There is no words strong enough to express my disappointment after seeing the sixth Harry Potter movie! I thought Order of the Phoenix was tragic, but as hard it might be to believe, Half-Blood Prince is worse!

I'll just get right into the bad stuff: First and foremost; where was Scrimgeour? Where was Dobby and Kreature? Where were the Dursleys? Where was Fleur and Bill? And of course, where were all the scenes and details belonging to those characters? Not only were people, with their respectable scenes, left out, they left out scenes and details with people that were there too. Harry doesn't go and sit with Neville and Luna on the Hogwarts Express, he goes directly to the Slytherins. Tonks doesn't fetch Harry from the train, Luna does. There is no DADA class. There is no 'Weasley is our King' song, or any reference to Roonil Waslib' either. And the students hardy ever wear robes! Last time I checked, Hogwarts has a uniform code! That means that you must wear school robes! Dumbledore doesn't show Harry even half as many memories as he did in the book. Also, Dumbledore is not as much present in the film as he was in the book. It's like what was considered as the main storyline in the book has been just added in as a sideline story in the film. I'll even go one better than that; those who knows the book well enough will clearly notice that whole chapters have been take out the film to make room for other things. Steve Kloves and David Yates have completely gutted the book and put in their on crap! Thanks, guys, thanks for ruining Harry Potter for me. Can't wait to see how much you're gonna screw up the Deathly Hallows. In my opinion, the whole movie gives out a presence of low-budget, too-close-to-deadline, and lack of interest and efforts. The only people who does a good job in this film is a few chosen actors, which is Tom Felton, Rupert Grint and Jessie Cave. Tom Fenton gives a very strong and deep performance in this film, and has finally been given the chance to show that he can actually act. In this film, Draco is this eerie, dark figure that looms around in the dark corners and is constantly hurting. If I hadn't known better, I'd say this is a film about Draco, not Harry. Grint has always been one of the best British comedians of modern time I have seen, and now he has proved it yet again. He must've faced a much more physical challenge in HBP than in any other HP movie he's done before, but then again, the older he gets, the more is expected of him. Fortunately, he is more than up for the job. Jessie Cave was, in my case, the wild card. Never seen her before, but she so definitely filled the role as the love-sick Lavender Brown to a tee. Over-acted a bit maybe, but that's OK considering Lavender is quite the drama queen in the book as well. I have always loved the Phelps twins, but this time around they hardly got any screen time at all. (The only comfort I have as a Norwegian, is the James and Oliver came to Norway to party in Oslo on the eve of the midnight pre-premiere of the film.) I have never had too much interest in Daniel Radcliffe after Goblet of Fire, but he's never been a bad actor. However, a few moments of comedy is not going to same him this time. He just did his job, and that was it. This resulted in Harry not making very much of himself. This is a Harry Potter film, and thus should Harry Potter be more present on the scene. Luckily, the Harry Potter character was well supported by the Ginny Weasley character, which means that Bonnie Wright was given a great deal more screen time than before. In all the chaos of tossing the characters about, leaving out essential scenes, people, quotes and other details,they inputed two major scenes that is not in the book, but it would be a bit unfair to say that they are bad, because they're not. Everybody probably knows from the trailer that The Burrows gets attacked by the Death Eaters. This scene is spectacular, a true countryside house inferno. But unnecessary since it didn't happen in the book. This also means, they put in the attack/house fire to replace the Christmas holiday when Scrimgeour visits. The other scene is Harry and Ginny in the Room of Requirement. Harry does hide the Half-Blood Prince's Potions Book in the Room, but not at the time that is stated in the book. In this new scene, he goes up there with Ginny, so that she can hide the book for him. Something else happens in the Room that did happen in the book, but at another time. So, in other words, they took two details out of two different scenes to create this one. It's a good scene, but I've got to say that I'd rather have the original scenes. But two great scenes, three great actors and a massive hype cannot save this film. It is by far the worst Harry Potter film yet. They left out too much. You want Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince? Read the book.

PS! Don't get me wrong, because Mark Williams is a good actor, but I want to state a fact here; Arthur Weasley is practically BALD! Why does Williams suddenly have LONG HAIR for the role?


This should be worst depiction of a HP novel. I actually felt bored to sit through the movie. So many plot holes and so much disconnection!!! I am fine with change, I don't ask the movie to exactly replicate the book. But the essence should not still be missed. This movie should not be about the adolescence of the characters but the journey into LV's past. How can anyone pull off the next movie w/o actually setting up any key plots needed for it? How can Harry complete his mission in the next part if he never actually saw any clues in part6? People say that we should not be comparing the movie with the book. But how anyone explain the burrow being burnt down? What it its significance in the story? And how corny is Ginny tying Harry's shoe laces. I felt like, where am I? what am I doing here? Even by a teen flick standards, this is bad.

I am not sure whether Steve Kloves even read part 7 of the book properly, what with the mundane screenplay and pointless plots of this movie. I guess he is planning to slay part7 down too. And even worse there will be 2 parts to this nonsense.


So bad I'm not sure where to start. I left the theater wondering what the hell I'd just watched and where the hell it'd come from. Case in point the burrow being destroyed was a completely pointless scene that could have been removed so as to make time for actually important things like Dumbledore's ideas as to what the horcruxes could be and even the significance of their existence and the number 7. Voldemort's past is glossed over completely as if they just expect everyone to have read the book before. How Harry and the others will even know what to look for in the next movie I haven't the faintest idea. Much of the movie is centered around the teenage relationships and it just drags the entire movie down with a lot of unneeded fluff. I know that the story's supposed to be about Harry growing up, but there's too much of an imbalance between relationships and the rest of the plot.

Then there's the acting which still needs improvement on the part of the younger actors, especially Ginny who's acting was completely wooden for most of the film. The only part which I thought was actually decent was the scene where Harry took the felix felicus and was completely loopy. Otherwise it was just plain bad. The adults continue being the only people who can actually act in these movies, although Slughorn seemed a little off, he was better than the youths.

Overall, this movie just continues the downward spiral these movies have been in since at least the second or third film, and is easily the worst yet.


I went into this movie with almost no prejudice. I hadn't watched trailers, hadn't read reviews, hadn't talked to anyone who had seen it. And I really wanted to like the movie. After all, I still remembered how excited the previous movie had left me and the sixth book is perhaps the best of the entire series.

And then I suffered.

Almost no scenes were the way they were in the book, some of the characters were altered - flattened down - so much it was hard to even recognise them and the scenes that had been added didn't fit the storyline at all. I mean, I don't have anything against mixed-age couples but why does Harry have to catch the eye of a woman twice his age in the beginning of the film? Which point does the director want to make by including this? Harry's overwhelming attractiveness? His maturity? Same goes for the burning-down-the-burrow scene. Why would Fenrir and Bellatrix waste their time chasing 15 year olds around a fen and setting a house on fire (after luring all the inhabitants out of course. Setting the house on fire with all the blood-traitors, mudbloods and chosen ones still in, no, that would simply have been too... intelligent!)

So they include some pointless action, fair enough, perhaps films need that more than books. The 5-minute "Attack of the Psycho Tree" (aka Whomping Willow Workout) scene they put into the third film seemed rather random too, after all. But why then did they leave out the ultimate action scene in this book where the DA and the death eaters fight in Hogwarts? I liked the way they introduced the Vanishing Cabinet, different from the book, but since I knew they would never include a 5 minute dialogue between Dumbledore and Draco anyway, I liked the idea. All the more disappointing then that in the end, Draco went through all this effort just so Bellatrix could burn down Hagrid's hut.

But the ultimate unforgivable scene was the way they ruined "the flight of the prince". I'll sum up the end of the film.

Harry: Fight back you COWARD! - Snape: He called me coward? Mmh, I don't really care. - Harry: SECTUMSEMPRA! - Snape: Alright, let me explain this very calmly to you. You may not use my spells against me because I'm the half blood Prince. - *in the background Hagrid's hut is burning down but Hagrid and Fang are apparently too fast asleep to notice* - Snape:*walks into the forest* - Harry: *looks at the stars, surprised*

later:

Harry: It's a shame Dumbledore's dead. I kinda liked him.

Hermione: Uh-huh. BTW, Ron says it's OK if you're with Ginny.

Harry: k, thx. I never noticed how beautiful Hogwarts is.

This leads me directly to the thing that disturbed me the most about the film: the complete unwillingness on the side of the writers to stay serious for even one single minute. At every turn, some trite joke or shallow reference to clichée teenage drama has to be inserted and this robs the film of all its dramatic potential. I have no idea why anyone would call this film "dark". I've seen Disney films that were more serious and adult than this one. The film is a dumbed-down version of the book, suitable for audiences who previously fawned over Twilight.

And the clichée doesn't stop there. The portrayal of Bellatrix irritated me greatly. Isn't it about time we do away with this stereotype that an evil and powerful woman *has* to act hypersexual, speak with a sensual voice and creep around the men she's threatening? It was really annoying, especially in the scene in which Snape swears the Unbreakable Vow. It looks cheap and doesn't fit at all.

Also: - Ginny would never tie anyone's shoelaces. - Harry can use his invisibility cloak, it doesn't count as cheating. Especially if it keeps you from climbing random roofs just to get a glimpse at Draco - Dumbledore's funeral isn't a rock festival. - So Voldemort's Horcruxes could be any kind of object? Good luck breaking random things in order to defeat him then, Harry. Looking forward to seeing you stomp across rubbish dumps in film 7, crushing "hidden" old bottles that could be magical.

One star for the wonderful performances by Tom Felton and Alan Rickman, one for the beautiful Quidditch scenes and one for the soundtrack.


i don't know what to comment about,there's nothing in the movie to comment about the first half was a teen-movie the second half was worse(the cave scene was okay) burrow scene was pointless(actually i found the entire movie pointless) there was no emotion in the end scene and the dumbledore's death scene(i was happy dumbledore was dead and the torcher movie was over) ginny weasley is given way too much importance(she hides the HBP's book and not harry) and i cannot imagine lavender blabbering about ron in front of the teachers let alone the headmaster dumbledore asks harry about his feelings for hermione there is plenty of these idiotic scenes,i don't understand how so many gave it 10/10 this might be the worst movie i have ever seen,shame IMDb doesn't have a 0/10 rating


Who's bright Idea was it to make Harry Potter 6 as awful as what I just saw in the movie theater? They basically turned a great book into a PG rated Nightmare. I understand they want to make money but after watching this movie I want 2 things back. The $10 I spent on the ticket and the 2 and a half hours I had to spend in that theater. I understand about time and not trying to make another titanic length movie, but adding stuff that has not meaning for the 6th's book, Taking out a key point: the battle at the end, that what give this movie their WTF moments. I mean who goes to a school and just blows up the hall, please! I also don't remember Hargats house being set a flame. This movie was a study in what not to do as a script writer. I mean was I the only one that wondered who the heck was the big guy that they featured when looking at the death eater yet never told you what he's purpose was. I think the script writes should get on their knees and apologies to us all for this trash. This makes me fearful of what they plan for book 7, which they are cutting into 2 movies. If either one of them is PG I'm skipping them. over 20 people died in book 7 to make it PG would mean that all the fights and all the key points in the movies would be excluded. I can tell you as a fan giving it a 4 was being nice it doesn't rate that high


Viewers accustomed to the Charlie Chaplin of CITY LIGHTS and MODERN TIMES may be startled to see just how rowdy his early Keystone comedies could get. In some cases these movies amount to little more than 10 or so minutes of wild slapstick, and when the prints are in poor condition even rudimentary plot-lines become incoherent. A few of the Keystones display a degree of finesse and are well worth watching (I'd put THE STAR BOARDER and THE NEW JANITOR on the short list of Charlie's more enjoyable early works), while others are of interest only to Chaplin buffs determined to see all his work, even the scrappy and incoherent stuffwhich brings us to LAUGHING GAS. Charlie plays a dentist's assistant in this one, more of an office custodian than an actual dentist, although he takes an active role in anesthetizing patients with a mallet. This short presents Charlie at his most violent: hurling bricks, kicking butts, and fighting with practically everybody, especially Mack Swain. I enjoy good slapstick, but I found this one exasperating to watch. Admittedly, the print I saw was in bad shape and thus difficult to follow, especially towards the end, but I suspect that even if a pristine camera negative of LAUGHING GAS turned up in a vault somewhere it wouldn't make much difference, quality-wise. For audiences of 1914 it was an exciting novelty to see the knockabout action of vaudeville and burlesque transferred to the new medium, but for today's viewers it's difficult to find genuine comedy in something like this.

Chaplin was still in his apprenticeship at this point and had only recently started directing his films. He obviously didn't care whether viewers liked his screen alter ego or not, but just wanted to keep the tempo fast and frantic. (Or was he trying to please his boss, Mack Sennett?) It's clear that the action in this film, like most of the Keystones, was loosely improvised from scene to scene, without any larger sense of purpose. On that level, comedy buffs may be interested to compare this early, "unedited" Chaplin with the later perfectionist who demanded multiple takes. Typical gag: Charlie, pretending to be the dentist while his boss is away, flirts with a pretty young patient, then takes a pair of pincers, pinches her nose, and yanks her face over for a kiss. Okay, it's a little on the rough side but a decent gag. But overkill sets in rapidly as Charlie repeats the business three or four more times (maybe it got a big laugh on the set?) to diminishing returns. Later, there's a nicely performed bit of physical comedy: Charlie follows his employer's wife up some stairs, stumbles, attempts to steady himself by grabbing her, and yanks her dress off. It's startling and cleanly performed without looking over-rehearsed, and stands as the funniest bit in the film, but once you've seen that you've seen the highlight. Otherwise, it's non-stop fighting. Silent comedy buffs with a special interest in Chaplin's work from the very beginning may want to see LAUGHING GAS, but there's no strong reason to seek it out otherwise unless you crave slapstick in its most chaotic form.

Incidentally, the actress playing the dentist's wife (i.e. the one who loses her dress) is Alice Howell, who went on to star in a series of her own. Stan Laurel later cited her as one of the finest comediennes of the silent screen. I haven't seen enough of her work to form an opinion myself, but the nice little scene she has in this film whets my appetite to see more of her films.


Nukie is widely regarded as the worst/most painful movie ever made. No one who has seen it denies this assertion. It tops even the infamous Manos: the Hands of Fate. As a result, it has a bit of a cult following, the way Kali, the Hindu goddess of death has a bit of a cult following.

The astounding thing about Nukie is its ability to cram so much stupidity into so little time. You find yourself watching a scene, realizing that every line and every action is utterly without merit, wishing the scene would just END--then it does, and a new scene begins, equally stupid, and you realize that the last scene's eternity was really only about 30 seconds long, and this movie is about 90 minutes. That's when you look for pointy objects to thrust violently into sensitive body parts as a distraction.

The other thing about Nukie, the one that leaves me in awe, is its ability to top itself in brain-killing idiocy. The movie crushes Barney's foolishness 30 seconds in, stomps Teletubbies in minutes, and after that, it's home free in the race for cerebral vacuum creation. Despite this, every 15 minutes--or less--a scene comes along which makes your jaw drop as it rockets the movie to a new depth of idiocy. Just when you think the movie has reached its nadir, a character begins dancing, or one of the aliens demonstrates a new power, or the computer learns a new lesson about feelings, and your brain tries to escape the pain by squeezing out of your skull through the pores in the bone.

It's a truly unique experience.


Nukie. It's a bad E.T. ripoff filmed in Africa, with production (and some footage) handled in Germany. It's in English, so I'm not sure where the targeted market was. Nukie and his brother Meeko are ugly little aliens with big heads and runny noses who fly through space using some sort of personal energy rather than ships. They are tempted by the beauty of the earth, fly too close, and crash. Nukie lands in Africa and is relatively unharmed; Meeko lands in the United States and is immediately picked up by NASA. At least, I think it's NASA. Its logo appears in several places, but the stock-footage building exterior is definitely not NASA. Nor is it ever called `NASA'. It's called the Space Foundation. And there are beer cans in the break room! But since NASA is the only space agency in the U.S., that's what it has to be.

Scene after scene begins with an exterior shot of `NASA'. The voice-over gives the date and time (sometimes the times don't synch with the amount of daylight shown), and more often than not he follows with `nothing unusual to report' before telling us that Meeko has escaped or some such. If that's not unusual, I don't know what is.

While Meeko suffers in America, Nukie meets the quirky inhabitants of a small village in Africa. He befriends twin boys named Tookie and Tiko, and a chimp named Charlie. Nukie and the boys search for `America', which they think is the name of the evil-doer who is holding Meeko. They must avoid an American chopper pilot working for NASA (watch out - he's a `player'), local poachers, and a pesky nun (Glynis Johns) while they do so. It all ends happily, of course, because this is a kids' movie. Nukie and Meeko fly into space amidst stock footage of fireworks, and they bring along one of their new friends from Earth. Who is the friend? You'll have to watch the movie to find out!

The producers must've expected a big demand for Nukie merchandise, because every time the word appears it has the little `TM' after it. `Nukie' is trademarked, for crying out loud; none may use his name without permission. I doubt the demand for merchandise materialized, otherwise we might be seeing Nukie lunchboxes and action figures for sale in thrift stores.

People don't believe me when I tell them this, but I kind of like Nukie. Did you ever have a friend who was your friend just because you felt sorry for them? I like Nukie because I feel sorry for it. I think it needs a friend.


"Nukie" is a celluloid cesspool. Forget about insulting its audience, I feel like I've insulted myself by forcing myself to watch the entire movie. I can't even relay the plot because I lost track 1/3 of the way through. It is an utter failure in every measurable way. I've seen a lot of crap films, but there is nothing I've seen that tops this.

Nukie is ugly. He has snot dripping from his nose. He befriends a talking chimpanzee. He meets the chimp's "cousin," a talking baboon. He can metamorphose into a ball of light. The special effects were surpassed in movies made thirty years earlier.

Thank god "Nukie" was a failure, or else we might have had to endure Nukie lunchboxes or a Nukie TV show. Even worse, a shrieking Nukie plush toy  "MMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKKKKOOOOOOOOOOOO!." Oh my god I need a drink, now.


Without a doubt, bar none, unequivocally the worst film ever conceived by Man. Watching this film is an exercise in pure masochism. "Nukie" doesn't even have the "so bad it's good" charm of other horrible wastes of celluloid such as "Troll 2" or "Hobgoblins." The title character actually looks like a cross between a retarded bushbaby, a rotten potato, and a burlap sack full of horse manure. It's obvious that the creators of this film were envisioning an ET-like so-ugly-he's-cute character, with delusions of multi-million dollar licensing deals, lunchboxes and action figure lines. What they ended up with was a hideous monkey-faced monstrosity straight out of your worst Lovecraftian nightmare. This film is a horrible blight on the history of Mankind. It is pure torture and should not be viewed at any time by any human being whatsoever. I've made it my life's work to track down the unholy Sias Odendal, director of this film, and beat him senseless for his crimes against humanity. I blame "Nukie" for destroying my life and utterly shattering any hope that I may have had for the future of our civilization. Early on in the film, one of the "Space Foundation" scientists utters the line "This actually should not exist!" That is precisely how I feel about this film. I hate God for allowing this film to be made.

In the immortal words of Tom Servo, "I'd slap this movie if I could."


Here's what I can say: this movie is SO BAD. NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES SEE THIS MOVIE. I try to see all the bad movies I can, and this tops them all. It's not even funny to mock, it's just that bad. It's a test of patience. Even if you think you wanna see this movie, you really don't. I'll leave you with a bit of the wit from this movie; while the scientists are taking miko's pulse with the x-ray machine, they still don't know whether he's an animal, mineral, or vegetable. Go back over that last sentence again. Yes. That actually does happen in the movie. Honestly, when I finally finished this movie I felt like dying(it took me a while because I watched about the first half hour and needed to stop on account of the utter idiocy of this movie). It is terrible. I can't stress that enough. And now I speak directly to the people who like watching bad movies: I know you've seen movie that people have told you not to see, but skip this one. It hurts to watch.


The pain is the only thing that will distract you from the terminal suck of the movie. The plot line is like watching actors trying to break out of their usual roles of downs syndrome porn and the main character looks like a deep-fried shag carpet soaked in cheese made rancid manlove to ET's bastard cousin. It goes downhill from there. Wrought with so many plot holes I felt like my teeth were being jarred from their sockets just from the righteous fury, I felt the minutes this movie was bleeding from my life dripping out of my soul. I feel that if I look down I will see the tattered remains of the person I was before I saw this movie floating in a pool of my lost humanity.


This film is quite possibly the worst movie ever made. I still cannot believe how horrible this movie was. The acting was terrible. The sound was painful. The camera never moved. This film is the exact opposite of everything a good movie is. Nukie is painful enough to make small children cower in the corner for days and make grown men weep. I watched this film with my little brother and we had to stop 30 minutes in because he was literally getting sick to his stomach. By all means, if you watch this movie do NOT watch it alone or in the vicinity of sharp objects. This film is only for those who are brave of heart. Therapy may be needed after viewing.


If, by grace of God, you were epileptic, Nukie might just trigger a seizure. This would hopefully prevent you from watching the rest of this film. There are certainly enough idiotic lens-flare light effects and crap. I saw "Nukie" as a child; my father had rented it and has since been convicted by the Hague.

From here on out, I'm not sure I can string together intelligible sentences to describe this film. It consists primarily of a disgusting little alien rushing around the desert, while his brother shrieks NUUUUUKEEEEEE approximately fourteen thousand times. Some kid gets bitten by a snake (cue stock "snake" footage). Nothing makes sense in this film. The snakebite at least limits the number of characters. These people spend their days rushing around shouting things like, "He's an alien made of PURE ENERGY!" Said alien just happens to look a bit like Grandpa, if you turned him inside-out. I can't stop crying. Even if you love campy movies, this one will break you.


I have seen many movies in my time, many good, many bad. About 2 years ago my friends and I began watching films that could fall under the "so bad it's good" category, an often amusing, but none the less hit and miss approach to entertainment. After much thought I have concluded that 'Nukie' is in a class entirely of its own.

'Nukie' is in ways astonishing, in that it seems to melt the brain of those that watch it into a messy syrup. What makes Nukie so brutally awful is hard to pinpoint, but the main issues seem to be in the characters, and the overall pace of the movie. The characters are nauseating to say the least, with the tortured, draining whimpers of aliens' Nukie and Miko becoming a motif throughout the course of the film. The Nukie costume is an assault on the senses, with a vulgar 'groin bump' and Hitler snot too, the 'hero' is not the cute extra-terrestrial the videos box promises at all. The plot is non existent, and whenever the story seems to be getting somewhere something horrific happens that seems to shoot down all the progress that damn alien has made (if any). Whats more, 'Nukie' has the bizarre quality of slowing down time, making this the most agonizing 95 minutes of you life.

I bought a 'Nukie' video for $2 and was hoping for a movie to tear to pieces with my friends. We lasted about 20 minutes before it got us. I think others who have seen this will understand.

Not only is 'Nukie' the worst film I have seen, it is the worst film I will EVER see.

Be prepared.

Miko!


Firstly, Nukie looks like ET if he were made of poo. Plus, on the back of the VHS box is a picture of a Tiger. Nowhere in the entire movie is a tiger. I felt cheated! Honestly, I was caught off guard by how AWFUL this movie is. I'm also caught off guard as to how many reviews IMDb has for for NUKIE.

In regards to movies, I'll watch ANYTHING. I'm actually fond of little know releases. I found Nukie for $1.75 NEW in a Mexican grocery store. How on earth was this movie made? I'm pretty sure it will never be released on DVD. The budget wasn't big but you can tell some money was spent. I'm sure they expected this to be a hit at the theater ( they even trademarked the name Nukie! ). Also, why didn't this movie make the "worst of" lists? It's WORSE than Soultaker and Troll 2. Why was this movie even made? Who funded this? Why!?!?


Wow. That is pretty much all that I can say. For you bad movie lovers out there, this one is possibly the grand-daddy of them all (and yes I have seen Manos the Hands of Fate). Trust me on this one--unless you saw Blair Witch and you know how a movie can actually make you sick, don't rent this film. To be honest with you, I rented this because of the cover: a giant headed, freakishly odd looking alien holding hands with two African kids--that's funny. However, I was soon to learn that the only thing funny about this movie was that a four year old with a hand-held could have done a better job. I don't want to summarize the plot for you, because I'm still not sure what that was. Something about Nukie (an alien) trying to save his brother alien from the evil United States Commodore-64 controlled testing facility. In between can be found talking animals in shorts, stock footage stolen from National Geographic, and all in all, the worst movie I have ever seen. This movie actually made my friend physically sick to his stomach. Frankly, I am sickened to say that man could possibly create such worthless drivel.

Let me put it this way--See this movie just so you know that in no possible way has your life been even close to a failure; unless you were involved in the making of this film (if you can actually call it a film). Because no matter what you've done in your life, it could never reach the low that this movie has achieved.


Some bad movies are funny. Some bad movies are so confusing they become a personal challenge to decipher. Some bad movies are so bad they're good. Some bad movies are just pure entertainment. Nukie is none of the above. This is positively the worst movie I have ever seen. The "friend" who lent it to me made me promise I'd watch to the bitter end. Let the world know I endured the entire Nukie (and the ending almost made it worthwhile).

Nukie is a painful experience. How could this be written? How could this be directed and filmed? I pass this as a warning...every second of this movie is unwatchable. I certainly wouldn't let my kids watch it - they'd get nightmares.

I don't understand the reviewers here that gave this movie a positive rating, unless maybe they had a copy to dump. This movie doesn't even sell on EBAY when listed for 99 cents. 'Nuff said?


This is a children's movie, and there is just so much suffering within it!

The existence of this movie is centered entirely around one mistake: If Meeko never crashed to Earth there wouldn't even be a movie. It's incomprehensible how such a movie which is centered around one giant mistake has multiple mistakes running through it.

Nukie and Meeko are hideous space aliens, with sinus problems; they are two whiny, manic-depressive, creatures. They both look (and probably smell) like two deformed dwarfs who were dipped in a pool of excrement, and deep fried in a pressure cooker.

Because I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone but bad movie fans with high tolerance, or an adolescent whose stuck babysitting their younger sibling and looking for retribution, I will explicate the highlights of this movie.

As you have probably read about the plot elsewhere, Meeko and Nukie are flying around the universe; Meeko lands in Florida and abducted by not-NASA, and Nukie lands in South Africa. Nukie must try to find Meeko.

Throughout the movie Meeko is literally tortured by doctors, complete with probes in his abdomen. The plot in the first half the movie consists of Meeko SCREAMING back to Nukie for help, and replying to the doctors about how "Tranquilzers kill him". At one point Nukie is almost enjoying himself, when suddenly he's interrupted by his brothers howl " NUUUKIIIEEAAAAGGHHH!!!".

Nukie, throughout the movie says suicidal things such as: "I wish the Earth would shallow me up, I want to sleep" and " I hate this planet". There's a questionable scene where Nukie awakens by his brothers scream from a covered trench. Did Nukie dig himself a grave? His resurrection causes an earthquake.

Somehow a tribal Witch Doctor knows Nukie caused the earthquake. Nukie befriends a set of twins from the tribe. They tell him to go to the Witch Doctor to explain hes not a bad-god. Nukie gets the point across by breaking the tribes stuff and paralyzing people. The idiot angers the tribe into sending the twins out into the brush in a trial to see which one will live. Twins are bad luck or something for the tribe, plus the tribe saw them conversing with that hideous, fecal, bad-god, Nukie.

Nukie tries to console the twins through some out-of-sink dancing. The director and costume designer were complete morons to suggest such a midget could dance inside that suit, it's a wonder they could even move in that suit. The controls for the mouth didn't work, and the eyes blinked at separate times. Another thing, they tried to make Nukie look shorter by elongating the stomach over the thighs; he doesn't look shorter-- he looks like he's carrying a load in them pants!

Anyways, as the twins are stuck in the brush, one of them gets bitten by a snake, as Nukie runs to help, "The Corporal" fires tranquilizer darts into Nukies hollow crotch bump; thereby promptly rendering Nukie unconscious and causing one of the twins to shriek "You killed my friend!"

Towards the end-- in search for America, Nukie ends up going down two giant water falls, and yet some how manages to live-- he should have died, really he should have, why not? A twin thinks they found America-- it looks like war-ravaged quagmire. He screams "America help us".(Smart kid, it may not be America, but maybe the cause of it!) Nukie tells him it isn't, suddenly all is lost, but the twin wishes at the stars, and the long-winded tag-line about wishing to stars shows relevance.

Finally the Movie ends with a soppy end of gleeful tears; the snake bitten twin lives; Nukie reunites with Meeko, and a horrible, foul, ragged monkey LICKS THE SNOT OFF NUKIES FACE! Then, at the butt-of-the-end Nukie, Meeko, and the Monkey morph into things which appear to be three sperm cells flying into outer-space.

The audience was supposed to cry with joy with the characters, but you probably didn't or won't, because this movie fails on so many levels. Glynnis Johns should be given an Oscar for crying at the end of this movie, what acting-- she was probably crying for her career (sorry).

In a way I'm saddened that this movie didn't make it big, I would have loved to have seen a Meeko Operation Game which cries for help, or a Nukie plush which mumbles suicidal thoughts!

This is the biggest failure of all time. Even the moral of the story (the tag-line) is utterly meaningless and useless.


Difficult to parcel this chaotic, incoherent piece of kiddie-corrupting garbage into discrete movements, but let's give it a try. In the first part, alien Meeko is endlessly tortured and mutilated by American scientists while his pal Nukie wanders around South Africa and mutters. In the second part, Nukie gets to know some talking monkeys, humorous tribesmen and their cute kids, a nun, a drunk, and Steve Railsback (probably also drunk). In the third part, Meeko is first hypnotized by, then befriends a talking computer, while Nukie disco dances. In the fourth part, the 'witch doctor' tries various strategies to kill Nukie, including running around in fast motion. In the fifth part we sit around absolutely for ever waiting for the movie to end, and the taking monkey licks the snot that has been running down Nukie's face for the whole movie. Throughout, the actors either shriek each others' names for minutes at a time, or talk and look like they've been hypnotized by a computer too. The aliens' mouths don't move, and their rubber limbs crumple and squeak when they are touched. I'm guessing Pakleppa got brought in after writer Odendal botched the job; it appears to have been edited by a lumberjack with the spins. Actually copyright 1989, which is important: not just because this is exactly the kind of film that sits around for four years before it gets released, but because it means that this South African production was completed before, not after, Mandela got out of prison. This means that the stuff about how the bloodthirsty tribesmen should heed the moral warnings of the wise nun were symptoms of apartheid in its decline, not impositions of the World Bank. Another advertisement for Western enlightenment occurs when a snake bites one of the kids and his brother cleans the wound; Railsback insists on taking him to the hospital so he can receive competent treatment; when he asks the nurse how the kid is doing in the next scene, she goes "I have no idea - but I cleaned the wound." Three cheers for whitey!


Through the years i managed to watch most of the movies in the bottom 50 IMDb and i can only say this, "Nukie" beats them all. This movie makes "Manos - The hands of fate" look like "Citizen Kane" by comparison.

I am in fact puzzled how someone DARED to actually film this!

I mean... c'mon people! Didn't you realize what an utter piece of garbage this was when you made it? No words can describe how bad this movie is... it has to be seen to be believed. But make no mistake, encourage you to watch this movie, in fact that is a MUST. How else can you judge other movies if you lack the base standard unit in "retardness" to compare other movies to?


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

John (Reece Dinsdale) and his team are sent undercover to infiltrate the thuggish Shadwell Town Firm, and especially 'the generals' the men in charge of organizing the violence. However, his values and dreams come to clash with his profession and he finds himself turning into someone else as he slowly transforms from an undercover copper...into a true hooligan.

With football violence being a common theme for films nowadays, and with the release of new film The Firm, it's good I got a chance to see this film again that was one of the earlier films to deal with the matter (aside, of course, from the original The Firm.) Lead star Dinsdale is now famous as Joe Morton in Coronation Street, and his northern accent would appear to be his true one. Thus, here it's easier to pick apart his feigned cockney accent, as well as co star Warren Clarke, who'd also become more well known in time.

There's no 'acted football' on display, but you fail to really get into the nitty gritty of the violence, either. Some hammy writing/acting also lowers the tone, and a tendency to veer into theatrical operatics loses it some points. John emerges as a man who has to feel powerful in some way, and hooliganism comes to provide it more than the police force, only for that to go pear shaped at the end and, despite showing no racist signs through out the film, he shaves his head and takes part in a National Front march. If only the screenplay had been a bit more subtle and the dialogue more real, it could have provided a great character study if not a shattering insight into the world of football violence. **


Perhaps I'm biased but this is without doubt the worst film I have ever seen regarding football violence. The most ironic thing about this film is that it is called 'I.D'. The actual period in which it was set is the early 90's, so why oh why do you have 'hooligans' rowing on the terraces? CCTV? Regardless of that why are the 'hooligans' actually wearing club colours, by the 80's everyone was in casual wear and club colours were not allowed. The scenes in the 'rock' with the guy eating fire are totally laughable, what was that all about? (the fire eating I mean). I originally purchased this film on video from a well known chain store without first seeking any kind of recommendation. I must say I laughed and then I winced at was was factually wrong. The landlord of the 'rock' "been in prison", surely he would have lost his liquor licence and his job??? All I will say is that if you are going to do a film about football violence then at least do your research first. Terribly inaccurate film!!!


On the face of it,a team of police officers going undercover in a local firm together evidence and one of them getting the buzz for the violence is a good idea.

Put into practice by this film, the idea is completely wasted.

Having read some of the comments about this film ie how it shows what goes on at an unfashionable London club proves how such a badly researched film can be dangerous in giving a false idea of football and it's followers, well or badly behaved.

I support an unfashionable London club and can say that even in the really bad old days it was nothing like this. I thought Green Street was a bad enough inaccurate portrayal but this pushed the limits of belief just too far.

The "firm" just didn't look the part, and the scenes in the pub were just surreal to be polite. What on earth was going on with the fire eater? And who wrote the chants? Why not just use real chants? We are expected to believe that one of the under covers lives on the manor with a wife in the police who goes to work from home in uniform? Is he going to make such a mistake that his thug mates are not going to see this or pop round unexpectedly? The film is so full of holes it is incredible. I can't believe some think this is so true to life! Whoever researched this appears to have just read Daily Mail type exaggerated reports to scare middle England and used that as their ideas of how it is or was. Well it is and never was anything like this.

The film is absolute junk and not worth the talents of some of the people in it.


Unintentionally hilarious..

This was about as well written, violent and emotional as an episode of Grange Hill and only slightly less realistic than Green Street Americans.. I mean Green Street HOOLIGANS - sorry.

There is only so many mockney "YOU CAAAHHNTS" you can take.

The scene with the two dyslexics was the only good bit.

Dyslexic 1: Can you smell gas?

Dyslexic 2: I can't even smell me own name, mate.

That bit was genuinely well written and had gravitas.

Actually tell a lie, the other good bit was when the woman went to the Chinese restaurant and got served chicken soup, but she wasn't satisfied with it so she call the waiter over. Then the waiter asked what was wrong and she said "this chicken is rubbery!" and then the waiter says "thank you very much".

The humour in that scene arose from the fact that "rubbery" was interpreted by the waiter as "lovely", a clever play on words arising from the (maybe) myth that oriental people mix up there R's and L's.

All in all, WORST FILM EVARRRR


This was one of those underground independent films that just happened to be really good. Director Darren Doane is mostly known to us as a Music Video Director bringing us videos from bands like Blink 182 and MxPx. A good film to watch from a music video director. If you see the DVD Special Edition you can see the original Godmoney film starring Christian Bale (Empire of the Sun, Little Women, American Psycho).


The only thing interesting about this movie was the Jane's Addiction poster in the main character's bedroom. Godmoney not only copies from other GOOD movies, but also includes some very mediocre acting. The main character, Nathan, does a decent job most of the time but the rest of the cast was weak. I had a hard time sitting through the whole movie. I expected a lot and got zip. Any other movie in this genre would likely be better.


This film contained the power of what I believe is stupendous! I choose this film as one of the greatest films I have ever seen overall under Platoon, Three Kings, The Shawshank Redemption, and Life is Beautiful. Darren Doane is the best is movie and music videos.


The cast of youthful aspirants in this contrived film are all so cheerful you want to slap them. It's ROMAN HOLIDAY meets BABES IN ARMS. Jane Powell appears as herself in her first film, playing a beleagured child star, who escapes and joins a youth hostel to pick vegetables and fruits (Don't ask!!!) She is insipidly awful when she tries to act and the plot is so ridiculous that one can't take it seriously, even within the context of a musical. Thank goodness there's Charlie McCarthy and W.C. Fields (in his last film) to add some bite and spice to the works. The film inexplicably earned Oscar noms for Scoring and Song. It looks for all the world like a Deanna Durbin vehicle and Miss Powell is directed to look and sing and move and behave as if she were the inimitable Ms. Durbin, but she's all falseness where Deanna was completely natural. A world of difference. Avoid unless you're a Powell fan and can forgive her.


Everybody seems to think that this movie is funny and well-acted and stuff. Let me assure you: it is not! Just because it is a little better than the average dutch movies, doesn't mean that it is a GOOD movie. I saw it after reading all this reviews at IMDb. All those actors look like if they are acting in a soap-show. Yeah, it's all about that, but it is not meant to look like it all the time... So, don't watch this movie, it's a waste of your time, if you want to see a dutch movie, watch LEK!


"The Grand" is a mockumentary about six internet poker players who gather in Las Vegas for a $10 million, winner-take-all tournament.

A game, eclectic cast - Woody Harrelson, Hank Azaria, Chris Parnell, Ray Romano, Werner Herzog, Gabe Kaplan - struggles with a mediocre script that, in tone as well as in style, steals clumsily from all those far superior Christopher Guest movies like "Waiting for Guffman," "Best in Show" and "A Mighty Wind." In the case of "The Grand," the humor is largely lacking, as each eccentric character plays out his little assigned shtick over and over and over again.

As executed by writer/director Zak Penn, the poker scenes are particularly languid and lifeless and utterly incomprehensible to any non-poker players who may happen to be a part of the audience.


I'd be hard-pressed to even classify this as a 'real' movie...It's more of a display of Penn's attempt at 'riding on the edge' of any conventional-type comedy film, meaning it's an (obviously)'improvisational comedy that centers around a cardgame ('The Grand')...Fairly enough, it's taglined as 'an improvisational comedy...using a handful of actors playing characters competing in an actual poker tournament', which is quite accurate...So, you have been warned...I think the problem here (aside from the old 'ust because someone gives you the money to do soething, doesn't mean you should), no the problem is that it's a little 'too improvisational' and feels like it might 'all-be' an improvisation...LIKE NO SCRIPTED LINES WHATSOEVER...It's like a musical where the orchestra didn't have any sheet usic, but a guy going "like this: dong-cha-dong-chucka-dong-dong-dong"...At least that's the way I felt watching this...In fact, the thought 'kept' coming into my mind...I said "self"..."I don't think they had a written script"... The other problem is that it's really 'not funny'...The characters aren't funny...they are irritating and I get enough irritating people when I go out in public...and they are 'sometime (usually) funnier!...So for my money, it's a comedy..THAT IS NOT FUNNY... It probably pitches like it could be funny (and even successful), but it falls apart as a film, completely...If you understand this, then you also understand it sounds more like an off-Broadway play...As a matter of fact (and the ore I think about it), this 'movie' would probably do very well in a live theatrical format...Heck, it could take on a life of its own and become syndicated, making the US cities tour, complete with building sized promos appearing in each city months before it premiers to build the anticipation...I'm certain performing arts centers all over the country will sell out all the shows quickly as anticipation grows and of course the wealthy season ticket holders would let everyone know they'll be busy on Friday evening, because they will be at the 'premier' of that play...'The Grand'...As a matter of fact, the more 'I' think about it, given the opportunity; 'I'd' pitch it! (as a play), because it 'would' be successful (as a play)... The problem (again) is that we aren't talking about 'The Grand-the play'...we're talking about 'The Grand--the movie'...which sadly, doesn't work...The other alternative for this material would be a SNL skit...or maybe the Comedy Channel coud've made it an hour and a half long TV comedy-movie, but even then there would need to be some casting revisions and a lot of editing... The way it is just doesn't work and shouldn't have been financed or released onto an unsuspecting public...I'll take a second look at anything Woody Harrelson is in from now on and won't spend my oney on anything Penn's in charge of...How does Jr. say it???...Trick me once shame on Penn...trick the public twice...and I get two terms to rape the country...(that's not an exact quote, but that's probably a bit more accurate!)...


"The Grand" is an experimental comedy involving a Poker tournament. It features film directors playing participants in a high stakes card game, supported by recognizable faces from TV and movies like Woody Harrelson, Richard Kind and Ray Romano, all them improvising in an attempt to recapture the magic of a Christopher Guest style opus. However, director Zak Penn is not Christopher Guest. He lacks comic timing and "The Grand" is fatally long. All in all, there's around twenty minutes of amusing material and lots of stupefying misfires to wade through to get to them. Brett Ratner's performance will only add to the already lengthy list of his many, many detractors. Werner Herzog, as a psychotic Germanic card shark, is amusing initially but wears out welcome quickly. Only Gabe Kaplan, a bona fide professional gambler in real life, delivers consistent laughs mostly because his performance is rooted in reality. Kaplan isn't trying to be funny as opposed to an overly unctuous Ray Romano and everyone else offering self-conscious caricatures as opposed to real people. After all, the director's forte is comic book adaptations and very few are blessed with the kind of comic chops to pull something like this off. More often than not, the cast are trying for big laugh lines instead of the droll, throwaway statements that made both "Waiting For Guffman" or "Spinal Tap" such a delight. "The Grand" is a curiosity piece you might want to catch on the IFC channel, but definitely not worth the time and trouble of going to the theater to see. Rent "Lost In America" instead and watch the Las Vegas section, especially Garry Marshall's inspired turn as a casino owner, and you'll see what this film aspired to be, but sadly "The Grand" didn't have the right dealer at the helm.


"The Grand" is funny in parts, but overall there are three unfunny minutes for every funny minute. The movie starts fairly strong, and I was honestly hoping that it would keep up the humor, but it did not. Which is a shame.

Interestingly, what does not work in this film is the poker. At a Q&A after the movie (at the Tribeca Film Festival), the director made a point of immediately stating that the poker was real. They dealt the cards and the actors played in character and the results were up to fate. Very interesting idea. Unfortunately, that did not carry to the movie. There was almost no excitement or tension to the poker tournament, perhaps because it is impossible to build tension in the results of a game when that game is severely edited. I hate to say it, but this film is less exciting and less entertaining than an episode Bravo's "Celebrity Poker." Even though the poker tournament itself is boring, this movie still could have been laugh out loud funny. Unfortunately, it isn't. I hold no grudge against the filmmaker for taking a direct copy of the Christopher Guest play book and running with it. I only wish he'd been more successful so that I could have laughed more than infrequently.

Hopefully this movie's failure will not discourage others from using this formula. I would love to have more comedies in this style. It is not like Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy are the only two people alive who can come up with a concept for a mockumentary. Actually, it's my opinion that "The Grand" has a better premise than several Guest/Levy creations. It should be very funny and entertaining. Unfortunately, it is not.


for some reason the cover of this movie had me worried it was corny and awful, but with actors like David cross, werner herzog, and cheryl hines, i really wanted to give it a chance. what i ended up watching was hours of horrible snl style skits, done over and over again, with no punch-line, no intelligent thought, and terrible film-making/acting. how all these actors got together and decided to do this is beyond me, unless they were already going to be in town to play poker anyways or something. don't waste your time seeing this movie, its seriously the worst thing I've seen in a long time. it tries to be a "David guest" style mocu-mentary, but fails horribly, and ends up giving whoever watches it a headache and a horrible impression of who people like werner herzog and David cross are, don't judge them by the fact that they are in this movie, they are both talented individuals.


On the way home after seeing this, I figured out why it wasn't so funny: It had too many regular actors doing semi-improvisational roles.

Christopher Guest's movies work--when they do--because he uses comic actors & writers. Particularly skit comic actors (SNL, Second City) like Guest, Harry Shearer, Eugene Levi, Michael McKean, Fred Willard, and Catherine O'Hara. They're used to performing semi-improv and as writers of sketch comedy. They're at home with the style. Regular actors in this movie don't far as well. Even stand-up comedians don't seem to do as well with this stuff, though somewhat better.

Dennis Farina was bad, Richard Kind wasn't (esp. bad), etc. Ray Romano was decent, but not quite good. Chris Parnell was really good, but his character was too limited, too one-dimensional. What would have been better was to have a regular actor play the role, and just do what Parnell came up with. Let Parnell do it, write it, and then hand it over to someone to do the part. Then Parnell could've been used for a better part where more improv was possible. A waste of his talent.

Michael McKean is a highlight--a Guest regular, but his role wasn't given much screen time. Ditto for Hank Azaria--very good, but very, very limited time on screen.

Gabe Kaplan was the worst. He wasn't funny at all, and he just sort of stood there with little to say. You could tell in one looong scene in particular where he was with the bald(er) guy with a beard--a highlight he was--where he was given set-up after set-up but came up blank. Painful. His scenes ran way too long for them joke-to-time ratio.

Woody was good.

The concept of having some good, lively characters played by good comic actors a la Guest, sitting around a poker table could be a great set-up for improv. No go here.

Prescription: Sketch comics who write--maybe for some semi-improv stuff--or others who are very glib and verbally gifted, like Azaria.

Will never watch again.


I've bought PROFIT on DVD. Genius. I've bought THREE's COMPANY on DVD. Wonderful. I bought FREE ENTERPRISE on DVD. Fun All from the same video label. They put out THE GRAND and I bought it. It's easily the worst comedy ever made from an unfunny man named Zak Penn. Zak, please stay away form comedy as you're not talented at it. Stick to lousy comic books and filling in the dialog bubbles. Awful, awful, awful!!! You are not Christopher Guest. What are you trying to prove? Listen to the astute TV critics that scolded you and said funny was not in your DNA. You are not talented as far as humor. Stick to garbage comic books where the upside is spelling things correctly.


Robert Harris' 1995 bestseller "Enigma" was an engaging romantic thriller that shed light on the unsung heroism of the World War II cryptanalysts of the British codebreaking headquarters at Bletchley Park. Harris managed the trick of creating characters of more than one dimension who you actually cared about and who seemingly had a reality beyond their function in the plot line of his well-researched novel.

Unfortunately, "Enigma" the movie, as scripted by Tom Stoppard and directed by the workmanlike Michael Apted, falls well short of a similar achievement. Primarily, a film like this stands or falls on the charisma of its leading man, but Dougray Scott's take on Harris' vulnerable but brilliant hero Tom Jericho is a curious one. His dour, drowsy performance is no doubt an attempt to capture the emotionally broken down state that Jericho finds himself in following the collapse of a doomed romance with Bletchley co-worker Claire (Saffron Burrows), but his doleful, heavy-lidded expression quickly becomes irritating. As the movie attempts to ratchet up the suspense, Scott remains withdrawn and spaced-out so that sequences that should be nail-biting - as in the novel - almost pass by unnoticed. What's desperately needed, breakdown notwithstanding, is a Jericho with a little intensity. Kate Winslet, always a watchable actress, fares rather better in the smaller role of the plain but spirited Hester, who attempts to help Tom solve the riddle of Claire's disappearance and of the stolen cryptograms found in her room. Jeremy Northam meanwhile offers an agreeably oily, snake-like turn as the Secret Service investigator who suspects that Claire or even Jericho may be a spy. No one else makes much of an impact. Supporting parts are low-powered and under-developed, particularly the pivotal character of Puck.

There's such a dearth of thought-provoking cerebral movie thrillers that it is almost tempting to applaud "Enigma" simply for attempting to engage the brain rather than deliver the usual crowd-pleasing but mind-numbing thrills and spills. But that can hardly be an excuse for delivering a thriller entirely devoid of excitement, bogged down as it is with often clunky dialogue in which characters don't so much relate to each other like normal people, as spend most of the time spelling out the story so far or explaining the finer points of cryptanalysis for the evident benefit of the audience. Several key plot twists seem to occur in expository dialogue rather than being actually depicted, and this tendency increases as the film draws to its rushed, some would say botched, climax.

Sadly, the only real enigma here is how such a strong and involving novel managed to translate so tediously from page to screen.


I think this movie is a disservice to Alan Turing. He was the undisputed leader of the team that took the initial Polish work to break the Enigma Code, broke subsequent variations (such as for the naval Enigma machines) and automated the whole thing by creating one of the world's first computers called BOMBE. His work thus directly brought World War II to an early end and saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the process. He was also the founder of modern day computers and artificial intelligence (just Google 'Turing Test'). Why create a fictional story? In telling the story truthfully, they would have to touch on the fact that Alan Turing was gay. In 1952 he was arrested for being gay, was chemically castrated, and had all security clearance stripped. He committed suicide in 1954. Was it so unpalatable to tell the truth that the main character in this story was gay (as were thousands of soldiers who fought in WWII)? I think that story is more compelling. Are we so sanitized that he had to be replaced with a team of straight matinée idols? Alan Turing was one of the most important figures of the 20th century, and one of the most slighted. I wish someone would make a decent movie telling his story. You can sign a petition asking the British Government to apologize for the prosecution and castration of this war hero here: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/


This movie is huge falsification of history. First of all - Polish mathematicians and cryptologists decrypted Enigma several years before WWII. Decrypting machines were already built. You may read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma But Polish contribution to the story in this movie is mentioned in this movie in one single phrase. But there is even worse point. The only bad character of the movie is a Pole! Author of this stupid scenario invented Polish guy who would be able to betray allies and become a German spy. What an absurd ! This 'author' probably knows nothing about polish attitude to Nazis during WWII. Poland during WWII had two occupants and two enemies - Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. But no one would join one enemy against the other. It was impossible. But not for makers of this movie. If Pukowski were a real man, after revealing the truth about Katyn, he would probably commit suicide.


Once again, the history of cracking the Enigma's code is falsified. Not so long ago we had "U-591" and now there's this movie. Let's then make this thing clear once and for all: the people responsible for cracking the Enigma's code were the group of Polish mathematicians, among them M. Rejewski, J. Rozycki and H. Zygalski. They made a replica of Enigma in 1933 and in August, 1939, Poland presented France and Great Britain with cracked Enigma specimens, which helped the allies to know the orders and plans of Third Reich. Too bad that the nations who had received such an important gift forgot about it so easily.


Alan Turing is the man who broke the enigma code & in the words of Hunter S Thompson saved all of us from spending our Saturday nights @ Circus-Circus. Alan Turing was a "fag". He was so poorly treated by the English establishment that he killed himself. That would have been a very interesting story. The story that actually made it to the screen was useless. Oh, Alan Turing is also considered the founder of computer science -- but f*** that let's just make a piece of mindless spooge.


I watched this with a dim knowledge of what went on at Bletchley in the second world war. I thought the film coped well with putting the complexity of codebreaking in a viewer-friendly way and accurately portrayed the dynamic of the communication challenges inherent when "suits" talk to "geeks".

That's about the limit of the good things I can say about the way this film delivers its message. It doesn't seem to be able to decide what the important things are and it doesn't help you get behind any of the protagonists' causes. Maybe that was the intent - the plot itself is a bit of an enigma - but I would have preferred a clearer indication of what the protagonists wanted for themselves. You could tell simply from the formula that he would get together with the dowdy female geek, but there was no clear turning point where he overcame his obsessive devotion to his missing ex.

A few good moments, but does little to educate and little to really entertain.


After the initial nostalgia of watching a VHS for the first time in years, having found this video amongst my parents collection of videos, there is nothing much else to say in the way of enjoying oneself watching this film.

Of course this has nothing to do with the actual film which, no doubt, most people will be watching on DVD anyway. I should first point out that this is a review from a person who prior to seeing the film read the book; an excellent and gripping thriller.

So, without going into particulars, the screenplay is atrocious. It comes across to me as though it has been written by someone who loved the book and wished to put as many small references to the book into the film as possible. There are many of these which only someone who has read the book will even notice. There are others that non-readers will also notice because they make so little sense to the story of the film and this is where the problem lies; in trying to make a faithful adaptation of the small details the screenwriter has forgotten to put any plot in. Towards the end of the film then, the screenwriter obviously decided that the script was missing something and so decided to change then entire end of the story. Worst of all is the pandering to either the female audience or the stardom of Kate Winslet, giving Hester Wallace a much larger part in the story than she originally had. I have nothing against this in principal but its simply not what Robert Harris wrote and a simply unnecessary change to the plot.

This brings me onto casting and then the acting of the people who were cast. Dougray Scott was possibly the worst idea of them all. He doesn't fit the description of Tom Jerico in the slightest and his acting, not to mention his accent, are horrible. Hester in the book is small and skinny: "I know! Lets cast someone who's pregnant!". Her acting is unremarkable and her persona changed somewhat too much. The rest of the cast is adequate. Kind of...

Why 3 stars and not 1 then? Well I don't want to be too harsh and you have to give credit to the crew, considering how incompetent they were, or at least remembering to turn the cameras on.


Okay, call me stupid. Or whatever. But I kept watching this twisting writhing thing I would a sick snake, simply because it did not make much sense. But these spy things are always a bit like that, tough to make because they are kind of cheap magician tricks, what do you show and what do you hide and if you hide too much its boring or confusing and you show too much and there is not a mystery. The first and foremostest was all the jabberwocky about codes. It would take a cryptologist to follow three quarters of the dialog, my head kept spinning, the pestle with the mestle has the brew that is true, et cetera et cetera et cetera, as the King of Siam would say. But it was kind of fun, and without being confused I suppose I would not have believed these characters. But then the business with the drive in the country, winding up in the barn, and all that, the movie really started to unravel. In the end I felt I was on some carnival midway hustled into a sideshow, and had to keep both hands over my pockets with just one wallet, so paranoid they were somehow gonna use the back pockets maybe to get to it, these tricky guys. In udder words, was not taken in, just paranoid. If this is a Tom Stoppard excursion into Pinterland, shrug. Double shrug. Also you always have to be careful about flashbacks piled upon flashbacks, the way this baby kept stacking them up: another movie that revolves around a disappearance, though without a single flashback, and gets it effects a lot more successfully , L"Aventura, in fact there are certain parallels that are fairly striking, even down to the girl friend and boy friend of the gone one winding up in each others arms, though one is a masterpiece, mostly, and this one a mismash. Kate Winslet however turns in her usual striking performance. Without her I would have shut it down after fifteen minutes. But anytime she is on screen, it's worth watching.


The reason I chose to rate this movie so low is because I couldn't understand a word of it. I do NOT recommend this film to anyone unless he/she can speak fluent Spanish. And speak it well. If you can't, you won't get the jokes.....TRUST ME. I assume it was a funny show because I saw people in the audience laughing their heads off. Thankfully, I rented it for a dollar instead of buying it. I just couldn't enjoy it. They would tell part of the joke in English, and then the punchline in Spanish. However, the movie was set up good and it was cool watching one of them drive on stage in a low-rider. But all this movie did was feed me Mexican food that I couldn't pronounce. So I didn't eat it. I would take a Spanish class before partaking of this movie.


This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.

It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality.

This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.

It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.


How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.

Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.


You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).

And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.

What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!


Awful, awful, and awful ! Even worse than " Brice of Nice" ... Even worse than " Arbres" ... Not even a glimpse of interest ! Vulgar, rogue, ... The only consolation I had was to see it on a DVD . Wasting ten dollars for such a crap in a theater would have been just unbearable !!!!!! I you want to see a Valerie Lemercier at her best, pass your way on Palais Royal and try to find the one and only " The Visitors" DVD one of my funniest movies! Actually, speaking of "Palais Royal", I really don't understand how such good actors like Denis Podalydes or Valerie Lemercier herself have accepted to play in such a movie. Oh, sorry, I was forgetting : Valerie Lemercier is the Director ! As a lesson, good actors don't always mean good film makers.

MutantMutton


This is the fourth Guy Maddin film I've seen--the others are The Dead Father, Tales From the Gimli Hospital, and Twilight of the Ice Nymphs--and I have yet to be impressed. Maddin's obsessive need to reproduce the conventions of old film styles isn't the problem, it's his utter inability to tell a compelling story. And while Careful looks quite good--though the tinting is at times oversaturated--his insistence on having his cast read the script in an arch deadpan style is simply annoying and frankly an insult to the films to which he is supposedly paying tribute. Maddin is the arthouse equivalent of Quentin Tarantino--reasonably well versed in film history, in awe of his cinema predecessors, and woefully unable to turn his love and knowledge into anything more than a game of spot the influence.


This film I have seen today on the International Film Festival Of Rotterdam. This film is really the worst film I have ever seen. I've seen a lot movies but this no move is so worse as this one. For a fan of films. This is really a nightmare!!!


When we watch movies and cartoons from the '40s and '50s, we can often tell that they came from that era, as they promote a happy-go-lucky, perpetually optimistic attitude. But they're usually still OK to watch. "So Much for So Little" doesn't fit in this group. It's purpose is to remind us that if we give three cents a week to health care, we'll cut down on the infant mortality rate. It displays this by showing a wholesome, all-American boy growing up through the years.

Well, we've seen the unfortunate reality. Almost 47 million Americans go each day without health care. Countless people live near toxic waste dumps to this day; New Orleans was already like a cesspool before Hurricane Katrina exacerbated the pollution. As for the boy's adult years, now that we can look back on the baby boomers' young adult life, it would have been more realistic to portray him as a hippie and then a disco pimp.

But the main point is that Chuck Jones should have known better than this. Maybe it would have come out better had he cast Bugs, Daffy, Porky or one of those other guys. You can find it in the documentary "Toonheads: The Lost Toons" on the Looney Tunes Golden Collection, and its status as part of Looney Tunes history is about the only thing that makes it worth watching (in fact, I wish that the documentary's narrator had poked fun at it rather than praising it).


Horribly one sided, this propaganda piece spouts the supposed merits of inoculations (whill conveniently NOT telling that those same shots can in some instances be MORE harmful than what they innoculate against) I learned of THAT travesty first hand and it's a bitch. That part of the animated short made me so damn mad that it tainted everything that was said afterwords. Not only is this pure unadulterated propaganda crap, it's also EXTREMELY dated and isn't worth watching due to it's horrendous use of fear tactics. This animated short can be seen as an extra in the "From the Vaults" section on Disc 4 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 2.

My Grade: F


I agree with the other imdb user. This PPV was the pits, ladder bout aside. The segments between Austin-Bischoff were amusing but we dont buy the PPVs to watch interviews. This was probably the worst card since King of the Ring 95 and that event was just inferior to this one. If you havent seen this event, DONT.


It was everything this isn't: it had pace, pop, and actors who weren't afraid to chew the scenery. It also had a decent script. This one had me scratching my head. If Farrah isn't really "serious" about a career, why does she have a manager (and why is he wasting his time)? If Kate and Barney are "artists," why do they sign up for The Mother of All Jiggle Shows (like the "Brady Bunch" movie where Robert Reed wants to do Shakespeare, only to find himself on BB)? They weren't industry names, but they weren't exactly starving, either. And while they got the history right (the poster was released before Farrah got the show), Silverman rejecting pitches for "Funniest Home Videos" and "American Idol" and Spelling promising his baby girl Tori someday he'll create a show for her obviously did not happen.

What bothered me was how Spelling's role is distorted. He's shown as the show-runner and creator when he was neither. And how he "comes up" with the "idea" for CA was is laughable!

How were Spelling and Goldberg allowed to enforce Farrah's oral contract when the others were signed? And why didn't Farrah or Bernstein tell them she was leaving not because she discovered her Inner Diva, but because Majors wanted her to? This is why, when it tries tries to created conflict and tension by setting Farrah up as the "bad girl" (like Suzanne Somers), it fails because the groundwork was never laid -- that was where the "Three's Company" pic delivered.


I happened to love the show growing up, along with millions of others. So I tuned in to this movie, thinking if not good it might be at least a bit dazzling and fun.

WRONG! I just have to wonder, at the end of this, was Charlie's Angels really that boring? I don't seem to remember it as such. But this movie, as bad as movies of this type can be, bore little resemblance to the excitement of that time period and show. I did see it all, in spite of the negatives, it wasn't unwatchable. But it was very bland, which I do not fault the performers for at all, particularly the women who played the angels as they really did look like them. The movie just wasn't that interesting. It tried to make each angel a "character". (One angel is to feisty, one is the "good girl", one is to into her husband....),all characters were portrayed with one major characteristic defining them and little depth beyond stereotypes. The excitement of the show was missing and the dialog was....dialog. That's pretty much it.

Not awful. Not the worst of TV movies. But missable.


This was shown on the biography channel and was about as informative as a children's comic! I gave it 2 out of 10 for it's attention to detail because for the most part it had a 70s feel to it and the three ladies that played the original three angels looked like them so the make-up was good.

This was supposed to be a biography on the biography channel but it was void of everything that is normally / usually seen in one of their biographies. No interviews with surviving cast members, crew members, production team members etc., or their friends, families, and any biographers of those people. In fact I know just as much now about the programme as I did before I watched this film that was based on the (supposedly) biographical book. As for actually learning something that no-one knew about the program and wasn't common knowledge well that never happened.


Review of An American Tale (Gone Western): I didn't like the first and original film based on the same characters. This one certainly did less for me. I remember being bored out of my mind while watching this (as a child). Maybe adults will find it cute, but I didn't like it at all, and I was in my early teens when I saw it.

Review of An American Tale: I could never get into this film as a child, and I had trouble relating to the characters. It was a sad story, but the sadness just seemed to make me cringe-especially when the mice started to sing about it. I just couldn't get into this film.

These were not my favourite Disney films. I'd recommend Bambi, Lady and The Tramp, and some of the others.


There was a time when my best friend and I, as teenagers, decided to see every single film that a local second-run multiplex carried. We pulled it off for over 2 years, and saw lots of great movies. This wasn't one of them.

We avoided seeing Fievel Goes West for most of its run; we found out it was going to be pulled out, though, and saw the last showing on the last day. We learned several things; one- parents of children are very suspicious of older males without children, when they are in a children's movie. Two- Bluth and Spielburg hate childless people.

I found the movie to be cloyingly sweet, with a childish plot and script, annoying dialogue, idiotic jokes, and very little in the way of humor. Granted, were I three, the movie would have been a gas, but unlike many other "childrens'" movies, there is *nothing* directed at the adults in the audience. No asides, no double-layered jokes... nothing.

The voice-acting is great, of course, but I cringe when I think of what the movie makers put their talented cast through. Every voice actor and actress in this deserves something better...

The animation is great and Disneyesque, but very "bouncy". I don't know how else to describe it. Everyone's skeletal structure is 100% cartilage or something... after years of watching anime, despite the quality of the animation, it's actually embarrassing to watch. At least it's not as bad as the 30's Van Beuren stuff. I can appreciate the technical wherewithal, but not the "entertainment value" of this style of animation...

Bottom line? Bring a kid along, and enjoy the child's enjoyment... otherwise you're going to need insulin afterwards.


When I was a kid I used to like the original first American Tail film, but then they started making straight-to-video sequels. This sequel is the only one I have seen, why did they have to make s sequel, at least as rubbish as this. Young Fievel Mousekevitz the mouse gets lost again (for a little while) and then decides to try and get rid of all the cats from the West part of America, where the story left off. The only parts I can remember of this film were the parts with Tiger the cat and John Cleese as the voice of the villain. Apparently there was also the voices of Jon Lovitz, and, in his last film before his death, Rear Window and It's a Wonderful star James Stewart. They are meant to be the reason for the film earning a second star. Pretty poor!


"Jade" hasn't got enough in the way of memorable scenes or entertaining dialogue to be a thriller. My impression is of a "that'll do, let's get it in the can" attitude towards the script, the direction and the lack luster air of some of the cast. The video cassette I have says on the packaging:"An Erotic Thriller". There is quite a lot of what could be called sex in this movie, but the last thing it has is eroticism. I bought my copy from the special offers rack at a local store, reduced 70% from retail. There is a hung jury on whether or not I wasted my money!

Two of the leading players, David Caruso "David Corelli" and Linda Fiorentino "Trina Gavin" look uncomfortable in every scene they do. When David Caruso left east coast cop TV to make movies in Hollywood I imagine this by the numbers effort wasn't the sort of thing he had in mind. Linda Fiorentino has made better appearances too. I prefer to remember her in "The Last Seduction" and "Body Count". "Body Count" also provides an opportunity to see David Caruso doing much better work.

Perhaps fortunately, Chazz Palminteri and Richard Crenna seem completely at home with their roles of "Matt Gavin" and " Lew Edwards" respectively. The MG characterization is well done. Chazz Palminteri's interpretation, with its calculated cordiality and sinister edge, makes a decent job of unexceptional material. LE is Governor of California. Richard Crenna gives him just the right amount of ruthless deviousness to be entirely believable as a career politician.

Other things about "Jade" are worth a mention - at least they interest me, anyway! The set dressing of the rich man's house has been done in impressive style by people who clearly know how to create visual atmosphere. Some of the soundtrack music is also better than routine. The closing credits are accompanied by an excellent, haunting vocal, "The Mystic Dream", performed by Loreena McKennitt. At least I think that's the lady's name, the credit is fuzzy on my tape.

Being few and far between, the good bits don't save the movie.


Hard to believe this was directed by the same guy that once made "The French Connection". Sure, this was written by the king of sleaze Joe Eszterhas (this was the lowest he got yet: one of the victims held a collection of female pubic hair) but at least Paul Verhoeven managed to turn "Basic Instinct" and even "Showgirls" into something more watchable than this rubbish. Besides, director William Friedkin is also to blame, if anything for his bland, indifferent direction. The Chinatown car chase sequence, which some other users around here seem to appreciate was poorly constructed, filmed and edited and there's a sex scene involving a high heel on a man's crouch that beats the pool scene from "Showgirls" in hilarity. Linda Fiorentino plays a sad caricature of her character in "The Last Seduction", while David Caruso pulls off a pretty decent performance. There's a certain atmospheric appeal to this movie but the predictable, derivative mystery is not even remotely satisfying.


I liked the opening scenes, nice camera work. "Jade" opens with static interior scenes of a rich guy's opulent mansion. Of course he's dead in an upstairs bedroom where his S&M equipment is located, along with his collection of exotic weapons, one of which has been used to hack him to death. Who could have done such a horrible deed? We know right away that the dead rich guy was a morally corrupt creep and probably got what he deserved, but the detective character, who is really an assistant district attorney (Caruso), has to investigate, right? Right away I didn't care much who did it. That's a bad sign in a mystery.

Now there's this woman, who's not only a prostitute but a psychiatrist, and a major psychopath: "Jade" (Fiorintino). She's married to the ADAs best friend, a rich defense attorney (Palminteri) and the ADA used to be in love with her. Neither knows that at night she goes out to a high-class whore house in Pacifica and sells her angular body to fulfill the twisted fantasies of rich, powerful, morally corrupt old men.

The plot doesn't so much thicken as curdle. The governor of the State of California (Crenna) is involved, and he's the most morally corrupt of all. Little more than a meaty Mafia boss or tinpot dictator, he orders hits and hurls threats. He should have a cigar to chew. And of course he too is a patron of the notorious "Jade." He's obviously responsible for several murders but, as others have pointed out, is never brought to justice.

This plot doesn't make any sense. "Jade," the psychopathic psychiatrist, is a cypher, we never get a sense of motive or emotion or even of emotional injury. She's as cold as dry ice. Caruso seems to want to save her, but really, didn't she bring it all on herself? And she is one of the most unlikable, and most un-sexy femme fatale ever to flounce on the silver screen. She obviously hates having sex with her husband, but he wants her even more when he finds out she's rotten.

This stylish thriller is just too stylish for its own good. It's all surface. The characters are shallow and unlikable, the plot makes no sense, the chase scenes are well done but contribute nothing to the story. If you like a glitzy surface you might like "Jade" but otherwise, forget it.


I'm the sort of guy who stays behind to read the closing credits of a movie . I'm also the sort of guy who makes a note of who the producer , director and screenwriter is . I guess that's the difference between the average IMDb user and the average movie watcher . The movie watcher is only interested in the genre of the movie and who stars in it and very little else . Being a regular contributor to this site means I notice names average movie watcher has little interest in . The downside to this is that a name appearing on the credits can prejudice my view of a film

Take JADE for instance which was written by Joe Eszterhas . Did my knowledge of Eszterhas mean that I think this movie is very similar in tone to BASIC INSTINCT whereas it's not and any comparison lies in my own biased knowledge of the screenwriter , or is JADE genuinely similar to BASIC INSTINCT ? Certainly this is a movie that seems to have been produced with the same market trend for erotic thrillers that were being made at the time , with the worst one being that one with Madonna and Willem Defoe

The plot revolves around a murder and a senior DA is brought in and the main suspect is a femme fatale with dubious sexual tastes . Cue lots of sexual intrigue , sleazy deviants and plot twists , few of which are convincing . And being the sort of guy who makes notes of who the director is I couldn't help noticing that William Friedkin is the guy who made THE FRENCH CONNECTION a film famous for a car chase . We get to see a car chase here which ends in the death of several million Chinese . If someone is thinking of doing a bio-pic on Chairman Mao they could do worse than hire Friedkin as the director !

I will say a couple of good things about JADE . The first is that Linda Fiorentino is very well cast as Trina Gavin who just oozes an understated smouldering sexuality , she's far better than than Sharon Stone in BASIC INSTINCT and a million miles better than Madonna in BODY OF EVIDENCE . Secondly I just love the very haunting quasi Celtic song The Mystic's Dream by Lorenna McKennitt . But apart from that JADE isn't really worth going out of your way to see


What a farce. I think Joe Eszetheras got out his first draft of Basic Instinct and gave this to the producers and they loved it. They probably did what all execs do that think they have taken a proven formula and try to use it again. They laugh and think that they can use it again and people will eat it up. The only problem is, William Friedkin is not Paul Verhoeven, Linda Fiorentino is not Sharon Stone, David Caruso is not Michael Douglas and Jade is a very bad clone of Basic Instinct. But there are so many familiar similarities in these two films that it makes you cringe watching them. Fiorantino is a psychiatrist, so was Stone. Caruso is a cop, so was Douglas. Caruso drove a Mustang, so did Douglas. They both take place in San Francisco so that they can have a car chase over lots of hills and almost destroy both cars in the process. There are lots of underground sexual practises in both films. And they both try to be sexy. And both open with a violent murder of a very improtant figure. I honestly can't believe that the producers would buy this and then spend 50 million on it with a B cast. I'm not one of those people that thinks that Caruso is a bad actor, but I certainly don't think that he is big enough from a TV show to open a film, and if I, as a casual film fan can figure that out for myself, then why can't powerful movie executives? It just makes no sense to me. Caruso has charisma and he is quite good in this role, but he should be happy sticking to supporting roles. He just doesn't have a name to kickstart a film. As for the director, when was was the last time that he made anything that was good? I honestly believe that he got lucky when he made The Exorcist although I do think that The French Connection was pretty good. But that was 20 years ago. Maybe he has lost his touch.

Jade is boring, uninteresting, slow and laughable. You want to figure out who the killer is? You should really have two guesses. Find out who has the biggest names in the film and consider how much screen time they have. One has two scenes and the other is in it quite a bit but just hangs around in the background. Of course there is the "surprise" ending that will just "shock" you as much as Sixth Sense ( yeah right!!!!!!!!) Jade is a really bad film and it is not worth your time. It is laughable and silly and the only thing that I kinda of enjoyed was when I realized that Caruso and Crenna were once in a film together 13 years before this one. That was First Blood. It was probably funny when they first met on the set after all that time. Back then Crenna had more of a name, after all he was Trautman. Caruso was just Mitch. Now Caruso is trying to make a name for himself with this film again. I don't think it will work. Other than that small piece of trivia, there is nothing to like abou this film. It is worth avoiding.


(my comments are based on the unrated director's cut which runs 12 minutes longer than the R-rated theatrical cut)

call it Basic Instinct part 2, since it's by the same writer and basically the exact same movie for the most part just with different actors.

the numerous explicit sex scenes are about as unerotic as you can get, and the movies centerpiece, the car chase, seems to go on forever. i honestly feel that this movie could of had something going for it with a little restraint in the sex department and better writing.

a barely competent erotic/thriller.

rating:4


This is a Basic Instict rehash plain and simple, actually it's a pre draft of basic instict. The directing is a mess, I can't believe this guy shot the french connection. But now he's old and where he tries to be different here, he is instead just plainly bad...Tight close ups for no reasons, boring set scenes, saturated photography...the cast is decent but with such a trite script...the dialog is worse than trivial.

Its only saving grace is an unintended one, and maybe with that meditation in mind this can actually become a good film: Because the grotesqueness, blandness and stupidity in the realisation and script of this film reflects the world of powerless unsexual morons acting all powerful and sexual. Obviously this is unintended as this tries to be edgy, erotic and smart. It tries to be a murder mystery, a who done it on coke a la BI, but it ends up being a who gives a ..., I 've never been so emotionally detached at the end of any mystery.

But in this way it poetically conveys within it's form the artificiality of power and sex, the dead end that is pleasure without sentiments and sensibility.

A bland, derivative, tasteless film about power, sex and wealth, that fails so miserably that its failure becomes a medium of expression and gives the film an unintended second narrative level. It's also starkly realist, because what can be more real than a failed Hollywood flop on sex, money and power. You don't see people doing realistic actions, but you see people acting, directing badly, writing scripts badly. The epitome of decadence.

It could even be quite a good sobering experience, even weirdly lyrical if one watches it with that in mind.


I was disappointed, given the talent involved. We have a right to expect better. In it, a cop (David Caruso) investigates the brutal, ritualistic murder of an art dealer, and finds the murder weapon has the fingerprints of his former lover (Linda Fiorentino), a beautiful psychiatrist who is married to his friend, a powerful, corrupt lawyer. It could have been good. Fiorentino gives as good a performance as is possible under the circumstances, and the film is well-shot on location, with haunting background music. But the story is wallows in sordid behavior and it doesn't make a lot of sense. And the solution to the murder is tacked on to the end, as if an afterthought, and it doesn't make a great deal of sense, either. The audiences certainly weren't impressed, and this film damaged the careers of everyone involved. Indeed, it nearly deep-sixed David Caruso's career, as he left "Hill Street Blues," at its peak of popularity to appear in this film. Too bad!


Not exactly evoking horror, but Boris Karloff is a sadistic master of an insane asylum. The charming Anna Lee lands in bad graces with the wrong people and finds herself locked away in a hotbed of madness. She is valiant in her efforts to expose the horrid conditions at the asylum. Running time is a short hour and 19 minutes full of creepy atmosphere and Mr. Karloff in top form. Also in the cast are: Billy House, Jason Robards Sr. and Richard Fraser.