"The Formula" is a mess of a movie. It's a mystery/thriller in which the mystery is almost impossible to follow and the thrills are few and far between. The plot becomes confusing almost from the start and never turns itself around. Ones only reason to watch this movie would be to see two of our greatest actors, Marlon Brando and George C.Scott, performing together. Sadly even that falls short as they only have two scenes together, albeit these are the two best scenes in the movie. Brando's speech about the oil companies is terrific. Too bad the rest of the film didn't live up to that scene.

I can remember that just prior to the opening of the film at Christmas of 1980 it became public knowledge that the studio (with the backing of writer Steve Shagan) took the film away from director John Avildsen. Shagan wanted many changes made so Avildsen sent a long memo to the studio outlining Shagan's apparent wrong decisions with the editing. The studio seemed to agree - somewhat. Some of Avildsen's suggestions were restored while others weren't. Thankfully the Brando speech that I mentioned above was not cut per Shagan's request. Avildsen believed that because Brando basically improvised the scene Shagan was not happy with it.

Come to think of it I think I would have rather seen a movie based on the internal battles of the studio/writer and the director then this mess. Whomever is to blame, and it's probably 50-50, "The Formula" is a major disappointment considering all the talent involved.


I admit it, the sole reason I wanted to see this was because of Marlon Brando but once you see his appearance you can't imagine that this is the man from Elia Kazan-movies or Don Corleone...at contrary, he plays like an idiot... Okay, George C Scott is the kind of actor that never works on my nerves and he also was the only reason why I kept watching as this movie sucks... You can write thrillers and spionagescenarios but please don't forget that an average watcher cant follow thousand plots in 100 minutes, director John G Avildsen doesn't even give us the time to let us discover who is who as from the moment a new personage appears he ends up being shot three minutes later plus you are wondering what the hell it's all about.... There used to be a formula created during the Third Reichregime that creates synthetic oil and cos that's quite nasty for those who gain their money with oil, everyone must be eliminated who comes in touch with the formula...that's it...and the big problem is that after 10 minutes you know who did it (you probably already know it yourself, not?) but before all this you have to watch thousands useless plots... Bad cinema!


***SPOILERS*** Very complex and confusing film about the Nazi Genesis Project during WWII in the mass production of synthetic fuel to run its war machine. It was that fuel, made from liquefied coal, that had Germany hold off defeat while inflicting millions of allied casualties for some two years after it's supply of oil, mostly from the Romanian Ploesti Oil Field, was obliterated by allied daylight bombings in 1943.

Seeing in the spring of 1945 that the war was lost, for Germany, German General Helmut, Richard Lynch, makes a desperate dash with a truck full of Nazi secret documents towards the Swiss border only to get intercepted by a US Army patrol. It's then that Gen. Helmut makes a secret deal with US Army Major Tom Neeley, Robin Clark,to trade the documents for his safety out of the country and possible being tried as a Nazi war criminal. It's now 35 years later and Neeley now a retired L.A police chief is found murdered in his home with it made to look like it was some kind of mob hit. In fact it was but the mob wasn't the Mafia but those running the world's oil cartels.

With Neeley's good friend in the LAPD Let. Barney Caine, George C. Scott, put on the case it becomes evident to him that those who ordered Neeley murdered originated, by a check on Neeley's recent travels, from Germany. That becomes even more clear to Let. Caine when within days Neeley's estranged wife Kay, Beatrice Straight, is also fund murdered in her Jacuzzi with the same murder weapon that murdered her husband! The film follows the same formula in that as soon as we're, or Let. Caine, introduced to a major character in it he, or she, ends up being murdered! Let. Caine traveling to, at that time in 1980, West Germany on official business starts to put all the loose ends in Neeley's murder together and uncovers his involvement with the Nazi Genesis Project! If the secret of the Genesis Project were made public it would put the world's oil cartels out of business!

Hard to follow and very boring at times, with the action in the film about as long as a one minute TV commercial, the best part in it is the confrontation between Let. Caine and Titan Oil CEO Adam Steiffel, Marlon Brando, at the conclusion of the movie. It's that scene that explains to the audience what exactly is going on in the film.***SPOILER ALERT*** Steiffel who's the man behind all the murders in the movie comes across so likable, due to Brando's comedic mannerisms of him, that you find it hard to dislike him. In fact you look at Scott, as Let. Caine, to be more of a villain that he does in is verbally abusing the what seems like the helpless balding fat-man that Steiffel is. In the end it's Steiffel who ends up getting the last laugh by checkmating Let. Caine, despite all his efforts, in his trying to get the Genisis formula out to the public. Which shows that big bucks not morality or the public interest is the way to get things done in this world. There's also in the movie the husky voiced and very athletic looking Marthe Keller as Lisa Spangler in a role that she seemed to play in every film she was in back then; The mystery woman. Lisa was so mysterious that even when the movie was finally over you didn't quite know on just who's-Let. Caine or Adam Steiffel-she was on?

P.S The film "The Formula" has the distinction of not only having two Academy Award winners, Geroge C. Scott & Marlon Brando, for best actor in it but also the very two who turned the coveted Oscar down for, in Brando's case, political and, in George C, Scott's case, personal or professional reasons.


In the kind of movie that plays on airplanes, Marlon Brando stars as a crooked business tycoon who loves his Swedish chocolates and Rolodex computer cards.

What follows is a thin story about the development and clandestine procurement of a new synthetic industrial material. Brando's nemesis is cop George C. Scott who tries to uncover the truth. Martha Keller co-stars, for what that's worth.

Not much going on here. The most interesting scenes are expectedly whenever Brando is on the screen.

Best line is when Brando finds a dead frog in his pool and says, "I hope he's got Blue Cross."


This film may have even more relevance today than in 1980, when it was released. Most in this country would love to be left to their own devices by marketing/consuming fuel based on American coal derivatives like those delineated in the "Genesis" formula instead of depending upon foreign petroleum. The parallels outlined here are close to today's, especially the popular theories these days that big oil is suppressing valid fuel alternative projects that would undercut their energy dominance, hence, their financial status.

Unlke some other reviewers, I thought the film moved along at a nicely orchestrated pace, making it, perhaps, a more analytical movie than a Hollywood flash-and-dash melodrama. The film follows a logical progression of events that lets the viewer absorb the contents in easy to swallow doses, that is, as long as he/she pays attention to the plot development.

I was impressed by mostly all the actors, especially Marthe Keller, who acquitted herself very well in her portrayal by staying well within her character and by her impeccable timing and fluid delivery. Mr. Brando's rather short stint in the film was punctuated by terse, cynical and penetrating dialog, playing the enterprising villain who continually cuts to the chase with large doses of street-wise metaphors. George C., as usual, is a no-nonsense good cop who only wants to see justice prevail, regardless of who gets burnt. Yet inside him, demons from the past lurk and can't help but surface from time to time: you can see it in the non-verbal communication that Mr. Scott so characteristically exudes.

Thanks to TCM for showing these kinds of films that are usually omitted on other movie channels.


I had not seen this film since its theater release some twenty-eight years ago. To my knowledge it has not been shown on TV in the L. A. area until the TCM presentation this month. I had forgotten every single detail of the film except for Marlon Brando's great line "Ah, Arthur, you are missing the point--We are the Arabs." The line says it all and is especially telling in light of current events and players. By some trick of the mind, I ascribed the line to a scene between Brando and Scott instead of Brando and Spradlin. Even in a walk-on I always relish seeing and hearing Wolfgang Preiss. Regardless of disagreements between writer and director, the film proceeded in a style I prefer, leaving me trying to hold on to the plot with my finger tips and trying to keep all the character involvement relevant. I will never understand the gaps in the story line--Scott surreptitiously slipping the secret formula to a total stranger? in some shop? , followed by some tenuously-connected dialog at some safety deposit boxes? Scott proved to be a better detective than I at discerning Keller's covert motives, given the facts presented on film. Perhaps all was made clear in the script. Berlin is a great place for intrigue on film, as we saw in "Company Business", and the plots, and cinematography nicely murky. Even with the story holes and without Travants and the Prater, I recommend viewing this film enough to begin to comprehend it.


I am a big fan of retro movies. So when I started watching this, knowing that Brando is playing and that its an espionage movie including WW2 elements I was pretty excited. Unfortunately it was a big waste of time. The plot is so complex that you simply cannot follow it. Many names in the script and subplots under the main plot and at the end...you really wonder what the **** happened! I mean there's a key issue in the movie, synthetic oil, but besides that, you really can't figure out who's working for who and what's going on! Scott is a great actor and I also liked Brando's performance (he plays for 10 minutes or so in this 2-hours movie) but that's simply not enough. The main problem with this movie is the script and the way the director used it. You simply do not have the time to figure out what is going on in each scene. There's a scene at the end where almost all the names are referenced but instead of making things clear, hell broke loose! If you like a good movie, choose something else.


Great Movie. Again George C. Scott and Marlin Brando did an excellent job of acting. Great plot. The movie develops as a wonderful mystery which evolves into a Good versus Evil. Brando excels with his portrayal of a greedy oil-rich company executive who is bent on keeping a synthetic oil production substitute a secret. Scott is a police detective trying to solve the murder of a long time friend who is associated with "the formula". The end is one the best performances of both actors. The plot and the relationship gets a little confusing with Marta Kellor's role. I think it is realistic of today's corporate scandals.


I feel compelled to comment on this movie, since the other comments presented here must have been made by people involved with the film. This movie is beyond bad. I saw a preview screening of it at Horrorfind Weekend back in 2004. Now, granted, it was an unfinished version of the film, but it remains the first, and only, movie that I have ever walked out of. I was not the only one thinking, "abort! abort!" either, as at least half of the audience had left by the time I made my way out.

The plot (what there was of it) involved a construction crew uncovering ancient Indian artifacts, one of which is a metal tube of apparently alien origin. Two different sides then vie for possession of the tube, the first comprised of an archaeologist, a shot-first-and-never-ask-questions cop (Savini, the only "actor" of note in this film), and a "mysterious" (read: boring) vigilante who may or may not be an alien. The second is a gang whose members don't die very easily and their alien leader, though no one seems to really care or notice that he's an alien.

The overall premise is okay, but the execution falls completely flat. The director, in his introduction before the film, stated that his intent was to make something of a "moving graphic novel set to music" (I'm paraphrasing). Well, one has to remember that, in a graphic novel, the sections with no dialogue or narration can be taken in in about thirty seconds, literally. In the movie, they drag on for about five to ten straight minutes. It's as if the movie wasn't long enough, so the director decided to throw in two or three music videos in order to lengthen this clunker.

The script, while horribly convoluted and needlessly confusing, is bearable. The actors, however, fail to play their parts, but they more read them to the camera and each other. Savini, who we all know is not an actor by trade, is unfortunately the best one on display here. The rather ham-fisted editing further adds to confusion, with sequences ending to suddenly, settings changing without proper establishment, and events being referred to which the audience never saw take place (though, this may be since I saw an incomplete version).

I sometimes question where filmmakers such as these get the money for there productions, as I'm sure a much better movies are floating around looking for financing. Do yourself a favor and track down a little known good movie, one that holds your interest as opposed to being so ridiculous and mind numbing as to make an avid movie-goer abandon ship halfway through.


The non-Hollywood fuzzy camera first put me off, but the initial action fight-chase scene had me wondering what was happening and why.

Then you go to the daylight scene with the Archaeologist, which seems totally unconnected to the opening scene and as you watch Dr Page go hot and indignant against the Developer, you wonder how in Hell are the two connected. Plus, despite the low-budget indie effort-- the actors are all putting serious feeling into their roles.

Last-- you come to the Police teams and the unexplained problem of dead homeless people-- and now you have a Mystery. And you will want to see how everything ties together. Then comes the Alien Voss, who is searching for something and he's a nasty piece of action.

Just as the Opening scene showed, this flick will jump into action, shootouts, car chases and confrontations and a lot of Fatalities. There is some ick-horror embedded here also-- and a little humor, but never overdone.

The ending will not exactly follow your expectation. Nor will everything be neatly explained-- but the flick will leave you with gaps that a Sci-Fi fan can fill in the blanks with his or her own theories.

In short-- I don't necessarily call the LACK of a coherent explanation a Negative: It's a Mystery because you will never really know what you were involved with, especially if you're only concerned with getting out Alive.

I was genuinely Surprised and intrigued. And at the end-- Not Disappointed.

Give this one a shot on a Friday Night. I wouldn't call this a Main event movie, but a thought-provoking Indie dish when you want to try something different from the normal polished Hollywood script.

If this is a First Effort, the creators of this movie will definitely be coming round again for more.


Having seen an advanced screening of this, I think fans of sci-fi action will dig it. There is plenty to enjoy here, cars, guns, graphic violence and some good make-up work. Made in the same city as the crap-a-minute Punisher, Tampa Florida, you'd never know they were the same city based on the gritty night time scenes in Unearthed. Obviously they didn't know how to shoot the city in the Punisher, because it looks like a much meaner place in this one. Probably has to do with the folks who made this one live there so they know the city better. If you liked Albert Pyun's "Nemesis" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107668/) I think you will also enjoy this flick a whole lot. Give it a chance.


I've only had a chance to see the hour teaser that was shown at a convention that I was attending, and i was impressed at the quality of work that an independent film company could produce. The name Tom Savini sat me down, but I think it was the guy who played Jeff Juransky that kept me in my seat, I'll certainly keep a look out for him in future films. I won't spoil the plot, but it's apparent that a lot of time and effort went into this film, and since they don't have the money to drop on the "special effects that can make you forget that there's no plot" concept, there is a lot of time devoted to developing and furthering the storyline. Hat's off to the cast and crew of this incredibly talented group, I look forward to seeing more from these talented individuals!


Unearthed was shot on digital video on a modest budget. If it had been filmed on 35mm, you'd be enjoying it in theaters already. It's science-fiction at its modest-budget best, with accomplished actors and great camera work by writer/director Craig Kovach. The locations and sets are first rate and the story is compelling.

The Movie revolves around an Indian artifact 'unearthed' during a construction project. Strange characters (some good, some bad), populate nearly every scene as the hunt for the artifact accelerates through the highways and byways of Tampa. Flashbacks to previous lives drive the protagonist forward in search for the truth about the artifact. There are some unique scenes i guarantee will surprise even the most ardent IMDb fans and keep you interested through the final reel.

A must-see for any sci-fi or horror junkie.


This is the type of movie that makes you think.

Remember how you felt at the end (last 10 minutes) of the movie 6th Sense? Unearthed is a movie that will have you thinking the same way. Full of twists and turns, this movie gets better each time you see it.

Excellent performances by John Bernath (Voss) and Slake Counts (Pinder) make this a great movie for either Horror or Sci-Fi fans. It does not fit neatly into a genre category and as such defies traditional movie plots that seem all too predictable.

Well done and well worth the watch. Low budget doesn't have to mean bad movie any more. This is a film you will enjoy seeing more than once. Excellent Cinematography and a driving music score. Blood, guns, fast cars, alien warlords, dark cityscapes and women hanging on hooks.....what more could you ask for.

REVIEW BASED ON SCREENER COPY OF UNEARTHED 2005


I remember growing up on films such as The Firm, The Pelican Brief, The Client, The Fugitive, films with enough plot twists and turns to keep things fresh and interesting. I was more than pleasantly surprised to see excellent performances from an otherwise pieced-together cast of Ray Liotta, Taye Diggs, LL Cool J, Mekhi Phifer, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and of course Jolene Blalock. I enjoyed every minute of this film whose score and choice of background, and especially credit, music made it all that much more memorable.

Personally, I love films in, around, or about the city. Without giving anything away, Slow Burn deals with corruption and a little gang-related mystery; all the while providing that sense of empathy for Liotta's character that seems all too absent in modern films today.

No, this film is not for everyone, but if you can remember what it was like to be genuinely stringed along and interested in what happens at every twist and turn of those 90's film plots, then you should find yourself feeling that you got you're 9.50's worth on a Friday night.


This wore out its welcome about 40 minutes into the movie and after the halfway point, about 10 minutes later, I totally didn't care if our girl here was innocent or guilty. The story just became plodding.

I am so glad it wasn't just me, that the first review I see here - Mermaidbronze - felt the same way I did. I'll put it in simple terms: this film was not as "smart" and "clever" as it thought it was. In fact, it was stupid because it committed the ultimate sin for making a movie - it bored the hell out of its audience, and an audience that includes some "smart people" who can figure things out. A convoluted movie is just that, and not fun to watch no matter what any viewer's IQ might be.

Movies that revolve around the big question "Did he/she kill the person or not" are either extremely interesting and involving or the opposite. I found it un-involving, and when you don't care about the characters, then you don't care who's innocent or guilty and the film loses all effectiveness.

This movie was filmed in 2003 but not released until this year - four years later! Maybe they knew it was a turkey.


I rented this on New Year's Eve to counter the boredom of Bowl games, and found the movie to be surprisingly good. There was a compelling and believable storyline (think of "Body Heat" set in a contemporary northeastern city instead of lazy Miami), it was well acted and a real thriller. I especially liked LL Cool J's performance, and Liotta was believable as the White urban politico. I also liked that the movie didn't shy away from comments (however simplistic) about race. Mekhi Pfifer was useful in his role and Taye Diggs was hilarious with his usual witty and sarcastic commentary. The female lead, Blalock also gives a believable performance as damsel in distress. The Desk Sgt. Drown character was quite funny. Comparable (but better) films would include "Double Indemnity" or The "Postman Always Rings Twice". This was a good yarn, well worth the 3 bucks I spent to rent it.


I rented this movie because of the actors involved - Ray Liotta, LL Cool J, Taye Diggs, Mekhi Phifer and the great Bruce McGill. However, the movie basically bored and confused me simultaneously. To put it simply, it's just too messy. The movie touches on some interesting subjects and has some potential - but the end result is, well, quite a mess.

Slow Burn seems to be quite inspired by "The Usual Suspects" - which is by no means a bad thing. But it all just gets too convoluted. I lost track of the tricks the movie tried to pull to surprise the audience toward the end. It seemed pretty forced as did all the flashbacks throughout the film. I will, however, give the movie credit for "hiding" the bad guy really well - I didn't guess who it was, despite being a big movie buff. The actors all do their jobs just fine, though I think LL Cool J was somewhat miscast.

All in all I would not recommend this movie. I guess there is a reason it was held back for 2 years ;-)


There are some movies that if you do not just hand feed the audience, they assume that it is boring. Slow Burn has a lot of twist and turns the movie is to be taken just as the title "Slow Burn".

I enjoyed it and have watched it 3 times. The first time, I was involved with doing something else and when I would glance up, I was like oh, okay. But, you actually need to sit down and really get into this movie. Action good, plot is good. There are a couple of underlying plots that you have to watch for. You have all the things needed that people request, drug lord, corruption, love, and sex. As the plots thickens, the viewer should attempt to pull the plots away from each other. Just relax, let the movie take its course. Girls you have some of the top good looking men in the movie that's a plus. There are some up and comings in the movie, that with a few more times, they will survive on their on.


I thought this was a great movie. It reminded me of the Kevin Spacey's movie "The Usual Suspects". Yet I haven't seen a web site that recommends it if you watched this movie. I have recently watched "The Prestige". And I felt this movie had a Prestige ending. I was still putting the pieces together hours after the movie had ended. I was nearly going to skip this movie, because it was a 2005 film. And thought it must be crap. Otherwise I would have heard of it before. I only became aware, as it was coming up as a new release in the UK. So I surfed the web looking for a trailer. The first 45 minutes of the movie lays the foundation. With only one twist about the 20-min mark. But after that the movie picks up and the twists keep on coming. Then there's a fast ending that leaves you wondering what just happened. Even though I have said that this movie is like "The Usual Suspects" it is different and takes it to a higher level.


In the opening scene of "Slow Burn," an assistant district attorney (Jolene Blalock) is found wandering the streets of the city, disheveled and confused, informing those who find her that she has just killed a rapist in self defense. The alleged attacker (Mekhi Phifer) was a man she supposedly met one night in a record store and who then proceeded to stalk her for weeks thereafter. Suddenly, into the head D.A.'s office strides LL Cool J, as a friend of the deceased who has a considerably different story to tell about the events leading up to the murder as well as an entirely disparate take on the couple's relationship. Things get even more dicey when we discover that the D.A. (Ray Liotta) and the assistant D.A. have been conducting a torrid affair of their own for a number of years now.

"Slow Burn" fails on so many levels of rudimentary storytelling and film-making that it's hard to know where exactly to begin in compiling a list of its shortcomings. To start with, there's something inherently self-defeating and pointless in constructing a narrative from two widely conflicting viewpoints - a la "Rashomon" - when one of the supposed eyewitnesses is already dead and, thus, unable to personally relate his side of the story. How does it enhance the verisimilitude of the tale if most of our information has to come filtered down to us through a secondhand source, a person who wasn't even present at the events he's describing - unless, of course, he was hiding in a nearby closet during all those "intimate" moments he is able to recount in such juicy and exhaustive detail? Either that or the murder victim was one of the chattiest, kiss-and-tell gossips in the history of the movies. And why does it take till the closing reels for the supposedly intelligent professional investigators to smell a rat in that setup? Eventually, the twist-and-turn plotting leads to so much incoherence and confusion that you might well wonder if the filmmakers themselves understood what it was they were doing.

Beyond the clumsy, inscrutable storytelling, "Slow Burn" also suffers from some of the most overripe dialogue this side of "The Black Dahlia." With such knee-slapping howlers as "She stood there like a tangerine, ripe and ready to be peeled" and "She walked in smelling like mashed potatoes and every guy within thirty feet wanted to be the gravy," the script could easily win First Prize in a Bad Film Noir Writing contest. It's hard to believe at such times that the film isn't actually intended to be a parody (the acting sure suggests it on occasion). On second thought, perhaps it would be best to stick with that notion; it just might go down easier that way.


I had not heard of this movie when me and my friend picked it up at Blockbuster. It was between this and Be Kind Rewind and fortunately we chose this movie. Ray Liotta plays a district attourney running for mayor when his DA is raped by a supposed psychotic music store clerk and then murders him. Liotta is taken on a roller coaster of a mystery where you don't know who is telling the truth and if everyone is who they say they are. There are so many twists and turns that it becomes confusing at points but it all adds up to the ending which relieves your confusion. I haven't heard of Jolene Blalock but she is excellent in her role as the supposedly raped(was she or wasn't she?) DA who may have some tricks up her sleeve. The only thing i had a problem with was some of the dialouge. LL Cool J's ramblings about everything smelling like food was a bit strange. Other than that it was awesome


Many reviews have alluded to the fact that is a pretty obvious rip-off of "The Usual Suspects". Most of the film's "action" is moved along by long interrogation scenes, with little snippets of who's who and what's what being provided. How much is real and who's telling the truth is batted around like a tennis ball. But the main point is.... who really cares?? It's the exact problem I had with "Usual Suspects".

The supposed hero here is Ray Liotta's character. He does alright with the role, but the character is not especially interesting and doesn't have much on the line. He's running for Mayor, but most conversations give the impression he doesn't much care if he wins. His girlfriend may be a lying turncoat, but they don't display much real affection for each other. As he learns about her "true colors" he doesn't seem crushed, only mildly dismayed.

The final 10 minutes of twist, twist and re-twist were all flash and no substance. The final twist has us believe an FBI agent allows 3 innocent people to be killed (2 of them police @ the precinct house), to keep his cover, THEN exposes the "Suspect". Phew!! That was a tiring 90 minutes!


If you didn't like it or if you thought it was anything at all like Usual Supsects, you probably didn't get it.

Everything up to the last twenty minutes is set-up. The key is to concentrate, but not to think too much. You'll either get it or you won't The mastermind was not Danny, it was the assistant DA, "Jackie". She was playing Danny. It's my belief that she was also an FBI agent. She was, as LL's character hinted when he said that even the FBI had been penetrated, the dirty FBI agent.

She was pretending to be black, as she new this would get Danny's attention and make him believe she could be manipulated. She made Danny feel comfortable enough to give her information about rival gangs which she used to propel herself into the DA's office putting her in a perfect spot to manipulate Ray Liotta's character.

LL Cool J was an FBI agent, although he was not dirty. The chief of police was in on the whole deal with Jackie as he was the one who let her out in the end.

Jackie decided not to press charges against Taye diggs' character as to draw suspicion towards him in the end. She also new he would point out anybody as Danny. That was imperative as it set-up LL's character.

She set-up the hit men who wanted Ray's character dead. She pointed Mekhi's character out as Rupert. Rupert was the one who rigged the gas explosion.

After Danny got arrested, everything went on to her.

The key is to remember that the main plot had little to do with Jolene's character being raped, and it had little to do with LL's character.


SLOW BURN (2007) * Ray Liotta, LL Cool J, Mekhi Phifer, Jolene Blalock, Guy Torry, Taye Diggs, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Bruce McGill.

More like a simmering potboiler:

1995's crackling neo-noir sleeper "The Usual Suspects" was in a class by itself but lately there have been some numerous copycats in attempting to glean some magic from its infamous twisted ending revealing who its arch-criminal Keyser Soze really was. The latest pretender to the throne is a horse of another color (and yes the pun is meant to be offensive).

Set in the twilight hours in a no-names urbane city an ambitious DA named Ford Cole (Liotta, who is also a producer on this dreadful film) who is summoned to the police station when one of his younger protégées (and current lover), Nora Timmer (mannequin Blalock) has been involved in a lethal shooting after her claims of being raped by her assailant, Isaac Duperde.

Adding fuel to the fire is many turns in this serpentine crime drama that offers about as much suspense as a re-run of any form of "Law & Order": Timmer may or may not have been having an affair with the deceased assailant, may or may not know the true identity of the mysterious local kingpin and may or may not be involved in a convoluted scheme involving high-level real estate conspiracies with the aforementioned gangsta.

Enter Luther Pinks (Cool J), who has some info on Timmer confirming she is not on the level and his identity is also in question (as is his purple prose involving his olfactory senses with laughable line readings).

The whole lousy mess is indecipherable until it's cribbing of the final act of "Suspects" for its own conclusion that not only cheats a smart, knowing audience but feels like a cheat from the minute one character is onto another with a fateful 'wait=a-second' glance and pause in his tracks.

Although Blalock is a real hottie, the shameful way her character is depicted as either a 'sista pretending to be white' or vice versea as some sort of living-in-the-shadows- chameleon is only further drummed over the head by the ham-fisted direction by Wayne Beach in his debut as a helmsman and also the film's scribe. The fact he actually shows a real-life chameleon during several sequences involving Nora is truly eye rolling.

It doesn't help that the film has been on the shelf for several year. That's never a good sign and another is shamefully stealing from a real classic.


if it would not be for sign of "low budget" in some scenes, and a certain "too close" resemblance of "the usual suspects", this feature would be an excellent thriller in itself. the cast are remarkably well chosen for their respective on-screen characters. one of the best roles for Ray Liotta, LL Cool J, Mekhi Phifer and Jolene Blalock, played accordingly as well.

there are 2 main problems that create a certain let-down for this production. first one is regarding the first 10 minutes or so where the plot is a bit as "all over the place" and might loose the viewer's interest (certenly almost did mine). second one is the one scene that contains an explosion and where the cgi effects are VERY bad( while that is not important to the plot at all, somehow will affect your impression and visual perceptions since the suspense about around there is great- kind of a "let down" for a few moments). also i might add that at times the plot seems rushed-off, but maybe because is trying to pull the exact same dialogs-camera work-twists as in "the usual suspects"( one of the best suspense movie EVER!).

all the action happens in one night. starts with the "crime" and works its way back by means of "flashbacks". a minor difference is the fact that the director inserts those flashbacks of Jolene Blalock breasts as well ( is obviously only a commercial attempt at targeting larger audiences. however those scenes are "ok" and she looks great indeed). Ray Liotta plays in Chazz Palminteri with the exception that here, this particular character is more extensively developed ; he is the central one after all. i will not say who the other "guys " are but there are enough twists that will keep you guessing until the end 5 minutes or less. just like "usual suspects" makes perfect logical sense( i really respect that first and fore-most in any respectable thriller). while the resemblance to the best thriller is too MUCH to be "respected" as an original feature in itself, i give credits to the whole cast for being able to pull it off with enough style as not to "disappoint". a good positive point as well would be that the movie never slows down as the "b" features generally do, by having "fill-up" scenes in its middle parts.

enough said, i am going in circles on this title since it is a rip-off( there, i said the word again, hehe) and the original score keeps pupping up in my head, the resemblance is just way to great; overwhelming actually even if completely different in details( only Nora Timmer character, the woman, is more developed here in comparison). it is a good watch nevertheless, and will not disappoint you if you can "pass" the explosion scene without loosing any interest... so the plot gets 10 stars( while i will ignore the similarities, they are different in context itself and do make perfect sense overall ), the acting gets 10 as well( i can not think of anyone that was playing "badly"), the soundtrack gets an 8 ( great musical choices but not consistent, again a sign of low budget),the camera work gets a 10( great achievement for a low budget), the script gets a 5( 1 for originality in essence and 10 for consistency), and finally the cgi effects get a more then deserved 1 star. did i miss something?


I must say I just finished watching this movie, and what a waste. I agree this movie had some great actors (Ray Liotta), and a decent plot. However, I lost interest in this movie after a while and was just waiting for it to end, and did not really care how it ended. The usual suspects ripoff was evident in that there was a crime lord, in this case a Danny Ludden, as compared to the Kaiser Sosa of Usual Suspects who nobody had ever really seen. Yeah right. This movie tried to tell us that the Danny Ludden character owned property all over "the city", which they slipped and called Detriot once, and controlled a gang that ran Detroit, and no one had ever seen him. Wow, this is an amazing concept. Meanwhile the Assistant DA who Ray Liotta is banging is intertwined within the movie as a rape suspect/murder suspect who is thought to be black, but is really white. Is the viewer to believe that in this day in age in the US there can be an Assistant DA in a city like Detroit who is using a false identity and no one catches this? Oh well, don't waste your time, watch the Usual Suspects for a decent movie with a good plot.


Alright. This was quite honestly one of the best movies I've seen in a long time. I bought it at Blockbuster expecting very little from it. I mean, the reviews on it weren't great, it wasn't a big money maker and it wasn't syced up either. So I figured it would be middle of the day, watch it just to pass time type movie... yeah, no. I was supposed to be doing homework while I was watching it. I turned my laptop off 2 minutes into the movie. There was plot turns from beginning to end, good acting, pretty lady constantly naked. I mean, it was an all around movie.

True, it had a bit much nudity for my taste, but still, it never took away from the movie. Nobody was ever naked for the sake of being naked. Watch it!! It's not like the garbage thats over hyped now a days.


At first the movie seemed like an excuse for a soft porn movie. The only reason I stayed with it was because the acting was pretty good. Later it evolves into an interesting, twisted who's it. So in the end, I'm glad I stayed with it.

In a movie this complicated, I am sure there are some loose ends, but I thought they did a good job of tying things together in the end.

I was OK with the flashbacks and plot twists, but I am probably not your average viewer. It is true you have to pay attention to keep everything straight. If you don't like to stay with a film, it may not be the film for you.

They do keep you guessing to the end.


This is not about concentration. Nor is it about having enough film savvy or cleverness to figure out obscure themes and subplots in films, after all, some of us are David LYNCH fans and enjoy decoding and detangling films as though they are mazes. Those films are at least vibrant and colorful enough to maintain the interest of a BINGO audience. They have characterization, plot, action, theme, etc. We have become accustomed to the complexity of flashbacks and out-of-sequence story lines. We loved "Pulp Fiction", "Memento", "Traffic", and "21 Grams", but a film should not be so chaotic, disorderly, and cluttered with digressive subplots that you can't determine the main theme of the film. When films do this, they are simply exercises in mental masturbation for a self aggrandizing filmmaker and are not interesting to the rest of us. We are not all falling asleep because we have Attention Deficit Disorder. Some of us are really laid-back and low key, with excellent concentration skills, and are detail oriented to a fault. We are falling asleep because the film simply doesn't have any action to move it forward. Its boring, frustrating, and tedious. I mean after all, both Theoretical Mathmaticians and Avant-Garde Poets find what they do equally interesting, neither is more valid than the other. A film needs to be interesting enough to appeal to some audience within the range between them, this film is not, does not.


I was just happy to see Dourif in the role of good guy for once. The story itself was dark and seedy, almost. The mad painter....the strippers....yeah, kind of a turn off if you want a half decent story-line. But, the paintings were very nice and there was a definite dark intensity to the painting, to the painter and even Dourif, himself. It proves that he can pull off a lead role, and it is too bad that even after this movie's release fourteen years ago, he is still just moving through movies as part of a film's additional cast. He deserves so much more as an actor. People apparently do not see his talent the way most of his fans do. Vive la Brad!!!


I found this going for $1 at the video store, and, as the cover looked vaguely interesting (a priest and a stripper), I bought it, hoping it would be worth the buck I spent for it.

It turned out to be worth a fair bit more. Hidden behind the sexploitation is actually a little gem of a movie, with a good story and a great central performance from Brad Dourif, who I haven't encountered before. He, along with a supporting cast, put a surprising amount of effort and passion into 'Final Judgement,' considering practically no one's ever seen it.

Worth at least $2!


Brad Dourif gives an excellent performance (as always), and the plot has an intriguing symbolic feel to it.I had the impression the artist could represent the "shadow" archetype of Father Tyrone, and the of Christian symbolism is interesting. It could have been a really good movie, but it's dragged down by the rest of the cast - particularly the overacted, one dimensional "mad artist", the seedy atmosphere and the corny score. Oh yes, and I don't understand why people are praising the paintings. They were, as the art dealer said, "self indulgent overrated crap". Still, the film is worth watching, if for nothing else than for Dourif's performance alone,


Ok, here it is: the plot: Father Tyrone. An ex-street-thug, now turned priest, is the main suspect in a murdercase, in which a girl gets killed by a mad painter. The police can't find any other suspects, and Father Tyrone is in trouble. He then tries to solve the case all by himself, and the police follow him around.

Fun to see Dourif as the main character, and even as a genuine good guy!.. And some of the paintings were quite good actually, but I got bored of seeing too many frontally nude strippers, which I thought spoiled the movie a bit.. but it is worth watching, if you like art and/or Dourif kicking ass!


A sadistic woman killer throws suspicion on a well-meaning Priest, and the clergyman struggles to bring the truth to light. Hackneyed melodrama with religious overtones is made compelling and watchable by an extraordinary performance by Brad Dourif.

MPAA: Rated R for nudity, sexuality, violence, and language.


Milo Ventimiglia is actually NOT the star of the show. Which was a bummer cause he was the only household name in the credits. But people are knocking it a little dramatically. I saw this show when it first aired and it wasn't as bad as they make out to be. It was a little on the sexual side, but it wasn't "boring". I liked it. Maybe if it would of had a chance at a whole season things could of picked up. And about things being left opened and unsaid or whatever, that's what usually happens when a show gets canceled. They can't cram everything into one final hour, even though the audience expects them too. It's not bad, it's pretty good. There's somethings I didn't like about it, such as some of the pairings, but besides that it was pretty good.


I normally don't watch season premiers but then end up loving the show. This time i did watch the season premiere. It was OK a little boring but i thought it would get better. i gave it a shot but it just didn't work for me. This show just got more and more boring by the minute. they overdue the drama when they don't need to and there is no excitement or fun listening to a bunch of kids whining about their sex and love lives. The actors don't even look like their trying they look bored too. Very bad show. The WB has been taking good shows off the air and putting bad shows in. I really tried to like it but i just couldn't watch it. i watched 5 minutes of the season finale and was instantly bored. more drama that just wasn't necessary. don't waste 1 hour of your life watching a show that just isn't worth it.


I liked this one, but it was not without its faults. One of these is clearly the monster. It does not look to good, but on the bright side they try to cover up its appearance with weird flashing lights and they usually only show it by showing its point of view. Another problem is I found myself pulling for Wilbur to succeed in his rituals. I am sure that is not the makers of this movies intent. This one has a man wanting to see a book at a library that contains many rituals for bringing those called the "old ones" to the earth. He can't convince the man in charge of the book to loan it to him, but he does get a gal to drive him home and stay the weekend. His house is rather drab, but she seems okay with it. She soon becomes part of his plans to bring the "old ones" to earth. Meanwhile, her friend and the guy with the book investigate the guy. Overall I liked it, but I wasn't thrilled with the ending as it did not seem right to me. The old guy was about three or four steps behind in everything to me, so it didn't seem right that it should end that way. Some nudity in this one, but not all that much. Could have used a bit of gore too, but the story is interesting enough to keep my attention anyway. Based on a Lovecraft story that probably explains the monster. He always describes such horrors in his story that they are nearly impossible to duplicate by building them or using computer graphics.


I saw this movie when I was around 13 years old.I felt the movie seemed a bit like a "movie of the week".

The only great thing about this movie was the intro at the beginning and the theme of the movie.

The intro (beginning credits) was a scary cartoon done in shadow.In the cartoon you see a woman giving birth to a baby to be quickly taken away by the "devil" who then eats the baby! Very strange to say the least.I tried to get the soundtrack on CD but I had to settle on getting a 12 inch record.

When it came on DVD,I bought it just for the intro!


Curtis Hanson adapted H.P. Lovecraft's short story about a modern-day warlock living as an outsider in the East Coast town of Dunwich, where a relative of his was once hanged for believing in a race "superior to man"; robbing the local university library of its Necronomicon, he uses a pretty blonde to complete an occult fertility ritual (he props the book up between her legs!). Murky, muddled thriller further hampered by director Daniel Haller's penchant for peek-a-boo eroticism (probably eyebrow-raising for its time). Sandra Dee (miscast, but not bad) writhes and undulates under Dean Stockwell's spells, but only in the film's opening scenes is she allowed to act. Stockwell, rubbing his temples with the sides of his hands, looks like a misplaced beatnik from Castro Street. The rest of the players (including Ed Begley, Lloyd Bochner, and Talia Coppola/Shire) try very hard to make sense of this thing, which has a distinctive (if low-rent) look but never comes up with anything exciting except for a hidden monster in the manor. * from ****


If I had watched this with a bunch of friends, we would have laughed and thought it was awful. But when watched alone at night, without a critical attitude, it is creepy and effective as only an old, cheap horror movie can be. Dean Stockwell and Sandra Dee give low key, almost distracted performances that, intentionally or not, contribute to the eerie tone, and presentation of Dean Stockwell's unearthly twin was very atmospheric and evocative - a good example of how to play on the viewers' imagination (a lost art in most of today's horror movies). The movie has a titillating sexuality (which seems very 1970 but quite un-Lovecraftian but it has been a long time since I've read his stuff) with a few quick almost subliminal nude shots.

Part of my enjoyment of the film was nostalgia - it reminded me of tv shows and movies I enjoyed as a kid in the early 70s. Dunwich Horror is very similar in style to the Night Gallery tv series (which was rarely successful, but I still enjoy watching it if I get a chance).

So - not a great movie, but good if you like this sort of thing and are in the right frame of mind. The DVD looked pretty good, especially the color.


I rented this movie today and went over to my sisters to watch it. She took out the movie that she was currently watching to check out what I had. I guess she was enchanted by CGI and dumb dialog because in mere disappointment, she said, "what is this old sh#%?!" when the opening scene was playing. By looking at my "you're a simpleton" stare, she was quiet and continued to watch the movie until it froze.

Due to this being a very old CD that was used many times, it was dirty as hell and I had to take it out to clean it.

Needless to say, once it was cleaned, the show was on and going and I had not heard another peep of disapproval from her because the story is a great one despite it's out of date dialog and mannerisms.

I will not go into the story of this movie but rather just ask, who doesn't like a good 'ol HP Lovecraft story? I'm sure there will be many who will pick apart the movie because it's not up whatever standards that they hold but in defense of it, for its day (1970) it's pretty good.

It doesn't matter if the blonde was dumb and oblivious to evil, or dean stockwell's fake mustache, or a semi, photo transparent, hologram monster, or old school 3D visuals of horror.

I mean anyone here knows that in this day and age, if we're lucky to have a girl (purposely) stranded at our house for the night, we just don't offer them a nightgown, but hey, at one point, I guess that was what people did. But none the less (again) it's a good film for it's time and still decent enough to stand up to most of the crap that's coming out of the celluloid grinder.


The novel is the archetypal bodice ripper but the Fortunes and Misfortunes of Moll Flanders is far more than that. It is a well constructed, well acted, well directed period drama of the type the British TV Industry does so well.

Alex Kingston is exceptional in the title roll, her defection to the States from the UK is a real loss and the cast list is like a who's who of British TV. Particularly good is Diana Rigg.

All in all my words cannot really do it justice, if you get the opportunity to see it then please do. It is really well worth it.


I've seen this 4-part film at once (230 min.) and surprisingly it wasn't tiring or boring at all. On the contrary, the movie caught my attention readily, as it tells this story very well. Alex Kingston is great in the part of this young woman who struggles to be a wealthy gentlelady, even if it requires surrendering her virtue in any way. It's a wonderful movie and I strongly recommend it.


This is a delightful tale of an orphan born in Newgate prison where her mother was waiting to be hanged. This film is NOT to be confused with the disappointing film, "Moll Flanders", also released in 1996. Gypsies take the infant, Moll, to a small town where she is raised by a wealthy family with two sons. One is her first love, but he passes her to his brother who marries her. After he dies, she marries a businessman, who leaves her when his fortune is depleted. Moll then marries a ship's captain, who takes her to his prosperous Virginia plantation. She learns a shocking family secret so she returns to England alone to begin a new life. She meets and marries again, but this time her true love, Jemmy, is not what he appears. He has no fortune and makes a living as a highwayman. They part and she marries again. When the next husband dies, she is left a pauper. In desperation she becomes a thief. She is imprisoned in the place of her birth, awaiting the a sentence to be carried out. Moll is a survivor. Will she cheat the hangman? I enjoyed this film very much because of its refreshing blend of drama and humor.


The story of Moll Flanders, thief and whore, is brought to the screen in four episodes written by period drama specialist Andrew Davies and performed by the peerless Alex Kingston.

When we first meet Moll, she lives in the house of the Mayor of Colchester, coquettishly flirting with his two sons. By the time we leave her she's been through five husbands, found the story of her origins, and turned to stealing and prostitution. But will she ultimately triumph?

This drama is fairly explicit - there's nudity and sex scenes galore. But Kingston is terrific as Moll and there are many other pleasures - Daniel Craig, Diana Rigg. Put the children in bed early and enjoy a fun nd well-done adaptation for the grown-ups.


Years ago when this aired on Baton Rouge's WLPB PBS station it was HEAVILY edited!

Only after someone reminded me that it was being re-shown on WYES in New Orleans UNCUT I eagerly tuned in!

Totally changed the entire direction of the movie! I don't think stations should be allowed to run cut movies.

Show it at a later time but don't hack up good movies, especially a classic just for someones Puritanical nonsense!

Have to say...even cut up as it was the first time I saw it, it was still a 10.


Entertaining but flawed screen version of Dafoe's novel. Kingston is excellent as Flanders and the rest of the cast does well also. The claustrophobic sets and many close-in shots add to the personal (and earthy!) nature of the story.

The only problem I have with the movie is the pacing (I didn't read the book, but most movies based on books seem to have this same problem). Some sequences are given too much screen time and other elements are glossed over. The "theme" is given more importance than the story, which is a shame because there are some really good things here.


(note: not really spoilers, but this review contains basic information about the plot) It IS well directed & acted. Dialogue is well written. But the characters bring little sympathy as they are all flawed and selfish. Everyone was so corrupted by lies and immorality that I couldn't relate personally and I tired of all Moll's bad decisions. I come away feeling like no one was admirable in this.

Sex scene after *explicit* sex scene makes it more like porn that art. This movie would be NC-17 if it were rated. There must be 15 sex scenes. You can get the gist of the fact she's having sex with lots of people without showing us every single one, in detail.

If you like period movies, there are many better ones. Try North and South or Cranford by Gaskell, or there are many excellent Charles Dickens movies like Nicholas Nickleby and the newest Oliver Twist.


I recently saw this film at the London Lesbian and Gay Film Festival and enjoyed it but the casual viewer should be warned... Watching a film of this type is very different from watching a common film. Here the plot and the characters develop slowly. There is plenty of fodder for introspection. Like life, there are also parts that you may never fully understand.

Overall the film is fascinating and I was drawn into it as much out of a sense of wonder, as out of the hope that it would start making sense. By the end parts do make sense and some parts don't but I wouldn't cut any of it.


I found this movie absolutely arresting and poetic. The shots were beautiful and the characters serene. The dialect was so well orated by the actors. Tapas Paul is such a good actor. And its brave of him to experiment with such artsy films despite his urban star status.

Being away from my own home, I can relate to the importance of letters which later became phone calls and now emails.

Dasgupta is a class act and I love the way he picturizes his films and tells his stories. Its so beautiful and there is so much depth into the stories.

I wish to see more such films from our contemporary Bengali filmmakers because we are not really only pop culture.

Granted it could be slow for people who are used to the commercial cinema and Bollywood but this is a must see for all art lovers.


Well, I guess they like it in India. If this is the elite standard of Indian cinema, it doesn't surprise me that Indian movies never really make it to western theaters. Evolutionary this is lightyears behind western films. Both technically and storywise. When this premiered at the International Filmfestival Rotterdam, the 750 seats theater was fully packed by an "intellectual" audience, who didn't know what they were about to watch. When the movie was finished, half the theater was empty, and not a single positive comment was heard among the 300-something die hards who'd struggled their way through the whole thing. This is no way of captivating an audience. If you can speak of a story here at all, it is told in the worst possible way, it's too slow, incoherent and random. The acting is terrible and technically the film is below a professional level. It's very, very amateurish. Just because something is captured on celluloid, put together and provided with some (dubbed only) sound doesn't make it a movie. It's no surprise that, this way, a country can produce more 'films' than the US. Indian filmmakers, it's time you grow up.


I just saw this at the Outfar Film Festival in Phoenix, and I have to say I was disappointed. The plot had the making of a really engrossing story: The handsome college-age son of a Southern Right-wing Senator is a closeted gay, and is "outed" in an attempt to destroy the re-election of his father. Depending on how the story was scripted, I anticipated feeling sympathy for the son, anger toward those who invade his private life for political gain. Or, the could have scripted so that one feels the "closet-case" got what he deserved. Unfortunately, the way the film was scripted and filmed destroyed any chance of achieving an engrossing story or feeling anything for the characters involved.

The story is told in the form of a rather obnoxious reporter interviewing Henry, the senator's son. As he describes the events leading up to his outing, we fade in & out of the scenes. This format has been used successfully several times in the past. It doesn't work this time. By the end of the film I felt as thought I'd watched a bad documentary, just witnessing the events, feeling nothing for the people involved. The other problem is the main characters seem almost schizophrenic in their personalities. One moment Henry is throwing the suit & tie clad Young Republican into the pool; the next moment he's bonding with him and hiring him a hooker when he learns he's still a virgin. We first meet Anthony as an "out there" Act Up! activist; we next see him a sensitive best friend of an AIDS-stricken woman. Next he's telling her that he also had sex with her boyfriend that gave her AIDS; we next see him caring about Henry, whom he had vowed to "out".

By the time Henry is outed, I was looking at my watch and waiting for the ending credits. Too bad. Good plot done wrong in about every detail. Better luck next time.


This is on of the darkest gay-themed films released in America I have seen. Most reviews have not been favorable, so I'll do my best to tell you what I liked, and what I didn't like. This is not a bad film, a 1 or 2 star rating seems quite unfair, but reviews are subjective. It doesn't hold a candle to other gay films I have enjoyed, but the subject is very different.

Why I Gave It 7 Stars: It was a solid 6, leaning towards 8 in the beginning, and towards the end, so I compromised. A solid B- film you might say.

The Story: It centers around Henry (played by Matt Newton). Henry is the son of a ultra conservative Senator from the south. Think of "The Birdcage", minus anything to laugh at. Henry is also gay. The film, told in "flashback style" as Henry tells his story to a reporter unfolds over the course of 6 months. Basically, Henry comes out, and family chaos follows. But not for long, as we're almost to the end of the film.

What I Liked: Personally, I liked the edge. This was almost more of a docu-drama, albeit a fictitious one, which could easily be based on truth. The actors were good to very good, the overall production was good as well.

What I Did Not Like: I was nearly half-way through the film, starting to get concerned where it was going, before all the character/story sub-plots were connected. The second half of the movie was strongest.

The Rest of the Characters: Besides our lead, Henry, we also focus on his stereo-typical bigot Republican Father/Senator, and his "senator's wife" Mother. And to the mix, a straight girl Izzi, and her gay male friend Anthony, whose relationship was unusual at best. Anthony and Henry meet under some unusual circumstances at a college party.

The Ending: I never give away specifics, but let's just say it's not a "Brady Bunch" wrap-up. If the ending was all tidied up for viewers, I would have knocked this down to a 5 or 6. Everything about the film was somewhat gritty, dark, "off". It's not the type of film that usually comes out of the USA. We usually have to watch films like this with sub-titles, so kudos to Here! films and those involved for producing the film.

Final Thoughts: This is not a laugh-out-loud sex romp. No, not at all. It's a good story trying to make a point about politics, sexuality and family values. It does all of those well.

Unrelated Chatter: Jack Noseworthy, the actor who played Anthony also starred in "The Brady Bunch Movie" and in his early years, "Cats" in the theater. Matt Newton (Henry) has appeared on the "Gilmore Girls" and "Judging Amy".


I just saw this movie yesterday and I for one, thought it was a terrific movie. I thought it's messages were great and I especially thought Matt Newton's performance was spectacular. I just felt that the one aspect of the ending didn't really work and that was the fact that Henry never made contact with Anthony again. You would think since he asked him to stay with him in the gym that they would've at lease kept in touch. But overall I thought this movie was very powerful and am still wondering why the critics have been so unkind to it. This includes Kevin Thomas of the L.A. Times who gives every gay movie a good review.


Most reviews for this movie are quite negative, and I guess I am in the minority when I say this - but this movie was fantastic!!! It is not your traditional gay movie, actually it doesn't really have much of a gay focus which might annoy some people. It's more a coming of age story and is relate-able to everyone, no matter what your sexual orientation is. At first the plot of this movie might seem to move along too slowly, but that is simply to establish the characters and setting of the movie which is something that has to be done to fully appreciate this movie. When you look back on the movie, you do realize how everything fits in together perfectly, now that you know everything, although it might seem a little bit muddled halfway through the movie.

Some other users have commented on the movie not being multi dimensional, but I think that the way that the characters reacted are pretty realistic, and most people (generally) are multi dimensional but may only show one side of their selves for one reason or another, and don't forget that this movie is focused from the point of view of Henry Kray. It also has many plot twists, and though it has be commented upon that it is too predictable, I thought nothing of the sort. The characters are oddly unpredictable, and are like multi layered onions, many people might just look it and observe that is it just another gay movie, but it is not, it is so much more than that.


Talk about misrepresentation! This movie misses on so many marks that I honestly feel sorry for those involved. The acting, editing, cinematography, "costumes", etc. YIKES! What really got my goat was the thorough incoherence of the "story". The movie's called Poster Boy and the main character bitches and moans about how he's "not the perfect son" but his big problem is giving a single phoney speech! If the movie had been about his parents grooming him to be a politico and forcing various women on him it might've made sense. But when he's a nobody at some second-tier university an they're trying to hide him how is he a Poster Boy living a lie. He mentions on several occasions how he's invisible. Boo Hoo. And what's with the political implausibility? The devil from South Carolina who's in office and running for re-election in New York? I don't think so. Oh, and how about the fact every character smokes constantly in totally inappropriate locales. I suppose this was to make them "interesting". Bleh. Of all the bad acting Izzy has to be the worst. Is she doing an impression of Ally Sheedy in Breakfast Club or what? The two gay characters which were supposedly the selling point of this fiasco have about as much sizzle as a glass of water. All in all, another sad contribution to the canon of horrible gay films. I was bamboozled by another wretched NetFlix suggestion! The end.


Henry Cray is a young gay man who's gone away to college and is enjoying the liberty of coming out, away from his family. Only problem is that the boy's father is a powerful, conservative U.S. Senator and around campus the son's homosexuality is a bit of an open secret.

Enter Anthony, a 28 but younger looking gay man, who's been a member of Act Up but who is now more interested in spending his time with affluent gal pal Izzie and perhaps getting into the pants of some college boy when they crash a campus party.

Despite being 28 Anthony can easily pass for a college guy and quickly meets several guys willing to show him a good time including Henry. Unaware of Henry's name Anthony hooks up with him and spends a fun evening on the floor of the school's darkened gymnasium. Only in the morning, after Henry has left him alone on the floor, does Anthony find out Henry's full identity.

Looking for any chance to take a shot at the conservative government that he detests Anthony decides to take this opportunity for political action. Only problem is that he finds himself beginning to care very deeply for Henry and he must decide if he can use someone he cares for in this way.


It isn't necessarily a bad thing that a first time director is working from a script with first time writers; I've seen worse films where a first time director wrote the script. However, this film would have been better served by either some more experience (or polish) on the writing end and, probably, with a director who was willing to make the necessary changes.

For example, when the Noseworthy character admits to his "best friend" that he too, slept with her dead boyfriend, it seems pointless and isn't and doesn't go anywhere, not even to an "I'm sorry for hurting you, Izzy" comment from Noseworthy's Anthony character.

The beginning of the film, where the young man walks away from the Anthony character's bed exists purely to show the character would be petulant because guys walk out on him after sleeping with him -- so when the Henry Kray character does it, of course, he needs revenge by messing up the Henry's entire life.

These elements are just so predictable or undeveloped as to ruin the opportunity the film has to be something new or unique.

Even the basic story, since it's one that has been the plot of a few trashy trade paperback gay novels and even the plot of a few trashy 'JO' (since IMDb doesn't like the more precise verbiage) stories in gay male adult magazines, needed more development than it got. I actually felt Karen Allen's performance was good, although the accent was a bit jarring. Unfortunately, too much time was spent developing her character for too little pay off. If she was going to walk away from the Senator at the end and the Senator and his son haven't reconcile, what happened to her, especially if he won re-election? Too much time is also spent with the Izzy character, especially in context with the Senator's wife, since again, there is no pay-off.

And while getting drunk and having coffee is certainly the way for a relationship to begin, there was nothing on screen to justify Noseworthy doing this, especially since they don't end up together in the end.

If the director couldn't see the flaws in the script and fix them, he was the major problem. If the writers didn't realize these kinds of problems, they need a good editor. As it was, I gave the movie a better mark than I normally might for trying something different than you might normally see in a gay movie and for good performances by the leads, who were undermined by the script and clearly did the best they could with their dialog and situations, and didn't make them any worse. Hopefully, both will get better roles (or make better decisions about the roles they take) in the future.


This was perhaps the first movie in a long time that I was truly disappointed in. The premise could have been interesting. However, no one really tried... the directing is sloppy, the writing is tired, and the acting is just horrible. Matt Lerner does not make a good leading man and you can definitely see it in the interview scenes. The movie doesn't really capture any sort of idea; the idea of being closeted, of being political, not getting along with your parents, etc. I could go on. None of the characters are relatable, save perhaps an amazing performance by Karen Allen (from 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' fame) who does an amazing job of being a republican senator's wife who basically hates everything about it, especially giving up her individuality. "Poster Boy" tries to hard to not be a gay movie; and when you take that away, it really isn't anything else. The first movie I got from Netflix that I probably would never watch again.


Too often in gay cinema, Films loose their way in two ways. Plots and characters get lost in a desperate and schlocky attempt to prove just how gay a film can be. A serious attempt at film making is often lost in a need to be gay and throws in unnecessary and explicit love scenes and nudity for no other reason than to remind the viewer that the characters are indeed homosexual. The other way (the worse of the two in my opinion) is that there seems to be this rule that many film makers have that you can not make a serious film about gay men without one of them dying of AIDS. I applaud Poster Boy for not falling into either of these traps. The lead male characters are unquestionably homosexual without being explicit yet without losing their sexuality and none of the gay men die of aids nor are they HIV positive. There is a character who is HIV positive whom we are told dies of AIDS but it is not pivotal to the plot and it is a straight woman. The film does not belittle the disease but it is not the agenda of the film. This film is about the relationship between a father and son and the worlds they live in. It is tightly directed with good character development on both sides. The acting is very good especially by Michael Lerner in a very different role for him. Karen Allen is always a joy to watch. The main characters are played by relatively unknowns which I think works well for the characters. Well done by all involved


I loved it! I appreciated the tapestry that led to the subtle and uplifting conclusion, probably because it seemed to resemble clarity. I felt no sense of "preaching", indeed it was the brevity of expressed points of view that lent it the sense of reality that one lives with every day. The portrayal of the characters on both sides of the issues were presented with a sensitivity that did not detract from the accuracy of their impact on the protagonist, the Poster Boy. Examples of extreme Right-Wing politicians and religious leaders who have parented gay and lesbian children are too numerous to include here, but one wonders about the true price of the horrendously internalized closet these personalities seem to be lost in. I would recommend it to any with an interest in such issues.


I felt the script for the movie was lacking a sense of reality most of the time. There were to many lines that were total Cliché's. For example, when the small group was planning a protest the one girl suggested. "why done we form a human chain around the auditorium and confront the senator with Poetry". There were 5 of them, and the suggestion was Laughable, and no one laughed in the scene. There's a lot of lines like that but not funny, just out of context.

The acting on the other hand was quite good. Even with the lines they were given.

I have to say i'm not a great fan of constant close ups which this had tons of. I it was hard to tell what was going on around the characters since there were so many close ups.


Movies that are more about the inner lives, emotions and growth of the characters than they are about the situations depicted frequently have a hard time with critics and audiences. So it seems to be with this film, which is deeper than most of the reviewers seem able to see.

The one facet of this production that most reviewers complain about is the writing. Well, I'm here to say that the writing is intelligent and subtle and just this side of brilliant. The people in Poster Boy aren't the one-dimensional, good or bad, smart or silly, honest or conniving characters they might have been. They're multifaceted, exposed in greater detail as the film goes on, and they all take emotional journeys, becoming larger and different, if still humanly flawed, from who they were at the start. Even the politician/father is more complex than we think at first; although perhaps predictably, because of the career he's chosen, he moves the least of the major characters.

Henry Kray is embittered by the politicization of his life, yet we see him beginning to hope against his experience that the feelings Anthony shows him might possibly be real. Anthony, for his part, is in it at first for the political effect he can create by outing Henry, but he begins to see there's more to Henry than just the politician's son, and that the cause he was using Henry for is more complicated than he thought. The politician's wife shakes off her complacent acceptance of her role as scenic sidekick to the Senator. Izzie opens up more than she thought possible at first==Parker's knock at the gym door at the end, and Izzie's opening that door is the closest the movie comes to a conventional romance, but is just as much a metaphor for moving on after finally accepting what she's lost.

Some people have expressed surprise or disappointment that Henry and Anthony didn't end up together; but this isn't primarily a romance. It's a story of realistic, imperfect people who touch each other's lives and take what they've experienced into their futures.

This is one of the most intelligent movies of its kind this writer has ever seen, and sadly underestimated by most of its audience. 9 out of 10.


I started out disliking this, but ended up rather enjoying it. The cinema verite style was very hard for me to get past. It seems really contrived, particularly because several of the characters were absolute caricatures. The senator and his wife were cartoonishly unambiguous and the bitter friend seemed like unnecessary set dressing. Comedically evil right wing conservative and hand-held cam make for strange bedfellows. I came around during the Palm Springs hooker scene, just because it didn't go for the obvious gambit. That did cut the potential smarminess of the whole coming out agenda. The narrative convention of the reporter and protagonist is also absurdly contrived. Having said those things, Jack Noseworthy really puts the thing over. If he smiled at me, I'd probably throw my whole life away, too. Ultimately, the movie isn't really about gayness or politics. It's about grown children allowing, or not allowing, their parents to control them.


I wrote a review of Poster Boy on my website (www.BadGayFilms.com) and you'll be surprised that me big issues with this movie aren't found in the gay plot lines (it was pretty typical of most gay films.) Here is some of what I had to say, be sure to check out the website for my full review:

"...oddly enough my issues with this movie don't really come from the gay elements. For the most part the gay plot lines are pretty reasonable and believable though not very compelling. I'm only talking about the plot here mind you. The camera work will make you dizzy and the editing is sloppy. The actors do a decent job for the most part (Matt Newton as Henry Kray and Jack Noseworthy as Anthony) with some glaring exceptions (oddly enough Karen Allen as Eunice Kray and Ian Reed Kesler as Skip Franklin are pretty awful.)

My true problem with this film is the very basis for which it is based. The whole plot centers on a political campaign and while most movies that attempt to portray a campaign tend to stumble, this one falls flat on its face."

- BadGayFilms.com


If you are looking for a patch of blue in a new gay cinema gone bad, do not watch this film. It is an equal-opportunity mess. Bad writing. Bad cinematography. Bad acting. Bad everything. It is notable for its total lack of any sympathetic characters. Remarkable. The most aggravating thing about the movie is its bumbling stupidity in dealing with very serious issues which effect millions, such as AIDS, homophobia, sexism, corrupt politics. The second most aggravating thing about the movie is Karen Allen's blue suit, which she wears in every scene. And it's a really ugly suit! It is one of the very few movies I have watched to its conclusion despite my deepest desire to stop the pain of watching it. I can't really say what that is about. Perhaps it was like watching a train wreck. Believe me, this film did indeed earn my vote of 1.


A few days ago, I picked up Sarah Bradford's biography of Lucrezia Borgia from my sister's library to read on a plane trip. It rekindled my interest in viewing again a dusty, neglected tape, of the 1981 10-part BBC mini series, The Borgias, that A&E aired in 1985, which another family member taped for me, knowing that I love history and BBC drama. When I first viewed the series, in 1985, I thought it had good acting and production value but was a bit cheesy in its portrayal of some of the more seedy aspects of the reputed Borgia family skeletons. I did enjoy the way the series brought to life Renaissance Italy and the prominent Italian families and loved the commentaries by Renaissance historians and museum curators added by A&E.

Twenty-two years later (and as many years more seasoned) when I pulled out the tapes to view again of the series I had almost taped over several times, I was overjoyed that I had the miniseries intact. What a delight! The portrayal of the seedy aspects of the Borgias no longer seemed "cheesy," but a plausibly accurate interpretation of an audacious family's blatant disregard for conventions, societal limitations, and taboos, demonstrated in practically every aspect of their ambitious, larger-than-life actions. Having greater exposure to the entitlement attitudes of privileged, self-promoting families in politics and history, I now find the salacious aspects of the Borgias' story not only likely, but an intriguing part of the psychological whole. There are documented parallels in the families of the Egyptian rulers, the Roman Caesars and Virginia Woolfe, among others. Aside from my reevaluation of this previously disturbing aspect of the storyline, I found the portrayal of the political intrigues at the Vatican and among the prominent Italian families to be far more interesting subsequent to having traveled to some of the locales depicted. I agree with previous reviewers who have stated that the better you know your history, the more you appreciate this series.

With a few forgivable exceptions, the casting is perfect. "Rodrigo Borgia/Alexander VI" looks just like his portraits. "Cesare Borgia" looks like he stepped right out of his. "Lucrezia," "Giulia Farnese," and Alfonso D'Este also are convincingly portrayed. Vanozza Catanei and Sancia d'Aragon, strangely, are miscast as to appearance, a minor quibble as both are strong actresses.

I came online today to see if I could purchase a DVD of The Borgias as a Christmas present to the sister whose book I borrowed. While I was disappointed to find that the series is not available for purchase, I am delighted that my 1985 tape is in good shape. What a shame this series is not rebroadcast/available for purchase!


I hugely enjoyed this series when it was first shown in 1981, even watching the contemporary Sunday repeats which were buried away at 10.30pm on BBC2. The portrayals of all the leading figures were outstanding, especially Oliver Cotton as Cesare. He was mesmerising as the charismatic 'Duke Valentino' and it is a crying shame that his performance was lost amongst the grossly undeserved tirade of abuse the series attracted. The settings were authentic and the costuming was also superb. The series was accurate in it's depiction of a violent and bloody era and did not fall into the trap of making the Borgias raving, sex crazed psychopaths and tyrants. In truth they were responsible governors and were respected (if not loved) by their subjects. After he was deposed Cesare even had to go to a city in person to persuade the people to surrender to his enemies or they would be killed. They reluctantly did so but praised him for putting their welfare before his pride. Lucrezia was also well portrayed, she was loved by the citizens of Ferrara (home of her third husband) for her charitable works and they requested for her to be canonised but the Pope (unsurprisingly given her 'reputation') declined. I don't think any other person in history has been so unfairly maligned as Lucrezia (with the possible exception of General Custer). I have longed to see this series again and think 26 years is too long to have to wait ... the series now belongs to that era of classic video-taped programmes that we no longer see. The BBC release some excellent lesser known series on DVD so there must be a place for this. They may also make some of their money back!!!


I remember this series very well!! It captured my attention over a period of several weeks.

I have tried, over and over, to obtain a VHS or DVD of this series....but no luck.

NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW IF IT EVER WAS PROCESSED FOR VHS OR DVD.

Anyone know about the possibility of a future release on VHS or DVD? WHO WOULD WE 'petition' to release it??? It is one of those RARE Historical series that I would love to have in my collections.

Adolfo Celi gives a performance of Rodrigo Borgia that is SUPBERB. Was this an A&E production, BBC or....? We can only hope that someday the production company that produced this series will see that there are many who would love to own either the VHS or DVD series.

Thanks Claude King


I've seen any number of critiques on this series...all of them negative. I'm sorry I can't agree. Having studied this period of history, I'm afraid you will have to accept the fact that the BBC left out some of the most shocking aspects, and indeed this is what life was like in the Italian Renaissance. It is difficult, if not impossible, for modern morals to be fitted to history. "The past is a different country", never could it be truer in this sense. There isn't space enough, here, to fully explain the complexities of 15th/16th century politics and morality. "The Borgias" did indeed reflect reality, except, as I have said, this is a bit sanitised and not as opulent as it should have been. The costuming is very good (again, if you have studied the period there are minute errors, but they are very minor), and the portrayals of the characters are excellent. Once again, I say, please study the history first, then view the series.


An excellent interpretation of events in the lives of the Borgias. Of course, it is impossible to know how things truly happened, but there are good historical accounts, which seem to have been taken into consideration in the writing. The costuming is exquisite, and it would be hard to ask for a better story.

Rodrigo Borgia, as Pope Alexander, is shown as the wily fox he must have been. Lucezia is shown in a more sympathetic light than historians traditionally give her. Her portrayal is very realistic, and her bizarre relationships with those closest to her are such that the reactions she has to events in the series are entirely believable. Her brothers, Juan, Joffre, and lastly, Cesare, are well cast and very believable, as well -- particularly Cesare. His encounters with Machiavelli are extremely well done.


This movie is about a group of off-off Broadway actor wanna bes who moonlight as illegal money collectors. One of their crew (Barbara Hershey) wants to leave and start a new life with her young son. Unfortunately, her ex-husband (Robbie Coltrane) is the theatre impresario/loan shark who pulls the strings of everyone's ambitions.

A very unusual vision of the gangster comedy theme. It takes the generalized neuroses and psychoses of actors (ego, ambition, narcissism, paranoia, etc) and runs the gamut from somewhat healthy to psychotic. People alternate from friends, lovers, and assassins at the turn of an audition announcement and will begin monologues from plays and movies with little to no warning (this will be fun for theatre/movie buffs). The plot, unlike some movies, actually requires attention and a large cast (most of whom are one to two sceners) delivers excellent performances all around.

FYI: has some scenes of graphic violence.

Worth a rent/buy used. Due to its singular style, I would suggest renting first, as it will not be everyone's cup of tea.


There is almost no reason for me to write. Many of you have done the job for me. But I take the misuse and co-option of a "Downtown" NY vibe in this movie as a personal affront. Amos Poe has some kind of Alt -street cred, although now I can't remember for what. Something to do with Debbie Harry. But he (on the basis of this film) is not an artist, not an entertainer, not a good post-modernist, not very smart! As many have pointed out, he knows how to quote from much better things. And he knows how to cast weirdly iconic actors and use interesting East Village locations. But the killing scenes are excessive, the acting scenes are unconvincing. And neither illuminates the other. Jim Jarmusch, forgive me! Any doubts I have had about your genius have been erased by this slop. I understand now (I already liked it a lot) what a massive achievement Ghost Dog is. You have quoted Godard, but added something to our understanding, as Godard did with such as Fuller and Ray. This guy, on the other hand belongs in the Press area of a European Blondie Reunion concert, holding a Poloroid camera. He totally wasted my time with his smarmy, hipper-than-thou bullshit. Lisa Marie is hot though.


Some movies are like olives or wine; you need to have developed a taste before you can fully enjoy them. The story was unexpected and definitely better the second time around since I was paying attention this time. If you like dark humor you'll love Barbara Hershey and this great cast doing a wonderful job. It is well above par for this genre.


Yes, it's on film, it is around 90 minutes like a feature, it's got something that resembles a plot that provides and excuse for the performances, and it seems to participate in a genre marked by "Pulp Fiction." But take this for what it is, some very good actors jamming. Barbara Hershey's characterization is superb -- hers and the other performances had me mesmerized (like a frog by a snake?)-- it's that thing that actors do, that transformation that gives a shiver of the uncanny.


Barbara H: pretty sad, dear. Neither the youth nor the presence to carry your role. The film is painfully aware of its aspirations -never approached in quality, sadly - of successfully passing as a mere mediocrity. Dream on. The would-be female lead seems to have used all her resources, all the accrued influence available at the autumn of her career- not to entertain but rather to keep her "credit" from the leading titles, ...BH only admitting to having perpetrated "Eva" at the final moments of film.

Without a better performance (and any high school drama aspirant could readily cough up a more nuanced and convincing effort than did BH... the film is worse than bad.

Not all are to blame: Mike Starr (a standout in Mad Dog & Glory) never does less than fine work: an underrated actor who deserves better than this stillborn wet poop.

The screenplay is awful, the direction is amateurish, and the cinematography ... is actually quite good.

All in all, a painful and humiliating waste of time. It was much more fun to pan it than to watch it.

Try a little less lipstick, BH? (It gets farther and farther from her mouth.) -------------------------------------------


this was quite a jumbled mess of a film... hershey is cast as a much too young actress, and mazur is completely wasted... this film has no idea of where it wants to go, and is turgid and confusing in many parts... clarence williams is wasted too... too bad because the cast is interesting enuff


Poorly acted, lamely scripted, unnecessarily violent, and pretentious far beyond the typical indie films, "Frogs and Snakes" was one of the worst films of 1998. While a bad film may be enjoyable on some level for its cheesiness or other lame aspect, this film's self-importance and supposedly "deep" dialogue makes you want to gag. Nothing redeemable.


Not even Barbara Hershey could save this farce. If it was supposed to be a comedy it was a total failure. There wasn't a laugh in the entire movies. Bizarre plot. Too much needless and graphic violence. If this movie was supposed to entertain, the blood and gore made certain that it did not. Hershey was badly miscast in this movie. If she was supposed to be a sympathetic character, it never showed and that is too bad because Hershey is an accomplished actress and this movie doesn't help her career. If it had been for Hershey, I would not have even considered watching this movie only to be very disappointed in her role.


I thought that maybe over the course of 30 minutes, a show billing itself as "edgy satire with political/social overtones and intense physical comedy" would elicit at least a snicker or two. Instead, I found myself increasingly angry that my tax money (throught the Canadian Film Tax Grants program) was being wasted on this garbage. Not one laugh, chuckle, tee-hee or even a smile came across my face while this was on.

It's the worst kind of comedy - bland, poorly delivered, and totally lacking in talent. Anyone associated with this show should be ashamed of themselves. The 'humour' is so painfully forced from the performers, it's actually hard to watch.

Also, canned laughter should have been abolished after the demise of the '80s sitcom. It only serves to prove that no one in their right mind would find the show funny.

I recommend turning the channel and watching anything else if this happens to be on. I would have given it a zero if I could have.


and that word is, Retarded. Comedy Inc. is a show that calls itself a comedy, but simply does not make people laugh. It has a totally lame cast, with Roman Danylo constantly over-acting his parts, and making up REALLY stupid characters for which to do his sketches. The girls on the show, quite frankly, have no comedic talent. They are just horrible at impressions, for those of you who have seen the judge Judy skit, you know what I'm talking about. Also, it is a Canadian show, so why do they try and tackle so many American issues? Americans do not want to see a bunch of no talent Canadians making American jokes, just as Canadians don't want to see a bunch of slack jawed Americans making Canadian jokes. It just doesn't flow. Anybody thinking of watching this show, you might as well take a fork and jab yourself in the eye, that would be a lot more entertaining then watching this dreg. Bottom line: over acting, bad impressions, lame skit ideas, terrible show.


I used to be a law abiding citizen. I went to work, paid my taxes, and came home to my wife and three children. We'd have dinner together and laugh as the children regaled us with tales of fantasy they came up with on the playground. The wife and I would laugh and hold each others hands, looking lovingly at each other, knowing that the love of our family would last forever.

All of that changed the day I accidentally saw Comedy Inc.

Nothing was ever the same. As soon as it ended and the credits began to roll, I stormed into the kitchen and beat my wife unconscious. The kids started screaming, so I promptly crapped my pants and mashed a load of feces into their faces. When they started crying their eyes out, I punched them all in the balls and sent them to their room without supper for the rest of their lives. I couldn't stop screaming 'WHAT A TERRIBLE GODDAMN SHOW' over and over, until my vocal chords became so swollen that a doctor had to remove them, forever ruining my career as Canada's Greatest Opera Singer.

A young boy dying at a nearby hospital had one last request - to hear my beautiful voice singing 'The Circle of Life', but he wailed in agony and died as soon as he heard that would never happen.

I now live out on the streets, typing this review on a laptop I fashioned out of some old pizza boxes and dead cat hair. I hope you can all learn a lesson from my sad tale, and ensure that neither you or your loved ones ever watch a show as bad as Comedy Inc. I know that it's tempting, since they show commercials for it every 5 seconds, but please! AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS! I'm now off to the park, where I plan on mugging and raping some innocent jogger.


That's all I really can say about this show, "Pathetic". The performers are all so bad it's annoying, I actually even have a physical reaction watching this show like I'm about to be sick and I'm not just saying that to make a point it is really so bad that I feel a little sick to my stomach, not sure how that reaction works but I swear it's true. Who ever writes this televised garbage should never be allowed to write anything ever again. This show is easily one of the very worst shows I have ever seen in my entire life and as much as I want to say it is the #1 worst show ever made I'm not sure that's true because there have been some other awful shows but right now I can't think of anything I'm sure is worse than Comedy Inc. It is shameful that this show was ever put on TV and I mean it who ever spent good money to make this show and wasted all that air time airing it should be ashamed of themselves. This show's Pathetic.


Comedy Inc is one of the worst shows ever. I know people just go around saying that about any show that they don't like or that is bad, "this is the worst show ever", but in this case I really truly mean it. When I am watching it, I don't know why I punished myself like that but I did, I must be a masochist, but anyway whenever I watched it I literally believed I was watching the single worst TV comedy ever produced. It really is that bad and anyone reading this who has seen the show knows exactly what I am talking about, and anyone reading this who has never seen the show do yourself a favour and never ever try to watch this show it will just waste half an hour of your life and make you hate everything about life. If it wasn't for almost every other show on the Comedy Network then this show would be the worst all time, but since they have made even worse shows than this it is saved from the title of "all time worst".


Wow - I really hope they publish all the seasons of Comedy Inc on DVD sometime in the future because I would really like to collect this classic comedy series.

To all those that reported negative comments about this series - either most of the humour was over their head, or perhaps they are President Bush supporters because I really don't see how you cannot find this series extremely funny unless you do NOT have a sense of humour (quite possible with Bush supporters!) Anyway check it out and make up your own mind... great comedy in the tradition of Kids in the Hall and other great Canadian ensemble comedy series...


Comedy Inc is the worst sketch comedy show I have ever seen on television in my entire life! The sketches they do are awful (or I guess I should say the sketches that they did do because thankfully this show has finally been taken off the air). It is shows like Comedy Inc that prove to me that Canadian television is really sick and the industry as a whole needs to be fixed somehow, because if this is the kind of crap that the comedy channel and CTV will turn out again and a again they clearly do not care one bit about the quality of their programs, they obviously want to just make whatever is cheap that fits the "Canadian made" bill, and in which case I think they should just pull the plug totally and we can just watch BBC or an American channel. It makes me sick that my tax dollars etc are going to give jobs to people like whoever produces this horrible show.


I have been watching this show since it premiered. I can safely say that it has been one of my favorite comedy shows on Canadian television. I will admit that the humor used is only sometimes "lacklustre," but for the most part, the jokes ARE funny.

I know some of you give it a bad rap for being "stupid," and "retarded," but isn't that sometimes what we all need? People get tired of having to think, sometimes. We have lives, with jobs, and children, and friends, and responsibilities. When we watch television, we're trying to escape. We want something that is a little bit "stupid," sometimes.

I'll admit that I'm not the most harsh critique when it comes to comedy. As long as it makes me laugh, it's gold. And this show makes me laugh. The first few seasons have been great, and although it has faded a little bit since the start, I will continue to watch this show.