The Scary Movie parody wagon has been rolling since 2000, when the Wayans Brothers pooled their considerable comedic talents and came up with a kitchen sink flick that riffed on mainly horror movies  with just a little Matrix thrown in. The second Scary Movie, also from the brothers Wayan, riffed on The Exorcist, The Legend of Hell House, Poltergeist, Little Shop of Horrors, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Shining, and Hannibal. Non-horror targets included Dirty Harry, Charlie's Angels, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and again, The Matrix.

A couple of years passed, and the directorial torch was passed to Airplane! genius-with-a-joke David Zucker for Scary Movie 3. Without Wayans, the genre widened a bit to add even more non-horror movie spoofs and much more current films. It was a box-office hit, so of course you knew what was coming

Scary Movie 4, with all the core regulars back in action, makes fun of War of the Worlds, The Grudge, The Village, Saw and Saw II, Million Dollar Baby, and Brokeback Mountain. With a better through-line connecting all the stories than its predecessor, Scary Movie 4 is a refreshing (albeit rank) addition to the series. Anna Faris and Regina Hall are back as the clueless Cindy Campbell, and the sex-crazed Brenda Meeks, respectively.

When Cindy takes a job as the caretaker of an elderly woman (Cloris Leachman), she runs into some scary ghosts with a grudge. But things start looking up when she meets her handsome new neighbor, Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko). Unfortunately, Tom is distracted by troubles of his own  namely a bitter ex-wife, two clingy kids, and, oh yeah: An alien invasion, sparked by the ground-breaking appearance of the "iPods". When Tom, his family, and Cindy are forced to flee and find a way to beat the huge, deadly alien-machines, they take a few side-trips.

One such trip takes Cindy and her best friend Brenda into The Village, a place where time stands still and the resident blind girl (Carmen Electra) can't find the outhouse. Returnees from Scary Movie 3 include Charlie Sheen (spoofing Bill Pullman The Grudge; turnabout is fair play, so Bill Pullman is also in Scary Movie 4), Simon Rex, Leslie Neilsen as our Commander in Chief, and Anthony Anderson and Kevin Hart who've changed their Eight Mile tune to the Brokeback Mountain hoe-down/get down.

I was impressed not only by the logical knitting of the story lines (only Brokeback Mountain is forced to fit, but it's okay as a flashback), but by the attention to detail. The sets and set design, especially for The Grudge and Saw, are flawless and even the costumes are perfectly fitted to the characters for each skit.

The only bet they really missed was a zombie movie spoof (when Brenda returns from the dead  The Ring curse killed her in Scary Movie 3  it's just glossed over).

Despite too much scatological humor (just a personal bias of mine), Scary Movie 4 is a laugh-out-loud funny, well-directed and well-acted comedy that's a perfect kick-off to the summer popcorn season. To say much more would spoil the surprises, so all I'll say is: If you like the Scary Movie franchise, be sure and catch this one on the big screen.


I went to this movie with very low expectations. After watching the trailers, I thought this looked pretty lame and a real waste of money. Boy was I wrong!! This turned out to be an extremely funny movie, which does an extremely good job at parodying movies such as Saw, Saw II, The Village, The Grudge and War of the Worlds.

This movie has a plot, but it is all over the place. It starts off with Dr. Phil and Shaq chained in a bathroom, for anyone thats seen Saw, they cram the bathroom scenes into a 2 minutes. We then go to our hero from the first three, Cindy Campbell (Anna Faris), who has taken a job looking after an old lady in an old mansion. She meets Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko) and they bond pretty quickly. A few days later the world is under attack by TrIpods. Cindy and an old friend, Brenda Meeks (Regina Hall) go on a quest to try and defeat the aliens.

As I said before, I was VERY surprised by this movie. I found myself cracking up at most of the jokes, some of which were very clever take offs. The acting is OK (Leslie Nielson particularly funny as the whack President of America) for this type of movie and we shall be expecting a fifth installment shortly. I would rank this second out of the series, just under the first one.

3½/5.


The funniest parts were in the trailer and even these scenes weren't that funny. 50% of the movie is sexual jokes and the other 50 is people getting hit by heavy metal objects.The movies that are made fun of are War of the Worlds,Saw, and The Grudge but the movie has no real plot. In my opinion the movie should have primarily been a Saw parody.The character of Tom Ryan had potential but he is shown as a dumb ass when he should have been a direct parody of Cruise.Yes there are moments of potential but they are too few and far between. David Zucker is not trying at all anymore,perhaps because his prime audience is now ten year olds who snicker at the word penis. The other films in the series took time to set up jokes and obscure jokes were passed out. Killing off Charlie Sheen was a bad move because he was the funniest character in 3.4 has the most celebrity cameos but they don't take advantage of the talent. The talented Anna Faris needs to realize she is more than Cindy Campbell and she can move on to bigger and better things. Leslie Nielson the master of the spoof genre is not used at all. Sadly I think the days of the spoof film are numbered. Sad really because the genre has brought laughs when other comedies failed. Airplane was a great film because it had a brain behind the silliness. Writers are using the spoof genre to churn out brainless garbage to earn a few million...


It was rather funny, as to be expected the jokes were hit and miss with there being more hits than misses for me. I thought once again it could have been funnier and there were some unnecessary jokes, but all in all it was a rather funny flick. This one actually plays like a sequel as characters from the previous flick are explained why they aren't here rather than just being ignored all together. For this one the required viewing or basic knowledge of a movie that you need for this one is mainly "Saw", "The Grudge", "The Village", "Million Dollar Baby", and for me the best one "War of the Worlds" (a movie that needed some fun poked at it). There is also something in there making a bit of fun of a movie pretty much you don't need to have seen are know all that much about...you will get it as long as you watch a bit of television. The "War of the Worlds" to me seems to be the main film parodied, however the other films get their fair share of the jokes as well. The opening is rather funny with Shaq and Dr. Phil doing a "Saw" recreation and there are other celebrities who make short visits as well however it is still the same group who forms the core of the cast. Worth a look see, however, if you did not care for "Scary Movie 3" I would say you probably won't like this one.


The unemployed Cindy Campbell (Anna Farris) is hired to work in a cursed house as caretaker of an old lady and meets the ghost of a boy. Meanwhile, the teenager son Robbie and the young daughter Rachel of his next door neighbor and crane operator Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko) are spending the weekend with their loser father. Cindy and Tom meet and fall in love for each other, but when Giant Tripods invade Earth, Tom escapes with Robbie and Rachel; Cindy travels to a village, trying to find the answer to a riddle to save the world; and the president of USA organizes the defense of the planet in UN under his intelligence and leadership.

As I have previously wrote, parody movies are always of the type 'love or hate' it. I am not intellectual, I love cinema as culture, but also as entertainment, so I like this genre. Further, when I see this type of movie, I know exactly what I am going to see: scatological jokes, funny and surrealistic references to other films and definitely a movie that will never be indicated for an Oscar.

I found this "Scary Movie 4" also very funny. The screenplay is a big joke with the remake of "War of the Worlds", entwined with "The Grudge" and "The Village". It also satirizes "Saw" and "Saw 2", "Brokeback Mountain" and "Million Dollar Baby". There are also references to the American pop culture that I unfortunately have not understood, like for example Dr. Phil, the Oprah talk show in the end (see Obs.) or Bruce the Bed King. Leslie Nielsen is hilarious in the role of the smart president.

This is the type of movie that you must shut down your brain and start laughing. What I do not understand and really irritates me are the reviews of persons that should never watch this type of movie. What do they expect to see when they go to the movie theaters or buy / rent a DVD called "Scary Movie 4" ("the last part of a trilogy"), directed by David Zucker and with Leslie Nielsen and Anna Farris in the cast? An art movie, with hidden messages, an epic, a classic or a film with politically correct jokes? Honestly, if I did not like this genre, I would never spend my time watching it. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): 'Todo Mundo em Pânico 4' ('Everybody in Panic 4')

Obs: My son has just forwarded "Tom Cruise Freakin Out On Oprah" in Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M08PfuP_NXs


After reading many reviews from people who said Scary Movie 4 was crap, I was reluctant to go and see it. But I did, and take my word for it, it was well worth it.

Scary Movie 4 was hilarious. I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard. Its parodies of films such as "The Grudge", "War of the Worlds", "Brokeback Mountain", "Saw I and II", and "The Village" and many others work well to make an entertaining 80 minute movie. And lets not forget the parodies of celebrities, which includes Tom Cruise and Micheal Jackson.

The Plot Basically goes like this: The dumb witted Cindy Campbell (Anna Farris) has taken up a job as a house caretaker for a old lady that is said to be cursed. While she is doing her job she discovers that the house is haunted by a ghostly little boy. But thats not all. Giant Tripods are coming out of the ground and killing everyone, and aliens are taking over the world. With the help of newly befriended neighbor and failed father Tom Ryan, Cindy sets out to get some answers on a long hilarious journey...

Scary Movie 4 is a silly movie. If want a deep, thoughtful film that makes you think, this is definitely not for you. If you want a few good laughs then this is what you're looking for. Just empty out your brain and enter the cinema or put in the DVD. I almost didn't see it, and if I had I would have unknowingly regretted it.


It is a refreshing comedy to see, as the other scary movies, yet this film is much different than the others. There is not as much of the David Zucker "one liners" you would expect, a hint of the Wayans brothers mixed in, and a lot of the jokes run flat. One of the key problems with the film was that they tried to mix too many parodies into it, which took away from the story, and at times seemed just like one big jumble of plot lines and stories.

However, having said that I would like to say that there are some hilarious moments and lines in the film which make it worth seeing. Especially if you are a fan of film such as airplane and the naked gun movies, there are still plenty of moments in it. The comedy style of this film is much like Hotshots Part Deux, yet doesn't quite reach the level of genius which that film did


I had nothing to do one day, so I went to watch this film.

When the film had finished, I was demanding my money back! This film has just concentrated on toilet humour and slapstick, there is nothing that even made me chuckle the slightest bit in this film.

*SPOILERS* One example is for the beginning where Chingy & Dr.Phil are chained up in the same room, Chingy keeps bumping his head, then keeps "axidentally" hitting Dr.Phil over the head, by knocking down objects while trying to get a rock through a basketball hoop.

Another example is during the village parody, when they are all having a meeting and the blind woman comes in to go to the "toilet"...Toilet humour is funny though...if you are about 3! I don't even know really why i went to see this, the previous 2 were just as rubbish, the only good one was the first one that actually said "No shame. No mercy. NO SEQUEL"...I can see that it's stuck to it's word, seeing as they did change that after the second one was released.

This film is so poor that it makes me feel like i've wasted my time just writing about how bad it is, the jokes are so bad, the humour is just the same pretty much all the way through, all they have done is thought up about 4 jokes and relied on them throughout the entire film.


Scary Movie adds a new element to the usual *** Movie formula - reality. A few scenes from the Dubya administration's history are reproduced, and an embarrassing moment from Mr Cruise's midlife crisis are re-lived in addition to the usual spoofs of various horror and sci fi films. The Dubya scenes, nicely done by Leslie Nielson, were the highlights of the film for me. I'm not a fan of brainless comedy, but this non-formula material made the film tolerable for me.

SM4 spends a lot of time with The Village, Saw and War of the Worlds - plus a couple of films I only vaguely recognized... blending the plots cleverly but without adding much to the comedic value in the blending technique. Brokeback Mountain is also parodied (though I do not understand why this was considered a scary movie). The film is funny at times, but brow-beats its parody of Tom Cruise's character in War of the Worlds. Nevertheless, it's a fun little romp and much less grotesque than some of the previous entries in the series.

Acting - good for what it is. Directing - good for what it is. Script - OK, but could have been more intellectually challenging (and funnier) Cinematography - good for what it is.

Recommended for fans of the series, but don't expect it to be the funniest.


Right up front I should say I've never seen the first three Scary Movies, I probably should. I just went out to see this with a friend cause it's Friday night.

With that out of the way, I can say this movie was definitely enjoyable. It's not a down right riot, it's not totally pathetic, it's right in between. It was better than Date Movie by a long shot, that's for sure.

I would tell you what I thought of the story but I honestly wasn't paying attention. Something about a Japanese kid's dad's heart stopping aliens. I don't remember, I was to busy watching and waiting for the next joke. The jokes indeed come fast and frequent, some better than others obviously. My favorite scene of the whole thing was easily the final one with Oprah...that was just crazy. The Saw scenes were also quite enjoyable. Some of the jokes do fall flat on their face, for instance the constant usage of a butt with all the aliens (butt spouting lightning in the sky, a butt sucking people into the tripod). Others, however, we're bust your gut funny. Jigsaw was probably the funniest character in the whole damn thing. I've never seen the Village so that part confused the hell out of me but I think I got the jist of it.

Most of the jokes, however, were pretty unoriginal and predictable. You could easily tell when a joke was coming seconds before it happened and most of the time you could probably predict exactly what it was going to be. For example, when the grudge kid begins crawling down those stairs in his creepy way, you know he's going to fall down it. Low and behold, he does. When Leslie Nielsen started talking to the UN about reversing the polarity of a laser that takes people out of their clothes, you know he's going to take the clothes off the whole place. Bingo. It should be noted that before seeing the movie, I hadn't seen the trailer or any of the TV spots, my friend informed me afterword that both these scenes were shown in them.

Leslie Nielsen, by the way, was hilarious in this. Sure, his character has been done a thousand times but it worked fine for me. I too wanted to know what happened to the duck. However, just about every single girl (and a few guys) screamed....when he lost his clothes...I almost did as well....that's....just.....*shudder*.

All in all, the movie is enjoyable. I recommend folks see it, but it probably is one you can wait for on DVD. I only urge folks to not over analyse it, it was a simple parody movie and nothing more.


Scary Movie 4 left much to be desired. Grand total of genuine laughs: 3. Fart jokes just were never that funny to begin with, neither was seeing people get hit with miscellaneous objects every 4 seconds (approximately) for an entire hour and 20 minutes. Scary Movie 4 takes that sort of cheap humor to another level. Or perhaps just the natural level for a sequel to "scary movie." I mean, in earnest, it isn't even the level of humor that is the problem, but rather the monotony of it all. Fart joke, someone gets hit with blunt object, fart joke, pee-washing scene, another blunt object hits someone, someone gets kicked in the balls, poop joke. It all just becomes the same joke over and over and over and over again. See, i feel sad in side because this sort of satire could really have some potential if the real hilarity wasn't so overshadowed by the disproportionate amount of really dumb jokes that would best appeal to 10-yr-olds (who, incidentally, are not allowed to see the movie). For example, a real laugh could occur at the point in the movie when the dim-witted President ignores a global alien attack in order to listen to a children's' story. This sort of mocking is actually funny. Now when the next couple of scenes contain about 25 instances of people being hit with things, and three fart/poop/gross-out jokes, any substance the film actually had is washed away - or shall i say clubbed to death by blunt objects. At about 3 or 4 points in the movie i was so disgusted that i just wanted it to end! It was, quite literally, a waste of my life. Please, for your own good, heed my warning and do not waste an hour and 20 minutes of your life on something that is not, even in its most glorified form, entertaining or funny. If you have already seen it, i feel your pain.


The Scary Movie series really should've stopped at 2. After that, the movies just went downhill. Now, I must admit that I did laugh a few times during 3, however this latest instalment has no redeeming value whatsoever. There is no plot (even by spoof standards) and the jokes are painfully unfunny and downright cringe-worthy. I can't believe the people who voted this a 10. They must've seen a completely different movie. And can someone PLEASE explain the 5.2 rating on IMDb to me? This movie is bottom 100 material for sure! All the jokes were in the trailer (and even they weren't that funny). I'm only hoping that 5 will be a step up from this - which should be easy because this was about as funny as watching a person snore for 90 minutes.

My advice: watch 1, 2 and 3 back-to-back and forget this ever existed.


Ehh.. I didn't enjoy this movie as much as I did the others. It gave away everything in the commercials. Just watching the commercials would be enough to watch the entire movie. I don't know if you guys have other opinions but.. I don't think this movie was worth the making. It should have been funnier. And didn't they already use the village in the other Scary movies? Maybe not, but I thought so. If so, they shouldn't repeat. The saw part(s) were good though. I won't say what I liked the most, because I don't want to give it away, but the end with the guy & the woman, is pretty funny :] Anyways, this movie wasn't worth seeing to me, but at the same time I guess it was. It just wasn't what I expected :]


Having found the original Scary Movie hilarious and Scary Movie 2 disappointing, I believe that David Zucker and Jim Abrams taking over from the Wayans brothers is the best thing that could have happened to this franchise. I was very impressed by Scary Movie 3 which was much funnier than I thought it was going to be and I looked forward to this movie with optimism. I wasn't disappointed.

This movie is 90 minutes of non-stop laughs and is just pure fun like Scary Movie 3. I won't spoil any of the jokes for you but I'll say the best spoofs are of Saw, Million Dollar Baby and War of the Worlds.

Check this hilarious movie out! 9/10


When I saw this film at The Grove with my parents, I was truly disappointed at this film. I loved the whole Scary Movie Trilogy, but why this!? Shaq couldn't act, I didn't laugh at any part except the part of the president showing his ass to the nation. The theme wasn't funny at all, the Brokeback Mountain scenes weren't even clever or FUNNY, mostly any scene the writers wrote weren't funny. So why making this movie??? I don't understand why New Line Cinema would buy the script. However, don't even bother seeing this movie. Go rent Happy Gilmore or Meet the Fockers, but don't waste your money buying/borrowing this mediocre film.


WARNING DISBELIEVERS Now i know the scary movie franchises aren't perfect but they are still the only thing i see in the cinema even close to being funny like this. Maybe scary movie 3 lacked the split you side in a roar of laughter factor but it was still decent enough for the franchise.I hope though that the franchise ends at 5 as i don't want it to go on and start to get boring.Whenever i watch these films i cant help but kill myself laughing and really i don't know how people can find these films even the slightest bit unfunny.

As i said these films are not the perfection of its kind and they are not the most....Polite, of their genre but i still stand by that these are great films with the help of the one and only Leslie Nielson and Anna Farris with some extra help from Charlie Sheen and Bill Pullman you cant go wrong


Started out funny enough, and I was exicted at the promise the movie showed. But it quickly deteriorated from there. I mean, the flick wasn't even funny after the opening sequence with Shaq and Dr. Phil in a saw-like peril. It actually gave me a headache, and I found myself wishing that it would just end. At least Scary Movie 3 (which ain't no Scary Movie) spoofed movies that totally deserved it, but they were good films. War of the Worlds was terrible, and so was the Grudge. Neither could go up against Signs or The Ring in terms of the quality of the films (Despite Signs' weak alien bad guys.) If you're going to spoof movies, at least pick some that are actually decent. Spoofing crap leads to a crappy spoof. Boo hiss.


On the cover of Scary Movie i got it had an Ape on it ,what was that all about.I watched the movie expecting to see King Kong was disappointed when there wasn't.I like the movie otherwise.Another comment is why do they keep bringing back some of the characters that was killed off in the first 1??This is just a question not a spoiler.I am a huge fan of Scary Movies as well as any other Spoof movies.Scary movie makes you want to laugh out loud and have a great time and even makes me come up with some good ideas for the next scary movie if i could hopefully someday there will be a contest for the best plan for next scary movie.if so i have many ideas.


Why would an intelligent, well-educated, middle-aged woman like this movie? It's inexplicable, but I did. I don't know if it's because I watched it an hour after slamming my finger in the car door and I had cried myself into heaves and needed something to laugh at. Or perhaps it was because I am a fan of the majority of the movies that Scary 4 spoofs and I took them a little too seriously at the time. Whatever the reason, I laughed a lot during this movie, and while I'm ashamed to tell any of my friends that I liked it, I'm telling you.

The great thing about the Scary movies franchise is that they do an exceptional job of copying the original, with some very good special effects that I'm sure cost a fraction of the real ones. They also draw on some great comedic acting talents, which always strikes me as a bit bizarre, but then maybe someone on the producer's team is a great salesman. Whatever the tricks behind the scenes, it works on screen. Are the jokes dumb and predictable? Yes. Is there more potty humour than necessary? Absolutely. Still, it's fun low-brow humour.


SCARY MOVIE 4 does live up to the SCARY MOVIE premise-That being able to offer up stupid humor (and it does get stupid) and make us laugh at that incredibly stupid stuff. That said, this one (for me) falls a tad below part 3, which I thought (and still do) is the best in the bunch. I will say that part 4 does offer up some funny stuff. The funniest scene to me is when Cindy and Brenda arrive at 'The Village'. They are hiding in the bushes and see 2 village girls about ready to walk right by them. They decide that they need to pull these girls into the bushes and beat them for their clothes so Cindy and Brenda don't look out of place. They do this, the bushes move around for a bit and, finally, 2 girls emerge from the bushes. But it's not Cindy and Brenda. It's the 2 village girls. When Cindy and Brenda do emerge into view, they are disheveled and a little tired out. Funny stuff. Though some jokes misfire, this is still better than part 2.


This film is about Cindy Campell, who moves to a new house, to take care of an old woman. Her next door neighbor is Tom Ryan. Suddenly, alien tripods are attacking the world, killing people. Cindy finds out the house she's in is haunted. She finds a ghost boy and he tells her that he knows the way to stop the alien invasion. So Cindy must go to uncover the secret to stop the alien invasion.

This is the best Scary Movie film, ever. Maybe the reason is because it's spoofing War of the Worlds (2005). It also spoofs The Grudge, Saw and Saw II, and The Village. Some jokes fall flat but there are about one joke each second, meaning that you'll laugh through the whole movie.

There is a LOT of physical jokes, in which I laugh at. Other jokes are smart and some are dumb. If you're one of those people who don't like physical comedies, you won't like this film. In fact, everything in Scary Movie 4 is very different than the other films, except most of the jokes.

This is the funniest film, of them all. There are great cameos and the acting by Craig Bierko is great. Anna Faris' performance is decent, as well as Regina Hall. Well, that doesn't matter, in a movie like this, does it? The only thing that matters is if you'll laugh or not. No one cares about the story or the acting. This movie achieves with the hundreds of jokes, they give.

What's next to say? Oh, the special effects. Well, spoofing War of the Worlds in a $45 million budget, you'd think the special effects for the tripod is horrible, right? Wrong. In fact, it looks as good as the tripods in War of the Worlds. Isn't it amazing? They took part of the budget in War of the Worlds, which was over $100 million, and used all they got, without going over budget. You would be surprised.

If you're looking for a film with great acting and story, stay away from this film. If you're looking for a movie with good jokes, watch this film. This is the best film and it's unique. In my opinion, I really think this is so much different than Scary Movie 3. If you're fans of the film, watch it. You'll enjoy it.


This is the fourth installment in the Scary Movie franchise, this time we see Cindy in the middle of an extermination. With the world coming to an end, Cindy must find the father of a little boy who was killed in the house she works at in order to stop everything.

Ever since David Zucker took over the franchise it seems to have gotten less gross out funny and, well, less funny in general. In this installment, the series has gone further then to parody horror films. This time we get to see a half baked Brokeback Mountain joke and Million Dollar Baby. Whoever thought that these jokes were funny doesn't have one funny bone in their entire body.

We get the same old same old from Anna Faris and Regina Hall, who I still think serves no purpose. Anthony Anderson and Leslie Nielsen return from the third film in the same roles and newcomer Craig Bierko plays a parody of Tom Cruise.

I can say that I did not laugh out loud once during the entire film, which goes by pretty fast. I did chuckle once at the beginning with Dr. Phil cutting off the wrong foot. Other then that there is nothing else that is worth a chuckle. I'm not going to go into the whole plot of the film, as it is indeed a parody, so it doesn't really matter. I'm also sitting here and asking myself why did they show a scene with Madsen hitting a guy and assuming his identity, then donig nothing with it. I was waiting for him to do something, but nothing came of it, why put that in? It confuses and makes no sense.

Seeing Carmen Electra in the film take a dump is horrifying, not "hot" or "funny". At no point should people laugh at the film. It is an insult to your intelligence. Skip this film all together and hopefully they are finished with all the scary movie films.


Staying right with the third installation's method of haphazardly taping together some goofy, inconsequential plot out of a few recent horror flicks (this time Saw, Grudge, and Village get the honors) to produce yet another stagnant parody that produces yet another few hilarious moments. The funniest moments come from unexpected twists..when a certain movie is hilariously and unexpectedly ridiculed or when the current antics of one certain galaxy translating, love crazed megastar are exploited, but as usual these end up being the exception to the stale, repetitive humor. Unfortunately, those with a thirst for the underperformed slapstick genre have little else to do but sift through the few gems found here in the meantime that these types of comedies simply do not get made with the same respect that they used to be.


This movie is part of a tired franchise and not the one started by the Wayan brothers. It all started with Airplane nearly thirty years ago and moved into The Naked Gun etc. to Scary Movie 3. The actors and gags slowly churn some from brother to brother with the exception of Leslie Nielsen.

It basically spoofs four movies with others thrown in. The three main storyline movies were not very interesting to start and the comedy is not much of an improvement.

Tom Cruise is parodied in both The War of the Worlds and his Oprah appearance. This is interlaced with The Grudge, The Village, and the whole thing is bookended with Saw.


It was hard to rate this movie. It had some definite funny parts, and some horribly bad parts, and I originally wasn't gunna review it. But after seeing Date Movie, which was the worst movie i've ever seen, I felt the need to point out some things about Scary Movie 4 that Date Movie is obviously lacking. O.k. where to start...

Scary Movie 4 has generally good characters. Anna Faris and Reginna Hall were overall really funny. The jokes in this movie made sense, had many pop-culture references, weren't extremely dragged out, and flowed with the over-all story, wheres Date Movies jokes where just one, hollow, interchangeable joke after another...

There were some "not so funny parts", such as the very end. And the constant reference to rappers throughout the movie(Chingy, Lil John,etc.), I guess to reach out to the younger culture. I'm 15 and I just found it annoying, not funny.

But overall the funny parts overpower the not funny parts. This movie isn't as good as number 3, which wasn't as good as number 2, which wasn't as good as number 1, but over-all, its a pretty good movie. I would of origanlly given this movie a 5 or a 6, but after seeing Date Movie, i'm grateful for people like David Zucker, and i'm giving it a 7. Its worth renting, seeing once, having a good laugh, then returning it to the DVD store. Its a single serving movie (Fight Club reference)...


David Zucker is a true legend in a spoof horror films. He can make you laugh from everything, that he filmed. "Scary Movie 3" was a huge bomb in parody movies. He even surpass Keenen Ivory Wayans "Scary Movies". But the "Scary Movie 4" was not that good, than previous part. It's really entertaining, but I think, it would be better...

Anna Faris and Regina Hall acted like always - very entertained. Regina Hall is a true silly black woman and I LIKE HER. All actors do the best of their roles...

There was no idea - they take "War of the Worlds", "The Village", "Saw", "Brokeback Mountain", "The Grudge" and more movies parts and make of them a huge spoof. That spoof brainwash a lot of humans brains and make them to buy a ticket to the "Scary Movie 4" show...

I can't wait for the 5th part, because it will never bored me...


Getting better in some ways and worst in others. David Zucker started with Scary movie 3 after the Wayans brothers stop making sequels. Scary movie 2 was crowned as one of 2001's worsts movies. Scary movie 3 (DAVID ZUCKER)was much better than the 2nd part so we expected much more from scary movie 4. Scary movie seems to be divided into to parts: scary movie 1 and 2 directed by Wayans brothers and scary movie 3 and 4 directed by David Zucker. Two completely different styles. Scary movie 3 was surprising! Laughs since the beginning until the end but was too short.

Scary movie 4 is just worst. Less laughs but the copies of other terror films as the grudge changing it into comedy is better than ever. Ana Faris is the best thing in the movie. Each time she is more stupid and her acts are excellent. I think no other actress could do it better. The parts in which Carmen Electra acts as the blind in the village are great. Much better than Scary movie 2 but worst than Scary movie 1 and 3.

David Zucker has announced a 5th movie. I expect it better and a change in the style. A good movie to have some laughs.


Well, not quite scary. More like goofy. I think the slapstick of this movie is like whistling in a cemetery, false bravado. The world is a scary place, and it does no good to simply gloss over horror by ignoring and laughing at it with hysteria, in my opinion. This movie is too clever by half. The War of the Worlds is parodied as simply an excuse for non-stop Saturday Night Live gags. Saw and Saw II are the occasion for Shaquille O'Neal and Doctor Phil, of all people, to share a torture chamber. And, other references to movies such as Brokeback Mountain and others are simply the background for ridiculous and even disgusting behavior. Craig Bierko and Beau Mirchoff are charming as the War of the Worlds father and son. The other members of the ensemble are only mildly entertaining as they woodenly go through their paces and utter their silly lines. The utter silliness of the parody is annoying as well as shallow. Horror is real. Slapstick comedy is real. But, it is really boring to see horror assigned to updated Abbott and Costello or Three Stooges gag routines. This debases both genres.


It's not the worst movie I have seen, but I'm sorry to say it was a GIANT let-down compared to its predecessors.

They should'vie stayed off making it. Or at least saved up a little bit more material before having another go.

There are a few serious pokes in the general direction of various American famous people and it's hard not to enjoy them. I laughed hard when I realized they were going do do a remake of the "Tom Cruise jumps in Oprah Winfrey's lounge" but my laugh got stuck in my throat quickly as they overdid it.

They stretched almost all material too thin. It's sad because I thought the previous Scary Movie movies were good fun.


Mega Man 2 for the NES is one of the best 8-bit games ever released! When I was ten (1990) I bought the first Mega Man game there ever was. This game was very addictive and made me an instant Mega Man fan. Before 1990 had ended I read a preview of MM2. I couldn't believe my eyes! A sequel was being made of my favorite game! As soon as it was released (early 1991) I bought a copy of it, and played it. I never stopped playing it. MM2 boasts some brilliant music! Most tunes are world famous now, and every Mega Man fan can hum these tunes. Especially Dr. Wily's Castle tune, which seems to be the best Mega Man tune ever! The graphics MM2 shows are of extreme high quality. It puts a lot of 16-bit games and even some 32-bit and 64-bit games to shame! The graphics are very clear and the use of colours in the background is very detailed and a pleasure to look at.

In total there are eight levels to conquer before you can fight the master mind Dr. Wily. In the first Mega Man game Dr. Wily reprogrammed six of his peaceful robots to conquer the world. In total seven were made, but the protagonist of both games, Mega Man managed to escape the clutches of the evil Wily. It is now Mega Man's duty to defeat Wily for a second time and destroy his new eight robotic minions. Each robot has its own stage and Mega Man has to beat go through the entire stage to battle a robot master. Once a robot master is defeated Mega Man can use the power of its defeated opponent to battle other robots.

Although it sounds all rather easy, it's not. Try to pass Heatman's schasm of fire or pass Quickman's deadly laser beams! This game will get you hooked instantly. Not only by its outstanding graphical and musical quality, but by its playability as well! Controlling Mega Man is a piece of cake, within no time you can make him run, jump and shoot! All in all a must have for every NES owner, but I guess every NES owner already has this game in his collection!


I commenting Mega Man 2 after beating it a lot of years since I beat it the first time. Thanks to Console Emulation I am living again the experience of playing gems like this baby. I am surprised to see how amazingly addictive this games are still to this day.

Mega Man 2 is not only a sequel made to cash-out the success of the first Mega Man is a step forward in many aspects. More user friendly than Mega 1, this game has a system of password-saving that lets the gamer save his progress without having to play the game in its entirety every time. Also Mega Man 2 is not as difficult as the first one because the worlds of Dr. Willy's creations are easy to learn and memorize. In all I believe some people may be frustrated because there are many things and processes to memorize (jump that, don't jump that; use that weapon with that enemy, learn the AI patron of that other one)and also some good reflexes are needed of course. But that's the entertaining side of this thing after all.

Almost twenty years later Mega Man 2 with simple sprite-animation can give me more hours of enjoyment than many modern hits with incredibly astounding 3D Animation. But not always the better-looking game is the best game. I can't rate it with any other number than ten. Capcom scores another victory with this one (I lose the count of how many great games they have released throughout the years). Without a doubt my favorite from the Mega Man series for the NES system.


Okay.. I never really liked her until I saw her Bravo Special a year ago.. now I love her and think she is unbelievably funny. Her DVD is well worth whatever it costs you.. if you like to laugh from deep inside and smile till it hurts.. this is for you.. go .. go now.. get it. She covers a lot of celebrity turf and manages to keep her show moving rapidly.. a challenge most celeb comics cant do.. if you like her reality show you will love the DVD.. and I recently saw her at the DC improv and she killed for 2 hours straight.. I think it runs 86 minutes in length and costs like 10 bucks at tower records..or best buy. Also.. you should watch her reality show on bravo. I never.. NEVER write reviews for IMDb.. but i loved her so much on this DVD.. i actually created an account to do so! Happy Viewing!


Soooooo freaking funny. Everything from Brooke Sheilds weeding, to the View, I have never laughed so hard in my life. A must see for anybody who likes comedy. Kathy is so funny, and completely destroys famous people, telling it like it is! Anybody who hasn't seen this DVD must go out and buy it. She also includes her trip on a USO tour to the middle east. This is also the perfect DVD to show to somebody who has never seen Kathy before! If you wish to hear about Brook Shields mom, getting drunk at her daughters weeding, groping Kathy, molesting Kathys husband before calling the grooms mother "a really nasty word" then this is the DVD for you. And thats only about 10 min of the DVD, imagine what else is on it (Its over an hour)!


We live in Kansas City and searched for nearly 2 weeks looking for this DVD. I will say that if you are a Kathy fan, you will enjoy this video. I can't wait for her next DVD to come out. Her frank sense of "Cruel Humor" can only be compared to the likes of Joan Rivers. She doesn't hold back when she gets started on celebrities. My only problem with the video is that it wasn't long enough. I would love to have had another hour. I guess that's why she has a show. The best is when she tears into Eminem. I won't give anything away, but you definitely have to see it. It is nice to see someone that can be so politically incorrect, and just having fun, when everyone else is so uptight. 10 out of 10!!!!!


Kathy Griffin is without doubt one of the best stand-up comedians of all time. She's hilarious! Her observations on life, politics and celebrity culture in particular are always dead on, witty and ultimately thought-provoking. She is unafraid to share her experiences no matter who she offends in the process and it is this honesty that makes her so funny. Allegedly is one of her many specials and as they are all excellent, I cannot choose a favourite. However, needless to say, if you love Kathy or comedy in general, you will not be disappointed! You'll be quoting her as soon as the show is over, if not during it! She is awesome!


Face it, we all wish we could be more outspoken, and say what we think...to people at work, to people we pass in the mall, to our friends and relatives. And even *gasp* to celebrities? Kathy says what we're all thinking when we watch A-listers on the red carpet, or see them on talk shows pimping their latest project. "What was she thinking with that dress?" "When was the last time she ate?" "She looks like a puffy, sweaty crack W**re" Kathy speaks the very thoughts that cross our minds about A-list celebrities, foreign countries, and brainless professional cheerleaders. Kathy calls it like she sees it whether it comes to Barbara Walters, Gwyneth Paltrow, or Eminem. And she says it so casually, like it's just off of the top of her head. She doesn't hold back, and that's why I love her. And that's why I love this film. Stand-up at it's best.


Lewis Milestone performed one of his best directing jobs with "The Racket." He had a superior cast in what, in a later talkie, might be just a mediocre script, but taken in context, "The Racket" is a great movie. Watch the byplay during the funeral, for example. Milestone and his editors and special effects people create some excellent visual effects to complement a cast that charms even in the role of slimy bad guy. Minor characters still got their chances to shine in the spotlight and even the non-speaking -- well, of course all the characters were non-speaking in one sense -- the un-named characters whose job was to look menacing or even just interested in the goings-on, all stood out. Frankly this film was a surprise to me -- not that it was so good, but that I had had no knowledge of it beforehand. To come so early in the career of so many of the people connected with it, notably Howard Hughes, who had the (to me) strange title of "presenter," this film is a stand-out. Robert Israel, who wrote the music, is fast becoming one of the great composers of the modern era. All the people who are responsible for this film's recent revival deserve the thanks of film lovers as well as film historians. "The Racket" is one to see again.


Like TWO ARABIAN KNIGHTS and THE MATING CALL, this film has now been restored by UNLV (which found the prints of these films once thought lost in an archive of producer Howard Hughes' possessions) in cooperation with Flicker Alley.

Lewis Milestone, who had just directed TWO ARABIAN KNIGHTS for Hughes, brought much of the same sense of friendly rivalry between the two leads to this picture, as well as the same co-star, Louis Wolheim. All the elements of many a subsequent gangster picture are here: The close personal relationship between the antagonists (gang boss Wolheim and cop Thomas Meighan); the kid brother whom the gangster wants to shelter from the rackets (George E. Stone, soon to appear in LITTLE CAESAR and many another gangster flick), but who runs afoul of a tough little chanteuse (Marie Prevost). Mob bosses cavorting in lavish nightclubs, overwrought gangland funerals, crooked politicians, a wet-behind-the-ears reporter with two old pros as a chorus: it's all here.

Enough of the action takes place in a run-down precinct house to belie the story's stage origins, but there's plenty of action, including a shootout between two rival gangs, to keep things hopping.


I found this a very enjoyable early crime drama. Students of the genre will want to compare this to "Little Caesar" and/or "The Front Page". Transitions within scenes and from one scene to another flow better in "The Racket" than in many other silent films.

I agree with earlier comments about the new scoring. There is too much brass and too much forte.

The film itself is about 83 minutes long, much longer than we thought during the 76 years that it was out of circulation. The restoration job on the film is one of the best that I have seen, especially for a film as old as this one is. I hope it is released soon on DVD.


This has been resurrected courtesy of Turner Classic Movies, the University of Nevada, et al. (in pretty good shape, too) in a nicely done digital restoration, complete with a good score. If you get a chance to see it, you might want to take a chance: in spite of it being a silent (I consider that a handicap), it's an entertaining film, with a lot to like.

There's fine acting, especially by Louis Wolheim as the main gangster, whose face is so expressive you don't miss the sound as long as he's on screen. Marie Prevost and 'Skeets' Gallagher turn in solid supporting performances. There's clever dialogue: very good given the constraints silent films inherently have.

Personally, I thought the best feature is the wonderful cinematography. Rarely does the camera technique look dated or technically primitive, and many scenes are as well done as any since. The use of dissolves and interesting angles was delightful, and there are even a couple (surprising, to me) attempts at zooms that come off alright. Obviously a good director/cinematographer team. The overall look of the film is fresh and clear.

The story is pretty entertaining and the characters are brought to life, making me glad this film was brought back to life as well.


I am watching it right now on TCM. It has been digitally restored and a new soundtrack added. The music is excellent. I was sure it was 'period' until I saw the credits, which are rolling as I type.

Marie Prevost is amazing, she dominates every scene in which she appears. Her expressions and body language are astounding. It helps you understand what silent movie acting is all about.

This was a Howard Hughes production. I believe the picture is longer than 60 minutes, though.

The University of Nevada at Las Vegas is credited with this restoration project. They did a great job. I love this movie.


As it has just been recovered and digitized by University of Nevada at Las Vegas and Turner Classic Movies along with the rest of Howard Hughes' classic silent movies, the people of today will finally get to see this great movie. A movie about prohibition and the mafia, made at the same time it was all going on. Idealizing the mafia before the Godfather was even thought of. Although it may be silent, it shows detail on the corruption of the mob with the police force and government officials, and not to mention the costumes of the film were obviously fitting for the time period, and used common "gangster" themes, such as the pinstriped suit with fedora and the cigar. The production quality is very good for the time, with what equipment they had to work with. The stereotypical choppiness of the frames from 20's movies rarely occurs, except when there is much fast action. Turner also did a good job digitizing this, as the film quality is still high. I recommend that people see this, albeit short, it gives a good idea about the movies of the times. Along with "Two Arabian Nights", also produced by Howard Hughes.


Tough cop Thomas Meighan (as James McQuigg) versus underworld kingpin Louis Wolheim (as Nick Scarsi). In a subplot, blonde gold-digger Marie Prevost (as Helen Hayes) pursues Mr. Wolheim's "bad boy" brother George Stone (as Joe Scarsi). This Howard Hughes piloted film was considered for "Best Production" at the first Academy Awards, as "the most outstanding motion picture considering all elements that contribute to a picture's greatness." Although it understandably lost to "Wings", it does posses elements of "greatness".

Mr. Meighan, one of the biggest and most beloved stars of the era, brings considerable presence to his role; with a script that offers him surprisingly few opportunities for characterization. Wolheim and director Lewis Milestone are always a fun to watch match. Ms. Prevost and the supporting cast do their best with the "love story" and gangland activities. And, the production values are high. If only more focus and characterization were on the personal stories and conflicts concerning McQuigg and Scarsi! Curiously hesitant to show much depth; still, "The Racket" exposes, while inadvertently glamorizing, the gangster lifestyle.

******* The Racket (6/30/28) Lewis Milestone ~ Thomas Meighan, Louis Wolheim, Marie Prevost


Only Howard Hughes could have pulled off something as subversive as the racket. It contains (as far as I can tell) the first reference of cocaine use in any American film. The casting is perfect. From the broken-nosed tough to the dangerously sexy gun-moll, you'd be hard pressed to find a better team of hard-boiled noir players. The film is filled with exotic images. The woman with a face on the top of her hat. The violin with a trumpet horn attached to it. The Hollywood establishment would have never made this film.

Like Vampyr, which was made in Germany with independent money in 1932, the film is pregnant with the artistic audacity that only non-Hollywood money can bring into a production. The Racket is worth the search. If you like the gangster genre, you will not be disappointed.


The silent film version of The Racket is famous or infamous for a variety of reasons. This stalwart cop vs. Chicago gangland boss film predated the great Warner Brothers films of the 1930s with Edward G. Robinson, James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, George Raft, and Pat O'Brien, and it created somewhat of a formula for these sort of films. Thomas Meigham plays the self-determined cop, who isn't exactly always operating on the up and up. Louis Wolheim is Nick Scarsi, Chicago gangland boss obviously modeled after one Alphonse Capone, who doesn't care who he has to steamroll over to get his way. Marie Prevost is Helen Hayes, the prototype for Jean Harlow and her ilk in these films for the next decade. She has it all: Dumb blonde on the outside, smart cookie on the inside, and enough sensuality to mix up any guy's thoughts. The film has a great opening sequence reminiscent of film noir with its camera angles, lighting and tracking shots. The first half of the film moves quickly and is well-edited. The second half degenerates into staginess and cheap looking sets, perhaps showing the downside of its theatrical origins. It's based on a Bartlett Cormack play, which originally starred Edward G. Robinson himself on Broadway. The play was only moderately successful, but the film was a best picture nominee directed by Lewis Milestone. Howard Hughes produced the film, which was painstakingly restored after disappearing for more than 50 years (complete with a brand new musical score especially written for its restoration). It's often cited as an influence on film noir or considered a noir film itself, but except for the opening sequence, the film resembles noir only in content and not style. The film does hold up after 80 years now, and it's still an entertaining precursor of a genre that's largely gone today. Look fast for a young Walter Brennan in the first ten minutes. *** of 4 stars.


This film is highly reminiscent of the gangster films made by Warner Brothers throughout the 1930s, though oddly it has less action and more talking--a strange thing indeed for a silent film! While you might expect lots of shootouts and action, most of the film is confined to a police station and it unfolds an awful lot like a play. This isn't necessarily bad--the film still earned a score of 7. But if it had featured a little more action, I frankly think it would have been a better film. Still, the plot involving a dedicated police captain who is frustrated by his own corrupt city hall makes an interesting film. Unfortunately, on occasion, the corruptness of the administration is a bit over-the-top. For example, no town, no matter HOW corrupt, would have crooked judges who issue release orders (writs of habeas corpus) the second the crime is committed or before the person is even charged--especially when it appears they will be up on murder charges!! Despite this and it's talkiness, it's still a decent film with an exceptional print through most of the film--though in a few tiny spots it is scratchy and appears in need of further restoration.

By the way, the character of "Chick" looks a lot like Paul Rubens ("Peewee Herman"). I found this pretty amusing.


An excellent cast and directing make The Racket a must see for the Silent Movie fan and fans of gangster movies in general. Starring Thomas Meighan as Capt. McQuigg, a no-nonsense police officer in Chicago who does not back down from the Mafia's "Big Boss" Nick Scarsi (played by Louis Wolheim).

Nick Scarsi is the leader of the Chicago Mob who has every politician and judge in his hip pocket, and in return for fixing the local election, Scarsi is apparently immune from the long-arm of the law, much to the chagrin of Capt. McQuigg.

However, it is a woman named Helen Hayes(played by the beautiful Marie Prevost) that is the undoing of Scarsi, whom refers to women as "poison" several time throughout the film. Helen proved to be the final dose of poison for this underworld boss as she gets him to admit to the killing of a couple of people in front of Capt. McQuigg and the District Attorney.

The acting and storyline of The Racket is excellent, and the cast brings believability and conviction to the characters they play.


Though one might suspect "Too Many Husbands" as being in the same vein as "My Favorite Wife," it's actually based on a Somerset Maugham play. The stars of this 1940 film are Jean Arthur, Melvyn Douglas, Fred MacMurray and Harry Davenport. After her first husband, Bill Cardew (MacMurray) was lost at sea, his grieving, lonely widow Vicky marries his friend and business partner, Henry Lowndes (Douglas) six months later. Boy is she surprised when Bill shows up alive. So is her new husband and her father (Davenport). It then falls to the confused Vicky to decide which husband she wants.

This is a very amusing comedy with terrific performances from all the stars. Melvyn Douglas, one of the truly great American actors, had to do this type of film until he finally reached old age and could show the world how sensational he was. He's very funny, his voice cracking when he's upset. The men act like quarreling children, playing games of oneupmanship and chasing Vicky everywhere. Seeing the frilly guest room, Bill questions Henry's effeminate taste. "What's this fabric?" Bill asks, holding up a piece of curtain. "DOTTED SWISS!" Henry yells in a booming voice. In another scene, Bill impresses Vicky by jumping over furniture, causing Henry to give it a try. He falls flat on his face. Arthur does an excellent job as a somewhat dizzy woman who loves both men, and Davenport is a riot as her sober-faced, worried father. MacMurray has always seemed bland to me, but he holds his own as the returning husband who's been stranded on an island for a year.

Much better than I thought it would be, and Arthur fans will love it.


I've just discovered this lighthearted film today on tv and must admit it has all the fine elements that make for a good stage play -- plenty of sure-fire dialogue, continual momentum to the story (never a dull moment), and light touches of original music. There are some hilarious moments so downright comical it made me burst out laughing. Just accept it as one more comedy of that era and you'll enjoy it nicely without having to make comparisons or look for weaknesses. Harry Davenport as the father adds his wisdom where he can. I feel all the actors had a good romp in this movie and I liked the repartee amongst them very much. Not sure precisely how it ended so will need to see it again some day. It's a fun movie indeed.


Vicky Lowndes (Jean Arthur) leads a normal life with her husband of less than a year. Hank (Melvyn Douglas) does his best to avoid the subject of Vicky's previous husband, his best friend Bill Cardew (Fred MacMurray). However, when Bill comes back from the dead via a boat from the island he'd been shipwrecked on, the happy Lowndeses become a strange threesome. It is up to Vicky to choose which husband she prefers, but it isn't as simple as it sounds. She can't very well hurt the man she loves in order to be with the other man she loves.

Each cast member is adept at screwball comedy, which is what this film essentially is. However, there is a deeper vein too. Because both men are likable, it is suspenseful waiting for Vicky to choose a husband. This predicament triggers an emotional response as well. Arthur is reminiscent of Irene Dunne in her teamings with Cary Grant, but slightly funnier. Douglas and MacMurray couldn't be more different from each other, so that adds a new spin on the situation.

This movie is very much like My Favorite Wife starring Dunne and the incomplete Something's Got to Give starring Marilyn Monroe, but this film gives the wife two husbands, not the other way around. It is interesting to see how she handles the situation and how the men schmooze themselves silly to get into her good graces. In this way, it is quite a bit funnier.


When I first heard the premise;a spouse declared dead comes back home after months alone on an island , only to find his beloved wife has re-entered marital bliss with his best friend, I thought 'it'll be interesting to see if they come anywhere near the brilliance of "My Favorite Wife"' And I also presumed this had to be a rather blatant rip-off of the Cary Grant-Irene Dunne classic released ,incidentally, in the same year. Boy was I wrong! For starters this appears to have been released months earlier and the screenplay,comic timing,and acting are easily in the same league as the best of the so-called 'screwball comedies'. When Jean Arthur is "on" there is no actress who can beat her and she looks about as good in this rarely shown film as she ever has . Fred MacMurry and Melvyn Douglas hold up their end, but the surprise, for me, was good old Harry Davenport who gets many lines , many chances to display bravado mugging and line readings, and never fails. This is a Jean Arthur film that needs immediate release on the DVD market!!


Businessman's wife, widowed for one year before marrying her deceased husband's best friend, finds out her first husband is still alive; he was believed by the Coast Guard to have drowned after the sinking of his ship, but instead was rescued off an island. Although based upon a play (by W. Somerset Maugham!), "Too Many Husbands" now resembles Cary Grant's 1940 comedy "My Favorite Wife" with a sex-switch (this film actually beat "Wife" into theaters by a scant two months, but was not as popular). Jean Arthur is enjoyable, as always, but her choice of men is rather depressing, and there isn't any fun in her predicament when the hubbies are this selfish and childish. Fred MacMurray's returning spouse comes on like an overgrown Boy Scout (and the actor's smug condescension towards everyone else on-screen is rather off-putting); Melvyn Douglas is a smoother fit for Arthur, but he's been directed to be boorish, with lots of heavy sighs and eyeball rolls (it's clear whom we in the audience are supposed to root for). Disgruntled characters harping on one another isn't usually the stuff of laugh-out-loud comedy, and this one palls with an hour left to go. ** from ****


I wasn't expecting much from this Jean Arthur comedy vehicle, and as a result, I was pleasantly surprised by it.

Arthur plays a woman married to the best friend of her dead husband, who's mighty surprised when her dead husband turns out not to be so dead after all. Now she's got two men fighting over her, a state of affairs she settles back to enjoy, much to the dismay of her father, played by that terrific character actor Harry Davenport.

Jean Arthur is absolutely adorable, even if she is a bit of a brat in this. You want to hug her even as you want to see her kicked in the seat of her pants. Fred MacMurray plays the back from the dead husband, while Melvyn Douglas plays the best friend. I felt MacMurray straining a bit at the screwball comedy antics he was asked to tackle, but Douglas navigates the material expertly and probably gives the film's best performance.

I will say that the film is utterly unpredictable -- I could not guess how it was going to turn out right up until its closing credits.

Grade: B


The plot device of having a person show up after an absence on a Pacific Island and after being declared dead, only to find their spouse married to another person served comically for Irene Dunne in MY FAVOURITE WIFE and Fred MacMurray in this trifle, adapted from a Somerset Maugham play. (The serious side was recently explored in Tom Hanks' CAST AWAY). This is merely a photographed stage play for basically four principals - Melvyn Douglas and Fred MacMurray acting like teen-agers vying for common wife, Jean Arthur, with Harry Davenport in support as her father. It is a one joke film that tires way before its 84 minutes are up. Totally unremarkable - even the stars seem as if they are pushing it beyond its reasonable bounds to try to evoke some fun or magic, but they fail. For some reason the sound recording was Oscar nommed - undeserved. However, the inventive and comical score (fun use of bassoon and oboe) was neglected though it deserved the only nod. Strictly for fans of the stars and for insomniacs.


Despite the interesting cast of Arthur, MacMurray and Melvyn Douglas, this film literally runs out of steam with the concocted ending it displays. Arthur marries MacMurray's business partner Douglas after the former is presumed to have drowned in an accident. Of course, a year later, MacMurray turns up alive and who shall Jean Arthur select as her husband. With the kind of ending we get, it appears that the film is a proponent of bigamy.

We've been down this road before in movies, but let's remember that when MacMurray shows up alive, her marriage to Douglas no longer legally exists. This is conveniently forgotten.

Douglas and MacMurray go through all sorts of silly ideas, even drawing lots to reach a conclusion.

Advocates for group marriage shall enjoy this, give me monogany.


Fred MacMurray, Melvyn Douglas, and Jean Arthur star in this very loose adaptation of the W. Somerset Maugham play about a woman with a dilemma that could potentially be scandalous. Jean Arthur's husband (MacMurray) supposedly drowns and is legally declared dead. Arthur marries his best friend (Douglas). MacMurray then turns up alive a year later. That's the simple premise behind this little seen film from 1940. Jean Arthur's voice, smile, and comic timing were always impeccable, and this film is no exception. While MacMurray and Douglas seem awkward in spots, eventually they gel enough to hold this farce together. Consistently funny throughout with great dialog and comic situations, comparisons have been drawn between it and My Favorite Wife which was actually released later that year. Harry Davenport shines as Arthur's fussy live-in father. Melville Cooper is the dour butler. Edgar Buchanan and Tom Dugan are great in their brief bit near the end. This is one of those films where casting makes all the difference. These pros sell it to us lock, stock, and barrel. I doubt this film could be cast today. *** of 4 stars.


I am currently watching this movie on TCM. I have always loved the Cary Grant/Irene Dunne version called "My Favorite Wife" as well as the Doris Day/James Garner version "Move Over Darling". In the man remarries versions both husbands waited the appropriate amount of time and only just declared their first wives dead and remarried the same day. So they just started their honeymoons and the first wives stopped it before the honeymoon night. In this case the wife remarries - not only after six months but also to her "dead" husband's business partner! Melvyn Douglass and Fred McMurray are great as the husbands in question and it was funny when Bill (McMurray) realizes that his best friend Henry (Douglass) has been sleeping with his wife! It was not actually spoken that he realized it but when Henry talked about having children the realization came to him. It is a wonderful movie, but I do find that Vickie (Jean Arthur), although wonderfully funny, was in reality quite a vixen and quite selfish in this version. Also, for those who do not know, there was a fourth version of this in production called "Something's Gotta Give" with Marilyn Monroe and Dean Martin. This was before "Move Over Darling". Monroe died before the movie was completed and it was canned. I really would like the producers to "dust it off" and maybe complete it. But maybe not enough was done to make it viable.


This delightful comedy falls just short of being one of the classic screwball comedies of the era. It's a story of a woman whose husband disappears in a boating accident and is presumed to be dead. The woman then marries her late husband's business partner. When the first husband turns up alive after a year on a desert island, the woman has two legal husbands. The plot evolves around the woman's decision about which husband to keep. Jean Arthur is a delight, as always, and McMurray and Douglas could hardly be better.

It's a stage-bound film, however, clearly a filmed version of a play. There are really only six characters, including the butler. Columbia didn't want to spend much money on the production. In one scene, upstairs in the woman's family home, you can twice see the set walls shake when doors are shut. Still, the movie is great fun and should not be missed by serious students of film.


Let me say bravo to the cast,crew and director you all should be proud a film I was lucky enough to see at the HMC film fest with a packed theater. Not only did it win awards,it won over the Audience so props to all involved I can't wait till the next one comes out.


A very simple movie, that makes fun of those Spanish Novela Soaps. Rent this if you are interested in character developed stories, and not the Hollywood hype. A different look at movies, through the Hispanic in Taco shops.


For an Indie movie this had it's moments, my girlfriend liked the coffee I loved the redneck;god he was funny! The fact he grossed out my girlfriend rocked, rent it and look for the ring. Good job guys I try and support Indie Movies simply because I am tired of the same rehash Hollywood spoon feeds us. For the love of man this is at least a hundred times better than survivor.


This movie shows that Hispanics can make movies that have hart and class. Diego Castro's performance was excellent, he is a cute boy. I also liked how the Angel character was not afraid to cross the line and go back to his roots. Any serious movie watcher should enjoy in this film.


Very good escript, beautiful womans, and good estoria. I like this movie berry, berry much. Maybe more movies come out about Latinos from America. They are funny peoples. Congratulations to this Art, Viva Mexico! Viva Latino cinema!


The movie was very sweet, I was happy I rented it. Although I wish someone would explain the R rating. I thought the guy playing the redneck was very funny. And he's either a very good actor, or a real weird person. I don't want to spoil the movie but glad the two boys find happiness. In fact I found myself thinking about the coffee scene and thinking of my boss. Over all a fun movie a lot different than I generally would rent but very glad I did. Has the redneck done any more movies, and what was his name. If anyone from the film reads this tell him he has a fan.


I started to watch this movie due to reaction of my customers :-(. And I totally agree with them, it is a very bad movie, it could have been so much better. Bill Cobbs is really great but cannot rescue the movie. Alex Feldman is everything but good in this movie.

You just do not get the story because the film is not finished. It builds up very nicely, but I still do not get it why the doctor while drinking beer starts to bleed more and more (suicide?. Why is his wife so mean and knows everything? even when she is locked up only in her bedroom?)And then suddenly she is lying in a hospital under Alex Feldman's bed? What happened in the burning house how did Alex Feldman get out? Why not his friend? And it ended fast and like cheap slasher movie.


The other reviewers are right. Horrible acting, horrible direction, and a half-witted story line make this one of the worst movies I ever rented. The movie is amateurish at best, and you're sure to find better films on youtube.com. They must've had like a 1,000 dollar budget. And it all went to Cobbs. I thought that little picture on the cover was for some independent film award, but it's obviously recognition for longest home video. It's not scary, nor suspenseful. It's actually an embarrassment to all movies that don't suck this much. My only question is this: Who is that idiot that gave it a good review? He must be blind, deaf AND stupid.


I watched this movie with quite a lot of hope for having found a diamond in the rough, but was thoroughly disappointed. The movie is VERY slow throughout the middle of the film and the ending is so bizarre that I was very irritated when the credits began to roll. The ending could have been better if the filmmakers had elected to explain WHY Mrs. Green wanted to kill everyone. I gathered that she was homicidal because of the effects of the drug, but the film didn't really clarify, either through a back story telling about her addiction to and reactions from the drug or some other device. Basically, it showed her sneaking downstairs to snag some of the formula while her husband went to town (what did she do to get the drug all those months when her husband DIDN'T go to town?) and then she goes wildly crazy at the end and tries to kill everyone. I think it's sad when a movie has to have it's back story explained on IMDb message boards rather than during the film. And how come hubby wasn't homicidal while taking the same formula?!? And then Mrs. Green magically pops up under Cameron's (whose character is extremely annoying in the beginning) hospital bed, unbeknownst to the medical staff who go in and out of his room at all hours of the day and night. The ending would have been laughable had I not been so irritated at the whole waste of my time. As slow as the film was, I kept telling myself, "This had BETTER make up for the slow-going with a great ending!" Wow, was I let down. . .


I don't know what movie the other reviewers were watching, but they must be associated with the production or are family members of one of them to write that type of review. This movie is boring and predictable. The plot, if there is one, is full of holes. This movie looks like a project a failing cinematography student may put out. Warning, I saw this movie under the title: One Step Closer. One can only imagine why the creators are trying to distribute it under a different name... As a side note, this site is here for guidance in helping us pick movies to watch. I cannot understand why it is becoming more and more a vehicle for some people to mislead the general public. I think IMDb should be aware of this!!!


I rented this movie with no knowledge of the film or the comments here only the brief summary on the back of the DVD. I was glued to the screen through out the entire movie. It drew me in got my interest, peaked my curiosity and then left me hanging. There were so many questions left unanswered that it makes me hope and want for a sequel or at least a website with the back stories. I hopped online as soon as it was over to try to find the answers that i so desperately wanted from the movie. Why was the doc killing himself when he knew the consequence of alchol? why was his wife so angry with the two guys? What happened to the one that did not make it? and on and on. I think another 15 minutes would have been sufficient to wrap up the loose ends. PLEASE LET US HAVE THE ANSWERS WE SEEK!!!


I saw this movie because of buzz I heard over the net and wanted to see for myself. The movie is very character driven rather then explosions and special effects rammed down your throat. It has a great plot and keeps you wondering about where each character stands throughout the movie. It almost has a twilight zone type feel, it has no problem keeping you on edge and guessing. The acting is top notch, Bill Cobbs is truly under rated as an actor and I believe this movie gave him the chance he needed to stretch his legs and take a lead role. Most of the other people in the movie I have not heard of but also impressed me throughout. This movie is one of the better I've seen in a while, I would check it out.


This movie was not only scary, but well executed. BIll Cobbs, Alex Feldman, and Jason Scott Campbell's chemistry added to making the whole story truly believable. Subtle hints throughout the movie explain the outcome of the movie, but of course, many of them are missed until you go back and think about what has happened. There were also some comedic scenes, such as in the bar, and the cocky behavior of Alex, (one of the medical students), as well as the conversations among the bar patrons, that will make you chuckle. The patrons in the sleepy little town where the movie was filmed, seems to be stuck in the seventies... or perhaps, its just small town America. The two college students are certainly a rude awakening to what America has become. A society with its main focus on money, success and greed. You will be taken by surprise as the events of this movie unfold. The story is well crafted and intriguing. Bill Cobbs is at his best!


The Final Patient (Released as 'One Step Closer' in the UK) is a truly engrossing film and you will find yourself mesmerised by the storyline. I've watched several films like this and have always worked out quite early on how the film will end, but surprisingly The Final Patient will have you confused throughout. The movie has only around 10 actors and most of it revolves around Dr. Daniel Green's house and it's inhabitants. The only let down in my opinion was the ending, I feel as if this was rushed and wasn't as good as I hoped it would be. But other than that, superb acting by Cobbs and I definitely suggest you rent this out.


Back in Action (1994) was another direct-to-video-movie that starred two of the biggest players in the rising rental market. Billy Blanks plays a former decorated solider who's sister is mixed up with a local gangster. He knows that he's no good and she'll end up in trouble or worse. Roddy Piper co-stars as a hung over drunken cop who crosses paths with the enraged Billy. How will theses two be able to help each other out? Roddy wants to bust the mobster and Billy wants to put them six feet under. Will these two hot heads be able to work together and take a bite out of organized crime?

Roddy Piper and Billy Blanks found new careers in making low budget direct-to-video-action-films. This was a few years before Mr. Blanjs struck gold with the Tai-Bo gimmick and no longer needed to play in these cheesy films. Another underrated action duo. Blanks and Piper made a very interesting team.

Recommended.


A very good action film. What made this one original was the difference in fighting style between the 2 leads first lead: roddy piper, who does the wrestling style. Second lead, blank who does the martial arts style

It makes the fight scenes so cool, and original, especially the fight between piper and blank. The story, from what I can remember is good enough. It's not a brilliant story. But the story doesn't make or break the film. It's the real excellent fights that make this film. Obviously, this is not a film that girls would like. Girl tend not to appreciate a witty fight scene, girls would prefer it if the wit was in the story, which they won't get in this film. Hence this film wasn't rated higher (females gave it low ratings - see the statistics) But I am a man, so I loved this film :)


At first, I actually had no idea that Billy Blanks was an actor, but after seeing the poster for this film, my interest had been captured. I was treated to a really amazing beat 'em up fest. Billy Blanks and Roddy Piper sure know how to kick some butt.

The movie centers around veteran police office Frank Rossi, played by Piper, who after his partner Wallace is brutally gutted by a ruthless drug gang, becomes bent on avenging his partner's death. Meanwhile, Billy (Played by Billy Blanks), an ex-Special Forces agent, is trying to protect his sister from the same gang, lead by Kasajian, played brilliantly by Nigel Bennett. Rossi and Billy eventually team up after a number of confrontations when Billy's sister and Rossi's reporter girlfriend Helen (Played by Bobbie Phillips) are kidnapped by Kasajian's gang.

This movie really knows how to deliver. It's sad that there is really not that large of a following, but we can always hope that it will gain more cult recognition in the future. I hope Universal considers releasing a DVD of this movie someday, in widescreen.

Highly recommended.

EXTRAS: The tape contains a trailer for Mr. Write (1994) before the movie starts.


I absolutely loved the care bears from the 80's but can't stand these new ones. I hate everything about them. Why can't people leave well enough alone? Hollywood has reached rock bottom so they're remaking everything now but only worse. I'm tires of seeing the classics get ruined. The only comeback that should have been made is the old ones released on DVD. A few people that things are going to change but there's no reason to think so. The Big Wish movie was just as bad. And I'm sure that the new movie coming to the theater will be just as bad. Sorry I've been a bit long winded but I had to draw things out to meet the 10 line minimum for a review.


Fine enough for very VERY young children, but these are not the lovable little bears we knew and loved. The storytelling was OK with enjoyable songs and the animation was colorful but the jerky movement of the characters could be quite creepy and grotesque.

But the biggest problem was the bears! Instead of having voices full of endearing charm and warmth, they sounded like 6-year olds with Down's Syndrome high on helium. Funshine Bear isn't even likable. He's more of a big bully than a Care Bear. What he did to poor Grumpy Bear in the beginning was cruel and he never seemed to be sorry.

Your'e much better off showing your kids the vintage sweet simple Care Bear films. They aren't painful to watch and actually have good morals.

BOTTOM LINE: You could care less about this bland charmless bastardization


(OK, sorry I haven't reviewed any movie for a really long time at IMDb--not since "Holes" last Independence season--but, here goes...)

In 2004, audiences were enchanted by one of the best animated sequels of all time, "Shrek 2", and later were wowed by the action-packed power of the superhero family, "The Incredibles"--and both were made in CGI. But in between, and a little after, these two blockbusters, a series of unfortunate events (not the Lemony Snicket kind) became stumbling blocks in the industry: among these mediocre messes came "Pride", "Popeye's Voyage: The Quest for Pappy", "The Polar Express", and now this--the most recent, most hilarious, and most horrible attempt at a comeback--"Care Bears: Journey to Joke-a-lot". (A really good thing "The Princess and the Pauper" and "Twice upon a Christmas" managed to escape so far...)

Everyone's favourite bears are back, and at the beginning of this new DTV movie, they are all preparing for their annual fair when, all of a sudden, something goes wrong: as Grumpy Bear's newest carousel invention goes out of control, Funshine Bear's jokes about the mishap are sent the wrong way, and at once he decides to run away from the magical land of Care-a-lot. His travels soon take him to a land where humour is king, and laughter is nonstop: Joke-a-lot. But, upon being crowned King of the land, Funshine soon realises that keeping the title will make him stay here forever...or will he ever have a chance to return to where he really belongs?

Some aspects of the film are really horrible: to ever think of Funshine being a male bear is an embarrassment to true fans of the 80's franchise who grew up enjoying that character as a girl! Too many elements of the original franchise are missing here too: near the film's end, there is a scene in which the bears could have used their Stare on Funnybone, the half-villain of our story; it's too bad you never see it activated. The new faces in Joke-a-lot are so scary and not that familiar to look at, not to mention the small, pink Gig. And, even more shamefully, some of our favourite bears are missing from the adventure: Baby Hugs and Tugs, Proud Heart Cat, Swiftheart Bunny (the cutest one, and personally my favourite), and Grams Bear. There are no human characters anywhere within the plot. To top it all off: no real villains are present, which makes Funnybone the rat ever so close to the likes of Nicholas and Dark Heart...

But, fortunately, the five songs are nothing short of delightful. For those who have seen the trailer at amazon.com and the official Care Bears web site, the Joke-a-lot anthem is a worthy, congratulatory sing-along (when the movie premiered on Disney Channel on December 12th, I had a great time singing along with it). Otherwise, the rest are somehow forgettable.

So, in the end, "Journey to Joke-a-lot" is a somewhat above-average comeback of a well-known toy franchise from well over two decades ago, and only if fans and kids alike can ever survive its creepiness (and honestly I have). Bottom line: it's funnier than the Shrek films, but scarier than the Polar Express.

That being said, and the fact that I still love the Bears as a 18-year-old, gives this fourth instalment my most solid vote of 7 after "Jetsons: The Movie" and "Hocus Pocus". Yet I am still hoping for better to come when another movie is made.

To quote the amazon.com review by A. Wagner: "This movie had great potential - it's too bad they blew it."

ALSO RECOMMENDED: Barbie as the Princess and the Pauper, Mickey's Twice Upon a Christmas, Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie, Finding Nemo, the Toy Story and Shrek films, The Incredibles, and (of course) the original Care Bears Movie from 1985.

7\10


I enjoyed the original 2d movies for their charm & imagination. My favourite characters were Grumpy Bear (reduced to a whiny toddler in this mess), Hugs & Tugs (baby bears) & the Care Bear Cousins. The babies & cousins were absent, as were any humans. The bears learn a lesson about there's a time to laugh & a time to be serious, but the way they treat Grumpy at the beginning is appalling. The original Grumpy was an able handy bear & he growled about things, but beneath was a heart of gold. You admired him. Here he just comes across as a wimp. The new voice was dreadful. The others were just as bad. In fact the only character I cared about was a sweet pig called Gig. The villains in the original films were scary, but the rat & mosquitoes aren't even vaguely threatening. Care-a-lot had been radically redesigned. 3d computer animation doesn't have the same appeal for me as 2d. It's too hard edged, perfect & unfluffy. Certainly inappropriate for Care Bears. Some bears had been coloured differently. Better to seek out the originals. This newbie lost its way entirely. 3/10


Well, I'm a child of the 80's, and LOVED the Care Bears back then, and watch the TV show, saw the movies...owned a few myself. So, when I saw that there was a new movie, in CGI, I was a bit skeptical. First, I know just how many awful CGI movies there have been, and I wasn't sure anybody could be trusted with the Care Bears. So, I saw Journey to Joke-a-Lot come and go, and wasn't that interested in seeing it.

So, last night I happened to stumble on it on the Disney Channel, and decided to finally watch it. I was very surprised at how good it actually was. Yes, some of the classic things like the Care Bear Stare and the Cousins were not around, but that didn't really bother me at all. I found the animation to be very good for a direct-to-video affair, and much, much better than those awful Barbie movies.

The bears looked so cute, furry, and round in CGI, and the other characters were interesting. Even the rat had computerized fur. The songs were surprisingly good too, and seemed like something from a feature film, or a Disney film. I also liked some of the references to other movies like 2001: A Space Odessey. That happened when Funnybone would try to get into the vault where the treasure was hidden and the computer was much like Hal from 2001. It even called Funnybone "Dave" every time.

I really enjoyed this movie much more than I thought I would, and would highly recommend it to anyone. I have to say that even though I grew up watching the original Care Bears cartoons and movies, I would rate this one above those due to it's not pandering to kids and dumbing everything down. This movie had a nice balance, and would be easy for parents to watch with the kids.


Just to start my comment off... I am a thirteen year old girl. At school, anyone would die of embarrassment to be caught watching Care Bears... except me. I love the Care Bears, and this movie is no exception. I thought it was cute, and touching at the same time. I am reluctant to admit this, but when Funshine sings about going home... and questions about whether or not he is making the right choice, I cried. Actually... crying is sort of an understatement- I bawled.

Even though I know that the Care Bears are not real... and in fact are animated- I still view them as real beings and follow their actions by caring. This movie is cute, funny, sad, and sentimental. I love the Care Bears!


As a parent forced to endure a fair amount of kids entertainment, it is always a relief to find something that is at least tolerable to an adult. When my son became infatuated with the Care Bears, I had sit through the painful Care Bears Movie (1985) a number of times, and then through some excruciating videos of episodes from the mid-80s TV show.

But then we got the DVD of Journey to Joke-a-lot, and the opening song by Jane Siberry immediately caught my attention. Then the story turned out to be engaging, and not too cloying, with enjoyable songs. And there's even a parody of scenes from 2001: A Space Odyssey! So I can say it greatly exceeded my expectations and I can recommend it as something at least passably entertaining to adults as well as children.


Raul Julia's finest moment as an actor was also one of the finest Latin American-themed films of all time. Julia portrayed the diligent bishop Oscar Romero with an aplomb which few actors could have embodied. Sadly, this film ends up as nothing but a blip on the map. Few people have actually experienced the power and creativity placed into this film. Perhaps it was too political or too dark, what ever the reason, it will remain one of my favorite films of all time. Perhaps years from now, the appreciation this movie deserves will be given to it.


I'll always remember the name Raul Julio for this picture. I guess I don't really remember him in other films except for smaller roles. This was one of his acting career highlights, I would assume.

This is a powerful movie based on history in the late '70s in El Salvardor, where a country's leaders were killing thousands of dissidents including clergy in the Roman Catholic Church. Julia plays "Archbishop Romero." He is interesting to watch and the center of the story.

This is a violent, sometimes unpleasant movie to watch but if your concerned about profanity or sex, you don't have to worry: it's not here. That's hard to find in a modern action-drama.

The downside was that despite the above, the story just wasn't that memorable to me. Also, I have serious questions about the slant in here. Knowing the film world, I know which way it would be politically and, frankly, I don't know the real story....but as a movie, it's not bad.


"Romero" is about injustice in the world but presents this theme without "preaching." It draws in the viewer through the excellent performance of Raul Julia (rest his soul! he is missed!). "Romero" is also about class differences and the intolerance of the powerful towards social change. It's a great film for teaching Americans about what life is like in the rest of the world. It's a Hollywood film that managed not to go Hollywood.


Easily the best political movie in the past 20 years. If you watch this movie and are not moved by the story of the abuse and the archbishop's fight against it, you need to go to a doctor to see if your heart is still in your chest. While it is a moving film, it is also very disturbing because of the graphic nature of some of the abuse suffered by characters in the film. A must see for Catholics. While the events depicted in the movie are true, keep in mind that there are exaggerations and omissions. Don't believe everything that is in a political movie as fact. Check out the story yourself from respected sources on both sides of the argument.


Although not a very well made movie (the writing and editing are especially weak) the late Raul Julia's performance is stunning, as are the performances of many of his supporting cast. The journey his character (and presumably the actual archbishop Romero) makes from innocence to awareness is deeply moving and very convincing. His story is remarkable and well worth forgiving the director and editor for not realizing it's full potential. The impact is in Julia's performance and you'll be with him from the moment he fills the screen. Probably one of Raul Julia's most remarkable performances. Another performance worth note is that of the late Richard Jordan who, as Father Grande, helps lead the archbishop to an awareness of the suffering of his people.


The film Romero follows the career of Oscar Romero through his rise to power as the archbishop of San Salvador to his life in politics and ultimately his assassination. The film offers an insightful look into the political situation of El Salvador during the 1970's. Like many countries of Latin America at the time, the nation was ruled by a brutal regime run largely by the military. Political assassinations and repression of all kinds were common place. The working people of El Salvador were also forced to endure the hardships of poverty and economic instability. The film is interesting to watch because it shows the controversy over the difficult roles that many in the Catholic Church felt compelled to play in the midst of the situation. According to the film, many in the Catholic Church, including many priests and eventually the archbishop himself, saw the political and economic situation in El Salvador as terribly unjust. Several priests began to speak out publicly on behalf of the people suffering in their congregations. This kind of political activism agitated the military regime and resulted in a crackdown on elements within the church including the assassination and repression of activist priests. As a result of this persecution, the newly appointed archbishop of San Salvador was forced to become more involved in the situation. As the political repression and injustice continued, the reluctant Oscar Romero began to speak more publicly on his opposition to the government and its policies. The film offers a remarkable insight into the political and cultural situation of the country. At the same time, the film documents the life and struggles of Oscar Romero during his tenure as archbishop of San Salvador.

Much of the film's drama is centered on Romero's reluctance to get involved in the political debate that was engulfing his country. In fact, the film focuses as much on the character's personal transformation as it does on his politics. According to the film, when Romero was instated as archbishop it was only because he was viewed as an intellectual moderate who would keep the church from getting too involved in the political affairs of the country. As the film progresses, however, the political repression becomes increasingly violent. With the assassination of a priest and the military's desecration of the Eucharist in a Catholic church, Oscar Romero was shaken into action. He frequently began to speak publicly against the injustices of the political regime. It was interesting to watch Romero increasingly identify himself with the suffering of the people of El Salvador. At the beginning of the film, Romero was shown to have a close relationship with several of the wealthy elites that were controlling the country. Many of the military and political leaders attended his inauguration. He received gifts from them and enjoyed a close relationship with several powerful figures in San Salvador. As the film progressed, however, these relationships quickly began to deteriorate. As Romero increasingly identified with the suffering and persecuted people of El Salvador, his relationship with the ruling elites also began to suffer. In a particular scene, Romero declined to perform a private baptism for the child of a wealthy family. Instead, Romero told the family that they must baptize their child alongside all the other children at a regular Sunday Mass. The wealthy mother was horrified at the thought. It was this way that Romero increasingly began to identify himself with the lower-class people. In another scene, Romero is seen speaking on the radio about the church's need to defend the needs of the poor and underprivileged in society. It was this kind of "radical" thinking that earned Romero enemies within the government. Eventually Romero's "agitations" became too much for the military-backed government to bear. The film doesn't say if it was the government or simply an overzealous supporter of the military-regime, but Romero was eventually assassinated for speaking out in support of the poverty-stricken masses of his country. Regarded as supporting communist subversives, the military leaders began to view the archbishop as a threat to their grip on power. The film ends with the dramatic assassination in which Romero was gunned down in the church while performing the communion ceremony for his congregation. At the end of the film, the text stated that in the nine years following the assassination or Archbishop Romero, more than sixty-thousand Salvadorians were killed under the military regime. To me, this film demonstrates the tragic brutality of many of the Latin American military regimes that emerged in the late 20th Century. After viewing this film, I have a newfound respect for the person and philosophy of Oscar Romero.


This is another "sleeper" about totalitarian regimes in Central America. What is particularly fascinating about this one is that Romero, a non-political man, comes to the realizaton that there is no such thing as apolitical, apolitical ultimately being complicity, and recognizes his responsibility to take a stand for his people, despite pressure from Rome to refrain from doing so.

I remember hearing about the events in this movie on the radio, when they were actually taking place.

For me this reality is a major part of how I felt watching this movie. The movie is quite good, but I didn't enjoy it. I don't think one watches such movies for enjoyment. I give it a 10!


This movie is something that sets a view on how war is really like...it's disturbing and unfair... but this movie shows thats their is always hope; that their is always someone who will stick up for those who are to afraid to stand up. Romero was a man that stood for all Salvadorian, even the poor. This brilliantly shows how Romero gave hope and to those who have lost their fate to those who thought they have lost everything. he shows his people that everyone needs to be strong and determined. I believe this is a great movie that shows people how the rest of the world is suffering. I loved this movie and i believe that many people would enjoy the movie. God bless Romero and Raul Julia..


Raul Julia gives his routine wonderful performance as Oscar Romero, Archbishop of San Salvador, capital of El Salvador, playground of right-wing paramilitary militia sponsored by successive military juntas subsidized by the CIA and successive US Administrations. Archbishop Romero slowly evolved from a bookworm to a politically aware activist as he came to realize what the military regimes were doing to the poor of his country. He paid the ultimate price willingly. Unlike today's cowards, who proclaim martyrdom and kill themselves and a few or many others in the name of some sterile ideology, Romero accepted martyrdom in the name of a living gospel he deeply believed in, in order to save lives, not to take them.

Julia looks absolutely nebbish in his glasses, and proves his genius as a thespian. Alas, he is not with us any longer, so that pretty boys of 2005 can only watch his films and learn how to act.

Highly recommended film, especially for the vast majority of US citizens who think that Ronald Reagan and his ilk actually did good things in El Salvador, Nicaragua and other places in America.