After seeing this film I have to revise my understanding of the word 'comedy'. A good warning sign is any film that describes itself as 'quirky' or 'dark' and sure enough, Paradise Grove is neither of these. It assumes that to make a film jewish only requires that a character has to say schmuck and schwartzer a few times.

Paradise Grove is totally devoid of anything resembling humour, the script sounds like it was made up ten minutes before shooting started and some plot devices look like they were bolted on from a completely different film. Some of the shots would make a first year film student proud. Rula Lenska shows talent by managing to pull off a passable appearance given the dire lack of material she is given to work with, but Ron Moody looks as though he only turned up to collect the pay cheque and Lee Blakemore as Kim makes Metal Mickey look like Lawrence Olivier.

Ultimately this is probably one of the worst films I have had the agony to watch. By the end I almost felt embarrassed and was certainly intrigued as to how a film like this managed to get funded. Maybe it is an educational tool to show how not to make films.

Do not expect to see at a cinema near you...ever!!!


Poor Rula Lenska & Ron Moody how far they have fallen, to accept and perform in this clichéd dirge! Script, script, script I hear the gate keepers, the producers, the film council shouting, if the foremost essential key to a successful film, but know one obviously took the time read this one and kill this abomination at birth, in fact it would seem that unbelievably know one read it before taking part in this rubbish. Evidently everyone involved fees were high because the stench this one will leave behind will follow everyone who took part in this travesty of a drama to their graves. Take my advise and watch instead some early afternoon Australian soap reruns from the eighties, like 'Cellblock H' the performances are comparable the plausibility of the drama and dialogue vastly superior.


This film was shown at this year's Sydney Film Festival as 'Half-Price'. I'm afraid I can't give a complete and proper review because I walked out on it after watching just over half of it. And I wasn't alone, as I noticed twenty or so other people leaving at the same time. I swear I heard the phrases "rats leaving a sinking ship" and "women and children first" in the foyer as people left. This is in fact the first time I've ever walked out on a movie, so that tells you something. I have no idea whether the film finds a way to justify itself in the end, but it had already used up all of my patience. I presume the director was trying to show us something about the lives of children when they're alone together by filming them up close, letting them do their own thing, and not including anything else that would intrude (such as a plot or dialogue). But from what I sat through, no matter what the pretentious intentions or justifications behind the film are, all that you're left with is the kind of boredom you'd get from watching someone else's particularly dull home movies of their kids. We're told very little about their lives, so we're left to watch their behaviour without any useful context. They listen to music, laugh, and go to the toilet. So what! Apart from the fact that the kids play together, we don't even get a feel for the bonds between them. This is really only bearable for a short while. By the 30-minute mark I was bored out of my skull. And when you're that bored, you start to question the point of watching scenes of kids sitting on the toilet, or hanging around the house naked while playing music. It's a lot like having someone show you pictures of their kids. If there are a couple of embarrassing photos in there - their kid naked in the bath or something - that's fine. But if it turns out that a whole heap of the photos are of their kids naked in the bath, then it can become plain weird and uncomfortable, and you start wondering why the person showing them to you doesn't realise it. It seems that I'm the first person to review this movie on IMDb. Hopefully someone who's sat through the whole thing will come along and write the second one, which might be more helpful than mine. But in the meantime, my advice would be to give this one a miss.


The film is more "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, instead of just plain funny. While it does have it's moments such as several points of "the misbehavers" including the end shot and the suddeness that ends "the man from Hollywood". But the rest seems to fall rather flat with poor production and muddled continuity. (a couple of the four "acts" play out at the same time and while at first glance seeing both sides of a phone call in different segments seems novel, you realize that the timing would not allow Ted the bellhop to be in two places at the same time.) Even the opening of Tarantino's Logo with Tim Roth's "Mr. Orange" unzipping to become "Ted the Bellboy" is funnier than most of the intended jokes. There are a lot of surprise cameos here, but that doesn't make the final product much better than an interesting diversion. Purely for fans of Tarantino and his gang.


Okay, i'm a guy so i had to like all the toplessness in the first Room, the second room was quite annoying, 3rd room was humorous, gotta love the children, the little boy is from desperado. cute kids. The 4th room, well, its tarantino so its a 10. The only reason i got this movie was for Robert Rodrigous and Tarantino. Wasnt worth the 14 dollars though. I think Tim Roths character got annoying after the first 10 mins, obviously tarentino or rodrigous didnt pick the music for they're rooms, all in all, Dont waste your money, but if your a True Tarantino fan you must get it.


Awful awful awful.... don't spedn the seemingly 8 hours it takes to watch this film. It can be funny in parts, but it really drags on, and has no pay off at the end. Stare at the wall or do something prodcutive instead of watching this poor effort.


Weak, self-indulgent, misfiring at every step. I hope everyone had a good time making this mess, because the end result is not worth seeing.


This is what happens when creative people think they can do anything and it will work. Its also what happens when "hot"celebrities are allowed to make a joke thats nothing but a self serving in joke.

This is a bunch of stories, by different directors none of which is very good. Trying to figure out which segment is better is sort of like trying to figure out which pile of garbage is the best.

If you've never heard of this film, I'm not surprised since the film was barely released to theaters. It almost never plays on TV, so unless you've sought it out, something I can't recommend, you've never seen it.

Ultimately, other than for money the only reason I can think this was made was so that the directors would know that they never could make a worse film.

3 out of 10


The trailer certainly did its job attracting this viewer. I was not sure what type of movie I expected based on the trailer, but what I saw was nothing like what I thought I'd be seeing. The actual storyline was somewhat silly. The characters were by no means believable. I thought I liked Paul Giamatti, but his acting seems be the same as in the Cinderella Man. Bryce Dallas Howard is someone I cannot place, although she has been in a few big movies. She couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag, much less out of a swimming pool. I have grown really tired of stereotypical Asian butchering of English. My wife is Chinese. Her second language is English. She doesn't sound like the Young-Sook Choi character. For that matter, few to none of the people I met and taught over my three years in China sounded like the Choi character. Overall, I thought the acting was fairly bad. I should have waited for it to come out on video.


This movie was terribly done, although Paul Giamatti did well in his performance it was not enough to save this film. I watched this movie in a theater packed with other people all excited about this film, however after its showing, more than half were at the box office demanding their money back. We pay money to be entertained in theaters, many were not entertained and therefore received rain-check vouchers. Bottom line,... go rent Sixth Sense.

This movie was a tall order to swallow. Shyamalan has let all of his followers down and really has failed the viewing community this time. Please like I said go rent something else or watch Clerks 2!!!!!


Recently I watched a TV show that stated it was written by Writing credits by M. Night Shyamalan as a bedtime story for his children. He must have seen a rerun of the movie "Mr. Peabody and the Mermaid" with William Powell and Ann Blyth, as this is so similar to the plot that Guy Jones and Constant Jones should be getting credit for the writing.

The story is excellent, however, it belongs to someone else as far as credit of the writing goes.

For the man to find a narf in his swimming pool is what William Powell found on a vacation in the hotel swimming pool, except it was a mermaid. The man in Lady in the Water protects the narf, just like William Powell does in protecting Ann Blyth the mermaid. The man in Lady in the Water is trying to get the narf back to story land and in the William Powell movie he is trying to get the mermaid back to the other mermaids in the sea.


The first time I saw the trailer for this film was about year ago inside a movie house. It showed a lot of promise, I was even mesmerized as it used Josh Groban's Mi Mancherai to great effect which left the viewer with such a teaser that I could not wait to know more about the film and its plot. Soon after wards a lot of internet hype went into this film based upon the fact that a lot of people are anticipating M. Night Shyamalan's movies. With the lackluster "The Village" as this film's predecessor it was time to look into a refreshing albeit familiar direction one expects of M. Night and after a year or so of waiting I finally saw it tonight. It is by far, the most unimaginative of all of M. Night Shyamalan's films and to me the most self-indulgent. Most of the time the film seems to be trying too hard to put that mystery and suspense that it feels contrived. I have also noticed a shift in his story telling style particularly his use of a lot of "Hollywood special effects" instead of the use of natural surroundings to create that distinct Shyamalan style of storytelling suspense which I loved and saw in his previous films. This feels like a sell out film and I think a wee bit egotistical to put himself as an important though not central character instead of his usual cameo appearance. This I think was the most detrimental to an already obtuse storyline. In closing, I think he should go back to the style that he became famous for and not try too hard to get lost in his own myth and persona.


This was typical for the period, and is still true today. Caucasian bashing. This kind of "reverse discrimination" continues today. The picture began during the genesis of the Socialist "Hippie" movement, as an outgrowth of the "beatnik" to the "social justice" drumbeat of today's "politically correct" silencing of America's majority.

Demonize the dominant culture and make them all appear as hate-filled morons. It was said before "Chicanos good, Caucasians bad". This is not really new. I wouldn't watch it again. There is no point to this malarkey. I would just as soon watch an anti-American flag-burning rally. I became tired of it at age 13 and I am tired of it now.


I'm rarely if ever disappointed by any movies HBO makes, but I was disappointed enough with wasting two hours on this one that I felt compelled to say something. Anyone looking for a moving account of a profoundly tragic and shameful event in American history ought to keep looking. Don't get me started...

OK, fine! If I came into this film with no understanding of how the US Government screwed the Sioux out of their land (and this was the case), I still have no idea how, when, where, or why this happened. Which land? Why was it so precious to them? Why did the US want it? What were the specifics of the homestead program we tried to impose? Why didn't the Sioux just take the money? The movie just throws you into the middle of their numerous town-hall sessions and expects you to know what's going on. The movie did nothing to capture the stark beauty of that land, the spirituality of the culture, didn't go far enough back to show you what they were missing, what they were trying to regain. It would have been nice to see a real buffalo hunt to recognize what a pathetic sham the reservation buffalo-hunt simulator was. The Sioux are just shown to be a bunch of stubborn, troublesome, raggedy refugees, so the sympathy just isn't there.

How does Adam Beach keep getting work? I realize there's probably a scarcity of Native American actors out there, but this guy's the center of your story and he's got the emotional range of a light switch. He was awful in WINDTALKERS and he's awful here. You can really sense how lost he is playing off Anna Paquin and Aidan Quinn.

What the heck was with those little photo-montage-transition thingies? The movie was slow enough without the director throwing those pictures in there to help bring it to a screeching halt multiple times. It's as if he was just trying to give a shout-out to the makeup people and casting agents: "Ooooh, look how we made this guy look like THAT guy! Yay for us!" If anything, it just helped embalm his story even more by tying it to the past with semi-relevant old tintypes instead of making it live and breathe. Whatever else he was going for, I missed it.

Finally, we come to the climax(?) of the piece, the massacre itself, which is only recounted in a flashback, with no build-up, no clear nuts-and-bolts demonstration of the hate-whitey all-night rave parties thrown by the fed-up Sioux, and no clear motivation supplied by the men who sent in the soldiers. I'd have to watch it again, but they didn't even say how many people on both sides bought the farm, and it was an extremely bloody affair. If they were trying to present the whole story through the eyes of the doctor, I would have understood a back-handed recounting since he wasn't at the creek, but the movie switched narratives multiple times, so the directing and editing and even storytelling decisions don't build any tension at all. You could have had a Native American version of DO THE RIGHT THING here and you BLEW IT!!! One minute, everyone's huddled in blankets complaining about crummy treaties, and the next BAM!!! Dead, frozen Sioux.

What happened at Wounded Knee is the crowning nightmare in a catalog of infamies done to our Native American brothers. I wanted to be angry after watching this, maybe even choked up a bit. No dice. Perhaps the most affecting moment in the movie is a closing title saying the Sioux have never to this date taken a dime for the Black Hills, implying that they're still doin' the Ghost Dance, waiting for Whitey to destroy himself (won't be long) so they can just move back in. When a closing title is the most compelling thing in your film, you're in trouble.


This horrifying flick seems to do its best in blurring and romanticizing events so much that way things actually happened becomes romanticed and messed. Which is of course the main reason of the movie. Characters doesn't show most anything from real people, the events are of course 'based on actual guideline', but there's just that something(a lot) which doesn't fit in (too much uncorrectness to mention).

Somehow, the Indian characters seem more white that they should (as most are played by Indian) and somehow white characters seem more like bureacrates than actual officers and congressmen. And of course in most conversations them (w.a.s.p.) get the last word. And of course them victims (massacred) weren't saints themselves, and of course them religious movement was actually hoax, and of course all of it happened in more romantic times in distant past. And besides of all these things, the film is actually quite boring.

Some credit goes to guidelines in the end of the movie, which at least seem to be correct.


This 1997 TV production is called "Jane Eyre", but except for a similarity to the plot of the novel there is preciously little in this film to remind you that you are indeed watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's literary masterpiece. How they managed to get every single character of the novel wrong - except for Pilot, who is well cast - is a complete mystery to me, but they did. This is the more a pity because with Samantha Morton and Ciaràn Hinds they had two good actors, who even physically fit their roles well, but, alas, the greatest talent is of no avail when the concept of the characters is as wrong as in this adaptation. Samantha Morton - young, delicate and plain enough - looks like Jane Eyre, but does not play Jane Eyre. Her Jane is far too bold, even disrespectful at times, self-confident and self-satisfied, bossy and pert. Gone is the interesting duality of Jane's character in the novel, her outward shyness, guardedness and modesty on the one hand and her fire and passion on the other. Morton's Jane speaks her mind boldly right from the beginning and never stops doing so throughout the film. There is no subtlety in her performance, her Jane undergoes no change and no development. The same is sadly also true for the character of Mr. Rochester. Believe it or not, but they indeed managed to turn one of the most interesting and complex figures of English literature into a brute and a bully. Luckily Ciaràn Hinds possesses some charisma, but otherwise nothing links him to the eloquent and fascinating character of the novel. Not the slightest attempt was made to explore the depths of Rochester's character, his many contradicting facets, his moodiness, his inner struggle, his humour and his tenderness. The Rochester of the novel is admittedly insolent and harsh at times, but never the unrefined, snarling brute Ciaràn Hinds makes him. Yet Hinds is even worse at playing the loving Rochester, and the only feeling he manages to convey is lust.

Unfortunately the misrepresentation of the characters is not limited to the leading roles: Blanche, besides being blonde, is not in the least haughty enough, not to mention the fact that she is nice to Adèle, St. John is all smiles and kindness, and the role of Mrs. Fairfax has been unnecessarily puffed up, probably due to the fact that she is played by dear Gemma Jones. Yet some scenes less with Mrs. Fairfax fussing around and some scenes more between Jane and Rochester would have been very helpful to make the audience understand why the two latter fall in love in the first place.

As far as language is concerned this production is another victim of the delusion of some scriptwriters who either think that they can improve on Charlotte Brontë's brilliant language or that her 19th century English has to be simplified to become digestible for a modern audience. The result is that the dialogues are severely changed or replaced by the scriptwriter's own banal lines. In either case they have lost all the charm, sparkle and brilliance of the dialogues in the novel. Poor misguided scriptwriter Richard Hawley even deemed it necessary to make Rochester introduce one of his most famous lines - the line about the string that inextricably binds Jane and him together - with the words: "I know it may sound silly but...." No, Mr. Hawley, if somebody sounds silly here, it is definitely NOT Charlotte Brontë! Another capital error of judgement - and unfortunately also an insult to good taste - is the way they rewrote the farewell scene between Jane and Rochester after the aborted wedding, a scene, by the by, which in all the modern adaptations has received a particularly brutal treatment. Whereas in the latest Jane Eyre production of 2006 that scene was an outrage to Charlotte Brontë's Jane, the way the scene is handled in this adaptation is an outrage to Charlotte Brontë's Rochester. What? Rochester insulting Jane when she intends to leave him, bullying her, throwing her suitcase over the banister and telling her to go if she does not love him enough to stay? Absolutely ridiculous! It is hard to imagine what has gotten into the filmmakers to produce such rubbish as this.

This is the worst, but there are many others scenes which are similarly absurd and ludicrous: the first scene of Rochester galloping in slow motion through the mist before he falls into a brook, Grace Poole coming out of the lunatic's room to sniff at Mason's wounds like a wild beast, Rochester sitting on the top of an archway of Thornfield as if he were the court jester and Mason jumping on horseback over the church fence to prevent a marriage of which he has heard only heavens knows how.

Equally lamentable is the filmmakers' inability to represent the correct social behaviour of the 1850ies. Rochester and Jane are far too disrespectful to each other at first and later far too hot. Sentences like "I feel that your passions are aroused" are appropriate for "Sex in the City", but not for a costume drama, let alone Jane Eyre. Obviously the filmmakers decided not to bother at all - neither about being true to the novel, nor about portraying the novel's era accurately. The result is a sad failure - both as a film and an adaptation of Jane Eyre. The only fact with which the makers of this Jane Eyre can console themselves is that the BBC failed even worse in the subsequent production of Jane Eyre in 2006.


While this is not the worse adaptation it did have its flaws which may keep the Jane Eyre fans cringing. Although shortened, I thought that the editing was reasonable. I didn't mind most the scenes they cut. I did find the updated dialogs annoying at times, because it often obscured the real motivations for the characters actions. I think that the writers of the screenplay were a bit uncomfortable with the religious undertones to Jane's goodness and for her leaving Edward.

Now I think that Ms. Morton did not understand her character at all. She plays the scene where she first learns who Edward is in a very haughty way. She seems to think that Jane is some feminist archetype, bold and sassy...when in reality Jane, because of years of oppression at Lowood knew "her place" yet, was so good, she answered Edward's questions truthfully...even if her answers seemed bold. In a way Jane of the book was like a bird in a cage, it is only after finding that Edward wanted her to truly be free to be herself that she spoke more freely in his presence. He freed her...(not a popular modern outlook but the book was written some time ago). Jane only speaks up as the story progresses because of Edwards goading her, and her own desire to finally have a voice. Miss Morton also make some rather unusual facial expressions, she smiles when she hears she will meet the elusive Mr. Rochester...why?... just got yelled at by the man...why would she smile about the prospect of meeting him?Weird. It is like this "Jane" read the book and knew what was going to happen next.Yikes.

Hind's Rochester at first felt spot on, moody...but then he just started yelling giving it a less than nuanced delivery. I would have fled, if I were Jane, because with all that yelling I would have been afraid of a man like that. I have seen him in the film "Persuasion" and found him wonderful...so perhaps direction was the problem.

Another cloying aspect to this production is the general "lightness" of Thornfield. I guess I prefer a somewhat dark and gloomy place that hints at the horror that burdens Mr. Rochester...but on this note I will say this is a personal preference of mine. Others may find the scenery and set decoration more fitting and proper than previous versions.

Did I hate this production? No. I think it does flow nicely. It has its high point in showing the passion. I also appreciate every telling of my favorite story. I do suggest that if you want to see a dark and mysterious version...try Orson Wells, or a more accurate version try the one with Timothy Dalton.


The people who wrote this miniseries clearly read the Cliff's Notes instead of the book. I've read "Jane Eyre" half a dozen times; I turned this movie off maybe halfway through. I spent most of the time marveling at how the producers skipped over classic lines and moments from the book to invent dialogue.

They glossed over Jane's early days -- her childhood and time at school -- and then rewrote the love story. The way Jane meets Rochester is wrong. His feelings about his French ward and the story behind her are wrong. The interactions among characters are wrong.

See, what the filmmakers forgot is that the characters in this book have a strong sense of propriety. They are formal. Ranks mattered, and people behaved accordingly -- the passionate yet meek Jane and the moody yet tractable Mr. Rochester never forget their stations, and that influences their interactions. Samantha Morton's Jane is outrageously insubordinate and demanding from the moment she formally meets Rochester. It's simply out of character. Ciaran Hinds plays a decent Mr. Rochester, but he lays on the Grade-A jerk too heavily. Rochester isn't mean to Jane even if he is a bit gruff. Even the minor characters don't look the part. The best casting is Gemma Jones as kindly Mrs. Fairfax; she does a great job.

I've always believed that film adaptations of books should honor the originals and follow them as closely as possible. You shouldn't take the characters and alter them to fit your audience, you shouldn't invent parts just to suit your needs, and you shouldn't cut parts for the same reason. This book has endured for more than a hundred years; it clearly has something going for it. Why mess with that? If you have read "Jane Eyre," this movie is extremely disappointing. If you haven't read the book, it's not much better. The filmmakers get to the love story as quickly as possible, but Morton and Hinds lack chemistry, and their scenes of passion are actually quite funny.

Give this one a miss.


Few movies have moved me enough to write reviews on IMDb. This has been one of them. I have to voice my opinion about how terrible this movie is. I watched the movie because Ciaran Hinds was in it, and I normally LOVE his work. But just through his portrayal of Mr. Rochester in this adaptation of Jane Eyre, he has undermined my love for his acting. If I were him, I would refuse to play Rochester in the manner he has done in this movie.

There are far too many things deviant and completely improbable in this movie. Mr. Rochester pointing towards Jane Eyre's breasts?!!!!! Mr. Rochester displaying affection openly for Adele????? Mr. Rochester acts too much like a lovesick schoolboy and Jane is far too cheeky.

The more adaptations of Jane Eyre I watch, the more I realize that the only truly beautiful version is the Timothy Dalton - Zelah Clarke version. The beauty of that adaptation is beyond description. The story is faithful to the book, and so are the characters and their behavior. The dialogue is not frivolous or superficial or stupid, but follows the book almost exactly.

I wish now that I had never seen the Hinds-Morton version. Please, even if you do watch this movie, do not deprive yourself of the pleasure of watching the Dalton-Clarke version.


This movie was okay...as far as movie adaptions of novels go but it was not accurate with quite a few scenes:

1. Whatever happened to Jane's realtionship with Miss Temple and her renounsing Brocklehursts punishment against Jane?

2. What happened to Rochester being the fortune teller and tricking Blanche Ingram into telling him that she was only planning to marry him for his money? Also, his talk with Jane as the fortune teller was deleted.

3. Jane DID NOT tell St. John Rivers her real name when she got there. She kept Jane and told him it was an alias and that she did not want to communicate with anyone.

4. Why was it never mentioned that St, John Rivers was Jane's cousin? And that John Eyre died? Or, of the letter that he wrote to Jane from Madiera or the letter she wrote back to him?

5. Also, the confrontation with Mrs. Reed at Gateshead was quite important. Mrs. Reed conveyed hereverlasting disgust with Jane and told of the arrival of her uncle Johns letter many years back.

This movie lacked the spunk that the book did. Mr. Rochester was just a selifish, sarcastic brute. In the book, he was these things as well as imginative and lovable. I ,as a reader, was starting to fall in love with him as Jane was too. I was disgusted by the Mr. Rochester in this movie...

If you liked the book, i wouldn't see this movie.. it was a waste of my time and will be of yours also.


Did not enjoy the new Kojak one little bit. The opening to the pilot was supposed to shock, but I just laughed. Compared to the current 'gritty' shows out there, this sucked (no pun intended!!!!). The way it was filmed put me off straight away. With dodgy slow motion techniques which should now belong in the dark ages. This has nothing I haven't seen before. Compared to high quality shows like Sopranos, The Shield, Six Feet Under, Lost & CSI, this is just poor. Don't get me wrong, I like Ving Rhames, he's a class act. But I think he's making a big mistake with this. Perhaps it will get better once the series is shown over her in the UK, but I doubt it.


I started watching re-runs of Law and Order on USA about the same time Kojak started to air, and I think it's safe to say that as cheesy as Law and Order can get from time to time, it beats Kojak by a mile. With the former, there is at least lip service given to trying to break the typical mold for a cop drama. However, with Kojak I am hesitant to call anything that happens a "plot twist" as any so-called plot reveal can be seen coming from a mile away. This show is nothing short of a caricature of the generic cop drama, and therefor Hollywood's interpretation of what it takes to make a cop seem "bad" and "a renegade." I think it's a shame that the show's writers stoop to such lows to hammer home over and over that Kojak's a cop on the edge, willing to do whatever it takes to bring the bad man in, blah blah blah. This phony macho tough guy cop stuff is more overused than fart jokes on South Park, only in this case without the attached ironic humor.

It's hard to like a show that panders to the lowest common denominator of cop show watcher so quickly in its run, especially when within five episodes the chief is already engulfed in a crime mystery. That kind of lame sweeps-week cop-out (I better copyright this stupid pun before the Kojak writers see it) doesn't usually surface in a series's long journey to the middle until their ratings take a nose-dive, seeing as how ridiculous and pathetic it is as a basis for an episode's plot. Just watching the 'african-american boy from hard times trying to make it in the white man's world while being pressured to become a hoodlum" or the "he's a deadly sniper who'll kill you in a second but he's got a family and a split personality that includes a heart of gold" was enough to make me want to vomit and laugh at the same time, sort of a yuk-yak (back of Kojak, this one's mine too). Not only are these ludicrous ideas completely moronic, but they're done in such a heavy-handed way that there's no possible way to salvage any ability to be watched.

I gave you five episodes Kojak. Congratulations, I can't watch any more. Good luck Ving when you inevitably return to the small-part tough guy roles in summer flicks you are destined to play.


On the strength of Walter Matthau's ability with a character, the strong cast list, and the original Swedish crime novel-which was excellent-I watched the whole thing, unfortunately. As someone else on this forum noted, it works well for about the first 15-20 minutes, then decays into pointlessness. The main character's partner, played by Bruce Dern, is brought up short repeatedly when he makes wrong moves with witnesses, or says the wrong thing, so often that I expected an explosion. Which never came, and that thread finally went nowhere. A meeting with a group of Hell's Angels went nowhere, at least for the story. I could handle the dated costumes and social norms, but after an hour or so, it seemed as if that's all the film had to offer-a tour of SF's colorful corners in the Haight-Ashbury era, with a tacked-on murder mystery that came to no satisfying conclusion. It isn't necessary for every film-made-from-a-novel to stick exactly to the original, word-for-word, but the only good part of this film was that first 15-20 minutes, which is transported fairly closely from Stockholm, where the original was set, to San Francisco. Once the bus has crashed, and the dead passengers have been identified, It goes rolling straight down Potrero Hill and into the Bay.


This film is based on one of an excellent series of detective stories set in the authors' native Sweden. Much of the interest of the books is their setting. Although they have the usual virtues of good detective stories, they are also a commentary on modern life in Sweden. I was therefore eager to see this film when it came out.

Unfortunately, for inexplicable reasons the setting has been changed to San Francisco. This completely spoils it. Sometimes such a change is interesting or has no real effect, but in this case it destroys much of the interest of the film. We are left with a rather dull American police story.


SPOILER ALERT! There appears to be irony in the title since THE LAUGHING POLICEMAN offers no laughs. The efficient director Stuart Rosenberg makes an efficient crime thriller (about a psychopath on the loose in San Francisco and the cops who track him) but unfortunately, it's little more than that. It's cold, sometimes slow and completely devoid of laughs, despite the presence of Walter Matthau, who managed to add at least some (black) comedy to even the bleakest films (FAIL SAFE, CHARLIE VARRICK). Nevertheless, Matthau is still fine and Bruce Dern is excellent as his unexpected partner. There's also a really fine performance buried in the film by Cathy Lee Crosby (as the distraught wife of Matthau's first partner). Lou Gossett Jr. is a less than patient fellow cop and Anthony Zerbe is Matthau's crusty yet benign superior. A massacre on board a public bus is a real highlight. It's quite frightening.


A portrait of swinging San Francisco in the 1970's with a gloomy and uncomfortable detective investigating a mass murder, this opens well, but by the end has fallen pretty far. Reflecting mainstream America's discomfort at the time, most of Frisco's inhabitants are weird and sleazy, and the detectives by voice and acting show their hatred for the job and society. Matthau has job and family problems, and the family matters are a loose end that is never resolved by the film's end, nor is Dern's relationship with nurse. What's an even greater flaw is that the villain never says a word throughout the film. We hear Matthau rage about him, we see him hanging out in gay bars (to indicate his moral degeneracy), but not a single word of dialog passes his lips. It's like Matthau is swinging at smoke.


Eight people are killed on a San Francisco bus by a greasegun-toting maniac, and one of the victims happens to be a cop who was supposed to be somewhere else. The combination of mass murder and losing one of their own sends the SFPD scrambling for quick answers, so they send out Bruce Dern and the dead policeman's former partner (Walter Matthau) to piece it all together.

OK, that covers the first 10-15 minutes of film, and it's the only part of this 2 hour fiasco that makes any bit of sense.

From this point on, the film turns into a jumbled, boring mess, filled with endless red herrings involving deviant sex, pimps, hookers, drug addicts and weirdos in general. No matter how closely you follow things and everything appears to lead nowhere, somehow the two detectives pull clues (and not very good ones at that) seemingly out of the air. This cyclical nonsense keeps rolling almost to the end, when finally, the policemen kinda/sorta/maybe think they have their man. In following the tone of all that's come before, the suspect conveniently makes a quick succession of unbelievably stupid moves to bring this impossible-to-follow disaster to a shoehorned-in conclusion.

As if all that's not bad enough, we get to see what would normally be a solid cast looking pretty weak. Matthau seems as utterly bored as the rest of us, Dern's usual maniacal glee gets twisted into goofiness, and everybody else ends up stuck being colorless backdrop.

I normally enjoy just about any gritty 70's police flick, but "The Laughing Policeman" doesn't even come close to making the grade. Please- Don't waste your time.


Walter Matthau looks mighty dour throughout this grim, convoluted, exasperating crime-file nonsense. A public bus massacre in San Francisco, which included a cop amongst its victims, is investigated by the force, and Matthau is saddled with new partner Bruce Dern (he hates him on sight, how's that for originality?). The details of the case make little sense, and although the dead-end leads might reflect real-life police business, they don't do much for a plot already messy with loose ends and too many characters (all of them sordid). This picture looks as bad as it plays, with muddy cinematography and pasty-faced actors. The ignorant plot is jammed with clichés, and the screenwriter never shows a sardonic side to the madness. It's just violent TV made more violent for the movies. *1/2 from ****


I thought Meenaxi was a self indulgent waste of time. The movie was poorly edited and artistic for the sake of being artistic rather being incorporated into the plot. Apart from the main protagonist, the quality of acting was mediocre and dialog was pithy. One of the two bright sparks was the choreography of the musical pieces, which were acrobatic and classical. Most importantly, they were a refreshing change from the usual bollywood crass belly gyrations. The other, positive (which is no reflection on the film makers) are the locations. It is hard to miss the beauty of cities like Jaisalmer and Prague. Overall, for some visual appeal and a cloudy plot-line, Meenaxi is watchable. But I would recommend getting on with household chores instead!


what a depressing film this was! frank whaley stars as jim, a guy who finds himself narrating his his dwindling life saga to a near-empty room of strangers at each open mic night in a small town new jersey bar. he almost forces the crowd to listen to how each day seems as bad as the one before, with him getting fired from his job, his wife divorcing him, or having to care for his ill mother (although that doesn't seem to both him as much).

i have always enjoyed frank whaley in comedy (although he does almost none of that anymore) but this does not really qualify as comedy, no matter how dark or satirical. although, there is one scene in the movie where jim is working at swamie hots, an Indian fast food place, where you get a little comedic shine on an otherwise horribly depressing film.


I found it more depressing than funny. I was looking for more humor than sadness. It's it turns out to be very very sad. Everything turns for the worst for Jimmy. Everything that happens to Jimmy gets more and more depressing. He gets fired from the grocery job. He doesn't get any laughs at the comedy clubs. He keeps getting fired from his jobs. His wife leaves him. His grandma can't move on her own. His insurance is canceled. He is unable to buy his grandma's pills. It's all so sad. I only laughed twice and that's when his friend was moving boxes on the cart and they fall over twice. It's sad to see what happens to him and how he reacts to everything.


A portrait of a "regular" guy, who spends his days barely getting by in a series of dead-end jobs, and his nights perfecting his comedy routine in a series of sparsely-attended "open-mike" sessions at local comedy clubs, this film fails to deliver anything but a depressing series of vignettes centered around it's main character, played by Frank Whaley (who also wrote and directed). How any would-be stand up comic could keep trying to be funny, and yet be so patently unfunny, and for so long, is beyond me; I've seen my share of mediocre comedians, but they all pale in comparison to Jimmy, whose depressing routines consist of what appear to be confessionals, centered around his miserable existence. And then we get to experience this miserable existence first-hand, as the film cuts between Jimmy's stand-up routines and his personal life. What is the point of this sorry exercise? Otherwise effective, and at times touching, performances by Carla Gugino, Ethan Hawke, and Mr. Whaley himself are wasted here.


... Must admit well acted, but "dark" & depressing film portraying a wannabe stand-up "comic" .... with no clue toward humour. Viewed this film at The Stony Brook Film Festival. One of a "book-end" weekend topping off another Frank Whaley vehicle ... "The Pursuit of Happiness". Frank (and his brother Robert, as his Tops boss Mr. Slocum) & his buddy Ethan Hawke stand out in this film as hopeless "common men" ... stuck in a rut of Life's problems and of no seeing any chance of rising above it. Frank (Jimmy O'Brien) sees a calling as a stand up comic, but a mix of stage fright and overwhelming domestic problems, put him in a trance, undermining a "true" escape from his downward spiraling Life. See it for the acting (which is top notch), but as with earlier comments, if U need a feel good and less tragic movie see Frank Whaley in "The Pursuit of Happiness" .


I wonder if everyone got together and thought it would be funny to make the worst movie ever. They did it somehow. I should have turned it off, but I kept watching thinking that there has to be something more...there has to be a redeeming quality. I was suspect of anything starring Frank Whaley, but I had read some favorable reviews. I wouldn't wish this movie upon my worst enemy. Please, I beg you, argue with me on this one. I want to know who got something out of this? What type of person was this made for? Maybe it is supposed to show you someone so pathetic you'll have to feel better about your own life. Listening to him complain and his whiny self-indulgence makes me want to take a shower. I know now what it must be like to be a psychiatrist. I had to sit and listen to it and I didn't even get paid.


I kept waiting around for something redeeming to happen - it doesn't. As far as I could see, this was a totally pointless movie about a loser who never learns anything about himself. He is a self centered, self pitying person who never "gets it" - i.e., he is the problem. It makes me wonder - Who would put up money to make a movie like this? This was so bad!!!


I was so disappointed in this film. I am a fan of the three leads. I thought Carla Gugino carried the film. Aside from that Jimmy's relationship with Ruth was touching. The context of the film was so depressing and angry. I ask why not give some hope for Jimmy and why end it without any closure for Jimmy. I am still spiraling downward with Jimmy. Frank Whaley is so talented that I could not believe this came from him. I hope next time he writes and directs he goes in a different direction. Frank has the talent to be a leading man and we already know he is a very credible character actor. Good luck to him and he can't go wrong working with Hawke or Gugino again.


I watched this movie because I'm a fan of Ethan Hawke. Sad to say, there was little good about it. Frank Whaley always looked strained trying to get his part right, while Ethan appeared relaxed and natural. That's the difference between a want-a-be and an outstanding actor. The high light of the movie was when Ethan Hawke, playing an inept grocery store stocking clerk, kept dumping his load of boxes off the dolly. The part played by Whaley was of a loser want-a-be stand-up comic who could not make the grade and was never funny. The pathetic Whaley character was a thief (stole from his employer), drunk (what he stole was beer), argumentative individual (couldn't hold a job), and general misfit. As to the movie itself, it was a drag, repetitive in its plot with only the local changing. In other words, the plot was recycled every few minutes. In general slow and predictable, a bore to watch, and if you haven't seen it yet, don't waste your time.


On the plus side, the acting is OK and the bleak atmosphere well sustained. But in place of a story we get a series of static and talky (because they come from stage-plays) and disconnected scenes, all much the same as one another. A string of shallow and unpleasant male characters strut about, spraying the testosterone, while all the women are pale and cowering mice, their only role to be threatened, humiliated and attacked by the men.

The motive here is perfectly worthy  to give a feeling for a war-torn region  and the film approaches this by simply being relentless, which does help the atmosphere as noted. But soon enough we know what's going to happen almost before a scene begins and what should be shocking becomes merely tedious.

This film is repetitive, dull, sexist, out of date in its attitudes and rather pointless. Nasty, annoying and a waste of time.


Curious how so many people view this movie in the narrowest of terms, e.g. as an study/attack on "male aggression", as a comment on the personalities/politics of Serbs, & similar self-serving ideologic simplifications. I see this as a basic & pure allegory on the human condition. It could be Ireland or Zambia or a dozen other places, past, present & future. People love to kill people (& every other available living thing as well - see the article in the NY Times today about the devastation of gorilla & elephant populations in the former Congo). Serbians are better than most at depicting this because they're that much closer to the event. But none of us is terribly far from the ultimate human condition. We just pretend to be more civilized. This is a very good movie. Now watch Underground made a few years earlier with many of the same actors.


Degrading rubbish like this should never be made.

The sense of pointlessness lies not just in the fact that there's no story. It's possible to get away with having no story. Rather, every scene is part of some larger story we never see. Take the boxing scene. There's something pleasingly surreal, and yet accurate, about it; it's perfectly paced and the acting is faultless. It forms part of a grim story that I'm not sure I'd like, but at least, in the context of that story, it would pack a wallop. Here it's in limbo. Previous and subsequent scenes don't shed light on the boxing scene - they duplicate it. And really, only two of the countless incidents in the whole film show any kind of creativity and humanity: the boxing scene, and the confrontation between the `street punk' and the ex-policeman. That's all there is of value, and it's not much value. They're fragments of good films that were never made.

Sure, this kind of work has an effect. It's a smorgasbord of things painful to look at: blood, bone-crunching, cocaine-snorting (something I find I simply can't watch), rape, hands bent backwards and rocks to the back of the head. It's impossible to watch the film without wincing at the constant brutality. And yet, so what? There are people who think that anything which "provokes a response" must be great art, but I've never heard anyone actually advance a reason for believing something so ridiculous, especially when the response is as automatic as a wince. I feel as if I've been served sour milk and then been told that I've just drunk something of aesthetic merit - because it made my eyes water.

In Australia "Bure Baruta" went by the name "Cabaret Balkan", a title which makes it all the more clear how much inspiration Dejan Dukovski drew from Bertolt Brecht - and that's not a compliment. It's hard to think of anyone more fatal to imitate than Brecht. Brecht was a writer so talented he sometimes created beautiful parables despite his most earnest, theoretically motivated efforts not to; people who imitate Brecht are never so fortunate. They merely induce headaches.


Simply awful. Yes, I 'get' it - war has shattered traditional notions of right and wrong, you can't tell the victims from the criminals, violence can happen at any time, etc.

All of which provides a convenient excuse to make an entire movie of long, lingering, rape fantasies. A slobbering drunk accosts a young war widow on a train. A young punk with a knife threatens a girl on a bus. A man is held at gunpoint while his girlfriend is molested.

Disgusting.


This is a technically a very good film. The cinematography and the way the it contains stories within stories are excellent.

However the actual stories within the movie and the general apocalyptic darkness mood is far from smart. Whether you hate or love the Serbs, it seems this film only further highlights their tendency as a people too shoot themselves in the foot be it in the world stage or as was the case in making this film.

Can't think of too many other nations who would make a film that potrays themselves and their people as bunch of maniacs, murders, rapists, sadist and etc as this film has. It seems the Serbs have picked up where western media has left off. If I had not known better about them, having seen this film would have been enough to sway me in believeing that they deserved what they got from March to June 1999.

This film is basically an excellent illustration of what sought of art results when an artist completely ignores his/her responsibility to his or her country and people in times of difficulty. I don't beleive that the content of the film can be justified in the name of 'art'. How about a positive film to come out of that country so the world can see some goodness in these people in contrast to what they have been made out to be.


I saw this movie when it first came out and was impressed by its slacker(the film)-like construction. I liked the interweaving of characters, the Jarmusch night & pavement atmosphere, I even got off on the relentless pounding brutality, big-time irony, I felt, cool. Than I saw it again on cable, in my own living room, not in a chic lincoln center cinema, no trendy audience to share my titillation. And I saw something relentlessly ugly, like watching someone trying to convince you he needs treatment by slowly and progressively chopping off every part of his body. You watch in wonder and disgust. But what's the message?


Certainly, one has to go deeper when talking about this movie. The scenes of violence are not the subject themselves, but rather "vehicles" to get you to a certain point. However, does that make a good movie?

I experienced this movie as a big metaphor to many issues that were/are present in the Balkans. The quality of the movie is doubtlessly reflected in Paskaljevics ability to manipulate various elements and compose them to make effective points.

One of the points that are being made by the movie is that everybody is getting hurt. And Paskaljevic makes it clear that there are no exceptions. As many of previous comments pointed out, one of the main themes of the movie is the question of guilt. As somebody previously noted, even the most innocent characters end up doing very wrong things (the bus driver). Is the whole thing somebody's fault? How did it all start? It seems to me that Paskaljevics wants to get across that it was all an accident!!! (The very beginning and the car accident scene). Are accidents anybody's fault? Why would somebody hunt you down, even want to hurt you if you scratched his old beetle?

If one of the premises is that this movie comments on the situation in the Balkans (very likely does) at the end of the 20th century (And The Balkans include Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo among others), than I would feel very UNCOMFORTABLE in Paskaljevics shoes making such statement about accidents or everyone getting hurt equally with no exceptions. If you're not clear about what I am trying to say, try finding CREDIBLE history books about the events that followed the split of former Yugoslavia (what happened in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo among others).

The moral dimension of such statements greatly destroys other interesting points like the History of Balkans in terms of "war/peace" cycles (The Boxing/Drinking scene "as long as we're in good health" mentality, etc.., - i think it was already mentioned before)


This is a truly awful and irritating episode of the original Star Trek series. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one worse episode. The biggest reason is that the fundamental plot is just annoyingly stupid. It seems that the Greek god, Apollo, is living out in space on his own planet. When the Enterprise comes near, he seizes it and brings down selected crew members to worship him and live like Greek hippies. How stupid can you get?! They meet Apollo in space?! THAT Apollo?! Hello,...is it just me, or is this really dumb.

Kirk, always the first to kill a god (see the awful STAR TREK V movie and the "Val" episode for more about this), orders a sexy crew member to refuse Apollo's love in order to tick him off--even though she really does think the guy is pretty buff and sweet. Despite being a starring player, I don't think she ever returns for a follow-up episode--too bad. And, once this occurs, they manage to kill off Apollo!!! Yeah, right. The less said, the better.


Oh Gina, my lovely Gina, how bad have you fallen? Then again, you were never really an A-lister. Prey for Rock n' Roll features an all-girl punk rock band, but maybe hard rock too, in LA, supposedly in the late 90s or early 2000s. Jackie (Gershon) is the lead singer, who is turning 40 and still doesn't have success or a respectable recording contract. While the cast looks the part and the acting is decent thanks mostly to Gershon and Drea DeMatteo, the plot has several odd and un-realistic situations. 2 of the girls are lesbians, while another is bi-sexual. I didn't know straight rocker chicks didn't like punk. 2 of the bandmates were sexually abused when young, then one of them is raped, another dies in an accident, while the remaining one is a drug addict. The rapist has the word "rapist" tattooed to his forehead (oh wow). Why not send him to jail? According to the writers it seems, people in rock bands lead trash existences and suffer constant calamity. Funny, I've had many friends who were in rock bands and I can't recall any having such a decadent band history. And at least their music was decent. Clamdandy (where did they get that name?) had terrible music, I believe courtesy of Linda Perry, formerly of 4 non blondes (East Village crackehead supreme if there ever was one). Their songs simply weren't.....great. Also, the characters kept talking about the rock n' roll lifestyle that they ended looking to much like poseurs wanting to look like rockers. We never find out Animal's real name. The girls seem to have only one connection in the recording industry. The band performed too many of their songs on screen. Who becomes a rocker after watching Tina Turner? That would be R&B. One of the few bright spots is that Gershon's voice over narrative seemed cool and had some good lines. Oh and did I mention she looked hot in those pants!


*** May contain spoilers*** Wow. This movie is really bad. It's so bad that the first word of the title is misspelled (I'd be willing to allow for the possibility of it being some awful pun if everything else didn't suggest that it was out of the intellectual league of the producers to allow for this. Also, the song of the same name in the movie indicates that it's supposed to be "pray"). The drummer, guitarist, and bassist were all well-cast and were pretty good in their roles... but the main character, played by Gina Gershon, is such a monumental bitch, it's hard to relate to her or her world unless you're the most hardened, bitter, negative person. She has this perpetual scowl smeared on her face and is incapable of not sneering or radiating this fake bad-ass attitude that instantly makes everything around her turn to sh*t. Which everything does, both in the context of the movie, and in the meta-context. And the plot itself a bit ridiculous, considering that her bandmate gets raped, another bandmate descends into serious drug abuse, and yet another bandmate dies in a freak accident-- all within the span of like a week. Oh, and she takes revenge on the rapist, who incidentally, is unconvincing as a realistic portrayal of a deranged nut. Somehow it's just hard to take it all seriously, and worse, Gershon's character really has a way of ruining the rest of the movie, contaminating it all with her bitter bile.

And then there's the music. Jesus Christ. It's cliché in this bitter "I'm too cool for life" kind of way, where everything has this faux sleazy, sneering overtone that's frankly just embarrassing to watch. There are some points where it sounds moderately interesting, but then Gina starts singing and it's all over.

I guess if you're into the rock'n'roll narrative, you'll find something to like about this movie; after all, this romantic notion of being hungry and breaking through to the mainstream has a certain appeal, but I just don't think it's done all that well here, either in a technical sense or in story-telling. There are signs that the writers have some talent, and are able to convey things subtly, but the larger narrative is not very compelling or capable of generating strong response-- although you will almost certainly hate Gershon's character.

5/10


I don't know what Gena Gershon's problem is, but oh my god it royally annoyed me during every second of this terrible movie.

I find that in general, up-and-coming rock group movies leave a bit to be desired: The tale of "The Commitments" (1991) rapid rise to glory may have been watchable, but was just not plausible. "Satisfaction" (1988) was neither, and was just superficial to the core. "That Thing You Do" (1996) tried so hard only to achieve saccharine, dorky, false-rock results. But I'm sorry, "Prey For Rock And Roll" absolutely takes last place. It just sucks.

Gena Gershon portrays a girl on the "ragged edge" of rock and roll, caterwauling for over an hour and a half in this movie. Her band plays the most painful, self-important, hook-less, uninteresting music heard in any of the above movies. Her performance is incredibly over-dramatic and overwrought in every way. And despite the volume of her voice, she is not a vocalist. If I saw this band live I would leave. It was so bad that I don't think I can ever look at this woman (in any movie) the same way again.

Perhaps, some say, it was her character's personal anguish that led her to such tortured artistry. But don't be fooled - it is only the viewer who is tortured. I say perhaps she should have taken to visual art or maybe pantomime instead. Anything to avoid witnessing a primadonna, non-rock trainwreck like this. Abysmal performances and music throughout make this a pure headache. Yuck.

The good news for rock group movie lovers is that "The Buddy Holly Story" (1978) is excellent, and "Cotton Candy" (also 1978) is so bad that it's good. Seek these out instead, at any price.


overall, i'd say that this movie could have been worse. the scene where they kidnap & tattoo the rapist is worth it. the music was really lacking; the band's name was awful and the music was awful. drea dematteo (sp?) was the best part (Tracy) because she had the most authentic rock & roll lady thing going on...she must have done her homework on donita sparks (L7). there is (obviously) a rape in the movie, but you don't really see it--thank gawd. there is some awkward violence right before hand, but where most films would show the actual rape, the director cut to a black screen. there were a lot of predictable moments, but it was fun nevertheless. i believe it went straight to video, and i understand why.


This is definitely one of the worst movies I've seen so far this year.

Lori Petty = bad movie. I think Lori ruined the movie for me most of all with her whiny voice and annoying mannerisms. Every scene with her made me want to turn the movie off. I think what annoys me most is that she acts the same way in every movie she's in.

As a female musician myself, I was disappointed with the music. I didn't feel that it "rocked" at all. So the bad music + Lori Petty = super bad movie.

Gina's great, but not even she could save this one.


It's very clear to me why the Outfest programmers chose to screen this film after the awards ceremony (so the viewers didn't get a chance to show their displeasure) and without a Q/A with the filmmakers afterwards (where I and the vast majority of others in attendance certainly would have voiced our displeasure): shame that they included it in a queer film festival at all.

In 2003 there is NO excuse for films in which the only homo characters are either raped or killed, 2/3 of the queer women characters speak of childhood abuse (because of COURSE no one would be a dyke unless "men did us wrong") and the bisexual character ends up with a man in the end.

Sloppy, misogynist filmmaking. Shame on the filmmakers.


Pirate Islands is an utterly unremarkable children's television show along similar veins to the computer game Curse of Monkey Island, along with various other games and shows of the pirate nature. This show has many failings: effects, props, story, script. However, special attention has to be given to the cast, who are uniformely dreadful. The main girl is cast at least 10 years too old, while that Mars chap appears to be suffering a mild concussion. The man who plays the pirate captain Blueberry is overwhelmingly terrible, while Nicolas Donaldson does a fair job of wearing a green t-shirt for the duration of the entire series while displaying the acting ability of a coconut tree (many of which feature in the show, and are considerably more impressive). Not enough characters die, despite apparently being in constant mortal peril, which is a huge disappointment. This is possibly the worst series to feature an irritating singing plant, and an olive-green shirt. Avoid.


This one has a promising video cover and an intriguing title ("The Secret Of The Seagull Island"), but don't be fooled (like I was). Its TV-movie feel is strong but could be forgiven if it achieved its goals in the other departments. But the "secrets" are unsensational, the plot is illogical and the pacing is plodding. The only two reasons that would make me give it one star instead of none are the well-shot underwater scenes and the not-bad acting. But it's still a waste of time.


Rated E.

I have played Pokemon Snap a couple of times on a Nintendo 64.There isn't much to say about this game but IMDb says I have to make the review 10 lines so I must.The only thing good about this game is the graphics.The graphics of the pokemon and the environment graphics are simply amazing.Great for Nintendo 64.The gameplay however is boring.You are a photographer and Proffesor Oak asks you to go to this island and take pictures of the different pokemon on the island.You must distract the pokemon by throwing fruit and other things at them.Pokemon Snap is a very boring game that's pretty to look at but not so fun to play.If you want a good N64 Pokemon game play Pokemon Stadium.

4/10


Nice promotional movie for the marine corps. However, it lacks depth. The characters are too superficial. I don't really get the point of this flick, it comes across as a promo for the army. It would've been nice to know more about the background of the characters, especially the women-recruits. I was kinda disappointed about that. Some parts were downright embarrassing. Everyone made it through the training, except the runaway. That's not realistic. No actor exceeded their (hopelessly)stereotypical character. The ending was a cheap shot and way WAY cliché. For would-be or wannabe soldiers it might be a nice movie, though. Personally, I'd go for Full Metal Jacket or Biloxi Blues.


Every marine should see this movie? This was the same horrific crap that television execs put out every weekend. The real Drill instructors were very realistic of course. But the senior drill instructor was obviously an actor and not a good one at that. This movie was somewhat realistic but that ain't good enough. No movie can break down recruit training to the bare essentials in two hours, unless it was directed by me. The fake cheesy corps values that were portrayed were an insult to all marines. You are Dismissed recruit.

lcpl Luevano (writer/director extraordinaire)


Well I am a fan of the Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, Will Ferrel, etc. movies, but "The Breakup" was AWFUL.

Let me say, it started off pretty funny, just like any Vince Vaughn movie. He did the monotoned funny monologue. The exposition of the movie is pretty amusing as you are introduced to everyone.

Vince Vaughn works with his 2 brothers on a tour guide bus, and Jennifer Anniston works in an art gallery with a strange but funny boss and a gay, semi-drag-queen co worker, played by Justin Long from Dodgeball (in this movie he has long, straight, black hair and looks like a Chinese woman.) Towards the beginning, there is a scene where Anniston and Vaughn's families meet at dinner and you realize how Vaughn and Anniston's relationship is slowly declining...that is where it lost its spunk. ^ that scene is about 20 minutes- the rest is boring and not funny.

As soon as they start fighting, the rest is them just whining and being mad at each other and thinking of ways to make each other jealous with Anniston going on dates and Vaughn having parties with his friends.From there, there is the occasional amusing line and the scene where you see Jennifer Anniston's butt.

Even after breaking up, they still live together in their apartment because they need a place to live, and they have continuous disputes about whose room belongs to who (annoying). Jennifer Anniston starts to realize that she wants him back and invites him to a concert for a casual date. He does not show up, and she goes home and cries and whines. He explains to her that he wanted to go but blah blah blah. She tells him (while crying) that all she ever wanted from him was a little appreciation. This hits Vince Vaughn and he shows his appreciation.

While she goes out one day, he cleans the house and makes dinner for her, and he does the "I love you, I'm never going to hurt you" cliché speech, and she has the non-cliché reaction- she tells him that she does not love him and they wind up selling their apartment. They both go their separate ways: he continues his tour guide business, and she travels for a while. They meet a few months after, and do the "it's good to see you! you look great! how you been?" conversation. You can definitely see that they are hiding their emotions behind their smiles and that they still want to be together. Then the best part of the movie happened. . . IT ENDED! I yelled "free at last!" after it ended.

The movie is tedious, boring, and not amusing.


Well well well, this film was simply atrocious. The worst film I have seen in the last two to three years.

The breakup advertised as romantic comedy is anything but. I can't begin to describe how disappointed I was sitting through this movie.

Nothing made me relate to the characters and their infantile behavior. They both came across as whining spoilt brats.

The pace of the film is slow and pointless. Arguments, shouting and bickering don't make for light or romantic entertainment.

Silly "votes" between good friends as to who is staying at the bowling game are just cringe factor, good grief do people really behave this way? certainly not my circle of friends. It was just embarrassing to watch.

Not much redeeming in this film a few short laughs, one of the better ones being when their real estate agent friend offers to sell their home and wants to do so at no commission. BUT unfortunately company policy wont allow it so he has to charge it hahaha that was the funniest bit in the film. How sad :( I would have given it one star except for that real estate agent part LOL.

AVOID THIS FILM AT ALL COSTS !!! A great gift for that person you don't really like but have to buy for appearances sake :)


'The Break-Up' is not funny. It's been marketed as a comedy, but it certainly isn't. The constant arguing between the two lead characters and their childish attempts to get back at one another are not entertaining. Unfortunately, this is pretty much all there is to the movie. We never get to see what it is that they like about one another. What do they have in common? Why were they attracted to one another in the first place? Why did they fall in love? These questions remain unanswered and as a result I found that I didn't actually care whether they broke up or not.

The only interesting parts of the movie for me came courtesy of the excellent supporting cast (all of whom were under-used). Johnny O (John Favreau), Riggleman (Jason Bateman) and Marilyn Dean (Judy Davis) were the only characters I actually liked. Favreau was of course very funny as always, but only has a handful of scenes, and his knack for comedy is largely wasted. I would also liked to have seen more of talented 'Arrested Development' star Bateman. He has remarkable comic timing and a strong screen presence which could have really added to this film. But, unfortunately, the focus is squarely on Aniston and Vaughn, who fail to make their characters interesting or even likable.

I really wanted to like this movie, but I didn't really enjoy it.


Over a 2-day span, I went to go see this, and The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift. There was a 2-3 vote for Tokyo Drift over this movie, and in this case the majority was right. The storyline was overly cliché'd, and had far too many big coincidences. The acting, which some say was great, I found horrible. As usual, I found Vaughn and Aniston playing their usual characters. Aniston reminded me of "Bruce Almighty" and Vaughn reminded me horribly of my least favorite scenes of "Mr. and Mrs. Smith". The saving grace of this film was Vincent D'Onofrio, a superb actor, who pulled off his role extraordinarily well.

As for the plot... it's pretty much the title. But as for billing it as a comedy... It was funny, at points, and I'll admit that as a comedian, Vaughn shines, where some funny moments got me to look back at the screen, but the overall flow of the movie was lacking, and a good plot wouldn't need funny jokes to get my attention back. The ending actually surprised me, however, because it was not your typical romantic comedy ending. However, seeing as I wouldn't classify this as a "comedy" for most intents and purposes, that makes sense.

All in all, the mostly sub-par acting and the yawn-worthy script left much to be desired by this over-hyped summer film.


This was truly one of the very worst movies I ever saw. Though it started on a promising note, after five minutes I found myself guzzling an extra-large coke, just so I would have the excuse of going to the rest room to get away from it.

My wife and I wanted a light-hearted evening away from the kids, and this movie looked promising. But light hearted it was not. We have a very peaceful life in our home, and I was unprepared for the amount of yelling that was dressed up as dialog. There wasn't anything funny about it. Probably 70% of the dialog consisted of people yelling at each other.

We were probably taken in by the trailers, which made the movie appear a bit humorous. The only problem is that all the funny parts were in the trailer. Nothing else was a bit humorous.

The only good parts were the first and last songs. The last one, "I Can See Clearly Now" made me see clearly why I should never go to an Aniston or Vaughn movie again.


This has got the be one of the least entertaining movies I've seen. Absolutely never ever had as little a shy smile on my face, there just aren't any jokes worth laughing about in this movie.

Both Vince and Jennifer's characters are not appealing to me. They are flat, undimensional and tiresome.

The antics shown are also completely un-inspired.

I was very disappointed by this movie.

The only thing I found refreshing, and here be spoilers, is that at the end, very UN-American, they don't get back together again.

But that isn't enough to warrant this movie a viewing.


Well, everyone seems to be concentrating on the fact that this was advertised as a romantic comedy and it is neither romantic, nor a comedy. That is definitely true.

Aside from that, however, it is a poorly-made movie. The timing is off (comic and otherwise), the editing is off pace, and the writing is clunky. I've read a lot of user comments that mention the fantastic "depth of character". Let me just say that having characters that act like immature jerks instead of typical movie star characters does not automatically qualify as character developmentit's just different and new, not real "character development". There are many characters that we get to know a little and are left with NO wrap-up for. The main characters are the only ones we get closure for, but even they are not people we really care about by the end of the movie. I felt when we left the theater that Aniston and Vaughn had so little chemistry it's hard to believe they developed a romance off the set.

The biggest problem is consistency. If you're going to make Vaughn's character a beyond believable inconsiderate jerk, this same character would not make a 180 degree turn around after a short erudite "pep talk" from his bartender friend. By the same token, if you're going to make Aniston's character the kind of person who would put up with this behavior for so long, she would NOT in real life totally change her mind about him a few days after sobbing in her bedroom about their relationship when he finally makes the list of changes she wants (minus the bowl of lemons and ballet tickets he should have had on that table with the dinner).

As an aside, I know that I am probably the only one who feels this way, but the language was much rougher than I was expecting. If you go to see Lethal Weapon 18, you expect F's and GD's galore, but it really took me by surprise in a romantic comedy, especially since there are so many GD's in the first 15 minutes of the movie. I just mention it for the record.

All in all, I would pay another $15 just to have that two hours of my life back. And while we're at it, I am really sick of the marketing geniuses advertising movies in such a way that you have no idea what you're walking into. It makes the viewer give it even worse word-of-mouth than they would have otherwise. You can bet I've already written an email to all my friends telling them what a huge disappointment this movie was and to avoid it.

To sum up: Sloppy execution, poor characters, inconsistent follow-through, and a really crappy ending. Save this one for DVD and even then, wait for it to be taken off the "new releases" wall so you don't have to pay as much for it, or better yet, maybe you'll get lucky and your library will carry it and you will be able to pay NOTHING for it which is basically what it's worth.


The basic premise of this film could have been vehicle for a thousand gags and one liners. However, this film tries to take itself a little too seriously for being touted as a comedy. There is some funny shtick buried in this film, but it is spread way too thin to be called a comedy. It does have a chance to redeem itself in the romantic category right up to the end, but literally turns its back on what the audience is expecting - No happy ending. As a result it turns a great premise into a dark comedy and reflects a sad slice of life. Instead of a dark successful comedy like 'War of the Roses', we end up with a film that falls flat. My guess is that the director tried to please everyone with this film instead of following his vision of what the film should be. The resulting film will end up doing poorly even as a DVD rental.


This is one of those types of movies where they show most of the funny scenes on the TV trailer. There were some scenes not shown in the trailer that made me smile but at no time did I actually laugh out loud.

Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston had no chemistry together at all. The movie just dragged on and on. This is a comedy? It had more sad and angry scenes than funny ones. Kind of reminded me of The War of the Roses.

The ending of this movie is just horrible! People don't go to the movies and pay money to watch an ending like this.

I saw this movie with my friend and she disliked it even more than I did.

If you have to see this movie you should wait for the video, but even then you might be disappointed.


Does anyone remember "About Last Night" with Rob Lowe and Demi Moore. Two people meet fall into a relationship and move in together. Then the couple has a fight and proceed to follow the advice of their friends instead of their hearts and winds up more deeply in love and understanding of one another but separated.

Rob Lowe meets Demi Moore at a company softball game. Vince Vaughn meets Jennifer Aniston at a pro baseball game. They fight and break up and follow the advice of their friends. Rob Lowe listens to his buddy in the bar Jim Belushi (and at work). Vince listens to his buddy at the bar Jon Favreau, Vince has a brother giving him ill-advice at work. Demi Moore listens to Elizabeth Perkins. Jennifer listens to Joey Lauren Adams. Doing a nice comedic turn as usual.

Neither are getting good advice and screw up the relationship badly, till it is almost unrepairable. This was like an extended episode of the TV show "Men Behaving Badly" mixed in with an episode of Oprah on proof that Men Don't Listen!

STAY AWAY........STAY AWAY....... unless you think Jennifer got a nice tush and you want to see it.

At least Rob Lowe and Demi Moore had on screen chemistry. You want to see them make it. I laughed at all the wrong moments in the Break Up.

Rob Lowe and Demi Moore ride off into the sunset at the end of their movie. She rides her bike and he runs after her.

****SPOILER ALERT****

At least the Break Up didn't cop out at the ending. They don't get back together. They run into each sometime later. They only give you a hint that they have feelings for each other without laying it on too thick.


Vincent D'Onofrio's only got 4 scenes in this. They add up to maybe 10 minutes of the film. His scenes are decent, amusing, quirky as his fans have come to expect from him, but nothing particularly outstanding in his long career of solid performances. There's no rush to lay out $5-$10 to see 'The Break-Up', just have NetFlix ship it to you in a couple of months.

Jason Bateman is fantastic as Riggleman the real estate agent. He's perfectly smarmy and subtle and amusing. Too bad there isn't more of him in this film Everyone else is pretty much a disappointment...what I want to know is if you're not allowed to connect to the alleged romance (you never really see any PDA (physical display of affection) or signs of affection and tenderness between them until it's a foregone conclusion that their 'relationship' is history) between Brooke and Gary, how could you possibly *care* about their breaking up? Vince Vaughn's a huge disappointment (he was great in 'Thumbsucker', so if you're not familiar with that film, go rent it instead). As always Jennifer Aniston did *nada* for me -- I still don't get her appeal so I can't recommend something else she's done (sorry, you're on your own here Jen fans).


The movie was nothing but interpersonal conflict. The role played by Vince Vaughn was a shallow, waste of time and the role played by Jennifer Aniston started to reciprocate in kind... it was nothing but nasty conflict... my wife and I couldn't watch the whole thing it was so snide and petty... we put in Elizabethtown instead and LOVED that... don't bother with "The Breakup"... not worth the rental fee... or time. Also, you might like "The Great Raid"... we loved that also... We are big fans of "The Princess Bride" and "Galaxy Quest" etc and didn't care for the constant conflict of "The Breakup". We though "The Breakup" was going to be a comedy... it was a tragic pile of interpersonal failure...


Not even watching babealiscious Jennifer Aniston makes this movie tolerable. In fact you will probably come away liking her a whole lot less if you see her in this. Never have figured out whatever appeal Vince Vaughn has for some people. He would be a mediocre actor at best if his flat emotionless monotone delivery wasn't so terrible. Think Schwimmer and Romano. This disaster starts off with him laying some ridiculously implausible pickup line on Aniston at a baseball game. Then 30 seconds of photo album shots defines their whole relationship up to the break up. Then your off on apparently an hour and a half of non-stop arguing, and not even believable arguing but stupid crap like Vaughn sticking a pool table in the living room of their condo. I say apparently based on reading other reviews here because I could't stand more than about 40 minutes of it. This movie is the antithesis of funny. Its not romantic, dramatic or clever and (ladies) if you drag some poor schmuck out to see it on your first date it will probably be your last.


This is a tough one! I am viewing this film in December of 2006. I know it was released at least 3 or 4 months ago although with films in this category the distributor is pushing to get it to video release as soon as they possibly can because the video release is where much more money can be made and in this case video release will surpass domestic profits. However, you are not reading this to hear about how the distributor makes money... I watched as PPV on home cable after reading some reviews and taking in the marketing several months ago, and only because I like Jennifer Anniston and I was bored with X-Mass shopping and am not very familiar w/Vaughn.

Anniston's film 'The Good Girl' is how I became hooked on her. I watched 'Friends' seldom but when I did, it was because I liked looking at her. 'The Good Girl' is J A at her best. Prior she was not pulling in audiences as one would think she would after Friends. Her previous films did not make money for the production companies to actually allow her to continue making films as a 'star' and I believe based solely on her performances on Friends was she cast in other films, all the while the producers would dump cash into her films hoping she would hit that one big starring lead to allow them to justify another J A starrer.

"The Good Girl' was so good but yet made no more than her previous attempts in film work (I would imagine rentals put her over the top because rentals are rented mainly based on consumer 'word of mouth').

I'm generalizing here and simply writing as I watched her career slowly fade (I.e.: I have completed no research on J A and her films but writing simply as a consumer watching what was going on with her career) until 'The Good Girl showed up on the radar screen of the possibility, the potential of a possibility for JA to find a niche for her considerable talent. I believe Good Girl was a big 'critical' success which will always make studio heads turn. 'The Good Girl' was so good and on a 'real life' level that if you have not seen this film do so now. You will be blown away by her subtle but deeply felt ability to sweep you away from your troubles for 90 minutes.

Thus, based upon the GG showing blatantly her abilities for film work once a DECENT script is placed in front of her and her sheer talent we all know is there (why do you think H'wood keeps remaking and extending sequels...no freaking writing is going on out there.) she gets to make more of this genre' which is a shame because she is capable of much more than the horrid 'Break Up' and I am afraid she will be stuck in this type role. Certainly on one level she does not mind as I imagine she is paid very well as the women love her in this 'Break Up' sort of waste of film.

Nevertheless, JA as a "STAR" right now and not an "ACTRESS" has to be frustrated not even mentioning her personal life.

I have been wanting to get all the above thoughts down somewhere where someone MAY read them, although as you begin reading and notice this is not about this film specifically but about J A, you may skip over this 'review. I will tell you what I thought of 'Break Up', though: a true and real BORE. However, watching JA was a treat. The script was poorly written, the direction was bad, the casting was OK, and frankly, the supporting actors were more entertaining than the entire film taken as a whole. Generally, in most anything, you are usually only as good as those surrounding you and although JA tried, she could not carry the film herself and end up with an enjoyable product.

My god when I think of that script and most of the dialog I want to cringe. Vaughn who was fun to watch as a fast-talking slob who tries, grabbed me more this time.

Think about it, if someone meets over a hot dog at a baseball game and he essentially bullies JA as to what HE thought best, then you deserve what you get.

I have been there, I deserved what I got, and it was not fun.

This film made production budget wise at 150 mil (But when you see that figure multiply by 3 for what the film really cost in marketing and prints the production company (distributor) has to get to the screen and all the other costs involved.)

Look at the video rentals of this film at what, 50 mil? it made a reported 350m worldwide but there are many more ancillary ways of picking up revenue domestically and foreign, so at 450mil they may have made a few dollars allowing JA to TRY AGAIN.

Rent 'The Good Girl'. There is the real Jennifer Anniston. Moreover, I hope she can break out of the mold she has been cast in. Julia Roberts did it so can J A!!


"The Break-Up" (2006)

Directed By: Peyton Reed

Starring: Vince Vaughn, Jennifer Aniston, Joey Lauren Adams, Jon Favreau, Jason Bateman, Judy Davis, & Justin Long

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for sexual content, some nudity and language)

"The Break-Up" is probably most famous for sparking the famous relationship of Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn. Think about it as the "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" for the couple. The only difference is that "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" was a fun, entertaining movie and "The Break-Up" is anything but. In fact, this is one of the least entertaining and joyless movies I have seen this year. We all know how hard and awkward break-ups can be. "The Break-Up" analyzes this with very little compromise. In fact, it puts this failing couple into one of most awkward situations imaginable--having them share a condo until they can sell it. The real question, though, is not how they will handle this situationbut, why should we really want to see it? Why do we want to see two people bicker and complain for an hour and forty or so minutes? Why do we want to experience all of the awkward moments that come with this scenario? The answer is that, of course, we don't want to do anything of these things. Herein lays the problem with "The Break-Up". It is a movie that we just don't want to see filled with characters we don't really care about.

Gary Grobowski (Vaughn) and Brooke Meyers (Aniston) were once a loving couple who had everything they thought they needed: each other, a wonderful condo, and jobs that were certain to propel them to bigger and better things. But, now, the relationship is over and neither of them can afford to pay for the mortgage without each otherand so they are having to sell, but, until they find a buyer, they must live together. Both, still bitter over the difficult break-up, decide to make each other miserable by flirting with other people, inviting loud friends over, quartering the condo up into different compartments, and more. But, will they realize that they really do love each other and reconcileor is this break-up for good? If you have ever watched a romantic comedy, you know that the entire movie circles around you wanting desperately for the couple to be happy and together at the end. I didn't feel that way at all about the couple in "The Break-Up". In fact, I only wanted them to go their separate ways and to stop the annoying arguing and the backstabbing. Vince Vaughn's character, Gary, in particular, was horribly annoying whenever Aniston's character, Brooke, was around, and, while Brooke was at least likable, many of her actions seemed mean and reprehensible. How could anyone want these two to get together? The relationship was just bothersome and aggravating.

How could "The Break-Up" not work? It had a great cast and the director of "Down with Love" (a bitter, yet hilarious romantic comedy) and "Bring It On" (a hip, edgy teen comedy) behind it? This movie seemed like a sure bet and yet it just doesn't work. It isn't romantic. It isn't funny. It is awkward and the constant arguing gets old very quickly. The characters, themselves, are indeed very strange--almost like parodies of real people, but the movie takes itself far too seriously to allow them to seem realistic. The two main characters are not made out to be people we can really care about. Gary, especially, is despicable for the majority of the movie and Brooke, though the only main character with which we can sympathize, does her fair share of mean things. On top of all of this, where was the humor? Was this supposed to be a comedy? If so, then it is one of the least effective comedies of the year. On a warmer note, Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn give great performances and the actual break-up (and ensuing arguments) are handled realistically. The only problem is: why would anyone really want to see them?

Final Thought: Despite good performances from the leads, "The Break-Up" is an awkward, unfunny movie that fails to engage its audience.

Overall Rating: 4/10 (C+)


I should start by admitting that I find Jennifer Aniston adorable.

Vince Vaughn is every fast talking overly-confident friend I've ever known.

This film could have been great. It isn't.

It is a weak film full of odd underdeveloped (and thus unexplained) side characters and it contains one of the most unsatisfying (and the biggest 'cop-out') endings ever put on film.

If I want inadequate, unfunny, unsatisfying and realistic, I'll refer to my own struggling relationships. I don't need to pay Hollywood top dollar to show me that. I can get that for free.

It has its hints at humor, but overall? Awful.


Brooke (Anniston) is quite tired of making the relationship with Gary (Vaughn) work as Gary sees no need to change his ways. So they break up.

I can see why Anniston and Vaughn are no longer together in real life. After this flat-liner no one would want to be associated with it. These are two good actors(Vaughn is good when he doesn't try to be comedic), but nothing they do saves this movie. There is no chemistry between them and it shows on the big screen. You don't care if they break up, and get back together. You just want this to be over. You are waiting for something funny to appear to make things a little less tight. Never happened. I blame the script, maybe Vaughn but never Anniston, who is turning out to be a really good actress. Yes, she was the best thing in here. But this is supposed to be a comedy and I want to say it's light drama, but cannot. It is almost heavy drama. Something no one expected. This could have been something akin to the War of The Roses, but falls far short of that classic.

Why blame the script? Because I have seen Rachael (Anniston) get mad at Ross (from the Friends TV show) and break up with him and the results were funny, funny, funny, and that didn't happen here. Another reason to blame the script is that Vaughn helped write it. Maybe he should have asked Jennifer to help out with that. Ya think? I just don't picture Vaughn as someone comedic (no, I didn't find him funny in The Wedding Crashers either) and believe he is best suited for crime drama where he will excel, but that's just me.

The rest of the cast were fine. Ann-Margaret had a small part in here too. But, there was that irritating family dinner where some family members sang acappella and that was extremely irritating and annoying. That was a harbinger of things to come. Again, look to the script.


What should have been a good story with a capable cast was actually hard to watch for me. Each scene seemed to be performed without any regard to the ones previous or following, and HD actually calls Jolie "Jolly" at one point (and no one caught such a basic mistake, which could have been easily corrected in post production audio work).

The ending was predictable, and disappointing in its execution. Once the final scene was underway, the acting ended, and the audience was never treated to anything like a finale that would've tied up the loose ends.

Unfortunate, given the talent available (and the cameo by Mickey Rooney).

Sheesh.


I am always looking for movies set in Texas/Oklahoma, etc. in modern times (post-cowboy days). I expected this one to be little corny, but I was not prepared for just how bad it was. Even though it had some decent actors, they all did a terrible job or were given a terrible script and direction in this flick. Ben Johnson is one of my all-time favorite actors. Compare this to "The Last Picture Show" and he comes off as a crude redneck with emotions that I'd expect in a kids movie. Characters changed moods and attitudes from one sentence to the next. The arguments were totally irrational and disconnected. Unless you're desperate to watch bull riding and wranglers, don't waste your time with this pitiful movie.


This is a film that may captivate those interested in Catholic theology - others should stay away. There is too much chat, as a futuristic (set in 1999) priest visits a monastery in Ireland that refuses to give up the Latin mass. Not very exciting stuff.

But there is a marvellous performance from Trevor Howard, an almost as good one from Cyril Cusack, and it's nice to see young Martin Sheen and Michael Gambon. Scenery and cinematography are also nice.


All the while I was watching this movie I kept asking myself, Do the authors of this mediocrity understand what being catholic is all about? There's, of course, the modern "socially-concerned-Hollywood", which depicts the Catholic Church as a decadent, senile and misoginous group of eunuchs and frigids, emotionally frail and codependant, obsessed with sex and rites, completely ignorant of the true meaning of human dignity and who do not understand that this church has to accomodate its ideas into the most common idiosincresies in order to take its place where it belongs: equal to and along all other churches, because they're all alike and none holds the absolute truth. So they make films like "Catholics", "Priest" and "Stigmata" to denounce how truly hipocryt this church really is, and how courageous are the ones who defy it.

The point is that such perception has nothing to do with what being Catholic really means and what the Catholic Church is in fact. Their conrnerstones are Faith, Hope and Charity, and it's precisely because all faithful are united through Christ where its meaning relies on. A film that argues that the Church might enforce the abolishness of Mass based on obedience is absurd precisely because such obedience is based in the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, such argument is exactly the one some protestant churches and sects sustain: that you alone can be the judge of your relation with God regardless of the means He established to grant His grace.

Any writing on the future of the church should recall perhaps how early christianity was like: people who gathered and grew in their faith regardless of its mainstream social acceptance, and who knew that they should not trade its teachings for social popularity.


Why L to K? Because that makes as much sense to me as the concept of this movie likely has for the director. This film suffers where many first time films fail (gay or straight) when a director chooses to film their own script. In this case, he also did the cinematography. The film is very impressionistic and also very slow. It takes some digressions, a few brief ones and one long one (the soccer player subplot), which in spite of some comments on here, really accomplishes nothing to advance the development of the main character that could not have been accomplished more logically, otherwise. The other flaw in this movie is the lack of logic. As an example, if Marie has goals and ambitions, in spite of whatever feelings she may or may not feel for Loic, why would she commit suicide, particularly if she had already sent him from her life. There is no rationale in some of the action in the film other than the director obviously did not know how to push the plot forward.

As a coming of age story, this is very weak. As a movie, the plot made little, if any sense. As a movie about the interior development of a character, of his realization of his place in society and the world, the movie suffers from an inconsequential lead with little to offer other than (at least apparently based on some reviews here and elsewhere) what some view as good looks. That is not enough to hang a life on, much less a 90 some minute film.


I don't see what justifies the rave reviews. Apart from the exposition, it came off fairly boring. Yes, Loic is enigmatic and incredibly attractive, and the film could have developed well based on that, but instead it wanders hopelessly after its first 20 minutes and becomes essentially 90% talk and 10% plot. That gets old fast. Even the few unusual "incidents" toward the end -- which I'd guess are there to provide a shock or epiphany -- seem pointlessly surreal.

The director indulges a number of disconnected fetishes for no apparent purpose. What are we supposed to make of the recurring shots of the Alps, or the distressed and always-bandaged eyebrow piercing? If these are supposed to be symbolic of something about Loic, their meanings are far too obscure. If the writers intended to make us guess at these things, that's a tired, pretentious technique that I think ends up being merely annoying, not clever.


What is wrong with homo flicks ? This one starts with a good idea and bogs down into utter confusion. The next step is complete oblivion.

A nice actor portrays a young and ignorant man from Gruyère who refuses to commit, refuses to envisage his relationship beyond raw sex cruised on the internet.

He lets a nice girlfriend escape him and tries to reinvent his life. Gradually he reflects on himself and thinks about cultivating his brain and shedding his quite meaningless existence (there does not seem to be much physical pleasure in it !). An interesting theme for a quite boring film.


Too long and too slow; the plot is difficult to follow and unnecessarily obscure;in addition, the permanent noises , especially of trains, makes it difficult to hear the actors, especially when the reason for the title of the film is given, if it really is.