S.P.Y.S (2 outta 5 stars)

Pretty lame spy "spoof" that put a kibosh on the possibility of Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould becoming the greatest comedy team of the '70s. The guys are both great comic actors and they have loads of screen chemistry together. If you don't care much for either of these actors you will probably hate this movie... and if you are a big, big fan of either one of them... well, you probably still won't think much of it. Playing a pair of maverick secret agents forced to work together, they start out complaining and bickering but over the course of their adventure (some overly-complicated plot about assassinations, missing diamonds and foreign agents) they begin to get chummy. Sutherland and Gould have charisma to burn but the lousy, nearly joke-free script doesn't give them much to work with. I suppose if this has been a big box office hit they could have continued the franchise and gone on to bigger and better movies together... but, this tanked with audiences and I don't think they two have worked together since. Anyway, I have to add that I have always absolutely loved the last scene of the movie... as our two defeated heroes, in full-out charming rascal mode, skip off down a lonely road together and start singing:

Oh, we don't know what's comin' tomorrow, Maybe it's trouble and sorrow, But we'll travel the road Sharin' our load Side by side

You take it, brother! Through all kinds of weatherrrrr! Did You hear that, Lord? Whether the sky should fall Whether the skyyyyy should fallllll Just as long as we're together It doesn't matter at all...

Great wrap-up... too bad about the first 85 minutes.


Since you can ask your friends' opinions and read reviews about mainstream films most anywhere, I try comment on the smaller, harder to find films which have little written about them (and the few comments you will find are usually cast and crew plugging the film). Hopefully I'll help someone who is debating on whether the effort they might put into finding and seeing a smaller, hard to find film is really worth it.

That said, "Cyxork 7" - a very high concept comedy - fails on every single level. I did not laugh once during the entire film, which is surprising especially since Greg Proops is involved. Dropping the f bomb for emphasis is not funny. Having running commentary in numerous points is not funny. Kicking someone in the balls is not funny unless the setup and payoff is good. For the entire film, the jokes have no setup and what's more, the characters are not only flat and uninteresting, their motivations hardly make any sense.

Like I said, the premise of the film had me interested, which is why I saw it at the Fine Arts Theater in Los Angeles. But the film seems to have an identity crisis of whether it wants to be drama or comedy.

The editing was awful. The scenes drag far, far too long and instead of cutting on a joke or trimming needless scenes (maybe because there are a lot that don't go anywhere), they linger. In particular I think of the scene between the 2 actors who have an affair on the side and the camera pans out for a few seconds then we cut. The actors all seemed uncomfortable with their lines.

Ray Wise does a decent job and plays it straight, but the only problem is so does everyone else. This is a comedy, where things need to be over the top to emphasize the ridiculousness of the concept. Perhaps the best scene is that of the producer, which at least was colorful and he seemed like someone you could hate.

That brings me to another point, there's no sense of tone. The GNN news thing - is it supposed to be serious? Because the 2 anchors swear like sailors as though this were funny, and are very self aware of how cute they are being, which sucks you right out of the humor. (Now it would be much funnier if they played it straight but said absurd things). I mean, you have to ground this in some level of reality. Also, the text full of swears and innuendo was not funny but annoying, and simply repeating what the anchors already had said. Now if they had been established as an alternate news channel MAYBE I could buy it, but even so, it's not so much the credibility as the fact the actors seem to giggle as though they think everything they say is hilarious.

As for the plot, so many loose threads never come to fruition: the lesbian story between the news correspondent (why is she there again?) and the cam operator - I guess it's funny because they're lesbians? The nerd who is taping the behind the scenes footage and trying to direct his girlfriend act never makes sense - I thought maybe he would use the footage as blackmail, or to show he's a better director, or perhaps he & everyone else who wants to direct would create a bunch of competing directors, but nope I was wrong, this goes nowhere and just seems like a lazy cutaway to bad quality video. The pregnant actor's wife who held everyone hostage and then everything's hunky dory?

I understand this was low budget which is fine but it's not funny. I actually would have been happier to see more physical comedy which would have lightened the tone instead of everyone being so serious. Oh yes, why would nobody on the crew leave instead of risk their lives? Do they want to break in that bad? (Again, lack of motivation here).

The one saving grace was the idea of actors killing themselves to boost their careers. Could have been funny but then it becomes very dark and again the tone is awkward. Not to mention the final "And she died by a cart" post script at the end was out of place.

Pretty much I was left scratching my head. So did they complete the movie or just the shot? What happens to the franchise? To the wife? To everyone else's careers? But by that time, you'll be walking out of the theater or turning off the film because the movie doesn't seem to care and neither should you about seeing this film.

VERDICT: STAY AWAY 2 out of 10 stars


Why, oh, why, can Hollywood assemble such a fantastic cast, and fail the cast members so miserably with the script? Stay home and watch a "Friends" rerun and you'll probably witness a more coherent, funnier, and truer script.

Every actor in this cast, including Terry Bradshaw, a former football player, is fantastic.

In fact, why can Terry Bradshaw, a former football player, act better than professional Hollywood writers can write? This script is a mess. Scenes are short and borderline incoherent, or so dumb as to be targeted at an audience too young to care about romance. What's the point of putting goofy scenes, like the fake bird fake CPR scene, a scene that every seven year old in the audience will wake up for, in an alleged "romantic" comedy? There's no romance here. None. Zero. Zip. How do you put two such beautiful, sexy, charismatic actors -- Matthew McConaughey and Sarah Jessica Parker -- in a movie, and yet have absolutely zero romance or heat or sexual chemistry in the movie? I mean, you'd really have to be trying to make a movie this erotically neutered with two such stars.

Nothing here makes much of any sense at all. The scenes are a jumble of failed ideas quickly abandoned. The direction and editing are nil.

A few scenes are ridiculous and childish. Matthew McConaughey is repeatedly attacked by wild animals. These scenes just never take off.

A few scenes are painful.

MM takes SJP on a date on someone else's boat, pretending that it's his. He's caught, and has to run away. Is he supposed to be such a tacky character? Why is SJP supposed to fall in love with him? After MM discovers that his parents have been paying SJP to date him (this isn't a spoiler; this plot device is revealed early on), he uses a particularly crude word to tell her to go away. It's a believable reaction, but since everything else in the movie is so unbelievable, it's just awkward and does not fit.

Then there is the scene where one group of characters spies on another couple of characters via webcams. It's meant to be heartwarming, but it's just utterly unbelievable and really creepy. Whoever scripted this scene is tone deaf.

And a few scenes are just plain bizarre, as if they came from another movie.

This is such a shame. The actors were up for it, but the script writers and director gave them nothing to work with.


I had high hopes for this movie. After all, I love all of the cast members. However, somehow, it just didn't do it for me. It was as if the screenwriters didn't know who they wanted to try to please. The over the top farcical scenes would have worked in a different movie, and the relationship scenes would have worked in a different movie. I think that one of the subplots involving Zooey Deschanel (who literally steals the show) would have been more interesting to watch than either of the two leads. Matthew McConaughey is admittedly good looking to watch, but his abs and cast have been his supporting cast long enough. And as much as I have loved Sarah Jessica Parker, she's looking a bit long in the tooth here, and is definitely too old to play the part.

Grade: C (But only for Zooey's sake, I loved her!)


I went to see this film because I have admired Kathy Bates' acting for years. I must say that I am confused as to why she would accept a role so beneath her abilities. Given that, she could have brought life into her character.

As for Sarah Jessica Parker. Well, her ability to portray emotions ranges from clutching her chest to clutching her stomach. And when is this 40+ year old woman going to stop squealing like a stuck pig. Girls in middle school are able to express themselves better.

The male actors were, well, unimpressive at best.

The story line could've have been developed a lot more, with interesting banter and twists and turns. But it wasn't. Yet there were times when there were some good one-liners.

For a inexpensive matinée, why not. For a full priced movie ticket...


I watched & enjoyed "The Family Stone." I watched and forgot "How to Lose a Guy." I don't have impossible standard for films. I love romantic comedies, and if I want to see more one movie a year, I can't afford standards. But this film, "Failure to Launch," made me want to give up and stay home. I could have popped "Love, Actually" into the DVD player for the thousandth time and had a better, more rewarding evening. There are many many ways this movie went wrong, but I'd like to focus on the nail that sealed its coffin.

Two words . . .

Animatronic animals.

That's right . . . more than one. In this movie. Were you thinking "Must Love Dogs" or "The Wedding Date?" Think "Caddyshack" without the appeal.

Four separate animatronic animals appeared, one in a subplot which provided neither support nor counterpoint to the purported "main plot" (the romance between SJP & MM).

I wanted to like these subplot sections. Even with excessive sweat and scary, crazy eyes, I just love Bradley Cooper, but no actor on earth could have saved this movie.

If even one of these animatronic monstrosities had appeared in a trailer, I would have saved my $8. Maybe the failure was in marketing a low-ball comedy as a romantic comedy.

I don't ask that a romantic comedy be high art, but this was barely a romantic comedy at all.


Dross! Boring and predictable! After only ten minutes into the film, I could stake my life on what would happen at the end - and I was right.

I don't mind romantic comedies, but this is drivel. Even the "funny" moments; those slapstick scenes that are added to films to make you laugh uproariously, barely raised a smile (a chipmunk bit his finger  hysterical. A lizard bit his hand and he falls on his back hilarious).

This film has no redeeming features whatsoever and even the inclusion of such comic genii as Matthew McConaughey and Sarah Jessica Parker couldn't get it going. What did I expect though, going to see a film with those two hams in the starring roles, they actually make Courteney Cox look funny. In my defence though, one night a week I do Support Work and my disabled employer wanted to go to the cinema. There was nothing on we hadn't already seen so we took a chance on this. Well, even he thought it was turd. I thought he was going to sack me!

If you want my advice, don't waste your time with this nonentity. I'd rather nail my eyelids to the floor than sit through this tripe again.


I was stunned at how bad this movie was - so predictable, so lame and another one of these Hollywood studio processed films where it doesn't even seem like reality - like it is this parallel universe that Hollywood creates where people have jobs like boat brokers and parent, grown son interventionist! They all have names like Ace, Demo, Kit, Tripp and Captain!! We all knew EXACTLY what was going to happen the minute Sara Jessica Parker says "I never have sex with a client." Gee - wonder if she will with Matthew - er, sorry - Tripp...I also cant believe that the movie invested sooooo much time in a subplot where someone wants to murder a mockingbird. Wow! That's funny! And obviously the studio found it hilarious whenever an animal attacks a human! Woo-hoo, that's some funny comedy - Billy Wilder could learn a thing or two from these fine filmmakers about what is truly funny. A chipmunk attacks, a dolphin attacks, a mockingbird bites the guy's nose like in a Goofy cartoon oh - and a lizard attacks - and after he does - they show him snickering - thus making the snickering lizard more three-dimensional than any of the supporting characters. Plus, it really was truly creepy what SJP's character tries to do - to "date" screwed-up, mainly lonely guys and make them think she likes them to try and get them to move out. The one other scene where they show her "working" - the guy is the typical fat, nerdy slob who quotes Star Wars and you watch her pretend to like him. Man! That is one creepy job there (almost as creepy as being a boat broker. I kid! I kid the boat brokers and all the members of The Boat Brokering Association). This movie is just a mind-freeze - watch point A move to Point B and then to Point C - now go home. The fact that this thing made TONS of money says it all.


Matthew M beefcake shots everywhere. Horrible, unbelievable storyline, oh and let's not forget the KWAAZY ANIMAL SEQUENCES! A lizard bites Matthew and then chuckles like a Budweiser chameleon. By the end it was so predictable in its lame attempts to tie the story together it was EXCRUCIATING! The only reason I didn't give Fs is because the actors at least showed up.

Poor Terry Bradshaw, he did okay until he agreed to prance around naked for cheap laughs. You how some movies go in and out in their quality? This one never comes out of the steaming pile that it is. I couldn't even find the director's name on the closing credits (probably too embarrassed).

Don't even waste a rental on this dreck!


Sturgeon's Law more than applies here: "90 per cent of everything is crud." There is no chemistry between any of the actors, the writing is on middle-school level, and any movie that dares to invoke Katharine Hepburn in one scene and then drags its characters through one contrived and pointless and flatly-acted episode after another is indeed crud. The only redeeming scenes were those featuring Zooey Daschanel, who brought some sincere charm and liveliness to her role, and there was the dolphin at the end. That dolphin was more engaging than most of the humans in this pitiful excuse for a romantic comedy. This movie was a major disappointment and a major waste of talent and time.


After wasting my time on this pathetic movie, I have made a decision not to ever watch another movie with Sara Jessica Parker. She has continued the exact same one dimensional acting in every single part she has ever played, this movie being no exception. She can't seem to get past playing "Carrie" no matter what the subject matter. One of the previous posters rightfully acknowledged SJP's habit of clutching at her abdomen and chest for effect in every single role she plays. Her high pitched screaming in every performance is the most irritating of all. I wonder how she continues to be cast in movies when she has no range as an actress.

While watching this movie I had the feeling that they must have rushed the production just to get it made. There are tons of errors and hardly a single thought is completed. All of the actors seem as though they would rather be somewhere else. It is not funny, clever or entertaining. Don't be drawn in by the trailer or any previews of this movie. It is the bottom of the barrel.


Tripp is a man in his thirties who still lives with his parents. His parents hire Paula to get him to move out. The film manages the set-up, but forgets to fill in the romance.

Matthew McConaughey as Tripp is off-putting to watch, and his accent so thick it is often difficult to understand what he is saying  and baffling, since no one else in the film, including his parents, share his accent. As for the character, he isn't given a personality or any depth, except for a sledge-hammered back story about a dead fiancée, which is dropped in towards the end of the film. Paula (Sarah Jessica Parker) repeatedly mentions how sweet Tripp is, but this sweetness must be going on off screen, as on screen he is constantly a jerk. There is also no chemistry between McConaughey and Parker which makes the so-called romance hard to notice. If it is there at all.

Paula is given even less personality than Tripp. All we know about her is that she gets men to move out of their parents' home professionally. She only refers to Tripp in terms of the job, so when after about half an hour we have to be told Paula has feelings for Tripp, it is a surprise. It certainly isn't in the performance or the dialogue. It would help if we saw she doing her job before being hired in to help Tripp. As it is, it is very confusing how she is so successful since she utterly fails in every aspect of her job with Tripp. And realising she is failing in her job, she sleeps with Tripp  for money. She becomes a prostitute, and doesn't bat an eyelid. How is this not an important plot development?

The film generally doesn't make sense and the scenes in which Tripp is attacked by a chipmunk/dolphin/lizard seem to have wandered in from a different genre, and fail to amuse. However, the scene in which Kit, Paula's house-mate, tries to buy a gun is very funny, the only funny moment of the film, mainly due to the performance by the salesman (Rob Corddry).

As for the supporting cast, Kathy Bates as Tripp's mum hams it up and Zooey Deschanel as Paula's house-mate phones in her usual tediously bored performance  this is obviously her selling point, but strangely enough, a bored actor is boring to watch.

Basically, Failure To Launch is an entirely disengaging film and forgets to actually put any romance in between the set-up and the finale.


Someone in this movie mentions "Philadelphia Story". It's worth watching if you enjoyed "Failure to Launch", and it can can be said to tick a lot of the same romantic comedy boxes: beautiful people, aspirational lifestyles, characters who have difficulty with intimacy and commitment, family entanglements, mishaps with animals, pairings off at the end. It's my basis for comparison when I find "Failure to Launch" to be a bad movie. In the old days romantic comedies were written by "serious" writers, romantic comedies won Oscars, they didn't have to choose between being entertaining and being deep and meaningful. Romantic comedy is the genre with the most importance in our own lives, and Hollywood lets us down badly when hacks and marketeers write the scripts and stars phone in their performances.

Just a couple of things that I can put my finger on. If someone like me with no scriptwriting talent was writing this movie, and I wanted to show that even though the leading man looks like a bit of a playboy, he has the potential to be a committed and caring husband and father, I might think of having him mentor a cute kid and taking him to baseball games and stuff, and that would have comic potential because when the character needed to be told certain things, I could have the kid saying it and it would be precocious and funny and cute. But I also have to have something holding the character back from intimacy, so the last woman he was in love with died tragically, it's so romantic, it explains everything so neatly, and it turns what looks like a negative into a positive. Really, this is how bad the film is. You can make a million good romantic comedies out of answering these questions in believable and non-clichéd ways, and that's where comedy and character quirks should come from, not pasted on top in animal antics episodes. Somewhere in Hollywood there are writers who can do a better job than this, they just didn't bother hiring them for this movie.


Although I like the actors in this movie, I found it to be boring. I chuckled a few times but they were few and far between. The previews made this movie look like a funny romantic comedy but I found myself nodding off toward the end.

The movie does not fit as a romantic comedy. The chemistry between the main characters is lacking and as far as the comedy goes...well there wasn't much. So if you are looking for a romantic comedy, I say look elsewhere. If you want a movie you can watch and step away from every now and then while doing your chores or other errands, this is the one to do it with.


It's always on buses, planes and other modes of transportation where I end up watching movies like this one. For some reason though, I didn't plug my iPod back in and do something more meaningful, like stare blankly out my window and try to make animals out of the clouds in the sky on my way to New Hampshire. No, I watched the whole movie from start to finish, somehow believing that it had to get better as the movie went along.

To my chagrin, it did the opposite.

Anyway, the film starts out a serviceable enough romantic comedy. The premise isn't too contrived: he is a slacker guy who doesn't move out of his house because of some issues in his past. She is a girl that dates guys (for money) to help them get over whatever issues they have that prevents them from leaving their parents' homes (because of issues she has in the past). Okay, so it is contrived. But I tried to see past the way-too-obvious setup to find some golden performances. By... nobody. In fact, all the characters are unidimensional and even the leading characters' "depth" has the subtlety of a nuclear warhead.

But that's the not actors fault, Matthew McConaughey of the mindblowing dragon film Reign of Fire and the unforgettable romantic comedy The Wedding Planner does an incredible job at playing Tripp, the aforementioned two dimensional character. In fact, he does such a good job that I really did think that Tripp was made of cardboard and that his emotions were indeed drawn onto his face with a magic marker. And what can be said of Sarah Jessica Parker? She's really come a long way from playing Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and the City. Her character is so different from her previous character that it was a 360 degree change! Of course, adding that the direction is outstanding like the classic Western martial arts comedy Shanghai Noon, I just couldn't take my eyes off the screen. Because I think someone pulled them from my sockets and placed them there.

Really though, I might be making this film sound like just about every contrived uninventive uninspiring star vehicle excuse of a romantic comedy that you've ever seen, but it's got more! It's got vicious animal attacks that makes FOX's When Animals Attack! seem like, well, a documentary! Honestly, the inclusion of these scenes only serves to create a phenomenal incongruity in the film, making the "oh-so-real-life" premise seem that much more believable. Because chipmunks, dolphins and vegetarian lizards really do bite people who don't leave their parents' homes.

What other accolades shall I place upon this golden shining example of a film? It almost made me hate myself for watching the whole thing. Oh, actually, I think it did. It takes a special movie to cause that reaction. Why, oh why, do I allow myself to get trapped on buses and planes and watch this madness? Thankfully, the trip back had a showing of 12 Angry Men that, in combination with the wonderful meals provided to me by my gracious hosts in New Hampshire, helped to calm the ire that Failure to Launch sparked inside me.

Come to think of it, "Failure to Launch" is a very apt title for this movie. Recommended? No. Watch it for fun? No. Honestly, though, you might find it passable entertainment if you're bored and locked in solitary confinement and the only other thing you can look at is a disturbing polaroid photo one One-Toothed Bill. Me? I'll just take to staring at the wall this time. 4/10.


My friend saw this a few months before I did, and warned me that it wasn't very good. I decided to check it out for myself. She was right. It wasn't that funny.

I found myself roaring at only two scenes throughout the whole film. And the only parts that I did laugh along with, were only in the scenes with Zooey Deschanel. She was the real gem of the film, and quite frankly the only person in the film, who really played her part well. Although, I will say that I was impressed and quite pleased with Bradley Cooper's performance as well.

Sarah Jessica Parker is too old to be playing these roles. Maybe her character was the same age as she is in real life...she just came across on screen as not the right age. Matthew McConaughey, although usually a very good actor, I found at least his role, to be very numb, and not of much use. It was a very bland character, and although he certainly is a lot of eye candy, the role may have been better suited to a different actor.

The parts that were funny, were hysterical. But, be forewarned, there are some very, very stupid scenes, almost all including animals. It was very apparent that these scenes were meant to be funny...but they just weren't at all. They ended up being stupid and really of no use to the audience.

I have seen better films. The idea behind it was very funny, and it was a well directed film, however most of it, left me shaking my head, "no".

But, if you like light romantic comedies that are dumb, and really of no particular point...give it a try. It's mindless and quite light.


I have seen this movie before. Except S.J. Parker and some other scenes it's How to loose a guy in 10 days reloaded. Same scenes, same plot, boring...come one guys, can't you made something original?

And what's with those poor animals?

The scene with the bird was in There's something about Mary. If i split all the scenes , i will made something like Scary Movie. I have seen this movie before. Except S.J. Parker and some other scenes it's How to loose a guy in 10 days reloaded. Same scenes, same plot, boring...come one guys, can't you made something original?

And what's with those poor animals?

The scene with the bird was in There's something about Mary. If i split all the scenes , i will made something like Scary Movie. I have seen this movie before. Except S.J. Parker and some other scenes it's How to loose a guy in 10 days reloaded. Same scenes, same plot, boring...come one guys, can't you made something original?

And what's with those poor animals?

The scene with the bird was in There's something about Mary. If i split all the scenes , i will made something like Scary Movie.


I watched this and was hoping for at least a few good scenes of humor, but was sadly disappointed. They did have a few short clips in the movie of some funny scenes, but very short brief stints of humor added in here or there. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't looking for this to be just a pure comedy movie. But there are about 3, maybe 4 funny scenes, the rest, even the scenes that are supposed to be the romantic scenes, drag on forever and ever. So if you have a chance to see this movie, pass unless you're renting it in the $3 rental section. It just took forever to get through watching and not really bad acting, just - well it took forever to get through the movie. lol But I suppose if you're a big fan of Aniston or McConaghy, yeah I don't know how to spell his damn name, lol, then go ahead and see this. But if you're just looking for a romantic comedy, definitely skip this slow one and find something, anything, better. Bottom-line - funny scene here or there, but seriously drowned out and drowned over by the slow-moving pace of the film. But that's just me.


"Failure to Launch" could have been a really fun and offbeat romantic comedy, but it is instead a sub-par and obnoxious one. The premise of "Failure" is interesting enough. Basically, the film is about Tripp (Matthew McConaughey), a man who still lives with his parents as an adult. Paula, played by Sarah Jessica Parker, is a specialist in getting men to move out of their parents's homes. Of course, Tripp's parents, played by Kathy Bates and Terry Bradshaw, hire Paula to get Tripp out. This a decent premise, but the film fails to launch. McConaughey was the wrong choice for Tripp. I couldn't stand his over-the-top accent, and I didn't believe for one second that he was the kind of guy who would be living at his parents's house into his thirties. In addition, he's not a very nice guy, and I didn't feel a lick of sympathy or liking for him or his character during the film. Also, he keeps being bitten by wild animals, which is supposed to be funny but is actually strange and stupid. It takes away any reality from the film.

Parker tries hard to play Paula as a misunderstood woman, but comes off as a manipulative witch. I didn't like either Tripp or Paula, and the film would have been much better had they gotten what they deserved in the end: a couple of punches in the face. Kathy Bates did nothing for the film, as usual, simply acting like any over-bearing and spoiling mother would. Terry Bradshaw was also awful, actually revealing his disgusting rear end at one point in the film. The only good performance in the film was Zooey Deschanel as Paula's room-mate. She does not try to be a phony like the rest of the characters, and I enjoyed the scenes where she tried to kill the mockingbird that kept on chirping outside of her window. The scenes with Zooey were the only funny moments in the film.

Still, I can't dignify giving "Failure"a one out of ten because it does show sparks of originality and shows some potential at times. Still, it's not a good movie.

4/10


Zero chemistry. Almost zero story. And SJP has the acting chops of Naomi Campbell -- "Can you see my chest better from this angle, or that one? So many choices..." Not worth a rental. Garry Marshall normally makes pretty good if overly sweet movies. I guess the bad casting of the female lead is partly to blame, but other characters have little going for them as well.

Matthew can't save this one. Run for the hills! (Gave it 2* instead of 1* because I laughed accidentally once.)

Time for more lines of text. This will surely make my comment better.

Wait, I have a better idea. Why don't I bribe the comment engine. Inserting stolen Chuck E Cheese tokens now.


"D.E.B.S." is the interesting title of a film which just doesn't seem to know what audience it's trying to shoot for. (In case you were wondering, "D.E.B.S." is an acronym for "Discipline Energy Beauty Strength") The film is definitely going to be a 'head turner' not because it stars some very attractive actresses, but because of the 'love-story' that sprouts between two of the lead female characters. Yes, you read right, two of the female characters turn out to be lesbians.

Now, there's nothing wrong with lesbianism, but it seems as if it's a very touchy subject that not too many people will understand, especially if they're a bit more on the conservative side.

Nonetheless, that part of the movie is beside the point. It's a comedy that tries it's best to spoof the typical spy/action/adventure/thriller genre by adding it's own humorous twists to it.

There were some moments where I actually laughed a little bit, but the moments where I did laugh were due to some of the audience members saying funny things (No, the movie did not make me laugh in the least bit). Overall, the movie left a lot to be desired in terms of storyline. The humor of the movie was not even along the lines of quality similar to a 'Naked Gun' or 'Airplane', but some sort of generic type of humor which tries too hard to please many audiences.

The one thing that did surprise me were the special effects. There were some pretty interesting visuals that caught my attention, especially for being kind of original. (Most notably being The "force field" and "laser trip wires" around the D.E.B.S.' house/dorm and the "hologram" technology that the Directors of the D.E.B.S. use frequently throughout the film) Will the male viewers like this film? Yes, because there are some very attractive 'eye candy' actresses starring in it, some of whom also end up locking lips at several points (I won't spoil that part for you). But, that's where it's going to stop for most male movie-goers.

Will the female viewers like this film? Yes, not only because there are many humorous references that only females would truly understand (I'll be honest, I didn't laugh at some of the 'jokes' because they were probably intended for the female viewers. I'm a male.), but because there's a certain amount of plot that only female viewers can really latch on to.

Genders aside, will the distinguished movie-goer like this film? NOT A CHANCE. Think of this film as a type of "Spy Kids" movie, but only aimed at the 16-30 audience base. This is also a film that most parents should NOT let their younger children watch, due to the various adult themes. (Note for parents: You think it's difficult to explain "The Birds & The Bees" to your young ones? Try explaining the idea of homosexuality to your youngsters.) I highly doubt that this movie will make anything close to $20 Million, given the fact that it has a touchy subject that most of the conservative folks will try to bash upon. Even if it didn't have that 'shocking twist' (lesbianism), this movie would STILL be a garbage-throw away-not-even-average film. (I will give it this much though; At least it's not a film directed by Uwe Boll. *UGH*) I'm glad I didn't have to pay to see this movie. (Free preview tickets rule!) I would have felt so ripped off if I did pay. Then again, I probably wouldn't have even wanted to see this movie if I did have to pay. This film certainly wasn't on my "Must See" list for 2005, that's for sure.


There are good movies, and there are bad movies. Then there are movies that are so bad, it is as though Satan himself took a dump inside your DVD player. "D.E.B.S." makes those from the third category look like "Casablanca." Good movies can never last long enough; bad movies are never short enough. Had "D.E.B.S." been thirty seconds long, it would have been too long.

The premise starts out easily enough: certain questions on the SAT are geared to test a student's qualifications for espionage. Should a student score high enough on these questions, she is invited to become one of the D.E.B.S., an elite team of spy-soldiers lodged deep inside the inner workings of the U.S. government. Supposedly, these questions determine how well the student (apparently only females qualify for D.E.B.S. because guys don't look nearly as good in the mandatory "Catholic schoolgirl" uniform) can lie, though it isn't exactly clear how a seemingly innocent test question can determine how well a person can lie.

The movie follows four D.E.B.S. (the movie never really clarifies if the "S" is part of the acronym or if it is to distinguish pluralism): Max, the on-edge African-American girl and squad leader; Amy, the blonde who got a perfect score on the secret portion of the SAT; Janet, the doofus of the group; and Dominique, who you know is French because she is a sex addict, smokes non-stop, and speaks with an accent so obvious that it can almost visible. The four are in hot pursuit of Lucy Diamond, the international super-villain on whom Amy is, coincidentally enough, writing a thesis. Apparently no one has ever fought Diamond and lived, yet Amy conveniently manages to do just that within the first half-hour of the movie. This sets up the romantic interest in the story: Diamond is a lesbian and is infatuated with Amy. It is not long after that Amy becomes attracted to Lucy, but Amy is a "cop" and Lucy is the "villain"! What to do?

The whole movie plays out like a Saturday morning teen sitcom, one wherein all the characters are beautiful and somehow manage to outsmart the bumbling grown-ups. The plot is paper-thin, the action ends before it starts, and the humor is as bland as reheated oatmeal.

The only audience that this movie could possibly be targeting is twelve- to fourteen-year-old boys. Anyone older than that would be offended by the dialog and story line; anyone younger than that would not understand the sexual overtones to the movie. The only thing worth recommending about this movie is the fact that you do get to see some attractive girls in schoolgirl uniforms, but once any enjoyment from that passes and an unsettling feeling of dirtiness settles over you, you'll still have 90+ minutes left.


I was able to only stomach about half an hour of this film before common sense got the best of me and made me press the "Stop" button.

It seems the producers had plenty of money to throw at this project, just look at the girls they cast in the various lead roles, but all this ends up being is like a sex-charged female-focused adult version of Spy Kids! The gadgets are pitiful, the script is shocking and the overall production makes even the regular sci-fi series look like they spent a mint on them in comparison.

Even the attempts of the writers to take the focus off the storyline and replace it with vacuous sexual tension and, as I mentioned, lesbianism is terrible. Not credible in any way shape or form and does nothing for the storyline.

I'm not going to tell you to save your money and spend it elsewhere - money can be replaced. Instead I will appeal to you to save yourself wasting the time to even give this film a viewing - you can never get that 30 minutes back!


This film D.E.B.S. (as seen at Cinevegas 2004) is basically a big re-hash of Charlie's Angels 2. The villain girl is even a direct copy of Demi Moore's character, and of course is beautiful enough to be the only appealing thing about this ham-fisted dud besides a mail-in cameo from Michael Clarke Duncan and some flashy visual effects.

This film just tries too hard to be silly and the humor is far too forced to laugh at. None of the leading ladies are remotely appealing, especially the lead who doesn't seem to have any personality and isn't even all that good-looking either. The film however attempts to win over male audiences by exploitively dressing its crime-fighting heroines in skimpy Catholic school girl uniforms, but is so overtly uberfeminist and estrogen-charged that it not only alienates but probably offends a great deal of its target audience. Girls have poor role-models in the characters, all of whom are one-dimensional sex-obsessed airheads with little or no ability to reason, plan, or think outside themselves. The only one who seems to think clearly is the headmistress, who suffers a sudden lapse of judgement toward the ending, though it should be noted that by this point in the film the filmmaking and scriptwriting have devolved to the point of total nonsense.

While the attempt is amiable - an action film by women and for women, it's nothing but a mockery of what it aspires to be, and unfortunately takes women's representation in film two steps back for every step forward.


The film is an awful mess.

The film's "plot" (if you can call it a plot) is merely a derivative for a rather predictable and stale girl-on-girl love story. The plot at best see's the girls trying to stop a world famous thief, but that plot is quickly dropped in favour of a supposed romance story featuring the no.1 good guy and the said girl thief.

Lucy the title character is invited by the villain of the plot to spend a night at her residence. What follows is a series of misunderstandings where the D.E.B.S. believe their lead spy has been captured and one of the D.E.B.S. agents making a weak attempt at covering up the truth of the affair.

When you consider that this constitutes the marrow of the film, it is quite easy then to understand how awful the movie is.

Why lead us on in to thinking we are watching a spy spoof and then deliver us a weak, campy movie (it doesn't even do campy well) about some teen romance?

It's not funny (even though it's supposed to be a spy spoof), it has little story, and the "romance" the movie hinges on, is contrived nonsense.


I can't spoil this film by giving away the plot. There is none. This was the most inept film to come along in a while, and there are plenty to choose from. Not a movie for young girls, no role models here, only 4 young ladies with guns, violence, lesbians, smoking, inane dialog and so bad it must be seen to be believed. You can not connect with any of these ladies and one has to wonder how a film so bad could ever get made! On second thought, don't see it. You'd be wasting your time and money. Maybe if it pops up on cable or satellite take a look, if you can stand it. Of all the projects that are shelved each year in Hollywood why something like this was given the green light is beyond me. There are plenty of good stories waiting to be told, many good directors waiting for their chance. Even Roger Corman couldn't make a film this bad with a 3 day shooting schedule and $25,000 - or less.


If you're going to make a "spoof" movie at least try to come up with a decent plot, one that does not completely insult the audience's intelligence! There are so many times in watching this that you are expected to suspend your disbelief that it is ridiculous. I didn't find one line in this movie funny or even "cute." With the exception of the Lucy and Amy characters, I have seen better acting on Gilligan's Island. I think people who say they like this movie probably think it is great only because it throws in a lesbian relationship as the core of its theme. That's not enough to save this stinker! This is close to the worst movie I have ever seen, but it is beaten out by Protocol and The Man who Fell to Earth, so it gets a 2 from me instead of a 1.


There is nothing clever, good, or redeeming about this film. Parody or not, independent film-making or not, it just fails miserably on all levels. Much like every other film playing at multiplexes nowadays, it just has to have a pop song in each scene (they even dig through the '80s a bit, since teens these days act like they know what '80s culture was like), idiotic postmodern outfits like girls wearing loose-fitting ties over tank tops (wow, how sexy), and of course the obligatory lesbian element that has to permeate everything aimed at the young demographic. Last but not least, they excavate the tar pits with a multi-ethnic cast since you simply have to do that nowadays to show false camaraderie between people that given the chance would otherwise destroy each other. Avoid this trend-propagating, falsehood-edifying dreck as best you can. There's always a Disney film around to provide more intellectual stimulation.


This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen (the first 20 min of). When the movie started I thought "well OK this it just one of those teenage comedy flicks with sexy teenage babes in" so an OK way to waste some time. After the first 10 minutes I was like "well OK they just need to get some action started and then the movie will be worth watching" and then after 15 the first action scene came, and what a load of crap that was. There ware no close-ups of the sexy babes shooting big guns, half of the time the action was stopped because someone had to say something stupid and the whole thing was full of errors and stupid crap. So after seeing the first action scene (app. 20 into the movie) I ripped out the DVD and almost through it in the trash can.

To anyone considering this movie "DON'T RENT IT AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NEVER EVEN THINK ABOUT BUYING IT"


In 1985, 'Jim'll Fix It' made one boy's dream come true by giving him the chance to review a movie Barry Norman-style. The movie he saw was the recently released 'Morons From Outer Space'. He loved it. When I went to see it at my local cinema, I found the place was packed with kids.

'Morons' was the big screen debut of Mel Smith and Griff Rhys Jones, following their successes in both 'Not The Nine O'Clock News' and 'Alas Smith & Jones'. Lots of television comedians have made chumps of themselves making the transition to the big screen; the year before this came out, Kenny Everett starred in the vile 'Bloodbath At The House Of Death' and more recently, Horne and Corden's 'Lesbian Vampire Killers' failed to set the world on fire.

Here Smith and Jones were unable to blame the writers - they were the writers. Smith plays 'Bernard', one of four aliens from the planet Blob enjoying a holiday in a spaceship that resembles a caravan, when an accident sees them crash on the M1. Bernard, who was in space at the time, finds his way to Earth, and tries to track down his friends. Usually in sci-fi movies, aliens are depicted as being super-intelligent, but here its the other way round. The Blob people are idiots, pure and simple. With the help of a manager named Graham Sweetley ( Jones ) they go on to become celebrities.

Aside from penning a script lacking in humour, the other major mistake Mel and Griff made was keeping their characters apart for much of the movie. Anyone who saw 'Alas' will tell you they worked best when bouncing their humour off each other.

'Aufpet''s Jimmy Nail raises a few chuckles as one of the aliens. When the military blows the door off the spaceship, Nail's road rage-style outrage is amusing.

Mike Hodges, the director, was responsible for the Michael Caine classic 'Get Carter', so what he was doing here is anyone's guess. He is completely out of his depth. It is equally surprising to find the great Verity Lambert credited as 'Executive Producer'.

There are a couple of bright spots - Bernard's encounter with a skeletal space-pilot and the 'Close Encounters' spoof where Andre Marianne's French scientist tries to communicate with the aliens by playing 'The Entertainer' on a Wurlitzer but overall the film has little to recommend it. It is basically a two-minute sketch stretched well beyond its limits. When Dinsdale Landen's character burst into song I nearly walked out. The kids I saw it with seemed to enjoy it though.

For their next picture 'Wilt' ( 1989 ), Mel and Griff sensibly hired Andrew Marshall and David Renwick to adapt a Tom Sharpe novel. It corrected every fault critics found in 'Morons'.

Viewed now one can draw parallels between the Blob people's celebrity status and that of reality show contestants. So yes Mel and Griff were ahead of their time in that respect.

I do not hate 'Morons' but considering the talent involved in its making, it should have been far better.


You know, I usually have respect for British comedy such as Monty Python or for British comedy/sci-fi, such as Doctor Who, Red Dwarf or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I list those because I want to establish a standard for good.

This movie didn't have a single laugh in it. Essentially, a spaceship full of slackers crash lands their space ship (which oddly enough, resembles a trailer-home on the inside) in the UK, and an international team of British and bad American stereotypes proceeds to examine them. Hill Street Blues' James B. Sikking plays a CIA officer who delights in torturing the aliens. The aliens escape with the help of a friendly reporter, who turns them into rock stars.

Meanwhile, their captain is stranded in space, and is dropped off in Arizona by a gender confused alien. He is confined to a mental institution (bad parody of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" ensue) before catching up with his rock-star comrades in NYC. A spaceship reminiscent of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" arrives and takes them home.

The American scenes are poorly done because it is fairly obvious that the producers have never been to America. (The sign on the diner that reads "Chile" being the most glaring example. "Chili" is food, "Chile" is a country.) The Americans are nothing but bad stereotypes, and in many cases, are more alien than the British accented aliens.

It's essentially a one-joke movie. The aliens are dumb. The Earth people are dumb. The problem is that they aren't funny.


It's not often that you see a film that is pure, unmitigated crap. This is one of them. (Hell, even the 2/10 rating is generous)

The humour used is film is unspeakably infantile. Some of if, though, is very much of its time. There are some sly digs at the cult of celebrity and Britain in the 1980s.

The only thing in this film that did it for me was Mel Smith's slightly sympathetic role as the unfortunate alien, Bernard. While we're on the subject, I don't even know why Smith, and his co-star, Griff Rhys-Jones ever bothered making this piece of trash in the first place!!!

One major turn-off for me was the rather gaudy, tacky, cheaply-made look of the film. In fact, the whole thing looks rather false and plastic!!

Compared to "Morons From Outer Space", director Mike Hodges' previous effort of the decade, "Flash Gordon" look like a Bafta award-winning masterpiece.

If you've got nothing else better to do, I really would NOT recommend renting this film out!!


A comedy should make you laugh this fails miserably,i didnt laugh once.yet it has a great supporting cast,but the script wastes the talent involved.yet another British flop.a movie then about morons and only morons will enjoy this tedious turkey.1 out of 10


An action-packed comedy that's neither very thrilling nor funny. This sophomoric romp follows hitman Mark Whalberg through a kidnapping scheme that gets him into big trouble. I guess the moral is plain and simple: killing is better than abduction. There are a few genuine laughs, but not enough to balance out the moments of utter frustration as testosterone-fueled characters strut about uttering self-important bull. Antonio Sobato Jrs' (very underused) body is worth the price of admission.


Man. Bad, just bad. I can remember the trailer for this movie. A well editted glimpse, with all the explosoions, and feminine body outlines necesary to look like another good kill people and then have sex movie (knock 'em all you like people dig james bond syndrome). All with the back drop of Wycleff Jean's Stayin Alive remix.....got you real excited.

Then I saw the movie. I submit that it was written by a 14 year old. Dialogue stupid enough to make you feel ashamed at the thought someone might witness you watching the film. Action scene's with no real thrill, pathetic little attempts at comic relief. And let's not forget, suggestively stroking a frozen chicken........"Worst episode ever"


What can I say, this is by far the worst movie ever, even worse than "Battlefield Earth". The plot and acting are horrible and even the jokes are stupid. Everyone in the world should see this movie so that they would know how bad it is.


I have visited IMDB many times for the past few years, actually almost daily. However, I never bothered signing up to give reviews until I saw The Big Hit come on TV a couple of days ago. It reminded of that dreadful day four years ago when I walked into Hollywood Theater hoping to see an entertaining movie. Without high expectations, I could have never guessed what I was in for. I still have nightmares from having to sit through that horrible movie. I cringe when I see those actors in their most recent disastrous. Do not rent this movie, if it comes on TV, change the channel. Protect yourself and loved ones from sitting through it. It is by far the number one worst movie I've ever seen, and I've seen some horrible ones. I feel better for writing this review, that ghost of watching The Big Hit may finally leave me alone after four grueling years. Ok, I may exaggerate a little, but it is a very very very bad movie either way. Don't watch it.


Well it has the John Woo flair with the explosions and the classic dual Berettas but this mish-mash of a comedy/action really falls flat when it's trying to be silly. It's sort of like some screwed up manifestation of a Tarantino-flick. I don't know. It might have tried to parody hit man movies in general with the cheesy dialogue and out-of-the-blue romances between overly-cliched characters. However, all this really produces is an unfunny bore-inducing dribble that should have been shelved from the start.


2 hours of my life that I will never get back. All I have to ask is why? Why would anyone ever direct such a bad, bad movie. I think I would rather watch Orca for 72 hours then watch this again. I will steal the souls of whoever made this movie.


This was, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting is atrocious all around, the stunts and action sequences are quite laughable, and the plot is ridiculous. I almost felt bad for Lou Diamond Phillips. Is this the only kind of role he can get? I expected the film to be at least watchable, but the film lost me within five minutes when the Wahlberg character's girlfriend walks into his apartment, eyes a dismembered body, and says, "He's kinda cute!"

1 out of 10. Ugh!


Kirk Wong's "The Big Hit" of 1998 has a funny premise - a professional killer who happens to be the friendliest guy one could imagine. And it is a funny film occasionally, but it also annoys with its constant attempt of being the hippest movie ever made, and partly seems like an overlong rap-video, which is more than tiring after a while. There are some hilarious sequences, but, unfortunately, the annoying ones overwhelm.

Melvin Smiley (Mark Wahlberg)is a professional assassin. And he is a really, really nice guy. Actually, he is such a nice guy that he is just being used by his two smoking hot girlfriends (played by Christina Applegate and Lela Rochon), and most of his hit-men buddies also hoodwink him whenever they can...

...These hit-men friends are played by Lou Diamond Phillips, Bookeem Woodbine and Antonio Sobato Jr., and although I wouldn't necessarily say that any of their performances sucked big time, they are not really worth mentioning either, and neither is the performance of Wahlberg himself. OK, Lou Diamond Phillips is quite funny at times, but as often as his character is funny, he is also annoying, simply because he is too exaggerated and stereotypical. Christina Applegate and Lela Rochon make a good looking female supporting cast, one of the few truly good performances however, is delivered by the beautiful China Chow, who plays the daughter of a rich Japanese businessman in the female lead. The supporting cast includes Elliot Gould, who, not surprisingly, delivers the best performance in the film, and Avery Brooks, who also fits in quite well as the hit-men's boss.

"The Big Hit" is an endurable time-waster if you really have nothing better to do, but over-all the attempts of being the 'cooooolest' film that ever hit the screen are just too annoying to really have a good time. This film was produced by cult director John Woo. John Woo was a brilliant filmmaker in his Hong Kong days, with great titles such as "A Better Tomorrow", "The Killer" or "Bullet In The Head", but at the latest since after the passable "Face/Off", his name is connected with blockbusters that barely reach mediocrity, such as "The Big Hit". What a pity.


As an actor Sidney does pull off some funny moments here and there, the problem is that he's not much of a director as he showed over and over again as he buried his career by turning into lazy director from fantastic actor. Cosby and he have some chemistry and there is an okay set up for a movie then just no movie.

Flip Wilson shows up to do an unfunny version of his preacher man, not once but twice in the film. Richard Pryor is funny in a small part.

Scenes just go on forever and as good as Sidney is at some of his own comedy Belefonte needs to be put in a Troama movie with comedy acting like this, and after the half way point it practically becomes Belefonte's movie as his overacted and underfunny mugging pushes Cosby and Poitier out of the way and the movie goes into the toilet. Bad rear projection would be antic chase scene lower the bar again as it wraps up with some sorta Butch and Sundance high fall non gag with dummies.

Really lousy by the time it's over. 70's fashion and garishness top off the unpleasant time.


IRENE DUNNE, for some strange reason, is called "Buckshot" by her cowboy husband FRED MacMURRAY. That alone is supposed to be funny and endearing. Not.

Too bad that after the smash success of films like LIFE WITH FATHER, Irene Dunne was so desperate for good parts that she agreed to settle for a film like this--tedious, predictable, banal sort of comedy that struggles manfully to be funny by putting her through some slapstick paces that are about as funny as a stubbed toe.

Occasionally there's a lull in the proceedings that gives Dunne and MacMurray a chance to remind us that they're still the same old likable stars. But then the script takes over again and forces them to play a series of unlikely scenes.

For good measure, they have two obnoxious girls (played by a plain looking Natalie Wood who clearly did have an awkward stage, and Gigi Perreau). They add nothing to the charm or situations which strain for laughs. One of the comedic highlights is supposedly when Dunne shoots a neighbor's pet bull. You get my drift.

You can skip this one. Even the presence of two top-flight stars can't save it from being the most inappropriately titled comedy of the decade.


Having seen the lovely Irene Dunne perform many years ago in her better known movie "The Awful Truth" (1937), I looked with great expectations forward to watching my recently acquired DVD "Never a Dull Moment".

However, I soon realized the awful truth that this movie was much below par to any previous movie she has ever starred in. Irene Dunne who was 52 years old at the time and approaching the end of her movie career was poorly matched with Fred MacMurray who was 10 years her junior, which might also explain perhaps the lack of chemistry between the two stars.

The script writing is very poor and lacking of any clever and witty dialog for both of them to work on. In my opinion they could have made the courtship a bit more interesting with some romantic interludes included, instead what we see are a few minutes of the bottom half of legs shoveling through hallways; very unimaginative and cheaply done, but I suppose the priority might have been to get them in a hurry out into the rural country side for all the silly slapstick action.

Irene Dunne also sings in this movie but as much as I love and admire Irene for having been a great actress, singing was definitely not one of her strongest attributes and especially the first number is quite embarrassing; it would have been better if a professional singer had dubbed her voice. It is also made quite obvious that the fast horse riding and being thrown of the horse was done by a stunt person.

All in all a big disappointment, mainly due to bad directing and bad script writing and a sad end to what has otherwise been a great acting career for Irene Dunne, however this movie might appeal to children 8 to 14 on a rainy Sunday afternoon, mainly for the silly slapstick humor and uncomplicated story line which might be more appealing to this age group


This movie is about aging, loving, losing, and coming to terms with the world as a place of change and violence. However, it is only "about" these things and no more.

Being a "message" movie with no message, it fails to convince on every level. The protagonist's single dimension is his revisiting the city of his childhood only to be shocked by how different it is (who knew that Columbia is a violent place?) His pseudo-existentialist musings fall all over the map (humanist, misanthropic, rebellious, disillusioned) and convince his young lover even less than the audience. The young lover in question is spared the luxury of being even one-dimensional: he's a scripted appendix to the gun in his belt and the stereo blasting "rock" music (standing in for America's cultural hegemony?) The homosexual relationship between the two characters is completely unnecessary and artificial; it seems thrown in to raise the controversy factor but lacks in chemistry and credibility (why are they together - if it's only for the sex, where is the sex?) It only serves the purpose of bringing about the solitary plot twist in the narrative (namely, the second lover), which seems like a desperate attempt to save the movie out of nowhere.

The book, upon which the movie is based, has some Socratic undercurrent; the movie "cleverly" translates it into dogmatism (with a hammer over your head) rather than irony (if any questions are raised by Fernando, they just hover in the vacuum of the director's confused efforts to figure out where his movie is going.) See instead 'Amores perros' or 'Ratas, ratones, rateros' or read Fernando Vallejo's book.


Anurag Kashyap’s critically acclaimed ‘Black Friday’, raised my expectations from No Smoking, expecting it to be a decent drama carrying a strong message against smoking. But, all of the pointless nonsense hurled at you scene after scene in the name of creativity actually drives you beyond the threshold of tolerance. For the eternal length of this apology of a film, cutie Ayesha Takia was the only possible distraction.

K, yes you read it right, it’s a single alphabet name (John Abraham) is a successful, self-obsessed man who just can’t seem to live life without lighting up a cigarette. Much to the chagrin of his wife who also doubles up as his secret secretary, Anjali (Takia) who tries to rid him off the habit, the obsession never seems to leave K. Enter, his friends who have quit the butt, introduce him to a certain ‘Prayogshala’ with guaranteed results.

Well, does our hero budge? Not until his wife leaves him compelling K to visit the ‘Prayogshala’ in run down metal shacks led by Shri Shri Prakash Guru Ghantal Baba Bangali Sealdah Wale (Paresh Rawal) who seems to wield magical influence on his subjects which sometimes borderline barbarism. Then, there is something called the ‘Cigarette Shastra’ that the subject is supposed to read, and then sign a contract!

Baba’s contract comes with no escape! Offenders are magically tracked even if they were to escape to Africa or at times confined in Siberia! Absurdities don’t just end there. The ‘Prayogshala’ has a place for harvested souls, a call centre of burqua clad women, ways to chop fingers off offenders who touch cigarettes again. It’s just another thing that they manage to reattach them too, when they get a new victim to sign up for the rehab.

Probably, this movie in all its weirdness may make sense to self styled intellectuals, but for those looking for some semblance of sense, just Keep Out! Maybe the movie had noble intentions to ward people from smoke. Well, for the headache you get after watching this, you may actually want to puff off a whole packet. The non-smoker too may want to try out the stuff, if not for anything but to disapprove the stuff the Baba does!


I expected a lot from Anurag Kashyap, as he was famous for being real and showing reality. But after watching the movie i didn't understand a single thing. What is the content of he movie. What message he wants to give ? I was completely lost. It was difficult to believe that the director of BLACK Friday made NO SMOKING. I saw 12- 18 people leaving the movie halfway. The only good hing about the movie was Ranvir Shorey who did brilliant job. It was a joy to watch Paresh Rawal not making a fool of himself. But his performance lacked a punch that the character demanded. And as you may have gathered, I still have no clue what the movie was about. And quite frankly, I don't want to know.You try so hard to understand what NO SMOKING tries to say, but the film is like one big puzzle that refuses to get solved.


Do not, I repeat DO NOT watch this movie if you value your sanity. I sat through almost 3 hours of this movie and could not get a single clue about what the whole movie about. I spent a night analyzing the movie, racking my brain until I almost drove myself insane. The theater was almost empty on a Sunday night which was its third day of release. I think that more than accentuates the failure of the movie. The director did a very bad job of porting a Stephen King's novel for Bollywood. At the end of the movie I was checking to see If I was the only one disappointed. People shaking their heads and joking about how bad the movie was reassured me. No one got the movie. And for the record I live in one of the posh areas of the city. If people like these are so clueless what happens to the masses?


During his early career Fabian had some extraordinary luck to get to work with such screen immortals as Bing Crosby, John Wayne, Stewart Granger and James Stewart in between turning out fluff for the teenage market. As his teen idols had passed him by, Fabian must have wondered where those other guys were and how he could get into another film with any one of them while doing Maryjane.

The plot here's been done a gazillion times before for the drive-in trade. Fabian's a new art teacher assigned to the small town high school where a clique of 'cool kids' rule the school. The cool kids are headed by rich and spoiled Kevin Coughlin who can always get a good supply of marijuana which of course is Spanish for Maryjane and its got a lot of other nicknames as well.

Fabian's of a different generation than the older teachers and he admits to actually trying the stuff once. That gets him down as marked man for law enforcement. But it doesn't score him any points with Coughlin and company.

Fabian's got other problems as well, he's trying real hard to romance another teacher, Diane McBain, but she turns frigid on him. And he's trying hard to help young Michael Marotta who wants so desperately to fit in with Coughlin's bunch.

If you've seen these teen drive-in dramas before you know pretty much how it will all end. Except for McBain, she's a bit of a shocker, especially considering the times. Let's just say that this woman has some real issues.

Maryjane did not revive Fabian's career in Hollywood, when good teen idols are passé, they usually stay passé. What he wouldn't have given for another film with Jimmy Stewart right about then.


Fabian looks an awful lot like Michael J Fox.

The film was good and it made you realize how much times have changed. Attitudes about marijuana are not nearly as close minded as they were back then. A teacher admits to smoking pot once in his life and he gets called a "dope fiend" by the chief of police. The principal and the coach won't even talk to this man in the hallway anymore because he admitted this. They hold secret meetings about spying on students to catch the dope dealers. Nowadays, schools could care less if a kid or a teacher has smoked pot. Just as long as it isn't interfering with their work, it's ok.

I thought Fabian's character was a little over the top. He had too many things going on. One minute he's an art critic who admits to smoking pot, the next he's driving full speed out to meet some people at a drug deal to save a temper-prone, "sensitive" kid's life. And then he really pushes his luck with the hot lady teacher on a blanket by the ocean by literally forcing her to go on a date with him where he makes his moves way too fast. Then when she bails him out of jail, he doesn't dwell on the fact that she spit out $5000 for him, a guy she doesn't even want to talk to..? In the meantime, his voice remains calm while he keeps this very intense look on his face. This guy is all over the place and it doesn't make sense to me.

I did like the leader of the pot club, however. At first he seemed too much of a clean cut, white, dorky football star to be the drug dealer he was, but as the movie went on, it became more apparent why this "disguise" made sense. He really was a rebellious, pot smokin' jerk, he just didn't wear the costume. That would be too obvious and he was smarter than that.

The outcast, teen angsty kid did a good job acting like an idiot. He even had that idiot look in his eye like he is not taking in anything you are saying. When he gets wasted, he really plays the part well!

All in all, the movie is worth watching if you can find it. There are good twists and good characters in this film. Fabian's role has too much going on for me to find it realistic, but the other characters are pretty real. It's a teen drama. I wish there had been trippy pot scenes, but they just barely touch on that.


Connie Selleca, whose acting rivals that of Ali McGraw as the worst actress ever to hit Hollywood or Made-for TV-Movies, has little redeeming value in this film. So much so that Kevin Dobson's infidelity is totally understandable. If Buck Rogers divorced her in real life, that should tell you something. As much as Kate Hepburn's quivering chin and teary eyes are an annoyance to devotees of serious acting in film, Connie Selleca's wooden gestures and her inability to deliver a line with any meaningful emotion are enough to invoke the "throw-up" doctrine for evaluating films: If an actor's inability to act creates such nausea that vomiting in unavoidable, then the film itself should be consigned to the nearest trash-bin. Ms. Selleca should do us all a favor and retire at once from the film biz.


Having recently read a book called "The Game" by Neil Strauss, where he makes numerous references to Top Gun, Magnolia and Jerry Maguire, I decided to watch this movie. It sure is difficult to imagine that a movie could be so polar. Without a doubt, the movie was ridden with bad acting.

Tom Cruise, though not terribly bad in his portrayal of Lt. Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, was still largely amateurish. Kelly McGillis (Charlotte "Charlie" Blackwood) put on a SPECTACULARLY terrible performance through the entire 110-odd minutes.

Moreover, the cinematography was quite poor, and video editing was quite appalling. And don't even get me started on characterization and plot.

But diametrically, the movie was a great treat too. The music and original score was terrific (rightfully earning an Academy Award) The visual effects were amazing and Val Kilmer was his usual charismatic and professional self.

Overall, the movie would have been worse than trash without the awesome dogfights and the great audio.


Naval aviation students dual it out in the air, romance the girls on the ground. It isn't any wonder why "Top Gun" was such a smash with audiences circa 1986: it puts to use the punchy, pulsating rhythms of the slickly-edited videos of MTV's peak era and wraps them up in "Miami Vice"-styled cool. It couldn't miss--especially not without the face of then-current heartthrob Tom Cruise front and center. Still, the film more often than not resembles a hearty civil service recruitment ad (underlined with smug machismo), and is photographed and scored as such. Yes, it looks great, all expensive commercials do. Cruise doesn't act so much as he does strut, however this swagger doesn't help him much in the love-department as he is partnered with Kelly McGillis, playing a leggy, brainy instructor (she's too leggy and brainy for Tom, and seems far out of his league). The movie struck a nerve with both men and women eager to indulge in the over-scaled presentation and cocky contrivances, however today it opens itself up to parody. *1/2 from ****


This film was made way back in the Cold War days. We knew who the enemy was, and how to do combat with them. They were Russians and Communist Chinese, who flew MIG aircraft with which we could do aerobatic battle. The Soviet Union had not collapsed and we weren't buying more from China than they were buying from us.

That was then, this is now. The "enemy" has used our own passenger aircraft as suicidal missiles to crash into the World Trade Center. We are in 2 wars for oil where the weapons of choice are Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's) and 4000 Americans have died to protect oil company holdings.

Top Gun is a quaint nostalgic look in history, the way we were, then.


It's difficult to take this movie seriously, indeed if nothing else it will make you smile it's so campy. Cheap painted scenery, the same waves in all the sea scenes (notice the painted ships don't move), moronic character motivations, and I could go on. Its definitely history on the cheap as only William Castle could imagine it. Don't expect any resemblance to facts other than on the barest surface and even then it's a stretch. But it is FUN. Everyone acts like a 30s Chicago gangster except they wear Roman armor and togas. Rhonda Fleming is absolutely delightful in her over-the-top portrayal of the legendary queen, her form deliciously outlined in all her costumes. She is perfect in this role, the queen of camp playing the queen of the Nile. Raymond Burr's portrayal of Anthony makes you wonder how such a dope could have risen to such a height of power. As for William Lundigan, well he switched allegiances effortlessly, from Caesar to Brutus to Anthony to Cleopatra back to Anthony to Octavius and then I lost track. As for the plot don't expect to make much sense of it. So be warned and beware that you might not be able to take your eyes off this train wreck of a film.


Director William Castle, a "Poor Man's" Alfred Hitchcock, uses every trick in the book in an effort to make this film work from a woman dancer painted in gold (pre- "Goldfinger) to a man wrestling a bear ala the Samson vs the lion in "Samson and Delilah" ... but nothing can save this clunker. Rhonda Fleming, a "Poor Man's Cleopatra" appears lost against the likes of previous portrayals provided by the likes of Elizabeth Taylor, Vivian Leigh, and Claudette Colbert. Making matters worse, she changed the color of her hair for this film. The result is about as successful as when Lana Turner traded her blonde mane to become a brunette in "Betrayed". Bad move ... then again Cleopatra didn't have red hair ... so maybe Fleming shouldn't have made this movie at all. Raymond Burr's "Poor Man's" portrayal of Marc Anthony falls flat when compared to the likes of the work of Marlon Brando ("Julius Caesar") Richard Burton ("Cleopatra"), Claude Rains ("Ceasar and Cleopatra"). It's no wonder after a history of playing heavies in many 1950's mediocre films that he finally escaped to the sanctuary of television, and found a much needed success in either a courtroom ("Perry Mason") or a wheelchair ("Ironside"). One can't really blame the sets or the beautiful Technicolor, but the story line and the script were downright outrageous. Cleopatra (Rhonda Fleming) in this film plays the "heavy" and is using Marc Anthony (Raymond Burr) in an effort to defeat Rome. Lucilius (William Lundigan), a former confidant of Brutus, becomes friends with Marc Anthony and tries to save him from "himself" and the wicked Queen. In the meantime, Cleopatra, falls for Lucilius but is not able to win him over to her side. Is there anyone out there who wants to buy a bridge out there in the Brooklyn area? The lines in the script are so bad that the actors almost pinch their noses while reciting them! Try some of these on for size; Marc Anthony (to a slave); "Tell your Queen I'll be there ... and tell her it will take more wine than all of Egypt to make Anthony drunk with words!" Lucilius (to Anthony); "I've heard if a man needs Cleopatra, he doesn't need wine." Or how about this one after Cleopatra has failed in an attempt to have Luciluus assassinated the previous night; Cleopatra (to Lucilius); "Perhaps your heart Lucilius is more fickle." Lucilius (to Cleopatra); "After what happened last night I'm lucky my heart still beats at all." It's no wonder William Lundigan wound up selling Westinghouse refrigerators on television commercials after films like this. In conclusion, this may have been "ok" Saturday matinée movie fare but just as the old style "Classic" type comic books it should not be used as a point of reference in a high school history lesson.


Lucilius (William Lundigan) switches allegiances from Brutus (Robert Griffin) to side with Mark Anthony (Raymond Burr). When Anthony seeks an alliance with Cleopatra (Rhonda Fleming), Lucilius is not so convinced. Cleopatra has her own motives............

It's an interesting story and that's the only reason to watch the film. From the beginning, when both the narrator and Lundigan refer to "Cassius" as "Cashius", you realize that it's going to be a moronic production. The acting is staged, the dialogue is phony and the sets don't quite work. It's all a bit tacky....and the music cheapens it somewhat more. I'm sure that Cleopatra's make-up is also wrong but like I say, it's the story that keeps you watching. No need to see it again.


Directed by Edward (50 movies a year) Cahn and written by Lou Rusoff (who also penned Dragstrip Girl, Cat Girl, Runaway Daughters, Apache Woman, Oklahoma Woman, and Girls in Prison; hmmm, I notice a violent femme pattern here), the She Creature is notable for Albert Kallis evocative poster, Paul Blaisdell's terrific prehistoric "she" monster (complete with scaly hooters), and the mesmerizingly gorgeous Marla English in what appears to have been her last role. Actually, it's hard to call this a "role" as she spends most of her time in a trance lying on her back. Also spending the movie in a trance is Lance Fuller, though he's supposed to be fully conscious. Fuller's acting expressions range from "gee that's a tight sweater" to "gee that's a tight dress" to `gee my pants are tight.' The snidely-whiplash villain, Dr. Carlo Lambardi, is played by Chester Morris with the seriousness of a man passing his 15th kidney stone. But the real villain, is the She Creature! Sort of. The She Creature, while looking cool, is about as menacing as Lobster Themidor. No one seems to notice that, while bullets can't stop her, she can be outrun by a snail on crutches. Instead, in Z-movie tradition, folks just stand around and get clobbered to death. The movie's budget must have been as tight as English's sweater because bullets don't even leave dust marks on the monster's Victoria's Secrety bosom. Shot on location in Malibu! Whatever happened to Marla?!?!


This movie is, of course, artistically bankrupt. It is artless, tedious and frankly illogical. It is, however, rather watchable in an odd sort of way... Not quite in the Plan 9 fashion, where you're left laughing all the time, because the production values here aren't all that bad for the time. The "She Creature", whilst a risible concept, looks quite impressive, given a bit of disbelief-suspension - vital for any true lover of film, of course. 'Tis a shame the creature moves so slow as to make anyone killed by it look utterly pathetic.

The plot is a mixture of clichéd horror and cut-price hypnotism, a concern which you can tell was topical in 1956. It has some interesting areas which are largely unexplored: the big-business involvement with the good Dr Lombardi could have made for some reasonable drama and comedy. This missed opportunity is far from the worst thing about the story; the relationship between Marla English's Andrea and both Lombardi and Erickson is abysmally written. We are presented with scenes that stutter on for days between Lombardi and Andrea; scenes that say nothing new at all, as we knew right from the start about Andrea's dilemma. Even worse is the abrupt, tiresomely predictable "romance" between Andrea and Erickson. The acting is devoid of charisma, humour and often even the vaguest physical or emotional expression. Perhaps these marionettes would make good human-fodder in a Ballardian concept, but they really wouldn't have the poise to achieve that.

Lance Fuller gives a kind of unintended, minimalist-hammy performance as the sceptic-type Dr Erickson. You frankly end up rooting for Lombardi, such is the unfounded, uncalled-for smugness of the 'rational' Erickson. Cathy Downs' character only shows interest in him due to the constraints of genre convention. Erickson's battle of wills with Lombardi over Andrea's mind and the only intended humour, which comprises scenes of the house-servants, are some of the feeblest, most cringe-worthy scenes in the annals of cinema.

The crucial figure is that of the sole experienced and professional actor in the film, Chester Morris, who seems to know how to handle this ludicrous material, by playing it deadly seriously. He actually gives an effective portrayal of a taciturn, smalltime showman who isn't quite as clever as everyone is endlessly saying. Morris's range of expressions is ridiculously small, reduced to a permanent frown, and, on second thoughts, perhaps some wry humour and flamboyance would have lifted the film, if even been out of character. He does, after all, sport the archytypal villain's moustache and black cape - so often found in the ripest stage and film melodramas.

It really is 'against all odds' - as a Mr Collins once crooned - that this film is fun to watch. Perhaps it is the black-and-white photography that lends it some atmosphere. Indeed the film, if you suspend your disbelief, works on a 1950s B-Movie level, without ever threatening to reach the heights of that genre. Most of the fun is in observing these hapless, smug characters - only just managing to keep within some rather ropey genre conventions - and finding the unintended mirth in what they say and do. So, worth watching - it is mercifully brief by latterday measures - but do keep expectations very low!


If you take a look at the credits of Chester Morris's career, you'll note he did a lot of television in the Fifties and Sixties after his Boston Blackie series came to an end. Morris was one of those players who found a lot of work in the new medium as their screen careers dried up. One of his few unfortunate ventures back to the big screen was The She-Creature.

Morris is in a cast with a whole lot of players like Cathy Downs, Tom Conway, El Brendel, and Frieda Inescourt whose careers had evaporated in film, due to blacklist and other problems. It's sad, but this sometimes was the best work they could get.

Morris is a Svengali like hypnotist who's gone beyond anything that Messmer ever dreamed possible. His Trilby is Marla English whose bosoms excited many a pubescent male in the drive-ins. Most of the film she's in a trance and at a certain point in the trance, she dreams up from her past life a long extinct sea creature who looks like The Creature from the Black Lagoon's bride. You can tell by the rack the makeup people provide so we know it's the dreaming Marla.

This She-Creature is Morrris's personal hit squad, killing both skeptics of his hypnotic abilities to bring out past lives and anyone else who looks longingly at English. In Lance Fuller's case he's both a rival and a skeptic.

What's scary about this movie is not the content which today could be released as a comedy. The scary part is that the players I named all were in quality A films at one point in their career. Fortunately Morris got to appear in The Great White Hope before he died as a farewell performance. And I do remember him from the Fifties and Sixties showing a lot of quality acting in various television series.

Maybe the guy from The Black Lagoon might like this film.


The 'giant' lobster from Teenagers from Space was a lot scarier than the She Creature, although I'll admit it wasn't quite as lame as the Corman killer carrot from Venus in It Conquered the World.

The plot of this movie is totally, irrevocably senseless. Apparently a stupid sideshow hypnotist named Dr. Carlo Lombardi(if this guy is a real doctor, then I'm a Nobel prize winning physicist) keeps a pretty woman under hypnosis(this guy is the early version of Rohypnol, the date rape drug) for no other reason except that he can, and she won't touch him when she's awake. Under hypnosis, her spirit reverts to a WAY former life, back to when she was a proto-human who lived in the sea. This energy, or her spirit, or whatever, take on physical form, which the good doctor can direct(huh? what i mean to say is..HUH?!) He sends this laughable creature out to kill, mostly for his own pleasure but partly to make money off of gullible rubes who think he can protect them from the monster. Which he can, since he's the one telling it to turn people into Chicken of the Sea.

The protagonist(sort of), is a dull guy who's a psychic researcher, who claims what he does has a scientific basis. Uh-huh. Therefore, he's different from the deranged quack Lombardi, although we're never sure how. He discovers Lombardi's little scam, saves the girl(again, we're not sure how, since he's a total puss), and there's an end shot on the beach with an 'invisible' monster that only the researcher can see(saving on special effects, I see). End of story, wherein the plot dies away not with a bang but with a whimper.


Hypnotist reverts his lovely assistant back to a monstrous creature that she once was and uses it to attack his enemies.

The She Creature is one of the lesser monster flicks of the 50's. While granted the film does create some atmospheric creepiness, it's all a bit too sluggish and underdeveloped to be a satisfying horror picture. Even with a decent-looking B monster, which doesn't get enough screen time, this movie is lacking in suspense and over all the story just isn't as intriguing as one would think. There's just not enough here to keep interest or to be partly entertaining. I recommend watching this one on Mystery Science Theater 3000.

* 1/2 out of ****


It's amazing that audiences of 1956 didn't riot after being charged admission to watch this excruciating exercise. I have never seen Andy Warhol's "Empire" (1964), but I have read that Warhol placed a stationary camera aimed at the Empire State Building and shot eight hours of film. I cannot imagine what Warhol was trying to accomplish, but viewing "Empire" must be a similar experience to sitting through "The She Creature". I made the mistake of starting to watch rather late one night, and found that my eyelids were drooping so badly that I had to stop the tape halfway through and continue the next day. Boring and dull, with leaden performances from cast members whose careers were all in severe decline. It is a sad thing to see previously successful and talented performers end up like this. As others before me have said, this is the absolute pits, to be used as a sleep aid only.


Another film brought to you by Ed Cahn.He did actually lens a few films that were watchable for the right reasons.This isn't one of them.This quickie was made to cash in on the "Bridey Murphy" reincarnation craze.

 Professor Lombardi (Chester Morris)hypnotizes Andrea(Marla English)sending her back through past lives.All the way back until she was a sea creature from the pre historic days.This creature is under his control and kills wantonly.While the creature suit is a fondly remembered favorite, it isn't enough to save this bomb.

 Chester Morris acts like he's ready to foreclose on the mortgage to the orphanage.A very far cry from his Boston Blackie days.The bags under his eyes looks like luggage.He spends most of his time looking grim and drooling over Marla's supine body.Her acting is confined to holding her breath and trembling.

 Frankly, Lance Fuller as the hero is scarier than anything in this picture.He acts as if he's only visiting this dimension for a short time. He appears to act as if his lawn furniture has come to life and he's not sure if it is reality or he's still stoned.Probably needs just a little more time to stare thoughtfully into the camera...I swore the deck chair just winked at me.

 Ron Randall as a policeman does the worst Humphrey Bogart impression I've ever seen.For a better & funnier Bogart act check out Anthony Carbone in Creature From The Haunted Sea.Tom Conway who played the Falcon is in this as well.One of the doctors in a scene was played by one of the villains who starred in a majority of the Three Stooges reels.I kept expecting Moe & Curley to show up.Spread out!!One actor does a Foster Brooks drunk act years before Brooks.Not nearly as funny either.

 Forget the plot.If you have to watch this beast do so only for the unique "acting" abilities of the cast.


This picture is most famous for its grand monster creation: a lobster-like, humanoid female prehistoric beast that's a reincarnation of the leading lady (Marla English). It was designed by Paul Blaisdell, a mega-talent creator of many of American-International's monsters. However, this is one of the dullest features ever seen, with good B-cast just talking, talking, talking, and featuring deadening monster attacks that never attain excitement or suspense. Even English, whose body English is great, resembling either Elizabeth Taylor or Vivien Leigh, can't rescue it. The beach photography is OK and the music about par, but there's just not enough to get thrilled about in the lackluster Bridey-Murphy inspired script (the reincarnation craze in the mid-1950s).


This movie is about an evil hypnotist who has a worse act than that of the Great Vorelli from "The Devil Doll". The hypnotist known as Dr Carlo Lombardi puts a woman under hypnosis asks her questions and she answers...great show, eh? Amazingly he makes a living doing this. He can also use the woman to call forth a creature from the ocean to kill. He doesn't really have a reason for doing this other than a hobby. Meanwhile another hypnotist who is also a researcher is staying at a house where an older couple and their daughter live. The couple is rich and the daughter really likes this guy, but he apparently hates these people, which begs the question "why is he staying with them in the first place?" There are also some cops looking into the deaths of people killed by the creature and the rich old guy makes a deal with Lombardi to bring his act of asking questions on the road. The hero of the story Lance Fuller who is the guy who really shouldn't be staying with the rich people falls in love with the woman who is hypnotized. There is a dog and also an unfunny butler and maid...all in all a rather talky movie with a lame monster that appears here and there.


The best performances come early on-- that's when the two stiffed-up dead people fall to the floor. From then on, the acting goes steadily downhill. Actually, my nomination for "This movie's so bad, I'm not even going to try" award goes to Chester Morris, formerly known as Boston Blackie, with Ron Randell's "where am I" cop a close second. Morris wins because he gives his lines all the emotional inflection of a dial tone, and when he cuddles up to cutie Marla English for one of their many painful clinches, she looks like she wants to bang down the receiver. Too bad that making fun of a stinkeroo like She-Creature is like kicking a dead carcass. Because unlike one of those it's-so-bad-that-it's-good campy features, this one never had any life to begin with. Good camp needs an element of conviction at least someone in production who believes the film is worth his/her effort. There's none of that belief here, probably because the cast of movie veterans knows they're on the downgrade and can look forward to little more than the next Social Security check. American-International and Roger Corman would soon wise up and turn these productions over to eager young unknowns and then the real campy fun would start. I just wish cable TV would honor some deserving old actors and give this celluloid zombie a quick burial, decent or otherwise.


Either something's wrong with me or I've been watching too many of these grade Z horror flicks; I really didn't find this to be so bad. Now don't get me wrong, this clearly isn't anywhere near "Casablanca" territory, but it had all the elements of a creepy late night scare fest, especially if you're about nine or ten years old. Like Chester Morris in the lead role as the villainous Dr. Carlo Lombardi, keeping his lovely female assistant (Marla English) under a hypnotic spell as he regresses her into the spirit and form of a prehistoric she-creature. He calls it a 'transmigration of the soul', I just love it when a film utilizes that kind of pseudo-scientific babble to support it's plot.

However unlike other screen villains, Lombardi is not only committed to his mission of calling forth an all powerful presence across the span of ages, he's also out to make a buck off of it. Can you imagine, Lombardi's benefactor Chappel (Tom Conway) turns him into a money machine with books and a lecture tour to cash in on the she-beast; you would think it was the year 2007 instead of 1956!

Say, remember when police Lieutenant James listens to a conversation he had with Dr. Lombardi on a tape recorder? He actually asked for the recorder some time AFTER he spoke with Lombardi, so who recorded the conversation?

But you know what makes the picture so goofy in the final analysis? When the she creature eventually confronts some of the principals, they never think to utilize that one single piece of useful information that would actually come in handy - JUST RUN AWAY! Like the aforementioned James - he attempts to go one on one with the beast in hand to scale combat. And how about Chappel, when his gun runs out of bullets, he throws it at the creature in the tradition of all those classic Superman episodes. Good grief, didn't these guys ever watch any television?

In the final analysis, you have to admire the temerity of the folks who put this thing together. The film closes on the words "She'll never be back, will she?" followed by a large question mark before the final fadeout, virtually begging the question of there being a sequel. Well I guess you can't blame them for trying.


POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS!!!! Hypnotist Dr. Lombardi (Chester Morris) puts his assistant Andrea (Marla English) into a deep sleep. When this happens her thing in a past life (the title creature) comes out of the sea and kills people. Lombardi knows this and "predicts" the killings. Dr. Ted Erickson (Lance Fuller) thinks Lombardi is a fraud and tries to prove it. He also falls in love with Andrea which bothers Lombradi a LOT....

Absolutely ridiculous story but this isn't a total bomb. Some of the discussions on reincarnation and past lives are interesting, there's good direction and a really eerie music score. Also the creature itself has become one of the legends of horror movies. It looks pretty scary and has HUGE breasts!!!! You just have to laugh when the creature attacks people--and they just stand there and do NOTHING so it can kill them! The acting wavers. Fuller seems to be (wisely) kidding the material but isn't bad. Morris is VERY serious (and dull). English is just stunningly beautiful and very good in a tricky role. Tom Conway shows up in a small role and has fun with the material.

So--this has its good points but the silly story and slow pace really wears you down. Worth catching at least once for the monster. I give it a 3.


**SPOILERS** The movie "The She Creature" seems to have been highly influenced by the reincarnation craze of the 1950's revolving around the past life of Colorado housewife Mrs. Simmons who in her previous incarnation was the 19th century Irish woman Bridey Murphy.

The movie instead of concentrating on the reincarnation angle goes all over the place with the somewhat unstable carnival hypnotist and mind reader, as well as prognosticator, Dr. Carlo Lombari, Chester Morris, who's completely obsessed with his beautiful assistant Andrea Talbott, Marla English. Dr. Lombardi is so possessive of Andrea that his trying to get her to be his soul-mate just turns her off to the wild and crazy guy.

It's when the handsome and a bit skeptic, of Dr. Lombardi's psychic powers, Dr. TedErckson, Lance Fuller, comes on the scene that things really start to unwind with the by now mad Doctor Lombardi going so far as conjuring up this She, or Sea, Creature to do Dr. Erickson in. The creature has been around for some time in the movie even before Dr. Erickson showed up. It was Dr. Ericksons presence that really brought the worst out of it as the thing, being controlled by Lombardi, went on a rampage murdering some half dozen young people who were enjoying themselves on the beach.

Even though Lombardi is on the scene of every one of the She Creature's killings he's totally innocent, to the disgust of police Let. Ed James (Ron Randell), of them. Lombardi is at the scene of the crime but the evidence exonerates him . It's as if Lombardi is pulling the polices, and Let. James, leg in order to both show them up and prove his power as a psychic is genuine.

As for the hypnotized and at times completely composed Andera she's in a life and death struggle tug of war between her "master" Dr. Lombardi and "saviour" Dr. Erickson that goes on for almost the entire film. Besides being a woman from 17th century England, Elizabeth Wetherby, It's also brought out that Andera was this 1950's looking spaceman, or spacewoman,in the very distance, about 300 to 400 million years ago, past that came out of the primordial soup and was to become the precursor or mother of the human race;The She Creature!

The film has money hungry entrepreneur Timothy Chapple, Tom Conway, make a deal with Dr. Lombardi to manage his carnival act and make millions for both himself and the mad doctor. What Chapple doesn't know is that whatever Dr. Lombardi is doing is not and act but the real McCoy and in the end he's to get the shock of his life finding that fact out. The She Creature her, or it, self takes care of business by finally putting an end to Dr. Lombardi's obsession with both it and Andrea, whom it supposed to have been way back then in prerecorded history. Finishing off the crazed Dr. Lombardi who wanted it to instead finish off Dr. Erickson the bumbling and hardly able to walk She Creature stumbles back to the ocean with the cops, who are unable to see it, being directed by Dr. Erickson, who can, to shoot at it as it finally disappears under the waves.

Were given to understand that It, the She Creature, will come back in the very near future to both shock as well as put it's audience to sleep, the thing was about the least scariest monster in movie history,in a new film sequel. As far as I know that happily never happened which was a blessing to everyone, the cast crew and those watching the film, involved with it.