This is a rip off of Bruce Almighty which is ten times more funnier; Salman Khan cannot act he is always screaming and making stupid faces while Priyanka Chopra is just as bad as Salman...Amitabh Bachan is okay taking over Morgan Freeman's role but the film is a complete copy of Bruce Almighthy and is very very bad....

This makes me wonder as Bollywood have excessive amounts of money in their grasps...why continue to make crap movies which are complete remakes and then deny the very fact that it is a remake.

The Director should be banned as well as the producers...Can Bollywood not make any good films anymore?


When a writer turns director plans to make a movie. What do you expect? At least an original story if not a perfect direction. But Mr. Rumi Jaffery shamelessly copies Bruce Almighty, adds some idiotic sequences of his own, throws few songs and here's what we get- a horrible copy of Bruce almighty. To add to the shame quotient, director denies it being a copy.

If the director had blindly copied the almighty, the movie could have been at least watchable. The modified script has easily made this one of the worst flicks of this year. Less said about the star-cast, the better. Throw money on us, we'll do any crap you say. Come on Mr. Khan and Mr. Bachhan, You've achieved a lot in your career. At least pay attention to the scripts you choose.

If India had Razzie, this one would have been a sure winner.


If you are going to steal ideas, at least give credit to the original. Also, if you are going to copy, take your time and try to improve upon the original. Both, I guess, are too much to expect from typical Bollywood productions.

As some of the other folks have already mentioned. This is a REMAKE of Bruce Almighty with the typical Bollywood masala. Overacting (come on, we are talking about Salman), weak script, weaker directing. Just to give you an example, I usually like Jaspal Yadav in movies. No matter how small his role is, he manages to make it funny. Not in this one. In an attempt in increase the running time of the movie, the director/script-writer added several additional characters which truly haven't added anything to this poor movie.

Thank god for Priyanka though. God, tussi seriously great ho.

Final verdict, if you love Bollywood movies no matter how bad they are, you will probably enjoy it. But, if you have any TASTE or care for quality, save your money and TIME.


This movie is horrible. A really bad version of "Bruce Almighty".

Salman is not a good actor. Maybe ten years ago he seemed somewhat appealing. But in every comedic role he plays now, he just seems to suck even more.

Priyanka Chopra was never meant to be an actress. She's beautiful, but a big mistake was committed when someone out there thought that models could act. I think she should have just stayed a model. In every movie I have seen that stars her, I'm always disappointed.

Sohail Khan? I didn't even know he was an actor until I saw this movie. He's even worse than his brother.

I just don't understand why Amitabh Bachchan signs up to play these horrible roles in cheap movies. He's so spectacular. Why doesn't anyone give him a good role in a good movie?

The soundtrack wasn't even nice. Rumi Jaffery, I think he didn't know what he was doing. Did he think that this movie was going to be good? I don't even know what kind of audience he aimed for.

Just not one of my favorite movies.


Salman's comedy films like HELLO BROTHER, MAINE PYAAR KYUN KIYAA are terrible But this film is even worse A remake of BRUCE ALMIGHTY, but a bad one It's boring and keeps getting worse First few reels between Salman- Priyanka and Salman- Anupam are as boring as ever and Salman's shouting worsens And if this isn't worse Enters Sohail Khan trying to do a Akshay in MSK and the film gets even worse, unbearable their scenes together are so bad, that you will surely get a headache the twist in the tale too seems illogical and the second half gets even more childish The lie detector is okay but the way the film ends it's even more stupid

Rumi Jaffrey seems inspired by his mentor David Dhawan and follows his Style too much but sadly fails in handling the film Music is outdated SFX too is bad

Performances are mediocre Salman is unbearable in first half, he shouts too much and his dial delivery is also bad, in second half he is better but sadly nothing even good enough Sohail is even worse, he is bad Priyanka Chopra doesn't have anything to do Dalip Tahil, Anupam Kher are average Amitabh seems to have walked out of a Rein and Taylor ad and just moves around with a know it all smile but his presence does uplift some scenes


This mess just reminded me of one of those 70s pan European co-productions that were so prominent at the time. The characters inhabit a Disneyesque, sanitised version of 1920s Austria where everyone and everything is scrubbed shinily clean and everyone walks aboutwearing beautiful clothes. The story itself would be a good basis for adecent dramatic film but as soon as I heard the dreadful dubbed voice coming out of Heinz Hoenig's mouth I knew this was a stinker! Why does the film show Halsman alive and well in America in the 1950s spoiling any dramatic tension - we already know in the first 2 minutes of the film that he is going to be free, whats the point watching any further? (I personally didn't know who he was before watching the film) Why does Martine McCutcheon have to talk with that ridiculous American accent in a film set in Austria????????? All in all an unwatchable mess. Badly scripted, badly directed and badly acted. AVOID!!!!!!!!!


Ah.. "the place promised in our early days... " - a phrase soaked in soft memories of naive, but blissful adolescence. Too bad the plot reads like that lame anniversary card you Dad gave your Mom last year. The animation is, of course, stellar - but the story? Well - let's see... what is a story anyway? What do clouds mean? Oh wait - if you're like me - who f***ing cares.

After reading the "helpful" review on this, I gave this film a shot and watched it. I mean hey, I loved Spirited Away. It's not as though anime has to be along the lines of Fist Of The North Star for me to enjoy it. But oh my god, what a piece of s***! It's like one of those films where you keep thinking the plot is starting to get good, but it's not. In fact, the plot is "tricking you" into thinking it's going to get good, and then when you're interested again, it's like - "hehehe... got you sucker...", and then continues to unfold as lamely as you subconsciously assumed it would after the first 15 minutes.

Nonetheless, out of respect for the talent it takes to make a finely animated film such as this - I have to give it far more than 1 star. But still, those 4 stars are for quality of workmanship alone, and NOT for an enjoyable film. But you don't have to take MY word for it... Go ahead, watch it. But I promise you, unless the question - "What do clouds mean?" appeals to you, then you will feel cheated out of the time you wasted watching this . Besides, you can always just go to the drugstore and read anniversary cards for free.


For a movie that goes for 90 minutes to last my group of friends 120 minutes to watch one must think it's pretty awful.

We paused the film many times to talk about what happened but still ended up finishing the movie with no clue.

The story was very nicely written but was all over the place. For some reason Hokkaido had been taken over or something and a tower was built... Why??? don't ask me What happens??? I don't know... it was nice but not good,. I may be writing a critique about this film but it was so confusing do not know what to write about. It was just so hard...

Watch it if you need to fall asleep.


By the looks of things on the Anime Network, I actually thought that there would be an interesting story with this movie... scratch that theory.

I finally got the chance to see this at my monthly Anime Club meeting, and I have never been so disappointed in my life! For starters, there's a war going on that sounds an awful lot like the Civil War all over again- except it's Japan and the US; not the Confederate States and the Union States.

Secondly, the movie just moves so slowly.

I know that that's normal in an anime you see first-hand, but the least you could hope for is for them to get to the next scene.

Another thing that annoyed me were all the false endings: you had no idea when they'd finish the movie and when they do, it's a total cop-out! The girl wakes up, and the tower (along with a big chunk of the city) gets nuked! All anime fans, I cannot stress this enough: do not watch this movie! 0/10


I've read quite a few good reviews on this movie and I just can't understand why. Now I know foreign horror films tend to have some very bad acting. (which this one does)And they pride themselves on being very atmospheric. (one of the few plusses with this movie) But why must they be so damn disjointed. It's like the editting is performed by someone having seizures. The movie is all over the place and totally incoherent. Maybe it's just me but most Italian horror flics seem to have the same problems. They make little sense. I bought this movie on sale and I was still robbed! SPOILER: The model airplane death scene has to be one of the lamest deaths I've ever witnessed! The old lady ought to be put in a home though the son was good for a few chuckles. The only really intense scene was the nun being killed by the scissors. And the ending.... doesn't exist!! What the hell is this movie about??? Terrible movie... avoid at any and all costs!!!


Firstly let me say that I am an avid Horror Fan. I collect and love lots of different horror movies from the Italian gore to the more psychological to the plain funny as in Evil Dead. Now, Desecration. What category does this fall into? It maybe has its own unique category. If so, It would be close to the bottom of the pile...where movies you will only ever watch once and still regret doing so, live. To describe the general gist of this movie is quite simple. forget unbelievable surrealism, forget cerebral and beautiful haunting imagery. Try 'a collection of stereotypical horror movie clichés that are thrown together without ANY real sense of structure, meaning and above all no message and no story is forthcoming'.

Even some of these people here praising the movie have admitted it seemed to be going nowhere at times or didn't make any sense. Of the other reviews there is one that stands out and praises this movie as if it is the best movie ever made.... It isn't hard to guess that the reviewer is a keen user of cannabis-Deduced by the nickname, If I am wrong shoot me! - and if I were to view this movie under the influence, I too would probably say 'Wow' 'amazing' 'freaky' etc etc etc. In the grim harshness of reality though (!?), this movie is a total TURKEY. If you are considering buying this trash...be warned, there are better things to spend your money on. Like a new Can opener or something. If you want a cheap alternative to this movie, get a collection of older movie trailers, put them on back to back so it lasts an hour or so, then sit and watch it whilst flicking different coloured lights on and off now and then with some old led Zep or pink floyd music on in the background- playing backwards of course. 0 out of 10


Supernatural horror film about a young boy who's mother dies suddenly on his birthday. Years later a chain of events beginning with the death of a nun spirals him downward into the pit of hell. Mixed bag horror film that is has some really great images and a sense of things being really off that are under cut by a lack of budget (The death by model plane that starts everything is laughable as are some of the other deaths) and performances that aren't all there, with some of the cast seeming to have come from who ever was around that day. Its one of those films that almost works but falls just short so seems more like a missed opportunity then something you actually will want to sit through. To be fair those who don't mind trying films that don't work as a whole in order to see spooky imagery will want to give it ago for the bits that do work.


I couldn't find one redeeming quality in this pretentious mess. The plot is nonexistent and the acting is atrocious. And then there's the imagery...Yes, clowns can be creepy. Here, they're not. It doesn't make any sense for them to be there; I know it's intended to be surreal, even absurdist, but it comes across as forced, trite, and clichéd. The dead nuns get redundant pretty quickly. And, as a couple other reviewers mentioned, the murderous toy airplane is totally laughable. Personally, I thought the flying scissors were pretty inane as well. I marked this as containing spoilers, but really, what is there to spoil? With no plot and no tension, there's nothing to give away. Don't waste your time on this; it's not even worth satisfying your curiosity. It's just dreck. 0 out of 10 stars.


No wonder GEORGE SANDERS got tired of being cast as Simon Templar, here in "The Saint in London". Although filmed in London, it has almost no flavor of a bustling city in its screenplay which has him on the trail of a bunch of counterfeiters and looks as if it was filmed on the quick on some strictly low-budget sets. He has David BURNS as his valet and SALLY GRAY as his blonde love interest. Whenever the scene shifts to a car chase outdoors, the process photography is obvious.

It's all very ordinary with the usual number of close escapes as The Saint leaves his calling card wherever he goes.

Sanders looks young and in good shape but seems almost bored with his role--and in this case, it's understandable. What little plot there is holds almost no surprises and it's all over in a matter of 72 minutes. It has the look and feel of a sub-standard B-film and nothing more than routine story without a spark of imagination.


This is not normally the kind of movie I watch. I rented this movie on the recommendation of some of the kitchen workers at the restaurant where I am a waitress. I should have known better. They said it was "hilarious", "funny as s*#t", among other "outstanding" comments. The only reason I sat through till the end was to wait for the funny parts that were NEVER forthcoming. I did feel that some of the portrayals of the customers were realistic. If people were to see this movie and feel the whole as an accurate portrayal of the waiting profession, which I hope normal people would have the sense to figure out is not the case, I would be out of a job. If you like stupid, mindless "humor", see this movie. I feel that it insults a profession that I happen to take very seriously and pride myself on. This movie was a waste of my time and money.


This film is by one of the worst movies I have seen this year. It is so quick to play the slapstick, immature humor that it doesn't allow the humor to really build. It tries to follow in the same breath of the likes of "Office Space" and "Clerks", but it falls well short. I admit, I did chuckle here and there, but overall I was the only person in the theater laughing the least. I cannot recommend this film.

I'm sure people who have worked in the restaurant business might be able to relate to this film more, though I have worked in the customer service business before and I know how it is to deal with difficult people. With "Clerks" and "Office Space", I was able to relate to the humor of the workplace because it was clever and smart. "Waiting..." does not take that approach and is one lame gag after the next. The writers of this film should have taken more time to mold the humor in this one.


After watching this movie about a "day in the life of a restaurant," I couldn't understand the high rating it gets on IMDb, but then I noticed that most of the reviewers are former wait-persons who identified with the over-the-top caricatures of the staff and customers of these restaurants.

For anyone else it is just a bunch of crude high-school level gross-out jokes.

I realize comedy is subjective, but I kept hoping that the energetic (and in some cases attractive) cast might actually be given some sort of comedic situational set-up for the jokes instead of a series of barely (pun intended) connected stoopid gags.


When you sit down to watch a comedy that you think may have potential to be really genuine, hilarious, and have some crude adult humor thrown in beware, it may turn out to be a total stinker like "Waiting...". I thought the idea of the setting, an everyday boisterous steakhouse, and the comedy of Ryan Reynolds would make this a hit, but the film blows on every level. The plot is non-existent, there are no jokes, the single attempt at any comedy (I won't spoil it, as if I could spoil anything about this crapper) is beyond childish and is used over and over throughout this 90+ minute root canal. Stereotypical, lame, and stupid are just a few words that come to mind.

Who voted this as a "10", children under 12 who snuck the DVD from their parents and watched it late at night while all were asleep??? Pleeeeeaaasseeeee!!!!! How do these scripts get through to be major films? Also, please, enough already with the huge overblown "UNRATED" DVD versions, so you added a 5 second scene and now the film is sooo much better than the crap fest that we saw in the theaters, all I can say is NO.


Jerk off waiters, waitresses, and other restaurant staff spew sophomoric humor for people who've never seen foul-mouthed comedies (or get off on them). The running joke, herein, is something called "The Penis Game" - you trick co-workers into looking at your exposed genitals. Then, if they look at your worm, you shout "fag!" and playfully kick their ass. Note, the "Unrated and Raw" DVD shows squat.

Stuff like spitting on food is about what you'd expect. The caricatures will be recognizable to anyone who has worked in a "Shenaniganz". The philosopher-dishwasher (Chi McBride as "Bishop") and tightly-wound waitress (Alanna Ubach as "Naomi") are made to order. Justin Long (as Dean) does all right with the best-written role. But, this type of comedy can hardly ever keep it up. And, it doesn't.

** Waiting... (5/12/05) Rob McKittrick ~ Ryan Reynolds, Anna Faris, Justin Long, Rob Benedict


What irked me the most about this film was the lack of attention to details, and what I consider an important one. The flags on the right shoulders of the uniforms were correctly worn "backwards" with the canton (field of stars) are in the top right corner instead of the left. Army regulations call for the flag "to be worn so that to observers, it looks as if the flag is flying against a breeze." If a soldier was moving forward, the flag on the right shoulder would appear to be in motion. However if a flag is worn on the left shoulder, the canton should face left as it usually does. In this film some left shoulders had flags worn "reverse", which is just wrong. I've never had the honor of serving my country, but as an American I want our flag to be shown proper respect.


After returning from a tour in Iraq, two soldiers attempt to track down their squad leader who has gone AWOL before something terrible happens. Based on some killings in Fort Bragg this is a a good but not great little film thats hurt by a directorial style that makes the film seem like any number of recent independent films. Some people have called it the Sundance look, which is a style of film making that some people adopt to get noticed at a film festival. I'm sure it helps to assure that their film gets seen because its the look that film festival organizers seem to like, but for me a member of the paying audience I find it more on the order of lacking in creativity. I would think it has less to do with Sundance and more to the fact that film schools are turning out filmmakers who are all clones cut with the same cookie cutter. Watch any number of independent films and you see that Garrison blends in with them seamlessly. Its a shame because the story is a good one, even if the pay off is announced at the opening. Recommended only for those who don't watch a large number of independent films.


I've read prior comments concerning the character development, the musical score, and more good reasons to kill time with this movie.

I heartily disagree.

The music is good, but it's sometimes overwhelming and unnecessarily hard. The characters, apart from the investigating sergeant, are cardboard characters, deprived of intelligence. I found it really hard to care about any of them, and I was continuously hoping that they would all end up in freakish accidents. Even the newbies deserved to get it up the rear end. I especially consider here the staff sergeant who goes AWOL. This guy is giving orders, and he's a total basket case. If this is an accurate description of the American army, then by God, the world is in peril. The pace of the movie is slow, to say the least, the dialogues are simple (suitable for a redneck military audience), and did I mention that the characters are despicable?

I suffered through the movie, and wish all the people who think this is good and realistic all the best. I fear a society where this is your standard drama, and I advise military leaders to also select their officers based on a psychological profile, and not only on the badass crazy percentage.


This is by far the worst movie that I have ever seen. The DP must have been blind and the sound guy must have been wearing ear plugs. The film is a sad attempt at a low budget film. By the looks of it the film budget must have been $0. The actors suck and the editing is ridiculous. Filmmakers in San Antonio, Texas are really stupid to think that audiences will want to see such a horrible film. I have yet to see a decent movie from a "San Antonio Filmmaker". Someone needs to tell these people that their movies suck and that they need to stop making them NOW!!!! Just because you get your movie picked by a cheap distributor does not mean that the film is worse a damn!! I had to return the film an get my money back...that's how bad it was!!!


Screenwriter Kevin Williamson had nothing to do with writing this sequel but even if he had I doubt if he would have been able to improve it much . The fundamental problem with SCREAM 3 is that we've seen it all before . There's a pre title credit sequence telephone conversation that climaxes in death and then we're on a set of a movie which eventually ends with cast members getting killed one by one . We know where everything is heading but the attempts to hold our attention are rather lame . For example one of the characters sees the masked killer coming towards and guess what ? It's a dream which is something that rings of pathetic story telling . We also get a cameo from Jay and Bob from the Kevin Smith movies which leaves a feeling of doubt that the producers we're getting a bit desperate in the gimmick department . The climax is somewhat watchable but is let down by the fact that Sidney probably didn't need saving after all and the finale was written just so the murderer could explain his motives . For a film franchise that shouts how clever and post modernist it tries to be the producers should know about the law of diminishing returns . Haven't they seen THE GODFATHER 3 ?


Scream 3 just doesnt have the formula that the last two did,and what I mean by that is Scream 3 isnt scary,the same old thing happens,and worst of all,it isn't entertaining.(SPOILER)Like in this one,you would expect Cindy to die,but she dosent,she just survives again,which isn't fun to see.(ANOTHER SPOILER)I'm sure Wes Craven wanted to make something unpredictable,so he made the outcome of the movie unpredictable,but in a BAD way,because it was Cindy's brother all a long,that just doesnt fit,Its impossible for Cindy not to know that she's had a brother for so long.The only good part about the movie is that...uh...there is no good part about this movie actually.I do have to give credit to the acting,it was pretty good,but that dosent make up for a bad movie.Bad ending,a BIG lack of entertaiment make Scream 3 a terrible horror movie.I give it a 3/10.


The absolute worst of the trilogy, not even comedy could save it ... Unrealistic, unbelievable, loud sudden sounds the only scary component. Really should have quit after one ... No. two was bad but not in the ball park compared to this disaster. Nev Campbell the only saving grace with the four votes given placed solely on her performance having to work under atrocious conditions.


SPOILERS - READ WITH CAUTION

While this movie claimed to not follow any rule, there was still one big general rule that really should have been followed - as pointed out by Randy Meeks (who makes an appearance via a recording filmed before his death), at the end of a trilogy, ALL BETS ARE OFF. A main character (a.k.a someone from the original) should die. There will be more blood, more gore, more excitement and a killer ending. This is no ordinary sequel. But of course, Scream 3 fails to fire in these areas.

It doesn't match up to the first 2 with their wit, thrills and quality. What we get instead is a product that doesn't really excite and leaves the viewer yawning. The ending was far-fetched and in all honesty is rather stupid and had me shaking my head.

Some moments were good. A variety of cameos were worth a smile and so was Jamie Kennedy's video recording.

Overall, could of done better. 5/10


I guess this movie was alright. I have always been a fan of the Scream series and I enjoyed this one. The writers put way too much humor into the movie though. They didn't keep a dark enough tone like they did in the first and second. Despite this it was still a good movie, entertaining, scary, creative, etc. It is a great way to end the wonderful horror series.


They say that horror film series like these tend to deteriorate after the first film, and this is exactly what Scream does. After the magnificent opener, the above average sequel, we now have a lame third flick. I have many problems with this film.***SPOILERS AHEAD***

*Randy is supposed to be dead. But they can't help sneaking him in anyway, on a prerecorded tape to explain "the rules".

*While these rules are clearly spelled out- its the last movie,so anything can happen, and anyone can die, the movie proceeds to ignore them completely. I was waiting to see which of the main characters would die. But none of them did. Also, the killer is supposed to be almost superhuman because its the last film. But I seem to remember it being harder to kill the guys in Scream 1 than this guy.

*The killer himself, is a minor character until the end, when he is revealed. You shouldn't have to think twice, and say "Who?" when the killer is revealed. (I thought they would have learned their lesson from Scream 2 about this one.)

It's all to samey for my liking, although I did like the bit at the end, which pushed postmodernism to new extremes......I wonder if they'll get divorced too.


I remember settling down in front of the TV on Monday nights, just waiting for that voice to introduce "Monday Night Football" - "Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is Howard Cosell." As this movie pointed out, Cosell in fact was "Monday Night Football" - without him, as was pointed out in this movie, you didn't have "Monday Night Football," you had football on Monday night. "Monday Night Mayhem" is an expose type movie, showing us the mostly unsavoury events that went on behind the scenes: the tension in the broadcast booth, director Chet Forte's gambling problems and womanizing. Some of it was interesting, but I really didn't find most of this to be particularly engrossing.

Perhaps the problem was John Turturro as Cosell. I'm almost tempted to let him off the hook. Who could really play Cosell - the look, the voice? But then again I've seen "Ali" and Jon Voight's uncanny ability to capture Cosell. Turturro just didn't do it. He never came across - to me at least - as Howard Cosell; he was always an actor trying to be Howard Cosell (and trying too hard at times in my opinion.) The same can be said for those portraying the rest of the on-air MNF cast. Kevin Anderson as Frank Gifford, Brad Beyer as Don Meredith, Chad Coleman as O.J. Simpson, Shuler Hensley as Keith Jackson - none of them seemed like the real thing. That just threw me off too much.

I thought some of the insights into Cosell were interesting. Cosell comes across as surprisingly insecure, not just wanting the approval of his superiors (especially Roone Arledge, played by John Heard) but needing to be told that he has their approval. In an interesting balancing act, Cosell also comes across as arrogant - disdainful of his "jock" broadcast colleagues, and even of "Monday Night Football" itself, believing himself really more suited to more serious news reporting.

There were some interesting aspects to this movie, but I never really thought it found its footing and it seemed to lack any real consistency. I'd call it a mediocre movie at best.

4/10


This was one of biggest wastes of 2 hours. I felt the film was poorly acted. My biggest problem was some of the inaccuracy of some of the games that were featured the wrong teams. I realize that I am big football fan, but how hard is it for the writers to do a little research on the games and particular teams involved that were played in the history of Monday Night Football?


Occasionally interesting bio about a not-too-intelligent dancer called Isadora Duncan. If this film is anything to judge her by, then I would describe her as arrogant, stupid, self-delusional, self-obsessed, narcissistic, shallow, and slightly insane. (So pretty much like a certain actress involved in this.) The Russian poet she marries is a pathetic moron who looks like a clown. He shortly after commits suicide, a decision one might understand in view of the fact regarding his character and life.

The movie is too long; it's not that it's badly made, but, rather, the problem is that the dance scenes are utterly dull, and that Duncan was neither a "deep" enough person, nor was her achievement anything to shout about (I mean she was just a dancer - big deal) - and a Communist on top of that. The high point of the movie is the last scene, in which she dies by getting strangled by her own clothes that get stuck on the wheel of a car she's in. A very good scene and very surprising. Like in a horror film.

As for dancing, what a dumb activity that is. To quote a friend of mine: "women must have invented all those ritualistic pair dancing routines which are designed to check if your testicles are small and warm enough for him to be with a woman forever".

Now to quote a dumb critic: "Isabela was the the most prominent free-thinker of her time." So to sleep around and succumb to Marxism's imbecilic philosophy constitutes free thinking, huh?


I love the Avengers. Emma Peel was a hero of my childhood. I was ridiculously excited for the arrival of this film and had nauseated all my friends when the project was first announced about who was to be our two spies. I was thrilled with the selection of Fiennes -- but Thurman? I was hesitant. Then Diana Rigg passed on being in the film. Another bad sign. Then, the television trailers, yet a third omen but I told myself the movie could not possibly be that bad. IT was worse than my wildest nightmares -- and I have an excellent imagination. Thurman was as bad as I thought, Fiennes had nothing to play to. Macnee, oh, how it could have improved if we'd seen him. I think this movie is terrible because they didn't get the joke. The Avengers is cheeky, campy, fun, and never without some form of the double entendre somewhere. Apparently, the script writes never actually saw the series and didn't get the joke. I beg, some British filmmaker somewhere give it a chance. Make your own version. Give some dignity back.


This movie based on the popular British TV series is such a flop it doesn't really deserve comment, but here are a few nonetheless.

This is the kind of movie making that really has you wonder if you should ever visit a theater again, when you consider the waste of millions of dollars on sets, special effects and high-powered actors that could have been used for such better causes (such as, oh, say a big-screen version of "My Mother the Car").

At any rate, the film got what it deserved by being universally panned by critics and bombing at the box office. It was then rushed out of theaters with the bad-film strategy that relative obscurity would result in more bread at the video stores.

Considering that Ralph Fiennes (Schindler's List, Englsh Patient) and Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction, etc.) were at the top of their box-office draw potential, and with the addition of the always popular Sean Connery in a unique role as a villain, one would think that this movie would have been a sure hit. However, the potential went lightning fast down the tubes, greased by a stinky script, second-guessed editing and incompetent direction.

The best elements of the original series, namely, its charm and style, are absent. A lot of the charm came from the relationship between Steed and Peel. But Fiennes' Steed is aloof and Thurman's Mrs. Peel is cold as ice. The two appear to be sleepwalking through their respective roles, with visions of fat paychecks dancing in their heads.

Ironically, an imprudent element of the TV series that was indicative of its downhill slide after the departure of Diana Rigg (the original Mrs. Peel), namely, the introduction of the silly character of "Mother," IS included in the film. Go figure.

Connery 's performance as a mastermind who can manipulate the world's weather falls flat. Like Fiennes and Thurman, he appears to be going through the motions of a script he has no faith in.

Quirky aspects of the original series that were cute and amusing have been replaced with gimmicks that are just unfunny strange and head-scratchingly bizarre. For example: the requisite cameo of an actor from the original series features only the voice of Patrick Macnee in the role of an invisible man behind a desk. What this character has to do with anything, other than adding to an already disjointed script, is anybody's guess.

On a website competently dedicated to the series it has been speculated that the director never saw a single episode of the TV Avengers. If you were any kind of fan, you will immediately observe that there is a good reason to believe this. Jeremiah Chechik's direction seems to lack any instinct for the flavor of the original series.

At any rate, with this brand of TV series-inspired movie making, you may find yourself yearning for "Return to Gilligan's Island." Originally hyped as a summer blockbuster, the cinematic version of "The Avengers" is only spectacular in its capacity to disappoint.


Is The Avengers a good film? No. Is it the worst film ever made? No. I first saw the movie at the cinema upon its release and, at that time, I did think that it was one of the worst films I'd seen up to that point. I've watched it 2 or 3 times since then and my opinion of it has improved, well, very slightly at any rate. Apart from a pervading incoherence, I think the film's major problem is its slightness; it's only an hour and a half long and the plot is very simplistic to say the least. It's not hard to imagine audiences feeling a bit short-changed when it first came out, especially as the film was a big-budget, would-be summer blockbuster. Another big problem is the casting of Uma Thurman as Emma Peel. Thurman has shown herself to be a fine actress in movies such as Pulp Fiction but she just looks out of her depth here (I never believed in her as a top-level scientist for a second) and her English accent doesn't sound natural. Nicole Kidman, to whom the role was first offered, would surely have been better, in particular, she's displayed flawless English accents in films such as The Others and The Hours. An English actress I also think would have made a great Peel is Joely Richardson but the studio would probably have vetoed such a choice on the grounds of her not being a big enough name. Ralph Fiennes was a real enigma in this film - there was nothing wrong in principle in casting him as Steed but he looks ill at ease throughout the movie as if he's rather be elsewhere. I can only assume he'd already twigged that the film was going to be a turkey. What's worse, Fiennes and Thurman have absolutely no chemistry between them, which wastes the snappy dialogue they have with each other throughout the film. The supporting cast fare a bit better with seasoned pros such as Sean Connery, Jim Broadbent and Fiona Shaw making the most of their underdeveloped parts. The retro-chic world of the original TV series is nicely recreated and there's no shortage of nice cars, costumes and locations but what's good about the film is easily drowned out by what's bad; The Avengers is ultimately a shallow, rushed and messy affair, severely hampered by the performances of its two leads. Handled properly, the film could have been a wonderful success for all concerned, the first chapter of an entertaining and lucrative franchise, stretching well beyond the 1990s; instead it's one of the most embarrassing flops of that decade. The original cut of the film was apparently two and a half hours long but, following negative reactions from audiences at test screenings, the studio hacked the film down to its present one and a half hour length. This doesn't actually come as much of a surprise as there is a lack of proper narrative flow to the film suggestive of chunks of explanatory scenes having been cut out. Just one example: towards the end of the film, just before they enter Sir August's underwater lair, Steed and Peel enter a phone box and Peel says "how now brown cow?" down the phone. The phrase seems to be a password to enter the premises but how does Peel know it? There's been talk here and there of the possibility of Warners releasing a director's cut or special edition DVD, restoring the original two and a half hour version. I think this would be a good idea and I'd definitely be interested in watching the full version of the film. It's highly unlikely to be any kind of masterpiece but it's difficult to imagine that it wouldn't improve upon the movie as it stands. At the very least you'd have to assume that it would be more coherent. Sadly I don't think the chances of Warners going down this line are high; I have the feeling that this is a movie the studio would rather forget about than draw attention to.


Warner Bros. fantasies have always had a certain memorable flare. Dating back to films like "Superman" and "Blade Runner", a viewer could always be guaranteed at least a ticket into another world. "The Avengers" would have been that next "big" thing for Warner Bros. had it not been so shoddily edited at the last minute. It should be duly noted, however, that this film had all the signs of a thanksgiving turkey: It's release date, which was moved from late June to the dog days of August. Then the fact that no press screenings have been allowed for critics. No good can come of these prophecies.

"The Avengers", which, at best, is a second rate version of the original "Batman" has all the features of your top blockbuster: A Big name or two, a plethora of explosions, and enough special-effects to put "Godzilla" to shame. The Plot follows the exploits of the legendary secret agents John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and Emma Peel (Uma Thurman), as they do battle with a maniacal meteorologist (Sean Connery) who has intentions on controlling the world's weather. Simple enough. Or so one would have thought. It would appear that some 25 minutes (!) was excised from the film as a result of poor test screenings. As history has told, no good comes from test screenings. As a result, the film becomes so utterly confusing that the viewer would sooner give up, rather than be insulted by a film that insists on staying one step ahead of you at all times. Only potentially good films are butchered in an attempt to make the film more appealing to youngster's attention spans. But make no mistake about it, this film is certainly not for children. Perhaps the last half hour will provide enough enjoyable action (and it does, believe me!) to distract them, but up until then the film consists of awkward dialogue, inane action (Gigantic teddy bears, anyone?), and an uncomfortable overdose of strangeness.

The cast, at one time, might have been game, but only once in a while does Ralph Fiennes even crack a smile. Thurman has apparently got the English accent down perfectly, but the only problem lies in the fact that she forgets to give a performance worth remembering. And last, but certainly not least, Sean Connery. Sadly, he doesn't even look like he wants to take over the world. Only once, in a mumbled rant, does he evoke some feelings of evil. That being said, "The Avengers" is a technical masterpiece. Providing the viewer with a universe of dazzling sets (that should at least be nominated for an oscar), imaginative visual effects, and beautiful costumes, one almost forgets that England doesn't look like this anymore. Unless of course, you live there. The score, composed by Joel McNeely proves to be one of the coolest scores ever produced. Inducing excitement, tension, and a little smoothness, provided by some nifty jazz notes. All of which the film is unable to do itself. For those who won't enjoy this film, it is mercifully brief. So brief to the point that it's strange. It jumps from a one hour section of the beginning to a half hour of climactic action that the viewer blinks and the movie might just be rolling into the credits. One can only hope for an improvement with a director's cut. Until then, this film should gain cult status before it makes it's way to video. Which I'm sure will be soon.

Out Of Four - **


Astoundingly predictable, dull and IQ deficient, THE AVENGERS is really not worth the swag of a rental. The script is lame, and it also doesn't help that the two leads possess no chemistry whatsoever. Ralph Fiennes could have just as well telephoned in his performance, and Uma Thurman probably harangued her agent for getting her this gig. The special effects were ok, but it doesn't take Fellini to figure why this tanked at the box office.

Sean Connery portrays the atypical mad genius character, which has been around since the dawn of movies, itself. Sean takes the ball and runs with it, churning out one of the hammiest performances I've witnessed in quite some time. Absolutely merciless. Patrick Macnee has a rather lengthy cameo, as well.

When one takes into account the talent involved, THE AVENGERS should have captured at least a little bit of the magic that graced the 1960's series. Alas, it proved the old adage correct: "You can't turn back the clock."


Uma Thurman has the unenviable distinction of appearing in the 90s' two biggest "can't be that bad, surely?" films. Like "Batman and Robin", The Avengers, through sheer will of its poor critical reception, compels one to see it. An unseen force taunts the innocent rental video store customer with a "come on, you know you want to, you're dying to know if it's as bad as they say".

Of course, the Avengers, like Batman and Robin, IS every inch as bad as they say. 86 minutes (the anaemic "plot" can't even stretch to an hour and a half) of sheer, unerring tedium that beggars belief. Thurman is the most obvious target. Her English accent is about 90% successful to my ears, (she's certainly no Keanu or Dick Van Dyke in the fake Brit stakes), but this notably draws on her acting. But the main flaw is her innate lack of irony. She just doesn't appear to comprehend such an old style of wit (not that such a misinterpretation is hard, as limply presented as it is here), and whereas in the delightful Pulp Fiction she amuses with her tales of Tony "Rocky Horror" and being the humour element of "Fox Force Five", as Mrs. Peel she's a washout.

Many people cite the film's failure as a direct comparison to the television series. Whereas I understand enough of the show to know the real Mrs. Peel was too much of a lady to kick Eddie Izzard where it hurts, I've never really been acquainted with the 60s exploits of Patrick Macnee and co for it to really matter. To this end, I believe this gives me a fresh advantage in viewing the movie. I came to The Avengers without having to compare Fiennes' charm to that of Patrick's, or compare Thurman's curves to the incomparable cheekbones of Diana Rigg. It matters not. As good as the tv show, better, worse, the end result is the same: the movie stinks.

Never on celluloid has there been such a resounding lack of chemistry between two leads. Even Thurman's scripted interruptions and witty rejoinders come too late, with Fiennes, sparkling in "Strange Days", excruciatingly self-conscious in Steed's shoes. Wilfully eccentric and forcefully quaint, their mannerisms are more poseur than debonair. These are two people that wouldn't even pass the time of day in real life, much less conduct a sexual relationship with chaste closed lips. Half the time it's almost impossible to believe they were in the same room during their scenes together, so weak is their connection.

A slight upturn in the film is Sean Connery, who must have owed his agent a favour to have accepted this appallingly scripted farrago. As with his James Bond (to which the Bassey-soundalike Grace Jones end song owes a tip of the hat), Connery has an air of physical menace. And, as with the quote of this review, given half a chance Sean can make even the most innocent of lines sound dirty. He was actually talking about rain. Most of the time, though, he spouts about wanting a ransom in exchange for decent weather in England (like English people are so used to decent weather rain and snow would bother them - has the writer ever set foot in this country???) and tries to drug-rape Mrs. Peel in a distasteful scene. The rest of his lines are as inept as "John Steed... what a horse's a**e of a name", yet he manages to hold some modicum of dignity dressed as a giant teddy bear.

In all honesty I can see no way, no level on which this film works. Direction in terms of shots and angles is reasonable, but in terms of actors it's lousy. The script is trite and thin. I really can't bring myself to describe the storyline as a collection of set pieces, as the term "set piece" generally implies something good. Whereas even the execrable "Batman and Robin" had some good bits threaded together, none of the painfully set-up "segments" that make up this inanity carry any form of tension, drama or wit. Believe me, this film truly is as bad as they say. I saw this film so you don't have to. Thank me for it, hate me for it, reward me for it. Just do me a favour and don't bother to see it.


I wasn't all that interested in watching this movie, but I decided to anyway since it was one of the only ones that week there that I hadn't seen yet. I should've saw one of the others. I don't even remember what they are now, but it doesn't matter. I am pretty sure that THE AVENGERS is the worst movie of the decade and one of my least favorite movies of all time.

John Steed (Ralph Fiennes) and Emma Peel (Uma Thurman) team up to stop Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery) from destroying the planet with a weather-changing machine. I won't go into the plot too deeply, because it's just plain stupid.

The acting in this movie was not very good. Ralph Fiennes and Fiona Shaw (Father) play two of the most annoying characters in any movies that I have ever seen. The constant unwitty one-liners between Fiennes and Thurman is very annoying. Sean Connery is at his worst here. I was disappointed in him, because he is a great actor who doesn't belong in this movie. Sir August de Wynter? Just the name of the character alone should tell you much.

There was, however, one thing that was good about this movie. That would be Uma Thurman in her tight leather. I am absolutely in love with Uma Thurman, and I don't think she belonged in this film, but I am pretty sure seeing her wearing those catsuits were the only thing that kept me from having to eat my own legs and drink my own urine to survive this movie.

Maybe you'll think I'm exaggerating a bit, but I found this movie to be boring and annoying. I recommend that it be avoided at all costs.


With a cast that includes Connery and Thurman, how could you possibly go wrong? Watch this movie and you will find out. Painful to watch...it's a shame that one of the greatest of all time, Connery, got himself involved in such a disaster.


yet another example of hollywood being totally out touch with how to make GOOD movies. and yet another example of an editing team/studio thinking they can cut and chop a movie to make it something it wasn't intended to be (a boring art house flick, not an action movie). Uma Thurman looks fantastic in dual roles, but she along with everyone else, looks lost and confused as to what they're supposed to do with these characters. ralph fiennes was laughably bad and Sean Connery finally gave his first truly horrible performance.

i don't totally feel they are to blame though. the blame should be dumped on the director, editor and studio. how stuff like this gets past quality control is beyond me.

if you want to check out Uma's amazing body (which is the ONLY reason i rented it) then go ahead. but when you get the worst migraine you've ever had trying to comprehend why you sat through this pile of dung, you have noone to blame but yourself.


When the word gets out before the release of a movie or TV show that it's a real bomb, a snowball effect begins. Critics tend to jump on the (negative) bandwagon, the public gets an image stamped on its consciousness and the "bomb" label is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. This happened with the movie version of 'The Avengers.' It turns out the label is deserved, but maybe for different reasons than one might think.

'The Avengers' doesn't suffer from a stupid script or embarrassing bad acting. Whoever put this movie together bent over backward to make sure that every shot in the film and every line of dialog spoken was something that could have come from the British TV series of the '60's on which it is based. And much of it could get a seal of approval as far as authenticity goes. Except one gets the distinct feeling that love isn't behind this movie, but rather money. Things may look and sound like the old TV show, but this coldly calculated production totally fails to capture its spirit.

Even though John Steed and Emma Peel are supposed to be meeting for the first time as this picture begins, it is assumed that we viewers know the characters and everything about them already, so the action begins without any delay. Consequently, fifteen minutes into the movie, one feels like they've missed the first hour of the film. Also, one never gets involved in the convoluted plot and never develops any affinity for the characters. Plus, the film is given an obligatory 'Thunderball'-style ending done 1998 style. The old TV show never relied much on things blowing up and this addition here is no improvement.

In this context it's absolutely impossible for new actors to succeed in the roles of Steed and Mrs. Peel. Whether Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman are doing a good job or not is not easy to tell and irrelevant anyway in this by-the-numbers production. They and Sean Connery (as villain Sir August de Wynter) are merely cyphers in this movie, and when could you ever have said that before about Connery, even if he does wear a bear suit? The one positive thing I can say is that Uma Thurman looks absolutely gorgeous as Mrs. Peel.


This movie must have never been layed out to see if any of the scenes made sense. The script left much to be desired and the acting was bad. I have to say i'm disappointed in Sean Connery. If you've seen it, you know what i mean about teddy bears. If you ever want to know what a truly poor movie is like, see The Avengers.


As a once regular viewer of MST3K I have to say this is not even close to being the worst file ever made. It is however one of the worst feature films in reset memory. It is to, borrow a word from another review, very "Talky". This wouldn't be bad if the dialog and charterers where better, but these are both action move grade. It's kind of like watching the charterer from Godzilla in The Godfather, with a plot the makes little sense on top. Overall the plot makes little sense, there not much action, despite this being marketed as an action move, the tempo is slow and boring and the move is hard to follow and and not worth following. The only good points, the cinematography and, best of all, it's only an hour and a half..


This film makes no sense at all. I gave it a 2 because the actors did not phone in their parts; but a 2 is a gift.

Unless you want something really really bad to view -- so that you know just where the bottom of the pile is, please don't rent this film. Rent (or buy) instead the videos of the Television series.

What were the writers thinking?


The Avengers is without a doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I do not think I have ever been so bored with a film only an hour-and-a-half long. Neither Fiennes or Thurman capture their characters like MacNee and Rigg did in the original series. They rather spend the whole film throwing mindless banter at each other in order to see whom is the colder of the two.

Sean Connery could do no right in this film. I wish he had been smarter and stayed away from this project the moment he read the script. The scene with the teddy bears will forever register in my mind right up there with the fight with Robert Shaw in "From Russia With Love" or the laser scene with Gert Frobe in "Goldfinger." Why Mr. Connery? Why?

One can fully understand why Warner Bros. went through such length to keep this film from being seen by critics before it was fully released. The script is awful, the characters uninteresting and the finale laughable. After all, no one in their right mind gave a damn as to whether Sir de Winter actually did control the world's weather. I'm sure all the armies in world wouldn't stand a chance against a very sensitive machine. Yeah, right.

This movie stands no chance of getting any kind of recommendation.

3/10 stars.


I can't believe anyone can spend one penny to produce this... thing. This... thing has good things: some nice visual (and some means maybe two) and some (maybe three or four) witty lines. And the witty lines are abused going further... Things that are missing: the script (unlikely, offbalance), the characters (superficial, two-dimensioned), the direction (an ethilist baboon could do better).

Incredibly, you start being bored after just ten minutes, as the first of many endless dialogues flows quietly.

Shortly, I strongly recommend that you carefully avoid this movie. It is not worth the price, and it is not worth for free, because it is deadly boring.


...this is like watching some movie from Yugoslav era, it gave me eeries. Same plot as always when it comes to Yugoslav film school-everything begins with funny plot and everyone think it will end funny, too. But for people from ex-YU it is always predictable-IT HAS TO END WITH A TRAGEDY. That is how all movies from ex-Yugoslavia end. That is how ex-Yugoslavia ended its existence. Also this movie is not Croatian only, unfortunately, it is Croatian-Bosnian-Serbian-Macedonian-Albanian production. Actors did their job excellent, three main male characters were superb, female role is a little bit pale and unconvincing to any foreign viewers. Rajko Grlic did an excellent job with "Stefica Cvek-U raljama zivota", I think he should stick to urban sophisticated stories as Stefica was.


I've never enjoyed movie-making by a committee.

"Karaula" is a cinematic equivalent of those 1980s hammy pop-folk-rock-whatever-happens-to-be-selling-at-the-moment-that is-what-we-play Bijelo dugme clones (Merlin, Hari Mata Hari, Valentino, Plavi orkestar, Divlje jagode, Regina) - a populist, don't-you-dare-go-deeper-than-the-outer-layer, watchable but ultimately quickly forgettable experience.

It has identified a pretty wide group as its target audience and panders to it relentlessly in the most general sense possible. From the folksy screenplay full of snappy, and unfortunately often corny one-liners right down to the Halid Beslic cameo, "Karaula" plays like a checklist of movie devices and stock characters that have gone over well in the cinema(s) of former Yugoslavia throughout the last two decades:

1. Goran Bregovic music score. CHECK! (And also some Sanja Ilic added for good ethno-mood measure.)

2. Adolescent men of different (yugo)Slav nationalities spouting cheesy jokes. CHECK! (In "Karaula" they're, of course, led by a wise-crackin' Belgrade bad boy and his constantly smiling Dalmatian tag-along buddy - all of which seems lifted straight from that 'Bolji zivot' episode when Boba (Dragan Bjelogrlic) goes to the army and is entrusted with forming a multi-ethnic band.)

3. Zany supporting character with a portmanteau-like nickname and a weird hobby. CHECK! (Enter botanically-obsessed colonel Rade Orhideja who follows in the long line of Mile Rent-A-Bubregs and Bili Pitons. Unfortunately he's not nearly as funny or as memorable. According to bloggers, obviously bored out of their skull, the character of Rade O. might've been inspired by Ratko Mladic who also served in Macedonia during the late 1980s and apparently also loved flowers - all of which I guess is the closest this unremarkable film will come to generating any kind of post-viewing discussion.)

4. Lots of crass, unrefined sex scenes, used either for comic relief or as prelude to something tragic. CHECK! (Bascially any number of Yugoslav movies use both, but unfortunately unlike in, off the top of my head, "Ko to Tamo Peva or "Lepota Poroka" where sex is skilfully woven into the story, "Karaula" uses it for nothing more than cheap thrills.)

5. An out of the blue prominent (turbo)folk star cameo. CHECK! (Though "Karaula" seems to be presenting Halid Beslic with an ironic distance, his appearance is essentially no different from "Tesna Koza" or "Zikina Dinastija" stopping the plot for 2 minutes so that Brena, Sneki, Zorica Brunclik or whomever can sing their little song. Unlike "Karaula" those movies are at least honest about being populist crap.)

In summary, I really have nothing apriori against usage of any of the above as movie devices, but "Karaula" simply misses the target on all of them - and misses it badly.

The one bright spot is Emir Hadzihafizbegovic in the role of ST-diseased lieutenant. Trifunovic and the Croatian kid aren't bad either, it's just too bad both of their characters are written so sketchily and incoherently. This is especially true of Trifunovic's Ljuba who suddenly goes from a friendly simpatico smart-ass to a raging sociopathic monster within like a day with absolutely no proper justification in the script or plot.


This movie is complete waste of time. Yup. Why? Oh, boy, where should I start? Bad acting? Lousy screenplay? Fact that movie is to late?

Emir Hadziwhateverhisnameisić hated this role, he admitted it in some news interview, and that can be easily seen trough this entire move. I even felt sorry for him seeing how much he suffers acting in this movie. I doubt he faked his drinking... He is talented actor, but not even his talent couldn't make him even to try to act. I don't blame him. Sergej Trifunović is giving his best. Which means that he suck. Yup, Emir at least has talent, this poor sob doesn't... Only possible explanation why would anyone even consider him for (any) role is fact that he look like what other ex-YU nations see as a stereotypical Serb. Funny enough, Serbs see him as stereotypical Albanian... Toni Gojanović... is chosen for this role simply because he's Croat... Croatia have much better actors than him (is he an actor at all?), but he does seems to be trying, and since he's a "newb", we can look trough his fingers...

Now, take a better look... Bosniak, Serb and Croat... and voilà, you have a generic ex-YU wannabe comedy... and that's it. It tries to look at war and reasons for war trough comedy but it just fail... there is no deep background story, there is no secret agendas, there is no comedy there is no nothing.. Movie was heavily advertised here as "Movie that put together Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks in hilarious comedy" and people wanted to see trough Karaula their youths and lives in pre-1991. Yugoslavia, but most of them abandoned theater before end because they have found foreign country and foreign army with foreign people and foreign stories. Something they didn't wanted or cared to see. Macedonia is foreign to Serbs, YPA is foreign to Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats are foreign to Serbs. Famous scene at the end of movie where actors get out on stage and public isn't tapping is clear sign what public thinks about this movie.

I thought that pathetic ex-YU ethnic humor has died in 1991. And it did. This is just zombiefied version if it, and it's not funny. It's sad. Strange thing I find is the fact that only in Serbia this movie was advertised like this is 1975, like we all live in perfect "brotherhood and unity" and that war never happened. Film had financial success in all countries of former YU, except in Serbia, despite big advertising campaign. Movie entered trough big doors, but it exited through back door, quietly and shamefully. This movie is wanting to look back at last moments of Yugoslavia, it is trying to say to us that it's not our fault, that we all were seduced by "drunken and selfish" leaders, blah, blah, blah... It could make some point if it was released during 1995; 1996; or 1997; considering that war and Yugoslavia were still "fresh" and all... but in 2006, this movie just doesn't make sense...

Legacy of this movie is big. Yup, before this movie, many various EX-YU actors and directors were talking about making some new movies as homage to old partisan films... luckily, this movie showed that it would be just waste of money...

I want my 94 minutes back.


after 15 years of painful waiting period for the new Real Rajko Grlic's movie, I saw Karaula last night and I was so sad and disappointed... The movie is not solid, it is to short and the energy and emotions are not distributed so well that we could feel and recognize that this is Grlic's movie... Story is nice, maybe even good, and out of this story he could not make a better movie... Sorry, either the time is changing all of us either there is something else... and also, some of the symbolic is so... well, political. with the clear political message, that was surely not expected from someone like Rajko Grlic... Anyway, I will always love his movies made before 1991.


This film is one of the worst melodramas I have ever seen. The plot is witless and contrived, the songs are boring and the acting is wooden. Just when you think it couldn't get any worse, some ridiculous plot twist comes flying in from the clouds.

I am no fan of Salman Khan and while I am still willing to give Ash a chance, this film is the sort of junk that gave her a bad reputation in the first place.

I will say, however, that the photography and sound were good, so it wasn't completely painful to watch. It's only bad when you pay attention to the actors or the script.

You have better things to do with your time, believe me.


The second half of Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam is loosely inspired by the 1983 Naseeruddin- Padmini- Anil Kapoor film "Woh 7 Din" which itself was a remake of a South Indian Film.

The first half's plot is from Maitrayi Devi's Bengali novel "Na Hanyate" (English translation: It does not die) which was written in response to world-renowned scholar Mircea Eliade's semi-autobiographical novel "Bengal Nights". There are several resemblances, including the 'mirchi-eating' incident, which suggest that they are more than uncanny resemblances.

There are numerous films in several languages which have been based on literary works. There is nothing inherently wrong in that, except that in this case, Bhansali has not acknowledged the 'right' source of his work. We have heard that HDDCS has been based on a script told to him by one of his Gujarati fans. Really, Mr Bhansali? Or is it a case of acting naive and passing the responsibility of plagiarism to your Gujarati fan when one finds out?


Disappointing. The basically vapid plot butchered what could have been an interesting idea. The film seems to rely excessively on the appeal of Aishwarya and Salman to conceal the fundamental flaws of bad acting, toilet humor, and cheesy songs. In addition, some of the sets were clearly faked. Now, I know Bollywood, and I would have been willing to put up with some cheesiness and inconsistencies if I saw occasional good acting and at least one catchy tune. Right off the bat, all I saw was Aishwarya giggling and acting like a dumb little pretty face, which is SO not what I expect from her. Salman's acting, emotions, and lip-synching seem utterly contrived and lifeless. Shah Rukh Khan is so much better and so much more emotionally charged! If you are a newcomer to Indian films, like me, go rent "Devdas" or "Kal Ho Naa Ho" instead. Maybe I have Western tastes or whatever, but I've seen a lot of corny musicals in my time, and liked most of them. This was the bottom of the barrel, and I can hardly believe that that Bhansali went on to make "Devdas" after producing this cheap masala movie. PS I am a fourth generation Italian American. Salman's scene where he makes up a stupid "Italian" custom downright enraged me. Was it the director's intent to B.S. this way?? I feel I am being generous by giving this film four stars.


A good premise ruined by a simplistic, soap-opera script, weak supporting performances (though Angelina Jolie is, as has been noted, quite good), and low production values, this story of the lives of women helping to settle the West never quite gels. Dana Delaney tries hard to hold it together, but it just doesn't work. The film's habit of sledghammering home whatever points it's trying to make doesn't help much, either. A little subtlety would have been far more effective, along with a more coherent story and characters who were a little less cardboard. Most historians agree that the "taming" of the west occurred when women began arriving in greater numbers--before then, men of the region spent the majority of their time getting drunk and killing each other and the Indians--and someday that would make a really good movie. Not this time, though.


I was going to write an interpretation, but any interpretation will be unconvincing because the movie was so completely ambiguous. Ambiguity is the only possible result when you mix symbolism with an almost complete lack of dialogue.

Now I don't have a problem with ambiguity per se. That's exactly what I like about some David Lynch films, that they're left open to interpretation and the best argument wins. The difference here is presentation. With movies like this, it doesn't matter how profound the underlying theme is if said theme is presented in a boring uninteresting way. Every single scene in the movie is shown, the point is made, and then the scene continues for some reason. These scenes go on and on with no dialogue, no music, no camera movement, and not even enough light to allow you to entertain yourself with the backgrounds.

Some of this structurally unnecessary prolonging is done in an attempt at realism. Though it seems naive to assume that real life boredom will be film-worthy simply because it is real. Other times the prolonged scene is simply an immature attempt to make the audience uncomfortable. For example, scenes eating with prominent chewing noises, the tourist and her lesbianism, mother and her masturbation, and so forth.

I just figured out the best interpretation: By being aware of time, life slows tremendously and becomes excruciatingly boring, as this movie illustrates beautifully!


It wasn't a bad film. Not by any means. It was very well crafted, beautifully filmed, and managed to impart a powerful mood with artistry and precision.

 Now, I'm not a lightweight about slow-moving films. But after an hour of this film I was about to chew my own leg off to try and escape. You reach this point where you see the female lead step on one end of a LOOONG escalator, and you think to yourself, "I'm going to have to watch her go the length of that whole damn escalator, aren't I?" And yes, yes, you do.


The only place this film can take you is 90 minutes closer to death. A complete waste of TIME. I can't believe anyone gleaned an iota of entertainment value from this boring, dismal, putrid movie. Plodding, plot less, devoid of drama and human interest, there is no excuse to waste the energy even to go to the store and rent it. Avoid at all costs!

I didn't care about any of the characters or what happened to them. I found every situation completely implausible--even from a surrealist standpoint. It was maddening to sit through scene after scene of incomprehensible stupidity, waiting for something to happen, only to get to the end and realize NOTHING WAS EVER GOING TO HAPPEN!


The film adopted a minimalistic approach, which means there are very little conversation, no grand stage-setup, and unfortunately, no story. Honestly speaking, I did not understand the film. The story itself is not plausible. It says that a watch seller sold a watch to a woman who would go to Paris. After that, the watch seller would adjust all the clocks he sees to the Paris time. The watch seller's mother went crazy because her husband died. The woman who went to Paris felt lonely and slept with another woman. That's absolutely all I could get from story, if there were any story at all. The three subplots did not link with each other, they were so scattered and they did not make any sense, either individually or collectively.

There were occasionally one or two funny scenes, where all the viewers bursted out laughing. Still, this does not make a boring film good. This film cold be compressed into half an hour, if the shots were not so long.

For the two hours that I watched the film, I felt extremely bored. I can't wait for the film to finish! I must say I do not know what is so artistic about this film. Maybe I don't know how to appreciate this kind of approach of making a film.


Ugh.

This is one of the least good movies I've seen in a long time, and I've seen some really bad ones. This one, however, is bad in a rather different way. This is the "story" of a guy who sells a girl his watch and somehow feels connected to her as she leaves for Paris. He goes around setting clocks to Paris time. He... oh wait, that's pretty much all he does in terms of thinking about her. I thought this was some huge romantic thing? As for her... she barely thinks about him, but I guess maybe she does though all we ever see is her doing random things in Paris with other people. Nearly every scene was too slow. I realize the movie is supposed to be about time, but if you want to make the point that cutting from one scene to another leaves out all the slow time in the middle, fine, but DON'T do it for the whole movie. I nearly wanted to cry after the first 15 minutes (and 2 scenes).

The only halfway decent part of this movie is the performance by Yi-Ching Lu as the boy's mother, who is greiving over her husband's death in many real and interesting ways, which leads to a few very poignant scenes. Unfortunately, there were far too many scenes without her in it, and it got aggravating.


An American businessman wants to build a hotel on a remote island, so he has someone sail him and his girlfriend there to check it out. The zombie scenes seem tacked on as an afterthought, so as a horror film this doesn't really work that well. However due to the ridiculous dialog and the hardcore sex scenes the film MIGHT be worth it for drunken party type viewing, but even that is stretching it (pardon the pun) Feel free to skip this one, as it's only remote interesting as a curiosity. That being said the way champagne is uncorked in the film is ingenious.

Eye Candy: more than you can shake a decaying limb at

My Grade: D

DVD Extras: 27 minutes of Alternate footage; Production stills & Laura Gemser stills gallery; X-rated Trailer; and trailers for "Zombi 2", "Emanuelle And The Last Cannibals", "Nightmares Come at Night", & "Slaughter Hotel"

Easter Egg: In the main menu, highlight scene access and press down to get to a hidden skull, click on it for the French opening credits


No, there are no zombies having sex in this film, the zombies just do what zombies normally do...wander slowly and aimlessly and munch on human flesh. It's the living that have all the sex in this movie & boy is there lots....way too much for my taste & all pretty graphic, nothing left to the imagination. Hardly what I'd call erotic. Seems that there's a rich American developer that wants to build a hotel on a remote island, and he hires a guy with a boat to take him and his recent acquisition (Laura Gemser) to this place. The island is supposedly deserted but it seems that an old man lives there with his granddaughter, who may or may not be among the living herself. Of course the zombies get riled and walk, and munch. The best parts of this are filmed on the island, before that it's almost all extremely long sex scenes which get rather boring. There is a bright spot though in what appears to be a young Filipino woman who performs a strip-tease in an empty nightclub for our ship's captain, and she opens a bottle of champagne using her enormous...uh...talent. A very sleazy movie & of perhaps minor interest to horror fans. 4 out of 10.


Well this is a real mess of a film. It's worthy of watching at a drive-in, where you don't have to pay much attention to the plot because you are too busy ... doing other things. Watch it on DVD, however, like I did, and you'll be in for a real miserable time.

Others have described the plot so I won't comment on that. The script is pure garbage. It makes little sense. I'm convinced the director fused two entirely different movies together, one a bad porn, one an even worse horror film. The fusing together of two different movies, like in "Dr. Butcher, M.D." can be a good thing, but in this case, it just doesn't work. Camera-work, direction, acting all run the gamut of bad to awful. Watch Fulci's "Zombi 2" and any other Laura Gemser movie instead of this dreck.


(aka: EROTIC NIGHTS OF THE LIVING DEAD)

Just saw the un-cut, newly-remastered Shriek/Media Blasters DVD of this and I must say, I was bored by the whole thing. However, 'everybody else' must have liked it because the cast stuck around for D'Amato's next Caribbean offering, PORNO HOLOCAUST (1981)

OK, I admit I was turned on by the hardcore threesome between Manlio Cersosimo and the two Dominican whores he had up in his room, but the rest of the film was totally un-interesting, horror-wise or sex-wise. Gemser should have continued played Emmanuelle and I'm surprised she didn't here. Especially for a Joe D'Amato movie.

There's surprisingly little gore for a film of this scope, and the zombie plot looks like it was thrown in there as a pretext for the soft-core lesbian scenes between Gemser and Funari. There's also soft core sex scenes between Eastman and Gemser and between Cersosimo and Funari as well as the previously mentioned hard-core sex scene.

Plot concerns George Eastman taking Manlio Cersosimo and his girlfriend (Dirce Funari) to an island so he can scout locations for a new hotel resort. A female spirit (Laura Gemser) and an old man conjure up the dead buried on the island to go after these three and stop any development from taking place.

Some of the zombies get impaled on sticks by Eastman and some brown & green stuff (blood?) comes flowing out, and there's a couple of zombies who get torched, but that's pretty much all the action. Eastman and Funari wind up in a 'mental institution' after all this.

Shriek/Media Blasters did their usual, impeccable wide-screen treatment of this DVD, far more than the actual film deserves. Not much in the line of extras, though. There's also a half-way decent electronic score by Marcello Giombini.

Mostly deserves a yawn...

3 out of 10


A hardcore sex/horror flick from Joe D'amato, Erotic Nights of the Living Dead was made back-to-back with the director's other zombie shagathon Porno Holocaust (released in 1981), and shares much of that film's cast, plus its island location. It also shares its ability to bore me witless, with the quantity and quality of sex seriously waning after the first half an hour, and very little in the way of decent gore, despite featuring more of the undead.

D'amato regular George 'Anthropophagus' Eastman plays Larry, a sailor hired by mustachioed architect/stud John Wilson (Mark Shannon) to take him (and his current woman) to a mysterious island, which, according to local legend, is home to flesh-eating zombies which are ruled over by a cat. Once there, they meet a strange old man and his beautiful daughter (Laura Gemser), have sex, and run into lots of mouldy reanimated corpses.

As you've probably surmised, it doesn't make whole lot of sense, and, at 112 minutes (in its uncut form), is extremely tedious. As always Eastman stays well clear of any hardcore action, preferring to keep his trousers on during sex, whilst Gemser indulges in purely soft-core fumblings. And all of the humping is strictly between the living (unlike Porno Holocaust, which featured a very randy zombie).

Very occasionally, the film offers those seeking sleazy treats something to make them smilea woman displays a unique way of removing a cork from a champagne bottle, and Gemser bites off Wilson's todgerbut, on the whole, Erotic Nights of the Living Dead is a dreary mess.


Porn! I love porn with every fibre of my being. Pornography has undoubtedly been one of the greatest influences in my life. Zombies! Zombies are just cool. Terrifying yet they command your empathy. A slow relentless scourge that forces man to look in the mirror and face his demons. Or because they eat brains. Whatever. So naturally you combine these two extremely cool genres you're bound to have something worth watching, right? Nearly. This film is a mess. Two guys and a girl go to the forbidden Cat Island (oooooo, spooky name) as the superbly mustachioed property developer (who earlier gets nasty with two ho's) wants to erect (pun intended) a hotel there. Of course there is a mysterious girl and old man on the island, and zombies. What are they doing there? Who knows? Who cares? Sex scenes scattered throughout the whole movie. Plenty of nudity for the perverts. I was disappointed there is only one porn scene, would've been great to see Laura Gemser get in on the action!!!!


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


'The Seafarers' was a half hour documentary made for the Seafarers International Union in 1953. It's actually more of a promotional film than a documentary, urging sailors to join the union & extolling the benefits, etc etc. The 1950s equivalent of a corporate video or an infomercial.

There is absolutely nothing remarkable about this film. It's competently made, but it's not the sort of project where a director would have the opportunity to exercise any sort of creativity. Kubrick was a hired gun on this, he did the job he was paid for & that's it.

Any attempts to look for trademark Kubrick touches or innovation would be pointless.

There are only two things noteworthy about 'The Seafarers' - it was directed by Stanley Kubrick, and it happened to be his first film in colour. Other than the title reading 'Directed by Stanley Kubrick', I found nothing of any interest whatsoever. There's nothing wrong with it, but it would be utterly forgotten & ignored if it had not been directed by someone who went on to much greater things.

Darth Nub


This is considered, at least by IMDb, as Stanley Kubrick's "first feature made in color" and it was long thought lost. Well, first, it isn't a feature film but just a dreadfully boring promotional video for the Seafarer's Union and the narration makes Jack Webb's delivery on "Dragnet" seem emotional and off-the-cuff in comparison!! Now the awfulness of this film should NOT be held against Kubrick. Sure, it's dull, uninspired and stilted, but he was a young man who was hopeful of becoming a professional director one day and was dirt poor--so poor that he had to start at the bottom...and this is certainly the bottom! For a more fair idea of his potential, try watching his real first features--KILLER'S KISS and THE KILLING--two exceptionally well made low-budget films that proved the man could make a lot with nothing.

Anyone who sees brilliance in this film is a fanatic and is not to be trusted! This film should have stayed lost, if you ask me! Don't say I didn't warn you!


The Ritz Brothers are an acquired taste...like arsenic! Try as I might, every film I have seen these guys in I have thoroughly despised them. Now I read at least one review that liked this comedy(?) team, but I cannot stand them. I have reviewed quite a few films over the years by teams like the Marx Brothers, Olsen and Johnson, Wheeler and Woolsey, Abbott and Costello as well as the Three Stooges (all contemporaries of the Ritz's) and can say that for me, they are by far the least talented team of the era. Most of this is because unlike these other teams, there is no distinct personality for any of the three Ritz brothers. They all look pretty much the same and mug almost constantly for the camera. They also do not appear to have any talents other than acting goofy--not exactly a deep act! If you asked me which one was Harry or Jimmy, I certainly couldn't tell you--and I assume it's probably true for most people who have seen their films. So why, oh why, did they think to put these no-talents into Dumas' classic tale?! It's even more perplexing because the rest of the film is played so straight and the Ritz moments seem almost tacked on or an intrusion. I can only assume that studio chief Darryl Zanuck must have been insane at the time or under the influence!

Other than the Ritz's antics, the rest of the film an an odd melange. On one hand, the ever-competent Don Ameche stars as D'Artagnan was not a bad casting decision--he was handsome and could sing quite nicely. The film also looked very nice. However, someone must have really had it out for Ameche, as in addition to saddling him the with Ritz Brothers, many of the songs they gave him to sing (in particular the first one) were simply awful. The tunes weren't bad but the lyrics...uggh!!! My house needed fumigation after several of them!

What we have left are some decent actors trying to make the best of an untenable situation. They tried their best but the film simply was begging to be remade. My advice is to see the 1948 version with Gene Kelly or any of the more recent remakes, as they are head and shoulders above this 1939 mess--one of the few stinkers to come from this golden year in Hollywood.

Overall, a tedious mess. The only good in the film I can think of is that it led to a clever episode of "Leave it to Beaver". The Beaver was supposed to do a book report on "The Three Musketeers" and instead watched this film and based the report entirely on it! Not surprisingly, he got an F and learned his lesson! I do wonder what this movie would have been like with the Marx Brothers and their zaniness. Sure, at the time they were employed by a different studio (MGM), but they could have really given the film a needed infusion of anarchy and goofiness.

Not worth your time unless you are a 100% crazed movie freak (like me). Try ANY other version of the tale--it can't help but be better.


After viewing this film I wound up scratching my head with so many questions of how this thing ever got made in the first place.

Firstly three years before there was a straight dramatic version of The Three Musketeers that starred Walter Abel as D'Artagnan by RKO. That film was well received although it didn't transform Abel into a leading man. Why Darryl Zanuck made another version so soon is beyond me.

Secondly Rudolph Friml wrote a fine operetta of The Three Musketeers in the 20s. The score here by Walter Bulloch and Samuel Pokrass is singularly unmemorable. Who knows why Friml's music wasn't used, but it should have been.

Zanuck had the ideal D'Artagnan on his lot in Tyrone Power. But since Power didn't sing and Don Ameche always got sloppy seconds in roles at Fox, he got the part. Poor Ameche, he tried his best and he even gets into the comic elements of the film, but it's no good.

At year 2004 very few people know of the Ritz Brothers. They were good burlesque comedians who Zanuck signed up. Their humor was of The Three Stooges variety, but each stooge had an individual personality. You can't tell one Ritz from the other. In the film they take the place of the real Athos, Porthos, and Aramis and they and Ameche bungle their way into one situation after another.

Of the women in the cast I have to say that Binnie Barnes as Milady DeWinter gets into the spirit of the slapstick with the Ritzes.

It's a mess this film, but more so when you think that a straight musical with the Friml score could have been done and now probably never will and a version with Ty Power as D'Artagnan would have been a classic.


Elliott Gould is bemused and colorful as a Vietnam veteran back in college, stuck between a rock and a hard place; he's working semi-seriously towards getting his teaching credentials, and yet is stymied by his fellow classmates who want to protest the hypocrisies of the Establishment (with Gould's help), and also by his instructors, hypocrites with power who work by a double standard. Director Richard Rush occasionally does fluid work here, and the film has fervently funny and thoughtful scenes, however Robert Kaufman's hot-headed script, adapted from Ken Kolb's novel, is awash with half-realized ideas. The kids sound off violently against the University's directors, but we're never made aware of what they want--or what they want done about their concerns. Made during an era wherein young people hoped to change the world--and get laid--the characters in this picture nevertheless are just sounding-boards for the writer. Topics are brought up not to be discussed but to be challenged (and, in these cases, the kids are just as blind as their professional elders). Was that Kaufman's point, that student riots really ARE just violent preludes to sex and otherwise a waste of time? Gould's shaggy character rants and raves too, but his Harry Bailey presents a different problem: he cheats, he lies, he cuts corners, he heartily embraces his own set of values and yet is happily corrupt! A hypocrite himself, Bailey loves teaching, loves kids and their innocence, but he doesn't see his own short-comings--and I'm not sure the filmmakers do, either. Bailey is a one-sided writer's creation (and oddly, for a movie filled with so many liberal stances, Bailey--like most of the other characters--is anti-female and homophobic). Candice Bergen (in a wan performance) plays Gould's shiksa goddess girlfriend who doesn't like being called a WASP and who would give up everything to be married in the suburbs. She's continually put down for that, as if she's a sell-out, and yet how exactly would Gould live if he were to achieve his dream of being a high school teacher? As it is, he can't even pay the rent on his apartment! The riot sequences are staged for utter seriousness--and they are filmed and edited with precision--but they don't come organically out of this story, they are interjected for shock value. The rage and anger presented here is convincing, but the cause is confusing. These students don't seem to want peace at all, and neither does director Rush. The narrative is pushed towards violence for no other purpose except to vividly stage two movie riots. This is exploitation, and the crummy feeling one gets from the picture can be related right back to the people behind it: they're hypocrites, too. *1/2 from ****


I saw this film as a student, when it first came out. As someone who was involved with important issues like the Vietnam War and civil rights and free speech, I was totally offended by the film's nihilism, the ideas that students demonstrate just because that's what today's students do, and that there are no substantive issues involved. The film is all about the main character's life style and sex life, and (as I recall) his meaningful, altruistic, innovative, and condescending attempt to teach literature to ghetto kids by getting them to read comic books.

In addition, (as I recall) we are clearly supposed to sympathize with the main character for being in trouble because he was caught cheating at an exam. At the schools I went to at the time, we took our politics and social issues seriously, but our academics no less so.


Elliot Gould salvages what is otherwise a very mediocre movie. Candice Bergen's early reputation as a bad actress was molded in part by this film, where virtually the only thing she does in Getting Straight is whine, whine, & whine. I remember watching this film for the first time, and thinking to myself "Will somebody PLEASE slap her?" Her father's dummies, Charlie McCarthy & Mortimer Snerd, were better actors than her, and made better movies. Elliot Gould did M*A*S*H that same year, and built a well-deserved reputation as an excellent actor, even though he's had his cinematic ups-and-downs since then, like most actors. His work in Getting Straight is excellent, but unfortunately is balanced out by a typically bad performance by Candice Bergen.


GETTING STRAIGHT is the most hippiest movie I've ever seen. The story is so lame and the acting is awful(especially Elliott Gould). The diologue is so corny that it's sad and painful to watch and listen. The only reason I saw this movie is because it had a young HARRISON FORD play a small part as one of the hippie students on campus. It's kind of funny seeing Harrison Ford with long hair trying to be a hippie. His performance was good for the time he's on screen but not even that helps this movie out at all. What really ruins this movie is Elliott Gould's over acting! It's so annoying watching him criticizing everything and everyone that you just want to punch him right through the screen. It doesn't matter what every other user comment says about this movie, don't waste your money watching it.


**SPOILER** Rather boring film about a psycho mass-murdering mother whose adventures are covered up by her loving hubby and daughter. Things go awry when she kills her husband and the daughter flips out and then the story really doesn't know what to do (About 18 minutes into the film).


I've seen many, many horror movies, but this one beats it all and I don't mean in a good way. First of all the film was obviously very very cheap. The camera work is the worst I've ever seen. The story is so stupid and implausible, that you got the feeling they wrote the script it in one hour. The actors are all so bad, it's beyond belief. But the worst of it is, that there is no humor at all. There are just some mediocre tasteless gore effects for splatter fans. On the video cover is written, that this film is a psychological Thriller - far from it ! It's nothing but a bad, dumb little movie,that has no, really no qualities. 1 out of 10.


Twaddle, Badly scripted, Badly acted And badly directed. A badly thought out attempt to cash in on a successful series. The Characters are wrong, both staff and pupils and the plot line is none existent. The driving force seems to have been the desire to dress women in cartoon school uniforms and leer at them. None of the feigned naive innocence and fun of the other four films is present Every one involved in it should be thoroughly ashamed. Millicent Fritton must be spinning in her grave.

P.S. It is enough to say that when the St. Trinian's films were released as a box set of DVDs this one was not included. Even the distributors at Studio canal cannot of thought it an actual St. Trinian's film.


How many "St. Trinian's" films were made altogether (not counting the new 2007 version) ? If you said four, based on the fact that that is how they are packaged on DVD into a two-disc four-film box-set, then you would be mistaken - there were in fact FIVE films to this series, this last one coming fourteen years after the last effort, "The Great St. Trinian's Train Robbery". Like that film, it was also made in colour (the first three were in black and white), but the end product shares very little else in common with any of it's four predecessors. Claiming that George Cole was asked to reprise his role as "Flash" Harry cuts no ice with me - this film is such a mess casting-wise as to be unbelievable.

At the time this was made, in 1980, the trade union movement was a lot more militant in nature than they are today (the "Winter of Discontent" fresh in peoples minds), and it's true to say that the TUC card-carrying Sun-newspaper reading working-class audience this film aimed itself at probably didn't like to see their union movements mocked on the big screen.

"Carry On... At Your Convienence" was a huge loss-maker at the time of its cinematic release for mocking the unions, and this factor probably also had some effect on the success - or lack thereof - of "Wildcats". It's not a good idea to mock your key audience demographic by making fun of trade unions. All in all though, it wasn't really a good idea to make this film, and this is easily an entry that the "St. Trinian's" franchise could have done without. The fact that this fifth film is overlooked by the other four in the series is probably a good thing. This is an interesting curio for anyone who has ever seen and enjoyed the other four films in the series (or likes ogling actresses in school uniforms - gym-slips, stockings, suspenders, heels, etc.) but is nowhere near the quality of any of its predecessors. Very few people will ever get the chance to see this film. You should probably be grateful. Not that bad, but not that good either. 3/10


I've seen all the other St Trinians films, and the superb (and superior) forerunner The Happiest Days Of Their Lives, so I felt that I should watch the 1980 film, even though I'd read somewhere that it was poor.

Poor is an understatement. The script is awful. The acting is dreadful - doubtless the cast would blame the script but really they are equally at fault.

This is probably the worst British film that I've ever seen - certainly it's the worst portion of a franchise. If you think that some of the 1970s Bond films are bad - try watching The Wildcats of St Trinians.

Not one for a blu-ray release...