I would like to take this opportunity to say that this film is 100% RUBBSIH, NOT NOT WATCH IT UNLESS YOU LIFE DEPENDS IN IT!!

This is without a doubt one of the worst films i have ever seen! I was absolutely speechless after watching it and quite frankly I am absolutely appalled at the good comments its bin given on this site! where they watching the same movie as me? First of all the movie was terribly written and acted badly. Lindsay lohan can barely act. why did they make her sing? 9 also why was everyone so shocked when she sang for the first time? she sounded like a freaking cat being strangled!) She hasn't been good in any movie since the parent trap (also why are people saying shes hot? SHE IS UGLY AND A CHAV!). I found myself wondering what on earth this whole story was all about and i never got to the end because it was making me severely depressed and i couldn't stand another twenty minutes of this rubbish - it would have made me suicidal! It seems to me that the director just wanted to make a teen movie and couldn't really be bothered to get a story or a proper script. Lots of people have said that it was great for the target age, what was that exactly? I am thirteen and didn't like it!

In conclusion if you were to rent or buy this movie it would be a complete waste of your time, energy and money.


This was by far the worst movie I have ever seen! How did it get as high as a 4.4? It was horrendous. The only people I can imagine would be entertained by this movie are 10 or 11 year old girls. And it shames me that even they could like it. It saddens me that no matter how much I execrate this movie some poor poor fool will watch it. I have never seen a movie so awful.

First the plot was utter crap; I have seen better one's in Bugs Bunny Cartoons. Oh, I wish I were kidding. It's about some trivial girl who wants 2 c a concert and has a rivalry with some other bitch at school. This has been done thousands of times and much, much better. It just went on and on it was horrendous. It was so bad it went right past being so bad it was good and straight into hell. This is not at all what high school is like. It seems like the entire script was written and the movie filmed in two days. No it is not just a brain dead teen movie or chick flick, it is far beyond that. it is completely ineffable the abhorrence I feel for this pathetic excuse of a movie.

The characters r paper thin. Lola and the bitch she's fighting with r just plain obnoxious and annoying. They just bitch bitch bitch the entire movie and I wish they would both be shot. You thought the girls from Clueless were superficial Oh u haven't seen anything yet. Teenage girls have much greater issues 2 worry about than some silly concert. The are stereotypes of the typical stupid 15 year old girl: whiny, superficial, and a general pain in the ass. Not to mention the dialogue was enough to make me contemplate suicide.

The acting was terrible and so was the soundtrack. I have to say Lindsey Lohan was dressed wonderfully for the most part, but when we got 2 the part where everyone laughs at her I couldn't help but feel satisfied after having to watch this rubbish!! This movie was so awful I wanted to physically hurt every last character. BTW her BF Sam or whatever his name is seems gay 2 me.

The movie was annoying and I pray that there r no girls that r anything like the ones in this movie.


The movie is just a waste of time. To think anyone would actually spend money to make this movie. Lindsay Lohan is somewhat of a good actress but the way she represents Lola is just horrible. If you want entertainment read the book don't go see the movie.


to lie and sneak around to get what they want. That is basically what Lola does and urges Ella to do in order to get to do things that her mom won't let her. I didn't think it was very cute, and it makes all the pretty girls at school out to be b*itches, and that includes Lohan's character, Lola. She really wasn't that nice and felt she had to brag to be popular in school. And it wasn't very funny. It felt very childish, almost like the target audience was 7 year old girls. You could definitely tell it was a Disney film. And to be aimed for young kids, they have Lola looking to be with a much older guy, and they have him drunk most of the time he's in the film. And they have Lola and her friend running around NY city be themselves. Those aren't exactly the things you want to show your 7 year old is the proper thing to do.

FINAL VERDICT: Not very good. Don't watch it if you are over 10.


Lindsay Lohan is a wonderful Lola. She really did the Drama Queen very well. Also Alison Pill did well as lola's best friend, Ella.I really like the character Ella, because she was a goody-tow-shoes who thought she was going to grow up and be like her parents, but she goes past that and faces her fears with Lola. "Because of you I'm brave enough to be different." is one of my favorite quotes by Ella.

Sam, the boy Lola likes besides Stu Wolf, should have been in there WAY more. The first time I saw Lola, Sam, and Ella all together as a trio i loved them. They're such a cute trio! Sam popped in and out of the movie only a few times.

I can connect to Lola in a few ways. One way is i think of music the same way as her. It was kind of scary at the part when she gets disapointed when she finds out Stu Wolf is a drunk and she can't talk about his music with him, something like that just recently happened to me. I found out some stuff like that about one of my favorite singers that I was disapointed about. But i still love their music.

Another way i connect with Lola is her daydreams. I kind of have the same daydreams as her. I loved how they did that in the movie, with the cardboard-like pieces and everything. I thought that was cool.

Carla, the mean girl of the school, was not like i thought she'd be like in the beginning, but as the movie went on she got meaner and meaner. I got so mad at her when she was telling everyone that Lola didn't go to the party and everyone believed her, because I know how Lola must have felt. If I had the chance to meet a star that a girl I hated wanted to meet so bad AND crashed his party, and then no one believed me, I'd feel really bad and annoyed.

The play at the end of the movie was ok. Some parts of it was cool, sometimes it was a little bit strange. Maybe it was because I didn't see My Fair Lady.

The scene at the end when she sings "That Girl" was really cool too. I really like that song, but the song that got to me the most was the very last song when she explained the end of the story with Sam and everything. I haven't gotten the soundtrack yet, but I want it really bad, mainly to hear this song. I was listening to the lyrics, and I instantly loved this song. It's sung by lindsay, and it's about changing the world. I always have new songs that describe myself, but this may be the newest song to add to my list. Hopefully i'll get the soundtrack soon.

The teacher was really goofy and one of the reasons this movie was so funny. i went to see this movie with some friends and i was sitting on the end with one of my best friends next to me, and we kept giggling. There are many parts in this movie that are really, really funny.

Another thing in this whole story that got to me and really made me think was the change Lola caused. she caused a change in her best friend, a change in the most popular girl in school that also wanted all the attention, and a wonderful change in her rock star crush, Stu Wolf. "A wonderful person told me I was a drunk. And I didn't like it." I think the quote by him was something like that. When i saw the whole scene with Lola and Ella when her friend told her how she had changed her life, i couldn't help thinking, "I wish I could do something like that for someone." I want to make a difference, just like Lola.

I think if you made a few changes here and there this could actually end up being my story. Except you'd need to change the title too. I think Confessions of a Teenage Dreamer would do the trick.In conclusion, this movie was good. I think the book might be a little better though. I can't wait to read it! I'd give it a 7/10.


Coming off an extremely successful performance in the summer hit Freaky Friday, Lindsay Lohan does her best to save the flat and unimpressive script of Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen.

Lohan stars as Lola, a teenage Manhattan girl whose dream is to become a famous actress. However, when she moves to a suburban New Jersey town she realizes that her chances of being famous are pretty much zero.

Competing for popularity in her new school with Carla (Megan Fox), she stumbles through life in an almost-klutzy yet largely unfunny way.

The entire movie is like a 90-minute sitcom -- it packs a few laughs but there is never a genuinely funny scene. The humour is based on clumsiness and stupidity rather than wit. In other words, it's comprised of people making fools out of themselves.

There is also a huge gap between the beginning and the end of the movie. There are so many happenings in between it's easy to lose track of the whole point of the film.

Also, many of the characters exist simply for the sake of existing. For example, the roles of Andrew, Lola's father and twin sisters don't serve a lot of purpose to the actual story. It wouldn't hurt if one or more of those characters were cut from the story, to save us some time and grief. Their roles are so tiny they're not really worth mentioning at all.

The ending is pretty cliche-ish as well. Like a lot of Disney movies, it preaches friendship, change for the better, love, etc. However, Confessions does a pretty bad job of it. It's pretty obvious that these are the lessons the movie is supposed to teach; they make it so obvious there is no explanation needed. An explanation IS added, however, in an attempt to simplify things further. But all this does is to add more unnecessary time to the overall product.

Confessions does have some positive points though. The music isn't too bad, even though they may have overused the "Uh-Oh" song by putting it in three different scenes. The acting in general by Lindsay Lohan and her co-stars is extremely good, but it's not enough to save this stinker.

BOTTOM LINE: 1.5 stars out of 4


Fair film, directed by D.W. Griffith. Jim and John (Charles West and Joseph Graybill) are friends, and rivals for the attention of fetching Mary (Blanche Sweet). She picks John for her mate - and, soon, they are all aboard a Wagon Train crossing the dessert. Unfortunately, Ms. Sweet finds herself being physically abused by her drunken husband; probably, she picked the wrong rival. As if that wasn't enough Indians attack!

Relatively low excitement from Mr. Griffith and company. Big bad John eventually has an opportunity for atonement - will he give up his "Last Drop of Water" to save the life of his dying friend?

**** The Last Drop of Water (7/27/11) D.W. Griffith ~ Blanche Sweet, Joseph Graybill, Charles West


I'm always suspicious of films with many titles. I invariably find myself musing as to why the film can be found under so many guises. Could it be that the film is absolutely awful, so its makers and distributors have re-named it and re-marketed it again and again in the hope of eventually finding an appreciative audience? This is such a film - a Euro horror zombie flick which has more alternative titles than cast members! The version I saw was entitled "Beyond The Living Dead", and most of the cast members were given nondescript pseudonyms on the credits. For instance, hero Stelvio Rosi was billed as Stanley Cooper, and principle female player Dyanik Zurakowska was billed as Vickie Nesbitt. It's not a particularly good film, but to whole-heartedly savage it would be a touch harsh as there are just a few interesting elements which drag it up above "awful" to somewhere in the "slightly-below-average" category.

Serge Checkhov (Stelvio Rosi) arrives in an East European town (Skopje in Macedonia is hinted at) for the reading of his uncle's will. He soon discovers that he is to inherit his uncle's mansion, much to the annoyance of his cruel and ambitious aunt Nadia (Maria Pia Conte). Something creepy seems to be going on in town at the same time - his cousin is found hanged from a tree in the cemetery; necrophiliac grave-digger Igor (Paul Naschy) starts to act more outlandishly than usual; Aunt Nadia seduces and copulates with young Serge; a doctor residing in the house starts to show off his experiments to reanimate dead animals; and uncle's corpse occasionally goes missing as if it's got up and begun walking of its own accord. Gradually, Serge investigates and uncovers a plot that Baron Frankenstein himself would've been mighty proud of.

Mainly the film is underwhelming. The solution to the mystery is revealed in a phony, heavy-handed scene which resembles the unmasking of the villain in a Scooby Doo cartoon. Sometimes the characters say and do such dumb things that you want to scream in despair. The performances are generally amateurish, and the film is thin on real terror. However, as I've indicated already, it escapes total damnation for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Naschy as the necrophiliac grave digger is hilarious and disturbing (at the same time) in all his scenes. Secondly, the location work is quite impressive. Thirdly, there's plenty of needless nudity to please the voyeurs (check out the scene where Zurakowska bares her tits purely for the hell of it.... a free drink for anyone who can justify the need for THAT scene without using the word exploitation!!!) And fourthly, for some reason that I've never been able to figure out, the preposterous story is actually engrossing in a totally inexplicable way. Beyond The Living Dead - or whatever title you know it by - is undoubtedly a bad film, but at least it's ENTERTAININGLY bad.


It's really difficult to try and explain what THE HANGING WOMAN is about, but I'll give it a shot. A young man returns to his uncle's mansion shortly after his death to find out what really happened to his uncle, and . Upon his arrival, he discovers a woman hanging from a tree. He makes it to the mansion and informs the people there about the woman. When he returns to the spot, she has disappeared. He soon uncovers a plot to make an army of the living dead in order for world dominance.

THE HANGING WOMAN is so erratic that you never really understand what's going on. There are also two other sub-plots in the mix here. There are also a couple more things that made me despise this film so much. 1.) Spanish horror star, Paul Naschy was woefully under-used at the necrophiliac gravedigger. 2.) The pacing was awful. It's only a 90 minute film, but it felt like it was four hours long. Mostly due to the fact that nothing is really happening for a good hour of the film. 3.) The incestuous relationship between the uncle's nephew and his nymphomaniac aunt. The love scene was just way too much to handle. And finally, 4.) The ending was completely unbelievable and rushed.

Honestly, I can only really recommend THE HANGING WOMAN to Naschy fans. Even that's difficult to do. Skip it and use the 90 minutes of your precious life watching something that's far better (perhaps, HORROR RISES FROM THE TOMB or THE WEREWOLF VS. THE VAMPIRE WOMEN. Two of my personal favorite Naschy film) instead of wasting it on this abomination. Trust me, you'll thank me later.


Notice that the tag line for this movie was "If the God's were crazy now they've gone berserk". Yankee Zulu is considered as a movie in "The Gods Must Be Crazy" series of movies. This film is much different from any other of the Gods Must Be Crazy films. The only similiarity is that it takes place in South Africa, like the rest of the films. A major miss in this film is that it does not contain N'!xau the bushman, and it is not by Jamie Uys. This is the last U.S. based film, of the Gods Must Be Crazy series. The rest of the films including, Vampires Must Be Crazy, The God's Must Be Funny in China, and Crazy Hong Kong. So if you were expecting N!xau the bushman, in another hilarious adventure, this is not the movie for you.


The acting in this movie was dreadful, and the characters were very poorly constructed. They expect me to believe that anyone would actually act like this?!? I know some movies have silly pranks that ARE amusing (101 Dalmatians, Home Alone) but these were just pathetic.

The jokes were vulgar and crass. I was offended and sickened throughout the entire movie. How could they dare release this to video? If I'd been involved in this movie I'd want to bury it, quick, along with all the body function jokes.

The people are supposed to be funny, but they act like idiots. Don't waste your time or money. Incredibly pathetic. Only redeeming quality is the animals, who were pretty good actors (despite the weird noises they added to the animals). Unfortunately, there weren't enough animals throughout the piece to make it worthwhile. Stay clear of this one!


I know that books rarely make to the screen (big or small) without changes, but it always amazes me when the changes are apparently made by a writer to "improve" a story. A lot of Dickens' work has been altered for no reason I can discern (Scrooge's sister is Fran instead of Fan, a typo maybe?) or because the writer apparently thought he could do better (A large amount of Dicken's dialogue has been slashed and warped in this version)...he couldn't. Stick with the version starring George C. Scott or Alistair Sim.


I've just finished watching Patrick Stewart's "Carol", and am mightily disappointed. A more joyless production I've never seen; "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol" was a masterpiece compared to this (actually it is far superior to most "Carol's" and a favorite of mine), and Mr. Magoo a far better actor. I've got lots of bones to pick with him for his adaptation, but here are just a few. I know he's been playing Scrooge on stage and it's a hit, but something was very wrong with this TV version.

In both the 1951 Alister Sim version and the 1984 George C. Scott version, the Ghost of Christmas Present was a strong, jovial presence who roundly told Scrooge what was what. I just watched the 1984 version this morning, and Edward Woodward's portrayal of this ghost was bold, forceful and unforgettable. He didn't mince words and Scrooge got the point. Stewart's chosen actor looked like he'd raided Eva Gabor's closet to get dressed for his part, and he acted like a henpecked husband who was afraid he'd get decked if he spoke above a whisper. I could barely hear his lines, and he had no personality. In fact, none of the actors in this thing had any personality.

Richard E. Grant was charmless and so was Tiny Tim; the Ghost of Christmas yet to come looked like a 7-foot-tall Jawa; and worst of all, I didn't care a fig about Stewart's Scrooge and whether he was redeemed or not. There was nothing he did during those two hours to make me care; no spark of emotion, no regret in his eyes, nothing. I've always liked Patrick Stewart, but I don't think this is a role suited to him. He doesn't have that inate warmth that a Scrooge needs, to force you to care about him, and he doesn't have a mobile enough face. It seemed frozen in a perpetual glare, even when he was supposedly happy. The only warmth I got from the entire production was at the very end, when Cratchit's family was on Scrooge's doorstep. A great waste of 2 hours time, except that some of the special effects were quite good.


Speaking as a big fan of Dicken's cherished Christmas story, I am amazed that it is possible to go so wrong with a movie based upon it, especially one that is actually fairly faithful to the content.

I think the main fault lies with the cast or direction of the cast. Patrick Stewart's portrayal is predominantly lifeless compared to other cinematic Ebeneezers. In those moments when Stewart does attempt to inject some color, his instinct is all wrong. I'll never forget the scene toward the end of the film, where the reformed Scrooge is rejoicing in a changed life, and Stewart attempts to morph cardiac arrest into a fit of laughter. I get what Stewart was trying to accomplish but the effect is just plain disturbing and bizarre. The director's goal in that scene should be to get the viewer to be happy for Scrooge's redemption, not to be repulsed by his grotesque antics!

The ghosts of Christmases past, present and future were also big disappointments. Especially the Ghost of Christmas yet to come. Others have noted that he looked more like a goofy character from an early Star Wars movie than the mysterious and dreaded apparition of inscrutable future events. The silly lit-up eyes illuminated the interior of the hood and betrayed the ghost as simply a guy in a cheesy costume. Of course, sporting a sci-fi head but normal, flesh and bone hands didn't help either. This costuming of the Ghost of Christmas yet to come was an even stranger decision by the director than the heart-attack laugh of Patrick Stewart's Scrooge.

There is a strange unemotional, detachment from this version that you don't get in others. I think it is because the direction is completely lacking instinct for the mood of the piece. Lines are quoted literally from Dickens' novel and yet the actors often appear unconvincing and without the emotional commitment required to carry off some of the scenes.

The staging at times is also quite weird. For example, other versions, for the sake of brevity, have not included some scenes from the novel, perhaps most notably the scene where the Ghost of Christmas Present takes Scrooge on a tour of remote areas where even people in seclusion are reveling in the spirit of the day. This version does include that part of the book. It utilizes the singing of "Silent Night" as a continuity element from one celebration to another. The vignette ends with a far away view of Scrooge and the Ghost triumphantly silhouetted atop a hill as the carol reaches its ending crescendo. Instead of it being a moving scene, it all comes across as a melodramatic and silly gimmick that is more comical than anything else.

Others have noted that this version also has that cheap, made-for-TV appearance and I have to agree. Compare to the rich, exquisitely-lit cinematography of the George C. Scott version and you will see that just because this was made for TV didn't mean it had to look it.

I rate this film with a two only because of my reverence for the story. Still, it's a shame this cinematic retelling misses so badly with such can't-miss material.


I am a huge fan of Charles Dickens' 'A Christmas Carol'. I have read his short story many times  Always during the Christmas Season  Over the past few years, and it is my most favorite piece of literature ever written.

It therefore follows, that I am also a big fan of the major cinematic productions based on the story, which I have seen over the years (Though that doesn't necessarily mean that I like them all).

Of the many different cinematic productions of 'A Christmas Carol' I have chosen the following 8, based on their adherence to Dickens' original story: Under the title of 'Scrooge', there was the 1935 version, with Sir Seymour Hicks, the 1951 version,with Alastair Sim, and the 1970 musical, with Albert Finney. Under the title 'A Christmas Carol', there was the 1938 version, with Reginald Owen as Scrooge, the 2009 Disney version, with Jim Carrey, and the made-for-TV productions: 1984  With George C. Scott, the 2004 musical - With Kelsey Grammar, and this one, which I rate at #7.

Ten years ago, when I first heard that TNT had made a new version of Charles Dickens' timeless Christmas story, I got very excited, and looked forward, with great anticipation, to Patrick Stewart's turn as the miserly, cold-hearted Scrooge. What a tremendous let-down!! Stewart makes a fair Ebenezer Scrooge, at best (And that's stretching it, a bit). He's much better than Hicks, a little better than Owen, not quite as good as Finney, but isn't even in the same ballpark as Scott or Sim. At 59 (At the time  The 2nd oldest of the 8 to play the part), he gives Scrooge a new look, in that he's totally hairless, both on his head and his face, which gives him the appearance of being much younger than other Scrooges, a fact which detracts, visually, from his characterization. His acting leaves much to be desired, in that he makes the character more stuffy and snobbish, than mean, nasty, bitter, and hateful. He seems a bit unsure of himself with his line delivery, and looks, at times, as though he's trying too hard, and at others, like he's not trying hard enough.

The strongest performance, here, is Richard E. Grant's, as Bob Cratchit. By comparison, Grant plays a less dignified, much less cheerful Cratchit, who lets his situation get him down, but manages a faint smile, here and there. Bernard Lloyd's appearance as The Ghost Of Jacob Marley is acceptable, though only due to some late-90s special effects. But, the scene wasn't nearly as scary as it should have been, and Lloyd doesn't make Marley regretful or remorseful enough for his life of greed and ignorance. Desmond Barrit's lack of light-heartedness tends to make his characterization of The Ghost Of Christmas Present somewhat of a downer, and is downright boring, at times.

Among other notable performances, are Dominic West's, as a fine, cheerful Fred (Scrooge's Nephew), who doesn't allow his Uncle's attitude to affect his. Oscar®-winner Joel Grey appears as The Ghost Of Christmas Past, and fits the role almost perfectly, based on Dickens' description of the character, and Saskia Reeves delivers a strong performance as Mrs. Cratchit, the dedicated Wife and Mother, supportive of her Husband, despite his loyalty to his employer.

The Christmas Eve dance, at Fezziwig's Warehouse is one of the few high points in this film. Ian McNeice's performance as Mr. Fezziwig is sufficiently jolly, but too much emphasis was placed on physical weight, here.

Other performances in this production, such as: Kenny Doughty, as 'Young Scrooge'  Laura Fraser, as 'Belle'  Josh Maguire, as the 'Boy Scrooge,' and Rosie Wiggins, as 'Fran', are neither outstanding nor poor. Ben Tibber plays Tiny Tim, and, here again, he seems a bit too healthy for the role, but fits it, otherwise. All are acceptable, but merely average. Also, I must note Crispin Letts' brief, but amusing turn as 'Topper Haines'. Letts makes Topper somewhat of a womanizer, who seems a bit stuck on himself, and, with this, adds a bit more humor to the Christmas Eve party at Fred's home.

The absolute low point of this production would have to be The Ghost Of Christmas Yet To Come. Tim Potter wears the black robe, here, but it's fortunate, for him, that he has no lines, and that no one can see his face, for his costume is utterly ridiculous. Had this movie been made 50 years earlier, this costume might have been borderline-acceptable. But the boxy, phony-looking headpiece, with eyes  Like two weak flashlight bulbs  Shining out from under the black hood, makes him look more like something from a grade-school stage play, rather than a terrifying apparition. It seems to me that, with the technology available in 1999, and considering the other fine special effects in this film, these scenes could have been made much more believable, with regard to this highly important character. Instead  Thanks to this laughable costume  They come off, at times, as almost funny.

Overall, this film is quite well-made. Some impressive computer-aided special effects (The 'Wandering Spirits' scene is spectacular!) enhance Ian Wilson's superb photography, and Peter Barnes's teleplay is excellent, and almost perfectly faithful to Dickens' story, scene-for scene. But David Hugh Jones should have tried harder, with some of his Actors, to get better performances out of them.

All-in-all, this movie isn't a bad way to kill a couple of hours, during the Holiday Season, but watch the 1935 version first, then this one, and get them out of the way, before you see the much better ones.


Stewart is a good actor, but borrows too heavily from previous Scrooge adaptations. As a result, even his performance fails to redeem this quite unnecessary and inferior version of Dickens' seasonal classic. To see a more spirited Ebenezer, check out the George C. Scott version - it puts this half-hearted attempt in the shade.


With all the attempts at making and remaking film versions of the Dickens' classic, one would think that the essence of the Victorian novelette could make it onto the screen quite easily.

In this version, the original text and flow is followed somewhat faithfully - to it's credit. Patrick Stewart and Richard E. Grant actually do a fair job with Scrooge and Cratchit. However, the direction and production are woefully horrible. The photography is technically bad; it is poor overlit TV. The special effects are cheesy and amateurish. There is no "spirit" to this production.

While I praised Patrick Stewart, I was disappointed that I did not see a building of his remorse, then the transformation. It just sort of happened without any motivation. Actually, I sense this is the director's fault, because he has relied so heavily on special effects to carry the story.


I was astonished at what an awful production this was, considering Stewart's sterling reputation. Perhaps producing and acting is a bad combination for him? We watched it through the end only for the amusement of seeing how bad it could get. When the Stewart character begins to laugh at the end, so did I, as he sounded like nothing so much as a cat with a hairball. Those who are searching for a meaningful, three-dimensional performance are well-advised to search out the 1984 version starring George C. Scott.

Stick to Star Trek and you won't be disappointed.


I recently watched this 1999 version of A Christmas CAROL again and it's just not good. There's quite a bit I could discuss...from the pedestrian production values and obvious studio sets, to the performances that range from okay to terrible! But it's Patrick Stewart's performance I've just got to get into.

As much respect as I have for Stewart, I'm sorry to say this is the worst performance of Ebenezer Scrooge I've ever seen. I honestly don't know what he's doing at times. One moment he appears to be frightened by Jacob Marley's ghost, the next he's calmly helping lift Marley's jaw when his jaw-wrap is untied. Scrooge then asks Marley, in a curiously philosophical manner, why spirits walk the earth.

When Marley indicates to Scrooge that he, too, forges his own set of chains, Stewart looks around as if to locate the invisible chains. Then he slowly turns his head up toward Marley, smiles and say, "Jacob...Speak comfort to me!" Stewart delivers the line as if he believes Marley is pulling a prank...as if he's actually saying, "Jacob...(you old practical joker, you) speak comfort to me!" Strange.

Yet when he visits his Christmases Past, Present and most of the future, Stewart is oddly stoic the whole time...even during tragic moments.

There's a moment when the Ghost of Christmas Present tells Scrooge Tiny Tim will die, Stewart just folds his arms and looks down. I'm not sure what Stewart is trying to communicate at that moment because crossing one's arms is traditionally a defensive posture. Was his Scrooge trying to suppress himself from being emotional, thus folding his arms? Or is that Stewart's way of expressing sadness? Either way, it's a strange choice, made worse by the fact that he remains just as unemotional later as he watches the Cratchets' mourn for Tiny Tim. I'm not looking for Patrick Stewart to break into a crying fit...I just want to be able to discern some sort of emotional response from Scrooge.

Probably the worst decision Stewart makes occurs during the critical graveyard scene. As with all other versions of A Christmas Carol, Scrooge overhears businessmen talking about a recently deceased associate. He also witnesses the dead man's effects being pawned off. By the start of the graveyard scene Scrooge should at least have SOME idea that perhaps, just maybe, he's the dead man. This is why Scrooge hesitates to view the tombstone and asks if the future can be changed before even reading the inscribed name. Practically all the other actors who've portrayed Scrooge have understood this concept: Scrooge KNOWS it's going to be his name on that stone...he just doesn't want to believe it. So he must read the name to fully come to terms with his fate.

But Patrick Stewart plays the scene as if it comes as a total surprise. He looks down at the name on the stone and, in a rare show of emotion, looks up at the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come with genuine shock! Then he starts crying and begging for mercy and promises to change.

Why does he think the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come showed him these moments? Who else could the dead man have been? Is his Ebenezer Scrooge so clueless? This is an AWFUL decision by Stewart.

It's as if nothing about Scrooge's Past, Present or Future really registered until he realized he was going to die. Only the thought of his own death made him change. Had he never read his name on the tombstone, he probably would not have changed at all. That's the impression we get from Stewart's choice to be stoic and unemotional up until the graveyard scene.

At least Stewart's performance as the reformed Scrooge is appropriate...for the most part. Unfortunately, there is an extremely awkward moment in which he appears to be choking, then bursts into laughter. I think I know what Stewart was going for: Scrooge hasn't laughed for so long, he physically forgot how. Thus, he has to choke out the laughter. It doesn't work! It's a moment Stewart no doubt thought was clever, yet seems forced and unrealistic.

Another reviewer suggested Patrick Stewart seems to be trying too hard to be a different Scrooge. I think that's true. While I believe the character is open to different interpretations, Stewart's choices seem to be all wrong (even his decision to stay completely bald...I would love to have seen some side-burns and a bit of hair growth around the temples).

Believe it or not, I do hate to be so negative because I respect Patrick Stewart and have enjoyed past performances (my mom absolutely loves him). I know he's played this character on stage before in a one-man-show, and he claims to have a unique perspective of Scrooge. Yet Stewart seems uncomfortable and confused in the role.

Earlier I asked if Patrick Stewart's Scrooge was clueless. In truth, I believe that description belongs to the actor himself. After all his years of experience with A Christmas Carol on stage, Patrick Stewart doesn't know Ebenezer Scrooge at all.


A group of about 14 of us sat around recently to watch this new version. When it was all over, we all sat around and wondered how such talented group of people and big budget could produce such a laughably bad production?

Wooden acting, effects just for the sake of having effects, and the ghost of Christmas Future... The 1984 George C. Scott versions black robed figure of the ghost of things yet to come gives a chill no matter how many times I watch the movie. This new version had us all laughing out loud. We expected to see Fozzy Bear or Kermit the Frog pop out from behind his giant red flashlight eyes. Very sad.

If you see one version, get the 1984 George C. Scott adaptation. It is excellent.


This is not great art,we're not admiring the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel."Guernica " it isn't."On the buses" is a cheaply made comedy from the era of the Ford Cortina and the Austin Maxi.It was hugely popular with ordinary Brits who drove Ford Cortinas and Austin Maxis.It was their misfortune to be unaware that their predilection for seaside postcard humour would be regarded with contempt by a future generation many of whose values no doubt they in turn would have regarded with contempt. We must be careful whilst criticising their taste to remind ourselves that in 1971 TV was not awash with gutter language,explicit sex and extreme violence.Sitcoms were cheeky,yes,but nobody took them seriously.It was comedy,for God's sake. Is it possible that there is a correlation between the increased "awareness" of the media on the sensitive issue of sexism which their policy makers seem to believe can be dealt with by ruthlessly crushing any reference to the female sex in a comedy programme that is not totally adulatory,and the increased amount of disrespect and violence shown towards women in society in 2006?When Reg Varney made some outrageous remark to a large-bosomed bus conductress was he perhaps exorcising vicariously some deep need in the male members of his audience to do exactly the same thing themselves?Robbed by the self-appointed arbiters of public good of the opportunity of such relief,the nagged,the hen-pecked or the simply inadequate become more and more frustrated, sometimes with tragic results. There are no real people in "On the buses".Everyone is an escapee from a Donald McGill postcard.Cheeky bus driver,frustrated housewife,fat lady with glasses,miserable husband,buffoonish authority figure........ I watched "Footballers' Wives " last night.A blind man was thrown down a lift shaft,women were portrayed as scheming,greedy ,lying ,immoral and stupid.That's progress?I can't quite see how that empowers women - perhaps I'm missing something. Compared to "Footballers' Wives","On the buses" is a source if innocent merriment.


WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

Was this sort of thing really in fashion thirty years ago?

On The Buses was produced by the Hammer organisation, famous for their horror movies, of which you could argue this "comedy" is one. If you think that there's little comic potential to be had from the exploits of a bus company then... you'd be right.

A series so dated that the theme tune contains the lyrics "It's a gay life on the buses, make sure you leave your bird at home" without any homosexual connotation intended. Reg Varney and Bob Grant play a bus driver and conductor, who conduct sexual harassment in the workplace as a "bit of a laugh". Touching up women and remarking how big their breasts are is not only acceptable behaviour, it's actively encouraged. Stan and Jack, two very unlikeable characters, regularly laugh at their own jokes in a bid to convince you they're funny. It's not an effective illusion. Jack (Grant), who resembles a grey-haired Eric Sykes with foot-long sideburns, turns out to be an irresistible babe-magnet. Their daily routine concerns Stan (Varney) missing out routes so that Jack can find time to sleep with another man's wife. Stan, for his part, chats up an Irish cook (who sounds Welsh, but never mind) whom Jack remarks has "nice dumplings". After she asks if Stan sees anything he fancies, he stares at her chest with a "cor, not 'alf!" and asks if she fancies "a bit of roly-poly". She actually responds, and tells him off for putting temptation in her way. Well, how could she resist a line like that? It's not long before she's on his sofa, crying out "Oh, Holy Mary, I'll have to go to confession tomorrow!" Yes, it really is THAT bad.

Only Stephen Lewis as the Hitler-moustached Inspector Blakey produces any mirth. While Blakey can seem an amusing caricature, it's notable that Lewis does talk like that in real life, as evidenced from his straight role in The Krays. Blakey's laugh and double takes are a wonder to behold, and, while supposed to be the villain, he's far, far more likeable than the crass Stan and Jack. Other supporting "comedy" characters include the undersexed brother-in-law and the plain sister who - hold your sides - has thick glasses. Stan tactfully jokes to the pair that he should have a vasectomy as "we don't want her in the club." Ultimately, it turns out Olive is pregnant, due to the fact that the television was broken four months previously.

Inevitably compared with the "Carry On" series, they're really poles apart. Lewis is the only player whose style is self-effacing, Varney in particular seeming to have a genuine belief that his lines are actually in some way funny. It also lacks the vaguely political or literary merits of a Carry On, or the decent film standards. Coming from an established television sitcom, this contains no cinematic grace but seems merely like a triple-length episode with lacklustre direction.

The "plot", if you can call it that, involves the Bus Company employing female drivers in a bid for equality. With, as you might imagine, "hilarious" consequences. The complex dynamics of such a polemic are resolved by Pat Coombs and cohorts yelling "come on, girls, let's sort this little boy out", while sticking an air hose up Stan's trousers. "What's the matter, got the wind up?" he's asked in one of the film's many feeble puns. Stan and Jack retaliate with fake diversion signs, spiders and tea filled with laxatives. The film concludes with the supposedly loveable, but actually bawdy and insensitive, Stan and Jack threatening to walk out after the women are promoted to Inspectors. But not to worry - Stan's new inspector is a long-legged girl in a mini-skirt, causing the day to be saved!

Of course, watched in an ironic kind of way this slab of pure cheese can still produce a wry smile. But it's wearying lack of sophistication and aged worldview of oversexed housewives and shocked vicars make it, at best, an out-of-time relic.


The first of 3 diabolically unfunny films which were spin offs of an equally atrocious television show. Of course it's not PC and there are elements of both sexism and racism. But that was acceptable in the 70's. What is not acceptable is the awful script, poor (over) acting, shoddy production values and complete lack of any lines even remotely funny. Each 'joke' is telegraphed minutes in advance, for instance spilling something or falling over, and is so painfully obvious it's amazing not one of the cast complained about the lack of quality. Only Arthur (Michael Robbins) leaves the show with a modicum of dignity, the rest of the cast are pitiful. If they had any talent, they didn't use it on this show.

Avoid like the plague, it's dreadful.


The fact that this film was by far the biggest draw of its year at the British box office makes it far more interesting, as a historical document of the culturally regressive preferences of a population on the verge of the 'progress' of currency decimalisation, than as an otherwise ineffably disturbing episode in British cinema history. That is to say, the extent to which the working-class without money were prepared to pay out of said penury to witness the spectacle of the 'working-class' with money get even more, by virtue of their supporters' subservient quest for populist media identity.

Tangentially, this would shortly go on to coincide with the ultimate and unjust critical decline of the 'Carry On's, achieving nothing but giving the briefly commercially successful green light to the subsequent 'Confessions' series and it's suitably innumerable illegitimate offspring.

In the 'grand' (ie overridingly sexist) tradition of the enormously popular coitaneous ITV sitcom, the 'plot' centres around resident lovable 'rogue' duo Varney and Grant's aghast reaction to the promotion of female canteen workers to female bus drivers at their depot. However, their prevailing "Owight darling (nudge wink)" attitude; inherent to their apocryphally predicated physical 'charms'; wins the day without any hint of irony whatsoever save for the interludes of 20-stone ogre husbands coming home early 'inbetween bus stops' to interrupt the otherwise cogently countenanced anti-late-60s ideology of women daring to claim any place in society outside of the bedroom of 'men on the job'. Otherwise of course, you ended up as a perpetually ironing 'mum' or the perpetually unsexed, unloved 'Olive'.

People moaned enough about the early 70s Hammer studios obsession with combining blood and breasts to earn a profit, and whilst this has no blood to be sure, breasts are 'spilled' within the first few minutes no doubt as a Confessions-precursory 'More Than We Could Get Away With on TV' draw.

It remains inconceivable that such a purveyor of finely crafted films could also be responsible for one of the year's most cinematically redundant and, to quote a previous reviewer, what amounts to little more than a cut-and-paste job of any given 3 TV episodes.

In other words, faultlessly artless nostalgia for those who would especially succumb regardless to pre-PC humour. So yes, I did laugh, and shamelessly so...


My family watched this film after receiving it as a present and the one person who liked it was my 8 year old cousin which tells you how bad it is.

One scene in the film shows a woman being blocked in and made to climb out of a bus window showing her underwear and burning her legs while the men laugh at her but the viewers are encouraged to view her as the villain. I have a friend who worked in a factory and was pawed, bullied and had her work deliberately disrupted by a minority of her male co-workers very much like the women in this film so to see this behaviour shown as acceptable and funny is pretty depressing and to see others call it harmless because there's no swearing is doubly depressing.

Some argue it's only a film and not to be taken seriously but I wonder if they'd feel the same if school bullying was being shown as good fun. Workplace harassment can seriously damage peoples lives and self-esteem so I don't think it's oversensitive to say that it shouldn't be glorified. It is not - as some other viewers have said - a film that everyone of its generation can enjoy as my parents and grandparents both hated it. Not because of the constant woman chasing - lots of shows have that - but because of the demonising of work women and the pantomime level humor.

I don't mind programmes like Till Death Us Do Part in which a character is bigoted but their attitudes are shown as wrong and I also don't like extreme political correctness partly because when there are cases like this and people comment on it others defend the sexism by complaining about "PC madness". Those who say that On the Buses wasn't bad because it was popular should remember that Baywatch was once the most popular programme in the world - though even Baywatch wasn't as embarrassingly awful as this. Some argue that if you don't like it don't watch it but you could say that about any negative film review and you don't find out you don't like it until you have seen it. I also notice that a few reviewers are quick to childishly insult anybody who disagrees with them. "SANDRASMALL (and she must be)"? Is that the best you could come up with?

But of course I'm just spouting a load of feminist rubbish because we all know women were treated much better when their were no laws protecting them from sexual harassment, no refuges for battered wives and a woman could be ostracised for leaving her husband even if he hit her which is what happened to my great aunt.

Anyway On the Buses is a painfully bad film which I don't recommend to anyone except die hard fans of the show and doesn't reflect what the majority of men, women or working class people are like.


It's just not funny.

Even viewed as a film of its time, it's still not very amusing. Neither of the two main characters has any charm or comic timing - the only mildly amusing character is Blakey the inspector. How this was ever a success is a mystery.

However, there is one amusing part: The theme tune. It has this wonderfully dated lyric:

"It's such a gay life on the buses. Make sure you leave your bird at home." That's a classic.


I just saw the movie and it made no sense to me because so much was missing, the whole thing was so hard to believe. Its only now after reading around, I have come to know that the producers were in a hurry to make the movie for whatever obvious reasons even before the trial started, and the morons based the entire movie around Davids confession<--- what a stupid thing to do... its a painful story and it should have been dealt with more responsibility... all they have done is made David look like a stupid mad in love softy, whereas he might have been the whole mastermind and the poor crazy gal, who knows what mental condition shes got......... Last but not the least, the characters were soo poorly defined, holly marie combs was absolutely wasted, she is one of the best actresses in the industry and did a fine job with whatever twisted script she had. i just wish they cud have done justice to this...


this "docuDRAMA" was sorely lacking in drama. you knew the story ahead of time even if you weren't aware of the story from the news. there's no suspense, no thrills, and no drama. it's drier then a 10th grade history lecture. the plot, such as it is, can be summarized in 3 lines, yet they drag it out to 2 hrs (with commercials). it reflects badly on me that i even watched it, but at least i was multi-tasking.

save yourself the time, and don't bother.


Tragic yes if you look at what happened, but like many documentations made for TV, this one fails miserably. The plot is based loosely on the actual case by what was shown, using the most catchy of scenes and then over-glorifying them. The acting, atrocious. Pin the blame on the bumbling cops who are trying to solve this murder. Are they really cops? The guilty couple who committed the crime was okay, but suffers the same glorifying effect. It doesn't make them tragic, it makes them inane. Bottom line, not a very good drama. 4 / 10


Essentially, this is a depressing drama. No surprise, since it is based on a novel by William Faulkner. Filming it in black-and-white was appropriate, because it comes off as a low-class, dingy story. However, the performances by the four main actors are very good. It is interesting that Rock Hudson, Robert Stack, and Dorothy Malone also starred together in the movie Written on the Wind, in 1956, which was a better movie, but with very similar character-types. Another item to note is a small bit part played by Troy Donahue, soon to be a major star in his own right. It's the only time I recall seeing Jack Carson playing a dramatic part, although he still had some sarcastic lines that were apparently supposed to inject a bit of humor - inappropriate in this movie. I probably won't watch this film again very soon, because it's not my idea of entertainment.


Really, a dismal piece of work. I would rate it as unwatchable, if only for the acting. But let's not give short shrift to the other poor aspects of this film: it was also poorly written, edited, scored, and directed. Everything about this film just says, "Film school, first attempt."

Be assured, this move is not significant as a "gay Russian film." Gay relationships in film are hardly groundbreaking events, and unless you can put a reasonable story around it, it deserves only to be significant as a "a bad Russian film."

The positive reviews I've read strike me as overwhelming patronizing to Russian film-making.

Note: I can only really comment on the first hour of this movie, since that's all we stayed for. If you've become curious about this movie and just must see it, I strongly recommend you stay out of the theater and make this one a rental.


That's all I can really say about this film. It's DBZ...like Tree of Might and The World's Strongest, it really...doesn't fit into the timeline for the show at all, though it is supposedly placed just before the beginning of the TV series. The action is pretty nice in general. The plot has a nice enough base, with a good background establishing why these guys hate each other and all. Pretty good in general, there... The problem is...there's a lot of really weird stuff. I mean, really weird stuff. Like The World's Strongest, there's a really, really odd song in this one that could only have been created in a drug induced haze...disturbing is the fact that Gohan, while singing, is pretty much drugged out himself. Creepy. The villains are odd and rather comical...moreso than the usual DBZ type--this seems more like it was made as a Dragon Ball movie rather than a Dragon Ball Z movie. In general, its entertaining enough, but...just...strange.


The quote from COOL HAND Luke seems quite appropriate here. While some adore "Préparez Vos Mouchoirs" (as typified by the mostly favorable reviews and the Oscar win for Best Foreign Film in 1979), others probably see the film in such a radically different light. To see it in this other light is perhaps seen by the "with it" crowd as evidence that an individual is devoid of taste and a Neanderthal. Yet, to those who hate it, the film is not just bad but evil...or at least very, very morally suspect.

What I am talking about here is that in the second half of this comedy(?), the leading lady has an "affair" with a 13 year-old boy--and this seems to be a good thing according to the film. This is very reminiscent of "Le Soufflé au Coeur"--another French film that is adored by most "with it" people. However, in "Le Soufflé", the boy is not just a teen having sex with an adult but the adult in question is his own mother!!! Yet, review after review on IMDb for "Le Soufflé" describe the movie with such words as 'vibrant' and 'marvelous' as well as saying that it's 'a beautiful coming of age film'. For "Préparez Vos Mouchoirs", there are such appellations as 'clever', 'amusing' as well as 'fresh and surprisingly intelligent'. What part of morally wrong don't they understand?! Even if the rest of the film had been good (which, incidentally, it was not), how can such praised be heaped on a film that glamorizes or excuses sexual abuse?

Now understand that I am NOT a French-basher. I love French films and they are my among favorite type of films (surpassing even the Japanese--which I also adore) and I have taken French classes to learn the language. But, in this one way, I think the French film makers have it all wrong. In fact, the recent glowing praise and support of Roman Polanski (who admitted to drugging and sodomizing a 13 year-old) illustrates this divide. Having worked as a social worker and then therapist with sexual abuse victims, this 19th century attitude towards the sexualization of children is quite sad. Sometimes and with some issues we provincial Americans are wrong...in this case, however, I suspect the French have something to learn from us about the way we have taken sexual abuse cases more seriously in recent years (though, of course, we still have a way to go).

So if I was totally offended by the scenes that involved the 13 groping and leering at a beautiful (and willing) adult woman, what did I think about the rest of the film? Well, sadly, I didn't like it. The film has many absurdist elements that might appeal to some but will also leave many cold. Like director Blier's follow-up film, "Buffet Froid", so much of the film deliberately makes no sense and is intended to shock. If you like this sort of craziness, so be it, but the average person out there will not be particularly pleased with the film as it just seemed dumb and the characters seemed so unreal. I know that is the point the film makers intended, but that still doesn't mean I have to like it. If I want something goofy and insane, I'll watch a comedy like "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"--this is absurdism but with the aim to make people laugh. "Préparez Vos Mouchoirs" does not seem to have any such intention. It seems more intent on confusion and bizarreness instead of being a comedy--sort of like performance art instead of film.

Overall, there is almost nothing to recommend this film (unless you want to see a young looking 13 year-old making it with an adult). Incidentally, the actress was 30 and the child was actually 14. Would you let your 14 year-old participate in sex scenes with a 30 year-old in a film? Wouldn't this seem like pandering?


I am still wondering how I managed to sit through the entire movie. Story - bizarre.... Acting - no comments please .....

A bizarre relationship between a 13 old kid and an imbecile married woman. All she does is knitting sitting topless. An equally imbecile husband who finds the third imbecile in the movie to make love to his wife. A bored housewife who falls in love after a car wreck; it was upside down but she was intact enough to have sex with the first stranger that passes by. Come on!!!!! This is French slapstick for you folks.... I have no idea how come people give it a rating over 2-3. I rated it 1/10 because I couldn't rate it lesser. in my opinion it's -7 out of 10.


I saw this movie several times, as it's a classic we can see quite often on TV. I just watched it once more last night.

What do we have here ? Les valseuses revisited. This time with Carol Laure instead of Miou Miou, but the same "ménage à trois", with the male ambiguous friendship, the frigid or depressive hysterical woman, and the outsider who reveals her. This time, the third guy is a young boy. A thin difference.

The only good thing in this movie is the performance of the guys, Depardieu and Dewaere. They are even better than in les valseuses. The character played by Carole Laure is uninteresting, and the young boy is really awfully played and boring.

Before reading the comments here I didn't know this little misogynist comedy won an important award in some foreign country, and I still don't understand what makes it a winner.

Too bad, as Both B. Blier, Depardieu and Dewaere can be found together in better movies. Just watch Buffet Froid, Beau père and of course 'les valseuses'.

4/10


This is one of the many films where after you read the reviews you ask, "Did these folks actually see the same movie I did?"

Further it won the Import film of the year Academy Award. Essentially this is outrageous junk that was not really understood by its audiences, like much of the tongue-in-cheek art that hangs in modern art museums. Audiences have no clue and do not wish to be taken as fools so they join the crowd and rave about something they can't actually grasp. In fact, there is nothing at all to grasp.

This is a French import that does not intellectually translate into any entertainment language known in the USA about a pre-teen boy who screws his bored governess Solange. (Préparez vos mouchoirs, indeed).

Seeing the Academy flip over this outrageous and tiresome film destroyed even the slightest desire I ever had to return to Los Angeles to view a far more important scene, the La Brea Tar Pits. In the flowerchild American society of 1978 it had the pertinence of soiled newspapers that line garbage cans.


This is a shoddy effort which seems to have been cobbled together to ride on the back of 'Those Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines' (1965) and the like.

Proceedings begin with a long prologue introducing the Victorian age of invention and adventure, which leads us on to the P.T. Barnum character whose latest plan is to send a man to the moon.

The story unfolds like a third-rate childrens pantomime with lots of sight-gags and silent comedy exaggeration. Caricatures abound with clear labels as to who should be hissed and who should be cheered by any audience member still awake.

Even allowing for any post-production difficulties which the assortment of alternative names the film goes under would suggest, the final effort is insulting to the intelligence and all age groups will be bored by the tedium it offers.

Even Troy Donahue doesn't add a spark to the dismal affair, his dashing hero character coming off like a poor man's Doug McClure without the charisma or acting ability. An inferior McClure clone would normally be a contradiction in terms, which only goes to show just how low the bottom of the barrel is which 'Rocket to the Moon' scrapes.

BEST SCENE - the closing credits had me cheering from the rooftops.


I saw this on television when it first aired , and remembered it as being terrible. But with the recent DVD issue , I had to Return To The Man From U.N.C.L.E....

One cannot deny the natural chemistry between Macallum & Vaughn , but it's a shame the writers didn't give them a decent script.

This is the lamest U.N.C.L.E. venture ever! ( Yes , even worse than some of Season 2 & 3's worst episodes. ) The trouble begins with a terrible "updated" version of the theme song , and spirals from there! ( Apparently they couldn't find the original logo or typeface either - how do you ignore something so iconic? ).

There is far too much time wasted on setting up the affair - which in itself is far too simplistic and easily resolved - and not enough time developing...well...anything else. The writers would rather spend every other scene with one character or another mentioning that "15 Years" have passed...read the title , got it. There's also just a plethora of terrible jokes - including the lame James Bond inclusion, ( Yeah , Ian Flemming , co-creator , got it , back in the 60's , carry on! ), and the typical "Oh you're so out of step" gags ,and throw in a few "old guys teaching the new pups a lesson" gags , and you've got a confused stew that is neither comedy nor drama. Also , since this is the 1980's , all car wrecks or "dangerous scenes" , have to show the bad guys running to safety just before the big bang! ( Makes you miss the days of the sleeper darts! )

The acting is fairly plastic , including an appalling role for Gayle Hunnicut. ( As a "Russian" operative , the writers weren't even clever enough to have her and Illya interact! ). And a major waste comes by way of getting Solo & Kuriyakin back together only to spend most of the Affair in different countries and not performing as a team! A waste of time. A waste of Vaughn & Macallum. A waste of Anthony Zerbe & Keenan Wynn! CLOSE CHANNEL D!


Jaclyn Smith, arguably the most beautiful of Charlie's Angels--though not especially the best actress of the bunch--goes the 'abused wife' route in this undernourished made-for-TV movie. She's a young woman who, after two dates with a single dad/narcotics officer/ex-bodybuilder, decides to move into his house and act as best friend to his miserable daughter. Brad Johnson is the widower who is described as sweet and gentle, yet we can see from the get-go that he's overly-intense and a little dangerous. One comment from a friend about his shrinking muscles has Johnson injecting himself in the bathroom and popping pills, all of which hopes to explain his violent behavior towards Smith, but I didn't buy it. As presented, this telefilm is lopsided and badly handled. Johnson's character is clearly a handful even before Jaclyn marries him, and her character's stupidity in falling for his little-boy tricks is a turn-off for the audience. Although based on a true story, this tale of possible vengeance follows a tried-and-true pattern; nothing which comes out of it is remotely surprising or enlightening. It exists only to exploit the problem of spousal abuse--and to give Smith a meaty acting role.


Yes abuse is awful, but Donna Yaclich was a scheming, greedy, manipulative woman who had her husband killed for insurance money. To this day she shows no remorse for hiring some guys to kill her husband. Any way you slice it, she is an evil woman and deserved every moment of the forty years that she got in prison for conspiracy to commit murder. Unfortunately, this movie casually ignores the horrible thing she did to her husband and to their children. Let's say she killed him because she could no longer stand the abuse and wanted to protect her children, that might be believable, but no she did it for the money. And because her husband was "killed" in the line of duty, she got double the money. This is no accident, she carefully planned it this way all along, knowing that her husband's life insurance policy would pay double if he were killed on the job. Then after the funeral she partied in Jamaica. No remorse whatsoever, this woman is unbelievably evil. I don't know how anyone can watch this movie and feel sorry for Donna Yaclich, she is a horrible woman. Even today in t.v. interviews, she expresses no remorse for having someone killed.


When Eddie Murphy hit it big on Saturday Night Live,he became the hottest featured player on there since John Belushi. Along with that came his (then) shocking and hilarious comedy albums. He Like Steve Martin in the '70s,became a stand-up comedian,treated like a rock star.

Then came great films like 48 Hours,Trading Places & Beverly Hills Cop #1 & Pt.2 and Coming To America. Mis-steps like Best Defense (which he's barely in) and Golden Child. Mostly though,it was his (clean version here) "smart-aleck"/street smart persona that made him. It's also what broke him,at least for awhile.

Harlem Nights was a disaster,Another 48 Hourscould have been made on a Xerox machine. People had begun to tire of him. In 1992 it seemed he had rebounded with "Boomerang" but then came this.

The Distinguished gentleman takes Murphy,once again back to the street smart,con artist he'd played before. The smart aleck humor seemed tired for a man (then) 30 years old. It was a somewhat nice touch that his character sees the realities involved in the office he's won based on (someone else's) name recognition. Seeing a little girl whose hair has fallen out due to electrical tower radiation makes him see the light.

Most comedies have a pretty funny ending but the writers couldn't even give us that. In the last moment,I was like,"That's it?"

Four stars is a generous rating here but I feel that Murphy was at least trying to say good-bye to his 80s super-star and hello to maturity,which he finally found. After Beverly Hills Cop 3,he never looked back again. (END)


I am SHOCKED to see all the positive comments on this movie! I am a major Murphy fan and I can tell you it is contrived and, at best, silly. See other comments if you want to find out about the plot.

The movie has that fast-paced early 90's feel where the plot develops way too fast with too many minor characters running around. You've seen this movie so many times before - only a series of exactly timed and inconceivable coincidences would make it all work - and (hold onto your seats...) it does! Nothing is developed and reactions to the coincidences are silly. All exaggeration aside, it has as bad dialog and acting as I have ever seen by major actors. Especially bad is Joe Don Baker. It is almost worth renting just to see him deliver his exceedingly poorly written lines - poor guy. Honestly, this movie is not funny and not entertaining on any level.

While not as bad as Best Defense (is any movie?), there is a reason 1992 saw it come and go in just three weeks.

If you like Murphy, get Trading Places (excellent), 48 Hours or Another 48 Hours. If you like Joe Don Baker, get Charlie Varrick (amazing movie).


Here is yet another in a long, long line of Hollywood films in which all the black people are smarter than the stupid white folks, and all the politicians are corrupt. Wow, Liberal Hollywood has something original. Yes, to them two wrongs always make a right so let's show what good people we are by reversing the racism. Let's also get one of the hotter black stars of the era to play the "hero," too, and have him show all those corrupt politicians how it should be done, even though that "good guy." played by Eddie Murphy, is a crook, too. That's another familiar Hollywood theme since the '60s: make the hero morally unsound but someone to root for. Throw in some ludicrous "conspiracy theories" like power lines causing cancer, and you have another Looney Left delight.

There are so many bad messages in here, it would make your head swim. It's also too profane, but that's no surprise with Murphy in the lead role and a total unknown - who has remained such in the last 15 years, Victoria Powell - as the female lead.

This is a poor man's "Trading Places," another movie in which a nobody, here a slimeball con man, can turn into a somebody, a man elected to congress. Except in Massachusetts or some other elitist state, I'm sure that could never happen!

One positive thing about this film: Murphy is actually low-key and much less abrasive than his normal characters. That was nice to see-and hear! He's a talented actor and doesn't always need to scream and shout to get laughs. The film gets a few stars for that alone, even though most people prefer the wise-ass Murphy.


Eddie Murphy is a man capable of high energy humor, and is efficient with his broad smile, mimics and impersonations. And this movie gives him some great moments especially in the beginning.

Eddie Murphy starts as a Florida con 'artist' accompanied by some accomplices blackmailing people who use his private fake phone-sex service. While racketing a congressman, he finds out that running for Congress will earn him more money than he does now. His asset to get elected is his name which he shares with a just-deceased congressman called Jeff Johnson. His way to the top of course hardly meets any difficulty but, after all, this is a comedy so we don't mind as long as it's entertaining.

But then things go wrong, Johnson meets a Pro Bono lobbyist, falls in love with her pretty fast but their relationship doesn't add anything to the movie and is not developed and chemistry between both actors is obviously missing.

First, Johnson enjoys his journey at the Congress but he soon realizes he can't keep a straight face and simultaneously take part to the different frauds and corruption present.

This is where the movie takes a turn for the serious and forgets it started out as a comedy. It's now trying to make a point. Johnson accepts to help a town where children are submitted to the negative effects of power high lines causing a great deal of them to suffer from cancer. Johnson develops a plan to force Congress to do something and expose publicly the aforementioned frauds and corruption. All this is done in an unexplainable cheesy way.

Shame, as the movie contained some good ideas for a comedy but director Jonathan Lynn seems to have been distracted and forgot that his original intention was to make a good comedy with Eddie Murphy having a good time at Congress.


I was just having a discussion with my work colleague about what may have been the worst film either of us has ever seen. He plumped for The Naked Lunch (?)and I went for this turkey. The most amusing part of my whole viewing experience was when a man in his mid 30's, young family in tow, began to walk out of the cinema and then, once he reached the aisle, turned to face the screen and shouted "B*ll@#ks!!!" at the top of his voice before calmly turning round and walking out. This expressed what most of the audience, myself included, were thinking at that time. Well done, that man....

Can't help but agree with an earlier post -I am SHOCKED to see so many people give positive reviews to this inane drivel and felt I needed to redress the balance somewhat. What is the world coming to, eh???


Hmmm...I must be in the silent minority on this one. I thought this movie was absolutely atrocious. The plot was flimsy, the film moved WAY to fast at the beginning, and the big conspiracy was about power lines causing cancer...It was sad that was the best they could come up with. If you want to see truly great acting by Eddie Murphy, rent Bowfinger, Coming to America, or Trading Places. If you want to see a jumbled mess, watch this movie instead.


This movie is visually beautiful, the character design catching the atmosphere of the first manga's of Osama Tezuka-san (they remind me of early Disney animations as well...) The backgrounds are done in CGI. Still, they fit in nicely with the characters. The music is jazzy/ dixieland-ish as should be for the era that this film is supposed to honor. OK, so much for the good stuff. I'm thoroughly disappointed on the absence of any character development besides the obvious difference between evil/ good. The only one who get's some development is the detective. The rest stays as flat as the paper that pulp is written on, not the paper of a decent manga, mind you. The story does not convince me. I cannot relate emotionally to any of the characters.

If you want some good anime on comparison between robots and humans, go see: Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence (Romaji: Inosensu: Kôkaku kidôtai) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0347246/


awesome backgrounds, horrible popeye style characters, horrible use of american music.

lame plot: just like A.I. it starts good then degenerates into Pinochio (sp)? i don't CARE about robots.

and tell me i didn't hear freddie prinz jr doing a voice. - that's the kind of crap that ruined Princess Mononoke.

i'm gonna watch it again in japanese w/ subtitles.


I'm in my teenage rebellion, and I think all the civilization suck, let add some biblical sheet, some cheap cultural references, mix it with BEAUTIFUL animation, the same robot-sheet with human love, some kinda sensitive stuff and a title that will kick ass.

Metropolis (2001). Fritz Lang is just base jumping in the cemetery...

The thing I hated the most - apart of the lame of this - so called - movie - is the music. It's just SO FAKE !!! It's obvious that the guy who decided to put light jazz music was thinking that THIS will be the **special** thing of the movie, that THIS will make this movie cult, special, gosh I'm just so angry I've lost two hours of my life...

See it if you like cheap-o pseudo philosophy, or else, go buy a book.


Surprisingly mild vehicle for Pam Grier, targeted at the black urban audiences of the 1970s, isn't terribly good despite a varied roster of bemused supporting talents, including Jim Backus, Yaphet Kotto, Scatman Crothers, Godfrey Cambridge, Carl Weathers from "Rocky", Ted Lange from "The Love Boat", and Eartha Kitt, hamming it up as usual playing a breathless fashion designer. Grier (looking lovely) is cast as a professional shutterbug tracking down an assassination ring who target black politicians. Campy nonsense is hardly "The Manchurian Candidate", though it does have a fresh moment here and there. The assembly-line shootout-climax is tired, and the film's production seems cheesy, but Kotto just about steals the picture as Grier's sidekick. ** from ****


Based on a comic strip, this movie was colorful and believable as one. Pam Grier as a fashion photographer getting mixed up in romance and intrigue sounds like a great idea but this movie never pulls it off. All I can recommend is the off the wall supporting cast. Not by casting unusual actors but the parts these actors play. With the exception of Eartha Kitt and Scatman Crothers playing what one would expect, the others play characters that they would not be known for in later years. Take Ted Lange: remembered for the happy go-lucky Issac on "The Love Boat", here he is the stereotypical pimp with the clothes and dialogue to match. Yaphet Kotto, is the comic sidekick; I don't think I have ever seen him smile as much as he did in this movie. Carl Weathers as the silent killer is also a little strange. Jim Backus gets prominent billing and he is in the movie for just two minutes! Well, it's a fast 90 minutes and there are worse things to watch.


Just a couple years earlier, Pam Grier starred in COFFEY--one of the best of the so-called blaxploitation films. Then, she made FOXY BROWN--a very similar film but still very watchable nonetheless. Now, by 1975, she was making lousy films like SHEBA BABY and Friday FOSTER--films that were just pale imitations of these earlier successes.

Friday FOSTER finds Ms. Grier as a hot-shot photographer for Glance magazine. She gets a lead on the arrival of some big-wig and sneaks onto the runway at the airport. However, she walks into an attempted assassination! After that, she's pulled into all kinds of intrigue that never really scores. Too bad her character is more like a Black Barbie doll instead of the usual bad @ss she played in her good films. All her brashness is replaced by high fashion clothing and a by-the-numbers plot that could have been a "Charlie's Angels" plot--seriously.

Now this film could have been a lot better. After all, it had a very good cast (including Carl Weathers, Julius Harris, Yaphet Kotto and Godfrey Cambridge. However, it all just seemed so unreal and poorly written. Pam with a camera instead of a gun just didn't pack much entertainment punch. Heck, you know it's lame when instead of blowing away bad-guy Weathers, she shoots him with pepper spray. Lame! And, when the evil assassins strike, they only chose methods with the lowest probability of success!!! Knives, runaway cars that inexplicably miss the heroine and explode and gunmen who can't hit anything make for one of the weakest gangs in film history! The only good hit (and it was GREAT---almost worth seeing the film just for this one) involved a phone booth and a huge truck--but naturally this was aimed only at a minor character and not Ms. Grier.

If there was a reason to watch this movie, it's so you can see the zombie fashion show about 25 minutes into the film! It's a high fashion show starring a strange Eartha Kitt (by her performance, I think she thought she's supposed to be Catwoman). As she introduces the models, each comes out in atrocious 70s dresses and moves about exactly like the undead as Kitt purrs like Batman's rival---seriously! It is meant to be hot, but frankly it's one of the funnier scenes in a bad blaxploitation film you can find.

Another possible reason might be to see Ted Lange (from "Love Boat") playing a completely stereotypical 70s pimp. Instead of mixing drinks and dispensing wisdom, here he spouts Huggy Bear-like dialog that can't help but elicit laughs. I really wish he'd acted this way on "Love Boat"--it would have been hysterical! Or, perhaps people who hate Godfrey Cambridge would want to see it because this film couldn't help but sink his career. His mincing homosexual routine is pretty embarrassing--as well as awfully offensive when seen today--at least to some in the audience. Others might just laugh at its lack of subtlety.

A final reason to see the film is to witness the most amazing and warmest winter in Washington, DC history. I grew up there and was amazed to see all the trees were filled with green leaves and people were dressed like it was May! I was there in 1975 but somehow missed out on this anomaly! My recall is that the temperatures were in the 30s...like every other winter in this city!! I also loved the mountains in the outskirts of DC (and no, I am NOT talking about the Appalachians). Strange how they looked like the same ones in Los Angeles! Great continuity, huh?!

However, other than for laughs or curiosity or a hatred of Mr. Cambridge, I just can't see why you'd want to see this until you've first seen and enjoyed GOOD blaxploitation films! Trust me--you can do a lot better than this overly-polished but bland film.

You know this is a REAAALLLY lame film where "Mr. Big" turns out to be Jim Backus!! So apparently THAT'S how Thurston Howell III got all that money!!


Normally I'm one to enjoy a mindless action movie regardless of writing, acting or directorial style. These are generally good movies to watch as entertainment in the background. Last night I queued up "Fugitive Hunter." I was disappointed. This movie didn't succeed at anything. It was too flat to have any sort of compelling drama, the action was too badly-choreographed to get any adrenalin flowing, and the movie too itself too seriously to gain any significant "camp" value. The writing and directing were not only sub-par, they were almost laughably bad. Unfortunately they weren't so bad as to inspire actual laughter, but rather only a disbelieving sidelong stare.

Maybe if it's 3AM and you can't sleep and this movie is on cable it might be worth tuning in for a few minutes, but I just can't recommend spending any money on this flick.


Why do people have to copy films they see instead of making something original? There is nothing new or interesting in this movie. It looks like a bad DV movie. Rehashes of tired slo-mo shooting scenes, that are poor copies at that, and staged fights. Don't people realize that it's the film that shows something different and unique or weird that gets noticed? Seems like the filmmakers in Sacramento are still trying to ride the coattails of Blood, Guts, and Octane. A fluke of film that happened to hit at a time right when that whole indie Clerks/Pulp Fiction thing was big. But this is the to be expected, the outcome of mediocrity. I just hope one day people will wake up and see that.


This movie starts out with an excellent premise: a young witch named Kiki, following the ancient tradition of her kind, leaves her home for one year to train to be a full witch, and find her special skill. Her mom, for instance, is a healing witch. But all Kiki knows is flying, and everyone can do that! She must brave the outside world and find herself in order to become a full-blooded respectable witch. Sounds good, right? Well, it would be, if the script wasn't awful. The plot then goes into her flying delivery service way too much, and not enough into interesting things. Also, apparently most people believe in witches. Wouldn't it be more interesting if her witchitude was a source of problems between her and her new society? Worse, she is barely a witch, because there is no training, no finding of a new skill, barely any discussion of other witches, nada. There's also no 3-dimensional characters, almost nothing deep, enthralling, or unexpected, and NO REASON TO LIKE KIKI AS AN INDIVIDUAL!!! She's a happy-go-lucky bumbling 13-year-old girl, until she comes upon a friend who happens to be a boy her age, and then she acts like a cold-hearted shrew. Everything that should go wrong does, and everything that should go right does. Plus there are WAY too many shots of her underwear for a G-rated movie. Has Kiki never heard of wearing shorts under her witch's gown?! The only reason I did not give this movie a 1 is because the drawings are lovely. Oh, by the way, this must be set in France. It's never stated, but there is no way in H-E-double-hockey-sticks that this is set in Japan.


I'm currently studying Proust, and so looked forward to this. I figured the other review HAD to be wrong about how bad this was. But they weren't! I love slow, ponderous French movies. But this one absolutely killed me, bludgeoned me with a big fat dull fence post and left me by the side of one of the many long roads I'd watched the actors drive interminably and wordlessly down. I finally had to watch it on fast forward, because NOTHING HAPPENS time and time and time again for minutes at a stretch. I don't envy a director/scriptwriter who takes Proust on, because so much of the richness of his characters and stories is interior. But, God! You've got to at least TRY to convey those depths by something other than static shots of actors doing and saying nothing. Boo. Hiss. Just awful.


I have seen a lot of movies in my life and I have never walked out of the movie theater and rarely ever stopped watching a movie. If I paid to see this, I would have walked out. We had to fast forward at 2x at that was the speed the movie could have been done at. Many long scenes with no talking at all and just driving. The characters were empty with no essence, no emotion, no depth to them what so ever. The man was pathetic and his submissive girlfriend had a blank expression on her face through the whole thing. This movie could have been saved if the hint of romantic relationship with the girlfriend and her female friend would have been woven into the story. Bottom line is that what this movie lacked is what lacks in a lot of relationships where people ask later "what went wrong?": lack of communication, thats what. Moodiness, and sad puppy dog looks don't do it, we need to know what is going on through the characters' heads, what makes them tick not just what makes them obsessed. One moment of anguish sobs at his grandmas arms is not enough to wake us up from the silent, expressionless coma this movie put us in. This movie should have never been made. No one should ever see this. It would truly be a waste of your time.


I could not finish watching the entire movie, I got about 3/4's of the way. First of all, the movie is way too long(100 minutes), and the blood effects are just way too fake, I mean I know low budget is low budget, but the killing scenes are just too comical. The ape looks like a retard making comical grunts, and posturing, and the costume is just plain lame. I did love the opening credits, great job there. The acting was very bad, and when the ape lifts the cop car, that was just too ridiculous, it looked so fake, I think this film would have been better if a different approach to the ape was used, and they limited the blood and gore, the movie had potential and that's why I give it a three. Finishing a film is an accomplishment and these film makers did just that.


Well, it's an interesting premise, but the director misses most of the opportunities it offers, managing only a handful of suspenseful moments. The film plays more like a whodunit than a horror film, but the "mystery" part is dreary, and the death scenes are silly and overwrought. What a cast as good as this one (including Sara Botsford, a real revelation) is doing in an unimportant little time-waster like this is anybody's guess. (*1/2)


*Warning* Spoilers* I bought this video, expecting it to be another movie! However, I decided to watch it and was soon caught up in this horror-thrillers complicated web of intrigue. Because it is complicated and the movie take more than enough time to arrive at the rather obvious conclusion. But there are some pleasure to be had from this "sub-Hitchcockian" exercise in terror. The leads are interesting and well played by unknown Australian thespians. It should also be noted that the two main characters are strong women. The only man to be seen more than fleetingly is soon out of the picture (the heroines boyfriend). However, if you are gay or, especially, lesbian, you should have quite a few problems with this movie since there is a homicidal lesbian depicted (not an altogether ugly portrait, but still...). All in all, nothing special, but done with a certain flair for the medium and the genre (the final 15 minutes ARE tense and the attack by the mask-wearing and sword-wielding maniac in an empty school is a creepy sight). And since it is set in the world of a music academy, it contains many beautiful pieces of classical highlights!


Symphony of Evil is a slow moving film with a few nice touches. The opening scene is quite good, as we see a woman pushed from a window and her blood spilling onto a rose. Following this the pace gets a little slow, until eventually a bit of stalk-and-slash kicks in. The mask is really cool, very similar to the Michael Myers mask, yet unique in its own way. There are a few scenes that almost seem stolen from Halloween, such as when the killer is behind a washing line. The music is also rather similar.

The music and scenery in this film is great, and the chase scenes at the end are quite good too. What spoils the film however is the slow pace and the fact that you know who the killer is all the way through.

I wouldn't particularly recommend this film as it's nothing special.


A music student, Kate Martin begins to personally investigate when her ex-husband, Mike becomes a suspect of attack upon a neighbour, Anna. Although Mike is definitely a primary suspect both Kate and Detective Sergeant Turner, who is officially in charge of the case, think Dr.Steiner, a lesbian teacher of not only Anna but also Kate, may know something important because she was the last person who met pre-attacked Anna. But out of their sights the attacker goes to the hospital where Anna is admitted... Although I admit it is truth that almost non-human movements of the masked attacker are, at least in some scenes, very weird and even horrible, it is difficult to say this film itself, of which visual and musical atmospheres are very similar to those of WHEN A STRANGER CALLS, is very good. This is partially because the whole story is so horizontal that there is no space for audience to enjoy his or her own detectiveness, and partially because the character of Sally, who helps Kate to investigate, is a meaninglessly non-stop talker and badly adds not well-organised half-comical quality to the latter half of the film.


Christy is one of my favorite books, and I absolutely loved Kellie Martin and Tyne Daly along with the other actors in the original TV mini-series. These three movies with Lauren Lee Smith as Christy should be a continuation of the story that stopped with the end of the former series. Instead, they contain almost nothing original and are simply recycled, watered down versions of stories we've already seen.

While I would've been happy to discover new story lines with the people of Cutter Gap, I could also have been satisfied just to see the love triangle play out between Christy, David, and Dr. Neil MacNeill. These three movies take 4 1/2 hours (collectively) to get to the point, and they force the audience to re-hash story lines which had been fully fleshed out in the original series (though sometimes with slightly different characters.) It makes me wonder why the producers felt there was a market for these movies, since it is hardly providing anything new.

I agree with other posters about the lackluster performances of Lauren Lee Smith and Diane Ladd, as compared to Kellie Martin and Tyne Daly. I also felt James Waterston's performance as Rev. David Grantland was poor. I can respect an actor's prerogative to play a character in a new way, and I wouldn't want anyone to try and copy a previous interpretation, but I couldn't stand the end performance of any of these actors. I felt intense compassion for all of these characters in the book and the original mini-series, but during these movies, I didn't care what happened to any of them. I didn't connect with anyone who I originally found interesting, with the exception of Dr. MacNeill's character (played by the returning Stewart Finlay-McLennan.) Christy became wimpy, Miss Alice sounded uncomfortable in her own skin, saying "thee" and "thou" in an awkward way. I found that I couldn't care less about David as a love-interest. There was no chemistry between David and Christy, and I found it hard to believe that she could maintain any sort of interest in him at all. All of these actors sounded stilted and unoriginal while delivering their lines.

In writing this, I fear that I have completely repeated other posters, but I feel my comments are necessary, because I want to more fully represent the people who were disappointed in these movies. I highly recommend the novel and the original TV mini-series, but I could never recommend any of these movies with the new cast.


If you've read all the other reviews you will notice that the first ones - the negative ones - came from people who saw the 1994 series first then experienced the 2000 PAX remake with shock and horror. The newer reviews - the positive reviews - came from people who saw the 2000 PAX version on DVD which were released prior to the DVD release of the 1994 series. People tend to like the version they saw first but if you haven't seen any certainly the series is so much better in every way - acting, tone, pace, story line, cinematography, casting, directing, orchestration. And be reminded that when the original series was canceled, a massive fan response got the show rebooted, this was their fan base. Basically the producers told them "thanks, now leave".

One can review the remake from the perspective of seeing it first or seeing it second. If you've already seen it, I can't do anything about that, but if you haven't see the series first (and best yet skip the remakes). If you've see the series (and they are magical) here's what to expect in the remake.

The first of the three PAX movies plays like a parody without jokes. Bits of pieces of the year long series are randomly tossed into the first hour so all that exists are the famous scenes poorly executed without any build up or understanding of why they are there except for viewers to go "oh yeah, I remember that scene, it was in that story about..." They are presented here as punch lines without the build up. One could say it was like watching flashbacks of the previous season, but if it were meant to be a continuation why choose actors that don't resemble the originals one iota? Apparently the casting agent didn't see the original series either. Casting a lead character a foot taller than the original. Come on. Really? Imagine if one of the Rocky sequels had recast the Talia Shire role with Cher and you'll get the idea. Yet, the actors try to do impressions of the original actors mannerisms and speech inflections and the costumes are exactly the same. And story lines and characters were changed, some characters eliminated and an entire new character added with some nonsense about a female aviator who crash lands in Cutter Grove. Just what we need when condensing a year's worth of episodes into 90 minutes is to add a new character and subplot. What a mess. And all because fans wanted to know who Christy was going to marry. Sometimes things are best left unanswered for the next two films get even worse. Was there ANYTHING I liked? It had a neat introduction where we see an elder Christy (Shelia Moore) returning to Cutter Gap and telling the story which is narrated throughout the three films. This device would have worked great to recap the story lines for the first film IF they had followed the original story lines.


I can't believe that this crap made it to dvd before the original Christy series did.

The Kellie Martin series was real, the emotions real. This series is something that came straight from hell. Practically unwatchable by any fan of the original series. Avoid like the plague!!!

3/10

Quality: 0/10 Entertainment: 3/10 Replayable: 0/10


Having read over the past ten comments to this film, I cannot but help wonder if I missed something. I found this new series by Pax entirely dependent on the earlier season with Kellie Martin. If you hadn't seen earlier episodes, you wouldn't know what the devil was going on! Also, it had no "new" storyline - they were all recycled plots, from the boy who wanted to go to school (and his father who wouldn't let him), to Miss Alice getting hurt, to the whole Lundy Tailor angle, and even the appearance of a strange and beautiful woman at the Cove, whom Christy might be slightly jealous of.

I was vastly disappointed. This new mini series is nothing like the book, picks up in a strange place, and confuses you with new faces as well as old. "Oh, so they changed Fairlght, so Jeb is married to a new face, now?" Miss Alice is kind of nonexistent, taking backseat, and not living up to her character. Christy did a fine job... and might have even been convincing with a new set of supporting actors and an entirely new script to work with.

We were so disappointed as a family, that we probably won't tune into future installments. Pax tried to pick up Christy, but didn't "pick up" where the last story left off, with David's proposal, the return of Neil's wife, and Christy having to make a decision. Instead, it asks us to wipe our minds clean of the past and try to believe in this "new" story that trips over itself trying to be correct.

All in all, Pax either should have picked up where the series left off, using all of the same cast and the same location, or ditched everything and started from scratch. If it came down between this film and the first installment in the film series "Christy," I'd go for the early series, which starts off exactly like the book.


This is a bad movie. The real story of the Entebbe rescue was much more exciting and interesting than this. Everything about the movie, apart from the star-studded cast, screams low-budget. But even the stars can't save this movie: Kirk Douglas and Liz Taylor overact horribly. So does the guy who plays Idi Amin, but I suspect Amin was even worse in real life so I'll cut him some slack. Anthony Hopkins and Richard Dreyfuss perform well, though. The woman who plays the female German terrorist is a caricature of a Nazi. The characterization is paper-thin, though that is perhaps understandable given the number of characters. A lot of the dialogue is awful, a part near the beginning where Linda Blair is having an insipid conversation with her new beaux actually made me laugh out loud. The effort to humanize the male German terrorist was silly and pointless. I haven't seen the other two movies about Entebbe, but don't watch this one. Read a book about it instead.


This is the Soap Opera version of the Raid on Entebbe.

About half of this movie is poorly written, a real shame. I couldn't believe that this all-star cast would sign up to make a movie of this low caliber.

I have watched all 3 Entebbe movies. As others have commented, the "Raid on Entebbe" is strongly on point of the story at hand (the rescue of 101 Israelis held by terrorists).

"Operation Thunderbolt" is also on-point, and has many of the actual players playing themselves, but it is largely unfocused.

So, for the people who want to get lost in the background, "Victory" is the pick. I wish they could have taken this cast, and had them perform the Raid on Entebbe script ... it would be incredible.


In late June 1976, Air France flight 139--which had some 240 passengers on-board traveling from Athens to Paris--was hijacked by armed Arab terrorists who re-routed the plane to Entebbe, Uganda. All-star political adventure, filmed inexplicably on videotape (later transferred, with poor results, to film), was shown on ABC-TV just a few months ahead of NBC's version of the story, "Raid on Entebbe"; it was a rush job to beat the clock, and it shows. The harrowing facts of the ordeal have a tough time making an impact here, what with Ernest Kinoy's teleplay whipped up on the spot and Julius Harris stepping in for Godfrey Cambridge at the eleventh hour as dictator Idi Amin. The casting is certainly interesting; these stars must have had a vested interest in the proceedings and felt a great need to be a part of the experience, even if three-dimensional roles weren't exactly waiting for them (Kirk Douglas and Elizabeth Taylor, in particular, are poorly used). Some suspense and excitement near the finale, but it's long and talky when it should have been a gripping docu-drama.


I really hate to be negative but, I could not see any redeeming features to this film. I could not identify with or care about any of the characters. The acting was often awkward and felt unrealistic even though the style of film-making was cinema-verite. The hand-held camera's motion was distracting and brought attention to itself. Loose and rambling editing with the camera teetering into extreme facial closeups unnecessarily. The film had pretentious moments and seemed to lead nowhere. There was plenty of potential to explore and possibly comment upon post-partum depression but this film seems only to have skimmed the surface and shown us many angry and confused people and nothing more. Pointless and boring.