by Dane Youssef

Now here is a movie that wants to be something successful by combining everything successful.

"Kissing A Fool" wants to be too many things. Can you mix successful ingredients and get the best of every world? "Kissing..." tries to be a '40's-style romantic comedy, a modern sex comedy and a sit-com at the same time.

Co-writer/Director Doug Ellin is a friend of Schwimmer's and Schwimmer has gone on and on about exactly how great it feels to shed his Ross-image and play the complete anti-Ross.

Jason Lee stars as Jay Murphy, a sensitive nice guy who's a romance novelist and is recovering from his latest breakup with a model named Natasha (played by TV's "Weird Science" Vanessa Angel). He has a sweet boy-next-door demeanor about him and his real problem is he's too nice and sensitive for his own good.

The worst part about being sensitive is that the world is so full of crap and garbage, people are such assholes that your feelings get hurt too often, too easy, too much. Better to be as cruel as the world or even more so and give worse than you get.

Believe me, I know of what I speak of.

David Schwimmer co-stars as Jay's best friend Max Abbitt, a sportscaster who's a womanizer who plays the field more than the teams reports on. A total creep and always with a dumb expression of his face, a self-satisfied drawl and his own cool-guy salutation: "What' up?" Always a toothpick and a "too cool" drawl dangling from his lip.

Mili Avital is unfortunately given the second-to-weakest developed character in the whole film. She's sweet, perky and photogenic... but nothing else, really. She and Lee could have some great chemistry if only the film allowed it. But this movie is written in a way that's so made-to-order, it's embarrassing.

Bonnie Hunt plays the narrator that is publishing Lee's book. She's also the narrator. Why does this movie need a narrator? The narration actually manages to make the movie even less suspenseful, if that's possible.

And Vanessa Angel, who broke through in TV's "Weird Science" and almost stole "Kingpin," is given the least interesting character. She plays a model and Jay's heartless ex-girlfriend who has dumped him and left him a pathetic neurotic mess. Hers is not a character, but a plot device. The heartless bitch who is so cruel and horrible to the sweet-hearted hero so more of our sympathy goes to him. I groaned at her scenes.

The movie's dialog is not always plot-driven or cutesy-poo, like most romantic comedies are (although sometimes it is).

Most of the script is written in an observational sit-com kind of way. Like "Seinfeld" or "Mad About You" (or yes, even "Friends"). But the dramatic/romantic scenes are embarrassingly maudlin.

Is it just me or is the entire cast of "Friends" been trying to mimic Kevin Smith?

* The Object of My Affection * Kissing A Fool * Three To Tango

Smith's groundbreaking romantic comedy "Chasing Amy" was revolutionary, insightful... and made big waves for Ben Affleck, Joey Lauren Adams, Lee and Smith himself. A romantic comedy, a sex comedy and a relationship story. Not merely a love story, but a life story.

Lately, Hollywood has been trying to make Smith-like slick Hollywood movies. So far, they failed terribly. Smith's movies are great because they are daring and avoid formulas. And they master the art of sparkling conversation. This film does neither. Nor do any of the other Kevin Smith-wannabes.

Lee's character has been through the ringer and things are looking bleaker. I really liked him here and felt for him. And identified with him more than I wanted to.

I knew guys like Max in high school, but in the outside world? Who knows? I was kind of like the Lee character myself. In a way, I still am. Too sensitive. Too easily vulnerable. Such a whipping boy. I did understand what Jay meant when he said, "You know, I wish I had your heart. Then I wouldn't have spent so many sleepless nights...."

The plot seems cruel and creepy, yet too sit-com-like at the same time. "Test my fiancée''s fidelity?" Almost seems like a sick ploy to throw Jay & Samantha together, doesn't it?

Oh wait, it is...

Anyone who has ever seen a movie will know what the ending will be. It's almost like waiting for the coyote to fall off the cliff.

Schwimmer's Max Abbit character seems to dumb and dull and annoying to be interesting. He must be sick of playing the same type ("The Pallbearer," "Six Days, Seven Nights" and TV's "Friends"), but this movie will do nothing for him. Still, at least he tried.

I kept (back in 1999 when I first saw this movie) seeing a mad Ross trying to be bad whenever I looked at him, but now looking back on it and putting Ross out of my head (I really dislike the show anyway), Schwimmer does an effective job... however he doesn't really have dimensions and depth.

He's just not an interesting womanizer. Apparently, a lot of Schwimmer fans felt confused by his role here.

It feels like Schwimmer wants to play someone completely different without risking losing his hard-core audience.

Schwimmer does do a much better job breaking typecasting in the forgettable "Since You've Been Gone" and the memorable "Band of Brothers."

MEMO TO Hollywood: If you're gonna keep making bad Kevin Smith-knockoffs, at lest quit putting "Friends" actors in them.

by Dane Youssef


DIRECTOR Ralph Ziman's vivid, action-packed South African gangster epic makes for exciting big screen entertainment. Highly commercial and hardly politically correct, but reeking with authenticity, the aptly and ironically titled "Jerusalema" offers cinema-goers the same sort of tough, high-energy thrills as crime epics like "Scarface", "American Gangster" and "City of God". Unlike "Tsotsi", it's not out win awards, or to preach about the struggle. It's out to please crowds. Yet, while telling a strong, funny, gripping, well-acted story of a young gangster's rise to power, it also manages to paint a devastating picture of how and why crime has spiraled out of control in the new South Africa. Telling its tale on a broad canvas, it begins in Soweto in the early 1990s, introducing the audience to two teenage boys, Lucky Kunene (Jafta Mamabolo) and his best friend Zakes (Motlatsi Mahloko). Lucky is an intelligent, ambitious youngster from a poor single parent home who is accepted into university. He doesn't, however, get a bursary, so he tries to earn money through various legitimate schemes. None of which succeed. Eventually he and Zakes are sucked into crime though their relationship with Nazareth (a potent Jeffrey Sekele), an angry disaffected, former ANC guerilla. And soon they're hijacking cars ("affirmative repossession", says Nazareth). But, after a botched robbery and a near fatal encounter with the police, the lads must flee to the "jungles" of Hillbrow. Cut to five years later. Lucky and Zakes (now played by Rapulana Seiphemo and Ronnie Nyakale) are operating a pirate Taxi and scraping by. It's a dangerous life and when armed rivals steal their taxi, Lucky decides to return to crime. "Jeruselema" might shock some middle-class viewers, but it is riveting fare and the crowd I saw it with clapped and cheered along with the action. The charismatic Seiphemo delivers a stunning performance - turning Lucky into a surprisingly sympathetic anti-hero, and he's superbly supported by Nyakale, Sekele and a devilish Malusi Skenjana, who plays a slimy Nigerian drug dealer. Then there are the great action scenes and the powerful underlying themes. This vibrant, violent, colorful, authentic crime thriller, which pays homage to Michael Mann's classic, "Heat" heralds a new dawn in South African film-making and is highly recommended to audiences looking for top notch entertainment. PS. "Jerusalema" is now available on DVD in South Africa.


If Jerusalema, the latest film about life in South Africa's underbelly of Hillbrow, can make a film like the award winning Tsotsi look like child's play, you need to ask yourself the question: "Why haven't I seen it yet?" Even more disturbing is that Jerusalema premiered at the Berlin Film Festival earlier this year, and has already been raking in the awards.

Star of the film - Lucky Kunene's motto in life is taken from an Al Capone movie "If you're going to steal ... steal big, and hope like hell you get away with it!" Like a fly on the wall, we get to watch how an innocent youth from Soweto, a victim of circumstance, turns to crime and works his way up to become the hoodlum of Hillbrow.

The acting is superb and will have you engrossed in the film in no time. The script is watertight, and quite probably the most accurate account of South Africa's criminal underworld that you're ever going to see.

The scary part about all of this? It's based on true events! (But don't be put off SA, this is a small part of a big country)


Saw Jerusalema last weekend. I found the film to be an engaging, moving, and important reminder that the strangest worlds are right under our noses. Fast paced, gritty and in your face

I loved Rapulana Simpiwe in the lead, a stunning young talent, Jafta Mamabolo who played the young Kunene is fantastic.

The script is excellent, reassuringly tight and Carried me effortlessly through the journey.

This is the story of how a intelligent kid with the same hopes and dreams as anyone else; an education, work hard, get a degree and live his dreams through legitimate means, succumbs, despite himself, to a life of crime because it is his only course available.

It accurately portrays the universal genesis of crime and loss of innocence and righteousness (the symbol of which of course was the mother with her hand pressed tightly on her bible).

I don't know what's happening with the film in terms of its international release, but I would sincerely hope that many others will have the memorable experience that we did.


Tsotsi is nothing compared to Jerusalema. Finally a real South African movie that can hold its head up high. Totally authentic, all respect to those involved. A mirror on Jozi and what our lives are really like. I hope other film makers will take note and pull their sox up. It's time to stop being embarrassed about being South African and take pride in our local industry. I strongly recommend all South Africans and go and see it on the big screen as the producers intended. I'm gonna spread the word. And please, do not by pirated DVD's; help enable the local movie industry to grow... I loved this movie. I cannot say it enough times. I am speechless. KUDOS MZANSI.


If you thought Tsotsi was brilliant, Jerusalema will blow you away. It's about determination and hope. I've never seen such an apt depiction of township life. Big -up 2 the producers for the angle they took. I loved the music and how they tied Jerusalema with the lead characters' praying mother! A must see, for inspiration if nothing else!

Guys lets praise SA for producing such an magnificent movie in the international screens, u better start going to the cinemas to watch the awesome job did by our camera men, editors and directors etc. Big up Mzantsi Big up.


A movie that speaks to the core of the human spirit. As much as the movie is South African, anyone who has been faced with hardship will relate. Our dreams, when they shatter and fade painfully silently and the dark talents we discover in desperation for a moment to live the life we once aspired to. Seiphemo, Zekele and the supporting cast are brilliant on a script that pulls no punches, with impeccable direction. The overall execution leaves no vague on what goes wrong and how it becomes celebrated as fruits of crime are reaped and shared by even the most moral in our lives. South African cinema has moved to the next stage in evolution i.e. reflection on some of the darker sides of the new South Africa. A masterpiece.


I have just watched the movie for the first time just this past Friday, I was blown away and touched by it. i don't know if there is such a thing as a good thief, but I fell in love with Rapulano in this movie all over again, for me it had that James Bond element, except that his black and a thief, but that untouchable notion of 0007... Great story and acting. I felt sad for the white chick (grilfriend), not because of her colour, but as a women I could relate, when you think you know somebody but and realising that you don't and in such a matter is just so painful....., but on another hand....there was that element for me, of our black brothers going for white chicks... when they are loaded....even though in this movie that wasn't what brought them together.... interesting story indeed...


I saw this film previewed on CNN and went to see it at the Zurich Film Festival with some American friends of mine. Being South African one could see that this film was simply a labour of love for the beloved country. Ralph Ziman, the self effacing director was on hand to talk about the film after the movie and I asked him how he got all the original footage of the Mandela inauguration etc, which he has cleverly weaved into the movie. His answer was amazing: He shot it himself over the years, which means that Ralph has single handedly created parts of a record of SA history no one else has. At the end of the day the film is broad enough and topical enough to override Tsotsi on many levels, dealing with the integral white black relationship in South Africa (the main black criminal building hijacker in the movie has an affair with a well to do white Jewish girl from the burbs) and how these parts of society interrelate. Last but not least, as it is not stuck in the modality of "Tsotsi only" it manages to look refreshingly at a broad swathe of the themes and reality affecting SA society today. Though Ralph denies it :) (correct me if I am wrong Ralph) Tsotsi has inevitably influenced the making of Jerusalema but on many levels is radically different. In a sense I missed the whimsical sadness of Tsotsi and Jerusalema pans through the skyline and scenes of our Johannesburg far too fast to really do it justice. More of that please. However, its a fast moving film that was enjoyed not just by me but by some Americans I dragged along to it. They really liked it proving that it scope and graphic talks to a worldwide audience. Bravo Ralph. Your country has cause to be very proud of you. You are a true son of South Africa.


If this movie were shot in America, I'd give it a 7/10 because too many things are simply formulaic and not done very well. The main guy turns to the criminal life a little too easily. What happens to sidekicks #1 and #2 could come from a McBain (Simpsons) movie. The woman's explanation for why her brother is there is embarrassingly simple - wouldn't it have been better for the brother to say, "hey, this sh*t is real" to convey the same idiot attraction? Most importantly, where did the lead's main criminal idea come from? I believe something like that really happened, but there's so little hint of it earlier in the movie that it's just confusing when it happens. How could anyone come up with such a complex scheme that relies on the actions and inactions of various government agencies simply by reading very general self-help books? I'll have it both ways - I did like this movie. The points above are nits, some bigger than others. I love the depiction of Johannesberg as this crime-ridden, divided city, like "the Wire" squared. I'll stick with the 7/10, though that's unfair given IMDb's general grade inflation.


This film was such a disappointment. It sensationalizes crime, celebrates materialism, denigrates Black Africans in general, debases Black women in particular, and glorifies Whites in the same subliminal ways that are so prevalent in Hollywood. As "entertainment" it merely serves to perpetuate all that is bad about South Africa today. I am totally bewildered by those who claim it is better than Tsotsie. No, it is a cheap, trashy, commercial, gangster movie with no morally redeeming value at all. That said, the acting was good, as were some of the technical aspects of the very violent scenes. But the violence was way too gratuitous, as was the excessive footage of half-naked Black women hanging out in the Nigerian drug dealers' den. Sadly, the fact that so many young South Africans seem drawn to the film says more about the present state of social and political consciousness of young South Africans than about the quality of the film.


A college-campus Casanova (Jones, who looks a bit like James Dean) keeps three girlfriends at the same time, and when they find out about each other they lock him up in an attic, where they take "revenge" on him by alternately having sex with him - thereby draining him of his energy, will-power, or something like that...

The movie itself doesn't "know" what its goal is, so I can't even try to guess what the point is. That three hot-blooded college bimbos don't have a plan or a clear motive (apart from a vague notion of revenge) one can perhaps put down to female logic, i.e. the lack of it. (Sorry for that, any female readers; I may be a chauvinist, but at least I'm honest about it.) What makes the movie really stupid is that Jones's motives are totally unknown - to both the writer and the viewer. The fatal flaw of the premise is that Jones wasn't so much kidnapped and locked away in the attic, as that he voluntarily stayed there during his time of "captivity". In other words, he could have left any time; he was neither tied, threatened, blackmailed, nor physically abused - apart from the sex, which was supposed to be the punishment. How cute. It all sounds like a comedy, but the ridiculous truth is that this film actually takes its premise seriously and tries to make some kind of a statement, or even message, dare I say. The first hour is supposed to be light comedy; it must have been very light, for I can't remember a single truly funny moment. That first hour sort of breezed by, and in spite of a lack of humour it had a sort of semi-cheerful late 60s feel to it. So basically it seemed brainless, but harmless enough - or so I thought. But then came the "capture". Suddenly Jones is in the attic, and in the narration he tells us at that point that he was definitely "not going to give up". Give up on what?! The poor viewer sits there like an idiot, waiting for this whole attic nonsense to start making sense, but as the end draws near it becomes clear to the most brain-damaged viewer that there will be no explanation as to what Jones was trying to prove by staying in the basement; not even a clue as to why he was going on a hunger strike, trying to be a martyr, and just generally being as illogical as his curvaceous, female "captors". At the end he staggers, half-dead, out of the girls' dorm (where he was "kept" for a couple of weeks) and then gets beaten(!!!) by some girls who see him passing by. And after he has recuperated in the hospital he chases down his true love from the trio of girls - Mimieux - and tells her "we have the worst behind us" and can now continue their romance, or some nonsense like that. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Were the makers of this silly 60s crap actually trying to be clever? God knows what those semi-literate Hollywood bozos had in their tiny little heads when they made this... (Well, apart from trying to make money.) On the surface this would seem like a "9 to 5" sort of female-revenge-on-the-male-a**hole plot, but stupidly and strangely enough this isn't the case at all. The reasons it isn't are plain simple: 1) Jones is not portrayed as an a**hole; he even tells his best buddy that he loves Mimieux, and generally seems to be a likable character, and 2) the three girls are anything but decent, innocent, little flowers of youth. First Jones meets the dim-witted, blonde, virginal, Bible-hugging psycho-bitch (Mimieux) who says that she hates all men. He eventually and actually falls for this nut-case and vice versa. Then he meets the black girl (who apparently slept with many, many men) who seduces him - not the other way around - and she does so in spite of the fact that he suggested to her that he can't (screw her) because he has a date. I.e. she is a bitch: i.e. not exactly a pristine, virginal ray of sunshine. Then Jones meets the airhead, mysticism-oriented, brunette hippie girl who jumps into bed with him the first night - i.e. she wasn't born yesterday, and, like the black slut, came on to Jones more than was the case vice versa. (Supposedly she sleeps with him only because she believes him that he is gay and needs curing; a faint comedic touch.) In other words, there is only one girl here who really had a reason for revenge: the blonde psycho, Mimieux. The other two were just whores looking for fun. I don't even understand why he was hiding the other two girls from the black girl; this is illogical because she, of all three, really shouldn't care less. But to look for logic in this screwed up mess of a movie is like looking for a needle in a hay-stack, with the difference that the hay-stack is covered with manure, so that it isn't even tempting to look for the needle. The film would have worked if: 1) the guy were an a**hole, 2) all three girls were virginal and pure (or thereabouts), 3) Jones, after having hooked up with Mimieux, came on to the other two and not the other way around (practically), 4) the humour had been emphasized and better written, 5) all notions of making a message were dropped, 6) he were tied up in the attic and not free to leave, and 7) the movie made up its damn mind if it wanted to be a psycho-thriller or a cheerful comedy.


I was about 15 years old when I saw this movie, in 1969, I think. I never saw it again but I never got it off my mind even until today. Why? because It was very funny and it was just a hilarious story and well thought out.

It tells a story where this guy has a number of girlfriends, they all found out he was cheating and decided to teach him a lesson that he couldn't refuse. Lots of laughter and hurting sides and you would keep wanting more and more.

It would still do well even today and would fit right in with today's society. I would love to see it again. It really was ahead of it's time.


SOME POSSIBLE SPOILERS...

I just attended a fabulous double bill at the American Cinematheque in Los Angeles, featuring Wild in the Streets (one of my all-time favorite guilty pleasures) and Three in the Attic. Actor Larry Bishop was there to discuss both films and to talk about Christopher Jones, who he hinted was actually in the theater somewhere watching the films.

I haven't seen Attic since the mid-80's and have kept an eye out for it ever since, to no avail. I had often wondered why, with Streets cult status and Christopher Jones a Tarantino icon, this film hadn't been released on DVD.

Oddly, I had remembered it as something much more exploitative, owing probably to the plot line that stood out - 3 women lock a guy in an attic and almost pleasure him to death. What surprised me most about the film was the maturity and quality of the dialogue. Whereas many of AIP's films of the period stressed exploitation over multidimensional character depth and dialogue, Attic was actually handled with a surprising degree of investigation into the aftermath of the sexual revolution.

I also found the romance between Jones and ethereal beauty Yvette Mimeux to be entirely believable and sweet, and ultimately emotionally painful for the characters. Scenes that take place in Provinceown, when they first live together, rival similar scenes in Love Story and carry the naturalness of the escaped lobster scene in Annie Hall. There was actually time spent getting to know the couple.

Yvette says "couples are supposed to fight. How come we never fight." So he throws a dish on the floor, then hands one to her to do the same. Very cute.

Surprises abound. Yvette's father's reaction upon discovering that his daughter is living in sin is classic. He understands Jones' side of things. The female dean of the college smoking a pipe - and understanding Yvette's side of things. Jones has trouble bedding the hippie chick so he tells her he is gay - but he turns to the camera so we can see the expression of hope and fabrication on his face.

No, the film is not perfect but it's certainly well acted, well written and well shot - and it's no more dated than The Graduate or Easy Rider. The New England locations are utilized well and Attic has one of the best end title sequences I've ever seen. I won't give it away in case you are ever surprised by this film, but it's hilarious and completely original. Eulice was a bit of a stereotype but she was a strong woman which made her appealing.

And of course there's Christopher Jones. For my money, one of the greatest losses in cinema was his departure from the screen. As I watched the naturalness of his performance, and his Johnny Depp/James Dean good looks, I spent much of the film seeing him in other roles of the 70's. He could have easily pulled off Cuckoo's Nest or Deerhunter or Serpico.

Bishop told us that he was about to begin directing a Quentin Tarantino produced biker film and that he hoped to bring Christopher Jones back to the big screen, as he did when directing Mad Dog Time. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

The American Cinematheque traditionally finds the best copies of a film available for their screenings and in some cases, the only surviving prints. The film they screened was in pristine condition until the last two or three reels, when much of the color had faded so that everything had a pink tone. Perhaps this is why a DVD release of the film hasn't happened yet. Such a shame if this film is lost to time.

If you ever get a chance to see Three in the Attic, check it out. Very enjoyable


This is one of the great movies of all time.... on par with = The Graduate = .... It had a major influence on teenage girls who saw it in the '60's.

We constantly joked about the guys we had locked up in our own attics! Of course, it was the other way around... Each girl had 7 or 8 guys locked in her attic, and the fact that a couple of us actually had bedrooms in the attic made the joke even funnier.

I don't know why I have not seen this film since it came out in 1968, but I really wish someone would bring it back.

Even to this day, my friends and I joke about our attics, in the same way that we joked about the Ford that was mentioned in The Graduate (of course, that reference didn't last quite as long as the "attic".)


Everyone fighting against Prince John have a lot of passion for their cause. It's also great that they depict Gwyn and even the aging Robin as people who have a lot of spunk. "You have egg on your beard" says Robin to John while being tortured. That's a crack-up classic. The humor was done very well in this movie and it's a shame that it's underrated. I can't remember anything else that I should praise it for but it's a shame that I didn't tape it.


Kudos to ABC and Disney for making an MOW look like a real film. Can't believe this story wasn't told sooner. Hope it becomes a series. I could watch Robin Hood's daughter and the middle-aged merry men every week. Performances were strong. The actress who played Gwyn is beautiful and should have a long career. Way to go ABC!


Of all the made for TV Disney movies that came out recently, this is one of the best. Keira Knightley is fine as the daughter of Robin Hood, and Malcolm McDowell is fine as the sheriff of Nottingham. Like all the made for TV movies though, the film is somewhat too flat to make it a real movie, but Keira and crew do it justice.

Check it out.


I saw this movie on THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF Disney, and was immediately enchanted by it. In fact, I wrote to Disney repeatedly about how I could acquire it for my own collection, and got it at a Disney store, I think. I thought the actors were all good, but I especially liked Stuart Wilson, who played Robin Hood. He reminds me of Errol Flynn, who I thought played that part best in THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, made by MGM in 1938. The actors who played Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham were quite good, and I thought Kiera Knightley and the guy who played Prince Philip were excellent. I'm glad the movie was made, because I always wondered what happened to Robin and Marian after King Richard's return. If I would be asked who should see it, I'd say anyone 12 or older, as it includes references that are sexual.


Warning, Spoilers! ...but it was somewhat entertaining if only for the cheesiness factor. The story is one of the most predictable I've seen in a long time and the swordfights (if you can call them that) are beyond laughable, but nevertheless, both me and my SO spent an otherwise bored saturday night watching this made-for-tv drivel. People have compared this movie to the excellent "The Princess Bride" but as a slightly jaded and cynical viewer, I'd have to argue that "The Princess Bride" is a lot more enjoyable in every single aspect (swordfights - I weep when I even compare the two, dialogue, plot, characters, and just overall silliness) when compared to this movie. This movie is simply not as clever as "The Princess Bride" nor does it aspire to be, which works in some ways for its own made-for-tv charm.

It's not horrendous by any means, but unless you're bored silly, I wouldn't rush out to see it either. My SO and I did get quite a few chuckles at several points in the movie, including the part where Froderick jumped in front of the Prince and saved his life (of course, the Sheriff happened to have only one arrow) and of course, the priceless "You got egg in your beard" line by Robin. Sure they had to use almost every medieval cliche in the book (including the worst kiss I've ever seen), but at least I didn't pay to watch it. The cast was overall mediocre and the plot would amuse those under 12 or anyone who is gullible enough to believe two guys can escape unnoticed in the night and find a canoe and THEN go across the English Channel without oars. Overall 4/10


This movie is truly a classic. I know that some of the actor's skills are a bit suspect, but some of them, like Keira Knightly, had began to show some of their true talent in this film. Also, the script is incredibly witty in some places, and incredibly meaningful in the next. And finally, the idea behind the movie is excellent. 10/10 for me...a TV classic


I'm not sure what to call this ending. I think the accepted HappyEnding would be something along the lines of Gwyn and Prince William getting married and living happily ever after. Unfortunately, the film did too much work to make Froderick entirely too likable and didn't do enough character building for the handsome prince. So instead of the accepted HappyEnding being what I wanted to see, instead I badly wished that SINCE Gwyn and Prince Charming couldn't marry, then over time, she "settled" for Froderick, who in my opinion was much more steady, sensible, handsome (except for the hairdo), and would make a much better husband.

As it was, Disney settled for neither ending, leaving me rather frustrated - that is, only as frustrated as I get from watching a movie that didn't do a whole lot character-building-wise, or plot-wise for that matter.

Overall, it's a movie that I can show to my kids and not be ashamed, for which I'm thankful - goodness knows there's few enough of those movies out there... buuuut, as far as entertainment value and real, true, honest-to-goodness quality goes- yeah, look elsewhere.


If you are planning for a Saturday morning movie to watch in bed while eating breakfast, then this is your movie.

The plot was simple and interesting, Keira Knightley was cute and convincing and the location were they shot was beautiful. I live in Bucharest, Romania and it was so easy and fun to determine all of the elements from the scenes that you can find only in this rustic country. There were some really old and amazing ruins from some medieval cities and then the forest and the Black Sea.

The sword fighting in the movie was a mess, not convincing, not real at all, those men had no idea how to hold a sword, neither did Keira. She also, had no idea how to hold a bow, though she was more convincing. I can't believe she was 15 and that was her first lead role. It seems that she's been a star since forever and she didn't aged a day.


We rented this movie because my 5 year old daughter liked the DVD cover featuring a "girl with the arrow". She had trouble following the storyline on her own - but I watched the movie with her and answered her questions. With the combination of a female heroin and lots of action, she really enjoyed the movie. Her 10 year old brother (who loves more advanced movies such as "Lord of the Rings") also enjoyed the movie.

It's exactly what I expect from a Disney movie - interesting characters, lots of action and a simple plot line.

A good family movie.


While not exactly a brilliant masterpiece, this movie is solid, steady entertainment. The basic elements of a Robin Hood setting are there, but with a "daughter of Robin Hood" -approach to give a little variation to the theme.

Even though it's a "new" plot, they've kept a lot of familiar Robin Hood -themes in the film, including an archery contest and the same old villains - what would a Robin Hood -story be without Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham, after all? And just like her father, Gwyn steals from the rich and gives to the poor, and desires justice and fairness to the people. All the classical elements are there, but with a little "girl power" in the mix.

There's also a rather nice father-daughter dynamic going on, with Robin trying to shelter his daughter from the dangerous life he lives. Gwyn, on the other hand, won't have any of that nonsense, and is more than willing to prove that she's "just as good as a son". The movie doesn't really explore medieval gender roles all that deeply, though - Gwyn dressing as a man is made slightly fun of, but there's no shock nor any disapproval of what might have even be considered sinful back then. The clothes may be medieval, but the attitudes are rather modern, and in that sense this is a rather typical adventure film, that doesn't let historical accuracy get in the way of a good story.

Keira Knightley does a delightfully energetic performance as the tomboyish and almost recklessly fearless Gwyn, and adds a lot to the freshness of the film. If you intend to watch this film because you're a fan of Keira Knightley, I doubt you'll be disappointed. The actors in general are giving solid, although maybe not the most memorable performances.

If you're looking for an entertaining, sort of harmless "feelgood" adventure movie, and are a fan of medieval type of settings, this is the movie for you.


I didn't expect much from an unpublicised Disney "sequwl" type movie, but I'm glad i took a chance. Having enjoyed Knightley's acting in several other films, and curious as to her performance in the lead, I settled down with the kids to watch it.

What we found was charming, fast paced film full of the usual Disney comedy, twists and heroics. Keira's boyish enthusiasm from Bend It Like Beckham is evident here too as she runs about with the Merry Men. The other most impressive roles were the villains, whose over the top yet convincing performances add to that Disney feel.

i'd recommend any kids to watch it, or even an adult in need of a bit of fun.


The Princess of Thieves is a family movie and as such we enjoyed it for its lack of blood, less than fearsome fight sequences, and general lightness. As the director says on the DVD, 'this is melodrama.' Since Robin Hood is a legendary character, it seems appropriate that any film about him not take itself too seriously.

Anyone over the age of twelve will deem this film banal and simplistic, but for young movie viewers, this film is perfect fit to their sensibilities. We saw many parallels with 'The Princess Bride', another charming melodrama with more comedy. Watch this film with three unjaded, young girls and see how charming this film can be. The plot is not too complicated. The production values are good enough. Plenty of action while the story never drags. Granted, 'The Princess of Thieves' is not as memorable as 'The Princess Bride', but the intended audiences are different.

We could use more good, light family movies like The Princess of Thieves.


I enjoyed watching this movie. It is well made with an interesting script and good acting performances. Kiera Knightly, especially, is wonderful to watch.

Scriptwise it is fairly formulaic. Basic themes are: teenage coming of age, taking responsibility and the danger of the misuse of power.

The thing that really grated was the scriptwriters wilful lack of knowledge of the powers of English kings.

Watch it, it's amusing entertainment but of little enduring value.


This film is not worth your time. I watched it when it premiered on TV out of a lack of anything better to do. And I remember thinking very clearly that the lead actress was strikingly attractive, but a very weak actress. Since then, Keira Knightley has proved that my initial impression might was far too hasty. In fact, her performance in Pride & Prejudice is absolutely Oscar-worthy. But her performance is not worth sitting through this mess. It is a weakly conceived, cheaply made film, and has none of the inherent pleasure of the original Robin Hood legends. The acting is, without exception, overwrought. And many of the scenes are simply painful in memory (like the bad-guy speech right when he is prepared to kill an aging Robin, which gives the secondary hero an opportunity to regain his sword. Are writers never going to tire of that scene?) Robin Hood enthusiasts and Knoightley fans alike should pass this one over.


Not the best actors, not the best plot, not the best anything really... still it's quite O.K. Nice scenery and costumes, the flying arrow effect is really neat. Gwyn (Keira Knightley) looks like a dream. :)

Princess of Thieves is a fairly good movie, totally watchable on a rainy day :)


Aside from the gross factual inaccuracies of this movie (ie king Richard having a son and that son replacing John on the throne) this movie was a sweet love tale full of adventure. I'm sure that this movie will appeal to the younger generation of girls and boys.


Although I am not a purist or any other kind of radical as well as usually abstaining from strong language I am forced to say just one thing...: THIS FLICK SUCKS!!! The story is not only as cheesy as the Sherwood is green, it is so predictable that you have uncovered the plot after 10 minutes... if you haven't fallen asleep after the first 5... If you have the choice between seeing this "movie" and staring at a pure white wall for 2 hours... watch the wall!


Laughable historically inaccuracies, poor script, laughable acting and hilarious story make this movie barely worth 2/10. In particular I would love to know how ~40 peasants with pointy sticks and a goat managed to defeat the king's army without casualties. Also how did they get from Nottingham to London with no horses so quickly (did they all ride on the same goat). I suspect the notorious prisons of the Tower Of London weren't actually made of cardboard and you couldn't really escape by getting a good run-up at the doors. Etc. Etc. Etc. Malcolm McDowell has made many poor movies in the past and this is no exception.


There are not many movies you can take the whole family to see these days. Our ten year old son really wanted to see The Last Mimzy so we went to a sneak screening last Saturday night. I was very pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed the film as much as I did. My wife liked it even better. Our two other kids (daughter 12, youngest son 7) along with our son had a great time.

Kids will really be able to identify with the brother and sister in the movie. They seemed very real. The kids' lives at school and their relationships with their parents and teacher seemed true. This is a story about a regular family with all the ups and downs of everyday regular life.

Then, the story takes off. I don't want to give away anything about the plot because the surprises that gently unfold are what you and your family will enjoy about the movie. There are elements of science fiction and fantasy with nothing extremely intense to scare the kids. It's an interesting story told well with characters you care about. The visual effects are well done.

I liked that the movie does not talk down to kids to get its ideas across. My wife and I also liked that the language and situations were truly appropriate for a family film. My kids all want to see the movie again and the movie is definitely good enough to see a second time.


I took my daughter to a screening and was very surprised at how good this movie was. My 13 year old could not decide whether she liked this movie or the Bridge to Terabithia better. There was never a dull moment. We were both very entertained. It was definitely worth the price of admission. The younger kids (10 and under) did not seem to enjoy it as much as the adults and teens though. If you are planning on seeing this, stay away from trailers. You'll have a much better experience the less you know about it. During the last 10 minutes, the reel or film broke. You should have heard the uproar that caused. Everyone in the theater waited impatiently while the projectionist repaired the film. I'll probably go see this again when it does open.


I see it's getting some bad reviews, but I really liked The Last Mimzy. I don't know how much it is like the book, but I liked the ideas the film was based on, the graphics were nice, and it was a new twist on an old storyline (the kids did a really good job acting too). Some people complain it didn't have any action and they "fell asleep" - well it's not an action movie, and honestly if you fall asleep, either you're really overworked or you're just not into light mystery and philosophical ideas. It definitely has a "new age" touch, it's mysterious, and with a nice bit of surreal/sci-fi - if you liked movies the same pace and style as K-Pax (though this one is a bit more geared towards kids), then you'll probably like Mimzy. I wouldn't suggest really young kids for this one, they might not understand a lot of it - 10 and up would probably enjoy it more.

Also, the less you know about the movie, the more you'll like it. Don't spend a day reading reviews and looking at trailers. Grab your kids, go to the theater, and see it for yourself with a fresh mind. You'll probably enjoy it as much as I did. :)


Very good adaptation of a classic sf short story, "Mimsy Were the Borogoves" by Lewis Padgett (pseudonym used by sf authors and spouses Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore). Some changes, of course, updating it to present time (story was originally set in 1942, published in 1943), expanding the story a bit -- but overall, nice work.

I thought the kids' interactions were very true to life -- sniping and fussing at each other and at the same time being close and loving. Especially liked the little girl's interaction with Mimzy, dressing it in doll clothes, having a tea party.

Very enjoyable.


The Last Mimzy doesn't pander needlessly to its core audience, but at the same time it also has a good accomplishment in that it also has an appeal to adults, or at least those that have passed that age of adolescence and look back on childhood with levels of nostalgia and relief that it's over. It delights as well as gives special meaning to putting a level of belief in what is unknown at a time when the rest of the world relies on hard facts and rigid control of personality. It also puts ET to a certain test: can the little creature from another world that needs to get home kind of story hold up to quasi (actually precise) psychedelia? Pink Floyd shirts and Roger Waters aside, this may even have a secret appeal to stoners just as much as your little boy or girl at the movie theater, who will obviously see it in a different life, that of light, efficient irreverence and lots of neat special effects.

'Mimzy' tells the story of a boy and a girl, Noah and Emma, both at least under the age of 10 but old enough to be articulate enough as well as appropriately secretive in the fantasy they hold paramount, who come upon a strange rock from the ocean. In it lies a bunch of fragments, and, oddly enough, a stuffed, fluffy, cute bunny named Mimzy, who Emma takes as her most important possession. Noah meanwhile becomes transfixed with the new powers that soon come to him via these rocks: he can hear the smallest insect, and is transfixed by obscure designs. This strikes up the attention of his parents as well as his science teacher (Rainn Wilson), who also knows of the symbols Noah makes up. But after a power outage- it also happens to be a generator that Noah conjures- gets the attention of the government, not sure what exactly is going on. Emma has a problem, however, in that Mimzy, her closest confidant and "teacher" is dying and needs to get back home. That's the basic story, anyway, as there are little ins and outs as the story goes on, including a great product placement for Sprite, and a montage-free example of each child's new abilities.

Some of this may be a little preposterous, even goofy, but Bob Shaye and his team bypass the obvious but still perilous pit-falls for filmmakers investing themselves into children's movies. No truly stupid gags, nothing with bodily excretions, none of that really, and if anything the humor, of a little wild and over-the-top in variety (some of which I was laughing at alone while the other kids were silent), is innocent and sort of knowing of the split of imagination between children and adults. The two kids are also very good at playing their parts, with Wryn as Emma very adept at being vulnerable and smart, and O'Neil being almost too close to looking like the boy Elliot in ET, however not without his own strengths. Shaye sometimes lets his control slip in just simple things like cinematography or making a fitting enough ending (too many futuristic hippies me thinks), and the goofiness does teeter on becoming a little too much. But I responded more to how the power of taking a long repeated idea, of kids becoming changed by outside forces in a very real world, and there being a sort of little twist to it all. It's not just about making friends and gaining in some alien intelligence, but in figuring the significance of the future, however weird it might be. It's definitely the finest children's movie, non-animated, to come out so far in 2007. 7.5/10


I have never read the book, which this movie is based upon, so I have no point-of-reference for comparison.

All in all I thought this movie was perfectly appropriate for families, although from reading reviewers comments on another website, you'd think 'The Last Mimzy' had some kind of subversive plot. One parent said it was 'liberal doctrine' and another focused on the fact that it shows people who actually believe in Eastern philosophies and practices. Wow! You mean there are other religions besides Christianity out there?! Then they must be liberal in nature and are trying to wreak havoc on the traditional, family-values we all hold so dear.

I am a Christian and had absolutely no problems with the ideas proposed by other points-of-view. Maybe you might have to walk out of the theater with some explanations of how other cultures see the world and their place in it, but that's part of the magic of this movie. 'The Last Mimzy' was by no means 'liberal doctrine' unless you think showing a different perspective as a threat.

Personally, the weakest parts of the movie for me was the uneven direction and the point where I asked "Why is Michael Clark Duncan in this film?" He didn't really add much to it. The kids were believable and Timothy Hutton did a decent job. The effects were all-in-all low-key, but necessary. Before you judge this film for showing the mysteries of Eastern beliefs, try watching it with an open mind. It didn't give me the same vibe as 'E.T.' or 'Close Encounters', but it did a good job as being an entertaining family film.


If I were to come up with a one sentence of "The Last Mimzy" it would be: New age tree hugging proselytizing wrapped in a children's film.

Deploying a panoply of New Age pablums such as the interconnectedness of the universe and a kind of whitebread version of Far East mysticism, "The Last Mimzy" is nonetheless fun and stimulating to watch. Anything that can theoretically challenge the dumbing down of my children by the Disney Channel is, frankly, welcome.

My daughter, a very bright girl if I do say so, was mentally energized after seeing "The Last Mimzy" and couldn't stop talking about it. Five points minimum right there.

The visuals strike me vaguely as derivative of Bucky Fuller's concept of Synergistics or the Dymaxion, concepts which were precursors to his famous geodesic domes - the sum being greater than the parts basically.

At its best, this film engages the imagination of both adults and children. The premise--a bunny sent back in time to save all of humanity--on its surface seems very silly, but somehow it works. It works because we know intuitively that children are often the only ones with the innocence and purity and that certain clarity of intelligence to communicate seemingly impossible ideas - the faith of a child in action. The people of the future still understand this too.

I didn't find Mimzy's "New Agey" feel overdone and it worked cleverly for its intended premise.

One thing that was very wrong about the movie was the overt product placement of Intel in a particular scene Though I suspect Intel rarely gets a chance where product placement even makes sense in a movie it was really inappropriate.

Still, an extremely worthwhile film amid today's teen-oriented drivel.


This was a very well written film about two young and quite brilliant children. They have a frantic mother and a somewhat aloof father. But the story ties them together well. If you are expecting this to be a simple film for the young,you will be disappointed. My children loved it. The mathematics and science are brilliantly weaved into this story of everything good and pure about us, or rather, what could be. E.T. for a new generation? It really could be. I have seen where some have said that children might be a bit bored with this movie. The theater I was in wasn't full of bored children. The children I saw were on the edge of their seats; as was I.


"All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe"

The Mimsy before this one was apparently sent to Lewis Carroll, who shared it with his young friend Alice, who had an adventure in Wonderland. This last Mimsy, a stuffed rabbit doll from the future, is discovered in a box of toys, floating in the waters of a deserted beach, by Noah Wilder, a ten year old boy played by Chris ONeil, and his six year old sister Emma, played by Rhiannon Leigh Wryn.

Like Alice before them, their lives are transformed into a fascinating and sometimes dangerous wonderland. So goes the short story, "Mimsy were the borogoves" by Kuttner and Moore, on which this movie, "The Last Mimsy" is based.

Robert Shaye, the director, who has much more prior film experience as a producer of slasher and fantasy films, in this movie, emulates director Steven Spielberg, with a children's Science Fiction, Fantasy adventure. The premise is interesting; children discover a box of toys from the future. The uses of the toys, as well as their reason for being here, are a mystery.

Noah and Emma are taking their spring break, with their parents, at a lovely isolated Seattle beach cottage. Their overworked father, David, played by Timothy Hutton, and his wife, Jo, played by TV veteran, Joely Richardson, are unaware of their children's discovery. They consider their children average, and therefore are concerned and alarmed as they see unexpected changes in their behavior.

The toys the children discover are intriguing, pretty but mysterious, until Emma discovers in a hidden compartment, Mimsy, a telepathic teaching machine, in the guise of a cute stuffed Rabbit. Appropriate enough with the Easter holiday approaching. Mimsy has no motion ability, but is carried around as Emma's favorite dolly. We can tell Mimsy is communicating, the sound designers of the film, give the toy a pleasing electronic purring noise, that only Emma can hear.

This aspect of the film works very well. The children can see the magic in the toys, whereas the adults can't. This is best exemplified in one scene where Noah hands his mother a glowing opal like rectangular crystal. In her hands it appears as a rusty paperweight.

Two additional characters are added to the plot, Noah's Science Teacher, played by Rainn Wilson, and his kooky, New age girlfriend, played by Kathryn Hahn. They notice the effects the toys have on the children.

The toys, have the ability to expand the mind and intellect of the children. At school, Noah comes up with a Nobel Prize winning Science Fair project, and both children playing with a generator toy, manage to black out the Seattle area power grid. This alerts Homeland Security, and in a scene that might have been lifted from the Spielberg handbook of quick panic shooting, has the CIA crashing the home of the unsuspecting family, and herding them off to a secret Intelligence headquarters. Notable is actor, Michael Clark Duncan as the perplexed but down to business, head of Homeland Security.

One of the major pleasant surprises of the movie, comes with the cleverest example of product placement that I have ever seen. On the other hand, the movies Prologue nearly robs the film of all it's potential drama, suspense and magic. This I found to be a major flaw.

It's a very acceptable family film, although the very young will squirm restlessly through the talkative exposition. The effects are just average CGI, it is to the directors credit that Mimsy remains throughout, a inanimate cute stuffed rabbit. The Ending is bright and optimistic, and dispels the sometimes threatening imagery depicted in scenes of the future. I give this movie *** out of five stars.


I have just watched the movie with my 7 year old. We both liked the movie. I tried to explain her couple of points about the story. She got little scared, but I told her that we get scared from the things we don't know. In my opinion, the movie is about saving the future. The people on the future are suffering from the pollution and their generation is about to come to an end. To save themselves, they are wearing the protective cloths. Emma's struggle and her one precious teardrop sent with Mimzy to the future, saved the future. Al they needed was a pure, unpolluted memorabilia (the teardrop) from the past that will help them save the earth from the pollution. At the end of the movie, we are given small toys of Mimzy, and we will cherish them to remind us about the future. We all have the job to save the future. Every little try will count, like every disrespect about the earth will harm. This movie was a very good source for me to teach my daughter the importance of being earth friendly. Thanks.


I saw this with my 2 daughters - 10 and 7, and it was for kids just their age. My older daughter's heart was pounding so hard in the middle that when she clutched my hand I could feel it on my upper arm. She came out of it emotionally exhausted, but very very happy.

The only film I can relate this to is "Contact". This film makes no assumptions about your political, religious, or spiritual beliefs, but presents something for everyone. The story is enjoyable (although a tiny bit long for the age group), and the premise is something that the children can understand and get into. The acting was par for a children's film - not as bad as Tim Allen in "Shaggy Dog", but still not on the level of an adult's film. Some adults may frown during the performances - but it has nothing to do with the story.

The ending was drawn out and predictable - I kept telling my daughter that it was going to be 'ok', and knew it would be. But the ride was very fun and enthralling - a movie my daughter will ask me to get for her and she will watch over and over again.


This film will go down as a truly important and remembered film in SciFi. It is along the order of Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T. The Extra Terrestrial.

People who only like Action/Adventure flicks won't have enough brain cells to get it, but true SciFi fans (the types who can read books too) will love this film. It's very powerful and emotional.

It had some minor problems as any film does. There were some weak acting moments and a poor edit that should have been cut tighter, but in general it was excellent.

In particular, 6yr old newcomer Rhiannon Leigh Wryn as the lead character Emma Wilder did a wonderful job. Unbelievable that a 6 year old child could be that effective in a role.

I highly recommend this well written and directed film. It's one to remember.


the less I like it.

First off - these parents didn't act like parents. They show no real concern for what is happening to their children. When the boy teaches spiders to create the bridge, especially after a lifetime as a mediocre student, I'd have him off to a psychiatrist, pronto! Secondly - the irritating science teacher!!! I despise the fuzzy, magical thinking him and his "girlfriend" espoused. Any "science" teacher spouting that crap needs to be fired.

Third - the irritating girlfriend of the science teacher!!! Who honestly believes in palmistry in this day and age! Fourth - Michael Clark Duncan - really, what the heck! After everything that happened, everything he knows, he just walks away? Give me a break. In this day and age, any FBI/CIA/NSA/Men in Black operative who walked away, would be fired and charged with dereliction of duty.

Fifth - the detention facility the family was taken too. Only one camera in the whole place? Nothing is secured? No guards? Sixth - a ten year-old driving a big van? In Seattle? Two kids beside the road in the middle of nowhere for an extended time. Nobody came by at all? Seventh - the science teacher and his dreams? Why the heck is he having dreams about what the kids are doing? He hasn't been exposed to the toys.

Those are just some of the major problems with this mockery of the wonderful Lewis Padgett (Kuttner & Moore) story from the 1940s.


Great Movie! This is a movie for adults disguised as a children's movie. Chris O'Neil (Noah) and Rhiannon Leigh Wryn (Emma) turn in an excellent performance as two kids who've found a box full of amazing things on the beach. Their parents David and Jo, played by Timothy Hutton and Joely Richardson are perplexed as their kids quit acting like kids and start focusing on their new "toys". Noah's teacher Larry (Rainn Wilson) taps into the awareness that the kids are connected to something much bigger than all of them. This movie is difficult to compare with other movies. While it remains down to Earth and family oriented, it might be a little too complicated for young children. Expect young kids to twist, squirm, and talk while you are trying to catch the story. The special effects are great eye candy, but they are backed by a great story. It was particularly fun to see real life mathematics prodigy and physicist Brian Greene play a scientist in this movie. His presence alone is like an endorsement that the plot has some intelligent thought behind it. It's a fun movie. It's suitable for all ages, but perhaps an older crowd will appreciate it more. It's worth buying, renting, or seeing in the theater.


The siblings Noah (Chris O'Neal) and Emma (Rhiannon Leigh Wryn) travel with their mother Jo (Joely Richardson) from Seattle to the family cottage in Whidbey Island to spend a couple of days while their workaholic father David Wilder (Timothy Hutton) is working. They find a box of toys from the future in the water and bring it home, and Emma finds a stuffed rabbit called Mimzy, and stones and a weird object, but they hide their findings from their parents. Mimzy talks telepathically to Emma and the siblings develop special abilities, increasing their intelligences to the level of genius. Their father becomes very proud when Noah presents a magnificent design in the fair of science and technology, and his teacher Larry White (Rainn Wilson) and his mystic wife Naomi Schwartz (Kathryn Hahn) become interested in the boy when he draws a mandala. When Noah accidentally assembles the objects and activates a powerful generator creating a blackout in the state, the FBI arrests the family trying to disclose the mystery. But Emma unravels the importance to send Mimzy back to the future.

"The Last Mimzy" is a delightful and refreshing sci-fi story and a great family entertainment. Seven years old Rhiannon Leigh Wryn and thirteen years old Chris O'Neal are excellent in the lead roles of smart siblings but the adult support cast have many disappointing lines and attitudes. The screenplay discloses since the very beginning that Mimzy was sent from the future to save the human race, therefore there is no surprise or twist in the end. I did not have a great expectation in this adventure, and I had a wonderful surprise. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Mimzy, A Chave do Universo" ("Mimzy, The Key of the Universe")


I had much higher expectations for this movie, and was greatly disappointed. It is a cool movie idea, but all in all, it was poorly adapted, produced, and acted. There are major holes in the plot, and the acting was very unbelievable. It is only a 90 minute movie, but it seems like much longer. The way the parents, teachers, and FBI respond to these children is utterly unbelievable. If your kids suddenly could perform telekinesis, draw ancient mandalas, and vaporize their arms, would you leave them unattended for hours upstairs? These parents do. They even fall asleep when detained by the FBI, allowing their kids to escape into the night. Guess you can't expect too much from the Nip Tuck mom. She's a horrible actress. Yuck- Don't rent it. Don't buy it, and don't subject your poor children to this mindless dribble.


Okay, I like the message of "The Last Mimzy." I like the gentleness and purity of the basic story. So I really wish I could say this was as good as "ET" or "The Wizard Of Oz" or any other great movie that appealed to both kids and adults...but nothing about it really fits.

The story has promise -- Toys from the future are sent back to the past. They're found by a couple of very average kids living in Seattle, who use them to see the universe in new ways as they help the toys achieve their goal of finding some way of saving the future from the ruination of the past. There are moments of pure magic -- like when Noah, the ten-year-old boy, learns sounds can affect how a spider builds its webs, and when Emma, his five-year-old sister, sets the "spinners" going the first time.

But nothing about this movie quite works. Not completely. Oh, the kids -- Chris O'Neal and Rhiannon Leigh Wryn -- do a good enough job of acting, especially considering how young they are and it's the first time they've been in front of a film camera. Rhiannon is startling natural in many ways, and Chris closely matches her. And Timothy Hutton, Joely Richardson and Michael Clarke Ward do well enough with poorly written roles. And therein lies much of the problem -- the script and choice of director.

Bob Shaye has produced dozens of movies, so he probably thought he'd learned something about pacing and the shaping of an exciting story that is true to its universe. Instead, he comes across as a beginner. He's so focused on keeping the action going, he forgets to let the story breathe and grow. Maybe that was the way the script was written, but I doubt it. It seems like entire scenes have been cut because they didn't "move things along" in the way some action-adventure genre film might need. I especially miss the development of Noah going from a "C-" drub to a genius science engineer. All we're given is him looking at that spider, doing something on a computer and then BANG -- he's got a science project about bridges across the universe. It's like Shaye didn't know how to dramatize it, so just didn't. And many of the scenes' pacing is off -- like with the kids in the school. Boys tend to jump over each other, verbally, when they're talking; they don't talk, wait for you to talk, then talk. And the kids in this script don't use the same vocabulary as regular kids. Even the scene where the Feds break in -- usually a slam-dunk -- is done so amateurishly, it's disconcerting.

Of course, the dialog IS what came out of the script, and much of it's lame. Simplistic. Unreal. The scene where Rainn Wilson and his fiancée meet with Joely to discuss Noah is brutal evidence of this. Nothing about it comes across as real or human...and that's the scriptwriting, not the acting or directing.

The special effects are nice if a bit cheap. I love the look of Seattle and its environs as a way of showing what we're about to lose if we don't wise up. There are a couple of nightmarish moments that may scare kids under eight, but they work within the context of the story.

Y'know...if they'd just had someone who knows kids' stories do a pass on the script and let someone else direct this movie, it would've been hit out of the park. Instead, I'm willing to give it a double for effort and intent. But man...why couldn't it have been a home run?


...that I will never get back again.

Rainn, please choose your movie roles more wisely. You are way more talented than lending your persona to this tripe.

This is a film that starts out with an intriguing set up. Two kids find a box on the beach and discover strange, mysterious objects inside. The story continues with the children gaining special abilities from the objects inside the box. As things progress (slowly), the audience isn't really let in on any more than what was already established. The US government gets involved and yadayadayada. It focuses too much on new age beliefs and philosophy as though no other culture has contributed to the progress of mankind and civilization.

The end of the film is completely contrived and to be honest, never fully explained. Ech...


I was expecting a lot more out of this movie, but it didn't provide. I hope Rain Wilson would be a funny character, the sort of one he play in the office. instead he plays a more serious role which he just does not suit. Chris O' neill and Rhiannon Wryn do unspectacular jobs as the children in this movie. The story is lifeless and i couldn't quite follow what was going on. I could see why little children mite enjoy this movie as it is largely about a toy bear, but otherwise i advise you not to! I thought maybe they could have had the parents playing a 'comedy' role, but instead they were very serious. the cast suited the movie. They were both terrible


The Last Mimzy is one of the most contrived movies i have ever seen, notwithstanding it being in the fantasy genre. And for a person who loves entertainment that is wholesome and positive in its outlook, this one made me nauseous. The acting is generally awful, except for Chris O'Neil (as Noah Wilder) who comes off best; he reminds me of the young Henry Thomas in E.T. The teacher and his companion played by Rainn Wilson and Kathryn Hahn make quite a funny pair as well, but that's about it. However, being a fan of both Timothy Hutton and Joely Richardson, i was disappointed with their roles. I felt embarrassed for Timothy Hutton, a superb actor looking tired in a pitiful part. And i didn't even recognize Joely, despite the fact that i have met her in real life. I was hoping that The Last Mimzy would be something quirky like Zathura, but no such luck. By the end, i was just thinking: "Give me a break!"


I love science-fiction, and will watch almost anything in the genre (although so far have resisted seeing Battlefield Earth). I watched Attack of the Killer Tomatoes with enjoyment. Last Mimzy was supposed to be another E.T. However, although E.T. was not Shakespeare (remember "penis-breath"?), at least it had Spielberg. Mimzy's director made William Shatner the director look like Alfred Hitchcock.

Mimzy was humorless. E.T. had product-placement with Reese's pieces. Mimzy bludgeons with ersatz Tibetan Buddhism, crystal worship, palmistry, animal rights, and Silent Spring anti-pollution preaching. Alice didn't really go through the looking-glass, she had an abortive encounter with a vortex time-cloud hatched above some crystals from the future, presided over by a robot stuffed rabbit who is trying to get back to the future. Emma, the 21-st century Alice, is a "pure soul" who can help the future, perhaps because she recoils after learning the hamburger she eats was once a cow. At the end, the Gestapo FBI/Homeland Security forces, who track down Emma and her brother because they caused a multi-state power failure, instantly break off their pursuit and suddenly leave, immediately after witnessing Mimzy the robot rabbit disappear into the sky (a la E.T.?). I've never seen such a wooden scene in a movie. (Even Killer Tomatoes had a better ending!)

Speaking of ending, the dad in the movie gets to moon the audience while walking around the house wearing only his pajama top (Mom stays fully clothed) and trying to get Mom to break her diet. Kid's movie??


The movie diverges sharply from the short story by Henry Kuttner, and falls prey to every single ET-based cliché, complete with floating objects and overzealous FBI agents, ancient Tibetan prophecies, etc.

The original story was more akin to "Childhood's End", whereas the writers decided that every movie must have good guys and bad guys, and a crisis and a phony car chase. This results in a story that feels forced and fake, without any flow or sense. At many times I felt that items were "pasted on" in failed attempts to create humor or tension, but they were silly.

Give this one a miss.


i felt that this movie really should not of been compared to ET. ET was a excellent movie that you could see over and over. i went to see this on the premise that it was to be an ET alike it was not. i was bored but stayed with the movie hoping it went another way it didn't. i could not understand mimzy and it was kind of to far out there with the rabbit. ET we were able to understand him by himself. it never stop disappointing me. the characters of the mom and dad were really a bad portrayal of parents and disappointing. getting rid of something is not throwing it in the garbage by the house. using an island was really poor as we cant get to the island at nite the ferry does not run. the kids were good i loved emma she was wonderful. i don't really now what else to say but i found the movie one i would of liked if it was more like ET. i can not recommend this movie to other people sorry.


I like a little fantasy, but this plot sought to give validity to some lame old Hollywood spiritual fetishes, and their inclusion wounds the story line. So it ended up being shallow and silly.

The kids are cute, the directing and acting engaging, and special effects kind of fun. But the plot premise and cult supports made it offensive and ineffective. It would have been better if the creators had made up a whole new set of fantastic causes and endings. And the story would have had a timelessness quality about it that makes for classics. This ended up being another environmental/social/air-headed anything goes plot based on current (and passing) passions typical of the times.

They also stuck in 'live-togethers' in the role of a teacher that encourages life styles that never work, as if that aberration of society can be profitable. Live together people are a shame to us all and no one anywhere near them is proud of them. But here, as usual, it is laid before our children as normal and beneficial. But then, Hollywood doesn't live in the real world, has serious trouble with right and wrong, and cares not a whit about our children.


I know a lot of people will say "this is just a kid's movie", and "it has a good message", etc, but this movie was terrible.

First, the parents are completely unbelievable. Are they oblivious or what? OK, the rocks and stuff could be "toys" found on the beach; but the girl walks around with a new stuffed rabbit, and no one wonders where she got it? The father said he was going to talk to the babysitter about what happened. If he did, didn't she tell him what happened? Or did he not follow up, and just forget about the whole thing.

Second, major plot holes: how did they get to the island after the escape. They had to take the ferry, no? Why didn't the authorities stop, or at least alert the ferry operators (assuming it was even running at that time of night). The kids had powers, but didn't seem to use them. If you had super powers, would you show them off? Third, the movie could not decide what it wanted to be, and it stole from a lot of better movies. Obviously "ET", and "Close Encounters" come to mind, but you could spend the entire movie going, "I remember that scene from (insert sci-fi fave here)" Anyway, I am sure that this will be a big hit, but just be warned.


What it's like: If you took the story ("Mimsy Were the Borogoves" by "Lewis Padgett"--Henry Kuttner and Catherine L. Moore), and gave it to latter-day hippies (such as script-repurposer Bruce Joel Rubin) to make as one of the sharper episodes of the revived THE OUTER LIMITS (it's slightly wittier and better-done than the "Sandkings" pilot). Less rancid and dumb than the typical Spielberg-gang outing, slightly less sanitized (for your protection) than the common Disney production (even if Michael Clarke Duncan's role is straight out of LILO AND STITCH), this film will annoy Kuttner/Moore purists.

What's good about it: the actors are pretty deft, for the most part, including the kid sibs. Kathryn Hahn (of CROSSING JORDAN) and Rainn Wilson (of THE OFFICE and SIX FEET UNDER) are just about the go-to couple for the kind of reasonably latter-day hippies they portray here, and Timothy Hutton and Joely Richardson do well by their increasingly-freaked parent roles. Nice early touch on how the first toy appears differently to our kid protags and to their mother. Some visuals not too shabby, if unspectacular.

What's not so good: the product-placement goes from blatant to, at a key point, annoyingly unbelievable; the framing device, particularly at the end. The changed nature and reason for the transport of the toy package.

What it would be paired with at the Kailua Drive-In or Holiday Theaters for double-features corresponding to those of my youth: DEJA VU or other more innocuous skiffy; probably not with 300.

Another reason it's clearly not directed by Joe Dante: No one's watching THE TWONKY at any point.


I don't usually rate movies 1 out of 10, but this movie falls in that category. Everything about this movie is bad, from the horrible acting performances of the two lead kids to the plot that can't hold itself up. Not only was it not well made, it was not interesting whatsoever. I was trying to fall asleep but I couldn't. Not only that, though. Everyone I saw the movie didn't like it. If a group of six different people all agree that a movie is bad, they're probably right. The movie had no appeal at all to the six completely different personalities. Also to be noted is the shabby direction. Part of directing is not just planning how each scene is shot, but it's directing the actors involved in the film. It takes a good director to direct a child actor and turn it into a good performance, and the director of this movie didn't even come close. The two lead kids literally just said their lines and went through motions, without feeling. Please, do yourself a favor and see something else instead.


When I ventured to the theatre for the advance screening of The Last Mimzy, I honestly didn't know what to expect. What little I knew about the film was that its genre was part family film, part adventure and part drama. It was only a few weeks ago that Bridge to Terabithia left a bad taste in my mouth, so my walk to my favorite aisle seat was more of a saunter than a skip and a hop.

The opening credits gave me a glimmer of hope. Timothy Hutton, Joely Richardson and Michael Clarke Duncan were names that appeared in big bold letters and each one of these actors I respected for their previous works on the screen. So I sat back in hopes that it was more Narnia than Terabithia. Wishful thinking.

The Last Mimzy is about two children who find a box that has been sent back in time to save civilization. The children Noah and Emma Wilder (played not too convincingly by Chris O'Neil and Rhiannon Leigh Wryn) open the box which contains some magical rocks, a seashell that allows them to hear things humans can't, a contraption that looks like a dead sea urchin and a stuffed doll rabbit that is the weirdest artificial intelligence to grace the screen since that stupid bear gave me nightmares in Spielberg's A.I.

When the children start to experiment and play with their new found toys magical things start to happen. They can levitate, they can atomize their hands, they can borderline fly. Oh, and they can sap the power out of half of Seattle which leads to the F.B.I. (headed by an uncomfortable looking Duncan) to investigate and eventually detain the Wilder family.

The story as I think to understand it, is that a scientist in the future sends back multiple rabbits in an attempt to gather some pure DNA to ensure their own being. (Spoiler: Why the scientist was shot in one potential futures by an alien is still puzzling). See, humans can't go back in time, so this freaky toy has to go back and save the world. Interesting? Possibly. Original? Hardly.

So while the future awaits word on Mimzy's success or failure (that is that rabbits name for anyone that cares), the children run amok by communicating with arachnids, jumping on the beach like an extra from Pixar's The Incredibles and talking to the stuffed animal that represents futures only hope.

The Last Mimzy is like crossing the worst of John Hughes and crossing it with a below average Spielberg. The film has no heart, no character and the scenes seemed to be cut together randomly with very little flow between reels.

All the actors look like they are trying to squeeze some movie magic out of the very skimpy, unoriginal script based on the short story by Lewis Padgett. But director Bob Shaye, who has not been behind the camera since 1990's Book of Love, weaves an incoherent and completely unbelievable plot that goes nowhere fast and results in a dead end once we get there. The final scene which has the F.B.I. leaving the Wilder family was maybe the worst written scene I have bore witness to this year. And I have seen more poop than a dog walker.

The Last Mimzy might be for the kiddies. They might get something out of it. I didn't. The redhead beside me that engaged me in conversation about the film at its conclusion didn't. And judging by the few that left the theatre during the screening and didn't come back  I am guessing that they didn't either.

www.robertsreviews.com


Yep, that's about it. At least that's what I remember. There was a plush toy bunny sent to the past to save the future from the present.

The toy was sent by a John Hurt/Peter O'Toole-looking mad scientist and ends up on a Washington State beach and discovered by two moppets, (the Harry Potterish Noah Wilder, Chris O'Neil) and his cute-as-a-button little sister, Emma (Rhiannon Leigh Wryn, "The Hulk").

The toy comes in a special box with some rocks, a green globule and a glowing rectangle that turns into stone when their mother, Joely Richardson (TV series "Nip & Tuck") touches it.

The special prism divides the earth into compartments that no one on screen (or in the audience) seems to understand the meaning of.

These trinkets also make Noah, a dim bulb at school, turn into a nationwide science fair champion (since he can communicate with spiders and make then spin webs of his choosing). He also has become quite an artist, creating drawings of 12th century Tibetan tapestries and other obscure works of art.

Meanwhile, Emma has become creepily attached to the rabbit, which is an exact duplicate of one Lewis Carrol gave to his young model for "Alice in Wonderland." Evidently, she "learns" from it and soon begins to advocate for its particular mission. She is also designated as a "very special child" by the flaky fiancée, (Kathryn Hahn, TV series "Crossing Jordan"), of Noah's new age science teacher, Larry White (Rain Wilson, TV series "Six Feet Under," "The Office").

Later, while fooling around with the globule, Noah causes an electrical surge that blacks out Seattle, raising the ire of Homeland honcho, Nathaniel Broadman (Michael Clark Duncan, "The Green Mile," "Daredevil").

After arresting the family, which includes befuddled dad, David Wilder (Oscar winner Timothy Hutton, "Ordinary People," bad hair and all), the kids promptly escape and attempt to send the rabbit back to the future with some current genes attached to it.

Overall, this is not a bad film, just a little convoluted, and one which takes almost its entire running time to figure out. The unfortunate thing for "Mimzy" is that it opens with "TMNT" and "The Shooter," which means certain defeat at the box office.


i'm 15 years old-Alright, I was a part of the test screening of "The Last Mimzy" and i thought it was dreadful! The characters seemed very inconsistent. Near the end of the movie, when the Noah character has to gather the spinners he seems to know exactly what hes talking about. then gets confused until reminded by Emma. And the science teachers wife.. My goodness. She just starts going on about how its his DESTINY to do this just because he had seen it all in dream. It sort of fit in the story but i was like "...where did THAT come from"

My brother is twelve and he said it was rubbish as well. though he couldn't think of reason why because hes like that..

My mother who is 40 didn't understand it and my father (born on the same day and year as my mother) though it was really really weird. And he loves science fiction. Said it reminded him of this book "diamond age" which I'm not sure if it is.

I think the points on DNA and how the pollutants are killing our genes and mutating us was quite interesting. it really makes you think.

Other than that i found it a wasted evening.


This "Nemesis" is one really lousy Miss Marple. I agree that it's garish in the filming and the acting is so over the top it's almost laughable. But this is a series that makes the mistake of taking itself seriously. They make up the actress playing Miss Marple to look like an elderly Kewpie doll. She's also foolish and silly. Hardly believable as a great amateur detective. The plot is even worse. I grew up Catholic and know just who's allowed to put on a nun's habit. Take the character of Verity Hunt.....this chick would never have even been allowed to step into the convent. Quicker than she can turn her head the nun's garb hits the floor and she's horizontal with a German who crashed in the English countryside!! Unbelievable!! Just WHO thinks up this stupid stuff?? and who are they trying to kid? The old gal (Marple) looks like she's way over her head with these mysteries. But that's okay because there's enough actors acting more goofy than her. Well, almost.

I've loved the Miss Marple character for many years and have seen many reincarnations. I think this one hits rock bottom. It's worse than the American versions.

Strangely, I always thought that the British were so good at adapting books to film. As a matter of fact they put us to shame. No longer, however,


This new Miss Marple must be intended for people who are deaf and absolutely clueless of Agatha Christie's books. Every character, every part of the plot, and the wonderful development of the mystery has been changed. What we get is an extremely loud, garishly filmed (in bright reds, yellows, ....eeek!!), MESS. The main characters of Jason Rafiel and Michael Rafiel have been changed of course. In keeping with this new series, their characters have been changed to make them German! Michael Rafiel's relationship as well as how he met Verity Hunt has been changed also to an untasty dish served cold. Enough to turn the stomach. The "sisters" who are pivotal to the plot, are now nuns.....real sisters in the Catholic Church sense. The wonderful Amanda Burton is such a good actress, but she's totally wasted here as one of the new characters of a Nun. Richard Grant, also a good actor, is also wasted as Miss Marple's nephew, Raymond. They now make Miss Marple's nephew into a comical, silly, womanizer. Gee, I almost forgot to talk about Miss Marple and her role in this dreadful crime (I'm talking about the series). Can you really believe Geraldine McEwan when she states, "I am Nemesis," in this mystery? She twitters, twinkles her eyes and dithers around. It's really hard to pick out the worse of the lot in the new Miss Marple series, but this comes real close. I think "Bertram's Hotel" is the one that disappointed me most since it was my favorite book, with "Nemesis" as second. The scriptwriters, directors, set designers, everyone associated with this lousy series must have absolutely no sense of Christie's work. Believe me, you are NOT getting anything near to her impeccable mysteries.


'Nemesis' is one of Christie's last books and by this stage in her career the narrative tended to ramble and there were plot-holes aplenty. That said, the central plot line is sound and many of the characters are well written but it could be argued that any screen adaptation might justify a little 'tinkering'. The BBC tinkered in a good way as part of their Joan Hickson series, retaining the most interesting characters, cutting out the less interesting and tightening the story - it was one of my favourites of the series! As expected by now, the 'new' McEwen version indulges in a great deal more tinkering. Indeed, this film bears very little resemblance at all to the source material. This time the really interesting characters have either been thrown out altogether (Miss Temple, the Professor, the two lady bodyguards) or radically altered (tragically the 3 sisters - now two nuns). Stephen Churchett has retained the duller members of the coach tour but because they don't have much to do in the book, this have given him scope to completely re-write their characters (the Lumleys and the Waddys). Miss Marple's nephew Raymond comes along though he's really not needed (I didn't like the fake nephew Lionel added to the Hickson version either) and Churchett gives us possibly the most irritating made up character ever in Ronni Ancona's screeching Miss Dalrymple (why didn't someone kill her?). There are too many changes to the story to even begin to mention. The sad thing is that this travesty in no way improves upon the original story - it's clunky, dull, improbable and (as always with these new adaptations) packed full of too much incident.

As always with the 'Marple' series it looks wonderful and has the usual starry cast but no-one really shines on this outing. Richard E Grant is always worth watching and so are Amanda Burton and Anne Reid but their talents are terribly wasted here. Geraldine McEwen annoyed me this time and I was extremely irritated at how no-one questioned why both she and Raymond were questioning the suspects along with the plodding, comic policeman. The whole thing shows a tremendous lack of respect for Christie's work. Why bother filming these things if the people making them think that the stories are such rubbish they have to be re-written? I've enjoyed some of these McEwen 'Marples' but not this one - its a stinker!


Once again we are asked to delve into another McEwan/Marple/Christie murder mystery. Except that it isn't a Christie murder mystery. Only the name remains the same to trap unwary viewers. The real mystery is why the trustees of Dame Agatha's estate ever allowed this series to be made by disrespectful butchers. Only "A Murder is Announced" retained some faithful semblance of the original novels.

All filmed interpretations have taken some artistic licence with Christie's mysteries over the years, which is perfectly acceptable to most Christie fans, but none except this Marple series (and the Tony Randall ABC effort) have turned them into unrecognisable farces. And that is most definitely not acceptable. In the various episodes of McEwen/Marple we've been offered, by way of change to the originals, everything including different characters, different plots, different victims, different culprits, added murders, etc., etc., etc., and of course inclusions of Jane Marple into stories in which she was never intended to appear.

"Nemesis" is the last episode in which Geraldine McEwan dons the mantle of the elderly yet intrepid needle-clicking sleuth (we may, I think, be thankful for the omission of "A Caribbean Mystery"), and it once again takes Dame Agatha's wonderful original tale apart, and reconstitutes it into one that makes little sense, logic, or reason, adds, deletes, and changes characters, presents new plot lines and a new conclusion.

I can't detrimentally criticise the performances, I would be wrong to do so, but when a drama is billed as being based on an Agatha Christie novel I expect it to be, and expect to see, just that. Not something that is haphazardly jumbled together by an inferior hack.


I'm not one of those persons who believe novels should be adapted to the screen faithfully, word for word.Changes have to be made,we're talking of two different mediums of telling a story.But changes apart, the storyline must remain the same;the characters remain the same,the solution to the crime must be the one devised by the novel's author. That just doesn't happens here. Stephen Churchett decided to be original and destroyed one of the best novels AC ever wrote!!!!To turn the three sisters of the novel into nuns?!!!!!!!!!!!!What the hell was he thinking of?!!!!To make Jason Rafiel a German emigrant and his son a German soldier?!!!!Will somebody please tell me what this changes add to the original story?Please?And I'm just touching the surface here;there was much,much more to be said about this piece of trash TV,but I won't even bother.AC must be turning in her grave,seeing what they're doing to her work,I promise you!If you can get your hands on the Joan Hickson's version of Nemesis,do yourself a favor and watch it instead. This one is a total waste of time! Just one more thing:Joan Hickson is THE definite Marple.She was absolutely perfect in the part,in the same way that David Suchet is perfect as Poirot.That said,I must point out that I actually enjoy Geraldine McEwan as Marple;she's not my favorite,she's not perfect,but she's a wonderful actress and thoroughly enjoyable to watch as the old spinster from St Mary Mead - and her performance is the only reason I'm giving this disaster area 3 stars,and not the 0 it deserves.


I have just watched this adaptation of the Miss Marple book "Nemesis" and am rather lost as to why this telemovie should be called the same.

The only characters in common with the book are Miss Marple (played all wrong by McEwan - again), Raymond West and Jason Rafiel. All of the other characters did not appear in the book. Again, as this series has done so may times in the past, the murderer has been changed and the entire plot of the novel reworked so that even those murdered during the course of the book are changed. The bus driver is portrayed as a sort of maniacal jailer with a mountain climbing fixation.

If you want a proper interpretation of the novel, go for the Joan Hickson version - this one is just plain odd.


Thank goodness this was McEwan's last performance as Miss Marple. Of course Julia MacKenzie won't do much better unless they change the scriptwriters.

As others have noted, the plot of the book goes through not the word processor but the food processor and comes out as an unsavoury mess. It also makes little sense. Why anyone would continue on a coach tour after two deaths is perhaps the greatest mystery in the production - especially as this includes one of the victims' husbands (supposedly so, anyway).

As for the cast staying in a semi-ruined building without electricity and the whole case being entrusted to a detective constable, words fail me.

The acting is OK. Dan Stevens stands out as the German, though his role is stupid. Lee Ingleby, normally excellent, is a let down, especially as his accent wanders up and down the country.


For a series which is rivalling Jacques Cousteau's diving abilities, this one plumbs new depths. It's called Nemesis and it's got a coach in it. That's where the similarities with the novel end. As usual, characters are written in a completely unconvincing manner, nobody reacts naturally to any of the unfolding events and the entire cast seems to be treating the whole affair as if the characters know they are cartoon characters in a cardboard world. Agatha Christie tried to present intriguing puzzles with characters one could believe, and this series delivers on neither front. At least Miss Marple is actually present in the novel which the script-writer may have glimpsed in an airport somewhere - he certainly doesn't appear to have found time to read it.


While I don't mind some deviations from the book, there were too many changes in this one which were unnecessary and reduced the impact of the story.

As always, I enjoyed Geraldine McEwan as Miss Marple but in this movie, the annoying Raymond character actually detracted from many of the scenes Miss Marple was in. I think the writers thought this Raymond would be funny but he was irritating.

Changing the House and Gardens tour into a Mystery Bus Tour was another problem, since I found it hard to believe that these people selected by Mr. Rafiel would willingly remain when they are visiting places connected to their past which they wanted to keep hidden.

When I first read the "sisters" would become nuns, I was open-minded since it could have provided a way of tightening the story. Perhaps the Garden and House tour could stay at the convent and Miss Marple would meet the three sisters there.

But I didn't realize they would stray so far from the story by having Clotilde murder Verity in such a violent fashion and eliminating Clotilde murdering the second girl to pass off as Verity's body. That was Agatha Christie's clever twist, and while I don't mind changes from the source when it made sense, not using the most brilliant part of the story was a bad move and made this movie a weak shell of the book.


I did think this was a poor adaptation of the book by Agatha Christie, and I did think it is one of the weaker Marple adaptations. Honestly, sorry but the Joan Hickson version was much better. There is some very nice period detail and some lovely camera-work and costumes, there is some nice music and the supporting performances from Amanda Burton, George Cole and Richard E.Grant were fine. And you are left asking questions throughout, like a whodunit expects you to. However, the story was a mess, it bears little resemblance to the original story, and most of the plot changes were unnecessary. Also I have never quite been convinced by Geraldine McEwan as Miss Marple, she just isn't my idea of the character. Miss Marple is very clever and very wise, not fussy. That is the main reason why I keep saying see the Joan Hickson versions instead, because Hickson was born for Miss Marple, and her interpretation was the truest to the Marple in the book. The script was quite poor, even for an Agatha Christie adaptation, and I am the only one probably who found the final solution confusing, and there was a lot of overacting going on in some parts. Overall, very disappointing, could have been so much better. 4/10 Bethany Cox


It's fairly enjoyable - if you haven't read the book. The only similarity to the actual book is a few names. The plot is different, the period is different, the characters are different. Why bother adapting the Miss Marple (and it should be MISS Marple and not just plain Marple - that's so very rude) books if the adaptors are just going to change everything about them? Why not just write entirely new mysteries, instead of hanging their own stories onto Agatha Christie characters and book titles? If you want to see Miss Marple:Nemesis, try the far superior Joan Hickson version. This version is not an Agatha Christie mystery.


... ruined nearly every scene in this film; the sound track was just too loud and never seemed to let up. Problem #2 was the fragmented quality of the storytelling; we're constantly skipping backwards and forwards in time and cutting from one set of characters to another with just brief snatches of dialogue, so that no scene has a chance to build and it becomes extremely difficult to follow the complicated story. Problem #3 was the swooping, restlessly moving camera. In some types of films this fluid camera work might add a bit of style; here it simply erased any sense of period atmosphere or charm. A good Miss Marple movie, I'd suggest, ought to be old-fashioned, restrained, even a little stodgy; this new version of "Nemesis" feels too modern and (thanks to the wandering camera and that operatic music) vaguely psychedelic, or at least dreamlike, in style -- leaving this viewer with a bit of a headache. I miss the Marples of Joan Hickson and Margaret Rutherford.


I'm now used to the new Miss Marple. Others have said that they preferred Margaret Rutherford and Joan Hickson, but they all have a place in each new generation of Christie fans. Though the stories now wander from the original plots somewhat, they make for entertaining viewing in their own right. I always imagined Miss Marple to be a wool-knitting, ruddy cheeked slightly frail old lady. Each new Marple gets further away from that notion, but I for one like a new take on an old theme. The flitting back and forth was no more difficult a theme to follow than the books written many years ago. It just takes a bit of imagination. I love the new slant on the 30' and 40's (and even 50's) through the eyes of the writers of the new screenplays. Modern music and camera work give a fresh face to what is a very old TV-play and book. The only sad thing is that no longer could you imagine seeing movies as plays on the stage, something which was very easy with the old rather over-acted melodramas...

Keep up the good work and I for one will be waiting for the next release! I'm sure Agatha is in the great screening room in the sky loving the fact that her stories live on in the changing media of the 21st century - something she could never have dared to think when she wrote her novels....