I don't know what's wrong with most of the reviewers here, but this film isn't even vaguely funny.

The plot line sounded like it might be a real hoot, so I thought I'd give it a go. What a mistake. Maybe if you're Jewish and/or are from Rhode Island you'd bust a gut watching it. I got suckered in the same way by "The Hebrew Hammer" which probably was hilarious if you were Jewish but pathetic if you're not.

A shame, because the basic story showed some real promise. Somebody with a bit of insight could have made a good indie film from it.

For me, it was just boring, pointless and stupid. Some here have called this a "cult" film. They couldn't be more wrong.

Waste of time.


I had never heard of this movie, but boy was I disappointed in it. The plot really didn't make sense, and the actors weren't really given enough decent material to work with. Actors like Michael Lerner (who I loved in Barton Fink) and Paul Giamatti (take your pick; he's a great character actor) were wasted in this seemingly pointless exercise in filmmaking. I think the humor was supposed to stem from the odd "situation" of two ordinary guys cracking safes, but it didn't ring true. Good or great comedy is supposed to make you forget that the situations are implausible or impossible, but "Safe Men" just reminded you the whole time that this could never really happened. It wasn't one of those absolutely painful films that makes you groan, but it is the kind of movie I just couldn't wait to see end. "Meet the Parents", John Hamburg's second effort as a writer is much funnier and much better, so don't count him out as a comedic force in the future, but BLEECH!


Pobably a whole lot funnier if you are more educated with, or involved in Jewish culture. Credit style was pretty cool.


Although I had some very high hopes for this movie, I was utterly disappointed. Maybe I had expected a nice sports-flick like the hilarious "Fußball ist unser Leben", I definitely did not expect such a shallow review of every single German post-war cliché. Count them, they are all there: the shell-shocked husband returning from a decade of Soviet labour camps, the wife who has grown independent in the meantime by having to run the family business plus the family itself, the son turned communist due to disgust for the crimes of his father's generation (and I would have liked to see that person put up communist party posters in a pub in the early 50ies, even in the Ruhr area... tar and feathers, anyone?). Add to that the entire "Wonder" of Bern myth (a fabrication of later decades) and the net result is a not too entertaining fairy-tale. If you want to see a good "sports" movie, watch "Fussball ist unser Leben" or, if soccer is not up your alley, "Major League". If you want to get a closer look at post-war Germany, there are also better movies around.


Terrible movie, absolutely awful! With a script that's just plain stupid and a clueless directing, the whole point of the film is silly. The characters are flaw, stereotyped and predictable; they act and evolve for no justified reason. Under these circumstances, even the good work put up by Paz Vega -great as usual in a character not so far from her usual roles- can't avoid the sinking of the ship. On the contrary, her partner Santi Millán becomes as clueless as the director; and it's even painful to watch a good slapstick comedian as Pepe Viyuela in such a stupid character. Mix all that in a story filled in with product placement and obnoxious commercials, and what do you get? 2/10, being generous. A comedy without even a good joke during all the movie? Definitely one NOT worth watching.


Al Pacino is one of those few actors whose career is so decorated and quality that you literally would see the biggest piece of crap in the world just to see what he would do in it. Over the years I've watched boring (Simone), long and preachy (Angels in America), and just bad (Oceans Thirteen, Two For the Money) movies primarily because he's the Godfather, Lt. Frank Slade, Serpico, and Scarface to me and he always will be. He embodies greatness and respectability, even in crap, and so I keep going back. 88 Minutes is not crap though, it's less than crap. It's amateur night at the script-o-rama.

Pacino plays Dr. Jack Gramm, a college professor who also works with the FBI as a forensic psychiatrist. When he receives a phone call telling him he only has 88 minutes to live, he must use his powers of analysis to save his own life. One possible suspect is Jon Forster (Neal McDonough), a serial killer who feels Jack manipulated the jury into sending him to death row. In addition, he also includes a woman he had a one-night stand with and a disgruntled student he slighted into his investigation.

The script by Garry Scott Thompson is embarrassingly, abysmally awful. It's so startlingly, unconscionably bad that after the first couple scenes, I was fascinated with the depths it was willing to sink too. Start with the tasteless opening scene. A woman is hung by her legs while a man cuts and rapes her. It's an appalling and uncomfortable thing to watch and above all it's not even necessary to show it. Moving on, the Pacino character meets with the D.A investigating the Jon Forster case in the next scene. It should be intense but the introduction of milk and cookies kills the momentum almost immediately.

The movie is a mess with background characters, all of which are underdeveloped and made to look like suspects. I understand the concept of adding red-herrings but when everyone from Jack's students to the campus security guard seem to be hiding something, it just gets absurd. And why does the killer try to kill Jack by blowing up his car and shooting at him before the 88 minutes are up? And why does Jack, a Forensic Psychologist, seem so skilled in handling a gun and acting like a cop? And what exactly is the killer trying to do here, frame Jack for murder by planting evidence or actually kill him? And why does Jack's teaching assistant (Alicia Witt) feel the need to bring up wanting a relationship with him right in the middle of them running for their lives? And why do we constantly need to be reminded of the death of Jack's sister by constantly flashing back to a little girl running on a beach. And of all the names you could have picked, why on Earth would you name a character Guy LaForge. This screenplay is just inconsistent and nothing is credible, even the initial threat is laughable in its execution And if you think you've already reached your ridiculous quota, just wait for the ending. It's an out-of-the-park homerun as far as retarded goes.

I was going to review the acting but since this is running longer than I expected, I just want to say that Pacino sleeps through the role and gets his paycheck and Leelee Sobieski is one of the cheesiest and phoniest people I've ever seen act. She should be acting in "Ogre 2" on the sci-fi channel, not anywhere near Al Pacino. "88 Minutes" is a movie of stunning badness. I found it hard to even keep track of all the ridiculous things that happen in it. It's still early but I would be surprised if I saw a worse movie this year.


Al Pacino has been a great actor. Maybe the best of his generation, but when was it? Watching 88 Minutes I kept wondering why he was unable to close his mouth. Well, he seems to have problems to use his jaw muscles to just "close his mouth". And when he tries to run or jump stairs, what we see is just an old man limping badly. Worst of all, he is no more able to act with any credibility. He tries to look young and full of life, but really looks like an rippled alcoholic. But the worst is, of course, the movie itself. Inane plot ("You'll die in 88 minutes but I will try to kill you before..."), bad cinematography (have you noticed how many phone calls there is in this movie? 30? 40?), filming clichés (everytime there is a car trip, the car is filmed from above. How original!). And Pacino is surrounded by very pretty (and young) girls who are in love with him. How pathetic. If you really like the "real" Al Pacino, don't even think to watch this film. You might be pushed to think that extraterrestrials have replaced him with a bad copy.


Hard to believe an actor of Pacino's stature could end up starring in this mess! The "plot" barely makes sense, and the roster of suspects makes it obvious right off the bat who the "mystery psycho" will turn out to be. Pacino is a Professor of "Forensic Psychiatry" (a specialty of dubious believability at best) who apparently works at a University with only one finished building where every student takes his class, and they all park in the same garage. Set in rainy Seattle, the biggest mystery here is why it is pouring on Pacino's speeding taxi, but once it rounds a corner an exterior shot shows a sunny day complete with pedestrians apparently staring and pointing at the film crew. Another head scratcher involves Pacino's ever changing hair length, style, and color all during an 88 minute period--guess he made a few stops at Supercuts in the midst of solving his own murder.


okay, no i don't really feel feel cheetah-ed, because i knew this was going to be really dumb and bad just from watching the commercials thay were running all the time.

this a movie about some annoying talentless girls and they're stupid band. they are all really shallow and spoiled and whiny; kind of like those rich Disney girls must be in real life, so that is why i don't understand how the acting sucks so bad because probably they are just playing themselves anyways. the music is nothing good or special but its so much easier to just cut into some dance video than have a script that is worth my time, so that's what happens in this movie. it is lucky for them that you can do a lot of things with sound equipment to make it seem like someone has an okay singing voice and mostly its little kids watching this, who don't care if someone is fat or can't act or the other girl with the butterface. there is nothing special about any one of them except they're mommy hired an agent or something and must of pid them really a lot.


I wasn't very excited to watch this movie when I first saw the commercials. It looked, to me, as if it would basically be the same story as the first movie with a couple changes. I was right. It started with them singing and dancing again, which is fine, it makes sense that a movie about a singing group starts with the group singing. The thing is, the opening scene was probably the best. As it went on and they called Spain at 4:00 AM their time, it proved to be annoying and unrealistic. If the auditions were already closed, then no matter how much singing you do over the phone, they won't submit you. That's just how contests like that are. The rest of the story was worse, as we watched the Cheetahs go through a lot of the first movie again, Galleria gets big headed and just wants to do Cheetah stuff all the time, and the girls have other interests to pursue, so finally Galleria gets mad and leaves, yet she comes back to them by a song. So you still have basically the same things going on with the girls (Galleria gets big headed and then humbled, Chanel struggles with parental problems, Dorinda enjoys dancing) with the addition of Aqua and her fashion thing. Aqua was definitely developed more as a character in this movie, but her lines were spoken as if she was delivering them to a six year old half the time (dancing cats and dancing counts?...) Her so-called awesome fashions for the end number were pretty ugly too. I have nothing against the actress, just the way some of the things she said were written or said. This was basically the same story as the first movie, but with a better location and a few new characters. Instead of the "evil" producer guy from the first movie trying to break them up you have the "evil" mother of the competition. Don't waste your time watching yet another Disney failure unless you have only half a brain and are under the age of 12.


This movie was neither worthy of loving or loathing, it just kinda 'was'. I found it more interesting trying to understand its writer than the characters. Had rented it on DVD, and after watching hoped that the commentary track with the star/author would illuminate. Not even. I couldn't begin to suggest if someone else will like this movie, since clearly everyone has their own reaction and some love it. While watching it wasn't boring, I can't say I liked it, despite being comfortable with off-the-wall material. But if you happen to have serious issues with homosexuality, you will probably NOT want to see this movie, even though it isn't about being gay in the ordinary sense. I never understand people who'll go to a movie like Threesome and then groan at two men kissing. Grow up already.

All the C&B men we see in any depth are disfunctional. Chuck and his bride-to-be barely communicate apparently, since she never knows anything until almost the end of the movie. Chuck is barely able to communicate period come to think of it, he's a man of actions not words... so I guess he really is straight. Buck is what the other reviewers say: creepy, pitiful, pathetic, etc., but I fail to understand how one would get stuck at 11 years old going through the US school system. If you go to middle and highschool, you WILL come out different than you went in. Too much happens, especially when combined with the hormone cocktail that is puberty. Did Buck just sit in the house until he was 22 when his mom got sick? There was little effort to explain all that either. I know guys who are stuck at 18, Hell *I* may be a guy who is stuck at 18, but 11? Just don't buy that.

*** PROBABLE SPOILERS BEYOND HERE ***

Its seems much more interesting things could have been done with this story. One of the cool things about Indies is that they can go out on a limb and aren't subject to test audiences, a requirement for happy endings, etc. And remember Fatal Attraction? Now there was a stalker! Buck a stalker? Eh. Kept waiting for him to do something extreme, but he never did really, unless the firecracker thing with little Tommy wasn't an accident. They could have had an interesting story arc if Sam had at first allowed Buck some latitude then got cold feet later, but they didn't do that. Or if Sam had been willing, but only for a one way 'relationship'. The actors playing Sam and Chuck are brothers in real life by the way.

And the ending is as rotten as could be. Did Chuck only let Buck do the one thing, or did they complete the lil 'Chuck and Buck, S--- and ----' rhyme all the way around? Did Chuck do it because he really thought it would end it all, or because he was many martinis deep and horny? Considering the kiss, one would think he really wanted to, since even when a lot of guys 'experiment' with other dudes, kissing is rarely on the menu.

In a deleted scene on the DVD, Chuck throws Buck out of his office, after their deal, so the deal couldn't have worked very well. If Sam didn't want Buck's advances, and knew he was sick (the stunted mental state, not any reference to being gay), why would he want him next door? What was the source of Buck's sudden emotional transition in the last minutes? Finding a new guy to obsess about just one door down? Finally getting that one (adult) sexual experience with someone he had powerful feelings for? At least I can relate to wanting an intimate connection just once when having a powerful crush on someone, but don't think that getting it physically would suddenly make it all better... probably the opposite. Or was his final awaking being threatened with bodily harm (again, the deleted scene)?

Even for somewhat disturbed people, all this does not make sense. If there is a message here, it is too jumbled to be useful. If I'm going to watch realistic disfunctional people with real problems, I'd much rather watch Six Feet Under on HBO. There's more depth in one episode than in this. Of course I might continue to watch a show with a rarely shaven, often shirtless Peter Krause even if it didn't have depth.

Chuck & Buck... Damn the luck. Mostly yuck. Did Chuck really suck? Why was Buck so struck? I'll never know, and come to think of it, I don't give a f---! If you haven't seen it and still want to, I wish you luck.


The subplot about the low budget theatre would have made a great comedy.

There were some very funny moments especially with the theatre manager and the actor who wanted Buck for a neighbor.

Unfortunately the main story line was not especially funny or frightening.

Chuck's wife seemed nice but boring; and Chuck and Buck were just boring.

And the movie was so unpleasant to look at that it was difficult to endure.


This is one of the most boring, dull, and worthless movies I've ever seen. 96 minutes felt like 96 hours. I have never been so annoyed with characters of a film, nor have I ever prayed for a character to be killed off before I saw this movie. It is a poor attempt at trying to be obscure, and it fails. It is a waste of time and money.


I can only assume people enjoyed this film because it gave them some kind of emotional response and it offers the illusion of depth and complexity where none exists, but "Chuck & Buck" is the kind of film that's more or less throttled independent cinema in its crib and paved the way for similarly dire work.

"Chuck & Buck" handles very serious issues: homosexuality, adolescent sexuality, obsession, and so on. I wouldn't dream of denying a filmmaker access to this kind of material, but the filmmaker should be using these tools to plumb actual depths, to say something or have some kind of viewpoint. This is the failure of "Chuck & Buck," and it's what makes the film irresponsible and frankly, bad. These issues are easy ways to push an audience's buttons, but the film reads like the tree rape scene in "Evil Dead:" it serves no purpose but to unnerve you.

It gets worse: the film isn't even competently made. While the acting is fine, the script is rife with implausibilities and inconsistencies, and Miguel Arteta's direction is painfully one note. The film makes no attempt to explain Buck's living situation at all and refuses to diagnose him. Buck exists as a halfway point between a fleshed out character and a cipher, and this unwillingness to commit to what the hell is actually wrong with him makes it impossible to deem him plausible or not.

Characters throughout the film will do things that seem utterly contrary to either themselves or common sense, and the infamous scene between Chuck and Buck late in the film is where it lost me for good. Likewise, the denouement of the film is far too pat for something like this, and mars an already stretched-thin credibility.

If the film had been merely bad I could ignore it. But it becomes more or less offensive when you consider the messages it essentially offers on homosexuality and to a lesser extent, women. "Chuck & Buck," whether intentionally or not, essentially equates homosexuality with mental illness and discomfort and never changes that tack. Likewise, the only female character the film seems to like/favor is Beverly, essentially a sexless, matronly creature.

My classmates seemed to enjoy the film, but I found it too reprehensible and poorly made to respond with anything other than absolute disdain. Avoid.


This is the story of two childhood friends, Chuck and Buck. Buck is a guy in his late 20s who lives with his mother. When she dies (and by this point, you can tell there is something "off" about him just by his reactions at the funeral), he invites an old childhood friend, Chuck, to the funeral. This opens Pandora's Box and sets off a series of events with Buck trying to somehow recapture some obscure childhood memories that he shared with Chuck.

Buck is in perpetual pre-pubescence, and while Chuck had moved away when they were kids and developed into a normally functioning person, Buck stayed behind in the town and developed a psychotic, homo erotic fixation for his old friend Chuck. All Buck seems to want to do is to revert back to the times he remembers when they were kids. Chuck may be able to fend off the guy at first by simply going back home to L.A., but when Buck moves there and injects himself into Chuck's daily routine, he becomes harder to avoid. Worse, while Chuck tries to avoid his exceptionally creepy friend, it becomes exceedingly difficult when Buck fails to grasp any sort of reality that things are different and forever will be.

Along with "A Thousand Acres" and "A Dangerous Woman," "Chuck & Buck" will remain, for me, one of those movies that was so creepy and disturbing that I never want to see it again.


My wife rented this movie based on the cover tease from Entertainment Weekly that said "Joltingly funny!" We watched 37 minutes, waiting for the laughs to start, before giving up. After reading the spoiler comments on this board, we definitely did the right thing. I guess "Chuck and Buck" is funny, if you're the type of person who laughs at the mentally retarded, or delights in seeing a sixth grade bully beat up a third grader, or maybe if you smoke a lot of pot. Also, if you want to see a Grade B actor doing a poor imitation of Tom Cruise at his worst. If you want to see a film about a disturbed man that really is funny, see "What About Bob." Don't waste your time on this.


Today I read some interesting reviews of this movie. I think a friend of mine said it best: Chuck and Buck is one of those movies where, depending on the mood you're in, you'll either rub your chin pensively, brow furrowed, and say "mmm-hmm, I see"; or you'll look at the screen in disbelief and say "what the H**L???" I'm in the latter group. I didn't find anything redeeming about this movie. I believe some people think they need to "appreciate" and "understand" a movie like this to prove that they are the true connoisseurs of independent films. Yeah, okay.


I watched "Chuck and Buck" last night for the first time.

The DVD cover presents this film as a comedy, but I found it deeply disturbing. It was actually hard for me to make my way through it... I was constantly tempted to skip scenes or stop the movie altogether. I didn't do either.

First, the good: the performance of Mike White, playing Buck, is truly amazing. You never catch him "acting," he has become Buck to a degree that's a bit scary. The soundtrack includes some great music. The production values are better than average and far beyond other low-budget indies.

The problem for me was the view it takes of gay people: the "arrested development" theory, the "they never grew up" bit. I understand that Buck is a single individual and I shouldn't over-generalize in this regard. But Buck is the only gay person we meet in the film, there is no gay or lesbian character in the script that would counter Buck's immaturity, to show he's as much an oddball to the gay community as he is to the straight.

And Buck is an extreme example. I read some of the comments on IMDb, who talk about Buck's "innocence." Innocence, my ass. Excuse my un-PC language: Buck is socially retarded to a degree that loses all charm and likability. Yes, he has the mental ability of an eight year old, and the concept has the potential to show a charming innocence. But Buck was and is an unlikeable 8-year old. I kept thinking that the screenplay would show us more about Buck so that viewers could come to care about him. All the screenplay is able to show is that he has no skills, no talent, no redeeming features. He's a one-dimensional character, striking the same note again and again, and I couldn't stand him, from beginning to end.

So here's a well-made film that includes an stunningly good performance, but its story is about a character that I wish I had never met, and certainly one I don't want representing gay people.


In this day where we are supposed to applaud the small movie maker and his quest to bring us something different, I have to vote nay on this piece here. From the Ooodley song which will forever be on my list of most hated things ever, (up there with Hitler and Astroturf) to the, well we might as well have one more night of sex, I just could not get into this movie.

Yes it portrays people in all their awkwardness and inability to come up with the right or clever lines to say at the right time but I go to movies to see that. If I want annoying or weird I will hit the local supermarket or Dollar Store.

That being said, I probably could not do better. Either way, not impressed here.


This was a spooky movie of someone trying to relive certain childhood experiences and the other trying to block them. It was really tense and creepy. I didn't care for the homosexual twists and conclusions; it could have been quite good without going into that territory. We all have childhood experimental experiences. I don't think most are gay ones, though. This ruined the flick for me, although I'm not really homophobic or have any particular stand on that topic. I just didn't care to get pulled there in this manner. Just beware.


The much overrated "Chuck and Buck" is a shoddy piece of work in almost all respects...lousy music, make up, cinematography, etc., so bad as to come off like a home video and an insult to the audience. Although the film has its moments they're few and far between simply because the story is so boring. One wouldn't have to be very creative to write a better tale than this sophomoric piece of gratuitous pathos about a sexually confused misfit stalking his boyhood friend. This film will play best with gays and the artsy/fartsy fringe.


I'm giving this movie a 3 only because some of the acting was good. Aside from that, this movie is crap. The plot is predictable, the main characters extremely unlikable, the situations uncomfortable and depressing and it has a totally unbelievable ending. Also, the movie has a vaguely homophobic feel to it and the grainy film stock really got on my nerves. This is one of those overpraised independent films that everybody will have forgotten in a year or two. Don't see it--unless you like being totally depressed.


After hearing so many glowing reviews, I was surprised how unpleasant this movie was. Unpleasant in a bad way. I did NOT find Buck to be all that endearing; I found him to be a really creepy jerk. I was not charmed by his arrested adolescence. I did not feel sorry for him because his affection for Chuck was not returned in kind. Yes, I've been in his situation, but I've never stalked anybody or insinuated myself into their lives. I found nothing to like about this movie.


WARNING: If you know nothing about the movie this review may contain some information which may spoil it for you. Be advised. This movie was horrible, from a crummy plot and bad acting to the poorly placed (and nonexistent in every review) homosexual theme. I bought this movie thinking that it was a black comedy as it had been categorized little did I know. If somewhere on the package it had stated that the movie was about a mentally challenged man, who learns to get over his obsession with his childhood best friend, whom he used to have sex with, I would have never made the mistake of shelling out money for this garbage.


Some films are so bad, they're good. Meaning "fun" or "entertaining" or at least "interesting"... But few films can claim to be so dreadful, you actually feel physical pain while viewing them. So bad are these damned few that you don't experience them or watch them: you "endure" them. This is the mother of all such films! "Deficit" is without a doubt the most inept and atrociously awful film ever made. Its poorness is so extreme that of itself it is the film's strongest selling emphasis. The script is non-existent, the acting makes Steven Seagal look like a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company and the editing could have less horrendously botched by a blind Eskimo with no arms. It is also painfully slow. this film makes its approximately 70 minute running time and make you feel like you've aged ten years. That's what makes a film truly bad: the fact that despite its overbearing weaknesses it isn't even entertaining!


The plot ...??? what plot? Discussing it after its screening last night, my friends and I decided that there was no plot, just some weak sub-plots. They are all over the shop. The race issue is brushed upon but it is not dealt with in any depth. As is said above, I don't mind a film about nothing if at least it is entertaining, but unfortunately this one fails at that too. There seems to just be little incidents with random dialogue in between. It just isn't consistent. Many things are hinted at but most are not fully expressed. I didn't care about what happened to the characters, there was never enough detail for any of them. In the end I felt I'd have enjoyed watching a party I'd filmed on my phone instead. Come on Gael, we know you can do better than that! :)


I'm very disappointed about this film, I actually expected something from Gael García, but I can say that without question is the worst film I ever watched: - There is no plot at all - The characters are very weak - The direction is awful, even Gael as an actor performs very bad - Edition & Cinematography are below an acceptable film - The difference between social classes in the film is not clear and it doesn't exist at all, in Mexico we can consider all the characters in the film from the same social class (only different life-style)

After watching it, you'll get the feeling that you were watching a home video of one of your so-so parties, because even most real-world parties are a lot more fun and interesting than this film.

Hopefully Gael will perform better in his next work.


I just saw this film at the International Film Festival in Provincetown, Mass., where the audience response was tepid to say the least. In short, the film is an astonishing mess -- plot less, desultory, self-indulgent, full of missed opportunities. The director and star of the movie, Gael Garcia Bernal, was there to talk about the film and answer questions after the showing. Tellingly -- but reassuringly -- he spent most of his time apologizing for the film, which he clearly realized is a disaster. That's the reassuring part: he confided that this was a first effort which started as essentially an "acting experiment" and only later took the form of a feature film. To say that this movie somehow gets at class divisions in Mexico is to give it way too much credit. It's mostly about a bunch of spoiled, nasty rich kids who could just as easily have been dropping pills and whooping it up anywhere in the U.S. or Europe. As for the missed opportunity, the one facet of potential interest in the movie is the main character, who's clearly a troubled young man with secrets and lies in his past. But what are they? Here's a young man with looks and wealth and friends to spare, but there's something about him that the movie isn't telling us. We keep expecting to find out, but alas we never do.


This story is Ah Moon (Chingmy Yau) and Wai, a young couple who move into an apartment in Hong Kong. The movie gets a little convoluted from there, as it seems Moon is having an affair with a guy who is maintaining the pool at their apartment building. I say seems because they are all of a sudden spending time together. I missed the connection, where it came from. Ah Moon dies in a plane crash and the pool guy spots Rosa (also played by Ms. Yau), who looks just like her. You wonder if they will have a relationship. There is a side story involving Tong (the always good Eric Tsang), who is a gay real estate agent. The also always good Sandra Ng plays a laser disc store manager. The problem is, Eric and Sandra's characters are kind of meaningless. Somewhere, there is an excellent film about tragically losing your love and encountering someone who looks just like her, to see if you can fall in love again. The film spends too much time on the relationship of Moon and Wai. I was waiting for Rosa to meet with Wai and see his reaction. Sadly, this film falls short, even though every actor I've seen before (especially Ms. Ng, Ms. Yau and Mr. Tsang) has impressed me with their acting ability. I'm sorry to say I cannot recommend this.


There's not much to be said about High School Confidential, a teen exploitation movie from the end of the fabulous fifties, except that it's hard to think that it wasn't just as laughable upon release as it is today. But some comments on its cast members may be in order:

	Russ Tamblyn was a child star, then primarily a dancer. This `dramatic' role fell to him between his memorable assignments in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and West Side Story. He's not at all bad here (in an badly written and implausible role), but was never able to establish himself as a serious actor, though he continued to work, showing up notably decades later in Twin Peaks.

 	John Drew Barrymore had just taken up his middle name to distance himself from his legendary father; in earlier roles (The Big Night, While the City Sleeps), he was billed as John Barrymore, Jr. Here he brings off an eerily precise impersonation of Elvis Presley, speaking both in hillbilly accent and in basso-profundo register. (Alas, he does not sing.) It's clear he inherited the family talent, which he was to squander, because he also inherited the predisposition to chemical experimentation.

	Jan Sterling seemed destined for a bigger career than she ended up with. The high points of her filmography  Billy's Wilder's The Big Carnival/Ace In The Hole being the most impressive of them  were behind her, and she was taking secondary roles to the likes of latter-day Joan Crawford ( in Female on The Beach). Here, as a schoolteacher, she not only does a riff on Eve Arden's Our Miss Brooks character, she even looks like Arden.

	The late fifties were the blazing noon of Mamie Van Doren's fling at playing third-string sexpot (after Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield). All Dagmars and platinum hair, she was rarely called upon to display what might have been a comic talent, visible here in fits and starts. Her role as a married nymphomaniac whose attempts at fulfilment  absent her husband  seemed doomed to disappointment is practically a clone of the part she played in The Beat Generation, a slightly more interesting vehicle that covers much of the same ground as High School Confidential.

High School Confidential remains notable from a view of drug trafficking and the process of addiction that had advanced not a whit since Reefer Madness in the thirties. And of course its view of teen-aged life in the second Eisenhower administration bears not the slightest resemblance to any reality  then or now. That said, it's fun to watch.


This movie is deliciously dated.

The dialogue is outrageous - especially the scene in the classroom when one of the male students talks about Christopher Columbus going to that "deep pool" of the Alantic Ocean with his "non-stop studs" - which now, out of context, sounds more like a line from a gay porno flick instead of a 1950s b-movie (!).

Like many teen romps of the late 50s, the sound track is way cool, with Jerry Lee Lewis doing the opening theme song.

Lots of fun. Mamie Van Doren as always, is a treat. The cast includes a lot of people who were in a bunch of 50s flicks together - Jackie Coogan, Russ Tamblyn, Jan "Female on the Beach" Sterling, etc.

If you like this film, you'll also like Mamie in "Girls Town".


The only thing that High School Confidential has to offer is Jerry Lee Lewis singing and playing the piano in that unique style of his. But Jerry Lee had the good sense to confine himself to singing and not attempt any dialog.

High School Confidential is the story of new kid Russ Tamblyn in the high school. He starts heading for the dope smoking crowd and why wouldn't he since Tamblyn's an undercover cop. He gradually works his way up the food chain of druggies until he can find the adult pushers who are corrupting the morals of those Eisenhower era youth. Wait till you see who the head of the gang is. Here's a hint, he's in a profession that isn't exactly unknown for its use of marijuana.

Jan Sterling plays the role of interested and concerned teacher and she's clearly getting rid of some last picture commitments on an MGM contract. As is Russ Tamblyn who was finding it more difficult to get work from MGM since they cut back on musicals.

John Drew Barrymore is positively embarrassing in his role as a high school kid, he clearly looks way too old. But you got to love Mamie Van Doren as Tamblyn's 'aunt' who tries to seduce him since she's not getting any because her husband has flown the coop.

This one should have been released as satire since that's what the producers unintentionally got.


Silly exploitation movie. It's about tough kid Tony (Russ Tamblyn) going to live with his nymphomaniac aunt (Mamie Van Doren) and attending a new school. He meets the head kid J.I. (John Drew Barrymore), gets involved with his girlfriend Joan (Diane Jergens) and gets involved with selling drugs. But Tony may not be who he seems to be.

At times funny but mostly boring teen flick. This throws reality out the window right at the beginning with Jerry Lee Lewis on the back of a truck (with a band no less) "singing" a tune and all the "high school" kids (they're easily all in their 20s) start dancing! The 50s slang is way out of date and makes most of the "teenagers" sound like a bunch of idiots. The story is predictable and the attempt to sell this as a serious drug movie are just laughable. And seriously--Russ Tamblyn as a tough kid?????? He's terrible but he's totally miscast and the dialogue does him no favors. Barrymore adopts a hysterically stupid Southern accent and Van Doren shows off her "assets" by wearing VERY tight shirts! Sterling and Jergens try to act but nobody could make this work. I suppose this might be fun for some people but I was mostly bored. Might be worth catching to see some of the actors so young and Michael Landon in a small role but the dull story, bad acting and real jaw-dropping vamping by Van Doren make this a chore to sit through. I give it a 4.


I just finished watching "High School Confidential" on TCM, and it's even worse than I remembered it was when I first watched it 50 years ago at a Drive-In theater. I knew how misguided the plot was even back in 1958. Being a 16 year old teenager at the time, it bugged me, because the movie in no way represented my generation. Like the guys I hung around with, we all felt that it was just an older adult's impression of what they thought it was like, to be a teenager at the time! Talking' jive, Beatnik poetry, grown adults playing the part of teenagers, using expressions like, "Crazy man", "I dig it the most", and "weed-head!" Hot Rods and Roadsters were popular at the time, but no teenager trying to be cool, would be caught dead driving a Chrysler Imperial Convertable as his car of choice. Even worse, the film promotes the false impression that smoking a joint is highly addictive and causes one to become totally drug-crazed, ala "Refer Madness." And that those who do smoke a joint, automatically move right on up to heroin afterward. I think movies like this one, did little in trying to persuade teenagers in the 1950s to be good, because they failed to keep it real. It was so over the top in every way, that it ended up being a comedic parody of itself.


This is probably THE most pseudo-intellectual show on television, and easily one of the dumbest.

People can argue all they want about whether this is a rip-off of Mythbusters, the fact is there's no competition: Mythbusters is the better show hands down. Mythbusters is a lot smarter than this, the hosts are more likable and funny, and it doesn't resort to big-breasted woman and explosions to get viewers.

I'm surprised people think this show is intelligent. You can enjoy it all you want, but don't call it intelligent. "Hey, let's see what happens when we use a flame-thrower on a stereo! WOW! It catches on FIRE!" If you want to watch something that requires no thought, there's nothing else on, and you have nothing else to do, then and only then do I suggest that you watch this show. Other than that, don't bother.


The only thing I can really praise about this film is that for a feature film made with a $3,000 budget, it's a respectable achievement that should inspire other film makers that it is possible to make a film on a practically non-existent budget. And the type of film that Scott Ryan has made is perfect for a low budget film, a gritty documentary style. Its a style that suits the budget and available equipment. Other than that, however, there's not much else.

This film tries to give the impression that it is a documentary following in the footsteps of a Melbourne hit man named Ray Shoesmith as he goes about his business: killing people. The documentary maker Massimo Totti follows Shoesmith around asking question and filming murders.

In one key scene that typifies the whole movie, Shoesmith and Totti are driving in a car at night through the Victorian countryside with a drug dealer in handcuffs locked in the boot of the car. Shoesmith and Totti are arguing about whether or not Clint Eastwood was in The Dirty Dozen. Shoesmith stops the car, opens the boot with gun in hand and asks the captive in the boot if Clint Eastwood is in the movie. This is basically what the entire film is about: showing a hit-man and his victims casually talking and discussing pointless and irreverent topics like their favourite cars, football players and what they want on their hamburgers. Other glib scenes involve Shoesmith telling Totti that he's not going to share a bed with him in a motel if he takes his pants off. Scenes like this, of meandering vacant ramblings, are given a large amount of time in the movie, and my guess is they're supposed to be funny scenes. Other lengthy scenes involve Totti asking Shoesmith how much money would he have to be paid before he would eat human excrement and why has he never been to the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. 85% of the film is made up of scenes like this and frankly it gets really boring.

Scott Ryan gives a decent performance as Ray Shoesmith, but there is a problem which affects the whole movie. There are no characters or characterisations in this film. The characters are portrayed as superficially and rather clichéd. There is no depth in this film whatsoever. In this "documentary" we never learn why Shoesmith is a hit-man, we never learn who he kills and why or how he feels about it, we never learn who he works for and we certainly never learn what makes him tick. All we get to find out about him is that he hasn't the slightest conscience of killing people (in fact the whole thing means very little to him) and he thinks he's rather funny. He indulges in inane chit chat about pointless topics. I think what Scott Ryan is trying to do here is make a joke, the one joke this film is about: a hit-man who is an average bloke who talks about mundane things.

Unfortunately it fails on almost all fronts. In fact, its the worst aspects of 3 different types of cinema. It's not particularly funny, it doesn't work as a 'documentary' because you learn nothing slightly interesting or fascinating about the characters nor do you gain any insight when you see them or him in action, and the acting is so unnatural that it comes across in some parts as a bad improvisation game, it doesn't work as a gangster film because the majority of the film is spent on dull conversation.

This film is called the Magician because obviously like Shoesmith's dead bodies (which you never see but he does talk about) he makes things disappear, however a Hit Man knows how to hit his target, something this film certainly failed to do.


A typical Hollywoodesque formula comedy/drama sports feel-good schmaltz - but this time from the usually more offbeat Aussies. Complete with an awful, overly sentimental soundtrack next to which even Coldplay seem lively and heavy. The female part of the cast is interesting/good, but the male part, which dominates due to the subject matter, is quite apathetic - which is weird considering that they all play Aussie-rules rugby; one would think they'd have more life in them than to constantly mope around, looking depressed. The movie uses all the clichés and plot-devices that there are in order to hopefully press all the "right" sob-buttons, which makes me wonder for whom this movie was made. Women? Well, I certainly don't see guys getting excited about this story, except if they're similarly goofy misfits like most of the rugby-playing protagonists here. We've got a girl with asthma, a semi-retarded gentle giant, an old man in a nursing home, a player's girlfriend in jail, unemployed bums and a drug-addict seeking a new chance in life, and then the obligatory big-match finale. You get the picture.


Anh Do's constant spruiking in the media about what a come-from-nothing, refugee, westy battler he is, which by the way is true, only serves as a cop out. Positioning himself to get away with making such a crap movie. While the background of struggling underdog is certainly there, make no mistake, the accolades and experience are certainly there too. Khoa was widely praised for his previous film, "The Finished People" for which he won the independent spirit award and was also named as "Young Australian Of The Year" and Anh was also "Stand Up Comedian Of The Year" a few years back and is an accomplished stand up comic. My question being that with all this industry cred and decent financial backing and casting... couldn't they have put together a kick butt film. Answer: Apparently not.


Oh God! Where to start?

Africa a couple of thousand years ago: Natives dance and beat drums. Aliens arrive in a huge disco-light and are greeted by the chief. The aliens present their half of a weird key and obtain something from a mysterious underground chamber. As they take off the ship is struck by lightning and crashes. Kaboom!

Africa the present day: A husband wife archaeological team are digging the remains of an ancient hill top site. The husband is convinced aliens visited the place many years ago. The wife is sceptical. The husband goes to visit their photogenically dying son in hospital. The wife finds half of the the mysterious maguffin alien key. She faxes a scan of it to her evil boss (we know he's evil because he's got a beard) before driving to meet her husband. Deep underground in the remains of the space ship, one of the alien droids wakes up and sets off in pursuit - stopping only to learn English by reading the label on the bottom of a fax machine and donning a nifty flowing coat that just happens to be his size.

Lady archaeologist is attacked by droid. Lady Archeolgist escapes. Lady archaeologist tries to deliver maguffin to Evil boss's henchman but sees droid and runs away. From here to end of movie car chases, guns, and explosions in random order until everyone ends up in another mysterious underground chamber just like the first one (they built a spare?) where the maguffin key thing turns sunlight and cave water into THE ELIXIR! More shooting. All the bad guys die. Alien droid finds his home planet is no more and gives THE ELIXIR to the archaeologists to cure their photogenically dying child. Roll Credits. Take DVD out of player. Throw DVD in dustbin. The End.

Dumb dumb movie. Which is a pity. The camera work and locations were great, some of the acting was adequate. Someone spent some money on this. But the script? Oh so bad bad bad bad bad it was beyond a joke. No one could deliver that stuff.!

Stupid unanswered questions include (amongst many many others):

How did the lady archaeologist send the email? Every time she tried to call anyone local over the windup telephone we had an 'amusing' interlude with the ineffectual local operator, and her rustic plug and wire switchboard, yet emails zip across the world to evil masterminds in seconds, complete with colour graphics and computery pinging noises.

How can hired killer goons miss EVERYTHING they shoot at even armed with automatic weapons? (Mild mannered archaeologists, on the other hand, can knock people dead from vast distances with one shot from vintage service revolvers they've just picked up.)

How did an Alien race capable of interstellar travel manage to get anywhere with shuttle ships that fall out of the sky when struck by lightning? Normal commercial civil jets are usually struck about once a year, which amounts to about once every 3,000 flying hours, and will frequently trigger lightning by flying through clouds. Pretty dumb bunch of aliens. Very dumb movie. It lowered my IQ by several points.


Dumb as hell. Stupid. A plot that's the same as a million other badly-made movies you wish you'd never watched. Someone nice finds something. Some one nasty wants it back. Someone else nasty also wants it to make themselves powerful. What makes this movie slightly different i suppose is that two nasty people each want what the nice person has found instead of one nasty person. I wasted an hour of my life watching this nonsense before i gave up. And it's racist: African people are either savages smeared in dust, lazy, or dependent upon westerners for their livelihoods. Don't bother watching this. It's rubbish.


I saw this as "Alien Chaser," but it is still pretty bad. Some interesting direction and good African locations are negated by an amateur cast that must SAY EVERY WORD LIKE IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION IN THE FILM. The scene where the lead actress talks to herself after her truck gets a flat should go down in B-film history as one of the most ridiculous episodes ever. Space Maggot spews forth a 1 on this.


Have you ever read a trade journal? One of those magazines meant expressly for plumbers or welders and never intended for the general public? Full of weird lingo and with content so intensely fixed that it becomes almost comedic? This movie is a little like that. Made in the 1970's with a modest budget, this stinker is entirely about CUSTOM VAN CULTURE. Airbrushed unicorns, feathered hair, racing stripes, CB radios. And don't think for a moment that this is some kind of quirky, ironic documentary. It's a really bad narrative piece of fiction. There's sort of a plot. I think somebody has to win a van contest or something similarly morbid. There's a wacky professor that designs a van that shoots lasers for some reason. The soundtrack is all 70's soft rock about Vans. The ridiculousness of the whole thing shoots through the roof when Charles Bukowski wanders drunkenly through a party scene wearing a shirt that says "Water boy for the wet T-shirt contest" (maybe they lured extras by advertising free beer). Whoah man, this movie is so bad it feels like getting clubbed repeatedly with a dead howler monkey just trying to watch it. Of course, if you can stand it, and if you are a connoisseur of bad films, this one is pretty funny in its patheticness.


Way back we had a list of worst movies ever and Supervan was number one that list. It says lots about this movie. True classic and a must for everyone who likes bad movies. I mean what can you expect from a movie about a van. The best part of the movie was a scene where Supervan tried to get over a little hill and couldn't even accomplish that little task. Is there something else to say about this masterpiece? If you ever get a chance of watching it, do it. It's worst movie ever in the history of worst movies ever, which includes almost every movie ever made of course. On the other hand, the minimalism Supervan is offering is somewhat refreshing at the standards of modern flicks. It's like three chord rock n'roll song which includes everything vital and at the same it is plain nothingnes.


This movie seemed like it was written by someone who had seen too many "spring break" movies of the 80's, yet they wanted to do something "serious" -- no gratuitous sex/nudity, etc.

Honestly, the only reason I watched this movie was because Mark Harmon was in it - for like 3 scenes. I always wonder why celebrities would appear in such bad movies. Hard to believe that Mark Harmon is THAT hard up for work. Maybe this was a favor to someone?


This movie comes on cable every once in a while, and I'm drawn to it like a moth to a flame. I know it's bad for me, and I still can't stop. The characters are one-dimensional and annoying, young people don't really talk like this ("Cab service on this island leaves something to be desired" -- aaugh!), and scenes obviously written to be hip and smart alecky come off as forced and trite. Stuff like this is enough to get me to swear off indies forever.


"Double Agent 73" is an amateurish and inept movie, yet there is an honesty about its amateurishness and ineptness: you get the feeling that the people involved didn't want to cheat you, they really did try to make an espionage / action movie, they just lacked the talent and budget required. Sure, you could complain all day long about the pointlessly long shots of, say, horse-racing, or the sped-up "car chase", or the lack of logic in the story, but you also have to give credit to the film's creativity: it's not every day you can see a punch with the breast replacing the fist, or death via ice cubes stuffed into the victim's mouth! Chesty Morgan gives a somewhat catatonic performance (she's no worse than anyone else in the cast, mind you), and there can be little argument that her breasts are unerotic (bigger is not always better), however she does have a pretty face and nice legs. (*1/2)


So hard to rate. I want to give it a low score for being one of the worst films I've seen in ages. But I want to give it a high score for being absolutely hilarious. I guess it all depends on how you take the genre. If you're a fan of grindhouse and low-budget exploitation flicks, look no further. If you don't get why people find bad movies good, maybe this isn't for you.

While I think Chesty's unfeasibly large breasts were somehow supposed to be titillating (excuse the pun), they're actually rather unfortunate. As the plot revolves entirely around her hauling them out at every opportunity, it's a bit like watching a car wreck. You want to look away, but can't. Her 'acting' is self conscious verging on just plain scared.

The cameraperson hoses their rig around zooming and panning with total disregard for their shadow. If they'd been able to afford a mic boom instead of badly overdubbing, I'm sure the camera would've caught that too.

The cutaways are absolutely classic. Found footage is spliced in with total disregard for what's around it. My favourite scene involves a car blowing up. If you look really closely, you might just notice it's not the car they were driving. Especially as it's a different colour. And make. And it's not in the same place

In short, Double Agent 73 is pure genius. You couldn't make a movie this bad if you tried. And that's exactly what makes it so good.


MASTER PLAN: run a heroin ring, avoid the breasts. There's a special agent out there, this film tells us, who has mammoth breasts and can kill criminals rather effortlessly. She's sent in, taken away from her relaxing vacation, to break up a heroin ring. Her boss has a camera implanted in her...left breast, so she can take photos of her targets, usually after they're dead. The agency is looking for the criminal mastermind, who has a t-shaped scar on the right side of his face. Yes, there is an actual plot to this, but it proceeds at such a limp pace, I feel they should have concentrated more on meaningless sex scenes. In fact, when the two main characters get down and do it, the scene cuts just as they start, a baffling methodology of the director and editor for a supposed sex spoof. The filmmakers are more intent on letting the movie camera linger on those huge breasts, whether the character is speaking on the phone or whatever. The director also likes to concentrate shots on arbitrary objects in the scene, or a little dog on the grass, for no reason. This could be instructional for film students on how not to shoot and edit a film.

This is, of course, a continuing attempt to capitalize on the James Bond-type spy thriller, going all the way back to such female Bonds as "Modesty Blaise" and the similarly no-budget "Girl From S.I.N." Agent 73, as played by Chesty Morgan, does assassinate various characters, but she acts out the killings in such a lifeless manner, beyond just being casual, you get not so much as a chill as just a sense that the actress can't act worth a damn. She previously used her breasts in "Deadly Weapons," actually smothering people to death; here, it's more standard, like garroting someone with a cord, though there's one scene involving ice cubes which is different, if still dull. In the end - and here is the spoiler - she finds out who the master villain is and, with the usual lack of emotion, shoots him as he asks her to marry him; my only thought was, why would this guy want to marry this freakish zombie-lady? At this point, the film lost all credibility, ha-ha. Also, to get any enjoyment out of this movie, you have to be the type that really appreciates overweight women who keep swinging grotesquely pendulous breasts in your face, ad nauseum. Heroine:1 Villain:2 Femme Fatales:1 Henchmen:2 Fights:1 Stunts/Chases:1 Gadgets:0 Auto:1 Locations:1 Pace:1 overall:1


What the ...? That's all I can really say as an introduction. I have little to no idea why this film was made and if the director honestly thought men would find Chesty Morgan an erotic performer. Maybe this was all one big prank, ala Andy Kaufman. Who knows. All I can say is that this is one of the most bizarre, inane, and insane sexploitation films ever made. I haven't seen "Deadly Weapons" but apparently its even worse (if thats possible). This is something akin to watching a freak show.

I should mention Chesty Morgan around now. This is a woman with a bust that made Anita Ekberg look like Winona Ryder. Chesty was a stripper with an all natural 73 inch bust. I'm a fan of well endowed women, but that is just a bit too much for the average man's liking I would suspect. Seeing her naked is an absolutely disgusting experience. Thats why the film is appealing however. Its so gross and so stupid it becomes a painfully funny viewing experience, a real cinematic train wreck in which nothing seems to be competently done. Attempting to explain the plot would be in vain, because this film was made solely to concentrate on Chesty's breasts.

As fascinating as Chesty is, a good deal of what makes this film so bizarre is Doris Wishman, the director. Allegedly the most prolific female filmmaker of all time, she was certainly an unique auteur. The low budget is more painfully obvious in this than most pornography. Because of issues with post-dubbing, Wishman had a tendency to concentrate on random objects (animals and furniture being a particular favorite) whenever a character is talking. Also, she would use the same room for multiple sets. That's why the spy headquarters in the film look like a used car salesman's office. If you want to see an almost competently made film of her's (meaning its a good film with bad production values), check out "Bad Girls Go to Hell". "Double Agent 73" is of interest to any vintage exploitation fan. (2/10)


Please don't pay too much attention too the extremely low 1/10 rating, as "Double Agent 73" is nevertheless recommended in a very culty kind of way, but I simply can't bring myself to donate a positive number to such an utter piece of amateurish trash! This isn't really a movie; this is a weird homage to two enormous and hideous bags of fat that are supposed to look like breasts. I can't possibly imagine that there are men (or women?) out there that get aroused by gigantic cup sizes like this, but this film as well as its predecessor "Deadly Weapons" was a modest cult-hit in the bizarre sexploitation-circuit of the early 1970's. Chesty Morgan is the worst excuse for an actress ever, but her breasts are like smörgåsbords for weirdies and she doesn't mind walking around with them exposed. She's supposed to be a brilliant undercover spy, assigned to clean up a network of low-quality heroine dealers. With a hi-tech camera implanted in her boobs (!), Chesty sleazes her way through the horny bad guys. This is quite an exceptional piece of distasteful cinema. Whatever is said or done, the camera ALWAYS zooms in on Chesty's chest (although the nipples are located somewhere in her waist-area)! It feels like director Doris Wishman, or any of the producers involved, don't even want you to care about the plot. The incompetence of this film is hilarious. Not only Chesty's acting is embarrassing, but also the rough editing, the dialogs and the handful of gory killings. I suppose this counts as one of those movies you have to see in order to believe, but if you don't have a particular weakness for low-grade cult, I'd say skip it.


I must confess I don't like Mexican movies. Quality is the main issue. Anyway, I must recognize there is people out there trying to make decent films. While we have great directors like Cuarón, Iñarritu, Del Toro, etc. we still have their counterparts who try to keep 'cine mexicano' being as bad as it has been for so many years. It's a shame 'Pajarracos' was on a film festival. It's a shame we show this to foreign audiences. Please don't judge Mexican films from this movie. It would be pretty unfair for lots of talented Mexican people waiting for an opportunity in the film industry. (sorry for any mistakes on my English =P)


If you don't want to lose your time don't watch this movie, I can really say it's one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

This story is supposed to be funny but it is not, not even because of the bad language used that is supposed to be funny you can really laugh.

The only good thing are two of the actresses that are beautiful, but just that.

I thing there are great Mexican movies but this one cannot be included between them, If you are looking for good Mexican movies look at Amores Perros for example.


Saw this one at Guadalajara Movie Festival. Utter crap. Bad acting (for most of the part), horrible photography and one of the worst excuses of a script, even for Mexican cinema standards. It's evident that the filmmakers were trying to appeal to the public using lots of Mexican pop culture references (lucha libre, drug cartels, many b-movie comedy icons from "cine de ficheras" era), but ultimately without an at least coherent script, they failed miserably and should NEVER be given any more precious money to waste in this kind of turd.

Recommendation if you did not get my subtle opinion: avoid like an Uwe Boll movie.


I've seen hundreds of films at the theater and this was one of only two during which I actually fell asleep. Steve Martin and Bill Murray, along with the Dentist song, try to salvage an otherwise slow uninteresting film. In my book, this is one where the original was more enjoyable.


Yes, everyone, Rick Moranis is pretty funny. Steve Martin- pretty funny. The plant's voice- pretty funny. None of them funny enough. There is pretty much one part of the movie that actually makes you laugh, rather than asking you to laugh as charity. This is the Bill Murray cameo, in which he goes contrary to everyone else's reactions to a dentist, is hysterical, and makes one marvel at how a part with little or no lines can be that funny. However, I suggest you mute the television whenever they start singing. Whoever plays Audrey, combined with Rick Moranis, sounds like cats being tortured. Whenever a musical number finished, I would sigh with relief that a moment of horror was over. It's good enough to watch if you are planning on performing in the musical, but not a good leisure activity.


A re-make of the very popular off-Broadway (and off-off-Broadway) show and 1960 film, Frank Oz's attempt at an off beat musical comes off as silly and ridiculous.

In order to enjoy this movie you would have to love musicals, wacky humour and you would also have to forgive the leads' less than impressive voices. Rick Moranis is Seymour Krelborn, a pathetic little shop assistant who discovers an unusual plant with an even more unusual appetite.

This is a musical comedy so the plot doesn't matter anyway. Sadly though it does not work as a comedy, and I have never had much time for musicals. Some of Alan Menken's music is quite catchy, especially "Mean, Green Mother", and the scenes involving sadistic dentist Steve Martin and masochistic patient Bill Murray are indeed very humorous. These would have to be the only two pluses though, in a film that is just too corny and stupid to be considered entertaining.

Sunday, January 16, 1994 - T.V.


My dislike for musicals is well documented and this one is no exception. Though this one did feature a rather funny performance by Steve Martin. Without him the movie would have been completely unwatchable. As it is, any scene without him is rather boring and lame. I just had the hardest time watching this thing. The story has some 50's style to it, and it may appeal to people who liked that age. However, it is a musical so it was not going to appeal to me.


talk about STUPID movies, this one sure as heck is, it is SO dumb.. too bad "Audrey 2" didnt eat the whole cast !! i still dont know why i rented this silly movie.. Steve Martian was so weird in this one.. as was Bill Murray... what were these people thinking when they made this movie??? Pleaseeee give me a Break !! My advice.. DONT rent this dumb movie.. it belongs in a land fill !!!


This film is a musical about a shop which contains a giant talking plant, and a geek who fancies this blonde bimbo, who has a nasty, spiteful boyfriend.

I have never, ever seen such crap in my life. Full of cheesy songs and I cringed whilst watching this, and then fell asleep about 40 minutes through. What a waste of my time that was! It is embarrassing to watch, I don't see how anyone could watch this film in the privacy of their own home without cringing and turning the TV off.

My advice to anyone wanting to see this film: Don't waste your time. This film is appalling and absolute garbage.

I rate this film 0 of 10, and that's being generous!


A bad remake of a bad 1960 film, somebody inexplicably decided that it would play better as a musical. It doesn't. A really weak plot about a carnivorous alien plant made all the worse by putting it into musical form, thus treating us to Rick Moranis' singing "ability". Far worse than the original for just awful acting performances, a miserable score, and laughable special FX. I would not even consider seeing this turkey again unless somebody held a gun to my head or the head of a loved one and forced me to. Since that is unlikely, I am thankfully done with any involvement with this pitiful failure of a film.

1 out of 10. only because they won't register a zero.


My best friend and I have agreed that this is the worst movie we have ever seen. 17 years later and I still shudder at the memory of having seen this in the theater. Stupid doesn't even begin to describe this movie. Two hours of my youth I will never regain. I suppose, though, everyone must have a benchmark 'worst movie ever' to compare all the other movies you watch to. I have seen some other bad movies in recent years, but nothing comes close to this crap.


I really hate saying this about 70's Brit horror butthis is a very, very BAD film! Everything that could possibly go wrong actually features here in this lame horror vehicle. A really bad basic idea, for starters, handling about Joan Collins giving birth to an (unusually big) baby possessed by evil and controlled by a dwarf Collins once spurned. This film 'borrows' style and script elements from Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, Don't Look Now, It's Alive and even tiny details from Hammer and Amicus successes. The screenplay is extremely poorly written and Peter Sasdy's directing is the worst of all disasters. What happened to this guy? He was responsible for an endless amount of great TV-movies and a few downright classic Hammer titles (like 'Countess Dracula' and 'Hands of the Ripper') but, ever since Doomwatch, he just seems to make crap. This production is very banal, not the least bit scary or atmospheric and the bloodshed is kept to a minimum. It looks like this film is blessed with a terrific all-star cast, but everybody is performing far below their normal acting skills. Donald Pleasance looks dead long before his character is actually slaughtered and Ralph Bates' character is far too fake. Eileen Atkins triumphs as the worst cast-member though. She stars as an Italian nun (?) and speaks with the most atrocious accent I ever heard. The only one that gets a little sympathy is the beautiful Caroline Munro as the sexy cabaret dancer. I don't Want to be Born is a giant disappointment in every respect and better left unmentioned. Avoid!


It's funny how Joan Collins has obtained a certain amount of respectability after having starred in MANY terrible films, such as The Bitch, Empire of the Ants and I Don't Want to Be Born. Oh well, the public is fickle.

So why did I hate this movie and yet took the trouble to review it?! Well, it's because it falls into the "it's so bad that it's funny" category. So, despite giving it a one, I strongly recommend you watch this crappy flick--then Plan 9 From Outer Space, The Apple, Roller Boogie and Jet Pilot. All are so bad and so amateurishly done that they can't help but illicit belly laughs! The plot all boils down to a tiny little baby who is possessed by an evil dwarf. So, as a result of a little black magic, the tot obtains magical powers to murder!! And, boy can he murder! The kid can run, fly and do almost anything EXCEPT kill the idiot who wrote this pile of drivel--this SHOULD have been the kid's FIRST victim!!


Joan Collins plays a stripper named Lucy. At the club, a dwarf worker tries to sexually molest her. She spurns him and he curses her to have a baby possessed by the Devil. A few years later she's out of the business, happily married to Gino (Ralph Bates!) and pregnant. The baby is born (after an extremely harsh delivery) and immediately starts acting violently. It scratches, spits, bites and starts killing people! What to do? It's a good thing Gino's sister is a nun, Sister Albana (Eileen Atkins), and has a few ideas.

This is reasonably well-directed, looks great, has some good acting...but that's it. Collins is just fantastic in her role; Donald Pleasance equally good as the baby's doctor and Atkins (wisely) doesn't take her role too seriously. But who thought having Ralph Bates playing an Italian was a good idea? He looks miserable and his "accent" is hilarious. Atkins (who is also British) does a better job of it--but every time she says "devil" it sounds like "davel" and is (unintentionally?) hysterical. And Caroline Munro is on hand in a nothing part--but she looks just great.

The script is dull dull dull. There's not enough material here for 90 minutes. It's filled with people endlessly repeating the same lines (I heard "the baby is so big" so many times I was ready to scream!) and has tons of filler with people walking around. I got so bored after an hour I basically started to fast forward through this.

The baby's attacks aren't really shown (until the end)--we always see the aftermath and we NEVER see the baby doing it. Also, the film is relatively bloodless until the last 15 minutes which throws in a couple of nice gory murders--but it's too little too late.

All that's left about this movie is some very good acting and a VERY cute-looking baby. That aside--forget it.

Rent "Rosemary's Baby" instead--you'll be much better off.


I DON'T WANT TO BE BORN

(USA: The Devil Within Her)

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

A nightclub stripper (Joan Collins) is cursed by a dwarf (George Claydon) whose attentions she spurned, and she later gives birth to a murderous baby possessed by a demonic spirit.

Clearly inspired by the contemporary vogue for satanic shockers, this slapdash concoction - memorably dismissed by UK journalist Nigel Burrell as a 'crapulous farrago'! - was thrown together by Hungarian director Peter Sasdy, previously responsible for such superior offerings as "Taste the Blood of Dracula" (1969), "Countess Dracula" (1970) and "Hands of the Ripper" (1971). Here, his contempt for the material is obvious in the weak storyline, feeble horror scenes and lackluster staging, and his concessions to the exploitation marketplace (strippers at work, a gory decapitation, etc.) are shoehorned into proceedings with reckless abandon.

Quite apart from its ridiculous premise (unlike the mutant creature in Larry Cohen's similarly-styled IT'S ALIVE, sweet little babies simply aren't frightening, no matter how much filmmakers try to make them seem otherwise!), the movie is further stymied by indifferent performances and half-baked characterizations: Collins runs the gamut from A to B and back again, Donald Pleasence provides little more than marquee value as Collins' doctor, and Ralph Bates (playing the heroine's husband) is a blank slate throughout. Hilary Mason - the blind lady in DON'T LOOK NOW (1973) - plays the wary housekeeper, and Eileen Atkins is Bates' sister, a nun who performs the commercially-dictated climactic exorcism. Support is offered by Caroline Munro as a fellow stripper (though she looks far too glamorous to be playing such a lowbrow Cockney strumpet!) and Euro-favorite John Steiner as one of Collins' former boyfriends. There's enough campery to entertain die-hard fans, but the sloppy production values and leaden pace will certainly limit the film's appeal to anyone else.

Oh, and watch out for abbreviated prints: If you don't see the head come off in the aforementioned decapitation sequence, you're viewing a censored version...


I DON'T WANT TO BE BORN stars Joan Collins so right away you've got a problem since Joan Collins is unable to play any character that isn't Joan Collins . A lamb to the slaughter ? Mutton dressed as lamb more like as the whole film seems to have been produced so that Joanie can appear in a scene dressed in her underwear . Actually she was 42 when this was produced and she's amazingly attractive for her age , unfortunately that's not a good enough reason for making this movie .

Caroline Munroe also appears in a supporting role but that's still not a good enough reason to make this movie . If the producer wanted to meet some fit woman perhaps he should have gone to the local disco ? You think I'm kidding about the producer's motivation ? I'm not because this is one of the most totally inept British movies from the 1970s . The script is abysmal with a vigilante nun and sundry other characters screaming " He's tha DEV-ILL " at every opportunity , some really crap acting with Ralph Bates playing an Italian with a Yiddish accent , and some dire directing with a dwarf lying in a pram . The worst aspect has got to be the editing especially the scene where a character hits their head on some rocks . Or at least I think that's what happened since the editing leaves us none the wiser .

Oh and I wish to correct what some people have claimed in their suggestions that this rips off THE OMEN or ROSEMARY'S BABY - It doesn't , it's more like a precursor to BASKET CASE . And it stars Joan Collins


Unbelievable tosh concerning an over-sized baby being possessed by a malicious dwarf. Yes, that really is the plot. I'd love to see this remade by the League of Gentlemen but I doubt they could make it funnier or more bizarre. This infant pushes people to their deaths, lynches his 'father' (played by Ralph Bates with a strange Italian/Scottish hybrid accent) decapitates Donald Pleasance with a shovel and has enough strength to drag his victims out of sight. Laughable dialogue and some strange accents, including one English actress being dubbed by another one, plus some comical 'special' effects make this entertaining for all the wrong reasons. Oddest of all is how so many top notch actors got involved with this drivel which could hardly have looked good even in script form. The scene where Joan Collins is touched up by a dwarf has got to be one of the most ludicrous scenes ever committed to celluloid. Hard to rate but 0/10 as horror and probably 6/10 for entertainment. As it happens I saw this just after Death Wish 3, so obviously there was a 'so bad its good' theme that evening.


Horror films were a major feature of the British cinema in the sixties and early seventies, largely because such matter could not be seen on television, the broadcasting companies regarding it as being unfit for family viewing. "I Don't Want to Be Born" (aka "The Devil Within Her"), clearly shows the influence of "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Exorcist", although the film to which it bears the greatest resemblance, in terms of its story, is "The Omen". Yet as it came out in 1975, a year earlier than that movie, it clearly cannot be an "Omen" rip-off. Perhaps "The Omen" was an "I Don't Want to be Born" rip-off.

Like "The Omen", "I Don't Want to Be Born" involves a devilish child with a symbolically significant name. In "The Omen" he is called Damien, obviously a play on the word "demon". Here he is named Nicholas, presumably a reference to the fact that the Devil is sometimes referred to as "Old Nick". (I often wonder how this usage arose, given that Saint Nicholas, aka Father Christmas, is one of the most beloved saints of the Christian Church).

Nicholas is the son of Lucy, a former nightclub stripper, and her husband, a wealthy Italian businessman living in London. (At least Lucy is assumed to be a stripper, although from what we see of her act it does not actually involve taking her clothes off. Joan Collins, at this point in her career, seems to have been rather more coy about nudity than she was to be a couple of years later in films like "The Stud" and "The Bitch"). The title refers to the baby's reluctance to come into this world; having been thrust into this vale of tears against his will has obviously had a deleterious effect on young Nicholas's character, as in the first few weeks of his life he proceeds to slaughter everyone who comes near him, including both his parents, his nanny and the doctor who delivered him. The only person who seems able to control him is his aunt, a nun who flies in from Italy to act as exorcist.

I was a teenager in the seventies and recall constantly being told by my elders and betters that my generation were all a bunch of hooligans. Numerous explanations were put forward for this supposed epidemic of juvenile delinquency- boredom, youth unemployment, peer pressure, drugs, alcohol and the permissive society- but the cause of Nicholas's bad behaviour seems to be something more exotic, namely a curse placed upon his mother by a lustful dwarf whose sexual advances she rejected. The said dwarf is employed by the nightclub to prance around on stage while the girls are performing, although it is never explained why the club owner assumed that this bizarre diversion would increase the erotic allure of their performances.

Although the film contains some well-known British actors of the period, including Donald Pleasence, Eileen Atkins, Caroline Munro and Ralph Bates, none of them bring much conviction to their roles. (Bates seemed to specialise in horror films- he also acted in "Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde", and this is referred to when in a hospital scene we hear an announcement for a "Dr Jekyll". The family's housekeeper is called Mrs Hyde). Collins looks incredibly glamorous for a woman in her early forties, but nevertheless manages to turn in one of the worst performances of her career, even though she could at times be very effective in horror films like "Tales from the Crypt".

"The Exorcist" and "The Omen" may have their faults, but they are technically well-made films, well-acted and at their best genuinely scary. "I Don't Want to Be Born" is none of those things. It is a the sort of trashy low-budget horror flick, thing that the British film industry could churn out by the dozen and which generally showed that industry at its worst. The one good thing about it is that it came towards the end of the British horror boom. The genre declined in importance in the second half of the decade, largely because the broadcasting authorities were becoming more permissive about violence provided it was shown late at night, and in the eighties the industry, freed of its addiction to horror exploitation movies and silly sex comedies, underwent a revival when it returned to making intelligent and watchable films. "I Don't Want to Be Born", however, serves as a reminder of just how bad British cinema could be at its nadir. 3/10


Lying uncomfortably between barely watchable and so-bad-it's-good comes The Monster aka I Don't Want To Be Born aka The Devil Within Her. A British rip-off of Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist and many others. This has a good cast with (a still looking good at 42) Joan Collins, Ralph Bates, Donald Pleasance and horror-eye-candy stalwart Caroline Munro. Collins plays an ex-stripper, now married to Italian Ralph Bates and the film starts with Collins going through a difficult child birth, or so we're meant to think. If that was meant to be bad, Mrs Steamcarrot must have been giving birth to Godzilla with our first born. Anyway, because of turning down a dwarf's advances the child is cursed to be possessed by the devil. In reality the ankle biter only has huge strength and a nasty attitude. All scenes of the 'demonic' brat hurting or killing people are off-screen. You see Collins recoiling in horror with scratch marks on her face, then cut to a picture of a very-undevilish baby looking all cutesy. Or a hand reaching out and shoving a nurse into a pond then cut back to cutesy kid, pram blankets unruffled. I don't mind a bit of suspension of disbelief, but this takes it too far. Anyway Ralph Bates' nun sister arrives, sporting silly accent and working at an animal testing laboratory (!), and thinks Collins' suspicions of possession is probably right. But she waits until everyone is killed to perform a simple exorcism that kills the cursing dwarf and returns the baby to normality. Why didn't she do that when she first arrived? No idea, it was only a bit of Latin and placing a cross on the forehead. This is a very silly film with hardly any redeeming features. Plus points include an unintentionally hilarious 'erotic' dance with said dwarf from Ms Collins, some nice shots of London and that's about it. Oh and the soundtrack to the lovemaking scene gave me a groaning chuckle. A disappointing 3. Director Peter Sasdy is capable of much better.


An ex-stripper who has now settled down with her husband gives birth to an uncontrollable, monster of a baby that's growing bigger and stronger everyday. This puts a lot stress on the mother and father, as strange occurrences and violent actions are caused by this baby. Making the mother believe that the baby is possessed by the devil, which a dwarf she used to work with - had cursed this evil spawn onto her.

This newborn has the strength of a thousand man, although looking at it; it probably doesn't know that. Most times it looks clueless, but that's just ploy to surprise it's victims with it's amazing abilities! Your probably bemused in what I've written so far, but that's how you're going to feel when watching this quite silly, out-of-control baby horror flick. But that's the best way to take this rib-tickling, exploitation mess. The serious temperament that's laid out doesn't do the aimless structure much favours and makes it even more unintentionally funny. As you won't be on the edge of the seat for this one, but you'll be cracking up at how poor it is, or maybe you'll be out like a light in your cosy chair. It can go either way. For me I found it poor, but kind of entertaining in certain purple patches. Although, it can be quite drawn out and you can call the disappointing ending rather anti-climatic.

The odd mixture found in this English horror is easily influenced by such films in the period like "Rosemary's Baby" and "It's Alive!". The groovy 70s holds a psychedelic awe here, especially with its snazzy and quite jerky music score. The pizazz of the bold score is just relentless! The empty story is simply a gallery of routine nasty shocks and not much else eventuates in this dismal vassal. Even the careless direction twaddles along with many shabby touches and the dour looking background of London paints an sordid product. But still in patches in delivered one or two eerily, hasty scenes involving a graphic decapitation and trippy dream sequence. There's also some scenes involving women being in the buff, because of the main character's ex-occupation. But more often you'll be waiting for something different to happen and the constant flashes of the dwarf's face on the baby when it's chucking a hissy fit and knocking off the unexpected victims it's just far from menacing. Ha.. Ha! Now that's more like it. Well that's what any sane person would do because you'll be struggling not to find this whole concept to be simply droll. This violent, tantrum wielding baby just strikes the fear in the hearts of people that's if you can't stand cute looking babies, or (oh no, how terrifying) parenthood.

The performances by a decent looking cast are pretty much middling stuff. It's suspiciously campy with many awkward and REALLY repetitive lines of dialogues. No one entirely looks that comfortable with the farcical material. There's a special guest appearance by Donald Pleasence who gives a collected performance as Dr. Finch. An over-the-top Joan Collins does her best (yep, she tries real hard) in the emotionally, wayward lead role of Lucy Carlesi. Ralph Bates is dead as wood as the husband Gino Carlesi. Eileen Atkins plays the concerned Sister Albana. Caroline Munro has a small part as Lucy's friend. John Steiner is fitting as the sleazy ex-boss / boyfriend and Hilary Mason as the disgruntled housekeeper.

Horribly poor and it's lulls about in spots, but there are certain aspects within the film that makes it watchable.


This film is a blatant rip-off of both "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Omen" and if thats not bad enough, it's deadly dull. Story is about a woman named Lucy Carlesi (Joan Collins) who has a difficult birth to a boy and even Dr. Finch (Donald Pleasence) exclaims that "This baby doesn't want to be born". The baby doesn't waste any time scratching his mother and instantly she realizes that he's not a normal child. Her husband Gino (Ralph Bates) talks to Dr. Finch and he assures him that the baby is fine and that they can go home. At home the baby cries weirdly and when he is checked they notice that his room is tore up. After all these things start happening Lucy remembers her days as an exotic dancer and a dwarf named Hercules (George Claydon) who worked with her and one day he put some sexual moves on her that she instantly spurned. Hercules yells at Lucy screaming that her first born will be cursed! Now when she looks at her child sometimes she sees the face of him and she keeps telling Dr. Finch that something is wrong. Gino's sister is a nun named Sister Albana (Eileen Atkins) and she has a suspicion that her nephew is possessed by the devil but she keeps it quiet until its too late.

This film was directed by Peter Sasdy who directed some pretty good Hammer films and made an impact as a reliable television director as well. But this film was a lost cause right from the start and it obviously was an uninspired effort to cash in on the "Evil Child" premise that was fairly popular in the 1970's. One of the things in this story that I never figured out was who was the dwarf? Was he evil? I guess. Was he the devil? Who knows. Where did he get the ability to curse people? Was he a devil worshiper? This is never explained and we also never see the baby commit any of the evil deeds so there are many scenes where the characters creep slowly along looking around and never figuring out what the heck is going on. Sexy Caroline Munro is in the film and serves no purpose what so ever and Donald Pleasence has a very easy role where he mumbles things about everything being okay and in one scene he appears to flirt with Sister Albana! This was the type of low budget junk that Collins had to make in the 70's if she wanted to earn a living as an actress. Not only did she have to act in this slop she even has to appear nude! This was not the only bad film that she had to get naked in during those years and everyday she should kneel to the ground and scream "Thank you God for the show Dynasty"!! That television show saved her career from becoming just another "B" movie actress. This film is unconvincing in every detail and never scary. Don't waste your time unless your desperate to see Collins nude.


The credits tell us this ia "a film by Peter Sasdy".In most cases this can be taken as giving credit where credit is due, but in this case it can only be construed as the producers passing the buck.This was fashined, I think, as a sequel to 'Rosemary's Baby' and a prequel to 'The Exorcist' but lacks entirely the tension underlying the former or the nastiness of the latter. What it does have is the quality of the acting - which is absymal -and Donald Pleasance who provides the only tension by playing a nice quietly-spoken man who you wait to turn into a snarling Mr. Pleasance. Regrettably it does not happen. Joan Collins plays a showgirl cursed by a dwarf at the club where she works. Ralph Bates plays an Italian businessman with a variable accent.Eileen Atkins plays a nun who makes satan sound like a French coastal resort. She keeps referring to the Dayville. Caroline Monroe ,who plays Miss Collins freind, does so with all the conviction and talent that propelled her to the very bottom of the acting tree. It is a film full of scenes that terrify the cast, followed by scenes in which they act as if nothing had happened, and an obligatory soft-focus love-scene,and an opening scene of La Collins writhing,sweating and screaming as her character gives birth -- not a pretty sight.


B-Grade Horror at it's Worst.

If you really enjoyed Rosemary's Baby, then you might actually watch this entire movie. But it's really quite boring. Once again, it's a cool concept, but the actual movie let's me down.

For the purpose of warning you off, I'd better give it a rating of 1 out of 10 (and I think I'm being kind).


I don't want to born opens in a hospital delivery room where mum to be Lucy Carlesi (Joan Collins) is giving birth. Dr Finch (horror film veteran Donald Pleasence) is on hand to assist. He looks at at the nurse and claims, "this baby doesn't want to be born". So he gives the little lad a helping hand, using some large medical tongs he grabs hold of the baby and pulls him out, nice. Waiting in some room elsewhere in the hospital the dad Gino Carlesi (Ralph Bates) hears the good news from Dr Finch. Finch informs Gino both mother and baby are fine. However things take a turn for the worse almost immediately, they hear screams, they rush to Lucy who's cheek has been scratched by the little lad. Dr Finch puts it down to basic survival instincts and that Lucy was holding him too tightly. Once the family are back home things don't improve. The baby wrecks his room, breaking and throwing things all over the place, and he starts to have a violent fit of some sort when Lucy and Gino try to christen him in a church. Lucy knows something is wrong, talking to her friend Mandy (Caroline Munro) she confesses that she thinks he may be possessed by the devil! Mandy, as any good friend probably would, tries to comfort her. But Lucy starts to tell a story, the film now goes into flashback as we see Lucy dancing on stage at a sleazy strip club. Back stage fellow performer Hercules (George Claydon), a dwarf(!) hits on her. She makes it perfectly clear shes not interested, the clubs owner Tommy Morris (John Steiner) bursts in and throws Hercules out and has sex with Lucy. Hercules seems to hold a grudge because as Lucy is walking out of the club he jumps out and puts a curse on any future child Lucy might have, he says "your child will be as big as I am small, and will be possessed by the devil!" And thats about it really, thats all he does, and it works too. Either that or this kid has some serious problems! Add Ginos sister, a nun from Italy sister Albana (Eileen Atkins), extremely worried babysitters, Dr Finch constantly trying to explain the baby's problems through medical reasoning, bizarre deaths, an exorcism and we have the mid 70's horror I don't want to be born! Directed by Peter Sasdy this is a real product of the 70's, everything screams the 70's, clothes, hairstyles, cars, the interior of houses and offices, music, the way London looks, absolutely everything. Thats not really a criticism, just an observation. The acting is OK, I especially liked John Steiner as the sleazy wise cracking strip club owner. There's a bit of nudity and some sex but no real violence or gore in it, but the killings are good enough. I think the film fails slightly because the idea just isn't developed at all, the whole film is basically the baby being violent and killing the odd person, other characters like Lucys friend Mandy and Dr Finch are introduced, but nothing is done with them over the bare minimum. One more thing I found odd is that the baby is never given a name, at least no one calls it by any name at any point. The film gets a bit dull after a while, and it drags in a couple of places too. OK I guess, nothing special, worth a watch if you can catch it on TV for free (like me), but its not really worth paying good money for.


Terrible, derivative rip-off of Rosemary's Baby features Joan Collins at her blandest, and Donald Pleasance at his moost boring (has he made a decent moovie other than Halloween??). Gee, can you tell that baby Collins is possessed by Satan? Does anyone really care? This turkey is also known by about 6 other titles, including "I Don't Want to be Born" - hmmmm, perhaps the moovie was trying to tell the producers something. MooCow says find a hole & bury this turkey. :=8P


I was utterly disappointed by this movie. I have recently bought both series on DVD as I had seen the first one in the past and liked it very much. While the first mini-series was fantastic, the second one was just awful. I could only watch half of it because it seemed to have little in common with the original "Thorn Birds"; it simply lacks the romance and the characters do not possess the emotional depth of the first series. Fee Cleary, the tough, quiet woman we all knew from the first series, couldn't stop talking in this one. Also, the dialogues are pathetic, it almost seems like a parody of the first mini-series. Absolutely disappointed!


The original Thorn Birds mini series was one of the most passionate and vibrant works to ever grace the small screen. A sequel is already a gamble due to the high expectations involved. The first step in the wrong direction was not casting Rachel Ward as Meggie...what were they thinking? Although the new actress can deliver her lines, she'll never match the chemistry that Ward/Chamberlain had in the original. I might have forgiven the absence of Ward if the script remained true to the original, but it certainly didn't. Not only did the majority of the situations completely disregard what was put forth in the novel, but they also turned what was rare and beautiful into a soap opera fiasco. In short, it should not have been attempted in the first place. Read the book or watch the original...avoid watching this one!


This movie was really bad. It didn't make any sense. For instance in the original the first time Ralph sees Dane is when he is a teenager. The last time Ralph and Meggie saw each other before 1954 was Matlock Island in 1935. In the original Ralph tells Meggie its nearly been twenty years since we saw each other. Fee and Vittorio were really bad in the missing Years. Fee had no personality and Vittorio was really mean. Dane also had a strong Aussie accent compared to the original when it was a US accent. The only good thing about this movie was the score but again not as good as the original. They should of left the thorn birds alone. There was no point for a sequel to be made in the middle of a story we all know that Ralph dies. They should have made a new movie called the thorn birds: the next generations that takes place after Ralph's death.


I was only two when the original miniseries came out, but ever since I was in about grade 5 or 6, and first saw it, I've absolutely loved it and even created a webpage dedicated to The Thorn Birds.

On a down note, I was highly disappointed in The Missing Years. I think they should have just left it with only the miniseries. Those who were in it, for the most part did not suit their role. Luckily they were able to get Richard Chamberlain in it. The storyline just didn't do anything for the original. There were many things in which you know would never have happened.

Although I did like the part when Ralph fought with Luke. And the ending was sweet. But many parts just seemed too far fetched. It was a nice try to make this, but they should have just left it. Especially altering the actual characteristics of the original characters such as Fee... And Vittorio.... That's just wrong o_o

Anyway, as I said before, I found it quite disappointing and many other fans seem to agree with me upon it. I have watched it and I do have a copy, mainly because I already have the miniseries. But it can sometimes be amusing to watch it just to see how very different it is from the original and to see the fight scene.. Even if I've only seen it two to three times since 1996...

Some people like it, some don't, just hope the original comes out on DVD.


As an Australian I cringe. It was bad enough watching the mini-series where the Australian flavour of the book had been turned into American vanilla - at least the acting was good. But this..... the acting was simply awful. The whole thing was dreadful.


Muddled and pointless drama that really should have been titled Lillian. Fred Zinneman's film is beautifully edited, scored, and photographed, and was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, but it's a vapid and self important film that's missing a core. Fonda is miscast as Hellman and she has no character to play and the scenes of Hellman writing, smoking, and drinking are flat and clichéd, as are the scenes between Lillian and Dashiell Hammett. And Julia and Lillian occupy little screen time together hence the basis for their relationship must be assumed. Supporting Oscar winner Jason Robards is typically gruff and Redgrave's Julia is all luminosity. Redgrave won the Oscar for supporting actress, and her controversial acceptance speech is really the most notable thing about Julia. The centerpiece of the film really milks Lillian's smuggling money into Nazi Germany for all the cloak and dagger it's worth, and it's really the only interesting thing about Julia or Lillian.