Every big con movie since the "Sting" is a convoluted set of plots in which there are a bunch of good guys among the bad guys, and visa versa. There is a twist or two or three at the end, but they are so expected, they are hardly shockers. In fact, they are getting to where they are basically the "Sting" in new clothes. This movie is no exception. It uses the blueprint of con movie elements with little new ground. This is a "seen one ya seen 'em all" con game story, IMO. The newer ones just add a few more unimaginative side stories, involve modern devices such as electronic banking, computer technology, a little more of the sex angle,etc. However, complicating a tired plot doesn't make it better.


In reading some of the non-spoiler reviews prior to watching this film, I was prepared for a deliberately-paced drama with elements of horror sprinkled in. What I got instead was a movie that was boring beyond comprehension.

By "boring" I do not simply mean slow-paced. Most assuredly, there are many slow-paced films that are very interesting - "A Tale of Two Sisters", "Pulse", "Cure", and "Audition" come to mind. However, there are also many slow-paced films that are simply boring. "Sorum" is one of the latter.

At no point during the first 85 minutes did I feel even remotely interested in what was happening. There was far too much "small talk" that contributed virtually nothing to the story. To be honest, the first 85 minutes could have been easily condensed to less than 30 without much loss to either plot or character development.

When the final sequence of events took place, I could not help but feel cheated at the rather superficial treatment of the primary issues that the filmmakers were attempting to address - especially considering all of the screen time that was literally wasted during the first 75% of the film.

I do agree with the positive reviewers here that ADD-ridden simpletons who need car explosions or lots of deaths will have difficulty sitting through this one. Unfortunately, the attention deficits of teenagers will never change the fact that "Sorum" is a poorly made film. Attempts to justify trash film-making in this manner is reprehensible. A bad film is simply a bad film.


If the message of this film can truly be summed up when McCrea's character says "There's a lot to be said for making people laugh." Then I can't say much for 'Sullivan's Travels'. I can see why someone might think this is a great movie. It attempts to mix comedy with social commentary. While attempting to make a comedy with some sense of purpose or message is a noble and bolder undertaking then most comedies (especially screwball comedies of the 30s/40s) were willing to attempt. That doesn't mean it automatically gets an 'A', on effort alone. The fact is that this "comedy" doesn't even attempt to be a comedy for the last half of the movie and instead veers sharply into melodramatic commentary on the inequities of depression age America, and the misguided way in which the upper-class views the lower. Oh and it also points out how ultimately Hollywood is a friend to the every man and provides a great social service, kind of like Clooney's Oscar speech. Anyway the point is that all of the comedy in this movie is confined to the first half and the second is an overwrought drama, which beats its message home. If this was truly a great comedy it would have integrated the two halves instead of lumping them one on after the other. Making a highly comedic satire that seamlessly blends comedy and drama while maintaining an interesting plot and effectively conveying the message can be done. 'Dr. Strangelove', or perhaps more to the point 'Network' and 'The Player' accomplish this task much more successfully then 'Sullivan's Travels' does.

In any event I fail to see how AFI could rank this has the 39th funniest movie of all time. Was it the part where Veronica Lake pushes McCrea into the pool, and then she falls in, and the butler walks up and...well you know the rest. That bit has been done before but only like a million times before, and sometimes it's a lake or pond instead of a swimming pool, and I've seen it done with a puddle of mud and a bath tub too, but I digress. Or okay, how about the part where McCrea gets in the car with the kid and it goes tearing down the street out of control with the van chasing after them. Hmmm, well OK how about the "witty dialogue", which for the period didn't come nearly as fast or furious as it does in other pictures. Now granted you may find the dialogue funny, and I can't say that you don't; maybe you honestly do. Maybe you were put in a maniacal uncontrollable fit of laughter, like some of those prisoners were watching Pluto chase his tale around; who knows? But what you can't tell me is that there are any jokes in the last 30 minutes of the film. And it is impossible for me to understand how a movie that half consists of routine slapstick in its first act, and doesn't even attempt comedy in its final act is the 39th funniest movie of all time. Oh wait, I know, it's a freaking "classic" first off, and not only that but one that champions the film industry itself. Give me a break. Oh by the way, the little joke I made in the first two lines of this review, is funnier then anything in 'Sullivan's Travels'. So at least if seeing the movie has lead you to read these reviews; you got to see at least one good joke. If you're looking for a classic screwball comedy (And after watching this I wouldn't even classify it as such, but that's what I heard going in.) go rent Arsenic and Old Lace or Bringing up Baby or something that isn't Sullivan's Travels.


Why is Final Fantasy VII popular? This question baffled me for a long time. When I played it, I quickly saw it for what it was, a poorly crafted and incomplete stain on the record of an otherwise outstanding franchise. So why do others not see what I do? I answer my own question:

Gameplay: In this regard, it was a noticeable step down from other games in the series. The selection of playable characters was nearly halved. The ATB system still functioned exactly as it did before, with none of the refinements you would expect to see in a game on a more powerful system. The materia system ensured that characters were completely interchangeable and adaptable for any task, making the entire party dynamic worthless.

So what was there to like about the gameplay? It was easy. People didn't care about the gameplay. All they wanted was to get to the next piece of the...

Story: The entire story of FFVII is laid out in a straight line, with nothing resembling a twist along the way. Every event progresses directly into the next exactly as one would expect. Nothing ever happens to make you re-examine or change your outlook on the game's events. At the end of the game, Shinra is still bad, Sephiroth is still loony, the party members act the same way, etc. All is exactly as it seemed from the beginning.

On top of that, the story is incomplete. By the admission of the creators, the game was rushed to make its release window, and quite a bit was cut out. Much goes unexplained that should not. Things the characters know are never revealed to the player, which is a tremendous no-no in character writing.

Why is it popular then? For one thing, it was simple enough to follow without any effort at all. Good and bad was clearly defined, characters made ridiculous leaps of "logic" to keep the story progressing, and it avoided making any of the underlying complexities of the scenario vital to understanding the outcome. Then there's the fact that its incompletion has been wrongly perceived as depth. Players are not given information that should be given throughout the course of the game, so they decide to make up answers. By discussing their various theories, they form communities and reinforce their mass delusion that the game had depth, rather than a simple lack of proper presentation.

Further disproving the idea that the game was intended to be open-ended to add depth is the existence of the FFVII Ultimania Omega book, which was released years later and explained most of the things the game left out, making years of theorizing utterly moot.

Characters: Another important piece of the puzzle; the characters are shallow, showing no depth to their personalities. Each is constructed around a very basic personality template and follows it in the most stereotypical manner possible. Examples: Barrett is a brash and aggressive black guy from the ghetto, Cid is an older guy who smokes and swears a lot because he's bitter, Tifa merely fawns over Cloud the entire game, Yuffie is hyper and steals stuff, and Vincent is a gloomy and depressed guy who doesn't talk about his past.

This part is easily explained. Fans don't look at their value as characters, they look at their value as avatars. They see things that they can relate to in their personal lives, and that endears the characters to them, even though the characters are merely personality templates. On no level are they believable in any way unless you juxtapose your own personality traits onto them. Fans do this, turning ridiculously bad characters into iconic figures of their own dreams of power and adventure. On top of that, fans have mistaken their background stories for actual personality depth.

Marketing: FFVII's release marked the first time a video game had been so widely advertised. TV ads showed consumers the high-quality FMV sequences to really drive home the next-gen impact. It made people who had never even played video games before take notice. Those newcomers played the game, liked it because of the aforementioned reasons, as well the flashy graphics and high-quality music, and further drove the hype machine.

In summary, the game itself is overly simple, has a poorly developed story and shallow characters, and makes absolutely no significant strides in terms of gameplay. Around the same time, a largely overlooked game called Blood Omen delivered a powerful story with not just one, but several of the best twists ever to appear in a video game. It's a pity more people didn't play that graphically inferior game that was better in every other aspect instead of following the hype.


Plague doctors, the physicians who treated the sick during the Great Plague of London, wore wide-brimmed black hats, long black overcoats and primitive gas masks in the shape of a bird's beak; in short, they looked bloody freaky.

Horror newcomer Curtis Radclyffe attempts to capitalise on the unsettling nature of these bizarre historical figures by making them the antagonists in his film The Sick House, but fails to realise that having a cool looking killer just isn't enough on its own: a coherent plot, decent acting, competent editing and considered direction doesn't go amiss either.

After a thoroughly confusing pre-credits sequence featuring a whispering child, Radclyffe's film begins proper with the discovery of a sealed chamber beneath a 17th century hospital. Archaeologist Anna (Gina Philips) is keen to find out what is on the inside, but when the site is declared to be a bio-hazard, she is prevented from continuing her dig. So what does this supposedly intelligent scientist do next? Why, break in, of coursea stroke of genius which not only results in an outbreak of the plague, but also the resurrection of a murderous plague doctor. Meanwhile, a car full of joy-riders seek refuge in the hospital after their fun results in a fatal accident. Guess who's going to wish they'd not broken their ASBOs...

Having introduced his raft of thoroughly selfish characters, and established them within a fairly creepy locale, Radclyffe then proceeds to belie his novice status as both a writer and director by boring the pants off his audience with a solid hour and a half of people wandering aimlessly through dark corridors, whilst the shadowy plague doctor randomly appears and disappears in the shadows.

Fluorescent lights flicker on and off to add a little extra ambiance (or in my case, to irritate me even further), none of the supernatural events that occur are ever adequately explained, gimmicky editing and post production trickery makes everything extremely hard to follow, and the whole thing finishes as confusingly as it began, with a child once again whispering some nonsense that might possibly have made some sense had I not given up caring long before.


some pictures are stupid, other's are fun. Wayne's World is so stupid that it becomes funny. but you'll have to be in the mood for a comedy if you watch this. especially with a comedy like this one. the first time I saw this movie, I thought it was boring. in fact it is. you see the stupidities of two young men who are trying to have a television show. it's predictable that someone will notice them and give them a chance, which will lead to giant mistakes or jokes (if you may call it a joke). in fact, it is a joke. it's one big joke and it ain't funny. if someday the devil will make you choose between damnation or watching Waynes World II (because there really is a sequel on this), what will you choose? I know. I will choose...


There are three ways to completely destroy the power of a film without touching the story and those are through sound, sight, and mind. If a movie sounds great, you have captured some of your audience. If it looks good as well, you have captured even more and finally, if you can keep them mentally involved than you, as a director, should have most to all of the audience in your hands. Sadly, Filthy did none of the above. The sound was horrendous. Synchronizing your actor's voices to match what they were saying when filming and the emotions they were feeling is not hard. Apparently, director Andy decided robots could make this English spoken poorly dubbed in English feature. I found myself laughing whenever anyone opened their mouth. I couldn't tell if anyone was actually interested in what was happening, or if the amount of beer drinking that occurred before the dubbing was finally taking effect. Second, the sight of this film was just as bad as the voices. No apparent acting classes were needed from any of the actors or from the killers. There needs to be some level of class with the both the actors and killers, but in this film there were not. Everyone else seemed like they were going through the actions that were given to them that minute and trying to remember what exactly they were doing. There were no genuine moments in this film visually, just non-actors remembering to be robots. Finally, the mental involvement is key. I am not talking about just story here, because you can have a bad story but still keep people guessing for more. I am talking about just the apparent want to see what happens. Does your audience want to see what is going to happen next? In this film, my answer would be "no". The ending does not provide any moments of shock. It is just unoriginal, flat, amateurish, idiotic, and mediocre...well just like the filmmakers.


What attempts to pass itself off as a near feature length production is actually a very deceptive short that showcases some of the worst excuses for film-making. Fans of bad acting will rejoice. Those that love and adore horrible special effects, unoriginal plot twists, lame situations, bad characterizations, and banal cinematography will be completely riveted to their seats. Filthy tries desperately to shock and scare but ultimately just fails. About every horror classic is ripped off, oops I mean played homage to. It is obvious that the filmmakers behind this low, low budget exercise in schlock cinema are horror fans, but they could have attempted to insert some originality into this mess. Instead, we get a lame rip off of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Figures since the film is only self distributed, meaning you get ripped off of fifteen dollars and some "filmmaker" ships you a DVD from his parents' basement. And speaking of parents' basements, is that where this film was shot, since it features some of the worst sets I have ever seen. Horror fans, please save your money, unless you desperately wish to burn a copy of this train wreck. Otherwise sit back and be insulted by the on screen "brutality." Every scene is poorly composed and shot and the direction for the actors is completely missing in action. Actually the only "brutality" is what the audience feels for having to endure this over long (and that's bad for a short), amateurish, and completely uneventful movie. Bravo guys, here's to another feature, I can't wait to see what you come up next, let's hope its even shorter.


"Filthy" is unbelievably bad. Don't get me wrong; I love bad movies-- I'm a huge fan of the "so bad it's good" school of thought. However, to paraphrase Scarlett Johannson in "Ghost World", this movie "is so bad, it goes right past good and back to bad". As far as writing, "Filthy" has dialogue that feels so forced and clichéd, that the actors sometimes looked like they couldn't hide their embarrassment from having to deliver such tripe. The premise is so poorly-conceived that I don't think anyone has enough rope to suspend their disbelief enough to enjoy this movie.

I was bait-and-switched into watching this waste of electrons when I attended a showing of "Brainjacked", a full length movie from the same creative cadre (which turned out be pretty good). Rather than first showing the movie that I came to see, and saving "Filthy" as a bonus for people who wanted to see it, Andrew Allan and co. made the decision to show "Filthy" first. Now, I can see his strategy behind this: he made "Filthy" completely immune to walk-outs, considering that a crowd which paid 8 bucks to see "Brainjacked" wasn't likely to leave until they had seen the feature.

As I sat through "Filthy", I developed a strong empathy for protagonist Dana Diamond. It was not because of the movie itself, but because I walked into that theater willingly, and almost immediately I was trapped, and all I could see was rotten garbage.

The Tampa Bay connection earned this movie two of the three stars I gave it.


What a great cast and what a pathetic attempt at a film. The script is full of holes from beginning to end. Incoherent, not cohesive...utterly ridiculous. One of the most talented/beautiful actresses in the world (and I'm talking about Nastassja Kinski) is without a single memorable line here. Worse, she supposedly dyes her hair halfway thru the movie, but it's obvious she's just wearing a cheap black wig bought from a drag queen costume shop. The best moments are given to a character actor and his dog in the apartment building that lead actor Peter Coyote lives in. Fairuza Balk is photographed poorly, to boot. She looks like an overweight freshman who's pigged out at too many all-you-can-eat-student-cafeteria-buffets. I was so looking forward to this film. I WANTED to like it, but I think I'd rather watch Nastassja read the phone book, with her OWN hair.


In "Red Letters", Coyote is at the vortex of as a college professor who writes to a female prison inmate and gets more than he bargained for. There are two reasons to watch this flick...Kinski is one and Piven the other although it's difficult for their sparks to shine in such a complete directorial disaster. Everything is wrong with "Red Letters"...convoluted, lousy screenplay, camera, editing, and most of all acting which is subpar for Coyote, etc. Battersby has taken a story with potential and turned it into a seriously flawed and amateurish flick not worth the time.


It's a shame, really, that the script of this film had more holes than you could shake a stick at (mixed metaphor intentional), because Kinski and Coyote - both supremely talented performers who are capable of great subtlety and nuance - have wonderful chemistry together, and the always-provocative Fairuza Balk didn't hurt the mix either. Jeremy Piven would have been great here too, if his character (and all the other supporting characters) hadn't been written as a plot device. As for the main proceedings, the writers just didn't know how to create the suitable guilty-or-innocent tension for Kinski's character -- instead they gave us confusion, contradiction and, by the finale, downright let's-hope-the-viewers-don't-notice claptrap.


In England, the American pathologist Dr. Richard Murray (Jeff Fahey) still grieves the death of his wife Carol (Geraldine Alexander) eight months ago in a car crash. He is drinking too much whiskey due to his guilty complex since he had a love affair with a woman when Carol left home, and he has frequent blackouts, forgetting what he has done in the previous drinking night. Meanwhile a serial-killer is attacking women in the location, and the experienced American cop DCI Collins (Martin Kove) and the psychologist Frances Beale (Kim Thomson) are invited to help the local police in the investigations. When Dr. Murray receives messages from beyond, he meets his friend Father Randall (Jon-Paul Gates) seeking spiritual support and explanation.

"Messages" is the type of promising B-movie that is wasted due to a flawed, inconsistent and incoherent story, badly developed screenplay and terrible direction. For example, the pretentious Collins is an awful character and why would the British police asks for help to such a jerk? If the spirits could help the living, why Carol has not stopped the serial-killer in the very beginning of his crimes? The identity of the serial-killer is a silly twist and the character in a terrible collection of clichés. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Mensagens do Além" (Messages From Beyond")


Having watched this film at the Genesis Mile End cinema, I can honestly say that this is the worst film I have ever had to pay money to see. An atrocious mess of a production, with even worse direction, it's a real pity because its story could have been something quite interesting, but this is a clear example of some idiotic filmmakers trying to maximise sales by casting B list American actors. Jeff Fahey, plays Richard Murray a pathologist who really just does paperwork rather than examine bodies, and is haunted by the death of his wife, begins to receive messages from the dead of murder victims of a serial killer. With an added excuse to bring in another American name, Marty Kove of Karate Kid fame, a wannabe tough talking American cop to investigate these murders because obviously the English don't have the correct qualifications for investigating murders, the film becomes a comical example of a bunch of filmmakers who don't know how to tell a story. Over the top lighting, ridiculous characters, laughable special effects, and preposterous twist can't aid or at least make this film entertaining even for the avid B movie fan. This film made for £2 million it doesn't look it £500,000 would be my guess. DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY.


Longford was a bit of a twit wasn't he? Or at least in this movie, no? He's made to say: "She has enriched my Spiritual Life" and "No matter how evil (one is), one can be redeemed." Oh really? By whom, one may ask? Isn't that someone else's job? Lady Longford is made to say (shaken to her core): "I had no idea (about prison conditions)". It reminds me of 19th century upper-class mad house viewing but modernized for progressives. Its really about their own feelings. The kids? The real victims? Oh, yeah. Well, whatever . . .

We have people like Longford in the States. They are called ACLU lawyers and they are definitely not trying to find God through slumming. There's a French phrase for this, three words that begin with NdB, but I can't get IMDb to accept.

I did like the camera work and thought the acting superb. Cheers, everyone.


...as the absolute buffoon many people presumed him to be. Perhaps there was no getting away from it, but Broadbent's performance did indeed depict Longford as a dithering, pig-headed old man who didn't care to consider the feelings of the victims' families, nor the possibility that Myra was making a prize pratt out of him. Some viewers might actually believe there was 'depth' to this story, but frankly I think those viewers would be reading something into the programme that just isn't there.

It's amazing how one-dimensional the characterizations seem to be. Nearly all of Longford's detractors are depicted as simple minded boors who only want one thing - for Hindley and Brady to rot in jail. And oh yes, the programme makers seem to think that the parents of Hindley and Brady's victims are also boors, since the only time we ever hear a peep out of them is when they talk about wanting to kill Hindley and Brady for revenge. So much the better to justify Longford's bleatings about how 'the mob' must not be allowed to decide whether Myra should be denied parole for ever and ever.

Unfortunately for the programme makers, Longford also comes across as being just as one-dimensional as those boors, just that he has a different opinion to theirs. You could say that the programme shows him wrestling with his conscience, as to whether he should or shouldn't help Myra...and you would be wrong, since Longford walks away from and shuts down every opportunity he's given to actually think about what he's doing. Someone mentions the tapes the Moors murderers made where they recorded the deaths of their victims, Longford goes out into the garden to see if it's still sunny out. He's given one of those tapes to listen to, that tape goes into a drawer where it sits for several years. Longford's going to help Myra, no matter what.

What's just as bad as the drama's opinion of Longford's detractors are intimations that we the viewer are supposed to endorse and sympathise with this wilfully ignorant behaviour. The programme begins with Longford appearing on a radio talk show, which in itself is a warning sign for what's coming next. He's been invited to talk about a book he's recently written, but none of the callers want to talk about that, of course. And each and every one of them are rude, belligerent, insensitive. At one point, when Longford is being heckled for his support of Myra, he shoots a breaking-the-fourth-wall glance to camera, as if to say, 'can you believe these people!' A question he asks not of anyone in attendance, but of you, the viewer.

The only character who's given more than one 'dimension' is Longford's wife, and it's also telling how the writer does so. It's very simple. She starts of as being as adamantly against Myra getting parole as any other boor, and then...she changes her mind, and starts backing her husband. You can just see Longford jumping for joy inside when his wife 'sees the light', so to speak. Possibly because it means that for the first time (in his life, quite possibly) he can tell himself, 'I'm not a buffoon! I'm not a buffoon!'


I hate movies like this. They're all the same, some white girl falls for some black. The black guy is of course rough and tough, but has the sweetest heart underneath it all. Yeah right. Only in the movies.

I happen to be a black female, 22, and I get so sick of the way they have black people act in films. The black girls always have that "attitude". We don't all have an attitude, but you never would know that, if you watch movies. It just bugs me, this movie bugs me. Why can't the white girl ever date a black guy who isn't from the "Hood"?


girl moves to big city. rough neighborhood. with the emphasis on the Hood part. moves to a school where being white is being a minority. hooks up with the local fly girls who take her to the street clubs. then one girls brother wants her to dance. basically then the plot of break-dance takes over.

black boy wants to make good and be a doctor. she wants to regain her dream of being a ballet dancer.

the lead girl isn't much on acting.

basically i don't like this film, nothing worse than seeing a film where it's pretty much already been done before and they just fiddled with the plot a tad to bring it into a modern day context.

Oh, and the scenes of the black guy watching her practice ballet, not likely. her teacher would either never let him in the room or kick him out in seconds and it'd probably have earned her a pass to the street. most dance classes hate having people watch who aren't taking part. also it'd be unlikely for Sarah to be out doing club dancing before an audition for fear of getting hurt or pulling something.

ballet dancers become obsessed with things like that, not getting hurt.

the "oil and milk don't mix" comment was a bit unneeded. plus you know when she invites him in the house and puts on true colors they are going to have a really unnecessary sex scene. and a rubbish soft focus badly cut one at that

the basketball game? no way. Sarah is due to have an audition, firstly she wouldn't even want to be doing sports. let alone fighting with someone. in the hospital the black kids look at Sarah as though they've never seen a white person.

also far too many of the black characters are given very bad attitudes about themselves and their relationships to white people. I'd be interested to know what the ethnic origin of the films writer and producer were on this film.

and Derek doing a "your mother" comment during his argument with Sarah? How biased was that?

and why the hell is Sarah training for ballet audition with Derek anyway? How the hell can he help her in any way, shape or form?

When Derek is asked if he'll help his friend to take revenge it's obvious someone is going to get hurt when that happens and it's more likely to be Derek, the smart black guy who wants to be a Doctor.

Sarah's dad is poorly written with little to do and say but there to make her seem more vulnerable.

An annoying line that gets used to often is "Why you tripping on that". What the hell does it even mean. Oh, and bull-crap way Mordecai's car blew up when it got shot? NOT going to happen, it's really hard to shoot a petrol tank.

even the grooving judges was stolen wholesale from the end of break-dance, and it would have been unlikely that the audition judges would have given Sarah a second chance to do her contemporary dance for a place like Juliard.


What is the point of this movie? Or should I say, is there a point made in this movie that actually has any intelligence to it? Here's the plot...and you're apparently supposed to gain some sort of "insight" from this, but here it is...if you're a white girl from the midwest you better not date black men from the projects or you'll get treated with unkind gestures(ouch!) from black ladies who'll claim you "steal the one decent black man"(oh no she didn't!) in the neighborhood. This movie is stupid. It plays on all the lame stereotypes this society has put on us, and plays on the whole "forbidden" race issue. This movie makes me sick in my stomach.

Don't get your life lessons from Hollywood. If you think this movie makes any sort of positive point you need to get a life.


3480 IMDb users gave this movie an average vote of 6.2! What? Is it a joke? This movie should belong to the bottom 100. I don't get it. Who enjoys watching a pretentious no brain movie with stereotype characters and predictable cliché plot? For almost two hours I struggled not to fastforward or just push the stop button. I have seen so many great movies lately (such as Fight Club, Gladiator, Memento, Snatch) so the only good thing about Save the Last Dance was to give me some perspective about the good movies from the bottom. I pity the people involved in this movie... and the audience.


You would think that with all the talented people at MTV, they could make a better movie than this. Do not waste your money on it. The script and plot line are terrible. The plot is totally not believable. She did a good job dancing, that is about it. bye.


Lame script, bad directing. The school scenes were so unrealistic -- c'mon, on her very first day at school a black girl completely befriends her out of nowhere and treats her like she's her best friend, even sticking up for her to every other girl in school. Couldn't they at least have set it up better, where Sarah does something to gain her trust, or her friend has a white parent, or anything interesting? Something besides no reason or charity work.

The scenes where they practiced dancing in the empty school room, they were so stupid it was embarrassing to watch. And practicing how to sit? She's white, not a guy. The club dancing scenes, also ridiculous and hard to watch. Show me someone in the room making a comment or something. Wasn't the point of this movie to make a statement about racial tension and acceptance? She hardly had any real problems that weren't easily avoided. Even the eventual "fight" with her boyfriend lasted only 2 minutes and was reconciled for no particular reason.

And too often I always notice Stiles acting, if you know what I mean, which isn't a good thing. Like in a high school play.

The scene in the ER waiting room with her friend going off on her, that was about the only good dramatic scene. And even that was a cliché quote ("black girls don't have enough good black men anymore") that I've heard many times before on TV and movies.

Sarah's constant "I don't want to talk about it" about her boycotting dancing and about her mother...cliché like a bad sitcom. Ooh, but then she overcomes it all in the end, with the help of her boyfriend...how surprising.

This was really painful to watch. I gave it a 2 because I've seen a lot worse movies. The script and filming must have been put together really quickly because it seemed like there wasn't much imagination behind it. I actually thought going into it that there would be some interesting viewpoints or more hard-hitting scenes. I guess I forgot it was an MTV movie.


to say that this movie deals with difficult issues is complete BS. the 5 minutes devoted in the plot to deal with sub-issues of teen pregnancy, divorce, and father daughter relationships hardly qualifies. honestly, the first several times i watched this movie, i turned it off an hour into it because it was so boring. i had to come back to it and watch it from the beginning several times before i could stop falling asleep. the only reason i actually watched it the whole way through is because i wanted to make an educated comment here. someone earlier said that it was a "sleeper". they were right... but i don't think they meant it the way i do.

the movie never actually "deals" with racisim or even "bi-racial" relationships... there is not enough substance in the acting or plot to even challenge the viewer for more than 2 minutes. (though i suppose that the audience that the author was trying to affect would only have a 2 minute attention span anyhow)

julia stiles disappointed me in this role. i know that it wasn't entirely her fault, and she only had so much that she was given to work with... so maybe her agent should be stripped naked, smeared in peanut butter, and duct taped to a tree in the middle of montana woods? this would certainly prove more interesting than the movie.

personally, all of my black friends are suburbanites... so i can't say much about the culture that the director was trying to capture... but to be honest, i was a little offended by the way that he applied a number of sterotypes recognized by me (a white male) as "negro". he really didn't paint the afro american culture in a very good light.

there are other movies that do a much better job deliberating over the black / white issue. i think that Finding Forester is one that at least challenges the viewer long enough to make them think about people of a different culture in a different way than is status quo.

this movie fails miserably to capture what i can only assume was the authors intent.

i'd give it 0 out of 10 (i thought the dancing was horrible) this movie is sure to make it to the bargain bin at the dollar store.

4 for $1.00!!! (right along side Annie, Killer Clowns from Outer Space, and about a thousand or so copies of THE STAND (sorry stephen))


Ok I am not going to waste alot of time on this as I have already wasted enough on this movie. Someone commented earlier about they would have liked to see a black girl try to be white instead. RIGHT ON! I am SO tired of black people being shown as the oppressed and "cooler" race while whenever white people complain about other races they are viewed as "racists". This double standard alone kills this movie as well as the predictable pathetic plot. The characters are overacted as well as lousy dance routines which add a layer of desperation to this movie. Do yourself a favor and watch Unbreakable instead.

1 star out of 10 and I would give 0 if that were possible....


As an actress/dancer in training, I found this movie to be what so many others have adequately dubbed it: a poorly made film with glaring stereotypes. In this near-copy of Dirty Dancing, the acting by Julia Stiles is nothing short of atrocious, full of indication and melodrama, rather than real, in-the-moment expression. Stereotypes abound, with "gangsta" lingo and some of the most ridiculous "fight scenes" (i.e., the gym)I have ever seen.

As others have commented, the Juilliard School audition was so unbelievable I found it an insult to performers and to the establishment. The name on the placard was spelled wrong, Sara's dance was mediocre at best, and the event of a "second chance" at a major audition is something that simply would not happen. The added lack of credibility came from Derek's impromptu run onto the stage-and the judges' campy response. At a university audition, an interruption like Derek's likely would have ruined any chance of being accepted, and under no circumstances would there have been a sweet "let's give closure" response like: "Welcome to Juilliard."

The stereotypes, as many have mentioned, do more to hurt this film than to communicate its real message. It is unfortunate, in a film so intent on breaking down racial barriers, that the filmmakers chose to go to the extremist sides of both cultures, serving only to further ingrain those biases in the minds of viewers. Even more discouraging is the subtle message that is presented by Stiles-that to be accepted you must conform to those around you, even if that means going against your personal feelings or beliefs. At the beginning of the movie, Stiles obviously has her own way of dressing and behaving-by the end, she has become a sort of crossover Barbie doll, a Caucasian playing dress-up in an urban world-a choice made in direct conflict with her character's personality. So much of the film goes into emphasizing Sara's strength and independence-and yet we find that independence strangely lacking with regard to things that truly matter-leaving her a big talker, but one who manages to slink into a corner whenever trouble arises. (note: scenes where Derek's old girlfriend "steals" Derek on the dance floor, and the "confrontation" in the gym with the ex.)

Overall, this movie was poorly acted and hardly credible. Although there are some tender moments, the agonizing pace and predictability of the movie make it little more than a throwaway summer flick. A waste of time for avid moviegoers and a joke to dedicated performers.


well this is passably the worst film i have ever seen in my life except of course death Vally the revenge of bloody bill, but anyway the i dear of dancing and black gang warfare is hilarious but at the same time just plain crap! but there was 1 good gun scene but apart from that it was abdominal sorry but i speak the truth. i mean if people want to see a 'gangster' film they would see scarface or pulp fiction not this garbage and i cant believe that the person from liverpool above me called it 'fantastic' it is very far from it but maybe one would say it is not a high budget film but that is no excuse for it being so awful is it??


Although, I am a huge fan of dance-movies, this one was not even close to the top. First, there lead-role's actress was not appropriate for the movie. She was not convincing  she did not show the attitude, no feelings (happiness, sadness). And what about her hairstyle? The best of it was, when she had the shirt around her hair. The improvement must be done in women casting, because men were real! They showed how the acting is done, how to show hate, friendship and love. And the best of all about them is that they could dance. The best of girl dancers was Nikki, though she did not have to dance a lot. Returning again to the lead-actress, her last dance was not convincing. I mean, where were emotions? Where was the passion? Where was the relief that the dance was going well? No facial expressions, no feelings what so ever. No difference between the obligated dance and her chosen one.

Thus, if you are fan of dance-movies, you should watch it for the sake of your portfolio. Otherwise, there are plenty of better movies out there about the theme.


Julia Stiles is an immensely talented actress, but a very poor dancer. An inherent flaw then, before we even begin. She doesn't look or move like a dancer, and appears seriously out of place in a hip-hop club. Director Thomas Carter has a string of successful TV shows to his name, and sadly this supposed 'movie' screams 'TV' from every angle. It just doesn't have any depth, and boasts a seriously dodgy 'TV drama-style' score. It skirts right around some interesting and important social & economic issues, preferring instead to attempt to create an illusion of hip-hop, street-gang cool - which it fails miserably to succeed with. Far too wishy-washy, almost apologetic in handling potentially gritty situations. When actors of the calibre of Stiles, Thomas, Lawson, Kinney etc etc are wasted in this manner, it is nothing short of a travesty.


I am relieved to know that other people found The Visitor as confusing as we did. Over the years, whenever my husband and I have had some reason to mention this movie, we always call it "That weird movie with Jesus in a turtleneck." We spent hours afterwards trying to understand the plot; we never got as far as even trying to understand the meaning.

We went to see because it had such a good cast. The previews suggested it had a supernatural theme, which appealed to us. It was a mistake. We should have stayed home and rotated the mattresses.

I can watch really bad movies without a shudder. I even rather like very bad movies. But The Visitor is in a class by itself. It made absolutely no sense - none. I have read that part of the problem is bad editing. I would hope so. I hate to think that so many fine actors would waste their time on this mess as it is.


What do Jesus Christ, a foul-mouthed 8-year-old girl with malicious powers, a flock of evil birds and the owner of the Atlanta basketball team have in common? This riddle sounds like the set-up for a lame joke, and that happens to be also the best way to describe "The Visitor": a lame, bad, drawn-out and overlong joke! The biggest mystery to unravel here is WHY so many terrific and experienced actors got lured into signing up to star in this cinematic mess! The cast includes John Huston, Sam Peckinpah (both prominent directors themselves), Lance Henriksen, Glenn Ford, Mel Ferrer, Franco Nero and Shelley Winters. The plot is impossible to summarize, mainly because there are too many story lines and it really doesn't make the slightest bit of sense as a wholesome. The whole thing reverts back to the ancient battle between good and evil, fought out on earth. No less than Jesus Christ is giving us insight (if you can call it that) in the situation, and then he sends out an elderly angel to Atlanta, because that's where the final earthly descendant of the evil sorcerer Zathaar lives. The visiting angel's mission (I think) is to prevent that the woman, named Barbara, bares another child and he drastically succeeds. Then he still has to bring back her other daughter, the sinister Katy, back to the heavens. And there are birds. Lots and lots of birds. "The Visitor" is truly bizarre, but not in a positive way. Many of the action sequences and murderous accidents are clearly inspired by "The Omen" and perhaps the whole concept is even derived from that classic, as well as from "Rosemary's Baby". That would make this film the most ambitiously complex and admirably disguised rip-off ever made, but still a failure nevertheless. There are two notably powerful sequences, one involving an awkward during the young girl's birthday party and the other being the painful death-ride of the investigating police officer. "The Visitor" is an unbearably pretentious film, ridiculously plotted and remarkably boring considering the overload of story elements. The screenplay often feels incomplete and very incoherent. The fantasy elements are beyond lame and the special effects wouldn't even impress a 4-year-old. The cover-image displayed here on the website looks creepy and intriguing, but sadly like in too many cases, it's utterly irrelevant. Trust the rating and user-comments in this particular case: you do not want to see this junk


"The Visitor" holds a rare distinction: of the thousands of films I've seen as a paying moviegoer and paid critic, it is probably the one at the VERY bottom of the barrel. Compared to this, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" and other Ed Wood movies come across as masterpieces of celluloid art. A weird Italian-American ripoff of the horror/sci-fi cycle of the '70s (from "Omen" to "Close Encounters"), this movie looks as though it was made by a hallucinating crew that tossed the old script and started with a new one every day. There is virtually no continuity - and most of the big Hollywood names apparently working for scale and by the day (Shelley Winters, John Huston, Glenn Ford, Sam Peckingpah, etc.) stagger very briefly about looking hung over and very confused. For years, I thought my dim recollections of this movie were a bad dream; but IMDb proves I actually DID sit through this, ah, epic. The most vivid memory I have of it, for some reason, is Shelley Winters doing a perky rendition of "Shortn'ng Bread." Nelson Eddy must have spun in his grave - and if was dead yet, that probably killed him!


An evil force called Zatteen fertilizes many women from Earth with his seed before being eliminated, and their children inherit and perpetuate his power. Barbara Collins (Joanne Nail) is the last woman on Earth with this gift, and her daughter Katy Collins (Paige Connor) has an evil telekinetic power. A battle between good and evil forces settles on Earth. "The Visitor" has a very promising story and a great cast, with names such as John Huston, Glenn Ford, Shelley Winters, Sam Peckinpah and Lance Henriksen. I bought this unknown VHS expecting a great movie. However, the screenplay and the direction are horrible and completely confused, and it is impossible to understand many parts of the story. The characters are also horribly developed, and in the end, this movie is a complete mess. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Herdeiros da Morte" ("Inheritors of the Death")


Mind numbing in its awfulness. Director Giulio Paradisi concocts a ridiculous mixture of horror and mysticism while roping in a sad cast of actors, both over AND under the hill. John Huston, whose performance consists of walking into rooms, spouting a few philosophically tinged lines of inane dialog and then vanishing, leads the cast as a "visitor" sent from someplace "beautiful" to "rescue" a little girl who is evil incarnate (and apparently the vessel-in-waiting to start a new race under the guidance of creepy doctor Mel Ferrer and a bunch of corporate goons). The girl, who is a curiously talented gymnast and ice-skater, cripples her mother, kills a couple of teenagers, uses foul language when yelling at both Shelley Winters and Glenn Ford and keeps an attack eagle as a pet. It's filmed in Atlanta but the little girl is the only one with an southern drawl. A real mess. In addition to the slumming Huston, Ford, and Winters, Lance Herickson, Sam Peckinpah and Franco Nero are in it too. Director Paradisi even has the moxie to pay homage to the likes of WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE as well as THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI.


I am...to reference another viewer's shocked remarks at how one could say anything defamatory about this film...appalled at just the opposite. This film is in a word quite ludicrous. The film opens with John Huston in another world needing to come down and bring back a child. We then meet the kid and her mother and the man who wants to marry her. Yes, there is a lot of religious allegory here. Just because allegory is used does not make this profound or deep. It isn't. It has a story with many, many flaws. Lack of coherence being the biggest. Characters are never fully explained. Motivation for characters are never fully explained. Scenes cut from one to another with virtually no transition. The editor for this film must have been either blind or drunk. It is so choppy and incoherent at times as to suggest that several men directed it. Ovidio Assonitis, you might remember the brain behind such great films like Beyond the Door(Chi Sei) and Piranha II: The Spawning, wrote this Italian rubbish whilst another gets "credit" for directing it. I will concede that had more effort been given to fleshing out the story and had the producers picked a real editor and had a real score been made for the film rather than that awful 70s-like soundtrack used and had some more realistic special effects other than blue screens and the like been used - then, yes, this might have been somewhat decent. But you know what? They didn't. What we have here is a weird, highly implausible, very incoherent picture with a cast of famous actors looking quite foolish. John Huston looks quite grandfatherly as the man/angel(?) coming to Earth to find this child. Huston looks lethargic and weary. After having seen this film, he had every right to look and feel that way. Maybe they should have asked him for some advice with direction. Hey, Sam Peckinpah has a small role too. With all that experience why not ask? What could it have hurt? The young actress playing the bratty child is Paige Conner, and she does quite well as an annoying kid you want to see flee the screen as soon as possible. She emits profanity, a trademark Assonitis used with other child actors in Chi Sei with equal ability, with ease to Glenn Ford in what can only be termed as a throw-away role. Shelley Winters is here as some important person. God only knows who. She sings "momma's gonna make shortening bread" about ten times and slaps the kid in the face. Mel Ferrer and Lance Henrikson play heavys. Johanne Nail plays the mother, and she goes through so much that in any other film she would have been dead after the first reel. In here she is shot, paralyzed, pushed into a gigantic fish tank, pulled and then dropped down stairs, and is choked with wire. Oh, and by the way, she manages to be impregnated and have an abortion too. What a woman! Nail, to her credit, is pretty good as she does manage to keep a straight face throughout. Pity, I wasn't able to. Many scenes stand out as being quite absurd. My favorites are: the girl skating on ice like a maniacal Dorothy Hamil and the bird scene where death from above takes the form of pigeons with a vengeance. A totally ridiculous film in every sense. And yes, Franco Nero does indeed have a cameo at the end as some kind of Christ figure. Ooh! That was awfully clever huh? Phew!


THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS: I remember this film was heavily advertised on television showing drawings of some hooded thing walking around and a voice-over saying that it had arrived on Earth. I was too young to see what was presented in the amazingly misleading ads as something similar to ALIEN. I am now happy that I was too young to see it because I finally saw this film on television and there are a bunch of birds flying around and some down and out actors looking embarrassed to be there but nothing resembling the claws and eyeball on the poster art. I think it was actually some kind of devil/demon OMEN/EXORCIST rip-off that was sold as an ALIEN rip-off. Come on guys, please decide who you are ripping off. This movie is a rip-off even if you don't pay to see it because it steals your time if not your money. I can't believe anyone likes this movie but I think it's a total waste of film.


I've always held this movie up as the worst movie I ever saw. But it so totally vanished I was beginning to think I had imagined it or somehow merged two memories together. But no, there it is. "The Visitor". That weird poster that obviously drew us in and yet somehow had nothing to do with anything. I have this strong memory or someone walking down a fire escape with this dramatic music building and building and he hits the street and ...nothing. The scene ends. The movie and the soundtrack felt like they had been cobbled together from outtakes of other movies. When I saw the movie "Bowfinger" where Steve Martin tries to film a movie starring Eddie Murphy without Murphy knowing he was being filmed...THAT'S what this movie was like. I think the crew went around and filmed actors filming other movies.

Giving this movie one star is wasting a star. But yet I'd love to see it again just to relive how bad it was.


Oh, we enjoyed it. Yes, it was incoherent, but it was heartfelt, even if the heart was peripatetic. We enjoyed finding it fairly incomprehensible. And dig that groovy '70s style!


An odd movie that I am reviewing from my notes from my original screening of the movie long ago. Perhaps I just didn't get it, but my plot summary is as follows (Quoting from old notes): "An extra-terrestrial(ET) force is present in an unsuspecting mother.

The force manifests itself in her 8-year old child, giving the child super human powers. This makes the mother is the object of attention of both the ET aliens and some earthlings who know of this strange phenomenon." It doesn't quite sound like the plot summary, given here at the IMDB - which will attest at least to the incoherent nature of the film. The movie is confusing, but reasonably fast paced. I rated the movie a "1 of 10".


Why else would he and the rest of the big name stars in this travesty of cinema ever agree to be a part of it. I saw it in the theatre way back when. The lousyness of this film has only been surpassed in my mind by Saturn 3 (another film with great stars, Kirk Douglas and Harvey Keitel, but horrible story; perhaps Kirk did it because he could be cuddly with Farrah). The visitor makes no sense, is shot in a shoddy manner, and the production quality looks like super 8. I am sure the actors and actresses who participated are embarrassed and rue the day they ever agreed to do this picture. If their agents convinced them to do it, they should have fired them. Avoid at all costs! Don't encourage the makers of this garbage to make more films like it.


Possibly the worst film I have ever seen, "The Visitor" has many disconnected plot elements that never seem to go anywhere or make any sense. Guys wandering the desert, giant green clouds billowing up from nowhere, spirals of birds whirling indoors...as a series of unconnected images, I suppose the movie may have value, but as a story it is completely worthless. I saw this theatrically on its initial release and hated it; I tried to watch it again a decade later. I thought, "It couldn't really be as bad as I remember," but it was and I fell asleep as it dragged on. Totally awful.


Though incoherent, The Visitor has potential to be a really good movie. The main negative point was the music score, I mean come on you can at least find a decent composer. The other was the acting of the little possessed girl. At sometimes it was good but sometimes she was trying too hard.

However the Visitor does have some positive points. The acting of the adult leads is decent, for the time the special effects were not that bad, and the last 30 minutes are quite suspenseful. One might find that his/her pulse races in the climax. All in all The Visitor is a passable time killer, that is incoherent, yet very fun to watch. Give it a chance. Rating: **1/4(music keeps it from getting **1/2) out of ****


What drugs were they on when they made this disaster?

XANADU is one of the worst films ever made. I shouldn't even be calling it a film because there's not much of anything resembling a story, acting, quality, whatever, to be seen in a single frame of this embarrassing disaster. OK, the animated sequence was cool. But that's about it.

And calling it a musical is also a put-down on the whole musical genre. XANADU is more of a series of incongruous elements and ideas the director and producers thought up (most likely while on drugs) and were haphazardly stitched together with no idea of what constitutes good storytelling in a musical format.

The whole "film" is totally wonky.

Case in point: the fact that Olivia Newton John rarely sings on screen, even though this is a musical and we hear songs sung by Olivia and yet Olivia is probably seen performing her songs just a couple of times on screen.

Imagine hiring Julie Andrews for a musical, for something like THE SOUND OF MUSIC, and have her sing most of the songs but never show her perform her songs on screen.

XANADU starts with the muses appearing from the painting, all dancing and smiling to "I'm Alive", sung by...ELO?!?! Wait a minute. Wouldn't it have made more sense if Olivia had sung "I'm Alive" as she comes to life and dances about? I mean, this is a musical, right? And Olivia can sing, right? But no, we watch a silent ONJ try to dance with the other clunky muses while we hear the ELO song. This annoying "technique" or "style" (don't know what to call it) is repeated a couple of times during the "film", including the whole "All over the world" moment: we watch Olivia grinning and silent while ELO sings.

Then there's the whole 1940s - glam rock melding scene, when we actually hear Olivia's voice on the soundtrack during the 1940s scenes but then, whoa, Olivia is nowhere to be seen. Instead, we have these 3 unknown women who stand-in and lipsync to Olivia's voice. Why? That's Olivia's voice I hear, so why not use her on screen?

The whole "Suddenly" moment, when Olivia and Michael rollerskate inside the "magical" studio. We basically watch these lifeless people rollerskate in some really cheesy setting while Suddenly, sung by Olivia and Cliff Richards, is heard on the soundtrack. Why? Why not have the couple perform the song to themselves? Just watching two people rollerskate to a song is like being on a porch and watch two people rollerskate in the street while Suddenly plays on the radio. How uninvolving is that?

And the whole ending, when Olivia sings on screen (which makes you go "wow, it's a musical now") but it's just a medley of pointless tunes sandwiched in between a truncated version of the song Xanadu. Huh?

But the stupidest aspect of this "musical" is that Magic, the best song of the whole disastrous project, doesn't even figure prominently in the film.

I could go on and on about how bad this "film" is (bad fx, annoying transitions, ultra kitschy fashions, even for that time, etc) but I think I've made my point of how truly embarrassing the whole thingamajig is by having a popular singer like ONJ in a musical and rarely have her sing on screen.

So, in closing, should everyone avoid watching XANADU? Not if you're into train wrecks. It's a must see for those who love watching train wrecks, and boy, this one of the biggest train wrecks ever made. It's sorta "so good because it's so bad" because of its bad fashion sense and the overall look of it but the actors are so boring and lifeless that XANADU doesn't fall into the quotable campy "bad" films. XANADU's true camp appeal resides mainly on its wonky technical aspects (songs, script, continuity, logic, etc) and is a treasure throve of badness that will keep on giving for all eternity.


All right, get this. There's this Greek muse who shows up to inspire an artist whose life is in the doldrums. They end up falling in love and she makes his dreams come true by helping him open up a nightclub. She also has an acquaintance from way back when pitch in. Unfortunately, there's a bit of a culture clash between the lovers, since muses aren't supposed to fall in love, but it all works out in the end.

 Admittedly, this is a pretty outlandish premise. Silly, even. But it's certainly a workable idea, and could have made for a great screwball comedy. But instead what we get out of it is XANADU, a really bad script (blame Richard Christian Danus and Marc Reid Rubel for this one, folks) that somehow got Olivia Newton-John and Gene Kelly attached to it. This script is so bad that not even director Robert Greenwald, editor Dennis Virkler, and cinematographer Victor Kemper, guys who've done good work elsewhere, can fix it. In fact, these poor guys are totally hamstrung by the script's lameness. Even Kenny Ortega, the choreographer behind DIRTY DANCING, ends up turning in bad work (ONJ's dance moves near the end are a mess). And Don Bluth's animation is woefully out of place here. What the heck happened?

Now, ONJ, then hot off GREASE, has acting talent. She can do light comedy. We see none of that skill in this film. The playful sexiness this lovely lady had in GREASE is replaced here with being handcuffed to bad plotting (the story goes nowhere, and the characters are as flat as it gets) and even worse dialogue ("Nobody's ever gotten out of here in the whole history ofthe whole history!"). Granted, ONJ is a singer first and an actress second, but even Judi Dench would be hard-pressed to make this role work as written. Making this scenario even more of a let-down is the fact that ONJ's costumes are ludicrous and silly. In GREASE, she was (and still is) the embodiment of sex appeal in those black tights and red slides, but she also looked beautiful and appealing in her girl-next-door costumes. In XANADU, she only looks glamorous in this film when she's dressed in the army gear for her number with Gene Kelly, when she's in the chorus line with the other muses, or when she's dressed as the rock diva. Otherwise, she looks totally ridiculous in those goofily-tailored muse dresses (which she wears throughout 90% of the film), that MC Hammer-esque pantsuit, and that horrific FLASH GORDON-type alien gown. And poor Kelly, like ONJ, tries gamely to enliven the proceedings, but not even his charm can overcome such a rotten script. The worst part is, the concept of pairing Kelly and ONJ wasn't a good idea, it was a GREAT idea. And yet here we have two very talented individuals who can't even cut loose and strut their stuff. Simply put, ONJ and Kelly were let down by the film. Again, why? Why would you waste not one, but TWO incredible assets to your film? This only makes XANADU doubly disappointing.

And why did they pick a leading man who can't sing, dance, or act? This film could have been given some much-needed snap had ONJ's love interest been played by John Travolta or someone along those lines. But Michael Beck has all the charisma and screen presence of concrete. Simply put, this guy makes Dean Cain and Freddie Prinze Jr. look like good actors (and if that doesn't scare you, nothing will). Also, Wilfred Hyde-White, as Zeus, sounds like he's half-asleep when he's delivering his lines (maybe he realized how bad this movie was). Speaking of music, almost all of the songs are used as background pieces. Rarely do the characters themselves sing. Doesn't this defeat the purpose of a musical? And also, the musical numbers are far too gaudy and over-the-top; the mixing of time-periods doesn't work. The circus acts that show up during the "Xanadu" number don't belong at all (couldn't they have just kept it simple and stuck to singing and dancing?). It also doesn't help that there are only two good songs in this film, "Suddenly" and "All Over The World." Everything else is either headache-inducing are needlessly sugary (the title track is OK, but bland). And what, may I ask, was up with all the abrupt displays of the muses' powers (instant costume changes, vanishing in bursts of light) where NOBODY ever once questions what just happened? This is a MASSIVE, not mention careless, plot hole. Again, why? Why did the filmmakers drop the ball so badly?

 This movie gets two stars only because of Gene Kelly and ONJ. Otherwise, this movie was a waste of their talent and time. And even though it's too late for ONJ and Kelly, it would be great to see Hollywood remake this film as the frantic screwball comedy it should have been. The premise of the film is comedically sound, but the final product is far from it.


The 13th Floor is more of a thriller than a horror as it contains virtually no horror elements at all. So all horror fans should avoid it unless you can tolerate a simple thriller.

The plot is very simple indeed, and takes a bit too long to reach the conclusion. I actually quite enjoyed the basic storyline, and thought that the cheesy romance between the rebel girl and the boring older guy was sweet. I even felt a twinge if sadness when he got murdered. When it boils down to it though, The 13th Floor is just far too boring. It had potential but unfortunately played down the supernatural elements that could have made it interesting.

Don't bother seeking this out, but if you find an old VHS really cheap, it will look good in your collection because the artwork on the Medusa label is quite cool.


A dark and terrible secret lurks on the 13th floor of a plush city office block,where a supernatural curse has brought disaster to anyone who rents it.A mysterious 'presence' has driven business to ruin,made office machinery break down and created a deadly lifeforce of its own in the electrical system.The tortured soul of an innocent boy who was cruelly murdered many years before is lying in wait for the moment of revenge."The 13th Floor" is easily one of the worst horror films I have ever seen.The film is extremely boring and there is no gore nor suspense.The special effects are incredibly cheesy and the acting is horrible.Why such piece of crap is widely distributed and some Italian horror movies are completely unavailable is beyond me.1 out of 10.


This "documentary" supposedly reveals the "truth". That is that Bush planned 9/11. At first i believed it, but then i began to think, and realized, that it could not happen in a society like USA.

The people who believe in this doc say that George Bush planned 9/11........ right (sarcasm)... An attack of that magnitude could not have been thought of by a man like Bush (i.e. low intelligence). And secondly: there would be to many leaks in the government. Just like now, with Iraq and Katrina - there have been so many leaks, just because of a hurricane and a war. And the idiots who believe in this film say that that the government covered it up..... THINK ABOUT IT. THAT IS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. There would be too many leaks.

If there are hundreds of leaks because of a hurricane Katrina and a war against a foreign and aggressive country like Iraq, why weren't there leaks about the biggest genocide in American History??????? The "humans" that believe in these documentaries cant answer that.

The biggest genocide in American history could not be covered up like that: there would be too many people involved, too many people that on some level would know.

only about 10 - 15 people is in Alex Jones documentaries - that does not talk good for it. No one wants to have any thing to do with it, because it is full of ¤¤¤¤.

and secondly: if Bush and the shadow-government where willing to kill 2000 - 3000 people 9/11 because of power, why do they hesitate to kill Alex Jones all of us that know of the documentary, if the documentary is the truth????????????? THat is why i simply don't believe in them.

when i saw peter Jacksons "forgotten silver", i knew how easy it is to foul people.

Bush did not plan 9/11 - 9/11 happened because of incompetence, and that Al-quada simply outsmarted the US, the were totally unprepared.


This Second part of Alex Jones' Science Fiction trilogy is just as boring and miss informative as the previous one. As a Science Fiction film (this film: 911: The Road to Tyranny (2002)), it is boring and no fun. As a documentary it is untrustworthy: because Alex Jones doesn't really have any sources for his wild claims. As a source he as always almost only uses him self. He says he uses old and reel clips from the media. The problem is that you can see that he has manipulated with them: Alex Jones uses clips from one context and clips into another: just as Joseph Goebbels did in Germany during the 30ties, as propaganda-minister. Secondly: every person who are right in the head knows that not all TV-reports are 100% accurate: all the first TV-reports from major events are always based on rumours, which always are exaggerated, and all his so-called "evidence" is based on this. But the so-called facts and all the theories are so laughable that it possible can't be a documentary: it must be Science Fiction (very bad Science Fiction)  it is as good as Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer space". As a Science Fiction film it is tedious and boring. As a documentary it is based faked evidence, and can not be trusted. Don't watch it, you won't be learning anything.

Grade: 1 out 10.

It is simply just awful!


I finally got around seeing Alex Jones 911: The Road to Tyranny, which a left-winged friend of mine, told me was very revealing. This left-winged friend of mine, I must tell you also believes in UFO's and that CIA created LSD and AIDS to get rid of opponents  but he is a great guy none the less. The first 30 minutes of" 911: The Road to Tyranny" I was appalled. I really believed in the so-called facts of the documentary. But the documentary quickly fell apart after that. I have never seen a so bias a filmmaker as Alex Jones was in this documentary. Alex Jones carefully chooses the evidence and totally ignores all the tonnes of evidence that speak against his own cause. Further more: all the so called "evidence" can easily be read in another fashion  that is: his entire conclusion can very easily have been misread, because it is based on very few and very easily disputed evidence. This "documentary" is just too political, to be considered neutral or have anything to do with the truth. Alex Jones is simply way too bias in his theories and the way he work. Alex Jones deliberately ignores and lies about certain facts about all facts that just in a small way could compromise his political statements against George Bush and USA. The rest of the documentary is very laughable  Alex Jones does time and time again deny undeniable facts, over and over again, very low-quality job you could say. Alex Jones have taken the few small things that could support your theory, and then you twisted them in a very political way, to fit your own theory People like Alex Jones are ruining the unwritten rules about documentaries should be neutral and non-political. I will never trust a documentary again: thank you Mr. Jones, thank very much for ruining a good and until now neutral genre. I personally respect Michael Moore and his documentaries  they are at least bound in reality.

I can sum this political "documentary" up in a few words: Very poor workmanship.


OK listen. The WWE and Hulk Hogan were behind 9/11. It is true because I said so. OK now look for my documentary on the subject...Its all fact because I said so. Don't look at the mainstream media because they are part of the conspiracy. This is fact...Because I said so. You see Bush and Hulk Hogan own stock in oil companies that wanted the US to go to war with Arabs so eventually we will have control over all of he middle east. Control over mideast=control over oil. Control over oil=the rich getting richer and poor going to houston....man. Its just like the fact that Katrina is George Bushes fault. THe govt has this big weather machine (it was a by product of the creation of the AIDS virus by the CIA)that they used to create the storm and control it....man. They are trying to control us....Maaannn! That is myproof. If you don't believe me just check out Eatabullet.com.


So, if the New World Order wants to kill 80% of all people, why Alex Jones is still alive.

Included in the NWO are of course the UN, CIA, GreenPeace, Prince Charles,.. you name it... (i suppose everyone But Alex)..

Go watch this hilarious doc and buy a bumper sticker

Sad he makes money of those who died at 9/11.


It almost made me cry to watch the whole "documentary". One definitely has to be in a catatonic state of mind to believe that the proof presented in this film is genuine. In many parts of this movie trying to prove some intergovernmental global new world order -scheme, the video and the audio track have been taken from different sources.

I wonder why this film was made. It must have a real purpose, besides shocking those stupid and eager enough to believe that various US federal institutions are/were responsible for the Oklahoma bombing, the -93 bombing of WTC complex and 911.

If this is an alternative medium challenging the military industrial complex in the US of A, the "big" media etc., why is the only message of this film; "Do not trust anything federal and first of all - do not let go of your guns. Owning guns is your right, and it is good for you."?

 Sometimes poor documentaries are hilariously funny. Sometimes they are shocking because they are made *means for an end*, just the thing that they claim is done by your government... And this one falls to the latter category.

 It gains it one point (out of ten) for showing - very truthfully - that leaders of this world, from Caesar Nero approx. 2000 yrs ago to world leaders in our times have lied and attacked their own people in order to gain more power over them. This should be no news. Everyone who has attended a history class knows it.

 To find this film informative or entertaining simply isn't possible for any human being.


look, i actually pondered and take as very believable some of the theories showing on this bad''sci-fi''movie presented by Alex Jones. But this is not a documentary, and the supposed facts are simply news articles of the heat of the moment and the word of a very fanatic man: Alex Jones. I say fanatic because he believes so certainly in what he wants to say, that he can't afford to be put in doubt by being neutral and actually showing the whole pictures of his alleged evidences. he just chops parts of speeches, news articles, and surveillance cameras, that can support his opinion that it seems to be very bias. As many ''proves'' in well substanced and NEUTRAL documentaries and articles i've seen and read so far and by my own observation and doubts on the facts as they are released, i believe some of the so called ''Conspiracy Theories'' have a great amount of substance to be believable enough to be scary, but are persons like this MR. Alex Jones ,by his methods and unbased retarded fundamentalism, and questionable ways, that makes people discard and think: ''Oh bullshit...I will not listen to these stupid conspiracy crap''. So thank u for nothing Mr. Alex Jones.


Talk about stretching the truth... this pseudo documentary is just a bunch of news clips and rantings, where common knowledge is presented like some big mystery nobody knows. This Alex Jones guy is as wacko as they come. The best part of the whole thing was when he thought up the genius idea that cartoons are brainwashing the youth of America and then showed a clip from the buzzlight year cartoon, of buzz getting an eye scan for ordering a pizza...absolutly hilarious! another thing, I never heard anything about the swat team killing kids at columbine, your the first person to mention this, I'd really like to know where you got that nugget of information. Micheal Moore did a 2 hour documentary on the tragedy and didn't mention it once, maybe he is in on this whole tyranny thing to right... or maybe its because your a liar.

No really they are out to get you alex, big brother is watching you, and I hope to god that they stop religious gun nuts like you from making money off shoddy journalism and horrible tragedies ever again. shame on you and your bulls***.


This could have been done WAY better. This is the story: Two babies are switched at birth, one from an upper middleclass family and one from a lower class family, because of a jealous nurse. Twelve years later the mystery is discovered and the upper class family buys their kid back. This lame plot isn't worked out at all, and some minor storylines are just forgotten near the end. By the way, what the hell was the meaning of the very last scene ???? There are some serious things wrong with this movie.

Acting isn't very good either, but it isn't bad. Benoît Magimel, the kid who plays Maurice, did some nice things, and Jean-Brice Van Keer was good too. But then again, some other people didn't act at all: Daniel Gelin (the doctor), Patric Bouchitey (the priest), ...

Mostly I don't say anything about the music, but this time it really beats everything. HORRIBLE! TASTELESS! OFF-KEY! Unbelievable

Of course there are some good things about this movie, especially how the two families are brought into screen and how one family falls apart when someone from the other family comes to live with them. But in general, this is a huge stinker. 4/10


If the truth be known -- and the truth, as ever, is pretty murky in this Raymond Chandler rip off -- Raymond St. Ives, the writer who is hired out of nowhere as a private eye, is merely a nom de plume. The character's real name, well, almost real, is Charles Bronson. He's the taciturn, muscular guy who can be thrown into an empty elevator shaft by three hoods, save himself after falling down a few floors by grabbing a cable and sliding to a halt, haul himself up to a doorway into an empty warehouse, and deck the three armed goons who still pursue him. The thugs include Robert Englund, later to surpass himself as Freddie Kruger, the mad killer of the "Friday the Thirteenth" slasher movies, and Jeff Goldblum, ditto, as neurotic scientists.

Bronson is hired by the immensely wealthy John Houseman to recover some stolen journals. Houseman's mistress, Jacqueline Bisset, is thrown into the mix so she can pop into bed at one point with the protagonist.

Why -- you ask? -- did Houseman hire Bronson, a not-too-successful novelist and ex crime reporter -- to act as a go-between who delivers the forty million dollars in exchange for the purloined letters? I don't know.

But the plot, such as it is, follows Raymond Chandler rather closely otherwise. It's as complicated as a Rubik's cube. I admit I was lost now and then. A couple of cops are corrupt. People double cross each other all the time. Bronson keeps stumbling across dead bodies, a habit that doesn't endear him to the police.

Bronson also knows a lot of louche people and bounces from one to the other in his search for the solution to the various mysteries. Bronson asks one of his friends: "Do you know a guy named Parisi?" The friend replies: "You'll have to see Boykins about that." Bronson goes to Boykins, who tells him: "I didn't do the job but I know Finley wasn't in on it, but Pedo can tell you more than I can." I have the names mixed up but I don't care any more than the writers cared.

I think one of the biggest turn offs is the production design. Bronson is described as living in "a cheap hotel." I found the apartment rather charming, a hell of an improvement over this abandoned railway car that I live in.

And wardrobe and make up have done their best to turn every character into a simulacrum of a rich Hollywood actor. The rich Hollywood screenwriters who assembled this kaleidoscope of mysterioso doings have no idea of what it's like to be less than rich. The grease monkey under the car has four precisely applied and somewhat becoming oil marks applies to his face and forehead. Everyone dresses in suits and ties except the goons who wear tatters and wool caps so you'll know they're goons. Bronson, the down-on-his-luck writer, drives a Jaguar. Everyone else drives a boxy-looking American car at least forty feet long.

A gimcrack job, and a disappointment considering who was in front of the camera and behind it, many of them seasoned professionals like J. Lee Thompson, Lalo Schifrin, Lucien Ballard. Why does it look so much like a cheap television movie set in Los Angeles?


I used to live down the street from Ross Thomas in DC and never had the chance to meet him. According to a story in the POST, Thomas and his wife went out to Hollywood to see the filming. Bronson told him "I didn't read the book." Thomas replied "That's OK. I didn't see your last movie." Bronson was not Thomas' or my idea of the St. Ives character. St. Ives was a thinking man's detective with a wry sense of humor. Bronson was capable of wry humor but he was miscast if you had read the books. I think it was the Thomas novel filmed which is a shame. I think Charles Durning starred in a made-for-TV movie where he played a similar character who is a professional go-between.


Jeff Goldblum seem to like playing bad guys in Charlie's films.

He gets back at Goldblum for the Death Wish film. A few good scenes, and good b actors. This film has one of those 70's films that makes little sense. I would not rent this one again, it seem the 70's made many films with huge holes in the scripts 3/10


There are French directors who dare:François Ozon is one of them ,and even when he pushes his art to extreme limits (les amants criminels),both his screenplay ,his directing and his mastery remain powerful.

This poor thing has a ghost of a screenplay,and features some of the worst performances that can be seen in a contemporary French movie:to say that the actors overplay would be an euphemism: you should (but you must not if you are wise enough to spare you this turkey)see them scream,grimace (with pain) and look "deep" .Also handicapped by frequent use of a little girl's voice over .Ugly pictures,absurd editing,obscure motives of the characters.

HORRIBLE.


This is absolutely the worst film I have ever seen in my life. As far as I am concerned, it shows violence towards women and children without explaining why it happened. The whole thing looks like an excuse to show violence on cinema.

DON'T SEE IT!!


This is a so-so story, with the typical formula of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back again, in combination with a story about speedboat design and racing. There isn't much here to interest today's movie viewer. While there are some movies of the early 1930s which continue to delight us (e.g. Dinner At Eight), this movie isn't one of them.

Lead star William Haines was at the end of his film career. In his biography of Haines, "Wisecracker", author William J. Mann alleges that Haines's career was on the decline partly due to his aging out of the roles he had become typecast in, and also to becoming pudgy. Yet, Haines appears in a swimsuit in this film, looking fit and trim.

The Great Depression made film studios reluctant to make long-term contracts with actors, and when they did, they substantially reduced the salaries paid. Stories of Haines's enmity with MGM brass, and the effects of his personal life, may be apocryphal. The net net is that Haines wasn't making money for MGM any longer, and so he was out.

I wouldn't recommend this film unless you are a real die-hard Haines fan.


If I'd seen this in a art-house cinema I would have walked out. But it was on my local public TV station so I watched it. Why? Well it was free. But that's all. This movie starts nowhere, goes nowhere, and finishes up nowhere. And in marked contrast with other reviewers I find silence just a bit boring when overdone. And it was really overdone in this self-indulgent "art work". And to think it took four, that's right four! writers to make this. Sure the scenery was good, but so what? It's been done a thousand times before (and better). Sure the music was atmospheric, but so what? it's been done a thousand times before (and better). Basically, the local public TV 30 second promos had the entire film in them. I kept waiting for something to happen. But no, watch the 30sec promo a few hundred times over and that's Daft Punks "Electroma".

Cult film? I don't think so...


Just watched this film last night - I was disappointed enough to get of my ass and write this review!

I've read quite a few of other reviews and I disagree that the movie is visually stunning. Although the desert has a certain beauty, I wasn't impressed by the actual filming techniques. There was nothing above ordinary with how the movie was shot - with the exception of the "human lab" scene with the white silhouettes of figures, but that seemed a bit gimmicky to me - the novelty wore off quick.

As many others have noted, the pace of the editing was unbearably slow. There doesn't seem to be any purpose to the excessively drawn out scenes other than to make a 15 minute movie into a feature length. I've seen "2001: A Space Oddessy" many times and feel that the slow pace in that film fits the themes of isolation, infinity, quiet in space, etc.

This film was SO abstract and vague that you can't help but ask a lot of questions like: What's the robot's function/purpose? Do humans even exist on this planet? Why are there toilets if everyone is a robot? Have others attempted to become human?

So they become human (or wear human masks anyways)- why do they just stroll down the street after? They have nothing better to do? Is their sole purpose just to show off their new faces and get a reaction out of others? And OK - so the other robots (whom I assume they don't know) don't seem to approve of their transformation.....why do the two main characters even give a shi* ?

If this film were transposed to a different world where a couple of young guys decided to become drag queens, walked down to Anytown, USA and then were ostracized - you think they would wander back to the desert and commit suicide??? Of course not - and that's why this movie makes no sense.

The best films make you care about the protagonists and identify with them on some level. The two main characters in this film are two-dimensional and weak. I think the story would have been much more interesting if they actually dealt with the rejection and came up with a different solution other than self-destruction.

I didn't learn anything from this film, I don't see the world any differently, and I wasn't even entertained for the hour-plus that I wasted watching it.

Daft Punk should have just stuck with Interstella 5555 for their cinematic contributions.


Anybody else think this is a total rip off!? Gus Van Sant did it way better!

Daft Punk did almost exact shots! Who does that? Desert scenes. Slowly walking in the desert. Fatigued. Giving up. Death. The only different was that in Gerry, they were humans. I love Daft Punk, and I really liked the last burning scene, however, it was totally a rip off. Great songs too, but too similar to call an original movie.

At least cite Gus Van Sant's work.

Human After All.

-Raymond


Okay, this film was alright. I didn't care for the negative Asian stereotype throughout the film, but the adventure had me interested. I gave this movie a poor rating because of the stereotypes, and the ending is Hollywood's "everything will be alright" cliche that makes you mad for watching the whole thing. Performance by Dietrich is the best I've seen it and Anna May Wong is simply gorgeous. I would recommend skipping this movie unless you are a fan of Wong or Dietrich.


Middling adaptation of Roger Hedden's play about four twentysomethings in small Arizona town trying to find some truth in their lives. Acting showcase for Eric Stoltz, Bridget Fonda, Phoebe Cates and Tim Roth is surprisingly uneventful--and mercilessly slow-moving. Performances by Fonda and Cates outclass the men, with Roth a real irritant as a feckless drifter (of course, the character as written isn't exactly a charmer). Some of the dialogue is sharp and there are interesting bits and pieces. Stoltz also co-produced, and the small budgeted film has a very stylish, quasi-surreal look that bolsters the limp action. ** from ****


It's boring. A slow, stupid movie about people trying to find themselves and where they want to be in life. I used to like these gen-x movies too, but now I find them irritating. Maybe if I had seen this when it first came out I would have loved it, but today, it's just dull and stupid. The dialog and things the people do just isn't believable. I think it's trying to go for a "higher message" here but it just doesn't reach it. Sort of an after-thought of a movie. Like "OH Gee we have these people here and they're somewhat famous let's make them say lines and drive around and stuff". Pass. It's boring. OK one more line of text and DONE! Yah don't see it.


Boring! This is another perfect example why you don't transfer plays into films. And if you're going to even try, you don't let the playwright do the screenplay. Lots of rest, little motion. Throw this one in the junk pile of plays with Hurlyburly.


This movie is a character study, and the correlation between the Newtonian laws of physics (bodies at rest tend to remain at rest; bodies in motion tend to remain in motion) and the characters in the movie are left to the viewer to "get." Thus, the movie starts out expecting its viewers to have stayed awake through Physics 101. Good luck staying awake through the movie.

I like Tim Roth. I like Bridget Fonda. I like Eric Stoltz. Just not in this movie. Bridget's character was believable, and felt very real, but there wasn't enough plot to keep me interested or any character that I truly liked enough for this movie to make any significant impression. * out of *****.


I was startled by how poor this film was.

All the male characters that were supposed to be "cool" laughably sported identical black leather jackets and stubble, looking every bit like middle class drop outs, but getting their kicks from hanging around illegal bare knuckle fights... the scenes in which the naughty posh boys were knocking about with psychotic hard-men bottling each other in a strip bar were extremely cringe-worthy and utterly unbelievable.

Also did anyone notice how much Marc Warren looked like Eddie Izzard in the orgy scene with that diamanté dog collar?! That chuckle was the only thing I enjoyed about the whole film.

Oh - the kid was an excellent actor too - really good.

Other than that it was RUBBISH!


This is one of the worst films I've ever scene. And if this is the kind of film Britain is making then let the industry die.

I was stunned at how bad this film is.

The acting except for Marc Warren and Sienna Guillory is awful. Alec Newman stares madly into space a lot of the time. The supporting cast are so wooden that they can't possibly be professional actors.

Guillory and Newman aren't helped by the fact their characters are selfish, boring and unlikeable.

Marc Warren alone has an interesting character and his performance is all that makes it watchable. The film does at least pick up some energy when he is screen. When he's not the rest of the cast mope around in boredom.

The script is dull. Characters sit in the bath or smoke joints while talking about living life to the full.

The orgy scene is laughable with one character spouting pretentious rubbish about exploring the darker side while wearing a dog collar.

I stuck with this, like I was watching a car crash to see how bad it would get. And when it thankfully finished I was left with a feeling of "So What?".

Its a film that desperately wants to shock with it scenes of explicit sex and violence against children but to be honest is tedious and reminds me of the kind of thing Sixth formers would make to upset their parents.

The fact this film was backed when so many others are struggling to find finance is another nail in the coffin of the British film Industry.

Avoid.


I watched this film primarily as a fan of Sienna Guillory. To be honest, she was the only thing worth hanging around for, the film became so boring at stages I felt myself drifting off to sleep. It feels incredibly long, especially once you reach the end of the movie and realise not a whole lot has actually happened. It doesn't feel original (the same ideas have been dealt with in countless better films), the acting was hardly top notch, and the characters were thoroughly unlikeable and unoriginal. Unless you're really into these types of films, or you have a *really* strong fascination with one of the actors involved, I wouldn't recommend it. You're not missing much.


The trouble with this film is, there are at least three good films struggling to get out, and none of them do. There is a good film about the effect of charisma and its ability to draw weak people into situations. That's touched upon, but the characters are not really that believable. Then there is the exploitation of minors film struggling to get out, with the clever subplot of the child's OTHER pastime, the community play - but this is hardly ever touched upon; it should be the main focus of the film, really. OK, I can't think of a third good film struggling to get out - but what we are left with is a rather dreary flick that struggles to get out of second gear. All the acting with the exception of the "charismatic" Marc Warren is of the 'ultra-realist' school in which the height of ambition is to 'gel' with normal people. The trouble is, the normal people the characters represent are quite stupid, all things considered. Although they are all 'artistes', they seem to inhabit a world where no one can exist without sex and where no one is really ready to point up the obvious - such as a kid used for bare-knuckle boxing. Thus, you don't care about the characters. When the main actor tells the kid that he isn't getting a 'fucking dog' you just wish the whole film would go away. Pathetic stuff.

This should have been a one-hour special on BBC1, but they wouldn't have got the hard-core porn in. Not really worth the admission price. Filmfour at its worst.


Disgustingly dull movie about some selfish, self centred individuals. If it had concentrated on the themes of abuse, bullying, alienation of the lower classes and subculture, it might have had something to say. It didn't. Its lost in the vapour of its own pretentiousness. Unnecessary graphic orgy scenes. Yes they are meant to be metaphoric, but you know, it could been done with a little more enthusiasm, which the whole film lacks. Utterly contrived. All the actors should be shamed for the exploitation that this movie got from them. All this from a female director. What a waste of time. Who was this aimed at? what was its goal? Totally misguided. Badly filmed. No creativity in editing. Nothing.


If this is what vaudeville was, it must have been rotting by the time this film came out! It was difficult not to give it a bomb, but for historical value and the actual quality of the film's print, it wasn't impossible to watch. Charles Winninger, usually wonderful in films, plays an inventor who creates the most inane burglar alarm in film history. It's obvious that he's going to get caught in it. Frances McCoy, as the secretary, is probably the most annoying character in early talkie history. She would drive El Brendel back to Sweden! The Three Stooges play the most insipid group of firemen ever on the screen, and it is rather insulting to the profession to even see this presented on screen. A six year old Billy Barty is probably the only one to come out good in this film; His cameo is actually a bit amusing, and probably rates the two laughs I discovered in it.


Having taped this movie from AMC's Third Annual Film Preservation Festival when the subject was comedy, I was very anxious to see the film debut of The Three Stooges with Ted Healy as their original leader and Shemp Howard in the original group before quitting, allowing younger brother Curly to take his place. Written by cartoonist Rube Goldberg, who makes a cameo here, the story-about an elderly costume store owner (Charles Winninger) about to lose his place-is nothing special but has some amusing visual humor when we see some of Winninger's inventions like the complicated ways to wake up and stop a robber involving a cat and a giant boot. This and other weird gadgets are what Goldberg is famous for drawing. As for the Stooges, they play firemen who Ted hangs around with when he's not constantly arguing with his girlfriend (Frances McCoy). Legend has it that Fox studio head Winfred Sheehan wanted the Stooges without Ted, who was angered and stormed off taking the boys with him, signed to a long-term contract and that's why Shemp went out on his own after a brief split soon afterwards. So this is the only time on film he's with Healy who performs along with his brother Moe (credited as Harry) and Larry Fine, none of whom have the wild hair they became known for. The reason Sheehan may have only wanted Howard, Fine, and Howard might have been the scene where they order such bizarre things like a "ham and corn beef sandwich on white on rye" or a "baloney with whipped cream"! That and a later routine with Ted in which the boys perform "The Elevator Dance" (in which Larry stands still while Moe hand pops his mouth and Shemp rubs sandpaper together) which has "no steps to it" are the funniest parts of the movie. Nearly everything else is "eh" though there's also some entertaining xylophone playing by another comic foil named Fred Sanborn and a little kid named Billy Barty amusingly attempts to pop a balloon as he keeps somersaulting. Worth a look for Three Stooges fans and anyone interested in the early talkies. By the way, those were the Stooges' real-life wives with them in the fire-truck moving sequences.


This early talkie's plot deals with--more or less--the unrelated adventures of Ted Healy and some local firemen (Moe, Larry, Shemp and Fred Sanborn). There's very little coherence until the climactic fire, when the Stooges save the day.

Two performances stand out, both for the wrong reasons. Ted Healy was a major star in vaudeville and film when this movie was made. If you watch this film, it's hard to understand why, because his routine was just not funny. His offhandedly mean treatment of the Stooges also alienates the viewer. Fred Sanborn provides one of the most bizarre and irritating performances ever captured on film as a mute fireman. He's just so indescribably bad, you have to watch this to believe it.

Within a few short years, the Three Stooges were big stars in short subjects and Ted Healy was dead due to a bar fight. This film's worth catching for fans of the Stooges, since it's their feature film debut and historically interesting. Otherwise, stay away.


The only appeal of this film is to see the Stooges in their earliest film appearance--and to get a glimpse of the now-reviled Ted Healey. I can see why the Boys parted ways with Healey. His treatment of them comes off as brutal and mean-spirited (even by Stooge standards!) A curiosity piece.