"Demons follow a strict pattern, ghosts want revenge  People are just crazy!" This piece of dialog, which is an actual quote taken from the show, is the best possible summarization of this fifteenth episode in the magnificent show "Supernatural". So far, this is the only installment that doesn't live up to the name, as there's absolutely nothing supernatural about the type of evil the Winchester brothers encounter here. Whilst scouting around in a remote Minnesota countryside town where there is a mysteriously large amount of unsolved missing person cases, Sam himself disappears in a parking lot. With the help of a local police detective, Dean quickly discovers the root of the evil. Rather than mythological monsters or restless spirits, the brothers are up against the sickest and most unpredictable kind of enemy. A family of hillbilly hunters deranged as hell and probably as inbred as they come, uphold their tradition of capturing unsuspecting people and hunt them down again in the woods. "The Benders" is definitely the most effectively unsettling episode of the first season because, let's face it, there's nothing scarier than flesh and blood human beings. The Bender family is a collection of eerie redneck freaks, with obligatory bad dental hygiene and sniveling laughs, and their modus operandi of abducting victims and holding them is inventive but admittedly a bit too sophisticated for a bunch of yokels. The basic plot of "The Benders" is inspired by one of the oldest but still one of the greatest horror/cult movies ever made, namely "The Most Dangerous Game". This 1932 film has been imitated numerous times, with variable success, but never surpassed in terms of quality. This "Supernatural" episode brings another terrific homage to the cinematic landmark. Due to the typically remote backwoods setting and the archetypal redneck characters, the script is also stuffed with references and little tributes towards tons of other 'Hicksploitation' movies, most notably "Deliverance", "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Just Before Dawn".


Audie Murphy is wooden in his portrayal of the American and, in a twist to the novel, is the hero of the piece. Not quite what Greene had in mind but relevant to events in the USA during the McCarthy era when this film was made (1958).

Phuong has not been given the importance she demands in the novel. The way in which she is 'colonised' by first Fowler and then the American (Pyle in the novel, but not named in this film) is a comment on the way in which the foreign landscape is depicted and also on how the country has been colonised. Despite this she is also manipulative.

However, having said some negative things about this production of The Quiet American, it is a MUST view for the portrayal of tensions in the cold war era and the USA's twist to events as they unfold. Remember that Audie Murphy and Joseph L. Mankiewicz testified for HUAC against their fellow actors and colleagues at the height of McCarthyism.

This film is totally relevant to events unfolding today and for all those interested in the effects of colonialism and the rise of the Vietnam War. What is interesting about this film is the different take on events portrayed in Greene's superb novel, unfortunately, some of which were omitted or subverted in the 1958 film.

This film should be followed by the Philip Noyce version of The Quiet American (2001) with Michael Caine as Thomas Fowler and Brendan Fraser as Pyle (the American in the Mankiewicz version). There is a good opportunity to contrast and compare the two versions which are very different, given that the Noyce Quiet American is closer to the novel.

I would also recommend for light relief that viewers watch the Mash Season 2 TV series in which we see Colonel Flag of the CIA raising a few loud laughs.


The Quiet American has a lot to live up to, because it is adapted from possibly the best book that Graham Greene ever wrote. However, it is a very well made and literate film which manages to make a reasonable stab at living up to the forbidding reputation of its source material.

 Audie Murphy gives a career-best performance as the title character, an American living in Vietnam during the French incursion into the country. He believes that he can make a difference by providing funding for arms, but his political and economic beliefs often lead to death and destruction. A British journalist named Fowler (Michael Redgrave) befriends him, but soon their friendship is damaged when the young American has an affair with Fowler's Vietnamese mistress. In the end, Fowler ponders whether to betray the American to his enemies as an act of revenge for what the American has done to his love-life.

 The film is powerful, absorbing and well-acted. It perhaps could be criticised for the extraordinarily high amount of dialogue (it's one of those films where if you stop listening for 30 seconds, you'll lose the plot) but that is probably the only true weakness. The themes of betrayal, colonialism, and the wisdom of interfering in the affairs of other nations, are handled thought-provokingly, and the moral dilemma facing the characters at the end are emotionally shattering. Redgrave gives a great performance, conveying the pain of his dilemma with aching conviction.


Graham Greene did not have a comfortable vision of the world--or at least of the activities of human beings in the world. While very few movies do justice to books on which they are based, the Quiet American is a chilling forewarning of what the United States would be letting itself in for in the years to come. Murphy, always an appealing figure on the screen but not noted for truly great acting depth and breadth, is ideal for this understated role. A very well done thriller which addresses racism, colonialism, various "economic"isms, all the while focusing on the individual human impacts of high level decision-making. Are we just pawns, forced into just following orders, or do we have the responsibility to take action on the side of what we know to be right, in spite of the personal cost?


I just saw this film on Turner Classic Movies. When it was over I was reminded of Hemingway's comment when he was asked his opinion of the film version of "The Snows of Kilimanjaro": "it was okay except for one difference; in my story the protagonist dies, and in the film he lives." This film is as much a distortion of Greene as the other film was of Hemingway; in Greene's novel the title character was intended to be a villain, but in this film he is a hero.

It is not a spoiler to tell you that the title character dies, because the film begins with his death and tells what leads up to it in flashback. In Greene's novel, the seemingly naive, idealistic American who is in (then) French Indochina for vaguely idealistic operative is in fact a sinister undercover CIA operative in cahoots with an unscrupulous general. Together with the general, he plans and executes bombings in public places that result in the deaths of dozens of innocent people, then leaves evidence making it appear that the Communists carried out the bombing. His purpose is to turn the Vietnamese people against both the French and the Communists, leaving them open to intervention by the US, who will of course put the renegade general in charge. The American is seen as so evil by Fowler, the pathetic English journalist who is his rival in love, that Fowler goes along with a plot to have him killed. The novel is intensely anti-American, as was Greene.

By contrast, this film, released in 1958 at the height of the cold war and just after the McCarthy era, could not afford to appear anti-American. The title character is therefore made to appear like a good guy who was indeed hoping for a US-backed "third force" to intervene in Vietnam. He is never identified as a CIA operative, and his complicity in the bombings is revealed as a Communist fabrication intended to dupe the naive Fowler and others. Fowler collaborates in the American's murder because he is a rival in love and not because he is evil. Greene was reportedly outraged at this change and denounced the film. There was some poetic justice: the film was both a commercial and critical failure.

There are some merits to the film. It was filmed on location in Saigon, very unusual for the time when most films like this were filmed in the studio. Consequently, we get to see what Saigon was like in a more innocent time, before large scale US intervention. There are several Asian actors and actresses in minor roles, but not in the key role of Phuong, the Vietnamese prostitute with whom both Fowler and the American fall in love. Phuong is played by a Caucasian actress with poor makeup, a continuation of a lamentable Hollywood practice that lasted until the 1960s. There is a superb performance by Michael Redgrave as Fowler. Audie Murphy sleepwalks through his portrayal of the American.

This film is an interesting period curiosity that is worth watching, but the 2002 film with Michael Caine and Brendan Frasier is much better and much truer to Greene's novel. That version is highly recommended.


The Quiet American is not one of the greatest Greene books, coming after the successes of the Thirties and Forties, but it is a very entertaining read. Joe Mankiewicz made a great adaptation to the screen with superb actors. I will take Michael Redgrave, Giorgia Moll and Claude Dauphin over Michael Caine, Do Thi Hai Yen and Rade Serbedzija in the 2002 version any day, and as for Audie Murphy--sure he's no Hamlet, but his dogged determination and easy Southern charm impress me more than Brendan Fraser in the role of Pyle, that dangerously quiet American.

I was pleased by the way the story unfolded, the political themes were well worked out, and the Cao Dai scenes were very good. Don't forget that in 1956 the city scapes of Saigon and the countryside still had not been modernized; you are seeing the real thing. The pairing of Redgrave and Dauphin is as entertaining as that of Bogart and Rains in Casablanca: is there any higher praise?


It is difficult to watch this film and not read fairly obvious political implications into almost everything that happens. But what is most striking is the role of terrorism at the heart of the story. All of the characters revolve in orbit around Vietnamese events that keep popping - or should I say, blowing - up in the most unexpected places. And nothing is ever really resolved. Not even the crime at the center of the story.

To read each character as a political paradigm is almost too easy, and if the film has a major flaw, it is that the characters are a bit too starkly drawn as representing their nationalities and not unique personalities. The American, who isn't very quiet at all, by the way, is brash and forward. He is the new kid who blunders around, intruding on murky relationships with the naiveté of the guileless, the Lone Ranger completely out of his element. Audie Murphy does a fine job portraying him, the lack of subtlety in his acting style perfectly complementing his character.

Michael Redgrave is wordy and unctuous as the British journalist, Fowler, who is having an affair with a beautiful but ultimately vacuous Vietnamese girl, Phuong (Giorgia Moll). He is duplicitous and double-dealing, but also naive in his own ways. Clearly worn out and trying to save something permanent from the wreckage of his time in Vietnam, Fowler keeps grasping for happiness without ever understanding that can never happen. The main difference between Fowler and the American is that Fowler has longstanding ties to people and places in Saigon. He has come as close to "going native" as he can without losing his identity completely. The energetic American has no such ties, but eagerly seeks to rupture the Old World ties and make them his own. Obviously, this sets up conflict that cannot be resolved amicably. The Old World vs. the New, battling to dominate a country that itself is beginning to find dominance disturbing. In essence, all three parties have an agenda, and only one can fulfill it.

The Old World Fowler lies to everyone, even to himself, to keep things as they are. The status quo is important to him because he realizes that the inevitable change he is denying will not be to his advantage. The American, on the other hand, is painfully honest in a charismatic but ultimately empty way. As Fowler remarks, it would be better for the American if he had a few faults of his own, then he might understand others better. Which is a very charitable view of the American. Fowler at least understands himself and his depravity, whereas the American just seems to understand empty concepts like self-determination and national longings without any hint of introspection or where those fine words ultimately must lead.

The film is talky, and if you are not engaged by Fowler's various moral dilemmas and conflicts, it can get tedious. The scenes of Saigon are the film's best part, it is quite incredible to see how advanced and almost elegant Saigon was before the American involvement and Communist takeover. Too bad the film was not shot in color. Very civilized settings are ravaged by terrorist bombs, which may have seemed novel and exotic in the 1950s, but unfortunately seems quite common now.

The story itself is incredibly far-sighted. Terrorism is a modern concept, and thinking that its practitioners always lose in the end is as naive as the Americans thinking they can pick a winner in Vietnam. Fowler, while full of profundity and fancy words, is used by the Communists to get out the story they want known. He dutifully complies, the perfect tool, without hindering their activities in the slightest. Meanwhile, his world collapses and he loses everything he had in the city. The American loses, too, but in quite a different way. But you know that others like him will be back. Who wins? Well, the answer to that should be obvious.

Worth seeing at least once. Not, as some claim, Graham Greene's best work, but still a fine meditation on Southeast Asian events before they actually occurred by someone who understood.


Personally, I thought this movie never really found its direction. One of the advantages of a novel (this is based on one by Graham Greene) is that it can go in many different directions successfully and work very well because the written word allows for a much fuller depiction of what's happening. If you translate the novel into a movie, though, you're dealing with a more limited medium and it's a lot harder to make multiple story lines work. So - what was this? Part Cold War thriller, part murder mystery, part romance, with various other things thrown in, mixed together and ending up as mush.

There were parts of this that I enjoyed. Generally, I thought that Peter Redgrave as Fowler (a middle aged, jaded British journalist) and Audie Murphy as "The American" put on pretty decent performances, I appreciated the look (somewhat limited but still present) at Vietnamese culture, and I also appreciated the portrayal of the very early years of the Vietnam War, when it was still the French dealing with a Communist insurgency in what was then an integral part of their Empire. It was an interesting look at that aspect of the Cold War. Not really anti-Communist, as one might expect from the era, but somewhat anti-everything. In that sense, the movie took on Fowler's jaded personality. Starting with the American's murder, the story revolves around the search for the killer and I didn't find that part to be particularly interesting. Unfortunately, that's the bulk of the movie. Woefully underused and under-appreciated, I thought, was Giorgia Moll as Phuong, the young Vietnamese girl who becomes a love interest to both Fowler and the American. One wonders why an Italian born actress was cast as a Vietnamese (not a single Asian actress was around in 1958?) but more disappointing was that she had little to do except sip her ever-present milkshakes.

Frankly, I found most of this dreadfully boring. 3/10


Audie Murphy was a good-looking man, and the most legitimate of decorated war heroes. However, to describe his acting style -- in any of his films -- as "wooden," in addition to identifying him by name, is unnecessarily redundant.

If we were to place some film samples into a time capsule for future generations, to illustrate an example of acting as "wooden," or, say, with a range of "A-to-B" -- Audie's work would be a perfect example (we could add some from Patrick Swayze, as well).

But in spite of this and other performances which are less than stellar, this work provides a glimpse of Vietnam and Southeast Asia, presented a decade before the onset of the Vietnam conflict of the 1960's, and is part of the post-war McCarthy era, where our government took paths which history has shown to be less than wise.

With this in mind, and viewing this film a half century after it was made, the sense of history it provides is its most powerful attribute.

I also could not help but imagine how a film depicting the events in Iraq and the Mideast during the period of the 1990's into the present circumstances, will appear to viewers when it is seen and commented upon, at a site such as this, say, around 2050 or 2060.


WARNING: These comments MAY contain some phrases that might be taken as "spoilers". So, if you have NOT played this Playstation game yet and don't want to know ANYTHING about it, stop reading NOW!

Out of all the games made for the Jurassic series, i believe this is the most fun. Hardly any of the games followed the movies or books very well, and this one sort of follows it, but the point of this game that made it so much fun was the character selection. As you move on to beat levels, you receive the benefit (sometimes) of becoming a different character from the movie "The Lost World: Jurassic Park". You start out as a procompsognathus (or "compy" for short) and as you proceed through the game, you become a velociraptor, a tyrannosaur, a human hunter, and human prey. Each character had it's own advantages and disadvantages and it was neat to explore the island of Isla Sorna at different viewpoints. The behavioral features of the characters made this really fun, because by standing still for a bit (as a dinosaur) your character would look around and move its' body in amusing dinosaur fashions. It was also neat how, in order to gain life as a dinosaur, you had to eat your victims. Besides, nothin beats jumping on the head of your victim as a velociraptor and clawing them to death :) Hey, it's what the fans want! I'd have to say the only other game in this series to really get the nod of approval would be Jurassic Park for Sega Genesis (where you also could play as a velociraptor).

This game also features music from an amazing young composer: Michael Giacchino. His music truly is in the spirit of John Williams work from the movies. The score draws the gamer in to the game and provides an extra level of movie-ness to the game.

All-in-all this a good game. Besides the surprising lack of fun being a tyrannosaur (you move slow and you're an easy target, but it's still neat in it's own way since he's basically a rampaging house!), this game gives a unique perspective on this series and i hope to see more games like it in the future, especially for the next installment to the Jurassic films.


This is a Playstation game with 40 hard levels. I played it for 2 years finally completing it. You start off playing as a small dinosaur then you play as a raptor then a human then a T-rex and finally a human again. It hardest levels were Into the fire, edge of chaos and there were two. 10 out of 10. Chaos Island was a PC game.


The Lost World sets you in the eyes of 5 different characters. 1: Compy 2: Dieter Stark ( Human Hunter ) 3: Raptor 4: T-Rex 5: Sarah Harding ( Human Prey ) They all have different attributes and must use it to survive Isla Sorna. The game play is a bit hard to master but it is pretty decent, the graphics are somewhat OK but the humans' faces are hard to describe and tell. But still this is a pretty good game and I suggest you try it out. The only favorite character I like to play as is Dieter Stark, because you get a gun and shooting dinosaurs is fun! The Lost World: Jurassic Park, I give you a 7 out of 10, you just needed to be fixed up a little.


I saw the Lost World Jurassic Park twice at the movies.

And this is one of the first games I ever played on the Playstation One.

Good movie but the game was just a total boredom.

The first of the game has you be a small Dinosaur and you take on Dinosaurs bigger then you.

How smart was that? But to be fair the games didn't look too bad and the sounds was good too.

But with bad controllers and bad game play hurts this game a lot.

Also this game is too hard to have any fun.

I say this was one of the worst games ever made and it why some games based of movies are bad.

If you want a Video Game based on the Jurassic Park Films then I would suggest Warpath Juassic Park. That's a fun game.

I give The Lost World Juassic Park a 3 out of 10.

Good movie bad game.


This game is simply fantastic. It catches the unusual feeling of the best dinosaur movies, and by letting us actually play the dinosaurs, it gives us the possibility to go deeply into the story. Player can explore every aspect of The Lost World and see the story from different perspectives - as humans and dinosaurs! But the greatest thing about this game is that by playing it we're actually there, on Isla Sorna. This isn't a game already - this is an ADVENTURE! Great graphics and unforgettable music makes this feeling even stronger. Of course, there are some flaws - the game is extremely difficult at some moments, but despite of this, i guarantee that you won't be able to simply turn off the console and walk away. I recommend TLW to anyone, who loved the movies. It's really, really great.


Some people won't get this film. Their loss. Lelouch is a master of his art. He plays with narrative and plot, introducing characters seemingly at random, yet he's always in full control, and the fun is in finding out just that. The performances are uniformly even - perhaps Beatrice Dalle is a standout. Photography is gorgeous, and as you would expect from the director who made "A Man and a Woman", the music is luscious. The opening time lapse scene in Paris is worth the price alone. Lelouch is accused of recycling a limited repertoire of technique. Well, bring it on, I say. I watch this film at least twice a year. An unsung masterpiece. *** Late breaking news - May 2005. A DVD version with English subtitles has been released in Canada as part of a box set of six Lelouch films. A search will find it... Finally, the 16:9 version!


It sounds like a soppy idea: That we meet the people we love time and again through the ages. But it works - for over three hours. 'La belle histoire' switches between Judea 2000 years back (yep, the time and place of Christ) and the present day. We meet the same group of people then and now, with grand passion, bullfighting and Gipsy Kings thrown into the mix.

Being a French movie, there's a lot of pretty people here. And religious/Christian metaphors. This could have become a messy stew - instead, it's a very entertaining epic for the romanticists among us. Too bad it's so hard to get hold of.


It is clear that most viewers will be extremely disturbed by the pace of the film...

Describing two plots (one in antiquity, one now) and using the same actors, and a series of flashbacks to get his point across, Claude Lelouch uses his traditional style in a confusing manner which will make the film beyond the understanding of many.

3h20 minutes later, the mystery is solved, fully, and it is plain that he was in control all the time... not like other directors who can't make a clean film with a linear time line.

From the gorgeous Marie-Sophie L., Beatrice Dalle, Vincent Lindon, the cast, although familiar faces in Lelouch's films, all show their talent. Even late Paul Preboist, usually too strong in his approach, delivers a beautiful performance.

Music is in perfect harmony with the images, inclusing Brel, gypsy music, bullfight themes perfectly and flawlessly.

If you only heard about Lelouch but never saw any of his films, "Ladies and Gentlemen" would be a better first film than this one as this one is possibly very confusing... but a masterpiece nonetheless.


It's so many years since i saw this film, but i'll never forget it. I have been looking for it everywhere, but couldn't find it. It was me and my sister watching with no expectation. When it was finished, we wanted more. Some years ago i was in a DVD-shop in my hometown, looking for another movie, i was listening to another costumer asking for this movie "La Belle Historie". He told the owner of the shop exactly the same story as mine about the experience watching this film. He said that his class from school saw the film at the movie, and they all had the same reaction. He never forgot it too. Well thats my story.. One day i will be lucky to see it again..(sorry for my bad English):o)


First, this is just a movie. A director instructs actors to wear costumes, go on a set, and act their roles, which is recorded on film, edited, and later played in theaters.

But then, it's somehow so much more. A storyline woven from very many threads that briefly spans 2000 years. From crucifixion (but more important, the Bees of Israel legend), via Gypsy family life, to terrorism and the 1st Gulf war. And roles that provide so much intensity. Nice simple effects at times, like mixing the images of "back then" with the soundtrack of "now". A long puzzle (3 hrs in the version I saw), but ultimately not feeling too long. An incredible experience. Deeply recommended, if you're ready to invest 3 hours that might change your mind.

Regarding the title: "La belle histoire" downplays ironically, just about "quite some story" in English. The German title, "Die schönste Geschichte der Welt" (The most beautiful story of the world) exaggerates very much. But still, shortly after watching it, that title has a point... 10/10.

I bought this in Germany (Müller) as part of a Lelouch 4-pack by Black Hill.


A truly captivating movie, or is it actually several movies wrapped up in one? The religious twist caught me completely by surprise and once I got into the first few minutes of this movie I was hooked. The movie is unique and spellbinding and somehow manages to synchronize Christianity with a gypsy-imbued belief in reincarnation, in a way that comes across with conviction and a sense of powerful reality. There is also a huge dose of simple humanity added to this magical recipe, thus separating it from any danger of mere pedantry or instruction. A rather long movie, but it manages to sustain the viewer's attention throughout. In fact I could not keep my eyes off the screen for the whole viewing. The emotional undercurrent at first seems subtle and subdued, but has a constant underlying intensity that is unavoidable and finally sweeps you away with it. You cannot help but get carried away by this movie. I love this movie and have watched it many times. Possibly my only criticism is with the use of the same song/music, repeated many times throughout. Clearly real gypsies would have a much greater repertoire! Another minor problem I feel, is that many of the philosophical concepts were overtly and therefore unnecessarily stated, when the story itself should have been allowed to put forward these concepts. The new release on DVD comes as part of a set of Lelouch movies, but appears to be a director's cut(?). I say this because it is sequenced a bit differently to the original film version that I saw on television many years ago. It is also missing the intro, which (if my memory serves me) had a radio announcer waxing philosophical on air, and sped up footage of car lights on busy multi-lane motorways. This introductory footage was superb in that it related directly to the later concepts of bees, and so I cannot really understand why it was left off of the later DVD release. Whatever the reasons I still give this movie a top rating, four stars, the best! This has become my favorite movie of all time.


The movie is about Asmi Ganatra (Juhi Chawla), a woman who dreams of becoming a famous director. She then visits the Joshi family, requesting that she use their upcoming family wedding as a part of her TV serial. The bride's father agrees to the idea, but the rest of the family refuses, thinking that they will lose their right of privacy. Asmi is disappointed at their decision, but doesn't give up just yet. She then comes to realize that Manoj Joshi (Irrfan Khan), the bride's youngest uncle has fallen in love with her. She manages to talk him into an arrangement where hundreds of cameras would be installed in the huge house. Manoj gives in and agrees to the deal. The family, unaware of the hidden cameras continue to act like their normal, everyday selves. Over some time, Manoj realizes that he has made a huge mistake. His family's privacy gets invaded by secret cameras, and incidents that should be kept secret are revealed. But the story doesn't end just there, it goes on further... more secrets are revealed... some that may even change the story's plot... to find out what happens next, watch 7 1/2 Phere...

I, honestly think this is a great movie. What makes 7 1/2 Phere unique is its storyline; it is unlike any other Hindi film I have ever seen.In addition to that, the movie is loaded with comedy. I especially thought Juhi's acting was as great as ever and she looks beautiful as always. The only downside to the movie is it's not really the kind of movie you would want to see over and over again, but I would recommend it to anyone.


Juhi Chahwla and Irfan star in this hilarious Hindi take on the reality series phenomenon. The former plays a TV executive who zeroes in on a particular family and wants to produce their latest family wedding as a TV serial. The latter plays a member of the family, who becomes in on the scheme and in the process falls in love with her.

The family initially agrees to have their lives filmed and turned into a telly show but later back out of the deal. Irfan's character then secretly strikes up a deal to have the family's lives taped without their knowledge and in the process and bunch of ugly misdeeds surface and resurface.

At 155 minutes and with just two short songs to help pass the time, this is an unusual production for Hindi cinema. But it's different in an interesting way. It's a tale of lost love, unrequited love, family life and the sacrifices people sometimes have to make.

One unresolved scene baffled me though and it involves Irfan's character discovering two girls kissing during a power failure. The identity of only one of the women was revealed during the course of the movie. A bizarre scandal indeed!


I was a 21 year old working as a projectionist in a neighborhood theater when this film was released and I had the opportunity to help get it up on the screen. This seemed like such a nice and enjoyable gem back then, with some scenes as breezy as a summer's day and others with a somewhat darker but thoughtful tone (themes of rejection and the sadness of separation). It was an early " buddy movie" shown pointedly in the cross-country journey that Snoopy takes with Woodstock. Some scenes are reminiscent of a Hope and Crosby "road" picture. There is a delightful song sung by Shelby Flint in the film....she would later sing another in the first rate animated film, The Rescuers. I actually tracked down a couple of her albums as a result. I don't have children, but I still think this is a delightful film and I have my own personal video copy. Good for all ages.


my favorite peanuts cartoon with the best music ( me and you, two man crew) and Charlie Brown singing a melancholy tune about Snoopy being gone while putting his head against the wall. The "no dogs allowed" with the voice is great. One of the more sadder animations out there(especially for a Snoopy cartoon) but still very enjoyable. I last saw it on Disney channel many moons ago and wonder why it is not played more often on TV or cable.Great movie and recommended for fans of snoopy and the gang everywhere.

watch it with your dog or remember past dogs


When I was 7, I thought this movie was the greatest of all-time. Now I'm 34 and still think it's really, really cool. Who could resist the adventures of Snoopy? "Peanuts" managed to speak to me when I was a child and it continues to do so now that I'm an adult.


I remember this Peanuts movie-special, along with A Boy Named Charlie Brown, fondly as a kid, when they replayed these specials on Nickelodeon (or it might have been Disney's channel, can't remember which). Each one had several songs in each pot, all of them catchy to one degree or another, and featuring some of the genuine wit of the comic strips. This film is maybe relying on more sentimentality than the former, as in this one the issue of leaving home and belonging to an master/owner (and the attachment), and the comedy isn't as rampant as in other Peanuts specials. But of the dozens of Peanuts specials- and the short-lived television series- this is one of the better ones, as there are some moments that still stick in my mind many years after seeing it. One of these is the classic "No Dog's Allowed" song, with the perfect bass sounding voice. And the whole sequence where Snoopy is under protest taken in by a very determined little girl is brilliantly done for laughs. For some kids, depending on if they're attached to the Peanuts or not, may feel stronger with this film, with the very conflicting climax with Snoopy and his masters. There's enough fun though, as Woodstock's first appearance in the Peanuts series is well placed and delivered, with as many vaudevillian expressions as Snoopy.

Just good, family fun for all.


This feature, as you probably gathered, largely centres around Snoopy, Charlie Brown's dog.

Charlie Brown has been becoming ever more resentful of Snoopy's recent independence (in particular going to the beach to spend time with Peppermint Patty), and, after cutting his thumb while trying to open his can of dog-food, he gives Snoopy a scolding and makes him feel guilty and worthless.

The following day, when Snoopy tries to go to the beach to see Peppermint Patty again as promised, suddenly a sign has been put up saying that dogs are not allowed on the beach. This starts a chain reaction that begins a string of frustration within Snoopy...

More snubbing comes from other members of the Peanuts gang when what started off as being a bit of fun with Linus and his security blanket soon turns sadistic and nasty, once again with Snoopy on the losing end.

Snoopy then has a bit of fun with Linus' elder sister Lucy, who is using boxing gloves, and they have a bit of a light-hearted spar, but again Snoopy pushes things that little bit too far and ends up upsetting Lucy and she spits the dummy at him.

Shortly afterwards, Snoopy receives a letter from a mysterious girl named Lila, who is in hospital and for some reason craves his presence. Snoopy and his bird friend Woodstock (making his animated film debut here) suddenly set off to meet her. Their journey is plagued by quite a few of the famous 'No dogs allowed'-type signs, which again do little to heighten the spirits of our favourite beagle!

Eventually, however, Snoopy and Woodstock reach the hospital where Lila is staying, and her spirit does indeed rise when the dog suddenly appears by her bedside and enriches her enthusiasm. However, little does Snoopy know that she will practically coax her into doing something that will really tug at his heart-strings...

I first saw this film as a boy in my early tens, and even when I watch it now it has lost none of its ability to endear and -- in particular -- choke. There is one particular section that still makes me cry to this day at a party for Snoopy, where poor Charlie Brown is just too choked to say anything. Even just THINKING about that scene induces tears...

As a whole, though, the film is enjoyable fare. It's not a classic, but it's still memorable, and has some actually quite good songs that are not in the least bit intrusive and only add to the overall charm. There is also some spot humour, much of which is caused by Woodstock's erratic flying and Snoopy's constantly being taunted by the 'No dogs allowed' signs permating his venture.

Recommended, but don't expect your eyes to be anything other than moist at some point in the film!


"Snoopy Come Home" is the 2nd of the 4 Peanuts specials. In many ways, it's a unique Peanuts story (particularly for being a musical, dramatic and emotional motion picture). At the same time, its simplicity is extreme.

This is an improvement over the previous "A Boy Named Charlie Brown" and a classic. There are many good things about it. The story is simple but solid, fun, dramatic and interesting. There is some nice score, such as the hilarious song "No dogs allowed" and the beautiful but sad songs "Do you remember me?" and "It changes".

Unlike the first movie, here both Peppermint Patty and Woodstock appear, although Marcie is still missing. There is, however, a crazy girl named Clara who looks almost equal to Marcie, except without glasses. She's the one who names Snoopy "Rex". I call her "the terrorist", lol.

Pepermint Patty's role is small here and, as usual, she's a tomboy. But she is surprisingly kind here. Really doesn't sound like her. Considering she's very quick-tempered and often unfair and obnoxious, she manages to surprise us here.

Lila's role in the movie is minor. She is everything that Lucy and "the terrorist" aren't: friendly, sweet, kind and lovable. Lila was the original owner of the world's most famous Beagle. I think they should have found a way to make she and Charlie Brown meet sometimes, so that she and Snoopy had the chance to visit each other occasionally. Charlie Brown and Lila could even be friends...

During good part of the movie there is a sad atmosphere: Lila's illness and loneliness, the Peanuts gang missing Snoopy a lot (mostly Charlie Brown, who is most sensitive about this). Like Charlie Brown, I hate goodbyes and I'd rather more hellos.

The few things I don't like about this movie are when Linus and Snoopy hurt each other, the boxing match sequence with Lucy and Snoopy and, of course, the sequences with "the terrorist" (a real trauma for Snoopy and Woddstock) and most parts with Lucy. I just don't like Lucy, she's obnoxious, unfair and mean to Snoopy, Charlie Brown and even Linus.

The artwork is extremely simplistic but perhaps a little better than in "A Boy Named Charlie Brown". Still, this artwork is clearly not at the level of "Race for your life, Charlie Brown" and even less of "Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown".

The journey of America's favorite Beagle and Woodstock to visit Lila at the hospital is admirable, as well as everything they go through because of all those "No dogs allowed" signs (including one that forbids both dogs and birds, which is discrimination against animals).

This movie isn't all drama, however. There are some comical parts, such as whenever Snoopy and Woodstock laugh. The laughter of both is hysterical to listen! And Snoopy's indecipherable growl-like speaking is always a full plate, as well as his characteristic signature with a footprint. Woodstock also has the loveliest whistle of all time - he really whistles beautifully!

This should definitely be on Top 250.


Just about every adult born before 1970 will know who "Peanuts" are. That lovable gang of children, with Snoopy, the worry-wart Charlie Brown's pet beagle, is the center of it all.

This movie, Snoopy Come Home, is a great film, for young and for old. I remember watching it many dozen a time when I was between the age of 4-6. Every character has something a child can relate too! The musical score to this movie is fantastic, each tune being both catchy and sounding delightful to one's ears.

If you have a sensitive child, I'd strongly urge you NOT to let them watch this film, as it WILL run the risk of damaging them down the track in years to come! From being hilariously funny to downright sad, there's a lot to love in this little animated dog, and a lot of attitude! So from giggling at Snoopy's delightfully cute laugh, or clicking your fingers along with one of this film's many tunes, this is a perfect movie for a parent and young children.


This is a Great Movie which I got to see in 1990 from a Laser disc we rented.

This also gives us an idea about the origins of Snoopy and his original owner Leila.

The soundtrack is also great.

I watched this movie with my niece and nephew who enjoyed it much as I did back then.

I liked the part when Charlie Brown said "It took that rock 5,000 years to come to shore, now your putting it back".

This is a movie which can be enjoyed by the family.

It takes me to an earlier time of innocence.

I wish things were a lot simpler now as it was then.


When I first saw this movie I was like 3 or 4 years, and I thought of it as one of the greatest adventures in the world. But after a short while I realized there are many sad parts in it, especially the good bye party. I'm 21 now, and I'm still watching this movie over and over. I found out that no other cartoon has as beautiful loving parts filled with love as this one, but on the other side it is one of the most negative cartoons I've ever seen.

Remember, right at the beginning Charlie Brown cuts his hand and is yelling at Snoopy. The other day Snoopy is very drastically fighting with Linus over a blanket(?). Next he goes boxing with with Lucy, ends up with a shoe in his face. Then we see as Lila is in the hospital, very sad music under it. Then Snoopy is thrown out of the beach because of the NO DOGS ALLOWED sign. He runs away from home to see Lila and meets this little girl who wants to keep Snoopy and Woodstock. Turns out to be a freak and beats Snoopy because of the tea SHE spills out on his dress. After they try to run away she takes Snoopy to the Vet where by sounds we can assume some pretty bad things happening. Meanwhile Charlie Brown is really sad. Snoopy gets to the hospital after a journey full of NO DOGS ALLOWED signs. Snoopy is hesitating with whom to stay Lila or Charlie. Snoopy goes home to say good-bye to his friends which is the saddest part in the movie. Snoopy goes to Lila and while leaving his Doghouse with the "For sale or to let" sign on it Woodstock runs after him crying while we can hear this really sad song in the background which later Charlie Brown is singing in his deep depression. This is the last sad part in the movie thank God, because when I'm watching it I cant manage to watch the whole movie with dry eyes.

Thus the movie has VERY beautiful and happy and lovely parts in it. One of my favorite parts is when Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown are at the amusement park and are talking about love and Charlie touches Patty's hand.

This movie has marked my life for a lifetime positively and negatively. When I'm sad I just think of how Snoopy begins to laugh in the library. No wonder I always get upset when see somebody kick someone in the leg like Snoopy did to Linus,etc.

I would recommend this movie to everyone because its beautiful, but warn children with weaker soul( I just cant find the right expression), because it can leave serious marks in a child's life. You can never get enough of this movie.Its brilliant Its beautiful yet very disturbing.


This melancholy entry in the Peanuts quadrilogy stands out among the four, simply because of the difference in tone from the other entries. "Race for Your Life" is much lighter in tone, while "Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown" is more shallow. "Snoopy, Come Home" is the most memorable because of its unusual depth, as well as the bittersweet themes that it touches on: friendship; loyalty; and partings of the way.

The plot, in a nutshell: Snoopy's former owner is sick, and calls him to her side. Snoopy makes a cross-country journey, and is then torn between staying with his former owner, who needs him, and returning to the place he considers home.

Though the animation is still fairly simple here, it's a notch above the usual Peanuts movies and specials - check out the beautiful backgrounds of the beach scenes, or the wonderful palettes displayed as Snoopy and Woodstock travel at sunset. Really striking, and different from what we usually see in the Peanuts stories.

The real mixed bag here is the music. This was the first Peanuts project that did not features a score by the brilliant Vince Guaraldi. Instead, the Sherman brothers of Disney fame provide the songs, several of which are sung by the characters (in contrast to Guaraldi's usual instrumentals). Some of these songs are quite good, like Fundamentalfriendependability, the song sung by a girl who captures Snoopy when he is en route. Others, like Snoopy and Woodstock's "Me and You" theme, are pure early 70s (think The Association) and unfortunately date the movie.

The voice work is generally good, unlike the more recent Peanuts entries where sounding somewhat like the original voices doesn't seem to be a prerequisite. Stephen Shea as Linus sounds almost exactly like older brother Chris, the original, definitive Linus who grew out of the role. The one weak voice is Charlie himself, whose voice is different enough from his predecessors to be distracting.

But these are nitpicks. The strength and depth of the story itself is more than enough to make up for the few weaknesses. For whatever reason, this is rerun less than the later two Peanuts movies, so seek it out on DVD - you won't be disappointed. And if you're softhearted, be sure to have a handkerchief handy.


Ever since I was a tiny little girl, I grew up on Peanuts comic strips and cartoons. I collected the little figurines and have several Snoopy dolls, including the Snoopy Doghouse where many of my old dolls are being held in. Out of all the specials, cartoon episodes, and movies, this one has to be my all time favorites as it is my old brother's favorite.

I don't know why I love it, but it is a very well done movie. Charlie Brown states that Snoopy is lazy and "everything (Snoopy) has is because of (Charlie)". Snoopy tries to cool off at the beach and at the Library with Chuck and Sally, but gets booted out because he's a dog. He gets into a blanket war with Linus, breaks a date on the beach with Peppermint Patty because of the "No Dogs allowed" signs and boxes with Lucy to cool off.

Suddenly, he receives a letter from Lila, his first owner, who tells him she is in the hospital and wants him to visit her. A shocked and obviously upset Snoopy packs up, calls for Woodstock (Who makes his first appearance in the animated continued here) and heads off to meet up with her, leaving a very confused Charlie Brown holding Lila's letter.

After lots of traveling, including an encounter with a crazy girl who tries to adopt Snoopy and Woodstock as her own pets and more of the "No Dogs Aloowed" signs, he arrives at the hospital and his presence makes Lila better. Meanwhile, Charlie Brown and the gang are worried and concerned about why Snoopy left until Linus discovers Snoopy and Lila's past connection and tells Charlie Brown about it.

Snoopy leaves the hospital, but promises that he is going to return to live with Lila. He returns home and alerts everyone, starting with Charlie Brown, that he is going to return to Lila, who, he says in a typed letter, needs him. A farewell party is held and Snoopy receives a fond farewell and a ton of gifts before he leaves a emotionally distraught Charlie Brown and crying little Woodstock behind. But does he stay with Lila for good? You just got to watch the end to find out.

This movie made me laugh, cry and get up and dance. It has many good points like the music and Snoopy's adventures in the wild. Even now I still get choked up at the farewell party and Chuck's sad song when Snoopy leaves home. I actually had to stop my tape once when that scene came up because I was crying so much. I laugh at all of the funny scenes like the re-occurring "No Dogs allowed" signs that appear every now and then. I still dance a bit to the scene when Snoopy and Woodstock have a little concert while they set up camp and make dinner and YES! Snoopy plays the Jaw-harp during the music break, which I love so much. "Lila's Song" and "It Changes(Charlie Brown's sad song)" are moving, "Geting it together", "Snoopy Come Home" and "We're the best of buddies (Me and You)" are fun and up beat and "At the Beach", "Fundimetally (The weird girls' song she sings to 'Rex')" and "No Dog's Allowed" are OK, but not one of my favorites.

The only part I don't like that much is the scene with the girl that "Adopts" Snoopy and Woodstock, calls Snoopy "Rex" and stats that she'll feed him table scraps, forces him to have a tea party with her, spanks him for "spilling" tea on his "Dress", chokes him with a rope leash and drags him to a vet! This is one of the best Peanuts Movies/Specials in my opinion. It has humor, emotion, music, and great music.

"You know what I need? I need more 'hello's'." - Charlie Brown


I love this film! It's so wonderful. One of the funniest parts for me is when Lucy and Snoopy box with each other (Snoopy putting the boxing glove on his nose LOL). The Sherman Brothers (a great songwriting team in general) score may not receive a lot of attention by all viewers of this film, but it's terrific.

Especially "Me and you/A two man crew/Side by side we're united" plus the title song and Charlie Brown's solo "It Changes".


As a kid,I watched "Snoopy,Come Home" on CBS every time it was on. Each year that it was on,I understood a little more about the storyline than the last time before.

To very briefly summarize,Charlie Brown has gotten fed up with Snoopy's ongoing shenanigans and Snoopy feels rejected by his owner (whom he refers to in the comic strips as "that round -headed kid".)

This sets him off on a quest to find his previous owner Lila,which comes about after Lila writes to Snoopy from the hospital,asking him to visit her.

I'm guessing also Snoopy's thinking she will appreciate him more than Charlie. I wouldn't have admitted it when I was younger but the scenes between Lila & Snoopy plus Charlie & The kids saying good-bye at Snoopy's farewell party did make me sad.

I never forgot the songs from this,"Smoopy,Come Home","No Dogs Allowed","It Changes" and of course "Me and You (A Two Man Crew"). I occasionally find myself whistling the latter song from time to time. Which just shows how strong and wonderful this animated film was.

As for the ending,I think that not only are the kids glad Snoopy (and Woodstock) returned,I think Snoopy's glad too. ....but maybe he appreciates the friends he has in the Peanuts gang a lot more now. As for his askng for his things back,well,that's the way Snoopy "always" is! He's kinda smug sometimes,I give you that.

10 stars,for this and all Charles Schulz brought to us through these characters. I really miss the Peanuts strip on Sundays. (END)


I recently saw this movie for the first time. I was 16 when it was released. I was expecting it to be alot like "A Boy Named Charlie Brown" (1969) the first Peanuts feature.

This film is good on its own. The songs and tunes on the soundtrack are upbeat and pretty. The animation is first-rate high quality from Mr. Melendez. The introduction of Woodstock is cute. I especially liked the scenes where he and Snoopy are on their way to visit Lila in the hospital. There is a complicated scene where Woodstock has to walk on each of the sidewalk grate pipes to cross them while Snoopy just keeps walking. Their "buddy" scenes are great.

There is not much use of the Peanuts gang in this film Charlie Brown has a new and different voice for this film. But, he does sing a sad little tune near the end of the film that will tug at your heartstrings.

If you have never seen this film, please do.

I watched this film on 2/13/00, the night that Mr. Schulz died. I hope that the Charlie Brown and friends legacy continues with these films and the TV shows.


I recently watched this movie for the first time in a long time and I soon realized why I've avoided it for so long. First of all, I have to say that I've always loved the "Peanuts" comic strip and the delightfully witty antics of Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Linus and Lucy. "A Charlie Brown Christmas" is still my all time favorite Xmas special and most of the early specials remain among my favorites. And I saw "A Boy named Charlie Brown" at the theatre as a kid and still love it. I never saw "Snoopy Come Home" at the theatre,probably because I felt that I was getting too old for the Peanuts gang. But I did catch the movie when it appeared on network TV a few years later. I remember being so disappointed I didn't even watch to the end. So when I decided to take another look at it, I thought maybe I misjudged it. Unfortunately, I realized that I had not misjudged it. First of all, this is the first "Peanuts" production that didn't have Charlie Brown in the title. Also, Vince Guaraldi, the wonderfully talented composer of the specials is not involved at all. Then there is a very dark and very sad plot line, involving Snoopy leaving Charlie and the gang to visit his original owner,Leila in the hospital. I know this was a story line from the strip, but in the strip, Charlie Brown and the others don't seem to come off as badly as they do in this film. And lets face it, the music is corny as all get out. Guaraldis music is sorely missed here. His scores are filled with joy and optimism, but the music here is so manipulative and dated, you don't feel joy, but you feel used. The one part I really enjoyed was when Snoopy is captured by the crazy Clara. That was the only time I felt any sense of the joy of the classic "Peanuts" specials, although I did get kind of a kick out of Thurl Ravenscroft singing "No Dogs Allowed" whenever Snoopy saw a sign with that on it. The story had none of the wit of the strip, the specials or the first movie. It just seemed like a bummer every time Charlie Brown came on, bemoaning the loss of his dog. And even the animation didn't seem as bold or striking as it was in the first movie, with fewer bold choices like the "Beethoven" montage from that movie. I've always thought that Snoopy had pretty much taken over the strip in the mid 70s and to an extent, the specials, but the Snoopy obsession seems to have reached its peak here. But I do like the way Peppermint Patty is used here, as well as Woodstock, but thats about it for the positives. Im guessing that the later movies are probably even weaker, because the later specials would suffer, especially following Guaraldis death. You probably think Im just getting old, but I still love the early specials and the first movie and I still love reading classic strips. So I will return to those and get the bad taste of "Snoopy Come Home" out of my mouth.


The star and most affectionate character of Charles M. Schulz's marvelous comic strip Peanuts (which actually has evolved into so much more than that) is Charlie Brown the classic American un-success story. But apparently the most memorable character is the one whose used as the symbol of MetLife: Charlie Brown's ubiquitous and enigmatic beagle Snoopy. There are dozens of half-hour animated specials based off Peanuts and four feature-length movies. The first one was a true masterpiece. "A Boy Named Charlie Brown" moved and touched me in so many ways that I went on to call it the best animated film I've ever seen. The movie was about Charlie Brown. So it only made sense that for the next one that Schulz and animation director Bill Melendez to focus on Snoopy. Now "Snoopy Come Home" is not as good as the first movie, but it is memorable not because it completes the feeling of the Peanuts world as the first movie did, but because it's arguably the most saddening.

In this movie, we come to discover that Snoopy was not always Charlie Brown's dog. Previously, he belonged to a little girl named Lila (voice by Johanna Baer). Snoopy gets word one day that she's been hospitalized and teaming up with his clumsy avian sidekick Woodstock, heads off to visit her. After rendezvousing with Lila, Snoopy them finds himself feeling he has to leave Charlie Brown and commit himself to his former owner.

This is a very sad premise and "Snoopy Come Home", especially in its last half-hour, turns out to be a very sad movie. I am eighteen years old and it still tugged at my heartstrings and drew tears to my eyes. And oddly enough, the brilliance of this movie and the way these scenes are written by Charles Schulz and they way they are animated by Melendez in his team makes you admire these scenes after the inevitable happy ending (that's really no spoiler considering this is a kids' movie).

But the movie is not all sad tear-jerking moments with the characters crying their eyes out. Again, Schulz installs into the screenplay his classic sense of humor that was written for adults but appeals to all ages. The movie opens up with a joke and proceeds to have many before it takes a somber note. The Lucy vs. Snoopy boxing scene has deservedly gone on to become a cult classic iconic scene because not only is it well animated, but it's really funny. Most of the movie focuses on Snoopy and Woodstock, but there are some moments that revolve around the other characters such as Charlie Brown, Linus, Lucy, and Schroeder. And while I do wish there had been more impact in these scenes, they do fulfill their purpose and complete the feeling of a "Peanuts world" I guess you could say.

Now I do have my complaints. Primarily, it concerns the voice acting. Chad Webber, I'm afraid, was not quite the perfect actor to voice Charlie Brown. He just sounds toosoft and gentle. We prefer Peter Robbins' voice and his imitators. Sometimes I also think the actresses who voice Lucy have had too strident of voices, but Robin Kohn isn't strident enough and by far, Pamelyn Ferdin is still the best Lucy voice actress. Another thing I missed was the presence of a jazz score by Vince Guaraldi whose music to "A Boy Named Charlie Brown" was so wonderful. The songs are also, I'm afraid, not memorable.

But in the end, my few gripes aside, I very much enjoyed "Snoopy Come Home" and I've found it a lot more fun than a lot of modern day movies, animated or otherwise if, ironically enough, because it made me feel very sad. It's not as good as "A Boy Named Charlie Brown", but it most certainly is enjoyable and a must-see for Peanuts fans.


First line to pad out the comment.

Second line to pad out the comment. Review follows!

I remember this being my least watched of the four Peanuts movies. Returning to this film after twenty years to watch it with my three year old daughter reminded me why that was.

Either people are hurting each other or they're crying in this film. The voice acting is generally bad, though Linus is pretty good. Charlie Brown is just about intolerable. At one point, my daughter turned to me and said, "Daddy, this is boring." She was right.

I'm glad I showed her this one first. They only get better.


I love these old STAR TREK episodes but this must be one of the lamest ever. I couldn't figure out what on earth was going on - nor could Kirk and Spock by the sound of them. Spock keeps making strange and frankly incomprehensible statements like "it's possible...very possible." It's either possible or not, make up your mind, Mr Spock.

Meanwhile, a man falls off a cliff, again and again, and is cured by a small plaster, though blood drips from his mouth. The best parts are Kirk's line "I want facts, not poetry!" and the Enterprise crew hanging out in the recreation room smirking at the state of the canteen coffee while the goatee man prowls about looking ragged. Couldn't Bones have loaned him a spare suit at least?

It's still all splendid fun, of course, and I recommend it wholeheartedly over all modern TV programmes.


The storyline for "The Alternative Factor" is a great concept  the possibility of a negative parallel universe and a madman whose insane actions could lead to the destruction of EVERYTHING. But there are several aspects of this episode that really bother me, and IMHO, "The Alternative Factor" is the worst first-season episode.

I like the concept for this episode. I also like the dialogue between Kirk and Spock in the briefing room when they finally put all of the pieces of the puzzle together. But letting Lazarus roam freely about the ship is a flaw I can't excuse, and the final solution seems a bit drastic. I'm also not a fan of the special effects. For the most part, first-season episodes are pretty good, but this episode feels like it was put together in a big hurry. I'm giving "The Alternative Factor" a D grade and will find an alternative episode to watch when I can.


The 'good' greatly outnumbered the 'bad' in the first season of 'Star Trek,' in terms of episode quality. In fact, one could argue that the only out-and-out stinker in that opening set of shows is 'The Alternative Factor,' which is confusing to the point of being incomprehensible at times. The universe is in danger of 'winking out,' and if you find the explanation of this phenomenon a little weak, join the club. Maybe it's the 23rd century equivalent of 'freaking out.' Anyway, it's not a good thing, and the Enterprise tracks the source of the trouble to a man on a desolate planet and his small spacecraft there on the surface. The man, Lazarus, is not much help in explaining things either, babbling on and on, sometimes hysterically, about how he has to stop somebody and how Kirk and crew must help him. About a half-dozen times during the episode (seems like more) we are treated to a spinning visual effect that settles on a murky, foggy corridor of sorts where two figures are seen locked in a fierce struggle. Also, Lazarus has a bad habit of falling off cliffs. McCoy treats him for a head injury, and even though he is clearly unbalanced and dangerous, turns him loose to wander the ship and steal a couple of dilithium crystals. When Kirk finds out, naturally being a bit perturbed, he asks McCoy where Lazarus went. McCoy shrugs and says, "Oh I don't know, Jim. It's a big ship." Just totally blows Kirk off. Thank YOU, Dr. McCoy. Anyway, the episode meanders along, and between the spinning corridor scenes and Lazarus falling off a cliff here and there, we finally get to the heart of the matter. A parallel anti-matter universe threatens to collide with our own, destroying everything everywhere. Lazarus has a double in the other universe, a madman, and the only hope is to trap Lazarus and his mad double in the corridor for all eternity. Which they manage to do. But by the end of episode, you really don't care anymore.


I watched Star Trek TOS everyday after elementary school in the 1970's, so much so that after a few years I had managed to see every episode but two. Those two episodes were "Court Martial" and "The Alternative Factor" both of which rank low in my opinion for entertainment value for Trek. I would not see them until I was in my 30's so it's possible that not having seen them first as a child has made me less open to liking the, or it may be that they are just bad episodes; for me, I don't think I'm reaching too far by labeling them bad. The Alternative Factor though wins the honor as a bottom 5 episode while Court Martial doesn't reach those absolute lows based on some decent acting scenes. The reason why I think this episode is so poor is the story is just plain stupid, the characters are made to be stupid, especially Spock, there is little or no parts for characters like Scottie, Sulu, Ohura, Bones, I mean even Yeoman Rand would have helped and I hated her! LOL. OK now it's plot hole time, why couldn't they just phaser the time machine so that neither one could get through? Just make sure you have the nice Lazarus on your dimension, lol. Oh well the other Lazarus seemed like a good guy to go drinking with at a Klingon bar, right? Anyway, way too much time spent with out guest character and not nearly enough with our Enterprise crew means no matter how good the plot (which is not here anyway) it won't get sold. 3 of 10 even though it's Trek, it's a pain to watch and I won't be next time I see it on. So what are your bottom 3 Trek episodes? Here are mine, I don't think they will change if I re-watch them soon, these are based on my memories that go back several years, as a male viewer. The Alternative Factor, Obsession, and Is There No Truth In Beauty.


This may be the worst episode of ST. The script seems muddled, the science seems plausible initially (identical particles of matter and anti-matter do annihilate and produce radiation, however human bodies are not "particles") until we see Kirk in the anti-matter universe. The instant his skin made of matter contacted the anti-matter atmosphere there would have been a big bang... The acting by Robert Brown as the mad (matter) Lazarus was over the top by even my standards (I consider Shatner an excellent actor) although his sane twin was done much better. As for the pluses there was the lovely Janet MacLachlan as a Lt. in charge of the Dilithium Crystals. Her role does however seem almost as if it were inserted by the producers as an afterthought. But the sentiment behind it is very much appreciated (although it was already being "covered" by Nichelle Nichols - still never too much of a good thing).


Given the meager quality of a good part of the third season, that's what this feels like.

I can live with a dimension-crossing paranoid maniac. I can live with him being a threat to the immediate area, several solar systems, maybe even the galaxy.

But the universe?

I don't even want to talk about the basic flaws in the whole matter-antimatter plot point, but 150-200 lbs of matter and antimatter wouldn't take out the universe.

The dilithium bit I can live with. They were still getting their feet wet on the technology, deciding what exactly this and that could and couldn't do. I just grind my teeth a little during those scenes.

The thing I just absolutely can't buy is the solution. Toss Laz A in with Laz B and let them duke it out for eternity?

The ship has phasers. Take out his ship. No ship, no doorway. And if you're afraid he might build another one, you have two choices.

#1 - Lock him up for the rest of his natural life, doped out on thorazine to the gills. #2 - You've got a phaser in your hand, he doesn't, and what happens on Planet Vegas stays on Planet Vegas.

Still, though, not as bad as Spock's Brain. Or Wink of an Eye. Or Spectre of the Gun. Or.... well, you get the idea.


I have read all the "Jump On The Band Wagon** It's a lousy episode reviews here and what I have read makes the posters sound like idiots. This is not the best Trek Episodes but the reviewers here are citing "Charlie X", "Wink Of An Eye", "Spectre Of The Gun" and "Spock's Brain" as bad episodes.

I think you guys are idiots!! I will cite a few problems with this episode.

#1: In one scene Lazarus #1 or #2 you don't know which has a goatee that goes from thick to thin #2: The dilithium crystal assemblies fit into Lazarus's ship like they were designed for it #3: He falls off cliffs even though he is disoriented and off balance.

The episode could have used more detail and the whole universe being annihilated thing is basically "The same matter can't occupy the same space at the same time" The fact that they were in the same universe at the same time has no bearing!!


I never understood this episode. It's not interesting, nothing happens in it. During those moments when the world is spinning around, I have to laugh because they look like those old "newspapers spinning towards the camera" shots showing a series of headlines, e.g. "Boy Trapped in Refrigerator Eats Own Foot".

Lazarus keeps falling off of cliffs all of the time. The man easily travels through Time and Space and yet he keeps falling into Space all of the Time? When TOS was originally issued on VHS, this was one episode I made sure I didn't buy. There might be more to see in this episode, I just don't have the patience to wade through all of the boredom.


Uggh! This is the first truly awful episodes of Star Trek--even worse than the "Charlie X" episode!! Now THAT'S bad!! The biggest problem is that the character of Lazarus is just dopey and boring. He rants and raves and lies and just annoys the daylights out of the audience. Plus, despite all the cheesy over-acting by Lazarus, the pay-off just isn't worth waiting for at all! In so many ways, this episode looked either like a "throw away" episode or perhaps one that had been written and re-written again and again and just wasn't perfected. Regardless, the episode has few thrills or excitement and no laughs. In fact, unless you are a huge Trekkie, it isn't worth your time.

FYI--If you want to see the worst episode, there are still probably two or three that managed to surpass this one in lousiness.


Saw this movie on re-run just once, when I was about 13, in 1980. It completely matched my teenaged fantasies of sweet, gentle, interesting  and let's face it  hot  "older" guys. Just ordered it from CD Universe about a month ago, and have given it about four whirls in the two weeks since. As somebody mentioned  I'm haunted by it. As somebody else mentioned  I think it's part of a midlife crisis as well! Being 39 and realizing how much has changed since those simpler '70s times when girls of 13 actually did take buses and go to malls together and had a lot more freedom away from the confines of modern suburbia makes me sad for my daughter  who is nearly 13 herself. Thirteen back then was in many ways a lot more grown up.

The film is definitely '70s but not in a super-dated cheesy way, in fact the outfits Denise Miller as Jessie wears could be current now! You know what they say, everything that goes around... although the short-short jogging shorts worn by Rex with the to-the-knees sweat socks probably won't make a comeback.

The subject matter is handled in a very sensitive way and the characters are treated with a lot of respect. It's not the most chatty movie going  I often wished for more to be said between Jessie and Michael that would cement why he was also attracted to her. But the acting is solid, the movie is sweet and atmospheric, and the fringe characters give great performances. Mary Beth Manning as Jessie's friend Caroline is a total hoot  I think we all had friends like her. Maia Danziger as the relentless flirt with Michael gives a wiggy, stoned-out performance that just makes you laugh  because we also all knew girls that acted like that.

Denise Miller knocked her performance out of the ballpark with a very down-to-earth quality likely credited to her uknown status and being new to the industry. And I think not a little of the credit for the film's theatre-grade quality comes from the very capable, brilliant hands of the story's authors, Carole and the late Bruce Hart, who also wrote for Sesame Street. They really cared about the message of the movie, which was not an overt in-your-face thing, while at the same time understanding how eager many girls are to grow up at that age.

One thing that made me love the film then as much as now is not taking the cliché, easy, tied-with-a-bow but sort of let-down ending. In fact it's probably the end that has caused so many women to return to viewing the movie in their later years.

Re-watching Sooner or Later has me absolutely sick with nostalgia for those simpler times, and has triggered a ridiculous and sudden obsession with catching up with Rex Smith  whom while I enjoyed his albums Sooner or Later and Forever when I was young, I never plastered his posters on my walls as I did some of my other faves. In the past week, I've put his music on my iPod, read fan sites, found interviews (and marveled in just how brilliant he really is  the man has a fascinating way of thinking), watched clips on YouTube  what am I, 13? I guess that's the biggest appeal of this movie. Remembering what it was like to be 13 and the whole world was ahead of you.


I think there are so many reasons why I love this movie. I think the biggest attraction for me, age. It has that kind of after school special meets feature film look to it. Even though it is sooo cheesy and pop culture like, there is something real about it. The acting is soo down the the core real. I something I really miss with todays "teen" films. The way in which Jessie acts is soo the 13 yr old being the 17 yr old.

I remember watching this movie when I was 13, and now that I am older, for some reason I just HAD to have this movie on DVD. I am not sure what in gods name made me think I needed to have this movie in my collection, but after watching it again for the 15th million time, I REMEMBER. It is cute and cheesy and has a really good message. I am sure there are guys who can relate but the trilogy of books and the movie just go hand and hand with us girls when we were teens! I just some how got it and understood exactly what Jessie was going through, and I saw it 10 years after it came out! There is no way to really explain this movie, other than, if you can hang with the kind of raw quality and can get passed the 70s look, okay and maybe the music, deep down it is a really great movie to watch on a Sunday afternoon.


When I saw the movie in 1979, before they gave television shows or movies parental ratings, I am thinking now that this movie is actually pretty risk taking for its time. Nonetheless, it is about a 13 year old who pretends she is 16 to gain the attentions of a 17 year old high school student who aspires to be a singer Rex Smith, who was a minor teen heart throb at the time is fine. Denise Miller who played essentially minor parts both in Fish and Archies'place later in her career is excellent as a conflicted 13 year old who does not know whether she should play with dolls or boys. Judd Hirsh(Taxi) and Barbara Feldon make use of the screen time by providing Miller with advice and tactfully helping the adolescent to make the difficult transition from her youth into a young teenager.


I'm so excited to see this movie on IMDb! I loved this movie when it came out. I was the same age as the girl, and this movie fed my girlish fantasies. **swoon** It was a great movie! I haven't seen it in years. I wish they would put it on TV again. Maybe if I saw it now with grown up eyes, I would see it differently, but I doubt it. That movie is a piece of my youth and one of my special memories. I loved that song - You Take My Breath Away. Every once in a while, I find myself singing it - even now. Isn't that the funniest! I remember riding my bike to the record store to buy an eight track tape of Rex Smith's album as soon as it came out. (I wonder if I could get that again...) I had his posters from all the teen magazines all over my walls. I'm glad to know that he is doing well. He was so cute! I also watched him on Solid Gold and Pirates of Penzance. What I wouldn't have given to be able to switch places with Linda Ronstadt!


I saw this film when I was just a teenager and I loved it. The characters are believable and the story is interesting. Jessie, although only 13, isn't treated like a baby, even when she messes up. The teenage boy isn't a disrespectful, selfish dummy only out for one thing and he's still sexy and cool.

Now that the movie has come out on DVD and I have a daughter of my own in her early teens, I can't wait to watch it with her. As a family movie, it will give parents and kids the opportunity to talk about why it's important to be honest and that being okay with who you are is always a better idea. Highly recommended.


had 56% of voters saying it was a 10!!! I did too!! It's because of what it was about and when we saw it, I'm guessing!

Rex Smith's young self is enough to make you wanna see this one.


All that I have to say is it's the best movie of all time and worth watching!!!!!!!!!! It's heart-warming, sweet, romantic and a great coming of age story. Good for all ages...especially if you love music. Perfect for the "girls night", since we've all loved a singer in a band so time in our lives! Rex and Denise were exceptional in their roles and it really shows. Rex's smile doesn't hurt either!!!!!!!!! What a hottie! Even now! I must say I saw the movie when I was 15 and it was on late at night. I was born in 1977 so I missed it on TV. They should play it though every so often, I haven't seen it since that night. Now I own the VHS, DVD, and All 3 books of the story. For those of you who didn't know there is a part 2 and 3 to the story but ONLY in a book...WOULD LOVE FOR A 4TH BOOK!!!!!!!


I first seen this film in the early 80's and i loved it, its a real tearjerker and any chick flick fans out there will surely enjoy this film, i never get bored watching this film, but get the box of tissue's at the ready :)

Rex plays the part of a 17 year old guitar instructor named Michael and a 13 year old girl named Jessie falls for him, she manages to get his attention and they fall in love, he thinks she's 16 years old as thats what she told him, but you'll have to watch the movie for yourself to see what happens when Michael finds out Jessie's real age, a highly recommended film.


I still love this movie! I remember falling in love with Rex (I was 13!) and thinking that he was it for me!! I had the biggest crush on him for years! I guess deep down in, I still do! He's still sexy. I bought the movie just a couple of years ago, and now from time to time, watch it and fall in love again!! He has been in a few different shows, even a soap opera, but nothing he has done will match what he did for me in Sooner or Later! I can't imagine the 13-year old girls of today not watching this movie, and not feeling like I did when I saw it for the first time. I know that when you watch it several things are definitely 70's, but still..he's Rex and he's eternally hot!


I seen this movie as a young teen, and fell in love with the movie and the books. I recently purchased 2 of the 4 books to read and be 15 again and remember all of the emotions you go through as a young girl. I'm 35 yrs old and just found the movie on DVD and had to have it. Michael and Jesse are what ever girl dreams of having with a hot looking older guy!!!! I still do. However, I'm married to a wonderful man. But there is always a place in my heart for my first love Michael Skye (Rex Smith). This movie is a MUST HAVE -- MUST SEE. Anyone with preteen,or teen girls will want to watch this with them. Young love .......... first love. It is a movie that takes you back to your first love. It did for me.


Wow!!! I can't believe I found this movie on here. I LOVED this movie when it was on TV. I was around the same age as Jesse (I think I was in 7th grade?) and I still remember going to school after watching it the night before and all the girls in my class were buzzing about it. How cute Michael was etc. I was absolutely in love with Rex Harrison (Michael) in this movie. So much so that many years later I named my second son REX!!!! (He is almost 17 now and I can't wait to show him this) Thank you Thank you for listing it on here. It brings back fond youthful memories. Looking at the cover photo now after all these years makes me laugh. Look at that man's hair?!? What was I thinking?!? Did we look like that in the late 70's early 80's?!? LOL Shelly Age 41 Iowa


I saw this movie when it first came out, and was obsessed with it. Boys, kissing, love and everything else was sooo new to me at the time, and this romance b/w Michael and Jessie became the fairytale that I dreamed of.

As, I grew up, I never forgot the movie, and actually had an old copy on VHS recorded off the TV that eventually just fell to pieces. Then, a couple of years ago, I decided to look the movie up online, and found it on Amazon. I was elated and yes, I'll say it...giddy! I bought it and watch it every now and then when I want to escape to a simpler, less complicated time, with slumber parties, "Teen Beat" posters on the walls, vinyl records scattered about, slurping on NON-diet sodas and talking with my friends about boys and music and boys!

Yup, I love this movie... and Rex paved the way for a lifetime attraction to tall blondes!!! You know... I hadn't seen the movie in about 20 years when I found it on Amazon, and the first time I replayed it...I STILL knew all the songs. That was a clear indication to me of the indelible impression "Sooner or Later" made on that starry-eyed girl of long ago! I am amazed, yet glad to see that there are others out there who love the movie, as well!


I don't know what it was, maybe cause I was 18 when I saw the film and a Letta us guys had girlfriends (or were in love with girls) that were a fies years younger and it just didn't fit in back then (mostly with the fathers) and the movie kinda made it feel better for us, made us all feel like we were OK and that the feelings were real and OK, I was overwhelmed at the time, being in a relationship with a girl that was 16, it helped me sort it all out. Or at least made me feel better, I am still to this day believing that Rex was so much better than even he knew, I know he has gone on to do so much in Broadway and I have heard real estate, but "you take my breath away " was our wedding song, I would have liked to see a "Sooner or later 2"

Dam I miss those days


I saw this movie in 1979 (I was 20 at the time, and I actually thought that I might be a bit beyond this particular movie; ha! I was soon captivated by this sweet and tender movie, reliving the agony and ecstasy of first love) and it made an impression that has haunted my heart strings ever since. For the last 25 years I have kept an eye out for a rerun, but have never been lucky enough to catch one. I stumbled on the DVD two weeks ago and was absolutely thrilled-so thrilled, in fact, that I got on the internet to see if this film affected anyone else as strongly as it did me, or if I am having a midlife crisis; thank goodness, there are others!! So here I am, once again intoxicated by the spell of this sweet movie as I meet Prince Charming, get lost in a white lie in the name of love, and struggle with the consequences. The honesty, innocence, and integrity of the characters is the key to the poignancy of this romance. A truly timeless coming of age movie that will leave you breathless. Somehow, the knowledge that there are others out there who share my feelings about this movie makes me feel good....


Every girl alive can relate to this movie. If you were a young woman in the 1970's even more so but it holds up beautifully as well because it rings so TRUE. Denise Miller was amazing in her role and just bang on with the feelings and reactions of girls the world over and Rex Smith was just yummy and perfectly cast as well. I didn't particularly LIKE the actors playing her parents but I even really liked them in these roles, very much so. Everybody did a great job. It's so true, so funny and cute and just a great movie I can watch it again and again and the sound track is GREAT too. I was a young woman taking guitar lessons in the mid-1970s constantly madly in love with the long-haired guitar playing boy of the week - so I can really relate to this movie but I think all girls can just as easily. It's a very warm and sincere movie that always gets to me. The cake-eating scene is done with such raw truth, I'm just in awe of the job that Denise did in so many scenes, I couldn't possibly name them all.

10 out of 10 for the TRUTH that it portrays so beautifully throughout.


I remember watching this television movie when it first came out back in '79 starring sexy Rexy (Rex Smith)and Denise Miller (later of "Archie Bunker's Place"). Not only was it a beautiful love story, but it had one kick-ass soundtrack (which confoundedly is still not available on CD -- someone please release it!) The theme song went on to become a really big hit -- I believe a #1 song -- if I'm not mistaken. There was also the beautiful song titled "Simply Jessie", among others. It was a terrific movie, but to my knowledge has never been released on video or DVD, as have a lot of other more inferior television movies. Someone please dig this one out of the vaults and release it with remastered sound! Please!


It is dreamy, romantic, funny and the characters are easy to like. I recommend this film for any teenage girl or any adult who wants to remember the innosence of those times. Don't miss it! It was just re-released in 2001 on DVD and VHS. I'm waiting for the soundtrack to come out as well. The music is GREAT!.. Just a great feel good movie.


What an excellent movie. Saw it when I was a teenager and fell in love with Rex. One of my all time favorites! I thought all the acting was very good and such a beautiful voice Rex has, and what a hunk!! He certainly takes my breath away.


I truly enjoyed this film when I saw it back in 1978, the scene of Jesse eating a whole chocolate cake is so true to how someone her age might react when she had her heart broken, it was soo funny. I really wish that I could somehow own this movie even if it was an old copy but I have had no luck and I look for it on a regular basis. I also check the tv guide weekly to see if it will be on tv at all. Anyhow, it one of my favorite movies and it made me laugh even though it is dated it is true to how people would react in that situation, I loved the ending also.


I loved this movie. It was all about innocent love. Rex Smith was gorgeous and has the most beautiful voice. I just wish the TV station would air it once in awhile or put it on video so I can buy a copy for my daughter to see. I know she will love this movie just as I did!


I loved this movie when I first saw it on TV in 1979 (at age 11) and it remains a favorite. Before the days of VCRs, I stayed up late to watch. I taped it the first time I could. A great coming-of-age film. Rex Smith is not bad either! :-)


I was 13 in 1979 when I first saw this movie and it really made an impression on me. I did an essay in literature that same week about the movie and presented it with so much passion. My teacher was very impressed.

Love feels so real at that age and I remember the next year at 14 falling for the 17 year old I had a crush on for many years. I felt like Jesse because sure enough put on a little makeup and some cool clothes and he was following me around. The thing about this age is you also don't know how to handle heart break and that was a tough thing to learn.

I have ordered all three of the books even though I have heard they are a hard read. I just can't help myself I have to see how things end.


OK -- i had to hide from my parents to watch this when I was 12 -- and I think it's why I have what my friend calls "RSS" Rock Star Syndrome!! ha! I'm 40, and still love these long haired musicians - geez, what's wrong with me? Actually, NOTHING. This was what I wish our girls these days could hope for.... I still do.... But seriously, these were simpler times, no internet, all that... I would love to go to the mall and see a fabulous guy like that. Always wished it could happen. What's funny is, I'm a librarian, and people will pay literally a fortune for the sequels to "Sooner or Later". Like $50!!! Embarrassingly enough, I probably would too. Well... what a great movie and book. It will always take me back to that time - seriously, felt like a 13 year old again. Yay!!!


This movie is a true 70's classic! If you are / or have been a 13yr old girl, you have dreamed that you could be Jessie and have the experiences she has in this movie!! Every girl dreams of the perfect guy and Micheal is as close as it comes!

It is pure fantasy but it is so entertaining that you can't look away! I saw this movie in 1978, bought the soundtrack on LP and then all of Rex Smith's albums! I am a true fan and this movie is an all-time favorite!

Imagine "Michael Skye" writing and singing a song just for you! Stars that glisten, Lips for kissing, Honey listen, It's true, No one ever, Loved you better, Love you Honey, I Love You!! It's too good!

The parents are so out of touch, it's funny, they are on the right track but a little too late! At least they have raised a pretty good/smart girl and she can take care of herself. Caroline is too cute as the best friend. And Karen, although she is not in the book, is a good addition, because she adds a layer to Michael that makes him more adorable because he resists her and holds out for Jessie, his true love!


After all these years and now having teen-age daughters myself, I haven't forgotten the impact that a first major crush can have on your life. As a teenager I related to everything Jessie felt, and now looking back on my own years, they were some of the most memorable! I can't wait for my own girls to see it with me!


Bert Archer's review in Eye Magazine pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Popcultured is one of those shows that comes along once in a great while that is so incomprehensibly bad, you find yourself waiting for the camera to pan out revealing an appalled Jason Bateman watching it on his set as some sort of clever comment on the state of the TV nation. But no, this is a real show, with stand-up from Elvira Kurt as stale as that joke about her comically foreign mother thinking her daughter's Lebanese she told for the first decade of her career. The show's schtick -- what if the hosts of Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood just snapped one day and said exactly what they were thinking? -- falls flatter than Debra Messing as one unfit comic after another tries to deliver abysmal, uninsightful and fatally unengaged material with the sort of utter absence of screen presence you expect only from German accountants talking about the decline of the euro, and Ben Mulroney. Do these people actually watch TV? An incompetent show written by untalented writers, performed by embarrassingly inept comics. The funniest thing about the premiere episode was their guest, a guy who came in third or fourth in last year's Canadian Idol. Their second guest? Homunculus-about-town Shinan Govani. And that about wraps it up.

Popcultured is the worst show I have ever seen.


This show almost makes you embarrassed for the cast members involved with it. The jokes are horrible, the audience is usually silent apart from a few chuckles here and there, and of course theirs always this one guy who you can here laughing his head off at every god damn horrible joke its kind of funny cause most of the time the rest of the audience is relatively quite and this moron can be heard cracking up to these pathetic jokes Elvira keeps spitting out in her unique awkward way, I have come to the conclusion that this guy is either paid by the show to laugh, or is some homeless dude who's drunk or stoned off his ass and comes in to watch the shows to get off the street for an hour or so, and they only let him in if he promises to laugh.

Anyways, this show is a complete waste of time, I don't like people who compare this show to the daily show, because that would be a huge insult to the Daily show and Jon Stewart, even though its obvious the stupid correspondents on pop cultured are trying to emulate the correspondents on the Daily Show, but they promptly fall flat on their face every time they try. I'm Boycotting this show in protest of the comedy network assuming Canadians are dumb enough to enjoy this piece of crap, and because the Canadian government has given this show close to 1 million dollars in funding of the Canadian tax payers dollars, Screw Pop Cultured and Screw the Comedy Network.


What were they trying to do with this show? It's Canadians talking about the American media. I don't know if anyone realized, but no one in Canada cares about American media, nor do we care for cheap rip-offs of the Daily Show.

Elvira just isn't a good host. She had a pretty funny stand up routine, but that certainly isn't qualification for hosting a satirical show. Also, all of her "crew" can barely act, and none of their material is actually funny. They just spew out information, then add something like "Then I went home and drank soda while watching Survivor." It just isn't funny. In fact, it's really sad that this is probably going to be the end of all their careers.

Before I end this, I would like to add one thing. The Daily Show is not in a genre. You can't copy it. It is its own show, like Reno 911, and anyone trying to spoof the spoof show will get burned, as proved here.

Please god, stop this show and any other show that tries this again.

K.T.


When the comedy channel comes out with content like this, it makes me wonder why the Canadian government forces channels to have Canadian content. Because that is the only explanation as to why this show ever existed... As filler to appease the law so the Comedy channel would have "Canadian" shows on.

Frankly the writers are probably the worst in the history of television. If I could send them an open letter, it would beg them to retire immediately and move to Slovenia where the locals might find their off-topic humour funny.

The case is even worse too. Elvira Kurt is painful as the host, standing there saying line one liners and praying for the audience to laugh. She should never return to television in any way shape or form. In fact, she should be the one paddling the boat of writers to Slovenia. The rest of the case should swim alongside it, because they don't even deserve a seat in the boat.

Bad, no name guests, bad questions, bad casting, bad writing. You'd have to live in a box to have let this show run for more than one season, or you really really hate your viewers. Your pick.

If there is divine justice, god will strike down this show.


In a history of making terrible, terrible, terrible shows Pop Cultured still stands out as maybe the absolute, #1, Very Worst show that the Comedy Network has ever produced and broadcast over the airwaves to an unsuspecting and soon-to-be-very-angry viewing public. Who's idea was this show and either why weren't they publicly flogged for this or if they were flogged for it why wasn't it more public? That is something they should be airing on the comedy network.

Terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible production over all, terrible directing and this is even if they had writers and directors which I wouldn't be surprised if these terrible actors just showed up and made up their terrible jokes on the spot. The host was the worst host I've ever seen and every one of her monologues to start the show were unbelievably painful. Don't get me wrong I watched this show a lot, I hated it with a passion but I watched it a lot because it was like watching a car wreck I couldn't believe this show was being broadcast night after night, and the interviews weren't much better you could practically see in their eyes that every guest was thinking about standing up and walking out and shouting "what the flying hell is wrong with you!!" If it wasn't for other shows that came later like Girls Will Be Girls and Punched Up this show would be a slam dunk for worst Comedy Network show ever. I would say Girls Will Be Girls is the worst of all time, I can't even talk about that show without wanting to destroy something, Pop Cultured is second worst and then who knows, Punched Up, Keys to the VIP, Shakespeare Comedy, there are a lot of bad ones to choose from. Gutter Ball Alley was terrible and so is that new pointless one Hot Box.

The Comedy Network needs to fire everyone who is responsible for these shows if they haven't already because the average person could make a better and funnier show in their basement taping it with their cell phone and I am not kidding.


Pop Cultured is maybe the worst television show ever made. I am not even exaggerating when I say that it really is possible that this is the worst show that has ever been put on TV. I know that if you went through every show ever made in the world you would probably find some old shows from the 1970s or something made in Croatia with a budget of about five dollars that are maybe even worse but considering the quality of shows we have in North America and the fact there is a real budget, etc, with this show being available in like thirty million homes, then the amount that this show was a total fail really becomes apparent. Those who have seen this show know what I mean. The show hasn't even been on for years, I just signed up for IMDb so I can check out movies etc and yet still here I am, years later, coming to this page, one of the first ten pages I visited after I signed up for this service just to complain about how awful this show was. Worst TV host ever, worst interviews, worst guests, worst sketches, worst on screen talent, worst acting, worst writing, worst directing, worst overall production. It confuses me just trying to figure out how something this bad was even allowed on television in the first place.


I can't believe somebody can give this film a 10! It's atrociously bad, although sometimes it's funny. Sometimes it seems a Mexican soap-opera... The first scenes at the parade are brilliant, though. See it for laughs, at your own risk!


This movie is the best independent film I have seen. I have 9 hours of college credit in psychology, and this movie hit on so many emotional levels - fear, guilt, betrayal, angst, and terror...it truly is a thriller! It should be compared to the independent greats such as: Blood Simple, Pi, Halloween, etc... not recommended for young adults, it is undoubtably an adult thriller! If you love Hitchcock, you will love "The Man Next Door".


but he sure has a bad taste of humor, then. He so to see was the only one (and hopefully will always be the only one) that gave this film a 10. This must've been after numerous bottles of vodka, because I don't see how you ever can earnestly even give attention to this product. For my part, I only do it in an attempt to prevent people from spoiling their temper and wasting their time. This is by far the worst movie I ever saw, and even the predicate 'movie' gives it too much credit. Believe me: if you hate yourself, are in a really sick mood or seek for some stimuli to throw up (for instance after a wild party) - go see this film. If one or all of these reasons are absent: stay cheerfully away from this aberration.