Yes this film maybe a little dark ,and hard to understand for children I really enjoyed it as a kid. My favorite part is seeing all the animals get caught and then escape to the farm. This film is for older kids. Also when compared to original it shines considerably darker ,but by itself it stands firm. The darkness as I said intended for older kids teaches how this world can be an unkind place can be ,but to stay strong. Babe is still as sweet as ever just matures as his ignorance fades away. As for the dog drowning, the accident led to a needed rescue/turning point in the film. I give this movie a 4/10 because it could of not turn from original so much and the apes in the movie are really misfit.


Like Millions of others I loved the original Babe. What a shock when my wife and I ventured out for the new Babe Goes To The City.

The sight of Mr. Hoggett getting beat to a pulp in the opening scenes as he was trying to repair his well was nothing to seeing a dog drowning.

Thinking back I questioned how anyone could 'do' a poor Babe sequel. All they had to do was follow the original format and collect the accolades but alas... Hollywood strikes again.


Yes, the movie is stylish, and the talking animals are quite a technical achievement, but the story is a spiral of depressing, cruel things that happen to innocent creatures. I found it so painful to watch that I had to turn it off after the first 45 minutes - and I enjoyed "Seven"!


As evidenced by the survey of comments on this site alone, people either love or hate this movie. Unfortunately, I hate this movie.

I wanted to love this movie. Really. I loved the first one. But "Babe 2" was the worst sort of sequel - not only was it just disappointingly bad, it actually ruined the pleasure you got from the first film.

One of the greatest thing about the first film was Babe's relationship with Farmer Hoggett. In "Babe 2," the formerly dignified Farmer Hoggett is only in it for about 10 minutes, but in that short time, he's flung down a well, and then makes goofy gestures. He's completely robbed of his dignity. I mean, did anyone enjoy seeing Farmer Hoggett's head being slammed over and over and passing out?

In fact, all the humans in "Babe 2" are frighteningly abused, for no good reason. Mickey Rooney, a very creepy clown, literally just drops dead. Mrs. Hoggett is strip-searched by drug agents, is doused with a bucket of glue, and then is flung around a ballroom on a bungee, dressed in the dead clown's costume, no less. Was this all really necessary? In a movie that kids watch? It wasn't funny, it was just sad. Very sad. Abysmally sad. Not to mention completely pointless.

And in the first movie, Babe the pig had a unique mission, making his triumph truly sweet and heartwarming. The storyline was singularly original. And the first movie dealt with some real-life issues (at least in the animal world), which gave weight to the notions of fate and destiny, which was nicely intoned throughout the movie by the narrator.

In "Babe 2," all the obstacles are contrived and trivial, so the attendant triumph becomes hollow and pointless. And if you think about it, Babe the pig doesn't actually do anything. He just gets chased around, or just acts witless, and does things that everyone tells him to do. The first movie was about Babe's courage and originality. In this movie, he's led around like... a sheep. (how very ironic.) You never root for him, because he has nothing to accomplish.

I was deeply disappointed. I had to watch the first movie over again, just to cleanse my palate, but I'm still in mourning.


Lets be honest, this film is appalling. This was the first film my brother and sister ever watched and to be frank, what an awful introduction to cinema. The film goes along without you feeling any empathy with the characters and boredom at the lack of anything exciting happening. I know it is a children's movie but please instead of including a darker element lets have some entertainment and fun. It just didn't work, it would have been better as just an animation but unfortunately the director wanted to make it a 'grown-up' kids film, not a great idea. Next time just make something funny, entertaining and without an annoying pig which no-one really cares about. Instead of this go and buy something like Lion King or Beauty and the Beast which CAN incorporate excitement and emotive sequences.


Don't go see this film. At least, don't if you're a kid or if you liked the first Babe. This one is nothing like the first. The first Babe felt real; this is a dark fantasy. The first one was open and upbeat; this is dark. The first one was kind - kind animals, people, plot; this one is just mean. How kind is it to watch a dog held head-first underwater, with no hope of survival? How uplifting is it to watch a clown entertain a room full of cancer victims, old people, sick people, all without hope, and the big laugh comes when he burns it down by mistake? How exciting is it to watch a crippled dog smacked across a dark street, left to die.

It might be artistically fun and ok to try to emulate Fellini, but not riding on the coat-tails of a very good kids' movie. It's not bad marketing, it's deceptive.


A little bit of research on the Broadway Database website confirms that the play Captain Applejack ran for 195 performances in the 1921-1922. It's the kind of fluff that people went to the theater to see back in the day, but wouldn't have any great audience today.

Watching it this morning two things struck me. It reminded a whole lot of George M. Cohan's Seven Keys To Baldpate which also takes place on a windswept stormy night with a group of strange characters intruding on someone's privacy. Further research shows that the producer on Broadway was Sam Harris, Cohan's producing partner who probably thought he had another similar show on his hands.

I also thought how perfect Leslie Howard or Ronald Colman would have been for the part. The film would be more well known today had either of them done it, though John Halliday does a fine job in the lead. He plays a comfortable squire with an estate in Cornwall who yearns for a more exciting life and expresses same to ward Mary Brian. Before long he's besieged by visitors who are giving him all kinds of stories and he discovers the family fortune may have had its foundation in stolen pirate loot.

Captain Applejack is a most dated item, fortunate indeed to have been preserved in both a silent and sound film. I doubt you'll see it revived on Broadway any time soon.


This film, I suppose, is a comedy. Because of that, the cast was apparently informed to really overdo it--with some of the broadest acting I have ever seen. It was originally a stage production and in this case, it looks like they must have filmed it as it was done on stage--loud and over-emoted. CAPTAIN APPLEJACK begins with Ambrose home on a stormy night in his mansion. He is dying for some adventure in his life, and almost immediately it begins! People start coming in and out of his house at an alarming rate and he is deeply involved in all sorts of silly intrigue. It's like your typical "old dark house" film so common in this era but on steroids--with everything coming rapidly and with no letup.

The first thing I noticed is how much Kay Strozzi sucked in this film! This probably sounds very harsh, but when this actress came storming into the home of Ambrose Applejohn, I was just bowled over by how terrible her accents were. She didn't know if she was supposed to be French, Russian or just an idiot. Kids in high school productions usually have better accents than hers! And, to top it off, within the first ten minutes of the film, three different women fainted--talk about a load of malarkey! These factors combined with the style of the production (with people walking on and off camera much like they'd do it in a play) made me realize early on that I was in for a very long ride, indeed.

After several actors came in and out of the set, in came "Ivan" (Arthur Edmund Carewe) to prove that Strozzi was not the only actor who could produce a crappy and unconvincing Russian accent! I think, honestly, that any of the Ritz Brothers could have done this job better. He was lousy, but fortunately he didn't stick around for long. As for leading man John Halliday, he also overdid it quite a bit. In 1931, perhaps people thought this was all a funny farce. Today, it mostly just seemed tedious.

I cannot recommend this film to anyone--even people who like bad films, as this one wasn't bad enough to be funny--it was just plain bad. There is nothing really positive I can say about the movie other than it was blessedly short!

By the way, at about 32 minutes into the film, note the breast grabbing scene--something you might just see in a Pre-Code film but you'd never have seen once this Production Code was strengthened and adopted in 1934. Quite a shocker, eh?


Empty headed precis of a middle brow novel. Lots of "fine acting" and an Antiques Roadshow design aesthetic is supposed to compensate for its total lack of emotional or intellectual content and its narrative illiteracy. Manages to be both finicky and slapdash at the same time. Pants.


I should have guessed what this film would be like from a couple of hecklers at the cinema I saw it.

"I've seen milk turn quicker than this". And this was only during the opening credits. They left soon after. I should have too.

All I can say about this film is a perfect cure for insomnia...show this to a chronic insomniac and they will be out like a light in a couple of minutes.

An A-list cast should have turned out something much more interesting than this bore-fest. Thank god I haven't read the book...


It is amazing to see anyone rate this movie highly, or to even have anyone suggest that you might want to watch it if it were on cable and you were bored.

The movie is the worst I have ever seen, not because the dialogue, pacing, script, acting, sound or editing are weak, which they are, but because after watching the movie you will feel like you need to wash something off... and you will know even if you do, nothing is going to go away. Watching home movies put together by a neighbor might be dull and boring, but it is not going to be offensive and disgusting.

The movie has an exceedingly negative perspective on live and not one character in it has any noteworthy redeeming value.

It does not explain aberrant behavior such as infidelity, drug addiction, violence, teen rebellion, or a father having sex with his teenage daughter, all of them presented front and center in this movie, nor does it offer anything resembling insight into them.

It simply tosses them out there for you to watch. As you watch you will keep hoping that somewhere along the way there is going to be some payoff to justify putting up with the garbage paraded across the screen.

But there is no payoff. There is merely more depravity, and depravity which is not even presented in an interesting manner.

Those who consider the family unit to be the source of all ills in society and believe the family should be attacked at every opportunity to destroy it, might see this film as helping with the assault. It is hard to understand how anyone else could see this utterly depressing film as having any other value.


Just watched this film, ironically, on the same DVD that another commenter did, paired with a mob film on a $1.00 DVD. The acting by Manz was awful, sound sucked, and the ending really did come, "out of the blue". Hopper looked to be three sheets to the wind the entire flick, which he probably was, and thats fine. I kept watching to see where it was headed, because I had no clue. I kinda missed the incest angle, unless the kissing and noodling in the truck and cars were supposed to represent something more sinister. ONe commenter was shocked that the family was referred to as white trash. Well, yeah, they were. I'm from the northwest, and would have been 18 when this film was shot....there's lots of folks that have a beer with there kid when they just got outta prison!


Dennis Hopper, who I think is great, should stick to acting, and as for Linda Manz, justifiably forgotten, could they not find anyone who could act? The dialog is excruciating, and the bleakness of their lives is not original enough to get past it. Typical white trash lives, not compellingly told. Really long, horrible songs by Neil Young accompany equally long, boring scenes. The junkie mom angle could have been played up, as it was it was gratuitous to make her a junkie slut, a slut would have been enough. The dynamite should have been used a hour earlier.


This movie was disgusting and an absolute waste of Linda Manz's acting abilities. It was dark, the plot stupid, and the sad thing is that due to a sociology project in college I've OWNED this piece of trash for fifteen years. The only reason I've never pitched it is because there's very little with Linda Manz in it to begin with. I do not know what the writer's were thinking (and speaking as a published author, I don't think I WANT to) and one would assume that Dennis Hopper, having now attained a modicum of respectability will never lay claim to this piece again. In fact, I'm surprised he's never demanded to be removed from its credits.

I find it disturbing that anyone would rate this movie a ten. Bad lighting, pathetic support casting, and an obvious underlying tone of incest does not a good movie make. In fact, anyone who dared to give this movie a ten should watch it again and then spend a week in the incest recovery unit of their local hospital. . . I can guarantee they won't see much of a difference.


Well, this is not much more then a big disappointment.

The move start-out OK, a little melodramatic though, you get a really good descriptions of the characters and starts to absorb into them in good or bad ways.

But as the movie accelerate and the characters personalities starting to evolve in to slighter better. The story writer choose to bring the story to a fast end by descending there good personalities into a level lower then ever.

The most annoying is that the story could be good, and the message and thoughts that the movie sends is really important. But thats lost in a depressing slide-show with bad music and a pointless ending. With different ending 7 point, with more enthusiasm and different choose of music it maybe would been given 9 points from me.


Poor dialogue, poor directing, poor editing and very poor acting (with one or two exceptions) summons up this film pretty much. I can only assume an actor such as Michael Segerström, one of those who actually performed some acting in this piece, wasn't very proud when he saw the final result. I really can't understand how the film managed to win Nordic Film Prize (Best Film), it scares me a lot to think of the competitors. The dialog often seemed very unnatural, but that might be the result of poor directing/poor acting. The music itself is really good, but it doesn't fit in to the film. Imagine yourself watching a film with only dialogue, and then at the same time listening to music from a totally different context. It's totally weird, and I mean weird in a bad way. This film is nothing but a waste of time.


In the utterly unremarkable "Firehouse Dog," a pampered movie star pooch named Rexxx falls out of an airplane and into the lap of a second-rate fire station where he is immediately adopted as the department's mascot. With his natural talent for search-and-rescue missions, Rexxx soon insinuates his way into the hearts and affections of all, including the young, slightly troubled son (Josh Hutcherson) of the station's chief (Bruce Greenwood).

Despite all its obvious good intentions, I can scarcely imagine anyone but the tiniest tots in the audience being either intrigued or inspired by this film. Apart from the slight difference that the Timmy-fallen-down-a-well predicament has been replaced by a Shane-trapped-in-a-burning-firehouse sequence, this is a thoroughly conventional "a boy and his dog" tale in which neither the boy nor the dog is really all that appealing. In fact, Rexxx is so un-cute and so un-cuddly that it's hard to believe that he could ever be a true canine superstar sensation in the real world.

As for the script, it consists mainly of feeble jokes, broad slapstick and obvious sentimentality ladled out in roughly equal measure. There are a few touching father-and-son moments along the way, but this is otherwise a very long, very uninspired "kid flick." There's nothing overtly wrong with either the values or the morals conveyed by the movie - unless, that is, one considers subjecting innocent and unsuspecting children to bad film-making to be, in and of itself, immoral.


The Music is a very pleasant adaptation of several Western Medieaval tunes.

The Magic Realism which North America has laid somewhat of a claim to, is lovely used here, of course giving a 'true' canine touch to the supernatural stuff.

The scenery and imagery is breathtaking !! And the many boys, who's story this is, are a delight. With it's colorful, comic events and adventure, it became my favorite.

Mama plays great too, and the director has a gentle and good touch for all the other kids, which means he is a fine craftsman.

Though details elude our memory, I recall an inexplicably cheerful little man and people in colored saran wrap. I fail to see what was "great" about the land, other than a volcano that burped glitter. Moments after viewing it, I need only say the title to send everyone into fits of laughter and gagging sounds. This earns "The Doghouse Fire" my resounding two thumbs way up. Were we to judge it on a star ratings system, it would be a spangled banner.

Soft, laid back, nostalgic and utterly charming, this story is a heartwarming winner, and can't be recommended enough !! What an enormous pleasure !


I couldn't believe how bad this movie was! The underlying arson plot was not developed fully, the dog's skills were not believable (how does a dog learn agility training in or learn to be a rescue dog in a day?), and the poor editing with the boom all over the film and over actor's heads and the top visor on the camera showing were all it took to make the film a waste of time and money for the whole family. Even the kids that were in the audience thought it was a corny and boring movie. And I totally agree with Bobdepyro, the boom should have been given credit as the main actor in the film (yes, everyone else in the theater noticed it too)!


Spoiled pooch finds love and life with a kid who's dad is a fireman.

How many times have we been there and done that? Low level family film is good for undemanding three or four year olds since odds are they're the only ones who won't have seen it all before. Not bad but why would anyone rationally (me included) subject themselves to the film? Okay the trailer looked okay, but as they say anyone can take 90 minutes of a movie and make it look good. As I said the problem is that unless you've been hiding under a rock you've seen this type of thing before. Add an unimaginative director and a cast that isn't spectacular and you have a movie that really isn't worth bothering with.


The director and the producers of this film must think the audience is stupid. I took my acting class which is made of mostly children to watch Josh in action and talk about character development. Well the only thing they were able to talk about is the boom coming into view more than two dozen times plus seeing the top of the camera several times. I can not believe any distributor actually paid money to have this film produced, it is poor quality and everyone involved in it from the director to the DP & the editor should be embarrassed and ashamed to have worked on this project. I think everyone involved in this project owes the audience and the actors a huge apology. This movie's production value is worse than watching student films , at least student filmmakers know never to have the boom ever show in a shot or a movie let alone a movie that has more than 2 dozen boom shots. Save your money because the boom/mic coming into the scene every five minutes will drive you crazy, what a waste of good talent from Bruce Greenwood and some other veteran actors.


The story it self was very enjoyable and the actors did their job rather well. But, there were technical problems that were very annoying and totally unprofessional. There were times, too numerous to count, when the boom mike was in the camera shot. The microphone should have been listed in the credits with the actors, it had more scenes than the dog. And we really liked the droopy and mal adjusted lens cover shroud for the elevated camera. I'm just wondering if my wife and I were the only ones that noticed this? I'm sure that some time during the production process there was an editor, director or producer or craft services employee that noticed that there might be better clips on the floor.


This movie is a cross between Herbie the Love Bug remake and the Shaggy D.A. remake.....It tries to be serious then it gets to be surreal. The script was awful and the flashback sequences made it hard for young children to watch and follow. Even though the narration of the film is from the boy, there are flashbacks from everyone including the dog. For most young ones it is impossible to see movies that are not linear. Everyone in the film has a flashback or a "vision". Add on top of it the need to show the dogs bodily functions. Why the film has to have a dog crapping scene? Plus the dog had as much gas as anyone in any National Lampoon movie. I don't know if this was meant to be a child's movie, but it wasn't. In the final scheme, a children's film that tried to be adult but wasn't and wasn't children enough to be a children's film.....


Well, well, well other movie studios can make Disney-esquire films without actually being affiliated with Disney! Such a low state of affairs for a movie studio when they try to 'out-Disney' Disney. And they seem to have beat them, but only in Disney's bad sequels department. Trouble is, this isn't a sequel! The premise is very cheesy: a dog actor thinks gets lost during a stunt and they only find his hairpiece. What??!?! I can't believe that, but it gets worse. The 'troubled' kid only seems to ditch class sometimes. Hardly a troubled kid that commits robbery and does illegal drugs.

But the dog helps the fire house save the day and the neighborhood. Bad, evil corporations trying to burn people out of their homes! Not like the real ones, who only buy people out of their homes and claim 'imminent domain'. Well, I guess pyromania is more plausible? Overall, except for the explosion near the end, nothing exciting or interesting happened. "D-"


Ughhhh. Boring boring boring. Looks like a cute little kiddy movie but it's just not. The movie had a very slow beginning but got a little better as it went along. It was sooo long though, I was basically counting the minutes haha. The acting was not good at all in my opinion, especially Hutcherson's. I'm sorry, it's just that his delivery of a lot of his lines were rather cringe worthy. I haven't seen any of his other movies so I can't just come right out and say that he's a bad actor but judging from this, he's definitely not good. The script sucked terribly too. The dog steals the show (or lack thereof lol)... he was pretty tight haha. But he couldn't save this mess...

2/10


This movie has made firefighters look like fools. This movie is insanely ridiculous and a complete waste of time and money. I am a firefighter and I don't want to be thought of as part of a group that supports this insanity. Its like Air Bud with Bad acting and a Fake dog!! Crap Crap Crap Todd Holland doesn't have a tract record of making great movies, this is without a doubt one of if not the worst movies he has done. he has made firefighters like idiots, I can tell you FF are not. I wouldn't even let my own kids see this in fear of them going stupid or thinking that this is how FF truly are. Nobody in my firehouse supports this movie. The Lassie TV Series was good in the 50's and 60's, its almost like Lassie reborn but... totally bad.


I was forced to go see this movie with a bunch of ten year old, and even they found this boring and pointless as I did.

Themes were tossed around uselessly in this movie, yet I was not completely bored, the only thing keeping me awake being my icee and the scenes where something would catch on fire.

Of course, I failed to understand what significance the dog had in the movie, and to understand the relationships that were going on either.

If you are looking for a great family film, or even a movie with a point, don't look here, don't even think about going to this. It was pretty much the worst movie I have seen this year, especially at the theatre.


Man, i can't even remember when was the time i saw this... A few years back, that's for sure. Why won't i re-watch it before commenting? 'Cuz i was freakin' bored for the first time too! The story is neither sophisticated nor original. A modern Romeo'n'Juliet thingie between a gypsy boy and a 'white' girl. But don't worry, it gets worse... Of course, as all films showing a minority, this one is also full of whining about how gypsies are oppressed, etc. Yet, even on the screen, they deepen the preconception of the criminal minority. Bravo! It has a few society-critical parts too, but after the main storyline being that weak, i just couldn't feel the punch lines... Visuals. The most important part of an animation, isn't it? Well, the look of the whole is not that bad at all. Just a bit ugly for me. Imagine 'a scanner darkly' with even less hand-work and less continuity between frames. It looks good, while it's still. In original language (Hungarian that is), characters have the voices of some famous Hungarian actors who also appear in the movie as they were all digitalized. The known faces and voices do good to the title, but won't save it. But the stars are unknown names, who can't show their talents due to the animation. Oh, and they sing too. Wish they weren't.

All in all, the movie is not hopeless, and surely not the worst movie of all time, just wasn't worth the state money it got. By a long shot.


This was the fourth of the sixteen Wayne Lone Star series. I must respectfully disagree with those on IMDb who rate it highly. I thought it was one of the worse in the series. It has all the bad elements of the series, bad acting, convoluted and dull plot,anachronisms (telephones, automobiles and women in 1930's clothes). Only the stunt work is excellent, providing the five or six interesting moments.

At one point, Wayne turns to the bad guy and says that he's acting like a character out of a dime novel. He's exactly right. The bad guy and the story are stereotypes even for 1933.

The series seems to move between films that basically follow straight stereotypical Western stories and films that provide funny and clever twists on the stereotypical stories. This one is played straight and thus only has interest for cinema or Western historians. The other type ("Riders of Destiny" and "the Star Packer," for example) are still quite entertaining 75 years later.


Pretty tame Lone Star fare, not up to later standards. Nothing much distinguishes this 60 minutes of sagebrush opera. The plot is easy to follow-- Wayne assumes a false identity in order to bring his father's killer to justice. In the process he rescues an old rancher and his daughter from the clutches of a ruthless land grabber and unexpectedly finds a brother. Unfortunately, the locations are nondescript, not much stunt work or hard riding, while the outlaw gang gives up without the usual fight. Also, there's no real personality or color to compensate for the general absence of excitement. Hayes and Canutt too are largely wasted. Perhaps the high point is a lengthy fist-fight that doesn't quite follow the usual formula in outcome. All in all, however, a definitely sub-standard Wayne Western.


An average Lone Star film -- built on convenient coincidences (Gat Gann just happens to walk into the scene and dies, and, as luck would have it, just happens to bear a letter of introduction to the man, "Gantry" who, as fate would have it, just happens to have killed John "Ted" Wayne's father and for whom Ted goes to work because Ted just happens to look just like Gannon in his "Wanted" poster, etc., etc.) and clichés.

Interesting for: 1) the stunt work of Yakima Cannutt-- riding a buckboard hitch with a boy on his back,and later diving through a window from a horse; 2) the child abuse theme that culminates in John Wayne's heartfelt hugging of young "Spud" at the end.

Other than that, not much here, even by Lone Star standards. No real character development, except for John Wayne's passionate presence; George Hayes just chews tobacco.


It is a completely awful movie without any substantial plot. The characters are doing nothing else but screaming and insulting each other and they don't play their role naturally in some scenes. It's an effort to put out a Greek family with problems but this is done very extravagantly. I was tired during watching the movie. I expected something better. The characters seem to insult and shout just only to provoke. I think it's a patchwork without making any sense. It's definitely unsuitable for children or people who can't tolerate the abuse and the movies of type "lets write something quickly just to produce a film". There is no use of vocabulary's variety and no level. They humiliate the Greek family. So, if you don't like the nerves' war with the bad meaning, then don't watch that movie.


The first impression which is going to be created in viewers' minds is that why is this film named "Matchbox" ? Yeah, it is true that all the film's actors are angry. Does that mean that the film should be titled "Matchbox" ? If the same logic is applied than its name should have been "red tomato ketchup". There is no clue to this in the film. Greek cinema is known because of masters like Angelopoulos, Pantelis Voulgaris etc. For those who wish to explore more of Greek cinema, Yannis Economidis' film "Matchbox" would come as a great shock.It is with firm conviction that I state that I am yet to come across any world cinema film in which the actors do nothing but hurl the best of filthy abuses on each other. This does not constitute a drawback for the film as it has its own virtue. One cannot term this film "low budget" but as it was entirely shot in the two rooms of a house, it can be assumed that the producer has not spent mega bucks for it. This is an ordinary Greek film which viewers would not like to remember for the rest of their lives.


An (allegedly) accurate account of what happened when heiress Patricia Hearst (Natasha Richardson) was kidnapped by a terrorist group. They brainwashed her and she ended up helping them commit crimes.

Plenty of people have gone on and on and on (and on) about the politics of the movie. I can't really comment on that since I was only 12 when she was kidnapped and knew little about it. I saw this movie with no preconceived notions about whether it was true or false or if the politics were accurate. So (as a movie) this fails badly. It's flatly directed, badly acted (except for a few exceptions) and has a script that has some of the dumbest lines I've ever heard. All the "revolutionaires" ideals came across as extremely questionable and I actually started to laugh when Ving Rhames started spouting off about it. This is not to say that Rhames was bad (he was actually pretty good) but the lines he's given are just utter drivel. The only good thing about this is Richardson. Considering she has nothing to work with she's incredible. She convincingly fakes an American accent and Hearst's pain, confusion and terror come through. Still, her acting can't save this terrible movie. This bombed in 1988 and has since sunk without a trace. I heard that Hearst herself saw it and hated it. This really isn't worth your time. Skip it.


I thought maybe it was just old age creeping up on me. The Jimi Hendrix that I remember from my youth sounded a whole lot better than what I saw on this DVD. I thought I had just changed my tastes and wasn't into his songs anymore. Then I read some reviews here....and I feel better. It wasn't me: it was this concert - it sucked!

I just wanted to have something on film of one of the most famous guitar players of all time, so I thought this long concert would do it.

Well, this disc has already been traded for something else. All it turned out to be was noise, which was really disappointing considering the songs I liked best from him were all included in this concert. Unfortunately, they were hardly recognizable. If anyone knows of a really good Hendrix DVD, please PM me. Thanks.


Writer-director Neil Jordan (on a roll after the critically-acclaimed "Mona Lisa") nearly took his name off the credits of this low-level whimsy, saying the final result had been altered by outsiders. Perhaps they were hoping to find (or save) the center of Jordan's muddled plot, but in the end it's still a wash-out. Jaw-droppingly poor, heavy-handed comedy has tourists in an ancient Irish castle mixing it up with the ghostly apparitions residing there. The cast (including Peter O'Toole, Steve Guttenberg, Daryl Hannah, Liam Neeson, Beverly D'Angelo and Jennifer Tilly--a highly uneven troupe if there ever was one!) cannot get a grip on their characters and flounder (they should've threaten to remove their names as well). Romantic and comic shenanigans lands with a big thud. NO STARS from ****


High Spirits is set in Ireland where Peter Plunkett (Peter O'Toole) is told he has two weeks left to pay the mortgage on his ancestral Castle turned hotel, unfortunately the hotel isn't very popular & in an attempt to muster business Peter advertises it as an authentic haunted Castle complete with real ghosts. Peter's attempt's at fooling his guests into thinking the Castle is haunted fail miserably, however all is not lost as then the real ghosts take over. Much hilarity ensues, not...

This English American co-production was written & directed by Neil Jordan & quite frankly I think High Spirits is a pretty bad film. The script is a muddled mess, there are sporadic moments of supposed comedy, there's an awful romance between American tourist Steve Guttenberg & ghost Daryl Hannah, there's stupid drama & it tries to chuck some horror into the mix as well. None of it works, it never comes together as one coherent piece & the fact that it's so unfunny, childish, predictable & rather boring doesn't help my love for it. The character's are clichéd, the ghosts are underused & did I mention that it wasn't funny yet? So here we have a film that tries to be a horror comedy but fails on both counts, High Spirits is not a film I look back on with any fondness. At all.

Director Jordan has apparently gone on record as saying that he had no input over the editing process & what was released was substantially different to his original cut, to be honest that sounds like an excuse for making such a bad film as he still directed the scenes which ended up on screen, it was still his script this mess came from & quite frankly how much difference could there have been? Was there hours of unused footage? Would any of it been any funnier if there was? I imagine the studio probably tweaked it a bit but maybe because Jordan's original cut was even worse, I just don't believe this 'it would have been brilliant if the studio had left it alone' rubbish., anyway I guess we'll never find out either way... I must admit the film looks quite nice with good sets although the special effects vary between impressive & poor. On a side note did anyone else notice the white horse Guttenberg lands in front of when he falls out of the tree hit by lightening (don't ask)? I'm positive you can see the horse's penis dangling between it's legs, not that I specifically look out for these things you understand...

Technically High Spirits is fine with decent production values. Looking at the cast list it's pretty impressive although no one covers themselves in glory, O'Toole is good but that's it. Gutteneberg tries to act all emotional, oh dear...

High Spirits is a comedy that simply isn't funny & it's story is a mess that doesn't entertain, I don't know what else to say other than I didn't like it. Could have been better, much better. Watch Ghostbusters (1984) instead to see how a proper supernatural comedy should be done.


This is - in my opinion - one of the worst pictures produced - EVER!

The plot is terribly stupid, the whole purpose of the movie is that of a poor frame for childish "special effects". The whole thing is so terribly embarassing, that I think it is a "must-see". Almost every aspect of filmmaking (script, casting, photography, special effects, and.. and..) is so horribly bad! I really wonder why this one never got the turkey.


Despite some atmospheric moments, some OK special effects and likable performances by Peter O'Toole and Steve Guttenberg (Daryl Hannah is too "soft"; Beverly D'Angelo is disappointing), this film is a fiasco. It suffers from special effects overkill, and the plot, which potentially contains some interesting developments, makes little sense. I think I'll have forgotten all about this film by tomorrow... (*1/2)


Ho Ho Ho! This early post Halloween slash fest is intriguing and collectible for two significant reasons. It was the first slasher movie to include a Santa-suited psycho, before Silent Night-Deadly Night, Psycho Santa and Christmas Season Massacre made the costume a slasher cliché. Secondly it was the directorial debut of David Hess  a man who was to the horror genre what Johan Cryuff was to football. Not many people know about Hess' hugely impressive contributions to show business and the things that he achieved prior to his acting exploits. His professional career began as a singer-songwriter for a small label called Shalimar Music in 1957. His first recording was a song called 'All Shook Up', which of course became a massive hit for Elvis Presley that same year.

Throughout the months that followed, Hess would see Conway Twitty, Andy Williams, Sal Mineo and Pat Boone take his tracks to the top end of the charts and then he settled for a career behind the scenes as head A & R man for Mercury Records. Then in 1972 his fortunes continued to improve when he was offered the lead role in Wes Craven's cult classic 'The Last House on the Left'. He gave such a nasty and memorable performance that he would continue to play tormented characters in movies like 'The Eleventh Commandment'. To all a Good Night gave him the chance to broaden his horizons in the film industry and it was a solid opportunity to express his talents in the director's chair. It's something that he'd like to try again, although he admits that he has neither the time nor the cash flow to direct a second feature. Nowadays David Hess says that his main priority is spending time with his family.

The opening scene is conveyed so rapidly that it felt like I had my finger on the fast forward button. It's Christmas vacation at the Calvin Finishing School for girls and the co-eds are celebrating by chasing one female around the dormitory. She heads out onto the balcony, trips over a plant pot and takes a fatal tumble to the concrete floor below. We can only presume that the girl died, although we're never given an explanation to the scene. We don't even know who any of these characters were?

Two years later and its Christmas time again. A large majority of the youngsters are going home, but a few party animals are preparing for their own on-site celebrations. The gang of fun-loving ladies includes a curvaceous man-eater called Melody (Linda Gentile), who spends her time being swapped among the guys like a football card. There's a suspiciously plum accented English girl named Trisha (Angela Bath), and then we have the traditional bed-hopper and inadvertently billed comic relief character, Leia (Judith Bridges). Finally we meet the Jamie Lee Curtis-lite goody-two-shoes called Nancy (Jennifer Runyon). Their house is run by Ruth Jensen (Katherine Herrington) and Trina Ronsoni (Judy Hess), who must be related to the director  maybe his wife? She also shows a brilliant knack for comic timing, by quipping at one point, " I'll stop off on my way back. That is if the grim reaper doesn't come calling". Ho-hum!

Anyway, Christmas alone for the girls wouldn't be much fun, so they literally fly in a gang of randy would-be lotharios including the stereotypical geek, Alex (Forest Swanson). It doesn't take long for the masked Santa-suited slasher to turn up and begin cutting his way through the revellers. He then buries their bodies in the backyard with the professionalism and speed of a gang of landscape gardeners. So who will survive this Christmas Massacre?

To all a Good Night isn't as bad as its hideous reputation would lead you to believe. In fact it's actually fairly watchable in a so bad it's good kind of way. It's helped no end by some breathtaking dialogue from the dim-witted cast. At one point, Trisha bumps in to the maniac and goofs in her comical sub-Brit accent, "Oh Tom, take that bloody mask off and take me to bed!" She gets what she rightly deserves. Then on planet eye test, all the guys are captivated by the hilariously unattractive Leia, but they defy logic by completely ignoring the much better looking AND virginal Nancy. The aforementioned flat chested redhead also provides most of the nudity, while the buxom and shapely Melody remains fully clothed throughout? Not being content with constantly ripping off her clothes, Leia goes insane towards the conclusion of the movie and spends the final third of the runtime singing and ballet dancing round the corpses of her chums!

Mark Shostrum's gore effects may well be the most spectacular ever filmed. We'll never know if that's true however, because the picture is just too dark. Day for night filters are used without any other form of lighting, and at times the lack of clear vision ruins the movie. The only good killing that I remember featured the maniac dressed in a suit of armour and it was thankfully filmed inside the house, so the lighting was at least passable. Despite loosing about six of their colleagues in the first thirty minutes, the remaining victims fail to acknowledge that there is a maniac stalking the campus. Instead they continue to mouth inept comments the following morning, such as, "They must have gone to bed." Even when they uncover the heavily-mutilated body of Ralph the albino gardener, they still refuse to accept that a maniac is trying to cut down the guest list for their Xmas party. The utter stupidity of the youngsters destroys any sympathy for their eminent demise.

On the plus side, there is a humongous body count and as I said, it's fairly amusing in an inadvertent kind of way. Watch it with a few beers and you'll probably enjoy it a lot more.


Krug from LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (David A. Hess) made this slasher movie with a script from the star of THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN (Alex Rebar). The night scenes are so incompetently photographed that you can't tell what the hell is going on, which could cause some alarm if the daylight scenes were any good, but since everything is equally stupid, blame whoever, in front of or behind the camera, you want.

Jennifer Runyon is the sweet, milk-drinking blonde virgin Nancy, who is stuck at a boarding school with her obnoxious and lascivious female friends. When their boyfriends fly in for a sex-filled Holiday weekend, a nut dressed like Santa Claus prowls around and kills most of them off. People are killed with arrow, knife, axe, rock, airplane propeller and various other sharp things, most of the women get naked and a decapitated head hangs in the shower. One girl does a cop who comes over to help them. The cop is played by Hess (who appears uncredited). This forgettable horror film wraps up with a pathetic and desperate twist ending.

TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT is noteworthy mostly as one of at least three killer Santa Claus movies to predate SILENT NIGHT DEADLY NIGHT. The other two (which are both much better) are the Joan Collins segment in the anthology TALES FROM THE CRYPT (1971) and the wonderfully bizarre Christmas EVIL (1980).


Promiscuous college girls, who remain at their school for the Christmas holiday, coerce their resident cook to go to bed, awaiting gleefully for their boyfriends to arrive by plane(..one of the boys has a rich daddy)so they can gather together and enjoy a night of naughty debauchery, not knowing that a psycho in Santa costume plans to ruin the festivities.

The film opens with a game that ends disappointingly as one of the female students falls off of a balcony, stoned, falling to the ground below..it seems this unfortunate incident might just be the root cause of the Christmas slayer's mayhem.

There's a nerd who talks about the advances in medical science with great detail, some wannabe lothario with an acoustic guitar, an obvious nympho who doesn't get a chance to bed her man, a virginal blonde with a soft voice the gardener wishes to protect, a couple of practical jokers(often criticizing the blonde girl and anyone else they find annoying or bothersome, these two girls are the kind you see in school whispering to each other about people they don't like), etc. As usual, the medical nerd is uneasy about making a move on the girl(..she's this lovely gal with a great body who is practically throwing herself at him, yet, as often was the case, he's too nervous, or focused on his studies, to get a clue). There's a funny scene where our 'final girl' is drinking her milk and listening to the moans of passion from another room! The gardener is one of those old religious kooks dispelling doom to Nancy, the pretty innocent he wishes to protect("There's something wrong, I feel it."). Nancy spends time skulking about being lonely, until her and nerd Alex(..having lost his virginity with one of the girls, Melody)hook up, forming amateur detectives, and searching out the place in the dark.

One of the funniest scenes, to me anyway, has a naked Leia, who had just bedded one of the cops assigned to protect them, finding the severed head of her pal stuck on the shower head! I was amused as I watched this flick how characters are blunt and honest about others giggling and insulting them while they are still in the room(..such as gardener Ralph who seems to be the butt of everyone's jokes, even though he moves about, saying little, without really warranting such constant ridicule, despite the fact that he's a wee bit creepy).

To All a Good Night is what it is, a prototypical slasher which doesn't distinguish itself from the others of it's ilk. The cast of characters have little personality and will probably not appeal to the masses who look for obscure slasher fare, and when they die you could care less or feel little pity.

Jennifer Runyon is Nancy, Forrest Swanson(Alex), Linda Gentile(Melody), William Lauer(..as TJ, the rich jock with the plane), and Judith Bridges(..whose Leia goes bonkers, singing to herself a lullaby as she dances around in her own little world after discovering the decapitated head and killer Santa with a butcher knife)round out some of the cast in trouble of being chop suey. Sam Shamshak is Chief of Police, Polansky and Katherine Herrington is cook Mrs. Jensen, both of which have pivotal parts of importance as the film unfolds. Buck West is the weirdo gardener. Neither cult star David Hess' direction nor Alex Rebar's writing seem very inspired(..it feels like the cash-in of a fad, with little spirit or innovation), although the concept of a killer dressed as Santa was somewhat fresh at this time. I guess the most memorable murder sequence will be when Santa starts up the plane while a pilot is working on the engine, the spinning propeller blade chopping him and a female student to pieces. Something to think about..it seems impossible that one Santa can be at two places at one time, even in the wonderful land of movie time where a killer can move at warp speed.


A lost and forgotten Santa Claus slasher film which predates SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT. The victims are your typical college dummies who have sex, take showers at the wrong times, and don't believe anything strange is going on. Some good nude and gore scenes. The ending is simultaneously familiar and surprising.


I don't have enough words to say how terrible and how boring this slasher movie is. The movie try to get back to Christmas horror that have been made before with more taste, like Black Christmas. A sorority house where girls that looks more like thirty years old prostitutes than college coeds have organized a party for Christmas is invaded by a crazy killer masked like Santa Claus. After the worst series of murders in a slasher movie and after dialogues and love scenes that are really bad, the movie ends with a "surprise" ending that is too silly to be credible. Avoid like the plague


As far as slasher flicks that cast Santa Claus as a mad killer are concerned, this is a passable yet forgettable offering from actor David Hess (in his one and only directorial effort). One of the main problems, which detracts a lot from the tone and atmosphere, is the lack of snowit would have complemented the killer's exploits perfectly, yet there's none to be found. Also irritating is the insufficient lighting during nighttime sequences, in which the action is sometimes impossible to make out. However, "To All a Good Night" is a cut above most derivative slashers, even though it starts out with the mandatory sex-obsessed sorority girls (plus one cute wallflower) and assembly-line violence, it gets progressively better as it goes alongcreating an adequate atmosphere of dread and giving its surviving characters a bit of personality and humanity.


Having read the comment of the person who had to work in post-production on this film, I extend my sympathies to you! This is a very hard film to sit through and keep an unqueasy stomach. In fact, I think I got about halfway through, having been quite patient, before deciding that whatever point the filmmakers had did not justify their approach, and I left the theatre to see another film at the festival. If I had not been at a festival, I might have hung around for the ending (at this point I must say my fest friends are continually amazed by my patience with off-putting art films!) This movie is unrelentingly focused on the gross material aspects of existence. The reality we all live in is full of death, life, pain, pus, blood, mud, bodily orifices, rain, sun, and everything else our senses are inundated with, but the presentation of it in this film feels like having your head ducked into a trough full of manure. What is most unsettling is the impression that this is exactly what the film makers were trying to do...


It wasn't until after I saw the movie on Channel 4 tonight that I found out something relatively important and that is that the source novel by Emile Zola was set in 19th century France and not sometime 20th century Yorkshire . I say 20th century Yorkshire but I am very confused as to the time period because characters wear relatively modern clothes , have electricity and have access to tractors but often cut wheat with scythes . It's as if screenwriter Andrew Kotting has adapted the 19th century novel word for word in some scenes and then forgotten this when he's written his own scenes . This leads to an anachronistic feel through out the movie and while I was watching it I was expecting there to be a shock revelation at the end where it's revealed the story is set in the 24th century and there had been an Earth shattering catastrophe a couple of centuries before . This doesn't in fact happen and I felt cheated by this . I've no idea the nationality of Kotting but I doubt if he's from the North of England since he seems to be under the impression that Yorkshire is a vast wilderness . Even if the story is supposed to be set in the 19th century I doubt if the location would be as remote has made out on screen , rural Yorkshire is not like rural France . Obviously Kottering has adapted the story badly

But it's Kottering's directing style that makes THIS FILTHY EARTH a terrible experience . Within the opening couple of minutes we're treated to scenes speeded up , jump cuts , slow motion and sequences shot on 8 mm film . I suppose the director deserves some credit from audience members like myself who have never taken hallucinogenics but have wondered what a bad acid trip feels like and watching this movie now Iknow . But is there any context for doing this ? Maybe there might have been if the wheat grain the farmers had collected had been ergotised but this type of food poisoning would have been rare in the north of England ( But not perhaps 19th century France ) whatever period it's set in so it seems it was included by the director because it seemed like a good idea . It certainly makes for a memorable movie but not in a good way . I mean if a film ( That gets its TV premier at 2.30 in the morning ) starts with a close up on a bull's erection it's usually the sign of an unwatchable art house movie . We also have to endure a close up of a human erection slipping in and out of a human front bottom later on so you have been warned

As for the rest of Kottering's hand at the helm I wonder if he's a native English speaker ? It's just that I had a serious problem wondering what the characters were saying , not so much their dialect ( Though it is difficult to understand sometimes ) but the way the actors deliver their lines , they either mumble them or they scream them out very loud and very fast . Is this a conspiracy so that people will buy the DVD and watch the movie with subtitles turned on ? I wouldn't be surprised since it's the only way that you'll be able to follow the story . Despite this he's cast well and the actors involved do their utmost best to make their characters come across as hateful inbreed idiots . However it's important an audience can relate to characters in a movie and when you've got such despicable genetic mutations as the ones seen here it's difficult to connect with the story especially if you can't understand what's being said

So I've slagged off this movie and I have every right to . I can't believe that the average rating is 6.0 , but this comes from somewhere in the region of 36 voters and the credits of THE FILTHY EARTH contain more than 36 people - I think you know what I'm implying here . Let me just repeat that this bizarre movie won't appeal to anyone outside the hardcore die-hard art house brigade . It's a memorable movie for sure but for all the wrong reasons . I repeat you have been warned


There were way too many holes in the plot to make this movie worth watching for everyone that likes the actors or genre. The only reason I watched the entire movie was because, as a woman, seeing the massive revenge against rapists was very satisfying. One of those rare moments in which the woman isn't continually re-victimized. I thought Oldman's performance was a little more natural than that of Rhames, but his was still decent. I can't say all women would gain anything by seeing rapists tortured. It's dicey. I gave it a 3 out of 10. My feeling is that veterans such as Rhames and Oldman should have seen all of the mistakes in dialog and plot consistency and maybe passed on it altogether. If you're up and bored in the middle of the night while it's on a movie channel, you might as well watch it.


Sin takes an average revenge story, adds in rape and pornographers, and ultimately turns into an average revenge story. At the very least, the plot thickens near the end of the movie when we realize that the bad guy (who is a really bad guy and the movie absolutely will leave no questions about that) turns out to have a reason for his actions throughout the movie beyond just being a really bad guy. It is odd, however, that a movie can take such talented actors as Ving Rhames and, especially, Gary Oldman and turn their performances into run-of-the-mill action clichés.

Rhames utters the phrase 'she's my sister' so many times in the movie that by the end the movie has turned the phrase into a cliché all by itself. You messin' with my family you messin' with me, and so forth. I think that most of the reason that so many people hated this movie was because it raises your expectations because of the people involved but did nothing new within its genre. It's a standard revenge movie with standard plot points and turns and even the standard plot thickening in the third act.

Where the movie does not wallow in clichés, however, is in some of the characterizations. No one is as good or bad as they initially seem to be in this movie. The evil was heaped onto Charlie Strom, Gary Oldman's character, so heavily in the first half of the movie that it's difficult for him to escape from underneath the mountain of badness that he is under even when we see the reasons for his actions, but the good guys in particular, are not as good as they seem. Eddie Burns (Ving Rhames) lost the use of his left arm in the line of duty, but also played a role in the death of an innocent man that could really amount to murder. Bella, played by Alicia Coppola, is someone that we want to root for but may hesitate because of the, ah, sinful nature of her occupation.

There is, however, a lot of forgiveness in the movie, and I respect that. At one point, Eddie discusses some of the finer points in life with Strom over cups of coffee, despite their mutual desires to kill one another. Later in the movie, Eddie is attempting to save Strom from a pool of quicksand in the middle of the Nevada desert. I didn't know there was quicksand in the middle of the Nevada desert, but no matter. The movie's not about where there is quicksand or how fast you can get from large freeways in the middle of Las Vegas to open desert without even any discernible roads, the movie's about you messin' with my family you messin' with me. And who better than Ving Rhames to return the messy favor?

Rhames could take these people out with an arm tied behind his back.


Much of the film content of "Sin" is excessively violent and unpleasant. The screenwriters have also shamelessly recycled one of the classic screen thriller moments from the hall of mirrors scene in "The Lady From Shanghai." And was it not possible to come up with a more imaginative title than "Sin"? Yet there is one compelling reason to see this movie, and that is for the performances of Ving Rhames and Gary Oldman.

In the same way that the film "Heat" established a dynamic duel between Al Pacino's detective and Robert DeNiro's thief, the most interesting scenes in "Sin" are those that bring together the ex-cop (Rhames) and the sleazy drug lord (Oldman). The plot concerns the maniacal acts perpetrated by Oldman's character, who is pursued by Rhames' character, the former cop who lost part of his arm and all of his idealism after a shady police arrest and illegal interrogation of an alleged cop-killer.

There is one riveting moment when in the middle of an action scene, the characters discourse on the topic of conscience. In this conversation, our perception of both Rhames' and Oldman's characters change when we realize that one of the characters is totally without conscience and the other has been driven by the human emotion of guilt. But this moment remains buried among predictable and even cliched action scenes piled one on top of another.

If the film could have just focused on the internal development of the two principal characters, eliminating the violent action sequences, it would have been more watchable and more memorable. There is something special about these two exceptional actors, however, that enables Rhames and Oldman to rise above the material.


This was worst film I have ever had the misfortune to sit through. It was painful to watch, the only thing that kept me watching this dreadful film was that it was so bad I felt I had a responsibility to warn the rest of the world not to waste a couple of hours of their lives watching it.

There was no plot to speak of and any hints of a plot were so obvious that you work them out at least half an hour in advance. Every word in this film is a part of a line or a speech, there is no 'normal everyday talking' the script is rubbish! The direction was confusing in its absence and the editing seems to have been done ten minutes before the premier.

Do not be fooled by the cast as they were also somehow fooled by the script.

Worthy of the IMDb bottom 100, and in my opinion should be #1.


Have you ever seen authentic Hollywood drivel? Well, this is it!

The story is infantile, characters performed by the actors all have an IQ of zero, and the producers must've been drunk when they made this. I would've understood this kind of garbage being made a decade ago, but in 2003!? And by Gary Oldman?

Despite the comments that you can read on amazon.com (probably done by patriotic American boobs), this is one is a complete waste of time. It's unimaginable that this kind of stories still hold a grip over the public. Half the movie is a bunch of cliché sentences and the other half is a meager attempt to portrait cops as heroes. I mean, how many times have they done it before?

_Anything_ is better than this.

An insult to any man's intelligence.


There is one great scene with Gary Oldman And Ving Rhames where they talk about conscience. That scene is almost worth the price of the rental. Besides that scene the whole movie is piled with cliches and underwritten characters. The chase scene near the end looks like a car commercial. I give a a ** star rating


Quote "What's wrong with you? You seemed to have swallowed a large poisonous insect?"

Quote 2 "I've been drugged, kidnapped and driven through the desert in the trunk of a "beeping" rental car and forced to watch you blow two men apart. The last part I am willing to forgive. But I will not have you call me baby!"

Can anyone believe that this was made in 2003??? The script is just too stupid to believe Gary Oldman and Ving Rhames said yes without a gun to their heads.

Direction issues.. Sister has overdosed and magically this women who only knew she was in trouble turns to the graveyard to help save her?

Bill Sage looks more like a porn star than a police officer and the porn star in the early scene looked more like the town drunk than a porn star.

Then hero Ving Rhames catches one of the men who raped his sister and beats him up then the police sirens are in the background suggesting they are coming. The bad guy says "diplomatic immunity" and instead of running away the hero shoots him dead. It is worth watching cause frankly it's impossible to believe they allowed it to be released. The writers are probably working for CSI series now!


Now keep in mind, the only reason I undertook to see this film was because Gary Oldman was on the cover. If it had been anyone else (Richard Grieco, Michael Pare, Brian "The Boz" Bosworth, for example), I would not have even picked up the box. SIN looked liked a B-grade thriller, but Gary Oldman...The truth is is that SIN has a decent ambition, but very little ability to back it up. The film contains both an anti-hero and an anti-villain, creating an interesting ambiguity, but it simply throws it away.

A retired cop (Ving Rhames), and his kid sister, are threatened by a shadowy vindictive drug/porn/gun dealer played by Gary Oldman. There is a graphic rape scene I wouldn't go into, and other lurid happenings that lead these two characters into a final showdown, which could have been interesting, but is instead a car chase. Rhames' former chief (Brian Cox) shows up randomly to offer sage advice, all to the backdrop of Michael Giacchino's derivative score (although it is good to see him breakout from the video game scene). So is this film worth seeing? Ving Rhames tries his best, but is better suited for films like PULP FICTION, he does not emote as a crippled retired cop with a haunted past. Kerry Washington, as the sister, has talent, but is given poorly written scenes that even seasoned veterans would have trouble with. However, Gary Oldman is quite good...

Oldman is by far one of the best actors working today, and one must assume that, like the rest of us, he has mortgage. He still plays one-dimensional bad guys better than anyone (LEON, LOST IN SPACE, TRUE ROMANCE), and in SIN he does try. (Watch him work in a powerful showdown in a mirrored bedroom, or his oration on conscience.) Perhaps he read the script and thought there was potential, which there is, but the director, Michael Stevens, decides to play the movie slick, wasting time and talent. I just hope this does not signal a trend to Oldman's career. There has been a couple of Oldman straight-to-video releases of late (NOBODY'S BABY, INTERSTATE 60, TIPTOES) after a steady string of high-profile films during the 90's. If he keeps making films like this he could end up like Brian Cox, a good actor who shows up as a police official or someone's crazy dad in below average productions like SIN. That would be a shame.

SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will give SIN credit, I have not seen a movie that ends with the villain being engulfed into quicksand in years. As improbable as that sounds, the quicksand scene isn't that bad, thanks mostly due to Oldman's pride during this surreal finale. 4/10.


I've been watching this stupid movie for an hour and boy does it suck! Rhames just saved a woman from a fate worse than death and she had a hissy because he called her "baby". That's just an example of one in a long string of stupid moments in this unninspired, unoriginal amateurish junk flick. If it gets better, I'll let you know before posting this comment. Otherwise, just pass on "Sin". (C-)


That was the worst movie we have ever seen. And we want our damn money back. My mother says if we got it on bootleg, which we don't get bootlegs, we would've beat up the bootleg man. We excuse Ving Rhames for such a terrible performance because we understand times are hard and he just needed a little extra money. The costumes were horrible, the music was horrible, and the writing was beyond horrible!!!The movie was so bad it was comical. Don't waste your money!!! Don't suffer like we did. The movie was low budget and very apparently so. In the part where Ving Rhames lost his hand you could see his actual hand in the cloth. The movie is almost like Nepolean Dynamite according to my sister, because of the long pointless pauses. You spend half of the movie looking at people look at each other and listen to bad music without any action, at all! So again don't rent it, buy it, or even watch somebody else's movie, its that bad!!!


Lorenzo Lamas returns as Renegade cop "Soldier" Jack Kelly who declares war on drug dealers who are cutting the drugs with rat poison in this undistinguished yet semi-fun sequel. Well what can we say? Snakeeater II:The Drug Buster boasts good actionscenes, and some good performances from Larry B. Scott and Ron Palillo but overall Snakeeater II:The Drug Buster is a mediocre movie. At least it's better then it's astonishingly bad predecessor.


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

Street cop Soldier Kelly (Lorenzo Lamas) gets worked up at being unable to take the drug dealers off the streets and ends up massacring a whole bunch of them (as you do...) He ends up being committed to a mental institution, where a sexy psychiatrist tries to evaluate him, but he manages to break free and teams up with wise cracking black guy Speedboat (Larry B Scott) to go after the big time dealers and save his sister from the scourge of drugs.

This prompt sequel to unforgettable STV action film Snake Eater has the same lead star, later Renegade star Lamas, and follows much the same formula as the first film, which is to say it delivers much the same results. The acting is wooden, the plot completely nonsensical, even for something so basic, but if you want some simple, undemanding action nonsense, it may deliver the goods. On the other hand, you may just want to stay out of the pit. **


Hard to believe it from this black comedy, but director Frank Perry used to excel with stories about headstrong women shaking off the chains from their men and finding answers on their own. Therefore, it's rather sad to see Susan Sarandon so open-mouthed and hesitant here, kowtowing to a perfectly dreadful Edward Herrmann in the opening scenes of "Compromising Positions". After her lascivious dentist is murdered, Sarandon goes against hubby's wishes and helps detective Raul Julia solve the case. It's too late; too much compromising has been done on Perry's part and whatever visual interest there is early on has sputtered. Is there nothing more depressing than a deadening plot taking place in dullsville surroundings? Perry used to stage high-wire acts in the hearts of high-strung, big city women. Here, he plants his camera on mowed lawns and points it at front doors. The dentist is the lucky one. *1/2 from ****


This should have been better, much better. A former reporter (Susan Sarandon) investigates the murder of a philandering dentist, and the suspect list includes the women he's had affairs with and their husbands, who turn out to be half the people in town. She delves into small town gossip and Peyton Place-type secrets, and this puts a strains her marriage by angering her husband (played horribly by Edward Hermann). The writers had no idea how to handle the story, in spite of its great promise, and the film makes your average soap opera look like exciting adventure by comparison. In spite of a respectable cast, most of the actors just go through the motions (an exception being Mary Beth Hurt, who is funny but only has a small role). The result is an ordeal in tiresome characters and boredom.


James and the Giant Peach is a stop-motion animation musical based on a story by Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The BFG). Directed by Henry Selick (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Monkeybone), the film starts out as a live action film with James (Paul Terry) and his parents having a great life, with plans to move from England to New York City. Before they can move James' parents are eaten by a rhino (yeah, I laughed too), anyway, as you may have guessed, James is left with family members that hate him and abuse him. In this case it is his Aunt Spiker (Joanna Lumley) and Aunt Sponge (Miriam Margolyes).

Alone and depressed, James draws his dreams on a paper and makes a hot air balloon with it and a candle. James goes outside and is confronted by a mysterious old man who gives James back his bag, however, it now contains magical crocodile tongues. On his way back up to the house James stumbles and the crocodile tongues go everywhere and dig their way into the ground near a dead tree. A peach then begins to grow on the tree. Eventually James crawls into an opening in the peach. At this point the film goes into animation mode. Inside the peach James meets several friendly bugs who help him on his adventure to New York City.

Although the story did not hold my interest, there were a few great scenes. There is a scene with a metal steam operated shark that attacks James and his friends. There is also a great underwater scene where Jack Skellington makes a cameo appearance as a pirate. Although I did not really enjoy the film, I feel that children would enjoy it. However, use caution because there are a few scenes that may be too scary for young children.


What could be a very beautiful and captivating story was a wasted unusually long 79 minutes of time. The human characters were very annoying. The music (sorry Randy Newman)was terrible. The score was not bad, but the songs simply reeked.

As far as the story, I confess that I've never read the book that it's based on, but I found parts of it charming, and other parts a bit strange. Ok, the abused orphan boy, and magical giant peach, leading to boy's escape to NY is very nice. The fantasy elements are introduced by these glowing green seeds which produce the peach.. and therefore everything inside is fantasy. But what about these other absurities? What's with the mechanical shark? What's this rhinocerous that comes from a storm cloud and kills James' parents?

Don't get me wrong, I love absurdities. But I also like consistency and this movie just seems to have no guidelines of what should be fantasy and what should be reality.

Sad but true, the most entertaining aspect of this film was the amusement I received from James' speech impediment, ("I'm not afwaid of you!"). On a side note, just like "Nightmare before Christmas", the animation is great! But this movie sadly needed some Burton and Elfman touches.


This is over an hour of stupidity, and colors. It's as if the writer just said: "We have a premise and a story, now lets put in some half written songs, a child, animation, fat people, animals, and pretty colors and we made a child's godfather worthy masterpiece. It's not like we need to put effort if anything. No one attempts to even be good in this film, it's as if they thought no person would notice! Even the so called jokes aren't even funny at all. I expect better from Disney, Selick, and Burton! NONE OF THIS FILM MAKES ANY SENSE! EX: The human talks and breaths underwater, a rhino killed a boys parents, and SPOILER: In the end they live in a giant peach! WTF!


i love the book. i love the work of many of the people involved in this film. i HATE what they came up with here, knowing the deep fabric of text available!

if you've read the book, think how this could've been a mostly-live-action fantasy/horror/comedy flick. there was gorgeous potential! i

imagine tall, gossamer deeply creepy "cloud people" and a sense of doom and dread as the peach approached them! imagine the shiny, clickety, reality of centipede in contrast to his songs in the original text! this film could have gone much more "adult" in the atmospherically eerie factor and been at least ten times better for it!

uhgg, i see the images of this book -glorious, and a bit creepy, in my mind -if i had money i'd make the film- but this is a cheesy and limited version of what it could be.


There should be no wonder that the majority of the comments approving of this monstrosity are female. This show is a female's dream: to be cute, single, no kids and to have 4-5 decent looking successful, charismatic guys just hover around her, make her the center of attention, but none ever hit on her. EVER. OH-but they're totally hetero. Sure, that's realistic. When in the history of Earth has that EVER taken place? Not to mention introducing alcohol? But she never gets fired at by any of her "boys". It's all totally platonic, they don't introduce any other females that would threaten all this attention she gets, but she just maneuvers in this bastion of testosterone and there are no awkward moments, no lude comments, nothing. Puh-leeze. This is an abomination to all sitcoms and television as a whole. This show couldn't be further from reality if they had the "boys" become bionic cyborgs with the powers on invisibility that can bend space time and had flesh eating incest's that fly out of their mouths, in fact that would be more entertaining because you wouldn't need such a huge suspension of disbelief. This show sucks to holy hell. Once again, this is a woman's fantasy played out on TBS, it's so jacked up and far from the truth, that's the only comical value. It would be fine if they weren't trying to pass this off as 'realistic'. Make a mockery out of male/female relationships like When Harry Met Sally, but don't give me this fantasy-land and insult my intelligence.


Every now and then a show comes along that redefines your relationship with the whole genre. Seinfeld was like that, The Sopranos as well. Maybe even Californication. This show is about as far from that as possible, bar reality television.

As you watch it, you feel like you've seen that episode before, and you kind of know how it's going to end. That's because, in a way, you HAVE seen that episode before, and it's going to end exactly like any episode of any unimaginative half-hour sitcom based on some vaguely idiotic premise. It's the same old lame fodder we've seen a million times. It's kind of bearable and mostly dull and pointless, but at least it's not According to Jim.

A feeling of déjà vu not unlike visiting a childhood home, but one in which you were molested by a crazy uncle. Recognition, repetition and repulsion, in one fell 30-minute swoop.

But, once again, at least it's not According to Jim.

(Could ANYTHING be as awful as that? I mean, really? It's the television equivalent of a colonoscopy.)


I love sit-coms and am always looking for a new one to enjoy. Finding "My Boys" wasn't a choice, it was hyped for months and I was looking forward to watching it. After seeing the show I realized it obviously wasn't good enough for network television and that is probably why it ended up on TBS. I usually enjoy the more intelligent sit-coms but also enjoy some of the stupid ones. I rated My Boys a 2 out of 10. I found it to be very dull, boring and disappointing. After all the hype I thought it would at least be mildly humorous but I was wrong. It was awful. The only thing as bad is perhaps Saturday Night Live during the Tina Fey years.


So yesterday afternoon I was looking at a blog about faces that are begging to be punched, and while I didn't think too much of it at the time, I kept coming back to it later that night as I watched the latest (and my first) episode of TBS's sh*t factory otherwise known as "My Boys." With the exception of Gaffigan, who gets a pass because I like his stand-up and he seems to be the only actor on the show who isn't as awkward as a boner-afflicted 14-year-old at a jr high dance, there isn't one person on My Boys who does not, within the first 30 seconds of being on screen, make me want to punch a wall or kick a dog (and i love dogs).

I'm guessing that the guy who plays the loudmouth jackass is probably a monk or a stenographer in real life, because he sure as hell doesn't know the first thing about being a genuine loudmouth or delivering his lines in a way that doesn't sound like he's repeating testimony. "I can make a shirt sure i can i am like a fashion god and i could make a shirt i am like a fashion god." Jesus man, put some air under that sh*t.

I won't go into the rest of the actors individually, but suffice to say they are played by only moderately better androids. And as far as that "strained" relationship between the bald guy and the black friend, the only thing strained was the inner wall of my colon, which was pushed to new limits each time they exchanged mistimed, campy glances.

This is not to say that the writing is good and the actors are bad. Not at all. The writing is the worst part of it, in fact, though the writers did accomplish several feats I had previously assumed were mutually exclusive: they made the plot over-the-top yet unimaginative, the dialogue simple-minded yet smug, and the punchlines clichéd yet unfamiliar (clichés are clichés because at some point there were funny, but the ones in My Boys lacked any vestige of humor).

It was as if someone took the worst sitcoms of all time, put them in a computer, and had the computer spit out what it thought a sitcom should be. I was honestly expecting one of the actors to spontaneously launch into a monologue from She's the Sheriff.

The lack of a laugh track only amplifies the awkward terribleness of this show. But I don't suggest adding one now, as it would be unrealistic. Perhaps the sound of people spitting blood or throwing up would be a better fit. Is there a sound for people simultaneously punching themselves in the throat?


Appalling commentary and people jumping off things.

The first few seconds increased my adrenaline four fold – why was I watching this tosh? A gravely voiced doom-mongering narration of the story of our two heroes as they walk in slow motion across the desert. The photography of the base jumpers was good and the sky diving also, but that’s pretty standard stuff on IMAX these days. Meanwhile our narrator maintains his style with a delivery that you would normally find in trailers for cheap horror flicks. The film then descends into some stupid stuff about Leonardo’s’ original drawing of a parachute – will it work? They build it; they drop it from a plane with a guy holding on to it. At about 2000 ft from the ground he lets go (!) and lands using a modern parachute. Leonardo’s’ crashes to the ground – hardly a signal to uncork the champagne. A truly awful film with nice pictures.


Disappointing. With a title like "Adrenaline Rush" in a big IMAX theater, what might you expect to see? Car racing? Being in a burning building? Bungee jumping? Flying in a jet at mach two? Mountain climbing?

No? How about skydiving? Lots and lots of skydiving. And then more skydiving. First day at school. More skydiving. Cliffjumping. Skydiving. Hokey end. Credits.

This is the worst IMAX film I've ever seen. The beginning, with Peter Gabriel/Afro Celt's "Falling" is promising, but all that promise falls apart when the narrator calls one of the skydivers a "genius" and "modern renaissance man." It's skydiving, not, well, rocket science. Apparently, someone filmed a bunch of skydiving footage with IMAX and then had to create a movie out of it. The result is this. With Leonardo DaVinci cruelly tacked on, the result feels like a cheap ploy to make you think skydiving is educational. This movie is about as educational as my shoe.

The ending is trite and hokey (watch and see as everyday Americans engage in risk by going to work!). If, perhaps, the filmmakers had re-edited the movie (removing the first day at school business, the Davinci stuff and the ending) and called the movie "Skydiving: And Lots Of It!" it would have been fine. But the end result is not that great. Save your IMAX money for something else.


I hated Adrenaline Rush: The science of Risk. Not that I hate documentaries, I just hated this movie that's it. No but seriously, the dialogs were boring and there were only 2 positive things I found in this stupid documentary : The stunts were crazy and they were performed in nice places. The last positive thing in this documentary are the parachutes and engines were captivating . Unfortunately, these 2 positive things appeared only 4 to 5 times throughout the movie. You might like it, but I didn't. It's not worth paying to watch this piece of crap. If you really want to see it, wait until the DVD. And I'm not even sure about the a DVD Release.


Firstly, I agree with others that this film is barely a comedy. While Shaloub and Steven Colbert segments where worth a smile, overall, this movie is NOT funny.

Secondly, I rented GNW having never heard of it. I also didn't know at the onset that it was about "a post 9-11 New York." So while watching the film, none of that came through, even with the titles, and Jim Gaffigan's comment to "When it all went down." I work in NYC, and probably have the same feelings and experiences as most average joe New Yorkers regarding 9-11. So even if I personally am sensitized to it, I didn't pick up on the theme until the very ending, and even then, it was incredibly under whelming.

Thirdly, while I actually really liked aspects of GNW, like troubled child story, and Cake designer story, much of it was remarkably dull. It also didn't really come together. Not that there should have been a sing a long of all the characters, but the experiences in each of their lives didn't come together.

Speaking of characters, at the video store, when I saw the cast, I thought, "What an awesome cast! They couldn't possibly screw this up." And then they did. Edie Falco is in a single two minute scene. Stephen Colbert has only one real scene, and a pop-in in another. Olympia Dukasis' story is awful. Simply boring. With no point. Her acting is great, but the material she's working with is trite.

I love a good subtext...I love subtle elements of a movie...I love roundabout and interesting ways of doing things. But Great New Wonderful does not achieve that. I was so let down by this film, that I watched the directors commentary to see if he could explain it away (like explaining a joke). Turns out the script was based on a couple of plays that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11.

And that's the jist, folks. Great New Wonderful was a movie where someone said, "Let's do a film about the daily grind of life after Nine Eleven," and everyone around them said, "What a great idea...that sound really important." A lot of local NY celebrities clearly loved the idea.

But in the end, Great New Wonderful just didn't work.


This film was seemingly advertised as a romantic comedy, which doesn't usually peak my interest, yet thankfully had little to do with comedy or romance. I found the title ironic as the overall tone of this film is bleak and full of loss, the characters pitiful and depressed. As a series of glimpses into the character's lives, this movie excelled in its portrayal of longing for something unknown. Each character has a seemingly decent, if not "wonderful", life and yet when the film digs deeper you notice all the things that are missing and the voids that are left behind. No character realizes what they are doing without or how to remedy their situation, as each struggles in their own unique way. I felt a bit disturbed by this film. It seemed to me that the only characters that ended up in a better place in their lives made awful decisions to get to that place. They did things that I could never do, no matter the justification. My main focus was a young couple with an elementary school aged son, who find themselves unable to cope with his behavioral problems. Theirs was the most heart-wrenching story, I felt, and yet they seemed the most contented in the end. In order to reach that end, however, they sent their child away and seemingly started from scratch with their relationship to each other. This disgusted me, but most likely it was because this was an affront to my highest held beliefs. I could never betray my child that way, no matter how difficult he/she became. I felt that they didn't deserve the happiness they derived as a result of their decision. All in all, I didn't really enjoy this movie and wouldn't recommend it. I am, as always after watching a film, glad to have watched it and I felt that it conveyed several important and often overlooked messages: As humans we will always have intrinsic values that we may not even understand ourselves. We often value quality of life over quantity without realizing it. We will often pursue goals and attitudes in our lives that put higher values on monetary and material goods, rather than the unseen goals and attitudes that would bring us our true happiness. In this way, we hurt ourselves.


This movie attempts weave 5 stories into one but fails miserably*. The supposed link is to 9/11 but the link is actually missing. The references to 9/11 are so subtle as to be non-existent.

I viewed this movie on DVD it features the ability to view each story as a contiguous whole. After watching each story individually to try to understand the point of the movie I realized that the movie is pointless.

*(For a good example of how to weave together stories, see "Love, Actually".)

Don't waste your time with this movie


I love all the actors, which is why I rented the movie. I expected a character study, given who's in the ensemble, but I had hoped for an interesting one. Sadly, it's another example of New Yorkers thinking they're the center of the universe and anything about them must be wonderful.

Sadly, the characters were paint-by-number and the plots trite (when they existed) and the endings completely predictable. If the idea was that these were "typical stories", for a guy who grew up in Texas, lived many years in California and now lives overseas, the movie, it just reinforced how shallow and foolish movie makers in NY are and how badly they view their own fellow citizens.


The Great New Wonderful - a mixture of 5 stories in NYC set in Sept 2002 - a mix of comedy and angst- this low budget movie has several recognizable faces including Stephen Colbert,Edie Falco, Jim Gaffigan , Maggie Gyllenhal,Will Arnett & Olympia Dukakis- but the guys that stole the movie were the 2 Indian bodyguards that lived next to each other.This felt like an art-house movie- nothing wrong with art-house flicks I guess- but after awhile I get tired of the meloncholia and the intrusive soundtracks.This comes out on Tuesday and has the option of watching the movie either as one story or as 5 stories- while all 5 stories have some interesting moments- the best one is the bodygaurd arc. C+


I will admit I had been looking forward to checking out this film for a while now. Hearing stuff about how it was a great character based drama in a post-9/11 New York City and how it really held meaning and was a catharsis for those who watched. Just the fact that it was a serious dramatic turn for director Danny Leiner, yes he of Harold and Kumar fame, was enough to pique my interest. In the end, however, the film really fell flat for me and besides the numerous references to the horrific event, The Great New Wonderful didn't need to have it as a backdrop. Sure there are some really nice moments, but overall it just shows stories of vapid people going through their meaningless existences until they finally let go from the tragedy that hit. Are we to believe that once the shock went away these people's lives changed for the better? that without 9/11 they would still be trapped in useless existences not being able to break free? Well if that is the case, than we need global tragedies more often because they really make the world think about life and become better people as a result. Maybe one needs to be a New Yorker to get the film, but I just didn't see the greatness, just exploitation about how the Twin Towers falling changed a few people in the city and made their lives understandable in its context because they weren't good enough people to see their wrongs without it.

We are given an all-star cast here, with many actors that I truly enjoy watching. They even do a pretty good job with what they are given, and I can't really fault any of them besides the fact they read the script and still wanted to be involved. Maggie Gyllenhaal is great as a cake designer discovering the utter uselessness of her job in a world that should mean more than five thousand dollar pastries. Judy Greer and Thomas McCarthy are fantastic as a husband and wife duo trying to survive professional and personal hardship while their troubled child devolves into a monster. This segment is interesting as a concept and I would almost like to see it as its own movie. I mean besides a racial slur from their son, the entire story has nothing to do with 9/11 at all, but just an emotional piece of family struggle. Even Jim Gaffigan surprises with his nuanced performance opposite Tony Shalhoub. The rapport between the two is electric and could have really gone somewhere instead of languishing in an awkwardly comedic setting, ending somewhat laughably with Shalhoub's sly smile into the camera.

Thankfully there are a couple moments that worked completely for me. Olympia Dukakis is amazing as a wife who has been creatively and emotionally stifled by her husband and monotonous existence. Only when she meets an old friend from the past and sees how he can laugh and care about the little things in life, does she open up to herself to try again at living her life the way she wants to. The best section of the film, however, contains two Indian bodyguards protecting a General in town for a run of speeches. Sharat Saxena is effective as the troubled one suppressing his anger with everything that has gone on, but it is his partner, played by Naseeruddin Shah who steals the show. A consummate family man, Shah does all he can to lighten the mood of his friend and just speaks about random things going on around them, flirting with the women going in and out of their paths and finally confronting Saxena to get the point across that "life is too short, if anything we should all know that now." The conclusion of their arc really hits home in a surprising turn of events and becomes the only reason I would recommend the film to anyone to see.


The title is a comment made by Sandie (Jim Gaffigan), a patient of Dr. Trabulous (Tony Shaloub), who is trying to deal with his life's problems. It perfectly describes the feeling I had when I watched this film, which is supposed to be four stories about New Yorkers dealing with the trauma brought on by 9/11.

What trauma? Emme (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is trying to get a cake order, and her main competitor (Edie Falco) is not happy that she is the Queen of Cake at the moment.

David (Thomas McCarthy) and Allison (Judy Greer) are so distraught over their monster of a kid that they haven't had sex in 27 days.

Judy (Olympia Dukakis) has a boring life taking care of a husband that just watches TV.

Avi (Naseeruddin Shah) cheated on his wife for the first time.

Are we supposed to believe that all this came about as a result of 9/11. Give me a break! We are watching normal stories about normal lives that would go on regardless of tragedy or trauma.

The lives we see are really not that interesting.


With a strong cast including Tony Shalhoub and Maggie Gyllenhaal, we assumed this "brilliant comedy" would at least be moderately funny. We were wrong. Not only were the moments of humor rare, but the overwhelming lack of motivation left us scratching our heads. The actors did engage, and each character had enough depth to sustain an interest, but only enough to feel let down at the end. Apparently, the movie was "about" 9-11, and if the point was to portray the feeling of pointlessness and futility that many of us felt after the attacks; mission accomplished. At least it didn't meet the 90 minute minimum for Oscar consideration, or we would've had to hear people talk about how great it was.


This movie was freakin' incomprehensible. It's five separate stories. I get it. But, uh, is it a story when nothing really happens? When you don't know where someone is starting from and where they get to? When it's completely unclear what any of their motivations are, or what we're supposed to think about the choices they make, if they're choices at all? When two of the main characters seem to do something heartless and reprehensible and we're clearly supposed to be enormously happy for them? This movie was like some haiku from a drunk guy that everyone in your freshman dorm thought was deep, but only because they were swimming in a cloud of marijuana smoke so thick that you could use it for building material.

Maggie Gyllenhal is pretty, though. And those Indian guys were good actors. Hope they find better scripts.


Probably the worst movie I've seen in awhile.

Seems to be a very insular New Yorker oriented movie with no particular direction or point. Very slow. A mix of peculiar and pretentious.

If someone has told you this movie is a comedy, it is not. It is more like an ensemble slice- of-life that follows 5 sets of people in New York. The only even amusing portion of the movie is the part which follows a couple of middle-aged, east-Indian body guards. The other stories are not particularly interesting and even annoying. Various good actors are wasted, including Maggie Gyllenhaal, Olympia Dukakis and Stephen Colbert.

I suppose this movie is supposed to reflect the unease of New yorkers after 9-11, but if so it seems the worst sort of exploitation. The movie mostly just causes unease.

See this movie if you like scenes of post 9-11 New York and you don't mind being bored and uncomfortable for about an hour and a half.


someone intentionally wanted to make a terrible film and it is dumb like a crumb...my friend saw it and said it was dumb too....i don't get the point of the film...say the writer in my opinion intentionally wanted to write a ridiculous, ludicrous and senseless movie Pricing, in marketing is highly important. When speaking about pricing, we are saying that price is the value on what is exchanged. Normally, something that has value is exchanged for either satisfaction or else for utility. If a certain product is worth Lm25, customers automatically think if the utility gained from this product is worth the buying power that has to be sacrificed. In every company, marketers study the value customers place in their minds on every single product, and therefore this is how later on they are given a basis on giving products various prices. As stated above, pricing is important, in the market world, it is considered to be the most important aspect and also the hardest thing to arrive to.


Have previously enjoyed Wesley Snipes in several action flicks and I had expected a lot more, even from a score of 5.8 IMDb, the movie fails to entertain and even though the story is thin and unoriginal, the acting is most unfortunately thinner and goes to mimic a "worst case scenario" of playing "strong" feelings accompanied by some bad acting... Don't waist your time this movie ísnt entertaining, if you wanna cry it might suffice though, even though your tears will be wept due to seeing Wesley Snipes in the tragic action film wannabe comedy...

I give this 2/10 it really was awful, if you wanna see a decent movie go see shooter or rent it, its all the good things this movie isn't.


I wouldn't call it awful, but nothing at all shines in this movie, and it is encumbered with some seriously unbelievable basic plot development. It starts out well, but once the main hit is done, it devolves into a long subplot around a young girl which is not compelling, and some action scenes which are theatre of the absurd unrealistic. For example there is a prolonged shootout at the airport in which the lighting is all stroboscopic. No explanation for that. How credible is it that a airport storage area is going to have lights that flash on and off confusingly, and just enough to let Snipes do his incredible escape schtick? This is one of far too few action scenes punctuated by pointlessly drawn out set ups that just fails to draw one into suspending belief.

In addition, the whole premise seems to be that the United States CIA team can shoot the place up but get away with it by saying "national security" to the Brits. This gimmick relies on a stereotype that is to far afield from reality to be satisfying.

There are a lot better action movies out there. Better formulated, better executed. This one is entertaining at times but there is just not enough meat on the bone and after a while it becomes downright boring -- something that should never happen in a good action movie.