This may rank as one of the low points in the history of British TV;12 "celebrities" are flown off to some exotic tropical Island to see if there is any mutual attraction with each other,hopefully leading to sexual attraction.The word "celebrity" once had rather more respectful meaning for most of the 20th Century;mainly with those who had achieved fame because they deserved it,through endless hard work and great ability at their chosen field.In the 21st Century,particularly in the UK,it is now mostly associated with tawdry,dislikable,intractably pointless excuses for human beings most interested in seeing their names in equally reprehensible tabloid newspapers or c_______ magazines.(You notice I've blanked that word beginning with "c" out.To me,it's becoming far more offensive than all other profane Anglo-Saxon expletives combined)

And so it was that ITV,one of Britain's main terrestrial TV stations,decided to inflict this unbelievably awful dross for two seasons.And even more disgracefully,at peak viewing times.The young males and females displayed were attractive in a slightly superficial manner,but all hopes of anything else you would want from a good TV programme (i.e. character-filled or funny personalities,great entertainment,interesting incident,etc.) was doomed from the nano-second it began.And any hopes of seeing any dirty deeds between the contestants produced instant disappointment;maybe everyone involved knew their lucrative pay cheques would've bounced like a ping-pong ball if they had indulged in the most basic of human behaviour.

If such happenings had taken place and been seen by the viewing public,some people may have at least had a sense of personal gratification;as it was,even in heavily edited form,we witnessed a mind-numbingly dreary waste of air space,with individuals who were mostly so self-absorbed,vacuous or brutally annoying that frustrated viewers like myself wished the title had been changed to C________ DROWNING,where you could phone in to nominate every day which seedy,resistible member of this motley crew could be thrown in the nearby Ocean and just left to flounder,thereby ensuring we would hopefully never have to watch people like this in shows like this again.

To describe the list of people who took part in these two series as "Z" list is not accurate;if any person one day finds a new letter (or letters) to come after "Z",then that will be clearly apt.Currently,there are 26 letters in the English alphabet;if we ever get to the 1,000th,then you'll have reached that trough as far as this programme is concerned.

Who were the worst offenders? With so much competition,it is so difficult,but Paul Danan,desperate enough to star in both series,is the nominal winner;so amazingly smug and irritating that even a prostitute he's just paid £1,000,000 would think twice about associating with him,but he's closely followed by Abi Titmuss (notorious for her lascivious public image,but curiously reticent here,maybe because of pound signs in her eyes),Alicia Douvall(grubby groupie),Calum Best(tenth-rate playboy and a poor imitation of his late father George,but minus the peerless footballing talent),and Sophie Anderton.Yes,the ex-cokey model blubbed,scowled,sneered and caterwauled all her way out of our hearts,though she may have been the reason why TV bosses concluded that even this awful spectacle went below the lowest common denominator.By the second series,even the "C" word was dropped as the producers were reduced to persuading the stepsons and stepdaughters of actors and footballers to non-entertain us all.As for who won,well who cares? I know that deep down nobody won in the end;the losers were the British viewing public,and the producers who most probably spent several million pounds on this amazingly pointless drivel,which could have been better used on genuinely talented actors,writers and directors,making worthwhile programmes.Now that it's cancelled,will TV bosses spend similar amounts on the former,or more "reality" shows? I'm afraid I'm dreading to think....

RATING:1 out of 10.


This will sure make fans of grotesque children's shows like X-Men happy but it is guaranteed to be a source of disappointment if not anger to viewers familiar with the atmosphere present in Jin Yong's writing. The film's basic handicap is its effort to shrink a lengthy epic (at least partially) to a standard theatrical run. In the course of the film, you can never know what genre it strives to be in. A regular MA film, period drama or straight slapstick comedy? Sexual jokes and especially the absurd depiction of Huashan (Wah San) cult members serve nothing but to dilute the effect of the setting. The character played by Sammo Hung would fit to any grey-haired, eccentric kung fu master but when it poses to be the portrayal of a mythical Chinese sage like Zhang Sanfeng (Chang San-fung), it becomes too light even to be taken seriously. Few reasons to see this one may be the distinguished acting of Jet Li and mesmerising beauty of Sharla Cheung. In a film with a little from everything, it is doubtful that you'll find anything. Wong Jing would have done better if he kept in waters he knows well. I'd prefer a "Naked Killer" Chingmy Yau for sure.


I've seen a lot of films in my time that don't make an awful lot of sense, but very few have left me quite as confused as The Evil Cult, a crazy wuxia martial arts flick starring Jet Li (plus a host of other genre stars). Part of the problem would undoubtedly be down to the awful subtitles on my DVD (it said they were English on the box, but I'm not so sure), but even if they had been perfect, I have no doubts that I still wouldn't have had a clue what was going on.

Jet plays Mo Kei, a young man out to get revenge on those responsible for his parents' deaths. And that's about all I can tell you regarding the plot: there's so much waffle about different warring factions and powerful sects that it all becomes extremely difficult to follow, and even harder to try and recount. So I'm not going to bother.

What I can tell you, however, is that this film features some pretty mad scenes that should please those who enjoy crazy Asian martial arts cinema: Mo Kei's father commits suicide by making his own heart explode from his chest; Mo Kei learns magical kung fu from a monk who is embedded in a huge, rotating, flying boulder; horses are skewered by drills that emerge from under the ground; there is a subterranean battle that results in severed body parts being strewn everywhere; and some of the characters battle with what looks like fire-extinguishers hidden up their sleeves!! And these are only the bits that I can remember.

Also, there is the usual quota of flying kung fu (loads of wire work: some good, some lousy); lots of characters with silly hairstyles and huge eyebrows, and some cute women (including HK hotties Chingamy Yau and Gigi Lai).

If incomprehensible wire-fu wuxia is your thing and you love films such as 'New Dragon Inn' and 'Swordsman', then you'll probably love this film, but as much as I appreciated the silliness of the whole thing, I just didn't find it that enjoyable overall.


I had heard that this movie was bad, but I foolishly thought "well, it has Jet Li and Chingmy Yau, how bad can it be?". Answer: so bad that it makes you want to turn it off after only the first 5 minutes. Jet Li's fighting - everyone's fighting, actually - is ridiculously overdone and overedited; Yau's charming presence and smile is the only thing this awful, unwatchable movie has going for it. The plot doesn't make a lick of sense (as even those who liked the film have admitted) and the dubbing (of the "Evil Cult" version) is incomprehensible.

0 out of 4 stars.


John Candy is hilarious but even his comedic talent wasn't enough to fix this slapstick mess. The physical comedy is over the top and the dialogue is full of adolescent nonsensical humor.

The movie started off with a bang as a beautiful woman layed on her back naked in a mud pack completely oblivious to the fact that her masseuse was being Chloroformed directly in front of her. Open your eyes lady! Scream before the masseuse goes under and her attacker reloads the rag! She really did look funny, laying there nude and muddy, because I knew she was next and the thought of her being anesthetized in that mud pack was hilarious!

And did she ever look goofy trying to pry the anesthetic pad from her mouth with just her middle finger as her lights went out! One thin finger taking on her attacker's entire iron hand while naked in a mud pack and "mmmmphing" into an anesthetic pad. Now that's funny!

Too bad it all went downhill from there.


Harry Crumb (John Candy), the last of the great detective Crumb lineage, is a bumbling idiot who's put on the case of a missing socialite by his shady boss, with the express purpose that he's a clown who couldn't detect himself out of a paper bag. But poor Harry may just goof his way to the truth after all. Harry Crumb is also not Candy's best film by a long shot and a good deal of the slapstick humor falls flat. Even the handful instances where the film works and you crack a smile, they're too few and far between to suggest this one for multiple viewings. Not nearly as sheerly dreadful as "Canadian Bacon", but still a far cry from classics such as Uncle Buck, Plain, trains and Great Outdoors.

My Grade: C-

Eye Candy: Blink and you'll miss Renée Coleman's nipples in the opening scene


One of John Candy's better films, playing disguise-laden private eye investigating the kidnapping of a young heiress. Ostensibly conceptualized as a live-action cartoon, the movie, unevenly directed by Paul Flaherty, is curiously mean-spirited at times, with ugly humor and situations nearly taking the steam out of Candy's good-natured lead. Candy, performing in a joshing low-key, is aided very nimbly by teen cohort Shawnee Smith, and theirs is a dryly appealing rapport. Annie Potts, as one of the villains, is stuck in a one-note role, but she gets her share of wild lines and her energy is commendable. The picture is sort of an underachiever, with a tired wrap-up and final tag, but parts of it are winning and Candy shows a lot of heart. ** from ****


A very unintelligent comedy about a very unintelligent detective from director Paul Flaherty, "Harry Crumb" is a ridiculous, stupid comedy. The film borders on slapstick, parody and send-up, and is often very akin to "The Naked Gun". John Candy couldn't even save this film as the humour isn't even accidentally funny. Other stars including Jeffrey Jones, Annie Potts, Barry Corbin and Shawnee Smith are not able to help either.

The plot from Robert Conte and Peter Martin Wortmann(derivative of "Ruthless People") is pathetic, as in fact is most of the movie. Don't waste your time.

Wednesday, December 30, 1992 - Video


There's nothing subtle about the humor in this movie. A more accurate word to describe the humor would be "absent." I didn't laugh. My sister didn't laugh. My dog choked a little, but it might have been a coincidence. You wanna laugh at a John Candy movie? See PLANES TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES.


This awful film, has no story, originality, or interesting characters. The only part I liked of this film, was the date that watched it with me, my future wife. That was better than the time I saw Planes Trains, and automobiles when someones date was talking to me and her guy was getting angry. Well, I better not get too off topic, but there is not much to mention about this film except it total sucks, and is forgetable. Forgetable is the best discription for this stinker. 4/10


This is an absolute piece of junk. No doubt it was the WORST John Candy flick the late actor made. Even 'Uncle Buck', made the same year, was an improvement on this idiotic waste. This movie just isn't funny at all. Although it wasn't meant to be taken seriously (it is, after all, a comedy) the laughs are few and far between, and most definitely NOT original. Unfortunately this was made on the downhill slope that Candy's career became, after 'Planes, Trains & Automobiles'. It was simply NOT funny and a major disappointment considering Candy's performance in movies like 'Stripes'.

Someone who wants a good John Candy movie should try 'Only the Lonely' or 'Stripes'. Avoid this piece of crap at all costs.


There were times we had some good laughs, but this really didn't need to be a film. The penguin footage had so little to do with what the comics were saying most of the time that it just got stupid after a while. It would have been just as good as an audio CD, maybe better.

If the comics had really LOOKED at the footage as they riffed, and if the editing were a little more creative, Farce of the Penguins would have been great. As it is, the comic timing of the voices got thrown off by what the penguins were doing, and vice versa.

The only reason I'm getting this for my video rental shop is that I think the advertising will make customers ask for it.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

A made for video spoof of March of the Penguins, with Samuel L Jackson taking over narrating duties with a much sharper tone, a much sassier attitude and a much fouler mouth!

Some recent spoofs that have hit the cinemas, including Epic Movie and Date Movie, have been rather below par, so I thought there might be some hope with this video spoof of 2005's renowned documentary March of the Penguins. It looked inspired enough, right down to Jackson doing the voice-over, his harsh, commanding voice in contrast to Morgan Freeman's soft, gentle delivery in the proper film. But, really, that's all that is funny, the concept of the film. Or rather, how ridiculous the idea of talking penguins is. Not just talking penguins, farting penguins, penguins that get into arguments with the narrator, penguins that swear and talk like they're from Da Getto, and penguins that, well, make idiots of themselves. The material is sadly just not funny enough to rise it above the absurdity of the story, but there are, to be fair, worser spoofs out there at the moment and considering how cheaply it's all been put together (one penguin even jokes about hating appearing in this "stock footage filled piece of crap!") that's actually quite an achievement. **


When I first started this movie I had high hopes. The first five minutes seemed quite funny with Samuel L. Jackson's narration and the promising all-star cast. I assumed the reason few people liked this was because it had a sort of "stupid" sense of humor as seen in movies like Kung Pow that few people appreciated. Unfortunately, even with so many big names in this movie, it was difficult to find any humor at all in this.

The majority of the movie revolved around Bob Saget and Lewis Black's characters chatting back and forth about walking far and finding a mate. What made the movie bad wasn't its juvenile sense of humor, but rather the lack of overall jokes. What was shown was simply Bob Saget reenacting his job as host of America's Funniest Home Videos when he used to provide voiceovers to the five second clips in order to make them only slightly more amusing. But considering there isn't much amusing about penguins in the first place, Saget couldn't do much to make it funnier than the thoughts everyone with any sense of humor whatsoever was thinking while watching March of the Penguins.

I'll admit that the horrid editing didn't make me dislike the movie as much as the humor, but it is definitely worth mentioning that it had to have been done by someone with no real experience in the editing field. For example, when one penguin farts in the movie, a large transparent red circle appears near it. I don't know what the editor was trying to do to make the fart more visible by using a red circle. Had they added in something like a green colored gas effect, it would have been more appealing. Another example is how some of the clips blatantly reverse themselves to stay on screen while the actors talk. Very little effort was put into this movie, though considering how little the makers had to do (Nearly all the footage was cheap stock footage), they must have made a fortune by spending so little money on this.

The reason I didn't give this a score of 1 was because I'll admit that I did laugh a few times, and I appreciate that the movie recognized itself as a bad movie, like when penguins from the March of the Penguins scoff at how dumb the humor is, when the writers are depicted as a monkey banging on a typewriter, and when Samuel L. Jackson apologizes for not having the budget to make the penguins' mouths move. Still, I would not recommend this movie to anyone, regardless of their sense of humor.


There is this notion out there that Bob Saget is actually a funny guy when not playing a TV dad or hawking home video footage. It's not true. Yeah, okay, it's a bit of a kick to imagine the dad from Full House doing blue humor, but beyond that, he has no comic instinct. The gags in this sad apology for a film are adolescent in the worst way. I can only assume that all the names involved in this disaster owe Saget something, or he has some dirt on them, because they can't possibly be serious about this one. It's a one-gag movie and a poor send-up of a film that was overly precious in the first place. The most farcical thing about this film is the fact that it was ever made in the first place.


In 2005, "March of the Penguins", the award-winning documentary about the treacherous lives of emperor penguins in Antarctica, was released, and that was the year I saw it. It was definitely eye-opening for me, since I had no clue how rough those penguins had it! Since then, for quite some time, I've been aware of the title, "Farce of the Penguins", but didn't see it for a while. This is a direct-to-DVD send-up of the 2005 documentary, with real stock footage of penguins and sometimes other wildlife, put together to make a story, with dialogue added. This could have turned out to be a really good film if it was actually funny, which it unfortunately isn't.

Down in Antarctica, the male penguins are on their long journey to the breeding grounds, where the females are waiting for them. Two of these male penguins are Carl and Jimmy, best friends who talk a lot about relationships (including past ones), and other things, on their way to their destination. Meanwhile, as the females wait, there's also a lot of talk about sexual relationships back at the breeding grounds, especially between Melissa and Vicki. Carl and Melissa are both longing for a lover, and have yet to meet each other. Eventually, after the males finally make it to their destination and meet the females, Carl and Melissa soon fall in love. However, Carl and Jimmy's friendship gets awkward after Jimmy accidentally has sex with Melissa one night in the dark while she is asleep and he feels something soft!

Basically, "Farce of the Penguins" has the same problem as many other modern comedies. Two words that can be used to describe the humour in this spoof are crude and juvenile. Some of these comedies can be described as crude, juvenile, and FUNNY, while some can only be described as crude and juvenile. Sadly, this is one of the latter. The film is narrated by Samuel L. Jackson, and during the opening narration, he says some very unfunny, juvenile things about growing your pubic hairs if you want to come to Antarctica. There are definitely a lot of sex jokes in the film, which includes clips of various animals having sex put in for laughs, and these sex jokes don't tend to be funny. Another thing, you guessed it, there are some fart jokes, which are also lame. It seems the juvenile gags were just thrown in, and could have been a lot funnier if it actually took some comedic talent to come up with them. Not only is the humour severely lacking, the plot is also dull, it never improves along the way.

This is definitely NOT the worst spoof movie I've ever seen. The worst spoof movie I've ever seen is definitely "Epic Movie", made by the infamous Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. I haven't seen any of Friedberg and Seltzer's other recent films, but they could easily be just as bad, so I'm not going to bother watching any of them, and if they were the ones who made "Farce of the Penguins", I'm sure it would have been worse (perhaps MUCH worse) than it turned out to be with Bob Saget as the writer and director. However, this spoof of the 2005 hit documentary on the lives of emperor penguins in their frigid habitat is still pretty lame, and it's probably a good thing it wasn't played in theatres, since that probably would have given it more undeserved attention. As a direct-to-DVD release, it seems to have been widely ignored, which is actually not a bad thing.


Not even the grand cast of star power could save this.

Samuel L. Jackson's narration doesn't even save it, and he had quite a lot of lines.

You can certainly tell that this movie is written by Bob Saget. His jokes were never that funny and he certainly shows that he tries to hard.

The majority of the jokes come from penis references and fart jokes. They aren't clever and they aren't original. I can't see why anyone would find this movie funny or enjoyable.

The editing was crazily poor. The musical numbers were performed terribly, and at times they tried to hard to be something special.

Christina Applegate plays Melissa and she is looking for a nice guy. Carl (played by Saget) is looking for a girl who gets him - which just so happens to be Melissa.

When they do finally meet after a long 55 minutes or so, they fall in love in a matter of 5 minutes. Then they have the clichéd storyline of best friends hating each other over a girl.

I can't believe that Dane Cook, Norm Macdonald, Jason Alexander, Samuel L. Jackson, Christina Applegate, Woopi Goldberg, and Lewis Black even agreed to do this film.

Do I even have to call it a film? It's far from being something entertaining.

Anyone out there who thought "looks alright" take this review under consideration and change your minds. If you watch this movie, you will definitely want your 75 minutes back trust me.

A movie about Penguins you might want to see is March of the Penguins, narrated by Morgan Freeman.

Don't waste time or money on Farce of the Penguins. If you do watch this movie you'll only like the line by Dane Cook's character.


Recap: A mockumentary, or parody of the documentary March of the penguins, if you like. We follow two male penguins on their hike from the sea to their breedingplace, and their discussions about finding love.

Comments: Not much to say really. It is kind of slow with all the penguin shots being at such a slow tempo, with crude documentary. Many of the jokes are crude and fart jokes are far too prominent. So on average this is quite a bad movie.

However there are a few bright spots. Jokes that actually are quite funny. Jokes that almost but not quite manage to carry the movie. They did make the movie bearable though, kept me going to the next bright spot. But to be a good movie, or average, they are too few and too far between.

One of the bright spots are the cast though. Don't know what made so many known actors and actresses contribute to a material like this, but I guess Bob Saget had something to do with it. It is a little of a Full house reunion, with friends.

A good idea, which could have been done much better though. An extra plus for the DVD menus though, they were better than the movie and better than most other DVD-menus.

4/10


Too bad they don't have a "no star" vote. This movie is that bad. I watched "March of the Penguins" on video with a group of friends, and the ad lib comments made by our group were funnier than any of those made in this "Farce" version.

Not only is this film not funny, it is not even interesting. The clips they use are a mishmash of penguins from various parts of the world - few of which match the dialog that accompanies them. The dialog is lame, and not funny in the least.

I cannot give a review the entire movie, as I had to leave the room 30 minutes in. (And only made it the first half hour to be kind to our host that night). When I returned near the end, I learned that it became even more mind-numbingly boring through the endless repetition of both images and bad jokes.


Farce of The Penguins is one of the worst, most boring, lamest and stupid wastes of money it has ever been my extreme disappointment to have endured. It is so bad that watching it all the way through is in itself a Christ-like endeavor. It is so bad, so mind numbingly boring and dull that I found myself losing large blocks of memory and suffering gaps in time as I drifted in and out of semi consciousness as it dragged by minute after stupor inducing minute. Seconds felt like miniature eternities. Imagine watching Dune the whole way through without the half a dozen interesting bits to keep you partially interested. Now imagine that except at 1/2 speed and Lewis Black making anal sex jokes as the rest of the incredibly banal commentary slows to almost sub atomic speeds. It was similar to experiencing several boring people that you would otherwise never listen to talk during a mostly white screen filled with waddling penguins set on a loop for 2 hours. Kill it with fire. Seriously.


I'll admit, like many on this message board, I was duped. I looked past Bob Saget and saw Samuel L. Jackson, Whoopi Goldberg, Christine Applegate, and Mo'Nique. I know, I know--how stupid of me for not picking up on the "Full House" alumni that are also in the credits. When you burn you learn.

This could have just as easily been written by a quarantined group of pre-pubescent boys under the influence of whippets. You'd have to jack hammer the gutter to find traces of what they pass off as humor. It was crass, gross, juvenile, and seemed a hell of a lot longer than the run time would have you believe. Potty humor, fart jokes, genitalia, and a sprinkling of the "F" word are the crux of all intended laughs in this schlock. And don't get me started on the editing--had this been an AV project at your local high school, it would have been laughed out of the most remedial of classes.

I had been wondering what happened to Saget. He should go back to wherever he was hiding and stay there until he passes 8th grade.


I love Bob Saget, and many of the other comedians that starred in this thing. But I can't for the life of me understand why any of them agreed to do it. I've seen Saget's standup, and I think he's very talented. But it does NOT translate well to a movie.

When the dialogue wasn't raunchy, it was incredibly trite, which offended me even more than the lewd humor.

For starters, Samuel L. Jackson belongs in something either a) intelligent or b) badass. This film was neither. And furthermore, I've actually lost some respect for Lewis Black due to his involvement in "Farce." What a stupid title, too. Way too obvious.

And why would you make fun of "March of the Penguins?" It's completely uncontroversial and didn't make a big enough splash in pop culture to be a worthy target of parody, so I guess they figured they had no choice but to make the penguins use the F-word.

Of course, the crappy paste-up job with the footage didn't help this film, either.

I'm not easily offended by off-color humor, but I am offended by respectable comedians reading VERY un-funny dialogue. What a shame.


This movie is dreadfully unfunny. There are teeny bits of hah-hah in it, but they are utterly lost in the Antarctic wasteland that is "Farce of the Penguins". It is like one of those SNL sketches that may have been humorous for the first 60 seconds or so, but are dragged on and on until the audience is ready to throw pointy objects at the performers just to make them STOP already! Maybe - just maybe - if I time traveled back to my younger days and watched this movie with some herbal enhancements I no longer approve, it might have struck me as pretty funny.

But I doubt it.


This extremely minimal production yarn might be an embarrassing excuse for a mockumentery, but is not the completely useless piece of celluloid trash that some are making it out to be. Keeping in the stoner-addled tradition of things in fact, one may even squeeze off a few scatological belly laughs in the otherwise depressingly low-brow, low budget affair. Apparently it boils down to this: Writer/Director Bob Saget has a lot of friends in Hollywood. They may not all be on top of their game, many even out of the limelight for some time, but a common friend indeed they have with their oft-ridiculed, former television dork dad.

What Saget gets to exploit out of this is a plethora of B-listers, which makes for an impressive cast on paper.but do not be fooled. On top of the disengaging sound quality which reeks of home studio, almost all of the frequent one line cameos done by celebrities are so apathetically subdued that one cannot help but think most of these people are phoning in a favor to an old Hollywood friend, with absolutely no intention on getting any attention in this project; who can blame them? Even at 80 minutes, relying on a low grade stash of penguin stock footage in order to manipulate a crude plot into this joke must have sounded drastically unappealing to most participants.

Thankfully a few of Saget's crew actually rise to the occasion, that is to say that they do not let their hubris get in the way of embracing the full-on stupidity of the project. It is in those low-fi moments of tasteless class that a few voice actors and the rancid production actually get to shine in it's context. Samuel L. Jackson, as the narrator was an excellent choice, although even his central dialog feels like his head is somewhere else (to the scripts credit, they actually throw in a joke to echo this sentiment). The only other voice actors that make an earnest contribution to this goof are Lewis Black (who thankfully had a large role) and Tracey Morgan, making all other voice actors seem completely indifferent. For the few genuinely hilarious moments that reached further then this trite March of the Penguins farce, I am unexpectedly happy for, but for a majority of screen time, viewers need either be indulging their chemical dependencies, or mocking aloud with friends in order to receive anything special out of this shell of a movie.


The mockumentary "Farce of the Penguins" is obviously an attempt to cash in on the success of "March of the Penguins" while at the same time making fun of it. Narrated by Samuel L. Jackson, it is about two penguins, Carl (Bob Sagat), who is suffering from an identity crisis and heartbroken from past romantic failures, and his buddy Jimmy (Lewis Black), who only wants to eat and get laid, and their 70-mile travel to the penguin mating grounds in order to get some love.

Basically, the filmmakers take some stock footage of some penguins and try and make and tie it together with a very basic plot that you'd find in a teen romantic film. It didn't inspire much interest for me. Throughout the process, numerous scatological humor is thrown in. The problem is, the film isn't very funny. I found most of the humor stupid, in which only teenagers (a market this film doesn't cater to)would find funny. Plus, I think Bob Sagat and Lewis Black take their roles too seriously. They compromise some humor in an effort to tell a story, which will be hard to do when you are trying to do so with only stock footage. They were making an 80-minute film (short by today's standards) a chore to get through, which was sad. It probably would've been much more entertaining had they played their roles loosely.

However, I'd be lying if I said there weren't some good moments in the film. Samuel L. Jackson was quite entertaining, but sadly underutilized. I also found Tracy Morgan's role to be fun as well. Plus, at times I found the humor to be entertaining when the editing made it feel like their conversations were getting awkward.

However, these few moments of humor have made a bad film into a below-average film. It is barely worth a rent. The most entertaining thing that came out of this picture is the fake interview Bob Sagat did for the special features section, which is 10 times funnier and about 1/5 the length of the film. Quite telling. 4 out of 10.


i didn't like this movie at all.i think it's supposed to be a parody of March of the Penguins.but for me,it just wasn't funny.plus,i felt the humour consisted of mostly vulgar,crude language.there's a lot of the F-bomb(among other words) dropped here.this definitely isn't for kids.but i also just found it boring.i actually couldn't watch it all,because i found it too slow.as for the crude language,that doesn't always bother me,but i just found it gratuitous and too frequent.i don't think you always need to have swears to make things funny.it's not for every taste,that's for sure.if you don't mind a lot of very crude language,you might want to check this one out.for me,Farce of the Penguins is a 1/10


I must admit, I had high hopes for this movie. I saw that Bob Saget was directing, and thought I was in for some ridiculous, dirty humor. However, this was not the case. Bob Saget played the sensitive, boring penguin and was quite disappointing. Besides this let down, the movie was just not funny. The low production quality didn't bother me, I just didn't find much of it to be funny. In the whole hour and ten minutes, there were probably 2 or 3 funny parts, most of them involving cameos. The only thing that saved me from giving this one star was the narration by Samuel L. Jackson, which was great at times. Don't waste your time or money on this boring movie.


Being that I am a big fan of La Marche de l'empereur, I gave this a shot. I expected juvenile sex jokes, but was really surprised by the scatological humor.

I like Lewis Black and enjoyed his penguin, but that was about it. It just seemed like the same jokes over and over - eating, farting and sex. It really got a little tiresome.

The music for the movie was a little schmaltzy, like a Celine Dion concert, and was more of a distraction. But, I guess that was the whole point: to create a farce about a work of art.

Why can't they just try to create a work of art themselves, rather than make a joke about something beautiful?


A satire of the acclaimed March of the Penguins. There are also elements from Happy Feet, and some other recent movies. The only thing missing is humor.

Dull, tedious, and lacking any wit or creativity whatsoever. A bunch of high recognition celebrity voices are drafted for inane banter pasted over some stock footage of penguins wandering around the Antarctic, apparently seeking mates (or so we are told). Interspersed are some random shots of other animals touching themselves, again with sub-moronic observations by the voice-overs. Samuel L. Jackson, as the narrator, has one of the few worth-while lines, repeatedly telling the audience how lousy this stinker is. And he's right.

Unless you like hearing that favorite word of unemployed comedians (hint: starts with f) every few seconds, brain-dead potty humor, and rambling references to pop culture, you'll be yelling at the set for these idiots to shut up already. Unfortunately, they don't: they talk...and talk...and talk. That's pretty much all this film is. Bob Saget, formerly the "Funniest Videos" host, is apparently the one to blame for this slop, and shows no ability at creating a "funniest video" himself.

No laughs; just irritating. Bury this junk deep in a polar ice cap somewhere and pretend it never existed.


I always knew Bob Saget was destined to make a god-awful parody movie, ever since his early days on Full House. And I knew it would turn out like it did. This was a terrible, extremely unfunny film that seemed to put in stupid sex jokes just to make it adult. It's about a lonely penguin Carl (voiced by Saget) who is horny, and on his way to the penguin mating grounds with his buddy penguin Jimmy (voiced by Black). My first thought when watching this is how did they get such known celebrities to become involved in this. Samuel L. Jackson narrates the thing, and really just wastes time. The main supporting roles are played by Christina Applegate, M'Onique, Whoopie Goldberg and Tracey Morgan. And there are dozens of cameo voices including most of the cast of Full House. Even with a talented cast it just seems really unneeded. The movie only had about 30 minutes of plot, and it was stretched paper thin. Just to add time, they'd add random cussing penguins (or even a random panda bear voiced by Harvey Fierstein) talking to the narrator for several minutes. Several stupid subplots came in, including Carlos Mencia playing a penguin trying to get to the top of a mountain. And to top off all of this awfulness, it also looks horrid. It's all done on archive footage of penguins that no one can tell apart. I hated this idiotic "parody" movie, and I hope Bob Saget lays low for the next 40 years.

My rating: BOMB/****. 71 mins. R for sexual humor and language


This may be perhaps the greatest example of "All-Star Cast, Poor Movie". Because the whole movie is voice-over, it's a pleasant surprise to have another character walk onto screen, say a line of obscene dialog, and then you exclaim, "Oh my God, that's _________!". The real core of this movie's demise I feel was that there was too little to work with, and that flaw had been realized. You can tell for the most part it wasn't at all rushed, and most of it was seemingly carefully plotted out... but there just isn't enough you can do with only so much footage of penguins walking around.

Alas, most of the comedy is in Bob Saget's typical stand-up humor, and the voice-overs were very properly cast. In some places, the humor dried up, and you would feel as though the movie was trailing on. However, when a new voice or new action that the penguins did came on screen, it was a pleasant laugh.

All in all I could say you could skip this movie entirely, but I'm going to have to say you should see it, anyways. It's a mark of progress to show how far Mr. Saget has come, and how willing he is to go out on such a limb. Sure the movie overall is a failure, but it should certainly be seen as a concept that could spark a series of newfound home video comedy.


This is one of the worst movie I have ever watched in my entire life. Here, penguins have been abused and insulted by showing them as if they are foul mouthed loathsome creatures. Here are some of the major faults of the movie: 1) They have insulted a masterpiece documentary 'March of the penguins' by inserting all kinds of vulgarity in language and have insulted love by showing it just as fun, and I abhor them for this.

2) It looked as if the editor had pasted scenes of other movies in between the movie. eg. the owl 3) There was a conversation about global problem, about friendship and what not. I could not decipher the main plot of the film.

4) Samuel Jackson is shown to explain about the penguins nicely in the start but then he messes it all up by using foul words on them.

5) The voicing were terrible. It was like a monologue, no voice modulation in showing different emotions.

I think the director should be sued for making such a film. Its pathetic to watch and rubbish to listen.


In this movie Bobby (Jack Nicholson) is a definition loner. Loner is defined as one who avoids the company of other people and this is definitely Bobby. To begin with Bobby has no love for anything or anybody. He ignores his family, hates his job, and most of all he doesn't care about his girlfriend at all. He expects everyone to give him love back but he gives none out. Catherine points this out to him when he asks her to show him some love.

The start of Bobby being a loner is his family. He left them for no apparent reason and started jumping around from place to place. He had a promising career as a piano player because he was good at it and it was his family heritage. He just threw this away along to work on an oil rig which he hates also and ends up quitting. He didn't tell them where he was going or what he was doing so they had no idea what he was up to until the day he went and saw his sister. The only reason he went back to see his family is because his father was dieing and he felt that he was obligated to do so. I don't think that he actually wanted to be there he just felt he should be.

The next biggest thing in his life besides his family is his girlfriend who he shows absolutely no respect to. He is constantly cheating on her and bad mouthing her right to her face. She wants the relationship to get more serious by having kids and he wants nothing to do with that because he doesn't want to be tied down. The only reason that they are still together is because she is to stupid and naïve to break up with him. Every time she wants to do it he says something a little sweet and she instantly forgives him and lets him walk all over her again. To be honest this is the perfect girl for Bobby because he can do what ever he wants and she will let him.

You can also tell Bobby is a loner because every time something big happens he goes off by himself and gets drunk. For example when things go bad at his house he leaves and goes and gets drunk in a bar. When Bobby and Elton go to work drunk one morning and the boss doesn't let them work they leave and start drinking more. While stuck in traffic Bobby gets out of the car and gets in the back on a truck with a piano and starts playing, then the truck leaves and Elton loses him. This is a great symbol to show that Bobby is a loner because the only person he likes in his life is Elton and he is taken away from him by the truck. Then days later Elton is really taken from him when he is arrested so Bobby is totally alone.

We find out at the end of the movie that Bobby is a loner because he is afraid that things will get bad if he stays in one spot for too long. With this mentality that Bobby has it is no wonder he is a loner and why he will always be a loner. He doesn't want to get attached and he expects that people will do everything for him.


Those who praise Five Easy Pieces call it a great character study. Maybe it is, but that doesn't make it a great movie. The character of Robert Dupea may have made for a nice subject for an article in a psychology journal. But as the lead character in a film he leaves a lot to be desired. Not even the fact that Dupea is played by the great Jack Nicholson can mask the truth that the movie which tells his story is downright dull. Yeah, there's a pretty interesting story in here somewhere but the way that story unfolds on the screen leaves a lot to be desired.

The biggest problem with this movie is quite simply that nothing happens. We are just forced to sit and watch as Robert Dupea tries to "find himself". While Dupea's finding himself you'll probably be stifling yawns. The fact that the lead character we're following is an irredeemable louse doesn't help matters either. Robert Dupea treats all those around him, most notably his ever-loyal girlfriend, like absolute garbage. He's completely full of himself, which is rather odd for someone working a menial job on an oil rig. Where does this guy get off being so high and mighty? Who the heck is he to think he's so much better than those around him? About halfway through the film we see where that attitude comes from as Dupea goes on a journey back to his childhood home to reconnect with the person he truly is or at least used to be. This is where all that "great character study" malarkey kicks in. Yes, it turns out Robert Dupea isn't exactly what he initially seems to be. Yes, he's a very complex character. But he's still at heart an awful human being. And this is still a boring movie.

Jack Nicholson is certainly one of our finest actors and he does the best he can here but this film just isn't salvageable. The character Nicholson plays is impossible to root for. You end up sympathizing with everyone in the movie but him, a problem since the movie is really about him alone. For the first half of the movie absolutely nothing happens as the filmmakers go out of their way to establish what a mean-spirited jerk Dupea is. Actually that was established in the first five minutes but they belabor the point to tedious effect. Then the great journey home begins and the movie for a few minutes veers off into Bizarro World when Dupea picks up a pair of hippie, lesbian hitchhikers. One of these hitchhikers, named Palm Apodaca which tells you about all you need to know, launches into one of the most bizarre, comical rants in film history. Only she's not trying to be funny, she's deadly serious. If nothing else, at least you the viewer can laugh at the sheer stupidity of it all, which is about all the enjoyment you'll get out of this film. Soon enough Palm and friend are gone and we're back to focusing on Robert Dupea. Who's still a selfish, obnoxious, jerk stuck in an utterly boring movie. A great character study? You can judge that for yourself. A great movie? Absolutely not.


This was a hard movie to watch and I would not recommend it to anyone that I know. I'm all for character studies, even of characters that are in one way or another hard to like. Amadeus comes to mind, as does American Splendor. The Lion In Winter is a character study of sorts, of the whole messed up royal family that movie portrays. TV's house is sort of a character study. But those examples had something that this movie did not. Depth.

Curmudgeons, jerks, petty people, you really don't have to like the main character to find a movie engaging. That being said, the main character in Five Easy Pieces was one I thoroughly did not like. Yes, he was a loner, but why? How did it initially come about? Hard as it was to watch him be such a jerk to his girl, she was probably ideal for him, since she let him treat her poorly, run off when he needed to, he screwed up- she apologized. Not my ideal, but it worked for them.

So? Still, I'm left cold as a viewer, wondering why anyone cares. And yes he can play piano. But he doesn't live the piano man's life and I guess there is supposed to be some conflict, but many people have talents they don't take to the next level, etc.

This movie was nothing special, if you ask me, other than a highly recommended and lengthy waste of time.


Of all the character study movies, most of them are boring. However, Bob Rafelson's "Five easy pieces" was, in my opinion, the most boring of all. In fact, I didn't really see what he was getting at. All I saw was Jack Nicholson playing an extremely depressed man, Karen Black dressed up to be made to sexy as his dumb girlfriend and then there was the rest of the cast. The only good element in this movie is the timeless diner scene which shows just how good an actor Nicholson is. But otherwise, I think it's more of a biography of about a year in a man's life than a character study. I truly and honestly don't think it's worth a watch unless you're a huge Jack Nicholson fan and even if you are, you should watch simply to see the hilarious diner scene.


This movie is a prime example of people being too messed up from the 1960s after taking too much LSD. People are reading way too much into this movie. If this movie was made today it would be panned and dismissed. It is boring beyond belief. You keep waiting for something to occur. Nothing ever does. By the time it ends you are thinking I'm going to kill myself if I have to endure another minute. The acting of Nicholson and Black is above average but you wonder what they saw in choosing to do this horrible script. The comment that this is one of the key films of the 1970s is ludicrous. These are the kind of movies from the 70s that should be forgotten. Give me "Apocalypse Now", "Patton", "Godfather", "American Graffiti" or "Star Wars". This movie sucks. One great scene does not a movie make.


Woeful adaptation of David Williamson's sarcastic, ocker Australian play about a young Tasmanian lad who is recruited by a powerful Victorian Football League club for an unprecedented transfer fee, and then begins to send the club into turmoil with his bad attitude and shocking performances.

Everything is so awful in this movie it's funny. None of the real life footballers (Ronny Wearmouth, Peter Daicos, Ray Shaw and Rene Kink to name a few) can act, and the lead thesps don't do much better. David Williamson fails to translate any of the dry wit of his play to the big screen and there is nothing to look at for Aussie Rules fans either. Even repetitive bursts of Mike Brady's "Up There Cazaly" (which comprises the entire soundtrack) don't help, in fact it makes things all the more unbearable.

It's a complete mystery why a talent such as Bruce Beresford would ever get involved in a farce like this. Try watching a grand final replay in which your side loses, I guarantee you'll enjoy it more than watching "The Club".

Sunday, July 17, 1994 - Video


This one is really horrible..... don't watch it...the acting,plot,is so lame and everything made me laugh especially the bad guys....very unbelievable, the scene where Alex gets out of the Mine trap with the other guy is utter nonsense.....if you feel like watching a movie with some of your friends just to make fun of this crap then this is the movie you should watch... Alex is actually shot in the chest..but you know what she makes it thanks to her motorolla which was in her pocket.....wow....i could go on forever like this..i decided to watch the movie just to see how it would end and warn others from this ...2 out of 10 just for her looks


There are so many movies in this world about the first daughter, and considering how few people in the world can relate to the very particular experiences of that group of people, this addition to this 'first family' film genre is just unnecessary. This was a combination of all of those random generic first daughter films and the mid-90's Meryl Streep wild-water-rafting film "The River Wild".

Aside from the various yawning plot holes (how could two people avoid being blown to bits just by jumping really fast out of the cabin; why did the freedom fighter not pull out his gun BEFORE they started rafting into that white water near the end; why wasn't the forest swarming with secret service agents to avoid just such a chase), the whole movie felt contrived and boring. Ultimately, this was one story that really did not need to be told.


Best TV movie ever? Hardly... anybody seen a little movie called DUEL? Hmmm, I guess not. A 6.0 out of 10? And all this positive feedback? Methinks the producers of this little opus are hiking up the score... Don't you guys have anything better to do, like actually reading the scripts of a movie you're producing? If so, then maybe this disaster might not have been dumped on us.

The plot isn't worth mentioning, Doug ("I'm not gay...") Savant and Hemingway are suitably awful, and one of the films producers is the guy who played the midget jerk brother on "The Wonder Years". 'nuff said. Avoid.


This was lame even for a TV movie. The best part of the film was the first five minutes showing an assassination attempt on the President of the United States. After that, the film goes into free fall.

Mariel Hemingway plays a secret service agent who is charged with guarding the President's self-absorbed teenage daughter on an outward-bound type trip of rafting, climbing and living in the wilderness for a week. The bad-guy militiamen kidnap the brat and all the force at the disposal of the United States is coalesced to rescue her.

The entire story is so contrived and poorly presented that it is laughable. How lucky that of all the places on earth these militiamen could have gone hunting, they picked the same exact wilderness that the President's daughter was frolicking. Moreover, it was even more propitious that they happened to have all their high tech surveillance, radio and radar equipment with them while they were bow hunting.

It was also extraordinarily fortunate that Agent McGregor (Hemingway), who had never attempted rock climbing in her life before this trip, was so instantly adept at it that her next climb was a two hundred foot vertical climb without tether. The ridiculousness they ask us to swallow continues unending.

The action sequences were only fair, and the special effects were a joke. The music was awful and the film would cut to black for five seconds between certain scenes where the commercials would be placed. I don't even want to get into the acting. Dreadful.

Even action junkies will be disappointed by this film. I rated it a 3/10. Miss it.


Fairly entertaining movie, but once again we find the white man portrayed as the bad man. I happen to know a lot of good people of every race, why this trend in movies today. The white prisoners character was hardly developed, he was just a scared boy who apparently ended up in prison over a minor incident (unless he was lying). It stretched the story to have HIM kill the teacher character in the end. It seemed to be added as an afterthought, like 'lets have the white boy kill him'

I'm not saying a white person wouldn't have done this, obviously there are good and bad and criminal people of every race. What I'm saying is its the norm nowdays to put down white people, the movie industry in general has become more than a little racist.


This is certainly not the movie Welles would have made. Welles would have made something far more interesting; even his worst films have a certain fascinating quality but this is really pretty dull. They've taken his footage, strung it together in order attached a bland score that adds nothing to it and put a dull little documentary in front so you would understand what you were seeing. It's an interesting curio for film buffs, and there are some striking images, but don't kid yourself; this isn't even remotely what Welles would have created. This is a workmanlike construct using some tools created by Welles, that's all. This is not like rediscovering a Bach concerto, it's more like a piece of music written based on a description of a Bach concerto by someone who doesn't quite remember how it goes.


A very predictable, sentimental movie about a pedantic cop whose strict adherence to the letter of the law results in Bogart turning to crime to support his family during the Depression. Of course, as the cop (O'Brien) gradually realises what trail of events his 'efficiency' has sparked, he begins to relax his attitude ....


The glowing reviews this movie has garnered are downright appalling.

Yes, the production values are bad and the makeup is laughable, but that's not my primary gripe. I can look past such things quite easily if the film is good  e.g., Last Supper (2005). Yes, the budget was small, but that's not my primary gripe. I can look past such things quite easily if the film is imaginative  e.g., Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989). Yes, the scariness is virtually non-existent, but that's not my primary gripe. I can look past such things quite easily if the film is entertaining  e.g., Diary (2006).

The problem with Long Dream, as I see it, is that it lacks any memorable moments whatsoever. And this is all despite its intriguing premise, which was most certainly wasted on this endeavor. There are both psychological and philosophical concepts to be had with regards to extended dreams, regardless of production values, budget constraints, or a lack of scariness. None of them are employed with skill in this movie. Everything is glossed over in the most superficial of ways. Characters fear death, but such feelings are expressed through dialogue instead of actual experiences, which makes it very difficult for the viewer to connect with that fear.

In like manner, the psychological effects of extended dreaming are very shallow. I suspect that the environment is the primary culprit here. Restricting almost every scene within a bland hospital hampers the negative psychosis that presumably afflicts the characters. Interaction with outside persons/events would have been a better decision. It would have also allowed for a more imaginative application of the intriguing premise as well as provided greater opportunities for improved imagery, which quite frankly sucks here. I can't understand why some are comparing the visuals of this turd to those of Uzumaki (2000). You people should get your eyes checked.

And please stop making comments like, "If you liked Uzumaki, you'll definitely like this." Why would you make such a comparison? The films are absolutely NOTHING alike? I have serious doubts regarding the logic behind some of the positive reviews here. It's almost as if Long Dream gets a free pass on everything just because it's low budget or because it's made by the same people who made the impressive Uzumaki. I disagree. At only 58 minutes this movie should never regress into boredom, but it most certainly does. It's really nothing more than a few generic doctors walking around attempting to diagnose some patients who claim they have extended dreams. A pity indeed.

I've personally seen over 150 East Asian horror movies, most of which are from Japan, and many of which have puny budgets. Even so, Long Dream is definitely on the bottom end of that list. Check out my user profile for a listing of films you should see instead of this. All of them are better than this movie. That much I can assure you.


E.L Doctorow's novel "Ragtime" is an amazing achievement, blending real life an fictional characters into a thrilling and heartbreaking story. However, since there are many different story lines in the novel, making a film would be difficult. E.L Doctorow hoped that "Ragtime" would be made into a t.v miniseries which is really the only way i could ever see it working, even though the musical version in 1998 did an impressive job of adapting the novel.

Unfortunately, Milos Foreman's film version did not. While it would be difficult ton include every aspect of the novel into a film, many major parts of the novel were not included, for instance, Father (a fine performance from James Olson) does not go on his expedition with Admiral Perry, so therefore father doesn't return a changed man, and Mother (a miscast Mary Steenburgen in an unimpressive performance) cannot discover her independence, and her character is greatly diminished. Likewise, the story of the immigrant Tateh (a fine performance from Mandy Patinkin) is too briefly seen, even though they do include the episode of him kicking out his unfaithful wife (played by an unknown Fran Drescher), which was eliminated from the Musical.

On the opposite side, they pay an unusually large amount of attention to Evelyn Nesbit's story, which is only a minor thread to the overall plot. However, one can't complain about this too much, as Elizabeth McGovern gives a dazzling performance as Evelyn Nesbitt.

Not surprisingly, the most attention is spent on Coalhouse Walker's story, as it is the most compelling and dominant. However, changes make this story somewhat less compelling, such as him not bringing Sarah back to him through his music. not to mention underpowered performances from Howard Rollins as Coalhouse and Debbie Allen as Sarah.

It must be noted, that i can't really imagine a successful way to film the novel, i could really only imagine it working as a miniseries, which hopefully one day, it might.


There probably was no way to do the multi-leveled story lines justice except maybe in a ten-hour miniseries, but even so, what can account for Mandy Patemkin's daughter never growing older even though he has made three successful films since the start of the movie? Ditto James Olsen's son - both kids stay the same age throughout the picture. What they probably should have done (I hate to remake things as I'm watching them) is told the whole thing through Brad Douriff's eyes. It would have given the audience someone and something to focus on. I did think Elizabeth McGovern was a good choice as Evelyn Nesbit (certainly much better than Joan Collins in the campy 1955 film THE GIRL IN THE RED VELVET SWING)and Harold Rollins was wonderful in a poorly-written part, but Debbie Allen was wasted along with I hate to say it James Cagney, who looked mummified.


Should have PG13 rating instead of PG. Was watching with a 11 year old. Did not know of the nude scene. Did not appreciate this. Would be nice if you let us know with the 13 rating. It is very important that as the movie industry your try to help us do the right thing when there are children involved. We are doing our best to raise good kids. Help us by at least using the Pg13 rating correctly. I know you think nudity is cool. I know you think it sells Movies. For some of us we would like to watch

a movie with our children and not be embarrassed.

Apparently you can't count either. Do you not want to submit this because it is negative.


Jesus Christ this film was boring an hour and a half seemed like 5 hours and a half.Armand Assante plays Frank Carbone a chop shop worker working for the mob. but when the mob wants Frank dead Frank is put into federal protection. the thing that got me annoyed with federal protection was that it was completely boring.Armand Assante is first billed yet you hardly really see him in the film Dina Meyer steals most of the film as an annoying smart ass character. i admit the fist 15 minutes of the film where quite good but after that i struggled to keep watching it. luckily this was on television so i didn't waste any money buying it.but word of advise if anyone is thinking of buying this film don't you'll want your time and money back. 2 out of 10.


How do these scripts get made anyway? Why would a good actor like Armande Assante agree to this brain-dead piece? I hope he got paid well. This stinker couldn't have read well.

*Spoilers*

This film had so many holes, I won't bore you with them all (each scene seemed to have several) - bad accents (the one head mobster sounded like he was from LA not Jersey, or maybe even Canada) - annoying soundtrack. The "comedy" aspect - like a chick who sticks the heel of her pump into a guy's forehead wasn't funny or believable. This same lady who has absolutely no scruples (she kills her brother-in-law at the end of that scene for some reason or another which isn't really explained *and* she is sleeping with the guy) later on in the film decides she will sacrifice herself for that same sister - huh? There is also a golf bit that is supposed to be funny - it may have been a little funny the first time but when they pulled the same bit at the end all it did was elicit eye-rolling moans in our little audience.

The acting was uniformly awful except for Armande - in fact, the film is almost watchable during his scenes. To think that someone on this forum said this junk was better than "Whole 9 Yards"!

Save your time, watch an episode of "Sopranos" instead, or, better still, watch "Whole 9 Yards".


"McQ" is John Wayne's attempt to move away from the western genre with which he was most commonly associated (although he had dipped into other genres along the way). Directed by a 63 year old director (John Sturges), and starring a 66 year old movie star, one can't help feeling that the film has a fairly geriatric air about it. "McQ" seems to takes its inspiration from movies like "Bullitt" and "Dirty Harry", which were big hits around that time. In this one, the plot is pretty similar to "Dirty Harry", and the fact that Wayne's main character is named McQ could possibly be an in-joke, intended to liken him to Steve McQueen (McQueen; McQ; get it??), who starred as Bullitt.

Honest, tough Seattle cop Lon McQ (John Wayne) investigates the death of his partner Stan Boyle (William Bryant) and two other police officers. Strangely, McQ's superiors seem reluctant to let him handle the case  but handle it he does, in his typical fist-first, diplomacy-later style! McQ suspects that local hood Manny Santiago (Al Lettieri) is responsible for the killings so he ignores orders to leave Santiago alone and starts to tail his quarry. McQ's unorthodox approach so outrages his bosses that he has to hand in his badge, working almost as a vigilante to crack the case. Among those helping him are ex-junkie Myra (Colleen Dewhurst), private eye Pinky Farrow (David Huddleston) and council official Franklin Toms (Clu Gulager). Eventually, McQ discovers that his deceased partner was caught up in some high-level police corruption, selling seized narcotics back to the drug lords on the streets and pocketing sizable amounts of money in the process. That's why McQ's superiors never wanted him on the case in the first place, as they feared their illegal activities might be exposed if a loose-cannon of a cop like McQ ever caught wind of their plot. Angry and betrayed, McQ sets out to bring down the corrupt cops and drug dealers whose greedy operation caused the death of his colleagues.

This is one of Wayne's poorest films, even though it's refreshing to see him in a different sort of movie. For a chance to see him tackling the whole "mean cop" thing in a better film, viewers should seek out "Brannigan" instead. "McQ" has a few moments that are effective, such as an exciting and cleverly edited car chase along a beach, and a claustrophobic action sequence in which McQ is sandwiched in his car between two dump-trucks in a narrow alley way, and almost killed. The calibre of the cast is surprisingly high, too, with such fine supporting actors as Colleen Dewhurst, Al Lettieri, Eddie Albert, Clu Gulager and David Huddleston involved in the mix. Alas, none of them have particularly memorable roles to get their teeth into. In fact, this "unmemorable-ness" extends to the whole film and makes it a turgid, indifferent affair. If you want to see John Wayne in something different from his usual fare, then "McQ" might appeal to you but everyone else will probably come from the film feeling rather disappointed.


i watched this film after Christmas and did'not expect it to be a masterpiece like Lord of the rings.

John Wayne is about as threatening as a chicken nugget. He does'not really give the crooks a chance especially at the end of the film the shootout on the beach he just pumps them with bullets from his silenced mac 10.

The acting is terrible especially the scene where he stays at Lois's house for the night. And in the morning when he wakes up his hair is the same, he just looks the same as he did the day before.

John you should of retired long ago


I actually suffered through 10 minutes of this thinking that it might get better.... Please do yourself a favor, and don't bother watching this.

Unless you enjoy intolerably bad movies, your time is better spent anywhere else.

And I do mean ANYWHERE.

It is hard to believe that any of these actors who participated in this movie did not get banned from the business permanently. It certainly is a black mark on their careers in my opinion.

So, what was wrong with this movie? Poor Acting. Bad Jokes. Bad Plot.

What is good about this movie? You don't have to watch it.


I actually found this DVD in supermarket basket full of discount products. 3,50 is not much, especially when it's says: The most funniest comedy since "There's something about Mary" starring: Ben Stiller, Janeane Garofalo, Mike Meyers, Alanna Ubach and many others... Alanna Ubach is the hot number from "Meet the Fockers" and Janeane Garofalo (which i personally like as well) known for her work with Ben Stiller on "Reality Bites", "Mystery Men" and lot's of other projects. So i rushed to the counter to make this disc (full of visual moments of adventure) all mine.

I honestly did expected much more from the storyline, i couldn't watch it in one time, it's getting so boring so i took couple of days of interval before i finished the movie. Sorry, but in such cases i rather read something in between. But at the same time if they had more money on this project. They probably did much better job than the final result. Sound and visual shout for improvement. Crap movies like "The whole 9 yards" for example, had much, much more financial backup so they get more attention and credit.

I would say, nice try, they did it because they have guts, less afraid to fail. Bruce Willis started with "The Moonlightning" as well. Look at him, he managed to survive that and he's big boy now. But retail price 3,50 is exact wright amount to ask for, no one deserve to get reach on this movie. This is kind of a student-introduction movie and not like: Hey, give me your wallet!


An American trying to make an alternative comedy with more sophisticated humor. ... and that's where it went wrong. A fine idea to do something different with comedy ended up in a nightmare. Can't blame him for trying something fresh though.

Looks like the director hit the ball totally wrong here so I think he'd better stick to brainless Hollywood comedy. It's even better to have some lame old jokes than.

Watched the movie with six people who love love all kinds of comedy from Hollywood to British comedy, from satire to black comedy. This film

But after 50 min we just stopped watching in order not to lose our good mood.

.... too bad


Even casting aside memories of the infamous summer of 2005, (during which the Internet Movie Database's Film General message board was overrun for months by the director's friends relentlessly hawking this documentary - and getting extremely unpleasant when challenged about their behaviour, trolling the board - in a monumentally misguided attempt at viral marketing that ensured everyone who encountered them waited for it to arrive on television rather than pay to see it) this film is impossible to like.

Much of that stems from the unlikable Brian Herzlinger, a man with no personality to speak of. He's a poor enough actor to betray the fact that at times he's clearly reading scripted material or improvising imaginary see-I-got-you-back phone conversations with an ex girlfriend who cheated on him. And that's not even his most pathetic moment.

Every attempt is made to enliven the concept but because it simply doesn't lend itself to a feature length film these attempts are doomed to failure, even if they weren't so hopelessly amateurish and inappropriate. They frequently employ six degrees of separation graphics as if they expect the audience to care that some guy's friend is a friend of some other guy's agent who knows someone who once worked with Barrymore. This kind of information is often presented in dramatic freeze frames as if to underline how important it is.

Presumably resulting from a dearth of imagination and creativity we're left with seemingly never-ending footage of Herzlinger approaching teenage girls outside malls and telling them what the film's about. "Oh, cool" they respond unenthusiastically - and this footage made the final cut! Next we see him unsuccessfully stopping people in the street and asking them to take part in "A survey about Drew Barrymore." It continues like this until the final scene, which I won't spoil. Things get mildly interesting (and decidedly awkward) for a few minutes and then - thankfully - it's over.


So a guy borrows a video-camera and makes a documentary about how he gets a date with Drew Barrymore in 30 days. His friends help and it becomes a big production. Unfortunately, this guy's sad attempt at breaking into show business isn't very interesting. Basically, they keep calling people in Drew's outer circle of gatekeepers in the hope of getting a lunch date with her. They do crash an event, and the guy says "Hi" to her, but is too overcome with her stardom to ask her out. Then they reenact the meeting because they didn't bring a camera into the event. I'm sure Drew is a wonderful person but pleeeease - she's not a goddess! So when they fail to get the date within 30 days they keep going (cheating!) until she eventually hears about it and decides she'd like the free publicity (and IMDb credit!). How is this even mildly entertaining?


Extremely amateurish "faux-reality-show" or "home-movie" feel. Total waste of time. We "rented" this as one of our monthly "freebies" from Blockbuster and it wasn't even worth the effort to get it. We groaned even as we fast forwarded through the really bad parts. Moved slower than molasses. The description on the cover suggested a real movie, so it was completely disappointing when it turned out to be someone's poorly done home movie. I will be looking to avoid anyone that had anything to do with this picture in the future - if this is their sense of movie-making or of entertainment, I want to stay clear. Don't waste your time.


Proof that anyone with a video camera and enough desire can compete with the big boys. It's good to see that any schlub can now get his message out there rather than all the power in the hands of the elite. That being said, why anyone would have such a fixation on a human being they hardly know was disturbing. I'm glad that Drew Barrymore didn't seemed bothered by it, maybe she was relieved as she might have felt this guy wasn't a potential danger to her after meeting him. Watching him trying to get into shape in the time he had was ridiculous. A major problem I had with the movie though was I couldn't tell if the main character was gay or not, which created a lot of distracting dissonance.


I have just watched twenty minutes of "My Date with Drew" and I was initially irritated with the DVD released by "First Look" distributor, which wrongly indicates the availability of "closed caption" (cc) on the cover of the R1 DVD, which is not captioned, has only subtitles in Spanish. The shameful self-promotion of the author using the name and a poster of Drew Barrymore on the cover to attract naive viewers that expect to see a romantic comedy with Drew Barrymore is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on DVD. However, the intention of the author was achieved and his "documentary" was distributed, inclusive I was misled and bought it. After twenty minutes, I really gave up watching it since I really could not believe it could improve. I love independent movie, but not this type of cheap opportunism. I used the forward button and I was surprised with the generosity of the magnificent Drew Barrymore, participating in this farce. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "Meu Encontro Com Drew Barrymore" ("My Date With Drew Barrymore")


Brian Herzlinger is a normal Joe trying to 'get a date with Drew Barrymore' in 30 days in this cloying 'Documentary'. Whether this is a stalker's attempt to desperately get a date with a actress he adores, or a clever ploy to jump start some sort of career for Herzlinger (I'm thinking more the latter), the fact remains that whichever it is, te film is manipulative at best and slightly alarming at worst. And if it WERE the former, rather then the latter, all the likability of Brian flies out the window as no matter how charismatic a stalker may be, the fact remains that they ARE in fact stalking someone. And if this movie inspires even one REAL stalker (and as I said before this film is a sham and a PR ploy), but if the film inspires a REAL stalker that would be quite a shame indeed. I can't recommend this film on entertainment ground, I can't recommend it on documentary grounds, and I certainly can't recommend it on ethical grounds.

My Grade: D


This movie was awful. I have to agree with the person who said most of these reviews were written by people connected with the movie. My friends and I decided to watch this movie today because,like an idiot, I fell for the glorious comments about this movie being great and different. The only dream Brian has is of himself not Drew. She's just a vehicle for him to yap about himself on the big screen. It's not funny, it's not sweet, it's not witty, it's not inspirational. But it is really boring. I just registered for IMDb today right after I saw this nonsense so others won't be led astray like me. This site, I always felt, was for "real people" who ARE NOT connected with the movie in ANY way. This whole things smells like when Sony created the fake critic David Manning to promote their movies. But unlike that case, I won't get a $5 refund. And if this movie won any awards as one reviewer states, then I have a "documentary" of me sleeping I'd like to submit to the judges. You'll laugh, you'll cry, it's magic. Interestingly, it too is about dreams.

And if these reviews are truly sincere, well, then I will politely disagree with them. But honestly (hmmm...honesty, there's a loose concept),I think I'm one of the few people on this site that's actually seen the movie. It REEKS.


I rate movies 1 when I feel like turning it off, which was many times during this film. I didn't, though it seemed to get worse...

He wins a grand, decides to get a date with Drew, the whole movie follows him throughout a very long 90mins and thats it.

There were some entertaining moments, but a movie about a guy getting a date with a celbrity is all you're going to see and how knowing someone who knows someone else might know Drew.

Eventually a website is made, which catches Drew's business partners attention, and Drew herself.

Don't watch unless you want to see this excuse for a movie.


I don't want to be mean, but I couldn't even laugh at how hopeless this guy was. I felt bad for him for about 5 minutes and then just wanted to beat his ass. That's right, this movie is about a loser trying to meet Drew Barrymore in 30 days. Problem is he only seems to spend about 2 hours a day doing any semblance of work to achieve this goal.

*Spoiler* The guy gets a chance to meet her at a movie premier and he can't even talk to her. How can you set out to make a documentary about asking someone out when the protagonist is such a pussy?? Anyways in the end Drew's publicist finds out about the project and probably said to her, "Look Drew, you're gonna seem like a huge bitch if you don't meet up with this guy," so they get together for an awkward 20 minute lunch. This is supposed to be the climax, but it's actually the low point of the movie. It plays out like a make a wish foundation story; Celebrity who feels sorry feigns interest in someone so pathetic that they have to be nice but don't want to touch them for fear of catching anything. If you read between the lines of her comment about her being an "instigator" or "motivator" in his life, you can hear her really saying, "Get a f@cking job."


"Brian Herzlinger is an inspiration to anyone who..." wanted desperately to be famous. Seeing this film at HBO Comedy Fest, I did not understand how these guys did not get served with a lawsuit. Probably knowing a thing or two about law, they jumped through as many loopholes as they could to use Drew Barrymore's image.

Another issue I had with it was the fact that this film not only uses Barrymore but makes her an object to be desired. Is Barrymore a thing to be coveted? Does it not matter to this schlub that she actually has a boyfriend?

If anyone needed a gimmick it was them. And they used it. But judgig that, after the fests, it only lasted a weekend in already limited release, the gimmick does not work on audiences.


Sure, a documentary can be lighthearted, but this ode to seemingly brain dead Brian Herzlinger's celebrity obsessions is the absolute dregs. The moronic Herlinger, who clearly has never watched any film shot for less than 50 million, grins like a lunatic over and over into the camera. When his mother tells the unemployed 27 year old that she reads The Star tabloid because everything in the rag is true, I realized that Herlinger probably never had a chance. Still, it's hard not to want to take a baseball bat to someone this utterly inane in that oh so L.A. way. As Joe Pesci would say, "I think someone needs a beatin'"! Oh, and I did check out some of the other responses. Clearly Herzlinger and his pals have been stuffing the ballot box as NO ONE would find this to be a great, "inspiring" film.


I'm all for independent filmmakers trying something new nd I think its great that new video technology makes it possible for more people to make movies. But come on, this is just taking the Mickey. You make allowances for shooting on video, but you expect the cameraman to at least know how to hold it slightly steady or keep it in focus! That's the least of the problems. These come in three main areas.

1. The film is obviously a fake. Brian Herlzinger clearly isn't interested at all in Drew Barrymore, and he's obviously got some vague contact with her to set the thing up. It's no spoiler to say that there is no date, just a brief blinkandmissit cameo arranged by her PR people. It's also a bit dubious because he seems awfully fey about it all. I kept on thinking the only reason this wasn't called My Date With Liza was because Liza Minnelli got a restraining order.

2. Brian Herlzinger has made a film about himself. He loves himself. He fawns over himself. He gazes lovingly at his own reflection. It's really a bit scary.

3. There is no entertainment value. Just padding, a few interviews with sad ex-celebs he's conned out of PRS and a lot of talking about how he's a great guy who should go for it. FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF! 4. It's really badly made. My wedding video is technically better, and my brother was drunk when he shot it.

So points for Chutzpah but none for the film. Somehow he managed to sell this to Blockbuster, but that's no reason for you to see it. It's like being stuck in a lift with the world's most boring man. FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF!


This documentary is fundamentally misleading in its characterization of the "split" that divides Americans politically by focusing almost exclusively on relatively meaningless "hot button" issues like abortion and homosexuality, while ignoring real class, gender, and racial disparity.

Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned ever. For politicians to pretend otherwise for the sake of mobilizing ignorant voters is disingenuous, just like this movie's insistence that abortion is a politically significant issue on the national level, one that divides our political spectrum, is also disingenuous. Similarly homosexuality is not an issue at the national level. The personal opinions of politicians have little bearing on the legislative reality, which is that at this time neither party will act either to further expand or restrict the definition of marriage. No one is pushing for equal rights for gays, and no one is pushing for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The documentary contains a number of short historical lessons for the viewer's apparent edification (so he can contextualize the current "split" with the halcyon days of yore) which are fundamentally inaccurate. For instance, in order to buttress the reality of the "split" as a modern phenomenon, electoral maps for the past 100 years or so of presidential elections are shown with the current red/blue color scheme. Not surprisingly, the red/blue states shift somewhat from election to election and substantially at certain times. What is not mentioned at all is that during these shifts it was the nature of the political parties themselves that changed, not the voters. The South overwhelmingly voted Democratic during most of the twentieth century, until Republicans co-opted the racial and evangelical platform issues important to Southerners. Subtler changes in party platforms during this time are also ignored. Another example of historical inaccuracy is the depiction of the religion of the founding fathers. It's suggested that there is a great deal of confusion concerning the religion of the founding fathers (and there is amongst many people, but not historians). Thomas Jefferson is painted as a devoutly religious man who compiled his own bible but nonetheless (and confusedly, it seems) is sometimes considered an atheist. What is not mentioned is that his "bible" contains only the moral teachings of Jesus, with the complete expurgation of miracles and everything else Jefferson considered spurious, because Jefferson was in fact a deist, more or less the eighteenth century equivalent of the modern atheist.

There are several more instances like this, which contribute overall to an extremely simplified picture of America as divided along meaningful partisan lines. Certainly America IS divided along partisan lines to the extent that politicians have been very successful in getting people to vote primarily on social "issues." But in fact the Democratic and Republican parties are both right of center compared to the parties of every other Western industrialized nation. They are both free market capitalist parties who employ aggressive foreign policy. The split between them is grossly exaggerated.

This documentary should have focused on the political agenda of deceiving voters into believing in the existence of a real political schism but instead merely furthers that agenda by reinforcing this deception.


An amateur documentary film maker takes a little old man, Bill, for subject. The man is mentally ill. They learn respect while knowing each other's secret. Story of good intentions, but this is truly a minor league TV B-Movie. Settings are awful, actors others than the two stars are mediocre. Veteran Mickey Rooney portrays a warm man and provides very good acting. That's the only reason to watch this.


Filmed for television as a cautionary tale about the impending global warming disaster, "The Fire Next Time" is a disaster unto itself. If anything, this two-part 1993 groaner is testament to how consistently unoriginal and glaringly inaccurate the environmentalist party line has remained over the past 15+ years.

In "The Fire Next Time," the writers do their best to throw everything they have against the wall, hoping that something will stick. The movie employs disaster flick favorites ranging from drought and famine to social discord and disease in painting a picture of overall chaos in the America of 2017. As we've learned from Nostradamus, broad ambiguity is the key to a good false prophecy.

Lest the aforementioned examples prove overly sensationalistic, a can't-miss disaster is brought in for support: the hurricane. There is no safer bet than hurricanes in the southeastern U.S., and if this American standard can now be ascribed to global warming, all the better.

If only global warming could be linked to earthquakes and the impending "big one" in Los Angeles. Now that would be an "I told you so!" The left-wing fantasy is completed at the end of the film, when Americans are found scrambling for entry into Canada. In reality, 1993 was the year of the big push for universal healthcare in America, with the "Canadian model" being cited as the last, best hope for Americans. Canada was hip, Canada was the "in" thing, and it was only natural that Canada be given further hype as the salvation for climate-oppressed Americans 25 years into the future.

Today, we find the global warming community in much the same situation as Health Canada: large, powerful, and staving off collapse as it becomes more and more apparent that their assumptions have constructed a false reality upon an untenable foundation.

With just 15 years of hindsight, it is now stunningly clear that "The Fire Next Time" has gone up in smoke.


Living there in Morgan City when the movie was filmed in the summer of 1992, we members of the press, at the press conference for this movie, laughed when told what the movie was going to be about. Our local KQKI was quick to point out that if the crew just waited till August, they wouldn't have to make up some of the hurricane scenes. Though everyone laughed, the joke was on Ernest Polk when Andrew slammed into Morgan City after taking out south Florida. Ernest was right. The move was okay but when the real hurricane met some of the sets that were used in the movie, like the Berwick Civic Center, Andrew, quite impolitely, removed roofing off of the walkways and such. If you lived in a trailer before the hurricane, you lived in a shelter after it (residents from Patterson to Amelia, at least). It was the only time I evacuated, ever. I went to Mississippi and watched CNN. The Mayor at the time, Cedric LaFleur really did make Morgan City look like it was a haven for Cajuns with his thick accent. Anyway, I found this on another web site and it does sound like what the Mayor might have said.

TWC Meteorologist: Mayor Lafleur, are you concerned that many citizens will stay for the storm or do you believe they will leave early enough to get to safety? Cedric: No, Sha. Iss all gone be okay. We done issued a mandatory evaporation for da hoal city.

Public Works Director (off camera in a hushed voice): No. Cedric, that's the wrong word.

Cedric: What? Oh..Oh..Yeah, I'm sorry bout dat. I meant ta say we done ejaculated da hoal city, Sha.


I too was in this movie as an extra. What a was of air time to show this mess. It was poorly written, directed, and edited. It was fun to work on the movie, made a lot of friends. I was embarrassed to have my other friends watch this show


I'm watching this during one of the 5 coldest winters in recorded North American history in the Northeast US and maritime regions of Canada and I am amazed at how absolutely wrong this movie is in every regard. History will prove that this movie was based on hysterical false assumptions and pseudoscience. If you want to watch a group of mediocre actors have water blown on them , feel free to enjoy but don't make the mistake of believing that anything in this movie is remotely accurate.


My uncle recommended this movie to me recently and since we often share tastes I thought I would try it--I like Bonnie Bedelia and Delta Burke so I thought it would be interesting. (All I can say is "what was HE thinking?") It started off pretty slow and while it introduced some very interesting characters, the story line lacked big time. Delta Burke needed a bigger role (and perhaps should have been portraying Latrelle, although Bonnie was doing a good job with that character). We could have done without Olivia Newton John altogether and they needed to do more with Beau Bridges' handicap--I'll say nothing more about it so as not to spoil this for anybody who still wants to see this movie. I can only say that this movie resembled a mix of the Jerry Springer Show, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and maybe Kiss of the Spider Woman or Body Heat--all of which, including Jerry Springer, are better productions. They certainly did get down the Texas types, especially the women--big hair and often foul mouths (and yes I AM a New Yorker). The character portrayals were actually pretty good--Earl and his Tammy Wynette fetish was actually funny in a few spots and I thought Latrelle was well-portrayed by Bonnie Bedelia--and there was a development or two in her relationship to son Ty.

All in all this might be worth a watch for the characters, but otherwise the whole thing fell flat. I gave it a mercy 4 for the characters and pretty Ty.


I hated this movie. It meandered pointlessly and unevenly with no hint of realism. Everybody in this film- all these so called friends- were so impossibly cheery in the face of disillusion and disease. That is not how I experience life. I mean- how odd that these acquaintances were so cute, so quirky, so forgiving- no matter what the crisis. Doesn't sound like anyone I know. I suppose the writer/director was aiming toward a light comic drama. However, in my humble opinion, the fluff of this film so encrusts any depth this script might had with a sugary- I'll-love- you-no- matter- what- you- do- even- if- you- kill- a- guy- and- you- can- have- sex- with- whoever- you- want-and -adjust- your- morality- to- whatever- situation- you- want candy coating. This film will entertain a liberal crowd, but film buffs should stay away.


Someone want`s to do a realistic docudrama on sectarian killings in Northern Ireland ? Fine , but ELEPHANT`s not it . Alan Clarke seems to be under the impression that sectarian death squads are composed entirely of young men shooting dead other young men but the reality is somewhat different . In Northern Ireland during the troubles both loyalist and republican terrorists ( Both of which contain men and women , young and old ) viewed anyone from the other side as a legitimate target , it didn`t matter about your politics or religion , your age or sex as long as you lived in the Shankhill or the Falls you were fair game. And the method of murder dealt differs somewhat from ELEPHANT , a car bomb in a street of Saturday shoppers was a favourite with republicans while capturing an innocent passer by and torturing them to death with a stanley knife and red hot poker was a common practice amongst loyalists . Watching ELEPHANT you`d believe that people die quick and painless deaths - untrue. Many of victims of terrorism had their coffin lids screwed shut at their funerals so their families wouldn`t be allowed to see the horrific mutilations they`d suffered , the way they died were even more unforgivable than the fact they died in the first place . If you want to get educated about the horrors of the troubles give ELEPHANT a miss and read a book by someone like Martin Dillon who knows what he`s talking about


After finishing watching the movie my friend said to me: do you realize that we just watched over 2 hours of video about nothing. The movie is basically escapist: showing reality in makeup and looking like whore, very much like Hollywood movies. The main character is "very good person", faithful husband and a father and cares about people (through building railroads). So how do put this man in a romantic extra-marrital affair without damaging that ultra-good view of him? Well, you make his neurotic wife run away with somebody else, and then make him get mad when the girl puts on his wifes clothing and only later give in to his feelings. Really, a true story of devotion to family values and decency (makes me sick). The whole movie is also very zany, with childish humor (like teletubbies). And to make it powerful in the end there's the whole dramatic separated lovers story. So what you get is a movie about life before and during war, where nobody dies, main character has a romance, full of slapstick humor. How's this related to anything real. I see it only as a sickening reality-obscuring movie.


Terrible... Pathetic...

If anything, it is now obvious that the cursed city of Sarajevo (and its authors like Sidran) made Kusturica, once upon a time.

Without the inspiration from there, he is forced to imitate himself -- as someone else pointed out. If we forget his American adventure (Arizona Dream), the decay of his movies was apparent already when "Underground" came out, but it was still bearable. "Black cat, white cat" was still watchable, though clearly worse than the rest. This one is simply pathetic.

Rest In Peace, Emir of Dolly Bell...


I saw this movie on 14 May in France. I was really excited before the movie. I was just waiting for a fantastic Kustrica Movie! Unfortunantly, it was not a good movie. And also, I hate the movie!!! Why? Because, it wasn't a fantastic movie trial and also a political propaganda! I watched this movie with my French friends. When we left the cinema, they started to talk about Serbian Public. They thought that the Bosnian people made lots of bad thing to Serbians. Because, in the movie, it is clearly shown that the war between Serbian and Bosnians was started by the Bosnian Public!!! This is not true! Actually, Kustrica couldn't mention the war... or if he really wants to mention, so he could be realistic! He must think that why the Serbian President is in the court now??? Why there are no Bosnian people in the court?? The answer is so easy, but anyway with the movie, he wanted to change the idea in the people's mind. So, by the way people who have no idea about that war could think that Bosnian people are the ones who started, and behaved in a bad way. Or he showed the Muslim public (Bosnian) different than the real!

As a conclusion, this movie is not about Love, not about people have fantastic life, it is just about the Propaganda of the Serbian Public..So, poor Kustrica.. I think you just approached your end in your career.


Dreadful. Stupid. Boring. None of these words come even CLOSE to describing the horror of this 2002 A&E film which claims to be based on U.K. LeGuin's "The Lathe of Heaven".

It's not as if they didn't have an example to follow. The PBS production of Lathe is universally recognized as one of the best "thinking" science fiction movies ever made, and they made it for virtually nothing compared to the cost of A&E's dog of a film.

There is a lesson to be learned, here, folks, and the lesson is this: Hollywood is full of idiots. They remade Casablanca. They remade The Third Man. Why? And in the name of all sanity, why can't anyone STOP them?

Virtually all of the plot of the book and original movie are gone, as is all of the sense. The aliens? Gone. The grey-skin solution to race problems? Gone. The dissonance between the Western activist/technological worldview as opposed to the Eastern passive/natural worldview? Gone. Intelligent dialog, talented acting? Gone.

In their place we get some hot tongue action between Lisa Bonet and Lucas Haas. Not a good trade-off.

Ms. Le Guin was heavily involved with the PBS original, and not at all consulted about this remake. The director boasted that he hadn't seen the first movie nor read the book. He should have. If he had, perhaps he'd have recognized his own utter lack of talent and done the decent thing, which is kill himself before he made this monstrosity.

I only hope that new viewers aren't put off seeing the original by this bad, bad movie. Do yourself a favor: buy or rent the original on DVD! Even the special effects were cooler, and it was made in 1980!!


I am at a loss to understand why producers feel the need to remake perfectly good movies into mediocre movies. I just don't get it.

Ursula K. Le Guin's tale of George Orr, a wretched young man with the power to alter reality by literally dreaming up a new one, is a good story with many layers. George falls victim to a well-meaning (at first, anyway) psychotherapist, Dr. Haber, who uses George to remake the universe. George is one of those poor souls who cannot resist the will of anyone he perceives to be an authority and consequently finds himself remaking the universe to Haber's specifications. We all know that the road to a well known place is paved with good intentions, and this supplies the conflict that makes the drama.

If you've never read Ursula K. Le Guin's novel or seen the 1980 PBS film, you might like this effort. Otherwise, don't waste your time. This movie wimped out in several places by watering down the script to avoid any racial overtones, so well handled in both the book and the earlier film. There were other instances where I felt the script writers and the producer were trying to be as PC as possible. The story dragged, and all in all I found it flat.

The casting was OK with one exception -- Lisa Bonet, a generally competent actress, was sadly miscast as Heather LeLache, George's court-appointed lawyer. The role called for an in your face, very black lady with an attitude, not a wimpy cutie.