Somewhat decent movie, overall, but frustrating in it's questionnable plot devices, and overall storyline. Extremely well-acted by Michael Keaton. However, there seemed to be so much unexamined and unexplained that, in my opinion, took away from the movie overall.

I don't know all the rental laws in California, but I found it preposterous that someone could plop themselves into an apartment, tear it to pieces, not pay the rent, and have the law on his side. I don't know precisely how this works, but I had the feeling this may have been an extreme example of "renter's rights". The cops and legal system in this movie all seemed to be behaving from some kind of alternate, backward universe. Living in California a few years ago, I had the misfortune to have to evict someone. I had the law on my side every step of the way, and was able to get this person out of the property without much trouble. In fact, I was able to have the person charged with vandalism for damage they had done. The cops and courts were all thoroughly on my side. What exactly was going on here? Where did Carter Hayes come from? What in the world was his story? How did he come to this level? He seemed to just show up on their doorstep, well-dressed and professional, and then basically go batty. Why not some further development of who he was, and where he came from? There was slight anecdotal hints, but he seemed to be just some mindless slug, allowed to drop into someone's life and wreak havoc in it. Michael Keaton was truly sinister and terrifying in this, and made something more of the character, but this could easily have been senseless.

Too many questions, and too many events that strained credulity.


Very disappointing film from a director who usually delivers. John Schlesinger has previously impressed audiences with movies like "Midnight Cowboy", "Marathon Man" and "The Falcon and the Snowman". Flashes of brilliance here are never delivered consistently. Highlights are far too infrequent, in a movie that never could decide what mode it was in.

Cast - all just there, and nothing more - included Matthew Modine, Melanie Griffith and Michael Keaton. Ultimately predictable, a lot of potential was wasted here. "Pacific Heights" could have been a great legal thriller.

Friday, April 5, 1991 - Knox District Centre


This is just one of those films that is completely beneath contempt. It's so formulamatic and hollywoodized that its sickening. First of all it rips off other primal thrillers such as "Fatal Attraction" and "Cape Fear", second of all THE ACTING IS TERRIBLE!!!!!!, except for Keaton in the smaller role as the bad guy, come to think of it he didnt have to act much. Griffith was just plain awful in the lead, Modine was almost as bad but i'll put him ahead of Griffith because he tried. Everything was just so predictable and boring that I wanted to shoot myself. If you want to see an unoriginal predictable thriller done well see "Unlawful Entry"(1992) with Kurt Russell and Ray Liotta, at least in that movie the acting was good and their performances let the movie rise above the formulamatic plot. Overall this movie was awful and should have ended many careers, maybe it did!! Bomb out of ****.


Vigil has some good ideas, and occasional moments when they're realized fairly well, but this is anything but a satisfying movie. There's virtually no content at all, and it is painfully slow in revealing its emptiness. None of the characters are compelling, the scenery, is unremittingly gray and bleak, the mood is as drab as the leaden sky under which it's filmed.

At this point in time, NZ films were often remarkable only for their weirdness, and Vigil, although tender and with heart, is not an exception.

Vigil's greatest value may be as a study in Vincent Ward's development, which burst open to reveal his wonderful talent in the remarkable gem, The Navigator, two years later, the first of some first-class movies from New Zealand, such as The Piano, Whale Rider, and of course, The Lord of the Rings.


The main problem with Kiwi movies is that the critics won't review them dispassionately. Go to virtually all the film sites and you'll read that this is some kind of classic. It is in fact a boring art-bullied waste of time. The performance by Fiona Kay is excellent, but she is the only fleshed-out character, and doesn't really behave as a normal person, more an adult's rather twisted vision of what a small girl might do and think. None of the other thinly-sketched characters are in any way sympathetic, the setting is within a singularly depressing sodden-hills landscape, and the screenplay is mean-spirited and unfathomable. Why for instance does the mother spend considerable time sewing a tutu for Toss and then blithely let her go out and play in the filthy, muddy outdoors in it? Why does the mother suddenly take up with a surly poacher who shows disturbingly pedophile designs on her young daughter? Are we supposed to find the differently-sane grandfather and his deranged, self-absorbed prattle somehow endearing? You want art, fine, here's your art. You want a proper movie, avoid 'Vigil' until Bad Movie Night.


Perhaps I'm just a cynical, unsophisticated knuckle-dragger and nowhere near as cultured as the film festival crowd, but I absolutely loathed this film. To me it epitomizes what is essentially wrong with the film industry in New Zealand; that being the fact that Kiwi film makers seem hell-bent on making boring movies designed to appeal to less than .000000001% of the population. Occasionally, someone gets it right, and every 8-10 years we'll get something like Sleeping Dogs, Goodbye Pork Pie, Ngati, or Whale Rider. But more often than not the local product ranges in quality from only just watchable to mind-numbingly dull, the latter being the case with Vigil. It's not a badly made film - in fact the acting is first rate, and the photography quite stunning - the major problem is the sheer drudgery of it all. Stunning misty landscapes, rustic sets, quaint old farm buildings, and close-ups of leaky taps do not save this stinker from a storyline that drags slower than a mini towing a b-train. Avoid this film at all costs.


I'll admit I didn't actually watch this movie from the beginning, I only caught the end. However, in that time, myself and my friend definitely noted at least 5 instances where this "film" could have shifted into one of those 1 am shows on Cinemax. Honestly the transition would have been seamless. Starting from the scene in the prison to the end of the movie with the delivery boy, sexual innuendo abounded. Add to that the cheesy dialogue, mediocre special effects, and paper-thin plot and you have the makings of a fairly good skin flick. Seriously all that was missing was some steamy scenes and a pizza guy.


Wow, I am out of sync on this German film. While the overall score is very respectable and the reviews are mostly glowing, I didn't like the film at all. Now I've seen about a dozen Fassbinder films and I often have really enjoyed them, but watching this one was a chore.

First, the film's style seems less innovative or interesting than just dull and, dare I say it, cheap. The black & white film looked more like a way to save money than anything else and the film played like a long series of vignettes all strung together with awkward dissolves. This made it all seem very episodic--like the audience is getting snippets instead of seeing a story.

Second, the story wasn't particularly interesting. The film played like a Bergman film WITHOUT the complexities. And, sadly, the film was slow and the characters uninvolving.

Overall, I found watching this film a chore. There are many wonderful German films out there, but I assume the average person would also find this film dry and unapproachable, as you need a lot of patience to stick with this film.


Although I found this movie to be fun and somewhat inspiring, it might make you do that thing you've been wanting to do but haven't, it lacks real smarts. The theories he has are never really talked about in any way that will bring you to new thoughts. He just doesn't come across as a mad scientist/philosopher because he never says anything scientific or philosophical.

It does feel good because it has that angsty virgin thing who gets together with a gorgeous woman because of his ideas, and that is something we can relate to, but it's just not smart. I never heard a simple list of ideas, a rundown of why he is perplexed, a question or a theory. His character has problems to deal with, but they are revealed in one moment and then that scene is forgotten. If that is why he is so perplexed about how to be happy, then it should have been a persistent look on his face, an explanation that is revealed as to why he does things so differently than the rest of us.

This kid in the movie is not weird or even nerdy, he's regular and boring. Even his anger is silly. The one real "crazy" person in the movie, an actor who I hope will find his "reality" one day, is presented in a way that demeans what it is to be truly different. Even the not selling out idea is... Well, just not inspirational. The token gay is silly as well, his coming out comes across as disingenuous and devoid of any feeling.

I did have fun watching it though, and I suspect that that has more to do with the beauty of Olivia Wilde, who is, a stone cold fox. It is hard to watch her in any scene and not question where a woman so beautiful comes from and what exactly makes her so damn good to look at.


The Empress Elizabeth II rules mid-eighteenth century Russia. She marries her heir, the physically impotent German prince Peter, to the German princess, Catherine (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Catherine takes a lover, bears a child, plots against her husband and deposes him after he has reigned only six months. She becomes the Empress Catherine II. Well-educated and with liberal ideas, she is an astute politician and wages war with success. Yet when rebellion confronts her with the choice between fostering freedom and suppressing rebellion, she chooses suppression.

Catherine II was a fascinating and complex ruler, the period was crucial in determining the future course of Russia, its expansionary empire, its reactionary society and primitive economy. This film, however, addresses none of these great themes, except in the most cursory and superficial manner. It is a shallow drama of empty spectacle, in which intimate diversions are followed by unconvincing public events, battles and rebellions. The psychological characteristics of the protagonists, the motivations that drive them, the reasons for their decisions are all left unexplained. "There are great matters at stake", says Catherine to Potyomkin (Paul McGann), but we are never told what they are. Such rationalizations as do emerge involve the anachronistic importation of late twentieth-century western liberal concerns into eighteenth-century Russian society.

Television drama need not seem cheap. This film does. There is a good cast, but the dialogue is empty and its delivery perfunctory, although Ian Richardson's Vorontsov is done well and Brian Blessed is surprisingly well-moduated (and exceptionally quiet) as Bestuzhev. Generally, the cast seems dispirited by the trite, thin, lines they are asked to utter. One hundred minutes spent watching Miss Zeta-Jones will always have its rewards. None the less, she is miscast. Most particularly, her voice is in its nature contemporary and middle class, with its very modern inability correctly to pronounce the letter 'r'; it is unsuitable to the role of an eighteenth century aristocrat and Empress. The set pieces are sparse and unconvincing and the direction humdrum.

The story and this cast deserved better than this slight spectacle.


I am writing this review as a member of the same church as the people that made this movie, and as such I can tell you for a fact that this movie in no way expresses the views of our church or the vast majority of its members. Every Mormon I know who has seen this film, the trailer, or read the book upon which it is based, is disgusted by it.

Some background: the book "Day of Defense" was written in the '60s by a lay member of the church, and is considered a prime example of anti-anti-mormon literature. In other words, it uses the same tactics, logic and style as anti-mormon literature, but it is turned in the other direction. It is no more convincing than the average anti-Mormon literature, and even the people that are amused by it would never take it seriously.

The contents of the book consist of a context-less courtroom debate that goes something like this:

Christian church leader: The Bible says here that your church is wrong. Wise Mormon elder: Oh, yeah? Well here's where you're mistaken. Leader of another church: But what about this passage? Wise Mormon elder: Here is another glib reply. JUDGE: Well, it looks like the Mormons proved their case. I will now join their church.

It's entertaining, but ridiculous, and one of the most ill-suited books ever written for a movie translation.

The film fills in the plot holes with a town of mindless Christian straw-dogs, and plenty of bad dialogue, bad acting, bad directing, bad haircuts, and a type of synergy that somehow makes the movie worse than the sum of its terrible parts. It isn't even as amusing as the book it was based on. It's just terrible in every possible way. One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

If you're a Mormon, don't see this movie. It will make you doubt your faith because of the people that share it. If you're not a Mormon, PLEASE don't see this movie. It is the absolute nadir in the mostly embarrassing culture of LDS filmmaking.

God's Army was a pretty good Mormon movie, but if the man who made that film knew what would happen to the genre he popularized, I'm sure he'd have burned his camera and taken a job at Taco Bell for the good of humanity. Avoid this like Rabies.


This should stand as a warning to all LDS filmmakers about the perils of crafting films that can logically serve no other purpose than to bolster the belief of those who already believe. I can't imagine a single non-Mormon viewer of this film not coming away as having felt like missionaries had just been in their home. The gaps of logic in this film are so great as to make me question just how faithfully the script writers who adapted the book practice the religion. No missionary would knowingly be sent by the church blindly into this ridiculously perfect little Christian town as some kind of "challenge" if it knew of the strictures on proselytizing, and if the church did know of such a rule, it would never rely on mere missionaries to fight the battle for equal preaching rights. Since the whole point revolves around the missionaries being put on trial to prove they are "Christian" enough to proselytize in the town, it makes me wonder what kind of place has never heard of the First Amendment's freedom of religion and freedom of speech clauses? Indeed, where did the two Mormons go to school that they didn't know it.

And all that is to say nothing of the illogic of the actual trial and methods of "defense" itself. But do yourself a favor, don't go there.


As a non-Mormon I found this movie to be highly offense in its attack on mainstream Christianity, its obfuscation of facts and appeal to emotion. I would highly recommend this movie to Christian denominations as a training aid to show the LDS Church's true feelings towards historic Christianity have never changed, how it glosses over its radical redefinition of terms, how it publicly denies it doctrines when convenient, and how the LDS Church continually attempts to divert attention from those attacks by wrapping itself within the claim that `they're persecuted!'


Cecil B. DeMille was one of the pioneers of the American film industry, and you have to give him credit for that. He was also one of the first to pack his films with gratuitous sex and violence, and you have to give him credit for that. He got away with it by inserting preachy moral "messages" that proved the "evil" of everything he had just shoved in your face, and you have to give him credit for that. His films were enjoyable in a goofy sort of way, but that doesn't apply to this one.

There's one thing that DeMille could never be accused of, and that's cutting corners. His movies were expensive, and they looked it. They were usually also packed with well-known stars such as Gary Cooper and Charlton Heston. The one thing that few of his movies had, though, was a coherent script, and this movie is a prime example. Stars, production values, spectacle...whatever advantages this film has are sunk by the absolutely idiotic dialogue the actors are forced to spew out. You have to wonder what the actors were thinking as they were reciting this drivel. You also have to wonder what the writers were thinking as they were whipping this junk up; didn't they realize that people don't even _remotely_ talk or act like they do in this movie? Everything in this film is overblown, overheated and overdone. The only other one of DeMille's films I can think of offhand that goes even further over the edge is "Northwest Mounted Police," which is so jaw-droppingly awful it should be classified as a comedy.

As long as you realize what you're getting into, the movie is fun in a goofball, campy sort of way. If you're looking for anything else, forget it.


Cecil B. DeMille directed a film with a cast of all time giants of the movie screen, Gary Cooper, Paulette Goddard, Boris Karloff, Ward Bond and even Katherine DeMille. However, these great actors were not able to make this film a success because of the screenplay by Charles Bennett. In 1763 in colonial America, Martin Garth(howard Da Silva), a trader, secretly trades guns to the Indians in order to stop the westward movement of settlers, Garth tries to purchase young Abby Hale (Paulette Goddard), a British servant for his own interests, but a Virginia Capt. Christopher Holden(Gary Cooper), outbids the trader and then frees her. Garth encourages an Indian rebellion on Fort Pitt led by Chief Guyasuta (Boris Karloff). This picture gets very boring and pointless. Karloff acts perfectly as an Indian and you can hardly hear his lisp or British accent!


'Feardotcom' was filmed in Luxembourg (apparently standing in for New York, I think.) and hasn't been officially released yet. I saw it as one of the featured films during the Luxembourg International Film festival. (Cinenygma) - One of the executive producers, who introduced the film, said it wasn't 100% finished yet, and that even the title might change. However, since every second of the film was even more tortuous than the depravities depicted on the screen, I believe no amount of focus groups or editing could save this film. I'd say 'straight to video', but that would be a major waste of plastic and cardboard. I suppose if they market it as a parody, they might salvage the cost of, um, the catering during the film.

Stephen Dorff plays a hard-boiled detective who's haunted by that one case that was never solved. You know he's haunted because he walks around with a 3 day growth of beard. Which stays at the same length the whole film, even though the film covers quite a few days (it was hard tell, nothing was very coherent) And guess what! His old nemesis from the unsolved case is killing again! Oh boy! And since we now have new cases to solve, AND they're dying from what looks to be a virus, we need to bring in the woman scientist and nominal love interest (Natascha McElhone - who displayed quite amply in 'The Truman Show' that she can't act. She must work cheap, or maybe they needed someone to make Dorff look good.) We know she's a scientist because she wears glasses. And just for grins we get Jeffrey Coombs as Dorff's partner, whose main role appears to be running around spouting non-sequiturs. Speaking of which, there was a writer listed for the film but I'd bet a Ben Franklin that they were making up the dialog as they went along, and probably for a different film. It's too bad 'Deep Space 9' went off the air - it might have prevented Coombs from getting caught up in this travesty. And there's Stephen Rea as the mad scientist, looking vaguely like Geoffrey Rush mad scientist character in 'Mystery Men.' Now, I could have sworn Rea could act, so maybe they are two of them? Amazingly a director is also listed, but from what I can tell they pretty much turned on the camera, came back later, took the film to the editing room, forgot to turn on the lights and just started editing. That would explain a lot.

And what of the plot? Ha! There isn't one! Well, OK, maybe a little one. I think the deal was that the girl killed in the unsolved case somehow inhabited the internet and is killing people if they log on to the mad scientist's site, where HE tortures women until they beg him to kill them - and all for $9.95! (but just for grins they (the unfortunates who log into fear.com) only die after 48 hours, because, I think, that's how long it took her to be killed) But I think you'd need a broadband connection, because somehow when you login, this girl living in the internet puts a hex on you, which involves you falling off your chair and eventually trashing your apartment and nose bleeds, and um, dying from the fright of your worst fear (like being cast in this movie) and I really don't think that could happen with a dial up connection. Um, anyway, she's going to keep on killing people unless the mad scientist is caught. And her body is found too. I mean they threw that bit in there about finding the body, but then when it was found, it didn't count for anything! Now, doesn't that just bite. Damn fickle internet ghosts.

**SPOILER**

Actually this whole film was a spoiler, at least it smelled spoiled to me. Anyway - the final scene where Dorff and the McElhone rush into the mad scientist's lair (located in an abandoned steel mill or nuclear plant - the film couldn't make up it's mind what it was - it identified it as both during different scenes in the film) and stop him only seconds before he's going to kill his latest victim had me rolling in the aisle with laughter. It was just like watching an old horror film from the 30's or 40's. Maniacal laughter, bug-eyed expressions of madness, flashing lights, tilted camera angles. So they manage to save the girl, but then the mad scientist shoots Dorff, and then stabs McElhone then Dorff grabs a keyboard and logs into feardot.com which drives the mad scientist so mad - he dies from fear! Then Dorff dies, and McElhone, who was in love with Dorff (oh, did I leave that part out? - apparently they fell madly in love in some 30 second scene earlier in the film - some real in-depth character development going on here.) sort of cries over his body, but um, somehow she's no longer stabbed! Maybe it was her Multi-vitamin.

**END OF SPOILER**

So -um, in conclusion - I can't imagine any changes to this film possibly making it watchable. I'll be surprised if gets released at all (though the executive producer said Warner Bros had picked it up for US distribution, and Columbia-Tri-Star for the rest of the world. Let's hope they come to their senses.) You have been warned. Go watch 'Donnie Darko' instead!


If the survival of horror films depends on titles such as this "FearDotCom", we are indeed facing the downfall of the genre. This is lame, uninspired and repetitive garbage that irritates you from start to finish. Director William Malone's idea of suspense exists out of underexposed and fuzzy images of murders edited together in boisterous flashes that actually show you NOTHING. Add a poorly written script about a murderous website and completely unconvincing characters to this and you've got yourself one of the biggest cinema-turkeys since the new millennium. If the premise of this film rings a bell, it means that you recognize it from the Japanese cult hit "Ringu". Or the slightly inferior American remake "the Ring". Only, the videotape has been replaced by an internet website and the poor victims have only 2 days left to live after being exposed instead of 7. Typical for an unscrupulous rip-offFaster, louder and modernized! The elaboration is a mess: weak dialogue, plot holes all over the place, no style or atmosphere and very bad acting. I can't believe class actors like Udo Kier and Stephen Rea were talked into accepting roles like this? Surely they can still do better even though they both have seen their best times. Stephen Dorff and the leading lady deliver lousy performances in roles that really don't fit them. Dorff as a tough, experienced copper? Doubtful Perhaps what annoyed me most about the cast (shallow, I admit) is seeing how one of my all-time favorite B-actors, Jeffrey Combs, is given such a small and insignificant role! That's Doctor Herbert West from Re-Animator we're talking about, dammit! Show a little more respect, Malone! If you love horror, you should avoid "FearDotCom" at all costs! It's bad for your nerve system.


Not far in the movie I realized I was watching a terrible version of 'Ringu', the Japanese movie that inspired a very good US movie named 'The Ring'. It has the same elements. A medium that kills because you watch it (in 'The Ring' a videotape, here an internet-site), a little girl that is probably the key to solve the problem, a woman and a guy searching for the answer, both saw the site and therefor they both have to hurry, and why they have to hurry has something to do with earlier events. Here they have 48 hours to solve this mystery that involves The Doctor, a killer who broadcasts live killings over the internet. Well, not just killings. He tortures a woman for a long time and in the end there must be a point where the woman asks him to be killed. And so it is done.

To tell more about the messy plot would be stupid. I am not even sure if I understand everything. After you have seen the internet-site you die of your worst fear in 48 hours, that I did understand, but why do 'infected' people see the little girl over and over again while she herself was killed as an adult? I probably missed it but like I said it doesn't really matter. The scary visuals have something admirable. The images are really haunting but again I liked the videotape from 'The Ring' a lot more. May be you will like it for the images and some scary moments, but I think you can find a better movie. 'The Ring' may be.


I hate horror movies that evolve into a waste of time. The plot becomes too unbelievabe, and gets across as stupid. This film starts out all right, and is a cross between 8mm and Videodrome. The idea of a virus invading the mind threw the optic nerve, and attacking the eletormagnetic impulses in the mind is scary, and I hope will never become a reality. Instead of following up on this scary idea, the movie become too unbelievable. It contains idiotic scenes where the viewer says to himself you got to be kidding! I wish I saved the $15 for my wife and myself, but it has been a awful summer for movies. 3/10


I've seen my fair share of bad movies. But I can honestly say that this is in my top 3 worst movies. Usually, when I see an extremely bad film, it's so awful that it's funny - which makes it somewhat entertaining. But this film went into another and far worse category. A film so awful that I got a headache - not because the plot was so complex and intelligent, but because the plot was so ridiculous and unrealistic.

It's simple: when you go in search of a killer, call for backup. Don't go alone into an empty building. Have some common sense! Unfortunatelt, all the characters in FeardotCom, seem to have been born without the common sense gene.

I could suffer through dozens of cheesy horror flicks where the victim getting chased by a killer conveniently trips and falls down while the killer get increasingly closer. . . I could even suffer through poor acting in a horror flick if the plot is entertaining and at least scary.

But, when the plot of a film is neither logical nor entertaining you get one movie: FeardotCom


Holly Hunter is always worth watching. But this was my first Brittany Murphy movie and I'll go out of my way not to see her again.

Her bug-eyed expression, which she must think is appropriate for every scene, plus her open-mouthed pout and twitchy jerking from expression to expression make this movie almost unwatchable. She seems to think she's the next Meg Ryan -- she's not even close. I tried to enjoy the flick in spite of her; it can't be done. She awkwardly jerks through every scene.

Holly Hunter is great as a more cynical version of her character in Broadcast News. Ron Livingston demonstrates the art of subtle acting, something Murphy badly needs lessons on.


Saw this on FX, and as one of the posters put it, this was painful. Not just painful, but squirm-in-your-seat painful! The "payoff" is the kind of cruelty usually reserved for snuff films!

The whole Carly Simon/Diane Sawyer bit was more painful. What's with this weird obsession with Working Girl, which should never be confused with Broadcast News. Holly Hunter must be wondering how she got from that to this!

As far as the "plot": who keeps pictures of his exes on his Palm (and shares "joint custody" of his dog with one of them), and what does that say about his commitment to his current squeeze?

By the way, what qualifies Derek as an NHL scout? Because he has a hockey stick in his apartment? Well, I happen to own the first stick Wayne Gretzky used as a pro, which - according to this stinker - qualifies me to be Commissioner! Shouldn't he actually have played hockey? And be a Canadian, eh? But, I digress.


Little Black Book has a lot of things, there is some romance, some deception and a little comedy added for flavor. However, the movie suffers from a dearth of generally likable characters.

The plot is relatively simple. Stacey (Murphy) is trying to find her place in life, and comes to work at a daytime talk show as an associate producer. She is happy with her boyfriend and job. Then one day, an associate, Barb, take an idea that was pitched during a meeting, little black books, and suggests Stacey go through her boyfriends and find out about his ex-girlfriends. Stacey, using the show as a guise, interviews the women, befriends one, and slowly comes to find that her boyfriend is not what he seems and their relationship is not as happy as she thought it was. This all comes to a climax on the talk show, where Barb has set Stacey up, and a confrontation between Stacey, her boyfriend and his ex-girlfriends occurs.

The problem of this movie is that most of the characters are not particularly sympathetic. Stacey comes off as neurotic, paranoid and generally dysfunctional. There is no reason to really root for her to succeed. Her boyfriend comes off as a louse. Barb is simply cruel. The only one who is really sympathetic is one of the ex-girlfriends played by Julianne Nicholson. Her character is fleshed out in a way none of the others are.


Watching this movie was a little black mistake. Starring Brittany Murphy and... well... that's really all I need to say, isn't it? The movie is bogged down by beginning-screenwriter-style exposition at the start, all of which screamed, "Sorry that I couldn't actually find a real movie to fill up this space, but this stuff is really funny and you can relate to it, right?" Now the opening sequence is supposed to make you like and care for Brittany Murphy's character. In fact, if that fails, the rest of the movie is bound to fail.

It failed.

I just didn't care about her and her pathetic little life. Party Girl did a much better job of pulling the whole "existential" story-trapped-in-a-woman's-empty-life and even Legally Blonde did a far better of job of using the love hook to help a character examine herself and how she values herself. But the ending and the changes as they occur in the film are all pretty contrived. Furthermore the direction messed up some of the alleged jokes in the film, accidentally giving away the unfunny punchlines before the jokes were thrown.

Good job guys. In the end (and the beginning and the middle) the movie falls flat on its face, like Ms. Murphy's antics. I should've bailed on this one when I had the chance. 3/10.


Putrid. Bad acting, directing, storyline. The story had a lot of promise, along with a cast including Holly Hunter and Kathy Bates. Ron Livingston as her boyfriend is about as charming here as he was as Post-It-Note break-up artist Jack Berger on Sex and the City. Brittany Murphy is too charisma-free to carry a starring role. She was fabulous in Clueless, I loved her in it, as a secondary character part. Romantic lead, no, no, and NO. I just could not stand her in this role. Way too much Carly Simon music. Unbelievable ending, landing a job with Diane Sawyer and meeting Carly Simon on the same day. My opinion of this movie has nothing to do with it not being a typical "happy ending" movie where the girl and guy live happily ever after. Lots of truly great movies have endings like that (Casablanca to name just one). It is just bad bad bad. Kathy Bates looks lobotomized through this movie; perhaps she was hypnotized by the paycheck. The only good thing in it was Kevin Sussman. Take a pass.


Okay, this has to be one of the worst 'romantic comedies' I've ever seen - its a completely unbelievable plot line, with a far-too-easily-HATEable heroine - who, by the way, overacts throughout the entire film. There are far too many close-ups in the last 15 mins of Brittany Murphy's quivering lips and tear-filled eyes - takes away any possible sympathy you might have been tempted to feel for her self-involved egomaniac character. And any rom-com that leaves the viewer at the end of a tortuous two hours with neither an idea of how romantically- happy the heroine ends up (whether one actually cares or not) OR whether there's any chance she might die in some horrible accident can really be summed up with the words "a complete and utter waste of my time" - that I'll never get back!


The James Dean movie might have been done much better had it been a feature film rather than one susceptible to the limitations of a made for TV movie. That is, where the filmmakers have to be wary of time and probably, content constraints. What we have as a final product, despite a nice performance by James Franco as the legendary James Dean, is little more than celebration of the man as a mythical pop culture icon. Even the more "authentic" emotional moments such as the rocky relationship between the young actor and his estranged father are so tightly bound in overt dramatizations rather than something more lifelike. Everything about James Dean, as portrayed here, seems less like insight into his background and his rise from a poor, Indiana teen to iconic actor who's life was cut short mid-success, and more like James Dean as a piece of staged dramas only adding more to creating a mythical creature and less to explaining a real person.

Consider, for example, if you were a viewer who had known little about James Dean. Perhaps you had watched a few movies or, like Elvis, had always noticed him as the "understood" representation of juvenile disillusionment and delinquency (more the latter than the former, since our culture celebrates rebellion more so than simple dissatisfaction). But after having watched this film, what do you really learn about James Dean? I think the other dilemma of making a film about James Dean is that he was so young and still in the process of rising to fame when he died, that there doesn't seem to be many significant points of his life that can be stretched into an hour and a half film. Here, we do get a little, but not really much to play around with. Other than seeing bits about the girl at the studio he meets and becomes friendly with, the Italian actress he lives with for a while, befriending Martin Landau, and the relationship with his father, there really isn't much to go on. Not knowing much about James Dean, I don't know if there was much in his young life that could merit filling the time for a movie. It may be that those who were closest to him that could really give the trivia about his background have passed on. It seems that, if he was as distant as they claim him to be, maybe it was hard to get the story behind the man even by those who knew him in real life. But perhaps this is the reason why the subplot with his father seems so entirely forced.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of style, but very little substance. And it may not have entirely been the fault of the filmmakers.


Unlike most everyone else who commented here, i saw this film because I am a major (and a bit obsessed) James Dean fan, not a James Franco fan. I was expecting a brilliant, insightful film about the person behind the persona of james dean. instead, i saw a chaotic film that hinted instead of revealed, an actor who imitated instead of captured. I thought James Frnaco might have passing resemblence (above the mouth) to Dean. But instead of trying to recreate the energy, the essence that Dean projects, he merely imitates and mimics his movements. Many turningpoints and poignant moments of Dean's life are entirely skipped (his watching Pier Angeli's wedding, the night he found out she was pregnant, his friendship with natalie wood and liz taylor) and many things are slightly hinted at instead of cleared up. for example, his encounter with roger bracketts (sp?) is probably a minute long, and confuses the viewer, never revealing that in fact, james dean was bisexual. his relationship with christine white also never seems to have a reason for ending, and seems much more prominent than the one with Pier, in the film. I thought this film had no focus; it was bad not particularly due to bad acting, or directing, but the lack of purpose. Is it supposed to be a study of his legend? Or an insightful look into his personal life?Was it supposed to explain the things he did, or merely let us know what they were?

What really p***ed me off was that this could have been a brilliant insightful study of the personal life and/or the legend of a pop culture star. Too bad.

Grade: C


I LOVE James Dean even though I was born 15 years after his death. I think he was a wonderful actor, an amazing person and someone who would have gone on to do great things. I've read his biographies, I've watched the movies he was in and I've found out from interviews what he was seemingly like in "real life". But I was so disappointed in this movie and I feel he deserved to have a better movie made about him. This movie didn't tell us anything we didn't already know and they didn't go into details ... the kind of details that we'd have wanted to know about. People in his life who were a pivotal part of his life were just omitted from this movie and it was just like this ... they took a wonderful man's life and shortened it in an hour and a half. James Dean's life was worth more than an hour and a half. And the guy who played him didn't look enough like James Dean. It made watching him very difficult because it was hard to believe. At one point, he looked like someone off of revenge of the nerds. The guy was also too tall to play James Dean. There was one scene where everyone was standing together in a bar, and he was the same height as everyone else. James Dean was short ... like 5'8 or 5'9. All those guys could not have been 5'8 or 5'9. I was just really disappointed and I wish that they could make a movie that was more 'real' to his life.


I would like to begin by truly saying that James Dean was an actor that met his end before we, as cinema watchers, were fully about to appreciate his talent as well as full body of work. The short three films that he devoted himself to wasn't enough for my taste buds, and I think the majority of film aficionados would heartily agree  yet I would have to say that those seeking the knowledge of James Dean, the truth behind his life and his devotion to youthfulness  should not (repeat NOT) watch this horrid film. I realize that this was a made-for-TV film that couldn't take the risks that most major budget films could, but I didn't realize that "consecutive sentences and structured storytelling" needed a big budget to complete. What made this film strange was that it began so strongly with a detailed scene about how devoted Dean was to his trade, but after that, it just went further downhill by avoiding details and the classic cop-out "educated guess" technique. From outlandish storytelling to depreciating acting from the beginning to the end, James Dean attempted to bring Dean to life, but sadly, just drove Dean into another devastatingly horrid car crash.

While I did mention above my disappointment with the acting, it wasn't so much the style of acting, just the lack of excitement. Dean was played by Spiderman's egotistical villain (hell-bent on saving his father's name), James Franco. While I feel he captured the audacity of Dean, as well as those smaller details, but he wasn't Dean. To me, there were scenes that felt as if Franco was adding onto Dustin Hoffman's Rain Man impression/character. He wasn't original, he wasn't charismatic enough, and the Franco's win of a Golden Globe was completely uncalled for. He played the part, but didn't build the character, and after all of it I still had the looming thought that Rydell left me with at the very end  the "educated guess" which completely debunked the film  but that is another story. Sam Gould playing Martin Landau was completely forgettable and I disliked the fact that Landau was such a small part to the story, in fact, by the end, he was forgotten about entirely. One could say that nearly all the secondary characters were forgettable in the sense that if you blinked, you would literally miss them. Director Rydell was so excited about having a biopic about Dean in his repertoire of films that he didn't seem to care that Dean was built upon the people surrounding him. Landau, Kazan, and even Angeli didn't seem to match (or even remember) up to what this film needed to be. What I wanted to see, and what this film needed to be a pivotal biopic about James Dean, were a foundation based around strong supporting characters adding to the destabilized life that Dean lead. All I witnessed from the actors involved were a slight movement of their hands, an occasional bit of emotion, and a small segway into the life of Dean  nothing that one could build a mountain upon. I believe this is why the film's ending was so futile. We weren't shocked or surprised by the ending, because by that point in the film we just didn't care  apathy had set in, and we were dumbstruck to resist it.

Finally, I would like to say that when you are making a "made-for-TV" movie, there is no need to give it the feel of a "made-for-TV" movie. In fact, most of the films that go beyond that point do very well (i.e. see some of Stephen King's miniseries), but for James Dean it felt rushed, fast, and completely underdeveloped. I have already mentioned about the acting, but the story, which surrounds these actors, was just as weak. Nothing worked, nothing was exciting, nothing was jaw-dropping at all, basically, we had a couple of unknown actors doing what little they could to afford their current rent checks. How embarrassing is that  especially for the Dean estate? We needed force, power, drama, and humanity all rolled into one, but instead we just found a shallow actor doing a weak impersonation (if one could even call it that). Not that I could really give away the ending, but there seemed to be about two hours missing from the climax between Dean and his father and the iconic crash. The crash wasn't even worth the film it was printed on. Slow motion drama with a random unknown in the passenger side (not unknown, but again, lacking the development)  weren't these techniques mastered and forgotten about in the late 80s? After watching this film I felt cheated, because I love Dean's body of work and what he represented in Hollywood, but this film captured nothing of the sort.

Overall, I thought this was one of the worst biopics that I have seen in my time of watching films. It was shallow, disrespectful, and pointless to the end because you walk away knowing less about Dean than when you started. Nothing congealed in this film because of both the shabby acting as well as the under-developed (which is a word I used too many times and is not shrew enough) story which completely debunks itself as the final credits roll by using the lines, "Most of this film was based on fact... some was an educated guess." Who ends a film like this? Imagine turning in a term paper with the phrase at the bottom, "I couldn't get all the facts correct, so I guessed on most of it"  would the Professor accept your paper? I think not my friend, which is why I cannot accept this film as a "real" biography of James Dean. This one should be stricken from the record books. I am sorry Mr. Dean  this film is not what should remain as your legacy.

Grade: * out of *****


Well, I was pretty disappointed by this one and also pretty surprised by the ovation it received in the web sites I've been browsing after viewing the movie, and that's the main reason I react here. This is definitely NOT the outstanding movie that reviewers promise...

Indeed the characters and relationships are funny to watch, and indeed the general self-derisional plot (a movie version of a manga about the misdeeds of the manga itself, plus a bank robbery plot with hostages progressively taking the roles of the robbers themselves) could have been of great interest. But unfortunately something is missing all along the movie.

The excitement of a great robbery plot that takes the viewer in the first thirty minutes of the movie, falls down progressively all along the action slowdowns to finally drawn into inertia. Contrary to what was said elsewhere, even in some of the characters a tenderizing, most are very superficial and they don't really give meaning or bring anything special to the plot...they don't really bring us anywhere nor do they revive the action.

A last positive word though, I kind of liked the ending that really surprised me and specially the words spoken by "Black Cat" : "Life is not like in Anime!", which gives at last a final sense to the action.

To balance my views , maybe that I was induced in error when realizing this was a bank robbery movie (I had no idea what the movie was about until I launched it), and disappointed in realizing that in fact it was a movie talking about social relationships.

So to conclude, not a masterpiece, not a "must see"e, but can be somewhat diverting, specially if you're the average Otaku.


I find it funny people dissing, the Count of Monte Cristo (2002) film version of the book. Yet, praise the Anime Version of same book. People and the crackers they eat.

Life, as enough drama and hardships to live through. How much pain? Does a make take in to receive joy. Dantes suffers through hell, to be turn into a vampire fitting the book conclusion of what it took to become the Count. Yet, mentors his former lover and best friend child into manhood. Yeh, you love that!?!!?! And he doesn't kill anybody, only shame them. Bad Bad u little ones. Unrealistic, and u people treated as gold.

I felt, so wasted of my time watching the series... I'm almost broke all the series DVD disc, until I quickly sold them on Ebay for $5.00 dollars. I haven't wasted money on a Anime Series like this, since Trinity Blood. The second half of that series was kill by the young prince vampire and lack up finish development of the past history and love story. Though the OST was good, just like Gankutsuou funny isn't it!?!?!

I mean, the version of the Count is that of pure hate with revenge. But, he doesn't follow through on those close to his heart. And when doesn't find his heart, he dies cause of agreement clause. I mean, he treated the boy as a son and love him as such. He's suppose to hate his enemies, but no killing, no getting his hands bloody, no dirt on his soul, etc. In short, "He stop living life, only to care for son that's wasn't his and nothing else, bringing him to manhood."

That sums up the story.... What a waste time!!!!!!!

Watch Berserk instead, I said... And listen to Samurai Champloo OST

The only thing between, u and this world is the history, you don't know


My wife and I just ordered the new DVD with the original Robbie (Hooves of Fire) and this one on it. We have the older release with only Hooves of Fire, and absolutely LOVED that one. We were both shocked and disappointed at how bad this one is!! The story is weak, but worse yet the witty scripting from the original is completely absent. I gave it a 4 for the first minute or so of the movie - after that it's probably a 2 or even a 1.

Oh, and the "addition" of new voices for the US version is appalling! I was SO relieved when I found the audio setup item which lets you switch to the original British voice talent!! I only wish I could tell the DVD to NEVER EVER play it with the US voicing again. I actually liked several of the US voice actors, but it just seems wrong if you've seen (and heard) the original with its British cast. It is, after all, a British comedy, and I kind of expect the British accents.


Although Walt Disney was producing exceptional cartoons circa 1930, Warner Brothers (through Leon Schlessinger Studios) was way behind on the curve. The quality of their Bosko series was clearly light-years behind Mickey Mouse--mostly because the cartoons weren't especially funny or charming. Instead, they were rather corny. Because of this, you practically never (thank goodness) see these cartoons today.

Here in HOLD ANYTHING, Bosko is working around a construction site. He sees his girlfriend and they begins making eyes at each other. It's all a bit mushy and they dance around a bit until eventually (and mercifully) it all ends. The only interesting part is when Bosko cuts the head off a mouse that looks amazingly like Mickey!


An overweight man with a Don Johnson beard is our main character, he's unfortunate to look at. He looks up a hooker who is worn out looking and must be pushing 40 if not already hurdled past. They sit together in a crappy run down apartment, and he asks her creepy questions but won't have sex with her. Since this is pretty psychotic it creeps her out- OK.. we get that in the first 5 minutes.. where is the rest of the idea? It promptly falls flat on its' face after delivering the idea and the only tool it has left is boredom and lack of action as a clumsy attempt at building suspense.

After 7 minutes you go.. OK does anything ever happen in this piece of crap? Well.. you will be waiting for half an hour before any skin presents itself and be promptly let down directly after. And so we plod through this trash. The hooker has a very interesting body- it is quite athletic, almost to the point of androgyny, but she has a butter face. Her body is hot but her face...

So you would expect either sex or violence in large quantities to present themselves but it just kind of bumbles along in a mind numbing lack of action and lack of any sort of plot development.

This video will be a great joke to play on someone- tell them it is the sexiest most mind blowing heart pounding movie. They will hate you forever because this is anything but!!!!!!!!!!

As Rick James said- I wish I had me 4 hands so I could give it four thumbs down!


Finally caught this curio the other night on TCM. What a dreadful, depressing mess. I know it was a play, but what were the producers thinking? That anyone would flock to this depressing, repetitive bitchfest? Worth seeing only for the curiosity factor of Rex Harrison and Richard Burton playing 2 middle aged queens living together and hating each other in some London slum (though filmed in Paris) There is not one witty line or any sense of affection or reason why these 2 bitter losers stayed together for so long. The film goes nowhere. Nothing but arguments and constant bickering. Harrison gets a court notice for doing drag, but the movie ends before they ever get to court. A meeting with his adult daughter is brought up, but that plot point is dropped also. Burton does bring some dignity to his role and I think came off better than Harrison. The low point comes when Harrison picks up and brings home some ugly, aging prostitute. Kudos to Kathleen Nesbitt who scores in a degrading part as Burton's bedridden mother. Hard to believe Stanly Donen directed this bore. This has to be the nadir of his career. Any young gay person seeing this in 1969 would've been driven to thoughts of suicide (this is what's in store for me?) had they taken this story seriously. Thankfully few people paid to see it. Giving it a three, only because of the weird casting. Good luck if you can sit through it till the end!


The two leads supposedly hated playing their roles, and it shows. Burton isn't bad, but Harrison is just awful. Toward the end when he does his "not alone, not alone" speech, it's just hollow words. But we have to remember the time it was made. Boys in the Band, like this film, also sends the message that gay people hate themselves and their lives. I have to laugh at the guy above who wrote that he's not gay, so he likes the movie because it doesn't threaten him. How pompous! I AM gay, and the movie doesn't threaten me at all. A bad film is a bad film, no matter what the subject matter; and this is a baaaaad film! Also the scene in the park where Harrison is checking out kids playing sends that old "gay people will threaten your innocent children" message. And how about that old ugly "hustler" in the blonde wig that Harrison picks up! Were we meant to believe he was a young guy? Also the idea of Burton wearing a surgical bandage all the time to cover his baldness was ridiculous. There WERE realistic toupees even then. As I said, NOTHING rings true.


I had never seen this movie before and so I tuned in late last night on Turner Classic Movies channel to watch it. TCM is doing this gay/lesbian influence in Hollywood film festival all this month on Mon and Wed Nights. I have always found Rex Harrison extremely sexy and handsome but this movie is not that Rex Harrison. Caked in makeup ,prancing and queening it up every chance he got just turned me off. Richard Burton wearing a head wrap like Gloria Swanson was just so laughably stupid. Harrison and Burton play lovers who have been together for 30 yrs but you'd never know it since all Harrison does is crucify Burton with mean,ugly insults and Queenie bitching. Burton simply wimps and whines like a little bitch too. With lines like "Oh your horrid you bitch" and "You prancy little pony" its no wonder this movie was panned by gays and lesbians alike. It was introduced on TCM by George Osbourne and a gay writer who abhorred it but called it a movie that should be seen if just for the cast against type of its stars.

Supposedly according to the gay author, Harrison and Burton did it only for the huge paychecks of 1 millions dollars a piece which by todays standards would be the 20 million monster paydays you see the big stars get.Also,Harrison supposedly was disgusted with some of his dialog and left for Italy -only to come back when he was threatened with a lawsuit from the movie studio and Burton also only stuck around since his lover Elizabeth Taylor was filming a movie close by at the time. This movie came out in 1969 which was around the time the Stonewall riots in NYC were going on so who knows what influences it had. The problem with this movie to me was the fact that Hollywood always has gay men portrayed as effeminate queens or young twink types who do drag, even the intro to the movie is a 5 minute vignette of 2 god awful ugly drag queens singing the really bad title song. There is one scene though that I did like where Harrison has gone out and picked up a hustler for the night(lord he must have been hard up ,the blond man he takes home is ugly and certainly not that young).Anyway after humiliating Burton in front of this man by drinking and laughing ,Harrison finally goes too far and Burton backhands him hard against a bookcase causing him to bleed. It was the only part of the movie where Burton sticks up for himself. In the end ,Harrison has to go to trial for a crime,he does not want Burton to come with him since he thinks his old gay paunchy lover with a head wrap will cause him to get the book thrown at him.So he leaves their flat and heads towards the couthouse, as he tries to cross the street he realizes that he cannot do this alone and screams for Burton who runs to his side and holds him as they cross the street . I really wanted them to show some affection and maybe hug but the only scene for affection is when Harrison admits hes scared and falls into Burtons arms on the bed and Burton lightly strokes his hair. This movie could have been better if they had handled it with more sensitivity and understanding instead what you get is nothing more than 2 old has been queens bitch-fighting.. 1 out or 10


It was rather funny watching Rex Harrison, (Charles Dyer) playing the role as a homosexual considering his real role in life as a womanizer who was dating Carole Landis who killed herself. Richard Burton, (Harry Leeds) who was married to Elizabeth Taylor perform as hairdressers and Harry owning the salon called "Chez". Harry Leeds gives a great performance in this role and gives himself and everyone else class in the way he shows his being gay to his lover Charles Dyer and other people. These men sort of love their mothers, but there is a underlying feeling that they are both seeking a deeper relationship when various problems come between their relationship. Missed this picture and was glad I was able to view a classic from 1970.


This movie should have been entitled "Hateful, Self-Loathing, Bitter, Ugly, Hopeless Staircase." Make no mistake about it - this movie sends a clear message to audiences that homosexuals live miserable lives. It's 1 hour and 49 minutes of mincing, bickering, sniping, and degradation. Thank God this film bombed when it was released; otherwise, who knows how many gay men would have committed suicide or stayed forever in the closet after seeing it? That said, the film is an important time capsule reflecting heterosexual attitudes toward gays during the 1960s and a reminder of just how far images of gays on screen have progressed in the last 38 years.

Rex Harrison and Richard Burton play long-term lovers Charles and Harry, respectively. Charles dons mascara and "male cosmetics" before venturing outside. He's a narcissistic heel who goes out drinking nightly and sometimes brings home tricks to flaunt in front of Harry. Harry is the long-suffering partner who's recently been afflicted with alopecia and can't bear to leave his bald head unwrapped, even when he's taking a bath. Harry endures Charles' verbal abuse and philandering, dutifully cleaning the flat, fixing Charles' meals, and tending to his own bedridden mother who lives with with them both (the scenes between Burton and Cathleen Nesbitt as the mother are particularly distasteful).

Harry owns and works in the "Chez Harry" barbershop below the men's flat. Charles helps out at the shop, but spends most of his time lamenting his failed attempt at an acting career. Charles' daughter from his marriage to a woman is coming to visit, and Charles is worried about how he'll explain Harry's presence. On top of that, Charles has been served with a notice to appear in court for an incident involving cross dressing and putting on a performance in a local pub. The thought of having to explain the whole ugly mess and being "outed" as homosexual has Charles either lashing out bitterly at Harry or sobbing uncontrollably over what he sees as the end of his world.

Charles and Harry clearly detest one another after being together for so long, yet they can't possibly envision their lives without each other. Charles needs Harry to wait on him hand and foot and to comfort him when he breaks down; Harry needs to feel needed, and Charles is the only person who can fit the bill for him. The exchanges between Harry and Charles are vile, bitchy, and condescending. At one point, they resort to physical violence. Only once, when Charles fears that Harry is dead, does any sort of humanity come through. Otherwise, it's like an all-male version of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," with Rex Harrison in the Elizabeth Taylor role.

Harrison's character shares the same name as the film's screenwriter, Charles Dyer, who also penned the stage play upon which the movie is based. I don't know if Dyer is straight or gay, but he's homophobic and makes no attempt to disguise it. Director Stanley Donen, known for classics like "Singing in the Rain," drains any semblance of warmth or hope from the film. Even the staging is cold and dreary and depressing - most of the film takes place in Harry and Charles' run-down, cramped apartment.

Harrison and Burton are surprisingly effective as the sparring partners. Though they generate no sparks together, they bring out in each other the physical and spiritual despair the characters are living.

"Staircase" is a film lacking any sense of pride or dignity. It's a sad look back at how homosexuals were once regarded, but it gets two stars for at least being a sobering gay history lesson.


Burton and Harrison mince, preen, prance, and flounce about the screen in a horrendous display of bad acting. This movie would set gay rights back a century if it weren't so badly made and badly dated. One must wonder what made it a hit on Broadway at the time. The score is an especially abysmal atrocity by Dudley Moore. All those involved (especially Donen) should be ashamed.


This movie is a real disaster: insulting, with awfully stereotypical acting and an incredibly poor script that one wonders why this movie has been made for.

If I had seen that movie as a closeted gay teen, I would have been shocked and ashamed. Fortunately I have seen it first as a (by then openly gay) movie-addict in my twenties, so I could dismiss it as only an embarrassingly bad film. Either you just forget about this miserable movie or you take it as a source for filmhistory, namely how bad, how ridiculous, how homophobic so-called comedies sometimes could be in the sixties (alas, there are not that many of this kind...). I'm afraid there's nothing more to say about it.


Stupefyingly miscast, Rex Harrison and Richard Burton attempt to act queeny in a pointless, depressing film about two aging gay men in 1969 England. For Christ's sake, they're both HAIRDRESSERS. That tells you everything you need to know about all the imagination and work that went into this film. Richard Burton is completely and utterly unconvincing as a gay man, and Rex Harrison seems absolutely lost, constantly squinting off into the distance as if he was looking for Eliza Doolittle, or at least a decent Pushmi-Pullyu. This movie is so thoroughly bad that it isn't even good for humor value. It oozes homophobia from every rotten frame, and the main message it seems to have is that homosexuals are loathsome people and should loathe themselves, in public, out loud, as often as possible, while prancing about with bad hairstyles. Watching Harrison and Burton play gay men will give any modern viewer the same sick cringing feeling you get from watching Stepin Fetchit say "Yassuh, Boss!" in old 40's movies. THIS MOVIE SHOULD BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS. IF GIVEN THE CHOICE BETWEEN SUICIDE OR THIS MOVIE, CHOOSE SUICIDE.


A gay couple (Rex Harrison and Richard Burton) in 1960s England. Burton is a hairdresser (of course) and Harrison is an actor. They complain nonstop, tear each other apart verbally, dress horribly, hate their mothers and are depressed and full of self-loathing.

I suppose this was revolutionary in 1969 but it's horribly offensive today. The movie was subtitled "A sad gay story". The script is dull, the film looks horrible and the actors...Harrison minces around and preens so much I got very angry--a sick, disgraceful performance. I heard he wasn't too proud of it either. Burton is actually OK--he brings some dignity to his role. But this film is a total waste of time. It just shows gay men as being pathetic lonely creatures and is very condescending. Offensiveness aside it's sleep-inducing--I kept dozing off! Sick, depressing, homophobic...there's no reason to see this. Makes "Boys in the Band" look like a comedy.

Dudley Moore did the music!!!


STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

A spoof comic relief take on the re-generated comic book movie trend, with Rowan Atkinson in the lead as Spider-Man (a.k.a. Peter Piper!!!) and Jim Broadbent and Tony Robinson as Batman and his sidekick Robin.

Atkinson was reportedly going through a bit of a bad patch when this was made, and it shows as this is certainly not one of his best works. The main running (and most obvious) joke ('oh, look out Spider-Man, it's Batman!!!' 'No, it's Fathers 4 Justice!!!') gets annoying and over-used and I don't think Batman and Robin were meant to be cast as two middle-aged men who're famous for appearing in more high-brow stuff than this. The supporting cast, from rising comic talent Mackenzie Crook to singing hottie Rachel Stevens, don't add anything that couldn't have been done (potentially better) by anyone else. The spoof Michael Jackson interview Atkinson did a few years back for CR is an example of how he can make this kind of thing work, but this is one to avoid. *


In an age where fundamentalism is on the rise and science is under attack - its is documentaries like these that should inspire imaginations and help the layman to appreciate the depth and breadth of science. Instead, this whole documentary skips over the real good stuff and focuses on doomsday scenarios...constantly! Countless times Sam would talk about an aspect of space and then somehow find a way to link it to the end of the world...then comes the dramatic music and a 3D model of the Earth blowing up.

Incredible shame that someone like the BBC with its financial means and influence would resort to a Macdonalds wrapped sensationalist piece of garbage devoid of real science. Think I will stick to PBS for 'real' science documentaries from now on. Don't bother with this tripe!


This is the worst space/science documentary I have ever seen. There is no real science in it, mostly is just tries to amaze with doomsday scenarios where the earth is destroyed. (ohh the sun will blow up one day ... scary!) Also, there seems to be a lot of time spent on corny graphics, which isn't necessary nor visually pleasing.

The section on black holes does not even describe the event horizon or singularity, very simply and key traits.

Then there is the fact that it is called hyperspace, yet I don't think it mentions higher dimensional space anywhere in the documentary.

My opinion, If you want a science documentary, look elsewhere.


After brilliant documentaries from BBC, like The Planets or The Life of Birds, I'm surprised they bother to sell this c*** on DVD.

In stead of checking out "Space" try Armageddon. The effect are better.


I saw the director's short film which was not good but at least interesting and much better than this full-length movie "Bosque de sombras". Gary Oldman is obviously the only star in this movie but contrary to what the other reviewer said, I believed the Spanish cast was good. It was interesting to hear Gary Oldman speak some Spanish and I give this movie 3 stars because of Aitana Sanchez-Gijon and him.

Aitana Sanchez-Gijon, who is an excellent Spanish actress that I last watched in "The Machinist" with Christian Bale and was also in other English language movies like "A Walk in the clouds" plays Gary Oldman's wife. She can express mystery and emotion without saying any dialogue. I think she is one of the best but underrated Spanish actresses today. Lluís Homar was brilliant, in my opinion, and also the little girl.

I was mixed about Paddy Considine. I think he is a good actor but next to Gary Oldman, he was less interesting. In "Cinderella man" with Russel Crowe, he was excellent and also in "In America," but in this movie, he was only interesting when he was not in a scene with Gary Oldman but in scenes with the other actors, he steals every scene. I think that shows how strong Gary Oldman is that brilliant actors like Considine seem to fade next to him.

This movie is the first English language movie for Virginie Ledoyen since "The Beach" and I think it is fair to say that she will always be known as the girl from "The Beach" because she is a bland and boring actress. Even in french films she is dull because she lacks the range that other actresses her age have. In this movie, she is not at all convincing as her character. She "acts" better in her 30-second adverts for L'Oréal.

The biggest problem of this movie is the writing and the directing. Serra and his co-writer lack the skill in writing a coherent and original scénario. Stealing from other movies was a bad idea. There should have been more development in this to make it a real movie. Also, Serra uses the camera techniques of 70's directors which is OK at first but when he does this all the time it is distracting and does not serve any purpose except style. We all know it is set in the 70's but the directing should always be related to the story because style is cheap and easy and anyone who works only on style with no script should just direct commercials and music videos. Skip this movie and rent "Straw dogs" instead.


This was one of the movies I saw in Cannes last month during the film market (it was not part of the festival, which is different) and possibly the worst movie I've seen in a while.

The trailer showed promise. The only reason I went to the screening was because of star Gary Oldman. After the movie ended, myself and my colleagues wondered out loud why Gary Oldman decided to do this empty, shallow movie which was full of clichés and obvious homages to Leone and movies like Deliverance that don't amount to much. A chance to play in Spanish maybe ? That is the only mystery we have in this movie : why did Gary Oldman do it ?

The performances of most of the actors were good except for Virginie Ledoyen who still has not showed that she can play more than one style. I wished the producers had chosen a better actress who has depth and more chemistry with her co-stars. She was by far the weakest actor of the 5 main actors in this movie. Paddy Considine was good as her husband. I'm always impressed by Considine's performances and here he was the actor that gave the most impressive performance out of them all. Gary Oldman and Aitana Sanchez-Gijon were effective as the other married couple. Except for Homar, the rest of the supporting Spanish cast seemed like amateurs doing their first movie.

This is a movie about incommunication and the effects, but unfortunately that theme never gets fully developed. Besides the performance of Considine, the only other good point of this movie is the cinematography.

Everything else about this movie makes it more suitable for viewing as a direct-to-DVD instead of in the theatres. The people I work with did not buy the movie and no one in our company recommended it or felt it was worth it. I don't think Filmax sold it to anyone at the market. Oldman and Considine are good, but 2 good actors are not enough to save a bad film.

I miss seeing Gary Oldman in good films and hope he makes smarter choices in the future. Now I will have to wait for the next Batman to see Oldman in a good film.


While holidaying in the Basque region of Spain, two couples discover a child whose hands are severely misshapen. The child has been gravely mistreated, and, as a result, cannot communicate. The two couples reluctantly decide to rescue her and report her circumstances to the authorities. However, severe weather and the denseness of the forest surrounding their holiday home make it impossible for them to make a quick getaway. Soon, the local inhabitants become aware that the girl is missing, and they rightly suspect the holiday-makers of taking her. Suspicions and paranoia begin to fester, and it isn't long before violence erupts. The villagers demand the little girl's return, and her rescuers refuse to give her up. A deadly game of cat-and-mouse ensues, making a return to normalcy impossible for everyone involved.

The premise for The Backwoods is an intriguing one. The idea of how quickly basic human instincts make situations spiral out of control, is nearly always used to good effect in movies. For any writer/director, this concept opens up a myriad of opportunities to shock, as well as to fascinate. This fact probably accounts for why this device is a much-overused set piece. Films of this genre, when well executed, are guaranteed, at the very least, cult-classic status (e.g., Deliverance and Straw Dogs). However, when poorly executed, the resultant films can resemble a confusing, farcical mess. Unfortunately, The Backwoods is an example of the latter.

The Backwoods starts off well, trying to develop the main characters, before violence eventually erupts. However, what we have learned of their character in the initial scenes gives us little insight as to why the characters react as they do to the situation they are dealt. For example, Oldman's character, Paul, is the only one of the four main characters who is thoroughly determined to save the girl. At no time does he falter, even when he could save his life by telling the villagers where the disfigured girl is. This character trait does not hold true, because, up to this point, his character has appeared arrogant and overbearing, with little or no regard for those around him. Having said this, the four leads all give solid, believable performances, and, for the most part, cover up, rather than expose, the inconsistencies in their characters' nature.

Apart from flaws in the development of central characters, this movie has other problems. First, the deformity that the little girl has seems too ludicrous to be believable. If you have ever seen Batman Returns, and you remember the misshapen hands that The Penguin had, you will get the idea. As a viewer, the fact that the little girl has "Penguin hands" makes it hard to take her plight seriously. And finally, the main reason why this movie is farcical rather than stimulating is the movie styles to which it chooses to pay homage. I can understand the stylish, 1970s-vibe it tries to recreate, and I can also appreciate the nods directed toward Peckinpah and Boorman. But, what I can't understand is why the writer and director chose to insert a Sergio Leone-style climactic scene. Up until the final scene, the movie has tried to be dark and thought-provoking. Up until the final moments it has tried to teach the audience something about the human psyche; it has failed miserably, but it has tried. And then, all of the sudden, ten minutes before the end, you have a man-on-man gunfight, reminiscent of a spaghetti western. This ultimate fight appears to be forced and is very much out of place. The only thing that links this final scene to what has preceded it, is the fact that the ultimate scene's outcome is as confusing and pointless as the rest of the movie.

In short, The Backwoods is a jumbled mess, which is full of inconsistencies in character, plot, and style. The only factor that rescues The Backwoods from being a complete disaster are the proficient performances of its lead actors. If you want to watch a film that explores basic human instincts, why not try Magnolia Pictures', The Signal. You will find that film a lot more entertaining and a lot less confusing than this shambolic piece of film-making.


This movie just meanders around in the woods for awhile, much like the cast, and then ends.

I like Gary Oldman and I have to admit the other actors did a good job. The movie was very well done, cinematically and directorialy, however, it just didn't go anywhere. And, at least for me, there were a few important points that needed a bit more explanation.

Like why was the little girl locked up? It had something to do with her mother and someone having offended God, I think, but otherwise you just have to guess.

And, what happened to Gary Oldman's dog?

I found the characters hard to warm up to. I just didn't care what happened to any of them. I can't really recommend this as some sort of underrated masterpiece. It isn't.


Being a huge Gary Oldman fan, I had high hopes for this film. And the "Deleverence/Straw Dogs"-esquire story about an English couple vacationing at their friends house in a remote part of Spain where they find a poor child locked away in chains and have to face the wraith of local villagers, started off well enough. It had some good atmosphere and it kept my attention, however sadly It seems to run out of steam and lose it's direction somewhere along the way. I felt my interest waning as the story seemed to limp along to an extremely unsatisfying ending (however at that point I no longer cared) It IS always cool to see Oldman though.

My Grade: C-

Eye Candy: Virginie Ledoyen & Aitana Sánchez-Gijón both bare all

Lion's Gate Region 1 DVD Extras: Trailers for "The Eye" remake, "Retribution", "Christie's Revenge", "Dead Man's Bounty", & "Blood Trails"; and a promo for Fear.net


Oh say it ain't so, Gary Oldman! Having been a fairly big fan of Mr. Oldman (even having enjoyed his performance as Zorg in THE FIFTH ELEMENT), I've come to expect a certain level of entertainment from his film choices. Not so here.

Gary Oldman (HARRY POTTER films) stars as Paul, an Englishman on holiday in Spain's backwoods with his wife and another couple when they run afoul of the locals who are hiding a young girl away in what seems to be sickening conditions (they find her tied by the ankle in a dilapidated home drinking from a dog bowl). "Saving" the girl, they bring her back to their distant cabin and learn that some yocal-locals are looking for her ...and their carrying rifles.

Hiding her away, the English vacationers quickly learn that the nearby township will do whatever necessary to retrieve her ...including raping or shooting anyone who gets in their way.

Probably the biggest issue with this film is that it has no purpose, and flings about in uncertainty up to and beyond its horrible ending. It is never explained why the girl is tied up in the first place (she does act like an animal and the audience is left wondering if she were some sort of mentally handicapped kid or a hybrid human-canine, or even a werewolf ...but none of these are ever explored in any depth).

The acting is so over-the-top that I often wondered if the scenes were supposed to be taken seriously or were designed for laughs.

Regardless as to intentions, THE BACKWOODS should remain on the extreme "back shelf" of all DVD rental stores ...if stocked at all!


This movie has to be one of the worse movies I've ever seen. The plot seems to start all of these mine story lines but does nothing with them, all of the characters are poorly developed, the main story line makes absolutely no sense, and it just plain isn't scary.

I'd avoid this one at all costs, there was absolutely no point in seeing this movie. It had a bad plot, bad characters, bad direction, and mostly bad acting.

But on a somewhat good note, I have no idea who Gary Oldman is, but he most certainly had a very good screen presence. His acting isn't too great, but I think it is because he was not given a character to act out. But he definitely is talented.

Overall a just plain bad film.


WOW - if there was a movie police........ this movie would be removed from the marked! And the character Norman is so annoying that you just wanna step into the film and shoot him over and over again! The only plus there is in that film is the scene where you see Virginie Ledoyen in her underwear.

The film is at NO point scary, exiting or anything - it starts out "ok" (first 12 minutes) by leading up to something that could be a nice movie - but fails to deliver IN ANY way or form.

Be warned..... Don't waste your time watching this movie! Not even Gary Oldman can lift this film to anything near worth watching! And the 53 votes for 10 - MUST be from someone related to the film! THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE COULD RATE THIS MOVIE A 10 !!! NO FRAGING WAY!


I expected so much more from Mick Malloy and Glen Robbins. This movie was definitely a 'cringer'. The plot was thin, the humor was weak, immature and unchecked - like little boys laughing at their own jokes. As a woman I was offended, not so much by the lyrics themselves, but by the concept that women in general would be entertained by such rubbish. On the more positive side, I felt that 1980's style film clips were effective and realistic. I quite enjoyed the contemporary BoyTown film clips and would have appreciated lyrics with intelligent humor. The acting was good, filming effective. I would definitely not put this in the same class as The Dish, The Castle or Crackerjack.


Well, what a strange film that was indeed... The amount of hype that this movie received when it was released in the cinemas was complete overkill and did not justify the quality of the film, which really should be avoided like the plague. Australian comedy really is much better than this, with this feature being a black spot in Australian film history. I was left wondering "Is that it? Is that all that they could do with the amount of talent in the cast?".

The tag-line of "Population Five" might actually apply to the number of people that may have been left in the cinema by about half-way through the movie after everyone had stood up and departed..... I've got a feeling that the whole production and cast are laughing at the people who actually paid to see the film - I'm sure many people who went to see this in the cinema would have left bitterly disappointed.

There was a bit of a storyline in this film, but it just seemed that the film was trying to squeeze too much out of the limited time utilized. The issues of family and comradeship were dealt with rather well, especially in relation to the main character (Benny G, played by Glenn Robbins), but the film left the audience wanting more from the heavily underutilized cast. And yes, I agree with the other reviewer (sallyforth1) about the ending, which seemed to be written hurriedly within five minutes in an effort to just be done with the project.


The experience of watching Boytown left me as underwhelmed as I have possibly ever been in my movie-going lifetime. It's understandable if a film is simply poor, but when the talent on disposal here comes up with something as utterly dull as what we see on Boytown, the frustration soon turns to sheer hostility.

With a tremendous legacy to Australian comedy with his appearances on the The Late Show and on radio Mick Molloy appeared headed towards a promising movie career with the release of his first film Crackerjack, an enjoyable F.O.W romp with an outstanding ensemble cast and a handful of legitimate laugh-out-loud moments. If Boytown is anything to go by Molloy is already out of ideas as a writer and his performance on the screen (much like the rest of the cast) lacks energy and the chemistry that we should expect from a cast that includes Glenn Robbins, Bob Franklin and Wayne Hope, all of them veterans of the Australian comedy scene with many years of experience working together.

If there's anything to be taken from the film it's that a handful of the songs may bring a smile to your face, but Spinal Tap these guys ain't. If anything Molloy should have brought more of the silliness of the song lyrics to the script. Instead Boytown relies solely on it's silly premise while the performers actually appearing on screen are uninteresting and lifeless and ultimately unfunny. Wayne Hope is totally wasted as the butt of lame homosexual jokes while Glenn Robbins, one of the most talented comedic clowns in Australian television history is inexplicably one of the most boring straight men to play the lead in an Australian comedy in recent memory.

The biggest disappointment though is Molloy. That a guy of genuine talent can be content releasing uninspiring filth such as Boytown suggests he is careless, or worse, ran out of ideas on Crackerjack. At least it doesn't look like he's having too much fun on screen - I can't imagine how anyone watching could have any fun off it.


When I first saw the trailer for this film, I was excited. Some of my all time favourite Aussie comedians in one film together, with an intriguing premise of a mature aged boy band. Unfortunately nothing is really built from this premise.

BoyTown comes out as a convoluted mess that can't decide on a style, with jokes and a 'story' that is predicable and the worst ending in film history. BoyTown jumps between being a normal film, a behind the music documentary, and a fly on the wall documentary which ends up only confusing the audience. The documentary parts either do nothing but tell us information that we already have and the fly on the wall documentary only serves to set up the joke for the films ending which is just slapped on leaving many things unresolved and was a poor excuse to think up a proper ending.

There really isn't much character development at all. Any evidence of a proper story is left for the last 20 minutes of the film and is so obvious that the audience knows exactly what is going to happen in the first ten minutes. The only laughable thing about this film is that the ffc funded such an unsatisfying stupid film whilst films like 'Kenny' have to struggle to find finance themselves. No wonder the Australian Film Industry gets such a bad rap with films like BoyTown.


I was as excited as a child on Christmas Eve as I made my way to the Cinema to watch this brand new Australian 'Comedy'. All I can say was, whilst the 'actors' tried hard, and an honorable mention is given to 'Benny G' (played by Glenn Robbins), they failed to get more than a handful of laughs from the entire audience.

Constant errors in the dialog, strange and rather improbable plot structures and a lack of a genuine sense of humor ruined this film - one which had so much potential, and was bandied around the Australian television and radio airwaves as a potential Aussie classic.

The script was poor, and when a more humorous part of the film occurred, it was quickly wiped away by overkill. I came away struggling to find any positives from this film, which at only 88 minutes in duration, was hardly even one of those 'worth the money' experiences.

Give the film ago if you have nothing better to do with just under 1 and a half hours, otherwise, wait until it hits the local video store shelves, and gaze at the cover of something that could have been, should have been, but stumbled terribly short of the mark.


All ironies aside of old entertainment has-beens making a film about being old entertainment has-beens, allot of Molloy's comedic magic pre-2002 seems to have gone walk-about in this epic tale of the original 90's boy band getting together to once again make it big.

The premise could have worked if the irreverence of Crackerjack had been carried through, but it seemed more like a cynical money-spinner with few genuine laughs (some great concepts) and a somewhat rushed story line - a little strange that in the first half hour Robbins convinced a bunch of people he apparently hadn't seen for years to drop whatever they were doing in their own lives and join his quest to live in the past.

If you're a fanboy of Molloy/Robbins, then there may be some value in this flick, but for pure entertainment value Boytown falls short. I in fact walked out of this after 40 minutes to catch a second screening of Children of Men in the cinema besides, the only thing keeping me from feeling ripped off.


Back in the late eighties, before New Kids on the Block graced our ears, there was the boy band that started it all; BoyTown. Their stardom didn't last long, but paved way for every other boy band that follow. Since then, each member; Benny G, Tommy Boy, Bobby Mac, Carl and Corey split ways, with many stuck in ruts and jobs they loath. Benny G though has been stuck in the past, constantly thinking of his fame he once had. To relive these days, Benny wants to regroup the band to reclaim their title of the best boy band.

Australia has been expanding it's range of films being produced the past few years. Hard hitting dramas and stepping into the horror/thriller genre, yet a corner stone of the Australian film industry has been the under dog tale; the little guy taking on the big man. The Castle is a great example of this, but this constant retelling grew very thin. While time has past since a good under dog tale, does BoyTown turn the tide; no.

Mick Molloy struck a vein of freshness with Crackerjack; an under dog tale itself, yet mixed great comedy while nicely taking a stab at lawn bowls. Molloy slipped slightly with Bad Eggs, but slips even further here. That freshness he brought too Crackerjack has gone stale. Molloy, and his brother Richard, bring nothing new to the proceedings for a formulaic film; much too how they say boy bands are tired and repetitive.

BoyTown taps into the sexual innuendo created in mock-doc This is Spinal Tap. Dancing around singing about women's "Special time of the month" and "Pussywhipped" lack the laughs it aims. Spinal Tap had a knowing naivety, pelting out "Big Bottom", but McKean and Guest brought an innocence of 'we're just making music'. BoyTown miss the mirth and zeal, with songs that sound so meticulously made, just for a cheap laugh; manufactured to the last note.

The Molloy brothers don't delve deep into to bring some true great satire. The material was all there, boy bands are such easy targets, ripping out song after song of lost love and crooning over some woman, but drop the ball early on. Wayne Hope's play on the 'gay is he straight' member is boring for the get go, he should have injected more play and taken a cue from Bruce James's steward in Snakes on a Plane.

There is heart and a sweetness to BoyTown, but with every sentimental moment wrung to its extreme and nothing new brought, BoyTown will fade away like so many boy bands.


I really like Mick Molloy, "Crackerjack" being one of his best and I liked the trailers for Boytown, so expected to love it. However, something is wrong with the comic timing in this venture. There were a few genuine raucous laughs but this was mostly really feeble painful try hard humour that made me cringe and wince instead of laugh.

The music to the songs was reasonable enough, but the lyrics were all pathetic and unfortunately there were too many lame songs and not enough substance.

Mick, please try for your more subtle brand of humour next time. Your "Mum" was the only entertaining character in this venture.


Mick Malloy needs to crawl under a rock and expire. Crackerjack is the only movie I've ever walked out on. Boytown comes a close second for worst movie ever, let alone worst Australian film.

Seriously, who is financing this crap? Please, to the AFC, FFC and any other financiers, DO NOT waste any more money forcing us to see Mick Malloy on our TV and movie screens...p l e a s e! 'the reason that the movie is so "Badly Acted" is that it's supposed to be taking the mickey out of the music industry'. No, the reason it's badly acted is because these people cannot act! An awful awful movie. Don't waste your money on this pile of stink.

If you like this movie, I can recommend a good therapist.


This was just flat out embarrassing. Mediocre beginning, silly middle, stupid ending.

May I have my money back, please?

I normally enjoy Glenn Robbins but I found him to be totally superficial in this film. And I expect much better from Mick Molloy.

You could see what few jokes there were coming from miles away.

I'm in the age demographic which made up the concert audiences screaming for Boytown and, for the life of me, I couldn't figure out why those women were there. The song lyrics were juvenile and the tunes all sounded exactly the same.

I would have walked out of the arena; I should have walked out of the movie theatre.

If I were part of a boy band, I would sue everyone involved with the making of this movie.


Boytown, written by Mick and Richard Molloy tells the tale of a hugely popular fictional Australian 80's boy band, getting back together in 2006. It stars some of the cream of the crop of Australian comic talent including Wayne Hope, Glenn Robbins, Bob Franklin, Tony Martin and Mick Molloy himself.

When I heard about this movie some time ago, I was the first to admit, this idea has been done before many times, in sketch shows, and cleverly in a Cruel Sea video clip. So, how on earth was Molloy and his team going to sustain an 88 minute film based on one lousy idea? Well the answer is, that they don't.

Boytown is a poorly directed and even more atrociously written comedy without any funny dialogue or a hint of intelligence, it makes the average other Molloy outing, 'Crackerjack' look incredible in comparison. The worst sin this movie commits is somehow wasting the talent of the cast and not giving geniuses like Wayne Hope, Glenn Robbins and Bob Franklin a single funny line.

Sure, some of the songs are funny, but you get the impression the script is sometimes just a vehicle to showcase these songs. The movie is swamped in comic conservatism, there is not a single fresh idea or unpredictably clever scene; with the exception of an admittedly hilarious cameo from a Brazilian seductress. But any good work in the movie is undone by the ending which is frankly terrible and leads me to believe Mick hired a primary school kid to solve his case of writers block.

All in all, it was a bad idea, executed badly, with a fantastic cast that was badly wasted. However, its still a league above David Spade, Rob Schnieder, Adam Sandler and the gang and for that reason I will give it 3/10. For a funny Australian movie go no further than Bad Eggs or The Castle, or just buy the 3 seasons of the Micallef P(r)ogram(me).


My partner and I won tickets to see the Sydney sneak preview so off we went last night (Monday 16th October)

Let me begin by saying 'that is 88 minutes of my life that I will never get back"

I was set to see a great Aussie flick; instead I found it mind numbingly boring, predictable 'comedy' (and I use that term lightly)

It was more of a reflection on a horde of has been 'comedians' (and I use that term lightly also) who have unceremoniously used their names and positions on radio stations around Australia to tout the movie as being the best thing since sliced bread

Suggest you spend 88 minutes watching the grass grow than see this movie

I think I would have enjoyed having my fingernails ripped off one by one followed by an acid bath more than that ghastly piece of 'Australian Film making'


Was this supposed to be a comedy, a comedy/drama or what? The story revolves around a small time British singer named Toni Cocozza,(Ian Hart) why his name is spelled with an i on the end of it, I have no idea, and it was never explained.

His big hero is Frank Sinatra and he mostly sings Sinatra songs, (I don't know if the actor did his own singing or not), accompanied by an older man on the piano, who is a friend of his, named Bill (Alun Armstrong). Bill walks with a limp and a cane, but we're never told why.

Toni is so nerdy looking he is kind of like the poor man's Barry Manilow on a bad day. I don't know if we are supposed to think this character is nerdy looking or not, but he strictly is with his frizzy permed hair, weak chin and weasel-like, beady eyes.

Toni isn't doing all that great in the singing biz, but a mobster's elderly wife, named Dainty, is quite a fan.

This leads to Toni getting involved with the mob and the mob's henchmen.

He is advised against doing this by his friend, Bill, but Toni doesn't realize it is going to lead to consequences.

There is also a romantic interest, a cigarette girl named Irene (Kelly MacDonald), who is rather pretty but stands out no more than any other of today's actresses.

The ending is rather abrupt and the viewer is left wondering just how they could possibly pull it off, nor are we shown the details.

I was somewhat surprised that gangsters apparently leave the doors unlocked, and the keys in the ignition, of their cars, at all times.

Toni Cocozza is a nice enough guy, but the actor playing him was so unappealing, plus the abrupt ending, has me giving this film only 3 stars.


Aside from a couple of low budget genre films, this has to be about the worst movie I have ever seen. Here is the breakdown:

Directing = F Prince does not know what to do with a camera. Possibly George Lucas might have been able to do a worse job directing this.

Cinematography= B There are a number of sweet shots in this film.

Costumes = A I want to own every outfit I saw Prince wearing this film!

Script = F Dumb, dumb dumb. Wrecka Stow? I wouldn't have laughed at that when i was in grade school (and yes, I get it. Who could not get it?). I am just absolutely baffled by that scene. The rest is not much better. The script kills the film's ability to be funny, and its ability to draw you into the romance.

Chemistry = B & F Prince and his sidekick have a chemistry that really works well. Given funny material, they could have really made some movie magic. A bad script pretty much sinks them, however. The chemistry between Prince and the women in the movie is nearly non-existent. The phone conversation scene was good, but that is just about it. Other than that, the romantic connection seemed awkward and forced. so B for Prince's chemistry with the male co-star, and an F for his chemistry with the 2 females.

Acting = B Not bad acting really. All the main characters (except the older woman prince wants for her money at the beginning) do a good job.

conclusion: Atrocious script and terrible directing sink this flick. Good acting, chemistry, and soundtrack cannot save it.


I am a fan of Prince. Don't get me wrong. But this movie was as bad as most people thought it to be. If you notice in most of the positive reviews here, the author will often say something like, "Of all of Prince's movies..." Look, if you have seen more than 2 of Prince's movies, you are a Prince groupie and thus can not be counted on to give an unbiased review. Personally, after this train wreck, I refrained from seeing any more of his theatrical releases and stuck to just enjoying his music. So, if Graffiti Bridge was a good movie...I can't tell you. I loved Purple Rain, though. But sometimes you catch lightning in a bottle and you just can't reproduce it. Can't blame him for trying though.


This movie isn't much of anything. It's not really smart, nor polished, nor good at all. Plus, Kristen Scott Thomas's character, Mary, was getting on my nerves. In some ways, it was a blend of art deco from the 1930's, with high priced aristrocratcy, and that cheesey 1980's thing. Not really creative at all in my opinion! Sorry! See "Purple Rain". It's not excellent either, but it's better than this!