The Mr. Wong series by Monogram Studios was an attempt by this tiny poverty row studio to cash in on the success of Twentieth-Century Fox's Charlie Chan. In many ways, the two series were very similar, though Wong (played by Boris Karloff) was played less like a stereotypical Asian and the scripts, unfortunately, were generally not as good as the Chan scripts.

Here, in a completely average film, Wong is investigating the death of a rich jerk who is proud that he owns a stolen treasure from China. Considering how arrogant and unlikable he is, it isn't at all surprising that he's soon murdered--and in a rather clever way. The actual mystery is only moderately suspenseful by B-mystery film standards, but the film's lack of comic relief may appeal to those who dislike this aspect of the Chan films.

As for the acting, this film is unusual in that all the actors were good except for one whose performance really stood out from the rest--it was THAT bad. Dorothy Tree, who played the wife of the murdered man, was simply horrible. Every time she opened her mouth, she over-emoted and enunciated like she was in a diction class. When I checked her biography on IMDb I discovered two things--that she was a reasonably prolific actress AND that she was a singing and diction coach. That really helps to explain her performance as did a quote from Ms. Tree concerning the role of proper diction in advancing feminism--"more resonance, clear speech and a better vocabulary." Well, sometimes more isn't better!

A decent time-passer--provided you don't mind wading through Ms. Tree's impassioned acting.

By the way, the copy I watched clocked in at 70 minutes--2 minutes longer than the time listed on IMDb.


The second film of the "Mr.Wong" series is a technically primitive, unimaginably dull and talky mystery. Even the mystery itself doesn't stand up to much scrutiny this time (SPOILER: what kind of killer would send a threatening note to his intended victim written on a piece of unique paper that can be traced directly back to him?). Karloff's presence notwithstanding, the entire film has only two interesting scenes: in one, a murder takes place in front of at least ten people, yet nobody notices it at first and they go on playing a guessing game as if nothing had happened; in the other, detective Wong gathers (indirectly) all the murder suspects in his house and explains his various theories in detail, in a sequence that plays very much like an early version of all those "and now all will be revealed!" endings of the Poirot movies. (*1/2)


I must say teen slashers used to have some appeal, but this film probably hit the lowest of the Hollywood lows. The only redeeming factor of the entire film was the fact that Jennifer Love Hewitt is in it, giving it some aesthetic appeal at least. But then the story gets under way and it's the most predictable thing EVER. The acting was horrendous, the plot pointless and the gore non-existent. In every one of these dumb slasher flicks there's a scene where the murderer is down for the count and can easily be taken advantage of, but for some reason unknown to man, the "good guys" don't seem to realise this. But "I Still Know what you did last summer" has possibly the worst one I have ever seen. What it lacks in gore it definitely makes up for in logic...oh wait no, they have NONE! Here's the situation, the murderer has fallen through a ceiling or something and he's unconscious. One of the girls has a great big fire axe in her hand. What would most sensible humans do? That's right, swing that axe lots and lots of times, making sure his head and body are separate entities, and why not his limbs as well. BUT NO! She doesn't do anything of the sort, instead she uses the axe to break into a greenhouse and then...THROWS IT AWAY. Clever girl! She may be dead but at least she got the moral high-ground.

N.B. If you're ever stuck in a slasher situation, KILL the murderer when you get chance, and use a bit of logic. Then again if that happened the film would last about 15 minutes, which would definitely have been a good thing.


I'm looking at all of the positive comments made for "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" and I have one question: Where are your brains? This movie was absolutely horrendous, an insult to the intelligence, without any wit, logic, or reason for being.

Let's start with all the holes in the plot: How did Ben Willis know where Julie's boyfriend (Freddie Prinze Jr.) was going to be driving? Why did Ben Willis pay so much money to drag Julie and company all the way to the Bahamas only to kill everyone else there, and especially if he had access to kill Julie the whole time she was at school? Are there really exact days that resorts in the Bahamas have a hurricane season? How could the filmmakers believe that audiences are so witless as to not know that the capital of Brazil is NOT Rio de Janeiro? If Ben had access to Julie's room the WHOLE time, why didn't he just kill her? Why did that voodoo guy return to the hotel after we saw him start to escape off the island? Why didn't Julie ax Ben Willis when he was trying to break through the door? And what is with that pathetic ending?

Oh, there are so many questions I had about this movie and to no avail. After awhile, I realized that I was putting more thought to the film than the makers did! The filmmakers were so bankrupt of imagination that I guess they had to settle for just killing everyone off that wasn't essential to the story (a la Friday the 13th). This movie has no reason for being, only to pocket the money of those unfortunate enough to sit through this mess. If the movie was a bore to sit through, the ending was infuriating. It totally demonstated that the filmmakers have absolutely no regard for the audience and Jennifer Love's character all along. Nothing is worse than the old is a dream sequence or not? routine. The "surprise" in the film was only a surprise for people who lack the intelligence of putting a 10 piece jigsaw puzzle together.


One of the disadvantages of films no longer having all the credits at the beginning is that you now have to wait till the end for clues that the film in question may suck - the appalling film of "The Saint" a few years ago had Leslie Charteris' name nowhere in sight, and similarly "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" credits neither Kevin Williamson (writer of the first film) nor Lois Duncan (author of the book that it was based on), although they could both lay claim to having originated certain characters. Perhaps they declined to have anything to do with it on seeing the script by Trey Callaway, who also had a hand in the mercifully short-lived ER-in-space TV show "Mercy Point."

And I can't blame them if they did - the first film was no classic but I can see why it was a hit (it did have some real jolts, it was less self-referential than other recent fright flicks, and the pairing of Jennifer Love Hewitt and Sarah Michelle Gellar was a gift to guys everywhere, even if SMG did get killed). But this time it's idiocy all the way, from the title (the most inaccurate title for a sequel since "Rambo III") to the climax featuring the world's only six-shooter that fires eight bullets, while Danny Cannon's direction and John Frizzell's score duke it out to see which is the most OTT (the music wins). And the ending may as well have had the words "Julie James will return in 'I Still Know What You Did Three Summers Ago'" splattered across the screen - it would have been more subtle.

Jennifer Esposito is good as the bartender in the karaoke bar, though it's hard not to think "She left 'Spin City' for THIS?" - and at least we were spared Brandy singing over the credits (for those of you who leave before the end, Jennifer Love Hewitt does that job). But basically this is a waste of time for fans of good movies, although the delicious Miss Hewitt is as fanciable as ever (which is why I gave this film 2 out of 10 instead of 1).


*I Still Know What You Did Last Summer... I read The SPOILERS*

Julie James (Jennifer Love Hewitt, who is as one-expressioned and scenery-chewer in this as she is in 'Ghost Whisperer') has changed college from the first movie, and is still obsessed with The Fisherman (Muse Watson, who has been given way better material in 'Prison Break' and 'NCIS'), who pays her a visit in the Campus' Disco (hey, Fishermen just wanna have fun!). In the meanwhile her Match-Made-In-Heaven Ray (Freddy Prinze Jr., whose status as the best actor of the bunch says much about the other thespians involved) is not going to be with her for whatever reason, and her friend Karla (Brandi Norwood, who is as insipid an actress as she is a singer) wins a trip to Bahamas for four people by answering a question which asked her which was the capital of Brazil (Brazilia) WRONG, and she does not see anything wrong with that, nor does she understand she gave the wrong answer.

Karla brings her boyfriend (Mekhi Phifer, who plays basically the same character he will play on 'ER' a few years later, and just as annoyingly), and Julie brings friend Will Benson (Benson - Ben's Son, geddit?) (Matthew Settle, who really did his best in a thankless role), since Ray is unaccounted.

But when they get on the island, it's rain season, and as the killer murders... people we don't give a darn about (which could very well mean any character), including a scary rastafarian Mary Jane smoker (Jack Black?), our core four begin to find out they should have paid attention in First Grade Geography Class, and begin to act stupid (if they ever stopped), which leads to the most stupid scary movie I ever had the displeasure to watch, and to a good thing; Mekhi Phifer's and Jennifer Esposito's characters' death.

Then the killer gets Julie, and she has the most unbelievable fight ever - Miss Fraily Girl managing to overpower two strong men? Big no no...

By the way, why take the characters out to Bahamas to kill them? Why not murdering them on the spot? And why did The Fisherman not kill Ray? One more question: why did Mandalay greenly this script? It has been written by someone who didn't know anything about writing stories, much less screenplays.

In short, this movie deserves completely the title it has been given in Italy: 'Incubo Finale' ('Final Nightmare'), because it IS a nightmare of a movie, and to use a pun, it's not a horror movie, but a horror of a movie.

The Fisherman is cool, though. I was rooting for him in this movie.

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer: 1/10.


Captain Hook's retarded cousin Ben Willis comes back to finish of everybody except Julie,in case this film would become a hit,you know.He immediately thinks of a plan so cunning,so genius,so brilliant...no wait,my bad,it's the worst plan ever.

Willis apparently found out where Julie lives and where she goes to school.Immediately,he goes to get his son out of nowhere and gets him to go to the same school and make friends with Julie.Then he fakes a radio show(I think)and lets Julie and her roommate,played by Brandy of all people,win it by guessing the capital of Brazil(to win a trip to the Bahamas,is this still making sense to you?).Meanwhile,Julie's old boyfriend who now has the promising career of ah,fish gutter or something,has to be eliminated so Willis throws a dummy in front of his car and then doesn't kill him,making room for his son who got the weird pseudonym Will Benson(wouldn't it be safer to give him a name that doesn't contain Will,Ben or son?He should have given him a name that's harder to figure out,like John Killer)and they all head to the Bahamas.So Ben is now paying for their holidays or something?Yeah,that'll teach them.

When they arrive,turns out it's the rain season.Why would a radio station give people tickets to the Bahamas in the rain season?Can't they just like,call the station and try to change the date or something?Freddie Prinze Jr.(he has a name,but unlike Ben,I don't still know)also heads for the Bahamas right after waking up from a coma or something to save the day and he kills Ben once and for all,after Ben killed his own son by accident,cos he apparently never watched pro-wrestling.

So the happy bunch returns and then Ben attacks Julie in her apartment.I hate to be a wise-ass,but why didn't he do that all along?Why putting in the whole Bahama-thing,which actually complicated everything?On the other hand,I didn't go to psychopatic weirdo-university.My parents were all like,we think it's too expensive for learning so little. This movie is utterly insane,but amazingly,I still don't like it.It's just hard to enjoy a movie about Jennifer Love Hewitt not being killed I guess.


This is the worst scary movie I have ever seen! The first one was good, but what the hell happened when they made this one. I mean, come on! How scary is it when a man runs around (or should I say, WALKS around) and kills characters that only have 2 lines, or less. And the end is really sad. not boo hoo sad, just sad! Julie shot the man like 7 times and he still has enough energy to not die, follow her to her house, crawl under a chair (like he would fit), and then pull her under it! I'm sorry But this movie sucks! I Know What I Did Last Summer when I watched this movie... I slept!


Oh geez! What the hell were they thinking when they came up with this one? This is one of the most... stupid movies I've ever seen. This is absolutely nothing below-average direct-to-video 80s slasher-crap made in the 90s. I swear, I think Columbia Pictures must have had about 10-million dollars laying around the studio that they didn't know what to do with, so they made this piece of garbage.

The story, oh geez the story, is just so out-there unbelievable. GET READY FOR SOME SPOILERS, THOUGH I MUST SAY IT ISN'T SPOILING MUCH. Jennifer Love Hewitt and Brandy win a trip to a sorry tourist island by answering the radio station question "What is the capital of Brazil?" with "Rio." Oh please! I'm not going to lie, I'm a pretty smart person, but anyone with a sense of geography knows that just ain't right. Brasilia, dammit! Like a person that has been faking his death for a year would manage to dig up the money to send four people to the Bahamas. Yeah sure. I'm going to get revenge on the people (a pair of whom are dead) that hit-and-run me two years ago by sending them on a bit of a vacation first. What a nice serial killer am I? STUPID! Which reminds me, why is it called "I Still Know What You Did LAST Summer"? Sorry, Ben Willis, you're a couple of years behind. Anyway, for a reason I have yet to figure out, Jennifer Love Hewitt runs in the rain wearing a sweater and bikini bottom to tell Brandy and the rest of the victims that she ran over Ben Willis 2 years prior and that he went after her and Ray and killed 2 of her friends last year. In one seen, that I think is incredibly stupid, Jennifer's character is in a tanning machine when the psychotic Gordon's fisherman locks her in with one of those cable ties and turns the machine to full blast. As stupid as her friends are, they waste time breaking the machine when they could simply pull the plug. HELLO? Anyway, people die, killer dies, the end. And if that ain't bad enough, now we have the cast.

Jennifer Love Hewitt, as lovely as she and her assets are, is not enough to save this film. Neither are Freddie Prinze Jr. and Mekhi Pheifer, who, despite the terrible story, do a good job. And as for Brandy, oh poor Brandy, as much as I like her music, the girl can't cut it (no pun intended) in cinema. Sorry girl, stick to your day job.

Basically, this is a terrible film that only has 2 good points: a scene that I must admit surprised me, and 2 likeable characters, and no I don't mean Jennifer's breasts. For these two highlights and the fact that this gives people who like bad movies another one to watch, I give the film a 2/10. If you must see it, I suggest you wait until someone else rents it from the 99-cent rack and mooch off of them.


This movie is a crock of garbage, folks. It's movies like this that give true horror films a bad name. Nothing is good about this movie except the highly attractive and extremely beautiful Jennifer Love Hewitt. Other than her, you wish this movie would take a long walk off of a short pier. Nothing except JLH could save this sorry excuse of a movie, and it's also a waste of your time and a waste of film to make the movie with. Get this for a FREE rental only. DO NOT buy it. I guarantee that you will be sorry


I hope this is the end of all the Scream rip-offs. So much hype and nothing to show for itwhat a disappointing flick.You guys want 4 lines, and this film is not worth even that. Moesha, you can do so much better than this. Jennifer Love Hewitt I don't know what's the big deal with you. Please, no more!!


I should have (still) known or remembered what a poor movie the first 'Summer' was. 'I still know' makes the original seem like a classic. I wouldn't even know where to begin picking this one apart. Why can't the producers hire some decent writers, I know you are supposed to suspend your belief when watching horror movies but it would be nice to see a more believable plot and maybe a few better written characters.

Jennifer Love Hewitt is certainly easy on the eye and Im sure she has more talent than the filmmakers allowed her in 'I still know' Shes pretty much reduced to walking around aimlessly wearing as many low-cut, two sizes too small T-shirts as the makers can cram into an hour and a half of film.

George Romero's 'Dead' series and 'Candyman' aside I dont ever recall any strong black characters in a horror film, Moesha & the fella out of 'High School High''s character's were terrible. It's got be insulting to the Afro-American community when they are mostly portrayed as Jive talking, foul mouthed and overly horny people in this type of movie.

As for the horror element? well... need I say more than killers walking around with plastic cable ties in their pockets in case they want to 'suntan' a pretty young girl to death on a sunbed. Did anyone ever think of simply reaching out and turning off the sunbed's power during all the screaming and panicking in this ludicrous scene. This series is truly looking like its going to be the 'Friday the 13th' of the 90's. The worrying reality is that its just as stale and crap.


Standard, and worthless, sequel to standard original has Hewitt back as Julie James, who is still haunted by the events of the original. When she wins a vacation to the Bahamas, guess who follows her there? Havoc ensues. Death after death proves tiresome after a while, while the usual dumb characters become more annoying as the movie drags on. On the plus side, it has more scary moments than the first one (if you can get through a dreadful first half). Hewitt is excellent as usual, while Brandy brings a freshness to the screen as her best friend. Prinze, Jr. is hardly in the movie until the end (and what a lousy ending!). RATING: 4 out of 10. Rated R for graphic violence and strong language.


I can't bear him anymore!

"I Know What You Did Last Summer" was OK, specially because of Sarah Michelle Gellar (the most beautiful woman in the whole world). But this sequel is very very bad.

The screenplay is just terrible. I can say the same thing about the actors. Jennifer Love does not convince (one more time) as the silly, boring and annoying girl named Julie. Freddie Prinze Jr. should get real - he's awful! And Brandy should just sing.

There are some scary moments but that's all.

I think I gave a 7 out of 10 for the first film, but this one doesn't deserve more than a 2 out of 10.

I won't be surprised if in the year of 2027 we see something like "I Died On The Last Movie, But Now I'm Alive And I Remember Everything Clearly. So I Continue to Know What You Did 30 Summers Ago".

Rating: 2/10


This film marks the end for the teen horror come back.

In this baffling mess of a film, Jeniffer Love Hewitt and Freddie Prinze Junior return to escape the hook of a fisherman with a new breed of fresh faces all doing their best to get written into a possible sequel. From the beginning you know what going to happen. If you've seen any shlock horror film you'll be ahead of this mess from the beginning. But these criticisms can be explained with the past record of director, Danny Canon. He directed Judge Dredd but even this is new ground for this untalented hack.

There are two redeemable characters in this film and their planted on Jeniffer Love Hewitt's chest. They truly deliver exceptional performances and apart from their occassional freedom the film doesn't add up to much. In an attempt to pull in profit though they are given "ample" of screen time, a factor which encouraged a second viewing on video.

Brandy is the only speaking character that leaves an impression. She is a wasted talent in this movie but the girl fights to rise above the horrible material. The rest of the performances are wooden and simply going through the motions. And what a motion for Hewitt!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a date with the slow motion button on my VCR. Grade - D+


What a waste. I was hoping for this film to recreate the kind of claustrophobic terror that was the only reason to watch the first film, but instead, the entire film is an excuse for Jennifer Love Hewitt to show off her body. The plot is so pathetic it's not even worth mentionning; ditto for the script, characters, settings, acting, directing, production values... Brandy Norwood's "performance" here wasn't even worth the money it cost to the producers to fly her to L.A. for a meeting to ask her to star. Her dialogue doesn't make her character seem very stupid, but since she is, she makes everytihng and everyone around her look and act dumb, but once she's gone, they all seem smart. Only Matthew Settle brings any minimal charm to his character, but he does have a lot of the script's worst lines. The mentionned third entry in this series, once again featuring Ben Willis, will confirm this series the 1990s equivalent to "Friday the 13th"... People will be going to see these movies to see who gets mangled, and how badly, not for plot, suspense, character, etc... Grade: F


I liked the first movie. This sequel was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The first one actually occasionally made the viewer frightened and feel some suspense. This one was basically just watching the characters be frightened and people being gored to death. I never once felt scared. There is also an amazing lack of humor in it. Whomever wrote it should never write another movie ever again. The actors were sleepwalking through it. Same with the director. The producers should be gauged with a hook. None of these problems were the fault of Jennifer Love Hewitt's breasts though, which is why I rated the film a 2 and not a 1.


Ha! Ha! What a joke. A killer guy in a raincoat goes on a killing rampage is the stupidest idea in the first place. This is the worst movie idea since Uncle Sam.

This film is only scary for little babies. If this movie scares you, you probably get scare so easily.

Come on! This guy kills people with an hook. Thats a big rip-off of the great horror hit, Candyman.

No-- I didn't liked the first movie, I'd think the entire thing about the man in a raincoat with a hook is so stupid in the first place. I've seen horror movies that went only to video is better than this movie.

So, I gave this movie 1/2*


I went to this movie with the stupid hope that it would be good. Not a chance. Kevin Williamson refused to write the script because he was satisfied with his ending. There is really no reason for this movie, and it is at times boring. Sure, it is a wee bit entertaining, but I was laughing more than anything. In fact, I never got the least bit scared, not even a rapid heart beat. My God, "Showgirls" was scarier than this. The title is outrageous. Wasn't it two summers ago? Or did we stay in the same year. A much better title would have been "I Still Know". And that should've been it. That would have been perfect. Don't blame the creators of this for wanting to make moolah, but please, don't watch this movie. I gave it a 5 out of 10.


I Still Know What You Did Last Summer is a good example of what is wrong with many new movies today. First, the plot is seriously screwed up. The entire movie is totally unbelievable and abysmal-tastic. (A trip to the Bahamas? Uhhh...) I really wonder about who-the-hell-ever wrote the script. The only thing the movie actually succeeded in doing was showing off Jennifer Love Hewitt's body. This dumb attempt to sell the film quickly becomes stupid and laughably pitiful-licious. The movie's ending was drivel and did *nothing* to explain what had been going on, not to mention how the evil fisherman (ahem) keeps coming back. They could have used the best actors in the world (which they certainly did not), and the "story" still would have dragged this down. So, to sum it up: the acting is beyond stupid, the plot is terrible, and the entire movie is, all-in-all, quite absurd. There are many things that could have been done better, but weren't. I Still Know screams "not good enough." Rent it if you want a few laughs, but personally I pity anyone who could take this seriously. Like they say, "been there, done that." And who in the hell think "Ben Willis - the lamest and most insane horror villain to come along in decades!" - ah, forget it!


Mabel Normand and Fatty Arbuckle play one married couple, Minta Durfee and Harry Gribbon play the other in which both husbands are caught "fooling" with the maid. The reason I put the word "fooling" in parentheses is because the husbands are basically just sitting close to their servants and talking and playing with each other though that's enough for the wives to get suspicious. As both couples later go to the park to relax on benches where "No Spooning" signs pop up, Fatty goes to Harry's wife and walks with her while Harry goes to Mabel where she's is sitting. Police up on trees with binoculars catch Arbuckle and Durfee and arrest them. Mabel and Harry later pick their spouses up and go their separate ways before any more trouble stirs up...There must have been some morals law if the police are arresting adulterous couples in this short film! Some amusing slapstick pieces and facial reactions abound but it's not that funny to me. Worth a look for silent comedy buffs who are fans of Arbuckle, Normand, or both.


Okay, I don't want to make anyone angry, but this doesn't hold up very well. In fact I posit that the interview with Anthony Shaffer on the DVD is more entertaining than the whole film. Mankiewicz was a talented man and so was Shaffer, and so were the actors, but this is dated. It's talky, easy to figure out, and mostly something for fans of theater, Mank, and Olivier and Caine. The editing is particularly jarring, with quick cuts of inanimate objects inserted rapidly, something David Lynch does much more poetically in his work, most notably, Twin Peaks. This would never be filmed today, unless it was for Lifetime, with the leads changed for women and the script tightened, and reworked. It's a rambling old dinosaur of a play/script - it thunders along kicking up dust and then heaves its last breath and lays there wheezing on the ground, leaving this viewer wondering if it ever should have been translated to film. I'm sure it worked quite well as a stage play but in the cinematic day and age of Fight Club, The Sixth Sense, and The Others, it's old and musty and easy to figure out, (does anyone not know that's Michael Caine as the Inspector Doppler in the second act???) and if it does fool you, it's only for a second and not to very great effect. Deathtrap, also with Caine is a subtle retelling of this tale, only tighter, and with a woman character added. And both Deathtrap and Sleuth borrow Heavily from Diabolique. Heavily.

If you do purchase or rent the DVD, watch the extra feature with Shaffer. It's Magic, which is what I expected from the film - but its time has come and gone. It has wrinkles and liver spots and will do little more than bore most viewers under 60. I know I'll get reamed for this, but it had its time and even then, in my humble opinion, it was over rated.

If you like Olivier, there's a lot of better choices out there, as well as Caine. If you want a more lively 1970's work from Shaffer, try Frenzy or The Wicker Man. As for J. Mank, All About Eve was made 56 Years Ago (!!) and still holds up quite nicely as a savage black comedy of words, forever a monument to the man as a writer and director. Sleuth is little more than a dated footnote to his career. Everyone's actually - it just doesn't pass the test of time.


This is the type of film I really like: twisted tales of mystery and deceit featuring great actors who like to slice the ham thick. I wanted to like SLEUTH. No, I wanted to love SLEUTH. Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine, squaring off in a murderous battle of wits: What's not to love?

SPOILERS.....

But, I was very disappointed the first time I saw SLEUTH, and subsequently have seen it four or five more times to no avail. The film is clumsy and hokey and as smart as it thinks it is, it is really pretty dumb.

To succeed the story relies on characters who are alternately brilliantly diabolical and just plain dumb. For a film of this sort to work, the audience can't be in on the scam. We have to believe the film is going one way, when it is actually going another. Sleight of hand, as it were. Any storyteller can make one character fool another; it takes skill for someone to honestly fool his audience.

I even know exactly when the film started going astray. When one character suggests that another disguise himself as a burglar by dressing up as a circus clown. That's dumb. Worse, is when the other character does so. That's just plain stupid.

It becomes apparent that the robbery scheme being discussed is bogus. One character is lying to the other, and we know it -- and we know he should know it as well. We see through the gambits, the disguises and the lies, but the characters who are supposed to be smarter than us, don't. Worse, the film keeps announcing that it is being clever and pulling scams. See how smart I am! See what a fool you are for being fooled! Now shut up while I fool you some more. SLEUTH is too obvious; it wears its cleverness like a neon sign.

And it is a small point, but what was with director Joseph Mankiewicz's repeated cutaway shots to laughing clowns and smiling puppets? Once or twice it is stylish; but repeatedly it seem like a desperate attempt to jazz up the story or, worse, an attempt to cover up sloppy editing. Whatever, it was a constant annoyance.

This film has a companion piece called DEATHTRAP. They have similar themes and gimmicky plots and both star Michael Caine. DEATHTRAP is considered the poor cousin of SLEUTH. I disagree; DEATHTRAP may lack the over-the-top theatrics of SLEUTH (which, in itself, is not a bad thing) but it is more than just clever, it is tight, sly and truly surprising. Everything SLEUTH isn't.


A man (Michael Caine) wants the wife of a famous mystery writer named Andrew Wyke (Sir Laurence Olivier) and goes to his huge remote estate to ask for her. He finds Wyke eager for him to take his wife...or does he? Then an elaborate (and plodding) game of cat and mouse begins.

Why this is so acclaimed is beyond me. I'm not a young kid (I'm 45) and I usually find talky movies downright fascinating ("Rope" and "My Dinner With Andre" are two great examples) but I was bored silly by this. It moves WAY too slowly and I didn't find the characters or their dialogue even remotely interesting. Olivier constantly keeps digressing to the point where I just wanted to hit him. Caine just walks around looking confused. The twists at the end are good but by that point I was so bored I could have cared less. I actually dozed off for a few minutes! The acting does help. I've never been too impressed by Olivier as an actor--in the Shakespeare films and "Wuthering Heights" he seems unable to change expression. However he was good here. He chews the scenery and goes roaring through his role. But, as I said before, he's constantly going off the subject and getting into these little speeches that quickly got annoying. Caine is a wonderful actor but he looks a little out of his depth here. He was excellent at the end though. The production design is incredible--Wyke's mansion is just incredible. Still I found this slow and boring. This might have worked on stage but it certainly doesn't transfer to film. I can only give this a 4.


How much of the average American population would be entertained by watching two dull, lifeless middle-aged men play a chess game for 2 hours and 18 minutes? I can pretty much assure that number is pretty small. I personally love to play chess, but if you were to force me to sit and watch people do it, I'd feel like committing suicide after the first thirty minutes. That's about how I felt watching Sleuth. The entire movie is absolutely nothing but two men playing a dull game from the opening to the closing. There camera never leaves the house for the entire runtime. The most diversity in the entire movie is some minor clothing changes and some facial expressions. The entire movie is straight-up dialogue and nothing else. The entire movie is two long, dull scenes, with one scene change near the middle. If you have less of an attention span than the average person with Down syndrome, you'll be bored to the point of nausea long before the 30-minute mark. There is about as much entertainment value in Sleuth as there is in watching a tree stump rot, and that may even be an overstatement, because at least doing that you can use your own imagination. Here, the most imagination you get is two men, four walls, and an insane amount of bland conversation. If that describes what you consider an entertaining movie, Sleuth will keep you on the edge of your seat for sure.

People would argue that the conversation scenes I reference carry the "clever plotting". In other words, the conversation scenes carry a cute, predictably plot-twisted story revolving around all the clichés that we've seen since the camera was invented. There is nothing clever about the plot. Sure it has a couple twists that will make you shed an "Awe, that was cute!" smile, but they're the same plot twists you've seen countless times. This is a clichéd murder story, folks. It's not some hyper-original idea. If you saw a single Sherlock Holmes episode as a kid, you've seen everything this movie has to offer. If the plot were truly clever or creative, it would do something new or different.

The other problem with the plotif you even call it a plot; I don'tis that it's so predictable. No, you may not have any lead-ons as to who-killed-who or who's-dead-who's-not, but does it really matter? The outcome is always the same. You're always told the answer, and there's always only two options. It's the most basic immature plot line known to man. I've seen cartoons that put this plot to thumb-sucking shame. Who really cares anymore? I overuse the metaphor in my reviews, but a movie this unoriginal is like a joke you heard in kindergarten and then someone tries to make you laugh at that joke when you're 80-years-old. It's ineffective. It's pointless. Even if you force a laugh, you still feel annoyed.

I understand this movie was made in the 70s. People will defend it by saying, "There was nothing like it when it came out!" and they're dead wrong. All their doing is defending their deep sense of nostalgia. In reality, this movie was just as unoriginal in 1972 as it is in 2009. And do you know what's sadder? Movies just like it are still being made, and they're still getting acclaim. It makes me sick. We don't need another paper-thing whodunit murder mystery with the same predictable results. What the mystery genre needs is maturity. Instead of pumping out more kindergarten level plot line movies like this, why not actually think of an, you know, actual STORY to support the mystery. That's something directors/writers obviously didn't get back in the 70s, and it's something they still don't get today. Instead of focusing on plots, why not focus on STORY? Overall, Sleuth is a complete waste of time. It has a couple of intelligent high-brow lines, but I could get those from my dying grandfather. Why do I have to watch a pointless movie to hear them? And, similarly, I could get the same predictable level of mystery of watching this movie from playing the Clue board gamealone. Why do I have to watch a pointless movie to do so? The more I think about it, I cannot find a single redeeming value in Sleuth whatsoever. It's long, boring, dull, pointless, lame, slow, uninteresting, paper-thin, predictable, annoying, pathetic . . .

And most of all, Sleuth is exactly the same story you've seen hundreds of times, yet it expects you to be enthralled. Now THAT is a clever joke.

0/10


I like films of all ages, they don't need loads of action or naked people to sustain my interest, a good plot is enough. This does not have a good plot.

Very slow paced, nothing really gets going till the last 45 minutes.

Yes there are some twists and turns but they're all massively telegraphed, you wont miss them unless you're asleep (which you would have every right to be).

Acting is terrible and campy, quite obviously more suited to the stage.

Don't waste your time unless you like over-hyped campy tedious adapted for screen plays. It's not a matter of 'not getting it' it's not actually that witty, mysterious or thrilling at all, in fact if you don't have the phrase 'who cares' going round in your head there's something wrong with you. Much better films out there, it's not even that old!


This movie gets it all wrong. After seeing too many switcheroo movies, author Anthony Shaffer has come to believe that if one reversal is good than a new reversal every ten minutes for over two hours must be genius. He has no insight or understanding of why a twist is satisfying. This movie is little more than an insipid, endless series of ruses and reversals. It doesn't build (except a viewers annoyance) and when the final twist arrives, the movie finally offers viewers some mercy and arbitrarily ends it there; but calling it quits forty minutes earlier would have been just dandy. It is a poorly adapted play, in that the characters never shut up and the film never does anything filmic. In another massive blunder, Shaffer was allowed to turn his own play into a script. He does so with a deeply impressed self-reverence.

Spoiler ahead:

If you think that even the stupidest viewer can't figure out that this piece of dreck only has two actors in it the whole time, you are a nerd. I was never surprised that the new character (serially introduced... duh!) was just Caine again. Each new gambit is a no-brainer. That the the two actors think the material is deep or well-suited for this hideous master-thespian treatment only makes the whole train wreck that much more unbearable. If they had filmed Olivier and Caine masturbating for two hours the results would have been a lot like this movie. I can only imagine that people who rave about this are frustrated actors who relish the idea of playing a part this self-indulgent. Every copy of this movie should be tracked down and pitched into a live volcano. I despise this movie. It is NOT a thoughtful movie. It's an assinine, dumb movie.

Caine also appears in the second most grating thriller mystery ever filmed: DeathTrap. For the record, the third is The Last of Sheila, a grating foray into the mystery genre from Stephen Sondheim.


Not the worst piece of crap I have ever sat through, but darn near close. A bunch of film students at a state college could have produced something of this caliber. First of all, Nazis with British accents? That was the first indication that the director would be asking the viewer to suspend one's disbelief. Then, Anthony Hopkins as Adolph Hitler? Charlie Chaplin could do a better job. Hopkins performance was a parody of Hitler. Was he serious? When the director yelled cut, did the entire cast break out in giggles? At times he portrayed Hitler as a jolly Englishman. When it began to fall apart all around him, he was a ranting lunatic, but not a very believable ranting lunatic. Der Undergang ( The Downfall ) was the most powerful movie I have ever watched. It is a German made movie with an all German cast. The language is in German with English subtitles. It makes you feel you were right there in the bunker in the final days. You felt what those who were actually a part of this history felt. This made for television movie was so inferior that it made me wince at how bad it was.


Apart from being full of colors and sweet melody, the cinematic opera falls short of achieving that true great flavour that one has come to savour out of the classic Javanese Dance dramas and Ramayana in particular. The dance style is Javanese, the singing and music too is Javanese, but at heart its a poor copy of western operatic genre. The body too is lacking and ultimately it seems to empty and devalue the otherwise fantastically rich Javanese tradition of its soul. I think in the long run, it comes down to the script which as it turns out is badly written and is in need of improvement. You cannot pull the opera simply by saying that it is a tribute to those who died at the hands of injustice. The script has to carry the intent otherwise in-spite of its colour, song and music it will fail. Embellishments don't take you far when it comes to poetic drama if the raga happens to be not in sync with the rasa.

Sorry for such a harsh review. Maybe I was expecting too much out of it.


I went to watch this movie with a lot of excitement in the Estonian film festival but to my surprise the movie, presented in the style of opera, did not come close to my expectations. Even after knowing the story of Rama and Sita, I could not understand parts of the plot. It seemed the director had tried to put everything in one movie and somewhere forgot to connect the parts. A few scenes didn't seem to have any connection with the movie. This is not my attempt to completely bash the film , I will also add that there were some good musical parts and dance sequences but still the movie couldn't keep me or others watching the movie glued to the screen or even interested. Close to the end we were just looking at our watches to get out of the theater.


Where can I start with this movie. Okay, this movie has had many titles such as "Demons 6", "The Black Cat", "Armaggedon", and the list goes on. None of the titles for the movie make any sense.

The movie starts out with a director planning to make a film about a witch called "Levana". His basis for the movie is based off of Dario Argento's "Susperia". The director decides that he is going to cast his wife as the lead in the movie. Well, apparently there is a real witch named Levana and she is not to happy with this whole project and decides to make the directors wife a living hell.

The main problems with this movie are continuity and pace. I will admit that this is a very atmosphere flick but the whole movie still falls flat on its face. There are so many moments in this flick where I had to say out loud "What the hell is going on?". For instance, many scenes just tend to wander off in to space. Literally, the camera has shots out in space and on the moon. This has nothing to do with what's going on in the movie and if it does, someone correct me because I haven't figured it out.

The pace of the film would seem to at points move farely well but for the most part the scenes just start to drag and you could care less with what's happening. The beginning of the movie is a prime example. The characters are introduced and the story starts to develop but then things just start to fall to pieces right before your very eyes.

The acting in the movie is rather humorous at moments. A certain scene when the director and his assistant meet the man who wants to produce the movie is rather hysterical. And almost all of the scenes with Lavana in them are laugh out loud funny.

I think the main thing that saves this movie is a decent original score (I'm not talking about the bad hair metal in the background) and a few moments of gore. It seems that the director of the movie (Luigi Cozzi) still loves to have people having their organs blown to pieces. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, watch Contamination.

All in all, could have been a much better film. 4/10 stars


Again, one of those movies that never had a proper release. You will only find it on Japanese VHS, NTSC format. Okay, bootlegs are available but be sure to have this full uncut, or not. I guess that if you watch it uncut nothing happens because in the full uncut nothing really happens. to be clear, a lot happens but it's a mess, storyline goes from here to everywhere and back again. Is it bloody, no, in fact most killings are off screen. Is it creepy, not really, the demon is laughable, those hands are childish, the green vomit is green...there is no suspense, no gore, no nudity but why do people hunt for this flick. Because of two names, Brett Halsey, for his part in The Godfather 3 and of course for his role in another OOP To Catch A Killer, a must have but VHS goes in the 100$ luckily I have got mine from a retailer for 2 euro's. Anyway, the other hunted actress is Caroline Munro, best know for Maniac, Starcrash, The Last Horror Film and Slaughter High. She's well known for her body which she shows off in every flick except this one. But still up to today, freaks are hunting autographed stuff or OOP flicks from her. But here we see the downfall of the James Bond girl (The Spy Who Loved Me). If you have some spear time then this is one to watch.


Forgive me for the lame summary, but it was all I could think of. First, let me give a BIG standing "O" to W. Earl Brown who plays Meat like a man possessed. This guy is a fantastic actor and I say that because I didn't know that this was the SAME guy who played "Warren" (Mary's "special" brother) in There's Something About Mary. He also was "Kenny" the doomed cameraman in Scream!

I don't want to over do it with the praise, but when you can't recognize an actor from role to role, you KNOW he's good. As for the movie, all I can say is that I wish there was more to it. It was good, but it actually leaves you with more questions than it answers. To be honest, the VH1 Behind the Music gave more info. This appears to be a pattern with the VH1 bio-pics...

I recommend this movie based on 2 things, the performance of W. Earl Brown (Deedee Pfieffer is great, too) and the great music of Meat Loaf that is featured throughout the show.


Don't get my wrong, Im a hard core Meat Loaf fan, but this attempt at a success story was an abomination to him & Jim Stienman. Gee, where should I begin? The publicity lies & exaggerations, the acting was mediocre, he looked nothing' like Meat loaf, except he was the correct weight, he could'not act like him worth a bucket of cat crap, 1 of the only correct things here was that he could talk like him. The dude who played Jim, sucked hairy crack, too. Why does not it surprise me that he does not look NE thing like him? They did not even get the hair right, the acting', & don't forget the misinterpretation of his persona, just like with Meat Loaf. The filming' was ghetto, the lip-syncing' was painfully visible, they jacked up & tweaked the personal life stuff with bull crap, there was no freaking' indication of mystery, which he & Stienman are the epitome of, not even a smidgen. Therez more screwed up, typical film goofs, & other sloppy B-movie type crap to point out, but lets just say all I can sum it up with, it was the epitome of all that screws up films, especially biographical dramas.Why do so many other Meat Loaf fans love this pile of crap? I mean, I could go on like 5 pages, of reasons it sucked!! Oh, yeah, 1 last thing I gotta get off my chest........Did VH1 even try to get this to work, & give it some effort n' rock n' roll Meat Loaf aura? Meat Loaf is God, & he deserves a better tribute n' commemoration to his success than this lame product of a group of wannabes n'losers.Meat Loaf & Stieman are probably saying'to themselves........LMFAO!!!!!.......I agree, apparently, LOL


Poor production values, poor acting, and a poor script can do nothing for the success story of Meat Loaf. In recent interviews, Meat has made statements to the effect that he didn't know WHAT he had put on tape, until Rundgren came on the scene and did his production wizardry...here we have Todd's role reduced to saying something like "More motorcycle sounds!" two or three times. By the time his story is run through THIS blender, it comes out more like strained prunes than Meat Loaf!


Strictly for fans of the King this movie is one of the worst I have ever seen. It looked as though it was written and directed by Ed Wood without the props falling over. Elvis' hair changes from one camera angle to another, there is no real plot, all of the characters are predictable. The only saving grace was.....well....there was no saving grace. It's bad.


While, as some of you may know, I recently went through a marathon of Elvis Presley movies (in tribute to the 30th anniversary of his passing)  and which emerged to be a more pleasant experience than I had anticipated  I have to admit that I opted to check this one out mainly for the presence in it of Vincent Price. As it turned out, his role is quite brief and he doesn't even share any screen-time with Elvis!!

Incidentally, this has to be Presley's most eccentric vehicle: it combines the period setting of the star's own FRANKIE AND JOHNNY (1966) with the carnival backdrop of his ROUSTABOUT (1964); however, he seems quite lost here (this was, in fact, Elvis' penultimate film) in which he's given just one typical number ("Clean Up Your Own Back Yard") and where his hair-do and trademark stage moves clash with the feel of quaint Americana the narrative is striving for! Otherwise, the film features annoyingly flashy direction, while the traits of the supporting characters range from the obnoxious (the cardsharp and the villainous store owner) to the embarrassing (Joyce Van Patten reminiscing about her past as a champion swimmer and Sheree North's bout with drunkenness).

Besides, the songs are below-par (most don't even involve the star) and the title itself terrible (apparently, the people who made it didn't quite know how to sell their own product!)  even if we do get three prominent female roles: Marlyn Mason (whose shop steward/piano player/instructor character seems to have been modeled on Doris Day's role in THE PAJAMA GAME [1957]), Nicole Jaffe as the requisite ditzy blonde, and the afore-mentioned North as a 'loose' woman (a single mother who murders the married sleazeball who relentlessly pesters her). Also featured in the cast are Edward Andrews as the long-suffering managing director of Presley's traveling show and John Carradine, criminally underused in a blink-and-you'll miss-him bit as a Shakespearean actor (whose incongruity reminds one of Alan Mowbray's memorable similar turn in John Ford's MY DARLING CLEMENTINE [1946]).

As for Vincent Price, he appears as "Mr. Morality", a philosophy-quoting orator who's another specialty performer of the troupe; having watched him in this film, I was reminded of two more of the horror icon's non-genre performances (both of them Westerns, incidentally) which are available for rental on DVD in my neck of the woods  THE JACKALS (1967) and MORE DEAD THAN ALIVE (1968).


It's not that Trust the Man is a bad movie. It's not without some merit. But it's a film that could have been better had some time been taken with the script and with the direction. Spain's great filmmaker, Almodovar, complained this week that American movies have year by year become worse and worse because of their scripts. This film serves as a great example of what Almodovar is referring to.

The problem is that we're no longer writing characters in scripts, we're writing what I call "Oddities" - characters with a one-dimensional problem that makes them kooky but leaves them being just a type. It's more of a freak-show approach to storytelling (step right up and see the sex addict, step right up and see the woman who desperately wants to get married and have babies, etc). Here we have four great actors who are all playing oddities. Duchovny is the sex addict whose addiction is tempered by the fact he's a Mr. Mom and a great one too. His wife, played by Julianne Moore, isn't all that interested in sex for some reason which is not really made clear in the film. She's definitely attracted to him and the two seem to have a rather physically intense romantic relationship. But hey Screen writing 101 says conflict is necessary, so if the husband is a sex addict let's make his wife frigid for no apparent reason.

Likewise with the Gyllenhaal and Crudup characters. He's obsessed with being single, so guess what, let's make her obsessed with being married. As you can see this is a rather unclever film.

But there are funny moments. There are some great lines spread throughout the film. But it's long boring and you'll cringe as everyone seems to have a scene in which they break down and cry their eyes out in an almost childish spat.

This is the other main dysfunction of the film. Instead of making things believably come from the characters the film just pushes us this way and that way making things happen because it might be funny or it helps tie up loose ends, but it doesn't work with the stark realism of the New York setting. For instance, Duchovny's character starts to have an affair even though it's so clear that he's in love with his wife. We never for once think he is that sexually starved that he'd risk infidelity. Likewise we never for once believe that Julianne Moore's character is that disinterested in sex. She even takes out her friend after a breakup for some hot sex with an "attentive man." She goes as far as to admit having a threesome back in college. Does this sound like a woman who has no sexual interest whatsoever? And there's some question of whether she was having an affair too, though it seems like something was left on the editing room floor that would have explained that a little further.

Oh and for some reason Billy Crudup starts following around his therapist. Once again for no reason.

And the ending is just bad. It doesn't seem believable to begin with and comes off like sweetened sacchrine. Which is a shame because these two couples actually have chemistry.

It just takes too much time and sags around the midpoint of the 2nd act.

Plus for some reason there's a scene with Duchovny and Crudup talking where Duchovny ends the scene by suddenly announcing "I have to go" and then leaving. It's a rather poorly directed moment that seriously bothered me. Why does a character have to announce that they're leaving the scene? Just have them walk away. I think the audience can figure that out. Look for the moment, it's really odd.

I went to a preview screening of the film and I wish I could have talked to the director afterwards because with about 25 minutes of trimming they could have had a much tighter, old-style Woody Allen sort of film.

Sadly Almodovar is right. American scripts are at their lowest. Look at Superman Returns, Miami Vice, and now even this independent work. At least Fox Searchlight is also releasing Little Miss Sunshine at the moment. That movie is phenomenal and might be one of the few gems that refutes Almodovar's theory. But there's far too much to prove it.

I ask film-lovers out there. Why are we still accepting adequate films today? Why don't we hope for something more. Why don't we raise the level and say give us good films.

Adequate just ain't good enough.


Barely a genuine moment in the movie. He started out setting the stage for a thoughtful drama/comedy and then littered it with completely fake characters and situations. The zen musician/friend/minister? The lesbian book publisher who gets water spit in her face and sticks around for a friendly chat? The European boyfriend with the fake European accent and stereotypical lisp? Getting chased by a security guard around Lincoln Center? Showing up in a cab in the middle of your brother's/best friend's wedding, and not having anyone notice? Ludicrous, disingenuous, pretentious nonsense. So many story lines started but not completed. The car that he has an emotional attachment to. The children's book the girl wants to publish. The ex-girlfriend who he bumps into a couple of times, who makes a pass at him, and then you never see again. The sex addicts support group? Julianne Moore's acting colleague who, at the end, we're apparently led to believe perhaps she was having an affair with, but that was never developed or explained. Maggie Gyllenhall suddenly, inexplicably pining for a baby? It was just one obnoxious scene after another. A waste of good actors.


A waste of good actors...and good money! Nothing made any sense. There was no reason to care about these characters. Judging only by the ending, it seems that the whole point was that the men in the film were irresponsible, crass cads who finally learn the importance of love and family. Trite and boring. The story lines leading up to this predictable ending were beyond unrealistic, and yes, as someone mentioned above, there were multiple story lines that were not wrapped up. Elaine would never have been interested in that ridiculously fake French accent guy, and why on earth would she not have had a stronger reaction to her potential publisher kissing her on the street?? What did either couple do, learn, discover, realize or discuss that would have brought them to a reconciliation?? Shouldn't THAT have been the meat of the story?? The final scene in the theater was sheer nonsense! What an insult to the viewer! Just another disappointing film whose best (and only good) lines are in the trailer. A few saving graces for this film: David Duchovney was very good, the nod to 'The Graduate' at the end was cute, Gary Shandling was funny, and, unfortunately, that's about it!


The only thing this movie has going for it is the acting talent. There is no story, no arc, and the characters take an incredibly shallow view on relationships. Just like the other 2 B. Freundlich movies, it is all talk and no substance. Boring and has nothing to say. Tries way too hard to be funny, and all the forced jokes just fall flat. Since IMDb is forcing me to write 10 full lines, I will continue by saying that Julianne Moore is luminous as always, David Duchovny is very likable, Billy Crudup is over-the-top and annoying (scenery chewing much?) and Maggie Gyllenhaal is wonderful. She is the best thing in the movie and rises above the weak material.


This is a movie I went back and forth on seeing. I'd see a commercial and think it would be terrible. Then I'd see the trailer while waiting for another movie and think it would be good. Finally I decided to go. This was a tragic mistake. For a couple of minutes, though, it was looking pretty good. I was getting prepared for an intimate look at how sane, educated people handle adult relationships. Then the opening credits ended and there's David Duchovny, talking to his son while he (the son) is on the toilet and explaining how a fart can be better than a poop. It didn't get any better from there.

Not counting porn, this is the worst-written film I have ever seen. Now there are plenty of badly-written movies out there, but they don't pretend to be anything other than a crude vehicle that gets you to the CGI, stunts, and/or bloodshed. This is even worse than those because Bart Freundlich thought it was going to be about something important, and it's just absolute junk. The characters in this movie do not exist in real life. They have no depth or dimensions or personalities. They are all completely unlikable. (I started applauding when Duchovny tells Billy Crudup's character to shut the hell up. You and me both, David.) They don't talk or think like anyone I've ever come across. They float from wildly expensive restaurant to wildly expensive restaurant and whine about their problems without ever stopping to think that they are the cause of them all. Would you want to sit through an hour and 40 minutes of rich, pampered, pretty white people living in a bubble and complaining about how much their lives suck? I didn't think so.

But wait, there's more. The script makes Maggie Gyllenhaal look like a sniveling, whiny private-school sorority girl. That alone is an art crime against humanity. But considering Crudup is reduced to a one-note death-obsessed Neanderthal, and Duchovny ends up speaking jive during a particularly bigoted note in the script, and the whole thing wraps up like a teen drama on the CW, I think I'm on pretty solid ground with my assertion.

Yes, it only deserves 1 star. I thought to myself: Was there anything of value that I could take from this movie and justify giving it maybe 2 or 3 stars? There might have been, but the movie was such an insult to me and other smart people that I decided it wasn't worth it to figure out what they were.


I rented this movie because of the great cast. I finished it amazed that any established actor would have accepted a role in this thing based on the script, which was lame, unoriginal, and mildly offensive in its attempts at humor. Rarely has a battle of the sexes been so predictable. The story was filled with stereotypes and stereotypical behavior. The men came off as overgrown children. In any real world, their female counterparts wouldn't have put up with them for two weeks, much less years. It was painful to watch a game cast try to breath some humanity and originality into these characters. Moments intended as funny or telling merely smelled bad. Woody Allen covered the same ground years ago in a much better way. Try Hannah And Her Sisters. This particular would-be Woody update added nothing to the genre.


Such great actors, such potential. Such a bad film. Bad writing, crass immature 'humor' (starts with a burp/fart/poop three-part "joke" and goes down hill from there.

The characters are all 1 dimensional. There's Mr. I'm Bored/my wife isn't good enough... so I cheat. There's the stereotype of the professional woman too busy to fulfill her husband'd's needs. There's the intelligent interesting woman who suddenly is DESPERATE to get married and BREED. There's the usual "fear of commitment" guy.

I can't remember a funny moment or even a moment that seemed true to life.

And the ending was just disgusting. After both guys spend the 2nd half of the film bitching about how their women dumped them -- they make one last minute pathetic attempt to get their attention... and it works?? There was no apology. They act like middle schoolers - passing notes, stealing flower. There was no change/no growth/no character development. Duchovny wasn't sorry he cheated-- he was sorry he got caught. There's nothing to assume he won't do the same thing next week. And the 2nd guy didn't decide he wanted to get married on his own -- he merely gave in to his girlfriend's demands. They were all stupid.


CONTAINS SPOILERS

This is the kind of movie that I would normally like-great cast, cute premise, gorgeous NYC scenery. But all in all, I thought it was a jumbled mess.

Billy Crudup, woefully miscast as Tobey, a "36 year old slacker," comes off as an effeminate (what was that silliness with Eva Mendes's character in the restaurant???), self-centered jerk who only acts like a decent person when his girlfriend Elaine (a cute and perky Maggie Gyllenhaal) rightfully leaves him. But her new boyfriend is a stereotype of the European pseudointellectual who is one of the most unlikeable characters ever to grace the screen in this decade. Given the choice between the "Sprocket" and her lovesick, obsessed ex-boyfriend, it's no wonder she chooses to go back with a guy who at one time refused to drive her to work because he didn't want to move his car from the opposite side of the street.

Julianne Moore plays Tobey's sister Rebecca, a successful but insecure actress who is married to David Duchovny's stay at home husband Tom. Duchovny, who is a terrific actor, doesn't have much to work with, and his character is so schlubby and whiny you wonder why a gorgeous divorcée (another stereotypical Manhattan newly divorced single mom on the prowl just waiting to pounce on Mr. Mom) and a glamorous actress would want to spend even ten minutes in his company. The irony is that this seemingly asexual man is actually a sex addict who joins a support group called (stereotypically of course) Sexaddictsrus. Of course he makes a mockery of his first session, making up a preposterous story about being wrapped in deli meat in order to be satisfied. Oh, and of course he uses a fake name. Eventually he does come clean and admit that he has a real problem because he can't have a meaningful relationship with his sexy and dynamic wife, and his affair ends just like that. Naturally, his wife forgives him after he pulls a crazy stunt on the opening night of her play, and Elaine dumps her Eurotoyboy after Tobey screams out his undying love for her in the theater on the very same night. None of the issues are ironed out on screen, and a sweet and tidy ending is in store for the viewer who dares to stick it out.

The film was supposedly modelled after the Woody Allen films like Annie Hall and Manhattan, but it's light years away from them because it's boring and the characters are completely unlikeable. The conversations are totally pretentious, with the characters making sweeping generalizations about the nature of their relationships and very existences.

Overall, it's a lousy, stereotypical movie that is a 4 out of 10.


The worst part of this movie is how talented the cast is in everything else they've appeared in. In this, they are smug, self righteous and annoying. The main problem is, that they are trying to act like "normal people" and some of the most talented actors, just can't pull that off. Philip Seymour Hoffman can definitely pull it off. Paul Giamatti can pull it off. These actors appear uncomfortable and really boring trying to be "regular" people in unusual situations, but even the situations are not that usual. The minority of people watching movies are actors or authors or whatever, so these situations don't ring true and as the most annoying of all, Maggie Gyllenhall comes across as giggly and stupid, something that is sad to watch, given how talented she is. Trust THIS woman, do NOT watch this movie!!!


This is the most boring long-winded movie I've seen in a long long long time. I regret not reading any write-ups before I went to see it... definitely won't make that mistake again. I just tagged along with my grandmother who wanted to go see a movie, a once-monthly excursion for her - and she was very excited. We ended up leaving 30mins into the film as she was really bored. And she couldn't stop talking about what a disappointment it was! Overall the plot is incredibly slow, the dialog seems to revolve around 'sex' the WHOLE time (do people not discuss anything else in Manhatten???) The 'jokes' are not funny, I can't quite figure why they pegged this as a comedy... Drama maybe, comedy a resounding NO. The acting is OKish, also not what I would think considering who is in the cast - It's not worth wasting your money on!


It is a sentimental collection of clichés for Manhattan dwellers. The acting is quite hopeless, which is perfectly understandable with such a bad plot. The plot is really un-useful. Not too mention the non-humour of most of the "funny" parts (like when they are picking on the foreign fellow). The only thing that made me see the movie was Maggie Gyllenhaal, which I think is really one of the sexiest young actress around(wasn't for the voice....but she can put some decent tone if she feels like). The director is hopeless: Would be Woody Allen should get a job,possibly away from theaters. Soundtrack is OK but quite predictable. You would do yourself a favour if you save the money and get a couple of beers, is better entertainment.


Why was this film made? It has two or maybe three jokes that might get a bored person to smile and... nothing. Even when I watch a bad film I can normally guess what the director was trying to do, even if he/she failed... but here.... nothing, it's just totally pointless. The film has one of the... no... it has THE most sickly, honeyed endings in the history of cinema, followed by a second ending, just as ridiculous as the first one. There is a pair of blue eyes from one of the two main actresses which are so beautiful, I think I would forget to breath if I saw them in real life, but even that isn't enough to save the film. What else can I say... there are four principle characters, two of which are totally implausible two others which don't quite manage to live up to the standards set by the first two. They have implausible relationships with each other... then have implausible relationships with other people and then they have an implausible ending which I won't spoil, as the film does that without any help from me.


TRUST THE MAN is a director and a scriptwriter (Bart Freundlich) looking for a reason to justify this shallow, ill conceived, and ultimately boring movie. Supposedly we are to examine role reversal in modern marriages and the rise of the feminist to the head of the household. This is about stay at home dads, successful working moms, varying physical and psychological needs, failure to commit guys, and approaching the end of fertility zone women - and each of the four characters in the film try to make us care about their plights but just can't get past the clumsy script.

The cast is as fine as could be assembled to try to make this story matter: Julianne Moore with David Duchovny, Maggie Gyllenhaal with Billy Crudup, and such 'extras' as Garry Shandling, Sarah Knowlton, Dagmara Dominczyk and Justin Bartha. The four leads are always a pleasure to watch, even in a poor film, but put naive lines in their mouths and we just cringe. The ending is chicken soup without the healing factor. In the end this is a film to watch only for the leads: maybe turn off the sound...? Grady Harp


While not the most awful movie I've ever seen, it's close. Such great locations of New York with some good actors, and then to be ruined by this ridiculous screenplay. What a waste. I knew things were going down the toilet after that first scene with the son in the bathroom. Come on!! Horrible. The characters are not very likable and so who cares who loves who or who does what to whom. Billy Cudrup should retire from so called "acting". He's terrible. Only Maggie Ghynenhaal brightens up the proceedings, but even she can't save it. Too bad more wasn't given to the wonderful Ellen Barkin. No character development. Would have been better to have spotlighted her and made more of her character. She's in one moment and out the next. Another waste. The near ending in the Theatre was a travesty. Badly filmed, edited and acted. So unbelievable it would have sunken even a good movie. What harpooned to Bob Balabans credit??


How Burt Freundlich continues to get movies made is astonishing. He's been a hack since his first feature and continues to be with this film. Even more astonishing is that he got an actress as luminous, intelligent and talented as Julienne Moore to not only appear in his hack films but to marry him to boot! (I'm guessing there's an on-set love child reason behind this.) She's probably responsible for gathering the rest of the usually talented cast to participate in what amounts to be a sub-high school level wanna-be's attempt at a Woody Allen homage. Freundlich does not know drama, does not know structure, couldn't write a script if it were ghost written for him and directs with a hand so leaden it's amazing the audience can walk out of the theater afterward in full consciousness. His films are just mind-numbing. This guy is no auteur. It must have been a slow year at Sundance when "Myth of Fingerprints" slipped through with such shining notices (and, for God's sake, how did he assemble THAT cast? Such talent, so wasted.) What he needs to do for the sake of his craft is take some episodic TV jobs. Learn how to tell a story. And quit relying on your wife to get your sorry films made.


I had heard Trust the Man would be a page out of the Woody Allen catalog. I had also heard words such as 'sophisticated', 'smart', and 'hip' tossed around. What I found were actors trapped in their predictable roles with only rare genuine emotions expressed.

I was very disappointed that one of my favorite actors (Moore) comes off in a very unfavorable light. I'm also curious as to why every couple in this film invented reasons why they should stay together, when clearly there exists no believable chemistry.

Perhaps this movie failed because it was too sweet. Perhaps if it had relied less on wit, and more on authentic marital woes it would have resonated with a broader audience.

Bottom line: The movie is fluff. Woody Allen is not yet out of a job.


With over 100 feature films released in year, it can be hard to keep track of all the titles worth tracking down and checking out. Last year I saw a preview for Trust the Man before Thank You For Smoking, but with the great number of other flicks coming out in wider release, I forgot about it until this weekend. After watching it, I wish I had forgotten about it completely for there is almost nothing redeeming about this cinematic catastrophe. The cast has no chemistry, the writing and directing is amateurish, and cinematography is murky.

However, the picture's biggest fault is the tone. Trust the Man drifts uneasily from dirty sex comedy to tepid romance to boring drama from scene to scene, making for not only an extremely frustrating viewing experience, but an uncomfortable one as well. It's as writer/director Bart Freundlich didn't know what genre he wanted his movie to fall under during shooting, thinking that he would decide later in the editing room. Apparently that didn't work out either as it seems there are numerous scenes missing or incomplete. Other scenes go on far too long(the scenes with Billy Crudup in his car are perfect examples). There wasn't a single scene in Trust the Man I found effective, funny, or well done. The plot is a huge mess, gaping with holes. The only reason I give it a 1 as opposed to a zero is I reserve zeros for only those films that I find morally offensive/repugnant or without any artistic value whatsoever. 1/10


Sasha Mitchell stars as David Sloan the brother of Kurt Sloan (Jean-Claude Van Damme) who takes on Tong Po (Michael Qissi) a brutal fighter who was beaten in Bangkok by Kurt, however Tong Po has killed Kurt and now demands a match with David to reclaim his honor in this disappointingly dull sequel which takes itself far too seriously. The actionscenes themselves are okay, but overall the film is worthless.


...........sadly this film is not it.While I admit to watching this film several times,I really think that like most sequels to stand alone movies it suffers from lack of a good plot device,when the main character of the first movie is conveniently disposed of in flash back and quite easily at that and a new hero is introduced as a previously unmentioned brother you know that you are in trouble. I really enjoyed the first film I thought it was great,definitely one of Van Dammes best,and I wonder how this would've been had he returned for it but alas he wasn't offered enough money and passed on it. Sasha Mitchell came in as the lead and went for 3 films until his character was unceremoniously dumped at the start of Kickboxer 5 Redemption in much the same manner as Van Dammes was in this one.Sasha tries hard and isn't too bad its just the script let's him down. Peter Boyle must've needed the paycheque and Michael Qissi ( Van Dammes real life good mate) return's as Tong Po the Thai Kickboxing champion. Its not a bad way to waste n hour and a half of your life but its an hour and a half you could be wasting re-watching the original Kickboxer


This was just a dream. What REALLY happened after Kickboxer, was that Kurt and Eric decided to live in Thailand where they opened there own Muay Thai school. Kurt eventually married Mylee and they are still there partying today.

As the first movie pointed out, there was only two brothers. There was never a secret brother. The "brother" subplot was used in the first one, even if they did have yet another brother (man what a cheesy, excuse to do a sequel!), they obviously don't care too much about him as they said in the first one "there's only you and me". I can't imagine Eric saying. "Dad was always on my case. But he made me harder. Oh wait on me AND David! I somehow forget that I grew up with a brother here!" Satcha Mitchell is really weak and wimpy looking. He could never be the brother of Kurt and Eric (as Tong Po correctly states in this movie, "You're the weakest of all the Sloanes". That's no bulls**t. It's true). He's really boring and can't act. I would stick to 'Step by Step', Satcha, because as an action star, you're pathetically weak. Kickboxer was a success mainly for the presence of Van Damme. When you put in an unknown actor who's as dull as ditchwater, you know you're in trouble. It basically confirms that this is not a sequel as the actor you see in the flashback is obviously not Van Damme. Maybe this is another person Tong Po fought that was also named Kurt Sloan (cause the Kurt Sloan we know only had one brother, Eric). When you put in a villain that was already defeated (Tong Po), it's kinda mindless. But somehow, despite being soundly defeated, the movie attempts to show him as "stonger than before (how?)" And if Tong Po REALLY killed Kurt (which he didn't, as I said, this film didn't happen), just bashing him up in the end is not getting revenge. Knowing he is a killer, you can only be satisfied if he is killed at the end and gets what he deserves (which he doesn't), so there's no stopping him from doing the same to David Sloan. I could relate to Kurt, I certainly couldn't relate to this "David Sloan". I didn't know who he was and I couldn't care less. I hope the fans of him were just and p**sed off as I was about Van Damme, when he was dumped from the series. The unexciting presence of Satcha Mitchell led to this being a series of direct to video sequels, which he was happy to star in (being a no-name actor). To most of us he's simply making money by being in Van Damme's movies. He wouldn't even have got to be in those without Vann Damme, so don't you dare think of him as the Kickboxer actor. I suppose if David was killed off and it was revealed there was yet ANOTHER brother you'd call it cheesy. Well I found this too cheesy to contemplate. Like I said, this was a Kickboxer imitator, not a sequel. There is no such thing as a "David Sloane". Just Kurt and Eric who are still living it up in Thailand.


This film is a prime example of why some sequels discredit the original film. In this case, "Kickboxer" should have stood alone but instead was followed by B-movie reject "Kickboxer 2". The film was bad in every way possible with horrible acting performances by Sasha Mitchell, Peter Boyle, Matthias Hues, Michel Quissi, & Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa. Each actor was "wooden" & underachieving as well as overpaid for this film. Sad fight choreography, even worse cinematography, & ridiculous script writing doomed this film to failure.

It's not worth bothering with reliving much of the story because there isn't much to tell. Sloan(Mitchell) goes back to the UKA circuit to make $ for his decrepit gym to keep it open. Sloan wins his bout against enemy & current UKA champion Vargas(Hues), renounces the title belt, & announces his retirement again. Angered by his defeat, Vargas & his goons sneak into Sloan's gym, beat him up badly, & set fire to the building. Badly injured & financially strapped, Sloan endures a lengthy hospital stay. Once out of the hospital, Sloan finds a hotel room to recuperate & wallow in self-pity. A knock on the door presents Xian Chow, former Muay Thai trainer of brother Kurt Sloan. Chow offers to help train Sloan but he resists. Soon, Sloan & Chow work together with great results. Fellow kick boxer & gym rat Brian Wagner(Vince Murdocco) takes on corrupt fight manager Justin(Boyle) & fight czar Sanga(Tagawa) to turn pro. Wagner wins his first few fights, makes some money, & asks Sloan to come to his championship fight. Sloan agrees & takes Mrs. Wagner along to see him fight for the first time. Confident & arrogant, Wagner waits for his opponent to step to the ring. A last minute announcement calls for a replacement fighter who happens to be the ruthless Thailand Muay Thai champion Tong Po(Quissi). Tong Po punishes Wagner for several rounds before killing him in the ring. After a visit to the hospital with Wagner's mother, Sloan learns the truth about Tong Po & his brother's death in Thailand. Angry & in grief, Sloan vows to have revenge. When Sanga offers a challenge for a fight with Tong Po in the Ancient Way, Sloan accepts without reservation. The two men enter the ring, wrap their hands in rope & resin, dip their fists in broken glass, & prepare to fight to the death. The tall, muscular, & ruthless Tong Po beats up on Sloan for several rounds before finally displaying the Muay Thai fighting spirit needed to pound the Thai champion into a knockout. Revenge has been had by Sloan & he reopens his gym for the neighborhood roughs.

"Kickboxer 2" will not dazzle, uplift, or have you cheering for the hero. It is simply mindless entertainment, & I MEAN MINDLESS!!! This film will lurk in the depths of one of the worst martial arts action B-movies in film history. Just thought you should know that!!!


this sequel is nowhere near as good as the original.there is lots of blood in this one,courtesy of the fight scenes.,which is a good thing.the fight scenes themselves aren't too bad.however, if found the plot to be lame and uninteresting.this martial arts movie did not really engage my interest very much.this movie lacks the depth(i,i said depth and martial arts movie in the same sentence)of the first film and even the following two sequels.the worst part of the experience is the song selections and choice of band.who picks this crap.these guy don't even rate as flea bag bar band.and the songs are pathetic.the only good things in this movie are Sasha Mitchell,who makes a credible hero and Dennis Chan,who plays the wise oriental sidekick.i suppose i could eke out a 5/10 for this movie,since it is watchable,but the music just sucks so damn bad,i have to give "Kickboxer 2" 4/10


A Maniratam movie, mostly shot in day light? Was it because Aishwarya and Abhishek had other business after sunset? A confident village bloke, Guru, quickly becomes a famous textile businessman before its time for intermission. The rest of the movie is a upsurge to Guru's grand yet powerless argument in the courtroom. Good costumes for Abhishek especially while he is at Turkey. His hit formula is definitely to imitate senior as much as possible by trying a Paan Banaras Waala type song and also by being biased to his left hand. With Aishwarya, if you removed the background from any song sequence, it is hard to tell which movie she is dancing for. Continuing the same 'see-my-hip-can-go-over-my-belly-button' step from Jeans to Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam to Guru, she has conveniently let Mallika's dance to slip up to the best dance in the movie. After Alzheimers in Black and several on Schizophrenia, it was time to introduce the Indian audience to another neurological disease in the form of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). While MS dawns during the 20s, Vidya Balan seems be limping from the age of 10. It is interesting how she predicts her d-day to be 420 days while the course of this disease is considered highly unpredictable with most people living a full life sans quality. I guess the attempt was to pull a Zameer (from Munna Bhai) for the sake of drama. Apart from such technical blemish, i think it is a good attempt towards awareness. In summary, one has the option of taking their extended family to a nearby theater to watch Guru, or use that money saved to buy some shares in Reliance. Eitherways, you will see Udhyan Mukharjee commend your decision.


1. There is no way the nurse would ever go into the dark basement by herself to look and see if the problem with the phones "might" be there.

2. Only three people left, an obvious problem going on, and they all split up.

3. NO WAY would there EVER be that large of a facility and such a small amount of staff and residents. If funding was short, the state wouldn't bother with the operating expense.

4. No maintenance personnel whatsoever.....

5. No one ever hears anyone else scream...

6. The doors would not automatically "lock down" with no alternate means of escape. That would be a total violation of fire and safety codes. Not too mention the total lack of communication with the outside. I don't care how secluded the place was, or how crappy the funding, there WOULD be other alternatives for contacting outside agencies.

7. If the stoner was that afraid of the dark, I don't care how good the pot was, he wouldn't go down to the basement alone to smoke it.

8. After the stoner died, everything was business as usual, no investigations by police, no safety code people, no state investigators..

When I watch a horror movie, I want to at least have some intelligence involved.


If you loved "Henry - Portrait of a Serial Killer", you may hate this terrible sequel. There is nothing here to recommend. Director Chuck Parello, who also made a more recent Ed Gein film (not quite as awful, but almost), has no idea how to make a good movie. This hopeless bore is a series of badly staged murders. There is no energy, no characterization, and no horror. I wanted to like this, I really did, but by the time it hit the one hour mark, I was having trouble stopping myself from turning the TV off. Of course, in the interests of forming a fair opinion, I needed to see it out to the end. Michael Rooker was wise not to return for this hideous failure.


Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, part two (1998) was an ill advised and unwelcome sequel to the dark and brutal film Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986). Many things are missing from this film that made the first one so memorable such as the original director and Michael Rooker. Without those you just have an average run-of-the-mill low budget slasher movie. The movie lacks motivation and a theme. The film makers turns Henry into just another movie monster who kills his victims creatively at every turn.

The film follows the further exploits of Henry. He travels around the back woods of America continuing his murderous spree. Unlike the first film, we never get a glimpse into his sick and twisted mind. It's better to just forget this movie and pretends that it never happened. That's how I feel about this movie.

Not recommended for fans and non-fans of the original. Others definitely need not apply.


No matter how brilliant and stunning the screenplay would have been, this sequel to `Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer' was doomed to automatically lose 99% percent of its power. Why? Because Michael Rooker didn't reprise his role of the relentless serial killer. The way he gave image to Henry made clear that no one could ever equal him. Actually, when I first saw `Portrait of Serial Killer' (at much younger age than generally recommended) and not knowing who Rooker was, I really was convinced he was a real madman! Neil Giuntoli was the rather unknown actor given the thankless task to play the `new' Henry Lee Lucas. And he obviously tries his best. In fact, he tries a little too hard! Throughout the entire movie, it seems like he's trying to be Michael Rooker instead of Henry Lee Lucas. `Mask of Sanity' lacks the rawness of the original. The original was a brutal, stone-cold documentary completely lacking humanity. This sequel is `friendlier' and basically easier to get into. Henry is still at large after his initial killing spree and homeless. He accepts a job as a toilet cleaner and goes to life with one of his colleagues. Henry fools around with a suicidal teenager (she looks like a younger version of Jennifer Love Hewitt with binoculars attached to her head) and deserves a little extra money as an arsonist. Soon, his appetite for murder rises again and he finds a new partner in the man he lives with. Mask of Sanity is a rather redundant sequel without any mentionable aspects. The acting is okay while the tension level is rather weak. The disturbance-elements featuring in the original have entirely vanished, and that was exactly what made the original immortal. The ending is left open for another sequel, although I hope that'll never come.


I had no intention of seeing this piece of schlock, but finally caved into temptation. I had to see why anyone would bother to make a sequel to a film that obviously did not need one (much like Jaws), well I did not expect much and got even less. This film is a gratuitous waste of time that has nothing like the intensity of Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Henry was not a slasher film, it is human portrait, better yet a sort of cynical comment on films about real people. Henry Lee Lucas was a real person, but certainly not the type of person that has any right being venerated in film. Even if he did not kill all of the people that he claimed to, he is still a degenerate who has still killed.

This film was a meditation on the type of mind that can do these horrible things, it is a commentary on the evil in man's heart. Henry was not exploitive in any way (which is why I object to it being placed in the Horror section at video stores and its being referred to as a Slasher film), it was grim and unpleasantly realistic. It did not attempt to be entertaining, whereas this pathetic sequel does, it tries to portray Henry as a slasher or a character rather than the simple, banal evil of the original film. I am completely baffled by the fact that this film was ever made and what possibly could have motivated it (well, money of course, but thats not an excuse).


I was hesitant for a sequel to the shocking Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, which was both graphically and psychologically disturbing. It seems that the shock and psychology of the first gave way to boring dialogues and less-than-effective acting. Perhaps the producers were hoping to cash in on the cult-following of the first "Henry".


I saw this piece of tripe and couldn't believe the mockery of a brilliant yet ruthless legend. Teach deserves more respect, like the portrayal of him in the National Geographic film "Terror At Sea". He was inventive, strong minded, and wise up until his brutal death. To betray these traits is offensive to me when there aren't many others who could have held a candle to him and most likely never will. To make some goofy film about the most notorious seaman of all time, especially in the era of Sergio Leone & others is just an embarrassment. I don't mean to be a nerd or defend a man who some may find offensive, but as far as history is concerned (in my own opinion) he was among the most riveting. I feel he was more of a role model than a villain depending on the perspective you take. Any film that takes at shot at a man such as he is a display of ignorance and stupidity. I suggest reading "Under The Black Flag" by David Cordingly who writes about Teach using fact, not silliness which only minimizes and belittles the genius of one of the last true men who embraced freedom and had the will & courage to choose his own destiny "The floggings will continue until morale improves."


In this Walt Disney produced comedy, a track coach (Dean Jones) begins a new job coaching the "Godolphins", a team without a ghost of a chance of winning anything.

 The ladies he is staying with are the great-great granddaugters of Blackbeard the ghost, and they are about to lose their home if they don't come up with $38,000 to pay off their mortgage. A crooked gambling man plans to get their propterty and build a casino on the site.

 Dean Jones' charcter accidently finds a spell or 'conjuration' that brings back the 'ghost of Blackbeard' who gets involved in trying to save the home of his great-great granddaughters from the crooked gambler, and all types of antics follow.

 The characters in this film do not click together. Translation: it's just not funny. Perhaps younger children (definitely under 13) might like it, but I suspect most adults will be annoyed by the corny acting performances of almost every principle actor in the film. Even the great Peter Ustinov can't save this sinking ship. It would have been better to leave 'Blackbeard's Ghost' in limbo, thus sparing the rest of us from this shipwreck of a movie. I give it a 4/10


OK, first off, Nell's lakeside idyll is a TVA lake, made for generating hydroelectric power in the 1940's. So much for untouched by civilization. And where'd they come up with the idea that twentieth-century mountain people practiced these crude bronze age cave burials? Bogus and manipulative all the way through, it's a patronizing rip-off even without its condescending and wholly fraudulent ideas about Appalachian history. Jodie Foster tries desperately to gimp her way to an Academy Award, and surprisingly, it didn't work (unlike Dustin Hoffman's one-note performance in Rain Man or Al Pacino's self-parody in Scent of a Woman). Michael Apted should know better, having done a half-decent job portraying mountain life in Coal Miner's Daughter. An altogether horrible film, the worse for its pretensions and delivering some "profound" truths.


Normally I love Jodie Foster, but this film is a total misfire that is little more than a gender reversal on Forrest Gump. Foster plays an uneducated backwoods woman, who is "discovered" following the death of her guardian and becomes the cause celebre for dueling medicos Liam Neeson and Natasha Richardson, who debate about whether she should be institutionalized or allowed to remain in isolation. It is a potentially interesting story, but it goes south once one realizes that the film is infinitely more interested in utilizing Nell as some sort of wise-beyond-her-years E.T., who will ultimately bring everyone around her together, rather than examining the world from her perspective. As with many films now, it is in desperate need of editing and the length is unreasonable. Foster is initially amazing as a woman who speaks a language all her own, but there is nothing to the role beyond the initial impression. She spends the majority of the film twirling, speaking gibberish and taking skinnydips. One certainly has to admire her fearlessness in these moments, as she truly gives an air of being uninhibited and innocent. Ironically, director Apted misses few opportunities to denude his leading lady, but when the story conspires a reason for the strapping Neeson to shed his clothes, tellingly Apted suddenly becomes coy with showing nudity. Neeson and Richardson are both fine, but they are stuck in cardboard roles with little dimension. A total waste of time.


The major flaw of this movie, which struck me after the first 20 minutes is that it is somehow artificial. This could be due largely to the direction, which somehow almost never really got a grip on the movie.There was something relaxed about the actors, which didn't quite fit the sad and serious subject. And Jodie Foster was definitely miscast here. She inspires determination, self-confidence and ...feminism, so how the h*** could she be right for the part of a feral child? Sure, her acting is great, but why cast her in such a role? It's like casting Julia Roberts as a brain surgeon or Jessica Lange as Margaret Thatcher. And the that end speech by Nell in the court room...pleeeaassseee. The feral child suddenly turns into a moralizing philosopher? What the heck was that? Apparantely Jodie Foster did her homework playing a feral child quite well, despite her miscast, but the writer and director were so keen to deliver a final touching scene, that they forgot all about realism there. The outcome of the movie is also fairy-tale material. And the movie is somehow very unbalanced in its elements (story, acting,direction,dialog). The three points I'm giving is for some really touching scenes, but overall it is below average.


The only prize that the usually excellent Jodie Foster deserved for her performance in the God-awful "Nell" was a Booby Prize, not an Oscar nomination. The movie and her performance are both cloying, manipulative embarassments. I sat through the whole precious, fey, numbingly predictable piece of claptrap, dumbfounded that this normally intelligent and thoughtful actress could have experienced such an extended bout of temporary insanity as was needed to give this particular performance. Everyone's entitled to mistakes, I guess. The jaw-dropping thing is that some people actually like this movie, and not just as camp! By the way, it also features Liam Neeson at his most constipated, and Natasha Richardson's along for the ride too, though its hard to notice either of them while Jodie's so busy making funny faces and gurgling.


This movie is so STUPID! I mean.. why does Liam Neeson take this woman so seriously, having only heard her say 3 WORDS! When they found her in the woods, they should immidiately have committed her to psychiatric hospital to try and make her a real human being. Just to see Jodie "hey-see how stupid I look" Foster dance around chanting is stupid....


At that point I felt I had watch deaf blind mutes touch fingers for the millionth time. I thought, "I can't watch this anymore". Then a mongoloid hit himself in the face with a ball repeatedly. And I though, "I definitely can't watch this anymore".

But I need 10 lines.

Not fair.

Herzog is really awesome apart from this.s

Oh, Aguirre sucks too.

So does Precaution Against Fantativs.

But My BESt fiend and all them. Wonderful. Fitzcarraldo. Great.

No One Will Play With M is surprisingly excellent


Awful from top to bottom.

Cliched characters.

Clumsy pacing and plot.

Rancid dialogue.

So-so directing.


Awful, awful film. The direction (Leguizamo) was choppy, the storyline jumped ALL over the joint, the acting (with the exception of Leguizamo himself) was absolutley horrible, and the fight scenes looked as if they were filmed in slow motion. I think Lequizamo is a fine actor and performer, but this was an absolute disgrace of the film.


I don't know if this movie could have been any worse if it tried. My two roommates and I were totally pumped up to see this film, we set a timer on the TV and all ran into the living room when the timer went off and sat attentively on the couch like dogs about to be fed.

When it was over, we slowly got up and walked out of the room without saying a word to each other. The movie was so bad it left us speechless. This farce of a film was nothing more than a way for John Leguizamo to live out his boxing fantasies. I recommend avoiding it at all costs.