I'm only entering 1 out of 10 because zero isn't an option. I used to think that this was the worst (major) movie that I'd ever seen. However, as a result of Highlander 2 (which I'm ashamed to admit that I actually paid to see... uck!), this is now only the *second* worst.

The only explanation for my having seen this was that it was part of a period of time in my younger days when myself and a friend went out and saw a movie every Sunday evening without fail, for two or three years straight. Sometimes, the movie we actually wanted to see was sold out, and we ended up taking a chance. Some of these chances turned out to be good. Some (like Cyborg) didn't. Not too long after this came out, I decided that movies were getting too expensive (and my time too valuable) to waste on crap like this, and I became a little more discriminating about what I paid to see. Perhaps this was an early warning sign that I was starting to move out of the 'key demographic' of the movie industry.


I anticipated the episode following the masterful "Silent Scream" to be a lot weaker, but "Children of the Full Moon" is more than just weak; it's an actual disappointment! This short movie directed by Tom Clegg ("McVicar") is senseless, incredibly predictable and far too implausible to evoke any feelings of fright or disturbance. I love a good old-fashioned tale about werewolves & full moon curses, but Murray Smith's screenplay lacks the bright ideas to become one. The plot centers on a young couple as they're traveling through a remote area when their car suddenly breaks down and nearly crashes. Tom and Sarah seek for help in the only house for miles around, where a friendly old lady and her eight (!) children welcome them with open arms. Tom loses consciousness during a nightly attack by a strange looking monster and wakes up in a hospital bed and Sarah tries to convince him it was all just a bad dream. Still, she's pregnant now and mysterious forces draw her back to the isolated house she claims doesn't exist. The pre-credits intro looked promising, as it showed a little girl with blood on her lips devouring a lamb, but the rest of the story made little to no sense at all. It's obvious that the old lady  Diana Dors  and her partner are breeding an army of junior werewolves, but for what purpose and why implicate strangers in their fiendish plan? The answers to these questions are never given, and the story doesn't even focus on the eight children that much. A horror short about werewolf-children would have been quite original, yet we never see them transform in hairy little monsters with huge fangs or sharp claws. In fact, there's just one transformation-sequence in the whole episode, yet the special effects were laughable and far below usual Hammer standards. Oh well, they can't all be winners I guess


I remember first seeing this in 1980 as part of THE HAMMER HOUSE OF HORROR series and everyone was talking about it at school on Monday . I saw it for a second time last night and to be honest it`s not much cop . It`s just another predictable story of a newly wed couple getting lost and spending the night at a creepy mansion that`s owned by a woman with a west country accent and being a horror story it`s always bad news to spend a night at a mansion owned by someone with a west country accent

Two things I noticed about watching it for the second time : First up is the very poor budget . Unless I`m imagining it there only seems to be one set used and the set designer hides this fact by using different furniture scene to scene ( I might be wrong of course ) while the werewolf make up is absolutely laughable . Secondly watching it a second time you can`t fail to notice how predictably it all plays out . In many ways the story is structured like a whodunnit and just like any whodunnit it`s only worth watching once at most


Sorry I don't get it.

Explain it to me. Why does this guy had any kind of success. I've been studying cinema in university for more than a year and stumbled across two Jean Renoir films including this one who was particularly painful.

It might be my suspension of disbelief being the problem, but i've watched some movies from this era(including Citizen Kane that I loved) and never hated'em with so much passion. Everything in that movie is overplayed and annoying. The music is damn horrible, the acting is BEYOND overplayed and the editing ain't anything special.

The ones who knows semio-pragmatic, I might agree that it contains some interesting twists of that theory, but the movie is way too damn boring for the 40 minutes it last. It looks like a theater play with comedians on mushroom Very bad


Face it-- "Cinderella" has been worn out since the day it was conceived. And since, the world has never forgotten this disgustingly sentimental heap of molly-wash. Julie Andrews gives a non-memorable performance in the title role-- where is the interest with which she has played every other part before and since? Other performers have absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever, where Andrews shows promise. But the reality is, the musical score by the normally-excellent Rodgers and Hammerstein is nothing more than a collection of garbage-riddled ditties wallowing in their own pathos. The only acceptable tune in the whole lot is the "Stepsisters' Lament," which occasionally borders on funny. Sadly, the entire telecast is an exercise in sugar-encrusted romantic tripe that makes James Cameron's "Titanic" look excellent.


1/2* goes to this dreadful version of "Cinderella."

Julie Andrews must have been thinking about more in terms of her favorite things. This production is certainly not one of them.

Ilka Chase plays the wicked stepmother with a kindness never seen. Actually, it should never be seen. What was Chase thinking of when she went before the cameras? Probably, when she was Bette Davis's compassionate sister-in-law in "Now, Voyager." A Yiddish bubbe could be meaner than her.

Howard Lindsay, as the prince's father, appears annoyed with the whole situation and rightly so. Wife, Dorothy Stickney, plays his queen and I'm wondering what the casting people had in mind when they put these people in. Stickney, who lived to 101, had all those years to wonder how she ever got into such a miserable production.

The prince is a charming bore. That best describes him. He is terribly stiff in his scenes. He says his lines as if he is reading them from a card.

Kaye Ballard, as the wicked step sister has one thing going for her-the person who made her up for this. Man, is she ugly. That churlish giggle of hers is absolutely annoying.

Somewhat of a bright-note is the singing and dancing which should have dominated the production.

You can't root for Cinderella to win the prince since that is certainly no bargain for her.

This version of Cinderella was kept in storage for years. Reviving it was a big mistake. A colossal bomb in every sense of the word.


This is one of several B-movies that Ronald Reagan starred in early in his career as the character Brass Bancroft--an undercover Secret Service agent. While I loved the first one due to its excellent writing despite its low budget, the other Bancroft films have been mediocre at best--mostly because the writing was, at best, second rate.

The basic plot idea behind SMASHING THE MONEY RING was amazingly silly. There is a big counterfeiting ring that's being run out of a prison! Think about it...of all the places they could locate the ring, they picked one of the more difficult ones where they had to work hard to smuggle out the money and in the paper and supplies. The only way this MIGHT have worked was if it turned out that a super-genius forger was in prison and that was the only way the ring could use him, but this isn't the case.

In addition to the bizarre plot, there are many holes and poor writing abounds. One guy on a casino ship is shot from about five feet away but isn't badly hurt and later Reagan is shot at the same range twice AND the car he's in is pushed off a cliff AND it lands in a lake AND he's fine!! And don't get me started about the old man who deliberately gets himself arrested instead of simply going to the police!!! Wow, did THAT strain all credibility!

Logical errors like these abound--showing that Warner Brothers really didn't care and that it just wanted to churn out these programmers in rapid succession. Compared to series films like Charlie Chan, The Falcon or Crime Doctor, this one just didn't seem as well written--though the prison setting was exciting and the dialog and action there was good enough to make this an agreeable time-passer. Just don't think too much when you watch it--it will give you a headache!!

PS--For the first time in a Brass Bancroft film, sidekick Eddie Foy manages to do well!!! When a killer is running amok with a gun, Foy subdues the guy and for the first time in one of these films, he seems like a secret agent, not some dumb comic relief!! This is a plus.


Ronald Reagan's third film as Secret Service Agent Brass Bancroft finds him going undercover into prison to ferret out a gang of counterfeiters. The original assignment just had him trying to get close to the distributor of the bogus dough to find out where the plates are. Little does he dream that the stuff is being printed in the prison print shop along with the prison newspaper.

This is kind of like White Heat where Edmond O'Brien goes to prison to get close to James Cagney to get information on some real crimes Cagney and his gang were pulling. But believe me, Smashing the Money Ring will never be confused with White Heat. Reagan's going undercover, but they don't even bother to give him a phony name.

It was an interesting if far-fetched idea for a story, but this was a B film that got that kind of treatment. Part of the plot called for Reagan to be shot after a prison break by the big boss. It was at fairly close range, but it turns out Ron was only wounded and after being dumped into a lake with the getaway car, he swims away and the next minute you see him without a scratch.

I have to wonder if Reagan's mind didn't hearken back to those days at Warner Brothers when in 1981 he was really shot. Doctors instead of scriptwriters saved the life of the 40th President of the United States.

Ron was ably assisted by a cast that included Margot Stevenson, Eddie Foy, Jr., and Joe Downing as the crook Reagan was supposed to get cozy with. Interestingly enough Eddie Foy, Jr. as the sidekick got to romance Margot Stevenson. With Ron it was strictly business in this film. Maybe that had something to do with Eddie's brother Bryan Foy being in charge of Warner Brothers B picture unit.

Counterfeiting while in stir, who'd a thunk it, the brothers Warner that's who.


They say the devil's in the details. He must have shot this movie, because absolutely no attention was paid to detail in any way. I have noticed in other movies that George Pal is good at making scenes full of flashy, hi-tech gadgets, but not at making people act in believable ways. "The Power" dwarfs all his previous efforts in this direction.

This movie attempts to take itself seriously. But it is so poorly executed that it is impossible for the viewer to take it seriously. It's too bad MST3K is not still around. "The Power" would be a natural for it.

IMDb limits review size, so I can't fit all the incredibly stupid stuff in. I'll have to restrict myself to a few of the highlights. What amazes me is that it just keeps getting stupider and stupider as it goes along, just when you thought such a thing couldn't be possible.

== Spoilers == Tanner (George Hamilton) and Lansing (Suzanne Pleshette, who's about as much like a professor as last month's centerfold) are at the lab after hours. Suddenly the rocket-G-force simulator centrifuge starts up, which gets their attention. They try to turn it off, but the controls are jammed. Tanner throws the switch. (Switches are such big stars in this movie, they should be listed in the cast!) Suddenly the whole lab is lit in red light, for no reason, and none is ever given. Hallson (Arthur O'Connell) is dead in the centrifuge, and evidently has been for hours, although we all heard it turn on only minutes before.

Tanner is blamed for murdering Hallson and goes on the run. The first place he runs is into a fun house, which for no reason is a storefront on a busy downtown street. He has psychedelic experiences there, nearly gets killed when the merry-go-round goes out of control, but then leaves.

He gets ditched in the desert by a hick gas station attendant. Instead of following the jeep, which is obviously heading back to town, Tanner goes off in a completely different direction. It has been only half an hour, but he is already dying of thirst. He still has on his suit with jacket, tie and tightly buttoned collar.

He takes shelter in a grove of trees, which turns out to be an Air Force testing ground. The jets come and deliver enough ordnance to wipe Hanoi off the face of the map. The explosions don't even ruffle Tanner's hair. To get their attention, he sets the place on fire. Why the bombs have not ignited anything is not explained. Why the pilots would think fire in an area that's just been bombed back to the Stone Age unusual in any way is similarly ignored.

Tanner goes to the house of Mrs. Hallson (Yvonne de Carlo) who has seen him several times previously in the film. She opens the door and looks right at him, but asks, "Who are you?" As soon as he says his name, she seems to know who he is and lets him in.

Tanner, Lansing, and Melnicker (Nehemiah Persoff) have to hide out from the police. What more logical place than a kitchenwares convention? There are no rooms left in the hotel, so they go to a wild party in a stranger's room. "Why?" asks Lansing. "So we can keep together, keep awake." No explanation why they need to keep awake. Also no explanation why Melnicker dies while sitting alone on the sofa. Or why the party just happens to have a striptease record on the stereo, waiting for someone to drop the needle. Or why Melnicker's erstwhile dancing partner gets up after everyone has passed out, puts on the record and starts to strip.

An hour and twenty minutes into the film, Tanner tells Lansing, "We have to start somewhere." She and Nordlund (Michael Rennie) must be at a meeting by 2:00 PM. Tanner goes straight to the home of another co-worker, Van Zandt (Richard Carlson). It is suddenly night when he gets there.

A driverless car comes up and tries to run Tanner down. He tries to leave in his car, but is paralyzed. He decides to drive anyway, veering all over the road and narrowly missing other cars. He sees headlights following him in the mirror and is suddenly OK. He sideswipes a semi, which doesn't even dent the car, but somehow loosens the front wheel. He comes to a drawbridge where traffic is stopped, and drives through the barricade into the water. He and the car sink. He looks like he's going to drown, but then opens the convertible top, swims to the surface, where the car is still bubbling like a fishtank aerator (no sign of any bubbles a minute ago during the underwater shots) and swims away.

Detective Corlane (Gary Merrill) shows Tanner a note that they found in his apartment, asking him to meet Scotty (Earl Holliman) at the auditorium. Corlane says, "You will, but not alone." When they get there, Tanner says, "Scotty will never talk to me with all these cops here." Corlane: "You're not going in with the cops." Then he (a cop) goes in with Tanner!!! == End Spoilers ==

To make this review fit, I cut about half the dumb stuff I was going to point out, so you can imagine how much more stupidity awaits! This movie is not bad in the way most bad movies are bad. The acting is good by an all-star cast. The production values are fairly high. It doesn't drag. If you don't care at all about continuity or credibility, or expect things to make sense, or people to behave in logical ways, you will probably enjoy it. In fact, if your short-term memory has been eradicated, you will probably find it very entertaining.

People who still retain all their faculties will likely find it a hoot from start to finish.


The positive reviews for this film at this site have me baffled. Really baffled. We see here a cast full of familiar character actors and people who were leads in some good movies. None of them comes off well here. They give Hamilton and Pleshette top billing and then list the rest alphabetically, giving you the impression that there will be an ensemble cast delivering something of significance. Unfortunately, that can be and is a danger sign. When you get middling actors at the top and an ensemble of supporters who could, when at their best, steal their scenes, it often means that the supporters are instead lowered to the level of the leads or worse.

George Hamilton in particular just delivers lines and in no way gives us a character we can care about. Suzanne Pleshette is likewise flatted out and must have suffered under that hairspray and make-up (albeit that was typical of 64-66 when this was likely filmed). Earl Holliman attempts to be psycho-philosophical and it goes nowhere. (The shame is that scene could have built up the context and plot well if handled better.) Michael Rennie's character is only discovering and using his capabilities at that age??? And then we have poor Miiko Taka, wasted again trying to make something of a bit part way below her ability. I think you are getting the idea.

And what is this "power" anyway? Well, we do figure it out sort-of but it is not actually developed as a concept. Instead we get vague hints and a lot of strangeness just happens. So we get no characters, acting talent wasted badly, and conceptual development that falls flat. What special effects that there are, don't add up to much. So, be prepared to be disappointed.


Wow. I am so amazed at how bad of a film this is, I am NOT EVEN FINISHED with it, and I feel obligated to comment.

I held off for a significant portion of the movie before I finally gave up my attempt to determine whether this was intended to be an extremely deeply-seeded comedy. Despite the actions of a little toy woodpecker (it winks), I felt unconvinced. This brought me to the trusty old IMDb, where I have now learned that it was, indeed, an intended straight SciFi.

Wow.

George Hamilton is robotic. At one point, he literally "reacts" to a colleague's outburst a spit-second before the guy actually makes the outburst.

Suzanne Pleshette; is she even there? Actually, intimate scenes between her and Hamilton are tough to ignore, for their awkward lack of rapport, and the conspicuous decision to mic martini glasses and pump heels, to name a few items.

Poor Richard Carlson (I really like him normally). His entire performance is delivered in one of (or a combination of?) two ways: as if the actor himself is drunk, or as if he is narrating a promotional short for the world's fair.

A few scenes are stolen by a bizarrely appropriate, and extremely loud (hammer dulcimer? harpsichord? I don't know my instruments), musical score, a la "Hercules In New York." The heavy-handed direction is quite distracting, with its wannabe Hitchcock jump cuts, third wall removals, and arbitrary angles.

The real star of the film, though, is the script. Half of the male-delivered lines are (or could've been) interchangeable between a handful of characters. There's a tiredly trite scene between a Brooklyn-transplant waitress and Hamilton; you can probably can enact the scene on your own, right now. Think lines like "I keeant buhleev I left New Yohk fuh dis joeub." There, you've got the idea.

Watch for the piano driving scene with George Hamilton and a menacing mechanic. Also, check out the film's unintentional microcosm, in which a fighter plane sends arbitrary missiles into a grove of trees in the desert, where the improbable, the ridiculous, the random, and the just plain goofy, all converge. Once you hit that scene, stop the film--or just watch the scene repeatedly--you have already seen everything it has to offer.


A not terribly interesting documentary about a modestly successful performer/writer whose work -- at least as it is shown in the movie -- comes across as fairly "one-note" and hilariously amusing only to those who participated in making it.

You have to be a little suspicious of the need for a documentary about someone's life when 80% of the interviews are with his family, his lover and a single member of his old theater company whose insistence on the "importance" of the work she did with him in the late 1980's seems geared just as much toward her own importance as it might be to explaining why we should spend all this time learning about Busch. Perhaps the filmmakers had a hard time finding anyone outside their subject's immediate circle who felt a need to say anything about him. There's no way to know whether that's the fault of the subject matter or the fault of the documentarians.

Maybe you had to be there. But a good documentary should give you the sense that you were.


I must admit that i was'nt looking forward to watching this,But to my surprise, I WAS RIGHT,This is probably the most stupid,idiotic load of crap that i've ever seen.If you can stand countless erection joke's(well one joke done a hundred time's )then this is the film for you,All of the joke's are forced upon you(AGAIN&AGAIN&AGAIN).


I seriously doubt that,at the age of 66,I fall within the audience - range that "Kevin and Perry go large" was intended for.However I am an admirer of Mr H.Enfield and Mr P.Whitehouse and enjoyed "Harry Enfield and friends" and "The Fast Show",precursors of the dreadful "Little Britain".Sacrilegious though it may be I prefer Messrs Enfield and Whitehouse to those appallingly over - rated Pythons and I sincerely hope that they do not fall into the trap Cleese and co. failed to avoid i.e.endlessly re - cycling the same old stuff with only the names changed to protect the Swiss bank accounts.With "K & P" the signs were not good,but seven years down the line it remains the sole attempt by Mr E and Mr W to squeeze a few more bob out of their former TV audiences and I applaud them for their restraint. I am disqualified through reasons of age and culture to comment on the Ibiza music phenomenon,the raising to sainthood of disc jockeys,and the apparent ambition of every teenage boy to become one.I do understand - in the form of a distant memory - the urge to procreate that overcomes one at the age of fifteen to the extent that little else is of any consequence.Thus Kevin and Perry exist in an almost permanent state of priapism,their whole object being to divest themselves of their virginity at the first available opportunity.This can be - indeed is - amusing for five minutes but all too quickly palls.There are some gags that actually improve with repetition but unfortunately "Kevin and Perry go large" doesn't actually have any of them. It does have TV performers like Mr J.Fleet doing their overfamiliar schtick,it has the ridiculously over - rated Mr R.Ifans and that cockney geezer from "Eastenders" who has his chance and loses it . For its intended audience - presumably adolescents obsessed with pimples and sex - it will no doubt hit the spot - if you will pardon the pun; anybody in full possession of all their bodily hair and whom the word "spunk" does not cause to crease up with laughter may not find it to their taste.


Embarrassing characters, lame dialogs, no funny jokes. A waste of time. The only interesting thing was the appearance of the characters. They played 15 year old teenagers but appeared rather old and a little bit feminine (at least Perry) at the same time . That puzzled me and kept me watching. After looking at the cast here in IMDb now I do understand. The actors were near to the forties, when they made the film. And why a middle-aged woman must play a teenage boy will remain the producer'secret. I do not know the Mr. Enfield's TV show. Therefore I can not give him a bonus for this movie. 'Kevin & Perry Go Large' is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.


I've been to ibiza twice and i love movies, so a movie about ibiza sounds perfect. unfortunately, not in this case. this is definitely one of the worst movies i have ever seen. they have taken a very beautiful place - ibiza - and made a very disgusting movie out of it. its really sad that a person who is nearly 50 years old, and a woman of nearly the same age impersonate 2, 15 year old horny "mates". for gods sake Kevin looked older than his parents. maybe a little research would have helped these pathetic actors. they're so sad, they even don't know how 15 year old losers behave.

very bad movie, and totally unfunny.

1 out of 10 (and thats because it was filmed in ibitha only).


I'm not a huge fan of sketch shows. The UK-wide (and who knows, maybe by now even international) appeal of shows like "Little Britain" and "The Fast Show" are largely lost on me, running with one-joke 'characters' and one-liners ad nauseum. The Kevin and Perry characters, originally from the "Harry Enfield and Chums" sketch show, are no exception - basically a one-joke set-up that 'satirises' Bitish teenage boys. And "K&P Go Large" runs with the one-joke concept full steam ahead.

This movie can be summarised with a counter - I lost count of exact numbers through boredom, but let's say "8 erect penis gags, 2 puke gags, 3 graphic slices of toilet humour, 5 'house-shaking-orgasms'"... and you'll get an idea of whether or not this movie is worth an hour and a half of your life. For me, it certainly wasn't! Certainly, sex comedies should be left to the Americans, who produce far funnier material in the "American Pie"s and "Porky's" of this world.

The only thing to recommend - for fans of dance/trance music - is the reasonable soundtrack. Many users of the message board here associate this movie with "good British humour". Please, please don't take this as gospel - we Brits CAN make good comedies! I just need to go watch one right now, to erase the horrible memory of "K&P Go Large"...


In the beginning, Harry Enfield played a character called "Little Brother". Then one day Little Brother grew up, morphed into Kevin the Teenager and was joined by Kathy Burke as his friend Perry. The resulting sketches, screened on Enfield's television program over a number of series, were among the highlights of the show. When Kevin finally got laid the result was hilarious, a long-awaited punchline to a joke years in the telling.

At the peak of his creativity, Enfield frequently killed off characters before they exceeded their natural lifespan (Little Brother himself being a case in point). But recently, that creativity seems to have been drying up, and Kevin and Perry were resurrected, first on TV (Kevin's sexual encounter explained as a dream) and now in this disappointing film.

So what's wrong? Firstly, this film is cruder than the TV series (illustrated by the endless repetition of one particular sight gag that was fresh at its first outing but that does not survive its over-exposure here). Secondly, Enfield has bizarrely decided to make a parody of the clubbing scene, and does so with such clumsiness that he fails to make a mark on a very easy target. With a dance soundtrack playing throughout, he has actually made the sort of film that Kevin and Perry themselves might enjoy. This is not a compliment.

More generally, a lot of the humour of the original sketches comes from the sheer unlikeness of the leads, the way that they somehow exactly capture teenage behaviour in spite of their ill-disguised age and, in Burke's case, sex. The simple shock delivered each time one is re-introduced to the characters leaves one laughing for half of a two minute scene; but for only one percent of a feature film. With nothing in the way of character development, only very many, very good, and very varied jokes could save this movie. There are funny moments; but nowhere near enough.

My advice: stick to the TV re-runs to enjoy Kevin in his natural habitat. Or watch "Norbert Smith - A Life", a TV film and underrated gem from Enfield's past rich with a creativity sadly lacking here.


Without a doubt the biggest waste of two hours and admission price I have spent in the past year. I could go down to my local beach to see this sort of drivle. The story was 'flaky', the acting was pathetic and anything else to say would be a waste of my energy.


The other day, I was bored. I chose to see a movie. The movie that started nearest to my arrival at the cinema was Harry Enfield's much hypes 'Kevin and Perry Go Large'. I was somewhat hesitant to see this movie as even those little 3 minute 'Kevin' sketches on Enfield's TV show bored me. Frankly, the idea of making one of these sketches over an hour long seemed like a bad idea from the start.

The movie was dire.

Enfield did not amuse nor ever has amused me. The few scenes that I enjoyed were played by the under used Kathy Burke or the much funnier Paul Whitehouse in a mere cameo role. Laura Fraser continues her run of bad movies ('Virtual Sexuality', anyone?) and Rhys Ifans has gone even lower (if possible) in my estimation.

Usually, when telling somebody about a movie I would finish by saying' but you should see it for yourself'. Not this one. I strongly advise you all to not see this movie... EVER.

Oh, and 'I wanna do it with you' is more irritating than than nettle rash.


I've always considered myself as a big fan of British comedy but then comes this movie to tear my illusions asunder. This inane, tasteless movie is aimed at nervous teenagers with bad acne, no hobbies or friends whatsoever and palms that are so hairy they need to comb them. So if you don't fit into that category you can stop you're reading right here and forget that this movie ever existed. OK?

Really, this movie makes "Scary Movie" look like "The quest for the holy grail", it's way of trying to bring forth laughters are at best annoying and at worst really offending. Acting is below substandard, humor is absent in every scene and the script should have been burned after the first reading, after the scriptwriters had been shot that is.

Avoid at all costs.

1/10


I have watched this film and I thought it was a waste of time, I found it boring. But most other people I was with who watched it said they enjoyed. One reason why I know I hated it so much was because I hate comedy films, In the cinema if you watch a comedy film all you can her is the laughter around you and it really destroys the film. So basicaly I hate comedy films and this was a total waste of time!!!!!


Yes, the two leads are cute and they do some (awkward, almost chuckle producing) frontal nudity, but beware this stinker. Nothing is as tasteless as a soufflé that doesn't rise, and this gay rom-com has all the tasty buoyancy of a hockey puck. Forget the cheap sets, poor cinematography and weak soundtrack; a gay indie with a bunch of newcomers is entitled to take short cuts. But the script! So much lame drivel masquerading as dialogue, with an occasional "hip" quip -- about Meat Loaf or Anne Heche -- that stands out like a sixth finger on a hand it's so clumsy.

The actors, no matter how cute, are at sea with this poor a script. Scott Lunsford is a total cypher in the impossible role of a deeply passive straight guy who pretends to be gay so he can romance a screechy straight woman. She's Emily Hands, and you haven't seen this raspy a performance since Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls. Ryan Carnes is way cute as a gay stud, but has little presence. He and Lunsford share the silliest, most embarrassing nude scene in recent history. After some (poorly shot and choreographed) oral sex, the director actually shoots them pulling up their pants so we can see their weenies! A new low of sorts. And yes that Jim guy from American Idol is the gay geek. His character is the closest to a real person, but he's no actor.

This is the worst gay comedy I've seen since All Over the Guy. If you flipped for the West Hollywood drivel, run out and rent this. Otherwise, stick with Trick or Passing Glances, real movies about real gay people.

I only go on so long because I am AMAZED at all the good reviews this film has received. Does the director have hundreds of dear friends, or have gay people lost their common sense and good taste?


It could have been an interesting premise. But it was executed so horribly, I was just in awe of what a mess this all turned into. For me, the only reason to watch this film is to see Ryan Carnes for the bulk of 90 minutes. He is completely engaging and could probably have turned in a better performance had he been given a decent script and an experienced director. He is impossibly gorgeous and, as a straight actor, does a really good job of believably portraying a gay guy, without resorting to overacting or being stereotypically gay.

Jim Verraros, in his role as Kyle, is really pretty cute in his own right, except he curls his lips and bobbles his head around in a sneering, dismissive way almost whenever he talks and it's really unflattering and conveys completely the wrong message relative to what he's actually saying. In spite of being cute and all, though, the character of Kyle is utterly self-loathing and just a miserable, bitchy queen. He was also campy to the point of distraction, but again, I blame that on the screenplay. Verraros is no amazing actor, but I believe he could pull off an indie role reasonably well if given better tools.

Apart from having a nice upper body, I did not see the appeal of Caleb (played by Scott Lunsford). He reminded me far too much of "Ted" from Queer As Folk.

As for the rather abrupt ending, I find it a bit of a stretch that the geeky self-hating boy would, after one horrible dinner in which he basically pouted the whole time, land the ferociously hot, model-esquire party boy Marc, who apparently instantly forgets all about his major crush on Caleb and acts as though he's been pining away for Kyle all this time. But it had to be a dream for Jim Verraros... an openly gay guy getting to totally make out with a gorgeous straight guy in a movie.

The DVD itself was abysmal. There are only 4 chapter marks, which is ridiculous for any movie, the subtitles are utterly horrible (they're wrong half the time, omit words, misspell words, etc.), and the commentary is among the worst I've ever been subjected to -- I couldn't sit through more than about five cumulative minutes of it. (I jumped around to see if it ever improved.) Basically, it was five people sitting in an echo chamber of a room with what was clearly one cheap microphone in the middle of the room, all talking about whatever pops into their heads. Half the time it wasn't about the movie at all.

The DVD I got from Netflix was obviously edited, as there was no actual nudity in it whatsoever. So clearly there are at least two versions of this DVD out there, which is really just pretty crappy.

The cinematography is decent for the most part, but another person on here said it looked like a lot of the scenes were filmed by a security camera and I agree. Wide-angle lenses have their time and place, but they're sorely misused and overused in this movie. It results in some very weird scenes that you feel like you're watching from afar... definitely doesn't help draw you into the movie, and the inane dialogue certainly doesn't compel you to be drawn into the characters, either.

All in all, it's not an absolutely horrible movie, but it's sure not very good, and I couldn't recommend it without some serious caveats. I'm not sure I understand the shirtless makeout scene between Kyle and Marc after the credits roll, either. It just doesn't make any sense in the storyline and seems to have been added on for prurient reasons (in which case, it could have been much steamier). Moreover, the picture just freezes at a random point, while the counter keeps running, then the disc ends (cuts off, rather) a minute or so later. It's very amateurish, and sadly, fits in nicely with virtually every other technical aspect of the DVD.


How on earth did this get an average score on IMDb of over 6 (at the time of writing)? Where to start with why it's so dire? The "acting" and dialogue are worse than that in the average porn movie (if you've ever seen a porn movie you'll know what I mean).

The direction is appalling - there are so many scenes where you can see the actors freezing waiting for either the next line from one of the other characters or their director to yell "Cut". It's like watching the rehearsal of a bad stage production designed to "project" to an audience that just happens to have been filmed.

There is no "chemistry" between any of the characters.

The male "muscle Mary" lead, who admittedly has more charisma than most of the rest of the "actors" put together, and is very easy on the eye should NEVER have been cast as a "straight" lead. One certainly doesn't believe for a fraction of a second he is "in love" with the fag hag who he is supposed to have fallen for. Cast him as someone in love with himself and you might have a movie that walks.

And the script, while containing some witty and "daring" (yawn!) bitchy one liners is insulting in its depiction of stereotypes. The plot strands are so ridiculous they become funnier than anything the "comedy" writer originally intended.

The UK DVD has been deliberately "gayed down" in an attempt to shift copies, with a cover claiming this is "A modern-day variant on a Shakesperean comedy". No - it's a diabolically bad amateur movie that will only be of interest to a gay crowd wanting to see some eye candy (who would be better off spending their money on gay porn).

To add insult to injury the UK DVD is a full-priced non-anamorphic copy that looks like it was transferred from an out-of-focus print.

Avoid!


I will not write of the non existent talent in this piece of trash, nor that I think any person (gay straight or refined beyond that) who writes positively about this is either playing tongue in cheek or totally high. Rather, I only add my 2 cents to the comments that we need to be supportive and gentle to reviews of gay indie films because they are so "hard to get made." Well, if this is an example of the product put before filmmakers or distributors it's no wonder! There is no excuse for this movie - I honestly cannot believe that all the people on camera are as talentless as they come off - they just bet on our lowered standards so long as they throw us a few tight torso's and full frontals. The ancillary characters were like penance for the good stuff, but there was no good stuff.

So long as we praise this poop, we'll continue to get dribbles of it. If we aim higher we might just make a film that we can be truly proud of.

I only hope that Ang Lee, and Annie Proulx save us from ourselves.


EATING OUT, like several films before it (Trick, Mambo Italiano, Get your stuff, and the Spanish movie Km.0) tries to be a light-and-witty-but-poignant-at-times gay comedy of errors and switched identities, generously sprinkled with sequences whose main purpose is to showcase its young cast's semi-naked bodies in erotic situations.

It is hard to tell that the movie fails, since it simply never aims very high, but even within its own low-budget gay comedy genre, it's one of the more lackluster efforts. The main premise is simple: after a hunkish straight guy (who shares an apartment with a gay roommate) is suddenly dumped by his kinky and sexually insatiable girlfriend, he turns his interest toward another girl who happens to share an apartment with a gay (male) roommate. To make things "complicated," the straight boy's gay roommate is lusting after the girl's gay roommate. The rest is quite predictable, and follows the pattern of this genre without detours (intro - complications and mistaken identities - climax scene - happy ending). Neither the dialog, nor the acting are substantially better or worse than in the other similar movies, so those who like them, will probably enjoy Eating out. Admittedly, the film's premise, although clichéd, has its comedic possibilities, but the script doesn't really take full advantage of this inherent potential. For an extremely low budget production, the set, the sound, the editing, etc. are all technically competent, if somewhat uninspired. With a better-written, wittier, smarter, and more polished script, EATING... could have been much more fun, without necessarily costing more money. Sadly, I can't resist pointing out that, with the mainstream cinema and media still completely allergic to even most innocently presented displays of same-sex affection, not to mention actual sex, films like this still do have a function to fulfill, even when they fail to live up to its audience's expectations.


Even my low expectations of just another predictable self-serving, gay-for-gay's-sake, "comedy" weren't met. Astoundingly bad in pretty much every way. Yet not absurd enough to be unintentionally-funny on the order of Uwe Boll films. Other than exactly 3 genuinely-funny moments, and a surprisingly-hot sex scene, there is pretty much nothing to enjoy about Eating Out. It manages to be neither a good romantic comedy nor a good porn.

Some Falcon and a copy of Roman Holiday will serve for a much more fulfilling evening.

Like any minority, we gays tend to latch onto things that cater to our group. Let's not further taint that already-questionable process with schlock like this.


I gave this film 3 out of 10 - one star for the three attractive male leads. What does that tell you about it's appeal? The story was, to put it mildly, odd. There were moments in the film that made me feel extremely uncomfortable. The writing was awful. Half way through it felt like the writer was trying to devise a new lingo in hopes of having it catch on. I don't know, maybe there are people out there that talk that way, but I certainly haven't run into any. I would advise avoidance of this film at all costs, even if your tempted to check it out just for the pretty packaging. Trust me, it's not worth the rental. Go rent "The Broken Hearts Club".


Saw this at OUTFEST and the director said he was inspired by John Hughes and the teen sex comedy genre. It seemed like he was inspired more by television sitcoms, though. The script and the dialogue suck but the actors are pretty good and they're able to make most of it palatable. Unfortunately, the basic premise is just really uninspired.

There is a phone sex scene which IS really well done, though, and it feels like the rest of the movie is just a sloppy construction designed to frame that scene. There's a really bad scene where four people play two pianos at a party - it just goes on and on forever in the most unrealistic way, and then you realize that the whole interminable scene was constructed to set up a punch line that is only mildly amusing.

The thing that keeps you interested in the movie is how cute the actors are... overall, a forced, boring movie where you get to see the exploitation of two cute/good actors' genitals for five seconds. 4 out of 10.


This was one of the four or five worst gay movies I've seen, down there with "Surge of Power" and "Latin Boys Go to Hell." It's a little better than those because of two competent performances by Ryan Carnes and Emily Stiles. The others were usually wooden, but they couldn't have been much better with such a cheesy script. The character Kyle needs to be sympathetic, but has to deliver too many cheesy one liners and throw so many little drama fits that the plot hardly justifies. The movie has enough cheap laughs to get you through it, but you feel dirty at the end for having laughed. It falls into the category of not bad enough to walk out of, but not good enough to have shown up for in the first place. I'm very lenient with a movie that tries for something but falls short, but this one doesn't try for that much, and still doesn't achieve it.


I got this movie yesterday, after read several comments of this movie being really bad. I am a art and film student, just began to shot my short 15 minutes film and nervous about the final result. I can certainly hope it won't be as bad as this movie is ! I know sometimes in comedy you can't create a really close connection between the actors. However this movie took me to another level... Even in a comedy type of movie, anyone could think that a straight guy recently been blown by a gay guy, and kissed his flatmate and tells him that "If he was gay a little" he would be his boyfriend, could question his sexuality a bit, don't you think? I found this movie very hard to digest, from every point of view you wanna see it. No much to see of Caleb(Scott Lunsford)questioning his sexuality, or even face the fact that he might as well being a bit confuse after all. If there is anything worth in this movie, it has to be the scene where Caleb and Marc(Ryan Carnes) going for a barbecue together at Marc's friends. I was looking forward to see the connection growing between these two guys, and just when you think they are getting there, they decided to get a video together. Then we are taken to another level here when the phones ring and is Caleb's flatmate (Jim Verranos) who can't honestly act (sorry to say this, sounds like a nice guy though) and the very hard to take Gwen, Marc's flatmate. I found her character very annoying to point I couldn't feel any sympathy for her character at the end. The end, I can't began to describe how bad it is. Honestly Gwen and Kyle, deserve one other. I feel sorry for Marc, as he is portrait as the "uncommited gay guy". However we could see that in fact Caleb feels a bit for him after the party they got together and the scene in the video store where Caleb confessed to Marc 'You are just awesome in the piano"....Certainly this is something that if I was directing the movie I would like to explore more. Let's these two guys end together, correct me if I am wrong, but I got the impression that if Caleb didn't move any faster to Marc, was not only because he confessed to be straight, it was because he felt he was betraying his roommate and flatmate Kyle. Very disappointing film it was for me, the end was abrupt and confusing, the acting was at times over the top, specially by Emily Stiles and Jim Verraros, but the scene where Caleb's parents came for dinner is out question one of the worst...!


I became 100% convinced that I would hate this film the second some supposedly "British" guy opens his mouth and starts talking with an accent reminiscent of Dick van Dyke's performance in Mary Poppins. Others have said it better than me, so I'll just summarise: the idea that the best way into a girl's pants is pretend you're a gay man never, ever made sense. How anyone, gay, straight or vegetable, could find the foul-mouthed, insecure, nasty-minded "leading lady" attractive is something that I will spend the next 15 seconds wondering. The writer could have done something interesting with the idea, and said something vaguely interesting about fluid, non-polarised sexuality, but nah; instead he chose to ram the film so full of stock clichés about queers that it undergoes gravitational collapse. Oh, and, just maybe, having one of the main characters summarise the plot of the entire film only twenty minutes in probably isn't that great an idea.


This is without a doubt the worst gay-themed film I have ever seen. It's an embarrassment on every level. The script is hackneyed and unfunny. The direction -- well, what passes for the direction, is inept. The actors appear to have been handed the orders "ham it up!" Yet, the ones who aren't over-the-top are wooden and stiff. It's a shame when gay filmmakers like this Q. Allan Broka can get films like this made and provide free ammunition to the right wing who want to impede our freedom. Thankfully, talented straight allies like Ang Lee and Larry McMurtry and Diana Osanna are around to make groundbreaking films like Brokeback Mountain and undo the dame done by stinkers like this.


I'll stop short of calling this the worst film I've ever seen, as others have done here, but it is dreadful and, at times, insulting. I rated it two out of ten because the actor Ryan Carnes has a lot of charisma, though he isn't well-directed here. I feel sorry for the actor and the other one who's name escapes me for they are subjected to a completely gratuitous nude scene, the kind that young bimbo actresses are subjected to time and again. The plot is completely old hat, nothing new --stop me if you've heard this one before -- a straight guy pretends to be gay to impress a girl. Yes, in 2005 we're still trying to gett mileage out of that one and the perpetuation of gay stereotypes. Actually all the actors are poorly directed and as so often happens most of them overplay their scenes, hoping to milk this slight material for laughs where there aren't any real ones. Production values are non-existent, which is understandable with an indie film, but the amateurish writing and directing is inexcusable.


This is honestly the worst film I've ever seen. Saw it at the recent London Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, and boy does it stink. I should have known just how much it would suck by the casting of Jim Verraros as one of the leads. A loser in the first season of American Idol (America couldn't kick his signing butt off the show quick enough), a horrible actor on screen. Eating Out suffers from all the cliches which befall 95% of gay-themed films. The script is over-written, the acting over-hammy. I'm sure it was funny on page. But no one actually talks like they do in this movie. The only redeeming quality here are the two penises on show. And even those are limp.


First the good: Scott Lunsford is great as Caleb, the straight college student who lusts after Gwen. Besides being gorgeous (he reminds me a bit of Hugh Jackman), Lunsford gives a really good performance. Emily Stiles also gives a pretty good performance as Gwen; sure, she's way over the top--but it mostly works in context of the film.

Now the bad: well, to be blunt, everything else. The plot is basically straight out of a bad sitcom, peppered with one-liners I mostly did not find funny. The sound and lighting were terrible; some of the dialogue was muffled and all the images had the same dull, flat look. Jim Verraros (who I'd never heard of) wasn't very good, and Ryan Carnes is cute, but did a mediocre job. The minor characters were uniformly bad--the worst being Caleb's parents and sister.

That being said, this will likely be big hit on the gay film festival circuit--but will probably get no audience outside that tiny group.

Before and after the film, when the director spoke, he seemed like a nice guy, and was certainly very cute--so, I wish him well in the future, but this is really bad first feature.


This is without a doubt one of the worst films I have ever seen. Even among what has become a gay ghetto of bad films, and even overlooking the shodding editing and cheap production values, Eating Out takes the cake for most inept screenplay and direction in recent memory. I was absolutely insulted by this concoction and am baffled by some of the glowing reviews here by what appear to be members of the gay and lesbian community. I imagine the film will get some attention as it stars Ryan Carnes, who just made a splash as the gay gardener on ABC's hit Desperate Housewives and the kid is undeniably cute and charismatic, but I felt sorry for him here as he is exploited by the film's director and producers. He and another actor have the most gratuitous nude scene in recent memory. It's the sort of scene that gives gay cinema a very bad name. Avoid this film at all costs.


Horrible writing, incompetent camera-work, terrible acting, non existent direction. But it's got full frontal male nudity, so what does anything else matter, right? When is gay themed cinema going to be held to the same standards of mainstream film? Why is everything else left to trickle down the drain as long as we have cute boys running around naked and stereotypes abounding by the dozens. This one had everything but a drag queen, and my guess is it was left on the cutting room floor, where the whole rest of this dreck should have gone. And the audience ate it up. Sometimes, I think we get what we deserve.

Memo to the lazy DP- try switching lenses every once in a while. Half the movie looked like it was shot with a surveillance-cam.


Wow, I don't know where to begin with describing this laborious and completely unfunny travesty. First you have to completely suspend all disbelief and buy the offensive post-Will & Grace premise that a straight girl only digs gay guys. Then a "straight" guy who digs the girl pretends to be a gay guy to get the girl and complications ensue. Like the guy letting a gay guy perform oral sex on him. I'm not making this up. As if this plot wasn't insane and insulting, and is you can overlook the lowbudget production, wait till you hear what passes as "dialogue." None of the actors have any chemistry with one another. I'm told the director is the nephew of the man who made the commendable Midnight Dancer. Rent it instead of watching this. Talent doesn't run in the Brocka family. Everyone involved in this should have their union cards revoked. On metacritic.com, this received a 27 percent recommendation out of a possible 100. Some critics were being generous.


that the female love interest was just some random skank, she wasn't some amazingly rare prize that every guy would do just about anything to be with. In fact, she was about the worst female character they could have written to base this scenario around.

Any straight guy willing to go to these lengths to be with a girl like that has some serious emotional and mental damage as well as baggage.

As a movie, it was entertaining but all the while this ate at me. It was too much to believe without a better set up and more character development. Had they all been in college and Caleb suffering from some horrible insecurities, it would have been much more believable.

There is a sequel, not so sure I'll give it a chance based on the huge flaw of this script that is specifically due to one character..a character that could be had by anyone after enough liquor on a Saturday night. Girls like that are everywhere to the point that they ARE the modern "girl next door".


***This review contains spoilers***

The biggest problem I have with this film is the same one I had with Coppolla's `Dracula': this film is a hodgepodge of vignettes, less a continuous stream than a series of carefully crafted scenes. Normally the editing process of a film patches the scenes together into a unified whole, so that the resulting film flows, but in this film nearly every scene opens and closes like its own little film, leaving little room for character development. I have no idea what motivates Frank Abagnale, for example. One might be tempted to look at the failure of the family business or his parents' divorce as a catalyst, but still we are given absolutely no insight into the character. It would have been nice to see the characters given a little humanity instead of looking and acting like stiff background characters from some crappy 1960s cartoon.

In one of the most bald-faced product placements I've ever seen, three FBI agents, including Hanks, are invited in to Franks's mother's house for `Sara Lee'. One of the agents says: `nobody doesn't like Sara Lee.' That might be true if the only food you've ever eaten is tree bark, but the waxy, unsatisfying desserts offered by Sara Lee are the Keanu Reeves of the dessert world: they look good, but have no substance.

Situations arise and disappear like zephyrs. Why does Frank apply for the job at the hospital, did he get tired of being a pilot? He gets the job at the hospital, okay that's simultaneously interesting and funny, but then what happens? Does he quit, is he fired? How does the girl get back together with her parents, did they forgive her, does she keep her job? How did Frank perform as an attorney? When and how did he buy a house in Atlanta? Who are all those people at his house? What was the deal with model/prostitute? The whole scene served absolutely no purpose. There are dozens and dozens of unanswered questions such as these, from start to finish, leaving a curiously empty, unsatisfying feeling, much like eating a frozen dessert made with artificial chemicals. That Sara Lee gets such a high-profile product placement in this film is no coincidence, I am sure.

Christopher Walken gives one of his best performances as Frank's father. Like Richard Farnsworth in The Straight Story, Walken's face tells more about the character than anything he could ever say. His performance is so rich and deep that he should be nominated for best supporting actor. LDC, having shown so much promise in `What's Eating Gilbert Grape,' is merely adequate in the role of Frank Abagnale; he's no Christopher Walken, that's for sure. Hanks plays himself, doing his best Robin Williams impression of Tom Hanks playing a dramatic role, occasionally raising his voice just like he's been doing since Bosom Buddies. Hanks is the Sara Lee of actors.

All in all, this is an interesting film, albeit a curiously empty one. The day after you watch it, you won't remember any of it.


***SPOILERS BELOW***

Watching the trailer for 'The Interpreter', I was initially intrigued. I love a good political thriller, and I see Sean Penn and Sydney Pollack involved.I'm game. Never mind Nicole Kidman, I'm not a fan and probably never will be; she just irks me. Anyhow, as much as I liked the trailer, it's VERY flawed in that I basically knew what was going to happen in the film..namely who the 'bad guy' is. It really spoiled the movie for me. I'm smarter than the average Joe; I can't believe people still fall for the 'oh my goodness, the bad guy is actually the person who appears to be the victim, the good guy!!' twist. It's very lame and overdone. Try something new people! Even so I had to depend on the execution of this to come away satisfied overall. That does NOT happen here.at ALL.

The acting here is good overall, nice cinematography all around, but what absolutely kills 'The Interpreter' is the script. My GOD the script is horrible! My friend sitting next to me asked me if it was written in crayon. It minus well had been written in crayon, because it doesn't get more childish than this. Kidman's character now ranks up there with Monica Bellucci's horrid 'performance' in Tears of the Sun as one of the most annoying characters ever in film; and what pisses me off is that this type of character is getting more and more prevalent in movies like this. From the beginning Kidman's character walks around completely clueless, lying every chance she gets holding information from anyone/everyone who's trying to help her. What killed me was when Penn asked her who she met with in the park and she simply answers, 'it's personal'. I was about to walk out the theater after hearing that. You'd think that in a pressure situation where you had bitched and moaned earlier about possibly not getting any protection, you'd be a LITTLE more cooperative with the people who are now PROTECTING YOU! Who writes this crap? 'It's personal'??? The writers couldn't come up with a better answer than that??? All throughout the movie we gotta sit through the torture of seeing Kidman lie and hide things from the very people she's depending on, like it's a game or something. At one point Penn shows her a picture he found of her and her brother, holding machine guns walking down a street in Africa some time ago. Penn, now expecting her to finally come clean after about 2-3 previous meetings like these (where he uncovers another one of her lies), and the best thing that Kidman could say is..get this'that's not me'. WHAT??? What do you mean 'that's not me?' Only after more pressing from Penn does she admit that the woman in the picture (her) isn't the type of person she is now. Penn isn't innocent of corny/lame/pointless dialogue either.as we get the pleasure of going through more of his emotional, 'oh woe is me' soliloquies throughout the film, at times without ANY provocation. I swear in a scene or two they'd be talking about something political or a conspiracy and Penn just bust out talking about his dead wife. Where the hell did THAT come from? And how many more times does the hero/good guy of the film have to be a drunk, never mind the reason?

This movie, running at 2 hrs and 8 mins, could've been cut down by at least 40 minutes easily. By simply doing away with the run-around supplied by Kidman, and lame subtle attempts at a romantic angle.scenes that seem like Pollack was all too happy to film and make the movie drag even more, would have STARTED to make the movie's execution a little better. I say 'started' because the script on a whole is just a total mess. After a while there's just blabbering going on and you don't even care who's who and who's working for this one or that one and he has conflict with him because of someone else's agenda blah blah blah. Other things I didn't like:

- the bus scene was filmed nicely, but what was REALLY her point of getting on the bus?

- Who was the assassin who was after Kidman working for?

- Just why in the hell did she turn on the light in the interpreter's room anyway??

- You mean to tell me that the whole thing was just faking an assassination attempt in order to get more 'credibility'??

- Kidman goes through all of this lying and hiding to get to the President, just for him to read a few passages in a book he wrote and that she knows by heart???

- She attempts to murder an international government figure, and all they do to her is 'send her home'?? Isn't she a citizen of her home country (where she really will be just 'going home'), but also a citizen of the USwhere she can be tried and sentenced like any one of us?

I refuse to waste anymore time on this joke of a political thrillerI've wasted enough. I only went to see this because I was taking a friend of mine out for her birthday and this is what she wanted to see. Now I remember why I said I would not be going to the movies for a long while. Total waste of time and money.

* out of **** stars.


I wanted to like this film. Sydney Pollack is a liberal-minded director with an interesting filmography. But I found myself asking why Kidman had to play the part and not a black actress. She never convinces as a half-African fighter for freedom in the disguise of an interpreter...Too many compromises -Pollack - hints at something like this in the DVD specials - and no thrills. The ending is neither touching nor thrilling. The alternative end which you can find on the DVD is even worse - a naive dreamer's version of what politics should be like. Technically a perfect film, as for the contents: unconvincing and flat. Sorry Sydney, but the UN as a location is not enough as a concept for a convincing political film.


"The Interpreter" is a politicized cross between "Someone to Watch Over Me" and "The Man Who Knew Too Much" with "The Day of the Jackal." While it doesn't use African genocide as crudely as "Beyond Borders," it is painful to see a fictionalized story when the United Nations is right now doing so little about the horrors in Darfur, Nigeria, etc. It not only gives us a fictional conflict, but a fictional language, traditions and art (we don't get to hear much African music on the soundtrack, fictionalized or otherwise) -- and how many Americans even realize that an intoned list of victims are fictional names? From the opposite perspective, would "Casablanca" have the same resonance if it was within a fictional conflict? One can at least muse about the layers of meaning that could have been possible if Charlize Theron, a genuine white South African, had been cast instead of Nicole Kidman.

The climax with the megalomaniac mastermind is just plain foolish, particularly when we've seen how a real mass murderer ends up in "Downfall (Der Untergang)" - devoid of regrets or self-awareness, whereas here complex national politics are reduced to issues of individual actions and consequences.

Divorced from any message or politics, this is a respectable thriller. The chase scene in Brooklyn is very effective; I liked the touch of agents tailing different suspects frantically crossing paths.

Kidman's and Sean Penn's relationship is refreshingly adult-to-adult and restrained, with Penn's character on automatic as he's emotionally immobilized by grief. Catherine Keener's agent gets the best lines, adding some snap to the ponderousness. It's nice to see NY character actors in small roles throughout.

For a big budget film, the cinematography and make-up are distractingly harsh, particularly Penn's pancake shmear in a NYC January vs. Kidman's porcelain doll look; maybe they had lighting restrictions due to their much touted filming actually at the U.N.

I'm a fan of Lyle Lovett but I did not get the significance of his "If I Had A Boat" (from the "Pontiac" CD) being Penn's relationship song, let alone that he'd find a bar in NYC that had it on the jukebox.

Was it intentional that the last shot of the skyline of New York City only focused on midtown and did not sweep over to the terrorist-caused gap in the lower Manhattan silhouette?


This is a mildly enjoyable flick which attempts to be a serious political thriller but in my opinion falls very short of the mark. This is mainly due to the exceedingly annoying Hollywood need to always create some romantic chemistry between the lead male and female characters. OK in this case it is not taken too far but it still feels false and as though it has been added in just to keep the lady's in the audience happy (or rather the Hollywood executive's idea of what will make lady's in the audience happy).

In trying to be serious and political the film comes off at times as just being confusing. And the there's the plot holes, oh my god, there are just too many to mention. Some of the action and suspense sequences are great like the magnificent bit with the bus. Kidman is as usual very good but Penn at times feels very one dimensional, too much cowling at the camera.


Being a Nicole Kidman fan ("The Others", etc) I have looked forward to seeing "The Interpreter" for some time and the reviews in my local newspapers were very favorable. However, I was greatly disappointed. The romance never sizzled and the murders and assassinations were so numerous that I could not keep track of who was killed and who was doing the killing. I had to wonder why Nicole did not draw the drapes on her apartment windows and make it less convenient for the good guys and the bad guys to watch her every move. When Nicole talked to the important dignitary on the bus, I thought he was the one who was to speak at the UN. Later I found the real prestigious fellow came flying in and is escorted to the UN with the greatest over-the-top protection that New York City could possibly muster. It was actually comical. Far too many characters, both good guys and bad guys. And far too long. I found myself wondering if this thing would ever end. The best substance of the movie was the inside look at the UN building and how the interpreters do their job.


I was looking forward to seeing this, particularly as it features Sean Penn and marks the only film ever to have been allowed access to the inner sanctum of the United Nations in New York. Whilst Sean Penn delivers a typically solid performance (reminding me a little of Robert Di Niro in this), Nicole Kidman is totally unconvincing as a translator at the UN specializing in the language of her (fictional) African homeland. If we accept the plot as plausible (which is already a bit of a leap), you can't help but wonder at the ineptitude of the CIA, FBI, NYPD and other agencies of law and order in dealing with the threat to a visiting African dictator. One man (who had earlier been injured in an explosion) is tasked with tracking down Nicole Kidman alone. He apparently manages, in the space of a couple of hours, to check every airport in the New York area, and call all of her friends and acquaintances. As for the haunting African music which turns out to be coming from Ms. Kidman's flute, well I couldn't help laughing. If you want a movie about international politics and the problems faced in Africa, watch Hotel Rwanda. If you want to hear Nicole Kidman delivering her lines in an endlessly changing accent, this is the one for you.


I like the way they presented the story because it is the fist time that I watched a movie that is taken from an actual UN meeting. However there are lapses in the story that makes me think that its makers failed to connect to the audience.

This part is absolutely ridiculous. A black man claiming to be an ambassador of Motabo, Africa has a name plate "Philippines". This is an absolute ignorance on the world's demographics. Our country is 80% Malay and the rest of mixed ancestry such as Chinese, Japanese, Spanish among others. There are no afro-American-looking people in the Philippines. And this country is located in Asia. They should have placed any other African countries other than the later.


This film looked promising at start: it showed the matter of fact violence perpetrated by a boy carrying automatic gun. I thought for a second that finally someone would talk about the extent of this aspect of child abuse in Africa, where there are so many unscrupulous thugs who supply children with weapons, and let them kill (and be killed) at will.

But then it quickly turned into a typical Hollywood production, with a typical for the "progressive" Hollywood left-wing agenda, which can be summarized very simply as: the UN and the International Court are noble and good, and they matter. To me, this idea defies reality, and the movie that promotes it is ridiculous.


It's fascinating to note how reviews of this film -- and many others -- seem to fall along political lines.

Some who commented on this film and who liked it, happily saw a pro-UN message in Pollack's effort. (Many of these appear to be non-Americans.) American have tended to judge the film for its story-telling qualities which are sadly lacking.) Unfortunately for Pollack, his masterpiece work "Three Days of the Condor" is a terribly hard act for anyone to follow, especially for its director who is competing with himself in this genre. "The Interpreter" does not fare well in this comparison.

What was going on in this film? Sean Penn is a federal agent with an improbable and bizarre personal life (his dancer spouse is a runaway wife who dies in a car wreck with her lover...?) There there is all sorts of halting, non sequitur dialogue between Penn and Kidman that seems to hint at a romantic development but goes nowhere.

The plot turns were all contrived and some of the action was incomprehensible -- why didn't the agents get off the bus when told to? Why did they keep saying they didn't want to expose their cover until they were blown to bits? It was one of many inexplicably odd plot devices that were counterintuitive. Much of this film was so contradictory it nearly gave me a headache.

Movies are fiction, sleight of hand and fantasy but they have to be believable within their own context. "Condor" was brilliant in that it was believable within itself. Robert Redford was a thoroughly believable CIA analyst with a background that allowed him to elude assassination while developing a believable relationship with Faye Dunaway whom he kidnapped at random to aid his escape.

I'll simply fast-forward to the "The Interpreter's" outrageously unrealistic ending which I will not reveal. I'll simply ask viewers to compare it to the delicious twist at the end of "Condor" in which Redford is given fatherly advice by his own would-be assassin after the killer was instead ordered to murder the man who wanted Redford dead.

"Condor" had a hard and realistic edge to it that is missing in "Interpreter".

As for the political message of "Interpreter" regarding the UN, it seems one could see the film as arguing for and against the trouble-plagued international body. As a political message, Pollack's film seems as confused as its plot.


I've been anticipating this film for a while, ever since it got such buzz at SXSW 2007 (and I missed the screening). I finally watched it in NY recently. What a disappointment! The premise is promising for an off-beat comedy - a frustrated twenty-something, fresh on the heels of his failed play opening, decides to rob a bank, discovering that crime may be his calling in the world.

But the creativity stalls from here on out. The two slacker best friends are cringe worthy - at attempt at indie quirk that is too forced and self conscious. The romantic relationship between the main character and the bank teller is promising but the lack of spark between the actors doesn't help the poorly flushed out story line.

The film is adequately directed, though Miranda's commercial roots are definitely showing, but the merits of "Skills" don't earn the hype. I've seen so many wonderful festival films that never get distribution - I am left scratching my head wondering who the producers had to bribe to get this three year old bomb into limited screening! I doubt it will ever see a DVD shelf.


Quite possibly one of the clumbsiest, meaningless, and inane films of the recent months of independent movie-making, LATIN BOYS GO TO HELL lies somewhere between a gay coming-of-age drama and a cheesy exploitation spoof. It might be faint praise to say that if Ed Wood were to make a "gay" film without wire-strung special-effects, this self-important movie would be it. The story deals with two cousins, Justion and Angel (Irwin Ossa and John Davila), one of whom is a closeted gay with a crush on the other, and how a series of events causes violence. Such images as castration, religious icons, and a tacky Latino soap opera are all intertwined in a vain attempt to give some meaning to the threadbare storyline. While Ossa and Davila show some promise as upcoming actors, Mike Ruiz (as Carlos) is so embarrassingly bad that it destroys whatever pitiful potential the film has in reaching audience approval. Troyano, a director of previous short films, seems completely disinterested in either her characters or subject matter; one wonders what her aim was in working with this project at all. Shot on a shoestring budget throughout Queens and the Bronx, the film's technical limitations would have been forgivable had it had a subject matter with heart. Ultimately, LATIN BOYS really has nothing to cheer about -- either in its ambition or execution. MY SCORE: 1


No budget "drama" about a bunch of uninteresting gay and straight Latino guys in NYC.

This film just does about everything wrong. First of all--the title. When you give a film that title you're almost promising the audience this is either going to be high camp or a sex movie. It's neither. We're supposed to take this as a serious drama. Think about this--"Latin Boys Go To Hell" and "serious drama". It doesn't exactly mix. The plot is a predictable yawner about a gay guy after a straight guy. This plot has been done to death and is so old. Also, the straight guy isn't even remotely good-looking but the cute gay guy is in love with him. Also, except for some mild butt shots, there's no nudity or sex--although the poster has one of the hunky actors with his shirt off. The dialogue is lame, the pace of the film is too slow (even at 71 minutes) and most of the acting is abysmal.

If you're going to do a film about gay Latinos have a little something more interesting to tell (and show). A definite 1.


I rented this movie the other day, and must say I have not seen a worse movie in quite some time. The main reason I picked up the movie was to see Mark Hamill in something other than Star Wars. Now I know why Hollywood wasn't really knocking down his door. The acting by all parties involved in this was awful. The two main females were especially atrocious.

The movie itself feels like it has ended 4 or 5 times before the actual end of the movie. Each time I'm hoping that the torture is over, but no, it still goes on. The Trickster escapes from the courthouse or from jail, or from wherever once again, and goes to fight the Flash once again.

The use of The Flash's powers was pretty sparse as well. He runs around fast a little bit, juggles to himself while beating on the Trickster a bit, but doesn't really do anything cool. The Flash is more than just running fast.

Special effects for this movie were actually one of the decent parts, considering it's made for TV budget, it didn't look too bad. The Flash's costume was also rather well put together.

Overall though, this was a very disappointing movie, both as a fan of Mark Hamill, and as a comic book fan. I'd recommend staying far away from it.


Because I was on a kick for some post-apocalyptic goodness and the cast included old favorites, I watched this flick. The result is mildly disappointing but might still be worth it for some. One thing that must be taken into account is that we are talking about a 1975 movie. This excuse its clunkiness and the lack of scope somewhat, although not completely.

The basic plot is rather vague, all over the place. The writing is crude and ridiculous at times, yet there are worthwhile ideas to explore. The story takes place in a post-apoc New-York circa 2012. The usual staples of the genre are there. Lawlessness in a barren city, return to a semi-primitive life and lots of scavenging. Some survivors form bands. This flick focuses on two such rival groups, one of which, in the pure Hollywood tradition is the "good guys" and the other "the bad guys".

Yul Brynner, for a man in his 50s, is surprisingly in shape and exudes action hero charisma. He is effective here as Carson, a super-tough survivor who responds to the (very lame, plot-wise) "good guy's offer" to protect them in exchange for a clean room, triple food rations and most importantly to him... cigars (I kid you not). Max Von Sydow's aura is equally perceptible but as in many, many of his 70s/80s movies, he's simply collecting the paycheck here. You'll appreciate his natural screen presence but do not expect to be blown away. He's the leader of the "good band" here but is not use to best effect. His character is very one-dimensional. While the one-dimensionality of Carson works, we expect more emotion from the peripheral characters. William Smith plays Carrot, your usual psychotic main villain and leader of the "bad clan". Surprisingly, he gives the best performance of the entire film by far, even if that's not saying much. The rest of the actors are extremely weak and their characters are flat and/or undeveloped.

The main flaw of this movie is a failure to establish much motivations. The way leader Baron (Sydow) "recruits" Carson at the start of the movie is beyond ridiculous. The whole setup is just so unbelievable that we expect there is more to it than Carson just standing there in the middle of the city. The two clans are at war but it's difficult to comprehend why exactly. Sure, we get that it's a typical conflict but we never swallow it. But wait, you say. Why does it matter if the characters are fleshed out or not? Isn't this an action flick? There's the problem. There is a real attempt here at telling a story because there is NOT much action. It's just that there is no real story, unfortunately. We spend a lot of time with Baron's bunch. Learning about various characters and the tensions caused by the lack of food but it's all underdeveloped. You get the impression there are directorial comments here about "communal lifestyle" but they aren't clear. There's also a surprising lack of romance here or other kitsch elements. The final act of the flick is a drawn out chase in the subways that is anything but exciting. The final confrontation has nice ideas but again, falls flat.

At its heart, I think Ultimate Warrior wanted to highlight the differences and more importantly the similarities between "peaceful hippies" and "hardened men" such as Carson and how the two react when facing obstacles in a lawless environment. Unfortunately, it fails. Everything this movie does, the Mad Max trilogy does way better. Except I'd rather watch Max Von Sydow than Tina Turner.

Big fans of post-apoc films, Sydow, Brynner or cheesy 70s flick will want to give this one one viewing and that's it. Others are better off passing.


Lauterhouse," affectionately referred to as "slaughterhouse" by its owner Devin Lauter (played by the director, who should have stayed hidden behind the camera!), is a big SoCal mansion on a secluded plot of prime real estate. Devin wants it converted over to a bed and breakfast, but the sadistic ghost of his late uncle, a former stage magician, keeps killing off whoever enters.

Paranormal researcher Agnes Goldberg (Judy Tatum) is hired to photograph and exorcize the ghost and organizes a team of paranormal experts that include her "mental medium" husband Felix (Rob Zapple), "psychic medium" Whitney O'Shay (Kathleen Bailey) and sexy video-tech Ginger KoWOWski (Linnea Quigley), plus three low-grade rent-a-cops for protection. Naturally, things don't go as planned when Uncle Avery (J.P. Leubsen, the creepy guy from WITCHBOARD) starts to use his powers to kill everyone off.

Looking for some of the worst amateur acting and dialogue ever to hit the small screen? Then look no further! Tatum and Bailey make Ben Stein look like Laurence Olivier! Also with a showerhead through a neck, a black character when threatens, "I'll tapdance on your face like Bojangles Robinson!," a fat voyeur groundskeeper, an exploding head, blood that looks suspiciously like Cherry Kool-Aid, Tenney's trademark AWFUL wisecracks, Linnea in the shower, a possession, a human meltdown and much, much more. It's all delirious fun! I've never laughed so hard in my life! In fact, everytime I see this for sale, I pick up a copy to give to one of my friends as a gag gift.

I would rate this a 9 for laughs and entertainment value and I give it some credit because the plot is actually competent (even if much of the dialogue is not), but going by the craftsmanship, it's a generous...

Score: 3 out 10.


It's unbelievable that the same director who brought us "Night of the Demons" could churn out such an amateur hour crap-fest. The script is a typical ripoff of "The Haunting" but if the Robert Wise flick was rated 100 this would get a 1. The director has a cameo appearance which says it all: his acting "skills" come strictly from the "deer in the headlights" school of acting. Linnea Quigley is pretty to look at. It's too bad she wasn't more discriminating in her choice of roles. She made a few decent flicks, then wallowed away her career in a sea of these cheeseball no budget snoozers. See this one ONLY for laughs. It's a howler.


This is not a sequel to WITCHBOARD. It's written and directed by Kevin S. Tenney, the director of WITCHBOARD. In fact, on the VHS copy I purchased, there's a notice on the back declaring WITCHTRAP a non-sequel. It's also, included, no kidding, as a notice right before the title sequence for WITCHTRAP. I guess Tenney was threatened with a lawsuit? Was Witchboard that successful that he'd be hassled about his obvious sequel to it? Also, on the packaging is the tag-line, "This time, it's not a game." So, what was the "last" time? WITCHBOARD, maybe? Sequel, perhaps? Please see disclaimer.

Anyway, I picked WITCHTRAP up, amongst other gems, at a local library sale for a whopping 50 cents. It was a rental from a now defunct video store called Top Video. Pretty beat up copy, and I usually prefer to stay away from rentals, but couldn't resist, plus it had Linnea Quigley in it. How bad could it be? Pretty bad, actually. The acting is quite awful. It helped that they drove around in vintage 1980s cars, wore Members Only jackets and sported the latest hairstyles. However, the people driving the cars, and sporting the funky clothes, couldn't cut it as performers. It's about the level of porn acting, maybe a little bit better and I suppose, the guy playing the detective, James Quinn, was okay, sometimes, but that's about it. Quigley, doesn't have much of a part and does what she's hired to do. She has a shower scene and she appears to be laughing when she gets killed.

The premise of the film is fairly typical for this genre. A man named Devin Lauter inherits a mansion from his long deceased uncle, Avery Lauter. Avery, it seems was some kind of warlock or other, and died brutally in the home and, naturally, possesses the place and kills erstwhile inhabitants. That's why the nephew, Devin, hires a crack team of paranormal experts and some detectives, for security, to figure the place out. Of course, once they arrive things go horribly wrong. If only they had gone horribly wrong in any kind of an interesting way. The pacing is very slow and the gruesome deaths aren't very gruesome. Flying hatchets were never that scary to begin with, and WITCHTRAP proves that they still aren't.

There is, however, a certain production value to WITCHTRAP. The pacing sucks but the editing and camera work is clearly professional. In fact, there were a couple of things I thought were kind of neat, here and there, like a scene where some hands come through a door. But, believe me, those moments were few and far between. And, by professional, I mean they had some money behind it, so it's watchable, unlike, say, a lot of the stuff from Full Moon video. I have to also say, that compared to a lot of direct to video digital cheapies I've seen in recent years, some of these ultra low budget filmmakers could learn a thing or two from WITCHTRAP. Unfortunately, that has more to do with how bad some current filmmakers are then any particular quality WITCHTRAP has. Again, there is some technical competence in the film but, unfortunately, not enough to redeem it.

Almost twenty years on, it's a bit tricky to consider recommending WITCHTRAP. There's no arguing that it's a pretty bad film. It fails on some of the most fundamental levels consistently enough to irritate just about anyone interested in these types of films. The gratuitous nudity is pretty uninspired, as is the violence, and the poor acting exceeds camp into just plain awful.

Still, if you're a connoisseur of 80s horror, if there is such a thing, you might be able to tolerate the bad film-making. Linnea Quigley is in it, after all and that helps. It also helps that it is so dated. If you grew up in this era, nostalgia might get you through.

So, if you see it for 50 cents, or maybe a dollar, and need something to play in the background as you do other things, WITCHTRAP just might be up your alley. Otherwise, you're better off with almost anything else.


This movie is a must for persons who also want to make a movie in the future. Then you'll know there are always worst. The actors are so bad that they are becoming funny. The discussion at the table before entering the house is excellent. The "special effects" are the worst I've ever seen. The crew did have the guts to make and show this crap on TV, and that's brilliant. We were constantly laughing, you must realize that this movie is not seriously meant (I hope).


This sorry excuse to waste 90 minutes of everybody's life is really a mess, made by a director infamous for other such bad efforts in the horror range. Yes, even Witchboard wasn't that good and this one is definetely worse. You have a bunch of psychics going hunting for the ghost of a vicious and very powerful warlock who has to reincarnate for getting his revenge. Among the psychics there is also Linnea Quigley (who has the usual shower scene) and she is in the finest scene of all the movie, that is overacted by most of the cast (that is not very good at it). If you mix it with one of the worst script ever to reach the screen, you have a nightmarish experience. A waste of time (and money)


Possibly the worst acting ever in a genre not noted for its sterling thespians. Quigley is the best of the lot, shining (relatively) in her role as one of the many disposable sacks of blood in this tedious time-sink. Who lives through it? Who cares? Since the characters are all blanks, there's no suspense and the little interest there is wanes quickly. One of the all-time worst horror films.


The script is idiotic, and the actors look and sound like porn movie rejects...

The horror is so boring with dumb effects and complete lack of suspense. It's amusing to see the main male character trying hard to be funny all through the movie with very sad rude one-liners. You don't really care for the characters as they are just a bunch of boring cannon fodder.

When all the bad elements are all put together you get an incredibly idiotic movie that is fun to watch BECAUSE it's so bad.


A man in a bad suit runs around a house, fleeing something. He dies when he falls out of a second story window. The man was The Amazing Asimov, a Las Vegas magician. The house is in the middle of a cemetery (never really seen), and is haunted by a satanic warlock. The owner hoped to make it an inn, but wants to make sure people who stay there don't get killed by the witch. He hires a team of psychic mediums and cops.

The actors are all pretty stiff, and they have to deliver huge amounts of boring dialogue. Not much happens in the movie. The brief death scenes are done fairly well, including a strange shower impalement, and exploding head, and a melting character.


i didn't realise this was a Cronenberg movie until after it had finished. in fact, i didn't know much about the movie at all, but after some good recommendations from friends i was quite looking forward to it. rest assured, from now on, i will never listen to another word those friends say regarding movies! the only way i can describe this picture without swearing is a mess... in fact, it was so bad it encouraged me to sign up to IMDb so i could express just how painful an experience watching 'a history of violence' was!

the film started (by this i mean the opening scene) promisingly i thought, with a nice long drawn-out opening shot and some distant, spacey acting. it also hinted somewhat of the nastiness to come. the quality of the film then immediately reared its head in the following 'child wakes up from nightmare' scene...

(possible SPOILER, but of the most minimal kind)

Aragorn/Viggo Mortensen - 'did you have a bad dream Sarah?'

pointless daughter character - 'yes i did daddy'

(son wakes up, enters pointless daughter's room)

bland son - 'what's going on?'

Aragorn -'Sarah had a bad dream son'

bland son - 'oh no dad'

(mother/bird from ER/that terrible movie where they dance on the bar enters pointless daughter's room)

bird from ER - 'what's the matter honey? did you have a bad dream?'

pointless daughter character (visibly getting bored now by the sheer length of the scene) - 'yes mommy, i'm going to sleep with the light on'

all - 'what a great idea!'

now, does a scene like this really need to last what feels like over three minutes?! i understand that Cronenberg's attempting to set up a semblance of the family's quiet life and how much love they have each other, but surely there are more subtle ways than this? now, i also realise that some may say Cronenberg often favours the more direct approach and tries to test his audience with occasional bouts of realism straight out of a comic book, but i'm sorry, just because he has built up a reputation of doing things this way (which on many occasions i've hugely enjoyed), does not mean he get away with sheer sloppiness of this magnitude. i thought 'Spider' was a great example of Cronenberg occasionally approaching his subject matter from a more 'considered' perspective, but precious little of that subtlety is on display in 'a history of violence'.

the acting, i also thought, was below par. Mortensen was okay, though it seemed like he was repeating every other sentence that came out of his mouth. perhaps this is trying to portray Tom talking for his own benefit as well as others, convincing himself of that things he's saying are right & for the best, but even if that is the case it just came off as downright annoying. Maria Bello should stay on TV, Ed Harris was... well, Ed Harris, and William Hurt - what's the big deal? he was on screen for all of five minutes and at no point during that period of time did i see him do or say anything of worth or, as some have suggested, amusement. he should have stayed on the set of 'lost in space'.

now, the violence and sexual content. put simply, i really didn't care. not at one moment in the movie did i feel any emotional contact with any of the characters' violent actions (and their reasons for committing them) save for - SPOILER - the son knocking the crap out of his tormentor at school, and that was simply because throughout i found the bully character so utterly pathetic and laughable that for all i cared he might as well have been put in hospital. END SPOILER - none of the violence really offended me. sure i was shocked in a few places, but that was simply because within a matter of seconds - SPOILER - one of the 'bad guys' had the front of his face hanging off. END SPOILER - so in this respect, Cronenberg doesn't hold back with, or indeed glamorise the violence, and certainly shows the immediacy and horror of it all, but to be honest, so what? it's hardly a difficult task to accomplish, especially for someone of Cronenberg's abilities. some of the sexual content also struck me as crass. SPOILER - now, don't get me wrong, i'm always down for Maria Bello with a completely untied dressing gown (in fact i waited what felt like years for that to happen in ER), but, in the context of the film, for the love of god WHY? so her and Aragorn get busy on the stairs in an odd 'what's going to happen' moment, then he's sitting in the bedroom, she comes out naked, closes her dressing gown and runs away in disgust. so now they can't have sex anymore. END SPOILER - does Cronenberg regard his audience as complete morons? or was there really no other way to indicate Maria Bello's feelings towards Mortensen's character? on this evidence, David Cronenberg is turning into Paul Verhoeven sans the wit.

i don't often say this about movies, but going to see 'a history of violence' felt like a waste of money. usually there's something in a film i can invest in, be it a character, the cinematography or even the score, something that actually going to the movies really accentuates, but this picture had none of the aforementioned redeeming features. that said, i probably wouldn't let other people's opinions form a basis on whether i shouldn't bother seeing a movie. all i'm saying is, if you have to satisfy your curiosity, wait for the DVD.


A History of Violence to me was a very mediocre movie to me. It built up the suspense for the first hour making you wonder who is this guy and why did he change his identity. Yet the ending was horrible, it really brought the wrong type of closure and really made me feel like I wasted my time. Technically this movie was not that well made either. The acting, the cinematography, music and writing were all very mediocre and filled with clichés.

First of all the fact that William Hurt got an Oscar nomination for barely 10 minutes in this movie is absolutely ludicrous. I cannot even talk about his performance because he was hardly in the movie. Ed Harris who I respect very much as an actor gave a regular, stereotypical portrayal of a gangster which wasn't to satisfying. Viggo Mortensen played average, he was not good or bad, he was just there.

The cinematography wasn't even there and the moments it was, it was easy to see what was coming next. The music added to this as well with a very simple soundtrack that was also just there to fill the void.

Lastly the writing was not good enough to get an Oscar nomination. All it had was a simple dialog and stereotypical small town life. Very disappointing in every aspect. I would not recommend this film.


I cannot believe that people who have actually gone to watch this movie and are leaving positive reviews are actually leading their lives without the aid of a white stick and Labrador! It is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen and an example of actors taking an easy pay cheque.

I'm all for scenes of nudity within movies (hell I'll pay extra), but the completely inappropriate use of such scenes in this movie left me squirming. In one particular scene, the wife of Tom Stalls, after finding out he was actually a gangster in a previous life, tries to push him away. This results in the "real" Tom Stalls/Joey Cusack emerging, who violently pins her down before she consents to having "rough" sex with him. What the hell was this movie trying to say at this stage? That women really harbour after bad boys??? Others may argue that the movie was showing deep psychological tensions between the couple. Boll**ks!!! In fact it couldn't be more boll**ks if it was wrapped in hairy skin and hanging from the back of a bull! It was just a crass attempt to inject some sexual interest into a horribly stale script.

If this was all that was wrong with the movie you may partially overlook it, but sadly no, it manages to sink to even worse depths. The climactic scene where Tom Stalls faces off to his brother defies the laws of crap, by producing new levels of crap reference points. How we are supposed to suspend our disbelief (trademark Basic Instinct - possibly the last time I felt this angry about a movie!) to believe that a professional gangster can miss shooting someone five times from 4 foot is beyond me.

The best gauge I can give you of how poor this movie was is that of a fairly full audience at my particular screening, there were howls of laughter at the poor acting in seemingly dramatic and gripping moments of the film. At first this annoyed me as i really wanted to give the film a chance, but as the film progressed I couldn't help but join in. As the film faded to black at the end and the credits began to roll, there was a deep intake of breath by the whole audience before universal laughter and derision. People were re-acting their favourite poor scenes in the lobby after as a homage to the level of crap it reached! I have never actually left a comment on a movie before, as I'm a strong believer in making your own mind up, but I'm strongly considering leaving my job and mounting a one man campaign to dissuade people from spending their hard earned cash on this pile of poo!

Vive la revolution! Down with crap Hollywood movies!