This movie was absolutely horrible. The plot could have been half-way decent, and the movie tolerable if they had simply developed the characters better and hired people who could act. I was excited at the prospects of an independent movie focusing on the life of Indian Americans. It was a subject not often shown and had the potential to be very interesting. However, too many plot lines that were not fully developed and poor acting made 102 minutes seem like 4 hours. At the end I hated all of the characters and was happy that they had made their own lives so miserable. Do not watch this movie. Steer clear from it in the video store!


Is the movie in ENGLISH? I have seen a lot of Hindi films, and although I am not Indian, I found them easier to understand than this movie. The actors' accents are so horrendous that I couldn't understand 1 word in every 3. Also since it is supposed to be in `English', no subtitles were provided. I have traveled to India several times and never had a problem with their English accent. I find the accent quite sexy actually. But this movie, WOW.... couldn't they find people that actually could speak English?

I find that even Hindi movies without subtitle are easier to understand, for a non Hindi speaker, than this movie

1 word is enough to describe this movie: CONFUSED.

The whole plot characters, story line, narrative arc goes nowhere.

As evilmill said: ` I wasn't Confused until I actually saw this movie! '

I enjoyed movies like American Desi and Leila. Those movies where about Americans finding back their Indian roots. This movie feels more like confused Indians trying hard to be American abd making a bad job out of it.

Yet, there is a sort of off-beat quality to the movie. The confusion of their life appears on the screen and story. I think it was intentional that the movie plot went nowhere. The movie was built as a metaphor of their lives.

The only way I can appreciate this movie, is as a non Indian movie, a non-desi movie. It is an art house, low budget, flick that portrays existentialist angst.


I have watched this movie and in the first 10 minutes Nina(the lead actress) utters "KALI F*****G Maa" about an Indian Goddess..hows that justified..no1 can address a goddess like that..and most of all not an ABCD like Nina..

Have had no idea what Mr.Krutin Patel had in mind while adding that part to the screen play.. I strongly feel that a movie is made for entertainment and enlightenment of the audiences..what does this movie do?? How could the director allow this to happen?? and how could evry1 that watched the movie keep calm and silent..am not a religious activist but am not ready to take any1 swear at a Goddess in that manner..

Cheers

venu


Not one of the brighter entries in the wildly uneven Peter Lorre-Sol Wurtzel Moto series, this one sets our hero on the trail of the obligatory jewel smugglers in glamorous, exotic PUERTO RICO, where he encounters a snippy library clerk and a tippy rowboat among other perils.


I just have to say that this movie was horrible. Although there was 1 good quote from the movie, I greatly disliked it. None of this would really happen, and gay guys aren't all fashion freaks. They are people,and most of them can be "normal". Christy Carlson Romano stinks, and the only reason I watched it was for Thomas Dekker. He was bad in this movie, but don't consider this all his acting style. Don't listen to the other person, "Mean Girls" was pretty awful too. There are a few problems with movies like these. 1. We have classes! We don't have all that spare time to talk and do NOTHING. 2. How many of YOU have plastic surgeons for dads who will just go and buy you a printing press? NO WAY! They would take you to Cabo or something. 3. Do we all really look like that? No.


Speaking from a tweener's own experience, I found this movie to be an absolute waste of my time.

I spare no expense in saying that there was nothing redeeming about this movie... not to mention, an overabundance of poor, no... abominable acting "talent." Everyone says that this has gay references and stereotypes all around... they're not kidding.

The point I'm trying to get across is simply this: I'm thankful that no one had to endure this treatment in high school... especially when it's portrayed so poorly! Regretfully, I can't give this a zero with the stars, but I can in numbers! 0/10


Within the first ten minutes of this movie I was bored, insulted, and disgusted by the crude (even for a made-for-t.v. picture) cinematography, over-used stereotypes, and inconsistent characters. Then something incredible happened...the movie stayed the same through all the stupid jokes, bad puns, predictable plot-twists, and cheesy ending. The use of George Orwell's "Animal Farm" was obvious, and about as subtle as...I can't think of anything as obvious as this. The few good jokes in the movie only alienated the audience further, and the only remotely good thing about this picture was (some of) the acting...not of course, good enough to save it from a 1/10 rating. If the movie is ever played again on television, read a book. Might I suggest "Animal Farm?"


Actor-Producer Randolph Scott and writer-producer Harry Joe Brown collaborated on a number of good westerns. Unfortunately, TEN WANTED MEN is not one of them. You know you're in trouble when the title of the movie makes no sense. Richard Boone has a number of gunmen working for him, but it's never apparent any of them are wanted for anything, though they should be.

WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS

The movie opens with Scott having engineered a bogus stagecoach robbery, intended as a practical joke. Yet Scott had no way of knowing whether anyone would be hurt. It was a stupid, dangerous thing to do; certainly not the best way to introduce your `hero'.

Richard Boone kills Andy Clyde in cold blood, using his gunmen's to lie for him. Yet, there is not even a hearing; and, wouldn't SOMEONE have known Clyde had the money to pay his debt to Boone?

Skip Homier and Scott's ranch foreman see Boone's men rustling Scott's cattle. Yet, when Boone says Scott has no witnesses, Scott doesn't challenge him.

Homier kills Denver Pyle in self defense, using Leo Gordon's gun. Even though Gordon and Boone's other men are clearly unreliable witnesses and Homier is known not to carry a gun, the sheriff arrests Homier.

The editing in TEN WANTED MEN is frequently choppy, never more so than the climactic fight between Scott and Leo Gordon. Scott and Gordon look as if they are jumping around the screen.

Dennis Weaver is hit by a bullet coming through a window. From the trajectory of the hole in the glass, Weaver should have been hit in the neck, but Weaver's character is given the old, reliable shoulder wound.

Two stunt men drop their horses BEFORE Scott's dynamite explodes.

The acting ranges from indifferent to terrible. Scott, as almost always, plays Scott. Even the usually reliable Richard Boone is off his game.

Randolph Scott, Richard Boone, Lee Van Cleef, Leo Gordon, Denver Pyle. This one should have been a classic. Instead, it's a dog. I give TEN WANTED MEN a `4'.

Oh, and matches were invented in 1826.


Ten Wanted Men (the title hints at something far more dramatic than is actually in the picture} is a serviceable, but instantly forgettable, Western from the Scott-Brown production company. Directed by jobber H. Bruce Humberstone, with a screenplay by Kenneth Gamet {from a story by Irving Ravetch} and filmed in Technicolor out in Old Tuscon, it feels {and is} lifeless and poor on structure and execution. With some misplaced humour and a cobbled together plot, this ultimately ends up as a time filler for Randy Scott completists only. There's some enjoyment to be had from watching our Randy lob dynamite around, and Leo Gordon steals the movie as menacing villain Frank Scavo. But it never comes together to make a worthy mark. And when a cast list contains Randolph Scott, Richard Boone, Lee Van Cleef, Skip Homeier and Dennis Weaver-that's a crime as much as it is a shame. 4/10


I like Randolph Scott Westerns, but I am the first to admit they all were not gems. While I give this one 4 of 10, this is mostly because I like Scott and his acting--no matter how clichéd and sloppy the movie was.

First let's talk about sloppiness. This film had quite a few stunts that were lame compared to other Scott films. In one scene, Scott's brother is sitting in his wagon and shot three separate times when being cross-examined by the Baddie (Richard Boone). Yet, after Boone finally kills the man, then someone raises a pistol and fires it--at which point the horses THEN take off! Why didn't they run with the first three shots?! Then, when Scott chases down the runaway wagon, you can CLEARLY see the stuntman moving about--crouched down in the buckboard. But then, only a second later when Scott stops the wagon, the guy is splayed out--dead as a doornail!! Later, in the big obligatory confrontation scene between Scott and the Baddie, Scott doesn't even squeeze the trigger and no shot is fired (no flame shooting out the gun, no smoke, no kick--nothing) and then Boone falls dead!! There are also fight scenes where it's obvious that the people are NOT the actors--especially when a dark haired guy is standing in for silver haired Scott!! In addition to this sloppiness, scattered throughout town are obviously fake Saguaro cacti--they're the wrong color AND located in the most impossible places.

Now, as for the clichés, they abound. Once again, there is a rich guy who wants to own the town and hired a buttload (a standard unit of measurement out West) of gunmen. I have personally seen this same plot element in 1123745598 films (give or take a few) and am frankly sick of it--let's see some originality. In addition, there is a tender love scene between Scott and his lady friend just as they seem about to die--complete with lame dialog. In addition, there are several gun fights where the gunmen challenge the good guys. In addition, there is,...well, never mind--it was ALL a giant cliché.

A giant sloppy cliché with reliable old Randolph Scott in the lead. Without Scott, this one would barely merit a 3.


I have been a fan of Randolph Scott westerns since childhood and enjoy most of his work, but this movie plods along so slowly that you wish that everyone would shoot each other early and end the misery.

The good guys & gals are too noble and self-righteous and the villains are obviously rotten, evil and stupid.

The best thing about the film is the color scenery.

1 * out of 5.


Johnny Depp plays Inspector Aberline, a cockney drug addict with psychic powers and a nice line in meaningful stares. His task here is to catch a cunning murderer, going by the moniker `Jack The Ripper', who is disemboweling the local cockney prostitutes.<br /><br />From the opening scenes, where the whores are portrayed as `unfortunates' with a heart of gold and the gangsters are played as snarling, scar-faced sociopaths, I had my suspicions this wasn't going my particular cup of tea. Subtle? Not a word that springs to mind. The character development was heavy handed, bordering on downright stereotypical. Aberline is given a wife who has died in child birth, therefore he feels alone. Robby Coltrane spouts poetry, therefore he is wise. Mary Kelly has a picture of herself as a child to show that she wasn't always a whore. Big broad strokes.

Additionally, the supporting cast. (Sir Charles Warren, Dr. Ferral, Kidney and his Special Branch hoodlums) where left high and dry with hackneyed dialogue and slender, under-developed roles.

The plot development on the other hand was acceptable, though derivative. A series of vicious murders with one potential victim being singled out for development right from the start. A romantic interlude. It even includes the old chestnut where the lovable whores' leave the relative safety of their lodgings one by one (after being warned to stay of the streets!) and are subsequently slashed. Nothing you haven't seen in the Scream movies. However, there is average development in between this that lifts the story slightly. An interesting conspiracy theory is included and the conclusion was a little less conventional, so I suppose that's something.

The thing that particularly annoyed me was the style of the movie. When I heard that it was filmed in Prague I was expecting beautiful architecture, atmospheric back streets. No... A lot of the scenes looked although they had been filmed on a sound stage, whose sets were not particularly impressive. Now and again CGI shots depicted `Old London Town' in all its computerized glory. The directors used shoddy effects for the flashbacks and the premonitions. Time-lapse was used unnecessarily.

Sound effects during the murder scenes sounded like someone was dueling with a cutlass, rather than eviscerating someone. I'm sure my organs wouldn't clink and chink if someone went at them with a knife. I'd suggest a trip to the Modern Classics section in the video store for the Hughes brothers too see how it should be done.

If you approach this film expecting something other than an average teen slasher movie set in the Victorian era, I think you will be disappointed. I know I was.

Cor Blimey Guvnor, stone the crows!


This was a depressing, awful, dark, dank, and damp (OH GOD was it ever damp, This version of London has to be the wettest i've ever seen.)

Although going full well into this movie knowing it was based on the macabre and mysterious Jack The Ripper, it was more depressing, insulting, boring, and bland than it was suspenseful and scary.

It's sad too, because it appears the Hollywood machine went full force in recreating 19th century London, CGI, costumes, and props. It Could have been a great, terrifying suspenseful mystery adventure. Instead it takes a little Alan Moore, history, and mixes in a terrible script. I actually cringed at the awful, screeching Cockney accents provided by the non British/UK actors and actresses. (Depp was OK though, his being mellow and not seemingly screeched at the top of his lungs like the "unfortunates" was.)

There was no chemistry what-so-ever between Depp and Graham, at no time was I convinced of their attraction to each other, or of their predictable "romance", if you could call it that. Depp seemed to sleepwalk his way through most of this picture, (I wish I could've done the same.) The "unfortunates" are portrayed as the dumbest group of screeching harpies I have ever seen spread across the screen. How many moments of stubborn pride "I won't take charity from nobody" "I'm not a whore", "I wasn't always a whore." "I need to work to live/eat." moments did you count? Especially from Graham?

Even late into the movie, as all her friends lay horribly slain, she still stubbornly sticks her nose in the air with these ideas rather than just taking the money offered to her (and at this point it should be quite obvious that it's not someone trying to get in her pants) and getting the hell out of dodge. It's nothing more than a bad script setup to share a "passionate" kiss with Depp.

The killer story, for one of the most infamous and gruesome murderers in all of history is really quite boring, and lacking any mystery and aforementioned "suspense."

I felt sorry for Depp and Coltrane, I really did. Having seen them both in much, much better roles, at least the friendship and work between the two of them was comfortable and convincing. It's too bad that no one involved in writing/producing/directing this disaster decided that anyone else should be.

Want to see a movie done right with Depp as a detective? I suggest "Sleepy Hollow."

2/10 for Depp & Coltrane.


First off, let me state that the person behind this script knows very little about the Jack The Ripper killings. I have bad news for people out there, Sir William Gull was NOT Jack The Ripper. I am not saying I know who is, many theories abound, but the 'Queen Victoria sending her personal physician out to kill the prostitutes that gave her son VD' is one of the more laughable.

Secondly, Johnny Depp simply could not emit a convincing British accent. Don't get me wrong, he is a damn good actor, but he was in way over his head with this one.

If you need to see a good Jack The Ripper movie, I would recommend Hitchcocks' "The Lodger"


What will Hollywood scenario writers think up next? As an historian I am appalled about this story. What will they put foreward as actual fact. Now you could argue, they never said... but anyhow they used the victim's names and murder locations. This can't be serious. What a missed chance. The actual Ripper story drips with drama, mystery, enigma, colourful individuals, should I go on? No, but some third rate, coca-cola drinking scenario writer thought the American public would be better off with some fifteenth rate love story soap. It could even be oscar material. Let me tell him or they, thanks to this 'penny-novel' approach, every well made, well acted and sometimes brilliant visual approach was destroyed thoroughly for me. Victorian England was something else. One piece of advice: check your sources well, if you used sources other than your bank account. A good advice: don't be confronted with European historians or you will end up like... To conclude: Jack the Ripper doesn't translate to Disneyworld. Real people died in 1888 and the British Royal family had nothing to do with it.


I'll watch anything with Depp or Ian Richardson, which is how I got skinned on this PPV rental. For God's sake, do NOT spend money on this sad little ripoff of Murder by Decree -- but with far less talent and entertainment.

The plot was "new" 20 years ago but thoroughly discredited long ago as being too silly for words. Even Depp's great Cockney acccent was completely out of character for a Scotland Yard inspector, but the portrayal of one pinup-quality whore amongst a thousand utter dogs was just annoying...as was her accent and acting. The storyline was erratic (even where it made sense), and the so-called "mystery" was obvious early on. The errors or misrepresentations about the Ripper murders were phenomenal, and only someone totally ignorant of the case could get sucked in at all.

Depp is one of the most talented actors around, but even he can be grossly miscast in awful movies ("Blow" coming to mind immediately). One suspected his heart was not really in this hotly steaming turd and he just went through the paces playing the exact same role as he did in "Sleepy Hollow," which, though it also had a tired old plot, still turned into a great movie.

There are several interesting (and even believable) speculations on the Ripper murders, and of course most scholars have a pretty good idea who it probably was (hint: it wasn't a doctor, a royal prince or a Freemason). Surely we could have been given an interesting premise that didn't have just class prejudice going for it.

This really did suck. If you haven't seen "Murder by Decree," go rent it, skip this dog and actually get entertained. This one just blows.


I had the screener of this film in my hands for 5 days now. I have been trying to watch this film for 5 days now. I can't get into it. I had high hopes but it is just so dull!!! It is filmed well but, damn it is boring!! If you can't fall asleep, rent this movie, it will help.


I guess being from England and having been reading about Jack the Ripper for 12 years from books to movies I finally saw the right movie here in Denmark a few years ago where everything seemed to make sense and it was the mini series with Michael Caine. So my friends and I had to choose between Shallow Hal and From Hell. We figured From Hell would be good since we all were familiar with the story so there wouldn't be any surprises. 27 minutes of the movie and we are in total suspense and something happened and they had to restart the movie once again! So again we sat back and waited for that moment to come again and we figured wow if it was so interesting for the first ½ hour it would no doubt be even better later on! WE WERE WRONG!!! The entire movie suddenly fell out of place and entered a whole other dimension where fact and fiction had to be divided and after dividing it the whole movie became fiction. If they had to base a film on something like that they shouldn't have made a Jack the Ripper film it was almost an insult to what Michael Caine had preformed so perfectly as Abberline. Johnny Depp's accent couldn't be anymore silly than it was even though I would give him a little happy by saying nice try there. The real Inspector Abberline was in his late 40's, did Johnny even look past 30? This movie will get a 2 out of 10 and only because the whole setting was terrific and even the special effects with the knife, good! Other than that don't bother it unless you have some extra cash in your pockets and nothing else to do.


From Hell wants to be everything. Sadly it is nothing, besides extreme violence. Seven had violence with style and for a reason. From Hell is like Dead Presidents (which is better, though it´s still pretty bad): graphic violence and that´s it. The direction is horrible and Graham shows us that she can´t act in a serious role. Meaningless and wannabe dark movie is what it is.


As a great fan of Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's original graphic novel and an admirer of the Hughes Brothers, I had rather high hopes for "From Hell" when first I heard of its production. As its release date neared, though, and details of the film began to leak out, I became distressed by the broad changes the film's writers had made to Moore's original story, apparently with the consent of the Hugheses. Moore's story is not a mystery; neither, of course, is it a documentary of the case. He admits the novel is a work of fiction and has said that his choice for the identity of the Ripper is most unlikely. The Ripper case, its drama, and its continuing fascination was a hook on which to hang a social commentary -- and this, along with much of the historical research Moore and Campbell put into the book -- is what is missing from the Hughes Brothers' movie. The brothers are working with some very talented people these days, and they've made a very good-looking an good-sounding film, but at its heart, it's empty. Pretty as the cinematography is, talented as most of the actors are, "From Hell" is dull. It hasn't the thrills to qualify as a decent thriller, the chills to make a satisfying horror movie, the emotionally involving characters to draw us into a human drama. "From Hell" is a mess, and you'd do well to spend your money elsewhere.


I found this movie so disappointing that it inspired me to write this, my first review. The only genre appropriate for this movie is Horror because of possible shock factor at the type of murders committed. However, considering the repetitive nature of this film, only the first murder could really be considered "shocking".

I find myself shying away from horror movies because I scare easy, however, even I did not find this movie scary. There was no suspense. The movie was merely disgusting. You could not even really classify it as "gore" because the repulsive part was more the idea of the murders rather than what was shown.

The "romance" part of this movie was laughable. Heather Graham's character was poorly developed, and I was not convinced that Inspector Abberline would fall in love with her. I suppose the fact that Mary Kelly didn't once solicit men, despite being a whore, like all the other women was an attempt to soften her character and make their love more believable. It didn't work on me.

This movie was extremely predictable - you knew what was going to happen next throughout the entire film. I am of the opinion that the potential for a good movie was there, but the execution failed in producing it. I confess, I have not read the novel it was based on.


I've never read any Jack the Ripper books.

I've never seen any Jack the Ripper movies.

I didn't even know the story behind Jack the Ripper until the other day. Then I saw From Hell. The title of the movie is ironic because it seems the movie itself came "From Hell." I will never get that 2 hours (and $8) of my life back. The movie was slow moving, incredibly predictable, and had a slow, drawn out climax.

The scenery was amazing, and the special effects were fantastic. That much I'll give. Even the acting was good. It is just that the story stunk.

Don't go see it. Rent it. Maybe even wait for HBO. You already know what happens anyway.


Just to make one thing very clear, I don't care about the story, it was very boring, not scary and the acting was horrible but Heather Graham is the bomb. She was great in Austin Powers 2 and Boogie Night. In this one she is also sexy. Here is the story thanks to mr. Anonymous.

It is 1888 in London, and the unfortunate poor lead horrifying lives in the city's deadliest slum, Whitechapel. Harassed by gangs and forced to walk the streets for a living, Mary Kelly and her small group of companions trudge on through this daily misery, their only consolation being that things can't get any worse. Yet things somehow do when their friend Ann is kidnapped and they are drawn into a conspiracy with links higher up than they could possibly imagine. The kidnapping is soon followed by the gruesome murder of another woman, Polly, and it becomes apparent that they are being hunted down, one by one. Sinister even by Whitechapel standards, the murder grabs the attention of Inspector Fred Abberline, a brilliant yet troubled man whose police work is often aided by his psychic abilities. Abberline becomes deeply involved with the case, which takes on personal meaning to him when he and Mary begin to fall in love. But as he gets closer to the truth Whitechapel becomes more and more dangerous for Abberline, Mary, and the other girls. Whoever is responsible for the grisly acts is not going to give up his secret without a fight....will they be able to survive the avenging force that has been sent after them from hell?

The movie itself was very poor, not enough t&a.


The film that we see shows a great deal of disrespect to the real people portrayed, the graphic novel upon which it is apparently based and its authors, to history, and to the audience. The real inspector Abberline was not a drug addict, nor a psychic. Mary Kelly WAS murdered.

These were real people to whom terrible things happened. The movie sells these peoples' suffering to us as entertainment, yet does not even show the respect of caring what really happened. I hope the Hughes Brothers et al are haunted by the ghosts of history.

As a movie, this film is also a disapointment. Depp cannot do a cockney accent to save his life, the result being distracting. There is a half heartedness to all the performances.

Basically this film offended me. If you care about truth, integrity, love and honesty, don't bother with watching this move. Check out the real From Hell - the graphic novel.


Once again, Hollywood, or a counter part depicts history through the eyes of the camera.

The portrayl of the Inspector is so far from the truth, it is absurbed!!

The physician to the royal family was never seriously considered as a suspect.

Prince Albert never fathered a child from a prostitute.

The real killer was a man by the name of James Maybrick.


 After watching this movie, I think the tag-line should have been, "Got Grapes?" (Got Milk?) or "Ah, The Power of Grapes" (Ah, the Power of Cheese).

 The hero is an opium addict who has ability to envision tomorrows murder, today. He is supposed to be very smart. At one point he is drawing locations of different spots where bodies were recovered, and based on that he figures out that this has some significance in terms of some cult and predicts the location of next murder. At that point he had a good idea that the reason those women were being murdered was that they were witness to a wedding of some loser prince and somebody wanted them to be eliminated. My question is, why didn't he post all the idiot cops right outside that ONE room where all of those women lived? Wouldn't it be easy to just ask a pair of cops to FOLLOW the remaining two or three women in that ONE room? He knew who was getting killed, and why, yet there were cops everywhere but outside that one spot. This is level of idiocy not seen before in any crime movie.

 Another question: Shouldn't the hero have told the remaining women, NOT TO TALK TO STRANGERS WHO GIVE YOU GRAPES? How about questioning couple of fruit vendors? He also knew the killer was rich and educated, and there were more than one suspect at hand. Yet Jack-The-Rip-OFF gallops through those narrow streets in his carriage, and no one seemed to take a note.

 The dialogue, the acting, the sets, the cast, the characters, were so horrible, that I found myself rooting for Jack! His acting was best in whole movie, but could not save it from being one of the worst movies ever made.

 Instead of buying a ticket for this movie, I would have been better off if I had bought grapes.


One of the worst films I've seen in a long time. At least three people I know have confessed to falling asleep during this. The ending is absolutely unbelievable I am lost for words as to how bad it was. Usually when things are this dire you can laugh about it but not in this case. The only positive thing about it was the fact that Johnny Depp realised that not all us Londoners speak the same. His East London accent was remarkable.


From Hell.

As you will have read from the other reviews From Hell' tells the story of London police inspector Abberline (Depp) and his investigation of Jack the Ripper in Victorian times. Based on a series of graphic novels by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell, From Hell' manages to incorporate a lot of genuine Ripper theories and suspects before settling on the most grandiose as its final resolution.

This well may prove to be an unpopular view but I did not enjoy From Hell'. My main criticism of From Hell' is that it is so tedious. I would consider myself to be a film viewer of reasonable intelligence, I do not feel that From Hell' would be better with a series of action scenes. But let's not go too far in the opposite direction and confuse an intelligent approach with being boring. And lets not beat around the bush, From Hell' is boring.

It is not without its plus points. Depp is watchable as Abberline although Abberline is far less interesting than Depp's similar character in Sleepy Hollow. The accents are not as noticeably bad as in the trailer.

But these points are far outweighed by the poorer aspects. For most of these, I am afraid we must look to the directors. Brave as though the Hughes boys were to move into a new field of film making, for the most part the film is never terribly interesting to look at and worse, often treats the viewer as an idiot by showing us close ups and reminders of things that happened moments ago. The sliding realities that occur to Abberline and to the Ripper are cliched and often seem to make little sense.

Reading the other reviews on IMDB Andrew Johnson hits the nail on the head when he says there is no emotional involvement with any of the characters, especially the Unfortunates (whores), and it is this dis-attachment that finally kills From Hell' off.

The reveal of who the ripper is, will come of no surprise to anyone, although the depth of the conspiracy is interesting. I am not wishing to show off but I had a fairly good idea from the trailer.

There is one theory that none of From Hell' actually takes place, it is all the opium fantasy of Abberline. If this was the case then why on earth is it such a lifeless, uneventful time.


They should have spent as much time on the characters as they did on the visuals. I had high hopes for this movie and then spent the entire time just sort of getting through it. Some of it was poorly acted and other parts were just outright cliched and facile. A disappointment.


I had really high hopes for this movie. what the Hughe's brothers have done is turn one of the most fascinating murder/mysteries of the 20th Century into an music video with no narrative structure or form and absolutely no redeeming features.

The love story between Mary Kelly and Abberline is ridiculous. it's only saving grace are the few quips from Robbie Coltrane and some nice character moments by Jason Flemyng. The gore is pointless. there is no tension , there is no mystery. the scenes are arranged one after the other, but there is absolutely nothing linking them. give me the Michael Caine adaptation of the ripper story any day. far more entertaining.


This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Johnny Depp is normally outstanding, but in this he is woeful. His accent is all of the place and the script is modern not period. Robbie Coultrane took the money and run as he gave his best ever Cracker performance.

This Jack the Ripper mystery is incredibly dull. Johnny Depp plays a detective with clairvoyant powers, and you might think those powers would come in handy when looking for Jack the Ripper, but you'd be wrong.

Heather Graham (who's accent also slips out - when it should be her tits)is gratingly out of place as a prostitute her colleagues all look like hags while she looks like a model.

It doesn't more pompous and poor as this.


Most of the first hour or so of this movie was dull, boring and unnecessary...if not for my wife asking me questions, I think I would have fallen asleep. I must admit that once we got to the point of the film where sheep are birthing their lambs that the film began to pique my interest, but by then, I really couldn't care less about the characters, and wanted it to end.

Also the insistent, braying, bleating, etc. of the different animals was extremely annoying and irritating, as was the kids when they would be loudly singing off-key. I'm sure this was intentional, but irritating nonetheless.

I know this film got superb reviews, which is why I rented it in the first place. But why? Because it showed a slice of life that few of us ever see? That's the only thing I can think of. And if so, make a documentary about it.


A double free pass to Tulpan accompanied tickets I'd won to another film. The previews of Tulpan I'd seen weeks before looked interesting enough but sadly the film failed to excite or satisfy. The location is dull, drab and dusty to the extreme. Liked the main characters sister, disliked her Ghenghis Khan like husband. The friend who drove the tractor wore very thin, very quickly. So for me this part film, part documentary labored to make it's point. For me it was like going around in circles and was really 2 hours I'll never see again.

When so many good films of many origins fail to get commercial release I'm at a bit of a loss why this film did. Or why it's won as many awards as it has.

2009 motto "beware of PR agencies bearing unasked for free movie tickets"

Postscript... nearly 2 weeks I'll make an early nomination this will be my worst film of 2009. 2nd worst Easy Virtue also another preview freebie. But back to Tulpan it was a excruciating..excruciatingly laboured and slow.


I loved the epic documentary "Saltmen of Tibet," so I am a fan of dusty low-plot movies about someplace I'll never go. But TULPAN was terrible! I can't believe I sat through the whole thing.

The assault on the senses, the constant noise of that bratty kid singing, that other kid shouting, the wind, the camel stampede or sheep stampede . . . what a beating you take just sitting there! The hideous scene of the children vying for the privilege of squeezing blackheads on their father's back? Honestly! Too bad we didn't get to watch somebody squatting behind a clump of dry grass.

The depressing anti-heroism of Asa, a fool and a liar. Thinks he loves/wants a particular woman because it turns out she's his last hope of getting a herd of sheep. Now THAT is a courtship.

The falseness of the animal scenes and story lines. If those ewes are malnourished, you sure can't tell from their energetic behavior. So don't ask me to believe that's why they're losing their lambs. If they're so malnourished, why are the lambs carried to full term and coming out more or less the right size? And how come, since much of the action revolves around moving the animals to pasture, we never once not once see a sheep or a cow or a camel EAT anything? And what's up with that healthy ewe delivering a healthy baby needing assistance from the idiot? Baloney.

One thing that came through so very clearly is the horror of being a woman on that steppe. Stuck with cooking, cleaning, children. Tulpan wants to go to college and her mother violently chases away the suitor, presumably to spare her the life she, the mom, has endured. Asa's sister and niece are in some kind of cahoots to torment Ondas. I have to believe the filmmaker understands what he is showing, so maybe this whole horrible experience was a kind of feminist critique of a dying way of life that can't breathe it's last soon enough.

So disappointing! The trailer was so wonderful! :(


I went to my local DVD rental store and i saw this movie in the list.

The description was intriguing. The police hunts a former police officer, able to use dark magic powers, that has escaped from prison in mysterious circumstances. I thought that mixing police and black magic was an unusual but interesting idea. Maybe it could be, but not in this movie.

From the first second to the last the movie was a continued and foolish cut and paste of scenes that always seemed disconnected among them. When you expected that someone was going to explain to you what was happening the scene changes radically and you can only feel something like "What the heck is happening now?"

The characters are badly introduced to the audience and it's impossible to understand why they are doing what they do. The only interesting character is Itti, the bad guy of the movie, but the attempts of explaining it's past are only confusing as is impossible to understand why he has his powers and why he is using them like that.

This is an awful film and I suggest to avoid it if you can!


story is entertaining but almost action-free, characters are a drag, no actor emerges from this period piece, the 30's, which is lavishly filmed, but we've seen it elsewhere already... Belmondo is a lovable crook, but he's done it before...


This movie was minimal in just about everything--characterization, scenery, excitement, depth, meaning. I could see the ending coming from the moment the protagonist voiced his desire for someone to kill him. Like someone already said, we never figure out why he wants to die. He drives through the suburbs in an SUV, being creepy and annoying in the most mundane way possible. Why do we care? I cared more about the poor people who would not kill him despite the promised reward than this bland character. Of course, these people were only featured for a few minutes each. Also, are we supposed to view the idea that life is valuable for the little things like the "taste of cherry" as unique and thought-provoking?


OK, so he's not a perfect stranger by the end of the movie. We do learn just a little about him. But nonetheless, you feel more or less the way you would if protocol required that you attend the wake of someone you had not even a passing acquaintance with. Respectful in the face of Death, duly serious, yes, but also somewhat bored and hoping you can get away quickly.

Still, the spectacle of a man so intent on suicide, and finding it surprisingly difficult, was rather interesting. I would not have regretted seeing this movie, were it not for the ending, which scotches everything, making you wonder why you've wasted your time.


In the same way that actors refer to Macbeth as "The Scottish Play" to avoid the taboo of mentioning the title, I like to refer to this as "The Iranian Film". It's a movie of such unparalleled tedium that to pronounce its name may drive people to enter a monastic order in search of stimulus. It is not merely like watching paint dry. It is like watching beige paint attempting to dry in a humidor in a Barratt Home.

Astonishingly, A Taste of Cherry (as it translates) won the Palm D'Or at Cannes. It was a decision motivated by politics and pseudery that exemplifies the worst Cannes jury decisions. ("Zut alors. Zis film, it was made in Iran." "Mon dieu, what's it like?" "Well, it's quite boring, but it could be the start of a Middle Eastern renaissance.")

This, sadly, is where the astonishment ends. Critics have fawned over it for its simplicity, but the 95 minutes is a vacuum of Proustian proportions and was, for me, substantially less stimulating than watching the back of the head of the man sat in front of me at the cinema. No one can argue that this film is not boring. It's possible to contend that boredom was Abbas Kiarostami's intention. But the crux of the matter is this: it didn't need to be dull. Tedium is not a vital context for the story, and as such is an insult to the audience.

The plot - a parable depicting a man's quest to find someone who will bury him after he commits suicide - moves with glacial speed. Each candidate explains at length the metaphysical problems with being complicit in such an act, but the monologues are no more sophisticated (and a great deal less articulate) than a pub conversation with a clutch of philosophy students. The Iranian setting gives some insight into Islamic culture, but the whole enterprise is undermined by the way it is filmed.

At the beginning of most of the shots, you see the main character's jeep trundling from one side of the screen to the other. "Nothing interesting is happening now," you think to yourself as the protagonist explains yet again what he wants his passenger to do, "but perhaps we will reach a dramatic moment at the end of the shot." The jeep duly reaches the end of the frame, only for the film to cut to a near-identical shot of the same jeep crossing the same drab and dusty landscape with the same uneventful monologue.

Even if you strip away the boredom, there is precious little underneath unless you engage in the most polo-necked type of film criticism. I have read one review that claimed that the protagonist's stone-faced performance was "showing by concealing". Another suggested that the failure to explain the character's motivation for killing himself made him an "everyman". There is, I suggest, an element of the emperor's new clothes about this.

A Taste of Cherry deals with metaphysics, but that does not make it profound. Viewers who can sit through it are open minded, but that does not make them intellectual. Don't go and see this on the say-so of an impressionable pseud. Don't go and see it at all.


This is one of those movies that pretend to be layered and have deeper significance than all that appears.But knowing the other works of this director and how he only treads in lukewarm, shallow waters... it is nothing different from his other works.

His films have received a lot of good reception- only because they show new localities (Iran), in harmless, "safe" topics with not much substance or depth, and in dull, drab drawn out scenes. Perhaps it appeals to those who are bored to death of watching the regular commercial Hollywood films, those who can't stomach really strong films and those who wish to create non-existent depths in a very one dimensional film. Some comments mention cinematic genius in scenes, some looking for metaphysical meanings in the sound of a helicopter or the scenery--I guess you could look at it that way- or anything in that way. But please, there are no comparisons between cinematic greats like Tarkowsky, Bergman and others.

Kiarostami was and is one who takes the safe path always... never provokes, never motivates and all "debates" sparking from his films are merely because few can believe that there is nothing more to it than what they see and hear. A weak director with no signs of improvement, in my opinion.

And a film best described as a placebo... you think you get an effect, and perhaps that's good enough for the critics and the fans of this film. Wants to start a topic, gets up and falls flat on the face. My comments go against the ocean of praise here- but watch the film again, think over it- is there really substance there? and compare with other Iranian films. Much better fare in Iranian cinema is out there.


A later re-viewing, or perhaps speaking Farsi, might lead me to a greater appreciation of this film. Iranian cinema is something I am just starting to explore and surely appreciate, but this film failed to draw me in as say "Gabbeh," "Dayareh" or "Color of Paradise" did.

Of course the lead character, is intentionally enigmatic; opaque to us in terms of why he might seek suicide. The landscape is a harsh, bitter orange, almost as if he were in some form of hell already. For me, never having a connection with this lead character, pushes me towards those he encounters...but they too are distant. Indeed the point of the first two, is their wanting to maintain that distance. Contrast this with the film "Goodbye, Solo" (coincidentally by an Iranian-American, or perhaps vice versa), where the depth of the characters, despite a remote lead, was remarkable. But of course that was in English, so perhaps Farsi-speakers would resonate more here with the characters.

Certainly the third passenger, was the most fascinating. And the fact that his job is a taxidermist, quite a nice touch. And perhaps more familiarity with the Koran would have helped me in the echoes of the film.

Anyways, this film reminds me of stage play (it was not one originally), which works fine for me typically but I think for some viewers that can be a bit of a turn-off. The slow pace is also mentioned, but this pace is nothing compared to Angelopoulos' amazing work, so again that is not what failed for me. I saw this *before* reading Jonathan Rosenbaum's "Movie Wars" where he frequently cites this film as one of his all-time favorites.

I think this is a great film for film critics, as it is an open film in a way, open to wide-ranging interpretation. Is the filmmaker himself embarking on his own suicide of sorts in making this film in/for Iran? I mentioned the taxidermist, one who preserves the dead in a life-like state, and the other passengers are those who can be seen as people who are chartered with protecting and/or killing other people, but when it comes to a single person, that is more trying.

So perhaps there is more open than the grave in this film, regrettably at this point I am a casual casualty. Perhaps watching this with others instead of solo would have helped me, alas I say "Goodbye" to this buy hopefully another hello to Kiarostomi.

4/10 Thurston Hunger


And with that I mean, I sat in a theater watching this movie, and within 10 minutes I was ready to leave, I don't know, I just couldn't relate at all with the story...

The real confoundment came to me when leaving the theater (To this date, I have never walked out on a movie for better or worse) and my friends totally loved it. It was like I was watching some other movie altogether...

Don't get me wrong with saying that and giving it a 3... I just think that I wasn't intended as part of the audience, because yes, it's beautifully shot. Yes it contain a bunch of exceptional characters, yes, it has some hilarious scenes and all that but the story never connected to me... I don't know, I just honestly don't know. It could be that all of the pal's that was at the theater had a background as struggling garage-bands. I didn't. You might love it...

This all got to me as a surprise. I totally loved Malmros's last film, Smala Sussie, which had a wacky plot about movie-lovers/makers, a category of people that I feel included of, and I think I now can say that those that didn't love Smala Sussie probably was in the same seat as I am with this picture... I just don't get it. To me it was a movie about a struggling band with far too much Moodysson (a filmmaker that I never understood the greatness of) thrown in it... It's a shame and pity... I wanted to love it, but in the long run didn't care when the credits rolled...


(r#67)

Sorry, but I couldn't enjoy this... at all. The plot went on and on with no focus whatsoever. Whenever it seemed that the movie was going to end, our female lead Abra went into another fit of rage or had a mental breakdown. Ultimately this became insulting to the audience's intelligence as the plot was quite obviously deliberately drawn out and contrived. The subplot about the evil manager of the sausage company lead absolutely no where, and the acting left a *lot* to be desired.

The movie is just too pointless and emotionally devoid to be memorable. It is probably not among the worst of all time, or even in the same ballpark, but it's definitely not worth spending money on. I'm going to be fair and say I enjoyed director Ulf Malmros's earlier outing, "Den Bästa Sommaren" from 2000, but this just wasn't up to par. Avoid.


This must be one of the worst movies from 2005 in Sweden, bad actress/actors, a lousy and very predictable script makes this movie so boring I can't find words. The only good thing I found to be of a positive thing, was the music, which makes you remember the 80's, but other from that, there wasn't anything in it for me.

From 10 minutes in to the movie, you've already figured out how it's going to end. I also mentioned the actresses/actors being bad, I got that feeling where you're pi*sed off at them, thinking, no, that's not how you behaved during that era plus their performances aren't convincing on any plan.

No, this is not a movie I can recommend, you'll find more substance in a Chuck Norris movie than this crap, don't rent/buy this movie!


Picking up the jacket of this DVD in the video store I was intrigued. Having watched this sorry excuse for a western I think director Dwight should give a medal for the guy who designed the jacket and has lured to their doom other unsuspecting viewers. The script of the film is potentially interesting... and I bet that's what the impressive members of this film's cast thought when they signed up for this project. But, Dwight, buddy... stick to singing and acting. This must be the worst directed film I have ever had the displeasure of seeing. Badly paced, wooden performances, awkwardly shot, weird music, and even terrible costumes - my God, what is Billy Bob Thornton's wig all about??? I could go on for another ten lines, but this film just isn't worth the bother. Anyone who hates wasting money should stay well away from this stinker.


I love Dwight Yoakam's music and songwriting, he's surely one of the best singer/ songwriters out there but I think he should leave the screenwriting to professional screenwriters. This film looks beautiful, but the plot leaves a lot to be desired and the dialogue is often very dull. It also makes no sense that I can decipher. Dwight has some positives in this, as bad as it is. For instance, he looks great on a horse, but he looks uncomfortable in front of the camera here, which is unusual for him, given his other movies. The characters are interesting enough, but not given enough development that we can see. I don't think Dwight should give up directing entirely, but I would not recommend seeing this. The beautiful scenery and cinematography make it watchable. The horses are beautiful, too.


When you see a film with such great actors, and fantastic scenes, real masterpieces, you ask yourself what went wrong , that the sum of it all is very unsatisfactory. In my opinion, when people go to the movies, they want to enjoy themselves. They do not mind seeing a depressing film, if there is an idea behind it that will stimulate them intellectually. This film has no great idea behind it, it is just depression for depression´s sake. I think I saw the most cruel scenes I could ever think of and what for? The happy moments of this film, like when Val kisses Bridget Fonda on the balloon, or when he is making love in his office are just great. Vince Vaughn is quite impressive as the bad guy, and Dwight Yoakam is a convincing Val. It is a shame that Peter Fonda and Billy Bob Thornton have such small parts. The westerns of the fifties had a certain cheerfulness in them, even when the story was sad, and that is what is lacking in this film.


Rebecca: This is so bad it's almost good.

Enid: This is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again.

We rented this DVD shortly after Noble Willingham's death, thinking that we would watch it as a tribute. There were two problems with this idea. Noble's character gets killed off very early and the DVD was defective. It was missing the scene that explains what's going on. I have to assume that the handful of positive comments were from people who watched an obscure director's cut that had this explanatory scene.

But seriously, the writers of the screenplay were totally inexperienced (at screenplays) and the director was totally inexperienced (at writing screenplays and at directing screenplays), so the roadkill that resulted should be no surprise. Let this comment serve as a warning to potential viewers, just because a lot of actors who have performed in excellent films are part of this ensemble does not make it worth viewing. There are some decent performances but the whole is a lot less than the sum of its parts, which in fact adds up to less than zero.

Bizarre (in an uninteresting way), sadistic (in a vaguely boring way), foul-mouthed (in a grammar school way), half-baked (in a bad raw egg way), and disorganized (in a director should burn in hell way). It is mostly unwatchable, as even the isolated parts that could be entertaining are burdened with Yoakam and Bertheaud's comically false dialogue. Although this at least gives the production its only hint of unity and should dispel the temptation to blame the result on excessive improv.

Imagine inserting clips of "El Topo" in no logical order into "Tombstone" and you can approximate the product Yoakam inflicts on us unsuspecting Noble Willingham fans. He gave himself the lead role as Valentine Casey, a U.S. Marshall in 1907 Arizona. Casey's old gang and surrogate family keeps popping up and a lot of people are killed and Casey goes after them and eventually everything gets sorted out, although even after just watching the whole thing I couldn't have told you how. Don't understand why the gang keeps turning up or why the Marshall left them to become a lawman or why Pee Wee has put on so much weight. Don't really care either, I think we will just stick to "The Corndog Man" and the real "El Topo".

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


I really like Dwight Yoakam...I love seeing him in interviews, I love his music, I love seeing him in concert. He is one of the most interesting and talented people in the music industry. Sorry to say, he should stay in the music industry. This was one of the worst movies I can remember seeing. I tried and tried to think of something I liked about it, just because I like Dwight so much...but I couldn't come up with a single good thing to say about this movie.


Ugly violent, incoherent western. Directed, scored and starring country singer Dwight Yoakum. The music score is also a disappointment. It was exec produced by Buck Owens. You would think all this would bring you a half way decent western, but I think the Bakersfield Ca sun got to them first!

Even veteran character actors such as Bo Hopklins and Matt Clark can't save this one. Vince Vaughn, Billy Bob Thornton, Paul (Pee-Wee Herman) Ruebens, Bud Cort, Peter and Bridget Fonda - an unusual cast for a western, is wasted in this beautifully photographed travesty. Hang up your guns Dwight, stick to singin'


As a great fan of Dwight Yoakam's music as well as his acting performance in "Sling Blade", I was extremley disappointed with "South of Heaven, West of Hell". What a stinker! Terrible writing with very uninspired and flat performances by several otherwise talented actors. I swear Billy Bob Thornton must have been reading straight from cue cards throughout his minor five minute robotic appearance. It's almost as if he and several of the others must have owed Dwight a favor and that's why they agreed to take part in this project. Otherwise I can't understand why they would want to have anything to do with such a boring and pointless film.


Dwight Yoakam can't even be bothered to get a proper comb-over for his bald spot.

It's Vince Vaughn, Peter Fonda and...uh... Peewee Herman. In a Western. How can it go wrong? How!? But it does, and tragically. This is incomprehensible, poorly shot, vanity-project poo. Dwight adds nothing to the direction but muddle an already blasphemous script with lots of slow-motion and fuzzy camera angles. And there's lots and lots of yelling. For no reason.

In the name of all that's holy, do not pick up this movie. Implore your local video stores to remove it from the shelves.


I rented this DVD with the risk that it might be "too wierd." Forget that! It wasn't wierd at all? It was just bad! What were all the reviews about ghosts about? I didn't see that at all? The big name talent all just had "ghost roles." Dont' be fooled by that.

Waste of time


This is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. I once had Battlefield Earth as the worst, but now this movie has leaped far ahead. How this is ranked even close to a 5, I don't know. There were a couple instances in the movie (I saw it in a theater) where a good 2 minutes went by with no dialog during a seen where you just watched the characters. It was painful. Usually I hate it when someone talks during a movie. However, in this one, someone said "Did they forget their lines?" and everyone in the theater laughed. When you watch the movie you'll see this a couple times. This movie is only good to watch if you actually want to tell your friends that you saw the worst movie of all times.


I hate to break this to all the Dwight fans out there, but when it comes to film making, the emporer has no clothes. This is less a western as it is an exercise in vanity. There are many long lingering closeups of Dwight, even one of his rear end, and all of them should have been cut. The plot is not worth repeating, you've seen it a million times, you know, a sheriff in a moral crisis- what sets this film apart is that it's over two hours long, and apparently no one had the wherewithal cut it to a watchable length. The acting is all over the boards, some people are amazingly hammy (Peter Fonda, Billy Bob Thornton) some people are amazingly boring (Dwight, Briget Fonda) and all of them appear to be lacking any real direction. There is no cohesiveness, no drive, no shape to this film. Buy the soundtrack and enjoy it in the privacy of your home, no need to waste your time with the film.


That about says it all. This is one LOOOOONNNNGGGGGG and indulgent western, proof yet again that actors or singer/songwriters need to go to film school before spending someone elses millions. I won't go into the plot, such as it is. The acting is all over the maps, the camera work is average, the music just okay. I guess I expected more from this film, at least a great score, but it wasn't there. Worst of all, it squanders a lot of talent in a big sleepy tale that should've been half as long as it was. This falls into the "what were they all thinking?" category. Skip it.


Dwight Yoakam must be a hell of a guy. He's personable in interviews, plays and sings his own music with panache, and did a great job of acting in "Slingblade". He's such a cool guy that he was able to get a lot of his friends to be in a really bad Western.

I love a good Western. They're especially scarce these days, but this was not one of them. Most people would consider this movie unwatchable, but I stayed with it because I hoped it would get better.

There are a few reasons to see this movie, but not exceptionally strong reasons. One of them was Paul Reuben aka Pee-wee Herman who plays a bad guy named Arvil. That's right - Pee-wee Herman is a bad guy... and he's good at it. I used to make jokes about Pee-wee taking on Chuck Norris in a movie, but after seeing him in this, maybe it's not so far fetched. Reubens does a great job of creating a sadistic, quick tempered little man even with poor direction and writing.

Let's talk about the screenplay a little. Dialogue seems clumsy and sluggish. It's as if the language mired that action in General Store bought molasses. My hunch would be that Billy Bob Thorton wrote his own lines because they're not even on the same planet as the rest of the cast in the movie. Thorton is fun to watch, even if I had a hard time understanding what he was saying. Maybe it because I was focusing on the guy playing his sidekick. I didn't see until the credits Thorton's sidekick was the late great songwriter Warren Zevon.

What there is of a plot is hard to follow. The whole movie is awkward and unfocused. On the plus side, the scenery is nice and most shots are well lit.

"South of Heaven, West of Hell" is inaccurately described as a surreal Western. "El Topo" is a surreal Western (and much better film). Surreal shouldn't be a synonym for sloppy.


SOUTH OF HEAVEN, WEST OF HELL (2 outta 5 stars) Considering the tremendous cast involved in this movie (Billy Bob Thornton, Vince Vaughn, Bridget Fonda, Bud Cort, Peter Fonda, Bo Hopkins, Luke Askew, Matt Clark, Scott Wilson etc.) I was expecting one hell of a movie. Sadly, the meandering nature of the script doesn't really give the movie much forward motion. There are a few individual scenes that are noteworthy but a lot of other scenes that seem to serve no purpose but to give a few quotable lines to a familiar film veteran. Director/writer/star Dwight Yoakam is the star of the film but unfortunately he doesn't quite have what it takes to hold the movie together. Vince Vaughn's bad-guy role steals his thunder in every scene they share. Many other scenes are marred by being a little *too* over-the-top (as when a prisoner slobbers all over the naked bosom of a prostitute pressed up against the window to his cell). Considering that the movie is basically a vanity project for Dwight Yoakam it's not as terrible as it might be... he's very generous in giving screen time to his co-stars... and he does come up with some nice dialogue. Yoakam also provides the memorably haunting musical theme runs throughout the movie. Not a total waste of time... but very bumpy going at times.


Sorry, but I have to say there was only one aspect of this film that was enjoyable, and that was the sweeping scenery. And these wonderful scenes were sandwiched in between the most absurd and drivel filled scenes imaginable.

I gave the movie about 30 minutes and had to press eject. Too much pointless obscenity, nudity, and violence. If the plot made any sense I would have tried to stick it out. Perhaps a film critic and or film student would have enjoyed this (for reasons unknown to me or anyone else that could care less about such things), but I certainly couldn't.

If you are like most people who probably rented this because of Dwight, don't bother. For everything he is credited for on this movie (writing, starring, directing and musical score), he fails - miserably.


and story and screenplay. "South of Heaven..." is a colossal flop but not for want of talent. Something like The Wild Bunch meets The Keystone Cops, this flick can't make up it's mind what it wants to be. With all the makings of a good period drama, "South..." wanders aimlessly into farce, staggers around in comedy, teeters in the action genre, and falls on its face dying a slow and painful death from lack of a story and substance. Obviously staged and scripted with an unnatural ebb and flow, terrible segues, and poor continuity, "South..." is an obvious collection of brain farts strung together into one of the worst films I've seen in a long time.


I've heard it said that Vince Vaughn described this as the "punk rock of Westerns" or some such. If by that he meant the bad punk rock that's just mindless incoherent noise, well, he's spot on.

The way I envision this falling together, Yoakam and some of his wacky buddies were sitting around, under the influence of a foreign substance, realized they all had a coupla days to kill and decided to shoot a movie. He decided that he'd always wanted to make out with Bridget Fonda, so took a chance and wrote her totally pointless character into the script. Since she's not exactly had a full plate the last decade or so, she jumped at the chance for a paycheck even if it meant, you know, kissing someone who looks like Dwight Yoakam. They gathered up a bunch more weirdos to round out the cast, a cinematographer who's not half bad, and made themselves a movie. A terrible, terrible movie.

IMDb readers, please believe me. The 10-star reviews here are just "jokers" who are trying to trick you into seeing this film for their own perverse pleasure. The people ascribing a deep inner meaning are like the art snobs who enjoy telling you why a painting done to look exactly like one your 3-year-old would do is ACTUALLY much more important and valuable than a painting done by your 3-year-old. Don't let them win. There's NOTHING worth seeing here (other than the always lovely Bridget Fonda. But seriously, just go to her entry and look at some of the photos. The acting is comperable.) This isn't a "so bad it's good campy fun" sorta flick. It's JUST PLAIN BAD.


This is arguably the second worst movie I've ever seen as I rarely give movies a "1." The ONLY reason I ever give a movie a "1" is if the movie commits what I call "the unforgivable sin." That being, it has an incoherent plot. (Vampire Assassin is arguably the worst) I'll start by saying, it's very hard to tell what exactly is going on. The dialog is poorly written and delivered even worse. No one really seems to "care" about anything even when they're shot or shooting at someone. Basically, the whole thing is like a script someone threw in a blender, ground it up, then pasted it back together at random then made a movie. This movie more correctly depicts a wild wild mess than the wild wild west (yea I'm not original, so sue me). :) Basically Dwight is the "Uwe Boll" of westerns.

And Dwight is normally such a good actor, like he was in Panic Room and Sling Blade. This was a lesson to him to stick to acting and singing and give up writing and directing. And he's got one of the greatest country voices EVER.

He needs to get a new team of songwriters together and make another hit album. Directing and writing..."it's just not for you, dawg, it didn't do it for me." Sorry, I had to do that. :) I don't even know how to go into the plot...was there a plot? Um...Dwight was the sheriff...Vince Vaughn was the leader of the bad guys...umm...the bad guys did something bad for some reason which wasn't clear...Dwight and his buddies try to stop em, I puke, the end. :) Sorry Dwight, I respect you so much as a singer I'm trying to wipe this movie from my mind.


This is basically a Dwight Yokum w**kfest. The writing is dire, various characters launch into long, boring, long, cringe-worthy, long, and pointless, and long soliloquies from time to time. And the movie just grinds on and on and on and on. I was fortunate in that the DVD I have has been gut to 1:43mins, but still had to reach for the fast forward button after 1:30mins. And believe me I really, really tried to see it through. In fact I go a shock when I check the clock and found that I had only been subjected to it for 1:30mins... it felt much longer. In fact it felt as though I had been up all night.

Now for the ***SPOILERS*** I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU READ THIS BEFORE WATCHING THIS MOVIE AS IT MIGHT slightly ENHANCE THE EXPERIENCE:

Everyone in the film is dead. The film is set in purgatory. This is not obvious. In fact there is no explanation regarding this. Perhaps DY decided to make a Western, then after finishing the script watch Sixth Sense and thought "WOW! That's a neat twist. I'll make everyone in my movie dead too!"

I do not recommend watching this movie if you are female. Women get something of a raw deal in it, and also DY seems to think that everyone fancies him as much as he fancies himself.

Although the film was only 1:43mins long, watching it was like being on acid as it seems to take much, much longer. I fear I may have lost somewhere in the region of 3 years of my life through watching this DVD. My recommendation: rent Open Range instead!


This is a good example of why you should never act in a movie you direct as well as write the songs and screenplay for, unless your name is Woody Allen (And sometimes even if your name is Woody Allen). Dwight does not give his character Valentine the brooding depth that was intended. Valentine instead looks dozy most of the time and says the first thing he can think of. The only person who shines in this movie is Bud Cort. Vince Vaughn does OK too. But not even Billy Bob Thornton can add colour to this drab movie, mostly because he isn't given more than a few words to say. His character is also completely undeveloped, as are most of the other characters. It's just embarrassing how obvious it is that the camera was intended to be on the character of Valentine all the time, like this was going to be Dwight's big Oscar break. But the character is boring and uninspiring. The aimlessness of the movie as a whole is frustrating. It's also either too long, or it just felt that way.


What a shocker, I rented this movie on the basis of the DVD cover and the summary of the story, it seemed like it would be something I could watch (though I don't as a rule enjoy Westerns) with my partner, (who loves Westerns!!) Following the first half hour, we still had no real clue what was going on, we thought maybe it would improve and that we had not lost the plot. SURPRISE, there was no plot to lose!!!! I have never seen such a boring piece of cinema in my entire life. It should carry a hazard warning on the cover 'In Danger of Boring you to Death'. Billy Bob Thornton ,Peter Fonda what were you thinking!!! You did't have cameo roles, or ghost roles, there were NO ROLES. I cannot believe anyone would finance such a pointless, meaningless movie. I think it should be removed from every rental DVD store as the cover and the summary entirely mislead a customer into the renting thereof. My partner has only one opinion...disgusted!!


With the cast and the pictures on the cover, it looked like a safe bet but it was absolutely one of the most appalling films I have ever seen. It was like watching an accident, dreadful but you had to keep watching because you couldn't quite believe that anything could be so abysmal. I am amazed that it drew the cast it did. How desperate could the cast be, or does Dwight have something on all of them? Every single actor did an awful job. It was wooden, totally unrealistic and had no plot or meaning to the story. I wondered whether perhaps it was all a big joke at first. Seriously, don't even bother, unless you want to be open mouthed in disbelief!!


Shoot to Kill (1947)

Weak and Confusing, Shoot to Kill Yourself

You know how you can plop in front of a t.v. and find an old movie and watch it even though you know it's bad. The mood, the clunkiness, the archetypes, the nostalgia all work on you. As long as you have nothing better to do. Say in a motel on a business trip.

That's as far as Shoot to Kill will rise. It's fun, it's dramatic, and there are crimes and suspects. It will keep you up more than put you to sleep. To a point.

So why actually rent it (or stream it free on Netflix)?

Well, there are a lot of nice night scenes, little moments where the camera looks at a door archway or the feet of some people walking, and you might be able to watch this just for that aspect. That fight scene toward the end of the movie, between the reporter (who is a better fighter than actor) and a thug (who is not bad at both), tumbles down a set of stairwas and it's very physical and amazing, actually. The requisite car chase scene(s), less so. There's lots of high contrast light and moving camera, which is pretty standard by the late 40s, but is one of the reasons to watch in the first place.

The plot, however, is so full of double crosses it's not worth the effort keeping everyone straight. That might make it a lot of fun for some people, but I was hoping for a clearer line that actually mattered when it got twisted.

William Berke, the director, has dozens of films of this caliber to his name, and he cranked them out with no budget. Shoot to Kill is entertaining, yes, and many with more consistent acting, but it clips along so that you just go with it. The woman is less a femme fatale than just a strong willed and duplicitous lead. She's made sympathetic by the end.

Maybe the small insert of real music by Gene Rodgers is enough to search for that scene (about 9:40 in), where he plays a nice stride or similar style piano, though probably not miked while filming, since the fingerwork doesn't match up. It's an odd addition that makes no real sense in the plot, but it's given billing in the opening credits, and Rodgers did some good backup work in the 1930s and 40s (including Coleman Hawkins).

The only other think I noticed of some small note (and I'm stretching to find things): among all the flashbacks (the movie is basically one big flashback, as well) is at least one case of a flashback within the flashback. Or is that three layers? Brilliance beget by necessity.


This cheapie noir thriller about crooked district attorneys and gangster chiefs is surprisingly good, considered it was made on a zero budget with no reason to aim high. Of course, it is completely corny, but there are a lot of expressionistic camera angles, and the many dollying shots of men walking at night are surprisingly effective with a single bright spotlight on the face and everything else pitch black. As is usual with these over the top late forties cheapies, the impact depends largely upon an excessive, almost parodic, use of 'mood music'. When things begin to get dangerous, don't worry about looking for clues on the screen, as the orchestra will tell us instead. One wonders if the script actually said: 'At this point, the musical score will become hysterical, so that the audience knows someone is about to get killed.' The chief reason for watching this film is to see and hear the spectacular performance on the piano of Gene Rodgers, a black boogie player who was one of the best. It is jaw-dropping stuff. Fats Waller, eat your heart out! Rodgers plays two of his own compositions, 'Ballad of the Bayou' and 'Rajah's Blues'. His fingers move faster than the speed of light, and he isn't even looking. If only the whole thing had been Rodgers, we could have done without the film. The film's script is surprising in its ingenuity in places, and has some snappy dialogue, showing that somebody tried. The most innovative scene is where an assistant district attorney dictates a letter to his secretary. It is a passionate love letter proposing marriage, and she wonders to whom he intends to send it. He asks her if she thinks it is OK, and she says she thinks it is beautiful. Then he tells her it is for her! Great scene! If only the romance had been genuine, however, as both turn out to be crooks in their own way. This film contains serious contradictions, as it oscillates between making some characters appear sympathetic and then suddenly exposing them as baddies. The story must have started out as a tough crime thriller and then some frustrated sentimentalist wrote the script and could not help himself, he just had to have some love scenes, and the fact that the characters were all wrong for this could not and would not deter him. The producer clearly didn't notice. Well, if you like brilliant boogie, you really can't afford to miss this. And there will be people who will also enjoy the film. It is all a matter of what you expect, and if you start out expecting a corny mini-budgeted noir thriller with some unexpected good points, you will be happy.


It's a fact that over fifty percent of the films made prior to 1950 will never again be seen due to the deterioration of the film's negative, from nitrates or fire. God, how I wish "Shoot to Kill" was one of those films.

I'm not going to go into what this movie was about, because with all of the flashbacks and flashbacks within flashbacks, you're going to grow tired of watching it, like I did, and not care.

The acting is horrendous. Through the whole picture whenever Edmund MacDonald appeared, all I could think of was, "Murder! Murder at Midnight!"(fans of Abbott and Costello will know what I mean). It's sad to think that he was better in "Who Done It" than he was in this thing.

Russell Wade showed his usual range of dull to bland. The highlight was when he was in the nightclub with Luana Walters, and the angle of the shot had a table light covering the bottom part of his face.

Avoid at all cost.

2 out of 10


This has to be one of the corniest noirs to hit the screen. For the most part it was incomprehensible with the plot careening one way and then the other. The characters all spoke in a monotone advancing whatever was discernible about the plot by announcing their motives and plans. The dialog was made of one cliché after another suitably punctuated for effect such as when Walters (Luana Walters that is, here credited as Susan) announces to her husband Dixie Logan "Even if you were framed I know now that you're ROTten" (emphasis on ROT). Every character has his/her own agenda and proceeds to implement it with gusto without a care for their safety. Allegiances are formed and dissolved at lightening speed - nobody seems to be aware of the concept of loyalty. Without the score the viewer would be even more confused. At least it announced when something of interest was about to happen.

If all this makes "Shoot to Kill" seem like a turkey you wouldn't be far off the mark. It's so corny it's actually kind of funny, in a desperate sort of way. After a while you begin to wander what else they're going to throw in the mix. But it has its good points. There's a neat fistfight on a staircase, supposedly down two flights of stairs although I suspect it was filmed on the same one flight with the protagonists starting over at the top. Along with the fists so did the railings and I began to wonder whether it wouldn't collapse. On their budget they'd have to keep the footage. Punches and slaps were thrown that seemed to connect, especially the one on Walters toward the end. She disappears off camera falling down only to bounce back up unperturbed to deliver her memorable line quoted in the previous paragraph.

The real revelation is pianist Gene Rodgers who appears 9:30 into the movie. Previously unknown to me, he was magic, a god of boogie jazz. He plays two of his own compositions, "Ballad of the Bayou" and "Rajah's Blues", both unaccompanied pieces. A little research revealed that he was based in LA at the time the movie was shot and returned to NY where he lived and worked the rest of his life. He died in '87. If for no other reason see this film for Rodgers.


The film opens with a high speed chase at night. the cops are chasing after someone. Shots ring out. The car the cops are chasing crashes ejecting the passengers-a notorious criminal as well as the newly elected DA and his wife. Only the wife survives. A reporter and friend of the gravely injured wife sneaks into her room in the hospital and asks her to tell him what happened, she does.

Cheaply made film noir with a cast that is mostly unfamiliar faces. Not a bad film as such, its just that the film seems to confuse motion of a twisty plot as the same thing as motion of characters you care about. I don't blame the cast for making this less than engaging, I blame the writer who is constantly changing who the principle characters are as a way of keeping you interested. Is anyone good or bad? Its not really clear until the final fade out. Only the dueling mob bosses seem to be constant, the result is that they play more as cartons rather than real people. As I said its not bad, its just that you end up watching it to see how the twists go rather than because you're engaged with the characters. You probably could spend your time better elsewhere.


Aficionados of film noir find very few movies in the cycle without some interest -- even the poverty-row programmers that come in just under or over an hour tend to have something to sustain interest. Shoot To Kill, alas, is not among them. Though the script contains some twists, the director handles the narrative structure so clumsily that they come not as surprises but as irritations. And the totally unknown cast (and crew) goes through their paces without a spark of originality or inspiration. It's hard to leave a movie without a positive note to be sounded, but Shoot To Kill serves as a reminder of just how depressing bottom-of-the-barrel filmmaking in the postwar years could be.


Here are the matches . . .

Rockers v Power and Glory: This turned into a handicap match as repackaged jobbers to the stars Hercules and Paul Roma hit Shawn Michaels in his already injured leg on ambush with the chain. Marty Jannetty makes a valiant effort before succumbing to the innovative Power Plex and pin. Michaels leaves the arena on a stretcher, selling his leg injury like a wild man. 4/10

Texas Tornado v Mr Perfect for the Intercontinental title: Mr Perfect takes a few bumps before losing to the claw and Tornado Punch for an upset pin-fall. It was a nice WWF moment but it's sad to see Perfect lose without putting in the work-rate for a man of his potential. 5/10

Sapphire v 'Sensational' Sherri: Sapphire loses the match by forfeit because she doesn't make it to the ring. The WWF do a reasonable job at making it look legitimate. 0/10

Tito Santana v Warlord: Tito jobbed to one Powers of Pain at Wrestlemania, he may as well job to the other at Summerslam and he doesn't do a bad job of it. Tito tries for a monkey-flip but Warlord holds on to turnbuckles finishing Tito off with the power-slam and pin. 4/10

Hart Foundation v Demolition for the tag team titles in a 2-3 falls match: Demolition incorporated a new member called Crush to share the work load because Ax wasn't well and started a confusion angle (the only people confused where the officials as far as I was concerned) where Harts didn't know which two of the three they were getting. Interesting that Crush refer to Legion of Doom as 'second rate impostors' as Legion of Doom were the inspiration behind Demoliton. Crush and Smash start the match and get the first pin on Bret making it 1-0 to Demolition. The Foundation would soon come back after a terrible decision by Crush to take out the ref rather than Bret Hart who was pinning Smash - deliberate or rookie mistake? Shortly after the disqualification decision on Demolition (making it 1-1), Ax comes to the ring and hides under the apron and from there Smash switches sides so a fresh Ax comes into play. Legion of Doom come to the ring shortly after to serve justice to Demolition. Crush gets schoolboy pinned after taking a ringside slingshot from Niedhart making it 2-1 to The Hart Foundation to become new tag team champions. What I once considered a classic isn't as amazing in retrospect because The Foundation weren't fighting the original members. 7/10

Jake 'The Snake' Roberts v Bad News Brown - Bigbossman as special referee: Absolutely horrendous match as Bad News Brown gets disqualified for hitting Jake a second time in the stomach with a chair. This effort would be Bad News Brown's last match on PPV. 2/10

'Hacksaw' Jim Duggan and Nikolai Volkoff v Orient Express: It is very weird to see Nikolai Volkoff as a face but even more weird seeing him sing 'America the Beautiful' badly with Duggan before the match. The Orient Express get murdered by Duggan and Volkoff which ends in Duggan's 3 point stance clothesline and rare clean pin.3/10

Dusty Rhodes v 'Machoking' Randy Savage: The only point to the match was to show where Sapphire ended up - bought out by Ted Dibiase. The empty smile on Sapphire's face seemed very effective. This got poor Dusty distracted, ambushed and pinned after use of Sherri's loaded purse within a very short space of time. Dusty screaming for Sapphire after the match as she went off in Ted's limousine was quite an image. If Dusty had his way, Sapphire would have been a prostitute but WWF thought it unsuitable. If the WWF did go with Dusty's idea it would have made this plot angle so much more darker. 2/10

Hulk Hogan v Earthquake: I know there was build-up to this match but it certainly didn't deserve main event status. Were the WWF that worried if Hogan didn't main event their PPVs he would be forgotten about or was it Hogan's ego taking control at this point? The Hulkamania thing became stale from here as we enter another 'clash of the titans' type match featuring the typical Hogan can't slam big guy the first time but does the second time type thing. The difference between this match and other Hogan matches is that Earthquake loses by count-out after getting slammed on a table which is an awful booking decision. Like Hogan did with Randy Savage, he kept Warrior close so he would be guaranteed another title shot. 4/10

Ultimate Warrior v 'Ravashing' Rick Rude for the World title in a steel cage: You can tell Rude was on the way out here because he referred to the crowd as 'Pennsylvanian Pissants' which caused a genuine stir. This match had shades of their previous encounter at the last Summerslam and was quite brutal as both were throwing each other into the cage from the start. I wasn't convinced that Rude would win the match after he went to the top of the cage following the 'Rude Awakening' neck breaker. He didn't look like he wanted to win, even missing an opportunity of going through the door while Warrior was tangling with Heenan. This would be Rude's last PPV match with the WWF. 6/10

Overall, I think the most disheartening realisation of Summerslam 1990 was that a lot of wrestlers at this point were on the way down, way out or underutilised and we would see the slow WWF career deaths of Dusty Rhodes and Demolition from this point on. Also I didn't realise how awful Roddy Piper was on commentary. I believe he was a 'Jesse Ventura replacement experiment' but it ended with bad results.


The duplicity, hypocrisy and sexual aberrance of the fanatically religious makes them fodder for gargantuan quantities of side splitting hilarity. Is this show splitting hilarity? No. Is it funny? That's a tough call... Clever. In parts. Very few parts. Moral Orel clocks in around 10% on my clever meter.

As far as the other 90% goes, it's slow, sad and a little depressing. I can watch a Mooninite centered episode of ATHF, laugh my ass off and walk away from the television feeling pretty good about myself. On the other hand, if I watch something like South Park, I'll laugh quite a bit, but after it's over, it leaves me feeling a tiny bit blah. It's not like a want to put a gun to my head, but it's also not like I get an urge to frolic outdoors.

This show has 1/4 the laughs of South Park but 4 times the dirty feeling you get after watching it. I can be as nihilistic as the next GenXer, but this is a little too depressing for my taste.

Other than the show being so sad... the writing is not that great either. Other than the same jokes being repeated show after show after show, the plot is pretty much being driven by Orel's stupidity. 10% clever premise filled in with 90% filler.

The one thing I will say is consistently good about the show is the animation. The animation shows quite a bit of creative flair, especially the end credits.

The negatives, though, far outweigh the positives.


I bought into the hype and watched Moral Orel when it first premiered. I was hoping for a good laugh--like with Family Guy, Aqua-Teen and countless other A.S. shows. Or I was hoping for some smart-writing, like the brilliant Boondocks. Instead, it's a 15 minute anti-Christian diatribe that gives new meaning to the word boring. South Park parodies right-wing Christians (and every other religion/group/demographic) in an intelligent way and South Park is something this show forgot to be: FUNNY. This is nothing but mean-sprited, axe-to-grind garbage. I am not a Christian, yet I don't understand why it's considered offensive to make fun of other religions (and rightly so), yet acceptable to make fun of Christianity just for the sake of doing so. There is a big difference between parody/satire and mean-spited bigotry. I'm sorry the writers hated their religious upbringing so much. But making claymation cartoons 20 years later is not going to help. Go seek therapy and get on with your life. Where's the 15-minute weekly show that depicts militant Islam and shows images of Mohammed? Oh that's right, that's offensive to Muslims. So nobody goes near it. Where is the weekly show that makes fun of a Jewish boy? Oh, that would be offensive to the Jews. So nobody goes near it. But it's open season on the always safe topic of Christians--again--and that's OK? Double-standard b.s. over and over again. .And once more, it's not even funny It's predictable, boring and you can see every attempt at humor coming a mile away. Yes, it's on late and no, nobody has to watch it. And based on how awful it is, eventually nobody will.


I'm a big fan of the following Adult Swim shows. First it was SGCTC, than the Brak Show, than AQHF, than Harvey Birdman, now its reruns of Stoker and Hooch, Metalpocalypse, Venture Brothers, Robot Chicken, in other words, I'm a regular viewer to Adult Swim (it's the only TV I watch regularly). Moral Orel is a one trick pony that South Park has done to death, make fun of Christianity. Not only that but it parodies a really good show for kids, Davey and Goliath, and thats it's whole thing. No creativity involved here, just lampoon a wholesome show that you knew as a kid and insult it in any way you can over the course of several seasons. What makes me like the other shows I mentioned is that they seem to make fun of everyone 9well not really I'm being generous), Moral Orel only makes fun of Christianity. Am I a bible thumper?, hardly. But I do see the hypocrisy of a so called "tolerant" segment of America, the left, and their unbridled hatred of anything that Christianity means. Also, isn't Cartoon Network getting old with all these baby boomer bashing shows? Hey, I laughed at the Simpsons, then South Park, and now these other shows which Adult Swim has done, but the bashing is wearing thin. Time for new ideas Cartoon Network. I can't believe there are enough people that get off watching a parody of a show the audience probably has never heard off or seen because it's no longer on the air because it's "too" wholesome. This show ranks at the bottom of Adult Swims talent along with 12 oz mouse, Tom meets the mayor and a few others I can't remember. Surprise me Adult Swim and come up with a show about whining city dwelling metro-sexual men and their bisexual dominating female friends. Oh yeah , that probably wouldn't be funny because they don't have any redeeming value to demean. Hey, heres a funny show idea, since there have been Christian bashing shows on the air since SNL started in the 70's and its been 30 years now, why not bash Muslim's? Why don't they? Because Ted Turner and his cronies are liberal wimps.


Minor spoiler.

In one of the early episodes (maybe the first episode), Oral and his family are on their way to church, listening to some kind of supposedly Christian radio station. They're kind of singing along to some song that goes something like "Reason is the enemy of faith, my friends."

But, that's not really the Christian position. At least, it wasn't G.K. Chesterton's position, and he was a Christian. (Well, okay, he was an adult convert to Catholicism.)

"When first I became one of the New Anarchists I tried all kinds of respectable disguises. I dressed up as a bishop. I read up all about bishops in our anarchist pamphlets, in Superstition the Vampire and Priests of Prey. I certainly understood from them that bishops are strange and terrible old men keeping a cruel secret from mankind. I was misinformed. When on my first appearing in episcopal gaiters in a drawing-room I cried out in a voice of thunder, 'Down! down! presumptuous human reason!' they found out in some way that I was not a bishop at all. I was nabbed at once." -- G.K. Chesterton, _The Man Who Was Thursday_, Chapter II

See also:

Chesterton fans will probably remember when Chesterton's priest-detective, Father Brown, first interacts with the great criminal Flambeau, who was disguised as a priest. After he's been unmasked, he asked Father Brown how he penetrated his disguise. How did Father Brown know that the criminal wasn't really a priest? "You attacked reason," Father Brown answers. "It's bad theology."

Ozy


It would probably be no different then Moral Orel. All you would have to do is change the designation of the religion being bashed in an unfunny, bigoted and mean spirited fashion (all the while accusing bashed religion of being bigoted and mean spirited).

It's that hypocrisy that's cast over every minute of Moral Orel. Here we have 10-11 minutes of nothing but thuggish slurs against Chistians and they got the balls to make the Christians out to be the intolerant, xenophobic and reactionary half-wits.

Moral Orel is still an interesting watch (as long as it comes between superior shows on Adult Swim) because it is a satire. However, It is more a satire on the people that make it rather then the people it is depicting.

If you ever want a representation of how some arrogant, elitist "Blue Staters" views flyover country and how bigoted some are against those who sets foot in a church, look no farther than Moral Orel.

The people who make this think it's edgy. Yeah, right! Give me a break! Dopey, borderline racist, clueless, out of touch, out of the times Christians are the only Christians that modern Hollywood depicts and recognizes. All the MO team is doing is making a bad Davey and Golieth parody out of it but there is no shortage of the meat of what they are doing (quite badly).

Edgy and brave suggests consequences beyond the occasional cold feet of Adult Swim Standards and Practices. It suggests social and in some cases financial and physical risk.

So if Dino wants REALLY be edgy and brave bashing religion let him turn his sights on militant Islam.

But this will not happen since that would actually be taking a risk in the politically correct circles that Dino is presumably a part of. The pats on the back he probably gets for ridiculing Christians by similar thinking "enlightened" people will turn to accusations of "insensitivity" for saying anything bad about Islam.

Also, militant Islam's reaction to slurs against them are... well... militant. So, let's not kid ourselves, some iconoclasts are only safe iconoclasts, going down well worn roads of supposed "envelope pushing" while the envelope has already been broken for some time.

There is a way to do biting religious satire without crossing the line into bashing and bigotry. But the whole point of MO is ignoring the line. In the hands of more empathetic and talented people that might work (i.e. Trey Parker and Matt Stone).

But as it is, MO is just a look into the mind(or minds, who knows if just is exclusively Dino Stamatopoulos's baby) of insufferably arrogant, iconoclastic arrested adolescence.

The type that feels entitled not only to jab at deeply held beliefs of a group of largely decent people but to totally stomp on them while slurring those people.

And they (the people slurred against) are supposed to grin and bear it because it is all in good fun, after all. They must learn to be tolerant and understanding of those that are practicing the opposite towards them.

They don't have to watch it, after all. All they have to do is tolerate others watching a stilted, moronic, stereotypical, negative portrayal of them. All done for and by people that seem to have contempt, hatrid and ignorance for who they are.

So there you have it, "Moral Orel" a comedy satire in the great tradition of "Amos and Andy"


"It's 1939 and test pilot Daniel McCormick (Mel Gibson) has the world by the tail. He has a terrific job flying B-25s, a devoted soul mate (Isabel Glasser) and a long-time pal and confidant (George Wendt). In fact, he has everything. Almost. Despite his ability to confront danger, he can't look his girlfriend in the face and propose. He always decides to wait till tomorrow to pop the question but in one terrible instant he runs out of tomorrows. Tragedy takes his sweetheart away" according to the film's official synopsis.

With his sweetheart in a coma, and given almost no chance of recovery, Mr. Gibson asks to be cryogenically frozen for one year. Gibson doesn't want to suffer through her demise, but asks to be thawed-out if she recovers. This is just one of many motivational problems with this film's characters. Why isn't he at her bedside? You're forever wondering WHY? as "Forever Young" proceeds. Anyway, Gibson awakens in 1992, and moves in with young Elijah Wood (as Nat Cooper) and his mom, nurse Jamie Lee Curtis (as Claire).

After the camera lovingly shows his nude profile, a very fit and good-looking Gibson finds some clothing to wear, and goes to use a pay phone, outside a Ralph's supermarket. Incredibly, Gibson uses the 1992 push-button pay phone successfully. Probably, young Wood had some change in his pocket, and Gibson used a futuristic telephone at the 1939 World's Fair, or something... I can't manage those pay phones after one night's sleep, never mind 53 years.

Nicolas Surovy does well as the "nice guy" who provides an escape route for Ms. Curtis and son, should they lose Gibson. Repeatingly telling the kids to "SHUT UP," Michael A. Goorjian has the second best scene in the movie, given the tree-house flying lesson Gibson gives Wood (but, learn how to use your wing flaps and rudder pedals properly, before trying to fly a real plane). And, cute little Veronica Lauren, recently "Sarah" in "Dark Shadows", is definitely worth serenading.

**** Forever Young (12/11/92) Steve Miner ~ Mel Gibson, Elijah Wood, Jamie Lee Curtis


Totally unconvincing fantasy/love story which tries to combine a theme of undying love with that of time travel and fails dismally.

Steve Miner's film lacks depth in many areas. The premise was okay, but the plot was far too simple and badly needed more work. Characterisation was also poor, with each person behaving in ways that were completely unbelievable. Performances are weak, as is the comedy, in a movie which played a lot like a cross between "The Rocketeer" and "Somewhere in Time".

With too many ridiculous situations and a hastily explained script, "Forever Young" remained too hokey to even make an effective love story.

Monday, April 12, 1993 - Balwyn Cinema