In the case of this movie, re-making Day of the Dead means stealing the title and some character names.

Its truly awful. There plot is non existent, the acting poor and the characters inconsistent. The zombies look quite good, but are more like rabid humans. This is one of those zombie movies that changes the characteristics of the zombies to suite the scenes. Mostly its just rabid, insane 28 days later type movements. Oh but they can sometimes walk on walls and ceilings (how? why?). Oh and listen to radios and understand what is being said. The Bub character is ridiculously used in the plot. One of the soldiers is infected, turns into a zombie, but they decide to keep him around and drive around with him in the car, because he might be useful. Thats right, they pile into the back seats and he is sat in the middle of them. Zombies throwing themselves at the car, everyone screaming, but the one I am sat next to? No problem! The final scenes are just ridiculous and I felt that at this point they had run out of ideas so they made it up as they went along. One line summed the whole movie up for me. They discovered that one of the scientists who worked on the project that started the virus has now become a zombie and is in the complex they are in. A colleague of his says 'If what you said about them retaining some of what they were is true, then we are so f*cked'.


Dear God what the hell were they thinking? Let's take the final instalment of a trilogy, the first two parts of the trilogy have already been re-made successfully by keeping very close to the originals, and give it a completely different story! Instead of a small unit of military men and scientists trapped in an underground bunker occasionally testing on zombies we have a small town turning into zombies by some weird virus. However as bizarre as the dead coming back to life is it's nothing compared to the dead climbing on ceilings upside down and running about and leaping 20-30 feet in a single bound all done with the brilliance of a "my first cgi kit" seriously the cgi in this film is awful. If you can't do it well then don't do it! the gore is very poor indeed and the casting is incredibly poor with Danny Cannon stopping just short of saying fo'shizzle at the end of every sentence because he's a bad ass gangsta pimp army man. this is nothing short of an abortion of a film and should be ignored by all fans of the genre.


i am one of the most forgiving viewers when it comes to horror, i actually like really bad films. however, when a film tries so hard to be serious, but winds up being one of the most ridiculously awful, messy pieces of garbage ever committed to film, i have to give it 1 star! why?, no WHY? was mena suvari and ring rhames in this? how did that even come about? it defies all belief, just like zombies running up walls and ceilings! the dialogue is a joke. for example (in one scene involving the "friendly zombie" bud.. (anyone who had even seen the original day of the dead (which so happen to be my all time favourite horror film btw!), will know his name was bub! not bud!) anyway...

nick's character: "why is thriller over here not trying to eat us?" pointing at the "friendly zombie" sat next to him in the jeep

mena's character "he's a vegetarian"!!!

OK, that is not even a joke, it's a serious line not played for laughs, as earlier that character told mena he is in fact a vegetarian, and if that was meant as a joke, the direction was SO bad it certainly didn't come across that way. i can honestly say there is not a single redeeming feature with this film, not one. again, not usually my style or place to say, but in this case, i really hope steve minor is never allowed near a film set again. as for the producers. with such turd-shaped gems as creepshow 3, day of the dead 2 and now this piece of garbage under their belts. i hope they come to their senses and realise they should NEVER, EVER attempt to produce a film again. it was like some bad 80s US soap with zombies.. laughable! i'm not gonna waste any more time talking about it. AVOID AVOID AVOID!!! seriously!


OK, how the heck did this even manage to make it to DVD? For anyone reading this who hasn't seen the movie yet, don't waste your money. It's a worthless piece of crap that defiles the reputation of the movie it's supposedly a remake of and the incredible director of that movie. First off, I don't care what anyone says about the cast, they suck. Even Ving Rhames' acting sucked, and he was probably the only high-budget actor they had in the film. Nick Cannon butchered the movie with unnecessary profanity, dimwit humor, and a scene in which he grabs two pump-action shotguns with the purpose of dual-wielding them in combat. The zombies were doing things that is not even possible by humans(such as crawling along a ceiling). The so called special effects were on par with movies released by the sci-fi channel(and that is not saying much). And the ending looks like it was taken from some foreign car advertisement(the characters driving a vehicle in the background and a zombie jumps up out of nowhere, trying to shock the viewers.) The whole plot of the movie seems like it was ripped from the script of Resident Evil and combined with a "few" elements of 28 Days Later. In reality, I have just one question for the producers: What the hell were you thinking when you made this abomination? The only reason I gave this horrible excuse of a movie a 1 rating is because "0" wasn't an option. Pass this one up people, it will only give you a headache later.


This is one of the worst zombie-movies ever made i think. And i've seen many of em. I actually used to respect Steve Miner for his contribution to Lake Placid, Halloween and Friday the 13th 2+3. But this is by fare the most painful thing i've seen from him. Don't't talk bad about Uwe Boll's house of dead if you praise this. It's just as bad. Crappy acting from mediocre actors. And why on earth did Ving Rhames do this film? He's already done a zombie remake. "Dawn of the dead" which is a great film. Zack Snyder the director is of the new age. Miner is outdated in the horror-field. It's the new generation of directors job to make these films now. Look at The hills have eyes. Great film, great director. Look at the sequel. A script from Wes Craven, German director. It stank up the whole industry! It's a shame to say it, but maybe these guys should think about making other stuff? I am a big fan of Craven, but i'm also a big fan of horror. And these old guys aìn't giving it anymore. Day of the dead should have been a first-time director's job. Someone young and hungry for success. Miner is a great TV director. Hss made a lot of good shows. Stick to that.

I can't say how disappointed i was when i saw this. I love the original. Which had great gore. This remake was an embarrassment. cgi gore through the whole thing. If your making a zombie-movie. Make sure you can finance the gore first. That is what those movies are about.

To all. Stay clear of this very low quality film from an outdated director, bad actors and a pathetic production.

Sorry guys...


Calling all zombie fans....

One user has said this is the best zombie film since Planet Terror. Might be right as there has not been another since Planet Terror has there? or at least one with a moderately half decent budget.

Let's take this from the point of view of a what most people will want to know who like zombie films and hail George Romero as the master....is the film any good and how is Day of the Dead re-imagined from the original.

Remember when the DOTD remake came out and most of us all spat at the idea saying what a travesty? I for one thought I was proved vastly wrong. Zack Snyder took the basis of the original and re-interpreted the idea in what turned out to be an excellent film, on it's own merits. Good characters, good story, gore and a decent run time with a very nice budget. Let's not forget that DOTD remake revived mainstream zombie interest! Since then though it's been slightly down hill with some poor further attempts released. Even Land of the Dead wasn't that great (mainly due to studio interference)

So now we have Day of the Dead. Not really a remake of such but more a cash in to get our zombie juices flowing and gain interest. Let's make one thing clear, the only thing this has in common with the original is a few character names and zombies...and a military presence. Nothing further. This film is not a remake or re-interpretation, so don't get your hopes up.

Now, there are a fair few out there who didn't like the idea of running zombies when DOTD remake came out. If you didn't like that then you'll hate this. Not only do the zombies run they:

Jump - leap - run through windows - play dead (??) - drive cars - understand what's being said -(most importantly) THEY CAN CRAWL ON CEILINGS!!

Maybe someone thought this would be a great idea but I have this to say to that person....NO NO NO NO!!!!!

I keep referring to zombies. I find it difficult to see the zombies as 'zombies' though. They are more like crazed maniacs. Think 28 days later (which was not a zombie film people!). Also, remember how in zombie films zombies look how they do because they are rotting or because they have been eaten? Not really the case here. The virus (or whatever) turns people, makes a change at DNA level and makes their faces all strange and horrible looking.

The casting of this film is wrong, everyone is young, apart from Ving Rhames (why did he decide to have any part in this?). The cast don't have much to work with via the non-existent script and hence everything has a slightly diluted and cheap feel to it. There's plenty of gore but I honestly couldn't give a toss because I'd lost interest in the film after 30 minutes and just wanted to watch everyone die.

If you're going to watch this you MUST remember that this is not a remake and not a re-interpretation. This is a cash in, nothing more. It's no wonder the film has been sat on the shelves of the studio for a year now. They shouldn't have bothered releasing it.

In an ideal world, the impatient cash hungry studios would have waited for Zack to finish 300 and then signed him on to the project. I think Universal (or whoever had them) sold the rights on....probably because Zack wasn't available and they knew the movie would be crap.

We can now only hope and pray that George brings us back to where we should be with Diary of the Dead. If not, I fear the zombie revolution has come to an early end....again.


Are you kidding? Dawn of the Dead was such an entertaining flick, by no means an Oscar Winner but certainly a well thought out display of zombie gore and emotional interaction between likable and interesting characters.. Dawn of the Dead even ended well, paving the way for an intense sequel with a spoiler sneak peak of what's to come for the characters at the end of the movie. Day of the Dead is not that sequel.

Day of the Dead is almost laughably terrible. The acting is shallow and boring at best. Yes, Ving Rhames is in this, but somehow the producers managed to make Ving look amateurish and uncomfortable. Not only is Ving not the same character as he was in Dawn of the Dead but then they had the audacity to kill him off with the first thirty minutes and turn him into a pathetic, eye-eating, legless zombie.

The zombies look fake and in no way menacing. The editing is sloppy and choppy and quite frankly, by the end of the movie I was really just hoping to see all of the unintelligent main characters end up zombie feed. The only thing that saved this movie from making me really angry was the fact that I had it recorded it on DVR and I could fast forward through most of it and then have the satisfaction of hitting 'DELETE' when it was over.

Don't waste your time. Try again Steve Miner and Jeffrey Reddick.


In fact I would never waste time to write on such a bad film. But since the director Steve Miner had a place on all horror movie lovers' memory by directing "Friday the 13th" 2 and 3, I want to say a few words. After all those years without shooting a blockbuster, Miner gets a cast which is above average, gets a decent budget, he also gets the name "Day of the Dead" (being a remake of George Romero's original one from 1985). The sorry thing is that he blew this chance. The main reason being that; Romero's original film has been affecting all horror movie makers for years, describing some standards for this genre. Everyone is familiar with this realm. Yet, Miner successfully lacked a single spark of unique interpretation, let alone adding anything original. Result: Nothing will thrill you, unless you are 12...period! Which reminds me my new opinion again: I think less movies should be made. The more they make, the less we care...


A few points to start off. It's Poorly made, has terrible actors,and the plot is virtually nonexistent witch leads to a huge exposition scene at the end.

Now lets talk zombies. The zombies are capable of advanced acrobatics at one point one seems to jump a clear four feet to catch hold of a ventilation cover (there's someone on the other side crawling inside the vent.) While on the subject of the zombies something that actually had me laughing on the floor of my room was a transformation sequence in witch a man in a hospital bed instantaneously turns into a zombie his face rots and his eyes glaze over in about three seconds and before you know it he's eating his wife.

So amongst the vegetarian zombies(No seriously) The zombie out of the Matrix that dodges bullets in a corridor with four people firing at him and the fact that every zombie runs and fires weapons you have no fear of confusing this with the Romero classic, witch is probably the only good thing you can give this film.

Up points. Nice special effects that is literally all I can think of and they are no where near as good as Tom Savini's. I suppose the disk makes for a good coaster if you can't find somewhere to set your drink down, The two out of ten I've given it is extremely generous.


Despite sharing its title with Romero's 1985 cult film "Day of the Dead" this movie has no connection with the old classic. As quite a fan of anything post-apocalyptic and favorably zombie-infested, I decided to give it a go anyway.

In sum everything seems to have gone awry with this movie. The script is full of gaping plot-holes, and if this is not insulting in itself, add poor acting to an emotionally implausible script (e.g. after watching his zombie-mother be splattered by a Humvee one character remains in a rather jolly mood), and painfully cliché stereotypes (the token "gangster" black guy wielding a makeshift bone saw-taped-to-a-broom scythe with ninja-like precision) defying the laws of physics.

My personal favorite is the wall-scaling spider zombies, which move about with superhuman speed... ofc except when attempting a go at our protagonists. Oh yeah, and then there is the gun firing zombies, and the empathic zombie, who happens to be so forcefully in love with the protagonist that he overcomes his zombie-hood, and collaborates with the band of survivors - lets not give too much thought to the point that they've met each other approximately half a day prior to zombie-transformation.

In so many words: this movie is thoroughly retarded


Let's start with an important disclaimer - I'm pretty generous when it comes to scoring a film. I like good films and score accordingly, and I like bad films if they're entertaining enough, and score accordingly.

When it comes to the Day of the Dead remake, my scoring system goes out the window. I normally score movies by the feeling they leave me with. The films I can watch over and over (Secrets and lies, Dawn of the dead remake) I'll score highly. Films like "8mm" or "Random Hearts" that either grossed me out or sent me to sleep will score low. But with this film, I actually had to start at 0 - and add points for things I liked.

So... I gave the film 2 out of 10. Half a point just for featuring Ving Rhames, even if it was to trick people into thinking this was a real sequel to "Dawn of the dead 2004". Half a point for "Bud", the cutest zombie this side of the apocalypse, and a nice little shout out to "Bub" from the original film. I gave one whole point, believe it or not, for AnnaLynne "Drunkface" McCorde. I thought she made a cool zombie killing chick. And it's not coz she's a hot chick either, I'm one of those gay homosexuals, so that had no influence on me.

The majority of the film unfortunately was fairly ridiculous. I don't have a problem with fast moving zombies (as I said I love the Dawn remake, and the 28 Later films)... however the zombies in this film were sped up to Keystone Cops level.

I thought it was silly that the infected people instantly seemed to rot away as soon as the virus zombified them, it just didn't make sense. Also the fact they could seem to defy gravity by crawling on walls and ceilings also detracted from the enjoyment of the film.

Overall, a disappointment. With some luck, George A Romero will return as a zombie upon his death.... and dismember the people responsible for this mess.


I just watched this last night and I couldn't believe what I was watching. Here are some of the major problems I found with it:

1. Zombie infection only affects people randomly. The excuse, the scientist says some people have a natural immunity but once bitten they're infected. We find this out later in the movie.

2. Ving Rhames eating his eyeball made me laugh.

3. A zombie hides under a corpse.

4. A zombie crawls on the ceiling.

5. Mena has no bullets in her gun. When asked why her response is "It's complicated."

6. Nick Cannon can not act.

7. The zombies move weird.

8. Zombies disintegrate when lit on fire.

9. The Mother of Mena and her brother can understand the radio, even though she's a zombie.

10. Zombies use mops and other objects to hit ventilation shaft. Since when can zombies use tools?

11. There is vegetarian zombie that they keep around after.

12. Zombies use machine guns.

13. A zombie climbs a fire escape ladder.

14. Nose bleeds, random nose bleeds, why? See my first point.

I gave this 2 because of the production value and set. Apparently, they could afford costumes, make-up, special effects, CGI, and military vehicles and set locations. But apparently they couldn't get script writing or directing or editing. I hated some of those shaky camera shots.

I liked the locations: Military facility, Hospital, Radio station, etc. Only if Snyder had directed this along with the writers of Dawn of the Dead 2004. (Which rocked), things could have been better. The locations could have worked if they set it back in Milwaukee and had this at the Day of the outbreak or the following day. We could have seen some survivors at Fort Pastor, or the Hospital where Ana worked. They then could have added the radio station and maybe some people trapped in their houses and even some still on the street.

This movie was a disgrace.


Day of the Dead (2008) has finally been released on DVD. After several delays and reshoots, the movie went straight to video after an aborted theatrical release. After the long wait of seeing this movie, I was very disappointed. I was expecting a more faithful remake with plenty of Ving Rhames playing himself. What I got was a retread of 28 days Later and bad acting and directing.

If you're really into zombie movies then you'll like this one but if you're a George A. Romero fan then you might want to pass on this one. Ving Rhames role was cool but I expected a lot more from the rest of the cast.

Not recommended


Beware! This poor excuse for a movie is neither a remake of George A. Romero's Day of the Dead, nor is it a sequel to the decent remake of Dawn of the Dead. Oh sure, people who like it and the director himself will tell you it's a remake of the classic, but not a single speck of the original remains. Instead, it is another "for dumb teens only" horror picture that lacks any real scares, is laden with awful clichés and ultimately fails because it bares the name and thus, seemingly tries to live up to the standards set by the infinitely better "original". The producers saw the opportunity to put a big name on a small (figuratively speaking) movie in efforts to grab some cash and did so without any regard for how it would effect the finished product.

This film is awful, make no mistake - but had it not set people up to see a remake of a classic it may have passed at least as a mildly entertaining failure as opposed to a total waste of time that is offensive to it's own genre. This is where you find the divide amongst IMDb forum users, horror/zombie fans who hate it and regular people who didn't seem to mind it. That being said, one quote from the message boards rings true for everyone, "Enjoy it all you want but this is NOT a good movie."


Literally seconds into the film, it's fairly obvious that this story will bear absolutely NO resemblance to the original "Day of the Dead". So why call it a remake? Well, my friends, that's why the world keeps shunning this film as an excuse to make money rather than a legitimate work of art.

Cons: -The fact that Nick Cannon is alive and steps in front of cameras At least they cut that horrible "It's a bad day to be a zombie." line that nauseated us all in the trailers. (I think it was cut anyway I don't remember hearing it) -Some weak writing and performances.

-Some pretty crappy effects here and there.

-Some absolutely RIDICULOUS missteps in logic. I'm not the kinda guy who looks for things like that just so I can complain, but God damn. Zombies breaking right through windows, then seconds later, being stopped dead in their tracks by another window; zombies jumping at great distances & crawling on the walls and ceilings, but then not being able to reach a few characters peeking through an air duct; zombies' heads exploding because their bodies have caught fire, (WTF???)

-Some absolutely HORRIBLE sound-editing.

-The cliché "No. Don't shoot him. He's my friend." "BUT HE'S A ZOMBIE NOW!" "I don't care. I'll take care of him if I have to, but nobody else is allowed that privilege." Not only is this cliché present, but it's taken a little bit too far

-One of the zombies didn't eat people He was a good guy He retains most of his humanity too. Why? Because he was a vegetarian in life. My response to this idea: No.

-A happy ending... Are you kidding me?

Pros:

-Decapitations. A lot of them. Headshots and car impacts make for some fun as well.

-Mena Suvari's cute.

-Some effects were okay.

-Directing wasn't too bad.

-I actually really liked the cinematography.

-The zombie make-up was decent. I appreciate it because it's elaborate and in such great numbers.

-As with all of the screw-up direct spin-offs of Romero's "Dead" films, (this means all but Savini's "Night and Snider's "Dawn"), they tried to explain the outbreak. Their explanation here was actually decent, in my opinion. However, it shouldn't be there. That's not what George's movies were about. In his films, we didn't need to know how the outbreak started, it was all about how the survivors reacted to it. So I didn't know if I should put this point in the Pros or Cons list If this wasn't a remake of "Day of the Dead", which is what I choose to believe, then it would be a purely good thing.

-But this film's most important Pro: Laughing at every single one of the Cons I've listed.

This would be a mildly decent zombie flick if it weren't for the ending and the "Day of the Dead" name. Watch for mindless fun.

6/10 on it's own. 1/10 as a remake. I'll give it a 4.5/10


Actually, things explode a lot! Much of the film's budget must have gone on explosives, cars explode, buildings explode, everything explodes at some point....

The special effects are pretty well staged for a low-budget,straight to DVD/video but the plot gets a bit lost in all the smoke. And I couldn't help feeling there was a really good story trying hard to get out along the way. I would have preferred the film to concentrate on the characters a bit more rather than just sketching them as one dimensional stereotypes. The film was at it's most interesting when it went into 'conspiracy theory' territory.

Sadly, most action films are judged on their special effects these days and if you want a film with lots of action, albeit it all a bit pointless at times, this will suit you fine.

If there is ever Dark Breed 2, be nice to have more story and less explosions.


Remember Mad Libs? I just know that they have one where you insert the names and they crank out canned dialog that is appropriate to movies like this. Sorry, Richard, but you need to stay on strike as this script is atrocious! The only good thing about this movie is the special effects and the fireworks. There was lots of loud explosions and numerous bullets expended in the making of this film. There were some really neat effects as the parasites took control of the astronauts. The creatures were nifty. That's it, folks.

If your toenails are clipped and you've nothing else to do, it will pass for some excitement. Just don't listen to the crappy clichés throughout. They'll make you groan.


This is an Alien copycat that doesn't have scary monsters and the plot is mixed up. The astronauts inhabited by aliens for some reason are only inhabited part of the time. Why? I don't know and it doesn't matter. You know they are inhabited because they all of a sudden speak in a stupid computerized "scary" voice that isn't scary. The astronauts go places, but it doesn't matter. Then, they rip off the Terminator by having another alien that can kill them. By this time you are extremely bored and don't care. There are, however, lots of explosions. And there is the obligatory "man running away from large explosion just ahead of the leaping flames" scene. Yawn.


Can't believe these actors signed on for this. Guy wearing an Air Force full service uniform shooting a bazooka...I think not. Not to mention the bazooka is a 2-man weapon....Story points are not made clear; e.g., why the possessed astronauts are standing in the middle of the road, waiting for a truck that's hauling a mobile home. Maybe they were just waiting for someone to stop, I don't know. These were good, reputable actors, relegated to a movie that relied on stunts and special effects instead of telling a story. The basic premise is fine, but there's only so far that suspension of belief will go, and this movie requires you to go way beyond it. Could it have been done better? I think so. Use the same actors, get a better writer, and you might have a decent movie.


Four years were necessary by this film's creative team to raise funding adequate for screening the work, with its setting in Montreal, and its essence as a narrative wayward albeit its production characteristics may well offset its storyline weaknesses for some who will view it by video tape. Winner of a record-setting 13 Genie Awards (Canada's "Oscar" equivalent), the film was the directorial début for Jean-Claude Lauzon, who received a standing ovation at Cannes in 1987 after the picture's showing there, the audience obviously of the belief that there were more than enough artistically positive elements within it to counterbalance its patchwork plot. Lauzon directed but two films prior to his death caused by piloting his airplane into the side of a mountain. He once stated of himself "I always need to be in motion", and this trait, in conjunction with a career background in advertising, probably accounts in part for his maintenance of a frenetic pace for this violence weighted affair. As action begins, Marcel (Gilles Maheu) is being stripped of any dignity that he may have possessed by being forcibly sodomized within his prison cell, and soon after we watch him exit from the prison after completing a two year sentence for some type of narcotics violation. Marcel returns to his apartment that he somehow has managed to retain during his absence and is immediately after visited by a pair of dishonest police detectives who demand $200,000 in cash that he "owes" to them and which he apparently has secreted in too cunning a manner for them to uncover. One of the detectives, George (Lorne Brass) is a homosexual steeped in sadism and it is Marcel's determined efforts to keep the hidden money from the duo while fiercely struggling physically against them that comprise about half of a plot line which also focuses upon the young man's endeavour to repair a severed relationship with his dying father (Roger Le Bel). While Marcel's behaviour upon occasion seems to be vacant of sensate purpose, a viewer will be thankful that his girl friend's appearances in the film are brief, and that the bizarre climactic scenes involving father and son are not lengthier. Some of the film's setups must be deemed as intentionally, in addition to symbolically, grotesque, and there are too many instances when both logic and continuity go begging. Endeavours by a viewer to hearken back to any sort of justification for such episodes will be futile. The earnestly diligent cast members work at creating their roles, with Brass being especially effective as an unprincipled policeman. Dialogue is largely Québécois with a sprinkling of English. Subtitles in the latter tongue are for the most part accurate. Although difficulty for viewers to ken a meandering narrative will be a bit of an impediment, the film is not dull. Well past the film's initial release date, the many awards given it for performances by its crew members are completely understandable, as production quality is never less than excellent. However, the general acclaim from Canada and at Cannes might lead one to presume that its competition may have been, at best, somewhat weak.


I saw this film in a Canadian university film history class(where they made us watch lots of Canadian movies you would never pay to see). The teacher told us that this film proves that Canada can make a Hollywood-style cop-action flick.

I can only assume he was joking. This was a convoluted, out-of-touch-with-society mess. It starts out with the main character getting raped by an inmate--then we see him engage in a near pornographic display with a hooker. It becomes down right hokey near the end when

(SPOILER WARNING)

the main character's father suffers a heart attack and is being rushed to the hospital and the young man is chasing after it...Then we have the zoo incident. The father and son decide to go moose hunting so they can experience the good ol days. If this was meant to be a tender scene it sure didnt make me sympathetic to them. They cant find a moose in the city so they go to the Zoo--and decide to shoot an elephant instead. The way the elephant "lies down" was pathetic and fake-looking--and I dont see how shooting a caged animal is going to generate any more sympathy from the audience than if they had gone into the forest to shoot a moose--but that's a Canadian film for you. Strange social customs. I'll take a formula Hollywood cop-buddy flick over this any day.


Through thirteen chapters in this serial The Green Hornet manages to discover and eliminate a number of various criminal enterprises that are plaguing his city. Playing The Green Hornet in this version is a younger and leaner Gordon Jones who was best known for being Mike the Cop on the Abbott and Costello show. Keye Luke plays his sidekick and chauffeur Kato who because of the impending war was changed from Japanese to Korean for this serial.

Not that this serial is all that much better though it is a cut above most of them, but one of the things that struck me was that each chapter stood more on its own than you would normally have. The premise here is that the various rackets are controlled by a city syndicate of twelve and the Green Hornet as himself and in his real identity of Britt Reid, millionaire publisher of a crusading newspaper the Sentinel, systematically exposes each racket in each chapter and eliminates the head through death or imprisonment.

The obvious comparison is to Batman, but The Green Hornet relies a whole lot less on gadgetry than most superheroes. His car, 'the Black Beauty' is really a souped up hotrod, nothing unique about it in any other way. He's not got the variety of gadgets that Batman or most of his other peers seem to have.

He even has a gas gun that shoots small gas pellets and when they hit the target they merely disable. Fran Striker who created The Green Hornet also created the Lone Ranger and the Ranger's creed was always to shoot to wound. Modern technology has given the Green Hornet a weapon that will do nothing else. In fact The Green Hornet is the grand nephew of The Lone Ranger.

A cut above maybe, but The Green Hornet is as dated as all those other serials that the Saturday afternoon kids used to enjoy.


You know, I look at stupid people and I think, "I could never be them... not after experimenting with a massive amount of mind-altering drugs over a long period of time." But after seeing this movie, I was stupid... at least during the drive home.

You know, I could probably come up with a better idea than a floating watermelon with a piece of talking watermelon inside, i.e. The Creator, who has a half man, half drum set person who sings "The Song of Life" every time the talking piece of watermelon wants to bring something back to life, but then again I'm not completely and pointlessly insane. I hope this whole movie was a joke and the real one is somewhere out there waiting for me, the disappointed, scratch that, p-ed off viewer, to watch.

I went into this movie not with any high expectations. I didn't leave feeling disappointed because I wasn't expecting very much. I knew it was going to be crazy and weird and pretty much just insane, which is what I like about the show. But when it's stretched out over an almost 90 minute time period it feels like a 5 year old child with A.D.D. screaming for attention, which is an annoying thing. 15 minutes, I can take that. But 90... no. That is probably what made me think the show was so great, it was 15 minutes of tolerable insanity, short and sweet. But this is just too, too much. Actually, before I went in, I thought wouldn't it be a great idea to smoke pot and then watch it? You know what, it probably would've been, but I'm not retarded. Even though I didn't smoke pot, I still felt like I did about half-way through the blathering non-existent plot, stop and notice the insanity and ask yourself what's going on as you see two people leaving the theater movie.

So the point is: smoke pot. It makes Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters tolerable. Or just watch the show. Or better yet, go home and masturbate to a picture of yourself. Or feed starving children. Either way... don't wind up like me: p-ed off, wishing for his 90 minutes back, spending an additional 20 minutes writing a review about just how p-ed off you are and then posting it for everyone to see and having the people who weren't p-ed off at the movie, in turn, p-ed off at you.


Let me first say that I have a huge fan of the Television series. I have seen every episode at least five times and some of the better ones near twenty times. The show jumped the shark after their greatest episode, Space Gate World aka Carl. They followed it up with the Boost Mobile episode and it hasn't been the same since. If you like these later episodes, there is a chance that you will enjoy the movie. I was hoping that these episodes were churned out because they were using all the good jokes in the movie. Boy, was I wrong. The film is a regurgitation of the series, except the jokes aren't funny. Maybe if I wasn't a fanatic of the show, the jokes would have been funny, but there wasn't anything new to see. Oh how could I forget about hearing your favorite characters belt out expletives. I could go on and on about why this movie should have been different, but I will tell you the biggest disaster. The Cybernetic Ghost of Christmas Past From the Future, the most annoying character of the series has a huge role in the film. Minus one flashback of young Carl at Christmas and his experience with carpet, I hate the episodes that feature him. The same boring ramblings in the TV show now occur even more in the movie.

Ever since I heard about a feature film coming out three years ago, I couldn't wait for this day to come. It was without a doubt the most disappointing movie experience I've had to date. I had faith in you Dave Willis and Matt Maiellaro and you let me down. IN A BIG WAY!


I can't even begin to describe how truly bad this thing was.

I've seen most of the 15 minute episodes on Adult Swim, so I had an idea of what to expect. I've even found some of the shorts on AS to be funny.

This thing, however, appeared to have been thrown together by a bunch of Delta House rejects after a night of waaaay too much tequila. I think I may have finally found a candidate to unseat 'Plan 9 from Outer Space' as the worst movie EVER created. If a friend offers to loan you a copy of the 'ATHF Colon Movie', accept it, then punch them in the face and burn the DVD.

Is there any way to give it 0 out of 10 stars?


Let me first say I am not a fan of this show. I can find some humor in the show, but it's brought down by the fact that nothing makes sense ever at all. ATHF can barely sustain a 12-minute show. This movie lasted about 80 minutes, which was just too long for anyone to stand. In this film, Frylock wonders who his father and mother were, while a giant exercise machine takes over the town and makes Carl, the idiot human neighbor, buff. There's no real plot here, and often any plot will purposely be sidetracked to include characters from the show that have the fans screaming for more and everyone else (if anyone else saw this) wondering what exactly just happened. The ending to the film is the part that made the least sense, and perhaps if they would have tried harder to come out with a better ending then I would have been happier, but they didn't. They tried to make the ending as stupid and as anti-climactic as could be. The only thing that I really enjoyed was the occasional funny dialogue sprinkled among the poorly animated frenzy. So, in summation, the only people who will want to check this out are fans of the show, and people who enjoy singing concession stand commercials and talking watermelons.

My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 81 mins. Rated R for some language, violence and some sexual humor.


Actually...I still do. Let me preface this comment by stating that I have seen every episode of the show numerous times and own all the DVDs.

But this movie...goddamn, I felt like shooting myself about 20 minutes through, but had to sit through another hour. It felt like a dragged out, terrible episode of the show, with about 10 minutes total of funny things.

The only really funny part was the beginning, I thought.

In the end, I still love the show. But honestly, this movie was crap, and I'm pretty sure it was just made by Matt and Dave to see how much random crap they could pull and still get your 10 bucks (the most genius part of the film).


There's probably no point in trying to describe "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie" to anyone who hasn't already seen it or who is unfamiliar with the TV series on which it is based. Suffice it to say, the story centers on the highly surrealistic adventures of three anthropomorphized animated characters: a milkshake, a meatball and a floating order of fries who try to save the world from an assortment of villains bent on its destruction. I kid you not.

If creativity alone made for a quality film, "ATHFCM " would be a masterpiece. As it is, however, the film feels like something somebody came up with while tripping out on some really bad LSD. And indeed if one were actually ON acid while watching it, the movie might possibly be funny. Stone-cold sober, however, one can only sit in poker-faced silence marveling at the fact that there must actually be an audience somewhere out there for this thing. With its bawdy humor, foul-mouthed language and (sometimes admirable) political incorrectness, it clearly isn't intended for young children (parents beware). In fact, its post-modern detachment and minimalist animation (as well as the title) suggest that its target audience is young adolescents feeling their first stirrings of rebellion and puberty, a time when even the most commonplace, unsophisticated vulgarity can seem forbidden, hilarious and daring.

The movie borrows much of its style from animated hits like "The Simpsons," "Beavis and Butthead," and "South Park," the only difference being that those works are actually funny while this is not. One word of advice: if you do plan on watching this, make sure to do so with the subtitles turned on. That is the only way to get all of the dialogue which, thanks to the intense mumbling of the characters, is about 50% incomprehensible otherwise. On second thought, given the quality of the writing, missing half of what is being said may not be such a bad thing after all.


I do not know what other comments on this page are talking about, but it cannot be the same film upon which I just wasted $20. I went to Blockbuster to pick this "jewel" of entertainment up, and I should have been warned by the fact that they only received a single copy for renting, whereas other, even C-grade cinema, often get an entire wall.

I love Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The show makes me laugh. The creators left their funny in the show though, it seems. There's more comedy in 30 seconds of the show than in this entire film. Wait for the bargain bin if you just have to buy it..trust me.

I have yet to watch the extra "80 minutes" on disc 2. I hope the funny is hidden there. :( It certainly wasn't on the first disc.


I first saw "Ceremony" after my friend and I rented it at Blockbuster. We were looking for a good movie to get and were torn between "Something About Mary" and "Ceremony". Now "Ceremony" had a very cool cover (gothic lettering, big ol' demon on the front), so we naturally assumed that it was an awseome flick, which led to us renting it. I wish we got "Something About Mary". After the first 10 minutes of this snorefest we were about ready to throw the VCR out the window. I won't spoil the ending, because I was too confused by the uneven plot to know what happened (I also stopped paying attention mid-way through. Maybe that's why). To sum up, A very slow-moving film with bad acting, bad dialouge, and something that looks like grape jelly being used for blood; that is "Ceremony". So if you are considering seeing this movie, beware! It is not what you expect. They say, "Don't judge a book by its cover," and for "Ceremony", it's true (except it's a movie, not a book).


I get it the Diehl character is s'posed to be a microcosm of America itself - seeing Arab terrorists under every rock, only to find out at the end that it's his own actions all along that got him into that siege state and truly if he practices good-will to all men everything will be rainbows and lollipops. Sorry Wim you have made amazing movies in the past that stay neutral of the politics and for good reason, polemics are your weak point and they weaken this a well-made, amazingly filmed movie with absurd characters, dialog and plotting. Better luck on your next flick. Another thing that yanked my crank was the belabored point of the homeless section of LA being there for reasons of hunger, these people don't get enough to eat. Truly these folks aren't eating regally but the real hunger these folks is a spiritual hunger, an emotional hunger, a mental hunger. They need self-respect, self-worth, dignity which you can't give a man. Yeah those folks are hungry and if they need it it is available. Less the center for hunger in America, I would say it's more the center for alcoholism, drug-abuse, mental suffering and economic devastation. Dealing with hunger although a noble endeavor is band-aiding a more profoundly systematic societal and age-old human problem of homelessness. Bill Diehl was good though and Michelle Williams was cute as the young yet (cliched) old soul.


Watching "Der himmel über Berlin" as a teen in the late 80's was a profound experience for me - "so this was what the movies could be". Along with "Paris, Texas" and "Until the End of the World" it still holds a special place in my heart and mind - a testament to the genius of Wim Wenders.

Unfortunately later years has seen a steady decline in the quality of his work with "Million Dollar Hotel" and "Land of Plenty" hitting a terrible low point. Gone are the captivating pictures or music. No search for or display of great insight. All that is left are characters and thinly veiled political statements, that boils down to nothing but clichés, and quite frankly mock the intelligence of a mature audience.

Has the well run dry? Whatever the reason, it's time for Mr. Wenders to either step it up or stop altogether.


With a tendency to repeat himself, Wenders has been a consistent disappointment ever since he hit it big with 'Paris Texas'.

'Land of plenty' is no exception. Taking into the fact that I anticipated an average-mediocre film even before I went in, Wenders' ambitions seem to always get the better of him. It's taken for grated now his films are heavy-handed and bombastic.

I weren't sure if I was watching a comedy that mocks Middle America or some thriller. The outcome of Diehl's character is wholly predicable. Wender's insistence on layering many many scenes with some rock song is also intensely annoying. He was covering up the holes in his script and direction by jazzing up the scenes.

I am certain that many people will find this film important and resonant but in all honestly, this clumsy and didactic effort only speaks of poor direction.

Interesting that Wenders professed that while making 'Paris Texas', he had great help from Sam Sheppard with the script. Yes, that was Wenders' best and he should understand now he needs a good scriptwriter. His films from the past 15 years+ were a total mess.


The End of Violence and certainly the Million Dollar hotel hinted at the idea the Wenders has lost his vision, his ability to tell compelling stories through a map of the moving picture. The Land of Plenty seals the coffin, I'm afraid, by being a vastly unimaginative, obviously sentimental and cliché'd film. The characters are entirely flat and stereotyped, the writing, plot and direction are amateurish, at best. For the first time in quite a while, I was impatient for the film to end so I could get on with my life. The war-torn delirium of the uncle, the patriotic abstract gazing at the sky at the conclusion...it all just struck me as being so simple and pathetic, hardly the work of a filmmaker who once made some compelling magic on screen. What happened? The days of experimentation, perceptive writing and interesting filming possibilities are long behind him, I'm afraid. Let's hope he finds his inspiration again... At the Toronto film festival, which is where I saw the film, Wenders was there to introduce it. Completely lacking in humility, he offered us the following: "I hope...no, wait...I KNOW you're going to enjoy the next two hours." I'm afraid he couldn't be more wrong...


Wenders was great with Million $ Hotel.I don't know how he came up with this film! The idea of giving the situation after spt11 and the view of American Society is hopeful,that makes it 2 out of ten.But this is not a movie.Is that the best someone can do with a great idea(the west-east clash).There are important things going on in middle east and it is just issued on the screen of a MAC* with the fingers of an Amerian girl who is actually at the level of stupidity(because she is just ignorant about the facts).The characters are not well shaped.And the most important thing is the idea that is given with religion is somehow funny to me.At the ending scene Lana says lets just be quiet and try to listen.And the background music says "...I will pray".The thing is not about religion actually.But it ends up with this.How you are gonna see the truth if you just close your eyes and pray.The lights are already shining on the truth.Its just that nobody wants to see it. ps: "My home is not a place.It is people"The only thing that gets 10 out of 10 is that sentence.But it is wasted behind this film making. (by the way; as "someone" mentioned below ,Americas finest young man are not finest,they are just the "poor" and the "hopeless" ones who sign up for the army in need of good paychecks which is not provided by the government ! )


The hysterical thing about this movie is that, according to the director, it has difficulty finding a distributor in the U.S. because most of them that viewed it couldn't reconcile the seemingly conflicting messages of Christianity and American angst. The thought of anyone seeing this as a religious film in anyway is laughable.

Because a minister at a mission prays with the homeless or wishes someone "Godspeed" this makes it a "Christian" movie? One could interpret that it is actually mocking religion for in the "Land of Plenty" with all of its material excess, the best an organized mission can do is hand out a bowl of soup and a bible verse. Plenty of unfortunate or downtrodden maybe? Plenty of useless homeless missions? How about plenty of psycho Vietnam vets? As a pill-popping delusional survivor of agent "pink" are we to think America is a "Land of Plenty" of paranoid patriots? Maybe we have plenty of psychiatric patients? Certainly we don't have plenty of people concerned about Palestine politics based on the main characters phone conversation in the film. Of course if you worked in a German homeless shelter the unfortunate there would be much more concerned about peace in a distant land than their own personal survival as the world knows how Europe is the "Continent of Plenty" when it comes to sophistication.

Indeed I agreed with the title in the end as the United States is the "Land of Plenty" and in this particular case it refers to the abundance of poor scripts, amateur acting and dispassionately directed films. Life is too short and one, even an American, doesn't have "plenty" of time to waste watching this piece.


"Land of Plenty" is not a film. It is a tombstone for the directorial career of German Director Wim Wenders.

Many felt it in "The Million Dollar Hotel" and now "Land of Plenty" makes it perfectly clear; not only has Wenders lost it, he's actually turned into a BAD director, creating horribly weak and superficial stories and scenes.

One might argue that the "time you lose it" comes for every director, but Wenders' case is extreme. It's as if he completely forget everything he knew about cinema and started all over again - only to get sloppish results.

In a few words, this film does not deserve your time.


How wonderful. Yet another movie about America by someone who has visited here probably a half dozen times, a day a piece, and believes himself to be an "expert" on the country. Sheesh. I should take a trip to Germany for a week and then come back and make a movie about Germany as the "land of Nazis" or some such. Wim IL boy, you should get together with Lars von Trier and make the ULTIMATE movie about the Americans. Of course we all know it takes a pretentious left-leaning "we are the world" European to make a "real" movie about America.

Yeah, right. For a continent that started not one but TWO world wars, Europe sure has a lot of opinions about America's wrong "foreign policy".

P.S. Don't worry, Wim IL boy, there's plenty of UC-Berkeley Americans that'll just love your movie. Of course, these are the same people who thinks George W. Bush is worst than Hitler, and that a painting of a can of soup is "sheer genius"!!


Advertised as a wacky marital sex romp (with allusions to wife-swapping), this Erich Segal script surprises by being a mostly sobering look at a marriage between two middle-agers (Shirley MacLaine and Anthony Hopkins) which has faltered and can't really be rectified. Released alongside a spate of similar middle-age-crazy comedy-dramas (including MacLaine's "Loving Couples", which she made back-to-back with "Seasons"), this one has the added appeal of seeing serious-minded Hopkins romancing Bo Derek (fresh off her triumph in "10" and usually out of her clothes). The writing is often achingly 'cute', with hardly a wink to the audience to let us know co-writer Segal is in on the joke, but the more thoughtful moments (which are integrated unobtrusively by director Richard Lang) offer some insight into what breaks up a marital union, and both MacLaine and Hopkins have strong scenes. ** from ****


A middle-aged husband (Anthony Hopkins) falls for a beautiful young woman (Bo Derek). His wife (Shirley MacLaine) starts her own affair in retaliation.

I caught this in a theatre in Massachusetts in 1980. It was filmed on location around there and I was curious to see how the state looked on the big screen. There was a bit of controversy while the film was being shot here--Hopkins HATED working with Derek because she refused to rehearse. He threatened to quit more than once. After seeing the film I wish he had quit! The script is by the numbers and not even remotely funny (this was supposed to be a romantic comedy). MacLaine and Hopkins do their best with the material but not even their considerable acting talents can save this. Every single event was predictable and boring. Also Derek's complete lack of acting talent is almost painful to watch. I don't care how beautiful she is--the woman just can't act! Hopkins hatred for her comes through loud and clear.

This did nothing for the stars careers. Derek already had "10" out and Hopkins had "The Elephant Man" but MacLaine did this and another dreadful "comedy" called "Loving Couples" at the same time. She did point out in her book that they were both awful and almost ruined her career. Good thing she did "Terms of Endearment" a few years later.

I had blocked this movie out completely but I saw a bit of it on TV recently and all the bad memories came rolling back. Also if you're just watching this to see Derek nude it happens during the opening credits and that's about it. A really bad film--1 all the way.


This is the most pointless, tedious, unbelievably dull and ridiculous film that I have ever seen. The most annoying thing is the fact that you can still tell Anthony Hopkins is a good actor!! It's so bad that I have ran out of things to say and must simply fill the space............


How can two future Oscar winners star in a movie and have zero chemistry? Try a hackneyed plot, pedestrian direction with self-important pretentious, a grandiose score, and pointless dialogue. The cinematography is excellent, though, and the supporting cast, especially TV-veteran Edward Winter (best performance in film) is surprisingly robust, considering the material (EXCEPT Bo Derek, or course, whose notoriety from 10 is one of the reasons this was rushed to the big screen prematurely.


A really bad little film from Cameroon, one of the sloppiest I've ever seen. The plot concerns a teenage girl who wants to be a man. A witch changes her, and then he spends the rest of the movie trying to get laid. It's riddled with many annoying penis jokes. The script doesn't even remember that the guy used to be a girl. It's as poorly edited as I've ever seen, and every decent part of it is ripped off from Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing. 3/10.


I sat through a screening of this move at the Tribeca Film Festival for two reasons: Amy Sedaris and Judah Friedlander. Sedaris, sadly, has only one scene to steal. She succeeds. Friedlander, on the other hand, has a leading role and gives a fine performance, but my serious qualms with the story and other characters prevented me from really enjoying it.

Full Grown Men tells the story of Alby Cutrera, a man who somehow married, fathered a son, and reached his thirties without giving up the posturing, tastes, and accouterments of a ten-year-old. How Alby provides for his family, or what exactly his wife saw in him before she kicks him out in the opening scene is never dealt with. What we do know is that Alby is entirely unlikable. His vexatious antics drive the story as he flees his family and coerces his boyhood buddy, Elias (Friedlander), into taking him to Diggityland, the Wallyworld of Florida. We soon learn that Alby was bossy and cruel to Elias when they were children, and his pre-adolescent ribbing continues as they attempt to get acquainted as adults. Elias finally grows tired of the childishness (though not soon enough for me), and Alby finds himself hitchhiking through Florida in one of the most strained, toilsome road movies I've ever seen. Throughout this pointless journey he meets a string of wacky characters (of which Sedaris is one) who are obliged by cliché to push him a few minutes closer to the end of the movie. Eventually, he gets a greatly deserved butt-kicking by a group of midgets (one of the many feeble attempts at getting a laugh), and he still doesn't get the point: nobody likes you, Alby, you need to grow up. In the end we know he's been transformed because he draws a life-like sketch of a handicapped child instead of doodling one of his refrigerator-art comics about how he longs to be a kid again. Then in the final shot, riding a bus home to his family, Alby gives us one last asinine grin before blowing a great, big bubble, presumably from his pouch of big league chew. Oh, Alby, will you ever be a full grown man? Who cares?


I picked up this movie channel surfing the other night and expected it to last until 2am. Much to my personal regret, it went past 3am, and I want my time back.

I caught it from around the beginning and thought it was a Japanese movie somehow on the foreign movie channel - Japanese actors, Japanese dialog (even though the lead still had a bit of an accent). Watching this movie as someone who lives in Tokyo, it was interesting visually to see the Korean take on a "Japanese City" and "Japanese Police" (the "JBI" - gotta love it). I really love the visual style of Korean movies and videos, and have enjoyed more than a few Korean movies (and I have to say, Japan produces a fair too many clunker movies, Korea has a better strike rate).

I'll give the movie credit for being intriguing (you get hooked in wondering "what is this") and even giving an interesting story. Setting aside wetting my pants at the Japanese stereotypes that come through (nationalistic, cold, emotionless, particularly enjoyed his partner wearing kimono on his time off, having a huge house with a rock garden, and a subservient wife who bows and doesn't talk back - oh I WISH!), I was rather looking forward to the stylized action sequences.

This is where I was let down. Now pardon me if I'm wrong, but Mr. Hero is standing here in front of 6 masked bad guys letting off a hail of Uzi fire, yet he seems to find 5 minutes to drop his gun and tearfully look at children/ friends/ loved ones falling over in slow motion as violin music cuts in over the background.

Honestly, can one person here who liked this movie honestly say they actually forgot that the guy is surrounded by guys with machine guns and was pulled into any kind of emotion by the violin music? The nationalism bugged me (just as it would for a Japanese movie) but I know this is the Korean style, so it didn't bother me too much. But honestly, unless you are a hardcore fan of Korean cinema style, I wouldn't bother with this - there are much better examples out there.


Science Fiction is my favorite genre! I view each, and every, film with an open mind. There's a lot going on here about Korean hatred of Japan, which is based on historical events. The story's premise is interesting: Japan sides with us in World War 2 and The Bomb is dropped on Germany, instead. As a result, Korea then permanently becomes a part of Japan. This is similar to what the American government once did to Hawaii.

Yes, we Americans really did overthrow the legitmate government of the Hawaiian nation, in 1898, at the point of a gun, for both economic and military reasons. (A literal example of Gunboat Diplomacy!) Too bad some filmmaker doesn't do a "time machine" movie about freeing Hawaii! But I digress - this could have been a great movie with such an original premise! Alas, it was not to be!

Instead, the constant, and graphic showing of heads being blown off makes this a terrorist war-porn movie under the guise of Science Fiction! Slaughtering people, with cameras carefully lingering over the corpses, is not my idea of a good time. If it's yours, perhaps you should consider seeing a psychiatrist!

This is absolutely the very worst "time machine" movie ever done. It gives Science Fiction a really bad name, and the filmmakers should truly be ashamed of themselves. I will certainly stay clear of any Korean filmmakers in the future!


This wretched piece of crap is among the worst movies I have ever seen. Almost utterly lacking in action, other than tactically inaccurate scenes of automatic gunfire. After an hour and a half of slow, agonizing, pointless plot wandering, the big secret is revealed: Gasp, the future's been altered by time travel! But you knew that already. "Formulaic" and "cliched" are compliments this stinker doesn't deserve. Every time there's a threat of someone moving quickly, the film goes to super slo-mo, in a sadistic prolongation of our viewing agony. Also, every time there's any sound whatsoever, some limiter or something kicks in, rendering the sound unlistenable. Whatever you do, avoid this movie. You'd be better off staring at your television for over two hours without turning it on. Or beating your head against a wall. Or...


I think I must have watched the wrong film. So many people have given this rave reviews, saying how ass-kicking it is etc

It was to me, a B movie lavished with an expensive budget. The plot (if it can be describe as such) was risible and must have had about 30 seconds thought put into it while the screenwriter was waiting for his coffee. And just how many sickening cliches can you cram into a single film? We're they going for a world record or something? Jeez.

The action scenes were appalling rife with either pointless John Woo slo mo, or jerky blurry slo mo. This was probably to disguise how generic and badly choreographed they were.

The characters were totally wooden and completely devoid of any sympathy whatsoever, the actors never really needing to concentrate on anything except the dreadful script they'd been given (with the exception of the main guy who had to speak two languages all the way through).

Diabolical soundtrack which would suit any guff-filled B Movie you've ever seen.

Breathtakingly poor camera work.

I could go on but reading the full list would almost be as boring as watching this dross.

Korean studios should make more films like Public Enemy instead of this expensive atrocity.

Meh 2/10


An hour and a half of practically dead air kill an interesting concept in this Korean action-drama. By the last 30 minutes I was looking for a hard surface to bash my head against while yelling at the actors to DO SOMETHING!

*SPOILERS*

Other than that, I laughed quite a bit throughout the film. It wasn't made to be a comedy, but it turned out that way. Even the WTF plot twist earned a chuckle from me. So this Japanese controlled Korea wasn't an alternate universe, but the work of an evil Japanese family/ corporation and some seemingly inept archaeologists? I don't know why the Koreans hated being under Japanese rule so much, it didn't seem any worse than having to worry about Kim Jong Il and communism.

Whatever Korea.

I really liked the two main characters police partners/ life partners dynamic (until the fem partner turned into an EVIL Japanese PIG, of course). Oh, and I can't forget the girl/boy/chimp (what was it?!). It was fun to watch everyone mow down everything with guns, but pause during the mayhem so the heroes could stop and grieve, or take a nap, or... just... stand... there...

And the end. What? Why did...?

Oh, never mind, this movie is just a jumbled mess of WTF moments, sheer hilarity and ZZZ's. Big fans of foreign films or B- Scifi's might enjoy it... but, I doubt it. Rent it to laugh your head off.


I thought the first few minutes in 2009 had potential but very soon the story turns in to a cliché filled, below average b-movie. The details that annoys me in this film are so many that i can't count them all. I'll try to give you hints to what kind of film it is without giving away the story.

1: How's this for an alternative time-line... the Germans had the main character of this story on the beach of Normandie with a submachine-gun and one clip...

2: Why would a Japanese national agency have an English name (JBI.. my god..) and a graphic interface on their computers that makes the HUD in any computer-game look like the first version of donkey kong.. (not a big thing but it's just an example... )

3: When you hear violin music in a gunfight it's OK to stop running and shooting...

4: "OK guys: If someone is about to make an important kill everyone stop shooting so we can hear the empty shell bounce.."

I could continue on and on but i think you get the picture..

It is impressive though that they singled out a credible event that could have changed history.. it seemed like a good movie for a few minutes but......

Could have been an OK movie in an alternative time-line.. where pathetic predictable crap isn't allowed.


Am I'm the only one that can see that this movie is not all that? Besides the acting, which I thought it was good. The story has so many inconsistency that I can't see why would a person would want to see something as corny as this. I see the connections that the characters have towards each respected country but towards the end I just keep saying so what!'. The camera shots where great but the action.well if you call a lot of gun shots action, then, I guess this movie has a lot of action. I didn't like the plot and even though they tried to dramatize it a little bit at the end it doesn't compensate and it will leave instead of wanting more', wanting something'. There is nothing special on this film, even the logic of time traveling doesn't make sense, I ask, how come an ancient civilization discover the power of time travel? But I guess superstition is stronger than logic. But since its sci-fi, I can't go into much detail because at the end it's just not real even though some sci-fi films seem more believable than this. But I guess I wasn't emotionally connected to this film as some of my fellow reviewers. But take my word for it, you are not missing much.


I've been looking forward to see this movie, since I'm interested in the history of Japanese occupation, korean resistance and korean history in general. But this movie gave me nothing. It is filled with scenes which are so foreseeable and they drag on for long time with many perspectives which repeat on and on while the soundtrack tries to wake some emotions. Especially the fighting scenes are annoying. Another thing is that the beginning is quite interesting - so you watch the movie because maybe it starts again to be interesting - and so you watch till the end.

A fighting scene for example: Some bad guys shoot a kid and the hero catches the kid in the moment he's hit by the bullet, so he can die in the heros arms. The scene drags on for long time, emotional soundtrack joins the scene, many perspectives are taken of the hero getting a tear - and all while the bad guys still fire at them. Finaly some minutes later (in the movie, in real it should be a moment only) the hero decides to grab a rifle and finishes the bad guys in a few seconds.

camera-work was interesting, so if you are a film-student it may be worth a look - but since I've not seen a korean movie with bad camera you might be better of viewing any other korean movie


Version: Korean / Japanese audio, English subtitles.

Its funny how things work out. I submitted a review for 'The Big Swindle' - a 2 hour long Korean heist move - and mentioned that I always seem to find winners while watching random Korean movies. I must have jinxed myself, as I ended up coming across this dud at a friends house. A bad Korean movie? I don't know what to believe in anymore.

"What if?" time! In '2009: Lost Memories', the assassination of Ito Hirobumi (a Japanese official in occupied Korea) was foiled, and the course of history takes a very alternate route. World War Two was never fought in the Pacific and Korea has remained as a Japanese territory until 2009. Masayuki Sakamoto (Dong-Kun Jang) and Shojiro Saigo (Tôru Nakamura) are JBI (Japanese Bureau of Investigation) agents investigating an apparent terrorist attack on a Japanese museum in Seoul. The objective of the attack was the Lunar Soul - or as I like to call it: "The Boomerang of Death", that way it doesn't sound like something stolen from a 'Final Fantasy' game - and it is up to Sakamoto and his plucky little sidekick to find out why the Haruseijin are desperate to steal the Boomerang of Death.

Like a few other Korean films floating around, '2009: Lost Memories' plays heavily to Korean nationalism: Seoul is presented as a very Japanese city, the Japanese characters appear good but are really evil, and vice-versa for the Korean characters. I'm sure '2009' would strike a chord with Korean viewers, but I was left stranded and constantly checking the time. 'Shiri', 'JSA, and 'Phantom: The Submarine' are all based in Korean nationalism. What makes them better than '2009'? Well, for one, they are not totally boring.

'2009: Lost Memories' seem to be lost in between drama and action. The first action sequence is overly dramatical, but for no good reason. It tries to be powerful, but why should I care when I still don't know the names of the characters, let alone their motivations. The action scenes only get worse from then on. They're all very clunky and shot in slow-motion, and some of them display camera-work so poor that you can only be impressed. Like the rest of the movie, the action is over-powered by the strong orchestral score. Apparently when being shot at from all directions, you will be magically protected by violin music. If you have not fallen asleep by the 90 minute mark, you will be screaming "Yes, the main character cannot be killed by conventional weapons! I GET IT!". I know I was.

What links the drama with the action? Why, it must be the incessant tear-jerking! In dramatical scenes and gun-play scenes alike, '2009' is constantly trying to jerk tears. When people aren't dying, the film is trying hard to present a story that is lacking in logic and fairly predictable. If you're familiar with the history, you may find it hard to suspend disbelief about the whole what-if thing. It is predictable, so you don't need to pay too much attention to figure out what happens next. Most of time the only thing happening next is a cliché or a scene in which the film tries to make the viewer cry. I was so bored that I was crying.

I've seen another Korean movie about time-travel. It was a drama movie called 'Il Mare'. Strangely enough, I liked that, but '2009: Lost Memories' is incredibly boring. 'Nuff said - 1/10


I watched this movie because I thought I'd get some of the Asian-style action movies that I like, or maybe an interesting story based on the what-if situation described in the tag-line. However, the acting is terrible and the movie moves so slowly at times that I found myself fast forwarding and skipping parts of several scenes just to get it over with.. I found watching this movie a waste of time, unless maybe if you are a Corean or Japanese interested in history. Even though the movie picks up a pace at the ending, the overall lousy acting by ALL actors doesn't help the semi-interesting what-if story make an interesting movie. Sorry..


This movie could have been good if it hadn't already been made so many times before. The concept of a young girl who feels lost and finds a connection with an older man is hardly new.

The actors play well - as one would expect from professionals - and if one is a fan of either Alec Baldwin or Sarah Michella Gellar; one might consider watching the movie just for that.

Where it all goes wrong is in the narrative. The movie tries delivering something that it just can't deliver. While the actors as such play their roles fine, the viewer is never really caught by them. The roles are flat and one is left with a feeling of "who cares". There are a few elements in the movie that obviously entertains, but they all seem stereotypical in a way that gets boring very quickly.

This is a movie that you can watch if you are having some friends over and needs some background noise, or if you are baking bread and do not want to bother with pausing the movie every time you have to go to the kitchen.


This movie rates a whopping 3 stars because I like SMG. In addition to that no one fell down and I could understand all of the dialogue. Besides that, it was easily the worst movie I have seen in a long, long time. The acting compared to a bad high school play and the music was poorly selected. Music is supposed to add to the movie and bring everything together. However, it was loud and never seemed to blend into the story. Perhaps that was because there was no story.

The "story" is about a 24 year old woman (yeah right, try 30+) with daddy issues who can't get ahead in the novel editing business, who meets an overpaid legend in the field. He is only 26 years older than her and is possibly the most boring man in the history of books (and that says a lot). For some reason, that is never explained, she falls in love with him. Then it goes into the classic, boy screws up and loses girl, girl questions judgment, boy wins back girl, blah, blah, blah. We've seen this before in every other romantic comedy ever made. Oh, but I almost forgot; there is no comedy. The only difference in the story are his grandpa like qualities. Frankly, it was more disturbing that it was romantic.

For having such large actors, it was extremely disappointing. It was filled with forced humor, fake crying and bad "Frasier" style white words on a black background scene transitions. The difference was that it worked in "Frasier."

This movie was about as exciting as watching an intense game of pong. Stay away at all costs. Do something more productive with your time like having a deep conversation with your mother in law.


This movie completely lacked focus. Was it about her career? Her relationships (both family & romantic)? Her own personal issues? It was just a complete mess- all over the place! There was not enough development in any of these areas for any of them to strike home and come across as important. Things would happen, then change in the drop of a hat, so much so that you'll find yourself thinking "what just happened here?" There was absolutely no true chemistry between Sarah Michelle Gellar and Alec Baldwin, and their relationship just came out creepy and awkward on screen.

The whole film was full of completely unrealistic happenings right down to the decor in her hideous apartment.

I suppose if you're looking for something light and slightly sloppy you'll enjoy yourself. Otherwise skip it.


Writer Melissa Bank has been compared to Helen Fielding (the author of Bridget Jones' Diary) because of her skillful and funny portrayal of the challenges and problems modern women face.Her short story collection The Girls' Guide to Hunting and Fishing received very good reviews and it was immediately acquired for being taken to the big screen.Unfortunately,at the difference of Fielding,Bank did not have any luck for finding a screenwriter who would effectively translate her "voice" to a movie.Suburban Girl is a truly tedious romantic comedy.

This movie is an absolutely insipid combination of Sex and the City and Bridget Jones' Diary which has absolutely uninteresting characters.Besides,Mark Klein's direction is horrible because the movie completely lacks of any style,rhythm or natural flow of scenes.

Sarah Michelle Gellar does not help at all with her artificial performance.I have been a big fan of Buffy The Vampire Slayer,and I think that there was a perfect combination of character and actress in there.But,on all the movies she has done after Buffy,she seems to be lost,like we can see on this movie.Besides,she does not have a good chemistry with Alec Baldwin.In summary,her weak performance damages the movie pretty much.

I honestly suggest you not to invest your time on this tedious and completely uninteresting romantic comedy.Instead,read the book or do something which makes a better investment of your time and money.


OK, so I will admit that I did a thing with this movie that I absolutely hate to do...I turned it off halfway through.

The storyline definitely seemed appealing, especially to me as a woman as there have been a great deal of movies about older women with younger guys, but finally here was a film where the opposite was true. But, the greatest problem with the film was the lack of chemistry between the two main characters. When they acted like they were together it wasn't believable, Baldwin particularly seeming the most uncomfortable out of the two.

Another thing that seemed to confuse me about the film was...well to be blunt..how confusing it was!! One minute she was angry at him, a pure anger that would leave any female audience member chanting her on in a supportive manner. But then suddenly...the anger was gone and 'Archie' was able to act in the same (slightly patronising in my opinion) manner as before.

OK, so final thought on this film is if you really like the actors and storyline give a go, certainly as this comment is only based on half of the film. For me personally, it lacked the potential that the storyline possessed and I hope that somebody else takes a shot at it.


First of all I wouldn't bother spelling the title because for 1 thing I don't actually know how to spell it; "Surburben Girl?" and for another I haven't got the faintest idea of what is actually means!? So anyway I got the chance to watch this film last night and after seeing the trailer I basically presumed that it was going to be another one of those rom-coms. On the mix of plus/down sides it wasn't, it wasn't even funny either, to be honest this film has no genre at all which is quite weird. On the down side I'm seeing absolutely nothing come out of tin. Nothing. The performances, the energy, the figure of this movie, nothing. And not to mention there was no doubt that is film is abysmally boring and dull. Even the plot was quite confusing let me say the pace at the start of this movie is very fast. After 2-5 minutes onwards the film the girl already met the guy and became close friends and after 10 minutes or so they kissed and slept with each other?! Talk about fast! And throughout the movie I was bored, yawning and just wanted stop watching this bore! But I figured I take a chance on this film but that still didn't work. So yeah that isn't a good sign. But overall this film has it moments but that does not change everything like I said there was NO DOUBT that this film is boring dull confusing and delivers no energy. A disappointment.

****/**********

(4/10 stars)

~Kalendra


I love Melissa Bank's sophisticated, complex, moving fiction and I was very curious when I heard that some of the stories in her first novel/short story collection were being made into a movie. What a disappointment! I can hardly imagine what it was like for MB to discover that Sarah Michelle Gellar was going to play the Jewish intellectual associate editor. She is ludicrous in the role, and the idea of her editing novels was a stretch that no act of imagination could make remotely plausible -- the only thing you could imagine her checking on her Blackberry was where the next high school pool party with the cute guy was taking place. The idea that the Alec Baldwin character would be interested in someone that flat, brainless and teeny-bopperish was beyond silly. Try as she might, SMG, who is talented and can be funny in the right movies, could not pull this role off. The good lines were MB's, the ones that were added by the director made me wince -- every cliché you could pull out of a Hollywood grab-bag. An embarrassing and depressing example of how to ruin a great book. I hope MB has better luck with the marvelous Wonder Spot. Now if brilliant Clare Danes had been cast, this movie would still be poor, but not quite as unwatchable.


If you could include every formulaic scene between an older man and a young women it would surely be Suburban Girl. Quirky advice giving best friend--check Super smart girl climbing up the job ladder=check Older millionaire bachelor=check family with conflict=check hip NYC parties=check montage of couple having fun to shortcut developing relationship =check

If you have tried Ambien and it didn't help you sleep..just watch this movie guaranteed to put you to sleep and wake up refreshed knowing you didn't waste 120 minutes watching this completely banal piece of twice baked digital film. There weren't enough montages ...we need more montages of Alec Baldwin and Sarah to drive the point home that they are having sooo much fun. Oh wait..include a hip soundtrack to help substitute good writing and acceptable acting ....yeah thanks ...I'm buying it now. Hey Alec you're 49, lose weight porky.. You have millions..can't you pay someone to eat for you??


Another bad one I rented and watched today. Miss Buffy should have blonded her hair again to at least attempt to look younger for the part portrayed. While on the subject of hair, what was the story with Baldwin's hair toupee stylist? How many toupees were used in this movie? They weren't toupees? Omigawd ... egads if they weren't.

Sarah didn't come across very well in this movie, which made the "romance" unbelievable. It was if she was forcing her lines and forcing herself to tolerate being in this role and even being around Baldwin. As a result, to me the romance relationship just didn't have heart or even lust. It had no click.

Scenes like where the old rich gal tells Baldwin to marry the hussy after Sarah got drunk at the elite high-societal gathering and made a twit of herself in front of everyone ... really rankled my chain. This kind of behavior is now acceptable? If the old woman was being facetious, the delivery of lines did not carry that element.

I don't believe this movie would be good even for the teenage group. I think this movie had a decent story, but the poor casting, dreadful and inappropriate music scores, forced lines (and forced acting), horrid clothing no teenager would be caught dead in, bad makeup (sorry Sarah, but au natural neckline without makeup made you look again too old for this part), and a bad hair stylist took away from anything redeemable in this movie.

Once again, the one good thing going for this movie was the art done on the DVD jacket cover. I recommend that it be taken off the shelves.


I know this is "The Classic" version of Dracula. I know it was made decades ago. I'm well aware I'm gonna be accursed of blasphemy for this. I know people were easier to scare then. Oh well, might as well get on with it.

The Bela Lugosi version of Dracula was so inaccurate to the book that I actually had trouble following the story. The Francis Ford Coppola version was much closer to the book.

BOOK; first few chapters are about Johnathan Harker's travels to and stay in Transylvania. Renfield already in madhouse by start of movie.

MOVIE; Harker never leaves England, Renfield goes instead.

BOOK; Madness seems to fluctuate. Sometimes he seems normal, sometimes he's even a philosopher, but once he bit Dr. Stewart's arm, screaming, "Blood is the life! Blood is the life!" But most of the time, either eating life things or catching flies, spiders and birds so that he can feed them to each other and later eat them.

MOVIE; You don't see him acting sane much.

(In an odd way, although it never happened in the book, the scene in the Mel Brooks version with Stewart and Renfield in the garden gives a much better example of Renield's frequent fluctuation between sanity and insanity.)

BOOK; Dracula is described as an old man with werewolf-like features, glowing red eyes and a mustache, and gets younger as he drinks blood.

MOVIE; Not even close. And, although fangs are alluded to, you never see them.

BOOK; Dracula only ever converses directly with Harker. (Although he also yells something at Van Helsing)Preys on Lucy only when asleep and/or sleepwalking. Main characters spend most of their time hunting down Dracula and Lucy.

MOVIE; Dracula meets and converse with main characters at opera and later at Lucy's house. (In fact, this seems to mostly be all that happens in the movie.)

BOOK; If you've seen any version of Dracula you'll be well aware of the scene with Harker and Dracula's three brides. As well as a child in a sack. (Note to MATRIX fans; watch "Bram Stoker's Dracula again, you may find it interesting that Neo and Persephone have "met")

MOVIE; This happens to Renfield, but nothing interesting happens.

BOOK; Dracula's arrival in England is very similar to Eddie Murphy's arrival in New Yourk in "A Vampire in Brooklyn"; a ship with a dead crew crash-lands on the beach, with a cargo full of boxes full of clay, and a wolf jumps out.

MOVIE; Doesn't seem to happen. And only seems to assume the form of a bat.

BOOK; main characters chase Dracula all the way back to Transylvania

MOVIE; doesn't happen.

MOVIE; He uses hypnosis on various servants.

BOOK; Well, why the hell not? He does, possibly, have some power over Lucy, she seems to sleepwalk exactly where Dracula wants her to.

Other problems with the movie;

-Seems to be all talking, almost no action.

-Never see Dracula's fangs.

-Extremely limited by early censorship

-Armadillos?


The first official screen adaptation of Bram Stoker's decent novel is the equal of 'Nosferatu' in every respect  like that film it's hammy, boring, dated, sluggishly paced and has an overrated central performance. Although the film is constantly praised for its visual style, Tod Browning's direction does nothing to open it out from the stage play on which it's partly based, preferring instead to bore us with a series of agonisingly static scenes in which characters stand about in rooms doing nothing.

This movie may have given cinema an iconic character in its visualisation of Count Dracula  every kid ever to do a vampire impression has used Bela Lugosi's accent  and the film is undeniably influential, but, like Boris Karloff's creature in the same year's similarly overrated 'Frankenstein', Lugosi has very little to do besides stand still and stare a lot while someone shines a torch in his eyes. Like Karloff, he's given better performances in better (and worse) films than this.

He fares better than the rest of the cast, though. Edward Van Sloan as Van Helsing has the unenviable task of slogging through lumps of dialogue about the vampire mythos and Dracula in particular, convincing the other characters with very little effort that Dracula can transform himself into a bat and a wolf. Helen Chandler and David Manners, as the lovers whose romance is rudely interrupted when Dracula bites her on the neck, are as bland as you like and fail to make you care about them. Everyone else is either the cockney comic relief so beloved by '30s horror writers or overact so chronically that it makes you wonder how this was ever considered scary.

There's one good bit where a couple of characters are musing about who could be responsible for the neck-bite deaths and the next words we hear are 'Count Dracula' as the maid shows him in. Aside from that and what charm Lugosi can muster up in his one-dimensional role there's not much to it. I've never been a huge fan of this story but surely there are better versions out there than this one; with the stolid cast, the bats on strings and castle Dracula done up like a students' Halloween party, nothing here has made the transition from 1931 intact.


I actually had decent expectations for this one but found myself cringing throughout most of the film. There's really no goal in this movie. As I contemplated the hollow feeling of having wasted a couple hours watching the film, I switched from passive viewer into active reviewer mode to determine why HTD didn't work on so many levels. First of all, I wanted to empathize with Mandy Moore's character, but there was nothing about her struggles that resonated at all. There was no growth pattern (aka character arc) to be found in her either; she was just a whining, disenchanted stereotype. Moore's character is the caricature of the frustrated teen who doesn't want to risk being loved for fear of getting hurt. Another factor that worked against the film was that they tried to cram too many subplots/characters in, and the main story did not benefit from most of that peripheral crap. Let's see, we had the pregnant girlfried...the doper grandma...the father and his new wife...the mother and her new love interest...Halley's aloof but totally undesirable hippie boyfriend...the sister and her fiance's socio-economic wranglings. It was headache-inducing fare to be sure. Halley's love interest just kept popping up, never with a context or sense of why he was where he was. What did we know about the guy? Nothing. We didn't observe his home life. Didn't really learn his interests. He was simply inserted into different settings (parking lots, stores, backyards, etc.) as though required by movie convention. The few scenes that were probably intended to endear us to the loser, such as the funeral speech scene, were presented pathetically with no emotional weight whatsoever. Third, the lazy writing for this film threw so much over-used tripe at us. For example, you know a film is struggling when they have a dog hump one of the principle character's legs. Also, the dope-smoking grandma seemed such a tired bit as well. After those ridiculous and unfunny insertions, any attempts at serious drama in this schizophrenic film were greatly compromised. Casting and chemistry were certainly some weak points of the film as well. My significant other and I agreed that Mandy Moore did not seem in any way conceivably to be a blood relative to the mother in the film. They looked nothing alike. Granted, this is hard to gauge, but then I started to realize that other films pull this off very well. The lack of character change/growth and of any conceivable end goal also made any attempts to generate a conflict or climax to the film moot. Toward the end when the boyfriend avoids her for a while, it was merely yawn-inducing. This is supposed to be tension? This is supposed to make me concerned? Hardly. The film's efforts toward the end to generate some artificial excitement were particularly cloying and lame. In particular, when the boyfriend forced his way on to the radio station's air waves as though he had to do something desperate and gritty to get Halley's attention, I wondered why he hadn't thought to simply go to her house or call her on the phone. There was no indication that he had made any other more reasonable attempts to contact her. Therefore, what could have been a sweet moment, came off as a stunt and portrayed the love interest as a buffoon and social retard.

I can only hope that Mandy finds better vessels for her talent in the future. Churning out garbage like this will do nothing for her reputation and continued employment in the film industry.


I am a seventeen year old teenage girl; basically, the entire demographic that this movie was going for. Having seen "A Walk to Remember," I figured it'd be another Mandy Moore chick flick - not bad, but nothing special.

This movie just *didn't work.* Using two different teen novels as a basis for a "plot" didn't work. The plot was all over the place; my friend (also a seventeen year old female) and I would stare at the screen and whisper, "What the hell was that?" every five minutes. This movie had every cliche imaginable: teenage pregnancy, divorce, marriage, birth, death, car accident. If reading that seemed random, try watching it. It's ridiculous. Oh, and I neglected to mention the pot smoking grandmother.

Here are a few examples about what just didn't work in this movie:

About 10-15 minutes into the film, a boy collapses on the soccer field. He's clutching his stomach, and my friend and I both immediately thought, "Oh, appendicitis." Next shot (this is after he passes out and people are surrounding him), he's on the ground clutching his chest. Dramatic voice-over is something along the lines of him dying of a heart defect.

Insert my friend and I (and other audience members) saying, "What the hell?"

Another scene. The best friend is pregnant. She and Halley (Mandy Moore) are talking afterwards, and Scarlett (the friend) is wearing a tank top with four pictures of the GERBER BABY. "What the hell?!"

It goes on and on. Honestly, if we'd realized 20 minutes into it how disorganized and poorly put together it was going to be, we would've left. The only reason we stuck around the whole time was because we'd sat through it for so long that we couldn't get our $9.25 back if we left.

As far as the acting goes, Mandy Moore was decent, but I didn't really get her character. As I haven't read the two novels this movie was based on, I don't even know if she was playing two different characters or one. Actually, when Halley would do a total 180 between scenes, my friend and I joked whether they pulled the scene from novel one or novel two. As for Trent Ford...I'm not going to discuss his looks other than in this statement, because I don't think criticizing an actors appearance does any good. As far as the actual acting went...It was pretty rough. Didn't do anything for me. A couple of the supporting characters (played by Allison Janney and Alexandra Holden) were ok; others (Mackenzie Astin, Mary Catherine Garrison) were as terrible as Trent Ford.

One can only hope that if Mandy Moore wishes to be taken seriously as an actress, she'll accept a better script next time, because she's not a terrible actress.

I gave it 3/10, and that's only for the non-comedy induced laughs my friend and I, as well as several other members of the very small audience, had.


A tragic death, a tragic teen pregnancy, a tragic car accident,a tragic divorce, a tragic broken up engagement...sigh...sob... the circle of life...

Will Mandy Moore ever believe in love?

Much like Julia Roberts in Steel Magnolias, Mandy also gets an awful boy haircut and maintains her vulnerable but compassionate spirit despite all of womanhood's trials and tribulations surrounding her at every turn- through the guise of her caricaturishly naive and impossibly flat-haired pregnant friend, her sister who has a dwarf's build (no neck, huge head)and does the worst-ever portrayal of a drunken bachelorette, and her constipated-looking crone of a mother who got dumped for a younger woman who dresses badly.

Mandy struggles with her own feelings for a boy who has the more feminine version of her haircut, she does some gratuitous yoga poses, drinks alcohol? out of chocolates, watches "Star Wars" and tries "to deal" with her ridiculously satanic-looking DJ dad.

Don't worry; it ends with a wedding AND a birth AND a first kiss (and you knew that the timing would work out that way; so predictable).

Aww...the circle of life... then close in on all the characters making stupid googly eyes at the new baby.


How to Deal tries to take on so many problems but in the end it fails to accomplish much of anything. Everything in Halley's life is turning upside down. All these problems are happening to her and its effecting her life. Her parents got divorce, her sister is marrying the wrong guy, her best friend's boyfriend died and plus her best friend is pregnant. Halley will just need to learn how to deal with these problems and other problems as life is always tough and it doesn't always work out the way you want it too. The plot sounds like it has some potential but the execution isn't very good. The film's biggest problem is trying to have all these problems. I think if it wanted to squeeze in all of this then they should have made it into a sitcom. However, they are trying to fit in all these problems in a 101 minute movie and the results weren't pretty as the film is kind of mess in that aspect. The script was weak and clichéd so that didn't help matters either. There was really nothing original about this movie either as you have probably seen it done before and better. The acting was average at best with the best being Allison Janney. She did a pretty good job but she is far above this material. Mandy Moore did a decent job but I really think she should stick to singing. Trent Ford plays Halley's love interest and he does an okay job. He wasn't very good during the serious scenes though. The rest of the cast isn't really worth mentioning either they did an awful job but haven't really been in a lot of films. Or, they just have better work out there and this is probably something that should be left off their resumes. Clare Kilner did a poor job of directing since it was kind of hard to see what was the real story. She also directed the completely bland Wedding Date. The movie also gets pretty dull and I didn't really feel for any of these characters. I felt bad for the Halley's friend since her boyfriend died and she got pregnant but pretty much just her. In the end, this is just another generic chick flick that isn't anything special and its better if you just skip it. Rating 4/10


Even though I am a guy I didn't like this movie one bit. I couldn't sit still it was a slow pace movie. Now don't get me wrong even though I am a guy I still enjoy some chick flicks like Down to You, 10 Things I Hate About You, and Boys and Girls. This one was just dull really had no humorus moments, and it was set as though it happens but in a unrealistic way. It does deal with teenage problems or what some teenagers go through but it, to me, was somewhat un realistic. I only went cause my girlfriend wanted to see it which is the case probably for many guys out there, and if you are one of those guys that might get dragged to see it try to find a way not too. Only if it's the very last option. (Girls seem to like the movie though.)