you'd actually have to have experienced this weird crap in your real life in order to enjoy it. it was just a weird movie about some killer idiot. he was always thinking about murdering his therapist and it was constantly flashing back to scenes, but it was one of those lame flashbacks where they don't tell you it's a flashback and you think it's happening now. it's kind of confusing, but not in a deep sense. it's more like a sense of idiocy and waste of time. like, "why am i still watching this crap?" i'm actually at a loss for words as to why i finished the film. the grenier fellow really needs to try a new hair style. i mean, he has nice hair, but he only has one haircut and that's just retarded. he could get some corn rolls or a bowl cut even. i think the movie was retarded.


I thought a lot of this movie was unbelievable. I realize the main character had problems, but really... who goes skinny dipping just after meeting their fiancé's parents for the first time. The movie didn't leave me feeling anything but disappointed. The plot had a lot of potential but didn't reach that potential. I did like the way the characters were introduced and at first I had no trouble getting into them, but again, as the movie progressed, I couldn't understand what the characters were trying to do. In general, I like movies where characters don't act rationally, but with this movie I couldn't create any explanation for some events and the main character isn't completely insane so I should have been able to follow some type of reason. I don't recommend this movie to anyone.


So...I do not watch "Entourage", and before today I had no idea who Adrian Grenier was. Nor have I ever hated a movies so much that I wanted to review it. One, totally predictable. Two, totally boring. Three, zero chemistry. Four, huge waste of time.

There was nothing interesting about it. It was campy and really fake. I was not sure what was wrong with the guy for the first half of the hour long movie, than just waited for him to snap. There was zero emotion in Leila Arcieri's part,nothing.

This movie made me feel uncomfortable, angry and embarrassed that I actually finished watching it. Horrible!


Maybe Adrian is great on Entourage, but I don't see why this movie itself isn't getting worse star ratings. This is truly an awful movie, worthy of a midnight run on Lifetime network.

The two main characters are definitely very attractive and their acting skills are not terrible. Leila was gorgeous and didn't overdo her character, which was a relief. Adrian's character, however, was utterly unlikeable. Clingy, whiny, codependent, desperate, then violent and completely mentally unstable. I know that was the point of the movie, to showcase this behavior, but no one in their right minds would put up with that kind of partner.

Leila seemed so passive for someone who was clearly educated, from a stable family, and independent. She let this stranger (they only knew each other for a short time) knock her up, move in with her, and accepted his proposal in what was probably only several months' time. Ridiculous.

I also have many qualms with the way this movie was cut -- the weird "is it a dream, or is it reality" cuts were really tiring, annoying, and frustrating. They were unnecessary, and were used way too much throughout the movie, making it choppy and inconsistent.

The therapist character was also incredibly annoying, that that she was completely unemotional and subdued the whole time, even when Adrian's character attempted to murder her. He strangled her to the point of her losing consciousness, and what does she do? Call the cops? No! She follows him back to the couple's home and asks him not to murder his girlfriend, who he's tied up and is ready to kill.

The ending was completely absurd, too. I won't give it away, but it is so out there that this whole movie might as well have taken place on a different planet.

I watched this movie for a college Psychology class, and the whole class just looked around at each other, saying, "What the hell just happened?" and "This was the worst movie ever." I have to agree. I have never seen such a ridiculous movie before, and it shocks me that it has gotten as many stars as it has on IMDb.


I was a big fan of Maury Povich when he hosted "A Current Affair" back in the late 80's. "A Current Affair" was tabloids TV at its best and Maury was the right guy to host. He kept your interest with these far out, non-six/eleven o'clock reported news stories. Maury as it's host, kicked butt.

So when he got a chance to host his own show, it seemed very promising. Over the years of the Maury show, 'promising' went the route of 'shocking-sensationalism'. That became too sad. In the back of my mind, I've always hoped that Maury Povich would have gone to CNN by the mid 90's and had the chance to shape himself into an anchor that would show the "real" side of news. Instead, he has shaped himself into a perpetrator of stereotypes.

Some viewers actually think Maury's show "helps" people. It only helps place folks deeper into stereotypical behaviors for the world to point at and see/think "I knew it!". It's 2006, and it's a sad commentary on the world.

The Maury Show has gotten into a bind. You know, like some famous old musicians who've been around longer than they should be -- and they try to do something new and the mass buying audience doesn't accept it -- so they get stuck doing the same thing over and over instead of just quitting. Well, this is the same thing that is going on with this show.

Maury has these shows:

1.) Is it a man or is it a woman audience contest show 2.) Disrespectful children to their parents show (boot camp impending!) 3.) Teenage Girls who want babies show 4). Hidden video show 5.) Teens on drugs show 6.) Who's the Daddy Show

The most popular is the "Who's the Daddy Show". At this point, I find that Maury and his producers are the most manipulative folks on this planet with that show. Sure, it provides great entertainment for viewers who want to see women degrade themselves by appearing on the Maury Show numerous times to find the one daddy for their child -- but I've noticed something about all of his shows over the years...

Take a look at whom they choose to place on the shows. It's all stereotypical - no matter how difficult, heart wrenching or ... positive ... the outcome is you see this:

1.) The angry, horrid-slang speaking African American 2.) The trailer trash (or as close to it as they can get) 3.) The fiery Hispanics (usually with tattoos or in gangs)

While this may be harmless entertainment for some, this has been overall perpetrating stereotypes. There is one show he (presumably to show a "softer side") does that I've purposely did not list above and this is what made me think about what this show is doing. This show Maury does is called:

"The Most Talented Kids Show"

Who appears? The stereotypical singing and dancing African American child, yes. The amazing trailer trash child, yes. But only in this show, will you see...the most talented violin or piano playing Asian. Now, that's interesting to think about.

Maury Povich and his producers are seeking the most outrageous, volatile people to keep the show on air and they only have fallen into the groups above, under the themes above. That's tabloid showbiz. But understand that is also viewer manipulation and part of television's contribution to the decline of western civilization. The Jerry Springer Show makes no bones about what they are and whom they appeal to. Maury Povich tries to categorize themselves as "better" but they aren't.

If you watch and are entertained by this, understand it IS only entertainment at the expense of promoting stereotypes - and the Maury Show does NOTHING to counteract that. It's all very one-sided. If you are looking for a program that may give you a view on other's lives...this is the program that shows the disturbing parts of those lives, a small percentage, and are not indicative of these folks as a whole.


This show was decent back in the '90's (circa 1993-1998) I'll give the show that much credit. It began with gifted children and adults of all race, religion, and creed beating out the odds and gaining some substantial ground with their lives. But then about 2001 or 2002 something changed Maury Povich probably saw his ratings drop to (I'm guessing) Jerry Springer (as around that time, Springer would have the camera men go to people's houses, I wonder why they stopped that?) as Rikki Lake and Jenny Jones had been long gone, it only left those two super powers in the talk show industry (at the time). Instead of Maury hanging it up and retiring, Maury became like a bizarre tornado of chaos and destruction. The show was almost playing second fiddle to Jerry Springer.

Now, if you're reading this then obviously you know something about The Maury Povich Show. It attempts to invade your home in three forms. The first, and most popular form, is the paternity test/ baby daddy drama type episodes. These reared their ugly head slowly at first, coming on the show once a week. Then it turned into two-part episodes. And finally, it turned into an all week affair, as if that's the show's storyline. It starts with a woman on the stage with Maury and telling him that (add ridiculous name) is her baby daddy cause (add ridiculous name) looks just like (add ridiculous name). She then rants and raves until Maury is certain that the crowd is strictly behind her before he lets them hear what the man has to say on a one minute video clip. The man calls her enough nasty names for the crowd to condemn him as an awful man and then Maury brings him out. He comes out with a new skank girlfriend and they both yell at the woman, meanwhile Jerry...oops..I meant Maury is quietly telling them to stop. This goes on for about ten minutes before he practically screams that the results are in. Now, this goes two ways: If the man is the father then the woman jumps up and begins to berate him and the crowd begins cheering and the male makes some bullshit comment about how he's gonna be a great father. The other way, is more painful, however. If the man is NOT the father, then the man gets up and begins dancing, while the woman has tears in her eyes and sprints backstage with Maury, the man, and the skank girlfriend close on her heels. She collapses on the 'sobbing couch' backstage while Maury promises to find her baby daddy and the man and the new skank girlfriend are teaming up to yell and scream at her. This happens every single episode, I'm shocked it ain't scripted.

The second tier of episodes has to do with unruly little teen girls who want to either get back at their mothers by sleeping with everybody in the world or want to have a baby. Their mothers (where are their fathers, by the way?) cry and plead for Maury to do something and gets this big angry black guy to come out and yell at the young girls and round them all up to juvi or a semi-kayfabe boot camp. Then as soon as the bad teens come out of boot camp or juvi, they are all reformed. All conveniently within the hour.

The third and final tier of episodes are for miracle survivals, overweight babies (ugh), guess that tranny, or tall lanky man with short stubby woman. They rarely show show these episodes for some odd reason.

This is the worst show on television today. Not only does it bring out the worse in all races (blacks, whites, my fellow Hispanics) but Maury seems to be having a good time exploiting these people. Now, Jerry Springer isn't the most noble person in the world, but he knows and admits that he's scum and frankly I believe his show is a bit more appealing to watch, at least you get the anticipation and question if today's episode could get crazier than yesterdays. With Maury, every episode is the exact same, the exact same words exchanged, the same stereotypes day in and day out. This show has to be scripted because these people say the exact things no matter what. And if it is scripted, then Maury needs to fire that writing team of 3rd graders and hire the 7th graders.

Maury is scum!


I like Maury Povich, but although I watch this show, only because of him and his advice, I don't like it. It just has an uncomfortable atmosphere, as the audience are very unsympathetic, and pre-judge people, before even considering that their accuser could be in the wrong too. The people on the show are poor role models to our society, honestly teenagers coming on bragging about having sex with 20 boys especially paints a terrible picture of how teenagers are supposed to behave. And how are we supposed to know what people are saying, when almost everything that comes out of their mouths is a "beeped" swear word, and then when they don't get the result they wanted they run off crying on stage or get violent? I also don't like the construction of the show, recapping what the guests are saying before they arrive on the stage is unnecessary, when they can just say it when Maury asks them to. However, like I've said I like Maury Povich, I like the fact he's honest, encouraging and straight-talking. But that's not enough to save the show, which is a 4/10. Bethany Cox.


The Maury Povich show is hypocritical in its meaning. While the other shows that air alongside it (Jerry Springer and Steve Wilkos) are pretty clear in their intentions Maury's show is different. Basically it is a show that pretends to care when all it does it exploit its guests. Kind of like a cross between Jerry Springer and Steve Wilkos.

The Maury Povich show usually has the same topics. These topics are out of control teens, teen girls wanting kids, hidden videos, cheating spouses, and the most common topic is paternity tests.

No matter the topic Maury comes across as someone who is pretending to care but he is really doing nothing to improve the situation while profiting on the problems of these dysfunctional people. The only thing accomplished in the majority of his shows is someone finding out if there spouse has been cheating or who the father is of their child.

As if that wasn't bad enough there seems to be an Anti Male sentiment coming from the show. More often then not it is the males cheating and in the who's the daddy segment usually the male wants nothing to do with the kid. That is not always the case but more often then not it is.

So the Maury Povich show does not help people like Steve Wilkos and is not entertaining like the Jerry Springer show. It is a show that pretends to help people (like Steve Wilkos) while really exploiting their problems and making it into a circus (like Jerry). The Maury Povich show is not a quality television show and I would not recommend watching it.


Our society has become so sick. No more real movie stars or television stars. This man and I use the term loosely is an example of how far down we as a country have become. What has happened to entertainment, that must be subjected to this trash. Where has our self respect gone? Get rid for good of this guy and Springer, Cheaters, judge shows, murder, bad language, sex violence. Are there any real entertainers left? Please do something. Hopefully, kids are in school when this trash is on but what about people unable to leave the house because of illness? How much more can we stand of this depression so called entertainment? What a sad world we have become. Somebody do something and start by turning off the television and not buying the products that promote this junk.


I got trapped into watching some of this program today, in an automotive waiting room. If I were given the choice, say, to be required to tune-in to this show for an extended period (even if financially rewarded) - or to poke my eyes out with a knitting needle - it would be difficult to choose.

If you wanted to load a time capsule for future generations, to illustrate certain words, to do so for, say, "charisma" or "charismatic," some clips/film of JFK or Dwight Eisenhowed would suffice. For "smarmy," virtually any role played by the talented Dabney Coleman would be a good choice; for "pretentious," any or all of the crowd on "The View" or Katie Couric performing an interview would be perfect.

Maury Povich and "disingenuous" are synonyms. I know that with all of the channels today, and all of the air time to fill, a lot of the fare must be less than stellar. I also understand the there are "different strokes for different folks." I also know that different programs have different demographics - say, "Monk" versus "Friends;" "American Idol" versus a Sinatra or Tony Bennett retrospective. Some shows are so bizarre, so ridiculous, or so "bad," they can promote interest because of the fascination provided. The Bruce Jenner/Village People film, "Can't Stop the Music," is so bad it's thoroughly enjoyable and fascinating in its awfulness.

But "Maury" just plain stinks in every regard. The freaks he displays, for the most part, are so obnoxious, loud, shallow and unsympathetic, even if the unctuous host is exploiting them, you really don't care.

Jerry Springer, with whom Povich is often compared, is admirable by comparison. He allowed his show to morph from its original format with more serious topics, to its present format, certainly for the audience numbers and the financial benefits resulting - but you can also see his tongue is well into his cheek. And with Springer, you can see there is intelligence and intellect in the host, and that he might be someone who'd be a person to help someone where given the opportunity.

By contrast, Povich represents nothing of even vaguely redeeming value or worth, in either his awful program or his smarmy demeanor. And unlike Springer's and others' programs in this "genre," his contains not an iota of humor which might provide some semblance of a reason to watch. It's puzzling - and even frightening - that there are sufficient people among us, who select this program regularly enough to have kept it on-air for years. A 1* ranking is one star too many.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Six years ago, I wrote my first review of The Maury Povich Show (or Maury as it is now known) and the main thing I could think to write of it was 'sad.' It seemed like a sad show for sad people (and it's certainly still that) but I admitted certain things about it, like finding out whether guys had cheated or were the fathers of children or not, could be quite suspenseful. Just about the only positive high point of this collosally dreadful show.

Amazingly, it's six years later and this nearly 70 year old man is still presenting a show that has obviously remained popular enough for the networks to keep broadcasting it. I stopped watching it quite some time ago (simply lost whatever small fleck of interest I had in it!) but recently I caught some new episodes while channel surfing. And it would appear it hasn't gone broke by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Aside from the reported name-change (from The Maury Povich Show to simply Maury) the tone of the show would appear to have also gone downhill. While it's always been a cynical and exploitative show, it used to at least try to show a sensitive, sentimental angle which at least went some way in giving it a tender, soft side. But the show has had to move with the hard, cynical times and now we have the same old tired scenarios ("You're my baby's daddy", "You cheated!") only done with harder, crueller guests (but you now have to wonder, with all the inside exposes they do on these types of shows, whether it's all just been how they're told to behave all along...they have to move with the times, after all) who just seem utterly militant and unable to hear anyone's point but their own. And the accused are no better, with their fast track opening skits, where they put their side of the argument across as cheaply and tackily as possible in dinghy black and white camera, doing such things as flashing their cash and sticking their butts in front of the camera (so their accuser can kiss it!), people without the slightest modicum of class or intelligence whatsoever who make your average guest on The Jeremy Kyle Show (a version of this show from the UK, where we actually have a class structure!) seem like Wordsworth!

But what you cannot get over is simply how boring it is! Not only is it the same old topics over and over again, the 'guests' behave in the same way over and over again. How many times must we watch some loud mouth gangsta from the hood come stomping out to point at a huge camera projection of some infant and say how it can't be his 'cos his face don't look like mine!' only to be followed with the inevitable slanging match in front of millions with some promiscuous sort who he can't even remember sleeping with, which invariably requires the security staff to intervene. This is just one example of many of which it's too boring to bring up but, watch the show for yourself, and you'll get as bored with it as I do.

This has gone from being a 'sad' show to a truly pathetic show and it says a lot about society that six years after my first review it's still going on and it will nearly have been on air for twenty years! Some people really need to get a life. *


"The Maury Povich Show" (1991)

Review: I'm not too much into TV reviews, but this one I will.

Let me make a point. I hate this show. It's the same thing every time. It's either about, Boot camp for brats, He's Cheating, and Who's the dad. One thing for sure is that this show is mostly driven to hate men. Like the who's the daddy episodes are making the women seem like the innocent victims and the men are pure evil at least 95% of the time. First off, you are at fault for not using birth control and did not consent to safe sex. Second, you are a whore if you do not know who the father is, by means who have to point a finger and administer a paternity test to find out. Just how many guys did you sleep with? Unprotected nonetheless. Stupidity. The dads are also idiots too for not paying 3 dollars to purchase condoms to make sure that a pregnancy does not happen. As far as I'm concerned, both of em got themselves into this situation themselves. The only "victim" here is the child.

This show is based too much on trying to be a glorified Jerry Springer wannabe instead of dealing with issues that need to be taken care of. From the loud crowd to the usual guest taunting the crowd to the unoriginal ideas, Maury Povich is trash TV.

The Last Word: Unoriginal and mean-spirited. At least Jerry Springer does not take themselves seriously. Maury Povich does. Total garbage.


Maury Povich (or however you spell his name) is a hypocrite because his show sends opposing messages to women. On one show he'll be telling women that dressing like a slut and acting like a slut is wrong and try to reform their ways. Then in another show he'll be supporting former "bullied nerds" now "super skanks". These women have not changed since high school and still have low self esteem and I can't believe he supports them and then tells these other women on other shows that acting like that is wrong.

I also find his "are you a man or woman" shows as extremely insulting. Could you imagine be one of those women on that show and being accused by an audience of being a man. It doesn't matter how much you are paid, it still hurts.

And I also find his boot camp strategies as retarded since really bad treatment by drill sergeants does not automatically lead to new found respect for yourselves or your body. These people go back to their old ways since they know they are not coming back.

This man has no integrity and should be taken off air.


The Maury Show is the most awful show on TV to watch. A talk show is about engaging topics that plaque the world today, like the war in Iraq or the lack of employment, right? Well, The Maury Show isn't about any of those things. The Maury Show consists of women trying to find their baby's daddy, women or men sleeping around, caught on tape, people that just survived, or people that scared of the silliest and stupidest things like mustard or balloons. The Maury Show comes on at 4pm time and again at 4am. Of course, at 4pm and 4am is when there isn't nothing worth watching on TV. But half of The Maury Show consists of women trying to find their baby daddy. "I am 1000 percent sure, Maury, that DaShawn is my baby's daddy! He was the only person that I slept with! (usually, start with the bawling like babies or getting angry.). Whoopidity freaking do, who cares? Then the guy explains his side of the story about Dalesha being such a slut and sleeping around with the whole NBA. Then the woman would tell Maury, "Bring him out!" He comes out and the audience would boo or catcalls him, Maury doesn't let the guy fully explain his story because of the audience which consists of nothing but lazy, good-for-nothing imbeciles that should be at work, not on talk shows feeling sorry for people that air their dirty laundry on national TV.

After a while, the DNA test comes up. If Dashawn isn't the baby's daddy, Dalesha runs backstage crying like a baby. And the men usually jump up and down like a bunch of fools. We all know the woman fool around with another man, and the man that they're giving the DNA test to, isn't probably the baby's father since DNA tests don't lie. It doesn't take intellects to figure that one out. Then, there are women that have been on the show for five or six times, trying to find their baby's daddy. Or the guy that slept around with 25 women, his wife cheated on him once, he suddenly "quits" cheating and decided to stay with his wife. What a stupid, stupid talk show. Ah! Then there are one show which have out of control teen girls trying to get pregnant, or fail a lie detector test to end up figuring out that they're complete liars or sluts. This show consists of inconsiderable and unintelligent imbeciles, sluts, and goons that love "talking it up" and air their dirty laundry to millions of people that probably could care. I know that I don't care when somebody tried to find their baby's daddy, or the guy turns out NOT to be the baby's daddy. I really, really don't care and they shouldn't went on TV to air their dirty laundry in the first place. I feel like my IQ is draining from watching the Maury Show, that's why I stopped watching Maury last year. If I turn on Maury now, it's the same old topics over and over again. Week 1: "I can't find my baby daddy!" Two, three, or even ten days later, the same old topic pursues under a different name! Turn on PBS, Judge Judy, cartoons, Discovery, History, or anything better than this show. Unless you will be watching an otherwise, intelligent better TV program than Maury.


This show is the most despicable piece of TV trash I have ever seen. I've been to almost 40 countries, and whenever I can I try to watch some of the local TV programmes. I've seen lots of low quality material. When I was in the US recently, I had the dubious pleasure of enjoying a few Maury shows. How anyone can voluntarily appear on this show is beyond me. From the moment the guest appears on stage it is absolutely clear he will either

a) make an ass out of himself b) be ridiculed by the audience c) will receive faked sympathy and compassion by Mr Povich

or rather all of the above.

The show seems to be all about paternity tests. Apparently there is a choreography to this charade. The couples will abuse each other, the male will insist on not having fathered the baby, the mother will protest against the male's inability to care for the child and so on. Upon hearing the result of the paternity test, the male will either dance and scream in joy or start cursing.

The guests on the show seem to be very well aware of the mechanisms of this program, probably being frequent consumers of the show themselves. So being part of this circus freak show seems to be a kind of acknowledgment or even gratification to those people.

And amidst this puddle of low social class tragedy sits, like a king dressed in beggars' clothes, Mr. Maury Povich and pretends to have compassion towards these poor sods. Mr. Povich must be a very clever businessman to have run the show for such a long period. Respect to that! But anyone who is to believe he actually cares about what is happening to the people on his show is a dimwit.

Bottomline: inhuman charade


I can't believe Maury has been on since 1991. The show started off like serious topics and guests like Jerry Springer had started off with before. Now, with Jerry having fights, chairs thrown and Steve and his security team, Maury is now the King of Trash. He has these dumb lie detector tests,paternity tests, cheating men and women and 12,13,and 14 year old want to have sex and get pregnant. I am so sick and tired of some of these trashy shows on television. Montel has Sylvia, Oprah has Dr. Oz and best friend Gayle, Tyra has Janice, Jerry has his Steve and what does Maury have, D. West. This show is a filthy piece of crap, women running away crying like babies and all these men running all over the stage celebrating that they are not the father of their child. Take this show off the air, please.

Nothing but Garbage!


This is a film based on the "wonder" Helen Keller as an adult (20). It's a good example on how a good story can go wrong, so wrong. The actors tries so much, too much, and when you do that you always stumble and fall. And in this movie they fall over and over again. There is no surprises in this movie. After watching it for 15-20 minutes i knew the movie without knowing the Helen Keller story.


I thought it was a terrible movie! Helen -- begging her teacher's husband to kiss her? Early 20th century moires??? Are you kidding??? This was a huge flaw in historical accuracy. I see the point of showing that handicapped people are no different there than so-called normal people, but that was too much!

Granted the time has come to show something other than the time in Helen's life when Annie comes to live with her and teach her, but this is not the way to go. Could someone please reread "The Story of My Life" and try again? There's plenty of tension and conflict there to make an interesting film without resorting to Helen's begging John Macy to kiss her.


If so, I think I didn't get it. It was somewhat entertaining, but hardly funny. I just couldn't have fun with these people. Half the characters were obnoxious, rude, abusive bastards, and the other half were ineffectual, incompetent, mumbling, pathetic losers, or sometimes a combination of the two. And yeah, I know that can be funny sometimes, but this wasn't the kind of bunch I wanted to spend two hours with. I didn't like them, I couldn't find them sympathetic, I couldn't relate to anyone, I couldn't understand why they loved each other so much, and in the end I couldn't help but feel that none of them deserved the luck they had (which was a lot in some cases). All they did was argue, shout, fight, fight again, fight some more, insult each other, do stupid stuff for no reason... It wasn't funny at all, it just got tiring after a while. And believe me, I am NOT squeamish about bad language, but I found that the amount of it in this film was just too much to put up with sometimes. They way the characters overused it made you dislike them even more.

I never quite understood the craze for writer David Serrano's previous film, El Otro Lado de la Cama, which was a huge hit here in Spain, and seeing this didn't change my mind much: he's overrated.

(One positive thing I will say: Alterio's impressive performance as the menacing, borderline psycho Antonio does raise an eyebrow or two. No wonder he got several nominations for Spanish awards)


I was really excited about the release of this movie as I think the Inkheart books are some of the best YA fiction around. The books are dark and suspenseful and filled with twists and surprises. The books are not funny or light hearted; children are killed, men die, women lament, and evil is very very threatening and scary. The characters likewise are complex (for YA literature) and provide much in the way complex behaviour. And you can't guess the ending unless you're really clever (which I, sadly, am not). I couldn't stop reading these books and finished them off in a week.

OK, that's the books, what about the movie. Well the movie is light-hearted, the villains goofy, and the suspense completely lacking. The people I saw the movie with knew what kind of ending they were in for from the first 10 minutes of the movie. There was none of the fear and dread and darkness of the books. The movie was a lukewarm puffball, and the ratings on IMDb show that nobody was taken with the movie. 6.? is really bad for a movie here. And it's not surprising. What is there to be enthused about in the movie except for the cast and the locations, both of which are fantastic. The story is a limp noodle that offers no emotional involvement or suspense. It's just another kid's movie with no heart or faith in the audience.

It should be noted that the first Inkheart book is by far the weakest in the trilogy and after I finished it I was on the fence as to whether I was going to finish the series. But I had bought the set and so I started book number 2. And that's when things get really good and inventive. So it's really disappointing that Inkworld and Inkdeath are never going to get a cinematic treatment, but at least we have the books. And really, after watching this movie, maybe it's a good thing because if they did the 'goofy lighthearted predictable' thing on books number 2 and 3, I would have been really disappointed.

I would only recommend this movie to people that have read the series and are interested in seeing what Hollywood did with the source material. I would not recommend this movie to anyone looking to get a memorable cinematic experience. I pretty much guarantee that most people will have forgotten this movie by the following morning, it is that inconsequential.

So in summary, avoid the movie and if you liked the Harry Potter books, give the Inkheart books a whirl.


I went to see this when it first came out at my local cinema, I was excited about the movie it looked like it could have been great. I read the book before going to the cinema, probably one of the best and worst things that I did.

The person I went to see it with had never heard of the book but was excited about the film.

So we went, and watched, and I cringed in horror, and he looked on in puzzlement. The plot was convoluted to the point of not being able to follow what was going on. It seemed to now know whether to be a comedy, a fantasy or something else entirely. They took some of the most fearsome characters from the book and made them ridiculous, they made dustfinger into something less than he is in the books.

I just don't understand where they went so wrong, it was almost as if they had 4 different directors each directing just a part of it without following the rest of the plot.

The effects were good when they were in existence but they were so few and far between that it was almost pointless having them, they could have saved themselves a lot of money by doing some creative shooting and just axing the SFX.

If you loved the book I beg you please don't go to see this. It's not worth paying Cinema prices for, if you feel you have to see it wait for it to be out on DVD and rent it with a group of friends!


I hate it when all I can think of while watching any movie is: "when will it end?" & "I could be doing something much more productive with my time!" Along with constantly hoping it will get better sometime soon!

Inkheart didn't have to be such a boring and dopey mess! There certainly is an interesting premise: A person who reads a story inadvertently has the magical power to bring people and objects from the story into real life. But instead of writing an interesting & imaginative story that makes some sense within the world the writer has created, Hollywood choose instead to create a tedious, dumbed-down story that will satisfy no demographic group - be it child, teen or adult!

If you like endless clichés, sheer stupidity, mindless threatening, poor editing, cardboard characters, skimping on the special effects, constant frowning & pouting and sheer boredom - then Inkheart is for you!


Another of those ever popular fantasy stories are borough to the big screen. The premise is the most exciting thing here. In this one the villains comes from a fantasy book into the real world to face the protagonists, and not the other way around. Its a neat idea. But as the story unfolds, Inkheart quickly turns into a substandard search and find adventure.

To work this film definitely needed better characters or a better story. Dustfinger was the only character with any considerable development, but even so, i was ambivalent about him. The part where he decides NOT to tell Mo about his wife being in the castle worked in context of his character, to a degree, but it also felt like a convenient excuse to take the story down a detour, witch could have been forgivable, if this detour was interesting to begin with.

The dad and his daughter work because they are archetypes and protagonists. But there is nothing noteworthy about them, acting or scriptwise.

The worst character is Farid. I haven seen a character come so totally out of the blue and then tag along for no apparent reason sense Jar Jar Binks crashed into Starwars, and Farid is almost as annoying. There are some hamfisted attempts at humour sorroung his character that really annoyed me.

The book hugging grandmother that decides to storm a castle with her bike also falls under the annoying category.

As for the authour? Lets not even go there.

If you're into this genre (like me) you might as well satisfy your curiosity and watch it, the film is colorful and features some beautiful locations and the effects are generally good. The camera-work stands out throughout the film. Nice framing and who ever handles it knows how to more around with it at the right places too.

The ending sort of pulls a rabbit out of a hat though.


When I went to see Inkheart tonight I couldn't believe my eyes. I cannot believe that this is a result of such a great and wonderful book. It is common knowledge that movies are generally not as good as the books they're based off of... but this is in a league of its own.

There was no character development - AT ALL! The story was re-written in a whole knew way, why bother calling it Inkheart? Let's not talk about the acting. I only understood what was going on because I read the book. A person who is not familiar with the story will not understand this movie.

I am heartbroken that the author was even involved in this movie, and did allow this outcome. Maybe some books should just not be made into movies.


Great - what a poorly done movie. I am a person who adores any kind of literature and loves good movies. The film being an adaptation of a fantasy trilogy that I haven't read, and the movie itself promising an interesting story that just advertises for the old paper medium, I just had to rent it on DVD to give it a shot. I should have rented the books, I assume.

There was no tension present over the whole length of 102 minutes, since the story just drags on an on without ever catching the audience's interest. This is mainly due to its poorly executed characters and uninteresting actors. Biggest disappointment was Andy Serkis, who totally failed giving birth to the story's main villain. Adding to this major flaw, a terrible script that is even outdone by most TV series nowadays helps to oppress any magic that might wanted to be conjured to the screen. Even the CGI effects were badly done - and too rare to be even worth mentioning. Yet concerning the genre of this movie and the possibilities of its source material, some nicely done CGI effects were the least fans could have expected. And, most significantly, since it completely fails to conjure any magic to the screen, CGI might have helped to create at least a visual spectacle - like many other mediocre movies do.

All in all it deserves 2 stars out of 10 for being totally uninteresting and boring, to a point even annoying. And all this though, sadly enough, I do love books and movies...


I went to see this without any prior knowledge. I tend to like big-budgeted fantasy movies, but couldn't quite get into this one. If your a fan of the book and liked the movie, that's great. But the critics have this one right - it's just not enjoyable by the casual moviegoer. The acting, dialog and general believability of the film are not up to par.

The 'idea' is kind of cool: A man discovers that when he reads text in books, the things he reads about become reality. Years later, he is captured by a book villain that he accidentally brought to life years ago ... and the story progresses from there.

A lot of this movie was awkward; in the beginning I was surprised to hear the daughter speaking with an English accent, unlike her parents ... guess they lived in the UK (don't know). Her unkempt eyebrows were also a bit awkward to look at (hey, my friend noticed this too).

The acting was pretty rough - but I don't blame the actors. The material they were given was clearly ludicrous. It's hilarious how the father tells everyone of his special ability and everyone just believes this amazing claim ... add to that the further wild story he gives about what happened to his wife... and no one questions that. How do you act with that kind of a script? Did they even read the script before accepting this acting gig?

I went to see this movie on a Saturday night - the lines at the theater were immense and other movies were sold out. Yet, this movie was barely filled - take that as a clue. It's not worth you or your kid's time.


I had really been looking forward to this one but it turned out to be a complete train wreck.

The casting of Dustfinger, Capricorn, Meggie and Farid was pretty much perfect, though. Mo was unremarkable, but then that's just how I remember him from the first book. Elinor matched the spirit of the character in the books quite well but the looks were quite off. Fenoglio was so-so.

Basta and Capricorn's mother were ridiculous laughing stock and not inherently fear-inducing as they should have been. Roxane (who is never even fleetingly mentioned in the first book IIRC) had black hair!

The script just rushed through the first 80% of the book in what barely seemed like half an hour, skipping anything that would have helped in either understanding the characters (or even the plot) or building up atmosphere, just to close with a completely tacked-on, contrived new ending that killed any hope for a (better) sequel. It's quite obvious from this that they're not intending to film the other two books or at least not in a way that will have anything at all to do with them.

As rushed as it all felt it was really painful to sit through from quite early on. If I was that type I might have left the theatre half-way through it.

Don't see this if the books meant anything to you!


This movie could have been so good. It's a great concept. Someone reads aloud and can pull characters out of books. Unfortunately, a poorly written script that plods along like an old horse, a director who can't seem to decide whether he's making an action movie or a fantasy for kids, and drab, over-dark cinematography sinks this movie. Simply put, it's boring, it's humorless, it lacks any real heart, and it just never seems to make a bit of sense. The acting performances are good, but can't come anywhere near overcoming the problems this movie had.

This movie was such a waste of a good opportunity to make something special.


I hardly know where to start. I was expecting things to be cut-out to make the book fit in a movie but not changed to such a degree that it almost seems like a different story.

The whole movie seemed to be such a hurry that it felt like it was just a stumbling rush towards the end.

Some of the characters did a decent enough job honouring their counterparts in the book; Meggie, Elinor, TeResa, Dustfinger, Magpie to mention a few.

On the other hand Basta didn't even get close to portraying the evil, knife-wielding murderer. Flatnose just made me laugh, he was just big-nosed buffoon. He just needed to paint the nose red. I mean they are supposed to inspire fear and be purely evil.

The ending? They actually managed to tie up all the loose ends, WHICH THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO!!! THERE IS A PART TWO AND PART THREE FOR GOD'S SAKE!

CONCLUSION: Read the book instead! So much more enjoyable! Seems like just another movie trying to make money instead of entertaining the audience.


Not having read the book on which this was based, I found myself wondering quite a lot during the movie: a) I wonder what's going on b) I wonder what this has to do with the plot (if there is a plot) c) I wonder why I rented this

The soundtrack is very poor and there are moments in the movie when the dialog is unintelligible. Had there just been a little more connection or linkage between the "real" world and the fantasy world, I may have empathized with the character more. As it was, I felt that I was suffering more than "D" - but was grateful my agony would only last two hours.


It's easy to take shots at 50s horror flicks featuring people you'd never heard of before, nor will ever hear from again. But that such a comparatively modern film, featuring name stars such as Nigel Hawthorne and Julie Christie could be so mind-numbingly bad beggars description.

The opening screen reads "When Things Stopped". It's puzzlingly inaccurate as we know officials have working helicopters. Could the film makers be unawares of the complex infrastructure needed to keep those delicate machines flying? Hardly something you'd expect after societal collapse. The opener is accurate in one sense, though as much of the film left me feeling the plot - what there was of it - had stopped.

Christie? She practically send a surface mail letter in to stand for her performance. Much of the film has her so listless that one wonders if the character (or actress) has been shot with an elephant tranq dart.

The bit with the wall that's a gateway to another reality? Excuse me? What possible reason would Christie's character have for wanting to return to her dismal reality after her first time through? The whole concept made absolutely no sense whatsoever. And the kids dancing around the giant egg? Just what drugs did someone slip in the writers' drinking water?

A memorable passage from Ayn Rand's book THE FOUNTAINHEAD has a character reading something which is essentially gibberish and thinking it "...must be profound because he didn't understand it." Wanting to be sure about that here, I showed it to a friend who, at the time, was working on her psych doctorate (with a Lit minor). The film over I asked her if there was something, some deep, subtle meaning I was missing. She replied by pointing out that some non-conforming stories are trying to tie into (she spewed forth psych-babble-double-talk) and make reference to literary (more jargon). Pausing, she looked at the now turned off TV screen, then back to me and went on ...

"And then there's films such as this which are just garbage, plain and simple."


Saw this dud in London when I was heading East in '82. It was the worst kind of cinematic torture. One of the most pretentious and boring things I've seen. The radiant Julie Christie looking as drab as your auntie Eyesore. She had just turned down a million bucks to star in "The Greek Tycoon". Then she comes up with this piece of aimless drivel. To my mind it marked the downward turn in her career. Instead of showing the film world she was still a player (post Beatty), she drops out and bombs doing it. Can't understand how this tripe has made it to DVD. There are a bunch of good Christie films that warrant the medium: "Darling", "Far From The Madding Crowd", "Petulia", "The Go-Between", "McCabe & Mrs. Miller", "Don't Look Now", or her personal triumph in "Afterglow". Want obscure? What about the underrated "Return of The Soldier", "Heat and Dust" or "The Railway Station Man". Talk about getting it wrong! I expect the next one out of her's will be "In Search of Gregory". At least Criterion is offering "Billy Liar". It's good - check it out. Avoid "Memoirs of a Survivor".


You couldn't blame Disney, really. After all, they'd struck gold - and then some - with WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT and DICK TRACY. Like THE ROCKETEER, those two films had also been lightweight, glossy adventures set roughly during the World War II era. Who's to say that anyone might possibly have suspected that lightning wouldn't necessarily strike a third time? (Then again, we've all heard the expression about three strikes and an out.) I was ten years old on that summer day when my little sister and I were taken to see this. I had no inkling at the time that it had been based on a comic book, but I didn't care; I didn't read comic books then. All I knew was that it had been produced by Disney (a sure-fire name brand for reeling in kids like my sister and myself) and that it was set in midcentury America (a time and place that I had always regarded as colorful and lively) in my mother's hometown of Los Angeles. I didn't expect a masterpiece....but then I didn't expect to be left cold, either.

I think my greatest problem was with the actors who played the hero and heroine: Bill Campbell and Jennifer Connelly. Campbell had very little charisma; and Connelly....well, she might as well have been a very lifelike robot. They were so boring that I found myself rooting for Timothy Dalton's suave and sinister bad guy. If your film's protagonists inspire nothing but apathy from the get-go, you're already in serious trouble.

The plot was so superficial and generic that it could indeed have been plucked from a 1930s Saturday matinée serial. The concept of a Nazi takeover of America using Howard Hughes's jet-pack device seemed like an afterthought. Why were there even Nazis in this, other than that a posse of well-dressed Mafiosi (led by Paul Sorvino) didn't exactly present a credible menace? The answer, of course, is that you can inject Nazis into anything and the plot will automatically become sexier. There's really nothing wrong with this (the INDIANA JONES films and Disney's own BEDKNOBS AND BROOMSTICKS had also served up Nazis for a family audience); the problem here is that, unlike in other films, here Nazism seems more like a spice rather than an essential ingredient. Even worse, we are never offered any justification for why a wealthy and personable actor like Neville Sinclair would ever be attracted to Nazi ideology.

For a supposed action film, THE ROCKETEER features precious little action and spends way too much time on plot exposition during the first half of the movie. The romantic subplot could have been totally written out, as well as the aforementioned Nazi element. Kids like movies with stories in them, but not if those stories are overly convoluted. At the end of the day, we just want to see a guy in a rocket suit beating up villains.

(On a side note: Why would Germany be sending a passenger zeppelin around the world in 1938 - a full year after the Hindenburg disaster?) Is there anything at all good about THE ROCKETEER? Sure, there are many things: good dialogue, good music, good special effects, and (in the case of a mob goon named Lothar who looks like he could have made a cameo in DICK TRACY) excellent makeup. But none of these things can ever truly save a movie whose story is weak and whose characters (except for Sinclair) are indeed as paper-thin as the comic-book creations that inspired them.


Maybe Spoilers

"The Rock-a-who"? As said by the incredibly hot, Jennifer Connelly, the hottest woman in the movies.

That is pretty much the extent of what I remember about this movie. Well I also do recall the mobsters and the chewing gum. Outside of the fantasies that Jennifer can produce in a guy, I really can not recommend this one. But she is definitely worth a view for you guys.

What else can I say, Jenny's character battles with her hero boyfriend and goes after the wrong guy, who well winds up being the villain.

After you see this, you'll probably recall Jennifer saying "The Rockawho" also.


Honestly, this is a very funny movie if you are looking for bad acting (Heather Graham could never live this down... it has three titles for a reason- to protect the guilty!), beautifully bad dialog ("Do you like... ribs?"), and a plot only a mother could approve, this is your Friday night entertainment!

My roommate rented this under the title "Terrified" because he liked Heather Graham, but terrified is what we felt after the final credits. Not because the movie is scary, but because somebody actually paid money to make this turd on a movie reel.

Horrible movie. There are a few no-name actors that provide some unintentional comedy, but nothing worth viewing. Heather Graham's dramatic climax also was one of the most pathetic and disturbing things I have ever witnessed. I award this movie no point, and may God have mercy on its soul.


I got hold of this film on DVD with the title Evil Never Sleeps, it gives front cover billing to Carrie Ann Moss, but she plays such a minor character that I didn't really notice her in the film.

I'm afraid that I consider this one of the worst purchases I have ever made. The dialogue was stilted and the delivery wooden, I found the acting to be disconnected from the plot. Graham's performance to me was of someone who's wondering whether she's left the gas on at home.

All in all both my wife and I found this film painful to watch, and it is not a valuable addition to my collection, watch it at your peril, but spending 90 minutes having your fingernails pulled out would probably be a better way to spend your time.


I was looking through TV Guide last night and saw a movie starring Heather Grahm on, who I liked in movies like Boogie Nights, and Austin Powers, so I decided to watch it. It started out ok, but you could tell the story was lacking, and at about half way through, it started to deteriorate. I do not remember this movie being in the theaters, and I'm sure if it was, it wasn't there long. The acting was stale and unconvincing, the dialogue was silly and predictable, and the story was confusing and stupid. Definately one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I like movies like the ones this has been compared to like Fight Club, but this one doesn't come close!! Heather Grahm has done much better things since. I gave it a 2 out of 10 but thats because I clicked on the wrong number, I meant to give it a 1.


Before I start I did watch this movie twice, i didn't like it at all when I saw for the first first then watched it watched it second, i did find it bit more funny then before.

The plot A humanoid alien lands on earth, and soon discovers he likes to eat Italian. Italian people, that is. Incompetent detective McSorely is the only one with a clue about what's going on, and even his grasp of the situation isn't too firm. The rest of the police force thinks he's crazy, while the alien continues sampling the Italian cuisine of New York City This movie is so Cheese movies, if you do like cheesy movies this is cheesy at it best. Not scary at all (Maybe for 4 year old).

The whole movie is over the top and acting not bad for this kinda of movie.

It did have some really funny stuff in this movie, McSorely who talking to (us instead of using the voice over thing ) himself was really funny.

Everytimes his goes to see his boss, The boss is always eating, you don't see him not eat at all.

Alien itself was silly just like the whole of the movie was over the top however it fitted in well with the rest of the movie

If you like really cheesy movies, check this out others wise i don't recommender this movie to anyone else 3/10


A huge, old-school operatic production mounted for the Mozart-partizan audience of Salzburg. As a dramatic, on-screen experience, it's pretty lame. This is partly to do with the music/singer-centric staging where design and dramatic detail are subordinate concerns. For example, the animals charmed by Tamino's first outing for the flute look like mangy, rejected extras from Planet of the Apes. Indeed, watching the opening 10 minutes without sound you would be forgiven for thinking you were watching a potted version of Wagner's Siegfried, so stock are the sets, costumes and blocking.

The singing is fine, if a little indulgent. The filming is OK, with some good close-ups but the video director has his priority in validating the audience's exclusivity. There are shots of the auditorium not only during curtain calls but also during the performance itself. Essentially it's a document of a stage performance which loses almost everything as an artistic experience-in-itself by being brought to the screen. 3/10


What a waste of talent! One of my favourite actors, Surya stars as Sanjay Ramasamy, the rich businessman who, after an incident, suffers from an incurable short-term memory loss. He has done an excellent job right from the beginning till the end, as handsome, romantic Sanjay and the guy suffering from memory loss (is his name Ghajini? it was nowhere mentioned!). He is the spinal cord of the movie. Asin is graceful as his lively love and cute when she narrates the Bombay airport story. She has also shown maturity in the scenes when the inevitable occurs. Nayanthara. Sorry. Wrong number. The villain, Pradeep Rawat (he is better with his turban-clad look as in Lagaan) looks repulsive as well as acts immaturely and forcefully tries to prove us that he is the villain and we should fear him. Grrrr! Total Misfit. The worst is when you have to see too much of him (I don't want to spoil that horrible suspense). "Oru Maalai Ilaveyyil Neram" is composed, sung, picturised and acted out beautifully. Nevertheless, I squirmed during Asin's introductory song. It was indigestibly disgusting. Background music was alright and repetitive. The stunts were only noisy, dull and with no innovation at all. But one must watch Surya in it. And his "run" while chasing the car! Wow! He as always is superb.

Now I come to the most important person involved in this movie. The director A. R. Murugadoss. Many of us well know that apart from the romantic scenes, the long boring water fight in the climax, new form of titles (have you seen Brad Pitt's "Fight Club" titles? ringing a bell somewhere?) and a few other scenes, the rest of the movie right from trailer till story is a blind confused copy of Memento (2000 - IMDb RANK - 22). I sincerely appreciate the director for wanting to remake it with some adaptations and let our people have a feel of it. Its a noble desire. Agreed. But I really don't understand why he had to mutilate it, in the process of doing so!!! If any of you have a chance to watch Memento, please don't miss it. When such a brilliant tale exists, why one has to make a movie by cutting bits and pieces of it and making another with some masala and action tailor-made for the Tamil screen? Memento portrays a handsome looking smart and brilliant guy (even during memory loss) who meticulously plans his everyday with pictures and tattoos on his body after having incorporated the illness. He remembers "everything" before the brutal incident but is only unable to remember the "new incidents" for a long time. In Ghajini, the hero is a psychologically affected person who lives in a shabby manner and even forgets people whom he met before the tragedy.

Short-term memory loss doesn't have time limit. It has to do with senses and situations. But here, in exactly 15 minutes he forgets. God! Please save the Tamil movie-watchers! How many brilliant scenes are there in Memento to exhibit the loop holes and subtleties of his illness! All were wasted in this. And the main plot of the movie... The truth about what really happened! Where did that go???? Lost cos it wont be accepted by Tamil audience? Com'on guys! Stop making movies for heroes and their images! We Tamils can watch a great movie told in a great way. Please don't make such silly adaptations and blame us always with "They only like to watch this" dialogues. We are an excellent audience. Mind it.

Except for the beautifully made romantic scenes and a dedicated performance by Surya and Asin, Ghajini is an attempt to completely disgrace one of the best movies of the world. Either the director has considered all of us incapable of understanding the story in Memento or he himself couldn't understand the movie. Therefore, I recommend him to exercise the use of English subtitles or better hire an English-Tamil translator before going on to adapt another Hollywood masterpiece.

Please don't take this comment as an ill-mannered one. As a genuine fan of good movies, I put forth it with utmost honesty. None can appreciate my words unless and until one has watched Memento. Imagine remaking "Titanic" with fight scenes on the ship deck, duet songs with many dancers and some mother-sister sentiment and a long dialogue by Jack before he drowns in the sea. Its disgrace to the original. You'll know what I mean, when you watch Memento. I sincerely request you to watch it, just once.

Vaasan


I saw this movie and was impressed first only for one reason .The new concept of short term memory loss .But then later when I saw the original one Memento I was totally awestruck by how beautifully the screenplay was done ,you in fact live with the character ,which you can never feel for once in Ghajini .Well thats not the only flaw the whole brilliance and intelligence of Mememto is diminished in Ghajini . Its ultimately turns out to be a love story like the million others . Yes it has this concept of short term memory loss .But instead of developing on that , the story is killed half the way . Well I was impressed with Ghajini only because I was happy that directors have started thinking about new concepts ,but I was wrong .This one too turned out to be a copy ,nothing original .


There is not special in Ghajini.A copy of Memento Movie which far better with style.The Tamil Director has made the movie in the Indian way has the medical student searching for the character who has the problem amnesia.The flashback tells that the rich man who loves the girl till the end of first half does not tell her till he reveals the secret.The villain will come and hit the hero in the head when the heroine gets killed during the incident he losses consiousness.Avenging the twin villains will be done like Matrix in the climax Watch the English version better than this one. The director has promoted ASIN in her ADS skills as a character who likes Ghajini.


I remember when Aamir Khan gave a good bashing to Amitabh Bachchan and said that his movie "Black" Was a copied.Although I agree with him,but now Aamir Khan's new movie "Gajni" is a blatant copy of Memento .

And i could not believe it when I heard in the media that Aamir Khan said his movie is totally original.(Still cant believe that,he think nobody ever saw Memento).

But after it was pointed out that Memento had a similar(which I believe is exaggerated, it is the SAME not similar), Aamir said his movie was better as he could not understand Memento(I could not understand what Einstein said, so I'm better huh?).The movie is simple you just have to figure out the parallel time-lines.And it the parallel time-line which adds to Memento's appeal.

Mr. Aamir Khan , you maybe a respected actor but you're a lousy person.Sorry,I have lost all respect for you.


Ghajini Just because Amir Khan  the superstar of Bollywood is attempting to make this Tamil re-make in Hindi, I was interested to see this original (which itself is a rip-off of Hollywood movie Memento).

The story is very much similar to the original Hollywood movie Memento. The hero (Surya)  who is suffering short term memory loss - revenges his girl friend's (Asin) murder through the help of notes, photographs and in the end  another heroine (Nayantara) to track the killer Lakshman and his brother (both played by Pradeep Singh Rawat).

The movie is told in typical Indian (Tamil) style. The big part of the story is told in flash back  in two episodes, each in first and second half. As the flash back is a love story between Surya and Asin  there are lots of songs thrown in. Whenever there is no flashback, the hero fights and kills the goons.

I hear that this was a hit movie in Tamil when it was released  so explains the taste of Indian audiences. There is typical and cliché of everything and most things are over the top  presented unconvincingly. So if you are seeing this movie, see with a perspective of an Indian audience  may be you will enjoy.

I think all actors and actress have overacted a bit throughout the movie. Surya is above average. Asin looks beautiful.

Let me make it clear here  that for me, this movie even though not so good, was better than the original Memento. Seeing two movies of similar stories and both made poorly by the Director, I am interested to see what Amir Khan Productions is up to? Will he really change the script and treatment of Ghajini or present the same absurdities! Let's wait and watch! (Stars 4.5 out of 10)


This is waste of time movie. and copy of memento. love episode is copy of old Hindi movie SAAJAN (not Sanjaydutt movie..movie of Ashok Kumar) the director's movie Ramana is copy of Indian. (Shankar film).his movie Stalin is copy of pay it forward. when this director will direct a original film..Surya acting is very artificial. he has to learn a lot. the budget is too high with bad quality.totally waste of time. this film going for Hindi remake for Amir khan. bad luck Amir khan! Insult for Indian Cinema. Asin performance is only excellent! Camera work is to be appreciated. Director Murugadass job is waste.This is waste of time movie.This is waste of time movie.This is waste of time movie.This is waste of time movie.


After watching "Memento", the Hollywood original, i was expecting a good remake of the same with an added Indian masala pinch from Ghajini.

The film started off well but lost its touch after fifteen minutes as itloses its way gradually and one can expect only the worse as the movie progresses. The love story plot in the movie Drags a lot. I did not understand the need for such an exaggerated and a gruesome monotonous plot of romance. The director did not even care about the lag as his art of storuy telling sucks. The climax scene was the worst i have seen i my entire life. It had nothing to do with the story. I had gone to see this movie with ten friends and all of them hated the movie to the core. The Performances: 1. Asin did acommendable job and so did the other actress. 2. Surya tries too much and too hard only to fall short of even a decent performance. i would recommend kakka Kakka instead of this movie. 3. Only Pratap Rawat was the saving grace of what can be duly called a FLOP SHOW To conclude i must say -> that this film would be loved only by ardent Surya fans and those who really don't care to bother much about the Movie as Mr. Murgadoss had deviated from the path completely. SO the movie in my opinion is a big NO. Lets see what AAmir Khan would do when he does the remake. so, Mr. Murgadoss, i would suggest that you take up manual for directing movies as your last two ones -Ghajini and Stalin were juz AWFUL.


This movie was terrible. We rented it because it looked cute. We recognized the boys from Zack and Cody, a show my kids have enjoyed for years. We were really shocked by how inappropriate this movie was for little kids. It is full of sexual innuendos. It is the little kids using the foul language and showing age inappropriate behavior regarding women. This movie is not for kids under 10. The characters in it are a bad role model for kids over 10!! There are so many good sports movies for kids. All the Sandlot movies. The Angels in the outfield. There are tons of them out there... without 9 year old saying P***ed or drooling over a woman's cleavage!


I've seen corny and cutesy movies before, but I usually have no problem avoiding them. This only caught my eye because I recognized the Sprouse boys and I saw it had Tom Arnald in it and thought it would be funny. After watching it I wished I never picked it up. It was more stupid that "The Stupids" I usually enjoy Arnold's comedy, but he was hardly funny and barely in the movie. If I had just wanted to see a sports movie just for the kids I would have rented The Sandlot. Now that's a quality movie. James Earl Jones(a great actor) is in that movie, but it holds itself up as a great movie regardless. Anybody who heard Jones was in the film and then went to see it was most likely not bored and wondering where he was until the ending. Arnold disappeared soon after "Just For Kicks" begins and only turns up again in the last scene. Some Tom Arnold, Cute little kids, very, very attractive ladies. this movie gets a 2 for being stupid, but clean. If it was stupid and dirty I wouldn't even give it that


Are you kidding me? How did this get so many good ratings? When Tom Arnold is the best actor in your movie you know you have a problem. The acting was poor the outcome was obvious. Don't bother wasting time on this one. Lots of crude kid humor that was not necessary or funny and musical montages that had repeated scenes and could have been left out for a much shorter movie.

Sorry but the twins could not have been more annoying. Was there some reason this mother never knew where her kids were and didn't seem to care?


Sydney J. Bartholomew Jr. should never be allowed to make another film again. How come people are giving budgets to people to make bad films when there are plenty of creative talented directors out there struggling to make their first feature?!

The only reason to buy/rent this film is if you think the Sprouse twins are too cute to pass on. Yes they are, and they don't disappoint here either. But trust me when I tell you, that is the only reason (and one other I'll mention in a moment)

The scenes are shabbily put together (everything looks rushed). They even used stills taken from the footage for coverage (UGH!). The music is crude with dialogue to match (this is little kid's entertainment?!)

A good director would have noticed Cole mouthing Dylan's lines in a number of the scenes and given him some coaching. If he didn't pick this up on set, it definitely should have been spotted in the dailies? Their double-takes in the scene with Cobi Jones' cameo were unbearable to watch. If I'd have been on set... Well, never mind! Two ADs too! Didn't they have a creative brain cell between them?

One little gem I spotted in all of this mess was a young actor, Tyler Hervey. Look out for him if you watch this movie. Character is "Mikey" and he plays an angry cop's kid. Got wonderful on-screen presence and would be wonderful to see him in a major role.

Anyway... Just for kicks gets 2/10.


I had no idea who Dylan and Cole Sprouse were and after seeing this film, I was surprised to learn that they had a career in film--both before AND after this terrible movie. They are apparently the boys who star as Zack and Cody from "The Suite Life"--a show for kids that I'd have no particular reason to watch. As I said, this surprised me, as the boys appeared to have absolutely no discernible talent--other than being twins. Here in this film, they had difficulty delivering their lines convincingly, though you really can't blame them--they're just kids who have parents who've pushed them into the limelight. Too bad...I'd much rather see midgets or really immature adults play such roles, as at least they have the ability to say yes or no about a career in films or TV! You just have to feel sorry for kids who are prepackaged and pushed into these lives.

As for the film, "Just for Kicks" is kind of what you'd expect...just a bit worse. The writing is very, very broad and wouldn't even make for a by r made for TV kids film on Nickelodeon of the Disney Channel. And, with the Sprouses and Tom Arnold, you can't exactly expect a work of genius...or even adequacy. In fact, the film is so dopey that its current IMDb score is under 2.0. If the film ever receives 1500 or more votes, this would clearly place the film on the Bottom 100 list on IMDb!

The film begins with the insufferably cute twins acting insufferably cute. They apparently live to play soccer and their dad (Tom Arnold) encourages them by agreeing to be their coach. However, when he's called away on some national security case (he's supposed to be like a ninja or elite power ranger sort of guy--yeah, right!), their stupid mother is left to coach the team. She stinks, so the boys find a greasy hobo, Rudy, with amazing soccer skills to coach the team (that's exactly what I did when my baseball coach disappeared when I was a kid--and we then went on to win the world championship...really!).

And, speaking of the greasy hobo, he and the people in this film are all very silly stereotypes--not realistic by any standard. The mom is totally inept as a coach, the father who is a cop is a drill sergeant who insists his young son MUST be an NFL player, Tom Arnold is a secret agent, the mother's sister is a horny hottie who talks about clothes, the hit-men who don't even bother trying to hide their guns, etc.. None of them seem to have any depth and are cartoony--even by kids' movie standards. As a result of this bad writing and questionable acting, the film is a chore to watch and I assume most kids would also balk at having to sit through this flick. How it even got made in the first place is beyond me.

And, speaking of the greasy hobo (Bill Dawes), he is simply terrible in the film. While the Sprouses are bad, they are just little boys. As for Dawes, he does the worse accents in film history and is given the most horrible role to play. You can feel a bit sorry for him as well--the film is practically a career killer--the film is THAT bad. In fact, it's dumb and not particularly interesting--and those are the best things I can say about it.

By the way, I am no geneticist, but I have a question that seems reasonable. If these two brats are identical, why does one need glasses and the other does not? I'm just thinking that unless one had some sort of eye injury they'd have the same vision...isn't that true? So I assume the only reason one had glasses was to let the audience know which one is which.


Why John Landis is still thought of as a great director is beyond me. He made a few good movies, "Animal House," "Coming to America," and one great one, "Trading Places," and a whole bunch of shlock in between and since. "Spies Like Us" is a great example of what's wrong with movies today. It probably looked good on paper, a director who was a proven commodity, an actor fresh off a hit movie (Akyroyd in "Ghostbusters") and another (Chase) considered bankable at least. Unfortunately both actors are in desperate need of a Bill Murray to act as straight man to all their smug mugging. John Landis as a director gets worse with every outing after peaking with "Trading Places" where Akyroyd's patented anal-retentiveness played well off Eddie Murphy's con-man charm. A better script might have helped, but probably not much. Chase would go on to appear in "Three Amigos," another Landis dud, furthering the career of neither.


Two nudnicks (Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd) think they're being trained as spies for the United States government when actually they're being used as guinea pigs against the Russian defense. Fans of TV's "Saturday Night Live" may never have guessed that one-time rivals Chase and Aykroyd would end up starring in a picture together, or that "Blues Brothers" filmmaker John Landis would be directing, however they may be the only audience for this type of slapstick silliness. The script is threadbare, and Landis relies heavily on hammy gags and scenery-chewing. Shapely Donna Dixon (Mrs. Aykroyd) has a funny, sexy bit, but Steve Forrest and Bruce Davison get trampled in the sloppy action. Hopelessly out-of-touch star vehicle. * from ****


John Landis combines with funny men Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd to bring us a rather silly film about two misfit secret service men who are assigned a very dangerous mission. In fact, unbeknown to them, they are decoys who have been thrown to the wolves.

Our two leads do manage to create some funny moments, but they never really hit top gear in a movie which is consistently average. Both Aykroyd and Chase have been better, and both have had better material to work with I'm sure.

Look out for a very funny cameo from one of the world's most loved entertainers. A definite highlight.

Friday, April 30, 1993 - T.V.


They were really funny separately. Chevy Chase kicked off his movie run in partnership with Goldie Hawn in Foul Play which couldn't have been better. Aykroyd was sensational in Trading Places with Eddie Murphy (another SNL alumnus) but this is too much of a good thing. It's not really their fault because they actually work well as a team but the director, John Landis felt that it was more interesting to dwell on the rather tired plot about the possibility of nuclear holocaust which is played out too long at the end of this otherwise amusing comedy. Cold war movies had it's heyday in the 50's but in a comedy that's supposed to be an homage to the "Road" movies. Bob Hope makes a cameo spoofing one of his images but it's only good for a mild chuckle.

Since 1976 where Chevy Chase broke off his association with SNL there have been many SNL'ers who have tried the same as he did. Bill Murray was one of the most successful although many of his movies have been downright disasters (Eg. The man who knew too little). Where Murray had charisma to burn, Chase comes off very dour and too much of a smart aleck to gain much sympathy for his character, which essentially is the same one in all his movies. Aykroyd can be simply gut-wrenching as he was in Dragnet, but here he is just used as a foil for Chase and not a comic one.

To play the sexy object of Chase's affection Aykroyd used his own wife which is kind of masochistic when Aykroyd's character shows no interest in her at all. She's extremely good-looking but that's about it. She was used to better effect in Wayne's World and there her part was much, much smaller. Her partner and she pass themselves off as doctors and the actor who plays him has apparently been in a lot of Python movies and we even get Terry Gilliam as another doctor. These cameos are Landis' favorite thing and he includes them in nearly all of his movies but they are not really there for a reason.

So what we are left with is many cheap jokes about camels, since Chase and Aykroyd are dropped in the Middle East, we get lot of innuendos from Chase when trying to bag Aykroyd's wife and finally we get lots and lots of images of rockets in space. Are you bored yet?


"Spies Like Us" to me was a movie that could have been so much more. Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd together is a combination that has so much potential. The movie did put them in some pretty funny situations. Chase with the Russian interrogators was a humorous moment in the movie. I just felt like there could have been more. Both are very good at spurting off one-liners, Chase especially, but even their one-liners in this movie seemed like they needed some work. This is one of those movies that was good to watch, but I'm not sure if it will be one that I'll always remember.


Unlike John Wayne's more famous movie turkey, The Conquerer, this film is so bad that it is lots of fun to watch. It is incredibly poorly written (even for an RKO picture) and makes his earlier Republic Films look like masterpieces by comparison (and a few actually were). And, combined with the terrible dialog and dopey plot is the absolute worst performance of Janet Leigh's life! She plays a Russian Airforce pilot with less conviction than perhaps any actress could have approached the role. Not once does she even give the least hint of a Russian accent, though through the use of very thick sweaters she DOES appear to be the poster girl for Playboy Magazine. This nymphet role is combined with stoic "Russian" dialog that sound like it's right out of a grade school play. It's unintentionally hilarious.

As for Wayne, he pretty much plays himself. A REALLY, REALLY horny self, that is! FYI--Apparently the Russians flew Lockheed Shooting Stars (F-80s). You see, when you stick a red star on it, it becomes the spitting image of a MIG-15. Well, that is if you squint REALLY hard and maybe get REALLY drunk first and hit yourself on the head with a frying pan, and,...


Howard Hughes original intension was to do another Hell's Angels for the Cold War Era. Remember that film was equally famous for the aviation shots as for the debut of Jean Harlow as sex symbol.

Well if sex and flying worked before, why not again. Hughes filmed some really great aviation footage and then worked to build a story around it, one with some sex. So he reworked the plot of Ninotchka and adapted it to the wild blue yonder.

The reason originally for the delay in release was that we were making great strides in aviation post World War II. So he re-shot and re-shot the aviation sequences and then eventually lost interest. Jet Pilot was released seven years after it was originally filmed and by then the planes really looked out of date. Our's and the Soviet's. One of the players, Richard Rober, in fact was killed in an automobile crash in 1952.

The only thing you can say about Jet Pilot is that the Russians were far in advance of us on feminist issues. Why then would you have the shapely Janet Leigh filling out a flight suit after allegedly going off course and landing in the USA?

Air Force Colonel John Wayne interrogates Janet about the latest in Soviet technology, but then he gets other things on his mind. After a while he's got the hots for her so bad, he marries her and they go back to the USSR to see what he can find out about their aircraft.

Does it sound pretty silly to you? Even for a propaganda film I doubt this one affirmed anyone's Americanism. Remember this was released on top of The Conqueror and between them they put and end to Wayne's seven year reign as number one at the box office.

By the way at the time this was being filmed, Howard Hughes was panting after Janet Leigh the same way he'd earlier panted after Ava Gardner. He got MGM to send her to RKO for three films, this, A Holiday Affair and the musical Two Tickets to Broadway. Poor Janet.

And poor everyone else connected with Jet Pilot.


The aerial footage is nice, but once people start talking, the film goes into a tailspin. The plot seems as though it was made up as they went along (on a few occasions, I thought a reel must be missing) and I don't think I'm giving anything away (like there was any suspense anyway) by saying John Wayne must really love Janet Leigh to stay with her after she pistol whips him. Twice. It's unintentionally hilarious but unbelievably bad. I always like Hans Conreid, but he doesn't show up until the very end. All of the other actors in the film have a wooden presentation, as though they brought in actual air force officers to appear in the film. And if the U.S. military really hatched a plan like this, there should be courts martial all around.


Stretch the limits of credibility in a military espionage/romance. Now stretch them some more. More. M-o-r-e.

Now you have the "story" (if it can be dignified with that term) of "Jet Pilot". It is hard to imagine that the movie-making craft had already been around over half a century when a story as preposterous as this was committed to celluloid.

The only thing that compares to the silliness of the plot is the absolutely abysmal casting of the leads. Two short planks of wood would've rendered more heat than the pairing of Wayne and Leigh. As a love story and as a military spy story, this forgettable fluff is a bomb not worth the hour and a half of anyone's time.


I can watch this film just for the flying.

I'd love to get my hands on all of the footage and remake it with a descent plot.

Although intended to showcase American airpower in the 50's, it could be redone as cold war retro flick because the footage is still cool and beautiful. This the only place you will likely ever see some off that magnificent old hardware in use.

We know the Duke was a hardcore anti-communist as was Howard Hughes. The two no doubt saw eye-to-eye on politics, ergo it is no surprise that they would both be involved in this movie, yet it was probably a bad idea for the Duke. Some people consider it his worst movie (through no fault of his own, the script is ludicrous). I doubt even the red hunting members of the House Unamerican Activities Committee (HUAC) could take it seriously.

Still, it has a really cool theater poster. It's a painting of the Duke in an old P-2 flight helmet with the late/post WW2 style flying goggles (althought I believe they use the P-4 helmet in the movie. The P-4 is just a P-2 with a big retractable visor screwed on. The visor replaced the old style goggles).

Again, it also has some great aerial footage, which is what you would expect from Hughes.


- Not much to say here, and that's about exactly what this flic deserves. But I wonder what it would've been considered if released back when it was written; Just as poor or rather interesting?

Well I'm a movie lover, not a movie reviewer, but I can easily say this was a dog.

I bet even John & Janet were rather embarrassed by this one.

Still, I watched it and found myself quite taken by Janet Leigh's beauty and enchanting eyes, along with Johnny's youthful amorousity.

The plot(?) is a sham, the "Commies" are treated as the usual moron's we were taught to believe them to be in every other propaganda flic, but it still serves to remind us of a time when even seduction was innocently provocative.

Return to an earlier time while viewing this comedy-that-never-was, and please don't expect to walk away with a moral, or inspired.

It's just a 'cute' way to blow an hour or two, and to remember what Studs Janet and John were in their day.

...get the popcorn popping' and leave the Kleenex on the shelf, you won't need it for this one.


The biggest problem with this film was its timing. It was made in 1949 when its shallow plot would have barely made political sense to movie goers; but wasn't released until 1957, four years after the US Air Force had trounced the North Koreans and Russians in aerial combat in the Korean War. Art didn't even imitate reality here. Also, it's hard to feel there's realism when both the good guys and bad guys are flying the same type aircraft, just painted differently. It doesn't work.

A better film of this genre is (under-rated and rarely shown-but recently released on DVD) The Hunters (1958) with Robert Mitchum, Robert Wagner and May Britt. It is loosely based on the exploits of real life F-86 Sabre "aces" in Korea and the plot follows the historical tract of the war. That film has an excellent love triangle among Britt, her husband and Mitchum, who is clearly believable as a professional fighter pilot. Plus the aerial sequences are much better than Jet Pilot's.

Even hard core Duke Wayne fans should pass on Jet Pilot, it's a flameout; The Hunters will fire your afterburner (even though F-86s didn't have afterburners...)


I am a HUGE John Wayne fan. But I couldn't watch this one all the way through. The dialog is so stiff and stilted and full of anti-communist cliches. It is so plainly a propaganda piece, I don't understand why the USAF wouldn't let it be released for 6 years. But after finding out Howard Hughes directed it ... I now know why he went into seclusion in his last days!


Poorly written, this film has the thinnest and most ridiculous "plot" I've ever seen. The acting (even from the Duke) is also sub-par from such a cast. I think that Janet Leigh actually out-acts Wayne. I can't see much to commend this film. A defecting Soviet pilot (Leigh) is given a totally free rein (no detention, no interrogation, nothing!) and even allowed to fly modern US jet fighters, watched only by Wayne's character, who has fallen for her. This film is too laughable to be called anything other than a comedy. However, it wasn't shot, edited or released as a comedy. It was designed as a pure propaganda film. As such, it's a total failure. This thing's a complete waste.


Someday a book must be written to explain the failures of great directors. This film is directed by the great Joseph Von Sternberg but not a touch of his greatness shows up on the screen. It is an unintentionally hilarious piece of overstated Cold War Propaganda relieved only by the leering glances of John Wayne at 23 yr. old Janet Leigh. There is nothing here to suggest it was directed by anything other than a studio hack. There must be a story in the fact that this film though completed in 1950 was not released until 1957. I saw this as a child and was, of course, transfixed by the flying scenes. It was not until a few years ago while reading Chuck Yeager's autobiography that I learned he did some of the flying at the behest of the Air Force. There are also scenes of what looks like the Bell X-1 (the rocket plane in which he broke the sound barrier). This film shows up on AMC quite often and, heaven help me, I sometimes can't turn it off as I wonder at the awfulness of it!


I guess I can see the point this guy was trying to make, but first why did it have to be Batman who ended up making a mistake? Couldn't a cop or DA also make that same mistake? Furthermore, this is a hard sell when it comes to Batman, given his continuity as known by fans. We're talking about a man who saw his parents killed right in front of him as a boy; got hell from all his trainers as he prepared to become Batman; saw a close friend's double personality destroy him; after failing save a girl from drowning, got addicted to a steroid pill for which he had to lock himself in the cave for a month to recover from it(hence the unbelievability of the heroin addiction part); had his second Robin brutally murdered; had another sidekick (Barbara Gordon) paralyzed at the hands of the Joker; saw his other best friend, Gordon, stripped naked, tortured, and tormented with pictures of his daughter, also stripped, just after she had been shot and paralyzed; after going a week with less than a day's sleep rounding up all of Arkhum's inmates after they had escaped, got his back busted by steroid-laced madman; saw his beloved city have its own Black Death from the "Clench" virus, then further carnage when it got leveled by a 7 point earthquake.

With all that, why would Batman give in after finding out he unintentionally sent an innocent man to the slammer, then sent into a heroin trip, and raped? The man's been carrying guilt over his parents, Harvey Dent, Jason Todd, Barbara, Gordon, and recently his former mechanic Harold. What would be so special about this thief that he would take his own life, believing his crusade was in vain? If you want to do one better than Alan Moore (Watchmen) in debunking the whole concept of a hero, this ain't how you do it.


This is without a doubt one of the worst damn movies I have ever had the misfortune of seeing. Batman a heroin addict? Batman getting beaten up by some common junkie punk? Batman getting zapped in the testicles w/ a stun gun? Then, to top it all off, batman is beaten, drugged & raped for over a month? What the hell is wrong here?

This whole movie revolves around Batman (apparently) sending an innocent man to jail for 5 years. The guy then spends the next 2 years on the street. His motive for revenge is that he was a clean-cut guy on his way to college until Batman wrongfully had him sent to prison- where he was beaten, raped & became a drug addict.

After all the villains Bats has faced, a nobody gets the best of him? NO F'N WAY!!! But, in this piece of garbage, that's what happens. The guy shoots himself in the head on front of Batman (why he is upset by this, I have no idea), the next day, Batman is found dead in the Gotham river due to a drug overdose. Of course, it had to have been the Joker along w/ at least 200 other criminals to pull this off- according to the news.

After all this crap, Batman's true identity is never revealed. The scum bag just wanted to rape Batman & get him addicted to heroin.

Do yourself a favor: Have sex w/ Rosie O'Donnell or drink a gallon of Drano 'cause that would be a helluva lot more entertaining & tolerable than watching this movie


The first line of dialogue in this indie short is Batman saying "Not a good idea" and that accurately sums up the whole project. The original concept, writing and approach to the character in 'The Death of Batman' are not good ideas and, in fact, the entire short is a extremely bad idea. This short has nothing to do with the other fan-based indie shorts, 'Batman: Dead End,' 'World's Finest,' and 'Grayson,' which are essentially mock-up trailers for films that fans would like to see developed and are intended for presentation at comic conventions. Whereas those three shorts are created out of a spirit of fanboy reverence and earnest enthusiasm for superhero movies, 'The Death of Batman' feels like it was made by a person expressing severe angst toward the concept of the superhero. I hesitate to use the word disturbing to describe this short because that word suggests an emotional impact that a skilled filmmaker could achieve, in the way a horror movie or an art film can be both disturbing and rewarding. 'The Death of Batman' is disturbing without being rewarding in the slightest. I think I understand what the director had intended; Batman as a Christ-figure (the short's last image is a stained-glass image of Jesus). So the less-than brilliant rationale for this indie short appears to be that for the Dark Knight to work, cinematically, as a Christ-figure he must be brutally tortured and die. The director seems focused on every type of taboo that could never make it into a studio superhero movie, such as having the hero tortured, sexually assaulted and then pointlessly killed with a heroin overdose. Personally I like a darker Gotham than most and I have imagined what an R-rated Batman movie might be like, however 'The Death of Batman' is unrewarding even in simply seeing it as a for-adults superhero story because all of its extremeness and shock value is all it has to offer. This short is nothing more than somebody's perverse imagining of Batman's death with no redeeming character insight and a failed Christ comparison. This is not a funny short, as others on this sit have suggested - it is not amusing or entertaining or even thought-provoking.

If you are someone who cares about the character of Batman, this short is only an upsetting and angering experience Do yourself a favor, DO NOT WATCH THIS SHORT. I don't mean that as in a trekkie telling you not to watch 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' because it fails to meet certain expectations or do not watch 'Batman & Robin' because it's a waste of time, I mean that if you watch this short could ruin Batman for you. I wish I had never seen it.


This movie is horrendous. The actors, although some of them veterans in the biz, were terrible. It is completely unwatchable with the story making zero sense. I watched half of this movie and had to physically walk away from the screen. NOT RECOMMENDED!!! I found this film through a search for Christian Bale, who plays remarkably in Batman Begins and his sister is Mrs Wayne in this horrific movie. Please do not watch this movie, there are now 28 minutes of my life that are forever lost among this movie and I am not happy about that! I would rather watch paint dry than to watch this movie again. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME! BATMAN FANS WILL BE ANGRY AFTER WATCHING THIS!


I know this film is meant as open minded, but it should not have been made. As a Bat-fan this film did disturb me, but they've got the character of Batman all wrong. He is a master escape artist and second to none in self defense. The performance of Batman is exemplary, but the execution is not there. One of the things that make Batman great is how he keeps surviving to fight the never-ending fight. No real Batman fan should see this because it's depressing and disheartening for our favorite hero.


Batman (Christopher Stapleton) is in the midst of a massive clean-up of Gotham's underground drug circuit when an encounter with a thief (Trip Hope) leads Batman into the fight of his life The only good aspects of this film are that the direction is good, the film looks pretty good, and the basic underlying ideas are unique. I mean, superheroes aren't perfect; they make mistakes too. What would happen if a superhero made a mistake and ruined someone's life? What if that person was in a situation where he or she could try to get revenge? Is vigilante justice justified? Do people have the right to take the law into their own hands? Unfortunately, these ideas are lost and muddled, because the film keeps switching teams; one minute it's about vigilantes being wrong, then the next minute they say the hero is needed; then the villain gets all of the sympathy, making you want to hate Batman, and then when it ends, they want you to sympathize with Batman. If that's not bad enough, the dialogue is clunky, and the lead actor (Trip Hope) couldn't carry a school play. Also, a lot of the torture scenes don't feel like they have any intelligence or thought behind them; they were just put there for shock-value, and it ends up being more of a disgusting, juvenile filmmaker effort than the thoughtful, disturbing film that it needed to be.

And what the filmmaker does to Batman is unforgivable. It's obvious the filmmaker either A) Doesn't understand Batman, B) Doesn't Like Batman, or C) Wanted to make a mockery of Batman. Either way, he succeeds on all three levels. As a result, we get a pathetic, weak Batman who goes against everything that nearly 70 years of history has taught us about him. This Batman is not the selfless, stoic, heroic crime-fighter who fights crime to avenge the deaths of his parents; This Batman is a selfish, cocky, weak brat who takes pleasure in fighting crime and has no will power to fight back. To take a page from the American Godzilla movie, this is B.I.N.O (Batman In Name Only) All in all, this movie is arguably the worst on-screen interpretation of Batman EVER. Yes, even worse than BATMAN & ROBIN. And it's a shame too, because there's a lot of great ideas in this movie and, as the title suggests, this film could've been really interesting. But in the end, with a muddled screenplay, poor actors, and B.I.N.O, we get a film...oh heck, it ain't even worth being called a film. Please, if you have any sense at all, go check out BATMAN '89, BATMAN DEAD END, or BATMAN BEGINS for true, respectful portrayals of Batman