Jerry Schatzberg (Scarecrow, Panic in Needle Park) can be an attentive director to the mundane and the types of people in urban environments left by the wayside, but he needs something of a really powerful script to work with. For some of its powerful and intriguing and sometimes oddly funny scenes, Street Smart doesn't have a great script. It is mostly conventional, in fact, tailored for Christopher Reeve's pet project (apparently he got to star in this thanks, and/or no thanks, to Superman 4), and it is also tailored for what Reeve can do as a somewhat limited actor. He's a great star in the sense of his presence and charm on camera, but can only be taken so far as to how he can work with other actors, or what he has to work with which is usually not very much. Thankfully, there's one actor that shoots to the moon and outshines everybody by a mile, particularly for this kind of project.

(Reeve's) character Jonathan in Street Smart is a journalist who's down on his luck with stories until he comes up with a sure-fire bet to spring him back: the day in the life of a pimp for New York magazine (yes, New York has done and still does these kind of profiles). At first, he just makes it up with a person named 'Tyrone'. But it turns out his story, which includes details of a murder, fits relatively (or a lot) with Fast Black (Morgan Freeman), a take-no-prisoners thug in the guise of a man of the streets who is a force of evil, but a devilishly charming one at that, turning on a dime from street-savvy pimp to ruthless abuser and, as it turns out, killer. Jonathan thinks it'll be alright despite what was or wasn't in the written piece, and meets with and follows along Fast Black for a day. It soon starts to go further down from here.

Schatzberg does best in capturing this now (thankfully) wiped-away street life and porno district along Times Square and in other parts of New York, going along at times casually- too casually perhaps- in getting this mood down. He also neglects certain things in the story, like the importance of Jonathan's own flaws and fooling around with a prostitute, and some details about him as a TV news reporter. And yet, even with faults in the writing, Schatzberg got one thing incredibly right: casting Freeman as Fast Black. This is a part that could have been played up, maybe even as an exploitation flick, but Freeman takes hold of it and creates his breakthrough film performance (it was shortly after this he got Lean on Me and Driving Miss Daisy). It would be one thing if he hammed it up, but somehow he doesn't; his Fast Black is a lucid, hot-headed, vicious but somehow human villain in Street Smart, and he ends up bringing out the best in Reeve and Kathy Baker and his other co-stars like his prostitutes, including one terrifying scene where one asks to quit.

Years from now, when Freeman likely will get some AFI tribute or something or lifetime achievement on TV, Street Smart might be neglected among his most famous parts but shouldn't be. It's a case of an actor raising material, which is neither spectacular or mediocre but just about alright 80s material, higher than it deserves to be, which is both a credit to him and to Schatzberg for reeling him along just right.


I recently rented this movie and was pleasantly surprised. Good plot and great acting. Morgan Freeman shows how versatile he has always been as an actor. It is no wonder his career has lasted so long. Christipher Reeves should be remembered for this movie along with the hyped Superman exploits. For me it was the first time I had viewed him as a serious actor. The soundtrack featuring Miles Davis is treat to the listener of such things. The action and resulting end are as applicable today as they were when the movie was released. The protected right of journalists is always under fire by the government and has been exploited in other movies as well. But not as realistically as in this movie. Thumbs up!


I just finished watching this film and I'm stunned...stunned. Morgan Freeman's performance was the best acting I have seen in a long time. The passion he put into his character was raw and powerful. It had me going "Wow." The movie was interesting- moments of tension. I did not think Christopher Reeve did a great job of his character- mediocre for cinema. He pulled it off well enough to get me into his character. Maybe his mediocre performance was who the character really was. There is no way of knowing the answer to this question. It could be either, or. Everyone you meet in the real world and in fantasy is not a dramatic, stunning personality. There wouldn't be any room for people's egos! Who says his performance was not true of the character. The character was who Reeve was.

The message of this film is very true. Don't lie. If you do make a mistake, if you lie, admit up front that you have. Otherwise, it's likely your lie will come back times 3. This is a lesson we should all have to learn one day. I hoped this review pleased someone. Take care and have a joyous and peaceful life. Good bye, Chauncey


Freeman gives his most powerful performance here. I've seen almost all of Morgan's films but I think this is his most outstanding performance. Fast Black is one juicy character and Morgan brings life into it. Christopher Reeve, god bless his sole, is a pretty bad actor. I only seen him in his Superman roles, which I wasn't much a fan of. But here his character gets a lot of screen time and Reeve just can't live up to it. He makes the movie boring. Kathy Baker excels in her role. Mimi Rogers does her part well. The film has an amazing storyline here, but screenplay is 50/50. If Morgan had more scenes the movie would have been way better. Yes there are some really strong scenes, but all of them involved Freeman. The direction wasn't great, if this movie was handled by a better director it would of been memorable. Many people probably don't even know about this movie and that's a shame because Freeman's performance must be watched. Freeman's outburst scene where he puts a bottle up to Reeve's face and gives him a 20 second stare is WOW. And not to forget the scissor scene where he threatens to poke Kathy's eye out...MARVELLOUS. What disappoints me the most, regardless of the many flaws in direction, is that Freeman didn't have a last scene in the climax. In a movie where Morgan kept everyone in their seats, the director/screenwriter didn't hook him up with a proper climax scene. I was expecting something huge, but instead the ending was the same old same old. Overall, the movie is OK, but Freeman's performance is great.


Morgan Freeman's performance is the only reason to see this movie. Any life the movie has is supplied by him, and quite frankly, its really boring when he's not on the screen.

Chris Reeve has a story published about a pimp who is a little too close in description to Freeman, so the D.A. wants all his notes about the interviews. Trouble is, Reeve made up the whole thing. He has no access to the man. But he gets close to him anyway, thanks to Kathy Baker's hooker with social skills.

So the D.A. and the courts do not leave Reeve alone, and he soon regrets his own imagination. Freeman commits crimes that put Reeve in jail, because now he has obstructed justice.

Mimi Rogers is seen briefly as Reeve's white bread counterpart. There is a stupid scene between her and the late Rick Aviles in a bar that does not seem to serve any purpose.

Very little happens of significance. I appreciate this movie if it gave Morgan a chance to be in other movies, and of course his Oscar nomination didn't hurt, I am sure.

Movie is beneath him now, though. And me, too. 4/10.


This film had the sad history of being blackballed in the United States due to the incident at Columbine...which is a real shame, because it is a treasure...written and directed by Troy Duffy, Boondocks is set in Boston...it is the story of fraternal twin Irish boys (Connor and Murphy McManus) who work in a meat packing plant...when their friend, Doc, is being stiff armed by the Russian Mafia, the boys and their friends step in to help...and away we go! Two of the most interesting characters in the film are played by veteran actor William Dafoe, and a newcomer to the silver screen, David Della Rocco. Dafoe's character is Paul Smecker, a gay FBI agent specializing in organized crime...Rocco plays an Italian Mafia package boy who is a close friend to the Irish brothers...the central theme of the film is the indifference of good men...Connor and Murphy are not indifferent, and after helping their friend, Doc, the two embark on a crusade to rid the streets of Boston of criminals...with the assistance of their comical and zany friend, Rocco...This film had positive elements on all sides...humor...a moral message...and incredible actors...you will no doubt find yourself repeating the many memorable quotes from the film...I am a woman, and not at all into your typical "shoot 'em up" guy films...this is not another one of those films...it has become an underground "cult" sensation...See it...you will not be disappointed!


Very intelligent action movie, about two Irish brothers who kill 'sinners' to punish them. The movie is a bit different from the typical action movie, as it doesn't have car-chases or explosions. The action consists of stylish shooting sprees. It also has a fairly original idea that is utilized in nearly every action scene in the movie, and that should be used more often in action films; first you see the aftermath, the crime-scene, the police investigating, counting bodies, etc. After/as the police come up with theories to the crime, we see the actual scene, of the brothers punishing criminals. It's a different kind of vigilante movie. It's particularly gory and bloody, but this just makes it all the more realistic. In real life, there is a significant amount of blood when someone is shot in the head. The movie has some Christian subtexts, I think I've heard about five major theories about the whole movie's meaning. This shows, in my opinion, that there was obviously a lot of thought put into the movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who can stand the gore, even if they aren't Christians. 10/10


I know there's a lot of people who either worship this movie or hate it. Truth be told this movie is just a fun action movie with a good plot, great characters, and very good direction. Compare it to whatever you want, but you can do that with any movie out there. If you haven't had the chance to catch this flick, go out and rent it! it's one of those movies that shouldn't be missed. I guarantee that once you see it you'll be quoting it left and right. Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus have amazing chemistry together, and David Del Rocko just adds the comedic relief that makes the trio one thats hard to take your eyes off of.

See the Boondock Saints and get ready to have a good ole celtic time.

(B)


Preliminary remark: the comments refer to a pre-release version that was shown at the "Fantasy Film Festival" in Cologne, Germany, in August 1999.

"Boondock Saints" is a clever, funny, sufficiently violent movie with an overall high entertainment value. The story revolves around two Irish-American brothers and an excentric gay FBI agent (awesome: William Dafoe). The brothers - devout Catholics - who speak several languages fluently and work in a slaughterhouse find themselves equipped with money and weapons and subsequently start their very own crusade against the evil men of Boston - professional killers, mafia bosses and drug dealers. The agent is at their heels from the outset, but he has to realize that justice is on the side of the brothers...

This basic plot is the foundation for a highly energetic narrative: we get excellent and at times highly comic dialogues (with a high F***-word ratio), running gags, and lots of crazy situations and plot developments that are as absurd as they are funny. The action/shooting scenes are well-choreographed with a fine eye for the detail, but it's the main characters, their dialogues and developments around which the movie is develops rather than the action sequences.

On top of this, we get a fractured time/place structure that's already familiar from movies such as Kubrick's "The Killing" or Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs", but "Boondock Saints" takes it to new extremes - and thus it's fun to watch.

Of course, the characters are a bit shallow every now and then and one would love to learn more about their background, but that's only a slight criticism. Overall, and measured by its own intention, "Boondock Saints" is great entertainment. More, it doesn't need to be.


A fourth year film student with a chip on his/her shoulder will probably tell you that this film is simple, uninspired, derivative, gratuitous..... ignore him/her just like you always do and see this genuinely funny movie. It has an inspired performance by Willem Dafoe and enough new ideas to keep you glued. The social commentary should probably be looked at as more of a plot device than intelligent thought, but I found myself watching this movie repeatedly and enjoying it more the second and third time around. This is definitely a naughty pleasure for the movie enthusiast.


I've always enjoyed non-linear storytelling. A number of people seem to have picked up on this aspect of the movie and thus dubbed it similar to Pulp Fiction (though no one mentions Reservoir Dogs) when this movie takes non-linear storytelling to a level beyond where Quentin Tarrantino was ever able to go.

Now, certainly Memento came along afterwards and transformed the entire art of non-linear storytelling. However, Memento uses it to keep the movie watcher guessing until the very end, whereas Boondock Saints puts the pieces on the table, letting you try to put them together, but then will continue handing you pieces until the picture becomes clearer.

Clearly the movie is designed to be over-the-top, both from Williem Dafoe's character to the action sequences themselves. Williem Dafoe makes this movie for me. The plot, which centers on religiously-inspired vigilante justice, has an air of being somewhat cliched, although I would be hard pressed to name another movie which handles it in this matter.

I still fail to see how others consider this movie vacuous and without meaning, when its message about the pitfalls of our current legal system and the need for something that transcends it is quite clear. I thought the ending, in which various people are interviewed about their opinion of the "Saints" and how for some vigilante justice was an incredibly sensitive issue, made this point very clear.


I guess it'll take a while for the effect to where off. I saw the unrated edition of "The Boondock Saints" two days ago and I'm still reeling in from the experience, which is surreal, to tell you the truth. Quite frankly, a movie that is this sharply written, acted, and directed is a true rarity these days. Writer-director Troy Duffy dives into the murkiest depths of the "law," and its apparent futility in modern times, and how it takes two Irish fraternal twin brothers, Conner and Murphy (Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus - both of whom are a little too convincing in their roles), to stir up enough debate about vigilantism to become media heroes. The release of "The Boondock Saints" was sidelined in 1999 because of the Columbine massacre and the plot about Conner and Murphy being on a mission from God draws some eerie parallels to the motives of Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. As the film opens in Boston after St. Patrick's Day, Conner and Murphy get into a bar-room brawl with a couple of Russian toughs and said toughs are discovered the next morning in an alley in piles of their own blood and guts. FBI agent Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe) shows up on the scene to show the local cops a thing or two about criminology and theorizes it was a revenge killing. Soon enough, both injured brothers waltz into the police station and claim self-defense. They're let off after a night in jail (plus experience a cathartic jail-cell baptism) and no charges filed. But soon, more bodies turn up, and Smecker learns that Conner and Murphy (and a third, David Della Rocco) may be the ones behind the mayhem on the streets. Duffy's film is a bloody one (most of the gruesome violence is extended in the unrated special edition), with a cackling screenplay that includes 246 uses of the f-word and assorted Irish-Euro-slang, and has earned a fearsome reputation in recent years and has been embraced as a cult phenomenon. (It's easy to see why, if one is a fan of relentless violence and bloodshed. P.S.: The action is so balletic in its style and excess that it's almost reminiscent of a John Woo picture.) I can't believe I stood away from this movie for so long, darn it! The opening moments don't prepare you for what comes up next and even though the action (which there is quite a bit of and, as stated earlier, is extended in the unrated version) is quite bloody, there's a morbid sense of humor running throughout the carnage and I fell out laughing on more than one occasion during this picture. And still, there is a sense of beauty and tragedy underlying much of the action in "The Boondock Saints," and its ending will certainly leave a bitter taste in the mouths of some. Lastly, I would recommend reading up on as much about the controversy surrounding "The Boondock Saints" as one possibly can; it'll make the experience much more hypnotic.

10/10


This was like finishing one of those paint by number kits and calling it "art". Every character completely contrived and unrealized. Plus the obvious inconsistencies were so annoying. Case in point - one moment the twins can knock off nine mobsters hanging from a rope upside down and the next they can't hit the broadside of a barn in the shootout with Il Duce. Then Il Duce turns out to be daddy! And the way the director condescends to his audience is a joke. Wanna see how all of the dead bodies got to be that way? Wait a minute and I will will show you. Can't come up with any original dialog? No problem. Use the F-word 200+ times. Dreadful.


*A lot of Spoilers*

Almost all of my friends told me to watch this movie. "It's so sick", "Great Movie", "It's so badass", and "It is in a category of it's own"... well, I can honestly say that "The Boondock Saints" was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and had it not been for Willem Dafoe, it would have easily been the worst movie of all time. (A title currently held by both The Exorcist II and The Amityville Horror). This movie is crap, there is no way around it. The cult status it has climbed to is baffling. The fact that many people enjoy this movie is beyond the realm of human comprehension. I cannot understand. It has a lousy story line, and it doesn't gel or make sense. The action is GARBAGE. I don't care what anyone says, it blows. Its cheesy, dull and anticlimactic... Half of the "action" is bad quick-cut scenes zooming in on aftermath, or shots of people shooting up a storm. For some reason people can't seem to shoot each other from ten feet away, and while dangling upside-down in a room full of gangsters, these jerks kept their bearings and shot up the joint, killing almost 10 mobsters (How can they shoot so well? why can't mobsters shoot? what was holding up the rope?). Why were they so smart? why did they pack meat for a living if they could speak multiple languages? How come he didn't die after jumping off a building at least 5 stories high into an alley? What the hell was the writer thinking? The acting, with the exception of Willem Dafoe (why did he have to crossdress? honestly...), was ghastly. The Irish accents were brutal, and the overdone villains were just as horrendous. The whole "we're catholic, but we execute Mobsters" thing was also swill. The prayer being spoken in unison was so lame!! Who writes this crap? The whole symmetric action shots of them lighting cigarettes, praying, shooting, etc. were so corny I was ashamed of myself for watching, and I was hoping nobody would come into the room and watch... I would have been reprimanded for watching such trash. The accents from the "Saints" were like a poor man's Mickey, from "Snatch"...a good movie. This movie is so flawed, so cheesy, and so boring I was shocked after I watched it. Also, another atrocity is that its being compared to Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. How dare someone make that comparison? Those movies are masterpieces, with good actors, excellent dialogue, perfect direction, fitting music (this movie had the worst music I think I've ever heard in a film) and reasonable story lines. This movie was the polar opposite of that. Irish people should be appalled by this... anyone from Boston should be appalled by this... every person on the face of the earth should be appalled by this. What gets me the most is the alienation that people who don't like this movie feel. They become outcasts in the conversation... I Just don't get it... we need more movies like Commando, Terminator, Aliens, Rambo, Cliffhanger, or Predator... hell, even Marked for Death or Cobra (that's right, 1986 Sly Stallone) is better than this. Its a sad day when people think that Matrix movies and this refuse are excellent action films. Shed a tear for a near dead genre. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, unless you want to watch it in order to make a subsequent film look really good. ½ star/ 5. This movie is on par with Jaws 4 and Barb Wire... despicable... May god have mercy on Troy Duffy's soul.


I can't believe people actually take this movie seriously. This has got to be one of the out and out dumbest films I've ever seen, if not ever made. Willem Dafoe prancing about to classical music, unbelievably stupid gunfights, horrible dialogue, Willem Dafoe cross-dressing. This is really a heap of garbage. And I love bad movies. In fact I like watching you're average B-movie trash more than the boring mainstream crap put out by the big studios. But, this movie is incredibly bad. If it was regarded as a "so bad its good" movie, I would praise it up and down. But, to watch it in the context of your friends telling you that it is a legitimate good film makes it one of the worst pieces of junk ever. I seriously can't believe that many of my own friends, who otherwise have good taste, consider this a good film. This is crap, and that's all it is.


I have so many friends who love this movie. I've heard numerous people claim it as one of their favorites. Am I crazy? Am I missing something?... No, I am not crazy. The Boondock Saints is not a movie. Its like a boy band. If it looks like a movie and it sounds like a movie then it must be a movie right? But its not. Its wrong. Its not even an "unwatchably bad" movie like PCU or Mystery Men or Dogma. Its noise. Just noise. It's a nothing. An empty void. To "enjoy" the experience of watching the Boondock Saints is Madness. Astronomically irrelevant like a monkey humping a football unfathomable Madness... and he's making another one.


This intelligent, crafty, dark comedy is a breath of fresh air. Though not completely original, this movie really works. The story centers around 2 Irish brothers (fraternal twins), who wake up while spending the night in a prison cell, and are "chosen" to take out God's vengeance on bad guys.

What develops is an excellent dark comedy/drama that explodes from the first frame till the last. Quick, fast paced camera work and excellent photography helps to move the story along. The action is non-stop and the dialogue, though very "offensive" (alot of the "f" word), is right on target for the setting and mood of the movie.

The showdown at the end is a little less intense then the rest of the movie, but still, nonetheless, works!

The relationship between the two brothers is right on. Flannery and Remmus really do act like 2 brothers (the fighting in the air shaft, hilarious).

One of the main highlights of the movie is the performance given by Willem Dafoe. Diverse, witty, and totally hilarious. He delivers and excellent performance as the FBI agent. He is intelligent, comical, gay, and doesn't want to admit it right off the top, but agrees with what the brothers are doing. He had me laughing throuh the film...and seeing him in Drag...Oh, you just gotta see this movie.

Though some plot points weren't totally developed, (what happened to "F**k Ass?), this movie is still an excellent example of a lower budget movie that really kicks ass, and offers a fast paced, action packed joy ride.

Check this movie out...It is well worth the time. I would like to get the DVD, and watch all the extra's that are on it. I would also like to get my hands on an uncut version.

9 out of 10


Like Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho," "Pulp Fiction" is a great film. This movie is to Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs what "Slumber Party Massacre 2" is to Psycho. It is a sad attempt to remake the whole "cool and tough criminals kill bad guys in a really cool and tough fashion while saying cool and tough one-liners" genre. Unfortunately, it lacks all originality and the script is far from clever. Every character is one-dimensional; the so-called organized criminals are just a bunch of morons who get slaughtered in their hundreds by two meat packers from Southie. Meanwhile, entire scenes are lifted from Pulp Fiction: the cat accidentally being killed (paralleling Marvin's unfortunate fate in Pulp Fiction), the bible quotes before executions, and the constant oh-so-cleverly random conversations that don't come close to stuff Tarantino probably wrote in Grade school. By the way, the acting sucks. Finally, the message that it's good for vigilantes to kill the brainless ethnic stereotypes that pass for mafiosi in this movie (as well as random guys at a strip club; I guess they're criminal scum as well) whenever they feel like it will appeal to armchair suburbanites scared of those big city lowlifes whom they've heard about on the news--it will seem ludicrous to anyone else. Skip this and throw on "Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver"... or practically anything else you can think of.


This is a piece of crap. The only people that would like it are children with no film knowledge. The acting is so bad it's laughable... I mean, Ron Jeremy is in it... enough said.

Don't waste your time... if you want to save yourself time just smear poop on your TV screen... it's much quicker.

The directing isn't that terrible, but the writing and acting are like a student film. actually they are worse than a student film... when i was in film school people actually knew what they were doing. what the hell was Willem Defoe thinking? well... at least he was smart enough not to appear in the sequel.

This movie sucks.


After reading handfuls of good reviews on this site, and then reading many comments that said the bad reviews are wrong, I sought out to purchase this film. Big mistake. The negative reviews are a spot-on match. The acting itself is horrible, and the plot makes no sense. The whole premise of the movie is that these brothers or "saints" are trying to rid the streets of evil. Now it is easy to understand if you kill innocent people, that is wrong, but what about going to a strip club? Is that evil too? I don't want to be judged by two brothers cracked out on a power hungry drunken binge. How does this make sense for all of the fans? I seem to recall one of the commandments that states something like "thou shalt not kill" well then these brothers must have slept through that part of their heavily religious upbringing. I don't know what all these people are thinking that rate the movie so highly, it is awful.


A friend recommended this film to me and so a group of us got together to watch it. Not understanding that Dafoe was gay at first and then realizing in hilarity that he was, I laughed my way through this absurd attempt at a good independent film. The casting of Ron Jeremy in any role in this film immediately diminished any legitimate value it held. I especially like the need for a Ron Jeremy sex scene, (give him something he knows guys, don't let him stretch his characters beyond porn). There are too many horridly overacted Willam Dafoe scenes to recall, and for this reason I figured it was made early in his career. 1999! Less than five years after the English patient (though four, after speed 2) it is so sad to see a good actor acting badly in such a ridiculous film. Willam Dafoe has had a rollercoaster career of inspiring roles and hilarious flops. The sad part is that, (I imagine) Dafoe and the makers of this film thought they were doing something truly important. Save this stuff for film school, and Willem...I'm disappointed.


A friend has been insisting for over a year that I see this movie. I finally shelled out my hard earned money and all I can wonder is why bother? It's quite surprising that this film scored a 7.6 out of 10 with viewers. Director Troy Duffy is a film buff but the quality of this work is lacking. The main problem that I have with this film is the meandering plot. The script wanders aimlessly from one incident to the next without any real plot development. The conventional use of flashbacks and slow motion become rather mundane. After the first 10 minutes of the film I began the elaborate process of matching scenes from the Boondock Saints to other films. I think that director Troy Duffy should really consider the script for his next work and ditch the cinematic pitfalls that plague this film. Character and plot development will go a lot further than the use of the F-word 50 times in one scene. After a while it just becomes tiresome. The film ended with some rather interesting faux documentary interviews with the typical man on the street. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, it was too little too late. If you want to see a film that deals with the same subject matter then rent Leon: The Professional. Don't waste yr time with The Boondock Saints.


this movie was remarkably unintelligent, and a waste of time. all it was was a bunch of guns blasting all over the place, and ppl yelling out the f-word and ranting and raving about who to go kill next... and a gay transvestite cop, who was also an idiot (dafoe). it tries so hard to be all stylish and cool (with the irish brothers always reciting a prayer before they pump rounds into the back of someone's head, amongst other things), but fails miserably... well, okay, i suppose i have seen worse movies, but this one was pretty bad.


Pros: Good visuals; decent soundtrack; good general idea for a movie.

Cons: Utter cr*p for a script; very bad acting overall with only few exceptions; laughable, pathetic characters; illogical, predictable, stupid.

I can't believe action movies can get THIS bad these days. The idiotic excuse-for-a-script serves only two purposes: some excuse for on-screen violence and the use of the f-word as pretty much the only verb the "characters" use in their communication. Is this supposed to be funny or have some "deeper meaning" or something? Compared to the others in the genre -- "Pulp Fiction", "Reservoir Dogs", "Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels", "Natural Born Killers", "Dobermann", "Dogma" -- this one is an unbelievable pile of garbage and a real PAIN to sit through. Do not even bother to rent.

p.s. A Russian mafia boss with a surname of Pavlova? Heck, why didn't they just name him Mary-Ann?


I forced myself to travel far and fork up $5 to see this film on the sole basis that it was shot in Boston (the world's greatest city) and the great story behind the writer/director, Troy Duffy (an ex-New England bartender, he apparently pitched "Boondock" to a producer/patron and the rest is Hollywood history). I'm sorry I made the effort. Tip to Duffy: Tarantino excelled in ripping-off dozens of films by twisting them into new, more exciting cinema - you, on the other hand, have ripped-off Tarantino, "The Professional" and "Things to do in Denver When You're Dead"...and very, very, very badly. I was terribly bored. If I were Troy Duffy, I'd be asking for that bartender job back real quick.


I hate this movie. Not just dislike, but hate. And trust me, this is an exclusive category. A blow-hard named Troy Duffy, who fancied himself to be much more clever than he actually is and whose knowledge of cinema stretched back only roughly ten years, decided to try his hand at a Tarantino-like action flick, except on a smaller scale. Even more pale in comparison than the budget however is the talent involved. Duffy has no skill as a screenwriter or director. For some inexplicable reason, this has gained a huge cult following among undiscriminating teenage boys who are unfamiliar with roughly sixty years of crime cinema. Hopefully the next generation sees this for the crap it is.

Why do I hate this film? Mainly, its the most vapid attempt at aping Tarantino I've seen, and thats saying a lot. Duffy forgets that action isn't what made "Reservoir Dogs" great, but the characters and dialog. Duffy attempts to fashion quirky characters with witty dialog, but doesn't have either the intelligence or cleverness needed. So he loads the film with much violence, which becomes repetitive fast. Secondly, the gay detective character. Willem Dafoe can be amazing, but this is an alarmingly one-note portrayal (he does what he can with the horrible material). It wasn't daring for Duffy to include an non-stereotypical gay character in a mindless action flick, because the character's homosexuality is simply used to shock the audience who didn't see it coming. In my mind, its as offensive as "Boat Trip". Finally, the fan base. If this film didn't have the huge cult following, I'd just simply think this a bad film and nothing more. However, the films mindless fans seem to worship it because they're unfamiliar with the material Duffy blatantly rips off. The film was hyped up as one of the coolest action films ever made, but honestly I don't see much difference between it and the rest of the Steven Segal / Jean-Claude Van Damme direct to video crap. Instead, check out "Overnight", which is a compelling documentary that shows Duffy for the unappealing and moronic individual he is. Or better yet, just watch a Tarantino film instead. Whatever you do, avoid "The Boondock Saints". (1/10)


Quite possibly the most overrated film of all time; maybe even the worst film of all time. Far from the great streetsmart action film that it is praised to be, Boondock Saints is a severely banal and contradictory film that contains poor acting, poor accents and even poorer performances. From the two brothers who are flawed, contradicted and pathetic characters, who are in the movie to tote guns and sport bible lines all to a hip soundtrack and Troy DUffy's pathetically uninteresting vision. THis movie is sacrificed to be what it became- pure Hollywood movie-making; produced only to make money and look entertaining, filled with archetypes where everything leads to something else, with no point and no vision. THe film reaches its sad low-point when Dafoe's uselessly gay character (why? why is he gay?) lets the killers go, because, well, we just don't know. That and the fact that their dad joins in the cause. THe whole movie sums it up; we don't know. And it sucks.


The Boondock Saints is so incredibly bad, I eventually embraced it with a sick fascination, watching as it ripped off so many of my favorite movies ("Oh, I remember that form that Tarantino, Rodriguez, Woo, Ritchie, Stone, Scorcese Movie!"). I almost don't know where to begin, so I'll start with the one scene that I liked. It was between Willem Dafoe and a priest in confessional as Dafoe struggles with his conscience. It was surprisingly well written and well acted and is the only redeeming scene in the whole film, to be honest.

The fact that this movie blatantly steals scenes from other, better movies is not what makes it so bad (but now that I think of it, stealing is one of the crimes that is punishable by death according to the Saints. We should be so lucky). No, what makes Boondock Saints bad is that it does such a poor job of ripping them off. John Woo might consider dying early so he can start spinning in his grave. I can practically see him taking a razor to his own wrist during the laughable shoot-out between the Saints and Billy Connelly (that's right, I said Billy Connelly). Woo might say something like, "What have I wrought? The horror, the horror!" right before his arterial spray covered his big screen television. Another tragic, Boondock Saints related death.

You might find yourself asking certain questions while watching this movie. Fear not, for I have the answers you seek! For example you might say to yourself, how are these guys with so good at killing when they have no experience and their basic attack plans involve standing in the center of rooms surrounded by bad guys with only a handgun in each paw and some cool sunglasses. That's easy - It's obvious that they've seen John Woo films and know that a guy firing two guns at once looks too damn cool to get killed, and because all these scenes are in unnecessary slow motion shots it gives them plenty of time to dodge the bullets. Another question you might ask is why is the Willem Dafoe character gay when it's obvious that writer/director Troy Duffy knows even less about gay people than I do? What a silly question. It's so that Duffy can have ridiculous scenes where Dafoe prances around crime scenes while listening to CDs on his portable disc player as if he were conducting an orchestra instead of gathering evidence. So he can include clever scenes of Dafoe calling his lover a fag because he wants to cuddle and saying something similar to a bartender at a gay bar. See, he's a macho homosexual. He's a rebel. He doesn't play by the rules, and he sure as hell doesn't cuddle. Oh, and we must not forget the scene where Dafoe dresses up as a blond prostitute so he can infiltrate the mob's headquarters. I would have liked to see how this movie played in San Francisco. I can picture men turning to the person next to them and saying, "We don't act like that, do we?" Why do they say a prayer before whacking the bad guys? Don't you know anything? It's because they've seen Pulp Fiction, only Samuel L. Jackson's character was more honest about his motivations for quoting the Bible.

Some random complaints I have - an extremely poor attempt at capturing the randomness, shock and surprise of Vincent Vega and Marvin's "explosive" conversation in the back of Jules' car in Pulp Fiction. A little of Rocko goes a long way, and I felt cheated when he wasn't given a slow, painful death. It would be my guess that Rocko's command of the english language is not the greatest as he seems to only know about fifty words, half of which begin with "F" and end in "K". How did Billy Connelly become such a feared hitman when his method of whacking a guy involves standing in the middle of the street in broad daylight with a bunch of guns under his trench coat and waiting to be seen before firing. This could only seem like an ambush to the Saints, probably thinking, "Why didn't we think of that?" Rocko's extremely old and lame joke that grinds the movie to a dead halt. And the list goes on.

Those wacky Weinstien brothers - when they're not frequenting bars looking for the next Quintin Tarantino or Kevin Smith, they're buying Oscars (I'll never forgive them for robbing Saving Private Ryan of Best Picture). Guys, stick to what you know best. The money spent making this film would have been better spent on the catering budget on the next Scream film. Someone really has to feed Courtney Cox. Apparently lack of food has made her dizzy and she accidentally married David Arquette. Someone get her a Twinkie, STAT! But I digress. This movie is a terrible waste of time. It was recommended to me by some young crack addicts who thought it was the greatest film ever made. But that seems to be the general consensus regarding this film. People love it. So I guess that makes me wrong this time, does it? No, that can't be it. Everyone else is wrong, I'm right. 2/10 stars for this turkey. G'night!


This film serves a great purpose: whenever someone tells me that they love Boondock Saints, I feel justified in ignoring everything else they have to say about cinema. It is the worst movie I have ever seen. The only people that have ever said anything positive about this movie have been highschoolers that don't know anything about cinema.

This movie isn't entertaining to me, but that's a subjective claim. This movie also happens to be completely unoriginal. It's about vigilante justice (70s crime movies anyone? Dirty Harry? French Connection? They all do it better.). It's about Irish-Catholic violence in Boston (even though it came afterwards, Gangs of New York portrays this theme more powerfully). It has characters marked with meaningful tattooes (Belly, Memento). It includes a cross-dressing detective (David Duchovny in Twin Peaks? What was that, 15 years earlier?). It depicts prayers before murder (Godfather Trilogy, Pulp Fiction). This movie was so unremarkable and derivative that I can't even remember more things to criticize.

On a final note, it's just not a cool movie. The things that the filmmakers and the appreciative audiences think are cool are just not. The violence is sluggishly portrayed. The gay detective is just a caricature of an emphatic queen (unlike Gay Perry in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang). The whole movie sucks. There is nothing to like about this that hasn't been done a million times better in other films.


Hopefully no young people will ever see this horribly bad movie. My friends and I could hardly stop laughing throughout this dim-witted movie. This is a movie that appeals to disgusting bottom-feeders. You can tell that the person who wrote it never graduated high school.

The acting is sooo bad. Willem Defoe, listening to music, while walking around the crime scene, at the beginning of the movie, was almost worth seeing this garbage: You will laugh so hard your stomach will hurt. Actually, there's another crime scene investigation, almost as funny as the first: Defoe gets so worked up that he sweats, tears his shirt and fires his gun in the air- AT A CRIME SCENE! My friends and I laughed so hard we were all crying. It was so bad.

Even the action scenes are so ridiculous that people stand in plain view, 15 feet away of each other, shoot for 30 seconds straight and no one gets shot! Also the 'saints/nazis' walk in to a courthouse with guns by throwing the bag that's carrying them over a metal detector! It's so stupid that it's hilarious!

The writing is horrible! You can tell that troy duffy isn't a very intelligent person. He believes...get this (LOL!): that having people go around killing drug dealers, etc, is a good thing! He obviously has never read any books on poverty or crime. As I mentioned earlier, there's a scene where they walk into a courthouse... Well, this movie is so dumb that the 'saints/nazis' kill the accused BEFORE the verdict is even read!! I'm laughing even as I write this!

Ok, on the theme: I'll get serious for a second and say that this movie would be supported by neo-nazis. They'd love the message in this film.

That's one of the main reasons why I think this is one of the worst movies ever made. Don't let anyone tell you that this movie is anything like Pulp Fiction- IT ISN'T.

I'll state again that is movie is FASCIST. It is targeted for bottom-feeding low-lives.


Tries to be as cool as pulp fiction and as funny as dogma.

Fails both.

Does not try to find to a climax... And doesn't find it.

Uses some interesting ideas already dealt with in other movies. I could not find something special or new in this film.

The plot is predictable most of the time. The dialogs are trying to use a lot of bad words, trying to be cool, but are neither cool nor funny.

All in all nothing more than a poor story and mostly poor actors. For me this is one of the worst movies I saw this year and I wonder how it could get that high score on IMDb.


I suppose I can see how so many people could've been hoodwinked into thinking this was a good movie. It just piles a bunch of "cool" imagery and ideas together and flings them onto the screen. "Boondock Saints" is one of the more shallow bits of cinema to cross my path in a while. The twins are fantastic shots when hanging upside down from twisted rope while spinning and wearing ski masks. But line them up in front of one man in broad daylight and they're lucky to escape with their lives. Speaking of shallow cool and that particular gunfight... It looks cool when a man opens his overcoat to reveal a vest with 6 holsters, each containing a badass looking handgun in slow-motion. So while he's constantly running out of bullets and, lightning-quick, whipping out a new gun, the twins have their divine guns that never need to be reloaded. That's one of the main problems with this movie, it can't decide if it's going to be one of those "reload during a gunfight" flicks or a "just keep shooting and never run out of bullets" flicks. Just when you think the movie's going to laugh at itself ("THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT!!!!!!!), it actually shows you that it doesn't get its own joke.

As far as the murky morality goes, it wants to come across as leaving the judgement as to whether the twins are right or wrong to the viewer. But the camera and the script love these Irish rogues a little too much. Lingering on their nakedness, their wicked grins, and their righteousness a little too long.

Willem Dafoe is a great actor and he does his best with the unfortunate script. But behind every great actor is a great director and Dafoe's performance makes me think Duffy was never there to reign in Dafoe's fantastic imagination and energy.

Finally, I can understand the need for Rocco's character; the twins need a spaz around so they look even cooler by comparison. But did the actor have to suck SO MUCH?


Really, watch something else.

I can get down with action films... but this one is just a bit too ~hardcore~ for its own good.

I know, in a film, you're supposed to suspend your disbelief, but when is enough enough? The rooftop jumping, toilet dropping scene is proof enough for this.

If the goal of these two Catholic boys was to destroy those who were considered "bad" in the eyes of God, why did they not kill Willem Dafoe's character, seeing as homosexuality isn't accepted in the eyes of God, especially by the Catholic church?

I'm wondering why Willem Dafoe even entertained this script. Maybe he bought too much junk on eBay and needed some cash. Maybe he just wanted to wear that pretty dress some place. I don't know.

I do know, though, that we now make fun of the guy who loaned it to us.

And he'll never hear the end of it.


This movie was recommended to me by a couple friends. It was vehemently endorsed by other friends. So I rented this movie at their insistence. I no longer wish to speak to these people. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Little to nothing of the plot was believable. The casting was horrible. The acting was worse, and worst of all...

*spoiler*

Willem Defoe dressing up like a woman at the end to help the "saints" could be the worst moment in cinematic history. Any acclaim he has ever received from any other role should be retracted because of his awful portray in this film.

If you haven't seen this movie, don't. If you have, please tell me how best to forget this awful movie experience.


This had to be one of the most unethical movies I've ever seen. The best movies are the ones that make you think about about their message afterward (debate over the premises and conclusion) or the movies that tell their story in a captivating way; Boondock Saints did none of that. It was built up to be just like a Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs but it doesn't come close to those two classics. This movie's underlying message, if universalized, is "anyone who is perceived as bad should be killed in the name of God"; seems to be the same logic that any terrorist would use. It's sick to think that people condone the killing that occurs in this movie. A person may try to argue that any superhero acts in this way but a spiderman, batman, or superman all help people that need it at that time; they also never execute people.


As rare as it is, Disney will have good sequels that will come out and one of those is Return of Jafar, even though this one you can tell the animation isn't as great as the original and Robin Williams skipped out on this one, I still really enjoyed this Disney sequel. I thought it was pretty cool to see how Jafar would get his revenge as a genie, you thought he was a scary villain just as a sorcerer? Imagine him as a genie with all the powers in the world! It's pretty crazy, but I like how they are continuing the story between Aladdin and Jasmine and how Aladdin's life has been since the Sultan has invited him to stay within the castle and to love his daughter. Plus we have the genie, Abu, and the carpet back, how could you not just fall in love with them again? Return of Jafar is a great sequel and has a very good story.

The story opens with a band of robbers arriving in their hideout with their latest spoils. Just as their incompetent leader, Abis Mal, rouses the ire of his men, Aladdin and Abu steal the treasures back and distribute most of it among the poor of Agrabah, with the exception of a jewel flower, which Aladdin intends to give to Jasmine. Upon their arrival, Jasmine announces to Aladdin a surprise which the Sultan intends to reveal at this evening's dinner. Meanwhile, in the desert, Iago manages to dig himself and Jafar's genie lamp out of the sand, into which the Genie had fired them. Jafar orders Iago to release him at once, but Iago, tired of being treated badly by Jafar, throws the lamp into a nearby well. He returns to Agrabah, hoping to convince Aladdin that he had served Jafar only because he had hypnotized him just like the Sultan. He meets Aladdin and insists that he is innocent, but Aladdin is not fooled and tries to capture him. While chasing Iago, Aladdin has a run-in with Abis Mal and some of his men, but is saved by Iago. Now willing to give Iago a fair chance, Aladdin returns with him to the palace, where they are greeted by Genie, who has returned from seeing the world and is glad to be home in Agrabah. That night, the Sultan announces that he wants to make Aladdin his new grand vizier. Trying to draw on the good mood, Aladdin attempts to persuade the Sultan to forgive Iago, but Iago inadvertently ruins the dinner and the Sultan and Jasmine are furious. With Iago's help, though, Jasmine eventually reconciles with Aladdin. Meanwhile, Jafar, by luck, is found by Abis Mal. As Jafar is a genie, he is handicapped by the incompetence of his new "master". Jafar desires to be free so that he can get revenge on Aladdin and rule Agrabah, but needs Mal's co-operation to do this. Once in the palace, Jafar reveals himself to Iago and forces him to play along with his plans. The next day, Aladdin and the Sultan depart to have a discussion at a place suggested by Iago. After they leave, Jafar confronts the Genie and Abu in the Palace gardens and shows his power, imprisoning the pair. When Aladdin thanks Iago, he is ambushed by Abis Mal, and the sulton is captured.

Even though Iago was a great little villain sidekick, I think I liked him better turning on Aladdin's side and seeing him rescue the gang from Jafar was just awesome. Even though the soundtrack isn't as memorable as the first Aladdin, I still loved Iago's song "I'm looking out for me". I'm a little sad that the same cast didn't return, but these voices did just as well and the story still worked. I really did like this sequel, even if others didn't, I think it was just a great way to continue Aladdin's journey with the genie, Jasmine, Abu and the others. Plus it was cool to see Jafar come back and just defend his title against Aladdin and the genie was awesome, you really don't wanna mess with Jafar. Well even if Aladdin did end up winning the day, I think Jafar is still a pretty cool bad dude. I do recommend that if you get the chance to see this movie, take it, it's a fun sequel and I personally enjoyed it.

7/10


Truly a waste of time, money and voice acting; "Return of Jafar" is one of the most banal sequels Disney's dished out.

+ SPOILER ALERT + The story opens with a bunch of thieving morons who want some jeweled flower thingy. But Aladdin (who is suddenly a poor street rat again) stops them.

Then, the main moronic thief escapes from Aladdin and finds Jafar's lamp, sets him free and the "plot" unfolds. If by "plot", you mean, Iago basically deciding if he's a good guy or a bad guy. (Sad "plot", ain't it?) With cheesy half-arsed animation, and dweeby songs, this sequel just is a sappy one hour waste of time. Aladdin and Jasmine are not married in this film, (even though they married at the end of the first movie) and the only really memorable scene is a brief goof, where the Sultan loses his eyebrows for a split second. I truly believe that if poor (late) Mr. Walter Disney had seen this idea, he would've cried.

I give it a 1 out of 10.


"The Return of Jafar" isn't as good as "Aladdin" but, to be fair, it isn't that bad for a Disney sequel either. There are much worst Disney sequels than this, made after this.

"The Return of Jafar" continues the story of the original "Aladdin": now Aladdin and Jasmine are married and live together in the palace, the genie returns from his vacations, Iago escapes from Jafar and becomes a «good guy» and Jafar returns with the help of a new villain (a thief called Abis Mal).

Naturally that this movie isn't as good as the first one, like I said. Why? There are many reasons why. The story is more lame. The artwork looks more poor comparing to the first one (which is more refined and more according to Disney's standards). The humor isn't as funny and classic. The colorful imagination, creativity and magic of the first one are gone. The characters seem somehow to have lost their personality.

Speaking of the characters, let me start by Iago. He has the same general sarcasm and I like the idea that he becomes a «good guy», but let's be frank: he's way funnier in the first one. Jafar is now more annoying and not as humorous as in the first one. Aladdin, Jasmine and the Sultan seem to have lost some of their maturity. The Genie is still funny, but without the colorful imagination and brilliant sense of humor he's got on the first one. The whole movie in general doesn't hold a candle to the original, although it is still entertaining enough. Besides, there is no Robin Williams here, which is a deep lost. It also becomes tiring to see Jafar so many times as a Red Genie. The soundtrack itself is nowhere near as impressing and memorable as on the first one - in fact, none of the songs here really capture our attention and hearts.

Overall, this is not a bad movie. For kids it is just as recommendable and entertaining as the first one, but for older people the first one is, without a doubt, the best choice.


You know, this film actually has excellent animation with loads of potential, but every last strand of it's potential is wasted with the film's awful animation direction. It's Saturday morning cartoon standard; for both animation direction and cinematography.

In some scenes, specifically the one in which Iago gets pinned against the wall with a watermelon, the animation is disturbingly unrealistic and fake. The whole film showcases possibly the least realistic animation I've yet to see in a Disney film.

While the backgrounds are very detailed and expressive, some of the characters, even the main characters look noticeably wonky and off-model in some scenes, As for the humour, it's just plain silly for the most part; silly and childish, which instead of making me laugh, just left me rolling my eyes in contempt. In fact, there's basically nothing until the genie's appearance that seems to even try to be funny.

Most of the music is forgettable at best, and when a song is half right decent, what puts me off about it is that it doesn't sound Indian or Aladdin-esquire at all.

The only thing that stops me from either falling asleep, or turning of the TV screen, is the genie, which this time, is voiced by Dan Castellaneta (Homer Simpson). His voice-work, as an imitation of Williams', isn't particularly great, and I feel it was a bit of a let down, considering how versatile Dan's voice is in real life, and here, he just sounds like a mildly tweaked version of Homer Simpson. But in the end, it really doesn't matter, considering how many other things that absolutely bomb in this film.

This film is worth watching only for Dan's appearance; if you're not a fan of his work, and you are a fan of the original, then seriously, avoid this one if you don't particularly feel like ruining what the first one did to you. This film is only for the Aladdin diehards, and obsessive collectors; everyone else, if you think it might have a chance of living up to the original, think again.

On it's own, this film is awful. In comparison to the stunning original, it's not only terrible, but it's an insult to every thing that made the first film so special. The only way I would, and could ever like this film, is if no-one else on the entire planet liked it. Unfortunately, there are going to be people out there that do, so I see it as nothing more than a bad, pointless sequel that did not need to be made.


Return of Jafar is the sequel to the 1992 animated Disney film Aladdin, which was an animated blockbuster starring Scott Wienger, Robin Williams and Jonathan Freeman.

This sequel is, to put it simple and blunt, an utter disgrace. It basically has a classic "defeated villain wants revenge" plot, where Jafar wants to kill Aladdin as he sealed him in the magic lamp at the end of the first movie.

After looking at the animation, it wouldn't be hard to come to the conclusion that the animators were drunk when they made this awful movie. The colour is too bright and the shading techniques aren't even close to matching up to the original film. Also, the characters have weird, stretched movements, and huge lip animations in areas. Overall, the animation is awful.

The voice cast is the same as the first movie, except for one major difference: Genie. He is no longer voiced by comedy legend Robin Williams but by Dan Castellaneta instead (famous for voicing Homer Simpson in The Simpsons). The guy doesn't do a bad job, but compared to Robin Williams he is just not as funny and doesn't give that exciting spark to the character Genie that made him the funniest character in the 1992 movie.

Overall, this movie is bad. Bad. Very bad. Very, very bad. It's boring, badly animated and shows that Disney just wanted to grab some quick cash. Don't buy this movie if you love the original: it will melt your heart (in a bad way!).


The Return of Jafar was a disappointment to me. Maybe because it followed a great Disney classic. It contained horrible animation. The songs weren't that great. The only upside was the story was good , but not good enough to make this movie a favorite.Also , Robin Willaims was not the voice of the genie which was another downside.

The main plot is Jafar escapes from the lamp and wants revenge on Aladdin , and Iago escapes and becomes good and helps Aladdin defeat Jafar. I don't have a favorite song because I don't like any of them. If you see this in stores , and start to think if you should buy it or not , I say , don't.

4/10


I have given this movie a through examination, and I have determined that, due to the lack of Robin William's voice as the genie, this movie stinks. I like the fact that Iago changes, and he (MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD!!! DO NT READ THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW THE ENDING!!!) ends up destroying Jafar himself.

Iago saves Aladdin's life, and soon, Iago is caught up in the middle of a conspiracy plot by Jafar, who is freed by a thief. The thief, Abis Mal, is the chief of a group of thieves, and isn't very smart. He wastes two wishes right away, and Jafar goes back to Agrabah. He then forces Iago to set a trap for Aladdin. Luckily, Iago is able to stop Jafar, and well, you'll have to watch the movie to find out the rest.

My Score: 3.5/10.


When I was little, I used to like the "Aladdin" trilogy, and Mrs. Rivard's class and I saw those movies, as well as Miss Haynes. "Aladdin: The Return of Jafar" is one of them, preceding with "Aladdin and the King of Thieves". The story is simple: After the ordeal in the Cave of Wonders, the black lamp somehow emerges, and Iago breaks free of the lamp, is tired of Jafar's orders, and dumps the black lamp into the well and sets out for Agrabah, where Aladdin is attacked by Razoul and the guards (again; hey, he had been trying hard to be sultan when something came to mind, didn't he?). Iago keeps Al safe from danger, and is made a slave by the Sultan, Jasmine and Rajah (the tiger, who kind of plays cat-and-mouse with Iago). Anyway, Genie returns from his trip and brings back the laughs (even though he is voiced by Dan Castellaneta, even in "Kingdom Hearts", he is still funny).

Meanwhile, Jafar's black lamp has been found by Abis Mal (Jason Alexander), a thief who had confronted Al and lost. Abis Mal frees Jafar from the lamp and asks him for revenge by disposing of Al and company. Jafar does so by capturing Genie, Abu and Rajah and making Iago his (hopefully temporary) master while Al, Sultan and Carpet are away. Jafar then makes his next move with Abis Mal by capturing the Sultan and Carpet and trying to kill Al but sparing his life. (I also like the way that Al can swim underwater and resurface; at least it's better than drowning in chains in the first "Aladdin" movie. :P) Anyway, Al returns to the palace, only to find that he has been framed for killing the Sultan. At the trial, Al defends his innocence by telling Razoul the truth, but all of a sudden a figure of Jasmine appears with her dad's evidence, convicts Al, and sentences him to die at dawn. She then returns to the palace... only to transform back into Jafar. (After all, he was the one who HAD captured Jasmine and appeared in her disguise.) He then reveals his plan to Al's pals and takes off in Jasmine's disguise. Iago remains behind to guard them as a spy against Jafar, and they tell him he has to do something to save Al, and he tries many attempts to save Genie until he succeeds in the final moment.

Meanwhile, Al is led to execution by decapitation, and finds that "Jasmine" is actually Jafar in disguise before they cover his head with a bag before the sword (kind of like modern times in Iraq-Iran). At the moment that Razoul can strike, a figure in a Superman outfit appears and speedily snatches Al away; sure enough, it's the Superman-Genie! LOL (This is the second time that Al nearly dies, but is then saved by Genie. I wonder, perhaps, if the execution scene may be included in "Kingdom Hearts 2", with lethal injection replacing decapitation.) Anyway, Al's pals are freed, and they settle the score with Jafar once and for all. They get attacked (including Genie, disguised as Aladdin LOL), and just when things get hopeless, Iago grabs Jafar's lamp, and even though he's hurt by Jafar, he lets go of the lamp, which falls into the lava, destroying Jafar for good. Agrabah is safe once again, with Abis Mal hanging on a tree after the end credits, saying, "Does this mean I don't get my third wish?" LOL Overall, with songs that include "I'm Looking Out for Me", "Nothing in the World (Quite Like a Friend)", "Forget About Love", and "Second Rate", I'm giving this a 9 out of 10.


Now come on this is a great movie. I don't know what people mean when they say the acting was bad. Jonathon Freeman, Gilbert Gottfried, Jason Alexander, Dan Castellaneta and even Jim Cummings all did great jobs here. The songs were great. As much as I hate Iago being a "good guy" it was still a great movie. It was nothing like Aladdin but who cares? Not me and nobody should judge it because of Aladdin the first. I didn't care about the animation because it was good enough. You could still tell what was going on. You should all stop complaining and realize that this is a great movie. Some parts were rushed and some parts were pointless but they do make up for it. It was better than The King Of Thieves because the animation gets even worse. The Return Of Jafar is a great movie for all Aladdin fans .


Ever since seeing Aladdin for the first time I wanted to see this movie. Aladdin was (in my opinion) one of the better Disney movies, and Jafar was one of the best villains. I was hoping something would come of his imprisonment, and very much wanted to like this movie.

I tried, but it just didn't happen. I didn't like it.

I acknowledge that it was direct-to-video. Yes, the sound was a pale imitation of the movie soundtrack and seemed to consist of a handful of themes repeated endlessly; yes, the animation was choppy and distracting, and the coloring was nothing approaching the richness of the original. But I wasn't expecting something made for video to be as good as a theater release, and if the richness of the plot and characters of this movie had even approached the original film, I would've been satisfied.

They didn't. The returning characters have been reduced to cardboard cutouts of their original selves, with little charisma or energy (with the exception of Iago, who was still as amusing as ever.) The new characters are just as bland. The script is stilted, and the voice actors overact half the time and underact the other half. This baffles me, since most of them seem to be returning from the original movie, and the acting from that was much better. (And no, Dan Castellaneta isn't Robin Williams. I didn't expect him to be Robin Williams. If you look at his performance without comparing it to Robin William's performance, well, he does just fine.)

The plot, to avoid spoilers, was predictable and full of continuity errors. I honestly think that a villain like Jafar could've thought of a better evil plan, and without involving inept "helpers."

If I had to pick one word to describe this movie it would be mediocre. And it can't even be entirely blamed on its direct-to-video status, since the other Aladdin sequel was much better. It's as if someone just gave up on this one and slapped something together to meet a deadline.

How unfortunate.


This movie is the weakest of the 3 Aladdin movies. This movie is nothing but a pilot for the cartoon that debuted shortly after the release of this video. The fact that it is just a pilot for the TV show is further demonstrated by the fact that it is just over an hour long and that it features one of the show recurring villains(Abis Mal). Aladdin and the King of Thieves is a much better sequel than this one.


This is an excellent movie with cute songs and more good acting and voices. Despite the fact that Robin Williams does not do the voice of the Genie, it is still a cute movie and good to show your children. Also, it teaches some good morals about friendship and love and should not be criticized. Just because it is not a stupid horror movie or some stupid movie like Snowwhite does not mean it is not an excellent movie to most people and children.


I loved Aladdin. I bought Return of Jafar the day it was released on video. I wrapped it and put it under the tree for my 3 year old daughter. I counted the days til we could open it and watch the long awaited sequel. One of the biggest disappointments ever. (for me) Script was dismal, plot was worse. >


It just disappoints me how many bad comments people are making about this movie. Sure, some of the animation is crappy, but hey, try to look on the brighter side of it people! This movie isn't THAT bad! It's actually one of my favorite sequels, and not to mention Disney's very FIRST sequel. It should be treated with more respect, same with Aladdin and the King of Thieves (excellent movie!)


Can I give it zero stars? This just doesn't do it for me, and I don't see why they made it. The plot here is very forced, and has been used countless times--revenge on the good guy. Especially notable is Robin Williams' absence. (Instead, Genie is voiced by somebody from "The Simsons". I mean, come on!) The songs were an insult to Alan Maken and Howard Ashmen's wonderful soundtrack for the first film. And worst of all, the characters seem alien, like I've never known them before! I regret wasting my money back in 1994 for this trash. I would like to dispose of it, but someday I may watch it if I have absolutely nothing else to do. Besides, I regret to say (but it's true) that without this junk I wouldn't own the complete "Aladdin" trilogy. "Aladdin" fans might want to watch it once just to know what happens, but that's pretty much it. Dust off your old copy of the first one and watch it instead. Or watch "Aladdin and the King of Thieves", which was very good and featured an especially impressive return performance by Robin Williams as the Genie.


This sequel is unworthy of Disney legend:

First, the bonuses are a shame: no additional animation and only the choice to see the songs of the movie (what is the "scene selection" for then ?).

Second, the animation is confused: some parts are good, other haven't even the level of the Saturday cartoons!

Third, the story is too boring: if the end is rather enjoyable, it took maybe 40 long minutes to get there!

So, what is left ? Only a good cast of characters: if the movie focuses maybe on the irritating Iago (the movie should have been titled "The Return of Iago!!!"), the gentle Genie is rather funny and Jasmine is one of the most beautiful Disney woman! OK, I feel a bias because my personal path crossed the one of a Arabian girl, and the two are really like twins, in their expressions as well as their charms!

So, I guess I should rather look for the first one, to find more Jasmine (and nostalgia of my friend) & a better story !!!!!


Though Aladdin was a GREAT movie, I think Return of Jafar won my approval over it by .5. I love the tension in the movie and the power. Jafar possesses is like his own ultimatum. There's enough tension in there that you feel like you're being squeezed. It's awesome. And I love Jafar so his 'winning' is like a plus. Abis Mal is so stupid though that there's enough comedy relief too; it's good. And all the characters are already introduced. My favorite part in the movie is when Abis Mal wishes for things that Jafar takes literally (and on purpose, which what makes it so hilarious) and finally Abis Mal realizes he'll never get what he wants until Jafar gets what HE wants. I think it's just a great movie and anyone who liked Aladdin will like it's sequel.


Disney entered the direct-to-video arena for the very first time in 1994 with "The Return of Jafar," the sequel to the 1992 theatrical animated release "Aladdin." In it, we thought in our last movie that Jafar would be gone forever!!!!! But NOOOO, Jafar has returned once again, and he wanted revenge!!!!!

This time, Jafar became an evil genie. This was an awesome film, and I especially liked the ending scene where, as the lamp melted, the Jafar Genie was all flashing like static and stuff!!!!! Now THAT was awesome!!!!!

And so, after that, all went back to normal. I liked this movie; it was fun and exciting, and don't forget: that short, fat bad guy was caught in the tree, wondering why he didn't get his third wish!!!!! LOL

If you liked "Aladdin," then you'll LOVE "The Return of Jafar!!!!!"

10 stars


I'm a big fan of Disney movies. Aladdin is one of my favorites. When I watched Return Of Jafar I had several dislikes The First was How could Disney!!! Robin Williams Is the GENIE to change the character is just wrong. You wouldn't take a beloved character like pee wee Herman and change his voice to Billy Christal. Granted that Pee wee Herman is not a cartoon but its still its just wrong. Yes, Dan Castellaneta Does Excellent with Homer Simpsion in the Simpsions but hes no Robin William when it comes to the gene. I'ts just not the same. 2nd was that this movie is Probably one of the most poorly made Disney movie. When You watch certain parts the color is outside the lines. When Jaffar is the Big red ugly gene you can just see the color come off of him on certain parts. Another opinion of mine is that it seems like you just tried to get this movie done as quick as possible and you didn't care. I Always thought that maybe some guy in the studio might have said well this is a movie just for kids. Hurry up and get this done. They wont care. Well your wrong. We do care and kids are not that stupid. When a child watches a movie for the first time they get this glow and a twinkle in their eyes and they will remember it always. Everything from When and where they watched it, to how good it was, to who they watched it with and what other people thought. If they like the movie then they will tell their kids and it happens all over again. Disney is Family. Disney should take time and pride in their work. The only thing I liked about Return of Jafar is the plot and the music. I really with they could do a recall on this movie but keep in mind that this is just one girls opinion. So rent this movie and post a comment.


This was one of the first Disney sequals... It was one that turned out pretty good, but now Disney is going overboard. The Return Of Jafar was basicly the pilot for the TV show and it started it perfectly. Everyone is back, except for Robin Williams because of some disagreement. The story it pretty good and the songs are ok.

It's great seeing Aladdin, Genie and the rest in action again, because in my opinion, Aladdin (1993), is one of the best Disney films ever to be released.

The only thing I'm mad about is all these other sequals. If Disney is going to make sequals to their films, at least TRY to make them good. The only good Disney sequals I've seen Return Of Jafar, The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride, and Return To Neverland.


I've always wanted to fire a 10 000 tonne cannon at this deplorable film and now I get my chance. Heh heh.

Sequels suck (a word I don't like using, but necessary here). Usually. TROJ a perfect example. Maybe the kids will like it. But I was no older than 14, maybe 15, by the time I saw this and it almost made me sick.

What Disney have in effect done is to ruin all the good work done by Aladdin. What was good about the first one? A lot of things, such as:

1) THE GENIE 2) Jafar 3) The fact that Jafar (and Iago) was defeated without being destroyed 4) Iago was a very suitable henchman for Jafar who was loyal to his master and didn't have an ounce of goodness in him. 5) The other characters, while a bit sugary, were quite believeable.

Just a warning to readers who want to see this movie and want nothing given away: this next bit forcibly reveals a few non-critical plot elements.

So just what has Disney done? They have slammed good points 3-5, overall weakened no.1 and only no.2 enhanced in any way. Even that could have been left alone. I'll keep to point-format and address them one by one. 1) The good thing about the first one was that the genie wasn't over-used. Every time he WAS brought in it was something special. In TROJ, and subsequent 'episodes' spun off from it, he just goes too far and is over-used, removing the novelty of his approach. It ceases to be so spectacular. In other words, you CAN have too much of a good thing... well, most good things. I'm not too critical on this point; even without Robin Williams, the Genie (now played by none other than Homer Simpson) does a creditable job. Just a couple of questions though: The genie's arm-cuffs disappeared when he was freed; why is he wearing them again now? and Why does the genie spend all his time around Aladdin now when he didn't want to be tied down at all? 2) Jafar (same voice) does an excellent job and is the best part of the movie. His genie antics are quite believeable and he steals the show from the (good) Genie and everyone else. But there's a downside - see the next point. 3) Because Jafar wasn't killed off in the first one, they brought him back, and he wasn't so fortunate the second time round, apparently - I didn't see any bones, but if he was still alive, they would have brought him back for subsequent episodes. This was the most sickening part of all, to kill off a worthy villian who was just blossoming. And especially the way they did it, his 'death' seemed to take about 10 minutes. 4) This was the second most sickening thing for me. How could a perfectly able villain, like Iago, turn into a good guy? 'Specially after the first one where he despised 'kissing up to that chump and his chump daughter' which is what he ends up doing. Even when Jafar completely forgives him, and appears to have won him back, Iago, without cause or reason, SETS FREE the genie and is ultimately the one who kills Jafar. Iago in Aladdin 1 would not have done that in an eternity. 5) Disney opted to toy with the remainder of the characters. Aladdin, even though he lives in the palace, still cannot dress respectibly for most of the film and is still chased by Razoul. The other characters, relegated to minor roles, disappoint: Rajah (formerly kittenish) is now savage, Jasmine contrary, the Sultan no longer easy-going, and the carpet badly faded.

Young children who don't understand such things may not mind and instead actually enjoy this film.

When I first saw an ad for this movie, in fact, I thought it was really good that they'd brought Jafar back, but having watched the whole thing, I wished they'd left him in the Cave of Wonders to chill out as planned at the end of the 1st one by the Genie. I'd rather forget this one ever happened. Jafar alone prevents it from getting the worst possible mark. 2/10

PS Disney to an extent redeems itself with a third movie in the series, but it can't begin to account for the damage of this monstrosity.


Quite frankly I was really disappointed with this sequel, I mean the creators must of had a tight budget and sent the drawings off to some rain forest where baboons coloured the pictures in. The animation was terrible compared to the first, it looked cheap tacky and rather rubbish.

This is the ultimate story with the return of a button down spy like psycho stalking room to room armed with an armour lite semi welded staff pumping spell after spell into colleague and co-worker. He was the person the Salton knew for years.... The story is the empire strikes back of all darkness, i love it,

*********Jafar: "The universe is mine to command and CONTROL!!"***********

I mean this guy has serious issues, possibly relating to his childhood. You see thats what you get for not hugging your kids!


If you have seen the original Walt Disney Pictures film, then you might have seen the TV series. Not long after the TV series, they decided to make a straight to video sequel to the film, and they shouldn't have. Aladdin now lives in the palace with Princess Jasmine, and Genie comes back from his journeys or whatever. Unfortunately, they do not know that Jafar and Iago are not finished yet. Iago escapes from the lamp, and Jafar later gets released by the TV series' best villain, Abis Mal. Jafar is now a genie, and plans to use his evil magic to destroy Aladdin and wreak revenge. The only good thing I can say about this is that Genie is voiced by The Simpsons' Homer Simpson, Dan Castellaneta, but personally Robin Williams is much better. A much better third film, King of Thieves followed. Poor!


THE RETURN OF JAFAR, in my opinion, is pure Disney excellence. If you ask me, Jafar (voice of Jonathan Freeman) was even more diabolical than in the predecessor. To me, Aladdin (voice of Scott Weinger) and Princess Jasmine (voice of Linda Larkin) did an excellent job singing together. However, if you ask me, the Genie (voice of Dan Castellaneta) gave the funniest performance of everyone who acted in this film, despite the fact that Robin Williams wasn't in this. I really enjoyed the music, especially "Forget About Love." Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say everyone involved in this film did very well. Now, in conclusion, I highly recommend this film that's Pure Disney excellence to all of you who haven't seen it. You're in for a good time, so go to the video store, rent it or buy it, kick back with a friend, and watch it.


I was one of the mindless individuals mugged into buying the special edition Aladdin box set with 4 DVDs, thinking that this would be a quality buy and that the 2 follow ups to the original movie (Return of Jafar and King of Thieves) would be of somewhat average to good standard. I was wrong.

Since putting on Return of Jafar, I couldn't help but think that this sub-standard-day-time-television-cartoon really was a waste of money to purchase and it's sole purpose of being made was to mug Aladdin fans and kids who love Disney.

- The animation was shoddy, I would say that Rugrats probably put more effort into their animation than this film.

- The plot was just randomly put together. You could see that by one scene where Aladdin is talking to Jasmine and there is a vase with a white tulip and a jeweled flower in it. These items keep disappearing every so often, sometimes showing an empty vase, sometimes one flower, sometimes 2.

- The music was horrible. If you have just watched the original movie and loved the music steer clear of this sequel. I think they paid a couple of monkeys a few bananas to knock together some notes on a keyboard and then they just made up a few words to go along with the song (if you can call it a song).

Anyways, after watching this sequel, I can happily tell everyone to steer right clear of it, because all it will do is depress you.

I voted 2/10


Disney's truly bad side is their habit of churning out cheaply made straight-to-video sequels and spin-offs. And this is no exception to that rule. This short and lifeless offering is an extension to the original Aladdin with the original's charisma and energy sucked right out - the good jokes and interesting moments are almost non-existent in this very obviously hastily put-together film.

The film's most obvious loss is Robin William's genie. Dan Castellaneta does his very best, but he just can't whip up the energy which was so wonderful in the original. He doesn't do motor-mouthed wisecracks and another of his weaknesses is at the heart of the film's biggest downfall: he can't carry off a song.

The songs in The Return of Jafar are basically abysmal. The Genie's song - "There's Nothing in the World (Quite Like a Friend)" - completely pales in comparison to the original film's "Friend Like Me". Also, this time, even Jafar - rather tragically - joins in the singing and dancing and the originally great but now tortuously irritating Iago gets not one but two songs. Both of them are dreadful.

Whilst any of the film's sparse good points are drowned amongst the embarrassing dialogue and plot, the animation is always distracting. That is, because it is hideous! The vivid animation and fluid movement in the original two years previously seems to be a world away from The Return of Jafar's clumsy and simple production. Action sequences, song routines and the Genie's whirlwind magic are limp and the film suffers terribly from jerky movement and screaming continuity errors. One of the saddest results of this is The Return of Jafar's Magic Carpet. The Magic Carpet in Aladdin is its own character, moving with genuine life and comedy. This time round it is reduced to being an inelegant purple rectangle.

4/10


This wasn't a very good movie, to me it was a long episode of the TV series. Only kids will get a kick outta this. The one thing that made this movie bad: No Robin Williams. I give it a 3 out of 10 or ** out of 4 stars.


I am a serious film lover who keeps up with the best new films. I stumbled across To End All Wars when it was shown recently on one of the Starz/Encore channels. At the end, I kept asking myself why I had never heard of it. The film is nowhere to be found in Roger Ebert's reviews or Leonard Maltin's annual guide, and yet I suspect that Ebert, at least, would rate this film very highly.

I like films that are about something that is important, at least to me, and not just pure entertainment. Not that I don't enjoy a good action-adventure film or light comedy from time to time, but most of the time, I prefer to spend my time watching films that make me think and perhaps even ask questions of myself.

To End All Wars is one such film. The Bridge on the River Kwai, which deals with the same historical events, is not, despite its many strong points. In this respect, To End All Wars is the better film, and the one that I am more likely to watch frequently.

Despite its title, the film is not really about war. What it is about is the efforts of a small group of men, and one man in particular, to maintain their faith, their sense of values, and their very sanity under horrible, murderous conditions that would drive most men to insanity or to become murderers themselves.

The film forces me to ask myself whether I could have done the same under those conditions. To be honest, I'm afraid to ask the question because I may not like the answer.

Although the film depicts many horrible things, it is not a depressing film, at least for me. Rather, it's a positive, hopeful film, in the same way that Schindler's List is a positive, hopeful film. If one man, in the case of Schindler, or a small group of men, in the case of the ones in this film, can maintain their sanity, faith, and values in a world that has gone insane, then there is hope for mankind.

As for the references to their Christian faith, it is not laid on with a trowel, as it might be in a lesser film. It is simply there as an important part of their lives. Whether or not we share that faith is beside the point. What is important is that they shared it, and that faith helped them to survive.

Could the director and the writers have made their points even more effectively? Probably. Would I have liked to have known more about the individual characters? Definitely. Would the film have benefited from a larger budget? Possibly.

All of these questions are moot, however. Every film deserves to be judged on its own terms, on the basis of what it is and not what it might have been. Not every film can be another Citizen Kane or Rules of the Game, nor should it be.

Taken on its own merits, To End All Wars is an excellent film that I expect to watch many times and recommend to my family and friends as well. The fact that the film never got proper distribution, at least in the United States, and therefore never got the recognition that it deserves, shows just how shallow and superficial the Hollywood film industry has become. Thankfully it is available on DVD.


In a Japanese POW camp, a Scottish band of soldiers learns about a very different culture - the hard way. They also learn from the more refined and educated among them the meaning of serving each other and their enemies, to the point of self-sacrifice.

The film begins rather slowly (and overly-sentimental) but becomes an incredible story with great acting and characters, powerful philosophy and imagery. Many gripping moments of self-realization, facing reality and appreciation for life and death. The depth of relationships, self-sacrifice and lessons learned leaves the audience with a lot to process. Overall, very inspiring and well-made.


In 'Baseball Bugs' we see Bugs Bunny playing baseball. He alone is one team and he is playing a team called the Gashouse Gorillas. It is a little too much of the same at the beginning but the very funny second part makes up for that. The Looney Tunes short are almost always funny and this one didn't disappoint me.


Belligerent baseball team Gashouse Gorillas are truly a mean bunch. And they have no trouble making 96 points while the other team still has nothing. That is, until Bugs Bunny as the opposing team is playing every position. Then, it's really time to play ball! You'll never forget the final sequence.

"Baseball Bugs" was one of the many classic Looney Tunes cartoons on which Mel Blanc and that whole crowd collaborated. Seeing how great this cartoon is (no to mention how great the other classic Looney Tunes cartoons were), I gotta wonder what it must have been like actually creating the cartoons. They must have really had fun!


The cheapness of this cartoon is evident from the beginning. Much of the animation is clearly recycled. Some of Bugs Bunny's jokes fall flat too but there's still plenty of zany, wackiness surrounding him to make up for it.

The story is this. Bug's baseball team (made up of very old men) is losing to a bunch of brutish, thug-types. He makes them a bet he can beat them all on his own. And, as usual, it's Bugs' wits and brain against the stupid, easily manipulated opponents.

This is also an earlier cartoon too. So Bugs' personality is not as honed and developed as later outings and the design of the character is a bit off. Still funny with lots of laughs tho.


We saw this indie film when it made its commercial debut. The other night it was shown on cable and we decided to take another look. Directed by Robert M. Young, and based on a novel and screen play by Edward Pomerantz, "Caught" is an erotically charged movie.

Joe and Betty feel sorry for the young man who seems to be a drifter and employ him to work in their fish store in New Jersey. Betty, who is obviously a sexually repressed woman, finds in the new man the excitement she is sorely lacking in her marriage. When their son Danny returns from the West Coast, things take a turn as this is a doomed romantic triangle from the start.

Mr. Young, the director has gotten excellent acting all around from the cast. Edward James Olmos is Joe. Maria Conchita Alonso is Betty a woman of a certain age who discovers pleasure with a younger man. Arie Verveen, is Nick the young man who is the object of Betty's passion.

"Caught" is worth a look, as it won't disappoint the viewer who stumbles into it.


"Caught" is a tight, ensemble drama which does something few films can do. It offers solid character development and explores the range of human emotion while telling a story with real depth and fidelity. Perfectly cast and executed, "Caught" peers into the lives of a middle aged couple who own a NYC fish market as a hired man becomes more than just a friend displacing their wayward adult son by day, the work-a-day husband by night, and acts as a catalyst for some compelling situations and performances. An excellent watch for mature audiences into psychodramas sans Tinseltown's usual hype and glitz.


Nick (Aire Verveen), a young Irish starving drifter, is helped by Joe (Edward James Olmos), the owner of a small fish market in New Jersey, and his wife Betty (Maria Conchita Alonso). They feed and bring him home, to work with Joe in the fish market. They also offer lodging for a period in the room of their son Danny (Steven Schub), who moved to Hollywood, looking for success as a performer and actor. Nick is treated like a son, working in the store and learning how to trade and handle with fishes. Pretty soon, he becomes Joe's best friend. Meanwhile, a huge company makes an offer for buying Joe's establishment, but he refuses the offer. Betty seduces Nick and they become lovers. The cuckold Joe trusts in Nick and cannot imagine the affair between Betty and Nick. Betty asks Nick to convince Joe to sell the fish market to improve their lives and Joe decides to accept the offer of US$ 750,000.00. The relationship of Joe's family changes when Danny returns home, with his wife and son. The selfish Danny, full of jealousy and greed, begins a game of intriguing, ending in a very tragic way. This film is the proof that a low-budget movie may work, since supported by a good screenplay and excellent casting. A very credible and cruel story, with an amoral and realistic end, not indicated for romantic viewers. My vote is seven.


This movie had me thinking well after viewing it. I had never heard of 'Caught' until I stumbled on it on late night free to air TV last week. Watched about an hour of it and found it very hard to drag myself off to bed (had to work next day), so I video taped the remainder.

The excellence of this movie can not be understated. Outstanding acting by all which is evident by the fact I liked greatly or disliked intensely the relatively small cast. It is also a realistic slice I think of a battling small business in a big city.

Crux of the story is an outwardly happy married couple who own a fish store, take in a down to earth homeless young man, Nick. From a hearty meal at their home, Nick ingratiates himself with both Joe & Betty and ends up staying with them in their only childs (Danny, a Hollywood hopeful) room. Nick works with Joe at the fish store and gradually becomes like the son taking over the family business.

Everything goes fine until a number of linked incidents take place. Firstly there is a possibility of Joe & Betty getting out of their day to day existence when a developer is interested in their shops location for a sizeable amount of money. Next is the gradual interest of Nick and Betty in each other which ultimately leads to a torrid affair. Finally there is the return of the prodigal son Danny with his wife and young child.

From here, the movie will glue you to your seat. So sit back and take it all in (I have no intention of stating 'enjoy').

If you get a chance to see this underrated movie, invest the time required to view it.


I loved this film because it was absolutely real and totally believable. The character development was awesome and the tensions between the characters could be cut with a knife (sorry, you'll see why!). An emotional rollercoaster from start to finish. Don't miss this one.


This could have been your run of the mill erotic thriller with the tired plot of lonely couple takes in drifter, drifter has affair with woman, etc. However with superb acting by the entire cast, good writing and direction this goes beyond the genre. After Schub appears in the last part, the movie gets even better. Denoument comes fast and furious. I kept expecting it to lapse into cliches, but it never did. I do not understand the last scene with Alonso, but this is a must see sleeper.


I was informed that there is an old Eskimo custom where the guest in an Eskimo couple's home has to sleep with the wife as a sign of gratitude for the hospitality. "Caught" puts Joe and Betty, a Hispanic couple, in the same situation with the exception that Joe neither knows of or allowed for his guest Nick to show that kind of gratitude for the hospitality offered through his servitude at the couple's fish market and home. If a stray is cute enough, a family member will fall in love with it enough to keep it at home.

Joe is much the business traditionalist by his rebuffing of corporate takeover requests pressured on him, but this hurts his marriage, giving his newest and prospective employee a new perspective. He's the son they always wanted to replace the son they wanted to replace, Danny. Betty still gazes at Danny's video past to expect a good future, much as she does for Joe's pastime despite his heart condition. Gazes are what occurs with Nick and Betty that slowly leads to the affair that lifts Betty spirits after Nick coerces Joe into selling the business for a fishing business venture.

Sure enough, Danny returns with a wife and child for a surprise visit. The reality of the new living arrangements, Nick in Danny's old room, pushes Danny to the realization of his replacement. Now, a thorn has been added to the side of Nick, Betty, and Joe. It takes a good deed by Nick against Danny as well as the knowledge of Nick's affair that causes Danny to spiral down, even with part of the money Betty gave to help Danny, which is used against her when Joe gets the news broken to him.

By the end, all four never see their futures. Half die suddenly while the other half die extremely slowly and sadly.

Counting the number of holes in Olmos' face of checking out Alonzo's firm contours and sensuality also helps in viewing this movie but the story is plotted well despite the reality that someone would have beaten the hell out of Danny for his annoying behavior.


A fairly common theme- a young drifter has an affair with a bored older married woman, but somehow special. Very erotic, but not an X movie and tastefully done. Alonso is great, as are Olmos and the newcomer- Vereen. Also has a little bit of comedy. Alonso is very sexy, and also very realistic. You can actually feel what the three leads are feeling. The setting- a fish market is perfect. The characters of the three leads are all sypathetic and likeable. I have watched the movie several times.


Robert M Young likes to do less with more. He's not bad at a sort of pale realism - his movies always feel like they could really happen, as if his scenes are less orchestrated than, well, caught. It's just that the worlds he captures, often in spite of their component elements, aren't very interesting ones. I am rarely compelled to finish one of his movies, and I rarely do. This, though he works all the time with one of the best actors in the business, who is also one of my very favorites: Edward James Olmos.

CAUGHT is a credible, competent, thoroughly boring film composed of really exciting ingredients. Aside from a centerpiece of dueling Oedipal tragedies, it features forbidden love, a suitcase full of money, a mysterious drifter, a murderous stand-up comic, Olmos with a knife in his hand, and Maria Conchita Alonso naked. How could this possibly be less than entertaining?

Well, set it in a fish market, for one thing; then have your mysterious drifter - who turns out to be not only not mysterious but not even very unusual - act the whole movie with a single look on his face. Then make none of the elements matter any more than any of the others, so instead of packed with thrills it's just a tired mess. Stir weakly and serve tepid.


1st watched 12/1/1997 - (Dir-Robert M. Young): Well put-together story of the cost that is paid for sin, more specifically adultery. Excellent acting by all with many unexpected moments.