This movie is SO unbelievably poor! I have lost faith in the Human Race if this film gets a rating of over 5! I wont put any spoilers... but to be honest it would make no difference: We have the token villain who cares about treasure more than anything. His trigger-happy stooge. The Stereotypical hero, who didn't have a clue about whats going on... his love interest who is there for no other reason, and of course who could forget the Law enforcement official who believes nothing told him... a la every other creature Feature... ever.

The "Plot" follows the group searching for an ancient Indian burial ground... But it is protected... dun dun dun.

Awful Dialogue, Acting, Inept structure and Poor effects... as well as an ending that is so pointless and tacked on that it made the previous 90 minutes seem ever more pointless. Avoid at all costs... in fact burn any copies found... on no accounts waste one and a half hours of your life on this thing!

0 out of 10!


i gave it two star because i actually couldn t wait to see what bad acting would come next. or what corny effects would come next.

The acting was brutal and the plot so unbelievable I think the actors couldn t wait to finish shooting this movie and it showed on screen

Richard Hatch seemed out of place in the woods as opposed to his rocket ships anyway.

The props were poor and i have made better cg effects on my old 486

It makes you wonder what the people were thinking the whole time they made this film. Maybe this will be a future cult film ....who knows,

The ending brought you to your knees as well because you couldn't get up to actually watch the credits.


I don't have to say much. Everything is already told by the other users. All i have to say is that this "movie" gave me those rare moments in life when you literally stay with your mouth open. Especially at its ending. It was THAT bad. And thankfully and i didn't watch it from the beginning. I put 2 stars instead of 1 just because i didn't change the channel and made me stay and watch how bad a movie can be. The acting was laughable, the cgi effects are ridiculous (i mean, why didn't just use animatronics or something cheaper if they didn't have money? it would be more real than this!). I can't believe that people actually put money on this (no matter how low the amount), there are much better and more "professional" movies on youtube.


This movie has many flaws, but compared to ALIEN 3000 or UNSEEN EVIL 2 it's bloody Oscar material. The acting seemed force, despite the fact of Tim Thomerson of DOLLMAN fame. But there isn't all bad news, the creature design and the CGI effects are very well done for a low budget movie, if you ask me RICHARD HATCH is a major sell out, first this then the remake of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA which true fans will say is Galactica in name alone. But that's a different story. He just can't do the villain role. Richard's villain is forced and labored. There are a few things other the creature effects. An alien experiment dumped on the Earth in a cave makes sense and is pretty cool. But I give it...7 STARS.


I don't think there is any kind of constructive criticism I could offer to a movie who's star actor is Tim Thomerson (not that I don't like him, I'm fond of his rather over-looked talents.) Everyone else has pretty much covered what a waste of a movie this is, I'll just have to add that save for Tim Thomerson, the acting is downright horrible!!! Not to mention a weak plot, undeveloped characters and just plain bad production. I think the 10 min. beginning sequence and eye-sore CGI effects sucked up most of this movie's budget and that left the production of this movie to be slapped together with whoever and whatever they could find.

It's sad when rabid horror-movie fans give up on a movie and hope for sex on screen to save it. Potential as MST3K fodder is the best light this movie will ever see...... 1/2

P.S. However did this movie even get the rating is has?!!! 18% voted a 10 as of this date?!! May all who positively view this movie disintegrate under the laws of artistic ability!!!!!!!


Finally Disney has created an animation that isn't sugar-sweet!

What usually bugs me about Disney's films is the constant bursting-into-song sequences that clog up the stories, and the comic side-kicks that keep making bad jokes. No such thing in Dinosaur! It's a serious movie that is very sad and partially cruel: a wonderful tale of courage and survival, told with respect for the audience, with unpresidented animations. The dionsaurs merge seemlessly into the real surroundings, and they move and look absolutely real. Finally, computer animations have reached the stage where it doesn't look animated anymore!

I was also very touched by Aladar's attempts to save the old dinos, and although I'm a grown-up, I jumped in my seat when the carnotaurs emerged. There was violence in this film: cruel battles between carnivores and herbivores. And surging through it all there is a feeling of sadness and loss, for a world that is about to fade away into the pages of history.

Thus, it's not for the smallest children, but it's a great story that treats it's audience with respect and pays homage to that great lost Earth that was buried in the dust millions of years ago.

9/10


This was yet another example, when it came out in 2000, of the latest strides being made in animation, computer-or-otherwise. At the time, I thought to myself, "Man, this just gets better and better all the time." Six years later, I am still saying that but with newer animated efforts.

Some of the scenes in here look so real you wouldn't know they were drawings. The colors are particularly good in the opening minutes. They are just stunning at times.

The story is pretty interesting, too. It's not great, but not boring, either, and not too kid-oriented. Adults can enjoy this. In fact, I was surprised at the amount of violence. That, and some of the jokes actually make this more for adults than kids in many spots.

I recommend the movie for its story and innovative techniques.


This movie was shear pleasure to watch. The movie looks visually absolutely stunning and the animation is done nicely. It's true eye-candy and entertaining as well.

The movie has a typical adventurous story and feeling and is at times spectacular as well. Especially the beginning is impressively spectacular. There are some nicely done action sequences that are at times tense as well. My only true complaint of the movie are the characters. There isn't really any character development in the movie and we never really get to know the character or care much about them, this is probably mainly due to the short running time of the movie. Also of course the story itself is somewhat predictable but that doesn't take away any of the fun or entertainment value of the movie.

Dinosaur fans will enjoy this movie as well, unless you're one of those persons who complains about the accuracy of the movie. This movie is entertainment, not a documentary.

The musical score by James Newton Howard fits the movie like a glove and in my opinion he delivers one of his best and moving scores, in his career.

There is much hate for this movie but quite frankly I can't see why. If you simply take the movie for what it is, you'll have a good time watching it. It's beautiful, adventurous and at times truly spectacular.

8/10


When i heard that the original screenplay o this film planned no dialogue at all for the characters, i became even more disappointed at the end result. While a very good film Dinosaur certainly is, it could have been incredible. The visual effects alone are a sight to behold, never more so than in the opening sequence. This is probably the best stretch in the whole film for me; it's unsanitised by talking animals and genuinely feels like a prehistoric world (ignoring the multitude of historical inaccuracies like grass in the Mesozoic era, particular dinosaurs living side by side). Once the animals start to talk the film is bogged down by the shortcomings of the script, which is idealistic and morally exposition heavy, for the sake of the target audience. It also detracts from the illusion the film so effortlessly produces on the screen at the start; it all just becomes so standard an routine when it seemed to be so much more. With a weak script, the visuals no longer arrest like they did before and would have done had nobody talked. Without the amazing cgi, this could have almost been straight to video.

I say almost because despite the shortcomings Dinosaur is a good movie; it's at times thrilling, exhilarating, touching and surprisingly intense, for a movie with a such a routine story. Had it had a better script it could have been great. Had it had no dialogue at all it could have been a classic and perhaps one of Disney's finest. The era of risk taking and inventiveness for the company seems to be at an end, or at least under suppression. Damn you Eisner! They were onto something this time.


The tag-line for Dinosaur is 'You have never seen anything like this', and it's a fair statement. Dinosaur is stunningly detailed, top-heavy with beautifully framed images and perfectly paced scenes filled with discovery and adventure. It's just a pity I'm not nine years old because I've certainly heard all this before many, many times over. Honestly, surely Disney realize that grown-ups take kids to see these things? It's hard to imagine a more formulaic plot and the dialog and characterization could only be this trite on purpose (maybe someone lost a bet). Kids will love it, and I guess that's the main thing, but it's not hard to see why Pixar has stolen Disney's thunder at the box office.


this film is hard to resist, I watch it like 24/7 it's an amazing even though the plot is thin, the animation and the cast were the best part of the film, this film is like greatest film ever because of how realistic it looks real including the meteor crash, even though if a remake was being made they had to thicken the plot a bit but still keep the magic this film holds and also add a bit more cast members because their were like only 10 real characters that actually spoke words when the rest were just roars and grunts, so adding more characters would be great, also when i watch this i forget the fact it's a Disney film because of the little amount violence and the fact there is no songs because that would make it quite a silly film so i'am glad that they put any songs on.


Dinosaur has great graphics: When I think of all animation movies I already watched, this one can be easily in the top5. Of course I cannot compare the dinosaurs from this movie to the ones of Jurassic Park, since they are very different from each other, but I can say that they both look very real. But this movie, in my opinion, has more points because of the animation then the story itself. It's cute, but with a very ordinary story; besides, there are some important errors here, specially in the beginning in the part of the meteor, when everything is destroyed in the Plio's island: That Impact would kill not only the lemurs,but also many of the dinos. And by the way: Lemurs and primates in general did not co-exist with dinosaurs!Even kids know that, come on. I will try to be less critic about this kind of errors,but taking them off, the story is cute.


My Take: Terrific special effects make this film worth a million bucks.

Through their discovery of the magic of CGI, Disney has brought their own expensive big-budget CG spectacle called DINOSAUR in 2000. Although CGI has already brought to life dinosaurs before in JURASSIC PARK and its sequel THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK, sometimes DINOSAUR has certainly improved from which it started from. The special effects in DINOSAUR are truly spectacular. What's fantasy and what's reality is now indistinguishable.

In terms of plot and story, however, DINOSAUR is still not well developed. The story is nothing new and for Disney, that's quite a disappointment. Disney, a master in both animation and storytelling, is now lacking in a new story to show. Still, nonetheless, DINOSAUR is still a wonderfully good-looking fantasy that appeals to kids and adults.

The story is nothing original, as Disney simply owes from other animated movies, some of which is their own. The plot that dinosaurs, after a meteorite strike, creates a large famine leading to a search for a valley of fertility is recycled from both a segment in Disney's FANTASIA called "The Rite of Spring", as well as Don Bluth's animated THE LAND BEFORE TIME. The lead character, an Iguanadon named Aladar, is separated from his mother, who is supposedly dead, is like the character of BAMBI in Disney's own animated film of the same title. The rest of the characters aren't new with any zing.

Still, the film is an enjoyable showcase of fine special effects and excitement. It's still good as visual entertainment. A lot more fun to look at rather than to think about. I liked just looking at the very colorful effects, showing us numerous sights of dinosaurs of all shapes and sizes. The opening scenes were the most colorful, where we are taken to flight in the wings of a flying Pteranodon, switching from various scenery that is a breathtaking sight. There's a lot of imagination that went to the effects, and the heart is not forgotten.

Rating: **** out of 5.


Although nobody has ever seen a real-life dinosaur, the multi-million dollar, computer-generated replicas stomping and chomping through "Dinosaur" appear pretty close to what scientists imagine the actual animals may have resembled. This predictable but entertaining tale set in the late Cretaceous Period some 65-million years ago seamlessly integrates live-action footage with sophisticated, cutting-edge digital animation.

Unfortunately, all the visual special effects magic in Hollywood cannot make up for the depressing, often preachy "Dinosaur" plot that recycles elements from last summer's "Tarzan" as well as Disney's "The Land Before Time." Basically, this above-average kiddies' opus emerges as a prehistoric spin on "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom" TV series.

Nimbly directed by Eric Leighton and Ralph ("We're Back!A Dinosaur's Story") Zondag, Dinosaur" starts with an incredible ten-minute sequences that not only sets the story into motion but also showcases the impressive advances in computer animation since "Toy Story."

When a bloodthirsty carnivore (a T-Rex style dino with nose horns) rampages through a herd of peaceful dinosaurs that have just laid their eggs, only one egg survives the catastrophe. A variety of scaly scavengers fight over this egg like the proverbial hot potato until a Pterodactyl snags it and flies across oceans and continents before it loses the egg on Lemur Island, too.

A family of primates discovers the egg, and baby Aladar (voice of D.B. Sweeney) wins the hearts of grouchy head lemur Yar (voice of Ossie Davis) and single mom Plio (voice of Alfre Woodward). Naturally, the monkeys adopt this over-sized orphan as one of their own. Of course, Disney writers John Harrison and Robert Nelson Jacobs have taken liberties with history. Lemurs and dinosaurs didn't co-exist, but these historical errors can be condoned as long as they heighten the entertainment value. Oh, yes, Iguanadons are T-Rexes without a bad attitude, but they can swing a mean tail in close-quarters combat. All this peace and prosperity ends spectacularly when a meteor shower devastates Lemur Island, and our animal heroes must flee.

Aladar, with his lovable Lemur family clinging to his back, joins up with a herd of dinosaurs crossing an arid desert (like the Jews out of Exodus) to a fabled paradise called the Nesting Grounds. Initially, the idealistic Aladar butts heads with the bossy head dino Kron (voiced of Samuel Wright) who is willing to sacrifice the older dinosaurs, Baylene, a huge Brachiosaurus (voice of Joan Plowright), and Eema, a sluggish styrachosaur (voice of Della Reese), to keep a couple of predatory carnivore at bay. Aladar disagrees with Kron's survival-of-the-fittest strategy and fights the carnivores to save these older, slower dinosaurs.

Although the House of Mouse sank nearly $200-million into this ambitious, eye-catching epic, the Disney Studios should have anted up at least a tenth of their lavish budget on a story as creative and original as their special effects wizardry.


I first saw this movie in first grade not long after it came out on home video, and so my teacher brought it in and our class decided to watch it. When we started to watch it, I thought that it was interesting, but after awhile, I really became focused into it, and so when it was over, I really was thrilled with it! This movie has got a lot of really great qualities, great music, great voices, great effects, and great animation! This is not one of the greatest animated movies that I have ever seen, and it is not one of my all time favorite animated movies that I have ever seen, but I can say that I enjoyed this movie all the way through!

It is pointless complaining about the dinosaurs talking, because the totally marvelous animation makes up for it, the animation is so great that you will not mind the fact that the dinosaurs and animals have voices! If you really want to see a very enjoyable animated movie, then this is one that you really must see, it will get your desire for computer animation really going, this movie has got some of the best computer animation that I have ever seen!

But overall, this movie is very great, I really recommend that you see this, you will really like it!

9/10


To enjoy this movie, you have to take it for what it is. I used to wonder if Disney were going to make a movie about dinosaurs and when they did, it wasn't a bad choice to combine GGI characters with real backgrounds.

I was impressed by the trailer and when I finally saw "Dinosaur" first time, I liked some parts, but overall I found the movie a little mediocre. Seeing it for the second time, I appreciated and liked it more, so, once again: you've got to take it for what it is to really enjoy it.

The visuals is absolutely the big highlight of the film, especially combined with the beautiful and (in my opinion) quirky score of James Newton Howard. The characters are quite all right too (especially Aladar, Zini and Eema), although the film focuses more to move the plot forward. The only character I don't like is Kron. He's so straight forward and narrow-minded that he gets just uninteresting.

I was never a fan of "The Land Before Time" (in fact I hated that movie), who has many similarities to "Dinosaur". Like most of us know, the story is unoriginal and (as expected) comes with the usual Disney moral. But the real problem with this film is that it seems like the directors and screenwriters disagreed for which audience this movie would fit too (although it was rated PG). For kids it could be too scary (especially the Carnotaurs, not that I'm a coward, *laughing*) and for the older viewers some parts may be too childish.

Like other Disney films, "Dinosaur" has some tender moments (for those who like romance, there's some of that, too), but the film it self is not too sugar-coated, it's surprisingly straight-forward and serious. There are some comical lines that makes you chuckle, but without sacrificing the integrity of the film. The first act, which shows Aladar's arrival at the lemurs, is actually portrayed in a different, more detailed way than Tarzan's arrival at the apes, which is refreshing to see.

Overall, this is not a perfect movie, but it has some great moments, so I like it


Genre: CGI and real-life-backgrounds film with dinosaurs.

My thoughts: All right, I have to admit some things. This could be better. I have to say that the CGI is perfect, beautiful, stunning real life backgrounds. THAT doesn't need to be changed. It's the characters. Well, not all of them. Most of them are fine as they are. Url, Kron and Bruton are not all that good. Oh and this film didn't need a herbivore baddie, they just needed the Carnotaurs, they could have just snipped out Kronk with a pair of scissors. Bruton and Url I am happy to stay, but for me to enjoy the film up to its highest level, it would have been better for Url to be less silly (this film DOES NOT need a silly character) and Bruton should have been in much longer, he shouldn't have played such a minor role. All of the other characters are fine. The other thing that could be changed in the film for me to make it top entertainment, is that SO FEW lemurs are in most of the film. There should be more travelling with Aladar across the desert.

Otherwise, I love this film very much. It doesn't have much excitement (PHEW) and it doesn't need it! All these films nowadays have unnecessary excitement. Also, the characters (apart from Kron and partly Bruton) are warm, loving and likable. They also use good dinosaurs for the film and stick to the right era (unlike in the "Land Before Time" films, although they're good as well). I think this film is underrated and if people do not like this first time, or rate my comment not useful, then I think that they're DEFINITELY missing an important detail of this lovely film!

Recommended to: People who like dinosaurs, the best CGI around (along with "Finding Nemo" 's and "The Polar Express 's), beautiful real backgrounds, lovely characters and a good storyline, which isn't all too exciting yet it doesn't make the film boring! Enjoy! :-)

What happens: A mother Iguanadon has some beautiful eggs in her nest. Unfortunately, trouble is ahead for most of them, when a Carnotaur attacks, leaving most of the eggs more like raw omelettes


This movie is truly an excellent example of how computer animation is supposed to be done, realistic look is unbelievable and the feeling of movie is unforget-able and need to see again like experience. extraordinarily well done expressions were so humanlike and had this thing called SOUL in them. Awesome accomplishment from animator/s! So many good things in it that if I try to write them all down I'll never leave this computer in this life.


As the title says, this movie has amazing visuals and is worth going to see or buy on DVD or VHS just for that reason. But the plot although interesting and immersive does seem quite weak and overall degrades the rating for this movie.

Some of the characters vocals will make you sick and seem very inappropriate for this kind of movie but if the graphics were not so amazing then I would tell you to forget this movie. BUT WAIT!

There is some sort of feeling you get while watching this movie either for the first time or for the fourth time. Maybe it's the amazing musical score provided by James Newton Howard, or the drop-dead gorgeous visuals or maybe the story isn't too bad after all. It is hard to explain but I would say that this movie is a MUST buy on DVD and maybe worth renting on VHS.

IMDb Rating: 8/10 Percentage Rating: 82%


Some of the complaints here are nitpicky things that kept me from rating Dinosaur a 14, but most are missing the point.

This is a Disney movie. Disney plots are straightforward, to reach the very very young as well as the rest of us jaded postadolescents. Disney movies have talking animals in them. And Disney characters use contemporary language. Sometimes, they're downright hip. Remember The Jungle Book? Louis Prima in the part of the orangutan, King Louie, singing, "I'm the king of the swingers, ohhhh, the jungle V.I.P." It don't get hipper than that. And Robin Williams' Genie in Aladdin... I mean, if this is your gripe, then you just don't get Disney movies.

Despite what you read about the animation getting old after the first sequence, it never lets down. Disney's Tarzan was complex, but Dinosaur is insanely complex. Plot points depend on shots that demonstrate heretofore impossible techniques. And novel animation touches appear right up to the end. (Anyone who complains about Earl sticking his face in the lens just didn't get that, either).

This is absolutely a must-see--and must-see-again--film.


How can they be in the film if they are extinct?

That is what a kid said, seeing dinosaur. The special effects were extraordinary. The fur of the monkey was moving with the wind. The integration of real life image with computer generated ones was perfect.

The story was simple, perfect for the 6 or 7 year old. For younger kids, It depends on their sensibility. Some kids were had to stop watching the movie and turn around because they were afraid! It's not that the movie is too violent. (There is violence, but those are dinosaur!!!!) It is the way they show the "Carnosaurs" and the "Velociraptors" that is scary, in combination with the music. Also, younger kids may have trouble to focus their interest on the movie because there is a lot of dialogue. My daughter that is used to see movies and usually watch them could stop moving the whole representation.

So it's a good child movie for 6 year old and older. Younger kid may be afraid or may lose interest. And for the adult? It's a cute movie, perfect for a first date.


It was pleasant to attend a film that did not spew forth buckets of profanity and expletives. There were some pretty rough scenes that could disturb the youngest in the audience but the pleasant ending with a good moral message was uplifting. It did not dwell on the differences between evolution and creationism but delivered a nice message packaged in a well laid out package. It was hard to determine what background scenes were real locations. Shame, they looked like places I would love to visit. Even the vicious scenes were tame and free of gratuitous blood, guts, and gore. This is one that will end up in my home video collection.


An incredible example of the state of animation! I would guess that within 5 years we will not be able to actually tell what is real or what is animation. I liked that in the beginning that they did not have the characters speaking so you could have that opportunity to just appreciate the animation.

Fun story~ Aladar is a great new addition to Disney's favorite characters!


I had to see this film twice because the audience was so disruptive the first time. Now that I have been able to enjoy the film better, I finally feel that I can write a comment. I agree with everyone else that the story is little more than "The Land Before Time" revisited, but I still think it works (for the most part). But the score by James Newton Howard is just magnificent. Kudos to the sound effects wizards for concocting the sounds of the raptors. I also like the fact that there is no sound when the meteor hits, but you hear the surge afterwards. And Samuel E. Wright is absolutely perfect as Kron, the stern herd leader. As for the film's visuals, I will say nothing about them because they speak for themselves when you see them. I will say, however, that I wish they had shot the film in the 2.35:1 widescreen format, but I am sure they had their hands full with the 1.85:1 format. But I enjoyed "Dinosaur" the second time around.


Last night I took my boys ages 5 and 10 to see Dinosaur. Some of the scenes were a bit too intense for the 5 year old, who got scared and had to sit on my lap.

The visuals were stunning. The story was disappointing. As my 10 year old pointed out, it was a rehash of the animated dinosaur movie (series now) "Land Before Time". Could it be that the only things talking dinosaurs ever want to do is to find a hidden valley after a meteor strike?


The messages were many: cooperation, perseverance, strength in the face of adversity and to not fear new ideas.

This is supposed to be a movie for children; but some of it is pretty brutal: I would not take small children in spite of its `G' rating.

The story is sweet and simple; allowing more time for the messages and character development. I found myself actually caring for these hideous creatures and cringed when one of them was injured.

Max Casella, who seems to be eternally cast as some kind of geek on television and movies again plays a geek -- only this time a primate.

Della Reese's voice is instantaneously recognizable as Eema' the old, caring, mother figure. Kind of the `Mother of All Dinosaurs.' She does it well.<br /><br />The many outstanding locations used as backgrounds were magnificent. You will recognize the waterfall from `Jurassic Park' immediately.

The CGI was done very well -- but not (sadly) as well as `Stuart Little'.

The score (apparently by James Newton Howard) is absolutely outstanding: majestic, serious and haunting in all the appropriate moments.

I am pleased to say that this was a much better film than I was expecting -- I enjoyed it completely.


As far as adults are concerned, the first 20 minutes is pretty amazing from a visual point of view. The movie LOOKS incredible. After that, the "dialogue" is bad, the scenery is weak, no real music, plot is a copy of Land Before Time (with Littlefoot).

As far as kids are concerned, my 6 year old loved it and thought it was the coolest thing ever. My 5 year old was scared to death. There are some relatively graphic, violent scenes for a kids movie. I think for kids over a certain age (maybe 5!), it's no big deal, but I think it is too scary for very little kids.

So go see the first 20 min, then leave and catch another movie that will challenge your brain a little (like Road Trip!) :)


The effects were great, but the story was the same old stuff that Disney hasn't done before. The opening reminded me of Tarzan and at the end I was waiting to hear Circle of Life. I think kids will like it, and in the end that is who the movie was made for.


Having heard the rumblings and grumblings from people who had seen the sneak previews, saying things like "typical Disney fare" and "mediocre", I had very low expectations of Dinosaur even if it was the big Diz's "most ambitious endeavor". I am happy to say I was wrong. I loved it. It was NOT cookie cutter Disney. There were NO songs, no gimmicky sidekicks placed purely for plush toy marketing. The plot had a points on several levels, the most prevalent of those being simple survival, the most elusive being the qualities of leadership. I left the theater thinking to myself, "That... was a nice story all around."

Notice I didn't mention the graphics. There's a reason for that: They speak for themselves. Go see it.


This movie certainly has the elements. The plot is mediocre, and suspense is terrific, the CG is spectacular, with a lot of attention to details. The motions are exacting to the tiniest intricacies. (although the dinosaurs depicted didn't exist all at once). The dinosaur era lasted for millions and millions of years. So I kind of feel bad every time I go for a fill-up @ the pump. I'd initially expected this movie to bomb like Waterworld, but after the initial openings almost topping 40 Mil, it may do as well as Titanic (not quite). I usually don't like Disney movies, but I do recommend this movie.


We took our 6 year old boy to see Dinosaur this weekend, but I think my wife and I were even more amazed than he at the MARVELOUS imagery in the film.

I saw every penny of the $200 Million it cost to produce this film ON SCREEN. The sheer beauty of the water glistening off the wet dinosaurs was enough to make us sit up and pay attention.

You could see all the hard work the programmers and animators put in this film, and if the breathtaking opening sequence doesn't get you, the "mating dance of the monkeys" surely will.

Simply put, this may be the finest work of animation ever.. and I'm a LION KING nut!

**** from me!


Everyone says this movie is bad because of the plot. In some ways it is recycled material, but then again many Disney movies have similar plots. The computer animated dinosaurs were fantastic. The animators paid attention to detail, and that's usually not a problem for Disney. The backgrounds were stunning too and in some parts the POV the animators gave you were fascinating (i.e. when we see the ptaradactl fly over the herd of dinos in the opening sequence). Is the plot taken for Land Before Time? Some parts seem so, but then the Land Before Time followed little child dinos and Dinosaur followed a herd of Dinosaurs.Their destination was basically the same place, but in many ways their journeys are so different. I liked the movie and I would recommend it. However it's not for little kids who don't like to see characters fighting and mild blood shed. All in all a good Disney movie. I have to give them credit it took them twelve years to make and a lot of effort! The best visually so far, but not the best plot ever. It would be better if you saw it on the big screen though. I give it an 8/10.


I saw a Saturday matinee of Dinosaur in a theatre filled with an equal number of adults and children. At the end of the film, something remarkable happened.

The audience began to applaud.

In years of moviegoing, I don't think I've ever seen that happen. And, coming out of it, I had to join in. It is perhaps one of the most remarkable films I have ever seen.

The film centers around a dinosaur named Aladar, who must bring his adoptive family to safety after the extinction event 65 million years ago. He treks through the wasteland that was once a fertile continent and joins a herd looking for a mythical breeding ground that may still be untouched.

While this is a film for almost all ages, I would recommend against letting the younger children watch it. It has to be the bleakest Disney film ever produced. Not only is there on-screen death, but there is a lot of it. Aladar and his mammalian family wander through a dangerous and truly shattered world, where survival of the fittest is a reality and compassion is the ideal.

I should probably say at least one thing about the special FX; this is a dinosaur movie almost without visible FX. It is literally photo-realistic, making it the first live-action quality film to have completely computer-generated actors. Jurassic Park has not only been given a run for its money, but been beaten at its own game.

Perhaps the big criticism I would have to give is that it should have been longer by at least half an hour. The story was certainly tight and well-done, but there was enough material to go on much longer and say far more.

Still, I left the theatre feeling that I had seen something profound. Dinosaur is a truly special film, and I think it just might end up changing filmmaking in the manner as Star Wars did in 1977.

Final mark: 4/5; probably should have been longer, but definitely worth seeing.


OK I think we all will agree the visual effects where outstanding, but this story has been done before (Land Before Time). I cant help but feel disappointed in this movie, It was nothing like I expected. First off the movie would have been better if the movie ended with the astroids instead of 10 minutes in to the movie. Second, it was showing off too much I mean come on how many times can we sit through a T-Rex chase. Third, the movie was way to violent I'm sure Disney was trying to appeal to teenagers but there not going to see it little kids ages 5-10 are. Well if you want to see a good family movie this summer go see Pokemon: the Movie 2000, I know I am.


Apparently, Disney has the technology and the money to make the most digitally enhanced movie we have ever seen. In the first five minutes of "Dinosaur," Disney tries to impress us by showing everything they can do with their computer generated effects. And let's face it, that's the only reason we saw this movie in the first place (at least those of us without kids).

But it's not the special effects that make a great "special effects" movie, and in the long run, "Dinosaur" will be forgotten among such landmark films as "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Star Wars," "Jurassic Park," and "Toy Story." These movies combined creative ideas with special effects, and are now lodged in our cultural memory.

"Dinosaur" exhibits no creative thought. It's pretty much the same story as "The Land Before Time," only this go-round we're dealing with digital dinosaurs. Beyond being unoriginal, the story is weak: it's about a herd of dinosaurs trying to find their "nesting area." Everything that happens along the way has been done before and done better. Even the celebrity voices suck (D.B. Sweeney?). Particularly bad is the comic relief, which comes in the form of horny, yet unattractive monkey (I know it sounds funny, but it never is). The movie is oddly short (about 75-80 minutes), for which I suppose we should be thankful.

One comment about the special effects: they're great, but are they any more "realistic" than "Jurassic Park's" dinosaurs? Spielberg wanted to show us what dinosaurs actually looked like millions of years ago. In "Dinosaur," we see a bunch of generic dinosaurs who make ridiculous facial expressions. The monkeys also make crazy faces from time to time. My point here is that while the animals certainly don't look like cartoons, they don't look "realistic" either.

Bottom line: "Dinosaur" is as interesting and creative as its title. Most people won't like it, with the exception of kids who get caught up in the craziness. Parents should note that this is not a traditional family movie (it's rated PG for violence). Hopefully, in the next couple of years, studios will use the technology of "Dinosaur" to make quality movies that we'll enjoy after the first five minutes.


Monogram's Charlie Chan films tended to suffer towards the end by lack of caring. The plots ended up confused and messy aimed more at Birmingham Brown and the Chan son of the film being silly while Charlie said wise things. Here, thankfully, the film is blessed with a decent mystery, different sets than most of the others, and several good supporting performances, in particular by the always wonderful, and sadly not well known John Davidson.

Here we have the death of a chess expert and assorted other goings on that make this one of the better later Chan films. I don't want to say too much since the joy here is in the watching, and this film is certainly worth watching.

7 out of 10


Chan fans and film buffs will enjoy this better-than-average Monogram film. True, with the exception of "Charlie Chan in the Secret Service" none of the Monogram series comes close to the 20th C FOX entries, but the story is serviceable and enjoyable. Mantan Moreland shows his best Vaudevillian stage takes, and of note is Joan Woodbury, the Woodbury soap heiress, in at least her third appearance in the Chan series. The other two I know of are "Charlie Chan at the Opera" where she has no lines and dances on a table top during the opera, and "Charlie Chan on Broadway" where she is Douglas Fowley's love interest and performs what I call "the sashay dance."


This is my seventh review of a Charlie Chan movie in series chronological order during these consecutive days. It's also my first for the Monogram entries, of which this one is the second. In this one, a young woman's stepfather is murdered in a closed room. She enlists Charlie in the case through communicating with his "No. 3 Son" Tommy (Benson Fong) while both stay at a hotel. Also along for the ride, for only the second time, is cab driver Birmingham Brown (Mantan Moreland)...The noticeable changes from Fox to Monogram, besides more comic relief with both Fong and Moreland, is some more time for the music score to go along with some more action sequences near the end before we hear Charlie's assessment of the case. Also, the plotting isn't too serious and Chan's wisecracks to his son seem almost mean-spirited, like Abbott & Costello like, though one can take them with a grain of salt. And while Mantan's antics, especially his looks of fright, would probably not do in these politically correct times, he still can be entertainingly funny with what he does here and I don't think it reflects badly on his race at all since to me he's just a funny looking clown who's quite endearing, whatever the race. So on that note, I quite recommend Charlie Chan in the The Chinese Cat. P.S. Mr. Moreland was a native of Monroe in my now home state of Louisiana. And Sam Flint, who played Thomas P. Manning here, was another player in my favorite movie, It's a Wonderful Life. He was the relieved banker in Mr. Potter's office wiping his forehead during the run-on-the-bank sequence.


The Monogram Chan's, apart from falling production values, were also marked by more and more action scenes with or without cliffhanger music and less on the explanatory dialogue so necessary with the Fox's. With the action came more non-sequiteurs or simply incongruous scenes - in this one take Tommy Chan being beaten to a pulp before his respected father's calm eyes! Great stuff for teenagers in 1944 but surely something of which the Charlie we know should have been thoroughly ashamed?!

*** Rich amateur chess player murdered six months previously, at the time to the utter bafflement of the police - Charlie has less than two days to research the case and solve it. And does he bring the rather impotent detective and the daughter of the murdered man together, and give the detective a promotion for doing nothing? I ain't saying! The climax in the Fun Two Corridors Cupboard And Room brings a baddies Wild West hideout suspiciously to mind, but what the Heck! ***

Well made (for Monogram) and enjoyable entry in the series.


Dumb, dumb, dumb This is not so much for this Chan film alone as for pretty much all of the Monogram Chan flicks that starred Sidney Toler. I enjoyed all 6 or seven of the original Charlie Chan novels by Biggers. And I like some of the Warner Oland entries, although they included a bit too much humor at times for my taste in mysteries. But these late movies are, for the most part, just plain stupid. And the stereotypical wide-eyed "frightened Negro" shenanigans of Mantan Moreland are repetitive to the point of perverse tediousness. I started collecting the movies after reading the books and I gotta say: I do enjoy low budget, low grade films sometimes for the simple pleasure and nostalgia they evoke. But these are not "so bad they're good" ~ they're just bad.


There are so many wonderful bits in this picture that make it a delight to watch. A nervous Birmingham Brown waits outside the deserted fun house in the fog, and turns on the car radio for some music, and instead tunes in an eerie voice advising him to turn the lights out, and laughing maniacally. Later, he runs into the twin brother of a dead criminal and takes him for a ghost. Tommy Chan, Number Three Son, deliberately sabotages the jigsaw puzzle he gave to his father. When Charlie discovers the trick, he warns, " Next time you pull stunt like this, you experience sudden collision in rear end of pants!"

A classic locked room mystery, multiple suspects, a gang of crooks using an abandoned amusement pier for their hideout, smuggled gems, a cryptic doctor who might be involved in the crimes, a love affair, a cat statue that conceals a vital clue, and many more elements are all crammed into a running time of little more than an hour. Corny humor, politically incorrect stereotyping, and cheap sets abound, but these very things are what make the Monogram Chan pictures so much fun to watch. This movie is sheer entertainment from beginning to end.


Saw it on TV yesterday or the day before. I found it a passable time waster with the usual ingredients:

1. Whatever number son is involved, he always wants to join his father on the case, Charlie insults him and eventually has to rescue him.

2. There is almost always a frightened black sidekick and Mantan Moreland is, in this regard, one of the successors to Step'n Fetchit.

Eddie Anderson and Willie Best played similar parts in various movies, not always Charlie's. Mildly racist and condescending.

3. Charlie always has a supply of aphorisms at the ready. No real mystery involved and not a Charlie Chan at the Opera. But

not bad, though one could write the film oneself.

** out of ****.


the fact that there was so much fuss is ironic, as the whole point of the programme was to highlight the way the media treat such 'taboo' subjects, such as paedophilia. the newsdesk set, the suits, the smug presenters, the men-at-the-scene shouting about things you can see behind them, the pointless cgi graphs and stats, the whole thing was a satire, a very very funny satire. the way c-list celebrity's will say absolutely anything if their agent tells them it'll be good for their career ("there is no evidence for it, but it is scientific fact"). It may be hard to watch (with milly dowler and the cambridgeshire girls, as well as 9/11), but satire is supposed to be challenging, and we shouldn't be afraid to stand up against the blatant scaremongering and headline grabbing media, just because it's a delicate matter. How this show failed to win any TV awards for it's intelligence, observation, courage, acting and thought provocation is shameful, but, as watching it will show you, not in the least bit surprising.


Chris Morris' Brass Eye TV series had always generated a large number of complaints, both from the audience and from the people taking part. But, nothing he has done has managed to stir up more controversy than this. The 2001 Brass Eye Special. Before the hugely overrated Jerry Springer Opera arrived, the Brass Eye Special held the record for the most complaints received about any TV program ever aired.

The sheer volume of complaints that the general public made towards the Brass Eye Special was unbelievable! Many complaints were voiced by people who never even watched the program! The subject that the program handled turned many heads, but the message was widely misinterpreted. The message was even lost on some who enjoyed the program. This was not a show that mocked the subject of paedophilia. The show was purely about the media and it's presentation of the subject. Morris, is and always will be, a media satirist. The notion that the program 'makes fun' of paedophiles and children who have been abused is completely laughable! Morris never attempts to do either such thing. He merely draws our attention to the overwhelming, and very often stupid media hype surrounding the subject.

Using many of his established 'Brass Eye' characters, such as, Ted Maul and others, Morris shows just how much the media over blow every little thing about a subject that they themselves created and built up, and the result is as funny, if not funnier, than anything Morris has done previously. Using his tried and tested formula, Morris manages to trick several gullible celebrities into believing that they are working on a serious documentary. In actuality, they are made to look like exactly what they are. Retards.

All in all, the Brass Eye Special needs to be seen to be believed. And, with one opening line, Morris manages to sum up the entire media situation as it stood in 2001: "Welcome to Paedo-Gedden!"


Who ever put that review as 'of bad taste' is not all quite there... its so funny, genius and fantastic you could watch it until your eyes are square! not to mention the rest of the work he has done on the rest of the series...all is as good as Morris' standards. if you think that it is 'awful', 'distasteful' or 'sick' then i can only think of one thing to say to you: "go to hell." thanks. it had to be said! i think that the way that so many people complaining was a complete joke...i would like to make a shout out to all the people that actually did that: "haven't you got anything better to do with your time? what are you trying to prove?" thanks for reading my heart-filled review on the matter...cheers


This BRASS EYE special PAEDO-GEDDON was swamped by complaints ( More on that later ) when it was broadcast in 2001 following a national debate around a possible " Sarah`s law " following the abduction and murder of school girl Sarah Payne . In fact it`s scheduling was delayed while Phil Collins took legal advice after he found out he`d been fooled by the show`s maker Chris Morris into a starting a campaign entitled Nonce-sense

If truth be told this show is probably more remembered for the controversy than the content which is in very poor taste but I do confess that I laughed out loud . The edition centres around paedophiles and how society treats both them and their victims . Chris Morris plays the presenter who tells the audience that an infamous paedophile has been launched into space then confesses that an eight year old child has accidentally been placed into the capsule along with the paedophile . Cue the child`s frightened screams . Like I said very poor taste

Other highlights of the show include Dr Fox giving a scientific lecture that paedophiles share an identical nervous system to crabs ( " No one knows this but it`s a scientific fact " ) Labour MP Barbara Follet giving a public warning about equipment paedophiles put on their genitals while surfing the net and Kate Thornton warning viewers that paedophiles can send gas through the internet which makes young children suseptable to sexual predators including one victim " Who was once a shy innocent child and who now has the sexuality of a sixty year old Colonel " . Morris also shows a police officer in the child protection squad a serious of photos wanting to know if they`re classed as obscene . The photos included Barbie surrounded by a marital aids and a composite photo featuring a young boys head , a dog`s body and an erect penis that could only have belonged to John Holmes . Hey I never said this show was tasteful did I ?

It`s impossible to mention PAEDO-GEDDON without the hypocritical fall out that surrounded it where politicians , childrens organizations and policemen rushed to condemn the show for making fun of a very serious subject . The show was poor taste despite me laughing all the way through it but it`s a biting satire . Perhaps the critics should take a long hard look in the mirror where a liberal elite allows convicted paedophile slime to walk around the streets of Britain before they criticise a mere TV show for exacerbating tensions .


A harmless bit of fluff, best consumed with pizza and cheap beer. This low-budget movie is a carbon copy of 1,000 other unmemorable late-80's/early-90's flicks. It's a cute, naive little flick with no blood or violence, a little bit of simulated sex, and many a boob-shot. Vacuous, yes, but worth watching for those who enjoy the occasional Charles Band/Full Moon flick. The cinemotography and sound leave a lot to be desired, but the best cinemotography wouldn't exactly have made this a masterpiece. Don't take it seriously; the director certainly didn't.


Some college kids accidentally unleash a sex demon and she ends up turning a frat party inside out.

With awkward nudity scenes, this might not be a date movie but if your sitting at home I would watch it. The slasher sub-genre turned into a cult genre and became a guilty pleasure. This sub-genre hid in the darkness for almost half a decade. The slasher genre was dead by 1992 and FRATERNITY DEMON was just a maggot that didn't even enter the coffin. The plot involves devil invocation, possessions, kills, and sex with a demon. Well from the title and cover picture you can expect too much. The acting is so poor it makes Voodoo Academy seem like Gone With The Wind. Avoid this at every cost.

Rated R for Nudity and Sexual Situations.


In a movie like "Whirlpool" you must take the good together with the weaknesses and naivety. The story is reasonably interesting and entertaining: the quack doctor Korvo (Jose' Ferrer) hypnotizes and cheats Ann Sutton (Gene Tierney), the spouse of a distinguished psychoanalyst (Richard Conte). A mysterious murder ensues... Unfortunately, some twists of the story are unplausible, to say the least. The moody atmosphere and the suspense are tame, even for the standards of the 1940's.

The black and white cinematography and the use of the camera are excellent. The direction by Otto Preminger is sound. The job of the cast is very good, especially by Jose' Ferrer, Gene Tierney and Charles Bickford, as the old, life-weary policeman. Richard Conte is less convincing, possibly due to the uneasy character he has to play: a famous analyst who, indeed, is incredibly dumb in getting the mental problems of his adorable spouse. There is a certain evidence that old masters of film-making had no much esteem of psychoanalysis: here Dr. Sutton seems far less competent in psychology than the quack doctor Korvo.

The major credit of "Whirlpool" is the presence of Gene Tierney. Her divine beauty shines through the film, although it somewhat makes Dr. Sutton seem even more stupid. I say: Sutton neglects Gene Tierney, to go to some blasted scientific conference. Are you kidding or what? And Gene has some scenes to show her outstanding talent as an actress. For instance, see Gene at the police station, first dizzy at her voids of memory, thereafter bravely facing and ill-using her husband, who thinks her to be an adulteress (another great job by Sutton! He is really a genius!).

Thus Gene Tierney's class, loveliness, radiant beauty, talent are largely enough to erase the defects of "Whirlpool". Let me recommend this nice movie.


One of the first things that struck me about Whirlpool is how good an actress Gene Tierney actually was. She does such a terrific job of portraying both the vulnerability and desperation of her character.

Set in Los Angeles, Whirlpool is an unassuming and unpretentious thriller that sort of fits the mold of noir. The movie certainly isn't the best example of the genre, but it does have many fine elements that, combined with Ms. Tierney's performance, make it eminently watchable.

Gene Tierney stars as Ann Sutton. Ann is the wealthy and respectable wife of successful psychiatrist Dr. William Sutton (a marvelous Richard Conte). The film opens as Ann is caught shoplifting a jeweled broach from a ritzy department store. The police and the store manager are determined to prosecute, but she gets off the hook thanks to David Korvo (Jose Ferrer), a mysterious hypnotist whom Ann employs to help her sleep.

Ann initially thinks that Korvo is out to blackmail her, and she offers him a large some of money to keep him quiet. Korvo, however, has another, far more furtive agenda. As he gradually builds Ann's trust, it soon is revealed that he has been having an affair with Sutton's former patient Theresa Randolph (Barbara O'Neil).

Shortly thereafter, Theresa turns up dead, and Ann is implicated as the murderer since she was found at the scene of the crime. Ann is arrested and charged with murder, but bitterly denies involvement telling her kindly husband that she just can't remember anything. So, who is the murderer? Surely it can't have been Korvo, as he was in the hospital during the time of Theresa's death.

It is left up to Lt. Colton (Charles Bickford) to use his detective skills and Dr. Sutton as the committed psychiatrist to break the hold that Korvo has on Ann and finally learn the truth behind the Theresa's murder.

Ferrer is terrific as the enigmatic Korvo. From the beginning it's plainly obvious that he's a sleazy, amoral confidence trickster, who is probably out to milk the Ann of her money and nothing happens to compromise his position. Richard Conte is also very good as Ann's concerned husband; he knows that his wife is not guilty but he's frustrated at the lack of inaction on behalf the local police to prove her innocence.

The issues of hypnotherapy, especially with the idea that hypnosis can make people do stuff they don't want to, is also interesting. Although, by today's standards it perhaps doesn't carry the kind of psychological weight and dramatic punch that it did back when the film was made.

Perhaps influenced by the wave of films during the period that utilized the growing field of hypnotherapy the picture might have seemed a bit fresher when it was first released. However, the Whirlpool is still fun to watch, especially for the lovely Gene Tierney who apparently used Whirlpool as a comeback after a two-year absence. Mike Leonard September 05.


This is a marvelous film noir story set in every day upper-middle-class America. It presents the popular ambivalence felt at the time about psychoanalysis, with one "good" Doctor and one charlatan.

I am a fan of Gene Tierney, without thinking she a great actress. She was exceptionally pretty, had a very polished manner, and very average in range. This made her a wonderful representative of both the middle class, and their hopes of being refined. To my mind, while this is not her best film (That being either THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR or LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN), this IS her finest acting work. It uses her blankness to advantage, and this script also gives her the pathos and confusion to vent full emotional range which is rare for her films. (To the observant person, it also displays the flaws of her presentational acting style; as when she breaks down in a torrent of bitter tears, and looks up afterwards  dry eyed and serene. But for THIS film  playing a woman completely divorced from her own emotions  even that works to the benefit of the plot.)

An actor is always helped  made better, challenged more  by working with other great actors, and she is working here with one of the very best, Jose Ferrer. This was shortly before his academy award win in CYRANNO, and quite possibly, this incredibly complex performance contributed to that win, he is simply excellent. All screen villains should watch this, every second of his performance is filled with a gamut of emotions, and mundane details. It is clear that not only is his character the smartest person in the room, but Ferrer may be as well. Tierney carries the story and Ferrer moves it along. Charles Bickford also gives a marvelous performance in a smaller, yet layered role as the rumpled, grieving Detective.

Richard Conte, is the real oddball casting. His street-tough demeanor is what carried his career. (He is magnificent as the psycho mob boss in stylish expressionistic noir film, THE BIG COMBO.) So it was an interesting choice to cast him as the intellectual top-notch psychologist, and ideal husband, but it doesn't really work. We just can't really believe that people would turn to him for help, that level of sensitivity isn't there. Ultimately, this is an undercurrent of the movie, however, and Director Otto Preminger may have been making the point that even a good Psychiatrist may not be that good for people.

This film was probably shocking in its day  not very nice - like watching those lovely people next door have a drunken brawl. A larger theme which is being exposed here is that the "perfect post-war life" is an empty façade. Since this was made in 1949, this film presents a very early warning shot across the bow of the "Cleaver Family" façade. It would be almost 10 years before this was a much more common thread, in such movies as the Kim Novak/Kirk Douglas "STRANGERS WHEN WE MEET," and then films with James Dean, who became the poster boy of idyllic family life with a dysfunctional core.

The talented Ben Hecht wrote the screenplay with Andrew Solt, based on a novel by Guy Endore. Much more than mystery, much more than noir, this is a very fine story with good plot twists, emotional life (which is usually absent or ice-cold in noir), developed with subtlety and brains. It is still a joy to watch for itself, but made timeless by the despicable, love-to-hate-him performance of Jose Ferrer.


Movies were meant to entertain, and not all movies can be a "Citizen Kane" but this movie does what it's meant to do. Gene Tierney, perhaps the most beautiful actress ever to grace the screen, and highly under rated, handles the task of playing the fragile, accused murderess in the movie. An odd choice but Jose F. does a great job too...his hospital scene still makes me wince when he gets up from his bed! Barbara O'Neil (aka, Scarlet's mother) pops up in the most unlikeliest of places, but I have a new appreciation for her work. She adds style and elegance to every movie she appears in, including this one as the murdered socialite. Sure the movie might have some flaws, but if you listen carefully everything can be explained. It's great viewing time and again.


While I never found Preminger's "Laura" or "Angel Face" on par with the film noir masterpieces such as "Out of the Past" and "The Lady From Shangai", they still deserve their high reputation in the genre, for they are superbly crafted full of some interesting characters. Such is the same of this movie: it may leave me a bit cold (as the murder mystery is the drive of the story, not the otherwise enriching characters- Laura suffers from the same), but its still VERY entertaining with great performances and that wonderful pessimism on American life film noir is known for.

(minor spoilers within) Gene Tierney to start with, is beautiful, just looking at her gives the film an extra star. Here, she plays a very repressed housewife, who looks the joys in life not through domesticity, but by relieving the thrill of her childhood, which was stealing. She's one of those great mixes in film noir of the noir-heroine and the femme fatale, while she may be on the right side of the law, she certainly is not pleased with society's assigned role of housewife (as her marriage offers her nothing) and so rebels against it.

This has its consequences, as she falls prey to Jose Ferrer, as a quack astrologer and a skilled (yet egotistic) hypnotist. Ferrer plays this role with style, he's a big scumbag (a murderer, blackmailer, and there are remote possibilities that he made Tierney do more then clean up his dirty work), but he does this with class, I could still buy why Tierney (and others, such as his society friends) decided to trust a man who had given her plenty of warning signs.

The rest of the principle players are fine, but nothing outstanding. Richard Conte is hopelessly miscast as Tierney's genius psychoanalyst husband. His thick city accent looks stupid in his role. Charles Bickford, playing a bitter and cold detective, fairs well, but his character goes through a sudden change of heart that needed time to develop, and in the end is just in their to help wrap up the story.

Overall, a flawed, yet underrated work (however deserves more praise, but not too much) from Otto Preminger, with both Gene Tierney (who is always worth watching) and Jose Ferrer a pleasure to watch.


This film has been unavailable for so many years, so to finally have it on DVD is great. It is an unusual film noir from Otto Preminger and his favorite leading lady, Gene Tierney, who had starred in his classic "Laura" and whom had just completed her maternity leave when production began on "Whirlpool".

Tierney gives a fascinating performance as Ann Sutton, the beautiful wife of a prominent psychiatrist (Richard Conte) who suffers from kleptomania but who will do anything to conceal this. When hypnotist David Korvo (Jose Ferrer, very menacing here), gets her out of a jam with the local authorities due to her shoplifting tendencies, he decides to use it as a form of blackmail against her in order to use his hypnotizing skills on her. He gets her to perform all kinds of shady deeds, while succeeding in getting her conscious mind to suppress it. She is strangely drawn to him, while her dumbfounded husband can come to only one conclusion - that she and Korvo are involved in an illicit affair. Ann desperately tries to prove her innocence, and in the process, leads all involved in a potentially deadly trap to stop Korvo.

There are echoes of "Laura" throughout, including the portrait that hangs over the mantle at the home of the ill-fated Theresa Randolph (Barbara O'Neill, best remembered as Scarlett's mother in GWTW), and the final shootout. Definitely an off-beat movie of the noir genre, it is still a very watchable one. Richard Conte is a little unconvincing as Tierney's shrink husband, but he manages to pull it off, with efficient support from Tierney and Ferrer.

Can a man make a woman do things she doesn't want to do? Watch "Whirlpool" and draw your own conclusions.

A great addition to the Fox Film Noir collection.


Enjoyable noir with some surprising plot twists covering up the holes. Jose Ferrer is a quack psychotherapist who specializes in adjustment disorders of the rich. Gene Tierney, she of the supernal beauty, is married to a legitimate psychoanalyst, Richard Conte. Alas, because of some "childhood neurosis" she is a kleptomaniac and is afraid to tell her husband about it.

When she is caught boosting an expensive pin from a jewelry shop, Ferrer intervenes and gets her out of trouble. He's all suavity and charm. He coaxes all her symptoms out of her -- the headaches, the thievery, the insomnia -- which she's been afraid to reveal because it might damage her husband's reputation and, presumably, his income.

Ferrer secretly treats Tierney for a week or so, curing her of her headaches and insomnia. Of course Ferrer is not all he seems. Is any character with a name like "David Korvo" going to be what he seems? Among all the Coltons and Suttons in the rest of the flick? Fortunately, Ferrer is the right man for the role. One scan of a potential client and Ferrer knows all about her. He's like Sherlock Holmes. Nobody can sneer with such supercilious self satisfaction as Ferrer. (Sorry about that.) Can you imagine Ferrer playing a homeless and helpless vagrant full of ontological Angst? Anyway, Ferrer hypnotizes Tierney one time too many, so to speak, and she winds up the only suspect in the murder of a woman who was about to expose Ferrer for the woman-abusing blackmailing charlatan that he is. Ferrer is off the suspect list because he's been in the hospital recovering from gall bladder surgery. I don't think I want to get into the plot more than that because medical discretion forbids it.

There's a lot of pop psychology hokum floating around in the story, which needn't be gone into except to say that hypnosis is a curious altered state of consciousness that isn't well understood at all. Some people are good subjects and some not. The good ones are really good. I used it in a class in hypnotherapy and in a 15-minute session helped a classmate cut his smoking in half, at least for a week or so. And there are documented instances of surgery being carried out with no other anesthetic. And there are clinical anecdotes written about bleeding during childbirth being shut down. Sometimes, with some people, it really WORKS. I'm not so sure about self hypnosis though. We'll know more, I guess, in another generation or so.

Well, as a follow up to Preminger's "Laura" of a few years earlier, this doesn't quite clear the bar. "Laura" had something that this plot-driven story is weak in. I don't know exactly what it is. Ferrer may be a slimeball but he's not nearly as engaging as Clifton Webb's homosexual columnist in "Laura." And there isn't a moment in "Whirlpool" that is the equal of the scene in which Tierney reappears from the dead to find a half-drunk Dana Andrews sitting in her living room just after he's gone through her lingerie drawer.

It's not a bad film though. The surprises are real enough and the story is engaging. Ferrer stands out as the heavy, Tierney with her little girl voice doesn't have to do much, and Richard Conte as the psychoanalyst is stolid, which is what the role calls for. Worth seeing.


Gene Tierney plays a beautiful kleptomaniac married to a successful psychoanalyst who appears more vulnerable than she in fact is. She comes under the influence of a calculating and dangerous hypnotist played by Jose Ferrer, who not only wants to fleece her financially but also has a strong desire have her in some weird way where he can win over her husband, whom he seriously resents for his successes and recognition in his work. Aside from his glaring professional and personal inadequacies which he glosses over with his smooth delivery, he turns out to be quite dangerous. Forget her kleptomania, which is nothing compared to the psychological minefield portrayed so well by Ferrer. The film's best and most interesting angle is his obsessions, which ruin him, a reason to watch this film with a certain fascination.


Another complex, at times morally ambiguous film noir from Otto Preminger, engaging the services of top writer Ben Hecht and actors of the quality of Gene Tierney & Jose Ferrer to give it life. It's old ground of course for all of them, Preminger and Tierney had teamed up in "Laura" and, with Hecht were to do so again in the soon-come "Where the Sidewalk Ends" while Hecht had previously turned psychoanalysis to thrilling effect in Hitchcock's "Spellbound". There are certainly some typically subversive little Preminger / Hecht touches, I detect, of voyeurism and fetishism, running the film close, I would imagine, to the prevailing moral code of the day, which the former was to take on further in "The Moon Is Blue" and to some kind of apogee in "Anatomy Of A Murder" 10 years later. Look and listen closely here and you'll see the camera fading out a shot of Tierney's husband just about to disrobe his wife after she falls into a hypnotically induced deep-sleep and at another point the salacious quote addressed to Tierney by morally corrupt blackmailing hypnotist/astrologist (what a CV!) Ferrer about "undressing her scruples". I was even pulled up by the scenes of the blood-marks on the floor from Ferrer's character as something you didn't see everyday in the sanitised, Hollywood still coming to terms with the Communist witch-hunt in the post-war era. The playing is excellent, Tierney, who I've only just discovered as an actress (largely through watching old film-noirs!) is again radiantly beautiful as the ashamed kleptomaniac, desperate for a cure, but at the same time conveying her character's complexity and inner toughness as she finally breaks the hypnotic spell cast on her by Ferrer. For me, Ferrer steals the movie, making your skin crawl in every scene he plays once his perverted (in every sense of the word) designs become apparent. Their scenes together, where he can hardly conceal his lust for Tierney and desire to break up her happy home are electric and he also gets a lengthy scene where he hypnotises himself against the excruciating after-effects of his self-conducted gall-bladder operation. He completely convinces you of his strength of will over his physical pain to enable him to go after Tierney as she struggles to recover her amnesia which will of course expose his own guilt. The direction is taut, the cinematography excellent, the settings convincing and I also especially appreciated the excellent use of music to dramatise key scenes. Naturally there's a large degree of implausibility about just how Tierney finds herself under the control of such a toxic character and the denouement is perhaps more complicated and played out than it might be but this is still a highly intelligent, challenging piece of cinema, further pushing back the barriers of adult cinema in late 40's Hollywood.


Well I like it more than most it would seem, it's central theme of hypnosis as a weapon is a very good one and it plays out as an interesting story right up to the finale. Gene Tierney doesn't have to do much here, she is asked to portray confusion and delivers well enough, whilst José Ferrer is more than adequate for the dastardly role of David Korvo. I see a simple and effective noirish drama that although the ending is never really in doubt, the film has enough mystery about it to keep the viewer hanging in there for the final reel. The final scene may be a tad too contrived for some but it pays off well enough and as the credits rolled I was more than satisfied with what I had just watched.

A very solid 7/10.


"Whirlpool" is a tale of kleptomania, hypnotherapy and murder in which the considerable talents of director Otto Preminger and Ben Hecht (who co-wrote the screenplay with Andrew Solt) are harnessed effectively to produce a thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable off-beat thriller.

Gene Tierney stars as Ann Sutton, the affluent and respectable wife of an eminent psychoanalyst, who finds herself in a fix when she's caught shoplifting. Fortunately, her embarrassment and likely prosecution are avoided by the timely intervention of another customer, David Korvo (Jose Ferrer). Korvo is a psychotherapist who convinces the store's management that Ann is clearly unwell and should, therefore, be released, especially as pursuing the matter further would be likely to draw adverse publicity to the business. As Ann is an account holder, the item of jewellery that she stole is returned to her and simply charged to her account.

Ann's relief is initially tempered by the suspicion that Korvo intends to blackmail her but when he disabuses her of that idea and gains her trust, she becomes a patient of his and he successfully treats her insomnia by using hypnotism before promising to give her treatment for her kleptomania. Although her marriage to William (Richard Conte) is a happy one, she has never been able to admit her problem to him.

It quickly becomes clear that the ultra smooth talking Korvo is actually an unscrupulous con-man who has designs on Ann and her money. However, when one of his ex-victims (who is coincidentally now one of Dr Sutton's patients) tells her what sort of man he is, she dismisses what's been said and totally ignores the warning. Later, the woman who gave Ann the warning is found murdered and all the evidence suggests that Ann was the murderer. Korvo is not implicated because he was undergoing gall bladder surgery at the time of the murder, and eventually Dr Sutton and police Lieutenant Colton (Charles Bickford) work together to determine who was responsible for the murder.

Korvo's slyness, deceit and manipulation are all wrapped up in a cloak of smugness, unctuous charm and pseudo-concern for his patients and Ferrer displays all these characteristics admirably. Gene Tierney expertly depicts the range of emotions felt by her character who is superficially serene, sophisticated and confident but is actually tormented by her internal struggle with a condition which is a powerful and malign force in her life and one which she is ashamed to admit, even to her husband.

Sadly, the well documented mental health problems that Gene Tierney endured in her own life, add an inescapable poignancy to the experience of seeing her excellent portrayals of characters such as Ann Sutton and of course, Ellen Berent in "Leave Her To Heaven".

Standards and practices in psychiatry and psychotherapy have changed considerably since "Whirlpool" was made and anyone watching it now will need to make allowances for this and also suspend their disbelief at a couple of the plot's more bizarre twists which come over as much less credible now than they may have seemed at the time.


Borderline camp to be sure, WHIRLPOOL is still a lot of fun. Kleptomaniac Gene Tierney finds herself under the spell of wacky hypnotist Jose Ferrer and is soon doing his evil bidding. The fact that the film takes itself so seriously is part of the enjoyment. Director Otto Preminger seems unaware that he's NOT making another LAURA. Still, Tierney is striking and her slightly off-kilter personality lends itself nicely to this type of role. She was always at her best playing women who may or may not be REAL BAD! Ferrer is his usually hammy self, but this time it works in his favor. How else should one play a hypnotist? Richard Conte is badly cast as Tierney's doctor husband. It might be the role --- he seems to be the dimmest doctor imaginable.


A woman is taken terrible advantage of by a hypnotist in "Whirlpool," a 1949 film starring Gene Tierney, Jose Ferrer, and Richard Conte, directed by Otto Preminger. Tierney is the wife of a successful psychiatrist who is caught shoplifting. She is helped by Ferrer, a hypnotist who steps in during her interrogation. He works with her to help her solve some of her problems, but he adds some other hypnosis as well.

This isn't a great Preminger. The acting is good, but the script is weak. First of all, is it really possible to hypnotize someone that completely? I don't know. What I do know is that it's absolutely against all ethics to talk about a patient with anyone as freely as Conte does. Since a good deal of the plot hinges on his breaking of that doctor-patient privilege, the story doesn't hold up.

Gene Tierney is her usual beautiful self. This is not, however, a role that plays to her strengths as an actress. She's sympathetic but doesn't explore the range of the role enough. She more easily played an icy or feisty type. In those days, as actresses neared 30, studios became less interested, and Tierney found herself in roles which she was not particularly right for - or that wasted her talent just to fulfill her contractual obligations. Ferrer is excellent as the oily hypnotist, keeping his voice even when he was saying the most outrageous things. Conte is very good as well as Tierney's husband.

All in all, this was interesting to watch, but it could have been much better given the talent behind and before the camera.


The famed Otto Preminger produces and directs this melodrama written by Ben Hect and Andrew Solt. A much over looked piece of Film Noir from 20th Century Fox starring the alluring Gene Tierney. Although her husband 'Bill' Sutton(Richard Conte)is a well known psychologist, Ann Sutton(Tierney)is a kleptomaniac, who is trapped into being treated by an unscrupulous hypnotist David Korvo(Jose Ferrer). Korvo is notorious for making his living by taking advantage of unsuspecting women and blackmailing them. Korvo will force Mrs. Sutton's involvement in a failed relationship's payoff and murder. Dirty dealing is going on for sure. And what is a girl to do while under a spell? WHIRLPOOL also features: Charles Bickford, Barbara O'Neal and Constance Collier. With no disrespect to the beautiful Tierney, a great director like Preminger can make a not-so-flamboyant cast look good.


Film Noir to me is dark, with evil deeds and especially unhappy endings. This was before I began thinking about it and determined that noir is more a type of film making rather than film content. A film like "Double Indemnity is noir even tho we do have some happy in the ending (the daughter and boyfriend reconcile). Sunset Boulevard has Norma so bonkers she thinks things are happy and so they are. So, this noir is a happy noir. Gene Tierny is hypnotized by Jose Ferrer and he makes her do things to help him murder a former sucker who turned on him. Jose is so good at hypnosis he even google-eyes himself after gall bladder surgery so he can get about knocking off people and listening to records. Gene's husband is a shrink himself, but legitimate and somehow he connives that Jose is not on the level. He believes her, then he doesn't, she's nuts, she's not, oh dear, what to do, what to do. Cut to murder scene and Jose hiding in the wings with a guy he finally Jose tries to get Gene to cover for him while hubby and a cop are searching a closet. Failure and good wills out, happiness and joy, cut. This movie is so contrived, I wanted to hypnotize myself in to shutting it off but stayed to course to see how lousy a top notch cast/production could screw up. Pretty bad.


Ann Sutton (Gene Tierney) is married to Dr. Bill Sutton, an upright psychoanalyst (played by a completely miscast Richard Conte). When we first meet Ann, she's getting arrested by a store detective in a department store after attempting to steal an expensive piece of jewelry. Okay, so that's a bit of a twistour heroine is a kleptomaniac. Next into the mix is the oily David Korvo (nicely and seedily played by Jose Ferrer). He knows the department store owner and convinces him to drop the charges against Ann.

Korvo is 1949's answer to a new age practitioner: he dabbles in astrology but is principally a hypnotist. At first Ann believes Korvo is trying to blackmail her but he persuades her that he really wants to be her 'therapist'. Ann is smart enough to realize that Korvo is trying to get her to come up to his hotel room so they can have sex so she meets him downstairs in the hotel lobby. Korvo gives up on the sex idea but has more sinister plans. At first, he charges $50 for hypnotism sessions which appear to be helping Ann with her insomnia.

We learn more about Korvo from one of Bill Sutton's patients, Theresa Randolph, who tries to warn Ann that Korvo is a blackmailer and up to no good but Ann believes that Theresa is merely jealous of her relationship with this extremely crafty Svengali (apparently Bill adheres to a strict code of doctor-patient confidentiality as Ann has never met Theresa Randolph before). Bill records his therapy sessions on new-fangled long playing records which he stores in a closet in his home. Everything about Korvo's 'modus operandi' (his penchant for blackmail and physical abuse) are detailed in these recordings and Korvo realizes that he has to get his hands on them if he is to continue in his career as a con artist.

So what does Korvo do? He murders Randolph (just as she's about to change her will negating a bequest that leaves Korvo a large amount of money as part of her estate). He also hypnotizes Ann and has her steal the Randolph therapy session recordings and puts them in a closet in Randolph's house. He sets Ann up by leaving a glass with Ann's fingerprint on it in Randolph's home. The police arrive and arrest Ann for murder.

Now it gets strange, real strange! Korvo needs an alibi. Apparently he's been having gall bladder problems so he arranges to have an operation at two in the afternoon on the day of the murder. The murder occurs at nine in the evening so how does Korvo pull it off? Well we find out (quite improbably) that Korvo hypnotized himself and was able to drag himself out of bed and commit the murder.

The hypnotist's power of suggestion has a prominent role in this film but unfortunately much too prominent. I always believed that hypnotism might be a useful tool in helping people overcome minor health or psychological problems (such as Ann being helped with her insomnia at the beginning of the film). But I didn't buy it for a minute when Korvo orders Ann around in a trance and then hypnotizes himself hours after major surgery. And then Korvo does it againhe hypnotizes himself once more so he can leave the hospital and try and get his hands on the recordings. But instead of taking the recordings and getting out of the deceased Randolph's house right away (or even destroying them at the house), he tarries and begins playing them on the phonograph in the living room. This gives the Suttons and the investigating detective enough time to arrive at the crime scene where they eventually confront Korvo, who drops dead from blood loss (apparently his hypnotic suggestions are not powerful enough to stanch the bleedingcomplications from his surgery earlier that afternoon).

Aside from the obvious plot holes, there is also a distasteful conceit being peddled by the film's screenwriters here. The dubious and subjective 'profession' of psychoanalysis not only is depicted as being highly 'scientific' but is also placed on par with practitioners in the medical profession. 'Unscientific', unlicensed 'healers' (represented by the evil Korvo) are presented as bogus and manipulative in striking contrast to the upright Dr. Sutton (who uses his psychobabble) to uncover the ROOT of his wife's kleptomania. With some kind soothing words, Dr. Sutton will soon solve his wife's neurosis and they can once again move amongst their social equals and bring good cheer to them without the fear of scandal.

If you see this on DVD, there's some interesting commentary by film critic Richard Shickel. He notes that the late film critic, Pauline Kael, termed this film "a real stinker". But Schikel is more on the side of critic Andrew Sarris who felt there were a lot of worthwhile things about the film. While Tierney and Ferrer's performances draw you in, the plot holes and the psychobabble are enough to keep one from taking the DVD off the shelf and watching it every couple of months. I'm not sure if 'Whirlpool' deserves to be called a 'real stinker' but it's decidedly no great work of art!


This is one of those movies that keep you watching despite a sloppy screenplay - why, for God's sake, does Korvo (Jose Ferrer) first attempt to gain control of Ann Sutton's (Gener Tierney) mind in the middle of a cocktail party albeit in an empty room into which anyone could have wandered and why, when Tierney discovers the body of Ferrer's ex lover, do two guys turn up from nowhere and call the police. Add to this Richard Conte as arguably the most unconvincing psychiatrist in screen history and we begin to see the size of the problem. Nevertheless Tierney keeps us watching as Ferrer is effective as the quack Korvo.


Whirlpool is my fourth taste of classic director Otto Preminger, and the most disappointing. Films like Laura, Where the Sidewalk Ends and Anatomy of a Murder have given me a lot of confidence in the director, and this film just can't follow it. Whirlpool is often pigeon-holed with film noir, but actually it's more of a character-lead melodrama. The title is very apt, however, as Preminger spins a web of intrigue around the central character, and although the film never really gives you the impression that it's created a whirlpool - it often tries to. The plot takes its main basis from the practise of hypnosis, and it does feel a little odd that a completely serious film is taking its central plot idea from a rather strange idea. The plot follows a kleptomaniac who falls prey to a hypnotist after she is caught stealing from a shop. It's not long before she finds herself in the same room as a corpse of one of his previous patients, and before she realises it; she's the main subject of a murder investigation - and she's not even sure if she did it!

Gene Tierney and Otto Preminger worked together on a few films, and the relationship seems to have been a mutually beneficial one. However, here she seems to have been cast on the grounds that she is Gene Tierney, as opposed to because she fits the role. Tierney is better in strong-willed roles that allow her to show her impressive screen persona. Although she shows some range here, the desperate, vulnerable character doesn't suit her very well; and her leading role in Whirlpool isn't one of her best. This is made up for by José Ferrer, who is great in the role of the central villain. His performance is understated and sinister, which gives his character a lot of believability. The central threesome is topped off by Richard Conte, who spends most his time chewing the scenery. The plotting lets this film down, as after a good opening half hour - the film descends into boredom as we try to discover who really was behind the killing, even though there only ever is one suspect. Whirlpool picks up again towards the end, but there's too much wrong with it for me to give it the same praise as Preminger's best films.


Gene Tierney plays the beautiful but troubled wife of a wealthy psychoanalyst; she's suffering from kleptomania and seeks help from a nefarious hypnotist, who uses her for his own advantage. Otto Preminger-directed drama, from a novel by Guy Endore, has a terminal case of blandness. The well-coiffed picture is smartly-designed, but it is so starched and manicured that even the themes of blackmail and murder fail to cause much alarm. Tierney, her prim face permanently set in a super-serious freeze, has no character to play and falls back on externals; as the villain, Jose Ferrer gets off to a good start (much like the picture) but he quickly becomes monotonous. *1/2 from ****


Gene Tierney was not convincing at all in this film. The longer I watched the less I liked her character. "Oh, I've been arrested for murder, but I don't want to hurt my husband's reputation by admitting to stealing a pin!" Her failure to say anything just aggravates the audience. Apparently, the writer forgot what elements are needed to encourage the viewers to care about the victims. They either need to be mentally-challenged or fully able to execute rational decisions. They can't be in-between? One minute she's reasonably independent, the next she can't even spit out what's on her mind. Annoying... It causes you to loose interest, because you don't care what happens to her.


as mr preminger lumbers by and drags what mr hecht calls script by the scalp 93 long minutes back and forth one wonders that he found time to extract some extraordinary quests of his actors. first there's young barzini who is required to enjoy freudian self employment. as if this wasn't enough he is also a knowledgeable surgeon, author, recording artist, amateur sleuth and in the due course father converted husband. this maybe already quite impressive but look at mr ferrer! not only has he have to be insinuating himself through those arduous 93 minutes - he is also required to suffer from gall bladder removal, be fluent in hypnosis and in the art of being invisible to others in those daring final minutes when all is revealed. this leaves little room for anything more (cgi wasn't invented then) and so healthy toothed mrs tierney mainly looks plainly distressed. not all is wasted though because if nothing more we learn from mr preminger that women wore hats back then to disguise the fact that they were beaten up pretty often. why men wore hats was probably planned for revelation in 'son of whirlpool' but unfortunately this never materialized. one only wishes that mr ferrer could use his handicraft via the screen and put oneself to sleep after the opening credits keep rolling by ...


Guy likes girl, guy is terminally ill, guy wants to save girl from getting hurt so guy makes girl hate him so she can forget him and he can die in peace.

Sound familiar???? No s#$%. This line can be used to describe a large number of movie in the past the most recent being Bluffmaster. Only in this case we know from the beginning that he is not actually dying.

Well with reference to the above its safe to say that one cannot have any expectations from this movie. All one can expect it a run of the mill slapstick comedy with over the top humour and funny one liners and hugely over-exaggerated characters.

Not that thats bad we Indian feast on such comedies. We love to leave all our sensibilities at home and forget all the plot inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies of the film and just have laugh.

But this movie is just to bad. Bad enough that they have to rely on jokes we cracked as kids and received as sms's on the phone. PATHETIC!! The acting is not really bad its of the same quality you would expect in any such slapstick comedy only problem is that the jokes are really so pathetic and the timing so bad that its difficult to laugh. Special mention for Rajpal Yadav who gets credit for being as if not more annoying then Johny Lever in less that 10 films hot on his trail is Boman Irani who of he continues these roles will no doubt catch up with him.Anupam Kher must have been really broke to have accepted the role in this film.

They only saving grace of this film is Mallika Sherawat who plays the sexy sultry seductress to the hilt and carry the entire film on her shoulders with some help from Akshaye Khanna who deserved much better than this. The only few genuinely funny scenes in this movie all involve Mallika or akshaye with one particular scene being the one at the funeral.

Also i don't know Ayesha takia was hardly given any comic sequences when will Indian filmmakers realise that women (besides the seductress) can be funny tooo.

The songs save for one are all forgettable and i doubt the one that is OK will leave its mark too.

All in all a totally avoidable movie the only funny scenes are almost all in the teasers. Definitely not worth watching but if it coming on TV and you nothing better to do don't change the channel you may end up seeing a few funny scenes.


I like Akshay Khanna. Thas was the only reason i decided to watch this film and i'm happy i did. "Shaadi Se Pehle" was a very pleasant surprise, and i usually don't like these kind of mindless comedy's. But the story is pretty original and unoriginal at the same time. A couple of jokes in the film are really hilarious, almost as if the great, late Mehmood himself wrote the script.

Akshay Khanna is very good as usual. Although the wig he's wearing makes him look a little gay. Sunil Shetty is really a comedy actor, he should lay of the action flicks altogether. The two female leads look very pretty and do a OK job. Aftaab Shivdasani's acting was below average. I loved the special appearance by Gulshan Grover, him doing kind of a parody of his earlier "bad man"-character, though i'm not so sure if it was intentional or not.

The songs are time-pass only. They should have cut of at least two of the songs and make the film a little shorter.

7/10.. After Malamaal Weekly, this is the best Hindi comedy of the year so far!


Well well well Satish Kaushik is one of the funniest actors on Hindi screen at least in some films he was damn hilarious though he got annoying later-on

As a director he made social dramas like HUM AAPKE DIL MEIN REHTE HAI The recent hit TERE NAAM and some good films Comedy is considered one of his liabilities in his directed films be it HUM AAPKE DIL MEIN REHTE HAI and HAMARA DIL AAPKE PAAS HAI In TERE NAAM it was good but in this film he tries to make a complete comedy and ends up making a poor cousin of David DHAWAN films

The film starts quite well but suddenly becomes a sad caricatured over the top bullshit comedy

In short, Imagine a plot less film with comedy so forced and childish that it makes Govinda films classics?

Imagine a film where Akshaye Khanna is hamming like a clown??????? Imagine a film where he wears the worst co loured clothes which make Govinda's clothes a style statement? Imagine a film where Aftab just comes and goes and you forget him? Imagine a film where Malika and Ayesha get to your nerves with their too bold and fake attitude and simple roles and fake acting respectively?

Imagine a film where actors think making funny faces is being funny?

Some funny one- liners can make a good comedy?????

Overall a disaster barring some Suneil Shetty portions and his few lines the film is unbearable Suneil does manage to make you laugh with his Bhaigiri but that isn't much


Bollywood sucks the big one. It's like a malfunctioning machine that keeps spitting out these ridiculous musical romantic comedies, that always end the same way, have generally the same plot, same characters, and same music. They're not original, or brilliant in anyway whatsoever. It's like they don't realize it's bad and they keep wasting money on the same crap. Of course it does appeal to Indians, because these are their films, but I mean can't you at least come up with something better. I mean Bollywood comes out with more movies than Hollywood every year, and they seem to only generally get attention in India, and even in India, International films seem to be more popular than their own (judging by their box office results)I am not a racist in any way whatsoever, in fact I have at least 7 friends who were born in India and came to America during their childhood. I am just a harsh critic, and I certainly hope some writer, or producer finds this and realizes that a change is in need, and not all films have to be musical comedies where a girl and guy serenade each other throughout the film. THERE IS OTHER MATERIAL OUT THERE AND India IS A VERY INSPIRATIONAL COUNTRY!