This movie was just too intentionally cheesy for me, as well as too lacking in real excitement or scares. And it's no surprise to find that Roger Corman, whose movies I just don't respond to, is the producer behind it all.

The movie opens with this sales film detailing how these new robots will patrol the mall after it has closed and harpoon any burglars. Then there's a live demonstration in front of an audience, with real tension that the robot is going to malfunction and blow the guy away right on stage, a la the opening scene of Robocop and now I see that Robocop came out a year after this one. Coincidence? We may never know. I do know that I wished the robot HAD blown the guy away, but whatever. Then there's a marginally amusing montage of life if the mall circa 1986.

Then we start getting introduced to the "characters," composed of two sluts and a "good girl," and two moron studs and a "nerd guy." Can you guess who ends up together? There are also various security and janitorial personnel on hand. Anyway, so there's a big electrical storm with tons of lightning that all strikes over and over in the same place, but without any rain. Characters outside during this time do not see any lightning, either. Such is the strangeness of this natural phenomena, I guess.

Well, anyone who's seen Short Circuit, released the same year, or even Stealth this year, knows that if there's lighting within five miles of a robot, it will hit the robot and reprogram it to either learn what it means to be alive or to become an unstoppable killing machine. It is the latter in this case.

So this security guard is all freaked out by the lightning, but as soon as it's over, he seems to think to himself "Alright! Now I'm gonna look at some porn!" and whips out a magazine. How come they're ALWAYS looking at the centerfold in these movies? There's nude pictures on the other pages too, ya know. Not that I KNOW, I mean, I've just HEARD. Anyway, as anyone who has ever seen a movie before knows, looking at a porn mag MEANS certain death, and this guy comes to a boring and abrupt end. Then more people die, as a way of stalling us before we start seeing the horny teens (all played by people appearing to be in their late 20s) get killed.

The teens "party" at this frankly embarrassing event at which they have to pretend to be having fun while oblivious to the fact that there's only six of them there. In the background a song called "Streetwalkin'" plays. Then they all have sex, within plain view of each other, on the beds in the furniture store. Except for the good girl and nerdy boy, who just watch an old (Roger Corman) movie. The girl squeals and hides her face at a small explosion, saying she's easily scared, which I guess is supposed to function as character development.

So, in one of the only amusing developments, one of the women goes all princessy and needs a smoke, of a certain brand, before she can start putting out (though it seemed like they already had done it, and I don't understand). She says "I have to have a cigarette and I have to have one NOW!" So the dippy guy has to go get one, and of course he gets killed. I tell you, the women in this movie made me very glad that I'm gay. Not that the guys are much better, but at least they're quieter, don't pretend at mood swings just to get attention, and will go get you cigarettes if you throw a hissy fit. Anyway, then the robot chases the woman who wanted the cigarettes and blows her head off in the film's grossest effect. From that point on it's all scream, chase, killing, blah, blah, blah, as the teens try to blow up the robots and escape.

Big yawn. This movie is only 77 minutes, and even so there was a lot of fast-forwarding. For one, I just don't love these kinds of movies. For two, really clumsy robots can't do much except shoot and squeeze, so the deaths they are capable off aren't really that gory or scary or interesting. There is little to no actual "chopping." And the robots don't have much personality and certainly no motivation. And the whole thing just isn't as silly as it should be. Well, it's silly, it just isn't silly FUN.

Hey, check out my site on bad and cheesy movies (plus a few good ones) at Cinema de Merde which you can find it through the url in my email address.


OK, 3 stars is generous. The only notable thing this movie has for future generations of anthropologists is how it absolutely nails how white people in the 1980s were, just look at the fashion: pastels? Open shirts? tight jeans? LAME hair! Wow, bad, but entertaining.

I'm sorry but I liked this movie, why? Well I first saw it on the Sci-Fi channel, then a few weeks later uneditied on Showtime, its much better on showtime, becuz then at least there is some nudity. And, watching it a second time I knew the movie, which for some reason made it more entertaining. If you are up late, have absolutely nothing better to do and aren't in the mood to have your brain work, watch this stupid movie. Yea, I know, I actually watched this thing twice..


The overly familiar "Friday The 13TH"-type premise (with an extra Sci-Fi note thrown in) is better executed here, but the movie still amounts to a complete waste of time after it's over. The characters are engaging enough to keep it strangely watchable (when they die, you may not be moved, but you aren't glad, either), but there are too many dumb inconsistencies in the action scenes (especially in the level of damage that the robots' weapons can induce). (*1/2)


Nothing much to write home about... Killer robots. CHECK. Screaming people. CHECK. Gore and heads blowing up. CHECK. Gratiutous sex scenes with a peek at some boobs. CHECK. Stupid dialogues. CHECK. Illogical plot-holes. CHECK. Crappy acting. CHECK. Cheesy humour. CHECK.

Sounds like an enjoyable 80s horror movie to me. Nothing really memorable, as this is just basically silly fun with no wires attached. A jump back to the days, when you could make silly movies and really didn't try to do anything else or sell the project as something it isn't.

As far as I'm concerned I'm content.


There's not much I can say that hasn't already been said in the previous 52 reviews of Chopping Mall, but the more Roger Corman films you've seen, the more you'll enjoy it. Others have noted the fine cast, but a good cast bears repeating, as a much better film once said: Paul Bartel, the always sexy Mary Woronov, Dick Miller, Gerrit Graham, and the inimitable Mel Welles (playing a grumpy chef) are all here to distract us from the limp special effects and threadbare screenplay. But there's more: from the poster promoting Lost Empire to the scenes from Corman's Attack of the Crab Monsters (which, by the way, REALLY NEEDS TO BE ON DVD), there's fun to be had for cinematic trainspotters. Heck, the mall gun shop (how many of those are there??) is called Peckinpah's! Misleading title aside, Chopping Mall is manna from heaven for bad movie mavens.


A mall has just been presented with a state of the art new security systemtreaded, laser-beam-equipped robots. Unfortunately, during THE most unconvincing lightening storm in cinema history, the robots go crazy and begin killing off teens that sneaked in after hours to party. "Chopping Mall" (AKA "Killbots") comes from genre hack Jim Wynorski, who's other credits include the immensely trashy "The Curse of the Komodo" and "Raptor". "Chopping Mall" is by far better than most movies he's made, though it still isn't great.

There's a nice cast of familiar genre faces (including Barbara Crampton and an amusing cameo by Dick Miller as a cranky janitor), a corny electronic 80's score, and I'll admit the robot effects are actually pretty well done on a low budget (though I did find the robot design to be a little too cute to be threatening). Unfortunately, with the exception of a decent slit throat and an OK exploding head, there's a disappointing absence of gore and the majority of the cast gave bad to awful performances.

Clocking in at a brisk 77 minutes, "Chopping Mall" isn't a bad way to waste some time if you're a horror fan, though there are better killer robot flicks out there (See Terminator 2 and 3, Moontrap or even the 1997 box-office bomb, Virus).

4/10.


This was by far the WORST movie I have ever seen. EVERYTHING about this movie was horrible. HORRIBLE! Besides the bad acting, the bad sound quality, the terrible directing, and the terrible editing job, what made this movie morbidly horrible was the screenplay. The jokes throughout this movie were excruciatingly painful to listen to. I think I gave a faint smile during one scene in the entire movie. The humor does not work because it simply is NOT funny...it is unoriginal, not very clever, and very elementary. What really ticks me off about this movie is that it has nothing to do with the underground hip-hop movement in Philadelphia. Hell, it had pretty much nothing to do with Philly at all. Whoever wrote this movie obviously does not live in Philly (the suburbs don't count), or has no understanding of hip-hop culture in Philadelphia. My boyfriend and I could not believe how horrible this movie was (and he is a huge film buff). We had trouble falling asleep that night.


I thought this film would be about an aspiring white hip hop artist or rapper who was going through some reverse racism while he was trying to get his career started, and boy was I wrong. This has nothing to do with hip hop. The acting is terrible, the camera work is terrible, and their are several sequences that have irritating static over the dialogue.

I saw this film during its world premiere in Philly and I am ashamed it had anything to do with Philadelphia. I understand it was meant not to be a masterpiece, but instead like great pics like the Naked Gun and Airplane, but this had no flow to it the scenes made no sense. Like the ridiculously bad and unfunny scene where KO is tied up and two chicks come in and act crazy and take his pants off. Oh and the scene where two goons tie up KO and leave him in his office, why would you tie him up just to leave him in the same place he was at? Myself and my date could not get to sleep over how bad this film was. If anyone even remotely found this funny please tell me why because I will be in disbelief. This is the first and probably last film I will ever submit anything to on this site because it is that bad. the only person in this film that still should have some dignity left is the chef guy who claimed all black people are addicted to ranch dressing, that scene was not bad.

Again, this has nothing to do with hip hop, it has one scene where a white guy raps and that is all, so where the title came from I do not no. this is what happens when a white director tries to make a film about black culture, do yourself a favor and stay away.


The Philadelphia Film Festival's hometown film this year was'White Men Can't Rap'. I had the honor to purchase a ticket to the closing night Festival of Independent's sold out World Premiere of this film. The title of the film gives it so much hope, that this could be one of the best films to come out of Philadelphia. Everyone was excited about the film, cast and crew were out in full force to support Rick Morris. The film is about a Philly Film about a detective going undercover in the Philadelphia underground rap scene. During the festival, I heard producers talk about how distributors are coming to look for the film, and one of the producers right before the screening told someone that they want this film to be in theaters, not just a DVD release. I had high hopes, a budget of $331,000 reports IMDb, just a little below Napoleon Dynamites budget. I am a huge fan of screwball comedies such as Police Academy, Naked Gun, even Billy Maddison! The world premiere of White Men Can't Rap looked like an early cut. The man who selected the film for the festival said that this was a new cut of the film and he has not even seen it! The film was projected from either DVD or Digibeta, so as I suspected that film was not a finished project. Editing was rough, Sound was off, There was no color correction, there were not even titles at the end of the film. If you are going to premiere your film at a major film festival and invite distributors, please make sure at least 2 of these things are completed! You should also set it straight that this is not a completed film.

I'm not going to get much into to plot so there are not too many spoilers in this, but I came in expecting a spoof of 8 Mile, State Property, and even Malibu's Most Wanted, but there is little rapping in this film at all. I am a huge fan of the Bloodhound Gang, and Evil Jared has a part in the film, and I'm a huge fan of Gervase from Survivor season 1, and they are in the film very little.

Rick Morris wrote, directed, and edited the film. The script seems like it needed about 15 rewrites, a new director, and definitely a new editor! During the Q&A after the film, Rick Morris asked a Temple University Grad Student if she was great at Final Cut Pro, that was the only time I laughed during the film! Rick does need a new editor, I think they should start from scratch, take all of the footage, and make a film that makes sense.

I'm sorry if this comes off strong, but as a member of the media in Philadelphia, I love to see Philadelphia filmmakers make it in this tough industry. This film needs help, as where it stands this will be a long shot to even get a DVD release.

If you have the chance to see this at a festival in the future please post some followups to let us know how it ends up.


Normally I don't like to bash indie cinema (It's more fun to trash movies that are poorly crafted but cost $$$ to make) but I have to make an exception. I was fooled by the high IMDb rating and reviews on this turkey, which must have

been posted by friends of the creator. Let me say upfront that I'm far from

religious, and appreciate good satire in the vein of Election. This was too dumb to be called satire.

A Jesus with a whiny Brookyln accent shows up nude in NYC (a'la "The Terminator") and crafts a spandex powder blue "superhero costume" to relate to today's youth. Lots of scatology and sex jokes as Jesus turns the

commandments to pro casual sex to win converts. The video and especially

audio are sub-porno quality. "Jesus" fights Richard Nixon (guy in rubber Nixon mask) Jim Morrison and Dracula. An interesting concept badly executed. Look

elsewhere for religious humor not so puerile, I suggest "The Life of Brian".


Please stay away from this piece of garbage. It is likely to induce drowsiness and should only be watched by those without a sense of humour, looking to waste 1hr 36 mins of their lives or anyone else who enjoys totally uncreative and mind numbingly boring garbage. It is rather unfortunate that anyone with a camera, free time on their hands and spare change in their wallet can make movies these days. This movie could very likely have been ripped off a failing fourth graders essay paper.Trust me, it was that bad and I am being as polite and considerate as I possibly can. My rating: 1.25 (Mostly for the costume :-) )


About 8 minutes into the movie the 3 "hilarious" lead characters decide that a dog has to be killed. It will be smacked with a shovel. Funny stuff eh? You don't see the dog get killed but you hear the shovel hitting something with a clunk. The "hero" emerges from the woods with a "job well done" look. This is the kind of "comedy" that continues throughout the movie. Later a rare peregrine falcon is mistakenly shot from the sky by the same dog basher as before. Do you really think any audience would be laughing at this? Irish or other? We're not done yet. Now there's a scene were the "lead" dog falls out the back of a moving van because the "robustly funny" characters left the rear doors open. You see the dog hit the road and tumble about. Is this funny? Now we move to a scene where a horse trainer is selling drugs that will improve the dogs speed. Yeah there's a lot of genuine caring for the dogs going on here. At this point I'd had enough. I threw the DVD in the trash. Anyone who has the least amount of compassion for animals will find this movie very offensive. I would give it a minus 10 rating if this comment forum offered it.


The closing credits on this movie rolled more than an hour ago. I still feel soiled.

The only good thing about director Des McAnuff's version of Cousin Bette is Jessica Lange's excellent turn as Bette, that misunderstood, underestimated old maid hiding her lifelong rage and jealousy beneath a mask of family loyalty.

In all other respects, this adaptation is execrable. Screenwriters Lynn Siefert and Susan Tarr should be banned from ever penning any more literary adaptations.

Balzac's Cousin Bette was a masterpiece, an eternal condemnation of the selfishness of vice, achieved through a portrayal of depravity's destruction of virtue. The cinematic version is a mediocre daytime drama in petticoats.

The power of the original novel derives from Balzac's use of fascinatingly, unforgettably, tragically human characters to illuminate his pitiless moral: that virtue, nine times out of ten, will fall to the knife in the back of vice. That moral is played out through the characters. And from the pure, pious, and eternally forgiving Adeline Hulot, a wife willing to forgive and forget more than two decades of her adored husband's infidelity, all the way down to the Jewish courtesan Josepha, at once a shameless gold-digger, a great artist, and, at heart, a kind woman, every player in Balzac's grand tragedy plays an irreplaceable part and illuminates an unalterable truth. And it is with the writers' treatment of those characters that McAnuff's Cousin Bette first fails.

The greatest tragedy of the novel lies in the gradual abandonment and destruction of the saintly Adeline Hulot. After closing her eyes to two decades of infidelity, she slowly falls from her position into terrible poverty and neglect--one of those illuminations of the destruction of virtue by vice which gives the novel its power. Siefert and Tarr seem not to have grasped this essential point of the source material. Instead of having to deal with the difficulty of a great beauty thrown into the gutter, they have taken the easy way out by killing her off within the first five minutes of the novel. And this without even bothering to pay lip service to the beauty and charm of the woman whose success is the fuel for the fire of Bette's vengefulness. Without Adeline's presence and influence, Bette's envy is pointless. But what else could one expect from screenwriters this illiterate?

Next, Siefert and Tarr erased the most fascinating character of the original novel, that of Valerie Marneffe, the middle-class civil servant's wife who is the cause of all of the novel's misfortunes. Valerie was a far more fascinating character than her cinematic replacement, the actress and whore Jenny Cadine. Madame Marneffe's hypocrisy--the truth of her whore's heart disguised by the outward appearance of a virtuous wife--and the complications of her avarice and passion, provided a large part of the entertainment and insight of the novel. Again, Siefert and Tarr have avoided the difficulty of bringing such a multifaceted character to life, simply by cutting her out altogether. Jenny Cadine seems to live for nothing more than a few bouquets of flowers and a pretty dress or two. Not a fraction as compelling.

So the characters do not live up to the source material. Neither does the plot, which turns Balzac's masterfully arranged actions and reactions topsy-turvy. Here and there, one may see bits of the original novel struggling to break through--as in Bette's rage when she is told that Wenceslas Steinbock, whom she adores, has secretly entered into a romance with her niece Hortense--but those glimpses are more tragic than anything else, for exposing the greatness that this movie fails miserably to approach.

With a series of seemingly natural and inevitable turns of fortune and struggles to escape ruin, Balzac presented a wholly organic portrait of absolute devastation. Siefert and Tarr hope merely to titillate viewers with an exposed female buttock or breast here and there, some pretty costumes and settings, and a few melodramatic situations forced and laughable. Balzac needed no duels to depict rivalry and hatred; he needed no accidental husband-shootings to bring the full force of marital discord home; he needed no sudden descents into madness to prove the ruinousness of deluded obsession. No one hurled dishes to shatter against walls in the novel. No wives were arrested, no sons had to escape from money-lenders promising to "kill your wife and your child" when debts were not paid. Those soap-opera devices weren't necessary in the original novel, because the story itself far surpassed them. But Siefert and Tarr need them merely to dress up an utter narrative failure.

Cousin Bette, the movie, may indeed appeal to some viewers, those who ask for nothing but sub-The Young and the Restless melodrama dressed up in period costumes. For those of us hoping for a bit more than that--perhaps simply a semi-faithful adaptation of one of the greatest works of the Western canon--it is simply best to stay away. I certainly should have.


and just about everyone else. Who knew that deception, treachery, and revenge could be this tedious.

Although the period production design is reasonable, this film suffers from lax direction and the presence of an `international cast', with the resultant mix of accents and acting styles. Of the better known thespians, Geraldine Chaplin again demonstrates that she inherited her mother's looks but not her father's talent, whereas the best that can be said of Americans Elizabeth Shue and Jessica Lange is that they are woefully miscast.

As a courtesan, Ms. Shue exhibits about as much ability to drive men to ruin as a stale baguette, while a rosy-cheeked, unwrinkled Ms. Lange delivers a studied, monotone performance relieved only by occasional lapses into a southern accent.

This Gallic debacle left this reviewer wondering if the final musical sequence was indicative of a certain regard for the audience, and firmly convinced that bringing French literature to the screen is best left to the French.


This could've (and should've) been a devious black comedic romp through the stiff-collared 1800s. If only the editor of the trailer could have a whack at the whole feature.

Jessica Lange is fine in a restrained performance of cousin Bette, a matronly woman who has been in love with her cousin's husband. When her cousin dies, she attempts to take her place and accepts the man's proposal. It's not a marriage proposal, as she believed, but a proposal that she be the children's governess.

This builds the seamy hatefulness in her heart and she begins to manipulate and turn family and community members against each other. All to make someone love her.

The supporting cast offers a mixed bag of performances. Bob Hoskins is winning as the lecherous, but rich old man who seeks the young daughter of Bette's cousin. Elizabeth Shue sometimes seems like she's just wandered off the set of Showgirls. The moody young artist is about as easy to care about as anyone from MTV's the Real World.

The final shot (of Elizabeth Shue in a habit, turning around to expose her butt), although hilarious, just doesn't work. It's just slapped right on the end of the film. Had the narrative structure throughout the script drawn parallels between the show and the show with the show, it might have worked. Introducing this idea only in the final shot simply makes the filmmaking self-conscious, and shows off the uneven creativity of the film itself.


God awful dramatization of Balzac's story of the same name. Lange and Shue are dreadfully miscast, and the script writer completely failed to capture this wry and bitter tale.

If you want to see this story with real meat on its bones, try finding a copy of the 1971 Masterpiece Theatre production. Margaret Tyzack makes Jessica Lange look like milk toast.


This movie is alright if you've got the remote in your hand in order to speed up the many painfully slow shots of people walking. (Perhaps I could have appreciated the photography more if the music wasn't so overbearing throughout).

I really like Elisabeth Shue, but her lines were especially unnatural sounding. You can't make Jessica Lange look plain - it's not possible. But, kudos for trying.

Most of the acting was actually fine, but the story line and some of the editing choices kept this movie from ever achieving any real since of rhythm.


a movie about a woman who starts fires as she becomes aroused..this movie will definitely not cause any fires..Could've been done a whole lot better on a scale of one to ten...2


A maintenance crew headed by Tom Sizemore goes into an abandoned hospital to look for old equipment to sell to collectors. But a multi-millionaire has a scientist in the catacombs under the hospital, who has developed a serum to cause rapid regeneration and cellular growth. The scientist, who has taken the serum, is finding the results to be a bit more extreme than expected.

For my beef with 235 films (who produced this), see my review for "The Mad". This film's selling point was easy to identify as soon as I picked it up: it has Tom Sizemore in it. And, hey, I like Tom Sizemore (rent "Lock Up" with Sylvester Stallone) so this seems like something worth checking out.

That selling point is about as far as you can get with this one. You have a very one-dimensional millionaire who survives a fire. A creature in a tunnel who becomes part rat and part dog. A bum who is apparently a Rastafarian. These things mix well, surprisingly, but only in the most absurd sense of the word "well". It's just a lot of strange things going on.

The crew's background is in makeup, and it shows. There is a scene where they chop off a guy's fingers that was alright, and the creature is especially slimy. But the creature is just poorly conceived: in horror, there needs to be a balance of how much you do and do not show a monster. Here, they couldn't decide to show him too little (much of the film is almost pitch black) or too much (making him seem somewhat dumb).

I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy this film. I did. But the actors were nothing special, I didn't care about the characters, and Sizemore is either doped up or washed up in this film. Maybe he's not doped up. But whatever the case, he just looked old and tired. I can't have my hero looking like he wants to drink a six-pack of Coors Original (the Banquet Beer), smear Dorito orangeness on his chest and pass out watching NASCAR. This Sizemore didn't even have enough energy in him to pass gas.

I guess this isn't really telling you what you need to know, but there's really nothing to know: bad hero, weak monster, fake secondary characters. Unless your goal is to just get drunk or high and need something on the screen to move every so often, this isn't going to thrill you. If you want a good underground monster, rent "Tremors" or "CHUD".


To get it out of the way, I have to say that I found The Last Supper to be pretty much the worst film I've seen for a long time. And that's including RoboCop 3. I accept it's a low budget film, but that's no excuse for the leaden script, the bizarre pacing and direction, and basically wasting what little effort was put into it. The guest stars were all good - indeed, Ron Pearlman was the most likeable character in the film, and I'm talking about his 'fascist politician' scenes, too.

There is nothing to recommend about this movie - the characters are obnoxious and self-assured wannabe standup comedians. My friends and I sat stoney faced as one liner after failed one liner dropped limply from the 'clever and witty script'.

There were moments when character development threatened to appear, as some sort of depth was introduced to the 2D stars, only for it to vanish as if it had wandered in only by accident and didn't want to cause a fuss.

In fact, the characterisation was possibly the reason I hated this film so much. It seems the writers were too busy trying to show the friends enjoying each others' company so much that they forgot to include any reason why. As best I could tell, it seemed they all got together for the conversation/meal evenings purely so they could compete in witty banter and grin.

And for some reason there was an odd are-they-aren't-they sexual tension between the dark haired woman and the black guy that went nowhere and did nothing other than take up valuable story time. Which was probably the point - the entire film could have been condensed to a five minute short, and would have benefitted innumerably from the need to cut the chaff.

The almost final scene, in the kitchen (I won't give any details away, for those who want to see it.) was almost farcical, as the mood violently swung in directions I didn't think possible. The conclusion was obvious, inconclusive, unsatisfying and ultimately reflected the movie as a whole. I guess, in that sense, you could call it a success.

To sum up, this bites. A stellar cast and an intriguing premise result in the worst film of the nineties. Burn it. It must be stopped.


this movie was not intelligent or funny - just a strange sign on the times... it might have been thought-provoking for some, but i found it extreme, over the top, unnecessary, gratuitous (!), and, well, kinda gross. way, way too obvious - oh, "liberals" killing "conservatives" is hypocritical? no way.

the scene in which the kids kill the priest was particularly upsetting. supposed to be a joke, yes, but the man was depicted with too much humanity for the humor to come across with any force whatsoever - it felt pathetic, instead.

flat, boring, upsetting in all the wrong ways. only reason i'm not giving it a score of 1 is that it kept my attention - initially - long enough that i had to watch the whole damn thing.


As I read the user comments for this movie, I'm shocked at the rave reviews this movie is getting from some users. This movie has an interesting premise, but it ultimately fails because of poor character development and the unappealing actors who portray them. I understand that as the movie goes on we are supposed see the toll these murders are taking on the grad students, but the characters are so unlikeable that I don't know why we should care.

As somebody has suggested, this movie doesn't know what it wants to be -- a wacky dark comedy or a morality tale. If it was the former, perhaps then we could ignore the huge plot holes. There are also storylines that seem to go nowhere. What's with the kidnapping storyline? And why all the sex scenes between Annabeth Gish and her Jewish boyfriend? It's just all bee-zar.

2/10


A group of self-righteous liberals decide to start killing people who have beliefs different from their own. Their victims emerge from leftist central casting and are typical caricatures as viewed by their murderers. Apparently anyone who disagrees with their world view and doesn't repent during dinner deserves to die.

This just happened to be on HBO when I turned the channel and the description sounded interesting enough, and there were recognizable actors in it. Figured it might not be too bad.

The production values themselves seem relatively OK, its just the story and acting that is weak beyond belief. How they got any recognizable names into this stink fest is the real mystery here.


This movie would've been a hoot amongst some of the pseudo-intellectual Arts students when first released. But it was rubbish, the politically incorrect dinner guests were all crude stereotypes, and the ethical 'discussions' at the dinner parties would have been better left as an msn conversation rather than turning it into a script and subjecting viewers to sit through it.

So in short, this is a movie about a group of lefties, who despite the lefty catchcry of tolerance, murder a bunch of people who hold differing opinions to them. Now dark humour can be funny, if accompanied with some humour to begin with. But this wasn't funny. Unless one finds the murders in themselves to be funny? It came across as being nothing more than the scriptwriters deepest fantasy, that he tried to turn into a lighthearted romp. Perhaps someone from the other end of the political spectrum should rewrite 'The Turner Diaries' as a dark and witty comedy. I wonder if there will be the same lack of outrage that accompanies the release of these kind of movies. Perhaps Mel Gibson might direct it? I hope you dear readers perceive that I'm being sarcastic...


Seeing "Bring It On" was more painful than having my wisdom teeth removed!! How this film made 17 million dollars in one weekend is even more beguiling. Is this what teenagers today relate to or were there just a lot of dirty old men who wanted to be teased by scantily clad adolescents? This film wants to be R rated but stay safely in the PG-13 zone, so what we get are ugly camera shots that are positioned just above the frontal nudity format.

The plot: A 5 time national champion cheerleading squad has to redeem itself after it is discovered that their award winning routine has been stolen from a much more talented inner city cheerleading squad. It's supposed to be a comedy but the only thing that made me laugh was the fact that this film was made. The young characters are so absorbed in cheerleading that you wonder how they plan to make a living after they graduate from high school: they barely acknowledge the fact that they have classes to go to. None of them seem to have any genuine emotions and all of them are downright annoying. If these kids were in "Friday the 13th" people just might cheer for Jason.

 As I was watching it I began to realize that each scene was getting worse and worse. Some examples. The laborious scene where the cheerleaders audition a new member for their squad: the captain insists on the weird girl while the other cheerleaders complain saying the process is supposed to be a democracy, their corrected and told it's a "cheerocracy". Then the captain is later referred to as a "cheertator". There is also the scene where a choreographer, who is recycled out of every dance movie ever made, trains the girls. Amongst other things he tells one girl to starve herself to get thin; that's just a wonderful idea to put into a teenage girl's head. Then there are the scenes with the inner city cheerleading squad that so tirelessly stereotype African American speech and manner that I was amazed that this film was released in the year 2000 and not 1950.

 What's depressing is that as this movie played I actually heard young people laughing. This is humorous to them? Then I came to the conclusion that as long as they keep going to movies like this we'll keep getting movie like this. Perhaps one day there will actually be a film that shows what it's truly like to be a teenager and it might even star actors who aren't in their thirty's. Until then we're stuck with this AWFUL, TRITE, APALLING, HORRENDOUS, ODIOUS, REVOLTING, HIDEOUS, LOATHSOME, REPULSIVE, IMMATURE, NIGHTMARISH, HORRID PIECE OF TRASH!!!!!!!!


They bring the noise, they bring the boobs, they bring the blonde, they even bring the members of TLC protege-group Blaque, but, I am sad to report, they don't bring it on. Another in a long line of cheerleader features ("But I'm a...) and featured cheerleaders (American Beauty), Bring It On attempts to make the icon sweat - as in cheerleading as "sport". Instead, it bleeds. Inspired by the national battles of cheer squads on ESPN, screenwriter Jessica Bendinger takes the cliched templates of sports movies and teen movies and reduces both to the least common denominator. Dialog is, like, totally derivative -- and the plot? You don't want to know. Though there is something for the Lester Burnhams among us (Kirsten Dunst), and the moves are for real (even the actors had to live through cheerleading "camp"), Peyton Reed's attempt to humanize and valorize cheerleading falls flat on its very smiley face.


"Is this movie for real?!" That's all I could think the first time I saw this film. The story follows the Rancho Carne Toros cheerleading team and their captain Torrance (Kirstin Dunst) as they make their way through the tumultuous world of cheerleading. The Toros are champion cheerleaders, but soon after being named captain, Torrance discovers that their team has actually been stealing cheers from a poor, inner-city school. Poor "Tor" is torn. She wants her team to win, but will she be able to do it without cheating? The plot isn't a bad idea, really. It's just your basic sports movie (although there is debate about whether cheering is a sport.) However, the aspect that really brings the movie down is the seriousness that is laid on extra thick in nearly every scene. For example, when trying to convince a skeptical newcomer to join the team, Torrance says with a cheesy grin, "We work hard, we have fun, and we win national championships." She sounds like an infomercial for the Wonderful World of Cheering. To make matters even more confusing, the ultra-seriousness is alternated with jokes and situations that blatantly make fun of cheering and reinforce the blond, bimbo cheerleader stereotype. I really can't figure out if they're trying to make cheerleading the hero or the butt of the jokes. Plus, Kirstin Dunst was so annoying as the self-centered, cheering obsessed, PMSing Torrance that I really don't think I'll voluntarily see another one of her movies for quite some time.


I just wanna get this clear, I know some teenagers in America dedicate there lives to cheerleading. I don't like cheerleading, one little bit. Whether it be the incessant, whiny voices cheering ridiculous. The dancing is alright but that is it. This movie just glorifies the annoying-ness of the whole thing. How dedicated some people are to such a ridiculous 'sport'. I just don't get it. Kirstin Dunst, who I usually like, I didn't like in this. I don't know if it was the character or what. Actually all of the characters bugged me except for Eliza Dushku's, who I liked, I also thought she did a very good job, she stops the movie from getting a lower rating.


I recently have had the fortunate (unfortunate?) opportunity of watching the full, uncut version of "Bring It On" on my dorm's free movie channel. For some reason, I must have blocked out any evidence of this movie's existence from my mind as soon as I heard of it four years ago. I say this because as I cannot remember this major movie's release at all.

It might as well have stayed that way, because this is a horrible movie. One might look at a trailer for a cheerleader movie and go, "What a boring concept. This is probably going to be a boring, flat movie." Well, that person would be completely correct.

To sum up the plot of "Bring It On," I would have to say there isn't much of one. The primary story revolves around a cheer competition, and apparently the cheer team's old leader stole all of their routines from an inner city school. This means they have to come up with a new routine from scratch with the competition right around the corner, or suffer humiliation.

As gripping as that sounds, it's pretty hard to feel compassion for the protagonists. There isn't anything riding on the idea that "they must win," and the characters seem cliché at best. Kirsten Dunst plays the new head cheerleader with a strong sense of justice, Eliza Dushku is the new recruit "bad girl," and the rest have typical valley girl accents and attitudes. The friction between Eliza and the rest of the girls seems to disappear quickly into the movie for no reason, and after that, the whole team is pretty uniformly uninteresting.

The worst part of the movie would have to be the "rival" cheer team that they had stolen all their dance routines from. I am shamed at the women who played those roles, because they've set back minorities 30 years at least. The wise-talking, street-fighting, finger-snapping group of African Americans and other minorities are a walking satire of hip-hop culture.

The biggest surprise of the movie is when I found out that it's a comedy. The reason that's a surprise is because it's not funny. There are a few cute moments, but I wouldn't say there were any guffaw-worthy scenes. A few jokes I concede that I enjoyed. "Those aren't spirit fingers. THESE are spirit fingers."

There is a bright side to this movie, though shallow it very much is. In every single scene, they somehow manage to get Kirsten Dunst in very telling and alluring outfits. They somehow manage to accentuate her breasts in every part of the movie without having to show cleavage most of the time. That being said, the highlight of the movie for me was the carwash scene where Eliza and Kirsten both were covered in soap-lather while wearing small bikinis. Honestly, moments like that were the only thing that kept me awake through the movie.


I did not like this movie at all. I am not much of a cheerleading fan. Also this movie lacked a very good storyline. I guess it kind of described what high school drama is, in a way. The only thing that saved this movie from getting like a 2 in my book is that Kirsten Dunst and her cheerleader friends are very attractive.


There really is not a whole lot to say about Bring it On. My thoughts can be summed up quite quickly: lame and predictable. Bring it On is supposedly a comedy, but I simply did not find it very amusing. The only scene I found the least bit amusing was the try-out scene. I will not tell you how the movie ends, but it is extremely predictable. I have seen episodes of The Brady Bunch with more plot twists than this movie. I only recommend Bring it On if you are either a high school cheerleader or have some time to kill.


Albert Finney as Winston Churchill, Vanessa Redgrave as his wife Clementine and Linus Roache as Ralph Wilgram star in a fine, pre-WWII biographical look at Winston Churchill from his being viewed as a minor irritant and alarmist to his rise to the head of the Royal Navy, before his becoming Prime Minister. At the start, Winston is a vocal opponent of the appeasement policies of the Prime Minister Chamberlain but few pay any attention until a man with access to top secret information begins to feed him real data revealing the truth of the buildup of Nazi military forces which indicate a definite goal of European domination. Frequently despairing of ever being listened too, we see Winston go into times of deep depression overwhelmed by the feeling of powerlessness in a nation whose memories of WWI still horrify the populace into desiring peace at nearly any cost. However, always at his side is his rock, his beloved Clementine, not only consoling but encouraging him to remember his motto to ?keep buggering on? no matter what. Armed with the top secret data, he begins to finally get the attention of the nation as he desperately pleads with his countrymen and women to build up the vastly depleted British military just in case the demented madman, Hitler, turns a lustful eye to Winston?s beloved country. Absorbing and insightful, I wasn?t bored for a minute watching the story of this great man?s beginnings and the great woman who bore with him and supported him through all the frustration and aggravation of trying to turn around a nation still grieving the horrendous losses of the previous war. 3.5 out of 5 stars


The Gathering Storm

Albert Finney and Vanessa Redgrave are striking in their appearance as the Churchills in the HBO, BBC, Scott Free Production of "The Gathering Storm." It is unfortunate that such fine talent has been wasted on such a trivial script.

"The Gathering Storm", which for anyone who has read Churchill's book by the same title, will find this story has thin links to the original text. Good grief, we are still trumpeting the old canard of the Treaty of Versailles being the cause of the Second World War - read Margaret MacMillan's "Paris 1919." And Hitler had black eyes? He did? I understand they were pale blue. Yes, Churchill did spend working time in the bath but after the third bath scene I was beginning to think I was seeing out-takes for a new production of Marat. What makes for history in this production is lazy and dull. This is hard to accomplish with such a rich and dynamic period of time.

The script is in fact strikingly redundant to the point of plagiarising the tremendous production made several years ago, "Churchill: the Wilderness Years" with Robert Hardy and Siân Phillips. When there are so many wonderful stories to be told about Churchill, why repeat what has already been done so well. (Just read the books by John Lukacs, "Five Days in London: May 1940" and "The Duel: The Eighty-Day Struggle Between Churchill and Hitler" for great story sources).


It's unoriginal, badly written, and downright racist at times, but Carrie Fisher made me laugh out loud several times ("They're your bitches" is my favorite, but you have to watch the movie for the set-up). Almost all of the Mexican characters were the usual stock stereotypes, from the corrupt, bumbling cops to mama and the big family throwing a fiesta. But that said, the scenery and the lead actors were pretty to look at. Pleasant enough to watch if there's nothing else on and you're willing to let your brain turn to mush. If you liked that dreadful Matthew Perry/Salma Hayek movie from about 10 years ago, then you'll probably be able to sit through this one.


I can't imagine what would have possessed Carrie Fisher to be in this movie. Maybe she had a big house payment looming...I can't say. But I can't think of one good reason to watch this movie, so don't ask me why I did.

It opens with Melissa (Laura Prepon from That 70's Show) waking up next to Carlos (Matt Cedeño) the day before her wedding. There's just one problem...Carlos isn't Melissa's intended groom. She's hung over and doesn't remember anything from the previous evening, not even marrying a total stranger.

What follows is your typical meant-for-each-other-but-they-don't-know-it comedy of errors that won't provide any surprises. The few laughs (and I'm talking 1 or 2) come from Carrie Fisher as Melissa's headstrong mother. The only good thing I can say is Matt Cedeño is quite easy on the eyes, and the scenery is breathtaking. So unless you're a bride-to-be scouting locations for your honeymoon like the previous reviewer (I mean really...ever heard of a vacation planner?) you should avoid this movie.


We all trudged through this B movie hell-bent on getting some benefit from our rental fee. Lame plot, stiff acting, bad direction, amateur camera-work... Have I forgotten anything? Oh yeah, Carrie Fisher is nothing short of sad. Very pathetic what's become of Princess Leia. My wife and I figured she had a stroke or perhaps did too many drugs. She was absolutely monolithic, that is, one face, one emotion, one tone of voice. And the girl! Leave her in some half-baked sitcom, please! And since when is a guy being a hunk criteria for granting a movie a positive review? Has everyone's brain turned to tapioca? Go watch some porn and quit providing an audience for film school dropouts.


I gave this movie a two because of the scenery, which is Alcapulco, Mexico and stunning.

The cast can't act. In fact, the best acting comes from the native Mexicans cast in this movie of a bride, who wakes up on the day before her wedding to a scuzzy, wealthy guy, to find she's already married some unknown Mexican hottie. In a rather distasteful staged script, the bride, Melissa, went off the rails the day of her last bridal gown fitting because she found her fiancé, Brian, in bed with her wedding planner. So Melissa went out, drank something that made her blotto, and she woke up married to a stranger.

The basic problem, besides the stupidity of the story, is that Laura Prepon, who plays the bride, cannot act. She's very pretty, but there must be more. Her lines are delivered in either low shriek or dumbfounded woodenness. Matt Cedeno, as her surprise husband, is handsome and has a body to drool over, but he's no Benecio Del Toro.

To give them credit, they're struggling against a script that is about as bad as the worst of any Harlequin Romance. In fact, this entire movie screams of Harlequin category romances. What ever happened to the snap, crackle, pop of the 1930s and '40s madcap romantic comedies? There is a scene where Melissa and Carlos are chased by the Mexican police. They end up in a swamp filled with alligators. I found myself wishing the reptiles would win.

Carrie Fisher plays an overbearing, wisecracking, loud mother-of-the-bride. Sadly, she sounds like a (much) older Princess Lea. I found her scenes with the Mexican hotel staff to be unnecessarily nasty. Yes, she's supposed to be a snob, but you don't have to be a racist snob.

There is little to care about in this film. About 12 minutes into it, my eyes glazed over and stayed that way until the end. Anyone who can sit through until the end deserves a medal. Heck, *I* deserve a medal. Ah, well, the search continues for a good romantic comedy made for TV.


I had the horrible misfortune of changing the channel to one that was showing this "thing that should not have been made." The plot was corny, tired and absolutely unbelievable. Furthermore, Laura Preppon as anybody but Donna just doesn't work. I kept waiting for the rest of the cast of characters from that 70's Show to appear at any moment as I watched the approximately five minutes of this movie that I could stomach. She has definitely typecast herself as Donna. The male lead, Mr. El Pollo Loco, was laughable in his role as well. What were the casting directors thinking when they cast these two in the leads? Princess Leah as a blimp did not help things either.


This "movie" is an AR launch point for "pit bull" haters. They show both extremes; the dumbest wanna-be dogfighters in the planet vs. greenie SPCA/HS officers, neither of which know or understand the APBT at all. They associate ALL dogfighting with drugs, gangsters and other forms of violence and make the casual dog owner look like a saint. There are millions of registered APBT's and AmStaff's in the U.S. and maybe 3 deaths a year. My dogs have been bit by more labs and shepherds than anything else. This movie is completely biased towards the Humane Societies AR views and it is an attempt to get common people "educated" that pitbulls are all inherently dog aggressive and those who own them do so for a tough appearance. My APBT's are ALL BIG BABIES, not a vicious bone in their bodies and they win weightpull and SchH events every month. These dogs are no more likely to fight then any other dog and dogfighting has only been part of breeding programs for the last 200 years. These dogs have been around for over 2,000 years! Don't let this movie be an excuse for the SPCA/Humane Society to put down "trained to fight" dogs. Most of these dogs are left for dead because they REFUSE to fight at all! And the SPCA/HS still put them down... this movie is total, twisted garbage. Save your money and read a book.


i had high hopes for two came back.obviously the ending is predictable,given the title.basically,a group of friends agree to sail a yacht for someone from san diego to vancouver.along the way,they get caught in a massive storm and all but two of them perish.the main focus of the story centres not so much on the storm,but its aftermath.the crew is left adrift in the middle of the ocean and struggle to survive,as they hope to be rescued.of course as days pass,each of them deals with their plight differently and eventually,when they are rescued there are only two remaining alive.that is the gist of the story.i thought it would be a better movie than it was,but it was mostly a bore.most of the actors weren't convincing.then again,they didn't have a lot to work with dialogue wise,so they can't be faulted entirely.the scenes of the storm were pretty exciting,but fairly brief.pre teens will probably enjoy this movie, but if you are in your mid teens and older,don't expect to be too entertained. 3*


Awful acting from everyone, the actors seemed very uninspired (perhaps with the exception of Susan Sullivan as Mom, with an on-screen time of maybe 5 minutes).

The 'effects' were even worse: If you as a want to depict a storm on film, you will have to make sure that the boat involved rocks way more than it would in a small lake with a light breeze, if it is to be at all believable. Which it wasn't.

The soundtrack sounded like bad 80's muzak and was annoyingly present throughout the movie.

The 'plot' was very straightforward, no surprises there - apart from the fact that some of the characters surprised me by being totally out of character.

Steer clear away from this crap.


Predictable. Hokey. Waste of time. Don't see it.

The title ruins the movie. A lot of their survival tips were completely ridiculous ('don't drink seawater' was the only acceptable one).

The acting was poor, but maybe that was just because the script was cheesy. It's really a shame that Melissa Joan Hart and Jonathan Brandis chose to appear in this movie--they could both do waaaaaaaaaaaaay better. I don't even know if you could say that they were acting--there was no real emotion and zero believability.

If you're a fan of either Melissa Joan Hart or the late Jonathan Brandis, you'll lose respect for them if you see this movie. Avoid it at all costs.


Two Came Back is a nifty little movie about some young adults who find themselves at the mercy of the ocean and sun as they float on a life raft after their ship goes down. Two Came Back isn't really a movie to get worked up over, or dedicate an entire night too. It's really the kind of movie where you have some free time, you want to relax, you want to grab those potato chips and onion dip and relax on the sofa with a cold soda and find something decent on television. This movie is that decent thing you're looking for; though not amazing, not even great... Two Came Back isn't bad and is a substantial watch. The movie is unrealistic, and I'm not saying its impossible (I didn't read about the true story but I don't deny it), but if you've been sitting on a dinky rubber raft under constant sun for days and days, you're not going to just get a few new sun freckles, sexy tan, and chapped lips. You're gonna be red as a lobster, there's going to be white residue around your lips... the fact that the movie depicted the young adults as merely whimpering for water after days and days of no shade or drink is highly unrealistic, and even still they would've been in worse mental states and other bad physical conditions. Don't let this ruin it for you, though. Once it's done, you'll turn off the television, sit for a minute, maybe rub a few crumbs off your stomach, and feel at least a little content. I don't recommend spending your money on it though; usually a TV station will show it every once in a while.


I'm usually a big fan of Jackie Chan's movies. They're not horribly deep or meaningful, but they are usually very entertaining with Jackie's nice blend of impressive martial arts and humor. Unfortunately this movie was very lacking in both departments. Instead Jackie mostly uses a gun instead of his normal creative kung fu to deal with the bad guys. It's made worse by the fact that this was a poorly dubbed version of the movie. There are a lot of his movies I still haven't seen, but currently this one ranks lowest on the list. With his highly prolific career, do yourself a favor and choose another one of his movies.

*1/2 (Out of 4)


Had I not been forced to see this film because of my occupation (and the fact I have two young daughters), I would have avoided this particular production like Richard Simmons avoids women.

However, no such luck came my way on this night, and I was subjected to one of the single most shallow, insignificant, poorly-directed, badly-acted movies of the year.

Or in ANY year, for that matter.

"Bratz, The Movie" is supposedly based on those slutty-looking dolls with huge eyes, full lips and no noses; figures which many parents feel imbues their daughters with an overinflated infatuation with clothes, shoes and make-up. Unfortunately, this movie is live action (but still concentrates on the whole "appearance is the most important" thing).

And while the film tries to touch on friendships being key, the main message here is that only thin, good-looking people are worth anything; and the only way to make a difference in the world is to wear the latest, most expensive fashions.

As if any of this makes any difference, here's the basic plot outline: Four adolescent girls (all beautiful with perfect bodies), Yasmin (Natalie Ramos), Jade (Janel Parish), Sasha (Logan Browning) and Chloe (Skyler Shaye) enter high school. It's also needless to mention that none of these young women has even the most remote acting talents, whatsoever.

In fact, I've seen better acting in a morgue. Friends, the combined talent of the entire cast and crew of "Bratz" could be put in a thimble and there would still be room for Rosie O'Donnell's butt.

But I digress ...

Anyway, these four vapid souls enter Carrie A. Nation High School (which is more than appropriate since I wanted to take a hatchet to the projection room during this preview) and immediately clash with uptight beauty queen, Meredith (Chelsea Staub) and her group of "Heathers" wannabes.

Meredith - even though a freshman - has divided the entire academy into clicks (emo's, skaters, geeks, potheads, jocks, tree-huggers and other assorted losers). Why anyone accepts this pigeon-holing is beyond me, but wondering about this isn't worth the time it takes for a synapse to fire, so ...

And while it's easy to see the above-mentioned no-names populating this production, it's quite disheartening to watch a veteran actor such as Jon Voight, who plays Meredith's father and school principal. He not only embarrasses himself in the movie, but has put a stamp of incompetence on what was once a stellar career.

Oh, there's also a deaf kid, Dylan (Ian Nelson) who somehow has the power to hear Yasmin singing (oh, and he can spin turntables, as well).

The picture's witless conclusion consists of a huge birthday bash for Meredith (see enters on an elephant) and a loud and irritating musical number (it's amazing what passes for entertainment in today's world).

My little girls liked this film, but then again they are 3 and 7-years old. Unless you fit into this particular gender or age group - or are in a coma - you will see this entire enterprise as shallow as a saucer and empty-headed as Paris Hilton.

Truly one of the worst movie-going experiences since "Are We Done Yet?"


Aaaaaaauuuugh!!!! This movie was so awful it makes me wish I had been struck blind and deaf as a child! I watched it with 2 friends, to try for an MST3K style viewing but.... it doesn't work!!! One of my friends became very still, and started attracting flies halfway through the film, and another one became temporarily quadriplegic from watching this! I'm 20... I haven't cried for any reason since I was 12, and this movie brought me to tears. Not from laughter, not sadness... it was SO bad, I had no emotions that could be connected to this film, and I just started crying because nothing else quite fit. If these people tried to perform like this two thousand years ago, they would have been stoned to death. The acting was so terrible, I think I lost my faith in mankind. The materialism in this movie was so... I can't even think of an adequate adjective to describe it... No wonder there are countries that want to see our way of life crumble... after seeing this movie, I almost agree with them. The MST3K guys would be speechless, watching this. It's so awful, no one could possibly lampoon this movie. It's too terrible to properly mock and satirize. I feel really terrible for the companies that sponsored this. They really lost out on this investment. The attempts at throwing in messages about individualism and inner strength would have worked, if there hadn't been the "be yourself, but dress fashionably to be accepted" message splayed across this film like roadkill. It's a good thing I didn't have any forks, or acetylene torches nearby... or I would have tried to stab/burn my brain out. I seriously considered gnawing my own leg off several times, to escape watching this film. I actually lost the ability to breathe after about 40 minutes of this film... I eventually remembered how, but it took a while. Not good... My roommate has completely lost his mind... he asks questions like, if Darth Vader showed up at our door, should we hang out with him, and some remarks about hollowed out breasts and orange juice... he's completely lost his mind.

Don't watch this movie if you value your sanity!!!


If you missed the ridiculously shallow ego-trip of Hilary Duff "Material Girls" last year, don't worry, here's another shallow teen movie for you that steals so much from Mean Girls that it hurts. The movie is based on the ugly dolls with the same name with perfect bodies and lots of money - only in the movie, the blond girl doesn't have any money at all. But don't worry, when she really needs it (for a dress), her friends have gift certificates.

Sure enough, no one would like to see a movie with a bunch of fat teens running around acting silly but did the movie have to star four slender girls with attitude problems? Because let's face it, these girls think that appearance is the most important thing in the world. They're seriously not much better than their enemy - Meredith. And by the way - how did the word 'brat' become a positive word? For me it's still a very negative word meaning that your parents have spoiled you.

Bratz doesn't want to give its core audience (small girls) a good message. It wants them to realize how important fashion and appearance is - and if you have an ugly outfit on - always make sure to keep a fashion emergency kit with you. Ugh.


Ugh. The first words that came out of my mouth when I found out my friend's sister wanted to see this for her birthday. First off, I have never bothered to play with Bratz dolls once in my life, nor will I ever. This movie has got to have some of the worst dialog in a movie ever. (Note to script writers: If you really have to put "OMG" as an actual spoken line, then I think it's time to rethink your career) After this monstrosity finally ended, I looked to my friend and we looked to her sister, who then informed us that the movie was horrible. In the words of the Bratz Girls: "Like OMG! No way!" Seriously, if you want to ruin someone's birthday, then I recommend Bratz: The Movie.


Let me be clear here first of all: I'm in my twenties, and I saw Bratz, but not for any kind of simple lewd intentions at gawking at sexy teens in gobs of make-up and slutty clothes. My intentions were a little more pure, on a movie-geek level. Or rather, I went in with the expectation that it *would* be a bad movie, and even one that would go to such ridiculous lengths as to be awesomely bad, to the level of something like Ghost Rider, where taking it seriously would provide brain damage, and by not would give some form of entertainment (especially if you have friends to make jokes with during the movie, which for something like Bratz isn't inappropriate to 'ruin' for the rest of the audience). It's a staggering, warped view of high school life, the connections made in 'cliques' and social order, and about the bonding between girls who can't get enough of talking to each other through their web-cams. It also has enough montages to kill a few horses, Jon Voight with not only a prosthetic nose but a statue of his head with the same fake nose, a fluffy dog who gets beauty treatment along with her owner, a mariachi band that lives at the house of the Hispanic girl of the Bratz (and, for some reason, this doesn't seem too out of place, especially when they show up at talent shows), and...Jesus, did I mention the montages?

But for all of this, if one is in the right frame of mind, it's hilarious, even achingly and hysterically, funny material, whether it was intentional or not. Frankly, I'm sure that the filmmakers didn't quite know what they were doing outside of making a big long commercial with the intellectual value of Tropicana fruit punch. But on those levels it almost works at times at looking like an unintentional satire; what is one to make of the symbolism of the heightened security at the high school envisioned by the school emblem and trophies: a hand holding an ax, with little figures holding the axes all over the school in one form or another? It also makes for some ample absurd moments when just seeing the four Bratz having a fight amongst themselves about sticking together or going off into their other interests (naturally, they have only one aptitude a piece, one soccer, one cheer-leading, one science, and one journalism/singing), and as well the diabolical attempts to thwart all of their fun by the nasty, less than one-note daughter of the principle, who goes for a 2nd super sweet sixteen party even after she's turned 16.

Maybe if you're already quite a young girl, seeing this movie might not matter too much in the grand scheme of things as far as real psychological impact. But at the same time if one were to look objectively, Bratz's message is a little scrambled and quite off in any positive aspect. Does one stick with friends or act individualist or, um, like, go into another clique or another table? How about staying fashionable, in the glammed up style that the girls go to lengths to do- leading up to, of course, the Bratz mobile that they walk out of to the climactic talent show- even in the face of peril? It really doesn't serve any artistic integral purpose whatsoever either. So, in the end, it works best as a so-bad-it's-still-bad-but-uproarious treat for those who gorge on works that slip by in pop culture that are so sapped with the vigor of commercialism that to read through the mixed messages would take a pot of coffee and a fine-toothed comb. But along the way, it's got montages, and songs, LOTS of songs- which are, as one might imagine who doesn't listen to Radio Disney, the worst trash possible right now. Brattitude!!


I was just reading some comment before i decided to make my own, this guy honestly believes this film deserves a 10/10 rating. Yes that's right, according to this guy the film Bratz is a perfect masterpiece with impeccable acting, dialogue and story, backed up by Oscar worthy directing and screenplay. At least that's what a film with a 10/10 rating should be. Bratz is not. This is possibly the *worst* film i have ever seen. This film does not even deserve a 1/10 it is that bad. Im not trying to spite this film, i am honestly speaking my feelings for this film here, i have never felt more insulted, never have i cringed so much in a film and i actually felt embarrassed by some of the scenes i have had the misfortune of watching.

Stay away from this film at all costs. It will scar your brain forever.


Well...first off..just why. If the intention of writing this film was simply because the last time a movie has been this cringe-worthy was Britney Spears' Crossroads, then the idea was a nail hit directly on the head.

If you feel any emotion, be it happiness, joy, elation or even sadness (in context to the film, as opposed to its existence) during the running time of this film, you are unfortunately a biased person...or are 2 years old, in which case you would not have the mental capacity to read this or form opinion throughout the film...except for when to soil yourself during its run time.

The sad truth is that this film was surely doomed from the start. No-one would in their right mind would write, direct and produce this film, under the impression that anyone would actually enjoy it except for toddlers...and, unfortunately, that peculiar clique...young girls who actually assume that they and there friends are actually Bratz.

"Oh, that film was totally written about us," they say.

Unfortunately...it probably was.


i went to go see this movie with my friend when we were bored (it just so happened to be the movie's opening night). even though we're in high school, we were expecting to find something that we'd be able to watch, but instead we found ourselves laughing hysterically at every single word that came out of each character's mouth. we certainly enjoyed it, but not in the way i believe the film makers were intending.

neither of us went into the movie with high expectations, knowing that it was a film based on hideous dolls that neither of us had played with in years, but we were at least expecting some sort of plot line! the storyline jumped all over the place, beginning with the girls entering their freshman years, then all of a sudden it flashes "two years later", and we're supposed to believe they're juniors, even though they look exactly the same and have no physical change whatsoever.

also, there were too many things going on at once, from a sweet sixteen party from a girl who has already had one, to a talent show, to a deaf boy who can happen to hear a girl sing.

the girls in the movie, although beautiful, seemed to lack something that would make their performances believable. we were giggling at the dialoge and trying to gasp what message the movie was trying to send to young girls. we came to no conclusion, and i believe that we never will.


Actually, almost everything. I normally don't comment on films I haven't seen all the way through, but since I currently work in a cinema and have had to endure snippets of this rubbish for the last couple of days I feel I have seen more than enough to comment on it.

First off...walking through the auditorium doors at any point during this "movie" is like being battered repeatedly about the head by a deranged thug wielding a piece of two-by-four. You can literally feel your conscious mind sagging in defeat as the dreadful mindlessness of it washes over you. It really is a palpable thing.

At no point that I saw did any of the lead girls display anything remotely like acting ability. They can't even be referred to as wooden, since the term "wooden actor" at least implies some ability, however dismal.

All that this movie offers is the most pitifully superficial gratification for the absolute youngest girls. And all the movie seems to teach is that being superficial and shallow is the best way to "get on" in life.

And what the heck is John Voight doing in here? At what point was he convinced that doing a teen movie based on a set of ugly, under-dressed and over made-up dolls was a good career move? I really pity people with small daughters...this movie must be the worst kind of hell for them. Parents....you have my commiserations.

SUMMARY: Plot - Ronald McDonald, Acting - None, Entertainment - You'll be REAL happy when its over.


Worst movie ever. Luckily, I didn't go to it with high hopes. The acting was horrific, the entire way through I had a strong urge to strangle every actor/actress who participated in it, as they could simply NOT act. The four main characters were so plastered in makeup, I couldn't make out what they actually looked like. The plot, lines and scenes were so cringeworthy, I had to look down and pretend I was somewhere else.

This is coming from a twelve year old girl, so don't think it's biased. I have never, ever willed a movie to end before, but I found myself considering walking out of the theatre. I sincerely hope someone realizes what a mistake this movie was, and destroys all proof of its existence. No one, not even children, should ever have to set eyes on this abomination.

The person who let this crap be released does not deserve to be involved with the movie industry.


...to understand the kind of person that would enjoy this crap.

I happen to love teen movies, and Clueless remains to this day one of my all-time favorite movies. Bratz does not approach teen movie fame; I'd rather watch Date Movie again.

If you read the reviews of those who gave Bratz a high rating you'll understand the kind of vapid, shallow people this film was aimed at. In fact, I wonder how many of those reviews came from people that were a part of this movie; they almost would have to be to justify this trash.

First off, how can I not be offended by the mariachi band in the Latina's kitchen? I've been Puerto Rican all my life and never once have I been that offensively cliché, but maybe it's just me? The acting was not award winning but the girls otherwise did alright...except for when they had to show any ~real~ emotion other than thoughtless glee; then, they failed. Miserably. The montages got old quickly and the singing, oy...

It will be a long time before I wash the taste of this out of my mouth. One thing people should understand is High School is ~not~ like this. It's hard, shallow, and harsh indeed, but people simply don't go around like bubble-headed retards abbreviating half of their sentences. Real High School issues revolve around violence, sexual identity issues, peer pressure, not having a CLUE what you're going to do when you get out, etc., etc. If only H.S. were as easy to cope with as this movie made it same; if only all anyone had to worry about were shallow obnoxious girls. Wouldn't life be so grand!


Rainer255 shot himself after 5 minutes of viewing Bratz.

1st: The acting was horrible ranks of the girls Chloe being the worst every time something sad or embarrassing happens all she does is look down but not all the way. Who ever wrote the script should die it was completely cliché and horrible. No one says Dilio anymore!Why did it skip two years ahead? Yasmin I did not believe for a second she was Spanish everything she said in Spanish was common words my dog knows! What was her little brother who was like 14 hitting on that 11 year old.I was deeply disturbed that they all woke up at the same time looking "beautiful"(lesbians). Even more by the fact that they stop being friends so quickly than became again so easily. Ummm that deaf kid wasn't even deaf...when he first appeared I thought hey an interesting subplot...but I was wrong. The movie seemed to drag on forever there was like a 100 random montages/music videos going on I was so confused. This movie reassures me that future teens are going to be dumb pretty fashionable sluts.


Okay, it looks like this film was created to do two things; Obviously, the first one is to give little girls another movie to add to their collection of princess/bubblegum memorabilia. The second one was likely to keep some of those girls off the street for at least two hours. For about a week, they (the makers) seemed to have accomplished both of those. On top of that, some parents decided to tag along because of the perception that is was good for the entire family... They couldn't have been more WRONG, because it seemed like a dumbed-down version of 'The O-C', written in a day care center. On top of that, girls who DO watch this film will be(or have been) convinced that they must be hip and cool to survive. In its time, the Bratz enterprise has killed more brain cells than a MILLION Coca-Colas. And there's NO upside to this film! It was long, stupid, slow, boring, obnoxious and incapable of keeping anyone's attention without using a weapon of some sort! I ask all you fine people, "WHAT DID ANYBODY SEE IN IT?!?!"


My youngest two will not be seeing "Bratz" as I could not find anything about it worth merit in the preview. I do not allow the collagen-laced plastic ladies in my home, thinking it would be better to invite professional women of the evening to my home to play with the girls than the molded mini-ho variety. At least they would learn some class and depth. My girls will not grace the movie in the theaters (I am sorry I did), and it will NOT come to our home when in DVD.

But I digress. Obviously, those veteran actors of rich talent, Lanie Kazan and Jon Voight, have some sort of money troubles. For both of them to appear in this, they must have reached dire straits indeed! I cannot begin to imagine what financial crisis both of them face, but appeal to the Industry: Please- You all take up causes and collections for everything from flood victims to stray presidential candidates. Can't you once help your own, and start the Kazan-Voight Foundation? They will appreciate your assistance, and not have to stoop to such menial prostitution of their talent!


Well, let me start off by saying this was the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. My friends and I went to see this movie BECAUSE this movie had been awarded a full zero stars in the Chicago Tribune (and several other places).

The good things about this movie, is perhaps that the producers must have spent a lot of money hiring people and buying a lot of clothes. Some of the clothes were sure pretty cool, and if I were a girl, I'd probably wear them. One thing, is that I never understood when the phrase "Brat" ever became a good thing and how a high school teenager hitting on a 11 year old was ever a good thing.

The movie included such insensitive material, and the idea is very unoriginal. This is not to mention that the other Bratz movie that came out on the 8th of August now number 1 on the bottom 100 of the IMDb list. I don't understand how the Asian girl, becomes the mathlete/science team superstar; the Latino bratz girl has tons of Latino people in her house all the time, INCLUDING a Mariachi band and she and her mom start singing that very popular song that... "la coucou-ra-cha"... you know what I mean... song. Oh, also the girl who is awarded the scholarship at the end of the movie... because she "needs it"... can afford to go shopping all the time and has a big house as well? I actually only enjoyed it BECAUSE it was so bad, and because some of the scenes in the movie were just so awkward and hilarious. negative 3 stars for being that awful.


As a teenager- I enjoy cheesy pre-teen films- just for the laugh. However, after I saw this- I felt violated. Girls at that age never say 'OMG' or 'BFF'. There is cheesy and just stupid! I also think it sends out a really bad message to pre-teens or younger girls; all these girls are too pretty and no one can be so popular and likable and it happens that they all get guys. I can't think of a worse film I've seen, and I've seen a lot of crappy films. The acting was rubbish and the actresses who are supposed to be 16 or 17 actually look like they are 30! And what I hated most of all was how unrealistic it was; it just happened that they could all sing, dance, and bake! And it so happens that they are all pretty. Whoever would watch this film more than once should be shot! Don't watch it unless you want to waste two hours of your life...


This film was doomed to fail from the start. I mean, c'mon, a film based on little sexualized urban "Barbies"?!?! Its just amazing what Hollywood would do to make a quick buck out of this derivative piece of uninspired pretentious "image conscious" POS. The main "characters" are just clones of those from yesteryear of film. Put simply, this film just plain sucks. IT SUCKS!!! John Voight, has, up to this point, belittled himself to the detriment of himself...literally. What actor would star in this? Is it for the money or to push up against these "beampoles"? The main idea of this film is image, just what perception of image as laid out in this film is anyone's judgement.

Little kids or fans of these "Urban Barbies" may like this film for its "merit" but only from a kid's point of view. Adults, please take heed and do your best to try and wipe this film's existence from your mind. Like Morpheus said to Neo in the Matrix: Free your mind.


It's very difficult to write a long review for this film because there isn't much in it to talk about. Bratz was on the bottom 100 when it was on the cinemas but still has a very low rating, which is fair enough. It had a very simple story that wasn't even told very well and I only understood it by reading it on paper not on screenplay. It was boring with many daft scenes like when one of the four girls was changing her clothes while the other three were covering her. Probably it is specifically made for girls but my sister didn't even like it although she is a huge Bratz fan. The movie was quite bad throughout but the ending was good & saved it and that's why I'm giving it a 2 out of 10. I can't say that it is the worst movie ever because no film can be worse than Pulp Fiction and Jackass part 1 & 2. The food fight scene was creative at start then was very funny. Most users either gave it a 1 or 9 out of 10, which means that you can either really hate it or love it but 10/10 means perfect, which definitely isn't. Overall I didn't like the film but I absolutely did not hate it as well because it did not bore me to death and I have seen much worse films.


It's been a weird day. My air conditioner went belly up and I sought refuge from the 100+ degree heat at my local mega-multi-plex, buying a ticket to the "Bourne movie". After 20 minutes of that movie's self-conscious unsteady-cam filming technique I was feeling a little queasy and bailed. Stopping at "Bratz" to recover my equilibrium before seeking a refund and an airsickness bag. What I saw was a totally empty theater (zero people) just two weeks after the movie's release.

I couldn't find much similarity between the teen actresses and the dolls (the dolls are all a lot cuter). What strikes me as interesting is not the content of the movie but the fact that it was given a wide theatrical release. The inventory of films must be pretty low if they have to send this anywhere but direct to video.

As already pointed out this is "the single most shallow, insignificant, poorly-directed, badly- acted movie of this year", or maybe any year. It also has about the narrowest target audience possible for a mainstream film, 3 to 9 year old girls with an infatuation with clothes, shoes, hair, and make-up. They must be serious girly-girls, your soccer and softball playing daughters won't find anything to relate to here.

But I'm not sure if the complaints about the message behind the film are really valid. It revolves around four multi-ethnic BFF teen girls who have nothing in common except their fashion trend value systems. Now this would be bad if the characters were played by beautiful young actresses in a school full of gorgeous likewise beautiful girls with perfect bodies. Which is what you expect from the standard pre-sold teen movie. But instead Yasmin (Natalie Ramos), Jade (Janel Parish), Sasha (Logan Browning), and Chloe (Skyler Shaye) look ready to pledge a dogs, pigs, and elephants sorority. For a while I thought I was watching an episode of "Animal Planet". Meredith (Chelsea Staub) was a pleasant exception in this school's bovine to canine parade.

They look more like four homely college freshman than hot high school fashion types and the student body looks just as bland. Whatever happened to the days when starlets got parts based strictly on their beauty with their acting skills irrelevant? Of course acting skills were just as irrelevant in these casting choices. Which leads to the obvious question of how a group of people so average looking and so clueless about the thespian profession happened to all wonder onto the set of this movie looking dazed and confused. The point being that no little girl is going to get an inferiority complex or suffer from an eating disorder because of watching this movie. The producers have unintentionally managed the positive message that no amount of expensive clothes, shoes, hair, and make- up can make an average girl look like a hot teen actress.

Speaking of wandering on to the set looking dazed and confused, Jon Voight plays Meredith's father and the school principal. Now I realize that the highlight of Voight's recent career is a "Seinfeld" cameo and his teeth marks on a pencil, but appearing in this mess is the equivalent of Bela Lugosi working with Ed Wood in the 1950's to support his drug habit.

The movie concludes with a loud and irritating musical number which I suspect was inspired by the success of "High School Musical".

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


this movie is the worst thing ever made. even worse than Jaws the Revenge. My little cousin (girl) likes Bratz (the dolls)and had thoughts about seeing the movie. well i'm glad she didn't see it! this movie and the dolls teach little girls how to be sluts. that girl meredith was the most annoying little bitch i've ever seen on a movie screen, the four lead actresses are just your typical 20 something year old whores who can't act trying to make it big, and not even John Voight (that's right, JOHN VOIGHT) could save this film. I'm very close to my little cousin, and she looks up to me. i personally told her not to see the film because it would make her feel unpretty and stupid. i'm very glad she followed my advice. if you're a shallow low-life crackhead who thinks fashion and acting like a bitchy slut is what life is all about, then this movie is for you. i'm serious this movie is so bad, bad acting, stupid plot, and EXTREMELY ANNOYING CHARACTERS. 1/10


Ignorance. Did you get it? Ignorance. We have four little bitches (sorry for the profanity but that's the word) screaming "OMG! YOU ARE MY BFF!". Their dream is to become superstars, be famous and be on magazines. What do they teach to little girls? Make-up, cosmetics, hairdresser, fame, fashion! These are the words who best describe this picture. What an awful, messy and bloody script, the story lines are the most horrible thing ever. It's so cliché! This movie is the cheesiest thing ever! Based on those dolls with lip injections and millions plastic surgeries, this thing has no story. Listen to a cast saying clichés, cast that can't show any talent skills because of the lines and because of the awful characters that are dreadful.

The reason I watched this is because my younger sister wanted to watch it. Neither I neither my sister liked it. We couldn't finish the movie because we were so annoyed with the corny plot, awful skinny role models and the dull argument that doesn't teach you anything about adolescence because this movie is too happy, sunny and colorful! No pressure, no stress, no drugs... no whatever! Just girlie, cheesy, corny, clichéd movie.

What is there to say? This is the poorest thing I've ever seen. It lacks everything! Dirty movie. Dirty movie.


So we decided to watch this film, as a laugh. It was Very far from a laugh, it was terrifying and traumatising, The shrieking awful actresses with their squeaky voices running amok screaming 'BFF' and 'IT'S ALL ABOUT ME' sent traumatic shudders up my spine. This piece of tripe is not a CHICK FLICK, nor is it a kids film, it's a horror movie, that resides in your brain and destroys it after watching it. I can honestly say that, my brain is still in the process of recovering.

The deaf boy wasn't really deaf, I don't think i reluctant deaf boy would have learnt to lip read in such a quick time, nor speak properly. Furthermore, the final performance 'bratitude' is the WORST WORST WORST performance ever. No she cannot sing, and they cannot dance. =_=.


I did read some of the reviews and all of them were by parents: i don't like it, i hate it... it annoys me. I don't think that the movie has a bad attempt i mean its a movie for 8 year old's! They don't see anything bad in it. Most of children don't understand that those are empty-brain girls because they are KIDS. And thats it. What else to say? 1 movie is not going to affect kids life. But if the kid likes it that means that she/he sees nothing bad in the movie because well you are parents and u should know it that kids don't see bad in anything. But let me go back to the movie, i think that the point of the movie is to just be yourself and don't care about everyone else if they don't like it. I think thats the only good thing in the movie.


Who would want to see these 4 girls act together in this movie? I'm glad they won those categories at the Razzies! Seriously, Yasmin can do better acting than that! The plot was awful, the actors were awful, and I caught more than 20 goofs, no lie! What's so important about this movie, anyway? The basic summary is about 4 female losers who get caught up with other losers for 730 days! Then they get in a food fight and become friends again and they try get rid of the dumb blonde! Then the Mexican becomes a moron and neglects her friends, and then everyone's happy at the end! What a good movie! It should have won an Oscar (like that would happen if it were the only movie ever)! The only thing I liked about this movie was the song "Out from Under" sung by whats-her-name. So I give this movie a 1, though it should get a 0!


Honestly, I thought this movie would be worse than it was. And it was TERRIBLE. But better than I thought. I honestly felt bad for the people who put so little money into this movie (which should have been made for TV, the plot was so small and not universal). It sent messages about both how you should be yourself and how you should be cool. My ears weren't burning, my eyes weren't falling out, but I didn't want to stay in the theater. Honestly, it's a toy I played with when I was little. You can't make a movie out of it. But they did a surprisingly crappy-but-not-sickening job. Yeah, the sets were cheap and stupid, the actresses were practically B-lists, and typically, played characters with as empty and ditzy expressions as their own, but it could have been worse. But I'd prefer you don't buy this movie. And that they never wasted it and ruined the careers of some of the people who worked on it.


This movie was probably the worst I have ever seen. It doesn't help it that it makes high school seem like a horrible place full of cliques and a mean, prissy, "boss" figure that runs the whole school. It also makes the it seem a bit to nice and immature. Honestly I don't see to many sophomores, or any year student, screaming OMG!! NO WAY!!in the halls every day. Also the whole "stupid cheer leader" thing isn't exactly realistic in high school, maybe try a few swears and they'd be heading down the right path in a typical high school. If you honestly want to see this just telling you that the obvious lip syncing done by the actress that plays Yasmin is really the cherry on top of a horrible movie. Don't forget the racial stereotypes.

My final comment is don't watch it unless you want a good laugh at how stupid something is.


Bratz: The Movie follows the lives of four total BFF high school students, Yasmin, Sasha, Chloe, and Jade, as they share their adventures through school. When they first begin their experience as freshmen, they vow to say together forever no matter what. However, their plan is road blocked when, Meridith, the creepy, stalker, spoiled queen of the school splits them up into different cliques. However, the four "Bratz" find their friendship (and fashion!) are the true important things in life and therefore decide to stop the evil Meridith's dastardly scheme together.

So, normally I would probably never watch a cheap, superficial movie based on a line of anatomical incorrect dolls, but, since the particular child that I was babysitting a few weeks ago loves the movie, I pretty much had to. And now I'm still trying to wash the nasty taste out of my mouth.

Really, I don't know if there are any other ways for me to describe this god awful train wreck besides what everyone else has said. And yes it is truly as bad as everyone says. But I feel it is my right to bitch after watching it, so here we go. First off, the acting is terrible. I can't think of one person's performance that wasn't amateurish, stereotypical, stupid, or all three. Even Jon Voight was awful (someone had some bills to pay?). All the characters are one dimensional. Meridith, played by an Ashley Tisdale wannabe, has such a paper thin personality, the wind could split her in half. She does not embody the evil queen bee. Instead, she's just an annoying bitch whose main past time is stalking the four "totally awesome and cool" Bratz. And the Bratz are really no better themselves. In fact, from my high school experience, those girls would probably be the annoying girls who stay in their own little clique and ignore everyone else. The plot is typical "high school" movie crap, including a party that goes terribly wrong and ending with a talent show that saves the day, giving the Bratz everything they ever need, and making sure that Meridith gets royally screwed. This movie also tires to give heartwarming "messages." What they are, I really don't know. Somehow they try to pass off something about individuality and friendship, but it comes out as muddled B.S. So, according to Bratz, the only way to be successful in life is by continually clinging to the people you've known before we came out of your mother and making sure that you always, ALWAYS, wear what's fashionable, otherwise you're a totalloser.

Even though this IS based on a line of dolls, it could have been good. It could have been a satire about four fashion loving girls being almost outsiders in the normalcy of high school. It could have shown how people who are friends grow apart as they grow up (but that might also include showing ACTUAL individualism and something that could happen in the real world rather that a bunch of annoying, clingy girls who would die without each other). But, of course, it only lives of to the expectations of this type of movie: it's going to be crap. Wanna see a movie about being fashionable yet an outsider? Watch Legally Blonde. Want a satirical (and funny) look at cliques? See Mean Girls or better yet, Heathers. Because, why not watch the original movies Bratz enjoys ripping off?


I have fortunately never been diagnosed with a terminal disease but I would imagine the shock of such an announcement would be on par with watching this movie. First off, the cast has the same racial make up as USA for Africa with a Latino girl hanging out with an Asian girl, a black girl, and what I originally thought was some lost member of the Russian Aristocricy but ended up being poor even though she had a huge house and her introduction to the movie dealt w/ her enormous shoe collection: funny, a movie that tries to break down walls still has plenty of stereotypes. Example, the Latino girl lives in a house with 674 people and one car, the Asian girl is good at math, and the black girl's parents are divorced.

These girls are ripped apart by some bizarre social system whereby everybody gets placed in a group like it's Red China. This system is created by a girl who never seems to graduate. There is a sequence where the movie fast-forwards by two-years and this girl is still the president of the student body and running the school like the Gestapo. Merideth, the girl in question, is easily the worst character in motion picture history. Steve Buschemi in Airheads is Jimmy Stewart by comparison. Furthermore, unlike most movie that do not make your eyes bleed, this girl who spends 100 minutes raping the soul does not even get her comeuppance. Like if Michael Vick was named chairman of PETA. The characters are, sadly, only part of the problem. Saying the whole portions of this movie are unwatchable is untrue, b/c that would imply that some parts of the movie are. From start to finish, Bratz is a step by step instructional manual on how-to-whore-out-your daughters, but keep them passionate about friendship. Several scenes in particular are horrendous: like a Super Sweet 16 party equipped with an elephant that is so mind-numbingly retarded that I was sent into anaphalectic shock and needed as epi-pen to be revived. Finally, the real atrocity in the Killing Fields that is Bratz is its includence of one Jon Voight. Before I had defined the lengths people would go to pay off gambling debt or meet the daily "fix" by referencing Kenneth Branaugh as Dr. Arlis Lovalce in Wild Wild West. No longer. Jon Voight is so ridiculous in this movie that you have to wonder if the producers had kidnapped his wife and blackmailed him. First off, they try to sneak his name in the credits so unless you are paying attention you don't even know its him. Next they disguised him as if he were snitching on the mob, complete with chotch mustache which only ups his creepy factor b/c he is constaly checking out the Benaton Ad that are the main characters. In Brief, theologists have their work cut-out for them since they have to explain how any higher power could have allowed Bratz. Even non-sentient beings will be driven insane. Keep the dog away from chocolate while it's on. Terrorist you have been warned.


ANDY BARKER P.I. was an anemic private eye spoof that just makes you miss the real deal, a show like SLEDGE HAMMER!, all the more. BARKER tried to mix the HAMMER blend of actual, legitimate mysteries and crime plots along with slapstick and comedy, but the problems lie in the fact that the lousy writing was funny, the plots were stale and the main character was bland and benign without a decent comic attitude. You can go on YOU TUBE and find unsold pilots that are much funnier than this tripe that somehow makes it on the air. Perhaps it was just scheduled to make Conan O'Brien happy, who is admittedly a clever comic force (see LOOKWELL). ANDY BARKER P.I. is forgotten already and won't even qualify as a trivia question in a few months.


One of the worst movies I have seen this year and I have seen many. Riddled with technical errors, a space shuttle ditches beneath the surface of the ocean and the crew must somehow survive and get out.

Shuttle has a submarine depth gage! Do submarines have airplane altimeters? Interior doors all lock one way only. I guess the shuttles are designed this way so crew can lock themselves in for some "private time" from sexual encounters like hiding the salami to just a good old session of pouting and crying.

Love triangle ensues aboard the shuttle. God help us. Too much time spent on social relations in the abyss instead of survival. Can't they find enough astronauts on the program that just wanna fly the mission and leave their love interests on earth? Heroin goes up with long bangs dangling by face, probably got caught in the shuttle's transmission. No wonder they ditch.

This movie was so bad I had to watch the whole thing to see how retarded it could get with this cast of basic nobodies. Take a peek but remember you'll never get that time back in your life. Time not well wasted.