I'm all for brainless action/horror movies with lots of gore and nudity. Unfortunately, Le Pacte des Loups tries to be more than that, which makes the entire movie unbelievable. After a short setup, the film starts with a shot of pretentious religious imagery. Two strangers arrive and then save some woman and her father. One of the strangers is a martial-arts ass-kicking spiritual Native American (HE HAS A F*CKING TOMAHAWK AND MAGICAL HEALING POWDER FOR GOD'S SAKE! YEESH.) stereotype and the other is a dashing daring French hero main-character stereotype. It should be noted that the two hardly talk to each other throughout the entire film, which makes the last third of the film illogical and stupid. In fact, all of the characters are pretty much one-dimensional. The acting is not bad (it's not amazing either) given what the actors had to work with. Onto the plot: The film is a horror film wrapped by French royal court and religious intrigue. But since the film is mainly a horror film, the other stuff is just mentioned in passing and thus the imagery seems pretentious. Especially when you consider that the main character is resurrected. (Also, at one point the Native American character is laid out with his arms spread in a crucifixion position in a room where there is religious imagery all over the ceiling. Hmmm.) Anyway, to sum it up, the plot is stupid and unbelievable and the film is filled with gothic and religious imagery. None of that would matter if the film was a brainless action film. Unfortunately, the martial arts was pathetic. Maybe I've been spoiled by the fight scenes of some recent films (e.g. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) but I thought most of the battles were pretty lame. There's a lot of dodging and slowmotion kicks. Nothing spectacular. The final battle was funny because the French-guy main character, who suddenly gained kick-boxing abilities in the middle of the film, shoots flaming ARROWS (HE HAD A FREAKING GUN!) at people and SCALPS a guy. As I mentioned before, the movie sucked because instead of being a normal action/horror movie (the action is horrible; it's scary if you consider wolves in a procupine suit scary) it tries to throw in religious themes (which isn't in the film enough to justify all the freaking imagery everywhere. Even the Native American character is part of the imagery.) Oh yeah, most of the plot of the 2 and 1/2 hour movie makes no sense too. There was a lot of gore and nudity, which is always good. But I'd have to say that this movie is utter crap.


Since I'm a big fan of Vincent Cassel and horror movies I was looking forward to seeing "Le pacte des loups". Unfortunately the movie was a complete letdown. Started out interesting but then the story got more and more ridiculous. It seemed as if the makers didn't know what they wanted: action? horror? romance? drama? All and nothing. The martial arts were the coolest thing but didn't quite fit in. In the end I was glad when it was over.


The above title says it all. Brotherhood of the wolf is so ridiculous that it is actually fun to watch. I payed good money for a bad film and I am not disapointed. There is probably not one thing in this movie that makes sense. If you want a good laugh then see this movie!


If you have half a brain (or better no brain at all), have been bread on video games, TV commercials and blockbusters, and you're under 18, this movie is definitely for you. You'll find everything you need: stereotyped and wooden acting; sophomoric direction; tasteless and ignorant action scenes filmed with this oh-so-cool "time stretching" effects; tasteless and ignorant blend of genres, entirely formulaic (horror, martial arts, costumes); digitally over-enhanced cinematography; and above all, glorification of the "state-of-the-art" technology of modern filmmaking, absorbing all of the filmmakers energy, with nothing left for the important things: scenography, acting, storytelling, awareness of the camera, subtext. A computer could have written and directed this movie. You wouldn't have noticed the difference.

This movie looks, sounds and feel exactly like an over-long TV commercial. All of the actors are treated like props, even more than in Lucas's last films. "Matrix", "X-men" and "Blade" look like intellectual masterpieces in comparison.

Everything is said, about the filmmakers intentions and abilities, in the first killing: you have this stupid magnifying of every single sound details (climbing the rocks, steps, panting etc..), showing a mind who thinks only in terms of technical matters and envelope, and has no clue about what's a character and what's storytelling. Instead of focusing on the woman's struggle and fear, they focuse on the "cool" visuals and sounds. Just like in a video game. All humanity is lost. Frightening.

I'm not quite surprised that this quintessence of mindless exercise in MTV-clips-like formulaic filmmaking for the modern masses comes from my own birth country, France, as it has a long story of desperately trying to compete with american technical skills, which sadly often ends in products even more senseless, trendy and utterly empty than many american blockbusters. First "Vidocq", now "Le Pacte des loups". Vive la France! Hasn't Jeunet, with "Amélie", shown that there IS another way for french filmmakers than being shallow, trendy and fomulaic, to achieve commercial success?

There ARE some good french actors involved. I'm really wondering how they reacted when seeing the petty results of their efforts.


Although my comment is based on seeing the whole movie, it won't differ much from what was said by people who couldn't stand it entirely. What's worth of this movie are (maybe) the fight scenes, but they are islands in an ocean of boredom. The characters are impossibilities, the plot, although overly twisted, doesn't manage to keep the interest, and the beast's FX are worse than those in 1984's Terminator I. Rating: 3/10, thanks to the fight scenes (pity they don't comprise 30% of the movie's length).


this isn't crouching tiger, the medevil matrix, or anything else it is being touted as. i guess not being a idiot frat boy i dont have the appreciation for this film that many others do. if you have seen good movies you will immediately recognize that this is not one of them. the story is weak, the movie relies on the occaisional tricky camera shot or gimic (which is strange and out of place because the film is otherwise shot in a very straightforward style) the "talent" cannot act and its not because they are speaking a different language, and, the movie is about 50 minutes too long and therefore is boring as hell.


As an appreciator of many French films (and never put off by subtitles) I can honestly say that this Gallic effort is complete and utter bunkum. Whoever thought that it had merit and was worth wasting a fine cast upon deserves evisceration. Codswallop!


Seeing as I hate reading long essays hoping to find a point and being disappointed, I will first tell everyone that this movie was terrible. Downright terrible. And not, surprisingly for the reasons mentioned in the first review. I thought I might agree with him, seeing as he gave the movie the rank it deserved, but was sorrowfully rebuked upon reading what he said. I am quite ashamed to be taking the same side as someone who commented that the movie "definitely lacks good-looking females." Let me be the first to say, "Wow! that was definitely some serious in-depth reviewing there. My mind can hardly comprehend the philosophical musings about this movie." Seriously though, a lack of "good-looking females" shouldn't be considered an essential to a movie. If you're desperate enough for "good-looking females" you should really watch other types of movies, not necessarily falling into the sci-fi category.


This is one of those movies that really should have been better. First, take it for what it is worth - a jiggle film. Given that, the scenes are pretty risque: bottomless front shots of women and all that (that is, if you see the unrated version, I guess). The two female leads, Landon Hall and Ahmo Height, are both well suited to this type of movie. Height, a glamour model in her second movie, is particularly energetic in her roles. She reminds me of Lisa Boyle (Cassandra Leigh) from several years ago. Hall is clearly less concerned about emoting a performance, but then again, she's been around for a while. The men are, as usual, cookie cutter and unmentionable.

What I think is too bad is that the movie set itself up for interesting scenes, but then pulls back to the basic mid-range bed shots for the lovemaking. Why bother? Height's romp in the inn's kitchen is a good example. Rather than going whole hog 9 1/2 weeks-style with the props at their displosal, Height and her female friend (Taylor St. Clair) bump and grind on the counter. Again, watching Height is an experience (all 3 of her sex scenes have a definite attraction to them), but couldn't they have done something more?

Many watchers of this film will see other wasted opportunities. Given the physical talents of the cast, it just seems to be a waste to go to all this trouble, then not do something more interesting with them than what turns up.


I finished reading the book The Power of One, yesterday at 6pm. I saw the movie yesterday at 10 pm.

I should have waited a little bit longer.

Usually I first see the movie, then, the book it is based on, as not to get disappointed by the differences in it. I should have kept following the rule.

The movie The Power of One is a perfect example of how a producer can buy a story, lent it to a screenwriter who shreds it to pieces and then gives it to a director who mutilates it even more.

I am angry at how the book was mistreated. Angry at how so many characters were eliminated from the screen, angry at how many of the ones left were changed, angry at how the story was folded, twisted and changed for no reason at all, meeting no objective whatsoever.

Killing characters before time, changing names, cutting important scenes, and creating some that don't even come in the book, thus looking artificially inserted.

I know it's standard procedure for Hollywood to change a book in order to fit its necessities. But what have they done to this story is a criminal deed.

It will always, forever be known that the first version of this book was put into screen in such a horrible way.

I feel so angry. My book, my story.

The 513 pages I was so eager to read every night, every break I had, were gone.

The book is about THE POWER OF ONE. Of how a man can change its life, not depend on others if he wants to, or depend on others if he wants to.

To live your life at full extent. Not to fear things that are not worth fearing.

That's what it is about.

The book is not about apartheid and teaching black people. It's not about boxing and eight punch combinations. It's not about music and a mule named Beethoven. It's about persons. It's about A person. The movie totally missed that.

Why change the uncommon, the singular, the unique mythic name -given to Peekay- of "The Tadpole Angel", to one as clumsy, over used, simple and obvious as "The Rainmaker"?

The made the character of Doc a wimpy old guy who at the first chance abandons Peekay. In the book he is a powerful mentor that sticks to his protege. He is the father figure.

Peekay's mom is not around sufficient enough.

Mrs. Boxall, Mrs. Bornstein, Gert, Marie, Dee and Dum, Mevrou Hettie... all those characters you learn to appreciate (not love), are gone in screen.

Morris Levy, Hoppie Greenvald are transformed into something else besides what they are in the book.

The character of Maria Marais is made up for the movie. There was no need for that. How cheap. How low. How commercial.

Just let me tell you this: the director, the producer, whoever was in charge of the actors at the time, wasted away the presence of Armin Muehler Stahl as Doc, Morgan Freeman as Geel Piet and Sir John Gielgud as Sing'n'Burns with such tiny little useless appearances. That alone, is a sin in the cinema universe.

They three must have read the book and expected their characters to be the figures they had read about.

Peekay is a superb and excelse student, athlete and human. He has a pure innocence, will and love. Nothing of that sort is in the movie. They present him as a punchable boxer (he is untouchable in the book, but because he really makes an effort) who has no problems with money (he has to struggle even to get school stationary in the book) and who cares not one bit about the "Rainmaker" ("Tadpole Angel" in the book, where he does and fully accept the honor).

His determination to be the welterweight champion of the world (the representation of his desire to be unafraid, to be independent, to fulfill his power) is nowhere to be seen on screen.

I wasn't surprised to see the ending of Bryce Courtnay's book changed a 100%.

Hopefully, the author of the book expressed his strong discontent to the the movie makers about the treatment of his work.

Justice must be done and a remake must be filmed. The story can be done showing its richness onscreen.


WARNING: Full of spoilers This movie might be okay on it's own, but if you've read the book you would know that it is almost completely unrelated to the original novel by Bryce Courtenay.

It mixes up the characters, most of which aren't even included in the movie.

For example, half of Hoppie Groenewalds boxing advice comes from Geel Piet. Then, Hoppie, who doesn't appear on the train, appears late in the movie as a boxing coach at a gymnasium.

Also, Geel Piet, in the book, was a coloured man, hence "geel" which in Afrikaans means "yellow". The movie, however portrays him as a black man. This is very careless seeing as they even retain the name "geel".

The movie also tends to remove nearly all of the biggest influences of Peekay's life and mostly include all of the less important things.

Some other difference include the name of the chicken, his mother's death, the reason for nanny's leaving, the retaliation towards the judge at the boarding school and many more errors.

All in all, don't watch the movie if you haven't read the book and if you watch the movie first don't expect the book to be related.


This was probably the worst movie based on a book that I've ever seen. The book was excellent but the movie was crap. Parts that were integral to the understanding of story were taken out or completely changed. Unnecessary parts were added that were detrimental to the movie. Could have been made much better.


The book was excellent, but the movie has distorted the theme greatly. The book is more about Peekay over coming his trials. Not a political agenda for apartheid. through-out the book you can feel the injustice, but again that is not the theme. Somebody has an ax to grind and they have destroyed a great book in the process. There were many issues of human suffering and heartache, from many different sources. They came from religious fanaticism, male dominance, government interventions and and multiracial and multicultural issue from the empire building enterprises of many nations of that time period. There were many very important parts of the book eliminated from the movie altogether that make the story much more engaging and important to the character development of Peekay and his supporters. Do yourself a favor and read the book and appreciate what a great story it really is.


Just didn't survive the aging process. Poor acting, a messy story and all too sixties in film quality. I hadn't seen Caine as bad as in this one before, but then again I haven't seen that many flicks with him in them. I was surprised to find this film scores as high as it does, why is beyond me. The film's ending is highly unsatisfactory, like a part is missing. Maybe I need lobotomy to understand the greatness of this film. Not funny, not good. Go do something useful instead! (4/10) (I must also admit the remake/tribute 2003 flick Italian job was not much better. Completely different story, but as shallow as this one)


Minis are cool and they can go anywhere if driven with great skill. This is the moral of The Italian Job. An hour of random, illogical filler (admittedly with the odd spectacular car wreck) precedes the famous 20 minutes of watching minis do cool stuff and the final 10 minutes is only there to pad the movie to feature length, but the good 20 minutes is a must see!

Where does it go wrong? Characters (at least a dozen of them) are introduced from nowhere, appear for 5 minutes and disappear only to be seen at the end cheering or shaking their fists depending on whether they were good or bad. A lot of these characters seem to have jokes reliant on us knowing their personalities, but we don't! How do you get to know a character that's only got 3 lines (albeit stereotypical lines)? It's a case of quantity over quality. Tragic as most of the actors are fine in the quality department, but don't get a chance to demonstrate it. Even Benny Hill only has about 3 minutes screen time! A fin example of how to turn a great ensemble into a great jumble.

The first hour consists of random 5 minute bits that make sense within themselves, but don't have anything to do with one another nor do they logically flow. They do go in a general direction, but so much is touched upon , but never explored.

Not wanting to give too much away, I'll simply say that the ending is crap. It's a good idea for an ending, but is executed as though it were in front of a blind firing squad.

The cinematography is great, particularly for a 60s movie. When a film looks good today, you know it looked great then. The car wrecks look fantastic - proof that you don't need CGI for great action bits, provided you have the money to burn. Too bad what the were shooting was, for the most part, awful.

The best recommendation I could give: Skip the first hour, watch the minis do their stuff, then turn it off.


Most seem to love this movie, so maybe it's my age or something else but I hated it. The story was not well told at all, I had to force myself to stay awake just to make it to the ending.

To summarize, Charlie Croker (Michael Caine) wants to rip off a security truck carrying 4 mill. in gold bouillon. There were so many characters that were involved in the heist, but we didn't really get to see what they did. We were just expected to take for granted that these people were the best at there jobs and not actually shown it.

Benny Hill made a guest appearance, as the computer genius, but at the beginning of the heist he manages to get himself arrested and we don't see him for the rest of the movie. Charlie Croker goes through a lot of trouble to get this guy on the team, and his disappearance isn't even noticed when it happens. That didn't sit well with me at all. It seems Benny Hill was only added for his name, and to add some comedy; but failed miserably to do so.

The ending. Oh dear the ending. I get that they were trying to be brilliant with the whole anticlimax thing (Did they succeed or not? We're not going to tell you because that wouldn't be artistic) Personally I think that's just pretentious garbage that even if the rest of the movie was done well I would still hate it. Any movie in this genre needs an ending or else it makes the viewer, at least this viewer, feel as though they just wasted two hours of their life.

I normally love movies of this kind, especially those made in the sixties and seventies. And I looovvveee Michael Caine's work. But this one should be left alone. It was terrible.


** Here be spoilers **

Recently released from jail, Croker (Caine) takes a job from an old recently killed friend. He visits a jailed but not hindered crime lord and assembles a gang. The goal is a big shipment of gold delivered in Torino. And how are they going to do this? By creating the mother of all traffic jams.

Now, maybe I did this the wrong way around. I saw the remake (of 2003) and thought it to be very good. Naturally I wanted to see the original, as the original usually is better than sequels, prequels and remakes. Now, that may have been my error, as the original didn't come close to living up to my expectations. If you should watch only one Italian Job, choose the new one.

Now why do I think that? First, in my opinion this is a movie about a heist. The thrill is to see a fantastic plan take form and then see it pulled of, usually with some complications coming along the way. Now this movie started out good, with the presentation of the goal of the job, the gold. But then it just went silly. The preparations were outright dull, with the exception of some silly attempts to be funny. Then the actual heist went off without the slightest complication nor suspense, they just did it. Big disappointment.

Then there are a lot of very disturbing plot holes, unmotivated scenes and just annoying facts. I could give a lot of examples, but will make do with a few. Not being a criminal myself, I can't be sure, but the gang seemed very unprofessional, being cranky like babies without enough sleep. Now that didn't matter as the police were as stupid as could be. They seemed to give up just because the criminals closed a door. And they seemed not aware of how many exits (that you could drive a car out of) a public church had. In addition they didn't seem to get suspicious when a known mafia-boss trailed the shipment of gold by two meters. And were did the mafia go then, they just vanished from the plot.

Then there is the fabled car-chase. Being a big part of the movie it takes place in most places a car can be able to drive, except roads (yeah I know, there are some). The police just manage to tag one police car after the three minis, and maybe a motorcycle. And this is always so, whatever stunts the minis do to avoid the police, there miraculously is always one and only one police car behind them. That with the exception when they get to the big motorway and load the minis into the bus. Then there is absolutely no traffic at all, not even going the other direction! (And why did they throw of the tracks they used loading the minis clearly exposing how they try to escape). So, there is never any suspense that they should get caught. And while pretty spectacular, why did they drive on the roof of the arena? I guessed it was a way for the movie to show off a bit, but it was completely over-shadowed by the stupidness of it. And why did they throw the minis off clearly telling everyone which route they tried to escape. And how did the crime lord get the news that they stole the gold while they were still making their get-away (cellphone?)? And finally, there is the ending (completely unnecessary had the gang had an ounce of competence), braking most physical laws there is, that we don't get to see the end of. They should have died you know...

So. A surprisingly weak movie. See the new one!

3/10


Charlie Croker (Michael Cane) and the men of imprisoned gang leader Mr. Bridger try to steal 4 million dollar worth of gold from a truck in Turin. We follow their preparation and the heist itself, including the now famous mini coopers. Meanwhile, they have to get the Italian mob off their backs as well.

The idea of a heist movie is that you sympathize with the 'crooks', but in this one I didn't. They weren't likable at all. Add the dreadful pace and the silly carchase at the end (with a policecar re-appearing out of nowhere a couple of times, this wasn't an enjoyable movie. Although the coopers really are sweet.

4/10, mainly for presence of Caine and sweet cars.


I watched this film (not for the 1st time) on television on the last day of 2004. I hope the day of judgement is not nigh as I would hate it to be the last film I ever saw! I think this is the most over-rated film I have ever seen. With one or two exceptions, Raf Vallone and Michael Caine (though far from his best) the acting was disgraceful. The dialogue was laughable and not very funny. Difficult to believe that Troy Kennedy Martin was seriously trying to be funny! Those silly scenes with the doll-like girls who were probably considered the height of sexiness in the 1960's and the whole business of Noel Coward's 'Mr. Big' was ludicrous to the extreme. It was a truly awful film with a waste of not much talent and a whole gaggle of supporting actors who were incapable of rising above the rubbishy lines they were given. I laughed not once, I winced continually. Altogether a pretty poor show! I know that you should not take these plots seriously but this was impossible to even accept as a joke. Derek Crawley Bexhill-on-Sea UK


This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen! I was shocked at how bad it was. One of the stupidest plots ever, with ridiculous situations that made no sense (ie, with all their intricate planning, why was it so hard for them to get away from the police?). Michael Caine was totally wasted- it seemed like the director just said "Act angry the whole time". Plot lines went nowhere- the girlfriend just disappeared halfway through the movie, never to be seen again. What kind of movie were they trying to make? Comedy? Crime drama? Wacky farce? They couldn't seem to decide- there was lighthearted, goofy music at times, other times it was quite violent (ie, the clubbing of the guards). Massive quantities of illogic and/or breaking the laws of physics that were impossible to ignore (ie, the whole bus scene at the end). Even the enjoyment of watching cute little Mini Coopers couldn't make up for all the garbage that this movie contained. Watch the newer one instead- it's vastly better.


Being English I watched this film expecting to see one of the best Englsh films in history, but I was wrong. It was so boring I couldn't stick through it to the end.

I think this film really shows Its age,the humour is very old fashioned and couldn't really get it, and as for Micheal Caine's acting it isn't as good as everyone says.

I preferred the remake which wasn't the best film in the word, but its a better film than this, the action scene's are better executed maybe because it was made 30 odd years after its predecessor, and the way action sequence's are more doable with CGI and other advances in film making.

maybe seeing the remake first clouded my judgement a little even so its still crap, over all my rating is 1 out 10 and that is purely cause there is no Zero score.


The Italian Job has all the good humor and buoyancy of the British TV shows of the sixties. Think the Avengers for instance. Except a TV show can play with nonsense and poor action scenes as a trademark, while in a 90-minutes bona fide caper movie it's bound to be a failure.

Now you can watch the movie only enjoying the swinging sixties spirit it exhales. In that respect you'll not be disappointed. On the other hand if you're looking for suspense, tempo, a sense of rhythm, nice characterizations... you'll be thoroughly distressed as the movie has nothing interesting in it, save the trip back 40 years.

In depth: the movie drags its feet to set up the action, editing in an almost random order scenes where the humor becomes increasingly tired as you get used to it. To put it in a nutshell: cartoon characters with a tilt at spoofing 007 nonchalance make their way in a world where everything is funny and simple. OK that's not a bad thing, but the comedy is fast wooden while the action suffers from it. How can you have a proper caper movie if everything is just fun and no hassle, and eventually not so important? Suspense is never even sidelined, it simply doesn't exist. The story only cashes in on the characters' good time to make things go forward. In the end a very poor movie if you're not a sucker for sixties nostalgia.


Acting & technical talent, inner-city location settings, and the usual bladder-bursting length of celluloid are here wasted on a plotline so old it's age exceeds the applicable cliche that 'even its grey whiskers have grey whiskers', which has been very badly hacked into a new film tale of 90s Urban America.

Plot's the one about the two comrades who find the home turf awash in crime and, while taking on the baddies, one gets killed, so the other sets out beyond the limits of the law to avenge his buddy - by donning a black mask, raiding the hideout singlehanded, making off with the swag, and giving all to the church save just enough to provide for his pal's surviving family. Mortified and broke baddies then deduce who was that masked man anyhow, go for the revenge, but end up getting their just desserts instead and the hero rides off in the sunset.

It's been best done in movies as various Robin Hoods, Zorros, and Lone Rangers, but has also served uncounted zero-budget "B" westerns, costume actioners, serials and cop pics since fiction film first unspooled, particularly during the pre-WWII period. Here it's been revamped for the 90s action crowd as a detectives-vs.-druglords opus.

Appearance is that someone liked this plot - why else try to revive it again? - but the lone screenwriter-director couldn't really figure out anything original to do with it, so he opted for the approach of the old B's, namely, just give it the most predictable, simplistic rendition from start to finish, then pad with extranea to stretch it to feature length as needed.

Unfortunately, the old "B's" done this way needed padding to get 30 minutes of story up to 60 minutes of feature film, but now is needed over an hour to reach the post-modern 10-reel standard. Worse still, filler at least used to be action material, but here most of it is Soap Opera, recurring diversions into the Private Emotional Relationships of the two detectives, the hero and his wife, the hero-plus-wife and the victim's three children (who, as per tradition, they take in to raise as their own), while the advertising sets us up for cop action.

Lots of crying and bonding, bonding and crying. Yet this potentially moving and engaging stuff *is* just padding, stuck in between very occasional action scenes as long, loooonnnnnggg vignettes which are then either just left behind or just magically resolved: e.g., after 20 minutes of closeup on the oldest girl's first 48 hours of stages-of-grieving, we jumpcut to some action, and she is just next - and last - seen frolicking off on a tricycle at her new home, daddy's loss just no longer to be at issue, and the part just as suddenly becomes an 'extra'.

Film is literally past 75 minute mark before lone-masked-avenger is introduced - and the scene's a howler, as the Diminutive Dick (Keaton) rams through the crimelord's door with one kick, oversized shiny revolvers waving wildly, screaming and frothing behind an oversized ski-mask for everybody to hit the floor. But the unintended comic relief's only virtue is that it allows us to laugh out the tension built by the omnipresent question, 'Is this picture really going to take off and do something exciting; or did I misread the ads?'

Unfortunately, relief is brief, because now there's not enough film-time left to do anything with this 'new' tack in any detail. Or our writer couldn't think of anyplace interesting to go with it. So we're just predictably trotted through the gang's retaliation and the hero's triumph, 1-2-3. Nagging realistic questions, raised by the nagging "realistic" backdrop of the film and all the earlier nagging "realistic" tearjerker sequences - such as, how's our reallife cop going to avoid the statutory consequences of going over the edge, no matter how much one may sympathize with him - are then disposed of in a coda-quickie (maybe two minutes) with the Detective Chief simply *summarizing* the wrap-ups to his "one good cop".

Some sex'n'language stuck in with the episodic violence, but nothing unexpected there, and as we said earlier, production values are the usual 'best that money can buy' in spite of the sickly script; so we give it an IMDb "2", and no more.


'One Good Cop' is the story of a New York narcotics agent (Michael Keaton) who takes revenge on the city's most powerful drug dealer after his partner of eight years (Anthony LaPaglia) was shot and killed by some goon who was high on the dealer's supply. Unforunately, what may've been a remotely engaging idea turned out to be one hell of a boring cop drama.

On the one hand, you have this story of a ballsy cop who is willing to single-handedly take on this dangerous drug dealer and his top level goons. But this plot, which offers incentives for some intense action sequences or at least thriller appeal, is muddled by the other part of the plot which tries to compete for equal, if not more attention. That is, the when the agent's partner was killed, he and his wife (Rene Russo) suddenly find themselves to be the foster parents of that guy's three little girls. So, we have the family bonding sentimental moments, which tend to drag much longer than they should, and really get in the way of anything in the major story (the revenge on the drug dealer) getting accomplished. It takes about fifty minutes for the movie to even get remotely interesting, as they finally show you were the heck this dumb story is going and why the hell you should even watch it. Viewers starting the movie at this point, won't have missed much. Prior to that, there's nothing in the movie to really command your attention.

You'd think once a powerful drug dealer felt even the least bit threatened by one narcotic agent working alone (he didn't even seem to be a cop with heavy connections and influence), then he would immediately send out his goons after this guy and family. That would've made an intense story, but no. We have to sit through fifty minutes of one couple trying to bond with three little girls. Who cares?


This could have been a good plot had the screenplay wanted to delve deeply into the terrain of conflicted morals; instead of taking it for granted that we accept that the events that happen are the result of a man following his only logical option. It's utterly manipulative and trite film-making, with everybody concerned thinking that they can just throw us some closeups of big doe eyes, and we'll suddenly forget that this is NOT action taken by those wanting to claim superior motivation.

If you're driven to pursue illegality, then chances are you're desperate, but do you have to be boneheaded about it, too? Why not try to get some of your colleagues onside in the scheme? In for a penny in for a pound, after all... That would of course eliminate your 'lone man in search of justice' angle, but at least it would make more sense, instead of feeling like a dupe, which unfortunately seems to be the practice of the whole tale.

"One Good Cop" is suffocatingly mawkish. Were it not for the violence and improperly used talent involved, it could easily pass for a dreary teledrama instead of a fully-fledged motion picture. It's trying to convince us that it has a singular approach; but the reality is that its type is nothing but bland and needlessly ubiquitous, which is a far more depressing snapshot of how life and the movie business works than any of the faux emotions tossed our way here.


This is definitely one of the worst movies ever made. There is really no plot or theme, it's just film footage of kids cruisin' on Van Nuys Blvd in CA. If you didn't actually live thru the 70's and saw this film, you would think that everyone had sex ALL the time, every night and day with multiple partners. In this film, people get naked at the drop of a hat! Not that I'm complaining but this film today really only has nostalgic value in that it does show how life, especially in California was back then. Today, there is no crusin' at all on Van Nuys Blvd or anywhere in CA for that matter and that area is very run down and dangerous. There are some great cars and lots of racing footage in the film but you probably will fast forward thru most of the bad acting scenes. I do know Dana Gladstone's son and he told me that his father hardly was paid anything for his role as Officer Al Zass which explains the low budget and often disconnected feel of the film as if it were spliced together in a hap-hazard manner. But, I am glad this film was made if anything to capture how cruisin' on Van Nuys Blvd really was!


Caught this one by accident on the TV here ; although the ending was about as satisfying as could be, it was difficult to feel any real emotion. Looking at it from the moral point of view, the Bible, which is the ultimate moral authority, teaches us that homosexuality is wrong, so wrong it is and the matter cannot be up for discussion. That said, the question is " how far should the punishment go " or "should it go as far as depriving a mother of her child if she is homosexual". This will obviously depend on each family involved so there is no hard and fast rule but what absolutely blew me was ... if she was a homosexual, how on earth could she have had a child ??? (Assuming the birth was not due to rape ). As I missed the first few minutes of the film, I have no way of knowing this - but if no rape is involved, this would be a major plot flaw. Jody's mother is acting in what she perceives to be the best interests of the child - what is worrying is that the child would appear to have been referring to it's mother's partner as "daddy" - very dangerous as a child needs to be brought up in a family unit of male father and female mother. Children brought up with a mother and no father, a father and no mother or worse,two fathers or two mothers are bound to suffer a disadvantage in their perception of the family unit and it is up to the adults to act in a responsible matter once they have decided to procreate. Homosexuals will obviously view the film in a different light as they will put the emphasis on the love the mother has for the child, and suggest that the sexual relationship of the "parents" is secondary if not irrelevant. They will be able to feel the emotions of the mother and will be indignant at the attitude of the grandmother - and that is quite understandeable. The character of the little boy is not that well developed and unfortunately we don't really know what he thinks - he is more an innocent victim of the bickering. But, to return to my title, it is difficult to feel real emotion, given the immoral context and one can only regret the plight of the child to have been caught up in this through no fault of his own. As I feel that society is becoming more and more immoral, not only through homosexuality but also through corruption, violence, paedophilia, lies, greed ....it is necessary to take stock of and protest against this every time it occurs - albeit in the course of a film. The bible tells us not to judge others on a personal level but nevertheless to make known one's views on different moral issues with vehemence...and that's where the fine line has to be drawn !!


The story here shows one of America's weaknesses. Vanessa Redgrave plays a woman fighting against immorality, fighting for her grandson to be raised, sadly, without a mom and a dad but morally. A lot of this movie made me completely sick but in the end, thankfully, there's victory! Overall, it wasn't very well made... just too short of a time to really give each side of the story and show exactly what's wrong with what's happening. One thing that needed explanation was Vanessa Redgrave's British accent, at times, slipping through clear as day... maybe her character was born in England then moved to America at an early age and the two accents merged? Uh... i doubt it. Anyway, i give this movie a 0 out of 10. It's really a shame we live in a world that gave us a true story for this to be based upon.


If you are familiar to Wong Jing's work than you know what you can expect. Silly stories with over the top comedy. The action in his movies are always secondary. And that is the way to approach a movie like this otherwise you surely get disappointed. Somehow they gave this movie the subtitle "Hard Boiled 2" even when there is no connection to that superior movie. But when you use a title like that it does raise some expectation concerning the action. And let me make it very clear since the other reviews on this site neglected to give a sufficient description of the action. It is nowhere near the level of "Hard Boiled". How could it be? That is nearly impossible since Woo's Hard Boiled is one of the best action movies ever made. Most of the action scenes in "Last Blood" are pretty decent that consists of gun play and some hand to hand combat. But they are short and not that impressive. There is one chase sequence that showed promise. The bad guys follow the main characters into a crowded subway station on their motorcycles. Now here is a setup for bloodshed and mayhem. Sadly the director preferred a less creative solution and ended the scene to quickly with taking out one bad guy and completely ignoring the remaining ones. And throughout the whole movie Andy Lau is goofing off. There is not one scene where he is serious even when a gun is pointed at him. He used to do to this often in his movies those days. But somehow it bothered me big time in this one. This again is proof that you should approach this movie more as a comedy than an action movie.


"The Dead Next Door" is a nearly plotless exercise in extreme gore. Certainly the entire miniscule budget must have gone into the creation of the gore effects (which are juicy, to say the least), because all the other technical aspects (lighting, visual clarity, staging of the action scenes) are atrocious. It's hard to really hate the film, because you know it means well....but that doesn't mean that you won't be looking at your watch frequently, even though it runs only 80 minutes. (*)


it only gets a 1 out of ten because you cant select a zero! i have never felt compelled to comment on a film before but was so disappointed in this film that i had to register and say my piece.

i first heard of the film years ago, lots of hype about it being a great little indie zombie film (i am a huge huge fan of the genre), then when i eventually got hold of a copy it was well packaged and the cover looked good......after the opening sentence i had already made up my mind that this film was complete and utter tripe but i still gave the movie a chance.

i know that the budget was modest but $80.000 is what it cost sam raimi to make the evil dead (though tatty - a real classic) and he rented proper equipment and had some decent actors, and also showed some directorial flair.

this movie was just completely classless and does little in homage to the greats such as carpenter, raimi and romero which it so shamelessly rips off from and it is pretty embarrassing for them to be noted as jr bookwalters inspiration for the film as this really isn't saying much.

no wonder producer raimi wont put his name to this abomination.

some elements of the film could have been good ideas, the original script for romeros day of the dead had an army of trained zombies but due to budgetary constraints had to be cut - a shame because it would have been executed infinitely better than in this film.

in summary i was expecting to view a little known jem of a film but was left feeling annoyed that id been duped.

if you want zombie classics, re-visit the dead trilogy(now quadrilogy)or evil dead films - don't waste your time and money on this.


It's not to bad, you can tell the movie is old just by the effects and the picture and the acting, but actually it wasn't all that bad. The zombies were more funny that scary, and it almost made me chuckle a few times because they act sort of funny, running around mumbling, the gore was good, I like when the guy got his throat bitten out, and when the one police officers fingers got bitten off reminded me of a scene from the remake of Wes Craven's "The Hills Have Eyes" which was my favorite part in that movie, so it was kind of cool to see a similar scene in this movie. To be honest I'm not done watch the movie right now, and it seems nothing will really change my review on this movie cause it's almost over. But if you like horror movies, and zombies and gore, then check out this movie, I'm not got promise you'll like it because everybody's taste in movies in different, but all I know is I enjoyed it. So feel free to check this movie out.


When I first approached this, I was not half expecting something more crude and nasty, but instead I found this to be mildly entertaining and an inoffensive ode to the classics of the genre, e.g. 'Night of The Living Dead', 'The Evil Dead', et all.

Something about this I particularly enjoyed was the tongue in cheek, often self-mocking sense of humour, with such things as a zombie frequenting a video store, and its subsequent choice selection of tapes to rent, and there is a plethora of other in jokes which should please real fans. Other more satirical things like protesters congregating for the civil rights of zombies, and also a religious cult of fanatics which believe it is Gods' will that the un dead becomes the successors to the human race. I suppose many of these little touches go to lengths in characterising the movie.

As for the acting here, every player gives Oscar winning Jack Nicholson style performances, um, er, . . . I jest of course, seriously though, all of these willing unknowns do try, and seemingly give their best, and granted the somewhat underdeveloped threadbare script to work with, I think in most case's make up for general lack of natural talent with more gumption and enthusiasm.

The director\producer\writer here gives many of the characters names of established horror directors, like calling the main protagonist Raimi, and another one is called Doctor Savini. , And so on. On a side note, Fred Dekker took a similar approach with 'Night of The Creeps' released a couple of years later.

One of the problems that pull the rug from under this movie is that there is just too many characters, and none are really fleshed out properly, and there isn't really anything under lying the story to get your teeth into (sorry) making this rather chaotic and boring at times.

Effects wise, this has a few good moments, with occasional scenes which sport a zombie that has proper prosthetic makeup, which does look quite good taking into account the minimal resources. Also, some limited special gore effects, such as blood squirting and twitching body parts, which are done here in the style of Sam Raimi's aforementioned sleeper. Other than this however, most effects constitute just extras running around with some green paint smeared on their faces, as you might come to expect.

Overall, 'The Dead Next Door' remain a fairly decent zombie outing, and given the production values and time spent in development, can be looked at as a sort of achievement in its own right. Some chuckles and decent effects save it from being a complete waste of time, and I think it is more worthwhile than many modern horror efforts.

I can't recommend this one to everybody, but non-discriminating horror movie goers, and real splatter aficionado's will most likely get a bit of a kick out of it.


Make no bones about this - this film is an utter disgrace and an alarmingly bad piece of cinema. I've reviewed several exploitation flicks (most of which were all produced on 'shoe-string' budgets) and have found that most, if not all, of them have some form of redeeming feature. 'The Dead Next Door' is completely devoid of anything seriously positive, though. Its self awareness of Romero's zombie movies makes it even more heinous - characters with names such as 'Raimi', 'Savini' et al. This film stands out more as a landmark of crass, mundane, tedious, z-rate, and student filming more than anything credible. The only vaguely rousing element of the film is that it does feature shed-loads of (seemingly harmless) zombies and no particular lack of gore. However, to watch this film as a parody doesn't even work.

For anyone who may be curious as to acquiring a copy of this - simply give it a miss - it is absolute garbage. Riddled with truly atrocious acting, dire plot, terrible sound (it would seem that the dubbing was inserted with a crow-bar!), laughable gore and special effects. As another reviewer has commented - this film is so bad it's simply bad. A sheer waste of time, money, and effort. 3/10


I went to "Best Buy" one day browsing through the horror section and I happened to glance at the movie "The Dead Next Door" and i had before read reviews on numerous websites that stated it is a fun and enjoyable cheesy horror b-movie...BIG MISTAKE buying this movie...The Budget not only made the movie cheesy and sh$#ty but the acting was Horrendous!!! I almost could have believed that a few young kids made this movie with ketchup and other home appliances...Basically, the plot was lacking and the acting stank-ed.

I would never recommend anyone to go out and buy/watch this movie on account that you will feel used and bored half of the time.


Depressingly awful. Looks like the director cast his mechanic, postman and a truck stop waitress in the lead roles, resulting in the type of performances typical of porn movies. I've seen more atmosphere in my father's 8mm home movies. Even hardcore horror fans will be pressed to find anything enjoyable about this bottom-feeder. It's actually packaged as a "Collector's Edition" and includes a "Making of..." documentary tagged on at the end, as if to suggest this is a "classic" to be cherished for the ages. Hopefully the director was able to get his job back at the bottle-capping factory after the shoot. Nobody should see this movie.


One star is the lowest I can give this film, but it deserves a second star simply because it got made and turned out to be a whole movie.

Unlike many C-movies, this movie actually used extras and has some scenes set in public streets. It doesn't all take place in somebody's basement or in the woods behind the director's house. There are also some OK special effects, including several beheadings. On the other hand, it's a terrible movie.

If you want to watch a Bookwalter movie and stay awake, give Polymorph a chance. It's a much cheaper movie, but the story is actually sort of interesting.

Avoid The Dead Next Door.


'The Dead Next Door' is an ode to all things Zombie. A homage to Sam Raimi, Tom Savini and the great zombie-king George Romero; done on a next to nothing budget. Shot entirely on Super-8, and written, produced, edited and scored by J.R. Bookwalter; this thing looks and feels just like one would expect it to: Indie. I found the storyline to be about as entertaining as it could be. Zombies running amuck. Scientists trying to cure them by running tests (much like Romero's 'DAY of the Dead'), which end up being fruitless. Nice little original twist here too, a "Zombie Squad" who hunts down and kills them as in most zombie films, but this time they are roadblocked by a group of what appear to be leftist democrats trying to preserve the human rights of zombies. Haha. Not too far fetched in this day and age. Anyhow, this leads the Zombie Squad to a farmhouse outside of Akron Ohio, where an original group of doctors almost perfected a serum which could get rid of the problem once and for all, problem is now that farmhouse is inhabited by a cult of zombie worshipers, led by a Rev. Jones, no doubt a tongue-in-cheek dark homage to the madman Jim Jones of Jonestown fame.

So it is what it is. A low-budget, ultra cheesy, terribly acted zombie gore-fest. By my standards of gore - my standards being Jackson's 'Braindead' as the godfather of gore for a zombie flick; 'The Dead Next Door' is slightly below average, but still having enough squirting blood and decapitations to keep me happy. Enjoy this film with some mates and a few pints.

4 out of 10.


1st watched 7/5/2009, 4 out of 10 (Dir-Shisuke Kaneko): Complicated, slow and overly dramatic second episode to the Deathnote series based on a popular manga. In this one the main character, Light, is given a second person who carries his godlike ability to make people die with a 2nd Death Note book. The basic storyline, if you haven't seen the first, is the carrier of the Death Note book is able to write names in it and they die. Light was the initial character that held the book, and killed a lot of people who in most people's eyes deserved death anyone  and he was kind of looked at like a hero. Each person that has a book, also sees a God of death who kind of overseas them and is their companion. The second holder of a book is a TV star named Misa who worships Light. Light is also working with the cops and a detective called "L" in this one, to find out who's making these deaths happen(although no-one knows he carries the book and is causing it). Misa turns over her book to Light and things get really complicated. At this point in the movie I lost interest because of the many twists that the movie introduces and the way they try to explain everything in 2 hours. I think, personally, they tried to cram too much into this one and this is why it fails. Detective "L" is definitely a quirky and very interesting character and he's introduced more here but the massive overload kills the story. Also, the morality question is lost and also the humor that was in the first movie. All in all, this movie is a long experience that isn't as new or as interesting as the first one.


I've been a fan death note after the watching the 1st series of Anime; and I started reading the manga because the anime wasn't coming out fast enough. the overall the concept of Death Note is intelligent, exciting and has a great story. I was shocked to find that 75% of this movie's story was not from the manga. right from the start: Light's girlfriend dying? TV reporter Takada? where did they come from? aside from new characters, the part where Kira openly says he's the 2nd kira? these points made the movie less intelligent and also more predictable. the acting and direction of the movie was also poor.

but the strangest part of watching this midnight on a Friday night was that every time Ruuk spoke - the whole cinema would laugh out loud. If you're a fan of the manga; don't bother watching this movie.


This worthless piece of garbage is an absolute embarrassment and shame to the amazing anime series. They change so much that it may as well not be called death note, and the cinematography/effects are worse than the acting. These live action adaptations are simply horrid, and it boggles my mind how this has a rating beyond 2/10 overall. I can only assume that a bunch of 10 year old's who've never seen the anime voted 10 a bunch of time.

Do not waste your precious time watching this terrible live action adaptation of a GREAT anime series. Ironically, this movie does not do justice to the series at all, and in fact, tarnishes its name and may be considered evil by some.


GODAWFUL!

Not sure how they though any part of this would be scary e.g. the God of Death intro.

The Anime was alright and I heard that this was even better.

I have since removed such so called creditable witnesses to movies from my friends list.

Don't ever ever ever ever see this movie, unless being disappointed is what you're looking for.

I don't get how so many people thought this was a masterpiece. I mean everything was bad about it special effects, acting, dubbing, and there were many goofs that are unthinkable.


This move is simply rubbish, I myself have seen the entire anime and at points during the movie I found myself lost as to what was going on. The plot is also jumpy and I think it would take someone about 10 goes at watching it just to get the idea of what was going on.

It also cuts HUGE chunks of the plot out, including several key characters and then adds ones that don't even exist to begin with! I mean.. where were Near and Mello? And what about when the business men were Kira? Oh and Light being chained to L for a substantial part of the anime? These are just a few examples I can think of.

I loved the anime, I hoped that this film would be as good, however I just found it a huge disappointment and nearly turned it off half the way through. If you want my summary... don't bother wasting 2 hours of your life on this film, go do the dishes.. hoover the floor or even watch paint dry. All of these will be more exciting than this film.


This works more as an advise than a proper review. Even if you're a fan of the series, stay away from this movie.

And I say it because I AM a fan of Death Note. Read the manga from beginning to end, it's superb! I thought, after watching the movie preview, that it would as good as the manga was, or at least fun.

I was wrong, the acting is as poor as it gets, reminding me of Japanese tokusatsu. The characters get so distorted in relation to the manga that it is painful to watch it for too long, and I don't mean that as purist fan, the characters just lose all defined personality, all traits that would make them lovable. Instead the movie forces you to hate them. I didn't want to, but I do.

I can't really see a reason to like this movie. I gave it a 2 just out of sympathy for the series.


I was hoping the second movie of Death Note would be better than the first one. Unfortunately, this one gives not many difference than the previous movie. It's such a shame that a series as good as Death Note was made into such a bland movie.

What this movie lacks are good director, good cinematography, and good casting. Kenichi Matsuyama is the only brilliant thing in Death Note: the Last name. As an avid fans of Death Note manga, I think this move could be made better.

My suggestion is: if you're a hardcore Death Note fans and curious to see this live-action movie, it's okay to watch this. If you're not, you better stay out of this movie, it won't entertain you much.


Seriously....I thought this movie was an utter waste of 2 1/2 hours of my life! The only reason why I stayed in the cinema to go through this pain of a movie was because I was out on a date! If you make a great movie like Lord of the Rings and let it go on for 3 hours, that's great. But if you make a crappy movie like this and it goes on for 2 1/2 hours, it annoys the hell out of viewers. It could've finished about 1 hour earlier but I thought it was painfully draggy! Unless you're a comic fan of this movie (if it was even based on a comic), stay away. I went in being optimistic of catching a horror movie but I burst out laughing when i saw the first supposedly 'scary' scene where the God of Death appears. You have been warned!


To me this movie is quite unique in a special way. I bought it about a year ago as it seemed "interesting" and I had wanted to see it for some time. Twice have I tried to watch it without being able to finish it...and I hardly ever do this no matter how bad a movie gets. And this is the peculiar part because Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is not the worst movie I've "seen". My experience has been this (twice): I start watching it and it's hilarious for about half an hour. Then it flattens out. It doesn't change after this half hour, it just gets old really fast and I get the feeling that it's not moving forward. After about an hour it's like "enough already - get on with it!" and "OK OK - I know now that you have a lot of different drugs with different effects, will anything actually happen soon?". The acting is good, and Depp is...well he's different than how you usually see him, and yet the same - he always gets a part in those mystical movies. I'm actually close to being a Depp fan, but I'm sorry to say that I still haven't been able to keep this movie rolling to the end, or at least I can't remember an end to it. My advice is to see for yourself. The movie is unique to say the least. Helge


Since I haven't read Hunter S. Thompson's book, I can't judge Gonzo journalism or his writings, but I will point out my problems with this movie.

For me, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was nothing but 2 hours with two unlikable AND uninteresting characters doing all kinds of drugs. The occasional good moments and the reason why I don't give it an even lower rating happen thanks to the narration and an inspired, brief black-and-white footage from the 60's, the great soundtrack, plus Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro's performances (even though I could never relate to their characters, they fitted them perfectly). I can be fascinated by an unlikable character that I can't personally relate to when it's well written into a gripping character-study (as, say, Isabelle Huppert's complex Erica Kohut in "The Piano Teacher"), but that won't happen if they are also completely uninteresting and lack any sort of substance. People who consider the so-called "druggie lifestyle" a shock to the system and a form of artistic expression will most likely enjoy this (and there are lots of them, hence the major cult surrounding this movie), but I was bored or indifferent most of the time. Films like Dennis Hopper's "Easy Rider" (which didn't age very well in my opinion, but still keeps a rugged charm of 60's anarchy) and Danny Boyle's "Trainspotting" portrayed those "trips" and a whole generation without ever being dull. That said, I can see why some people love this movie... but if you have to dig such an empty "lifestyle" (hedonism? I don't think doing drugs all day long should be called that, sounds more like apathy to me) to appreciate it, then this is definitely not my cup of tea. 4/10.


Somewhere inside the overlong, 114-minute Bullitt there is a brisk 90-minute long film desperate to get out. But as it is, it's seriously overlong with nothing to sustain it. Many pointless scenes come and go with loads of long, indulgent tracking shots goose-up the running time. I almost nodded-off a few times, I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about regarding this film.

The paper-thin story has Detective Bullitt trying to determine how a Mob informant in Police custody managed to be killed (he's not actually killed until about an hour later though). A local politician (Robery Vaughn, who didn't really want to do the film) acts as the token bureaucrat, standing in the way of getting things done. But getting WHAT done exactly? In 114 minutes almost NOTHING happens in this damn movie! Instead of mystery, clues, police procedure, shoot-outs and problem-solving we're treated to scene after scene of...not much. Bullitt eats food at the hospital, he goes shopping for celery and TV dinners, he hangs around with his girlfriend (a completely pointless character played by Jaqueline Bissett) and sometimes takes a passing interest in the case. About 80-minutes into this bore he is FINALLY involved in a car chase (THE car chase that everyone raves about) that 'tears up' the streets of San Francisco.

I don't understand why this film has so much adoration or why all the fans proclaim it's 'the original and best', 'the one that started it all' or any other generic soundbite you can think of. There were cop movies before this, there were car chases before this. What exactly is Bullitt credited with 'starting'?

A sense of being cool, calm and collected doesn't turn water into wine. Bullitt is plain, repetitive, agonizingly slow and almost completely without a plot. Don't consider me a philistine or someone who has been brainwashed by the over-edited nature of modern films where we're guaranteed and explosion every five minutes. I appreciate films from all eras and from all backgrounds. But Bullitt is just way, way overrated certainly does not deserve the high regard it's been lauded with. A real disappointment.


I wonder if "Bullitt" has the slowest pace in the history of American cinema. Of course, "Bullitt" is a legendary movie and it was a tremendous hit when released. In my opinion, that was mainly due to Steve McQueen, who right in those years had exploded as a major superstar. I do not deny that the movie was rather innovative for the late 1960s. The cinematography is fine and the locations in the San Francisco area are accurately shot. The whole cast works well, and the stars Steve McQueen and Robert Vaughn give remarkable performances. The story is interesting, although not much exciting.

But the pace of the movie is so incredibly slow... All the various scenes and episodes are excruciatingly lengthy, notably those of the surgeries at the hospital. However, the best instance of snail-pace is a scene at the airport in the finale. The airplane arrives at the terminal. The whole maneuver of the aircraft is shown in full details... Then, finally, the passengers slowly start to get off the airplane. Bullitt-McQueen silently stares looking for the bad guy. People slowly get off... Bullitt stares... People get off... Bullitt stares... I say, this single scene lasts longer than the whole Apaches' attack in Ford's "Stagecoach"!

The story is not intricate, but the movie is so slow that one finds it difficult to follow... Bullitt gets off the taxi, taking all the due time; then he calmly walks toward the parking area; he opens the door of a car; after a while, he shuts the door of the car; he broods over something for another long while (there's no hurry!); finally he starts the engine, another long operation... In the meantime, the viewer has forgotten what the heck the guy was doing for the purposes of his investigation.

All along the movie, the behavior of the policeman Bullitt is highly unprofessional. But then, to make a number of idiocies just for the sake of disobeying the authorities, that was considered cool in the late 1960s (and also now, at least in the movies). Actually, Bullitt's deeds at the end of the film are not just unprofessional. In the real life, they would cost him several years in jail. And what is the point of beautiful Jacqueline Bisset? Her character seems stuck to the movie, just to show that Bullitt-McQueen is sexually active. Did anyone doubt it? And who cares, anyway?

Of course, the film contains the over-celebrated car-chase. Certainly innovative for that time, but ultimately disappointing, in my opinion.

I've always thought that the bore of Altman's "Thieves like us" couldn't be surpassed. I was wrong. "Bullitt" is the most boring action-crime movie I have ever seen.


I rented Bullitt with high hopes and Steve McQueen is one of my all time favorite actors, but I was so disappointed. The movie is very slow paced, so I would call the movie rather crime than action or thriller. I waited some action in the first half, waited, waited and waited. I can't say that I got bored exactly, but. In the first half, no action, it is just visually well movie with Steve McQueen. The movie runs by him. In the second half, still things don't get into action, I waited, waited but it never came. And then, the famous car chase takes place, but unfortunately it is pretty short, a few minutes and very unsatisfying, because it is mild like the movie itself, but the editing is really astonishing, cool. Yes, the word cool that many people use for the movie fits the movie very well, this is the word, cool, but no more than that. The movie is visually stylish as said, but it is not enough, because ithe movie is lack of action and it was not boring, but it was not engrossing either. In the second half, besides the car chase, there is one more afoot chase and that's all. Therefore, don't expect something like French Connection. Bullitt is such kind of a movie, it recalls French Connection, but with three differences, it is lack of action, suspense and the story is not engrossing enough. Returning to the car chase, Bullitt's car chase might be in some people's the best car chases list, but if you ask me, we have seen much better car chases and I want to give a few examples, also I am sure that there are more car chases that I can't remember or haven't seen yet. These are my favorite car chases so far: The Terminator 2, The Terminator 3, too much CGI may be, but great. The Matrix Reloaded, again too much CGI and showy, but great. Bourne Supremacy, some people don't like it owing to the shaky camera, but my second favorite of all time. The Peacemaker. And my favorite car chase of all time is Ronin.


Any similarities that the previous correspondent sees between this and the uneven, but always interesting work of Emir Kusturica, must be the result of having seen the supremely awful Gift from Above with an altered mind. Kosashvilli's film is one of the most annoying, poorly-scripted (first year film students would be able to construct the plot better than he does), badly-acted and sloppily-directed pieces of muck that I have had the misfortune to see this year, and I have seen many poor films in the past nine months. If this film had been made by an outsider about the Georgian community of Tel Aviv, they would have a good case for racist stereotyping. As it is, it was made by one of their own and we are all invited to have a merry laugh at the constant humiliation and molestation of women in situations that are not even structurally or physically comical. The plot strand of the young bride forced to get married under the threat of rape is particularly offensive and what is laughable is the expertly millennial sex that this putative virgin enjoys on her wedding night. One wonders exactly how much Kosashvilli knows about real life rather than what he has gleaned from third-rate Hollywood pictures. Our Israeli friend is not the only one to have had bafflingly positive reactions to this film; Cahiers du Cinema compared it to Scorsese. Not even the turgid hackwork churned out by Marty in the past ten years is anywhere near as bad as Gift from Above. A measure of how messy the film is that you are watching it for a full before it becomes apparent that most of the characters are members of the one family. Fundamentals of plot structuring. There is a lot of good cinema coming about of Israel at the moment, such as Raphael Nadjeri's Avanim, Ronit Elkabetz's Prendre Femme and the continuing cinema of Amos Gitai. Gift from Above however is awful rubbish that makes even poor Israeli films like Nir Bergman's Broken Wings seem watchable. Avoid.


A very strange movie indeed. The opening sequence of LeBlanc's escape from the Germans with a complete Enigma machine only to have it destroyed by a numb skulled, British officer is played very much for laughs. Even later, as the "Team" is assembled it is played very lightly, a lot of gags based on the wartime London Gay scene. Eddie Izzard shines here, his genuine warmth and good humour fill the screen.

Once dropped behind enemy lines the whole thing changes direction, one undercover Englishamn takes a beating before LeBlanc rescues him and beats the German to a pulp. Later the same Brit is about to be captured when LeBlanc knifes the German - pretty tough stuff for a comedy!

Good points: The running gag of the hapless Brit constantly wanting to use the toilet (and forgetting his drag and using the gents!) The production design for the Enigma assembly factory, very convincing, with long rows of workbenches with machines in various states of preparation.

Bad points: The strange uniforms that some of the Germans wear, look like Carnival Nazis! and the love interest frankly doesn't work.


I can't believe I forced my friend to watch this film with me. I don't intentionally pick crappy movies. It's just that some actors I like are in crappy movies. I bought ATQM because Eddie Izzard is in it and I'm EI mad at the moment. I also bought The Avengers because he's in it but that's another tale of woe....

In ATQM, Eddie plays a drag queen who has to teach a group of men to be women so they can steal an Enigma machine from a German factory where only women work. Eddie is the only one who looks comfortable in a dress. Although I don't think brown is his color. He gets to show off his legs and his German but it's not enough to lift this film off the bottom.

There was one interesting thing, if you're a ST:TNG fan, David Birkin who played both the young Jean-Luc Picard in "Rascals" and Rene Picard in "Family" is in ATLQM as a code breaking, multi-lingual genius.


Tony Parker: Well, actually, I'm a bisexual lesbian in a man's body... but it's more complicated than that.

Now this is an Eddie Izzard moving worth watching. Not a great film, mind you, but a bit funny.

Izzard was precious as tony parker. i can't get the image of Joey out of my mind when I see Matt LeBlanc, so seeing him as the tough guy was a bit odd.

Nicolette Krebitz was actually the best actor in the film.

No one does a British Officer better than Edward Fox (Ghandi, A Bridge Too far)


I mean, its not the worst film ever, but it's up there. I picked up this for £1 - yes £1 - at Woolworths and I can honestly say it was worth NO MORE. I picked it up because I like Matt Le Blanc - but not as an actor - and seeing him in drag was, well, disturbing. That's pretty much the only word to describe this movie - disturbing. You can forget horror films which have millions of complaints on the message board for being disturbing - if you really want nightmares, watch All the Queen's Men.

They could have made this film so funny - Eddie Izzard and Matt Le Blanc? I expected it to be really, really entertaining and it really, really wasn't. There are about, I think, three funny moments which made me LAUGH, but the rest of it was so SERIOUS - yes it's about war, but it's also about men dressing up as women! If you want to see a FUNNY film with men in drag, go see Some Like It Hot. Stay away from this. If you like Eddie Izzard, then maybe it's worth watching. If you like Matt Le Blanc, don't watch it. If you want to see a poorly done, badly acted, disturbing film - watch it! And finally - if you really do want to see it, only watch it if it's on television or get it online, but don't spend money on it, unless it's £1 or less. Trust me, it is NOT worth it.


A terrible waste of celluloid, Ruzowitzky's "All the Queens men" is even worse than one might expect. The screenplay is unimaginably stupid, with scenes that don't connect at all to each other. The acting is really bad, and that's no surprise, because there is not even one decent character in the script. How could anyone ever have thought that it was a good idea to spend money on this film? It also seems like Ruzowitzky had no idea at all what he was doing, because the film changes from a pseudo realistic "bad times in world war II" drama to a silly, unintelligent, extremely stupid pseudo "comedy" all the time. The film looks ugly and cheap (the vfx have to be a joke) and is just a waste of time. DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!

It's not funny, it's not suspenseful, it's a piece of crap. One can only hope, that Ruzowitzky won't ever make another film. Same goes for the producer and generally everybody who worked above the line on this abysmal heap of rubbish.


Now, I think Eddie Izzard is without doubt the best stand up comic performer of recent years, I have have all his live DVD's / videos, I have seen him live on stage and I have even met the man. I think he is great, very very funny. But yet, when he gets in front of a camera for a movie, everything seems to go wrong. He is not funny scripted, he seems very awkwardly delivering lines and he comes across very uncomfortable.

This film, in my opinion, was awful. It had so much promise, yet the comedy was either badly written (if written at all) or the actors just could not deliver it. I managed to watch it all the way through, but I was glad when it finished.

I would back Eddie to the hilt regarding his stand up, but movie wise, I think he needs to take a back seat.


I can only presume that you came to discover the existence of this truly awful film due to your curiosity of Matt Le Blancs film career or, as I did, it popped up, uninvited, in front of you on cable. I cannot believe that AQM realy got a general cinema release.

AQM is set during World War 2 and is the story of how an American officer, Le Blanc, and a troop of transvestite British soldiers set out to recover an Enigma machine from an all female staffed German factory. That's as much as anyone needs to know about the absurd plot. Everything about this production stinks. Imagine, if you can, coming across the bloody remains of a particularly bloody road kill, the body parts of which are strewn hither and yon. You start to reassemble the beast and what emerges bears no resemblance to anything you've seen before.

The story is predicated upon such a preposterous notion that it is difficult to bring to mind any director adept enough to suspend our disbelief long enough for the humour, what there is of it, to come through;perhaps a Woody Allen of thirty years ago. Le Blanc is hopelessly miscast; slapstick is a forte that few contemporary actors possess and were he so gifted he wouldn't have saved this film anyway. Other featured actors are the noted transvestite comedian Eddie Izzard, who's acting skills and presence haven't improved since the equally awful 'Avengers' and Edward Fox playing guess what? Thats right, a Blimpish army officer.Both actors play their parts absolutely to type. No one was helped by a dire David Schneider screenplay. To British viewers Schneider is more recognisable for his acting stints in Steve Coogans 'Alan Partridge' series and Armando Iannuci's 'Saturday Night Armistice'. Schneider can at least console himself for having not concocting the storyline.

AQM never settles upon knowing what sort of animal it wants to be. It has, about it, shades of Jerry Lewis' 1970 gem 'Which Way to the Front Mein Herr General'. It also has its occasional 'Carry On' moments, yet, still, the bawdy pen of Talbot Rothwell would not have saved this effort. Scenes lurch from the comic set ups to a tearful husband and wife the night before he is to go of into combat. Bathetic in the extreme. Even the grading of the film stock conspires to make this film look cheap. So,if you realy do like to prod road kills with a stick, this film is for you. Otherwise leave well alone, its a stinker.


Despite being technically proficient and featuring some good performances (notably from comic actor Eddie Izzard) this film is a dud. Why? Because the writer and director couldn't decide whether they were making a comedy or a drama.

The amusingly contrived tank chase at the beginning of the film should have set the scene for a moderately black comedy, but somewhere along the way someone decided that the reality of war should be portrayed. With Matt LeBlanc playing THE MOST UNCONVINCING CROSS DRESSER IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA? What were they thinking?

You can hear the gears clashing as scene-by-scene, we are jolted from half-baked comedy to unconvincing sentimentality. The final unconvincing, violent and desperate scenes where the team of crack drag commandos hijack a plane to get out of Germany set the seal on this straight-to-video nasty.


How could someone make a movie this awful? It's neither funny nor dramatic, neither fish nor fowl, though it does smell.

How could anyone have thought the premise would be funny to begin with -- men sent to German enigma factory dressed as women in hopes of fitting in with the all female staff and stealing an enigma under their noses.

Gee, that's some real funny stuff. Not even Jerry Lewis would stoop to this lame plot setup in one of his terrible movies.

This movie tries for comedic moments -- they fail -- then goes for something dramatic, which skewers the tone. Either you're going for a farce or you're not, fellas. Don't switch the tone like that. It doesn't work, but nothing in this cross dressing disaster works.

I'm not sure who was worse, Matt 'dumb Joey' Leblanc or Eddie 'huge head' Lizzard. Both stunk worse than ten day old feet.

Perhaps these actors should go on a new mission: steal the prints of this craptastic movie and burn them before any unsuspecting viewer can see this dross. Now that is a worthwhile mission.


There are elements of the plot in this review but I can't see you making it to the end so it might not be a bad idea to just read this and skip the actual movie.

Sam has the man of her dreams. He proposes to her and she turns into a crazed bride to be. This drives her fiancé away so what does she do, she kisses someone else (which is, obviously, his fault too). She says her mother only notices her sister and not her but I didn't actually see her mother talk to the sister once. When the engagement is called off, her fiancé comes to see her and, in the most clichéd style of these kinds of films, she let's him go to stop hurting him more which is clearly a self centred act and...

It goes on. The key to a movie that people will actually be able to watch to the end is to have a protagonist that has some characteristics that one can empathise with or at least admire. Hannibal ate people but he had immense style and culture. Sam, in this film, has absolutely NO redeeming characteristics at all! When it all falls apart (because of her) she decides to have a go at the guy she wanted before.

Does she decide that she has made a mistake because she has been a complete and utter b*tch? No, she only decides when she finds out that the "dream guy" is actually not very nice.

What is the future for this couple? At the first sign of any problems she will look somewhere else then, when it all go wrong, she'll go back and the idiot Ben will take her back.

I hated Sam. I wanted Ben to leave her and find someone who he deserved. I wanted her to settle with Luke who would treat her like she treated Ben. I wanted her to have a very, very unhappy ever after.

On top of hating the main character, the film itself was absolute rubbish too. I assume this was supposed to be a romantic comedy but it wasn't (either romantic - idiot doormat man takes completely self obsessed woman - or comedic).

I often wonder at the waste of film used to make garbage like this and I suggest the writers re-familiarise themselves with the concept of a heroine.


I used to like Shannon when she was younger, but she seems to become a worse actress as she has gotten older (something I thought was impossible for anyone).

This woman is now totally unbelievable as an actress and casting her as some girl next door character just doesn't work anymore (especially when you see how difficult it was for the makeup people to hide the bags under her eyes).

The plot was totally unbelievable too and how this film ever got funded is beyond me.

I must say that I actually fell asleep watching this and decided to watch the bits I missed simply because I wanted to warn people to stay away from this film.

Do yourself a favour and go watch paint dry.


I guess I can't describe it in a better or shorter clearer way: Boring and Stupid. Acting? what acting? why are all the actors laughing while Reading their lines??? they just never stopped laughing or smiling even when it was the most "dramatic" moment! The "plot" was one of the most predictable plots in the history of TV. and not only is Sam a total $lut, but ugly as hell too!! what happened to that "actress"?? I remember she was hot in American Pie. here she is so damn ugly!!!! puffy face full of bags, or whatever these are. and the happy ending?? no one to tell the poor viewers that these 2 are doomed??? very soon he will wonder why he took her back (because she was hot in American Pie?? or because he used to drool over her topless pics when he was younger, on the internet??) He will soon start wondering if she ever slept with that Luke, but hiding it from him. He will soon start seeing how shallow and self centered she is. and he will hate how everyone just knows him as the husband who married the woman who kissed the other guy. (is there anyone who didn't know about her thing with Luke??) then he will start seeing other girls attractive and charming (and caring)! then he will start flirting, and maybe kissing them, making Sam taste her own poison. then will she accept his apology? or act like an ugly B!tch and go out again and kiss or flirt with the first sleazy a$$hole she meets??? so.. the actors can't act. the plot is so weak and predictable. you hate the Bride for being s|utty and selfish. the Groom for being an idiot. the 3rd person for being an arrogant dumb a$$hole.

sorry for all the swearing. but this "film" suxxxx. Big time.


This movie made me laugh, partly because of the persistent clown theme and partly because it is so cheap! The acting is bad, the lines are cheesy, the effects are budget and the plot is silly. The only thing that is really done properly is the clown faces, which have a lot of character and might even scare young children. A shooting star falls to earth and soon the crazy ugly clowns are shooting innocent residents with popcorn guns and wrapping them up in cotton candy. Enter the stereotypes: the girlfriend and boyfriend, the macho cop, the grumpy cop who thinks it's all a hoax, and lots of innocent bystanders. Fun if your brain is switched to standby :-)


This movie desperately wants to be a cult flick: it tries to be unpredictable, strange, and unique. It isn't. It's predictable, uncreative, and annoying.

An object flies near a small town in classic ripped off 50s style. We meet our array of Old Man, Good/Bad Cop, Good Kid Hero/Vaccous Girlfirend, and worst of all, ODIOUS Comic Relief. It all sucks to high heaven, and you're bored before the Klowns show up.

I have read many reviews calling the Klowns Scary. They're not. They're Skary. They never say anything, and have no personality. Maybe if the clown's had some kind of personality, this would have been good, but it's really dull.

After we get the model of a Klown skene established (Klown will show up, do something kind of clowny, and then kill someone) we get that repeated over and over again. Ouch.

This movie, despite what you might hear, was not made for nothing. 2 million dollars is not nothing. That's more than twenty ATTACK OF THE KILLER TOMATOES. Think what you will of that movie, but you have to admit it's way more original than this eighties crap.


As a 1980s Horror movie, Killer Klowns is pretty good. A lot of imagination and execution went into the various Klown vehicles, the Killer Popcorn, the Human Cotton Candy Blood Slurpees, and some of the other Carn-Evil surprises. The puppet show on the wall of the building was not just funny, but sarcastic too. As anyone who has ever tried to do those hand-puppets knows, it is not easy. Especially for those clowns with the short stubby fingers. At one point the Klown even had a scene of George Washington crossing the Delaware. Now that is funny and sarcastic at the same time! Totally 1980s witty humor! Killer Klowns is one of those movies that you really get if you lived in that era, and if you didn't then there really is no way to explain it to you. Killer Klowns is almost like a time capsule to the 1980s. But aside from the attitudes of that era, the acting is what you would expect from a typical low budget movie with a lot of aspiring actors (similar to the non-featured cadets that appeared in the Police Academy movies). John Vernon is in this movie, and his talents are wasted but it is a nice touch to see him in Killer Klowns. It gives the film a lot more credibility, though Vernon was close to the end of his career by 1988. Killer Klowns is not a classic horror movie, because it lacks any real suspense, and it is not very scary. The Director was not very skilled, and most of the scenes are filmed without any attempt to scare or surprise the audience. Killer Klowns it is an interesting horror film which has some good laughs and some good special effects. Killer Klowns takes a well deserved shot at the circus clowns that most kids never liked, and some kids found terrifying.


Yes, the features on the DVD are actually pretty good. But no matter what angle you look at it from; it is a lame boring B-class movie.

What is all the hype about? This is like a well home-made DVD featuring my neighbors holiday videos!

You may watch, but do not buy!


Made myself some microwave popcorn in anticipation of watching this movie after seeing the 7.9 score. However, turns out that this is a huge disappointment. A 16 year old media student could do better acting than this.

It's so obvious that all the lines are memorized, the acting and speech is not natural at all. There are also no facial expressions. For example a man about to die speaks with the same volume as the other guys. As a result I stopped watching this after 20 minutes, I couldn't bear it anymore.

I won't even talk about special effects which are terrible but seeing that it's a low budget I won't comment on that. However, the acting is what ruins this movie and deserves a score of 0!


Reading about this movie it sounded like a decent little action flick but I wasn't expecting it to be this bad. Poor acting, Poor script and bad directing. I was really disappointed with this, given a decent cast and a decent script and someone who can direct then it would have had the potential to be a good all round film. It could have been one of those films thats really good even without a big budget. The camera angles are terrible and the acting was truly terrible, a really shame. The effects where bad and poorly done, the stunts weren't that bad, at least it looked like some professionals were on the set, hopefully the food was better too. I can't Begin to put into words how bad this is, its long, drawn out intro of the film and then a rushed ending really spoiled it and made it hard to watch as it became boring within the first 20mins. After 30mins I could feel my eyes starting to close, it was putting me to sleep. If you have some time to waste then watch paint dry, its more entertaining than this film.


The premise of the movie seemed interesting, so I gave it a watch. Unfortunately, the acting was so horrible that I couldn't focus on the movie. This movie will probably stay in my "worst 10" list for a while. Why? The acting is beyond bad - all of the actors exhibit delayed, awkward, or incorrect emotions in almost every scene. It seems like the director/writer couldn't figure out whether they wanted a drama, comedy, or tragedy - so they mixed it all up.

It's a really awkward film with bad directing, acting, and plot. Some movies are so bad that they're funny, but this movie is just painful to watch because it's bad but tries to pretend like it's not.

In short, it's the first movie we've watched where my fiancé has said "We can turn this off if you want - this is horrible." If you want to see what a movie would be like with no real plot and bad acting and directing, by all means watch this movie. If you want to be entertained, however - stay away.


I am really amazed how bad acting can really be, I guess that is an art too... You could not make it worse with the old form of Russian synchronization in movies, where every role is spoken by one (male) person and every sentence begins with "he sais" or "she sais"... Or wait a minute, is it maybe a new form of comedy? Is there a secret award for the worst movies - this would certainly make it to the top. I still really have no clue what it is about, a bomb attack on what by who and what for and... ugh, what is the matter with all the dialogs in the movie? Even first graders have a better vocabulary. But one has to admit, it is really hard to forget such a movie and you couldn't stop watching it either because you just can't believe what you see.


It lists "A Clay Brothers Film" as if that will mean something. Who you may ask are the Clay Brothers? I'm not sure. One, the co director and star John Will Clay was, according to IMDb a volleyball coach in a Hannah Montana movie, a Sailor in Deja Vu and an uncredited groomsman in Elizabethtown. His brother's credits seem to be only this movie. Neither their credits not this film make me think that they'll be the next big thing anytime soon.

The plot of the film has a computer programmer getting the code key for a prototype weapon that was stolen by terrorists. The terrorists need the key to set off the weapon and so the chase is on.

Low budget film might have been something had the script been better, the directing more imaginative and the performances better modulated. The film is such that it looks good and actually reasonably professional (and trust me I've seen a great deal of bad looking films lately) but there is no clear indication as to whether the film is serious or not. Take for example the scene where star John Clay is grilled by a policeman after bringing someone to the hospital. The dialog is incredibly silly in that its of the Dragnet just the facts style of writing. Adding insult to injury is the performance of the actor playing the cop who seems to be mugging to the camera. Clay isn't much better since he seems to be reacting to a scene that is playing in his head and not what is going on in front of him. I wasn't sure if I was suppose to laugh or feel tension Actually I did neither and reached for the remote in anticipation of needing it for a rapid exit. This is just a silly movie. (Its also a film that feels like its a glorified home movie with all the friends and family being brought in to be part of it).

Its a mess.

To be honest I think the heading over the title should be changed from "A Clay Brothers Film" to "THE Clay Brothers Film" since I'm not sure that there will be another.


In fact, anyone who saw this silliness, was unscrupulous cheated. Potboiler like this, can be mocked up anyone, and then they collect money for tickets... If every nitwit pay to once see this film - authors get nice cash. I agree with all comments before me - there really can see cheap, poor acting, ugly script, plot and bad directing. As I said - stupid Americans. If you have some time to waste... Yes, I agree with "Don't Bother, 17 January 2009". This is a huge disappointment for everyone, who spend his money to tickets or DVD rent... You must sue "Clay Bros. Motion Pictures" - they had You. Really. (Sorry for my grammar, I use Google translator)


I had been trying to nail down what about this film bugs me. Then I again read the film's DVD jacket which promised a film that was "quirky....amusing....and...funny," a film about a woman, Peggy, who is described in exacting detail as:

A happy go lucky woman who has many friends who appreciate her and a job that utilizes her skills. She Has a nice home and she has her beloved dog Pencil. Presently, she chooses to be single. Then something happens that sends her into the dog eat dog world of searching for love.*

WOW, I'm thinking ....devoted pet owner, romance, comedy, laughs, the search for love! All the elements needed for a 'different' slice of life film. So what is bugging me? Perhaps the bait and switch marketing approach which found me viewing a vastly different movie.

The movie I viewed delivered a very dark story (albeit some funny moments) that chronicles the emotional deconstruction of Peggy in all its depressing fashion, from frame one to film's end, to wit:

Peggy's beloved dog Pencil tragically dies of toxic poisoning. Her new replacement dog Valentine KILLS a smaller defenseless dog. Valentine is then put to death. Peggy attempts to kill (knife) her neighbor. Peggy commits a felony against her sister by maliciously destroying thousands of dollars of her sister's property. We see Peggy's metamorphosis into an obsessed animal rights advocate. Peggy attempts to show her young niece how chickens are slaughtered. Peggy's sister and brother-in-law are understandably distraught. Peggy embezzles from her employer and is fired. Peggy takes 15 dogs into her home where they run wild using her home (pardon the phrase) as a LITTER BOX. The dogs are removed from her home on the basis that Peggy is now MALTREATING ANIMALS.

After needed psych treatment Peggy feigns resurrection by first returning to her home and job (yes her employer actually takes her back) and then in a flash turns her back on all. Peggy's animal rights obsession resurfaces with a vengeance. It compels her to drive off, on a distant animal rights mission, leaving home, job and family behind. For the first time in her recent life Peggy is also, can you believe it, PETLESS.

New title for this amusing, quirky, searching for love, funny and pet loving film: Petless, Friendless, Jobless, Familyless, Homeless, Loveless BUT Happily Obsessed!

* Also misleading. In the film we never see Peggy embarked on any search for love. Two men initiate brief dead end involvements in her life.


I know others liked this movie, but this was a depressing movie. I felt Peggy was so unstable and needed some mental health care help. This is truly a woman that has no life and then gets so obsessed she seems ready for a rubber room. I love animals, but this movie shows how some people can get so unhealthily obsessed with things that it controls their whole life. Molly did a good job of acting and playing this poor pathetic character. But, she is so unstable that not only does she become a danger to herself, but others, too. This just wasn't an enjoyable movie. This shouldn't be in the comedy category, it's mostly drama. This was our Saturday night date movie, so really put a damper on the whole night.