Like many others, I was very interested in this remake of "The Lathe of Heaven," for several reasons. The book by Ursula K. LeGuin is widely regarded as a science-fiction classic, although I have never thought it was among her best work. I read it after I saw the first "Lathe of Heaven" on PBS in 1980 and realized that considerable liberties had been taken with the story, although it was much closer to the book than this latest endeavor.

Back then, "Lathe" was a bold experiment for PBS and the producers: To make an original full-length science-fiction TV movie on a limited budget that would appeal to an audience used to flashier entertainment. Remember, it was only three years since "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" had revitalized screen science fiction, until then very much in the doldrums. The producers of LOH wanted to make a more intimate story than those blockbuster movies, one based more on human relationships. With their low budget, they looked for places and expedients that would transmit their vision. Although the story was set in Portland, Oregon, they filmed a lot of it in Dallas because of that city's more futuristic architecture. I liked it very much and videotaped it, and have the tape to this day. (Unfortunately but inevitably, the tape had deteriorated significantly when I transferred it to DVD at the end of 2006. Never fear, it appears that it's now available on commercial DVD.)

It says a great deal about inflation in the movie business that the remake had a "small" budget of "only" $5 million. That would have been a lot of money for the original filmmakers. I also wonder why here in the States we had to wait until September of 2002 to see it when the first comments about it, from a viewer in Turkey, are from February!

But whenever it aired, my reaction would be the same: Why did they bother to make it at all? There is so little of the original here that it is essentially a different work. They have taken the story and drained it of its blood. And what does happen goes beyond problems with temporal discontinuities and paradoxes; these people behave without logic or motivation. It looks like a long episode of the "new" Outer Limits or a similar show, one of those low-budget syndicated series that they film in Canada because it's cheaper there, where there is money only for a few sets, a couple of computer graphics, and a lot of talk in closeup (to hide the spareness of the sets). All of the acting and dialogue takes place in murmurs. I usually like James Caan, but it looks like he's been watching Bruce Willis's recent film work and decided to try the minimalist, non-acting approach.

Now that I've brought up The Outer Limits, remember how the opening credits used to talk about "awe and mystery"? Well, if you want awe and mystery, forget about this remake and go back to the 1980 version; it had much more of those qualities.


Ok, how about this idea? Maybe Dr. Haber saw the PBS version of "Lathe of Heaven" from 1980 and didn't like it, SO he used his brainscan device to force George to dream and alter history. As a result we got the A&E version of "Lathe of Heaven." Curse that Dr. Haber! When will he learn that you cannot remake history? No matter your intentions, if you try to make a politically correct, dumbed-down, Hallmark channel version there can be unintended consequences.. like it may suck. Just a theory. Two stars - one for James Caan and one for Ursula.


Having read LeGuinn's book and seen PBS's excellent rendering of her story this new version is a crashing disappointment. The first problem is that there is so little left of the story that much of its impact is missing. In spite of being light on effects and budget the earlier PBS production makes much better use of its resources to communicate LeGuinn's apocalyptic drama to the viewer.

What happened to the space aliens? They seem to be replaced by David Straithorn's character who occasionally pops into scenes with sage verbiage. Unfortunately, so much has been stripped that there is no tissue left to connect him to what little plot remains after the producers and directors finished their hatchet job on content and context. Who knows why they did that?

What's left is a nothingness rivaled only by Jor-Jor's apocalyptic reality. In order to understand what's going on here, one might want to read the book, or view PBS's 1980's telling of the story. Please don't waste your time with this turkey, especially since the PBS version is available on DVD.


Taking into account the original, this remake is waste of time for the viewer, I brief it as chopped scripted, awfully directed and wrongfully acted disposal of tape, I don't call these "things" movies.

James Caan cripples the doctor's character, maybe the main actor deserves some credit, but only maybe. The only difference in which this remake may look better than the original is on the photography.

The story is broken and hard to follow, the main parts of the original are lost, giving way to time wasting scenes of nice settings. What a shame. I strongly suggest to find the original and leave this remake forgotten for years to come. Not even Ed Wood would make this remake worse.


I recently saw the original 1979 version of this film, where the screenplay, and professional consultation were done by the author herself. This remake, although it had quality actors, left out the critical material which made the original film (and the book) so unique, leaving this as another Hollywood rehash. James Caan and Lucas Haas both are wonderful in other projects, but they were given nothing to work with in this film. Rather than compare apples and oranges, I simply recommend people forget this film, and search for the 1979 Public Television Production-the first film ever made by PBS, and still the most requested item ever for PBS. Bruce Davison and Margaret Avery are wonderful, and if you realize the limited budget they worked with, you would be proud of that film.


This has got to be the worst remake I have yet to see! If A & E was too concerned with being politically correct to do this correctly, they should have left this alone. As it is they produced a senseless watered down version that made no sense because they ignore the fact that it all is a dream world created by George Orr. Where are the aliens, the plague, gray people, etc. While I like both Lisa Bonet & Lukas Haas, neither was suited for this movie. If you want to see this produced correctly rent the original that is finally available after 20 years of petty arguing between the writers and PBS or read the book.


The book and previous film aside.. this is just plain dreadful. It's slow, tired, wooden with nothing of real interest cropping up anywhere in the film. I'm sorry to say that I watched all of it - but I was in continual hope that there was going to be something better happen any second.

The premise seemed interesting, it's just a shame that what was such a good idea is closer to having nails pulled when watched. There's just no reason for anyone to feel anything for the characters, there's nothing there to give someone chance to identify with them. All in all it presents itself as a very sterile film, with each seprate scene seeming so forced as to jar the nerves. The hero of the piece, if you can call him that, just mopes around looking miserable and inefectual, and all in all it just bites.

There's no real reason for anyone to want the characters to succeed or fail.. and in general there's not a lot of interest in the whole film. There are no scenes that are just good to look at, no memorable pieces of dialouge or memerable characters... fairly pointless all around in fact.

Avoid.


Simply put: it has no soul. It is devoid of character and suffers from being overdesigned and grossly underwritten. The novel and the 1980 PBS version are full of interesting, curious "character moments" and have a healthy sense of wry humor. This version has sacrificed everything--everything--that made the novel and the earlier version so wonderful, so human. George Orr is a mannequin. Lelache is a complete cipher. Dr. Haber exhibits none of the eccentric egomania that should be driving his character.

Lest you turn into a pillar of salt like Lots' wife, avert your eyes...


Having just finished reading the book I was curious to see the adaptation of what I felt was one of the best sci-fi novels I have ever read. What was presented was everything that is wrong about adaptations in film.

WHY do you make this film? The creativity of the story.

WHY would you bastardize the original concept beyond recognition? Arrogant screenwriters who wish to simplify the material to the lowest common denominator? And this should fall at the feet of Alan Sharp. I would love for this man to answer why he was allowed to alter this story so unrecognizable as to be so utterly juvenile and generic.

From the expanded insignificant characters to the alteration of the basic premise of LeGuin's novel this film is a failure on every level and wholly unwatchable if you have read the book. If not, you may try to follow the convoluted soap opera affair awhile. Either way it plays out with all the flair of an outer limits.


One of the worst remakes I've ever seen. The original PBS movie is the one you want to see - a true classic. This version ignored most of the important plot lines of the original book, and left me angry and frustrated. I watched the original movie (made in 1980 for a fraction of the cost) just to wash the bad taste out of my mouth. Please - don't waste your time or money on this travesty.


I have not read the novel this film was based on, but I did recently watch the 1980 version. While the modern version has better production values, sets, costumes, etc. I have to say that I favor the 1980 version. Both films are less than forthcoming with what is going on, but at least the 1980 version attempted to tell a complete story. (Spoilers follow.) Where were the aliens? Where was the mention that there was nuclear war in April 1998? Where was the confrontation between Haber and Orr? Having read a bit about the novel and having watched the interview with LeGuin, I know that the 1980 version was more faithful to the source material, and for that (as well as better performances from the two male leads) I have to recommend that version over A&E's Reader's Digest version.


If not for the title, I would barely have recognized LeGuin's book. The story and characters have been dumbed down so much they barely exist. There's no development of either plot or people. There's no hint of motivation for any character, especially Dr. Haber: no interior monologue, no back-story. There's no tension, either between characters or in the society. The actors appear to be sleepwalking (except for David Straithern, wonderful as always as Manny). The script is so bland, it could have been computer generated. I can't believe Brcce Davison, who was in the wonderful 1980 version, or LeGuin would have allowed this travesty to be made -- they turned a brilliant book into a chick-flick. Blech.


It is seldom that I see a movie I really hate. The first movie version of The Lathe of Heaven was awesome, made for a pittance, and captured the ethereal nature of LeGuin's most enigmatic novel. This movie was just terrible. It was slow, didn't include anything even remotely like the novel, and completely left out the cool aliens from Aldebaran! The jellyfish motif was the only thing analogous. Also, is it too much to ask that in a movie about dreams that change reality, we might see the dreams themselves? This was one of the most effective concepts in the original version.

James Caan delivered the most wooden and disconnected performance of his career, and Lukas Haas was a big lump. I like Lisa Bonet, her talent was completely wasted.

TO GO IS TO RETURN! But to watch this farce is excruciating and an utter waste of time. Rent 'The Bride of Chucky' instead.


God, what a waste of time! I haven't read the book but knew of ULG's stature. Actually I picked this up at the local library. This being a co-production of Alliance-Atlantic and PBS, and AAC being a Canadian company is the only reason I can see why a library might have this.

First off, the acting is terrible!! Both Lisa Bonet and Lukas Haas are totally lame. No wonder this thing falls flat on its face with those two as the leads. I wonder if he's related to Philip, the director? Could that have something to do with it??

The only interesting bit of casting in this dog was David Straithairn as Manny, and Sheila McCarthy as Penny, Dr. Haber's secretary. (She's probably best known as Polly in I've Heard the Mermaids Singing.)

The sets and costumes are not bad, but the only reason to watch this would be as a laugh-fest, i.e. "this thing is so bad it's hilarious!!"


George Orr (Lukas Haas) tells his psychologist (James Caan) that he once lost someone special. The psychologist immediately refers to the "someone special" as a she. George asks, "How do you know it's a she?" Psychologist: "Because you're a he." The psychologist has never heard of same-sex relationships? Or have all the gay people been killed? George hasn't even indicated that it was a romantic relationship, so evidently the producers of this movie don't even believe in the existence of same-sex friendships! Even if you hate gay people, that's quite an extreme.

The rest of the movie is horrible heterosexist garbage with Lisa Bonet and Lucas Haas staring longingly at each other, and then lying in bed congratulating each other for being heterosexual.


I am not someone who insists that a movie adhere strictly to the book on which it is based. Moreover, I recognize that a teleplay must omit some parts of the book in order to fit in an 80-minute timeframe. However, I expect the essential theme of the book to be maintained. This adaptation fails miserably in that respect.

Rather than paint a picture of the futility of playing God, writer Alan Sharp and director Philip Haas chose to give us a one-dimensional cliché of the self-aggrandizing scientist (James Caan's Dr. Haber) and us a shallow love story. Haber's desire to mold a better world through George Orr's power, his attempt to convince George to join him in the effort rather than resist, and his inability to see that the consequences of meddling with reality are unpredictable -- all of this is lost in Haas' adaptation. Instead, we see Haber using George to obtain successively more magnificent office space and a progressively more fashionable secretary. George's love interest, Heather, is reduced to an odd obsession; Heather's own attempt (and failure) in LeGuin's novel to use George's power for public good never appears in Haas' film.

Perhaps the pettiest departure from the book was Sharp and Haas' choice to have Dr. Haber say "New York" (instead of "Antwerp") as the phrase that induces George Orr's dreams under hypnosis in their first session. Interestingly, Haber never uses the phrase again in any of the subsequent dream scenes. Maybe Haas was embarrassed by his own pettiness.

Even as a standalone movie, this film is a poor one. Lisa Bonet's character, Heather, was completely unbelievable. Are we really supposed to accept that a successful and self-assertive lawyer will drive out to a remote location and jump into bed with a psychiatric patient about whom she knows very little and that she will remain there with him for days in the face of his increasingly obsessive behavior - simply because he says he feels he knew her from a previous life? In another scene, we are given hints that George's friend, Manny, may be more than he seems. He appears in each of George's realities, and he seems to recall all of them. Yet the film does nothing with this; it is simply a loose string left for us to puzzle on. The final scenes are rushed and confusing, leaving the viewer with the sense that Haas simply ended the show in order to fit into the time he had available.

Philip Haas has not made a decent movie since his 1995 `Angels and Insects.' This version of `The Lathe of Heaven' continues his streak of losers. If you want to see a good film adaptation of LeGuin's book, buy the 1980 PBS version instead.


I just finished watching this and was so disappointed I logged right in. I have never read the book upon which this is based, but being a science fiction fan, I have heard of it. Now, I'm not so sure I even want to read it.

This movie was just terrible. It made no sense, the characters were empty shells, everything seemed completely contrived.


When I saw that a new version of Lathe of Heaven was coming out, I was very excited. Lathe of Heaven is one of my favorite books, and I had seen the 1980 version... but I thought that it would be possible to do a newer version that wouldn't look so dated and low budget. (though I did enjoy the 1980 version).

 So I begin watching it and am immediately struck by substantial differences between the novel and this movie version. That's okay with me-- I am not one of those novel Nazis who say that you can't change a thing when translating a work from one medium to another.

 They introduce a character, who is a friend of George's. He seems to serve as something of a springboard, so that we can see what George is thinking. No problem so far.

 Unfortunately, it quickly becomes clear that the screenwriter did not understand the novel at all. Haber's intentions are good-- the world is horrible and he wants to use George to change it for the better. And, yes, he does change it a bit to improve his position in life.

 The screenplay doesn't seem to correctly emphasize that Haber is purposefully having George dream certain dreams to change reality for the better. And that the changing of reality is not to be taken lightly-- there are unintended consequences, because everything is connected.

So, basically, don't see it. Ever. I give it a rating of 2 only to congratulate the filmmakers for making a good choice of a novel to do-- just that they did it so poorly.


I remember staying up late a a year or two ago and aimlessly flipping through the channels on TV. Suddenly I saw a rather shabby looking movie that seemed to be science fiction related, so I stopped and watched. I was amazed at the movie I saw, the original Lathe of Heaven. It did look a bit dated but the story was so good and the ideas so interesting that I forgave it and really loved it. I even had an idea that someone should remake of the film to make it look beautiful and keep the complex story and ideas. When I heard of a remake being made for TV I was excited on what a new version could acomplish. So when I sat down to watch this movie last night I was extremely dissapointed. Yes the movie has modern production values but still it doesn't seem to look very good and could have been directed alot better. Imagine getting a major film director like David Fincher to direct this movie, it would have been beautiful. But even if it would have looked good the story was total wash out. They seemed to make it into a love story and disregard many of the other ideas the original

movie tackled. The love story falls completely flat when you put Lukas Haas and Lisa Bonet together, I would agree with others that they have zero chemistry and I found myself gagging when they kissed. She seemed too old for him and although she was good at her part when not romantic with Haas another actress may have been more appropriate. I think now I am resigned to having the original movie remain intact as the true Lathe of Heaven and no one should have tried to remake it, even if their intentions were good. I could only say they should have casted better and used the original movies script instead of trying to make their own vision of the story. Please do not only watch this version and not the original, this is not

representative.


I rented this video remembering how much I enjoyed the original as a kid. I saw it in the video store and thought I would rent it so I could share the same experience with my kids. They were not able to watch more than a half of the movie. Can't blame them, I wasn't able to either. Lousy sets, paper thin acting, it seems like everyone from the director to the actors were just going through the motions. Rent the original. Singled out for particular disdain is the actress portraying Sophie - Julie Cox. Was she dating the director? Who cast her? She could have sunk this dog all by herself. Poor Richard Crenna, he gives his best in the movie, but is surrounded by lousy actors all around.


Jules Verne must be spinning in his grave to see his excellent novel turned into a shoddy little romance for those who move their lips when they read. If they can read at all.

Ben Cross is a decent actor, as was Richard Crenna, but they were badly miscast in this low-grade, moronic little adventure flick and their hearts truly didn't seem to be in it at all. Small wonder.

Unless there is absolutely nothing else on TV except Love Boat re-runs, don't do this one unless you're about half drunk and looking for laughs. Seeing Ben Cross in his silly little uniform with the faggy pink sash -- ye Gods, how could he keep a straight face?

I'd give it about half a star. Maybe.


This movie fails for several reasons. First of all, if someone thinks of 20000 leagues under the sea as a film, he will most likely remember the 1954 Walt Disney version of it with Richard Mason, Peter Lorre, Kirk Douglas and Paul Lukas. Against a cast like that this version stands with no chance, Richard Crenna is a decent actor if he plays a decent role and the one thing you can say about him is that he doesn't look as ridiculous as the rest of the cast. Now if you think of Peter Lorre as Prof. Arronax assistant in the 1954 version and consider what you get instead, a girl with an ugly haircut, this is the first big disappointment. As an earlier comment posted, the words "based upon" always gives the authors of a script a lot of creative options. But if you make use of that freedom, you should know where you're going and the result should be good. This time it's not. With the focus of the story on the love thing going on between Nemo, Ned Land and Ugly Haircut the whole essence of the book gets trivialized. The book is a warning about advanced technology used for wrong purposes, adapting this to nuclear power in the Disney version was actually a pretty good idea back then as it was a very popular topic used in many b-movies of that period. The evolving love story is completely dispensable as we know who she'll choose in the end anyways. Furthermore, Nemos attempts to murder Ned Land cause he is his rival in winning Ugly Haircuts heart alters Nemos character significantly to a lovesick villain but once Land saves the ship at the end they are released by him. Makes lots of sense. The biggest disappointment however in this film is the non existent fight with the giant squid, instead you get some sort of alien that gets defeated in a very silly way. Don't get me wrong, I liked Signs for the fact that the alien gets beaten with a baseball bat but this was just pathetic. Some decent underwater shots is all it has to offer, though they add a goof with that as when Ugly Haircut admires the sight outside the Nautilus scuttle the ship would crash into the corals as the camera suggest it is floating sideways. The special effects of the sharks, the monster attacking the Nautilus and the exterior animations of the Nautilus itself are done very sloppy, but that's a disease TV shows and films of that time often suffer from. However, when effects like that are mixed with bad actors, a half baked storyline and a plot basing on the most ridiculous idea that 2 guys would actually compete over a woman with an abomination as a haircut you get a silly film in the end. You may argue that Kirk Douglas building a guitar out of a turtle shell and singing songs to a seal is silly too, it is, but that's what you get when you see a Disney film. At least Disneys version had some funny moments, but who laughed watching this one? I rest my case.


When several ships are attacked at sea by what appears to be a great whale, the navy asks Professor Aronnax for assistance in investigating the events. But the adventure is just starting for the Professor, his daughter and harpooner Ned Land when they are washed overboard and picked up by the mysterious and sinister Captain Nemo in a futuristic submarine. Based on the Jules Verne novel by the same name, the movie then tells of further adventures on board the Nautilus, and of a romance not included in the book.

This movie was a disappointment in many respects. While I was impressed by the Nautilus, which looked just like a picture I remember from the book in my childhood, and some of the sets and scenery, the movie as a whole was not spectacular.

I found that the acting was mediocre, and was annoyed by the romance triangle. The dialog was also okay, but not wonderful. Although there was nothing terrible about the movie, there was nothing really good about it either, and I guess that is what stays in my mind.

Compared to other adaptations of Jules Vernes' works, this one is a disappointment, but might be worth watching once if there is nothing else on television.


Here we have a complete perversion of Jules Vern. Instant of Conseil we find professor's Arronax ...daughter(!),who is the apple of discord between a terribly bad captain Nemo and Nent Land. The only thing worthing attention here are the fishes.Trully.


This movie starts off OK. The book it is based on is a classic, the design work is interesting, the special effects are pedestrian by today's standards but perfectly adequate. Then they started changing things in nonsensical ways. Extra plots and sub plots are added, Verne's original novel emphasising exploration is set aside in a convoluted story that involves revenge, father/son conflicts, bionic limbs, and an attempt to make all the fault lines on the planet go off at once.

I stuck through with it to the end, but I wish I hadn't. Avoid this one.


What the hell is this? Michael Anderson is a good director, and has done good films in the past, but this? A giant octopus - or is it a sea monster - attacks, and the crewmen WALKS into the mouth of it and thinks they gonna survive???

And what is it with Hollywood concerning the fact, that there CAN'T be a group of men living together on a tiny area, for a long time?? In all modern versions of Jules Verne books (except Richard Fleischers version), there are some characters replaced by female versions. Do Hollywood think that ALL men are gay???

Two versions came the same year and in BOTH the professor has a daughter...

Well, Ben Cross is brilliant - as always (and 2 points for that). Richard Crenna is OK, but the rest? No, let Nautilus go to the bottom and the let crew & passengers rest in peace...


Wow, this movie wasn't great, I'm a huge fan of Paul Gross, and I must say, it looks like he tried, but there wasn't much point in wasting energy, however, if you enjoy laughing at movies that have completely missed the mark, (and seeing some excellent shots of Paul Gross)then this movie is good, however, if you are looking for an excellent adaptation of the book, I strongly recommend looking elsewhere. Although the movie is laughable at best, there are some very pretty ocean scenery shots, however, the shots are a bit close up for window views which is what they seem to be used as a lot. So it's definitely not the greatest movie out there, and the actors probably leave that one off their resume, but if you want to have a bit of fun laughing at it, it's good for that, but I wouldn't spend a lot of money on it.


This is one of the rare bad sci-fi movies that I actually stopped watching before it was over! The best thing can say about this film is that for the first 20 minutes or so, I didn't realize that I was watching a made-for-TV movie. The initial scenes seemed hokey, but the acting, sets and story were engaging enough, including an attack on a ship and the introduction of Dr. Arronax and his daughter.

But the film sprung a leak as soon as we get to the Nautilus, and the results of a small fx budget start to really stand out: uniforms that looked like my mom sewed them for the class play, tons of stock footage of the same coral reef going by the porthole endlessly, a night scene where I could swear they used lightbulbs to simulate stars in the sky, and finally (when I gave up watching), an incredibly silly and fake-looking sea monster.

The effects were not the only disappointment - nobody in this disaster at sea could act either. Please, watch the Disney version with James Mason and Kirk Douglas instead. Still silly, but well done.


In a running length of about 95 minutes you have this full featured story of Captain Nemo and the crew of the Nautilus and Professor Aronax and his daughter Sophie, with Ned Land in support. I was not very impressed by this production; first the Nautilus looked like a whale and the interiors were so cheap looking you would think they were plastic and cardboard.

This was without a doubt a very cheap production and the political correctness of adding a woman to the visitors on the Nautilus was pretty dumb, because you have a crew that hasn't seen a woman in a long time and everyone is well mannered and behaved, well you fill in the blanks.

From the very first scene where the US Navy comes looking for Professor Aronax and the daughter says I'm not sure we can help you I have a Biology degree and my father has a degree in Oceanography. If I was the US navy representative I would have said "excuse me Hun, we didn't come here looking for you" I think it's funny how Professor Aronax wrote books about the sea, but he never was beneath the waves, and must have based his knowledge of the sea on other peoples work.

Disappointed(** out of ****)


Quite possibly one of the cheapest and worse movies of all time, comparable only to Journey to the Center of the Earth (1988). Hmm both remakes of Jules Verne novels. Could there be a connection? With the staggering number of times these movies have been remade, it's quite possible that all opportunities for originality are lost. Also, it's a TV movie; need I say more? Hallmark is known for it's portrayal of human emotion, so I thought that at the very least that would be good. But no. Acting is cliché, the set is terrible, and the plot is same ol, same ol. When will someone make a good remake of a Jules Verne novel again?


Bundle: "I say Jimmy, shall we go sculling with 37 of our closest friends?" --------- Jimmy: "I daresay Bundle, I'd rather be drawn into some international intrigue for the weekend, at our country house."

Pre-war Agatha Christie mysteries are an odd dish. Much like the English Patient, they're thinly-veiled envy-pieces in which readers wish they were as glamorous as the gentry. In this case, it's not sufficient that the protagonists be wealthy, landed, titled and surrounded by boatloads of friends, they also need to find themselves at the center of an international cabal (w/o even getting out of bed), who wear clock-face masks, and generally behave like superheros on behalf of Dear Old Britain. It's like a James Bond family reunion.

This yarn leaps from the quaint to the absurd, to the improbable, to the over-extended, finally jumping firmly outside the genre boundaries of 'whodunit.' When the over-scaled conclusion finally arrives, somehow it manages to still be unsatisfying and trifling. Christie hasn't figured out the low-effort formula that would keep her up to her ears in cash yet. Regardless, if the plot drew any excitement, it would be fine. But she's way out of her league here and would rarely try anything this far off course again.


This is the sort of production that gives Agatha Christie a bad name. It doesn't know what it is trying to do. Part of it is played like a farce, part like a spoof, some of it straight; the direction is all over the map.

Harry Andrews struggles through it manfully, but sinks under the strain. The leads are awful and totally confused.

There are only two good things: the production itself, in terms of scenery and use of lovely old vehicles, is super. Finally, the only actor to really shine is John Gielgud. He plays his part superbly well, with a delicate touch that shows why he is such a great actor.

Worth watching for Gielgud and the cars, but be prepared to watch a lot of awful acting and directing in the meanwhile.


Lately I have been watching Agatha Christie stories that have been made into movies. Some of them, like Murder on the Nile, and Murder on the Orient Express, are great films. This one is not. I would suggest you pass on this film and watch either version of 10 Little Indians instead. This film suffers from unimaginative directing, poor acting, and poor writing. Some of the plot devices were so bad I could have done better. This is a very poor film, I would recommend avoiding it.


Even hardcore Whodunnit fans will probably be disappointed in this one, a slow, confusing and badly directed tv film, based on an Agatha Christie novel. Cheryl Campbell is sometimes irritating as Lady Brent, while James Warwick is adequately convincing as Jimmy Thesinger. The story is dated and lacks credibility, but this is probably due to the aforementioned poor direction; more interest was shown in recreating the late 30s era (which was achieved, by the way), which resulted in nervous editing and bad acting. Only to pass the time.

3


This film would serve as a sleep aid. If you want to run a grocery store see this film. Otherwise, don't waste your time (even for rental. This is one of the most boring films ever made. There is ZERO development of relationships. There is no explanation of why the lead left his home 10 years ago. The romance has no reason,background or development. The female lead has no more than a cameo role and we gather nothing about her personal life, including parents, point of origin. We have no understanding of the male lead. Whats he been doing for 10 years? What is his profession. His brother is a hairdresser (WOW) The feelings between father and son are never explained (I gather the father was and is, a SOB). I gather a lot of the people in the film were not real actors (and neither were the professionals!! If didn't feel the need to get out of the house, we agreed we would NEVER have watched on DVD. Please skip this French DUD!!


As the director Hugo Rodriguez referred the film by Quentin Tarantino at the preview screening at Landmark Sunshine Cinema in New York City (August 18, 2004), this new Mexican film is highly influenced by Pulp Fiction, similar to the producer Martha Sosa Elizondo's previous film Amores Perros. Most Pulp-Fiction-like ingredients--interlocked stories about four groups of people (not nonlinear, though), two gangsters' insignificant conversation on smoking and coincidence, extreme close-ups of objects--are so light that the audience may feel even irritated. Drawing the viewers' attention to a specific happening on a part of the screen with a rectangle is cheesy and redundant; even without it the viewers would look at what the filmmakers want them to watch. The title may be inappropriate as cigarette doesn't have a significant meaning in the plot.


I'm totally sure this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my whole life. And don't get me wrong, i love Diego Luna and the way he works and acts but this movie, the director, filmography, the history it self was pretty bad, and i was just waiting for it to end. I was with my girlfriend and we saw it together. We are both Argentines and she loves Latin films but she totally agrees with me. Don't lose time and money, don't even try this one! Love's a Bitch, Nine Queens , Cidade DE Deus if you wanna give south America/Latin America movies a try but this one wasn't supposed to be even filmed My vote was 1 because there's no 0 Salutes


There is absolutely nothing redeeming or interesting about this film. There are no moments even worth mentioning and there were no characters that were the least bit intriguing. It was all shot in the dark and everything was shadowed. Every scene is dark and most of the time you can't even tell who is talking because it's so shadowed you can't see their mouth. The premise of the movie is idiotic. Like that idea hasn't been done a million times before.

Question: why is it that movies that wish to involve attractive women always resort to killing them because of their "morals." Every movie you see with "hot chicks" that are murdered always ends up being because they were thought to be loose women that didn't deserve to live. There's some white guy who thinks these women should die - kind of like that real life case that we just learned about of the guy who killed prostitutes after he had sex with them. This guy murdered over 50 women in real life. Horror movies caught on to this idea way before this guy was busted. Why is this? Is it because we really think this in society? I'm serious, this is not the only movie that does this, there are TONS. I just don't get it. Or is that the only excuse the writers can some up with that enables the viewer to see the ladies topless. After all, any woman that takes off her shirt has got to be immoral and a whore, right? Any woman that is pretty deserves to die, right?

Anyway, despite my obvious disapproval from this rant, the movie sucked even more than that. The music was generic and horrible, the Clowns' outfits weren't the least bit sexy, the characters didn't have anything unique about them, the movie moved really slowly and I found it hard to believe any word that came out of any character's mouth because either I couldn't see which character was even saying it, or because no one talks like that. The writing was bad and the acting was bad. Bad bad bad bad.

1/10. If I could have given it a 0, I would have.


For anyone who makes the mistake of sitting though this movie: I had just decided to become an actor and I knew very little about it. I was majoring in journalism in Junior college and took a theatre class to get a date with a girl I liked and got interested in acting. I drove a friend to the audition of Terror on Tour (originally called "Clowns") and the director (Don Edmunds) asked me to read. I told him I wasn't ready as an actor to do a film and didn't know anything about acting much less film acting. He cast me and talked me into doing it. I was patently awful. I over acted every word and indicated like crazy. Above that a year after initial filming when I knew a little more about acting they called me back to shoot two pick up scenes (easy to spot as my hair was much shorter--it went from '79 to '80 nuff said). I was told to yell my dialog as there would be loud rock music playing in the background. The other guy in the scene was producer Sandy Cobe who wasn't an actor and couldn't really handle yelling while imagining loud music. In the end they forgot to add the music so it seemed like I was over acting even more than in the rest of the film. When I saw the film I came very close to quitting trying to be an actor altogether. The only reason I didn't quit is that I figured if I could spot how awful I was maybe I had a chance to learn to do it right. The band members were a real band and had never acting before so you could forgive them their acting. Of the rest of the cast there was (in my opinion) one good actor. Jeff Morgan. In filming he actually seemed to be in the moment and connecting on an honest level when you were talking to him. When I saw the film I felt I could see it in his performance. I never heard from him again and don't know what he's doing now but I do think he escaped the horror of the acting in this horror film. Again I hope whoever has to see me in this film will understand my horror that it still exists.

Larry Thomas


The producers of this crap owe the horror fans a BIG apology.

There's no way they could have been serious. This was a sorry excuse for a comedy. They tried gore for no reason other than they knew the joke was flat.

This gets one star for the idea, and another for the concert scenes. Even though the music was worse than anything I could think of.

Deaths follow a metal band on tour.

Did they do it?

Will you care?

No!!!

Put it back and rent something else.


The Clowns are a rock band whose on stage antics include mutilation and murder but then groupies start dying for real and the band members are the prime suspects. I correctly guessed the identity of the fiend halfway through this lame murder mystery which perks up towards the end during the final bloody rampage.


Terror on Tour starts out very bad. It never improves. It just gets worse and worse until the end and this ending will make your head hurt. No movie has ever caused as much mental anguish for me as Terror On Tour.

I want you to think of the worst movie you have ever seen. Terror On Tour is ten times worse. Probably one million times worse. I do not know how this production came about on such a horrible premise. I also can not fathom how they chose such horrible and ugly actors to bring it to life. This kind of cinematic Hell just takes the fun out of movies.

Terror on Tour is rot. I really think you should see this if you like bad things. Sometimes movies get so bad that they actually pollute the Earth. I do not know how anything can get worse then this.


Here's the great thing about Dance of Shiva, now that I've watched it. If you start painting all your fingernails and toenails during the opening sequences, they will be completely dry when the movie ends. The movie ends neither too soon, which would leave them still tacky when you got up to turn it off, nor does it run long enough to disqualify it as a good excuse to sit down and paint your nails and let them dry thoroughly before starting in on any other projects.

Briefly, because there's really no other way to discuss it, this short film attempts to tell something about the heroism shown by a troop of Bengal Lancers under British command during WWI, and by Bengal, I mean they are Bengali, from India. Paul McGann plays a chaplain who is trying to reconcile his mission as a promoter of the Christian faith with the very laudable goal of trying to respect the Hindu religious beliefs and philosophy which unify his Bengal unit and are the source of their courage and strength. Shiva dances the dance of life and death, entertwined, you see, so one feeds upon the other, and there is no reason to be afraid of either. The British don't see it quite the same way, of course, and so Sam West eventually shows up in the arrogant twit Aryan bigot role to throw up on his boots when confronted with the grim realities of trench warfare. But really, there's not any actual plot--as such.

Samuel West has hardly any lines in this movie, which is sort of a crime when you consider the folly of hiring one of the most golden-throated actors in all of England to be in your short flick, and then not giving him much more to say other than..."Ooof....urp.....glgugggggghhhrrggg....<splat>". Not cool. However, those of you who felt that his syphilitic seizures in "The Ripper" compared unfavorably to Jamie Bamber's epileptic fits in the role of Horatio Hornblower's "Archie Kennedy" (which they did) will be greatly reassured by the the realistic portrayal of shivering and puking and attempting to keep from puking in Shiva. I suppose it's simply a matter of matching the sudden-onset, uncontrollable, publicly-disturbing, involuntary manifestation of a medical problem to the actor. In Mr. West's case, the barfing and shivering thing was really working well for him.

Horatio Hornblower's Faithful Lt. Bush, Paul McGann, looks great in a priestly collar, but less well in a WWI-era helmet than he does in a bicorn. The timbre of his husky voice is mostly wasted, but he has the opportunity to display that long, beautiful, austere face in a variety of concerned and thoughtful moments of observation, reflection, and compassion. Screencappers, start your engines.

There's a neat little association here for the Potter movie fans. Branagh (bearded) has a few lines in the beginning, which he delivers with characteristic gusto, and then later on, a guy named Julian Glover shows up. Glover was the voice of Aragog the giant spider in Chamber of Secrets, and of course, Branagh was Gilderoy Lockhart.

La, what strange bedfellows these obscure British art-house flicks make.


Incoherent, meaningless, historically inaccurate and ultimately completely pointless. What was it trying to say or achieve? What was it about? Why was such a stellar cast wasted on this? Personally, I have no idea.

And for the record: regiments were either British or Indian (with British officers), not mixed; Indian sergeants were known as havildars, never as sergeants; British soldiers do not and did not wear beards; and Indian regiments were officered by British officers of the Indian Army, not officers who didn't understand their men and regarded them as 'savages', assisted by Indian native officers, not one of whom was in sight. Much of this was a blatant politically correct attempt to show how appallingly treated the Indians were. Many Indians, incidentally, were decorated for bravery, including with the Victoria Cross, so the idea that an act of gallantry by Indian troops would be ignored is complete fabrication.

The Indian troops who fought in the Great War certainly deserve a film tribute, but they deserve better than this.


I was in no way as impressed with this little film as others seem to be. It is definitely a cheap "shocker" about some bizarre plan to eliminate all the loved ones surrounding some dull young teen. Tracy Olsen plays the girl with little depth. Surrounding her are two male suitors - Rod Lauren as a young college student trying to realize what real fear is and the nature of terror and Steve Drexel as the uneducated but loaded with common sense guy. Both do adequate jobs, but this film is just so cheap. Most of the movie takes place in a deserted ghost town with a guy in a mask running around laughing and panting. These scenes are relatively effective and the killer does have an ability to appear menacing, but there are also some ludicrous scenes thrown in and some weird, unexplained stuff, and fantastic leaps of logic needed when the end is revealed. Threading its way throughout the entire story is Tracy's brother may or may not be the killer because he escaped from prison. There is also some guy in a mask running people off of the road. How was that possible when we finally do discover who the killer is? The script wanders and meanders quite a bit and again, the budget is low. But there are some things going for this film. Director Lew Landers does have some tension created in some scenes. I did like the opening scene, and I did think the use of setting was utilized as well as might be expected given the apparent budget. The acting is mediocre at best and poor in general.Do look for a young Denver Pyle as the sheriff, however.


Pretty dull horror flick and the predictable plot twist sinks it. This is a very rare horror film that i got on a 8 horror disc set) And i must say it certainly is awful. the 2 main leads are terrible and don't have any chemistry what so ever. This did manage to have a creepy moment or two and the buried alive scene was great it's just it's TOO DULL!!!! and the performances are terrible. No gore except an impaling. The acting for the most part is wooden and unconvincing. Steve Drexel is terrible in the lead role and annoyed the hell out of me and had no chemistry with Tracy Olsen at all. Tracy Olsen was pretty but that's about it she was pretty terrible. Rod Lauren is the only decent actor here he was likable and came out of this looking decent. Stephen Roberts is wooden and bland as the killer. Overall skip this one at all costs! * out of 5


Sometimes, the movie business can be a sick, sick venture. No, that's the the point of this painfully lame ego-fest about a recent film school grad who has troubles with life and celluloid. That's the impression you get after viewing this self-important bundle of cliches that is as tired as it is arrogant. After all, it's a mystery of epic proportions that something this bad could ever get produced.

I'm not so sure what's more offensive, the film's constant use of soft focus, or the fact that most porns have better acting, better dialogue, and more suspenseful plots.

David the filmmaker wants a girl. She wants stability. His responsible (read: bad) friend tries to swiper her away. Along the way, we learn that it's better to be a navel-gazing spewer of trite truths and drop casual and ineffective references to "Star Wars" and "A Few Good Men" because, gosh, those are movies no one thought to spoof. It reeks of "I just watched 'Good Will Hunting,' and now I want to be a screenwriter!"


Thirty some years after its release, it is now clear that The Eagle Has Landed was a plucked raptor when it fell out of Sturgis' respectable aerie into 1970s theaters. Almost every character is unbelievable, even more so because they're fleshed out by major star shtick working with a script and direction that hugged any cliché within reach but with out the swagger, fun or poignancy of, say, "The Great Escape" or "Von Ryan's Express." So too with the plot contrivances, Thomas Kinkade settings and the clumsy battle sequences. After seeing this expensive movie on TCM last night, it occurred to me why Treat Williams in the film "Hair" (as George Berger) marched with so much anxiety onto the troop transport plane headed for Viet Nam. He was probably remembering what had happened three years earlier to his Captain Clark character in "The Eagle Has Landed" -- defeated by hoakum even as he assumes command after Larry Hagman (doing a Yank version of a Pythonesque/John Cleese kind of military idiot) gets a slug in the head by a tea and bisquit matron. Too bad the gun wasn't fired by Terry Jones in drag.


I can't believe some reviewers find this film plausible. Admittedly the book is little better. In fact the plot is nutty. Consider just three points: (a) Medieval churches at the centre of English villages are Anglican, not Roman Catholic, (b) How come the village only has 15 inhabitants? and (c) Why do the British military people continue to drive the fake Churchill to the manor house even when they know there are German paratroopers in the village? Many reviewers have pointed out other ludicrous aspects.

The early part of the film also goes way over the top in its laboured efforts to show us that Michael Caine and co are non-Nazi, honourable Germans. (In the event, so honourable that Caine is prepared to shoot Churchill in cold blood, even though he realises that Hitler's regime is evil and the war is lost.) How assassinating Churchill is meant to help matters is more than obscure. Could anybody really think it would lead the Allies to drop the demand for Germany's unconditional surrender and go for a negotiated peace instead?

Hokum, pure sloppily constructed hokum.


This overly long film was based on one of Jack Higgins first novels, He has written many books since & nearly all of them have been far better.

John Sturgis directed this & it was his final directorial effort.He had a very mixed career. His best was THE MAGIFICENT SEVEN,His worst was MAROONED. This effort is closer to Marooned than Magnificent Seven.

Tom Mankiewicz adapted this from Higgins' novel, Tom wrote many screenplays, sometimes the apple falls far from the tree. Tom's father was the award winning director/writer Joseph (ALL ABOUT EVE) & his Uncle Herman, worked with Orson Welles on CITIZEN KANE.

The cast includes some of the top stars of 1976(year of release) Micheal Caine, Donald Sutherland,Robert Duval,Donald Pleasance,Larry Hagman & Treat William, also Jenny Aguiter & Jean Marsh plus others.

Nearly every one was either miscast or vastly changed from the original novel. In the book they all were flesh & blood,you were able to care for each one. In the movie they all seemed lifeless & listless.

There is one needlessly extended action scene at the end.

I can understand now why I missed this in 1976,I should have realized or remembered that it was not a good film.

Ratings: ** (out of 4) 54 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10)


There's a certain sort of militaristic, maladjusted creep -- I've met a few in my time -- who's fascinated by Nazis to the point of idolatry. (Often, too, he's an expert on German regalia, uniforms, weaponry, etc.) Guys like this must love "The Eagle Has Landed," because the Nazis in it are -- with a few exceptions -- paragons of courage and virtue. (The few exceptions are, as usual, the Gestapo and the SS. As in another popular sympathy-for-the-Nazis movie, "Das Boot," these branches make convenient villains, serving as a contrast to the clean-cut good-guy Germans who just happen to be fighting for the Fuhrer because...well, they're patriots, that's all; they have absolutely nothing against Jews, and they despise those slimy fanatical Gestapo bastards -- honest!) The Michael Caine character in "Eagle" actually incurs punishment for trying to save a Jewish woman's life (how heroic can you get?); later, rather than shoot an unwary American sentry, he simply knocks the man unconscious. One of Caine's men dies rescuing a little English girl from drowning. The Germans take English villagers hostage but honorably let them all go unharmed, then die together fighting for the Fatherland rather than surrender.

Meanwhile, the Americans are headed up by Larry Hagman, playing a cartoonish officer straight out of the Three Stooges. When he learns that Nazis have landed in England to kidnap Churchill and are holding hostages in a nearby church, he -- get this! -- refuses to inform central command; you see, he wants the glory all to himself. He and most of his men end up dead, sometimes in Keystone Kops style. (One jeep goes hurtling off a road into a river; Hagman himself puts on a surprised, comic, almost cross-eyed face when he gets shot and tumbles down a flight of stairs.)

England herself fares little better. One muscular villager is a hostile lout whom Donald Sutherland, as an England-hating IRA agent, effortlessly beats to a pulp, and does so without losing his impish Irish grin. (In real life, said lout would have kicked the reedy Sutherland all over the set.) Sutherland trades a few romantic quips with a village lass played by Jenny Agutter; they have maybe five or six minutes of conversation (fully clothed, which is rare for Agutter), whereupon the lass falls so deeply in love with the IRA man that she shoots the English lout dead and proceeds to betray her fellow villagers -- indeed, her entire country. I suspect that some scenes developing the relationship may have been cut; still, shame on Agutter, Caine, and every other Briton involved in this production. If Britain were as feckless as this, its citizens would now be speaking German (or Gaelic).

A few commentators have mentioned this movie's similarity to a little-known English film called "Went the Day Well?" It was made during the war, on a much tinier budget, in black and white, without any international stars (unless Leslie Banks qualifies as one), but its characters are better drawn, and it's far more suspenseful and about a thousand times more charming.


Not impressed by Jenny Agutter - she seems to be there simply for the sake of providing a pretty female. BUT the Donald Sutherland character is simply dire. I assume that when a play or drama is cast the actors will be able to fit their parts. Sutherland however, is a total embarrassment in his part. His attempt at an Irish accent is quite simply a joke - pathetic and totally unrealistic. I love to hear regional accents if the actor is capable of doing the required accent. Sutherland is not - his attempt at an Irish accent is both puerile and embarrassing. There must be hundreds of as yet unknown Irish actors who could have played the part convincingly but we have to put up with an American "star" who insults our intelligence with his pathetic attempt at an Irish accent. I ask, and not for the first time: Where a part requires an actor to speak in a regional accent, can we please have an actor who is capable of delivering that accent accurately, even if the actor is hitherto unknown, rather than some "big name" actor who is happy to earn a large pay packet for insulting viewers with a puerile attempt at the accent. Mr Sutherland is not only dire, he insults our intelligence!


I disagree with the last review about the movie being original, as it seems more of a whimsical version of 'Went the Day Well?.

The cast are as stiff as a Huns helmet. Caine hardly moves his neck, is he acting or went to bed in an odd position? When the German stars playing with his organ in the church it becomes all too obvious this was supposed to be a send-up.

I tried the whistling trick with two rottweilers & ended up with my left arm amputated below the elbow & months of rehabilitation, I tried it again with two Yorkshire terriers & ended up with a missing testical.

Anyway when seeing this when it first came out it already seemed dated & cheesy.

I think most of the 'Carry On" cast were still alive at the time & would have been a great help/support in bringing a giggle to this long slow movie.

An opportunity missed alas. Oooh vicar


Seeing this movie after many since it hit the screens, I can only say that I am glad I did not pay to go and see it in the cinema - caught it on a free DVD recently! The plot holes are so large to be laughable. Was there a war on in Norfolk? Only bit I saw was an old mine warning on a beach that was too hilly and rocky to be Norfolk, let alone the lack of planes going overhead! The acting bears no scrutiny - accents wobbling left right and centre, or downright awful as in Sutherland's case. He was to repeat this role in another awful adaptation of Ken Follett! Michael Caine was in his prime in looks but at the depths of his acting capabilities. Lew Grade was trying to make world class films at the time, but this one like his legionnaire film is an utter disaster. A re-run of 'Went The Day Well' in the middle does not match the earlier wartime movie. And poor John Sturges - what an end to a career?! - as director! And I am still looking for the marsh that Sutherland was supposed to be warden of? Yes, Tom your 'Valkyrie' was a decidedly better attempt at good Germans than this long forgotten puerile rubbish.


To go out partying, sweet Jane Bryan (as Connie Heath) borrows an evening dress from sassy Sheila Bromley (as Hilda Engstrom). The dress turns out to be stolen (from smartly attired Susan Hayward, in an early appearance). Thus, innocent Ms. Bryan is guilty by association with Ms. Bromley, a "wench" who answers job priority queries with, "Boys are my work."

Soon, Bryan becomes one of many "Girls on Probation". Consequently, she loses her job, and sees her "criminal past" jeopardizing her romance with Ronald Reagan (as Neil Dillon). Veterans Elisabeth Risdon & Sig Ruman (as Roger and Kate Heath) and handsome Anthony Averill (as Tony Rand) help make this cheap tale of degradation fun to watch. Bromley is an irresistibly trashy "bad girl".

**** Girls on Probation (1938) William McGann ~ Jane Bryan, Ronald Reagan, Sheila Bromley


Warner's Brothers B unit goes for a straight exploitation plot, but manages to stay within the Production Code nonetheless, resulting in a movie that is neither amusingly salacious nor particularly well made -- a look at the plot outline offered by the Internet Movie Database will give you a rough idea of how silly and coincidence-actuated it is.

Ronald Reagan seems to have been temporarily typecast as an insurance man at this time. Here he is a lawyer for an insurance company. Sig Rumann appears with black hair, ordering his daughter into the cold night, Sheila Bromley spontaneously develops a nasal tone and the habit of talking out of the side of her mouth and Jane Bryan, in the lead role, tries to present an air of bewildered innocence without once stammering or hesitating.

Most of the other actors don't seem to put that much effort into this tripe. Don't you either.


Girls are for Loving: 4/10: The Ginger films have always been welldifferent. An acquired taste if you will. An acquired bad taste in particular. The rap against the first two Ginger films (besides the obvious fact that they are misogynistic in the extreme) is that if you took away the sadism, bondage, rape and acres of young nubile flesh on display you would have a pretty bad movie.

This is completely true and as if to prove this fact Girls are for Loving removes the sadism, rape and nubile young flesh completely and is half hearted at best about bondage. So what we have left is one of the most confusing an inept action films I have ever seen.

Sure there is nudity from the two stars (Cherri Caffaro and Jocelyne Peters) and while the ladies aren't quite ready to make up half the Golden Girls sitcom even Mr. Magoo wouldn't mistake them for nubile. (One suspects Caffaro demanded that the producers not allow any naked women less attractive than her after being horrible upstaged by the delicious Jennifer Brooks in her last outing The Abductors. This might also explain why the audience is also forced to sit through not one two entire songs sung by Caffaro in a Las Vegas style review.)

The plot is about as silly as you can get. The bad guys fight like a combination of the Special Olympics and a zombie movie running at half speed. The explosions are half hearted .The sex scenes are... hold on what's the opposite of erotic. The film is shot in that Hart to Hart style of bad seventies television drama.

On the plus side Timothy Brown isn't a bad male lead/action hero and there is a Kelsey Grammar look-alike that brought me much mirth. But this simply doesn't feel like a real Ginger movie. Towards the end of the film the villain captures the ambassador's nubile daughter so the government will give her stock tips (I told you the plot is silly) anyhow in the last two Ginger movies this nineteen-year old beauty would be stripped, whipped and god knows what else.

Instead she is released unmolested and fully clothed. Caffaro, for the umpteenth time, however is tied naked to a table. Which would work better if she didn't look like someone's mom.


Third and last in the Ginger trilogy. I watched the first two, so I have to finish the trilogy, that's the way I am for better or worse, in this case the latter. In this one Ginger is cold in to put a stop to ... insider trading?? Yup more or less that's what it is. She also acts WAY out of character by falling in love with a black man. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but when you set her up as absolutely hating blacks in the first one, you stick to the character no matter how despicable. Despite that this has all the ingredients of a Ginger film. S&M, stupid dialog, silly 'action'. It's as bad as the other two.

Eye Candy: Cherri Caffaro, Jocelyne Peters and an unknown girl all get fully nude

My Grade: D


It's hard to decide which is more disturbing. That the makers of this movie actually thought viewers could be tricked into believing leading lady Cheri Caffero is beautiful, glamorous, and sophisticated, or that they actually believed it themselves. One doesn't know whether to cringe or laugh at the results.

Surprisingly, the movie does have a bright spot of sorts. The movie begins when a "fourth assistant undersecretary" named "Steve" is stripped and kidnapped with his girlfriend from an A-frame house. The girlfriend is promptly shot dead but Steve is beat-up, questioned, and eventually executed by the evil Ms. St. Clair. The actor playing "Steve" is H-O-T yet he's not even listed in the movie's end credits. Who is this guy?

The worst scene? So many choices, but the prize must go to Cheri Caffero's nightclub number when -- swathed in a cocoon of blue feathers -- she tries to sing and look sexy at the same time.


I went into this expecting a film on par with Road Trip or Old School...nothing brilliant, just a solid hilarious movie littered with quotable lines and "remember-that-part-when...?" moments. Well, none found here. This movie was just stupid, and I don't mean stupid-funny slapstick style, I mean just plain dumb. The really funny moments, and they were few and far between, were utterly predictable and played out. The story line was also ridiculously clichéd, lacking any real original twists. Just a rehash of a million other similar movies. Overall I was really just waiting for it to end.

I give it a 4 out of 10, not worth buying a ticket for or renting, but decent enough to catch on HBO if there's nothing else on.


Funny teen movie, but mostly based on extremely silly clichés, on jokes about sex, or on extremely absurd situations that make it no better than any "scary movie" (In case you're wondering, it's not a compliment, to me). At times EuroTrip can be annoying, and offensive to different European people too... BUT I have to say that cameos raise the overall value: Vinnie Jones is simply a genius, as always, and Rade Sebredja (or however it's supposed to be written, hope you will excuse me) shines briefly and brightly. Matt Damon is also very funny. Ah, and the girls that appear are really cute, and often quite naked! Overall, I give it a 3 out of 10, but if you've got a couple of hours to disconnect your brain and don't care about how pointless a movie can get, you might as well enjoy the show!


It sounds like to shot to the Red Cross. I knew in advance which kind of movie it would be. You could classify Eurotrip in the same genre as American Pie movies, Scary Movie: (for 16-24 y.o.) American erotic comedies (I'm 24 yo). Not my favorite genre, but watchable. Eurotrip however disappointed me within this genre. At least American Pie had a sense of innovation. Scary Movie was fun even if you can't appreciate the sense of humor or the story line: it's a great movie to watch because it keeps the audience entertained by the parody it brings. Those things I missed in Eurotrip. Eurotrip is a banal movie which uses dull jokes: nor fish neither meat. It is meant to be ti-tty comedy but it ends up as politically correct, prude and naive comedy. The best thing in this movie I would say, was the scenery; and the only good gag is when the friend of the boy is in the swimming pool with the blond girl. The Italian dubbing sucks (to partially justify my disgust). 3.5 out of 10 (i give 0.5 for free, I'm not cheap)


As an avid Harry Potter fan who has read the books multiple times and of course seen the movies repeatedly, I was extremely excited to see this movie at the midnight showing. Half-Blood Prince is my favorite book and other than 7, the darkest book in the series.

That being said, I was so disgusted with this movie. Yates & company literally turned it into Harry Potter comedy hour. I'm not sure how anyone thought this movie was amazingly dark when the theater was cracking up laughing the entire time at trite jokes. The only thing that should have been funny in this entire movie was Lavender & Won Won's obsession w/ each other.

The movie emphasized the unrequited love/snogging/Ron & Lavender romance over the major plot line which was learning about Tom Riddle's background. With the exception of Dumbledore's first meeting w/ Tom & Tom asking about how to make Horcruxes, all of the background was left out. That's essentially three quarters of the book omitted.

What was the point of not having Tonks find Harry on the train? How can you have Tonks call Remus sweetie and not explain all the drama between them and how they got together? How can you leave out Madam Rosmerta's involvement? What was the point of the burning of the Burrow scene? The ending was horrific. It was completely different than the book. So now Dumbledore is the only one who can apparate on Hogwarts grounds? Malfoy spends all this time working on this cabinet only to have the Death Eaters walk through, Bellatrix (who is not present in the book) encourage him to kill Dumbledore, Snape kills Dumbledore, and they kindly saunter off the grounds in no hurry. No battle... no fear of being caught...nothing. What was the point of the cabinet in the movie? It was completely anti-climatic and they didn't even have the funeral scene which is a must-have. The worst part ever was the very end...Harry and Hermione are talking about Dumbledore's death and going searching for horcruxes and she randomly chimes in that Ron is OK w/ Ginny and Harry. WHAT?! It was so awkward.

And can someone please tell me how they are going to explain Dobby and Kreacher in the Deathly Hallows movies when they have essentially been omitted from the subsequent movies after being introduced? I honestly would like a do-over. They really need to re-shoot this movie and try again because it was bad. For the real fan, it leaves you cold and empty, with no tears for Dumbledore because you are so confused, and wondering why Yates and Co. cared about Lavender being funny more than the back story of Tom Riddle.


This segment of HP will disappoint all who read the novel. The Burrow burns down during x-mas break due to Bellatrix and Fenrir (who is never described as a werewolf) perhaps for the lack of action at the end of the movie...the Dursleys are completely cut from the movie, meaning when Dumbledore picks Harry up for the summer it's at the train station for some apparent reason...The Ginny/Dean/Harry dichotomy is skewed, there was no break up between Ginny and Dean and Harry is clearly in love with her from the start of the movie which eliminates his confusion on his feelings during the school year...Hermoine prematurely spills the beans on her feelings for Ron which was only speculation in the novels...Lavender Brown becomes a obsessive and crazed girlfriend rather than simply over-affectionate (a reminiscent Unis from She's the Man)...the battle scene is missing from the end giving Dumbledore's death an anticlimactic feel making it all the more unemotional and disappointing...Harry hides under the floor simply holding his wand looking like a coward while Dumbledore dies, Snape sees him hiding rather than Harry being frozen under his cloak compliments of Dumbledore ...There is no funeral or break up with Ginny at the end of it (there is no relationship between the two either simply a kiss)...Hagrid is basically deleted from the movie as is Neville...Pensive trips are deleted and the Horocruxes are never explained, not even slightly...Luna finds Harry on the Hogwarts Express rather than Tonks...The Slug Club simply makes a cameo rather than a proper introduction and explanation...the Inferi look more like skeletons compared to the white bodies described in the book...I'm sure more discrepancies are present, however I can only remember so many of them.

It is absolutely a horrible interpretation of the book and I hope that they look at all of the mistakes and gaps left for the next movie and fill them in with more than humor (they are supposed to be in the middle of an all out war aren't they?) I mean I didn't even feel emotional when Dumbledore was killed, I was too busy trying to figure out why Harry was acting like a stunned coward under the floor boards and not doing something, isn't that his thing...doing seemingly impossible rescue missions?!?!

I am utterly disappointed in this installment of HP!!


SPOILERS AHEAD

The beginning of the Half Blood Prince starts with the Death Eaters attacking London and destroying everything in sight. After a great opening, Harry, Ron, and Hermoine return for their sixth year at Hogwarts and then, nothing.... We get two slow hours of Ron's potion making, and teenage angst, with little mention of Tom Riddle's memories, or Harry and Dumbledore's hunt for his horcruxes.

The Weasley's house is burned, and then instead of the DD funeral, they change the ending. Harry just stars under the floor, while Snape kills Dumbledore. Harry cries, and the students all wave their wands at the sky to erase the dark marks. Then Harry, Ron and Hermoine leave Hogwarts.

Too many things cut out, too little action, too much fluff, and, at the end, I didn't care whether or not there was a DD funeral. Definitely the weakest film yet, too many things taken out, and too many silly things put back in. Too little Tom Riddle also. The movie was just plain AWFUL!

If David Yates screws up Deathly Hollows half as badly as he screwed up Order of the Phoenix, and Half Blood Prince, then he will be the one to blame for taking the Potter series seriously downhill. It was the first time I have seen an audience actually fall asleep during a Harry Potter movie and after the ending, only two people clapped. There were a lot of very disappointed people after the movie ended. I have never heard the statement "I want my money back" from a Harry Potter movie until now. Consider me highly disappointed in that this is by far the weakest film of the series, and that's saying something after the extremely dull Order of the Phoenix. David Yates is bad luck for the Potter films.


Last night I had gone to the midnight showing of the movie. This morning I wrote a review (below) b/c I wanted to express how disappointed I was. However, I still had tickets to go see it this afternoon. I certainly did not want to sit there for another 2 hours hating it so I had to find a way to like it. I really, really wanted to like this movie. I love HP, afterall! I decided to try another approach, to watch the movie without thinking of the book at all. And I'll be da*ned if it didn't work! I realized that I had spent so much time picking apart what the movie DID NOT have, that I never allowed myself to enjoy what it DID have. Once I did that, and accepted that this movie is merely "based on" the book, I was able to enjoy it! Suddenly, the love story did not seem to dominate as much as it did on my first viewing.....Honestly, I never really thought that changing the way I approached the movie would work, but it did. So, if your a really big fan of the books and cd's, and you really want to find some way to enjoy this movie, I suggest you leave all the knowledge you have of the books at home, sit back, and watch!

I started reading reviews last week, so I was aware that all the really good stuff in the book wasn't going to be in the movie. Still I was excited and stood in line for almost 3 hours to see this movie. When I left I felt very, very disappointed. I couldn't believe what I watched, this was a joke, right? Sure that other Harry Potter fans felt the same way, I started to read the fan reviews. Now I'm wondering....did I miss something? How is it this movie is getting such rave reviews?? Did anyone not notice all the plot moments that were changed or left out completely?

SPOILERS************************************************

I so wanted to see Dumbledore give the Dursley's their due. And how about Harry and Dumbldore going on the journey to view the Marvolos and Voldomorts father? And lets not even talk about the best part of the book, the fight at the castle. I read somewhere that the director did not want to do the fight because of the fight in book 7. I mean really, come on, that's probably the lamest excuse I've ever heard. Ya know, I never even shed a bloody tear when they killed Dumbledore. There was no emotional work up to it, in my opinion, it was really weak. When I read the book, I cried for days! Well, maybe that's why I did not during the movie....I already mourned him :-) I knew their had to be a lot of things that did not make it in the movie, I just assumed it would be the teenage love angst. Especially given the action films this movie is competing against.

But then again, it's getting great reviews, so I think I'm part of the minority of people who were really, really hoping to get a Harry Potter movie that would make JK Rowling proud, at least when she cared.

The movie was funny, absolutely. But that's all it was, except for the last 30 minutes. The last 30 minutes, like the 5th movie, is the best part, IMO. But, that's not saying much.


Oh god.

This movie butchered the magic of the book. I seriously wasn't sure if this was the same movie... Why didn't Dumbledore pick Harry up from the Dursleys and give them a piece of his mind? Where was the Slug Club? Why didn't Harry know that Sirius' house was now his? not to mention Kreacher? It plays a big part in the next movies! Why weren't the lessons with Dumbledore fully developed? You find out almost NOTHING about Voldemort's past. Where were Bill and Fleur? Where was the twins' shop? (Blink and you miss it) Where was Hagrid? Where was Neville? Where was Quiditch? Where was Tonks' and Lupin's relationship??? What, am I just supposed to believe that they get married out of nowhere in the next book? Where was Madam Rosmerta's role? Where were apparition lessons? How are the trio meant to move from place to place in the next books? Magic Carpet?!?!?! Where was Dumbledore's funeral? Where was Harry's and Ginny's relationship and break-up? Where was Scrimgeour? Where was the big fight at the end? Where was the set up with the diadem? Where was Fenrir Greyback? WHY for the love of all that's holy, did Harry just STAND there while Snape murdered Dumbledore before his very eyes? He was meant to be PETRIFIED (literally)!!! And not only that, but Snape actually SEES Harry, and does nothing about it. Won't Harry find it kinda odd that a Death Eater sees him, practically defenceless, and doesn't do anything about it? Harry is meant to believe that Snape is a full fledged Death Eater, yet he lets Harry get off scott free? That is a SERIOUS oversight in the plot of the book! All these things listed above, the major plot points, weren't there! I couldn't find them!

What I COULD find however was: The burning down of the burrow...?!? Dumbledore seeming to only JUST realize that Voldemort used Horcruxes even though he was meant to have already destroyed one... and not only that but I also explicitly heard Dumbledore say: "They could be anything"!!! In the book, he clearly points out that they WOULDN'T be just anything, that Riddle liked collecting things. In the movie, he makes out as if it could be any old thing, a shoe, a can, a piece of paper... (better get searching then Harry, I found the ring, because "Magic leaves traces", but when I die, you're screwed!!!) Some random waitress in some random diner... A rock concert tribute to Dumbledore... A revealing of Hermione's love for Ron... and i DEFINITELY found Ron's and Lavender's relationship and... sexual innuendo?? OK, the Ron and Lavender subplot in the book was quite nice and funny but in the movie, it completely shadowed the ACTUAL story! they were snogging all over the place! it was impossible to focus on anything else with them popping up everywhere! It turned the movie into some sickly rom-com! and then I was shocked to find sexual innuendo! yup, believe it or not. And i know I wasn't the only one because i heard laughs and hoots all around the theater. The scene where Ginny bends down to tie Harry's shoelaces... what is up with that? Hey hang on a minute, isn't Harry's cloak meant to be a hallow? Good thing Luna CHARMED it off him then!!!

MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD

So, not only did they destroy the capodopera that this movie could have been, but they also didn't set up the next movie/s. How are Harry, Ron and Hermione going to start looking for the Horcruxes if they don't even know what they COULD be? How are the contents of Dumbledore's will going to be passed along if Scrimgeour doesn't even exist? How is Harry going to remember that Xenophilius was wearing the symbol of the Hallows at the wedding if the WEDDING CAN'T EXIST??? And HOW is Voldemort going to get the wand from Dumbledore's tomb if 1. the TOMB Isn't THERE and 2. THE WAND Isn't IN THE TOMB ANYWAY!!! How is Harry meant to remember where the diadem was if he NEVER BLOODY SAW IT!!!! How are they going to use Grimmauld Place and Kreacher, not to mention Dobby if there was never even a whisper about what happened to them???

This movie was thoroughly disappointing, and I really think they should... remake it basically!!! Because not only was THIS movie bad, but it's set to ruin the next ones as well. The only slim ray of hope (because hope springs eternal) left for the next movies is that they include what they missed out in HBP at the start of the first seventh one. They've got like 5 hours for the rest of the Harry Potter story so they could fit it in.


As an avid reader of the HP book series, and a devout HP movie fan, the sixth installment came up short in almost every aspect of the film.

From a purely cinematographic point of view, the dialogue was rushed, the almost non-existent plot focused too much on minor relationships and details, and none of the scenes elicited the response intended. It was difficult for a scene to last one minute, let alone thirty seconds. The climax was not given enough time to fully develop, and the story ended so abruptly even I was left with a sense of confusion. I cannot imagine how anyone who has not read the books could have followed the plot line at all.

When viewing the film with the book fresh in mind, the movie fell so far below expectations it is the greatest disappointment movie-wise to date. The team managed to take a complex, intricate, well-written novel and turn it into a fast-pasted, over-hormonal, and unemotional movie. When I think of the Half Blood Prince, I think of the main purpose to be getting horcruxes, not getting laid. When I initially heard about the fake scene at the Burrow I had an open mind, and figured it would play into the plot. After viewing however, I can only see it as a waste of time, because the only character it introduced was Greyback, but you never heard of him again through the entire movie until the very end--in which he did nothing.

The fact that the battle at Hogwarts was left out gives the whole movie an anti-climatic feel. The movie barely even hits on Voldemort's past or what horcruxes are, and the cave scene was dry and unemotional. Dumbledore's death and Snape's betrayal did not elicit any response from me or any of my peers that saw the movie with me. At the end of the movie the audience should be lamenting Dumbledore's horrific death, but the movie moved so fast it was hard to truly wrap your mind around one scene before another began.

All in all I found this movie horribly disappointing. The only actor who I saw any significant improvement in was Emma Watson, everyone else seemed cold and unattached. I sincerely hope the seventh movie will be better.


I consider myself a Harry Potter fan. Not of the movies, but from the books which they came from. There's a reason why each of J.K. Rowling's 7 books have brought much fan base all over the world, it's because of the magic of the Harry Potter books.

In the last several years, I feel more and more magic from the books have been cut from the movies. I blame this on Warner Brothers who obviously views the Potter property as a ticket to high profit rather than an experience that filmgoers and book lovers can share together.

I loved the essence of the first two films, but when Alfonso Cuaron took over as the director of Prisoner of Azkaban, it seems more and more material had been cut from the books on which they are based. Prisoner of Azkaban was the first and some key sequences were eliminated. The change wasn't too bad -- back then. Then Goblet of Fire came out a year later, and even more material was cut. Then Order of the Phoenix came out two years ago, and it seems half of the book was cut to the point where the film was quite dull and pointless.

But, Half Blood Prince is the worst of them all. Many fans of the Harry Potter film series keep on stating that the films are an entirely different form of entertainment than the books, and that all the details cannot be included. That's nonsense. The first two Harry Potter movies were able to capture the essence of the books perfectly. The Narnia films were able to capture the essence of their books perfectly as well, there is no reason why the rest of the Harry Potter books cannot do the same.

What we have with Half Blood Prince is a cliff note's version of the film with much of the material that made the book so special completely cut out. Events such as Harry and Dumbledore's quest for Voldemort's Horcruxes are barely touched on, while the majority of the film focuses on the sillier parts of the novel such as the growing hormones between the sixth year Hogwarts students. It seems that the producers of Harry Potter were aware of the growing popularity of the Twilight phenomenon and wanted to make their own teenage romantic love story as part of the series. That doesn't feel right in a Harry Potter film in anyway.

I feel that David Yates directed the two worst Harry Potter films so far, and that he will undoubtedly destroy the once great Harry Potter film series. The fact that the final book will be split into two separate films makes me question his abilities as a director of the final film of one of the best fantasy book series of all time.


Since I consider myself a dedicated Harry Potter fan, I am going to try to put this as nicely as possible...

If I had never read any of the books (hey they're long I get it) I would have thought this movie was pretty cool and a step up from past films in terms of laughter and the script itself including special effects. There would have been mild confusion towards the end but as said before I would be the casual fan who wouldn't really mind.

That being said, I am not what you would call a "casual fan." I along with many others had been devastated when I learned that Warner Brothers had pushed back the release date 6 months and had waited in the theatre for 3+ hours for a movie that I was anticipating to be one of my favorites in the series. In its good moments, there were little things from the book which I was happy to see on the silver screen. Ron's sudden girl-magnet status was done very well along with Slughorn's character debut. The only thing that was wrong was the title. I thought this was Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince? I did not buy a ticket to Ronald Weasley and the stories of Romance nor did I buy a ticket to Harry Potter's Friends with a touch of You-Know-Who on the side. Not only that, what happened to the plot? Where did it go? Who knows...maybe Ron will know if we ask him....How can you fear a wizard when you can't understand why he is the way that he is? What happened to that kiss between Harry and Ginny? (YIKES...oh "i can stay hidden in here too"...WHAT????)Where was Snape's big moment? Where was the drama? In addition, why oh whywould you omit critical moments and downgrade important characters to CREATE new ones that don't mean anything to take their place?

Bottom line: This movie was like part 1 of 3 with no real closure, action, and not to mention storyline. Lets all keep our fingers crossed that 7 and 8 live up to what the books and their fans deserve


Let me start by saying, I know that you have to alter and omit scenes from a novel when adapting it to the silver screen. However, it is not necessary to take a chain saw to what can easily be debated as the best book in the series. Half-Blood Prince is key to setting up the final, now two, movies and this version missed the mark. Now the major novel plot points are there, Harry learns about Voldemort's past, Draco struggles with his chosen task and Snape does kill Dumbledore but much of the set-up plot and subplots have been completely omitted. For fans out there that have read the book will get a strange feeling in their gut just a few minutes in.

After the Deatheater attack on London the muggel minister is supposed to receive a late night visit. Omitted! During the time spent at the Wesley's prior to the school year there is supposed to be a blast from the past and news of an upcoming marriage. Omitted! So just minutes into the feature many of the actual fans should start to wonder if something fishy is going on. After the duration of the film all of the omissions are topped off by the big daddy of them all. There is no funeral for the deceased headmaster. How can that be? it is easily the 2nd biggest moment in seven novels, next to the climax when Voldemort is killed. Additional ommisions: Many of Dumbeldore's Voldemort memories Any of Snape's interaction as the Defense against the Dark Arts instructor

Proper development of the Snape Good Vs. Evil plot Quitich cup match, unless that is the match shown in the movie but you couldn't tell The alterations in the film are also a huge let down. Unfortunately our friendly writers decided that it would be wise to alter the first kiss of the future Mr. and Mrs. Potter. I cannot even wrap my head around why writers would think fans wouldn't notice. I'm not even going to get into, beyond a mention, of the two biggest changes. When the headmaster gets killed it needs to be word for word from the novel, enough said. Since they felt it necessary to not shoot the funeral I guess they felt it would be fine to end with our three heroes together instead of Harry walking off after breaking up with Ginny. Those are Huge! Now before I continue to rag on the choices of the writers I will say that HBP is visually stunning to a level above the previous films and what they did put into the script works for the film. Only those who have spent the time to read the novel will notice the major issues with this film. For entertainment value alone it was a good movie. Please to not destroy Deathly Hallows the way this edition was destroyed.


I read pretty much comments here and most of them found the sixth installment of Harry Potter for "beautiful", "dark", "mature", "great adventure", etc.

Well, people, I totally disagree. I am fan of the books, so it's not the Harry Potter universe - it's just the movie - which went terribly wrong.

First let's see what we had in the book - two amazing and breath-taking battles - one around the Ron's house and the second at the end of Hogwarts. We have very dark atmosphere, some evil plans, a lot of Snape and Slughorn, a lot of Snape's story and most important - a lot of the book of the Half-Blood Prince. Let's don't forget the unforgettable funeral at the end of the book and the nice time spent in the book with that particular hero.

What we saw in the movie was a total disaster. The characters were playing like some idiots at 50% of the time, because of the incredibly stupid script, which focused on the Ron's and Hermione's love story and their personal problems. I admit there is such a story in the book, but hey - it's not the core of the Half-Blood Prince. We receive almost noting from Snape, almost no Quidditch. The first battle is around 1 minute and shows just NOTHING! The second battle is more interesting, because it's just MISSING.

All scenes shown in the film are half-made, the whole script is half- made, the music which used to be heart-melting is awful, the whole action has been cut, all the important parts of the story are missing (the evil plans, Ministry of Magic involvement and the new Minister, the Aurors and much much much more). The only thing you get is the story about the horcruxes. In fact - the film uses 1/3 of the book - that 1/3 that every other director and writer would cut from the script. On the theater's exits most of the people was still wondering what was the Half-Blood Prince, why is that name, what is the story, and all that kind of stuff. The phrase "What just happened?" was almost everywhere.

In this film happens nothing. I believe they left some for the first part of the Deadly Hallows, but then again this sixth movie was completely unnecessary and pointless.

If this director and this writer are involved in the last two movies, no one of the true fans will watch that crap. Be sure of that.


It never happened that i've been falling asleep in a movie theater.. Well, it just happened. Just came back from the play of HP-The Half Blood Prince. After an hour and a half of cheesy college teenage romance i gave up. I woke up at the very end of it and i've never been so happy to leave. Slow paced, out of track and an horrible screenplay for those who've read the book and especially for those who haven't read one of the most exciting book of the series. The book still has excitement throughout all of the story. The movie doesn't at all. At the moment i don't even feel like to trust to go see the very next and last one. After the Goblet Of Fire HP's movies have been going in decadence as far as their quality is concerned. The $10 worst spent for a movie EVER.


The movie should have stayed true to the book wherein the first scene started with the Muggle Prime Minister being introduced to the new Minister of Magic and while he was being told about the ministry and how resent catastrophe were magic related....scenes o death eaters destroying the bridge, etc should have been background scene and not, not what was shown in the movie.

I am so disappointed with the film. It was a total waste and it didn't do justice to the series. The first Harry Potter movie is so far the best for me. I wish they will get Chris Columbus or Peter Jackson (LOTR) to direct the Deathly Hallows.


what a freaking' awful thing...all the greatest most important matters from the book where missing. all the fantastic scenes, the excitement, the mystery....who's responsible for this awful crap?

and who is in charge of casting? the girl who played LB was bad bad bad. she made me want to leave the theater. and the main actors have been better too. but maybe that's because the script is so awful u'd have to have super acting skills to make it remotely likable.

the only good thing was the actor playing pf. slughorn. great job and the only reason I didn't leave half way through.

I love the books and up to this been quite o.k. with the movies. but this was just too bad. trying to make money. well the original story sold well. nobody cares who's into whom and what not.

congrats on destroying a fantastic tale.


It comes around most summers, the flurry of hype and advertising surrounding the latest Harry Potter instalment, and every critic claims it is The Best One Yet, the reviews all say Harry Potter Shows Its Dark Side and everyone comments on how they are Maturing As Actors.

And we all go to see it. And we all come out claiming "never again".

This time is not too different. The acting has improved dramatically, although there are still a few cringe-worthy moments. Tom Felton (Malfoy) is the most impressive, with much more to do in this instalment than the others. Radcliffe exhibits good comic timing for once. The adult cast are as dependable as ever, Rickman, Bonham Carter and Broadbent are all fantastic, and Michael Gambon puts in his best so far.

However, it is still not worth going to see by any stretch of the imagination. Some snippets are brilliantly done, the CGI better than ever, the opening shot is good, and the memory scenes especially are done perfectly, exactly as imagined. But these are gems hidden with in two and a half hours of dirge.

I've heard, as a fan of the books, many others disgusted with the amount left out from them. This I don't mind in the slightest, it would be ridiculous to include all of the intricate subtle storyline twists that make the series so great. It's the embellishments and contrived utter rubbish that has been actually added to the movie that made me feel a little sick.

I understand taking liberties with the plot line... but not if it turns a fantastic book into a dismal film! The emphasis on the romantic storyline (a relatively minor part in the book) was woeful, to the point I had to bite my lip to avoid shouting expletives at the screen. The ending also seems to have been completely misunderstood, the agony in the book being Harry physically cannot move to protect his mentor. I won't even vent my feelings on the burning of the Burrow.

Having said that, the whole cave scene, from beginning to end, is fantastically done.

It's just a pity the rest is so undeniably awful.

Don't put yourself through it this year.


As has been said before, this is a really bad Harry Potter installment. Just viewers can throw away Star Wars-Episode I and not miss anything, this Harry Potter film does not have to be purchased and you will not miss anything.

This is actually the first movie that I have ever been to where a person near me was actually SLEEPING through most of the movie. Yes, SLEEPING. And snoring. It became actually funny and it slowly sunk into my mind that this movie was a huge load of crap. If you have never read the book, you would be totally confused; If you HAVE read the book, you would not only be totally confused, but you would be really angry that all of the MAJOR PLOT POINTS of the book have been left out.

This is a very important lesson for you aspiring filmmakers and screenwriters. Story is king. Story is king. Story is king. Let that stew in your brain before you ever write anything again. Now I don't want to totally eviscerate the screenwriter, Steve Kloves. He has been the screenwriter for most of the series and, so far, has done a pretty good job of converting huge novels into entertaining scripts, so the fault has to lie with the director, David Yates. HP:OOtP was his first HP movie and, at the time, was my worst one. I thought then that the book has been done a disservice. Now my fears are totally realized when this steaming heap of crap came out. It seems to me that David Yates took the screenplay, and said, "I want to compete with all of the other teeny movies out there, so out go major plot points (teens don't go for all that plot and thinking stuff anyways) and in goes more moody swoon y teeny pablum. After all, I AM the director." And there, dear aspiring filmmakers, is the when someone needs to take a good piece of hickory and break it across the front of your face, leaving a "Louisville Slugger" logo imprinted across your face. Because, YOU screwed up.

Now that we have the same two teaming up again for the last movie, get out the Pepto.