It is really hard to understand what kind of message this film is supposed to convey. We have several threads of story that start and seem to lead nowhere. Juliette Binoche is an actress who after acting as Mary in a film about the life of Jesus is struck by religious fervor and apparently starts identifying herself wit the the Bible character. Forest Whitaker is a religious TV host who does not seem to care to much about God, but when disaster strikes his personal life he remembers Him and starts praying and believing - are we supposed to believe as viewers that this sincere? The film about Jesus starts some kind of controversy which seems to refer to Mel Gibson, but the real Mel Gibson as much as I may not like him is certainly sincere in his beliefs, and does not look like the cynical character in this film. Although 'Mary' lasts only 83 minutes the screen time is too long, so it is filled up with scenes of the biblical story (from the film in the film, or trying to convey some confuse metaphor? who cares?) and an episode of a Jewish Passover celebration in Jerusalem interrupted by an act of terror with no connection whatever with the rest of the story.

It is hard to grasp why this film was made, what is it really trying to say and why actors like Juliette Binoche and the now-Oscared Forest Whitaker got involved with it. They act well, but it's wasted talent. Unless you are a fan of Bible inspired films, there is no good reason to spend the time seeing it.


A 'fun' arcade game it may well have been in it's day, but one cannot play Moonwalker today without feeling dirty or somewhat guilty. Based on the 'movie' of the same name, Moonwalker is just as weird, bizarre and outrageously self-glorifying as Wacko Jacko himself.

You take on the role of a suspected pedo, dressed in a white gangster suit, who must rescue children (hidden in closets, drawers, garbage cans) from the evil Mr. Big. Upon being rescued these kids respond joyously with 'MICHAEL', knowing that they are now safe with the King of Pop. You need to rescue all the little sprogs in every level before you meet the end-level boss. But some children are too well hidden.

And who IS this Mr. Big exactly. The Jacko of 1989 fighting against a child-napper, who's motives for stealing kids is unknown in the game, seems prophetic in a split-personality kind of way. Just like in Thriller where he played a ghoulish, inhuman beast, eerily foreshadowing the future.

The gameplay itself is ludicrous. As you (moon)walk across the various levels (some generic, some inspired by his 'classic' music videos) you'll encounter baddies like gangsters and zombies and your amazing way of killing them is...dancing them do death. Seriously! It's not Jesus Juice, it's Jacko Jamming! You hit the special attack button and Jacko will suddenly yell 'OW!' before strutting his lethal stuff. After which, the baddies will be vanquished somehow. After playing this game you'll be exhilarated and mentally exhausted at Jacko's killer moves. You'll be reduced to a dribbling wreck. He's so good, that even passing-by animals will join in and shake their asses. If you ever wanted to play a game in which even an innocent dog is hypnotised by Jacko into dancing Thriller then this is for you. But I don't want to know you.

The music is no more than low-quality samples of Smooth Criminal and Thriller, as you should know this music follows Jacko everywhere he goes in real life and will change depending on where he is.

In the later levels, if you catch a falling star Jacko will turn into a huge robot. Of course. Like in the film, I just can't get over the feeling that Jacko only included this because he wants to see himself 100 feet high. It's ridiculous and has nothing to do with anything! But in a moronic, hopelessly out-dated video game I suppose it's okay. It was kind of easy to finish too and I never really played it again afterwards. But these days, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth and I can understand why no one would want to play it again.

Graphics C Sound C Gameplay D Lasting Appeal F


I had doubts about this movie the moment it started. I recorded it because it was rated highly in the TV listings and starred Matthau, who I always like, but during the opening credits' bucolic scenes of Matthau playing with a little boy to the movie's unutterably treacly score (the sort of thing you heard in TV movies of the 70s) I thought, oh god, what am I in for? Matthau's windbag character also instantly turned me off. So I came here to see what people thought, and saw one glowing review after another. And that inspired me to watch another hour before giving up.

Besides the truly abysmal score, Kotch suffers from a surfeit of annoying characters. Kotch himself is genial but tedious, his son is bland and his daughter-in-law plays the requisite bitch. The girl he eventually helps is about as annoying as the title character.

I can't figure out why people like this movie so much. I think it's a movie for people who like comforters with teddy bears quilted into them or something. It's simple-minded and just plain dull.


I think if you are into the sixties kind of thing, as I am, you are obligated to waste about 80 minutes of your life watching this barely watchable trainwreck. The saving graces of this oddity include a surprisingly apt social commentary on sixties values along with a number of relatively well known actors caught in early (and embarrassing) footage. It's as if the producers of Laugh-In sat down and decided to write a full length film, covering all the high points (and more) of the issues between the flower children and the establishment, then put it in the hands of a couple of hippies and gave them about a $10,000 budget to complete it. Hardly a classic, but in its own way it does capture how truly strange that time was, the silliness, the over-idealism, and the uptightness of the establishment. Clearly not for everyone.


Roger Corman is undeniably one of the most versatile and unpredictable directors/producers in history. He was single-handedly responsible for some of my favorite horror films ever (like the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations "Masque of the Red Death" and "Pit and the Pendulum") as well as some insufferably cheap and tacky rubbish quickies (like "Creature from the Haunted Sea" and "She Gods of the Shark Reef"). Corman also made a couple of movies that are simply unclassifiable and  simply put  nearly impossible to judge properly. "The Trip", for example, as well as this imaginatively titled "Gas-s-s-s" can somewhat be labeled as psychedelic exploitation. In other words, they're incredibly strange hippie-culture influenced movies. Half of the time you haven't got the slightest idea what's going on, who these characters are that walk back and forth through the screen and where the hell this whole thing is going. The plot is simply and yet highly effective: a strange but deadly nerve gas is accidentally unleashed and promptly annihilates that the entire world population over the age of 25. This *could* be the basic premise of an atmospheric, gritty and nail-bitingly suspenseful post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi landmark, but writer George Armitage and Roger Corman decided to turn it into a "trippy" road-movie comedy. None of the characters is even trying to prevent their inevitable upcoming deaths; they just party out in the streets and found little juvenile crime syndicates. "Gas-s-s-s" is a disappointingly boring and tries overly hard to be bizarre. The entire script appears to be improvised at the spot and not at all funny. Definitely not my cup of tea, but the film does have a loyal fan base and many admirers, so who am I to say that it's not worth your time or money?


I don't hand out "ones" often, but if there was ever a film that deserved this sort of attention, it's "Gas!" This is self-indulgent crap that reaches for some of the ambiance of M*A*S*H and falls completely flat on its face in the attempt.

I see what Corman was going for - Malcolm Marmorstein and Elliott Gould tried to reproduce Gould's deathless role in the original movie version of M*A*S*H with a similar plot (in the movie "Whiffs" - look it up here in IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073891/ for more information).

Marmorstein and Gould got closer to the brass ring with "Whiffs" than Corman did with "Gas!" but didn't quite get there. Neither one of those films even got close to the success of M*A*S*H.

What's wrong with "Gas!"? What isn't? No one comes close to really acting at a level above junior high school theatrics. The production values stink. Someone else here mentioned the magically regenerating headlights on a getaway car, and there's more of that lack of attention to detail. Nothing works the way it's supposed to in this film, and nobody cares.

"Gas!" actually put me to sleep. It's not a sure cure for insomnia, but really close. On the Cinematic Sleep Induction scale, "Gas!" falls somewhere between "Last Year at Marienbad" and George Clooney's remake of "Solaris" (which itself was remarkable for being more boring than the Mosfilm original, despite that studio's seeming unfamiliarity with the idea of keeping the audience's attention by judicious editing).

Judicious editing would have decimated "Gas!" to about twenty minutes. The result would be pointless, but no more so than the original film.

Certain films are so bad that they have a compelling quality that makes them worth watching anyway. This isn't one of them. Don't waste your time. It's not even amusingly bad.


In one word... abysmal. I give it one star for the hippie sex scenes and eye candy women, otherwise forget it. Corman's worst effort, bar none. Ben Vereen should have had his name permanently stricken from the cast. I cannot believe that this is now going to be on DVD (as of 2/15/05) with "Wild In The Streets" - another retro stinker. I woke up sick in bed this morning with a cold, decided to watch a movie to cheer me up some, scanned the digital channels... the premise looked interesting enough because I like viewing B-movie sci-fi, hippie culture and rebellious teen flicks. It seemed familiar somehow and with Ben Vereen in the cast, I thought... why not? What a big mistake... it was a horrible start to my day.

Only after viewing it, I now know why the familiarity crept into the recesses of my newly-awakened brain. I remembered seeing coming attractions for this film as a 14-year old (I'm 45), back in the early/mid-seventies at the Sombrero, a local art theater that no longer exists... the whole theater laughed hysterically and even groaned out loud at how bad this movie looked. Acting: dreadful, story: awful, cinematography: nearly-awful, music: terrible, sound: horrendous, directing: a joke. If you choose to watch this after my warning, remember... "I told you so."

"Gass-s-s-s" is the perfect title for this film... you feel "gassed" after viewing this putrid movie - or maybe that you should be taken to a "gas" chamber for wasting your brain away. I have seen homemade Super 8 movies that put this film to shame. Definitely a new addition to my all-time Top Ten WORST films... it's up there (er, down there) with "Tentacles."

Ted in Gilbert, AZ


There was a brief flourishing during the Seventies of using the Negev desert in Israel as location for the filming of westerns. I imagine that now with those rockets flowing from the Gaza, no film company wants to go there. In any event I suppose you could call these things bagel westerns.

Quality wise they're not all that different from some of the mediocre European spaghetti westerns being churned out on that continent, even with American players like Lee Van Cleef, John Marley, and Jim Brown starring in them.

Kid Vengeance stars a kid, Leif Garrett in the days right before he became a pop bubblegum teen idol. Van Cleef and Marley and their gang kill his father and kill and rape his mother and sister Glynis O'Connor stows away on their outlaw wagon. Talk about not too much smarts.

Anyway young Leif is out for blood, but the most androgynous teen idol until Michael Jackson never really makes you feel he's all that bloodthirsty. Garrett also meets Jim Brown, a miner who the outlaws have robbed and left tied up and stretched out to die. Garrett comes him free and the two of them join forces to get the gang that did them dirt.

The climax which I can't reveal is hokey beyond belief, the most unbelievable western showdown ever filmed. This film just might have killed the Israeli western business more than the Arabs.


KID VENGEANCE (2 outta 5 stars) Cheaply-made and poorly-directed piece of western fluff starring Lee Van Cleef as one of the most vile villains he's ever played. This was during his later years when he was getting a bit long in the tooth to believably play those nasty, tough guy parts... but he is still the most interesting thing in this movie. He leads a bunch of bandits who rape and kill the mom and dad of young Leif Garrett and then kidnap his sister. Leif goes after them with "vengeance" on his mind. He begins to pick off the bandits one by one, using some pretty unconventional means (bow and arrow, rocks, scorpions, the old snake-in-the-saddlebag trick). He eventually teams up with a gold prospector (Jim Brown) whose life savings have been stolen by these men as well. The film starts off looking like a bad TV-movie... but once the raping and killing starts it becomes obvious that this was no "Movie Of The Week". You might be interested enough to sit through it once but this is no classic by any means.


I admit that I was drawn to this film by Maltin's (negative) review ("bloody, gory Western"), wondering if it could be so explicit. Well, there are many killings here, but you barely get to see any blood. Mainly, this is just an improbable, formula Western tale of revenge. Lee Van Cleef is the sadistic villain, and perhaps he had played a few too many sadistic villains by that point; he has no flair here. Early on, there is a scene so laughably bad, involving an obvious stock shot of a scorpion, that it destroys the film's credibility, and the film never regains it. (*1/2)


This movie sucks. I hated it, every last minute that I allowed to waste my time. It's sorta nice to see that movies can still inspire sheer, honest dislike even after being taught to be accommodating about art. But I think that this is where we draw the line, at least with Westerns. This one was filmed in Isreal by Italians and with American/Isreali money, and is a fantastic example of a movie that probably never needed to be made. It is lame, formulaic, predictable, writes itself, contains zero surprises or charisma, works as "anti-fun" in that you could potentially have more fun staring at a blank TV screen, and it sucked the will to live out of my eyeballs. With about four minutes to go I shut the DVD player off and went for a walk.

Hell, I like low budget, foreign made Westerns, especially when they are made by Italians and starring someone like Lee Van Cleef. I even like the "look" of The Holy Land standing in as the wild west, which looks like the moon at times. But I have my limits. This time out Van Cleef gets to play the bad guy, a rapist and leader of a gang of thugs who exist merely to inhabit a very unimaginative Israeli made Western until being killed by the needs of the plot. The main problem is that Van Cleef doesn't make a very evil villain here, which is surprising considering his truly vile Angel Eyes from THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY. Angel Eyes is the archetype for the Western Gringo Villain. This time out, his character apparently had either plenty of white shirts to change into, or his own laundry delivery out in the middle of the Gobi Desert. He is spotless, suave, well groomed and has the same dry Lee Van Cleef sense of humor -- other than his being a dirtbag and a rapist, I actually kind of liked the guy.

THE PLOT: Leif Garrett plays a 12 year old kid who gets to witness his parents being raped and murdered by Van Cleef's motley bunch of misfits and then spends 40 days and 40 nights in the wild taunting and killing them by such tactics as the poisonous snake in the old saddlebag trick (it's not a rattler but some kind of middle eastern Adder variety, and how the kid gets it into the saddlebags is left to the imagination), the old scorpion in the cowboy boots trick, and other imaginative methods of execution that don't really involve having the kid kill anyone. Eventually he meets up with Jim Brown, who doesn't seem to be very interested in being in the film at all. He plays a prospector and there is an annoying subplot about a group of inbred brothers who try to steal his claim which goes nowhere. I think they were supposed to be funny too, which only adds insult to injury for having to watch their on screen "antics". The only thing more disturbing is the way that Garrett's character reacts to having KILLED people, or at least directly causing their deaths, which is about the same way that he might have reacted to falling off his skateboard. It's not his fault though, because the movie just doesn't care how he might have felt about it.

Eventually there is a big showdown, and if you've ever seen one Western before you'll be able to predict how it ends up, except that by then we have established a sympathy bond with Van Cleef, who never allows himself to really be as scummy as his gang and insists on being protective + helpful to Garrett's kidnapped, jailbaitish sister, and doesn't jump her pretty bones because he has a little bambino back at home who loves his poppa. Like, yeah right. The most annoying aspect of the film is that as you sit there witnessing it's length you can successfully predict what will happen next right up until the moment when I decided I'd had enough of this crap. Maybe something does happen in the final 4 minutes or so that redeems the rest of the movie, but I rather doubt it and am willing to risk the loss, because like the movie itself, I just don't care.

2/10: Check out GOD'S GUN with Van Cleef instead for a better taste of Matzoh Ball Western. Made by the same people in the same place with the same money, and has the distinction of actually being "fun".


Parents should not allow their small children to watch Dimples any more than they should allow them to watch excessively violent, sexually explicit or profane movies, as they would be exposed to egregious stereotypes of Black people. The movie should be viewed by students of film, sociology and American history so they might have a better understanding of the negative, demeaning attitudes toward Blacks so prevalent in the U.S. until relatively recently, traces of which still exist. The picture has Stepin Fetchit playing a servant to Frank Morgan as if he has an IQ of 10. It has a "play-within-a play" performance of scenes from Uncle Tom's Cabin featuring Whites in ludicrous black-face complete with white sugar donut lips. It's ironic that the novel Uncle Tom's Cabin was intended as an abolitionist work, and indeed did arouse sympathy for Blacks, (so much so that President Lincoln called its author, Harriet Beecher Stowe, "The little lady who started the Civil War") while this movie, in which Uncle Tom's Cabin plays a prominent part, is, by enlightened standards, crudely racist.

If you can overlook the above racism, and I I'd like to know who can, Shirley Temple is adorable as usual, dancing wonderfully, though her singing voice, albeit cute, leaves something to be desired, as always. Frank Morgan gives an admirable performance as a charming con man thief.

But, all in all, Dimples is a children's movie that is no longer, if it ever was, suitable for children. If you doubt this, Just picture the Obamas screening it for their daughters.


A rich woman wants to adopt a sweet, young street performer, but things are complicated by the latter's thieving grandfather. Shirley gets to dance and act cute. She also gets to display her dramatic side in an enactment of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that brings tears to one's eyes, not because it is moving, but because it is painful to watch. Morgan made some fine films, but this is not one of them. He does the best he can as Shirley's greedy grandfather, who considers selling Shirley for $5000. There is an uninteresting romantic subplot involving the rich woman's nephew. The best thing to be said about this film is that it is only 79 minutes long, limiting the audience's pain and suffering.


This was not one of Shirley Temple's better films and the cast didn't help much. There are several actors and actresses in the film that I like but they couldn't bring the film through to a good movie. The acting was so-so and the script didn't help much at all.

Stepin Fetchit did well in a non-credited role but didn't save the movie.

In addition Frank Morgan seemed to me to be sleepwalking his way through his role.

Some of the cast did what they could but the vehicle didn't allow them to do what they could.

All that said, little Miss Temple did what she did so well and almost managed to make it a good movie. She was, however, cast in a mediocre film but was still entertaining. Watch it for her performance.

I did winced at the blackface ... 70 years DOES make difference.


This goes to Marcos Lobato. This is an answer for "insights" There is no "discuss about" in English. You must say "discuss something" or "talk about something". And this movie is only nice photography, nothing else. They pick up an exclusive amateur duet of childish pop music siblings and tried to make them stars.

There are nothing but didactic for kids. Brazilian movie industry still needs a lot of improvement concerning casting !!! Anyway, the lead characters cannot be rated good actors. That's all I think.

That's my opinion folks. Thats it.

There's no way it's over. Good Luck!!


Alterning elements from "Waterworld" and "Mad Max", this film is a pleasure to the eyes with beautiful sand landscapes from chilen Atacama´s desert. Besides, it´s a pleasure to the ears, with the outstanding brazilian diva Sandy and her voice. Go to see it now, but don´t forget to take a big glass of water before. I´ve got very thirsty at the end.


I used to love this movie when it came out when I was like 7 or 8. But now I look back on this and all of the no limit stuff that I liked and I wanted to...starve myself for 5 days as punishment. Now that I look back on this movie I simply think of it as okay whereas when I was 7 or 8 I thought this was the junk. I'm glad I have come to my senses but I do think that this movie is worth renting for those who haven't done so yet. I have 3 lines to burn now so I'm gonna use them bad mouthing other no limit movies. Hot boys. Horrible friggin' movie I didn't like that movie when I 1st saw it and i now haaaate it. Actually in general, i hate all of these stupid shoot em' up movies with rappers in them. DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! DIE! Not the rappers, the movies.


I got the Hook up is not what I would even call a movie, as it is really just merchandise for Master P to get his hands on money. This film has a weak plot if one at all, no one can act what so ever, and the script is not the best. If you like Master P, you might enjoy this movie. Personally I believe Master P has again failed at an another field of entertainment.


I've seen plenty of horrible movies in my life but this one takes the cake. I want everyone to see this though, for a laugh. I still don't understand what the f'n thing was about. Cell phones were important in this film, that's what the "plot" of the movie centered around. Other than that I'm at a loss. I can't imagine that a script was written for this. I'm quite sure a few people turned on a couple of cameras and yelled "do something". That's has to be what making this moving entailed.

Cable access is quality compared to this piece of junk.


I would love to see a "G" rated version of this movie.

It never let's up in its use of the "F" word. In fact in the opening words of the movie, it used the "F" word.

I think if they made a "G" version of this movie - there would be NO dialogue -- the movie would be one long "MF" BLEEP!

This isn't even a good "bro" movie. Bad acting, bad dialouge. It did have a semblance of a plot though.

Let me put it this way - if I had to choose between this movie and "Pippi Longstocking" -- it would be a toss up...

Wayno


I GOT THE HOOK-UP!(1997)

Developed by No Limit Films and published by Dimension Films

Pros:

>Unlike I'm Bout It, actual funding went into making this movie!

>A.J. Johnson, albeit annoying, is very funny.

Cons:

>Master P gives us more and even worse stereotypes on both black and white people than ever.

>No one in this movie, especially Master P, can act to save their lives.

Plot summary: Enter Black and Blue(Master P and A.J. Johnson), two black guys running a "ghetto shopping center"(you won't believe it until you see it) in South Central L.A. One day, a delivery truck filled with cell phones and pagers makes an accidental stop in their area, and Black tricks the deliverymen IN THE MOST IMPOSSIBLE WAY of selling him the goods. Black "hooks up" with his perverted on-and-off girlfriend Lorraine(Gretchen Palmer), who has a job at a cell phone company, and a guy that can illegally activate cell phone systems(Anthony Boswell). With everything set, Black and Blue go into selling cell phones. However, when chaos ensues through mixed-up receptions, Black and Blue find themselves on the run from angry customers, federal agents, and gang members.

Review: First off, let me inform you that this movie is put together like a live-action cartoon and never takes itself seriously, even when it wants to. All the characters in this movie are overly done stereotypes that are so bad that it hurts. However, there was a particular scene I thought was funny though offensive to the core: (SPOILER ALERT) the scene with Black and Blue getting shot at by handicapped gangbangers, with the leader saying retardedly, "B****! I'm'll bust a cap in yo' a**!(END SPOILER)" Also, no one in this movie can act, especially Master P. All he ever does is stupid things in a Southern accent while flashing his gold teeth. The only person in this film that remotely tries to act is A.J. Johnson, though he is basically all mouth in the spirit of Chris Tucker. This movie starts with a unoriginal plot but then quickly gets off the plot and tries to be too many things at once, putting another flaw on this extremely flawed movie.

My final 2 cents: Watch it 3 times in your life, and never make any contact with this film again.

My rating: 3 out of 10


This is one awful, awful comedy and a waste of a fine cast. Just one failed attempt at humor after another, with such crude and flat gags. The film leads nowhere, thinking it can be fueled strictly on laughs. But there's a problem: the laughs don't exist.

There was one funny joke and it was given away in the previews. A.J. Johnson says: "Here are the twins, Ug and Lee."

Just so I don't sound like a complete sour grape, there is one great scene involving a boatload of topless babes. If you happen to catch this movie on cable, that scene is worth waiting for. But don't waste any money to rent this movie.


Strangely enough I don't feel it's a great stretch to call this movie not worth the film it was put on. This film could have been used for an Oscar winner, a thoughtfully done picture, or even a Bruce Willis action movie. But instead it was used to record Master P's desire to employ all the awful rappers of New Orleans while keeping his unexplainable popularity as the poor man's Puff Daddy through the roof. I can't even begin to tell you the problems I had with I Got The Hook Up other than to say I don't count it as an actual movie. Movies have actors, plots, scripts. This awful production had none of these. I've seen some bad movies in my time, but by and large many of them were at least fun to laugh at. This wasn't; in fact this made me genuinely angry. I wasted an hour and a half of my life on this monstrosity that I will never get back. If I ever meet Master P, he'd better watch out.


A pointless plot and bad acting characterize this film that needs to be thrown in the garbage. Master P isn't master of anything except stupidity in this movie. This movies features some of my favorite comics but they come off looking aimless in this film. Word to the would-be watchers of this movie: Ghetto fabulous + hip-hop non-culture + bad acting + pointless plot = A film that ain't.


I am not a fan of Master P's music or movies, but I would rather sit through one of his CD's for an hour than be forced to watch his cinematic exploits. When I think of his movies, one of the titles sticks out, Foolish. This sums up what all of his movies are. The acting is terrible, the scripts are lame, confusing, non existent, or a combination of all three. He just cranked out junk to add money to his growing empire. When a producer casts his family, friends, and label mates in all his films, this should be a clue it definitely won't be nominated for an Oscar.

Granted, AJ Johnson is funny in most of his roles, but when given nothing to work with, what can you do? Master P thinks he is the next Ice Cube. Wake up call, Ice Cube has talent, something Master P seriously lacks. I think the movie viewing public will be safe for a while from being tortured by another No Limit movie production considering almost everyone on the label is either facing some type of criminal charge or serving time for being found guilty on charges brought against them. As long as video cameras and crew are not allowed inside prisons, we should be OK for at least 5-7 years.


My kids took me to see this flick & it was an embarassment it was offensive,stereotypical crap Master P. should stick to music.One of the biggest gripes in Hollywood is that Black movies always get ignored around Oscar time.With garbage like this coming out it's no wonder.


I like the action-flick from No Limit "Hot Boyz" with Silk The Shocker but this is almost pure garbage.

I love hoodcomedies like FRIDAY & DON'T BE A MENACE TO SOUTH CENTRAL but this is not very funny. AJ JOHNSON is a annoying Chris Tucker-wannabe but unlike Chris Tucker AJ is NOT funny. Master P is the worst rapper ever to be in a movie, he couldn't act even if his life depended on it.

I rate it 3/10 it has some fun moments but for the most parts it don't


Let me start by saying that I am a fan of Peckinpah. I like Steve McQueen. But this movie is just plain bad. The delivery of the dialog is flat. McGraw is an awful actress, and McQueen's acting here...well, he didn't have much of a script to work with. I have so many problems with this film....OK; after stealing $750,000, they just cross into Mexico in the front seat of the truck?? Faces plastered all over TV? Like the borders wouldn't have reward info on them?? The remake has a great cast, for this type of film, James Woods shows what this character should be like? His dialog delivery makes you feel hate, the other version makes you feel nothing. Jennifer Tilly was even better in her role! Alec Baldwin is perfect for this, Kim Bassinger is 10 times the actress of McGraw...I'm sorry, the '72 version is junk. Just because Steve McQueen was cool, and is dead, doesn't make everything he did "the Best" Peckinpah made a few good film, but the more i watch them the more I realize that Straw Dogs and Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia are his only solid work. Wild Bunch? How many times do I have to be forced to watch a bunch of guys laugh together to imply a sense of camaraderie? Great shoot out scenes but come on?! Be honest with yourself folks.


I had recently watched a decent string of Korean movies like 'Over the Rainbow', 'Chaser', etc and I was hoping for a good and relaxing comedy this time. Unfortunately this one turned out to be another one of those slow and terribly scripted movie. The acting was not good and neither was the editing. Half way through the movie, I realized the story had not progressed much! It's like telling a story at one statement per minute and the gap was filled with advertisements. I really felt that the movie tried too hard to be funny. There were moments that I felt could have been good but it was either untimely or not acted out well enough. Give this movie a miss!


I was running a movie theater when this turkey came out. We got to have a special sneak preview of it, which was rare for my theater. (a two screen theater in a city of less than 15,000 people)

I put the film together and decided to watch it to make sure all the splices were right. Fifteen minutes into it my four year old son was completely ignoring the film, and my father and I looked at each other and pondered how this was part of our life that we would never get back. If you think the kid had a short attention span, I would have to inform you that this is the same kid that watched Lion King from start to finish every night for a month two years before this.

If your idea of entertainment is monkeys farting - this is your film. If you're looking for something slightly more entertaining with animals, go watch Babe instead.


It looks like everyone here at IMDb is pretty unanimous about this film - it stinks! And, as a movie billed as "family film," it's an insult and a bad joke.

Yeah, there are some likable characters in here and I would be lying if I didn't admit I laughed at a number of gags but I (along with two parents) was embarrassed showing this advertised "kids' film" to their children, only to hear Jesus's name used in vain twice within six minutes and then hear all kinds of sexual innuendos by the little girl in the movie. A little girl once commenting about a guy having a "great butt" and another time asking another if he's gay. Come on! Also, you can tag on the normal amount of what it called "bathroom humor." It's everywhere here.

What the film is, basically, is garbage, despite the baseball angle. I usually enjoy baseball films, but I can't classify this as such. Parents: do your homework before watching some of these "family" films because some of them are the normal crude comedies of today's Hollywood.


.... On second thoughts don`t bother because this is ape sh*t . I can imagine the producers got together and said something like " Monkeys . Everyone loves monkeys . Parents love monkeys , children love monkeys , Michael Jackson loves monkeys so lets make a family film about a monkey "

I know films with monkeys can be box office gold like PLANET OF THE APES ( The original one not the dumb remake ) but that`s because it had a great story , or the Clint Eastwood movies with Clyde but that`s because they were funny with great gags ( Many of which involved the hell`s angels ) but there`s nothing here that made me laugh probably because I hate slapstick . Strangely there isn`t even moments of mawkish sentiment either , though the producers do try this - And fail - with one scene with Ed in a hospital bed. You make a movie about a cheeky monkey and there`s no laughs or tears involved ! Now that`s amazing <br /><br />In the 1950s rocket scientists sent monkeys out into space . After seeing ED you`ll be disgusted that they don`t do it anymore


I first saw this movie while I was living as an Italian immigrant in New Zeland at the age of 10 in 1998...it was a movie that sky cinema proposed,so as a child I couldn't miss the movie of a chimp that saved a Californian minor league team. Any of my future ambitions was so much disappointing. Here we are now in 2008,exactly 10 years after, while i'm searching strange movies on IMDb for a good laugh,that this ''movie'' appears to my memories again and a long chill goes through my spine. I had to write a comment at this awful movie. My mind goes to all the unfortunate people that payed the cinema ticket to watch this bad copy of a movie,and to all the producers that have the face to propose such a shameful movie.I remember that back in '96 this movie was publicized as much as ''Slepeers'' and Robin Williams ''Jack''int he TV movie trailers,just to make the point. If you find funny the idea of a chimpanzee that farts and makes the poor Leblache eat dog food this is the movie for you. I think that the vote up reported is very generous.


Even for a kids' movie, the premise to ED is incredibly lame. So lame that it boggles the mind to imagine that this film was made in the first place. I can only assume that the writers and execs at the studio were under the influence of some mind-altering drug while they were watching a re-run of a "Francis the Mule" film or else had loved ones kidnapped in order to force this film to be made. This is the only way you could understand this film. Even the worst of the most contrived Disney films of the 1960s and 70s look like "Gone With the Wind" compared to this!

Matt LeBlanc stars as a guy who has a great pitching arm. However, when his game stinks, the manager punishes him by sending him to pick someone up at the bus stop. That 'someone' turns out to be a baseball playing chimp who is the team's new mascot. When I first saw this chimp, he really looked creepy--and I assume it was just a midget in an ape suit. It looked more realistic than chimps looked in films in 1940, but still looked bizarre and a bit scary! Well, only in a movie would it turn out that the chimp was a fantastic baseball player--with an arm like a rocket AND a thorough knowledge of how to play ball! How all the actors were able to participate in this farce of a film with straight faces is beyond me. Talk about an insane plot! Even small children would find this tough to swallow. However, given that he ultimately is SMARTER than LeBlanc isn't quite as hard to believe (at least in light of his role on "Friends").

Some of the low-points in this dreadful film include frequent fart jokes, snot jokes, Ed and LeBlanc both peeing together at the same toilet, belching, Ed driving a truck at what appears to be 400 mph, more fart jokes and Ed plying dress-up with grandma's clothes. At no point in the film is it clever or does it poke fun of itself (the only way this MIGHT have worked).

Overall, a sorry mess of a film that is so inexplicably dumb that I can't believe it was made in the first place. Practically every cliché known to baseball is in this film and its only entertainment value is for people who want to laugh at the sheer inanity of the movie. Clearly, this film has earned its place on IMDb's Bottom 100 list!


Read my one line summary. Out loud, if it helps. More than once, if you need to. Do you honestly believe that it can be spoken, and that individual retaining just a smidgen of dignity, and continue to be respected? I wish I could claim that it is the only of its kind in this. Oh, how I would love to claim that this does not deserve its low rating... as I type this, it is #82 on the Bottom 100 on the site. This is irritating and intolerable from start to finish. No, I am not the intended viewer for this, but I maintain that this isn't likely to appeal to all that many. Simply put, unless you find chimps adorable and hilarious, there's nothing in this for you. It's well-trained, I'll give 'em that. I frankly wanted Ed to go nuts and kill everyone, which may be because the last 8 days, I've watched the Halloween films. If this is for children, then what's with the numerous crude jokes that are not appropriate for them? The material is atrocious, utterly devoid of creativity and the delivery is outrageously poor. If you laugh even once during this, it will probably be a reflex, or one of the kind that comes from a desperation that you can no longer contain, that you must *express*. The lead is annoying, and every "acting performance" is horrible. Jim Caviezel? Are you kidding me? Every character is one-note and stereotypical, and that girl is ridiculously precocious. The cartoon sound effects and "goofy music" try way too hard, and it winds up being embarrassing. Editing and cinematography are unimpressive. This mess manages to squeeze in every cliché in the book. I recommend this audience-insulting crap solely to those who have no taste, or those who *have to* see for themselves how awful it is. Your movie sucks, Matt. 1/10


I had to comment, because this piece of Chimp dung finally replaced "Mannequin 2" as my personal worst movie of all time, as well as replacing "Blame it on the Bellboy" as last movie I physically could not watch all the way through. I made it to the big date, and past "cut week" and the chimp and neighbor girl were doing something with food, but I have no idea just how long the thing would go on. Bad script, bad sports, bad effects (not so much bad digital effects but incomprehensible ones- what was the deal with the dollar signs in the owner's eyes? I know that the guy couldn't act, but still- let him put on his greed face that he'd been practicing in the mirror)

I kept hoping that Matt LeBlanc, who I love on "friends", and liked in "Lost in Space" had agreed to do this before he had a going career, like Jennifer Aniston and "Leprechaun." But there was a scene where the chimp was watching "Friends"! I shudder to think how much LeBlanc must have been paid to be in this bomb. I hope for his sake, it was a lot.

And just one comment on the Chimp outfit- couldn't they have somehow disguised the relative size of its head? I know that there were people under the mask, but with the chimp head on, it looks like the cranium is half again the volume of Matt LeBlanc's! A chimpanzee with a brain that size would certainly be smarter than anybody involved in this film. Oh well. A thoroughly hideous experience, gave me a severe migraine, and remembering it now sickens me.


"Oh great," you think. "another guy giving it a high rating for this beep just to be contrary. Ah-yawn." Well, maybe. It depends on your perspective, and I'm sincere in my belief that there's something about this movie that transcends it's own badness. From the look of the TV spots over a decade ago, it seemed like it was so horrible, by all accounts, that it SHOULDN'T exist! Anyway, me and my brother relived Ed-mania on premium cable the other night, and something odd struck me. Is it possible that this movie is a satire on what Hollywood thinks the lowest common denominator enjoys? Sports? Check. The show Friends? Cast member that the sports bar crowd fancies as their ideal self is in tow. A primate dressing like a person? We'll do you one recursion better. A person dressed as a primate dressing like a person.

The Chuck Jones cartoon sound effects are there, transforming the shock of violence and injury into temporary and absurd conditions. The spirit of the Munsters, a satire on immigrants living in American suburbia, arises in unnecessary fast-tracking film techniques to make this world more cartoon-like and "sped up" during moments of intensity.

The American ideals are constantly lampooned upon, sometimes in ways we're so used to living here that we don't immediately notice them. It's very telling throughout the picture, but I'll only focus on some of the final scenes, which is everything that follows a car chase (I mean, after all, car chases are part and parcel in crazy American life).

A girl child prays to God at the eve of the "big game" to spare the life of the chimp in the hospital bed. As soon as she lays the chimp's pitcher mitt on his lap to go blithely get a drink of some apple juice (or something, I was distracted), the heart monitor begins to beep in steady rhythm and the once comatose chimp recovers and is eager to go to the big game. This entire drama, from the setup to the climax, is about twenty seconds in length. We didn't know beforehand that the chimp was so badly frozen in the truck that it would resign him to a hospital bed, and that cognitive dissonance is just as intentional as the scene where the chimp watches late night TV and plays with his food, I assure you.

Before the final pitch of the big game, a distressed Matt LeBlanc wipes the sweat on his brow and calls for a time out. He runs to the stands and steals a kiss from the attractive woman, and turns to the chimp. The chimp licks his finger tip and knowingly "chalks up another" as Matt LeBlanc shows his dental work and nods in sinister agreement. As he heads back to the mound, he is now destined not to blow the game at all. The woman and a girl child stand in awe as their hair blows in the wind in one half of the shot, and the other half of the angle incorporates the American flag flying high and proudly. Now we have a nuclear family, including a family pet. Except the pet is not a pet. And the girl is not her daughter. Yes, those conflicts with the ideal are intentional. It's pointing out an absurdity that even the misfits can pull themselves together and be the ideal if we so choose, but only in movies.

There are many ways to take the symbolism in this movie, and all of them are deeply cynical and rightfully critical of white culture and Hollywood, alike. Unfortunately, this film will only be preaching to the converted just as Beavis and Butthead also did in the same era, while sterile and boring masses take it at face value. The roman a clef to that show was that what they were saying itself was not the joke, but the fact that THEY THEMSELVES found it funny. The further recursion was that the kids who took the show at face value were looking in the mirror while looking in the TV--sitting on their couch, looking dead ahead at B&B sitting on the couch.

I only go off on that tangent to say that Ed is doing a similar thing, but not getting the same kind of recognition for it because it's a few steps ahead of even this time and offers us no crutch of the "mirror stage". That is, with the no-brow ironic movement starting to wane and with the introduction of the "new sincerity" movement where there is NO shred of irony, this is a very hard movie to place because the intent isn't spelled out for us. Were the movie makers being sincere in the way Ed Wood was sincere, and just didn't know they were making a terrible movie children would hate? Were they trying to be ironic, and try to make a farce of the Hollywood conventions in the hopes that the audience would go through an hour and a half deprogramming session? Or what is most likely in the children's market today--try to make a quick buck off in the risky market of imitating more successful movies, in hopes that parents would accidentally pick their movie up thinking it was a Disney Home Video movie? These are three dangerous prongs to dance on, because nobody has time to think about these things except for young adults that play XBOX Live too much. So the movie is a Chinese puzzle box, in this way...and I have the sneaking suspicion that the Ed team planned that all along.

Trust me, if you smoke a few bowls this will all make sense, man.


This weary piece of crap was obviously sold on the Matt LeBlanc(of "Friends" fame) bandwagon and having gotten this jewel in their crown, the makers gave no thought whatsoever to their limp script. The script is mindless and silly and could well have been penned by the monkey of the title, Ed!


This movie it supposed to be very funny, why? Because it has a monkey, and they always do funny things, not only that Matt LeBlanc is a very funny actor (in "Friends" of course) because here it doesn't work as well as in the sitcom. I didn't laugh at all in the whole movie, and there's a moment you don't expect to laugh anymore.

Ok, so it's a comedy, a stupid comedy to be true, and the worst of all you didn't laugh, so don't bother to see this one, and you better wait thursdays to see "Friends"


... my children are laughing. but i do not!


i can't believe how bad this movie is. it's about as bad as Sleepaway Camp. it just stinks. i would never recommend this movie. Matt LeBlanc, stick to Friends! Please! the best actor in this film was definitely the chimp. don't rent it.


A very short comment really, the title kinda sums it up. How the hell did this concept for a 'film' get past the numerous vetting stages of production? Why was money spent on it when people in the world are going hungry? How could they try to pass off a guy in the worst monkey suit in the world as an actual monkey? It is the most appaling, un-funny, dull, predictable piece of crap that I have ever seen in my entire life. Urgh.


The stupidest film of all time, never watch it.I saw it and will never see it in my life. Ed is an ape, not a chimp, they say it isa chimp but it isn't a chimp. A chimp is smaller, cuter, smarter and less loud, Ed

is the worst film of all time, so never watch it, mark my words.


This movie should be a stand-up concert film, but for some reason its a road movie instead. The comedians are funny when you do get to see them on stage, but most of the movie is spent looking at a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" map trace the trip across America, cut with footage of the tour bus and then an audience laughing. Insert a cliché song about the city we're about to visit. They pad the movie out with a last minute Katrina benefit show, which seemed kind of melodramatic (especially for a comedy). Vince Vaughn even shows up on occasion throughout the film to show us his range of talent (see wedding crashers...NOT!). The money shot is definitely Vince and his friend Peter Bilingsley acting out their parts from a steroids after-school special.


Why was this movie made? No doubt to sucker in the family-rebelling MTV faithful, many of whom do not care about anything other than the exterior of a movie - in Go the story about drugs and sex, and the crude humor. While the plot line of the movie is interesting, the unsympathetic and underdeveloped characters give us nothing to care about.

What is most bothersome is that at the end of the movie nobody learns anything. This movie would have been much better if it had a point. It makes brief and ambivalent references to family life, but never really has the guts to develop its critiques.

I guess what makes this movie so pathetic is that every character is like all the other characters. What's worse, never in the film, not even at the climax, do any characters distinguish themselves. The four men in Vegas hardly differ at all, and the three convenience store workers are all the same. If you want to waste your 7 bucks on uninspiring and forgettable slop, Go is waiting for you.


I saw GO after reading a number of very good reviews for the movie, and I cannot begin to express how disappointed I was. It left me with many unanswered questions: 1. What was the point of this film? If the film-makers were trying to make some sort of statement about contemporary society, their point certainly eluded me. 2. Why did I have to spend almost 2 hours with these characters? I did not like or care about any of the people in this film. They were presented without a shred of humanity, and I didn't BELIEVE any of them. 3. Why did the movie makers try to imitate so much of the style and structure and atmosphere of PULP FICTION? Tarantino's film hit all the right notes, and his characters - in spite of their amorality - all had a certain charisma. The characters in GO were loud and shrill and charmless. 4. Why can't the US film industry make films that tell intelligent, interesting stories with some appeal to people over the age of 17?


Actually, considering that this is the *only* show about geniuses to my knowledge, it could certainly use a few on the writing staff... and one or two in the directing, acting, and casting pools wouldn't hurt.

Seriously, how could someone take such a cool idea and screw it up so royally, and with such effort? I couldn't even make it through the heavily computer-animated pilot. "Dark Angel" had more believable character dynamics. And why is it that every single genius is an idiot, perpetually annoyed/annoying, and/or a hot chick? Give me a break. The constant "sound library" cheese-music was also a nice touch.

I suppose the biggest morons are the folks at Sci-Fi. Seriously, someone's blown a gasket over there...


I've watched this show on several occasions to attempt to give it a chance, but each time, the episode has been based on repeatedly recycled material, but they add a little romance and some teen angst to give it a little flavour.

It seems that once a week, the town is nearly destroyed. The simpleton, Jack Carter, is the one who manages to put it together because everyone else, despite their brilliance, is seemingly unable to solve problems outside their field of science, except a couple of the science characters who happen to be experts in everything and are able to spoon-feed the audience some tech-babble and advance the plot.

The show epitomizes cheap Canadian TV. It's a US production, to be sure, but filmed here and it involves cheap props, cheap special effects, and cheap writing.

It's only given such praise, in my opinion, is because it's one of the few science fiction shows on TV at the moment. The appropriate quote would be that in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.


Second in the Tom Conway Falcon series. Without much merit, but passable watching if you have not much else to do. It just does not seem like the actors had their hearts in this project. Tom Conway delivers his lines and not much else. Amelita Ward as the Falcon's female sidekick from Texas is simply too annoying and thankfully is shipped off to her former fiancé Buck Thompson at the end of the movie never to be seen again in the series. Two damsels in distress keep the Falcon off balance but their rivalry is just not credible. One of them, Jean Brooks, makes appearances in multiple Falcon movies but never again as part of a "crack the whip" at a roller rink. Clarence Kolb does a good job as the missing wealthy industrialist. Interestingly, in this entry, the policemen do not stand out and are more part of the woodwork then important characters. The plot is reasonably fair but viewers today will have to make allowances for the unexplained events such as blackouts, German-accented heavies, and gambling dens being converted to dining rooms which may not be quickly understood by a modern audience. Some of more important the scenes pass too fast to hear the words being said and understand their significance to the storyline. There is a critical clue that should allow the viewer to identify the true culprit before the end of the movie. As usual, the Falcon attracts your pretty women.


I like old B-detective films and have seen dozens. And of all these series films, the Falcon films are among my favorites--even the later Tom Conway versions (that were slightly less enjoyable than his brother's Falcon films). It has the usual amiable performance by Conway and a decent script (without the usual bumbling cops--here they actually weren't totally stupid) but is totally destroyed by one of the most awful and annoying characters I have seen in this type of film. In other words, an exceptional film is undone by one major weak link--this time in the form of Amelita Ward as Tom Lawrence's totally obnoxious fiancée. While she isn't hideous to look at, her personality is so bad that she would be the perfect poster child for a "retroactive abortion campaign". I simply wanted this loud-mouthed and ditsy dame to die and die soon--and hopefully painfully.

You can't blame all of this on Ward, as I suppose she was just being the sort of wretched character the writers and director envisioned. However, with so much of the film showing excellent and intelligent writing, I truly wonder what was going on here that we don't know about today. For example, could Ward have have held incriminating photos that forced RKO to put her in the film or perhaps the writers wanted the public to totally hate her? These might explain the discrepancy between this character and the rest of the film!! As far as the plot goes, it's pretty interesting and is all wrapped up nicely, but because Ward is so terrible and so grating, I don't recommend this film to anyone but those determined to see every film from the series. Don't say I didn't warn you!


Hmm, where have I seen this before? A lonely spinster blossoms after finding love, but nobly sacrifices it in the end. Unfortunately, "Winter Meeting" is no "Now Voyager". I don't care how many cigarettes Bette Davis smokes!

At first I was intrigued by how mismatched Susan (Bette Davis) and Slick (Jim Davis) are. She's a cosmopolitan intellectual, very much in control of her emotions, her every movement purposeful. He's a small-town boy, speaking bluntly, quick to indulge his feelings and impulses, and towering over her with his gangly, awkward frame. It could've been an interesting story of opposites attracting, and learning from each other - each supplying what the other lacks. Except, I never quite believed his attraction to her, and it seems she was the one who did most of the learning and changing. Sure, he got something out of their affair too - but it was primarily the knowledge that he helped *her*, thus giving him the confidence to become a priest and help other people. I don't think that counts.

I disliked the scene where Slick lectured Susan on her inability to forgive her mother. If MY mother cheated on my father with countless men, then left my dad and literally drove him to madness and suicide - well, gee, I don't think I'd forgive her either! For someone accused of lacking compassion, Susan is surprisingly forgiving of Slick, however. She's only a little offended that this man she just met is judging her and blaming her for supposedly driving her mother away - You see, Susan wasn't as loving and tolerant as she "should" have been. (Reminiscent of "The Philadelphia Story", where a daughter is held responsible for her father's philandering, and has to learn to forgive his failings and give him more affection so he won't feel the need to stray. I didn't like this twisted "moral" in that movie, and I don't like it here either).

Besides, where does this guy get off being so high and mighty and, well, *preachy* when he's far from perfect himself? If he was so dedicated to becoming a priest and abstaining from sex/marriage, he shouldn't have pursued this woman so aggressively and led her on. Big dumb oaf. Slick's feelings don't appear to run very deep, so I just can't see this movie the way we're meant to - as a bittersweet tale of soulmates who can't be together - oh what a tragedy! Rather, Slick had a nice holiday/sex-spree ...um, I mean, crisis of faith... before knuckling down to work. He's not hurting. Susan on the other hand... should be feeling very used. I worry about her. After all, heartbreak-induced insanity and suicide *does* run in her family.

Bottomline: Slow, soapy, unsatisfying romance drivel.


One of the common criticisms of Bette Davis is always that without a strong directorial hand she'd start chewing the scenery. But that also has saved some mediocre films and made them entertaining. Davis's strong personality comes through in the clinch.

Here though I wish she had chewed some scenery, if she had the film might have become a camp classic. Instead it is unbelievably dull.

Bette Davis is a poetess, a 20th century Emily Dickinson, who meets and falls in love with a war hero played by Jim Davis. Yes, that's right, Jim Davis who later became Jock Ewing. He's a navy veteran, a war hero, who is considering the priesthood as a vocation.

But first before the curtain of celibacy falls, he wants to have a fling or two, so Jim is on the make for Bette and for the young Janis Paige. Bette wins out so they go to her late father's place in New England where they talk and talk and talk about all of their problems and the world's problems.

When you have engaging and likable characters even a plot less movie is entertaining. The best example I know is The Sundowners. But there is absolutely nothing in this film that makes you care an iota about the people here. A little Davis histrionics might have saved this film, but we'll never know.

John Hoyt has an interesting part. It's as though he's trying to be a poor man's Clifton Webb. We should have had more of him as well.


Every star must have at least one piece of work that absolutely stinks. Miss Bette and WINTER MEETING is a bore from the beginning. Susan Grieve(Davis)is a depressed poet that falls in love with a war hero(Jim Davis). The events of WW11 makes this soldier want to be a priest. Shared secrets over a nightcap is just not a remedy for the doldrums. A very wordy script and dour atmosphere throughout. Just little over an hour running time is a relief.

The efforts of Jim Davis as the moody hero Slick Novak outshines Miss Davis. Also in the cast: Janis Paige, Walter Baldwin, Florence Bates and John Hoyt. If anything is redeeming its the score by Max Steiner.


As co-founder of Nicko & Joe's Bad Film Club Show here in the UK, all I can do is stand on my chair and applaud wildly. A true, true instance of a great bad movie, it's come a very close second to Shark Attack 3, which is of course THE BEST bad shark movie EVER.

The best thing about the film though is being able to see all of my favourite shark movies in the one film! Genius idea. So many times I've been stuck watching a movie like Star Wars and thought, jeesh, this movie is great, but it could do with a few Star Trek cut aways.

There are moments of true hilarity and you have to admire the balls it takes to put a film like this out there

Bravo, no, really, BRAVO.


this is probably the worst excuse of a film i've ever seen since Freddy Got Fingered. The creators of this piece of garbage didn't even make their own shark for the film, they just used stolen clips from other shark movies (Jaws, L'Ultimo Squalo) and used this obviously fake CGI shark that moved around like it was being controlled like a four year old. the acting is just awkward, i mean no character in this movie looks scared, and...i just can't continue. this movie is just so BAD, it's a wonder Universal Pictures didn't sue. And they thought L'Ultimo Squalo was a Jaws rip off! L'Ultimo Squalo had it's own scenes filmed, and (even though some were taken from JAWS), they made their own scenes, their own mediocre shark and their own dialogue. In "Cruel Jaws", however, the characters recite their lines like robots, and i'm actually surprised that this film actually has the nerve to call itself Jaws V. if this were Jaws 5, Jaws fans (myself included) would be so ashamed that Hollywood made a worse sequel than JTR.


This movie is so boring and dated (I mean just look at the hair!!!! THE HAIR!!!! AHHHH!!!!) that you got to love it. Just never ever think about taking it serious. It´s a blatant rip off (big surprise) BUT you can get a lot of fun out of it by counting the clichés.

Favourite scene: The chick that sets herself "on fire"...very convincing.


Django (Franco Nero) has given up his brutal past and spent the last ten years in a monastery. When he is captured by slave traders and learns that one of the kidnapped children is his daughter, he escapes and seeks revenge. This woeful update of the Django series, considered by some the official sequel due to bringing Nero back to the role, is not even a western and doesn't even seem to be set in America! The film is in English and is terribly predictable with Django digging up his fake grave which contains his machine gun coffin and just when all seems lost toward the end, the main villain's (Christopher Connelly) jealous servant sets Django free. Although the film seems proud to be associated with the original Django (1966) going to the trouble of listing - "Django created by Sergio Corbucci," this is a disgrace to the original. Co-starring the ubiquitous Donald Pleasance.


This brain dead remake of the same crap from Django (1966) pits a long haired older (Nero) who doesn't even seem interested in the role. From the absurd opening shot of two old geezers shooting each other, to the more insane mad pirate Captain who lives on some slave ship steam hauler, this film has nowhere to go. Sadly wasted are Pleasance, in a film he made only for liquor money and Nero, who could have picked a better writer and director than his old friend. Everything about the picture looks cheap, the effects, the boats, the costumes and we don't really get a sense that a story is being told, just pointless bad vs good archetypes. Avoid this nonsense at all costs.


Please, never fly with "Columbia Airlines", it is the second time, that they get a hole in the cockpit and a hero must climb through the hole in order to land the plane.

A maniac murder is transported in this plane, sure he overthrow his guards and take over control of the plane. After a little shooting an explosion break a big hole in the cockpit. The First office isn´t able to land the plane, the pilot is dead.

You already know the plot of a plane with a hole in a cockpit?? Already saw a man, coming inside the plane through this hole?? Already know "Columbia Airlines", already saw the plane??? Yes, the story was ( better ) told rather 30 years ago, "Airport 75". Differences? It was Karen Black as stewardess, who was not able to land the Boeing 747, here it is an attractive female first officer! Here it is a maniac murder, who cause the hole, in "Airport 75" it was an accident with another plane. In "Airport 75" the acting was quite good, here it is horrible.

Also the outdoor scenes,when you see the airplane over snowy mountains... the jet, the helicopters. They are taken from the original "Airport 75" movie.

At least, if you would like to see a good airplane action movie, take one of the old "Airport", "Passenger 57" for example, but not this cheap crap here.


The name for this movie sounded pretty cool, so i was expecting to see a fairly decent movie. Oh was i wrong, i could have read the words "Sonic Impact" over and over again for 90 minutes and probably enjoy it more than the movie itself. This movie is among the worst movies i've seen in years. STAY AWAY.


all things considered this movie is pretty unremarkable.it has too many slow spots with nothing happening.then when there is some action,the scenes are way too long and protracted.it's your typical "nut job takes control of an airplane and the good guys try to regain control" movie.i also found it even less realistic than most movies of the genre.the dialogue was pretty lame too.the characters are your run of the mill characters for these types of movies.the acting wasn't great,either,though i did like Ice-T,who plays a federal agent in the movie.the runtime is about 94 minutes with end credits,but it sure felt a lot longer.the bottom line for me,this movie added nothing new to the genre and was certainly not as good as any of the other movies of the genre.if i were you,i would check out "Turbulence" Passenger 57",Executive "Decision" and "Con Air",which are all better examples of the genre.for me,Sonic Impact is a 4/10


This movie tries to have you believe you are actually watching a top rated film. The truth, however, is that it is not even worth to be rated as a "B" movie. Actions follow each other with an unbelievable speed and despite all that, the movie is leading nowhere. I have seen passenger 57 and the story somewhat matches. That movie was also not as believable as I had hoped. This movie cannot begin to compare with passenger 57. And why is that commando's always think so high of themselves? "Let me go up there and I'll solve the problem". Sure! Then shooting around in an airplane as if you're on the ground, is also not the best idea. Normally the bad guys know about this. In this case they and FBI agents seem unaware of this fact. No, I would suggest you find yourself another movie to watch!


A tired formula film involving a psychotic, sadistic federal prisoner who seizes control of an airliner and the agent who must try and stop him. Weak acting and gaping plot holes destroy whatever tension the director must have been trying for. A real groaner. Give this one a wide berth.


Well, in a nutshell, lots of no names with a soggy plot. Who are most of these people? The drinking problem storyline is way overdone! It was a good concept, but not enough attention to who they cast in the flick. I wish the cover photo was more detailed, it just looks like a scribbled drawing from a middle schooler with issues. There was some 'would be'scary moments, but its 2008, even youtube clips are scary if the watcher is caught off guard, right? Made for t.v, maybe but a motion picture? It's mainly D list at best. (maybe E, lol)I am not a pro critic, this is just my opinion. Don't get me wrong...I love horror movies, but this movie is a horror!


Okay, again, Night Light Films tried to cash in on "Saw" with a serial killer... well that's not completely true. "Saw" mixed in with that one urban legend that's popularly set in South America.

So yeah, like Jigsaw he does this "to help people". Thing is organ harvesters, if they rally exist, are in it for the money. It's just not convincing that this killer's motive is to help the people whose money he benefits from.

Granted, this is one of those films where you can actually see where it went wrong for the most part, but of course there's other stuff they added in that's supposed to be poetic or symbolic or something and what it in fact ends up being is really annoying.


The Fear Chamber is set in Los Angeles where a serial killer (Richard Tyson) has been abducting, mutilating & murdering young girls. Los Angeles detective Nick Ferguson (Rhett Giles) is on the case & catches up with the killer but loses him after being stabbed in the heart, waking up in hospital Ferguson realises that he had heart surgery & that the killer is still at large, Ferguson's captain (Steven Williams) is on his case to get results & the pressure is also on from a sensationalistic media & a worried public. While in bed one night Ferguson has a vision, a vision of one of the killers victims which helps him identify her. The visions continue & despite other's scepticism Ferguson uses them to help him track down the brutal serial killer...

Co-written & directed by Kevin Carraway this supernatural serial killer thriller is probably best described as a cross between The Sixth Sense (1999) & The Silence of the Lambs (1991) & definitely best described as all crap. For a start the title The Fear Chamber has no real relevance to anything featured in the film although that's not a major issue to be honest, what is a major issue though is how bad the script is. The script almost completely ignore the killer & his motives until the very end, the majority of the run time focuses on detective Ferguson & his mental issue problems, his drinking problems & his personal problems in general. Ferguson is a veritable bundle of clichés as a cop in a film, he has a drinking problem, he is burnt out, the case he is on takes up his whole life, he has suffered close personal loss with the murder of his wife & he has a hard but ultimately fair captain who shouts & moans a lot. Seen it all before & the dialogue is really flat, it feels like the actor's are reading from cue cards just off screen that were written in a rush, the dialogue just doesn't feel that personal & has no life to it. Then there's the obligatory twist, now I will admit I usually am rubbish at guessing twist's but the two main ones that crop up at the end of The Fear Chamber are two of the most obvious plot twist's ever. I guessed both of them well in advance & anyone who has seen The Sixth Sense will guess at least one of them it's so obvious & the second twist has no impact anyway. The pace is slow, the film focuses on domestic drama rather than dramatic incident, there's nothing new here & the final twist is insultingly poor.

The Fear Chamber has cheap straight-to-video/DVD production written all over it, I only saw it a few hours ago & I can barely remember anything about it. There's an odd creative decision at the start in which the sky is tinted red for some bizarre reason, I have no idea why & it's an odd look in a film which is meant to be set in the real world. There's no real horror here, we only see the killer kidnap one girl & his activities seem to be a secondary consideration for the makers as they concentrate on Ferguson. There's a fairly gory scene where the killer cuts someone open with a scalpel & remove her kidney but apart from that this is very tame stuff. The Fear Chamber is regularly set in the most underpopulated police station in cinematic history, it seems only detective Ferguson & his boss works there & would one cop all by himself by assigned such a big case? Wouldn't he at least have a partner? Surely there would be an entire team working under him trying to track down a brutal serial killer? Or is a serial killer not considered that important? Also why did the killer paint his face at the end like a clown & what caused the room to shake? I know it was probably meant to be a supernatural occurrence but it's never referred to as such.

Filmed in real locations the film has a very made-for-telly cheap bland look about it, it's competent but forgettable & I still don't get the red sky at the start. The acting is poor throughout, Rhett Giles doesn't seem interested, Miranda Kwok as Kathryn is terrible as are the whole cast really.

The Fear Chamber is a poor serial killer thriller with supernatural overtones which is pretty bad all round really & it also features one of the most predictable twist endings ever which is a straight rip-off of The Sixth Sense anyway. Not to be confused with the classic Boris Karloff horror flick The Fear Chamber (1968).


I have not seen this picture and probably never will. I am disappointed that Richard Tyson is unable to be cast in a decent movie. I feel he has the chops and when younger was a sexy, bad boy, actor. I hope as he has matured he will be offered rolls as a mature romantic lead or second banana. That I would go see.The other members of the cast are mostly unknown to me. I admit to being an older woman but do enjoy movies that have a realistic story line good actors and well written dialog. The teen crowd isn't the only demographic that enjoys a good thriller but not the crud they produce now-a-days. Lets put our brains to work and come up with some good stories for the viewing audience.


What first hit me was that this is such a brilliant movie. Then I watched the other 60 minutes and it all faded away.

The director of this movie has done a lot of TV stuff and will probably have to stay with that. The cast is a laugh because they are mixing good performance with old TV stars that should have retired or just stayed with TV.

The plot is excellent, the effects are really scary. But the long drown out discussions should have been cut out to make a better flow to the movie.

The biggest mistake they made in this movie is to concentrate on the lead character's drinking problems and if his boss is gonna believe the star characters visions again, and again and again.

This is a pretty good movie that is obviously made fore TV and should stay there.

But with just a little more effort it could have been a very good movie.

It's good, but its just not making it. How ever its not a waste of time.

But it could have been so much more !!!!!


"Campus Man" isn't quite sure what kind of a movie it wants to be. It appears to be a comedy at first glance but that is rather deceiving. In fact, it would've played a lot better if it had been more serious in tone. The "funny" parts are typical 80's cheesiness and aren't very witty. The plot involves an Arizona State University student who owes $10,000 in tuition and has 30 days to come up with it. He decides to produce a male athlete calendar in order to try and make enough money to pay his tuition and hopefully have some left over. Of course, things don't go exactly as planned and trouble ensues. Uneasy mix of comedy with some serious issues makes "Campus Man" an uneven disappointment. A harmless time filler, however, if you can catch it on TV. 3/10


I discovered this movie on HBO in the early 90s, and have loved its awfulness ever since. Particularly awesome is the last two minutes of the film, which is a virtuouso, tour de force of clichéd 80s storlyine resolutions.

It goes down something like this. Our Hero and all the supporting players are gathered in a diving arena for some ill-defined charity fund raising event. There is a dais poolside peopled with VIPs. Onlookers fill the stands. Then the goofy happy endings start rolling at us like an avalanche. First, Our Hero learns he has earned enough money from his calendar sales to stay in school. Then, his buddy Brett does a fancy high dive that makes everyone clap and which, somehow, earns thousands of dollars for charity. Then, "Cactus Jack" and Morgan Fairchild, who met for the first time a scant thirty second ago, kiss, because we all know in movies like this, nearly everyone must be coupled off with SOMEONE by the end of the film. THEN, Our Hero's business professor materializes on stage out of nowhere to congratulate him for using his business ingenuity to raise enough money to stay in school and tells him, "I always knew you could do it." (The professor then scampers off camera without even waiting for Our Hero to say anything in response.) THEN (it's still not over) Our Hero jogs up to pool side to shake Brett's hand for his fancy dive (and apparently raising enough money in doing so to end world hunger). Of course, the Third Rule of Movie Making is that if a swimming pool appears on screen, someone must fall in. In judicious observation of the rule, Brett PULLS OUR HERO INTO THE WATER IN SLOW MOTION. The delighted crowd of onlookers laughs and applauds. THEN, in slow motion, Our Hero and Brett high five (yech).

And THEN, wait for it . . . wait for it . . . Our Hero, treading water, turns to the camera and, in slow motion, flashes us, the audience, a "thumbs up." Then, of course, FREEZE FRAME on that shot of the thumbs-up, fade to credits.

Watch it. Watch it over again. It's unintentionally, p#ss your pants funny.


considering the talent that was on hand, (John Dye, Morgan Fairchild, Miles O'Keefe, Kim DeLaney, etc ) the director Ron Casden, kinda sorta fell into a comedic hole! This was a local Arizona shot film, which is kind of cool seeing some of the old places, businesses, apartments, resorts restaurants, bars etc, but this story is kind funny but the main character John Dye is a nice, annoying guy.

Don't get me wrong, I like John no doubt, so it's got to be Casden that missed the marks here. Steve Lyons was pretty much a loss as a bad actor on top. Considering that he was a major supporting role in Campus Man. I remember the posters from the theater from 1987, and it cracks me up. Everything about this ' flick' seemed to just kind of go ah-rye. The acting was gone right after the directing and then the story, etc. I laugh, because I own the DVD and I don't intend to sell this one anytime soon. The funniest part of this movie is, that I would rather watch this, over Brosnan in "Die Another Day" (2002). Probably because it's Arizona, back in the great eighties!

I recommend this for college type, sitting around on laundry day type comedy , I rated it a 2, because of the classic old scenery. It's still fun to pass the time with though. In small edition there was a couple great song tracks in the movie by the Robert Cray band, that set off a cool and rude mood, although there was a lack of good scoring through out the whole story. (*)


Really bad movie about a guy on campus who is about to be thrown out of school since he can't pay his tuition bill. He falls asleep in his marketing class. He doesn't get berated but instead the so called professor comes on like an uncle.

What goes on on this campus? Everyone is partying and appears unbelievably dumb.

Our hero makes male calendars for women. His friend, a cool good looking blond swimmer is on the cover. Editor Morgan Fairchild sees the picture and wants the guy for publicity on her magazine. She is a stickler with a contract and the latter could come back to haunt her.

Too bad academia wasn't like this. College would have been a real blast. An excellent film for air-heads but for the normal majority, a complete joke and utter junk.


I see many being enthusiastic about the series..

Unfortunately I have another opinion..

The idea is good and I have nice memories from the 80s when I saw some parts of it. Now when watching it with the kids I feel cheated by my own memories..

The very first part is promising. There is a sense of getting the big picture in an entertaining way. Blend of details and jokes and overview is quite balanced.

But the further one goes the stack of DVDs and episodes the more frustrated one starts to feel.

The history part gets often obscured by Tom & Jerry (or perhaps Asterix) like fast action fights & jokes. Sometimes linked to the time and events described. But often not. This perhaps is the most frustrating aspect as quite often one is left with an uncertain feeling... Was there something to be learned - ow was that a simple joke.. Then when the story goes to describing real historic facts these are often fast paced listings of years, names of important people/fights, etc.. Perhaps that is the part for adults as the kids have no chance of learning from that level of details coming at that pace..

Transitions from the life of individuals to the world events is often surprising and would benefit from better justification / preparation. Further confused by reusing the same characters in different roles in different episodes.. It is like one should have read the history books in advance to really understand what the events described are connected to.

There are good points in the series, there is high level of ambition, but somehow one feels that the mix of plain cartoon amusement and real history teaching is not really working. Perhaps it is the 30 years that have passed from the production of the series.. But the end result is a bit questionable in teaching history to kids as it makes the boundary between real facts and plain fiction quite hard to see


This film is probably most notable, in hindsight, as containing the last cinematic performance from Colleen Moore, one of the great "silent" stars of the 1920s. Ms. Moore's portrayal of Hester Prynne is neither great nor representative, but it does reveal the actress had the ability to carry on making pictures with sound. Sadly, the available material proved unworthy of Moore.

This is an uninspired, and unnecessary, attempt at a more comic version of Nathaniel Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter"; it is more listless than lighthearted. The drama is provided by the classic literary trio of characters: Moore as Hester Prynne, Hardie Albright as Arthur Dimmesdale, and Henry B. Walthall as Roger Chillingworth. The comedy is provided by Alan Hale as Bartholomew Hockings, William Kent as Sampson Goodfellow, Virginia Howell as Abigail Crakstone, and others. In a close call, but the comedy side of the story is slightly more entertaining.

Mr. Hale's performance is the most enjoyable of the comic players; significantly, he is able take all the attention off Mr. Albright, during one of the latter's dramatic sermons, as Reverend Dimmesdale. Mr. Walthall, who performed the same character in the far superior 1926 version, with Lillian Gish, is interesting to watch; but, his attempt at a faithful portrayal of Chillingworth does not match the surrounding production.

Adorable Cora Sue Collins plays "Pearl" Shirley Temple-like -- this is understandable, given the time of release -- consider, especially, the scene when Ms. Moore and her little girl take swords, begin a dancing march, and chant, "Boom! Boom! Boom!" Cora, take a bow!


I have to confess that - aside from the broad brushstrokes - I'm largely unfamiliar with the novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne, and so am not able to speak to the faithfulness of this movie to that story. Judged on its merits as a movie, this wasn't bad. The struggle against sin and hypocrisy was fairly well represented, the judgmentalism of the early Puritan community in which its set is clearly portrayed. Having said that, it's rather bland and unemotional at times (which, admittedly, fits the stereotype of an early Puritan community) although in the few scenes in which there is emotion (I think particularly of the closing scene with Dimmesdale's public confession) that emotion is well portrayed. The settings here seemed wrong. In particular I thought the homes that were shown looked far too comfortable for the 1640's. Some of the performances (especially I thought that of Hardie Albright as Dimmesdale, with the exception of that closing scene) seemed a bit forced, although I appreciated the attempt to mix some humour into a movie that could have been very heavy, as Alan Hale and William Kent portray the attempts of Hockings to help Goodfellow court the widow Crakstone, although in some ways (again, I haven't read the novel) that seemed unconnected to the overall story. In the lead role, Colleen Moore was good as Hester Prynne, although she didn't dominate the movie in the way you would expect the lead to do. In terms of the overall quality of the movie compared to others of the era, I find the 1930's a strange decade. Some of its films seem quite modern, while others seem very old. This version of "The Scarlet Letter" seems to fit into the latter group. 4/10


In 1642 Puritan America, a woman named Hester Prynne (Colleen Moore) is forced to wear a mark of shame, a Scarlet Letter "A" on her chest after being found guilty of adultery after bearing a child two years after her husband disappeared thought lost at sea. The truth is known to only two others, the town's beloved Reverand Dimmesdale (Hardie Albright) who happens to be in reality secretly the child's father and Hester's returned husband Dr. Roger Chillingworth (Henry B. Walthall), who assumes that identity rather than be shamed by a cheating wife. Chillingworth is determined to gain a measure of revenge by trying to make the lives of Hester and the Reverand as miserable as he possibly can.

While this movie may be faithful to its source material, it's overall a dreary, melodramatic bore for most of its running time. Albright's sometimes hammy performance as Dimmesdale seems particularly overdone. Moore does try as Hester Prynne but ultimately the role proves fairly plain, simple and unmemorable overall. Only those comedic bits featuring Alan Hale and William Kent added here and there to lighten the mood makes this the least bit viewable at all.


Despite the incredible premise, this is only slightly amusing. There are a handful of moments where you will laugh out loud, but the storyline fails to hold your interest in between. It's actually a pretty boring movie, and the pacing is very slow.

The scene where he receives all his gadgets is very funny and at that point I thought I was gonna have a good time with the movie, but it starts to fall apart pretty quickly after that. Watching Agent 00 fight guys that are three times his size is fun for about 30 minutes, but it quickly becomes predictable and the action scenes have a total lack of tension... In fact, the whole movie lacks tension or urgency. I almost fell asleep twice.

I'm actually glad this movie was made and I'm glad I own it. It's one of the most bizarre and silly things you could ever imagine and I'm happy to live in a world where such a crazy thing could exist, but the whole thing just doesn't come together or deliver any entertainment value. It's one of those movies where I would show it to my friends, but I would fast forward to the good parts. I would never actually ask them to endure the entire film.


Any film which features a dwarf secret agent battling bad guys and seducing babes has got to be a winner, right?

Wrong! Some films are so bad that they actually end up being very entertaining; For Y'ur Height Only, however, strives to illicit laughs by deliberately being dreadful, but actually ends up being rather boring.

Philippino pipsqueak Weng Weng plays 00, a short-ass secret agent who, with the help of sexy assistant Irma (Beth Sandoval), embarks on a mission to rescue a scientist that has been kidnapped by the evil Mr. Giant and his gang.

For a while, this tongue-in-cheek spoof spy movie is fun enough: our bow-legged mini-Bond runs, jumps and kicks butt while the bad guys cower in fear of having their knackers bashed (the half-pint hero's trademark move); Mr. Giant's henchmen inexplicably deliver their cheesy lines in the style of 1930s New York gangsters; and 00 uses a variety of badly designed gadgets.

But it's not long before the film loses its novelty value and becomes tedious in the extreme, repeating the same gags (00 sliding along the floor with his gun, hiding in tiny places and acting cool with the ladies) ad nauseum.

I had hoped that For Y'ur Height Only would be an umissable slice of 'dwarfsploitation', but instead it is merely a cinematic oddity that unfortunately fails to deliver on its unusual premise.


Although Ann-Margret is gorgeous as always, Joe Namath cannot carry a suitcase, let alone a movie. I loved him as a quarterback, ...BUT, except for his horrendous performance in NORWOOD with Glen Campbell, he just doesn't have it. Thank God, William Smith (fine actor) has plenty of scenes with Joe and Ann-Margret.

A 4 out of 10. Best performance = Mr. Smith. Exchanging furtive glances, Mr. Namath and Ann simply look foolish, although there are great location shots..I believe in the Southwest. Pure exploitation but just not enough fun, skin, plot, or talent. Ann has a great hairstyle though in 1970!


From start-to-finish, this movie is a stinker. Bad acting, lousy script and terrible production values. I can see Joe Namath doing it but it's hard to believe that an accomplished actress like Ann-Margaret agreed to appear in this loser. That being said, I just located and purchased this hard-to-find flick at the aptly-named Cheesy Movies.com. Why? Because it is the only movie that blue-eyed soul man Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders ever appeared in. If there are any Cochran fans reading this, grab this movie and catch Wayne and his boys doing a full-length version of "I Can't Turn You Loose". Wayne Cochran recordings are very hard to come by, let alone a cinematic appearance. It was worth the $4.98 I paid for it.


SPOILER below:

The bikes are the stars here. Forget the plot - something about a biker who falls in with a rich "swinging chick," or some such bad cliche. The gang kidnaps her and he wins her back in a chopper race around the local school track. (at least, I remember that's what happens.) That Speedvision hasn't run this late some Saturday night will give you an idea what a snorer this is. If ever they do, keep the remote handy so you can surf back to the highway shots.


Joe threw the biggest bomb of his career and unfortunately it was intercepted by the viewers. This wasn't the stupidest film I've ever seen, but close. It wasn't the poorest performed, but mighty close. It was awfully close to being the most boring experience of my movie career; even Ann M. couldn't help in that area. Smooth Joe just didn't come off as an Hell's Angel type, he's just to nice looking. And that sandwich building crap at the beginning...what amateurism. Get half drunk with some buddies and maybe this stumpwater will be palatable. Maybe.


I saw this movie on the 9th Shanghai International Film Festival. It's such an awful one I can hardly bear it. The story begins quite beautifully, but as it goes on it's getting worse and worse. The history part is no problem. These brides are truly poor and unlucky. But the question is the plot doesn't focus on the feeling of the women. It goes for beautiful landscape and badly made computer tech of the ship. The photographer lost his head strangely when facing the unattracting but typical Greek woman. She looks better when her hair turned into fully white. Turning one's hair into white is not fresh in Chinese history. But the general Wu Zixu had greater reason to do so, not like the woman in the movie which seems quite no reason. The other brides on board are also strange when throwing themselves into the arms of the buyers. The only good part is the girl playing Lute and keep singing Greek songs. Others are totally out of reason. When the pimp saying that: I must be punished. The tragedy finally turned into a joke. I don't know what happened to the whole crew. Can't they make anything better?


The film was really disappointing. I cannot believe that the director was Martin Scorsese. At the end of the film I asked myself; What did the film want to tell? What was its aim? The psychological problems the brides were having could not be mentioned properly throughout the film. The film told the problems of only two women (Niki and Haro). The problem about the Russian girls could not be understood and stayed unanswered. The American photographer (Mr.Harris) was acting awful, his sentences were real-clichés. Niki's hair's turning white was not dramatic but comic. There were also inconsistent events. The dialogs were poor in general. In short the film was a waste of time.


I'm somewhat surprised to see such high praise for this film in other reviews here. In a nutshell, while I feel that the movie is decent, it didn't blow me away and it's not something I'll really recommend to friends.

I took a certain delight in many of the scenes in the movie: the opening scene where the title character fights through Asian stereotypes while trying to audition for a commercial, the awe and wonder he feels seeing Shanghai for the first time, and his helplessness with the Chinese language as he tries to get back to his hotel. There are a few good laughs in the movie, and sure enough an emotional edge to it which some people will relate to -- in a way, you can call the title character an Asian American "Holden Caufield," if you will, as we watch him feeling empty and going through the motions, struggling with a difficult emotional past and present.

However, I felt no love at all for Hayden's character or frankly any interest in their relationship. She sure is nice to look at, but the whole premise of a hot blonde sixteen year old Beverly Hills chick flirting with a much older Asian man on the bus seemed a wee bit implausible, if not outright painful once you throw in her baby talking and bizarre instantaneous attachment and clinginess.

Overall, the laughs were a bit too few and far between and the story was a bit lackluster, feeling to me like an awkward and somewhat mediocre mixture of "Garden State" and "Lost in Translation." As an Asian American, I really wanted to love the film -- but I just didn't find it entertaining or profound.


I read the comments on here and went in expecting something really good.

I was so very disappointed by this movie.

I really like this movie on one level but I think it could be A LOT better.

Something was lacking. The characters don't seem to click, the ending felt incomplete and there was not enough relationship development. Why did they have a topless scene is beyond my comprehension.

The acting was good, there was enough humour to keep me smiling and the music was heart warming.

I totally recommend the movie to everyone but I only give it an E for Effort.

If you are reading my comment, ignore how others are over-hyping this movie. Expect only a 6/10 from this movie.


Much has been made by other reviewers about how "Shanghai Kiss" breaks away from the unflattering stereotypes that dog Asian men in American popular culture. And to be sure, I'm glad to see these folks playing roles other than martial artist or math geek. But in its relentless quest to show that, yes, an Asian guy can indeed sleep with white chicks, this movie gives us an entirely unsympathetic main character and throws him into completely implausible situations.

Nowhere do we see why it is that Ken Leung's character is such a babe magnet. Instead, we get someone who is shallow, egotistical, moody, immature, and just plain annoying. And he's not even especially handsome, either (though he does have a sort of boyish cuteness). In short, there's nothing particularly desirable or appealing about this guy. Yet, inexplicably, the ladies just can't get enough of him.

And as if the fact that the protagonist is totally irritating isn't enough to detract from our enjoyment of the movie, there's also the rank implausibility of the storyline. I mean, how often do attractive women (of any race) blatantly throw themselves at random strangers (again, of any race) on public buses? Or, when someone just steps off a trans-Pacific airline flight, how likely is it that they are immediately going to go someplace where -- you guessed it -- women are eagerly waiting to pleasure him? To me, the whole thing smacked of the film makers shouting out as loudly as they can, "Hey, look at this! Asian guys can get some action in bed!" Well, OK, that's swell, I guess. But somehow, I don't think that making our "hero" out to be as unappealing and unsympathetic as possible, while putting him into completely implausible and unbelievable situations, advances the cause of Asian male de-stereotyping.

Full disclosure: I hit my limit and stopped watching the movie about a half-hour into it (right after the main character arrived in Shanghai). So that's why I'm giving it two stars, because maybe it got better after that. But as for me, I'm afraid I'll just have to keep hoping that maybe someday I'll find a non-stereotypical Asian guy in the movies who's actually worth spending some time with.


might have spoilers!!!

I m still confused why this movie received such a high rating on IMDb. It is poorly directed(so what if its his first), has average actors and a shitty story line. This is an attempt by an inferiority complex-ed Chinese guy to lash out at the "snobbish" Americans. Ken leung is rather pathetic, he manages to "score" white chicks with stupid lines and then gets to act all superior towards them. And whats with the stories of childhood harassment(we are discussing a 7 yrs old's penis...??) Hayden is rather irritating at times and obviously retarded cause she picks up bored looking Chinese men from a bus.Then tries desperately to act like a 16 yr old, with her weird antics. and kelly hu, although hot, is useless, whats with all the crap about Chinese way of life and low wages.?? Give me a break. Please avoid this by all means.