Ruthless crime boss Randall (Paul Murphy) is intent on seizing control of SouthEast England's cocaine business, and is willing to kill anyone who stands in his way; but Randall bites off more than he can chew when he double-crosses fearless hit-man Walker (Nick Rendell).

The cover of the Uncensored, Uncut, Widescreen, Collector's Special Edition DVD of Sudden Fury is plastered with glowing quotes, and to date, IMDb offers almost overwhelmingly positive reviewsso how did this apparently amazing powerhouse of 'manic intensity' and 'savage energy' manage to slip under my radar for over 12 years? The answer: because it's not very goodan independent, low-budget, shot-on video effort that attempts in vain to replicate the brutality and grittiness of 70s and 80s Euro-crime flicks, but which fails thanks to a lazy script which relies so heavily on expletives that I can only assume writer/director Darren Ward was going for the World Record for most swearing in a movie (and would wager that he succeeded), and a cast who are, with the exception of David Warbeck, simply dreadful.

Admittedly, I didn't purchase Sudden Fury for it's Oscar worthy performances, beautiful cinematography or sparkling dialogue, but was lured into watching by the promise of unbelievably bloody violence, and to be fair, the claims of extremely brutal nastiness prove to be true: there's plenty of sadistic torture and quite a few semi-decent action sequences that provide enthusiastic gore and splattery squib-work. However, the plot and acting in this film are so completely diabolical that all the blood and guts in the world cannot prevent it from being an extremely wretched affair.

With a running time of around 102 minutes, there are far too many opportunities for our budding thesps to practise their art, and between the bursts of violence, viewers are treated to countless dull-as-ditchwater scenes in which various bad guys face-off with each other whilst swearing a lot and gesticulating wildly (either because the 'actors' are completely at a loss at what to do with their limbs whilst their mouths are moving, or are under the misguided notion that pointing a lot equates to a powerful performance).

I give Sudden Fury a rating of 2.5 out of 10 for being so irksome for so much of the time, but generously add an extra half point for its gratuitously violent content, the so-crap-it's-funny sex scene between troubled hit-man anti-hero Walker and a coke-addled hooker, several hilarious jungle warfare flashbacks that look as though they were filmed in the local woods (because they were), and a full-body burn stunt that is actually pretty impressive.


Dear Godzilla,

Once again, I feel compelled to remind you that, regardless of your Toho contract you do not have to sign up for every single piece of tripe they toss at you. I am sure that the idea of getting your son his first major role was an important selling point, but did you even read the script (assuming there was one) before you agreed to get involved with this? By the way, Gadzuki was quite adorable and played his part with real conviction. I thought the scene you culled from your home movies with him scorching his toe while practicing fire-breathing was a real cute kick! And your female lead, the spectacularly beautiful Megumi Odaka, with whom you have made so many films, is always worth staying up until 3AM to see. Why you and Megumi can't ever seem to make a film worthy of your combined talents, however, is very hard to comprehend.

Let me see if I got this right. A mass of crystals with a very small lizard (he looked about 2cm long while hurdling through space) looking vaguely like you lands on your island home and disrupts your family life, imprisoning your son and committing other rude acts. Another very small creature, this one looking like a defective Transformer action figure (Moguera) from the 1980s, has a duel in space with the little crystal lizard thing and suffers one of about 7 humiliating defeats, returning home with its scorched little mechanical tail between its legs. Oh, and somehow both of these are not only your size, but the space critter no longer has an entire carapace of crystals attached to his back when he arrives on earth. Meanwhile, a few inept military officers and government employed scientists are trying to either kill you or work out a way to telepathically control you. As the space impostor then begins the usual rampage through Tokyo, you begin your attack on him, and Moguera joins in, crashing and burning several times and even separating its own legs from its torso! Oh ya, I almost forgot, Mothra and the twins (or, as it seems this time "mothra/the twins") also show up a few times for no apparent reason.

I have a few questions.

Why didn't you invite Ghidorah, or maybe King Kong? This could have really been a family reunion.

Was your son traumatized by this? Is this film the reason why he is rarely seen in public today?

What has Megumi been doing lately, besides appearing at a couple of your fan conventions? Do you keep in touch?

Have you at least managed to put your foot down at... errrr... I mean "on" Toho's studios yet? If so, why didn't that scene make the final cut?

Please keep in mind my ever-open invitation to come to America and wreak revenge on Hollywood for their plagiaristic and disrespectful hiring of an understudy for that recent film they used your name for. As I've said before, large retired actors have unlimited prospects for employment in the state of California, and just think of the reforms you could enact on the film industry as governor! Yours affectionately,


******POSSIBLE SPOILERS********

Completely forgettable 90s giant monster film from Toho, which seems to be on its last legs. The army is fighting Godzilla, who of course is their only defense against Space Godzilla, a creature formed by a chunk of G's DNA which got stuck in space and was mutated. In the only praiseworthy scene, the annoying "Mini-G" is killed by the space mutants, giving papa G some character motivation for a change. Features the same effects and the same annoying psychic girl from other 90s Toho Godzilla flicks. One of the most pointless entries in the entire series.


I find this movie a little interesting but very cheesy and boring if you watch it a few times. Also, I like the comedy in the dialog of this movie. If the Heisei series were able to create a movie with 4 monsters instead of two, I would elect Supermechgodzilla and Biollante versus Spacegodzilla and Destroyah. All those monsters can really put up a great fight against Godzilla. It will mainly be Supermechagodzilla versus Spacegodzilla and Biollante versus Destroyah. Godzilla will have to make a miracle to destroy them all. Spacegodzilla's crystal surroundings will make a good ring. It will be action packed with not a lot of human dialog as it would usually have.


Here's the poorest entry in the recent Toho Godzilla cycle. Besides being overlong by about half an hour the story is dull and, worst of all, some bright spark at Toho decided to commission a new score by Takayuki Hattori. In fact the whole movie reeks of Hollywoodisation, and it's the least 'Japanese' Godzilla film ever. (Except for that one with Matthew Broderick.) Toho came to it's senses when they moved on to Godzilla vs Destroyah and reinstated the classic Akira Ifukube cues.


Man, this movie was worse than the reviews (and the reviews were really bad). I thought that the first was bad enough, but when I saw this I was shocked. I can't even believe that someone could make a movie this bad, I mean I could probably make a better movie with a camera about shoelaces. This movie was a big waste of time and I sooooooo regret watching it. If only I could give it 0 out of 10. Good thing Matthew Broderick didn't sign up for this movie cause then he would be completely humiliated and considered a bad actor. The only reason I rented this movie was to see if it was worse than the first, which sucked. Anyways, I don't recommend this movie to anyone unless you're a 3 - year old idiot who eats his snot.


Wow. I had no idea a movie could be so awful. I mean I've seen the Ed Wood movie Plan 9 from Outer Space, but this was just one of those"Are you F*%king kidding me" movies. I mean why did they even bother making this if Matthew Broderick wouldn't come back. If Ferris Bueller won't do it, there's probably not to much promise in it. About the movie, why didn't any of the criminals just smash the G2 robot-thing, I mean how hard can it be to whack her in the head with a lead pipe and wrap her up with some chains then tear her apart with crow bars. Why did they need to replace Inspector Gadget anyway, oh yeah, so they could at least have something to make a sequel about. Bad story gone worse describes this whole thing.


"Inspector Gadget 2" is possibly one of the worst sequels to dawn the direct-to-DVD call tag at the bottom of the box. Using nothings from the original film (not the same characters, not the same style, not the same comic timing), this film is one that you have to watch alone, not standing right next to the original Broderick vehicle. French Stewart (he is always squinting ... why?), with the aid of director Alex Zamm try to bring the original concept back the the series without any known budget. Stewart brings a new Inspector to the film, a more arrogant, snobbish, seems to be tormented by life, protagonist that cares nothing for those surrounding him. He is a character that we cannot love, no matter how many times we have to sit through one viewing of this film. What is interesting about Stewart is that he is actually closer to the the animated Gadget than the original. Zamm also tries to create a Dr. Claw that is closer to the original  but the trouble occurs with the fact that the two share very little screen time and thus there is no real chemistry between the two. Claw used to always monitor Gadget's doings, in this one, there seems to be a haphazard care as to what either is doing. Penny still doesn't have her book and Brain still isn't getting anyone out of trouble. Where is the consistency here? Too add to the mix, we are introduced to a new character "G2", the newest upgrade to the Gadget line. Like anything this riddled with clichés, there is an initial problem with the two of them, but eventually a spark misfires and Gadget is introduced to yet another love interest. Considering the problems anatomically with this couple, there is no further spark between them. The only reason the two are put in a this film are to be together, not for any other purpose. There is no sense of individualism, just flimsy cause followed by an effect that could have been predicted before the opening credits ended.

"Inspector Gadget 2" has not seen the best reviews, nor will it get a good one from me  it tried, but ultimately it failed. There was no purpose to create this erroneous sequel. Disney was hoping to cash in on the Broderick fan base, the younger generation that knows no better , or just to make some extra dollars to pad their bottom line, but there was no reason to resurrect this already problematic series. I hated Elaine Hendrix's mesh between "Robocop" and "Judge Dredd". She was funny at parts that were not meant to be funny, and chokingly bad at parts that were meant to draw sympathy from the audience. Perhaps it was the writing, or the campy way that it was filmed, or the cheesy ploy to get audiences to laugh, but this sequel just left me out to dry. If I had to speak positively about this film in any way, I would have to comment on the CGI which did improve a bit with this lower-budget film. I thought the idea of "freezing-time" was a fun concept equal to what Claw would do, but again, we seemed to lack the spunk and originality of the cartoon. I would never consider this franchise a remake of the cartoon, but instead their own unoriginal spin-off.

I blame Disney a bit for this film because cutting corners and cost is not an excuse for making poor films. If Broderick or even the horrid Everett could not reprise their roles for this sequel, it should have just stopped there. Don't push a circular peg into a square hole, but instead we continued to push and found cheap replacements for the original. This is a very kid friendly moment that if I were 3, would probably find visually entertaining, but from a company that prides itself on making Oscar-worthy animation, I expect a higher level of distribution. French Stewart should stop working while he still is remembered for his humorous work on "Third Rock from the Sun", while the rest of this cast shouldn't even bother with another feature. I think it is bad enough that they couldn't even get Cheri Oteri back, cause, you know, she's expensive.

Overall, I have to say that "Inspector Gadget 2" is a blunderment of a film, and the one star review that I am giving it is generous. There is no need for these types of films to enter into mainstream cinema. It dulls the senses for those hoping to find engrossing cinema out there, and proves that a mind isn't necessary to watch French in action. As a cinematic community, we have to put a stop to this. Zamm attempted to retain some of the originality of the cartoon, but couldn't compile a cast good enough to bring the humor, form, grace, and talent of the animated series to light. There was no chemistry between anyone, and when the clichés began to cause a horrid avalanche, I was caught with nowhere to hide. If I had to end with a thought in mind, it would be this  Claw never showed his face, this can be learned from watching the pilot "Inspector Gadget" where he had a mustache, so you shouldn't be able to see his face in the films. It is simple. It would be like creating the Smurfs live-action where they were a shade of orange instead of blue. You just don't do it. So, when it comes to this film  just don't do it. You will be happier, and no so bitter like myself.

Grade: * out of *****


French Stewart, we hardly knew ye. We hardly knew ye beyond the showe thou callest "Third Rock From The Sun". Because, let every viewer face it, it will be his only real success in his career. Everything else will pale in comparison.

Stewart, as Gadget, was weak. He arrests an old granny for going .3 mph over the speed limit. Kind of stupid and not even funny. The set up was all wrong. Plus enter G2 (Gadget 2), who is modeled as a woman, and Gadget likes her. For some reason, dumb robots fall for one another.

What is so screwed is is that the Claw from the first one is no longer there. So this feels like a cheap original and not a very cheap sequel. Nobody from the original is in the sequel. And that is sad.

Overall, its worse than the first. Sometimes shows should just be kept as cartoon and not turned into real life versions. And Inspector Gadget is such an example. "F"


The first film was a disappointing and mediocre film, but actually was reasonably entertaining. There has been the general impression that the sequel is better than the first film, but I can't agree. Yes, I accept it was more faithful than the brilliant cartoon show, but I still think it was a very poor sequel.

The script was very very weak, and even lower in laughs than the first film. I liked the idea of Dr Claw escaping from jail, but the pace of this film was way too fast, and lacked energy as well as felt rushed. And the editing was choppy, and the effects substandard.

The performances were pretty dire. French Stewart proves once again, like he did in the excrement that is Home Alone 4, that he falls well short of the charisma and energy of his character and came across as rather wooden. I didn't like Tony Martin's Dr Claw either. I much preferred Rupert Everett's suave take on the classic villain, and Martin hamming-up came close to embarrassing rather than entertaining. In fact, the only redeeming quality, and this is a slight one, is the talented Caitlin Wachs, who deserved better.

Overall, very poor, don't waste your time. 1/10 Bethany Cox


When I first knew that French Stewart was playing Inspector Gadget, I thought, "great!". The cartoon Inspector Gadget had the voice, quirkiness and Klutziness that French Stewart had in his character of Harry from Third Rock From The Sun. Whan I watched Third Rock From the Sun before this sequel of Inspector Gadget came out, I thought Harry sounded just like Inspector Gadget. I thought when I saw the first version, he would have played a much better character than Matthew Broderick. Later, I was excited when I learned French had been cast for the role. However, my excitement turned to disappointment during the first few minutes of Inspector Gadget 2. Harry was more the Inspector Gadget character than the Inspector Gadget he played in this movie. He seems sedated, on a heavy dose of sleep inducing tranquilizers. If he had only played his "Harry" character in Inspector Gadget 2, French Stewart could've been a good Inspector Gadget. The film is bland, the story is dumb and boring. It's not worth the time to waste watching any of it.


Inspector Gadget 2 (2003, Dir. Alex Zamm) Still in the police force, Inspector Gadget (Stewart) is reduced to sitting around. After capturing Claw (Martin), all the criminals have gone into hiding untilClaw escapes! Gadget thinks he will get the case, but everyone else has other planes. A new version of the Gadget project is unveiled in the form of G2 (Hendrix). Strict orders are given for Gadget to stay away from G2 and every crime scene, but Gadget feels he is needed more than anyone.

Tries to make the film similar to its animated show but ends up creating a film which is more disappointing than the original. The CGI effects are terrible, many plot holes from the first film are unanswered and French Stewart fails to capture the same quality performance that Broderick achieved as Gadget.

You can't fire me. I quit!  Inspector Gadget (French Stewart)


I couldn't wait til this movie would finally be released and when I got it for my birthday I couldn't wait to go home and watch it, but after seeing i felt like i wasted my aunt's money. Elaine Hendrix is probably the best actor in this entire movie. She does an awesome job as G2. Caitlyn Wachs does an okay job filling in as the role of Penny. However French Stewart does an awful job as Inspector Gadget. There are parts of the movie that are funny and good. Brain is one of the cutest beagles you will ever see and Inspector Gadget's car is so funny. And the bar scene made me laugh a little. However this isn't the movie I would recommend but what the heck give it a chance, you may like it. All I know is that i didn't.


I hate this movie so much with love.I love French Stewart,but I hate him in this.This film makes no sense what so ever.How did claw get old when this film takes place 4 years later.Why didn't penny get older.Why does the town look different.Why is Gadget still stupid when his glitches are fix.Why ask why.This is stupid.Too many question,none of the answers.


This movie will probably excite only two groups of people: fans of latin hunk Mario Lopez and individuals who like to see scantily clad, well-built young men.

The movie purports to be sci-fi but the plot is confusing and unrealistic even for sci-fi standards. The dialogue is predictable and the actors try to make it serious but you can't do much with "you don't wanna ask questions" and other frequently used dialogue lines.

Mario Lopez stars and tries to act but the script forces him to behave and talk like his Slater character on "Saved by the Bell." Even his lead-up dialogue to his love scene with Jamie Pressley is predictable. The scene leaves you watching them talk and then all of a sudden they kiss and are in bed together. Lopez's impressive physique is seen frequently, along with numerous other handsome men, so if you like hunky men, it's not bad. But, having seen his ability to do more than just mouth lines in "Breaking the Surface: The Greg Louganis Story", fans of Lopez will be disappointed that he's in another Slateresque tough guy, I can kick your butt role.

Richard Grieco and Jamie Pressley are also wasted in this film, although Grieco is humorous at times. However, you can tell he's trying to "act" dramatic and the effect ruins the lines.

If you're looking for an interesting story, you'll be disappointed. If you're looking for dramatic sci-fi action, you'll be disappointed. And fans of Lopez will hope he finds a better script for his next project.


This film has got to be some attempt to get Mario Lopez back on the celebrity map. I don't think at this point he cares what kind of press he gets: he'll even settle to have a rumor that he's gay spread around to get him attention.

The Journey: Absolution begins with the destruction of life as we know it, compliments of a lame CGI meteor hitting a lame CGI model of Earth. Skip ahead a few decades, and Mario Lopez has recruited into a military installation in the Arctic to find his friend, who is male. Haha. Richard Grieco is the ruthless commandant who trains the recruits and periodically selects one the most elite of the troop to be a part of the Z-team.

Everything that can go wrong in a movie does here. Uninspired direction, cheap, flimsy sets, embarrassing sexist scenes, flat, dull performances, laughable dialogue, bargain-basement special effects, and cliches and plot holes in the script larger than the hole left by the meteor that hits Earth.

Richard Grieco's constant repetition of, "For the sake of Pete," brings to mind John Travolta's mindless repetition of "leverage" in another sci-fi turkey, Battlefield Earth. Mario Lopez shows us exactly why he starred in Saved By The Bell and not much more.

The only truly decent thing about this flick is all the hot men prancing around in nothing but underwear and black combat boots. Otherwise, this awful, awful attempt at sci-fi falls flat on it's homo-erotic face.

2 out of 10


If Mario Lopez wants to put the thought into peoples mind that he "might" be gay then he would have been better off not wearing that body stocking during the very strained love scene in this disaster of a movie. Thank god this is one of those movies that you have to stumble across while channel surfing late at night (and hopefully drunk). I don't understand why they didn't have a gay rape scene in it since it is obvious that these young astronauts (or whatever they are suppose to be) have no interest in women. The one who initiates the cigarette burning should have been the one who gets to successfully rape Mario. Hey, in my opinion that would have given it better appeal to the targeted audience (the gay community).


This film is awful. I have never seen as many half naked men in underwear hugging, fighting, kicking as in this homosexual science fiction kick-box phantasy - which tries to come across as straight. Nice try !

The characters are constantly looking over each others well defined and hard bodies: "where are your cigar burns ?" and "you such a hunk"..... it´s actually a gay story set in a bunker.....


I watched this movie just for the sake of a good sci-fi movie. My hopes were turned down; more like a thriller and an erotic b-movie...starring Mario and the girl in Poison Ivy 2 or 3.


Joel and the robots could have a field day with this piece of tripe. Dick (21 Jump Street) Grieco has either put on weight or is wearing a padded shirt. None the less, Dick is supposed to be a tough military dude, yet he obviously has a few hours a day to pluck those dainty eyebrows of his. This movie takes place in a military base in a frozen wasteland (in many ways it resembles Grieco's acting career). An uppity punk discovers a secret society within the base and after watching the ritual, my eyes started to bleed. Please, if there is a god, destroy this film.


"What" is Polanski's absolute nadir .It's incredible that,helped by his excellent collaborator Gerard Brach ,he could produce nothing but this drivel:it's an insult to mention such names as Carroll (the elevator is the mirror ?) or Borges .The dialog is never funny,being mean,vulgar, pretentious,almost exclusively revolving around sex .Polanski himself appears as he did in "the fearless vampire killers" and later would in the highly superior "Chinatown" and "Le locataire" (the tenant).

At a pinch ,you might find something "polanskiesque" in this turkey:the conspiracy against a lonesome hero ,like in his masterful "Rosemary's baby' or "the tenant" ;the claustrophobia which is present in almost all Polanski's canon,not only the two mentioned works ,but also "repulsion" "cul de sac" "knife in the water" "death and the maiden" ,all these stories which happen "in camera".

The Carroll/Borges subject will be used again by Claude Chabrol in 1976 in his "Alice ou la dernière fugue" with much better results.

For Polanski's diehards.Barely.


A miserable sex "comedy." It's plot-less (the idiotic IMDb spell checker insists on the hyphen in "plot-less"), endless, and painfully dated -- though it's hard to believe it was remotely funny even in 1972. "What?" is a pathetic soft-porn version of "Alice in Wonderland" that fails as both parody and comedy. It's sad to see Marcello Mastroianni wallowing in this mess.

This is Polanski's worst film by a wide margin. It makes "Pirates" look like "Seven Samurai." (This is not intended as an endorsement of "Pirates," which is eminently mediocre by normal standards.)

2/10. Ghastly.


Suburban Disturbance

A Cub Scout careens through the yards and streets of a neat, clean college town on his way to school. He stops to pick up his friend Timmy Ainley, but Timmy has the sniffles and must stay home with his mother (Rosemary DeCamp) while Mr. Ainley (Ray Milland), a professor of English at the local college, thinks the sniffles are being faked to avoid a math test. As the professor sets off to work, he and his wife are approached by their elderly neighbor Mrs. Niemoller who complains timidly that the boys in the neighborhood, including Timmy, make too much noise when they play and also heedlessly trample her garden. After promising to address the issue, the Ainleys raise one of their own: Mr. Niemoller plays Mozart very loudly in the middle of the night, keeping Mr. Ainley awake. This is the tip-off that all is not so neat and perfect in this seemingly idyllic community.

And then the plot shifts gears: While discussing a passage from Shakespeare's "Richard II" (which probably has a symbolic bearing on the story) Milland and his students hear sirens. Fire trucks are racing to the professor's own house, which has been engulfed in flames after a freak furnace explosion. His wife and son are killed.

In his stunned grief he turns to drink and is also given solace by a colleague (Nancy Davis), a war widow who empathizes with his loss. Davis's boyfriend (John Hodiak) is uncomfortable with the attention Davis is giving to Milland, even though there is no romantic angle to it. Hodiak's discomfort builds toward angry jealousy while Milland's drinking gets out of control (don't expect a rehash of "Lost Weekend"; the boozing here is mild in comparison).

Much of the movie involves gentle conversational attempts by Davis to help Milland cope. Jean Hagen appears late in the proceedings as a sluttish young woman who occupies a hotel room across the hall from the professor's, her inclusion perhaps a device to set in relief his hopeless emotional isolation. Incidentally, Milland meets Hagen when he knocks on her door to complain about the loudness of the classical music coming from her phonograph player. But after only one viewing, it is not clear why loud classical music has to figure twice in the scenario.

All of the performances are very good and come across as if the director toned them down as much as possible. Hodiak and Davis make an odd couple. At one point she refers to his "big, thick head," when in fact his head is smaller than hers! There is a laid-back conversational feel to the film in general and its small scale and fake looking sets suggest a television drama.

****SPOILER: The whole story can be reduced, really, to the single trite and true observation that it is better to feel your grief than swallow it or bottle it up; once you feel it, i.e., break down and cry, etc., you are on the road to recovery.***** END OF SPOILER


"Land of the Lost" is another in a long line of old TV shows lazily packaged into summer movies, too dumbed-down for fans of the original show and nothing all that memorable for those younger viewers coming into it for the first time. There is no doubt it will join the class ("Bewitched"-which Will Ferrell also was in, "Dukes of Hazard" and "Wild Wild West") of films so bad that they make "The Brady Bunch Movie" look like the "Ben-Hur" of the genre. There is just zero reason to care about anything in this movie. Will Ferrell, you should have known better.

Ferrell plays Dr. Rick Marshall, a paleontologist disgraced by what others call his nonsensical theories about space-time vortexes. The only one who cares to believe him is Holly Cantrell (Anna Friel), a research assistant from one of those fancy British universities who encourages him to keep working on his tachyon thingie-majigger, a device that finds tachyon particles that somehow allow people to jump between worlds. They find the most amount of the stuff in a crappy little souvenir shop run by a redneck named Will (Danny McBride), and before they know it Marshall, Holly, and Will are traveling back to another dimension that's all desert. The place is complete with T-Rex, creepy-crawly bugs, a bunch of things from our world littered about like a stretch limo, Bobs Big Boy and Golden Gate Bridge, and a primate named Chaka (Jorma Taccone) who befriends them and helps them navigate their way back to their dimension.

What needs to get lost is the screenplay by Chris Henchy and Dennis McNicholas. When Matt Lauer, playing himself, is the funniest thing in a movie, you know that something went horribly wrong. The laughs are childishly inane. Ferrell is forced to embarrass himself considerably, in one scene drenching himself in, and yes, even drinking dinosaur urine. Dino poop and gross insect infections also get high regard. Then you have Chaka, a supposedly lovable primate who's big comic bit is molestation. Hilarious! And this is the big-laugh stuff. The rest is hard to even remember. That this movie manages any chuckles at all is due to Ferrell and McBride's improvisation abilities. Ferrell is the arrogant goof-off and McBride the brash sidekick, but they're facing an uphill battle with this screenplay.

And the plotwait, what plot? And what character development for that matter? It's all very basic, aimless, and easy to follow, except you'll be too bored to do so. Characters run around like idiots, dinosaurs and insects chase after them, not much happens. And when not being chased, the aimlessness doesn't stop, it just gets more persistent. A scene where Marshall, Will, and Chaka sit around in a stupor getting high off of some coconut drink (yes, this is a family movie) is unbelievably drawn out, unnecessary, and above all, pointless. Finally in the third act the Slestaks, reptilian villains bent on world domination, start to put their plan into effect but even then it's too little, too late to care. The special effects are cheesy. I'm assuming that was the plan cause the show was the exact same way but what you can see at home for free and what your willing to pay for are two different things. A dinosaur against an obvious green screen isn't much fun and little green reptilian men in obvious costumes and masks that barely move, other than to open and close their mouths, are hard to take seriously.

"Land of the Lost" is just lost, misguided in every way, starting with even deciding to make the movie in the first place. It deserves to be shunned and left to be the summer's first big box-office bomb. Ferrell, McBride, and Matt Lauer are the only things that keep it from being horribly unwatchable but not from being one of the very worst of the summer and the year thus far.


I did not watch any trailer before going to watch this movie I just decided to watch it when I saw some posters of it in Manila and I did not even read any review or comment about this movie before going to watch it. with the name of Will Ferell I thought this movie is going to be hilarious but I was totally wrong. from the start it was a total disaster to me and not just that it could not make me laugh but rather I felt like being insulted by it. in 90 minutes maybe I smiled couple of times but of course you expect more than a movie made at the highest level of cinema and being shown all over the world.

Mr.Ferell should stop wasting money and start considering a new way of making people laugh and not insulting their intelligence. this movie could not even make a 3 year old laugh though with the big monster dolls in it seemed like a kindergarten movie which of course even children of under 3 would be bored with after no time !


I just watched this with my kids. It's kind of boring and hard to pay attention to at times. I found the humor to be pretty juvenile, which would make it great for kids except that the juvenile humor also has adult themes. I enjoy campy comedy. However, this movie is just ridiculous and in it's attempt to reach for stupid humor, it achieves half of that goal. The stupid half. I didn't leave the theater feeling like they owed me two hours of my life back, but it certainly wasn't close to justifying the ticket price. I found the acting to be less than believable. I didn't expect award winning performances, but the characters should be believable even in less than believable stories.


One word should be all I need for this review: rubbish. This has to be the most pointless, unfunny, plot less, awful films I have ever seen in my life. It wasn't exciting, the jokes were groan-worthy (although after a while I even gave up groaning), the plot was.. well there didn't seem to be one, being more a selection of scenes thrown together with no reason behind them. I've never seen the original series (didn't even know that there was one), but the TV spots made it look like good fun. How wrong they were... All in all I think the comment from the wife summed it up: "That's an hour and a half of my life that I'll never get back"... enough said!


I broke my conviction on seeing this movie when my eleven-year-old insisted on seeing it for a buck. Will Ferrel's Land of the Lost isn't even worth that. True, the Saturday morning staple of the 1970's had its own cheesiness in special effects, and acting. But it did have some good stories. It was good sci-fi for kids. The 2009 Incarnation makes up for special effects, but cannot recapture the magic of the initial vision of Sid and Marty Kroft. Will Ferrel plays Rick Marshall, a scientist who believe tachyons, or sub-atomic particles, can cross time and dimension rifts. He is laughed on The Today Show and is discredited. That is until he meets young Holly, a naive scientist who puts stock in his theory. To test the tachyon machine, they go on a river tour with an out-of-luck, dimwitted cave-ride tour owner, Will. Of course, they fall down the waterfall into the Land of the Lost where Pakunis, Sleestaks, and dinosaurs all roam. What is truly sad is the state of humor. While the television show did have its share of cheese, it took itself seriously to really try to entertain a young audience. However, this debacle aims at humor, and misses the target big-time. Will Farrel is over-rated, often playing the same naive, innocent schmuck he plays in all his movies. He is limited and cannot try anything else. The script itself, along with Brad Silberling's direction is the trump card, though. The humor relies on constant potty jokes that are even too lame for kids and pre-teens. Cha-Ka is nothing more than a perverted primitive primate, as well as Will. Enik is brought in, as well as the Zarn in a new, but idiotic way. While the dinosaurs looked real, and the Sleestak had a look that was less hokey than the show, it is obvious they both served as eye candy for a movie not even good enough to suck (I've finally come to the point of using the word "suck" in a movie review). Moreover, where were some of the other dinosaurs. We had Grumpy and Alice, but no Dopey, Spike, or Spot. I heard Wesley Eure (the original Will) and Kathy Coleman (the original Holly) had cameos in the movie, but the scenes were cut. Do you know why? It is obvious producers realized how bad it was and they needed something to get us to buy or rent the DVD. I have a much better idea: wait until someone downloads the scenes to You Tube. We just need one person to go out and buy this lame movie on DVD. Any takers? Anyone? Come on I know someone might want to ....


My friends invited me to go along and see this film when it came out. Drudgingly, I went along. I've never seen or heard of the original TV series, so i'm not going to be one of those who complains about that. This movie was simply a huge piece of garbage. I only remember actually laughing out loud once. The rest of the time I was watching my friends nearly fall out of their seats at the theatre and wondering why they are so stupid. This whole atrocity of a film was filled with nothing but the same repeatable jokes about "cha-ka" feeling Holly's breasts and other so called "jokes" by Ferrell which made me want to stop functioning. Will Ferrell is not by any means funny to me, he never has been, and I'm sure he never will be. The only person in the movie that I thought didn't use the same joke twice was the support, Will. A complete waste of my day. 1/10.


"Land of the Lost" is a movie with a plot similar in ways to the eponymous 1970's TV show on which it is supposedly based. Yes, both the TV show and the movie share the same title, were produced by Sid and Marty Kroft, and involve people traveling back in time to the prehistoric ages. However, on the 1970's TV show (and the early 90's remake which no one else appears to remember but me), the storyline involved a father and his two kids literally stumbling upon a time warp. In this movie, Will Ferrell plays a cocky scientist who deliberately looks for a time warp with the help of adult assistants.

My problem with the movie is not the difference between it and the TV show, but more the fact that this movie couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a comedy or a science fiction movie. The comedy in the film wasn't strong or witty enough most of the time, and the science fiction elements brought about way too many plot holes and vaguely-explained occurrences.

Since this is a Will Ferrell vehicle, I expected this to be a comedy as did most other people, I presume. Ferrell plays Dr. Rick Marshall, a scientist who, like many characters Ferrell has played before (Ron Burgundy, Ricky Bobby, Chazz Michael Michaels), is good at what he does for a living, but whose self-centeredness and delusion warp any credibility the character may otherwise deserve. Dr. Marshall understandably upsets the scientific community by announcing he has discovered time warps. A disastrous "Today Show" interview with skeptical Matt Lauer, one of the only funny parts in the movie, reduces Dr. Marshall to giving presentations to uninterested junior high kids. It's only when Holly, an adoring, unassuming graduate student from England (Anna Friel, of TV's "Pushing Daisies"), expresses her belief in him that he reconsiders his theory.

Their research brings them to a run-down souvenir shop operated by Will Stanton (Danny McBride). With their showtune-playing contraption, all three unsuspecting travellers get warped into what appears to be a prehistoric age. This deserted land they find is inhabited by Neanderthals,dinosaurs (including a T-Rex, as anyone who has seen the ads knows), and scary aliens from another dimension altogether.

What makes this film confusing as a science fiction film is the fact that the land the heroes find themselves stuck in is never explained. Did they go back in time (like on the TV show), or to another dimension? The latter appears to be true, since Neanderthals didn't live at the same time as dinosaurs. Also, it's apparent that other people and things from modern day (such as an ice cream truck, a limousine, and a motel with a swimming pool) made their way to this dimension, but no explanation was made as to how they got there or why. The subplot involving the aliens, one of which speaks perfect English, reminded me of the Morlocks from H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine" (both the book and the movies). However, their presence, and the twist in plot, was too confusing for me and was no doubt for other moviegoers as well. It's not so much that their presence was a complicated part of the story, but more of a half-baked one. It's almost as if the filmmakers needed a villain, and the T-Rex wasn't big enough.

Speaking of the T-Rex, I remember being 10 years old and going to the movies to see "Jurassic Park" for the first time. I recall how amazing it was to see realistic-looking dinosaurs that were part computer generated and part animatronic. Those kinds of special effects were revolutionary at the time. I thought about this previous wonderment as I saw the T-Rex in this movie and felt unimpressed, despite the fact that the 100% CGI dinosaur looked flawless. I guess I just felt let down because the T-Rex as a villain has been done before in the 16 years since "Jurassic Park" was released. It may also be because the chase scenes with Will Ferrell seemed flat and uninspired, both as a science fiction and comedy plot point.

As for how funny this film was, it was no doubt Will Ferrell and company tried and not in vain either. It's easy to see when a comedian becomes so full of himself in a movie after a history of exceptionally funny ones. Mike Myers's "The Love Guru" felt incredibly narcissistic, as did Jim Carrey's performance in "Yes Man". Here, although Ferrell's character felt like a retread of earlier, better performances, he appeared to try his best. The problems lay in that there was so much action going on that any funny line got lost in the shuffle. Other moments, such as the Neanderthal's hand on Holly's breast or Ferrell watering himself down with dinosaur urine, felt too predictable and weak given the circumstances.

Although the special effects were very good, they weren't groundbreaking, and were ruined by unexplained plot holes and confusing subplots. Besides that point, the comedy, which most people probably wanted to see in this movie in the first place, produced a few light chuckles, but that's about it. Of course, I'll give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt in the sense that this film appeared very hard to make, and probably was. However, this movie felt half baked, and should have been given more time to settle. The scenes with Will Ferrell and Matt Lauer still make a good YouTube video, but the rest is difficult to recommend.


This has to be one of the WORST movies of all time. The ten minutes that I watched, (which is all I could stand), was a complete waste of my time. Whoever spent money to make this tragedy should have to pay people to sit and watch it. Has to be the WORST film I have ever tried to watch. Do NOT recommend watching this. This has taken one of the best movies and turned it into a complete mockery. The actors do not help this movie either. I do not have any idea what the director or actors/actresses were thinking when they agreed to make this very poor example of a film. The film should be burned and all record of it's existence should be deleted before someone else makes the mistake of trying to watch it.


When are movie studios going to learn that Will Farrel is a bufoon, not an actor who can be the center of a movie. His smug, stupid facial expressions made me sick. The story was so silly it also made me sick. The only good thing was the special effects. But you can't hold a whole movie together on special effects. You have to have a good story, good acting, doesn't have to be brilliant acting, but at least some sort of effort has to be made by the actors to entertain. I wasted my money on this film and I am not happy. I even asked the theater for my money back and they gave me a free pass for another movie. And I wasn't the only one suckered into this. Others were asking for their money back too and I saw at least six people walk out of the theater during the show. Shame on you for making this movie when you could have spent all that money on charities or on making several, cheaper, but much better movies.


I feel sorry for Anna Friel, first the show that she is absolutely adorable in gets cancelled, then the final episode is almost as bad as the final episode of Seinfeld, then what could have been a great movie for her career - the only other real character in a major Will Ferrell comedy - turns out to be a terrible, stinking turd of a flick.

The jokes were not funny, i don't remember laughing. They were terrible, obvious and loooooooong. The Ferrell character was completely unlikable from start to finish. There is a Neanderthal as one of the major characters and at one point the question is asked "why don't we let the monkey lead?" a question the many writers, producers ad director of this stink-fest may have asked themselves repeatedly as the Neanderthal was more often than not the source of what passes for 'humor' and not Will Ferrell's overacting. The last point is a source of some concern to this moviegoer, WF can be funny, and he can be very funny and as seen in Stranger Than Fiction this pony has more than one trick but what I have been seeing more recently is a series of choices that leave me questioning how long until people stop paying him to be in their 'comedies.' I don't know if anyone ever bothered to watch the deleted scenes of Bruce Almighty but there are a few scenes in which Jim Carrey was given some props and told to do Jim Carrey-like things, shameless and uninspired directing which thankfully didn't make it in to what was an averagely fun movie, however Brad Silberling must've, as this film was one long series of bad set pieces designed to make Will Ferrell do Will Ferrell-like things and the terrible bits made the finished film rather than the extra features of the DVD.

Zero stars. MUST DO BETTER. PLEASE Hollywood, PLEASE!


Storyline: Will Ferrell as Dr. Rick Marshall designs a machine to take him through time and space and he uses it to travel, with a female love-interest and a trailer trash sidekick, to a world with dinosaurs, giant bugs and monkey-people. They lose the machine and have to find it in order to return home.

That's the premise, but this film is truly, truly awful. There are NO laughs, NO smiles. It seems that every character has lines spoken to Ferrell telling him how wonderful he is, and the whole thing is one huge ego trip.

Under no circumstances should ANYONE pay to see this film. It's not even worth a DVD rental.

To be honest, it's not even worth the time to download it from the internet! Yes, it really is that bad.


We decided against everyone's advice here and went and saw the movie. It restored our faith in society to find the theatre was absolutely empty. The funniest part of this movie was reading what everyone else on here had to say about it. Which is even funnier now that we have seen (half of) it. We too had to leave mid movie, maybe even twenty-five minutes in such was the breathtakingly bad production - one of us falling asleep and the other getting fidgety. Except for the cinematography and special effects not withstanding how poorly they were used this was about as bad as it gets. Anyway we wandered into the theatre next door and picked up Star Trek. At least there was some good eye candy in that movie. The really sad part of it is that this movie actually makes it to the box office.


If I wasn't with a bunch of other friends at the theater, I would have walked out after the first ten minutes and got my refund before it was too late. To will Ferrell,I think he should be embarrassed to be in this movie. He has produced hilarious pieces of acting but in this one he just was plain annoying. To the rest of the movie, terrible story line, terrible script, and terrible just about everything.......Do yourself a favor and don't watch this movie ( If you have to just rent it) I think giving this movie a 2 out of 10 in generous.It seemed cheaply thrown together.....I did not like it at all. It was not the comedy I hoped it would be!


"Quantum paleontologist" Dr. Rick Marshall (a gone-really-feral Will Ferrell) provides another apt description of the agony in store for viewers of this thoughtless rehash, but it is so sacrilegious that he'd already be erased if he'd said it about the Prophet, rather than about Jesus. Couple that with all the unfunny gay and masturbation "humor," and most viewers will come away with shoulder cramps from cringing during LAND OF THE LOST. When a movie tries to appeal to boomers, teenagers, and families simultaneously with a mixture of non-erotic sex and cheesy special effects along the lines of those in BE KIND, REWIND (only 1,000 times more expensive), it stands to alienate all three potential audiences. I've seen all 10 of IMDb's recommendations for people who like LOST, and each of them is DISHONORED to be mentioned on the same page with LOST. Out of the 5,000 movies I've seen, only ONE of them merits to be in the same circle of hell as LOST: 2007's AQUA TEEN HUNGER FORCE COLON MOVIE FILM FOR THEATERS.


While "Land of the Lost" wasn't a terrible flick, it certainly didn't exude greatness. Mediocre is the most fitting compliment that I can honestly apply to what was the equivalent of a really long Saturday morning cartoon(although, most episodes of "Ducktales" harbor more of a plot). If you're a tremendous fan of Ferrell or McBride, then this picture might be tolerable. Beyond that, the presentation is reserved for minds and ages ten and under. It has a lot of useless fluff, anchored by meaningless dialogue. Wonderful stuff, if I'm watching eight minutes of the "Herculoids"... but not something I want to drive to, pay for, and sit down in an actual theatre to watch.

So, if you paid to see "Land of the Lost", I'm sorry. On the bright side, maybe you can sneak into "Up" after suffering through this bland, over-hyped vehicle.


Major disappointment! Not to take your kids too. This is not anything like the series. This movie was not only boring and pointless, I feel like I have downgraded my intelligence by watching it. My kids 11, 10 and 3 were thoroughly disappointed. I was tired of covering eyes and ears.

If you go to utube and watch the series, you will see that this show was made from the time when they used to put decent parents and respectful (NORMAL) kids into our daily lives.

Now we have to downgrade our humor. Downgrade our entertainment to homer Simpson and family guy mentality in order to be entertained UGH! This movie raped the original series' decency.

DISGUSTED.


If you consider yourself a James Bond fan and yet enjoyed this film, there is a problem.

Just like everyone else, when I first saw that Daniel Craig was to replace Pierce Brosnan in the role, I was a bit confused. His ice cold looks seemed to be quite a stretch from the image we have of James Bond. Maybe "they" know some things I don't about 007, maybe I've been missing something about the character. Plus,the hype around the production was excellent,the rumor was that the filmmakers have decided to be more daring in many aspects. Nothing wrong with that, as a long as you know what you're doing.

But at the very first frame of the film,my original skepticism re-emerged:

The opening scene happens in a sombre black and white cold war setting in which Bond makes no spectacular entrance, chatting with his enemy and finishing the mission with his fists inside a...dirty public restroom. Then Bond spins around, aiming his gun at the camera, taking the classic pose. Right then, I couldn't help myself but noticing the restroom tiles in the background(!) and this blond muscular hunk in the center of the screen suggesting: " I am your NEW James Bond!". "Not yet,gentlemen" did I think.

Still, let's give them a second chance, here comes the long-awaited opening credits. A beautiful animation of paisley patterns and stylized men fighting in slow-motion,turning into flying hearts,spades,clubs and diamonds at each blow. But something is missing: where are the gorgeous nude feminine silhouettes? Where are the girls? Gone !!! Why???!!! At this point, I feared the worst: did the producers decide purposely to get rid of everything we actually loved about James Bond?!

But here comes hope:James Bond chases a man through a building site,climbing on cranes, jumping and falling hard. Great, this might not be a real James Bond flick, but at least, we're in for some good entertainment. Right?

Wrong: The rest of the film is nothing but a long (two and a half hours long!)demonstration on how to annihilate a movie landmark character.

No Monneypenny,no "Q",no "R", and every time "M" (Judi Drench) appears on the screen, the ONLY thing she ever does is begging Bond to stop doing what he's doing and come back to his senses. Yet,all I could hear from her was: "What have you done to James Bond? Who are you, blond man?! Why don't you ever smile? Why don't you ever say anything witty? How come the only gadget you use is a cell phone? How dare you wreck THE 1964 Aston Martin in only 3 minutes? How could you fall in love with such a boring girl? What do you want from us? Bring us back England's most precious hero!"

The other characters barely exist: The villain, named Le Chiffre, is a card player who's task is to finance terrorism by playing poker. Does he cheat ? no. Why? He might be a villain, but will not take his cruelty as far as... cheating! We know he's the villain since his left eye bleeds once in a while and he acts like everything is fine. Who knows,maybe someday,we'll get to see a villain who plays Monopoly with a runny nose. So scary.

Then I thought: "I get it! His damaged eye is in fact a technological wonder that allows him to see the other player's cards thanks to the mysterious blond girl, in the background, who's eye is a camera placed surgically inside her head and feeds Le Chiffre with her own vision! Great!". Was I right ? Of course not, that would be something you'd see in a James Bond film...

But here comes the most sacrilegious scene EVER to come out of a James Bond film:

James Bond (let's keep using this name, for the lack of a better one) is taken prisoner and dragged in a basement, he is entirely stripped from his clothes and attached on a chair without a seat, letting 007's "genitals" dangling from underneath (Yes,you heard right). Le Chiffre proceeds to swing a large heavy rope and hits her majesty's favorite secret agent's nuts over and over. Bond screams in pain but does not reveal the bank account number. What a man. Does he escape? Does he fight back in the most ingenious manner and eliminates his torturer? No, he passes out and wakes up in a hospital.

The torture may have stopped for Bond, but increases for me: Bond finds comfort in the arms of his girlfriend Vesper (yes, girlfriend) who tells him, to rebuild his pride, that even if the only thing left from him was his little finger, she would still love him. To which, the emasculated James Bond replies (watch out, humor coming your way): "That's because you know what I can do with my little finger." Can we please stop talking about mister Bond smashed testicles and go on with this never-ending-going-nowhere-story?! And don't we know that if Bond was ever blown to smithereens, the only thing left from him should precisely be his genitals?

There were other problems with the film of course,such as the boring story, and the fact that the casino (which seemed to be the perfect setting for a James Bond film) turned out to be so poorly exploited.

Giving this film one star might not be fair (do you ever read a review unless it has a 1 or a 10 star rating?),but the main problem goes beyond the bad choices added by the filmmakers throughout the film. The problem is that the film was made with the wrong "spirit" and doesn't take in consideration that, unlike other movies, James Bond belongs more to the public than to its makers, and that this rare fact deserves to be honored.

Don't mess with MY James Bond.


Well, as a fan of earlier 007 movies I was hoping for a restoration of the standard that was set with Sean and Roger. Not only was casino rolaye based off an original Ian Fleming story, but reviews gave praise to the storyline and Daniel Craig portrayal of Bond, and so I went into the movie theatre with high expectations.

These expectations where soon pretty much crushed.

Here are the following things I disliked about the movie:

Daniel Craig's performance did not do 007 justice. He was dull, unwitty, and had absolutely no charisma for such a role.

Craig and Greens chemistry was horrible and the plot was disjointed and did not have the flow of some of the better Bond films. No gadgets, no Q, no decent action sequences.

Shameful product placement. Every agent, terrorist, contact and bond villain whipped out there sony ericsson mobile every chance they got, not to mention several sony vaio laptops and sony blueray disc players. I was actually shocked to see that M was pawning Bond on need for speed carbon on a PS3. Seriously though, they must of shown every model phone they have they even had my K700i (which is probably the worst piece of technology I have ever bought by the way). There was also a crack about what type of watch Bond wears:

BOND: "Did you know that I'm a gaybo?" VESPER: "Really, but the thing I wanted to know is the brand of your watch?" BOND: "OMEGA!!!" Bond turns and smiles at the camera.

Another issue I had with this movie was the amount of screen time Daniel Craig was either nude or partially nude, this was not good as I had lunch just before I watched this. Also, call me old fashioned, but I really don't need to see 007 stripped naked and whipped in the nuts repetitively... I'm just funny like that.

Sooooo, there it is. Please don't go see this movie or you will be the one who cries blood.


I am not the biggest James Bond fan, but I have quite enjoyed the franchise. Until now. There are so many things in this film that do not make sense that I don't know where to begin.

First of all I am convinced that Daniel Craig had a hangover one day (one of many judging by his face) and was offered a role in the movie called Casino Royale about which he most certainly thought that it is a sequel to his well made Layer Cake, for which he would be perfect. A successful cocaine dealer working his way to be England's Mafia elite will suit him much better than the British suave top spy. The phrase: "The men want to be him and the women want to be with him" does not match the criteria. I could not help but laugh seeing him emerging from the water with his egg shaped head, the sticking out trans illuminating ears and the straw organized hair. I definitely did not want to be him. Only thing to redirect the concentration of a movie goer to something else was to put him in the gym for six months prior to the shooting of the movie.

Second of all I went to see this movie with a bit of objectivity, listening to critics saying that it is a very well made action movie. I probably went to see the wrong film. The only exiting action sequence is the free-running chase through the streets in Uganda. It involved the free running champion Sebastien Foucan where Craig's stunt was trying his best not to ruin the scene. Otherwise there are no new ideas no new camera angles and most of the scenes have been in the other movies before. The petrol tank truck chase on the airport runway is like a bad copy from the Raiders of the Lost ark. Harrison did a much better job and it was original.

The sequence where Bond is mistaken for a parking attendant is the only ray of bright witty humor Bond is supposed to have and is missing and again it was used in the movies so many times before. (The latest I remember by Vin Diesel in XXX) The whole scene was badly executed and with no follow up logic. Why would security guys run towards the car to find out what has happened when there are security cameras in the security room which was left open for Bond to use the equipment??? Don't even let me start on the car chase. Sorry, what car chase? Bond goes around a couple of curves and unintentionally (when was the last time Bond unintentionally?) wrecks the car. Yes he is a great actor, just watch his facial expression before the stunt man breaks the world record in "car flipping". Unforgettable.

Editing of the poker games in the casino is just amateurish. Cutting the fight scene in half to add a dialog from different surroundings just for the viewer to find out that "Mr. Bond has changed his shirt" is called home made editing.

Making the movie about the beginnings of James Bond earning his "00" status? You start with a black and white scene which really gives you an impression about the times before it all started. Good. You pick a 38 year old actor who looks "used". Bad. You give him no gadgets. Good. Except latest satellite navigation telephones and a high tech heart defibrillator which is a standard accessory of his latest model Aston Martin (by the way Mrs. Broccoli did you really think that invisible car previously was unrealistic?). Bad. Now you have a top spy so you give him an anti terrorist mission. Good. His task is to recover a mere 150 million. Bad. Can someone add this up for me? In conclusion this film is an average movie without any pace or plot, with no new action no leading actor or actress in that matter, no plot and no meaning at all.


I was going to wait until a second viewing of CASINO ROYALE before writing a comment for it since my opinion on a film occasionally does change the second time around, but I am absolutely stunned at the positive rating of the picture so I feel I must get my two cents out while my grips are fresh in my mind. Since there are so many of them, the following will read more as a complaint this than a coherent review, which is appropriate since coherency is definitely not something that CASINO ROYAL has, surprising given the ridiculous two and a half hour running time. Poorly adapted by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and (groan) Paul Haggis, is the perfect example of one too many cooks in the kitchen. There are two screenplays fighting for screen time here, and the two mesh horribly. The action aspect, which I am guessing is Purvis and Wade's screenplay, is fine. The ideas behind the action scenes are incredible. The execution-not so much. Then there's the so-called character development and horrid romantic sub-plot that feel like they were tacked right after shooting began. No doubt that was the work of Haggis' trite, pain-inducing screenplay, overwrought with some of the corniest dialogue of all time delivered by the seemingly medicated Daniel Craig as James Bond. Neither charming nor slick, Craig plays Bond as if he doesn't care. There is no coolness factor to Bond here, especially when the film turns into THE NOTEBOOK in the last act. Yes, this is not the Bond we all know and love. This is a sensitive, weak, and all around boring Bond. The exact type that should not be in an action movie. To make matters worse, there is no chemistry between Craig and leading lady Eva Green. In fact, their romance seems downright creepy. Green was 25-years-old when 'ROYALE' was shot, Craig was 38 and looking over 40. I could buy them as father and daughter, but as a supposed couple, it was just a major turn off.

Perhaps the biggest cinematic crime CASINO ROYALE makes is throwing the continuity of the series out the window. Granted the Bond series has never been about continuity, but what's done in 'ROYALE' is a giant slap in the face to anyone who has been following the franchise for even the past few installments. A supposed prequel to the series, the story takes place in 2006. With a budget of over $150 million, the filmmakers couldn't have set in another decade? It's just one of the many examples in CASINO ROYALE that shows film-making at its laziest. Don't believe the hype. This is the worst Bond picture of all time. I never thought I would say this, but Bond is dead. Worst of the year. 0/10


When I walked into the theatres to see this movie I was not expecting much, but, Wow, what a piece of crap!

This movie does in no way meet the high standards set by the other Bond movies. Some say that it is still a good action flick, but hey, which movie did those people watch? Well, I suppose not this movie, or they've maybe fallen asleep during those awfully boring poker scenes. That would explain how some say, that it could go through as a "good" action movie. Because if you cut out that poker crap, you really have some decent action here, but those fifteen minutes can't help the movie.

So, in order to help those fans, that still want to see the movie, to save some money, I'll round up the story now:

Bond kills one guy in a loo, then kills another guy in an office.

Music.

Bond kills a terrorist after chasing him. (Until now roughly ten minutes have passed)

Bond plays Poker, and does some advertising for SONY, OMEGA and FORD. (Now there are only 20 minutes to the end)

The bad guy captures Bond and his Lady, tortures him and gets killed by another bad guy that has not yet been introduced to us.

Bond awakes in a hospital, travels to Venice with his girl. A house collapses, she gets killed and Bond kills the other bad guy that inexplicably seems to be the mastermind.

An I paid money for that!


OK, this is the 21st century. So, maybe it's time for even the Bond genre to get a tune-up for new generation audiences. At least that's what the producers thought.

But the New Bond is as disappointing as New Coke. Nothing beats the original.

For starters, the producers seemed to make sure to keep everything out of the screenplay for "Casino Royale" that made the Bond series unique, exciting, engaging and fun.

The so-called "Bond formula" balanced sadism with sensuality, and ironic humor. Sadly missing from this film too are the other Bond staples: gadgets, buxom blonds, and wonderful little quips and double entendres. This all gave the Bond series a comic book adventure cadence and buoyancy. It didn't take itself too seriously.

But "Casino Royale" jettisons all this and just keeps slogging along with relentless action scenes, brutality, banality and not much else. Yes, the action scenes are astutely choreographed, filmed and edited. But they are needed to shore up a saggy, dragged-out and somewhat convoluted plot.

The opening immediately warns you that this is not "classic" Bond. It sets the film's heavy tone. Bond brutally assassinates two criminals, one by drowning in a lavatory sink, in black-and-white film noir, no less. By contrast in the "Goldfinger" (1964) prequel, Bond blows up a narcotics operation, changes into a tux, romances a cabaret dancer, and easily dispenses with an assassin, all the before the opening credits.

The opening credits of "Casino Royale" alone are another warning. There is not one stylized silhouette of a female model, which was the glamour signature in almost all Bond films. Instead, we just have silhouettes of guy shooting each other and bleeding in Technicolor across the screen. Yuck!

What's horribly pretentious is that the whole film tries to chronicle the apprentice Bond's transition into a 007 assassin. But it's as contrived and unconvincing as Anakin Skywalker's metamorphosis into Darth Vader. And, in the end it's even sappier than the brief marriage of George Lanzenby's Bond to Dianna Rigg in the 1969 "on Her Majesty's Secret Service."

Frankly, I'm not Bond's psychologist and so I really don't care to delve into life's little traumas that shaped 007. I'm content with accepting that he just grew up that way.

Daniel Craig is terribly miscast as Bond. He's a blue collar Bond. He looks self-conscious in a tuxedo. He's too hard chiseled in appearance for the debonair Bond as invented by Ian Flemming.

Craig could have just as easily been cast as one of the villains in the film. His strident, driven demeanor reminds me a little bit of Donovan Grant, the SPECTRE assassin played by Robert Shaw in the 1963 "From Russia with Love." Craig is humorless, and too much on the edge for my tastes. Actually, his squinty eyes, big upper torso, and gait reminds me a little of Popeye the Sailor.

Like the Timothy Dalton Bond, he has no sense of playfulness either. His romantic side seems forced in the film's few dull and gratuitous lovemaking scenes. And, the women cast to play opposite him in this film can barely gain admission into the sorority of Bond babes.

Equally lackluster is Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of high-roller Le Chiffre. He doesn't fit into the shoes of previous legendary bond villains such as Goldfinger, Largo, and Blofeld. Frankly, Mikkelsen is just plain creepy, but not scary. As the top bad guy he seems to be on Valium most of the time.

The silly torture scene at the end is also out of character for him. Mikkelsen doesn't have any of the bully, bluster and swagger of the classic Bond villains. Please give me just one script line like Goldfinger's: "I expect you to die Mr. Bond!" Ho hum.

All of this makes for just another forgetful spy movie with lots of fists and blood and guts, nothing more. It's wrapped itself in the James Bond mystique  which will guarantee a good box office  but pays no homage to the genre.

It's too bad the creators felt they hand to change such a celebrated formula that has sustained the popularity of Bond series for nearly four decades.


this is really a Bruce Willis or Arnie film, not a Bond film at all.

The pre-credit sequence is boring with zero humour or panache in Craig's delivery of the punch line.

Judy Dench is looking old and completely out of place in a film that is supposed to go back to the beginnings of Bond. And we have the oldest cliché in the book of Bond at odds with his superior, blah blah, done in every cop film since the dawn of time.

The Sony product placement is just crass throughout for a Sony/Columbia picture. Is this a movie or an advert? The title song is instantly forgettable with lyrics mumbled.

The cartoon credit sequence is the poorest graphics since Dr No, simply boring with no imagination or wow factor. It looks cheap compared to the great graphics we have come to expect and makes the whole film look cheap compared to greater Cubby Brocolli efforts.

Craig is not debonair, tall, dark or handsome and has no wit or class, totally miscast as Bond. He would be better as the villain's No 2 henchman rather than Bond.

The idea that the world's terrorists depend on a legitimate casino game to fund their activities is as ludicrous as Moonraker's laser guns or Die Another's invisible car, but this is the whole plot of the film.

There are 3 good action sequences and the rest is FAR too long. The love story bit dialogue between Bond and Vesper particularly is yawn inducing with no chemistry between the actors on screen, and Vesper's suicide at the end particularly contrived and unbelievable. The whole end sequence of destroying a Venician building shows no imagination and is obviously just tagged on as an afterthought.

In conclusion it's just another formula action film with none of the class and features that make a good Bond film. The hero could have been any cop/agent/private investigator so the whole has none of the distinctive and memorable scenes that always went into a Bond film.

A big disappointment.


Let's start by saying my three star rating of this film is an act of generosity on my part, considering it isn't a bad action film, has some exciting sequences and thrilling moments. But though Bond has been synonymous with action for over forty years, the Bond movies have always been about more than that, namely... fun. This film was almost completely devoid of any fun whatsoever, leaving me with the feeling if you can't get a little fun from a Bond film any more, what the hell kinda world are we living in?! I wasn't as sceptical of Daniel Craig as lots of people seemed to be, knowing he is a fine actor, but his total lack of charisma, humour and charm left me hating his guts. Now people will claim "but this is the closest to Ian Flemings original version of Bond that we've yet seen, and that makes him a good Bond, maybe even the best." But it's always been a clear and obvious fact that the Bond films have never had much in common with Flemming's novels except for the titles, yet it has still become one of the most beloved film franchises of all time; Obviously not beloved enough to stop them taking over forty years of tradition and mythology (the one liners, the gadgets, the over-the-top villains and their over-the-top deaths)and flushing it all down the friggin' toilet! Yes, Die Another Day was a step too far in making things over the top - an invisible car being just one example - but that's no reason to just scrap the whole franchise in terms of what it represents.

Like I said, Bond films SHOULD be about having fun, not leaving the cinema feeling horribly depressed and miserable. A James Bond who stares questioningly at himself in the mirror after killing a bad guy, in a "what am I turning into" kinda way?! Screw that! Bond should kill a guy, make a glib joke, then look for the next scumbag that needs killin'. A Bond who falls in love then cries his eyes out when she dies? Even George Lazenby took the same thing with a little subtle dignity, and they'd just got married! And please, consider this - can you imagine Roger Moore, Connery, or even Dalton, strapped to a chair naked, getting their balls smashed to pieces, screaming their head off like a lunatic? No, because that... is... NOT... FUN!!!

There was a brief glimmer of hope when Craig returns from the near death poisoning experience to the poker table and says "sorry about that, that last hand nearly killed me." I thought, "hooray, James Bond actually made a joke! Only took him a f***ing HOUR!!!!" By the time the end credits start to roll and the Monty Norman theme finally starts to play, it almost seems like a cruel joke of some kind, so far removed is the preceding 140 minutes from what the world has come to recognise as true Bond. Yet, everyone seems to love it, people the world over lapping Casino Royale up like cream from a spy's battered testicles. I guess fun is officially dead, along with the Bond we all grew up with. I certainly shall miss him.


I saw this movie the other day on TV and my impression is that the director and the writer didn't know what to do. The action scenes are impressive by Hollywood standards, but that doesn't make something good. Craig is portraying Bond like he was already in all secret services, killed a million opponents, learned every small trick, but this is the beginning of how he became a spy (that is explained for only 2-3 minutes at the beginning and this had to be developed further). Also what is wrong with the director destroying the Aston Martin? It was always a car to admire and packed with a range of interesting goodies. The only purpose it had is to revive Bond. And the Montenegro scenes are ridiculous!!! There are no such modern and fast trains in the country (the average speed is 50 km/h), the city is a copy of some swiss, Bavarian or bohemian town and the beach is shot at some tropical island (there is no golden sand in Montenegro and the color of water is totally different). The plot is rather mixed up, everybody had a motive, but the change is so fast that it makes no sense, and at the end the secret guy comes up to take the prize. The timing for everybody is just perfect! Like some robots with orders. All in all I had to watch it to the end, because there was nothing else on the TV to switch to. 3/10


As a Bond movie CR fails miserably. It has nothing that a Bond movie should have. It's SLOW, BORING, WITLESS, STORYLESS and utterly unconvincing from a character standpoint.

At no point in the movie do we ever care about any character. At no point in the movie do we feel ANY villain is really an evil "rule the world" or "pull off the biggest heist ever" type of baddie. At no point is ANYTHING sexy. At no point is Bond ever suave, sophisticated, cool, smooth, carefree or even likable.

If the whole movie was supposed to lead up to him saying the Bond James Bond line at the end, I want my two hours back.

(spoilers) There's zero, nada, none and no chemistry at all between the 'lovers' and its beyond obvious that she is scamming him from the get go. Its excruciatingly dull to watch the "game" both at the poker table and between bond and 'the girl' because we all know where its going and its not fun.

The movie was so tedious im surprised it survived to screen and wasn't renamed and given an alternate ending so it didn't horribly stain the Bond genre. The only thing slower than the movie was the amount of time it took the venice building to sink scene, Bond to rescue the girl we know is gonna drown scene and for bond to figure out he was being conned the whole time... yeesh!

Once again: No evil bad guys, no cool henchmen, no hot chicks, no great chases, no crazy gadgets and no James Bond.

There have been some bad Bond movies in the past, but they were bad only because they didn't live up to the standards set by better Bond movies before them. This movie is just BAD and an embarrassment to every Bond movie before it.

Like others have said before. If you're hoping for any kind of Bond movie at all, watch one that was made before this one - because despite the title and the lead characters name. James Bond does not appear in this film...

ps. the actors don't do a 1/2 bad job with what they were given - but what they were given to work with is NFG. Unless you're hot to see Dan naked and getting his family jewels smashed - skip this mess.


Well, no true bond fan can love what it has became. It is not Craig's fault, but the whole thing.

Where has gone the nostalgia associated with the series, the fine humor, the epic/classic soundtrack, the cool pace of romanticism and classic action, etc .... Too much sterile noise, stunts, runs, ... it is the average Hollywood action movie and absolutely nothing else. It could be MI 4 or XXX 3 ... Technology and noise are not movies subjects. Is it made only for Americans and no culture background people ? Boring desolation for 30+ old people out there in the world, better watch Chuk Norris on TV for free. Will we remember this movie in many years, as we do for Moore and Connery ? No.


I was unbelievably disappointed movie,this in not a bond movie , end of discussion. I went to see a movie , not a commercial of Ford products! Sometimes when we want to innovate ,we burn our past.Children with guns in Africa !!!! All Inclued hotels in Bahamas !!! Bond in Love !!! Terrorists that we don't understand the point or objective!!! Wereis the charm? This is a chip trilogy that they want to make , James Bond is beauty , charm , glamor, gadgets , the traditional soundtrack,the fashion, the bond girls,Bond does get injured .

Sometimes when we want to innovate ,we burn our past!

Nothing else to say!


JB below is short for "the James Bond concept". CR below is short for Casono Royal.

JB: Opens with an action scene that is the climax of his previous mission. CR: Opens with James Bond portrayed as a cold-hearted murderer.

JB: Somewhat realistic action sequences. CR: Bad guys runs up wall as if this is a Matrix movie.

JB: James Bond's boss, M, is a man to whom James has respect. CR: James breaks into the home of M and hacks into her computer.

JB: Visits Q's lab to get some new gadgets. CR: No Q. No gadgets.

JB: Bond catches bad guys, killing them in self defense. CR: Bond attaches bombs to bad guys, smiles in a sinister way when they blow up.

JB: Has a story. Has a villain with a "world-domination scheme". CR: Has no story. Has a villain who plays the stock market, and when that fails... plays poker.

JB: Has a gigantic climatic end-scene. CR: Anti-climax #1: Le Chifre gets killed by unknown villain. Anti-climax #2: Bond and Lynd on a romantic boat trip. Anti-climax #3: Lynd dies. Anti-climax #4: Bond shots Mr. White and before we actually understands who White is and his motive etc. the movie ends.

JB: Ends with Bond and his babe together. CR: Babe is already dead, so it ends with Bond, presumably, murdering another guy.

SUMMARY: Daniel Craig essentially make a cameo of his character in "The Road To Perdition". It's not Bond. There's senseless killing, no Bond-babe, no one-liners, no great end-scene, no gadgets, no suspense, no story...

RATING(if this was any action movie): 3/10.

RATING (for being a Bond-movie): 1/10.

I'm sad I actually paid to see this as it might encourage the producers to make another movie like this one.

BOND IS DEAD. I hope they won't make another movie like this and call it Bond.

*** EDIT *** JB: Had a yerning Monneypenny. CR: Has money.

And to all the people complaining that "this IS the REAL Bond! straight from the novels!". Ahem.. this may be the Bond from the novel but it's not the Bond that's been in movies for the past decades. That's the Bond we've expected to see. That's the Bond we want to see.

If they really want another character. Fine. But give it another name. 008 or whatever.


I totally disliked this film, because it just went ahead and threw the James Bond of lore out the window. The suave, sophisticated & witty super agent is gone. I'd rather not offend Mr Craig, but I must admit that he is the worst casted James Bond ever in the history of the series it's not his fault though because the filmmakers were the ones who chose him. I feel that if Mr Flemming or Mr. Broccoli were alive, they would not approve of the casting or even the spirit of this film. The film isn't terrible in a movie sense, but it doesn't fit as a James Bond film. James Bond has been well established in the cinema. Here James Bond has been reestablished as something else. You can either accept or reject it. I'm only 21, but even I will not accept this reinvention of Bond for a new audience or generation. I first discovered Bond as a child in awe of the magic of the films of old.I consumed them all, cheered for Bond and indulged in these adventures. Sadly that magic has faded, and boring realism and drama has taken the forefront in an attempt to reinvent Bond, though it may have been acceptable if the Bond was right and if the Bond spirit was still in tact. The attempt at believability was destroyed by an unbelievable James Bond, the original foundation is too great. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton & Brosnan were all good acceptable James Bonds. Even Niven in the original Casino Royale, bond spoof was acceptable. They were all debonair gents. Craig doesn't portray that and he doesn't look or act right. I'd argue that Craig would be a good Villain in a Bond film.


Bond for the mindless set: no class, no elegance, no humor, a Bond who looks extremely ill at ease in a dinner jacket, violence for violence's sake, endless explosions and fights... in fact, just another car-chases-explosions-and-guns film of the kind that Hollywood cranks out by the dozen, even if this one wasn't made in Hollywood. I yawned through it and left before the end.

This movie has been clearly aimed at a different market, at a public that consumes tons of popcorn and chats on mobiles (cellphones) while watching a movie. It is, you might say, a "chav" Bond. Daniel Craig would be more believable as a truck driver than as a classy character such as the real Bond we all knew and loved.

If you are a Bond fan, stay away from this garbage.


I have watched all 21 Bond movies made so far. Casino Royale is not the worst-made of the series, just the most offensive one. The only other time the Bond franchise attempted a complete departure from the established Bond formula the result was the complete flop of License To Kill, which led to a change of direction and the fantastic Goldeneye. But unfortunately this time the experiment was a success, so I'm afraid of what will follow. Both License To Kill and Casino Royale have been praised as "a return to the Fleming spirit", when in truth they are nothing more than shameless attempts to cash in on popular fads of their time: the Bronson / Arnold / Stallone action films of the 80s in the case of License, the Bourne / Transporter films in the case of Casino. Daniel Craig is not a bad actor, but he is no doubt the worst Bond impersonator so far, his lack of class and charisma is almost astonishing. Of course his "do I look like a give a damn" line and his fighting prowess will wow 15-year-olds, but those who remember Connery, Moore, Dalton (in The Living Daylights), Brosnan, even that weirdo Lazenby, may feel like crying at what has become of their beloved icon. Of course you could ask the producers why this supposedly first mission of 007 is set in 2006 and if that means they have dared to completely write off 44 years and 20 films that allowed them to make this one, but their response will probably be "Do we look like we give a damn?".

If Casino Royale didn't pretend to be a part of the Bond series, I would give it 6 out of 10, but it does, so it's a 2.


When I sat down to watch this film I had a nagging doubt that Daniel Craig wouldn't be able to fill the shoes of his predecessors. Sadly for him they forgot to make a bond film for him! The start was drab and low key with no bond music, the opening seen was quite good but nothing new and the film then went from bad to worse. There were no good cars, stunts, women, gadgets, villains or exciting finishes. To add to this Daniel looked awkward with the women and clearly has never played Texas hold-em before. This card game was the only real story a lucky win from $5m to $30m against!! Not really Bond beating a world dominating villain?! And finally Bond is supposed to be cool and collected not a thuggish fighter... a truly horrible film... roll on Clive Owen and a decent plot....


Michael Curtiz made this movie as a propaganda movie. Bogart is playing well, but the weak script does not give him the ability for a good performance. The scene on the boat where he is shooting at the German pilots and navigators is a shame: shoot at people without defense! At war, it happened, so it is realistic that it is in the film. It is also true that some crew members were loyal to the London government (which had to be build up) and that they refused to give their ships to the Vichy government. The dispute between the commanders (army, navy an air) is realistic and well done. The shooting of the plane is a remarkable battle scene. The end with the Handley-Page planes coming back is moving.


*****POSSIBLE SPOILERS*****

Poorly conceived propaganda flick unites a classic cast to produce a truly bad egg in which they share virtually no scenes. To say that the story is muddled would be to give it too much credit -- I don't think it really has a story. At one point, the action being shown on screen is a flashback inside a flashback inside of another flashback... what with all the jumping around from story to story, it's hard to imagine that any audience could keep all this straight.

With the unbelievable confusion going on in the intersecting plots (which basically center on a group of prisoners trying to escape from a colonial penal institution so they can fight for France -- yes, Bogey plays a frenchman in this one, believe it or not) it's not surprising that no drama or interest is created by the film's action. We already know who'll live and die because it's a flashback, so there's no suspense either.

In a novel twist, Lorre turns out NOT to be a weirdo or a bad guy or a coward. When Bogey's character breathes his final breath, we can only sigh in relief.

This movie was a rip-off, it wasn't even really a movie, and the audience only got to see a little bit of any of the stars.


Great actors in a boring, melodramatic plot. I was struggling to find anything of interest in this cliched propaganda movie. Don't be fooled by the cast -- rewatch Casablanca or The Maltese Falcon instead.


Another scheme to trick "Casablanca" fans into the theater by including favorite actors from that film in a war story with an exotic setting, this idiotic mess has a famously convoluted structure involving flashbacks within flashbacks that renders it virtually unwatchable. Don't bother.


This is half review and half advice.

The opening scene of this film is a sketch loosely known as "The Apartment." This was tremendous comedy.

Once this sketch is over, the only advice i can give you is to push the STOP button. Beyond the opening scene, there is nothing even remotely funny about this film.

I don't actually know anyone who has sat the whole way through this film and whenever it came up as a topic on conversation, "The Apartment" was the only thing people looked back on and laughed. In fact, everything after the apartment is not only unfunny; it's actually downright boring.

Some people say that this has some connection (or is some sort of unofficial sequel) to Kentucky Fried Movie. Kentucky was one of the best comedies of its time, but Amazon does not even come close to reaching the same heights. Furthermore, in case you didn't know, Amazon had completely different writers. And it shows! Overall woeful, but if you happen to see it listed on some cable TV channel, I recommend tuning in for the Apartment sketch. Just have something else to watch once that sketch is over.


The various sketches with a large assortment of personalties is a real hit or miss affair. The BB King segment is definitely the best. The other parts are funny or boring depending on the viewers tastes. The interruptions of the space voyage add little to the movie. Yes the space voyage interrupts the various sketches although the intent is to have it the other way around. Arsenio Hall's segment and the seductive women segment are also fairly entertaining. But as with the awful " Tunnelvision" and the fairly acceptable "Groove Tube" one has to pick and choose what they like. The space voyage segments should have been funnier to complement the sketches.


An acquired sense of humour is needed if you are to enjoy this production. I found only maybe 50% of the skits of this humouress, the rest a bit of a bore.

Worth a risk.


I, too, was a fan of the radio and TV series (via recordings--I'm was born after the movie was made). The problem with this movie, the TV series, and the later episodes of the radio series was that the cast was getting too old. The story is not so disappointing. And if they used another group of actors to be the same characters, that would be disappointing.

Many years later, when the cast of the Saturday morning TV series, Saved By the Bell, became too old looking to be high school students, they graduated them and put in different students.

Maybe it's like the proverbial soap opera storyline: An egg takes two days to fry. A pregnancy lasts two weeks. A baby remains a baby for five years. And Helen Trent still hasn't found a husband.


The more powerful a nation becomes, the more it asserts its victimhood. In contemporary British eyes, the greatest atrocities of the 18th and 19th centuries were those perpetrated on compatriots in the Black Hole of Calcutta or during the Indian mutiny and the siege of Khartoum. The extreme manifestations of the white man's burden, these events came to symbolise the barbarism and ingratitude of the savage races the British had sought to rescue from their darkness.

Today the attack on New York is discussed as if it were the worst thing to have happened to any nation in recent times. Few would deny that it was a major atrocity, but we are required to offer the American people a unique and exclusive sympathy. Now that demand is being extended to earlier American losses.

Black Hawk Down looks set to become one of the bestselling movies of all time. Like all the films the British-born director Ridley Scott has made, it is gripping, intense and beautifully shot. It is also a stunning misrepresentation of what happened in Somalia.

In 1992 the United States walked into Somalia with good intentions. George Bush senior announced that America had come to do "God's work" in a nation devastated by clan warfare and famine. But, as Scott Peterson's firsthand account Me Against My Brother shows, the mission was doomed by intelligence failures, partisan deployments and, ultimately, the belief that you can bomb a nation into peace and prosperity.

Before the US government handed over the administration of Somalia to the United Nations in 1993, it had already made several fundamental mistakes. It had backed the clan chiefs Mohamed Farah Aideed and Ali Mahdi against another warlord, shoring up their power just as it had started to collapse. It had failed to recognise that the competing clan chiefs were ready to accept large-scale disarmament, if it were carried out impartially. Far from resolving the conflict between the clans, the US accidentally enhanced it.

After the handover, the UN's Pakistani peacekeepers tried to seize Aideed's radio station, which was broadcasting anti-UN propaganda. The raid was bungled, and 25 of the soldiers were killed by Aideed's supporters. A few days later, Pakistani troops fired on an unarmed crowd, killing women and children. The United Nations force, commanded by a US admiral, was drawn into a blood feud with Aideed's militia.

As the feud escalated, US special forces were brought in to deal with the man now described by American intelligence as "the Hitler of Somalia". Aideed, who was certainly a ruthless and dangerous man but also just one of several clan leaders competing for power in the country, was blamed for all Somalia's troubles. The UN's peacekeeping mission had been transformed into a partisan war.

The special forces, over-confident and hopelessly ill-informed, raided, in quick succession, the headquarters of the UN development programme, the charity World Concern and the offices of Médecins sans Frontieres. They managed to capture, among scores of innocent civilians and aid workers, the chief of the UN's police force. But farce was soon repeated as tragedy. When some of the most senior members of Aideed's clan gathered in a building in Mogadishu to discuss a peace agreement with the United Nations, the US forces, misinformed as ever, blew them up, killing 54 people. Thus they succeeded in making enemies of all the Somalis. The special forces were harried by gunmen from all sides. In return, US troops in the UN compound began firing missiles at residential areas.

So the raid on one of Aideed's buildings on October 3 1993, which led to the destruction of two Black Hawk helicopters and the deaths of 18 American soldiers, was just another round of America's grudge match with the warlord. The troops who captured Aideed's officials were attacked by everyone: gunmen came even from the rival militias to avenge the deaths of the civilians the Americans had killed. The US special forces, with an understandable but ruthless regard for their own safety, locked Somali women and children into the house in which they were besieged.

Ridley Scott says that he came to the project without politics, which is what people often say when they subscribe to the dominant point of view. The story he relates (with the help of the US department of defence and the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff) is the story the American people need to tell themselves.

The purpose of the raid on October 3, Black Hawk Down suggests, was to prevent Aideed's murderous forces from starving Somalia to death. No hint is given of the feuding between him and the UN, other than the initial attack on the Pakistani peacekeepers. There is no recognition that the worst of the famine had passed, or that the US troops had long ceased to be part of the solution. The US hostage-taking, even the crucial role played by Malaysian soldiers in the Rangers' rescue, have been excised from the record. Instead - and since September 11 this has become a familiar theme - the attempt to capture Aideed's lieutenants was a battle between good and evil, civilisation and barbarism.

The Somalis in Black Hawk Down speak only to condemn themselves. They display no emotions other than greed and the lust for blood. Their appearances are accompanied by sinister Arab techno, while the US forces are trailed by violins, oboes and vocals inspired by Enya. The American troops display horrific wounds. They clutch photos of their loved ones and ask to be remembered to their parents or their children as they die. The Somalis drop like flies, killed cleanly, dispensable, unmourned.

Some people have compared Black Hawk Down to the British film Zulu. There is some justice in the comparison, but the Somalis here offer a far more compelling personification of evil than the blundering, belligerent Zulus. They are sinister, deceitful and inscrutable; more like the British caricature of the Chinese during the opium wars.

What we are witnessing in both Black Hawk Down and the current war against terrorism is the creation of a new myth of nationhood. America is casting itself simultaneously as the world's saviour and the world's victim; a sacrificial messiah, on a mission to deliver the world from evil. This myth contains incalculable dangers for everyone else on earth.

To discharge its sense of unique grievance, the US government has hinted at what may become an asymmetric world war. It is no coincidence that Somalia comes close to the top of the list of nations it may be prepared to attack. This war, if it materialises, will be led not by the generals in their bunkers, but by the people who construct the story the nation chooses to believe.