The MTM Show was a damn good comedy, but some of the comments here comparing it with the superior Dick Van Dyke Show are a little silly.

First of all, on the Van Dyke show Moore actually had a larger role, and got to do more comedy, than on the MTM show. On MTM she mostly played straight woman, and while the show more or less revolved around her, Valerie Harper or Ed Asner or another actor were the larger sources of humor. On DVD, while Rose Marie was originally planned to be the comedic center of the show, Moore took over more and more of that focus as the show developed. She wasn't just saying "Oh Rob!" and playing the dutiful wife, as someone (who never saw the DVD show?) has said.

Also, on the DVD Show Moore got to sing, dance, and use far more of her considerable talents.

Now, in comparing the shows-someone here wrote that MTM was the first great ensemble comedy. Really? In no way is the MTM ensemble superior to the DVD ensemble. It's a smaller cast, no doubt, but the characters are much more human. There are no cardboard people like the Ted Baxter character on Van Dyke.

Again, I like the MTM show. It was a well-written and well-acted program. But it's hardly the equal of several comedies from the 70's, especially the early years of MASH, or Bob Newhart, let alone classic earlier shows like Van Dyke or Andy Griffith.


"You're going to make it on your own" was part of the theme song for this hit 1970s sit-com. Luckily, for Mary Tyler Moore, she made it because of an outstanding supporting cast. Moore's dead-pan humor could become dull many times. You would actually be anticipating something occurring. When would it finally come?

Miss Moore was extremely fortunate to have a superlative supporting cast. People such as Ed Asner, Gavin MacLeod, Valerie Harper, Nancy Walker, Georgia Engel and Ted Knight provided the necessary strength for this show to succeed.

Naturally, working in a newsroom with mostly all these characters didn't exactly hurt either.

It may have been cold in Minnesota but the characters on this show provided the necessary warmth.


I have to admit, I was blown away by Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger! I am not usually a big fan of space-sims, I mean I've played some Freespace here and there but never really got into it. But then I played this and oooooh boy was it good. I've put this review in three catagories:Plot,Gameplay and Acting.

Plot: The Earth Confederation has been waging a 10-year war with the tiger creatures, the Kilrathi. But now they face the reality of losing the war and with it losing Earth and humanity itself. You play Colonel Blair(Mark Hamill) a fighter pilot whose made a reputation for himself through his various missions aboard the "Tiger-Claw". Blair has been re-assigned to be a pilot for the TCS Victory in the war. On the ship, he meets various pilots,captains,etc. Through his missions, Blair finds himself in becoming a major importance in winning the war. There are many plot-twists here and there that'll suprise you as they come. Overall a very well thought out plot. Rating: 4.5/5

Gameplay: The space combat in the game is very fun,entertaining, and challenging. One half of the game has you out in space,flying missions and having a Kiltathi in your crosshairs. The other half has you walking around the TCS Victory, having conversations with the various people on board which are usually about the war, their feelings or on their past. In these conversations, you usually have two choices of what to say(this affects your morale with the person your talking to). This ends up being really fun and it makes you care about your wingmen(unlike in other games). The space combat is fun, fast paced, and man ALIVE is it hard in most of the missions. This is the best part of the game/movie of course. Rating: 5/5

Acting: Mark Hamill does an awesome job of playing Colonel Christopher Blair with his smart-aleck lines while talking to the people on the ship to his taunts while in the cockpit(Example:"Say goodnight kitty!").I like him in this role better then as Luke Skywalker from Star Wars(I know I surprised myself). Then theres various other actors(most who don't really have any acting career). From the great Malcolm McDowell as Admiral Towlwyn(he played the bad guy in Star Trek:Generations), John Rhys-Davies as Paladin(hes playing Gimli in the LOTR movies right now), Tom Wilson(Biff from Back to the Future)as Maniac, a up-beat pilot whos a fan favorite. To Francois Chau as the lovable card shark of a pilot Vagabond and Jason Bernard as Captian Eisen in one of his last movie roles. The acting is superior to any "real" sci-fi film and the script is well written. Rating: 5/5

This is one of the best video games/movies ever and any person who enjoys a awesome space sim with a great plot and sweet actors(MARK HAMILL!!!) should try to find this game now and buy it. You wont be disappointed by its sheer greatness.


Four words to start this off: I love this game! I had been waiting a looooong time for the video game industry to create a mostly-live-action interactive video game of good quality and high-calibre acting, directing, and production design. Kudos must go out to director Chris Roberts and his talented team of actors, set production crew, and video game production crew. They did something that had never been done before. They not only created a fully realized, highly entertaining live-action video game. The also did it with a style, flair, and acting performances normally seen only in top-notch Hollywood films. Mark Hamill (of "Star Wars" fame) doesn't simply step into the lead role of Colonel Christopher "Maverick" Blair. He allows it to completely envelope him. It was also great fun to see renowned British actors John Rhys-Davies (of "Indiana Jones" and "The Lord Of The Rings" fame) and Malcolm McDowell (of "A Clockwork Orange", "Time After Time" and "Star Trek: Generations" fame) both hamming it up in their respective roles as General James "Paladin" Taggart and Admiral Geoffrey Tolwyn. It was also cool to see Thomas F. Wilson (who played Biff Tannen in the "Back To The Future" trilogy) playing one of the good guys for a change, even though his character, Lt. Todd "Maniac" Marshall, and Col. Blair are rivals, and only sometimes friends with each other. This game is great fun, and highly recommended!!!


This "game" actually made a better movie than a game. Some of the combat sequences tend to be a touch repetative, but the wonderful feel of being in "a movie" is really, really quite nice. The mission tree allows for multiple endings, so there's the chance that you'll be the dog of the movie instead of the hero. Odd that Chris Roberts would tap adult movie actress Ginger Allen for such a prominant role... but I'll give credit where credit is due, she did a wonderful job acting. If you want to see how multimedia games SHOULD be done, find a copy of Wing Commander III


At the time this game came out, it was pretty cutting-edge. It combined a filmed storyline with a space simulator. It was leaps above Wing Commander 1 and 2, old VGA games. Plus it was one of the first games to take advantage of the real life video technology offered by the CD-ROM's arrival. Now-a-days it wouldn't seem so great, but back then it was phenomenal, especially for die-hard Wing Commander (WC) fans. WC 4 and Prophecy both use the basic game play setup developed in WC 3, largely due to its success. Another popular feature is the ability to choose different paths through the game, along with different difficulty levels. All around a great game.


Wingcommander is a great game if you like Mark Hamil and other good actors but it can get boring having to sit there with out having to do something for a bit and that can be bad. so it is good but when you get into the movie part it can get bad.


Wing Commander III is one of the few games that effectively mixes full motion video and real gameplay. The computer drawn sets don't look that great but are far better than the computer animation of the previous games. Over all the live action portions of the game are pretty great for $4-8 million. The gameplay itself is also far better than the previous games and since the HUD is uncluttered I consider it slightly better than WC IV in that regard (the HUD in IV has a huge gunsight). Even though I played it with the graphics turned down on my old 486 I consider it one of my favorite games.


As a long-standing WC fan, I suppose I have a little bias here, but story has always been the largest draw in a game to me. The fact that Chris Roberts and company decided to use live actors IN 1993 shows that they care about story and wanted to make it interesting to watch as well as to play. The actors themselves are no slouches when it comes to acting, and have been in several top-of-the-line feature films.

Granted, the plot is a familiar one, but when coupled with the WC plot as a whole, it takes on a whole new meaning, and real actors are just what was needed to bring that out.

The spaceflight is top-notch... for 1994. Don't expect to see anything even close to today's 3D accelerated colorfests, but do expect to be entertained and challenged.

Entertainment is, after all, what we're after here, isn't it?


There was other games that appeared that used video to tell their story, but no game before did to the extent of Wing Commander 3. The first product really worthy of the term "Interactive Movie"


This game is a fine example of how one is supposed to use the new media. The story really grabs you tight and the only thing you want is more.

Mankind is fighting a losing war for survival in a galactic war against the evil catlike race Kilrathi. The game begins at the carrier "Tiger's Claw" and evolves quickly to an engrossing story about humanity's finest hour.

I surely can recommend this game!


It seems like we're supposed to hate this one but I loved it, I'm sorry but there you go.

Maybe it was because it came out at the time when punk had just happened. To me the book & the movie were such a break from the usual stereotypical pro-authority nonsense we were being regularly served up at the time (and sadly we seem to have gotten back to these days).

Naturally the book was, by far, the better experience (a genuine 'laugh out loud' read to be highly recommended) but nevertheless I found both hilarious and a long overdue reality check on the forelock tugging blind belief in benevolent and always virtuous 'authority' (something which applies well outsides of the confines of any Police unit too).

I think it's a real pity we seem to have lost that very healthy irreverence & scepticism and are today saddled with way too much haughty hard-faced tedium and an expectation that we blindly trust authority figures.


Director Robert Aldrich doesn't often deliver a film that falls in the middle ground. Most of the time, Aldrich's name on the film either guarantees a good movie or an absolutely terrible one. The Choirboys is Aldrich at his very worst  if you thought The Grissom Gang and Hustle were bad, you ain't seen nothing yet! It is a tasteless and repetitively episodic story, a complete mess of a film which merely reinforces the very prejudices that it is supposedly criticising. Nothing about the film works, not even slightly. Joseph Wambaugh, who penned the original novel upon which the movie is based, was so appalled at this travesty that he took legal action to have his name removed from the credits! That should tell you all you need to know.

A unit of L.A. cops spend their shifts patrolling the city in search of violence and sleaze. When they're on duty they are little better than thugs with a badge, dishing out justice with total disregard for moral standards and public safety. When they're off duty they are even worse, spending their nights getting drunk in a local park and acting like hooligans. Slowly but surely, each character's motivations are revealed. For example, Officer Sam Lyles (Don Stroud) is shown to be an ex-Vietnam vet whose wartime experiences have left him claustrophobic. In one harrowing scene, he flips out whilst drunk in a locked police van and kills a hustler, a shocking act that the higher echelons of the L.A. force are only too keen to cover up. A pair of cops (Randy Quaid, Tim McIntire) are assigned to talk a suicide jumper down from a high-rise building, but their approach is so unsubtle and aggressive that she ends up flinging herself to her death. One cop, the handsome all-American Baxter Slate (Perry King), is found out as a kinky sex addict and disowned by his colleagues, leading to such personal shame that he commits suicide. And so it goes. the cops continually foul up one job after another with their trigger-happy attitudes, their racist and sexist unprofessionalism, and their reckless disregard for true law and order.

There are those who hail The Choirboys as a blackly comic expose of the police profession. But in truth there is nothing funny about this horrible little film. Aldrich virtually hammers us over the head with extreme vulgarity and offensiveness to make his point, and the approach is so heavy-handed and unpleasant that the film becomes a challenge to sit through. The cast of terrific actors are particularly embarrassing in their thankless roles, none more so than Lou Gossett Jr, Charles Durning and Robert Webber (the latter especially degraded by his part as a callous superior officer with an immoral personal agenda). Christopher Knopf's screenplay offers no glimmer of salvation for the gallery of slimeball characters, so that as the film comes to an end after its interminable two hours the viewer is left with a nasty taste in the mouth and an empty feeling in the stomach. Avoid The Choirboys  it's one of the worst of all-time!


Robert Aldrich is one of the greatest directors of all time, of the films I've seen he produced two stone-cold all-time classics, 'Kiss Me Deadly' and 'Ulzana's Raid', one of my favourite guilty pleasures 'The Dirty Dozen', as well as highly notable cult films such as The Killing of Sister George and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, and I'm sure many others I haven't seen. He was a prolific director noted for being able to film to a high standard in different genres and styles, defying the auteur theory of current popularity. Quite how then he created such an incredibly offensive movie then is a matter to ponder over and only worth considering because of the director's fame.

The film focuses on a group of puerile, violent, immoral patrol officers and their antics. Once a week they take over the local park for drunken hilarity, and shooting at ducks. Choir practice as they call it. It is hard to think of a more dislikeable bunch. We have uber-redneck Officer Roscoe Rules who enjoys beating up homosexuals; Officer 'Spermwhale' Whalen whose hobby is to continually question authority, undermine his department, and generally spread bad vibes; Officer 'Balls' Hadley, and his good lady, officer 'No Balls' Hadley, the continuous butt of sexual harassment and discrimination; Sergeant Scuzzi (played by Burt Young of Rocky fame) an unkempt unwashed slob from vice who everyone thinks is the precinct janitor; Officer Francis Tanaguchi, the squad's pet 'gook'. etc. These guys are more interested in playing pranks on their superiors and starting fights with 'greasers' than in protecting and serving.

What is astonishing is that apparently the portrayal of this scurvy bunch is actually realistic of police behaviour of the time. Some people think that this redeems the movie, I would suggest however that the treatment of these officers is far too sympathetic. We are supposedly meant to rejoice at the end when all officers involved in the shooting of an innocent gay teenager receive slaps on the wrist. The treatment of homosexuals as simpering, lisping queens is incredibly offensive, particularly the gentleman in the park walking a pink poodle and savouring an encounter with 'a naked man tied to a tree'.

Another reviewer claims that you can't expect much more off of a bunch of Vietnam vets with only high-school diplomas, my goodness have ideals sunk so low? I remember a scene in the film 'Electra Glide in Blue' when a Vietnam Vet who was a highway patrolman gave a 'perp' who was also a vet advice that he couldn't use his service record as an excuse to drop out and behave badly. There is much better moral authority from that movie. No-one needs an excuse for failure, and definitely the officers in this movie have none.

I think the film promotes a stereotypical view of sadomasochism and vice in general, and because it is apologist and even sympathetic in it's approach to the immorality and more importantly extreme irresponsibility of the police officers, I would call it a truly Fascist movie.


Joseph Wambaugh disowned this film-adaptation of his bestseller about department low-lifes within the Los Angeles police force, but the experience probably shamed him anyway--and anyone who gets through the picture will feel shame for him. Half-assed mixture of smut-minded hijinks and 'sobering' cop drama is so sloppily constructed I am amazed director Robert Aldrich didn't remove his name as well. Aldrich, once a filmmaker of merit, seems to have nothing on his agenda here except earning a paycheck (ditto cinematographer Joseph Biroc, who does some of the gloppiest, ugliest work I have ever seen in a major movie). The mostly-male cast members continually smirk and leer throughout (it's difficult to distinguish the characters' loutish behavior from the actual actors themselves--everyone comes off looking pathetic). The low-point of the movie comes when snarling cop Tim McIntire (in a career-ending turn) is hand-cuffed to a tree without his pants and is spotted by a mincing homosexual. McIntire threatens to tear out the guy's liver and break his spleen if he comes near him. Everyone on screen is doubled over with laughter, but the viewer is the butt of the joke. * from ****


On paper this should have been excellent . We have Robert Aldrich who made some very intelligent , cynical movies like ATTACK , THE DIRTY DOZEN , TOO LATE THE HERO and ULZANA'S RAID directing a novel by acclaimed author Joseph Wambaugh and featuring amongst others notable actors like Louis Gosset Jnr and James Woods before they became well known . But since it was made on celluloid and not on paper that doesn't appear to count for very much

THE CHOIRBOYS is a mess . There's little plot to speak off and is so cluttered up with characters that it's impossible to understand where the screenplay is going and of the characters themselves they're very unlikable . Since the characters are amoral policeman I thought perhaps someone had the idea of making this as a precursor to HILL STREET BLUES and I guess somewhere along the line that's what the intention was , of an off beat black comedy but the writing , directing and acting is so heavy handed it's like watching a very bad adult version of POLICE ACADEMY with only the sequence of a man taking his pink poodle in the park coming close to raising a smile

Did I start this review by asking what went wrong ? After seeing the movie in its entirety I feel I now have to ask did anything go right ?


Once again I am forced to defend a decent movie. I saw this movie when it came out, I was in college. I thought it was very funny and was a blend of comedy and drama that was above most of the other fair at that time. I saw it again recently and while it had perhaps lost a little of its luster I thought it was still pretty funny. Of course, if you don't like anyone saying politically incorrect things (even if that person is presented as a total moron) then you might be too "delicate" to appreciate the humor.

Tim McIntyre was hilarious as Roscoe Rules and there was a young Randy Quaid, and James Woods as well. Charles Durning is effective in this film and far from hating the ending, I thought it was not "Upbeat" but rather merely stopped the movie from being a total downer.


My TV guide gave this movie 3 ticks (out of 4) and described it as a "gritty police thriller". They should be sued! The ONLY reason i stayed watching was that I couldn't believe how truly awful this film is, from start to finish. There's no plot and all the characters are unrealistic. Even James Woods and Robert Webber never seemed like real cops. It doesn't fit into any 'genre', except terrible. The 1970s sexism and the Japanese-American character (playing a racial stereotype) are plain embarrassing. I'm sure that all the actors involved in this rubbish (particularly James Woods) must cringe at every mention of it. To be avoided at all costs.


This is not a bad adaptation of Wambaughs book until the end. For some reason someone decided the movie needed an up-beat ending and blew the black ending of the book.


(Slight Spoilers) Running neck and neck with the ridicules "Exorcist II: the Hieratic" as the worst movie of 1977 "The Chiorboys" is about the most off-the-wall cop movie ever made that was so bad that even the book's author Joseph Wambaugh,that the movie is based on, disowned it never wanting to be mentioned in the same breath with the film.

Having a bunch of beer and booze guzzling as well as mentally unstable LA police officers make complete fools of themselves is not very funny as the movie want's it's audience to think. These yo-yo's end up causing more trouble to the community as well as themselves then any gang of street thugs could possibly do and were supposed to like them? There are a number of cops who have very serious mental hang-ups that leads to suicide and in the case of police officer Sam Lyles, Don Stroud, involuntary manslaughter but what that shows is how lax the LAPD is in allowing men with serious mental problems into it ranks.

The cops in the movie "The Chiorboys" screw up almost ever assignment that their put on but what get's them in trouble is when Lyles, drunk and locked up in a police paddy wagon, goes wacko and blows away a park hustler when he tried to help him. Were shown at the beginning of the movie that Lyles has been suffering from a sever case of claustrophobia since he was in Vietnam but yet he managed to get into the LAPD where, being assigned a deadly weapon, he may very well be put in tight places where his phobia would take over his common sense.

There's also the sad case of officer Baxter Slate, Perry King, who's suffering from very dark sexual hangups dealing with S&M that leads him to get involved with a dominatrix. When discovered getting his rocks off by his fellow cops Baxter begs them for help, all Baxter wanted was for them to talk to him, but is ignored which leads to him, feeling ashamed and abundant, shooting himself.

With these two cases of police driven to he edge and beyond it's very hard to find anything funny in the movie that's supposed to be a police comedy/drama about the inner workings of the LAPD. Remarkably the most touching and understanding scene in the movie has to do with the uncouth and scuzzy head of the vice squad Sgt. Scuzzi, Burt Young. Talking to a young man picked up for soliciting in the park Sgt. Scuzzi takes the time to talk to him and treats the frightened 18 year-old with kindness and understanding like a father not a hardened cop on the beat. It turned out that Scuzzi letting the boy off without being booked didn't end his problems with him getting shot and killed later in the movie.

Very uneven at best and mindless and offensive, to every race color and creed, at worse "The Chiorboys" totally misses the mark that it, and author Joseph Wambaugh in his book, tried to make about the pressures of being a policeman in a major US city. We get a bunch of stories of cops who are so unstable and unprofessional that they come across worse then any of the criminals in the movie and end up getting the worse of it when their ever called upon to arrest or restrain them. There's even a very disturbing scene when two of the cops Rules & Proust, Tim Mcintire & Randy Quaid, are on a roof trying to stop a woman from jumping to her death. Rules encourages instead of trying to talk her out of it where she ends up jumping to her death.

The very contrive ending with officer Whalen, Charles Durning, confronting his boss Chief Deputy Riggs, Robert Webber, about him suspending some half-dozen officers, involved in the cover-up of the Lyles shooting was about as corny and unconvincing as it could get. That was supposed to be the high point in the movie that would make you forget just how silly and hare-brained it was up until then. Instead of making the movie "The Chiorboys" better it made it even worse if that at all was possible.


This was a lame attempt at adapting a great book about a group of cops and the toll their work takes on their humanity. The true humor, pathos and irony that was in the book is missing on the screen. We see the antics described by Wambaugh in the book on the screen, but we don't know why these celluloid cops act the way they do. It could have been a simple matter of a narrator or voice overs by the characters to give some insight into the psyche of these characters. Instead, we are left with the juvenile antics of a group of drunken cops prone to sexual deviance and a disregard for the public, without the public knowing why. Watched it once, I won't waste my time to watch it again.


Before you go on to complain about this movie, you need to realize it was filmed 30 years ago. I was 1 year old when this movie came out and I have grown up around cops.

I have very little doubt these antics used to go on but now they are left as a part of history.

How do you expect a group of guys with a high school diploma, Vietnam war service and a thankless job to behave? Have you ever gotten off work so late the bars are closed but you want to blow off some steam about the things that happened to you? Where do you go when the bars are closed? Just as Blazing Sadles could not be filmed today, I don't think you could film this movie either. I doubt society or departments approved of this behavior but I am certain a blind eye was turned. Now since the Rampart scandal, Rodney King and other incidents nobody can do this anymore.

If you want to try to understand why this movie is funny, try doing a Google search for, "Why cops hate you"


Justly forgotten black "comedy" of a bunch of immature alcoholic policeman and their disgusting behavior in and out of uniform.

The plot is vague (to say the least) and the humor is either unfunny or just revolting. The film is chockful of offensive humor--there's racism, sexism (all the female characters I saw were hookers) and extreme homophobia (the gay guy with the pink poodle was just horrendous). Full of unpleasant characters.

I watched this on cable. 30 minutes in I was horrified--I was going to turn it off but I kept it on because this DOES have a cast of well-known actors. But (after another lousy half hour) I turned it off. It's really hard to believe such a talented director with such a good cast would make THIS! Also the author of the book this is based on disowned this. That should tell u something. When not offensive this is just dull. You don't see any of the actors in this gloating about doing this. Avoid.


The Choirboys is flat-out one of my all-time favorite movies!!! I have read the list of reviews here, and the positive ones are more insightful than most of the negative reviews, which consist mainly of "moronic," "insulting," "an outrage," ... blah, blah, blah (or more precisely "wah, wah, wah").

Don't listen to them -- this is an EXCELLENT movie. Mind you, it won't win any academy awards, but the cast is a who's who of Hollywood superstars. But, of course, they weren't stars when this movie was made -- they were really just breaking into the business, for the most part. Heck, James Woods alone is worth the price of admission!! And do keep in mind that this movie was made 30 years ago -- the cinematography and over-all feel is kind of dark, although there are some hilarious scenes! And I do not apologize for any part of this movie -- of all "police comedies" it is by far the most "real," in that I can imagine very easily a department EXACTLY like the one depicted. (In fact, I MISS the days when cops were REAL PEOPLE -- and not a bunch of ex-Marine Drill Instructors akin to Robocops (no offense to The Marines -- but you know what I mean, don't you?).

Choir Practice, in the movie, is, of course, the weekly drinking fest where the boys (and girls) blow off steam. And typical of 70's movies, there is more than one story going on at the same time -- and a good deal of time is spent developing the array of characters, all with stories of their own.

I like this movie -- and if you like Dirty Harry and think he is AWESOME for KICKING ASS, if you think this world has gotten WAY TO PC for comfort, if you like to party and make no excuses for it -- then you will like this movie, too!


To all you people who have said this movie sucks Go F... yourselves !! This movie is funny from start to finish.

In this age of political correctness it is good to venture back to a time where people could and did laugh at themselves. You seldom get the chance to watch movies like this anymore so watch this one.

Roscoe Rules make this movie with his quotes throughout. " I'm going to rip that oily little old mustache right off your face"

Overview.

Good acting

Not politically correct at all

Will have you in stitches

If cops were only like this


SPOILER ALERT!

Atrocious! THE CHOIRBOYS features a lot of violence that just TOO violent and a lot of really unfunny stuff that does nothing to offset it. Director Robert Aldrich really missteps with this garbage. It's a rambling, offensive, woman hating, gay hating, people hating movie. The cast, largely made up of character actors who've done great work in the past, is truly wasted. Charles Durning is OK as "Sperm Whale," but the rest of the actors, particularly Tim McIntire and Perry King, are extremely annoying; mugging it up, trying to be cool-funny. King has a particularly regrettable scene with sexy dominatrix Phyllis Davis and then kills himself! You know something is off when the only real sane person around is played by James Woods! With Randy Quaid, Robert Webber and Charles Haid.

It's all a senseless waste of a lot of talent.


I first saw this film over a decade ago and recalling from what I saw of it to be an abysmally lame and foul film. I then decided to have a second look a couple of years ago to see whether my initial reaction was correct and, if anything, I was too kind to it.

This is as bad a film as I've ever seen. It's not just because the film has gutter-level humour and is relentlessly crude. It's not just because it's technically inept and cheap, with 'outside' scenes obviously filmed on interior sets. And it's not just because a good cast and director is wasted on such a filthy, demeaning film.

Above all, what makes this film so wretched is the inherent dishonesty of this film, that it's an 'anti-establishment' film in the style of MASH. The notion is totally absurd when the subject of the film is one of the central pillars of the establishment in society - the police force. This is why their 'rebellious' behaviour is mainly targeted at the oppressed like homosexuals.

Genuinely 'anti-establishment' films of this era had the heroes attack the privileged, elitist echelons of the college scene (Animal House) or the armed forces (MASH). 'The Choirboys' is the direct opposite and a completely repellent 'establishment' film.


OK, I had to buy this one for $8 Canadian from Chapters, as I'm a huge fan of Wambaugh's book. This film is so bad it's almost good. A reasonably talented cast completely wasted, in its' own way it's worse than the film adaptation of "Catch 22". The supposedly funny scenes are ruined by poor direction, the sets are incredibly cheap and the "uproarious" ending is a travesty.


The same extreme close-up footage of what appears to be a pit bull gorging on a blood rare piece of meat is inserted again and again with each kill. Considering how many kills there are in this trash fest, you'll become so familiar with the gator's incisors, you might start giving each tooth a name.

Ridiculous and deranged. So much so, it begins to look like it's a parody, but I think the film actually took itself seriously. This is one of those flicks with so many outrageously stupid lines it could become a cult classic of the so-bad-it's-good kind. The acting is beyond atrocious. There's one Jessica Simpson look alike who is casually jogging around (looking like she's doing an episode of Bay Watch) through the forest after seeing two gruesome deaths. The skeptics she encounters recite lines like robots. There's three dimwitted twerps who flunked out of Animal House wandering around looking for an anti-drunkenness elixir. Then there's some whack lady (an unrecognizable Kelly McGillis) who wants to catch the thing. And some poor man's Capt. Ahab who also wants to croak it. Oh, and the vulcanologists who just stand around gossiping.

I love the rampage scene, where the gator chases everything that moves. Red CGI splotch paint balls replace characters frequently; that's about the level of the CGI effects. The "volcano" looks like one of those science project things kids do. Characters with "Next victim" written on their faces always seem to fall down while running so the thing can devour them. Terrified extras screaming and running: straight out of an old Godzilla type flick. By this time, you're either rooting for the monster, or rolling on the floor in hysterics.

Demented script, comically awful acting, brazenly sloppy special effects: this one is so amateurish, you have to see it to believe it.


This film is neither good or bad enough to be great. The premise is promising (for that sub-set of people who love creaturefeatures) - a prehistoric alligator, produced Jurassic-Park style via DNA from a fossil, running around a Hawaiian resort (which may or may not be about to volcanically explode) eating the tourists. And the great thing about alligator or crocodile films (again, for the lovers of such movies) is that nowhere is safe - the critters can be in the water! On land! Hiding in bushes! Anywhere the cast goes, the crocogator can follow. This usually makes for some great "reptile persecuting and chasing frightened teens" scenes...in other movies.

Personally, I'd ignore all the reviews about bad acting, bad CGI, low budget, eastern European cast, plot holes the size of Bulgaria, continuity errors etc - those are part and parcel of this genre, and should be celebrated rather than snottily mocked by those who - against all evidence and knowledge of the genre - apparently expected a high-quality movie. If one mocks creature-features for all of the above, then they all get a 1/10 rating - which ignores the fact that some are far more enjoyable than others.

Unfortunately, although this movie features all of the above, it is not one of the good ones. Its main problem is that the writers have apparently mistaken premise for plot - although it (sort of) makes sense that the Supergator is there (because Kelly McGillis's company made it from a fossil), and that the volcanologists are there looking at the volcano, and that a variety of red-t-shirted and bikini-clad teens are there... that's not *plot*.

It simply isn't enough to have a supergator running around eating the minor cast. There are no hooks - no tragic backstory, no budding romance, no egg-stealing teens, no black-shirted leering villains to die in the final gruesome scenes (Kelly McGillis didn't even have the grace to adopt a Bulgarian accent!) and not even a clear-cut hero and heroine. As a result, you simply have a few cast members pottering around the island for one-line reasons ("Let's visit the waterfall!" "Let's look at the volcano!" "Let's pose in our bikinis!" "Let's declare a vendetta against the supergator even though I have no stated reason for so doing!" etc), getting chewed up and spat out. It is, quite frankly, boring.

There are a few nice touches - the typical homages to Jaws, some cheesy one-liners, a couple of spectacular deaths by Surprise Leaping Supergator - as well as the litany of amusing continuity errors, plot holes, superfluous bikinis, random lesbians, stereotypical (Quint-essential) old man with a vendetta etc. But none of those things are enough to make up for the lack of plot and character-development - hence we never get as far as caring what happens to any of them, and the suspense is virtually nil.

Overall, I'd watch Crocodile 2: Death Roll instead!


Dumb! But almost entertaining.

The scientist in me couldn't help but analyze the gator's behavior. If the mutant gator was cold-blooded, it was moving far too fast for far too long. And it was eating far, far, far too much for a cold blooded animal. For an animal that size, after chomping down four or five people, it would hole up in its lair to digest for quite a while. If it was warm blooded, that would explain how Wally Gator's badboy cousin could be moving around so much so fast as warm blooded animals have a much better system of dispersing metabolically generated waste heat than cold blooded animals do. But that still wouldn't explain why it was hungry so much. No warm blooded animal that size would want to eat that much. And this critter was eating and eating and eating and eating and eating and eating and eating and eating and eating... What a glutton! With an appetite like that, it would have the entire island depopulated of humans within a week or so.

The ending of the movie was kind of whacky. The two surviving characters are standing at the back of a vehicle, about to depart onto their separate ways, and they're all smiles and cracking jokes to each other. What the...? You would think they would be still in a state of emotional shock and feeling depressed about the horrific loss of their friends... But no, they're feeling rather happy. I couldn't help but suspect they were on prozac or something.

Should you bother watching this movie? Only if you enjoy seeing a mutant gator eating and eating and eating and eating and eating and eating...

One dead hoof down for using pathetically dumb science to the point of absurdity and annoyance. One dead hoof up for having such a cartoony monster, which i have an embarrassing weakness for.


Where should I start? It's not like I watch Sci-Fi channel for its important and life-affirming programing...but every once in a while, some good t&a is integral to one's developmental health, and this movie was full of it. Definitely not a great movie, but entertaining nevertheless, especially with a pint or two of Moose Drool, or any brew of choice.

First of all, the Hawaiian scenery is quite impressive, not quite Jackson Hole, but spectacular nonetheless. I didn't quite get the ending, but the girls were hot, especially that Bianca Lawson chick, she's pretty hot.

The CGI was passable for your standard Sci-fi channel B-flick, but what can you expect, they're not spending the 100 million dollars that Michael Bay spent on Transformers. The acting was fairly decent, but by no means Oscar worthy. It's a fair exchange for the Playboy centerfolds that ran around half naked in pink g-stings.

Overall, I liked this film, and would probably watch this film again. Since Roger Corman has launched the careers of everyone from Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Jack Nicholson, Jamie Lee Curtis and Brad Johnson, I hope the actors in this movie will follow in the footsteps of these fine examples instead of the Candice Railson and Mary Woronov's of his company.


I saw this movie title on SyFy just now. Thought to myself wow this can't be bad. Boy was I wowingly wrong (Couldn't be a word, yet but I think it will be) Story was good, effects and the writing of this were stupid.. I don't wanna say I hate the cast cause they were good. Its the writer/s and maybe Director... Alligator if it only looked like one. Or "Mutant Alligator". Now they say it's a pre-historic Alligator. Explain how old would it make this.. Alligator.. Explain how a FUEL INJECTED JEEP, made for outdoors playing dies just like that... When they have already a killed a girl in a bikini who was doing the right thing now moving and staying 'out of sight'. Her and Fatty still get found and ate. When they just saw Mr. big gator but yet how would they not hear him circle where they were..? It doesn't make sense.. Now the, blonde Dr. Lady has been demolished? Who wrote this garbage.. When you got a dumb hunter with a 'LITTLE' @$$ gun..... When he's seen this thing and knows how big and should know how strong it is.... BEING PRE-HISTORIC... BURT GOMER aka Michael Gross (Tremors I-IV)would have ROFLMAO... Well, there's your movie... You want me to write it fine. Contact me. But he's my star with some others 1 other star and couple other co stars. This movie could have been better just with a little more thought and talent.. Poor Graphics on this Gator... Anaconda is how old and its got better looking graphics for its snake... And this movie just keeps getting worse...


I would love to know what the death toll was for Supergator, because once the beast starts eating folks it doesn't stop. I mean, it doesn't even attempt to take a rest break, it just keeps eating and eating..it has quite an appetite.

This time the killer monster is a prehistoric alligator from the Paleostone age(..recreated from the DNA of a jaw bone, these scientists never learn)running rampant on the wild life refuge of a Hawaiin island, eating every human being in sight.

What I found most amusing was how the filmmakers went out of their way to create these various story-lines / sub-plots, maneuvering characters into positions just to be eaten. They exist only as a food source. Kelly McGillis stopped by to pick up a paycheck as the scientist(..or one of the scientists) responsible for the creature's creation. John Colton is the water boat hunter she hires to help her find it. Brad Johnson is a vulcanologist researching a volcano, afraid it might just erupt. Josh Kelly is a young apprentice assisting him and Bianca Lawson is a former student, now a journalist wishing to follow along, working on an article detailing their progress. Mary Alexander Stiefvater is the volcano expert who called Johnson about the volcano. Others show up primarily to be eaten.

Like other sci-fi channel movies of this type, the filmmakers rely heavily on computer generated effects. When they shoot attacks up close, the filmmakers create vague depictions of bloody arms and legs caught within the sharp grip inside the mouth of the gator. What's frustrating about this process is that you barely can see any of the bloody action, although the victims' screams are pretty effective as they are being torn into. Like in Jaws, Supergator has the public event scene(..a luau in this particular situation)our heroes attempt to stop due to the dangerous threat, falling on deaf ears with the organizers, resulting in a massacre. The cgi attacks are rather laughable, with only one or two that are even remotely effective. To their credit, the filmmakers try their best to stage the attacks as ferocious and horrifying as possible, but the cgi is just too obvious. I believe the closer attacks are staged so erratically due to the fact that all they had was a prosthetic mouth(..probably hands just operating it off screen), so the editing is haphazard not just for the attempt of capturing the situation in a feverish intensity, but out of necessity.


Going into this film I really wasn't expecting much. The scene with the photographer and the two lumps of stupid posing for him only served to support my expectations.

The concept was completely retarded, which in and of itself isn't enough to kill the movie. Most Sci-Fi Channel movies are ridiculous but incredibly fun. This isn't that fun. The acting is terrible, with the actors either being too intense or seeming like they just don't give a crap. The special effects aren't much better. The up close attack scenes are laughable. You can see it's clearly a rubber head. And the recycled Jurassic Park raptor screeches are more than a little distracting.

I was most disappointed in Bianca Lawson, who did a wonderful job as Kendra during her short run on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It saddened me to see her in a movie like this.

In all, not the WORST movie to come out of Sci-Fi Channel, but in no way a great movie by any stretch of the imagination.


B-movies can sometimes be so uniquely and creatively bad they become fun to watch. Supergator is really, really bad...but not in a unique or fun way. It's a very poorly done rip-off of Jurassic Park, Lake Placid and just about any monster movie you've ever seen all rolled into one.

At first the movie seems to be playing up its own cheesiness, with lots of babes in bikinis and ridiculous acting. However, as the story progresses it becomes unclear if the director started to take things a little too seriously. We start to wonder, "Wait, did they think they were actually making a good movie and not a B-movie laugher?". At one point the film actually tries to logically explain why there's a giant, pre-historic gator living on a volcanic mountain in Hawaii. Whatever, I was looking for more babes in bikinis at that point.

How did Kelly McGillis end up in this mess? She was a real star at one point. Has her career sunk to the level of Supergator? Maybe it's time to retire. The bad acting is compounded by a script that takes itself way too seriously. Bianca Lawson, one of the leads, is so bad she has no business even trying to act. Some people simply have no talent for acting. She is one of them.

As for the special effects, they are perhaps the worst I have ever seen. If you're going to make a movie (even a B-movie) about a giant killer gator, at least have the budget to make it look somewhat real. The gator looks like a low-resolution animation from a video game that was dropped into the film at the last minute.

The biggest question has to be: Why even spend money making a movie like this? The entire idea is a complete retread of movies that have already been made with a bigger budget, better writing and better actors. Although this movie has its campy moments, it's not campy enough to come off as a parody.

The money spent making this disaster could have been put towards a much better, original idea. Or they could have just given the money to charity. Either would have been a better use of the funds.


Basically, this movie is DinoCroc2. The difference is, "Supergator" takes place in Hawaii instead of some small hick town. The creature looks EXACTLY like DinoCroc, with one small exception -- DinoCroc spent most of his time walking around on two legs, while Supergator is strictly quadrupedal. Surely though, that represents evolution taking its course. This movie, as is the case with most SciFi Channel Original movies, is pretty silly. The highlight is a bikini-clad model spending most of the first hour running away after her fellow model got chomped up by Supergator. She then runs into a geeky guy, and they try to hide together. And you're like, "will they shack up?" "will they escape from Supergator's reign of terror?" And just when you think they will, Supergator appears out of nowhere and ambushes them. Oh, well. For one brief, shining moment, I thought the geek might get lucky. The other highlight is being able to watch the continuing downward spiral of Kelly McGillis' career, from "Top Gun" 20 years ago to this atrocity. In fact, her career has gone downhill so badly, she turns into gator chow barely an hour into the movie. Overall, this movie is pretty bad, but still entertaining enough to keep you watching. Deserving of a 4.


Supergator is set in Hawaii where a group of vulcanologist's are studying a volcano near a holiday resort, they think it might be about to blow. Professor Scott Kinney (Brad Johnson), one of his senior graduates Ryan Houston (Josn Kelly) are sent in to liaise with resident volcano watchers Max (Dave Ruskjer) & his assistant Alexandra Stevens (Mary Alexander Stiefvater) & compare notes, the sort of things vulcanologist's do. They decide to set some seismograph's up near the base of the volcano to measure it's activity, the group set off but hadn't counted on there being a 30 foot genetically created 'supergator' that kills & eats anyone it comes across & it's heading straight for the holiday resort where it has plenty of tasty humans to pick from...

King of the rip-off cheapies Roger Corman strikes again, this straight-to-video Sci Fi Channel creature feature was executive produced by Corman while it was co-written & directed by Brian Clyde & isn't anything particularly special although it passes the time harmlessly enough if you don't expect too much. The script by Clyde, Frances Doel & Jeffrey Sturges is pretty clichéd & very standard for this type of film, basically there's some form of huge man eating monster/creature running around eating the less important members of the cast & when all said & done that's all there is to Supergator really. The film moves along at a reasonable pace, I certainly wouldn't call it slow or boring & there are a few unintentionally funny moments. I must also congratulate the makers for such a high body count & surprisingly a lot of the cast die even some I was expecting to make it. The reason behind the supergator itself is your standard 'genetic experiment gone horribly wrong' type scenario, you know I was sitting there watching this & I was thinking to myself why would a bunch of scientists create a huge prehistoric alligator? It just doesn't make any sense to me, what were they hoping to prove or find out that they couldn't achieve by genetically creating a docile, plant eating dinosaur that could have been easily controlled & relied on not to eat every person it came across? I don't know, then again maybe I'm just thinking about this too much. If you like cheesy creature features then Supergator isn't all that bad but it's nothing new or special.

Director Clyde doesn't do much to liven things up, some of the scenery is quite nice but the direction & the set-ups aren't that great. It seems just about every tourist on Hawaii is traipsing through this particularly patch of forest where the supergator lives, there are random people like models, dope heads, fishermen, lovers, waterfall watchers, random guy's driving jeeps & vulcanologist's walking around. The gore is disappointing, there is one severed body part, someone is decapitated otherwise there are just quick shots of people covered in fake blood. The CGI computer effects are poor, the supergator itself looks OK but it isn't animated that well & every time it attacks someone a fake puppet head & jaws are used & there are close-ups of it's blood stained mouth & teeth yet when the film switches back to the CGI supergator it's mouth & teeth are perfectly clean. What does it do? Whip out a handkerchief & wipe itself? There is also a fair amount of CGI blood which looks pretty fake, almost like a solid red cloud.

With a supposed budget of about $250,000 this was pretty damned low budget & in a way they did OK with the meagre amount they had but it's still not a very good film. Actually shot on location in Hawaii apparently. The acting isn't anything particularly memorable. Kelly McGillis of Top Gun (1986) fame plays a scientist & gets eaten.

Supergator is an OK time waster & that's being kind to it, it didn't impress me that much but it kept me relatively quiet for 100 odd minutes. I've definitely seen better but then again I've definitely seen worse.


Laughed the whole way through. Thought it was a parody on all films of the genre. You have GOT to be kidding.All the kids in the room were laughing too. How about those blood sprays?? All death scenes the same except for the wardrobe change. OMG--the acting...But I am glad some people enjoyed it in a different way. Kelly McGillis looked about 65. What on earth has happened to her. That was freaky.

Another thing I found odd was the murky, ghastly looking water. I have never been to Hawaii but always thought the water was sky blue. Must be all the fake Kool-Aid blood, huh?

Still my whole family watched it all the way through. We took bets who would be the last actor standing--and none of us predicted the end.


Sci-fi keeps getting worse with these so-called original movies. PU did this one ever stinks. They must use the worse CGI, as their monsters are looking worse movie after movie. They take gator and mix his DNA with a Dinosaur. Did they mix in a mass murder as well? The so-called Supergator is not eating the people in the movie. He just killing them and moving right on to next victim. Don't insult our intelligence in these movies. Gators are not on the move right after a meal and since gators are from the dingo age. I'd say whatever dinosaur they mixed in would be relaxed right after killing and eating as well. Not Supergator. He kills one victim and two seconds later he's on top of another and another. The plot was terrible using an active volcano and people checking that out and getting killed along the way. The volcano blows at the end. Made no sense and if you missed this piece of crap. I recommend missing it the next time.


I am seldom at a loss for words, but this was, just possibly, the very worst movie I've ever seen. The acting, dialogue and special effects were so bad that at first I thought I was watching a parody. Aghhhhh. The special effects were quite strange, such as buckets of blood seemingly splashed from behind rocks and other props in a strange one-dimensional perspective. The actors read their lines like high school kids auditioning for their first play. The dual plot of volcano and supergator just didn't mesh and the ending made no sense at all. Okay, gator dead, let's show some old clips of a volcano erupting. If any of these actors ever make "the big time" in film, they may want to erase this movie from their bios. This movie might be fun at a boozy frat party, but only if no other options were available.


I didn't expect much, or even ask much, from Sci-Fi Channel movies. And I mostly like them. But the only thing that was worse than the script and acting in this stinker was the effects.

It was nice to see Kelly McGillis again, although her role was so thinly written it was painful to watch. The no-names show why they will almost certainly remain so.

The story, which had potential, was leaden with bland, uninspired dialog, and porno-logic behavior. You simply didn't buy these character, or care what happened to them.

Where's Stephen Baldwin when you need him!?!?

The scenery was nice, though.


Ten minutes in I was wondering if the National Organization of Women was still around; want to apprise them of this film--in ways that frequently clench my teeth continuous reduction of women to cheesecake in order to generate men's interests. Maybe shouldn't be too hard of the filmmaker(s); they did throw in token smart gal, who's also token the black and 50+ normal looking Kelly McGillis; both serving to placate women who would get mad if not for their presence. Well neither worked for a certain 40 plus black woman. God again wish there was a minus rating scale.

Few films in my life have I seen women horribly relegated to the ranks of gorgeous but mindless scenery. Wouldn't be surprised a pervert was a major participant in the production of this tripe. Majority of women are showing bare midriffs and in brief thongs and screaming fear these babes (and dullard chauvinists littering the film a little less) takes away from developing the story above a Girls Gone Wild eatery for monster with male eaten to cover up the obvious. It takes place in fun in sun Hawaii--we know. Do we need that overly long scene of fashion photographer working on his ideas with bikini gals? No! Thank God the token black was also the token girl dressed modestly. Sadly she's the only one attempting carrying the film--granted coming of as a precocious little girl but everyone in this acts immature--even the actress as the deviating female; no one's acting.

And finally that super-grating supergator, what does this writer think of him? Well just said it--Grating. EAT in blur, first EATING chomp spurts blood, run after hapless victims to EAT--There's no rudimentary problem solving, no cleverly out-thinking prey! And the people don't think of a way to get it dead that's imaginative--Solution's straight from 1st Jaws movie as is the opening scene setting up the storyline.

There, my long warning and here's my final shorter one. Avoid this.


This is so bad it isn't even funny. Their are some films that are so bad it's funny, but this is not one of those films. I really don't understand films like this and how they are even made! I hated every part of this embarrassing flick. I hate that all these sci-fi channel flicks are continuing to be made and people all hate them. Even the god awful blood effects are less than a mediocre video-game these days! It is truly awful in every respect. The pathetic acting, the story is non-existence, the idiot actors that dance around and try to act are just plain embarrassing! Financially I just don't have a clue what is trying to be accomplished by doing all these (Hell I won't even call it a B-movie because that would be a compliment) D movies in the first place! I feel sorry most of all for the lead actor Brad Johnson. It always makes me wonder how actors end up working for such crummy fare after working with, not just working, but being one of the main stars of a Steven Spielberg picture! (He starred alongside Richard Dreyfuss, Holly Hunter, and John Goodman in Spielberg's "Always.") I just can't understand how it happens that an even decent actor would attach his name to this pathetic attempt of a film! I can see the pitch,"Alright Brad want to be in a movie about a giant Crocodile, but the script is not really there, the effects are going to be laughable, and everyone involved are has beens. So want to do it?" Just for god's sake do not dare waste your time w/ this garbage or you will be sorry. Pointless, Pointless, Pointless is all I can say about this "MOVIE." I use that term extremely loosely.


I love debate shows, the original Crossfire remains the best, this one is like crossfire on crack, before they put Crossfire on crack and killed the show.

This isn't a royal PBS debate show, this is political entertainment, which gets to me after a bit. They really don't take the time to get to the issue and only are interested in letting the guest spout off to each other. But, unfortunately that's the way "news" is these days.

I'm very Conservative, but Hannity gets to me. I guess it's his debating style. "What about President Clinton?" he always spouts off regardless of what the issue is. I do agree the debates a better when someone else is hosting the "Colmes" spot.

But I'm perplexed, and extremely amused, by the hate filled comments here. Claiming because a show has a rightward tilt somehow it is an indication of a Neo-Nazi take over of America. You can say Colmes is weak, or Hannity is a blowhard, but wishing Hannity death, or blaming this show for "brainwashing" America is intellectually weak.

BTW: Bring back Crossfire CNN!


Reading the comments here is rather funny. They seem to be commenting on whether they love or hate Sean Hannity's views or whether or not they think that Fox News is run by a bunch of neocon hacks trying to take over the world. I don't think this is the place that should be discussed. So, I think I'll go out on a limb and actually comment on the show itself.

This show is alright, most of the time. It gets old quick sometimes though, as there's Sean and Alan and then the respective conservative and liberal guests all going off at once yelling at each other like a bunch of third graders. That's really annoying and not very conducive to an intelligent discussion.

On the right side, Sean Hannity tends to nitpick about whether or not guests literally answer his question in a "yes or no" when he could be talking about the actual issues. He comes across as a blow-hard sometimes and usually will unfailingly stand by the "mainstream" Republican side of an issue.

On the left side, Alan Colmes tends to go off topic with his questions. Particularly when conservatives are alleging Democrats are wrong on an issue, Alan seems to go off and talk about how some Republican also supports whatever the issue is.

All in all though, the debate can be quite interesting sometimes as they often have relevant guests discussing relevant issues, but all too often they end up in shouting matches that aren't exactly conducive to an intelligent discussion. Sort of like the comments here, a bunch of irrational ideologues missing the point and barking their respective at each other.


Often comical and controversial, always entertaining and informative, Sean Hannity, an articulate American patriot, battles the promoters of a socialist America, ie. the Liberals. He does so with respect, tact, and intellectual logical proofs. He debunks common liberal myths and fallacies injected into the veins of Americans via mainstream media biases. The current liberal media slants the truth and propagates casuistries which promote their liberal political agenda. He debates, alongside his liberal sidekick Allan Colmes, who always argues with conservative guests. The show normally takes a controversial issue or comment in the news and invites guests usually experts, eg. politicians, authors and the like, to discuss and debate it. Sometimes they have multiple guests who share their insight on the issues. Hannity has a policy that if you can't answer his very specific question with a very concise yes or no answer, you're not ready to honestly and openly debate an issue. A person must be ready to disclose his or her beliefs on the relevant issues. Hannity has his own nationally syndicated radio show airing weekdays 3:00 to 6:00pm Eastern time.


Hannity and Colmes has been a staple of my news intake for several years now. I find their debates interesting and their guests even more interesting.

The large amount of viewers garnered by most Fox News prime-time shows allows for some interesting guests to appear on the show, from both sides of the aisle. But Hannity and Colmes takes the cake, numerous appearances by people like Ann Coulter or Al Sharpton can be seen, along with the intelligent debate from the neo-conservative Sean Hannity and the Liberal-minded Alan Colmes.

If you want the news in rapid-fire fashion, this show is not for you. If you want to understand the news as both sides see it, then I highly recommend it.


Sean Hannity is finally a voice of reason on the airwaves. Alan Colmes is somewhat ineffectual as a foil for Sean Hannity, primarily because his views are emotionally based, and cannot stand against vile things like Reason, and Cause and Effect.

There is a cry to censure this show, as neither left leaning guests like Al Sharpton, Charles Rangel and the others, nor Alan Colmes can back up their position with rational thought. This is unfortunate.

For a long time, I wanted a stronger proponent from the left, but after considering all of them, the left's best attack is attacking the person rather than the thought, and there is no one capable of entering the realm of ideas from the left, and presenting a cogent argument of fact.

People wanting Fox taken off of the air see a debate as a communist against a socialist being the only debates we should be having, and they tend to resort to Stalinist Tactics and scream "Put Sean in the Gulag"


The launching of an All- News Cable Channel, designed to operate 24-7 calls for plenty of current opinion/interview programing to go along with the hourly or half-hourly News Report. Confusing? Let us try to reason together and examine this issue closer. When is it "News Reporting" and when do we have "News & Commentery"? In order to examine these questions, Let Us Now First Return To Those Eearly Days Of Yesteryear, When..........

Yeah, the year was 1964. Little 18 year old punk Jack Ryan had just been released from High School. It was St. Rita High School here on Chicago's Southside that certified this kid with a real Diploma. What to do next? Never having given any thought to future plans and never or higher education. So, naturally, it was to the City College of Chicago, Woodrow Wilson Branch, that I matriculated. So now, education with members of the opposite sex! And there was no rules making attendance compulsory.

It was at this time that a true education was coming my way. We had always been told that this is America and we have a God Given Right to Speak, Write, Believe, Vote and Worship in whatever way we choose, as long as we do no harm to our neighbor in the process. Well, I forgot that this was heavily Democratic Chicago, Cook County. The "Liberals" were out in force, pledging to 'help the down-trodden' minorities and bring them freedom and equality. (Notice the patronizing, elitist down talking? It's the tone they used and feel today, even.) Well, one October day that Election Year, we had some substitute for our instructor in English 101. Our regular guy, Mr. "M" was out, so this Lady Teacher brought in some kind of half-fast mimeographed "quiz" paper for us to take as a "study aid." The "Quiz" contained a series of sentences that had some grammatical errors or didn't. The "Student" would select his or hers own proper choice. (Mind you, this BS was being used in a College Level Class!) The thing that reminded me most of our discussion of HANNITY & COLMES is one of the asinine sentences. It read just about lika thisa: "The Tribune's Editorials are Biased."(all the quiz sentences were 'relevant to the '64 Presidential Election Campaign.) We were indeed in this "Peoples' Republic of Chicago" and I had been taught that you don't voice opinions contrary to the (Cook County Democrat)Party Line. But this silly, obviously politically charged slur on the Chicago Tribune's traditional Republican endorsements.

But years later it dawned on me, (duh!) ALL EDITORIALS ARE BIASED! By their very natured, they all ready had a certain point of view on whatever subject. This is separate from the News Reporting, which involves the Who, What, How, Where and When of any incident being reported. It's when somebody puts the Why into the story that we have our news "Editorialized", hence slanted, spun or otherwise prostituted for one's political agenda.

FOX NEWS CHANNEL boasts the slogan, "We Report, You Decide." As far as we can tell, they do stick to the spirit and letter of their platitude. They do keep the news separate from the Analysis/Commentery programming. The two are like the News and the Op Ed Page in a daily paper.

HANNITY & COLMES provides a sterling example of a News/Current Events Commentery program can and does work. Sean Hannity is the Resident Conservative & Alan Colmes is the House Liberal. Their time in questioning a guest is meticulously divided between the two. They constantly rib each other and each others candidates. But they remain civil to all.

Time was when our Elected Officials in Government at all levels left the disagreements on the floors of their respective offices or legislative chambers. Outside the Business of the Hallowed Halls, men from both parties, from the Left or the Right, all socialized together. John F. Kennedy and Barry Goldwater were very close personally as well as on the party scene. Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan often did some elbow bending at a certain Alexandria Irish Pub.

With the old line "Big 3" networks News Departments now having shown to be less than honest, the whole nation has turned to what has come to be called "alternate" news sources. With the internet, the "Blogosphere" and outlets like FOX NEWS, with the likes of HANNITY & COLMES, have stepped in to fill the void left vacated by the former all-powerful.

It can all be summed up with the old, oft quoted proverb: "I May Not Agree with what You Say, But I Will Fight to my Death to Defend Your Right To Say It!"


Colmes is weak - not because he's liberal, but because he's just weak. We all know that Hannity is aggressive and that's all I'll say about him.

I've been thinking that liberals seem indecisive and waffly because they are willing to listen to reason and a good argument where the conservatives think that they know everything and that nothing ever changes. This "balance" leaves liberals looking vulnerable. Heck, I wish that I could be that narrow-minded and sure. Trouble is that I can't. I guess I'm one of Coulter's weak-wristed commies.

What bugs me more than anything is the way that Fox News masquerades as news when it's really mainly opinion and commentary with a heavy (clumsy, actually) right-handed spin. I really doubt that the producers at CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, ABC, CBS and NBC meet every morning and tell their staffs to "lean left" and attack any and all conservatives at every opportunity. I don't think that they are trying to impeach the entire Bush/GOP government (they do have the majority across the board) any more or less than they reported on the Clinton administration with all of it's foibles. It's NEWS, people - not politics. Fox is trying to remake news into politics. Let's hope that they fail.


"Hannity and Colmes" a news program that most people dislike, but I disagree with them I like it because it presents both sides of the story. Really at many times the program can seem like a debate style when both the host conservative(Hannity) and liberal(Colmes) ask the guests the questions. Though many times plenty of guests are conservative like Dick Morris, Ann Coulter and other republicans still the interviews are balanced out when liberal host Alan Colmes ask them the tough questions and he tries to engage them into debate. While Sean Hannity I respect because he doesn't hide anything he makes no bones about it he's a flat out right wing republican! And really Sean is tough I really believe he loves his country and fights against terrorism and the secular causes as he really gets fired up and talks tough to guests especially liberals. Really Sean's honest he pulls no punches back! This program is really good you get to hear both sides of the liberal and conservative stories it's very close to a debate style program.


This show is as vile as it gets. Colmes is very weak and was a virtual unknown until, he "sold out" to become Hannity's whipping boy. No self respecting politician of any stripe would appear on Fox; the voice of the growing neo-fascist movement in this country. For the scoop on Hannity and Colmes and Fox and the now almost totally right-wing media in this country; see "Orwell Rolls in his Grave" and "OutFoxed" Rupert Murcoch's War on Journalism. Jefferson said "Eternal vigilance is the price of Democracy". The founding fathers never envisioned the event of the entire communications media and the press falling into the hands of the rich and powerful few. There are no checks and balances for this, as the right wing media continues to stifle true dissent and replace it with faux debate forums such as this. This show is professional wrestling, bull fighting, the Harlem Globetrotters vs. Washington. It ain't news, and the sad sacks it trots out to represent the opposition are not true competitors. Give us Buckley vs. Vidal if you want a real heavyweight title bout. I know, Bill Buckley, hardly seems fair, but despite his uncontrollable twitching he is the best they've got and perhaps the best mind of 8th century.


First of all, Sean Hannity has to be the biggest right-wing gas-bag I've ever heard. If you're a Liberal you might as well be a leper in his eyes. It's either his way or no way. Alan Colmes is much more respectful to the guests even if they're conservative. Hannity needs to get some manners and keep his mouth shut. I'm surprised the show has lasted as long as it has. What makes me laugh is he thinks George W. Bush is the greatest President ever, as least thats the way he acts. Hopefully in '08 we get a Democrat back in the White House so I can watch Sean Hannity cry and whine every night about not having a Conservative Republican in the White House.


Some movies are just meant to be a great deal of fun, and this is one of them. What a delight - I'd never heard of it but stumbled on it on IFC and adored it. The sweetness and good-natured aspects of the film are part of the charm, as is the dead-on dialogue, situations and even camera angles/cinematography. For people who try and find reasons why this guy exists or why women would date him, you're missing the point of the movie. The Marx Brothers ending (no spoiler really), and the short Egyptian tomb sequence show the care that was taken with getting all the 1920's aspects down perfectly (and don't forget the musical numbers, when people would break into song in any sort of film back then -well, the talkies at least). Going incognito as Harold Lloyd? too funny - don't pass this one by when it shows up next time!


I chanced to see this on a Blockbuster shelf and in the dearth of anything else worth seeing, decided to take a chance. How glad I am! This is the funniest movie I've seen in years. In spite of being the original tightwad, I've ordered the DVD and have even sent one to my son whose humor runs in the same crooked gully as mine. The gimmick of a living anachronism is a powerful one indeed but to someone like myself who was raised on reporter movies of the 20s, who saw Cagney, Raft and Powell play these kinds of roles, using the same slang and expressions, now so out of date, I literally howled with delight. The acting is wonderful. As one reviewer here noted, everyone seemed to be having a delightful time. The film is just great, from the scratchy opening credits to the final scenes. Also, if you get the DVD, be sure and check out the reference section and scene set-up after the film is over. They are just delightful. Plot? What plot? The story is an eternal one: Virtuous young man in the face of chaos struggles to maintain the fabric of order in a basically disorderly universe while falling in love and being too virtuously shy to declare his feelings to the girl he loves, beating up bad guys and defending the honor of helpless young women and, revealing to the world the archvillain at the root of the evil in the empire. And, he does it all without getting dirty, mussed or messed up and losing sight of his goal. Wow. Get this. See it. Share it. It's just too damn good to miss. You'll be glad you did, kiddo.


I've always been fascinated by the way the characters in old movies talk, with their lightning-fast wits and one-liners. So the idea of a man stuck in the 20's and speaking like those characters sounded intriguing to me. And I was impressed. Gibson Frazier perfectly inhabits his fish-out-of-water character, not missing a single beat. I can tell him and the co-writer/director did much research prior to making this movie. There are moments, like the climactic scene, which pay homage to the old slapstick farces.

"Man of the Century" is funny, original and bursting with imagination. It's an independent gem. And at only about 78 minutes, it's short and sweet. Those who are unfamiliar with old movies may not be as amused, but those who are familiar should have a ball.

My score: 7 (out of 10)


Caught this on cable quite by accident-- the idea behind it seemed really cute, and I decided to give it 10 minutes, to at least see how long it took for the filmmakers to screw it up.

Surprisingly, it held my attention for the entire film. The gimmick never got old; just when it seemed in danger of doing so, something new would happen to keep it fresh. A new character here, a plot twist there. Good, thoughtful filmmaking... and I really dug the 1920's slang. I wish I could remember more of it. Why DID we stop talking like this, anyway?

Good acting, some clever writing and a smartly-plotted story. The ending was a little cheesy, I thought, as I wanted to know the fates of the characters beyond the newspaper-story driven plot. But considering the source material, it really ended the only way it could have. So it's an amusing distraction for 90 minutes or so. And kind of educational, too. Banana Oil!


A newspaperman (Johnny Twennies) living in the 90's with a complete 20's personality and lifestyle - fedora, manual typewriter, the Charleston, the works. It's a great idea for a movie and it couldn't have been done better.

Johnny doesn't miss a cliche, but never uses the same one twice. You'll find yourself anticipating his reactions to the harsher '90s world as the movie goes along, you'll often guess right - but that makes the movie just that much more fun.

Lots of fun when Johnny is called on to save the same damsel in distress (named Virginia, natch) on three different occasions. She responds with appropriate fluttering eyelids each time.

His reaction to independent women, openly gay men, and the general '90s milieu is delightful. He remains happily oblivious.

Don't worry, the movie never takes itself seriously. Nobody preaches about the evil of the present, or the shallowness of the past. You end up with a warm feeling for all the characters, even the bad guys. This was one of those rare movies where you can actually feel that the performers are thoroughly enjoying their characters. The film makers make sure you know that with a delightfully offbeat ending.


If Harold Lloyd had lived in 1999 and Woody Allen starred him in a new black and white film set in MANHATTAN, well this would be it. The idea for this film is very funny and it does deliver, musical numbers and all....there is even a Shanghai Lil style detour. It could have easily been more of a musical and easily have tossed in more episodes of Johnny Twennies wrangling modern mannerisms. Gibson Frasier is a real silent movie or Vitaphone hero and the IT girl sensibilities of 'his girl' works. It is only 77 minutes and I actually wanted more. As Johnny says in one very funny toss away line........RATS! The soundtrack which I also have at home as a Saturday morning pick-me-up is cute and accurate for the feel of the film.


Just want to get one point across: Watching this movie won't be one of those experiences were you waste a couple hours of your time, and come away with nothing for it.

Some of the posters have brought up that the movie may have some improbable quirks, etc. The beauty of this movie is that is original and entertaining. Its not deep, exciting, or pompous; but its funny and completely different than the formulaic junk being churned out right now.

If you do watch it, you'll feel you have to at least tell someone about it. That's also unusual.


This movie is nothing like I expected. It was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time. The acting of Gibson Frazier is wonderful. It was as if they picked him up right out of the 20s and dropped him modern day times. It really shows the difference of then and now. I loved all the references to the 20s and dialogue. If you don't really know a lot about the 20s, or films from that time, you won't get a lot of the humor. There is simple humor, such as the "one lump or two" bit or the way he holds the gun when you takes it from the "henchmen". There is also some racial humor in it as well. Not bad I'd say, but funny. The plot you can see unfold rather quick. But that's how most movies from that time took place. Well, I take that back, at the least the majority of movies I've seen from the past usually don't take a lot of thinking to figure out. Overall, I'd recommend this movie to anyone, young or old. If anything, just watch it for his rants in 1920s dialogue. Simply brilliant!


This is a great farcical, modern day story. When watching this film I was reminded of the Marx Brothers, some of the early Crosby and Hope films and of course film noir. It also has some of the elements of stage drama a la Moliere. The main character, Johnny Twennies, is indeed the hero and is uniquely performed by Gibson Frazier in a throwback to Bogart,Jimmy Stewart and a dash of Groucho Marx.That is the only way to describe this unusual character.The music in the film is great and is reminiscent of some of Woody Allens films.They are from the jazz age and are legitimized by the appearances Lester Lanin and Bobby Short. Bobby Short is sadly no longer with us having passed away just recently, but performs at the end of this film in its final scene.Mr.Short has a bit role in the film but is worth seeing. I saw this film in 2001 on cable but did not catch the title at the time. Last year a friend remarked that he had seen a weird and quirky film with a character named Johnny Twennies and knew the title. I had to have the film and rented it several times. Yesterday, after hearing of Bobby Short's death, I wandered into a local video/music store and perused the DVDs and there it was, up front and I purchased it. If you need to see something that is truly unique, albeit with 'classic' elements telling and showing the story, Man of the Century is it.


I spotted the DVD version of this film on the shelf of a local Blockbuster video recently, and being partial to both borderline fantasy flicks and Jazz-Age period films ("Road to Perdition" and "Chicago"), I rented it, utterly on a whim.

And what a whim! Granted, the script is a little thin, but if you can watch this with an open mind and heart (and especially if you're a fan of old movies), you will find yourself pleased and delighted. This is at one in the same time a gleeful homage to the silent films and early talkies of the 1920s and '30s and a gentle satire of modern life. Gibson Frazier as the hero, glib but honest New York newspaperman Johnny Twennies, deftly revitalizes the all-but forgotten Jazz-Age cinematic stock character 'the heroic reporter', bringing charm and joy to the bleakness of the 1990s which he finds himself thrust into. Like the chronologically stranded 19th century hero of "Kate and Leopold", he manages to manuever the hazards of modern life, always coming out on top: saving the day, chivalrously helping damsels in distress, and, true to the Jazz-Age convention, belting out a few period tunes along the way.

A strand of a plot exists, but the film is basically an 80 minute character sketch. Set aside any expectation of any major epiphanies...but there again, one can consider Johnny as the "noble savage" in reverse. Almost everyone around him is seen as crabby and foul-mouthed, whereas Johnny is perpetually cheerful, resorting to colorful 1920s slang instead of cussing the air blue, and using his keen wits rather than his fists to get out of a dangerous situation. Anyone disillusioned with the crassness of violent, untidy, monosyllabic movie heroes will find this live wire in a three-piece suit and fedora a welcome breath of fresh air. Ladies, take note: If you're looking for a guy who's a gentle man as well as a gentleman, once you've watched this film, you'll find yourself wishing you could find your own "Man of the Century".


Filmed in glorious black and white, MAN OF THE CENTURY (MotC) is a funny, charming spoof of and tribute to the films of the 1920s and '30s, in which our Roaring Twenties hero, good-natured joe Johnny Twennies (stage actor Gibson Frazier in a chipper, endearing performance. He also co-wrote and co-produced this daft little gem with Adam Abraham) just happens to be living in late 1990s Manhattan. Zany fish-out-of-water hijinks, adventures (Johnny's a newspaper reporter covering a hot crime-and-corruption story, don'cha know), and snappy musical numbers ensue. MotC is a short one-joke movie (a little under 80 minutes), but the joke is put across delightfully, often reminding me of early Woody Allen movies (including the style of the end credits). The darndest people turn up in the cast, too, such as Frank Gorshin, Anne Jackson (billed as Madame du Froid, for some reason), PRODUCERS Tony-winner Gary Beach, Susan Egan (our household has loved Egan and her brightly sultry voice since we heard her cartoon voice work in Disney's HERCULES, among others), bandleader Lester Lanin, and Bobby Short, the swankiest saloon singer The Big Apple ever saw (yes, he's involved in at least one of the musical numbers :-)). There's even a sequence paying homage to the Expressionism style of film-making. I've seen MotC on the IFC Channel, but it's also available from Netflix, so I highly recommend you renting or even buying it. This flicker's tops, and that's no banana oil! :-)


"Nostalgia" is very often a catchphrase that means "how we wish things had been." That goes for everybody, whether or not you actually lived in the times you're looking back on -- and this is a fact that seems very clear to the makers of MAN OF THE CENTURY. It's a smart film that includes all the beats of both modern independent romantic comedies and classic films, but it never tries to convince you that the world of Johnny Twennies is anything like the real world... in the 1920s or the 1990s. Instead, it's a world of fantasy pretending to be the real world, with just a thin layer of verisimilitude on top of the proverbial cake. Everyone is perfect, from the "realistic" gangsters to Frank Gorshin's hilarious cameo, but the clear best in show is Gibson Frazier. Frazier is note-perfect as Johnny, and he commands the screen from start to finish with both his own solid performance and high charisma and shrewd tributes to Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton. This movie's a winner, and I for one would love to see more work from Frazier on the movie screen.


This movie not only combines the humor of a man who is mentally trapped in the 1920's, and a modern day society of the 1990's, but the movie itself is fashioned to portray a film made in the 1920's. Everything about it is completely unique, and the scenes come off as something someone in Johnny Twennies' day would concoct. I think this film is a milestone in the history of film-making. The directing was fantastic, and the cast and lines spoken, and feelings portrayed, all come together in a very clean, artistic, and magnificently made finished product. I highly recommend this film to anyone, and believe that even the least-likely candidate would appreciate it's glory.


By jingo, this is just one of the best things to come down the pike since the motorcar! A brilliantly comic work, capturing the essence of a simpler time and cleverly overlaying it on the present. It's the bees knees, I tell you! Not to be missed!


i just saw this as part of a slamdance overview (it played at slamdance last year) and i was delighted. this is a clever, well made film. the picture follows johnny twennies, a young man with all the style and character of newspaper reporters from early movies, only he's living in the present day. his "old fashioned" manners and morals confuse his modern counterparts and occasionally creep in and take control of the film. i highly recommend this show for all.

there is a little swearing in the film, which somehow warranted an 'r' rating even though there is much less swearing and less objectionable material than most 'pg-13' flicks (if you let your kids watch pg-13, let 'em watch this.)


It is a joy to see a movie that has no pretentions of being anything other than just a movie. It is pure entertainment, and it is pure joy. To be able to sit back and enjoy this movie is one of life's pure joys. If only some more movies were like this, the other drivel out there would be so much more bearable (who in Hollywood actually thought THE HAUNTING was good?). If Gibson Frazier does not become a star, then something is wrong. His performance as Johnny Twennies steals the show from an otherwise likable cast --including Dwight Ewell (CHASING AMY), Frank Gorshin (TV's BATMAN), Susan Egan (HERCULES), Cara Buono (THE COWBOY WAY), David Margulies (GHOSTBUSTERS), and Anthony Rapp (SCHOOL TIES)-- with a dapper smile and a tip of the hat.

Critics will tell you that the movie is slight. And guess what? It is, and it revels in being just so. But it does what movies were always meant to do... not teach you some social more, but transport us for a little bit of time, from our own dreary lives to some place sunnier, funnier. In other words, the film does nothing but entertain.

Unfortunately the films' studio, Fine Line Features, is not giving this picture the full-press coverage that it really deserves, so you will have to look hard to find it in the theaters. An easier way is simply to click on theater listings at "www.manofthecentury.com".


Coming across like the big six, The Man of the Century left me grungy for a better day. The writing and direction hit on all sixes. The music was dandy. And when Johnnie and Samantha danced the Charleston beautifully, I was hooked like a mackerel on joy juice.

The smiles were strong, the music keen, and the photography in stellar black-and-white. The actors all played it straight, which made the film work perfectly.

Where did Adam Abraham, the director, go? He only made a few films, won a slew of awards for this one, and then nada!

The next time this film is on IFC, sit your keester down, give it five, and you will see what a keen flicker it really is. It simply slayed me!


One of those films that's worth seeing if for no other reason than it's uniqueness.

It's a one-joke movie, but the joke is great and it has legs. As I watched this movie, I kept thinking that it would get repetitive and boring at any minute, but it never did.

Shades of "Purple Rose of Cairo" -but with a much better screenplay (sorry,

Woody.)

The only downfall is that there are too many ostentatious literary references - Shakespeare, Kafka, etc You HAVE read your Kafka, right? -and similarly,

there seems to be a lot of homages to the movies from the 20's, but many of

them likely don't work if you haven't seen those old movies.

still, this is a totally enjoyable flick. i was very surprised, given the premiss. -And Cara Buono is delightful. I doubt any other actrss could have done that role quite as well.


What a delightful film - I finally got to see "Man of the Century" on Cable IFC and simply tickled by Gibson Frazier's portrayal of Johnny. Oh yes, he's 'dead on'. He co-wrote the screenplay with director Adam Abraham and it's only natural he played the lead role Johnny Twennies. "Man of the Century" 1999 is Abraham and Frazier's debut feature film. It is in black and white - what a stroke of genius of a decision. The prologue is a brief segment shot like a silent film - I just watched with bemusement. I like it already. Worry not, once Johnny opens his mouth, he couldn't stop! He'd even break into songs as the occasion arises.

Johnny is a newspaper man in New York City in the 90's with a mindset of the 20's era - he walks, talks, interacts, reacts as if he's in the (roaring) '20s, immersed in songs of Irvin Berlin, Gershwin and Gershwin. There is action alright - threatening gangsters, romantic assumptions, comedy of errors Of course all's well that ends well like everything 20's, but how? Check out the film! It's a breezy enjoyable 77 mins.

Abraham and Frazier are also the film's producers and music producers, with many a-family members and friends included as part of the crew. Soundtrack contains: Look for the Silver Lining (Kern and DeSylva), Diga Diga Do (McHugh and Fields), Dancing in the Dark (Schwartz and Dietz), You were meant for me (Brown and Freed). The supporting cast is just as wonderfully talented: Cara Buono as Virginia, Susan Egan as Samantha, Anthony Rapp as Timmy. Noticed Bobby Short is in there along with jazzy swinging tunes. Ann Jackson is Madam Du Froid, Johnny's Mom.

If you like director and choreographer Rob Marshall's musical "Chicago" (with Zellweger, Gere, Zeta Jones, Reilly, Latifah), also give "Man of the Century" a chance. Smaller budget (shot in 23-days in NYC), but an endearing and thoroughly entertaining film! "Believe you me, it's quite the berries!"


I had never heard of this before until I saw this on Encore late at night when I was hoping for something to fall to sleep to. It didn't work. This light hearted fast moving delight of a film kept my attention diverted, and instead of Morpheus setting in I wound up energized. Filmed in black and white, just as were so many of the movies that this film continually delivered visual echoes of throughout the length of the whole movie.

The musical score is great, and the snappy roaring twenties patter dialog of Johnny Twennies alone make this a film worth buying on DVD - especially if you're a fan of old movies.


I recently watched this movie on cable. I don't understand why there wasn't a sequel. If you don't find this movie hilarious, there's nothing wrong with the movie, there's something wrong with you. I wish I could find the screenplay. I especially love the 30's movie dialog from Johnny. A co-worker and I often get into a similar dialog during work, ad libbing and reciting classic old movie lines. I especially love the ending. It was classic. I'm going to add the movie to my collection. Being filmed in black and white was quite a touch. The only thing missing was the bad sound and film blemishes. I don't recall the film release. If it didn't sell well, I don't know why. It should have been a surprise hit. I think this would make a great TV show. There's no end to the possibilities in a weekly sit-com.


1920's man snacks the 90's world in the face with great throw back one-liners and style. I found the premise of this movie very comical. It offers a mix of the old black and white films style meshed against modern day morality. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Johnny Tweenies interact with modern day thugs. How would Jimmy Cagne fair in modern day gangster land? This movie,in my humble opinion, would most likely gain acceptance with an older crowd, such as early baby boomers, like myself, in that we remember the great black and white films where special effects were absent and acting was paramount. A bit wacky, but still a nice little throwback. Relax and have fun with this movie.


This is a delightful movie. The concept, REALISTICALLY speaking, is ridiculous. Of course it is!

So trying to rationalize how Johnny could have met up with Samantha and gotten her to fall in love with him, or how Johnny and his mother could exist in a little "bubble" of the 1920s is counterproductive. Take this film without questioning it too deeply... suspend your disbelief.

If you can manage that, you will discover this to be a charming little film that is well worth watching.

The period language, dancing and music were a real treat.


If this movie ever plays at your local art house... or you happen to find a screening copy on video -- do yourself a big favor and check it out.

In this day and age when most young directors get their first shot, they make some wannabe post-Tarantino gangsta film. But the filmmakers here decided to take their shot and create a celluloid love letter to a bygone era. Their vision is much like the main character of Johnny Twennies, a man literally out of time with the modern world. But like the movie, Johnny has more style and charm than anything that came out of the 90's. The homages to Harold Lloyd, the Marx Brothers and black and white film noir in general are simply brilliant.

This is the kind of charming movie that Woody Allen USED to make. Too bad "Man of the Century" isn't more widely available. Whoever owns the video rights to this is sitting on a gem.


I recently saw this movie in at a "Indie-film Theater" that only showed 3 movies, "The Limey", "Princess Mononoke"(Saw it, loved it!), and "Man of the Century". Since I had already seen "Mononoke", I decided to see what Harry Knowles called "Perfect". I sat through it with only 3 other people besides me in the theater. I liked it! I don't know yet if I loved it, but I definetely liked it alot. It was a cheery, happy, and witty film. There wasn't a moment when I wasn't smiling in this film. It was very good.

I highly reccomend it for a smile time.


Before extolling on the virtues and mixed offerings of Man of the Century, I must make a confession: I will watch ANYTHING to see Susan Egan.

With that much said, I must admit that I was surprised, given the concept, at how entertaining this movie was. The opening of the film is probably its best feature, with a very clever "silent film" feel which I was sad to see not continued at points through the flick. Also, it must be admitted that the "musical numbers" come out of nowhere and are a little embarrassing. I was charmed to the hilt by the acting of Gibson Frazier (and, of course.....Susan), and the twenties-speak is phenomenal. I had to try it on many people before I lost my nerve, with some rather hilarious results.

But the ending does sneak up on one rather fast and the pieces of the puzzle are too simple, but this is a 20's film parody, after all. Also there is a preoccupation in the dialogue with unnecessary cuss words. I'm not one to be offended by language, but this was really a defeating level of linguistic gravity in otherwise fun situations.

In all, Man of the Century was a fun and frank commentary on post-modernity, which needed a little more crafting to appeal to mainstream viewers. But then, this could never have been a popular film. The world is too fragile to take criticism these days.


This film, shot in black and white, takes you back to the films of yesteryear. Johnny is an island of innocence in a modern sea of debauchery. Undaunted and unflinching, Johnny captures the bad guy and gets the girl. I could almost say that's a spoiler, but the nature of this film makes it quite enjoyable no matter if you know the ending or not! Fun and frivolous, this film deserves your attention. I caught it quite by chance on IFC and am happier for it. Don't miss it, this is good stuff.


I just finished watching "Man of The Century" for the second time on the IFC channel. I just love this movie. Gibson Frazier is hilarious as is the rest of the cast. What a wonderful idea this movie was. I hope to see Gibson Frazier in more films in the future. I like his style.


-And failed to deliver. Where Purple Rose of Cairo tried to recreate an RKO-ish romantic comedy and fails miserably, this film successfully re-creates the appropriate banter and look - And melds it into 1999.

Oblivious to the 90's world around him, "Johnny Twennies" lives de-facto as if he were smack in the middle of a Frank Capra film. Woody Allen failed to deliver the proper language in his attempt, succeeding only in capturing the imagery: This attempt by Adam Abraham and Gibson Frazier delivers the correct imagery, but also the correct verbiage.

Gibson Frazier as Johnny Twennies is a Cary-Grantish image- A Columnist that lives in a bubble of 1928, confounding those around him, and eventually bringing down crime boss "Mr. Pitt" with buffoonery and comedy.

Interjected into Twennie's rovings are bits of 20's Jazz, some of it written by Abraham and Frazier and quite authentic.

A highly enjoyable jaunt and worth viewing at least twice- A perfect period piece, that does not require period sets, cars, or costume- Except for what Twennies carries with him,