A complete flop. This is one of those "people finding themselves in spite of themselves" type of stories. Lame script writing, unrealistic situations, dreadful overacting, and aimless direction lead this movie on a meandering voyage to nowhere.

It's New Year's Eve, and some 20-somethings are having an overdue dose of coming-of-age, mentally, socially, etc. Already, I hear you snoring. Why should anyone care about losers who are 10 years behind in their intellectual development? The film engages on a wild dance between several groups of characters, each more dimwitted than the last, as they try to seek out some big "in people's party." We all know that we find ourselves by getting bombed on New Year's Eve, don't we? Every single character is a familiar "Dumb and Dumber" stereotype, and the pseudo-philosophical speeches they deliver fit these stooges about as well as The Gettysburg Address would fit being recited by Michael Jackson. The cornball link for the disparate group of random fools is that they're all chain smoking nerds. Inspired? Thought provoking? Maybe you'll be thinking about what you'll do after the film is mercifully over; that's about it.

Nobody achieves anything useful, and the story just plods along until you have an epilogue sequence on New Year's morning, most of the characters waking up in strange beds, and realizing that they learned nothing from all of this. The audience ends up feeling the same way.


I thoroughly enjoyed the first Mission Impossible. It was probably the only film that puts you into the mind of a secret agent as he tries to uncover a conspiracy that wiped out his cohorts. It had excellent twists, who would have thought that the hero of the TV series (Jim Phelps) finally turns into the bad guy.

The sequel however has no plot, no interesting dialogue just mindless shootouts that would leave Gun and ballistic experts laughing in disbelief. John Woo is not a director he is a second unit director that got lucky. He cannot control his cast, he cannot convey any plot and he cannot stage believable action sequences.

Woo seems to be directing (if you could call it that) in his sleep. The storyline seems to slightly mirror the original film in that a member of IMF goes rogue (not another one!!) and tries to release a Killer Virus called Chimaera on an unsuspecting world.

Apparently IMF Boss (Anthony Hopkins) knows the whereabouts of the Villain's hideout and orders Ethan Hunt to plant the Bad Guy's Ex girlfriend in an attempt to undermine him. (Wouldn't it have been better if they just attacked the HQ with commandos etc)

In the original film Ethan Hunt gets promoted to Jim Phelps rank within the organisation but in the sequel he is still a "Point man" jumping around in commando gear. Ving Rhames and his Australian colleague seem to do absolutely nothing in this film other than occassionally tap on a computer laptop keyboard and try to look serious. By removing the "team" element that made the series so great it makes the whole thing look like James Bond rather than Mission Impossible.

An interesting point to note is that since we know that Jim Phelp's salary was 60K PA There is no way the Rogue IMF grunt in this film could afford a massive private army along with a beach front Condo.

Some other laughable points in this film include:

The painstaking attempt by Hunt to infiltrate a building by bungee jumping down a giant ventilator shaft while the Rogue IMF villain and his private army gingerly stroll through the front door of said building.

The IMF villain must be unbelievably dumb to initiate a shootout (including explosions) with Ethan Hunt in a deadly Virus/Chemical research lab.

The Second Unit Director's (Woo) laughable obsession with White Doves that seem to have more screen time than Anthony Hopkins.

The throat elastoplast that enables people to talk like other people including perfecting their accents (South African, Scottish, American)

And finally the car and motorcycle chases that seem to break the laws of physics rather than breaking the monotony of the plot.

It is hard to believe that it took four years of rewrites and production/ shooting to create this sorry mess. Even the soundtrack by Metallica and Limp Bizkit is absolutely Tuneless and irrelevant to the film.

Although it made an impressive opening weekend this film got so slated by critics and the media that it would be lucky to break even from box office takings. So do not expect an MI3 so quickly.

This movie will have the distinction of earning a Golden Turkey award.


Wow. I've seen lots of bad movies and lots of bad sequels, but this one was just incredibly bad. I didn't even know it was possible to sink that low. And it wasn't even bad in a funny way, but simply bad in an extremely painful way. I don't even know why I watched it to the end.

The story is nothing but a series of clichés. The bad guys have stolen a killer virus and are intending to let it loose to make a fortune selling the antidote. Very predictable, eh? The characters couldn't be more two-dimensional if they were in a Nintendo game. Being a tomboy, I absolutely hate it when women in movies have no personality and are just added in as a love interest. Nyah, the chick in MI2, is a perfect example of this. She was the only female in the entire film and her sole purpose was to be sexy (as is subtly shown by several pointless cleavage shots). Sure, the movie wants you to think that she could kick ass if she wanted to by making her a professional thief, but isn't very convincing at that. In the end, while Tom Cruise is engaged in a very unrealistic battle sequence on a beach, she roams around aimlessly, considering the possibility of throwing herself off a cliff (which would have been a relief).

I was going to talk about the extremely pointless car chase sequence between the hero and the chick, in which they demolish their cars for no reason whatsoever, but I don't really know what to say about it.

The only good thing about this film is that it was so boring that I preferred doing the homework I'd been postponing for ages to watching the dumb motorcycle chases.


SPOILERS Way back in the 1960s a wonderful television series was released called "Mission Impossible". With a legendary theme tune and some great stories, the series was followed by an equally superb film in 1996. Entertaining and well shot, it was only a matter of time before star Tom Cruise would find himself reprising the role of Ethan Hunt. It's a disastrous fact therefore that this sequel is an abomination. More like a badly shot MTV movie, it is badly acted, written and contains some of the worst film fight scenes of all time.

After Sean Ambrose (Dougray Scott) steals a manufactured disease, it is up to fellow secret agent Ethan Hunt (Cruise) to retrieve it. Adding Ambrose's former love Nyah Nordoff-Hall (Thandie Newton) to the mix, and the film descends into a mediocre action packed love triangle.

From the opening scenes of Tom Cruise climbing up a cliff without protective ropes, you can tell that this film is going to be awful. When he begins to fall in love with Thandie Newton's dire Nyah, you're suspicions are confirmed.

Finally, let's progress to the ending and look at the absolutely diabolical final fight scene. It's never a good idea to analyse the ending of a film, but on this occasion, the terrible motorbike and hand to hand combat events at the end need to be talked about.

The bike scene is awful. Put simply it is a pointless, irrelevant battle which collapses in on itself. Following that, the combat scene between Cruise and Scott is a farce. Set to your typical MTV soundtrack and with "Mortal Kombat" style fighting (including the rudimentary slow motion death), the whole scene is a joke with absolute no merit.

It feels only fair to try to find a positive side to this film. In that respect the character of Hugh Stamp, played by Richard Roxburgh, is the rare highlight of this awful film. Funny and entertaining, the character is a surprising joy. It's a small positive in an otherwise major mistake.

With a feel of an MTV video, "Mission Impossible II" is an enormous mistake. Badly written, acted and shot, it is one of the worst films in living memory. Even the brief joy of Richard Roxburgh's Hugh can't save the film from failing badly. A dire movie worth avoiding at all costs.


I really liked 1996's 'Mission: Impossible'. Now here is the antithesis of the first movie: 'Mission: Impossible II'. The first film was a tight, smooth thriller that barreled along at warp speed, and was a nice break from conventional Hollywood action thrillers. 'II' pretty much IS a conventional Hollywood thriller.

Almost nothing from the first film has been picked up here: Tom Cruise? Yes, he's back, but he's not a spy anymore. He's James Bond, minus ANY cool gadgets or charisma. The awesome theme music? Gone, replaced with a horrible rock score. The action is typical Hollywood: Slow-motion gunplay and martial arts.

Ugh, I hate this movie! The acting and dialogue is lame, the techno-rock score even lamer, and the action scenes are mundane. Here's hoping 'MI: III' won't be as cringe-inducing as this disaster.


Well, this was a pretty poor excuse for a movie. I liked the first and third but the second was awful. You would know John Woo was involved by the inclusion of doves flying through the under ground lair shortly after an explosion! I just don't get the dove thing.

It is a pretty straight forward, brain at the door action movie but the real problem with it is the huge inconsistencies throughout the movie. OK, the acting is a bit crappy, there's the token love interest and everything else is pretty forgettable but its an action movie, thats their nature sometimes.

The 'chase' scenes are awful to be fair to them, especially the motorbike one. How is it that his bike doesn't explode when his gas tank is hit but everything he shoots blows up? How can a bullet fired almost directly at you shatter the visor on the bike and not hit the passenger? Then to top it all off before duelling with there bikes on the sand, the high performance road bikes take an off camera pit-stop to change the slick tires to off-road. This brief rant illustrates the stream of flaws through the movie and I think Mr. Woo should be accountable. Tut tut John. If you want action try somewhere else because this will leave you under whelmed. Try number III, its not all bad.


A sequence of unconvincing scenes, even a 10-years old child would get bored viewing this movie. What about the stock option story? Why a director should talk about something he doesn't know at all?? Woo, please read a basic finance book before writing this ridiculous story.. The plot is full of unreal parts. How does the contagion spread? Why doesn't the girl show any sign of the infection?? How much time do they need to change their face? Cruise changed his own face and the one of the other guy in a few minutes, please !! After 70 minutes I was completely bored but I watched the end because I am sure I will not watch this movie again. Time wasted. 1 out of 10


Mission impossible II is undoubtedly one of the ten worst movies ever made; with the exception of the climbing sequence, at the beginning of the film, it is completely without excitement or any other merit. The endless stream of explosions and gunfire is a poor substitute for a plot or for interesting and engaging characterization; this is not an action movie, it is more like a small-town fireworks display.

The female lead comes across as having as much personality as a sack of wet fish; what little she does say is delivered with all of the emotion and enthusiasm of a fast-food order.

Mr. Cruise is a competent actor; however, you would never know it from this film--nobody would have been able to deliver a compelling performance, considering the insipid dialog, abysmal writing and first-year film-school-caliber direction, in this mess. The gimmick, with the masks IS cute and would be a nice addition to a movie, which contained some real intrigue, however when it is as over-used, as in this film, it is only silly.

There should be a secure institution, located far away from Hollywood, where untalented writers and self-indulgent directors, like the fools who created this garbage, can be locked up and kept from bothering the public with this kind of silliness.


Very rarely do so many people say so much praise to so terrible a movie like this one.

It was so painful to sit through the movie simply because I don't understand it at all!! I was bored to tears so I left in the middle of this movie in protest. I have been watching movies for over 40 years, good ones and bad ones, but this one is a real dud ranking at the bottom of my "worst ever" category. What twisted plot is this? I think Tom Cruise and the other actors had a tough time trying to make the movie watchable but failed to do so. my time and money are totally wasted!

Me buying a ticket to see the 2006 MI III? Well, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE!!!


The Cruise-man goes to Octane Cool! See him show off his 'martial arts abilities'! See him perform the most wicked stunts ever done by amateur stunt men! See the Cruise-Control Motorcycle Road Runner's Chase! See the Cool Cruise-man win High Points on the Score Board!

This is little more than a shoddy imitation of The Matrix or another boring, cliche-ridden movie episode of James Bond, but with a poorer story line. What story line you say? There wasn't one, actually.

WARNING! SPOILER ALERT!

Complete suspense of disbelief is an absolute necessity in order for one to sit through this flick without laughing aloud, or groaning at all the ridiculous stunts Tom Cruise performs.

The 80 m.p.h 'Shoes-On-Asphalt-Slide' is probably the best (and worst!) phony stunt I have ever seen! Next time I ride my moped I'll hop off and slide down the street alongside of it wearing my jandals while shooting a pea shooter at bulls eye targets on passing lamposts.

Tom fighting??? He may be able to act, but he simply can't fight. His martial arts looked like the way I would do martial arts. And I'm fairly hopeless! To make this even worse (or funnier!) they show Tom's fights in slow-mo!

Other memorable moments: The slow-mo 80 m.p.h chest slap and waves crashing on beach during the (anti) climatic fight (most of it also in slow-mo). Tom's flying-shoe kicks and clumsily-performed cartwheels in the sand. Tom's shoes-sand-gun-hand manouver (all at once). His Hair. His sun glasses. Priceless!!!

This whole awful flick was produced by Tom so that simply makes this a 'Cruise-Mobile'. Admittedly I missed half of this 'movie' on video. I watched the Second Half, and found it to be ridiculous to the point of hilarious.

CONCLUSION? Watch only if you wish to learn how to become a famous actor's stunt double.


What the hell were the fighting scenes all about in this movie? I like the Matrix, but correct me if I'm wrong but this movie is not set in the Matrix. The fighting scenes are laughable. No gritty drama anymore. It's evident in all the movies in Hollywood now, Bollywood fight scenes where one guy flies around kicking everyone's butts with dumb moves. But apart from that the dialogue was poor, the plot paper-thin, no strong characterization. This is definitely a film which has relied on style over content. Pity there's not much style. 2 out of 10, and I'm being generous.


It's about time John Woo got back to making movies, rather than two-hour-long self-tributes. I used to be a fan when he put the moviegoing audience first and he gave us some great actioners when he first arrived in Hollywood (e.g. Broken Arrow, Hard Target). And for the first 20 minutes, in the initial scenes and those in Seville, it seemed like Mr Woo was back on form. Not for long.

This, like Face/Off, seems a demonstration of Mr Woo believing the reason he was hired was to showcase his style. Either that or he is afraid we might miss his style, so we're force-fed it. It's not that I don't appreciate his genius, but I can only take so much of slow-motions, close-ups and two-gun Tommy getting in the way of the story's flow. Call me old-fashioned.

With the greatest respect to a fellow southerner, Mr Woo's best recent work was his BMW commercial, The Hire: Hostage, starring Clive Owen. Watch that about 13 times back to back and it's a better way of getting the same quantity of John Woo style than trying to make head or tail of this Hollywood-moneyed insult to Bruce Geller's memory. The only sign of this film being distinguished was Tony Hopkins's brief presence as the IMF boss.

Oh, it's nothing to do with the TV series. But you knew that.


This is a moronic, illogical film that will dull the senses and dim the mind. Woo seems enthralled by Tom Cruise. It seems that the Cruiser walks everywhere in slow motion the camera lovingly following his every move. In fact there is a lot of slow motion on screen. And loud bangs. And pointless cameos. And an endlessly foolish plot. All in all, a gigantic waste of time.


First of all I want to say that I had high hopes for this movie, De Palma's MI was very good in my opinion it had some good action scenes, and a clever story. But this movie is just awful.

Ok, i must admit it starts good, with the plane crash. The Thing with the mask was a good idea (in that scene). But it's downhill from there.

I think that the big problem of MI 2 is the plot (if it has one). There is no real mission in this one. The whole story is just an excuse to show stupid action scenes. The car spin is a perfect example, what the hell was that !!!

Oh yes, the action scenes, well i don't know what passed through Woo's head when he decided to show half of the film in slow motion. It really went boring, like with the dumb masks, oh my god that was just laughable i mean it's just ridiculous how Hunt always has the right mask at the right moment, a little realism please !!!!

Something that also disturbed me were the characters Tom Cruise isn't really a spy here, he's to busy with his hair now. And I really didn't care about Newton. And what were they thinking about Rhames, his Character was very interesting in MI but now he's so boring with the stupid one liners about his clothes.

I don't know why Woo made this mess, but i think the real guilty are the writers, i hope MI 3 will be better


One of the most boring movies I've seen. The 'non-stop action' is ridiculous and laughable. Plot - what plot? The acting was good - what little acting there was that is! Don't waste your money - wait for it to come out on network TV - the commercials will make it much more interesting.


Instead of wasting your money and two hours of your life watching the biggest over-baked John Woo film since...John Woo's last film, Face Off!. Brian DePalma, not anywhere to be found on my favorite director's list, really did a top-notch job with the first movie...if people complained that the first movie was too hard to understand, they will be pleased to know that the second movie throws not only logic out the window, but also any sense of adventure, suspense or fun...it's a big disappointment...i can't think of anything else to say because i am still dumbfounded by how LAME this movie is. I like Tom Cruise, I just don't like John Woo (at least in America). Go rent Mission Impossible, and while your at it, see if you can find Woo's Asian films, like Killer.


I don't know how this movie could have been worse. I gave it forty minutes, and then walked out. Perhaps the 2nd half of the movie got better, but it wasn't worth waiting to find out.

I didn't think much of MI-1 (the stunts were just too much, way too much), but hoped they would have figured things out for II. It seems that this time around, they were shooting for an action movie (something for the boys) with an embedded love story (something for the girls). That few action-packed moments I did see had the main character taking unthinkable risks, and falling in love with the female lead within moments of first seeing her.

I hope this movie isn't indicative of what's coming this summer!


Short and simple. Mission: Impossible 2: overacted, overdone, overhyped, the audience laughed through the entire mess. High points: Dougray Scott, Thandie Newton and the final action sequence which came too late. You should decide not to accept it; this film will self destruct in five days.


I am one of the biggest Sonic Fans of all times. Sonic was my first game ever. And I used to watch the cartoons all the time. (Both the early and afternoon one) Then comes Sonic X. Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely happy that they made a new show in 9 years (I was 15 when this first aired) I believe. But there are things I have to pick with. I hate it. Plain and simple. Too much shoddy voice work. The flaws were in Mostly in the voice work. Rouge for one, I hate her voice. She sounds like a fifty year old hooker. When I heard Gamma's Voice for the first time. *shakes head* Also disappointed. Tail's voice, it was okay, but not good enough. Knuckles' voice, is just too deep and gravely for the famous Echidna. They casted Dan Green from Yu-Gi-Oh who plays Yami Yugi. What the heck kind of choice is that? he's Terrible, he makes everybody sound like they are a constipate 80 year old! All the others were fair. Sonic sounded like his old self, so did Amy (mostly) Cream, definitely. Big, yes, Eggman no. Shadow is a Fav. of mine, and they didn't get his right. tsk tsk tsk. Espio wasn't too bad. Charmy, I think they had Wendee Lee play him. I could be wrong

The story. The story is bad. It overly contradicts with the games. And humans hog the spot light too much, as many have said time and time again. At least the characters all have their same personalities, (more or less) that I have grown up with. The fact of making it Anime is a brilliant idea. But cell-shading is a bad one. The music is very good. Minus the theme song.

If you are a huge die hard fan of this show, you'll pay no attention to this. But they truly could have done better in my opinion. Even I can imitate voices, more closely to an extent. And I don't like acting Even though Yuji Naka (the game creator) is the executive producer, I doubt he has much power over the American version. If I were him, and I saw this, I'd weep. 4Kids is most likely to blame, but a tiny bit falls on the writers. It's sometimes breaks my heart to see Sonic in this format, and other times it fills my heart with joy to see Sonic making a comeback.


First off, I don't want anyone who reads this to think I'm some kind of sonic hater. I have been a sonic fan ever since the old genesis games and I am still a sonic fan.

A little over a year ago, I hear that there is a show based on Sonic the hedgehog. Knuckles coming into the show along with other characters seemed very exciting to me. I was thrilled to hear about this. I watched the show from week for a week for a couple of months. I was initially disappointed, but I was hoping that it would get better. It never did.

For starters, Sonic and the gang are not supposed to be from another planet that got stranded on Earth. This was never discussed in any previous shows or games. Why is this suddenly a fact? I have always been a Tails fan and I was disgusted to see what his role was in Sonic X. He normally just does nothing except for occasional mechanics. He doesn't even fly or hang around Sonic like he has done everywhere else. He had no purpose. Before this show, he was seen as the cute one. That's no longer true because of Cream. I believe that the only reason he even had a part in this show was because in a Sonic show, you pretty much have to include Tails.

Anyways, the story lines made no sense. Such story lines as that race-car driver who always wants to race sonic were simply pointless. Dr.Eggman could have had a good role as the villain, but the writers managed to screw that up as well. I remember one episode he had a chance to kill Tails. He said something similar to "Don't kill him. If you kill him I won't have anything to do." What kind of sense does that make? I've also seen the final story of SA2 repeated into the show, proving how lacking of stories these writers have.

I have always loved everything Sonic-related, but I am absolutely disgusted with this lousy excuse for a show. AOSTH might not have been the best show in the world to watch, but at least it was funny. Sonic X was neither funny or exciting.

My advice is to avoid this show like the plague. It's a disgrace to the Sonic series.


NOTE: This review covers the original Japanese version. I think the 4Kids English dub speaks for itself.

Sonic the Hedgehog was a good game, I'm glad you're all in agreement there. But Sega's really been pounding the series into the ground since the late 90's, introducing more characters than necessary and cranking out games in a fashion and speed that would have Paul J. Smith kneeling before Yuji Uekawa's feet and worshipping him. So not long after Sonic Adventure 2 came out, Sonic X began making the rounds in Japan, and internationally soon after. On paper, it seemed like a good idea; an animated Sonic series produced in Japan, with all the important characters from the games carried over, and a plot replicating Sonic Adventure's style. But then, a lot of things look good on paper.

So how does it start? Well, it's not unlike the games in the first episode; Sonic attempts to rescue a random character (in this case, Cream) from Eggman's clutches, dodging robots and generally filling up time with heart-pounding action sequences. After being transported to another dimension, we meet Chris Thorndyke, and things plummet downhill. The second episode is the last really notable one; Sonic infiltrates a military base and rescues Cream from the clutches of the government, who find the concept of an anthropomorphic rabbit girl to be ludicrously intriguing. But then after the rescue occurs, the series proceeds to grind itself stupid.

One of the main problems with Sonic X is that the characters do nothing but talk, talk, talk. I lost track of the amount of scenes we have to endure where characters introduce themselves to other characters after a few episodes (in the second episode alone, Chris introduces himself to Sonic, then the next day introduces himself to Tails and Cream, who introduce themselves to Chris, who introduces them to his grandfather), and the lack of action the setting forces upon us (Sonic and company moves into Chris' household, and have to hide from everyone else for a few more episodes, then get the attention of the outside world after that) forces the writers to hammer out awkward "Komedy" (like the excruciating seventh episode, where Cream spends most of the time hiding from the household while a party is being hosted and generally gets into all sorts of wacky hijinks) to try and make the complete lack of action more tolerable, but are really just making the show even less dignified than the fourth Home Alone movie (you know, the made for TV one with French Stewart as Marv).

And the dramatic scenes are even worse. All of them-- and I mean ALL of them-- consist of characters wailing in a fashion (complete with tears streaming down said characters' faces) that would cause Fran Drescher (already a third-rate Lucille Ball to begin with) to bleed out of her ears. Cream in particular deserves some kind of award for being the biggest baby I've ever seen in an animated series (like The Powerpuff Girls' Bubbles with even more saccharine cuteness tacked on to compensate for the complete lack of likability), in that she does the most crying of any other character in the series. The other characters are just as they are in the games; Tails is the mechanic who idolizes Sonic, Amy lets anger get in the way of reason, Knuckles is the cynic, Rouge has large breasts, and Shadow still makes me want to bash my own skull against a brick wall with his ridiculous "badass" attitude.

And there's also the fact that the series, in its original format, is only slightly less internationally appealing than Doraemon. So much of the dialogue is specific to the Japanese language and hard to translate without ruining the effect (like how Cream refers to everyone as {insert name}-san), and it's not uncommon for other clichés of Japanese culture to find their way into the show as well. Oh, and Sonic spouts a ridiculous amount of Engrish phrases throughout the show (but other characters get the chance to do the same; Tails greets people with a big "Hi!" and Cream comments on a game of catch in such an awkward, mangled fashion I was on the floor laughing), often for no reason, but that actually makes things entertaining, as you never know when he's going to do it next.

So, is Sonic X worth watching? Maybe if you're among the most hardcore of fans, but newbies and casual viewers should stay away and stick to SatAM. It moves slower than an Ingmar Bergman film played at quarter-speed, the attempts at drama (particularly those in episodes 26, 50, 52, 68, 77 and 78) are laughable, and it is also afflicted with a problem not uncommon in anime: it's mostly made for the fans. So no, it isn't really worth watching.


first of all this show has loads of humans in it who don't need to be there and one in particular completely ruins this show. and if like me you favourite is tails you will be unhappy to know he gets sidelined and all the other characters except sonic and the humans which ruin it and are pointless and it completely ruins tails friendship with sonic whos a complete jerk in this show. and sega puts tails together with a female plant called cosmo who adds nothing to the series when he should be with cream. so if like me you grew up with tom and jerry or looney tunes and any other classic cartoon i urge you to stay away from this pile of garbage and the voices are awful so unless you want an ear ache...and this comes from a big sonic fan.


This is one of the worst cartoons I had ever seen, and the worse is that the cartoon is about one of my favorite characters, I mean Sonic the Hedgehog. The cartoon is practically a remake of the actual videogames, with some new characters, but those characters are so pathetic that make this an awful cartoon. The worse thing is that the characters are almost invincible, I mean, one day I was watching this cartoon (the worst thirty minutes of my life) and Sonic jumped from a mountain, how could he survive? I mean, even if he is a super fast hedhehog he could easily die doing that. Then, he beats every villain so easily, even showing his blue butt while standing over a missile, please. This cartoon receives from me: 1/10


AFTER reading some viewers reviews HERE I DECIDED to watch this feature because it is reportedly "balanced". after i DID watch it, at least i know which style and type of posts i should be avoiding from now on...

straight to the point, this is a PRO- war movie( very cunning, i give it that). it definitely targets young "stand-up" guys and attempts to give people a subconscious reason as why we have to AGREE with what is going on( even have a speech about "choices" people have in America and take it for granted because the youth is the "pussy" generation apparently).

basically the whole thing consists of 3 youngsters in their struggle to accept the draft or not. by the time end scene IS happening , the movie has transmitted its propagandistic vibe. while it starts with a very much ANTI- war vibe it leads the viewer to believe that there is ONLY one way.this movie paves the WAY to drafting legislation. (i doubt that will happen simply because this administration will prefer private armies ,"blackwater" for example, that are not responsible to the any international tribunals upon killing civilians)it is doing so by TRYING to make choice easier for you to the point you actually could believe that it IS your choice for the "best"."are you man enough"." the survival of the fittest" , etc... the director forgets that today's youth are BETTER informed then the previous generation and playing with people feelings, in well to know "i am with you" manner. will not get the message across.( apparently, you left someone to its fate like being raped, you have to fix that by going to war to "man-up". people can do that easily here by throwing this administration out of the office as well no?). at one point it even tells new-yorkers that they should be more concerned with doing the "first-strike" because they would be the first target if "someone" acquires "weapons of mass-destruction"( so wait... this actually must be about Iran since everyone knew, by the time this feature was produced,that Iraq had no such "evil" things?). what a DEEP INSULT TO THE 9/11 VICTIMS Memory!

another interesting observation is that while playing with the idea of deserting, the option is never considered out of FEAR. well guess what, i am in Toronto, Canada , and we have many American deserters here and they do not seem "pussies" at all. by contrary they are OUTSPOKEN, just as any FREE individual DOES INDEED HAVE THE CHOICE TO do in a democracy. i quiet had a laugh at this aspect particularly.

this has been marketed as an "indy" film. i assure it is not.IF the subject matter would been different and not propagandistic i would give this production a 6-7 due to good acting but slower towards the end( another observation point i have in spotting propaganda; when the movie slows down towards end to make sure your sentiments and feelings can properly have a meltdown, get you to sleep, hypnotize, and make your dreams play the role of influencing your conscious when waking up).

well, you can TRY to enjoy it if you already have made-up your mind. good luck with that.


Tagline: An uninteresting failure with a competent display by Elijah Wood Review by Neo: To say I am disappointed, it is a clear understatement. It is rare that a film can possesses such a fine display from one of the co-stars in Elijah Wood, but still ends up a total disappointment. Day Zero doesn't work like a movie, it doesn't provide a movie experience, but at no times, does it feel real either. It is a film with an adequate premise about the possibility of drafting civilians into the war against terror. For once, I just cannot see any redeeming factor for this movie. With just Wood showing potential, the rest of the cast with Chris Klein in particular produces an emotionless and petty display that is more wooden than anything. Likewise, Jon Bernthal, tries hard, but fails to convince owing to lack of on-screen charisma. Basically, a film is bounded to fail, when the story does not work, nothing really tend to happen and along with fail performances from the leads. Day Zero is easily a big disappointment.

The movie goes like this: Three best friends are about to face the prospect of being drafted into national service on the war against terror. With just 30 days left, the film shows how different people react, feel and do in the remaining days before reporting on duty.

Let's focus on the rare display of positiveness coming out of this film. Elijah Wood has been trying for years to shed his image of being typecast as Lord of Rings and there is no doubting that he is one actor with potential to burn. I thought he was more than convincing in his role and the way he depicted the torment of an artist who is at loggerhead with the fact that he is going to be killing human beings face to face is almost daunting to endure. Being the only shining light in the film, including a memorable moment in front of the mirror where he screams at himself. It is certainly a rare moment of quality that fails to lighten up the dullness of the flick. As mentioned before, Chris Klein may have the leading man looks, but his acting is far too disconnecting to the audience. Despite having the chance to play a fairly conflicted role, Klein is not impressive and fails miserably. While, Jon Bernthal actually tries to act and does slightly better than Klein, it is needless to say that the guy has no on-screen charisma and perhaps will fit in better on the small screen than the big one.

All in all, Day Zero seems to want to express some sort of message about the divided opinion on the war against terror (i.e. how it is the other peoples' war or how we are defending our country), but in reality, it never hits on these issues seriously. Instead the film tries to focus on how people and humans react to this situation and how ordinary people will be affected by issues like these. While it is interesting to think about the prospect, the filmmaker fails to add an human touch to the proceeding and the effect is by the 45 minutes mark, the audience is looking at their watches, thinking, when is this film going to end. By the time, it ends, I am unable to feel or even try to feel for what has happened, as the film is impossible to relate to and almost difficult to connect. Day Zero is really a film that probably deserves zero marks, but for the performance of Elijah Wood, there are some brownie points given  (Neo 2009)

I rate it 4/10


this could have been really interesting, if it hadn't got bogged down with the inevitable patriotic do your bit bull that you just knew was coming. I'd have to say I was very disappointed when the guy who questions the motives on America's war on Iraq turns up to do his bit to fight for his country. a half as$ed attempt to show the film makers are looking at all sides proves they were only ever going to show one. and the ridiculous bit in the beginning where the macho loser says yeah I want to fight them cos of what they did in 911???? like we don't all know that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. lame lame lame. a good opportunity wasted. who wrote and funded this again?


I doubt this film will ever serve as anything more than film school proof that a good story idea and a couple star actors alone do not make a film, even if you set it in New York City.

The film largely focuses on the 3 draftees reactions as their report day approaches. While you can appreciate some of the inconsistencies and complexities in character, it's also largely cliché characters and some of the inconsistencies defy all logic, both formal and psychological. The ending looked like, for a moment, it was going to resolve all this and make up for the complete lack of insight the rest of the film provides, but once again fails. The result is a mess that's more annoying than entertaining.


The Steven Spielberg Jewish Film Archive claims that large parts of this documentary about the Eichmann trial are a forgery. You can read an article about it here: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/533873.html

Hillel Tryster, director of the Jewish Film Archive, spent hundreds of hours comparing this documentary to the original trial tapes.

(quoting from the Haaretz article) Tryster determines: "While I watched and made comparisons, it gradually became clear that the film 'The Specialist' was almost entirely a perverse fraud, ranging from radical editing to artificial dialogs that never took place." Tryster notes scenes where answers and reactions are grafted to questions which they did not follow, and even sounds such as canned laughter are added at points to change the implied mood in the courtroom.


I remember watching the only episode of this show that ever aired. I do remember Tim Conway using a lot of vulgarity, which I never noticed in any other work that he did. The skits seemed to mimic that of Rowen and Martin's Laugh-In. I know that this show was so controversial at the time that it was canceled 10 minutes after it was aired. The other networks wouldn't even touch it.

Because of the time difference, people on the west coast never got to see it. I remember commenting to my mom how out of place the show was. There were some scenes that were drawn, and the characters just "popped in". This show was below the kind of comedy that Tim Conway was capable of doing.


A mother and her young son emerge from their house for the last time as a family made temporary by an interrupting war. The thin trunks of topless trees can't camouflage the old man in black whose convergence with the woman and the boy is halted by the next anxious moment. The bible should be a dead giveaway to this apprehensive encounter, but the priest removes his hat before he gets any closer, just so there's no confusion about the meaning of their meeting. Before long, Eero(Topi Majaniemi) and his mother(Marjaana Maijala) are told by some grim women that they'll have to separate. And so it is, the church's will, that Eero finds himself on a crowded boat with other fatherless Finnish children, en route to Sweden where he'll live with a Swedish family until the war is over.

"Aideista parhain" is about the unexamined feelings between Eero and his mother Kirsti during the period of their severed existences, in which both parties are forced to revisit when the former "war child" returns to Sweden for the funeral of his foster mother, breaking the complicit silence they maintained throughout the intervening decades. Told in flashback, this black and white film switches to color, as if the past is more vivid to Eero than the present.

By boat, by train, and then by bus, the boy whose father was killed by Russians, meets his new guardians on an unpaved road; Hjalma(Michael Nyqvist) and Signe(Maria Lundqvist) Jonsson, one of many Swedish couples who provided shelter and sustenance to over seventy-thousand Finnish children affected by the war. While the farmer seems accommodating enough, Signe is hostile and sometimes downright odious towards Eero from the outset, walking ahead of her husband and charge with a head full of steam, back to their house on a farm. Since we recognize that "Aideista parhain" aspires to be an epic cut from the same cloth as American epics about life during wartime, we're not fooled by Signe's distaste for the "strange" Finnish boy with his strange Finnish ways. Panorama after panorama of sumptuous Swedish scenery makes it clear that "Aideista parhain" is governed by the same parameters as a mainstream studio movie from Hollywood. Signe may shout, or even hit Eero, but she's not going to stab him with a kitchen knife, nor will the boy, like a boy from some Patrick McCabe adaptation. The movie's soundtrack is so sentimental, so heavily laden with strings to overemphasize every moment of incident with its crescending bulge, it takes away the possibility of the unexpected, because "Aideista parhain" is essentially a European version of a prestige film meant to secure multiple Oscar nominations.

But when Signe's moment of transformation arrives, the emergence of the nurturing mother beneath that gruff exterior we predicted all along seems entirely arbitrary, as is her epiphany about Eero's sudden lovability. In the last scene, Signe chastises the boy for stealing money and running away. She calls social services to send the boy back home. But when the administrative woman suggests that Eero would be sent to a children's home, Signe has a change of heart, but the audience will be hard-pressed to allocate that change of heart's origin. Thin air, that's where she got it. His impending departure should be cause for celebration after her constant ill-mannered behavior towards the boy. There's not enough smoke and mirror-magic from the screenplay to obscure the paradigm.

After "Aideista parhain" is through with casting Signe as the villain, we learn that Eero's mother abandoned him in favor of a German soldier. The film would be riveting if we, along with Eero, had a harder time deciding between both mothers when it's time for his return to Finland. "Aideista parhain" decides for us. Of course, we're more sympathetic towards Signe's claim, after all, his birth mother is f****** a soldier affiliated with the Nazi party. While Eero functions as a replacement for Signe's dead little girl(who drowned under her care), the mother uses her son as a preventive measure against a heartbreak of the romantic sort(or so it seems).

"Aideista Parhain" gets even more manipulative after the old man learns belatedly about his mother's intentions in a letter written by Signe. It's a far-fetched notion that Eero never broached the subject with Kirsti in all those years, because if he felt like a consolation prize to a German, logic dictates that he'd return to Sweden and seek the real love of a devoted mother. "Aideista Parhain" is unmistakably misogynistic; it gets off on reducing an old woman to tears, then tries to have it both ways by redeeming her. But it's too late. The audience will feel jerked around after investing our allegiance with Signe.

"Aideista parhain" casts Signe and Kirsti as the mother and the whore, then lacks the conviction to let the sow be a sow.


It's not the most terrible show ever, it's just not very good and one of those American sitcoms you're likely to forget in years to come. If you're bored, it might be worth watching but try and find something else first.

The characters are annoying, it's hard to care about any of them as they're all so over the top and shouting all the time. Claude is too nice in an annoying way and why do the people with better jobs have to be the ones who are full of themselves? I actually prefer the horrible ones because occasionally they do actually make you laugh unlike Claude and her pals, complete misfits who's characters have been done before (the white geeky guy and the black strong mama type) it's all very safe, unoriginal and boring.

Most of the episodes are about the same thing, the bitchy ones are horrible to the nice ones, the nice ones retaliate and they all learn a lesson..all without getting any work done. There are a few OK episodes and i tried to give this show a chance but there's so many other better things to watch out there, this is just an average sitcom with no x factor.


If you like this show, you are probably not going to like what I'm going to say. Then again if you like this show, I can't say I have really any sympathy for you.

Frankly, this has got to be the most painful TV show I have seen in ages. No wit, no purpose, no talent whatsoever. I scrolled down the "memorable quotes" to see if I was just unlucky with the bits and pieces I could stand to watch. No. I have not found one quote that brought a smile on my face, let alone one that actually made me laugh.

And another thing, I find it depressing that in this day and age they still try to use the laugh track as a cue to where the "funny stuff" is supposed to be. I have never met anybody who did not find the laugh track completely annoying, and this show has one of the LOUDEST laugh tracks I have ever heard! But of course when all you have is this kind of drivel, that's the only thing you can resort to to pretend what you're showing is actually funny.

Where I live they show this after the excellent "Scrubs". The difference in quality is amazing. Where "Scrubs" is always fresh, witty and honest, "Less than Perfect" is stale, moronic and, well... unwatchable.


Why is it good character type actors who are funny in little roles always want to be the star of a movie? Why can't they just accept the fact that they're really good at the bit part that everyone remembers?

Kevin McDonald fits this to a tee, and this movie proves it. It's really bad parody of The GodFather. It has what looks like a good cast and it SOUNDS like it's gonna be funny, but all it turns out to be is a few sight gags and cameos strung together by a pitifully bad script. The 'stars' in the film include Rodney Dangerfield and Dom Deluise. But it follows Guppy, McDonalds character, throughout this godawful flick. How he's trying to take his family legit and blah,blah,blah.....

Why can't he just get the Kids in the Hall back together? It seems like he can't break out of the mold that he was on that show. He plays weird little characters. Nothing else. I still like him as a bit player, but he's proven that he definetly can't carry a film. Put a big pass on this one.


Definitely one of the worst films of 1998, if not THE worst, "The Godson" lacks one fundamental element of comedy: Humor.

The cast, including Rodney Dangerfield, Dom DeLuise (who spoofs Don Corleone), and Kevin "Kids in the Hall" McDonald, would make you think this film a riot. However, it is quite the contary.

The jokes all fall flat, including the excrutiatingly unfunny "bank" skit, that just went on and on until I was squirming out of my chair - not from boredom (well, not ONLY because of boredom) - but because like many of the "jokes," it outstays its welcome to a point of discomfort.

Overall, this movie is one of those films that should be seen only if you're in the mood for it. Which SHOULD be never.

1/5 stars -

John Ulmer


I absolutely despise this movie. There is not a single laugh. You'd think after having respectable names from the field of comedy that this hunk of junk might actually be worth something. Not a chance.

I can't believe that Kevin McDonald and Rodney Dangerfield didn't provide any good ad-lib to make this movie work somehow. The guy who wrote and directed this garbage should be put on death row for making them follow his brain-dead script. If this movie went completely out of print and no one ever heard from it again, the world would be a few steps closer to being a better place.


This movie truly has it all. Astonishingly bad acting, directing, writing, editing... it belongs very high on any list of the worst movies ever made. It doesn't even fit into that "so bad it's good" category. After an uninspired, stupid, and simply unfunny opening gag, the film goes downhill from there. The "big stars" are Dom DeLuise and Rodney Dangerfield, but they really play supporting roles to Kevin McDonald of "Kids in the Hall" fame. Kevin was hilarious on that show, but given this material I actually felt sorry for him, and everyone else involved in the film. This movie is only for anyone who wants to see just how awful a film can be. Certainly one of the worst I've ever seen.


This is the movie that made the Starz Networks what they are: the place where bad movies come home to roost. I can't believe I wasted an hour of my life watching this film, rather than learning how dairy products are made and marketed. Avoid at all costs and rent "Caddyshack".


I am a big Rodney Dangerfeild fan and this was the worst movie I have ever seen. This piece of c**p does not deserve the minimum rating of 1 that I gave it. The biggest disappointment is when the screen says "The End" and its not over, there are 20 MORE MINUTES!!!! Not only was this movie not funny but a half hour into it I was hoping all of the characters would die so I could stop watching. I thought it was a good use of symbolism casting Joey Budafoco in this movie because just like him this movie is TRASH. If I were presented with the choice of watching this again or renting 8 minute abs with special guest host Janet Reno. Im gonna Renosize.


This movie was painful to watch. I usually find every movie to be fairly entertaining, but this is one of only 2 movies I stopped watching part way through. I expected a Rodney Dangerfield movie. This was just Rodney Dangerfield put to waste in a horrible movie. He did not do any of his usual material which might have made this movie bearable. Instead it is a stupid gangster movie, with a stupid plot, bad acting and generally bad feeling throughout the picture. If you watch this movie you will wish you could have that part of your life back and erase the memories of the experience.


The only good thing about this movie is the fact that it justifies every idea you and your friends have ever had about making a comedy.


Some movies are intended to be serious and end up cheesy. Some movies are intended as cheese from the beginning and work out well. Many classic movies (Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, Airplane, The Evil Dead, Rocky Horror Picture Show) fall into this category. The Godson was an obvious attempt at cheese that failed miserably. This movie wasn't cheddar... It wasn't even Velveeta... This movie was oil & water.


With people like Rodney Dangerfield as "the Rodfather" and Dom DeLuise as "The Oddfather" I had hopes for this one...dashed immediately the actors started flapping their gums. Who wrote this script? It stinks! And the director couldn't direct traffic. Some good set-ups that fall apart, horrible gags -- it's a spoof that doesn't work at all. Why was this movie made? Compared to this, "Mafia" is actually a fine film (and I hated it when it came out!) I would suspect that the sole "positive comments" from two reviewers were probably the director's wife and his best friend as no one I've met who has seen this film enjoyed it at all.


I won't lie to you, this movie was bad. Really bad. It was god awful. But worthy of the bottom 100, I don't know. Kevin McDonald was part of the second greatest sketch comedy show, the Kids in the Hall(second only to the state). Paul Greenberg was in the Vacant Lot, a highly underrated show that I still don't get all of. I admit that I lost a few brain cells due to this movie, but It did have its moments of good comedy. Uh, I really can't think of any, but I know I laughed a few times. Oh god, I 'm remembering the impersonations. so bad so so bad.

Honestly, Dom Deluise was better in Loose Cannons and I hated that movie. and Rodney Dangerfeild should kick it so that we can remember how good he was doing stand up and in Caddyshack.

This movie was bad even for afternoon Showtime.

***out of 10

Disclaimer: Still better than Hudson Hawk


I can't lie that I laughed during this movie, but far from how much I expected. First of all, I'd like to establish that even though Rodney Dangerfield has top billing--he only appears in about 20 percent of the film. And he has most of the funny lines. I liked the scene where he came out with a bandage over his pinky finger and said: "I told my wife I hurt my little pinky. She said, 'It's OK. We're not having sex tonight.'"

Kevin McDonald is the real star, and gets frightfully annoying at times. He was funny on "Kids in the Hall," but he overacts way way too much in this one. You just want to shoot him with a tranquilizer dart.

I thought there was great comic opportunity for a film that spoofs Mafia flicks. But it's totally wasted with such flat gags. For example when they were spoofing the famous scene in "Goodfellas" where Joe Pesci gives that "Do you think I'm funny?" speech. However, the chick they used in that movie is REALLY REALLY hot. But that's no compensation. If she got naked...maybe.

"The Godson" definitely has its moments. But they're wedged between the most brainless, flat, annoying, sometimes disgusting gags. If those gags weren't torcherous and simply devoid of laughs, I might regard this movie as OK. But those gags are so tedious and mind-numbing that they drown out the few laughs that do exist--so much that I have no choice but to regard it as awful.


Dreadful script sinks a good cast. I'm sure the story is serious enough, and I regret that I couldn't hang in there long enough to see Terrence Stamp. And they call women whiny! I can see how Gary Cole got the part he had in "Office Space." He whines exceptionally well, which is all this script gives him to do until he falls down the recapturing-his-youth rabbit hole.

Gary Cole plays a nearly suicidal attorney whose best friend, played by William Petersen, takes on as his rescue project, having been through his own nervous breakdown earlier. The first half hour does not reward with much but a headache. The script to that point apparently never met a class, age or ethnic stereotype it didn't want to exploit, employing only the choicest clichés available. It has no emotional depth, but if it was meant to be satirical, it also lacks the wit to pull that off.

This is "Save the Tiger" as a buddy road flick. That movie gave me a headache too, but I was able to sit through it, because it had the one thing going for it this one didn't, at least in the first half hour, i.e. decent writing.

There are so many other movies and plays that have handled this topic with better grace, even when showing middle-aged men behaving badly.

If I can skip the first half hour, I may be persuaded to sit through it to catch Terrence Stamp's performance, but I'm afraid of what lurks behind that curtain.

My one word review: Blecchh!


A couple of whiny boomer guys p*** and moan about how horrible it is to have money and a great family, chuck it all for sex and drugs in some 3rd world hell hole, then wonder why it's not satisfying. Throw in some Philosophy 101 and a dash of Penthouse Forum and you get this mess of a movie. Yet, somehow, some way, it held my attention all the way through. So for that alone, it gets a 3.


Comments from other reviewers lead me to believe that this movie has some resonance for mid-life challenged males. Who am I to argue with that? But for everyone else, this is just pathetic and embarrassing nonsense. A very low budget film that (obviously) went direct to video and never went near a theatre. My husband rented it because the box said something about a "menage a trois" and he thought it would have some sex scenes. Well, it does, but they are so boring and tame that they would be laughed off a daytime soap opera. Sheryl Lee is very attractive in a down-to-earth way, but William Petersen (CSI) and Gary Cole (One Hour Photo) are tired and out of shape and have this hang dog look to them that suggests the whole enterprise is just plain embarrassing...which it is.

I find nothing sympathetic in the plight of fabulously successful and wealthy white upper class men who abandon their wives and children, take their life savings and go to the Phillipines to blow $200,000 on A.) debauchery and B.) building some kind of God-awful bamboo structure that is supposed to be a motel or bed&breakfast or something. The plot and dialogue are so lame and unbelievable it is hard to imagine the actors finding this project palatable so I have to figure they wanted the free trip to the Phillipines. Trust me, this one won't be appearing on anybody's career resume.

Despite the potentially gorgeous surroundings, the cinematography is very poor and of a TV movie quality. It was apparently filmed on location in the Phillipines, but you'd hardly know it, it could have been filmed in Hawaii or even Florida. The use of Leonard Cohen songs throughout is done poorly...the songs don't have any relevance to the actions going on and seem to be just plunked into place.

Terrance Stamp has a small, lame part as a Buddhist monk who is inexplicably allowed to have sex and drink alcohol. There are so many low points in this movie, I would be cruel to list them all, but the worst is when all the main characters are swimming nude, and they stand up in shallow water to greet the monk...we are forced to view their saggy, pudgy naked behinds and trust me, it's not a pretty moment.

A film utterly devoid of sympathetic emotion, and out of touch with any reality I'm aware of (but then I am not a bored, rich white male). The use of titillation (a three way!) to try and sell this bloated tripe is just out and out pathetic. This is a huge waste of time to sit through, even if it pops up on cable, so I suggest you avoid it. You have better things to do with your time.


As many of these other reviews have stated that a lot of the footage of this film is Benji running, it's true and it is really boring. Who wants to watch a mutt run through the streets of Greece for an hour? My family watched this movie together and my brother, who is 8 and loves animals dearly, even admitted that the movie was terrible! I do not see how these other people would want to watch this movie. Kids will not like this movie because nothing happens! But at least it is not Borat or whatever . . .

Other people have said that this movie is kid friendly, wrong! At the end of this movie people are held at point blank range with all sorts of guns by mafia like hit-men.

This Movie is really bad!


I checked out the DVD at my library because I liked Benji, but I hated this film. The background noise is way louder than it should have been. The background noise was so loud that it was louder than the people talking. A lot of the movie is people talking in Greek without any subtitles. The characters were so boring and the background noise so loud that I didn't understand the plot. I don't know what the point of the tattoo on Benji's paw is and I don't know who the British man and woman are. The plot was boring also. Most of what I saw was Benji exploring the city, stealing food, and getting to know a dog. This is the only dog movie that I have seen that I don't like.


Is there anything that happens in this movie that is NOT predictable? I think not. Basically the movie is cliché after cliché and really nothing ever comes as a surprise. It makes the movie extremely predictable and because of that the movie is also seriously lacking in tension. So for a thriller it is not tense and unpredictable enough but also as a drama it's a failure. This is because the movie its story is highly unlikely. I mean, no way this could ever happen in real life, as in the same way as the events occur in this movie. So the movie has a real suspense and credibility problem.

But it truly are the clichés that killed the movie. It was cringing stuff at times. Everything is so formulaic in this movie. The predator is portrayed as a cool heartless, almost psychopath like sexual frustrated boy and the victim as a naive young woman, who acts like she didn't see any of this coming. Everything that happened in the movie was so obvious and all seemed to happen for a reason. Such as the sequence in which the 'predator' fixes the 'victims' broken car. That has got to be one of the oldest clichés out of the book. I knew what the movie tried to achieve after that point. I tried to look as if the teacher and the student were really growing toward each other trough the eyes of the other persons around them. It was so incredibly obvious and cheap that I almost wanted to stop watching the movie after that point. The movie is filled with moments like these.

The title might suggest that this is a cheap porn movie but this in fact is a sappy made for TV movie. Which means that everything is slowly happening and the movie spends halve its time on character development and unnecessary sub-plots to make the movie even more drama like.

I'll admit that Elizabeth Berkley is pretty good acting in this movie. She makes some of the clichés and events look even almost realistic at times. Her Hollywood career is as good as over after appearing in the Paul Verhoeven movie "Showgirls", so unfortunately she will probably only still appear in movies- and television series like this one. It's a waste of her talent and she surely deserves better. All of the other characters are a disappointment. Corey Sevier plays the cliché pretty 'untouchable' rich boy and the way the husband of the main character is portrayed is even worse. He looks more like a sexual frustrated predator than the true predator of the movie. He basically tries to have sex with his wife in every sequence. He wakes up, he wants sex. Before he goes to sleep, he wants sex. He gets home, he wants sex. It might be a realistic thing but I don't know, it just didn't feel right for a movie like this one and the story in general.

A cliché filled movie and I can't think of any reason why anyone should ever watch this movie. It's predictable and therefor also lacks in suspense and credibility. Not an 'horrible' movie and it certainly is a watchable one at times but all the weak and cliché elements in the movie also make this far from a recommendable one.

4/10


There are a couple of prior comments here which opine about this flick's abundance of clichés throughout -- and I agree completely, both with regard to the characters AND the dialog.

I'd read about Elizabeth Berkly's awful performance in the equally-awful "Showgirls," which I've never seen - and her performance here, while not awful, is barely up to the standards of Lifetime's worse fare. There was not a hint of depth to her character, but then there probably shouldn't have been. If so, it would have placed the film completely out-of-balance, since there wasn't a hint of depth or charisma - not a trace - in any one character, performer, or portrayal.

The principal's handling of Liz's initial complaint after her tutee had kissed her in the hall was laughable. Her husband's initial reaction and advice were likewise (Forrest Gump, attacking Jenny's boyfriend in his car provided a more realistic, intelligent action, and, hell, he was mentally-challenged).

The smarmy, unctuous lawyer (excuse the redundancy) father of the lying student actually performed something probably worthy of praise in his performance: he was both laughable and thoroughly annoying at the same time, no mean feat. Her attorney was more of an insensitive nerd, also not unknown in the profession.

Finally (and frankly, I rather enjoyed this part), the police were such a collection of insensitive oafs, that you'd rather depend upon Barney Fife, without Andy, to handle all law enforcement and investigation in your community. I know that most real-like cops fall a bit short of the sharpness, intelligence and empathy of the level displayed by most characters on the "Law and Order" series', and the like -- but dolts of this level seem to be a staple on "Lifetime."

Finally, I found a kind of "story within a story" fascination with Josh's concoction of his being the "victim" of his teacher. This scripted performance within the story was even worse than his overall performance in the main story. This was something of an achievement, like going from "F" to "F-minus."

This whole lame situation should have been resolved - in real life - in about 15 minutes, following a realistic meeting between teacher and school authorities, with husband involved. But then that would have precluded the contrived drama following, and left an hour's blank film in the camera.

But the writer(s) here, proved with their ending, they could do even worse. When the situation was finally "resolved" and "righted," this was accomplished in all of about 45 seconds, with no indication of what measures might have been forthcoming in any "real world" context for the perpetrator and his parents, or whether they might have been able to find some sort of path toward redemption.

This one's a 2* presentation; the second "*" because it does have some mild "fascination."


Student Seduction finds Saved By The Bell Alumni Elizabeth Berkley on the other side of the desk and attracting the attention of young and hunky Corey Sevier. Speaking for myself I can truthfully say that no teachers save one ever did anything for me hormonally back when I was a student. That was a Ms. Diaz who was a music teacher in Junior High School. Even as a young gay kid, I could see what she was doing to the rest of the class. She was the only teacher I had who in any way could have been played by Elizabeth Berkley.

Corey being the hotty he is, is also used to having his own way with women whether they agree or not. The fact that he comes from rich parents reinforces that belief. He's flunking chemistry which is what Berkley teaches and to keep his GPA up she agrees to tutor, but believe no more.

So when he attempts a rape and gets no for an answer it's damaging to his ego. When Berkley goes out of channels and reports the crime to the police, the cops who are keeping in mind the cases of Pamela Smart and Mary Kay LeTourneau just don't believe here. Sevier's parents have the wherewithal to get a good publicity spin on this for their boy.

Student Seduction which is a misnomer of a title if there ever was one is trash all the way. After the beating that Berkley took for Showgirls this TV film was not an upward career move.


Anyone giving this movie a good review obviously must have had something to do with its creation. This movie is a painful suckfest. The acting is stiff, the stock generic soundtrack is laughable, the direction is bland and strangest of all, the teacher really isn't all that attractive (making the student's blatant advances all the more awkward). The creative minds behind this trash should disband and spread out to prevent further displays of such concentrated craptitude. I'm certain that some starving kids in Africa could have used the money squandered on this project. Hell, the funds would have also seen a more enlightened purpose fueling a crack-addict; at least someone would be getting some entertainment out of it. For the sole reason that it didn't give me a terminal illness, I'll give this film a two.


When a young lower class black fellow from the ghetto,who aspires to be a journalist,wants to meet his idol,a black tv newsman while that tv news reporter is at a crime scene,and then when that same older classy black tv reporter,who turns down the young man's offer to see a video of the young man's work,gets killed in an accident while at the crime scene,the young black fellow takes his place reporting from the crime scene and becomes a hit with local viewers and the tv station and its' news producer.Such is the story of Dexter Jackson in the 1991 film Livin'Large,about a young black man who learns that despite the rewards of fame and money to never forget where you come.

 That lesson would be decent enough to take in except that in the case of Livin'Large,the lesson becomes heavy handed.Dexter,played by Terrence Carter,changes more and more and becomes more remote from his ghetto neighborhood roots as he becomes successful.When a realtor shows him around a new townhouse he is going to buy,and his girlfriend tells Dexter that she can see the old neighborhood from the townhouse and Dexter replies,to his girlfriend's dismay,"and that is the way I prefer to see them from",the movie shows how much he is changing because of success and not for the better.

 As with most films centered around black people,these days,the politics concerning blacks and white come into play.Blanche Baker plays her role as the manipulative sleezy news producer very well.Her character,Kate,mentions to Dexter that they,white woman and black men,together must work to keep the white man from keeping them from reaching the top.It is a horrid message from a trashy character and yet it is a message the film itself doesn't distance itself too far from.

 Livin' Large tries to tell blacks,in a nutshell,that having too much success,being too refined in speech,dress,education,and manner,makes you white.It is a message that is somewhat clumsy to present to the audience.There is nothing wrong with success.There is nothing wrong is doing the best you can and having dreams far from one's position in life.Livin'Large would wish to sell the idea that if you are black,and trying to improve your lot in life,in being different than how blacks are usually seen and portrayed by the American entertainment media,is an idea filled with compromise,or "selling out",or "acting white".The film's makers,in this case,could not be more than wrong.One would not hate the film,there are some funny moments in it,but it is not quite the film one should reccomend to the general audience at large.


Unlikely characters and situations mar what might have been a fine idea for television.

The harsh, inner-city, verbally abusive patter among staff in the psychiatric hospital is unlikely to be tolerated in the professional work environment displayed (unless the writer has some personal knowledge of this particular psychiatric ward) and makes the show a bit of a joke.

The stereotype of the evil psychiatrist performing wicked procedures on their patients is hackneyed as well. And what about the two hospital workers having sex in the TV lounge 3 metres away from someone taking her tea break? How old was the writer for this show? Was there a writer?

Definitely not worth a second glance.


I just can't sell this movie folks, I thought it was dreadful. I'm someone who is normally content with both director {Joseph Kane} and star {Sterling Hayden} but here they are mired in weak plotting, bad acting and even worse accents. It also purports to be something of a mystery, which is daft since there isn't one!. Flimsy fights come and go, as do cheese laden songs, while the dialogue is as stilted {read from auto-cue it looks like} as can be. Republic Pictures do have many a fine B movie in the locker, but this isn't worthy of Z movie status.

The plot sees Hayden as Tim Chipman, who returns home to find his father, owner of the family logging company, has been murdered. With money owed and a shifty rival in the offering, can Tim solve the mystery, fight off the baddies and once again move logs? Adapted from a novel written by Dan Cushman, of which I haven't read, I honestly don't know if the source material was any good to begin with? But this just doesn't work, either as an interesting story or as a competently executed one. Some decent train sequences catch the eye, and the location work at Glacier National Park is pleasing, if not helped by the less than standard Trucolor print. But really it's not even a time filler of a picture. 3/10


I remember watching this movie back in '55 in Great Falls, Montana. It was a fun flick. Sterling Hayden did his usual Sterling Hayden performance. It was not Godfather worthy, but acceptable. The scenery was familiar to us, being Montanans. I actually did some lumber jacking in my college years. It is heavy work. After the movie, we stopped at a soda fountain. I stuffed the jukebox with a couple of quarters and punched in the song, "Timberjack". It was set to play twelve times. (If you put in a quarter instead of a nickle, you got six plays.) After the fourth play, the proprietor came over and unplugged the jukebox. We laughed our way out of the place.


[ * possible spoilers * ]I had seen bits & pieces of this high camp classic over the years but finally had a chance to see it from beginning to end on American Movie Classics, and I am dumbstruck. It's a real challenge to describe how truly ridiculous the thing is.

Perhaps the best place to start is with the two leads. I somehow can envision Olivier and Peck getting together after having seen the script, and then, before the start of shooting, making a wager as to who can come up with the worst accent. It's a tossup; Peck's attempt at a German accent was not outdone in hilarity for almost twenty years, when Brad Pitt in "Seven Years in Tibet" seemed to use it a model and outdid himself. Olivier's Jewish accent puts one in mind of a tipsy Harold MacMillan doing an impersonation of David Ben-Gurion (you Gen-Xers will just have to look those names up in your Funk & Wagnalls, or more likely, Encarta).

As far as their acting itself, words fail. Peck's Mengele is so cartoonish - as are all the Nazis here - as to seem to belong in "Hogan's Heroes". Portrayals so stereotyped drain away all terror and move things to the level of comedy. Olivier's Lieberman does not help matters; what is supposed to be a portrait of a dedicated Nazi hunter is so shot through with fleeting attempts at Borsch-belt humor as to come off as a poor impersonation of Myron Cohen (..back to Encarta, kids).

The high - or low - point, and the scene which almost makes one believe that humor was the real goal, is the famous party scene, with the ballroom draped in swastikas. Mengele, interrupting Mundt's "second honeymoon" dance with his stunningly ugly hag wife, throttling him to the ground on top of the hors d'oeuvres, and Frau Mundt's asking for a doctor only to have Mengele growl 'I AM a doctor, you stupid bitch', puts one in mind of some of the more classic moments from the Three Stooges. Could Mel Brooks have had a hand in this production? Talk about shades of "Springtime for Hitler" ("Maytime for Mengele" ???) !

It is true that what was in 1978 a ridiculously far-fetched plot device, human cloning, has become with the passage of time a frightening possibility. None the less, the idea of a hundred teenaged Xeroxes of Der Fuehrer set to "go off" around the Globe is still a concept that seems to have come out of an episode of "Get Smart", as does the whacky script.

How so many big names - Peck & Olivier, James Mason, Denholm Elliot, Uta Hagen, and Lilli Palmer - allowed themselves to be bamboozled into the making of this stinker must remain a mystery. Maybe they were paid VERY well. It must be noted that the elegant Lilli Palmer retains her classic beauty even despite the passing of time (she died 8 years after this flick; thank goodness she was able to to redeem herself by making a few more movies).

Having said all these nasty things, it must be conceded that the production values here are extremely high; the movie looks great. Everything is beautifully shot, setting off the on-location scenes wonderfully. But to have all this technical skill employed in the service of such silliness is like the mountain laboring and bringing forth a mouse, as they say.

The movie is worth watching, I suppose, but only if viewed as camp.


First off let me say this film is awful.I would really like to know what made Olivier and Peck and Mason star in this rubbish not to mention the bad performances given by practically everyone in this film the only saving grace is Gregory Peck who plays the Nazi doctor as a powerful man who is seriously deluded and full of his own self importance.The plot basically is this Dr Mengler is alive and well in Brazil and is being tracked down by a Jewish man played by Lawrence Olivier who is part of a group who have formed to bring Nazi war criminals to justice,Mengler has cloned Hitler and placed the young boys with foster families and is now tracking them down to tell them the truth about their backgrounds.However save yourself buying this on DVD and just watch it if it comes on TV it is watchable but it is not a good film.


Cheezy "German" accents, A-list actors (Olivier, Peck, et al), lots of beige clothing, rude pubescent clones with sinister pale blue contacts UND a dash of history all add up to the wonderfully awful "Boys from Brazil."

I kept expecting/hoping Werner Klemperer would burst upon the scene and shout "Schuuuuuuuullltzzz!!" At least we would've had a real German! Mein Gott!!


This film ranks with "They Saved Hitler's Brain" as one of the most campy films of all time. The story and performances are laughably unbelievable. Basically the scenario is this: Mengele (Peck) clones Hitler about 100 times, then kills all the clones' adoptive fathers because Hitler's father died. And there's something about a dog's birthday. One of the few B movies by the otherwise great actors Peck and Olivier. The only interesting scene was at the end when Olivier shakes hands with a clone. Worth watching only for camp value.


Oh boy...this has got to be one of the biggest turkeys I've seen lately.

Apparently, this is supposed to be a serious thriller, but I found it hard to take it seriously for a single moment. First, the entire cast is acting extremely poorly (the accents of the main characters are incredibly fake, and just about every single performance is over the top). Characters act in totally unbelievable ways (the famous nazi hunter isn't the least bit interested when somebody tells him about a serious nazi plot, the apparently calm and sophisticated Dr. Mengele nearly strangles somebody to death for no reason) and just about everything else, up to the overly dramatic score, is exaggerated.

Secondly, there simply isn't enough plot to fill a two hour movie with (it can be summed up in a single sentence), resulting in a very slow movie with gives you plently of time to reflect on how utterly silly and far-fetched the story is. To make matters even worse, the flimsy plot is over-explained to the last detail, ruining any mystery there might have been.

"The Boys From Brazil" is an overblown, exaggerated thriller that I really couldn't take seriously for one moment. Slow moving, poorly acted and silly in the extreme, I think it can only be enjoyed as camp.

*1/2 out of *****


I saw this film on TV a few nights ago for the first time and was quite literally stunned at how bad it really is. For such a high profile and well respected group of actors (in the main) the performances are exceptionally bad. Laurence Olivier and Gregory Peck try to outdo each other in the worst ever accent stakes to such an extent that one has to question whether or not this was actually made as a tongue in cheek comedy! Steve Guttenberg in a very early performance gives us a taste of the lack of talent and mediocrity that we shall come to expect from him over the coming years, as a group of pantomime Nazis try to stop him from revealing their secret. If nothing else, I got a good laugh from this piece of 70s camp, which truly has to be seen to be believed!


I didn't thunk much of this movie and much of the blame should be centered on Ira Levin's source novel . Someone rightly points out that personality is possibly more to do with environment that genetics , so how come nobody realises that Nazi Germany wasn't all down to Hitler ? I'm thinking of millions of Germans who fought and lost a world war from 1914 to 1918 and tens of millions of Germans being affected by the terms of the Versaille treaty . Hitler himself fought in the war and was lying in hospital when the war ended and all these factors had far more importance in the creation of Nazi Germany than Hitler's father being a civil servant . In other words Levin's plot is totally ludicrous to say the least .

Apart from the silly plot the main problem with the film version of BOYS FROM BRAZIL is the acting and it's quite ironic that with a story centered around Jews that there's so much ham on display . Really the acting is really awful , so bad that you can't help laughing at the performances . Laurence Olivier gives possibly the worst performance of his career while Gregory Peck seems to be giving an impersonation of Basil Fawlty , oh gawd even James Mason is bad and that's not something I can say lightly

Yeah this is an entertaining movie but if you're making a thriller it's vital that you thrill the audience and not have them rolling in the aisles with something that feels like it's a sequel to THE PRODUCERS . How amusing is it Theo ? It's so amusing that I burst out laughing when someone made the very predictable cry of " Help get a doctor " - " I am a doctor you idiot "


Thoroughly repugnant and wretched melodrama has the foster couple to a little girl terrorized by the child's psychopathic biological parents, who are on the lam from the police. Warped, irresponsible picture with thriller aspirations is more stupid than suspenseful. Director Wesley Strick seems to have fallen asleep at the wheel, how else to explain the piling up of one ludicrous situation atop another? Stars Daryl Hannah and Keith Carradine can't even scrape together the semblance of believability within this context, and both are at a loss (as the "innocents", Moira Kelly and Vincent Spano have it even worse, but their general lack of charisma puts them at a disadvantage regardless). Tiresome, unsubtle junk. NO STARS from ****


So-called "thriller" in which a young couple (Moira Kelly, Vincent Spano) unable to have children adopt the daughter (Julia Devin) of a husband-and-wife pair of criminals, after the girl has been taken into police custody following a failed robbery.

This movie does not deliver the goods; for starters, it does not maintain my interest for much of its running time. It's sordid, unappealing, and lacking in energy. It really is a routine and forgettable movie that is saved from being total garbage by a couple of good performances (Keith Carradine is no less than completely convincing as a mangy, sadistic psycho). Of course, seeing a child being subjected to foul and abusive behaviour from adults is always a debit - no matter how good the movie is otherwise.

3/10


Awfully familiar thriller stuff that takes longer to play out than it should and ends with a particularly overdone, overextended climax. The performances are generally good and there are a few bits of imaginative camerawork, but the familiarity of the material proves to be overwhelming. The film has no personality, and most of the scenes seem to be just copies of similar events in other thrillers. (*1/2)


"Beauty and Power" tells of only the sensationalistic parts of the life of the late Judith Campbell Exner, paramour to Sinatra, JFK, and mafia boss Sam Giancana. This bland, vanilla, and downright dull biopic contradicts itself by palming off Exner as a bright woman who just happened to fall in love with rich and influential men while she behaves like a dunce who just can't keep her panties on. "B&P" is lacking in substance, chock full of too clever repartee, and poorly develops the Exner centerpiece. Those interested in facts about the woman can get more from the Internet in 15 minutes than from this 90 minute flick. Those interested in entertainment should look elsewhere. (D)


This so-called expose of the Kennedy Administration's close ties with the mob tells nothing that hasn't been printed millions of times before. That he detested FBI director J. Edgar Hoover but couldn't bring him down because of his "file" on Kennedy has been buzzed about in the media for at least thirty years. Kennedy's girlfriends slipping in and out of the White House for rendezvous with the Chief Executive in the "Harding" closet is also passé. The Bay of Pigs fiasco has been worked to death by the media too. So why spend tons of money on a made-for-cable feature about a topic now irrelevant by overexposure? It's obvious from production values that not much dough was wasted by Showtime on this time filler.

The casting is poor as far as lookalikes. Even the lead Natasha Henstridge as Judy Exner doesn't resemble the Kennedy paramour very much. She would actually have done better playing Jackie. And where's Bobby? President Kennedy relied heavily on his younger brother for guidance and advice. Bobby was a key figure in taking Marilyn Monroe off the President's hands following her Happy Birthday indiscretion on national TV. John and Robert were nearly always together. In this film, he is only mentioned once or twice and never shown.

The movie does reveal Judy Exner as being naive not only in romance but also in politics. Obviously caught up in the glitz and glitter of high society and Washington politics, she went along for the thrill ride with no thought of the consequences. That she was used and abused by the Kennedy bunch is difficult to believe. After all, what did she really have to offer in return besides sex? And even that came easy for JFK, the sixty-second man.


As the paramour of John F. Kennedy and Sam Giancana, Judith Campbell Exner had enough goods to bring down the Kennedy family and the Presidency itself. But, you'd never know it by this. What should have been a hum-dinger was a snooze, our "heroine" whining to her wuss of a boyfriend to order the FBI to stop camping outside her house and barging in whenever they felt like it. The dialog was a hoot: when Judy wails "I want to be with you. I want to go to a soda fountain and drink vanilla Cokes!," I couldn't stop laughing!

Judy tells us about her "mistakes," as if she's been kicking herself over them, only to say that she doesn't regret a thing! Why was Giancana - here, the kindest mobster ever - crazy about her? There certainly isn't anything about her that justified such puppy-eyed devotion.

Exner's last years were bittersweet: she was reconciled with the infant son she gave up for adoption, and some of her story was verified. However, like the other good-time girls before and since, her 15 minutes clearly lasted 14 minutes too long.


I recently read the book Solaris from Stanislav Lem which was recommended to me by a friend. I read the book and I liked it. I liked it because of Lems very detailed description of the forms which Solaris creates and the accidents which happened there. I really must say that this 'scientific' descriptions of the happenings there were quite interesting and at some parts scaring. After I read the book I found out that there was a movie about this book and - because I really wanted to see those forms, the surface of Solaris and to compare them to those in my imagination - I watched it. But I the movie heavily disappointed me.

Only about 10% of this movie represent the book. The rest is absolutely different. Different characters, different names and different storyline. Sorry, but this movie should not be allowed to be called Solaris. Read the book if you want some Science-Fiction. Watch the movie if you want a twisted Romance.


One tag-line for this movie is "There are some places man is not ready to go," like into the theatre playing this movie. The other tag-line is "How far will you go for a second chance?" Apparently as far as death by boredom.

This movie is about regret, consequences, and redemption. Regret for actually seeing it. Consequences, waste of an afternoon and money for the DVD rental. Redemption, none.

According to the director, Steven Soderbergh, the movie concentrates on the love George Clooney's character feels for his dead wife. And how far he will go to be with her again. But all he did was take 15-20 minutes of useful story, and stretched it into a 90 minute movie by adding on 70 minutes of useless garbage. Also, it seems as though he ignored the enigma of the living planet Solaris.

Where the whole story could have been made on an episode of the Outer Limits, only a part of the story was used into making a major snooze fest.


The original Solaris makes 2001 look like Sesame Street; unfortunately the remake makes Sesame Street look like the original Solaris. This is a great shame. I love the original. I hate the remake. It's an idiot's guide, everything has been boiled down and battered and chewed up so that a younger and less patient audience can easily digest it. If you wanted to remake Solaris as an episode of the Twilight Zone this is what you would boil the story down to. The original had a love story in it but it was not a love story.

And the original was a piece of cinema. It told its story in pictures. In the remake, once Kelvin arrives at Solaris, no one shuts up. There's a constant yammering explanation of what is going on. Everything has to be explained. It's the difference between 2001 and 2010. Sometimes mystery is better.

Forgetting the original, does it work as a stand alone movie? Again, it's not visual enough, you could do the script as it stands on the radio and no one would be lost. As for the acting? Clooney is Clooney, nice looking and can move about without bumping into the furniture, but there's always something missing from the man on screen: he lacks emotional weight. Natasha McElhone? Awful. The flashback scenes where she and Clooney are falling in love are an embarrassment. It's as though she's trying to break the world grinning record. Then she stops grinning and you know things can't be good. And as for Jeremy Davis? I think the man's been watching Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now once too often. A bad second-hand reminder of someone else's performance.

Plus points? The photography's nice. And it could have been longer, which might have made it a different and better film; but, given the film it has turned out to be, thank god it's as short as it is.


Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, of course - but I am simply astonished that this film has received so many positive comments here. I have not read the novel on which the film is based and I have watched Tarkovsky's version twice (because it demands it), but by judging this 'Solaris' on its own merits, I think this version is simply a load of old plop. Here's why: this version concentrates almost entirely on the love story at its centre and to carry its ideas through successfully, the relationship at its core has to be believable - which it clearly isn't. There is simply no chemistry at all between the two leads; I've seen more sexual sparks created between Shaggy and Scooby. And whilst George Clooney is competent enough - he's certainly no Donatas Banionis. And the casting of Natasha McElhone is a complete disaster. Why that irritating smug grin throughout the film? A futile exercise in wasting everyone's time and money. Avoid.


I did not walk into the movie theater with very high hopes for this film as Andrei Tarkovsky's version of Stanislaw Lem's 1961 novel "Solyaris" is one of my all-time favorite films. However, I was not prepared for how incredibly banal Soderbergh's version turned out to be. This film is, quite frankly, a BOMB.

There is little to say other than the fact that despite Soderbergh's first-rate craftsmanship, as a director, he lacks power; he is not of the first-rank of cinema artists, not matter how much he strives to be. He is not even in Spielberg's class of being an uber-technician/craftsman as at least Speilberg, even at his most banal, can deliver the goods. The new "Solaris" IS BORING.

The film is a terrible misfire. Focusing on the relationship of Kelvin and his "wife" to all else saps the film of the power of Tarkovsky's classic, which I always characterized as a more intellectual "2001." This film lacks the philosophical power of the Tarkovsky film. In sum, Soderberg's version of "Solaris" is relentlessly SHALLOW.

Clooney is not appropriately cast, and his lack of acting chops robs the audience of identification as there is no character development that a fine actor like Kevin Spacey could give this role. Clooney's performance never really develops, his character never really changes; Kelvin, as played by Clooney, is a depressed wimp at the beginning and throughout the film. It's strange to see an actor as macho as Clooney playing a character on the border of hysteria. It might have made sense if we watched the character deteriorate, but as it was played, the character is poorly realized.

As for the other actors, Natasha McElhone is better than she was in FearDot.Com, and this is NOT like saying Pauley Shore was better in SON-IN-LAW than he was in BIO-DOME; she's not only beautiful, but gives a decent performance; however, what she lacks is star power, the charisma that a star like Julia Roberts can bring to a picture, thus making Kelvin's yearning and his ultimate decision more real. McElhone just isn't up to the demands of the role as realized in this film (as opposed to Tarkovsky's "Solyaris," where the character is not quite as prominent). She lacks weight. While I don't think it's her fault as much as the director's, many times she struck me as having been teleported in from a shampoo commercial. She is just there to look pretty in some interminable sequences that scream "STUDENT FILM." I guess this is Soderbergh's way of reclaiming his "art house" roots, but frankly, it's ridiculous, as is some of the dialogue, which is just plain bad, not even bad enough to border on camp (and thus give the audience some pleasure).

Jeremy Davies, who was so excellent in PRIVATE RYAN, quickly is solidifying his reputation as the worst actor on celluloid. Here, he channels the spirit of Travis Bickle, but Mr. Davies, you are no Robert DeNiro. It's becoming excruciating watching Davies in any movie; each movie, he is actually getting worse.

On an upbeat note, Viola Davis was good.

I voted this film a "2" (as the production design is excellent, as is the soundtrack), but is really is a BOMB.

Beware a Michaelangelo-inspired visual motif towards the end when Soderbergh really begins channeling the spirit of Stanley Kubrick.

Stephen, I knew Kubrick and you're not Kubrick, nor will you ever be.

The Web site for "Solaris" presents the film as being from two Academy Award winners, James Cameron and Soderbergh. Just remember: Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks and Martin Scorecese never won a Best Director Oscar; John G. Avildsen did. 'Nuff said.


Some Scifi movies are classics. Some are Legends. This one just doesn't fit in anywhere. It tries so hard to be 2001 A Space Oddysey and falls so short its not funny.

Its so difficult to follow a few of us thought at one stage that the player was skipping to other parts on the disk. It makes no sense whatsoever and if it moved any slower....

I will give the film its due in that it is trying to be an arty scifi movie with more flair than pure scifi.But still, something thats that hard to follow just cant be appealing.

If you're a classic Scifi lover of action, aliens and at least some kind of story - then I would give this one a skip.


I just came back from "Solaris" and I really don't know what to think of it. I knew nothing about it beforehand, but I was expecting it to be a run-of-the-mill sci-fi film. Well, "Solaris" is definitely not a typical sci-fi, which is good, but mostly bad. It's a love it or hate it movie. I love films that mess with your mind, but this was too much for me. The total absence of action was fine with me, but people looking for thrills and chills will have to do with multiple butt shots of Clooney's posterior.

Of all the movies I've seen in a theater, I've never been so emotionless before. Not once did I close my eyes in fear, laugh, or express any other emotions. All 20-some people in the theater were like zombies, or maybe they were just asleep. When I left the theater, I felt like I'd just come out of a coma. Watching this movie is more like watching a painting come to life, I don't know how else to say it. The visuals are gorgeous and the acting was quite good, but the story is a mess. Even the most intelligent moviegoers will probably walk out feeling stupid for not knowing what was going on. Unlike other movies of this nature, seeing it multiple times probably won't help you understand it.

The story begins right away and draws you in, but you probably won't have a clue what's going on until a half hour in. By the end, I still didn't know much of the plot, but I didn't walk away completely empty. It was a surreal experience that is somewhat rewarding, yet it was a total head trip. George Clooney plays a psychologist or scientist (not clarified) that has been summoned to check out the strange phenomena happening in Solaris, a world in space. He is soon greeted by his deceased wife and finds out the two remaining crew members also have "visitors" that are dead. I'm going to stop there because if I go on, I'll blow the whole plot. The plot is pretty thin, so the action moves at a snail's pace to make this short story into a 90-minute film. If you can make it through this movie, you can make it through any movie. On an artistic scale, I'd give it a 8/10, but entertainment-wise, I'll give it a 2.