Why do these movies feel they need to include a bratty, spoiled, overbearing kid?? The ridiculous performance of Jaden Smith added annoyance to the empty script.

The movie starts off well enough, and then tries miserably to develop the characters and make us care for them. The Bates role is absurd; Cleese's role has virtually nothing to say this amazing encounter. The military point of view is typical; as if there's only one area where the military is useful (I would expect nothing less from "Hollywood").

There were some very interesting ideas (the sphere-like ship, the nanobots, the Gort acronym) and the effects were top notch, however Gort (the one thing the movie had going for it) was on screen for less then 10 minutes.

Keanu was perfectly cast and Connelly does a good job with what's given to her. All in all, another flop of a remake. This actually makes the War of the Worlds remake shine.

I saw this movie in IMAX - if you're going to see it, find an IMAX theater. Lastly, am I the only sick of seeing the same old New York back drop? I love New York City, but come on! Be original!


I don't know about the earth standing still but I certainly had a hard time moving after this one finished. I think I may have been in shock. I didn't know they still made movies as bad as this. That's me, I guess; the eternal optimist, thinking one day Hollywood will see the error of their ways. I'm starting to think there's a greater chance of aliens landing in Manhattan though. You don't take a highly regarded classic like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and update it for no reason other than to make a few bucks. Sure, you can pretend there is purpose; you can cash in on the current environmental crisis fears by insinuating that aliens have come to earth to save the planet from the horrifically unappreciative human race. When you make a film with such disregard for quality though, you can't do anything to convince me that you actually care about what you're trying to say.

I will give Hollywood this though; they have finally found the perfect vehicle for the now- veteran Hollywood actor, Keanu Reeves. Reeves plays Klaatu, an alien in human form who has no capacity of expressing human emotion or understanding the intricacies of human nature and interaction. It might as well say that at the top of Reeves's resume so this is Reeves in his element. Honestly though, this is the first time I can say that Reeves's presence in a film has absolutely nothing to do with why it is unwatchable. You know you have a problem when dialogue is so bad that it even drags Reeves's acting down. In fact, having the familiar Reeves on board for this uneventful journey, alongside the strikingly beautiful, Jennifer Connelly, at least gives us something pretty to distract us from the banality of the entire affair. Klaatu certainly rocks that three-piece suit though.

The earth is supposed to stand still on this particular day because aliens have descended upon Central Park in a giant weather sphere of sorts. It is a momentous occasion, one that could be the sign of the end of days. Yet, in THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, panic hardly seems to be in the air. Panic comes from a fear of the unknown and an inability to see a solution to your problems but David Scarpa's script is so painstakingly obvious and formulaic that you can see right through to the end at all times. I hope I'm not giving anything away here but as if this film would finish with humanity's extinction. And when the devices used to create the melodrama are so laughably contrived (who knew that a white step mom and a black step son could have such hard times getting along?), at least you have the special effects to revel in. Mind you, when the special effects are even more ridiculous than the ensuing melodrama in a big sci-fi pic like this, what is there to keep you sitting still, let along standing?

You'll never believe this but humanity, or at least the American government run portion of humanity, take immediate military action against the alien invaders before giving them the chance to make their case. This next bit is even more shocking. Apparently, violence is not the answer to solving our problems. I swear, I learned so many hard life lessons watching this movie. Perhaps the most important lesson though is that humanity will never learn. THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL represents the same disposable and commercial interests that are the root of our environmental problems. Yet, here is it preaching against the very values that justify its existence. For that reason alone, I would consider this film to be one of the most hopeless (and hapless) films of the year. We're essentially doomed so I say you can take it, Klaatu. Earth is all yours. We clearly don't deserve it.


The Day the Earth Stood Still is an utterly pointless movie remake. The original - and I'll pause here for everyone who's never seen it to roll their eyes - is one of the best sci-fi films of all times. This modern telling keeps only the names of the characters and abandons everything else.

In this version the trouble starts early on. Alien visitors arrive on earth (in an improbably crowded Central Park at night) but we don't see the landing of their vessel. Instead we get lots of dramatic mist and scientist types in haz-mat gear looking lost. Keanu/Klaatu emerges from a pretty orb, greets the pretty microbiologist, then gets shot.

Cue Gort, the indestructible robot guardian of peace. In what should have been the most dramatic part of the film ends up being its biggest disappointment. Gort, a textbook example of budget CGI filmaking, appears and makes a loud noise that frightens police dogs. And just when he seems poised to open a can of whip-ass, he gets silenced by Keanu/Klaatu who is coiled up in a fetal position on the pretty microbiologist's lap.

The rest of the movie plays like a throwaway Spielberg vehicle with a cute kid, lots of cheap sentiment, an alien who eventually goes home and the never-ending message that Love Will Save The Day.

Listen folks, save your money and seek out the 1951 version, filmed in beautiful black & white. The soundtrack alone is worth the price of a rental and when you see it, you can join the legions of fans who's eyes glaze over when they hear those three immortal words: klaatu barada nicto.


Ouch! $11 times 2 wasted on IMAX. There are so many plot holes in this film I don't know where to begin. 1. A UFO is rushing towards NYC. Prediction is a cataclysmic collision. They assemble a team of scientists and rush them right to ground zero. Are you kidding? Never happen. 2, The UFO "lands" and the first people out are the scientists. Even ahead of the military. One walks right up to shake hands with the alien. Please! Never happen. 3.Klaatu is brought for interrogation. They bring him into a room with a lone interrogator and leave. Are you kidding? No guards in the room? Never happen. 4. The military decides to enclose GORT in giant steel panels. They built these in a matter of hours? How? Where? 5. After enclosing him, he is lowered into some underground laboratory that appears custom-made for him. Where did that come from? How did they get him there? 6. They break a diamond drill on GORT and say it will take 24 hours to fix. The boss barks "Fix it now"!. They send in a poor schlub who promptly screws on a new drill bit. Then the sucker dies. 7. Klaatu meets with another of his kind who has lived among us for 70 years and apparently become quite fond of us. Why didn't he convince the rest of the aliens not to destroy humanity? He came to the same conclusion that Klaatu eventually reaches. 8. The "swarm" is destroying everything man-made in its path. We see it destroy Giants Stadium in a matter of seconds. Then it is in Central Park. Why aren't all the buildings in Manhattan falling down? Klaatu hasn't done anything to stop them up to this point. Oh--I could go on and on. Then there are all of the plot clichés; Good scientist resists evil government. Frustrated step-mom/ disconnected stepson find redemption through love of dead father/husband. Boo hoo hoo. Stupid general fires all his big guns at indestructible alien. You know what's going to happen. Yup, general gets destroyed/vaporized/eaten. Oh, fugitive scientist, alien, and kid go to see kindly old professor. They always do that. And the authorities always show up there. This movie stinks on ice. I'm not a huge fan of the original but at least that had a story and decent acting.


A schizophrenic film. Scott Derrickson has done his best to make a run of the mill CGI-enhanced sci-fi thriller but has found himself thwarted by the remarkable screen presence of Keanu Reeves and the ghost of Bernard Herrmann.

Reeves was the draw for me; where some find him laughable, I find him sober and engaging. His alien-in-a-human is at once non-porous of emotion but registers the emotional to-ing and fro-ing that decide his actions. He's a classy screen idol, well-cast. The rest of the cast (the very capable Jennifer Connelly included) are at the mercy of a truly ridiculous story both in concept and in local narrative. The gravity of the situation in which humankind as represented by Americans finds itself is only captured in the single-gear performance of Reeves and the unobtrusive but peculiar 'Herrmann' score, resurrected for the film by Tyler Bates.

There's a lot of silliness - a lot of cartoonish world's end drama which, strangely, doesn't do what it purports to which is update the 1951 original. It still feels dated. We are also presented with John Cleese as a Nobel Prize winner. Well that's also ridiculous on the face of it - but I tell you something, if the end where nigh and you wanted someone leftfield to plead your seemingly intractable case, you'd do a lot worse than Cleese. As a final oddity the product placement in the film seems at odds with the frowning upon consumerism that's at it's heart. Or maybe they're companies leading the charge to save the world. It's all a bit confusing. 4/10


"The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a stunningly inept remake of the 1950's classic of the same name. It's one of those big-budget films so unfathomably dull and inane, you wonder how it ever got made. Whereas the original warned of the dangers of nuclear armament, this modern update boldly chides us for being mean to each other and not taking care of the environment. Gee, Hollywood, thanks for the swell insight! This Christmas season Hollywood teaches us that people can sometimes suck, but only that special kind of film can suck totally.

Although the entire production is horrible from top to bottom, the inert direction of Scott Derrickson and the randomly asinine script from David Scarpa bear most of the blame. The screenplay clearly went through arbitrary rewrites, perhaps after being focus-grouped to death, and shows not a single breath of imagination. Around every turn, it wastes opportunities and insults the intelligence of the audience and gives us not one authentic character or moment to connect to. Even when it thinks it's being cool (like the lame reveal that those alien spheres are actually "arks" trying to save animal life before the world is annihilated) the script fails miserably. One sphere that is shown on the back of a pick-up truck being attacked by flame-throwers in some foreign desert town inexplicably contains squid, because, well, the shadows of squid inside a giant sphere look kinda neat, that's why! At least the script teaches us one thing. Apparently all you need to do in order to survive an apocalyptic robotic alien insect attack that devours everything in sight is to hide under a bridge in Central Park!

The saddest part of the film is how the director wastes his talented cast. The always wooden Keanu Reeves was perfectly chosen to play the alien Klaatu, but even he seems to be disbelieving the words that are coming out of his mouth. Poor Jennifer Connelly, an immensely emotive and alluring actress, appears to be in physical pain or constipated for most the film, obviously stunned she agreed to star in this junk. Kathy Bates and John Cleese apparently showed up only for their paychecks and sleepwalk through their lines, and at one pivotal moment where Bates' Secretary of State attempts to show regret for some bad decisions made, she actually appears to fall asleep in her chair. And then there's poor little Jaden Smith, who appears bored to tears throughout the film and is given no direction from Derrickson except when he is asked to cry on cue in the supposed emotional climax of the picture that left me feeling sorry for all involved.

However, if anyone should be hung for this travesty, it's the producers, who must've run out of money at some point and filled the gap in funds with some nauseating product placement. How else do we explain Klaatu's trip to McDonald's for an important meeting with another of his kind?

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" is easily the worst film of the year. At least "The Happening" had its accidentally humorous moments. This clunker offers no such relief. Even the special effects are done in a lazy and unimaginative manner. It's so awful, I was stunned into stillness while the rest of the audience seemed to shrug their shoulders.


Probably the biggest letdown of my sci-fi viewing life. Even worse than the 3rd "Alien" movie. So many bad points that I can't remember them all. I'll touch on the lowlights.

First, as the unidentified object approached earth, everyone seemed dumb on the reason for the change in direction. Duh uh, like wouldn't a spacecraft immediately come to mind as a possibility?? Then the excitement and anticipation of a visible ship was taken away by clouds and fog and a vague vessel.

As stated elsewhere, the initial contact in the park was ended with Klatu getting shot for an offered handshake (no mysterious equipment popping open). And several times in the movie, there were vehicles, equipment and/or people more evenly spaced out (in large areas) than a marching band.

Rather than go over a scene by scene critique, the following complaints come to mind. 1)bad writing; all actors had trite and often repetitive lines. 2)The Secretary of State was scary, illogical, and didn't seem to be in much contact with the bosses(the President and VP). 3)Poor or no acting by the "Stars" and the kid. 4) choppy flow, frequently too slow or unclear. Weak continuity, scenes seemed to be just stuck together. 5) Gort was pathetic. Like the recent "Hulks", unconvincing CG and too big to realistically show it in contact with humans. (should have gotten Shaq for the part).... 6) No actor to actor chemistry ever formed. 7) The final scenes completely missed out on the dramas of the "standing still" time and the alien departure. What message did he leave us with?

Since I'm a poor typist and can't immediately recall all of my issues with the film, I'll end my comments by saying that I have no problem with changing a remake so that it is more up to date and offers some different twists to add interest. However, this film completely missed the mark of maintaining the strengths that the original script had, namely convincing acting with consistent story and character build-up leading to a dramatic final scene with a clear message to all of the world.

They could and should have done far far better.


Laughter makes the almost two hours not a total loss. But I don't think, somehow, that "The Day The Earth Stood Still" was meant as a comedy. They must have realize however, that having John Cleese as the scientist was bound to provoke some giggles. Keanu Reeves is priceless as the wooden, expressionless alien. A great, unintentional, comic creation. Kathy Bates, in pantsuits if you please, plays the American Secretary of Defense and the whole thing doesn't have a single ingredient of the elements that made the Robert Wise original one of the classics of its genre. The visual tricks are good but repetitive and rather confusing. I must admit I wasn't bored I was just puzzled.


So I was one of those people who was screaming no at The Day The Earth Stood Still remake, the original is one of my favorite movies. It's a terrific sci-fi film, probably the best to come out of the 50's era. I highly recommend it; moving onto the, sigh, remake. Keanu Reeves, mmmm, what on Earth about him scream alien? I guess since it looks like it hurts when his face expresses human emotion, he's what the director needed. But what I didn't appreciate about the remake is that it completely changed the story and the moral the first movie brought to us. If we were to have a remake of this story, at least it seems like in today's world it moral is more important than ever, that humans are just destroying themselves with all the technology and violence that we have created. Instead, I get 2 hours of Jennifer Connelly complaining to a stubborn Keanu Reeves on how much humans rock.

Dr. Helen Benson, a Princeton professor, and other scientists are hastily assembled by the government in order to formulate a survival plan when it is feared that a large unknown object is due to impact Manhattan in approximately 78 minutes. Nothing can be done about it because a vital military satellite has been disabled. It hits Earth and out of the sphere comes a being named Klaatu emerges from the sphere while accompanied by a large robot. Klaatu, a representative of a group of alien races, has come to assess whether humanity can reverse the environmental damage it has inflicted on planet Earth. In the frightened confusion, Klaatu is shot, but survives and is taken to a government facility. While recovering from his injuries, Klaatu is detained by Regina Jackson, the United States Secretary of Defense, and is barred from speaking to the United Nations. Klaatu manages to escape, and he soon finds himself eluding the authorities throughout northern New Jersey, specifically Newark and the forested Highlands, with Helen and her stepson Jacob. After speaking with Professor Barnhardt about how his own species went through drastic evolution to survive its sun's demise, Klaatu is convinced by Helen and Jacob that humans can change their ways and are worth saving The three go toward the sphere in Central Park to stop the machine from destroying the world.

So when I really think about this movie, it just makes me sad. I was going to be fair with the rating, but gosh, those special effects? For 2008, it seems like we got worse with CGI, the ending effects were just way way way over the top. Keanu Reeves is sadly the only convincing actor in the film...? Oh, my God, did I just say that? Not to mention, did Kathy Bates owe someone a favor? She's a terrific actress, why was she in here? I also love how Jaden Smith, Will Smith's son, is taking his daddy's footsteps in alien movies, does Will Smith come from another planet? Because it seems like that family is obsessed with aliens. I'm going to do you a favor and recommend watching the original Day the Earth Stood Still, believe me, it's so much better.

3/10


Just saw the film. It was AWFUL! What a way to ruin a classic film. This version has NOTHING on the original.

Plot:

(Global Warming) WEAK! Beginning sequence disjointed and confusing! More holes in this story than swiss cheese! What did the opening sequence have to do with the story? Klaatu walks out of the "Globe" (where is the ship???) and just as the good Dr. is about to shake hands with him, he is promptly shot! He wasn't reaching for anything but a handshake the universal sign of 'hello'.

Klaatu is taken to makeshift hospital where we learn that he was walking in a 'placenta' suit one minute and then the next minute they are marveling about how he was 'just born'. ???

Later in the film he uses some of this 'placenta'material to bring back to life a cop he just KILLED. It grossed me out when he stuck his finger in the 'planceta' and then in the dead cop's mouth! Why did he bring the cop back, if he was on a mission to kill the entire human race?

Later we learned that the Globes were all over the planet, and they were the 'ARK' that was saving stuff to be used after the world was 'cleansed'. (They actually used the word CLEANSED in this context)

Acting:

Then there is the ACTING, (If you can call it that) The acting was DEPLORABLE! Probably the worse I have seen in any movie in the last 10 years!

Kathy Bates as Sec of Defense SILLY, OVER THE TOP, NOT BELIEVABLE. ( I kept looking for her to break somebody's ankles)

"The One" as Klaatu was just plain PITIFUL and PAINFUL to watch! He sleep walks thru almost the entire film. (Oh wait that is what Reeves calls 'acting')

Jennifer Connelly was terrible also. She was not believable as a Scientist nor as a mother! She never connected with Reeves or Jaden Smith on any level! (It may not have been her fault, I don't envy what she had to work with!!!)

Jaden, the Smith kid, What in the world made them think this kid could act! I looked for the credits to see if they were the producers on this film! I didn't see their name! How did this kid get the part! It didn't help that the part they wrote for him was as a spoiled brat who needed his butt.. (I wish I would call an adult who is now my mother by her first name.)

I would not even rent the DVD to see this movie, I am sorry I wasted $6.00 on it.

Save your money, The Day the Earth Stood Still was when I wasted an hour and 40 minutes of my time watching this crappy film!

Thank you "HollowWood" for messing up another Classic Film! "No soup for you"!


Can one little kid ruin a movie?

Yup.

Think I'm exaggerating? Watch this film. You can see Exhibit A of it right here in this science-fiction "classic" film, a re-make of the 1950s hit movie of the same title. This re-make actually would have only "bad" without inserting this annoying kid, but he made it "horrendous." Jaden Smith as "Jacob Benson" is a spoiled, chip-on-his-shoulder, disrespectful kid who incessantly talks back to his mother, who puts up with it - which is equally annoying for most audiences.

What was the purpose of inserting this kid in the film? What were the writers thinking? I'm glad to see a number of reviewers here agree with me on this one. I guess if you're the son of a famous actor (Will Smith), they'll insert you in film roles, even if there is no purpose to it. And Hollywood wonders why people don't go to the movies much any more, and they sneer at pitiful re-makes?

Meanwhile, Keanu Reeves was a good choice for his starring role: an emotionless robot-like alien. Reeves is such a wooden-sounding actor to begin with that playing a bland robot is good casting for him. "Klaatu" is tailor-made for him.

Comedy was provided via the ludicrous environmental fear-mongering message in here. I laughed out loud in several spots when "Klaatu" explained to us the reason for his mission. It's so stupid, it's laughable. I was reminded of Ed Wood's horrible sci-fi stories in the 1950s.

I will say some of the special-effects and the surround sound in here is excellent. It was the highlight of the movie. These are good visuals and good audio, and a nice film to view on Blu-Ray. Unfortunately, the story got in the way.


I am not one who is against remakes in principle, not even remakes of really good films. The Day the Earth Stood Still is, as far as I see it, a prime candidate for remake. It would be easy to update this story to comment on current times. Modern audiences, after all, are very little effected by the Cold War anymore. The makers of this new version do, in fact, attempt to relate their film to modern affairs. The alien visitor, instead of interfering over Earth's nuclear ambitions, comes to out planet in order to stop us from destroying our environment. That's a perfectly acceptable updating. Unfortunately, as is the problem with most remakes, The Day the Earth Stood Still '08 has the unmistakable aura of having been made for a quick buck. You remember there's a classic called this? Throw us a few bucks, and you won't have to sit through it in black and white anymore! And there'll be a couple explosions! It all feels so rushed and sloppily thrown together. Scenes contradict each other, little of the plot makes any sense. The visual effects are wildly uneven. Gort in particular is a computer generated monstrosity that looks like he's been imported straight from a Nintendo 64 game. Pretty much all of the actors don't seem to want to be there, and almost all of them give abysmal performances. We expect that from Keanu Reeves, but when Jennifer Connelly, who gives it her all even in junk like Hulk, phones it in, you should realize your project has little merit. The entire film is poorly paced and frequently stilted. It never works.


First and foremost. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE ORIGINAL. So this is an unbiased review from a person who has not seen or thought about seeing the original.

Now. Lets begin. The Day the Earth Stood Still starts off well. It is pretty captivating and interesting. It hooks you and slowly but surely draws you in. For about the first thirty minutes I could not stop wondering what was going to happen next. The movie was moving slow but still holding my attention.

But after that thirty minute mark I realized that the movie was going nowhere. Literally nothing was happening. The entire hour and a half that followed consisted of nothing more than a car ride to the woods, a car ride to the city, some cheesy looking orbs spawning up out of the dirt, and some bugs that ate stuff. If you throw all those things together blend it up with a p1ss poor plot and about two cool CGI scenes (that are both in the commercial) then you have this movie.

And try as I might to figure out what was actually going on, nothing become apparent until about an hour and a half in when Keanu talks about saving the earth from humans. First you think he is a "bad guy", but then he says that hes going to save the world so you think he is a "good guy", but then he kills someone so you think hes a "bad guy" again. But then he revives him. At this point you basically are just thinking "WTF? This movie sucks. I don't have a clue whether I should like Keanu or not. I have to go to the bathroom, and I am going to have a hard time convincing myself to return to the theater if I leave to pee."

The acting was okay. The only scene which I thought the acting was really good was the crying scene between Jennifer Connelly and Jaden Smith. It was done surprisingly well. Other than that the acting was decent at best. Evan Keanu didn't meet my expectations. His character was....flat.

The first thirty minutes of this movie had me expecting something good. The next hour and a half left me with a sour taste in my mouth, bored, and wishing I was watching a different movie.

The movie was simply boring. I understand that Sci-Fi doesn't always have to be explosive. But something has to happen. And in this case, nothing did.

Final Word: Boring.


I'm a big fan of SciFi and as with many who love the genre, I considered the 1951 version a classic. So, I was quite anxious to see the remake. The obvious change in the primary point of the plot, (war/violence to environment/climate) seemed workable, and if properly executed, had potential.

As it turns out, it was potential unfulfilled. I left the theater thinking that was 2 hours of my life that I'd never get back.

Mediocre acting can sometimes be overcome by a really good story and script but no amount of great acting or special effects, which this film definitely did not contain, can overcome a lousy script.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

In the original the scenes of the Earth standing still occurred at a point in the story line that made sense in the flow of the story. The point was to demonstrate that the aliens did indeed have the ability to destroy the earth. In this version they choose to plug that event in at the end of the movie leaving viewers wondering why.

The change in the plot from advanced races sending a being to evaluate and warn us to changes our ways to one in which the decision to destroy humanity has already been made guts the point of the original story and makes this noting more than another "B" aliens come to destroy the Earth movie.

Finally, the acting in this bomb leaves much to be desired. Keanu Reeves was emotionless, as usual. Jennifer Connelly was almost as bad. Perhaps the most disappointing was Kathy Bates, who is usually a great actor, although I do not know that anyone could really do all that much with the flotsam of a script they were saddled with.

Bottom line is that this film is definitely not worth the cost or time and effort of a trip to the theater. If you must see it, do yourself a favor and wait for it to make it to the movie channels or show up in Red Box.


The days when Hollywood once turned out such classics as the l951 THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, are long gone. When we go to the multi-plex today, we're treated to endless, lousy remakes of Asian horror flicks, endless sequels (i.e., Saw, Alien, Terminator, Halloween, etc.) that squeeze every drop of magic from the original until there's only a dried up rind. This remake of The Day the Earth Stood STill, is a perfect, sorry example of what passes for movie sci-fi/fantasy in the year 2008. While the l951 original still fascinates with its powerful acting, script, production and that fabulous Bernard Hermann's musical score, this new take features a shockingly inept cast and grade-Z special effects.

We're treated to a zombie-like Keanu Reeves who shows the emotion of an oyster. His face and eyes never change expression. His voice sounds like a dead man. His fellow living corpse is Jennifer Connelly who acts as if she exists in a different universe with no connection to what's happening around her. Even worse, is the obnoxious, surly black kid, Jaden Smith (oh, yes, son of the mighty Will Smith) who is so repulsive you wish the giant robot Gort would zap him off the screen. It's as if the movie makers are so fanatically politically correct that they gave us a black child who is supposedly adopted by a white woman, Jennifer Connelly. They have no rapport, but then the child is so hostile, one can understand why. One of the key figures in the original was the young boy played by the wonderful child actor, Billy Gray. He was so genuinely sweet and likable that you really loved him. When he shows the alien the memorial graveside of countless dead military men and women, and then visited the Abraham Lincoln memorial, you were profoundly moved. When Jaden Smith does this in the remake, a glycyrine tear dribbles down his cheek ss he glares sullenly at the zombie-like Reaves. Wow, what a really down, hostile scene.

There's no sense of impending disaster and when the day finally comes for the Earth to stand still, a swarm of badly executed CGI bugs destroy Yankee Stadium and then stop. Keanu Reeves has obviously discovered that mankind isn't all evil. That's because the black kid and his mother have persuaded him that there is still good in the human race. If only, there was some good among movie makers, the type of goodness that would persuade them to give us some original, scary movie magic--like Alien, The Thing, The Terminator, halloween, etc.


I loved Robert Wise's original film, so this remake was a big disappointment. This is the type of movie that gives Hollywood blockbusters a bad name. The filmmakers have taken a well loved film and produced a travesty. For some reason the idiots behind the film decided that the story could be improved upon, unfortunately their changes make little sense.

When a spaceship lands in Central Park, an alien messenger called Klaatu (Keanu Reeves)disembarks. The rest of the universe is worried about the Earth's environmental record and Klaatu has been sent to tell us to clean up our act. He is shot and captured. Kathy Bates plays a Defense Secretary in the Cheney/Rumsfeld mold. She decides that the aliens need a demonstration of America's military prowess and decides to play hardball. The U.S. government wants to keep the alien locked up and his identity a secret. This does not go down well with Klaatu, who concludes that further discussion with the U.S. government is a waste of time and decides to exterminate mankind.

Jennifer Connelly plays a Princeton professor and government science expert who befriends Klaatu. In the original film Michael Rennie moved around DC and is gradually won over by Patricia Neal and the other ordinary people he meets. In this film he is shackled to Connelly and her young son. Reeves exhibits none of Rennie's easy charm and looks dazed and confused most of the time. The child playing Connelly's son overacts and is an annoying distraction. At the end of the film, Klaatu leaves the Earth telling only Connelly and Professor Barnhardt (John Cleese) about his mission, there is no speech to mankind and the film fizzles out.

The movie does have impressive special effects and perhaps if they had given the film the benefit of modern film technology and an updated look this remake may have been justified. Unfortunately an American classic has been vandalized, and you have to wonder what they were thinking.


I'm sure many millions were spent making this, but they really shouldn't have bothered.

The acting wasn't bad, with Keanu Reeves playing his role well enough. Similarly the CGI was okay, although nothing to be particularly proud of. Where this film is really let down is in the storyline and the dialogue. Its appalling.

This is clear right from the start, where leading scientists are gathered to do what appears to be nothing, except of course discuss the end of the world with limp scientific terminology. However, this is nothing compared to the end, and frankly the less said the better, which ironically seemed to be the director's view as well. The fact we are supposed to accept that after planning to wipe out human kind for many years, one alien changes his mind after seeing an upset child and step-mum, is absurd! This film is poor and predictable, and certainly not worth a second look.


This movie is a victim of its own hype and clever editing on the trailers. There are several reasons why this movie doesn't work, although it did have potential. The first reason: The Army isn't retarded. They are portrayed as cro-magnonesque, flying 2 Raptors in to fire on the GORT which ultimately fails, leaving someone whom we are assumed to be in command saying to an airplane hangar full of troops "Anybody else got any ideas?" Secondly, the military would be in charge, and there would be much more collusion between department heads then led to believe. Kathy Bates, who gave an average performance (probably not her fault, her script was bland) is the Secretary of State, and seemingly the Secretary of Earth, as none of the other world leaders are even involved. Instead of world leaders, we have Jennifer Connelly, an astrobiologist, calling the shots. It isn't really plausible that the US military would allow a civilian to be the first contact for alien visitors.

Acting was....OK. Jayden Smith needs a little work, but again his script was pretty poor, as is the editing with some cutaways with him and Klattu. Keanu was a pleasant surprise, as he looked and acted as stoic and un-feeling as possible, and did it well. Jennifer Connelly held her own, but wasn't fantastic.

The end of the movie is abrupt and anticlimactic. There seems to be a reason that this was released in the winter, as it didn't have the punch to be a summer action blockbuster. 4/10.


Oh boy, where to begin on this one... I won't go into the plot or story, because it's non-existent. It's a 100 train wreck that sometimes tries to be a sci-fi film, but attempts to insert some action and CGI money shots. It fails miserably, being a Michael-Bay-esquire version of what a sch fi movie is supposed to be.

Keanu's acting speaks for himself, he is pretty much playing the same character as he did over the past 15 years (post-Speed Keanu). Kathy Bates is wasted on this one, and she FEELS she's on the wrong place, you can see it right through her acting. John Cleese appears on the cameo that shows how DEAD his career is. From Python to this, it's so SAD to witness his scenes...

Of course, we have Jaden Smith, at yet another ANNOYING scenery chewing piece of child performance, that makes you roll your eyes in disbelief. You can just FEEL his dad right next to the camera, paying off the director to keep him in this film.

Filled with plot holes and an anti-climatic Deus Ex Machina, the classic 1951 film is murdered on this 2008 travesty, a sign of how awful Hollywood has turned. I cannot stress this too much: avoid.


Hollywood has been remaking a lot of movies lately with usually terrible results, and this is no exception. The scriptwriter has taken the original script, and rewrote it while apparently stoned or on coke. The original movie has an extremely clear storyline with no idiotic story twists, no decidedly crazy and astronomically improbable behavior like this one has in spades, and is excellent from first moment to last.

This piece of sputum on the other hand will let you feel like you want to bash the characters heads in half of the time for being so stupid and outrageously insane. The most pathetic part of this movie is the fact that despite having state of the art special effects it can't hold a candle to the original, which had hardly any effects whatsoever, never mind special ones.

True, it is not completely abysmal like , say , the day after tomorrow, and has at times decent acting. But good actors like John Cleese for instance are completely wasted in this movie, and even Reeves and Connely perform like wooden dolls at times. I won't spoil the end to you; I don't need to, it is bad enough that it will spoil itself.

Script: Zero .. Done by a chimp and two stray dogs taken from the streets. Edmund North is rolling in his grave.

Acting: far below average most of the time, sometimes OK

Music: Music? What music?

Effects: Made irrelevant by sheer lack of everything else...

Directing: I would be ashamed to be affiliated with this movie, even as a janitor. In fact, I would be ashamed been seen holding the DVD at a rental.


An alien spacecraft lands in Central Park, and an alien emerges. After being wounded in an attack by the U.S. military, the human-like Klaatu (Keanu Reeves) appears when being nursed back to health and hints at the potential destruction of Earth. He manages to escape government officers, and ends up in the care of scientist Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly). Along with her adopted son Jacob (Jaden Smith), the group attempts to try and stop the impending destruction, while the government chases after them.

Buried very deep into the core of The Day the Earth Stood Still is some semblance of a great movie. But its outer shell is anything but.

The plot may sound interesting, but after Klaatu makes it clear what his purpose is, the movie becomes a downgraded half-assed chase movie that is more boring than it is thrilling. And by the time the ending comes around, the film and everything about it is utterly forgettable. Humanity appears to be at stake, but none of the characters seem to really care about their survival. It just seems so standard to them, so tactic. Characters are done away with like they are nothing (whether by dying or just not appearing again), and other characters appear with not even the slightest hint of motivation. How are we supposed to leach on to anyone when no one is even remotely likable? The closest we get to a three-dimensional character is Reeves' Klaatu, and he speaks in such riddles and convoluted language that he may as well not be speaking English.

Do not get me wrong: The Day the Earth Stood Still is loaded with a goldmine of ideas. But they are all treated as mere inconveniences to the bigger "plot" the film struggles with. The filmmakers seem to have very little idea of what they want to do with the picture. It seems to want to send a message, but it does not know how to. It jumps from idea to idea (and even though to thought), hoping to grip onto something that sticks. But nothing does. It is merely written over, waiting for the next idea to spark and be done away with. Even the special effect showpieces are carelessly done. Sure, there are some great effects, but ultimately, there is nothing too spectacular on display here.

It is not clear where the fault for this silly and ultimately unneeded film lies. Do we blame screenwriter David Scarpa for not knowing whether he should homage the original work, steal from multiple films that have come since, or create his own original idea? Or do we look to director Scott Derrickson and the creative team for having culled together the shots and sequences for the film, and then not knowing how to make some sort of good movie out of it? If they do not care, then why should we?

The acting is poor across the board. Connelly, an Oscar-winner, should have known better than to touch this film. She looks stunted and confused in every one of her scenes. I imagine she tried to make something of this awful role, but you would never even guess with the footage that exists in the film. Smith, while playing to his age, seems to be aping his father a little too much. He wants to be spunky, but he wants to try to act method at the same time. With a little more work, he could probably match Will's best work from the mid-1990s, but if he keeps this up, he is destined to become a laughing stock that will annoy audiences. Jon Hamm and Kyle Chandler are given such a small amount of work to do that one must wonder why the filmmakers went with recognizable faces in their roles, while John Cleese and James Hong have such short scenes that you may blink and miss them altogether. Kathy Bates genuinely tries to make something of her juicy role, but it is downplayed far too much.

Reeves however, delivers another classic Reeves performance. This role was practically tailored for him to play. He spends most of his time on-screen giving baffled and bizarre looks at the camera, or delivering the stilted dialogue we have come to know him for. He gets no real time to emote in the role, and gets even less time to explain himself. But Reeves is a master of this stoned out technique, and is on his own playing field against the rest of the cast. He has done far greater work (The Matrix trilogy obviously, and my personal guilty pleasure, Speed), but because this role does not ask much of him by way of actual emotion, he soars through as the single best thing about the movie. And yes, I am quite terrified alluding to that idea.

Calling The Day the Earth Stood Still disappointing is a bit of a stretch. Calling it awful is a lot better of a description. While the plot sounds like it could make for some interesting science-fiction (especially based off its legendary source material), the film falters and fails too many times to really make anything of itself. There are some great ideas sprinkled throughout the movie, but nothing is ever done with them. They are either brushed away, or outright ignored. Whether it is the boring storyline, the bad acting, the horrendous dialogue, the erratic tonal shifts, or the very inconsistent CGI, the film just has no chance to even attempt to work. And as a movie with a message, it fizzles more often than it sizzles. It has the ideas to go the distance, but lacks the motivation.

3/10.


man, once again aliens want to destroy the earth ... have i mentioned how i hate this stereotype? they always travel huge distances to destroy us or our planet - we must be important ;)

this time they are doing it out of some silly ethical reasons - we are destroying the earth, so they will do it first - no comment so here some logical mistakes: - they take samples of the flora and fauna of the planet - does it mean the nano bugs will destroy everything? even the flora and fauna? if so - why can't they take the samples and let the earth be? if not - why do they need the samples? how far is their genetic engineering and their planet creation/rebuilding skill? nano bugs eating pollution for example? or creating more of endangered species, so they are not endangered anymore?

- from an ethical point of view the aliens are behaving quite unintelligent too - they have no responsibility whatsoever for either us, our planed or the life on it. they could provide us with better technology so we don't destroy the earth and can live in space if they feel some responsibility ... but this wouldn't be such an "dramatic" movie, would it.

- sending an ambassador out of the ship when it is surrounded by military is not intelligent at all, especially when he is not invincible. why isn't he wearing a nano-bug-armor? they have knowledge of the human body, but just didn't care to understand how we are thinking? - the ambassador initially wants to get to the UN, so they have studied us a bit after all (never mind not understanding our concept of military). but they seemingly have no idea that the UN is quite powerless - they should have attended one of the G8 summits instead. or summoned the big industry guys ... and why is it the ambassador has always to go to the USA - there is a UN headquarter in Vienna.

- the idea of sending an ambassador vs sending their message on all TV channels and thus reaching all people without even landing and causing this panic ... what do you thing is better?

some other points:

- they have studied us for a while, decided to destroy us and suddenly change their mind because of what? i really couldn't understand why they would stop? do they believe we will change? do you? i think not without the giving us some technology.

- the alien ambassador just looks at some formulas on a black board and knows what it is and why it is wrong ... i study informatics and have a lot of math - you just can't know all the formulas and even if you do you won't always recognize them, since there are different ways to say the same.

so - bad script, the acting disappointed me too - no point in watching this one.


When I first saw the 1952 version of the tale, I felt impressed. In the past, I have been successful avoiding updated versions of classic movies, just to save me from disappointments, but this time I felt like falling in.

I was prepared to see much more spectacularity in this 2008 version, the regular special effects, and maybe something new in the script.

And yes, there was some new things in the script. A rather inconsistent start, The Cold War is still there, plus the global warning, and maybe the toxic assets. There's also a reference to the altruism enigma.

The rest is purely crap.

We miss the evangelistic references of the 1952 version. There's no Jude and there's no mortality in Klaatu's enigmatic persona. Instead, he's a rather flat and expressionless superhero, able to control people's mind remotely or bring down helicopters with his hands. No thrill.

The rest of the cast ranges from stupid to useless characters. The kid is really hard to stand, and the Secretary Defense is unbelievable. Even the heroin looks little smart despite her academic titles, and there's this pain of watching John Cleese trying to act seriously.

But, over all, there you have this gigantic hole in the script. After almost destroying New York (yes, just recovered from the recent havoc of Watchmen!) and lots of stadiums, trucks and the like, Klattu surrenders to rather poor mortal mercy demands, and leaves the planet.

Probably then, Klaatu just forgot the movie's name, and sends a command to freeze the whole Earth machinery pool. But... Why does he need to demonstrate his strength with a global warning when he just almost destroyed the planet? Is like sending a newsreel with Los Alamos footage to Hiroshima the 9th of August, 1945. Purely crap. Nonsense crap.

Luckily, we still have the 1952 version.


I can't explain how disappointed i was after watching this "thing". Keanu Reeves (one of the best actors in present, and nearly always acting in great movies). And the great story, who was filmed so awesome in the fifty's. But what was that at least? I must had know, that this can't be a good movie from the director, who makes a horror classic like "Hellraiser" to a joke. He really missed every moment to make a good movie. No association with the characters. How bad the scene was as Klaatu decides to rescue the humankind... I feel nothing! And that's because of this "16-year-old-talking-and-behavior" child. Why? He showed us in "The Pursuit of Happiness" that you can feel with him. And this "invasion"...awful! The whole meaning gets lost... He could have been showing such impressive pictures of our planet to get a feeling for the complex of problems, who are so real in our days. But nothing! The spheres landing in the jungle, you only see it coming down to the ground...and that's it. The only animals you see are little snakes , frogs and other little creatures. No lion, no elephant, no animal you get impressed for, but that could have been so important to get a feeling for the movie. But maybe exactly this points who makes me sick are the special interpretation of Mr. Scott Derrickson. I unusual seen such a unmotivated and boring movie...


Bad effects, bad storyline, boring... i almost fell asleep. don't go to the cinema wait till its on TV and than go and do something else. Yes i get the idea, it looks like Greenpeace is the main sponsor of this movie. The effects could be better, the storyline could be better. It is a waste of natures resources.I hope that they will not burn this on DVD. what else to say, the movie is slow.. starts slow en ends slow. it is predictable. i would say it is in the same genre as i legend. that was also a bad movie. nae .. seeing it in the cinema is a waist of time.better buy some flowers for your loved one. What else to say over this movie. sorry but 10 lines is way to much.


It was great to see former O.J. Simpson prosecutor Chris Darden playing a cop here - I knew he looked familiar but I couldn't figure out where I knew this actor from. I'd missed the opening credits, and when I looked them up on IMDb I was very pleasantly surprised to see who it was. I really liked him a lot in this role and found myself wishing that he had done more acting. Unfortunately, despite the added involvement of other talented actors like Brian Wimmer, Barry Bostwick, Anne DeSalvo and Tobin Bell, this movie isn't much to write home about. The murder mystery is interesting enough, and there is a refreshingly un-melodramatic approach to the proceedings (fairly unusual for something shown on Lifetime), but ultimately the story doesn't wash. It's one of those complicated conspiracy plots that are never believable because they always hinge on everyone who's NOT involved in the conspiracy behaving exactly a certain way at each key moment in order for things to work out - which is a very big chance for anyone involved in a criminal enterprise to take. The ending is rather predictable, but the script does manage to do a pretty good job of not telegraphing it. But consequently one is left feeling that it hasn't been set up well from a character standpoint, so it doesn't ring true. And the one revelation/twist that's really an out-of-left-field surprise is completely unmotivated and implausible, given all that went before. All in all, this film is not recommended, except to see Chris Darden in an acting role.


I have performed in two amateur productions of Pinafore, and seen several others. To be honest none of them were particularly good, but all of them beat this rubbish.

The music sounds like it is played on a cheap, child's keyboard. The singing is often woeful, out of time and sometimes off key. Extra songs ( and characters!) from other Gilbert and Sullivan shows are used to pad it out and replace numbers where the cast probably couldn't manage the original.

It is obvious that this was a vehicle for certain individuals. Several of the cast spend a great deal of time trying to upstage each other. If I never see Jon English again it will be too soon.

It is all to noticeable that the applause and laughter is reserved for the insertion of smutty "ad-libs" and rewrites, fart jokes and split trouser gags. Reasonable actors and singers could have made this a good show without resulting to this debasement.

I have no problem with updated and upbeat versions, but it has to be done better than this - and could have been! Altogether pathetic.


This is a film of a live performance, in 1997, in Auckland, New Zealand. Some of the cast, judging from the applause on their entry, seem to be better known for starring in Australian soap operas. The level of singing is what you would expect from a group of soap characters performing a Christmas pantomime. The performance is aggressively amplified and the orchestra consists of three synthesisers, two percussion and a bass. The entire opera is performed with a karaoke beat. There is a series of encores at the end where it becomes clear that this travesty is part of a trilogy. The cast performs excerpts from their productions of the Mikado and the Pirates of Penzance. This may have been good clean fun for any citizen of Auckland in 1997 who happened to be tone deaf but I wonder what possessed anyone to want to film this production. The problem with committing something to film is that it attains a life of its own. It has travelled round the world and eight years later it is being shown on a British arts channel and touted as a bona fide production of the Gilbert and Sullivan opera. Avoid.


The first 25 minutes of this movie are a barrage of musical numbers meant to launch you into the narrative and to sum up the hoofers life in vaudeville. There's only one narrative development resentfully included (the kids go to catholic school), but the daring musical gambit is a flop  It just keeps the movie shallow for way too long.

There are musicals where people breaking into song don't look awful. The Donahues preoccupations did not become my preoccupations. Their trivial story did not draw an ounce of interest from me. The musical numbers are an odd mix of triviality presented with boundless energy. All of them clown their way through the 'performances' in an effort to be funny or likable. Does it really need to be said again that having to watch people mugging and clowning just sucks?

The movie is notable as a casting trainwreck. Audiences who want to see Johnny Ray, Marilyn Monroe, Ethel Merman, Donald O'Connor, and Dan Dailey are distinctly different. All of them give it their all, believing that ten thousand volts of personality will put this flimsy idea over, but they're wrong. Despite Merman and Dailey frantically working to persuade you they have charm, they're both just strident. The 3 male leads are all annoying. Daily is tepid and unlikable. Ray is a wussbag. O'Connor is a smidge less annoying than usual. And Merman? Ugh! What is the appeal of a homely guttersnipe whose singing voice sounds like a heel dragged across a floor?


The problem with trying to describe this movie is coming up with the right adjectives. Words like flashy, colorful, gaudy and flat keep coming to mind; but the essential fault with `There's No Business Like Show Business,' directed by Walter Lang, can best be summed up by borrowing a line or two from Ernest L. Thayer's immortal poem, `Casey At the Bat,' which ends with the lines, `But there is no joy in Mudville, Mighty Casey has struck out.' Because, what this movie lacks-- and it's hard to fathom why-- is joy. Like Casey, it strikes out, big time. And it's a shame. It's like having all of the resources to construct the most magnificent building the world has ever seen, including the greatest architects available, and the contractor ends up with a hut a child could've made out of tinker toys. There's a story here, of course, but it's obvious that the main intention of the project was to showcase the talents of the stars and some very mediocre songs by Irving Berlin, and to dazzle the audience by filling the wide screen with brilliant, colorful images (CinemaScope was the latest, greatest rage at the time, and the studios wanted to make the most of this revolutionary technological advancement). Someone should have reminded the filmmakers that what they were filling that screen with counted, as well.

	The story begins in 1919, whereupon we are introduced to the Vaudeville team of Molly and Terence Donahue (Ethel Merman and Dan Dailey). The next few years are touched upon briefly as Molly and Terry add three children to their family, as well as their act; the toddlers hit the stage with mom and dad almost as soon as they make their entrance into the world. The story begins in earnest when the youngest Donahues hit legal age, or there abouts. `The Five Donahues' include eldest son, Steve (Johnnie Ray), daughter Katy (Mitzi Gaynor) and the youngest, Tim (Donald O'Connor). They get bookings and do shows, and eventually cross paths with a wanna-be performer, hat check girl Vicky (Marilyn Monroe) who, after Tim falls hard for her, gets her big break and begins her rise to fame. The road for all concerned is not smooth, of course, but not to worry-- there's plenty of singing and dancing to go around, and meanwhile Steve surprises everyone with a personal life choice, Tim falls into a jealous funk and Katy meets the handsome Charles Biggs (Hugh O'Brian). And along the way, Molly and Terry find out what parents have known since the beginning of time: Raising kids is no picnic. But at least they have singing and dancing and singing and...

	For the first fifteen minutes or so of the film-- or maybe longer; it seems MUCH longer-- we are `treated' to Molly and Terry's Vaudeville act. And about five minutes of Merman's singing should be enough for anyone; her voice fairly grates on the senses. After this extended opening the film moves along, but seems flat and stays that way until Monroe makes her entrance. Once she's on, the screen belongs to her; but it's still not enough to save the day. She does, however, contribute the single memorable number to the show, `We're Havin' A Heat Wave.' But her `Lazy' number is just that, and not even the contributions of O'Connor and Gaynor can help it.

	The production numbers suffer from poor staging, uninspired choreography and some of the worst costumes you're likely to ever find in a movie. Even the best song the film has to offer, `Alexander's Ragtime Band,' (done terrifically by Alice Faye in the movie of that title) is terribly abused here, presented in a lengthy and contrived manner that is beyond repair. Even `Heat Wave' was saved only because of Monroe, whose sensuous delivery outweighs the actual blandness of the number. And the costumes for the grand finale, especially, are embarrassingly ridiculous (and quickly take the `grand' out of it)-- particularly the white dress Merman wears while delivering the title song; a creation so horrendous it defies description. Overall, it's a sad commentary on the lack of originality and quality of the film when the likes of Monroe, Gaynor and especially O'Connor can't even save it, even though individually and collectively they do have their moments; the problem is those moments are just too few and far between.

	The one believable aspect of the film is the casting of Merman as a Vaudeville star; and after seeing her `act,' there is no longer any mystery as to what killed Vaudeville. If this is a sample of the real thing, talking pictures had nothing to do with it's demise. It simply inevitably imploded. The burning question that remains is, how in the world did Ethel Merman ever become a star? And what about Johnnie Ray? A relatively successful recording artist with a unique style, he was nevertheless dreadfully miscast in this film. Frequently asked why he made only this one movie, he would reply, `Because I was never asked to do another one.' Which is quite understandable; he could sing, but he simply could not act. And it's hard to discern whether it was just the part or his acting that made his character seem so ludicrous.

	The supporting cast includes Richard Eastham (Harris), Frank McHugh (Eddie), Rhys Williams (Father Dineen) and Lee Patrick (Marge). With a cast including the likes of O'Connor, Monroe and Gaynor, and with songs by Berlin, `There's No Business Like Show Business' inherently promises great things, but fails to deliver. There's no getting around the fact that in the end it's a lackluster, forgettable contribution to a genre known for liveliness and joy. Not the least bit satisfying, it is perhaps the biggest misfire in the history of movie musicals. And it leaves you with a single, burning question that demands to be asked: Where's Gene Kelly when you need him? I rate this one 4/10.


My GOD ... I find Ethel Merman as likeable as the next person, and her semi-grating voice much more endearing than annoying. And the woman could even act. But this bit of Irving Berlin fluff was SO pointless and silly that it might have been conceived by a five-year-old!

Apart from a few (a very few) witty lines and Marilyn Monroe's "buh-die-YAM-a-sewious-actwess" scenes, and of course a Berlin score that is, at worst, musically interesting, I found myself rolling my eyes at random leaps in time and logic, underwhelming characterization and some of the worst editing I've ever seen in feature film. This eye-rolling occurred, by the way, when I wasn't closely examining my much-more-interesting cuticles.

If you get off on observing American cinema wallow in the very waste and self-aggrandizement that gave rise to the modern horror film, pick this one up. If George Romero saw "Show Business" in his youth, I'm sure he also imagined that only four zombies chasing Ethel and her brains could nudge the dreck back toward reality.


This show was so short lived that I didn't even get to see every episode. It premiered during the summer of 2002. I saw a couple of episodes. They were funny. It was so coll how they poked fun of the sitcoms of the 70s like The Facts Of Life, The Partridge Family, Different Strokes, and What's Happenin!! There was an episode when they poked fun of the Facts of Life and had a man playing the role of Mrs. Garrett. But I went out of town for less than a week and came back home and the show went off the air for good. No warning. I didn't even get a chance to see every episode! The rerun show never lasted long enough to have reruns!


Okay - I'm not sure why anybody would seriously call this something that ranks along with Disney, but the only reason you want to watch this is to see how bad it is.

I can't understand how the producers managed to get such good high profile voice talent... but I also would be incredibly surprised to see if John Goodman thinks this is truly something he wants anybody to see. It's absolute animated crap.

Obviously the producers had money and spent it on hiring a great casting director, who was well connected... and yet all the actors signed on to something that was absolute crap... did they even SEE any of the animation before it was being voiced?

Why didn't the producers spend any money on hiring GOOD animators? As it stands, this ranks among the worst of the lowest-level outsourced amateur-level Saturday morning animation in the world.

Reading the praise it's received in previous comments is making me crazy. Seriously, all of you need to see more television and film if you can sit there and actually say this is worth seeing. More likely, you hated it too, but in some malicious, disturbed form of sadism you need others to suffer, too.

AAAAAAAARGH!

I grew up watching children's television and I work in children's television today. I guarantee you, if you're looking for quality holiday film viewing for your family for the holidays, you should buy a copy of the original 1964 TV special.

Inflicting this piece of "entertainment" on your family should be considered a mild form of spousal, elder and/or child abuse.

As I mentioned, I work in television and I have to watch this movie today as part of my job and I just wanted to share my pain with you.

I can't tell the difference between watching this, or stabbing myself in the eye with a fork. At least with the fork, my eye will heal. But the scars inflicted on my psyche watching 'Rudolph: The Movie' will never heal.

Never.

Please ignore me now as I crawl into a fetal position under my desk and die.


It seems as though EVERY new Christmas movie that comes out is listed as an "Instant Classic" and this is no different.

I think this as a so-so effort with a different approach to the Rudolph story known by all. When presented with the incredible animation process of Polar Express this is, in my opinion, less enjoyable than the Rankin Bass production from 1964. The songs are simple and, even though the Paul and Linda McCartney hit "Wonderful Christmas Time" is listed as one of them, it is only a small snip-it version of perhaps 30 seconds.

I prefer the classics that I grew up with like the original Grinch or Rudolph, but my child enjoys the show and, as the saying goes, "To each his own".


The dudes who work for YTV show this every Christmas. i still have yet to see the whole thing again. but i saw most of it and it still gets in my bloodstream. and that blood goes into my eyes, and they turn red. Why does this happen? Well, let me dedicate a paragraph to the reason why.

Pernie had this covered perfectly in one sentence...Fairies who painfully narrate the story...And i have to agree with him. Those sprites of the northern lights are always the burning flesh on my tongue when i drink a hot chocolate. they're annoying, I hate them, I'm sure everyone else does too, although there might be that random girl who sort of takes interest in them. Moving on, To add them to the story was also a mistake because you don't just add fairies to help some random reindeer go help find his girlfriend.

But Also, It's not right for me to just say whats negative in this flick, i must say i was impressed with some of the characters, such as the tough talking buck who's hittin' on rudolph's doe, Zoe. I nicknamed him razor, after the bad guy in Need for Speed most wanted, cause that's how i'm reminded of him. either way, some of the script was great, the actors great, but some things could use a few changes.

anyways, Rudolph ends up with his red nose - and it doesn't make him any better. he loses a race on account of his red nose, and runs off feeling like he doesn't belong. thats where the story really begins.

According to what i've heard, this movie spent 3 weeks in select theatres before they realized it was a piece of crap and decided to release it before the theatres threw it out.

So bottom line, at least see this once....but i guarantee you'll go mad when you hear about those sprites of the northern lights.

2/10


DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. This movie is absolute excrement, and I cannot recommend it for children or adults. It's quite obvious they were trying to do things on the cheap; which area they saved the most money on is not so obvious. The "B-list" celebrities for voices? Richard Simmons proves why he never succeeded as an actor. Eric Idle can't decide whether his character is from Liverpool or the Bronx. I truly believe Bob Newhart was disguising his voice so no one would realize he had stooped to this level. Whoopi Goldburg and John Goodman do their best to add some life to this worthless script and fail quite spectacularly.

The music? It sounds as if it were written by a freshman music major - who is failing out of college. They had to bring a previously-released Paul McCartney tune to give the soundtrack some semblance of professionalism. The animation is difficult to look at, and I found some of the supposedly happy faces "scary" looking.

We bought this in a pile of used movies for 99 cents. FREE wouldn't have been cheap enough for this waste of videotape. I think once they realized they had made such a terrible cartoon, their only hope of making money relied on people confusing it with the wonderful Rankin-Bass version. My advice? If you're looking for a Rudolph movie, spend an extra couple of bucks and buy the original!


Let's see if I got the plot to "Candy Stripe Nurses" correct. I believe it went something like this: topless woman, topless woman, naked woman, topless woman, naked woman, topless woman, 2(!!) topless women. There was also a subplot about one of the nurses trying to help a patient beat a charge of armed robbery.

In all seriousness, I rather enjoyed parts of this movie. I know this is going to be hard to believe, but the acting by the women playing the nurses was wonderful. Usually the women in these types of movies simply have to speak English and look good without their clothes on. (Although sometimes the speaking English part isn't necessary.) Every one of the actresses in "Candy Stripe Nurses" did an admirable job and all of their characters were sympathetic ones. That really helped to partially overcome the cheesy plot. I've seen A LOT worse '70s movies similar to this one. Kinda fun little flick...but nothing that'll blow you away. 4/10


This is the kind of thing that passed for a skin flick in the '70's. They do a lot better job these days. The title is a lot more titillating than the film itself. Candice Rialson and Robin Mattson, both veterans of this type of mild fare, star in this forgettable entry in a series of "Nurse" movies that Roger Corman put out, which doesn't even have a lot of funny '70's fashions and hairstyles to laugh at. Only for those serious students of the history of drive-in movies.


I have reviewed quite a few martial arts films over the last few years, so my hating this film isn't because I don't like the genre. Also, I have a very high tolerance for "bad" martial arts films, so this one had to be really, really bad for me to give up on and and not even finish the film (something I rarely ever do). Understand that I have watched such films to its conclusion as one with guys in gorilla costumes doing kung fu and their masters using their three foot tongues as weapons--yet I just couldn't finish BOLO.

So why did I hate this film so much? Well, it was the worst of all possible worlds. First, the print from EPI/Gotham City was just terrible and the film only came in the cheesy dubbed version. Second, the film was too often played for very broad and dumb laughs. Googly eyes, silly grins, dumb cartoon-like sound effects and an annoying over-the-top gay character all were painfully unfunny. Third, even with bad dubbing and dumb comedy(?), the film could have been decent if the martial arts action had been better--which it wasn't. Instead of hitting each other or doing what looks like real martial arts, it was too choreographed and looked quite fake. Midway through the film, I was fantasizing about Sonny Chiba stomping onto the set and kicking everyone's butt--that's how much I disliked the film.

Yuck.


I was very interested in the premise of the story as described on the cover...that a young girl, without the words to express what she feels, becomes convinced of the uselessness of words and stops talking. I think this is brilliant! (I often wonder what is in my own children's minds when they stare off in silence.)

However, I was quite unimpressed with the story's unfolding. I was left feeling rather annoyed by the abundant use of voice over which spoiled the whole idea of her silence for me. I wanted to see things as she saw them and feel the tension that only silence can create but instead I was assaulted by a constant stream of interpretations and explanations that were already there in the action or in her beautifully expressive face.

While the child actors were usually very engaging, I found it difficult to reconcile the erratic speech patterns as written, especially in the adults, with an interpretation of the world from the young girl's point of view.

In all, I was disappointed. Such a wonderful premise but such poor writing and character development.

Deep sigh.


This was about as saccharine sweet as they come with plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. At first, you don't understand why Mr. Turner can't pick up his daughter and later, it kind of filters in that he is a very busy man. Then you have Tre, the "would-be" angel (ripping off It's a Wonderful Life" here) who isn't allowed to fall in love with the person he is sent to help (portrayed by Keshia Knight Pulliam) but does anyway. The angel in charge of him tells him it will be too painful for both of the parties involved. And at the end, all he says is ,"Yeah, you're right. It does hurt." As Keisha's character, her is a guy she has supposedly become attracted to and she just says "See you around." He leaves and that's the end of the movie. There was a story somewhere in there about saving a foster home for some kids but it just served to move the rest of the story along. Poor Tom Bosley - he must be hurting for money to be roped into doing this! The only "positive" I would have for this movie is that I thought Ms. Pulliam looked gorgeous and that's coming from a straight woman who grew up watching her on the Cosby Show.


Hey, we all loved 'Rudy' and gladly accepted the sub-par acting due to the fact that she was so young at the time. But that was a long time ago. For those of you that did see this movie, you most likely sat through it praying that Cliff Huxtable would make an irrelevant but much-needed cameo appearance to the film to give it at least some A-level acting. The plot was predictable, the emotional outbursts obviously phony, and the only thing comforting about this movie was to see the attractive face of 'Ray-J' Norwood step into a scene and make the young teenage girls and boys scream to the top of their lungs while watching it in their rooms (at least someone enjoyed it). On the plus side (and I include a plus side just because it is the right thing to do), it was nice to see Keshia Knight-Pulliam's return to TV and at the same time have a positive holiday movie that the whole family could sit down and enjoy.


Yeah, i think that subject line pretty much says it all. I am not usually one to post comments on a movie but this one was so bad, I just had to make an exception. So badly acted and badly written that everyone involved in its making ought to be ashamed of themselves. The only reason I continued watching it was because I was so amazed at how bad it was and was convinced it couldn't possibly get any worse. Boy, was i wrong. It eventually deteriorated into a bad Sister Act 2 remake. Characters so one-dimensional and annoying, you are almost yelling at them to get the hell off your screen. Positive images of African-Americans? Yeah right. The girl is a vapid, spoiled brat who is not going to graduate from college, and heavens forbid the son actually want to be in college as opposed to pursuing a music career. I was insulted by it. I wish for no one to see this movie. Save yourself.


What was once thought of as a mere urban legend (a tall, surgical-masked woman who spirits off with young children during the twilight hours) turns out to be something much more than a scary tale. This is the premise behind Shiraishi Koji's latest horror/thriller "Kuchisake Onna" (Slit Mouth Woman).

"Kuchisake Onna" begins with the abductions of several children in the Kanegawa prefecture of Japan. Neighborhood gossip attributes the kidnappings to a wives' tale of a horrifically scarred ghost called "Kuchisake Onna" (Slit-Mouth Woman) who wears a surgical-mask to hide her deformity.

The local elementary school, where many of the abducted were students, steps up efforts to protect their students by having teachers escort the students to and from school. Teachers Yamashita Kyoko (Sato Eriko) and Matsuzaki Noboru (Kato Haruhiko) are among the teachers assigned to help out.

Amid the hysteria of the kidnappings, Yamazaki learns that her student Sasaki Mika (Kuwana Rie) has been physically abused by her mother (Kawai Chiharu) and does not want to go home. This strikes a raw chord with Yamazaki as she herself lost custody of her own child whom she abused a year ago. As they talk, the "Kuchisake Onna" appears and spirits off Mika. Yamazaki tells police that what she saw was definitely not human. Police Officials dismiss her claims as nonsense and she is put on administrative leave. Matsuzaki is the only one who believes her and suspects that "Kuchisake Onna" is the inhuman vengeful spirit of his own mother (Mizuno Miki) who abused both he and his siblings and who suffered from TB (Tuberculosis).

Together they attempt to unravel this ghostly mystery. What they find however is even more dark and tragic than they were led to believe.

"Kuchisake Onna" is a lackluster bore with cheap thrills, a silly story and embarrassing acting. I'm a big fan of both statuesque, model/actress Sato Eriko (Playgirl, Cutie Honey) and stunt woman turned actress Mizuno Miki (Senrigan, My Lover Is A Sniper, Odoru Dai Sousasen) but frankly their acting here is terrible.

The movie is neither horrific, thrilling nor suspenseful and is almost like some cheap TV movie you'd find late at night on subscription cable.

There are one or two somewhat frightful scenes but they unfortunately are too few and far in between.

The "Kuchisake Onna" character definitely has a freakishly interesting look, which bears a resemblance to Christopher Nolan's new Joker design for the upcoming "Dark Knight" movie as well as Asano Tadanobu's Kakihara character in "Koroshi No Ichi".

Shiraishi Koji (who also wrote the screenplay) is no stranger to the genre having directed other cheap horror projects like "Noroi" and "Ju-Rei" but is unable to elicit the genuine shocks and thrills like his contemporaries Nakata Hideo (Ring) or Shimizu Takashi (Ju-on: The Grudge) did in their movies and what we get is just a tame ghost story with no bite.

The central focus on "tween" characters seems to suggest that this film may have been aimed towards children and hence the relative low volume of bloodshed (although as mentioned above there are one or two scenes that are somewhat frightening).

The overall themes of child abuse are used merely as a provocative and exploitive vehicle. It is a cheap shot used in the hopes of sparking some sort of emotional response and we don't really see it examined in any serious or meaningful way.

"Kuchisake Onna" reminds me of Clive Barker's "Candyman" in spirit with perhaps Wes Craven's "Nightmare on Elm Street" thrown in for good measure but with none of either films' inventiveness.

The predictable ending leaves open the unlikely chance of a sequel but I hope that this does not transpire as just the thought of another "Kuchisake Onna" film...well, that would be the true horror!


Boxing Day 1967 was when it all came together for the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band - not only did they enjoy a novelty hit with 'I'm the Urban Spaceman' and television exposure thanks to Eric Idle, Michael Palin and Terry Jones's Pre-Python children's series DO NOT ADJUST YOUR SET, they also had a cameo in a film that was premiered that day on BBC1. A film starring a moderately popular beat combo of the era, of whom you might have heard. They were the Beatles, of course, and their film was MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR.

As it was coming together for the Bonzos, for the Beatles, things were falling apart fast. Brian Epstein, their manager and mentor, was dead, and this film - their first movie project without Epstein's guiding hand or Richard Lester behind the camera - was thrashed mercilessly by the critics, and this clearly still rankles with Paul McCartney decades later. But however much he wants the world to believe that this film was ahead of its time, how it was the predecessor to the modern rock video clip, how it influenced Monty Python and saved the whale to boot, there's no getting around the elephant in this particular sitting room. Put simply, MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR is a shambles. Badly filmed, badly lit, badly staged, badly acted, badly edited and badly scripted (by McCartney, it must be said, though I can understand his insistence that the whole thing was improvised - I sure wouldn't want to take any credit for this fiasco unless someone held a gun to my temple), this fifty minute splurge of drug-fuelled self-indulgent excess takes a lot of patience to sit through, even if you're a Beatles fan. What could have been a good-natured romp simply comes across as someone else's dreary home movies intercut with a zero-budget student film project by pretentious stoners. There are some good songs here - Flying, I Am the Walrus, Your Mother Should Know and the joyous title track - but absolutely nothing to prop them up. Surrealism only really works when it's juxtaposed with some form of reality, which is why TOUR flops so badly - there's nothing here that even points towards reality. I've heard every conceivable excuse for TOUR's incompetence - "it's supposed to be experimental", "they were trying something different", "they never claimed to be film-makers", "it's supposed to be offbeat and silly" - and there lies the problem. There's a grain of truth in all these statements. TOUR was trying too hard to be a hundred and one different things at once, and ultimately buckled under its own indecision.


Stars: The Beatles as themselves and various characters.

I have no idea what the Beatles were thinking when they made this, and I'm sure neither did they. "Magical Mystery Tour" has the loose story of a group of people on an English tour bus that's out of the ordinary. Strange things happen on this bus, like random music videos and really random dreams of food and love. I guess making this movie was a way to show off some of the Beatles' songs, but I would've much preferred the music videos to sitting watching this. It makes too little sense for it's own good. The reason this deserves a 3, is because I did enjoy some of the songs (which were spread out, making us wait through nonsensical sub-plots), and even though it was totally random, some of the daydreams amused me. The I am the Walrus segment of this is so strange, with an already out there song, now made in to a music video where they were walrus heads and cut to random fires and John Lennon dressed as the egg man. One of the main positives for this, is it is short, running at only around an hour, so you don't have to sit through much. I'd really only recommend this to Beatles' fans, or for people that want to really experience a bad acid trip. For me, this is much worse than the already lacking Yellow Submarine film, and is almost unwatchable.

My rating: * 1/2 out of ****.


There is no way to put it, this is bad film-making. SIgned to a contract, the Beatles decided to get over the death of their manager, Brian Epstein, by making a movie themselves. In the end, Paul took over creative control and had no idea what he was doing.

The simple plot is that Ringo takes his grieving aunt to a Bus Tour Company (famous in England in the post-war days)that offers a "magical" trip on their tour. Unfortunately, nothing magical happens... just a hodge-podge of bizarre skits and freak shows that really go nowhere. The bus is overlooked by 4 or 5 wizards who are supposed to make sure the magic happens. There are some interesting scenes, but the movie is lost amid a psychedelic buzz of incoherency and lack of any kind of true storyline. Good music gets lost amid individual sketches occurring in a old RAF base, a field, a strip-club, and nowhere in particular. The camera work looks like a junior high 8mm project. Intended symbols and deeper meanings are just pretentious BS. Nowadays, McCartney claims that they were trying to make something different and make it look so unprofessional- bullocks! They had pot, LSD, cash, and camera and out came this tripe. The only saving grace of the whole movie is that, it is the one and only time and place where one can see John Lennon belt out his classic "I Am the Walrus." Also, the instrumental "Flying" is a great song. ALong with some of their first promotional films for earlier songs, this is more a collection of MTV-videos than a movie. As a Beatle fan, it is in my collection and occasionally viewed for some of the songs, but not often because it is so hard to wallow through.


I'm a huge Beatles fan...But I still have to be honest. I'm not sure why some people gave this such a good review. The only way to view it is as a home movie. The music is good, but to be entirely honest, the movie is pretty bad. I've watched 4 or 5 times and it doesn't really improve much. Claims that it is 'underrated' and 'ahead of its time' are absurd. Yes, there are some good moments. "The Fool on the Hill" and "I Am the Walrus" are good, and there are a few laughs in the mix, but I think it's really for fans only. I don't even lend my copy to anyone, because I know that my friends will all hate it.

The truly shocking thing is that this was produced in the same year that they Beatles recorded "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band". They went from their greatest triumph to their greatest failure in the same year.


Even after all these years, Magical Mystery Tour still ranks as one of the worst I've ever sat through. OK, it had the Beatles in it (but you already knew that). OK, the soundtrack is fantastic (but you already knew that). And Magical Mystery Tour is 1967 wildly creative (but you probably already knew that). I won't gush on about how groundbreaking the Beatles were time after time (again, you already knew that). I love their music and other movies.

Magical Mystery Tour is unfathomably awful. It has the look and feel of a home movie, and like most home movies, it's pointless, except perhaps as an example of pure self indulgence by a bunch of rich spoiled musicians. It's bad - really bad, but it isn't fun bad like Plan 9 from Outer Space. I saw Magical Mystery Tour in college at a bar, where they put a pitcher of cheap draft in front of you and then started the 16mm projector. I'm not sure during which part I downed the beer, but it didn't help.

The full Beatles group never released a less than stellar LP (or if they did, I've never heard of it), although "Two Virgins" by John Lennon and Yoko Ono is arguably the vinyl equivalent to this drek.


I love a film that doesn't spoonfeed the plot and the story and the interest in it to the audience. This one takes you along if you are smart enough to go and if you are not so dumbed down by most entertainment that you can stay steadily involved.

I wanted to love it to death...it has everything I think a film should have, including a wonderfully rich atmosphere, a great cast and excellent direction. Through most of it, it dares the audience to be intelligent and to have an attention span longer than a fruit fly. It had all the makings of a great film, but I kept looking for (and longing for) the greatness to impact me. It never did.

It fell flat for me by the end. I really didn't care about any of them by then. I wasn't even sure I cared about the little girl. I certainly didn't care how anyone did any of the illusions; I was sick to death of their obsession with each other and just wanted them to move on already. Although there would be no film without it, it all seemed to be 'too much trouble to go through' and obsession is about getting caught up in it...for me, I couldn't get caught up in itnor could I quite get their obsession. Although Iam a big fan of the long, thinking person's film, I have to say I thought it dragged on and on by the end and I just wanted it over. It definitely did not leave me wanting more. I just wanted different.

I had paid attention all along, I was impressed with the film and thought the acting, the cinematography and the direction were all superb. Even though some of the twists seem unnecessary, I thought many were brilliant and I kept trying to will myself to care about it, to care about them, but I didn't.

It was a very good film in a detached sort of "viewing art" way but as far as feeling "wow"'d by the end, not so much.


This film really annoyed the hell out of me. It is definitely an entry into the oeuvre of movies that are so obsessed by how clever its twists are that it forgets to worry about things such as sympathetic characterisation, naturalistic expositional dialogue, and, most crucially, the effective execution of said oh-so-clever twists.

First, a few points about the script. The script is dreadful in parts, with exposition that may as well be spoken directly to camera. The characters, Hugh Jackman's in particular, seem unrounded and without any kind of back story - seemingly plopped into the middle of an obsessive pursuit without any explanation as to where said obsessions may have originated. As happens in so many Hollywood movies, the female roles are perfunctory up to the point of pastiche - did anyone else groan with anticipation of how banal and run-of-the-mill Scarlett Johansson would be? I'd like to see a studio movie that, in the absence of an integral love story, crowbars in some half-assed romance entirely for the sake of some demograph of dubious existence who are believed to not want to see a movie without some histrionic sexual politics.

Now, on to those twists, of which there are two major ones. The first, whose set up is established very early on, is glaringly obvious. I spent most of the film seething with frustration as lines that, in what i guess the makers hoped would be in hindsight, are massively irritating 'clues' to the audience. All this is abrogated by the fact that it was all clear to me from the off (and i wasn't aware there was a twist to the film so i wasn't looking out for one), all due to the fact that essential production values fail to adequately disguise the twist. The second twist, which acts not only as plot but supposedly as a thematic comparison to the first, is what left me wanting my money back. The filmmakers seemed to have forgotten that suspension of disbelief must be eared through establishing what can an cannot happen in the world they have created. For example, in The Matrix, when we shown that it is Trinity's love for Neo that brings him back from the dead, the audience is able to accept this because the reality that has been established is one of sci-fi machines-rule-the-world type. We have been prepared to be asked to go along with the possible. The Prestige, a film that throughout its running time shows and tells us that the magic in the film is one rooted in realistic trickery and that the rivalry between the two main characters is based on which can come up with the cleverest ruse, believes that it does not need to ask the audience to suspend its disbelief before laying down the biggest of deus ex machina macguffins seen in recent cinema. We are expected to believe that within this realistic turn of the century world that a machine is invented that (through science, not magic) can do what remains impossible in the present. This 'twist' represents lazy, lazy storytelling - it is like the writers could not come up with an actual clever ending so just used their get out of jail free card instead.

On the side, there are some very pretty things to look at, with impressive period detail and some imaginative compositions from Nolan. Michael Caine and Andy Serkis are both excellent, and its always nice to see David Bowie on screen, but thats where the acting plaudits stop. Bale and Jackman give in uncharismatic and unlikeable performances and Johanssen floats along on a wave of arbitrariness.

I would say to avoid this film, unless you enjoy the energy that truly hating a film can give you, as it has to me.


Sorry, but I guess I'm going against the grain on this one. I remember when Michael O'Donoghue was writing for National Lampoon; he had a "how to write a short story" article. The thrust of the piece was -- if you get bored or can't figure out an ending, have your character get hit by a bus. This movie seems to take that approach.

The 'miracle' invention that Tesla apparently provided Hugh Jackman's character, which allowed him to duplicate himself, is nowhere referenced in the movie. The ending is a cinematic equivalent of "then he got hit by a bus". In short, I think the audience was cheated. Apparently most of the people who commented on this movie didn't mind that, but I thought it lacked integrity.

Beautiful cinematography, tortured accents, and a conceit that's actual a deceit. Not recommended.


I love French movies, and Catherine Deneuve is one of the actresses I like the best. In the 90's, she has done outstanding work in Thieves/Voleurs and My Favorite Season/Mon Saison Favori.

I was extremely disappointed in this film...a diamond scam film that has been done before, and better. It does have some good points: there is a very nice vintage noir atmosphere, and Deneuve gives a nuanced performance has the alcoholic wife of the owner of an upscale jewelery store (in Place Vendome...Paris, hence the title). He commits suicide and she is suddenly thrust into a world where there is no one to take care of her and she must find her own resources.

She does a nice job of this, but unfortunately, the film didn't make me care very much about her or any of the other characters. The plot involving stolen diamonds is convoluted, and doesn't appear to make make much sense. It looks like it was re-written too many times and some of the motivating scenes and explicatory scenes got left out.

I really wanted to like this movie, but I felt like this was perhaps the worst movie I've ever seen Catherine Deneuve in.

It's not bad like a really bad Hollywood movie is godawful bad, with explosions and trash talk trying to fill the emptiness, but it's just dull and not fun.

Two stars.

If you are looking to rent a film with Catherine Deneuve, try "Thieves" or "My Favorite Season"

-Bruce


"Place Vendome" makes a few strange decisions early on. You would expect a thriller set in the Paris jewel industry to be glamorous and sexy, but Nicole Garcia has other ideas. Instead, she presents the industry as corrupt, jaded and full of downbeat, sleazy people. Deals take place behind closed doors, in cheap hotel rooms, and dimly-lit office suites. Garcia does everything to make this atmosphere suffocating - there are few outdoors scenes initially. When the action shifts briefly to London, there are no establishing shots. The only clue that we're no longer in Paris is that the dialogue switches to English.

This, no doubt, is an attempt to add realism to the milieu. It succeeds, but at the cost of draining the film of interest. Little narrative momentum is created, and the low-key lighting, presumably aimed at creating a noir atmosphere, ends up murky instead.

The main interest lies, predictably enough, with Catherine Deneuve, in yet another mid-life crisis role. Of course, she holds the attention like the old pro she is, but this is itself a problem. We're introduced to various mysterious characters when Deneuve is off-screen, but they seem lifeless and uninteresting by comparison.

And yet, the final half-hour actually works. Much is explained about the characters' motivations in a haunting flashback scene, set in an unforgiving wintry landscape. Following on from that the film finally develops some tension. However, this seems to be too little, too late. This is a wasted opportunity.


If this movie had been better paced and had more likable and 3-dimensional characters I would have liked it a lot. As it is, it's at best an average movie. But, the movie is slow as molasses and the pacing crawls like a snail. But, given that Catherine Deneuve's character seems underdeveloped and unlikable, the movie SEEMS even longer and slower than it is. It's really a shame, as there were elements of a good story but it just looks like the film was rushed into production before the complex plot was worked out--sort of looking like it was improvised. And, because of that, it's difficult to know WHO Deneuve is--a drunk, an idiot or a person who LOOKS like a drunk idiot but isn't. Regardless, the film just seemed unreal and pointless. In addition, it abounds with shaky camera work--obviously it was shot with cheap equipment. I'm sorry to sound so negative, but the French are capable of much better stories than this.


Flat out one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life.

I got it from a friend who had bought the DVD without viewing it before...it was so horrible that he gave it to me just to get it out of his house.

I honestly couldn't finish it. It was that bad.

The script is a mishmash of every "successful" gimmic over the past five years, the acting is second rate, the special effects look straight out of 1994 and the editing leaves you scratching your head.

None of the actors seem to know what the heck they're doing there. As soon as you realize this, you wonder what you're doing watching it. Its like sticking around at a party no one wants to be at. Its not fun and no one wanted to be there in the first place.

Thumbs WAY down.