This may be the single most boring "slasher" film of the 80s - containing an alarming lack of gore and nudity, the stuff that this genre survives on. Brad Pitt, in an early and obviously shameful role, plays the former best friend of a guy who spent five years in a mental institution, for the murder of his father, undergoing daily shock treatments. He is released into the general population (though obviously still unbalanced) and becomes the prime suspect in a series disappearances and murders among high school faculty and students. "Cutting Class" definitely wasn't Pitt's breakthrough role since this "horror" movie is littered with dull moments of teen drama and ridiculous, unfunny humor. Not a respectful launch into films, Brad! Not to mention every damn staff member of this particular school seems to weakly withhold perverse temptations among attractive female students, including Roddy McDowell as the creepy principal. Obviously, the body count should have been bigger and the deaths could have been a touch more elaborate (there are literally NO gore effects in this crap!). Terrible film!


Sometimes all that it requires to take your mind off of everything is a simple-minded, bone-headed 80's slasher, especially if it's one that stars a young, hunky and still unknown Brad Pitt as the high school jerk and Roddy McDowall as the dirty-minded principal. The plot is textbook 80's guff, meaning no purposeful twists or any attempts at building up tension whatsoever, but still it guarantees a good 90 minutes of dopey fun and chuckles. As Brian returns to the schoolyard after a period in a mental asylum to treat his Violent Schizophrenia Syndrome, bodies start piling up as well and naturally he becomes the prime suspect. Of course, in this type of film, it takes an awfully very long time before any of the dim-witted characters realizes something's wrong and "Cutting Class" is no exception. Someone actually has to stumble over a corpse accidentally before realizing several others persons are missing as well. The script really tries hard to uphold the mystery and to keep the real killer's identity secret, but it doesn't matter all that much since we're just watching the film for the murders anyway. They aren't special, unfortunately, just a neat throat-slitting, an icky flagpole-killing and someone's crushed head on the copying machine. There's also the fairly original running gag of the killer's first victim surviving the assault and fruitlessly struggling for help for the rest of the film. The main attraction here is obviously  and almost exclusively  Brad Pitt, and he certainly doesn't disappoint as the cocky school-rebel. At a certain point in the film, one of his teachers tells him he has little chance to a great future, ha ha ha!


"Cutting Class" does not deserve the cult classic status because it isn't. It came out when the slasher era was about to end. The movie doesn't offers anything you haven't seen.

You got the typical plot where a killer on the loose terrorizes a college campus. You got the beautiful couple that survives the killer's attacks and manage to defeat him after following some hints. The sad thing is that the movie's killer is a geek. When this guy starts to act "psycho" the movie loses credibility.

The fact that Brad Pitt is in this movie shouldn't be a reason to watch it (I talking to you girls!). This is probably one of the worst slasher flicks that came out in the 80's and that's something to say.

Jill Schoelen is the best thing about the movie. She's super hot, sexy, tender, cute. Anytime she appears on screen makes me wonder about female physical perfectness. She's simply GORGEOUS. She's every guy's fantasy. And she delivers a decent performance.

There are some gory kills but nothing you haven't seen. The scene I remember the most from the movie is when a girl (using no panties), goes under the gym's step staircases and gets stabbed. She screams as hard as she can but a band is playing on so her screaming is not heard. Classy.

4/10. Don't waste your time or money on this. I was a victim of Jill Schoelen's screen charm. Oh, I would buy this movie a thousand times if she asked me to...


This pretty bad slasher film would be completely forgotten today, if it did not feature an early appearance by future super-star Brad Pitt. Now it's merely ALMOST completely forgotten. It actually tries to set itself up as a murder mystery, of sorts, but the script and direction are both too often incompetent. Examples? A math problem that would be fairly easy for a 12-year-old kid is presented by the teacher in the senior class. Later on, that same teacher is trying to solve another math problem, posed to him by the killer, and is apparently too puzzled to notice that the problem has no givens! By the way, the killer must have had a really big death wish to do something so utterly stupid in his final scene. The film also has a slightly fuzzy look that makes it seem older than it is. Jill Schoelen is a likable and agreeable actress, but with films like this it's no wonder her career stalled. (*1/2)


CUTTING CLASS is one of those teen flicks co-mingling some stupid humor with murder. Taking place in a high school with the typical cast of characters, focusing on three...cheerleader chick Paula(Jill Schoelen), basketball star and self-proclaimed stud Dwight(Brad Pitt)and an obligatory crazy guy Brian(Donovan Leitch). Crazy in this case meaning messed up enough to take a turn in a mental hospital...sent there by Paula's dad(Martin Mull), the district attorney. Right after Brian is released, the D.A. happens to be shot by an arrow while on a hunting trip. There is a premise of boy thinking he has girl wrapped around his finger, while another boy decides he deserves the girl in question. The high school becomes the breeding grounds for strange murders; duh...who could the main suspect be? Playwrite Steve Slavkin will not be confused with John Hughes. This film marches to the beat of several tunes from Wall of Voodoo. The cast also includes: Brenda James, Eric Boles, Dirk Blocker. Nancy Fish and Roddy McDowell.


I'm a huge fan of "B" movies. Especially "B" horror movies from the 80's but this one simply has nothing to offer. A complete waste of time. The story is lack luster and very unbelievable. The lack of a story line usually does not pose a serious problem for most "B" movie fans as long as there are other components of the film that make it fun to watch. This movie comes up short in almost every aspect of what I consider to be "B" movie magic. The only value I was able to find in this title was the numerous continuity issues. They gave me something to do while I was waiting for this movie to end. Don't waste your time on this one.


if you're looking for a decent horror movie with brad pitt, go for it, but if you're looking to get scared, look elsewhere. brian woods should not have been allowed back into school- why didn't they realize how psycho this guy is? martin mull- his whole role was just running around yelling, and at the end he just told brad pitt to screw himself. this movie should have been called 'we're stupid because we let a psycho killer who killed his father back into school where people will get killed'. brad pitt doesn't seem like the type of person who would have any desire to be a murder type character, but i can see him being someone who is aggressive and passionate about killing the killer. so a good acting job by mr. pitt, way to go.


After doing five years of rehabilitation time, for killing his father, a still disturbed-looking Donovan Leitch (as Brian Woods) returns to town. The local newspaper, headlined "Boy Who Killed Father Released From Institution", is picked up by luscious-legged Jill Schoelen (as Paula Carson), wearing a T-shirt only. She promises her father she won't be "Cutting Class" while he goes on a hunting trip, or have brawny basketball boyfriend Brad Pitt (as Dwight Ingalls) sleep over. The action moves, mainly, to the local high school, where Mr. Leitch, Ms. Schoelen, and Mr. Pitt are students. According to some of their scripted conversations, the three have had some past relationships/rivalries.

As dead bodies pile up, Schoelen is torn between Pitt and Leitch.

Leitch, Schoelen, and Pitt do the best they can, under the circumstances. Leitch is the son of, not the original "Sunshine Superman", Donovan. Despite this being an early role for future superstar Pitt, he is too old to be playing a high school teenager. Schoelen, who played several roles like this, is also well past sixteen - but, bending over, she is still sweet. The three attractive "teenagers" are supported by the likes of randy Roddy McDowall (as Mr. Dante) and Martin Mull (as Mr. Carson). But, the best role (perhaps the film's ONLY good role, a manic janitor) is essayed by Robert Glaudini (as Shultz).

**** Cutting Class (1989) Rospo Pallenberg ~ Donovan Leitch, Jill Schoelen, Brad Pitt


Someone is bumping off the teachers of a school and it's up to the lovely innocent Paula Carson(Jill Schoelen, always a sight for sore eyes, especially when bending over in a short skirt)to find out who it is. Is it her hot-headed boyfriend Dwight(Brad Pitt)or the recently released(from a mental institution, no less)Brian Woods(Donovan Leitch), often hiding behind bushes and other objects to stare at Paula? Someone shoots an arrow that lands in the torso of Paula's district attorney father(Martin Mull)who is out hunting;he's the one responsible for putting Brian away for the murder of his abusive father. A running gag of the film has a hurt Mull trying to seek assistance, but never seeming to get it. Roddy McDowall has an amusing minor role as the high school principal, Mr. Dante, who lusts after Paula..who could blame him for that? The film follows Paula's uncertain search for the killer;as the film continues, she's not quite sure if it's Brian(who does seem like an appropriate suspect)or her beloved Dwight.

CUTTING CLASS is the 80's slasher formula on it's last legs..the well has dried up and creativity is lacking. The murders are half-hearted and uninspired..the film wreaks of tired clichés. You might even say CUTTING CLASS is a performance of the last rites for the 80's slasher genre. In my opinion, the only reason to see CUTTING CLASS is for Jill, wearing only a shirt to get the paper at the beginning of the film, and in a cheerleader uniform..that is far more entertaining than this lifeless, stale exercise in tedium. I thought Leitch(..and Pitt, actually)was terrible in the lead, and not the least bit convincing.


"Cutting Class" is easily one of the most awful slasher flicks from the late 80's.Brian returns back to college aged 18 after spending five years in a mental asylum for killing his father.He tries to worm his way back into the lives of his ex-best friend Dwight and Paula his old flame.And suddenly a bunch of people start dying,in the most bizarre and stupid ways in slasher film history.There is for example death by pottery kiln,death by photocopier,but my favourite is the old classic,flagpole under a trampoline so the fascist Gym teacher gets impaled on the American Flag."Cutting Class" is a stinking piece of crap filled with silly jokes and a little bit of gore.The acting is downright horrible and the characters are completely flat.There is no suspense and the killings are lame.This film is clearly as bad as "Hollow Gate" or "Return to Horror High".Avoid it like a plague.1 out of 10.


In my opinion,this is the worst slasher movie ever made.The creators fill this trash with nothing,but long cliches.No suspense,no gore,just miserable jokes and very annoying characters.The killings are stupid,the music is garbage and the acting absolutely sucks.Even "Slaughter High" is a bit better than this piece of crap.Please,don't waste your time-you'll be sorely disappointed.


A slasher flick is a slasher flick, but when the dialog is terrible and the actors aren't much better, it becomes just another ho hum event; one that I am sure that Brad Pitt would like to forget.

Pitt had his first credited movie roles in 1989. This was one of them, and the lesser of the two according to most fans. He plays a dumb jock that isn't even a good jock. Fortunately, he has his girlfriend (scream-queen Jill Schoelen) to save him from the slasher. Why do these girls hook up with the dumb jocks? Maybe because it's Brad Pitt!

With Roddy McDowall, Martin Mull, and Ione Skye's brother (Donovan Leitch) as the slasher, it was fairly predictable; down to the lame attempt at humor with the cheerleader taking off her panties before the game.

I am surprised that the American Legion or VFW hasn't protested the use of the American Flag in this movie. Maybe they figured no one saw it.

I'm not sure if this was released first or Happy Together was. It could be Pitt's film debut. Anybody know?


"Cutting Class," the directorial debut of "Excalibur" screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg, receives a failing grade because it doesn't know what it wants to be: a slasher flick, a comedy, a teen drama, or a hybrid of all three. Add to that, so much potential arises within the script by Steve Slavkin for satirical jabs at the high school movie experience that you find yourself, when the movie mindlessly passes over these moments, banging your head against the wall at such wasted opportunities.

It's as if the filmmakers were cutting film school class themselves. But the movie isn't all bad, with some nice production values and some gory special effects-laden deaths, it helps keep it from being a complete bore. "Cutting Class," however, still receives a failing grade in my book when you think the movie couldn't get any more tedious, when it reverts to type and descends into typical slasher/haunted house movie territory in the third act. And don't forget about some gratuitous female nudity as well (so keep your eyes peeled).

The story surrounds a would-be love triangle between high school outcast Brian Woods (Donovan Leitch), cheerleader Paula Carson (Jill Schoelen), and her basketball-hunk boyfriend Dwight Ingalls (Brad Pitt). Brian and Dwight were once the best of friends, but that turned sour when Brian was accused of murdering his abusive father and as a result was sent away to a mental institution for a few years. Now that he's been released, it isn't long before a series of gruesome murders begin occurring on campus and low and behold, Brian is the main suspect.

"Cutting Class" does has some pretty cool deaths - a burning in a pottery kiln, an impaling here, a death-by-copy machine there, an ax to the brain - that are flawlessly executed. Most of these deaths happen to men who are apparently connected in some way to the lovely Paula Carson. Most of these men are in fact obsessed with Paula, including Principal Dante (Roddy McDowall), which is a little disturbing. The main problems arise in the tediousness of a whodunit that's all too obvious in the end. The performances are mostly below average. The worst of these is poor Donovan Leitch as Brian Woods. The film builds him up to be a sympathetic, misunderstood outsider but instead he turns out to be way too creepy, sneaking around in the dark and even once appearing in Paula's bathroom as she washes her hair.

"Cutting Class," perhaps if the filmmakers weren't busy cutting class themselves during their film school years, maybe they could have made a better than average teen slasher flick.

3/10


Terrible slice'n'dice film. Brian (Donovan Leitch) has just been released from a mental institution where he had extensive electroshock therapy. He falls for sweet lovable Paula (Jill Schoelen) but she loves "bad boy" Dwight (Brad Pitt). Then murders start happening. Is it Dwight or Brian? You won't care.

The murders are pretty bloodless--the story is stupid--the comedy horrible--the dialogue lame. One of the worst horror movies of its time--and that's saying quite a bit! It would be completely forgotten today if not for Pitt's role in it. He himself has said it's the worst movie he ever made. Also don't let top-billed Martin Mull or Roddy McDowall fool you--they're hardly in the move.

Abysmal. Only watch if you're interested in seeing Pitt embarrass himself. A 1.


Cutting Class is a late eighties slasher flick that delivers on the most pathetic of levels. It actually has a good cast featuring Jill Schoelen, Brad Pitt, Roddy McDowell and Donovan Leitch. But even with these actors the movie is a complete failure, in my opinion.

Leitch plays the part of Brian who has been released from a psychiatric ward for murdering his Father fives years ago. Upon return to School, his old friend Dwight (Pitt) decides he would rather humiliate him than to be his friend again. Jill Schoelen plays Paula who is Dwights girlfriend and is the love interest of Brian, also. Suddenly, teachers and students are turning up missing or dead and it comes down to whether Brian is the killer or Dwight is the killer.

I saw this film many years ago and had trouble sitting through it then. I don't know why things would be different now. The script is laughable and the actors try to do their best but still turns out bad. What Roddy McDowell is doing in this movie playing a perverted principal is beyond me. Such a great actor and to end up in trash like this is just sad. The actor that does the best with his character is Brad Pitt. He does a surprisingly decent job. The murder scenes are extremely weak with a few off screen killings and one killing with a very fake ax to the head. Just disappointing... 3/10


I'm going to guess that 'Cutting Class' became a cult classic only because it stars a very young pretty boy that we all know as Brad Pitt. I sure can't see any other value in this awful movie. It makes Student Bodies (a hilarious horror parody) look like 'The Godfather.'

First off, this is not much of a horror movie. About ninety percent of the movie plays out like an after school special, focusing on the troubled life of the aggressive pretty boy, Dwight (Brad Pitt). He's the jock who often finds himself competing with former mental hospital patient, Brian Woods (Donovan Leitch) for the attention of the classic horror movie virgin, Paula (Jill Schoelen). Basically, the material is so cliché, it's not even interesting. At least with Student Bodies, they turned the cliché into a parody and were willing to make fun of themselves for being such a bad movie. Here, they couldn't even give us that benefit of the doubt. But, we get this long boring story about these three main characters that seems to have no point, except to draw your attention every now and then to the campus killer, who conveniently cuts into the act (no pun intended...i guess). I suppose that the filmmakers thought it necessary to remind you of that, just in case you forgot. Look, there's that dang killer again. He's gone and killed the best friends. Or the teacher who gave our characters hell. It's definitely a horror movie by the book. Yes, word for word.

I like how Martin Mull, who plays Paula's father and the first victim of the killer, is shot by a archery arrow and is left bleeding, but manages to survive like this for days. When the kids are in the woods around the creek where he's fallen, wounded, he can't manage to let out more than a dying breath to try and get someone's attention to help him. Of course, no one does. But later, possibly after another day has passed, he manages to get up and walk all the way home and then scold his daughter for not being in class. If that doesn't just wreak of stupidity...

But the end all be all of this awful movie is the worst dialogue, especially at the end. And performed in such a way that it's almost like they're reading from cue cards off-stage. They pause, then say their stupid line (and I can't decide which character is more ridiculous--Brian or Paula), then we have another awkward pause, and so forth. The finale on the whole is just completely stupid.

I guess, there's no point in continuing. If you want to see Brad Pitt in an early role, I would definitely recommend watching something else (Dark Side of the Sun was a good one, but hard-to-find). Otherwise, you'll find plenty of him here as capital moron, D(uh!)wight. As far as teen horror movies go, the 80s gave us plenty of them, good ones in fact. Once again, I recommend watching horror parody Student Bodies. If you're going to see a bad movie, at least see one you can laugh at.


This film seems to be saved from total video hell from one very inventive death scene. Pitt is a bad actor in this & still is a terrible actor now...The problem with this film is the acting, plot, setting, music etc.... Somewhere there was some potential for a campy/scary film , but unfortunately it seems to be more intune with an amateur gore hound & friends running amok with a second rate video camera.

There is nothing in this that has not been done better before. Only watch it if you either love one of the lead actors OR are an absolute sucker for cheesy horror films.


Plot Summary: There is a killer among us? Who is it? It you! No It's you! Blah Blah Blah. Even the ending (my wife would not turn the channel because Brad pitt was on the screen) was painfully bad. My wife (whose favorite movie is "Children shouln't play with dead things") even was laughing at how bad this was. Now that pretty bad. 0/10 (Unless you like watching a young (seemly different facially (plastic surgery??) Brad Pitt in a tank top run around.


This insane piece of garbage is only watchable for one person- and it's not Brad Pitt! Jill Schoelen is the only good thing in a movie where every other character SHOULD get killed. Heck, I was hoping they'd kill off a few more of these morons, it would've made the story a little more worthwhile. There's nothing here, really. This movie is just an exercise in stupidity. Martin Mull's character shot with a bow and arrow in the beginning and comes back at the end of the film? Are you kidding me? Brad Pitt's basketball scenes are laughable and most of the acting, from people like Pitt and Roddy McDowell, is without any semblance of ability. And those people had ability, it just doesn't show in this piece of crap. Finally, an explanation for why this movie is so bad can be found on the IMDb link for the director who apparently had a lot to do with The Exorcist II: the heretic, which was one of the worst films of all time. Don't expect much better from "Cutting Class."


Saw it on A&E last night and the only thing that drew me in was the curiosity of how much worse it might get. All the shots of innocent children playing were gratuitous and emotionally manipulative. The opening scenes of the baggage inspectors being so thorough was a bit contrived (apparently they were doing a better job back then than they do now). I got the sense that one of the goals of this film was to exculpate the federal government for its complacency, which after all is almost as much to blame for 9/11 as the hijackers. The hijackers were one-dimensional characters, almost like video game characters. There is no effort to show what their motives might have been, or to show that actual people did these things. I might be accused of sympathizing with the terrorists, but the fact is that they had a rationale (twisted as it was) for doing what they did, and if we are to end terrorism, we need to know and understand why it happens. I also couldn't identify with any of the passengers. Perhaps if the film makers spent less effort portraying the idyllic lives they lost (beautiful homes, beautiful children--did they really all live in tree-lined mansions in the countryside with angelic children) and spent more time on character development, it would have brought the pathos home. The Lord's Prayer sequence was particularly crass. If this wasn't based on a real event, it would simply have been an utterly forgettable B disaster movie not worth commenting on. As it is, this movie is a poor tribute to those who died that day, and a ghoulish attempt to satisfy our curiosity for what it might have been like to be on the plane that day rather than help us understand what happened and why.


awful, i was forced to watch this unrealistic account of the events of 9/11 for part of my media course and by the end, i wanted to quit my media course and move to Tibet to become a Buddhist monk leaving behind what i believe to be the end of Western Civilization. The characters are unbelievably patriotic and wooden. Especially the man who tried to stand up to the terrorists in his unrealistic, calm, America idealistic manner and in return got stabbed, if i was on that plane and witnessed that, it wouldn't be the terrorists stabbing him, it would be me. Now in the real events i have researched what happened and found that poor man was stabbed without knowing what was going on. Now being an American production they felt the unnecessary need of presenting him as an American hero that stood up to the terrorists. It's pathetic, Americans once again trying to rewrite history so its looks as though they have gained a victory from the tragic events, you lost, accept it as a tragedy please.


The fans are so embarrassingly credulous. They have bought the whole package, hook, line and sinker. There's absolutely no doubt in their minds that cavemen from Afghanistan organised a successful attack on the world's most expensive air force. They certainly believe the official line that Iraq was involved, too. The government told them so enough times --- in fact certain tenacious hardliners still do. I wonder how they explain their appointed President losing interest so rapidly in capturing Osama Bin Laden?

They watch a film (this one) that shows a hijacker wearing a bomb-belt, when he was earlier shown going through X-ray security at Newark airport. Now either Argenbright Security was bent, United was in on the deal, or there was no bomb-belt, because otherwise the relatives would be going berserk with lawsuits. The film is an utter fake.

The cellphone calls could never have happened. The airlines are only now installing the pica-cell technology to make them work. How come none of the other 200 passengers on the other three airliners were reported making cellphone calls? The cellphone calls were vital on Flight 93 to get the details of the "hero" legend across, which would then be used by the Pentagon as a recruiting campaign for invading Iraq. Because they were impossible, there would be no billing paperchase in the case of an independent inquiry, but enough people believed they could work to start a war. Now they make a movie to persuade people it was all possible.

That Todd Beamer phone call, the one where he is supposed to have said "Let's Roll" -- that was not made to his pregnant wife. That call was reported by the enormous Verizon corporation, which just happened at the time to have a $1.5 billion contract with the US government and the Pentagon for high-level communications systems. Even his wife was stunned that he was supposed to have recited the Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23 --- read her ghost-written book, where she admits just that. They only called to tell her about her husband's call after a full working week had elapsed --- Monday morning to Friday night.

And the cockpit voice recording that was miraculously found, it was totally useless for establishing what happened. Read Gere Longman's Among the Heroes, even he admits the recording was useless.

This film is for little pudding babies in kiddy-chairs gaping at the screen, sucking it all in with no brain operating at all. The state of American viewers is truly desperate...


Colonel Rick Gibney was awarded for shooting down Flight 93, which had been hijacked by remote control by the White House, as confessed by Pentagon in Operation Northwoods. Will Oliver Stone or Mel Gibson please make a movie about THAT?! http://piratenews.org/flight93.html

"The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations." Usama bin Laden, CNN, "Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks," September 17, 2001

"The goal has never been to get Bin Laden." General Richard Myers, chairman, US Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon

"On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, 202-324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden's Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, said: 'The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11'" Ed Haas, Muckraker Report, "FBI says, 'No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'," June 6, 2006 http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming." Dick Cheney, WhiteHouse.gov, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." George Bush Jr, March 13, 2002

Operation Northwoods: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf


I'm a big Marjorie White fan,but as a young actress, on the stage since childhood, and already a big hit in Sunny Side Up, why she agreed to take the part in this one, along with Charles Farrell and Janet Gaynor, I'll never know. On the whole, I find the entire film patently old-fashioned (even for its own time), ridiculously unfunny, except for George Jessel and Will Rogers, and I find it offensive to a great degree, the scene where the guy picks up Marjorie and physically throws her across the room, and the enormous chorus scene of blackface actors just horribly silly. And add El Brendel, the un-funniest comic of his time, and what we end with is a really forgettable piece, insulting, and not entertaining at all!


WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS

Any film with the words "Michael" and "Winner" in close proximity has to have a touch of class. This is no more true than with Dirty Weekend, a feminist empowerment film where Lia Williams gets her tits out and kills lots of men. The complex ethical debates of a vigilante lifestyle are ably challenged ("I thought you could be gentle in the jungle" Lia argues at one point) and Winner shows an innate and emphatic understanding of the female psyche. Lines like "all men are stronger than me" shows a man instinctively in touch with a feminine side.

Comprising an OTT soundtrack that wouldn't sound out of place in 30s Hollywood with a script that was less written, more sh*t onto paper, this is genius filmmaking all the way through. Helmed with the directorial panache of an anal cyst and populated by actors cut out of a Cornflakes packet, this is a genuine modern classic. See the interview scene set to "You Spin Me Round (Like A Record)" by Dead or Alive! Thrill to the trite overdubbed narration! Joy to the sloppy camera angles and grimy film stock! Gasp at the thespic constipation of Lia Williams!

The plot, of course, is razor sharp. Within a day of being dumped by a roguish love rat (who utters "Toodle pip!" as a send-off) Bella (Williams) is getting dirty phonecalls from a nutcase who lives opposite. In order to protect herself she sees an Iranian clairvoyant played by Ian Richardson (I'm not making this up). He "opens up possibilities" by giving her a switchblade.

However, she's put off when the nutter (Rufus Sewell, the only cast member to maintain dignity), tells her he's got a bottle of acid. So alarmed is she by this development that Williams's acting skills go into overdrive and she looks like a woman who forgot to buy an extra carton of milk from the greengrocer's. To rectify the situation she goes over to his house, accompanied by a jaunty country theme, and caves his head in with a hammer. Cut to a couple of scenes later and she's fantasising about bazookas and flame-throwers. (No, I'm really not making this up). Unsuccessful, she's approached by a Mr. Brown in the middle of the street who, for £400, sells her a "shooter". The story then dovetails into a scene where she gets a genuine desire for an obese man (Michael Cule, awful) with breasts and lets him take her from behind. A sophisticated exchange then takes place after he accidentally places himself up her anus, then loses his erection. After laughing at his impotence, he beats her, because, well, you know, all men are scum. To make up for this, she places a plastic bag over his head to suffocate him.

However, this leaves her with a chipped tooth, so she goes to the dentist to put it right. Unfortunately for Bella, her dentist is a psychotically Cockney David McCallum, who forces her to perform oral sex in a car park, with a "I hope you're hungry, cos it's time for din-dins. Open wide!"

Even old bag women aren't safe from the ubiquitous rapists that are men. When a rape gang (made up of Jon Pertwee's son and Mike from The Young Ones) come across her, they decide who'll get to perform the deed with a curt "let's have a look at granny's fanny." Fortunately, Bella is on the case and shoots them all in cold blood. After her killing spree, she chucks away her "shooter" into the sea. Less fortunately for her, a rapist has been watching her (they're everywhere, you see) and forcibly enters her with a helpful "that's my fist." Luckily, Bella's still got her unused switchblade from the Iranian, so she stabs him eight times in an amusement arcade. What a galling load of misogynistic tripe.

Winner apologists will probably say this is an ironic black comedy. I must admit, I did laugh lots... though probably not for any of the reasons the film's makers intended. Class. Absolute, 100% pure class. 2/10.


A fat man, naked and, yes, ugly in his fatness, gives the heroine of this film two slaps for laughing at him in his nakedness. For that he gets a plastic bag over his head and is asphyxiated. Other men in this film treat the heroine worse but are not killed, for instance like the elderly scholar that dumps her. The whole point of the movie, if there was one, was that the viewer should be able to sympathize with the heroine, the way we did with Charles Bronson in "Death Wish". But how can we sympathize with pure fascism? Take away the scene with the fat man and you have, actually, a film that is decently indecent. Michael Winner is naughty and when he is that at the expense of power, everything is OK. This is only partly so here. Being naughty with the poor and downtrodden (like fat people) is decidedly not OK and a sure sign for bad character.


Despite having a vigilante theme it's very difficult to believe that Michael Winner had anything to do with this movie . All through the running the subtext screams " Men are sexual sadists , you can't trust any of them , kill them all " which is far closer to a deluded feminist world view , and what ever you think of Mr Winner there's no way you can describe him as a feminist . But the penny drops the more the film goes on when you realise it's not meant to be a serious film and couldn't have been made by a serious film maker

The plot revolves around a woman called Bella who moves to Brighton and is the victim of a stalker who phones her when she's alone , though the stalker is both written and played in such an over the top manner that he's somewhat difficult to take seriously . Bella then takes advice from an Iranian clairvoyent ( As I'm sure anyone in her situation would do ) then it's revenge against the penis people all the way

As you can imagine I had this sussed out as a role reversal of DEATH WISH but about two thirds of the way through the entire tone of the movie changes when we're introduced to " The lady in red and spanky fat boy " . I wasn't convinced farcical black comedy was part of the masterplan at development stage , it's like Winner and co have got fed up making a straightforward revenge drama and had decided to lighten things up a little . Unfortunately the production started off bad and this black comedy element makes the film even worse

DIRTY WEEKEND is a bad movie , badly written , badly produced and badly cast ( Lia Williams goes through the movie with one expression ) but what makes it really bad is the offensive portrayal of men . There are a lot of nasty b@stards out there but it's ridiculous the way Bella runs into every creep , pervert and rapist in the country which gives coincidence a bad name . Though perhaps the movie isn't supposed to be taken seriously and I guess some people might see the movie as a guilty pleasure


A reverse gender "Death Wish" has doe-eyed Lia Williams as Bella, who encounters several oversexed, repulsive men, who are all interested in one thing (and it ain't football!). Hard to believe that director Winner actually made a handful of decent films in the early seventies, because this film is offensively stupid and violent with giant lapses in logic and character motivation. Every male character (=caricature) is presented as a horny git, who eventually suffers Bella's revenge, but so what? After the Death Wish sequels, Bullseye, Parting Shots and now this, Winner should definitely NOT quit his day job as a restaurant critic.

0 (of ****)


This is a nasty and crude little offering from Mr Winner, which has quite a lot of heinous and cruel male characters in it. All set amongst the splendid flowers and apparent tranquility that is Southern England. But no, we are treated to some despicable men, such as a two-timing rotter; a psychopathic threatening phone-caller; a lecherous copper; a randy, grotesquely obese chap; a dentist who forces a woman to give him fellatio; and three nefarious blokes who savour in trying to set fire to an old vagrant woman. The picture has a definite menacing air to it throughout, has the lead lady Bella is repeatedly threatened by the said men and takes revenge and eventually gets her justice. I'm not going to entirely condemn the film, it has some moments, but it is difficult to watch. Only really for vigilante and Michael Winner film fans.


This is no Oscar Winner its a Michael Winner.and its one of his worse this is a very phoney movie.It doesnt work as a thriller.it comes across as a womans death wish.Except no Woman would get into such silly adventures.its insultingly bad.Some truly vulgar scenes.Obviously some of the actors needed to pay the rent.1 out of 10


This is seriously a contender for worse film of the century award! There really isn't much I can say about this film. I saw it ages ago, and it was an awful mess of a film! It's low-budget and it's directed by Michael Winner who also wrote this garbage! It's vulgar, vile and the characters are completely uninteresting, especially the main female character, who finds her purpose and goes around killing male scumbags. It seems every male she encounters is a potential rapist. I have no idea as to what Winner was trying to say in this movie, but it all seemed so unnecessary, and the lead actress was insipid. All I remember is waiting for this garbage to end. Avoid 'Dirty Weekend' like the plague!

No score...0 out *****!


... but then, what else would you expect from Michael Winner?? You'll usually find that regular use of voice-over as a narrative device is the last refuge of a director incapable of being economical; alien to visual or nuanced storytelling. The trend isn't bucked, such is the case here.

The world of he who orchestrates everything is colourless and grimy, with creeps populating every suburb. My word, he must have met some reprobates in his alternate lifestyles to have such a ceaselessly nihilistic outlook! Answers on a postcard gratefully received please, as to why the soundtrack apparently contains a didgeridoo. It's obvious that the person who composed it has no idea why...

A female version of "Death Wish" with even more specious motivations. Just what the '90's needed to teach us how to be civilised, and - this is more important - hopefully make better films for the new millennium!


I had high hopes for this movie. Basic premise is, Girl dates struggling artist/entrepreneur in college. Girl dumps artist/entrepreneur for new rich guy who sweeps her off her feet with time and gifts. Girl runs of and marries rich guy. Years later, Artist/Entrepreneur becomes rich and famous. Girl artist/entrepreneur meet again. Old feelings still there, what will happened next?? Nothing to original about it, but still could make for an interesting story. Despite my high hopes, and, as one user commented, it's not a good sign when it takes 3 years to get a movie out there.

My first complaint is that first 2 minutes basically give away the ending of the movie! It wasn't that difficult for me to figure out what would happen once I saw the opening sequence. I was hoping not to be right, and looking for a surprise ending, or a twist. Sadly, I got neither. It was just as predictable as I feared. Yeah, the actual shooter could be seen as a twist, but I saw that coming as the movie went on too.

I was not impressed with Chenoa Maxwell's role or acting ability at all. She basically comes off as a money hungry ditz, who is only interested in men that will spend money on her, or bow to her every demand

My advice, Save your money. It's interesting to see typical good guy Underwood play a semi-abusive womanizing jerk, but you hate his wife so much you can't be mad at him. And Richard T Jones was decent, but I would have liked to see a little more depth to him than some lovesick puppet willing to do everything for this woman who betrayed his trust in the past.


You can tell a lot about a movie by its release date or in this case, it's release YEAR. G was made in 2002, and we're finally seeing it in limited release at the end of 2005. There's a reason why studios and theaters weren't rushing to release this one. How can I describe G? It's Boyz 'N The Hood, but this time the Hood is the Hamptons. This is not The Great Gatsby that F. Scott Fitzgerald had in mind when he wrote the classic novel. However, it's certainly an original idea for movie ("There just weren't enough rap moguls in the 1920s version"), but G is by no means a good movie in any way.

The black stereotypes are horrific! Four up-and-coming rappers are driving around the Hamptons complaining that they can't find Newports, 40s, or McDonalds anywhere! Yes, I laughed, but I laughed at how horrible those lines were! Don't see this movie, it's just ridiculous. The acting is as pathetic as the script. No wait, there's one great line in G: "If you ever touch my sister again, I'll stab you in the dick with a plastic spoon!" There, now you know the funniest line. Now there really is no reason to see it.


I saw the movie "G" last night 10/29/05 and I feel like we paid $7.50 too much. This movie should have been at the A$1.00 movie. It reminded me of an independent movie with bad actors and a thin watered down plot. Maybe the writers and producers just got out of film school...I don't know. This movie had a slow start and I thought that it was going to get a little interesting in the middle and then it had a weird ending. Everybody in the movie theater were complaining. Lots of things didn't make sense. It seemed like it had the potential to be good but it just wasn't happening. The characters seemed so unreal. The ending was something that I didn't understand- there were a lot of loose strings that needed to be tied together. I expected a lot better from Blair Underwood. He was the reason I really wanted to see the movie in the first place. We should have gone to see "SAW 2" like we originally intended in the beginning.


what a weird line! But anyway, this film looked like was Saturday afternoon BET melodrama with a good budget. The acting was so bad that you would need to be a die-hard fan of at least one of the cast members in order to get through it. In my case, Blair Underwood did it for me. Even though his character is the most vile, evil, manipulative, and ultimately unlikeable person in the entire film, he still manages to give an awesome performance and show what acting is all about. I wish I could say the same for Richard T. Jones who looked so stiff and uncomfortable in the role of Summer G, a record label executive who has it all, except for his one true love. And the one that got away happens to now be married to Underwood's character, Chip Hightower. Chenoa Maxwell (whom I like to refer to as Halle Berry on steroids) walks through her role as Sky Hightower with such ease but sometimes overdoes the more dramatic scenes. Andrew Royo, who plays her cousin Tre steals almost every scene he's in, except for the ones with Underwood. The film in the child of Ralph Lauren's son, Andrew, who also doubles as a cast member named Adam Gordon, Summer G's publicist. I am told the film was inspired by the Hollywood classic, The Great Gatsby. Hopefully, the classic was better than this fluff!


Having the best film title around is about all G has going for it. Richard T. Jones, a hip hop record producer, and Blair Underwood fight over the laughably emotive (and, frankly, not pretty) Chenoa Maxwell. Considering the genre (pseudo-gangsta love drama), I can forgive a lot. My biggest complaint is not that the editing is slipshod, nor that Maxwell is truly awful, nor that Underwood (quite possibly the most attractive man on earth) looks like R Kelly here (and that's not good). It's supposed to be a movie about hip hop - with practically NO HIP HOP! Oh - one of the most memorable unmemorable quotes in cinema this year comes from G: "Happiness is God's orgasm."


Watching this movie was like watching a train wreck go in slow motion! We KNOW what the end result is before it happens. Christopher Scott Cherot (The dude who did Hav Plenty and starred in it)Wrote and directed this but it was obviously not a good follow up to that Cult classic movie. And as you also can obviously guess,he's done nothing since then...that we know of that adds to much of his resume.

This movie would've made a great BET movie of the week and should not have even been released to theaters. I'm still trying to find out why a main character who is supposed to exude virility,gangsterism,and respect has a name called "Summer G"....Gosh, STUPID!!

The whole rappers in the Hamptons thing was weak...okay P-Diddy but they made it seem like it was the new thing to be doing for all rappers or something. Although Richard T. Jones is an excellent actor I felt he was miscast-ed in this role; he looked more like a R&B crooner or something and NOTHING at all like a rapper.

Chenoa Maxwell whom must be best friends with Christopher Scott Cherot to be in another one of his low-budget films looks like she works out with Hulk Hogan or something...when she was in Hav Plenty she was cute as hell...what Happened!? She looked like a man in drag.

This overall was a pointless,loss of direction,VERY boring movie with your basic stereotypes that just confirms that the movie biz is on a decline with great stories and creativity. I thought Christopher Scott Cherot was the next Spike Lee, or John Singleton...if he continues like this he will be as memorable as Mattie Rich, and if you don't know who he is then that's what I am talking about.


I hated this awful movie! I had such high hopes because I had read about it for many months and I was so glad to walk into the video store and finally see it on display. Though the acting was good, (then again, how could you go wrong with that cast) the story absolutely sucked. Those women were not at all representative of the many women in the world who would love a good man. Each woman who had or whom had access to a good man used him and left him for some man with money. I am shocked that this type of negative woman bashing film even made it to the video store. A man who hates women and who has been hurt and used by some skanky chick must have written this film as payback. I say to the good women out there avoid this evil film and definitely don't watch it with your man---you'll only regret it later.


Taal is one Boring movie and is given the nick name Lucky Hit. The songs were a Great Hit, which is why the movie had a head start. Subash Ghai has given us many great Hits, but he has disappointed this time. Akshay Khanna goes over the top, with his weird acting in a immature role. He delivers a boring performance that makes u sleep. Anil Kapoor is responsible for fabulous movies in the past. As they say let bygones be bygones, let the past stay like that. Anil gives a dreadful performance in a unusual character that tried too be funny. Aishwarya Rai is overrated as it is, gives a boring and stupid character once again. The movie was so predictable, full of annoying characters. A big Bore is how i can describe this movie. Horrible, do not waste your time.


If the movie had finished 40 minutes earlier, I would give a rating of 9 for its stunning music & lyrics, original presentation and the brilliant performance of Anil Kapoor. Aishwarya also exhibited her decent (and evolving) acting talent as well as graceful dancing skills. Alas, all these attributes are ruthlessly ruined by the true-Indian-girl-goes-back-to-her-first-love stereotype. Should the storyline tilt audience's mood from one extreme of love to the other extreme of hate? What an arrogant, despicable cliche! The script writers are doomed for wasting great talents of veteran actors and the shinning beauty in the eyes of Aishwarya Rai.

Rating 2 of 10, 1 for the music and 1 for Anil Kapoor.


There are certain movies you just HAVE TO watch if only for their titles alone. With such a title you automatically tend to think "how bad can it possibly be  right?" Of course, only a few minutes into the film and you can't but realize how awful it is and all of a sudden the title doesn't sound that funny anymore. A few minutes  that's how long it takes in order to be exposed to a world of horrible acting performances by randomly selected yokels, incomprehensible dialog and no plot development whatsoever. During the intro we have John Carradine (him again  the more bad B-movies I discover, the more I encounter his fatigue face) murmuring something about being the devil and thus He who decides whether a person goes to hell or not. Apparently this sequence, and a couple of other ones featuring Carradine, where edited into the film by Fred Olen Ray afterwards! Okay, now I understand how Olen Ray has over 110 movies on his repertoire as a director and Carradine over 340 as an actor! Anyway, after the Judge of Hell's bizarre uttering, we switch towards a remote countryside setting. We have a party of four, people that couldn't possibly look less connected to each other, wandering through the woods and finding shelter in a secluded farm house. Apparently they are fugitive jewel thieves, but these people honestly look way too dumb to commit any sort of theft, let alone jewelery. You would then subsequently expect for the "Demented Death Farm Massacre" to ensue, but no  First there's a lot of arguing about the difference between stealing a jeep and picking up what other people threw away (seriously, who "throws away" a jeep?) and other totally random and nonsensical gibberish. The fattest and ugliest redneck I've ever seen is married to a beautiful young girl with impressive cleavage. It is later explained that her father owed the fat bastard $200 and they settled it with a marriage. That's hillbilly logic for you! Every dialog is drawn out five or six times more than necessary and the "action" sequences are shot in slow-motion. They literally do everything here in order to reach a normal playtime. The absolute most shameless attempt to fill up the running time is an extremely long monologue of a guy talking to God. Seriously, FOUR full minutes of staring at a dumb yokel talking to the sky! There's so much talking in this movie, it's crazy. Either the screenplay contained approximately 7,000 pages or these rednecks were just instructed to improvise whatever the wanted. Naturally, there's also a chase through the woods guided by the obligatory banjo music and incompetent cinematography. In the end, the only "demented" thing about this movie is that there are idiots like myself who watch it. The "Death Farm" is just a shed in somebody's garden and the only farming tool used in the "Massacre" is a pitchfork. Lame.


I got this movie in a boxed set from Troma studios. I figured that from the title "Demented Death Farm Massacre: The movie", it would at least be fun to make fun of. But this movie is so bad, it doesn't even fall into the category of the "So bad it's good" type of movie.

The characters and writing are boring, with not much going on. At first I thought it might be a comedy, since the characters are written in such broad terms. But no, to my unhappy surprise, this movie is not meant as a comedy. At least, if it IS a comedy, there are no laughs in it.

So then I went to idea "B" - that the movie was just a really bad drama. No luck there, since a drama would require some form of plot. This doesn't seem to have one. Oh, it starts out well enough, setting up a group that COULD have possibilities. But they are never really explored, so that idea falls through.

Since I couldn't find any way to truly enjoy this movie, I would have given it a "1". The reason it got a "2" out of me was the fact that, unlike many other Troma releases, it was at least well lighted. So, even though you won't want to watch it, you could at least see the action.


Moments mostly of bad film-making. It is, to me anyway, clearly not a horror film that got messed with some in the editing to try to make it more horrifying--with little success. Though none of the performances are really much good, some have a regional theater style fascination. You'll hope for real nudity, but your hope with remain only a hope by and large. The failed camp nature of the thing is somehow less painful than in other purely Fred Olen Ray movies, so maybe he didn't have that much to do with this one.

Total crapola post production sound job leads to more laughs and they try real hard to use sounds that don't match the picture, it's like they only have one FX CD just had to make it work for everything--though there is very little in the way of polish on any level. The first, and one of the only, night scenes in the movie is almost entirely out of focus and grainy.

It's sort of going for a 2000 Maniacs feel I suppose only less well made--yes that's what I said.


I'm taking about the cover of the Troma DVD box. There is like NOTHING accurate about that except that the woman on it looks like the actress. Other than that, nothing. There's a body hanging from a tree, there are chickens pecking at a body, there is an Italian looking guy buried and about to get a sickle through his head. And, oh, let's not forget the biggest thing... this movie does not take place on a farm! There is no silo, no wheat field, no big red barn, no big tractor, no livestock. It takes place in a backwoods liquor still. Back-WOODS. Not a place for a farm.

But you have to expect the cover art to cheat you, it's a common trait among low-budget flicks to trick you with a flashy poster or cover art and what you get is a less-than-flashy movie. The story is really about a few bank-robbers/jewel-thieves taking shelter at a house occupied by a hypocritical backwoods moonshiner and his much younger wife. The "farmer" gets wise to the fugitive nature of his guests and they find out that he's got a stash of money somewhere. Problems and murder arise.

Terror this is not. Neither demented. However, it does keep your attention. Most of the characters are not likable. The body count does get steep for such a small cast. There is also a moral to this story as told by Carradine that focuses on the evil nature of greed.

Not a slasher movie, not an action-thriller, not even much of a melodrama. I wouldn't really recommend this to anyone because it has nothing going for it. Unless you want to see another "I-could-do-better-than-that" movie. Although watching obscure genre movies may be entertaining from time to time.


I rented this movie a few months ago. My brother, his friend and I were on a cheesy horror flick kick, and we thought this movie would be funny. We were very wrong. It was a waste of my money and a waste of my time. After barely 10 minutes we were already falling asleep and losing all interest. It got so bad that we eventually decided to fast forward through the whole movie, and see if there were any interesting scenes. Not once did I take my finger off that fast forward button. A day later I actually attempted to watch the full movie. After watching it all the way through I realized one thing. It was 100 times more interesting when we were fast forwarding it. Don't be fooled into renting this low budget crapfest called Honey Britches. You don't want to make the same mistake I did.


I bought this movie, as in paid over 10 English pounds for a film called Demented Death Farm Massacre: The Movie. I got Honey Britches. Okay, let that sum the disappointment in one line? The blurb sounded a total undiscovered gem, with the desperate Jewel Thieves hiding out with a clan of psychotic rednecks - ends in a brutal battle for survival.. Sounded almost like a wild combo of Dusk till Dawn and the Chainsaw massacre! The phrase polishing a turd springs to mind. Unfortunately, in the instance of buying videos a turd can be polished very nicely and sold under a groovy title to unsuspecting horror fans. To say the blurb is misleading would be an understatement. Lame people can be jewel thieves too.. just as psychotic rednecks can be goofy rather than aggressive... ARRRRGHGGGHHHHH

LAME LOSER JEWEL THIEVES VS GOOFY JERK OFF RETARD FARMERS WHO DON'T KNOW A CHAINSAW FROM A MICROWAVE!!!!

For the record, this movie was released in the UK as Demented Death Farm Massacre The Movie. Why, I have no idea.

If you too ended up seeing this, please accept my commiserations... If you are reading up on this, please heed my warnings and avoid like the plague.. this doesn't have a 1.7 mark for nothing!!! (Probably worse than that coz its about to get a 1 from me!!!)


"Amerika" had potential, but squandered it in a storyline that made no sense and in characters that made even less sense.

I watched this miniseries when it was broadcast, and taped it thinking it would be something worth keeping. I've never been inclined to view those tapes, because the non-sequitors were annoying the first time through.

This was a dreadful production. It isn't obscure because it was controversial, it's obscure because it's dreadful. The Russians are in charge, but why does that mean there is no running water? I kept waiting for the story to go somewhere, for Kris Kristopherson to start acting (never happened!), for some character, somewhere to make me care what happened to them.

This miniseries is not a suppressed gem. It's a well-ignored waste of time, talent, and potential.


Most people have forgotten the hysteria that took place because the movie was shown on TV. The fact that anyone was criticizing the Soviet Union was deemed heresy at that time. It was a different atmosphere than what it is now. It was written in stone that no network would ever criticize Communist totalitarianism but should, instead hate America. Ted Turner, an admirer of Marxist dictatorships and husband of Hanoi Jane, countered with "peace" programs on his television outlet.

From a cinematographic viewpoint, it failed because it needed drastic editing. A later film, Red Dawn, about a Russian invasion of the US was more compact. It, too, was was hysterically attacked by people who objected to anything bad being said about Russia or Communists.


I remember when this dreadful mini-series first played. There was tons of controversy over it which immediately disappeared after the series aired (people saw how boring and pointless it was). The premise is a good one (Russia taking over America) but this was basically boring! It moved at a snails pace. I watched the whole thing hoping it would get better but it never did. The script and characters were hopeless--nonstop clichés that I've seen hundreds of times before. They had some great actors in this (like Christine Lahti) giving their worst performances. It's not available in any format for a good reason--who would buy it? Maybe the 16 or so people here who are giving it a good rating would purchase it but nobody else. This mini deserves the obscurity it has. A 1 all the way.


The first 15 minutes were good, but the usually low budget, too much dioluge, and sappy made for TV quality. I watched 2 showa and the ending I could not stand the boredom this film produces. Who would have gussed in 87 that the Cold War would be over in 2 years. I guess when they open a Mc Donalds in Moscow the signs where there! 3/10


Kris Kristofferson is a decent American patriot actor. The American first strike is still 1091 nukes that sounds like Pt 109 won the war and that says back off brics alliance. President Kennedy and I have pledged that America will never start a nuclear war, we will only respond in kind. Just a friendly reminder that President Kennedy won the bet red dealey no touchy feely other guys. As my good Friend with a capital and a Capitol President George W Bush hinted at let American style freedom reign worldwide forever. There will be no Russian troops in America on my watch as I am the real American Shadow Vice President with the real equivalent rank of a six star General. My rank is American Constitutional was well. Thanks to IMDb for allowing freedom of speech like the kind President George W Bush and I support. Support IMDb.


I was browsing thru the screen credits for Laura Flynn Boyle and noticed she had a bit part in this mess. And then I read a comment that this mini-series was "great" and that the user couldn't understand why this was never shown again. Maybe because this series was vapid, vacuous, boring and incoherent! Who told Kris Kristoffersen he could act?! He does his best to obfuscate an already muddled plot with his usual mumbling double talk. Somehow Kris has done something (or failed to do something) that allows the Russians to take over. No real explanation is ever given. If the Russians were forced to watch this mess, they would turn tail and run! The only good part of this show is the execution of Congress! (Of course, a funnier execution is the Martian one in "Mars Attacks!") . Avoid this show at all costs!


I watched this when it was first broadcast, living at the time in Washington DC, where the press was harrumphing about what a dangerous, subversive, anti-social act it would be to watch this paranoid fantasy. Naturally, such indignation made me even more eager to see it. By the time I'd gotten to Day 4 of this dog's breakfast, I was stupefied with boredom, but kept going until the end, convinced that no filmmaker could invest this much time into a project and not have a terrific payoff at the end, to compensate for the glacial buildup. No such luck. The show ended as it started, a colossal waste of time.

I've read that this was based on a story originally by Ben Stein, who still finds the memory of the way it was slaughtered too painful to talk about. The brainless lefty, Kris Kristofferson, when asked why he took such an uncharacteristic role (leader of a revolt against Soviet overlords of a conquered America) answered that he did it because he thought another actor might have been able to do serious damage in such a role. That is, another actor might have actually done the job he was hired to do and made the role believable. No risk of Kristofferson falling into such a trap - he emotes throughout with the energy of high-speed oatmeal. Every scene seems to be on the verge of delivering something exciting and engaging, then falls lifeless to the ground.

It's hard to be sure just what was the motive behind the making of such a confused mess. But I think that people who see it as a cautionary tale are misreading the makers' intent, and forgetting the era it was made in. Coming as it did at the end of the Reagan era, I think it was Hollywood's poke in the eye at the triumphalists among the American Right, a sneering "So you think you're so good?" fantasy of a prostrate, failed America losing out to the hardier, more determined Communists. In that way, it is less a nightmare than a leftist wet dream.


Firstly, this is only the second review I've ever posted on IMDb so am unsure as to what constitutes a spoiler to you guys so have checked the box just to cover myself. To be honest though, the whole film is a spoiler so just don't bother.

I can't begin to write here how appalled I was that such a hyped and eagerly anticipated (not by me I must hasten to add) film could be so bad.

I wasn't one of the 'trillions' that read Dan Brown's book, and I think the film makers just assumed that everyone in the audience had read the book, and more to the point, loved the book; "so hey, we don't have to worry too much, whatever we do we're gonna make shed loads, just get it done!". I deteste these films which come out of Hollywood, which seemingly are made purely for profit and let all the important attributes needed to make a true, decent film, fall to the way-side.

It literally took about 15 minutes for me to decide that this film was a complete piece of crap. The dialogue used to move the plot along was ridiculous. In those first 15 minutes Tom Hanks (whom to my mind has only ever made a handful of decent movies at best) is giving a lecture to students. Then he gets taken aside to be told his friend was murdered, can he please come have a look. OK, strange but lets go with it. Then a french policeman tells him he must help immediately and it wouldn't be wise not to. Then a girl appears from nowhere and tells him he must come with her as the policeman is trying to kill him. Oh but wait, we can't go out the front door or anything, we have to go this way. Oh and by the way can you read codes by any chance? Oh you can? Wonderful! Then please de-code this before we go, it'll help greatly........

And so the plot goes on and on and on like this, no explanation, no reasoning just blind commands that he follows again and again from anybody that cares to give him one. At no point in this opening 15 minutes does Tom Hanks question what people are telling him, he just believes them, does what he is told and moves onto the next stage. It was like watching a computer game, with the main character being told do this, do that, don't go here and quick come this way, by supporting characters just to progress onto the next level. It was mind-numbingly boring. Does no-one else agree even slightly with this?

The strange thing is I briefly started to read the opening chapter or two of the book whilst I was away last month with my girlfriend, and my first impressions were that it read like a movie script so something doesn't quite add up........


So much for the "sacred feminine"!

This movie bore more resemblance to Paris Hilton than Paris, France. It was good looking, but extremely shallow.

Ron Howard did a fine job of directing, but Tom Hanks was completely unconvincing. Visuals were excellent, but the music was overbearing. Ian McKellan was fabulous. The actors who played Fache and the bishop were also excellent, but did not have enough camera time. Too bad.

Most of my criticisms are probably aimed at the material Howard had to work with, meaning the book, "The DaVinci Code", which contained multiple gross art history errors. As a veteran Art Teacher with a Master's degree in Art Education, these errors was extremely distracting to me in both reading the book and watching the movie.

Some of these errors are as follows:

The windows at the pyramid at the Louvre contain 673 panes of glass, not 666.

Leonardo (Whose last name is NOT DaVinci..Da Vinci simply refers to the town he lived in) never referred to the "Mona Lisa" as the "Mona Lisa" in his life time. The moniker was given to the painting by the Art biographer Vasari in the 1800's; thus, Leonardo never could have come up with the outlandish anagrams.

The painting "Madonna on the Rocks" is actually entitled "Virgin on the Rock"; again, this was done so that Brown can create a convenient anagram. In the Louvre, it is NOT located in the same room as the Mona Lisa.

The Last Supper is NOT a fresco. It is a mural. If Mary Magdeline is to the left of Christ in the painting, then where was John? Why would Leonardo make him be missing? It was customary for painters from the Florentine school (where Leonardo hailed from), to make young men appear more feminine than older men, to infuse a bit of innocence in their appearance. Additionally, the Bible contains NO references to the "holy grail", or "chalice". Leonardo was simply making his painting more natural,in keeping with his naturalistic interpretations of his subjects.That's what Leonardo was famous for!! Leonardo, like most of us, simply believed that Jesus didn't have the, uh, " bling" to own a golden chalice!!

There is a sketch by Leonardo of the "mystery hand" holding the knife in the Royal Windsor Art collection, and that hand definitely belongs to Peter. It is not a "disembodied hand wielding a dagger".

If I hadn't read the book first, I would have been confused with the flash backs, which were very poorly rendered.

The film was very "talky", which is bad enough, but the talk itself wasn't accurate. I'm surprised the main female character's (Sophie) head didn't explode with all the condescending lectures she was given.

"Sacred feminine", indeed...I'm a woman, and "The Davinci Code" insulted my intelligence.


By the halfway point, I had this film in my liked column, but then it just went on and on and on, in fact, even though I have left the theater, I still think the film is running. This is a thriller with no thrills, an intellectual mystery with no mystery or intellect. It posits a mystery 2000 years old and feels like it was filmed in real time.

Who is Robert Langdon, the hero played by Tom Hanks? I get no feeling for anything about the guy, his claustrophobia is presented as being important, but it is an uninteresting embellishment and is clearly not important to the story.

The whole story for the film reduces to. . .well, I don't know what it reduces to? I seemed to just be watching pretentious people running around on fool's errands. This is not always a problem in a movie, no one can adequately explain The Big Sleep and I defy anyone to clearly tell me what happens in the recent Russian film Night Watch, but those films have a surfeit of characters that make the twists and turns interesting to follow. Not to mention a wonderful visual strategy that makes them breath. The Da Vinci Code is a suffocating film that does the impossible; it makes the Louvre look boring.

I was puzzled by the casting. With all American Tom Hanks on board and the French Audrey Tautou, the German Jurgen Prochnow and the competent Brits: Alfred Molina, Paul Bettany, and Ian McKellen, we have a Chinese dinner approach to casting "one from column A and one from column B", but this cast doesn't gel.

They each do their little bits, but the whole does not add up to more than the parts. There were too many little things that rankled me or anyone with half a brain. The Louvre is filmed so blandly, that it doesn't really matter that they really used the real place for a location. Also, the Louvre does not have steel gates that come down when a painting is removed from the wall. Also, Tautou introduces herself as a "French Police Cryptologist". French Police Cryptologist? The French have a national police? The Louvre wouldn't be in the Paris police jurisdiction? Does your city have a staff cryptologist on its police force? Too many ludicrous things happen that made me ask questions while it is happening, not after it's all done when you would get the Hitchcock "refrigerator moment". I can take religious hooey, but I can't take scientific hooey. Even the car chases are uninteresting, and badly filmed.

One more thing, if I am ever shot and have to leave a clue to the identity of my killer, I will write that he was an albino monk in a cassock with a cell phone and an automatic. There can't be that many running around, even in Paris.


What a load of pretentious, pompous nonsense this flick is.

Dear oh dear......absolute rubbish.

The movie begins with someone being murdered in a French museum, and there then follows a unbearably tedious 'detective' trail with people having murderous intent and the hypothesis is Jesus had a wife, children and there exists a present day blood line blah, blah, blah.... Yawn....

Without exception every actor/actress given ridiculously hammy and unconvincing performances.But every one of them seems convinced of their own self importance. Yawn.....

The movie goes on for over two hours, but it seems like two years, and I fell asleep in it several times. Yawn.....

If u can't get to sleep watch this as you will be slumbering within minutes:

1/10


The Dan Brown's international best-seller is brought to life in this film directed by Ron Howard(Cinderella man) with screenplay by Akiva Goldsman and with Tom Hanks(Oscar winner by Philadelphia-1993- and Forrest Gump-1994-) as a symbols expert named Robert Langdom,Audrey Taoutou as Sophie Neveu, a cryptology expert,besides the prestigious Sir Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh, among others. The story talks the investigation by Symbologist Langdom when happen the killing of Museum Louvre's curator named Jacques Sauniere(Jean Pierre Melville).The corpse is around with codes,cipher and symbols.Nearly from him they have found a baffling pentagram and a Fibonacci numbers.Solving the enigmatic questions,Robert along with the cryptologist Sophie are stunned to discover clues leading a trail of enigmas hidden,thus with the Leonardo's paintings : Gioconda and Madonna on the rocks find a riddling key with a flower the Lis .It leads them to a Bank where its director named Andre Vernet(Jurgen Prochnow) deliver the security safe containing a keystone.But a French police inspector named Fache(Jean Reno)chases Langdom and Sophie.Meanwhile a murderer psychopath and masochist monk wearing a cilice for inflicting pain so he can suffer as Christ suffered, is pursuing them.Besides an Opus Dei bishop named Aringarosa(Alfred Molina) is scheming odds plans. Langdom and Sophie Neveu become involved into complex resolution of strange crimes that lead since France until England. A British researcher named Sir Leigh Teabons(Ian McKellen) will help them,opening various mysterious around Da Vinci's masterpiece : The last supper,the Holy Grial and the massacre Templars, among other things.Traveling in airplane arrive to United Kingdom and they're going the church Temple and later to Westminster Abbey where is buried Sir Isaac Newton,allegedly a Grand master and main lead to resolve the riddle. Another clues leading them to a church built by the Templars themselves,named for the original Rose line : Rosslyn Chapel where discover the dynasty Merovingia leads until nowadays.

The movie is a genuine ripping yarn with intrigue,mystery,tension,outstanding surprises but with a plethora of blasphemies.The film is an excuse for a merciless criticism at Catholic religion,the only one apparently can to be criticized.It's plenty of theories for nuts,this is an old wives'tale.There's virtually no empirical proof and venturing into the even more bizarre theory about relationship between JesusChrist and Mary Magdalena.Absurd theories about ¨the last supper'the great fresco of Leonardo.The maximum ridiculous about female symbol when the chalice resembles the shape of a woman's womb.Besides inventing a new Gospel according to Philip what was rejected at the council of Nicea by emperor Constantino.A stupid lies concerning on women like a huge threat to the Catholic Church,accusing Inquisition publishes what may be the most blood-soaked book in human history: The Malleus Malleficarum,the witches' hammer,it is instructed the clergy on how to locate,torture and kill all freethinking women,during witch-hunt ,the movie tells, fifty thousand are captured ,burned alive at the stake,it's a complete lie ,someone can to be but no such deal.Besides the Templars slaughter was executed by ambitious King Philip IV of France ,isn't committed by Catholic church for hide the Holy Grial guarded along centuries by Grand Maestre and his guardians called the Senechals and forming a millenarian sect constituted in secret society called the Priory of Sion.


Terrible film. It lost me from the beginning. Some guy is shot by the most conspicuous assassin ever seen. Who could fail to spot an albino in a medieval cassock ? Where did he think he was, a fancy dress ? Then the mortally wounded guy runs around the Louvre leaving riddles in his own blood. Ever heard of a mobile phone ? Tom Hanks, Professor of Silly Nonsense at Harry Potter university doesn't make a move on Audrey Tatou. Some stuff happens and they're in a van. Ian McKellen can afford a villa in Portugal by hamming it up egregiously.

Apparently this film and book offended some peoples imaginary friend.I can see why, such a waste of money when people are going hungry.

Raspberries all around.


For the love of God Ron... 122M  for this... Probably the worsts Blockbuster of the year, and maybe the decade.

2.30 minutes of suffering. Bad construction of the plot, there are times in the movie that u are filled with info and others that u are thinking what u will eat tomorrow for lunch...

The caracthers are median... Tom go away... Audrey not bad and Sir Ian probably only the good cause for a 5 ticket...

I really don't like the changes that the production made to the book, specially in the end of the movie. And for God sake, the end with a praying Tom above Louvre's piramid... Simply hillarius.

I'd like to see wath a good director would do with something like this.


The book was cool and even made me put it down to go online to find a photo of the Last Supper to check for myself if it could actually be Mary sitting next to Jezus. As a bonus I liked the controversy surrounding the book. Not being the least bit religious I was fascinated to see people around the world fighting a book of fiction to defend their own books of fiction (ie bible). Travelling in France and visiting Cannes just before the premiere of the film, I decided to go see it. And I was not at all impressed and left the cinema with a feeling of being cheated out of what might have been a great film.

What's wrong with the DVC? Too much to mention, but here are my (spoiler) highlights:

1. The book is quite intelligent, fast paced, gets you to look at 'common knowledge' cultural 'facts' with a thrill. The film is never thrilling, not even during action scenes.

2. The premises in the book about equally intelligent etc male and female counterparts, also found in the relationship between Neveu and Langdon is missing. The character development in the book is missing in the film, with the exception of a couple of way too obvious personal trauma's that are used to bring religion back into the context of the film (Langdon's experience in the well as a child).

3. Some things that didn't come across as silly in the book (must have been more elaborately constructed) were plain stupid and inexplicable in the movie: It's ridiculous the way the Professor is suddenly turning against them. You fin yourself asking why he went through the whole theatrics before showing them his malicious intent. So in other words, essential plot structure is missing. This also happens when the beginning hints at Sophie's falling out with her grandfather and later Langdon suddenly says: what happened? I'm being shot at, so I deserve an explanation. In the book that makes sense. At this point in the movie it doesn't. There is no factual evidence presented yet that suggests her falling out with her grandpa has any bearing on the situation.

4. , I didn't like the ending of the book all that much either, but I didn't feel the urge to throw up as I did with the film.

5. The actors: To me Hanks simply is too much of a religious family man kind of actor to pull off the (religiously) critical scientist with an autonomous mind. Tatou is great to watch (her mouth!), but this film didn't give her the opportunity to shine as a performer. And although Jean Reno is one of my favorites ever since Le Grand Bleu, his character was just plain weird here. Unlogical again due to the script.

To summarize: Howard must have thought this film, based on a bestseller, was a guaranteed winner. I'm however left with the distinct feeling that he sacrificed the sharp edges of the book as to not alienate too many viewers. By not adding anything interesting to the script to make it an original and captivating new controversial art product, and also by choosing an actor with the aura of a good Christian family man, Howard took out the exciting atmosphere of the book. Add to that the many abrupt revelations, the absence of thrills on any level, flat characters in general and towards the end a religious revelation to please the religious viewers (nooo, this is really not an anti Christian film people) and you've got a movie that offers extremely little besides disappointment.

PS It seems Howard plus his scriptwriter now plan to turn the Bernini Mystery into a film, apparently hoping to cash in on another Brown-novel. However, that book wasn't half as controversial ór interesting as the Da Vinci Code was, so that doesn't bode well for their next project.


I did not know what to expect from the movie as I never read the book. I must say the movie disappointed me. It looked to be made very quickly. Sometimes actors, especially Tom Hanks, looked like they just said a line in the script... Did they realize they were not at the lunch break anymore and they should at least look like they thought about what they were saying? The puzzles looked childish. Langdon (Hanks) solved them all within seconds... Wow! What a perfect way to protect Holy Grail! And then there was this ancient secret note written backwards... And in perfect English! All ancient people in France, Italy, Vatican and wherever probably spoke perfect English. I think children at primary school would laugh.

My girlfriend asked me after the film - Did the characters actually change their dresses throughout the movie? - I guess they did not. Then she just commented - Very stupid movie.

I say the same. Very stupid, long and boring movie. Why they spend money to make such films?


I had read the book once before when it was first released (I had also read Angels & Demons which I enjoyed only slightly more than TDC), and a week before it's release decided to read it again to brush up on the story. Boy was that a mistake. Going into the movie with a fresh knowledge of the story only amplified my frustration. Ron Howards interpretation of the book was all wrong. I felt he left out key bits of information. For instance, he could have focused more on the Pagen symbolism, the Prior and umm how about Da Vinci? Also, the infamous Micky Mouse watch makes a brief appearance but no mention is made.

The movie (w/o even reading the book)fell flat. The script was bland at best. I think that the star power over shadowed my expectations. Overall Da Vinci left me unsatisfied.


This movie drags indeterminably, and not even the soft-porn sex scenes are that interesting. There is some very clever dialogue between the heroic couple and the Devil, and some nice supernatural-type camera work as well. But the movie otherwise plods endlessly.


Love Games is the kind of movie that is for either fans of soft-core or the devil. The "game" scenes are good, but with the normal slow jazzy music on top of the audio. I would only recommend it if it happens to come on TV and you have nothing else to do. It is not worth renting.


This is absurd - aside from the fellow Australian who has reviewed this flick, I can't help but think that everyone else who has submitted a review so far was some way involved in the production of Elektra, considering how generous they were with their praise.

Admittedly I'm not really a fan of comic-book-to-movie conversions so I didn't go in with many expectations, yet still I found Elektra to be incredibly underwhelming. The thing that irked me the most was the fact that there was SO MUCH in this film which went by unexplained, that left you thinking "huh, what relevance does that have to the plot?" or "so how did that aspect of the character come about?" I can only hope that these are things which are perhaps explained somewhat in Daredevil, which I have no intention of seeing.

Furthermore, the behaviour of the characters in this film appear to do an about-face at random moments to suit the storyline, and don't even get me started about the utterly pointless romantic sub-plot. I'm also (still) scratching my head over the fate of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's character, which seems to have gone by unexplained.

If I can give kudos to this movie for anything it would have to be the fantastic locations in which it was shot, but otherwise I gained little enjoyment from Elektra. I know we're supposed to suspend our disbelief for fantasy/action films, but almost everything in this film was so improbable or confusing (even by action film standards) that it simply frustrated me.

Well, hell, at least Jennifer Garner looks damn good.


Perhaps I'm out of date or just don't know what Electra is like in current publications... But the Electra that I read was far more manipulative and always seems to have a plan. She usually used others to do her dirty work and more often than not some sort of double cross was involved. Just when you think you have it all figured out she pull the wool over your eyes and gets her way.

This movie was fairly weak on the dialog, the acting wasn't particularly convincing, and the action was spotty. I was really looking for something more along the lines of Frank Miller's book "Electra Assassin." Which is much darker than anything in this movie.

Special effect where cool, action was interesting at times, but more often than not the story and plot was slow or illogical. Tha Hand was not menacing enough, and Electra was not..... bitchy enough. She's the girl you love to hate... but in this story, I just didn't care either way.


*** THIS CONTAINS MANY, MANY SPOILERS, NOT THAT IT MATTERS, SINCE EVERYTHING IS SO PATENTLY OBVIOUS ***

Oh my God, where do I start? Well, here - this is the first time I have ever come home from a movie and said "I have to get on IMDb and write a review of this NOW. It is my civic duty." Such is the badness of this flick.

*begin digression* But let me just state one thing before I start. I'm not some Harvard-art-major-film-noir-weenie (in fact, I went to the college at the other end of Mass. Ave in Cambridge, the one where the actual smart people without rich daddies and trust funds go, which should put me squarely in the nerd-who-would-obsessively-love-comic-book-films census group, and still I hated this film...). My viewing preference is for the highbrow cinematic oeuvre that includes the Die Hards, Bond flicks, Clerks, and The Grail. I wish the Titanic had never sunk, not so much for the lives lost, but so we wouldn't have been subjected to that dung-heap of a film. And the single and only reason I will watch a snooty French art film is if there is a young and frequently disrobed Emmanuelle Beart in it. I even gave Maximum Overdrive one of its precious few 10s here on IMDb, for God's sake. So I'm as shallow as they come, therefore I'm not criticizing this film because I'm looking for some standard of cinematic excellence - it's because Elektra stinks like a three-week-old dead goat. *end digression*

OK, there's so much badness here that I have to try to categorize it. Here goes:

MS. GARNER: One of the compelling reasons a male would want to see this flick is to see lots of hot JGar (I have no idea why my wife wanted to). I think that between this and "Finding Nemo", the latter was the sexier film. You know the red outfit she's advertised wearing in every freaking ad you see? You see her in it TWICE - once at the beginning, once at the end. Bummer. In the rest, she basically looks like what Morrissey would look like if he were a female - lots of pouting and black clothes. Which brings me to the incredible range of expression JGar shows in her acting - ranging from "pouting" all the way to "pouting and crying". Oh my God, you'd think she was being forced to date Ben Affleck or something horrible like that. Um, wait...

THE BAD GUYS/GAL: They show about the same range of expression and acting ability that you'd expect from a slightly overripe grapefruit. At least next to JGar's performance, it doesn't stand out too badly. One guy's role is to stand there and be huge, another's is to stand there and have stuff come out of him, and the woman's role is to stand there and breathe on and/or kiss people. They manage to pull these incredible feats off. The main bad guy has the most difficult role of all - he has to SIMULTANEOUSLY a) appear angry and b) appear Asian. He does a fine job at this. I think there was a fifth bad guy/gal, but my brain is starting to block parts of this movie out in self-defense.

PLOT TWISTS! This movie has about as many surprises as a speech at the Democratic National Convention. Let's just put it this way - my wife, who has only been in the U.S. for half a year and speaks only a small amount of English - whispered this to me when the girl first appears in JG's pad, and I swear to God I am not making this up: "She go to house to kill girl. And father too." And this is BEFORE THE FATHER HAS EVEN APPEARED ON THE SCREEN. Now my wife isn't stupid, but she isn't being courted by Mensa for her gifts, either, and she's had zero exposure to Daredevil or the comic book genre. And she figured this out in .00015 seconds with no prodding and no prior information. Such is the blatant obviousness of this film.

RARELY-BEFORE-SEEN STUPIDITY! OK, so there's this big dude in the film. He can take a chestful of shotgun blast and brush off the shot like it's lint, and he can take a vicious Electra stab to the chest and just bend the metal (or melt it - or something - more defenses kicking in, thank God). But JG jumps on his head, and he explodes? An Achilles noggin? OK! Such is the mind-numbing stupidity of this film.

Ack. I'm starting to feel a cerebral hemorrhage coming on, so I have to stop. But you have been warned. If you have to intentionally slash your own tires to prevent yourself from going to see this movie, DO IT. And if Armageddon is going to come, please let it be >before< this comes out on DVD.


I am indebted to TCM for showing this film as part of their recent survey of gay images in film. It played cheek by jowl with "The Killing of Sister George" and "The Boys in the Band," both of which merit comment on their own.

It is a bit of a truism that classics need revaluation, in order to affirm the great and purge the trivial. (My personal valuation of the AFI's 100 best list was 58 yes, 18 no, 20 borderline, and 8 of historical interest only.) And if ever there were a film accorded some degree of classic status that needed to be reevaluated, "The Fox" is it.

This is a film with essentially no redeeming features whatsoever.

Performances: Keir Dullea is decorative and smoldering. Ann Heywood is gorgeous and enigmatic--so enigmatic, indeed, that one wonders if there is anything to be enigmatic about. And Sandy Dennis--ah, Sandy Dennis--gives another carbon copy of her standard performance that is in essence one long twitch. Twitch after twitch after twitch.

Story and screenplay: The screenplay is based on a story by D. H. Lawrence of the same name. Ellen March (butch), played by Anne Heyward, and Jill Banford (neurotic femme), played by Sandy Dennis, live on and manage a chicken farm in remote Canada. It is not a financially going concern. Paul Renfield (Keir Dullea), grandson of the man who used to own the farm, visits and stays for several weeks. He proposes marriage to Ellen, who is Unsure but goes along with a tryout in the barn by the fire. Ellen may be Unsure, but Paul, on the other hand, like any male character in Lawrence, growls "I must have you" to Ellen, who is smitten with this deep dark belly tension between Man and Woman. (I unapologetically borrow from Stella Gibbons' "Cold Comfort Farm", which satirizes the Hardy-to-Lawrence agricultural depression style better than anyone else.} Paul goes off to his ship to collect back pay, sure of Ellen's wavering consent. She then writes him that it's all off, after a cozy little female smoldering with Jill. Paul returns and, for reasons best known to God, offers to chop down an oak tree. Jill, for reasons either best known to God, or in order to remove herself so that Paul and Ellen Can Be Happy Together, or just from terminal stupidity--a kind of Darwin moment--stands in the likely path of the tree and is squashed like an insect--a twittering insect. Paul and Ellen sell the farm and go off to an uncertain future.

I have so far related the plot. Like the bulk of Lawrence, the symbolism is crashingly heavy handed and the general impression extremely silly. The screenplay is short on dialogue and long on Smoldering Glances, Pregnant Pauses, and Meaningful Silences. One might say that the general effect is that of Pinter with an severe overdose of hormones.

Cinematography and Music: One must speak of these in concert with the screenplay. Everything is telegraphed in advance--particularly with the tree cutting. Steping into a hen house is accompanied by a score that sounds like The Night of the Vampire. The camera dwells extensively on snow and icicles until the exasperated viewer is ready to shout, "All right, I get it, trapped passion waiting to be awakened, stop, stop, stop!" The fox of the title keeps killing the chickens. Jill hates it; Ellen is fascinated by it. It is clearly Male Passion. Guess what! Paul kills it and symbolically makes it his by nailing on the barn.

This is the sort of film that is praised for its treatment of lesbianism and for being Subtle and Nuanced and Deep. Let me clarify what that really means: 1. It's a real positive view of lesbianism to let your boyfriend kill your lover in order to marry him.

2. Subtle=boring. This film is only slightly more entertaining than watching paint dry. A little skin and a parade of absurdities is not really enough.

3. Nuanced=slow. I would think that you could make a pretty interesting 30 minute film on this story.

4. Deep=pretentious. This is nothing more or less than paint by number symbolism and allegory. One feels faintly embarrassed in watching this.

The final verdict? This is one dreadful film that commits just about every conceivable offense against common sense, good storytelling, and realistic human behavior. Give this one a wide berth--not even worthwhile for the historical value.


First of all to the formal qualities of the movie: it is well done regarding the score, the cinematography and the actors' performances. Nevertheless, it was extremely hard to watch till the end because it made me furious how it depicted men and women. If it's true that, according to other reviewers, the movie truthfully adapts the novella of Lawrence and his opinions, then it doesn't say any good about Lawrence's work either.

As a straight man, I'm not very fond of 90% of men (most of them haven't got the heart, openness, and sensibility that I can easily find in many female friends), but the guy in this movie was extremely disgusting and is shown as a typical 1960s smug, self-opinionated alpha male who doesn't ask a woman once he has made up his mind, and who isn't interested in her thoughts, doubts or feelings (this being another ugly stereotype in this movie: a man doesn't have second thoughts, doubts or too much feelings, while women are so despicably weak that they consist of nothing else). He unperturbedly returns to the farm despite Ellen's letter saying that she doesn't love him and can't marry him, and even then, he doesn't ask, doesn't wonder. What communication skills, what a role model to be married with!

The movie's/Lawrence's hate towards lesbians is clearly shown in the short dialog between Paul and Jill where he wonders why she would be a lesbian as she's "not bad-looking, features are good, nice legs" (we are to understand: you become a lesbian because no man wants you, i.e. as a last resort). Then he tries to "convince" her that it only needs a real man to convert her (yes, he means himself!). What a subtlety! At that moment, if I hadn't been a man, I would have sworn to become lesbian myself.

Furthermore there's the ridiculous tree cutting scene at the end where the movie/Lawrence finally gets rid of the stupid, stubborn dyke who stands in the way of another unhappy, but holy marriage of an idiot with a weak-willed woman who doesn't love him. Here again, the man doesn't falter, whereas Ellen stands around like a prop. Women are such ridiculous sheep-like creatures that they show no solidarity, not even in precarious situations. And they aren't supposed to as their foremost allegiance must be to their husband.

Is that what you wanted us to learn, Mr Lawrence (author) and Mr Rydell (director)? I'm glad we've overcome the stench of those times and thoughts.


A ridiculous movie that plays to the '60s-style stereotype that a lesbian is a woman who hasn't found the right man yet, so bides her time with another woman. If she doesn't, heaven forbid, want a man, then she's an evil temptress and must die in the end. Of course, there's the usual batty performance from Sandy Dennis and some interesting imagery with Keir Dullea and the fox. The relationship was almost redeemed when the word 'love' was finally uttered near the end of the film, but it was too little, too late for this dated and cowardly film.