This move reminded my of Tales from the Crypt Keeper. It has the same sort of idea of people get what they deserve. I think that's always the them in a Crypt story. The same goes for the bad acting. Very bad acting. I enjoyed the movie knowing that most people didn't like it and I wasn't expecting much. Whenever I watch a stephen King movie I don't expect much because all his movies are awful compared to the genius of his novels. I have read The Shining and Carrie and they were great books. I love how Carrie played out like it was a true story and the whole book is a bunch of reports and theories and such. It was so good. But I noticed that both of the novels were nothing like the movies. The endings were very different then the movie versions. I assume from those two novels that all of his novels are changed greatly and the endings are always cheesy. I ending of Thinner is the worst. So Cheesy. I want to read the book to find out the real ending. I suggest everyone who intends to read stephen King's novels to watch his movies before hand so that you may compare. And that way you will be greatly satisfied in the book. I intend on doing so with all his novels that were made into movies. I'm sure if they were made into movies they were real good books... and the screenplay went terribly wrong.


I am not one of those who think King is a great writer, his books are fine distractions for a few hours, and often have interesting premises, however they, in my opinion, fall apart pretty rapidly if you give them any serious thought.

This film suffers from being a pretty exact re-telling of King's story. If you have read the book, there are zero surprises, no changes, no altering of scenes or characters. This is a film made by King fans for King fans.

For the rest of us, there is nothing terrible about the film, it is a 'gypsy curse' horror, with its twist being the curse being something many people wish for, to become thinner. The final third has some severe structural problems, and the slightly forced ending seems to break the rules of this genre a little.

There are worse ways to spend 90 minutes of your life, but you might as well read the book, because there is nothing new here...


I began watching this movie with low expectations, as a matter of fact i only noticed it because it was an adaptation of a S.K. novel ( a novel i never read).

I'm glad my expectations were low because the movie wasn't nothing close to good, but it manages to keep you interested. What really drags this story down is the work done by the director and the actors. The movie is overlong, hasn't no "nice" shots and no scares, the dialogs are dumb and the special effects are crap.

The only things good are that, as i said, it keeps you interested ( i guess the book must be good) without using much horror cliches.

My Vote 4/10.


To call a movie like "Thinner" bad is like calling the earth round or Pauly Shore un-talented. No news, but how they got that way is what people want to know.

As far as this movie.... The book was good, even if it was a little derivative of other stories from the "be careful what you wish for" genre. Burke plays an overweight lawyer who kills the daughter of a gypsy and is cursed by her father (Constantine from TV's "Room 222") to several pounds a day.

Like I said, it starts out good, but why involve the mobster (Mantegna)? Why fire automatic weapons so much? Why turn it into something so heavily dependent on FX? I thought it would have been much more effective if it focused more on the subtle ramifications of weight loss crazes, diseases, death, gypsy lore and such.

But no, it's not to be. Remember, this is Stephen King we're talking about.

And the ending... almost the same as the book, but a little too talky. In fact the whole movie talks too much, feeling it has to explain every plot turn to us. Not that I expected "The Dead Zone", but I could have done without another "Pet Sematary", thanks anyway.

One star for at least trying to do a halfway decent makeup job. However, the rest of the movie is left to be... say it with me... "Thinner".


So 'Thinner'... Yep.. This Steven Bachman (read Steven King) yarn about a man who gets his just desserts from a Gypsy Elder who he just killed, The story itself is there, no doubt about it, but I don't know why I didn't enjoy it more than I could have. I guess what really distracted me was the actors. I mean, who's the lead? Robert John Burke? Who's he? And fer crying out loud, can someone please stop hiring Joseph Mantegna for every Italian Mafioso role there ever is? And while we're at it, does every Mafioso have to have a pasta cooking Italian mother? The only good acting job done here is under 10 pounds of makeup, Michael Constantine as the Gypsy elder. He's pretty good. But the rest, I make you all, "better actors..."


A fun concept, but poorly executed. Except for the fairly good makeup effects, there's really not much to it. There are obvious problems; for example, after taking what seems to be weeks and weeks to get from fat to normal size, the main character seems to go from normal size to deathly thin in days... and once he's deathly thin he stays pretty much equally deathly thin for what seems to be a long time.

In any case, the movie has far worse problems than that--the cinematography is decidedly low-budget-TV-show quality and most of all the acting is pretty awful all around. Robert John Burke seems to always be trying for some kind of weird snarling Charlton Heston impersonation and is literally painful to watch... the only scary thing is that Lucinda Jenney and Kari Wuhrer are both even worse.

The only reason why I'm giving this movie as high as I am is that once the movie enters its last 1/3 or so and Joe Mantegna's character takes over, the movie develops a fun, campy 'cheesefest slaughterhouse' feel, and the gangster's crazy schemes for tormenting the totally obnoxious gypsies are somewhat fun to watch. The ending, if predictable, is also nicely mean. Avoid unless you're a King-o-Phile or are REALLY psyched up at the idea of the voice of Fat Tony from the Simpsons terrorizing a gypsy camp.


This movie was absolutely terrible. I can't believe I paid to see it in the theatre. I wouldn't watch it on free cable t.v. I'm surprised that Joe Magtena even made it. Do not waste your time with this movie.


It seems to me that Stephen King's "Bachman" pen-name was a way for him to put out some of the grimmer, rawer, more mean-spirited stuff that he wanted to write without 'contaminating' his 'brand name'. If you look back at the "Bachman Books" (Running Man, The Long Walk, Roadwork, Thinner) you notice they have a sealed-in feeling of airlessness and hopelessness about them that is distinct from mainstream King. I realize that we are talking about the guy whose first novel featured a humiliated, blood-covered, emotionally crippled teenage girl slaughtering everyone at her high school prom...but mainstream King always at have characters and plot elements that leaven the grimness of the proceedings a bit, and mostly have endings that offer at least a glimpse of hope and human feeling. Bachman books are just plain mean and always end badly. (BTW, "Pet Semetary" could have easily been a Bachman book if King hadn't revealed the alias by then. And "The Dark Half" seems to be at least partially about his "Bachman" persona.)

"Thinner" was the last Bachman book, and man, with its themes of class warfare, revenge, and death by starvation, it is nasty. So it should be no surprise that the movie follows suit.

What is a surprise is that the adaptation seems to be filmed at a "TV Movie Of the Week" level of talent instead of something worthy of a theatrical release. (These days, something like this would probably go directly to DVD or cable). The makeup work and the striking motif (starving to death in the midst of plenty, a metaphor for the overfed, undernourished American middle class if there ever was one) is all that keeps you watching this misfire.

What went wrong? My first thought is that the director was going for the nasty Bachman vibe, but he also somehow sucked all the interest out of the movie with poor casting choices - the actors here (with the exception of Joe Monetegna) simply can't carry the movie. And then he squished the warmth and life out of the rest of the movie with awkward pacing and scene structure. Plus he couldn't leave the plot alone, and his changes don't really help. The script and dialog ought to work, but mostly the movie just lies there. Everything is muffled, dull, airless, and no fun to watch...with the vivid exception of the spectacle of the main character getting....thinner, and thinner, and thinner.

As other have pointed out, "Thinner" is by no means the worst King movie ever made (or even the second worst). And it does have a dreadful, compelling fascination owing to the theme and the careful makeup work. But first time viewers should approach this one with lowered expectations.


It's a waist to indulge such great actors in such a weak and boring movie. Besides all the unanswered questions posted in the other comments, what's so difficult about capturing the robbers? Just eliminate the bank workers, see who was at the bank-from all the cameras' footage angles-prior to the robbers entry and you have those extra 4 remaining robbers among the hostages. Where is the suspense every body is talking about? It was so obvious the moment the hostages were asked to change into this identical uniform that they were all going to walk out the front door... seen it many times. At least Mr. Spike Lee could have seasoned the movie with some good music score and artistic shooting. The Movie is not worth it. Pronto!


I have never seen any of Spike Lee's prior films, as their trailers never caught my interest. I have seen, and admire Denzel Washington, and Jodie Foster's work, and have several of their DVDs. I was, however, entirely disappointed with this movie. If this film is any indication of Spike Lee's ability as a director, my advice would be to "get a job", and stop wasting the time and talent of others.

I wonder if some of the other IMDb commentators watched the same movie that I'd seen. I can only assume, from their sappy lovelorn reviews, that their adoration of Spike Lee has blinded them to the banality of this piece of work. I only paid $2.50, in a "Second Run" theater, and still felt I'd wasted my money.

The IMDb "Trivia" page says it all.......

* "Shot in 39 days" -- How can you expect to shoot a big budget "Blockbuster", (as the media hype promised), in such a short time? No wonder there was such a weak performance by all.

* "Ron Howard was first going to direct the film..." -- He may have done this project some justice, given more time to do so, of course. Though the writing was atrocious, the premise had some merits.

OK! maybe not. I'm sorry! This film was so rife with pitiful cliché's, implausible scenes, and lousy characterizations, that maybe even he couldn't have made much of it. (Hey Ron! Be sure to thank Russell...Good call!)

* "Jodie Foster filmed her part in three weeks." -- And it showed! Her portrayal of a "Fixer", who makes people's problems go away, was as unbelievable as the script she was given. Did she even want to be there?

Other Peeves:

* How many bank robbers would bother to come to the door, and inform a uniformed police officer that they were inside robbing the bank, and he'd better keep away...or else?

* When "Detective Frazier", (Denzel Washington), comes into the bank to verify there are no corpses yet, how many bank robbers, without a gun, would have "led" a cop, (much less "let" a cop) back out to the front door, allowing the police officer to walk behind him?

* Det. Frazier later claimed, to have given the robber "every reason to shoot me." Why, then, in their brief struggle, didn't he even try to expose the robber's face? That may have gotten the response he was looking for...a robber would have shot him just to prevent later identification. And why did it take "Steve, Stevie, Steve-O", (the robber's accomplice), so long to come and help out?

* I understand that these weren't your typical bank robbers. They had a different agenda, and didn't want anyone harmed. But the cops had no reason to think that they wouldn't. To them it was a desperate situation. Why then, when two of the bad guys stepped outside to "pick up the pizzas?", were they not taken down. (first of all, how many robbers would have came outside without using a hostage as a shield? Is this Spike Lee's version of NY City, or SNL's?). Taking them down would have reduced the bad guy's numbers, screwed up their plans, and the remaining robbers would more probably have given up. If not, there at least would be fewer bad guys inside. (Give SWAT something to do, or send them home!)

* What police department in this country, would have allowed Madeline White, (Jodie Foster), to just waltz right into the bank, and discuss a matter with the robbers, that she would not disclose to them first? She had no authority, no governmental credentials; and besides, this was after all, "already" a hostage situation...add one more?

* Why wouldn't the Bank CEO, (Christopher Plummer), just have destroyed the incriminating documents a long time ago? Screw sentimentality! The diamonds, he could have sold.

* Who was that "schmuck", (the character, not the actor), with the Jersey accent, that, conveniently, volunteered, and said he knew the recording was "100% Albanian", but yet he himself couldn't speak it.....SIR! PUT YOUR HAND DOWN! And his Ex-wife! What a "schlump" she was!!! Both were totally unbelievable.

* When interrogating suspects, why did Det. Frazier, continually harass the individuals who were obviously not a part of the heist?, (i.e. - telling the elderly woman she could go, and then she couldn't, then could; then couldn't?) Give me a break!

* Who, after seeing the bank robbers demand that the hostages put on jump suites, couldn't deduce their escape plan included coming out of the bank pretending to be some of the hostages?

* Near the end of the movie, a false wall was shown to have been built in the supply room, behind which Clive Owens hid out for "a week"....where did the materials come from? (the drywall & studs). It was also to be assumed that they cut into the sewer, so he could relieve himself. The bank employees hadn't complained about the smell, all week long? Hello!

* After such a debacle; since the documents "had" fallen into the robber's hands, what kind of "references" was Ms. White expecting to get from the bank CEO, seeing that he was now to be a target for blackmail, due to her failure?

* And last, but certainly not least, What's with the "Electric Glide" that Denzel did? HOW STUPID! Was that supposed to indicate his "resolve" to bring these guys to justice? He looked, rather, like a man who hopped a ride on a shopping cart, while trying to prevent a bowel movement! "Cheeee-Zheeee"!!!!

Other than the mediocre plot; lousy script; bad acting; and overall pitiful directing......yada, yada, yada.

Hopefully this will give enough insight into the movie to help others decide whether to waste their money or not!

.


My wife and I found this film to be highly unsatisfying. While the plot keeps you interested and busy wondering just what is going on, when you leave the theater, there are just too many loose ends that make no sense at all. (SPOILERS AHEAD) Christopher Plummer, enormously wealthy head of a NY bank has a terrible hidden secret. Profiting from WW II deals with the Nazis and hiding loot stolen from Jews, he keeps the evidence (including diamonds and documents with the Nazi swastika) in a safety deposit box in his bank. Why? If he wants this never to be revealed, why did he not burn and destroy the documents years ago? And the diamonds? Obviously, he does not need them - why keep them rather than dispose of them? How did the bank robbers find out his secret? How did they know to zero in on this very safety deposit box #232? Ace detective Denzel Washington also discovers bank records show SD Boxes No's 231 and 233, but no #232. Curious. He meticulously found time somehow to do an exhausting search of bank records to unearth this one curious fact. All the while dealing with a red hot hostage situation and bank robbers threatening to start executing them momentarily. Wow! Talk about super powers for a detective.

The bank robbers leave behind millions of dollars in loose currency in the vault they have opened. They take only the contents of SD Box #232, ostensibly for the purpose of blackmailing the bank president. This defies any rational attempt at a logical explanation for what the film depicts as a criminal mastermind, or for his henchmen with lesser brains.

Jodie Foster, using her political connections with the Mayor of NYC, gains permission to enter the bank which is under the control of the bank robbers while holding many hostages. She offers the chief bank robber a deal to buy back the documents he now has in hand, but he ain't interested. So what's his point (if any?).

My wife was offended by the arrogance of all the players, Christopher Plummer (Bank President), Denzel Washington (ace detective), and Jodie Foster, crack trouble shooter for high-powered problems.

The last Jodie Foster movie I saw, "Flight Plan", was also riddled with holes that made no sense at all. I thought I liked Jodie Foster, but I will probably avoid her future films.

Now my problem is that I can rarely persuade my wife to go to the movies. I cannot disagree with her on this one ... "A WASTE OF MONEY, AND A WASTE OF TIME." Be forewarned. A well crafted film, fine actors, lousy script writing.


A yawn-inducing, snail-paced disappointment, Inside Man tells the story of a detective (Denzel Washington) who is under investigation due to his possible involvement in a case of missing money. When a bank is robbed and hostages are held against their will by a mastermind thief (Clive Owen) and his team, the detective is assigned to coerce the thief to surrender  his one shot at proving he is innocent and worthy of his position. Enter a powerful woman (Jodie Foster) with secrets and intents of her own, sent to recover an item from the bank owner's safety deposit box that is stored within the bank, and you have quite the three-way dilemma. Unfortunately, all you get it set-up in the film, and nothing pays off in the end. Denzel Washington is at his most uninteresting in an ineffective and distastefully egocentric performance. The only saving grace for the film is its competent co-stars Jodie Foster and Clive Owen, who are much better than the film itself. In fact, Jodie Foster delivers the most surprising and high-caliber performance playing against type as a ruthless, cutthroat villain of sorts. Clive Owen isn't given much to do besides brood and pose, but the depth of his presence and his achieved acting ability more than make up for his underdeveloped role. It's strange that so much talent is wasted on this film of little impact or interest. You have to wonder what director Spike Lee was thinking while he was creating this film. The most perplexing aspect of Inside Man, however, is how much unwarranted praise it has received. For a film that seemed to have all the makings of a pre-summer blockbuster, this one falls horribly flat.


Movie: There are some very interesting comments on IMDb about this movie. Its truly awful. Not enough money is spent on the movie and the way Spike Lee has made it, it seems like a combination of an indie film and an action flick. Characters/Actors: Denzel has done "EXACTLY" what he does in every movie, so no surprise there. Here is a little mind game for the readers. Quickly think of 10 Denzel movies. Now count how many of them were in which he played a cop/detective/body guard, whatever. Clive Owen, hmmmmmm, this guy needs a better role on his plate soon. His best performance was I think in "Beyond Borders". Other than that he did pretty much the same thing as he does in every movie as well. His tone and way of talking was very similar to what he did in "Sin City". Surely this guy knows acting, what he doesn't know is better way of choosing roles. He is in desperate need of a better agent. Jodie Foster was brilliant in the movie, if you are watching her for the first time in your life. She has done better. She has had better roles. It so happens in Hollywood that even the biggest stars fall down on their knees and pick up low class roles as Jody Foster did in this movie. Plot: Plot was not confusing, in fact, I could think of such a plot, in fact the whole movie, while taking a dump after a nice big Chinese dinner. I mean come on, ****SPOILER ON THE WAY----> I am sick of the un-necessary Haulocast and the Racism token. The movie is about bank robbers, why put the Haulocast and the Racism in there, nice try playing with people's emotions, worked on anyone? NOT ME. Police let the bank robbers go thinking they were hostages? Riiiiiiight, please, we're talking about US police force and security here. Nobody could find out where Clive was, I mean they didn't find anything different with that room. Who're we kidding? Conclusion: Sure, go watch this movie, if nothing, you'll have a nice time talking to you friends how bad the movie was. At least people won't think you're stupid to go watch this movie because they'd think you went to watch it because it has a big star cast "MISTAKE".


This is a dumb movie. Maybe my judgment wouldn't be so harsh if the film didn't promise so much, but I just felt like this movie cheated and played me for a fool at every turn.

I didn't have any beef with the acting, but I thought the characters were awful. The movie starts off with Clive Owen's character telling us what a criminal mastermind he is, and how he planned the perfect bank robbery, something he frequently reminds us of later. Oh yeah, he also tells us he's in a prison cell, although that turns out to be a dumb metaphor. Any idiot knows that the best bank robbery is one where a minimum number of things could potentially go wrong, and you're long gone before the police show up. But Clive Owen's scheme requires hanging around the bank for hours - for no reason but to stalk around and look scary as far as I can tell. He also has to control hostages, negotiate with cops, and most fantastically of all, perform a This-Old-House job on the bank's stockroom and hide out there for a week (I hope he brought enough food, and a bucket to pee in) and then sneak out again. Yeah, that sure sounds like the perfect crime to me, Clive! This plan has so many moving parts that the only reason it didn't fall apart was the screenwriter said so.

And then there are the many unexplained details: Why were the cops so convinced that the crooks had accomplices among the hostages? Who the hell is Jodie Foster's character, and why is she so important that she has the mayor at her beck and call and she doesn't have to tell Denzel Washington her agenda because "it's above his pay scale?" How dumb are these cops that they can't figure out one guy speaking in a foreign language for hours is not the sound of a criminal gang planning a robbery? How did the robbers slip away, and why did Clive Owen stick around for a week? How did they find out about the bank chairman's past, and the number and contents of his safe deposit box? Why the hell would Clive Owen let in Jodie Foster or the cops? Since when do they make toy AK-47s that look real up close? How the hell do you bug a pizza box, anyway? How did Clive Owen manage to sneak out of a secure area of the bank during working hours, undetected? Did this dispassionate criminal really feel bonded enough to this cop Denzel to slip him a diamond?

None of these questions are ever answered. There are films that achieve depth by leaving you to wonder about events that happen off-screen, but I never felt that way about Inside Man. It felt like the scenes that explained these things were cut from the movie, or these questions never had any answers in the first place, and that's weak. Particularly annoying is Jodie Foster's character, who won't disclose what she does, but never seems to tire of reminding us how important she is. We're just supposed to take her word for it, I guess.

The only reason I gave this movie two stars is I laughed at Denzel's "taxi cab" and "pina colada" gags, and at the kid's outrageous video game. Other than that, this movie has no redeeming features.


This movie makes no sense at all, there are plot holes big enough to drive enormous NYPD vehicles through. The characters do not act in any plausible way whatsoever. I will put my comments in the chat board, but save your time and money, this is stupid. I can't stand when Hollywood spends millions of dollars on flash bang equipment and uses fancy editing and cool music, and does not bother to have a plot that hangs together at even the most basic level. But it is nice to see Denzel W. prevail over the Man, who comes in 3 flavors, Jodi Foster, Mayor Bloomberg and Capt. Von Trapp. There is even a sweet little kid with a video game who is nice.


Three story lines and not enough tying them together, "Inside Man" was very jumpy and an incomplete attempt to be artistic and realistic. Though having its moments, the movie started off looking like a fast thriller which quickly grounded to a slow crawl, jumped quickly between highs and lows, and only barely picked up steam again near the last 20 minutes. I will give credit to Denzel Washington, he played his part extremely well with a full grasp of his human side and not just the typical "super-detective" with all the answers. Clive Owen also did quite well with his duality part as "evil genius" and "criminal mastermind" (both not the same in retrospect). Overall though, each person individually created a great sub-section. Yet, when the parts finally came together and everything counted, there was no sudden "ah-ha!" or summation of everything. It all ended up with very little of the energy it began with, with a lot of plot-holes, tons of questions, and as I said earlier, no where near Spike Lee's normal level. I have to completely disagree with the so-called "professional critics"... this is not the movie they play it up to be.


Now isn't it? Considering all the good work done by danzel,Clive and Jodie, the movie never grew into something more than a horrible die-hard/heist movies copycat. Yes a couple of jokes, no absolutely no unpredictable twists, to be honest the only unpredictable moments are there because both director and editor made some stupid mistakes, it is a shame for them and a waste of time for us. IF someone can tell me why on earth were they digging a hole inside that safe, who the hell is the Rebe and how on earth did they know that the diamonds were in the particular cell, it could just make my day, but it seems that Spike asks us to take too much things in this one for granted, and do not raise our eyebrows when something looks stupid...its just another studio contract movie relax and enjoy...


The trailers for this film were better than the movie. What waste of talent and money. Wish I would've waited for this movie to come on DVD because at least I wouldn't be out $9. The movie totally misses the mark. What could have been a GREAT movie for all actors, turned out to be a B-movie at best. Movie moved VERY slow and just when I thought it was going somewhere, it almost did but then it didn't. In this day and age, we need unpredictable plot twists and closures in film, and this film offered neither. The whole thing about how everyone is a suspect is good, however, not sure if it was the way it was directed, the lighting, the delivery of lines, the writing or what, but nothing came from it. Lot of hype for nothing. I was VERY disappointed in this film, and I'm telling everyone NOT to see it. The cheesy saxophone music throughout made the film worse as well. And the ending had NOTHING to do with the rest of the film. What a disappointment.


This movie had so much potential - a strong cast, a reasonably strong idea and clearly a decent budget. I'm not sure where it all went wrong, but each of those elements was wasted. The story went nowhere, the characters were hollow to say the least and the result was a very boring, pointless, waste of a film. I hated it. Judging by the other votes, I'm in the minority here and must be some sort of freak. However, I thought this movie was dreadful. I had high hopes, but was very disappointed. A particular disappointment was Jody Foster's character. A very cocky "fixer" of sorts makes a nice idea. Jody was confident and sexy, but the character did nothing and went nowhere. Denzel Washington played the same character he always plays - enjoyable but nothing new.


First, this film is not a "thriller." Neither is it "gripping, taut." It might have been so based on the script, but the direction's slow pace makes it difficult to get into.

The plot itself is very interesting and ingenious. Unfortunately, we only get a sense of *how* ingenious after the picture is over. That leaves us with over two hours of long sequences with music playing over them punctuated by some action scenes that don't grab the viewer, and "cunning vixen" scenes that inject a little more overt intelligence.

I wish this had been the fast-paced thriller the box promised. It would've been an outstanding film. Instead, Spike Lee made it plod along through the end.


For me an unsatisfactory, unconvincing heist movie. With an A-List cast, particularly the three leads and an experienced maverick director like Spike Lee I was expecting far more and in the end felt that what was delivered added little to this movie sub-genre. For a start I didn't like the pacing of the film, starting off with mastermind Clive Owen's raison d'etre piece to camera, unnecessarily repeated at the conclusion, then finding the narrative peppered with confusing, not to say unreal-seeming witness interviews, then finding yourself jumped into scenes you sense had begun earlier. Of course the camera work is fluid throughout, constantly on the move and incorporating hand-camera shots a-plenty, but director Lee fails to deliver thrills or suspense, falling down fundamentally by not making anything of the key protagonists in the film. Denzel Washington is weighed down with the clothes and bad-ass jive talk of a "Shaft" movie thirty - five years earlier (he even has that "no-one understands him but his woman" thing going on, replete with his "hot" girlfriend, baiting her with some downright crude and inappropriate "dirty-talk") and his mild "In The Heat Of The Night" riff with Willem Defoe (in almost a bit-part) raises barely a ripple. Clive Owens plays his character with a resolutely English accent even as we're given to believe the gang is Arab-based, also hindered by having to play 90% of the film with a mask over his face. Jodie Foster delivers another of her patented tight-lipped, ice maiden, sub-Clarice Starling turns as a well connected financial bounty-hunter, if you will, to little effect. Overall it's a real mish-mash of a film, with a light but obvious twist at the end, in fact the title gives it away from the start, spoiler fans. Worst scene (of many) is undoubtedly Washington's witness-interview, unbelievably, with an 8 year old street-kid, although Owen's dialogue with the same child minutes earlier runs it close in the embarrassment stakes. During the film in-joke references are made by characters to classic heist films like "Serpico" and "Dog Day Afternoon" - but there's no honour in self-praise. More like "The Hot Rock" instead...and even that was good for a few laughs.


This was talked about to death by the critics when it honestly isn't that great. Sure, "CHAOS" and "INSIDE MAN" are literally the same movie, just with variations in suspense. But I found "CHAOS" more enjoyable because it was fast paced kinda like the silly film "Swordfish." The reason this film is more popular is because this got released in the States and "Chaos" was aired all around the world at film festivals and foreign theaters, but has yet to find a distributor in the U.K. and U.S.A.

It's true that this film makes lots of tributes to classic films like DOG DAY AFTERNOON and other Spike Lee films, but that doesn't mean that it is a pleasant film to watch.

Watch it if nothing else is on T.V., but you'll probably get bored with after awhile.


No movie with Madeleine Carroll in its cast could possibly be unwatchable. That said, I have to add that this British film comes close. The story takes place on board the `SS Atlantic' and it's loosely based on the `Titanic's' unfinished voyage. The word `unsinkable' is spoken, the liner strikes an iceberg, and we hear a heavenly choir sing `Nearer My God to Thee.' The doomed passengers eventually take over the anthem, in a clever bit of sound work. But the year of the film's release (1929) means that a modern viewer has to accept otherwise primitive sound and many of the acting conventions of silent films and the stage. These aren't problems. The film's major flaw is pacing, and pacing had been well developed in silents. However, if the dialog were delivered at a realistic speed, the movie's running time would be cut in half. The intended effect was drama (and clarity in a new medium), but the result unhappily is tiresome now. The film's structure is preposterously illogical and inept. Paradoxically, I found certain details of the editing quite modern in technique: fine, abrupt cuts from one area of the ship to another, sometimes even on sound effects. Although we're on board the `Atlantic' from the first shot, we were well over 4 minutes into the movie before I discovered that fact. There are long, intrusive musical passages by the ship's dance orchestra. (Entertaining, easy sound.) Personal stories are presented in an utterly uninvolving and unconvincing way. Don't even think of spectacle. The berg is a tiny thing and the exterior damage it does to the ship's hull is a minor dent. However, the scenes of passengers swarming into the lifeboats - clearly staged on a real liner, presumably tied up to a dock - generate great excitement. Other than the glorious Miss Carroll, these sequences are the film's only points of excellence. As the movie and the ship near their end, the screen goes totally black several times when the power generators begin to fail. Their last, eternal blackout is the end of the film, with a sunset/sunrise tacked on, a clumsy symbolic effect. `Atlantic' is a cinema curiosity. At best.


Yes I know "talkies" had just been invented for the cinema 2 years earlier when this was produced in 1929 but this film showed that much had to learnt about the art of producing films.It comes over as a filmed "hammy" stage play with the actors melodramatically enunciating their lines,rolling their eyes, using too many pregnant pauses and using gestures more appropriate to silent cinema, which I suppose was normal during the process of educating them to appear more naturalistic on screen.The gaps between lines spoken should have been tightened up during editing as it considerably slows the film.It is now only of interest for Titanic buffs who want to see an early example of this marine accident on film.In next chronological order they could see "Titanic" (1953) A Night to Remember (1958)"Titanic (1997), to see how the cinema's depiction of this tragedy as evolved over the years.There have been many documentaries and TV films made including the atrocious "SOS Titanic" (1979) On my version which is a DVD, David McCallum gives the introduction.It was he who played Harold Bride Marconi's junior wireless operator in "A Night to Remember"(still the best feature film - please read my "Tribute to Walter" comments on IMDb under Howard Morley.demon.co.uk)and gave the commentary on the series of 4 videos entitled "End of a Dream" so he was well qualified to give the narration.Of more interest I found was a recording accompanied by actual photos of the 1912 US Senate hearing which is also on the DVD.Actors speak the actual words spoken by Lightoller 2nd officer, J Bruce Ismay,Managing director of White Star, Harold Bride and others including Gloria Stewart (The "old Rose" in Titanic 1997) whose voice is used for one of the first class women survivors.


I am a Motion Picture Production major at Wright State University in Ohio, and yesterday I was sadly given the opportunity to watch this god-awful film in class. We were informed by our professor that it would be very funny to us, but the reason we were watching it was because it was one of the first sound films - a complete disaster.

The problem with early sound films was that Hollywood actors only knew how to do silent movies and they weren't good at memorizing lines. So producers and directors would look to the stage to get actors. Sounds like a great idea, right? Well, the kind of acting one does on stage doesn't show up too well on film. Most of the actors in "Atlantic" look and sound like they're acting in a play, which results in lots of hearty laughs at the over-acting. Another limitation of early sound film was the technology of microphones. You couldn't move the mikes like you can today, you had to keep them static or it would pick up the sound of air moving through. There was usually one mike used in any given scene in this movie. In one particular scene, there is a man sitting at a table. Someone walks right up to him and delivers their line, then walks away. Another actor comes up from behind him, delivers their line, then walks away. It goes on like this for a couple more people. The microphone is obviously right by the man at the table, making for a laughable actor carousel.

Those are only technical problems. If you get into the story and direction, then it gets even worse. The story is a fictionalized account of what happened on the Titanic. The characters are unbelievable and pointless. A "story" about a man cheating on his wife and their teenage daughter has no place in the movie. It is barely resolved and leaves you wondering why it was there in the first place. A lousy attempt at high drama, the actors take long, pregnant pauses between lines many times. It is tiresome, and you can't wait for this 90 minute (feels like 180 at least) movie to get over with. I'm not going to talk a whole lot about the issue of racism at this time in our country, but it really offended me that there were only two blacks in the whole movie, and they were portrayed as animals. They both pushed past the women and children to try and get in one of the lifeboats. They were ordered to stop or be shot, and of course they didn't so they were shot. I was appalled.

I give this movie a 2/10. I would have given it a 1/10 (the lowest rating possible), but I gave it an extra point just because it was one of the first sound films, and I tried to put it into context. If you want to see a good early sound film, check out Alfred Hitchcock's "Blackmail" that also came out in the year 1929. You will find that the best directors were able to adapt to new technology immediately.


1st watched 5/17/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Ewald Andre Dupont): Fairly lame account of the Titanic disaster is the first filmed version of this much-heralded event. The replication of the disaster is not bad, but the drama around it is at some times silly, badly acted and way-too soap opera-like. The story is very much the same as the most recent Oscar-winning one except that we are shown how the crew tried to hide the actual disaster that was occurring until almost too late. Good for nostalgia purposes only and to get a feel for what James Cameron was competing against(barely) in his recreation.


Three writers made a valiant attempt to adapt Jane Stanton Hitchcock's novel for the tube, yet this television movie has ultimately been injected with too much melodrama and just doesn't know when to quit. Struggling artist Meg Tilly suddenly finds herself employed by wealthy, enigmatic Ellen Burstyn, who desires a mural painted on the walls of her unused ballroom. After learning about the last gathering held there--Ellen's daughter's coming-out party--Tilly decides on her artistic theme, never dreaming the daughter died mysteriously before the function even began, nor that she and the deceased bore a striking resemblance to one another! Two superb actresses lend their services to an incredible yarn which doesn't bear close scrutiny, one that fails to match either lady in emotional intensity. Burstyn's role teeters on camp, while Tilly gets stuck doing the dreamy-eyed-waif routine. Only one sequence late in the film (the morning after the mural is finished) is charged with honest feeling, anger and betrayal. The rest is piffle.


Need I say--its a stinker! (I gave it a rating of 2)

Only watch it if you suffer from insomnia.

There's plenty of scenery chewing and hamming it up, but not much else happens in this movie. There is no suspense, no deep, shocking secrets revealed, no real threat to the heroine's well being. A few disagreements, slight raising of voices--that's pretty much it. The secrets are nothing that couldn't happen to anybody - the last "secret" revealed in the film is totally predictable by that point.

The plot, such as it is, revolves around a young woman named Faith (Meg Tilly), who is an artist, who is hired to paint a series of mural panels in a huge ballroom in a vast mansion by a very, very wealthy, older widowed woman, and a growing mother/daughter type relationship that the older woman craves with her.

It turns out the older woman's daughter, Cassandra, is dead. You can pretty well fit the rest of the pieces together.

Even the scene with the mysterious man menacing our heroine does not advance to the point where you really fear for her safety beyond maybe a second or two. Why he's still hanging around years after Cassandra's death is a good question.

There's also the question of the fact that in this vast mansion there is only one servant, a faithful butler who seems to do everything--cooking, cleaning, serving the meal, answering the door, etc. Everything except apparently locking the door--since that would be the only explanation for how one of the characters just walks into a room where Faith is.

There's nothing that will have you grasping your chair arms, and leaning forward on the edge of your seat, because there IS no "mounting" tension in this film--just bland, pathetic revelations that get tossed out from time to time.


I enjoy a good, slow-moving drama. Christmas In August, Chungking Express, Virgin Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, The Way Home, Springtime in a Small Town, Hana bi, Eat Drink Man Woman, Dolls, In the Mood for Love, and Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring are all enjoyable films  just to name a few.

Unfortunately, there is a subset of films within the drama genre that attempt to ride the coattails of good films while providing nothing of interest themselves. These are what I call IAN films  "Incomprehensible Artistic Nonsense." Tsai Ming-liang is the king of this subgenre, and Vive L'Amour is his "masterpiece." In fact, this is the crème de la crème of crap-infested garbage under the guise of "art." People walk around in their apartments, drink water, stroll back and forth waiting for pay phones to become vacant, hang posters, staple papers together, go to the bathroom, eat, do pushups, have sex, slap at mosquitoes, etc. I'm not joking when I say that is an accurate synopsis of the entire film, which is the quintessential posterchild for pointless art-house trash. There is no plot, no storyline, no interesting or noteworthy events, no emotion, no meaningful dialogue, and most importantly  no drama.

The most eventful scene has two people "banging" on a bed with a person masturbating underneath the mattress  ironic that it's also totally tasteless and gratuitous. The relationship of the characters on the bed is practically non-existent. Tsai apparently didn't feel like communicating anything to the viewer regarding these people other than the obvious fact that they like to "bang." The person under the bed is just as one-dimensional and uninteresting. He likes to drink water, makeout with melons, and stroke himself. This is Tsai's idea of "character development." A truly misguided "entertainer" indeed.

Tsai's true contribution in Vive L'Amour is perhaps the most atrocious scene in art-house film history. He first shows the lead actress walk all the way from one end of a park to the other for 285 consecutive seconds, only to then show her cry hysterically  for absolutely no reason whatsoever  for another 356 consecutive seconds. The film then abruptly ends. No point. No entertainment. Just pure, concentrated torture inflicted on the viewer.

In an effort to beat a dead horse. The underlying theme of loneliness is mishandled so greatly that the only true feeling of this film is that of boredom. In fact, Kiyoshi Kurosawa provides a much better exposition on loneliness in his horror film Kairo. And guess what? It's actually INTERESTING! That film moved as slow as molasses in January, but there are better ways of addressing the concept of loneliness than the utter waste known as Vive L'Amour. Kairo is a perfect example of that.

Fans of cinema may thank Tsai Ming-liang for directing this film, as he has provided irrefutable evidence that art-house cinema can be just as poorly made as B-grade, made-for-television horror flicks. Art-house snobs have now officially lost their pedestal of self-righteousness. The quality level of your precious genre now overlaps films like Army of Darkness and  gasp!  Showgirls. How do you like them apples?


I suppose it's nice and trendy to see wonderful things in the absolute emptiness of a film like this. With the sometimes pointless excesses of many Hollywood films, we can relax and enjoy a scene devoid of explosions, foul language, and corny one-liners. Minimalism has its place, and can be very effective when employed properly. However, this film is not one of those cases.

Take the long scenes with no dialogue and dreary, sparse scenery. I'm sure that they must hold some great meaning and insight, because the implied message in shrouded in bafflement. The acting is poor... bland and pedestrian... and features one of the worst crying scenes in history (at the end of the film, if you can sit through it to the end). The scenery is drab, and the ridiculously long ending sequence of the girl walking through the barren park is as pleasurable as having a tooth pulled. I would call this anticlimatic, but as the film didn't build to any sort of climax whatsoever... not even in the "erotic" scenes... it would be untrue. I'm sure that there was a script employed during the filming, but with the amount of dialogue, I think it might have been written on a cocktail napkin. Basically, this film offers nothing to interest or amaze... no great story, no stunning insights, no visual drama, no excitement. Apart from two or three amusing moments, this film is a waste of two hours. A tragically boring and dreary film.


There are pretty landscape shots. Writers putting trite mouthings into actors mouths. With lesser actors this show would be silly. 'Art must uplift humanity or it's BS.' Not so because art of all those mentioned is also to stir humanity and express the dark side. The lead character even says those who don't drink hide the shadow side. Wrong , he lived in darkness and repressed his dark side by drinking and being one dimensional not expanding his horizons with something other than landscapes. There wasn't a breathing organism in his work nor expression of his pain. All the artist did was limit himself to dime a dozen landscapes. The discussions between the characters was grade school, trite stuff always giving the one character the upper hand the writer wanted. I tried to like it after reading all the first wow comments on here. I had to dig deep to see those i agreed with. I figure the great comments were from those connected to the movie. I was moved only once towards the end. The kid was way too passive. The scenery was nice and the music ridiculous. Just my opinion but nowhere show for me.


This movie was a major disappointment on direction, intellectual niveau, plot and in the way it dealt with its subject, painting. It is a slow moving film set like an episode of Wonder Years, with appalling lack of depth though. It also fails to deliver its message in a convincing manner.

The approach to the subject of painting is very elite, limited to vague and subjective terms as "beauty". According to the makers of this movie, 'beauty' can be only experienced in Bob-Ross-style kitschy landscape paintings. Good art according to this film can be achieved by applying basic (like, primary school level) color theory and lots of sentiment. In parts the movie is offending, e.g. at a point it is stated (rather, celebrated by dancing on tables) that mentally handicapped people are not capable of having emotions or expressing them through painting, their works by definition being worthless 'bullshit' (quote).

I do not understand how the movie could get such high rating, then again, so far not many people rated it, and they chose for only very high or very low grades.


As gently as I can, I sincerely believe this movie is a waste of time. I did not find it the 'warm, emotionally satisfying' film others did. I found it boring, with music that distracted from the film. The story was thin, the characters overdrawn, and the direction pedestrian.

Fooey.

Now I'm going to write some more about this movie, so I make the 10 line minimum. There really isn't more to be said and brevity is important, but IMDb has its minimums, so here goes.

Young eager kid finds nascent talent, seeks time with aging, embittered mentor in spite of father's cartoonish homophobia. Aging, embittered mentor turns out to drink a lot and teach very little. conflict arises. While I don't think this is a spoiler, I've added the warning in case someone feels this much information is too much.

Mostly, I just found the film boring and pretentious. A waste of my time. I honestly don't understand what little fuss there seems to be, mostly on this web site, about the transcendent quality of this movie. I think it's really worth avoiding. But, as Dennis Miller used to say, "Maybe I'm wrong."


I enjoyed the movie very much, emotionally, intellectually, and visually. It contains no violence or sex or drugs or special effects, and doesn't need them one bit, holding my attention the entire time with the visuals, story, and interspersed words of wisdom.

However: [1] some of the foreign language accents made the dialog difficult to hear & understand; [2] there is unnecessary overuse of swearing (especially the F-word, which is the only reason this movie was rated R). [3] The movie is balanced with humor and emotion, but most of the emotion that holds you throughout the film, except the final resolution last minutes, is unpleasant due to the exaggerated long-lasting dysfunctional reaction of some of the characters to loss, living in the depths of bitterness and depression for too long. [4] I will not recommend this movie because of 5-seconds of background narration, which did not add one bit to the side-character it applied to, or the film -- it only turned me off to the movie and stuck in my brain through the whole movie and afterward: the main character's mother of German ancestry, when watching old WWII movies, "secretly roots for the Germans." There would be no "local color" or art if the Nazi's won the war. I don't know of any Germans today except radical skinheads who think the world would be a better place if the Nazi's won WWII.


I wanted so much to enjoy this movie. It moved very slowly and was just boring. If it had been on TV, it would have lasted 15 to 20 minutes, maybe. What happened to the story? A great cast and photographer were working on a faulty foundation. If this is loosely based on the life of the director, why didn't he get someone to see that the writing itself was "loose". Then he directed it at a snail's pace which may have been the source of a few people nodding off during the movie. The music soars, but for a different film, not this one....for soap opera saga possibly. There were times when the dialogue was not understandable when Armin Meuller Stahl was speaking. I was not alone, because I heard a few rumblings about who said what to whom. Why can't Hollywood make better movies? This one had the nugget of a great story, but was just poorly executed.


WHITE CHICKS Hold on, why couldn't they have dressed as Black Chicks, oh yeah, they wouldn't look different at all. Can anyone give me one Wayans movie where they haven't dressed up as ladies? Don't Be A Menace doesn't count, Jack White and Michael Costanza ghost wrote that (the other Norton Trio members acted as Directors).

In White Chicks, there's never really any jokes. It's just the Wayans acting like girls for 2 hours. There's no setups, no punchlines and no laughs. There is a lot of "I think I'm gonna play some Time Crisis 3." At least for me there was (5 times to be exact).

Somebody has to tell Kenan Ivory, Damon, Marlon, Shawn, Damien (the only talented one), Kim, Rakeesha, George W., and Osama Bin Wayans to stop making movies. Its only hurting the O-Zone layer.

VERDICT 1/2* out of ****


I don't often go out of my way to write comments, but for this I had to, just to warn anyone that might think that by watching this they will see a comedy. This doesn't come close. While the premise (change in colour/gender/whatever) is bad enough (and has been done, better, many times before)the actual transformation of two black guys into two white girls is one of the least convincing transformations ever put on screen. It would be bad enough if all that was required by the script was a change to white chicks. However the Wayans brothers are required to disguise themselves as two specific white women. As you will have guessed by now, they fail completely. I have seen drag queens without makeup make more convincing women than these two do with the best special effects and make-up people that Hollywood can provide. Its appalling. Add to the mix a basketball player built like a building, terrible dialogue and more plot holes than a golf course and this film hits a new personal low. And I like bad movies! Avoid like the plague.


Basically this is an overlong, unfunny, action/comedy. First of all I'd like to say that I did enjoy the Wayans brother Scary Movie (1) and the sequel had it's moments. Unfortunately white chicks doesn't even deliver HALF the laughs.

The humour in it is absolutely crude. If you like burping, farting, stupid catchphrases you should probably look at this. When it isn't crude it's idiotic. The first 10 minutes of the film gave everything away to me, totally unfunny, simply idiotic.

However I watched the whole thing since I was with a friend (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered). The story is undeniably thin, it was in scary movie too but there at least the laughs were quick and constant. I think this is probably one of the main problems too with this film, the laughs don't come quick enough. Some jokes are dragged out too long when they're more disgusting than funny in the first place. If you prefer your comedy with a few brain cells then just avoid this. If you want a silly comedy with more laughs then look at scary movie, airplane, hotshots 1 + 2.

1/10 Completely unfunny, Thin storyline, A film that seems to be based on one idea (i.e. what if we dressed up as white chicks for a film?) but simply didn't have enough material.


Keenan Ivory Wayans is probably one of the worst directors, i swear he has no real knowledge on how to make films. he has made one brilliant film and that is scary movie. scary movie 2 was OK too but everything else Keenan has made are real disasters. avoid such titles like don't be a menace to south central while drinking your juice in the hood..... i know, what a title !!! obviously this film too, just anything that has Keenans name in the credits.

it was an hour and a half on stupid nonsense that never made me laugh. just trust me on this, maybe women might like this film a little because of some of things that happen but on a whole this film will never be liked by anyone with a good taste in films........ 1/10.......j.d Seaton


I *loved* the original Scary Movie. I'm a huge fan of parody- it is my favorite form of humor. It is sometimes regarded as the most intelligent form of humor. The Wayans boys seemed to grasp that concept perfectly in the original film, then temporarily forgot it when making the sequel. I think the Wayans' are a family of comical geniuses. Alas, even geniuses make mistakes.

The movie begins with promise. I liked "The Exorcist" parody, especially the "come on out, ma" gag. Now, that's Wayans-quality material. But, other than that, I can only think of two other times I laughed: 1) when Tori Spelling is seduced in the middle of the night by a spirit, then becomes clingy and starts talking about marriage with him. Meanwhile, he's saying, "It was just a booty call!!" That was kinda funny. 2) The "Save the Last Dance" parody where the Cindy character inadvertently beats up a girl while practicing her new moves. But even the short-lived giggles are no match for the side-splitting laughs of the first Scary Movie.

The rest of the movie is pure trash, filled with cheap gross-out gags. Jokes from the first movie which were subtle or implied are magnified and overdone. For example, in Scary Movie I, several innuendos are made to imply that the character Ray is gay. This was hilarious. But, in Scary Movie II, the whole penis-strangulation scene with Ray under the bed was mind-numbing and incredibly unfunny. This is the pattern of the whole film. Shock humor *alone* doesn't take a movie very far. This was a trend in 2000 and 2001, unfortunately.

As much as it pains me to rate a Wayans movie so low, I have to give this one a 2 out of 10.


Scary Movie 2 is definitely the worst of the 4 films, for there is not much of a plot , bad acting, pretty tedious and some really cheesy jokes. But. And this is a big but, there is one good actor, one good recurring joke, and a good beginning. The good actor being Tim Curry, the one good recurring joke is the creepy,weird butler with the disgusting hand who always does cringey but laugh worthy things. And the good beginning is the spoof of the Excorsist.

The plot to Scary Movie 2 is the main characters from the original and a host of new characters along the way are invited to stay the night at a creepy old mansion, but will they survive the night? This film is not very good but if your bored you might as well watch it!


"Scary Movie 2" is a let down to the Scary Movie Franchise. Scary Movie 1, 3 and 4 were all good but this one was kind of boring and not very funny. Luckily they picked their act up after this one and made two more great Scary Movies.

This film is about a group of teens who get tricked by their Professor into going to a haunted mansion for a night. Things start to go wrong and then they realize they have to escape.

This movie isn't horrible but they could have improved quite a few things. It is a bit of fun and if you liked the other movies in the Scary Movie franchise then give this a watch - but I don't think you will like it nearly as much.


Scary Movie 2 was a grave disappointment. Simply referencing movies, like Mission Impossible 2 does not lead to comedy. The movie opens well enough with a funny white people rapping scene and an excellent use of James Woods ands Andy Richter. The movie plummets from there unfortunately. The acting is awful. Tori Spelling looks and acts completely out of place. The movie looks hacked together and is surprisingly slow paced. Some of the longer gags in this snail paced movie, involving joints and a previously mentioned Tom Cruise movie, werent funny to anyone in my theater. The movie, thankfully, comes screeching to a halt at 83 minutes in a shockingly unfunny ending. (I say shocking because the ending does not even attempt to end with humor) I dont know what else to say except that is a sloppy rushed sequel done to make Miramax some more cash on the backs of dumb teenagers. Overall, a very poorly done movie.


I was very disappointed by this movie. I thought that "Scary Movie" although not a great movie was very good and funny. "Scary Movie 2" on the other hand was boring, not funny, and at times plain stupid.

The Exorcist/Amityville spoof was probably the best part of the movie. James Woods was great.

Now, I'll admit that I am at a disadvantage since I have not seen a few of the movies that this parodies unlike the first, where I had basically seen them all. But bad comedy is still bad comedy.

Something that really hurt this movie was the timing, which ruined some of what might have been good jokes. Scenes and jokes drag out way to long.

Also, the same jokes keep getting repeated again and again. For example, the talking bird. Ok it was funny the first and maybe even the second time. But it kept getting repeated to the point of annoying. The routine between the wheelchair guy and Hanson (Chris Elliott) was amusing at first but it kept getting repeated and ended up stupid and even tasteless.

Some jokes even got repeated from the first movie. For example, the 'creaming' I guess you would call it of Cindy (Anna Faris) was funny in "Scary Movie" because Cindy had been holding out on giving her boyfriend sex for so long, that essentially he had blue balls from hell and it was funny when he 'creamed' her. But this time around it was out of place and not funny.

The bathroom and sexual humor in general was more amusing and well timed the first time around. The scat humor was excessive though and rather unneccessary in the second film.

Tori Spelling was annoying and really had no place in this movie.

But I did enjoy Shorty (Marlon Wayans) who in my opinion was the funniest character in the first film. The scene with him and the pot plant was one of my favorites from the second film.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Wayans family and their humor. That is why this film is so disappointing . . . they have a lot more comic ability than endless scat jokes.


I know a few things that are worst. A few. It had a couple of funny scenes. It is a movie not appropriate for kids but, only a child would find this movie hilarious. This is definetly a movie that you would like to use a free rental coupon for. Don't waste your money just to laugh a couple of times.


The first one was different and funny. This attempt should have never left the studio. This movie does not make you laugh. It is a weak attempt at gross out humor. The movie picks out current and old movies to rip-off. This time the jokes seem used and overdone. The audience that I saw it with only re-acted to Hannibal dinner scene and was otherwise asleep.


The script for "Scary Movie 2" just wasn't ready to go. This is a problem with the film that is blatantly evident, to the actors and the audience alike. Director Keenan Ivory Wayans, and many of the actors are funny people; and so the movie isn't completely humorless. To their credit, the film has several funny moments. But as a whole, "Scary Movie 2" is not even close to being as clever and amusing as the original.

The first "Scary Movie" was a laugh a minute film. It turned the smallest subtleties of the slasher film genre into comedic gold. The humor in "Scary Movie 2" is as heavy handed as it is un-original. They even miss obvious opportunities for parody. Two of the movies stars are former cast members of "Beverly Hills 90210," and this was a show that was begging to be parodied! In the final analysis, "Scary Movie 2" is like a fine bottle of wine that was opened far too soon. The script needed a lot more time to age. 2 stars out of 5.


Given that this movie was put together in less than a year might explain its shortness (81 minutes - including end credits, so roughly 76 minutes of actual film). But what it cannot explain is its lack of humor that the previous film possessed.

The gags are quick and sometimes not even funny. The only true funny parts are the quick spoofs on the Nike basketball spots, James Woods' portrayal of Max Van Sydow's character in the Exorcist, and bits and pieces scattered throughout the film. Very unfunny was the take off of Charlie's Angels, which like the first Scary Movie and the Matrix spin off scene, basically recreated the scene without much humor injected into it.

Today's youth might not be able to relate to the spoof gags of the classic supernatural horror films of the 70's such as the Exorcist and maybe of the 80s' Poltergeist, et. al.

Hopefully Scary Movie 3 will take some time to put together, making the spoofs more enjoyable.

One thing though, the film features more than the last one of promising young actress Anna Faris (whom I will admit seemed exceptionally hot in the sequel). Just for her casting and acting ability, I give this movie a "3" out of "10".


After coming off the first one you think the wayans brothers could come up with some new jokes. Though i guess not. If the first one wasn't bad enough this one is just so bad it hurts to watch. With all the actors they had in this film you think they could come up with something a little more clever. Though they couldn't, they had to take all the same raunchy, not funny jokes from the first one and somehow put it into this film thinking people would laugh at it again. Though the thing is i didn't laugh at it the first time. They tried to make these movies into parodies though they failed at every level. Most of the time it's just randomly inserted jokes, that are so disgusting and raunchy that it's hard to watch it and enjoy it. Then when they do try to do scenes that are movie parodies they just end up making a 20 minute recreation of the scene with maybe one joke within the entire scene. Also for people saying that its not for the older and real young audience, well i fit into the age range that it's supposed to be funny for. While people say that different people have different ideas of what is funny or not, if you do find this funny then you probably aren't one of the more mature or intelligent people around. It doesn't take that much skill to write that kind of a script, though if you do want a more clever and funnier movie go see the movie Spaceballs. It's a movie parody that's actually good and well done and it didn't have to use disgusting and raunchy jokes to make it funny either.


Alright if you want to go see this movie just give me our money I'll

kick you were it counts and you'll have the same amount of fun. I'll

even guarantee more fun. This movie once again shows what happens when

you can't get any one else to hire your family and your forced to make

your own movies. Same, I'm going through puberty humor jokes, just

dumber and grosser. This movie is really a disgrace to movie goers. They

try to shock you into laughing because you can't believe the levels they

have to stoop to make you laugh. So my offer above stands as


As if there weren't enough of those floating around at the time already, we have here another lame GODFATHER clone from the director of IL CONSIGLIORI (1973) which I had watched earlier this year. The marquee-value name roped in this time is Telly Savalas who belatedly enters the proceedings and is first seen from behind, rather campily tending to his flowers and wearing a beret in the style of French painters! Apart from not looking minimally Sicilian, he sports no accent of any kind other than his familiar drawl. Antonio Sabato, then, makes for an unlikely gangster - apart from being a resistible leading man; his relationship with Savalas, which becomes paternal at the flick of an eye, is also unconvincing (especially since he subsequently becomes romantically involved with the latter's spirited teenage niece)! Besides, for a gangster flick, there's precious little action to speak of and none of it is in any way memorable (though the finale set in a clinic is well enough handled); furthermore, the score by Francesco De Masi is serviceable but nothing else. Incidentally, the bargain-basement DVD I rented starts off midway through the credits so that none of the cast members - or even the film's title - is ever listed!


Wenders was great with Million $ Hotel.I don't know how he came up with this film! The idea of giving the situation after spt11 and the view of American Society is hopeful,that makes it 2 out of ten.But this is not a movie.Is that the best someone can do with a great idea(the west-east clash).There are important things going on in middle east and it is just issued on the screen of a MAC* with the fingers of an Amerian girl who is actually at the level of stupidity(because she is just ignorant about the facts).The characters are not well shaped.And the most important thing is the idea that is given with religion is somehow funny to me.At the ending scene Lana says lets just be quiet and try to listen.And the background music says "...I will pray".The thing is not about religion actually.But it ends up with this.How you are gonna see the truth if you just close your eyes and pray.The lights are already shining on the truth.Its just that nobody wants to see it. ps: "My home is not a place.It is people"The only thing that gets 10 out of 10 is that sentence.But it is wasted behind this film making. (by the way; as "someone" mentioned below ,Americas finest young man are not finest,they are just the "poor" and the "hopeless" ones who sign up for the army in need of good paychecks which is not provided by the government ! )


The hysterical thing about this movie is that, according to the director, it has difficulty finding a distributor in the U.S. because most of them that viewed it couldn't reconcile the seemingly conflicting messages of Christianity and American angst. The thought of anyone seeing this as a religious film in anyway is laughable.

Because a minister at a mission prays with the homeless or wishes someone "Godspeed" this makes it a "Christian" movie? One could interpret that it is actually mocking religion for in the "Land of Plenty" with all of its material excess, the best an organized mission can do is hand out a bowl of soup and a bible verse. Plenty of unfortunate or downtrodden maybe? Plenty of useless homeless missions? How about plenty of psycho Vietnam vets? As a pill-popping delusional survivor of agent "pink" are we to think America is a "Land of Plenty" of paranoid patriots? Maybe we have plenty of psychiatric patients? Certainly we don't have plenty of people concerned about Palestine politics based on the main characters phone conversation in the film. Of course if you worked in a German homeless shelter the unfortunate there would be much more concerned about peace in a distant land than their own personal survival as the world knows how Europe is the "Continent of Plenty" when it comes to sophistication.

Indeed I agreed with the title in the end as the United States is the "Land of Plenty" and in this particular case it refers to the abundance of poor scripts, amateur acting and dispassionately directed films. Life is too short and one, even an American, doesn't have "plenty" of time to waste watching this piece.


"Land of Plenty" is not a film. It is a tombstone for the directorial career of German Director Wim Wenders.

Many felt it in "The Million Dollar Hotel" and now "Land of Plenty" makes it perfectly clear; not only has Wenders lost it, he's actually turned into a BAD director, creating horribly weak and superficial stories and scenes.

One might argue that the "time you lose it" comes for every director, but Wenders' case is extreme. It's as if he completely forget everything he knew about cinema and started all over again - only to get sloppish results.

In a few words, this film does not deserve your time.


How wonderful. Yet another movie about America by someone who has visited here probably a half dozen times, a day a piece, and believes himself to be an "expert" on the country. Sheesh. I should take a trip to Germany for a week and then come back and make a movie about Germany as the "land of Nazis" or some such. Wim IL boy, you should get together with Lars von Trier and make the ULTIMATE movie about the Americans. Of course we all know it takes a pretentious left-leaning "we are the world" European to make a "real" movie about America.

Yeah, right. For a continent that started not one but TWO world wars, Europe sure has a lot of opinions about America's wrong "foreign policy".

P.S. Don't worry, Wim IL boy, there's plenty of UC-Berkeley Americans that'll just love your movie. Of course, these are the same people who thinks George W. Bush is worst than Hitler, and that a painting of a can of soup is "sheer genius"!!


Robert Forster, normally a very strong character actor, is lost at sea here cast as a New York family man seeking revenge on the thugs who murdered his son and attacked his wife in a home invasion. Scary subject matter exploited for cheapjack thrills in the "Death Wish" vein. It isn't difficult to scoff at these smarmy proceedings: the dialogue is full of howlers, the crime statistics are irrevocably dated, and the supporting characters are ridiculously over-written (particularly a despicable judge who allows an accused murderer to walk right out of the courtroom). Low-rent production is contemptible in its self-righteousness, especially as the violence in our cities has only increased. * from ****


A police officer (Robert Forster) in a crime ridden city has his wife attacked and young son killed after she dares to stand up to a thug at a petrol station. After the murderers get off scot-free thanks to a corrupt judge and he himself is jailed for 30 days for contempt of court, he decides to take matters into his own hands by joining a group of vigilantes led by a grizzled looking Fred Williamson. These Robin Hood types sort out any criminal that the law is unwilling to prosecute, and with their help he attempts to track down those that wronged him..

This film is nothing but a big bag o'clichés. The only thing out of the ordinary is the on-screen slaying of a two year old boy, which was pretty sick. Otherwise it's business as usual for this genre e.g involves lots of car chases, beatings and shootings mixed in with plenty of male posturing. I could have done without the prison fight in the shower involving all those bare-a**ed inmates, though. Also, did they run out of money before filming the last scenes? I mention this because it ends very abruptly with little closure. If anyone knows, give me a bell.. actually, don't bother.

To conclude: File under "Forgettable Nonsense". Next..


William Lustig's followup to "Maniac" proves conclusively that, without Tom Savini's spectacular effects and Spinell's convincing performance, "Maniac" would never have become the cult hit that it did. "Vigilante" is badly directed, with a simple-minded script that spells everything out for you and is predictable at every turn, and also mediocre performances by all the actors. Judging from the sense of "deja vu" this film gave me, Lustig had watched "Death Wish" several times too many before making this! (*1/2)


Before I start, I _love_ Eddie Izzard. I think he's one of the funniest stand-ups around today. Possibly that means I'm going into this with too high expectations, but I just didn't find Eddie funny in this outing.

I think the main problem is Eddie is trying too hard to be Eddie. Everyone knows him as a completely irrelevant comic, and we all love him for it. But in Circle, he appears to be going more for irrelevant than funny, and completely lost me in places. Many of the topics he covers he has covered before - I even think I recognised a few recycled jokes in there.

If you buy the DVD you'll find a behind-the-scenes look at Eddie's tour (interesting in places, but not very funny), and a French language version of one of his shows. Die-hards will enjoy seeing Eddie in a different language, but subtitled comedy isn't very funny.

If you're a fan of Eddie you've either got this already or you're going to buy it whatever I say. If you're just passing through, buy Glorious or Dressed to Kill - you won't be disappointed. With Circle, you probably will.


Oh my God what the hell happened here?!! I'm not going to say this again but what sort of backward movie is this? The dubbing in this is way worst than the dubbing in "King Kong vs Godzilla",Linda Miller had to be the worst actress in it and the suits are really cheesy.Its about some villain called Dr.Who who gets henchmen to build a robot gorilla that has the same strength as King Kong but when this robot breaks down he builds another one and then tries to kidnap Kong.When he does(thats when Linda Miller gets annoying)he makes Kong his slave but everything goes wrong and King Kong escapes.Then Dr.Who sends the robot after him.

Later when I was watching the movie I got a headache when Linda Miller and the other clowns started moaning.As I sat through the misery of watching the DVD while it was playing I was hoping that the madness in the movie was going to end until the fight.The ending has to be a really bad one because they could've shown Kong back on his island fighting dinosaurs again.

Don't watch the movie under any circumstances or if you do... beware of the disappointment you will receive.


KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1963; which I recall having rated BOMB) had been my introduction to cult director Honda's work; this one isn't necessarily better  it's just that I've learned to be more tolerant towards such intrinsically lowbrow fare!

Here, we actually get two Kongs for the price of one: an ugly and dopey-looking giant ape and a robot variation of it which looks even worse! The simian creature lives on the island of Mondo(!)  where it's shown fighting a couple of other monsters, and befriends a trio of humans. Naturally, it falls for the blonde (and bland) heroine; in fact, more intriguing is a femme fatale in cahoots with the film's villainous mad genius  called Dr. Who and sporting the anemic look and cape usually associated with a vampire!!

He kidnaps King Kong and hypnotizes it in order to retrieve the Element X, which is embedded in the icy wastes of the North Pole; apparently, the giant ape is more impervious to radiation than its mechanical counterpart (and, to ensure its full co-operation, Who even captures its three 'companions')! The female agent then has a change of heart, helps the heroes (one of whom, typically, is a nondescript American) and is killed by Who. Kong eventually escapes and makes it to Tokyo, where it has a final showdown with the robot. The doctor flees the ensuing mayhem in his sub  which, on a request by Kong's dreamgirl, is summarily trashed by the giant ape.


**May Contain Spoilers**

A dude in a dopey-looking Kong suit (the same one used in KING KONG VS. GODZILLA in 1962) provides much of the laffs in this much-mocked monster flick. Kong is resurrected on Mondo Island and helps out the lunkhead hero and other good guys this time around. The vampire-like villain is named Dr. Who-funny, he doesn't look like Peter Cushing! Kong finally dukes it out with Who's pride and joy, a giant robot ape that looks like a bad metal sculpture of Magilla Gorilla. Like many of Honda's flicks this may have had some merit before American audiences diddled around with it and added new footage. The Rankin/Bass animation company had a hand in this mess. They should have stuck to superior children's programs like The Little Drummer Boy.


Sadly, the print of the film we were going to watch burned in the fire at Universal Studios last week, so we were stuck with video. That could even be a metaphor for this second-rate King Kong movie from Toho studios' stalwart director Ishiro Honda. Essentially it's a warm up for "King Kong versus Godzilla". It even uses the idea of a Mecha-Kong, like Mecha-Godzilla. Of course the movie climaxes with King Kong fighting Mecha-Kong on top of the expo tower in Tokyo, but if you didn't know that already then maybe you're in the age group that this movie was intended for.

The cast is headed by a guy named Rhodes Reason who we had never heard of... glancing over his list I see mostly a lot of scattered American TV credits, so it's interesting that they dragged him all the way to Japan so that they could have a nominal American hero. The real hero of the movie is the more sensitive Japanese commander played by Akira Takarada, who I recognized from Hiroshi Inagaki's iconic version of "Chushingura" (47 Ronin) and also from the original Godzilla films by Honda. I'm sorry Rhodes Reason whoever you are, but this guy has way more screen presence and you can bet that everyone wants him to end up with the cute little blonde, played by Linda Miller. We laughed at the way Reason would always find a way to interject himself between Miller and Takarada, who it seemed like she kind of preferred. Of course like all Kong leading ladies her primary relationship is with the King himself. She discovers a nice trick: if you talk to a giant ape really..... really.... slowly..... he'll understand what you're saying. And if you're a blonde gal, that means that he'll do whatever you tell him to do. That fact is not lost on Dr. Who (Eisei Amamoto) and Madame Piranha (Mie Hama) -- representing a "nation which shall not be named" -- who plan on using her as bait to get Kong to dig up mineral deposits that are trapped at the North Pole.

Yes, this is truly the plot of the whole movie -- apparently only a giant ape is going to be capable of digging out these minerals which can be used to make super powerful weapons. Dr. Who builds Mecha-Kong to get it but the circuitry gets in the way, so they decide to go for the real Kong. Kong himself seems momentarily infatuated with Mecha-Kong, a story element that might have made the film more interesting but wasn't followed up on.

By the end of the movie, the cute blonde has shouted "Kong" or "King Kong" in her chirpy voice so many times that when the two heroes tell her to let him go at the end they're speaking for all of us. Basically this movie squanders whatever majesty was possible in the Kong character by making him a heroic and friendly figure much too early, just like the newest version of the story. Kong is just a guy in a suit in this movie, and they show quite a lot of him to the point where the goofy face becomes impossible to take seriously. It's a nice looking movie, I'm sure it satisfies the demands or desires of fans of this type of thing, which is really more of a wrestling film than a monster film in a lot of ways. The monsters don't ever really scare in these films, they just jump around and push each other around a lot. It's not a worthless movie, but it's extremely predictable and formulaic so for anyone under the age of 10 or so it probably will only be entertaining as comedy.


It's the worst movie I've ever seen. The action is so unclear, work of cameras is so poor, actors are so affected ... and this lamentable 5 minutes of Arnie on the screen. My advice from the bottom of my heart - don't watch it unless you like such a low class torture.


From the first time I saw the box cover of the movie and the stretched out photography I thought this guy, this friend of the 'Scwarz' must be like 6 foot or 6ft 2in.

Not 5 feet tall. Not that, it's his fault.

At any rating, I turned on the movie one cool night in Tucson, out on the second story-deck with a good cigar and let it roll. At that time my wife was having an affair and things were going down hill for me, so I needed a good diversion. But, as bad as the movie was...I totally enjoyed it, with a bottle of Merlot too, I might admit.

Truly, I have watched this movie many times. It always makes me feel good!! It's not that it 'tries too hard' to be cool or that 'It's so close' to hitting the mark for an action film....It's frantic. And then truly clueless. Then frantic again. It's the best of the best when it comes to a slow speed chase scene. Wow!! I never felt safer in my life. Warm and happy too. I was thankful that they conserved on the gasoline during the chase, due to less production in the summer months...anywho

The direction was 'uninspired' the action and fight sequences needed to be choreographed, or re-choreographed and tightened up, the sound was off the delivery didn't hit you, it just kept on going, the other way. The 'locals' of that village that they were in, the town rather, were 'Off cue' they also did not seem to follow what was happening very well, the would look and even 'stare' into the camera lens. Like a deer in the head lights kind of thing only some of them with a smile, a smiling deer.

I feel bad because 'Columbu' I just bet has a good heart and a caring spirit for people in America as well as for his own countrymen.

However "Baretta's Island" is very lethargic and unbelievable. Even still I like it a lot. My now x-wife hates it, but I love it!

The funny thing is, I am pretty discriminating when it comes to movies I like or even 'love'. All in all, I like Franco. So there it is.

As a movie adding addendum to this if you like killing a few hours with truly fun to watch, straight to video-B movies or 'bad' movies for your little library collection then, if you can find it, check out 'The Big Sweat' (1991) with Robert Z' Dar..you know the big guy from 'TANGO & CASH'. 'The Big Sweat', a bomb of a cop story with no real plot discovery and acting that is so lame, it might as well be 'on crutches' and at the end of 'The Big Sweat' I think they ran out of money, because they had a picture of the cast and just set it on fire and let it burn during the credits. -Good fun.

But all in all, not as good as Baretta's Island', I gave it a '1' and an overall rating of 'awful' for awful-good B' movie. I'm waiting for the sequel, maybe like 'Baretta's revenge on Montazuma' (Franco takes a Mexican vacation and gets sick on the water then, declares war on the water co.) or 'Baretta's powder war' where as he would stake out a large drug lord in his country and chemically gene-splice and create a hybrid super bug (insect) that would be bred and dropped into the cocaine fields and eat the coke and upon passing it through the bug, it forms a chemical reaction that turns the coke to pure powdered sugar. Then another sequel he would have to get the young people rescued from excessive sugar addiction and so on. He could get a major tooth paste company to endorse and partially fund the project with careful product placement in the feature. Right?(*)


Very funny to watch "Beretta's Island" as kind of natural trash-film.It is like answer to Jess Franko's type of b-movie.Bodybuilders strikes back (!face to face!) to pushers.The very very very stupid strike!Action: unbelievably bad directed firing(shooting) scenes look even better than hand-to-hand fighting.Chasing scenes ridiculous.Saving beauties scenes incredibly stupid.Erotic scenes are very unerotic.The main luck of film is pretty landscapes and festival scenes.Don't miss:Arnold Schwarzenegger's joke at start of film and list of Franco Columbu's kin at the end. Special attraction: naked bosom.Almoust forgot - Franco can sing!


To make any film about the supposed end of the world, there should be some facts & realism 1. We are never told why these people believe this. 2.Location is New Years Eve In Toronto Canada . SO PLEASE SOME ONE TELL ME WHY WAS THEN STILL SHINING AT MIDNIGHT & WHY(based on the costumes) DID IT SEEM LIKE SEPTEMBER

3. The acting was in that neo-au-natural style, that needed a director who knew how to do it.

4. the individual story pieces were all dreary & without any purpose. I could go on, But I do not want to make this as boring as the film.

 rating *1/2 (out of 4) 2 on IMDB scale

thank you I am as always

 JAY HARRIS (aka)SIRBOSSMAN


The world may have ended. Unfortunately this film survived as yet another testament to Canada's inability to make movies that go beyond the execrable. Maybe it's because all our really good people (Norman Jewison, Martin Short et al) go to Hollywood.) In fact it's too bad Short wasn't cast in this apallingly pretentious and banal film. He might have given it some credibility. The Canadian government should realize --- and this movie is a magnificent example --- that shovelling money into the trough does not result in good cinema. If the people lapping up these public funds had had to compete, they might have been forced to come up with something worthwhile. As it is they have produced yet another snickering embarassment.


Watching Josh Kornbluth 'act' in this movie reminds me of my freshman TV production class, where the 'not funny' had the chance to prove just how unfunny they really were!

OBVIOUS is the word that comes to mind when I try to synopsize this wannabe comedy. The jokes are sophomoric and telegraphed. The delivery is painfully bad. OUCH!!!!!!! The writing is simply dorkish. It is akin to a Bob Saget show.

Watching this movie is as painful as watching a one and a half hour long Saturday Night Live skit (post Belushi).

I hated this movie and want my money back!!!


I'll dispense with the usual comparisons to a certain legendary filmmaker known for his neurotic New Yorker persona, because quite frankly, to draw comparisons with bumbling loser Josh Kornbluth, is just an insult to any such director. I will also avoid mentioning the spot-on satire `Office Space' in the same breath as this celluloid catastrophe. I can, however, compare it to waking up during your own surgery  it's painful to watch and you wonder whether the surgeons really know what they're doing. Haiku Tunnel is the kind of film you wish they'd pulled the plug on in its early stages of production. It was cruel to let it live and as a result, audiences around the world are being made to suffer.

The film's premise  if indeed it has one  is not even worth discussing, but for the sake of caution I will. Josh Kornbluth, a temp worker with severe commitment-phobia, is offered a permanent job. His main duty is to mail out 17 high priority letters for his boss. But ludicrously, he is unable to perform this simple task. My reaction? Big deal! That's not a story it's a passing thought at best - one that should've passed any self-respecting filmmaker by.

The leading actor  if you can call him that  is a clumsy buffoon of a man, with chubby features, a receding, untamed hairline, and a series of facial expressions that range from cringe-making to plain disturbing. Where o where did the director find this schmuck? What's that you say he is the director? Oh, my mistake. Playing yourself in your own embarrassment of a screenplay is one thing, but I suspect that Mr Kornbluth isn't that convincing as a human being, let alone an actor. Rest assured, this is by no means an aimless character assassination, but never before have I been so riled up by an actor's on-screen presence! My frustration was further confounded by his incessant to-camera monologues in between scenes. I mean, as if the viewer needs an ounce of intelligence to comprehend this drivel, Kornbluth insults us further by `explaining' the action (first rule of filmmaking: `dramatize exposition' show, don't tell). Who does this guy think he is? He has no charisma, no charm, and judging by his Hawaiian shirts, no sense of style. His casting agent should be shot point blank!

The supporting actors do nothing to relieve the intense boredom I felt, with but one exception. Patricia Scanlon puts in a very funny appearance as Helen the ex-secretary, who has been driven insane by her old boss, and makes harassing phone calls from her basement, while holding a flashlight under her face. This did make me chuckle to myself, but the moment soon passed and I was back to checking my watch for the remainder of the film.

The film's title is also a misnomer. Haiku Tunnel has nothing to do with the ancient form of Japanese poetry. Don't be fooled into thinking this is an art house film because of its pretentious-sounding title or the fact that it only played in a handful of cinemas and made no money at the box office there's a very good reason for that!


The worlds largest inside joke. The world's largest, most exclusive inside joke.

Emulating the brash and 'everyman' humor of office space, this film drives the appeal of this film into the ground by making the humor such that it would only be properly appreciated by legal secretaries writing books. The audience is asked to assume the unfamiliar role of a legal secretary, and then empathize with the excruciatingly dumb protagonist.

The entire film is centered on the legal secretary finding free time, listening to music and writing a novel while working. These are his goals. You can't imagine the slap in the face it is to the audience when (around halfway through) they find out he has had a job which fit all three of those criteria, but then gives it UP! The director and screenwriter (Jacob Kornbluth and Josh Kornbluth) completely remove the audience's motivation to empathize or even find entertaining a protagonist that has previously thrown away that which he is complaining about the lack thereof.

Apart from that major stumbling block, the legal secretary insider humor fails because they must be explained explicitly to the audience each time they happen. Without these asides, the audience wouldn't have noticed anything particularly strange. Humor is only effective if it doesn't need to be thoroughly explained to the audience what is funny.


After waking up at 3:30 in the morning and not being able to go to sleep, I decided that I may as well be entertained while I suffered from sleep deprivation. This movie was on HBO and I decided to watch it. What a mistake!

Here is the plot (potential spoilers, if you even care) : a neurotic man with an addiction to candy (Josh Kornbluth) works as a temp for some ridiculous company. Suddenly, he is offered the chance to "go perm," which seems to be the favorite catch-phrase of this movie. But with a secure job and a secure income within his grasp, Josh decides for whatever stupid reason that he doesn't want to do it. He hopelessly bungles several minor tasks and his laziness and lack of ambition fill me with contempt. His inability to send several "very important" letters within a given amount of time is supposed to be hilarious, but is merely stupid. Josh meets and deceives a lawyer woman and they wind up in bed together (obviously a fantasy of Josh's in real life, as such a thing would never happen). A bunch of other stuff happens, but it's too trite and inane to go into now.

Despite the fact that this movie is billed as a comedy, I only laughed twice during it; the first time was the opening shot of Josh Kornbluth (my initial reaction was one of stifling fear) and the second was when he was in bed with the attractive woman (yeah, right). Josh Kornbluth is perhaps the most terrifying-looking person I have ever seen in my life. He is an unattractive, overweight, balding Jewish man who I am supposed to believe has sex with beautiful women. I do not at all sympathize with Josh's character. He is lazy and unmotivated and I just don't appreciate the failed attempts at humor. Skip it, even if your life depends upon it.


I passed this one on the shelf a few times, looking at the myriad of huge positive quotes (with tiny names) on the front and wondering if I was missing something. The other night it was on one of the movie channels, and I tuned in. I missed nothing.

I must admit that I only watched the first 30 minutes. Perhaps the movie becomes comedy gold after that. Given the slow, plodding pace and complete lack of laughter in the first 30, I seriously doubt it.

The lead character starts the movie in classic "I don't know how to start my movie" style, with a long, tiresome monologue about how he doesn't want to get sued. It's not funny. It's not even remotely funny. Others have commented on the "San Franclisco" bit; ok, a small chuckle the first time he says it. Then he grinds it into the ground, smiling at the camera like it's the funniest thing ever written. Get over yourself. In fact, I think the talking to the camera bit was the reason I instantly disliked the film. Don't assume familiarity with your audience. Familiarity is _earned_, much like respect.

From there you basically have a fat whiny guy talking in a very effeminate way about his dull life as a temp. I didn't realize he's Jewish; it's a discredit to Jewish comedians to call this "Jewish humor". It's just unfunny humor. Just because you're Jewish doesn't mean you have a knack for the comedy. A WASP, Spalding Gray, does a better job of self-analytical humor than this guy, so obviously it's not about ethnicity.

If one of the bits I had seen had worked, I might have stuck around. But some schlub going on about how much he loves the names of the women he works with, then listing them for five long minutes, doesn't make a great movie.

This is an obvious attempt to capitalize on the popularity of "Office Space". Don't let yourself become a victim of target marketing. Just say no to "Haiku Tunnel".


This movie is nothing like "Office Space" except in the premise. Office Space was hilarious. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, as I laughed not once during the entire film. Mr. Cornbluth's self-indulgent tirades quickly become more annoying than 15 Jason Alexanders in the same room. If you decide to see this movie, use a free rental or watch it at someone else's house so you can leave if necessary.