Last night, my cable box cut out before "The L Word" - why did it have to play up during a good TV show and choose to work perfectly throughout all six hours of "Revelations"? Six hours. Six of the dullest, least invigorating hours I've ever spent in front of a television screen.

Screenwriter David Seltzer went on record as not really believing in the stuff when he wrote "The Omen," but this tale of the End of Days is truly lacking in conviction from Joseph Vitarelli's clichéd choral theme onwards (whatever you might think of "The Passion of the Christ," you can't deny that Mel Gibson genuinely put his money where his mouth is); instead of being thought-provoking and chilling, the first four hours are nothing but build-up with nothing going anywhere, and when it's not teasing you it's being ridiculous (ominous supermodels dressed in black hanging around? Ooooh, scary).

The miniseries also lands us with two main characters - a relentlessly serious professor and a nun who would make Mother Teresa seem like a hedonist - who simply don't register (pity Bill Pullman, if not Natascha McElhone), leaving Michael Massee as a Satanic mass-murderer to prove that the Devil gets, if not the best tunes, at least the best lines; the dire job "Revelations" does can be summed up by a failure to care when our villain, having launched the plot by kidnapping and murdering Professor Pullman's young daughter, lures his unlikeable teenage son into his clutches (by way of a webcam fronted by a Christina Aguilera-type). And any series that casts John Rhys-Davies and fails to turn his entertaining pompousness to advantage is beyond hope; though you have to give them credit for casting Christopher Biggins as a Cardinal. (What with this and Hugh Laurie in "House, M.D.," NBC Universal wins the Most Unusual Use Of British Actors Award by a mile.)

Sadly, such little plusses are cancelled out by all the minuses - following the endless teasing, the last two hours try to crank up the action, but it's all for naught; and the abrupt, anticlimactic, cop-out of an ending just in case enough Bush voters tuned in to make an ongoing series viable will irritate the converted and atheists alike. (Fortunately, US audiences tuned out in droves from hour one onwards, meaning that the story will never be either drawn out endlessly or continued. No wonder they say "God bless America.") For a truly powerful look at the Apocalypse coming to pass today, see "The Rapture" - "Revelations" is not only not as effective as "The Omen," but it's not even "Omen IV: The Awakening." If nothing else, this does prove once and for all that when it comes to standing in for other countries, the Czech Republic is the Canada of Europe.

Father, forgive Stillking Films, Pariah and NBC Enterprises, for they know not what they do.


I'm getting frustrated that so many people are complaining that this show is propaganda for the Christian religion. I watched the first few episodes of this miniseries and I can tell you that it's not religious at all, except for the quotes of the bible. All things that happen are just over the top and not believable at all. If they used the real story of revelation for the show, it would have been so much better. This show feels like another Dan Brown book. It doesn't help religion at all and just makes Christians look like fools. And to all people who think that Christians are just making propaganda, you should just watch TV once and see how much crap Christians have to watch because of you. Temptation island is just one small example. If you don't like Christian shows, then do not watch them. I don't watch yours! The only shows I like are Lost and 24, even though they aren't Christian.

Anyway, not only is this series not accurate to the bible AT ALL, but it is also pretty boring to watch. I'm still waiting for some good movie or show about the revelation. Time will tell...


Intriguing premise completely wasted somehow by Carpenter and crew. Sorry guys, I generally love Carpenter flicks, but this one is horrid garbage. Nearly every possible suspenseful sequence is butchered. Not much to say outside of the synopsis, but imagine Carpenter at his worst, and it only begins to describe the debacle that is "Prince of Darkness". I spent weeks searching my local video stores with a friend to find a copy, only to be more disappointed than I have by any of his other films. I love "The Thing", "They Live", ... heck, even have a soft spot for his Village of the Damned flick. But this.... Well, Thank god for Victor Wong tho. 4/10


Spoilers.

I rented this one back around Halloween of 1988. I was hoping to be scared, because (as usual), the previews made it look good.

So there's this weird dream everyone seems to be having. The words are garbled, so you can't understand it. The footage is grainy. It was made at the height of popularity for the 'shaky camera' videography technique (watch reruns of the first season of NYPD Blue and you'll know what I mean). And they play this clip over and over and over and over and You get the point. It was almost as bad as that '8 more days 'til Halloween' jingle from Halloween 3, Season of the Witch (an even worse movie). But at least there wasn't a song stuck in my head for the next week.

If you like lots of bugs, this movie is for you! I personally don't find bugs scary in the least. I think it's a cheap way to freak people out without spending anything for special effects. 'Hey, Larry. Dump another box of roaches in front of the camera!' Yep, bugs galore. But bugs = Satan? That's where you lost me.

So then they play that dream clip a few more million times. I know I mentioned this, but I'm trying to take you there on the short tour. Man, this new shaky camera thing is all the rage! Woo hoo!

At the end, the girl gets sucked into the mirror with Satan and she's floating underwater in another dimension. You can see his big Satany arm grabbing for her. Then someone smashes the mirror, trapping both of them in there. You then see the look on her face as she realizes just how royally screwed she is. That was the only decent part of the movie.

It makes you wonder why they didn't just smash the mirror in the first 5 minutes.


Maybe the story was good. Unfortunately, I can't say for sure since Carpenter's painstaking direction failed to hold my attention for more than a couple of minutes at a time. I know it's unreasonable, etc. to hold a director up against his previous work, but c'mon John, you know better than this--where Halloween was riveting, Prince of Darkness was, well, tedious.

It did have it's good moments. The makeup was effective, and Alice Cooper does creepy as well as you could hope. "Prince" also ranks high on the Eighties kitsch scale--I counted three mullets, and that handlebar moustache speaks for itself.

On the whole, however, I'd recommend this only to those blessed with extreme patience and attention spans. It's not worth the $2.99 at Blockbuster, but if you come across it on FX or something, it might be worth your while to flip between it and "The Jeffersons."


This movie was unbelievably boring! Talk, talk, talk, and the most action involved vomiting into other people's mouths. The only redeeming factor was Alice Cooper as a street schizo. Unfortunately, his screen time added up to about 3 minutes. The rest of this film should get used to collecting dust on video store shelves across the country. John Carpenter must have been going through some kind of bad patch to have done a film this insipid.


Being one of John Carpenters biggest fans, I am usually very biased when it comes to rating his movies (I loved Escape from LA). However, I just could not get into this movie. It moves very slow and the screenplay is horrible. It tried to he a horror movie, but what was scary about it? NOTHING. Donald Pleasance gives a fine performance (as usual) but the rest of the cast is below average at best. This movie just does not pack the punch that JC's other movies do. I gave this movie a 3 out of 10 rating, and that was because I could not give JC a rating of 1 (even if the movie sucked).


I've seen Prince of Darkness only twice in my life. The first time I saw it I was about 10 years old, and it scared the snot out of me. About 10 years later or so, I saw it again, and it wasn't very frightening at all. It may be that Prince of Darkness suffers from the same fate as Exorcist and Jaws -- it's dated. 12 years ago it may well have been a scary movie, but today it's fairly tame, and I expect to see it on the Family Channel's Halloween Film Fest one of these years.


Prince of Darkness is a bad movie from John Carpenter.the whole thing is ridiculous.take the premise,for example.A priest has discovered a long hidden canister containing the liquid form of Satan himself,or rather his son.said canister had been hidden deep within the basement of an ancient church.upon discovering it,said priest decides to call upon physics Prof and students to investigate it.soon,the liquid ends up in most of the students(don't ask) turning then into mindless drones whose only purpose is to aid the son(said liquid)into freeing daddy aka Satan.Anyway,the whole thing is ludicrous even for sci-fi/fantasy/horror.there just isn't any point.Carpenter really misses the mark here.With all due respect to the late,great Donald Pleasence,what was he thinking?the only redeeming feature of this movie is that it is (marginally)less awful than "Slither" and "Lawnmower Man 2".


You know how after eating at a Chinese buffet, no matter how much you eat you never get full? That's how I felt after watching this movie. There should have been more.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want the movie to be longer - I want more jokes. This was a comedy, right? I think jokes are an important part of comedy.

I have seen episodes of Lost with more comedic relief than this movie.

I've seen Youtube videos that were better than this.

It's hard to believe that such a talented writer as Harold Ramis of Caddyshack and National Lampoon's Vacation could have hatched this bad egg out of his mindgrapes.

This would have been a great movie in Fantasyland.


This is a Rodney Dangerfield vehicle, and I suppose it must be considered in that light. It is full of his snappy zings, a few of which are quite funny. But not nearly enough of them. The plot is ridiculous, which I suppose is okay. Some of the supporting cast is terrible, which is not. It has Robert Downey, Jr. (who wasn't bad as the campus leftist, who really doesn't understand leftism) who was on the upside of his career, and Ned Beatty and Sally Kellerman and Adrienne Barbeau who were on the downside of theirs, and Sam Kinison who was on the only side of his. (Kellerman actually turned in as good a performance as the material allowed.) But this movie is for Dangerfield fans only. If you're not, don't bother.


1st watched 1/6/2007 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Alan Metter): Mostly un-funny attempt by Rodney Dangerfield to carry a movie with his bad jokes, bad taste but somewhat charming elderly man trying to do things the way he knows how film. The movie tries to pull off the fact that he has a good heart in the end which pulls the movie up a little bit but not enough for me to recommend it. This is basically the story of a man who's made it in life the hard way without even a high school diploma but decides to follow in his kid's footsteps and tries to attend college himself to help his boy's attitude after he hands divorce papers to his second wife. He starts out doing it the way he knows how -- by buying people and getting others to do the hard work but is caught by the college authorities and has to shape up. Dangerfield & a young Robert Downey Jr. are good for a couple of laughs but that's about it, so it was a nice try but this comic can't carry an entire movie with his schtick, and the basic boy meets girl premises added into the mix for both himself and his son doesn't help the movie much either.


I loved the first Sonic Adventure game (Gamecube remake) and I only expected this one to be as good, if not better. But, boy was I wrong. It's a truly horrible game that's scattered all over the place with no non-linear progression or free roaming abilities of the original.

The graphics are ugly, the camera system is the worst I have ever come across and the levels are tiresome and repetitive. Where's the dynamic gameplay of the first game? Or the cool mini-games that keep you coming back again and again? It was just ugly and garish and far inferior to Sonic Adventure. Do not buy or rent.

I can only hope and pray that Sonic Heros is better because I have already bought it.


This one is a typical "doesn´t hurt" comedy, like the other movies actor J.T.Thomas has done up to 1998. ("Speedway Junkie" in 1999 was the first change of direction for JTT) This movie is a must for JTT-Maniacs (like me), but not for normal people.There are many ways of wasting your time more enjoyable!


Mind-bogglingly bad Disney comedy pits middle-aged sweethearts Chevy Chase and Farrah Fawcett against Fawcett's prankish pre-teen son Jonathan Taylor Thomas (that smug Keebler elf from the TV sitcom "Home Improvement"). After single mom Farrah brings new love-interest Chevy home to meet her kid, Taylor resorts to juvenile tomfoolery to scare the suitor away...sound familiar? Taking its cue from "The Parent Trap", but blessedly giving us only one child at the helm, this lame-duck script has nowhere to go after the initial set-up. Nice to see Chase and Fawcett together (the original choices for "Foul Play"), but the comic chaos which erupts here is only for undiscriminating viewers. * from ****


Some events are just so ironic that they just seem too weird to be true. One of the best examples, at least in my opinion, is what happened to Chevy Chase. You see, in the '80s he was one of the top stars, with movies like "Vacation" and "Fletch". Now, he was not friends with the president during that period, nor with the next president, but he was friends with Bill Clinton. That's where it gets bizarre: a few months after Slick Willie took the oath of office, Chase got his own TV show...and it failed miserably, turning Chase into a laughingstock. In short, Chevy Chase went from a star under his enemies to a joke under his friend.

To compound this, the show's failure was followed by embarrassing movies like "Cops and Robbersons" and "Man of the House". I will say that the latter isn't god-awful, but it's not really worth much. Mostly just another story about a son and stepfather trying to bond. If nothing else, I guess that it just seems sad that Chase went from "SNL" to this (maybe it's also the flick's status as a Disney movie). But really, Chase has done better than this, as have Farrah Fawcett and George Wendt. Don't make it your first choice.


This movie is a terrible waste of 96 min. A story of a boy (Johnathan Taylor Thomas)and how his dad leaves his mother (Farrah Fawcett) for his secretary. Then Johnathan and his mother have wonderful times together skipping on the beach and collecting shells and junk. Then Chevy Chase comes along and the movie get's more boring than it already was to begin with. In my opinion, Chevy is altogether not funny enough to make this movie at least a mediocre comedy. It's a comedy with hardly any laughs throughout the entire movie. You start to get bored with how not funny the movie is after the first 20 min. Chevy Chase is dull and amazingly unfunny. Johnathan Taylor Thomas is alright, but hey it's Johnathan Taylor Thomas... can he be any better than alright? Farrah Fawcett is probably the best part of this movie, everything else seems to fail miserably.

All in all, not recommended in the least. Go spend your money on a better movie like 'Howard the Duck'. 1/10


This was a slightly funny sometimes entertaining family comedy, but you can tell how Disney is going into the live action, and will have some unsuccessful movies to now, Meet The Deedles, Mr. Magoo, and others.

I give Man of the House a 3.5 out of 10. Rated PG for mild violence and language.


Spoilers below.

Matlock, the long-running criminal lawyer show featuring Andy Griffith in the title role, has enjoyed a popularity in first-run and re-runs that I cannot understand. It is frequently (and favorably) compared to "Perry Mason", the archetypal criminal drama that sets the gold standard for courtroom television to this day. It's remarkable that the two shows are mentioned in the same breath.

Griffith is Ben Matlock, a Harvard graduate who, we are told in the early years, never takes a case for less than $250,000. Earth to writers: criminal defendants do not have $250,000. Like Mason, Matlock's office sees a stream of innocent people charged with murder. Like Mason, Matlock winds up getting most of them acquitted.

And there, the similarities end. Mason, the creation of detective story writer Erle Stanley Gardner, had an abiding respect for the courts, the police, and the rule of law (more so in the series than the novels that preceded them). Everyone on the Perry Mason show was smart; Mason was just smarter. In contrast, Matlock is perhaps the least dumb character on his show. One mystery involved a murder with a candlestick that was found in Matlock's client's house, wrapped in a newspaper. While Matlock was cross-examining the real killer, he discovers that the date on the newspaper was one day after his client was in jail. This is astonishing: no one on the police force or the district attorney's office has noticed that their most damning evidence provides the defendant with an iron-clad alibi? And Matlock, unlike Mason, cares little for the rules of evidence. Almost every show, when the prosecutor makes an objection based on hearsay or speculation, Matlock screams to the judge that his question is "absolutely vital to his case" and the judge lets it in. When I was in law school, we referred to this as the "Matlock rule". He passes photographs to the jury while the judge is considering whether they are admissible, and gives long soliloquies about surprise witnesses who are "prepared to testify", all while the prosecutor sits mute.

You've guessed by now that I'm an attorney. I don't mind suspending disbelief to enjoy a television series (surely Perry Mason's nemesis Hamilton Burger would not have been a district attorney for a decade if he could never indict the real killer). But there's a difference between suspending disbelief and suspending intelligence.


Matlock...the answer to everything that is wrong with old people's TV shows.

Like MURDER SHE WROTE, this comes off as some insane idea that old people with white hair have the solution to all the murders that happen and can solve any crime with little or no evidence; but rather just by talking their way to a solution with nothing to substantiate the story.

It's horrible.

The script formula is always the same, the characters might as well be the same in each episode, because the story doesn't fluctuate.

And the guy works for free, no matter who hires him, because he never gets paid or if people do offer to pay him, he doesn't accept the money for whatever reason and gives it back.

The only good episodes where when Don Knotts came on - because he naturally is great.

Don't be fooled by the friendly Andy Griffith, the show is really retarded when you look at it away from the TV screen.


One day my girlfriend suggested a film called `Killer Nerd' (Which, to my knowledge is only available from `Mooovies' in Bristol, Vermont). I thought nothing of it other than, `this'll probably be another Horror flick that I won't really pay attention to or remember.' It's not as if the name doesn't make it abundantly clear what the plot's going to be, right? Right you may be, but a regular horror film this is not. In fact really, a horror film this is not.

I was right in my initial fear of watching this film. I thought it was going to be bad, I was right. I thought the acting was going to be poor, I was right (BOY was I right!?). Still, with a plot that would make Arnie blush and more stereotypical characters than can be seen outside an episode of Buffy, the film plodded on. Poorly. I could honestly say I have never in all my life seen such a poorly put together, utter joke of a film. By far the worst film I've ever seen.

However, I know a lot more films that I didn't enjoy nearly as much. The sheer poor quality of the film makes it so bad that it bypasses the usual stage that a bad film has where you'll sit and cringe and either turn it off or just slug it out painstakingly till the end. Far from it, with Killer Nerd you can get almost as engrossed in it as if it were a decent film.

The writers of this film are either lucky or genius's. If you see this film anywhere do not miss your opportunity to see it.

Nerd. Nerd. Nerd.


Everything about this movie is just plain awful. The acting is amiturish, the directing is almost nonexistent, the script is a joke with countless pages of terrible dialogue which soon develop into a terrible plot. In addition, the characters have no redeeming qualities whatsoever and are completely two-dimensional. The nerd, Kunkle, is actually more of a gracelessly and abruptly put-together composite of two two-dimensional characters instead of being one very three-dimensional character. Finally, the budget crushes every possible chance the movie had to be in any way entertaining. There are many outdoor scenes in this movie that take place at night during which the director took no notice to the fact that entire scenes were being lit by neon signs.

Stay away.


This movie is unbelievably bad. The first time I saw it, it threw me for a loop, because it violated so many of the conventions of intelligible moviemaking that I almost felt shell-shocked. The second time, I found it absolutely hilarious. It has more camp value than a Winnebago. From gratuitous sex, to actors twenty years too old for their parts, to acting that would embarrass a junior high school drama club, to editing that makes home movies look slick, to three-minute shots of a mailbox, to special effects beyond compare...

It's a must-see. It's just beyond description.


My brother loved this movie and encouraged me to watch parts of it so I did and that was enough for me!!!!!!!!!!!! This movie was the biggest waster of time I have ever seen. There is no such thing as a storyline and the acting is terrible!!!! Take my advice and DO NOT watch this movie!!! If you do you will want all that time you spent watching it back. Anyone who likes this movie is crazy, I don't know how ANYONE can like this movie. It is probably the WORST movie ever made. If you don't believe me see for yourself and you'll know what I mean. One of the worst parts is that the people who made this movie were actually trying to make a real movie-they definitely could of fooled me.


My friends and I have seen a lot of bad movies. Up until now, "Tomb of the Undead" was the worst movie ever. Now, even though its dancing zombies are timeless, it must loose its crown. The new king of bad movies is "Killer Nerd." This movie was so bad in every way that I don't even have that many comments on it. It was mind-numbing bad. Like -- really REALLY bad. Just go rent it. You'll see. So bad. Just bad. Bad bad bad. Bad. :-( Nerd nerd Nerd NERD NERD! ...


One of the most annoying aspects of this poorly produced "documentary" is its abysmal editing. Aside from the utter lack of chronological presentation (showing a shuttle orbiter test flight before the Apollo 11 splashdown is more than a bit confusing), there seems to be a lack of knowledge that the Apollo and Gemini programs were not the same, and that maybe they shouldn't intercut video of the slender black Gemini capsule with that of the much larger Apollo command module. The near total absence of narration does not help this problem in the least. Also, who decided that the only footage of astronauts to be shown would be people just dicking around on the surface of the moon, or playing catch and spinning around inside Skylab? What about science? The narrator mentions that we spent two billion dollars on the Skylab project, apparently because it was a neat idea. There is never any mention of the purpose of these various NASA programs, and never a mention of Gemini, despite the program's capsules appearing as stand-ins for the Apollo CM from time to time.

As pointed out earlier they do mention the shuttle. However, they also include this line during it's brief segment. "While testing, it was launched from the back of a 747 to service Skylab and return safely to the earth." There are two major issues with that statement. Let's begin with the "launched from the back of a 747" part. While technically a launch, the orbiter pictured in the video is the 'Enterprise' "Approach and landing Test" vehicle. (i.e. it was never intended, or structurally capable of enduring the forces present in either a real launch or re-entry). That, and the orbiter cannot be launched into space from a 747, especially when it lacks the necessary rocket engines. The bit about servicing Skylab was apparently an idea at NASA, but due to Skylab's reentry and destruction in the upper atmosphere in July, 1979, this would be impossible. Considering this films release date, you would think they should have known this.

The entire movie is just one huge example of how little the producers actually knew about NASA. It's as if they took a bunch of NASA stock footage, set it to an intrusively loud, overbearing, inappropriate soundtrack, added some inane comments about what food the Apollo-Soyuz astronauts/cosmonauts ate during their mission and released it to frolic with all the factually incorrect school textbooks floating around the country. There are really too many errors and omissions in the seemingly random mix of footage to note here, or probably for me to notice. But I assure you, if I did not know better I would be dumber for having seen this pathetic presentation about my country's space program.


Chuck Norris, stiff-as-usual, in yet another mind-numbingly predictable action thriller which actually has just as much talk as action, maybe even more. Professor Toru Tanaka is a promising-looking villain, but even he doesn't prove to be a worthy opponent for good ol' Chuck. And Christopher Lee is wasted, again. (*1/2)


How any Chuck Norris movie can be called "good" is beyond me. First and foremost, Chuck is a poor actor then and now. This movie doesn't have just a bad part, it is a bad part. And I will say, Chuck's later movies were actually better. Maybe because the scripts were better??? 'Cause his acting certainly wasn't. (Sorry, Chuck. You just don't have "it".) I recommend skipping this one unless you are a die-hard fan. (Does Chuck have any??) At least some must exist since this movie got a score above 2. Come on, be realistic, people. One or two "catch phrases" does not a movie make. One or two martial arts favorites also doesn't qualify to make this movie worth seeing. --Again, unless you are a die-hard fan.-- I found this movie trivial and unentertaining. I realize we're not looking for Oscar quality in an early martial arts film (especially an American one from the 1980s), but bad is bad and this movie is BAD.


This is a totally absurd movie with stupid fighting scenes and poor script. The characters lack characterization and the director lacks brains. Remember not to bother watching it. You have been warned. 4/10 from me.


Years later this film runs out of gas. The acting is choppy, and the film quality is grainy. The kung fu is excellent, but the budget and time constraints hurt this flick. This reminds me of other early 80's horror films like the Hallowing, that where good then, but lame now. I believe time does judge all things after the hype die down.


We recently screened this film for our English class and I found it to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. There are WAY to many closeups of this actress, the plot was very weak, the props were poorly manufactured, and the sound was unbearable.

DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM.

The film shouldn't have been released to the United States and should have just stayed in Bollywood land where it belongs. This film is neither shocking nor riveting. I can't believe how many people liked this film. A group of normal college kids from Chicago all unanimously agreed that this film was complete trash.


Careful -- there could be a comment here that maybe a spoiler.

I only mention the spoiler as I believe this film should carry the "buyer beware" label as I believe some scenes have been edited out so it could show in Chicago (where I saw this film). I am unsure of the print that showed as I think I never saw the entire film. Scenes appeared to be "blacked out" -- scenes that were probably important to the film ending. Yet let's press on (caution: spoiler comment in forth paragraph).

This could have been a good film but the sound editing is terrible. The sound of water and breathing distracts you as it dominates in almost every scene. It becomes annoying; however, the music sound track is very good. The story does has movement and is helped along by the music score as it builds to the climax. Yet be prepared to be left..... hanging. (spoiler comment below)

I can only guess what was edited out (my guess was a visual destruction that Chicago audiences may have found disturbing). The editing, in fact, ruined the film for me as the black outs came at the climax. If an American viewing (or Chicago) was going to be a problem for the film they should have inserted a stock shot or kept tight on Malli's face.

It had potential as a good Indie but the poor sound recording and poor editing caused me to think "malo" instead of "Malli - si! - muy bueno".


I am surprised that so many viewers liked this movie. Let me make myself clear: I find the subject matter very interesting. Trying to understand why people (especially, young people, and even more so young girls) become terrorists (or freedom fighters; the terminology is heavily dependent on your alliances) is quite noble. So I was really eager to see the movie, but unfortunately was disappointed beyond the normal expectations. What was good about it? Well, the actors were not too bad (especially, given the fact that they were mostly non-professionals). That's about it. What was bad? Let's start with the premise: a girl (freedom fighter/terrorist) becomes impregnated by a wounded "brother in arms" while they find themselves hiding from the government troops in a ditch (and the latter are still raiding the area, might I add). Are you kidding me? I admit, I've never been shot in a battle, so I cannot tell what a person would normally do under these circumstances, but my wild guess is that having sex with a comrade (while the enemy soldiers are searching around) would not be the first item on the list. Well, may be I am wrong here... Next, who was in charge of the soundtrack (and sound in general)? This was probably the worst movie sound, I've ever heard: the same bad composition played on a cheap synthesizer over and over, so by the middle of the movie, you have an urge to turn the sound off and just read the subtitles. Who was the director? Almost every scene (with exception of the scenes involving the old man, his goofy friend, and the paralyzed wife) looked exceptionally fake: fights, killings, pull-ups, etc. Anyways, this could've been a decent unprofessional movie, but for a professional motion picture (especially, given the amount of positive coverage), it falls quite short.


This sophisticated melodrama from a Noel Coward play is clearly unsuited to Hitchcock's particular talents: the initial court-room sequence is the best, allowing the director to experiment with camera technique (especially his creative use of the dissolve to jump from the present into the past and back again); the rest is a succession of clichéd situations, making it a rather tedious whole. The most notable cast member is Ian Hunter, though leading lady Isabel Jeans did go on to play prominent roles in GIGI (1958) and HEAVENS ABOVE! (1963). With this, I've only 3 more extant Hitchcock Silents left to watch - THE PLEASURE GARDEN (1925), DOWNHILL (1927) and CHAMPAGNE (1928); his second film, THE MOUNTAIN EAGLE (1926), is believed lost.


If this film had not been directed by Alfred Hitchcock, no one would remember it or even want to remember it! It is obvious that this film was just a chance for the director to work his craft until he ultimately made a dandy film a year later (THE LODGER). You will also not see very much of the "Hitchcock style" in this film, as the movie is not a suspense film or mystery and in places, his quality as a director was very suspect. It is just amazing how quickly he went from this sorry film to great films.

When I say badly directed, I know some die-hard fans will no doubt have an apoplexy. I have long ago noticed that die-hard fans rarely can allow criticism of their idols, so I know I'll have a few people rate this review as "not helpful", but it simply was botched by him in places. In particular, the beginning of the film is a histrionic mess! While it is untrue that MOST silent films are overacted and have exaggerated action (this is really only something you see in very, very early films), this film looks like a throwback to bygone days during the confrontation between the evil drunken husband and the painter. Such overacting and hysterics are pretty much laughable. I also loved how the husband did such a rotten job "hitting" the other man with his cane--he pulled the blows so obviously that it just looked like it came from a high school play! Well, I must admit that the rest of the film DID feature better acting and it seemed that if Hitchcock made this movie linearly (from start to finish), then you can see how his direction improved as the film unfolded. But, unfortunately, the script is so preachy and obvious that it hardly seems worth watching. About the only positive that I really liked was the very end--the lack of a happy or clichéd ending actually helped make the movie a little more palatable. Still, all-in-all, a pretty forgettable and unimpressive film in almost every aspect.


I dosed off. There wasn't really anything in the first hour. You can skip to the last 30 minutes and get all this movie has to offer. Even then, there's not much there. Good dialog may have made something out of this mess but there wasn't any, being a silent film. I found myself sitting there wondering what was being said but there weren't any cards to tell me. I guess I was supposed to get something out of the expressions but I couldn't. Most of the cards were at the end and by then I didn't care what was being said.

Apparently some woman got divorced because she got her portrait painted by some artist who disappeared after shooting her husband....or something. She's miserable with her new husband, on her new estate because the mother-in-law doesn't like her or something. Does her new hubby like her or not? Don't ask me. He doesn't seem to care either way. And neither do I.

A big fat who cares to this one. 2 stars because I know there's something worse out there.


As you may or may not know, I've decided to type reviews for all my DVDs ("May or may not know." Like you guys actually read one of my reviews and said to yourself "Wow. I've got to read more from this guy.) When it came time to type my review for "Easy Virtue" I was drawing a blank. I once cited "Murder!" as a forgettable Hitchcock film, but in this case I really could not remember a thing. As I started reading other reviews and such, the movie started coming back to me. And I realized I was just suppressing bad memories. One problem with this picture is (and maybe it was just my copy) there was no music for this silent film. I mean none. Now I could probably watch "Nosferatu" or "The Phantom of the Opera" with no music, but those are good movies with great story/plot/action. This on the other hand was just dreadfully boring. I mean I had to sit up in bed just so I wouldn't fall asleep watching it. Now you may be thinking what if there had been music? Would it make it better? No. The story itself just did not interest me at all. I stated once that "Champagne" was the worst Hitchcock film that I ever saw. I gave that film a 2. Despite the horrible story, it had good directing. Here however I didn't see anything special about the direction in this film. That's why I gave this movie a 1. And like I stated in the title it is quite possibly the worst Hitchcock movie ever. "Quite possibly" because I haven't seen all his early work yet. And there's a couple of his other films I haven't seen as well. I probably could have combined those last two sentences. So in closing I recommend this only to the Hardcore Hitchcock fans. The rest should avoid this film. Trust me.


Don't expect typical Hitchcock touches in this early silent of his called Easy Virture since this isn't even a suspense film but more of a melodrama about a divorced woman who can't escape her past, a past in which her then-husband discovered her painter's infatuation with her, which he mistakes for an affair, and gets shot by him but survives though the painter later commits suicide (which I wouldn't have known about if I hadn't read the synopsis on the DVD case back). Shamed by the courts, she flees to France where she falls in love again, marries, and returns to England where her mother-in-law automatically gets suspicious of her. What I just described is something (at least the mother-in-law part) that I've seen on many TV shows and movies that usually ends with the woman winning everyone-or almost everyone-over. Not this time. Personally, I found this mostly boring and some scenes (like the about-to-be-ex-husband "hitting" the painter with his cane that looked so fake) so ludicrous. The only interesting camera angle I saw here was when it cut to the top of the judge's wig before he looked up and his face came in close-up. This happened twice. It probably didn't help that there were no music or sound effects on the DVD I got. So if you're an Alfred Hitchcock completist, by all means see this. Otherwise, worth avoiding.


So is a movie worth watching when the direction is even clunkier than the acting, when the acting with only one or two exceptions is embarrassingly amateurish, when the plot is chopped up and dull, when the jokes and comedy relief aren't just flat they're concave, and when the murder in the title is barely squeezed in 55 minutes into the 58 minute run time? Yes, but just barely.

Murder with Music is one of the movies featuring black actors and entertainers that Hollywood cranked out to fill America's segregated (officially or de factor) movie theaters in the Thirties, Forties and early Fifties. The name of this game was minimal budgets and production values, but with lots of musical numbers. The plots are almost irrelevant. This one features Lola (Nellie Hill), a singer in the nightclub owned by Bill Smith (Ken Renard). Lola has suitors, including an escaped convict, a piano player and a reporter. With off-and-on flashbacks we see the comedy mix-ups and mistaken motives that are played mostly for laughs. As time passes, this plot becomes really tiresome. The acting doesn't help much. Nellie Hill evidently only made two movies. She was a fine-looking young woman with a bright and warming smile, a first-class vocalist and an awful actress. Ken Renard, who had a long career mainly in secondary roles, especially in television, carries the acting load. He's assured and competent. The movie's value is that in 58 minutes nine major musical numbers are squeezed in. We have songs by Hill, tap-dancing duos, a comedy song well sung by a large man I couldn't find a credit for, plus Noble Sissle and his orchestra in some fine swing numbers. There's a production number supposedly being shown on a primitive television set that is gobstopping: Chorus girls dressed mainly in bandanas and bananas dance and stomp about telling us to "flip your lip, I'm a bangie from Ubangy." There are, however, two first class (and totally forgotten) songs. "Too Late, Baby" by Sidney Easton and Gus Smith is a clever swing number and "Can't Help It" by Skippy Williams is a bluesy torch song with a fine melody...

It ain't right to love someone the way I love you like I do. It ain't right to love someone that don't love you.

I can't help it if I love you and you're cheatin' on me, too. It ain't right but I can't help it 'cause I do.

I'll wash and dry your dishes. I'll clean and make your bed. I'll work and slave around you 'Til my face turns cherry red.

I can't help it if I want to work and slave to be with you. It ain't right but I can't help it 'cause I do.


Nellie Hill was a popular nightclub performer who appeared in this film and "Killer Diller" (1948) - it is not hard to see why she only made two films, she was an extremely bad actress.

Editor (Bob Howard) needs a reporter to gather information on a nightclub singer, Lola (Nellie Hill), who is mixed up with some pretty shady types, including Mike (Bill Dillard) an escaped convict. Lola has one of those "new fangled TV sets" - pretty amazing for a grade D film of 1941!!! She and Mike view a musical number "Geeshee", set in the jungle and featuring a witch doctor and lots of dancing girls.It has a very confusing story as it is mostly told in flashback by the editor to an eager young reporter who desperately wants a job.

Bill Smith (Ken Kenard) was once a policeman but is now a nightclub owner. He is trailed to his house by a reporter, who hides behind a chair. Smith and his date drunkenly exit via a window and the next minute Lola and Mike go to Bill's with a policeman claiming it is their flat and they have been burgled. Before too long the policeman is playing the piano and Lola is singing songs from her new show - "It Ain't Right"!!! If that is true why, in the next scene, is she auditioning for a spot in Bill's club??? Just when you are wondering - is there going to be a murder??? - there is - and then!!!

The thing that makes this watchable are the musical numbers. The wonderful Noble Sissle (who has more charisma and talent in his little finger than all the actors in this film put together!!!) and his Band perform at a masquerade party in which only 2 people wear masks!!! They perform some very catchy songs - "Too Late Baby", "Hello Happiness", and "Running Around". A pity Sissle wasn't given the lead, he would have been the best actor in the film. There were also some pretty good variety acts, including another band "Skippy Williams Band", who were great. Marjorie Oliver was also memorable as Bill's sassy secretary.

These films may have been crudely made but at least they were a realistic interpretation of the Afro-American way of life at a time when white America was still laughing at Stepin' Fechit.

Recommended only for Noble Sissle.


I've said on a number of places at IMDb that the real popularizers of the male buddy film were James Cagney and Pat O'Brien. They made a number of great successes for Warner Brothers in the previous decade. O'Brien left Warners in 1941 and unfortunately Having Wonderful Crime is a failed attempt to recapture the magic.

I think this film would have been a whole lot better with James Cagney in the part George Murphy played. It was a good screwball comedy, but Murphy just ain't Cagney. Playing off Pat O'Brien the lines Murphy delivers just don't have the same flair.

But as another viewer remarked, Carole Landis in the best 1940s fashions is a lovely sight to behold. What a tragic end to a beautiful and talented player was soon to befall Carole.

She's reason enough to watch this.


Screwball comedies had largely been done by 1945, but this tried to recapture the popularity of the genre. It fails miserably and wastes the talents of the stars. Poor Carol Landis, forced to laugh all the way through the film. Poor Pat O'Brien, who keeps falling into the water fully clothed to get laughs. Poor George Murphy for having to say those wholly unfunny lines.


I had heard a lot about this movie. Its songs became the most popular, especially " One ,two, three..". "This world has slept" gave a break to legendary singer Mukesh's son -Nitin Mukesh.

Laxmikant-Pyarelal's music was inspired by some tune they had heard a marriage band playing, so it is said. But the movie itself is a disappointment, for I expected cinema. It is a typical Hindi film with songs and dances. A rare thought provoking moment is when Suresh Oberoi's character questions Munna, about escaping responsibility. Having said this , Anil Kapoor and Madhuri Dixit have given their best performances. Their performances lift the movie, give life to some exaggerated scenes. It is probably Chunky Pandey's only well acted movie.

Suresh Oberoi also plays his cameo well. But the film didn't deserve all the accolades it got.


N. Chandra's Tezaab was given more than it's due. True the song "Ek Do Teen" is a foot-tabbing number & Madhuri Dixit shot to fame with this movie, yet what nobody seem to have noticed that it is a bad remake of Hollywood's action/ musical "Streets of Fire" (1984).

Much publicity was given to the movie, which helped to make it a big success.

Another flick used to make the movie a definite success, was adding a song number after the film's release.

Nothing special about this movie if you're well acquainted with good movies & cinema.


Having seen the trailer for Gene X months in advance, I was expecting a film in the style of Garth Marenghi's Darkplace. Unfortunately, this turns out to be a very low budget movie taking itself far too seriously in trying to create some sense of suspense and resulting in nonsense. The opening title sequence is easily the most dramatic part of Gene X. Do yourself a favour and press STOP after the first two minutes and you will have a far more enjoyable cinematic experience than continuing on to the establishing scene.

The plot of Gene X involves a bumbling young scientist, Dr Tom Gray, working in a laboratory-seconding-as-a-lavatory, whose genetic testing on two (2) rabbits somehow heralds the results of a marvelous cancer-curing goo. However, as with all Dr Jekyllian projects, taking this substance triggers moments of violent insanity in the takeree, insanity which can only be sated by a stranglee shouting "I know you're in there somewhere! It's me! Your friend! Your FRIEND!" (or to that effect)... otherwise the only known cure appears to be a bullet through the head. Of course, the hospital in which Dr Gray is conducting his research claims the cure as their own and attempts to sell it off as all corrupt-and-drug-addicted-corporate-types do. Said corporate type is dating a nurse in the hospital, who seduces Dr Gray in order to get to the cure, as she is emotionally attached to a tumour-ridden orphan in the hospital who can somehow afford private health cover. Tensions rise as the affair is discovered and the battle to stop Gene X escaping into the clutches of pharmaceutical companies rages onward towards a most yawnworthy climax.

The film is sluggish in creating tension throughout the rickety plot line. Every few minutes a character's dialogue will be poorly dubbed. Inappropriate, Yamaha-keyboard-esquire music stings punctuate moments of the protagonist and his love interest with the comedic prowess of Trey Parker. And the acting of the minor characters is truly appalling... especially the senior ones. "Oooh, I'm shaking like a leaf." Hilarious! The spasming of the bedridden toadfaced chemokid is also pants-wettingly funny.

The saving grace of Gene X comes from the lead actors Patrick Magee and Ayse Tezel. Both hold up the narrative by making the best of some, at times, horrendously corny lines. Stunt doubles for sex scenes and scooter-riding are terrible, but if you approach Gene X without high expectations you are sure to enjoy the post-production ineptness and unintentional one-liner classics. "It smells like... the ocean?"


Gene X is a fast paced breakneck ride through turbulant emotional highs and gritty realistic lows, about the conflict we all face in our.....sorry i cant go on.

This is quite possibly the worst movie i have ever seen, and i complain about a lot of movies.The dialogue was stilted, hackneyed and sounds as if it was lifted from an abandoned production of "Apocalypse Now - The musical" circa 1988 ("it smells like the ocean" cue Kramer and his cologne).The soundtrack was too bad to be considered elevator Muzak, and even hard core ravers would be hard pressed to pop enough drugs to make this movie palatable.

I was left with a distinct feeling of unease, realizing that this was the movie i had awaited, that had screened in Cannes and that had several well known Australian "personalities".Finally i thought, a contemporary Australian film to demonstrate our ability to produce truly world class scripts, even if we cannot afford the Hollywood production values.Guess ill just keep waiting.

Having said that, it is worth watching just to see how truly awful it really is, i mean i was really quite amazed the producers didn't have there legs broken by irate investors.Or disgruntled movie fans.

In conclusion, this is a horrible cardboard work that will clash with you're aesthetic sensibilities and quite possibly give you cancer.Which apparently had something to do with the disjointed story the tacked on to keep the scenes appearing "logical".

truly, truly awful, but 2 points for being Australian and for promising not to do a sequel.


If you wind up watching this film you're watching the *wrong* film in more than one sense. You want the other 'Double Jeopardy'. Or at the very least another 'Double Jeopardy'. That's the problem with titling a film after a specific legal clause. And the reason why calling a work 'Murder' is to be avoided.

Shortly, 'Double Jeopardy' is the story of making out in a police car, a paternity suit, an inexplicable killing, and a unanimous guilty verdict. I was awaiting the unfathomable twist just as it failed to happen. This oddly straightforward piece of work does appear to have overlooked some essentials of the genre; intrigue, psychology, doubt etc. It is rather like playing Cluedo with one character, one room and the candlestick holder. On your own.

That said Brittany Murphy looked lovely and Italian and I must confess I watched it through to end. Though I fear this says more about me than the film. The most frustrating thing is that it's not really concerned with Double Jeopardy at all. However the lack of respect shown for court proceedings and criminal procedure was delightful.


I don't know what the other comments are talking about. I've seen lots of true crime movies, dramatic, suspenseful, and enthralling. This was none of the above. I kept waiting for something even halfway believable to happen. She sues him for child support and continues seeing him! Oh, come on. No twists, no turns, nothing dramatic. Why did I waste my time and can I keep anyone, anyone else from watching this movie. Yes, the acting isn't bad, although Teri Garr is wasted, but they might as well be acting in a paper bag, they can't fight their way out of this insipid, even if true, plot and the total lack of anything to keep your interest up, except the faint hope that there will be some of element of surprise sometime but alas, there never is.


I remember the real life events of this vividly since it was one of my best friends and the drummer in our band who was portrayed in this movie as the stepson. A lot of it was over-dramatized, but that's what Hollywood does. As well, it was told only from the viewpoint of the victim. So much more was left out. I saw it when it first aired, but I couldn't watch it again since it brings back such bad memories, plus it's so biased. I know Lifetime airs it often so I just keep switching channels. It's just too strange to watch a movie that is based on the real-life tragedy of people I know very well, especially when some of the facts and scenes are altered. The actors were far from nailing the personalities of these people, but again, that's Hollywood.

UPDATE - 2007 - So, the "expert" who testified that the bullets matched his gun commits suicide a few months ago after he is confronted about his misinformation on the stand. BUSTED! He as no expert at all and made up everything. The case has now been reopened and it seems the bullets DO NOT match his gun. Hence more will be introduced to prove innocence of the "lead character" of this "wanna-be based in real life" movie. I hope when he is set free the producers come back to Baltimore and do a sequel to show just how wrong the first movie really was and show that he is innocent after all. They can show how he was set up by another cop who was also sleeping with her (the movie didn't show how she liked to hop in the sack with other cops, too). This movie should be burned in a bonfire with all the other biased trash out there.


This so called romantic comedy sounded somewhat promising because of its twist. However, it was not. The movie is pretty dull, boring, and the humor is far and in between. The actors and actresses tried their best, but they couldn't save this movie even if they gave Oscar worthy performances. Granted, the movie is somewhat interesting at points, overall it just was not made well. I would only recommend this to anyone who is a fan of any of the cast (main cast). Other than that, just avoid it, unless you are finding yourself surrounded by horrible movies. I rate this 4/10. Rated R for sexual content (note: this movie does not deserve an R rating. The sexual content is minimal and the nudity is brief).


I can understand why Devon Sawa would choose a role like this. Only because he's been out of work for so long, he's probably desperate. Same for Andrew Keegan as well. Both, good looking funny, semi-talented actors, they have chosen this piece, "Extreme Dating", which makes "Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle" look like a Shakespearean piece.

After four friends go on a skiing trip, and one of them ends up in a dire situation with a strange girl, and falling in love with her afterwards, the rest of the group decides to try 'Extreme dating'. Meaning, they find different scenarios or situations where they can get trapped, kidnapped or isolated with the people they are in love with or have crushes on.

The whole movie was pretty lame, and although there were a few funny moments, it's not all that enthralling. I will admit that I watched the movie all the way through, partly because I was bored and the other part was because I like Devon Sawa and wanted to give the film a chance. The girl in the movie, whose name escapes me, has been in a few other films, but she looks like she's gone on Mary-Kate Olsen's diet. She used to be very full-figured, and now she looks almost sick. But, aside from that aspect, she was very good, maybe at times a little over dramatic, but cute.

It was worth checking out, but all in all not the best teen - young adult movie you'll see. Stick with better Sawa films like, "Casper" and "Idol Hands".


*Bad Moon SPOILERS*

Ted (Michael Parè) is going to be our lycanthrope for today, a young man who has this 'curse' upon him, and tries to do as less trouble as he can, but his nephew (Mason Gamble)'s dog has other ideas, and begins to attack poor Ted, and Ted's sister (Mariel Hemingway) doesn't understand a thing, because she's as dumb as a rock...

Am I going to believe that a mere dog can kill a werewolf? No sirreee! The main characters were so annoying, and Parè was the best of the bunch, so I was rooting for Ted (the werewolf) to make it.

It can be read as the drama of a misunderstood werewolf, or as a failed attempt at a horror movie. And for a werewolf movie, the transformation scene is so-so.

Bad Moon: 4/10 as a horror, 2/10 as a werewolf movie, 8/10 as a Drama.


The good thing is that it lasts only 80 minutes. That's the longest run for a script like this. A man, while having a sexual intercourse with his girlfriend, gets bitten by a werewolf, and his gf gets torn to shreds (yes, you've guessed it, she was in mid-orgasm when the beast attacked). He becomes a werewolf. The rules in this movie are such, that he turns into a werewolf every single night, no matter what moon phase it is. And also, silver bullets and garlic are not the only things that can kill him, as he insightfully explains it to his nephew "a good shotgun blast to the head" will get him too. He moves to his sisters (and nephews) house, away from his trailer home in the mountains, because he has murdered 5 hikers already (as a werewolf), and believes that only family love can save him from his destiny. He is dead wrong, and soon, as a man also turns into a psycho, killing all the duality of wolf and man, usually found in these movies, which is just too bad, as it could have been a lot better that way. The real hero of this film is not this man, he is the antagonist. Nor is it his sister, not her son. Actually, the protagonist is a German shepherd. Yes, that's right, throughout the movie, a German shepherd, owned by the little kid, is protective of him and his mother, against his uncle. He is the only one that can suspect that the uncle is not all he seems, and he is also the one who kills the werewolf at the end, and lives to tell, even in the closing shot, we see his "angelic" face down on his paws. So, this movie is actually about the devotion of dogs to men. And that saves it from being a total disaster. In conclusion, watch it, if you get a chance, it's watchable.


I hope that Primo, the German Shepherd who played Thor, fired his agent after this role. It's amazing how they can take such a great novel and make such a bad movie out of it. Not only was the dog the best actor, he had the best lines and best stunt double. If you like dogs, people, or just plain good movies, do not waste your time on this stinker. Even the beautiful scenery and Primo's best efforts can't save this one.


I saw this film from the TV some time ago. I didnt wait anything but the film was pretty entertaining. The plot wasnt great (Man chancing in to a Werewolf... Have seen this before...??!!) but the movie had couple of really spooky scenes. Spooky enough to make me keep on watching anyway.

But "Bad Moon" still is nothing else but a normal horror film with little creeps. When I turned out the TV I had already forgotten what the movie was about! There just arent anything... that would amaze you or... something that would make it "unforgettable". Everything feels familiar and already seen. Nothing else but entertainment for rainy Saturday evenings. 4/10


It was the worst movie I have ever seen in the movie theater. I was going to a lot of movies when this movie came out and I noticed in the paper a listing for Bad Moon. So I decided since I had aready seen every other movie playing in the theater to give it a try. It was opening day of the movie and I notice that only three other people in the theater had come to see it. This was a bad sign right off. After two hours of sitting through this debacle out of morbid curiosity, I came away from this movie with only one good point; The dog's acting wasn't that bad. So as the day passed so did Bad Moon, right out of the theater. It only played one day and left town. To this day I have never met another person who has ever seen or even heard of this movie.


There really isn't much to say about this movie. It's sickeningly boring and it doesn't make much sense! It even makes "Howling II" look good. And that IS saying a lot. The mother was an insult to women everywhere as she fluttered through this one like a butterfly. The boy was so gut-wrenchingly despicable that you almost want to cry. Twenty minutes into this one, I was asleep. When I woke up, I was wishing that Stirba and her "gang" would "pop out" somewhere. Once again, this film is garbage!


This movie is one of the worst movies I've seen. You want a werewolf movie, watch An American Werewolf in London. This one looked so, so fake. Why does the dog always have his month open??? If you like watching a movie with a guy with hair, watch this.


This, by far, is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I actually persuaded my date that it would be better than the current movies that were playing (i.e. Sleepers, First Wives Club, etc.). I mean, come on. Hemingway and Pare. That is a pretty good cast. During the movie, I kept telling my date that it would get better and that the plot would soon develop. How wrong I was. This was one of the crappiest movies ever made.

I never knew that is possible for the moon to stay full for extended days on end. Save your money. Don't even dignify this movie by renting it.


A few people on this page have compared SECRETS to a sort of Aussie 60s version of THE BREAKFAST CLUB but I have to steadfastly disagree . THE BREAKFAST CLUB was one of those productions that Hollywood used to churn out in the mid 1980s in order to sell a few records . SECRETS has an entirely different feel to it , in many ways it feels neither like a cynical marketing excersise nor a feature film but more like a theater play , and even though I haven`t bothered to check I`m probably right in saying SECRETS started life off as a play . Check out the character of Randolf who starts off by speaking in a scouse accent then when he gets found out reverts to an Australian accent . This type of deliberate internal logic gaffe is not uncommon in stage plays since it gives actors the chance to show off a bit and of course the story is entirely low concept just like you`d expect from a stage play .

This is a very uncinematic movie and the director seems to be lost in what to do with the characters . Check out the early scenes where Didi sits alone drawing . She`s been down the basement with Danny but neither of them have said two words to one another . Very difficult to believe . But I guess the selling point to this movie is more to do with the music of The Beatles rather than character interaction but the music featured here is of the band`s early stuff and I much prefer their later material<br /><br />As a strange footnote last year Paul McCartney`s daughter Stella was married on the island of Bute where I live . We had some really big name celebs like Madonna and Gyneth Paltrow over for the wedding and the local population were totally star struck just like the characters in this film . Quite pathetic really


This watered-down social commentary about the caste system among NYC snobs and their domestic help is as esoteric as the book that inspired it. Given a title that promises biting wit, bitch fights, and outrageous behavior, one wakes up the morning after watching the film curiously empty; not only does he not remember a single scene from the film, but he forgets he saw the bloody thing in the first place. Laura Linney's usually electrifying screen presence is dumbed down to a few tantrums and forced smiles, all meant to imply, I suppose, the shallowness of a rich and privileged life. The usually wonderful Paul Giammatti fares no better, coming off as a fat stupid lout whose dialogue was apparently written by someone who watched too many Lifetime movies. In fact, the whole endeavour is EXACTLY like a Lifetime movie: mind-numbingly insipid, told from the point of view of the oppressed woman (here represented by the horribly miscast Scarlet Johansson), complete with sistah support (Alicia Keys) and one of the most boring gay guys you've ever seen on film. Love interest WASP Dopey the Wonder Boy rounds out the cast of caricatures as a down-to-earth Harvard graduate with a sob story and dimples, and of course he's nothing like his dumbass friends. He really wants to date the nanny. Really. Okaaaaaaaaaaay.

But I could forgive all of that junk if the film had dared to plumb the depths of the social strata with which it purports to be familiar. But it doesn't, it carefully flits across the top of the upper crust society, never landing anywhere, and we frustratingly see only glimpses of tantalizing gossip: What the hell does Mrs. X exactly do all day long that takes her away from her weirdly-named son (Grayer)? The movie won't tell us, preferring to keep its mouth shut and devoting the entire hour and a half to Annie's moral dilemma in staying with Grayer instead of moving on with her life. It's an admirable quality for a protagonist, but also a very boring one. What I wouldn't give to see Mrs. X on a bender, eating mini donuts in the back of her limo wearing only a fur, or flirting with a doorman or something. ANYTHING. Did anyone ever see Valerie Perrine in that dumb movie with Ally Sheedy years ago, where Sheedy was her maid? The ultra-rich Perrine was fantastic, saving all her bits of aluminum foil so she could recycle them and make a few cents, mashing up all the soap slivers in the house into a big ball so she could make "soap for the servants' quarters". This is what I wanted to see, rich people gone weird.

Anyhoo, the movie ends pretty much as you might expect, Mrs. X becomes enlightened, etc etc etc. You've seen it all before if you've ever watched five minutes of any Lifetime movie.


I loved the book The Nanny Diaries, I lost myself in it, the story of a student taking care of a 5th Avenue family's son and all the mishaps that happen was truly a delight to read. So when I heard about a movie adaptation I couldn't have been happier. When they started announcing the cast I was pretty pleased with the choices, being a big Scarlett Johansson fan I knew she could pull if off. Then the movie came out, it suffered from bad reviews and low ticket sales, so my hope that the movie would be as good as the book were dampened, but I was still interested in it.

Well, I finally watched it and I feel so disappointed in this film. The cast are all great and they all did an adequate job. I liked Scarlett Johansson as the lead. The real problem of this movie is that it really strays from the book. I have no problem when film adaptations of books are done differently, if I enjoy the book I might enjoy the movie as well no matter how much the film is changed, as long as those changes are positives one. In this movie the changes were not positive.

It tries to be quirky and funny and really bombs in the humor. And it's source material is both quirky and funny and all the changes they made really made the humor feel forced. That might the problem with this film, it tries to hard to be funny and it just bombs. The magic of the book just didn't translate into the film. What made the book good isn't present here and it's a shame because it is a really fun book to read and this is a really boring movie to watch. The changes in storyline weren't what bother me so much, but the fact that they took something original and turned it into something generic.

The film does have it's saving graces. Johansson and Evans are both very charming in the film and the rest of the cast do a good job. But what they succeeded in doing, at least for me, was establish a relationship between Annie and Grayer. I really bought their relationship and could see how much they meant to each other. Their relationship was truly touching and believable. Unlike the book, which leaves things pretty unresolved, maybe that gives it a touch or realism, this film gives us the perfect happy ending, were the bad guys are reformed and our heroine has found what she was looking for.

I didn't hate the movie, it's fine, it just drags a little. The book is just great and I was hoping that it's film adaptation would live up to it, but it didn't. It's sad to see that something with so much potential was ruined by trying to make it commercial and what ended up happening was that the ruined a great opportunity. Don't let this movie fool you, it is nothing like the book. And though I cannot recommend this movie I do recommend the book to anyone.


What should have been a comedic romp a la 'Sex & The City' with moments of dramatic introspection turned into a hate-filled misanthropic mess. The anthropological voice-over conveniently focused the subject matter and the existential malady facing our heroine. Unfortunately, Scarlett proved once more that although she's a voluptuous figure of epic photographic opportunity, she lacks a buoyant charm to overcome that phlegm ridden congested voice. This was her 'Carrie Bradshaw' role, and she fell flat. The fact she's made too look dawdy and plain doesn't help matters. However, she was not assisted by the dreary subject matter made only worse by the completely unsympathetic drawn-up role of Mrs. X as played by Miss Linney. Outside the opening two scenes, she spends the rest of the film as mega-bitch. And if her villainy wasn't enough, a shockingly hairless Giametti is around to add insult and the excuse for Linney's malevolent behavior. I understand the fanciful attempt of the scenes involving the Mary Poppinesque umbrella - but there's not enough magic in the scenes between Scarlett and 'Grover' for us to care about Scarlett's potential outside the 'X's' home. She doesn't stick up for herself, and there's nary a spark in her eyes. Alicia Keyes's staunch strong presence and voice added some light...but I'm not sure if there's enough acting ability where it can become a day job. The romance is perfunctory.


I realize most books require a LOT of adapting to work as movies, but Emma Laughlin and Nicola Kraus's biting, insightful "Nanny Diaries" was a slim book, with a straightforward storyline -- we aren't talking "Gravity's Rainbow" here. It was sharp and gossipy, amusing in a clear-eyed, first-hand-knowledge sort of way (both authors worked as nannies in NYC before writing the book).

None of that makes it to the film, which changes the plot & characters so completely that it might as well be a different story with an entirely different title. In the novel, NAN (presumably short for Nancy) becomes a PART-TIME nanny while she's finishing a graduate degree -- she's not a live-in. The point of the book is that the ridiculous demands of Mrs. X encroach on her life to the point that a poorly paying part-time babysitting gig eventually takes over her far more real needs to finish school and get a real job. Neither is she an anthropologist (why would an anthropology major be trying for a financial job anyways?)

NAN in the book is herself from an old-money New York family -- not a Jersey girl! I guess the filmmakers decided it would make the character "more sympathetic", but it skewers the whole point of the story. In the book, NAN's parents and even grandparents are entirely aware of her part-time babysitting gig, it's no secret, and it's no more "degrading" than someone who works at the Gap while trying to finish college.

Far from "great paying", one big point the book makes is that the very rich are awful cheapskates when it comes to their "servants". The sharpest detail of the novel is when Nan leaves the summer cottage, and Mrs. X has only paid her $50 for a whole week of 24/7 work -- because, after all, wasn't it a "free beach vacation"?

Scarlett Johannson continues to underwhelm me -- she's very miscast as "Annie" and doesn't look or sound like a Jersey girl. The production has her dressed down, with stringy brown hair and frumpy clothes -- stripped of her beauty, we have to confront her limited acting skills (like not being able to mimic a New Jersey accent). It's painful. The character of NAN called for an actress with a Yuppie, upper class vibe -- in some ways, she's a younger version of Mrs. X and both characters know this....i.e., if she marries Harvard Hottie, she'll become the next gen Mrs. X. Both the film and actress seem oblivious to this brilliant concept, and instead labor to make this "Upstairs, Downstairs -- which is emphatically is NOT.

The usually wonderful Laura Linney tries hard, but is wasted in a part dumbed down to that of a Stepford wife -- not mention, she's dressed and coiffed as if it were 1962, not 2007. (In the book, Mrs. X exudes "casual chic", like plain ballet flats that cost $600.)

The stunningly beautiful Alicia Keyes has a small part, but despite a lovely husky voice she has no real ability to carry even a small supporting role -- and the cliché of the "black best girlfriend" is painful. Donna Murphy has a thankless role as the controlling Jersey mom -- a working class nurse who is "horrified" to see her college age daughter doing child care, a distinction that makes no sense (who watched Annie while her single mom was working as a nurse? duh!). This is a tired cliché, and doesn't exist in the novel.

Unable to see clever, sharply observed social critique in the novel (do the filmmakers have their own "nanny issues"?), the film relies on prolonged, uncharming fantasy sequences ala "Mean Girls" (i.e., treating the subject matter as if it's an anthropological study, etc.). It's not a surprise that this film was held back from release for a long while (probably reworked a lot, to no good effect).

SPOILER ALERT: In the novel, Mr. X is cheating on Mrs. X -- and we learn that SHE stole HIM away from his first wife the exact same way. In order to hang on to him, she does indeed get pregnant -- it's not a hoax. She doesn't divorce him, she doesn't "reform", and every indication is that poor neglected Grayer will grow up to be exactly like his selfish dad. NAN graduates and presumably gets a "real" (non-nanny) job. But there is no apologetic letter from Mrs. X to her -- the point of the novel is that the X's have learned nothing and will continue on with their horrible ways, oblivious to their son and (presumably) their next baby.

This film needed to be a sharp, humorous, even black comedy of manners and instead, its a flabby, un-funny mess that suffocates every potentially amusing scene and strains for sentiment where none exists. Even the chance to show the "posh lifestyles of the rich" is lazy and unimaginative.

In conclusion: not even worth a rental


The movie was just OK. I found myself searching for other things to do during the movie because it just didn't grip you into the story. The basics of the movie is a college grad flops in her first interview and becomes a nanny by accident. The kid was a brat, they became friends, she told off the mom who was being cheated on and nanny had a secret in the building love. The best part of the movie was Scarlet; she is just gorgeous no matter what role they place her in. Her telling off the teddy bear was pretty funny. Those couple of things were not worth the 1:45 of my life I wasted watching this title. Scarlet I love ya, but better luck next time.


I think one of the main flaws of this film (and it's not just one) is that you can't feel the stress that nanny expresses on the book. The director/screenplay writer tried to make the character of Mrs. X a little less evil than the book and, in the making, they managed to lose the wit of the book's Nanny. Another thing that really made this a bad adaptation was the fact that nanny was a rookie on her craft...With this change, they managed to lose the sarcastic remarks, her sassy points of view and made it so cliché and predictable. I have to add another problem: the use of the music is excessive! it's a distraction, not a complement and it really doesn't help. Even though the X's and nanny comes to make you tired while reading, that would have allowed an excellent adaptation: shorter but consistent with the humor of the book. I don't understand what's the point of using the dog on the beach if they were not going to use it properly...just to make giammati's character (great actor, awful cast choice) a little easier to be hated. I think it could have been a good movie...it could have...


Recent college grad Annie Braddock (Scarlett Johansson) is all set for a career in business when she quite literally falls into a position as nanny for the four-year-old son (Nicholas Art) of a snooty, self-absorbed Upper East Side socialite named Alexandra X, played by a sadly miscast Laura Linney (among many of the movie's wearisomely cutesy touches is not giving a surname to the family that hires her).

Based on the novel by Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus, "The Nanny Diaries" is, unfortunately, every bit as predictable and trite as its simpleminded premise would lead one to expect. Beyond trafficking in just about every stereotype and cliché imaginable - the heartless, neurotic, slave-driving elitists; the sensitive knight-in-shining armor love interest (Chris Evans); the nagging, free-living best friend; the lecherous, nanny-chasing husband (Paul Giamatti) - the movie is woefully unsuccessful even at treading that fine line between cleverness and cuteness that can make or break a film of this type. There is an affectionate tribute to "Mary Poppins" that - early on at least - suggests that the movie might actually try to do something a little daring, a little different. But that air of fanciful creativity is quickly squelched in favor of formulaic storytelling and cookie cutter characterizations.

Interestingly, the filmmakers, for all their championing of the women employed as nannies, seem to have almost as low an opinion of the profession itself as do the elite snobs who appear on screen.

All told, Johansson is really the only decent thing about "The Nanny Diaries" (well, little Nicholas Art is pretty cool too), but even her staunchest admirers would be well advised to look the other way when it comes to this film.


I truly appreciate Scarlett Johansson's work and lord knows that she tried her best here. Do please read the other reviews for the plot line as I just wish to say a few things ABOUT the reality of the plot. Wouldn't it be dandy if one videoed tirade could possibly change the life of someone? Just think of it...You're selfish or self absorbed or especially down-deep unhappy and one person comes along and reads you the riot act and POOF you're a different person...sorry but I couldn't buy it. Actors were fine, blah blah, or perhaps that I am being too critical but "No way can a personality alter overnight!" Bottom line...the movie left me shaking my head in total disbelief.


The movie is barely based on the book. They made the Nanny character (now Annie) a poor New Jersey girl, raised by a single mother, who has no idea what she wants to do with her life. I can't understand for the life of me why they decided to make the character unrecognizable . Why change her into someone who is wishywashy , and knows nothing about children? It is uncomfortable watching a character who is so out of her depth, while the Nanny in the book grew up in that society, yet could still see the ridiculousness of it. What was the point of erasing her Dad? Such a pity, because the book is brilliant, and part of what makes it so good is Nanny's apt social commentary, not her shock of being thrown into the deep end of nice, normal, Jersey girl vs rich, stupid, Manhatanities. And a dress-up 4th of July Party? And the whole Harvard Hottie thing just seemed wrong.

Don't even bother watching the movie. Read the book and leave it at that. You'll be much happier.


My vote total is probably not as bad as it seems; I give few movies 8s and 9s and only one movie in the last 10 years has rated as high as a 10. The production values on the movie are good and many of the performances are decent to excellent. Chris Evans is wasted in a role, that as written, could have been done by any cute enough actor of that age. Linney is an excellent actress and did what she could with this role, you cannot fault her performance. However, she has been, as many other users pointed out, far better used and done so much more remarkable work in any number of great movies. This is far from a great movie. Donna Murphy was also wasted in her role. Giamatti obviously enjoyed the role and "chewed" it to good effect, but his was a minor key role in the movie -- not enough to salvage this into a better score. The best performances were by the nannies and some of the mother, with an amusing turn by the facilitator of the Parent's Society meetings. Alicia Keye's existence in this movie, as with the other movie I saw her in, was a pointless addition. While not as bad as some singers trying to act, she did not contribute anything to the movie other than the addition of her name. Finally, Johannsan simply is not a the comic genius the "making of" featurettes make her out to be, certainly not the physical comic implied. While she has been less appealing in other films (The Prestige comes to the fore), the physical schtick they made her go through (such as the fall on receipt of her diploma, or the costumes and other hassles with Grayer/Grover) really was just painful to watch.

The best part is the museum opening. If the movie had maintained that cleverness, it might have accomplished something.


As I watched this film for the first time, I couldn't help but feel that I had seen it before. The Nanny Diaries is a high-quality knock-off of The Devil Wears Prada. If you have never seen the Devil Wears Prada, then you will most likely enjoy this film. If you have seen the Devil Wears Prada, then this film may look good to you on the rental shelf, but ultimately feel cheep once you get it home, as most knock-off's do.

The main character in The Devil Wears Prada is a personal assistant. In this film, the main character is a nanny. In the Devil Wears Prada, the climax takes place in Paris. In this film, the climax is in Nantucket. That is pretty much where the differences between the two movies stop. Both positions described in these movies are those of the "hired help." Both characters discover their self-worth. Both characters discover that their mean bosses were forced to be that way in order to survive their respective lots in society. Both movies state that a life of luxury has a hidden price. Both characters elect to be happy with the middle-class. Both characters have the opportunity to marry rich. Both stories take place in New York. Both characters have unique cell phones. Both have jobs that essentially dictate that they carry a cell, and so on, and so on, and so on, ad nauseam.


Greetings again from the darkness. Seriously, I have nothing against cute movies with a message. What I can't stand are cute movies that aren't cute. Throw in a grating voice-over and cardboard characters and I am definitely OUT.

Somehow a film written and directed by the "American Splendor" team of Robert Pulcini and Shari Springer Berman, starring Scarlett Johansson, Laura Linney and Paul Giamatti comes across as shallow, poorly written and, at times, laughably unwatchable.

The stereotypes are flowing big time with rich, snobby, out of touch, self-absorbed "upper east siders" on display at every turn. Throw in the "Harvard Hottie" (played by the human torch, Chris Evans) who has the dead mom, boarding school childhood misery going for him, a few misplaced "Mary Poppins" tributes, and the brilliant but poor Anthropology major (Scarlett) who just wants to find herself working as a nanny, and you have the makings of a cheap Oxygen channel comdram. All parties should be embarrassed.

The only semi-bright spots are the icy rich mama played by the talented Linney ... when she flashes that smile or the stare, it does have some impact; and the power broker rich daddy played by the always excellent Giammatti - this time with a stuffy accent! Still the moments of hope are weak and all too infrequent.

Scarlett and Evans are quite the eye candy for the twenty something crowd, but no one involved could possibly feel good about the final product here. Such a waste.


I'm a big fan of Laura Linney and think she's one of the most interesting actresses around, but this film is a disaster and so is she. Very depressing. But the movie lost me with Linney's very first scene in which she introduces herself as "Mrs. X." Mrs. X? Why in heaven's name would any character in a film be called Mrs. X? I thought it was a joke and laughed. But then I realized that was her character's name and that would be her name throughout the film. I just couldn't believe it. I could not imagine why the producers would allow such a thing. It knocked the very bottom out of the film for me. But I kept watching so see if it had any saving grace and discovered it did not - at all. The script stunk - no two ways about it. It's too bad because the book was big and had lots of fans but this movie did not live up to the book and should have been made by someone else. The pair behind it simply did not know how to deal with the material they had.


It's disheartening to see such a sparkling cast put through the motions of a tiresome mainstream trifle like this 2007 adaptation of the lightweight bestseller of the same name by one-time nannies Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus. Directed and written by the husband-wife team of Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini (who previously partnered on the smart and quirky "American Splendor" about underground comic book writer Harvey Pekar), this movie would seem ripe for a sharp satire about the privileged class on the Upper East Side. However, the trite life-lessons orientation of this modern-day fairy tale escapes their idiosyncratic grasp, and the result is a superficial slog with a particularly narcissistic perspective.

The story centers on New Jersey-bred Annie Braddock, freshly graduated with honors from NYU, who realizes during a corporate interview that she doesn't know what she wants to do with her life. As an anthropology major, she sees life as a series of Museum of Natural History dioramas (a particularly contrived device used repeatedly in the film). By happenstance in Central Park, she is recruited to become a nanny for the unfortunately named Grayer, the towheaded son of a glamorous, designer-clothed society matron referred to as Mrs. X. The trappings are luxurious at Mrs. X's apartment, but things go sour almost immediately when Mrs. X's demands on Annie become excessive. It turns out that the Mrs. X is in a bad marriage which has left the Mrs. desperate for her workaholic husband's attentions while ignoring her son. As this personal drama unfolds, Grayer becomes attached to Annie, and she responds in kind, which of course, can only lead to complications.

As much as I like Scarlett Johansson, she is not a natural at this type of character-driven comedy (unless you count the skits she does on "Saturday Night Live" where she plays Lexie, the glammed-up Jersey girl pointing repeatedly to chandeliers and marble columns). She just isn't that credible as a dowdy, naïve post-graduate perhaps because she has already been seen in past films as a savvy and often world-weary bombshell. Her physical antics here seem especially strained and her tirades rather forced. It's not a bad performance as much as it is a misuse of her talent. Faring somewhat better is the always reliable Laura Linney, who gets to look gorgeous for a change and then uncover a wickedly vituperative woman rattled by her deep-seeded insecurity. The relationship between the two characters will likely remind you of "The Devil Wears Prada", a much better adaptation of a lightweight roman-a-clef, although Mrs. X is not as complex or intimidating a character as fashion magazine editor Miranda Priestly.

Relegated to the sidelines is Paul Giamatti properly villainous as Mr. X, an adulterous, insensitive lout of a husband and father. Chris Evans colorlessly plays Harvard Hottie, Annie's preppy, kind-hearted suitor upstairs, while Nicholas Art simply doesn't register any real warmth as Grayer. Broadway great Donna Murphy shows up effectively as Annie's working-nurse mother, Julie White has a few funny moments as an unctuous training seminar leader, and pop singer Alicia Keys plays the requisite best pal role with bohemian spunk. The story's resolution feels particularly pat. The 2007 DVD has a few extras - no commentary track but a standard making-of featurette about 17 minutes long. The second short, "Confessions from the Original Nannies: The Authors of the Bestselling Book", is marginally more interesting as the book's co-authors Kraus and McLaughlin discuss their own experiences as nannies and the book-to-movie transformation. Lastly, there is an amazingly dull blooper reel plus the original theatrical trailer.


A magical red umbrella and a reference to 'Supercallifragilisticexpialidocious!' does not characterize "The Nanny Diaries" as a "modern-day Mary Poppins." If you were to make a "modern-day Mary Poppins," at least make it a decent movie.

"The Nanny Diaries," directed by Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini, was based on the novel The Nanny Diaries, written by Emma McLaughlin and Nicola Kraus. Though the directors cast of some of today's well-known stars like Scarlet Johanssen, Paul Giamatti, Laura Linley, Donna Murphy, and Chris Evans, the movie was bland and lacked a primary theme.

The movie begins with Annie Braddock (Johanssen) a college graduate who is unsure what to do with her life now. After an "unexpected" run-in with a wealthy young boy and his mother in Central Park, Annie goes to work for the Upper East Side family as their nanny. The movie was full of countless clichés: saving her future charge from being run over in the park while his mother is nowhere to be found, being forced to live in a shoe box of a room next to the washing machine, catching Mr. X cheating on his wife, and catching the eye of the rich "Harvard Hottie" who lives on the 12th floor of the apartment building. The movie was so unbelievably predictable it was funny.

The one thing the directors got right was the cast. Nicholas Reese Art plays Grayer, the spoiled, lonely, fun-deprived, adorable little boy with the biggest brown eyes you've ever seen. He is by far the best actor in the movie and the most developed character. Johanssen's performance was mediocre. Her emotions seemed forced at times, but who can blame her with the script she had to work with. Laura Linley does a decent job as bitchy self-centered Mrs. X, and Paul Giamatti does a fantastic job playing the workaholic father with maybe two lines total.

The only reason to see this movie would be to compare it to the novel, but be forewarned that it will be an outrageous disappointment. The film was a cheesy cliché that should have never made it past screening.


This was the first Australian haunted house thriller I ever watched (at least I think it was, unless overlooking another one), but unfortunately I can't claim it was a very good or even remotely memorable experience. "Next of Kin" is a slower than slow developing thriller with only a few worthwhile moments but sadly a whole lot of pointless filling & meaningless mystery building. The film benefices slightly from its naturally eerie setting  namely an elderly folks home  and the always secluded Australian outback locations, but the actual storyline is thin and derivative, the lead characters are unsympathetic and  last but not least  the amount of thrills and shocks is unforgivably low. Linda, a young and not-so-attractive woman returns to her hometown as she inherited her recently deceased mother's resting home. She's not very motivated to continue running the place and her reluctance even increases when strange occurrences take place on the estate. The discovery of her mother's diary sheds some light on the uncanny situation within the walls of the resting home, but the sinister events carry on. The attentive and perhaps more experienced horror viewer will notice a detail quite early in the film which will already reveal an important part of the final denouement. The sight of old, wrinkly people stepping in and out of bathtubs does make me shiver, but it's still not the type of horror I anticipate to see on film. The last ten minutes of "Next of Kin" suddenly become extremely virulent and outrageous, with a stabbing through the eye and even a genuine head-explosion, but it's too late to save the film as a whole unfortunately. I agree haunted house movies generally need to rely on atmosphere and suspense instead of graphic gore, but "Next of Kin" has literally nothing.


I have not seen all of the Custer movies, but this one is certainly NOT the accurate historical portrait/epic that his story begs for. The chief culprits here are the scriptwriters, who seem to have based their scenario on earlier Custer movies instead of serious historical research. They also had to work in some made-for-Cinerama "thrill" sequences that add nothing to the story and seem to go on forever. Shaw, a pretty credible actor, seems to have realized how farcical this effort was and got into the spirit with a performance that is by turns lackadaisical and hammy. His supporting cast -- notably Lawrence Tierney as Phil Sheridan, Ty Hardin as Marcus Reno, and Jeffrey Hunter as Frederick W. Benteen -- also chew the scenery, and as Custer's wife, Mary Ure is apparently under heavy sedation most of the time. My favorite moment of this idiocy, however, comes at the very end, as the director presents the Battle of Little Big Horn as choreographed by Busby Berkeley (only without the overhead shots). Really, if you're a Custer buff, this is only for laughs.


As an amateur historian and Indian Wars living history re-enactor, I have a number of problems with this film. Aside from the acting (I normally like Robert Shaw), the technical and historical failings really detract from its story. Spoilers? Can there be anyone on earth who does not know the story of the Little Bighorn? It has been pointed out that the topography of the area is completely wrong, the battle in the film is far different from what really occurred and the troops are using the wrong weapons. But even on TV, you can see the square pillows under the soldier's clothing as the arrows strike them! Really a grade B effort, and that's too bad.


There was some decent photography and camera work. Robert Ryan should have played Custer, at least he didn't have an Irish accent. However the plot, directing and waste of Cinerama film was almost as bad as the History. Why doesn't someone make an accurate movie about Custer? He really is a fascinating study. He really was a "boy "General" in the Civil War and even though most West Point Grads who were like Custer, in the right place at the right time for promotions; his rise in rank was phenomenal.

Custer was an American hero of the time who went bust, but only a few people realize it at this late date. I live near the graves of several Confederate Soldiers who surrendered and should have been treated as POW's. Custer had them hung. Lucky for him that he was on the winning side, and he didn't have reporters running around with cameras.

All this may not have much to do with the movie, but since the producers didn't have the guts to put a disclaimer on their film that any any resemblance to real characters is strictly accidental, I will continue to describe some of the errors of the film itself.

The Civil War battle scenes were obviously not filmed in locations close to resembling Northern Virgina. I believe General Phil Sheridan had one arm, and he was a real General who saved the Union from disaster in the Shenadoah Valley. His character as played in the movie is not accurate. Custer, like most officers who remained in the service after the Civil War, was reduced in rank. He was a Lt. Colonel when he died, although I looked hard to see his rank, and couldn't see it. I was in the military and in combat, and rank is nearly always prominently displayed. I also know that enlisted men never eat steak for breakfast, as portrayed in the film. They were lucky if they got more than biscuits and coffee.

Custer was the head of a regiment of cavalry. I have seen some pictures of cannons being hauled around in the west, but generally, the cavalry means mounted men on horses, not infantry or artillery.

While in duty in the West, Custer was convicted of 7 offenses in a military court and his fine was loss of a year's pay. Sheridan did get him off the hook. The film attempts to portray Washington as the primary villain, but in reality, it was finding gold in the Black Hills that lead to the end of the Indians rights to the Black Hills. Whether Custer, or others looked the other way defending the Native American's rights was moot. A nation that had just fought a major conflict and still had weapons and trained soldiers was simply a fact of life. What was really tragic about Custer and the real inaccuracy of the film, is that Custer's political ambitions are not shown. That is the theory of most historians as to why he lead his troops into such a disastrous military situation. He knew that the total might of western troops could easily defeat the hostiles, but if he won a major victory with a small army, he would achieve immense fame. The one tell tale sign that the writers of this film were on to the real Custer is when he said that Juan Pizzaro conquered the Inca Civilization with less than 200 men. Custer was responsible for the safety of his men. He sacrificed them to gain that same immortality. Wouldn't this story be better than wasting Robert Shaw's talents?


Granted, this abomination was filmed nearly 40 years ago but it lacks most of the style and energy of Flynn's 1941 Custer epic. The technical aspects alone are enough to consign "Custer of the West" to the Dust Bin of Hollywood, let alone of History.

Just a few gripes among many: The topography of the climax in no way resembles Montana. Maybe that's to be expected of filming abroad, but there must be ONE grass covered hill somewhere in Spain.

The troopers and Indians are armed with Winchester repeaters. If the 7th Cavalry had been so equipped, the battle might have gone the other way.

One suspects that the portrayal of mounted Indians riding down the soldiers is inspired by Hollywood convention. In truth, the battle was fought on foot with the Indians making use of cover and terrain to approach the cavalrymen.

SPOILER FOLLOWS The ending is just plain stupid: hundreds of Indians simultaneously halting in their tracks to spare Yellow Hair so he could be humiliated at the end of his life. That segments strains credulity to the breaking point.

This pony's leg is so broken that the only thing to do would be put it out of its misery--and the audience as well.