I was, by any measure, a massive Prince fan in the 1980s. Owned every album and single, saw PURPLE RAIN too many times to count, saw Prince in concert a dozen times, etc...... That being said, UNDER THE CHERRY MOON is an unmitigated disaster. Horrible acting by Prince, poorly written dialog, and a meandering storyline are but a few of the reasons. And Prince's use of black and white is nothing more than novelty passed off as depth. No honest assessment could call this film entertaining. Jerome Benton was praised as Prince's comic foil but that was being generous - he comes off as a high school actor. Of course, some of the songs are beautiful but its not enough to save this pile of crap.


Chris Fuller's no-budget experimental film attempts to capture the feelings of anger, unease and loneliness plaguing the youth of St. Petersburg, Florida shortly after a series of race riots. I say attempts, because this film is ultimately a bunch of parts that don't add up to much of a whole.

Fuller follows three young people, two men (one played by himself) and a girl, only one of whose names we even learn through the course of the film (though all of the characters have names according to the closing credits). The film is purposefully disjointed. We see these kids zoning out, having sex, getting drunk, starting fights, all of it interspersed with voice overs and footage pulled from real-life news shows, including one utterly gratuitous segment showing Budd Dwyer committing public suicide at a live press conference. This segment has outraged viewers for its insensitivity, but really it doesn't feel any more gratuitous than most of the rest of the film. Everything's gratuitous when you're not given anything to care about, and I certainly did not care about these people or their lives.

I feel like this film was meant to enrage me, to give me a dose of the vague but palpable cultural oppression that makes the characters in it act so self destructively, but it instead made me shrug my shoulders with indifference. Fuller didn't make me understand why these people's lives are so miserable, and he certainly didn't make it clear to me what I could do about it, let alone make me feel like I even WANTED to do anything about it.

Grade: C


This has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I felt like I was back in film school, and the kid that you knew just wouldn't cut it showed us his project. Although, this kid for some odd reason was picked up by CAA. hmm something must be going on there. There are so many flaws with this movie I don't even know where to begin. The story: Wait what story? The beginning shows each character's (which might I add never have a name) shitty lives. There is ZERO character development so we never know why they are like they are nor do we know if they are happy or unhappy with themselves. If the director thought showing apathy on camera for 90 minutes straight was a good idea, he was sadly mistaken. If the latter is true, then why aren't they trying to change? You would suspect some sort of character arc would be nice, but that would be asking way too much from this movie. So if you are looking for a good script, you have found the wrong one. Sound Design: Again, I find myself in class, The Elements of Sound Design 101. Just pay attention to the footsteps. Enough said. Oh wait, and the trumpet. I believe since the budget was so low they had to ask someone's younger sister to just play for fun. Sounds like she had a great time! Cinematography: Well, it seems like they never knew which ISO film stock to use so they put all different kinds of film in a bag and played trick or treat! The inconsistency from scene to scene is enough to make your eyes bleed. Editing: I feel real bad for the editor. He didn't have much to work with. I wonder if he's ever heard of cutting on action? The shots last entirely way too long and when there finally is that cut you have been painfully waiting for it leaves you with a somewhat angry somewhat humorous thought in your mind. Acting: Considering there are approximately two ecu's and even the cu's are covered in grainy over exposed shots, you can only imagine what their reactions are. And if you are looking for someone to yell at the top of their lungs and throw stuff around like a three year old. You've come to the right place. This might not be all the actors fault, in fact I blame most of this on the director/writer. No offense to the acting, I just hope you don't use this on your reel. My final thoughts, If you want to see a movie that is at best, a C+ at SIU's sophomore film program, by all means watch it. I cannot wait to see what CAA produces from this disaster.


Years ago I wrote a fan letter to Irene Dunne listing several titles that I had seen over the years and enjoyed. She wrote back her favorites were the comedies she made with Cary Grant, MY FAVORITE WIFE & THE AWFUL TRUTH. And that's the singing Irene I like the best AWFUL TRUTH (SHOW BOAT, is a close second! Then ROBERTA and JOY OF LIVING.) And speaking of the awful truth, I don't like STINGEREE. I saw it once because of the director, lead actors and wonderful character actors (still I think the best part of this turkey.) The second time was to give it a second chance, and TCM did run a better print, but the story, script and acting don't mix. It's like a salad dressing that continues to separate, oil on top (that's the opera) and vinegar (that's the western) at the bottom of it all. SPOILERS: Richard Dix plays the title-role, of a highwayman and bandit in 1870's Australia, in this strange mix of swashbuckler and musical. Irene Dunne is Hilda Bouverie, an impoverished serving girl who wants to sing. Left orphaned and homeless by the deaths of her parents, Hilda is now a servant in the home of the Clarksons, the wealthiest family in the province. Hilda is glad to have a roof over her head and three meals a day, but won't really be happy unless she gets a chance to sing, and she has the voice to match her aspirations. Mr. Clarkson (Henry Stephenson) is kind and encouraging enough to her, but his wife (Mary Boland) is a noisy, irritating, no-talent singer who treats Hilda and her other maid Annie (Una O'Connor) as little better than slaves; and Mrs. Clarkson is especially jealous of Hilda, as she also aspires to a singing career, and is eagerly awaiting a visit by London-based composer and impresario Sir Julian Kent (Conway Tearle). And then in rides Stingaree (Richard Dix), a highwayman new to the province, who is already a legend elsewhere in Australia. The authorities, led by the boorish Inspector Radford (George Barraud), know he is there and are set to catch him, but he's smarter than they are and faster on his feet, and outwits them. Stingaree kidnaps Sir Julian and, learning of the Clarksons and their wealth, plans to rob them masquerading as Sir Julian. But when he chances to hear Hilda singing, and gets to meet her, he abandons his plan and, instead, decides to help her  his ruse is uncovered, however, and he is forced to flee, and takes the unwilling girl with him. Together in his lair in the forest, Hilda discovers that Stingaree truly does love/lust after her  he is a man who takes whatever he wants and wants everything, but, as he tells her, "You are as safe here as you wish to be." Stingaree arranges a daring raid on the Clarkson home that allows Hilda's singing to be heard by Sir Julian  the impresario offers her the chance to go to London, and at a career as an opera singer. She's reluctant to accept because Stingaree has been captured, but the highwayman insists that she do it, telling her that he happily gave up his freedom to give Hilda hers. And she conquers the operatic stages of Europe, in a career that takes her to Berlin, the Paris Opera, La Scala, and London's Covent Garden, and leading roles in Trovatore, Martha, and the rest of the major operatic repertory of the period. But she can't forget the sacrifice that Stingaree made for her, or the love they share for each other, and decides that even if it means giving up everything, she must return to Australia to find him. Or at least a point to this rambling and contrived love story...


A film thought lost turned up a few months ago on TCM and I finally did get to see it. Stingaree is one curious and horribly miscast film which not even the presence of favorites of mine like Henry Stephenson and Mary Boland can save.

Set in Australia in the 1870s, specifically in Victoria we don't see as much as one kangaroo in Stingaree. The presence of a lot of sheep being herded is supposed to make us think we're in Australia. When I finally saw The Sundowners which was actually filmed in Australia, I certainly saw the weakness of things like Stingaree made on the RKO back lot.

But no Americans companies were location shooting that far in 1934 so I can be charitable there. But stolid Richard Dix is cast in a role that someone like Errol Flynn might have made believable. Or Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., or Tyrone Power or Louis Hayward anyone with that swashbuckling élan. Dix just looks silly up there spouting those romantic nothings.

Irene Dunne is the lonely ward of Henry Stephenson and Mary Boland who accompanies Boland because Boland fancies she can sing. And she's going to sing come hell or high water for visiting British composer Geoffrey Tearle.

Dunne is told not to emote as much as low A from her range when Tearle's around. But when she mistakes the notorious bandit Stingaree for the composer, they're taken with each other. He kidnaps Dunne and later forces a gunpoint addition for the real composer and it costs him his freedom.

The rest of the film is too unbelievable to describe you have to see it to confirm, but not to be entertained. Even Mary Boland who usually can save anything with her flighty portrayals doesn't go over well. It's not in her character to throw Dunne out of the house because she was upstaged. Boland is irresponsible and flighty, but never a mean person on the screen.

A lot of forgettable songs are included here and the whole film is best forgotten. Good thing none of the cast is still around to be embarrassed.


This month (April 2007), Turner Classic Movies has re-introduced six old RKO films that were presumed lost. Nearly all of them were very good, but STINGEREE was a dog--a film better left lost! Unless you are a rabid fan of the Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy style operatic movies, this movie will probably annoy you with its very old fashioned and horrid singing. In addition, the plot is pure 1930s corn--completely lacking in realism and full of silly clichés that make decent actors look really, really bad.

In addition to horrid opera-style singing, the film was saddled with some weird miscasting. As for the Irene Dunne, she was just fine. Her horrible warbling is exactly what the producers were looking for and back in 1934 it would have gone over quite well at the time--after all, she could sing, though in a style that is so out of style today that many will find the singing quite painful (my ears are still bleeding). But for the leading role, "Stingeree", they poorly chose Richard Dix who was unable to effect any sort of an accent. It seemed very odd that although the film was set in Australia and he was supposed to be English, he sounded exactly like an American! They should have instead given the part to cute old Snub Pollard, an Australian who played a tiny bit part in the movie (so you know he could effect a convincing accent of at least an Australian) but who used to be an amazing comic with Keystone Studios.

Now for the incredibly silly plot: Irene wants to be a professional singer, but the nasty old crow who took her in is jealous of Irene's talent so she is planning on keeping Ms. Dunne from meeting a famous English musician and producer. But, quite by chance, the famous bandit Stingeree hears Irene and does everything he can to make her dream come true--even if it means him being caught. He is, but she is discovered in the process. After traveling the world and gaining great fame, Irene is determined to go back to Australia, as she knows she loves him and must marry him--even though they barely know each other and he is currently on the run again. In the end, just like in the campy MacDonald-Eddy operettas, they live happily ever after and the audience is thrilled that the singing is finally completed! They don't make movies like this any more--and for once, I am quite happy about this! What a load of hooey!

PS--Late in the film, Ms. Dunne is braiding her very long hair. If you watch closely, you'll see an editing error, as her hair goes from just beginning to being braided to almost completed in a blink of an eye.


Legacy starts as Omega Kappa sorority house President Lana Stephens (Haylie Duff) is told by a rich & influential former house member & President (Jane Sibbett) that she wants her geeky daughter Katie (Kate Albrecht) to become one & to be treated well, Lana is disturbed by the idea of the less than perfect Katie joining her sorority & instead wants her friend Emily (Laura Ashlee Innes) to take the place so arranges Katie to be given a hard time at a party. During the party Lana finds Katie dead & when the body is found the police accuse her & two other Omega Kappa girls of the murder, to clear themselves the girls have to turn detective to unmask the real killer & save Omega Kappa's reputation & them from going to prison...

Also known under the better sounding title of Pretty Little Devils this was directed by Irving Rothberg I wasn't sure what to expect from this going into it but even then I thought this was pretty poor stuff that feels like a thrown together mix of several genres none of which are done justice here. For the first half of Legacy it feels like some teen comedy like American Pie (1999) with college kids getting up to various risqué things like one guy filming him & his girl having sex & showing to his friends or a girl jacking a guy off & then rubbing the cum on her fingers over a fat geeky girls lips all set in the usual clichéd sorority & frat house with the usual clichéd character's like the air-headed bimbo, the geeks they pick on & the jock style lads who think about nothing but sex & beer. Sound familiar? Afetr about fifty odd dull unfunny minutes of this annoying nonsense Legacy switches genres & becomes a murder mystery but don't expect a Scream (1996) as this is pretty lame stuff with a really irritating three way interrogation with two cops as the film cuts between one of three girls to awful bouncy music as the relive the events we have mostly already seen & know. Then there's the expected twist ending which isn't much of a twist as some random character is revealed to be the killer & then it ends. At 90 odd minutes it feels long & the dreadful mixture of unfunny teen comedy & predictable murder mystery that is sub Scooby-Doo cartoon standard means I would recommend anyone thinking of watching this not to.

There's some tame sexual scenes that feature no nudity, the girls aren't particularly good looking & there's zero gore. There's a bizarre scene featuring a highly strung police captain played by comedian Tom Green & the whole subplot about the two cops is totally forgotten about & they disappear before the film finishes. The whole film has a very cutesy pink look & I found it got on my nerves. There's also scenes of some girls kissing each other & two girls in skimpy swimwear about to wrestle each other in jelly but they never do. Pity.

Apparently shot in Los Angeles & New York this went straight to video & whose only real claim to fame is that it stars Haylie Duff, enough said really.

Legacy is an odd mix of teen comedy & murder mystery that just didn't do anything for me as it fails to deliver on either count as it doesn't quite know what it wants to be & to make matters even worse it's irritating. Definitely not recommended.


This movie is terrible. The story could have been decent (think Weekend at Bernies meets Mean Girls) but it never takes off. Instead you are given over an hour of Haley Duff doing her best to act, in a cheap synthetic wig and a wardrobe bested by Sears. The rest of the actors are not that great either, in fact forgettable...the wig is the star. The dialog is cheap and rides the current 'netspeak' craze, "Totes!", for example. You spend 99.8% of the movie in a pink house and like with the storyline, you are stuck there. From impromptu jello wrestling to hand jobs, you are given nothing more than a collage of 'national lampoon ultra lite', cliché, offerings.

Obviously made on a shoestring budget (again, the wig) it's like a Direct to DVD student film, slathered in pink.


Obviously this movie is a bit of a fantasy, which is fine. This movie could have been funnier. There were moments that made us laugh, but then those moments just fizzled out.

I realize that the wig has been getting a lot of mention on here, and the thing is it is just SO bad. Hailey looks better with her real hair. There are so many close ups on the wig that you can't help but notice that it isn't her real hair. It distracts from the movie and makes the viewer ask questions. Was her character supposed to be wearing wig for unknown plot purposes? Will she at any moment tear off the wig Scooby Doo style to reveal she is someone else? Was Hailey a brunette at the time and the script called for a blond? Would it be so bad if the character had dark hair? Why did they choose wig with such BIG hair? Anyway, the lighting was really good and the set designer really did follow the "pink" theme. It does look like everyone had fun making this movie.

In conclusion: It isn't good and it isn't "soooo bad you have to see it."


Suburban Disturbance

A Cub Scout careens through the yards and streets of a neat, clean college town on his way to school. He stops to pick up his friend Timmy Ainley, but Timmy has the sniffles and must stay home with his mother (Rosemary DeCamp) while Mr. Ainley (Ray Milland), a professor of English at the local college, thinks the sniffles are being faked to avoid a math test. As the professor sets off to work, he and his wife are approached by their elderly neighbor Mrs. Niemoller who complains timidly that the boys in the neighborhood, including Timmy, make too much noise when they play and also heedlessly trample her garden. After promising to address the issue, the Ainleys raise one of their own: Mr. Niemoller plays Mozart very loudly in the middle of the night, keeping Mr. Ainley awake. This is the tip-off that all is not so neat and perfect in this seemingly idyllic community.

And then the plot shifts gears: While discussing a passage from Shakespeare's "Richard II" (which probably has a symbolic bearing on the story) Milland and his students hear sirens. Fire trucks are racing to the professor's own house, which has been engulfed in flames after a freak furnace explosion. His wife and son are killed.

In his stunned grief he turns to drink and is also given solace by a colleague (Nancy Davis), a war widow who empathizes with his loss. Davis's boyfriend (John Hodiak) is uncomfortable with the attention Davis is giving to Milland, even though there is no romantic angle to it. Hodiak's discomfort builds toward angry jealousy while Milland's drinking gets out of control (don't expect a rehash of "Lost Weekend"; the boozing here is mild in comparison).

Much of the movie involves gentle conversational attempts by Davis to help Milland cope. Jean Hagen appears late in the proceedings as a sluttish young woman who occupies a hotel room across the hall from the professor's, her inclusion perhaps a device to set in relief his hopeless emotional isolation. Incidentally, Milland meets Hagen when he knocks on her door to complain about the loudness of the classical music coming from her phonograph player. But after only one viewing, it is not clear why loud classical music has to figure twice in the scenario.

All of the performances are very good and come across as if the director toned them down as much as possible. Hodiak and Davis make an odd couple. At one point she refers to his "big, thick head," when in fact his head is smaller than hers! There is a laid-back conversational feel to the film in general and its small scale and fake looking sets suggest a television drama.

****SPOILER: The whole story can be reduced, really, to the single trite and true observation that it is better to feel your grief than swallow it or bottle it up; once you feel it, i.e., break down and cry, etc., you are on the road to recovery.***** END OF SPOILER


The movie isn't bad, so don't get me wrong. It is a well made, well-acted albeit a very generic, uninteresting film. Didn't care one bit about the characters or the story. Phillip Angelotti's performance is extremely one-note and dull, but he gets points for putting in a good effort. Kept me yawning through the first two thirds. If people set out to make an independent film and sink a lot of their own money into it, why not make something interesting and unique rather than trying to imitate the crap that already comes out of Hollywood. Pass on this one.


I saw this film at the Cinequest Film Festival. It was terrible. They obviously learned a lot of things. They learned a lot of camera swivels and such but it didn't work. It was trying too hard. I felt disconnected from the film. I didn't care about the characters. It wasn't funny. I didn't feel the drama. No one really had a moment. I didn't feel for anyone. The filmmakers enthusiasm was there, but the choices didn't work for the story. These people are going to get better, they seem to have observed a lot of films. But I don't want to notice the camera so much. I want to be moved and so absorbed in the story that I don't think about how they are trying to manipulate my senses and feelings. The highlight of the whole screening was nothing. Because, as I said and will continue to keep saying, with this film, You Got Nothin'. Good luck filmmakers--hope to see a better movie next time -- but I doubt it'll happen.


This miserably stale product coming from country's top movie production house is a surprise. A Desi Bonnie and Clyde, the film works neither as a drama, or a Love story or an adventure or even a comedy or a musical, but a confused haphazard product. The weakness lies basically in a thin story line, which an equally weak screenplay as well as uninteresting dialogs (surprisingly penned by ace writer Jaideep Sahni) doesn't bring impact. The finesse of taking shots by director Shaad Ali is also missing (compared to his previous "Saathiya"). A few opening scenes were okay which sets the tone of the film but later when the characters goes out of character, narration turns lifeless. Songs and Music is very mediocre and does not support narration. The only novelty is the experimental dig at paying tribute to the films of 1970s in terms of certain tacky sets, overdone-gaudy costumes, Dance movements as well as use of back projection in a scene could all have been inspiring and brought freshness if film has something to offer content wise but it all misfires as every thing here is so predictable that it kills the curiosity factor completely. The result- film fails as even a bizarre film or a roller-coaster road movie, or a mindless, tapori, immoral entertainment. Even, neat performances by the trio (Amitabh, Abhishek and Rani) also do not bring any magical moments, so vital for such film, which basically works on treatment of certain scenes. Also cameos done by host of talented actors viz. Raj Babbar, Prem Chopra, Ranjeet, Ravi Baswani, Rameshwari, Tania Zaetta, and above all an item number by Ms. Rai makes you wonder whether it is unemployment or insecurity which made them accept it. More than anything else, what surprised me most is the fact that all the telecast audience reactions or published reviews of this film talks about its certain qualities, which I only wish that this one possessed. Overall, true to its name, the reaction it evokes on watching is equivalent to burst of a bubble. While watching the only thing audience is waiting excitedly is Ghanti of The End.


Oh my God does Yashraj films think like how normal people do? Okay the plot is okay 2 people want to make it big but can't because they have no money and their scenes at the start are nice but the robbery part is so stupid

How does Rani, Abhishek get the expensive clothes for the first crime? Then every robbery so fast is too much to believe Even Dhoom 2 Mr. A looks more believable

The entire love angle, marriage front of Taj MBhal is even weirder Amitabh's characterization too fails to leave a mark The entire climax is even worst The scene together between Amitabh and Abhishek before Kajra Re is the worst scene ever featuring them

Shaad ALi goes 100 steps backward from SAATHIYA Music is saving grace but too many songs

Abhishek acts well, overdoes at places but is good Rani irritates with her voice but does some scenes well, her performance is over-hyped Amitabh bachchan is alright


I am not really sure why I am still giving it 3 stars. I spent my valuable $s to watch this movie in theater and believe me I was really upset (IMDB would not let me write prohibited words...WTF) to watch it. Just figured out that the story wasn't even original and is mostly based on B&C. And, still, the guy claims that the story was his concept? Are Bollywood directors so impudent? Or just admit that we lack originality and creativity in our film industry.

A couple of other movies that come to mind that have been copied include Aamir (copy of some Columbian movie), Life in Metro (certain segment taken scene-to-scene from The Apartment) and Ek Chhoti Si Love Story (A Short Story About Love). All the non-Desi counterparts of these movies are excellent.


One would expect more from Yashraj films, but all Bunty aur babli is is an insult to your intelligence. it is classified as a comedy..but all that brings laughter is abhishek bachchan's dancing in kajra re. the plot is paper thin - the comic capers bring no comedy and are not interesting. the performances by the cast are disappointing. Rani mukherji has lost all her conviction and displays no sense of comic timing. abhishek gives oodles of evidence for his detractors to use. abmitabh bachchan is surprisingly unconvincing in his role as the detective. the only saving grace is aishwarya rai in "kajra re" and the hit soundtrack. the song picturisations do not impress and the chemistry between mukherji and bachchan is almost non-existent. avoid this rubbish at all costs!


Mr Chopra stole the idea from "Catch me if you can" and added all that garbage Hindi Masaalaa. Direction was totally senseless. You can make a comedy, which has some sense. But looks like current Bombay Directors start from the base thinking that all public is stupid and they can put any "masaalaa" in movie, to stretch it for 3 hours as long as they put some top faces on screen and show some skin. If they wanted to copy from English movie, they could have done better job. They could have taken some lesson from "Angoor". But by making some foreigner walking around in India, with millions of dollars in his bag and Deputy Commissioner of Police dancing around in Clubs made it a total senseless movie. In short - A senseless movie, total waste of time and money.


I enjoy watching all types of Bollywood and Indian films, from the serious (Monsoon Wedding, Fire) to the epic (Veer-Zaara, Lagaan) to the lightweight (Chalte Chalte, No Entry). I expected this film to fall into the last category and to be entertained. I was not. I couldn't wait for the film to end. It began with some pretentious speeches by Abhishek Bachchan's character about rebelling against the community's expectations of its youth. Other than that, the film tries to amusing and seriously believes itself to be. It relies heavily on the good looks of its stars, the aforementioned Abhishek and Rani Mukherjee. Essentially the plot revolves around the characters of Abhishek and Rani traveling around Indian pulling heists of various sizes and living it up. None of the heists are interesting (certainly not in an "Ocean's 11" kind of way) at all, and the musical numbers in the film are... well so boring I can't remember a single one. The soundtrack is also terrible. I listened to it before I watched the film, and absolutely hated it! Amitabh Bachchan also stars, and while I can't really criticize his performance, his role is terribly flat. The film is too bland to be truly terrible, however I will still give it a rating of a "2" for wasting so much talent (Rani and Amitabh) and for going nowhere with what could have been an interesting premise.


After watching Saathiya (Shaad's first direction), I had high expectations from this movie. But he proved that it was Mani Ratnam's magic (Alayai Payuthe, Saathiya's original tamil version) which helped in the success of Saathiya.

If you are a die hard fan of Abhishek and Rani, then probably you can see the movie, but as a package, the movie falls flat. The cons are not properly developed and senior B adds to downhill of the movie. Actually I am getting sick of Sr B watching him in every other movie (though eagerly waiting for Verma's Sarkar). Aishwarya item song actually takes you to the heights of boredom.

I must say Abhishek and Rani are superb and they make a good on screen pair (after Yuva). Only if Shaad Ali had worked little hard on the movie, we could have had 'Catch me If You Can' of bollywood.


Vimmi (Babli) is born and brought up in a remote Indian village - with very simple mediocre pair of parents. Being exposed to media and films - she decides to run away from home to make it big in the world and become rich. She meets yet another person - a male - who had also run away from his house - for again the same reason - Mediocre Life style. They meet and he convinces her to reach Mumbai and become rich. He uses exactly the same tools as used by most males to get rich quickly : make an attractive Lady dress p scantily and seduce some sex starved / rich idiot/ any male basically. So Vimmi - now Babli wear scanty outfits and they make a fool of anyone and everyone they meet and get away with all their antics! - the IPS Officers fail in front of two village bred loafers !! LAter things go wrong when they marry and decide to have a child !! After all they were foolish Indians- bred in remote Indian village - where it is thought that Abortion is a sin !SO when she was about to deliver, the Police Officer catches them - they escape yet again - but caught eventually but left on emotional grounds - marveling at their sharp brain and innocent hearts !! Later , after a gap of 4 years when the child is 4 years old - the Police officer requests them to help the IPS Officers by rendering them their sharp brained services !! HAil IPS - Movie is trying to teach the world that ultimately Let the dumb and the dumber rule...since majority of common mass are dull !!


This is one of the better movies made in Bollywood recently. Everything about the movie is great, especially the acting...however, has anyone noticed that the movie is an obvious copy of Hollywood's Steven Spielberg's "Catch me if you can"? Sure, there are the slight touches to the original, like in here there are two fraudsters instead of one....and also, holding to the Indian tradition of movies they must both be of different sexes and must inevitably fall in love and have a child...not to forget the extremely well choreographed dance sequences in between, which is probably the only thing original in the movie....

don't get me wrong, if you consider Bollywood alone, this is one of THE BEST MOVIES...unhappily, i'd already watched the Hollywood version...

if i ever watch a bollywood movie that's not a "remix" of a Hollywood one, i'll give it a ten no matter how crap it is.....


I know "Suske en Wiske" as "Bob et Bobette". My father used to love that comic series, that's how I knew it ("Bob et Bobette" are quite unknown in France). It is not an usual comic book : it is fun, it is full of ideas, it comes with its own rules, it is a whole universes in itself (Like Tezuka Osamu's mangas for instance). Therefore, filming that in live action can seem a foolish project, it requires a lot of things : a very special casting, much money for the special effects, a great cinematography and a good director. Well... The casting is quite okay. Sidonie is played by a man, why not (the voice could have been more feminine). Lambique, well, I'm not sure of the actor. Jerome is okay. Bob and Bobette are okay too, but Bobette seems older than Bob and she has too much breast. The image is poor, we don't understand all the actions, it is not very good. The directing and the editing are a little bit outdated, it is not far from the Benny Hill Show... Therefore, I'll get back to the books, this movie maybe shouldn't have been done. Maybe the very little kids can find some fun here.

As somebody already told it here, the DVD's bonus is terrible : slow and uninteresting, it mostly shows that a German/belgian production of that kind can not be really professional as other comics-based movies of the past decade, from the US (Spiderman, Xmen, Hulk, yes, but also older movies like Popeye or Annie) and even from France (Asterix).


I thought the "meat" of this movie was fair, it was the parts leading up to it and the ending that were awful. This might have done a lot better as a much shorter film. Even at only an hour and 20 minutes, it was about 30 minutes to long.

The character development is *weak*. If you're not going to bother doing some real character development, don't do it at all. For the first 25 minutes, I could have been watching my girlfriend and I go through our daily ups and downs. If I wanted to watch that, I'd just video tape any random couple for a day and have all the footage I needed. The acting was fair at best. The chemistry between these two never worked for me. The bedroom scene was really a mystery to me. Here's our lovely female lead, nude in bed. Boyfriend jumps in, they kiss, she wonders aloud if she's in the mood, they kiss, she decides she's not in the mood but wants to talk. He rolls over and they go to bed. I very much felt the only reason scenes like this were in the movie was to make it long enough to turn into a "feature" picture and put in theaters. Some of the deleted scenes reinforce this point as we're subjected to a scene that shows the alarm going off, the characters laying in bed, struggling to wake up, and then a 30 second shot slowly closing in on the ceiling fan. That's right, 30 seconds of ceiling fan action. Dramatic! I thought the ending was hacky as well, as if the writer had no idea how to end this movie. Techncailly, they didn't, as it was based on a true story and the true persons who experienced this are, of course, dead. Boyfriend has bled out from a shark bite inflicted late the previous day. Girlfriend pushes him away and he is quickly devoured by sharks. The last scene shows girlfriend commit suicide by drowning herself. First off...it's hard to drown yourself without weights. The body is naturally buoyant and it would take a heck of a lot willpower to keep from jerking your head above the water. Drowning hurts. A lot. The vast majority of the population would surface to stop the pain.

Secondly, how do we know this person committed suicide? Why not show the final image of the girlfriend adrift by herself? For me, that would have been a lot more dramatic than seeing her commit suicide in suspect fashion.

Had this movie started as the couple boarded the boat and ended with the camera slowly pulling back from girlfriend, alone in the water, I would have given it 6 stars. Combined with the hackey front "half" of the movie and the cop-out of an ending, I was pretty unsatisfied.


The first time I became aware of "Open Water" was driving home one night in 2003 stuck in the usual traffic jam when i noticed a huge bill board advertising the movie. "Blair witch meets Jaws !" was the slogan above an image of two petrified characters in the ocean with a large shark fin in front of them. Being a big fan of Jaws and having been impressed by the Blair witch project I decided I would see it when released. I was further intrigued when i read the premise for the story. After I finished college i spent some time in, among other places, Cairns, Australia where I have family. There was a great deal of talk about the Outer Edge and the peace core workers Tom and Eileen Lonergan who had disappeared. Armed with all the details I had learnt from the locals in Cairns two years before Open Water was released, this became a must see for me.

Unfortunately it was a huge disappointment. The movie omitted most of the interesting elements of the real story. You are presented with two unlikable characters who we are given no background to and very little reason to care about what happens to them. More than half of the screen time is devoted to watching the two of them bob up and down in the Ocean.

I have read many reviews here that state how fantastic this piece of independent cinema is. I'm afraid I disagree. It is a boring, uninteresting and inaccurate piece of movie making. I have done some diving myself and there are many inaccuracies in the Ocean scenes. To name a couple, sharks do not tend to have the courtesy to wait until you are actually dead before they start consuming you and trying to drown yourself in a wet suit is damn near impossible.

This movie would have been so much more interesting if they had incorporated some of the real story into the drama. Did they fake their own deaths? Were their diaries an indication that this was done deliberately? Was the divers message slate with a plea for help genuine or a hoax? Sadly, none of this is included.

The real genius of the production was the marketing team that Lions gate films employed to promote the film. The advertising campaign was vast and guaranteed that public interest would be sufficient to make a profit on their investment.

When the credits rolled and the lights came up the night i saw this movie, I heard one man behind me shout "Is that it?" which drew great laughter from the rest of the audience. That was the most entertaining part of the whole experience.


Open Water is a lame movie that tries to be Jaws, but it just isn't. It starts off with a happy couple going on vacation to some place(can't remember where). But they go there, and they do some stuff and they get on a boat and go scuba diving. They get really far away from the other people and end up getting lost at sea. You'd think someone would notice that they're gone, but no one does. They stay in the water for a few days, but only a few minutes to us. Then, at the end, the couple dies. That's all this movie is. 79 minutes of bad acting and bad EVERYTHING.

It's not scary. I think we all knew this wouldn't be as good as Jaws, the shark classic. But it turns out that this isn't even as good as Jaws 3, which isn't that good. Jaws is better, and scarier. And Jaws was made 30 years ago! Ha! Well, I do not recommend this movie. I give Open Water three thumbs down. Three thumbs down. That's pretty bad isn't it?


Ridiculous! I can't BELIEVE they spent over two years filming this (on weekends and vacation time), and that the actors actually put themselves at risk swimming with actual sharks. Taking that risk for THIS?!

** Here's the spoiler ** What was up with that ending? I wasn't even sure what happened to the man, at first. Directing, editing and "script" on that was completely vague. So it was up to the actress, I suppose, to convey that he had died. (And how idiotic that she'd just push him off, instead of hang onto him / retain his body for a proper funeral / use him for flotation / use his equipment (knife, e.g.) for possible tools of survival). And then when she submerges herself I said, "Is that it? Is she drowning herself? Is she just 'hiding' from sharks?" (Ha!). And then, fade to black. Uhh, yeah. Whatever. Talk about inability to write a scenario and direct with competence!

Two more annoying things: 1) That boob shot. It stood out like a sore ..thumb. So glaringly gratuitous. I felt embarrassed for the actress because it was so unnecessary, despite what the Producer said in the optional Commentary on the DVD. Which brings me to annoying thing #2): The optional Commentary on the DVD: the Producer (the director's wife) must be one of the most irritating people in the biz. In one breath she's trying to be 'deep' about the bland story, and in the next she's "selling" this entire cheap project as something stupendous. Shut up!

Fade to black.


WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

Alright, when I saw this movie on the shelves at my bro-in-law's mother's house, I figured it would be pretty good and asked to borrow it. I've seen some REALLY great shark movies, but then some that were not so great and with my knowledge of shark films, this looked decent... my knowledge was never so wrong. This movie is a TOTAL waste of time to watch. Supposively it's about these two people who get stranded out in the middle of the water and they both die, so someone is just going to predict what happened out there. Here are the reasons why I didn't like this movie:

1. If they both died, that means someone just took a complete stab in the dark at what probably happened out there while they were missing, which in the end really made me mad, because that is also what I predicted was going to happen, and if they both didn't die in the "true events", I think it was a poor choice making them both die in this movie.

2. The sharks that surrounded them while they were afloat would have ripped them to shreds at the first sight of food - THEY WOULDN'T SWIM AROUND FOR DAYS AND NOT TRY TO EAT THEM. I mean, I know humans can never know what animals are exactly thinking which is why I love animal attack films, but come on, when an animal's hungry, IT'S GOING TO EAT, we know THAT much for sure.

3. This movie was BORING, BORING, BORING, because most of the time you're watching it, they are just floating in the water not doing anything and it's completely pathetic!!!!! I know they were probably trying to build up suspense and such, but they did an extremely poor job of doing so.

There, so that's why this movie is so so horrible!!!! It's not the worst film ever, but by God it's pretty well near it! I'm sorry I wasted my time on it...


My brother and I rented this as a joke and out of curiosity. I mean, how do you make a movie about a couple floating around in shark infested water for 2 hours? Well we find out, and its every bit as boring as you'd imagine. This movie doesn't mess around, within 10 minutes of the start of the movie they are in the water and lost. The movie then goes on to show them floating there, and trying to make it seem suspenseful at times. But when it comes down to it, they are just floating there, often times doing absolutely nothing, not talking or anything. A lot of sleeping.

It was unbearably boring. I've seen bad movies, but none that leave me squirming praying to a God I don't believe in for it to end.

This is all not to mention how stupid it is to make a film that is "based on a true story" that no one can prove. For all they know they both dived in, bumped their heads on a propeller blade, and sank unconsciously to the bottom of the ocean, where they died peacefully in their sleep. They only call it a true story to reel in the people with true story fetishes (such as I) to the theaters.

How they made a sequel I do not know, and I'm sure as hell not making the mistake of renting it just for s's and g's this time around.

Terrible God-Awful Movie. Run away (and hide).


one thing I dislike about diving are the testosterone filled self labelled 'expert divers' that you will encounter on just about every organised dive you will ever do

never mind the sharks. the truth is that people with heads swollen by the experience (which actually a senior age lady can do) are the biggest threat to your diving safety

I just read a review by a dive expert that thought this film was scary and realistic 'just like real night diving'. apparently this person has dived on his own in open water, like the submariner, and therefore can tell you exactly what it must be like to be stranded

guys like this will tell you they are ex navy seals and then be so rubbish at diving that they'll kick coral to smithereens (true story)

personally i'm not sure why even a semi-factual attempt was made at this story. why not use it instead as the basis for a more extensive plot? nothing is known about what happened to the two people involved and it's most likely they lost their lives in a thoroughly un-Hollywood way, from exposure or drowning. the only surety is that the dive organisers and crew were totally incompetent

the way the woman glides into the water at the very end of the movie, with sharks visually feeding on fish close-by to her, is extremely glamorised and unrealistic as is the whole emphasis on sharks as the lurking horror. the part where the dive camera is cut out of the shark at the end is wholly disrespectful, lacking in taste and really quite ridiculous

if you want realism you may as well watch deep blue sea


Like most people, i was drawn to buy this film because of the pictures of the mighty Bolo Yeung plastered all over the box, and the assumption (from the aforementioned pictures and the title of the film) that this film is all about the Beast from the East kickin' ass for 90 minutes.

However, to my disappointment, Chinese Hercules is to Bolo Yeung what No Retreat No Surrender was to Jean Claude Van Damme and Fearless Tiger was to... erm, Bolo Yeung - maximum exposure on video box, minimum actual screen-time! Oh well!

The storyline is pretty basic stuff, but it was well done - peaceful kung fu fighter (played by Chen Hui Min) accidentally kills a man and promises never to fight again. He then runs away to work as a labourer on a pier where he impresses his co-workers with his heavy sack lifting prowess, causing them to suspect him to be a formidable fighter (dont quite know how that works but never mind). Meanwhile, the corrupt boss of the pier does a deal with gangsters, giving them exclusive use of the pier. As a result, the workers are thrown out on their ear and forced to live on the beach, where they unite against their boss, the gangster boss, and his hulking henchman Bolo Yeung.

While the film was quite watchable (mainly through waiting for the next glimpse of Bolo), i had a few problems with it - firstly, the bad dubbing, but of course thats a given in old kung fu films. But also, the film tended to drag between the various fight-scenes. And as for the fight scenes themselves, i found them to be over-long, badly choreographed (apparently by Jackie Chan!), badly shot and at times performed by people who didn't seem to have any martial arts ability.... in fact, most of the fights in this film weren't 'fights' at all, just people getting beaten up without offering any resistance!

Finally, the hero - played by Chen Hui Min. I've never seen any other films with this guy in, but at no point was i rooting for him. Not only did he look wimpy and on the verge of tears at all times, but i found his insistence on not fighting infuriating! I understood his reasoning, but he could have saved a lot of people a lot of pain if he had done earlier what we all knew he was gonna do eventually, and fight! A bigger mystery was why this entire community of people were pinning their hopes on a guy they've never even seen fight!

Really, the big saving grace in this film was the presence of Bolo Yeung. Not only is he as huge and brutal as ever, he has some great, funny lines and gives the rest of the cast a master-class on how to fight on film. The guy oozes screen presence and you can easily see how he became a star. The guy scares the life out of me, but i'm sure i wasn't the only person to have watched this film who was rooting for Bolo all through the end fight!

All in all then, a below-average kung-fu film lifted several huge notches due to you-know-who. I've never met a person who didn't think Bolo Yeung was great. The man's a legend!!


Director Avati can come up with a good ghoulish scenario like he did with MACABRO but this film is a real dud. A good synthesizer score cannot make up for the fact that this anemic horror film is dull as the dirt the dead rise out of. It's no wonder that Avati went on to make art films after this. Avati knows how to build up suspense but there's no payoff here. Plus the film has the bland look of something that was made for television.


Some sort of explanation for this snoozer must lie in its credit reference to Italian television. Like US made-for-TV films, it's horror without anything scary and sex without anything erotic. The dead in this movie aren't lame, but the film certainly is.


I rented this movie hoping the cover art would have some influence on the movie itself. But what i got was one of the most boring movies i've ever seen. The only gore was a very short decapitation, but that was'nt enough for me to like this movie. Since it is an Italian horror movie, one would have good reason to expect more gore than average, but noooooooooooooooooooooooo, it just drags on & on & beats it self into the ground. When I was on my way home to watch it, I noticed that someone wrote on the video's sleeve :" do not watch this movie" in pen. Maybe i should have listened to them. It is some kind of murder/cult/mystery thingy, so if you are a zombie/gore fan, don't even bother. If you are a HUGE fan of Italian horror, you might like it. I sure did'nt.


Despite the name of the movie and the cover, this is not a zombie movie. It is however, a mystery movie that involves the dead walking the earth again. The actual movie starts with a man reading the ink tape on his used typewriter to discover someone else was working on defeating death. That sounds like a good kernel for a movie, but this is not it. Few things tie together and there is no payoff for any of the plot lines and characters shown. What is shown is a prolonged attempt and arising suspense and mystery. These both failed as aforementioned lack of payoff and inability to draw out any conclusion. I would not recommend this movie in any way to anyone.


This has got to be the worst movie I've ever seen. Nothing compares to watching this completely boring and weak story. There is no blood, and No ZOMBIES. I rented this because it had a zombie on the cover and it said on the back of the box it was about zombies. The picture on the cover has nothing to do with the movie at all. This was release during the decline of Italian Zombie movies and I personally believe this movie KILLED the Italian Zombie scene.

I can't understand how this awful movie is on DVD and the one of the best zombie movies EVER, Return of the Living Dead, is still not on DVD.

Bottom line, ANYTHING is more scarier and better than this COMPLETE WASTE OF SPACE of a Movie.


I'm not much for writing long winded reviews so I'll keep it simple. This film was disappointing.

You know how you grab pick up a pizza and once you're home with it you get the toppings that you never ordered,you know the ones that you avoid? Well thats this film in a nut shell. I like good horror like the next guy,I don't ask for a whole lot but I do expect a decent film to keep me entertained for 90 minutes. The cover on this movie had a zombie rising from the grave,but in reality you'll get no more than 2 minutes of that,mixed with a dull story that drags on and on.

See this film plays out more like a mystery about a priest who walked away from God to choose a higher power,that being to rise from the dead. I won't go any further but let's just say the plot sounds better than the results of this film,just avoid it if you can. Btw-there's hard;y any gore in this film,hey that sometimes can save even some of the worst films out there but we don't even get that in this wannabe zombie film. Simply put,write this one down and remember to stay away from it. Some of the folks who give this film a decent score are either delusional or don't know what a good scary horror film is. This is like a slow paced mystery without the suspense and story to play itself out as anything worth viewing. Hope that helps you out,I just wish I had read a few warnings before viewing this lemon,he he.


This movie is horrible. I have never seen a more boring film in my life, and I know that boredom is the draw for many horror purists to examine this film and dissect it for some level of substance that the short attention span-having trash-lovers may have missed. Yes, this is a zombie film, but it's a thinking-man's zombie film, I guess. But I must be ridiculously stupid, because I missed the point.

This film is just seriously a bad time. The first few minutes are good enough, with a good film score. From the start, you begin to sense that this is an atmospheric film that may lose you in its boredom sometimes but still maintain enough of an edge to hold you for the near-2 hour running length. Fulci gets a lot of credit for "atmosphere", and I have to agree: Even when his films lacked a plot or a point, movies like Gates of Hell were just amazing because they gave off this weird, uncomforting feeling. Being able to get away on just feeling and not actually substance is one of the greatest achievements I've ever seen. You manage to make your film good, even if it isn't good.

Well, indeed, this film is atmospheric. However, that hardly makes up for the sheer boredom of the whole thing. When you look at the box of this movie, you expect something in the way of zombies, zombie action, at least some mention of zombies. However, there is approximately two minutes of any zombies being in the movie at all. Sure, there are dead bodies, but hardly any zombies. I want ZOMBIES! I think that perhaps this film is some kind of experiment to make the viewer feel like a zombie. Watching the immense amounts of talking and little else, I just stared on and on and on, waiting for something to happen. And people kept talking and talking. Uh... yeah. Horrid.


'Why...?' will be the question you ask yourself after seeing this film.It contains nothing but boring and pointless dialogue not to forget a pointless movie.I highly suggest you avoid this film , and spare your brain cells. Even if it isn't really a horror film as some claim still it's a bad movie no matter what it is.


This film is a pointless exercise in wasting celluloid. A researcher finds an imprint on a typewriter ribbon and decides to investigate his discovery. Apparently, there are these areas known as "K-zones" which can cause the dead to rise and attack the living. It's hard for anyone to prove since no real zombies actually show their rotting faces during anytime in this painfully slow yawner. There is a little aftermath violence where we are witness to the slaughter of a research group, but that's about it in the gore department. Nothing gets resolved and the ending(?) features the strangest choice of sound effect I have ever seen in a horror film. As a die hard zombiphile, I rate this film as the worst zombie movie of all time. Perhaps the worst horror film of all time. Better yet, probably the worst film of all time. Please check out films directed by George Romero, Lucio Fulci, Lamberto Bava, or Jorge Grau for movies that actually have zombies in them.


The only two reasons to watch this movie are on Phoebe Cates chest. This is better than the movie it copies "Blue Lagoon", but that is saying very little. The best way to watch this movie is to have your finger on fast forward. There is a lot of wasted time that will put you to sleep. Unless you are specifically interested in seeing the the reasons previously mentioned, don't bother with this mess.


A teenage boy (Aames) and a teenage girl (Cates) are lost in the desert but eventually find their way to an isolated oasis, where they fight off illness, desert bandits, and growing lust for each other. Okay, so it's a rip off of BLUE LAGOON, an excuse for the two stars to run naked and presumably titillate viewers with the sight of their young, nubile bodies.

Now, God knows Aames and Cates are young and nubile. But there is a price to pay for the sight of them running naked: you have to sit through one of the worst movies ever made.

I actually saw this on the big screen, and I can report that about fifteen minutes into the movie people began to leave, talking loudly about what an incredibly bad movie it was; those of us who remained were treated to an increasingly mind-numbing boredom so ponderously heavy that we were shocked into immobility. No amount of teen age nudity could make this turkey watchable. Miss it!

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


Silly rehash of "The Blue Lagoon". The plot is pointless--this was just made to show Willie Aames and Phoebe Cates as nude as many times as an R rating would allow.

Now I like "The Blue Lagoon". Yes it's stupid but Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins had nice bodies and were actually not bad as actors. Beautiful cinematography too. As for this movie--Aames and Cates are young and have great bodies too--but they can't act. The nudity can only carry this movie so far. Without that you're left with a boring story and lousy actors. When I saw it at a theatre the audience was quiet--at first. After the first two nude scenes people started to walk out. Then people started giggling at the horrendous acting. By the end of the film most of the audience was in hysterics laughing out loud at this. I think the part that really set them off was when they showed the monkey miming what Aames did when he "pleasured" himself. That aside the characters were totally obnoxious. Aames comes across as a spoiled brat--Cates came across as not having a brain. Heck, this doesn't even have the beautiful shots that "Blue Lagoom" had! Unless you're desperate to see these two actors nude you can skip this.


This film was sometimes good, but far too often things got silly and it became hard to take the movie seriously. The more dramatic parts actually aren't that bad, but there are many pointless and fluffy moments in this film, and they really killed any momentum. About an hour in, it was clear that this film would only be good in brief spurts, so in addition to being irritated by dumb scenes, I was getting somewhat bored as well. And then there was the predictability of the whole story. So all-in-all, there isn't much to recommend about this film, and therefore I wouldn't suggest that anyone bother with this movie.


Phoebe Cates and Willie Aames (was this guy ever really a respected actor?) embark on a goofy journey into the heart of the modern day vision of paradise. No jobs, no paychecks, no deadlines, no traffic, none of that. Just beautiful weather, stunning waterfalls, loincloths, and of course, angry Arabs intent on adding poor Sarah (Cates) to his collection of mistresses.

David and Sarah had narrowly escaped from these menacing enemies, and found a peaceful place in paradise to spend their time. Luckily, they happen to have run across all of the modern conveniences; a nice little house, beds with perfect mattresses, pillows, tables, pots & pans, a bench swing, a wide variety of clothes and jewelry for Sarah, everything that logically should not be there.

The story almost resembles something that could be a little interesting, but it falls apart because of bland direction and absolutely ridiculous acting (especially from Aames). And while the extensive nudity was not always unwelcome, the majority of it was clearly thrown in for no good reason. The romance that developed between David and Sarah (after she eventually pounded her amorous interests through his idiot skull) was believable enough I guess, but you really had to try hard to get past the idiotic acting and the pathetic dialogue. If you're into B-movies, check this one out. Otherwise, you may want to ignore this one.


Stoo-oo-pid! If the plot had had some actual effort put into it, the movie might have been almost bearable. But it was so trite and cliché, you can't help but snicker at how dumb it all is.

On its slight plus side, it did have some nice eye candy, And the desert landscapes were quite impressive. Downright beautiful, in fact.

But otherwise, this laughable excuse for a "movie" is total sloppy slosh from beginning to end. Basically, it's a chick flick for those who read trashy romance novels and like to believe their inane glop can be real. But for anyone else, there's a whole lot of groaning and guffawing involved trying to get through this thing.

I barely managed to get through this mostly to the end until i finally declared, "Enough is enough! I can't take it anymore!" And then i turned it off and feel much better now for having done so. MUCH better.

I sort of enjoy Willie Aames' ability to play characters that are earnestly stupid, and he does that in spades here, but the chick flick format just got to be too much for me.


1st watched 12/4/2007, 2 out of 10(Dir-Stuart Gillard): Silly, titillating story of two young people alone in the desert being chased by a slave trader who wants the female, played by Phoebe Cates, to be his concubine. They run into oasis's as their being chased that become their temporary paradises as they play out the teenage horny version of "adam and eve." The movie starts in a city in the middle east and they are both accompanied by adult companions but as they are in route to get back to their own countries, the slave trader kills their entire group except Phoebe's companion and Willie Aames, who plays the male young character in the story. Phoebe's companion soon dies off and they are left alone to fend for themselves. This is the when the titillation begins as we get to see Phoebe nude bathing and all of a sudden Willie's characters only interest is getting into Phoebe's pants and then turns into a spoiled adolescent who isn't getting his way. Willie Aames is absolutely horrible in this film acting debut(which is probably why he didn't do much else in the movies) and Phoebe's OK when she's given a decent line. But most of the time the script calls for her to giggle at Willie's antics and de-robe whenever possible. I can't say I dislike the disrobed Phoebe, but a complete movie it doesn't make and it seems like the makers run out of ways for this to happen so they end the movie. Well, I guess I am exaggerating a little, because their was a storyline but ultimately it becomes secondary to the subplot of adolescent sexual discovery in the desert. Good movie to have around for an early 80's sample of the attempt by Hollywood to make kiddie-porn but as a movie it doesn't hold up.


Very well may be one of the worst sci-fi films of all-time! The cast is ridiculously stupid. The effects are laughable. Cool nudity, but I can buy magazines for that. Has anyone noticed the monster here is a genetic mutation, thereby negating the title? Space Maggot forces a 1, and prays there are no sequels.


The first movies in this series all had a focus in Sweden, and in Swedish culture. This last instalment leaves the Swedish focus, and makes it in to a European thriller instead. While this can lay a basis for a far greater funding, it also makes the film less appealing to Swedish viewers, in that it sets it self up for comparison with other movies with far greater funding, for instance the Bourne Identity. I am sad to say that the story is confusing, the audience laughed quite often when there obviously was no humour involved. And, worst of all, around me people fell to sleep. And this was during a quite loud action movie. If you really want to see a good Swedish movie, see `Smala Sussi', or `Ondskan', better still, see both. Keep away from this movie until you can see it for free on TV.


Not a pleasant film. Definitely a male bashing film.

There is little to like about Thelma and Louise. They hate their lives and instead of doing something to improve them, they take off on a road trip that soon turns into a running nightmare including murder, armed robbery, attacking a cop and blowing up a fuel truck.

The saddest moment is when that beautiful T-Bird goes sailing off into oblivion. What a waste of such a beautiful car. Of course, the women are in the car at the time and their road trip ends in their untimely death.

They could have found better lives with a different approach.

Of course, that kind of message movie would have been a lot harder to write and probably drawn a smaller audience.

Instead we got the violence and hopelessness that is Thelma & Louise.

I only decided to finally watch this movie because Geena Davis is so good at playing the U.S. President in the ABC network TV drama "Commander in Chief".

Now I wish I had not seen this film. It will be hard to disassociate her from the miserable character she portrays in T&L.


They should have called this movie "Angry women ride off of a cliff after committing crimes." This movie was really bad. An extremely anti-male bent that would make any hair-brained empowered western female smile.

The film contains a bunch of petty "women get even" instants. The funny thing is since "oppression of women" is largely a myth they really should not be getting even for anything. The movie seems to keep in line with reality when it comes to women seeking revenge over imagined slights.

Now men on the other hand should be thinking about getting even since we have been treated horribly by women for years. They should make a film called "Tom and Jack" where men go around breaking the law and acting crazy. The only thing is that movie would be over in 15 minutes since the law would react viciously to any man doing what these women did.


There is not much to say about this film other than that it is the worst film Scott has ever made. The tag line 'Somebody told them to get a life...so they did' is somewhat misleading unless the definition of life is murder and eventual suicide. What is this film trying to prove? That women can also capable leading violent lives? If this is liberation then women should be weary. Had the Geena Davis character left her abusive husband, forged out a new independent life for herself and found happiness, now that would have been inspirational. But alas, all we get is another road movie glamorizing violence. Yawn.


It's very interesting that the most positive review for this film is written by someone who used to work in the same industry. But it makes sense, because to anyone else this film is just mind-numbingly dull. It's basically about a man who is diagnosed with lung cancer and so hides it from everyone and continues his usual life of hookers and drugs. Its best redeeming feature is that it is short so you don't waste too much of your life.

Ivan is played by a decent actor, but quite a few of the others seem like amateurs. Being shot with a hand-held camera just compounds that feeling, although it's different I guess. This film was so dull, that for the first time, IMDb has said my comments were too brief even though I can't think of what else to say.


The story is thin (viz., high flying Hollywood agent is diagnosed with lung cancer and dies -- no one seems bothered), none of the characters arouses any sympathy or interest, and the use of classical music (presumably to create a sense of tragedy) only adds to the bathos.

Probably only comedy can do any sort of justice to what goes on behind the scenes in the film industry but the few decent comic scenes in Ivan's XTC are drowned out by the seriousness with which the film takes itself.

I'm amazed the film ever got made. But then one of the industry's greatest failings is that it takes itself far too seriously, so perhaps it's not so surprising after all.


The BBC Sunday tea time classic serial has been away a long time; in case anyone was feeling nostalgic this is a typical example of the amateurish, patronising fare considered appropriate for the slot. This is a far from faithful adaptation; which would be acceptable if the changes had been effective in replicating the excitement of the book in another medium. Unfortunately this was very, very dull. Precious little of the tension of the novel survives, but there is a lot of running around. The expanded role given to the cabin boy does nothing to advance the plot, and the young actor playing him is rather irritating. In another major plot change Catriona, the eponymous heroine of the sequel, appears a book early as the feisty daughter of the noble James of the Glens (rather than of the villainous James More MacGregor). On the plus side, Iain Glenn makes quite a decent Alan Breck, and New Zealand puts in a perfectly adequate performance as Scotland.


As other reviewers have already pointed out, the insertion of archival footage from previous mid-40s Curly shorts is what proves to be the downfall of this particular episode--which is something of a shame, since I found a lot of the new scenes to be quite hilarious; particularly the opening scenes with the stooges making their homemade brew (I'm sorry Moe, the crock skidded).

Of course, the stock footage was probably a combination of events, stemming from Curly's obviously declining health & the old thrift master Jules White showing an early affinity for saving a few dollars (something that came into greater prominence in the '50s).


When I first watched this short, I actually was enjoying the new footage and when I saw the reused footage, I was quite dissapointed and when I saw reused footage from another episode, I was even more dissapointed and I think this short is only worth for the first 5-6 minutes and I understand that Curly was ill during this time and I think that Curly was more sick than usual in this short although Curly seemed more healthier in the next two shorts 'Uncivil Warbirds' and 'Three TroubleDoers' although his condition went even more downhill in the two shorts after that.


Laughable, extremely poorly scripted and acted effort about a small crew boarding what seems to be a "dead" huge Russian science ship that has been taken over by an alien life form in the form of electrical current. The small crew from the other ship quickly find out that boarding the ship was a bad idea, and soon they begin to, I know this will surprise you, ...DIE. Okay, for starters the film is very derivative of other films, most notably Alien with the same premise of a small group investigating a large "foreign" vessel and ultimately led by a strong female protagonist. Ther are many other obvious similarities, but time and a total lack of desire to rehash that drivel must excuse me. I could live with a less than original story if it had some better dialog and some characters you might give a hoot about, but Virus has none of that. Jamie Lee Curtis does a serviceable job at best and gives the film's best performance, but that is not saying anything as virtually everyone else is just awful. This is a surprise when one sees Donald Sutherland's name attached to this project. I have never seen him give quite as bad a performance as he does in Virus. He goes for every cliché and stereotype of an old sea captain save a wooden leg and a parrot on his shoulder. The accent he uses I found excruciating. The rest of the crew has a group of guys that you will not care about in the least. None of the guys can act. This applies mostly to male "lead" Wiulliam Baldwin who looks like he is lost at sea playing an actor. The script aids the actors in being inadequate as half the time it just makes no sense and other times begins to show promise and ends abruptly. Wow, the way Jamie Lee Curtis gets out of a jam near the film's end was so ridiculous. What about the captain and why he was almost going to shoot himself in the beginning of the picture? What was that all about? It was never brought up again. What does Virus have going for it? It is the very embodiment of mindless entertainment with almost no thinking required. The special effects are pretty good too. But for me the film was a great big let-down. Not that I was expecting something great, but I was expecting something suspenseful. I was laughing and turning my head a lot more times in this one then I was on the edge of my seat - except when I was ready to turn the movie off!


I got the weird suspicion this movie was in the news somewhere. Probably involving the large amount of cash spent on it and probably subtly changing everybody's view on it (those who saw the news). Note, that is just my totally uneducated guess.

I can't be more objective on this one; I never heard about it, I just accidently saw it on the telly a couple of minutes ago. I was pleasantly surprised...

I hear A LOT of: "It's not original"

Personally I don't give a damn, I really enjoyed this.

I never actually write reviews but this absolutely undeserved score pretty much forced me to; I'd hate it if you passed on this one just because some people are easily influenced by the news they're fed (note - I'm still going on my totally uneducated guess).

I actually voted 10, instead of the well deserved 8 just to crank up the ridiculously low score (something I'm actually against, but this was an obvious emergency). I hope you'll do the same if you agree with me.

Anyway, just give this one a go and try to be objective about it, if you happened to have 'seen the news'. =)

Vote...

And enjoy the rest of your life, make it a good one... =)


This is not just a movie, It's actually 4 movies and a television series to boot! There are plotlines, similar characters, special effects, costumes and even dialog from "The Last Starfighter", "The Matrix", "Runaway", "Robocop" and "Star Trek". Even then they couldn't patch together a watchable film. Jamie Leigh Curtis gives a performance worthy of one those screams from Holloween and there ought to be a law limiting the number of Baldwin brothers allowed to torture us with awful performances. What reason did a great character actor like Donald Sutherland have to make a clunker like this, only god knows. One thing for certain, The next time I see this film it will probably be on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" getting about the same review...


This movie has exceeded my descriptive capacity. It is, without a doubt, one of the WORST movies I have ever seen. Not the worst of the year, not the worst of the decade--one of the worst EVER. Despite the "name" cast, the acting was simply embarrassing. It wasn't acting as much as posing. I never did really decide if the dialogue was supposed to be that cliched for its campy effect, or if they really meant it--and the dialogue was the high point of the writing. (Listen to Donald Sutherland's accent, and tell me he wasn't doing a parody.) The script is as disjointed as it is--well, "silly" is the only word that comes to mind. The editing is so clumsy that you feel you are looking at a 1st year film school project--and not a good one, at that. Roger Ebert gave it a minimal one star rating, and I can't believe he was so generous. This is a real stinker.


...but it turned out to be boring drivvel.

Same old formula - gothic background of dark corridors and scarey rooms and shadows. Could have been an old castle, spaceship or even a...Russian science ship (okay, 6/10 for originallity) Remoniscent of one of many of the genre that came before it - Alien springing to mind, mostly.

Scarey? given it's Adult certificate - yet another disappointment. Poor special f-x, pieces of meat on radio-controled machines for monsters. Talking of "machines" - the cute little spider-like ones looked a lot like the contraptions in "Runaway" (1984). Possibly a vacant lot?

Tedious in extremis, and I couldn't have cared if ALL of the characters had been killed-off. The cherry on this insufferable cake was the very Bond-esque escape of the hero and heroine at the end. Not my favourite genre of film, "horror", but I recommend this one for a laugh, and to play the parlour game of "now what movie did I see THAT in?..."


I rented this as a free rental, and I am so glad that I didn't spend money on it. With the cast, I thought it would be pretty good, but the acting was not good at all. The story was old and used... the only mediocre part was the special effects. If you can see it for free, go for it - just don't waste any more money on it!


This film could have been great. It had a great premise, where an alien visitor decides that man is a virus to the planet Earth and sets about destroying him, money for some neat special effects and name stars to attract attention. What the movie doesn't have is much of an imagination. What could have been a good "battle movie" like Aliens turns into another chase film like "Deep Rising". The characters run around, they don't know where they're going, we don't know where they're going and after about 20 minutes of this you lose interest altogether and just pray for a good ending, sorry not in this one. The film is pretty much a rip off of Alien with a bit of The Terminator thrown in for good measure. While it rips off the plot it doesn't rip off the pacing or style and maybe it should have. Without much of a script to work with the director uses fast pacing and quick edits to create the action in the movie moving from one action scene to another each has very little pay off and becomes tiresome quickly. It is quite obvious that this movie was made quickly on a low budget (I hope) and was expected to make its money back on its opening weekend and then quickly move to video. If only they'd taken their time with this one and spent more time developing the alien creatures (personality wise) because they do look pretty good but cannot carry this film, which sinks long before the end credits roll. (4 out of 10 just because it looks good. Works better as a comic book.)


It takes talent to create a movie as bad as this: There are good actors, a somewhat original idea for a movie and good special effects - one would expect something good out of this. Yet here comes "Virus" to prove us wrong. How did Gale-Anne Hurd produce this? Why was it ever made in the first place? Now let's pray that they don't make a sequel... Rating: 1 out of 10


I think video stores should create a new genre - the sci-fi/slasher flick. This one begins with a sci-fi premise (which sucks people like me in), that moves quickly to six to ten people isolated on some craft (ship, spaceship, etc.), while some alien life form attempts to kill them all. The Alien series is the classic of this genre - very good. This follows Event Horizon down the ho-hum-ness of the whole thing, just throw some extra gore in and people will see it. By the end of the movie I didn't even react to the characters' fear, I just awaited the inevitable. And there were some good actors in it. Oh well, I was hoping to get more out of the "virus" concept, but was robbed of that as the movie swung rapidly out of sci-fi and into slasher - I should have known. Skip it and rent Alien again, or rent it, if you collect the genre. I gave it a 2 out of respect for Donald Sutherland and Jamie Lee Curtis (what were they thinking?) - zsk


I do not understand what happened with this movie. It had the potential to be alright, but it just sucked. Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Sutherland are good actors, but what they were doing in this movie was not acting. It was horrendously bad, especially on Sutherland's part. I think that deserved a Razzie Award for sure. The "monster" was atrocious, i have seen better special effects on TV movies. This one reminded me of a big batch of mean "Batteries Not Included" aliens. Dumb. Although I did enjoy Pacula's performance, she didn't have much to work with, but she did make the best of it. 3/10 - doesn't surprise me that this one flopped.


I saw Alien and Aliens when I was little and they scared the hell out of me with their originality of the aliens, along with the feeling that you have been brutalized after you have seen them. Now comes Virus, the latest rip-off of Alien. At least it's not the worst. That title goes to Deep Rising, which really stunk. The acting in this movie is passable, but some of the special effects, including the gross stuff range from good to crappy.

The acting is passable, but I never really took an interest in it. The characters were almost rip-offs from other movies. I don't think Stephen Baldwin is going to get out of B movies. What is Jamie Lee Curtis doing in here? I never really liked her, but she's done a lot better movies than this.

The animatronic creatures are good, but the make up for the guts and gore looked really fake. After seeing Saving Private Ryan, most horror movies look extremely fake.

Well, I don't like to say it, but I actually fell asleep watching this movie. It's not crap, but it has nothing going for it either. I wouldn't recommend it unless you really like the sci-fi/horror genre. ** stars (out of *****)


I woke up one morning and saw that there was a new action thriller running called "Virus" I thought "yahoo" a movie for the international nerd, but when the movie started I soon relised that this wasen't a movie about a virus, but a horror thriller about a "electro" alien that is trying to take over the world using the help of half human robots witch it manufactures in a russian ship, a unlucky crew of a 5 stumbles upon the ship and tries to save the world from the evil alien. first of all this movie is terribly written, nothing in the storyline holds together and all that "save the world" bull**it is getting a bit tired, the acting is below average, and the special effects are horribly out dated. Take my advice, see any movie, just not this one


VIRUS

Director: John Bruno 100 minutes 1999 Rated R (for violence, gore and language)

"Virus" is an overly familiar horror film where the plot is covered in grade "B" gore, the special effects are typically impressive and the characters all have motives to ensure the old rule that they will be picked off one by one by an in-human presence. Like many other movies of this genre, this is a recycle bin. Shall we count the films that "Virus" is recycled out of:

1. "Deep Rising": The most obvious film that this movie's material comes from is another terrible gore feast called "Deep Rising," that was released about a year ago at this time. First of all both film's settings take place in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, right in the time of a storm. Both movies are about another smaller ship whose crew who stumbles upon terrifying secrets in a larger, abandon ship.

2. "Event Horizon": Another movie about a ship, but this time a different kind; a search and rescue space shuttle searching for an abandon vessel that disappeared seven years earlier. Of course, this is a futuristic horror film. What do "Virus" and "Event Horizon" have in common? Both film's are about a mysterious life force on an empty carrier of some sort. How are they different? "Event Horizon" is one of the best science fiction movies I have ever seen. "Virus" is one of the worst.

3. "Sphere": Released about a year ago, "Sphere" was one of the most tricky movies to follow in 1998. It required brain work at all the time, thus major involvement. Remember, if you miss ten minutes of it you'll most likely be lost for the remainder of the film. Both movies use profundo voice synthesizers to communicate with the unknown as well. In "Virus" there are lots of mind games the movie attempts to play, all about what the monster is, and who the villains are, and about what happened to the ex-crew. Too bad none of the games make you think. As a madder of fact, you minds well park you brain outside before you walk into the theater to see it.

4. "Demon Seed": Another horror film, this one from the mind Dean Knootz, the novelist who also wrote movies like "Phantoms." "Virus" uses copious amounts of gore, which doesn't earn any Oscar nominations or anything, to generate fear in an audience. Neither film worked, as didn't their familiar concepts.

5. "Frankenstein": Yep, the classic. Where the evil deranged scientist uses body parts of other human to create a new life form. "Virus" takes that idea fresh right out of the container. This film uses body parts of humans and in combination to those. Also computer activated machines.

6. "Ghost in the Machine" The little seen horror romp about a technological killer who travels through electric fields. "Virus" even quotes that film when an apparent survivor states that the oncoming crew must shut off the power-- for "it" needs power to survive.and to move in that madder.

That about raps it up. I didn't list all of the film's in the above area, however. If I was to name all of the pieces to the movies that were used to make "Virus," I would have to explain the plot to you, which, as it sounds already, you can figure out by yourself.


This is the second worst film of the year. First Prize went to Thin Red Line (Nominated for Best Picture??????). All the actors, who in my opinion are decent actors, had the "oh my god, my career is over" look throughout the entire film and who could blame them, Virus was a waste of time, energy and money. The story was decent, but the director completely screwed it up. It was poorly done and never seemed to captivate the viewer.

0 stars and a 1 on the IMDB.


I don't know what went wrong in the making of this film, but it is one of the most unimaginative, preposterous and generally boring films I've seen in recent years. A clear rip-off of the "Alien" series of films, except with lower quality acting. I have no idea how they got big name stars like Curtis, Baldwin, and Sutherland to volunteer for this travesty of a film.


This movie was a load of crap, In the preview commercials. It had "From the producers of Alien and Terminator" comes Virus. I expected to see some serious scary sci fi thriller, but instead this movie was extremely predictable... on what will happen next and blah blah blah. There wasn't enough information about this "Virus" entity, just a bunch of electricity zapping around and scaring ship scavengers. This movie blatently tries to rip off Star Trek's Borg (Machines turning humans into robots) and trying to do a little Alien and Terminator like, but fails because of the depressing way the actors were talking. What a failure for the people who created this film, total failure.


I would imagine that most people will go and see this film because Matrix was sold out (do studios deliberately do this ie. release dreadful films at the same time as guaranteed big sellers of a similar genre?). Anyway, I think this is the worst film I have ever seen. It is full of unexplained elements: where did the virus come from? Why was the tug boat out in the middle of a typhoon? etc The "plot" was paper thin, extremely poorly acted, the scriptwriter should be shot, the only shocks came from loud noises, there was no dramatic tension built up - the end of the film was always going to be simply when they got off the ship: there was nothing to "figure out" (like in Alien): no moral ambiguities were presented (like in The Fly): and there was no deadline to beat (a crude, but at times successful plot device). The film could and should have ended much earlier. Donald Sutherland (especially) and Jamie Lee Curtis (to some extent) - hang your heads. This is the turkey of your careers.


I have seen "Virus" at a sneak preview at a local cinema. That was luck for the producers! If I had visited the film intentionally and paid for it knowing it was to be shown, I would have been seriously worried about the way I spend my money. Not only the story was it, what was so horrible. In fact, there wasn't any story. A few good men enter a Russian ship and have to face an evil alien. Haha. there might be some people on this planet, who would've made a good movie out of this, but the producers of "Virus" didn't. The bad special effects, a mixture of elements of films like "Star Trek", "Alien" or "The Abyss", and the missing atmosphere make this movie one of the worst I've ever seen.


What a waste of film....

Formulaic and nothing original - quite often during the film I thought I was watching another movie - Event Horizon / 1st Contact - basically anything with evil object / Cyborgs in...

Quite dreadful, thought it would be good for a late Friday night but OUCH !


Having just seen the 2008 BBC version of "Little Dorrit," I was delighted that Turner Classic Movies was showing this 1988 version. But what a disappointment it proved to be.

Comparatively, the '88 version is much...MUCH...duller.

Instead of a roller-coaster ride of interesting characters, the '88 version is slow and plodding. The individual scenes never come to life.

Sarah Pickering as Little Dorrit never engages one's interest. And while Derek Jacobi's Arthur Clennam may be closer to the book's description than Matthew Macfadyen from the BBC version, he and Sarah Pickering have no romantic chemistry.

All in all, not an entertaining presentation.


I watched Witness for the Prosecution on the "This" movie channel hoping it would be just as good as the original, but unfortunately not.

It plays like a TV episode instead of a movie, and the acting is very stilted. Even the way they move feels like watching robots in motion rather than a natural performance. I don't know who to blame - the directors or the actors - but in either case the actors look like actors, not real people experiencing real events.

I recommend you get the original movie which DOES feel natural. Charles Laughton does a brilliant job as the lawyer.

Even if you have to rent it, the original movie is better than this "free" TV version and worth the expenditure. PBS sometimes runs the original on weekends, so maybe you can catch it then.


This tries too hard to be a quirky romantic comedy, but in the end leaves you with just a slightly dirty, creepy feeling about the main character. The movie is rife with illogical leaps, inconsistent characters and a premise that simply makes no sense. This is, unfortunately, simply a Til Schweiger (popular German heartthrob) delivery medium -- the story was written so that he wouldn't have to step outside of the same role he always plays: a smirky, semi-jerk who, in the end, proves he really does have a heart if everyone will just give him a (2nd) chance to show it.

If you really liked Kein Ohr Hasen (a better film, watch it first if you can), then you might like this, but otherwise stay away.


Well, the title says it all; NIck is a sore looser, by some strange and uneventful coincidences, he starts to work in a psychic hospital as clerk/janitor and because of his lack of tact, gets fired after a few minutes. By coincidence, he stumbles upon a patient about to commit suicide and save her life. The nut girl decides to follow him, they hit the road and go on adventures together... to fall in love and of course, to go meet Nick's family who's very rich and where his brother and his step dad are more than scornful, you see the portrait eh?

Seriously, this history is as exciting as if I would tell you the day I get my thumb caught in a bottle of Dr Pepper, the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY you could like this movie is if you're an hopeless romantic or have this huge crush for tacky/ultra cheesy movie. I saw it in my German class and got angrier by the mediocrity of the movie than by the fact that I struggled to understand dialogues.

I highly suggest you not waste your precious time of your precious and short life in front of this absolutely mediocre scenario without any interests except if you love over romantic and tacky movie.


I watched this movie yesterday with a friend, I have to confess that I would have never made it through the whole thing, if it wasn't for my friend. This film is sooo cliché and so predictable, I could even speak some dialogues in advance, its the same for the jokes,they are so lame...I couldn't connect to the characters and feel sad or touched....all together this movie just got on my nerves...even if it got a bit better in the end..

There really are some good German movies...but this one is definitely not one of them...so take your dog for a walk or your girlfriend out for dinner...everything is better than watching this movie


This film is a new low point for French recent history of blockbusters... The story is about a pair trying to recover a winning lottery ticket. But it's not easy for the winner Moltès-Lanvin getting hold of a lottery ticket when you have to drag a goofy bloke (Francis-Benoit Poelvoorde) with you. I won't go into the (too) many incredible twists but the story unfolds in Paris, Bamako, Sahara desert... While the acting is all right, especially Belgian comic Poelvoorde, the scenario is way too far-fetched to be enjoyable. Gags are pretty un-funny as well, I'm afraid they will be downright stupid translated. The problem with some French productions in 2002 is that they want to copy US blockbusters but unfortunately the worst ones...

To summarise don't waste your money on thus turkey. 3/10 for Poelvorde!


The first and only time I saw this film I was naively expecting something on the "comic duo" lines oft employed by Francis Veber in such films as "La Chèvre", "Tais-toi", "Les Fugitifs" to name but a few. I was soon to be disappointed as this is only a pale imitation of the preceding. The plot was over zany and far-fetched, and the behaviour of the characters was so stupid as to be annoying ! There was also over-use of special effects ( useless in a film of this kind ) and to boot the whole picture "looked" over-synthetic without natural colours and over dominance of blue and yellow hues. The other thing was that I didn't find the actors funny at all. That this film, in spite of its numerous failings, had a reasonable success at the box office only goes to show that present-day humour in France is slowly descending towards prehistoric levels of vulgarity, unsubtleness and crudity. This film is therefore destined to an audience with very basic and limited humoral appreciation. Thank God we have the older films and the Vebers to remind us that good, clean, witty and intelligent humour did exist in the past.


"Le boulet" is the perfect definition for the word "disaster" : it happens when untalented French movie-makers try to do a parody of a bad Bud Spencer-Terence Hill buddy movie. "Le boulet" is the proof that the French cultural exception is really about to die. The presence of Benoit Poelvoorde is this unbelievable cinematographic shipwreck is the only positive element :

Scenario :	0/10

Direction : 1/10

FX : 3/10

Actors (except Lanvin and Poelvoorde ): 1/10

Images : 2/10

G. Lanvin : 4/10

B. Poelvoorde : 6/10

Total : 2.4/10 (I still have the feeling that I over-rated this trainwreck)