Laura Gemser sits out this time, but Rosemarie Lindt is here and ready, willing and able to disrobe at any given opportunity. She's Emanuelle, a successful fashion model with one problem...she has just been raped by a vile behemoth (big guy George Eastman). To get revenge, she seduces, drugs and then chains her attacker up in a secret room behind a one-way mirror where he must watch in sexual frustration as she taunts and teases him with a parade of men and women she brings home to play with.

Not surprisingly for a D'Amato movie, this is not your standard sex film. Despite lots of flesh baring, it's far from being erotic. There's violence, gore, full frontal nudity, warped dream sequences, rape, hardcore dinner table masturbation scenes (in the uncut version anyway) and much more that you may not expect. Memorable bits include a sick-o nightmare sequence with Lindt being pinned down by four women and raped with a wine bottle and the finale, where someone in the cast ends up a gory mess after being chopped up with a meat cleaver.

And no, none of this is as entertaining as it sounds. Low production values, bad dubbing, crummy plotting, bad acting and time padding make it a chore to sit through. On video this was available in both R or Unrated versions (Unrated is the one I saw).

View at your own risk!


Unfortunately, the late, great Joe D'amato left his favorite horror format for this mixed-up caper of romance, revenge and the powers men and women hold over each other.

There is very little gore here, but many relationships. This spells disaster for a Joe D'amato Pic.

Obviously, Joe wanted to branch out from his usual Gore and Chicks flicks..but this bomb will put you to sleep...or hurt your finger from holding down your VCR's Fast Forward key.

Take my advice, Skip It!


Wow, did this short by D.W. Griffith go off in a bizarre direction that I hadn't anticipated!! The film begins with intertitle cards which indicate that a doctor has a spoiled son who spends money like mad. So, to let his son continue living this lavish life, the doctor decides to create and market a narcotic soft drink--"Dopokoke". It's a huge success, as it being laced with cocaine guarantees repeat business!! By the end, you see that the son and his new wife are hopeless coke fiends!!!

There's no doubt that the idea of this short was spurred on by the fact that Coca-Cola DID contain small amounts of coke until around the turn of the 20th century. However, it was not in huge amounts, was not horribly addictive and did not leave people shells of their former selves because of drinking it! A bit of an exaggeration to say the least.

Despite being a stupid short, it is entertaining!!


I saw Kat yesterday and it was presented by the instructor who told us about the movie and wished us a "unpleasant" experience. He was right - it was unpleasant. It had no story, yet the actors were OK, they used cheap tricks to scare us, some were unwillingly funny as the computer graphics were plainly horrible. The worst movie I have ever seen in a theater.


One of the worst films to come out of Denmark... EVER. Please, do not waste time nor money on this. Martin Schmidt has done two films previously to this "Sidste Time" which is excellent and "Mørkeleg" which is crap, but not as much crap as "Kat".


Clichéd, tiresome psychological thriller/horror movie with a one-note central performance by Liv Corfixen, whose titular feline is accidentally possessed by a demon, when it happens to gate-crash an occult seance by the upstairs neighbours. Eventually it turns into a panther-like monster, attacking targets of its owner's jealous rage, like her two-timing boyfriend (a miscast Martin Brygmann) and her ditto roommate (Charlotte Munck). Only Pilmark as the cop on the case manages to rise above the material and emerge unscathed from this incoherent and unintentionally funny piece of dreck. After the risible teen-horrors "Sidste Time", "Mørkeleg" and now this, the time seems ripe for director/horror buff Martin Schmidt to try his hand out at other genres.


Easily one of the worst horror movies ever! Martin Schmidt directs with the talent (or rather lack of it) of a 10 year old Fangoria fan. Avoid at all costs!


Normally I am not the kind of person to get mad about a movie. I either think abuot it as good entertainment - and that's it - or as not worth viewing, well, there go ? 8,-. But this film managed to almost make me scream in pain. If it was just plain bad I wouldn't bother to write this comment. But indeed it had its moments. In fact it was partly brilliant. As the first movie I know it managed to combine some of the best elements of genuine german film-making and big Hollywood cinema. There may be some minor flaws in the storyline, including the fact that one can guess quite early who the real antagonist is. But these are well compensated by a dense storyline, credible characters and a nice amount of gore ^_^ . So much potential. And then... THIS ENDING ?! Did Schwentke run out of money? Brain? Or both? Maybe I am just too dumb to get it, but I felt just unsatisfied and betrayed. And according to the reaction of my friends and the other viewers I was not alone. But anyways, 'trakl' may be right - this film might change the whole way of german film-making in a positive way. Let's hope for the best.


Over 90 percent of Tattoo are taken at night or indoors with dim lightning. This might be the reason why this one is often compared to David Fincher's Seven (which also has two officers investigating mysterious and bizarre serial killer). Fairly impressive cast of Tattoo cannot cache rather implausible & heavy constructed story. August Diehl has never looked so lost on the big screen as in the second half of Tattoo (probably he noticed what he was into it - and it was too late to get out). Dull and likely socially disturbed dialogs (with some "witty" humor about the skin, German "die Pelle") plus the unnatural lightning definitely kills the aesthetic effort of the filmmakers (which is merely noticeable). This movie is rated to high in my opinion, because there is no explicit cruelty in it (which is a plus!), its just mostly boredom.

The plot tries to display a bizarre scene of Tattoo-fetishists (Tattoo collectors who kill people for their skin). The Tattoo art aspect comes short, they only chat about it, but the actual Tattoos used in this movie are not good (or not displayed good enough).

Our hero (Diehl) goes through a strange metamorphosis from a innocent and unprofessional police-apprentice (which he masters very good) till he becomes a super-bad-cop like Charles Bronson (selfjustice, etc). Diehl looks here a lot out of place.

This movie had a notable success (especially in the U.S.), seems like a proper mix of some hype elements: Tattoos, sex & body modification (marginal). But this movie has a significant lack in the story itself, which is not plausible at all. Other problems are weak director's performance (seems like Nadeshda Brennicke was casted only to take off the clothes) and somehow inappropriate editing (with no plausible reasoning). The good one about this movie are some supporting actors, which are brilliant (Ilknur Bahadir as the annoying cop and Monika Bleibtreu as police-boss-mom) and some interesting architecture shots. The rest is awful, great actors and expensive lihgtstyling are no guarantee for a good movie. Well, not in Germany.

ps. Nivea-Creme is a very popular skin care product in Europe.


Did I waste my time. This is very pretentious film. In the beginning you will think there's something going on but by the time some 30 minutes go by you realize nothing is happening. I waited for another 20 minutes and by then i was so frustrated that I started reading reviews on IMDb and realized that the director has wasted precious time of so many people.

Unbelievably boring pointless film. Stay away. So many good soundtracks. I will give one point for the police inspector joke because that worked for me. I laughed for a long time but otherwise a very bad film. Stay away.1 on 10.


It's not plot driven, OK; it's not a character study, fine; there's no action, alright; there's no point, hmmm...

Maybe it's supposed to represent the boredom and absurdity of living in Palistine and parts of Israel these days in a state of violence, petty disagreements, deep rooted hostility, etc. But mostly it's long, long scenes of nothing happening - or things which look like they're dripping with meaning (a checkpoint tower crashing to the ground, an Arafat balloon floating into Jerusalem, a crouching tiger women deflecting bullets into a halo) but when you try to derive some meaning, there's no there there.

Bonus: you can watch this film in fast forward and it will make absolutely no difference except that it might be slightly less boring.


This was one of the most dishonest, meaningless, and non-peaceful of the films I have ever seen. The representation of the other, of the Israelis, was racist, backward, and unfair. For one, the song played on E.S' car radio when pulled up alongside a very right-wing Israeli driver was "I put a spell on you" by Natacha Atlas. The song's style is quite Arabic, but it was released on an Israeli compilation CD, and I have even heard it on the radio in Israel. Many Israeli songs (as well as architecture, foods, and slang) are influenced by Arabic culture, and there is no reason an Israeli Jew would be offended or angered by a nearby car playing that song. The way E.S. appears so calm and collected with his sunglasses and cool glare, via a long, still shot, is meant to force the viewer into seeing the Jew as haggard and racist, and E.S. as noble and temperate.

I have traveled all over Israel, and I have never seen an IDF recruitment poster, since service is mandatory. But in the film, not only is there a recruitment poster, but it depicts a stereotypical image of an Arab terrorist and the words "want to shoot?" This is an extremely inaccurate depiction of the mentality of the majority of Israelis as well as Israeli soldiers, and such an "advertisement" wouldn't even exist on a random Israeli highway. In including it, the director aims to convince the audience that Israel is a society of anti-Arab racists hell-bent on murder.

The ninja scene was gratuitous and needlessly violent. A Hollywood-style action scene involving Israeli soldiers shooting Palestinians would be just as unwelcome in an Israeli-directed film as the ninja scene should have been. But for some reason, images of an unrealistic, non-comic, and violent scenario manage to elicit applause from the audience since the director has smeared the Israeli side so much beforehand, that any shot of Israeli soldiers being killed would be welcome. The director shows absolutely no attempt at building bridges, portraying the "other" as human, or working towards peace; violence is made to be the only solution. This is furthered by scenes of exploding tanks, falling guard towers, and other random acts of destruction. One of my best friends serves in the Israeli military, and the targets in firing ranges are never Arab women dressed in black, or any other quasi-civilian on canvas. Soldiers at checkpoints are instructed not to fire at the head of an approaching Palestinian unless it is clear that their own lives are in danger; the method, according to my friend, is to provide a warning shout, fire into the air or around the area, and then if all else fails, shoot in the leg and then interrogate and hospitalize. Arbitrarily targeting a woman in the head, as shown in the film, is not the proper procedure.

Besides these inaccuracies, the directing style was also poor. Repetition became repetitious, and no longer captivating. Symbols, such as the balloon with Arafat drawn on it, are forced outside any plot structure or effective integration in the setting; the balloon is Palestine penetrating and regaining Jerusalem, and it is created for no reason by E.S. The ambulance being checked for permits by Israeli soldiers followed by subsequent Israeli ambulances flying past the checkpoint is an overly-overt claim of an Israeli double standard by the director. The attempt by the director to show life in Nazareth as dreary and pointless is done with overkill; showing the routines of random people over and over again, even with a slight change each time, and emphasizing that not one member of the cast ever smiles and is minimalist in dialogue almost screams out the purpose of such scenes, the dreariness of life, without allowing much room for personal interpretation. By contrasting one "section" of the movie, daily life in Nazareth, with the second section, the checkpoint between Ramallah and Israel, the director subtly blames this dreariness on Israel, but never provides any direct evidence as to why such blame can be properly argued.

I spent hours trying to figure out why music ended abruptly and began abruptly, and why many modern fashion-show-like and metal-action tracks were included in the score. I still cannot come up with an answer. I felt that the music was out of place in this film; the contrast between more silent scenes and intense scenes was actually annoying and not affecting or thought-provoking. I can understand if the director intended for the music to provide some comic aspect to certain scenes, but I found that there was nothing comic to be found in Israeli soldiers shooting at targets or fighting a ninja, or a woman having to suffer another walk through a checkpoint, albeit defiantly. In fact, I was tempted to close my ears during intense scenes, and annoyed by the lack of a score during quiet scenes. Whatever the director's intent, it provided only an audial displeasure throughout the film.

This film has no legitimate political message because it provides an inaccurate and extreme representation of the other, and neglects to actually address any issues. It is a propaganda film, because the director intends various symbols, styles, and scenes to draw sympathy for the Palestinian side, while displaying the Israeli side as cruel and inhuman without exception; the vibrant atmosphere of an action-packed Hollywood scene or of intense music is displayed in every act of violence by Palestinians against Israelis, such that the almost inevitably positive and thrilled feelings the music and cinematography elicit from the audience are directed to one side. There is no thought, reflection, or deepening of the understanding of the conflict by the audience; emotions are simply pulled to one side, and kept there, in a "good vs bad" cliché scenario. I believe this film lacked the depth, quality, and power of other Palestinian films, such as "Paradise Now" and "Wedding in the Galilee."


I really wanted to like this film for all sorts of reasons -- the subject matter is inherently interesting and is probably the major issue facing the world today and has thrown up fascinating works (e.g. Linda Grant's When I lived in modern times)usually from the Israeli side of the fence. Also, a bloke I like told me he thought it was the best film he'd seen all year, so with such a recommendation...

HOWEVER I actually found myself nodding off at points! Admittedly i was tired and the cinema seats comfy but I found it too much hard work trying to identify with the characters. Once I'd got my head round the idea that it was a series of vignettes, I went with it, but this made it disappointingly like a sketch show rather than a film. I liked the concept of a restrained, almost silent mise en scene contrasted to these utopian moments - the sexy girl, the red balloon and the ninja Muslim fighter. But personally i think the film has been over hyped. I'm not saying narrative and plot is everything (it's definitely not) but even a little more dialogue would have helped.


I was very concerned about this film, it was scheduled to play at a Jewish Film Festival, and was reported to be very hostile to Israel, while using clever humor and irony.

I was relieved that the film was not a diatribe, however as a work of film it was deeply disappointing. The film was full of random events, some of which eventually connected, most of which did not. Some of the events were very clever and funny, but some were merely random and pointless.

There are repeated scenes between two lovers where they sit in a car, wordlessly, and play some handholding game. Perhaps in some cultures this is erotic, but it's like watching thumb-wrestling. After the third time, it really became tiresome.

I have always found David Lynch to be gratuitously bizarre, using strange stories and images to cause audiences to think that he is SO sophisticated that they don't grasp his work; in fact, there is nothing to grasp. The same is true here, the stories do not add up to anything, and there is not much of a political point being made (in one scene a boisterous Israeli soldier humiliates Palestinian drivers at a checkpoint. That's news?)

I don't understand why this film has garnered controversy, nor why it has garnered attention. It is an inferior work and seeing it was a waste of time.


A Brazilian cable television is presenting "Yadon Ilaheyya" this month in its "Cult" channel. I saw the trailer and listened to the advertisement, and decided to see this movie. Indeed it is an absurd boring pretentious dumb pointless disconnected crap about the conflict in the Middle East, and together with "Soultangler", they certainly are the worst movies I have tried to see. I really wasted forty-three minutes of my life watching the first half of this crap, highly indicated for torturing enemies. How can this movie be awarded and nominated to prizes inclusive in Cannes? My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "Intervenção Divina" ("Divine Intervention")


This is like a school video project and a propaganda film that puts the whole class as well as the teacher to sleep.

Utterly boring long silent(yes, silent) strings of unrelated video clips.

Instead of this movie watch the paint dry or the grass grow- it will be more interesting unless you enjoy seeing Arabs being malicious to everyone around them.

Sulieman (the Director) should be embarrassed of this lame waste of film.

It deserves a one for the movie quality, a zero for the ridiculous propaganda message and a negative number for the script (or lack thereof.)


Won't be long on this movie. The first half an hour was one of the most boring i have had to face since i've started watching movies. The story didn't advanced, nothing was explained about any of the characters. It felt like a non-movie. (A lot of people had already left the audience at this point).

A lot of the scene were totally unjustified and unexplained.

The director should have studied film a bit more to know that each sequence, each scene, has to make the story go forward. He never did that.

The supposedly funny moments were contrived, and only a few people laughed (people with a weird sense of humor, i guess).

Prize of the Jury in Cannes 2002.....don't know what the jury was thinking about....probably the "politicly correct effect".

I would have loved to love it, the disappointment was therefore even bigger.

You have to see it to believe it. But wait for the video.


The Palestinian situation is fertile and as-yet largely fallow soil for film-making. 'Divine Intervention' tries hard, and gives us an insightful peek into the almost surreal life of those caught up in the troubles, but the film amounts to little more than a handful of (admittedly lovely) visual jokes thrown onto celluloid, while the links between them become increasingly obscure as the film progresses. A missed opportunity to say something more coherent about a very topical issue.


"TRIBBLES" is by far, the silliest, stupidest, un-Star Trek episode of any of them! I can't understand why so many people list this one as their favorite, it's a comedy ala Abbott & Costello, just plain DUMB! The dialog is lame, the acting pedestrian, and the story itself lends nothing at all to the credence of ST, but unfortunately, does giver to the stereotype the show's detractors will point to. The tribble problem aboard the ship is but a vehicle meant to get in the way of Kirk's job of putting out all the "little fires" engulfing them, the Attack by the Klingons, for one, and Nilz Barris continually, acting the self-important bureaucrat, getting in the way. There's nothing humorous or funny about it, it's boring, almost painful to watch, and keep in mind that this is Star Trek! BUT: There IS one saving scene that makes it memorable: The confrontation between Barris & Kirk, where Barris tells him "I don't think you take this mission seriously", and Kirk responds with "The mission I take seriously, it's YOU I take lightly, now get out of my way, or I'll have you locked up!" A good line, in a very bad episode! I can only think this one may have been done as a comedy relief, to break the seriousness of the series as a whole, but no, I won't give it credit even for that. It's just BAD!


Being a huge advocate of PTA, I hunted for this video forever. Eventually I found it. So I saw it and, well, aaah--didn't really like it. Sandler walks into a furniture store and in an attempt to find the perfect sofa, his legs end up over his shoulders--go figure. So its funny in one way--Sandler's mullet.


For what it is, a silly 2 1/2 minute skit starring Adam Sandler, I thought this was great. The opening shot is particually PT Anderson, but the rest is just down right stupid humour. The ending particually cracked me up, although I honestly don't get what the hell happened (and I don't think I'm supposed to). This is simply just PTA and Sandler screwing around with a free set after filming PDL, so I doubt any real thought went into this, so please don't expect "Magnolia" or "Boogie Nights" or anything, just expect a stupid, retard Sandler style short that will leave you confussed, laughing, and saying out loud "What the F***?".


Paul Thomas Anderson's "Couch" is a fairly good example of how a dolly and a film camera don't always make a good film. However, it is an interesting short to watch, just in terms of where it fits in his filmography, especially so soon after "Punch-Drunk Love".

If people found it harder to pinpoint the sources of Anderson's inspiration in "Punch-Drunk Love", "Couch" provides an answer of sorts.

It's funny, and I laughed, but only the first time.

But you also have to remember that this film isn't meant to be reviewed, nor even taken seriously. It's a dumb short, and shame on me for treating it otherwise. See it, enjoy it, don't expect much more from it.

Done and done.


This film is only 2 minutes long. Unfortunately, it's not even worth those two minutes. Adam Sandler sees a couch in a store. He walks in and sits on it. It falls over. He gets up and sits on a reclining. It folds up on him. Amazingly, that's the whole movie. Nothing really funny about it at all.


For this movie, my recommendation is to read the book. I have not, and do not discount the power which may have been conveyed by the original author who lived the experiences.

But all credibility which this movie may have had, washed away for me because there was no dirt, no mud, no decay, no rats, no lice, no corpse stink, no depiction of the truly terrible conditions in which these people fought and slogged and died.

All of the soldiers' kit was unblemished, unstained, unmuddied, looking like the producer did not want to risk the expense of getting it cleaned upon its return to the props department. The trenches looked like they had been built that afternoon.

You want to tell an effective story with pictures, you have to make the pictures right, or the story doesn't get told.

Go watch "All Quiet On The Western Front" for the quintessential depiction of World War I.


I understand that the book was episodic, but that does not mean it translates into a good film that way.Poorly directed and acted, not to mention produced. How tough would it have been for the actors to at least have gotten haircuts? Not the best film about WW1. Not even close. Perhaps having one person being the producer, writer and director is not the best idea? The actors were not in the least convincing.Someone should have said "Whoa" before this was put together. Oh, and I wrote this review using the same disjointed style the director of this movie used. Do you think it made for a better review this way? I did not think so.


I oh so wanted to see this film desperately after seeing the awesome trailer for it. I mean, a two color musical, the first ever made for Warner Brothers! The King Of Jazz has no plot. Nada. Nil. Instead it's a whole pile of musical numbers and comedic skits. The whole thing is centered around a guy who was popular at the time, Paul Whiteman, and his orchestra. The one thing I really liked about this movie is the set design. THAT was truly gaga, but soon lame musical number after lame musical number envelops what good that does and makes this an AWFULLY uncomfortable sit through. Well, at least we got to see a very very young Bing Crosby. That's about all that makes this watchable.


This made for TV movie would be ok if you left out the second half of the film. The plot starts out good, but gets progressively dumber as the film moves on. The film keeps a good pace and can even give a scare in places, but overall, I'm not impressed - and the bad effects make the movie rated only a 3 in my book.


First of all, I will compare it to Old Yeller which some people seem to think it is similar to. Yeah, it's similar in that the main character and the dog are best friends and do stuff together and that the ending is not a happy one. Yeah, yeah, big deal.

Old Yeller was set in the pioneer days. The dog ended up having to be shot after contracting rabies because. Even when I was a kid, I had no problem with that because I knew that rabies just wasn't treatable in those days. In Little Heroes, the dog dies from eating poison bait. Was that really necessary? Why didn't they keep the dog inside when they couldn't keep an eye on him? (Did the family not know about the bait, or were the filmmakers just too dang lazy?) Talk about preying on anyone's worst fears! And it's in relatively modern times. Old Yeller died after protecting his family. Old Dan in "Where the Red Fern Grows" died in a hunting accident. Furthermore, those movies were based on BOOKS that weren't aimed directly at kids. There was absolutely no reason why this movie had to end this way. If you want to show your kids a movie concerning animal-friend and moving on, try Old Yeller or Red Fern Grows which both at least have a setting in which the tragic end was contextually inevitable and not totally pointless.

Score: 1 because it's the lowest score I can give.


I've seen the drastically cut version of this movie (I don't know if the full version is available) and it's pretty much an incoherent mess. The plot involves an evil group of ninjas with a grudge against Shaolin Temple, and a Japanese kung fu disciple (with the extremely Japanese name of Wang Chi Chun or some such) who comes to their aid. Basically the whole mess is pretty uninspired fu battles and hijinks. The hero has absolutely no character at all. However the movie has three things going for it, in descending order of interest. 1) Gay Western Hare Krishnas wanna-bes looking to gain kung fu enlightenment at Shaolin 2) The Black Monk of Harlem, a buddy of the Shaolin Abbot, who does some serious butt-kicking, and speaks in a HK film dubber's approximation of 1970's jive that is unintentionally hilarious 3) The Ninja Water Spider Attack Team. One of the greatest things I've ever seen in a fu movie. Basically big spider floats that the ninjas paddle around on like 4-yr-olds in a kiddy pool, and occasionally fly.

Worth a viewing for the Black Monk and the Water Spiders, nothing else going on.


Set in South Florida's world of models, pools, beaches, drugs, gangsters and nightclubs this is another stab at copying the success of Baywatch, but adding some sub-Miami Vice elements for that prime-time soap measure.

It's also executive-produced by Jennifer Lopez, which explains why it looks like nothing more than one of her music videos. But despite virtually everyone on screen being stunningly good looking it's all fur coat and no knickers. Everyone is a hunk or a babe ready to flash the flesh, but nobody gets involved in anything remotely resembling a decent plot and the dialogue is flimsier than the thong bikinis some of the women wear. If that's all you need then tune in, but when it first aired in America, few did, and it ranked 152nd out of the 156 original series produced for network television in the 2005-06 season  and was then dropped after eight episodes.

In LA last year I found myself on the beach where Baywatch was once filmed. It was 10am and few others were about so I ran along the sand in slow motion, just like 'The Hoff' used to do. Then I noticed that coming the other way was someone else doing exactly the same thing. We laughed, and (slowly) carried on our way. Baywatch might have been corny but it was a guilty pleasure loved by millions because it was light-hearted fun. South Beach will only have people running for the remote control, and almost certainly not in slow motion.


Perhaps one should see the movie and read the book, before reading my comments. I bought the book in hopes it would explain the movie. But the book had so little to do with the movie that there was no help to be found. The book answers some of the questions the movie raises but because they are so dissimilar it might not be useful to use one to answer the other. None-the-less, the prestige, is not a description of an illusion's parts, but rather the remains left of the magician who has transported himself via the Tesla device which, apparently, does work. In the end, both the movie and the book leave so many unanswered questions only a long discussion with the author or screen writer would help. Do both magicians have access to a Tesla-like device? Was there or was there not a twin? The one believed to have a twin denies it as his life is being threatened. Why did Olivia give the secret to the new transported man in the one word "Tesla" if he did not have access? Bottom line is that as one who has long been interested in stage magic I feel really cheated for having spent so much time and effort to try to get answers to real questions that I haven't even tried to express in this limited space.


Out of all, the story was somewhat alright, what I did not like was the acting, nor most of the lines. The acting in my opinion lacked feeling and character. Most of the events in the film could be expected. The lines were dumb especially when Ociee Nash met the president and fell down when nobody moved out of her way, then saying a little later to the president her opinion of "hurrying slowly" which the president and everybody there found to be a great idea. The only part I liked was when Ociee Nash did something heroic and "unladylike" which also pleased people later in the film. The film itself was kind of interesting though.


If I was the cinematographer who worked on this film, I'd be severely depressed. All of that good work in making a colorful, light, and playful world lost in complete ineptitude from everyone else who worked on this movie.

The story is actually a good one, despite clichés. A young girl (9 years) named Ociee Nash from Mississippi is turning out to be something of a tomboy, which her father worries about because of her lack of a mother (died from measles). He sends her to her prim and proper Tennessee aunt, and along the way she has a cheery and profound effect on everyone she meets, including the Wright brothers and the President of the United States, among others.

It's based on a book, and something tells me that book is probably really good. This movie, however, loses everything that was given to it, literally given to it, by being incredibly flat and mispaced. The dramatic effect from the shots is completely lost, the acting is terrible (yeah yeah, I know they're kids... they were still terrible), and it's almost insulting to try to watch an hour and a half of their strained, horrible accents. 1898 Ociee Nash sounds like a California Valley Girl, the adult actors literally sound like they refuse to even try, and it looks like the editor took whichever the first shot they finished was and just threw it together, cutting only sufficiently enough to look like it was planned.

Whereas I give this only one star out of then, it earns that one star for its try and its pretty pictures. It wasn't a total loss, but it was a great one.

--PolarisDiB


A very curious beast, this. It contains many of the trademarks of other Ealing comedies - the little people facing oppressive civil servant types and capitalism, lightly fantastical moments, a sense of community spirit etc. - yet these elements fail to gel this time round. In fact it's probably the only Ealing comedy to really fall flat on its face.

The plot concerns a small, out-of-date railway that is due to be closed down and the local community's attempts to keep it running in the face of monumental adversity. Part of the problem lies in the fact that it's difficult to empathise with the characters' plight; I'd imagine that whereas most people would like to get rich quick (The Lavender Hill Mob, for example), few have dreams of running their own railway. Also, the main characters want to keep the railway going purely out of a desire to uphold tradition, when alternative forms of transportation are far more efficient and a Hell of a lot safer. We're meant to be on the side of the vicar and his chums trying to run a railway on their own but one can't help but think that the bureaucracy are right on this occasion and that the heroes just aren't capable of carrying out this great task. Whilst the problems that beset them are admittedly the fault of an exterior menace - mainly a couple of lads who run a bus route (ooo, scary) - the "goodies" thwart their foes at every turn by... erm... ramming them off the track (nice), or tying the train to the engine by rope (thereby posing a massive safety risk to all the passengers).

Then there's the bit where Sid James shoots holes in the water refill tank and they need to find a new source of water - the river holds the apparent solution, so the drivers bang on the windows of the train and order all the passengers out so that they can help them (!) by raiding the local farm (!!) for containers to carry water back and forth until the engine's filled. Though it says a lot about the community spirit, it's a bit unlikely that the passengers would be willing to expend physical labour on what was supposed to be a quiet journey that they themselves have paid money for (the one man who refuses to do it - saying quite rightly that he shouldn't have to - is painted as the black sheep!). It makes it difficult to believe that everybody should be so keen for the railway to continue when every journey they go on is fraught with safety hazards and delays; most people would sod it for a game of soldiers and get the bus instead. And by the time people are flocking to help push the train along the tracks (a replacement engine from the local museum, note, and therefore even deadlier than the one before) to get it past its government inspection you wonder whether these people should have something better to do with their lives than fret about maintaining what seems to be the most inefficient and dangerous train service that ever existed. In fact the one argument in their favour - that replacing the one train with loads of bus routes and motorways would have huge environmental concerns and destroy the countryside - is mentioned once and then forgotten about; it seems that we're supposed to support them simply because, well, they want to run a railway and it's quite a nice hobby. I know it's supposed to be whimsical and all that but I just couldn't help but think that these characters - with their hearts in the right places - were an utter menace.

Of the cast only Stanley Holloway shines as a wonderfully eccentric chap mad enough to finance the affair so long as the train has a 24 hour bar inside, and there is a wonderful sequence with a train driving down the roads of a local town (one of those magical moments Ealing did so well), but the story doesn't have strong enough foundations and the pace drags awfully (its slim 80 minutes seem to last forever). Not even the old English charm can save it. Probably worth a single viewing but you probably won't go back to it in a hurry.


A critically important component of virtually all successful cinema is suspense, a perception of uncertainty within the viewer as to what may ensue from the events occurring upon the screen, whichever genre, present even when we know an outcome (Apollo 13) if the work is done well; all of which is meant to point to a total absence of suspense in this weakly directed feature, which dully plods from scene to scene until its flat ending. Lloyd Bridges, cast as police sergeant Ed Stagg, has discovered that the husband (Frank Converse) of his daughter Tina (Sallie Shockley) is dallying with a local chippy and during Stagg's attempts to end the adultery, he accidentally commits a murder, upon which he forges a plan to place responsibility for the crime upon a local inebriate, tangentially providing a question of the title: was Scott's "What a tangled web we weave..." (Marmion) the intended source, inaptly transposed into "tattered"? (an amendment that would be of a piece within this poorly crafted affair). The film is steeped in cliché, hampered by a witless score, and the acting from the three mentioned leads is often embarrassingly bad, notably in the case of Bridges, which might be attributed to the hackneyed script if it were not that Anne Helm as the doxy and Murray Hamilton as Stagg's partner manage to make something of their material, while Broderick Crawford rises above his during his few scenes.


This film was terrible in every way. The acting was downright terrible ( and I mean terrible). Especially the hysterical shouting wife was terrible and the Oh-I'm-so-mean husband shouldn't be allowed to ever 'act' again. There is no pacing, the movie takes ridiculous turns and the plot is filled with stupid moral lessons for the non-intelligent viewer. Everything is so over the top it was almost funny. I say almost, because the film depressed me completely by it's badness. Subtlety is seriously lacking in this movie. Every time the evil husband gets screen time a 'darth Vader' like tune is played. Like that isn't bad enough, it's the same tune every time. This is just one of the elements what makes this film a C-film. Stay away from this at all costs.


I watched LB from the movie to almost the bitter end and if you'd asked me six months ago I would have been hugely complimentary.

However time plays tricks with the memory, and I've recently had the chance to view the early episodes again.

I was shocked at how empty and limp the stories were, though punctuated by increasingly spectacular yet predictable 'shouts' with associated danger, drama and of course death. Death was a major player in LB, and 'Blue Watch' would surely have been renamed 'Death Watch' and would have come to national media attention due to their high attrition rate.

Some of the drama between 'shouts' is incredibly wet, and usually punctuated by sax background music. The stereotyped characters that I had enjoyed any years ago only annoy now, and Josie's lines when she returned to the show during the big 'shout' made a roomful of viewers laugh with embarrassment.

Best remembered and not re-watched - you may spoil your memories.


I didn't expect much from this TV movie. You have to set the bar lower than you would for midget limbo for any TBS movie starring Antonio Sabato Jr. Still, it managed to disappoint, failing even to be a good-bad film.

Every scene was by rote, as if someone had cut and pasted scenes from a dozen movies and tv shows dealing with big business conspiracies into the script, leaned back and said, "My work is done". It's all cliche, all predictable, and, even worse, the actors are forced to look like they're taking it seriously, (even when the plot developments are laughable).

Do yourself a favor. Watch "The X-Files" if you're in the mood for paranoia. They handle it better. Also, let anyone know that sitting through "Fatal Error" is just that.


This has the logical consistency of marshmallows filled with ketchup, and the overall aftertaste is just as disgusting.

Will be used in the 9th circle of Hell at recreation time. Just plain torture.

I would rather choose to watch 90 minutes of my computer going through 5400 blue screens of death than watch this appalling drivel again - ever. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

You know, the good thing about Swiss Cheese is that along with the holes you get some cheese: here it's ONLY holes - and the excitement factor? Well that turns watching paint dry into an adrenalin rush and an Olympic speed sport.

My brain hurts from trying to work out who OK'd this drivel, did they think about the premise? (I sincerely hope not, otherwise there is no redemption) the only consolation is they had the pleasure of sitting through the rushes. Made for TV should not be a synonym for: "Sure, let the horses bowels run loose across the living rooms! Our audience are idiots!"

I was hooked just to know how it could get any worse. This is not a good sign, folks.

Hallmark should be ashamed for releasing it.

I should be ashamed for watching it.

I am ashamed. I'm off for a long shower.


Robert Wagner is the evil boss of Digicron, a telecommunications company with a virus that kills people.

'so you're saying that the software virus has become a real virus that can kill people - that may be medically possible but not possible from my system'

'i'm having to write some new virus software of my own to trap it - it may take some time'

'but it's not going after software, it's killing people'

watch out for the 'i'm into virology' love moment and perhaps first ever film plot to feature death by braille keyboard


I rated this movie a 1 since the plot is so unbelievable unbelievable. Judge for yourself. Be warned, the following will not only give away the plot, but will also spoil your appetite for watching the movie.

A computer virus, designed by a frustrated nerd, sends out a code through television screens and computer monitors. When the code - in the form of light - enters the eye it can access the 'electrical system' of your body. What it does is forcing the body cells into excretion of calcium. Within seconds after infection the patient reaches for his neck, develops tunnel vision, his skin will turn white of the calcium, after which he falls and his hand and scull will crack in a cloud of chalk.

This virus is very intelligent. When it finds out that a blind computer expert is trying to disassemble the code with a braille output device - operated by hands - the device is set on a very high voltage, which causes severe burning wounds on the skin of the expert's head. The virus also senses aggression against remote controls and the keyboard of an ATM. Fortunately it could be stopped by throwing over outdated desktop pc's in a rack and electrocuting the nerd with his back on a broken computer and his feet in some spilled water.

Oh dear...


I have read the novel Reaper of Ben Mezrich a fews years ago and last night I accidentally came to see this adaption.

Although it's been years since I read the story the first time, the differences between the novel and the movie are humongous. Very important elements, which made the whole thing plausible are just written out or changed to bad.

If the plot sounds interesting to you: go and get the novel. Its much, much, much better.

Still 4 out of 10 since it was hard to stop watching because of the great basic plot by Ben Mezrich.


You'll need a program to tell you what is going on, because like most modern actors, these bores cannot enunciate. Without closed caption, forget it.

Which is just as well, because it is garbage by any standards.

It's set in the early 1800s, with British and French soldiers in the middle East. There's a lot of killing and action, but it doesn't work, because you have no idea why it is going on, or how it is going on. It is a muddled mess.

The poor speaking skills of the actors are across the board, which means the director and casting crew are to blame more than anyone. And no one cares.

The action doesn't work, because it is just another neo Nazi idealist director and writers contriving every instance to save blonde women and butcher brown eyed brunettes. The director is so heavy handed at this, that the audience just doesn't care, and is thoroughly bored by the same old routine. Obviously made for the neo Nazi and female market, since anyone else will be completely turned off by this.

Not much else to say about this garbled garbage.


I remember when this came out it was the first kung fu film ever seen around our way and we were all excited about seeing it for sure .Although the action was mediocre at best it gave us our first taste of kung fu and our first taste of bad dubbing as well as bad film making or more precisely the way Chinese people were making films at the time . They were admittedly inferior wlthout question but there was entertainment value here and that caught on for sure . The kung fu craze had begun and Bruce Lee and ''The Chinese Connection'' would soon follow either that or ''The Chinese Boxer'' with Jimmy Wang Yu . In any case this film was chosen to lead the way .


This is indeed the film that popularized kung fu in the 1970s. However, if it ever had any kind of excitement or even halfway interesting plot, it doesn't seem to have aged very well.

Long story short: extremely drawn out, slow-moving, confusing plot with run-of-the-mill choreography, typically annoying and exaggerated whiplash sounds with every punch and kick, and constant "plot twists" that never come to an end. By the time the film reaches its emotional climax, I had long had all the wind knocked out of me to actually care.

Watch it for its historical value as a milestone of Chinese kung fu cinema -- just leave your expectations at the door, or you'll be bitterly disappointed.

For hardcore fans only.


Jeff Goldblum plays a Jewish clown who survives the Holocaust by pretending to be Nazi officer Willem Dafoe's dog. Sounds like a tasteless, cheesy Italian movie from the '70s, right? Oh, if only. This cringe-worthy material could have been magic, an easy-made cult classic. Unfortunately, Paul Schraeder directs. I'm sure he's directed a few good films. I've seen one or two okay ones. But he's so boring. He's so literal-minded and unambitious. Adam Resurrected is a first rate bore. Goldblum and Dafoe try to make it "fun", but Schraeder's only interested in making a dire Holocaust picture. We just don't need another one of those. For the record, the Holocaust plot line is really only the flashback sequences. The present-day sequences (set in 1960s Tel Aviv) have Goldblum in a mental hospital, complete with the ultra-lame mental hospital clichés (one woman thinks she's holding up the sky from falling - how wonderful!). He is "resurrected" when he finds a young boy who was raised as a dog and he attempts to cure him.


There you have at least two great actors who really give what they can but there's no director.

These two actors, Goldblum and Dafoe, are all alone in this insane brain sh... Nobody can explain them their purpose and so the audience is lost in this strange story which probably wants to make sense but there is no one who can press any sense and logic out of it.

It probably could have been a movie that is strange and disturbing and which make you think about humor and hope but sadly it's a movie which is strange, embarrassing and stupid.

There should have been a director, who is just as crazy as the story itself. I think Paul Schrader is a too boring person.


----- SPOILER ALERT -- SPOILER ALERT -- SPOILER ALERT -----

This film is bad in every way! Normally i newer comment film here on IMDb, but this film is so extremely bad, that I gotta warn people against it. It got no story, you don't know exactly what the point is, is the main character good or bad and fast you don't care. The photography is boring, trying to become something and end up extremely pretentious. The symbolism is SO thick that you can have to use a big knife to cut trough it. Oh sweet Jesus. And the whole holocaust theme is simply pathetic. The main character, an old Jewish man, is so annoying, and everybody just adore him "because hes so magic" (blaaaahhh), so I actually cheered on the Germans. The use of voice-over is simply pathetic, and make the film even more pretentious. The scene where the nurse gets introduced says it all: You see the feets from a beautiful woman walking down a hall. The camera pans up and you see her sexy legs and you notice that she is wearing a nurse suit. The pan ends up at her ass and its a nice, sexy ass. When you see this pan, the voice-over say something like: "The nurse, her legs is so sexy, and her ass is the best". Duh... yes, that what we can see on the screen. Don't have to tell me like I'm an idiot. I feel sorry for all the Jews that died in WWII, but its still not an excuse for making such a horrible film. zero stars from me...


I went to Adam Resurrected expecting a holocaust movie, but what I got was a sick, weird, perverted film. This film had almost nothing to do with the holocaust. It followed a circus clown who, during the holocaust, was forced to act like a dog to avoid going to the camps. While this showed how brutal Nazis could be, I'm pretty sure this didn't even happen to ANYONE during the holocaust. This film is not art. Some have been saying the dog was "symbolism", but I don't care. This film was a piece of crap. Between his line (while having doggy style sex with his nurse...) "less like a schnauzer more like a wolf" and his line to the OTHER boy who thinks he's a dog (what are the chances of this?) "it's you and me against the world,", this dog themed holocaust movie was horrible. Should Jeff Goldblum get an Oscar? No. Unless they create a new category for "best human portraying a dog".


I am a huge fan of both dark movies and independent films. When I went to go see Adam Resurrected at the AFI Dallas film festival, I was confident I would love it. Although people had warned me not to go see the film, I simply assumed they couldn't appreciate good film or "art." Boy, was I wrong- I should have taken their advice.

Adam Resurrected is a complete joke. The performances are over-the-top and ridiculous, and the plot is- well- about a man in a mental institution who thinks he is a dog, who happens to mentor a young boy who ALSO thinks he's a dog .

The man had been forced to act like a dog to survive the Holocaust and is now haunted by his "dog" past.

This is not a joke.

Watching Jeff Goldblum walk around on all fours eating dog bones and trying to interpret it as "art" is utterly ridiculous. Watching him change the life of a young boy/dog was even more ridiculous. And of course, the movie is trying to be a "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", for all of the crazy mental patients seem to idolize Goldblum. The mental patients give unbelievably over-the-top performances, and the sex scenes involving Goldblum and the nurse (I will never forget his line when she gets on all fours for him and barks- "Less like a shnauzer, more like a wolf!") are truly horrendous.

This movie is pretentious and trying to be profound, yet it is actually a complete joke. It is incredibly disrespectful to any Holocaust survivors to portray a man forced to bark like a dog for a Nazi general as one of the hardships the Jews faced.

DON'T SEE THIS FILM.


Another holocaust movie.

How many times do we need to be told that Nazis=Bad, while Jews=Good? It's high time to stop living in the first half of the last century. Sure, bad things happened, but come on. How many different perspectives can there be? How many oddball points of view are there? A former circus entertainer who was spared the gas chamber and is now stuck in a mental institution specifically for holocaust survivors? Are you kidding me? Why not the story of a former Jewish mechanic who escaped the forced labor of evil Nazi kitchens where he peeled carrots for 21 hours a day, and who now makes cat food for a living in Guadalajara while moonlighting as a house painter? How much more random can it get? What does this story offer to history? In what way is humanity bettered by it? What lessons are learned? None. That's the answer. This is crap. Turn it off.


Can't tell anything worth any compliment in such an industrial product of HongKong Banal character, stereotyped script and humor. You can't see any performance in this movie. I was cheated by the rating at IMDb, otherwise I would have never watched this kind of "fast food" movie. The only thing I recognized is that this is another HongKong entertaining picture which was already old-fashioned by that time. Swordsmen film can be extremely touching or thought-provoking, but not in this way, adding some romantic plots as spice in a bowl of plain rice. However, it has a happy ending. The head of thieves decided to change their living all of a sudden. I just can't accept it especially the decision was made rightly after the lose of fight, and before which, they robbed a pretty girl. What a drama!


I loved Woo-ping's and Jackie Chan's Drunken Master, packed with some of the best fighting (especialy the drunken boxing) you will ever see on film. The only thing I didn't liked about that movie was the strange and simple humour. Well... Drunken Tai Chi is full of that! Stupid slapstick complete with the stupid sound effects that go along with that. Ok, there are some great fight scenes. Donnie Yen is one of the best kickers! But there is too many unapealing slapstick. And you will never forget the image of Donnie Yen dressed like a puppet BREAKDANCING!

And now for the biggest disapointment... THERE IS NO DRUNKEN BOXING! It's about a tai chi master that is drunk most of the time. If you want to see some drunken boxing see Drunken Master, Drunken Master 2!!! or even Jet Li's Last hero in China!


***SPOILER WARNING**** I do give away some plot points, but trust me when I say you will see them comin' down Broadway. No real surprises in this film... other than the fact that someone financed it. Now it begins:

OH. MY. GOD. I CANNOT believe I sat through this entire movie. It was painfully awkward from opening credit to closing copyright. It felt like some middle-schooler penned the screenplay and then suckered all of his or her family members to go through these horrible, horrible motions. The dialogue was as stilted as the actors, who seemed to be overgrown eighth-graders in a terrible one-act play that ought not be. I remain convinced that any decent commentary for this film comes from a crew's family member or agent. And let me say again I give this critique based on the product... I do not mean to personally insult anyone. Obviously if you pull off a movie at all you have some creative talent... in this case I just think it went to waste.

Was there a plot?? I don't remember seeing one. The story was poorly explained, poorly acted, poorly shot. The mother suffered from some vague "illness" that apparently had no visible manifestations. We never saw any reasoning behind why the main actress ever agreed to marry her selfish and philandering fiance, whose unfaithful actions were just as vaguely spelled out as the mother's illness. Was he a male gigolo traveling from town to town for "tricks," or did he manage to carry on three separate affairs on top of juggling a career (he did some sort of 'work' that required an 'office' and a 'briefcase;' that's about all we know.. wait.. maybe he was a lawyer and that fact came to light during one of the moments where I willed myself unconscious) and a fiancee? The sound quality was deplorable, often rendering the dreadful dialogue inaudible (which we soon realized was a blessing, in fact). The advertised appearances by two Backstreet Boys totaled about four minutes of on-screen time and one or two lines each. False advertising to say the least.. but maybe they had signed their names to the contract before reading the script, and in an effort to minimize the career damage, tried to contribute as little on-screen content as possible. It helps me sleep a little better to tell myself they had to realize how bad this film was... and yet, methinks they didn't.

I don't know if major lack of character development or bad editing is to blame, but this is hands-down THE worst movie I have ever had the misfortune of enduring (and that INCLUDES "Beaches" and the unfortunate "Who's Harry Crumb?") When the male nurse solemnly walked into the mother's funeral with a RIBBON-WRAPPED WATERMELON (because we saw ONE scene where the nurse "smuggled" watermelon to the mother in the hospital.... is fruit really contraband in a HOSPITAL!?!) I actually fell off the couch laughing, screaming, howling in humorous horror. Good grief... my friends and I REWOUND that scene just to make sure we hadn't hallucinated in our sorry celluloid-induced stupor. I don't think hysterical comedy was the director's objective. I would call the entire cast bad actors, but I must admit they did a darn good job of keeping a straight face during that embarrassingly maudlin scene. Now, I am sure everyone involved is talented, and God knows I love the Backstreet Boys, but I simply cannot in good conscience allow another human being to subject himself or herself to this cinematic sewage.

I am not suggesting we boycott any Backstreet enterprises... I still love "da boyz" and think it's theoretically very sweet that Brian Littrell helped orchestrate this monster, even helping write "Olive Juice's" theme song, so his actress wife could have a vehicle to spice up her career. Unfortunately, this whole enterprise was like some couple's inside joke or pet name thing that was never meant to be made public. Geez. Very few people can pull off an "LA Story" type of storyline... and even Steve Martin barely did it.

On one hand, I feel bad saying mean things about people who no doubt worked very hard and long at bringing this creation to fruition. On the other hand, I'll never get back those two hours of my life. Gone. Poof. My two friends who suffered through this film with me will no doubt echo my sentiments. Lord help us all... there are other movies that got TURNED DOWN so this one could be made!!! Of COURSE it didn't get national release.. I'm surprised it made it out of anyone's living room. The over-ambitious director tried to cram so MUCH 'symbolism,' 'comedy,' and 'witty banter' into what felt like little more than a bad, bad after-school special... except the only moral in this case is "Don't see Olive Juice!" EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Part of this turkey of a movie was filmed two houses down from me. I came out to go to work and there were movie people blocking the entire street, not to mention hogging up my lawn. Looks like you all wasted your time and money filming this movie. Boring movie with bad actors. The girl's easy on the eyes, though, but apparently she now relies on her Backstreet Boy husband for life support now. Who can he count on now that he's getting old?

Note: the movie "Sydney White" (and the Seven Dorks) was filmed around the corner from my new house, but at least that was several blocks away so I don't have any gripes on that. Word on the street is that that was much better.


The movie lacked in every department...the storyline, the characters, the actors...it wasn't even mindlessly entertaining... It is no surprise the movie never got a nation wide release...it bombed as an independent project...


This movie is just awful. I can just imagine the "behind the scenes" dialogue while making this picture: "this is going to be such a cute movie, the story is so cute, the dialogue is so cute, the actors are so cute, the acting is so cute, no the acting is so dynamic, it's going to be such a hit with the audience: being so piquant and lovely, and yet so comical........" I don't know too much about the Back Street Boys, except that they're famous, now I realize they must have made some money and thought they were going to make a classic film, they were wrong, money doesn't always translate into good taste. The only thing going right for this movie, in spite of the script was the actor that played the lawyer/fiancé, otherwise the acting was non existent. The actor who played the lead was a little too old to be playing this type of "dork", he elicited no charm what-so ever, which was supposed to be the desired aim I suppose. An example being the sequence at the girls house after the first date to the bar, which was rather lame as far as the story and especially the acting goes. The actress who plays the lead was pretty, but was "no actor", the mother had the handicap of delivering bad dialogue, as did all the actors for that fact. The writing was "sooo" atrocious, I realize that screenwriters have a certain latitude when writing the story but, this story was pushing the envelope a wee bit too much: The mother starts in on a long diatribe on the matter of love the moment she meets the husband to be, also the cooking host on TV says this is a "family show" but continually uses the "F" word, or can you just imagine a man stalking a house in the bushes in broad daylight in an upscale neighborhood and all the neighbor could say was "you asshole", also how did they get the time to fix the truck and also not be seen, so it could stop on cue and how did Keeler get the time to get into the back of the van; where were the police and why was the couple moving themselves, don't lawyers make any money in Florida? (silly question). The passing the stone scenario was especially supercilious and a little too "ick/ooh-ish". What was the bit about the Back Street Guy as a DJ about, was that acting or what? Also why was the Host at the bar portrayed as being swishy, most gay guys are not swishy, stereo-typing for a cheap laugh I guess. And the bit about the cutesy type dog store was sort of gagging, but as I read the credits, was or is a real store in Florida, (up-chuck time). If you're going to spend a lot of money to make a decent movie, be sure to get a good writer and director, otherwise as in this case you wind up with this type of movie which I think can be best be described as "LAME".


SPOILERS AHEAD! You have been warned!

Much of what I could say about this movie has already been said by other reviewers, with some minor exceptions.

Story elements -- for example, turning the group of captive women into magic temptresses with poisonous breath -- get introduced and then dropped, or brought back for a few seconds' cameo at best (the poisonous women turn out quite pathetic, achieving only one kill among them). Also, if you've seen this movie and watched the scene where the entire backstory is explained via scroll, you will know what I mean when I say: whatever happened to the dog? The reincarnated princess gets her father's lightsaber, I mean her predecessor's flute, but the dog puts in no reappearance as a dog or as a human (unless I missed something very subtle about either Hiroyuki Sanada's or Sonny Chiba's characters)... and he was, shall we say, rather important to the original princess. And although the tragic female ribbon dancer/swordfighter (far classier than her descendant, O-Ren Ishii) gets relatively little screen time, it's still more than the later additions to the group get in terms of character development or backstory, which is practically none. Chiba doesn't even get one line of clichéd surprise that two of the crystal-holders are a woman and a young boy. I can only conclude that the movie was written and edited under the same sort of chemical influence required to fully enjoy it.

I also believe that Sanada must have had a clause in his contract requiring his thighs to be on display at all times. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Indeed, in one scene he falls to the ground unconscious, and Chiba slings him over his shoulder and carries him toward the camera. Sanada's butt and thighs occupy the center of shot for a surprisingly long time before the director cuts away. So there are indeed redeeming moments in this movie. (Another is when the group has defeated the giant centipede demon, which had approached them disguised as an old woman, and one of the samurai astutely remarks, "THAT wasn't your mother!") A sidenote: as much as the movie borrows from Lucas, which is quite a lot, he seems to have borrowed back from it for aspects of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. The demon matriarch's headgear wouldn't look a bit out of place on Queen Amidala in "The Phantom Menace," and Lucas does the dropped-story-element (midichlorians, anyone?) and underdeveloped-character (wuxia master Ray Park as Darth Maul; the assorted villains -- Jango Fett, Count Dooku, General Grievous; most of the Jedi Council) routines like a master.

One point for having Sonny Chiba in it (there are other elements in this movie that show up in "Kill Bill," in whose first volume Chiba has a small honorific role). One point for Hiroyuki Sanada's butt. One point for strong female characters. One point for the interesting sociological fact that apparently, evil undead demon clans have no incest taboos. (It is, however, a mystery to me why the matriarch is attracted to her son, who is sort of the medieval Japanese Jame Gumb.) Minus several million for the soundtrack. I found myself devoutly hoping that the writer and singer of those godawful pop ballads would be crushed in the destruction of the castle.


I saw this film in 1976 and was very disappointed.Of all of the most ribald yet, low- level comedic films of the 70's("The Groove tube"."Tunnel Vision" and "What do you say to a naked lady?")this film was by far, the most wretched.It was basically a series of stale,re-cycled jokes featuring ethnic stereotypes, frat-house styled sexual innuendo, and forgettable one liners.All of this topped off by poor direction and third-rate acting.The film finds itself cast adrift in a sea of bewilderment:Are they trying to display sequential "stand up" comedy or showcase a series of funny sketches, with satiric and sexual overtones? Unfortunately, the film achieves neither objective. If you appreciate the humor of Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, Woody Allen, or Groucho Marx, you'll detest this film. Steve D


Perhaps it's because I'm not over 40, but I did not enjoy "Something's Gotta Give". I cannot fathom ever, and I mean EVER actually CHOOSING Jack over Keanu. I mean COME ON!!! So besides this movie's wildly ludicrous ending and setting it is also not a comment on what women think or feel, but what men believe they should think and feel. So I guess with that view it's hardly surprising that a lecherous fat old man who had dated her daughter, messed up her house, and insulted her in her own home was Diane Keaton's pick of the heap. I don't know where writer Nancy Meyers gets these ideas. Wouldn't it be nice to see a movie where the women ends up with a young handsome man who treats her well and adores her? I don't see how laughing over being unable to see the time on a wrist watch without your glasses constitutes finding one's soul mate. Was I on crack or was it Keanu's character who had seen all Diane's plays and loved her work? Clearly Diane's work is almost biographical so isn't it actually Keanu who "gets" her? And why is Diane so uncomfortable kissing a man who is 20 years younger than she, but Jack has no problems having sex with a woman 40 years his junior in her mother's home. Anyway, this film is just not what I thought it would be. It had some funny moments sure, but I still left the theater feeling empty. I certainly do not believe it is in any way a good take on romance in old age.


Few major films have conveyed imagery as frightening as the horror of Diane Keaton going through menopause on screen in Something's Gotta Give, a pathetic fantasy written by and for perimenopausal women. The use of a stellar cast misleads unsuspecting audiences into thinking that they will be entertained, challenged, or enlightened by this film. Unfortunately, the plodding and predictable script leads viewers deeper and deeper into despair, as implausible story lines are played out to their tedious conclusion.

The film does raise some important questions, however. E.g., why would lovely Amanda Peet ever give nasty old Jack Nicholson the time of day? And more to the point, why would Keanu Reeves' character (the young, brilliant and charming doctor) desire carnal contact with moldy old Diane Keaton? Is this some veiled remake of Harold & Maude? Obviously there is an unresolved Oedipal complex in Keanu's character's life (or perhaps in the screenwriter's). For believability, if they wanted a "mature" female lead, go to Diane Lane. She's still got "it," in spades. Perhaps even Annette Benning. Or maybe even Meg Ryan (who should begin to accept the fact that she is beyond ingénue parts). But Diane Keaton frankly looks too old for Keanu Reeves, and the impression is conveyed to the viewer that some kind of Point is being made about women's rights. Why didn't they just use Meryl Streep? At least that would've sent a clear warning out to potential male viewers, fooled by the presence of Jack Nicholson into thinking there was a movie in there somewhere.

At any rate, Keaton is not given much to work with, as the sexually insecure and frustrated donna of this soap opera. She is reduced to looking embarrassed or heart-broken most of the time. Keaton is capable of so much more complexity, going all the way back to Looking for Mr. Goodbar and The Godfather. Nicholson fares little better, and one is never sure whether his character is supposed to be smarmy, nasty, or smarmy and nasty. Amanda Peet's character is a unidimensional débutante, who (being young and attractive, and therefore threatening to the intended audience of menopausal middle-aged women) is reduced to the status of a well-intended know-nothing, the naive daughter who has not lived long enough to have developed a real personality. This is a sad waste of talent, and the interested viewer is encouraged to look at some of Peet's meatier roles, in such films as the obscure Digby Goes Down, or even the ludicrous Saving Silverman.

If something's gotta give, it's this movie -- spend an evening watching something -- anything -- else.


My guess is ALL the great reviews this turkey gets are from lily white, upscale adults who REALLY buy into the awful phoniness of this silly pseudo-romance. There's Ms. Puke-face who dates Mr. Lays-all-the-chicks who falls for Ms. Post-Meno-Mom, but wait Ms. Puke-face bows out so that the two STARS can romance each other and then along comes Dr. Do-right who ALSO bows out (talk about a non-Alpha-male type) in Paris (no less) so the Geritol-set couple can finally after two tedious hours ... who cares? This film represents ALL that is wrong w/ H'wood studio pics and the ego-driven dribble audiences just eat up.

I'd rather be made sit through one Mad Mel's recent films then ever watch this bloated, rotting corpse of a film ever again!


I ticked 'spoilers' but I think any depiction of a spoiler here would enhance this bomb. I kept waiting for a script to happen and wondered why I was so irritated ALL THE TIME. Diane Keaton ( I honestly can't believe she got a Golden Globe award for her performance) acts as if there is always a third party in the room. She keeps glancing sideways and laughing flirtatiously at NOTHING. Jack just phones his performance in, enough said.....and speaking of laughing, I, for one, hate those scenes where the main characters are on a beach, over dinner, in bed, and they are laughing, laughing, but you the viewer are not privy to the stream of jokes. And believe me there are so much of these giggling no-script scenes as to make you NAUSEOUS. You are on the outside, paying your decent money to be part of the movie/play but you are left guessing as to what is actually being said. RIP-OFF. Seems to me as if the writer just ran out of script. Speaking of which, there is NONE, no script, in this sodden wreck of a film. It is rocking with clichés (the sobbing, crying, has to be the very worst ever captured on film). And what was Keanu Reeves doing in it? Here's a young doctor madly in love with the older woman playwright, has seen all her plays and absolutely worships her, is kind, considerate and fresh (vs jarringly jaded), but the older woman just hankers after moronic old Jack who treats her incredibly badly. And in the end, unbelievably - Keanu, her new fiancé, gives her up without a fight or a word. He is just deleted from the script. I for one would have chosen Keanu any day. Gagometer soaring skywards I find it hard to believe that some of my friends LIKED this. The Hamptons looked lovely, so 2 out of 10 for that, but AVOID this trashcan bomb.


Somethings gotta give isn't going to change your life, but it's a pleasant enough way to spend a couple of hours. It's a shame more use wasn't made of the supporting cast which includes the excellent Frances McDormand.

The focus of the movie is very much on the two lead characters Harry (Nicholson) and Erica (Keaton). Harry is a 63 year old man who has never dated any woman over 30 and it seems never even been close to anyone. Erica bumps into Harry whilst he is dating her daughter. After being married for a number of years Erica has lost interest in relationships following her divorce. No prizes for guessing what's going to happen.

Whilst, Erica's character is well played and believable, Harry's character really doesn't add up. It's unlikely that someone with Harry's background would be able to relate and connect so easily with women. Nicholson is really going through the motions here. 6/10


far too long. poor story. nicholson broke up with his young girlfiend early in the movie, then we had to wait what seemed like hours as nicholson predictably, slowly developed enthusiasm for keaton. and then at the end the physician abruptly removed himself from the scene in paris.


The bedroom scene between Keaton and Nicholson has to rank as one of the all-time bad "sex" scenes I can recall on film. The director should have made up her mind if it was going to be funny, tender or passionate - instead we got a muddle of all three.

Way longer than necessary (the movie certainly needed some trimming - this scene would have been the perfect place to start) - and that blood pressure check wasn't even funny - more like a desperate attempt to distract the audience from the obvious lack of romantic chemistry between the leads.


I can't believe I actually took the time to rent and watch this piece of crap movie! It's awful. National Lampoon has gone downhill since their "5 Deadly Sins" movie. *Shudders* The only good parts of this whole movie, if you want to call it that because it's an hour long, were "The Whore" and "The Amazing Racist, Part I" Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend this to my worst enemy. I've seen film on my teeth that was more entertaining than that. Look, if you're gonna parody reality shows, do something that's actually funny. Otherwise, don't bother wasting people's time. This goes for YOU, National Lampoon. Get back to me when you become funny again.


A spoof on reality shows with the premise that the clips are 'reality shows that were too hot for TV'. The skits suffer from what I like to call SNL-ites (even when they are not funny to start with, they STILL go on way to long). I didn't laugh once. National Lampoon is WAY past it's heyday and should be disbanded. It's time is over and passed. This piece of excrement actually spawned a sequel if you believe it. THAT'S one I can't wait to avoid. I guess it's nice to know that Rip Torn is still managing to get work though. I NEVER thought I'd say this in my life, but if this is your cup of tea, then go watch Underground Comedy Movie instead. Now pardon me while I wash the filth from my body.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: a few boobs, some ass, and one or two vertical smiles


watching this film on video, it made me wonder "my god, could ANYONE give his money to see it at a theather???!!!" i mean, who on earth would do such a thing?the scenario is simply so out of any possible reality, the man with the chopped finger sits and STARES all the time, instead of doing anything any man with an actual chopped finger would do! all the money they spent on making it should be givven back to the viewers for standing this suffering!THAT CANNOT BE CALLED CINEMA!


Failing to see anything remotely comical about this movie, I found it just rattled out old stereotypes about age and race without confronting these issues in any kind of depth. What was particularly disappointing is to see again that Hollywood still fails to confront the fact that meaningful, long-term relationships exist between partners in which the woman is significantly older than the man (including a large number of theatrical pairings). Not only was the relationship portrayed utterly shallow, but there was no attempt whatsoever to introduce any discussion of how the various obstacles the couple faced might be overcome.

Ultimately, the movie left a string of unanswered 'whys'. Why, for instance, should it be taken for granted that fatherhood would spoil the life of a 24-year-old man, even when he has made the decision himself to go through with it? Why should children be a curse and a life-spoiler? (and is this the message we should be giving young men?) Why should maturity be portrayed as dull and pedestrian, and youth as frivolous and unable to cope with the weightier issues of life? Why did David have to be so pitifully immature when others his age are already in, and enjoying, responsible positions? Does a meaningful, long-term relationship necessarily have to preclude an individual from any kind of adventure of self- realization?

The film might have been improved had David and Rafi achieved any kind of a meaningful conversation, but since they failed to do this, being too preoccupied with bedtime gymnastics or quarreling, we were denied any access to the thought-processes behind the decisions they made, particularly the most important decisions, to go for a baby (on David's part), and to separate. Had the couple been shown debating their issues rationally - instead of simply breaking up every time they hit a problem - the film might have given a helpful insight into the nature of relationships.

Finally, although this film was obviously trying to set up some kind of a 'this is how things really are, folks' ending, I fail to see why relationship failure is any more realistic a conclusion than happily-ever-after. It's just another all-or-nothing, black-and-white Hollywood oversimplification. Surely a more interesting and unusual ending to such a movie would be to show how people somehow manage to muddle through together, not in dramatic epic fireworks, but in finding new and constructive ways to confront their problems. But Hollywood seems to abhor anything that is not either implausibly romantic or utterly hopeless.

In short, this was not a particularly insightful or helpful film.


This film is abominable. Its primary message is that only people of the same background and the same age can have a long-term relationship. As for the reviews calling this film "hilarious," I have had more laughs at funerals. No wonder this film disappeared from the box office so quickly. The film concerns a 37-year-old woman (Thurman) who is getting over a divorce and going to a therapist (Streep). In a very uninteresting scene, she becomes involved with a 23-year old man (Greenberg) who happens to be the son of the therapist. Streep's facial contortions as she discovers this unpleasantness comprise the film's best moments, and indicate how one-dimensional this film is. To fill out the time, the film has countless shots of Thurman and Greenberg making out and taking their tops off. There are also some very uninteresting subplots involving idiotic friends. In addition, Greenberg's character is unrealistic. A childlike boy who spends his time watching television or playing video games, he has nonetheless managed to paint about a thousand masterpieces without a shred of art instruction, but for some reason his family (yes, his therapist mother included) disapprove of his artistic bent. As for the other characters, none possess any qualities that would set them apart from cardboard cutouts. I wish Hollywood films would mature to the level of European films, which are capable of handling relationships of people from different ages and backgrounds in an adult manner. I regret having wasted my time seeing this film.


Caught this on PPV, and was bored out of my skull from the first 10 minutes! I suppose Streep and Thurman were trying to "pay it forward" by helping a budding film maker. But calling Ben Younger a film maker is like calling Dick Cheney a crack shot!

Where do I begin? The cat is let out of the bag WAY too soon. The paintings are too expert. Dave says what Pie Guy does isn't funny, but they stay buds. Dave ditches his girl hoping to scoring with Rafi. Rafi's gay friends reek of ugly stereotypes. Dave throws a fit because Rafi expects him to act like a grown-up. Dave is over Rafi the second he hits the dance floor. Rafi gets cheesed when she learns Dave is dating. Pie Guy finally gets his, but we don't see him get it. Just as Dave decides to get serious, Rafi dumps him.

Bryan Greenberg: do humanity a favor and go back to your day job! I SO wanted Uma to go into "Kill Bill" mode, and shred this no-talent twit to ribbons!

About the whole "stick with your own kind" thing: maybe 50 years ago, but nobody cares today, certainly not your therapist. Lisa is not only a bigot of the worst sort (Dave bristled at taking his black girlfriend home, knowing Mother would not approve), but she's totally unprofessional.

If Younger can get a budget and A-list cast for his pedestrian, misogynistic "comedy," then there's hope for those with actual talent!


Prime is the worst movie I've seen in the last year. When I first heard of this movie I couldn't wait to rent it because the previews made it sound hilarious. I was enjoying it for the first 20 minutes, and then I was put to sleep. This is a comedy, and I didn't laugh a single time. I was also put off by all of the flat religious jokes. The last 30 minutes is a jumbled up mess. It's like it didn't know how to end so it just kept going, and going, and going. If I had the choice of either digging a ditch, or watching prime I'd dig a ditch. The lead actor is very stale. At times you want to strangle him because he's so bad of an actor. I read a previous reviewer state this felt like a Woody Allen movie. I agree, and it's the worst I've seen.


Meryl Streep was so poor and rigid in her role as the therapist, that I almost left the theater before it was over. I could say that the movie looked more like the the takes rather than the actual movie. Uma was silly and stupid and the role was just not believable. The young man did well for having such a poor cast to work with. I think it was a great idea for a story but poorly cast, poorly paced and could have used much better direction and writing of the plot. The dialog fell short and flat. To name the many problems with this film would take far too much time and frankly doesn't warrant any more of my thought. I wouldn't waste any money to see this, if you haven't already. Very disappointing.


Imagine my surprise when the movie ended that it had only been two hours since it began. It felt more like 10. Were it not for Meryl Streep playing the quintessential Jewish Mother (reminded me of my Grandmother) I probably would have turned it off after the first 3 hours.

Director Younger used tons of flashbacks in an attempt to keep the story going, but all it did was make the movie longer. Further, the flashback scenes were so out of place the viewer can't help but lose track of what is happening and when it is happening. You might want to rethink that technique for the next one, Ben.

Bottom line--Bryan Greenberg is a cutie. Uma Thurman...well, I've never quite gotten that one. Meryl is great. After that, the plot goes absolutely nowhere (does anybody know what happened at the end? If so, please explain it to me.)


Wow I have seen a lot of movies but this one takes the cake-it is without a doubt the worse movie i have ever seen. I rented it last night with a friend. I love Meryl Streep and I like Uman Thurman in Kill Bill and Bryan Greenberg is pretty hot. Well the acting in this movie was horrible. The plot was incredibly predictable and the one inners that were injected in a feeble attempt to gain a laugh only made me feel embarrassed for both the character and the actor. And then the ending is so abrupt you are left there wondering why you just wasted an hour and 40 minutes on this film-seriously I want that time back in my life. Do not watch this film! Maybe my purpose of seeing it is to warn others not to waste their time.


So Hollywood decides that it is time for a new "romantic comedy" which covers the fashionable subject of the attractive "older" woman taking a "toy boy" lover. She (Uma Thermon) 37, he (Bryan Greenberg) 23. She divorcée on the rebound from a failed marriage. He hunky stud learning about life (and girls) and looking for fun, whilst pondering his inner soul where a "great artist" is struggling to be free. Add his Jewish family and (especially) his Jewish mum (Meryl Streep) who wants him to settle down with a nice Jewish girl and you have plenty of room for some Neil Simon style yiddisher Mama clichés. Further complicate things by having the Thurmon character's psychoanalyst the Streep character (i.e. her lover's mum - gettit?) and let the fun begin.

Whilst daring (plenty of genitalia descriptions) and modern the plot is also derivative. Perhaps the illusions are intentional (e.g. the scene stolen from "Notting Hill" where he breaks into a small urban garden with his new love to sit quietly amongst the greenery and the peace)they are none the less unoriginal. Putting red wine in the fridge - now what movie was that from? I saw the film on a long distance flight so perhaps it was an edited edition, but most of the coitus did seem to be off-screen. But the anatomical references were up front (to coin a phrase) and (I'm no prude) vulgar. Wanting to "knit a little hat for his lovely penis" - that sort of thing.

The direction is as clichéd as the story. The usual city shots in the twilight... As far as the performances are concerned let's assume (charitably) that the stars were directed that way. Funniest (not wholly intentionally) of all is Streep and about half way through the film I roared out loud (causing some of my fellow passengers to look up) when I realised who she reminded me of - it was Dustin Hoffman in drag in Tootsie - the spitting image of Steep's Mama/psychoanalyst! If you have really nothing better to do (like me at the time) then watch the film if you must. But better to find a good book.


Honestly, I had a lot of expectations for this movie, because of my fondness for Meryl Streep and Uma Thurman, and I was pretty disappointed. The movie dragged and seemed to go nowhere! I have never seen Ben Younger's other film, but if Prime is any indication of his style, I know I should probably stay away from that one, too! The character development seemed forced and insincere. I did not feel emotionally attached to any of these characters. Throughout the movie, Uma's character, Rafi, keeps telling her therapist how she needs "to put all of herself out there." I kept waiting for some secret or hidden part of her character to be revealed, but, alas, nothing like that ever happened.

I could never really tell where the characters were going, what they were going to do and how they felt. For other movies, that might sound exciting and unpredictable, but for Prime, it just felt like nothing was ever happening.

If I had to do it all over again, I would pass on Prime.


I'm not sure what is worse  a bad film like the indie mess 'You and Me and Everyone We Know'  where you sit back and are in absolute agony and confusion; or a film like this one - where you are completely puzzled by how vapid and boring the proceedings are. Well, I do know which one I would vote for; still, I can't help but think how wasted the talents of Meryl Streep and Uma Thurman are in the absolutely dulling 'Prime'. And you could make a case I suppose, that for the money and star power wasted, maybe 'Prime' is more painful.

The movie has little to recommend it. The lead actor  Bryan Greenberg  displays no charm or the personality necessary to indicate why a 'seasoned' woman like Uma Thurman would find him worthy of attention, let alone be compelled to rhapsodize on his penis. On the other side of the equation, Uma looks her age and then some, and why a 23 year old (with none of the maturity necessary to even appreciate an older woman) would be drawn to her is also baffling. Meryl Streep is invisible in a role for the first time that I can remember, and truly gives the appearance of phoning in her role.

The film isn't terrifically bad  it's not an abysmal failure that will harm anyone's career. It's just a boring boring film, with pedestrian dialog, and perfunctory performances. Don't waste your time, but also don't go out and rent 'You and Me and Everyone We Know' either


Don't waste your money or your time on this movie. What a terrible waste of two hours that I will never get back. This was the worst movie I have ever seen.

Who is this stupid director and how the hell did it ever get made with such a bevy of great actresses. The amount of clichés and male bravado made me want to puke. It was sloppy, too long, no chemistry between the 2 lovers, I can go on and on. Do yourself a favor, avoid this stinker. The movie came off quite arrogant, almost like a amateur director/writer showing off.

Just pathetic.


Yet another stupid, pointless addition to the New York Love & Sex genre. And like all the others before we get all the same scenes and characters.

There's the basketball, food, dance, and love scenes; The nosey over protective mother who has nothing better to do than get over involved in her son's sex life and is oblivious of the fact that her child is a grown man; The crazy friends who constantly bug you for a play-by-play; The spoiled slut with the cat and big apartment; The romantic leading man who likes both sports AND art (yeah right); And blah blah blah, more of the same.

Oh and lets talk about Mural Strip and how terrible she was in this movie. Why is she the therapist when SHE is the one who needs the therapy??? She was just horrible in unmistakably her worst role ever. Was she ever in anything good to begin with?

There are more questions remaining... how can we go through this farce believing they are mother-and-son when they ain't got a glimmer of resemblance?? It's ridicules. And who really gives a shight about the age? The entire storyline/conflict in the movie is that the woman is a few years older than the guy....... oh nooooooooo! Seriously... BIG DEAL, get a grip. If I didn't know she was technically 2 years older I wouldn't have been able to tell them apart in age! Hell she looks better than him anyways. This movie doesn't hold. I've seen it done much better in The Graduate.

The leading woman in Prime is named Raffy, short for Rafael. OK... but have you ever heard that name for a female??? Damn, who wrote this? And whats with all the World War 2 references? ...is it supposed to be funny?!!! One more thing, here's my favourite quote from the movie, "I love his penis. I want to make a hat for it." Are you kidding me?

How many times have we seen this before? How many times do we have to watch it over again? You won't find anything new and original in this tired, agonizing outing. You'll just get pist off like me! Recommended for serious Uma Thurman foot fetishes only.


This film definitely had a great premise to work with, but it tried too hard to please the curious minds of its intended audience. Younger's idea of exploring a relationship of an older woman with a younger man was definitely refreshing (well, aside from _Harold and Maude_) and his choice of having the story unfold in New York only made it more interesting. With the artsy profession of Rafi and the perpetual conflicts surrounding Dave's Jewish background, these topics could only be properly explored with a diverse and cosmopolitan setting like New York. The film definitely allows the audience to explore different parts of city life and integrates the city mindset into its storyline, which being a city mouse, I definitely appreciated. My favorite example would be when Rafi points out that when one lives in Manhattan, a few hundred square feet of one's apartment is all one has.

Although this film is promoted for its sophisticated storyline, Meryl Streep adds the only charisma and sophistication to the entire film. Streep definitely outshines Uma Thurman and Bryan Greenberg in this film. In fact, she is the only person carrying it. Her acting is superb as always, and she delivers her lines with impeccable timing and emotion. Thurman and Greenberg, on the other hand, appear like two awkward teenagers throughout the film. They had zero chemistry, and Greenberg's acting fed nothing to Thurman for her to work off of. Greenburg, despite his dashing, cute puppy looks, could not carry the leading man role because he seemed afraid to take the reigns. His lines would be delivered the way high school theater rehearsal lines were delivered -- nearly emotionless and confused in intonation. But Thurman wasn't better off anyway; it seemed like she was trying to take hold of her role throughout the entire film but she just couldn't get it right for some reason. Maybe the concept of the film was just too hard for her to work with, or maybe the script itself just gave her very little to begin with. Nonetheless, Rafi and Dave's dialog is trite, cliché, and very middle school at times. Everything they said to each other seemed expected of them and didn't add any new insights to their intellect, emotional maturity, or the maturity of the relationship. You could never really understand why the two were together besides the excitement from the age difference and the sexual exploration. Their romance unfolds in the most obvious and least charming fashion. (i.e. From awkward glances at each other while waiting in line for movie tickets with their respective dates to a "nervewrecking" scene of Dave struggling to call Rafi after looking her up in the phone book.) The dates they go on seem unrealistic for a 37-year-old divorcée. (i.e. Underground rap clubs.) All of the romance that is supposed to touch you and bring you closer to the characters really just pushes you away because the scenes presented are so hard to swallow.

And you can't help but notice that their relationship is based on a large part on sex, which doesn't add any dimension to the characters or the story. Perhaps this is why it is so hard to swallow anything when either Rafi and Dave claim that they love each other. Because you can't help but think that they're merely infatuated with each other and this new experience and that it's not really love at all. Despite the fact that Rafi insists to her therapist/Dave's mom that she is serious about this relationship, it is hard to believe because you see nothing that Rafi and Dave have in common besides art and even that link is iffy and seems tacked on just to draw some connection between them. Younger never gives the characters real dimension or qualities that would make the audience draw towards them, so when the film ends, you don't feel the connection with the characters that is needed for the ending to be felt the way Younger wants it to be felt. In other words, as you walk out of the theatre, you don't really care about Rafi and Dave just like the way you don't really care about two card-board cut outs.

Younger seems to focus too much on the topics that come to people easily when thinking about relationships with such a great age difference, such as one person who wants a baby while the other person wants the newest X-Box game, etc.. The most cliché topics are touched on throughout the film, like being carded when buying liquor, playing video games instead of having sex, or being old enough to be his mother. If you add these topics and a few Jewish jokes here and there, you've got yourself _Prime_ wrapped neatly in a box. Despite the film having its fair share of funny moments and tasteful humor, Younger definitely could have explored this relationship on a deeper level and gave Thurman and Greenberg a little more to work with in terms of character development and dialogue. The failure to do this ultimately spoiled a perfectly good premise for a film. Maybe better luck next time. And hopefully the next role Uma picks will have a little more spice to it as it is always pleasant to see her on-screen, and she usually has better judgment.