People may think I am exaggerating how jaw droppingly awful this movie is, but I'm really not. This movie has earned it's place in the Bottom 100.

It's extremely stupid and the screenwriter clearly has no wit whatsoever. I noticed a lot of recylced jokes from early Mike Myers movies, but no one will notice because they too busy staring at Justin Timberlake's fake bulge.

Expect a ton of jokes about poop that aren't remotely funny. A five year old could've written this junk, and it would be superior. Do not waste your money on this offensive piece of crap (Yes, I'm offended by the way they are representing American filmmakers).


I don't throw this statement around lightly. As someone who frequently reads reviews, I find that it is thrown around far too often, especially when there are so many bad movies out there. But I can say, without a doubt in my mind, that The Love Guru is the worst movie I've ever seen. It has officially dethroned classics such as Die Hard Dracula and Dark Harvest 2: The Maize. Those movies were made on minuscule budgets by no-talents. In comparison, The Love Guru was made on a huge budget by Mike Meyers, the creator of comedy classics Austin Powers and Wayne's World, which makes this train wreck of a film all the more painful to watch.

With The Love Guru, you can tell Meyers is trying to create another success along the lines of Austin Powers, but failing miserably. The thing about Austin Powers was despite being a dumb comedy, the movie had a likable, fun protagonist. In Meyer's latest outing, we get the Guru Pitka, a Charles Manson look-alike who has an obsession with penises. It's somewhat fitting that he resembles Charles Manson, a notorious cult leader, as by the movies end I had a strange urge to kill myself. Not only is the Guru creepy, he's also very unfunny. Whether he's making lame puns about "life" or talking about penises, he never manages to elicit any laughs whatsoever. It could be that his jokes are just bad. Certainly using jokes straight out of a children's joke book isn't a recipe for success. It could also be the fact that Meyers is so desperate for a laugh, he himself laughs at every joke and continuously looks at the audience, attempting to entice them to laugh along with him. You get the sense that he realizes the jokes are unfunny and the glances at the audience are his last failed attempts at getting a few laughs. Guru Pitka's character development just adds injury to the insult. One minute Pitka is being hailed as a spiritual healer who lives to help people and the next minute he's insulting a midget for no particular reason. There's no consistency to the character at all, which is what this movie is missing in comparison to Meyer's last few. Wayne Campbell and Austin Powers felt like real characters, where the Guru doesn't really have any character; he randomly does whatever moves the plot along forward.

Speaking of plot, the storyline is almost as ill-conceived as the title character. A stupid plot in a comedy is acceptable if it manages to be funny, but there's nothing amusing about a Guru's quest to go on the Oprah show. That's just plain stupid. It would help if the film wasn't filled with every cliché ever known to cinema-goers, but it is. The Guru has a self-revelation at the end and changes his greedy ways. The good guys triumph. And of course, Blur's "Song 2" plays during one of the hockey sequences, which has become the most commonly used (and groan-inducing) tune for any sports-related film.

Even if you can put aside the annoyingness of the Guru Pitka, the movie still fails to deliver anything remotely funny. The most common joke is to have a characters name resemble something vulgar, such as "Dick Pants" or some other Grade 3 level joke. The next most common is the Guru's constant repeating of "TM" after one of his catchphrases. It wasn't funny the first time, what made Meyers think it would be funny the tenth or fifteenth? There's also the repetition of jokes from Austin Powers, ranging from the plane to even the casting of Verne Troyer, the midget who made one of his only popular appearances in the Powers films as Mini-Me. Finally, there are the gags that are just plain lame. These involve elephants humping each other, the Guru wearing a chastity belt, the Guru having a battle using mops soaked in urine, the Guru sticking his head up his own ass (which is actually far less funny than it sounds), the Guru getting punched in the groin, the Guru doing battle with a rooster and the Guru engaging in two very long song and dance numbers on the Sitar, one a rendition of Dolly Parton's "9 to 5", the other a ear-splitting variation on "Space Cowboy" by Steve Miller Band. Both are in there for no particular reason whatsoever (and I really do hope it wasn't for laughs).

The other actors are fairly bad, although they really don't have much to work with. Jessica Alba continues her tradition of playing practically the same exact character, giggling and acting ditsy. Justin Timberlake is atrocious as Jacque Grande, although to be fair, his character was a one-note joke about Quebecois people. I'm bemused that Meyers would think Americans would find a joke about a people they likely know little about funny, especially when I didn't find it funny and I'm a Canadian. Verne Troyer just proves that the only reason he has even a semblance of a career is because of the novelty that he's a midget.

It really is hard to describe how utterly bad The Love Guru is. It's a stupid comedy, yes, but I'm a fan of those. I'm the guy who gave You Don't Mess With the Zohan a positive rating, so if anything this should be right up my alley. Instead, it's the worst movie of the year for sure (leaving Meet the Spartans way behind in its dust) and has reached it's place, for me at least, as the worst movie ever created. It's painfully unfunny and left me in a sour mood for a good hour after viewing. I'd rather wear a chastity belt for 30 years like the Guru rather than sit through this pile of crud.


Mike Myers is a talented guy, but this vehicle is an embarrassment. The funniest parts are gleefully juvenile, but they are, unfortunately, outnumbered by gags that are simply juvenile or, worse yet, juvenile and mean-spirited. For example, some of the jokes directed at Verne Troyer's character sound like they were uttered by a 15-year-old classroom bully, not written by an intelligent man in his forties. I'm all in favor of offending PC sensibilities whenever possible, but do it right: cracks about Keebler elves show are just stupid and artistically lazy.

More scenes of young Pitka might have explained better how he grew into the adult he became, and Rajneesh could have been fleshed out a bit. I suspect that a lot of character development and back story were left on the cutting room floor. What should have been cut were the cameos that were either pointless or self-referential without being truly funny.

The plot wasn't exactly Citizen Kane quality, but it could have worked with better writing. After all, if anything cries out for satiric treatment, it's the self-help and New Age movements. With such target-rich subject matter, how did Myers manage to make such a dud? I think that it's a case of plain self-indulgence. Jim Carrey and Robin Williams are two other talented, over-the-top funny men who do some of their best work when they show restraint and don't play themselves. Someone should have reined in Myers on this one.

For his penance, I suggest that he lay off comedy for a while and do a few dramatic roles - including supporting ones - as he did (quite well) in "54." Williams and Carrey have shown other dimensions of themselves in dramatic roles, and I'm sure Myers can, too.


I have seen some awful movies. Movies that just aren't that great, aren't interesting, lack that certain spark that a Great Movie always has. I knew, walking in to screen this movie this morning, that this would lack that certain spark. I knew this would not be a Great Movie, but I expected it to be at least somewhat funny -- it is, after all, a comedy. And as for expecting the rest of it to be stupid, well, it went above and beyond: it was absolutely ridiculous.

Generally, I'm indifferent to Mike Myers' stupid (for lack of a better word) humor. There have been some genuinely funny moments in past movies, but you won't find more than two or maybe even three in this one. The entire movie was basically sexual innuendo after innuendo after innuendo after humping elephants.

At one point, I wanted to bash my head against a wall. This supposed "comedy" was absolute torture to sit through.

But Stephen Colbert is interesting -- has a few funny lines -- and Jessica Alba was very pretty. Also, Verne Troyer has quite the clever line -- in the credits, that is.

I suppose one thing to say about this movie is, while not exactly in a positive light, it will likely always be in your memory, never forgotten. Although, keep in mind: seeing a movie should never hurt this much.


If you hate Mike Myers then this movie will be your holy grail...the one you hold high and proclaim loudly "See, I told you this A-Hole wasn't funny!"

If you love Mike Myers (as I do, in a totally manly non-ancient-Greece type way) then you'll just have to hang your head and silently agree.

What in Krishna's name went wrong here? How could these people have sat in an editing room and watched this hundreds of times during the final cut and not said to themselves " I have to save Mike Myers from himself!" I only had to watch the first fifteen minutes ONCE before I was ready to walk out.

How do I hate thee, let me count the ways; BAD acting, BAD casting, BAD writing, BAD directing, BAD dialogue, BAD excuse for a hockey mask (What is this, 1975?)

Is there anything good in this movie? YES! Romany Malco (Weeds, The 40 Year Old Virgin) rises above the dreck by playing a real person in a comic book universe. He's funny, sympathetic and believable; in short, everything this movie IS NOT.

I did get some good laughs though, out of the previews for "Tropic Thunder" and "Hamlet II". Do yourself a favor and miss this one (throwing up popcorn is a painful experience!)


I've always been told that if you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at all. So, I have to tell you all the best parts of the new Michael Myers vehicle, The Love Guru. You've got one really funny joke about Guru Pitka's mom getting a job that kills even though it was in the trailer, Stephen Colbert finally hits one out of the park as a robot cyborg after failing three previous times to elicit any laughs, Jessica Alba is gorgeous as always if you overlook her atrocious acting abilities, and Justin Timberlake shows he has no shame and steals every single second of screen time he is given. If Jacques "le coq" Grande had his own film, I'd pay to see it. Being that he is included in one that relies on physical humor, asinine wordplay, sexual innuendo, and Myers making a complete idiot of himself as he kills the funny out of every only slightly funny gag he does, Timberlake becomes the only reason I can say it was worth going to a free preview. The Love Guru is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen and once I'm done writing this review I am going to crawl into bed and cry as I remember So I Married an Axe Murderer and the times when Myers could do no wrong (thanks for the Wayne's World callback Mike, you actually made me realize how inferior this film is more).

There is truly no point in describing a plot because there isn't one. The film exists as a series of set-pieces allowing Myers to act up his schtick and try to cause uproarious laughter in the audience. Besides some faint giggles at the fact that Myers himself smiles and winks at the camera, telling us he just told a joke, there is not too much to go on here. Sure there is a ton of uncomfortable laughter and gasps of awe at the wordplay"can't face" said real fast to sound likeahemthat you are shocked to hear in a PG-13 film, but does that really make you think the this was a success? I mean, the main focus is supposed to be the idea that Pitka has been hired to get the star player on the Toronto Maple Leafs back with his ex-girlfriend so that his hockey skills will return and win his owner, the second generation of a cursed family, "Stanley's Cup". You almost believe this thread has some merit until the resolution is glossed over quickly and rectified without the bat of an eye. The thing is held together by concert interludes of Myers singing in his way over-the-top Indian accent for entire songs. Can you say filler? (Although I will admit, "More Than Words" was fantastic, especially the visual nods to the actual Extreme video.) I might be wrapping this review up quickly to rest. My neck has some pain from too much shaking out of embarrassment for those collecting their paychecks on the screen. You could literally see the ca-ching dollar signs popping out of their eyeballs with every awkward moment. Some of the sight gags were funny, the first time they were used. I enjoyed the motorized magic carpet, the utter stupidity of Verne Troyer's office being half size, and the "Kelestrator" of course, (I wonder why they didn't TM that one). Admittedly, though, this is not my kind of comedy. While I enjoy a good low-brow laughfest like the next guy, I still would rather have a somewhat decently constructed story, something this tale lacks completely. Had the gags been separated and shown on a TV skit show, I might be calling them genius, however, when you string them together with the only common denominator being that the same characters are used, it gets old fast. Unfortunately, this film will work for a good chuck of America, but I just can't condone the spending of millions of dollars on something so trite and unenjoyable as this packaged and sold mess.

Now I don't want to leave Timberlake as the only good thing here. That would be doing a disservice to Manu Narayan who played Myers' assistant. With spot-on timing and perfect facial expressions, it was good to see someone having fun playing off of the grotesque guru. A nice companion, he actually makes Pitka better each time they are doing a skit together. I'm not really sure what to say about Myers himself. On one hand, he totally commits to this character and must be given credit for that fact. The problem is, though, that the role itself is paper-thin and very, very tiresome. As for Romany Malco, our second leadalthough he got the shaft of no top-billinghe does well for what he has been given. Come on man, you were in the amazing 40-Year Old Virgin and have a hit TV show "Weeds" for which you are a big part of its success. Please take the time to do some work that has merit. I mean, wow, who'd have thought I'd be saying Get Smart might be your best movie option this weekend.

Oh, and Ben Kingsleycan I have a word? I am going to have to take away your knighthood. Yes, I know how much you like it and how hard you worked to achieve the title, but I can't allow someone with as little self respect as you keep the "Sir". Why, oh why, would you continue to do drivel like this? You are an Academy Award winning thespian. I can only hope The Wackness is as good as it seems so you may redeem a little bit of that respect in my eyes.


The Love Guru, when I saw the trailer, I wasn't exactly laughing, but it was Mike Myers, the clever man who has brought us Austin Powers and Wayne's World, I had to have hope. Well, Mike Myers, I have no choice, I really wanted to slap the heck out of him when I was watching this painful movie. Now I'm convinced that Mike must have some obsession with the penis, because there are so many penis jokes in this movie it just becomes painfully unfunny. Now there was a decent audience in the movie theater, like twenty something people, I did not hear one laugh, seriously, I even kept sighing, wondering when this movie was going to be over. Five people left early complaining, I wished I had joined them, but something inside me was just hoping that something would make me laugh, I was really pulling for Mike, but he has just made me so unhappy with this bad movie that was just his pathetic attempt of constantly reminding people of his good comedic days.

Guru Pitka is a self help guru who is very successful, but he is ranked as the number two self help guru of the world. The only way he feels like he can be successful is to be on Oprah. So he has to save a man, Darran, on a loosing hockey team in Canada to get him back with his ex girlfriend who is with this "cocky" winning goalie, Jacques Grande. Guru also meets the owner of the team, Jane, who he just falls for, so in order for him to get famous, he has to get Darran back with his girl and the team will start winning.

Yeah, I'm serious, that's the "plot", sad, isn't it? I just seriously cannot believe how low Mike Myers has sunk, the cast was bad and the story was just, I don't think it was even existent. Now, I hate it when people call movies racist without even thinking what the movie is supposed to be, but you know what?! I was friggin' offended by this movie, it was just plan sad, Mike Myers has lost his game and cannot admit it. He should have just stuck to the animated voices, because his characters now are just lame. There is nothing I could say more than please just stay away from this film, I know I said this before, but this is just a painful and unfunny movie. Good luck to Mike Myers, he'll need it big time after more critics review this bad movie.

1/10


I went to see this movie hoping for lighthearted entertainment, because I have always loved Mike Meyers. I hoped the negative reviews were wrong. But they were oh-so-right. Don't waste your hard-earned money or time on this one.

The sight of Ben Kingsley playing a silly cross-eyed Indian guru (who has his apprentices fight with mops dipped in his bodily fluids) is very depressing indeed. To go from playing Gandhi to this is just so, so, so sad.

The presence of two gratuitous anti-gay jokes turned an otherwise innocuous movie into an unpleasant experience. Call me crazy, but I don't go to the expense of going to a theatre in order to be insulted. Do Mike Meyers and this film's makers think that gay audience members LIKE to be insulted as we sit there watching their movies? (which we PAID to see!!) I thought the Guru Pitka schtick might be fun, but it wasn't. The only bright spots were Justin Timberlake as a Lothario Quebecquer and the fairly fun Bollywood-style Indian dance number at the end of the movie. Otherwise it is just painfully unfunny and uninteresting.


I'm glad I wasn't in the UK's Celebrity Big Brother House this year. Not because I wouldn't have enjoyed meeting some of the others, but because at one stage fellow house mate Verne Troyer might have asked me about the last film he did with his best friend, and I wouldn't be comfortable lying to him and denying that I thought The Love Guru was a cinematic mutant mistakenly allowed to live and breathe rather than be put to a merciful sleep in the development stage.

Hey, I like Mike Myers. He has a measure of talent and charisma and likability, and I applaud his deserved financial and critical success with the Wayne's World and Austin Powers films (though he went one movie too far with Goldmember). Having said that, Myers, like his fellow SNL alumnus Will Ferrell, is like a kid wandering about a shop eating food off the shelves and generally behaving like someone in desperate need of supervision and guidance. Let's be honest, Ferrell's last decent leading role was in Anchorman (2004), and while he's been fine in supporting work like The Producers (2005), everything else that he's had a hand in has been a series of embarrassments of varying levels. And sadly, Myers can too easily fall into the same degree of arrested development.

People who know me know that I may go on about a lot of bad movies, but more often than not, I enjoyed watching them, and perversely can watch them again. This one, however, I'm ashamed that I ever wasted bandwidth getting it, let alone consider watching it again.

Myers' characters have always been one-note, with a limited appeal. But his latest Guru Pitka went too far when he thought of writing it down; in comparison, his Beatnik poet Charlie from So I Married An Axe Murderer (1993) was a character of multi-layered nuance, and more importantly, one that people would much rather watch. The very concept should have been seen as potentially execrable and insulting to Hindus. Yes, I know he tries to get around this in the movie by claiming that Pitka wasn't really a Hindu, but an American raised by Hindus, but like so much else in this movie, that attempt fails miserably given what passes for humor.

Hey, I like Dumb Humor  when it's done right. Dodgeball, Epic Movie, Jay and Silent Bob. But the gags in The Love Guru come in three flavors: racist, gross and infantile, and in various mixtures thereof. The racist names he came up with (Harenmahkeester, Satchabigknoba) is the sort of thing an ignorant ten-year-old kid would come up with to make the other ignorant ten-year-old kids in the playground laugh. Yes, isn't it hilarious that Indian people all have big long names? The rest of the atrocity is filled with other dodgy names like Coach Cherkov and Dick Pants, as well as alleged jokes about snot balls and nose hairs, humping elephants, food prepared to look like genitals, and buckets of urine  all of which probably would have sounded funny in 1988 in the writers' brainstorming sessions in the SNL offices at 3am when you're doped up on caffeine, but I honestly can't believe that a 45-year-old man wrote this crap down in 2008 and thought this would be funny in any other circumstances.

And the execution of these so-called gags is almost consistently accompanied by Myers with the same sort of mugging grin to the camera that he perfected with Wayne Campbell and Austin Powers  the difference here being that those other characters had moments where they really were humorous, but seeing Myers try it with Pitka is akin to watching an inept magician fail every trick, but still take a rehearsed bow after each one, oblivious to the negative reaction he's getting from his audience. And worse, he drives the jokes so deep into the ground, again and again, you expect them to bump into Hilary Swank piloting her subterranean machine around the Earth's Core.

And the storyline carrying these non-gags, like the sores on the back of a leper, is just as awful: a guru seeking fame and a spot on Oprah counsels a Canadian hockey player who wants to win back his wife from a rival, Jacques "Le Coq" Grande, who apparently is well-endowed (Get it? Le Coq Grande?). Another lesson to learn, Mike: Sports Themes Aren't Funny. Canadian Sports Themes Aren't Funny, Cubed. It may give you the chance to hang about with your heroes, but it's a waste of time for the rest of us. Some have tried to point out the satire in Pitka's self-help philosophies, but satire only works when it makes a point, and doesn't just appear indistinguishable from the targets it's allegedly satirizing.

In case I haven't made it clear, this is a Bad Film. Not So Bad It's Good, like The Oxford Murders (2008). This is embarrassing on levels I haven't seen in ages. Some bad movies have people in it who can rise above the mediocrity, but this one is like quicksand, sucking people down and suffocating them. And I'm not talking about the likes of Verne Troyer, Jessica Alba and Justin Timberlake, who were basically employees who probably needed the money, or the cameos from Oprah and Val Kilmer. I'm talking about Ben F**king Kingsley.

How does a respected Oscar winner go from playing Gandhi to playing Guru Tugginmypudha?


I'm am going to give this movie a ten, yes a ten.. Mike Myers is a genius and whether this movie was his best or worst it made me laugh and it was original. It was very silly and that's a good thing, I guess what helped is I saw him on Inside the Actors Studio and he explained his thoughts on how he put the movie together and was pretty open about the raw humor etc. in the film. It has a lot of raunchy humor and it's not so different then the Austin Power movies in the way it's put together. Yes Vern Troyer is in it.... I think you really have to see it for yourself. If you like wait a few months and it will be out on DVD... People on here take these movies these days way to serious I remember when going to see a movie was supposed to be fun, not always on IMDb.com, lol Have Fun. Tom


OF COURSE this movie was going to be silly comedy. Its mike myers!!!! I entered this movie having no idea what was going to come out and maybe thats why i loved it. It was about random things but DID have an over all plot. The love guru tried to restore a couple while trying to find out about his own love.

Many people can relate to these jokes of religion and meditating and you may even learn a thing or too, but again don't take all things 100%. If you can carefully interpret what the movies motifs are then you will think it is a good move.

Overall, this is a movie of puns and if you like mike myers you will most probably enjoy this movie.


To call this the worst movie of the year, or the worst movie ever shown in theaters, is sheer pompousness at its best.

That being said; this is by no means a great movie. It is hilariously crude, random, and quirky, but the humour is obviously not for everyone. The Love Guru uses a tried, but true, comedy formula and rarely strays from it. However; some of the off-the-wall jokes will have you laughing your face off, and will keep returning to your mind, making you laugh days after you watched the film. The acting is par, and Steven Colbert delivers the funniest performance I've seen in a long while.

Don't go into this film looking for genius or groundbreaking comedy mastery; go into this film expecting a decent laugh which you won't regret.


I can see this movie is being murdered by reviewers on this board. Well, I'll give you my point of view on the film that I saw last night. Going in with low expectations, I actually found myself laughing VERY hard at certain parts of the film.

Sure, most of the humor is stolen straight out of the Austin Powers series, but it's still funny. The performances by Mike Myers, Justin Timberlake, and Verne Troyer are hilarious. Mike Myers is great as always and Timberlake is surprisingly very funny. The interaction between Myers and Troyer (stolen straight from AP) is absolutely hilarious.

If you're looking for a deep, thought-provoking movie, you're going to be sadly disappointed. But if you can't tell that from the preview, then maybe you should get your head checked out. The movie is all about "moments" and plays out like a long SNL sketch. If you can leave your mind at the door and accept the toilet humor, you might find yourself enjoying it.

Most people reviewing the film 1/10 have probably not even bothered to see it. Others are coming on the board and marking high ratings as "not useful" and lower ratings as "useful". I will bet money that many people find review "not useful" by just looking at the 7 stars I gave it. There are many people just destined to see this movie fail because they think it looks stupid. See the movie for yourself and don't allow others who haven't even SEEN the film tell you that it's awful.


I read self-help books, I study religions and spirituality, and I thought this was a funny movie. Movies such as these teach us to not take life so seriously. It would seem that anyone who claims to have any sense of spirituality or enlightenment, and was offended by this movie, doesn't really understand Truth. To be pro the movie, or neutral to the movie is one thing, but to attack the movie, to be against the movie, would seem to be self-defeating. Attacking the movie gives energy (and publicity) to it, for which, I'm sure the makers are very grateful. I thought the headlines of certain people being 'outraged' by the movie were as humorous as the movie. Deepak knows...he took it in good fun.


I'm not quite sure why everyone is bashing this movie. Did you expect to see an in-depth character study of eastern mysticism or some soul-searching drama that reveals the truth of life? Were you hoping for plot twists and surprise endings? This is movie is exactly what I expected and hoped for. It is filled with juvenile, pubescent humor and had my wife, 10-year old son, and me laughing the whole way through.

The movie is standard Hollywood formula, but they do it to perfection. Mike Meyers was right smack in his comfort zone. Ben Kingsley and Justin Timberlake were fantastically raucous. And Jessica Alba was.... well Jessica Alba was incredibly HOT! I absolutely recommend this movie to anyone wanting a light-hearted, albeit corny trip to the movies. There was a lot of sexual innuendo, but if you are sheltering your children from what awaits them in the real world, you are destined to be a young grandparent.

The Burke's give this movie to thumbs up.


when I saw the trailer for the love guru I thought it would be a somewhat bad movie compared to what mike myers provided in austin powers, but I saw an early screening today (mainly because I saw my fav and one of the best stand up comedians out there, Daniel tosh, the dude with the cowboy hat) and I was impressed. I like when I go see a movie and expect something bad and come out pleasantly surprised and the love guru did just that. The intro took me by surprise with great jokes from mike. The rest of the movie was a fun ride filled with humorous names and puns and cameos from many many comedians and artists and actors. I was very amused by stephen colbert and jim gaffigan's (another great stand up comedian) sports newscasting, hilarious. If anybody gets a chance to see an early screening you should def go, if not then go when it officially is released.,


I m a fan of the Austin Powers movies, and so I was looking forward to seeing "The Love Guru."

Here's my opinion: The Love Guru is to Austin Powers what "Hot Shots: Part Deux" is to "Airplane." What I mean is that both movies want to achieve the same result and have similar formats and formulas, but one nails it and the other is a half-hearted attempt.

Let me try to say it a different way... If the Austin Powers movies are Mad Magazine quality. The Love Guru is "Cracked" magazine (remember that crappy rip-off of the Mad format?)

I miss the fresh double entendre of Austin Powers. What we get instead is a close-up of a BOOGER complete with NASAL HAIRS. Luckily I neglected to buy popcorn, or I would've retched! Same goes for the "stinkmop" scene.

I was amazed by the "What is it you can't face?" scene (look it up) that I saw in one of the trailers (the trailers included just about every other funny scene as well.) I thought it was brilliant wordplay. Then I went online and discovered it was ripped off from a comedy routine by Caroline Rhea and the movie "The Sound Of Music!" WTF?

Here's the part of the movie that really made me laugh (yes there was one.) While we are watching two elephants having sex (yes you read that right) the camera cuts to two obese people who kiss and say "I love you." That was funny. The other entertaining scene was a Bollywood flashback in which Myers and Jessica Alba sing in Indian complete with subtitles. It looked really retro complete with the 35mm film slipping off the projector gears. Nice fourth wall removal!

The rest of the movie seems really forced. Myers appears to be trying too hard. The Love Guru says "When love goes wrong, nothing goes right." Didn't Mike Myers recently (in 2006) divorce his long-time wife?

Hmmmmmmmm..


I don't think any genre of films has changed more over the years than comedy.

THEN - Those pun-filled Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields or Laurel & Hardy classics, the sappy-but-Innocent "screwball comedies," and the slapstick of Abbott & Costello, The Three Stooges, the subtlety of Cary Grant or Irene Dunne, etc

NOW - Nothing but crudeness and an obsession with bodily functions and sex.....film after film. The crudeness, not the sex, is the shocking part and filmmakers "push the envelop" each year, getting away with as much as they can in these PG-13 rated comedies. "The Love Guru" may have hit an all-time low in this regard....until another film worse comes out next month.

Mike Myers funny in his "Austin Powers" films until he got carried away with the final one of the three. That film now looks like Mary Poppins compared to this one. Myers fills the screen, almost non-stop, with penis jokes, poop, farting, boogers, every kind of sexual preference and acts known to most people. He spends 30 seconds imitating someone with diarrhea, spells out "blow job" on a blackboard and so many other similar "jokes" I'm not going to help him out by plugging them here. Most of them will have you shaking your head in disgust. You can be "dirty" and still be very funny, but Myers consistently crosses the line and is just plain gross.

At least he did get me to laugh out loud a half dozen times. Stephen Colbert's character is downright stupid and provided no laughs. He's the "Hockey Night In Canada" announcer. (If you want to hear humorous lines from a TV sports commentator, check Fred Willard's job in "Best In Show," not Colbert here.)

The other members of the cast are equally lame but the saddest thing is to see Ben Kingsley, a fine actor, participating in this farce by playing an idiotic cross-eyed guru. He must have no pride in whatever roles he takes. You expect cheap laughs from Myers or Colbert....but Kingsley? Just watch this film and it will demonstrate how little the status of "knighthood" apparently has become in Britian.

"Extremely immature" might be the most apt description of this comedy, which is geared for 16-year-olds, and immature ones at that!


I went into the theater with an open mind, as a friend claimed to have enjoyed this movie (that's the last time I take advice from him). After the first 10 minutes it become obvious that the entire movie would be nothing but massively overused, immature jokes that were never funny in the first place, along with very poorly written dialogue and the most predictable storyline since a cop eating a donut. There was not one moment throughout the entire film where I even chuckled once. The only people I would even consider recommending this film to are those with an IQ below 75 who have never once heard a joke in their life. Actually, no, I wouldn't even want them to suffer through it.


I have seen some pretty bad movies, but I just cannot believe the amount of lousiness found in this movie. I just went to see it, and there was NO plot, there was no point, and there was definitely no humor. There were a few jokes that were about as funny as a stapler, but nothing near as funny as other movies that even were worth my time. I am lucky that I saw this freak show on a readmission ticket, so I didn't give the whack jobs in charge a penny. So, in summary, if you want to go spend nine dollars to be able to sit in an empty theatre, then this is the flick for you. Please, don't waste your money (and time). The other 3 people that will be in the theater watching it with you will thank you for the open seats.


Mike Meyers is dead. He's had 3 good movies his entire life and this is not one of them. The Love Guru may just be the worst movie since Meet The Spartans. Mike plays a guru that talks in a funny accent just like every other character that he plays. Except this time, it's not funny. Verne Troyer? I thought he died when he was touring with Kid Rock. He's not funny either. Stupid midgets. We get it, you're short!!! Jessica Alba may be the worst female actress in history. Anyone seen Fantastic Four? Yeah, she's even worse in this. Justin Timberlake? Your music sucks, your movie sucks, and most of all, YOU suck. You definitely did NOT bring sexy back by starring in this "film".

I give The Love Guru a 0 out of 10.


My Take: Too much shock humor but not any real laughs; there's very little show of Myers talents here.

Although we all know him by name, we really got to know Mike Myers not from his name but from the name of the characters he plays. In fact, if his name wasn't so prominent in the credits, we would get to know him as the guy who played Austin Powers, Dr. Evil, Wayne, as well as the voice of Shrek. Bu recently, the characters he plays are like retreads of his old acts. First there's THE CAT IN THE HAT, which didn't really go so well. And now here's THE LOVE GURU. Well, Myers is still the best thing about THE LOVE GURU, but he can't save it. Not only is his act unoriginal, Myers tries to throw in every single sex joke or gross-out humor and see which one sticks.

Myers plays his most forgettable character yet as Guru Pitka aka Maurice, who plays every single joke in the Mike Myers' book. From the witty word play and the funny accents, there's not much more original in this act that all he does is paint-by-numbers. I give credit, however, to Myers for doing whatever he can with the character and does score maybe a few puns. Now ask yourself how good those puns are compared to those that don't work? Guys hitting each other with mops covered in pee? Ben Kingsley being awful as Maurice's cross-eyed guru? An elephant sex scene? I'm beginning to wonder if I was watching a comedy or a test of endurance. It's as if the movie already wants you to leave by the 15-minute mark, and this movie is supposed to be mercifully short with an 87-minute running time.

Everyone else in the supporting cast is embarrassing; funny thing is they seem to enjoy doing so. Jessica Alba, who seems to like appearing in every bad film her agent gets her into, is your typical love interest. Justin Timberlake gives an awful performance in an awful excuse of a comical character. And the list goes on, with some truly unnecessary cameos by Stephen Colbert, Val Kilmer, Jessica Simpson, and Kanye West. Besides perhaps a few witty word puns and some shtick about a moving remote control pillow (hey, there's got to be one scene I laughed in, but I just can't recall), THE LOVE GURU is quite an unfunny disaster, but I don't want to bring down Myers' spirit. Mike Myers, you're still funny, just stop making these movies.

Rating: * out of 5.


Jack Sparrow, Ledger Joker, Guru Pitka

They were serious enough in their goals, but also they never took a path with the same seriousness. It is a very clear message, because Life is Hard. They all like to do tough jokes, even in difficult moments. This may look like foolishness, but maybe these characters realized that work is best done if people can refocus their concerns. If you recall, instead of receiving the best answer to an specific problem, they bring a very funny alternative that can make us free our worries. Was Guru Pitka's morbidity level high? Those were jokes! "but it's cool for Tom Green to hump a dead moose" as Eminem said.


It was heavy-handed, painful and endless. The opposite of funny. An excruciating bunch of penis jokes strung together with some gross-out scenes. Wow! Penises can be short! Penises can be long! Oh, hahaha! Oh, and who can forget the musical numbers. Did I mention that they were choreographed? Mike Myers has lost the charm he exhibited in the Austin Powers franchise. And it's clear that he picked an inexperienced director for this so he could control the shoot. And why does Jessica Alba keep doing crappy movies like this and "Good Luck, Chuck"? Did someone tell her she was a comedienne? And Justin Timberlake -- well, no wonder he wears a wig and moustache throughout. Ironically, though the material is definitely for teen-aged boys, they probably won't go to see it because of the title. It'll maybe have one weekend, then go flaccid. Incidentally, the only truly memorable line in the entire mess is from Verne Troyer in an outtake run with the credits. But it's not worth watching the entire mess to hear it.


From reading many of these negative reviews on this website about The Love Guru starring Mike Myers,Jessica Alba and Justin Timberlake. I decided to watch this movie and I did last night with my family.We all loved it! I was laughing in many of the scenes.I know that many people didn't love this movie and it didn't do very well at the box office and that is considered one of the worst movies of all time but I really enjoyed it anyway despite what people thought of it and that it was a box office bomb.It wasn't the best comedy movie of all time but it was a really good movie.Also not the best Mike Myers movie of all time but it was one of his good ones.I really liked the music and characters and plot 9/10 is my rating If you love Mike Myers then you have got to see this movie.


Recap: Guru Pitka is frustrated that ever being in the shadow of Deepak Chopra. But when the owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs seeks his advice Pitka sees his chance. If Guru Pitka can reunite their biggest star with his estranged wife, and break the Leafs' curse and win the Stanley Cup, none less than Oprah herself has offered him a spot on her show.

Comments: Supposedly a cut character from the Austin Powers' movies, and it shows. The humor and set up are identical to the Austin movies. Unfortunately that means that most of the jokes are extremely low and juvenile. At best they are just about sex and mildly distasteful. At worst they are almost disgraceful and embarrassing for any above the age of five. It's a shame because Myers can be a good comedian at times, as is evident because a few jokes and puns are actually very good.

Mostly it is a movie that should be forgotten as soon as possible. It should only be watched as a last resort and only if you're really tired and easily entertained. Because when you think about it, it is quite bad.

3/10


Why is it that the films and the actors from films in the 80's and 90's seem to be so unfunny now that you want to stab yourself in the face with a fork? Eddie Murphy, Robin Williams and now Mike Myers. All these guys need new material and good scripts to get their careers back on track. Please do not go back to Austin Powers, that series has been dried up and The Love Guru is just a rejected character from other ideas. Mike, you're a funny guy, let's see it eh? Jessica Alba does noting here, she is not funny and doesn't use her 'assets' to make me interested. I think she was actually relying on her 'acting' skills on this one. I never thought I would actually ever say this but, I was happy to see Justin Timberlake in this. He had some good moments of comedy, a lot funnier then Myers. Mike, the former N*Sync boy toy just stole the film from you.

Myers uses same old material, recycled and coming from a different 'approach'. You know how Goldmember used the same jokes as The Spy Who Shagged Me? Same stuff here, just in a different format. More short jokes at mini-me, more sexual innuendos with names and a wink at the camera here and there. Same old stuff we've seen before.

The scenes where the characters are playing hockey aren't even that good. They don't represent the game in any sense of realism. Guys are spinning and flipping everywhere. Usually sport scenes are thrilling, this one was a joke. The funniest bit involved the one and only VAL KILMER, who is in it for 5 seconds.

I guess if you think two elephants doing it is funny, then you'll enjoy this. for everyone else, just keep on keeping on.

What a horrible way to start the year off.


I enjoyed Selling Queer. I was familiar with the director's previous work and wanted to check it out. I think that people who are have seen the film and think that it is haphazard are the same people who didn't understand Pulp Fiction when it came out. The segments do jump around in a non-linear way. I got the connections right off the bat with a feeling of being at the event in some what real time. I loved the segments behind the scenes at the carnival and I especially loved the lesbian wedding segment. I thought it captured real emotion on the part of the women and drove home the sense of how much they loved each other. I also enjoyed the brief history of circuit parties. This film is not for everyone! I saw the movie with two straight friends and they also enjoyed it leaving the screening saying, "I didn't know there was so much to gay community". I never really let them in to my life in that way and in turn they never realized that there was anything to these kind of happenings besides people holding hands and singing. The film will definitely play better to a straight audience or gays who aren't directly involved in "being gay" in the ways portrayed in the film.


I've been to a few of these kind of pride events and think this film does what it sets out to do, it shows them for what they are. Nothing more, nothing less. I personally walked away from the film thinking that Rob Labby was foolish for risking his own money. After seeing this movie my partner and I went online and donated to our local GLCC, so if that's what it was about it worked for us. I read in an article online that 20% of the profits are going to gay charities, so I don't know why some of these comments talk about making a buck off the film. 20% of anything is much more then I would've expected, especially from a movie that's kind of a pet cause film. I'd watch the documentary again and suggest you rent it.


I recently saw this film at a screening in Philadelphia and think it was outstanding. Although some of the audio got wild in two spots where there was heavy traffic on screen and where some people started screaming, I think it was perfectly acceptable for a documentary. Someone commented about the film looking like it was shot with a handycam and I think that guy must be blind. Most of the footage looks great. I thought the story was well told and unfolded in three parts, what gay days is... it questioned if events should give more to charity and it ended on a kind of sad note about one of the main characters feeling like he didn't belong in his own community anymore. All together it was a good doc and I recommend it.


In the last few years there has been a huge surge in documentaries being released for the cinema. Films like "The Yes Men", "Bowling For Columbine", "Super Size Me" have all come out to an ever more hungry audience.

Selling Queer is part of this trend and not the best the bunch. I did enjoy this film more then I enjoyed the unrelated precursor, "When Boys Fly", but neither of these films really got me going.

Technically I'd consider the film on par with any other shoot from the hip documentary, so I have no real complaints in that department, but where I take issue is with the handling of the subject matter. I wanted to see more of evil people doing evil things. I didn't get that. I wanted to see all the terrible conspiracies at work on how big business is taking advantage of the little guy, but it didn't give that to me.

In a way I broke my cardinal rule of making up my mind over a trailer. I've learned not to get sucked in to the marketing of a picture, but I let my guard down. For that I can't fault the film or the director. As a matter of taste I thought the director did a smashing job with a project like this. I think gay pride is kind of obsolete in this day and age and he managed to make a movie that was at least somewhat interesting. I'd like to see what he does on his next film.

As I said before, it's kind of forced like When Boys Fly, but without the heavy-handedness. This film let's you make up your own mind about it without apologizing for that. Unlike colombine and some others who spoon feed you one sided muck. But as a stand-alone piece it could have been better. Kudos to the director for keeping me from walking out, but I've yet to see anyone tackle a subject matter like this and blow me away.


After hearing about this documentary on the right-wing radio show, Steve Brown Etc., I thought that I'd take a look. Was I ever impressed. Essentially, the movie sets out to expose problems within the gay community and their "pride events" in relation to charities. The concept at first glance can make gay people very angry about airing their "dirty laundry" and rightfully so. Robert Labby (one of the main characters) was trying to do a religious activity in the middle of Sadom and Gamora and failed. What I thought was most important was that this seemed to be a continuing theme. In the lesbian wedding segment we see the preacher from the Joy MCC church conducting the ceremony, after himself admitting that he too is gay. I don't know what the filmmaker's intentions were, but inadvertently he's created a wonderful illustration of how lost homosexual culture is, even beyond the typical stereotypes of drug abuse and sex addiction. It shows the culture to be apathetic and having the misplaced arrogance of a petulant child. There is nothing about the movie that reaches for situations where homosexuals illustrate how misguided their lifestyle is, all of it is natural and undoctored.

surprisingly, Robert Labby, the gay promoter documented in the film, was the guest on the Steve Brown Show, not any of the filmmakers. This made me curious to see what the movie was about. How could a gay man fighting for gay rights come down so hard on his own people? The answer is very clear if you see Selling Queer.

I highly recommend this picture.


I'd heard from a friend that he was offended, but I didn't think this poorly shot movie was worth getting worked up about. A went with a small group of friends, (both gay and straight) and we left before it ended.

As for being provocative, well, I thought it was pretty ho hum.

It seems as though the writers thought that anything showing gays would stir up interest.

I think the IDEA behind it had promise,

but maybe with more experienced crew,

it might have gone somewhere.

The narrator had a great voice, though.


This film was touted to be a Documentary concerning Orlando Gays Days, the Gay Community in Orlando and Big Business. Having viewed this film (wish I hadn't), I didn't come away with anything the documentary's name "Selling Queer" stated , except for one very short, very quick comment in the entire film. The comment was fast and was hard to find through all the choppy confusion. Selling Queer had absolutely no cohesiveness of structure, content and purpose. Sorry, it did have a purpose. The purpose was for some director(?) to make a quick buck off Homosexuality.

Renting or even seeing for free, Selling Queer would not be worth the effort. You would do better to burn the money in you wallet or purse rather than wasting it on this film.


A movie maker trying to make money by making a movie about people making money off of homosexuals.

I'm not sure exactly how to tell you my disappointment in this movie. Subject material and eye candy should be plentiful but somehow the director missed all of it. Was there a goal? Where's the story line? If all it takes these days to make an independent film is for some whack with a cheap handicam to wander around and aimlessly shoot people then suicide may be my best option. The sound is off for most of the film, the directing lacks direction, and the film could use a talented editor.

If you find this at a film festival near you keep this in mind -> You are better off brown nosing in the lobby with the real film makers.


In this country, Lucky Luciano is one of those 20s legends who have so often been glamorized in movies; we tend to be fascinated by such characters, and although films tend to either explicitly condemn them or show them coming to bad ends, they are among the most infallibly popular Hollywood staples. We also would concentrate on Luciano's years in America, which could be a familiar plot of the rise and fall of a gang boss. But Rosi's film begins with him leaving this country; it relates the long career that he had in Italy, in the drug trade, a time that Americans know little of -- it doesn't form part of the legend. Most of all, Rosi deliberately downplays the glamor. The drug trade is big business, and this middle-aged Luciano is a very solid businessman; the director (and the actor) have undercut the expected charisma. The efforts of police and government against him are portrayed as "factually" as possible (which makes aspects of their discussions rather unintelligible to Americans). Of course, all these things will make the movie seem rather boring to many viewers here! If you're looking for gangster thrills, go elsewhere; this is a movie of ideas, a critique directed at Italy in particular.


loosely focusing on Lucanio's life in Italy, this movie combines elements of documentary, gangster flick and political movie.

a Reality component is added to the movie by Charles Siragusa playing himself as prosecutor of Luciano. In the real world Siragusa failed to prove Luciano's involvement in drug trafficking from sicily into the US. and in this movie he seems to put an effort into using the results of his work to render luciano's role in the business.

in the first half of the movie there is an extended sequence about vito genovese's time in italy something that seems completely disconnected from the rest of the plot, no hints are given about his actual connection to luciano and his role in the Gene Giannini hit shown later in the movie.

things may be very confusing for viewer who doesn't know the biographies of people like luciano, vito genovese, joe pagano, meyer lansky and other mobsters as the movie constantly jumps between different periods of times, places and people without explaining their interconnections.

so that being informed on those characters should be necessary to understand what this movie is about.

for the whole time characters are elaborated very well and portrayed in a humanistic way supported by the brilliant soundtrack composed of a couple of 50ies jazz tunes and absolute top level cinematography.

the performances delivered by Volonte as Lucky Luciano and Rod Steiger as Gene Giannini are on a Level that remains to be seen in other movies.

culminating in the Gene Giannini hit where the atmosphere reaches a level of stunning dramatical density.


Despite its pedigree, LUCKY LUCIANO is not a particularly good movie. Gian Maria Volontè has the title role and he's fine, but the great Italian director Francesco Rosi has really misfired here. The film lacks all cohesiveness as it tries to bend time with various episodes in the turbulent life of not only Luciano but the entire Italian mafia. Volonte is gone for long stretches of the film and the likes of Rod Steiger, Charles Cioffi (as deported crime boss Vito Genovese) and Edmond O'Brien fill the voids. It's all pretty confusing rather than ambitious. The acting is very uneven. Steiger is hammy and O'Brien is all bluster while Cioffi is quite good. Rosi's direction features a number of striking images but they're obscured by the film's poor editing. There is a terrific score by Piero Piccioni.


This movie is boring. Plain boring, nothing else. And I've a great tolerance of movies that most people find boring.

I still wonder what I just watched. Is it a documentary? Most gangster films are pretty slow, but this one is more than that. All action happens in 15 minutes, then...nothing. It's like there was no editor, or that the material was shot for some kind of documentary.

Gian Maria Volontè plays his role very good. Rod Steiger is nice, but doesn't get enough time to be as great as he usually is. The rest of the cast is OK, not a problem here. Gangsters look like gangsters, cops look like cops and the dames are plenty.

For some seven years now I have been collecting gangster films, read books about the subject and even collected news articles about the mafia and such. Most of what I saw in this film is not new for me. Luciano was famous and is nothing short of legend these days. When he moved out of the US, he kind of got into the darkness. When this film dragged on, I saw some potential stories come by, but all just passed and went on. So nothing happened until the end where that thing happened that everyone that ever read a book about the mafia knows that happened.

The soundtrack doesn't help. Piero Piccioni can't even live up to his usual 'clone morricone' music and seems only to have written about 7 minutes of music.

The DVD I got was a UK version without any subtitle. I can watch English spoken films without much trouble, but half of this is in Italian, so beware! At first I feared this would have been a action movie disguised as a gangster film, but even that wasn't true. It is slow and all that. Of course, I never thought I was going to watch a true classic, but I almost felt asleep. Still, I cannot give it less than a 4. Gian Maria Volontè and Rod Steiger together in a film, and the sets were good enough. The production itself felt okay. So maybe they should have fired the writer and maybe the editor.

It could have been so much more!


When I rented this film, I did so on a whim, also because I knew a lot about the production from talking to many of the people who worked both on and off camera. I didn't expect much. In fact, I expected it to be bad.

I was happily mistaken.

This is one of the best modern tragedies I've seen in a long time. The fact that it wasn't a totally happy ending and that the main character paid for his crimes, even after trying to make everything right was poignant and well said.

I'd hire Tim Folsolme to direct any day.

The production value was very good and editing imaginative. The fact that they pulled this entire producion off with about 20 shooting days really testifies to the talent of the director, cast and crew.

Bravo to picture me rolling productions and the best wishes to Tim Folsome - I can't wait to see your next movie.


You can never expect much from a low budget feature. I didn't expect much when I first saw this movie. But time and time again, I'm reminded not to judge a book by its cover.

The script wasn't amazing, but it'll still surprise you. The acting was great with the exception of a few characters. Anna Maria Horsford, a veteran actor, was probably the best actor in the entire movie. Close behind would be Bizzy Bone and Alexis Fields. Everyone fit into their roles perfectly. Then comes the star, RonReaco Lee. He is also a great actor, but I don't think his all of his talent was showcased in this movie. At some points in the movie, he seemed out of his element. Some scenes just didn't seem believable. But.. With the exception of those scenes, he's on the road to a fruitful acting career.

Overall, it's a heart-wrenching movie. You usually don't find your emotions coming out while watching other low-budget flicks, but you will here. If you're lucky enough to find it on DVD, it's worth the money. It blew me away in my first viewing, and it somehow continues to today.


I've always been a fan of these low-budget, direct-to-video, B-movies. Independent films, such as this one, are usually a nice break from the shallow crap Hollywood churns out each year. However, the production quality is usually on par with a sleazy porno flick. But I was none-the-less shocked when I caught 2001's "Jacked" on Black Starz last night. Watching it, I knew not to take it seriously.

A gang-banger kills a policeman by accident. He returns to make nice with the family of the cop, and eventually falls for the daughter. All while being pursued by his murderous, Coke-addicted friends.

The truth is that they have a really interesting plot, which unfortunately isn't as polished as the characters. From the on-set, you get the immediate vibe that the entire film was rushed, and this shows in some of the editing and in the Broadway-like camera style -- that takes place mostly in a suburban house of the Barnes' family. But this is excused because it gives a truly realistic mood to an insane story. And, as I chuckled after viewing it, some of the gunshots by Zach(Bizzy Bone) are unintentionally hilarious. To be honest, his character as the villain is by far the one thing which brings parts of the story downhill, yet gives some humor for B-movie appeal. Watching him on camera (where he is high 90% of the time, and then pointlessly shooting thugs for the rest) gives you the distinctive image of Drexl Spivey from True Romance. And the end fate for his character seems choppy at best; could have been way more climactic, or at least had made more sense.

Now, for the good points, I was honestly surprised by Alexis Fields in this movie. Coming fresh from her years as a child-actor, she truly has great acting range, and holds the crazy gangster storyline in touch with the tragic love story, which is the focal-point. And her portrayal is the single memorable thing left in my mind the next day. Not many actors can both make a viewer feel sympathy and want for her to never find out the truth of her father's murder. Needless to say, I knew there would be extreme tearing from her in the ending. The mother offers a solid supporting role from "Friday" actress Anna Maria Horsfield, as the hooker/mom. While the brother is just dead weight in what is a neglected role. Also, I liked RonReaco Lee as the lead character, Dre. While you can see he is intimidated with some of the dramatics, he still gives a delicate character moral's, which make you feel emotion for his conflict in the sad ending.

But the best element here is third-time director Timothy Wayne Folsome -- who takes a Film Noir film, and weaves in some inventive camera shots and semi-predictable, but effective plot twists. He is someone that could very well create a future masterpiece if given proper filming time, and a reasonable budget.

Overall, good movie. But just doesn't live up to what it could have with some plot changes, and a more polished script. Still, worth watching on a bored afternoon.

***/*****


A pretty nice movie, not one of these typical "gangster and rap movie", it is actually quiet moving, and has an interesting moral in it. This movie is worth viewing. Acting is great too, really good young actors.


Wow, this is a must see for anyone. For what it was, it was a VERY good movie to see. Brings twists and turns, no way you can get lost in the plot. It really moved me personally. All of the actors did a superb job playing their parts! Bravo!


If you are from Columbus you would understand things a little better like Bizzy Bone's beef with the Detroit boys. Columbus Gang members use to war with the Detroit boys. it wasn't nice

a great story that could have been true.

We thought that it was true story until we ran into the people that made it and they said it wasn't.

for the record. the guys thought that house was a suburban house obvious haven't been here in the Ceo. that was the straight hood on the east side. some of the folks there just keep their house up.

I could see how some people not from here could miss some parts of the movie


The main problem with 'Jacked Up' is the incredibly unrealistic storyline. A boy 'accidentally' shoots a cop while stealing his car. The same boy, with a typically bad conscience, believes he should get to know the cop's family. The whole cast look older than the characters they portray are. For example Dre looks in his twenties when he has only just finished high school. It's small errors like this that are 'Jacked Up's' downfall. Another problem is the acting of the 'gangsters' in the story, their is know real evil in the characters. This makes some of the characters less believable. Other than these minor mistakes, 'Jacked Up' is an enjoyable film. A advise it to any viewer who can buy a copy from under £10.

8/10


I wound up with a copy of this film by accident--and figured I'd watch it before sending it back to the collector who made me a copy of this instead of the film I'd actually requested, so I had little or no expectations...just wanted to see what it was. The first few scenes take place back east and feature Robert Warwick, so I was thinking "oh no, another of those 'dude goes West' films." However, the film soon shifts into high gear with Warwick's death, which motivates George O'Brien to go out to Wyoming. There's some well-placed humor in the film, such as when O'Brien lands his plane in a lady's bathroom (!), but the film is as much a mystery as it is a western. There's also a nice "Bad Day At Black Rock" kind of feel to the small town in which O'Brien arrives, asking questions. The way the plot develops is suspenseful, and the finale, which ends cold right after the climax, is powerful. The film, as with most 1931 productions, has no music, so ending the film abruptly and in silence is a powerful technique. The heavy in the film is played by the young Humphrey Bogart, in what must have been one of his first significant roles, and he is menacing and intense, just as he would be a few years later in PETRIFIED FOREST. George O'Brien, best known today for the silent classic SUNRISE and for his work in John Ford films, can play an upper-class polo-playing young man, but he is also genuinely tough (not a surprise, considering he was a boxing champ earlier in his life), has a keen sense of humor, and has a warm screen presence. He's also a fine horseman. In under one hour, this film tells a complex story, yet is exciting and plays like a good mystery, though in a western setting. Some who aren't that familiar with early-sound films may find it a bit slow going, but it's actually quite fluid for a 1931 film, and I give it a full 10 star rating. It completely achieved what it set out to do and holds up well today. (interestingly, my copy had "fade in" and "fade out" on the screen in between a number of films--was this a television print with those meant for the local TV station projectionist???). I don't get the Fox Movie Channel, but as this was a Fox film, maybe it will be shown there sometime. Watch for it...and don't get up to get a soda or a snack. Watch it uninterrupted.


You'll want to see "A Holy Terror" if you're a Humphrey Bogart fan, but it would be incorrect to consider this a Bogey film. George O'Brien stars and portrays Anthony Woodbury, the socialite son of a father who legally changed his name twenty five years ago, and at the same time had William Drew (James Kirkwood) placed under surveillance. Adverse to publicity and never allowing a photo, Thomas Woodbury/John Bard (Robert Warwick) is seen only briefly on screen when he is shown going for a hidden weapon as Drew arrives at his estate home to force a confrontation. When Tony learns of his father's hidden past, he's determined to learn more about William Drew and the circumstances of his father's death.

The film's most interesting scene occurs when aviator Tony literally crash lands his plane into the home of Miss Jerry Foster (Sally Eilers). She begins a cat and mouse relationship with Anthony, who begins using the name Bard once he reaches Wyoming.

The plot of the movie gets muddied when William Drew asks his ranch foreman Steve Nash (Bogart) to bring Bard to the ranch unharmed. Nash has an underhanded side, and involves his partner Butch Morgan (Stanley Fields) in the endeavor. Since Anthony wants to meet with Drew, and Drew is paying Nash a thousand dollars to bring Anthony to him, there's no reason for Morgan to pistol whip Bard and carry out the request like a kidnapping. Obviously done as a dramatic element for the film, the tactic doesn't make much sense, other than to provide a reason for Anthony to arrange his escape in a dramatic ride on horseback, with a rather effective looking leap over Devil's Gulch that the baddies won't risk attempting.

The astute viewer can figure out the payoff - William Drew and John Bard were once in love with the same woman, who married Bard. But Anthony's father was really William Drew, and on that note the film ends rather abruptly.

"A Holy Terror" clocks in at just fifty three minutes, and that's probably a saving grace. The performances are rather stilted with not much more than the characters going through their motions. Bogart's turn as a bad guy is of some interest, building on the con man turn in his prior picture "The Bad Sister". It would be five more years before he gets his hands on a real meaty role as the villain Duke Mantee in "The Petrified Forest".


The only reason that most people will track down this minor Western is the presence of Humphrey Bogart in one of his earliest roles.

The Old West was never really looked right on Bogie and this performance, his first with Stetson and Six-gun, could be seen just as a dry run for his appearance as Whip McCord in the James Cagney vehicle 'The Oklahoma Kid'. In fact it was the first time Bogart ever appeared on the wrong side of the law and his depiction of a violent, shiftless man with no moral centre shows that he had this kind of role down pat five years before his breakthrough in 'The Petrified Forest'. He even manages to engage a little audience sympathy when constantly rejected by the virtuous heroine, a fact that also provides a little character motivation, unusual in a picture of this type. It almost goes without saying that he is really the only reason to watch.

Elsewhere George O'Brien tries hard to be handsome and charming in the lead role but is merely stiff and wooden, whilst Sally Eilers does a little better as the heroine. The story holds few surprises, and very little in the way of action or thrills, but the resolution is more original than expected. Technically, it's a little basic but some location work and the use of a few crane shots help a little.

If it weren't for Bogart this picture would probably be long forgotten and it really won't hold much appeal outside of his loyal fanbase.


Low budget action movie that tries hard to have some substance (but doesn't leave out gratuitous breast shots). While they scored some once successful actors for this one,the real draw is kick butt Cynthia Rothrock. Rothrock has done some movies that make this look big budget but she never fails to please...her acting is actually fairly good this time around and her martial arts skills top notch. Two major actors from Jackie Brown might seem to be a draw for renters looking for a good movie but be warned; this type of film is an acquired taste. For Rothrock fans, take a look through her filmography and you'll find a number of films where she's more prominently featured as well as early work she did in China.


I would like to say at the outset that even though I was disappointed that Cynthia Rothrock doesn't do more of her martial arts stuff in this film and I did think it a bit preposterous how indestructible Dakota Smith, played by Fred Williamson, appears to be, I enjoyed NIGHT VISION and am glad that it is a part of my DVD collection.

I was surprised that Robert Prentiss, who plays the 'Video Stalker' bad guy wasn't listed further up in the credits (his name isn't in the opening credits) as his character is very prominent. Prentiss can be a bit of a cartoon villain at times in this film but is very convincing as a psycho. In the lead roles as a pair of disgraced cops trying to get their acts together, Williamson and Rothrock are very good. Support is given to them by the excellent Robert Forster, but unfortunately he doesn't have much to do in this picture. I was a bit sad to see Forster here actually. Although I do like NIGHT VISION, it is very much a 'B' movie and after Forster appeared in Quentin Tarantino's JACKIE BROWN a lot of people, me included, thought QT would resurrect Forster's career the same way he had done for John Travolta and Bruce Willis when they appeared in PULP FICTION. But Forster is brilliant any time he's on screen.

The action is all handled brilliantly by Gil Bettman and the script by Michael Montgomery (who wrote another great overlooked action movie, EYE OF THE TIGER) has fantastic twists and turns in it. My only problem with the movie is actually the two jerk cops Bigelow and Johnson, who mock both our heroes. But at least they turn good in the end when they help the two nail the Video Stalker's crooked cop partner. I thought the black Dodge van which the Stalker travels in looks very menacing as well, and found it creepy how he seems to find out every intimate detail of his victims' lives. I think more could have been done with the plot line about the Stalker's mob connections, but overall, I rate NIGHT VISION as a brilliant action movie, and well worth spending 90 minutes of your life watching.


Unlike most of the reviewers of this particular movie, I'm really not the much of a Cynthia Rothrock fan, to say the least. However when I saw that the movie had Fred Williamson and Robert Forster (both great actors), I just had to watch the film. Williamson is a Dakota Smith, an alcoholic cop who is demoted to scrubbing toilets with a toothbrush and even worse having to team up with Cynthia at the behest of the captain (Robert Forster). Forster is always watchable, it's just a crying shame that the movie itself is so damn trite and clichéd. It also features one of the least terrifying villains ever to be committed to celluloid. Williamson would return to the Dakota character in a few more films, the next one being "Down N Dirty"

Eye Candy: Nina Richardson shows some T&A; Mary Kapper goes topless

My Grade: D

Where I saw it: Showtime Extreme


Fred Williamson, one of the two or three top blaxploitation stars. Cynthia Rothrock, one of the two or three top American female action stars. Imagine a film with these two together for the first time! Now imagine THE WORST film that could possibly be made with these two together for the first time. Welcome to "Night Vision". Of course, this movie was made in 1997 and they were both past their prime, but that doesn't mean they didn't have what it takes anymore - they just needed the help of good writing and direction. They got neither here. Rothrock does get to throw a couple of kicks near the end, but this film is so atrocious that you probably won't be awake to see them. (*)


Fred "The Hammer" Williamson delivers another cheaply made movie. He might have set a new standard for himself. Look for the painfully obvious special effects mortar cannon that is visible in the street during a chase scene. You don't see it just once, you see it several times. Look for the out of focus shot in one scene and the camera operator try to fix it as the scene rolls on. Watch this with a group of people and make your own Mystery Science Theater!


the only reason i bought this DVD is because cynthia rothrock is in it.now everybody knows she is the queen of martial arts b movies.the trouble is this is not a martial arts movie.cynthia rothrock has about a minute or so of fight scenes in this stupid movie.now if you were a film maker and you had cynthia rothrock in your movie would'nt you want to have a lot of martial arts action? all she does in this movie is walk around looking bored just like i was when i watched this pile of crap.i own a lot of her movies and they are all b movies but at least they had some cool fight scenes in them.if you are a martial arts fan avoid this no matter what.i'm still mad i wasted 4 dollars to buy this DVD


Trying to catch a serial killer, did they ever think of tracking the license plate number of the black van or fingerprint the video tapes he sent? Oh brother the plot of this movie was so full of holes it was pathetic. Now I know why there are bad movies in the world. This one however was one of the worst.


What is night vision? Well according to the star (Williamson) let's see...one package store owner says to him 'it's getting dark outside' to which he replies 'it makes for better.........'night vision.' What in the hell does that mean? In fact what in the hell is this movie trying to say? It has plot holes that you could drive the killer's van through. Not to mention a cop on duty drinking, Robert Forster sleepwalking through this bizarre attempt at cashing in on the serial killer craze, and a killer who videos his murders. That's actually all I remember.

The film took place in Texas, had a few car chases, and a clichéd ending. Perhaps if one watches this film with their eyes closed - it might be good? After all, without being able to see it....it would make for better.....night vision. Did that make sense? Nope. And neither does this film.


Most of the reviews I've read of this film use the word "powerful" to describe it, and I will too. It's powerful because it's realistic; no stereotyped good guys or bad guys here (it's based on a true story, after all), and yet plenty of cruelty and some kindness, which leads to an exploration of themes such as justice and mercy in a way that (at last) doesn't lead to boredom or cynicism. It's *not* a light relief to watch this -- but nor was Schindler's List, possibly the only other prison-camp movie which matches this one for exploration of human motivation and hope.

Oh, and it stars a crop of very respectable (and largely British) actors. Why, oh why has this never had a cinema release in the UK?


It was not until the end of the film that I discovered that this was a real life account of the horrors suffered by the allied POW's building the Burma railroad.

No film can ever show how terrible it was, despite the attempt to film in sequence with the actors dieting in order to lose weight as time went on. The actors would have had to do three years manual labor in the jungle heat for 18 hours a day on 1,000 (or less) calorie meatless slop, while suffering dysentery, beri beri, pellagra, tropical ulcers, regular beatings and other cruelty, all the time unaware of what was happening at home or how the war was going. They lived under the constant fear of being killed once they were no longer useful. By the time they were liberated the survivors were walking skeletons.

It is a credit to the filmmakers that this relatively low budget movie conveys this terrible period so well and the fo. This should be a "must see" in school history classes.


David L. Cunningham (Beyond Paradise) directs "To End All Wars" with such talent and assurance, I could swear he was a veteran behind the camera. The film is virtually filled with superb performers, most notably, Robert Carlyle and Kiefer Sutherland. The story is based upon the true story of Ernest Gordon (available since 1962 as "Miracle on the River Kwai", "Through the Valley of the Kwai", and "To End All Wars" among other titles) and is adapted by Brian Godawa.

At many points, the film can be extremely difficult to watch, showing many types of torture. Some people might classify this as a "Christian" film, but being the current state of that particular film industry, it would be an insult. In a recent interview, Douglas Gresham (the stepson of C.S. Lewis) said "We do not need more people making Christian films. We need more Christians making good films". And this film succeeds in that. Cunningham and Godawa make a *good* film.

I consider it no exaggeration to call this one of the top 10 war films ever made.

8.7 out of 10


i saw this film as i tend to like films of this type about humanitarian stories, the fact that this one is true actual events made it even more powerful for me. it truly does bring home the facts of what the men from ww11 endured to make our world today as free as it is, and it is films like this one that should be shown as part of history curriculum in high schools. the film was brilliant, brutal, honest, extremely well acted, filmed and managed to touch me to the point of tears. Robert Carlyle was fantastic, as were the rest of the leads, i would give this film 9 out of 10 simply because 10 out of 10 would be perfection and perfection does not exist.


After repeated watchings my rating may go up. I love the movie THE THIN RED LINE and this movie reminded me of it strongly except it did not have the excellent cinematography that film did.

I watched it because I like Robert Carlyle a lot and was not disappointed by his performance or any other of the actors on both sides of the war. The pacing was perfect and the violence was very brutal and sometimes unexpected but effective.

The message it delivered to me made the movie for me. Loving thy enemy. Just realizing that we are all just humans caught up in something we didn't start. I highly recommend this movie if you like a film made with compassion.


From the clash of the cultures, to the clash between the characters within the each cultures -amazingly well thought through and well written. Sutherland and Carlyle did a tremendous job . . . a powerful cast. True to the grim realities of war without being gratuitous - a refreshing dynamic! It's quite a different viewpoint of the same period as "bridge of the river Kwai" It seems like so many war movies are depressing, or even if they have real resolution, there is no real hope for the future. This movie uniquely brings hope regarding the human condition - even as men are ground within the mortar and pestle of war - they can look beyond themselves . . .to not only respect, but love their enemies.


It is hard to watch but has a lot of emotive issues which many can identify with. The university of the Jungle was inspired and empowered the POW's with a sense of purpose and hope. "Dusty" was almost over the top in his offer to be a substitute. Kiefer also had that same quality after he came to his senses. The credits at the end of the film showing both Japanese translator and the teacher being reunited at the cemetery was as moving as the film itself. It was pretty gruesome to watch the brutality being inflicted on the prisoners. What they accomplished in the building of the railroad through such horrendous and challenging conditions was extraordinary. The suffering of that challenge and the response of the prisoners to their captors certainly speaks for forgiveness. It is similar to the hearings in South Africa just a few years ago.


This movie is profound, disturbing, and most of all, inspiring. I continue to be amazed at man's inhumanity to man, and equally amazed at how some men rise above all of that to live and die with integrity. This is the true story of POWs in WWII. It will change you and challenge you. Everything about it is excellent-- screenplay, direction, acting, production value, commentaries. But be forewarned. It's brutal. This story was originally produced as "Bridge on the River Kwai," but this is the TRUE version. The original was changed and sanitized. I was especially touched by the several scenes near the end where characters reached their natural conclusion, and by the postscript, which brought the viewer to the present. This film is worth watching several times.


I have never had a movie have the effect this one had on me. This movie makes other movies look shallow and weak in my opinion. It made me really think about life, and the acting was so good. Not just another war movie, To End All Wars takes the true story of Ernest Gordon and veteran Argyle soldiers to the screen in a way that will turn your heart inside out. I honestly can't explain the effect this movie had on me, me and my friends sat silent as it ended out of astonishment. I recommend this movie to everyone I talk to about movies. It's a breath of fresh air because it makes some strong statements about morality and forgiveness, and is written beautifully.


I had never heard of the film To End all Wars when I picked it up at my local library because it looked like a good popcorn kinda war movie and had one of my favorite actors in Robert Carlyle. I must say how wrong I was, do not see this movie as a popcorn film, it is as far from that as something like Schindlers List. It is a very disturbing and powerful film about men mostly Scottish who are taken prisoner by the Japs in World War 2, and are tortured and forced to build a railroad to India on very little food. The movie is filled with great little things as well as all the great big things, my favorite is that one of the characters in called. He is called Yanker, as they say its because he's American and he's kinda a w_anker. The film is filled with wonderful little touches like this making what would have just been a very good film into a truly great picture and one of the best war films ever made.


This isn't a war film, it features in a time of was with POW's and their jailers, but it is at its heart about the magnificence of the human spirit. A marvellous example of hope. The worst and the best of the human condition is on display, it doesn't succumb to tricks or props, it doesn't need to, because what it has is emotion. Get out your hankies. Be prepared for marvellous performances by all of the cast, nobody stands out because that was the way it needed to be played.

This film is one of those you must see. I bought it for under £5.00 at my Choices video store, and what a bargain that was. Go out and buy this film now and add it to your collection.


If you are looking for your typical shoot 'em up war movie then move on to something else.

This movie shows what real courage is, and REAL COURAGE isn't always what you think it will be.

I thought one of the most poignant statements in the movie is "the ultimate destination of hate is self-hate." Many of the characters go through complete transformations throughout the course of the movie, and we get to witness this firsthand. sometimes we get caught thinking 'why would he do that' when a character commits a particularly selfless act, and I think that is a big part of the writer's intent.

There's a lot of historical, literary, and biblical allusions which add to the complexity of the movie, and ultimately I think it adds depth and helps us to understand the transformations of the characters.

The movie is all the more amazing when you consider it is based on a true story.

I would recommend this movie but beware it isn't a walk in the park to watch.


Refreshing? How can you call a movie with such graphic brutality and violence refreshing? Because it is a true story account of forgiveness. How can someone endure such pain, such torture, such inhumane treatment and in the end offer their brutalizers forgiveness. In our day and age of "dog eat dog" living, we need stories such as these to remind us that there is a better way, no matter what you have to endure.

The movie is brilliantly written and brilliantly acted. You will want your friends and family to see this film! It is extremely unfortunate that the makers of this film could not get the financial backing for it to appear in theaters, it would have surely been a hit. I look at some of the movies that are out there today and they are so disappointing. Please send a message to Hollywood and endorse this work of art that should have made it into every theater in this great land.


As a Pagan, I half expected the overt Christian themes of forgiveness and redemption to make me slightly uncomfortable, but such was not the case. The entire family applauded the end of the film, not wildly but slowly, with thought and deliberation. Quite frankly we were blown away! Kiefer Sutherland is one of my wife's favorite actors and was, frankly, the only reason I rented it. I am SO glad I did! I remember the moment, when they helped the injured Japanese, when I realized that "To End All Wars" was not so named as reference to the WWI slogan, but as subtle hint that the only way we, as a race, will ever outgrow war is when we all realize that we are truly killing our brothers and when we understand that the wars will cease. To kill the enemy you must hate him. If you can love your enemy you cannot kill him. More, if you can love you enemy more than yourself, he cannot kill you.


Firstly, I cannot understand the tired and cynical comments by 'Coventry' at the top of this page or the measly rating of 7.2 out of 10. 'An average war film' indeed  one has to wonder whether he/she actually watched it! You only have to read the comments by viewers on this page to see the truth  this is a brilliant and important film. It puts the typical 'Hollywood WW2 blockbuster' completely in the shade and shows them up for what they are  just entertainment for the unthinking masses and big profits for the film moguls.

This film shows how real and ordinary men behave in extraordinary circumstances and fortunately is devoid of the Waynes, Mitchums, McQueens, Hanks etc. and their like. I have to compliment the Japanese actors for having the courage to portray their fellow countrymen committing such awful acts of violence.

The film is very well acted and very thought provoking. The only criticism I can make is that (naturally) all the POW actors looked too well fed and muscular! The reality is that they were mainly skin and bone and disease ridden (shown briefly in black and white photos). I had a problem knowing which approach I would have taken under the same circumstances  the quiet forgiveness of your enemy or the burning desire to take revenge on them for perpetrating such hideous war crimes.

This film should be made compulsory viewing for every man and woman over 18 years of age. Perhaps then people would get some idea of what 'going to war' can lead to.


This is not typical Hollywood fare. "To End All Wars" is a redemptive story that features Greek philosophical musings about justice, great quotes from Shakespeare, and the teaching of Jesus about non-retaliation and love for enemies. All of this is set against the backdrop of the suffering endured by Allied soldiers in a jungle prison camp during World War II. The filmmakers provide a fascinating contrast between Eastern and Western cultural values, as well as between Christianity and the Japanese Bushido code of behavior. The movie shows clearly and refreshingly that the worldview of a people does influence its behavior, and that it is possible to judge one worldview as superior to another. It also shows that when human beings act selfishly, they lose hope and end up destroying one another. But when we act with sacrificial love toward each other, not only do we stand a better chance of living, we also keep from becoming savages. What a wonderful, thoughtful film! I heartily recommend it for anyone who is tired of the well-worn, formulaic movies that Hollywood seems to be cranking out these days. If you loved Mel Gibson's, "The Passion of the Christ," you will love this film.


I have not been the same since viewing this film. It is disturbing to be sure. But it is also a transforming film, one that pushes the limits and boundaries of what it means to live out one's faith. War is hell. Can forgiveness and redemption be found in the bowels of war? I am convinced that this film, based on a true story, proves it can be found even there. The actors -- an international ensemble from North America, Europe and Asia -- are superb. You forget you're watching a film. It avoids the political, I think. The Japanese characters were a bit stereotyped at first, but they became real, nuanced, textured, and very believable as the story unfolded. And the actual meeting of the two former, reconciled enemies at the end is a master stroke. The makers of this film strived for greatness in this film, and I think they achieved it.


Slow starting -- a little "artsy"

But -- Wow!

A Thinkers Guide to the Ethics of War. Invest in the first half of this film, and then, let the debates begin!

This is film rated "B" for Beware-it's-Brutal. But, if you're looking for Rambo, pass on this one. If you can look at all sides, trying to answer "why" the common man goes to war, this is it.

--Benjamoose


I've had a chance to see this movie twice: once in spring of 2003 and once last month. The impact was great both times and i was moved to tears watching it with my family the second time. I think the divergent views I've read here may be indicative of one's world view. Aside for the technical merits (it has been rightfully noted this was a lower budget movie), the themes explored here cut to the core of what it means to be human (pursuing beauty and truth while in a POW camp), what it means to practice forgiveness when revenge is exploding within you, and what it means to love without regard to one's allegiances.

I can see why some would counter that this movie was a cliché playing homage to virtue. But, considering it was a true story, I think it's appropriate to examine oneself against the choices made by these characters and ask what choices we would make. And how do we judge our response? Are we satisfied to dismiss nobility that withstood the crushing blows of torture simply because the "message" is too obvious? Or perhaps it might inspire us to rise above a Rambo-like response when faced with injustice. If we wish to advance our humanity we should strive for, not demean, noble ideals.

Yes, there is an underlying exploration of what it means to show Christ-like love in the face of brutality. What I appreciated is that examination seemed devoid of liberal or conservative manipulation of Christ's message. It simply took a tough teaching like loving one's enemy and showed what that might look like when humans do their best to apply that lesson.


My father was a prisoner on the death railway so the film had a special meaning for me. I think that it was a pretty accurate portrayal of what happened - obviously much more truthful than Lean's River Kwai epic. I don't think that it really had a message - other than to depict man's inhumanity to man. I did not find it uplifting in any way - and I am rather thankful for that. There can be no justification whatsoever for the treatment of the allied prisoners and local slave labour. The code of the Bushido might explain the obscenities that occurred - but it is not a justification. My father went to his grave hating the Japanese and that is hardly surprising. No forgive and forget for him.


In a time of shallow characters, cheap story lines and bubble-gum pop entertainment, this film is incredibly needed. The characters were rich and personable and the story was very moving. Anyone who truly takes this film to heart will leave with a different outlook on life. David L. Cunningham has masterfully crafted this work into a film that should not be overlooked, especially in our time.


I liked this movie because it deals with the great questions of life. Why do we have to suffer? How much pain and suffering can a man take before he kills himself? And why does the rightous man have to suffer? And also because it shows a lot of friendship and brotherhood amongst the POW's. One of the best films I've ever seen.


From the first moment Robert Carlyle's Character is beat to the ground for causing the Japanese guard to "lose face", I was hooked. Every moment I saw in this film caused me to be amazed again and again. A bit of insight was brought into Japanese Culture at that time as I watched these men who were completely alien to that way of life being forced to live under that system.

Cinematography wise, there was little to complain about. That doesn't mean nothing... It would take too long for me to go shot by shot, but one thing in particular which is good if you see a few scenes of it, but is annoying the first time is the frequent several second flashbacks... The first couple times I saw them I wasn't sure exactly what was going on (Particularly the fight at the food line) but after I saw it a few more times, I finally figured it out.

I don't have much to say about the score. It was good for it's purpose, and the Celtic theme was really interesting to me. Other than that, nothing spectacular (once again, low budget so no copyrighted songs, not that this needed any)

Kiefer Sutherland and Robert Carlyle were very impressive, but the one that blew me away was "Dusty Miller" who's real name I don't know. Maybe that's why he blew me away as I think he is an unknown. Cieran left something to be desired at times, but most of the time he was good as well.

Many of the Japanese soldiers were good too, but some seemed a bit overacted. The main Japanese guy who dealt all of the punishment seemed overacted most of the time, but the shovel scene really let me see into his character. The translator was very good and I couldn't find much to complain about him. All of the Japanese actors, of course, acted for Kurosawa, so you would expect them to be excelent, but their acting style may be a bit too old for this movie, though they may be quite impressive by themselves or in their element.

The message of forgiveness and reconciliation are very needed. I am very upset with an earlier reviewer who basically said if you felt like these people did that you weren't human... How dare he or she just discount something experienced in real life by the person who wrote the story. In contrast to that, the things Dusty and Ernie did were incredibly noble. It's not losing your humanity to forgive, but to eliminate the feelings of hatred in your life is to regain your humanity, remembering that the story was told as it happened.

That is probably the most amazing thing of all.


Story: In a world of relativism where anything goes and values are becoming personalized, this movie gave me a truly fresh outlook on old Christian and Buddhist values. In this movie, I saw the basic principals of goodness and value, which we all were taught as children, become relevant in the "real world" of that era-and most definitely more relevant today. Principals like "Do to others as you would have them do to you," "Turn the other cheek," "There is no greater love than to lay down your life for a friend." I walked away from this movie changed, and excited to know that I had just seen a standard set for society today.

Technical: The first time I realized that this was a low budget film was after I had watched it and heard the news from someone else. It didn't give away that secret during viewing. There were some problems with lighting and a really cheesy wheelchair. The music was a mix of Celtic and Far East, and I enjoyed it. I also liked how they chose to portray violence; they weren't graphic about it, but it wasn't whitewashed. There were also some new styles of filming which I found to be quite interesting. But, you'll have to see for yourself :)

Overall a great movie.


This film is raw and potent, a true testament to the terrible treatment of POWs in WW2 who were forced to build the Railway of Death over the River Kwai. This is not a perfect film, yet the power of the story it tells is so compelling that I cannot in good conscience give this film anything but a 10. I am glad I had a chance to see this film, to be moved to tears by it, and to hear the filmmakers speak about their experience making it.


What can I say about this film other than superb. I was in tears at the end of the film and had a lump in my throat at several other occasions. It truly dues make you think about your own life, the futility of war and humanity.

The scenes of suffering, hardship and brutality are equally mixed with mercy, forgiveness, kindness and hope.

With fantastic acting, and a moving soundtrack I cannot reccomend this film highly enough.

Watch, learn, enjoy and be sure to tell someone else about this wonderful film.