One of my favorite things about this one is seeing W.C. juggle. He started out his show business career as a juggler, and in this movie you get to see some of his act. Even after a couple of decades of drink, he still does a creditable job, to say the least. The cigar box routine is a sight to remember.

It also contains one of the oddest-named characters in any movie, Cleopatra Pepperday, played wonderfully by Jan Duggan. The scene where she sings Gathering Up The Shells By The Seashore is wonderful. Or when she's rehearsing her "line" in the play, "Here comes the prince!" There is also a fascinating little cultural artifact within the movie -- a production of The Drunkard, a 19th century hit, no doubt popular when William Claude was a mere lad.

As per usual, W.C. Fields is incredible. The fascinating thing about him, to me, is the subtlety of his performance. It doesn't LOOK subtle, I'll grant you, but what strikes me is that there are many layers to his performing in movies. On the one hand, there are the huge gestures and loud, familiar voice, but on the other hand there are the muttered asides, the precise facial reactions, the absurd failure to accomplish the simplest tasks, like put his hat on his head without getting it caught on a cane. That's what I mean by subtle, you almost miss it and then you can't explain to yourself what it is that is so incredibly funny about what he's doing.

There's a bit of controversy about the scene where he kicks Baby LeRoy in the bottom, knocking him across the hall. There are many stories of W.C.'s working with Baby LeRoy. Apparently, on one occasion, Fields poured gin into Baby LeRoy's bottle, and when the child began throwing up and falling over, W.C. snorted, "I told you he was no trouper!"

I think it's awful that so many of W.C. Fields' films are not yet released on DVD. This is an oversight that should be rectified soon, we hope!


Quintessential W.C. Fields comedy (again, billed as Charles Bogle, he provided the story himself) boasting a pleasant period setting and a plot that revolves around a troupe of traveling players led by The Great McGonigle. The star is given yet another memorable introduction - being signaled by his daughter of the presence of the law, representing their creditors, on his way to the train which is to take them to the next town; here, again, we have a daughter who is willing to forgive her rascally father his every whim and foible.

The film, as such, relies more on atmosphere than the typical Fields 'sketches' and this, perhaps, lends it a charm - and a freshness - that it wouldn't otherwise possess. Among its many notable scenes are: Fields thinking the military reception waiting at the train station is for his troupe's benefit; the dinner sequence with a rampaging, famished troupe and Fields' hilarious encounter with Baby LeRoy (who throws food at him and drops his watch into a jar of molasses) - Fields manages to get even with the child by kicking him when no one's watching!; the rich old lady's cringe-inducing singing audition, with the star reacting accordingly (he's hoping to secure her financial backing for the play the troupe will be presenting in town by promising her a role in it - this is eventually whittled down to a single line, which she's never even called upon to deliver!); Fields falling off the stage during rehearsals, etc.

"The Drunkard" set-piece occupies a good deal of the second half: a hoary melodrama which the troupe performs with gusto - with Fields as the mustachioed and hissable villain of the piece who, at one point, reprises the immortal line from his short THE FATAL GLASS OF BEER (1933) "'T ain't a fit night out for man nor beast". With the closing of each act, the curtain comes crashing down making a loud thumping sound; still, the film is clearly intended as a valentine to the days of vaudeville - and even includes a wonderful juggling routine towards the end that showcases Fields' amazing dexterity (in spite of his advancing age, corpulent physique and propensity for booze).

The final sequence finds The Great McGonigle keeping busy as a medicine showman - having left his daughter behind, so as not to interfere with her happiness alongside a stage-struck boy emanating from a respectable family. Typically, for comedies from this era, romance and songs have been incorporated into the narrative as much as a device by which to counterbalance the star's antics as for purely commercial reasons (since these films were largely intended for family consumption).


If anything, this film is a must-see for two of W.C. Field's scenes: 1) Fields' first meeting with Baby Le Roy (who also appears in It's a Gift), which is easily one of the best comedy scenes in the movies, and 2) Fields' juggling routine, for which he was very famous when he was a vaudevillian, justly so. There are several other great moments of slightly lesser value. Also, the plot and the supporting characters are consistently entertaining and endearing, so this one's a real winner. 9/10


I agree that Jan Duggan was superb in this movie. It was actually the scene that made me become a W.C. Fields fan. I would love to have an original copy of the movie. I did record it but quality is bad but not so bad that I cannot see "Cleopatra" sing and dance to "The Sea Shell Song." I think I laugh harder every time and that dress & wig could not have been any better for here character. I would even wake my children up when they were small singing this song. Of course they hated it but now that they have gotten older, they will actually ask me to sing it but I just cannot master it like Jan Duggan. I wonder if she was in anymore of his movies as I have not seen her in anything else but what a lady!


I've seen this film at least a dozen times over the past half century and never tire of it. Fields is at his best, and the movie is hilarious. It ranks with You're Telling Me, It's A Gift, The Bank Dick, and My Little Chickadee. It seems incredible that this film gem has not appeared in either VHS or DVD. But such is the blockheadedness of the ruling powers in the media these days.


A great Fields film in which he gets to juggle, kick a baby, and ham it up. One of the great things about Fields was that he was not afraid of being upstaged, and The Old-Fashioned Way provides the wonderful Jan Duggan (as Cleopatra Pepperday)a scene stealing musical number in which she sings Gathering Shells at the Shore and brings down the house. A superb grotesque, Duggan was also memorable in the underrated A Damsel in Distress as one of the madrigal singers. I hadn't seen this film in 35 years but it was still the comic gem I remembered. Cheers to Fields and Duggan!


This is one of my favorite movies, and it hasn't been on the tube for a very long time; one of my favorite comments was the line when Fields describes Cleopatra Pepperday in his inimitable voice as: "All dressed up like a well kept grave!". According to the IMDb site it was originally produced and released by Paramount Pictures - does anyone know who has the rights to this? Why wasn't this on the WC Fields collection with My Little Chickadee and others (that was a blend of Paramount and Universal features)? I'd like to see this one and "The Big Broadcast of 1938" packaged together - there'd be the extra bonus of Bob Hope and Shirley Ross doing "Thanks for the Memory". Anyone know how to get a letter writing campaign started??


"The Old Fashioned Way" is a valuable piece of Fieldsian history. Filmed in 1934, it portrays the "Flim Flam" side of Fields as he leads his little theatrical troupe past sheriff and the general public in order to perform melodramas, and other feats of vaudeville. Always on a shoestring, this time McGonigle (Fields) enlists a local (Cleopatra Pepperday) to assist him in the play to keep it afloat. Her funds are enough to keep it running another time. WC is at his best in this comedy, and it is especially valuable, because Fields gets to do his old vaudeville juggling act at the end of the movie. Those of us who were aware of Fields' prowess as a juggler gets this only movie to show just how good he was, and a few years before his drinking would start to take its toll on him. This movie has never been released by Universal as a video, which owns the rights to it. Perhaps they are saving the release for an in-house party, for except for the occasional television viewing, there is no other way to see it. Come on, Universal, let's start releasing all of your Fields movies out of your dark and dingy vault! We promise to buy all of them if you do!


The very slender plot of this unusual W.C. Fields vehicle centers on the antics of the "Great McGonigle" (Fields), a con artist in charge of a theatrical troupe that tours the country performing that staple of late 19th century melodrama, "The Drunkard." Always one step ahead of the law, McGonigle and Company arrive in a small town where they encounter Cleopatra Pepperday, a wealthy widow with acting ambitions (played by Jan Duggan, one of the funniest and most memorable of Fields's female foils) who bankrolls the struggling thespians in exchange for a part in the play; meanwhile, McGonigle's daughter (Judith Allen) is pursued romantically by a wealthy college student (Joe Morrison) and Fields gets the opportunity to show off his physical schtick with Duggan, Baby LeRoy and others. This offering is divided into three chunks: the plot itself, several scenes from "The Drunkard" enacted in what appears to be an attempt to recreate the manner in which a fifth-rate company would have performed such a piece at that time in history, and an extended epilogue of sorts in which Fields demonstrates the juggling prowess he mastered over his decades in vaudeville. No matter. Fields delivers consistent belly laughs and toward the end a marvelously understated bit of fatherly emotion.


When W.C. Fields set out to make THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY in the spring of 1934, he had quite recently reached super-stardom in the movies, although having been a well-known stage presence for decades, both as a juggler and comedian. As such, it may not come off as surprising that he chose for his next story to look back upon his rough past, which partly consisted of humiliating treatment from managers, lousy payment, and less than average living conditions. At the turn of the last century, unless you had the name of Sarah Bernhardt, the theatre business, and vaudeville in particular, was regarded as the prime of indecency, a profession to which shame was associated.

Playing The Great McGonigle, Fields here pokes fun at the prejudices of which he probably was victimized in his youth; just like all of the characters he portrayed in his comedies, McGonigle has to suffer a constant lack of respect from everybody, except for the few poor fools who take his mask of sincerity and self-assurance seriously. Preparing his rather mediocre play in a small-town, he acquaints Mrs. Pepperday, wealthiest lady in town. Determined to have the woman pay for the set-up, he pretends to be in awe of her singing talents (or may I say attempts at singing). Meanwhile, his less eccentric daughter is gradually falling in love with a rich and charming boy who won't leave her, despite his own father's skepticism.

The story may sound simple, and so it is, but no less does Fields manage to perform quite a few of his funniest routines ever, while always remaining conscious of the old-fashioned setting which is essential to the mood of the film. Most well-known is probably McGonigle's noble attempts at hiding his understandable contempt for Mrs. Pepperday's baby boy Albert, who during dinner dips one of McGonigle's few valuable belongings, a watch, in a glass of molasses. Reminding himself of Pepperday's wealth, McGonigle drenches his fury behind a forced grin; "You should see him when nobody's around!" "Yeah, I'd like to catch, er, meet that li'l fellow when nobody's around..." Finally alone with the lad, Fields does a stunt which has come to symbolize his attitude towards children on film: kicking the baby in the rear end. Paramount was not pleased with this bit, fearing that the public would get upset, and sadly decided to add a glimpse of the baby smiling following the kick, in order to assure us that he's all right. This may diminish the big laugh somewhat, but it also demonstrates how Fields's frank humor was ahead of its time, forcing him to truly fight for his best ideas to be permitted once in a while, unlike today when comics can pretty much get away with anything. I like it better in the Fields manner, as he is able to show us exactly how vulgar he's inside without being overly vulgar from the outside; this is what makes his comedy timeless in my eyes, as it continues to suit our current era despite being faithful to the expectations of Fields's own time.

Anyway, shortly after McGonigle's revenge, Mrs Pepperday persuades him to attend an unforgettable ("unforgettable" being emphasized) singing performance of her's; it gets me in stitches every time how Fields repeatedly fails to subtly put an end to the horrible experience. However, despite all the hilarious sequences, including the parody on typical melo-dramas of the era which seems to be spot-on, the highlight of the film is not really a comedy act; towards the end, Fields gives room for what is the best documentation of his juggling skills we are likely to ever see. As a boy, Fields reportedly wanted to become the world's greatest juggler, and while I possess absolutely no talent whatsoever whereas juggling is concerned, this performance should make him at least a worthy candidate in my book.

There's no way getting around that THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY includes several of the very best moments with Fields, of which I have here only mentioned a few. In entirety, however, the film isn't quite on the same level as IT'S A GIFT and MAN ON THE FLYING TRAPEZE, which I consider to be his very best work. As was the case with the Marx Brothers, and Laurel & Hardy at another studio, apparently Paramount did not feel confident that Fields's routines alone could do a feature-length film; in part they were right, as Fields did not bother to pay attention to story structure and such, preferring to write the comedy sequences only, and in that respect one should be grateful that other writers were hired to fill in the gasps. The sad thing is that these writers always chose to use the same sub-plot over and over again, involving a stereotypical romantic conflict which, in startling contrast to Fields, appears very dated today; one almost begs for the comedian to turn up again when he is not present. On the plus side, however, in THE OLD-FASHIONED WAY the sub-plot at least comes off as being relevant to the main story, at one point even providing Fields with an opportunity to reveal a softer, more complex aspect of his twisted character.

This is a film which deserves more recognition, just like The Great Man himself, by the way.


IMHO the best film Fields ever made (and that's saying something). I have been looking for a copy of it for 15 years, but I can't find one. I hope it is not permanently unavailable.


Go West Young Man is based on a successful Broadway play, Personal Appearance which had a 501 performance run in the 1934-1935 season and made a star of Gladys George. What did Gladys do, but play a Mae West type actress stranded between Scranton and Harrisburg on a personal appearance tour.

Of course since Paramount bought the screen right and they had Mae West, why not use the real deal in the lead. So Gladys George got her screen stardom in other roles and Mae West played Marvis Arden, a film star very much like Mae West.

Mae's got a contract that says she can't marry, but being Mae she's got a healthy sexual appetite and who knows where that might lead. That's the job of Warren William, press agent assigned by her studio. He busts up all of her potential romances, but he's also got an ulterior motive.

In fact he does a very hilarious job in pouring cold water on a romance between her and a rather fatuous politician played by Lyle Talbot. But Mae gets herself stranded out in the Pennsylvania countryside and takes a real liking to young farmhand Randolph Scott.

Randy is the only weakness in the cast. I just couldn't quite accept him as the naive young farm boy. He's just played too many tough western types for me to ever buy that.

Still this is Mae West's show and she carries it off with a style that only she can employ. No ersatz Maes for the movie going public.


This movie was shown on Australian TV in the mid-'60s and never been seen here since. True, this is not an out-and-out romp like Mae's earlier films but it does have a more subtle comic line about a movie star in small-town America. The scene where Mae is lying down in the hay is surprisingly explicit: she reaches out her arms to Randolph Scott and says: "I love it." She was actually talking about the country life or something but in the context it was pretty strong stuff for 1935. I'm sure this is the movie where she is chauffeur-driven in a fantastic Rolls-Royce town car with "rattan"-work around the rear of the car, rather like Norma Desmond's in Sunset Boulevard. The car would be worth a fortune today. Also featured was the wonderful Elizabeth Patterson as the cynical granny of the house, a characterisation she made her own, and reprised it as late as 1957 in Pal Joey. It's a bit more subtle than Mae's earlier films but it has a certain maturity and a low-key humour as a gentle poke at country folks. The young Randolph Scott is quite a hunk in this too. I quite enjoyed it.


GO WEST YOUNG MAN is a good but yes, toned down comedy from Mae's pre-code days, but still fun to watch and not a waste of time at all.

Mae plays a movie star who stars in romantic drama and Warren William is her press agent who dreams up schemes to keep her from getting married, because her contract says that she cannot get married until 5 years. While they are on their way to Harrisburg Mae's custom-made car stuffed full of cold cream and shampoo breaks down. So, she is stuck in a rural colonial cottage boarding house with yummy Randolph Scott, twittering Alice Brady, and her biggest (and ditziest) fan Isabel Jewell.

While Mae West's acting and dialog was made tamer for the talkies, so was wonderful, handsome, cynical Warren William's, who was one of Warner Bros. top stars in the pre-code era. Warren William used to play ruthless bosses and all out cads, and while his role here is good and he gets to do some sleazy arguing and engineer some tricks on Mae West, GWYM was indeed a big step down for him. It was all because of that awful Satan MET A LADY (1934) which greatly hurt his career. Not to mention the awakening of the film censors by the Legion of Decency.

Elizabeth Patterson gives a great performance as the spunky Aunt Kate, and Isabel Jewell does a wonderful job as energetic, imaginative, movie-crazy Gladys. She does a funny imitation of Marlene Dietrich.

Oh yeah, and Randolph Scott was a total hunk with his "large and sinewy" muscles.


It was easy for me to think that a movie I've never heard of starring Shannon Lee with action choreography by Koichi Sakamoto would be cool. I wasn't expecting much. I was fine with an awful plot as long as the action was cool. But this IS a very bad film. It is extrmely slow moving, and there wasn't much reason to like Richard Vitalli who turned out ot be the star instead of Shannon. He is a very stupid character in this movie. It's amazing to see how he drastically changes through the course of the film. I realize it was supposed to be part of his character to be some lazy and incompotent man who becomes cool ala FEMME NIKITA, but it wasn't enjoyable here. Shannon has the best lines in the movie. She did her best to shine and to make this movie watchable. But the material she has to work with is so awful, that it hurts her performance. Seeing her fight again was great, but she had to go against very stupid stunt men who did not know how to fight. Koichi couldn't direct the action the way he usually does (DRIVE) because of this same problem. He didn't even have the rest of the Alpha Stunt Team with him. Action directors can't direct action by themselves. They have to have a team of other people. This is why guys like Yuen Woo Ping and Sammo Hung are so good at it.

This is an unfortunate film that shows that the people involved must have needed money. Shannon Lee showed she had great potential to be an action star with ENTER THE EAGLES. This is not a good way to follow that movie up. Stick with that movie and DRIVE for real good action.


I knew when I picked up the box that it would be a pretty bad movie. Still, I wanted to see Shannon Lee and the movie having Michael Dorn in it looked like it could be a sleeper. It wasn't...

Shannon Lee and Michael Dorn did a good job with what they were given. The rest of the movie was pretty bad. I won't repeat what has already been said by others. They put it pretty well.

I can see why the actors made the movie. It's easy for me to imagine reading the script and thinking that it had the potential to be better than it turned out to be. Too bad...

If you like Shannon Lee, you may not be too disappointed with this movie. I'm glad that I picked it up, but wouldn't watch it again.


I had a coupon for a free movie rental and the movie looked like it might be interesting. I wish I could get my free rental coupon back. I would rather have watched "Battlefield Earth" again.


This is one of the best movies I have ever seen! The non stop action coupled with the insane awesomeness of Shannon Lee makes this an instant kung-fu classic. I especially love Robert Vitelli and the super-amazing kick butt fighting he does. This movie has it all: guns, mystery, action and SHANNON LEE!! It starts out with Vitelli as some homeless punk, but then he gets sucked into a secret assassin school and it turns out that he is some kind of genius. He doesn't like the assassin school (which is run by Star Trek's Michael Dorn!) so he tries to get kicked out and then tries to escape. The plot twists and turns but the action never lets up! See this one twice.


This movie is a definite must see. Even not being a huge fan of football(soccer) this movie held me captivated. Acting is definitely top caliber. Rachel Weisz is absolutely amazing in this movie.


What's so different about this romantic/fantasy dark comedy is it that uses the British (and European at that - it was set in Euro 1996) enthusiastic obsession with soccer as a backdrop, and thus provides an emotionally dramatic fantasy setting of 'what ifs' and anticipation for the main drama of quirky romance. The football (complete with stock footage of England's National Team in action) and essence of the atmosphere stay true to the intended settings' accuracy and makes for a great opportunity to play off the characters via their differing interest in the British National Sport ensuring that the characters brim with a level of anticipation of each others' next direction that mirrors the results of the team they barrack for, the 3 Lions of England. The relationship between Neil Morrisey's and Rachel Weisz's characters sparkles because however quirkily their attraction as lovers fleet on and subsides off at different times, one gets the feeling that Weisz is partly a fantasy (there are storyline elements that also drop hints of this) for Morrisey's pint chugging bloke (not too unlike the concept in Fever Pitch) and that his and the nation's fantasy of success for their Football team mirrors their relationship. Every ecstatic victory in the football world is a progressional step for their relationship. Sadly, by fate, it all ends up as a case of unrequited passion. A fantasy dream that was great while it lasted. Both for the team, and ergo, for Morrissey's character, Martin.

Overall, i'd say watch this one if you loved Fever Pitch, Mike Bassett, or An Evening with Lineker, although this one should be appreciated for its strong acting performances by the female lead rather than the male.


As much to do with remembering a great summer, football provides the backdrop for this amusing comi-drama. Is easy to empathise with a fan getting caught up in the fervour of the tournament and his own fervour with falling for a woman (Rachel Weisz) who seems to mirror England's progress in the tournament.

Weisz is as ephemeral as footballing success, particularly as she is a device and not really a woman in this drama, and footballing success is as ephemeral as happiness itself, so the movie reaches a predictable conclusion particularly if you know anything about the tournament.

Weisz looks great, the movie has good pace, and it is well enough written to remind anyone of a great summer whether it involved football or not.

Worth a look if it crops up.


I remember this as a rather odd affair, very male, not particularly woman friendly. A world where blokes are blokey and great, with lovable eccentricities, and women are for ogling - here merely disguised rather than mitigated by romantic pseudo poetic posturing. Rachel Weisz is lovely, but not a real woman, very definitely a male fantasy figure. This felt rather curious, especially when compared with An Evening With Gary Lineker, in which the characters, both male and female, were much better drawn. The attention to detail in the football seemed much better in that other play too, here it seemed rather desultory - a sequence of blokes cheering when goals went in and looking glum when they didn't. To sum up, really rather drippy, almost as wet as Morrissey's mustache as he sipped coffee by the Seine in a ludicrous, introspective setup that a teenager would have been embarrassed to have come up with. Shallow, silly, mooning, wet, not connected to the real world. Check out Lineker - it's much better.


Hmmm. Posted this one about a week ago, but it still has not appeared, so I will try once again...

Pornography is big business: while Amazon.com continues to hemorrhage red ink after four years, the average internet porn site is profitable within six months, and the industry as a whole raked in over a billion dollars last year alone. No longer the domain of the dirty old man in a trench coat, "adult movies" are available at most video outlets, and rented by men, women and couples of every social status. Strangely, these same people are quick to judge the performers - they must be drugged out losers, and ex-hookers whose past is rife with sexual abuse. Life is never that simple.

 Adopted at birth, Stacey Baker had a normal upbringing, had never been abused and was an average young woman - pretty, amiable and somewhat lacking in self-esteem. Not exactly a Rhodes scholar, she had a simple goal in life - get married and be a good wife, because that's what's expected of proper girls from Tulsa. Her husband's Madonna/whore fascination would soon change all that. After pressuring her to get breast implants and pose for nude photos, he submitted the pictures to a men's magazine. To both their amazement Stacey was chosen as "Girl Next Door" and "Hustler" magazine swept her off to do a shoot with a male model on the Mexican Riviera. Loving the attention and surprised at her disappearing inhibitions, she had an epiphany - the woman who previously felt she had no talents, realized that she did have one undeniable skill - she could "f*** great". She had discovered her niche.

 Stacey soon ditched her overbearing husband, and moved to Los Angeles, adopting the stage name Stacey Victoria. She gives herself two years to become the best in the business and quickly becomes the "it" girl of the porn set. A consummate professional, Stacey is there to get the scene, and nothing - not stinging ants or fake smoke that almost cause her to cough up a lung - is going to get in the way. While she notes cavalierly that "When I'm horny, I go to work, and if I want affection I have my cat" it is soon apparent that the broad smile pasted on her face is part of her carefully manufactured screen persona.

 Although there is ample nudity and several sex scenes (carefully filmed to avoid being explicit), it is the unflinching look at Stacey's life that makes you feel like a voyeur. In her world a relationship is threatened not by sex with strangers but rather something as seemingly innocuous as holding hands with another person. We watch as Stacey, driven by ambition, sabotages her relationship with Julian, a fellow "actor" and nice guy who sincerely cares about her. Midway through the film her chirpy optimism has been replaced by a sad cynicism echoed by her new tattoo - "trust no one". Stacey comes to realize that engaging in sex on command has stripped her of the one thing she needs - intimacy. Unable to find it she concentrates on her career, ultimately winning the H'ot Dor, the Oscar of the adult film industry, and you expect her to give the "You like me, you really like me" speech. Stacey's changes are not limited to the emotional.

 In order to maintain the illusion of living Barbie doll Stacey undergoes numerous plastic surgeries, brought to you in living color. No horror movie can hold a candle to the violence of a silicone implant the size of a throw pillow being yarded through a gaping hole in a women's breast, then replaced with another only marginally smaller implant. If this isn't enough to make you squeamish, they also serve up a liposuction and an operation to give Stacey come-hither lips.

 Some of the best scenes in the movie come in the exchanges between Stacey and her mother, an amazingly nonjudgmental, supportive woman who lavishes her daughter with unconditional love. Her only worry is that when she is gone, Stacey will spend the rest of her life alone. It is obvious that Stacey had not, until that very moment, contemplated this thought, and both women burst into tears. It is a touching moment that avoids being gooey.

 The most remarkable thing about Stacey Valentine that there is nothing remarkable about her - she truly could be anyone's neighbor, daughter or sister. If you have the opportunity to see this film seize it.


Sorry I couldn't think of a snappier summary title, but this movie really (forgive the pun) got under my skin. An excellent, intelligent documentary about Stacey Valentine, a porn star in her mid-20's,how she ended up doing what she does, but more importantly, what it has done to her.

Any female (especially the younger ones) who is even remotely tempted to go into the industry should see this movie. I respected the fact that it doesn't have an obvious agenda, other than to entertain and give you a 90 minute glimpse of what a porn star's life is really like. It manages to show the unglamourous (at best) day-to-day realities of the business, how it can ruin lives and destroy self-esteem, without being the least bit preachy. If there was any voice-over, I don't remember it. Most of the story is told by Stacey herself, in interviews with the filmmakers, or through her interactions with other people including her parents, boyfriend, directors, fans, and friends. My husband said that when it started out, SV "seemed happy and pretty much OK for a while", but from almost the first shot of SV talking about how this is a great job for her because she loves sex and how the porn industry "is the only job where she would get people telling her she's sexy and beautiful", it was obvious that though she is smiling and sounding positive, but really just trying deep down to convince herself that she's happy. In the first few minutes of the movie she reveals that there is only one thing she has any sort of talent for that she could make a living from-sex. She tries to sound proud, but that's a tip off right there that her self-esteem is in the dumpster.

This movie is just incredible on so many levels, there's not enough room for me to go into it. It was so riveting, I didn't want it to end. Let's face it-most people (whether they will admit to it or not) would love to be behind the scenes for the filming of a porno movie, just to see what really happens behind the camera (and when the camera is off) and I was no exception. You get to see several scenes of that, and I think anyone who sits through the movie will agree that $1000-$2000 a day (the performers get paid more for the "kinky"-or, more realistically, the extremely uncomfortable, unpleasant stuff that most performers prefer not to do)doesn't even begin to approach the amount of money that women in the industry deserve to make. For one thing, it is not as easy as it looks, to say the least-an image that stuck with me was the ants swarming in a puddle of...( well, you can imagine what liquid needs to be cleaned up on a porn shoot), some of them crawling on SV and even biting her. Keep in mind, these are the high-end, high profile porn films she works in. There's actually some pretty funny scenes, too (especially the driving scene another reviewer mentioned).

 The film shows in extremely graphic detail what breast implant, collagen injection and liposuction surgery looks like-I would not recommend hitting the concession stand beforehand. For anyone who regards porn stars as less than human, you see that they go to the drycleaners, have trouble meeting decent men, get cut off in traffic, feel insecure about their bodies, get jealous, and visit with their friends just like anyone else.

Some of the most poignant scenes involve SV visiting her mother and having an honest talk about her settling down (both of them end up teary), visiting a hypnotist to try to improve her self-esteem, talking about her on-again, off-again relationship with her boyfriend (also in the industry), leaving an Adult Entertainment Awards ceremony by herself, with no award, in the dress she was so excitied about wearing earlier that day, and petting her cat, saying since she doesn't have a special man in her life, there's always her cat for affection. In one of the saddest, she tearily talks about how nice it would be to have someone in her life who would touch her out of love and companionship, instead of for sex. In another, she's shooting some scenes for a movie with her boyfriend, and you can see the hurt on both their faces as he starts to slowly pull farther and farther away -especially after he's 3 feet away from watching the woman he loves perform oral sex on another man, even if it's "just acting".

It sounds cliche (it would to me, reading about it) but when you actually see the movie and watch her talking, looking young enough to get carded with her clean-scrubbed face and baggy casual clothes, you can't help but feel for her. I doubt that any woman, after seeing the movie, would trade places with SV for any amount of money. God, I just wanted to go up and give her a hug or something.

Having done plenty of research on the 'adult entertainment industry' (for a thesis in college-really!)and also talking and being friends with a few women in the industry, I can say the movie presents a very realistic portrait. Her life isn't a complete living hell- you do see her happy at times, talking about what she wants to do when she retires, laughing with her co-stars, looking like she's having fun doing a photo shoot dressed as Marilyn Monroe and even seeming to genuinely enjoy a scene with a female actress interacted on a live porn web-cam. But the sadness on her face and in her words speaks for itself. What's even sadder to consider is the subject of the film is one of the rarer, more "together" women in the business- SV is mentally and physically healthy, doesn't do drugs, didn't get molested as a child, is reasonably intelligent and has a good sense of humor, and her parents even approve (as much as a parent could, anyway) of her career. Imagine what happens to women who don't have it together as well. I was happy, however, to read that SV has retired and started her own business-hopefully she'll be one of the lucky ones.

One side note:not a good date movie if you are hoping to, er, get lucky afterwards, because after watching it, having sex will be the last thing you feel like doing. Trust me, you will NOT be in the mood and end up just playing Monopoly or something. About as un-erotic as you can get.

Unless you're easily offended, I can't recommend this fascinating, haunting documentary enough. 10/10 stars.


While I found this film truly entertaining, it seemed to strive toward getting the sympathy of the viewer. I found myself thinking, "poor Stacy...", when in the end, she chose this way of life and can get out whenever she pleases. That was the strange thing about this documentary, it was not at all objective and seemed to be a way to make Stacy look like a poor girl who got stuck in this career. It was sad to see how she thought about her self image. those callogen implants looked terrible, and her breasts were so large it was sickening. (even after the reduction to the DD from an E), and in all honesty, I couldn't tell the difference after she had liposuction done on her thighs. Why is this?? She was already a petite, gorgeous woman before she had to go and mess with her body.

Overall, I found this film interesting and gave it a 7/10.


It's not everyday that you get to meet and converse with a porn star, but that opportunity recently presented itself. Christine Fugate's documentary about award-winning adult video actress Stacy (Baker) Valentine, "The Girl Next Door," was playing at a nearby theater and the additional draw was: come see Stacy in the flesh (well, not really!) Not only did Ms. Valentine and Ms. Fugate field an open and honest Q & A session after the 82-minute movie, but my viewing partner won a movie poster (for being a bleached blonde!) that we later had Stacy autograph.

Making a documentary is no walk in the park. Documentarian Fugate had an idea to delve into the inner workings of a porn star, but searched for two years before the ideal candidate emerged. Then, for over two years, she dogged Stacy, following her on-again, off-again romance with fellow porn star Julian, interviewing her parents back in Tulsa, Oklahoma, talking to her various directors on sets all over the San Fernando Valley, witnessing Stacy's highs and lows from Las Vegas to Cannes, as well as operations to make her lips bigger and her breasts smaller.

The result? A very even-handed, non-judgmental, frank, and occasionally very funny portrait of a very pretty, almost guileless all-American girl who wanted nothing more than to be a successful housewife. Getting her start when her now ex-husband submitted nude pictures of Stacy to Gallery magazine, she parlayed a follow-up spread in Hustler magazine into a trip to Hollywood in early 1995 to make her mark in adult videos. Dozens of films later, she did just that. And she wouldn't change a thing. (Stacy filmed her last adult video in February, and is now selling a pair of female clothing lines, "Good Girl" and "Bad Girl".)

Christine Fugate got a lot a mileage from her credit cards in financing this effort. She (and her editor) ably knows how to fix up the business side of Stacy (grabbing a broom to sweep away ants from a pool-side scene or gamely dealing with artificial smoke that is choking her on the set) and the human side of Stacy (sharing a very emotional, tearful moment with her mother or interrupting an in-vehicle interview with a realistic "You fu**er, nice turn signal"!).

Along the way, the audience is subjected to some very disturbing penetrations, and I'm not talking about anything in "Anal Professor," "Hillbilly Honeys," or "Cumming Clean." Very graphic, clinical scenes of replacing a larger saline bag with a smaller one in Stacy's left breast and the injection of collagen into her lips are not images for the squeamish, but are memorable and thought-provoking nonetheless. Stacy describes looking in the mirror and wondering who she has become...it's a very good question.

It's interesting to compare "The Girl Next Door" with an earlier documentary about porn actress Grace Quek, "Sex: The Annabel Chong Story." I didn't like the latter, and after seeing the former, I like the latter even less. Not only is TGND better edited and better filmed, but Ms. Fugate did a far more compelling job of portraying peaks and valleys in her subject than did Gough Lewis in his "Sex." I can't recall any peaks in "Sex."

I would be remiss if I didn't mention a very amusing scene involving Stacy's mother and stepfather outside their Tulsa home. Their conversation had the audience in stitches and helped to make "The Girl Next Door" a documentary well worth viewing.


The concept behind this documentary, while presumably having been extremely difficult to implement, is simple as pie: it follows porn actress Stacy Valentine over a course of roughly two years (a hell of a long period for a documentary, and about several eons by porn standards) through her ups and downs, as she rises from mere talent to a "signed", award-winning star. Stacy enjoys being before a camera and at the center of attention , and she is as uninhibited talking about her private life as she is ... erm, I haven't actually seen any of her videos, but getting porked before an audience of millions, I guess.

The documentary doesn't vie towards any extremes, Stacy likes what she does and is pretty successful at her job. It doesn't deal with, say, burned-out, drug-addled talent who have to do freak scenes to get by, or just plain sick stuff such as "Showgirls". Therefore you expect a fluffpiece that complements the title: hey, sex is natural, that Stacy is just a small-town girl with a wild streak, and hasn't she done well for herself? Luckily for the viewer, the documentary is thorough, unblinking and lucid, mainly because it follows Stacy for so long, and documents so many aspects of her life. At first you'd swear that she is just as wholesome as shredded wheat, and feel sorry for any hardships that she has to encounter. But this carefully constructed image gradually unfolds: Stacy visits the cosmetic surgeon more often than I see my dentist, and she occasionally comes off as incredibly callous, such as when she prostitutes herself to a wealthy fan (not too long after gushing about how frightened she is of losing her boyfriend because he might find someone better), or when she gets very cross at her boyfriend because he can't handle doing a double-teamed scene with her (she actually services the other guy first -- that's showbusiness).

Overall this movie is less about the porn industry (it shows only a thin and fairly respectable slice -- where a girl can actually earn a living) but more about the psychology of a porn starlet -- and all about Stacy Valentine.

And here's what I came away with from this movie: Stacy Valentine isn't the girl next door. Or at least she isn't the girl next door as we like to imagine the girl next door to be like. This movie penetrates the candy-coating.


i found this look inside the life of one woman in the adult film business interesting.for whatever reason,she allowed a camera crew to to follow her around,not just while working but also during her personal life.she seemed very candid and opened her self up.and allowed herself to be very vulnerable.or at least it appears that way.but it's clear she's also a tragic figure.regardless,the film is an entertaining piece and somewhat revealing.you see someone as a human being,and not just as a sex object.as interesting as the film is,there are no real revelations.and,when you get right down to it,it's still a sad subject.for me,The Girl Next Door is a 7/10


***Contains Spoilers*** I can't quite believe the previous review. I have also just seen The Marsh at London's Frightfest and I and my friends were wholly unimpressed.

It feels like another film in a long line of by-the-numbers supernatural thrillers that have come out of Hollywood in the last five years such as Stir of Echoes, Hide and Seek, Secret Window, The Sixth Sense, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Skeleton Key, The Mothman Prophecies, Bless the Child, The Forgotten, The Others etc, etc (Some of these films are quite good, but you get my point)

I have become very bored of creepy houses (this one was particularly un-imaginative) creepy cornfields, creepy little girls in night dresses, creepy dolls and scarecrows, creepy children's drawings, creepy children's songs, windows blowing open in gusts of wind etc, etc

It is also frustrating when EVERYTHING vaguely frightening is accompanied by a thunderous drum beat, even things like a shot of a child's teddy bear hitting the floor during a flashback! This device seemed to be the only means of creating any scares.

While this film was very professionally made it was very well-worn and tedious, with a series of flashbacks and revelations about something terrible which happened in the protagonist's past. The set in particular was not good and most of the flashbacks centered around a stained glass window in a door which was entirely modern and looked like it could be bought in any home improvements store.

The ultimate villain-ghost that is finally revealed to have triggered the events is actually just a rather misguided and pathetic character so when they came over all demonic at the end it rang really hollow for me.

The events themselves which triggered the haunting were, once again, rather unimportant yet predictable and wholly unoriginal.

A by-the-numbers money spinner in my opinion


THE MARSH is yet another scary movie to satisfy the apparently inexhaustible demand for fright films of this genre. It is obviously a low budget film that suffers from a silly script resurrecting tired themes of communication with ghosts and the intervention of paranormal specialists.

Successful children's book author and illustrator Claire Holloway (Gabrielle Anwar) is besieged by recurrent nightmares that prompt her therapist to recommend a sabbatical, advice she heeds as she moves out into the country to a little creepy town called Marshville. She rents a old house near the marsh from a woman Mercy (Brooke Johnson) and discovers from the local newspaper editor Noah (Justin Louis) that the town is riddled with history of hauntings following the disappearance of a little girl into the marshes, the victim of sexual assault that has never been adequately investigated. Claire's time in her new 'home' is racked with appearances of the dead little girl and her muddy perpetrator and she finally seeks the help of a Paranormal expert Hunt (Forest Whitaker) who helps her solve the etiology of Claire's nightmares and provides an exit for the ghosts.

Most of the film is dark with poor Claire just wandering around the creepy house with her open-mouthed/wide-eyed frightened look, avoiding the flying detritus caused by the angry spirits that haunt her. Gabrielle Anwar is beautiful to look at but is not really called upon to act. Likewise Forest Whitaker is paralyzed by an inept script that even this fine actor can't overcome. The music is the canned, synthesizer variety and the camera work is jerky and gets in the way of the story. This is a movie for avid fans of scary flicks who can overlook the multiple production and writing problems. Grady Harp


The successful children's writer Claire Holloway (Gabrielle Anwar) is troubled by scary nightmares and is under psychological treatment. While working out watching television, she sees the landscape of the Rose Marsh Farm in the Westmoreland County, and she notes that the farmhouse is linked to her nightmares. She decides to spend her vacation in the farm, which is located nearby a swamp, and she is haunted by the ghosts of a little girl and a teenage boy inside the house. She is befriended by the local publisher and historian Noah Pitney (Justin Louis) but after a sequence of disturbing visions, she decides to contact the paranormal consultant Geoffry Hunt (Forest Whitaker). Together, they investigate the mystery and disclose a tragedy that happened in the farm about twenty years ago.

"The Marsh" is a flawed but entertaining chiller quite underrated in IMDb. The eerie story has a bad screenplay that leaves many unanswered questions and never explains what happened with Claire's parents (I believe they died in an accident based in one dialog); or her relationship with the little girl (was she her friend or sister?); how the little girl was murdered (I believe the boy tried to rape her, there are many evidences); why Mercy was taking care of the girls; did Claire live in the farmhouse?; how could she completely suppress her childhood from her memory?; what kind of portal was opened in the room? last but not the least, the incident in the beginning of the Twentieth Century has nothing to do with the plot, is just presented to confuse the viewer. Anyway, disregarding these flaws, this film is above average in the genre. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Not Available"


I saw this film at Frightfest in London and it was by far and away the worst film that I saw over the weekend. Everyone that I spoke to at the festival agreed that it was a stinker so I'm not sure who posted on here giving it 10/10 and saying it was awesome?! Can you spell PR agent? On the plus side the effects were good, the direction wasn't bad and the acting was generally sufficient (given what they had to work with).

On the down side was everything else. The plot was clichéd, hokey, difficult to follow and incredibly boring! The dialogue was amateurish at times and generally cringe worthy throughout. Worst of all (and this is clearly the cardinal sin of a horror film) it wasn't remotely scary. Even the occasional BOO! would have been appreciated... but no.

The director is young and seemed like an affable young chap who I'm sure will progress in the industry. He will look back on this with embarrassment (if it ever gets released, fingers crossed not). He did seem like he'd had budget and studio constraints as evidenced by the fact that when I asked him the likely rating of the film in the Q&A after the screening he replied, "y'know... PG-13... gotta keep it marketable".

That summed up the extreme rubbishness of this film. Billed as a supernatural thriller it's preternaturally dull. If you want to see a half decent film of this type check out something like "Skeleton Key"... and if anyone thought that was bad (which I didn't, but I know it has its critics) then woo... really don't go and see 'The Marsh'!


OK, now here is a ghost story that came way under my radar and turns out to be a superior ghost story with a couple of twists. A lady children's book author is plagued with nightmares of a little girl disappearing in a swamp and images of an old house. When viewing a television story, she notices the house in her nightmare and the surrounding area, specifically a marsh where she keeps seeing and following this little girl. She tracks down the property and moves into the house, in a small remote area close to a little town. After installing a door she finds in the cellar, strange things begin to happen and what were her nightmares are now becoming too real. Yes, the house and the marsh hold deep secrets in the town and the house, and she enlists the help of a local paranormal consultant played very well by Forest Whitaker. He moves into her house with his equipment and quickly realizes the supernatural is at work. This movie succeeds on every level with excellent performances, and a very tight story that keeps you guessing until the final reveal. Are her nightmares really lost memories of a past she has forgotten, and if she is the little girl ghost then how is that possible? All the questions are answered, and I had a real ball with this one. Highly recommended.


OK there are plenty of Ghost stories out there. Then again there are plenty of ghosts and stories told in front of a warm fire on a wintery night. I for one liked the pace of the film. Maybe too many people are used to the wham bam thank you mam styles that are so prevalent today. I thought that both stars did a great service to the part. I adored Forests interpretation of the character Hunt that he portrayed, quirky and matter of fact, a nice touch. Gabriels search was well thought out. What would another have done under those circumstances, a life filled with memories and dreams and then to face and even embrace those fears in the search for the truth and to save that little girl. The changing room and the tormented boy. What happens to people who hide the truth. They become trapped in their own lies by being tied to a small town or drowning in drink. So I think this movie is more than a 5 minute scare and more a discussion over dinner about what would happen if you where any of the characters. Fine food fodder. My score kept changing because I thought I had sussed it out and I am glad I didn't, gave me much more to think about. I for one am also happy that Ghost stories are making a comeback, and I would much sooner jump in my chair a few times than cringe or hide my eyes or be disgusted by the graphic slasher films also doing the rounds. Give me a good old fashioned Ghost Story any day


Well made supernatural thriller that is short on gore but still has plenty of atmosphere and scares. Though the movie does use some well-worn plot elements (i.e.: group of friends covers up crime/murder and it comes back to haunt them, literally), it does it all quite professionally. The actors are uniformly terrific, not a bad performance in sight. The special effects are done expertly and, for a change, used sparingly and to good effect. The story is well written and beautifully photographed, and the director keeps the pace up through the film, substituting mood for cheap shocks, though there are a few jump-out-of-your-seat moments. This one caught me by surprise, I wasn't sure they made them like this anymore. If you enjoyed The Others or Lady in White this film will appeal to you.


I saw this at the NY horror film festival and debated walking out many times. Its real slow. Its one of those movies that relies on scary sound effects to over-compensate for the fact that little is happening in the scenes. Gabrielle anwar and Forrest whitecker are good actors who are wasted in this boring and lifeless film. There are a few good special effects sequences, but even those scenes lack creepiness. The movie tries to build up suspense but doesn't really give us anything to be afraid of. quite frankly, it just lacks good scary content.

Its production values are very good, but that just makes me angrier that the film isn't better. I saw other films at the festival (particularly "Fingerprints" and "Last Rites of the Dead") that were made for much less money and yet were a thousand times better.


This movie is very badly written. A few things pops into mind. And i'm just writing some of the nonsense things that this movie have

1- Who are the twins? what were they doing with the 3 guys and a 1 girl?

2- Why in the hell the news papers talk about a violation of one girl, when the only thing that makes sense is to notice the missing of TWO girls, two girls are missing and the news paper talk about a raped girl? that just plain stupid. Maybe they were already ghosts (ahahah it's irony), 'cause they disappear and no one notice, there was no family, nothing. They appear from thin air. We just know that what was said to the lead part of the movie, that the parents died in a car accident. If so, was someone of the 4 kids part of her family? Of course not, the movie is just stupid...

3- The gun that kills the "rapist" (what rape?? we just see the legs of the girl during a suffocation) was in another floor of the house and appears in the closet for the little girl to use. not even gore-comedian movies are that stupid.

4- The woman (the girl that was with the 3 boys) after all that she sees goes and stays in the house to live? That's "macabre" of her part, and she doesn't seem that type. (time line error surely)

5- This is really a question. What has the picture to do with the murderer/rapist (what rape??), is it an ancestor?

The few things that make sense are weak, this was a terrible movie. And i like low budget horror movies, and many of them also has poor plots and few sense, but like this.... this is not a low budget film, and it seems that a dead-line was made and the movie makers just rushed to do one, whatever it was.


I had no expectations for this movie and was spellbound from the moment I started watching it. At lot of that is due to the subtlety of the sound - it does not overpower or try to manipulate - it merely stays mostly in the background and enhances the suspense rather than detract.

Most of the acting was good, but Forrest Whitaker's performance was flat IMO. Maybe he is supposed to play an insipid character, but he neither adds nor detracts from the movie.

I thought the writing was good - the movie really did not remind me of anything I'd seen before, and so I had no expectations of how it would turn out. If you watch it on DVD, it should definitely be late night and in a very dark room.


What a tedious movie. Climbing a mountain with a backpack full of rocks would be more enjoyable than sitting through this movie.

Characters interactions are completely deficient. Irrelevant dialogue is horrendous. Might possibly have been better as a silent movie.

Story is so uninspired that I wonder if it was actually written by someone or if this is just some random computer generated stuff.

Some interesting points : - After half an hour of watching this movie, you feel like it still hasn't started but yet, at the same time, you feel like it's been playing for hours. Adds to the supernatural value.

- As pointed out in other reviews, it doesn't really have any scary factor but it might make you feel sick. If that's the kind of thing you're looking for...

- The only real surprise, to me, was that the friendly black man, with supernatural open-mindness, doesn't get killed by an axe.

Worth a laugh or two.

I'd rather watch a movie about lava lamps.


I hate scary movies, because they Never scary just blood and guts and are easy to guess the ending. BUT this one was unpredictable! The actors were believable and the graphics were good! I even jumped a time or two!I think Gabrielle is to thin in Burn notice which makes her character unbelievable- like she could actually kick in a door with thoughs sticks for legs but she is not so skinny in this movie and helps her character seem real! She is a better actor than I realized because she fits the part she plays in the marsh. And I totally did'nt guess the ending which I usually do within the first few minutes of other scary movies. I will watch this movie again!


Claire Holloway (Gabrielle Anwar) is a children's book writer specialising in nightmare bedtime stories. Most of those are taken straight out of her own dreams full of marshes, weird houses and things that go 'chlup' in the middle of the night. By freak chance she watches a glimpse of a house which haunts her dream in a ecodocumentary about swamps. Interneting away she quickly finds the dream-house and naturally decides to confront the situation by making a nice little vacation by renting the house. Soon after dreams start becoming more real and soon she must confront the nightmares that have been scratching at her brain for years. Fortunately she has a trusty sidekick parapshycic Geoffrey Hunt (Forrest Whitaker) to hold her hand on the way of solving this truly Scooby-Doo mystery.

The Marsh is truly a movie bogged down by its own script. It starts out promisingly enough only to spiral into absurdity and illogical plot solutions. The multiple twist endings make you smile instead of say 'Ahhh!' as they make the story consistently... well... dumb. Most key to the story: A dead ghost kill off people whose only fault was being asleep at the time of tragedy. But in general plot points stick out like a sore thumb and basically nothing makes much sense. Questions answered are answered badly. And if the two very last scene in the movie doesn't bring out a smile of pity for the movie I will be sincerely surprised.

Other than that acting and tech credits are fine, but nothing memorable. Passable at best, laughable at worst.


Firstly when you see a ghost common sense dictates you get the hell out of the house, why would you stay in the house seriously, this movies suffers terribly from cliché, it becomes so much of a problem that it actually becomes quite funny.

The acting is extremely under par, the story done 100 times before with much better results, and the effects were lacking which also describes the story.

The director seems to have taken the scripts from every other done to death horror in this particular type (old house, child, etc, etc) and then kind of mashed it all together hoping for the best and coming up with the worst. To be honest some type of registry with the names of these terrible directors should be posted on the net so that myself and others will no longer have to be tortured by their vile trash that they try to pass off as movies.

well to end this, stay away from this movie and thank me later.


I been getting very depressed with movies lately and decided to watch some horror flicks to lighten up my mood. And with sheer luck this movie lands on my lap and I read somewhere that is a classic story with a forgotten method of movie making. I now know why it was forgotten. Far be it for me to promote drug abuse but clearly this director needs to take something to boost his imagination. Poorly executed movie with a simple story plot that has a twist which was convulsed into a boring pile of yesterdays excrement that most likely got lodged in the toilet. Abusive use of sound effects and horrible sense of anticipation that pretty much puts anyone to sleep. To those that come across this movie I ware you run.. run fast and do not look back no matter what or who tells you how artistic this is. Chances are that the place that has this movie is pretty much a marsh that is sinking down to a bottomless pit.


I just saw this feature film at London's frightfest film festival, the best horror and genre, fantasy and thriller film festival in Europe in my opinion.

The director Jordan barker, who looked really young introduced the film and Gabrielle anwar was meant to be there but unfortunately she couldn't make it.

the film feels like an old fashioned horror m,movie from the 80's and as far as i'm concerned that is a great thing.

The acting was great, Gabrielle Anwar, who has just vanished since her star turn in the Al Pacino 'hoo ha' movie, and I have always wondered what happened to her, but she is great and still looks beautiful, but she can really act.

Forest Whitaker is always good and the director was steady and precise, the director talked after the movie and he said he had unique problems on this film as it was a much bigger budget than his previous film, but I still think he did a good job.


Over the past few years I have despaired of the horror genre. All of the recent films have been sick, over the top and unnecessarily gross (House of Wax etc). I grew up with the Carpenter movies where shocks and scares were important. This film is a refreshing change, yes its slow, yes its subtle but the important thing is it is scary! Claire Holloway is a likable protagonist. A children's book author haunted by vicious night terrors. She is told to face the source by her psychologist. She then sees a documentary that includes a shot of the house in her dreams. Claire is played with feeling and maturity by Gabrielle Anwar, whom obviously enjoyed the script and filming. Hunt is the stereo typical character of the piece. When his Wife and Son died he plunges himself into the research of the paranormal. Forest Whitacker is obviously intrigued by this film but not so much to give one of his most stellar performances. In fact if you compare his portrayal of Hunt to his character in Species, they are pretty much the same. The shooting of the film is excellent, the cgi ghost effects start subtly and build up nicely, the photography hits the right visual cues and the score adds to the tension and visual elements without giving away any clues as to what is about to happen. The only negative I have would give away some of the plot so you'll have to guess. If you liked House of Wax or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre do not watch this movie! However if you enjoy sitting round a campfire trying to scare your friends this is for you.


I, too, loved this movie. Like the other reviewers, I first saw it on the Sci-Fi Channel's Anime Week's ROBOT CARNIVAL. Lily C.A.T., whose plot is directly lifted from James Cameron's Alien, is about the crew of an STL, (Slower-than-light,) starship, who age one year for every 20 years they're in space. The crew is told that there's a prisoner on board by Detective Dick Berry, who's come aboard to return an escaped criminal to Earth to face justice. Then there's a mysterious virus that's killing the crew. The ships captain asks Dick Berry if he's sure he wants to return the criminal to Earth for trial since it will be 20 years before they return to Earth, and all the witnesses will be either old or dead. H E R E B E S P O I L E R S The captain tells Dick Berry that they're all over a hundred years old though they look like they're much younger. Finally, Berry agrees with the captain that it's not worth it. Lily, one of the crewmembers' pet cat, is actually the source of the virus. It's Lily C.A.T., the ultimate biological weapon. Lily C.A.T. starts killing the rest of the crew. Finally, Captain Hamilton, tells Berry to save himself and his prisoner and says that there's a planet nearby and that they should leave before Lily C.A.T. finds them. He provides them with a means of escape, (an obsolete space shuttle that he'd kept as a souvenir.) and orders them off the ship. Lily C.A.T. senses that they're trying to escape, and goes after them. They finally and escape, and presumably land on the planet. That's where it ended.


The first time i saw this in the early 90's I loved it and I recently re-watched it (2002) and still loved it, it lost a bit of it's surprise though. The characters start get knocked off pretty quick, but the animation is good for it's time. Like Aliens series...then watch this!


Lily C.A.T.'s characters aren't the most original, nor is the plot. But if you like anime, you should get some enjoyment out of this film. There are some good scenes in it, and it may have been better had the script been cleaned up a little.


Having stumbled upon a used copy of this piece years back, I bought it out of curiosity.

For a production done back in 1987, it's very good. The character designs are decent, but it's surprising to know that the monster designs were outsourced to acclaimed artist and animator Yoshitaka Amano (Vampire Hunter D, Final Fantasy series). However, beyond this, you'll note a lot of hard work went into the visual presentation of it- there are countless scenes where multiple layers are used to create depth, people walk towards the camera and stay in perspective, first-person povs are employed, and so on.

As for the story itself- it's a fun little jaunt through deep space- in the vein of "Alien" as we watch the crew of the Saldes try and figure out just what happened while they were in cryogenic suspension. It turns out a piece of organic matter got on board the ship and has caused a virus to spread through the ship. Things get bad as some of the crew start showing up dead and panic over possible infection sets in. The virus soon prompts the ships computer to begin taking measures to stop the virus- which endangers the remaining crew members, much like "2001". As more and more members of the crew turn up dead and the computer gets more out of hand, the survivors must fight to stay alive and try and find a way to escape to the planet just below them.

This film is pretty gory, and a lot of the monsters are reminiscent of the creatures from the 1982 version of "The Thing". There are a lot of cool moments in it- like when the crew fights with homemade flamethrowers or when someone one of the things attacks (lots of gore). My main gripe is that it's only about 70 minutes long, so things happen pretty fast in this story.

If you ever see a used copy, buy it- it's worth the money.


Yes, I saw this movie long ago in a time when the Science Fiction channel was one of my favorite channels. The showed lots of violent anime, classic horror movies, Godzilla movies, and my favorite show Mystery Science Theater 3000. Now I virtually do not watch the channel at all, sometimes pausing to roll my eyes at their newest giant computer generated monster movie. When movies are compared to the film "Alien", most are unfairly criticized for copying that film. In fact other than it is a horror in space a lot of these films have very little else in common with that film. This one, however, is very comparable to that film and to that of the underwater film "Leviathan" which itself does a bit of copying of the film "Alien". This one even more so as it has a kind of android in it that turns against the crew. In fact, the title of the movie refers not to the creature, but rather the android which is in the shape of a cat. Basically, a creature is going on the attack fusing itself a bit with those it kills and then you have your characters that are your normal rag tag group including a couple with hidden agendas. Unlike a lot of animes I have seen this one is more like an American cartoon in that it has a rather short run time which hinders the plot a bit, but all in all it is a fast pace sort of horror in space anime.


I really enjoyed this movie, when I originally saw it on Sci-Fi's Anime week on Robot Carnival. I was upset to NEVER see this movie again, outside of the fact I taped it. It's very difficult to find, and a definite Anime classic. The animation was good, the story was fun (a rip-off of Aliens? What? Not sure where anyone got that idea). I'll say that, yes, most of the characters get killed off, but the alien in this film is inspired and truly horrifying. The way the faces morph out of the side of the thing, implying the alien has eaten the crewmembers' souls - wow. You never know where it's going to come out of next, and the plot twist with the crewmembers' cat and LILY cat (the Companies' spy) is inspired. The ending is left with only two characters left - hopefully they're compatible (though I will admit the Blond was very annoying), because it seemed very much as though they were headed towards an uninhabited planet to start a new life as the only survivors. I jump every time I see this movie, and I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys anime.


F*CK is a documentary that delves into the controversy surrounding the infamous four-letter word. The heart of the film explores the issues of censorship and our constitutional right of free speech. How did the word originate? What exactly does it mean? How has it affected society and how does it continue to affect society? These are just a few of the questions that are addressed in the film. The film features interviews with many different linguists, actors, musicians, artists, politicians, comedians, news commentators, scholars and random people on the streets with intervals of hilarious animation and various television and film clips. The result is a highly entertaining, engaging and fairly well-balanced documentary concerning one of the most controversial words in the English language.

Regardless of whether or not one cares about the issues of free speech and censorship, this film is bound to make all but the humorless laugh their f**king hearts out!

P.S. Billy Connolly is a riot.


This movie works at multiple levels, is well directed and has cute animation sequences by Plympton. It contains some very interesting interviews with a huge range of opinions and social commentary. You may be surprised at the diversity of views. And you'd have to be insanely up-tight not to enjoy the humor. The person I saw this movie with was all ready to be negative about it - she really doesn't like "dirty" language. But the mix of serious academic people, famous personalities and the great inter-cutting of the interviews kept her attention through the movie. This isn't a short movie either - but there is so much material to cover, you end up really respecting what F*ck does (the irony is that IMDb's software won't let me use the actual word), which is to provoke thought about a simple word that breaks our society more or less into two camps. The idea that one word could so clearly illustrate the "culture wars" between the religious right verses the rational middle is an amazing thing. Go see it and talk to everybody you know about the real meaning of freedom and culture!


I was lucky enough to catch this tremendous documentary at the San Francisco Independent Film Festival, and OH MY GOD, was it fun! Sadly, the director told the audience the cut may need to change based on getting final clearance for a lot of the clips and interviews, but if it remains intact, and can find a brave distributor who's savvy enough to market this film, "F%ck" could have a very good theatrical life before making an even bigger splash on home video.

Extremely hilarious, refreshingly vulgar, and surprisingly political, "F%ck" not only examines the root and use of the word but the entire culturally-charged issue of swearing. I don't want to say more, but its almost impossible to watch even a few moments of this film without getting the giggles.

Terrific stuff, and as long as you're not easily offended, a MUST SEE!


F*ck is a very entertaining and interesting documentary describing the use and abuse of the word in the English language. Of course, the word is used many times and in many ways (noun, verb, etc.). Experts discussing their experience with the word f*ck include liberals, conservatives, a 'cunning linguist', comedians, porn stars and Miss Manners.

The film is balanced and informative. It shows how positive energy is released while using the word f*ck. As well, discussed are appropriate ways to express frustration and copulation. Further, F*ck, offers a new swear word: "Boone", as in Pat Boone, who shines as an expert is verbal repression.

At Hotdocs film festival 2006, where I saw this film, the audience received it very well and everybody begins discussing and giggling again as they leave the theater. This is the kind of movie you see and imagine discussions on other similar words.


I saw this documentary at a film festival a couple of months ago and had a great time. I didn't really know what to expect, sure I expected to hear you-know-what said a bunch of times, but I didn't know how the filmmakers were gonna make a documentary about it. The result was actually a well made film with a lot of great entertaining interviews and a lot of great segments from films spliced throughout.

It answers a lot of question people are likely wondering about the word and it's involvement in society, especially the media. Sure, the word is said many times throughout the film, but what do you expect when the title is the word itself? Some of the highlights include the different ways the word can be used, and of course, the end credits.

See this movie, tell your friends, just be careful who you're telling.


It's puzzling how words effect people differently. Some are strongly affected, while others take them in stride. But one thing is for certain, the F-word has been a contentious four-letter symbol for a multitude of reasons.

First, is where it came from. There are so many false claims as to boggle the mind. Most of these fallacies center around a Playboy Magazine article from the 70s that said the F-word was "An order from the King to go forth and propagate." Supposedly this originated sometime around the 17th century and, of course, it's completely untrue. Helping to dispel this myth, the F*CK documentary seeks to enlighten and entertain and does so for the most part.

So where did this dastardly word come from? The simple answer is: we don't know. We do know that it first appeared as a written word around 1456, but that's about it. What we do know is that now the word is held as vile filth by some, while others use it daily.

Cutting a large swathe across socio-political and generational lines, the documentary interviews everyone from cursing experts and porn stars, to Miss Manners and Pat Boone.

Anyone interested in the First Amendment should no doubt see this documentary along with THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED. Both focus on America's disdain for words over violence. It's quite all right to shoot someone in the face on TV, but say the word "F*ck" and you're in big trouble with the FCC. A brief and sexually explicit scene from a European rock concert shows how open other nations are to sexuality and the F-word's express meaning, while American's can't seem to get over it.

That being said, I will say that I use the F-word on occasion but only within an appropriate context. I don't enjoy comedians who use it in every sentence (Chris Rock immediately leaps to mind) simply for shock value. I guess you could say that the F-word has its place in our society but, like chocolate, if you over-indulge in its use, you'll end up with a gluttonous-type problem. Whereas chocolate might end up giving you diabetes, over-usage of the F-word might end up making those around you shy away.

Some of the more comical moments in the film are with Pat Boone and rapper Ice-T. Pat Boone, Mr. Clean, never curses. What he does do is use his own last name as a sort of cursing venue. "If I get mad about a bad tennis shot, I'll yell 'Boone!'" Ice-T heard this and, of course, used it to great advantage. He found it funny and said that "Tonight I'm gonna go home and Boone the sh!t outta my wife." Another excellent aspect in the film was showing how hypocritical some politicians were. Most notable among them were Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. Nixon probably had one of the foulest mouths ever to enter the Whitehouse, while George Bush enjoys sticking his middle finger up at cameras. This is quite ironic since these conservative "gentleman"are the one's who've lambasted the liberal left for its unruly and inappropriate support on free speech when referring to the word f*ck.

This is a very interesting documentary with plenty of naughty and nice people giving their views on this little word.


How do I talk about a film where I can't even mention its title in this review (in the IMDb comments the word of the title of this film cannot be put in, unless in the form of f*ck or sh*t)? I can talk mostly then about how the filmmakers go around the use of the word f*ck. F*ck is the word that gets everyone's ear up, and depending on the context or meaning behind it can get some people riled up enough to do something about it- like reporting to the FCC on violations if done on TV or radio. The hypocrisies and oddities are of course on display, like with the now legendary George Carlin 'Dirty Words' case where the one and only person to report that the segment played on the radio was wrong was on the Decency board in the 70s. Or, of course, Lenny Bruce, who also had a fight that he ended up losing miserably, however much he paved the way for everyone else in his field. There's also a good segment done on the f word in politics and religion, even in poetry (I'll have to look through Ulysses now to see where it's at).

But even with the laughs that are obvious to come with such a given for scandalous material, including various movie clips featuring said word (Pulp Fiction, Punch-Drunk Love, South Park, Scarface), and even with the Presidential utterances and sound-bytes of the word (Nixon's the most obvious yet still unnerving), and even with some of the interviewees really giving some food for f***ing thought on the subject (Billy Connolly is arguably the funniest, with HST being low-key and observant, and Allen Keyes and Pat Boone delivering very straight-laced answers) with the two-side arguments, there doesn't seem quite enough here to be totally satisfying. In fact, the structure, however hokey and joyful in its wicked little ways, has to start delivering on more interesting grounds. Maybe it's just me, but by around the 100th time one's heard the word in such a span of several minutes, the word has already lost all of its power (albeit given context by a scene of coitus on a music stage, a very controversial story at the time, among others), and there should be even more dirt available, aside from the usual historical asides. For example, I would've liked to have seen more on the F-word in music (where's the MC5 when you need em?), or the section of children, which should be a topic that could at least cover a lot more of the film, especially since the filmmakers obviously want to leave it as something of a climax...so to speak.

Yet, if you want a successfully shallow, goofy take on the subject that might raise some eyebrows and just be another night watching a DVD for others (who knows if the record setting 800 times is just another night at the bar for some guys), it's worth the rental. I'm glad the filmmakers took the equal-time interviews for those who are in it all-not that it occasionally preaches to the choir- and that the bases covered are given enough coverage to get a full understanding of how such an infamous word can become even more so in the 21st century, under a government that has raised the ante on the conservative agenda within the free speech guidelines, and that the censorship ends up spreading to other areas as well. Bleep, I say.


This might be the first time I've ever written a review, where I actually have to self-censor the title of the movie. Although it's not a word that most of us use every day (or sometimes every week, for that matter), director Steve Anderson provides us with a funny and fascinating examination of the "F-word" - its uses (it's an extremely versatile word, you know), its possible origins, and just exactly why it's considered the most controversial and profane utterance in the English language. (Although I would have to agree with one of the film's participants, and rate it the SECOND most controversial. I always thought the first one was that 'C-word' that most women don't even call each other, unless they're REALLY angry.)

But more interesting than the subject is the roster of celebrities, writers and pundits who show up for the chance to yak it up, and how their individual views on not just the word but the world-at-large make this an interesting study about people as well. Besides being sprinkled throughout with the droll and delirious animation of Bill Plympton, highlights for me include Janeane Garofalo, Ron Jeremy (who seems a lot more intelligent and well-spoken than you'd think), the late Hunter S. Thompson and clips of comedian/heroic free-speech advocate Lenny Bruce (and what would this doc be without him?), Billy Connolly, Ice-T and yes, really - Pat Boone. There's something profoundly sad to me about his segment, but I'll let you see if you can pick out what it is (someone else in the doc certainly does.)

Surprisingly enough, the film is nearly evenly balanced by the representation on the conservative side, as interviews are also conducted with several "leading lights of the right", which include "Miss Manners" and Alan Keyes (who frankly made me want to punch him out every time he came on-screen.) The relative humorlessness with which they all seem to approach the subject seems reflective of the way in which they view everything, and it sharply delineates the differences between "Righties" and "Lefties" in a way that most political debates never will.

Not as outright obscene (as you'd expect) or as fall-down funny as its more profane cousin, THE ARISTOCRATS, F**K is still definitely worth your time. And thank goodness we still live in a society where it's not a crime to watch or discuss it.


The word is pervasive in our everyday life. Even so, there are times when I find it offensive. Scarface comes to mind.

Where did the word come from? It certainly isn't Fornicate Under Consent of the King. No one really knows. It has been around for hundreds of years.

How the word has evolved, especially after the World Wars and has interjected itself into every aspect of culture was fascinating.

You can side with George Carlin or Pat Boone & Alan Keyes. The film is an interesting exploration of free speech and censorship. After all, when the "seven dirty words" were broadcast in New York, out of the millions of people that heard it, only one complained. Yet, the government sides with the one over the many. The statistics of pre-and post Bush ere will show how the religious Reich has taken over society. It should disgust you more than the word.

If nothing else, you will get a lot of laughs from the many commentators, and a great website to visit.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

I'm rather glad I'm now a member of the internet based LoveFilm rather than still renting films from a video shop, because I'd hate to have to phone up and reserve this film. The day when someone decided to make a documentary about the word fu*k was inevitable one day if you really think about it, and here it is. If only the main contributions weren't from dumb Americans who haven't a clue the word is Anglo Saxon in origin and not an abbreviation (Fornicate Under Command of the King?!?) Although some interesting points are put across, such as the release one feels from using the word and it's traditional use with negativity and sexual encounters. Although most of the talking heads are speaking in defence of the word, a few conservatives put their point across and speak of defence of a society with standards and decency. It's short and is more than satisfactory as a documentary, but as it is even pointed out, c*nt is the word really likely to send shudders down the spine. Why wasn't a documentary made of that? Probably not commercial enough. ***


I recently saw this movie, and for the most part found it informative and interesting. Of the greatest importance was the different cultural and social uses of one word that has "so much power." I enjoyed the interviews with the various people, including some scholarly linguists like Dr. Reinhold Aman, and Hollywood actors, such as Janeane Garofalo. This film cleared up some confusion, as far as the acronym (what F*CK stands for) and that it has nothing to do with Under the Command of the King to Fornicate. It was interesting to see the use of the word and the changes thru the decades. At one time it was rarely used, and now in some movies/songs it is used over 280 times. It is virtually a snapshot of our culture and how it has evolved over the past century. I would recommend this film to open-minded adults and linguists everywhere.


I use the F-word liberally myself, and this document just struck me as ridiculous. We start out with some talking heads pontificating about what the word means to them, then there's a childish montage of people dropping the f-bomb, then a bunch of people spouting the (untrue) theory that the word is an acronym for "Fornication Under Consent of the King" (actually, it comes from an old Dutch word for "penis"). There are some porn clips and a lot more celebrity interviews. They try to f*** with Miss Manners, which didn't impress me at all, as she could have wiped the floor with any of the interviewers but was just too polite to tell them to go back to the second grade. Ultimately this movie is just deeply boring. A total waste of a First Amendment.


Simply a MUST SEE.

An intelligent look at many separate views on the word, a little history and origin but mostly on how it affects us today.

The film deflates the power of the word the religious right have put on it (or at least gives good basis for it) and brings up many reasons/ideas and situations describing how silly the obsession and demonizing of this fine word is :)

Btw, don't be afraid to bring your kids, I mean...if they don't already know the word there is something seriously wrong with them. If anything the movie will help put it into context :)

The film would have gotten a 9 if it wasn't for the crappy animations >:) but we can live with that, it's a brilliant piece of film anyway.


F*ck. It's one of those "evil" words used every single day by more than just a vast majority of the entire human population. People slip this word in myriad forms and gestures, it's a common practice for so many people. Yet this one word divides society, each side strongly protesting for it's demise or the freedom of expression this single word has. Director Steve Anderson digs into the history of F*ck; it's origins, it's power, meaning(s), place of use, those who hate it and those who love to use it.

F*ck is a strange follow up to Anderson's debut feature The Big Empty. Switching from a film with ideas bursting at the seams, of aliens and abductions, cowboys, blue suit cases and internal exploration of ones self, Anderson seals the lid on his obvious creativity for eccentric and esoteric concepts, jumping genres to documentary for a delve into the perversion of language. Language is humanities most powerful tool, Anderson wants to hit our nerves and see us tick and react to this word of curse.

For the short space of time F*ck has, this documentary covers a lot of ground. The words origins, which has actually never been pin pointed to a certain time and it's mix up on false facts of it's derivation based on an acronym. F*ck's play over media in televisions, films, radio, music, porn. Politicians and Presidents to religion and even on the Apollo 16 moon landing. The word is just everywhere. Similar to another documentary The Aristocrats, on which reveals the worlds most depraved and sickening hilarious joke only known to comedians, interviewed comedians and their love of this, till now, secret joke. With all the ground covered, F*ck places all views; with comedians, politicians, porn stars, musicians, conservatives, religious figures, and most importantly the public all laying their stand to the issue.

The draw back to F*ck is though it covers a lot of ground, it doesn't dig very deep into each sections. This presents more of a skim over, grabbing the most prevalent facts to present. Sections like comedians with Lenny Bruce and George Carlin battles over censorship, Howard Stern censorship battles on radio, the failure of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, censorship in general and the FCC. Youth held as the poster child to fight against profanities; the seven dirty words. The use in sex and porn, it's cathartic properties in just it's release from one's mouth. There is so much rich information to explore to this subject, that a lot of the information is left untapped.

Once again Anderson, much to The Big Empty, takes on more than he should. He has to many things to juggle for in depth exploration, but to his credit as a film maker to watch, he manages to hold it all together. F*ck runs with a dark slice of humour, along with some satirical stabs, inserting clips from films and archival footage of news reports, comedians acts, short cartoons and the interviews themselves are executed with precision to emphasis points with poignant resonance.

While F*ck may only present a small excerpt from a larger, in-depth conversation, F*ck still offers so much food for thought. A film to wrap your perverse language around.


My first concern was "The children! My god, what about the children?!". But as Drew Carey says "F*ck the children!".

And well we might by the time this documentary is done. From a liberal, secular humanist point-of-view, this movie keeps interest high by small amounts of conservative ranting interspersed with large amounts of liberal ranting (of course much more thoughtful, factual and balanced), animation and news clips too true yet too bizarre.

If there's a star here, it's Ice-T, with a strong assist by Pat Boone.

I'm not sure where you'll ever get to see it, but it's a must-see on this cultural journey most of us travel, willing or not.


F*UCK is a documentary about the use of profanity in public. Is it bad or good, or are you indifferent to it?

Well, it is funny at times, though this is not the point here, because it is supposed to be political rather than funny. However, the people who have been chosen to be interviewed in this film are not the most appealing or serious-minded. A couple of porn stars, a few second class comedians, a rapper, a mediocre pop star, a tattooed hoodlum metal head and a bunch of questionable (and most probably insane ) personalities in the opposition, are just not enough to make a political statement about freedom of speech. I agree with almost everything they had to say but I just can't listen to a hooker speak and take her seriously. Most people would say: "I would most definitely f*ck the hooker but not listen to her opinion". My point is, you just CANNOT make a f*****g point - and expect to be taken seriously - when you are using people that the majority can not identify with. How on earth am I going to get through to the hardcore religious close minded middle Americans when I'm trying to convince them that it is my RIGHT to say whatever I want by showing them PORN and a bunch of thugs blabber?!?! In the end, the only thing that this documentary does is amuse those who already agree with using the word f*ck in public and infuriate those who do not.

Exposing the hypocrisy of the conservatives and the FCC though is interesting enough. So yes, watch this movie. In a scale from 1 to 10 it gets a hard f*****g 7 from me.


F*CK (2006) **1/2 (Appearing: Steven Bochco, Pat Boone, Benjamin Bradlee, Drew Carey, George Carlin, Billy Connolly, Chuck D., Sam Donaldson, Janeane Garofalo, Ice-T, Timothy Jay, Ron Jeremy, Alan Keyes, Sandra Tsing Loh, Bill Maher, David Milch, Alanis Morissette, Tera Patrick, Evan Seinfeld, Kevin Smith, Hunter S. Thompson, Miss Manners) (Dir: Steve Anderson)

THE word, the big one, the queen-mother of dirty words, the "F-dash-dash-dash" word!

The "F-word" is still perhaps the biggest shock-value in the vernacular and its audacious vulgarity is on full display in this cheeky and somewhat informative talking-heads documentary incorporating pop culture, politics, religion, social manners and practically everything under the sun.

Director Steve Anderson gains some insightful moments of the word's origins, myths such as acronyms - i.e. (For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge), how it is employed in language and grammatically so (anger; as a noun or verb, etc.), the way it is depicted in film (with a selection of some memorable on screen moments from its first film, "M*A*S*H" in 1970 on up to and including "Scarface" (some 180 odd times, "Pulp Fiction" to "Terms of Endearment" to my fave, "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" where Steve Martin says it 18 times in one hilarious sequence; interesting side-bar : no Martin Scorsese films or Robert De Niro letting his favorite expletive fly!), the notorious "7 Dirty Words" comic routine from stand-up comedian George Carlin and the initial rulings and finings from the FCC and even Vice President Cheney eating crow for his invective on the Senate floor.

While the debate of how horrifying it still maintains its ugliness and the way it is colorfully used by the late, great stand-up comic Lenny Bruce remains to be a controversial state of affairs from the prudes who can't tolerate it (Boone and Miss Manners offering ridiculous rejoinders) to those who relish it (Milch whose "Deadwood" series on HBO averaged some 90 uses per episode in its rookie season), the explosive expletive still maintains a running board taboo in the right-wing conservative forum as well as the Christian collective in America (the film keeps the discussion almost exclusively to American dialogue) and how we use language in many shapes and forms, often with miscommunication as the end result.

While the documentary has some entertaining bits, including the welcome animation from Bill Plympton, (for those who don't mind all the cussing) the film still spins its wheels more-or-less shrugging its collective shoulders as to no muss, no fuss with its no-frills demeanor. So if you don't have an interest you can say f**k it! Otherwise not too f*****g bad.


The point was made 1 minute into the movie, and then repeated in different words from other people and shows, movies, etc. for the remaining 1 hour and 32 minutes.

There was no other side to this, and it is sad to see people making these kinds of documentaries that are so one sided that they should be considered as complaints, or even brain washing material as to how many times they have made one sided points. Like every other documentary about something that is "bad" as we are told growing up, this was made to be funny and fun to watch.

Complete waste of 1 and a half hours.


There's really not much to glean from the film's celebration of its titular cussing. It's neither cathartic nor informative, but it does remind me of the thrill I used to get from that once ubiquitous adolescent prank ("See you next Tuesday") when it was pulled off to great effect. Under the guise of a semi-serious dissertation of how and why the world's favourite expletive became as proverbial and culturally offensive as it is, director Steve Anderson fills most of its running time with obvious allusions to its history and capping it off with vainglorious interviews with the media's foremost douchebags like Bill Maher and Evan Seinfeld, among other celebrities who use their screen time to cheekily rail against conservatism and vaunting themselves as trailblazers in the fight for their country's First Amendment. Obligatory conservative talking heads aside, Anderson fails to establish himself as an impartial mediator, often seeming intimidated and impressed by his more illustrious interviewees. It all adds up to one empty, hollow shell of a documentary that forgets to keep its finger on the pulse. Like we give a flying f*ck.


A movie about the most commonly used four letter word in the English language that is more interested in bashing right wing nut jobs. The documentary seems to believe that aside from Billy Connolly the only people who use this word are Americans and the word only exists in America. It does have an interesting bit on Lenny Bruce while Carlin is there only in stock footage from one of his shows. F**k soon runs out of steam and starts showing movie clips to fill in time. Ron Jeremy shows up for some reason, as does Miss Manners. A mess of quick edits for a while. You'll get more pleasure out of stubbing your toe than watching this.


Speedy Gonzales was essentially a one-note character (kind of like the Roadrunner) so the quality of a Speedy cartoon is largely dependent on the surrounding characters and situations they get themselves into rather than Speedy himself. The two mice Speedy is rescuing frequently, Pablo and Fernando are excellent characters. The songs they sing in this are very funny and the situations that arise from their actins are what makes the cartoon. Not easy to find and rarely aired on Cartoon Network, but well worth digging up and Recommended.