I really must watch a good movie soon, because it seems every other entry or so is something that I despise. However my history speaks, I must not tell a lie. Bobby Deerfield and everything about it sucks big green banana peels. I never thought that I would see a film thud as thunderously as this one did. Al Pacino isn't acting in this film: he's posing. There are many, many scenes of his character, who is a race car driver, just staring at the camera. He's perfectly awful. Marthe Keller is just as bad. These two are supposed to be in a love affair, and there is simply no chemistry whatsoever. Sydney Pollack directed this film? There's no trace of the genius behind Tootsie here. Is this the same man I cheered for in Eyes Wide Shut? I can hardly believe it. Save yourself a horrible movie experience. Run, don't walk, away from Bobby Deerfield.


Just emailed a friend who's in film school about this flick. Something to avoid when making a film - characters blabbering senseless, overwrought, convoluted monologues on screen that are ultimately trite and unconvincing. If the film is an attempt at social realism, these verbal barrages are so over-the-top that they actually draw attention to the film constructed as film and effectively neutralize that intent. Is it the acting, or the script that is bad, or both?

The protagonist is also highly unbelievable for social realism - ravenously consuming canonical English literature and the bible while high or hungover and able to produce such profoundly sophomoric soliloquies while intoxicated? And how is such an unattractive, unwashed and verbally noxious character able to bed most of the women he meets within minutes of encountering them? (I had to applaud when one chick finally threw him out onto the street, despite his whining and self-pitying banter).

The viewer encounters pretentious references to Ancient Greek literature, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. The impending doom of mankind, in the form of bar codes imprinted on our foreheads or right hands in spooky biblical fashion, is presented to a character who is oh-so-cleverly exposed in his role as a guardian of empty space.

This flick is over-scripted and over the top - a melodrama clumsily infused with pedestrian "philosophy" about the meaning of mankind, life, etc. It is trite, overwrought and tedious.

There are some very fine English films available with content similar to this film. "Nil by Mouth" is an excellent, far more interesting excursion into the lives of individuals in a similar social milieu. Ditto for "In the Warzone." And although the comparison is not even warranted, check out anything by Peter Greenaway, who far more deftly handles dialogue, wit and absurd characters and situations.


Johnny and Jeremy are vampires of sorts. Minus the fangs, of course. They're dark, bitter creatures with nothing better to do than to spread their own misery. Through their charms (namely a sharp tongue and a fat wallet, respectively) they seduce desperate souls, who they proceed to torment and victimize. That's more or less the basis of this black comedy, as I understand it.

It's not a blend of black humor that I can easily subscribe to, partly because it bothers me to imagine the audience rooting for the sleazy, main character. I did enjoy, however, the sound and the melody of the rapid-fire (and supposedly very witty) remarks. I was very impressed by the cast's strong acting, particularly David Thelis's; only the character of Jeremy seemed too bi-dimensional. The photography and the music, both dramatic and somber, work very well together.

What really turns me off about "Naked" (and the main reason I'd never recommend it to anyone) is the way it repeatedly seems to present misogyny as a valid way to vent one's angst. In other words, in a world that sucks so bad, what difference does it make if one inflicts some pain on girls, right? To suggest (as some have on this website) that Johnny is not so unkind a person because he's not as rough on girls as Jeremy, seems completely absurd to me. They're both terrible, nasty people. And they're particularly keen on hurting women every single time they get a chance. One could argue that Johnny eventually gets what he deserves, as if his bad karma suddenly swung straight back and bit him in the ass. But still, his and Jeremy's sadistic behavior are treated to a certain degree as a laughing matter. And I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that most people who absolutely love this movie also find that aspect of the film darkly comical.


Had the original casting idea been kept (hunting Rutger, not Ice-T), this movie might have worked. Sadly, racism had to come into the picture (literally) and mess it up. The predominantly black production staff couldn't allow the antagonist be black, so they swapped Rutger's and Ice-T's roles. This was only the start of the downward spiral of this film. Ernest Dickerson's news-room approach to 'directing' only verified that this was another affirmative-action job assignment. Master shot, close up, close up. Gads, 'Who's Line Is It Anyway' even uses more creative camera work. Eric's rewrite of 'The Most Dangerous Game' is at least an attempt at modernizing the classic tale, but fails to give us any motivations for why the characters are doing this. We are never given the reasons, other than "no one will miss these people", why the leader (re-written as Rutger) does these things. Aside from a heart-felt performance by John McGinley, and a fair job by Charles Dutton, do not bother with this one. One small bit of trivia, there was a real drunk-driving accident during filming that injured F.Murray Abraham, and resulted in the death of the intoxicated young driver that caused the accident.


This movie could have been so much better with a script rewrite. Not that I expect a great deal of plausibility in movies, but you'd think that even the homeless and urban-dwelling Jack Mason would question why a group of experienced hunters would want to hire him as a hunting guide. And upon reaching the hunting grounds, poor Ice-T plays his part as if he is actually going to lead these men through woods he's never seen before.

And how does Jack Mason find Thomas Burns back in Seattle?

I'm assuming this movie was based on Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game." A few years ago I showed this movie to a class of 9th grade students after they read the story. I reedited the movie, cutting out all the pointless scenes and all the profanity. It ended up being 43 minutes long.


Ice-T stars as Mason a homeless African-American who finds himself hunted by wealthy hunters (Rutger Hauer,Gary Busey,Charles S. Dutton, F.Murray Abraham,William McNamara and John C. McGinley) however Mason proves to be much harder prey then the usual targets in this ridiculous and slow paced actioner which takes too long setting up actionscenes and then totally botching them.


This movie was horrible. I swear they didn't even write a script they just kinda winged it through out the whole movie. Ice-T was annoying as hell. *SPOILERS Phht more like reasons not to watch it* They sit down and eat breakfast for 20 minutes. he coulda been long gone. The ground was hard it would of been close to impossible to to track him with out dogs. And when ICE-T is on that Hill and uses that Spaz-15 Assault SHOTGUN like its a sniper rifle (and then cuts down a tree with eight shells?? It would take 1000's of shells to cut down a tree that size.) Shotguns and hand guns are considered to be inaccurate at 100yards. And they even saw the reflection. What reflected the light?? I didn't see a scope on that thing. Also when he got shot in the gut and kept going, that was retarded he would of bled to death right there. PlusThe ending where he stuffs a rock or a cigarette in the guys barrel. It wouldn't blow up and kill him. The bullet would still fire kill Ice T but mess up the barrel.


SPOILERS HEREIN

My High School did all they could to try and motivate us for exams. But the most memorable method they used to get us into the right state of mind was a guest speaker, who was none other than Australian Kickboxing's favorite son, Stan "The Man" Longinidis. The first mistake they made was giving this guy a microphone, because he was screaming half the time despite us sitting no more than 3 or 4 feet away from him. Now, his speech was full of the usual "if you fail to prepare, then prepare to fail" stuff, but there were various instances where I got really worked up. The guy stood there in front of us preaching how throughout his life he did everything for himself and no-one else. He was offered many deals in the past to give up kick-boxing, but he never took his eye off the prize of becoming Australia's greatest kick-boxer. He said that he wasn't a sell-out, he was happy and a retiree, he wasn't ever involved in any other activity other than Kickboxing then he plugged his film. Yes, you heard right, he PLUGGED his new FILM. As he talked about it, he got a woman to come in and hold up a poster advertising it, and then he showed this shitty 4 minute clip of this vile film called "Trojan Warrior". (This all being before he was defeated by Gurkan Ozkan in his final career fight (for now))

Stan plays Ajax, a kick-boxing ex-special forces agent that is pulled into the seedy underworld of Melbourne. Ajax's cousin, Theo (Arthur Angel) recently sold out (well, at least Stan didn't stray too far away from EVERYTHING) to the feds, and as a result is on the run from all walks of organized crime. Ajax and Theo get into all sorts of ridiculous situations, from fighting in a Kebab shop to posing as playboys at a bondage party. It's all pretty ridiculous, but if Silverstein was actually aiming to make a credible film here, this man should never be handed a camera again.

I'll admit, I was actually pumped to see this. I love action films, even if they're corny, and especially if it's set in my own backyard. But what I was introduced to was a film with acting that was appalling from the word "go", and continued to do so after the words "for the love of God please make it stop!", subplots were introduced and not even touched on again after they were out in the open, characters were just thrown in for absolutely NO reason whatsoever, and the most over-choreographed fight scenes that didn't even remotely reflect Stan's actual talent in Kickboxing. The cast consisted of useless cameo appearances by just about anyone REMOTELY famous (Dermot Brereton, Mark "Chopper" Read and Greg Matthews). The whole time you're sitting there and playing the guessing game of just who is standing there in the background. Too bad the movie relies heavily on split-second appearances by former celebrities. Remember those plot-holes I told you about? Ajax once upon a time was apparently locked up, wrongly accused for murdering his wife. Now, we hear that Ajax was in special forces via ONE single sentence in the WHOLE film, and then leave it for buggery. This is followed by another SINGLE sentence which persuades Ajax to help the same people who wrongly locked him up. Then, get this, at the end, it is revealed to Ajax that his wife isn't actually dead, but was sold into prostitution. Do we see her? No. Does Ajax go off to find her as soon as he hears this? No. Now THAT's a marriage!

Amidst all this irritatingly puerile crap, some website described this film as "a cross between Jackie Chan & Guy Ritchie". Has this man ever sat down and watched a Jackie Chan film?! Chan shows more dexterity taking a dump than Stan did doing, well, ANYTHING! And Guy Ritchie is the crime-film Messiah, and you're comparing him to Salik Silverstein!? This film is more like a mix between "Pizza" and "Enter The Ninja".

Now, where do you thing the whole "Trojan Warrior" title comes from? Ajax's fierce fighting skills like that of an Ancient Greek Warrior? No. The gangsters' unification to find Theo, like that of the Trojan Empire? No. It's because wait for it Theo carries a condom around with him. Yes, that right, because THEO is ALWAYS PREPARED with a Trojan BRAND RUBBER in his pocket, he is a Trojan WARRIOR!

I had the displeasure of seeing "Trojan Warrior" on DVD, as well as it's "special" features:

 Video clip of "Chop Chop", a rap song by Mark "Chopper" Read: Chopper did this for the sole purpose of proving that ANYONE can rap. The funny thing was Chopper just rapped for 30 seconds and then threw it over to these two albino teens from Doncaster, using such words as "dis" and "dope" etc in their Australian accents. Face it people, rap was developed in the States, LEAVE IT THERE! The clip looked like something a Channel 31 cameraman on ecstasy put together.

 Bloopers: There was no real difference between these and the actual film.

 Stan "The Man" Longinidis Kickboxing Featurette: This wasn't too bad, considering it was just 6 or 7 different fights shown from different angles (I think I saw Dennis Alexio fall over about 15 times in that 3 minute montage).

I don't want to say this film contributes to the reason this country is going to hell when it comes to film, but... oh wait, I just did. My advice to anyone reading this is for you to go out and buy 4 or 5 copies of "Trojan Warrior", tape them together, and use it for a paperweight, because this movie is just that damn bad.


After watching about half of this movie I noticed something peculiar ... I found myself constantly switching through tv-channels to see what else is on - not exactly a good movie trait.

This movie is listed as being in a number of genres, and I must say it mostly failed misserably in every one of them. 80% through the movie I switched over to watch an old rerun instead. Bottom line - the whole movie felt as if the ones making it didn't exactly know what to make and ended up in a concoction with no discernable taste.


Well our standards have gone into the toilet. The direction was poor, the acting was mediocre and the writing was amateurish. And those are the good points. Hopefully there won't be a sequel. Otherwise, I might have to leave the country.


The cover art (which features a man holding a scary pellet gun) would make it seem as if it's a martial arts film. (Hardly.)

I find it interesting that the film's real title is Trojan Warrior. (Trojan is a brand of condoms in the US) This movie is loaded with homoeroticism. If you like that stuff, then this film isn't that bad really. However, consider these points:

There are numerous close-ups of actors' groins & butts, (One scene even features every actor with an erection bulging in his pants.) the film is also bathed in gaudy colors like lime, peach, and red. From a cinematographer's standpoint, this movie's a drag queen! Several scenes feature characters standing EXTREMELY close to one another, occasionally touching as they converse. Also, the cousin of the hero likes women, and every other guy in the movie is trying to kill him. Is there a message here the filmmakers want to convey?

Shall I go into the fight scenes? (Yes, someone's private parts get grabbed in one fight.) The martial arts scenes are brief and unimaginative. No fancy stuff here, just your standard moves you'd see in an old Chuck Norris flick. There's also a car chase scene which may be the first ever LOW-speed chase put on film.


At least the seats in the theater were comfortable and I ate the pop corn as loud as possible to drown out the inferior dialogue. This is absolutely not a girls film. Any blokes who like it, are the ones us ladies can be sure to stay far away from. Dumb story, mediocre dialogue and an overall cheap looking film. I've seen many, many movies but this one is the new winner in the bad category. If you do happen to see it, the one thing you'll look forward to is the ending. So you can finally run out of the theater as fast as you can.


I mean really. This is not going to help the Australian film industry to make this kind of film with no values of any kind. Okay, if you're a stoner and have nothing better to do, then maybe. I think film-makers from here should try to show the rest of the world what great talented people we have, and this is not the vehicle for it. Come on now, this film is just tacky.


In the 60's, having as the background the rehearsal and recording of "Sympathy for the Devil" in the classic album "Beggar's Banquet" by the revolutionary bad boy Rolling Stones  Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones  plus Marianne Faithful, Godard discloses other contemporary revolutionary and ideological movements  the Black Power through the Black Panthers, the feminism, the communism, the fascism - entwined with the reading of a cheap pulp political novel divided in the chapters: "The Stones Rolling; "Outside Black Novel"; "Sight and Sound"; "All About Eve"; "The Heart of Occident"; "Inside Black Syntax"; and, "Under the Stones the Beach".

"Sympathy for the Devil" is another pretentious and boring mess of the uneven director Jean-Luc Godard. The narrative and the footages are awful, but fortunately I love the Stones and "Sympathy for the Devil" and it is nice to see them in the beginning of their careers; otherwise this documentary would be unbearable. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Sympathy for the Devil"


The film-school intellects can drool all they want about the important (imagined) meaning of this film, but it's just that: intellectual drool. This film is creatively bankrupt, and some mistake it's endless self-indulgent wanking as substance. Yeah.

Obviously Godard wasn't a Stones fan. Too bad, because this could have been great. He's capturing the birth of this timeless song and he chooses instead to cover the music with some guy reading out of a True Detective mag or some such crap.

Then there's the endless shots of what looks like 60's librarians spray-painting words on people's cars. And then there's the seemingly neverending "interview" where the actress was brilliantly instructed to answer only yes or no to all the really deep and intellectual questions. There's some dude in a purple suit is reading more crap from a book, which goes on for, oh, only about 20 minutes. And black panthers or something in a junkyard.

It almost sounds intriguing? Well, it's not.

But for unwashed film-school hipsters who don't care squat about the lost opportunities of having full access to the Stones bringing Sympathy for the Devil into the world and would rather hear some English guy reading instead whilst gazing at the covers of nudie mag's, this film's a real winner!

More accurately...maybe Godard just blows.


Jean Luc Godard's Marxist polemic is as close to unwatchable a film as you're likely to see from an internationally respected filmmaker. Bits of political theater, mind-numbingly boring and interminable, are interspersed with the making of "Sympathy for the Devil", featuring the Rolling Stones in the studio.

The process of the song's development, from Mick Jagger playing a demo on acoustic guitar, to the backing vocals being recorded towards the end, is fascinating, and it's worth renting this film just to see the bits with the Stones. Almost half the movie is devoted to this, so thanks to the miracle of chapter stops, you can skip all the bizarre political skits and just watch the Stones put a song together.

When I had this on laserdisc, I valiantly attempted to watch it all, but I don't see how anyone could get through it. I finally gave up and just chapter-skipped my way to the Stones segments.


Firstly, this is a very dated film, non-focused in its exposition of the left wing political revolution. Honestly, when someone says that the only way to be truly revolutionary is to cease to be intellectual ( which in itself is quite nonsensical, since the answer was arrived at by precisely being intellectual) it reduces me to despair; as if we all should return to being apes in the name of equality - it is simply ridiculous. Our intellectuality is only one of many human qualities, but this does not mean we should not educate ourselves to the highest possible degree. But no doubt this non-educational message ties in with Godard's use of rock music; hence The Rolling Stones.

The song 'Sympathy for the Devil', whose creation we witness, and from which the film takes its name, is in fact nothing special. The chord sequence, which is not especially original, was used to much better effect in Led Zeppelin's 'Thankyou'(Led Zeppelin II). Apart form that, 'Sir' Mick Jagger declaims in his usually nebulous manner (rather like Bob Dylan)- notice how the first melodic phrase is unimaginatively repeated over again to form the verse.

Besides the fact that the Black Panthers depicted in this film, don't seem to know what they are fighting for, the most interesting scenes involve the equation of fascism with pornography; a message that in fact undermines the sexual 'liberation' of the 1960s and today ( indeed, a message that would belie the behaviour of The Rolling Stones around the time the film was made).

No wonder, the DVD came free with The Sunday Times! For a truly profound historical exposition of left-wing sympathy, listen to Luigi Nono's masterpiece, 'Al Gran Sole carico'd'amore'.


Picked this up for 50 cents at the flea market, was pretty excited.

I found it fascinating for about 15 min, then just repetitive and dull.

It is neat seeing Mick and the gang in their prime, i wish there was not so much over dubbing of dialog so I could hear what there are saying and playing.

The skits are politically dated and incredibly naive and simple, sort of poorly written Monty Python on acid. I spent more time looking at the late 60's England back drops rather then what was actually happening in the silly skits.

This movie is a good reminder that times really change,and what was important quickly becomes just plain silly. Good song, but it has now been played to death by this DVD.


It utterly defeats me why Godard is taken so seriously - and One Plus One is a great example of his ineptitude as both a filmmaker and an 'intellectual' polemicist. It's hard to credit that Godard actually believed all that Marxist and Maoist kant. Anyone with half a brain could work out the bankruptcy of those 'isms' and how many people they had destroyed and were continuing to destroy even as Godard was making his films supporting them. As a filmmaker, ask yourself: would you have boring voice-overs reading tedious political diatribes at your audience, and then, when you couldn't think of anything else to do, layer another voice-over to the first voice-over, which had lost its listeners after the first 100 words in any case? Brilliant, Jean-Luc! As for Godard insisting on making a film with the Rolling Stones: of course he did; wouldn't you? It was the only guarantee of getting such mindless rubbish seen in the first place: the genius of the Stones eclipsing a talentless and babbling political idiot set loose with a camera. The bookshop scene wasn't worthy of even the worst fringe theatre, and was an insult to the intelligence of even the young children who were used to play in it - as could be readily seen. Copping-out by allowing friendly critics to claim that all this artless crap was a satire on mainstream film-making is no more than a safe get-out to offer those who clearly see Godard's poverty of intellect and arrogant contempt for his audience. Ironic that Godard's one-time great friend, Truffaut, with Nuit Americain, made the best film about film-making ever, and Godard made the worst with Le Mepris! Incidentally, Godard didn't choose the Stones' track of Sympathy With the Devil. It just happened to be the track they were working on when the 'film' started shooting at Barnes Olympic Studios.


As a casual listener of the Rolling Stones, I thought this might be interesting. Not so, as this film is very 'of its age', in the 1960's. To me (someone born in the 1980's) this just looks to me as hippy purist propaganda crap, but I am sure this film was not made for me, but people who were active during th '60's. I expected drugs galore with th Stones, I was disappointed, it actually showed real life, hard work in the studio, So much so I felt as if I was working with them to get to a conclusion of this god awful film. I have not seen any of the directors other films, but I suspect they follow a similar style of directing, sort of 'amatuerish' which gave a feeling like the TV show Eurotrash, badly directed, tackily put together and lacking in real entertainment value. My only good opinion of this is that I didn't waste money on it, it came free with a Sunday paper.


It was difficult to sit through this horrible heretical adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. Apparently Matt Frewer was cast because he is tall and skinny. His skull-like face made for a good zombie in the Dawn of the Dead remake, but as Sherlock Holmes he looks like a scarecrow. Not only does Frewer have a lanky lackadaisical walk that is hard to watch, but he looks uncomfortable in the stereotypical Holmes overcoats that he is wearing. Not only that, but while the coat is gray twill they apparently could not find a matching cap. So his cap is black and it looks shiny as if it were made of polyester. Whatever the cap was made of, it looked very new and artificial. Jeremy Brett occasionally wore those traditional outfits, but Brett did not have to dress-up like Sherlock Holmes in order to look the part. Frewer on the other hand is painful to watch. Even in the full "Holmes" outfit, he does not carry himself like Sherlock Holmes.

Frewer's cadaverous face grinning all the time as he spouts on and on in a very bad "Upper-Crust" British accent is painful to see and listen to. To say that Frewer is overacting is an understatement. After he finishes each sentence with some kind of nasal hum, he then sneers as if that were some kind of British trait. When I started watching this I thought it might be a comedy featuring Wishbone, the Jack Russell Terrier. I thought Frewer had been cast as some kind of foil for Wishbone. But sadly, there is no dog in this movie except for Frewer. Wishbone would have made this movie a lot better.

Not only does Frewer's version of Sherlock Holmes never stop talking (in that awfully artificial British nasal accent), but he is much to friendly and kind. Frewer is always smiling at the witnesses he talks to, and he is so polite and courteous that he could be teaching at a Charm School instead of being a Sleuth. Perhaps since this is a Hallmark Channel production, they are trying to make a children's version of Sherlock Holmes (Wishbone was better at that, too) that was kindler and gentler. Whatever the point of Frewer's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, it is flatter than a pancake, and easily the worst version of Sherlock Holmes that I have ever seen (including the previous worst, by Charlton Heston).

Overall, the tone of this film is awful. It reminded me of a typical episode of Barnaby Jones or Murder She Wrote or Diagnosis Murder. All the suspects over-acted suspiciously and glared at the victims before they were killed. Holmes and Watson are explaining every clue to each other during the entire movie. Even on Murder She Wrote there is less exposition.

This Sherlock Holmes does not even compare very well to Jim Rockford of the Rockford Files and it is miles below Columbo. The awful dialog is probably the fault of the writer. It is obvious that who ever wrote this script has very little familiarity with Sherlock Holmes, especially the BBC version with Jeremy Brett. This movie has all of the atmosphere of an episode of Little House on the Prairie. The fact that the actors seem to be smirking when they enunciate their lines in their fake accents does not help.

The only minor bright spot is Ken Walsh who plays Doctor Watson with some dignity. Walsh does not ham it up compared to Frewer, and when he is often interviewing witnesses, his demeanor and conversational style are much more natural and credible. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is amateurish, and the visual clues they give by glaring and making faces at each other (to show they are suspicious) is something that I had not seen in any modern movie.


Dan Duryea, a perfectly decent B-movie actor who made lots of lookalike noirs in the 1940s, can't do much with this one: young man is accused of murdering an unhappily married singer; when he's sentenced to die, his wife decides to solve the case herself with help from the dead woman's husband. After a dazzling opening shot, flick quickly settles into B-movie formula. It certainly looks good, but the twist finish is colorlessly handled and the cast (including Peter Lorre and Broderick Crawford) is just a bit stiff. Based on a Cornell Woolrich novel, and passable for a single viewing.

** from ****


"Black Angel" is minor whodunit, with June Vincent as a woman trying to save her husband from the electric chair after he is found guilty of killing an old acquaintance. Dan Duryea (the husband of the murdered woman) decides to help Vincent find the real culprit. Peter Lorre has one thankless role as a suspect. This film noir looks and plays like a cheap programmer, never achieving anything special. It is pleasant enough but then, at some point, it stops making sense and the solution to the mystery provokes one of those big "give me a break" reactions. That ending alone could have sank the film completely, but what precedes the conclusion is not very good either. Vincent is a wimpy heroine and Duryea was never very good at playing good guys. I love film noirs, but this one was a real disappointment.


A mercilessly corny and painfully unfunny attempt to transplant the character of Sheriff Bart from Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles into his own weekly sitcom, this is really as bad as some people say it is!

The laugh-track only serves to remind the unamused viewer what all in this supposed comedy is intended to be a joke and just how desperate for laughs it really is!

However, it is somewhat interesting to see Louis Gossett Jr. trying his best to impersonate Cleavon Little. His embarrassment shows through in every scene. He was much funnier in the HBO movie El Diablo than he was here in this slab of cheese!

Truly the best and funniest thing about Black Bart is the name of his horse!


Watching this was like getting a large mackerel slapped in your face over and over again. Even when you thought, "That mackerel surely can't be coming around again," *slap* there it was. I'm not sure what they were thinking. This is the sort of pilot I watched and wondered, "Did the actors know they were on a doomed ship destined to never be made into a series?" Not only black stereotypes but Swedish and Indian ones as well. And while "Blazing Saddles" made these stereotypes into a mix of comedy and uncomfortableness, these stereotypes were just downright offensive. There was no plot line, the ending was slapped on, and the jokes aren't. Still, if you are a student of comedy, watch this pilot to see what you shouldn't do.


To review this movie, I without any doubt would have to quote that memorable scene in Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" (1994) when Jules and Vincent are talking about Mia Wallace and what she does for a living. Jules tells Vincent that the "Only thing she did worthwhile was pilot". Vincent asks "What the hell is a pilot?" and Jules goes into a very well description of what a TV pilot is: "Well, the way they make shows is, they make one show. That show's called a 'pilot'. Then they show that show to the people who make shows, and on the strength of that one show they decide if they're going to make more shows. Some pilots get picked and become television programs. Some don't, become nothing. She starred in one of the ones that became nothing." Now to stretch on what Jules was talking about, there are BILLIONS of television shows/pilots that were never aired because they simply were not...well, good. Probably the most notorious pilot that comes to mind is "W*A*L*T*E*R", a spin-off to "M*A*S*H" with Gary "Radar" Burghoff as the lead. Hmmm, would somebody really want to be watching Radar for a half-hour trying to solve crimes? Hence, the show was never picked up. What many people don't know (or what they thought they knew) is that pilots are hardly ever shown on the air, for they are made strictly for the Television networks for them to decide. Some have made they're way past and got onto the air (The pilot for the animated series "American Dad" comes to mind, as the show's serial itself didn't begin until nearly four months later. However, there are times were we should all be glad pilots never make it to air, and this here is why.

"Black Bart", a supposed tie-in with the Mel Brooks comedy classic, "Blazing Saddles", is a stale and bland "sitcom" with little heart and no soul. "Saddles" was a controversial comedy, nevertheless, with it's racist humor and vulgar comedy, which comes to mind "what idiot decided this would make a great television show FOR PRIME TIME TV?!?" I say "supposed", because none of the memorable characters from the movie, aside from Bart, on in this mess of a TV show. Mel Brooks wasn't even involved with the production of the serial and this was the first mistake in a long line (In a related story, I recently found out about an unaired TV pilot for a series based on the movie "Clerks." that Kevin Smith was no involved in....you see what happens?!?).

Set somewhere around the same time as the movie (or at all), the story circles around the only Black sheriff in the wild west, named appropriately 'Black' Bart, who is this time played by future Academy Award winner Louis Gossett Jr., obviously before his stint in "real" acting, whereas in this he is playing a "G-rated" Richard Pryor. Most of the other characters are carbon (if not, really bad) copies of the characters in the movie: Jim, The Waco Kid is replaced by a similar looking character named Reb Jordan, a former Confederate soldier who is quick with the gun. Lilian Von Schtupp is now Belle Buzzer, a more of a ripoff of the character being that she's a show dancer and a German with a Marlene Dietrich-type accent and personality. While that's pretty much the end in similarities, The lead "bad guy" in the story is Fern Malaga, played by Noble Willingham, who I assumed would've been Hedley Lamar if Warner Bros. secured the rights to the name (See trivia for "Blazing Saddles") and his son Curley...I dunno, Taggart I suppose? The story is a poor excuse for a sitcom, much less a pilot. Bart deals with the mayor's drunk son and he's out-of-control behavior which has caused the town to spin. Really, it's a story that tries to introduce all the characters in the "series" and doesn't focus on the variety and context that would make this an "alright" show. I can't really call it a sitcom (and even if I wanted to) and that's primarily the fact it was shot on the backlot at Warner Bros. Studios and later added a laugh track, so the show is set up almost exactly like "M*A*S*H" (complete with a bland and dull "laughing" that is identical to the series). The acting is so-so, but there's one part that always make me laugh, and that's when the actor playing Reb Jordan almost seems to forget his lines and tries really hard to remember them while trying to sputter out a piece of dialogue. HA! The script is rather dull and is attempts to make racism more humorous than it was in the movie (Surprisingly, they use the word "N***er" numerous amount of times through a 22-minute episode, rather touchy for it's time period and even for today) and it gets repetitive.

If you ever get your hands on this unseen piece of sssss...surly interesting novelty item, watch it just for the sake of the feeling for watching pilots (It's on the collector's edition of "Blazing Saddles", God knows why). There, yourself get a first hand chance for the reason why many movie tie-in pilots never air.


This very unfunny failed TV Pilot can be found as an extra on the 30th Annivesery DVD Special Edition "Blazing Saddles". Imagine the movie without the satire, humor, or writing skills. But with all the trappings of a typical lame '70's sit-com show complete with obtrusive laugh track and you'll still have no clue how sheer putrid this failed show was. What the hell was Lou Gossett Jr. thinking when he signed onto this disaster?? This was possibly the worst thing he's been in (and yes I'm including the first "Punisher" movie and "Iron Eagles 3". Steve Landesberg, I understand as he can't say no to crap.

My Grade: F


I just watched the 30th Anniversary edition of Blazing Saddles, one of my all time Favorites!! The TV Pilot for Black Bart stunk. The plot was non-existent and the acting was not good. It was obviously an attempt to profit off of the success of Blazing Saddles and there have been TV shows that have succeeded in doing take-offs of big movies, but this one would never have worked. Considering that for so many years TV would not even play the farting noises when they televised the movie, it is inconceivable that they thought they could put a show on TV with the "N" word thrown around. On the other hand, I enjoyed seeing a lot of familiar faces!!! There were quite a few actors/actresses that I recognized from other shows over the years. I had to write down all the names and do a few searches. That was fun. I was arguing with my mother if Steve Landesberg was from Barney Miller or Mash. I won! :)


This was on the 30th Anniversary DVD for Blazing Saddles, itself brilliant, but not this. Nowhere did I see Mel Brook's name on here and I can guess why, he's got a lot more sense to not be associated with this pilot. My gawd, who would find this funny. Sure there may be a race issue but for me it just wasn't funny, well cause it's simply not funny. It's like the writers didn't even try to be funny, just to cash in on being tied with Blazing Saddles. Did they expect this show to go for several seasons when they made this pilot? Flat out, they didn't care. It was a quick cash cow which thank god didn't cash out. I guess it's useful for historical purposes only, or only to demonstrate how stupid and unimaginative Hollywood writers can be.


"Dutch Schultz", AKA Arthur Fleggenheimer, was a real person and his rather nasty life is fairly well documented. This movie which purports to depict his life should have used a fictional character, because the overdramatized events are too strong a departure from the facts and the chronology. Not only that, it ignores some interesting details which other versions have included such as the public relations fiasco in upstate N.Y. and his religious conversion. It is true that he was executed by Luciano, Lansky, et. al. but that's as far as it goes. The exploding plate scene which represents Luciano carrying out the execution of Bo Weinberg in his own home, assisted by his own mother is rediculous. Also, there is the scene in which Dutch approaches his own mother to pay protection to Legs Diamond. It just doesn't work. The character of Mrs. Fleggenheimer doesn't work either. This movie does not need a doting Jewish mother for comic relief. The lame representation of Legs Diamond was humorous enough. I'm sure the man is turning in his grave. And, by the way, Dutch did in fact personally kill people, but, he was not Rambo or 007. The scene in which he wipes out the brewery is absurd. I don't know. Maybe it was supposed to be a comedy and I just didn't get it.


As I write this review in 2008, we are mired in a remake culture. Movie studios seem determined to ruin as many classic films as they can with thoroughly pointless updates including 'King Kong, 'The Wicker Man' and practically every film that ever starred Michael Caine. This lazy remake mentality is not a new phenomenon, however, as 'Dough for the Do-Do' proves. An entirely pointless colorized version of Bob Clampett's surreal masterpiece 'Porky in Wackyland', 'Dough for the Do-Do' sucks the life out of the original by splashing colour all over Clampett's original footage and adding some lame new footage overseen by Friz Freleng. Freleng was an entirely unsuitable director to be tampering with Clampett's source material, although in truth no director could hope to come close to Clampett's inspired insanity. Inevitably, then, 'Dough for the Do-Do' is nothing more than the raping of a classic with an appalling new title attached. For cartoon fans like myself, its equivalent to a colorization of 'Casablanca'.


Growing up, Joe Strummer was a hero of mine, but even I was left cold by this film. For better and worse, The Future Is Unwritten is not a straightforward "Behind the Music" style documentary. Rather it is a biographical art film, chock full of interviews, performance footage, home movies, and mostly pointless animation sketches lifted from "Animal Farm." The movie is coherent but overlong by about a half hour.

The campfire format, while touching in thought, is actually pretty annoying in execution. First off, without titles, its hard to even know who half of these interviewees are. Secondly, who really needs to hear people like Bono, Johnny Depp, and John Cusack mouth butt licking hosannas about the man? They were not relevant to Strummer's life and their opinions add nothing to his story.

This picture is at it's best when Strummer, through taped interviews and conversation, touches on facets of his life most people did not know about: the suicide of his older brother, coming to terms with the death of his parents, the joy of fatherhood. To me, these were most moving because it showed Joe Strummer not as the punk icon we all knew and loved, but as a regular human being who had to deal with the joys and sorrows of life we all must face.

There have been better, more straightforward documentaries about Strummer and The Clash. (Westway, VH1 Legends, and Kurt Loder's narrated MTV Documentary from the early 90's come to mind.) Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten is for diehards only.


Strummer's hippie past was a revelation, but overall this felt like crashing a wake. Campfire stories work best around the intimacy of a campfire. There were just too many semi-boring old friends anecdotes and too much filler stock footage. I love The Clash and Joe for not reuniting and selling their songs until now (FU Mick Jones), but this doc left me wanting..to relate more. Using campfire storytellers without proper explanation of who is telling the anecdote alienates the viewer to some extent. They should have been interviewed on their own. Even using Strummer's 'radio DJ voice' did little to glue the film together. And can someone explain all the flags flying behind the campfire scenes? After the awesome "Filth And The Fury" I hoped Temple could deliver. A Joe Strummer doc deserves better.


I love the music of the Clash and I love the music of Joe Strummer and The Mescaleros. I went to this movie hoping to learn about the man behind most of that. But I came out of the theatre not knowing much more about Joe than I already did after reading the entry on Wikipedia. The movie never really gets through to the person, his thoughts and feelings. What they did was to collect the little material that they had, shaky blurry videos and to interview some people about Joe Strummer at a camp fire. It turns out that most of these people knew him very little or not at all, and that the director just wanted them in the movie in order to have some more celebrities say, "Oh, he was such an inspiration to all of us". Like Bono or Johnny Depp (whom they seemingly asked to keep his pirate costume on to benefit from his current success in Pirates of the Caribbean). It seems that the director could not even wait until the body was cold before he jumped in to sell his version of "the greatest punk rocker and hippie at heart" that ever lived, sanctifying the person without really knowing enough about him.

Sure, being a fan i enjoyed seeing the images of the band, hearing the anecdotes behind the songs and such, but in the end I felt like what remained as the portrait of Joe Strummer could have easily been told in 60-90 minutes.

Go see the movie if you are a fan, otherwise better listen to some music of the Clash or even better the undeservedly unknown Mescaleros, where Joe Strummer reached the peak of his musical development before his death, melting all his rich influences together to one amazing sound.


In the opening scene of "Malta Story" Mr A.Guinness bore such a startling resemblance to Noel Coward that I fully expected his first words to be "Certain women need striking regularly - like gongs" or some such world - weary bon mot.Unfortunately his dialogue is hardly deathless prose and even the Master would have had trouble bringing it to life.Indeed Mr Guinness wanders through the picture as if looking for a focal point and failing to find one.And therein lies the fatal weakness of the whole movie.Mr J.Hawkins likewise gives up early on and ends up giving a "Jack Hawkins" performance without an ounce of individuality.It could have been spliced from any of a dozen British war movies.Many of the early fifties usual suspects turn up and do their schtick to very little purpose. The Luftwaffe failed to bomb Malta into submission in much the same way as it failed to bring London to its knees.The courage of the Maltese people in the face of incessant danger was recognised by the King and the island was awarded the George Cross.A worthy subject you might think for a movie,but "Malta Story" does not even qualify for the term "worthy" in its most patronising sense.It gives the appearance of being hastily cobbled together to meet a deadline,perhaps before the actors lost the will to live.


Another British cinema flag waver. Real garbage on offer here once again. I cannot understand (and I am British) why this over the top, patriotic nonsense was ever made. EIGHT years mark you, from when the second world war had actually ended! Other commenter's here have remarked on the editing and apparent seamless use of archive footage. This is extremely poorly observed. The archive footage is in abundance. Model aircraft swing from wires in the 'action scenes' like so many children's kites in the wind. The usual map room sequences tattoo the movie to make us supposedly drawn into the whole Malta event. Guinness must have his worst acting performance ever. The shocking back drop dog fight scenes are laughable. Hawkins bores us all to death in the map room area. Ealing made many great movies. This clearly is not one of them. They should have stayed away from such unconvincing rot!


When Stanwyck's husband-to-be is murdered on the eve of their wedding, she retreats to a mountain lodge, where she slips (sort of) off a cliff and is rescued by wealthy attorney Morgan. Morgan falls in love with her, leading to a definitely one-sided marriage, spent on a huge estate in Chicago (which appears to be surrounded by mountains!). Stanwyck is tempted by dashing Cortez, but eventually returns to Morgan, in a very subdued and unconvincing story resolution.

This film has a great cast (Morgan in particular is one of my favorites) and a great director, but the script is meandering and seems pointless at times. I was so ready to enjoy this movie but I was ultimately disappointed. Still worth watching for the cast, and it's good for anyone who likes 1930s films.


Justin goes home to live with his strict, hard-nosed police detective father, but it seems daddy has turned the upstairs into three makeshift apartments each with bizarre tenants residing in them. Straight-laced idealist Justin is thrust into the world of the occult, murder, under-aged drinking and other dastardly things. Ho-hum

Wow, have I seen the same film that nearly all the other reviewers on here saw??? Clever, compelling, original, intense, clever, genius????!!? I witnessed none of those things. What I DID see was an uninteresting, bland, trite, extremely clichéd low-budget thriller that was ripe with implausibilities and no tension in the least bit as the killer is telegraphed as soon into the film as he gives his monologue/debate/discussion. And where are these humorous laugh-out-loud moments? I never so much as chuckled, perhaps because i was too busy struggling not to be put to sleep by the film.

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: Audio commentary with director Dave Campfield; Second commentary with various contributers as well as isolated music tracks; 4 featurettes (Making of, on the set, turning 1 room into 4, & Inside the black circle); Interviews with Felissa Rose, Desiree Gould, & Raine Brown; Alternate scenes; bloopers; a music video for 'Addiction'; A trailer for this movie; And trailers for "Shock-o-rama", "Chainsaw Sally", "Skin Crawl", "Sinful", "Bacterium", "Creature from the Hillbilly Lagoon", & "Millennium Crises"


I just finished "Dark Chamber" aka "Under Surveillance" and I'm stunned. Stunned, not by the film, but by some of the rave reviews I perused which influenced my watching it. The story was so ravaged by plot-holes and the majority of the acting so flat, categorizing it as a comedy seems appropriate. Seriously, I found myself shaking my head and laughing in bewilderment as I endured this movie.

Justin leaves the confines of living at home with a pain killer-addicted mom to go live with his cop father despite Mom's warnings that Dad is no good. When a young woman is found murdered, Justin becomes suspicious of the tenants who reside in the adjacent apartments. With the help of a couple pals, he installs covert cameras to keep tabs on these folks. As the truth begins to unravel, Justin uncovers an unexpected secret.

One positive point is that Felissa Rose is HOT! I would have generously slapped an extra star or two on here had she peeled down a bit, but no such luck. It would have been the film's potential saving grace. Eric Conley played Justin very adeptly, I thought, and I wouldn't be surprised whatsoever to see more of him in the future.

The general premise of the film, although plagued by clichés, might possibly have worked had it not been for the ridiculously hollow "performances" of key cast members, most notably Alexandra Eitel (Kayla) and David H. Rigg (Justin's father). The horror! (pardon the pun).

I have nothing against low-budget films. Indeed, I believe independent film is our only hope for decent film making in the days to come. I'll cut low-budget films quite a bit of slack when it comes to special effects, lighting, even musical score and the overall picture quality. I don't give allowances, however, for stick figure acting and a swiss cheese lover's script. There are a vast number of competently-made low budget films out there. Sadly, this isn't one of them. I can't help but suspect that at least a few of the reviewers who have praised "Dark Chamber" here are in some way affiliated with its production.


This movie tackles child abduction from the point of view of a Mom (lisa Hartman Black) who acts like a man would in an action thriller. Unlike other movies where the focus is on the Police, here the Mom is tracking down her ex-husband who kidnapped their son. She gets help from her lawyer who eventually falls in love with her.

Before finally catching up with her son, a lot of bizarre things happen. The Mom tries to take a child that looks like her son from a local Children's Play at a community theater. She gets caught, and then realizes it is not her child. That alone would have gotten most people put into the Mental Ward or a few months in jail waiting for trial. However, in this movie the Mom is release after a couple of hours because the victim's parents feel sorry for her. A little while later Mom breaks into her mother-in-law's house and then the Police arrive and they have their guns aimed at her but they let her run away because they recognize her (and feel sorry for her?).

At another point in the story they have found the child, but when the Police arrive to search the house it turns out they left out the back door and got into the river on a dinghy that apparently the Dad kept around just for such an emergency escape! The Mom gets someone to lend her a raft, and even though it must have taken some time (in a real world), she and the lawyer-boyfriend, and the Police catch up to the other raft pretty fast and it is upside down in the water by landfall. Instead of getting out of the raft to search for the Dad on the land, Mom presumes he drowned the boy and she jumps into the water when she sees his life-jacket. Of course, she cannot swim and sinks like a rock. The lawyer saves her, but they miss a chance to run after the Dad. At one point the Mom is told her son died at a Clinic in Mexico. On and on it goes, and where it stops nobody knows! In some ways, this movie really exploits child abduction and it is not very positive. On the other hand, seeing a woman do all the crazy things that men do in these kind of movies was fun (or funny?).


This is one of those cheaply made TV Movies were the characters seem to lose all sense. The premise of the story, the kidnapping of a son by the boy's father,is very good. But the story just seems to beggar belief. Whenever the mother is advised not to do anything you know fine well she is going to do it. It is a bit far fetched and not worthy of a viewing.


I agree totally with another of the reviewers here who was pleased "For The Birds" won the Oscar in 2002 for "Best Animated Short," not this sick material, which is pretentious at best and appealing to anyone, of course, who has no belief in heaven or hell.

The animation was good, but so are a lot of animated shorts. And, by the way, I love dark humor but this just was unappealing from the start.

As for the story here: a guy walking around and surrounded by nothing but grey (symbolism here) is told by a TV set (which appears every few hundred yards away) that he is in either heaven, hell, or purgatory. Each time he puts a gun to his head and shoots himself after hearing the news. I guess that would be funny in two of the three instances.


If you have beloved actors, Peter Falk, Rip Torn, George Segal, and Bill Cobbs, you don't need Billy Burke, Coolio, or any other distractions. Massive talent is totally wasted in "Three Days to Vegas", with the blame falling squarely on the script. My neighbor's vacation films are about as interesting as this misguided road movie. If you want to see how to utilize a veteran cast with a good script, check out "The Crew". There really are no redeeming factors here, and watching these wonderful actors struggling with such weak material is a crime. I wanted to like it, but the shallow script cheats the audience, by essentially giving the actors nothing to work with. - MERK


One of the worst films ever. Not funny, poor TV style cinematography, bad acting. Sad to see so many famous old actors barely able to walk, let alone act. Lead female Nancy Young can't act. Terrible direction. Sub-par with bad TV movies. Occasional weak jokes fall flat. Even the basic premise of the movie makes no sense. Somehow they are supposed to stop a wedding from happening but there's no logic behind their actions. Slow pacing made my wife stop watching but I suffered through it. The old men are supposed to be acting like they are young and horny, but it comes off as pathetic instead of funny. How did they even get the money to make this?


This was not a well done western. You've got this nut riding around in the blazing sun in a buggy with a parasol over it, killing people for his own reasons. You've got this same person sitting in a snow cave during a blizzard, cutting off pieces of his anatomy which have been frostbitten. Then you've got some woman in a house out in the middle of somewhere shooting wolves that are not there. What is the point of this film? Couldn't Bruce Dern find something better to do? This was a waste of film.


I gave this 3 stars out of a possible 10 - because the stories are open-ended and left unexplained, and because of the nauseating scenes of someone eating in an extremely disgusting way, plus scenes of a decaying corpse.

Neither of the above needed to be shown in such a graphic manner.

The film's plot, such as it is, concerns three loosely interconnecting stories, none of which conclude satisfactorily.

The bounty hunter, played by Bruce Dern, is the character that connects all three vignettes.

First we have Dylan McDermott, looking darn fine, as a wanted criminal who is fleeing to Mexico to escape both the law and the bounty hunter, when he rides through a border town and spots a sad-faced saloon girl played by Helen Hunt.

Then we have one of the Hemingway girls, not sure which one, playing a western wife out on the lonely frontier who goes over to see about a neighbor woman, an attractive redhead, whom we soon realize has been out in the badlands a little too long.

The conclusion of the film returns to the bounty hunter and what happens to him, with the final scene in the film being completely beyond rational comprehension.


DVD has become the equivalent of the old late night double-bill circuit, the last chance to catch old movies on the verge of being completely forgotten like The Border. There were great expectations for this back in 1982  a script co-written by The Wild Bunch's Walon Green, Jack Nicholson in the days when he could still act without semaphore and a great supporting cast (Harvey Keitel, Warren Oates, Valerie Perrine), Tony Richardson directing (although he was pretty much a spent force by then)  but now it doesn't even turn up on TV. The material certainly offers a rich seam of possibilities for comment on the 80s American Dreams of capitalism and conspicuous consumption, with Nicholson's border patrolman turning a blind eye to the odd drug deal or bit of people trafficking to finance his wife's relentless materialism, until he rediscovers his conscience when he finds out his partners are also in the baby selling business. Unfortunately, he never really gets his hands dirty, barely even turning a blind eye before his decency rises to the surface. The film feels always watered down as if too many rewrites and too many committees have left it neutered and, sadly, the recent DVD release is a missed opportunity to restore the original, nihilistic ending where Nicholson goes over the edge and firebombs the border patrol station that was cut after preview audiences found it too downbeat but which still featured prominently in the film's trailers.

While that probably wasn't too convincing considering how low-key Nicholson's crisis of conscience is in the film, it had to be better than the crude reshot climax where the film abandons logic and even basic rules of continuity: at one point he's holding characters at gunpoint, then he's somewhere else and they're free trying to kill him, one character goes from injured at his house to hopping around like a gazelle on the banks of the Rio Grande while Valerie Perrine's character gets dumber on an exponential level. The villains of the piece are disposed of with absurd ease (and one impressive car stunt) in time for a clumsily edited happy ending and you start wondering if you somehow found yourself watching another film entirely. What makes it all the more clumsy is that the rest of the film is so flat and underwhelming that the sudden lurch into melodrama is all the more jarring. Unfortunately Ry Cooder's beautiful title song, Across the Borderline, says it all much more economically. But if you want to know the film's real crime, it's completely wasting the great Warren Oates in a nothing bit part. When even he can't make an impression, you know something's really wrong. All in all, all too easy to remember why I found this so forgettable at the time.


After reading the reviews, it became obvious that everyone intellectualized this work. How utterly boring. Oh how about the good ol' days and there was nothing like it. Of all the comments no one expressed any emotion to this work or any other.

I grew up just after the end of the steam age and this cinematic gem along with Dan'l Boone graced the Saturday afternoon matinées. This was an annual movie that made the rounds and filled the seats with gabbing, yapping, farting, giggling, snot monsters like myself or was-self. And it was a movie theatre filler at the time. Almost as big as the Wizard of Oz.

IMDb insists that every critique contains something about the plot. Problem is was that it was rather a template. Here goes. Randolph Scott (cowboy/hero)gathers friends and goes defeats those evil people. Hooray!

All of us kids figured out that plot before we plunked our quarter down to watch it. That was just about the plot line of every Scott, John Wayne, Roy Rogers film ever made. If you take the time to go back and review each and every movie - just don't ask for surprises.

One must remember the context of the times. There was no or little TV. None for kids. There was school. There was the great outdoors. There were toy guns. No Cyber time. And the steam age had just collapsed. But movies such as this provided the entertainment and filled the imaginations of young whippersnappers. Even the girls got into it.

This movie was the entertainment. And it is just as mindless as anything produced today. It had a purpose originally of being propaganda. But quickly came to be kids movies.

Our fathers had experienced the real thing. And it wouldn't be until Sam Peckinpah a decade later who finally lavished the red splashes of imitation blood in realistic and copious quantities. Not until his directorship did anyone die slowly, with great pain and miserably. Until Peckinpah war and gun fights were a rather bloodless affair. Thanks Sam.

To see a movie had little or no blood, the adults didn't mind. They wouldn't have tolerated it I think. No guts spraying the shattering plant life. So this movie had all of the glory and none of the gory. Gung Ho was suitable for kids then.

You will see that I assigned a four to this rating. Why would I do that? Well. It is a terrible movie. No matter how I love it. I do love this movie because it brought back one of the happier moments of my childhood. But it is not all that good of a movie in quality terms. Basically Gung Ho transitted to become a romance novel for children.

Should people watch it. Of course. I am not saying to stay away. Realistically however. The plot is simple. The characters shallow? they are shoals. You can love a bad movie.


Should have been titled 'Balderdash!' Little in the film is true except the name of the island and the fact submarines were involved. Little more than training film quality with poor camera work, muddy stock footage and perhaps the low point of stereotyping 'Japs' with laughing Japanese infantry, laughing Japanese fighter pilots and one-dimensional square-jawed Americans dying left and right. Sixty years later it is unintentionally funny as an odd artifact and as an opportunity to see what is possible when the war fever is upon you. The plot and the dialogue remind me of playing guns on a summer's afternoon in my childhood, peering through the neighbor's hedge to gain a fatal advantage on my best friend Steve and my little brother. In actual fact, the Makin Island raid was a near total failure with Carlson and his men wandering around in the dark exchanging gunfire with shadows until finally, thirsty and completely disoriented, looking for someone to surrender to, before they happened upon some equally confused Japanese soldiers who promptly surrendered to them! In the withdrawal several of Carlson's Marines ended up on another island and were abandoned! The film, of course, couldn't tell that story, not in 1943, so this bit of whimsy was fabricated and rushed into release to the beating of drums. With Randolph Scott, and his jaw, as Colonel Thorwald (Carlson) leading a unit comprised almost entirely of stock caricatures, the green recruit (Harry Landon, Robert Mitchum), the grizzled veteran (J. Carroll Naish, Milburn Stone, Sam Levene), the country-bumpkin (Rod Cameron), the all-American boy (Alan Curtis), and scores of sneering (when they weren't laughing) 'Japs'. And yet the cast nearly overcomes the material. Almost. Randolph Scott's narrow range is well suited to his role of earnest commander and he is supported by a solid group of professionals who do their best with thin gruel. But in the end, the one-note object of the exercise wins. Any pretense is totally abandoned at the close when Randy Scott simply looks directly into the camera and delivers a stirring (well sorta stirring) call to arms. The cast was better than this material. So was the audience. Should be viewed with Reefer Madness and a bottle of moderately priced Merlot.


The movie 'Gung Ho!': The Story of Carlson's Makin Island Raiders was made in 1943 with a view to go up the moral of American people at the duration of second world war. It shows with the better way that the cinema can constitute body of propaganda. The value of this film is only collection and no artistic. In a film of propaganda it is useless to judge direction and actors. Watch that movie if you are interested to learn how propaganda functions in the movies or if you are a big fun of Robert Mitchum who has a small role in the film. If you want to see a film for the second world war, they exist much better and objective. I rated it 4/10.


This true story of Carlson's Raiders is more of a Army training film than anything else.Obviously thrown together quickly on a miniscule budget about the only thing it has to recommend it is an early performance by Robert Mitchum,who's the only decent actor in the cast,and actual footage of the wreckage at Pearl Harbor which gets your blood boiling,as it was obviously intended to do.


A very attractive and capable cast is lost in this deadly boring rehash of the slasher sub-genre. The plot a simply a collection of cliches and set-pieces that we've all seen a hundred times before. Has great potential as an insomnia treatment.


This really should have been a one star, but there was so many, clichés, predictable twists, seen it all before slasher flick parallels that I actually give it an extra star for the fact it made me laugh...although this was never the directors intention Im sure.

I don't often write comments about films, they have to be either sensational, or in this ones case really bad.

To be honest, as soon as I saw Jeff Fahey in it I knew it was going to be poor as he has a unique nose for picking out the worst films.

Somehow the farce of it all made me watch it all the way through, possibly for the hilarious voice of MR T, (not relay Mr T, but you'll know what I mean if you bother to watch this), if you do watch it, make sure you don't pay to see it. This may have worked had they actually put intended comedy into it, but Im sure you'll find the odd laugh here and there at the farce of it all...


I suppose that any novel that's as much of a downer as Moby Dick would not find much favor with Depression era audiences who had enough of their own troubles. But any resemblance to the classic Herman Melville novel is a pure coincidence.

In fact half of the film is a prequel to the main story as we know it, not that too much of it was kept for the film. We first meet Ahab Creely (he's got a last name and a brother) as one happy go lucky soul with two legs and intentions to marry Joan Bennett who is Father Mapple's daughter. That brother Derek, played by Lloyd Hughes, also wants to marry Bennett.

John Barrymore is Ahab in an over the top performance. Barrymore had not quite mastered the sound cinema and he gave out with all the silent era histrionics plus a stage voice that would have shaken the rafters of any movie theater this film was playing in.

We see Ahab lose his leg to the great whale Moby Dick and I have to say the amputation scene was pretty gruesome. Of course this was all before the Code. Still I'm sure 1930 audiences shuddered.

After that the story of Ahab's hunt for the whale that he thinks made him unsightly in Joan Bennett's eyes. That is not exactly Melville's motivation, in fact there are no women characters in Moby Dick as he wrote it.

One of the things Melville did was invest the crew of Ahab's ship the Pequod with personalities. Other than Queequeg the cannibal harpooner the names are there, but not the personalities. Starbuck and Stubbs might as well be Smith and Jones.

I'd see this version of Moby Dick strictly for curiosity and nothing else.


Necessarily ridiculous film version the literary classic "Moby Dick". John Barrymore is Captain Ahab, who falls in love with the pastor's daughter, Joan Bennett. His brother Derek is a rival for Ms. Bennett's affections. When Mr. Barrymore loses his leg in a whaling accident, Bennett rejects him. He must slay the whale and win Bennett back...

There are several scenes which may have thrilled 1930 theater audiences; particularly the scenes involving Barrymore losing his leg. The film hasn't aged well, however; there are much better films from the time, both 1920s silents and 1930s talkies. The two name attractions, John Barrymore and Joan Bennett aren't at their best.

**** Moby Dick (8/14/30) Lloyd Bacon ~ John Barrymore, Joan Bennett, Lloyd Hughes


This version of "Moby Dick" insults the audience by claiming it is based on Melville's novel-even going so far as to show a phony first chapter sentence rather than the famous "Call me Ishmael". In addition to having atrocious acting, even from John Barrymore,this is perhaps the greatest example of how far Hollywood (especially early Hollywood) would go to revise and change a famous novel just to beef up its chances at the box office.All of the novel's beautiful,poetic language has been absolutely eradicated, and Ahab has been changed from a brooding,blasphemous,obsessive madman to a dashing,misunderstood hero who only wants to kill Moby Dick after his fiance(!) turns away from him after seeing his wooden leg. To this is added the standard evil brother who wants the fiance for himself, and a different ending!


I found this a good movie to pass your time, but not by any chance of any historical value. The portrayal of Cleopatra reminded me a cheap soap opera.

The twist of the facts is... funny! She gave birth while feeding her people!?!? O please... A pregnant Queen of Egypt (especially this one) would not bother to go from one room to the other for that reason! They tried to make her appear a saint for God's sake! And the way they tried to justify her murdering her own sister... beyond description.

Cleopatra was the greatest politician of her time. Her decisions were based anything but her feelings and morals. She did everything for only two reasons: Power and self-preservation! She was borne in a family where she had to straggle for survival, something she did very well. Anything that stood on her way was either murdered (her brothers and sister) or seduced (Ceasar and Mark Anthony).

Unfortunately Octavian was too powerful to kill and too... gay to be seduced. So, he was her end...


The DVD version consists of 2 episodes, the parricide of Caesar being the juncture. In addition, the language was Spanish without subtitles. Hence, it's hard for me to review in depth this movie because because i didn't understand what was said.

Cleopatra being an historic icon, the part is very difficult and i found that for a newcomer, Leonor Varela just plays fine. She is strong-willed but also a very supportive, tender soul mate. Thimothy Dalton as Caesar is perfect and their romance is the main thing of the first episode. So, it is not really a documentary, nor a peplum but a great love story.

After the parricide, a new lover comes (Marc-Antoine) but the flavor is gone: we remember always our first love. So, i found the second episode dull and their tragic fate isn't told powerfully.

Nonetheless, the production is luxurious: the sets are big, tastefully decorated; the Moroccan live location exotic and the wardrobes splendid. The producers have a lot of money for sure, but they spend nothing on the special effects. They are so poor (blue screens, ships, Sphinx) that it's funny.

Finally, I would like very much to hear it in french or English to make a definitive opinion about this two movies.


If this book remained faithful to the book then we can only assume that the author was ignorant of history. Mark Anthony never died of injuries obtained in battle as depicted. He died a coward's death by committing suicide and even then, he asked his slave to do it for him. The slave chose to kill himself instead. In the real story Mark Anthony was ashamed by the slave's great valor and decided to copy him. But even in death Mark Anthony was a drunken failure and failed at his own suicide attempt. He cried out for Cleopatra and was taken to her, bleeding. She hauled his litter up on ropes and Mark Anthony died a while later. If you want history don't watch this movie. If you want romantic drivel then you will probably enjoy it!


I missed the beginning of this film, which might account for why I disliked it so much. On the other hand I've studied the fall of the Roman republic for years so I know the story. Then again, that might also be the reason why I disliked this film.

The film has more historical inaccuracies than extras. Though it's so inaccurate that I don't think they made an attempt for it to be correct, in which case it can be forgiven. The odd thing is that they sometimes go to great lengths to be historically accurate that it ends up getting confusing. Like throwing in Antonius' marriage to Octavia, and then pushing it aside two scenes later. Why even bring it up if it serves no purpose for the plot and Octavia is never even seen? And like calling Antonius by his actual name (Marcus Antonius) in some scenes, and by his strange English name Mark Antony in other scenes.

Though historical inaccuracies aside, the film could still have been an entertaining watch if it wasn't for the leading lady. There isn't an ounce of dignity in her. She's hysterical, dramatical, and completely lacking control of herself. Instead of being a clever and composed queen Cleopatra turns into a hysterical teenager with a bad case of PMS. 95% of that comes from the poor acting, but 5% is also from poor script writing. Far too many stupid dramatic scenes are written into the script. Sometimes you weren't watching Antonius and Cleopatra, you were watching immature versions of Dawson and Joey from "Dawson's Creek".

If you want to watch something about this period, watch... anything but this.


I only hope that no classicists/ancient historians saw "Cleopatra", or, if they did, that they took it as a laugh. The movie is horrendously inaccurate, more laughably, even, than "Gladiator" (which is at least a well-written script whose historical errors are articulate and correspond well to the story). Most blatant is Octavius, Caesar's heir, in the Senate before Caesar's assassination: at the ripe old age of 19!

Besides this, the acting is mediocre. Timothy Dalton has more than a hint of James Bond in him when he says, "Caesar. Julius Caesar." Billy Zane is a laughably dense Marc Antony. And Leonor Varela tries her best to be the seductive Pharaoh (who in real life was not good-looking at all) but comes off as unbelievable.

So this is a warning for all historians--this movie is not true to life!


Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian "sandals and toga" extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why "Gladiator" went over well, but "Gladiator" did not have all the romance novel sex.

Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others.


I think the biggest disappointment in this film was that, right until the end, I expected the acting instructors of the cast to break in and apologize for how poor the acting was. When you consider the powerful subject, the brilliant scenery and the effort made in creating a wonderful set and spectacular images, it is a shame that little attention was given to acting.


Another rape of History

This movie is a catastrophe; it just uses a historic story and makes a sweet love story, with bad acting and low budget production.

The movie should be 1/3 the time, they just dragged the time to make a mini series.

The battle scenes are so stupid and illogical, the solders log stupid, the costumes a catastrophe. The Romans were good in fighting in opened areas, one of their armies was completely destroyed by the Germans when they tried to fight in a forest, in this movie the Romans choose to fight in side the city, I mean get real.

And by the way Cleopatra was from a Macedonian origin, which means a light skinned person.


In A Woman Under the Influence Mabel goes crazy, but I can see why she does go crazy. If I lived the kind of life she lived with the family she has I would go crazy too. Everyone in her family is off their rocker and not completely with it. She is constantly surrounded by people yelling at her and telling her what is best for herself and people that aren't the sharpest knifes in the drawer.

To start with the one person closest to her in her life, her husband, Nick, is a little off his rocker. He is always yelling at her when he is home telling her how to live her life and to stop acting like an imbecile. The rest of the time he is working long hours at his job and he isn't there to support her when she needs support. The one person in her life that should always be there for her is never there and if he is, he is just making her feel worse. She relies on him for support and always goes to him first when she feels she is acting wrong and he does nothing to support her. When she comes home from the hospital all he does is tell her how to act, instead of comforting her, he just yells at her and tells her what to do.

The other major people in her life are her parents. Her parents do nothing in her life for her. Mabel basically runs their lives because they are afraid to stand up to her and stand up for her. In the end she even asks her father to stand up for her and he doesn't understand, and when he does get it he still does nothing. They do nothing to help Mabel recover or to keep her from going crazy because they do nothing for her period. The only person that tries to do something for her is Nick's mom. Nick's mom is adamant about having Mabel committed. She doesn't want to have Nick deal with it so she has the doctor commit her. It seems as though everyone is against Mabel and they feel that having her committed is a good idea because then they won't have to deal with it anymore. They all want to live their own lives and do nothing for Mabel except for yell at her and make her feel like she is doing something wrong when she really isn't. That is why she went crazy, and why she had to be committed, it was her family's entire fault.


From actor and independent writer/director John Cassavetes, A Woman Under the Influence gives the viewer a look at a working class family with a problem of mental instability. The husband, Nick (played by Peter Falk) is a blue collar worker who has trouble showing his wife, Mabel (played by Gena Rowlands) the amount of attention that she deserves. From the onset of the film, it is obvious that Mabel is very quirky and strange, but only a few minutes later it is clear that she is much more than that. Crazy. Bonkers. Out of her damn mind. Nick tries his hardest to hide this from his co-workers, and after she has a particularly strange incident at dinner, he asks her if she'll be okay, as if he's trying to deny Mabel's illness. Her problem only spirals from there.

I did find some particular problems with this film. I guess these problems were mostly present in the story, and the way some of the character acted toward the end. Mabel has been committed, because, frankly, she's nuts. Then, six months later, she's ready to come out of the hospital, and her husband throws a party to welcome her back. He never acts stupid in the beginning of the movie. Why would he invite all these people, some of them strangers to Mabel, over to his house when his wife is in such a fragile state? It's simply idiotic. Later, after Mabel comes in the house, Mabel's father has a huge outburst at Nick, screaming at the top of his lungs about not wanting to eat spaghetti. His daughter has just gotten back from six months of rehabilitation, and the thing you want to do is keep her calm, and he goes nuts over spaghetti? A few minutes later in the film, Nick brings Mabel into the stairwell and forces her to do the things she did when she was mentally unstable; make her weird noises and gestures. Didn't he send her there to make her better and not do those things? There were various other parts that occurred after this, but it would just be redundant to look at them in more detail. I guess I just had a serious problem with the decision by Cassavetes to have his characters act in this way. It simply didn't make sense.

However, although I had problems with the ending of the film, there was one aspect that really redeemed it; the acting. Gena Rowlands played an amazing crazy woman. There were times when I forgot she was acting, where I got so caught up in her wild gesticulations and crazy talk that I was actually scared of her. She was amazingly convincing and intense. However, I was also impressed by the rest of Mabel's family. Peter Falk played a very strange character, and I almost thought he was crazy himself, because of the awkward way he handled his children, his job, and especially the situation with his wife. I also usually don't appreciate child actors. But the young people who played Nick and Mabel's children in this film were phenomenal. It really felt like they were Mabel's children, because they seemed so attached to her and were so interesting in helping her with her problem. I think their performances are one of the things that kept this film together, and without them it would have made the film less realistic and less intense.

In general I wasn't impressed by this film. The story was jumbled and unclear, and the characters acted in ways that made me wonder who wasn't insane in the movie. The only saving grace were brilliant lead acting roles of the Longhetti family. Their realistic dialogue and powerful acting kept the film together, and are probably the only reason the film has ever amounted to anything.


Cassavetes was clearly an intelligent, sensitive man with bold new ideas about making films. He wanted to be an auteur, to break away from the confines of the system and bring a new realism to the American cinema. For that, I applaud him.

Unfortunately, as a member of his audience, I cannot applaud A Woman Under the Influence. Cassavetes took what could have been a fascinating topic (an insane woman) and somehow managed to craft a dull film, filled with lengthy, ad-libbed ranting and drawn-out scenes. He seems to have had a gift for capturing the dullest moments of a person's life on film, and it often appears as though he simply turned the camera on his family and let the motor run and run. This tactic would be acceptable if Cassavetes had captured something devastatingly REAL -- or even a kernel of something so real it touched the heart in ways a conventional film could not. Yet I found the performances, particularly Rowlands', to be artificial. I never believed for a moment that she was really insane. I have met people who are truly mentally disturbed, yet I've never seen any of them act quite like Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence. She played it like a very obnoxious, uninhibited woman who drinks a lot, and even that was confusing because we only see her drink once (at the beginning), but she acts drunk for the remainder of the film. There are some moments in which she taps into something real, but those moments are few and far between; she fails to sustain a seamless mentally disturbed character. Again, I applaud her efforts, but effort alone is not enough to make the performance ring true.

Novice audiences who happen upon this film and see its high IMDb rating will no doubt feel compelled to love it and rate it highly, just to prove that they 'get it.' But don't be brainwashed by the hype -- judge for yourself. You don't have to pretend to like it.

Like Woody Allen, John Cassavetes could be accused of solipsism in his film-making, seeming to find his own psyche and his own life experiences so endlessly fascinating that he couldn't imagine that to others they appeared presumptive and tortuously self-indulgent. But Woody Allen at least has demonstrated a gift for keeping an audience entertained -- he knows that a compelling story structure and a good dose of humor are essential to any movie. If Cassavetes had employed some self-discipline (and a sharp pair of editing shears!), A Woman Under the Influence could have stood a chance. But what's the point of making a 'realistic' film if the only people who can stand to sit through it are the art-house devotees and film students who worship Cassavetes as some sort of anti-establishment deity? Without dumbing anything down, I believe Cassavetes could have made A Woman slightly more accessible by keeping the pace moving with an actual plot, instead of presenting a string of 30 minute-long scenes of ad-libbed arguments. If you just make films for yourself and a few of your fans, you're just reaching the already converted. Watch this movie with your own set of eyes and make your own decisions about it. If you are truly moved and fascinated by it, good for you.


This is Peter Falk's film. Period.

I was 10 years old when this film came out; I was already a film maven at the time. Of course neither my parents nor I saw this film when it came out, but I was in love with the typeface of its ads & the aura that this was An Important Film. Okay, 34 years later I've finally seen the film--having never seen any Cassavetes-directed film previously. He's a hack, overall. Zero sense of timing, editing. Gena's performance reminds me too much of Dustin Hoffman's stint in "Rain Man": technically on par but entirely one-note. As Tom Cruise stole "Rain Man," Falk takes the cake for this film.

I was annoyed with Gena's performance, really throughout--it seemed better suited for "Awakenings" (blecch!). It's not all her fault: she's a basket case from first scene to last. We never find out why?? But Falk's character seems real & is performed WONDERFULLY by Falk as a seriously flawed man.

Shave off at least an hour (an editor needed!), and this would have been an arresting portrait not of a woman under the influence but of a simple, Cro-Magnon, man coming to grips with a wife who doesn't work & yet cannot deal with her three kids & her husband's long hours of work.

I'd rather remember Cassavetes for "The Dirty Dozen" or "Rosemary's Baby." He would have been a better director had he snipped his own tendency for excess--as he amply demonstrates with this film.

Bob


He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof.


I have been a fan of Without A Trace from the premier episode. I really cannot express my disappointment in the episode last week. This is a REAL problem that far too many Afican-American families have dealt with and continue to deal with. The lack of media coverage crucial in the first 48 hours has been documented by a recent study. Law enforcement including local , state, and federal are also complicit. What was the purpose of advertising this subject matter and then copping out on the ending? Seemingly, television can deal with almost ANY subject matter EXCEPT RACE. This is shameful.Get it together or don't explore it next time.


Reasons to watch the movie:

1) Bo Derek at 16 looks good and occasionally gets naked. She does a pretty good job playing an immature, insecure 16 year old beauty, in fact

2) Many shots of a pretty Greek island

But:

1) Peter Hooten turns in the worst performance by an actor since Brutus played Caeser's friend in "Roman Senate Proceedings of March 15." He delivers each and every line in a delightful baritone bellow. Turn down the volume whenever he speaks. Preferably all the way down

2) Bo's fantasies are sadly tame, especially by today's standards. A few turns in the bath and as a fully clothed model

3) The plot is skimpier than Bo's costumes


There are exactly 2 good things to be said about "Fantasies" (both mentioned by a previous reviewer as well):

a) Bo Derek's extraordinary, poetry-inspiring beauty. She has shots in this movie where she gives even Catherine Zeta-Jones a run for her money, and that's a high compliment indeed. Her nudity is brief and discreet, but just looking at her face is enough.

b) The Greek island setting, with its sun and crystal-clear blue waters.

Other than that, there is no story, the dialogue is abysmal and at times unintentionally funny ("He touched you where you're a woman!"), and Peter Hooten's character is a slimy jerk. Bo overplays the naivete of her character, but then again when you have to work with dialogue this bad it's unfair to blame the actors (the fact that she kept saying the name "Damir" in almost every sentence is a major irritation). Oh, and although the film is set on a Greek island, there is hardly a Greek word to be heard - apparently everyone there, from kids to old people, speaks English the whole time. (*)


Bo Derek's debut film remained unseen for eight years  and that's how it should stayed! John Derek was a competent actor but, as a director, he's virtually the Ed Wood of erotic cinema  not that this is especially explicit, considering that Bo (atypically sporting dark hair) was only 16 when the film was made! John also wrote and photographed it; the latter results in some decent footage of the Greek island setting against which the narrative is set  but the plotting is puerile and the dialogue atrocious!

The character played by male lead Peter Hooten has been brought up with Bo's family: they grew up as brother and sister but, now in their teens, the couple discover they're attracted to one another (but, as I said, don't expect any sexual fireworks!). Still, the worst thing about this is the fact that the protagonists each harbor an obsession all through the film which are not only silly in themselves but irritating in their relentlessness  Hooten wants to turn the remote fishing community into a modernized sea-side resort and keeps expecting a cruise-liner to appear into view (which, of course, it does at the finale); Derek's is even nuttier  she craves possession of a large antique bath-tub!! For the record, the couple are married by the end of the film.

Also involved in the non-events are the female town mayor and a photographer lothario who wants to make a model out of Bo (and who, naturally, incurs the wrath of the jealous Hooten). Occasionally, for no very good reason, we're even treated to snippets from the screening of old Hollywood classics in an open-air movie house to which the whole town assembles (among the titles shown is THE PUBLIC ENEMY [1931])! At the end of the day, while Bo's naivete throughout is undeniably charming, it's not enough to offset the film's overwhelming dullness and amateurishness.


I saw this movie way back at the first theatrical release, in a justifiably empty theater. Believe it or not, after decades of watching movies, this one still sticks clearly in my mind as the worst movie of all time; or at least the worst that I would allow myself to watch.

The acting is far beneath the standard set by any random group of drunken high-school students yanked off the street and forced to learn their lines in 5 minutes or less.

After the first shock of disbelief, we laughed for a while as each scene hit new lows. But after a while, even that dubious pleasure wore off and it just got to be really sad.


After viewing the film, I was truly shocked to see such a high rating on IMDb.

'The Fantastic Mr. Fox' is an adaption of a beloved children's classic, portraying the story of the smooth, slick protagonist Mr. Fox (or 'Foxy') as he attempts one 'last' heist to steal from the dreaded Boggins, Bunce and Bean. That's right, one short, one fat, one lean, or however it goes.

I don't quite know where to start with my criticism.

Well, I'm in my late teens and was never a fan of Roald Dahl, but I like his material well enough, having read a few of his books as a child and seen Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory over and over again. This film, however, struggles for an audience. Is it aimed at children? Adults? I'm still unsure! Many of the 'jokes' would bore a child, especially as Mr. Fox visits a lawyer for example, or complains about being poor. Also, an audience of (I'm assuming) children is expected to sympathise with a character who steals and kills chickens. I'm all for the food chain, but you practically see Mr. Fox biting down on their necks! Surely that's a bit much? And also, the plot... well, it's kind of boring. I stayed only with the hope of it getting better, but instead I just got more and more annoyed at Mr Fox and his son Ash for making stupid decisions.

The humour, meanwhile, falls flat. I laughed only once or twice, even though I specifically recognised attempts at jokes. I think part of it is that the voice acting is so incredibly flat and monotoned. The voice actors have no sense of comic timing, instead aiming for the subtlety of humour that only works with certain mediums. George Clooney aims to portray Mr. Fox as charming and sleek, but his voice has no character. Meryl Streep shows no emotion, I didn't even realise Bill Murray had a role until the end credits, and Ash, twelve-years old in fox-years, sounds like he's about 30.

I love animation, particularly stop motion, but the visual style actually creeped me out a little bit. Characters are tall, spindly and lacking any warmth of design. They move with very little fluidity and often the animation is jerky and strange. There is also a distinctive 'mixed medium' feel, as 2D components are added in sporadically and unsuccessfully. Characters look straight at the camera and talked; it was very awkward. There was one or two moments when Kylie looked straight at the camera, didn't move and had swirls on his eyeballs. It actually freaked me out.

Fantastic Mr. Fox had so much potential. Lots of people still seem to like it - look at the reviews. Maybe it just wasn't for me.


There has been a lot of love that has been put into Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr Fox", unfortunately all the love is for himself. Granted, there has been a lot of time and effort been put into making this ever so self-consciously quirky universe but if only the same time and effort had been put into the script to try and make it funny. The worrying thing is that I think it was, and this is the best that Wes Anderson could come up with.

The animation is good in the close-up shots of the animals, however when the camera is further away everything becomes really harsh on the eyes and to be perfectly honest looks like a bit of a mess. There wasn't really anything special about the acting either, with Wes opting to choose his buddies and big names over more specialised voice actors that could have probably made the film better. I'm pretty sure George Clooney's voice acting resume consists of two cameo appearances in South Park, one of them where he played a dog.

The film is too smug and trying way too hard to be clever and different and is typically, despite the film being set in England, all the good animals are typical Americans playing baseball, whilst the bad guys are stereotypical English with the most insulting English accents. I cannot stress how much of a waste of time this film is. I didn't laugh once.


Fantastic Mr. Fox is a comedy based on the classic Roald Dahl book. Wes Anderson directs, and respectably takes the short book of the same name to the big screen in a full length film. While I respect what Anderson, an incredibly talented man did, the film seemed to have gotten lost in its own clever spirit. Anderson seems to have left the story behind knowing that he is a talented man, and if this happened to be a bad film, it would be his first bad film. Just like when you go to school and have your first bad day, this is Anderson's first bad day in film making, so I am going to let him off easy. I will admit it did have a cleverness and nice spirit to it, and the animation is nice, but the film gets progressively harder to get into, leaving the story behind and having random shots of random things happening. The characters are good, also. Jason Schwartzman voices Mr. Fox (George Clooney)'s smart ass son, Ash, and especially engaging. The film does not quite make it up to a level of terribleness, but it certainly gets closer and closer as it goes along. I'm sure Wes Anderson will get back on track with another amazing film when and where he decides to make another film, but for now, I'm sorry, Wes Anderson, this film of yours was a big disappointment.


I went in not knowing anything about this movie and I walked out in an half hour knowing everything about it. It was one of worst movies I've ever seen. I'm a generally a nice person but if somebody told me they liked this movie, I would probably never talk to them again. Anybody who likes it throughly is most likely to have an extremely dry, hermit type personality. I'm gonna also include that they think they are pretty intelligent too, just like the self-centered fart bags who do the voices for the movie. I know everyone has different types of humor, some people may not even like mine, but that's okay; I don't think this covers any range of humor though. This movie is as flat and dull as Wes Anderson's mind. Go in and get ready to walk out; it's best to get your money back too.