Delicatessen has joined a body of work unparalleled in modern film. Both its most notable counterparts ("City Of Lost Children", and more recentantly the vivacious "Amelie") are brilliant and vibrant peices of cinema, however personally i feel that Delicatessen takes the cake. Dominique Pinon (A Jeunet regular) plays the hapless wanderer Joseph, who turns up at a rather ominous butcher shop looking for work. It is a dank, rather terrifying unspecified region of France, in a future when food is scarce and vegetarians reside below the surface like rats. What ensues is both darkly comical and touching.

Jeunet's cinematic style is striking to say the least - the camera zooms around the recesses of the apartment block and surrounding alleyways like a hyperactive insect. Characters are bursting with life, oozing charm and wit - most notably the sinister butcher, or the Frog-man. The film is painted with deft strokes, resulting in a seamless cinematic treat, drizzled with masterful comic timing and a lot of heart.


... it's charming, screwy, futuristic, retro and entertaining all at once. I think it represents the Brazil factor -- if you liked that, you'll like this.

Really a lot of fun, and proof that the French CAN make good movies, with actual plots, interesting cinematography and a real sense of irreverence.


Well, I thought this was quite good. As a rule, TV mini-series can be pretty hit-and-miss, but I was pleasantly surprised by this one.

A good pre-Friends performance from Courteney Cox, who proves that she can act and a brilliant cast on the whole. Isn't Barry Bostwick just dreamy??

Anyway, if you want to see one book adaptation, then see this one! Go on! See it!


I saw this for the first time when I was six or seven, and the memory of it really stuck with me, since we didn't have too many TV programs in Romania, back then.

I actually remember Hugh Grant's character being evil (think it was his only evil character) and how he (spoiler) collaborated with the Nazis... And I remember the girls, I especially liked Delphine (whenever I - rarely - see Mia Sara in something, I think about this role). Weirdley, Courtney Cox's face didn't ring a bell years later, when I got to see "Friends".

I saw it six or seven times I think, there were years when mini-series were 'en vogue', but thinking of it now, I imagine it was pretty melodramatic. I'd love to see it again, though, and I hope I'd be pleasantly surprised.


This made-for-TV movie was so good that 11 years after having watched it I still can't get it out of my mind. The songs were evocative of the World War II era, Courtney Cox played her role brilliantly, and the film/story was inspirational for young women considering non-traditional jobs. Judith Krantz can be justly proud of having written the story, and the film makers did a wonderful job of adapting the book to a movie. What a shame that it is not out on VHS, nor is the soundtrack available (to the best of my knowledge).


The characters in this film came alive. I was so caught up in the

saga and passion of the storylines that I forgot it was fiction! It was a truly memorable film!!


Very Good!! Once you see it, you must love it! The Songs are tremendous!! The ones who love this TV very much cannot have its soundtrack - is a LOSS! During the time hear about these songs, the lives of three young women will appear in your mind! An Excellent TV I had never seen! :)


This is definitely the best movie I have ever seen! It was great to see all the celebrities in the late 80's! Especially Courteney Cox! Barry Bostwick was also one of the best actors in the movie! All the romance and passion is definitely there! If you ever get the chance to see it, don't let the experience slip away from you!


From the Title, I expected to see yet another Titanic movie and was pleasurably surprised by this charmer. I love a good mystery story and a witty comedy mystery is always an extra pleasure. This is a delightful little Mystery/Comedy in the same genre as Topper Returns and The Ex-Mrs. Bradford: Both knock-offs of The Thin Man series.

Ms. Young and Mr. Aherne play a young married couple that move into a Greenwich Apartment to soak up atmosphere so he can write a Mystery novel. They find themselves involved in a real murder mystery which Briane Aherne sets out to solve himself so that he can write about it and thereby write a good murder mystery; as he explains to his wife, all his stories up to now have been "corny". It's not the mystery being clever that makes this such a good movie, but then The Thin Man movies are not known for their Mystery stories either; it is the byplay between the husband and wife that makes the movie so very enjoyable. It is the same with this movie, the Mystery is clever enough to keep you watching and the stars of the movie have charm and charisma aplenty to make this movie a real keeper.


I have really enjoyed watching this fun murder mystery with Loretta Young and Brian Ahern. Not high drama or suspense but more a of comedy murder mystery. From Hollywoods golden era and they just don't make them like this anymore. Loretta Young was always very watchable and this role is no exception. Brian Ahern had a comedic flair that comes through in this flick. The two of them are wonderful together and the husband and wife banter is delightful. The rest of the cast includes some of Hollywoods best character actors in solid support of the stars. It is just great fun to watch and these kind of films are, in my opinion, what made the Golden Era of motion pictures so great. Hope you all enjoy.


I just saw this film for the tenth time. I enjoy Brian Ahern as the scatter brain murder mystery book writer who, with is wife, Loretta Young, move into a basement apartment of an apartment building where the tenants all live there because they are being blackmailed. The whole cast has solid character actors you've seen in so many other films. It is nice to see Lee Patrick as a café owner with out her high pitched voice that she later became known for. A dead man is found in their back yard, that they had seen while eating dinner the night before and the two start their own investigation as to who the man was and why is everyone being blackmailed. The story continues to move so easy through its 91 minutes that I was sorry to see it end.


Sprightly comedy-mystery that holds up thanks mainly to Brian Aherne's expert fumbling with petty annoyances. All in all, he cooks roasts about as well as he opens doors, that is, not without considerable practice. He's supposed to be a mystery writer, but as a real-life sleuth, he's about as effective as an American Clouseau. I think I detect some subtle spoofing of the many amateur detectives of the period (Ellery Queen, The Saint, Boston Blackie, et. al.). And it doesn't hurt that Charlie Chan (Sydney Toler) turns up as a police inspector. Watch Jeff (Aherne) get decked in a fight, get about every clue wrong, get weak at the sight of a corpse, and generally behave like the anti-Sherlock. Good thing he's back- stopped by gorgeously competent wife Nancy (Loretta Young). As the charmingly inept Jeff, Britisher Aherne is simply superb, and, I would think, at the apex of his American career.

Also, it appears the concept may have started off as a stage play since the action is mainly confined to Jeff & Nancy's dingy apartment. However that may be, the supporting cast is a collection of lively and familiar faces, especially Hollywood's favorite dumb cop, rubber-faced Donald McBride (Bolling), along with the grandly smitten furniture mover James Burke. The fractured events all move at a sure-handed pace thanks to veteran comedy director Richard Wallace. My one complaint is that better use is not made of the best dragon-lady of the period, Gale Sondergaard (Mrs. Devoe), who's often sinister enough to scare the stitches off Frankenstein's neck. Here however she plays it fairly boring and straight. Anyway, it's a nifty little comedy with a good mix of laughs and chills, and I expect war-weary audiences of the day (1942) found it great escapist entertainment that holds up well, even today. (Alsobe sure to catch the amusingly apt very last frame.)


This is available on DVD as part of Sony's "Icons of Screwball Comedy" series. I like Loretta Young, but she is certainly no "icon" of the genre, nor can this movie even be described as a "Screwball Comedy." Perhaps my disappointment in the film was based on faulty expectations. It's just a B picture from Columbia, clearly made on a shoestring budget, and what comedy there is in the film is pretty forced and obvious, exemplified by a tedious gag in which Brian Aherne has trouble opening a door. The plot -- a couple move into a building where a murderer lives -- was more entertaining when the Three Stooges did it. Even the solution to the mystery is forgettable. Young and Aherne are okay, but have nowhere near the chemistry of William Powell and Myrna Loy in their many films together. I'll give props to the cinematography: there is some fine work with limited light which, in some scenes, disguise the stage-bound nature of the film. Bottom line: this one's not worth your time.


Loretta Young and Brian Aherne have "A Night to Remember" in this 1943 film about a couple that moves into a Greenwich Village apartment which turns out to be full of murder and mayhem. It sports an interesting supporting cast, including Sidney Toler of "Charlie Chan" fame, Lee Patrick, Gale Sondergaard, and Jeff Donnell.

First of all, much as I liked this film, I'll go on record as saying that I can't believe Loretta Young was so anxious to get out of 20th Century Fox if this is the best anyone could come up with for her. Columbia wasn't at the top of the heap anyway, and this seems like a throwaway even for them. It's very light fare.

Young and Aherne play the Troys, who move into a basement apartment at 13 Gay Street in Greenwich Village. Besides the cast, this is the main reason I liked this film. I used to live a couple of blocks from Gay Street, and 12 Gay Street is where the sisters in "My Sister Eileen" lived. In the '50's and early '60's, #10 Gay Street was home to Alice Ghostley, and her husband Felice Orlandi. Neighbors on another floor were Bea Arthur & Gene Saks. Close friend Paul Lynde was across the street at 123 Waverly Place, and Kaye Ballard was close by on 5th Ave. They all just walked to work at the Bon Soir, when they played that room.

Tired and hungry, the Troys go out to dinner. They run into a friend of Nancy Troy's, Virginia (Donnell) who acts strangely. When Nancy goes into a phone booth, she hears someone setting up a meeting in her apartment! Strange goings on indeed. And when they find a co-diner at the restaurant dead in their backyard, things become stranger yet.

"A Night to Remember" moves quickly enough, and it's delightful, but probably a little miscast. Someone a little wackier than the stunning Young might have a better choice for the wife. Aherne, a very good actor, isn't quite at home in this milieu either. "A Night to Remember" resembles "Footsteps in the Dark" with Errol Flynn. Aherne was a better actor, but Flynn had a lighter touch and more charm. Alas, I think Aherne spent a lot of time in Flynn's shadow.

I still love the movie despite its problems. Vintage 1943 - nothing wrong with that.


The fact that I paid $18 for this video makes my disappointment all the more bitter; had I seen it on cable it wouldn't have stung so sharply. The premise for A Night to Remember was NOT the sinking of the Titanic (that was a 1957 film with the same title) but a mystery writer (Brian Aherne) and his wife (Loretta Young) taking a basement apartment in Greenwich Village. Surprise, surprise, they then run into murder. Had the equilibrium of this movie been tilted slightly more toward suspense it might have (just) succeeded. But instead it trolls for laughs, in the broadest 1940s manner. So we get tedious stretches with Aherne doing pratfalls and Young baring her equine choppers in either hilarity or horror (often the expressions are indistinguishable). The murder plot is solved so perfunctorily, ending the movie, that you're (perversely) left to wish that the movie had been longer, or better, or simply something other than what it was. This film has developed something of a reputation over the years (but then so has Arsenic and Old Lace, from the following year). In both cases, let the buyer beware.


Tenpercent's review pretty much nails my view of this stinker. Yep, a very, VERY badly-written "African Queen" rip-off.

Too bad, because there are actually a few tinkling of something really good beneath all the stink. Well, basically the tinklings are all due to Coleen Gray. Good Lord, is she beautiful, and a fine actress to boot. I had never heard of her before seeing this film, and am amazed that she wasn't more famous.

Jeff Morrow is so bad in this, I'm shocked to see he still had a career afterward.

But the real culprit is whatever drug-addict wrote the screenplay. Painful.

If you have never seen Coleen Gray, it is worth watching the first 20 minutes or so (until she lets her hair down and bathes in the river.) After that, it's simply torture.


From the beginning of the film, when Jeff Morrow arrives in a town where everyone is dead until the end, Copper Sky piques the interest more than a low-budget Western normally does.

There is an erotic tension between Coleen Gray's character and Jeff Morrow's which also is unusual in a film like this. At first Gray is prim and proper and later on becomes attracted to Morrow.

The killing of an Indian in the film is very different also. In most films, killing of Native Americans is treated very casually. Here, the murder is depicted realistically as Gray's character goes from initial empathy with the Indian to revulsion at the killing to understanding that it had to be done.

Unusual in all respects, the film is worth watching.


i have not seen this film for over 40 years, at least. i loved it then and long to see if my memories of it have held up over the years. the main character was sleeping off a drunk in the jail house when the indians attack and left him the sole survivor. his journey has him meet the female lead, for a person of my age there was some "mushy stuff" but there was a few scenes that were erotic and may even hold up, today. if there is any way to see this film again, i am waiting to find out.


I would bet that most people missed that firearms which were used in the production of this picture. They were actually authentic to the period. The rifle used was a Henry, long made before the recent import of Italian copies. They had to get it out of a museum. The handguns, too, which would have been appropriate for this time were the open top conversions. This was a breath of fresh air from western shot of the 1860s', and early 1870's, where everyone has a new model Colt - 0001 manufactured in 1873 and a model 92 Winchester of like 1982 date. The truth is these weapons were not seen by the average Westerner until 10 years after they were introduced.

Watch the movie again. It is unusual for a western love story, but it does have good story line, and AT LEAST IT IS ACCURATE. Undoubtedly due to Charles Marquis Warren who produced Gunsmoke - whose weaponry was not time period accurate. Matt Dillon carried a '92 Winchester. In the last season, Festus advises a deluded gold prospector that it was 1873. Festus Haggen would not have gotten one of the first in 1873! Every Western movie collection should have a copy.


I thought it was a good movie. I've watched it several times and I keep noticing things I have not seen before. I know people just like Nora, played excellently by Coleen. Her facial expressions speak as loudly as the dialog. Jeff Morrow as Hack was also great casting. He knows that when he is condemned to die that it was useless to protest. Strorther Martin also added a bit of humor. I think it was courageous of Hollywood in 1957 so make a film with such an overtly religious theme. I doubt it would pass today, where everything stresses the insignigicence of life. Every time I see the movie, it becomes more and more real. A great movie.


3 Stars out of 10.

Someone apparently loved The African Queen with Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn and decided they wanted to do a western version - and by golly they did. Only Copper Sky is a far cry from The African Queen.

Nora Haynes (Coleen Gray) from Boston, arrives in town to be the new schoolmarm only to discover everyone there has been killed in a fight between the towns people and the Apaches. One Apache isn't quite dead yet and shoots the man who picked Nora up from the stagecoach station before he succumbs.

She seems to be alone in the town with a whole lot of dead bodies when Heck Williams comes staggering along. Although there was no indication he had a drinking problem prior to being put in jail to be hung for a crime he didn't commit - from this point on he drinks like a fish.

Heck agrees to drive Nora to a small settlement some distance from there and so the two set out grumping and bumping, in a wagon.

This is one of the longest most boring wagon journeys ever undertaken on the silver screen.

Nora chatters at a soured Heck who grunts his replies to her.

Eventually one of their horses goes lame. In real life, usually with a little rest, the lameness clears up, but not in this film. The only answer is to shoot the horse.

They then travel for awhile with the one horse hitched to the wagon. Now just how they were able to get a single horse to pull a wagon with a double tree hitch is a trick they failed to show us.

A wagon wheel goes out on them. So then she's riding the horse, which he is leading. Suddenly, with no explanation, the horse is gone and they're barely crawling across what has abruptly turned into the Sahara desert with sand so white it looks like snow.

Desperately they turn to prayer. There's a river on the other side of the ridge. I guess that river wouldn't have been there if they hadn't of prayed.

So there you have it - boy meets girl, boy and girl snipe at each other, boy and girl fall in love, girl of course admits she's the one that's been completely in the wrong and everything has been her fault, never mind HIS rudeness or drunkenness - it's not necessary in a film made in 1957 for him to admit to any faults or apologize for anything.

Definitely one of the poorest western films I have ever seen. Perhaps if she'd come into town and the only person left was a dyke it could have at least added a bit of spicy interest to the film.

As it was - this film had pretty much zero going for it except for a little unintentional humor - like the very brief battle between the Apaches and the cavalry, where the Capt. suddenly just hollers: "All right, your Chief's dead. Give up." And they immediately do so, although the Chief was the only one of them who had gotten killed.


Some of the people who "review" flicks here continually amaze me with their complete lack of film knowledge.

When I heard an interview with the always-extraordinary Sean Penn, in which he said he was upset that so few people had seen what he considers to be his best work: this film and the excellent "At Close Range," I knew that I had to catch this.

Then, finding that it was based on an unproduced John Cassavetes script, I was all the more eager.

That final statement should scare off anyone who expected a happy, romantic Hollywood film, as they clearly haven't seen any of the late writer/director's stark, realistic films. Cassavetes' work relied heavily on tortured, unlikable or unredeemable characters who can act their brains out [quite often portrayed by his wife/widow, Gena Rowlands].

We're talking serious fare, folks ~ required viewing such as "Husbands," "Woman Under The Influence," "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" and "Gloria" [the brilliant Rowlands original, not the adequate Sharon Stone remake].

Now comes his former B-movie star & son, Nick, who dusts off papa's script and enlists the type of actors who are eminently qualified to play a group of true undesirables: Sean Penn, Robin Wright Penn, James Gandolfini, Harry Dean Stanton, Debi Mazar and the newly-retalented John Travolta, who appears in the last reel.

Even Mom [Rowlands, of course] gets a small but important role.

And the adorable Kelsey Mulrooney, playing Penn & Penn's nine-year-old daughter is terrific without stooping to precociousness.

Is this a brutally honest film? Yep. Is it vulgar in nearly every way? Of course. Do the leading characters have any chance of redemption, moral or otherwise? Not likely.

Do I care?

Let's just say that there's more passionate acting in "She's So Lovely" than was evident in nearly every other 1997 film.

And that's certainly good enough for me.

So there.


Sean Penn does method, John Travolta chews scenery, the kids are cute enough to make one diabetic and Robin Wright Penn's performance keeps banging away at the same note over and over and over again. The characters were so unsympathetic I didn't care the least bit what happened to them. There is no plot to speak of. The cinematography ranges from grunge to bland and I don't understand where the romantic comedy angle comes in. What's so funny (or romantic) about abuse and codependency taken to sociopathic levels on all fronts? And I would definitely wave off anybody who has ever suffered from mental illness, because they would find the flick downright insulting.

Of course there are real people like this out there, but so what? If I don't waste any of my precious time on this earth watching the denizens of Jerry Springer, why would I want to watch their fictional counterparts? You want a movie about an irredeemable person that is worth seeing? Go rent Citizen Ruth. It is infinitely better than this horrorshow.

This might have worked as a ten-minute indie movie, but as an hour and a half Hollywood flick, it's a complete waste of celluloid. I watched it (sporadically) on tv for free, and I still regretted it. Whatever you do, if you must watch this piece of crap, use a free video store coupon to do so. Chances are, you would regret spending any money on it.


This was just about the worst movie I've ever seen. All I could think about during the "early days" part of the film was how terrible some children must have it when they are born to mentally and emotionally unstable parents. I did think Sean played his role well, but the story sucked me into a pit of despair and made my stomach churn at stupidity of Mrs Quinn. I noticed the accent mutilations as well. So true love is ditching your current husband and three young children for a guy you haven't seen ONCE in the last ten years? Sounds like those two should have shared that cell at the sanitarium.

Many of the character interactions didn't make sense, the story had ample amounts of LAME, and the funniest part was the very very end where we see the 'happy couple' and their two loser buddies DRINKING and DRIVING down the road in that stylish 1968 Buick Riviera. Classy.


It distresses me that anyone who has watched this movie thought that it had any redeeming qualities. From the beginning, with totally unreadable credits, until the outrageous ending, it was a huge waste of great actors and expensive celluloid! If you know anything about film making, you know that entertainment is a larger priority than art. Although, most good films have one or the other. Great films combine both. Unfortunately this is neither entertaining nor is it art. I am disappointed that anyone thought this movie was good. I was especially angry by the good reviews especially the thumbs up. There is nothing remotely entertaining or artistic about this film, not even those adorable kiddos. To exploit those children for the sake of a film is unforgivable. No they did not shock me with any of their actions, they just made me sad. It also saddened me that any one those quality actors, involved in this film, actually allowed it to be released. I encourage anyone thinking about seeing it to pass it by.


We could only stick this one out for about 45 mins. Travolta should buy the rights and burn it. The owner of the movie rental store said she couldn't watch it either. The characters were all right off the Jerry Springer show.


She's So Lovely

Beyond Promises, But Not Beyond Hope

Cassavetes the younger's She's So Lovely is proof there's a culture gap or a perception gap or something out there. Few films get such starkly opposing reactions from ordinary viewers. Worst movie they've ever seen? Wow, I don't agree at all...but the movie is a litmus test, a continental divide, a knife's edge. Sometimes, one aspect to a movie, a single quality, can set off a viewer so they just hate (or more rarely, love) a movie.

I'm guilty of tilting against a movie like that--Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ was so horrible to me I had to shut my eyes through half of it (and so I can't review it). I really hated it. But I know that there were aspects to the movie that were remarkable. If I did venture a review (I can't imagine trying to see it again for any reason, but let's pretend I did), I would try my best to find those things that did work, and to rise above the gut level repulsion I had for it. Because, in the end, I need to be able to find balance, to appreciate the best in a troubling movie--the filming of Triumph of the Will, for one obvious example.

Can She's So Lovely, a movie that has stellar acting, good filming, a plot that holds water (and rain, lots of rain), and strong emotional content, really be terrible? Even if the content grates on the viewer so badly they can't stand watching it? People are reacting against the movie, because it's troubling, depressing, and raw. It has characters with flaws so big you can can't always see their virtues.

And that isn't the fault of either of the Cassavetes men, the dad John who wrote the script or the son Nick who retrieved it after his father's death. In family tradition, real life wife and mother Gena Rowlands has an affecting role as a release counselor, and this is curious because John Cassavetes used Rowlands long ago to scuff up stereotypes of mental illness in the difficult and penetrating A Woman under the Influence, among other films. I wonder if people who had trouble watching She's So Lovely would have trouble with the earlier movie?

There is another side to seeing a movie that is unbearably emotional or depressing. And that is learning what it is that makes it so for the viewer. For me, why exactly did I find the violence so impossible to watch in The Passion? Was it the violence itself, or the fact that the violence seemed so wrong, or inaccurate, or gratuitous? Would I watch a movie where someone horrible was being tortured that way, say Hitler? (The short answer: no.) The point being, a movie that is so affecting might have something to teach me.

And what is it in this Cassavetes film that works the viewer over, for good and bad (there are as many positive reviews as negative ones)? Maybe it is the entry into a very real world that isn't so extreme or unusual--though we are shown an especially awful and pivotal moment in that world--a milieu present in every small city, and common in a big one. We can really feel that scene, and the players inside, and that alone makes the movie compelling. Give us five or so great performances, from the two Penns in love in the first half to John Travolta in the sunny (and shorter) second half, and you have something that really gets under your skin. Isn't that what makes a movie valid? Don't we want intensity over entertainment? Sometimes?

Now to the best part: humor. It arrives in small ways throughout, but at the end there is that chaotic comic nonsense in the front yard? It's the worst of all possible situations, a mother willfully walking away from her three kids and decent if goofy husband, but it gets violent in silly spurts as they tussle on the grass. Is that supposed to soften the facts so we don't melt down totally? Or is it saying that the whole film is a little, just a little, tongue and cheek? Surely the excesses earlier might be excessive. I mean, how many dance hall ticket takers are so nice they not only let the couple in for free but loan them money on top of it? Or just after that, does the couple really arrive at an old friend's flat in the middle of the night and have a beautiful family meal prepared for them, an idealized cliché of the Italian mother feeding everyone?

Is this movie really about true love or about something mistaken for it, an obsessive attachment, almost an animal bonding where the two of them need each other, even when it's bad for them. Blame the drugs, blame the bad brain chemistry, blame the poverty, they do cling together when they shouldn't. They cling even ten years later, leaving her new husband out of her heart, that convincing suburban dad (Travolta), imperfect and yet successful, who has given his life to her. Would you really prefer stability and superficial happiness over depth of feeling? And true love?

I bought the whole package. The direction was flawed, maybe a result of inexperience more than anything. But what really works, really works. For me. I don't want to be them, I'm not jealous in any way, even of their attachments, but I like these for their best parts. And I like the movie for its best parts, too.


I didn't know what to expect from this film, but whatever I got is about ten times better than whatever I was expecting, if that makes sense.

The characters are so likable. And the acting is just phenomenal. There were several scenes I had to back up and watch again just because some of the layers of small gestures and expressions and emotional choices are so genius, I just couldn't believe how thoughtfully turned out it all was.

(Hint: Watch Penn's face when he is asking his tired, pregnant wife to put on heels and a nice dress for going out. Men, that is how you get your woman to say "YES!")

And I love the theme of honesty in this movie. The characters are all more honest with themselves and each other than anyone you'll meet in the world, and they're also more tolerant of other people's honesty than real people are. It's beautiful, and it's not "brutal" honesty. And everything is beautiful until that honesty is taken away (by good intentions).

Yes, I agree they oversimplified the whole missing ten years thing, but I don't mind because this was such a stunningly original, surprising little love story.

Remarkable.

Oh, and extra credit for including Tito Larriva!


It seems as if, as I read through other comments, that many people either do not understand the film or have not paid attention to what is going on in the story. I've read one that stated something along the lines of, "How could a man go so insane that he's locked up for ten years because he's mad about another man beating his wife?!"

If one pays attention to the context clues, it is apparent that Eddie has a history of mental illness. The story does not begin with the opening scene. You have to pay attention to the film's details and its allusions to pre-existing circumstances.

I thought this film was excellent. The characters are not likeable people on the surface. If I knew someone like Maureen in real life I'd probably detest her. Maureen left her children to be with her lover, she drank while pregnant, and she's dumb as rocks, but you have to look past the character flaws and focus on what this story is about. It's not about morals and reasonable, rational decision-making. Those concepts do not typically make for artistic expression. This story is about love and obsession - two human conditions that are not often pleasant but very real. Anyone who has been in love knows that it can drive you mad. It's such a drag; at the same time, there's nothing else that can make you so high the way love does. You have to appreciate the feelings that Mo and Eddie have for one another.

I don't understand how one can NOT appreciate, how one can NOT absolutely love, some of the hysterical dialogue in this film. Maureen tells Eddie she wants to smash bottles over peoples heads and then adds, "Because I love you." That thought of Maureen's becomes something later in the film that Eddie says repeatedly. Mo's thoughts become a part of Eddie's self-perception.

The defining moment in this film is when Eddie and Mo reunite. It's the look that they give each other as they drive off leaving her family. The look in their eyes is real, and you can see that, at least to them, there was nothing else for her to do but go with him. To them it was the only right thing in the world.


Nick follows in the footsteps of his old man, John Cassavetes, who supplied the screenplay and you can tell because the down and out characters walk about with cigarette in one hand and a glass of booze in the other. This is a very simple tale of manic love told with care.


This movie has so many holes in the story I can't believe John Cassavetes wrote it and Nick Cassavetes directed this utter garbage. I didn't care what happened to any of the characters, even John travolta's character was supposed to be the rock solid 'marriage & family' kind of guy, but with his disgusting foul language around the 3 daughters and the appalling disregard for any sense of discipline and wholesomeness for them was shocking. I know, this is real! This is the way it is out in the world! If this be so I truly see the dumbing down of America. These people didn't even have the common sense to come in out of the rain. Hustlers, thieves, not an ounce of compassion. Where do they get the money to produce these things?? I can understand the actors want to make a buck doing whatever. But I can't believe this movie made a return on anybody's investment.


This movie was an abomination. Possibly the worst I've seen. I waited and waited for some meaning to surface, but was disappointed. The movie, to be sure, was purely character driven. The problem was that these characters were not likeable. They were unbelievable and stupid. And just what was the point of the little girl drinking the beer? Travolta never should have gotten mixed up in a movie like this. His talents were wasted. The only saving grace for Travolta is that most people never heard of this movie because it was so awful.


Yuck. What a terrible movie. I really can't phathom how combining a great actor like Sean Penn (Dead Man Walking, the Game), a good actor like John Travolta (Pulp Fiction) and an ok actress like Robin Wright Penn (Forrest Gump) can result in a monstrosity like this. The Penns play Maureen and Eddie with absolutely NO charm, with as result that the first half of the movie is almost unbearable. Travolta at least seems to try after that, but the sheer stupidity of the story is too large an obstacle for even him to overcome. Conclusion: a real waste of time, money and talent.


The characters in this film do NOT act like real people. It's just not authentic. I sat in the theater thinking "no woman would do that to her family." When I can't recognize the characters as real human beings, that's when I have a major problem with the film.


Acting was great, but I was disappointed with the story. Rather depressing! I sometimes wonder why some movies are rated three out of four stars by the "critics," but don't live up to that rating imho. I guess that is why I like ratings by actual viewers!


This movie was a big disappointment. It went from having potential to becoming and absurd piece of Hollywood crap. The acting was mediocre at best (with the exception of Travolta)- I counted a half dozen times where Robin Wright's accent changed during the course of the film.

What makes this movie so uncomfortable to watch is that all of the leads are considered fine actors, but they are hopelessly trapped in a boring, ridiculous, confounding movie.


I kept waiting for this movie to begin and then the credits began to roll. I was very disappointed, especially with stars John Travolta and Sean Penn working together.


I saw this one on TV on a weekend, when I was cleaning house and had the tube on, and it started, and I watched a few minutes of it, and I thought, OK, I want to see what happens to this wretch of a girl. I think she played the part brilliantly. Eddie really loves his girl. The thought that him and this girl are going to procreate...>shudder< but the little girl turns out really cute, sweet and unbelievably normal in the end...more on this later... I liked the way they went up to the restaurant when it was pouring down rain and just asked for food... that was pretty cool...seemed old fashioned. I also thought the way Eddie was getting edgier and edgier as the film went on and finally broke was played well, and the fact that he had no clue he was gone so long...he seemed like he really didn't have ONE CLUE about what was going on. Then comes the day when he gets let out and here is where the film actually struck a raw nerve with me. He gets out. The girl has been married to this other guy for like 10 years, and Eddie comes back, and she's like, OK this is your Daddy, THIS guy we've been living with all your life is NOT your dad...he's your two sister's dad, but NOT yours. And this poor little girl has to absorb all of this AND meet the guy and he has to tell her and it gets all emotionally draining way too much way too fast. (There goes the normal life!!!) And then the mom LEAVES WITH EDDIE!!!! WTF???? SHe has been married to this guy for 10 years, has cleaned up her life and was living in a wonderful house and had a wonderful life, and then she leaves(leaving her husband of 10 years and her kids behind!!)and goes with this bonehead. In a way, it was beautiful that,I guess, her love for him never died. But it came across as shrill and like she just 'used' him all those years until her 'true' love came along. I guess she never knew the meaning of 'moving on' or 'getting over him'. Maybe this film is just too 'real' for me because I personally have dealt with this same thing.(I was the little girl in a similar, but not quite the same situation) Not to such an extreme degree, and it just grated my nerves. It was weird, different, and unforgettable, but I wish I could!


This movie is dire. The characters are all ghastly, with the exception of the cutesy kids who are cheesier than my unwashed gym kit. There are some interesting issues asking to be covered by this film, which the writer and director swerved to avoid with alarming regularity. "Here comes an interesting issue - OK let's have someone smash a bottle over someone else's head or have someone pull a gun." I wasted 90 minutes seeing it and I'm wasting more time now spleening about it. Save yourself the bother - miss it.


This romantic and somewhat humorous drama fails to arouse much interest. I really enjoyed the rain scenes, otherwise it seems the effort was put together at the last minute. A hard luck woman(Robin Wright Penn)tries to make for a better life while her volatile husband(Sean Penn)spends ten years in the 'looney bin'.

There is a lot of wasted talent assembled here:James Gandolfini, Harry Dean Stanton and John Travolta. This movie seems to take too long to deliver its message. Not a very attractive story and the strong language needed for realism gets old very quick.


Some people consider it necessary that I warn you that Crucial Plot Elements are exposed in my review. I feel it is more Crucial that I Warn You to not see this movie. Here's why:

Never before have I felt so misled by reviews from you-know-who (2 Thumbs Up?!) and this site's resident reviewer (3 stars?!), not to mention the jacket cover, all claiming this be to be a Fun Comedy. Well if your idea of a comedy is watching a woman get drunk, get beat up, almost raped, live with a psychopath, turn him in to protect him from himself and others, give birth to their child alone, re-marry a guy who's filled with as much rage as the 1st hubby, and then, when the 1st hubby returns, leaves her 3 kids and 2nd hubby without so much as a "I'm gonna miss you" - then this is your kinda a comedy. So pop some corn, cuddle up, and prepare to laugh your head off???

If I had known this was an edgy drama I would have been better prepared to properly judge this movie, but I kept wondering when was it going to get funny, even if only in a black comedy kind-of-way, like War of the Roses. It never did, save for 4 lines (Yes, I counted them all. There was little else to do.) And one of those involved swearing at a 9 year old and telling her to shut up and drink her beer. (Oh, and it was so endearing when the 9 year old gave the adults permission to swear because after all she has heard worse.)

What really gets me is that all the reviews described this movie like this: Hip Comedy about a woman who remarries after her 1st hubby goes to jail, and then 10 years later when he is released must choose between the 2.

Well that part about the 1st hubby going to jail doesn't happen until more than an hour into the story, and by then you have figured out that it is a no-brainer - she will always go with this guy, no matter who else she marries - even if it's John Travolta.

And don't bother watching this for John Travolta. He doesn't make his entrance until the last 30 minutes and is in only 3 major scenes.

So I guess the point of this movie was more of a social commentary on the irrational thinking involved with love (She's de-lovely. Ha Ha! Now I get it?! Oh palease!) and dealing with life's difficulties in general? Well I guess I am now Officially Un-Hip, because even in retrospect - No, I don't get it.


A huge disappointment in Siskel & Ebert's rating! The title does not fit the movie at all. This movie was far from a comedy; it was serious and disjointed. I was waiting with expectation for it to get humorous as described but it never did. The script provided little to no motivation for Maureen (Robin Wright) to make the choice she did. The script also failed to explain why Joey(John Travolta) was so enraged he was swearing every other word he spoke. Too much pointless swearing from all the characters. If you find watching an innocent-looking little girl swear & drink beer humorous then you'll probably like the movie.

"When a Man Loves a Woman" with Meg Ryan & Andy Garcia, is similar to this movie. The big difference between the two movies is "She's So Lovely" is a waste of time to watch.


Sean Penn and Robin Wright Penn fall in love, but their lives are everything but stable. Sean Penn is sent to jail for a number of years and when he is released he returns to his love Robin Wright Penn. She is now married to John Travolta and they have several kids. Normally this kind of family business would take months or even years to solve, but these crazy people and kids settle everything in one day. This means emotions, actions and dialog concentrated to the very essence of these peoples lives. Quite fascinating to watch and reminding of the way director Nick Cassavetes' father John Cassavetes used to make movies. Sean Penn always puts his soul into his work and the other actors do a great job. This movie is great fun. Watch it!!!


One of the worst movies I've ever rented. Sorry it had one of my favorite actors on it (Travolta) in a nonsense role. In fact, anything made sense in this movie.

Who can say there was true love between Eddy and Maureen? Don't you remember the beginning of the movie ?

Is she so lovely? Ask her daughters. I don't think so.


There are some days which you feel yourself very tired and need to be happy. She's So Lovely is very entertaining film which makes you to feel great. First of all, it was great to see two amazing actor Sean Penn and John Travolta together (pre- The Thin Red Line). Sean Penn gave Oscar-worthy performance, Robin Wright Penn was just great, Travolta was very charismatic and great as always. Film also memorable for performances of actors like James Gandolfini, Debi Mazar and Harry Dean Stanton. It is very absurd, original and funny look to "what can love to do to people? Especially these people are bad!?". I really enjoyed while watching this movie. For my idea film's most funny moments were final scene, dance scene and all scenes of Sean Penn but I want to say that if you're fan of John Travolta like me, don't miss that!


I have seen She's So Lovely all the way through, and several times at that. As "thesnowleopard" clearly states he/she did not watch the entire film and therefore has no right to comment.

She's So Lovely has a true independent spirit, great acting and an original story. All of which should be appreciated by any student of film. Sean Penn gives an awesome performance as an incredibly unique character who is at once sweet and frightening made humorous by the same characteristics which are within us all. And the fury offered by John Travolta causes the audience to roll with contagious laughter. I dare not say that everyone will love this film because they certainly will not. What I am saying is that it has many admirable elements which should not be so easily dismissed. Give it a chance and see for yourself. If you do like this film, you may also enjoy Hurlyburly.


Every thing about this film is wonderful, except for the violence and the dark beginning. The performances by Penn, his wife and Travolta are all wonderful. This is actually my favorite Travolta role and this was the first time that he really dug beneath that cool and cocky exterior to show himself as a real actor, displaying a wide range of emotions. But the movie of course is carried primarily by Sean Penn and Robin Wright Penn, playing two messed up lovers who are out of luck in every sense of the word. He loves her madly, while her feelings for him are difficult to understand. She seems to adore him, but then it becomes clear that she also is using him. When she is knocking at the door of the guy who abused her earlier and he starts to get nervous she asks him "Aren't you a tough guy?" and he replies no. That whole moment was very interesting and I think it said it all.

One interesting fact that I wasn't aware of when I watched this film is that it was originally set to be made in the 80's, with the legendary John Cassavetes directing. That made me wonder what kind of beast it could have been and I believe we would get a very different kind of movie. All praise to his son Nick though, for he is also a capable director, yet there can never be another John Cassavetes again.

James Gandolfini plays the nasty neighbor of Eddie and Maureen, a sort of a pre-Soprano signification of the creepiness and villain potential he is capable of, which he previously displayed in "True Romance". Harry Dean Stanton is delightful as always when he appears in such cameo parts. Although the second part of the film may be a slight let down after the strong first part, this movie is a definite treat for those who are sick of standard Hollywood fare and for the fans of Sean and Robin Penn and Travolta. The strength of the story and the performances is enough for a 10.


SPOILERS THROUGH:

I didn't love it or hate it. I was intrigued definitely and look at the acting! For film buffs who dig the performance driven piece, this is a dream come true. The Penns star as the married couple, Eddie & Maureen and both give performances that are stunning.

There's a dark intensity about the movie that can hook one in but there's no denying this is not a pleasant film to watch and for those who like a bit of sweet escapism to their films, they should run like the wind if they put this on, because that isn't what their going to get.

For those however, who like their films dark, character driven, edgy, capped off with a bit of despair look no further, it's all here. I happen to like a bit of both of the above mentioned types of movies. In terms of this film, I neither liked it or didn't like it. I appreciated it and was awed by the performances. And the relationship between Eddie & Mo, yeah, it is definitely more realistic then the characters of "Pretty Woman" to put it mildly!. In fact the EESENSE of the relationship is captured so deeply that it is genuinely surprising as a film. I have not seen that many relationships, both the love and the toxic aspect captured that compellingly.

The choice that Mo makes at the end didn't surprise me that much because by then one could see the ties that bind this couple were stronger for Mo, then anything else. There was NOT just love between this couple but need and an almost desperate addiction. At the end, the connection these two had, is captured in that one look between them in the last scene which was done flawlessly and didn't need any dialog. This movie reminded me of "Sid & Nancy". It's a painful movie to watch at times but well done, very much so, on the character study and the cinematography and atmosphere were also perfect.

But in spite of the positives I wouldn't give it higher then a 7. In fact I almost gave it a 6. This is due mainly to the second part of the film. John Travolta was very good but the way his character suddenly changes from a sensitive hardworking guy to a screechy scowling gun toting bully was baffling. There's also the change of attitude toward the little girl. The whole gun storyline did not strike me as even necessary and I guess I felt, honestly, that the themes explored here-insanity, rape, codependency,child neglect-were way to serious to make into a black comedy which starts happening in the second half of the movie. I haven't seen that many movies this serious go into black comedy territory that unexpectedly and I will admit I didn't like that. There was a lot I didn't like toward the end of the film.

Everyone has their own rating system when it comes to movies. For me a 6 is about average or slightly above and is also reserved for those "guilty pleasure" type movies. A 7 is anywhere from OK to good and an 8 and above are those movies that are really very good to excellent. I'd give this a 7, not because I loved it but for the reasons mentioned above and will freely admit this movie stayed with me after longer then I would have thought it would. 7 of 10.


I find this one of the most moving stories because it is not a frolic through the daisies, walking along the beach and live happily ever after stories. The leading man is not the "prince charming" that it is rumored most women seek. The heroine is not the perfect girl-next-door sweetheart that has men lining up for a dance. Their lives are not enviable. Their relationship is not coveted. I can't even say that the characters are admirable or likable. In fact some might find them contemptuous. However, it is a story about love that doesn't shy away from a reality of true love that few dare to portray - pain, sacrifice and possibly doing the wrong thing.


She's so lovely as a very talented actress! Travolta with his boring mannerisms don't deserves her love despite two common babies. We're told a story with a love so strong like earthquake, love that did not die even after ten years of separation. High-class acting by Robin Wright Penn, Sean Penn and Harry Dean Stanton. Older daughter is very good too. To Travolta fans: it is NOT HIS film, it IS film about true love between Robin and Sean (like in real life, I hope). A must-see picture (10 out of 10).


This is awfulness. This is hideous. I have wasted 2 good hours of my life with this madness. The filmmakers (and actors) should be fined for this. What did I just sit through? Complete stupidity. There should be a warning before every showing of this film that you will experience deep anger, regret, fury, malice and a strong desire to harm the nearest person to you when you finish viewing this film. Why, God, why? I guess the lesson you take from this is, once you know just how bad it can get, you appreciate the merely "not good" ones. I am offended, appalled, disgusted and dismayed. This is the worst movie I have ever seen. Ever.


If you judged every director on only the one title, then your DVD shelf would be a very lonely place. Coppola, Spielberg, Stone, hell even Scorsese - they have all made slight 'miscalculations' throughout their respective careers. Keeping that in mind though, the last film that I saw from Gary Graver was the abysmal 'slasher' Trick or Treats, which in all honesty made Plan 9 from Outer Space look intellectual. Taking that into account I must admit that I didn't expect much from Moon in Scorpio. But with notorious exploitation titan Fred Olen Ray on board as co-producer, there's no way of ever knowing exactly what to expect. In all honesty the bizarre casting decision of putting Britt Eckland's name above the title was more than enough to get my initial curiosities aroused.

Keeping things hackneyed, we begin with the oldest of all slasher clichés. Yep you guessed it; an unseen nut-nut makes a break from the least secure mental hospital imaginable, killing an unfortunate orderly on the way. Once outside the complex, the psycho makes short work of a cheery pharmaceutical salesman and then flees the scene in the dead guy's car. For some inexplicable reason, the head psychiatrist doesn't bother informing the Police that they have a murderous maniac on the loose. Instead he calls in Private Detective Richard Vargas who is described by one shrink as being, "Almost crazy enough to be a patient here himself." Next we fast-forward two weeks and Vargas is seen boarding an abandoned-looking boat that is adrift in the middle of the sea. Once on board he finds Linda (Britt Eckland) sprawled across the floor in a heap. Whilst attempting to wake her up, she stabs him in the stomach with a bizarre spear like device. The (unconvincingly) hysterical Linda is then dragged off of the boat by two orderlies who don't seem at all concerned by the fact that Vargas has just been fatally impaled on the huge spike.

A few days later, Linda is fit to be interviewed by the head psychiatrist and he asks her what exactly happened out in the middle of the sea. We soon learn that she had been on a honeymoon with her husband, two of his war buddies and their girlfriends. The plan was to sail too Acapulco and spend a couple of weeks lapping up the sun on the beaches. Unfortunately along with the suitcases and sangria, the gang had inadvertently brought along a maniacal killer who had his own reasons to want to be stranded in the ocean with the holidaymakers. For the rest of the runtime, we see through flashbacks exactly what happened aboard the cursed death ship. Just who was responsible for these viscous murders?

According to many reports that I've read over the web, Moon in Scorpio was continually re-edited by the distributors and was eventually released without any of the supernatural elements that had been originally intended from the script. The IMDb mentions a vampire and astrological plot points, which sounds intriguing, but couldn't be further from the contents of the version that was eventually released direct to video. The only available VHS print is typical slasher by the numbers fare, and contains no trace of the rumored paranormal ingredients. Perhaps one day a Director's Cut DVD will solve the riddle of the missing plot points. Unfortunately whether you can blame the edit-happy distributors or not, Scorpio is a lackadaisical entry that lacks suspense, creativity and effort from any of the big name cast members. Eckland was laughable as she struggled to look even slightly motivated, whilst hard man character actor William Smith was totally wasted in an undemanding role.

The film's structure is also totally inept. The flashback narration seems to run illogically beside what we are seeing on the screen and we are never given a credible conclusion as to the killer's motives. At a guess, I'd say that the maniac became a vampire post-death in the scenes that ended up on the cutting room floor. At one point in the runtime there's a slight hint as a character drinks her partner's blood after he accidentally cuts his finger whilst dicing carrots. There's also a sub-plot involving a link between the three male cast members, who fought in Vietnam together. But these few scenes, which amusingly look more like they were filmed in a park down the road from Gary Graver's house than anywhere near 'Nam, never amount to anything either. If you don't manage to work out the unseen killer's identity by the half hour mark then you shouldn't be watching anything that's not PG-13 rated. And the anemic showdown between the survivor and the killer couldn't have been any less entertaining if it were filmed in slow motion.

Perhaps one day we will be able to see what Graver really intended with Moon in Scorpio. But as it stands I'm afraid that there is very little to recommend. Don't bother hunting this one down.


Well, the video box was nice. The color is primarily blue, a dusk or night scene of a ship with tattered sails, clouds suggesting the form of a skull, and the shadowy shape of a giant scorpion rippling in the water. The movie's title on the front and back covers and both spines is embossed. The ship on the front cover, and a detail of the scorpion on the back cover are similarly raised.

According to the director's website, Moon in Scorpio is a "supernatural thriller set on the high seas with a vampire and astrological plot involving several decadent characters was re-edited many times by the producers." The producers must have reedited it, because it was not supernatural at all, nor was there a vampire. The plot didn't seem astrological, though one of the characters says about four times that the "Moon is in Scorpio" which she explains as being a time of fear, retribution, etc.

Reediting might also be to blame for the movie's structure. It begins (and ends) with a shot of a ship bobbing with its sails down. From there, someone kills a doctor, and then kills someone in the hospital's parking garage, stealing his car. Then, the hospital hires someone to find the killer. He winds up on the ship where he gets killed by the only woman they find on board. The woman is hospitalized and she tells her story of how she came to be the only person left on the ship.

She and her husband are going on their honeymoon. They are joining two other couples on a ship. The three men had been in Vietnam together. There are some stock footage clips of Vietnam, and we also see them there. At one point, one of them seems to struggle with a gristly skeleton in water. Perhaps that was part of the supernatural plot that got dropped?

A man in the harbor gets killed by someone dressed in black, by an odd spiked weapon. Later, people on the ship get killed by an odd spiked weapon worn on a hand or by a spear-gun and pushed overboard. At no point do people know there is a killer on-board, until there is only the killer and the survivor left. Throughout this back-story, the survivor breaks in as a narrator, often repeating things we just saw and heard.

The ending is quite bad, as a hospital official ushers the survivor out, suggesting she might be able to get married again sometime to have the kids she wants. The ending might also have suffered as a result of reediting.

Not recommended, unless a director's cut comes out in which case this might deserve a second look, maybe.


"Moon in Scorpio" is one of the worst slasher flicks I have ever seen.Everything in this picture is by-the-numbers,and even undemanding horror fans who only ask for competent gore will be disappointed,as the numerous murders(mostly stabbings and throat slashings)are practically anemic.Shot on a very low budget,the production values are almost nonexistent and the story moves at a snail's pace.This is truly bad horror film full of meaningless scenes which do nothing to the plot.The acting is completely awful and the direction by Gary Graver is even worse.An absolute trash-avoid it like the plague.My rating:2/10(for some nice murders).


but I had to watch it as is. As is, it's awful. I can definitely buy that it was cut to pieces in the editing room, because the characters don't even get onto the boat until about 30 minutes in - the time before that being taken up by about three different, and inconsequential subplots that fail (in my opinion) to enhance the story one bit. And once they're on the boat, we get treated to the killer's ludicrous stalking about . . . seriously, you're on a small boat, why can't you 'hear' the crazy slasher coming? Once people start dropping dead, aren't you going to be a teensy bit more careful about everyone's comings and goings? And the 'Nam flashbacks are laughable. The peasants look like they're wearing day-glow rags, while the lush Southeast Asian forests are represented by someone's back forty.

To be fair, the cover art's impressive, although at least one of the screen caps on the back wasn't even in the movie.


This is a below average movie that at best could have been an average thriller. The plot is confusing and has more holes than all the golf courses at Myrtle Beach. Britt Ekland is in a mental hospital relating her story to a psychiatrist about multiple murders on a boat.

Her story starts as the newly weds (her and John Phillip Law, both trying to play characters 20 years younger) decide to spend their honey moon on a boat with 2 of his ex Viet Nam comrades and their sexy girlfriends. There are flashbacks of some Viet Nam war action thrown in. There are a few murders at the hospital with some one investigating the murders.

Once on the boat people begin to get murdered one by one by what appears to be the ghost of a Viet Cong soldier. There are 2 people eventually left on the boat, Britt Ekland and a very sexy, spooky girlfriend of one of the other men. The 2 women left standing I suppose believe the other person is the murderer so Britt Ekland ends up killing her and that is the end of her story. The psychiatrist sort of says "well OK" walks away and hey its all over.

You can watch this movie straight through without missing a second and still feel as though you walked away from it several times for 5 minutes.


What does it mean to be free? Can you make a list of rights? Is freedom doing what you want without harming others? Or is it a feeling . . . ? Can you get it back? Filmmaker Jennifer Fox starts her six hour epic documentary with vague ideas and a determination to get on track. Her life is a mix of 'liberated' and 'fucked up'. She's successful in her job. She has a nice boyfriend. She's also doing long-term deep 'n' meaningful with a married guy. And yes, she's totally open with everyone about everything.

But Jennifer, forty-something and Jewish, has the advantage of living in a fairly 'free' society. When she starts exploring women's situations in other countries, her search for freedom takes on very different perspectives. Even as she goes through crises of miscarriage and conscience in her own life, her problems are dwarfed by women whose daily lives include rape, prostitution, female circumcision, sexual abuse and near slavery.

"Men talk about what they think; women talk about what they feel. That's the difference!" Confessions of a Free Woman is a film written in the language of feelings. A different language. The language of women. Fox gets involved with women who are in desperate circumstances. With women who are, or become, her friends. She treats all as equals. The shared emotions are a bridge of understanding for us as we watch spellbound.

The film's title perhaps evokes Erica Jong's famous novel, Fear of Flying. Both works address the complexity of relationships. Desire. Love. Dependence. And 'freedom.' But Fox is skin-flayingly autobiographical. When stuff hits the fan, it's real. And we experience it with her. Fox and Jong have used a common symbol of flying to evoke the sense of freedom. For Fox, it hearkens back to childhood. She would practice take-offs and landings with her father - who had a small two-seater plane. She idealises father as 'free'. As a man, he could do "anything he wanted." Jennifer follows in dad's footsteps in many ways, but then she hits a time in life where different perspectives are kicking in - with a harshness. Her best friend has a brain tumour. She herself doesn't know if she wants a child. And are her 'freedom-based' relationships really satisfying? 'Flying' evolves in a very female-orientated way. She has always been acutely aware of her gender in terms of freedom. Being/not being controlled by men. One of her main techniques is to 'pass the camera' during group conversations. She addresses problems women face in an archetypically female way  by talking about them, and sharing emotion. While it succeeds in this to an extent that is almost groundbreaking, the film will divide audiences equally.

Men may need to make a bigger jump to understand women in the way women do. Arguably, though, it is worth the effort. Women still don't have parity even in the West. In some countries, they are little better off than livestock. In purely scientific terms, this is a massive loss to humanity. A loss of potential. Even before we get on to human rights: by failing to appreciate the value of others, we devalue ourselves, whatever the gender. It just so happens that women have often got a very short straw. So there is a good case to suspend traditional judgement and let the film speak in its own language before finalising your opinion.

And here's why you may feel it is an effort. Fox is an accomplished filmmaker, but her marathon voice-over has the tone of someone talking to a child or young student. (Is it a mistake commonly made by women who have been patronised? To then patronise?  a vicious cycle, but one that was exploded by feminist philosopher Radcliffe Richards in the 90's). Secondly, her narcissistic self-analysis can be like Woody Allen without the comedy, Sex in the City without the glamour, or Ally McBeal without a decent script. It takes her six hours of film (and several years of her life) to see what friends and family can see in five minutes (She falls in love with the wrong people  duh!  I've done that too, but did you really want to know?). Thirdly, she argues from the particular to the general (the erroneous logic of, 'because this example is true, it must be true for all cases'). Such flawed, quasi-philosophical ruminations would be laughable were they not accompanied by so much anguish. Fox's grand exploration lacks any visible academic basis and it is tempting to believe she is a bit up herself. The most interesting part of the film, the lives of other women, is dealt with far too superficially. It is easy to see her as a wide-eyed American, flying in for a three-hour tour of the horrific Asian brothel, then telling us her amazing facts as if she was the first person to discover them.

But for all its many flaws, Flying  Confessions of a Free Woman, is a considered triumph of film-making. It stays with you the way trivial events shared with close friends stay with you. So even the flaws work. Jennifer Fox puts herself through ordeals on camera. She exposes her private life in a way few people could bear. Remarkably, she can be experiencing dire personal struggles yet still the professional in her captures it on film. Then we have (after equally impressive editing by Nils Pagh Andersen) a lengthy work that is asking you to spend the best part of a day to watch it. That is brave.

And this reviewer is grateful that he was convinced to do it.


Despite its awful title, this film had potential. I wanted to be able to like this doc and herald it as an important feminist work for opening the discussion between women of different cultures on what love and marriage means to them, but I'm so put off by Fox's seemingly willful ignorance about her own life that it negates the film's positives.

Fox is so self-obsessed and unwilling to admit her own role in the relationships she chooses and the realities of how most other relationships work that I find it nearly unbearable to watch. I think there's a way to eschew traditional relationship roles without being so selfish or purposefully oblivious that you can't sympathize with those who adhere more to traditional roles.

I mean, any single adult who enters into an ongoing sexual relationship with a married person and doesn't for a second think "what happens if we get discovered?" nor acknowledges in any way prior to being discovered that said discovery might be the catalyst in the demise of the adulterous relationship is a tad delusional.

And the whole "I don't get married because I've seen men do bad things and I don't want to get emotionally hurt" bent just seems so naive. What does marriage have to do with the capacity to be hurt emotionally? Obviously Fox was hurt by the fact that she couldn't talk to her lover after his wife discovered their sexual relationship. The only way to not open yourself up to being emotionally hurt by relationships is to not BE in any relationships, married or otherwise. Is that not common sense to liberal New York narcissists? Guess not.

Fox's annoying hubris is a shame, because if she could have just shut up about her own stupid life for a second, she might've had a good idea for a documentaryand it would have been a hell of a lot shorter than a tedious six hours. Instead we're presented with someone who proclaims her alleged freedom while showing us how miserable her decision to be "free" makes her. Um, hooray?


So, after the film's subject drones for hours about various women's issues, I'm supposed to take her seriously as a woman of substance and a feminist. Give me a break.

What kind of feminist:

1. Gets involved in bad relationship after bad relationship without recognizing her own self-destructive behavior and poor choice in partners? 2. Has an affair with another woman's husband and (apparently) feels no remorse for destroying a marriage? 3. I may not have heard this correctly, so my apologies if I misunderstood, but did I hear her say she'd had multiple abortions? I'm pro-choice, but abortion isn't birth control, lady. If you want women to achieve true sexual liberation, you best start behaving like a woman worthy of it.

In my mind, Jennifer Fox is not a woman to admire and this film is nothing but a vehicle for her own neurosis and narcissism.

As a husband and father of two daughters, I shudder at the idea of women looking at Ms. Fox as a role model.


OH MY GOD - this woman needs to read the book HE'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU. She tries to convince us that she is a "free woman" by choice, but it is painfully obvious she is only a free woman because the men who deign to sleep with her don't want her for anything more than sex. She spends the ENTIRE series discussing these horrendous relationships, for which she is obsessed. And she is completely remorseless when her married "lover's" wife finds out about their relationship. And she completely ignores the obvious meaning when he not only doesn't leave his wife, but virtually cuts off all contact with her. She even misses the import of her Swiss boyfriend deciding to work all day when she comes to visit him in Switzerland. It's really sad. Instead of portraying strong womanhood, she is one of the worst examples of a female's obsession to be loved and accepted by men. When will these women realize they ARE NOT any better than the women who have chosen to be in asymmetrical relationships with men but do it in a way that makes them happy.


Jennifer Fox did what most women would cringe to do...she discussed (and sometimes showed) all the intimate details of her sex life and she did it very openly. Sometimes her company consisted of men and women who were not hip to her ways and she could have faced severe consequences. Flying is about every woman and no woman. Some of these women have been free to explore their sexuality while some don't even know what an orgasm is (even after marriage). Fox did a brave thing by addressing not only the sexuality issues women have globally, but the issues we have with our mothers, our fathers, our siblings, nieces, nephews, body image, pregnancy,divorce, and several other factors. To keep it this real, it can't always be pretty so from Le Dawn's divorce woes, to Mindy the soccer mom, you can't help but identify with at least someone in the film. If you have an open mind, better yet an open heart this will be a good film for you. Feminist or not.


I caught this series of documentaries on TV by accident and it cost me a night's sleep; I was so intrigued that I couldn't stop watching.

The way in which Jennifer Fox explores her own sense of being a woman juxtaposed to the perspectives of women from all over the world on themselves is fascinating. It also seemed to me that Jennifer was very genuine in documenting her own life, including her own lapses of judgement from time to time (i.e. unprotected sex in an HIV infected country), and also her most dark moments and her happiest moments. This made the documentary very real and raw, and all the more educational. It also made the stories of the women around the world come to life more.

I thought it was beautiful how Jennifer's own quest for freedom and for motherhood, and her own struggle to find true love were contrasted to global women's issues such as female genital mutilation. Those who say that Jennifer's struggles are petty compared to the global issues and shouldn't have been shown in this way are entirely missing the point (in my not-so-humble opinion). If this was a scripted TV series - perhaps the point is valid. But this is someone's actual life we are seeing. These are the defining struggles in her womanhood and they absolutely compare to the global issues - as every woman's self-defining struggles do. There is nothing bigger than figuring out who you are, and then take action accordingly. One can see in this documentary that the more Jennifer begins to understand herself as a woman, the more she understands (and can identify with) the other women around the world. It's hugely important.

I also thought it was very interesting to see Jennifer's mother, aunt, father and grandmother and hear their perspectives on motherhood, marriage, sexuality etc. It made me think of my own parents' idea of me as a woman and how that has influenced my upbringing and how it still influences their dreams and expectations for my future.

All in all, I thought the 6 hours weren't enough. I would have gladly sat through another 6 (not all in the same night though!). This documentary made me reflect upon my own life and upon the lives of women all over the world. I'm also really curious to know how Jennifer's life developed, and also how all the other women are doing now. How is the young singer from the UK, for example? And has L'Dawn won her alimentation court battle yet?

Conclusion: well worth watching.


I love horror movies and I am very fond of anything based even vaguely on Poe. So, I settled down happily with a bowl of popcorn to watch this movie.

At first it had all the things that make a horror freak happy. There was a gloomy house, an equally gloomy housekeeper with dire warnings, and a mysterious figure seem at twilight and hiding in shadows.

And at first, pieces of the movie seem to be in place. Main character girl instead of traditional male: nice twist. Hints that she had a sexual past with both the Usher twins: interesting update. Male Usher twin obsessive sexual interest in her: nicely creepy. Usher twin getting her pregnant and locking her in the house: again nicely creepy.

And then it happens. Main character finds family photos. She sees that for the past seven generations the family has produced a set of male and female twins. She mutters something in a horrified voice which cannot be understood no matter how often the movie is replayed.

This something is enough for the housekeeper(who would you'd think, know the "curse" all along) to suddenly say the family is cursed, to try to end the main character's pregnancy, and to try to kill the male twin. There is running and screaming and people dying, with the viewer with no idea WHY. There is a "twist" ending which makes no sense, again because the "curse" is unknown, and if the main character does supposedly know it, why is she happily having the babies?

The visuals are good in the movie, the director is fairly good, the early creep factor at a decent level but because of the ending I can't give this movie a good rating.


It's not worth going on too long about this semi-supernatural thriller. The young, cute, predatory-looking blond Izabella Miko attends the funeral of her erstwhile best friend at a remote New England estate ruled by Miko's ex lover, Austin Nichols as Roderick Usher.

The two of them are rather gloomy. I mean, what with the suicide of the best friend and all. The atmosphere isn't helped by the presence of the housekeeper, Beth Grant, made up like a vampire, so much so that Madonna would look like a fresh-faced virgin beside her.

The general air of dread doesn't keep Miko from spending a lot of time wandering about the mansion in her underwear. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. I do it all the time myself. The problem is that these scenes are the highlights of the film! This is worse than Edgar Allan Poe's worst hang over. The photography is atmospheric enough and the location aptly chosen but everything else seems slapped together. It resembles a carefully conceived feature film the way a child's rolled-together limbs and torso made of clay, topped by a tiny ball of a head, resembles a human being.

Nobody in it can act, but -- that aside -- the story itself makes no sense. Edgar wouldn't have cared too much about that, but he had other things going for him, whereas this has only Miko's buns. Of the three principles, Miko is least bad, Nichols is well into negative territory, and Grant's every utterance reminds us that she's trying to act in a movie.

At first, after doing her grief work, Miko comes on the Nichols, smooching him up, her wide-open lips revealing glistening incisors of frightening dimensions. He demurs. His neurasthenia prevents him from responding. Later, when she arranges matters less formally and straddles his lap, he apologies because he still can't perform. There is another murky scene in which she toys with the belt of his robe. Next thing -- pow! -- she's pregnant with twins. What is this, coitus interruptus without the coitus? The least the director could do is throw us an explicit and climactic scene of strenuous coupling.

"Neurasthenia," the mysterious disease from which Roderick Usher suffers, is an old-fashioned term, current enough in Freud's period of disorganized nomenclature. It was used to refer to what we might call chronic fatigue today, combined with a little attention-getting irritability.

But why am I going on about neurasthenia, you ask? Because I think I caught it from this movie. I notice it particularly in regard to my black cat, Pluto, a fiend from hell. I keep telling him, "Just keep it up, that's all." But does he listen?


It was about the only thing that acted well in this piece of tripe. I'd like congratulate the director, Hayley Cloake, the lead actress, Izabella Miko and the lead actor, Austin Nichols on the amateurish attempt to adapt Poe.

To classify this as a B-movie would be an insult to B-movies. I would be more forgiving if this was the Hayley Cloake's first attempt at directing, however, it is not. She has no sense of setting the mood or tone of The Fall of the House of Usher. It's as if she never read the short story that her movie was supposed to be based. She could've at least viewed the Corman's version. I don't mind when writers/directors stray from the source material, just as long they take it in an original direction. Changing the narrator's sex did not succeed in doing so. Initially, I thought it would be an interesting twist. However, there was no tension in this "Thriller", which is a main ingredient in Thriller genre. As a matter of fact, there was no thrill. Even the soundtrack was boring and dull.

Izabella Miko seems satisfied prancing around in her underwear without any regard to what is actually unfolding before her eyes. Frankly, if I wanted to see scantily-clad women walking around, I would watch a Victoria's Secret fashion show. That would at least be visually stimulating and provide some entertainment. Miko is in dire need of acting classes. Someone needs to tell her that having a pretty face isn't all you need to make it in Hollywood. That may have worked for Jessica Alba, but look at how she is oft-ridiculed for her "acting".

I've only seen Nichols in JFC and I thought his performance in that, was decent. Unfortunately, I think, he only does well playing a retard. I have seen better acting in an Uwe Boll production or even YOUTUBE. Make an effort! You ARE playing RODERICK USHER!

Titling it, "The House of Usher" is appropriate since there is no Fall. In a lame twist ending, the Usher line actually continues with coming of Jill's twin children.

I wanted to like this film and I tried to ignore its flaws, but when there are so many, it's difficult to avoid them.


If you love the classics and was hoping for something remotely related to Poe.... stay away from this one. Nurse Thatcher? That really took a lot of creativity - not. I mean, thats something Mel Brooks would come up with. As a matter of fact, "High Anxiety" has more to do with Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher" than this crap. And, they should have got Cloris Leachman to play nurse Thatcher. Geez! This was bad. So bad. It was like something out of the far left wing of the democratic party. It was so bad. Like, maybe, Dennis Kucinich. In any event, there is no need to take the Tyleno PM with this bomb. 10 lines? I'm having a hard time coming up with ten lines. This movie was so bad you can't even say enough bad things about it.


Poor attempt at the Edgar Allen Poe tale. . I was not invested as an audience member in the film. I actually walked out. I have better things to do with my time. The acting is wooden, the direction and editing are quite poor as well. Cinematography was so so, if not that motivated, predictable. Most everything about the film was predictable. Too bad, could have been a great little thriller. Shot digitally and projected that way, which made it look even worse. the production design wasn't that bad. It didn't get in the way nor stick its head out, which is good. The sound was often out of sync and looped after the fact. All in all, I was disappointed. It really isn't that hard with a story this good to make and even passable movie, but some how this director found a way to squander it all. Don't bother.


From the moment a detective races down a couple of floors and catches a suicidal woman in mid-air to save her from falling 100 feet to her death, you know you are watching something VERY special. Unfortunately, special in every worst possible way. Curiously, a bit further on, a 4 year old child - getting a piggy-back down a lift rope from some guy - loses his grip, falls, and amazingly is caught cleanly in one hand by his mother, who isn't even looking.

There are some riveting scenes about a group of lads inexplicably setting fire to everything. They all look like they've just crossed straight from the set of Mad Max 3, and cannot at any point in the film, be taken seriously.

Whether this is trying to be 'Towering Inferno', 'Die Hard' or 'Escape from New York', we just don't know. What we do know, is that it shouldn't be trying. We just end up lurching from one ridiculously absurd disaster to another. Social realism you say? When was the last time you heard about somebody fannying about in a lift shaft in an abandoned block of flats in the middle of nowhere?


I went to see this film with a great deal of excitement as I was at school with the director, he was even a good friend of mine for a while. But sorry mate, this film stinks.

I can only talk about what was wrong with the first half because that's when I walked out and went to the pub for a much needed drink:

1) someone's standing on a balcony about to jump and so you send a helicopter to shine a searchlight on them??? I don't think so - nothing would make them more likely to jump.

2) local radio doesn't send reporters to cover people about to attempt suicide - again for fear of pressuring them into jumping - or for fear of encouraging copy-cat instances.

3) whatever the circumstances, radio reporters don't do live broadcasts from the 10th floor of a tower block. Radio cars don't carry leads long enough to connect the microphone and headphones to the transmitter.

4) the stuck in the lift scene was utterly derivative

5) the acting and direction was almost non existent.

I could go on, but I won't.


I've waited to watch this for a long time . Round about the same time Paul McGann was cast as The Doctor in the American DOCTOR WHO television movie it was announced he'd be starring in a British DIE HARD type of thriller called DOWNTIME . That's what the exact phrase was " A British version of DIE HARD " and being a DOCTOR WHO fan there's nothing I and many other fans would have liked more seeing a former DOCTOR WHO being as famous as Bruce Willis . I heard absolutely nothing more about DOWNTIME until it was broadcast on Channel 4 a couple of years ago which I somehow managed to miss . I didn't see it until last night and to be blunt I didn't miss much

The fact that it's set in Newcastle and filmed in Liverpool ( Let this be the final word on settings and locations ) sums up the whole movie - It's something it's not in the same way Newcastle is not really Newcastle and this is not really a British DIE HARD , it's a love story except for much of the running time the movie meanders in lots of directions . For a few minutes it thinks it's a crime thriller , then decides it's going to be a kitchen sink drama , then gets up on its soap box to scream what a terrible place modern Britain is . Maybe an appropriate title for the movie might have been DIE HARD : TRY HARDER AT KEEPING A SCRIPT FOCUSED ?

It's not just the lack of focus that's a problem ( Though that's the main one ) it's other things too . Can anyone buy into Rob falling in love with Chrissy ? Neither can I . And I notice this is a French co-production . Perhaps I would have understood the dialogue better if it was spoken in fluent French because I had a serious problem making out the broad Geordie accents . Oh and unsurprisingly the film gets comes to a halt which led me to believe the last ten minutes ended up on the cutting room floor

DOWNTIME is a very ironic film since its often revolves a lift . Lifts can only go up or down but this movie moves in so many unlikely directions


This is a script which must have appealed on paper to the actors - there's lots and lots of snappy dialogue - BUT the pacing, structure and action sequences are woeful and in the end it leaves Paul McGann, Susan Lynch and Tom Georgeson, to name but three, in limbo, mouthing silly platitudes at the end and embarrassing themselves and us in the process.

So who's to blame - the writer or the director? And how come those producers from Channel 4 etc got involved? Couldn't they suss out this dog beforehand?

The photography (from Tony Imi) is dark and gloomy, appropriately enough, as most of the film is set in a filthy tenement lift shaft, but it makes for an unrelievedly gloomy look.

There's little attempt to show lives and characters other than during the action .

The film is mainly a real-time story, with a prequel where the two protagonists "meet cute" - she's hanging off a balcony & he's sort of trying to rescue her. Then we go to real-time lift shaft fun, followed by some truly mawkish stuff in the hospital at the end. Poor Tom Georgeson is given no real motivation for his actions.

Paul McGann does what he can with the script but he's playing such a ditz that one feels he'd be better off in some nursing home for the terminally frightened. He's also called upon to do illogical and stupid things (what a surprise, in this film). Susan Lynch plays with energy but again, it's a cardboard character with no reality, derived from memories of Hollywood films & television sitcoms. Again, she has to crawl up & down steel cables (as one so frequently does) whilst dressed in a slip of a dress and a cardigan....


This is an underrated, decent little thriller. It probably cost peanuts compared to 'Speed', and the Elevator bit in this film was just as exciting as any I've ever seen.

Paul McGann isn't exactly an action hero type. He's just a bit too nice to be an action hero. But how many British actors match up to someone like Bruce Willis, so I guess he was as good a choice as any. I think it was a good thing that he was a sensitive, slightly wimpy with the asthma, and afraid of heights, because this made him a much better Romantic Hero. He, boyishly attempting to ask Susan Lynch out, and she swearing at him, was funny and sweet.

The film ending without solving any of the problems of the residents of the building (I mean that mean kid was never punished), but ending with Chrissy agreeing to go out with Rob, seems to imply that this was just a Romantic comedy all along.


You see there's a pattern now in the film industry - Hollywood does action films, because they cost so much to make, and the Brits do comedy or drama. The strength of the Brits is that they produce gritty, real life films that contrast with the Hollywood approach where everyone's wealthy and attractive.

Downtime is a worthwhile attempt at a British style action film. Incidentally the location is Newcastle, not Liverpool as stated by the chap from Norway. I realise that I'm in a minority but I liked it and could relate to the characters and the situation.

It was a nice touch to have a hero who, as well as climbing liftshafts, is asthmatic. The ending in the hospital is fine too. I love the part where Paul McGann asks the gunman to wait a moment while he discusses his relationship with the mother. It's not the best film ever made but its a 6 or 7 out of 10 and doesn't deserve its current average score of 4.2!


One minute, you're up, the next, you're down. Tony Hancock quit the B.B.C. at the height of his popularity to do an inferior show for I.T.V., an experience from which he never recovered professionally. Harry Enfield, alas, didn't learn from this, quitting the B.B.C. to make this horrible Sky One production, which, apparently, even he didn't bother to watch. Enfield is an amazingly talented comedian, but alas was let down by the atrocious material, shoddy production values and mediocre supporting cast. Paul Whitehouse and Kathy Burke were sadly missed. Some of Harry's new characters - such as James Bond's idiot brother, and the sex-mad fisherman - look and sound like rejects from 'The Fast Show'. One sketch consists almost entirely of profanity. Unlike Hancock, Harry is thankfully still with us, and one hopes he gets his career back on track one day. 'Brand Spanking New Show' was a criminal waste of his talent, an insult to Harry's many fans, for which the people behind it deserve a good spanking.


Indeed a copycat as already was written. Makeup is nice, casting great, acting reasonable to good, but the movie itself is very boring. I like the genre but the music isn't very good, there is no climax building up and the story stretches along slowly. One of the few movies I had to use the FF function to get to at least a little bit of things happening, besides the no good dialogs. Furthermore, metal or hard-rock (whatever it's called) music is louder then spoken words which made me have to use the volume button more often. Loud music is no warranty for a climax and in this case it causes rather more of an anti-climax and irritation.

I suggest you pass this movie or when you're really a genre-lover, wait until you get it almost for free. No exciting and sitting on the edge of the couch in this one.

Still I gave this movie a 3 because of cast, acting, makeup and stuff.


Themovie opens with a horribly lame scene - two men in the desert, no town nearby, no horses, no provisions, and dragging a casket. Right! This is the opening to what becomes and even worse attempt at film making. Poor dialogue, poor story, unbelievable circumstance, and mediocre - at best - make up effects make this one big bomb of a stinker. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of horror and have been since near birth. Love low-budget films since they nearly all contain the raw, gritty edge that Hollywood films almost always lack. But 7 Mummies is not worth anyones time let alone the money they spent to make this. The direction is just plain bad with overly long cut scenes and poor angles that do no justice to the forced story line. Just a big bunch of YUCK!


I don't even know where to begin. Just watching this movie all the way to the end was painful. The plot jumped around non-stop, and it was practically impossible to follow, even though it was incredibly simplistic. Other reviews claimed that the casting and makeup were 'great', but I didn't think that either was especially good. I can't comment on the 'stunts' because there weren't any that were bigger than someone rolling off a 1-storey roof onto the ground.

The lighting throughout the whole movie was horrible, so it was difficult to even see what was going on half the time. The music was poorly chosen and was played so loud that it drowned out the dialog. Although, drowning out the dialog may have been a good thing since the dialog itself was dull and repetitive. The so-called climax of the movie was in fact the most anti-climactic part of the movie.

I strongly recommend that anyone considering seeing this movie should NOT see it instead. It's too bad the vote system won't accept votes lower than 1.


The title says it all. Danny Trejo isn't the only similarity between FDTD and this bad copycat. The plot is so similar, the events almost exactly the same, it's almost funny.

It's starts like a action/criminal movie, and then, in some dark bar, it suddenly turns into a horror type of thing. Sounds familiar???

And it even isn't done very good. The acting is poor, the creatures are poor, hell, even Danny Trejo is poor.

So, as a horror fan, I can only give you 1 advice: Keep away from this movie. Actually, keep away from all movies that have "mummy" in their title


Admitted, I love bad movies (eg. Evil alien conquerors) and horror movies, but this movie was however bad in a REALLY bad way. It made absolutely no sense what so ever, horrible lighting, disastrous camera work, acting, etc...

It seems the people writing the script thought of "cool" ideas for a 30 minutes movie and then just filled in the rest with meaningless nonsense. I cannot believe anybody would put their names on this kind of crap.

I could go on for pages about how horrible it was, but being the optimist I am, I will mention the only two good things about the movie: It was the first movie I have seen, containing Ninja-Priest-Mummies and it contained quite some large boobies. Besides that it absolutely sucked ass!

Do not watch this movie without serious masochistic tendencies!


First let me say I'm sorry for your pain and suffering if you have already seen this movie. The movie is no more than a poor at best attempt of an ongoing subject, Mummies and their curse. I'm still trying to figure out where the title "7 Mummies" comes from. Unless I missed something, which is possible since I had no problem going to the fridge without pausing this waste of time, I only counted 2 mummies. If the movie itself wasn't enough to make you cringe, the soundtrack will at the very least will give you a "headbanging headache".The bottom line is that if it weren't for Cerina Vincent and the "Vamp Tramps",it wouldn't have even gotten a 3! The best part of this movie other than looking Ms Vincent was the fact that it is only 80 minutes long. Good thing, I don't think I could have taken much more.


The opening scene is roughly 5 minutes of two men dragging a coffin followed by ten minutes of opening credits (THANK YOU DIRECTORS GUILD). The plot fleshes out fast and simply with not a thought to be wasted figuring it out, sadly it's a plot more akin to a theme park Halloween show than an actual film. The dialog is blessed with more expletives than Eddy Murphy Raw, while maintaining a fresh 'I've never heard actual conversations' kind of pace. Now don't go thinking this film is devoid of personality, why the opening credits star a very talented Tarantula who is for all practical purposes acting very natural. I think probably the most amazing thing about this 'film' is that somebody actually funded it and it found it's way to DVD. HOW? WHY? There are tons of student films made every year that have this film beat in every way possible. Here's a short list of what can be found here, breasts, vampires, mummies, cowboys and kung fu mummies (which are wicked nimble), all this to a hodge podge of music ranging from uninspired rock to ineffectual rap. Brilliant use of money and B-list actors.


Nothing special here. A low budget film shot in a low budget place. Bad guys try and take something from worse guys without understanding the price they may have to pay. Escaped convicts fall upon an old Spanish treasure protected by Priests that have become mummies whose soul purpose in death is to protect the treasure. The acting was OK for the most part. The script was nothing special. The camera work was low budget. If you want to see a bunch of people and monsters killing and being killed, then this is for you. Moderate amount of gore. Cerina Vincent was hot in her usual white muscle shirt. Danny Trejo was good, as always, in his character. Billy Drago was born with, and perfected, that creepy bad guy image.


Acting - Diabolical Plot, _ Diabolical Dialogue, - Diabolical Lighting - Diabolical, Continuity - you guessed it Diabolical.

Need I go on?? How this ever made it straight to DVD is beyond me. It is jaw droppingly awful.

I had to watch it all the way through just to see what new depths would be plummeted.

The plot jumps around all over the place, for some reason all the "undead" just disappear out of the film at some point for reasons unknown. The lighting looks like its been done by some bloke with a torch (flashlight). I just haven't enough space to express how awful this was. I recommend that EVERYONE watches this film so that they can say they have watched the worst film of all time. And i thought one I saw in Singapore about a skateboarding monkey was the worst ever....how wrong i was.