I want to hurt this movie. Like it hurt me.

But first, I need to hurt the puerile-minded fans of this schlock: Any ratiocinating fools who entreat those of us with a modicum of intelligence to "sit back, relax and enjoy this entertainment" do not realize that we who rail against bogus "science" in movies of this ilk, do so NOT because of bogus science per se, but because of the INCONSISTENT bogus science. We may not boast Geophysics degrees, nor do we aspire to atom-splitting scientific accuracy  we just want CONSISTENCY!

Example 1: If your movie maintains that pigeons use the earth's electromagnetic field for "long-distance navigation", why show pigeons disoriented whilst tooling around the few hundred feet of Trafalgar Square?

Example 2: If your movie cites Real Science to explain the impossibility of generating enough energy to start the planet's core re-spinning, why not establish that it takes that same impossible amount of energy to STOP the core in the first place? More on this later.

This movie has less "science" in it than Star Wars  and Star Wars has NO science in it.

Furthermore, note that "implausible" = fiction; "impossible" = fantasy. A laser disintegrating rock to nothingness: implausible. Humans sustaining diamond-crushing pressure in the earth's mantle - no matter WHAT they're wearing, let alone wafer-thin spacesuits: impossible. Throughout the film, Impossibility outweighing Implausibility means this is Science FANTASY, not Science "Fiction", so cease associating it with a once-legitimate term.

When physics knowledge was at a groundling stage, scientifically-inept tales like "Journey to the Center of the Earth" were acceptable, but these days, even the common rabble are well-versed in general physics, so it is INEXCUSABLE that knowledge be so denigrated, ignored and subjugated to the inadequacies of feeble-minded technicians with big budgets, who promulgate ANTI-knowledge with their idiotic product

Movie opens with a guy who looks like Peter Gallagher sans Eyebrows dropping dead at a board meeting  so begins a series of events that establish that the earth's core has inexplicably stopped spinning, causing electromagnetic anomalies. So scientists must drill down and re-start the spin with The Universal Solvent  nukes.

But the spin begins long before they take the plunge

At a militia symposium, geophysicist Aaron Eckhart (your average "biscuit-thrower" college professor: disheveled hair, attire and lifestyle; upon arriving home, throws biscuit to dog which has no name  Hollywood stereotype created by Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon"), cites Physics 101, yet none of the generals seem to have even a sixth-grade education, as they stare dismayed at his demo of burning a peach with a spray-can, to illustrate  get this!  how the Sun would burn the earth were it to lose its electromagnetic covering. The stupidity meter could go no lower at that point.

Movies of this ilk are constructed around one or two thrilling sequences upon which the burden of the storyline is draped uncomfortably  such a scene was the introduction to grotesquely gorgeous Hilary Swank, as her crew emergency-land Shuttle Endeavour in the LA Aqueduct. The movie's pitch was ALL ABOUT sonic-booming over Dodger Stadium and navigating through overpass bridges like technofied T-Birds from Grease. Magnificently-staged, the thrill meter hit climax  consequently, it was all downhill from there.

Stanley Tucci's suavely turtle-necked character is simply to insult Carl Sagan. Ironic that we meet Tucci exiting his Einstein seminars, even whilst this movie flings caca in the face of Einstein's most rigorous theorem (E=mc squared).

Tchéky Karyo, as Frenchman Serge, is the only likable character. Of the admittedly talented cast, his performance alone is so poignant that we're truly saddened to see him die. (His end was pre-ordained; he was, after all, French.)

Let's play Meet The Stereotype: gorgeously grotesque D.J. Qualls as computer-hacker, Rat. Isn't his "unlikely hero" character one of those rootless, amoral beings who make our modern online lives unbearable with viruses and identity theft and their wholly unnecessary existence? The sooner they are eradicated, rather than pedestalled, the better.

There's the Square-Jawed American Pilot (least-known of the principals  ergo, first to die); Delroy Lindo, Token Black Dude; That Guy from Six Feet Under and Alfre Woodward as the preposterously miscast Flight Director. One keeps expecting F. Murray Abraham in a movie this bad. (The actors did their best, but the blathering catastrophe of the script gave them no quarter.)

Lindo constructs their drilling craft with a substance called Unobtainium (stop that laughing in back!), which, he tells us, converts heat and pressure to energy, so the deeper it gets, the stronger it gets.er, I think the misinformed "scientist" MEANT to say that energy in the form of heat and pressure is converted to MASS by the Unobtainium. (Remember that "E=mc2" thingy?) Was the "science consultant" a G.E.D.?  and more importantly, may I book some time to slap him uncontrollably?

The SCRIPT was made of Unobtainium. The deeper it got, the more energy it expended in keeping us from frying in outrage.

In an Act II sequence, where everyone takes turns saying something scientifically illiterate, Tucci reveals that a man-made device, "Destiny", is responsible for the stalled core. I'll say this once: NOTHING MAN-MADE can output the amount of energy needed to stall a PLANET'S core. What part of "NOTHING MAN-MADE" don't the film-makers understand? Arrogant, anthropocentric, bacterial mites!

Conceited humans refuse to acknowledge One True Fact: THE PLANET will be fine  whether or not the core spins at all; *whether or not humans EXIST at all*. You're only "saving" it for your OWN selfish ends

As the two surviving Attractive People are rescued, Rat cries, "The earth is healing itself!" - It was never sick, dimwit!

But I think I'M going to be

(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)


This film is quite amazingly bad. So bad that it's thoroughly entertaining.

The special effects are OK, sometimes they are quite good and they are always sufficient for the film's needs. The actors are generally capable but their performances are wooden. Is it the script? Is it the direction? I think it's both. The basic plot line is pure 1960s 'B' movie but whoever turned that into a script must have been on a deadline. Maybe the director realised that there wasn't much he could do to rescue it so just moved as quickly as possible from set piece to set piece.

Best actor: Stanley Tucci's hairpiece.

Best game: Guess which character dies next.


The Core is such a bore to sit through and it doesn't really make a lot of sense either. For reasons unknown, the earth's inner core has stopped rotating, causing the planet's electromagnetic field to rapidly deteriorate. Instantly, life around the globe begins to change dramatically. Scrambling to resolve the crisis, government and military officials call upon geophysicist Dr. Josh Keyes and a team of the world's most gifted scientists to travel into the earth's core in a subterranean craft piloted by Rebecca "Beck" Childs and Commander Robert Iverson. Their mission: detonate a nuclear device that will reactivate the core and save the world from sure destruction. The plot sounds exciting and this could have been a good disaster type flick Unfortunately it wasn't as this film was pretty boring. I know this isn't a film your supposed to take seriously. Your just supposed to sit back and relax. I did try doing that and it still wasn't very enjoyable for me. The film starts off nice but by the middle it starts getting too stupid even by my low standards. The cast is talented, too bad they don't show it in this film. Hilary Swank is a great actress yet she couldn't even save this film. DJ Qualls, Stanley Tucci, Bruce Greenwood and Glenn Morshower are all good actors yet they all together could not save The Core. The worst actor in the film is Aaron Eckhart and I find it odd that he gets work in Hollywood. Jon Amiel directs and he does a poor job of doing so. The only thing this film had that was above average was the special effects. Everything else about this film was pretty bad. The acting was bad and the dialog was pretty lame as well. The direction was bad and there was very little character development. Some of these things don't really matter in this type of film but it becomes more noticeable when you don't find the movie entertaining. The science isn't realistic though that's a given. The Core runs for a very long 135 minutes and it feels longer then that. Sometimes the film is unintentionally funny and that's always a bad sign. Some of the destruction scenes were okay but they were no where as good as The Day After Tomorrow and other disaster films. In the end, The Core is a pretty bad film and it fails to entertain. Rating 3.4/10, worth skipping as there are better films out there.


The magnetic field of Earth stopped from working! This horrible scenario faces us in this thriller. Okay, it sounds a little awkward, but hey, maybe we get a well-enough crafted explanation to make it feel believable for the sake of entertainment. Alas, we don't. This movie was a huge waste of money. The writing is so horrible, i was cursing myself for not having any beer left to ease the pain. The characters were obnoxiously superficial and cliché-loaded, i could perfectly understand the actors to not be interested in bringing their characters to life.

But nothing can beat these ridiculous ideas! Stupid actions of the protagonists take turns with the movie presenting hilarious effects of mother earth going bonkers (mostly by ignoring all laws of physics). I don't expect everything in a movie to be completely correct, after all it is entertainment, but at least once in a while something should work in theory in the real world! Research...!! Is that really too much to ask?! Oh, and the writer sees Europeans only as making nice victims in movies. At least this time it is not again the Eiffel Tower, that explodes. But again, when Mr. Scientist explains what is going on in the first part of the movie, he makes it really, really easy (not to say primitive) to understand the basic physics behind the idea of the film. And if the target audience doesn't come from Europe, who is this kinder-garden-lecture aimed for then...? But whom am i to assume... At least now i know we live on a peach which will be burned by a flamethrower.

In short: Spare yourself or expect major rubbish.


This is Hollywood formula action/sci-fi at its worst. You can almost hear the movie execs being sold on this one. "Well, it's kind of like Armageddon, except it occurs at the middle of the earth, and it's also kind of like..." Basically it borrows scenes from every disaster/action movie you'll ever see.

I don't blame the actors. The cast is filled with decent talent for the most part. They didn't have much to work with given the cartoon-like script and paint-by-numbers storyline. This movie also completely misses the point of the "science" in sci-fi. In order for a sci-fi story to work, the science aspect has to at least seem somewhat plausible. Anyone who has ever studied anything about computers, physics, chemistry, or geology will find themselves laughing hysterically during this nonsense.

Even the special effects are rather weak. It seems no one was really sure how to depict a journey to the center of the earth in a space-ship like vehicle. So we end up with a lot of shots where the ship seems to be traveling through a vague, nebulous electrical cloud. I won't even discuss the laughably bad destruction of Rome, Italy sequence.

I know some will defend this as a mindless popcorn flick. But how many times can we watch the same old story unfold? How many times can we watch the same cookie-cutter characters go about their predictable business?


As a bit of a Sci-Fi fan, I was really looking forward to seeing this movie. How disappointed was I when I realised (15 minutes in) that this movie was more than a disaster movie, it in itself, was a DISASTER. With terrible dialogue and awful acting combined with a sever lack of drama, this movie is an embarrassment to the Sci-Fi movie industry. What baffles me is that these directors are given millions of dollars to produce a blockbuster and then they churn out rubbish like this! Do they not realise that there is no credible acting being carried out or that the screenplay is terrible? I wasted over 2 hours of my life last night watching this.... how many months of her acting career did Hilary Swank waste?


I'd say half of the movie is Hollywood fiction, and the other half could be a remote possibility- only because I believe that the Earth's magnetic poles have shifted, in the distant past. However, I don't think jump-starting Earth's nickel-iron core, will resume proper rotation, preventing gravity failure from sucking every known object out into space.

I was fascinated by the visual renderings of what may lie beneath the Earth's crust...especially the hot, hostile environment inside the Mantle. Can you imagine? I still laugh at the deep-burrowing craft developed for the mission itself....which is the mechanical equivalent of a Diamond/Carbide-toothed sea Lamprey(species of Leech).

I agree the filmmakers opting for such a lofty objective, were obviously gunning for huge box-office receipts just like Deep Impact, and Armageddon. Nice try guys. At least get your science down right before making such an ambitious film, and don't cast Hilary Swank for such intellectual roles, like a Physicist anymore.


The poor script is the culprit in this failed project, not only is it a mere replica of any other sci-fi catastrophic movie ever made, it's a bad one at that. Don't watch this movie unless you want to learn what to avoid in movie making.

Acting is OK though, thankfully the movie has some good actors but it doesn't come close to compensating for this hopeless flick. Had it not been for the acceptable acting I would have given it a 2 instead of a four.

Even most of the graphical wizardry, which today is a standard part of a lot of movies and no longer any great obstacle to create, is poor and it even seemed they re-used a lot of animated shots a couple of times. Either that or it's just repetitive, which is almost just as bad.


That sums up the whole movie. The movie is clearly made just to entertain few friends. The plot is absolutely stupid, "acting" is simply terrible and the dialog sounds like it had been improvised during shooting. The special-fx though are pretty good for a no-budget film like this. There's few pretty good jokes like the occult library of a mad scientist which includes necronomicon, and kama-sutra. The use of Finnish V-word (equivalent for English F-word) gets to your nerves. I mean it's said about 200 times and enough is enough. If you like very bad movies this one's for you. The DVD release includes lots of extras, like the short movie "El' Pok Erimas Sacre" which is actually much better than Frankenström.


Frankenström is pure crap! It might be funny for the makers of the film, but to others it is pure torture. I watched this with 5 of my friends and everyone hated it. Tedious "love" scene and unfunny dialogue doesn't really help.

1 out of 10

[ ½ star out of ***** ]


How to make a film in Italy.

A script that has anything original or "important": war is bad, that's it. But it's a "liberal" point of view, so it's good and it's enough.

The same actors seen in every Italian film adding the usual comedian out of a night show (Favino) to have a "known one", and an homage to "bigger names" of the director's circle, giving a cameo to Orlando (Moretti's best one) and Cederna (Salvatore's own).

Bad acting: in Italian, every actor murmured in some local "patois", and hardly you can understand what they say. That's a cliché of every Italian war movie, that Italian soldiers uttered strong local accents: war movie or comic film. Not else.

Even budget wasn't SO low, no attempt to research what's the right uniforms, vehicles, terms, historical details, as none of the blue-nosed liberal producers wants to talk with the "militarist" who collect or study military history.

Spice all with "I'm an artist" attitude, and you have a typical Italian movie.


Can't speak to the version pictured here as I'm not sure I've seen it but it sounds suspiciously like a bootleg version that's been floating around Internet for years.

Several people who have reviewed it have commented on the atrocious transfer, which was case with disc I saw--everything reduced to fuzzy pastels, suggesting it was duped from multi-generational video that wasn't very good to start with. Plus, I may be one of the few people who actually saw this in a theater in 1970 and DVD version I viewed was obviously missing numerous key scenes, if not entire reels. "Plot" now simply lurches from one incomprehensible sequence to the next and makes no sense.

This seems to be one of those movies that has been out of circulation so long that it has somehow built up a reputation way beyond its actual merits. Not even enjoyably cheesy, it's simply a totally amateurish sexploitation cheapie that can't begin to hold a candle to the campy heights of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Myra Breckinridge or The Christine Jorgensen Story, films to which it is frequently compared, usually by those who haven't seen it.

Charm-free cross-dresser that plays Dinah is on sleepwalk mode, Warhol protégé Ultra Violet appears absolutely bored with her small cameo and most of cast looks like they were recruited from happy hour at a Santa Monica Blvd. hustler bar.

Despite its rep, this curio is just not very much fun and is frequently flat-out dull. Not that this review will probably discourage anyone who wants to see for himself. But you've been warned.


I was in a mediocre hotel in England, up at two in the morning and couldn't get to sleep. I decided to put the TV on and one of the first channels I flipped to was a show starring Christopher Lloyd. It looked pretty bad, but there was something about it that was strangely fascinating...

I later found out that it was not actually a TV show, but rather a television movie. (Wow, big difference.) Christopher Lloyd plays Quicksilver, a mysterious old man who roams the country delivering moral tales. His first he delivers to a newlywed bride whose car has broken down, and whose husband has wandered away looking for a gas station.

His tale involves a similar fate involving a man named Charlie (Matt Frewer) who picks up a hitchhiker and is nearly killed by him.

The next involves a man whose hand is chopped off by his other hand (!) and all the hands in the world start a revolt. Yes, it's as silly as it sounds, and hilarious to watch.

The movie is perhaps unintentionally bad, but I was entertained. It's a very corny, silly movie that is easy to watch. The special effects are simply awful in the hand-attack narrative. I loved it.

Lloyd is overacting (or overREacting?) in a script full of clichés. Author Clive Barker and director John Landis even offer their not-so-subtle cameos.

All in all, if you have nothing better to watch, this WILL keep you very entertained...a huge guilty pleasure.


It shocks me to think there are IMDb reviewers out there who would give this sordid piece of uninteresting, uninspiring, unsurprising, total waste of potential film acting a 10 rating! Never had I painfully sat through such a bomb hoping that the film would just get better because others enjoyed it. Don't waste your time. You're better off getting a cheap B-flick that is campy and fun. This ain't it.


This was simply a sad movie. I sat watching this today on FOX, all along thinking, when is it going to get better? When you consider such classic tales from other programs such as House that dripped blood, or Tales from the Crypt, or even Tales from the dark side, one must come to the conclusion that this series could never reach that level of shock, suspense or fright. While other programs had good writing, this lost me at every turn. I mean, what was the point to the finale ending anyway? How did the teeth manage to kill AGAIN? Who is the Christopher Loyd character supposed to be? This series should die a horrible death by the very teeth it showcased. Sad, it's very sad indeed there is no truly gripping and compelling storytellers anymore. Stay away from this movie or you'll DIE being bored!


When I say 1/10 I really mean awful in a cringing but enjoyable sort of way.

This movie was shown late at night because it is supposed to be scary but I found it hilarious!

Any body who tries to analyse the characters or seeks hidden meanings needs to watch more movies like "Atomic train" and "Tales from the crypt."

Christopher Lloyd must have had De ja vous of "Thing" from "The Adams family" when filming this little beauty.

A fun movie to watch with your mates when your all broke and drunk on cider and cheap wine! I urge you to add this to your DVD collection or a very least borrow it from someone.


i think that a religious sermon wouldn't be scared... i guess this has something similar to all king movies with more than one tale... it's cinematography is very good, and acting is not bad.

it's just that it comes across lame and very cheesy... nothing to be seen here...

i give my points from technical aspects...

otherwise a miss... i've seen a lot worse too, but this is not a winner.

the rest of the lines i'll recommend some horror-movies: the brood the uninvited the entity changeling ...

those kinda movies have some depth


Steven King really must have lost it with this movie. Who ever thought that a chattering teeth toy could kill some one, I mean come on who thinks that is scary? I just thought it was so stupid that it was funny. I laughed through the part that the teeth attacked the guy in the recked van. Christopher Lloyd is pretty weird in this movie as well. Who ever thinks this movie is scary has never watched any movie that makes you jump. This I think is just a movie that doesn't even make sense to have even been made. But this story is funny to watch. This might just scar little kids in to not playing with chattering teeth toys, but I know some kids that this wouldn't scar.


Seriously, I can't believe anyone was even remotely interested in putting this on television. I caught the tail end of the "hand" portion and hated my life for however long that took to finish. There was little else on broadcast television. If there were, however, I wouldn't be writing this; I'd have changed the channel and enjoyed living and breathing.

As I write this, a new chapter has opened up, quickly becoming the obvious cliché it sets out to describe. How ironic! That was sarcasm.

This is one of the worst things I've ever opted to leave on in the periphery. As far as leaving the television on for noise is concerned, you're better off sitting in silence.


This was incredible! Incredibly stupid that is! This is not worth watching. Quicksilver highway does not do any good for the reputation of two of the most admired horror writers, namely Stephen King and Clive Barker! If IMDB had had an option of 0/10 points it would've got just that. I'm hugely disappointed.


I enjoyed the stephen king tale, i thought it did a good job from adapting from the book and it was creative, but the second story, was the most god awful thing ive ever seen on film, it was just horrible, i was in pain watching this, do your self a favor turn this movie off right after the first story, the second one is so bad. 3/10 for a good first story the only thing that gave it points


Christopher Lloyd's name on the cover, Clive Barker in the writing credits and a nice enough sounding titlesthose indicators were enough for me to give this film a chance.A decision I already regret. Quicksilver Highway tells two lame and tedious stories, even though the respected authors Stephen King and Clive Barker wrote them. Lloyd stars as the host and he looks like some kind of goofy masochist with a fetish for the occult. The first tale (by Clive Barker) is laughable effort in which a salesman is saved from a criminal hitchhiker by a set of chattering teeth-toy. I kid you not My little niece has a toy like that and I must say it really looks scary indeed. I didn't think it would be possible but King's story is even lousier. The hands of a surgeon all of a sudden decide to organize a revolution and they want to be separated from the body! Talking hands, peoplegive me a break! Both stories run low on creativity and they're extremely repetitiveYou'd be better of watching `The Hitcher' instead of the first story and `The Beast With 5 Fingers' instead of the second one. In the film, Christopher Lloyd keeps on stressing that his tales contain no moral at allWell, it would have been better if he also mentioned they were pointless and a complete waste of time.


Well, holy moly, people, what do you expect? It's Erskine Caldwell. For those of you who know only the greatest hits from the literature of the 1920s to the 1960s, Caldwell's books "Tobacco Road" and "God's Little Acre" put white trash misbehavior on the map and helped determine the way Yankees saw white Southerners: depraved, ignorant, and crazy, and the stereotypes haven't necessarily changed.

I enjoyed seeing Gail O'Grady and Jennifer Morrison hamming it up as just the sort of depraved, ignorant, and crazy Southerners you expect from Hollywood. I didn't see the movie from the beginning, and can only assume from the bluesy chords on the soundtrack that the movie is set in the Delta, although that's not really Caldwell country. But, of course, where this sort of movie is considered, I wouldn't be surprised to see hillbillies, Cajuns, and the Florida Everglades all in the same film.

As for the portrayal of Christians-- Every character and character type in the movie was so broadly drawn that it was tempting to see it as tongue-in-cheek parody. Definitely a movie that is so bad it's fun.


wow - if there was ever a "message movie," this has the most ridiculous caricatures of Christians I've seen yet from Hollywood - the font of Christian bashing.

I've never met any Christians like these clowns - and I've known literally thousands of Christians (and have been hurt by many and seen hypocrisy and countless atrocities - but far MORE acts of good will, honest, kind and ever-giving hearts). Beyond the obvious "Christians are mean-spirited, busy-body, judgemental kill-joys" theme, and the rest of the plot is a total cliché: feel-good, rich-boy-meets-poor-gold-digging-whitetrash-girl ...and they really fall in love, only to have him cut off by his rich father but they marry anyway and show THEM by living happily ever after. Never seen this story before.... ho hum. Acting is even overdone and unbelievable. While I endure many a boring, sappy movie, this one has nothing at all to offer - complete waste of time. skip it.


This movie is a study in Christian Bashing. We have a "worldy widow" whose "christian neighbor" judges while forgetting her own sins including gossip, pride, and slander among many others.

Then there is the "brainless man of god", who also forgets about such Scripture as, "judge not least you be judged." While pastors can become isolated in their understanding of the world, Hollywood has to distort this to the point of bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and stupidity.

As for the pastor's wife...again an ounce of truth mixed in a ton of manure. A pastor's wife may be "pushed backed",on the one hand and "judged" by the congregation on the other...but what about the pastor and his wife who sincerely do their best to minister to a hurting lost world.

In the New Testament we see Jesus, the Pharisee Simon, and the women who anoints Jesus feet. Simon, representing religion instead of faith, is judgmental and negligent in his duties. Jesus reminds us that often those who need the most forgiveness are those who think they need it the least.

Back to the movie. Molly really tries to do the best for her daughter, while living with the "stigma" of being the local "Women at the Well" (again in Scripture). Could she have been a better mother...what parent does not wish they could have a handful of "do-overs" with their child? As for the daughter, Lilly, she loves her mother even if she does not agree with her. Molly puts her neighbor to shame when it comes to being humane.


I really don't like to say bad things about most movies I watch, no matter how bad they are. I also like 80s horror movies. CHUD, unfortunately, is a not a good movie. It is very silly and even funny sometimes in places where it was intended to be serious.

The dialog is hard to believe and its annoying sometimes because half the time it makes the movie go by very slowly when I wish I saw some action happening.

Cinematically it doesn't look good either. You never actually see the monsters, and when you do see them, the masks and makeup are poorly done. They are green and they have Christmas lights for eyes. Half the movie is set in a dark sewer where nothing is happening until the end of the film. Even with the bad makeup these monsters could have been made to play a bigger part in the movie. So that is kind of a disappointment. There is a funny scene where some guys are trying to contact someone while the guy near the other line is yawning in your face. There is also a funny part where one of the characters swallows a quarter when preventing someone from making a phone call. That was funny too.

CHUD is based on a pretty interesting premise though. Having scary hungry mutants populate the sewer is simple yet scary. Its just not carried out well.

I must say that CHUD is very watchable, despite its shortcomings. Its not that bad. Its funny because its silly and some of the actors are doing pretty good job.


quite possibly the worst film of our generation: no plot, no character development, absolutely no story to be told. This is a sketch movie, and a very bad one at that. Michael Cera is top bill, he's in 1 scene, he really regrets being involved now.this is an awful movie, and not just bad in the sense of it's ironically funny, it's just EXTREMEly bad, avoid like the plague.

Mathew Lillard was this movies only saving grace. His attempts at sexual health tapes were pretty funny.

the musical scene at the end was also a bit humorous, but again severely lacking.


This is called EXTREME MOVIE, just that fact should be enough to make you stay away.

They probably didn't know what to call it so they decided to go with the company names latest edition EXTREME, as in DIMENSION EXTREME, mostly used to distribute horror-movies but this is a "comedy-movie".

First of all THIS IS NOT A MOVIE, it's about 15-20 short sketches which mostly focuses on teenage-sex-life.

There is one story that comes back from time to time between the sketches about a "geek" (played by Ryan Pinkston) in love with the prettiest girl in class (wow, we never heard that before).

I wanted to see it because Michael Cera is really funny in SUPERBAD and he is funny in this "movie" as well, BUT his role although being on the cover of the DVD is limited to one sketch that runs for about 3-4 minutes.

I also noticed that Frankie Muniz and Jamie Kennedy had their names on the cover but they also only appear in one sketch only, and Jamie Kennedy whom I normally find funny is just disgusting in this one.

These types of sketch are better off on YOU TUBE, and there are plenty of YOU TUBE-comedians that are way funnier then a lot of these sketches.

Sure there are a couple of funny sketches like the sick and twisted one about a teen boy in love with a sex-toy, at first I was like "yuck" but I couldn't help but to laugh.

But for the most parts it's not that fun, and it's definitely not worthy spending money on.

I recommend checking out a couple of YOU TUBE-comedians instead because that's all this movie is really, a bunch of YOU TUBISH clips wrapped around a not interesting love-story.

The running-time is just around 70 minutes but a lot of times it feels a lot longer.

This so called "movie" get's 3/10


After Oprah, I had to submit my overdue review. We all here know what this film is about. Black woman falls in love with white man. It was a sweet story that was muddled by pretentiousness and caricatures. I went in with an open mind, after reading all the reviews in IMDb.com and I must admit, much better than I had expected. Does that mean I was moved by the performances? No. Does that mean it should be nominated for Oscars? No. Does that mean it is a thought provoking film that is going to open up the floor for dialogue amongst great minds? No.

Downside: I totally do not approve of the "proving I'm a down a** sister scene." It was pointless and too obvious. It would've probably worked much better with subtlety. But the final cut I had seen doesn't show much room for correction.

Upside: I can tolerate the irony of Brian and Kenya meeting again in the next scene at the garden party. However, does the film benefit from irony in a closely examined issue in America like race relations? Downside: Kenya admitting that she was being rude to Brian wasn't believable for her character. She comes off as a strong headed, stuck in her ways type of girl. It comes too early in the film, showing us her in this sort of "Hooray, I survived the three ghosts of Christmas past," dramatic change.

Upside: I did like the scene where he explains what needed to be done for her garden. For me, that's how real people talk no matter what their objectives or unconscious desires are. It's smart and it will be the only scene of subtlety from here on end in this film.

Downside: Donald Faison's character sounds too ignorant to make me believe that he's as educated as the film wants us to believe. His "cartoonish" behavior only overshadows any sign of his supposed intellect. I not only didn't believe that he was Kenya's brother, I didn't believe that they lived on the same block or were even in the same film. He was also offensive for no reason and annoying. Didn't do much for his character. He needs to stick to "Scrubs." Donald's ignorance only echoes throughout the film with other annoying characters like Mike Epps' character. Why would he even come at Brian like that when they were double dating? Wasn't he new to the picture as well? Who gave Mike Epps' character permission to be the designated older bro of Kenya? I didn't believe it. Just more time to saturate the characters, making their efforts seem that much more irrelevant.

Downside: Kenya's friends are these supposed success stories, but they sound like Dashieky and them on the corner. I know plenty of educated sisters and their so used to "reeling it in" that you'll never hear them talk that ignorant, talking about "having big head kidz" and all that bull. They were talking crazy in the back office of a synagogue during a Jewish wedding, very loud and "ghetto." I didn't believe it for a single second.

Oh, it gets better.

Downside: Now let's all agree that Blair Underwood's character came off as the supposed "I.B.M." Educated, handsome, successful, whatever, right? Kenya had even expressed to the people close to her how great he was. Then why would the writer and director allow his character to totally go left only to make the crisis that much more easier for Kenya? Why would they bring down the value of the telling by making him become that superficial, weirdo that we all love to dislike? Doesn't that make the right choice blatantly obvious for Kenya? It was an easy way out and it wasn't even believable. It would've worked better if Blair Underwood were still a great guy until the end, exemplifying the patience, sincerity and charming qualities that made Brian the winner, and then some. It would've worked better if Blair Underwood's character were beyond competition for Brian, allowing Kenya to make the hard choice to follow her heart, regardless of how she would make "white" look "right." Those are the best love stories, when a man or woman has to choose between two great people, leaving them no choice but to follow their hearts. Wouldn't that had made a bigger statement? And why did Kenya feel the need to bring Brian back to the cotillion in that Mexican suit? Could both the writer and director have made us see how much Kenya accepts Brian for who he is no matter what her friends and family say in a different, more profound way? It killed the film. Now she has something to prove. Pity. And she's using poor Brian to prove it.

Memo to the writer and director: "back to the drawing board with this one." Memo to Oprah: "you need to stick to talking about nothing rather than what films are good. Let's not forget Beloved the countless other films you had put your stamp of approval on; White Chicks, Diary of a Mad Black Woman, Madea's Family Reunion, Crash and many, many more."


Something new isn't new at all - it is a limp attempt - and despite the best intentions leaves the viewer unconvinced that love is in the air.

Compared this to the kind of dialog and natural rapport that creates chemistry and is sparky and fun, and flirtatious - and you will begin to see why I wasn't thrilled. The conversations are very flat and prosaic and simply don't fire the heart or brain.

Something New is not a bad movie - but jumps from awkward situation to making out, to breaking up, to get back together without any brain food

- it just lacks the conversation to back up the script and the premise and the good directorship. More spark please!


THE BEAST MUST DIE begins with some of the worst music for this film as you can image (other than Polka music). This twangy techno-70s music is just terrible and seems all wrong for a werewolf film. And, once the film gets starts, the sound track continues to blare--with music way too loud and invasive for the film. Rarely do I ever complain so much about a soundtrack, but it just hits you like a brick when the film begins.

The film begins with an exciting chase scene--so exciting that you can perhaps ignore the dopey music. It is reminiscent to the film THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME, as a man is being tracked by hunters. However, the hunting ground is very high tech--with motion detectors and microphones everywhere. It turns out that this weird setup was created by a rich guy so that he can invite a group of people there in order to determine which of them is a werewolf!! How, exactly, you'll have to wait to see.

The rest of the film plays a bit like "Ten Little Indians" (also made into the movie AND THE THERE WERE NONE). In other words, it's a bit of a waiting game until ultimately the true werewolf reveals itself. However, despite an interesting story idea, it's undone by a few dumb touches. For example, just when the rich guy is about to kill the wolf, his wife inexplicably stops him from shooting it--even though this wolf is tearing apart their doggy. The other dumb thing is that although this guy is supposed to be such an amazing hunter, he keeps missing--even at point blank range. He's not the only one--two others do the same thing. These moments are just plain sloppy and do so much to undo the good of the film. Plus, with all the rich guy's money, why doesn't he just lock everyone into cages and see exactly who is the werewolf?! The only big plus is the very ending--it's pretty cool.

The bottom line is that I hate films where characters must act stupidly to make the film work. It's a sign of lousy writing--and this film manages to take a very good idea and ruin it. It is watchable, but just barely.


The blend of horror and mystery is a cool combination, but that simply wears out thin after you see it the first time. This may have been a good drive-in film 25 years ago at a time when VCR's never existed. The supposed purpose of THE BEAST MUST DIE is for the viewer to discover clues of eight people, one of which is the werewolf (and no, it's not Paul Naschy, it's a genuine wolf!). Many of the clues are explained in the dialogue. While this is OK as a mystery, it greatly fails as a horror film. There also isn't a specific plot to follow, just a game of CLUE. After the "Werewolf Break", where the viewer decides who exactly is the beast for 30 seconds, things get more suspenseful and somewhat disturbing that leads to the ultimate conclusion where THE BEAST MUST DIE. Nice try for a movie labeled "audience participation", but most likely, you won't be interested in it. And I sure hope those so-called "VCR Games" don't come back!


This is the one with Hector Elizondo as the murderous First Secretary at the Suarian Legation. He enlists an unwitting Sal Mineo as an accomplice, robs the legation of $600,000 after murdering a security guard, then tries to pin the crime on Mineo by bumping him off. He doesn't get away with it.

I'm not sure why this doesn't seem as entertaining as some of the other early episodes. I had trouble right off the bat. What's the difference between a Legation, a Consulate, and an Embassy? And then, as the mystery unfolds, or rather the solution to the mystery unfolds, I found Hector Elizondo not the most engaging of Columbo's adversaries. Oh, he haughty and condescending, like all the others, but his expression never changes. There is no bewitching byplay between him and Peter Falk as Columbo. Then, too, the best of the villains are people we naturally hate anyway -- wine snobs, chess freaks, egg heads, fine art dilettantes, corrupt politicians, superior health nuts, and the like. But there's no particular reason to resent a Suarian First Secretary, so there's no intrinsic hatred for the story to cash in on.

There's not much in the way of comedy in this episode either, and what there is of it is unsubtle. Columbo leans against a pedestal with a three-thousand-year-old vase atop and juggles it for a moment while Elizondo looks on blankly.

There is, though, an unusual twist at the end. Elizondo brags about the crime to Columbo. He can afford to do it because the case is weak and Elizondo has diplomatic immunity, I guess. But Columbo has sneaked the King of Suari into a neighboring room to eavesdrop, and the King tells Elizondo he will now be sent back to Suari to face Suari justice. Elizondo hastily signs a confession and is led away by the LAPD.

I mused for a few moments on how the writers came up with the fictional monarchy of "Suari" or "Suaria." I can imagine someone having thought of "Syria" right off the bat but thinking they obviously couldn't use it. So -- says another writer -- let's just switch that initial vowel and make is "Sauria". A third guy points out that this leads to "Saurian", an English word meaning "lizard-like." So one of the writers suggests transposing the two vowels, resulting in "Suaria," a national name to which no one can object.

One scene involves an encounter between Columbo and some sign-wielding protesters outside the Suari Legation. By an odd coincidence I played a sign-wielding Albanian protester in a scene with Peter Falk in the vastly superior "Tune In Tomorrow." The film sank without a trace, but I understand it has since become an underground art-house classic and that my performance has been lauded by everyone who's seen it. I know this to be true because both my mother and my psychiatrist have assured me it is.

Falk's performance is fine, as usual. By this time he could have walked through the role in his sleep. But the script doesn't give him much, the set-up itself isn't very imaginative, and Elizondo is no help.


This movie deals with the problems a man faces with too many problems in his life. It is OK for a rental . If you like John Ritter( I liked him better in Three's Company), then you might like this movie. It was directed by Blake Edwards(who directed the movie "10"). The movie is almost like a black comedy , other times trying to be a drama. Only watch or buy if you like the main star John Ritter!!Skin Deep is a semi enjoyable movie for John Riitter fans.


It was a hot summer afternoon and I was happy to stay in and watch this John Ritter movie when I saw it featured in the TV guide, but it turned out worth not to be watching at all, unless you are planning on doing a thesis about the 70's "Me Generation", the I-want-it-all and the I-want-to-have-sex-with-anyone-and-everyone lifestyle, or maybe you're interested in 70's disco costumes and puffy super-sprayed mullet hairstyles. but maybe you can tolerate it if you drink as much as the characters do. Hoo boy, what made me ever think those times were FUN!

I turned it off halfway through and I don't even wonder if the pitiful protagonist played by Ritter got to live happily ever after - he certainly didn't deserve to.


This is truly one of the worst films ever made. The characters were pitiable and the entire movie was a connection of cliches and formula subplots. The one memorable scene in the movie wasn't even that funny. My wife and I really felt ripped off. Since I'd MUCH PREFER to see "Plan 9 From Outer Space", voted by many as the worst movie ever, this should be dead last!!


The Oprah Winfrey Presents adaptation of the Zora Neal Hurston novel Their Eyes Were Watching God is a major disappointment. Winfrey's shallow adaptation barely skims the surface details of Hurston's novel and does not capture the spirit of the great book it is based on. Winfrey says the late Ms. Hurston would be proud of her movie; I don't think she should be so eager to speak for the dead. I doubt any author would want to see their work butchered the way Winfrey has done this novel on screen. Oprah Winfrey's adaptation of Hurston's work strips it of its unique identity by removing all the references to African-American culture of the time. Instead of telling a story that detailed the role of Black women in the 30's, detailed the light skinned/dark skinned intraracial issues, sexism, the dozens, symbolism, and utilized the wonderful Southern dialect that made the characters come alive, we get a pasteurized movie that boils away the black culture away like it was an impurity. Without that culture to show us what life was like in Janie's time the movie lacks a true heart and soul. This makes the characters lifeless and one-dimensional. Stripped of her soul, Janie Crawford in this movie becomes a totally different person than depicted in the novel. Because I never got to see the childhood that would have defined the characters' independent free thinking ways, I saw Janie as a slut when she kissed the boy. When Nanny says, "black women are the mule of the world" the words have no meaning. Her marriage to the old man comes off as a way to preserve Janie's morality not stifle her independent way of thinking. Because Winfrey decided to remove all instances of domestic violence from her movie Janie has no motivation for leaving her first husband. In the book she left the old man because he beat her. On screen she comes off as lazy and irresponsible when she hates doing the work on the farm. When she meets Joe Starks it looked to me like she was a gold-digger wanting to live the high life. When Janie gets married to Joe Starks the movie turns into a bad romance novel. He wants to possess her; she regrets letting him objectify her. He only gets angry when Amos is coveting her. The confrontation Joe and Janie had was supposed to build into a humiliating argument that destroyed him as a man. On screen the fight comes on the porch has no bite because Winfrey removed the dozens game and most of the violence from the movie. When Joe dies the film treats his death with a sense of relief. I really started hating this movie because Janie on screen seemed downright cruel. She barely worked a day in her life and was more anxious to spend her husband's money than grieve his loss. The relationship with Tea Cake in the book is not as loving as depicted on screen. Winfrey subjectively decided to leave out of her movie all those scenes in the book where Tea Cake beat Janie in an attempt to make him a big hero. After a flat courtship, they leave town to go on the road spending money and engaging in some lukewarm love scenes. Winfrey makes Tea Cakes' abuse of Janie seem like it's honorable. When he steals Janie's money to go gambling it's depicted as noble. Janie just forgives him for gambling away their money and car and they go off to live in a village full of hippies. The climatic hurricane sequence has no feeling of drama at all. The scenes where rabid Tea Cake and Janie face off before killing him have no tension and no suspense. Arbitrarily Oprah leaves out the funeral scene in the novel where Janie grieves the loss of her true love. What's really important are those frames showing that Janie is still wealthy in spite of her tragedies. Upon returning to town in the end Janie shows absolutely no sense of remorse about killing Tea Cake, the great love of her life. She goes fishing and frolicking as if nothing tragic has happened in her life swimming in the lake she says smiling that she's watching God. That final shot of her made my stomach turn. The Janie Crawford in this movie doesn't make me believe she comes to the conclusion that she loves herself. I see her as a loose gold digging ruthless woman who takes no responsibility for her actions. The men in her life were just fodder to give her nice things. Inheriting Joe Starks' wealth made her someone. Nice message Oprah. Oscar winner Halle Berry is uninspired in the role of Janie. She makes no effort on her own to add dimension to the character, sleepwalking through her part reading her lines as if she were on autopilot. She has no chemistry with Reuben Santiago-Hudson or Michael Ealy at all. Having watched all of Berry's performances since 1989, I can truly say this is the worst performance of her career. She actually put more effort performing in the terrible B.A.P.S than working on this movie. Rueben Santiago-Hudson is passable as Joe Starks. He does his best with the role but there's no script here for him to work with. Terrence Howard's portrayal of Amos rises above the heartless screenplay. He adds dimension to his role making you see the sleazy man coveting Janie from afar. Michael Ealy is a very stale Tea Cake. He's just here to be the baby oil splashed boy toy showing off his abs, pecs and smiling for the camera. Ruby Dee is strong in her small part as Nanny. I believe if they gave her more to do she would have stolen the movie. If you haven't read the book, please do so. Avoid watching this twisted movie adaptation that perverts everything the late Ms. Hurston wrote about. The values promoted by this movie totally betray the message in the book.


I didn't read the book so all I got out of this picture was that Halle Berry's character was never satisfied with her lot in life, had a nice house and a prosperous business in the town where she lived and gave it all up to go off with some stranger only to end up in a hurricane floating on a board with her rabid husband. And, they find time to kiss amidst a raging storm.For all the trials and tribulations she supposedly went through, she seemed almost retarded with the constant laughing and giggling and running down to the water to jump in and float around "watching God". Halle Berry looked almost out of place in that town with her perfect teeth, refined features and skinny body. And that hair! That deserved a place in the credits all it's own. Just smearing a little dirt on her didn't make her look as if she plowed fields, slaughtered pigs and helped build a town. I found the whole movie annoying. I don't recommend it. Guess I should read the book.


I had high hopes for this movie, waiting for to be "touched". And what a disappointment it was.

This movie is like watching zombies moving from place to place.

And yes i got the idea what makers tried to get across, but this movie didn't touch me a bit. It had no soul.

Props for great cinematography here and there though.

SPOILERS A HEAD!!!

And how stupid can you be, to stay in the same room with delirious man who is trying to shoot you, just to wait and wait and wait until you shoot that man. Makes no sense... Normal people would have run out of that house and at least waited until he had run out of bullets.


I have to agree with the first comment, because this movie was nothing special. I have read both the novel and seen the movie and the novel is much better. The movie does have exceptional actors, but it has all the wrong actors for all the wrong parts. The novel was based back in the racial segregation days, and the movie hardly captured a glimpse of the racism in the novel. Janie, the main character was played by Halie Barry, however I think that she was the wrong actor for the part of Janie. Janie was described as the tragic hero of the novel, who was also dim witted and beautiful. Halie Barry definitely revealed Janies Beauty, however Mrs. Barry was much to "snappy" and intelligent to play Janie.

The novel did however capture the "black" town of Eatonville exceptionally well. The "southern bells" of the town were played perfectly, and the attitude of the town was the same as that described in the book. Janies husband, Jody, was an OK actor, but he didn't really capture the true depth that was described in the novel. Tea Cake however, was an exceptional actor, who definitely captured the puppy love between him and Janie, and the cocky attitude that was described in the novel. Overall, the book is much better than the movie.


I'm a big Oprah fan and I wanted so much for this movie to be a success. I feel that it was doomed from the start with the casting. Hallie is a beautiful person, but I don't care for her acting. Her persona is weak and frilly--far too much for her to play the role of Janie. I wish there had been more of a focus on Nannie and the early life of Janie--even spending more time talking about Logan Killicks. Other than the few statements that Nannie made about Janie's mother, we really don't get a since of what Janie's childhood like and what Nannie really taught her about life--black women are the mules. I was also disappointed with the portrayal of Janie and Tea Cake working in the "muck." I have been to Belle Glade, Florida and know how the muck looks and have heard the description of the field workers about how it gets on the body and is nearly impossible to wash off. So when Janie shows up in a sleeveless shirt to work in the muck. Trust me--that just ain't happening. Way to much of the story is missing. It might be an okay movie, if you never read the book.


After reading the book and watching the the movie i feel the movie is a terrible representation of the story. It only held to the books basic plot lines. The language of the book represents the dialect of the south. The movie lacks the true southern feel. Halle Berry is OK as Janie, giving the strong black women role to a power black actress. Her surrounding talent is questionable though. The actor who plays Tea Cake is the first to really use the southern dialect and give the feel that the movie takes place in the south. I feel the movie is a weak representation of the symbols and archetypes in the novel. The book is filled with indications of different representations and intricacies that make it a OK novel. And what happened to Grandma dying? The book dedicates 3 chapters to the grandma and her plan for Janie but the movie totally disregards that fact. The book is more geared to a woman audience and i don't really enjoy it that much, and the southern dialect, while giving the book an authentic feel, makes it a hard read. The movie does a poor job of taking the good points of the book. I think if you are trying to enjoy this story, read the book because Hollywood does a poor job with this one, although i don't feel that book is a real knockout either.


The film suffers from the same weaknesses as "Beloved" Someone murders the film on the cutting floor. Parts of the film which should have been much shorter, as they were only marginally relevant to the story, were given too much time, while other sections which required more time were cut too short to have an impact, i.e. the boy being bitten by the rabid dog, which by the way, just appears in the film without reason or rhyme, leaving the audience to try to figure out what was happening.

Next, the scene where Janie kills her lover was lost because the camera was not on the scene. How wonderful it would have been to see the anguish of a woman in love, who was forced to kill her lover in self defense. That is the kind of acting piece that actors thrive on. It was completely blown off.

Someone with knowledge of how important cutting is to creating a good film is required. Oprah should give up working with film and continue with her day show. There is no one who is good at everything.


I'm sorry. I know that I'm going to get my head bitten off, but Halle Berry is not as great of an actress that everyone wants her to be. I have been extremely disappointed for years with Halle's performances. In this movie, there was no exception. It seems that if there is a sex scene, that is when we see her act her best. Spoken parts just seem not to be her strong suit. Michael Ealy is generally a powerful actor in movies he is in. But I was not feeling Tea Cake at all. It has always been said that: "The book is always better than the movie." And this is true, but sometimes the movie can be as effective as the book it is portraying. But this movie was highly disappointing. I'm a black college student and I read this book my freshmen year in college. I was moved by this wonderful piece of art and excited when they said that there was going to be a movie. While watching the movie, I was shaking my head and thinking of better characters to play in this movie. And I can name plenty. It might be a good movie to watch, if you are a Halle Berry fan. If you aren't really a fan, don't bother.


This book is wonderful because of the strength of its main character, Janie. The story is of a girl growing into a woman and realizing, finally, that she has the right to be more than the mule of the world, that she is strong and has the right to be loved and respected for who she is, not just her beauty or usefulness to others. Her story is very sad in many ways and haunting in its direct, raw ending, but in the end Hurston's book is uplifting and beautiful in so many ways. The movie, on the other hand, while well-acted and visually attractive, does not seem to understand that it is Janie's character development, not her finding love, that is the most important part of the story--and without this development, even with the chemistry between the actors, the story feels shallow. In the novel, Janie's finding Tea Cake is heartening because it is a symptom of her growth into a woman who can lead herself and has the strength to find and believe in that sort of love. In the movie the character did not change as much as she sought to be free from being boxed in--in the film she was always the person she is as she narrates her story, just without the final independence and freedom she achieves. Though it makes sense that the movie had to move things along quickly, the slowness of the story is itself important--watching Janie move through life so quickly aids in our not getting an appropriate sense of her development as a woman. Losing Tea Cake as she does--which is haunting and well-played, as the look on his face as the drool drips down will stay with me for a long time--is not as it should be, just as the story leaves one uncertain and frustrated as to its meaning.


In order to fully explain the disappointment in movie, I must state that I have just about, read every book written by and about Zora Neale Hurston and it was because of the movie. I believe it lack the realness to it. It didn't represent what Zora wanted the world to get from her book. in reading her works , any fan of her's would know that It's the opposite of, what she was trying to represent. And as much as I love Halle Berry, she wasn't the right representation for Janie Crawford. Neither was Michael Ealy, they could have found better actors. However, I respect Oprah's attempt at resurrecting a new interest in many people for one of the world's most extraordinary and misunderstood writers of our time. I think she did a better job with THE COLOR PURPLE!!!!


This is a shame. Great cast (why aren't these people on our screens all the time?), completely wasted. The direction in this movie is the worst I've ever had the misfortune to see - the camera is constantly moving, often rotating round so actors are at angles, or zooming. Combined with extremely quick editing, it makes it difficult to tell which actor is which, let alone what their facial expressions are. This would be excusable perhaps if an inexperienced director tried it for one scene, but it's the entire movie. I suppose the attempt is to convey the pressure and fast pace of a newsroom: instead, it conveyed to me a headache (a good director would allow the actors to do some of the conveying emotion: the direction more or less screams look at me in every scene, to the extent the participant I was most aware of was the camera).

Putting aside the direction, the improvised script does not produce a comedy. The cast do a good job of conveying some relationships between the group, some amusing, but really asking them to improvise a script of one liners in a few weeks was always insane and this really could have used a decent scriptwriter. The audience I was in laughed twice. The original concept isn't bad, the cast try hard and are good, but the director never gives them the chance to salvage this. Avoid.


As a newspaper journalist myself, seeing this film was almost a duty. By the end of it, I wished that I enjoyed a different vocation.

The script is unremarkable, slightly below average with all of the clichés surrounding journalism pandered to. The plot is almost non-existent, it was difficult to fathom what the film was actually about other than ticking the boxes on how the man in the street views journalists.

What really grated, and which actually gave me a headache, was the way the film was shot. Jaunty angles and quick-cut editing abound. This made the remake of 'Rollerball' look sedate by comparison. One can only assume that the editor or director has recently been dumped by someone with photo-sensitive epilepsy.

Jennifer Jason Lee, Malcolm McDowell, Kerry Fox - what were you thinking of? A terrible, terrible movie. Avoid at all costs.


If this is meant to be a fly on the wall appreciation of a newsroom it is hard to imagine that flies can stick to walls, rather than fall to the floor suffering from some severe form of motion sickness. I could barely watch 24 minutes of this picture, as my head was spinning out of control. If I had watched it any further I may have ended with my face in the toilet bowl.

Yes this movie is quite unconventional in it's use of short shots, and rapid edits. But its lack of convention adds to its almost complete lack of veiwability (I may have invented that word). I do not know why someone would revert to a nauseating MTV style of editing with such a subject. Some reviewers here have said it adds to the fly on the wall experience. But flies on a wall have one perspective, because they are sitting still on a wall.

A sense of pace can be portrayed by other means. Such as using shots that last for more than two seconds depicting people moving frenetically, and exploiting these actors' abilities to show stress, see Broadcast News. I can't imagine this would be too much of a stretch for the cast in this pic.

It is a pity that many of the audience would not be able to watch this movie given the stellar cast and subject matter. JJL is one of my all time faves, and I was quite disappointed that I could not see more than 23 minutes and 55 seconds of this pic. I watched this movie on DVD, and I've never asked for money back; but on this occasion I shall.

If you want to have a good time that results in you being very sick at the end of the night, I recommend a night at the pub. This movie does not provide you with a good time.

0.5/10 Unfortunately IMDb doesn't allow for a 0.5 rating.


It's sad that directors with no talent use odd cinematographic techniques in an attempt to disguise the film's inadequacies. What's worse though, is the stupid sheep-like gullibility of some of the viewing public who interpret such "novelty" as daring and mold-breaking. Mary McGuckian is plainly a person devoid of talent, vision or taste. Do I hear you say "But it's refreshing to see a director explore new ideas"? Yes, it is refreshing but this no-talent director has simply exhibited pretension and stupidity - any fool can do that. Mary McGuckian is not going to be part of cinema's future. - She'll just slink into the shadows of obscurity and those few who remember her so-called efforts will regard the experience with revulsion. I would have rather been able to sum up Rag Tale as MINUS 10 but 1 out of 10 was the lowest I could award. 1 out of 10 is clearly undeserved praise and might (horror of horrors) encourage this egregious blight on cinema to direct another movie. - I (as I'm sure most other people will) shudder at the thought.

Somehow, I imagine this breathtakingly inadequate director could even mess up sweeping the streets, so I won't suggest she takes this up as a profession. - If she did, walking around her home town would be a whole lot harder than it is now.

Ed Wood's movies were so mind-bogglingly superior (even at their worst) to this woman's pathetic offerings that I feel embarrassed at those who awarded Ed Wood the soubriquet as "worst director ever". At least we could watch his films and laugh at how amateurish they were. In Mary McGuckian's case, we can't even do that. There's nothing in Rag Tale to raise a smile - not even a smile of poignant sadness. What in heaven's name was the producer thinking about to allow this claptrap to be released? He should be jailed for inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on the audience. Don't watch this film within 5 hours of eating food - it'll come right back in your lap.


I felt ill after 5 minutes.

I have no idea if the storyline is good or not.

What genius decided to use that cool-jerky-docu-style camera work for the entire movie ????

I have homemovies that are easier to view than this.

The opening scene in the office was a little amusing and I wondered whether the character would brazen it out when he received the call from his boss.

It's a pity really because based on the opening scene(s) I would have viewed the entire movie.


This had to be turned off after about 15 minutes. It is easily the worst shot thing ever. If you want a masterclass in generation tension without moving the camera, check out The Collingswood Story. If you want a masterclass in HOW NOT TO MAKE A FILM, watch this sh*t. Rupert Graves is pathetic as some sort of Pier Morgan character - about as intimidating as a dead moth. Truly poor, feeble effort. The director should be shot, and so should everyone else involved for not telling her this was a bad style to adopt. I purchased this dung from Blockbutser for 1.99. It wasn't worth 0.01p. You want to see this sort of thing done well - improvised script, floating camera, and so on - see Festival or One for the Road. This joins Confetti in the 'bin' list. Get lost, the lot of you


At film festivals there are times when one is forced to watch absolutely bad films.This happens as a particular time slot is booked for a bad film.If there are no other films on other slots,one is inevitably forced to experience a lousy film.This is also the case with British film called "Rag Tale".I encountered this film in 2006 at Women's International Film Festival Film de Femmes Creteil,France. There are many reasons why Irish director Mary McGukian must be blamed for making an absolutely bad film.This is a film which does not make any sense.No one knows for sure whether it is a thriller or a drama.The acting is so horrible that one can claim that at any given day amateur theater actors would give better performances.Malcolm Mcdowell has been wasted in this film.He appears as an actor who is forced to work beyond his glorious days.American films would be a great choice if somebody has to watch better films about print journalism.Rag tale is a silly story which has neither head nor tail.


This is the first film i've failed to sit through.My head ached, my eyes hurt, and boy did i feel sick! After 20 mins i had to give up. It's a shame that such a top rate cast was let down by the insane camera-work and direction.Quick cutting has it's place,Natural born killers and the Bourne trilogy are enhanced by it because it furthers the story, but you are still able to actually focus on the characters.This rubbish is so quickly cut you are't given the chance to appreciate the acting or follow the plot.The director should definitely never work again. Unless you are a depressed masochist avoid this at all costs.


I've long held the theory that the level of sexism displayed on a DVD's front cover is directly proportional to the dreadfulness of the film itself. I should have been warned off by the stiletto clad legs on display on this DVD, but I was foolishly blinded by the impressive cast list. It's a shame I didn't heed my own inner alarm system, because I would have saved myself an episode of eye strain from the godawful editing and boredom from the godawful script. This DVD would serve the film industry and mankind to better avail by being used as a drink coaster.

Utterly awful.


A pile of hemorrhoids, - uncomfortable crap.

There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start.

The direction is all shaky cameras, weird angles, mono cuts to colour etc. Nothing wrong with that you may think, expect that this is not between scenes or to add sense of perspective. This was just to say that 'my goodness, life in a newspaper office is a fast paced, chemically fuelled trip don't you know'.

I have in the past despaired at those Daily Mail types who moan every time a shaky camera is used but inducing headaches amongst your audience detracts from the content. Moving everything around constantly, and I mean constantly, only draws attention to the fact that there is nothing worth watching at the centre. By not allowing the audience to watch the actors you are forced to listen to the god awful script.

The script or lack thereof is the other major failing. The director, Mary McGurkin, informed us that the script was improvised but presumably the idea of a Fleet St editor, shagging the proprietor's wife and the ensuing power struggle for the direction of the paper was the basis for the funding. Some filmmakers can use improvisation to develop performances and create something great, Mary unfortunately can not. The problem is that the narrative is more akin to a Jeffrey Archer novel than a biting piece of satire. Armando Iannuci, Bird and Fortune etc clean their shoes with scripts like these.

I would honestly say this is one of the most annoying, self knowing and sanctimonious films for sometime, possibly (but probably not) all time. I have never seen so many walkouts, (this was a Gala premiere remember) especially when the content was not in the least bit shocking or challenging.

There is a kernel of a funny satire but it is, like most kernels of corn, it is trapped in crap. Just another rubbish British comedy.


This movie can only be viewed as some sort of "what not to do when shooting a movie". The constant cutting and shifting leaves one feeling physically ill. I watched this movie with another person and we both experienced the same symptoms. A headache, strained eyes and eventually a strong urge to throw up.

The pity was that this movie was kinda promising. There is probably a big market out there for a satire of this kind demonstrating the type of spin that goes into publishing a red-top. However the director doesn't seem to want to do that and the end product is a 100 minute music video.

The acting was also pretty dire, having wondered "whatever happened to Jennifer Jason Leigh" for the first few minutes of this movie, I soon realised why i hadn't missed her.

The final nail in the coffin though had to be the resolution. Absolutely awful, I have never seen such and obvious attempt at a directorial get out of jail card.


One of the most black-hearted films I have seen, this is not one I would recommend to others. If it was trying to be the film equivalent satirical TV comedy such as Absolute Power or Bremner, Bird and Fortune - perhaps with a little of the great State of Play thrown in, then it failed miserably. Firstly, it's just not that funny. There are several laughs to be had, mostly because of Lucy Davis' excellent comic acting; there are not enough for it to be classed as a comedy. There is some moderately good satire on the tabloid press, but the film is just trying too hard to be edgy. The first way it tries to do this is by jumping from camera to camera(all of which are at an unsettling angle) and from normal film quality to CCTV-esquire film. This is continuous throughout the film and is instantly annoying. But it's main attempt to be edgy is through a nasty and quite ludicrous twist which destroys any previous good will toward the film. It appears to be self-consciously trying to shock. The characters are highly unsympathetic and one-dimensional. In their defence, the actors are generally good. But overall this is definitely a film to avoid.


This used to be a great TV series, until the 'reformers' got their PC focus group mits on it. Regular viewers will know what I'm talking about: when they changed the excellent original theme music (moody saxophone solo from the pen of Barrington Pheloung) and that accompanied a change in line-up. Out went the brilliantly under-played character of DS Edgar 'Wieldy' Wield (played by the excellent David Royle) and in came the 'I can't act for toffee and I've even got an annoyingly grating accent' Jennifer James in the role of WPC Kim Spicer and the inconsequential Wayne Perrey as DC Parvez Lateef. The show started out broodingly edgy and is now a faint shadow of its former self with the team now seeming more like the Scooby Gang than the hard-bitten original version. So come on BBC - less of the Kim Scrappy-Doo Spicer and let's get back to the original idea I used to love. The old show would get an 8 from me, but this incarnation struggles to get a 4.


I love foreign movies from all over the world. But this movie from Thailand nearly made me to hate movies from Thailand the way I hate Hollywoood movies. But, I will not, I will continue to watch movies from Thailand and I will even give it a try and watch another movie from Weerasethakul.

At first, I thought to myself, how in the heck did such a movie even win an award. This movie looked like some amateur movie made by some amateur director. I had to research this director and found out that he is a respectable person in the world of artistic movies. I was really disappointed, that somebody of his caliber could make a movie this horrible. There is no story, nothing, nada. What was he trying to tell us? The only redeeming aspect of this movie is cinematography, the landscapes are beautiful and the scene where the couple are having a picnic is breathtaking. Also the scene at the river is amazing. That is the only good thing I saw in the movie. The movie lacked passion, no emotion. Even the stupid sex scenes were virtually empty, at least you'd expect people to show some emotion here. But, NO! nothing! To add insult to injury, the movie dragged on for a good 2 hours! I just wish the people who awarded this awful movie could just explain to me what they found award-worthy. Maybe I missed it, I am no expert in movie making and all BUT I know a good movie when I see one, and Blissfully Yours is NOT one of them.

NOT RECOMMENDED AT ALL!!!


The hype surrounding Apichatpong seems to me unwarranted. I am reminded of Roger Ebert's comments on Abbas Kiarostami and being utterly unconvinced of the value of his films.

First, there is no story. As soon as a story might be emerging, "Joe" (as he likes to be called these days) moves to something utterly unrelated. He has said that he conceives of nature as an opportunity for the characters to do some self-reflection. This sounds good, but there are no characters to speak of, and except for Orn, no acting whatsoever. No information is given about what they might be reflecting about, and story elements are allowed to vanish (like the distant gunshot).

The slowness itself didn't bother me, but the much-heralded Apichatpong can learn something from Tony Bui, whose first feature film "Three Seasons" is FAR better at the languid development than this. Or look at any of Ousman Sembene's films for the skillful use of dreadfully unskillful non-actors. There is just no excuse, in my mind, for such a self-important and ultimately inept use of non-actors.

User federovsky's comments are to me particularly perceptive. I give it 3; at least he is giving this some thought.


My first film from this year's San Francisco International Film Festival.

Director Apichatpong Weerasethakul's MYSTERIOUS OBJECT AT NOON is one of only two Thai films I can think of that have been officially released in the US. This is fairly typical America, where it is often assumed that foreign film = art film. I nearly bought MYSTERIOUS OBJECT, but after reading some reviews I decided to pass, as it sounded rather too strange and a little boring. BLISSFULLY YOURS is the director's second feature, and it all takes place in a single day.

An illegal immigrant from Burma has a rash for some reason, so his girlfriend takes him take him to the doctors in the morning. In the afternoon she makes an excuse to leave work and they drive up to the mountains, where they hang out and eventually have sex. Their friends, an older couple, also have sex.

BLISSFULLY YOURS is unquestionably an art film, and it's the kind that give art films a bad name. Interminably slow, pretentious and ultimately not really about anything. There's enough material for a 10 minute short, padded out to two hours with endless shots of people driving somewhere, or lying on the grass, or generally doing nothing much at all. It's highly reminiscent of the films of Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami, with a bit of explicit sex thrown in for no reason except perhaps to try and generate some controversy.

There are moments where the film is beautiful, when the couple are in the forest, but ultimately the film is just VERY BORING INDEED. I'm sure there are people that just adore this kind of stuff, and I've seen plenty of slow arty films that I've enjoyed myself for that matter. This film did practically nothing for me though, and I can't recommend it to anybody.

I find it slightly sad that films such as this get US distribution, at least at film festivals, but far more entertaining stuff such as Pee Hua Kard or Pbob - Body Jumper will never ever see the light of US day.


I saw this movie at the NatFilm festival (Nightly Movies Festival) in Copenhagen, and it was a huge disappointment. I found the movie virtually void of a story and hopelessly over-stretched. The only reason I have not used profanity here are the IMDb guidelines, the movie is THAT bad.

On a more cheerful note: Most of the cinema-goers that evening managed to sleep some time during the movie (myself included), so after the movie people were well rested. Considering the usual cinema-goers at that festival it is quite an achievement.

I rate this a 1 out of 10. (Because it is impossible to cast a lower vote)


A disappointment. No, there is no bad language, no sex, no violence. Yes, it's animated and has some good music. But that's not all you need for a good family movie. How about a script? Narrative flow? The story was boring and the action was dragged out as filler. The real problem is that there just wasn't much of a story here. I was also bothered by the cynicism and irony. The movie is ostensibly meant for young kids (bright colors, simple story) but has the mean spirit of a movie made by (and for) a much older audience. The musical numbers were nice and the voice talent was top-notch, yet there was no there there. One more gripe: the stylized animation, although meant to be hip (I think) just seemed unappealing.


My 10 year old daughter and I both nodded off during this movie. My 8 year old liked it, though. Awful dialog, awful story, awful animation. . . Just awful. I thought it couldn't get much worse than The Cat in the Hat. I was wrong - very wrong. Straight to video would have been too lenient. It should have gone straight to the garbage dump.


Sometimes people irk me. More specifically are those people who, when in reference to some of the recent animated features, say things like "Oh it's such a great film, because, not only do the kids love it, it's funny for adults as well! (yay for us!)" This irks me because adults and kids alike have always been able to appreciate a well-made animated feature. So while I do hate this growing trend -one that has seen studios offering "condolences" to parents who drag concession-hungry children to see their movies by using two-tiered, age-discriminating humor (I guess so parents can nod knowingly to each other over the heads of their kids, while receiving these studio "winks", as if to say " They didn't get that one, but we sure did -it's because we're OLDER.")- I do feel the need to point out that Nemo is not the first fish to reference popular culture to adults.

Enter Teacher's Pet, Disney's hand-animated feature (released on the heels of the announcement that it is shutting down its Florida animation studio) based on the popular kids series about a dog named Spot (Nathan Lane) who wants nothing more then to become a boy. With its skewed color pallet, course lines and surrealistic characters and environments, creator Gary Baseman offers us a visually stimulating experience one that provides a refreshing (if not nostalgic) breather to a genre on the verge of becoming sterilized by computers.

However, it takes a lot more then just strong visuals to form a well-crafted animated feature and Teacher's Pet is a prime example of why. Written by former Cheers scribers Bill and Cheri Steinkellner and directed by first-timer Timothy Bjorklund, the humor in Teacher's Pet falls almost completely flat. By attempting to appeal simultaneously to adults and kids alike, they have taken a potentially strong premise for either audience and turned it into a convoluted mess that succeeds only in its ability to bring generations together through boredom. This is supposed to be a kids film -I don't need to explain to my four-year old niece why Spot is now a middleaged man hitting on moms and shacked up in some sleazy motel- if they wanted "edgy" then they should have pitched it to Matt Stone. Sh*t or get off the pot I say.

Reviewed by Shaun English


Woe is me... I wasted $7 and saw one of the stupidest movies of the year: DISNEY'S TEACHER'S PET, a concept by Gary Baseman. You'd think that with a cast of: Nathan Lane, Kelsey Grammer, Jerry Stiller, Estelle Harris, Wallace Shawn, and a whole lot more... You'd think this would be a really fun movie!

It's not. It's a complete drag. It's something that if you saw it on tv, you'd flip the channel after a few seconds if you even have THAT much patience.

Really quickly, the movie is about a talking dog named Spot who wants to be a real boy. His best friend/master Leonard, in contrast, hopes his dog will act like a real dog. Spot finds a wacko scientist to do the trick and anyway... you can all guess how the movie ends.

This is the first Disney movie I've seen in the theaters done by the Television Animation department and it will definitely be the last. The executives think we can't tell the difference.. I beg to differ. This movie SUCKS.

The vocal performances are all fun (especially David Odgen Stiers and Jerry Stiller) but it doesn't make this annoying movie any better.

Grade: 4/5...oh wait... did I say 5? I meant 4/10


I was disappointed in the movie, based on the expectations set by some of the reviews. The pace was sloooowwww, the performance by the lead kid was poor, and the story was not engaging. Peter O'toole was awesome, most of the other adult performances were solid (the dwarf was great), and Lassie's performance looked too staged (director's fault). Cinematography was beautiful. I'm a bit surprised by the number of very positive comments for this film, especially from American kids. Today's kids generally want a much faster pace and more drama or comedy. Other than offering a story about a famous dog and beautiful cinematography, it seems to lack the elements which attract kids. There is a large and underserved market for wholesome kids' films, though.


The question you have to ask yourself after sitting through this turgid piece of utterly uninspired cinema is "why did they bother?"

Nothing more than a series of clichéd set pieces and more ham than a spit-roasted hog. Even The League of Gentlemen's usually excellent Steve Pemberton notches up a performance as excruciating as Lenny Henry doing Frank Spencer.

Maybe I'm getting carried away, after all it is for kids, but even when compared to the Elizabeth Taylor Lassie films this just doesn't cut it. A lazy effort all round. The dog out performs everyone, including Peter O'Toole.

Save your money and wait until it's released on DVD. It'll just about look OK on the small screen, maybe.


I have this film on videotape and I sometimes annoy friends who visit me by making them watch it. To be honest, the first half of the film is in fact quite amusing due to its low production value and completely dysfunctional storyline, but it becomes somewhat aggravating to watch the latter half when these redeeming qualities get old.

The locations mostly looks like they are inside the producers mansion, and I highly doubt any of the actors have any formal training. I never really got the plot, but I think some dudes from prison are brought out to fight 3 or 4 evil communist coming from a neighboring country. Their plan I think is to kidnap the daughter of someone important. And this will supposedly create huge diplomatic problems.

There is one or two scenes of nudity (one with breasts shot in slow motion) and some of the commando-training scenes looks like infomercials with some cheesy synthesizer music in the background.

I do not encourage to spend money on this, but please catch it if it runs on TV.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** One of the joys of working all-night shifts is that very occasionally you stumble across a gem of a film squashed in between the late night news and Anthony Robbins telemall ads. This was not one of those times. "Cobra Force" is an unspeakably bad film that almost defies you to like it in some mind-achingly sadistic way. Quite how any living person would get themselves mixed up in such a godawful mess as this South African waste of celluloid is almost beyond comprehension. Shot on budget-quality stock so it looks ten years older than it is, this incomprehensible action film appears to start out as a crime-buster film and ends up as a bizarre commando flick with condemned ex-vets pursuing a hostage-taking terrorist across the savannah and culminating in the most inane and badly staged shoot out in cinematic history. For the sake of a plot, a KGB operative attempts to stir up a localised war in two African states by assigning a bewildered looking terrorist the task of kidnapping the daughter of an ambassador. In the meantime, there's some kind of war on crime going on with with car chases, executions and people getting blown away willy-nilly. Shots from small-bore handguns send people flying through doors, walls, windows and off balconies. People get set on fire, smashed up in cars and brutalsied for no apparent reason. Whether this is supposed to serve as some kind of sub-plot or not can not be determined. It looks like the producers (if, in fact, there were any) just stuck two different movies together and hoped no one would notice. Don't even mention the acting. As the terrorist drags off his hostage, without so much as a struggle, she whines "Let go, you beast!" Seriously. Two guys masquerading as cops pull over three Asian guys in a truck laden with chickens for no obvious reason at all. A fight breaks out (the Asian guys use martial arts, of course) and everyone gets killed except for one guy who reappears throughout, murdering people. Who he is and what his motivation is, even what he has to do with the plot, is never revealed. As the commandos chase their dangerous quarry across the South African plains, they meet a small boy. Of course, as any good commando squad made up of pardoned criminals would do, they promptly take him with them. And of course, at last, the commando leader catches up with the terrorist, still dragging the hostage behind by the wrist and they face off on a suspension bridge. The only other commando left, who couldn't even shoot straight with a well aimed pistol earlier on, kills the baddie with a machine gun fired from the hip. From a hundred metres away. Without hitting anyone or anything else. It's hard to fathom just why this film exists, unless it's an example of just how bad a film can be. "Cobra Force" is so bad it isn't even deplorable. Even those who enjoy bad films will hate this. I was actually glad when Anthony Robbins came on, and that's saying something.


In fact, it's so bad, it's good. Well, it has it's own entertainment value, anyway. This movie is a catastrophe, and a spectacular one at that. The acting, the fx, the camera, the sound... anything you can think of, really. In that respect, it's a true gem, a keeper. If you come across it, don't miss the chance to see it!

I was a bit undecided whether I should give Cobra Force a 1 or a 10, but since this film is only unintentionally funny, I'm compelled to give it a 1. But hey, I'd see it again!

Best viewed with friends.


I've no doubts that militaristic enthusiasts enjoy this movie, but it got lousy actors, directors and camera people. It looks very amateurish. The film is made in South Africa in 1987 which makes it colored(no pun intended) with racist hints here and there. It's no doubt the whites are the heroes in this movie. It can be compared to The Octagon with Chuck Norris. Yes, IT IS that bad.


If you have seen the original Disney cartoon based on an Italian story about a wooden puppet who becomes a real boy, then you'll probably know the story already. This is basically the same story again but just a few special effects and a few extra things. Martin Landau as Geppetto is quite a nice guy, although you don't exactly see him a lot. The kid who plays Pinocchio is just weird and idiotic, I mean first he doesn't know what's going on, and then suddenly he has ideas of his own about things. Also starring Dawn French as Baker's wife, Griff Rhys Jones as Tino and David Doyle as the voice of Pepe the Cricket, what was wrong with the name Jiminey. Aqequate, although it is okay for kids!


Well, I've seen a lot of really bad movies in the horror field the last few weeks, but this turkey is really bad!! Apart from the very good looking Melissa Moore (probably the most beautiful face in the Scream Queens roster), this movie about a demon possessing several hard-rock singers, it has nothing to make it watchable. Avoid like the plague


My Husband's Three Wives is a documentary about a man named Brian Wachtendorf and his family, which consists of two wives and six children. He is legally married to Pam but because the state of Texas believes firmly in monogamy, he has had to resort to private ceremonies to 'marry' his second wife, Kathy. Besides the fact that the husband is overbearing and arrogant, the family is kind of happy. The wives are friends, the children are...well, the children are confused. Not that the adults care, of course, they're all too busy dealing with one another. As a matter of fact, one child was raised not knowing which woman was his mother. But such is typical in everyday life, no? Anyway, chaos ensues when a third woman shows up on their doorstep; Brian's third lover and soon-to-be 'wife', Denise. Suddenly there is tension in the house and the curse words fly...not between the people on screen, but between the viewer and the TV. If they weren't flying already.

Bigamy is resented by a fair amount of people. Therefore I assume it's safe to say that TLC aired this trash to allow a glimpse into the life of a bigamist/polygamist and allow us to judge for ourselves. Me? I'll stick with one or none, thanks. Call me close-minded, but having more than one significant other is adultery, no matter how much you claim to love all of them. Besides, it is quite clear that Brian does not care for any of his three wives. He cares only for himself, first and foremost, and this is apparent in the show. He has a cult-like presence and orders his submissive spouses around as if they were dogs. The entire family is completely dysfunctional and quite revolting (not the individuals themselves, but the situation they have placed themselves in). {{--Possible Spoiler: In once instance, he sits his wives down and told them how to behave, telling Denise that he would end their relationship if she didn't obey him.--}}

Brian Wachtendorf also has a book out, in which he apparently talks about some criminal activity (I hear he's quite the idiot). Anyway, my suggestion to you is to not watch this unless you feel like getting frustrated, angry, and have something soft and/or squishy on which to vent your anger once the show is finished.


I just finished watching this show and my mouth is still agape. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how this guy got one woman to agree to marry him, let alone three. It's not even the polygamy that bothers me. Quite frankly, I could care less. It's a lifestyle choice, not MINE,but whatever. The thing that bugged me was,on the day that he's going to town to pick out a ring for his new "wife",he chooses to don a t-shirt with the words "The Man" across the front, and a giant red arrow pointing,er,downward.Then,on top of that, he takes her to the pawn shop to pick out a ring. This pitiful woman is standing there in front of a row of used compound bows and shotguns,obviously trying to find that one ring that doesn't look like it was snatched off the hand of a dead pimp,and the whole scenario just reeks of desperation. Even if there were no other wives involved, every molecule in my body would've still been screaming, "Don't do it lady!!!" I'm willing to bet that he paid almost as much for that stupid t-shirt as he did for that ring. I don't even want to get started on those poor messed up kids. Still,I watched it all the way through, so I suppose I'm obligated to give a "better than watching paint dry" rating...but not much better.


If you have read the other three reviews of this documentary, then yeah, mine is pretty much the same. I have several things to address about this program: 1. Who in their right mind would put themselves on TV engaging in an ILLEGAL activity? While watching this show, I kept thinking, "Wait, is there a state where polygamy isn't illegal?" So I checked, and no, there is no state where polygamy is legal. I have to wonder if there were any cops around that part of Texas watching the show.

2. Apparently it wasn't a secret because one of the husband's friends knew about it and said that others in town did, too. Um, so, do they not have laws in that town? Or police? Or judges? Or anyone with a sense of decency? 3. What woman in her right mind would share her husband with another woman? Especially when it was him who brought in the extra wife, anyway. I found myself wanting them to gang up on him. He ASSIGNED them chores like he assigned his kids chores. And there were so many passive-aggressive things that came out of his mouth. At an anniversary dinner (for all three wives) he made the newest wife try a bite of something because one of the others did. Then when picking out a ring for that same wife, he wanted her to pick out a ring that he liked. And at the end *SPOILERS* when the other two wives wanted her gone, all he did was get up, pat her on the head, and leave. Followed by Wife #2 who was undoubtedly the most selfish of them all. This guy was not extremely good-looking, nor was he even that nice. At one point he even said that it would be easier to have no wives at all. SO WHY DID HE WANT THREE WIVES IN THE FIRST PLACE? 4. As was said in another review, I saw very little parent-child interaction that was shown in a loving and fun way. Everything seemed very civil between the wives and between the wives and husband. The husband was constantly on his children's cases about something. And the adults were too busy dealing with their own problems to even talk to their kids about how they were feeling.

The kids, in fact, didn't really talk about how they felt living with two "mothers" and then three. Apart from a few passing comments about it being fine or some other generic comment, they didn't really delve into it. In fact, the whole program focused on the adults' feelings about a new woman in the house.

I'm really surprised at TLC for doing this program let alone airing it. And even more surprisingly, there seem to be a lot of people who are fine with it. I just have to pose this question for all of the guys out there: how would you feel if your wife had three husbands? Probably not very good. Stuff like this makes me wonder if we as a society have lost almost all of our values. Have we all grown so cynical as to think things like this are fine? I personally don't think these things are fine.

TLC: think before you make a program.