If you thought "Trail of the Pink Panther" was a poor excuse for a movie, you haven't seen anything yet.

With Ted Wass standing in as US detective Clifton Sleigh (as in "one-horse open"), he goes through all the pratfalls in the book as the only other detective clumsy enough find where the missing Jacques Clouseau is. If you can figure the logic to this choice of detectives other than pratfalls, you're smarter than anyone else in this film.

And Wass takes a lot of pratfalls. A lot of them. I hope he got combat pay.

He even gets to interplay with Herbert Lom and Burt Kwouk, veterans of the series. Not to mention Robert Wagner, Capucine and David Niven. Not that this matters much. It's simply a chance for everyone to waste time while Blake Edwards continues to beat this dead horse for all it's worth.

Poor horse.

Two stars. If you like pratfalls, you may want to catch "Curse". Otherwise, stick with the original.


While this is not quite the train wreck that TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER was, it's still a pretty weak entry in the PANTHER series. Ted Wass is bland and ineffectual; when I watch him here I keep thinking of how much better this movie could have been if most of his scenes were acted or directed differently. One of the few times he made me laugh was when he was doing the voice for his "instant companion."

The "new Closeau" at the end was an interesting touch -- not convincing, exactly, but funny.

In hindsight, if Blake Edwards really wanted to wrap up the series after Sellers' death, I think it would have been better if he combined the "using deleted Sellers scenes" concept from TRAIL with the "searching for Closeau" concept from CURSE into just one movie, and left it at that.


This is an unfortunate film that was, unfortunately, made. When the great Peter Sellers died, the PP series should have died, too. The Pink Panthers were absolutely tied to Clouseau. However, the greedy Blake Edwards tried to go to the well again and the result is this travesty. There are no words to describe how bad this film is. This is an unfortunate end to the PP series of films but at least Edwards didn't try another one. I wish he hadn't tried this one.


For some reason, people seem to have a problem differentiating this movie from Trail of the Pink Panther.

At any rate, this work does nothing but serve to remind us how sad the world is without Peter Sellers in it.

They brought back the same old favorites from Trail (Dreyfus, Cato, Litton, etc.), but they introduced a misdirected Pratt-fall humorist into a role which was designed to substitute for the missing Clouseau.

Dreyfus devises a way to produce the perfect copy of Clouseau via a hard frame computer system which factors the variables and tosses out the name of the most inept idiot in the global law enforcement family. What we got was a poor guy who was obviously overwhelmed by the grand scale of what Blake Edwards proposed he should do, and boy does it show.

Ted Wass was amiable as Sergeant Clifton Sleigh, but let's face it...he wasn't Clouseau in any way. I realize that Blake Edwards was losing his greatest cash cow, but to disrespect Sellers' memory like this was just sacrilege. Frankly, I'm glad they have remade the original. I hope it runs a long line of successful ventures for Steve Martin.

This dreck rates a 2.0/10 from...

the Fiend :.


The previous Pink Panther movie entry "Trail of the Pink Panther" already wasn't what you could call something successful but this movie, that was shot at the same time as this previously mentioned movie, is even worse comedy-wise, story-wise and whatever more wise.

This movie was obviously intended as an attempt to put new life into the Pink Panther series, after the death of Peter Sellers in 1980. The movie picks a new main character but keeps the same cast and crew of the previous more successful and better Pink Panther movies. So basically it's made in the same way as those other successful earlier Pink Panther movies but never does this movie work out as good as any other Pink Panther movie and it also is definitely the worst out of the long running series of movies.

Problem is that this movie really doesn't follow a script. Appereantly there is a main plot-line involving the Pink Panther again and Clouseau who is presumed missing. A New York cop is brought in to try and find Clouseau by picking up his trail he was on while investigation the disappearance of the Pink Panther. It basically starts off were "Trail of the Pink Panther" had ended, making this a direct sequel.

Don't be fooled by this movie its cast list people. Basically everywhere Ted Wass is listed somewhere like the 10th actor but he really actually plays the main lead within this movie. Actors such as David Niven, Robert Wagner, Robert Loggia and Burt Kwouk who are all listed higher are in it for like 10 minutes maximum. The reason they must have put David Niven on top of the billing must be done for commercial reasons or perhaps they were just being kind for him, knowing already how terminally ill at the time of making this movie he was. They even had to dub his voice, since he wasn't able to speak up good enough anymore. This was also the last movie he appeared in before his death.

So main lead is Ted Wass. Who? Exactly! He is one big nobody, without a real talent for acting or comedy. What was Blake Edwards when he casted him? Was he seriously thinking this would be the man that would be able to make us forget Peter Sellers? He is the type of actor that needs screaming and big surprised eyes to come across as being funny. He's too forced in his acting. Also his character is supposed to be like the American version of Clouseau but instead of being clumsy or stupid, he more comes across as a victim of unlikely circumstances. He never really gets himself into trouble because of his own stupidity like Clouseau always did.

It just isn't a very funny or well made movie. It tries to follow a story but it just looks as if the movie simply doesn't bother sticking to it. Appereantly it's about the search for Clouseau but really, does he ever seriously attempt looking for him? He just randomly questions people and travels around the world.

To me the movie gets still somewhat saved by the Roger Moore cameo. He actually shows that he has a great talent for comedy and actually would had been a worthy new Chief Insp. Jacques Clouseau for future movies in my opinion. Oh well, he probably was too expensive at the time to cast him for further Pink Panther, plus he of course at the time was still committed to playing James Bond, so no way they would had allowed him to play a different 'cop' in a different comedy movie series. Also the presence of Herbert Lom and Burt Kwouk and other Pink Panther regulars, as well as the immortal Henry Mancini musical score compensate somewhat for the movie its totally inapt to entertaining or be funny.

3/10


Uggh!!! This movie is a wonderful example of a movie and movie executives with no soul (or brains for that matter). Peter Sellers, the original Clouseau died and some nitwits decided this shouldn't stop them from doing another Pink Panther movie. This may not have been that bad a decision, but they also decided to have it feature Sellers as Clouseau!!! Now, the way around this was to take clips and outtakes from the previous films and intersperse them in a new and completely contrived plot.

Why couldn't they just give it a rest and STOP making these movies?!?! The only positive thing about this film was that the film bombed, as the public was not about to be hoodwinked into paying to see this pile of crap!


With "Trail of the Pink Panther", they portrayed Insp. Clouseau disappearing, and this time, they have a clumsy American detective (Ted Wass) look for him. Personally, I wish that they could have ended the series with "Revenge of...". After that, they butchered Peter Sellers's scenes, then replaced him, then replaced him again (Roberto Benigni probably wishes to downplay his role in "Son of..."). So, "Curse of the Pink Panther" might work once, but not after that. Just stick with the original movies. You'll be a much better person for sticking with the original movies.

Did anything ever become of Ted Wass?


Slow. Lifeless. Joyless. Passionless. Boring. Am I leaving anything out?

Oh, where to start the post-mortem on this one? Well, one could begin with Sir Ben Kingsley. If ever there was a less-interesting, passionless performer, I've never heard of him. Good actor? Absolutely. But not for this part -- he never should have been cast. Obsessed by his young student? I don't see it. He waxes poetic about her body, then never even touches her breasts. He claims to love her... yet he seems half-asleep. Maybe it had something to do with that transorbital lobotomy a while back -- that might explain the baldness. Does he ever even SMILE at her? Does he even seem to CARE?? If you turned the sound off, and couldn't hear the lame dialogue, you might think he detested her instead. I think the only look of happiness on his face was a stupid, s**t-eating grin, when he inexplicably shows up at a dance club to observe her. And from that point on he seems so pussy-whipped that we lose all respect for him anyway.

It's almost as if Kingsley was emulating Brando in "Last Tango in Paris." But that was a different movie, about a much different relationship. For an audience to care about a movie like this, the characters have to care about each other. They at least have to appear alive. In this case, they aren't, and we don't. Where are William Holden and Kay Lenz when we need them?

And what possible reason would a beautiful creature like Penelope Cruz have for falling prey to a bald, geriatric college professor? Because he's a wise old man? Because he's on TV? Because she needs a father figure? We're never given a clue into what makes her tick -- that's the problem. It's a superficial relationship at best. One actually longs for the Jeremy Irons remake of "Lolita." And at least Clint Eastwood's "Breezy" had moments of lightness. And it had Bill Holden. This doesn't.

There's a reason we've never heard of the director: she's of the glacially paced, cinema verite, documentary/neo-realist European variety -- probably lesbian -- who considers emotion as dirty a word as characterization. Dennis Hopper almost saves the day -- he's the only alive thing in this dud -- and then he dies! What a treat for the audience. And what an ill-advised, pointless and unnecessary plot point. Who green-lighted this script? And don't try to tell me the great Nicholas Meyer actually wrote it. Meyer, of the classic "Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan" and "Time After Time"??? He must be on massive doses of Prozac these days. Or maybe he's the one who underwent the lobotomy.

And don't try to convince me this lackluster snorefest was once a Philip Roth novel. The great and hilarious Philip Roth, of "Portnoy's Complaint" and "Goodbye Columbus"????? "Dying Animal" is right. The book must have been written in his "Human Stain" period, after he lost his sense of humor. Well, at least this dead-on-arrival adaptation doesn't break the streak: a good movie has never been made from a Roth novel. And probably never will.

I'm giving two stars here, strictly in honor of Penelope Cruz's tits, which we see several times, thankfully -- though they're obviously not photographed by anyone who seems to care. And if we saw her ass just ONCE -- which we don't -- I might have given it a 3. And I'm not even going to get into the melodramatic plot twist at the end. If the director finally decided to go for some kind of drama, it was too little, too late. Nobody really cares about a tacked-on movie tragedy after two hours of monotony. All the characters could have been killed in a terrorist bombing and the audience probably wouldn't have really minded. Actually, that might have made a decent ending -- at least it would have woken people up. Or better still, kill them off in the first act, and put them out of their misery. Either way, senseless violence would have been preferable to another brain-dead, heartless, monotonous line reading (Dennis Hopper, as I say, is the one exception: he gives a funny, passionate, inspired performance).

On a technical level, there are also an incredible number of annoying, shaky, hand-held shots that serve absolutely no purpose, other than to distract. Couldn't the producer afford a tripod that day? Wait, don't tell me -- the director thought it was "art."

Welcome to European, no-talent, amateur-hour hell. Close the door on the way in. And watch the flames.


A sepia-toned soporific bore, Elegy is an insult to every older man who enjoyed his relationship with a younger woman. Heinously miscast as a playboy professor, Ben Kingsley is far too stiff, depressed and stiff-backed for the part. This is a character tailor-made for Jeremy Irons or perhaps John Malkovich, someone with wit and movement. In one scene where he is moodily staring out his rain-flecked apartment window, his posture is less like a man contemplating mortality than someone pondering the sewage system of his street. It's virtually impossible to imagine Kingsley's character, David Kapesh, pursuing anything sexual. And the scenes where he nuzzles lover Penelope Cruz are cringe-inducing. The film only comes to life in the brief, male bonding scenes with Dennis Hopper. I've not been a fan of Penelope Cruz until recently. But with her work in Vicki Christina Barcelona and this warm, sensual, intelligent and open performance in Elegy, I'm a fan now. Hopper is lively and fun, even if his character is a slightly mean-spirited fount of bad advice. Patricia Clarkson is lovely and expressive in her brief scenes, too. Avoid!


This movie starts out promising - a professor whose career and personal life are driven by his fascination with the hedonistic side of American sexuality confronts the one thing that will put an end to his pursuits: he's getting old. Unfortunately, once the meat of the story gets going, it becomes a puppet show of superficial characters prancing out the whims of the screenwriter and director. Nothing about this movie is authentic, and as a result it's pretty difficult to pay much attention to the intended themes. A 112 minute close-up of Ben Kingsley's wrinkled face would say more about mortality and the human condition, and would say it more sincerely for that matter, not to mention more entertainingly.

The characters are eggshell thin, and mostly we have to believe what we are told about them by their screen-mates, because their own behavior makes little sense. David Kapesh is a playboy? Really? Maybe he's been charming in every other moment of his life, but during the time he spends with Consuela, and unfortunately with us, he's a bumbling jackass. His hear-to-hearts with his buddy George suggest he's incredibly insecure in the presence of a beautiful young woman, and every single encounter he has with Consuela confirms that. Is this the first time he's dated one of his students? No, says the film's back story, he's a playboy, we swear he's a playboy. Just not since he started looking like a late-career Ben Kingsley and started acting like an @$$hole I guess.

So let's just give this movie the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is and always has been a playboy  we're just not catching him on his good days. What is his special attraction to Consuela? Okay so she's young, educated, and beautiful. The first two attributes should apply to a good portion of the women he's been dating  his students, that is  and as for the third, if he's the playboy we're meant to believe he is, this should be nothing new either. I'm not saying a lady's man can't be struck dumb now and again, but we've got to have some since of why that would be the case. Instead we're just asked to accept it.

Consuela meanwhile leaves us even less in the way of authenticity and depth. First of all, that accent is sexy, don't get me wrong, but are we really supposed to believe that a well-educated 24 year-old who's been in the U.S. since she was 11 still talks like that? Her family background suggests she probably didn't spend the last decade living in a ghetto, the only excuse she would have for not speaking standard American English by now.

And why is she in love with David? He's not particularly witty, especially for a professor, and he does really annoying things like show up uninvited to spy on her while she's out with her brother and then cover it with a lame excuse. Is it because he's cultured? I have a feeling that a beautiful, smart woman like her could find a comparably sophisticated man who's within three decades of her age and who doesn't act like a total creep living in NEW YORK CITY. In fact she probably wouldn't even have to leave campus. The only reason she could possibly want him is his status, and we're meant to believe there's more to her than that. Otherwise why do we care about her? Why does David care about her? Why does she act like she wants something meaningful from him when he clearly is willing to give her a nice sexy superficial relationship with all the trimmings of a celebrity academic's lifestyle?

I could go on about the various other terrible aspects of this movie but this review is getting long and I'm tired of thinking about it. Oh wait there's one more thing that I just can't let go without mentioning: Consuela has a breast removed and not a single family member or friend is there? Why not? They must have all stayed at home when they realized how touching it would be for her to wake up from a mastectomy to find no one there to console her but a disgusting ex-boyfriend. Just one more slap in the face in a long line of scenes that insult our intelligence and artistic sensibilities alike.


Not for one moment in the entire run of this film did I believe that Cruz and Kingsley's characters had any attraction to each other. A great deal of this starts in the fact that, as one friend of mine put it, "Kingsley has all the sex appeal of a pickle." Cruz puts in a rather languid performance which is stronger than most of her acting due to the fact she is working with a Spanish (specifically, Catalan) director. But she falls flat on the screen anytime she's there. She a very pretty woman, but as an actress, she consistently sub-par. The only redeeming scenes of the film are with Dennis Hopper and Kingsley where Cruz isn't present. These two old actors have a wonderful charisma on the screen and I would posit that it is one of Hopper's best performances of his career. It just goes to show that Coixet can indeed get great performances out of actors as long as they're not Penelope Cruz. It was a tricky story to adapt and in general the plot is slow and meandering. The film fails in the end in that it presents characters that 99.9% of us can't relate to and doesn't ever really make us care what happens to them in the end. Undoubtedly this film will be well-received in NYC where these types of films seem to ply well to a sympathetic audience, but for those of us outside the Big Apple, it's just short of being an extremely painful film to watch. I need to add that I first saw this in Madrid when it opened in Spain. There may have been some edits to the film upon US release that made it more tolerable, although I doubt how they would have been achieved.


I had been looking forward to seeing this film for about a month after I saw an interview with Ben Kingsley talking about it.

I was very disappointed. I found it slow, pretentious and really flat. I thought the two main characters were vain, shallow and unlikeable.

Penelope Cruz's performance was far better than Ben Kingsley's but was nowhere near her usual standards, such as Volver. She has much greater ability than was displayed here.

The background music was laboured and intrusive. All in all I found it horridly contrived and I had to keep looking at my watch to see how much longer I had to suffer it before it ended.


Through most of this movie, I was bored to death. It tells the story of a middle-aged man who won't grow up and has some affairs with his students and then he falls in love. And that is basically it. Told for unbearable 2 hours or so. I must add that I love Ben Kingsley as an actor, but tend to not find Penelope Cruz especially interesting in her performances. Her character in this movie is pretty dull (no surprise there then), she is being portrayed as the beauty who is also profound (well, that's maybe a matter of taste, but I really don't find her that beautiful, and certainly the character was said to be profound, but it was not shown). Please. Give me a break. Just when I was about to almost leave the theatre, the movie gets a dramatic turn by Cruz' character having cancer. I am actually angry because of this movie. I do have a case of cancer in my family, so I am familiar with the subject, thanks very much. But a movie that has basically no substance at all (and just claims to be sophisticated, using all sorts of clichés etc) and then throws in the dramatic element of a terminal illness to make it a good movie? I find this manipulative and sorry, her character does not become interesting by having cancer. There is little character development (maybe mostly for Ben Kingsley's role), but the subject of people reaching middle age and not wanting to grow up is just dead boring to me. He won't commit, yet he is in love with her and never forgets her, whilst she loves him too, but leaves him due to lack of commitment, and then she reappears, telling him she has cancer. And he bursts into tears (actually the best moment, Kingsley is very credible here), and is at her side to support her. Add to all of this an even more dull son who appears somewhere in the middle of this painfully bad plot, wanting to talk to his father (and we are already informed that they don't have the best relationship with each other). He has an affair! As a married man! Oh My God! And it is so very bad acted, that I actually felt in every second of that scene "he is acting! he is acting! this is a movie! this is so not credible". I am sure this was not the intended reaction for the audience. So, all in all, let me summarize that I still feel this is a mainly uninteresting, dull, boring movie that has nothing new or really profound to tell, and that misuses the element of cancer (or any serious illness, for that matter) for its dramatic effect on the audience. I felt betrayed by this sort of emotional manipulation. I give 3 points because Kingsley's performance was - as usual - excellent. A bad movie remains a bad movie though, even if you add cancer to it. An uninteresting, not deeply explored character that is the so-called sophisticated lady (wishful thinking here!)does not become incredibly interesting just because she is going to die soon. Give me a break!


I went into this movie hardly knowing anything about the story. I should have done more research.

I suppose it's a laudable effort, but it falls flat completely, in my opinion.

The budding romance between the old prof (Kingsley) and the young hot Cruz is just okay. She's obviously a sexy woman, but seeing her in that situation with the professor made her seem less appealing, not more.

Another thing that really bothered me about this movie was the pretentious classical music that was throughout. It became unbearable after a while, I must say.

Negatives: Trite story acted out with no passion or innovation. Positives: Cruz is beautiful and intriguing but that's not enough to make this even mildly entertaining.


I find it hard to understand how viewers could be positive about this film, as I found it appalling. Film-makers should give up on Phillip Roth adaptations unless they can give them the necessary energy; and biting, incisive and vulgar insights that are so much a part of Roth's work. In stead in this film, like most of the other Roth adaptations, we get pretentious literary performances that mostly bore and frustrate.

I couldn't even make it through to the end, and I have a bookshelf of Phillip Roth books - and rate him as my favorite living American author.

Ultimately, I found this film a big disappointment and suggest you read the book rather than endure the film.


Out of the several hundred Westerns in my DVD collection, this one has to be the very worst. Totally incompetent. Hittleman must have been a better salesman than a movie maker to have even managed to raise what little money would have been needed to make this awful mess. It's devoid of even the campy charm that Ed Wood might have put into it. Wills, Downs, Holloway, & Cagney must have been hurting for money to have agreed to appear in something this bad. Released in 1956, the same year as George Stevens' Giant, Chill Wills must have been been rather amazed to find himself in two such different movie productions in the same year. I only wish that I could get back the time I wasted watching this trash.


This is an awful western. The plot reminds me of "The Last Wagon", but it is far from having the polish of that film. The cast includes Cathy Downs and veteran character actor Chill Wills and is largely wasted. Chill Wills' performance is particularly annoying. He spends much of his time spewing almost unintelligible praise for the Kentucky rifle. While the Kentucky rifle was surely a fine weapon, it is not exactly the gun that won the West.

The premise for this film is dumb. A wagon loaded with Kentucky rifles belonging to star Lance Fuller breaks down. The Comanches want the rifles. The Indians offer a deal. The guns for their lives. Surprisingly, those in the wagon are willing to make a deal. The Indians waste no time betraying the foolish Whites, but they don't get the rifles. After a battle in which many of the Indians are killed by the sure firing Kentucky rifles the Indians promise to allow the wagons to proceed in safety. This time they keep their promise.

Technically, this film has serious problems. Much of it was filmed indoors, and the sets have a cheap look to them. The artificial rocks have a particularly phony look about them. The lighting is confused. Daytime scenes turn to shadows without warning. This aspect of the film reminds me of "Plan Nine from Outer Space".

I rented this film twice. I wanted to see if it was as awful as I remembered it from the first time. It was.


Nor apparently, do rifles and Comanches, as the Indians are shown to be willing to fight and kill for them, or conversely, are willing to fight and kill once they have them. I couldn't help thinking while watching, as another viewer commented on this board, that here was a half century early preview of the politics of appeasement that the liberal Democrats are waging during the present day Iraqi War. Let's just give the enemy what they want and go on our way, because then they'll be satisfied and leave us alone.

The story, one might surmise, stays in one place literally and figuratively for it's entire run. A broken down Conestoga wagon remains behind for a wheel to be fixed as negotiations get under way as to how to deal with the hostiles. It's unfortunate that the nominal leader of this piece, Jason Clay (Lance Fuller) was the one to waver in his determination to get the wagon through with one hundred Kentucky rifles intact. That resolve was maintained by sidekick Tobias (Chill Wills), shown to be correct when the Comanches force their own hand by shooting their bargaining chip Foster (Jess Barker). Interesting how one can see more clearly when when one's life is on the line.

The sub plot of a romantic triangle among Clay, Foster and Amy Connors (Cathy Downs) wasn't particularly necessary for the story, and didn't wind up contributing to the finale. However it allowed for Chill Wills' character to fire off a couple references to how women and rifles don't mix, even if the connection was virtually negligible. It seems to me the run in with the Comanches would have occurred with or without women along for the ride.

I don't think it's necessary to be as hard on the flick as other posters for this film have been, but it sure did take a long time to get from Point A to Point B as has been pointed out. Sterling Holloway gets minimal mileage out of his home made still bit, and Wills is mildly entertaining with 'Sweet Bessie From Pike'. It gets a little embarrassing though to see how much confidence he places in his own Kentucky Rifle, especially when he offers up a prayer to help him shoot straight.


Kentuckian Lance Fuller heads west with a wagon train and his one-hundred rifles meant for the settlers of California. When his wagon breaks an axel, he's forced to stay behind with a small disparate group and look for a large enough piece of wood to fix it, all the while contending with in-fighting and the lingering threat of Comanches.

This starts slow and only gets a little better as time goes on. Despite a few sparks along the way, this dull western never catches fire the way it should have. Chill Wills is good as Fuller's partner, but not good enough to inject much life into this very Luke-warm production. There is some good scenery though.

Viewers seeking out a nineteen-fifties color B-western can do a lot worse, but they can definitely do a heckuva lot better too.


This awful movie was really painful to watch. A small group from a wagon train linger behind to repair a broken down wagon in hostile Indian territory. They spend most of their time arguing and filibustering and take forever and a day to repair the wagon and attempt to catch up with the wagon train - I felt like I was watching Gilligan's Island. Any excuse to stay behind and mingle with the Indians was used to prolong the situation, (*spoiler*) including a slender pregnant woman who wasn't due anytime soon going into labor 3 days later (*spoiler* - NOT!...if you couldn't see this lame plot device coming, you must be living in a cave). The agony of this movie was painfully protracted. Of course, they have 4 cases of 25 Kentucky Rifles each (100 rifles) that must get through...or must they? Hmmm, why don't we show these rifles to the Indians and see if they want them? For that matter, why don't we see if the Iranians would like a few nuclear weapons? Yes, there is a lot of moralizing here, and if you don't know by now that giving your best weapons to your worst enemies because you are afraid of them is not an intelligent thing to do, then this movie will hammer that obvious point home and do it with a psychopathic vengeance that is firmly rooted in the belief that every dead horse requires a really good beating! But, then again, with the size of the wagon train and the firm belief that these rifles are excellent protection against hostile Indians, it would have made much more sense to distribute 4 or 6 rifles to each wagon for protection than to leave these vitally necessary items behind packed in crates on a broken down wagon. It would serve these dolts right if their entire wagon train was slaughtered by Indians. But then we wouldn't have a movie, would we? That would have been a blessing.


I think I'd have loved this film when I was 9 or 10 but now I can only watch it in disbelief while I shake my head and mutter "Oh, come on!" A throwback to the 1930's screwball comedies, this has a very flimsy plot which allows the aging cast to act like complete nincompoops, particularly as the film goes on.

I'd say that Cary Grant (a screwball comedy veteran) and Ginger Rogers had zero chemistry as the married couple and I also thought Charles Coburn uncharacteristically walked through a part he did many times before in better movies. But I think Marilyn stole the picture whenever she appeared, not that it was that difficult to do in this case.

We were not amused!


The fact that Coppola directed this absolutely floors me!! From this tripe to The Godfather-possibly the best movie ever made!! It does not help that I loathe Tommy Steele and Petula Clark equally so it makes it impossible for me to be objective about this movie.Steele cannot act at all and seems to think he is on stage the whole time! I cannot believe that when I was a kid I thought him the bees knees!! Petula gives both me and my wife the heebeegeebees! There is just something about her I find repulsive both acting and definitely singing!! I gave FR 2 points because Astaire was in it and I love him to bits. A terribly unbelievable storyline (albeit with a good moral base)does the whole concept no good at all. I would like to say that I do love a good musical, but this was not good at all.


I normally like movie musicals but not this one.

At the time, young director Francis Ford Coppola was in way over his head and clearly out of his element. He did not know how to shape dialog or stage the songs - he seems unbelievably clueless. The movie crawls along at a snail's pace. It absolutely amazes me that the studio didn't pull him off the project after the first few weeks.

There's hardly anything to recommend this film.

Fred Astaire and Petula Clark's talents were really wasted here and it's almost painful to watch.

Amazingly, the director and cameraman did not even pull the cameras back far enough to see Astaire's feet when he was dancing! The feet or legs are actually at the edge of the frame or sometimes out of frame altogether.

Some good music, lousy story, BAD direction and a movie worth missing.

If you are interested in good movie musicals of the same era, try Music Man 1962, Sound of Music 1965, Funny Girl 1968, Hello Dolly 1969, Godspell 1973.


Finian's Rainbow did well on Broadway in 1947. But it was about racism, and nobody wanted to make a movie of it. I can't imagine what made Warner Brothers think that in 1968 Finian's time had finally come. Maybe they just wanted to adapt a musical for old Fred Astaire. They made a "bold" decision, or at least I'm sure they thought so, to retain all the racial discrimination stuff. And to give a 1947 musical added appeal for hippie-era audiences they hired Francis Ford Coppola, who was under 30 and could therefore be trusted by hippies. At that point he had directed only two features, a student film which played in theaters and made some money, and Dementia 13, a pretty good horror movie.

In a nutshell -- a pistachio would be about right for the depth of this plot, waggish old Irishman Astaire and his daughter Petula Clark, who was older than Coppola, have just arrived in the "mythical" state of Missitucky. They lease some land in Rainbow Valley, which is populated by an absurdly clean-cut bunch of interracial sharecroppers. Finian has stolen a crock of gold from the leprechauns, and means to bury it in Rainbow Valley because of its proximity to Fort Knox. It is his demented belief that burying it here will cause the gold to grow. He is pursued by Monkees-type pop star (invented by publicists) Tommy Steele (age 32) as a leprechaun who is turning mortal because that's what happens when your 3-wish-granting gold is stolen.

Steele is easily the best thing in the movie. I love to see a grown man scamper and cavort. He has a couple of close-ups which I think are Harpo quality. Everything he says is funny and his songs are just the cutest.

The songs are written by E.Y. Harburg and composed by Burton Lane. Harburg wrote the Wizard of Oz songs (composed by Harold Arlen). Harburg obviously had a thing about rainbows. Harburg first knew and loved W.S. Gilbert's work as a writer of light satiric verse. He professed to be amazed when he learned that Arthur Sullivan composed music that went along with that crazy stuff. The songs are great and reason enough to see this long two hour twenty five god damn minute movie. And Tommy Steele. Petula's good. It depends on your taste but Fred Astaire isn't bad. He was better when he was even older, like in Ghost Story.

The movie is CLUELESS and often EMBARRASSING. It is Without Guts and tries to appeal too broadly. It is abnormally flabbily edited; scenes shuffle along forever. One of the subplots added for the screenplay is about the sharecroppers trying to develop a strain of tobacco that is pre-mentholated. We're supposed sympathize because their minty cancer leaves won't burn and rejoice at the end when they inexplicably burst into smoky flame. One of the wishes gets wasted mistakenly turning a bigot senator into a black man, then another wish spent to turn him back after he learns his lesson and his attitude gets adjusted. Petula's young hero boyfriend is 40 and has fake hair. For good Irish whimsy type fun watch the Disney movie Darby O'Gill and the Little People.


1968 movie-adaptation of E. Y. Harburg's 1947 Broadway musical hit arrives on the screen both belated and beleaguered. Fred Astaire no longer has the energy or enthusiasm for role as world-traveling Irishman who settles in a small town beset with racial injustices. This was certainly an odd choice for young director Francis Ford Coppola, who, with cinematographer Philip Lathrop, globe-trots to many an exciting location and yet overflows the movie with syrupy uplift and musical trilling (courtesy co-star Petula Clark). Supporting cast (including Tommy Steele and Keenan Wynn) is interesting but weak, and the anachronistic song numbers don't forward the story, they simply pad the proceedings to an uncomfortable length. *1/2 from ****


I hated "Finian's Rainbow." All the songs are forgettable and most of the cast is so-so. Coppola's unimaginative handling of the dance numbers is also a big problem. The material has dated badly too, so the director should not be blamed for everything that is wrong with this production. The awkward combination of preachy social commentary and Irish stereotypes did not work for me. It is Fred Astaire's last musical, and he is good in the starring role, but Petulia Clark has zero star quality (I can see why she never became a major movie star), and Don Francks is an odd choice for a leading man. Tommy Steele is charming, if a bit too broad. Coppola did not learn his lesson (the way he edited this movie is particularly embarrassing), and he returned to the genre in the '80s with two mega bombs, "One From the Heart (1982)" and "The Cotton Club (1984)."


This film is one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. The story is awful, and the songs worse. Francis Ford Coppola directed this rubbish?

Okay where to Begin. Fred's accent is terrible, is he Irish? Coulda fooled, me cos I don't know where the hell he came from (It really is one of those bad accents, one where he hasn't even tried to pretend to be Irish). Actually that's unfair, all those pretending to be Irish have crap accents. 800 years of suffering under English rule, haven't the Irish suffered enough? And what the hell is it with this Glocca Morra rubbish? Glocca Morra, what the HELL?! There is no such place! Couldn't they have actually used a place which exists in Ireland. Did they have to Make it up? And if they had to make up a name, could they have chosen a better name than GLOCCA MORRA?! There's an underlying anti-racism plot going on. This anti-racism plot is like having Springtime for Hitler be the main interest of Schindler's list, ie showing the evils of Nazi Germany, then praising it. An oxymoron, if you will. What I mean by this is they show the evils of racism against minorities, but come off as highly prejudiced ( a form of racism) to Ireland and it's culture. So it's okay to be prejudiced if the people are white? Stay Away from this film, unless watching bad films is how you get your kicks.


I have seen a lot of Indian movies which were copied from some real good Hollywood movies. Some though they were copies of Hollywood movies but still worth a watch. Like Kante (a mixture of Usual Suspect, Reservoir Dogs and heat), Musafir (a mixture of Confidence and U-Turn) and a lot of other titles. But this movies which is one of the most pathetic copy of Snatch. Most of these B rated directors they go to a DVD store, watch the movies and translate it in there own language to make a new movie. Well anybody who has not seen this movie i will suggest don't waste your money. If you have seen snatch and liked it you will be really disappointed to watch this. Somebody should inform Guy Richie about this mockery. I definitely believe that most of the actors in this movies have seen Snatch what i can't understand is how do they agree to such a non-sense. Well only one more thing for everybody in bollywood They should try to do some original work cox that's what they are good at. Stop ripping others ideas and embarrassing yourself by making such crap.


The movie started off really good with the diamond robbery then the film takes you to a lot of different places like flipping through a comic book which was quite irritating. Paresh Rawal & Johnny Lever were not really that funny as they usually are but Chunkey Pandey was the way he speaks was so funny that I was killing myself with laughter every time he spoke. Arbaaz Khan was the best in the whole film especially in the scene where he was threaten everyone to get the diamond with a crossbow and was wearing sunglasses. Ayesha Takia was looking beautiful & her acting was cute but the rest of the cast were not impressive and Viveik Oberoi is better off in negative roles because his acting in Shootout in Lokhandwala was terrific. The story is similar to Awara Paagal Deewana e.g. comic thriller about everyone after diamond/s. Overall it's OK to be watched once by rent or if it's on TV or something but not the kind of film to be bought on DVD. The only two good songs are Tere Layee & Yeh Dooriyaan.


Rubbish is actually an understatement. Its hard to even begin to describe how terrible this movie is. I understand the fact that some movies require you to suspend your belief, but this is just pushing it too far. The story makes absolutely no sense, the plots are too damn confusing and the acting is just horrifying.

That said, it can be somewhat entertaining if you don't wear your thinking caps. Paresh Rawal and Johnny Lever do give you some giggles but the rest of them do no justice to their acting talents. Sharmila Tagore and Om Puri are some of the finest actors around in Bollywood and it is sad to see them do roles such as these.

The music is crappy, the special effects are crappier and Chunkey Pandey is the crappiest of them all! Avoid watching this movie as it is just not worth it.


Bad rip off of British Movie SNATCH.... if you haven't watched the British version of the movie.. you might enjoy the movie!!! The story is got some good presentation... shown as a bits of comic novel. Vivek Oberio as usual OVER OVER ACTING... SUNNY DOEL - again as usual screaming!!! Jackie - thank god - he doesn't walk like a zombie in this movie... Paresh Rawal and Johny - make u laugh!!! But again, as i told you... its not well in-acted movie..

Ayesha Takia - looks totally trash - more like a small kiddo... Somebody needs to tell Shahid Kappor that he is no Superman!!

SNATCH is fast paced movie and Brad Pitt is really good in the movie!!!


"Fool'N'Final" represents the worst in not only Bollywood film history but the history of cinema itself. There are far too many films like this that are made or rather 'remade' in Bollywood without rhyme or reason. There are no saving graces for the film, unlike other remakes that directly rip off the story and give it an 'Indianize' it as American remakes tend to do, this film doesn't which leaves it as an empty and hollow commercial shell. The problem lies within the fact that this film is nothing more than a 'get rich quick' scheme concocted by it's producers, Base Industries Groups which is owned by the Nadiawala's. The film that they ripped off is Guy Ritchie's 2000 Hit "Snatch". One has to scoff at B.I.G.'s mission statement which can be located on the "Hera Phiri" website where they state that they "believe that the fountainhead of film making lies at the confluence of creativity, talent, technology & technique. In the quest for entertainment that appeals to the heart & mind, the entity considers itself as a medium where the flourish of imagination journeys to the senses of the entertained." (which can be located at this address http://www.phirherapheri.in/base.htm. Obviously just like other film producers, what they say has little to do with what they mean.

The film boasts what can be considered a star cast. At the helm is Shahid Kapur and his lady love interest (in a story that is never explored but only hinted at) Ayesha Takia. Their support comes in from Vivek Oberoi, Sunny Deol, Jackie Shroff, Paresh Rawal, Om Puri, Johnny Lever, Gulshan Grover, Arbaaz Khan, Chunky Pandey and Sharmila Tagore. With solid experience like that behind it, you would think that the performances would be at least entertaining, not mind blowing but at least entertaining. But you would be wrong and for this, you can be forgiven. Not one actor manages to entertain. Shahid Kapur is Shahid Kapur which is nothing special because the only reason he is allowed to exist in Bollywood is because millions of teenage girls fawn over him. Ayesha Takia, who managed to spark interest with her role in 'Dor', does nothing with her role leading her to quickly becoming the most un-interesting fairly new talent of the next generation. Oberoi, who at times has almost gleefully recalled his training at NYU continues to spit out roles that incline viewers to believe that he didn't actually learn anything while in training. Deol, Shroff, Puri, Pandy, and Tagore are all wasted in roles that are needed because...well, their roles were in the original and there are character spaces that needed to be filled. However, it is Pandey that gives a stand out performance even though his role is mediocre and pale in comparison to Benicio Del Toro in "Snatch".

Though there are snippets of originality that come in the form of the directorial technique, they are pale in comparison to the quick editing techniques and framing that is used by Ritchie in "Snatch". The film is laid out like a comic strip, however, this wanes quickly when there is no need for it when it starts to become over used.

The writing is uninspired almost as much as the direction is, this is what causes the overall production to suffer. The actors look uninterested and the viewer quickly realizes that the actors are doing this either because their careers have faded away or because they needed a paycheck to sustain their high flying Bollywood lifestyles (which according to interviews consists of sitting at home and listening to their parents).

The soundtrack, which is an integral ingredient in a Bollywood production, is uninspired commercial bird droppings. The picturization of the songs are even worse with actors running around in 'bling' gear pretending to act cool not realizing that a lot of people don't actually by into the 'bling' factor. Oh, and Mike Tyson appears during the end song. Why? Because the producers felt that he could help to sell an appearance that consists of him throwing shadow punches at the camera while inter cutting to the rest of the cast dancing in their 'bling' gear - that and the fact that Tyson needs the money right now.

A waste of space and time.

1/10.


Firoz Nadiadwala made his career with HERA PHERI, APD and the recent PHIR HERA PHERI

So now he is stuck with the same idea of film-making

So what this film has?

It has a big star cast as usual in such comedy films where they have so many characters and sub plots that you get more confused

So here we have The once funny now boring Johny Lever and Paresh Rawal(who is loosing his touch now) Shahid Kapur just after VIVAAH perhaps he thought of getting a hit as a comedy as those days before VIVAAH he was going bad in his career Ayesha Takia need i say anything ? Vivek Oberoi- again nothing needs to be said about this crazy people Sunny Deol- phew! Arbaaz, Chunky, Jackie- you find this people in so many such films

To sum up this is some stupid comedy based in Dubai(mostly such films r set there) and the most ridiculous situations, boring comedy and stunts and dances

Direction by Ahmed Khan is bad Music is okay

Amongst actors Paresh is funny in places but nothing great Johny is monotonous Shahid is okay but he tends to overdo it Ayesha has nothing to do like mostly in her films Sameera too is just added Sunny Deol does his repetitive acting Vivek has a short nonsense role Om Puri and Sharmila are wasted Jackie, Arbaaz, Chunky are crazy as usual Zakir is as usual Suresh Menon is a gap filler


When I heard about the movie Fool 'N' Final, I thought it would be a complete comedy, but it turned out to be the complete opposite.

PROBLEMS

1. way too many characters (and it really bothered me the way they put Sameera Reddy in the movie just for eye candy. my mom could have done her role, and she doesn't even speak Hindi)

2. too many plots, and a lot of pointless scenes

3. NOT FUNNY!

The cast of this movie, you could say, are all pretty good actors. I really wish they hadn't wasted their time with this movie AND DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME EITHER!


I am one of the most unlucky person in the world. I first watch this movie 'fool N final' and the watch the original movie 'Snatch'. That is why I was not able to enjoy the movie Snatch as I was knowing what is going to happen. I must say that 'Fool n Final' is one of the badly failed copy cat movies. Not that all the copy cat movies fails. We have good examples of Aitraaz, Bheja Fry, and not so bad examples of Murder, Kaante. This movie fails in copying the fun of the original plot for Indian audience.

If you are reading this to decide whether to watch the movie or not, I will suggest you to watch movie Snatch rather. If you can not get Snatch then may be go on and watch this one. But spend as little money as possible. There are few scenes in the movie which are funny, but they the rest are utter garbage. The changed story line doesn't suit the Indian climate. Music is not so good, acting is not up to mark. I wont say anything much about this.

Watch on your risk, or to be safe watch original movie 'Snatch'.


This is just an awful awful movie. Let's first start with the plot. The writer and directer are trying to shove about 20 different stories into a a 2 hour movie. There are so many subplots and so many stupid scenes which were not necessary. The movie then ended up doing a casting miracle by getting anybody and everybody that people have heard of and that were stupid enough to do the movie. I mean seriously do you need this many actors to make a good movie. The movie has a habit of straying then coming back on the topic on hand and then straying again. Then there is so much confusion throughout the movie. There might one or two parts where the person might let out a laugh but nothing like Hulchul or Hera Pheri or even Chup Chup Ke. Worst movie of the year and worst possibly of the this decade. Plus the whole movie is shot through a comic book which makes it look so stupid and makes Bollywood look like crap. I mean seriously. When we go through stretches were we have Dhoom, Don, Dhoom 2, and Rang De Basanti and then you get this crap. I mean this is just depressing. Now we have to discuss the actors. OK I look at Shahid Kapoor and I see potential. I mean his movies Fida and Shikar were actually good. Then he makes crap like this which just shows that he is going no where. Then we have Ayesha Takia who in my mind is the worst actor in Bollywood. I mean she has no emotions doesn't know how to act, sucks at dancing and not even that good to look at. She annoys me so much. Then we have the great Vivek Oberoi, who had a bright future after the movies company, Saathiya and Dum. I mean i thought he was the next best thing. Then came Kaal followed by Home delivery, Pyare Mohan, and then Naksha. Wow he screwed himself over. Then the He-man himself comes SUNNY DEOL aka seen that done that. I mean does this guy have any range at all. He plays the same guy/character in basically every movie. I mean at first it was cool, then it become OK this is his thing, and now its just wow your still doing that. While his fellow actors Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan, and Akshay Kumar and progressed he is still stuck in that some place. It is so depressing to watch him. Then comes Sameera Reddy who probably get lost in Dubai and came onto the set. She was just there, there was no need for her, no lines for her she was just there. Horrible actress although for a second I thought it was Priyanka Chopra only 2 seconds later to have my dreams crushed. OK I'm not gonna go through each actors performance individually so I'm just going to describe the next 7 in 4 words or less. Chunkey Pandey: WTF, Vijay RaaZ: not funny, Johnny lever: annoying, not funny, Paresh Rawal: tries to hard, unfunny, Jackie Shroff: Unnecessay, horrible job. Arbaaz khan: great actor horrible job, Om Puri: WTF!!!. Now who do i have to talk to get 2 hours of my life back?? Is it Ahmed Khan or the writer Neeraj Vora?


Ahmed Khan is a great choreographer. There were some good dances in Fool and Final. Himmesh Reshammia is a great, though a bit annoying, music director and singer. The songs were good and the music was catchy. But apart from this, there wasn't even a single thing that was good in this s**t of a movie.

1) A plethora of disgusting characters including the boy not wanted next door Shahid Kapoor, the horrible, sickly hunk Sunny Deol ( save them, someone!), the bumbling, pathetic Ayesha Takia, who was only good in Dor, the always Punjabi idiot of a father, Om Puri, the wasted Sharmila Tagore, the who-is-she? Sameera Reddy, the no use Sunil Pal, the other wasted Viviek Oberoi ( spelling can be wrong as he keeps changing it all the time for good luck in vain), the same faced, tiring Paresh Rawal, the utterly terrible Cunkey Pandey, the unfunny idiot Johnny Lever and hundreds of other characters.

2) No good story. Story stinks. Script was terrible. No good joked in the film. Not at all innovative in thinking.

3) Why do they have to call Mike Tyson for the film? The idea stinks like rotten tomatoes.

4) Bad starting. Why the emotional twinge in between?

In short, I request even completely addled minds not to visit this crap of a film.


Single most god-awful movie ever created. There was absolutely no characterization at all, let me tell you. The characters? Some father and mother you barely even remember the names of, some random "hot" sister and a boyfriend I completely forgot about until now (just thrown in to keep her out of the way) and a dork of a son. It all starts out with the son being hit by a car by stereotypical jocks..err..well they were some stereotype. They move to the country where there were more stereotypical hicks to pick on him. Or something like that. A few characters were randomly thrown in so they could pretend it was intended to make sense (ex. Jamaican, old lady) but I'm not sure why they were really there. Mainly all you heard was choppy, barely audible dialog, then crappy background music blaring in the background while scenes skipped around like the west was won. Absolutely made no sense, a storyline overused x 10 (but at least the others made sense). By the end of the movie I still had no clue what was going on. World War Two? Maybe. Apocalypse? Perhaps. Brain-Eating Zombies? Well then I might have been interested.

Do. Not. Watch. Children of young ages will get bored easily as I have discovered, and anyone over 12 may jump off a bridge to get away from said movie. Don't waste your time.


This is a simple, straightforward film, about a family moving away from the city, to start a new life in a small country town. After being subjected to bullying, Sam Docherty, played with absolutely no emotion by Matt McCoy, is forced to make the right decision and testify in court against them. Within ten minutes, the family has moved house, and the eldest daughter is asking where the nearest mall is. At a small garage, Courtney spots the guy who predictably will later become her love interest. Upon paying for their goods, their credit card is declined, and you know from that point on that this entire movie is going to be predictable. Within 25 minutes we are introduced the customary `best friend', in the form of an adorable dog, whom it is decided is a stray, with no apparent regard for any owner it may have been fortunate to have. Enter Sam's new neighbour, `Gil', played by Billy Kay. It is instantly apparent that he is a troublemaker. He has a the stereotypical pierced ear of all young hoodlums. What follows is a feeble attempt at their bullying of Sam, followed by a feigned friendship in the hope of becoming closer to the beautiful Courtney. We also meet an elderly and slightly eccentric lady with a pie to greet the family. What follows is a tired, formulaic tale of a boy, his bullies and his ever faithful dog. `Earring boy', picks on Sam, is chased away by the dog, which looks for all the world like it will lick him death. Father of "earring bully" decides "I don't want you hangin' round new kid"...shortly after this point we learn that his mother died...father raises him alone...blah...blah. The scene of them climbing the fence, with "scared fat kid being scared" may well have been stolen from Stand By Me... The fairground scene equally predictable and nauseating as we see the "romantic interest" blossom, while bad kids steal fireworks, and you just know "sumthin' bad is gonna happen" There's even a "bridge crossing" reminiscent of SBM, at which point "bad earring boy" falls into lake, is naturally saved by boy, just before they all go over the waterfall that wasn't there 2 minutes ago, and the dog has disappeared only to make the customary reappearance at the end of the film when everything turns out happily ever after, the good and bad all become friends, and while playing chess (the way new best buddies always do), along comes baddies daddy, with a peace offering, and a hearty welcome and along comes doggie to be greeted with absolutely no emotion by kid, and they all lived happily ever after. From start to finish, this film is tired and predictable. Even the usually outstanding Paul Franklin Dano and Billy Kay cannot pull this film into life, as the scripting and direction are appalling. This is bland, predictable and formulaic. It is a genuine torture to watch. There are thousands of movie's in this genre, and nearly all do a much better job. If you're looking for a decent `sappy' family film, look elsewhere. Lassie, with Tom Guiry, is a much more enjoyable film, and while as predictable as most of these films are, is at least played out with some passion and enthusiasm. This film draws heavily on stereotypes, religious beliefs, and family values, in a lame attempt to cobble something remotely resembling a story. By the end of the film, the only thing more tired than myself was the film itself. Good points? It's a rather nice dog. Most definitely not recommended viewing; A total disappointment from start to finish.

Ollie


Every once in a while -- perhaps more frequently than that -- you watch a movie and marvel at the the notion that someone would spend the time and resources to transform a stunningly incompetent script into a feature film. This particular film is so lacking in plot and character development that it is almost a marvel to behold. The motivations of the characters are laughably non-existent. And there is a pervading blandness to the whole affair that would send even the most undemanding young viewers into deep coma.

I can't imagine why I took the time to slog through this unfortunate excuse for entertainment, although I did get a little bit of exercise from constantly shaking my head and wondering how much worse a "family film" could get. How Kate Bosworth and Jeff Fahey got involved is a question best answered by their respective agents.

By the way, the packaging on this DVD suggests, perhaps, that this is a "boy and his dog" movie. It is not. The dog is a random addition that is every bit as disconnected to the "story" as I was.

Avoid this at all costs, and add 90 precious minutes to your life.


A big city family that runs into financial difficulties relocates to a small American town to start over. After arriving in the new town the father discovers that he does not have the job he was promised and the wife takes a low paying job despite her husband's objection. The teenage children initially have trouble finding new friends and adjusting to the slow paced life of country living. The antagonist is the extremely unfriendly neighbor from across the street who, for no apparent reason, is openly hostile towards the newcomers. This slow moving film preaches that strong family and religious values will help a family overcome difficulties and prevail over hardship. This is a sappy and predictable film with average acting and no redeeming qualities. Don't waste your time.


I happened upon this short movie while flipping around channels and since it was so short, I decided to see just what it had to offer. Unfortunately, it offered VERY little. Whether I consider directing, acting, cinematography, screenplay or score, it's sorely lacking in quality. Fellow commenter Jeff from LA states, "...it has a positive message that any Christian should be able to relate to." This may well be true, but since the stated intention of the film was to speak to non-believers in a meaningful way, I'd say this film fails miserably.


I watched "The Appointment" on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. It was not the worst Christian movie I have ever seen, but it could qualify for the Top Ten. (There are plenty of "Jesus films" that have bad actors, bad scripts, and bad special effects.) Anyway, "The Appointment" is a made-for-video about a woman who is told she has a limited amount of time to live. She is told this by a mysterious man who gives her a Bible. She says she gave those "fairy-tales" up a long time ago. If someone came into MY office and told me I only had a certain amount of time to live, I would call the police. Anyway, following this incident the lady gets paranoid and slowly realizes that maybe she SHOULD be saved. Unfortunately, she is a little too late.

The ending isn't happy, but it certainly did not make any impression on me. It can truthfully be described as cheesy and laughable. The acting was stiff and the script was terrible. I recommend you NOT use this as a witnessing tool. TRUST ME.


This is a very but very bad copy of "River Wild, The (1994)", the acting is ok but the script and the mistakes in this movie are so much and so clear that at the half way you really start to ask yourself if they doing such stupidity on purpose, i give you some examples of really absurd moments of the movie. So overall it is a very bad movie, but if you persist to have your own opinion about it, don't read further because from here on i will give some SPOILERS.

They looking for guys and police blocks the road, then we see them turning right because they go that way for they little day off just before the police setup, you really think the police wouldn't stop them to do a little control? Nope they seem like taking a coffee break there! Where in the hell did they get suddenly the extra lifeguards suits (sorry don't know exact name being French) ??? A moment she says when the helicopter fly's by that they don't control the River that's why they can't be seen!!! LOL that is the most stupid thing i heard, you really think they would not survey rivers? Specially when some escaped prisoners are around there. When they turn the boat he catches the gun, for what? because it won't work for a good while when it is in the water, second of all where in the name of god did they get the guns?

And more things all the way on like this... But the best and most stupid is the friend that suddenly turns against his so said love and kids, and believe me it isn't a stranger because at the end he explains much more about the kids you can imagine. Anyway some are really not scared to produce such crap.


Jigsaw was an independently produced film based out of New York City that would have us believe there was an American Fascist movement operating out of New York. A kind of Ku Klux Klan for the northeast.

With New York City's polyglot population it does not exactly lend itself to being a good base for such organizations either now or back in 1949. The American public knew it and for that reason it did not buy what Jigsaw was trying to sell.

One of the gimmicks was to have a few big names in some small one or two line roles. Henry Fonda, on Broadway at the time with Mister Roberts is a nightclub waiter, Marlene Dietrich was an entertainer, and John Garfield as a local tough. Sort of like The List of Adrian Messenger later on, but without the makeup.

Jigsaw needed all the help it could get. The plot is muddled beyond belief and the premise is preposterous to begin with. Franchot Tone and the rest of the talented cast are sadly wasted here.


"Even angels can get their wings clipped!" says New York Assistant District Attorney Howard Malloy (Franchot Tone) to good-time girl Barbara Whitfield (Jean Wallace) as he tries to convince her to tell the truth, and of the consequences if she doesn't. Says Barbara, looking him in the eye, "You got the scissors?" It doesn't take long for Howard to trick her into spilling the beans, or at least start to...but Barbara is now scared, really scared. "Oh, Howard," she cries, "hold me, help me..." And these are the good lines.

If the price is right, and I'd say no more than $3.99 used is the right price, Jigsaw will give you an earnest, disorganized ethics lecture disguised as a crime story. It has two good points. First, you'll have Franchot Tone to watch, an actor I've always considered one of the best in Hollywood. Tone could make even a mundane and slightly ridiculous character seem interesting. He had class, charm, screen presence and top-drawer acting ability. Unfortunately, he had a private life that shredded his dignity. (He got in a fight with actor Tom Neal over Barbara Payton and wound up beaten into a coma with a smashed cheek bone. Payton married him when he recovered and then left him seven weeks later for Neal.) He also was one of those actors, like Gary Cooper, who simply didn't age well. But he was such a classy actor he could even bring some interest to weak tea like Jigsaw, as well as to a number of lesser but intriguing movies like Phantom Lady. Second, you can play the amusing Hollywood game of Spot the Star Cameo. In unbilled bits that last a second or two are such luminaries as Burgess Meredith, John Garfield, Marsha Hunt, Everett Sloane and, I'm told, Henry Fonda and Marlene Dietrich. I must have blinked when the last two were on and I'm not about to watch Jigsaw again just to verify them.

Why would these stars do walk-ons in such a clunky, disjointed movie as this? Probably because they had no idea it would turn out so poorly. Primarily, I suppose, because Jigsaw is a Hollywood lecture on the need to fight extremism. Remember, this movie was made in 1949. The anti-Communist fear-mongers were crawling out from under America's beds to frighten any who didn't believe they way they were told to believe. The Hollywood studio bosses were easily and quickly intimidated; the blacklist which ruined the careers of many actors, screenwriters and directors was gathering steam; and people were being called on to defend before Congress who their friends were, how they voted and what organizations they may have supported or joined. Jigsaw delivers a lot of verbal shots, however heavy-handed, at the reactionary forces. The shots are mind-numbingly preachy. Organizations and people like the Crusaders, says one character to Malloy, "exploit the anti-this and anti-that...and any race or religion they can exploit to use as a scapegoat. Ignorance pays off, and the profits can climb into the millions." He's referring to all the cash that true believers spend on membership fees, annual contributions, badges and T-shirts. All this is true, but the righteousness of the lectures is so earnest it sends us yawning.

The plot is about a shadowy group called the Crusaders, which has been organizing itself into a power center. Its poster shows a handsome Aryan lad against the waving American flag. Their slogan, "Join The Crusaders -- Fight for America!". The implication is clear...the Crusaders will be against anyone who doesn't look, sound or believe the way that Aryan poster boy does. When a columnist is killed while looking into the Crusaders, Howard Malloy finds himself appointed a special prosecutor. He also finds himself in a noxious mess that combines crime, nativism and the reactionary beliefs of some of the privileged few. In the crime category is Marc Lawrence as Angelo Agostini. Lawrence never quite made it out of the journeyman actor category, but he was always good as a crook, a Gestapo agent or a killer. He has a satisfying role in Jigsaw. In the privileged category is Winifred Lenihan as Mrs. Grace Hartley, a smart, saucy and aristocratic society matron, a mover and shaker, wealthy, gracious and...well, don't turn your back on her. Lawrence and Lenihan almost make up for the others.


I got this film from one of those public domain mega-packs on DVD. While this is not a bad film, I can see why the film makers didn't bother renewing the copyright--it just wasn't all that interesting. Most of the problem seems to be with the writing. The plot seems to bounce all over the place and where the film began seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with where it ended. Had all the dull moments and irrelevant plots been eliminated or polished, I really would have enjoyed the film a lot more than I did.

Franchot Tone plays a prosecutor with the DA's office who is initially looks into the case of a White supremacist who might have been murdered. Whether or not this is the case is uncertain, but when Tone's newspaper friend is killed when he tries investigating (again, it was made to look like a suicide), he knows that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot. However, instead of trying to bash heads and get to the bottom of it, he infiltrates an organization that might be behind all this--as well as buying and selling public officials.

As I said, the writing was pretty poor. However, for film nuts like myself, it's still worth seeing for all the strange and unexpected cameos, such as Henry Fonda and John Garfield (among others). Not a good movie but it has enough to it that it isn't a total waste of time seeing it--not exactly a glowing review, huh?!


Franchot Tone is an up-and-coming prosecutor hot on the trail of a shadowy organization called the Crusaders. The acting is pretty good, but the relentless patriotic claptrap makes for a boring diatribe, especially since there's never really much clarity about what the Crusaders are doing and how or why they have political power. And the weird voice-overs and other occasional directorial clumsiness make for difficult viewing.

For those in doubt, this is not film noir. ***Spoiler*** The main character is not disaffected or an outsider in any way. He is never seduced by the shadowy "Crusader" organization that puts him in a position of power (for no apparent reason). He does gets seduced by the femme fatale, but it doesn't even cause him to lose his fiancée. We have a feeling things are going to go bad all along, but the hero isn't under constant pursuit. Those things all make it a suspenser, not a thriller and certainly not film noir.


It is a shame that a generation will think that this is what an operatic tenor should sound like. Jussi Bjorling must be rolling over in his grave. Had he stayed within his vocal range, Bocelli could have been a good light tenor. Maybe he could sign Mozart well. But hearing him butcher Verdi and Pucccini is painful. I just hope that those who champion Bocelli will move on to current great tenors like Juan Diego Florez, Ramon Vargas, and Rolando Villazon.

Bocelli's influence is even worse than his singing. I understand that he is not actually an opera singer, and that he brings a pop sensibility to classical music. I understand that he just wants to evoke the sound of opera for pop fans who would not otherwise care about classical singing. This would be fine, had his fans been so moved by his singing that they went on to explore the world of opera. Instead, sales of pop-classical-crossover like Il Divo have surged, and great artists like Villazon remain unappreciated. It's sad.


Bocelli's attempts at opera are painful. His voice is too small for arias like Nessun Dorma, which results in strain high notes, which in turn results in loss of pitch. Opera fans should avoid him like the plague. However, he does have a fine, pretty voice suited to kitschy, lush pop, if you like that kind of stuff.


This is a western that should have been better than it was, considering the fine cast and production values that went into the making of the film. Picture is about an Indian agent John Clum's efforts to have reservation Apaches police themselves and the surrender of Geronimo are the picture's highlights. There are the usual animosities between soldiers and Indians, and the agent's clashes with the military's preference to disarm the Apache police creates further tensions. An unnecessary sub-plot has an Apache widow smitten with Clum, who is already married. Audie Murphy, was perfect for this kind of role and is good, as is the supporting cast. The movie was filmed in colorful wide screen CinemaScope which captures the beauty of western vistas.


The sheriff of this small Texas border town is the grim and determined Jack Benteen (Nick Nolte). Nick wears his shirts buttoned to the neck, despite the heat, and is decked out in a white, flat-brimmed cowboy hat. The setting is modern -- well, as modern as a Texas border town gets -- and drugs are being smuggled across the border. Nick's trying to stop it but he's getting no help from Washington. His chief adversary in this conflict is Cash Bailey, played by Powers Boothe in a dusty old white suit and another white cowboy hat. I have to pause long enough to applaud those characters' names -- Jack Benteen and Cash Bailey. I don't know why, but I love them. "Jack" -- plain and solid American. "Cash" -- flighty and self indulgent. And "Benteen", a major involved in the Battle of the Little Big Horn, while "Bailey" is a perversion of Jimmy Stewart's name in the best-known and most endearingly heart-warming Christmas movie ever made. Anyhow, Nick and Powers used to be buddies but are now on opposite sides of the law.

On top of that, there is Maria Conchita Alonzo, a Cuban singer who here plays a Mexican singer who can't quite make up her mind which of these two gun-packing hombres she's more attracted to. The perfidious witch switches from Nick because, as she puts it, she wants to know "where we go from here" after a five-year-long love affair. Now, whether Nick can interpret this or not, what she means is that she wants to get married and "build a home." Nick is determined to stride into the middle of Powers' desert fortress in a small town across the border, put an end to his scurrilous and illegal activities, and retrieve Alonzo in the bargain. I won't spend much time on the plot.

The astute viewer will notice that -- yes, it's true -- this is a Peckinpoid movie. It's a kind of combination of "The Wild Bunch" and "Getaway", directed by Sam Pekinpah. All the signature artifacts and ideas are there. Lots of dusty old cars caroming along unpaved roads, bottles of tequila passed back and forth, political corruption, the slow-motion impact of bullets, the hyperglandular machismo, the in-group treachery, the sexy woman who can't be trusted, Mexico as the last frontier, and guns. Lots of guns. The climax of "The Wild Bunch" had a .30 caliber machine gun spraying lead through a crowd and killing millions. "Extreme Prejudice" has a DUAL MOUNT of .30 caliber machine guns spraying lead through a crowd. Double your bullets, double your fun.

It was written by John Milius, a gun enthusiast himself. On one of his films, he had it written into his contract that he would be the hunter who actually shot the animals for the film. On another TV production that he wrote, he had Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders atop San Juan Hill in Cuba, spraying the enemy, and shouting quotes from Henry V's pep talk in Shakespeare's play.

I kind of like these movies of hot, dusty Texas towns with bank robbers and smugglers and bouncing vehicles though. There are several of them floating around. The photography and location shooting are usually pretty good, as they are here. But this one involves so much pandering to one's taste for violence that it leaves a sour taste. For instance, there is a paramilitary group of DEA agents supposedly in it to help Nick do his job. Actually, their leader (Michael Ironside) is corrupt and intends to steal the dope money. Mainly, these extra half-dozen raggedy killers are there to raise the body count at the cathartic mass slaughter. They don't do anything else of import.

The only performance I really felt came across was Powers Boothe's. He effectively combines an easy-going, relaxed, aw-shucks, genial Texan sensibility with an iron core of greedy terpitude. After he shoots a Mexican subordinate unexpectedly through the forehead (big joke), he comes up with something like, "Oh, heck, ya pay a governor enough around here and ya can shoot anybody ya like. Now clean up this mess. Nothing' for a lady to see." It's diverting fun but it lacks entirely any of the poetry that Sam Pekinpah might have brought to it while he was still functioning adequately. There's never a pause for reflection or reality intrusions. Every line, every action, seems designed to propel the plot forward, as if the viewer might be bored if the story took a closer look at the everyday lives of its characters. Fun, yes, but condescending fun.


Walter Hill has done some GREAT movies (HARD TIMES, his first, is still his best, THE DRIVER, 48 HRS, TRESPASS is pretty thrilling too), but this is among is weak works, unfortunately NICK NOLTE, whom I love to watch, does a hammy job (on purpose, probably), the whole movie is poorly photographed (it looks like "made for TV", but in fact I have seen better photographed "made for TV"-movies !), all the other actors without exception (!) seem just to walk through a storyline (to get their salary), which is really just a poor rip-off (without any of the feeling and charm) of THE WILD BUNCH. And IF it's meant "tongue-in-cheek", then it wasn't really entertaining either, the few cynical comments weren't witty enough.

I still remember the trailer they used to promote this movie in Europe (it's a different trailer than the one here on the IMDb, which is a weak trailer, too) and it was in fact a TERRIFIC trailer, just great, with the soldiers being introduced in scenes I never saw in the movie (you never see the soldiers sparkling in Nolte's glasses in the movie either...), so I remember having felt let down when I saw it first (nearly 20 years ago), but recently I wondered if it's time for a new viewing, when it was aired on TV here a few days ago: well, as said above my memory was unfortunately right and it still has not improved with time (never will).

Watching this, one will understand why the very promising career of Walter HILL as director has unfortunately declined. A pity!


Vamps: Deadly Dream Girls (1998?) was a complete waste of film. We normally can get through even the worst of movies but had to put this one on the shelf. We tried on two separate occasions to watch this garbage and failed. It borders between soft-porn and the worst episode of "Full House." This flick has everything, bad acting, bad dialogue and even bad editing. The script could've been made into a watchable movie but sadly these people failed. This nugget is offered by Independent Edge Releasing and we're sure that all of their titles couldn't be this bad. It runs 90 minutes and is unrated. Well worth the watch if you like this kind of "brain-candy" otherwise, stay as far away from this offering as the black plague. This opinion seems to be the minority amongst the underground circuit


Yet another limp, pointless straight-to-video T&A soft-core opus masquerading as horror - why don't these people just do Penthouse videos or something... In which a handsome young priest who collects horror movie trinkets finds his young, busty blonde friend stripping in a seedy club run by a cache of amateur vampire vixens who can't keep their miracle bras on. Features bad sound, uninspired directing, very amateurish acting, and some pretty dopey "original" songs. You can howl to such loopy dialogue as "This dude is food!", and other such tidbits. Not as bad as others in the Tasteless Horror/T&A genre - such as Cannibal Hookers"; nonetheless, Vamps: Deadly Dreamgirls cud only be enjoyed by pimply-faced 14 year-old guys. You know yer in for it when the main character ( the priest), which whom we are supposed to empathize with, not only collects trivial horror film memorabilia, but also porn mags and frequents strip clubs. Tacky, unoriginal, and simply bad. MooCow says these Vamps are tramps. :=8P


A good looking, well acted (the leading players are excellent)but dull and VERY disjointed biopic of the famous prophet that seems of though it was cut down from something much longer. Karyo is a good casting in the title role but he struggles in a fairly flat role. Director Christian, (who was art director for Ridley Scott's Alien), gives the film a handsome old world look but he just ambles through the script that rambles on and on and tells us nothing that we did not know about the future and nothing even about the Nostrodamus himself. The performances and occasional moments of interest keep one's eyes half open, but this is missed opportunity on such an interesting subject matter.


I am frankly stunned by the generally positive responses to this dreadful film. 'Star' of the production, Tchéky Karyo does not even seem to be able to act in the conventional sense. He is completely expressionless throughout the film, and portrays Nostradamus as a rather dislikeable, arrogant person who seems to inexplicably attract the ladies at will. Why anyone would deign to talk to him, let alone screw him is a genuine mystery. At one point, Nostradamus is in a carriage, having visions of WWII, shouting 'Stop Stop!' over and over. I wonder if the real Nostradamus could indeed see the future, and if so, could have foreseen this horrible film and been suitably upset by it. Perhaps he was really shouting at the director and writer in this scene. There are some very clumsy moments, such as when our visionary shows a pal a symbol that has been perhaps tormenting him - difficult to tell with Karyo's complete lack of facial expression - which is of course a swastika. Cue ominous music etc.

Each scene is also longer than it really needs to be, with lots of silence and blank expressions supposedly conveying - well, what exactly? The film has the feel and style of a made for TV movie, just made longer with these pregnant pauses. In fact, I think the film is so bad that any change made to it at all could only improve it.

If I could take anything away from this film, it's that Nostradamus could not see the future at all, and was perhaps interested only in promoting himself at any price. A shoddy and pointless affair that in some ways trivialises Nazi atrocities by not even addressing them.


Dig the crazy "once in a lifetime cast" populating this obnoxious late 80s supernatural teen horror opus: Allen Garfield (THE CONVERSATION, BUSTING), Elliot Gould (M*A*S*H*, BUSTING), Richard "Shaft" Roundtree, Michael J. Pollard (DIRTY LITTLE BILLY, "Star Trek"), Shannon Tweed, Henry Gibson, and 90s porn sensation Teri Wiegel? To hell with the movie! the casting work alone makes watching this crap almost worthwhile.

Which is as lousy of a teen horror movie as they come, though I have to admit it does have a couple of interesting things to offer. Allen Garfield plays a history teacher at a high school for 20 year olds who just happens to be a practicing satanist. With the help of his apparently retarded brother Michael J. Pollard, Garfield has been leading a double life murdering hookers for Satan when he isn't giving his pretty boy students a hard time for being late to class.

The pretty boy is played by Derek Rydall who fellow aficionados of 80s teen horror will recognize (or, not) as the freak at the center of ERIC'S REVENGE: PHANTOM OF THE MALL, which also had a somewhat bizarre, once in a blue moon cast (Paulie Shore, Morgan Fairchild, Brinke Stevens, and Ken DAWN OF THE DEAD Foree). Rydell is a stunt performer turned would be leading hunk and now a writer ("The Power Rangers") which is helpful because he got to do all of his own stuntwork, though I am not sure if Allen Garfield was that spry.

Back to the movie, Rydell's pretty boy hunk Billy is blessed with a hot mom, a hot gal-pal best friend, and a new hot blond neighbor who is apparently a hooker turning tricks right in her own home. She also doesn't mind if young Billy watches her at work through her windows, gives him cans of beer and flashes her cleavage at him whenever she gets a chance. What a place! In fact everybody in this movie is either gorgeous, well dressed, comfortably rich or all of the above. Even Elliot Gould as the burnt out washed up cop who used to be Billy's dad's partner back when he was on the force. His place has Japanese wicker furniture, a polished hardwood floor and yet he still mopes around in a funny hat just like in BUSTING looking all burnt out & washed up, which Elliot Gould is of course very good at.

Where was I. Oh yes, the neighbor finds herself being murdered for a satanic ritual while Billy watches, he decides to climb up onto her roof to get some pictures to better remember the moment by, and realizes his history teacher is really a disciple of Lucifer. The film then becomes a "Nobody believes me!" game where Billy tries to convince Shaft that his history teacher murdered the hot blond next door.

You'd think someone might listen to the kid -- he even has pictures, mind you -- but no, he and his spunky cute girlfriend have to play Nancy Drew & the Hardy Boy to try and get evidence nailing the guy and end up being chased by Michael J. Pollard in D-Day's Deathmobile from ANIMAL HOUSE. Their solution to get away? THROW A WATERMELON THROUGH THE FRONT WINDSHIELD, which isn't as surprising as the realization that people grow watermelons in Los Angeles in random urban lots.

Meanwhile (there are a LOT of meanwhiles in this movie) Michael J. Pollard also has porn starlet Teri Wiegel chained up down in their basement, and she gets to display her naked breasts for the camera before being slaughtered as a ritual prize for Satan. Yet amazingly this is done in a manner that is surprisingly un-sleazy, which is about the only thing I would fault the movie for: It's not sleazy enough, and ultimately too stupid to actually take seriously.

And yet it has a certain something: Allen Garfield is one of cinema's great overlooked villain actors, his crazed bugging expert gave me nightmares after seeing THE CONVERSATION for about the hundredth time, and what's funny is that the movie actually has no problem with his high school teacher being a satanic pervert. It's just like belonging to the Rotary Club or something, and the weird part is that nobody seems to care even when it should be pretty obvious that the guy has some major judgment issues as he plays bizarre, legally problematic head games with his students. While wearing a pink tie. Right.

You'd think somebody would have said something to the school board about him, but there's a sort of white-bread suburbanite conspiracy going on in the movie's fictional community where everybody does their best to fit in, not rock the boat, and just shrug it off as one of those things. Which is what might work best about the film: Any community that has hookers wandering the streets, satanists butchering them and hot blonds moving in next door who don't mind being ogled by their horny neighbors can't be all that boring of a place to live, I guess.

4/10


Cute, young Billy Coulton (Derek Rydall--who wears really tight pants all during the picture) sees call girl Lisa Grace (Shannon Tweed) stabbed to death by his high school teacher (Allen Garfield). This all happens within the first 30 minutes. The next tedious hour involves Billy trying to convince the police that his teacher is the murderer while the teacher zeroes in on Billy.

Unscary, stupid, dull "horror" movie with gratuitous nudity thrown in (all the victims are hookers). Also Elliott Gould (who doesn't pop up until a hour into the film) is totally wasted. I'm giving this a 2 because Rydall is good (and really handsome) and there are good performances by Tweed and Richard Roundtree (!!) as a detective. Otherwise this is just a hopeless mess. Skip it.


Years ago I saw this movie and didn't remember it being so bad. I was surprised, in fact, that upon seeing it again I really disliked the film and thought it failed on so many levels. While not as bad as JET PILOT or THE CONQUERER, this is a truly stupid film and is best skipped by all but the most devoted fans of John Wayne.

The biggest and most annoying aspects of the film is Wayne's continually talking to his invisible girl "Baby". Repeatedly throughout the film, he talks to her almost like he's a narrator describing his character's inner machinations. And he does it in such a clumsy way with lines like "did ya hear that, Baby?" or "Eh, Baby" every few minutes. PLEASE JUST SHUT UP!

Secondly, there just isn't much chemistry between him and Lauren Bacall. Her character is completely undeveloped and rather wooden (except when she inexplicably wants to drop everything and get herself killed for absolutely no reason late in the film). His character is a moron--and an obnoxious one at that.

Third, I hated seeing Americans playing lead Chinese characters. While this may have been more common in the 1930s, it's here as well. The funniest example is Mike Mizurki as a Chinese guy!!! Hmm,....very reminiscent of John Wayne as Genghis Kahn in THE CONQUERER.

So all-in-all, this is a bad movie--whether or not it stars John Wayne. The writing, acting and direction are all poor and I can think of no reason to see the film. I know some of his devoted fans will think it's heresy for me to pan this film, but for every great film he made at least one dud. And this one, while not his worst film, is a dud.


Not a bad movie, but since it is made by Americans, there is a lot of USA born Chinese trying to speak Chinese without much success, and it turns out to be goobledegook. Should have hired some real chinese to do the speaking parts.

John Wayne's reference to "baby" makes me want to puke, it is cheesy to the extreme. Some great actions by the steam boat, unfortunately not by actors. I will not watch this film again, once is enough.


.... Though that`s only to be expected . It`s not like anyone is going to confuse John Wayne with Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton are they ? , so when you have a movie about the Duke escorting a bunch of refugees downriver from Red China you know what to expect ie all Chinese who aren`t commies are brave and noble and could easily pass as WASPish Americans while all communist Chinese are drunk , stupid and rape anything that moves . Like THE GREEN BERETS there`s no racism involved since the point is made - And it`s as subtle as hitting someone over the head with a sledgehammer - that we shouldn`t judge people on the colour of their skin only on the colour of their politics . If you liked THE GREEN BERETS you`ll like this . I didn`t but there is some irony involved in seeing John Wayne dressed in the uniform of red army officer


really, a comment by nnnn45089191 is exactly what this movie is,

Right-wing propaganda of the 50's Author: nnnn45089191 from Norway

Most of the views here are from western countries, where people had tunnel vision of what china was about in the 1950s. propaganda is a universal tool used by Germans, Japanese, Americans, Chinese, English, in fact all government in that chapter of earth's history.

the movie didn't even try to depict the real environment in china, having westerners dressed in feudalism period Chinese costumes and speak cantonese (mandarine is the official Chinese language and cantonese is only spoken in one Chinese province - canton) is just hilarious. And it also shows how desperate the film producers are trying to convey the story, no matter how unprofessional the movie looks.

and when the "Chinese navy" fired, the battleship officers were speaking cantonese too... and Chinese army had absolutely no such fire power in the 1950s.

if you don't get the hang of this, try imagining this way, 1. American's war against the native indians, 2.a bunch of white Americans dressed like indians, speaking a minority Indian language poorly 3.indian army's fighter jet rains death

really, the film makers have no idea what china really is and they clearly showed no intention of even trying to convey the true image... the whole story was a make up.

u really need to ask, what is it that they want to achieve by making such a film.

i think they just want to evilize the Chinese communist government (they may be or not be, now their people are manufacturing for the world), like what GW Bush did to the old iraq regime whom was once supported by the USA government itself.


This anime was visually astounding, to say the least. It is quite amazing how much they did with CG and how well they did it, also compared to other current anime projects. However there are still some drawbacks to this as in several scenes one can literally count the different parallax and compositing layers. Sometimes the difference in crispness between characters and background can be irritating, as if a simulated depth of field went haywire; this results in a kind of 'patchy' look. And yes, you can still identify CG even though the shaders are extremely good and I do not want to know how much post-processing they put over it.

Unfortunately it is also impressive how hollow and lifeless the plot and characters of this anime seem. It completely failed to draw me in or even create a tiny spark of interest for any part of the story, so it was just a bunch of pretty pictures flowing by, connected by conventional out-of-the-box plot elements. It was like watching anonymous people from about one kilometer away. Not to mention that with the progression of the movie the banalities increase so much that simple disappointment is replaced by annoyance. I could barely stand the last third.

Bottom line: technically amazing, visually good, but I can only recommend to stay clear of it because the plot is so depressingly disappointing.


To think I could have just rented Steamboy and got it over and done with. But it was only the UK Theatrical cut that was available to rent and with a Director's Cut available in a limited edition box set out there I had to be a snob and go buy that. What a complete waste of money. Steamboy is a steaming pile of crap! The only thing I liked about it was the quaint depiction of olden-days English countryside. The rest was so phenomenally boring, that I was almost falling asleep.

James Ray Steam (voiced by Anna Paquin, sounding more like a Gaelic South-African than a boy from Manchester) is the grandson of some good scientist and the son of some bad scientist...blah blah blah...steam power...blah blah blah...war machines. Christ almighty, I am sending myself into terminal coma even summarising this guff!

The cover makes it look like some sort of exciting superhero story. But all of the action happens in the last 10 minutes. Everything before this is so, so unbelievably slow. Every line of dialogue so flat. Every character bland as living hell.

I wish to erase this film from my memory forever and I am extremely bitter over the 2 hours I WASTED watching it.


Overlong, overblown and overly-annoying. Characters weep and scream at the slightest provocation. Has slight attempt at some visual motifs, which is why it got a 2/10 instead of a 1/10. Performances were mostly grating, perhaps with the exception of Quiyi. Plot turns are explained away by a ridiculous-sounding voiceover, so what we're left with on-screen is just weepy trash. A complete waste of my two hours.