexual happened during college when he once played "just the tip." Unbelievable.

The directing is, indeed, superbly ghastly as there is no flow or rhythm to the story that is being told. Alright, I understand that I didn't read Schneebaum's volume before watching his celluloid tale of it, but I can still recognize some bad pacing and even worse editing. One minute Schneebaum is talking about cruise ships and tourism and the next he's going on and on about how he can't drive and then jumps to talking about some dead relative or some failed and miserable saga in his life. I mean, Jesus, can you at least slam his back story to the first part; follow up with some stuff covering his homosexuality and then end it off with a hearty look into his visit to Peru? Also: I don't particularly care much for Schneebaum's insipid little quips on life and living, but I at least implore the old man to keep consistent with his ramblings. If I hear a guy talking about how he prefers life in the jungle I don't expect him to suddenly bitch and moan about wanting to go back home twenty minutes later. Absurd.

Another note on the directing is the random clips from the story at hand to the small little television appearances in which our hero has appeared. While some might find the clips to be fancy little breaks from the story, the director has overused the gimmick and broken his entire film into pieces by seemingly attempting to place most of the efforts of telling the story on the old reels.

The bottom line, here, is that Tobias Schneebaum is a fraud. Pure and simple. I know that I haven't read the book, but I'm still holding on to the argument that this film is totally useless by noting that a good film must stand on its own. This documentary relies way too much on the assumption that the viewer is already an avid fan of Schneebaum's work and instead goes on from that assumption like a supplemental disk found on a DVD. Schneebaum is both arrogant and bitchy, striking a sour combination when mixed with the fact that his story is remarkably un-riveting. If you're looking for a solid piece on the nature of humans and cannibalism, turn away because "Keep The River To Your Right" is an embarrassingly hilarious self-serving rant over a man who is long overdue for a straight-jacket and a gag.


I Am Curious is really two films in one - half of it is the sexual experimental side of Lena and the other half is her curiosity with political/socialism. Whatever the director's intention, the two don't really mesh together. The director should have just stuck with the romantic side of Lena and made a separate movie for the politics. There is a bizarre mixture of political/war rallies, Dr. King, serious political interviews, flopping breasts, and pubic hair. The film feels more like a fictional documentary than a movie. Other than the interesting sex scenes, you'll be bored dry watching this film. Unlike many other reviewers, I think the nude/sexual scenes are overdone for what it is. If you want to see real porn, I'm sure there are better choices. The pervasive nudity is a major distraction from whatever plot there is. I think the cast did a fine job however. They played their parts believably. There is little of the over-the-topness I'm so used to seeing in the American films during this time.


This film, once sensational for its forward-thinking politics and depictions of free love and sexual liberation, has been reduced by time to a mere curiosity. It seems absurd now that this mostly boring little film had been banned and seized by governments in many countries. Given how socialistic Sweden eventually became, the 'radicalism' of its politics, once controversial, appear naive and almost mainstream four decades later. And its sex scenes, at one time the subject of sensational obscenity trials, look pretty tame in a modern context. Nevertheless, the film and accompanying documentaries detailing its many controversies and influences remains marginally watchable as an early reliquary of 60's youth rebellion. One part of the film that still holds up: its self-consciousness with respect to the 'fourth wall'. Every once in a while, the filmmakers film themselves making the film. The satiric playfulness of this still elicits a chuckle.


The plot line of No One Sleeps is not a bad idea, and the subject matter is of quite a bit of interest. But, throughout watching this film, we were saying aloud, "These filmmakers go to the trouble of finding good locations, the lighting is good, makeup and hair are good...why is the sound so bad?" Throughout the film the sound was echoy, garbled and much of the dialog was unintelligible.

There is some good acting in this film, and I think Jim Thalman is really a good actor. This story, with some of the same actors, would have been worth doing as a high-budget film.

I just can't reiterate enough - if you have a limited budget, dedicate more to good sound. Sound is as much a part of a film as the image, and it's worth doing right. Could've earned a 6.


Hail Bollywood and men Directors !

Really this is the ultimate limit in utter sacrifice made by Indian Woman !!

Viewing the current state of affairs in India where The wives are becoming more vicious day by day and are very possessive about their husbands - the Directors ..also can be called Uncle Scars (refer movie The Lion King) came up with a very new concept on how both the kept and the wife can live together happily ever after sharing everything between themselves ...including the spermikins !!

Story line : Married couple - very happy - but accidentally a mishap happens and wife has a miscarriage - lost the foetus along with the capacity of ever becoming a mother !

Now in in India, the in- laws usually drive away the daughter- in- law if she fails to give them an heir ! So the wife hits upon a major plan - surrogate mother...but the scientists intervened - "Sure artificial insemination" - NO said the artist (Director actually) - "Neighbourhood will come to know that the daughter - in - law is barren so they are going for surrogate mother !!

Neighbours ! society !! gosh the same ones who watch Fashion TV day and night - watching girls between the age group of 14 to 40 ...al in bras and panties - well those neighbors suddenly take an upper hand in family planning and decision making !!

SO the wife sends away her husband to a beer bar where girls are dancing on the stage - all mostly uneducated and illiterate - but men love such women as they can satisfy their egos a lot !

He hires the lead dancer in the pub - asks her to bear his baby - in exchange for money - she agrees - she comes home - becomes pregnant - wife and kept - both co-exist in the same house - in the mean time the prostitute also gets a taste of household life - so much caring people around - she misses them all and cries silently !! In the mean time - no one in the family comes to know that the real daughter in law is roaming around with a pillow beneath her petticoat !!- the mother or other elderly people never took her for check-ups - nor did they try to feel the baby's movements in the womb !!


This movie is traditional bollywood fare as far as the star power, sentimentality and love triangle of emotions. What really bothered me about this movie was the makers' absurd notion of surrogate mother. A whore who conceives a child with someone after have sex with the man (of the family desiring a child) is not a surrogate mother. Neither is she a good candidate for a surrogate mother. I have seen Indian movies and television shows that made 10 to 15 years ago that dealt with this issue more intelligently. The whole concept of the movie is ridiculous and absolutely implausible. I realize that most bollywood movies aren't meant to be plausible, but they don't pretend to be either. This movie wants us to emote along with the characters, but this can't done with such a ridiculous, contrived conflict. I would have expected better from Abbas and Mustan.


I wonder if there is any sense of sense in this movie. Its a big joke. Good.. Its entertaining .. You get to see the most stupid plot played very seriously in the form of a film .. I wonder which audience group this movie is basically targeted to.

Priety (a pros) plays a surrogate mom for a happy couple Salman/Rani who want a child but can't. I wonder how it would be if this drama was a real-life take-off from a real couple's life.

Rani appears happy with another pretty lady in her house who has been brought in to make a child for her & Salman. She cares for Priety and tries pushing her husband Salman to Preity so they may have some romance. When will the audience get fed up of Salman's nakhras.

Though a good past-time, this movie is unbearable. Absurd.


The TV guide calls this movie a mystery. What is a mystery to me is how is it possible that a culture that can produce such intricate and complex classical music and brilliant mathematicians cannot produce a single film that would rise above the despicable trash level this film so perfectly represents. This is Bollywood at its best/worst, I honestly cannot tell the difference. Nauseatingly sweet, kitschy clichés on every level, story-line, situations, dialog, music and choreography. To put it bluntly, you must be a retard to enjoy it. I watched it to satisfy my cultural curiosity, but there were times when I had to walk away from it, because I could not take it any more. The only redeeming quality of the movie is the exquisite beauty of the leading actresses.


... but the keyword here is "usually." I have been known to adore movies EVERYONE thinks are dumb. But in the world of B-rated movies, THIS one is Z-rated. Absolutely ridiculous. The thing I respect about most of my favorite B-rated movies are that they don't take themselves too seriously. The makers of movies like that sort-of treat the movie lightly, even if it's a heavy topic. I get the impression, however, that the producers of this movie took themselves way to seriously, like they were putting together a 10-star classic, complete with poor attempts at poignant lines and dumb camera shots. Nevertheless, despite all this, I STILL gave it 4 out of 10 stars, as I am biased towards movies like this. If you're a B-rated fan, however, I would try too hard to find this one.


Don't even ask me why I watched this! The only excuse I can come up with that I was sick with Bronchitis and too weak to change the channel. :) It's too terrible for words, the movie that is, not the Bronchitis. The acting is deplorable, Richard Grieco hams it up as a trigger-happy, gun-slinging serial killer with a penchant for knocking off cops. Nick Mancuso phones in a performance as the cop on his trail and Nancy Allen manages to put in the only sympathetic role in the entire film. The script is dismal, peppered with clichéd lines, "Are you ready, Pardner?" purrs Richard Grieco to every single one of his victims. Dire. Avoid.


The French film "Extension Du Domaine De La Lutte" directed by iconoclast film maker Philippe Harel is based on the book of the same name written by a controversial writer Michel Houellebecq.He has also worked on this film's scenario.According to British cinema magazine Sight and Sound,it is also known as "Whatever".This film has been hailed as a breath of fresh air for French cinema due to its not so common theme of sexual politics and its implications on two stupid information technology workers.The film is marred by its much too evident voice over which introduces us to the main character.This makes us viewers feel as if we are watching a book that is bring read. The basic premise of problems related to loneliness due to chronic sexual drought is fine but the film goes out of hand once the hero starts recounting the misery faced by him and his friend.Instead of sticking to its main topic the film veers in other directions leading to its downfall.Beware:some women viewers might find not only the film but even its two heroes as moronic misogynists.


Two years ago, on Berlin Film Festival we watched the Amos Kollek movie "Sue" in the Panorama program, with a wonderful Anna Thomson in the leading part. It's a film about loneliness and sex, and how the one thing is compensated by the other. In the same section on the Festival now we have to complain the superfluous antithesis of Sue, "Extension du domaine de la lutte", which now tries to convince us that loneliness and having NO sex is one and the same problem. But unfortunately we can't sympathize with "our hero" (how he is called by the story-teller), because he is unnecessarily and incomprehensibly tired of company and himself. Own fault, I'm sorry. I can't understand him. Not enough, the writer/director/actor want us admitting to him, that it's not his destroyed self-consciousness or the passivity of his personality, what brought him so far, but the rotten society and its image of sexuality. Yes, there are some deeper insights about gender relations, but we won't follow him so far... And the point is, that there is rather any sign of reflection about his own portion to the fate, having no sex. Who didn't notice yet, it's a quite depressing film...

In the beginning, there had been some starts to be more accurate in sketching the situation. At the bed store the "hero" speaks about the hindrances buying a new bed. Perhaps it's too broad getting up the stairs, you have to stay at home half a day... THIS is a satire about a character, who doesn't know taking the life and heart in hands, DOING something... The movie doesn`t follow this path, but handles his characters with helplessness. Nobody believes, that "our hero" is able to instigate Tisserand for a murder. Too dull, too kind, too - passive (not to mention Tisserand's complex; he has an inhibition, but he couldn't be, of course, a murderer of women!). To finish: There are women and the world, it's not a device of a modern sexualized society. Help you as you can, but don't follow the messages and the "wisdom" of this movie, which announces bankruptcy to human relationships, without seizing the real conflicts within.


Blank check is one of those kids movies that could have been a great suspense thriller for the kids but instead it's a tired lame home alone ripoff that isn't worth a dime. Quigley is a criminal who just escaped from jail and gets his hidden million dollars from a big score and then we meet Preston a frustrated kid whose room is taken over by his brothers to start a business and obviously dad treats his brothers better because they make money the same day he goes to a kid's birthday party and since his dad is a cheapo he goes on little kids rides while the other kids go on roller coasters then he receives a birthday card and a check of 11 bucks how cheap is this family? So he goes to the bank to open an account and meets the gorgeous Shea Stanley were her parents mets fans? he finds out he needs 200 to open a account meanwhile quigley gives his million to his banker friend and finds out the bills are marked so he will send a lackey named juice to get the unmarked ones when Preston leaves his bike gets run over by quigley he's about to write a check when he spots the cops and bolts back home his parents scolded him about his busted up bike and gets grounded what? their kid got almost run over and they worried about a bike? So Preston forges a million dollar check via his computer and comes back only to be escorted to the banker thinking that he's juice he gives Preston the money but the real juice came and realized they been duped by a kid! So Preston buys a mansion under the name Macintosh gets a limo driver who says unfunny jokes and goes on a epic shopping spree then he spots Shea and talks about opening his account kid you're loaded and you're talking about opening an account? We soon realized Shea is actually an FBI agent tracking down quigley and his two other accomplice's then he told his cheapy dad he's got a job working for Mr Macintosh and spends the day riding go karts playng vr games and hanging out with his limo driver buddy then he goes out on a date with Shea in a fancy restaurant what a 10 year old wining and dining a 20 something FBI agent? Afterwards he takes her to a street geyser and playing around in the water messing up Shea's 300 dollar dress yet she takes it well if this was a bit realistic she would slap him for messing up her expensive dress so quigley and the others still mad interrogates a little kid and quickly spills the beans and Preston is being chased by quigley in a scene taken from the original script and afterwords he is hosting Mr Macintoshs birthday which is really his birthday when he discovers he couldn't pay for the party he sits in his chair and dad talks to MacIntosh which he doesn't know it's his son he's talking to and talks about Preston should be a real kid and has his whole childhood ahead of him and wants Preston to go home early what? an hour ago you were grilling him about his finances! so Preston asks everyone to leave and sits alone pondering when quigley and the others break in to the house to make Preston pay and so he faces then in a finale that rips off home alone quigley gets spun around in a ball while Preston is driving a go kart juice gets hit in the groin and more antics ensue until the trio get Preston cornered and when it seem all hope is lost Shea and a bunch of SWAT guys come to save the day and so quigley and his crew get sent to jail but is there any hope for Preston and Shea? there is and she kisses him in the lips what? what? what? A grown woman kissed a kid in the lips. come on is she mentally disabled? I mean an FBI agent who knows the country's laws would risk her career to kiss a kid? she could get arrested on the spot! and the most creepiest part of all is that isn't goodbye and she'll see him in 6 or 7 years! oh dear and so he comes home to his family celebrating his birthday so the moral of the story is love and respect can be bought? What are they smoking? The bottom line is that is a waste of time the morals are whacked it's flat as a tortilla the kid is annoying the villains are lame the comic relief isn't funny the brothers are unlikable the dad is even worse the romantic subplot is creepy the plot's shallow and the only saving grace is the cinematography from bill pope which went on to shoot the matrix trilogy and two of the spider-man films so people don't waste your money and go watch home alone instead.

This has been a Samuel Franco review.


Blank Check is a movie that I saw on TV one day and like most movies they air on TV Blank Check wasn't that good. First of all no one I have ever met has seen Blank Check and that includes people that grew up in the 90s. Also Blank Check won't be remembered in the 00s either simply due to the fact that it will be overshadowed by pixar's films. I wouldn't call Blank Check a bad film but its not really entertaining either. (Or at least it isn't to anyone over the age of 6) Blank Check isn't a entertaining film because nothing about it is original. Everything just makes you go "what haven't I seen this before?" Blank Check rips off and tries to cash in on everything from Richie Rich to Home Alone (Which strangely enough both have Macaulay Culkin in it) Blank Check isn't a bad movie, but it deserves to fade into obscurity.


I saw this movie once a long time ago, and I have no desire to ever see it again.

This movie is about Preston Waters, a hard-lucked preteen, who always seems to be overlooked by his family and who always seems to be short on cash. All this changes when a bank robber runs over Preston's bike and passes him a blank check as compensation. Preston uses the check to withdraw $1 million from the bank (ironically, the money belongs to the bank robber who gave him the check). Preston then buys a mansion and says that he's working as the assistant of a mysterious and wealthy backer named Mr. Macintosh (named after his computer). After that, he just goes crazy with the money.

On paper, this sounds like a great idea. However, on screen, it is one of the emptiest movies I've ever seen. For one thing, it's too unbelievable. I know some parts of the movie were meant to be incredible, but I draw the line at a twelve-year-old boy going out with a thirty-year-old woman, and being put in charge of a imaginary person's small fortune. Also, this was a shallow movie with weak acting, a predictable plot line and characters who are less than memorable. The characters were either cheesy, over the top, annoying, or underdeveloped. But "Juice" was a funny character.

If you're looking for a good movie to watch with your family, skip this one.


The worst movie I have seen in a while. Yeah its fun to fantasize, but if that is what you are looking for, I suggest you see Brewsters Millions. This was just terrible and corny and terrible at being corny. Unless you are five or like terrible movies, don't see this one.


Blank Check is easily one of the worst films of the nineties. The plot is completely pointless; its overtones of lonliness are pathetic. Do you really believe a twelve year old acting as a personal assistant for a millionaire could accomplish everything in this film, like buying a mansion for a mere $300 grand. The notion, let alone the bargain-basement price, will only be believed by the most gullible viewers. Please, respect your intelligence and don't watch this awful, awful film.


I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, "Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!"

Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, "What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!"


This movie is really goofy! I saw it as an 11 year old, and even then I thought it was pretty ridiculous! I would only recommend this film to kids under the age of 12. I really didn't care for it, but I do think that it answers some very good questions that kids need to be aware of, such as: 1)Does money buy happiness? 2)Should I lie (to my parents) about things I think they wouldn't approve of? 3)Does money buy friendships? 4)Is money everything? 5)Shouldn't I tell my parents when someone is trying to hurt me? Granted, these are very unrealistic situations, but I do think that if parents discussed these issues with their children, maybe they should watch this video as well, in order to show/scare their kids that lies have the potential to get you hurt.


A young boy comes into a lot of money and promptly begins to live it up. Unfortunately, the man whose money it really is happens to be very bad. He wants his loot back. When he discovers who has the bucks, he begins trying to get it back. He keeps getting foiled by this little kid who is just lucky enough to keep from falling into the evil man's hands. Sounds familiar, I'll bet. Very predictable, not interesting at all. Come up with something a bit different, ok guys?


Bad Actors, bad filming, choppy dialog, shallow characters, but then again it was a bad premise in the first place. Basically, an 11 year old who is bullied because he has very little money is given a blank check by a moronic criminal. Of course, the 11 year old happens to possess enough technology and intelligence to purchase a house, cash a check for 1,000,000 dollars, and even foil three bumbling idiots, reminiscent of the three stooges.

Preston Blake is an annoying, obnoxious, boy, who decides that, when written a blank check by a complete stranger, he will take advantage of the situation as best as he can. In other words, he wanders into a bank,

hands a teller a check he makes in his printer, and miraculously walks out with a million bucks in cash. Preston is also apparently capable of reaching incredible speeds on his bicycle, due to the fact that a man driving a Jaguar after Preston and his 10-speed could not catch him, even when Preston jumped a row of cars.

Of course, with every hokey adventure movie, there has to be hot heroine. In this case our hot heroine is a child molesting FBI agent who dates the eleven year old Preston, and promises another date when he turns 17.

However, the absolute worst aspect of this film was not its casting, nor its sloppy dialog, such as "The only other way I could think of skinning a cat is to stick a hose up it's butt and then pick up the fur". It was, rather, the entire fact that nobody in the entire film seemed to realize that the FBI does not give a damn about random people . What I have failed to explain is that Preston uses the alias "Macintosh" to masquerade as an entrepreneur of sorts. Of course, the FBI finds this intriguing and sends our young heroine after Preston, who uses his 11-year old wit to first scream when lobsters fall on his face, then treat her to hamburgers, finishing with a ridiculous romp through a cemented area where water jettison's from the ground. Our heroine fails to realize during this whole adventure that the criminal the FBI is pursuing is slipping and sliding right behind the two, as they make their way to Preston's limousine, complete with a 1-dimensional driver who never fails to provide cheap, 3rd rate laughs that the whole family can choke on.

Overall: 1/10 is incredibly gracious for this film. I don't see how it only has a 4.4/10.


Bad plot, bad dialogue, bad acting, idiotic directing, the annoying porn groove soundtrack that ran continually over the overacted script, and a crappy copy of the VHS cannot be redeemed by consuming liquor. Trust me, because I stuck this turkey out to the end. It was so pathetically bad all over that I had to figure it was a fourth-rate spoof of Springtime for Hitler.

The girl who played Janis Joplin was the only faint spark of interest, and that was only because she could sing better than the original.

If you want to watch something similar but a thousand times better, then watch Beyond The Valley of The Dolls.


Larry Buchanan. Yep, same guy who did "Attack of the THE Eye Creatures" and two (count 'em: TWO) conspiracy movies about Marilyn Monroe. He's to blame, here.

Adding onto his ever-growing pile of folders left over from Oliver Stone's "eh-I-grew-out-of-it" conspiracy drawer, here's "Down On Us (i.e.- "Beyond the Doors") which is the working definition of historical inaccuracy.

Forget everything you THOUGHT you knew about Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, says Big Lar', cuz this is the real deal! Y'see, the three big names in rock of the '60s were KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT because they were subversives or counter-productive to Truth, Justice and the American Way, or sumpthin' like that there. I knew it all along.

Anyway, three people (Chatman, Meryl, Wolf) who look eerily like their real life shadows (that is, if you completely close your eyes, turn your backs and walk five miles away from them) show that instead of their recorded deaths, the good old US of A put hits out on them! Yep, it's the truth!

Man, I cannot believed I watched this movie. It's facts, when not stretching credibility to the snapping point, are ludicrous; the acting makes TV commercials look like high drama and if you honestly watch it through to the end, you deserve the "twist" ending. You really, really do; I swear. Genius.

But like the man said: "Rock and roll is dead - long live rock and roll."

Not this flick, though.

No stars for "Down on Us". And that's the movie audience describing the film, by the way....


what ends up killing this movie is its self-consciousness, among other things. here's a short list: 1. irreverent behavior. when the beatles came over and injected their brand of "quirky, irreverent" behavior/humor, it was greeted as fresh. that was over 4 decades ago. get over it.

2. false sophistication. spewing out base, quasi-socio-political-isms is hard ground to make work comically. ask woody allen.

3. the post-modern "i'm hard on this phony world and yes, i recognize it in myself" snake eating itself - used as illustration with another animal in the film itself! - is such a retread.

4. smarmy, smug drollness.

5. amateurish writing, acting, direction... ever seen student films? a victim of itself, about the only thing i can say positive is that it at least has a sense of itself, and sheesh, now i'm getting caught up in the self-reflexive thing that it posits as worthwhile, of value.

but towards... what? ultimately, it just rings as hollow as any other pretentious piece - hey, ever see woody allen's take on bergman, ie: "Interiors"??? well, this just does it more amateurishly.


Not to be confused with the Madonna film "The Next Best Thing", "The Last Big Thing" is a silly, campy, off-the-wall comedy about a man who yearns to start a magazine called "The Next Big Thing" which reviews a variety of up and coming artists. This low budget indie makes "Chuck and Buck" look like a masterpiece. Fraught with lousy acting, poor sets and costuming, etc., "...Thing" has earned some awful reviews and to date has only been nominated for one fringe award. Pass on this one.


After reading the book, I loved the story. Watching the movie I was disappointed that so many changes were made. It is understandable that books and movies differ but it was two different stories, only the names and some of the book's story remained. Read the book and you'll have a better understanding of the movie. The book gives you a better development of the characters. These characters are extremely interesting and make you care about them. The locations were indeed in line with the book's descriptions. Some characters not included. Television has microwaved so many great books and stories, this is a perfect example of that. Input from the author doesn't always insure a good movie but it can help sometimes.


I read the book and really enjoyed it from beginning to end. However, when I saw the movie I was very disappointed. First of all, no disrespect to Deborah Raffin but she was too mature to play a woman of 24/25. The late Christopher Reeve was also miscast-same reason. Will, according to the book,was around 30. I would have love to see a little more exploration of his military life, his friend Red, Elly's trip to see him as that was an important part of the characters' storyline development. Also Miss Beasley was miscast as the book mentioned her being a Plus Size lady. I know the movie didn't have the budget of the "Bridges Of Madison County" which I believe was released around the same time.

But to me this was a very poorly made, low budget, miscast movie. As someone mentioned, I wish that Miss Spenser would come out of retirement and write screenplays for her books as they ought to be. She knows her characters better than anyone, I hope that she would consider doing the casting too. The movie let me down!


I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.

The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.

The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.

Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema.


Paul Armstrong is a liberal, Scottish-born, professor of law at Harvard, known for his passionate opposition to the death penalty, who is hired to take on the case of Bobby Earl, a young black man from Florida who has been convicted of the rape and murder of Joanie Shriver, an eleven year old white girl. Earl claims that his confession to the crime was obtained under duress by a sadistic police officer and that the real murderer is Blair Sullivan, a serial killer already under sentence of death for several other murders. Armstrong visits Sullivan in his cell on death row, hoping to persuade him to confess to Joanie's murder, thereby saving Earl from the electric chair.

At first all goes well. Sullivan confesses and Earl is released from prison when the appeal court quashes his conviction. As this development takes place only a little after halfway through the film, it is at this point that alarm bells will start ringing in the mind of the viewer. "Warning! Major plot twist ahead!" And so it proves. The anticipated twist soon materialises. Earl, it transpires, is actually guilty of the crime of which he has just been acquitted, and probably of several others as well, but hatched a diabolical plan together with Sullivan in order to secure his freedom; Sullivan will confess to Joanie's murder if Earl will murder his parents. (Just why Sullivan wanted his parents dead is never precisely explained). Armstrong now finds that he is himself in danger from the man whose life he has just saved; Earl has a grudge against Armstrong's wife, herself a lawyer, who acted as Counsel for the prosecution in an earlier case when Earl was accused of rape.

"Just Cause" is an example of the auto-cannibalism in which Hollywood sometimes likes to indulge, cobbling together one film by recycling themes and plot devices from a number of others. The first half owes an obvious debt to films like "Intruder in the Dust" and "To Kill a Mockingbird"; about the only difference is that the Sheriff who beats a confession out of Bobby Earl is himself black, whereas in earlier films he would have been white. (Police brutality is now an equal opportunities activity). The central twist in the plot was borrowed from Costa-Gavras's "Music Box", although in that film the revelation does not occur until the very end. The finale, in which a lawyer, his wife and their young daughter are in danger from a former client, is an obvious plagiarism of the two versions of "Cape Fear", which also take place in the swamplands of the American South. Ed Harris' characterisation of Sullivan as a Bible-quoting religious maniac is a direct imitation of Robert de Niro's character in the Scorsese version of "Cape Fear", made four years before "Just Cause".

(There is a postscript. Just as "Just Cause" borrowed heavily from several other movies, seven years later its central plot twist was, in its turn, to be blatantly plagiarised in the Ashley Judd vehicle "High Crimes").

The trouble with this style of film-making-by-numbers is that the resulting films are generally much less distinguished than those which inspired them. The whole is normally very much less than the sum of the parts, and "Just Cause" is a much lesser film than any of those which were cannibalised to make it. Harris is normally a gifted actor but this is one of his weakest performances, largely because he is not so much playing a character as playing de Niro playing Max Cady. Blair Underwood is OK as Bobby Earl the (supposedly) innocent young man of the early scenes, but unconvincing as Bobby Earl the murderous psychopath of the later ones. Sean Connery as Armstrong and Laurence Fishburne as the black Sheriff are rather better, but neither is good enough to save the film. (Connery and Harris were to act together in another, better, film, "The Rock", the following year).

There is another problem with "Just Cause". The first half of the film looks like a standard liberal "issue" movie, anti-death penalty, anti-racist and critical of heavy-handed policing. The second half looks more like the work of a die-hard reactionary, preaching the message that all criminals are evil bastards, that the only way to deal with them is to fry them in the chair, that liberal lawyers are the useful idiots of the criminal fraternity and that police officers who beat up suspects are to be commended as heroes. The filmmakers seem to have been blissfully unaware that the plot twist casually introduced into the middle of their film had the (presumably unwanted) effect of reversing its political stance, or if they were aware of the problem they ignored it. A suitably convoluted plot was obviously thought to be more important than political consistency. 4/10


JUST CAUSE showcases Sean Connery as a Harvard law prof, Kate Capshaw (does she still get work?) as his wife (slight age difference) and Lawrence Fishburne as a racist southern cop (!) and Ed Harris in a totally over the top rendition of a fundamentalist southern serial killer.

Weird casting, but the movie plays serious mindf** with the audience. (don't read if you ever intend to seriously watch this film or to ever watch this film seriously due to the spoilers) First of all, I felt myself rolling my eyes repeatedly at the Liberal stereotypes: the cops are all sadistic and frame this black guy with no evidence. The coroner, witnesses and even the lawyer of the accused collaborate against him (he is accused of the rape and murder of a young girl) because he is black.

Connery is a Harvard law prof who gives impassioned speeches about the injustices against blacks and against the barbarous death penalty. He is approached by the convicted man's grandmother to defend him and re-open the trial.

Connery is stonewalled (yawn...) by the small town officials and the good IL' boys club but finds that the case against Blair, the alleged killer, now on death row, was all fabricated. The main evidence was his confession which was beaten out of him.

The beating was administered by a black cop (!) who even played Russian roulette to get the confession out of him. Connery finds out that another inmate on death row actually did the murder and after a few tete a tetes with a seriously overacting, Hannibal Lecter-like Ed Harris, he finds out where Harris hid the murder weapon.

He gets a re-trial and Blair is freed.

I think... film over....

Then suddenly! It turns out that Blair IS a psychotic psycho and that he used "white guilt" to enlist Connery. He concocted the story with Ed Harris in return for Blair carrying out a few murders for Harris.

now Blair is on the loose again, thanks to Connery's deluded PC principles! The final 30 min. are a weird action movie tacked onto a legal drama, Connery and Fishburne fighting the serial killer in an alligator skinning house on stilts (yes, you read that right) in the everglades.

That was one weird film.

So the whole system is corrupt and inefficient, the cops are all just bullies and Abu Graib type torturers, but the criminals are really psychotics and deserve to fry.

Truly depressing on every level! The system is completely rotten and the PC white guilt types who challenge it are seriously deluded too.

Two thumbs down. Connery obviously had to make a mortgage payment or something.


The form of the film is that of a suspense shocker. There are surprises, twists and turns, reverses and excitements. At times, this is truly an "edge-of-the-seat" film. But it disappoints, and disappoints severely.

The villain of the piece is not believeable; his character does not hold together. I refuse to "spoil" the film, but will only say that the character we meet at the beginning just could not be he whom we see at the end.

The second major disappointment of the film is that--finally, it becomes little more that a bloody slasher film. There is little qualitative difference between this and one of the "Friday the 13th" films. Not that every film need always be totally tasteful, but this film does drip gore on occasion.

Though the film features the magnificent Sean Connery, even he does not measure up to his usual standard, and often just seems to be walking through the paces.


Just Cause is one of those films that at first makes you wonder quite why it was so heavily slated when it came out - nothing special but competent enough and with an excellent supporting performance from Ed Harris. Then you hit the last third and everything starts to get increasingly silly until you've got a killer with a flashlight strapped to his forehead threatening to fillet Sean Connery's wife (a typically mannered and unconvincing Kate Capshaw) and kid (a very young Scarlet Johannsen) in an alligator skinner's shack.

The kind of movie that's probably best seen on a plane, and even then only once.


Look carefully at the wonderful assortment of talent put together to make this movie: Connery, Fishburne, Capshaw, Harris, Underwood, Beatty, Thigpen, even cameos by Slezak, Lange, and Plimpton. They prove, in spades, the adage that a good cast cannot save a bad script. The story line requires so many leaps of faith from the audience that its implausibility should have exceeded even Hollywood standards. It's not particularly original, and the "twists" are downright cruel.


As other reviewers have noted the film dies in the last 1/2 hour. However before that it suffers from predictability and a stunningly vapid performance by Kate Capshaw, who clearly never found her character and ruins every scene she's in. Connery is fine as is Fishbourne, but most scenes are manipulated for effect rather than truth which overlays the entirety with a sense of unreality. And the ending is simply bizarre. The film makers apparently knew when they pieced this mess together that all they needed were sweet potatoes and pumpkin pie to have Thanksgiving dinner, so to compensate they added an overloud "dramatic" score. Every little jump is accompanied by a crescendo of orchestration, to the point where it becomes laughable. If you want an example of major league bad film this is one to see, otherwise skip it.


Seems that the cast should ensure at least an average movie. And so I sat down for 102 minutes of unbelief. Beside Ed Harris no-one seems to own the skills of acting. Even Sean Connery, who I normally worship, must have had an off-day during the entire filming of Just Case. Not once in during the whole movie one actor could convince me.

This made this movie look cheap and unreal.

The story makes up a little. It is thrilling, and the plot is unexpected.

Conclusion only watch this movie if you really have nothing more useful to do.


1st watched 2/16/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Arne Glimcher): Mystery??/Thriller with too many ridiculous plot twists. Despite the very talented cast this movie is way too predictable and just downright under-estimates it's audience. The movie-going public is not stupid and I hope will not keep filling certain stars pockets again and again despite what they are involved with. We think that this movie is going to be about something with Connery's conviction against capitol punishment in the beginning but it turns out to be nothing but a standard, contrived for the audience's sake, run of the mill, let's never get it over with, thriller. We are pulled into every silly switch in character, as they are portrayed to us when it's needed in the story, and we're ready for this thing to be over way before it ends. Yes there is some good acting here, especially from Blair Underwood, Fishburne, and Ed Harris in a psycho-supporting role but the story does not work from almost the beginning to the very long-awaited end.


The performances of Fishbourne (who appears strangely funny somehow) and (short featured)Ed Harris are remarkable, unlike Connery's who doesn't appear to find sense in his role and ends up in the motorial behaviour of a 80yr old man. In fact the screenplay doesn't make sense; imagine a 60 min. happy ending-plot plus a sudden turn appendix without any argumental structure in respect to the characters. It's more an accident than a screenplay and may be good for examination purposes at screen-wrights' schools. The more you remind the details the stronger this impression gets. The capital punishment is not an issue here, although it is a subject from the beginning; it sort of fades away without further comment. The subject-matter and environment could have been good.


A pot - boiler if ever I saw one. A supposed thriller borrowing from "A Time to Kill", "Silence of the Lambs", even an inverted "In the Heat of the Night" with a little reverse murder, a la "Strangers on a Train" thrown in, it fails abysmally where all the above, to a large degree, succeeded. Namely, in delivering thrills. The plot seems condensed from a bigger book, making the plot developments obvious and uninvolving, while the direction lacks pace and verve. To rein in any kudos, a major twist had to be delivered along the way and here it fails palpably too. Connery is clearly slowing down in his old age, barely bothering with his attempt at a US accent and besides seems too old to be the husband of Hope Lange and the father of those gosh - darn kids of his. He even has a father in law who seems younger than him. Laurence Fishburne barely gets the chance to inhabit his role and you're confused from the outset as to whether he's a bad guy or a good guy. Someone once said that flashbacks shouldn't lie - they do, confusedly, here. The rest of the playing is merely average by a reasonable cast in their underwritten stereotyped roles. The supposed climax managed too, to roll by leaving me firmly entrenched in the back, not as should have been the aim, front edge of my seat. Mediocre sloppy Hollywood film making for sure.


This movie is a crappy and forgettable Sean Connery vehicle. The performances are generally crappy especially by Capshaw, Fishburne, and the usually solid Ed Harris. Connery seems miscast as a Harvard Academic. The movie absolutely gets worse as it goes along. It is a third rate mystery that becomes extremely contrived by the time it unravels. The movie squanders an excellent supporting cast. George Plimpton also turns up in a minor role to add some gravitas to Connery as they debate the death penalty. The violence and the atmosphere pepper a third rate mystery/thriller that is manipulation to the highest degree. The scripting and direction are extremely poor. Connery's charisma and screen presence are the film's only virtue. Manipulative, Violent, and Ridiculous. 2/10 Avoid It.


This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.


Because IT IS, that's why! This is the same jealous-daughter-kills-people flick we've seen a billion times. Rosanna Arquette makes anything worth watching, and Mandy Schaffer's brief nude scene (after teasing via scantily clad attire throughout the film) at the end almost make this trite blarney worthwhile, but not quite.

* out of ****


This can't be Mandy Schaffer's last film. Somebody, do something! :-(

Argh.

What little life this one might have had, the directing finished off. Don't blame the cast; they did OK. Even the winemaker's younger brother was pretty well done, and he didn't even get into the movie until halfway through. And please, please put Mandy in some more movies! She's too beautiful to bury her career at such a young age. Ya' breakin' my haht, heah....

Two specific criticisms, in case anyone cares (apparently nobody liked this movie very much). First, the way Traci kept popping up at just the right melodramatic moment, in order to see whatever she was supposed to see, and never got seen in return, was very annoying. Hollywood: please stop giving villains perfect timing luck which runs out exactly when the climax arrives. It's dumb. Write better scripts so you won't have to use that lame plot device any more. If your script isn't good enough to stand up without that, then don't produce it.

Second, Carmen wouldn't have fallen for that fake injury trick that Traci pulled. She already had Traci fingered. More bad writing/directing there.

I could trash this movie further but mercy forbids it. Actually I didn't hate it as much as the others seem to have. It just didn't have much of a reason for being made, unless it was purely a vehicle to show off the lovely Mandy. Oh, and to whoever didn't think she was sexy... the character wasn't very well written, but how can you say she wasn't sexy?!? One or the other of us needs glasses, and I don't think it's me.

MORE MANDY. (Not to be confused with "Moore, Mandy" -- although I'd like to see her again too. ;-)

P.S. Did I mention I hope Mandy makes me more movies? <:-D


Let me be really clear about this movie. I didn't watch this movie because of the plot, I watch it for the saucy sex scenes. That being said, this movie is so god damn awful I flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of Traci (Mandy Schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot.

Spoiler Alert The first scene of the movie already had me cringing.. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside, in pure bliss and serene, then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. When they both finished, they show each other what they had done... and the woman painted A VINEYARD WHEN SHE IS FACING INFRONT OF THE LAKE. What kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake?? And in another scene, Traci gets to kill her teacher's lover by smash him with the sail pole, and then she swims away, and none of the town's police suspected her once. I mean HELLOOOOO? MANDY DID NOT WEAR A GLOVE DID SHE? HER FINGER PRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN BOAT!! After that, it gets worst, whenever Mandy is around, there is the "chilling" sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. It's also a real pity Rosanna Arquette's is in this movie. I feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft-porn no brainer. Same goes for Jürgen Prochnow, who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. All in all, 2/10.


A truly, truly dire Canadian-German co-production, the ever-wonderful Rosanna Arquette plays an actress whose teenage daughter redefines the term "problem child" - a few uears prior to the "action" the child murdered her father, and mum took the fall for the offspring. Now she's moved up to the Northwest US to start over, but her child still has a problem in that she's devoted to her mother. So devoted in fact that she kills anyone who might be seen as a threat to their bond.

Unfortunately Mandy Schaeffer (as the daughter) murders more than people - she delivers such a terrible performance that she also wipes out the movie, though the incoherent script, useless direction and appalling music (check out the saxophone the first time she displays her bikini-clad bod) don't help any; we're supposed to find her sexy and scary, but she fails on both counts. Almost completely unalluring and not even bad enough to be amusing (not to mention the fact that Arquette and Schaeffer don't really convince as mother and daughter), all condolences to Miss Arquette and Jurgen Prochnow, both of whom are worthy of far more than this, and both of whom (particularly Rosanna) are the only sane reasons for anyone to sit through this farrago.

One of the production companies is called Quality International Films - not since the three-hour "Love, Lies And Murder" (from Two Short Productions) has there been such a "You must be joking" credit.


This movie is so bad, I knew how it ends right after this little girl killed the first person. Very bad acting very bad plot very bad movie

do yourself a favour and DON'T watch it 1/10


Oh man. If you want to give your internal Crow T. Robot a real workout, this is the movie to pop into the ol' VCR. The potential for cut-up lines in this film is just endless.

(Minor spoilers ahead. Hey, do you really care if a film of this quality is "spoiled?") Traci is a girl with a problem. Psychology has developed names for it when a child develops a sexual crush on the opposite-sex parent. But this girl seems to have one for her same-sex one, and I don't think there's a term for that. It might be because her mother Dana is played by Rosanna Arquette, whose cute overbite, neo-flowerchild sexuality and luscious figure makes me forgive her any number of bad movies or unsympathetic characters. Here Dana is not only clueless to her daughter's conduct; she seems to be competing for the gold medal in the Olympic Indulgent Mother competition.

It's possible that Dana misses Traci's murderous streak because truth be told, Traci seems to have the criminal skills of a hamster. It's only because the script dictates so that she manages to pull off any kind of a body count.

A particularly hilarious note in this movie is the character of Carmen, a Mexican maid who is described by Dana as around so long she's like one of the family although she dresses in what the director thought would say, "I just fell off the tomato truck from Guadalajara." Carmen is so wise to Traci's scheming, she might also wear a sign saying, "Hey, I'm the Next Victim!" Sure enough, Traci confronts Carmen as Carmen is making her way back from Mass, and bops her with one of those slightly angled lug wrenches that car manufacturers put next to your spare as a bad joke. I rather suspect than in real life those things are as useless as a murder weapon as they are for changing a tire.

In another sequence, Arquette wears a flimsy dress to a vineyard, under cloudy skies, talking to the owner. Cut to her in another flimsy dress under sunny skies, talking to the owner's brother. Then cut to her wearing the first dress, in the first location, under cloudy skies - but it's supposed to be later. You get the picture. We're talking really bad directing.

As for skin, don't expect much, although Traci does own a nice couple of bikinis.

For those looking for a trash wallow, 8. For anybody else, 1/2.


I am guessing the reason this movie did so well at the box office is of course Eddie Murphy. I think this was his first movie since "Beverly Hills Cop" so at the time he was hot. Considering that one made over two hundred million and it was R and this one made about 80 million and it was pg does say it was not all that popular. I have never been a big Eddie Murphy fan, so that is probably another reason I didn't care for it much at all. This one has Eddie as some sort of finder of lost kids. He must find the golden child or the world is in terrible peril. The plot is very bad, but as bad as it is it does not compare to the special effects. I had seen better stuff done in the 70's than some of the stuff this one offers, Ray Harryhausen did better stuff. Still the main reason you see a movie like this is because of Eddie, unfortunately he is not very funny in this one at all and it just seems stupid to put him in the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" type scenes. I guess they were hoping for a fish out of water effect, but to me it just did not work.


Unlike "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai", or "Big Trouble in Little China", or "Conan the Barbarian", which are horrible films that have a certain coolness and self-deprecating humor that turn them into cult sensations, The Golden Child is just plain bad.

The premise itself is not unworkable, and there are some funny moments. But here the Eddy Murphy "flip attitude" just deflates any feeling of tension or danger in the story. And the special effects are silly enough to do more damage to that tension. The "mystic secrets" of Tibetan Buddhism are lampooned rather than drawn upon to compel.

Without a feeling that anything is at stake, or that the characters are faced by real danger, why should we care?

Who should see this film:

-- big fans of Eddy Murphy who can't help themselves

-- I can't think of anyone else

I'll give this film a 4 out of 10 for the occasional joke that worked.


Definitely one of funny man Eddie Murphy's lesser films is this nonsense about a kidnapped mystical child, three hundred year old dragons and a "Chosen One".

Murphy is the "Chosen One" in question, and as the opening song suggests, he is "the best man in the world". A finder of lost and missing children, he is approached by a mysterious Tibetan woman (Charlotte Lewis) who tells him he is "The Chosen One", and that it is his destiny to find and rescue "The Golden Child". For if the child were to die, compassion would die with him, as he is the bearer of compassion.

If all this hocus pocus rubbish hasn't ruined it for you now, it surely will once the movie begins. Suffice to say the plot is abominable and destroys the whole film. Meant to be another vehicle for Murphy's egotistical brand of humour (the comedy isn't so great mind you), the movie fails on many levels. Even Charles Dance as the evil Sardo Numspa can't do much for proceedings. Very silly and disappointing.

Sunday, December 12, 1993 - T.V.


Well, what's to say. THE GOLDEN CHILD falls in the category "so bad, it's good". Eddie Murphy is having some funny (and sometimes quite annoying lines), but you are still entertained. Chales Dance has never been worse than his role as the villain Sardo Numspa (what a f***ed up name is this??).

Who should watch THE GOLDEN CHILD... hm... difficult to say, but my best guess would be people who likes embarrassing movies and can be entertained by bad acting, bad plot and an even more embarrassing dialog.

4 out of 10


Why is it that when a star reaches the top of the star chain, they ruin all the good work by making a bad movie? Burt Reynolds peaked, then started making dreadful Hal Needham car chase flicks. Arnold Schwarzenegger became the hottest property in Hollywood, only to invite derision upon himself with the appalling Last Action Hero. And here, loquacious Eddie Murphy erases memories of Trading Places and 48 Hours with this "family" adventure flick, which is an unbelievably tedious, childish and generally plain awful misfire in which the chance to see Charlotte Lewis's great big breasts in a tight blouse is the most appealing aspect of the entire film.

The story is pure humdrum. It concerns social worker Murphy, contacted by mysterious types and told that he is the Chosen One. Chosen for what, I hear you ask. His job is to rescue a Tibetan boy with mystical powers from a race of demons who want to rule the world. As the main demon, classy actor Charles Dance looks terribly embarrassed to be in the film, but hey, I'm sure he was well paid for sacrificing his talents. Of all Murphy's films, this is easily the worst. I've read some reviews which suggest that it is nice to see Murphy in an atypical role, in a non formulaic kind of film, and while both points are loosely true there's no forgiving the fact that the film - however atypical and non formulaic it might be - is an absolute load of garbage.


Michael Jackson would have claimed a spot for the top-billed character in THE GOLDEN CHILD, and because he loves kids. That didn't work (and why should it?), so instead we have Eddie Murphy out to save the world by rescuing "Kid Midas". I would strongly suggest all future scriptwriters to please thoroughly study the actor's inane dialogue in this quirky fantasy - adventure - comedy that's a step closer to ISHTAR. Whatever Murphy says or does can be best liked, but don't get me wrong about his exquisite comical talent; he doesn't belong in this movie, and the same went for DR. DOLITTLE! The violence and visuals combined are reasons to stamp it as a cult camp classic, and that wouldn't have made any sense as Hollywood and movie fanatics kept cashing in on the guy. Speaking of visuals, they were pulled off amazingly well at the time of Ronald Reagan's presidential fame. Murphy is far better at COMING TO AMERICA and 48 HRS, but this stale movie isn't my touch of golden honey for a sweet crunchy taste.


Bad movie for sure. It's such a ridiculous fantasy with a lot of poor special effects, a lot of hasty scenes (the airport one for example), and a real unfunny time. (Charles Dance) is awful as the evil guy and he is much better in (Last Action Hero). (Eddie Murphy) is doing a non-comic joking, and I heard that this sunk had already succeed, big time success??!! I'll never understand why or how ?! In one TV interview I've heard (Eddie Murphy) himself, when he was nominated for an Oscar 2007, regretted it in a comic way !!

One of the comments said (Hey...It's the 1980s !). Well, no my friend. It's the cinematic foolishness which made a lot of RAZZIE movies all over the years whether it's the 1980s or the 1950s !

There are 2 reasons made me write about this movie. The first is that I'll never forget the long tan fascinating legs of (Charlotte Lewis) especially when she was on bed before the bad guys attack her house, wearing just a blue shirt and OH BOY the camera was versifying about her naked legs as it should be. But how odd ! As I've watched her in following movies and she wasn't that beautiful again ?!! Anyhow the second reason is that I've found this movie's title lately at my list of the worst 100 movies ever!

The bottom line: Bad movie, Greeeeeat legs.


I remember when THE GOLDEN CHILD was released in 1986 it was universally panned by the critics , and I`m talking panned so badly that it more or less ended the glittering career of Eddie Murphy so I guess this movie has something going for it

It gets off to a bad start where Buddist monks kneel in front of a child with a blank expression on his face . Bad guys enter the temple

Child sits with blank expression

Bad guys chop up the monks

Child sits with blank expression

Bad guys pull out giant bird cage and stick the child inside who now sits with ... Go on guess ? You do get the impression that even if they were taking him for a sleepover at Michael Jackson`s wonderland ranch he`d still give the same blank expression , this movie would be better titled THE WOODEN CHILD

The title sequence starts and being a movie from the 1980s a pop soundtrack features heavily . Obviously this might have been cool and funky at the time but now in 2004 it seems very dated . Not only that but it jars completely with the somewhat bloody opening . In fact that`s the main problem ( And boy it`s a serious one ) with this movie - The whole mood seems to change from scene to scene so much so that sometimes it`s like watching scenes from totally different movies spliced together . I blame the director personally but it should also be pointed out that both the screenwriter and producer should share equal blame too . Did anyone know before shooting commenced what type of movie this was going to be ? It`s part fantasy , part martial arts , part buddy movie , part comedy and it`s all crap


I will start this off by saying I couldn't get all the way through it. I picked it up on a rainy day from WalMart like the rest of the reviewers on this site. I figured there wasn't any way I would regret my purchase. Was I wrong or what? Seriously now, who approved this project? They need to be forced to watch this movie over and over until the end of eternity. That's the only fitting punishment I can think of for releasing something this bad. The shooting reminds me of the movies I used to make for class projects on a big old VHS cam. The acting isnt much better. I think the only difference is that there are a few cool cameos. Yay, who cares... Shecky Moskowitz is unfunny, and the ships comedian is an even bigger loser. That's about as much of the plot as I understood.

Overall it's the worst movie I've ever seen. I own it on DVD and have given it to many co-workers to watch. Each comes back and laughs and says "Wow I didnt think I'd ever say I shut off an Adam Sandler movie 15 minutes in...."

My response is always "Well now you can"


I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Going Overboard is the single worst film i have ever seen, and yes, I have seen Cujo. Adam Sandler is an abomination as Schecky Moskowitz, a wannabe comedian working on a cruise liner. That's the plot.

 That's it! Nothing else in the film makes sense, it's all over the place like a mad man's breakfast, and not in a wacky naked gun kind of way, but more of a frustrating, 'throw both shoes at the t.v' kind of way. even General Noriega makes an appearance, for no reason i can comprehend (it certainly wasn't for humour). Add to the mix Miss Australia, who has the worst Australian Accent i've ever heared, and you have something which i won't call the worst film ever made, because Going overboard doesn't even fit the basic definition of a film. I highly recomend seeing this film, as it will elevate the standing of every bad film you ever see. I guarantee the first thing you'll say after seeing a bad film will be "at least it wasn't as bad as Going Overboard".


I wanted to punch the TV. Watching it was torture. I hated it. Never watch this movie. The terrorists are annoying. Adam Sandler is annoying. I normally like him but not in this one. I wanted to break the DVD. This is the most irritating film in the world. The comedian he's jealous of is obnoxious. The only remotely funny part is the rocker with the black teeth getting all the girls. It was so irritating I wanted to punch the TV. DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU WANT TO ANNOY SOMEONE. If you even like Adam Sandler a little bit, Don't buy it. It will just make you hate him. Do yourself a favor, if you see it in the store, hide it to put everyone out of danger of buying it. Its a waste of the $1.99 I paid for it.


First: I bought it at the video store. Second: I watched it. Third: It was boring. Fourth: It was not funny. Fifth: Most of the antics were lame. And last, but not least: It's not only a bad movie, it's a total fiasco.

I am a huge Adam Sandler fan despite this disappointing and forgotten film. I pity it because it was his first movie. Even if you are a huge Adam Sandler fan, don't bother watching this movie. Instead, just take the video, board a yacht, and throw it overboard.


I am a HUGE Adam Sandler fan, and one day I was looking at the Cast&Crew selection on one of his DVD's and saw 'Going Overboard' and decided to go out and rent it. So I went out with a few buddies of mine and rented it. We put it on and we were shocked to see an Adam Sandler that didn't hit puberty yet, he looks as if he was 12 when this movie came out. I couldn't even watch 30 minutes of this crap, I didn't laugh, chuckle, or even smirk at this movie, actually the only time I smirked was when I saw how horrid this movie was. I could not believe how hard he tried to make the viewers laugh in this movie...and it didn't work once. Although from seeing the horribly awful camera angles and hearing the disgusting script I realized why I had never heard of this movie,...because it sucks more than anything has ever sucked before. This movie, in my opinion, was the WORST movie EVER made,....EVER!


Even if you're a huge Sandler fan, please don't bother with this extremely disappointing comedy! I bought this movie for $7.99, assuming it has to be at least halfway decent since my man Sandler is in it and because I assumed some women would get naked (judging by the R-rating and scantily-clad women on the cover). Well, there are quite a few scantily-clad women, but none get naked. I'm not sure what point this was in Sandler's career, but I'm guessing it was even before his SNL days. I can be wrong. This is like watching one of his home movies. He might look back at a cheesy movie like this and reminisce about the good ol' times...but we (the audience) are left to dry. This is hardly a "movie"! Sandler does a lot of talking to the camera, and even admits at one point that this is "no-budget" movie (that's right, not a low-budget movie, a NO-budget movie). So our job is pretty much to laugh AT the quirky characters. There is no steady plot, it's like an extended sketch comedy show--but a crude and badly written one. That guy who played the nasty comedian was completely annoying and it was implausible in the first place that he would receive such a mass audience. And Sandler finds his comic inspiration by saying the one classic Henny Youngman line "Take my wife, please" and the audience is on the floor? I'm not even going to TRY to make any logic here. Sure, Sandler's current and recent movies are not known for making a lot of sense (the penguin in "Billy Madison," the midget in "Happy Gilmore's" Happy Place) but the comedy works. This is a strictly amateurish work, and even if you're curious about Adam's early days in film--you still won't be interested. You're better off checking out his start on SNL or maybe his underrated role in "Mixed Nuts." Of course, the Sandman is not the only actor wasted in this thankless vehicle. Billy Bob Thornton also makes a short appearance, Billy Zane ("Titanic") has a supporting role and the great Burt Young (from the "Rocky" movies) has a significant role.

This awful comedy will most probably be collecting dust on the 99-cent rental section of your local video store--and rightfully so.

My score: 3 (out of 10)


This early Adam Sandler film could be compared to his life as a comic during the same period in 1989. His character's constant acknowledgement of his hidden comic genius and frustration regarding humorous material seems to come more from Sandler than the script. The film is nothing compared to his blockbuster feature films, such as Big Daddy or even the corny Billy Maddison. Unfortunately, Sandler had not yet found a way to express himself in a consistent, successful and funny manner when this film was made, much like his character. The majority of the film's "jokes" come from Sandler having conversations with himself, usually over his unrecognised comic talent and beating himself up because he's too ugly and can't get women. The film is hard to watch too because it doesn't treat itself like a real film. Sandler talks to the camera and the viewers throughout the film, often referring to the film's low budget or questionable content. The film is ultimately awkward and embarrassing to watch. I immediately wanted to forget I even saw this film after it was over, for fear that if more found out about it, it would ruin Sandler's career. Pass this one up at the video store, I rented it for free and it was still a waste of time.


Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like "Sling Blade", "A Simple Plan" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS bad. I'll give you an idea how incredibly poor this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: "Knock Knock", "Who's there?", "The big stinking man", "The big stinking man who?", "The big stinking man - is YOU!". Yes folks, it really is that bad. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he needed the work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is painful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably awful, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like "The Fast and the Furious" and not a "no-budget" flick like this one. 2/10 at a push.


Worst mistake of my life.

I picked this movie up at Target for $5 because I figured, "Hey, it's Sandler I can get some cheap laughs". I was wrong, completely wrong. Mid-way through the film all three of my friends were asleep and I was still suffering. Worst plot, Worst script, Worst movie I have ever seen. I wanted to hit my head up against a wall for an hour, then I'd stop, and you know why? Because it felt damn good. Upon bashing my head in i stuck that damn movie in the microwave and watched it burn....and that felt better than anything else I've ever done. It took American Psycho, Army of Darkness, and Kill Bill just to get over that crap. I HATE YOU SANDLER FOR ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH WITH THIS AND RUINING A WHOLE DAY OF MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This movie was so bad I couldn't sit through it without doing something else. There was no plot and no point. I was thoroughly bored and for a film about a stand up comedian, I couldn't recall one joke or funny line worthy of the description. Politicians with no charisma speaking technical jargon could not be less entertaining.

So how was this made? Is there no quality control in film? Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this horrible experience.

It's hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was able to survive after this kind of exposure. He was not funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy.


I saw this movie about 5 years ago, and the memory of it still haunts me to this day. I was fully aware at how awful it was supposed to be going into it, so I have only myself to blame. But like most, I didn't believe all the negativity. Being a Sandler fan, it just seemed inconceivable one of his movies could really be that bad. I figured it was just Sandler haters. I couldn't have been more wrong.

What we have here is a comedy that does not contain even 1 second of anything funny. That is actually quite an accomplish. You'd think in a 90 minute comedy, they might have accidentally stumbled upon something even remotely amusing. But no, it's just horrible. It's not "so bad it's good", its just bad. You cannot laugh at how bad it is, you can only cry. You wait patiently for a joke that will at least make you chuckle, but they never come.

Have you seen the movie The Ring? Where the people watch a video tape and die 7 days later? If this movie was on the video tape, people would die instantly, by their own hand, and there would be smile on their face as they realize their agony has ended, and that would be the first smile since they pressed play.

You might be inclined to watch it just to see how bad it is, unable to curb your curiosity. Don't. Please don't. Trust me, I'm doing you a favor. There are 2 types of people in the world, those that think Going Overboard is the worst movie ever made, and those that have not yet seen it.


Shecky, is a god damned legend, make no mistake. Until recently I worked for a UK HiFi & Video retail chain, running their testing department. We would go through many new starters, they would be expected to to learn how to fault find the various detritus that returns as non functional in one way or another from the stores. Now to tortu^^^^^ test the resolve of these new staff members, we would issue them with a copy of Going Overboard. We had hundreds of copies of this film because whenever someone who had bought a particular model of Goodmans DVD player that had this film as a free gift, got round to sending their DVD player back, they never failed to send Shecky back also. Our new staff would be forced to use only Going Overboard to test these machines for faults until they had found a disc or two of their own to test with.

Now, as to why this film is so bad, where do I begin?

Adam Sandler, who can be so, so very funny, as in Happy Gilmore, or the Wedding Singer, must have been having one hell of an off day. The rest of the crew stank, and what is it with Billy Zane? His name crops up in several of the worst movies of all time, and he is a decent actor. Crazy. The production quality is absolute zero.

I would have been inclined to give this a zero if I could, because they didn't even have the guts to call it by it's full name 'The Unsinkable Shecky Moskowitz' on release. Even so it is worth a watch so you can see just how far Sandler has come, and just how low he can go.


With Adam Sandler.

This is without a doubt one of the most idiotic films ever made. It's about cruise ship waiter Shecky (Sandler) wanting to be a comedian on the cruise ship. First off, there is not one funny or clever line in the entire movie honestly. It is so unfunny it's pathetic. There is surprisingly not much crude or sexual humor, but the f-word is plentiful. The budget is really low, and that also ruins the film. It takes place on a cruise ship, but it seems they only had money to rent out a small boat and only had money for 10 ship extras, one of which is Billy Bob Thornton. The opening credits are animated reeeeeaally cheaply, and it is just pathetic. I hate this movie and everyone else that sees this will hate it too.

86 mins. rated R for Language.


A friend of mine bought this film for £1, and even then it was grossly overpriced. Despite featuring big names such as Adam Sandler, Billy Bob Thornton and the incredibly talented Burt Young, this film was about as funny as taking a chisel and hammering it straight through your earhole. It uses tired, bottom of the barrel comedic techniques - consistently breaking the fourth wall as Sandler talks to the audience, and seemingly pointless montages of 'hot girls'.

Adam Sandler plays a waiter on a cruise ship who wants to make it as a successful comedian in order to become successful with women. When the ship's resident comedian - the shamelessly named 'Dickie' due to his unfathomable success with the opposite gender - is presumed lost at sea, Sandler's character Shecker gets his big break. Dickie is not dead, he's rather locked in the bathroom, presumably sea sick.

Perhaps from his mouth he just vomited the worst film of all time.


I stole this movie when I was a freshmen in college. I've tried to watch it three times, the second two because friends wanted to see it. "Sweet, Adam Sandler, I've never heard of this movie, but since he's so funny its gotta be funny." Wrong! I can't make myself watch this pile of crap after the dream boxing match/insult war, where burning the guy with a good zinger causes your opponent physical pain. You would think that terrible comedy hurting you is ridiculous, but after watching this you'll know its true. This movie isn't worth the price I paid for it. I've watched a ton of Steven segal movies, and I've even watched Crossroads twice... but I still couldn't watch this.


This HAS to be the worst movie I've ever attempted to watch. In the first 15 minutes, there wasn't anything to keep my interest in this movie. I was on vacation at the time, and had plenty of time to devote to a just-for-the-fun-of-it movie. The condo we were staying in had this movie in stock -- they must have got it from the $1 store or something.

If you like Adam Sandler, this is nothing like any other movie he's made. This started with a bad premise and then just got worse. There's nothing even remotely funny in it.

I've watched a lot of movies, including some I didn't care for. But if you decide to waste your time on this movie, don't say I didn't warn you.


This movie is by far the worst movie ever made. If you have to create a film costarring the guy who plays Lars in heavyweights than don't make the damn film. I have to say that I could watch Leprechaun in Space 6 times before I could watch the trailer for this POS of a movie. Adam sandler should be restricted from any movie after this disgrace. Watching this movie is like a mix of listening to Cher and willingly putting your dick in a blender. Anyone with half of a brain cell will realize that this movie is not worth a dime. If I had an extra dollar and had to spend it, I'd give it to the support Lorraina Bobbitt foundation before buying this movie.


Watching this stinker constitutes cruel and unusal punishment at the hands of Sandler. Truly a slow and painful death.

'Bought the DVD in the $5.88 bin at Wal Mart. But the thought that keeps echoing in my head is, "How can I get my money back?"

The most unforgivable thing about the movie is that the boat JUST DOES NOT SINK!

Best constructive suggestion: Mystery Comedy Theatre. You know that show on the SciFi Channel in which some guy and his muppet-machines spoof the most unwatchable horror flicks (Mystery Science Theatre). IMMEDIATELY, spin off a comedy program and feature this flick. Without a good humorous spoof of this train wreck, I fear that viewers may actually begin following Sandler with ice picks and chainsaws.


I picked up this movie for $5 dollars at a discount book store, Adam Sandler is a awesome actor and i figured it would be a good movie, well, it wasn't. There was absolutely no story line at all, bad jokes, and the other comedian said "The F-Word" every other word he said,cursing usually dosen't bother me but this was over the top. And even worse than the lack of story line was the parts when Sandler would just begin talking into the camera at random parts in the movie, it reminded me of Dora the Explorer when they turn and look at the screen and ask you questions. And last of all is when they would randomly put in Bikini shots of girls at random times in the movie. In my opinion, Don't buy this movie, its a waste of money


This is definitely the worst movie Adam's ever done but at this point in his life, he was just happy to have a movie. There are 3 or 4 laughs in it but I used the fast forward button through some of it. Don't waste your time. I only saw it because I wanted to see all of his movies, but it sucked.