You'll find this video nasty on the shelves under the name Axe. Don't be tempted to spend your money even if it is at Wal-Mart, which I doubt.

After being banned in Britain, it was released uncut in 2005. They didn't do anyone any favors as the production values are bottom of the barrel, the acting is little to none, and the horror is all off screen. I can't even guess why it was banned in the first place unless it had to do with the rumor that the girl in the film was allegedly 13. No, nothing happens to her, as she kills an attempted rapist with a straight razor, and chops another with an axe after he fights her for about five minutes. Some tough guy - he can't even subdue a little girl.

Writer/director Frederick R. Friedel only made three films, turning to comedy after his failure at exploitation horror. Leslie Lee was only a voice in one other film. Ray Green was also in only one other film. Jack Canon didn't have much of a career - mostly voice work. And, this was granddad's (Douglas Powers) only film. In fact, the only person that had a long career in film was David Hayman, and he was only a voice on the TV in this film. He is probably happy about that.


I'm still wondering why "Axe (a.k.a. Lisa, Lisa)" was one of the notorious video nasty's in the 80's. It really doesn't have the quality or the shocking moments that made comparable movies like "Last house on the Left" and "I Spit on your Grave" so infamous and instant classics. The story is rather dull with almost no action and the characters are very stereotypical. The most strange thing is that there appear to be two different versions: the cut and the uncut one. I'm sure I saw the uncut version, but I'm wondering what in the hell had to be cut out for the "R-rated" version. There's no gore, just some blood which was rather fake, red paint that was way to bright. The movie clocks off at 68 (!!) minutes, but that's o.k: I guess you couldn't stretch this simple story any longer. Worth a look only for the 70's and early 80's mood, that's done well but no classic in my book.


Having just killed two men, and tortured a convenience store assistant, three thugs (two thoroughly sadistic bastards and one 'nice' guy) decide to lie low, taking refuge at a deserted farmhouse, home to pretty young teenager Lisa and her paralysed war veteran grandfather. Naturally, it's not long before the more morally bankrupt members of the murderous trio decide that they wanna piece o' Lisa; to their horror, however, the girl proves to be not quite as defenceless as she at first appears...

Axe is one of many low-budget pieces of trash that gained notoriety thanks to its inclusion on the Video Nasty list during the 1980s, and, as such, will forever be of interest to those who are compelled to check out the 'forbidden'. The irony is, of course, that if it hadn't been for the futile efforts of a handful of politicians, Britain's right-wing newspapers and certain clueless activists, the film would have been long forgotten by now (along with many other titles on the list).

Although just over an hour long, this amateurish home-invasion exploitationer is still rather tedious stuff, being extremely slow and very predictable. It also features a poorly developed plot and characters (apparently due to a rather rushed production in order to meet distributors demands), several totally unbelievable moments (Lisa being able to dismember one attacker in the bath unseen, and then even convince the gullible 'nice guy' that his partner in crime did it!) and a dreadful score consisting of an abysmal aural assault by stylophone, bongos, piano and tambourine!.

Also, whilst this is admittedly fairly grim stuff thematically, with endless scenes of humiliation, rape, murder, and the suggestion of cannibalism in the film's final moments (or so I understoodthe whole soup thing was fairly confusing), there is nothing particularly shocking to see: a very weak neck slicing, a couple of off-screen axe attacks, and a headless chicken. Nasty, but all things unlikely to cause a problem for today's jaded horror audiences.


Well, my journey down the 'video nasty' road has brought me to a little-known gem called "Axe." My buddy loaned it to me and I checked it out with great expectations. I'd heard lots about this movie and how gritty it was. I have to say, I am not too impressed.

I like the mediocre acting, the cheesy plot, and the music, but there just wasn't enough violence and blood in this film for me. You never actually see someone get hacked up. It's one of those 'camera cuts away just before' movies. The plot was pretty much a run of the mill "Last House on the Left" ripoff. Sadistic lunatics torture a family. Big deal.

Even for the low budget, "Axe" should have been better. I mean come on...how expensive is fake blood? 4 out of 10, kids.


This movie's known more commonly as AXE, but I suppose the more official title would be LISA, LISA. Even though it's only 68 minutes long it felt much longer. It begins with a group of criminals in suits and ties who beat what appears to be an associate of there's to death and then go out and terrorize a female clerk at a convenience store. Of course, they get tired and have to rest, so they take over the home of a young girl and her paralyzed grandfather, with predictable mayhem to follow. This is another entry in the LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT sweepstakes, but the pacing is slow and the payoff not really worth the effort.


AXE is about a young girl and her invalid grandfather, whose country house is invaded by a trio of killers on the run from the cops. In need of a place to hide out after inflicting a fatal beating and unnecessarily tormenting a convenience store clerk, they make themselves at home as the depressed girl, Lisa holds her own by offing the guys one by one with many axes that always seem to be in reach. Written and directed by Frederick R. Friedel, also known as Lousy R. Director. He even acts in this movie, if you can believe it! The gore is minimal, the acting is nonexistent, and it is an overall forgettable movie. Don't bother...


A 'video nasty' only in the sense that it smells like something nasty you stepped in at the park, this film features a mad girl killing off some trespassers on her and her disabled father's land one by one. Featuring a hysterical leading performance by a sixth rate actress, below budget effects you could probably recreate at home with some ketchup and a running time of just over an hour which still feels like an eternity, it all adds up to a real waste of time you watch at your own risk. I have no idea why it qualified as a two-disc special edition, but at least I can put a couple of beverages down on my table when a friend pops over without the stains on my fine mahogany. ZING! 2/10


The acting in this movie was so bad, especially with the killer. When he came charging at them at the end on the ATV, I was laughing so hard, my side hurt. They could not create a parody of this movie and have it be any funnier. I pride myself on seeing really bad films, but even this one hits a new low. Not even worth the bargain bin. What a waste of film and time. I hope they never work again. The only thing scary about this movie is if someone was duped to seeing it at a theater. The only thing that scares me is if they make a sequel. I can't believe they were able to gather together so my people that lack any talent. Just... bad.


Just looking at the video box, which features a young woman with an axe raised in the air, you can probably guess what the film is going to consist of. Although the film isn't really ever boring and moves along at an average pace, the utter cheapness of the production pretty much sinks the whole affair. In contrast to that, one could say the sparseness of the production contributes to the overall detachment, the girl being alone at the farmhouse with the 3 killers. One of those "either you like it or either you hate it" low-budgeters.


- Reena the Seer (Monique Gabrielle) seeks the assistance of Deathstalker (John Terlesky) for a perilous journey. Deathstalker doesn't know that Reena is really Princess Evie in disguise. Reena/Evie is looking for someone to help her overthrow Jarek the Sorcerer (John Lazar) who previously overthrew her. The journey is full of obstacles - a murderous band of cut-throats, zombies, and an Amazon army. Of course the pair finally reach their destination for the final face-off with Jarek.

- Deathstalker II is just one in a long line of movies that were made to cash-in on the success of Conan the Barbarian. I realize that most of this movie is played for laughs. But most of the jokes are anything but funny. Deathstalker II rips-off so many other movies, but does so with very little success. Take the exchange between Deathstalker and evil Sultana (Toni Naples) - Deathstalker, "Do you expect me to talk?" - Sultana, "No, Deathstalker. I expect you to die." It's moments like this that left me cringing.

- The acting is, for the most part, exactly what you would expect. Gabrielle delivers her lines with the conviction usually reserved for kindergarten plays. But, something tells me that Gabrielle wasn't hired for the role because of her ability as a thespian. Terlesky comes off as the kind of guy you just want to slap for being such a smart aleck. Lazar, looking like a Duran Duran wannbe, is anything but menacing. Naples, for whatever reason, plays her role in a mostly straight fashion that doesn't fit with the rest of the nonsense going on.

- If your interested in a history lesson covering the type of movies Conan the Barbarian spawned or if you like overly obvious attempts at humor, Deathstalker II may be the movie for you.


I believe this movie could incite in me the same symptoms veterans of the Vietnam War experience. This movie was so vile, and it is only good now for a good campy laugh. This was my brother's favorite movie, so I was tortured with it until he discovered "Gymkata", and let's not even go there! I can still hear the voice of the Academy Award-caliber actress Monique Gabrielle, in her "if you can call it that" costume, plaintively calling, "Stalker? Stalker?" I seem to remember the lame plot that she was a seer with a "secret" double life she didn't remember. SORTA SPOILER: Whoever thought they could take a porn star and make her a princess MUST have been smoking something! Man, what a dog movie!!!!


Locked away in the vaults of every film studio are negatives from some truly quality horror and cult films that have yet to see a proper DVD release. Serious aficionados are forced to track down bootleg copies that are merely transfers from semi-grainy VHS tapes, which do little to preserve the quality or augment these films with supplemental material, or at least a decent digital remaster. With so many gems left undiscovered by a discerning digital audience, it thoroughly amazes me that something like The Sister Of Ursula was deemed worthy of a DVD makeover.

Though billed as a hybrid giallo/erotic thriller, there are few thrills to be had in this plodding mess of a whodunnit, and with only a few unimpressive scenes that feature any sort of horror element, the spaghetti splatter here is closer to Stauffer's lasagna (although such a comparison is actually insulting to Stauffer's, since their lasagna is loaded with taste, while this film has none).

When you strip away any mystery or horror, what this film does offer is loads of soft-core sex scenes that are graphic enough to skirt the boundaries of even the X rating. So, was there no pornography available in Italy in the 70's? I consider this merely because the only audience this film seems aimed at are fans of graphically displayed and unabashedly lewd sex acts, yet since this film doesn't quite go the XXX distance, it seems silly that anyone in that demographic would seek this out instead of opting for a purely pornographic offering.

As far as smut goes, this is certainly well-made smut, we have to give it that. The cinematography and locations are attractive to look at, as are most of the female actresses, who spend the majority of the film in various couplings and states of undress. However, this also works against Ursula, because since this is a relatively polished piece of film making, it doesn't even have the unintentional humor of ineptness that gives many trashy movies such as this cult following appeal. One definite piece of comedic interest, however, is that the main "steamy" theme that accompanies each of the sex scenes borrows heavily from "Jingle Bells".

Even the murderer's choice of a giant phallus as a weapon isn't too novel, since while reading up on Ursula I learned that there was another Italian film made before this with a killer that employed the same noteworthy instrument of death. It doesn't help that the unit is carved in the shape of a bearded gnome, either. When all is said and done, and the killer is revealed, the particulars of the murders become puzzling: So, apparently the victims just laid there and allowed themselves to be wooden phallused to death?

Nearly all of the on-screen carnage is done with after-reveals, none of which reveal much of anything, so this can't really be recommended to fans of the classic 70's Italian slasher movement. And since we've already established that there's no suspense (the killer practically has the word "psychotic" carved on their forehead), fans of classic thrillers won't find a winner here. (It's worth noting that the trailer advertises this piece as an adult character study of sorts, with only one hint of murders taking place in the film, so the giallo aspects in Ursula were apparently considered irrelevant even to the film-makers).

Which leaves a question far more disturbing than this film: why would anyone pay 20 bucks to preserve The Sister Of Ursula in their DVD library? That one, I can't answer. Besides, I got my copy for around 7 bucks, and I'm fairly confident I can get at least that much when I sell this piece of crap back.


I saw a really bad softcore porn/giallo flick last week and it's staying with me. Curse Of Ursula [1978]. It's just unbelievable and could only have come from Italy in the 1970's. It's about these 2 sisters who go and stay at a resort hotel. One sister is frustrated & oversexed and likes to strip in front of the other (to cheesy softcore porn music); the other is hysterical & repressed and obsessed with her dead daddy. You'll howl over the hilarious opening scene where one sis strips off all her clothes (including her sexy lingerie) in front of the other, while said other, with a fixed, disapproving scowl on her face, unpacks teddy bears, pictures of Daddy in wrought iron frames, and... a huge wooden dildo? They don't call it Eurotrash for nothing my friends. Now you would think the "horror" in this flick is represented by the gruesome sex murders but the real horror of this movie is embodied by "Stella Shining" a so-called "entertainer" who looks like a coke whore and who evidently only knows one unforgettably terrible song. I have been taunting my cats with it for days now, even emulating the singer's voice and gestures. There should be a camera running in this place.

The scene where the sexy sister masturbates with her jewelry is supposed to be erotic but I was laughing.

I can't be sure, but I think all the women in the movie were wearing matching merkins. They must've been on sale or something.

The thing that makes giallo films great is surprising, if sometimes rather unbelievable, plot twists. No surprises from Ursula. You'll figure out who the killer is right away.

This truly bad, stupid, softcore flick must be seen to be believed, but only when you are ready for extreme trash. You know who you are. Enjoy.


Last Gasp of the Giallo genre by the end of the 70's, "Ursula's sister" will be on top of the list of european trash & sleaze fans. But boy this one was tragically bad & boring.

It's an utterly lacklustre attempt to mix sex & violence. From an uninteresting story (two sisters going on vacation by the sea are fighting over their father & mother relationship while a maniac kills young girls with a huge dildo (!!!!) right after they made love), Enzo Milioni's effort has a reminiscence of Jess Franco's early 70's works (The Bare Breasted Countess or Lady dracula) but with no talent shown. I rarely use my fast forward option on my remote but here I found a pure gem. Neverending dialogues by the sea, uneffective editing killing most of the suspense, cars chases at 50m/h that last at least 4 minutes (even with the beautiful sights of the Amalfi coast)are really too much for me.

Bad acting, bad dubbing... only Barbara Magnolfi seems out of this world, her eyes lost as if she didn't actually realize what she was doing. Even handsome Marc Porel at his worst is in this huge pile of crap.

Except the hotel location and the deep blue sea, it seems obvious that the budget was low, so were the expectations of the producers, I guess. But the TV-like cinematography doesn't help at all.

The only different thing are the sex scenes : they're all on the verge of an hardcore movie. Which is strange for an italian thriller of 1978. But besides the excitement for male straight viewers, it doesn't bring anything to this flick. It's not even titillating as the actresses & actors don't seem to believe in what they do. It's pure Sexploitation and totally useless...and not even fun!

On the top of all this nonsense, the score is simply atrocious. Horrible 70's italian muzak : mix of bad funk and Morriconesque women vocalizing surrounded. The murders scenes (no gore at all, by the way -not enough budget) are mixed with a tremendously funny violin that tones down all the thrill you might get. Oh, and there's the song sung by Yvonne Harlow (what a pseudo!) with the worst lipsync in all movie history. Gotta be seen to be believed.

Sexist stuff & simply trash...Just plain boring & insulting for the viewer.

Superwonderscope says 2


My impressions of the first half: Too many characters. Too much chaos. Not enough soul. Too many deus ex machina rescues. Lower production values (a large percentage of the movie obviously took place in one, large, circular room that was redressed for different scenes) For me, Farscape is about tight plotting: building tension, keeping focus on the characters and the situation, and tightening the screws as one thing after another gets frelled. This was "much ado about nothing".

Chiana now has Matrix-style moves and magic eyes. D'Argo is pretty much scenery. The interrupted wedding gag was stale the first time. Sikozou was so unrecognizable that we thought it was a new actress. The central gag involving Rygel strained disbelief and was itself a distraction. Basically, major characters had no reason to be on screen, and should have been given a purpose; secondary characters should have been denied their cameos. The creators (could it even be the same team that made the series in its prime?) have focused so much on making this "the last hurrah" that they lost site of making it good!

My wife kept chanting "Star Wars Christmas Special" the whole time; gratuitous reunions with characters we don't have time to see. Big explosions. Ridiculous revelations.

The rumors are that they compressed the major arc of season five into the equivalent of four episodes; this seems to be true, and they've jettisoned everything that made Farscape special in the process. I will be watching the second half tonight, but my expectations are low.


The television show "Farscape" is perhaps one of the best I have ever watched. I sat fascinated through the 88 episodes, whether I was laughing, crying, or cheering on the crew of Moya. But this mini-series lacks the feel of the television series (which it began to lose in its fourth season). It feels like any old sci-fi movie - not like Farscape. The cameos of old characters seem a bit forced, the plot is cliché, the battles are uninteresting (and much to long and unrealistic). JC and the crew of Moya are *not* heroes - thats what makes them so fun to watch, they are just looking out for themselves, trying to survive in a dangerous universe - so why force them into that role in this movie? Its unfortunate that such a fantastic show has to go out by such a terrible movie. It could have - should have been - much better.

Its not terrible, but I rate it a 1 in hopes of dropping its too generous score as is. I rate the show 10. Check that out, then watch this if you love the show, but don't keep your hopes too high.


The 1st Rocky combined a story about a boxing career and a love story. That combination made the 1st Rocky such a great film. However, Rocky II focuses only on a love story between Rocky and Adrian(i.e. they have a baby). The real action doesn't occur until the end, where Rocky fights Apollo Creed for a 2nd time. After the first Rocky, the producers should have left this series alone.


This was probably the worst movie I've ever seen. Imagery? Symbolism? My ass. This movie was pure crap. Its plot holes had plot holes. The intense amount of useless character who die evoke no emotion. The whole constant costume changes was impossible, as well as retarded. Ugh...I can't even keep writing this, since thinking about the movie makes me want to vomit all over my keyboard.

I would never force this movie upon even my most hated enemy. I cannot conceive how this man wrote this movie, and thought that it was good enough to be directed and produced. I cannot conceive how any self-respecting actor would read the script and actually take on one of the roles. I cannot even conceive HOW I MANAGED TO SIT THROUGH THE WHOLE DAMN THING. It was like a train-wreck in slow motion, so bad that one can't look away, even with the vile hatred of Ota Strichter or whatever his name is building up within one's self.

Seriously folks: This review has horrible grammar and structure because the sucktitude (a word I just made up because there is no word in the English language to describe such drivel) has me in a complete fluster.

Do yourself a favour, instead of watching this movie, do something a lot more entertaining than watching this horrendous piece of junk movie, such as gnawing of each of your digits one by one, or, say, slamming your head as hard as you can into a the frame of a car door and then subsequently closing the door on your head as hard as you can over and over.

If you'll excuse me though, I have to go shove a burning ember into my nose in the hopes that it will reach my brain and burn the memories of it from my mind.


...and I'm glad everyone here on this fine site agrees with me on that! I've seen my share of awfulcrappyutterly trashy films already but this 'Skullduggery' beats them all. The poor suckers who made this film didn't even have the money to buy a couple of light bulbs. Three quarters of the film is underexposed and you can imagine how staring at a semi-dark screen easily irritates you. Unfortunately, the disastrousness doesn't stop thereevery tiny little aspect about this film is just downright horrible. It looks like it tries to be a horror comedyonly it's not funnyor scary. Skullduggery is a mess and it hurts even more to say it's got some potential. Even though the plot isn't really clear to me (or to anyone, I suppose) it seems to handle about a guy whose actions are controlled by the devil, because there's an ancient curse on his bloodline. When he's playing a sorcerers-and-witches board game with some pals, he loses all sense of realityI think. The acting sucks, the music annoys, the tension is non-existent and the murders are lame. To say it short: this entire production is retarded. I paid 0,59$ for the ex-rental tape and I desperately want my money back.


Skullduggery, skullduggery, ah, how you have hurt so many with your cheesy-ness. Yet, I love this movie, not as much as 'Big Trouble in Little China' or 'Trekkies,' but I love 'Skullduggery' all the same. The entire movie reeks of low budget "student film" and there are more than enough odd characters, stilted dialog and bad acting to make any bad movie fan giddy with delight. Plus they filmed the entire thing in Toronto, one of my favorite cities.

This would have been a perfect movie for MST3K. I hope that years and years from now, when all the old msties get together and lament the movies that never got the MST3K treatment, this movie will rank at the top.

Mind you I don't recommend that you watch this movie in conjunction with any other 'gamer goes crazy' movie, as the consequences for you can be dire. Yes, I was the one who watched 'Skullduggery' and 'Mazes and Monsters' back to back, and what happened? Well, I collapsed with an infected, inflamed gallbladder. You have been warned.

Still if you are looking for a movie to 'MSTify' alone or with friends, you can't beat this movie.


That I'm inspired to go back and *raise* my votes for other stinkers just to give my vote of 1 a little more oomph. The main character wanders around killing people, but nobody in town seems to notice or care. You won't, either. The killings have some connection with an ancient curse and/or the "Dungeons & Dragons"-like game he plays. At least, that's what the blurb on the back of the box claims - I suspected we were cutting away to scenes from another movie at random.


I unfortunately own a copy of this movie, and I spring it on people when I'm feeling particularly evil. ;

But seriously, the flick looks like the director gave up on it 5 minutes into the movie, and his replacement tried to put as much artsy-fartsy, has nothing whatsoever to do with the movie symbolism as he could. (although watch for the "Tic-Tac-Toe bathrobe guy, not only is it the director, he always gets cheered at the mass showings). You know a movie is bad when you have to dub an English speaking actress into English.

This movie is prime MST3K fodder! In fact we're working on a MST style script for it now.

NOT FOR THE FAINT OF STOMACH!!!


No, seriously. It makes no sense. It's just a bunch of random nothing thrown together in as senseless as way possible. Pick up stock footage, assemble it at random, and release it as a feature film, and you'll have something easily better than this.

So bad, it's not even funny. The only thing funny is that I watched it, and you can laugh at that.


I have never seen a worst movie. We read a review of this, my boyfriend and I, on Somethingawful.com, and laughed so hard.

But NOTHING could prepare us! You will NEVER find a more incoherent, absurd, stupid, and mind-numbing movie than this one! Our friend picked it up at a video store, and gave it to us after he watched it. It was like having a root canal for the whole movie, but we sat through it and gave it all we had.

We have seen the worst mankind has to offer. The plot makes no sense. It's fragmented and is incoherent at BEST. Though the fake 'D&D' sessions make any real gamer laugh, there's nothing to laugh at in this movie.

AvP looks like Hamlet compared to this piece of filth.


'Christmas in my Hometown' is standard Lifetime TV holiday fare. Tim Matheson plays a well-meaning, but out-of-touch business executive at a tractor manufacturing company to one of its factories in Athens, Nebraska to determine whom to fire as part of the company's plans to downsize. The small, good-natured town (which surprisingly (or not) has zero minorities) of course, relies on the factory to support their families, as well as the life of the town itself. Posing as a representative from a farming company needing to fill tractor orders, he gains the trust of the town and in particular, a woman (Melissa Gilbert) and her young daughter who buys his story, trusts him, and then, along with the whole town, shuns him when they find out that he might be cutting their job.

Filled with lots of sentimental tripe, it is predictable family entertainment from beginning to end, and interchangeable as far as Lifetime TV holiday movies go. But, nonetheless, it is an innocuous little distraction when you just need to put up your feet and watch a movie that might make you smile a bit during the holidays.


If you haven't seen the Beatty/Bening remake of An Affair to Remember - don't! This review is for readers who have seen the original and know the basic premise. I was drawn to the movie because of Bening - I enjoy her other films, but this one is a mockery of her talent! The on-screen chemistry between her and Warren just isn't there. The taboo of engaged couples "cheating" on one another is stale and the premise that Bening selflessly gets on with her life after her accident is implausible in today's world. The chance that Beatty would have a little auntie (even if that auntie is Katherine Hepburn) living on a tropical island that just happens to be close to where the plane he was flying in makes an emergency landing, is too much of a coincidence even for a fairy tale. This movie is beyond real! The jazz vocal narrative is annoying and out of place. As for the tear jerker ending, Warren can't even come close to replicating the look on Cary Grant's face when he realizes the devastating truth about Deborah Kerr. Oh what I'd give for a really good love story!


Love at First Sight--in Designer Sunglasses. Real-life couple Warren Beatty and Annette Bening are the star-crossed lovers in this remake of 1939's "Love Affair", which in turn was remade as "An Affair to Remember" in 1957. It's a gauzy, soft-focus, soft-headed confection about a playboy who becomes smitten with an attractive woman while on his way to marry somebody else; she's also otherwise engaged, and their on-again/off-again relationship has the same old-fashioned complications as the other versions of this highly-concocted plot. The material is really only as good as the actors selling it, and Beatty and Bening are certainly a striking twosome. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have noticed that 37 years have passed since this tale had some merit, and the results are distinctly musty. Overall, there's not enough energy in the direction nor heart in the general handling to make this a memorable 'Affair'. *1/2 from ****


Indeed people should generally not wait for the same thing if it comes, say, from Hollywood or Europe. In the case of "Love Affair" people should watch opera rather than this genre -- I highly recommend "Carmen" with Julia Miguenes-Johnson and Placido Domingo (1984) -- the epitome of a love affair as immortal as always! Titles chosen by the movie industry have -- alas! -- transcended good taste, and with it, semantic borders: maybe simply by following the pattern of our modern lives where the element of surprise has been discarded and replaced by circadian and pecuniary worries. Comparing Cary Grant to Warren Beatty (in terms of this being a remake) is like putting Berlioz next to Madonna!


Despite all the great talent corralled together for this film, it is a resounding dud. Warren Beatty tries to be another Cary Grant but he just doesn't have the latter's charm, elegance, and class. Annette Benning is affecting, but together the two don't put much passion or urgency in their supposedly torrid affair. About the only reason to watch this movie is to catch a brief glimpse of 86 year-old Katharine Hepburn, and this is hardly her best work. Aficionados of this genre would be better of tracking down the film on which it was based, "An Affair to Remember" (1957), with Cary Grant and Deborah Kerr, itself a Technicolor remake of the black-and-white "Love Affair" (1939).


Before I discuss Strayed I should say that I am a big fan of French cinema and therefore don't agree with the sweeping generalisation that it is over-ponderous and self-important. Strayed however most certainly does conform to this stereotype. It all begins very promisingly with a family running into the woods to escape German bombs and encountering an almost savage seventeen year old youth. The children like him while the widowed mother (played by Beart) is a little more reticent. Unfortunately the film then peters out and the rest of it meanders along with no sense of tension or character development. It is as though the writer came up with what he thought was a good idea, and then after writing a few pages realised that in fact he still had writer's block. The sex with which the film culminates appears to have been added to give the film some spice, but there are simply no preliminaries (at least on the part of Beart's character) to make her sudden rampant desire in any way explicable. The acting is good as is the general mood set by the music and the scenery, but this does not excuse the fact that this film simply has nothing important or interesting to say.


Emmanuelle Beart is one of those paradoxical European actresses (like Penelope Cruz, Fanny Ardent, Emmanuelle Seigner......) - kind of ugly/beautiful, one moment their acting sucks (Mission Impossible, Manon des sources), the next it's sublime (A Heart in Winter, L'Enfer). For me, Emmanuelle Beart was the only good thing about this movie. She captured the upper-middle-class mother thrust into extraordinary circumstances with great skill. Just a pity the story went nowhere. The English title "Strayed" was well-deserved, it summed up the plot well. Seems that some folks watched this movie in the expectation of riveting sex scenes, and while I thought that the whole ending sequence was very contrived, the sex scene did work to make sense of the movie, which was just as well since the rest of it was kind of ludicrous.


André Téchiné was never part of my favourite French directors."Les égarés" will not make me change my mind.It's certainly a cinema de qualité with polished pictures,good directing.But his movies (and I've seen a lot of them;"Barocco" "les soeurs Bronté" "j'embrasse pas" the ending of which is particularly infuriating)do nothing for me.

"Les égarés" ,in its first sequences on the road ,recalls René Clément's masterpiece "Jeux Interdits" .Then the scenes in the country far from the war might have been influenced by Louis Malle's "Black Moon" which would have turned "realistic",Yvan replacing the twins. The relationship Yvan/Odile is predictable and provides the low point of the film.The one sequence which reaches something out of the ordinary is when the wunderkind starts singing an operatic aria ,in German,which is all the more disturbing.


June 1940. As the German army invades France whole families flee through the country. It may remind you of the setting for René Clément's Jeux interdits. It's quite the same save that you feel not much sympathy for the characters. The mother (Emmanuel Béart) and her children flee and meet Yvan (Gaspard Ulliel), 16, who settles sort of a male authority. But all of them are nothing but wanderers (Egarés).

 So what's the hook? Well this is French cinema, that is the kind most film critics leniently praise precisely for wandering. You've got a storyline leading nowhere, characters discovering nothing so that nothing important happens. Ah but the pictures are nice and there's a little sex to thank you for waiting.

Then it's over and you wonder why you wandered into this theatre. Too late to wonder, you've already forgotten everything but you know why people go to see pop-corn movies: they forgot everything right away but they had the thrills.


Doll Face proves the point that all old movies aren't classics. In fact, Doll Face proves the point that most movies, whether made 60 years ago, 30 years ago or last week, are deservedly forgotten because they age so badly.

This guy-has-doll, guy-loses-doll, guy-wins-doll-back story gives us Doll Face Carroll (Vivian Blaine), a burleyque star with a great voice and a big following among the bald- headed set, and Mike Hannegan (Dennis O'Keefe), her manager and the impresario of the burlesque house where she stars. Doll Face wants to go legit as a singer on Broadway and Mike wants to help her...but her notoriety as a burlesque queen gets in the way. So Mike cooks up an idea to have a noted author ghost Doll Face's memoirs and smooth over the rough spots. Doll Face will get culture and that will get her legit stage offers. Ah, but the author who agreed to be the ghostwriter happens to be a very handsome guy. Wouldn't you know it, misunderstandings arise between Mike and Doll Face. But everything works out. A producer puts on a Broadway show based on Doll Face's hit memoirs. Doll Face not only stars but so do all her pals from Mike's burlesque show, which means Perry Como, Carmen Miranda and Martha Stewart. And Mike manages to win back Doll Face's love, along with 25 per cent of the smash show.

We get Como and Stewart singing and sort of dancing to "A-hubba, Hubba, Hubba," Blaine, Como and Stewart separately and in various combinations singing "Somebody's Walking in My Dreams," Como fronting the girls with "Red, Hot and Beautiful" and crooning "Here Comes Heaven Again," plus Carmen Miranda rolling her hips and eyes while trilling her r's through "Chico Chico," the big production number. The songs by Jimmy McHugh (music) and Harold Adamson (lyrics) are professional but that's about it. The only song that became a hit was Como's recording of "A-hubba, Hubba, Hubba." The big Latin production number with Miranda looks like 20th Century Fox was economizing. In this black-and-white movie it badly needs color and Busby Berkeley. For about half the movie, when guy loses doll and before guy gets her back, Doll Face the movie flops into angst and anguish, with over-acting by Blaine and far too much screen time with her and her ghostwriter, Frederick Gerard (Steven Dunne). Dunne was probably one of the handsomest actors never to make it. He had a smooth, assured voice perfect for radio. He can cock an eyebrow but he's as bland as Como.

What drives the nail in, however, are the rest of the actors. Dennis O'Keefe was a versatile guy, but even he can't make Mike Hannegan interesting. O'Keefe has to speak with a "funny" Brooklyn accent most of the time, something that sounds like journeymen Hollywood writers trying to channel Damon Runyon. He's stuck wearing a suit with padded shoulders, wide labels, a bow tie and a pork-pie hat with a snap-brim. This is someone's idea of a guy from the funny world of burlesque. At least O'Keefe is actor enough to bring some humanity to Hannegan. Vivian Blaine, on the other hand, was an actress who, at least to me, always came across on film as so polished and professional as to be bloodless. She'd hit her marks but not your heart. Blaine made a big hit on Broadway four years later as Adelaide in Guys and Dolls, so perhaps movies simply didn't do her talent justice. As far as Carmen Miranda, she's Carmen Miranda; you either like her or after a while she gets on your nerves. Perry Como is so laid back he seems half asleep most of the time. The standout, for me, is Martha Stewart. She's vivacious and knows how to sell an upbeat song.

But let's hear it for the people who never get a mention; in this case, a bit player named Charles Williams. He was a small guy with a little mustache and an energetic manner. Did he ever get a credit line in any of the movies he appeared in? In Doll Face he has a tiny part as a drug store clerk reading a notice to Mike Hannegan. It's not much but he makes the most of it. For those with long memories or big DVD collections, you might remember him from Vogues of 1938. Williams plays a customs clerk in a big production number. We're watching him through a window where he works. For about two minutes he goes into a song and dance, not quite imitating Eddie Cantor. That's all the screen time he has. It's funny and first- rate, and he didn't get billing there, either. (Dennis O'Keefe was in Vogues, too, as an unbilled dance extra.)


STAR RATING: ***** Jodie Marsh **** Michelle Marsh *** Kym Marsh ** Rodney Marsh * Hackney Marsh

Gladiators was a hugely popular show at weekends on ITV when I was a bit younger. It was even filmed in my home city (Birmingham) and (cringe!) I actually remember going to see it with my family. As a younger viewer, it has a certain appeal but seeing it endlessly churned out nowadays on Challenge TV I am only able to see it for the rather corny and cheesy show it is.

For some kids in the early 90s, the 'gladiators' with their superhero names (e.g. Panther, Saracen, Wolfman) and larger than life physiques must have seemed like great role models to look up to until the penny dawned and it became clear that many of them were just pumped up steroid abusers and in fact one or two even got found out and were penalized by the show's producers. The corniest character being the 'wolfman' who would frequently shock by getting aggressive with contestants or referee John ('contender reeeeeeeeady!!! Gladiator reeeeeeeeeeeeady!!! Three two one......wheeeeeeeeep!!!') Anderson before he did it so often it ended up becoming clear that it was all for show and the whole thing was basically just set up. The very premise of the show, wherein the main eventers were selected because of their 'ability' to carry on training for long periods of time without stopping and taking a break was rubbish because obviously the human body (male or female) can only carry on training for so long before they have to stop for a bit or risk dehydration, spraining ligaments or whatever.

As a kid, the show had appeal, but as many other reviewers have noted, 15 or so years on you can just see it in it's true colours, cheesy, corny and now even a little dated. Amazingly it ran from 1992 to 2000 when really everyone had become disillusioned and bored with it around 1995. **


For years friends expressed amazement that I had never watched "Nip/Tuck" -- just my kind of show, they insisted. And so, spurred by the recent assault of pre-season publicity, I decided to pay a first-time visit to Nip/Tuck last night. I was expecting sly and witty satire. What I found instead (in repeat episodes that focused on a serial mangler and a deranged racist) was a puerile, unrelenting torrent of violence and sadism. Robotic and/or hysterical acting, moronic plot contortions, and enough deep shadow (in Miami, yet) to make Edgar Ulmer spin like a top. It was like watching Joel Schumacher direct Ricky Martin as Hannibal Lecter. Nice to know what my friends think of my taste.


I honestly don't understand all those positive reviews. This gotta be one of the worst series of all time in my book. Is there any cliché left they didn't do? Come on, we've seen it all before. I gotta give them credit for the operations scenes but that's all that is good with this show. Their effort to present this as something cool and fresh is pathetic. If you wanna see some quality drama with humor go for "Six feet under" and not this. I've watched four season of this and it only gets worse. It's obvious that this show has big budget and it's evident in every scene, it's too bad that that's the only thing they have cause the story is trying so hard to be provocative that it gets irritating. The characters and screenplay are your typical American soap opera cliché after cliché thing. There's no doubt that the cast has some really good actors but their skills are lost with such a poor screenplay. I don't know, maybe you have to be American to actually like this (not meant to offend, it's just different culture and state of mind than European) but I have yet to find someone I know that actually like this show. But I guess users here are exception. I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that a lot of people like this show but I'm writing this review to show that there's the other side too and that we don't all think this is such a brilliant show but poor, and lousy attempt to shock and nothing else. Superficial as their characters. If you wanna see show that will make you laugh, that will make you think, that will touch you in any way DON'T watch Nip/Tuck. If you wanna see dumb entertainment that is popular today, pathetic excuse for a characters and story, Christian Troy's ass in every episode and some gross but rather impressive surgical scenes than this show is great for you.


OK I'm going to give you the entire review of how this show has been from start to finish.

In the beginning this show was brilliant, witty, dark, and mesmerizing, but as of late its gotten terrible. I'm not exactly sure if they changed writers or what's happened but basically for the first four seasons it was going in a nice escalating pace and then somewhere in the beginning of the fifth it just became dark and stayed that way. I've been watching the last 2 seasons wondering when the're going to do something unpredictable or at least something noteworthy of how the show used to be, and yet nothing's happened. So here's the take on these last few episodes, they are boring, lifeless, plot less, and pointless. It almost feels like the writer just went through a divorce and wants everyone to feel as empty as he does because there's nothing amusing or appealing about these last two seasons. Please for the love of god write something worth watching because this garbage is not even drama.


The acting (particularly by Alicia Fulford-Wierzbicki) and cinematography of this movie are so well put-together that it makes the movie's horrible cliche of an ending that much more painful and embarrassing.

(Here come the spoilers)

Jim's death at the end of the movie is a cheap gimmick that director Christine Jeffs telegraphs from square one. It's a lame, moralizing made-for-TV-movie plot device that attempts to somehow punish the film's characters for their perceived moral transgressions (Janey and Jim's parents' drinking and Janey's experimentation with sex). By killing off Jim immediately after (or during, it's not clear) his sister's first experimentation with sex, the cast and crew of "Rain" come across as a bunch of holier-than-thou moralists. "This is what happens when innocent young children are left unsupervised so the adults can go off and drink and have sex," we can almost hear Jeffs saying while she wags her finger at her audience.

It's not clear if Jim's death is something taken from Kirsty Gunn's novel or if it's introduced in Jeffs' adaptation. Whatever the case, Jeffs ought to have had the sense not to kill off Jim right after Janey's encounter with Cady. The final quarter or so of the movie should be about Janey coming to grips with her encounter with Cady. Instead, Jeffs rips the focus away from an uncomfortable subject by drowning Jim, after which she tries to tidy up the movie with a quick funeral and another cliche, the "driving home in a car after a tragic event" scene. "And after that summer, I was never the same," we can almost hear Fulford-Wierzbicki saying during the film's final voiceover.

It's almost as if Jeffs is afraid to let Fulford-Wierzbicki act out her character's reaction to her sexual awakening, or to show her parents acting out their split on screen. It's an awful way to end a movie, and I can't recommend this movie to anyone but moralizing, condescending types who like nothing more than to see characters suffer for sins that are actually little more than character flaws.


An unfortunate waste of a potentially good opportunity: a pilferation of the Harvey Comics staple about a friendly ghost looking for friends, and the loner teen and her father who take up residence in the mansion haunted by Casper and other apparitions of the boo-and-cackle variety. As Roger Ebert pointed out at the time, it was completely wrong-headed of the screenwriters to delve into the history of Casper (revealed to be the ghost of a dead child!), which renders some of the wild, gross-out slapstick completely inappropriate. Sloppily-directed in the "Beetlejuice" vein by Brad Silberling, who is no Tim Burton. The production is slick and expensive, but the hammy material is broad and derivative, defeating leads Bill Pullman and Christina Ricci as well as cameo-players Dan Aykroyd and Rodney Dangerfield, among others. Under 10-year-olds probably won't notice. *1/2 from ****


I guess I will begin at the rating. I seriously think this should have been rated PG-13, simply because: What kid 12 and under wants to imagine that when they get rid of their imaginary friend by stomping his toy into the ground, the imaginary friend becomes real and gets a bunch of bullet holes in it and bleeds to death in front of the kids eyes? You would also think someone 12 and under (I'm just assuming that most teenagers wouldn't take this part too seriously) would not want to imagine that some adults with really big guns do, in fact, hunt kids for a living. Oh and then of course I'm sure all kids want to have images of winding up in the trunk of a car with their best friend, who has been shot in the head. One last thing and I promise I'll stop talking about the rating...I figure that anyone who takes movies seriously (aka younger kids) is now deathly afraid that their grandparents or someone else's grandparents are now going to kidnap them and hijack a plane with them. =)

Although she was cute, I must say I think Christina Nigra didn't do all that great a job on acting. Just like in E.T., Henry Thomas did a great job, but, unfortunately, that didn't really make the story any better.

The story did have some hidden potential, but they could have found a better, not so violent (or just change the rating), way to carry it out, and they could have found better actors to do it with.

I did think at the beginning of that garage scene where Davey has to drive with one of the bad guys' cars was pretty darn funny. That kid did one heck of a peel out...certainly a heck of a lot better than I could have done. (Yes I do realize it did become more like an 8 year old's driving after that, but the beginning was funny.)


Well, now I know where Tin Soldier (1995) and Bogus (1996) came from, though why there was a need to make the same dull, silly movie THREE TIMES I can't tell. Henry Thomas was much better in E.T., and even he seems to realize there just isn't much to work with in this tired story of the boy with a penchant for fantasy who isn't believed when something rather fantastic actually happens. This story falls flat because the main character, Davy, can't make decisions or do much of anything without adult direction. What kid wants to see that? Christina Nigra, who plays opposite Thomas as "Kim," definitely out-acts him, but her character doesn't offer any more model of competence than his. Would you want your kids to be like these? Nah.


Sketch-like comedy with mod trappings has a group of griping American tourists (including Murray Hamilton, Norman Fell and Mildred Natwick) taking in the sights of Great Britian and Europe by bus, each displaying his or her own (irritating) idiosyncrasies. Crass picture filled with characters one would hope to avoid in this lifetime, although Suzanne Pleshette's beauty is a visual compensation. The jokes are obvious, but director Mel Stuart can't wring any fresh laughs out of them--although he does manage to shoehorn into this scenario everyone from John Cassavetes to pop singer Donovan! Wears thin quickly. Remade as a television movie in 1987. *1/2 from ****


While there are a few amusing moments in this film, the odd mixture of characters who find themselves awash on an Island in the Pacific really don't have much chemistry. They are mostly wrapped up in their own egos and forced to do some work or they will never see home again. There is a strange Chinese man, loyal to his master, who is incredibly confusing. He has this goofy laugh that comes at odd times. It grates on the brain. There are bad guys and windbags and loose women and a nice woman. There is an islander who can't go to China because he is wanted for a murder there. He has the only boat and navigation skills to get the people off the island. Everyone stays true to their colors and it rolls toward a predictable conclusion. I found Gene Lockart's politician to be utterly insufferable. They should have drowned him right away.


Sinners in Paradise was next up in my DVD set.Featuring an intriguing cast and the inimitable James Whale as director, I thought it might be worth a good look.

But no. This Adventure/Morality Play gets off to a good start,but quickly bogs down into a clichéd potboiler which is neither compelling or suspenseful. The Disparate-Characters-Stranded-on-a-Desert-Island fizzles out almost as soon as they hit the island. Comic relief is forced and unfunny and all characters are painted in extremely broad strokes.

The best part of the film is the interesting cast which is comprised of B and lesser A actors. Madge Evans is lovely and John Boles is dashing and manly. Gene Lockhart and Bruce Cabot might have deleted this one from their film credits, as it does them no credit.

I guess it fills out the boxed set but it wasn't worth the trouble.


Watchable for the group of familiar 40s character actors, but after a reasonable crash sequence, this movie quickly loses its bearings. It's hard not to see some similarities to GILLIGAN'S ISLAND and LOST, but the awkward mix of on-the-nose comedy and drama never quite works. Lots of story lines, none of which really come together. The sequence at sea in the second half is the last momentarily interesting section, but it's quickly jettisoned like so much flotsam. Ending is particularly sudden and illogical.

SPOILERS AHOY If the ship was unable to reach landfall the first time, how come everyone assumes they will easily be rescued on the second attempt? It seems more likely that everyone (including the soon-to-be-married main couple) will die given the arduous passage of the first unsuccessful attempt. Or, perhaps I missed something obvious because my attention drifted away long before the sudden and seemingly tacked-on denouement? Either way, if you choose to partake of this doomed flight, you have no one but yourself to blame.


The only reason this pseudo-scientific effort has nothing but positive reviews and almost 7 points (so far...) is that no one seems to bother to (re)view this low-brow attempt at Science Fiction.

It's typical Roddenberry - he rehashes a mishmash of seemingly scientific ideas by bringing it all down to the level of an illiterate audience or an audience of kids. Alright, there may be a huge market for brainfree entertainment but it just doesn't deserve the rating it is getting here. It would if this was a forum for Trekkies, people believing in Ufos etc.

But this is a site where Monty Python movies get (only) around 8 stars but mentioning them would be like comparing apples (Python) and trash (this). The only question this mess leaves unanswered is: why even review it? I guess some things have to be done in defense of better movies.

I'd just like to point out Foxworth's portrayal of a "robot": It's dreadful.


Legally questionable, though horrific. Anyone who hates even the concept of rape, should perhaps be sort of okay with this movie.

Anyone even complicit in such an act should be guilty. And punished.

But to be honest, the way this movie goes about trying legally entangle anyone present in such a foul act, is sort of forced. Not that there isn't any legal way to do it, but the way the director and writer do so, very much a question mark, and sort of a poor writing example.

Not a bad concept. But to be honest. Not a very good performance. Though the individual performances are mixed. Some quite fine, some others not so much. The court performances on all sides are quite awful.

Caveat: Foster is excellent. She has so much talent.


Within the first five minutes, I already knew exactly what would happen in this picture and stopped caring immediately after. This isn't a film so much as it is a glorified vengeance flick. The Bad Guys brutally rape Gaily Morton and get away with it, leaving her brother Albert Morton (who conveniently is working on Artificial Intelligence) to seek revenge after her suicide. After making a sexy robot in his sister's image, he sets out to kill each of the rapists in a manner that is brutal and graphic and, thanks to Robot-Gaily's recording ability, shown several times.

Obviously the budget was spent on special effects as most of the actors dully slog through the script, which has only one bright spot, when Robot-Gaily begins to wonder who she was before. The rest of the movie has the depth of a saucer. The Bad Guys are the worst example of one-dimensional characters I've ever seen, and the court reporter who starts putting pieces together and stands in as the "Good Guy" is not much more developed.

Unless you're in the mood to watch the Bad Guys be slaughtered in the worst possible ways (one evisceration is seen several times as Albert Morton plays it over and over and over) this one is well worth skipping.


A bizarre mix of I spit on Your Grave, crossed with 80s splatter horror films, Terminator-esquire cyborg flicks and journalistic detective stories.

The horror element is made up of the gory deaths the rapists suffer. The deaths are some sick stuff - yet MGM showed it with a 16 rating! There is no way this was made in 1991. I guess this sat on the shelf for at least 5 years. This is pure early to mid 80s. All grey-flecked suits, rolled up sleeves, wide shoulder pads, permed mullets, grey marble, clashing pastels, and bright neon tube lighting. This was made in the 80s and sat on the shelf gathering dust, and no surprise.

There's the occasional laughable B movie dialogue which lifts the film, but the overall grimness of the film makes it hard to watch and stomach.


I just bought this and was looking forward to watching as I like all the main actors and am a film noir fan. This title is being marketed as a film noir - it's a good movie - but it definitely isn't a noir. I certainly don't stick to the narrow definition of a noir either.

I won't bother to write a whole synopsis since that has been covered by earlier posts. Edward G Robinson never disappoints (even though he does kind of sound like Chico Marx in this) and Richard Conte is great. I hadn't seen Luther Adler in anything before but he was perfect in the role of the scorned older brother.

Like I said it is a good movie...just don't expect a noir.


I think there is a big problem with this film because it is so much imitating American films. And not just those. A little of everything the director likes. Acting is very bad and unconvincing. I was very disappointed. So many shots that don't carry none significance at all. It seems like they tried everything. Such a subject, such a psychological subject and they gave more attention to shots and none to relations and emotions. I wrote a message on a message board about this film. I really don't believe that this film is good just because it looks like it's from USA. Yes it's a big subject, Balzac and Dostoyevski wrote about it long before we were all born, but it was done so weakly. The whole cinema laughed at loud when an actor called Manda appeared on the screen, even tough it was not supposed to be funny. That is not good for the film. I mean there are two parents who are in a situation worst for any parent, and two of them are acting so weak. That's a director's mistake.


So what's wrong with the music industry today? Money hungry record executives? Corporations owning too many radio stations? Yes. Those are the two things that're wrong with the music industry. At least according to this film.

I was incredibly disappointed to find that a film with so many artists and executives working in and around the music industry, could offer so little insight in to it. After watching this I realized I really didn't learn anything, with the exception of being exposed to some artists I had never heard of.

Before the Music Dies starts off as a narrative explaining how a death in the family led to the narrator's search to find what's wrong with today's music industry. That's where the narration ends, from that point on the movie becomes a series of clips and artist/executive/fan commentary.

The film then proceeds to waste your time with a dozen commentators who all seem to agree on everything. Executives care about money, not art. Executives care about money, not art. Executives care about money, not art. Over and over and over they drill that in to your head, in case you didn't know already. Repeatedly telling us how bad record executives are is harmless enough, even if tedious, but the film becomes simply dishonest when it raves about the greatness of record executives in the past. When a commentator bluntly states that "When Stevie Wonder wants to make a record, he makes a record" it makes you wonder if he or the director do any research into Motown and their factory-like operation of churning out hits before butchering history.

Besides the fact that the film barely scratches the surface of why we have such bad music today, it actually doesn't really discuss today's music. Hip Hop is barely mentioned, and never discussed. Instead of taking a serious look at today's music, the film takes cheap shots at Ashley Simpson to represent everything that's wrong with music today.

The film tries to end with a positive outlook for the future, citing the rise of Napster and the internet as music's salvation. Though the fact that Napster was a good 5 years before Ashlee Simpson's time, this salvation doesn't appear to be well thought out.

So what else are we to do? In one of the most cheesy endings to anything, ever, the narrator comes back to make a plea that we teach the children about Pink Floyd and The Who.

On the positive side, Erykah Badu was pretty funny, and the performances were pretty fun.


Mr Donald Pleasance - clearly basing his performance on Spike Milligan's interpretations of The Great McGonagall - is given a rare opportunity to air his "Scottish" accent.So,unfortunately,are Mr Freddie Jones,Mr Jack Watson,Mr Jack Hawkins and Sir Michael Caine,who,in "Kidnapped"is forced to wear clothes a P.G. Wodehouse bookmaker would regard as de trop. As a Scotsman raised in England I have no personal agenda here.Everybody hates the English - I accept that - it comes with the badge as it were. Mr Delbert Mann is as entitled as the next person to have a pop,much as fellow American Mr Mel Gibson did many years later,but he was taking the p*ss a bit using big name English actors to do it. It is a fact universally acknowledged that anything more subtle than the "See you Jimmy!" brand of Scottish dialect is beyond all but the finest mimics.Here,that beautiful treasure - house is raped,plundered then trampled over in favour of a generic accent like a third - rate touring company fumbling their way through "The Scottish Play" on a wet Tuesday night in Hull.An honourable exception is Mr Trevor Howard as the Advocate - General,a splendid exposition of the Upper - Class Scotsman,at home neither with the English nor his own countrymen. Mr Caine decides on a "Gorblimey Guv'nor - the noo" style of speech that never works for me.At least Mr Jones gives it the whole eye - rolling

Robert Newton routine,no half - measures there. The exterior sequences are competent if not particularly exciting and there is a nice sense of the rugged countryside at times,but much of the movie is static,almost stagey in nature.The fight in the ship's cabin is clumsily handled and I feared some of the scenery was actually going to collapse under the weight of the flying bodies. Mr Robert Louis Stephenson himself once wrote..."Sometimes it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive" - words to consider if you are to avoid disappointment after deciding to watch this version of "Kidnapped"


Despite being panned, I had hope that this film might be a fulfilling experience. The main problem with 'Umrao Jaan' is that it insists upon itself. It tries hard to be taken seriously, ergo, the script seems to be written by an eight grader who has just received a thesaurus and tries to impress his teacher by resorting to complex Lexis where simple words would do. Fact: J.P Dutta's version had all the makings of a grand tragedy: the ethereal main lead, her ashenly handsome love interest, haunting songs and magnificent sets and costumes.

Furthermore,the length of the film is exhaustive...I actually had to get up and move about for a bit in order to shake the cobwebs lining the inside of my cranium. The songs, though melodiously rendered, are far too many in number and get on one's nerves after a while. Also Dutta has shown 'Umrao Jaan' to be a love story gone sour. Having read Rusva's original I can safely say that the broad outlook of the novel was to provide the reader an insight into the life of a courtesan...the love story was just a part of the text and not the novel as a whole.

In conclusion, Umrao Jaan may be Aishwarya Rai's most powerful work till date and another feather in Shabana Azmi's cap but it is vaguely reminiscent of 'Memoirs of a Geisha' sans a true sense of tragedy.


This movie is a giant step backward from the 80s Umrao Jaan. Granted dancing is good as should be expected of Aishwarya Rai but her character comes off as flat, weak and unlikable. The brothel is an idealized fantasy place where she can remain loyal to her true love all the while crying her eyes out because life's so unfair. I thought the movie was extremely dull and boring and I suspect Mrs Rai was crying to some extent because she got trapped in this awful movie by JP Dutta.

Spoiler: Worst scene: the rape and aftermath. Only: there is no aftermath as the lady is in a really forgiving mood. Everyone does make mistakes I guess (like watching this movie!). The whole love story also doesn't work for me. While in the original Rekha came across as this intelligent woman, Aishwarya Rai is just a pretty face and of course her Nawab falls in love with her at first sight. She is just another pretty face...


Though movie is set to the period of late 19th century but there are many goofs. 1) Handpump shown in the movie is of India Mark II (http://www.skipumps.com/deepwell.htm) which came into existence around 1980.

2) Tiled swimming pool and hose pipe were also not available during that time.

3) Costume of Nawab is of pathani touch no where near to Lucknowi.

4) During mutiny time almost everyone was fleeing from Lucknow to Faizabad or any other city, but movie shows only Aishwarya and her friends going in cart.


I saw both old (1981) and new Umrao Jaan (2006). The old Umrao, I think, is one of the best movies (Indian or otherwise), at par with any famed-Satyajit Ray. It should NOT be even compared with the new Umrao Jaan. The problem is that it is so good that Muzaffar Ali (the producer of old Umrao from Lucknow where most of the movie unfolds) perhaps cannot make a better movie all his life.

The old Umrao is very restrained, and therefore, a believable story of a Lucknow tawa-if (courtesan, geisha). There are no brave heroes (all flee 1857 Sepoy Mutiny against the English), the robber Faiz Ali dies in an unheroic escape. Owner of house of tawaifs, Madam Khanum, is selfish and exploitative. Nawab Sultan, one of the first clients of Umrao, sees Umarao what she is - a tawaif and abandons her with no compunctions to marry into the wealthy family of her cousin; others hurl insults at Umrao. There is a thin line (if any) between a tawaif and a prostitute/hooker - old Umrao sleeps with Nawab Sultan as a matter of routine, and then with the robber Faiz Ali.

In old Umrao Urdu poetry (ghazal) is shown to be pervasive in the lives of tawaifs and all around her. The dialogs are in lyrical, delicate and local Urdu, difficult to be appreciated in translation. In old Umrao, acting is superb by all. Songs and Indian Kathak dances (minus one by Nawab Sultan) are mostly in context.

Good movies like good books can enrich and teach. Most Indian movies are trash, fantastic escape from reality but not old Umrao Jaan. You could see Lucknow of a bygone era. Sample these:

- pigeon flight contests (or kabootar baazi, a flock breaking pigeons mid flight from a rival flock) - Indian hop scotch (ikkal dukkal) - the earthen stove (or choolha) - the custom of eating with hands in the kitchen on the floor near choolha - the custom of offering for a saint's shrine (nazar at durgaah) - the custom of arranged marriage between Muslim cousins - the custom of purdah, - the custom of eating betel leaf (or paans) and hookah smoking - the tradition of sellers of bangles and shawls coming home - the incompetent contemptible and indolent nawabs who would sell part of the estate for a courtesan

See old Umrao if you have not yet; see it again if you have once. Technically, the photography in old Umrao is not as high quality as in the new one but then in 25 years cameras have improved a lot.

Old Umrao gets 9/10; the new 3/10.


Umrao Jaan Ada was a much awaited movie for all of us!!especially for young generation to re feel the magic woven in a novel in 1905!! But it was big let down with Lack Lustrous performances by everybody-be it the director,dialog writer, music director ,lyricist or as a matter of fact the protagonist herself! The screenplay had its own flaws-being fast at those scenes which required to be handled with sensitivity and being slow at scenes which were deliberately screeched to monotonous dialogs! The saving grace were glimpses of Abhishek Bachchan -which unfortunately left viewers in lurch to ask for more of his screen space!!! The length of the movie was too much...viewers got bored with same kind of costumes and same kind of lyrics...All the songs sound similar!! (SOMETHING NOT EXPECTEDOUT OF JAVED AKHTAR AND ANU MALIK) I'd however not like to compare the movie with the 1981 Muzaffar Ali creation.......as it would be an insult to the original magic spelled by the pioneers like Muzaffar Ali and Rekha.


Hi there..

I echoed a very positive review for this film when I watched it and completely because I had not seen the Rekha starer Umrao Jaan.

I felt the songs were nice too, if not exceptional. and Aishwarya looked breath taking angelic. She performed really good, especially in scenes like the one where she tells Sunil Shetty that she will only be a dame for him (after the song 'main na mil skun jo tum se') and towards the end when she tells Puru Rajkumar that she has forgiven him and the scenes that follow and many more.

Yes the film was pretty slow paced and to be honest, I did yawned once or twice.

But now the main question arises that "Did it live up to the 1981 Classic made by Muzzaffar Ali?". This is very wrong though but very obvious and unavoidable also.

So to know that I ordered the previous film from my Neighbourhood DVD Library.

And my whole opinion changed.

The 1981 film by Muzaffar Ali with Rekha in the title role is humongous in every department and J.P.Dutta's version now appears to me as an arrogant film-making by a director.

I remember Dutta saying in interviews that his a true adaptation of the book Umrao Jaan Ada by Mirza Hadi Ruswa and it is adapted by his father. If that is the case, then I believe Muzaffar Ali is a fantastic story-writer and screenplay-writer.

The story of the new film is a merely 50% of the old film. The Rekha starer has more to it and that too in less screen time. There are layers and layers of drama which indulges the viewer into the story of the protagonist, making you cry for the doomed fate of her in every span of her lifetime.

The story being the biggest strength give ample area for other departments to excel too. The music is timeless, lyrics very simple and extremely effective, the old word charm (the film was short in the real by lanes of Lucknow) and the performances are superlative.

Rekha excelled the beautiful story by adding her talent and grace to it.

I guess the power of old Umrao Jaan lies in the true fact that Muzzafar Ali was a witness to the culture and Dutta was not.

I never once felt the old film slow and dragging (considering I watched it without any break) and I yawned may times in the new film which was presented to me with inter-mission.

Nothing is therefore of a match between the two films. Even Aishwarya's performance gets reduced to pail due to the failure of the new film at the scripting level.

I personally aspire to be a film director one day and this whole experience taught me a lesson in responsible film-making and arrogant film-making.

To rate the film is now very difficult. It certainly does not comes half closer to the Old Classic and so a less than 5 is deserving. It hence gets a 3 out of 10, 95% of it because of Aishwarya's portrayal.

I know that many people must have worked very hard on this film, but am sorry to all of them. I Do!


Muzaffar Ali made the classic "Umrao Jaan" in 1981 starring Rekha, Farooq Sheikh, Naseeruddin Shah, and Raj Babbar. Compared to that, this one is entirely unwatchable.

The screenplay is terrible and barely maintains the viewer's interest for the first hour. Only towards the end is there any noticeable flow to the story. Casting is fine, but Sunil Shetty does not fit the bill of Faiz Ali.

The language of Lucknow is Urdu, and, unlike what some other commentators claim, the movie does not employ a correct version of the language. The dialect used by some characters is also incorrect. Dialogues are horrible, and Aishwarya's pronunciation of Urdu words is absolutely revolting. Umrao Jaan was an Urdu poetess, and Aishwarya does not do her justice. The playback singers, however, are excellent, especially Alka Yagnik.

Being a native of Lucknow, I know that we do not use "Baisa", "Mausa", "Apshagun", "Maan maryada" etc, especially among Muslim families, to which all the movie's characters belong. Yet, JP Dutta pays no attention to these important details, and the characters continue to use these and other wrong terms.

The characters' wardrobe is not comparable to period Lucknow or to Muzaffar Ali's version of the movie, despite Abu Jani and Sandeep Khosla's involvement.

JP Dutta's Umrao Jaan is a low budget pretender of a movie, with Aishwarya's looks being the only redeeming factor.

Stay away from this film. Watch Muzaffar Ali's original version, if you can. That was a pleasure to watch.

2/10.


We read mixed reviews about Umrao Jaan...one is always apprehensive when going to see a remake of such a classic...not sure what to expect..I found the whole tone of the movie to be so morbid and Grey. Sure it is the story of pain but it is not told with grace. THe problem with the movie is definitely the way in which it is told. In most of the scenes the character of Umarao is shown crying weeping or fearful ..quite the opposite of a courtesan's character which is about presentation entertainment. Good scenes fail to make an impact. And the choreography is terrible too...merchant has done a terrible job no grace!!! All in all don't waste your time on this movie


This movie is strictly for those people who have not seen the earlier Umraao Jaan. Because they will compare and this one would fail miserably.

The script was badly written, the characters looked like they had not done any homework, especially suniel shetty, who seemed to be a character who was just taken in the movie for the sake of it. No attention was paid to the details like Suniel shetty's shoes. Aishwarya just danced well, and managed look well, a very good job done by the make-up artiste.

The only actor who performed extremely well, in spite of those over decked up sets was Shabana Azmi. Her's was the only character, which made some sense. As neither did blow-in blow-out nostrils(Ash) nor the last moment entry(suniel) did. Abhishek was good, though his character didn't seem to be well-defined enough. Some of his scenes were longer than they should had been, however, he managed to portray them well.


"Mantis in Lace" (1968) is, in four fairly equal quarters, a soft-core skin flick, a psychedelic drug movie, a slasher horror film AND a police procedural. In it, we meet Lila (Susan Stewart), a young and gorgeous topless dancer who takes LSD one night with a guy she's picked up. After hallucinating pretty severely for a while, Lila kills the young dude with a screwdriver and chops him to bits with a meat cleaver. This scenario is repeated three or four times while a pair of (surprisingly UNdorky) L.A. cops tries to track the maniac down. Yup, that's pretty much all this film has to offer. One of Lila's victims, I might add, is Stuart Lancaster, who might be a familiar face to all the Russ Meyer fans out there; another, a macho rapist, most certainly deserves to be diced at Lila's hands. The picture feels very padded with numerous topless dance numbers (the opulently cantilevered legend Pat Barrington looks pretty impressive, actually, doing a frenzied belly dance; come to think of it, she would do a bit of "tripping out" herself that same year in the film "The Acid Eaters"), long makeout scenes, a lovemaking bout between the topless club's manager and a job applicant that adds nothing to the plot whatsoever, and loads of colorful hallucinations. It has been lensed by Laszlo Kovacs, who would depict an even more harrowing lysergic experience in the following year's "Easy Rider." (Actually, I found the aural component of Lila's trips much more freaky than the visuals.) Sadly, the viewer never learns anything concrete about Lila's background, or why the drug sets her off the way it does; indeed, the only thing we can discover about her comes from the film's admittedly hypnotic theme song. Concluding with an ironic albeit extremely telegraphed ending, "Mantis in Lace" is ultimately a real mixed bag; a psychedelic psycho curiosity that should have been better. Oh...this Something Weird DVD features over 100 minutes' worth of alternate film footage. Far out, man!


This "sexploitation" film has got it all if your into this genre. There is skin, LSD/hallucinations, sex, horror, blood, irritating theme music and its share of bad acting. The dialog is very dated, but quite amusing at times (yeah, groovy man!), and as usual, when watching these types of movies, frequently the bad acting takes over the movie and it can be hilarious to watch. Lila (Susan Stewart) actually does a decent (not good though) job as the stripper/killer. I agree with the earlier comment that Pat Barrington (belly dancer hussy) is something to watch and must be seen. I'm not a big fan of this type of film. After watching this I felt the need to take a shower and clean myself up. I can't recommend it. But to each his own.


A terrible exploitation film of the late 60's with a sweet actress in the lead role. The cops are really terrible (as actors and cops). The only standout part of the film is the presence of the incredible Pat Barrington. There's nobody quite like her. This director has made better films (The Agony of Love). The sound quality is particularly bad.

The title song is excruciatingly awful as is most of the muzak. As I mentioned, if not for Pat Barrington, this would be totally unwatchable. Ms. Barrington should have played the lead instead of playing the belly dancing stripper. She has attributes the other females in the cast do not possess.


It is quite an obvious film to make, I just wonder why they haven't made it a proper film for the cinemas, or at least base it on the book I've read by Penny Ives. Basically Mrs. Santa Claus (Angela Lansbury) gets bored of the same job of helping the elves at the North Pole, and her husband, Santa Claus (The Muppet Movie's Charles Durning), so she decides to go on a explore of New York. She ends up getting a short term job for mean Augustus P. Tavish (Terrence Mann) making toys for the shops, and the only help she has is from the children workers. There are some good songs in amongst the almost corny story, but it is quite a pleasant film for Lansbury to be in, and it is a good family film for Christmas. Also starring Mousehunt's Michael Jeter as Arvo, Lynsey Bartilson as Nora Kilkenny, Bryan Murray as Officer Doyle, David Norona as Marcello Damaroco and Debra Wiseman as Sadie Lowenstein. Okay!


King Vidor brings his usual sincerity and visual austerity to this tale of the early years of the Texas Rangers, as seen through the eyes of a pair of lawbreakers (Fred MacMurray and Jack Oakie) who join the force planning to use inside information to make their robberies more effective. But gradually through the course of the film first Wahoo (Oakie) and finally Jim (MacMurray) face responsibility and turn in the direction of the law. Jim is influenced in this regard by his love for his commanding officer's daughter, Amanda (Jean Parker).

This is one of those films that looks kind of important but ultimately feels like lazy film-making. For instance there are all these scenes with Jim and the Rangers on the top of a hill shooting Indians. They're using pistols but somehow shooting them off their horses from hundreds of yards away. I know realism isn't always the requisite for Westerns, but at least in the matter of firearms that could be expected from a non-comedy film. It features put-you-to-sleep narration from the Ranger commander that feels like it was lifted out of a G-man film. Overall there's just a feeling of smallness, of a lack of aspiration surrounding this movie.

MacMurray struggles to give his character dignity. He's a good actor but he's been given a pretty standard character here. In fact all 3 villains just feel a bit too goofy and affable for us to believe they are "badmen" or for the possibility of reformation to feel really dramatic. Oakie's character is interesting because he begins as basic comic relief and ends up becoming the moral voice of the film. Lloyd Nolan gives probably the film's best performance as the third man in their partnership who doesn't want to "go straight." Not too much to recommend but it's not horrible, so it's the type of film to watch when you're bored and feel like an oater, but not something worth seeking out or re-watching in particular.


We picked this movie up at St Vincent De Paul store for $1.49 and at that price it was over priced!

About 40 minutes into the movie we became painfully aware that the story line and acting was more that of a pilot for a Fox show. Clearly this was not intended as a stand alone cinema release, but a hastily repackaged pilot episode.

It was interesting to see an early Simon Baker, however it looks as if he has since had a nose job. Still like his hair.

The characters reactions were more those one expects on TV vs film. Bad bad bad you just stopped caring about the characters.


Done in the style of Crash and Boogie Nights, Sunset Strip falls far short of those two recent classics. It's main problem is lack of a coherent story, but even more than that it lacks for the most part characters you could really care about.

Mainly because these two were an exception to some of the self indulgent rockstars and wannabes, Sunset Strip was best when it focused on the relationship of Nick Stahl and John Randolph. The eager young kid from the sticks and the oldtimer who once played in the orchestra that scored Gone With The Wind had a real nice poignant resonance to it. The other people there, I never really cared about, there comings and goings and how they all interconnected with one another over a course of 24 hours during a summer day of 1972.

I'd see the film for those Stahl and Randolph and go for a pop and popcorn break during the rest.


I wouldn't call this flick a rip-off of the hokey, nostalgia-soaked 2000 film "Almost Famous" per say, but it's certainly far from being one of the better movies released in recent years to use the free-wheeling, anything goes time period that was the 1970's as the background setting for it's main story. Adam Goldberg, Jared Leto and character actor Darren E. Burrows (probably recognized best by audiences for his role as Ed on the 90's hit sitcom "Northern Exposure") give what are about the best performances here as what little screen time each has is at least somewhat amusing, and to be truly honest the only moments of the film that got me to crack a smile. Other than the aforementioned actors comic relief turns in this flick, the delightful eye-candy that is the luscious Anna Friel and an uneven soundtrack with a small handful of classic 70's rock ditties that still make me want to hold up a lighter even to this day I just can't bring myself to say that "Sunset Strip" is much of a movie, and certainly not one that comes highly recommended to anyone! I've personally never really enjoyed those whole day-in-the-life-of/intertwining stories films that are so popular anymore, and this one in particular didn't really appeal to me based solely upon that said type of plot line alone. However though, I'm still an unabashed and devout sucker for flicks from and or set (which is this one's case) in the 1970's no matter how poorly made, overlong, demented, disjointed, incoherent, lame etc. they may be! It was in all honestly about the only thing that initially caught my eye about it because had the film taken place in any other time period besides the 70's I might have just happily skipped over it altogether, which would have really been the smarter thing to do in the first place! (* out of *****)


I caught this film on cable the other night, and I totally mystified me.

Los Angeles in 1972 was one of the most influential periods in the history of rock music. The Eagles, Jackson Browne, Linda Ronstadt and the best session people in the country were located here. David Geffen was starting Asylum records. Tom Waits was playing in the local clubs. They ended up dominating the 70's in both critical acclaim and record sales. That would make an interesting movie.

Or if you wanted to make a film about groupies and English rockers (who wouldn't be playing at the Whiskey for crying out loud) then why not make a film about Rodney Bingenheimer's English Acid where cute underage Valley girls hooked up with stoned out limey superstars. Again - the possibilities are endless.

Unfortunately the makers of Sunset Strip decided to make a somewhat racy version of Love American Style - complete with the kinds of characters and clothes that would have fit easily in a Barnaby Jones episode from the time. They could have easily set the film in today's Hollywood and then at least the film might have been more marketable, and the retro music might have made more sense. (The film's English superstar band sounded a lot more like the Psychedelic Furs then Led Zeppelin.)

One more thing - the only film I want to see that features the clap in a prominent role is something for ninth grade health class or the the Fatty Arbuckle story.


Although there are a couple interesting characters and good production value, the story is lousy. I stuck around for Nick Stahl's storyline, which was interesting but ultimately frustrating. Rory Cochrane's character was interesting as well, although only about 10 minutes of the movie is devoted to it. The writer couldn't make 90 minutes of movie out of these more interesting characters, so he chose the expedient love-story route.

The music is actually pretty good. The acting is good from what I can tell, although lousy story makes the performances a moot point.

Adam Goldberg's character is annoying, and basically a reprise or a conglomeration of his other urban/disco Jewish caricatures.

The bottom line is if you are interested in music or the entertainment business and have low expectations and 90 minutes to kill, then there are worse ways to spend your time than by watching Sunset Strip.


I, like most probably watched this film because the striking Anna Friel was in it and it was not even worth enduring this awful film to catch sight of her. Poor Friel either gets bad parts in bad movies (An Everlasting Peace) or gets bad parts in terrible movies (Mad Cows.) Albeit a leading role, "Sunset Strip" is more of the same.

The film progresses a 70s wannabe rock band trying to get a break and whilst the film is tedious Friel is actually fairly good, there are a few descent scenes and the Ali G (UK) look-alike is funny. But as I write this I feel I am being too generous after looking at Friel her not wearing a bra for most of the film

Before you ask - no we do not see anyone strip nor are there any notable dirty moments. The closest we get is seeing half of Anna Friel's breast. - Only a mega Anna Friel fan is going to be able endure the whole 90 minutes.


Pauly Shore is one of the actors you love to hate; so much so that it got to the point where his whole career was based on people's dislike for him. But, Pauly Shore is Dead proves that it's not funny when he's in on the joke.

The film is a self-mockery, where Pauly Shore  played by himself  fakes his own death for credibility. Not a bad concept, but in the end just comes out arrogant and obnoxious. It certainly proves that Pauly Shore shouldn't have any control over direction or screenplays, as the jokes are stale, lame and predictable. The only way it holds itself up is by the various cameos.

Even though this is an obvious self-mockery, Shore seems to take himself very seriously to think people actually want to see him write and direct his own film, as if to say "hey, guys - I'm in on the joke too!" while looking down at his fans who are portrayed as obsessive rednecks.

Even though Pauly Shore clearly can't write, I think I'm one of the few that really enjoyed his early films. But, from early on to now, they're really went downhill: Encino Man: The first film where Shore had leading role. Easily his best film, and shows that it's probably best for him to be a secondary character.

Son in Law: Certainly no Encino Man, but still some funny moments.

In the Army Now: I'd stay away from this if you've seen Stripes and care about originality. Overall, pretty good film, though.

Jury Duty: His last watchable film. It really, really should have stopped there.

If it had stopped there, there would still be a few remaining strands of credibility left, but, unfortunately, he had to pull an arrogant and pretentious stunt by making Pauly Shore is Dead.


If you want to watch a movie that includes Pauly Shore quoting his other movies, with a lot of cameos in it, that shows on several occasions Pauly Shore masturbating, then this movie is for you. However, my blood pressure rose several points by the end of the film due to how irritated it made me. It was much like driving through the rain during rush hour while you have a cold. Pauly Shore has found yet another device to irritate people. This movie is lacking in plot, depth, and comedy.

While none of the following "got" me, some people might like this: There were cameos all over the place (how he was able to lure so many people into participating in this disaster is beyond me). Some might find a new respect for Pauly Shore due to his ability to make fun of himself. People who appreciate Pauly Shores humor (if that's what you want to call it), would probably find the movie funny.

When asked by my husband how this compared to other Pauly Shore films, I told him that Pauly shore films can't be rated on the same continuum as other movies because they're all so bad that they fail any sort of logistical form of expression.


I rented this hoping for either a) a documentary-of-sorts where celebrities were interviewed honestly believing Pauly Shore was dead or b) a well-done mockumentary with the awkward humor of This is Spinal Tap (okay, that's a really tall order, I realize).

I was prepared to be disappointed, but not THIS disappointed. Why in the world was so much screen time devoted to porn stars, references to porn stars, and masturbation? I'm no prude, but so much wasn't relevant, it was annoying.

The movie had the potential to be a This is Spinal Tap-type, but it fell short. I do applaud Pauly Shore for writing and directing and openly mocking his past, but it seems like he shied away from going all-out with it and used a poorly thought out "dumb hick" side plot to... to do what, I don't know, but whatever that was for, it didn't work. Also, it seemed the whole time that he couldn't decide if he was making a comedy or a mockumentary. Some of the movie is shot like a conventional story and some is shot as though there were an inexplicable camera catching people's private reactions to the news... it just didn't work.

I gave two stars instead of one for guts.


You know, I don't even hate Pauly Shore nearly as much as many other people seem to, and it's still hard to remain objective during the course of this movie and actually judge it for what it's worth. Well, let me get to what I thought it was going to be.

My girlfriend and I were cruising the rental place having just returned Team America and Party Monster. I saw it on the shelf and had looked at it before, but never had the guts to rent it. So we did. We returned home, threw it in, and I started it expecting some sort of funny, dark prank where Shore went around getting interviews from famous actors and comedians about their opinions of the 'late' Pauly Shore. That would have been funny. But I can't judge the movie on my own disappointment from that aspect. This is what you actually get.

Pauly. Shore. Writing.

Yeah, that's it, let it sink in. Absorb it. It's just about as painful as it sounds. There are some decent parts, I'll give him credit for what he wrote that actually did turn out funny, but it's funny for all the wrong reasons. Your reactions might sound like, "holy hell, he actually got Tom Siezmore/Micheal Madsen/Ben Stiller/Carrot Top to do this for him?" Those parts are funny enough, but the parts with the maddened redneck and Shore undercover get just plain embarrassing. Too much of the movie is written and the acting contrasts by being half-assed by everybody but Pauly and his mother Mitzi on the phone.

The writing isn't the only bad part, though, the whole thing is done on digital film because (educated guess) it's cheaper. It just looks bad when it's not done right, and he didn't do it right. Most of the movie looks rather like a bunch of giddy little high school girls doing a project for the lit. class. Just bad choices, bad direction, really rough editing, so many things that chop away at the score.

Pauly Shore claims to have worked on this for over four years. The man needs to get a life. Buuuuuuuuuuuddy.


Sorry Pauly, but as much as I would like to see you succeed, your movie was weak, I give this movie a 4/10.

The concept of the story - the harsh reality of life after 15 minutes in stardom - is not bad, but the angle the movie went to portray it was terrible. Is the movie a comedy, a drama or what? The funny parts were sad, and the sad parts weren't funny either, but definitely didn't arouse my sympathy. Apart for some mildly funny jokes (the "at least I'm not old  touch me my skin is soft" prostitute scene) I waiting for the movie to end.

Cinematography, if the movie has any, made my fringe, the screen shots the movie had had no purpose, they seemed like they were planned on the spot. Just like the acting of the movie. I ask myself if any of the actors rehearsed their parts before playing them, even the prestigious actors were easily forgotten, and had little effect on the movie. Good performances need actors who get understand the essence of the movie and probably what happened, along with the fact that the purpose of the movie is vague, was that most of the actors were given their lines immediately before playing them.

I rented this movie not knowing that Pauly Shore directed it, if I knew he did I might have not seen it, then again I think he deserves a second chance. However, the only way, the ending of the movie will come true is if Pualy goes to film/acting school and starts from the beginning.