My gods, I want those 28 minutes of my life back! This so-called movie is a therapist's dream client. The guy who wrote this has issues, massive, major issues.

It was worse than any Woody Allen movie I've ever seen.

So his dad's a jerk. Well, grow up. You aren't your dad. Get over it.

How the hell did this thing win an Oscar? It was pure, utter crap.

I saw this tonight at a screening of the five short animated films nominated for the Oscar, and I cannot possibly fathom how any of the other four lost to THIS.

Avoid at all costs.

The writer of this film should issue a written apology to the world for unleashing this massive Shite Monster on us. I've seen the Shite Monster, in the movie Dogma. This was its poppa.

Did the people who voted for it actually SEE the movie? Or were they just impressed by its length?


This film was made in the late 1960's, when the Soviet land troops (a so called "Warsaw Pact") was threatening a big part of the world. The main tune was to emphasize a Polish-Russian friendship during the 2nd world war. It was not true as Russians invaded Poland in 1939 together with Hitler and committed even worse war crimes than Germans.

The purpose of the film was to attract young boys from Polish villages to join the army, especially armored units. It was very funny, but in each episode the food and common meals play a significant role (mainly canned food made in USA and supplied for the Red Army). As under communist yoke the food supply in Poland was very poor, scenes of eating full cans of meat might have attracted young boys to join the army.


Face it, you may have a sentiment towards this series, but ... A Polish tank team being friends with Russians, four years after Russians invaded Poland, that's weird... Something isn't right, and it's only one example. Another one: Janek trying to overcome the age limit to join the army, that's supposed to be a good example for young viewers? The crew seems to be little dependent on their commander, they seem to go wherever they want, how realistic is that?

On top of that, the series is filled with shameful pro-soviet propaganda, which always made me feel like I was watching just another "wonderful" Mosfilm production.

As for me, the sentiment won't help - this film is simply BAD.


I'm sure somewhere in "She Hate Me" lies a good story that would make for an entertaining movie. What we have, however, is a convoluted mess that tries too hard to be a social satire.

The premise: Jack Armstrong (Anthony Mackie), a hotshot VP at a pharmaceutical company, suddenly finds himself unemployed and in need of money. When his ex-fiancée-turned-lesbian Fatima Goodrich (Kerry Washington) offers him $10,000 to impregnate her and her lover Alex (the sexy Dania Ramirez), Jack realizes he could be a sexual cash cow. Next thing he knows, he's in high demand from wealthy lesbians who want children.

The problem is that Lee doesn't know what he wants his film to be. Or, what the story should be. He tackles way too many issues and never tackles any of them very well.

The film opens with a novel title sequence that ends with a broadside against President George W. Bush. Fair enough. Lee's bit actually works. The story then turns into some sort of diatribe against corporate greed, against the blatant excesses of the Enrons and WorldComs of corporate America. OK. Then there's also all this stuff about lesbians and impregnating them. And Jack's conscience about whether he's doing the right thing.

But the film then suddenly turns into a defense of Frank Wills, the black security guard who uncovered the Watergate burglary. Lee makes a valid point that while all the players involved in the burglary and subsequent cover-up went on to have lucrative careers as statesmen, authors, speakers and radio personalities, Wills died in obscurity. A tribute to Wills is long overdue. The man was a hero. But what the heck's his story doing in this film? And in a moment that seems completely arbitrary, Lee also throws in Oliver North into the mix of Watergate figures.

For a satire to work, it needs to satirize something. Frankly, I didn't know what exactly Lee was trying to send up. And, after a while, I didn't care. His movie's neither a sex comedy nor stinging social commentary. In fact, at times "She Hates Me" plays more like some sort of unbridled male fantasy. Not only are all the lesbians attractive, but also they want to get impregnated the old-fashioned way. The one lesbian who chooses artificial insemination fails and so has to plead with Jack to have sex with her.

Subtlety has never been Lee's forte. But in films such as "Do the Right Thing" (1989) and "Jungle Fever" (1991), he somehow found a good balance between satire and social comment. Here, he does no such thing. In "She Hate Me," Lee's about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

What's ultimately disappointing about "She Hate Me" is the often-inane writing. When Fatima tells Jack she always was a lesbian, even when she was dating him, and was merely in denial, she adds, "And I don't mean a river in Egypt." That's how lame the dialogue is. It gets even worse, when Lee and co-writer Michael Genet give Brian Dennehy positively laughable dialogue later.

The corrupt business practices of Enron and its ties to the Bush administration deserve to be told. As does a satire, if you must, of white collar crooks who get off relatively easy and wind up having hugely successful lives as a result of their crimes. But this isn't the film that does it.

Lee's clever, talented and certainly socially conscious, but just seems to be tossing in every idea he had into "She Hate Me." Instead of being bitingly satirical about society's lopsided values, this is a mishmash of a film that is never as funny as it wants to be or as provocative as it should be.


So the anti-Bush campaign that makes up the first 45 minutes or so of the movie are pretty clear. Even the attack on Bush's anti-gay tendencies are pretty clear. What's not clear is what the movie's trying to do. Jack is a corporate employee with serious potential who finds himself unemployed because of his refusal to ignore the massive corporate corruption with which he suddenly finds himself surrounded. So then he goes home to his fancy apartment, which he can no longer afford to maintain, and then has to deal with the torturous proposal of impregnating lesbians at $10,000 a piece.

The most difficult endeavor that the movie takes on is in trying to make us believe that Jack was actually conflicted about all of this, and it fails miserably. There a nonsensical subplot about him still being upset about his ex-girlfriend, the lesbian who is bringing all of her lesbian friends to be impregnated by Jack, but only after her.

Keep in mind that their breakup happened FOUR YEARS EARLIER, and not only was he belligerently furious to come home and find his sexy girlfriend having sex with another sexy woman, but he hasn't gotten over it four years later. They actually get into screaming arguments in the movie about this ancient history between themselves.

I'm reminded of one of Julia Roberts' many great lines from Closer  "What are you, 12?"

So while he's not busy acting like a junior high school kid who's heartbroken about some girl who cheated on him, he's having sex with whole lines of lesbians and trying to act like it's just hell to him. Please. At the risk of sounding like some typical jerk, for such a thing to be torturous to a man we need to have a real, real good reason for him to hate doing it, and still being upset about a relationship that ended nearly half a decade earlier isn't even close to reason enough.

I can accept that the movie wants to suggest that this guy genuinely loved his girlfriend and truly feels like he has lost the love of his life, but let me tell you one thing. Showing a guy suffer through Every Man's Fantasy is not the way to do it. At all. Unless, of course, you have some ulterior political motive, but that's just not Spike Lee's style, right? Right?

I won't spend much time talking about the ludicrous premise about the lesbians. Whether you've seen the movie or not, you probably already know all about it. The problem is that you also come into the movie already knowing what a socially and politically conscious filmmaker Spike Lee is. We know that he is going to be making political statements in the film, and some of them are clear while others are not, unless Spike has completely lost all sense of balance. There are scenes where it is increasingly obvious what social ills are being dealt with, such as the terrible scene where Jack has some wooden and massively unrealistic conversation with his friend, who is trying to make money donating sperm. It's a god-awful scene, but it's relatively clear what is being said.

I could, of course, come up with some pretty solid theories about what is being said about the homosexual content of the film, how Jack the black man is forced to descend to that level, but it is such a gigantic portion of the film that it even overshadows that picture of Bush on the $3 bill at the end of the opening credits, and that's a difficult image to overshadow. Lee puts so much stock into the lesbians in this movie that it borders on low- grade soft porn.

At one point in the movie, while bike riding together, Jack's brother gives him a bright, sparkling gem of advice  get a vasectomy and call it a day. Now, there are two things that could lead a man to give such advice to his brother. First, it could be because he's been having too much sex, or second, it could be because he's making ten thousand dollars at a time doing it. Either way, it's a good reason never to take advice from your brother again. Jack, of course, reacts by throwing a temper tantrum like an 8 year old kid, resulting in one of the great many scenes that made me want to put a pot over my head and start beating on it with a serving ladle.

One of the biggest problems with the movie is that not only does it bore and irritate but it deliberately insults the audience. Granted, I didn't know a lot of the details about some of the homages that are made in the film, such as the XFL player that inspired the title of the film and the security guard who exposed the Watergate break-in and ruined his own life in the process. I can understand if Lee wants us to be aware of what he's talking about, but he literally stops his movie to put these stories up on billboards and then hits us over the head with them.

By the end of the movie I was literally standing up, pacing back and forth I was so irritated and desperate for it to end. There are times when I wish I didn't have this determination to finish watching movies, even the abysmally terrible ones.

The really sad thing about She Hate Me is that it isn't even not very good for a Spike Lee film, this is just a bad movie overall. It's almost weird to think that it was directed by the same man that directed true classics like Do The Right Thing, one of my all time favorite films. She Hate Me is Spike Lee's version of Spielberg's 1941, but worse.

Much worse.


There's an old premise that the best storytelling is shown, not told. In terms of the latest Spike Lee Joint, 'She Hate Me,' no truer words have ever been uttered.

Jack Armstrong (Anthony Mackie) is a young vice-president of a pharmaceutical company on the verge of unveiling a vaccine for HIV, pending FDA approval. Through the nefarious actions of greedy senior executives, Jack finds himself pegged as the scapegoat for this drug that ultimately will not be approved and the subsequent tumble in company stock. Think Enron, Worldcom, et al. but Spike won't let you think for yourself, as he keeps their specific names prominently displayed throughout the movie with overt and pointed references. Margo (Ellen Barkin) who looked eerily like Martha Stewart only further illustrates this point.

In a scenario reminiscent of 'Enemy of the State,' Jack loses access to all of his finances and is 'forced' to consider alternative means of generating income. After an unexpected visit by his former fiancée he accepts her offer to become father of her childher child and her lesbian lover's child.

$10,000 for 2 successful impregnations is the deal and Jack 'reluctantly' accepts. The next thing you know, he has lesbian women knocking at his door daily, five at a time, offering $10,000 each per impregnation.

If you've ever seen a 'Spike Lee Joint,' you're aware of the common threads woven into all of his movies. You come to expect certain elements and even certain actors. The fact that the supporting cast included such venerable thespians as Ossie Davis (Judge Buchanon), John Turturro (Don Angelo), Lonette McKee (Lottie) and Joie Lee (Gloria), while featuring a fabulous soundtrack by Terence Blanchard should be a surprise to no one. The fact that those actors, combined with Monica Belucci (Simona), Brian Dennehy (Chairman Church) and Woody Harrelson (Powell) didn't amount to a great movie should be tremendously surprisingand disappointing.

 From the opening credits, Spike Lee's signature is everywhere. From the rich combination of jazz and orchestral sensibilities in the underlying music bed that set the tone and timbre of the movie, you know Spike Lee is here. From the blatant opening reference and disdain of President George Bush; you knew the direction this vehicle headed and who was at the wheel.

According to Lee, 'The story of 'She Hate Me' is very simple. It's about sex, greed, money and politics.'

Yes and no. It's about all of those things, but it's far from being simple.

The message to be delivered was loud and clear. Unfortunately, this message was one of at least 75 different and varied lessons 'She Hate Me' would offer to its viewers. Even more unfortunately, Spike chose oration for each and every 'message' in sermonizing character dialogue. Either Spike no longer respects his viewers enough to allow them to 'figure it out on their own' or that verbally bludgeoning them with his viewpoints (all 75 of them) is now considered a more viable storytelling alternative.

The story of 'She Hate Me' is ostensibly about Jack Armstrong and his attempt at getting out of one sticky situation by entering another. In fact, it's not. This movie is more about the relationships and realities of women in love with one-another. This movie is at its best when Spike demonstrates that regardless of gender or orientation; insecurity and jealousy are universal. The desires of family and fidelity are also universal, irrespective of familial unit structure. Most importantly, the need to be accepted unconditionally is a definitive trait in all of us. Those arguably were the most important messages in this movie and Lee is right on the mark.

Where 'She Hate Me' specifically missteps is that the story is from the point of view of an unsympathetic character. When Jack first started his new 'business' he supposedly needed money for the moment to counterbalance his frozen assets and continuing financial responsibilities. Yet 18 women, 19 children and some $180,000 later, neither Spike Lee, co-writer Michael Genet nor character Jack himself offers a reason as to why he continued such dangerous and fruitless indiscretions, for so long.

The characters and relationships most enjoyable in this movie were fleeting in nature; components remarkably and conspicuously absent after introduction for most of the film. Jack's relationship with his father Geronimo (played by Jim Brown) was engaging. The sight of football Hall-of-Famer Jim Brown playing a character fighting diabetes and to save his marriage simultaneously was moving. The newly evolving relationship of Geronimo with his son in the midst of the chaos around him was another meaningful subplot; one of many that Lee didn't revisit until nearly the end of the movie.

A monologue by Don Angelo (John Turturro) gave us another glimpse of Turturro's acting brilliance. John Turturro is a future Academy Award winner; it's just a shame this won't be the role that does it for him.

If there is an explanation as to why some sub-stories and sub-plots were not covered as deeply as others it would be the fact that there are so many characters, all of which feel compelled to tell their life story. In fact, there are just too many people to keep up with, too many to care about in the end. It's like juggling fiery bowling pins, where too much concentration on one leads to really bad consequences.

Visually, 'She Hate Me' pays homage to films of the 1970's, with its simplistic camera angles devoid of lighting tricks or steady-cams. The knowing use of varying hues and blurred frames was quite appealing stylistically, even cool. This, combined with great musical cues featuring tenor saxophone melodies was a nice tip of the fedora to the Film Noir genre.

'She Hate Me' is raw and gritty in its imagery, remarkable in its musicality and at times sensual in its deliverybut ultimately not a good movie.


as i viewed spike lee's "she hate me" upon its video release i kept wondering what audience lee was targeting for the film. the answer i kept coming up with was that he himself didn't know.there are four or five plots going on , most of which are clumsily tied together and none of which make much sense.I'll start with the opening credits, which show various denominations of u.s. currency and the presidents whose images adorn those bills.the credits end with the image of a $3 dollar bill, with a picture of a dopey looking george w. bush. OK, so spike doesn't like the prez.what does this have to do with the movie? as if the whole plot of wealthy lesbians paying $10,000 each to get impregnated - the old-fashioned way(!)-wasn't absurd enough, we then get a subplot about a mafia chieftain whose daughter is one of the clients.He must be the new kinder, gentler form of godfather as he seems to have no problem with his daughter being involved in this.oh yeah, the ladies are worried about disease so they make the main character get tested for everything before the big night, when he has sex with at least 6 women in a row.how do they know the woman went before them was clean? i guess we are supposed to assume that since they are lesbians they can't have STD's. it's all topped by possibly the most preposterous ending in the history of cinema.(if you don't want to know the ending stop here).the main character,his ex fiancée and her lesbian girlfriend agree to stay together to raise their kids, and evidently while maintaining a 3 way sexual relationship! earth to spike :these things don't happen. anyway whoever the intended audience is they didn't find it.here in nyc, the movie played in 1 Manhattan theater for 2 weeks then vanished.


First, Let me just say I love spike lee. The 25th hour is a classic. Do The Right Thing, Malcolm X, Crooklyn, Mo Betta...,4 little Girls (Doc)...brilliant. But she hate me? If this was a paper, I would give it an "F" for no thesis or organization. I mean what happen spike? You Hurt my heart. I defended you. I was with you for Girl 6, I hung in there waiting for a redeeming factor in Jungle Fever. I thought you were gaining back your ground when i saw the Summer of Sam. Watched Bamboozled and said, "Okay, I see the point." But she hate me? She hate me? Are you Serious?? I mean what the %#$@! Lesbians and white collar crime? Where is the logic? When I think of Enron, I don't think Ellen. So why spike? Why? And I watched this movie hoping that something will make me feel better about it but nope...never happened. Spoiler Alert: And the lessons or climax of the whole movie:White Collar crime is bad and all lesbians need is a good stiff...you get the point. And then Ken Lay and Ellen and Portia De Rossi all live happy every after on Coney Island. It was like is some crazy nightmare sequence. Spike, Do you even know any lesbians? How about women? Do you know any women? Because the female behavior in the film wasn't even close to any real female character of any sort as a matter of fact...No characters in the whole spectacle had any ounce of realism. This movie was one huge caricature of stereotypical, quasi-political,overstated visual rhetoric. Spike, She don't hate you. But I'm hating. Spike, come on...we got to do better than this.


This movie is about a man who takes a moral choice for his work but forgets values in his private life. I can't relate to such upside down philosophy. So, "hate" is surely a word too harsh but I don't care about his life.

Nevertheless, the story raises good questions:

For one time, you see a man becoming a "sex-object" and it's great to achieve this sort of equality with women in charge. From my point of view, it's not a revolution: I always thought, that in relationships, men court but women decide! But I am not the Di Caprio / Pitt / Clooney mold, too! Thus, the truth would be that it's the sexiest who runs the relation whatever the gender! It's a tyranny of beauty then!

And as depicted in the movie, nowadays, when beauty is there, money is not far away. What can we do for money? Is everything for sell? Money leads to freedom or alienation? When you see the beautiful opening credits, you wonder..

For sure, Lee is a talented director and knows how to tell a story, even disturbing for your beliefs.

PS: and don't forget FRANK WILLS, a man who stayed true to his principles instead of money!


She Hate Me almost makes me think of a very talented student rushing through in one night to write and present a sloppy thesis on the state of corporate America and male/female relations, and you do feel the spirit and ferocity at times of the same man who made Do the Right Thing. BUT the fact that the man DID make Do the Right Thing makes this all the more of a quagmire of a shmorgesbord. I wanted to give it a chance, despite all of the lambasting from critics, but they are not really that unwarranted. There are a few small things involving the sex scenes (no pun intended, I think) that are noteworthy, but for the most part this is a fiasco that only someone with the temerity, skill, and daring to go as far as this can pull off. There's a flip-side to the coin of ultra talent with auteurs Lee and De Palma and Herzog and Coppola and others, which is that the same life that goes all through an original work can sometimes be crippling if wielded the wrong way. This film just simply tackles way too many ideas into one way too long package, and it's all the more frustrating for the bits that could, in a whole other context, maybe be pulled off with a little more insight and skewering.

The two major sides, aside from the side-bars involving familial ties with John Armstrong (Anthony Mackie) and his friend (who has one of the worst plot-strands involving a bad sperm test), are the corporate drudgery and the lesbian impregnations. Guess which one is less credible? Not that Lee and his collaborator really tackle the former side with a lot of gusto or much of anything; Armstrong, the vice president at a pharmaceutical company who doesn't seem to know that there is corruption involving stocks and prices involving a vaccine for AIDS (that, by the way, has a 75% success rate, as if that's a bad thing!), sees a former scientist friend jump to his suicide, and has on a disc all of the juicy details, thus leading to whistle blowing, and being fired from his job. This is when Lee and his collaborator get into the biggest pickle that they can never squirm out of, as up to now they have material that isn't terrific, but has some promise to be developed. But then comes the latter plot-line, involving Armstrong's ex girlfriend (Kerri Washington, who between her character and Dania Ramirez's character are the most infuriatingly simplistic lesbians I've seen depicted recently on film), who will pay to get impregnated by John.

This is where the "fun" begins. By fun I mean just pure illogical hijinks meant to be exaggerations, but Lee never makes it really believable about what kind of exaggeration, not once. It might be one thing if only a few of the nearly twenty lesbians Mackie knocks up enjoyed the sex, but ALL of them do. Furthermore, the character is having sex over and over and over again, time and time again on each night. The biggest problem of all, encompassing this big chunk of the picture, aside from it being there to give Armstrong more 'dimension' and to add the whole aspect of the title to it all, is that Lee doesn't know how to balance the satire with the more dramatic points, and worst of all for a satirist the material falls flat and isn't funny. They do try, the women do, to rake up the laughs with their cheesy bed exploits, but it's meshed together into a premise that is so ridiculous to accept that it loses its energy very, very quick. If not for the awesomely bad cartoon sequences involving Armstrong sperm and lesbian eggs, it would be even more excruciating. At the least, for a few moments, there is pure absurdity in the midst of chaos.

Throwing into the pot are the usual bits of black/white commentary (the mother of Armstrong being mixed, which wouldn't be an issue except that it is Spike Lee making it one), the Turturro scenes (was this just a favor to put him in another movie?), and a comparison of Armstrong to the man who blew the whistle on the Watergate break-in, not to mention montages involving births and more undercooked slices of Enron-style semantics. And alongside the thematic sloppiness Lee falters stylistically as well, if not as frequently and befuddling as with the substance; some of this looks like it was shot for CBS prime-time mixed with a few touches of the usual color schemes that are Lee trademarks, as well as the oddly up-beat and muzak-like musical score. By the time She Hate Me finishes up, one is privy to so many questions about what just happened that it could fill a small notepad.

Maybe it's best to think of it as something the director had to get out of his system, like a mis-begotten Viagra fueled ejaculation ala Armstrong, and could move on to greener creative pastures. All I can say is that if you do proceed, do so with caution, as it's the biggest blunder I've come across so far from his career.


That's what I found myself wondering as I watched She Hate Me. What else could account for the improbability that the same filmmaker gave us both the magnificent 25th Hour and this dreadful film?

I won't dwell on the details, but to summarize: The film has two main plot lines. One paints a cartoonish picture of corporate corruption at a pharmaceutical company, complete with "business talk" as mis-imagined by a writer who clearly has never worked in such environments. Ellen Barkin and Woody Harrelson waste themselves in these scenes.

The second plot line is where this train wreck gets truly sad. Jack Armstrong, our protagonist, agrees to impregnate his ex-fiancée (Fatima, who has since come out as a lesbian) and her lover for money. Fatima decides to refer other lesbians to Jack for the a cut of the fee. We are expected to believe that nearly every one of these gay women elects to be impregnated via intercourse with Jack, rather than by artificial insemination.

Along the way we are subjected to a truly embarrassing fantasy confrontation between Watergate security guard Frank Wills and most the the upper echelon of the Nixon White House.

The saddest aspect of She Hate Me is that so many talents (John Turturro, Ossie Davis, Isiah Whitlock), none greater than the wonderful composer Terence Blanchard, were wasted on a script that is at once ridiculous and insulting to the viewer.

Spike, get some therapy.


This is one of the most infuriating films I have watched in a long, long while. It looks like some first-time scriptwriter couldn't get sufficient backing and then directed his script himself. No two scenes make sense when put together, the premise about the businessman getting paid $10,000 dollars each time he impregnates a lesbian is preposterous and embarrassingly realized here. It turns out that, committed lesbians or not, these gals just luuuuuuuuve our main man's sexual prowess and equipment, which is just about the most homophobic notion of any American film this whole decade.

On top of Spike Lee's blatant homophobia and the not too bright racial stereotyping, on top of all that put the hypocrisy of two lesbians talking the ex-fiancée of one of them into making an easy buck with his sperm, and afterwards, having impregnated 19 women, he feels he must pay in hell and now HE'S sorry he got THEM into it.

The whole thing is a mess and devoid of charm or intelligence. Anthony Mackie in the lead is a personable actor, not mention incredibly easy on the eyes, and I would love to see him in something worthwhile.

But it is going to take some time, before this monstrosity of a film is forgotten.


The movie cover makes it look like a comedy. It really wasn't all that funny. It was a drama, I suppose. It really wasn't all that dramatic. I watch movies to be entertained, and I was not entertained.

Top three things I loved about this movie. 1. Papa Doc. He done well. 2. I'm hard pressed to come up with a second, so I doubt I can come up with a third.

Top three things I despised about the movie. 1. The fact that I started the movie at 7:30 pm, took two short breaks, and didn't get to bed time past 10. I really thought he was wrapping it up somewhere near the second hour. 2. The end. 3. The plot.

As a side note, wow. This was my first Spike Lee experience, and I have to say, I now understand why I'm laughing when comics make jokes such as "That makes about as much sense as a white person's script in a Spike Lee movie" ***SPOILER ALERT **** I thought it was hilarious that the first white man on screen kills himself, and the next white person shown is a complete and utter witch. The corrupt head of the company, white. The good judge: black. The bad judge: white. If it wasn't so obviously racist, I would take some of it to heart but it's borderline humorously bad. My first and last "joint".


So stupid movie. There could be 3 different movies from this story. Bad script, bad solutions, bad plots, bad seks scenes. Why, Monica, Why? Why you did this? I have to fill 10 lines of comments for this stupid movie, what can I do? Spike tried to solve all the problems of the world with a single movie. But, being socially responsible, doesn't mean you are making a good movie. The whole lesbian pregnancy theme is so fake, comprising the final with the 2 lesbians kissing each other and the father of their children. The trial was treated in such a naive script, as if reading a school play written by the math teacher. I guess I did 10 lines. Fine. Why Monica, Why? Why you?


I just loved Spike Lee's 25th Hour with Edward Norton so I thought why not watch some more movies by Lee. However, I must admit that She Hate Me was a disappointment - yeah, the topics are very hot and relevant, the execution is beautiful, but the film somehow lacks a coherent overall line, perhaps its due to the fact that the film tries to connect and mix too many things (whistleblowers, lesbians, love, African Americans), the bottom line is just not clear and none of the topics are dealt with in detail in this film.

Moreover, some actions by the actors don't make sense at all (to me - a major flaw), some actors were totally unnecessary (ex. Monica Belucci didn't add anything other than to extend the length of this already lengthy movie). The drama looks fake to me, but I liked the ending, though. Thus the 4/10.


And what sucks is that I really like Spike Lee. I am the only one of all of my friends who like him, and give him props whenever possible. I think most of his movies are great, with the only exception being School Daze and now this one. This movie suffers from the same problems as School Daze, only amplified. They both suffer from the "all over the map" syndrome. I am totally open to Spike Lee preaching, Bamboozled was a great movie with an important message, but it was just one message! I'm sorry, but I really couldn't keep up with all of the different sermons Spike was giving in this movie, and I didn't really understand them either. So, this is the best I could figure out: The government is evil, large corporations are evil, aids is killing blacks and whites don't care, (these are the easy ones) then I guess that Spike is trying to say something about fatherless black children which is hard to understand, then I guess he also has an opinion on sperm donation, but what is it? Also he thinks that blacks are suffering from diabetes due to hateful corporations/govt/white people, etc. Also the same score from Bamboozled is used without any changes at all!!!! This movie is too ambitious for its own good, and it exemplifies everything that Spike's critics complain about. Save your self some time, and rent some of Spike's great work like Bamboozled, Clockers, Do the Right Thing, Mo Better Blues, 25th hour, Malcolm X.


I've enjoyed a lot of Spike Lee's films, but, unfortunately, this wasn't one of them. In a way, this film imitated his movie career: it started out fairly strong, but then had some difficulty being entertaining. This film grabbed my interest early on, and it looked like it had the possibility of being an engaging flick. To my surprise though, about a half hour into it, the story completely changed, and became this drivel about the main character selling his stud services to impregnate successful lesbians for $10,000 a pop. To me, the plot turned into one with about the depth of a porn flick. I tried to hang with it for awhile, but it was such shallow nonsense that I had to turn if off. I did take a couple peeks into the latter part of the film, and saw that it did return, somewhat, to the original plot, but there wasn't anything there that that looked too interesting to me. Maybe there are some who might be entertained by this, but I'm looking for something else, something that comments on our society or us as human beings, something that might stimulate me to examine my own values or views, or at least elicit some laughter or other emotion from me. I know Spike Lee is capable of this, but I didn't see much of anything along those lines in this film.


This movie begins with a corporate officer who blows the whistle. As such it had considerable potential to be an excellent movie. Instead it degenerates into a stupid and unrealistic sex fantasy (but all fantasies are unrealistic). Ellen Barkin, who has a face that would stop a clock, is her usual foul mouthed self in playing the woman playing the boss, highly unlikely in the corporate world. She is so ugly and nasty one has to wonder how the corporate officer would ever consent to having sex with her but then again there is no realism in this flick.

This guy who is black gets fired for whistle blowing. Yet he doesn't immediately get himself a lawyer and sue for discrimination. He had a slam dunk case and as educated and sophisticated as he is, he doesn't seem to realize it. He doesn't get a lawyer until it becomes clear that he is served with a summons by the SEC. Dumb, Dubmb! He would make a great witness for the SEC in a case against is former employer and in reality would have done so in his situation but that never occurs to the movie maker.

But the movie isn't really about a whistle blower. It is only a backdrop to set up the corporate officer as a gigolo in a porn movie.


Someone who reviewed this on IMDb said that most people hate Spike Lee. He is highly respected in the film world however. Critics love him and I think he is one of the best filmmakers. Do the Right thing and 25th Hour are flawless and amazing. Now my little tag-line says same thing as Cop Rock. For those who don't know what Cop Rock is it was a show that the creator of NYPD Blue created because i believe NBC or ABC i forget gave him a show for whatever he wanted because he took care of that station with NYPD Blue. Well Cop Rock was about cops who go around solving crimes but all of a sudden start breaking out in rock and singing. Needless to say the station said it was god awful and asked him what the hell he was doing and took out the show. Now in relation to that, She Hate Me is just a bad film. I think the parts of the film concerning his job and his family are excellent but the rest of the film (about 80 percent) dealing with the impregnating of lesbians is awful. Spike Lee might have had this shelved for a day when he was known as one of the best and would have all the say in his picture. The film is sort of ridiculous and is very odd to be coming from Spike Lee.


OK, so I went to see this movie because of Monica Bellucci, however, I am a Spike Lee fan. This movie just went from bad to worse and I didn't even know what hit me. The script was not coherent, it flow wasn't smooth, and I really didn't get anything out of the movie but a scene of bewilderment for having to sit through that. People say there is a meaning in this movie but I just couldn't get passed the bad storyline. However, not to trash Spike to much, this movie defiantly obtained a cult status, so if the plot interests you this movie just MIGHT be for you, cause its definitely wasn't for me ... in fact I can say this movie was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. So thats it, it gets 3! On a side note, Spike Lee redeemed himself in Inside Man.


*Insurrection* quickly plummets into a boring and predictable storyline, with some obligatory special effects sequences thrown in to alleviate the pain. The script for this film needed some more time on the drawing board; nobody I know could understand what was really so bad about what the Federation was planning to do. Relocate 600 vegan yuppies to provide increased lifespans for billions of people?--come on, already--violate the prime directive!! Some of the special effects are spectacular, but others are generic, especially the Tron-ish deployment ship. In a move that's sure to warrant comparisons to *Star Trek V,* the writers go for a lighter tone in this film, throwing in way too many jokes, and even the standard Worf-gets-up-and-bumps-his-head, ha-ha-ha scene. I really had hoped to be more positive about this film, but near the middle it becomes a morass of extremely screwed-up psychobabble and moral analysis, with one very disgusting murder scene thrown in just to assure you the badguy is really bad. Avoid this one; it's a real dud.


I won't speculate on how so many weak and irritating ideas ever made it into this movie. However, Paramount are in really bad shape if no-one there has the power to say STOP even when presented with this load of rubbish.

By far the biggest irritant is that the alleged "good guys" are actually some of the most hateful people ever filmed. While these people, known as Baku, have been leading drippy and unproductive lives for centuries their own children have been banished to grow old and infirm on another planet. When these now technologically advanced "Sona" return, close to death, in an attempt to benefit from their home planet's natural regenerative radiation, the Baku hoodwink Picard and his crew into thinking that they are infact the victims. This is mainly because the Baku, basking in regenerative radiation all day long, have remained relatively pretty while the Sona are now very ugly as the film takes pains to point out.

 It's been thankfully a long time since I have seen a totally white cast in a film, but black people are conspicuous by there absence from the Baku.

 Additionally Picard takes up with a Baku who has spent her last 300 odd years learning how to look like a pouting airhead even when tons of rubble are falling on her head, yet cannot row a boat or swim when she needs to. This even though she lived next to a lake all that time!

Goodness knows what sort of point Jonathan Frakes is trying to make with this film.

I would recommend that anyone considering watching this film does so on DVD/video with the remote control never far away from their grasp. After you've spinned through:

1. Riker and Troi behaving like the first couple in school who find out how to kiss

2. Picard and a woman with a charisma by-pass talking about nothing for minute after nauseating minute

3. Blond kids rolling around in haystacks

, there really is only about 45 mins left of F. Murray Abraham (the baddie) and spaceships.

1 out of 10 and such an utter disappointment after First Contact which was a fantastic film.


The plotting in this film is beyond poor. How can the Enterprise drop the warp core yet still make it back in time to save Picard? Why does the ship need to fly over the collector to transport Picard back to safety? Why doesn't the holodeck simulate the collection after simulating the collection sequence? And the proliferation of hideous cliches ... the child running back into danger; the ram scoot (which was tired by the 40's); the fight sequence predictably ending in the stretching chair. The villains claim they don't want to co-inhabit the planet because "it would take ten years" to feel the effects, yet the Enterprise crew are significantly affected within hours! And I haven't even mentioned the joystick yet...


After the brilliant First Contact adventure we shared with the crew, we get this lame story involving the Enterprise. This seems like a bad episode that was stretched into full-length time. There are no surprises here, nothing worth noting. It lacked adventure and there was nothing to care about in the plot. What a disappointment! It makes you wonder how such brilliant writing can happen within the star trek series and movies like this fall short of one hour stories shown on the small screen. I saw this in the theatre only to find that I should have stayed home! It was a video release. I wish the executives would take chances with the plot lines, not be afraid to focus on action and drama. Have an all-out battle, have some detailed fight scenes or give us a look at the things that were only mentioned in the series. If you want box office like Alien, then act like it!


Since this is a movie and not a TV episode with The Phantom Menace and Dark City to be compared to, Insurrection falls short. Still, it is not a mindless shoot em up which most sci-fi movies are these days, so overall I enjoyed it.

Like all Star Trek movies Insurrection has a convoluted plot that involves various "pseudo scientific details" and Star Trek concepts and in jokes. Meaning, it helps to have seen the TV shows to better understand what is going on. This is probably the main obstacle to why Star Trek movies have never been blockbusters.

Now about the plot. This may be a spoiler so, you have been warned. The basis of the film is greed and robbery. The Ba'ku who live on a beautiful planet are a defenseless culture who have something valuable, a special form of energy called metaphasic energy which reverses aging. The bad guys, the Son'a, want to kill the Ba'ku for it. The Federation proposes a forced evacuation of the Ba'ku so the Federation can share this valuable thing with the Son'a. Captain Picard insists on a compromise that would allow the Ba'ku to continue their life on their planet and for the Son'a and the Federation in cooperation with the Ba'ku to use the metaphasic energy of for an anti-aging treatment.

You might have been confused by that paragraph but being a Star Trek fan this was pretty routine. Insurrection is about a Star Trek idea called the "prime directive" which means the Federation is not supposed to interfere with the cultures of other planets. Is this interesting enough to be a good movie? It could have been if presented in a more clear and unusual way. Besides the complicated plot, the main problem with Insurrection is that the Ba'ku are pretty boring. They look like people from California living in a hippie commune. If you compare this to the planet Tatooine in Star Wars you can see that the Ba'ku planet could have been more exciting. Another problem is the typical love affair between the Star Trek captain and one of the cute aliens. A pretty worn out plot twist.

So, why did I like Insurrection? There was a lot of humor in the film that I enjoyed. The special effects were alright. But the main reason I thought Insurrection was fun was because I kept my expectations low (repeat after me, this is not Star Wars) and I was open to sci-fi that has some thought behind it.


Pure garbage. After watching this garbage I couldn't wait to see how much bashing it got on this site. I was wrong...most people actually praise this movie...why?

The plot is so random and small (alien mother and her offspring invade a farm house) that it constantly has characters talking about nothing just to fill time. I mean what was the scene with the uncle and nephew about? why was the uncle such a loser? they didn't even show him get killed. What was the point of adding that blond fat bimbo into the plot ten minutes before the movie ended? She didn't even look attractive. The effects are so bad, there not fun gory, just groan gory. The acting is irritating, I wanted everyone to die in this movie quickly.

The editing and direction in this movie are non existent..as for example whenever it wants it will show random shots of hands moving things and random shots of characters faces for no reason. Wait, I did see a quick sense of style which was one quick zoom in shot of wall socket..wow that's exciting as it gets.

The only cool deaths in this movie are the farm wife getting her face much-ed on and head chomping that will make u burst with laughter. Didn't see that one coming, I'll give it credit for that.

The score is so low key and generic that I really can't remember much about it...not very effective...even for a ludicrous b-movie like this. The dialog is so moronic and the actors are all un attractive.

I'm a huge fan of really bad movies (HellGate, Texas Chiansaw massacre the next generation, Troll 2, and Slumber Party massacre 2 have all made it to my collection and i love watching them) but this movie is too boring..maybe if it was a 15 min short it wouldn't be so bad...not a movie that trys to stretch itself for an hour and 20 mins...the ending was a crap fest also. Nice effects on that one.

zero stars out of ****


A disappointment! I'd seen Party Girl some years ago (maybe 20) and was ecstatic. The film took cult dimensions in my memory. And having watched it the other day, oh my god, I said, what was all the fuss about? Even for 1958 the story is too melodramatic, the gangster plot too lame and the acting bad all round. Taylor plays an interesting part, his attire is first class and so is the mask he wears, mustache and all, planted on his beautiful self by the makeup department. And there the feat ends. He's stiff as usual and proud of it. Cyd Charisse doesn't even try to act. She dances well and that's all. As for tough guy Lee J. Cobb - usually a very good actor - he's plain bad. He bellows, gesticulates Italian-style, laughs out loudly, screams most of the time and shows signs of acute boredom. After all he has to play someone named "Rico Angelo" - which to me sounds like a travesty of an Italian-mobster's name! The plot is no better. Bad guys' lawyer is finally testifying against former employers who both die in the most ludicrous final scene in the history of gangster movies: both choose to stand by the wide window panes while police is firing from below the street. John Ireland gets hit, Lee J. Cobb holds the vial with the hydrochloric acid he's threatened to empty on Cyd Chariss' face, a bullet hits it and it burns his face. WOW! No, I am a great fan of Nicholas Ray's work - I really worship this director but this must be about the worse thing he's done for the screen. A happy end seems very inappropriate for the gloomy atmosphere (in the script but nowhere in the cinematography, alas!) and 1958 was not so remote a year even from black and white "noirs", like the "Asphalt Jungle"  to name just one. This is mob mickey mouse.


What's there? Cinemascope, technicolor, transparencies, and two dance scenes with Cyd Charisse's wonderful legs.

What else? Lame characters, cheap sentimentalism, lazy plot.

Ridiculously outdated and totally dull.


I like neo-noir. But this film insults your intelligence. First, Frank Miles (Russo) looks like a scraggly ex-con, but somehow puts the moves on a hot-looking waitress Dora (nicely played by Theresa Russell) with personal problems, by asking her simple, creep-type questions. They actually hook up, straining credibility. Even strippers have higher standards than this. In the meantime, Miles shows his true colors as the "repentant" thief by violently going after the guy who stiffed him out of a job $200 grand. That was some job for such a low-level punk as Miles. I guess he is not really "reformed" at all. Some thugs sent by the kingpin try to dispatch him, but they forgot their guns, so Miles takes care of them, but always leaving a thug to come back and kick his ass to keep the action going. yawn. So much for sympathizing with this moronic character. After the hot waitress gives him a date and even shows up at his place of work (junkyard), Miles is hooked and stalks her after she doesn't return his phone calls. He finds out she has an ex-husband giving her the business. And that's when the fit hits the shan. It's Frank and Dora from here on in, together with a box filled with dreams. But wait, Frank must go back to his crappy hotel down in the city to "pick up a few things" leaving Dora alone in her dark hills home after they have done some horrible misdeed. what, he has to pick up his lucky toothbrush? He just got out of the slammer, fer chrissakes. He comes back of course to more trouble. But the bad guys leave, and so Frank once again goes back to his crummy hotel to "play it cool. He comes back and the bad guys are this time out for blood. Frank kicks ass, but once again doesn't quite check to bodies to make sure they are all unconscious, and so we have a hostage sich-ee-ashion where Frank must come back again, and play hero. But no plot twist this time, folks. Frank comes in and the last 20 minutes of the film is about as dark and depressing as any noir could be. Except we had to endure 80 minutes of bumbling mess. I was very disappointed. The dialog was cliché and the characters were cutout. The acting was fairly decent, but James Russo should stick to acting, not writing. He shows by this effort he cannot write a sympathetic, believable story to save his life. 4 points.


"The Box" was not a good movie. I thought the main character, Frank, was a brutal thug just released from prison and destined to go back. He solves problems with violence and, as I saw it, stalked a waitress he met. I think the movie tried to portray Frank as a victim of circumstance where he tries to go straight but is pulled back into crime by the bad influences around him. It was not successful. Frank made deliberate choices to use violence while trying to recover money from the crime he was imprisoned for. Was I to believe that this action was justified and correct? I didn't buy it. It's the skewed logic of a criminal mind that since they stole something then it is now theirs and they are justified in using any means to recover their property. Hey, it's stolen property. It doesn't belong to you. Then there is the whole other story about the waitress and her dysfunctional relationship that Frank sticks his nose into. The whole movie had this poorly contrived aura about it. It seemed that there was an ending, a poor ending, the writer had in mind and he just filled in some facts in the beginning to get the ending to happen. The performances by the principles were poor. Theresa Russell is capable of far better work and she did an OK job given the poor story but overall it wasn't that great. Brad Dourif seemed like he wanted to portray a tough guy by cursing and acting like a fool. He wasn't believable. The movie was a waste of time. Don't bother with it.


For the most part THE BOX is not a bad film but its not a very good film either, plainly put I had mixed reactions about this film, it had a good concept, the acting was above par, it maintains a slow pace throughout but when it ended I felt really disappointed because I waited for something big to happen and it never did, there was no major car chase scenes but there were a few quick shootouts nothing more, there is just nothing to get overly excited about in this film.

However, what kept me watching was the fact that I liked the cast, James Russo, Brad Dourif, Theresa Russell and Micheal Rooker are always great to see on screen no matter how the movie is, also I can safely say director Richard Pepin has done better films in the past, so I can easily let this one slide Overall, it might be worth seeing but you won't miss anything.


The acting by Russo wasn't bad, but that's the best I can say about it. This is the worst movie that I have seen since The Thin Red Line and Lost in Translation. There are too many unanswered questions: How did the cops get involved? Who's money was it? Where did it come from? (Maybe the Greek Gods like in Clash of the Titans?) Why didn't the guy know about bullet proof vests? Why did Dora (Russell) have to say "They raped me"?

It is terrible. Seeing Steve Railsback who looked worse with his lip gloss than my 93 y.o. grandmother when she misses with red lipstick.

Russells' character was a stripper? Good thing they didn't show it. Maybe in the fifties?


Okay this movie was just plain awful. The plot is rediculous, The jokes aren't funny, and as for the acting well, the star of the movie is Joey Lawrance, enough said. I did however enjoy this movie because my friends and I just mocked it so horribally. Thats really all this movie is good for. You don't even have to be particularly clever or witty to do this either, the movie pretty much mocks itself. I can't imagine how incredibally boring it would be to watch this movie by yourself.


It looked like it would be nice watch this as a joke, but even that made my brain hurt. It's the type of movie that makes you ashamed of the industry. Just think of all of the starving children that could have been fed with the money this CRAP used up... The time people wasted on watching this instead of doing something useful, like, watching paint dry. Even being drunk probably doesn't make this movie better (I wouldn't know, I only watched it once sober and am in no way meaning to do that to myself again).

I've found that watching this movie was only good for one thing - whenever one of my friends regards some movie as "the worst movie ever", I simply raise my hand and say - "Tequila Bodyshots."


It almost made me puke and I woke up the next morning needing an aspirin.

I am glad to have learned the following 1) tequila can cure anything, 2) that body shots can perform miracles, 3)Joey Lawrence is still alive, and 4) that dreams really can come true in America because apparently anyone will give anybody a bunch a money to make anything no matter how crappy it is.

I wish I could have found this somewhat funny but the acting was so bad and the story so weak that I just couldn't. What's sad is that in some ways this comes off as some sort of after school special regarding the evils of tequila use or something. Shame on you Joey Lawrence.


uh.. i wasted 90 minutes already so i will be concise...

ACTING: TERRIBLE SCRIPT: WORSE STORY: POINTLESS AND IDIOTIC

it is bad very bad, who makes this stuff?


Upon reading the other user comments about this film, I am left to wonder if any of them actually WATCHED the movie. Or maybe there's some other mysterious movie with the same name that was actually good. But I digress...

This film, if you were to call it that, is atrocious in all areas. The acting is forced and wooden, the directing is confused at best, and absolutely nothing is cohesive and sensical. Perhaps my least favorite facet, though, was the writing. The diologue was strained and unnatural.

All of that being said, I will give this film the benefit of the doubt... it's really great to watch and make fun of with your friends. Still, this movie gets only a 1/10, only getting the one because of how funny it is to watch.


Lame.

The other night, my girlfriend and I were in our local video-rental place, and she picked this one out. In retrospect, letting someone who doesn't find The Simpsons funny pick a "comedy" wasn't such a great idea.

From start to finish, Tequila Body Shots is boring, predictable, and decidedly NOT funny. I knew how it was going to end by halfway through, and the "acting" (if one can even call it that) is horrible. Joey Lawrence seems to think that acting permanently worried makes up for lack of actual talent. Also, just a little bit of research would have gone a long way. There are stupid errors all over the place, ie: they go to Mexico and drink tequila with a worm, which is just ridiculous, as any tequila drinker knows.

Seriously, don't waste your time on this one. In terms of movies, I'm generally pretty easy to please, and often not-very-good films entertain me, but this one was really, really bad. Get yourself a bottle of 'Cuervo Gold and drink yourself silly. Praying to The Porcelain God will prove more entertaining than this stupid film, that's for sure.


Tequila Body Shots starts in Los Angeles where Johnny (Joseph Lawrence) tells his two best friends, Al (Josh Marchette) & Paul (Nathan Anderson), that he has been invited to a Halloween party in Mexico by someone named Hector (Rene L. Moreno). The three friends decide to go & set off but Al & Paul become very sick on the journey, Johnny seeks help & meets Doc (Henry Darrow) who manages to cure Al & Paul with a couple of tequila body shots. The friends give Doc a lift into town & before they part company Doc gives Johnny a bottle of tequila of his own which gives Johnny the power to read women's thoughts. As Johnny, Al & Paul party the day away they meet three girls, Tamlyn (Dru Mouser), Angela (Jennifer Lyons) & Linda (Senta Moses). Johnny & Tamlyn seem to like each other but the mysterious Hector just won't seem to go away, from threatening voices to eerie hallucinations there seems to be something sinister going on...

Written, co-produced & directed by Tony Shyu I have mixed feelings about Tequila Body Shots. The script is unique & has at least some originality about it but that's simply not enough when the whole concept & execution is so bad. For a start the film drags painfully in parts & most of it seems to be shots of annoying teenagers standing around drinking & cracking extremely unfunny jokes. The plot is bizarre, it contains magical tequila, hallucinations, ghosts, mind reading, reincarnation, possession, prophecies, a strange spirit world with the grim reaper, Nazi looking ghosts & a for good measure a few lame fart jokes. None of these elements come together that well & I'm not even sure what type of film Tequila Body Shots is supposed to be, is it a comedy? A horror? A buddy-buddy road film? An adventure film? It's a very hard film to categorise, it's something a bit different & the filmmakers must at least get some credit for trying something unusual but unfortunately that just didn't stop me from thinking that at the end of the day I had just wasted 90 plus odd minutes of my life watching total crap. The character's got on my nerves to start with but they sort of grew on me & I ended up quite liking them, also I couldn't but help think that if Doc knew what was going to happen why didn't he just stop Johnny & his friends going to the party in the first place & prevent the whole sorry situation?

Tequila Body Shots is, at this point in time, the one & only film that director Shyu has worked on. I have to give him some credit as it's certainly colourful & has a garish look to it although all the Mexican stereotypical clichés come out like innuendo about sheep, everyone seems to wear sombreros & that all Mexican jails are full of gays... The film jumps into some sort of spirit world towards the end & it's all filmed in a blueish tone & it looks awful, the grim reaper ends up rowing what looks like a wooden box! There are no scares, atmosphere & the jokes are really unfunny. Forget about any blood or gore as not one single drop of blood is spilt during it's duration.

Technically the film varies, some of it looks nice & colourful while at other times it's one of the cheapest, nastiest & most idiotic films ever. The acting ranges from OK to utterly awful especially Robert Patrick Benedict as Ted who is highly irritating whenever on screen.

Tequila Body Shots is an unusual film to be sure, I don't think I've ever seen another film like it but as I've already said that's not enough to save it from being really crap. A bit of a mess & not worth wasting your time on in my opinion.


After renting this out of curiosity, and overall, wasting a very long 90 minutes out of my life, I feel like I need to comment on this. Keep in mind, this is a fair critique, nothing more, nothing less.

First off, I am not one to just get a movie based on the cover art. I read the back cover, and even though Joey Lawrence of Blossom fame (if you could call it that) was in it, I decided to give it a try, just for once, to pick a movie, that might be one of those that might just surprise me in being a good movie. This one wasn't at all. The cover of the box is, however, very well done in that in portrays a good movie (unfortunately, this movie is not inside the box). Though, to bash it would be senselessly in the same vein as the same mockeries you hear elsewhere of such B-movies. Oh, this one has all of the complaints of a non-fun B-movie (keep in mind, B-movies, in my opinion, can be really fun to watch), but, there is something about it that sets it apart from my 1 and 2 star ratings on this site. But before I get to that rationale, first the obvious complaints. The dialogue is horrible. The plot is just stupid. For a horror movie it is not at all scary. But, and I know, I am biting my tongue saying this, the acting wasn't that bad. I've seen a lot worse. As for the direction, it really wasn't that bad either, believe it or not. Though still amateurish, any attempts of a B-movie being 'stylish' differentiates it from a movie shot with a home video camera, and that is okay in my book, at least in that respect. From what I gathered, they picked a bunch of better than average-talented no-name, yet, attractive actors to star in this, spent the time to throw in some (keep in mind, the word here is 'some') snazzy direction, and some decent music and lighting. Trust me, to be fair, I've seen a lot worse. It looked like everyone involved wanted to make something out of this movie, but, despite many other flaws, the script has to be the biggest. Though, it wasn't as stupid as others I've witnessed on the screen (there are a couple, surprisingly crude jokes that are somewhat amusing...at least they're right with the times, that's all I'll say), it still had way too many groaners, and was way too predictable. I'll give the cast credit with what they had to work with, I know amateurs when I see them, and at least half of the cast ain't that. The dialogue is just stupid, and the situations, man, how lame. But, the thing that bothered me the most was the characters...most were lame as could be. So lame that there were a couple that you wanted to see die horrible deaths, yet, this never happens. What we get is a movie that isn't a horror film, isn't a suspense or thriller, isn't much of a teen comedy...what it is is simply, perhaps an idea that sounded good on the drawing board, but completely failed upon execution. These 90 minutes felt like hours upon hours, and when it ends, it is completely ass-nine.

Yeah, I didn't like this movie, but to call it complete crap would be unfair. It is crap, mind you, but, it is better than a lot I have seen over the years. Like I said, the acting, for a few of the characters was pretty good. But, unfortunately, that doesn't make up for a boring movie that will drain 90 minutes of your life that you will never ever get back. This isn't even one to get drunk and make fun of (i.e. one of those it is so bad it is good movies) b\c it takes itself so seriously, when it should know that the audience, given the cast and the non-mass produced title, has already given it two strikes against it. In my opinion, if a horror movie gets confused halfway through what it wants to do, becoming a slasher flick, though cheap (and I sure as hell ain't bashing slasher flicks, they're the most fun to make fun of), at least it can be entertaining. But no, there are no deaths or anything in this film, just stupid, pick up lines and improbable situations with too many characters who I wanted to see be vanquished due to their lameness. I give it a 3/10 stars, and that's pushing it. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.


Making a horror comedy that simultaneously is funny AND suspenseful is pretty much the hardest thing to accomplish in cinema. Only the truly great directors like, say, Sam Raimi ("The Evil Dead") can pull this off, so don't expect a new guy in the business to succeed. Fortunately for writer/director/producer Tony Shyu, he isn't overly pretentious and does never at one point attempt to make his film look like a genuine horror production. He merely puts the emphasis on the comedy factors, and although not always equally successful, at least he manages to keep "Tequila Body Shots" endurable. The film starts off as a typical high-school comedy, in the style of "American Pie", with stereotypical teenage characters that only have sex and booze on their minds, and it really takes a very long time before until the horror elements are mixed in. The plot centers on two groups of college friends (three male film students and the nerd they can't get rid off + three random girls) that mysteriously get invited to a Halloween party across Mexican borders. They encounter a spiritual doctor handing out all sorts of magic potions, party locations that vanish overnight and devilish voices in the background; all leading to the inevitably derivative and dull horror finale of reincarnation & vengeance from beyond the tomb. One of the girls turns out to be the mirror image of a Mexican duchess slain by her jealous husband nearly 100 years ago and only one of the boys  Johnny  can prevent that her soul will be taken to hell for all eternity. The horror elements of the story definitely miss their effect and the references towards the Greek mythology (the tale of Orpheus and the boat-ride to hell) are utterly misplaced. They're lost on the target audience of this type of film, anyway. Luckily enough, a handful of jokes and comical situations are entertaining enough to keep you alert. Particularly Ted's character is good for a couple of laughs, as he sees himself as God's gift to women even though he's the most annoying Star Wars nerd imaginable. The girls form terrific eye candy, but only the abnormally yummy Stephanie Arellano takes her top off, so the sleaze-factor of "Tequila Body Shots" isn't exactly impressive, neither. There's no gore or spectacular action sequences and the climax is so exaggeratedly happy & joyful it nearly made me feel miserable. NOT recommended, not even to the handful of teenage fans Joey Lawrence has left since starring in "Blossum". Yuck.


I'm not familiar with Greenaway's other work; I mostly experienced this for Louis Andriessen's score (I'm a fan, and this isn't his best work, but it does have its moments). As for the film itself, let me say this: I like difficult art, and difficult cinema. I spend many hours justifying the existence of difficult art to others who are not quite so adventurous. I enjoy emotional distance and ambiguous meaning, taken even to Euro-trash extremes. And yet, I found this film to be the worst, most pretentious piece of crap I've ever seen in my life. It is very unattractive visually, and the film has dated very, very poorly in terms of its overall look. (Yes, you can tell this was made for TV...) Greenaway never knows when to get out of the way and let the images just breathe on their own... there is far too much information on screen at all times. If a first run through his completely awful text (which might pass as "edgy prose" in my junior high diary), set to Andriessen's music, wasn't enough for you, don't worry... he'll display the whole thing from start to finish in a slow side-scroll that features such high-tech effects as digitally-generated drop shadow. And his attempts at "choreography" are so banal in spots that you'll want to laugh out loud. Now I absolutely have to see another Greenaway film to see if they're all this bad. As for yourself, don't bother.


This sequel to the beloved Trilogy of Terror is a complete misfire, a lousy and even desperate attempt to recapture the elements that made the original film work. This time we have a mediocre, occasionally inept actress named Lysette Anthony playing different roles in the three stories, instead of the brilliant Karen Black. In the first one she plays a rich trophy wife who bumps off her husband with the aid of her boyfriend. The story is lame, but will probably give you the creeps if you are at all claustrophobic. The second story involves a woman who tries to bring her son back from the dead and apparently succeeds. This story is so poorly executed, from the laughably bad acting from the actor playing the son to the horrible final shot, it's just not worth commenting on. The worst story is the last, which is ironic b/c it's a sequel to the best story from the first film. In that one, Black played a young woman who is terrorized in her apartment by an African Zuni fetish doll. In the new one, the filmmakers have thrown all plausibility to the wind to get another young woman in the same situation. (I love it when the woman and the security guard suspect a killer is in the multi-story building and the guard insists she stay in the lab with the door locked while he checks the place out, even though the door to the lab has a flimsy glass window on it). The story then serves as a strict remake of the first one, with Anthony trapping the doll in a case, cutting herself while trying to grab the knife when the doll saws away at the case, and then becoming possessed by the spirit in the doll at the end. Really, just a complete waste of time. Watch the original instead.


OK, I know that Dan Curtis directed the original Trilogy of Terror, but come on, this was just insulting the original story. Now I wanted to see this because I was curious since I liked the original so much, it is such a classic that is very under rated. So when I saw this playing on the Sci-Fi channel, I didn't hesitate to watch it. Now the first two stories weren't too bad, a little cheesy, but so was the first. I think these stories were meant to be over the top, but the third one was where it went bad. The third story was just a total rip off the the original Zooney hunting doll, the exact same stunts were used along with the exact same lines, the funny thing is, I don't think it was possible, but the woman was definitely more stupid and deserved to be... well... you know.

Well, the first story is about a woman where her husband dies and she discovers his grave is missing and encounters horrible things when she finds out there is more than what meets the eye. The second story was about a mother and her son, her son drowns, but the guilt of not being there drives her mad and she resurrects him from the dead. But unfortunately, there maybe something more she brought back with her son. Then the third story was about the Zooney Hunting Fetish Doll that has murdered two women, but the police think it's a cult type of murder and give the doll to a scientist in a museum, but little does she know the horror that comes with having this doll by her side.

The only thing I enjoyed about the last story was that I did get more than a few laughs, especially where they did her grabbing the blade of the knife from the doll when he is trying to get out of the suitcase she locked him in, and she goes for the blade once, gets cut, she acts surprised, but does she learn anything? No, she goes for it a second time! This film just didn't have the elements the first one did, Dan should have just left the stories alone, they are perfect the way they are.

2/10


An incredibly uninspired television anthology sequel that has little to do with the first fantastic film, except that the lead character in all three stories is played by one woman. It goes something like this: Lysette Anthony goes all gravedigger and gets chased by giant rat puppets. Lysette Anthony gets chased by a wretched child actor playing her resurrected son in a pseudo-Gothic setting. Lysette Anthony gets chased by the infamous zuni fetish doll from the first TV movie except the special effects are somehow worse two decades later. Even this last segment is uninteresting. Anthony is obviously no Karen Black, but she does a good job with the garbage she's given.


Anyone who has ever seen the original should avoid this movie like the plague. While the 1975 Trilogy of Terror was a truly original triple slice of terror, delivering generous dollops of scares, the sequel is thoroughly unoriginal and 99% scare-free.

It's alarming that the same director did both. TOT2 is so vapid and glossy it reads like an audition tape for Tales From The Crypt. The script gives new meaning to the word unoriginal.

The first segment is an ancient horror comic book chestnut which has been roasted one too many times. Its twist ending offers the only true moment of horror, after a long, obvious set-up.

The second segment is a Monkey's Paw twist. The screen credit alleges it is by writer god Richard Matheson. But if Matheson ever saw this movie, he must have upchucked when he heard Lysette Anthony's impassioned occult incantation, in which she invoked the great and mighty god Tetragrammation. Apparently despite making a lifelong career from the occult, the director never heard of Tetragrammaton.

Worst of all is the last segment, a simpering rehash of the original, which featured Karen Black assailed by a very creepy and authentic-looking voodoo doll. The update misfires threefold. Lysette Anthony is a capable actress going through the motions, but generates no real feeling of horror. Karen Black was unforgettable in her performance, which transcended genre expectations, particularly for a made-for-TV movie. The new doll is atrocious, appearing to be made from the same plastic formula as Mr. Potatohead. Its annoying over-the-top growls only exacerbate the idiocy. Hopefully the special EFX crew on this one moved on to something more appropriate to their skills, like a Muppets movie.

It's sad that the once-great Dan Curtis, who gave us Dark Shadows and Burnt Offerings, could be reduced to delivering this piffle.

Horrid, not horror.


I love Near Dark, and consider it an absolute classic vampire movie....right up at the top of the list of the best, but this film. Whew! What can I say? A boring biker movie? Yeah, and then some. It's all talk and no action.

I stayed with it to the end, hoping for a big finish, but it didn't happen. I guess I had worked myself up for a big Tarantino-like shootout in the bar, and it was over almost too soon to catch, if you blinked. Too bad. At least a blood bath at the end might have given me something to enjoy.

I'm also a big fan of Willem Defoe, and he's very good in what little he does. One could still see the potential for greatness that would follow.

I guess what really disappointed me the most was that I wasn't convinced that this was a real biker gang at all, just actors pretending to be bikers. They talk a lot, smoke cigarettes a lot, and drink beer a lot, but there's no real tension here, and ultimately the "bikers" turn out to be about like everyone else. There's no rumbles, no fights, just talking....long periods of talking.

Still, if she never makes another movie, Katherine Bigelow can at least say that she made the best vampire movie ever produced. Near Dark rocks.


What could have been a wonderful film about the twilight of French Indochina is irretrievably lost in the turgid pot boiler of a melodramatic boy-girl-mom 'love' triangle that seems to have been plotted and scripted (even in the original French) by a first year drama student. Cinematography 100% though: it makes you weep. Such an opportunity missed.

Perhaps the film should be considered as a precursor of the late 90s series of 'classic' films where location and the reproduction of period detail become the focus of the production, overlooking the need for realistic - or at least believable - dramatic progression. The characters are beautiful people (Catherine Deneuve is spectacular as always), the location shots are wonderful, but the storyline is only just this side of trite. The film could be used as a classroom example of style-over-substance.


Outside the train station of Marseille, through which many a Frenchman left for the colonies, stands a 19th-century statue allegorically depicting Indochina as three half-naked girls lounging in the tropical sun. It's the perfect encapsulation of the colonial stereotype that South East Asian women are childlike, naive and sensual. The statue tells you more about the men who commissioned it - men who probably never set foot in the colonies - than about the realities of French Indochina.

Cut to 1992 and here's a French movie about Vietnam in which the only major Vietnamese character is, you guessed it, a childlike, naive and sensual young girl. If it wasn't that this movie was to a large extent shot in Vietnam, you'd think the makers never set foot there: this is a movie set on plantations, in gambling halls and opium-dens, a catalogue of colonial clichés.

The story, such as it is, involves a French plantation holder (Catherine Deneuve) and her adoptive daughter, a Vietnamese royal (Linh Dan Pham) growing apart during the anti-French uprising. Taken as a metaphor for colonialism, the adoptive-daughter-angle is beyond patronizing (I much prefer Graham Greene's morality play of The Quiet American: Vietnam as a whore being fought over by an old European and a young American).

Sure, the makers feel obliged to take a stand against colonialism, but the content is betrayed by the prettiness of their images. It's hard to take serious the message of a movie in which Vietnamese princesses elope with dashing young French officers and sail a dhow through Ha Long Bay, Vietnam's most scenic tourist spot. This movie is so busy wallowing in the nostalgia of a lost and largely imagined past that it makes any pro-independence stance null and void.

Even the downtrodden masses look picturesque.


I wish I could find something good about this film but helas... I really tried hard watching it at different times but still, it's almost unbearable to watch. I really envy non french-speakers who may then not be affected by the terrible acting (but the script is basically awful so the actors may not be totally responsible). This film is discontinued, the storyline is either too slow or too fast, no identification with the characters is possible, it's just uncanny. The actors seem to 'recitate' their part with no emotion (Deneuve has such a monotonous and unconvincing tone of voice. Vincent Perez is very good-looking but truly has no talent whatsoever). Everything happens abruptly with no real continuity, the editing is appalling. We don't see that much of the Vietnam either and these bits of history do nothing for the film. What this film lacks above all is depth, it just goes in different directions with no coherence. Bits of this and bits of that, I find HARD to believe this film got an award for the best foreign film. The landscapes maybe? I certainly would recommend 'The Lover' inspired by Marguerite Duras' novel of the same name as well as films like 'Cyclo' or 'the scent of the green papaya'. A different aspect of the Vietnam but far more interesting.


You don't miss something until it is gone. This film is loaded as one commenter stated with nostalgia for what never was. A Frenchman going to Indochina in 1930s would be no different than an American going to Samoa or Guam or Puerto Rico today; some did it to make money or fill a private sector job most did it for government work. In Indochina I bet you could count on the head of a pin the number of beautiful women (De Neuve) who ran large rubber plantations and frequented opium dens---n'existaient pas! except in the mind of the French Danielle Steele who wrote this silly thing. It would have been infinitely more enjoyable if it had stayed Danielle Steele instead a UN human rights/ignorant view of colonialism Sunday school lesson.


One of the worst films I have ever seen, and absolutely unimaginable why it won an academy award. -- Then again, though it's story could be from a Danielle Steel paperback, the acting was pretentious at its best, and never ever provoked a single feeling in me but awkwardness and embarrassment, it had those spectacular big display scenes Americans like so much, and costumes.


I have tried several times to watch this movie because I am assured it's wonderful. I just don't get it. I think it's overrated and silly! I love foreign films, so it's not the subtitles that bothered me. Just an overwrought piece of nonsense.


Shot entirely using body cams and spy cams, the movie attempts to explore the horror of the increase in stalking due to the advances in and availability of technology. The movie begins with a stalker, played by Colin Hanks, filming women at the beach and at the park, obviously searching for a victim. He chooses a girl, played by Ana Claudia Talancón, and begins following her, planting cameras in her apartment and slowly inserting himself into her life, using the knowledge he gained from the cameras to find common ground. I could see what the writer/director was trying to accomplish, but it was not entertaining enough to hold my interest without taking breaks. The acting was mostly convincing, although there were some spells of poor acting. The ending seemed very film-school and amateur.


This film is slow and boring and tries far too hard to be 'realistic'. The story of a guy obsessed with a girl and films her 24/7. Don't know about anyone else but I find no entertainment in watching someone sleep, brush their teeth, shower or do their housework; but whatever rocks your boat I guess. The film is mostly the main character, Ana doing everyday things viewed through something with the same resolution as a web cam. Watched for 5 minutes, fast forward, fast forward again, probably watched for 15 minutes total but feels like watched for 15 hours.

Very little action, weak characters and the camera is irritating.


Young man stalks a young woman by installing cameras everywhere in her apartment and by following her with hidden cameras in bags and such.

While the idea of someone using todays technology to stalk the object of their affection is scary, especially since we see how seemingly easy it is, I found the depiction of the story more miss than hit. The problem for me was that the central conceit of the film, namely that we are watching the young man's tapes unbelievable. Call me a heathen but I couldn't get past the impossible cutting to a close-up with in a single camera sequence, or perfectly focused from a moving bag shot or any of the films seeming breaking of its own rules. It didn't help that I didn't really care for anyone in the film and found myself feeling pity for our anti-hero because he was "in love" with someone who seems rather dull.

I have a confession to make. I saw this as part of the IFC in Theaters cable service and the movie so disenchanted me that I shut it off about 45 minutes in. Normally I'll hang in there, especially when I'm watching a movie at home, since I can fast forward, but even that didn't seem like an option. I just was bored and distracted and finally got to the point where I just shut it off.

There's a clever idea here, it just needs someone better to use it to make a good movie.


without doubt Leslie Neilsens worst movie ever. there were only two of us in the movie theater, which should have deterred us from staying. Its the only movie I have ever wished to get up and leave. The The film was boring, the slapstick is awful, the story line weak, and Leslie Nielsen is most unfunny. There are one or two vulgar pieces, featuring human excrement. A big disappointment. it was shown in Spain as "Esquia como puedas", which followed the format of previous very funny movies from Airport forwards. Nielsen plays a secondary role, and his character is definitely second rate. I shall think twice about going to another Nielsen movie without reading reviews.


If you're after a Nielsen comedy, don't bother. His role is a mundane supporting one and lacks his usual comedy genius. Unfortunately, the performances and plot he supports is lifeless and average. The dogs don't even contribute.


OK. Let's just say that this movie was a waste of time. If you have the opportunity to NOT WATCH IT, please don't! The humor is, well, not really humor. In fact, some of the jokes are rather disgusting (as in bird and human feces in the face a number of times). It's a total waste of a movie. The plot is OK, with the race and all, but the way they put it together? Please, can you try a less embarrassing way for the main character. As for the PG rating; what's with that? There's many mentioned and physical "love" scenes that should raise this movie to at least PG-13; even 14A if they're smart. But hey, the people who do the ratings obviously don't think kissing, sleeping together, and other such scenes deserve a high rating. Yikes. What is this world coming to? Bad movies and bad ratings... a waste of a movie.


I saw this movie on an airplane, and I considered walking out halfway through. The one good thing about this movie is that I now know why plane seats are equipped with vomit bags. But seriously folks, this movie was a big disappointment. Skeet Ulrich and Leslie Nielson are certainly not great actors, but they usually satisfy. This film's intentions are undoubtedly good considering the numerous Hollywood-approved family comedy standby techniques, but the quality of the acting, directing, writing, and cinematography is deplorable. In short, do not see this film. Do not purchase this movie as a gift for your kids or for your friends who have kids. Do not even rent it as a joke to laugh about with your buddies. And if, like me, you are subjected to viewing it midair, do yourself a favor and tune the headphones attached to your armrest to one of the radio stations; I recommend the best of Boz Scaggs, which I think is #4.


I bought this movie brand new for $5.00 in the bargain bin .It appeared to be a nice funny family movie.The cover named some top actors.It has some really cute dogs in it; but that's about all it has going for it.I'm usually a big fan of animal movies.Based on the humor i.e. the very tired male genitalia jokes , the farting & pooping (some body get this guy some of the pink liquid) , and all around cheesy lines; the only people who would enjoy this movie would be a group of sixth grade boys.The movie isn't a knock- off of Snow Dogs .I thought Snow Dogs was a really good movie.It's much worse.I would recommend renting this movie only if your video store has Rent one,Get one free specials.Maybe use it as your free rental ... hmm on second thought maybe not.


This movie starts out like a "Snow Dogs" knockoff, but quickly turns sour. It has a simple story line and predictable plot twists, but seems like it could be a fun kids movie. Pretty quickly, you discover that the movie is filled with sexual content, male crotch gags, constipation & fart gags, homophobic innuendo, and plain stupidity.

I have always liked Skeet Ulrich and Leslie Nielsen, but this movie is just plain bad! I just hope that no parent ever lets their kids watch this movie.


This is undoubtedly the worst movie EVER in cinema history! The jokes are lame (the whole movie is lame) and the quality is just plain crap. I watched the DVD interviews and every actor said that they had faith in this piece of junk. Skeet and Leslie even commented how funny and fantastic the script was.

I rented this out thinking it would be a good adult comedy, but it proved too childish for me - heck it might even be too childish for children. Now that I think of it, this movie has some rude (unfunny) jokes that are not suitable for children. I don't know who the movie was trying to reach, but it sure as heck wasen't me, or the 98% of people who have seen this movie.

NOTE: See this movie to mock it only.


I originally watched this movie because I loved watching Skeet Ulrich in the TV series "Miracles" (another great & provocative series cancelled by the U.S. networks, way before it's time), and wanted to see some more of his work.

I just found out on this site that Skeet made this movie BEFORE "Miracles." I'm glad to find out that this movie didn't entirely ruin his career.

This must have been one of those sad movies made on a minuscule budget, to satisfy one of the Canadian cable network's "Canadian content" requirements. It is reminiscent of some of the terrible Canadian films made in the 1970's and 80's.

The writing appears to be that of a 12 or 13 year-old, and even the talents of Skeet and Leslie Nielsen can't save this one. The dialogue is so bad, I found myself actually feeling embarrassed for the actors who had to spew out the words. Leslie must have been short of cash that month to agree to be in this one. The lame gags, might work for 12 year olds, but no one above that age should even waste the money on renting this piece of "sled-dog crap."


This is possably the worst movie ever made! Even the beautiful Natasha Henstridge suck in this movie! I have no clue what so ever to how this movie even got past editing, cause they had to see how very, very, very bad it was there...

Stay clear of this one! I just want to cry because I spent $4 renting it...


OK So I saw this movie because Angie Everhart was in it. A lot of others did too. I rented this movie with Unrated on the DVD case. What a bunch of crap! If this movie was unrated, yeah maybe for language or some stupid reason other wise. I mean, for crying out for a good naughty scene. You could have aired this movie on FOX and no one would have thought any different. I've seen better adult scenes on Fastlane, that's how bad this movie dragged you in. So the story, good idea "Needing someone to take the blame." The ending is expected as you will see when you watch Wicked Minds. I do like the movie for the story so I gave it 3 stars, but I actually wanted to see Angie and the movie just didn't come through. Rent this movie for the story, wanna see Angie don't rent this one rent "Bare Witness."


This has to be one of the worst ever. Directed by Jason Hrens, it lacked the punch good thrillers give you. First of all the plot, written by Turi Meyer and Al Septien, takes you all over the place, without any sense of where you're going. So it goes around and around. Secondly, it is probably the worst cast ever assembled in one film. One level performances by almost all of the leading players. Angie Everhart, supposedly the temptress, looks old enough to be the hero's mother, even tho she's supposed to be his wicked stepmother. Her acting consists of pursed lips, low cut nightgowns and fussing with her hair. She constantly is playing with her much too long hair. Always brushing it out of her face even thought it continues to fall in her face. Anyone ever hear of bobby pins? She was quite annoying to watch. The hero, played by a poker face Andrew W. Walker, offered nothing but a vacant look on his face and brains of a deadbeat. He was boring to watch. His hot love scenes were toneless and unbelievable. How could anyone be so stupid to fall for the stepmother's obvious put ons. Then there's papa, played by Winston Rehert, who goes around doubting his wife's motives. Is he blind not to see her obvious flirting with his son? Isn't he rich enough to hire a private detective to catch her in the act? Oh, well, some things never occur to jealous husbands, I guess. Amy Sloan as the other woman, was certainly not that attractive to kill for. Please. Get real here. With all the attractive and young starlets, there could have been better choices for this role. Frank Schorpion as the lawyer friend of the family never had his character defined enough to figure just what he had to do with the movie. Although Scorpion was one of the better actors in this trashy film. Bobo Vian as the housekeeper also was good with the little she was offered to do. John Tapor as the Homeless Man should get a mention here for his excellent characterization. He was very believable. Unfortunately he gets two shots in the film and that's it. It seems the better actors are wasted in this chestnut. I give it 3 stars for the three actors I just mentioned. Scorpion, Vian and Tapor. Sorry.


This is not a very good movie and I don't recommend it for those of you who aren't dedicated Andrew Walker fans. If you for any reason still want to see it you'll probably survive, but you'll never be able to make up for the lost hour and a half.

Andrew Walker is very cute and sure there is a twist, but since you now know there is a twist you'll be looking for it and then it's not that surprising. Note this is a standard thriller made for TV.

The music in this movie sets the tone like it should, but also reveals when something isn't right - a good tool when figuring out the plot in advance.


This is supposedly an epic story about a King Naresuan during his childhood era, which supposedly, in his later years protected the invading Burmese from conquering Thailand, by driving them out.

Basically it is actually a heresy to say the movie is not good for Thai audiences and hence, in my opinion it is overrated. However, this is on of the best of 3 part series of the movie. The best in my opinion is Part 3 (climax), followed by Part 1, and Part 2. Much of the complaints came to part 2, which doesn't exist historically and many audiences were left complaining about the main actors' escapades with women, which actually was in conflict historically as he had little time for that. This fact is actually generally well known by the watching audience, so basically the director just stepped on a very sensitive big toe of the audiences. Something that a director should not do since they are the ones who come to enjoy the movie.

The problem about this movie, which is actually Part 1 is that the movie, cinematic version has been adapted for the movie has actually changed so much of the story historically (known by a majority of the audiences) and in very successful dramatic stage plays that actually had gained a wide television audience acceptance in Thailand (another big blunder). The most common complaints I received from viewers is that, if only the cinematic movie had been more faithful to the original dramatic stage plays or most of the television version of this movie, but with better cinematography, it would gained a strong following, at least internationally. Cinematography, is o.k., in general, but I do received complaints from viewing the initial hour of the movie to be a bit too dark on the lighting. This movie is basically similar to George Lucas, Star Wars Episode I, in which actors, and actress are cardboard character, language are somewhat unnatural, but in addition is the problem of poor editing, long sequences of movies at points where it doesn't seem to contribute to the overall story.

Basically a good movie, at least for the Thai audiences anyway, is that it is historically accurate at least to what the audiences are generally aware of(it would be insulting to actually say something contradictory), or faithful to the original successful dramatic plays (much like Mr. Bean's Holiday, that used the same original movie that made Mr. Bean so successful), or another that departed so much from the formula of success was the Godzilla movie, done by the Emmerich.

The key of the movie's success, that could have improved is the addition of dramatic elements, the toning down of unneeded parts of the story, and I am sure about more than half of the movie can be edited out, and at least dramatic elements be added, at least initially in the start of the movie and getting the audiences attention, is something that needs a lot of improvement.

Back to basic emphasis is needed in the movie, which is the basic theme of the movie, or the message, is missing, which I think should be how Naresuan achieved his greatness, and his ability of cunningness, would at least be helpful. Most thematic elements here are actually missing, a more successful movie, while there is little truth, was The Curse of The Golden Flower. While that movie had little relevance historically, its major thematic elements were that the King tried to poison his wife. While many plot elements, especially during the fight scenes in elaborate traps, were bad and contrived, the actors and the intensity of the actors, actress were excellent. I think that thematic elements is sorely needed in this movie.

Most of this movie lacked the stress, intensity in the actors and actresses needed to move the audiences. One of the most important elements of the story besides Aristotle's claim that plots are more important character is not really true, at least for today's movie. While we do claim plots in many movie reviews to be important, it is that most important elements should be the Theme of the movie, and the Premise of the movie that the plots should support.

If the Premise of the movie is a historical one, at least the major historical elements should get the audiences to agree and enjoy the movie more so than audiences going into defensive, and just watching the plot goes from one part to another part of the movie. Otherwise you get busy body in the movie, much like Next 2007, without a message, and the believability elements, which is the primal force of Premise, is lacking, but has a strong weight in all of Kubrick's movie, especially Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove.

If any directors want to have a good movie despite his bad editing, Kubrick's movie was a bit long, not well edited in many scenes, he still won the day because his premise for the story was strong and plot elements were there to prove his premise, which buildup to a strong message or a theme of the overall masterpiece, which we can sum up in few words, such as in Dr. Strangelove, that an accidental holocaust can happen. What about the possibility of the movie Naresuan? A good premise, where many plots element are supportive is the argument that one person, can indeed make a difference. Length of the movie is not of the essence. How many would complain Godfather is ever long a movie, which is about 175 minutes, but feels more like 30 minutes. If I had no intelligence in making any movie, there is one factor I will look that I know the movie will make it big: if people will not take their eyes off the screen for the entire movie, I have got a hit.