America's Got Talent is NBC's new baby for summer '06.. Created by Simon Cowell of American Idol fame, AGT is a talent search show which is similar in format to American Idol and the Gong Show.

I don't normally ever watch network TV, and i'm not really big on reality shows at all, but i have been watching this because i thought it would be somewhat interesting.. turns out to be a poorly executed show that'll probably never recover from it's first season without some major changes (although it has already been renewed for a second season in '07).

Basically it's a talent show where people from all across the u.s. audition with a unique talent.. everything from 9 year old singers to electric violinists, magic acts to rock bands, comedians to jugglers and ventriloquists, they're all here. a panel of 3 judges (david hasselhoff, brandy, and piers morgan) vote on the acts as they perform, and a negative vote from all the judges eliminates the contestant. this was changed after the first few episodes into an "approve or disapprove" system where the judges vote afterwards on a winner, and a majority vote from the American public decides a second winner for the round.

first of all, the judges suck. i know they are set up like "token" judges from Idol, the nice one, the straightforward one, and the in-between one, but regardless of who they are, and not to belittle their specialty (acting, music etc) they don't seem unbiased when judging competitors.. it seems 3 real, normal people could do a better job. they are constantly voting for each other and pressing each other's buttons (literally), arguing over stupid things, and essentially mucking up the entire show. hasselhoff dosen't know if he's coming or going, and will approve just about anyone, brandy usually does a halfway decent job, and piers, while being the "token" sharp tongued, tell it like it is brit, is totally unappreciated in his time.. he might be a little abrasive, but that's his character, and he seems to be the only one that makes sense. the audience dosen't help either, every time someone comes on stage only to be told that they suck, they cry, and then get pushed into the finals anyway, so whats the point? the producers obviously included acts that are extremely un-talented, for shock value and ratings, and while some of them may very well be genuinely talented, there are acts that are better than them, and they can't seem to take someone telling them how it is.. if thats the case they should have stayed at home.

also, people who get voted out are often brought back, and sometimes displace people who really are talented. i'm sure no one wants to see a little girl cry because she came in front of America and got told that she sucked, but does that mean she automatically gets pushed into the finals? and with so many different types of acts, the judges act somewhat obligated to mix up the finals but not including too many of one type of act.. and that's pretty biased. how exactly is this show supposed to work? maybe categories would help.

the acts themselves are almost worth watching the show. there are some people on there who could legitimately become stars, and some who are neat to watch.. but some (that got passed into the later stages of the show) are just horrendous.. rappin granny? n'versity? how did these people even get on the show in the first place? the other thing is that a lot of the people who have been in the finals are actually professionals in the field of their "talent".. believe it or not, rappin' granny has appeared in several movies, and most of the acts do their "talent" for a living. i thought this was going to be normal, everyday people who got a shot at stardom, but apparently not so. also, a few of the bigger acts coordinate their performances with the producers, using props and gags that they otherwise wouldn't have access to, and that somewhat helps them "outshine" the other performers.

bottom line, the show isn't what it wants to be.. and it's its own fault. maybe some format changes will help, but hell, i can get up onstage and cry.. maybe it will win me a million dollars. if these people can't run with the big dogs, they need to accept it and move on.. and the judges and producers need to take an UNBIASED approach, instead of one thats tailor-made for primetime ratings, yet still dosen't deliver.


OK. I agree this show qualifies as "guilty pleasure". A few of the acts actually DO have talent. Many of the others have a certain brainless remedial value to watch while you do the dishes, chat on the internet or sort through your mail.

As a serious talent search, however (like Star Search was), it's absurd! Out of the immense pool of talented people in America, this can't possibly represent the highest echelon! This show is watchable in the way The Gong Show was; a number of silly novelty acts. Yet The Gong Show didn't take itself so seriously! It didn't try to claim it had some of America's greatest talent! It didn't have judges who feign sincere commentary. Plus the acts appeared ONCE and were gone; you didn't have the same acts vying for slots in final rounds. It was simple silly fun. This show would have done better to be the same.

This show became somewhat absurd when the judges not only venerated the RAPPING GRANNY but voted her into the finals! America's Got Talent lost all credibility with that move. "America's Got Cheap Novelty Acts" would be a better title.

They shouldn't pretend to sincerely be about quality when a no-talent "rapping granny" is the judges' choice.

P.S. Should I even mention that "America's GOT Talent" is improper English?


I am not sure if this is a spoiler just my opinion. I find her dreadful and dramatic as a judge. Granted, the burlesque dancer should not have through to the top ten on Aug. 2 but when I saw Brandy be so rude to her I got mad. Some music videos are more sexual and I am sure Brandy has made a song or two and acted sexy on stage. Give me a Break!!!!!!! Then, I see these kids cover their eyes. Most kids watch far worse in the video games and the violence in movies they watch. This was just hypocrisy at its finest. I think Simon Cowell would have been far better bringing over X Factor to America than starting this show.... it is about real talent of all ages where a rapping Granny would never be in a grand finale.


I've never seen a more obviously stupid TV show that insults the viewers intelligence more than this one. (But there are probably a lot of contenders out there.) The judges are hams, led by Mr. Cheese Fest himself David Hasselhoff, and rounded out by everyone's favorite biyach - Sharon Osborne. The British judge is another nobody, and the black stage hand gives out the oldest and worst reused one liners in comedic lore. "This is crazytown and that guy's the mayor." AAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Obviously the really bad contestants are placements or fillers. Nobody is that stupid to believe these lame acts are serious. (Or are there wrestling fans out there?) There is some talent in the mix of stupid acts and serious acts no doubt, but wading through the imbeciles is not my idea of entertainment. It's insulting to think that the producers actually believe that the audience falls for this.

I saw all of this in the 70's with The Gong Show which was fresher and funnier. This remake gets a 1 out of 10. I got up to write this review after the first 10 minutes of the July 7th show and I'll never watch this show again. Skip this if you have a higher IQ than a fern. Fans - you're a bunch of morons.


The worse thing about the show has already been duly noted by some of my fellow reviewers: the so-called judges.

There should be a rule, effective immediately (which means by next Wednesday), that each 'judge' cannot hit the other two 'judges' buzzers; they can hit only their own. This is a no-brainer, I mean it's obviously not fair to the contestants that the British guy (the most offensive of the three), say, can hit Brandy's buzzer if HE's decided the currently-performing act is not worthy of any further consideration. And Brandy did the same thing, when the Snow White contestant was stripping on this week's show - she found it offensive and she buzzed in and then proceeded to try desperately to hit Hasselhoff's and the British guy's buzzers, until she finally succeeded. She was still outnumbered, and Snow White's coming back, but that's not the point. This behavior is childish, rude and pathetic beyond comprehension and should not be tolerated.

That being said, the show is OK, I guess. It ain't IDOL, it's more like The Gong Show revisited (as another reviewer mentioned), with Regis thrown in for semi-credibility. Some of the contestants have been good, and one in particular has been fantastic: the 11-year-old Bianca Ryan (I think that's her name - we'll be hearing it again, undeniably), who belted out And I'm Telling You like nobody's business. I really liked how she changed the lyrics to make the song more appropriate for someone her age: instead of singing "you're the best man I've ever known," she changed it to "you're the best friend", which I thought was very classy and smart, making her rendition more than just a young kid trying to sing about things she couldn't possibly know about. Brilliant performer, can't wait to see her again.

8/2/08: So now we're already in the third season, with Brandy having been replaced by Sharon Osbourne - a major improvement - and Jerry Springer replacing Regis (not so much). Bianca Ryan went on to win Season One, which was fantastic, and last year, the person who deserved to win also took it, ventriloquist Terry Fater. This year, the auditions have finally been completed, and there are a couple of stand-outs, both female singers. Should be worth tuning in for, unless Gordon Ramsay is on a drunken rampage on the other channel.

8/7/08: It was absolutely shameless and cruel last night, the way the judges handled the choosing of the 40 finalists, particularly Hasselhoff, with vocalist Queen Emily - taking advantage of her overly-emotional nature, putting her through the torture of "we don't want to break hearts," blah blah blah, when we all knew damn well she was going through. And Sharon has sunk to the bottom of the heap as well, giving at least 3 contestants a sad speech about how she couldn't stand doing this, yadda yadda yadda, with all 3 going through, of course. In fact, with two of them, she was actually shaking her head NO before saying yes. Blatantly offensive, the whole affair.


Are we finally about done with this reality show BS? I know they are incredibly cheap to produce and don't require much in talent salaries or any writer salaries to speak of, but at what cost? Have we really become what the movie "Idiocracy" predicts for American culture? This show is the absolute bottom of the barrel. It is television at its lowest point ever. Remember when NBC aired shows like "Hill Street Blues," "Cheers," "St. Elsewhere," "Night Court," "The Cosby Show," "Seinfeld," etc? Many of those shows would appear on the same night! What the Hell happened to network programming since then? We did.

Well, tastes change but the people who complain about TV content don't. It's hard to put a real drama or comedy that suits modern sensibilities on TV anymore. If you do something real, adult and intelligent it either turns off short attention-spanned teens or offends the Christian Right who literally comprise 99 percent of all complaints about content on network TV (true, look that up).

Cable, Tivo and the internet are making it increasingly less lucrative to advertise on TV. That means ad rates have gone down. That means TV shows have to be made for less money. And that means networks will put on the cheapest poop they can get away with and still sell soap in the mid-west. And of course, that means "America's Got Talent" season two.

So, if you're tired of this worthless "reality TV" crap and you want a truly funny sitcom or an intelligent, engrossing drama that addresses relevant issues of today, either get HBO or complain to the Parents Television Council and tell them to stop complaining every time something interesting happens on TV. Next, contact your local affiliates and ask them to pass on the word to the network that you're willing to sit through commercials if they'll just start paying actors and writers to make real TV again.

There, I'm done. Just thought it needed to be said.


First of all, the judges on the show really lower its quality. They never seem to know what they are talking about, they judge the acts on entertainment value rather than talent, and they are all biased and opinionated. Hasselhoff seems a little weird these days, Brandy has nothing to say at all, and Piers is just some guy with, as far as I can see, no real credentials. The show should be called "America's Got Stupid Entertainers." It doesn't live up to its title. In fact, one of the judges' favorite acts was the "rapping granny," who was only mildly entertaining and hardly talented at all. The caliber of entertainers on the show is rather low; most of the acts are very amateurish. Regis doesn't really make the show any better. He doesn't do much of anything. He must be asking himself how he got himself into this at all. America has Talent, but you won't see it on this show. At this point, I feel that no one in the competition is deserving of the million dollar prize. This show stresses me out.


The Judges make this show horrible and I will not be watching in the future. The one judge x's everybody before they start and then when the other two don't because they want to give the talent at least a chance to perform, he reaches over and x's their buttons for them stopping the talent. He is a joke and needs to be muzzled or this show will not be successful!!! Also why do they X talent and then still send them through?? Do they have a clue??? The judges think people tune in to watch them. No we tune in because we want to see the talent good or bad. Take the x buttons away from them, they don't know how to appropriately use them and the show is very aggravating to watch because of it.


I was disappointed and disgusted with Peirs Morgans comments to the Celtic dancers. It was totally inappropriate on national television (prime time, no less) to suggest(?) that the family drop mom & dad from the act. It almost sounded like blackmail...they not only could win the competition this night, but very possibly win the million dollars but only if they got rid of mom and dad. Family values? Then to top it off, to encourage a stripper (with all the sexual innuendos) during a prime time television show in my opinion is not family entertainment. Could NBC be risking a "Janet Jackson" faux paus with this behavior? Brandi is right...a stripper has no place on prime time TV. In my opinion Peirs Morgan needs to receive an "X" (or the axe)!


OK, I saw this movie at the tribeca film festival and came face to face with the director as I tried to get the hell out of there. I wish I could have said this to him now.

the guy must have a vendetta against the female race or something because the young (18 years old!!!) female lead Reina seems to be everything he wants you to hate about women. She is a cock tease, she uses her sexuality to get men to do things for her (quel horreur!), she cares about only one thing, coming to America to find her drug addicted mess of a mother and have a better life. Throughout the movies, she is robbed, raped, crosses the rio grande, is stuffed in a hollowed out tree stump and abandoned by her boyfriend in a skanky hostel in brooklyn. She is such a pathetic figure in the end of the movie, how could anyone possibly look this young messed up mother of an infant, prostitute and caretaker of a indigent mother in the eye and tell her to kill herself? well, thats what the director/writer and lead character does. what a mensch.

which leads me to the male "hero". although attractive in the face, he has the personality of Nomie Malone from Showgirls, and I have trouble believing all women fall for his charms. He continually gets himself lost by running around like a person who's never lived in a big city, I have a hard time swallowing that a colombian from medellin is that ignorant of neighborhoods and how to retrace their steps, that city has 3 million people in it. I've met colombians, they seem to do just fine with streets and landmarks, they even know how to drive!!!! They are a sophisticated and street savvy people. Even worse, he often stumbles into NYC landscapes that are right out of 80s movies clichés (trash can fire bums, squatters, s&m, payphones - your movie needs to be updated when it looks like a scene from bonfire of the vanities) This is not NYC, this is NYC circa 1988,

there's so much "ick" factor in this movie, there's even a sex scene with a sleeping grandma in the room. A SLEEPING GRANDMA PEOPLE!! Thats farrelly brothers gross, and not in a good way.

With a plot so similar to Showgirls its spooky, this movie is simply really really really bad.


It was surprising, at least after all the media attention in Latin circles it received, to come out of this movie as if I had just lost 2 hours of my time. If anything after having seen Mexican and Colombian cinema and being familiarized with the themes they depict, "Paraiso" doesn't seem to know where it wants to go and what subjects it really wants us to familiarize ourselves with. The theme of illegal immigration, a hot topic these days, has received plenty of attention from many media outlets, even film. Pick any Mexican or Colombian film from the last decade and the idea of an "Better American hope of life", is soon to be found, however, "Paraiso" fails at showing us what really motivates these characters or what lies behind their intentions. Possibly, poor acting has something to do with that, hiring non-actors from some of these roles was a huge mistake by Mr. Brand, who could learn plenty from his Mexican and Spanish counterparts, he lacks the experience to be able to take a mediocre script and really bring a believable and manageable story within the confines of the Spanish language. Hopefully Latin-American cinema has a little more to offer than this.


I love all things Irish and was in hopes this would be a clever movie about an enduring Irish Legend. Instead I saw another version of "Cruella DeVille" acting out an improbable (even for a fantasy) story. The actor who played the leprechaun was good but the rest of the cast seemed to be along for the ride. When the film ended the only feeling you had was "why did I waste my time?"


This is one of the most vapid, poorly acted movies I have seen in years. I had to force myself to sit through the entire thing, and was quite proud when I made it to the end. . . though saddened by the fact that I had lost that chunk of my life to this travesty. My daughter who is 6 (and God knows the movie tastes of 6 year old girls runs pretty parallel to this dribble)could not even stay awake through it, and it is probably the first movie ever she had no desire to watch again. Yes, that's right, a 6 year old girl refused to sit through this movie a second time. In her words "it was stupid". I think that pretty much sums up this colossal waste of time, and film. It was stupid.


Unlike Jumanji, this is NOT for anyone smarter than a 5th grader. They use typical kid shortcomings instead of writing a clever script. Much of the story didn't make sense or was simply unbelievable. They seem to just make stuff up to fit what they wanted - some things floated in space including the sputum and the astronaut, but the kids were totally unaffected by 0 gravity. The guy stuck in the game, the Zorgons we never see, the robot repairing itself forever, all seemed like lazy writing and directing. The youngest kid screws up constantly and says I'm sorry at least 40 times. I was so sick of this needy, whiny child that I didn't care if they made it home or not. I'm sure there are parents who don't know how to discipline their kids so some will find this believable. Those who feel parents should address rude and co-dependent behavior early, will lose patience with this mess of a movie driven by redundant bad behavior.


This movie will appeal to the six year olds...and hopefully not to much older.... It was simply a terrible piece of work that went downhill from the opening. If you liked Jimunji, then just watch it again rather than ruin your self with this dreadful film. There is no decent exchange between characters...the set is BORING! Some of the writing for this was so trite and contrived that I thought I would gag!! I was very glad to have it end and even happier to return it ...the same day! The two young actors were poorly directed as well. Tim Robbins is in this for the first five minutes and about the last five minutes....I'm sure he got a decent paycheck but his acting looked flat and as ridiculous as the rest of this thing. If you enjoy watching two young brothers shouting at each other over and over and over again then this may be for you!!


....would have made a better show. Even in Black and White. Scrpter David Koepp may well have been brought aboard to pad this piece, which i saw in a theater in Atlanta, GA last night - for free! (An ARMED guy hired by Sony informed us that anyone caught copying the flick would be 'escorted from the premises'.... but WHO would want to copy this?) . . . . the audience was really well mixed and received the movie warmly. I thought the movie played too hard to the ten-year-old 'cussy-boy' crowd, who seemed after wards to be a bit embarrassed by it all, as were many of the parents whose eye I caught exiting the theater while the end credits rolled. Not a soul screamed at the reptilian, rubber monster that terrorized the six-year old (precocious, as usual); some of the sight gags were not fully developed (why was the bike falling out of the sky so pertinent? We never found out whose it was!); the teen girl feature was posed for the daddies in the theater. The LANGUAGE was a problem for me and will be for Evangelical Christians on out to your huge crowd small-town moralists; "Dick"; "Ass"; "God" and "O God....". Which begs the question: "Who is this movie for?" Take another look at Joe Johnston's work to see how a director creates for a wider audience. Hids "Jumanji" doesn't feel padded as "Zathura" does. The filmmakers could have gone for the PG-13 while they were at it, for the Fox "Malcom in the Middle" crowd. But I think that crowd is too small; look at your TV viewing demographic.... yes, this movie just misses being family fare. I hope I am right....


I'll give them point for good special effects and nice production values. I'll even spot them a point because someone who had never seen Jumanji would find much of Zathura new and exciting.

OK, those are my 3 points in my rating.

The bickering interaction between the siblings was realistic enough I got to use it as an example to my kids, afterward. I'm not giving it a point because it was irritating enough to get really old.

How in the ***** *********!!! can the makers have varied SO incomprehensibly little from Jumanji? Even a sequel needs SOME variety! The Robot (which, by the way, looked pretty cool - I want one) was a dead rip off of Van Pelt. The meteor shower was a dead ripoff of the monsoon. Etc.

I'm glad I found it on TV instead of renting it... I certainly would have been finding a way to drop another point off my rating.

Never seen Jumanji? Sure... watch this. Have? I'm amazed anyone could have put this out on the market.


When i rented the DVD, the story and pictures on the cover seemed fun, but when i got to the middle of the movie i almost fell asleep. The movie confuses it's watcher so much that it brings him to a point that he cannot understand who are the good guys and who are the bad. The hero doesn't knows who to trust, too much talking and hardly no action.. The movie has a few humoristic moments, some action here and there but no more..

You can surely skip it...


Double Take is a film that makes you wonder how a pretty good premise like "Across the Bridge" (1957) can be turned into such a convoluted piece of... (anyway a very bad movie).

There really is no way to descibe or spoil the movie because the plot is such a mess. For example here is a plot summary--> there is a good guy (Orlando Jones) and a bad guy (Eddie Griffin) who has a dog that hates the good guy, but then the good guy is framed (by apparently the bad guys using what is called a "Double Take", but was he really framed by the good guys imitating the bad guys? So, then the bad guy (Griffin) changes places with the good guy (Jones). Only to have (Jones become a bad guy in another country where the now good-bad-guy (Griffin) killed a really bad guy and stole his dog for evidence (only no wait, he didn't really kill him either (probably another double take, i dont remember who really killed him, I think it was a bad guy).

So then wait, Jones apparently had a child with someone so that they could pull a " double take" on the real bad guys, only Griffin is still bad and the U.S. cops are bad, but the undercover cops are good, but the undercover mofia as undercover cops are bad, and eventually the head moffia boss guy is also good, but only until he is bad again.

And then.....

Well, if you made it this far and really want to know, watch the movie.

It has a few nice points (mainly around a beginning that references The Godfather (look for oranges, which signify death). The bit about "Slitz malt liquor is good too).

But that is about it, a few good quotes does not a good movie make and Double Take gives you the fealing of, "Heah, maybe I can throw a good idea (or a zillion) at you". One of them has got to stick.

The problem is that with so many ideas and concepts and bads and goods, and mechanical pen gismos used to call in the national guard, Double Take ain't kepn it Real. It sure isn't representing the original 1957 movie idea.

Viewed in theatres (35mm) Rated:1


Frenetic, silly and a waste of time. This movie has nothing to recommend it. Clearly, someone had some extra money and time and decided that it would be charitable to give some B-movie actors some work. The result is a perfectly forgettable effort.

The plot is most convoluted mix of relationships, back-stabbings and shootings imaginable. It's like a RoadRunner cartoon. Remember those? The endings were always predictable. The same is true of this movie. There is absolutely nothing to make it interesting.

If you have any other way of spending 90 minutes then don't choose this movie. I suggest either studying your navel or thumb twiddling. Both are more exciting.


Hey, this film was awful. I mean, there are bad films that are so terrible they are fun to watch. But this one just goes waaay beyond imagination. There was no way I could bear till the credits rolled and I had to give up around 55 mins into the story at the junkyard scene.

The plot is like it was written in a kindergarten for the mentally disadvantaged. Plot holes of the size even an ocean liner would sink in them.

Mr Griffin is the unfunniest, most annoying wannabe ever giving a try on comedy.

Be warned and avoid at any cost. I would like to ask the guys who scored this garbage 10 what were they able to like in this - er, okay, I just would not want to call this a movie - so in this complete waste of efforts ?

Though the cutting could have saved the film, but then the musters should have been cut lengthwise.


This is very easily in contention for the worst movie ever. Painful to watch. I was tempted to get up and leave the theater as I endured the pain. The only thing that kept me in the theater was I was there with three friends. Later when we got out of the theater we all commented that the movie was completely bad and that we should have walked out on it.


Though billed as a Rush Hour action-comedy, it is not funny at all, except for one scene at the end. Even though the actors were good, this movie is not recommended from me. It could have had funnier moments. My rating: 4/10


Do not be fooled. This movie is terrible. It looks like a humorous situational comedy involving two men who need to change places to evade the police. It is not. The movie stumbles between a horrible crime who done it and cheep slapstick comedy. The movie's main fault lies in that no scene lasts for more than twenty seconds, and as a result does not allow for any jokes. This is a comedy with out jokes. If you take jokes away from a comedy your left with nothing, no plot, no characters, no entertainment. Nothing. Do not watch this movie under any circumstances. If someone tries tells you this is a good movie hit them with a pointed stick and say, NO! If you watch this understand what you're getting into and don't say I didn't warn you.


This movie was plagued by overall mediocrity. While parts of it were funny, many jokes were so bad that you question the movie being called a comedy. In terms of plot, there are many insignificant twists to the point where you don't even concern yourself with following the story, only to see what happens at the end. Not worth watching.


It's not too often that I really want to see a particular movie. But this was one of those exceptions. The trailers were pretty funny, and I figured if they were just a small segment of what the rest of the movie is like... it should be hilarious. Well, I think they used the funniest parts of the movie to put in those trailers. It seems like the movie is focused just as much on action and plot as it is humor (which I didn't really expect since the trailer portrayed it as mostly comedy). The only problem with that is the movie is so complicated and twisted that I lost interest in its story early on. The movie could have been redeemed if it had great action sequences. But it doesn't. The movie could have been redeemed if it were fall-on-the-floor funny. But it isn't.

The story is the number one problem. There are too many twists and turns. In some movies that can add some suspense and mystery. But in this movie, it just fails. And I think it's because the movie tries to be too much. It tries too hard to be a great action film, a comedy, and a twisted mystery-esque flick (I'm not sure what you could call it). Had it placed all its energy in one or even two of those... I think it could have been much better.

And to top it off... I don't think there is much comedic chemistry between Jones and Griffin. The trailers look promising in that area too, but again, the movie falls short.


Let's start off by saying that i didn't expect much from this picture. A guy I don't really know from work told me it was funny. It was playing at the 4 dollar theater and I had about 2 hours to kill. It was actually was worse than I expected it to be and I was expecting low, really low, but seriously I wanted to walk out. However I was only there to kill time so I sat through every last painful second. First thing is, and you get this from the opening scene, that this can't just be a comedy.No, it feels a need to falsely become something greater than that by trying to portray some kind of racy cop flick. The kind of movie where everybody is in the FBI but nobody's doing much of anything. The terrible thing is that they really expect you to go along with it.

If this flim-flam plotline wasn't enough you've got Eddie Griffin, a black comedian who expects you to laugh just because of the fact that he's black.

He's black! He's loud! He's....a terrible stereotype jammed into a two dimensional character. For those of you that thought Spike Lee was too far-fetched in Bamboozled take a look at this movie and see that our society is not far off from a new millenium minstrel show,it's pretty much right here only in different form. Of course you've also got your most recent up to date humor that won't last even five years. ie " Do I look like Puffy?!" when people forget about Puffy they won't know what the hell this quote means,but if people are smart enough they will let this film and others like it just fade away. Orlando Jones actually shows some potential in acting and in some comedy. However, something tells me that he won't be bold enough to take a challenging role anytime soon. Overall this was extremely painful for me to watch. Maybe I should be happy that comedies featuring black leads are no longer trying to copy 'FRIDAY'(a great film,in my opinion) yet still they're gonna have to try harder than this.


(sigh) Double Team is another useless action comedy. This movie didn´t have a theatrical run in Finland and I don´t wonder. You can see one this kind of movies made straight to video. Orlando Jones has been much better in other movies. The movie wasn´t funny, except one scene. Total waste of time. (3 points out of 10, *½ out of *****)


Hi, I saw Double Take. It was complete and utter garbage. I was so sick to my stomach and was mad that i wasted money on it. It was completely stupid with an impossible plot to follow, and the only parts that were funny had been extremely over used in the commercials. I dont want a yardburger, cult 45, or to ever see that that godless sick twisted movie ever agian.


Did they honestly think that this movie would be good? Did the really think people would like it so much that they'd tell their friends to go see it, and then buy it when released on DVD?

I think the people involved with this movie must think you can get away with a loose script and bad comedy as long as it's got lots of explosions and sexy women.


First of all, this is an incredible bad film. Before I saw it, I to believed that anything Fassbinder touched would turn out to be pure works of genius. You are reading the comments of a very disillusioned man. Kamikaze -89 is ugly, stupid and impossible to take seriously. It shoots at a million different directions, but fails to hit anything but its own feet. After 100 minutes in the company of Kamikaze -89, my brain started hurting.

That said, it's not a complete waste of time. Seeing a pi***ed, drunk out of his mind, Fassbinder strousing around in leopard outfit, like a wounded walrus, DOES have its perverse charm. In fact, seeing Fassbinder and some of his regulars degrade themselves in this totally psychotronic film is the only thing that makes it somewhat worthwhile.

The story takes place in the near future... 1989 to be specific. Everybody wears the ugliest new wave outfits on this side of Culture Club and Germany has become the most advanced and powerful country in the world. All social and political problems have been solved and everybody is happy. Or so it seems. The state of Germany have but one enemy, a person or organization called Krystopompas (!), who believes that the people of Germany has become pacified and dehumanized by the regime. He starts giving bomb threats, and the state of Germany puts their best man on the case, police lieutenant Jansen (Fassbinder in a leopard suite). Then a lot of nonsense takes place. People start pointing fingers at Jansen, yelling "Krystopompas!" for no apparent reason. Jansen goes to a strip-joint where everybody is laughing hysterically for no apparent reason. Lots of other nonsense follows. And then the film takes some awful 1984-inspired turns and mysterious conspiracies like "The blue panther", "unexpected deaths" and "the 31st Floor" become visible. Needless to say, Fassbinder somehow cracks the case and then he screws a picture of an astronaut. The end.

A must-see!


I'm sorry to say that, but i can hardly say it's a good film... The cinematography is dull, the photography is so cheapo that you could think you're in a "Derrick" episode. The scenario losses some parts during the timeline... Even the music (composed by the professional Edgar Froese) is - uhm... Outdated? No 80s revival will save this film from the brink of extinction. The only advantage for its producers is that you CAN'T forget it after a vision. Uhmm... Not for the good, i'm afraid..


This must be one of the worst films I have ever seen! There is no beginning, no story, and no end! What on earth went through Nicole Heesters mind when she accepted that part, is beyond me. An otherwise brilliant actress has her biggest - an until now only - genuine fiasco.

If it shows anything, it's the mess in Fassbinders mind near the end of his life. So many cliché's, I'm surprised I watched it 'till the end. I suppose that's because of the clothes, which is an interesting study of the extremes of the time. I suppose you could also see inspector Jansen as a parody, which might make it a bit more bearable, but the storyline is still too thin to make it worth while.


Just saw this movie and the main selling point was Malkovich in the cast. He was fine, as was the female lead played by Evangeline Lilly. The main thing that did this movie in for me was a rather leaden performance from Romain Duris. The basic plot is that Malkovich is a "messenger" or someone who can foretell people's deaths. He is also a doctor working with dying people. He contacts Duris and, for the greater part of the movie, the audience is lead to believe that Duris is destined to die. Needless to say, this isn't the way the movie plays out. The director (or writer) manages to establish a dull, plodding rhythm to the film which is confusing and distracting. No more info for anyone interested in seeing the film and the film is worth a rental, if only to watch and revel in another quirky performance from Malkovich and a great performance from Evangeline Lilly. The main problem is it's difficult to empathize, sympathize or otherwise ize with Duris who has the emotional range of a rock in this film.


License To Kill (1989) is an inanely dismal installment to the Bond franchise that is best forgotten. It stars Timothy Dalton in his second and final performance. After aiding old time friend and FBI man, Felix Leiter (David Hedison) in a drug bust, and standing up for Felix at his wedding, Bond returns hours later to discover Felix's wife is dead and that Felix is barely clinging to life after being fed to a shark. Seems drug lord, Franz Sanchez (Robert Davi) was none too thrilled about Bond and Leiter's bust. From his posh villa in Mexico, Sanchez is perfectly content to let bygones be bygones. But Bond wants revenge.

Told to drop things by his superiors, Bond defies the British government, is stripped of his double-o ranking and embarks upon a campaign of revenge. To this end he seems perfectly in tune with the aspirations of Pam Bouvier (Carey Lowell), an undercover FBI agent assigned to pick up where Felix left off. Together, Bond and Bouvier prowl the back streets of Mexico City, doing battle with Sanchez's psychotic henchman, Dario (a very young, Benicio Del Toro) while Bond attempts to bleed Sanchez maul, Lupe Lamore (Talisa Soto) for information.

What is particularly disappointing about this film is the sudden absence of fundamental elements that we have come to expect from a Bond movie; scantily clad women, witty one liners, memorable action sequences  and above all else  a certain amount of seriousness on the part of the actors to suspend the audience in the art of make believe. But there is nothing even remotely engaging about a misguided vignette that has Wayne Newton cast as a charlatan leader of a religious cult. Nor is there anything memorable about the brief moments of action that round out an otherwise boring movie in which the bulk of the plot concentrates on Sanchez  sneering and plotting while other men with guns shoot it out with Bond and Bouvier.

MGM/UA's DVD is the absolute worst transfer of any of the Bond movies. Riddled in aliasing, pixelization, shimmering of fine details and severe edge enhancement, the video is never stable long enough to appreciate the story  such as it is. Colors are dated with overly pink flesh tones, weak contrast levels and a generally gritty digital that is distracting to say the least. Blacks are more deep gray, whites are either blooming or dull and age related artifacts are quite obvious throughout  much more so than expected for a film of this vintage. The audio is stereo surround, but is generally strident and lacking in bass. Extras include two documentaries, audio commentaries, promotional materials and the film's theatrical trailer.


I love watching a James Bond. It's not very intellectual, granted, but it's fun. I know the basic difference between each James Bond are the bad guy, the girl and the bad guy's HQ which always blows up at the end(don't tell me this is a spoiler). But in this, the producers had a new idea for James Bond: he will be on a personal vendetta... The idea was bad and so is the final product. Timothy Dalton is terrible. He was okay in "The Living Daylights" but this time, he is just awful. Everything about his Bond is wrong. He tries to be like Sean Connery, but never comes close to the Great One. I will add that the bad guy is just a crazy maniac that kills everyone in "original" ways. Bad, bad, bad... In fact, it is the worse James Bond, for now.

If you want to see a James Bond today, don't watch this one. 4/10...


I can't decide what was the worst thing about this movie. The bad plot, terrible acting, cheesy 1970's Barnaby Jones sets, lack of Bond gadgets, lack of Bond sex, silly Spanish accents or defeating a a guy with a gun to his head by throwing a couple of maggots in his face. The maggots reminded me of what happened when Lieutenant Frank Dreben (Naked Gun) had a pillow thrown at his face, except they were serious about it in this movie! An FBI agent they want dead is fed to a shark, but pulled back up before dead, put into a bag and left back at home to die? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! That's the same schtick as the "unnecessarily slow dipping mechanism" gag in Austin Powers, except it was a joke in Austin Powers! This piece of crap has nothing to do with Bond. They just slapped the name on to a bad idea and out into the world it went. I didn't realize this was included in the collector's pack of 7 DVDs. I tried to watch it once, but had to shut it off after an hour. Save yourself the pain.....throw it away now!


UGH... As an adorer of the James Bond character, I have to call Timothy Dalton a sacrilege! And apparently, this movie was his satanic shrine. YUCK! This film has nothing of the appeal of the great old bond films nor any of the thrills of the new ones. It was nothing but scene upon scene of 80's superficiality with nothing underneath. There were none of the fantastically witty Bond lines nor of his legendary charm. Dalton drained him completely. And what was with that horrible wedding scene?? It was like a bad remake of The Godfather. Really, I couldn't stomach the thing, it was all just too awful. As for those who credit this as being a great Bond film because of its likeness to Ian Flemings work... so what? If you want to read the book, go to the library. This is a fictional movie and one that, in my opinion, could have been done A LOT better.


I do firmly believe that the revue on this film is highly unfair. The "If You like this try..." says it all. The recommendation is "Requiem for a Dream". It is most certainly not one of the best movies I have seen, but as the angst ridden road movie it is, it is highly watchable. At the time it premiered it was widely discussed due to it's sexual and to some degree violent sexual content. It is a spiraling vortex down to an unavoidable end. Capturing some of the counter culture of the time, wanting to escape Your surroundings, Your situation of Scandinavia, it gives prof that You can leave but never escape Yourself. If You want shine happy people, stay clear away from this one. This end of the 80's piece is as dark as it got back then.