What can i say. There is nothing watchable about this one. Just don't waste your time or money. I mean i can understand that u don't have any money for a decent movie but this ain't even a movie. No story, no acting, no visual effects, no sound effects, no acting, nothing at all. It starts with some alien background, then it just moves to action. I can't even say that you are going to see some good karate moves in it. I might be harsh about this movie. Because i just saw it and i can't believe i spent 90 minutes for this. Yeah the movie is 90 minutes but there is nothing in it. What i recommend to you is never watch a movie without reading at least a couple comments about it at IMDb.com .


Far from the rip-up comedy that ads presented, this depressing "Papa was a heroine addict and Mama dried weed in our oven" melodrama ruined my weekend. The over-acted performance by James Woods as the cop-dad who can't make up his mind if he feels selfish, compassionate, caring or heartless towards his good-girl gone bad, socially inept and unparented daughter was the kick that booted me out of the theater about 1h20m into the film. -- Riding in Cars with Boys was too much like someone's disappointing and depressing life to bother going to see. -- If you want to experience life like that, volunteer to work with teenage moms. -- If you want to be entertained, go see Monsters, Inc. or Harry Potter.


This movie is build up to be a romantic fun little comedy but it turns out to be one of the most depressing movies ever made! Sure Drew Barrymore was perfect for the role but all through out the movie the thought was nothing worse could happen to her and believe it or not- IT DID! However, it was very remarkable how Drew Barrymore character kept strong and got through them but like I said- very depressing.


This movie had some good moments and a great start. I had forgotten that Penny Marshall directed it and when it ended and her name was up there I was surprised and even more disappointed.

The script was too thin, trite and predictable. There were far to many moments in it that seemed hollow. Loved Mika Boorem at the beginning. Her performance in Hearts in Atlantis was part of my impetus to see it. Hearts in Atlantis had an esp element in its plot and still managed to seem more true to life than this cartoon. Oh well.


I enjoy movies. They just have to be entertaining. This movie might be shocking to you if the only movies you've seen were after-school specials. The scenes are not that vile or outrageous either, which is both shocking and sad for this kind of movie. As I watched, I waited for something interesting to happen, only to see the most predictable scenes acted out by the worst possible actors. Dialog, plot, acting, isn't really B movie material, its just shoddy. After a while of watching you realize this is all there is and you can't help but feel a little cheated. It might have helped they made an attempt at a plot that made sense, or better yet actually did something with the characters. I saw this movie expecting a revenge film and got some director's attempt at trying out his camera angles. I could probably watch two cows chewing grass for an hour and half, and came back with more than this gunk.


Three escaped convicts seek refuge at the home of a black minster and his family, there the family is humiliated and beaten. When his daughter is violated the family begin to embark on some vengeance.

A film which has very little to offer other than racial hatred and some rather disturbing scenes of violence. Like many other films not worthy of its cult banned 'video nasty' status.


I am sure that there are many out there that enjoyed this film a lot more than me and I think this film is a wonderful example of a film that you'll either love or hate. This is because the idea of people breaking into lip-sync songs is pretty peculiar and may not be for everyone! I actually didn't mind this concept, but strongly disliked the execution. Instead of singing long numbers and perhaps dancing or getting into the moment, instead the characters sang a line or two or three from a song and then very abruptly stopped. The shift in mood was just too abrupt and the surreal moments were never allowed to develop and captivate the audience. It really was as if they tried to cram way too many songs into the film so they abbreviated them so much that the viewer was left confused by how disjoint the film was. A nice attempt at something different, but not especially worth seeing.


In 1998 three young White men killed James Byrd, Jr., a Black man, by chaining Byrd to the back of their pickup truck, and then driving away at high speed down a back road in rural deep East Texas. It was a horrible crime, one that was quickly and easily solved. This film tells the story of that real-life event ... sort of.

The best part of "Jasper, Texas" is the performance of Jon Voight, as sheriff Billy Rowles, who investigated the crime. The film also presents a credibly downbeat atmosphere of rural eastern Texas.

That said, I was disappointed with the screenplay. The story begins on the day after the killing and, except for occasional flashbacks, moves forward, to chronicle the aftermath of the event, from the viewpoint of the town's residents. What was a terrible personal tragedy is turned into a speech-athon on race relations from: local politicians, the FBI, a citizen's task force, the Black Panthers, a White supremacy group, and others. The film's cast is way too large, and the dialogue is inflated. And throughout this talky film, there's the usual obnoxious behavior of the vulturous news media.

We never really get to know James Byrd, Jr., ... the victim. He is almost irrelevant. Nor do we get any insight into the motivations of the three killers. The film thus mostly ignores the most relevant people, and chooses instead to tell the story of background people who talk endlessly around a sociology topic that has been talked to death. The entire film seemed academic, impersonal, and emotionally uninvolved.


I live in Jasper, Texas. I was born and raised here, and this was one inaccurate movie. I liked the cast of characters, but they definitely made the town look like a small hick town that is not current, and it is nothing like that. I thought that Jon Voight, and Louis Gossett Jr. gave great performances. I also didn't like the fact that they showed the dragging so violently. Many of us here were reminded of how horrible it was. It is behind us, and that is where we would like to keep it. Overall I did not enjoy this movie. I have seen it twice, and I really doubt that I will watch it again. I feel that many people would be greatly surprised if they ever came to Jasper. It is nothing like it is portrayed in this movie.


I found this film to be quite boring and the plot just plain silly. Once the boy finds his dog dead, with the expertise of a vet, he exclaims, "My dog has been poisoned!, and it was Dr. Mahler!" Even more ridiculous, his father responds, " I wouldn't put it past him!" Then they go to the mysterious Dr.'s house to confront him, only to hear his denial and leave. Definitely a kids movie to teach the morals of not "judging a book by it's cover". But if anyone

thinks this is even mildly creepy, you would never survive the Boston subway system. No wonder why the director did not direct any major film for over 8 years after this piece of silliness. Some good camera work, but it still feels like a Leaver it to Beaver episode. Watch it at your own risk.


This movie is creepy. To a small degree it's creepy in the way it intends: It does seem as if Harper Lee may have seen this before writing her lovely "To Kill A Mockingbird," also about children (here just one child) wrongly suspicious of an odd neighbor.

In that novel, and the movie made of it, the children are very likable. Billy Grey is not, though possibly he was at the time. Maybe if I ha been a little boy seeing this at the time I would have identified.

The fact is, though, the boy at the center of this is very troubled, constantly near the brink of hysterics. When he is acting like a boy, he is shooting a toy gun or making gun sounds. In a time capsule, this aspect would be interesting indeed but today it is distasteful.

The original may well have had to do with the boy's worries about his mother's pregnancy. Would a new little girl (the whole thing seems very misogynistic) or little boy take away all her attention? Something, for sure, has made his kid a bundle of nerves.

Nancy Davis has a thankfully small role and so does George Murphy. Kurt Kazsner as the eponymous stranger is good, as are the supporting players.

The fifties gave us some fine music and art but a little item like this serves to remind, or show someone unfamiliar with that decade, what an unpleasant time it was, also.


For a cheesy, devil-driven thriller about a murderous car that runs down its victims, one may be unprepared for director Elliot Silverstein's surprisingly intense prologue (with two kids on bicycles meeting their grisly fate on a mountain road). It's a gripping, savage sequence that reminds one of the opening in "Jaws", as Silverstein probably intended, but what does he give us next? We're introduced to small town residents and James Brolin as the local law, and "The Car" quickly runs out of petrol. Writers Michael Butler and Dennis Shryack had a pretty good idea here, but perhaps their original work was compromised by Hollywood and the then-fashionable occult angle. Too bad. *1/2 from ****


A poor mans `Duel'<br /><br />The Car is not a dreadful film, but in no way good. I couldn't help feeling that it was a very poor relation to Steven Spielbergs classic `Duel'. Throw in the mystery of a Twilight Zone episode and the ridiculiousness of the similar themed Killdozer. At least in Killdozer, it was explained very clearly how a strange force possessed the machine. In the Car, are we expected to believe that this machine has been running unmanned since time?, was it the work of a sinister force?, or was it driven by a midget, peeping unnoticed over the steering wheel?. The beauty of Duel was that the evil machine clearly did have a driver, although you never saw him, and that's what made it very tense and scary, something that this film is not in any way. `The Car' would have been far better if it was not played so seriously, with the addition of some black humour along the way.


Well bad movie lovers this is the movie for you. "The Car" is a "thriller" so mind bogglingly awful that it would have come off better being marketed as a comedy.

It's a Jaws ripoff about a mysterious black car that appears one day in a desert community and starts killing the townspeople. Policeman James Brolin (who is awful) is hot on the trail. It's funny to watch this car just appear, do its thing, and drive off. Where does it go? Where did it come from? Is there a driver? The script never addresses these issues. And the worst part is the script doesn't play fair. In some scenes the car appears to be supernatural as it disappears in front of our eyes. But in other scenes, such as when a woman throws a tree limb at it, the car appears hopelessly natural and real.

So if you want to watch a really bad thriller with some decent actors (including Ronny Cox and John Marley) embarrassing themselves then get some popcorn, sit back, relax, and prepare to either laugh your head off or be properly disgusted at the cheap product on the screen.


I'm sorry, but I still can't understand why so many people like this movie? I thought it sucked the big one. If you're in to demons, then you should probably skip this one and rent Night of the Demons! The only good part about this movie is Army of Darnkness. It was way too long for the little bit of trash it had in it. And the tree having "sex" with the one chick, who went outside looking for the owner of a strange voice was just LAME with a capital SUCK! Who in the hell goes looking for strange voices in the woods in the middle of the night? Not I. The part with Ash's girlfriend all crazy and possessed, giggling like a psycho was kinda creepy, in a weird "WTF?" kind of way, but that was about it. That is why I asked for my money back when I took this P.O.S back to the video store. Take my word for it...rent Night of the Demons, and give this one a wide berth in the video store. (just make sure it's the 1st one, as the 2nd two suck almost as bad as this movie) 2/10


If you are truly looking for a cheesy, horribly made film, then there is no better then The Evil Dead. First of all, you will laugh at the horrible film making. There are goofs and mistakes galore. Crew members visible in the bushes, disappearing blood, costume changes, etc., it is all here. Ed Woods Plan 9 from Outer Space does a better job at covering up its mistakes. The plot, one of the only good points in this film, besides the laughable bad acting, is very interesting and it is good for the sequel (one of my favorite movies) Army of Darkness. The only other good thing about this film is that it spawned the career of cult actor Bruce Cambell. But the very best seen is a rape sequence in which a girl is raped by... trees. Yes, trees. it still reminds me of the trees in the Wizard of Oz. "These ain't your apples!". So if you have had a rough day and just want to simply turn your brain off, pick up Evil Dead. if you are looking for a great old horror classic, pick up army of darkness. because evil dead is merely a five year old's rendition of army of darkness.


This is one of the worst horror films I have ever seen - and I watch an awful lot of them. The acting is even more wooden than the trees in the wood. The character reactions are not in the least believable and the plot is more rickety than the old bridge. Do yourself a favor and pass this film by.


I read and loved the book. It is a gripping story of perseverance.

I could not watch this whole movie. Seconds turn to minutes then before long a couple of hours are gone and you'll start thinking that you should have spent the time fixing the dishwasher or washing the dog. Each climbing scene takes a couple of minutes then it is off to another "personal account" interview with the actual people who the story is about. It switches back and forth very regularly and it eventually drove me crazy and I had to leave the room. My wife wouldn't let me fast forward through the boring parts. She liked the movie. I was hoping for some dancing girls or car chase scenes to liven things up.

My score is raised a little more than the above description might lead you to think because the mountain scenes with the actors are filmed really well. I could easily imagine myself there with the climbers. It was very realistic. I guess it is hard to squeeze 15 minutes of content into a 2 hour movie so I shouldn't be so hard on them.

If you know the story then the prolonged agony portrayed by the actors doesn't create any suspense like it might if you didn't know the outcome. The key word is "prolonged" which pretty much describes it.

Read the book. Forget about the movie.

Daddy Dave Fort Collins, CO


It really is time to bring this to a close. This is set in the sixties. It began in 1992, so the regular actors have now aged 15 years in a series that is supposed to span 10. Gina in mini skirt and boots, trying to dance in 60s style just looks ridiculous now. Alf, Bernie and Oscar are well past their sell-by dates and the whole thing is tired. Please can it now!!! By the way, I used to think it was a really good programme - especially the music. Just as an aside.......... Now that smoking is banned in places of work in England, they won't be able to smoke when making the programme. So, no smoking in the Aidensfield Arms, no more roll-ups for Alf in the police station - over 40 years before the ban came into being!!!


This programme, in my opinion, encourages domestic violence against women. I saw an episode a few years ago, which was so disturbing, i still can't get it out of my mind. It was called David stockwell's ghost where a husband violently beat his wife and then afterwards it was like as if it didn't happen. She was supposed to cause bruises on their son, but butter wouldn't melt in his mouth, wife-beating husband does nothing wrong. I think that this series tells you that it is alright for men to beat up their wives which may lead to the wives beating their children, or they could be forced to admit they do by their animal husbands, but the wives should still be punished, even though they're being led to believe this is the way to treat people. And recently they showed an episode where domestic violence was not okay. But can you explain the domestic violence in the episode entitled David stockwell's ghost? In my opinion don't watch this series because it can put ideas into peoples heads about how to physically abuse women in one episode, but then confuse you by saying it's wrong in another episode. This series should be examined closely.


This programme is absolutely awful. the plot is very boring and they should just abandon making new series. the characters are dull and even though it may be trying to create a retro feeling, it is out dated and no longer pleasant to the tastes of viewers. also considering th ratings of many other soaps/dramas, for example east-enders, coronation street and more recent ones such as torch wood, heartbeat does not really compare. this time slot would be well used for a variety of other programmes, and could give a chance for new directors to test out material. the only positive point i can pull from heartbeat is that it is on a Sunday, at a time where many people are doing other things, so they can be spared the embarrassment of watching this.


An easy-going, boil-in-the-bag romcom. It relies a little too much on slapstick to fill out its 90 mins but, given its simple plot it's got enough wit and clean charm to make a go of it.

I've always been a Courtney Cox fan and she definitely gives us something in addition to regurgitating Monica Gellerisms. David Arquette is a sweet, chubby version of Adam Sandler. This slightly off-kilter duo, a real life couple, have a first-class straight 'guy' in Viola Davis (one of the better coloured actresses in Hollywood, doing the day job stoically).

There's nothing to it but it's not too sickly for a wet afternoon on the sofa. 3/10


Courtney Cox, Carol Kane and David Arquette were all victims of a badly written movie. They shouldn't get Oscar credit but they definitely made the best out of a bad situation. The virgin writers still have a lot of work to do.

This movie was a canned romance. "Loser" woman assumes role of attractive professional to get the guy who's "unavailable" either through another relationship or because he would normally be out of the woman's league, all the while ignoring the supposed "loser" who is in love with her. She finally sees the light and the "loser" turns out to be a great guy and much more perfect than the person she was chasing to begin with.

How many times has that been done? There is a reason this movie didn't release to US theaters; The revenues would not have been substantial enough to cover the release costs. There's also a reason its only on Oxygen. Its awful. It even ends with a beach scene with the two "losers" together!!! Sweep Sundance and Cannes? You gotta be kidding me. Release in North America is no prerequisite to being selected for Cannes or Sundance. The only prerequisite is that there is some talent displayed. It has to hit on all fronts to be considered and this one only hit because the three stars were passable against almost insurmountable odds. Those odds being the script.


There seems to be an unwritten, but rigidly enforced rule in Hollywood these days, that every movie must be black even if it's not. No longer can you make a movie for white people, even if it's ostensibly a white movie ... it's just not pc.

Like all bad "pc" movies made during the past 10 years, The Shrink Is In constantly assaults you with pounding RAP. Also very pc, it has a white lead with a black neighbor who is her best friend. And of course, there are black faces planted in almost every scene of the movie.

If you can stand this cultural assault, you have to put up with an inane plot and marginal acting suitable for a Grade B chick flick. Which is what this woman-looking-for-love to mend a broken heart is.


This movie is horrendous. If you ever have the opportunity to see it, run for your very sanity. Courtney Cox makes millions per year from Friends...what the hell ever possessed her to create this monstrosity. Not only are the acting and writing atrocious but her character is so completely unlikable and immoral in so many ways that I just wanted her to be hit by a truck or be slaughtered with an axe wielded by the David Arquette character. Never let your 14 year old go to the movie rental place by herself to pick the movie. Now, please excuse me while I go rinse my eyes out with bleach to try and cleanse myself of the festering tripe I just watched.


This movie had a very good storyline. It was just executed poorly. The actors were OK, but I thought Gosselaar was kind of annoying. The funniest part was one of the mental guys they brought in who thought Bill Gates was trying to kill him. He was pretty funny, but they didn't have him in a lot of scenes. I didn't think it was close to Animal House, but then again, it is just my opinion. I thought the ending was pretty clever and kind of funny. That's about it for me though. I won't say it's overrated like many other people, because it's just my point of view, someone else might think this is the best movie ever. I wish they would have executed it a little bit better, it may have turned out kind of like Superbad. As I said, the plot was very good. Just some better dialogue, and maybe different actors. It would be kind of cool to see something like a remake. But that usually only happens with famous movies. Anyways, pretty boring.3/10.


Okay okay let me see if you saw this too.

This movie and 'The Curve' are exactally the same movie. No way you might say? I dare to compare.

Both movies involve the same plot. Two roomies who hope that their third roomate dies so they can get A's because of the 'dead roomate' policy. They both also have the one 'nice' guy attracted to some attractive girl. See thing is its so much better in 'The Curve' a darker storyline and the ending is to die for.

If you liked DMOC (Dead Man on Campus) then you should enjoy 'The Curve'

Btw they both came out in the same year. Kinda creepy huh?


How do you get your roommate to commit suicide? That was the plot of this movie. Here's a suggestion- Make them watch this movie more than once. Tom Everett Scott is capable of so much more than this crap, but I expected as much from Mark-Paul Gosselar, who graced us with 10 years of Zack Morris. The central problem in this movie is that it's bad from the start, the whole idea is pointless. You cannot gain sympathy for a character who is trying to kill another innocent person. This movie starts nowhere, gets nowhere, and takes 94 minutes doing so. Its futile attempt at comedy leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth, simply because the jokes are all old and recycled. There is the obligitory drug use, giant bongs, etc...There is the romantic sub-plot that REALLY goes nowhere. There is the overly dramatic caffeine beer drug laced student tirades that leave you wondering, are there any Teachers at this college? Nothing about this movie is fresh or original, nothing about this movie is funny, nothing about this movie makes it worth watching. Rent Animal House instead, even if you've seen it 20 times before, it's better than this! And to see a GOOD job of acting by Tom Everett Scott, rent That Thing You Do.


I actually thought that the movie looked good from the ads on tv but I was WRONG, IT WAS TERRIBLE. I'm sorry for anyone who liked it but it was definitely overrated. Except for Mark Paul Gosselaar and Lochlyn Monroe the rest of the cast did not do a good job of acting. Actually, Tom Everett Scott's role should have been casted to someone else because he stunk up the whole movie. The story line itself was a stupid subject but with the right actors it might have turned out right, like There's Something About Mary. However, because of bad casting, the movie was nothing like There's Something About Mary. It wasn't very funny or interesting. Even the beginning credits and opening scene almost made me get up and leave. I thought it was the dumbest and most boring way to open up a movie. It was a cute idea, but it wasn't done right.


This film had some funny lines in it, but for the most part is one of those films you won't remember any of the lines from the next day, and a month later will have you wondering if you saw it or not at the video store. Some of the funny scenes were likely unintentional, such as having a bunch of actors nearing 30 playing 18 year olds. One of them even gets carded at a bar and pulls out a long succession of fake ID yet it is obvious he is over 21. Probably the funniest scenes involved the crazy roommate, such as when he pulls out a gun and starts shooting at the police during a high speed chase, "They hate it when you do this". But other than that, it was a good idea wasted on a boring script.

It has it's moments, so it is a good time waster. But it is no where near as funny as other College movies such as Animal House. The jokes often seem tired and overdone, there was very little unexpected humour. Many of the lines are telegraphed from a mile away. Ho hum, not really a bad movie, just not a memorable one.

R.


"Dead Man on Campus" is not just an unfunny comedy; it's a disturbing comedy. The two protagonists are college freshmen, one a spoiled rich hell-raiser, the other a studious type on an academic scholarship. Of course, their lifestyles collide and the reprobate rich kid wins out, corrupting his roommate. Soon they are both on the verge of flunking out, and their only salvation is if one of their roommates commits suicide. Then the survivors get a 4.0 for their grief. Since neither of them wants to do it, and they have an empty bed in their dormitory suite, they look for a depressed underclassman to befriend, and then try to push over the brink. I believe that this is a very serious offense (like murder), but "Dead Man on Campus" plays it for laughs. And fails miserably. So not only is this movie humorless, it is amoral. It's also made by MTVwhich is not surprising. Avoid this mess at all costs.

Also note that the IMDb Plot Outline "If your roommate dies you get straight A's for your grief. So a college student fakes suicide and his roommates cash in on it" is wrong. The two murderous protagonists want their roommates to REALLY kill themselves. There's no faking to it. Funny it's not.


How does something this bad get made? The plot is simplistic and predictable, the characters one dimensional and clichéd (single working mum with disabled kid, rich corporate mole who drives like she owns the world). The camera is so jerky it made me sick. This technique has only worked for the Blair Witch, and nothing else.

A women's Falling Down, not bloody likely. D-Fens would be rolling over his watery grave.

And these positive reviews that have been posted - film crew anyone? The only realistic aspect of this garbage is how women drivers are depicted. Now there's the real drama.


I thought this film had so much potential with the two women's lives running parallel and knowing they were going to intersect. But I felt dizzy by the stress and angst of the characters. I thought what might have made my viewing experience less dizzying was that their stress could have been exposed for sure but the character response to the stress could have been more tranquil. I mean who could live their lives like that. As it turned out the ending could have been even more dire given a two hour film with little touch with reality. Yes, we all have angst in our lives, loads of it but it's a personal choice to be that blinded by it.


I can't believe anyone thought this movie was any good. It follows 2 women, only one of whom generated any empathy with the audience, and even that was a stretch and only temporary as the movie unfolds. Life's hard - we knew that, but that's no excuse for what happens.

The whole thing was senseless, completely lacking in any material that was thought-provoking and a total waste of time.

There was an attempt at character development, but it was very shallow, especially considering events which occur later on which are not in keeping with what little character development did occur.

The ending, in contrast to what some other reviewers claimed, was not a shock other than that it was put together so poorly.

I suppose if you generally like movies aired on Lifetime, this one might be for you, but as for me it only reinforces the reasons why I generally don't bother with them.


I was astonished to learn that this mess of a movie was the 11th film Gillian Armstrong directed. Everything about it is clumsy and hackneyed; it feels like a just-graduated-from-film-school offering from a bright (but ADHD afflicted) young woman. Actress Jo Kennedy is asked to carry the audience through 95 minutes of utter nonsense and, bless her heart, she does. The only other memorable performance is by Pat Evison as the psychic grandma (of course, these psychic abilities are mentioned early on and then just dropped). Of course, this is a musical and I must admit that the pop tunes sprinkled throughout are enjoyable--and instantly forgettable.


The 1989 film has some good points, but, unlike the 1945, 1965, and 1974 versions, it grows less enjoyable with each viewing. Everything about it seems low-budget. The cast and script are undistinguished. The set is drab. The clothes look like cheap costumes. The plot takes too long to get going. Once it does, it unfolds well at first, with the early deaths resembling accidents. And, bettering all prior versions, the ending is dramatic, conveys murderous host Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.

Overall, however, the storytelling is inept. Too much is out of Owen's control, such as natives cutting down the basket that carries people down from the cliff and Lombard repairing the radio. After the third death, someone abruptly announces without any discussion or reasoning that "Mr. Owen is one of us." Unlike the other versions, the characters engage in no deductive reasoning or survival techniques.

The story drags. Only making matters worse are cheap, forced attempts to gin up suspense. These include the camera suddenly coming up short on characters; a character acting "awfully nervous" for no reason; and pratfall-type death scenes, with a body tumbling down from on top of a tent, another toppling out of a closet, mouth gaping, and another slumping forward with an ax in the back of the head.

Touches that made earlier versions entertaining are botched in 1989. The other films recite the full nursery rhyme up front, creatively playing it on the piano. But this script dribbles the rhyme out line by line upon each murder. Instead, it chooses to play "Mad Dogs and Englishmen," an annoying, madcap, out-of-place Noel Coward song with no apparent connection to Christie or appropriateness to this adaptation, which has so few British characters. This film makes an embarrassing hash of the scene in which the phonograph record is played accusing each person of a past crime. Repeatedly, the person whose name is unexpectedly about to be called next happens to pipe up with some exaggerated utterance, on cue, right before being named.

The 1989 film fails to discuss some past crimes at all (doctor, judge, Lombard). It distorts others (Blore, Marshall), to no good effect. In place of Christie's subtle crime of withheld care, Rodgers merely refers to an old lady in his care who "died of a massive stroke." In the film, Marston refers to a "couple running out in front of his car," without any mention of them being newlyweds or of him driving fast and drunk. The film dumbs down the book's most complex, interesting past crime to a bland reference to a child in Vera's care drowning.

All the good lines from other versions are gone in 1989, like "a feeling that some sort of macabre joke is being played on us," "game of the mind." In 1989, other than Owen's line "My own private big game hunt," there are just limp banalities ("The devil is among us"; Our duty, that's all any of us can hope to do"; "I never bet"; "When we get out of here, I'm going to teach you to shoot straight") or lines memorable only for making you cringe (judge, "I left immediately...to relieve myself"; Lombard to Vera, "Feel it, smell it," about gun).

In 1989, the casting and acting, strong points in past adaptations, go badly awry. An exception is Herbert Lom's delightfully dotty performance as the general, better than 1945, including a touching scene with Vera explaining his past. But Donald Pleasance is adrift, mostly acting detached and insipid, then suddenly erupting in a panic outburst or frantically pawing in a snuff box. Not until his final moments on screen does he play his character coherently and effectively.

Sarah Maur Thorp brings youthful energy and emotion to the role of Vera. But her acting becomes erratic and mechanical as she turns increasingly into a mere screaming hysteric, unlike June Duprez, who keeps a strong, intelligent presence during the 1945 film.

Brenda Vaccaro's uninspired, formless performance as actress Marshall consists of sighing, huffing, lounging around, and boozing. It is unbelievable that this plump, pampered lush would go on an African safari. Her only explanation? "I was invited. I received a letter in the post."

Blore's character has always been well-defined and well-acted before. But here, played by a bit-part TV character actor, he is just roly-poly, rough, loud, and sulky. His mumbled confession of his past crime is confused and miserably ineffective.

Marston, who rushes through a 2-second singing bit, the worst musical performance of any version, is a caricature of a fop. The film fails to place him in the context of a dissolute career or even mention his penchant for liquor and fast sportscars.

Paul Smith as Rodgers tries to let his hulking body do his acting for him, as Moira Lister, the wife, does with her shrill voice. He lumbers around scowling and bellowing laconically. She overacts as a loud, whiny motormouth. Their characters and relationship are not remotely believable.

Apparently, Frank Stallone's only qualification for Lombard was being a "hunk." His weak, vacant expressions and flat delivery are evident from his very first line. His acting is exemplified by the scene in which he shoves a pistol in Vera's face and cocks the trigger, oblivious that he has already started mouthing the line, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to scare you." Stallone's constant, supposedly sly, cocky grins destroy any sense of suspense. His only explanation for being there: "Owen had already paid [a friend's] way out, so I came instead."

Worst of all, Yehuda Efroni ruins the important character of the doctor. His bizarre, introverted, bug-eyed portrayal lacks any air of authority, intellect, charm, or even social skills. Through a heavy accent, he either stammers or, like a snapping turtle, spits out snippets of inarticulate dialogue. At one point, he cackles, at another acts befuddled, for no reason at all. Unlike any prior version, the doctor has no rapport with any other character.


For the most part this film is populated by some wonderful character actors.

Agatha Christie's original storyline is beyond reproach.

With building blocks like that to work with it's a wonder that director Alan Birkinshaw wasn't able to deliver something a little closer to the quality that thousands of Agatha Christie fans have come to expect. "Ten Little Indians" failed at nearly every level, from a poor script, to inept blocking and unimaginative camera angles, to cheap dime store sets and props, to trying to sensationalize Christie's wit by replacing it with crude graphic violence.

There have been other film adaptations of "Ten Little Indians" all of them head and shoulders above this one. On three prior occasions I've tried to sit through this film but without success. Today, just after having seen "And Then There Were None" (an excellent adaptation of "Ten Little Indians") Birkinshaw's version came on and I determined to sit through it all the way. My reward for that ordeal was to have the right to pan it publicly.


Nothing here has been improved upon from the original the first remake, and if you've seen either, then this is completely unsatisfying. Of all the actors in it, Brenda Vaccaro is the only one I think anyone would rent or tune in to see, not that this does her or anyone else in the cast justice. There is not one moment that you won't be wishing you were watching the original.


I am not going to sit here and go on yet another tirade on how sub par this 1989 version of Agatha Christie's novel is. We all know! I do not even mind that we have some (albeit CRAZY) fans of this film that think it is a true masterpiece. But the reviewer who wrote "Good Movie" and rated this film 10 stars needs to be thrown in jail, never to see the light of day again.

Obviously, there are people on here who do not take movies or these open forums seriously. If you liked the movie, fine. (Actually, I do feel it is much better than the horrendous 1974 version). But 10 stars out of 10!!! Even if this film wasn't based on a classic Christie novel, it would still NEVER, EVER deserve to be garnered with that amount of stars. What do you rate "Gone With the Wind" if you rate this campy, TV movie 10 stars? And to say that it is BETTER than Ms. Christie's novel. That comment made me regurgitate my entire lunch about 5 times. Better than the novel... I could at least respect, if still disagree, if this commentator had said they liked the original film version better than the novel. But this tepid piece that plays like a middle school drama club production? AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!


Mad scientist Boris Karloff (as Dr. John Garth) is sentenced to hang, as an admitted "mercy killer". But, since his research in medicine is so important, Mr. Karloff is permitted to continue experimenting, in a laboratory behind bars. Karloff thinks human cells could be prompted to reproduce forever, curing both disease and old age. Believing he is going to be executed, Karloff uses his experimental serum on himself, and is transfused with the blood of a convicted murderer. Then, suddenly, Karloff is paroled. He becomes twenty years younger, but must fight the urge to kill, Kill, KILL! A cheap, ludicrous, but bearable star vehicle.

**** Before I Hang (1940) Nick Grinde ~ Boris Karloff, Evelyn Keyes, Pedro de Cordoba


Kindly Dr. John Garth (Boris Karloff) is found guilty of a mercy killing and sentenced to hang. While in prison he experiments in trying to find a serum that halts old age. He uses the blood of an executed murderer and tries it on himself. He is then pardoned and finds the serum works...but it turns him into a cold-blooded killer which he has no control over.

This is pretty much a forgotten movie and it's easy to see why. It's pretty slow and dull with terrible dialogue and questionable science. Also it's (technically) not a horror movie--it plays more like a melodrama with horrific touches. Wonderful actress Evelyn Keyes is in here too but is given nothing to do. Karloff single-handedly saves this from total disaster. He's just great in his role--he makes the worst dialogue sound like Shakespeare! Also when the killing urge takes over you can actually see the changes in his face and mannerisms and there are also some nice atmospheric scenes at the end. There's a funny lapse in continuity--Keyes finds out by the morning paper about a murderer--but a scene outside the house shows it's night time! This is really only for Karloff fans. I give it a 4.


Before I Hang: 3 out of 10: Boris Karloff stars as Dr. Kevorkian in this expose of stem cell research gone wrong.

Okay maybe that is not completely accurate but one might certainly think along those lines as a doctor found guilty of a mercy killing is sentenced to hang despite his promising youth serum.

Karloff quickly finds himself in a prison experimenting with the blood of a recently hanged killer the clock ticking against his own execution. He injects himself with the serum it works the governor pardons him and he goes off to save the world. Actually that is not completely accurate as well. Apparently the blood came from the prisoner "Abby Normal" and Karloff starts getting that look in his eyes and his over-sized handkerchief out of his pocket and the population of the movie starts dropping precipitously.

The movie is poorly directed and despite some initially good albeit rushed ideas it quickly falls into the old blood memory turns man into killer nonsense. The pacing is bizarre with a ton of plot simply explained through voice-over (the hanging verdict in particular seems unlikely as shown) in the first half the second half with Karloff stalking the elderly drags.

A weak film that starts of strong and quickly goes nowhere.


I can agree with the critics, this film certainly started the downfall and eventually end of the Carry On franchise, followed by England, Emmannuelle, and ending with Columbus, all getting one out of five stars, deservedly. It is basically another Carry On Camping, with caravans. So Professors Anna Vooshka (Elke Sommer) and Roland Crump (Kenneth Williams) visit the archaeological site for artifacts, randy site owner Major Leep (Kenneth Connor) tries to keep most things in order, husband Arthur Upmore (Bernard Bresslaw) and Linda (Patsy Rowlands) are trying to enjoy themselves, but have snobbish mother Daphne Barnes (Joan Sims) nagging, butcher Fred Ramsden (Windsor Davies) and Ernie Bragg (Jack Douglas) are misbehaving without their wives to see, and Henry Barnes (Peter Butterworth) is the odd-job man, oh, and Joe Baxter (Dad's Army's Ian Lavender) is about too. Also starring Liz Fraser as Sylvia Ramsden, Adrienne Posta as Norma Baxter, Patricia Franklin as Vera Bragg, Donald Hewlett as The Dean and Carol Hawkins as Sandra. Sid James didn't want to, Barbara Windsor was away, and Charles Hawtrey quit the Carry Ons after Abroad, so no wonder it was doomed to be a repeat of Camping. The most innuendos, and not all funny ones it should be said, come from Sommer and Williams, mainly because of Sommer's weird Russian accent, it's just not as funny as it tries to be, and there's worse to come, trust me. Adequate!


I've ticked the spoiler box just in case, but anyone familiar with the 'Carry On' series knows there's never any plot to spoil. If a geriatric Sid James going on a camping holiday to try to 'get off' with his 33-year-old girlfriend in 'Carry On Camping' seemed out of date for 1969, then watch this desperate rehash with your thumb poised above the fast forward button: Swedish stunner Elke Sommer sets off with fellow archaeologist Kenneth Williams (passable, but the same) on a hunt for missing pieces to a naughty Roman mosaic buried underneath a caravan site in the summer season. Flaccid 'jokes', laboured slapstick and bad editing abound with a foul-mouthed flyaway mynah bird, a runaway Irish wolfhound, midnight pratfalls in nightdresses and pyjamas, and the inevitable shower stall scenes.

As with Hammer's formula-into-film, how could any of them, scriptwriter, crew, players or audience, not have realized that it was all old hat, so very, very flogged to death and utterly and irrevocably over? Offensive not just to all women everywhere, but to every sentient creature in the universe, this arrant nonsense will serve its best ever purpose by keeping a date with the recycling bin.


This film has the carry oners on holiday at a caravan park. Immediately, you get the feeling you've been here before. I tried to like this film, but I just didn't find it very funny. I found the humor somewhat forced and obvious, which you expect, but they have in the past still made it fresh. The silly factor is major here, which normally is fine, but it doesn't work here. The jokes are here, but it wasn't the kind of film where they are many and, again, they seem forced. I would recommend other Carry On films before this, many of them. Not horrible, and there are some amusing moments, but not up to their usual standard.


Oh dear.In a desperate attempt to keep up with the Paul Raymond/Fiona Richmond era of tacky English semi - porn,the "Carry On" production team came up with this absolute stinker.They even had the gall to use the same location as the immortal "Carry on Camping" as if they were hoping that some of the magic might brush off onto the dandruff - ridden crumpled shoulders of this dirty mac of a movie.Well,I promise you it didn't.With "Carry on Behind",the comedy lights went out all over Pinewood. It has none of the innocent,cheery, Music Hall quality of the earlier movies,here we see unpleasant sneering jokes that demean women.Even a performer like Mr Kenneth Williams - a master at transforming poor material - can do nothing with this trash.He looks tired and dispirited. When he fell into a cesspit he probably felt a deep sense of relief. Two of the cast of the current TV hit "It ain't half hot mum!" make an appearance but were clearly uncomfortable with a script that makes the Croft/Perry series seem like the work of Noel Coward.In particular Mr Windsor Davies - a very funny man - is wasted in the role of a randy butcher off for a weekend's leering with the near - catatonic Mr Jack Douglas. Mr Bresslaw and Miss Sims both seem vaguely embarrassed.Mr Connor is very bad as a retired army officer. As dear Oscar once said,"There is nothing so old - fashioned as being absolutely up - to - date".With its flowery shirts,flares,silly hair,crap colour and pointy collars,"Carry on behind" was on the button archetypal mid 70s - there was even an Austin Maxi.But,more than nearly any other "Carry on",it has aged badly.Like Don Revie's Leeds Utd and the Bay City Rollers it is best forgotten.


By this time (1975) the humour of the double entendre was wearing thin - every line had been done over and over in previous Carry On movies, plus most of the original Carry On team had either passed away or just passed on appearing in this shocker. (Unfortunately, this wasn't the worst as Carry On Emmannuel was to follow and finally kill off the Carry On franchise.) Kenneth Williams can only flare his enormous nostrils so much before you want to stuff them with carrots. He wrote in his diary: "...it's the worst script I've ever read." "...it is unfunny and is mostly concerned with heavily contrived slapstick. Don't know why on earth they offer it to me." So, if it's a rainy winter's afternoon, you're not feeling well, there's nothing on any other TV channel and you PC is broken, then watch this... it'll pass the time. Otherwise, go do something else!


CARRY ON BEHIND

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

An archaeological team encounters a variety of comic mishaps whilst excavating ancient ruins beneath a dilapidated caravan park.

In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the "Carry On" series to, er... carry on following the retirement of regular scriptwriter Talbot Rothwell due to ill health. Few writers could have matched his genius for puns and wordplay, least of all TV journeyman Dave Freeman, who swapped the playful innuendo of his illustrious predecessor with single-entendre gags and near-the-knuckle sexual references ('erection' jokes had become permissible at PG-level in 1975). Still, CARRY ON BEHIND amounts to a fair imitation of the 'real thing', putting its game cast of veterans and newcomers through a free-form remake of CARRY ON CAMPING (1969), minus the flying bras and hilarious hippies of that earlier outing!

Shot in the dead of winter in a muddy field round the back of Pinewood studios (note the visible breath from actors dressed in summer clothing!), the movie revels in its own shortcomings. Top-billed Kenneth Williams had always been contemptuous of this material, but he must have despaired of the sudden downturn in production values, even by "Carry On" standards. Nevertheless, he acts up a storm as renowned archaeologist 'Professor Roland Crump', whose lecture to a bored-looking Town Hall audience in the opening scene is enlivened when his 'film show' turns out to contain footage of a stripper (as the girl is about to remove her bra, an oblivious Williams intones: "Miss Fosdyke is about to reveal something of ENORMOUS interest!"). But Williams - so often the star of these shows by default - is almost completely upstaged by Britt Ekland, utterly delightful as a vivacious Russian scientist whose basic grasp of English gets her into all sorts of trouble ("Professor Crump and I vill soon be having it off!" "No, no - HITTING it off!!"). Co-star Joan Sims is in full battleaxe mode, sharing much of her screen time with a rude Mynah bird (voiced, uncredited, by director Gerald Thomas), while middle-aged lotharios Windsor Davies and Jack Douglas make fools of themselves by pursuing a couple of bosomy dolly-birds (Carol Hawkins and "Coronation Street"s Sherrie Hewson). Best gag: When a crowd of holidaymakers lose the seat of their pants after sitting on newly-painted chairs, site owner Kenneth Connor promises a thorough investigation: "I'll get to the bottom of this - I feel a complete arse!"

Though cheap and cheerful in its own debased way, this was the last of the 'good' "Carry On" movies. Denied the opportunity by British censors to exploit newfound sexual freedoms enjoyed by moviegoers across the rest of the world, Adult filmmakers merely co-opted the sex-based humor of Thomas' long-running series and rendered explicit what had always been implied by Rothwell's fruity screenplays, adding softcore sex and nudity to an ultra-commercial brew (I'M NOT FEELING MYSELF TONIGHT, CAN YOU KEEP IT UP FOR A WEEK?, the "Confessions" series, etc.). Unwilling to compete with such material, and having lost both Rothwell and star Sid James (he died onstage at the Sunderland Empire theatre in 1976), the series plunged into serious decline with the following entry, CARRY ON ENGLAND (1976), a wartime farce which swapped wit and cleverness for puerile pratfalls and naked female breasts, earning the franchise its first restrictive censor rating in the UK (AA - no one under 14 allowed).


Misses the mark and unmemorable. Jumping up and hitting one's head on something is mildly amusing once but it happens a lot in this film and gets tedious. Likewise, two strangers (one attractive) falling over and getting entangled just as the ugly party's wife or husband appears - a tedious cliché, and there's a lot of it here.

 Sid James, Hattie Jacques and Charles Hawtrey are greatly missed and although the others try to make good the deficiency the film just doesn't get going. At least Ian Lavender in a minor part was wasn't tempted to reprise Private Pike. My favourites in this film - Bernard Breslaw and Peter Butterworth.


Ugh... horrible. In an earlier review I remarked how the worlds of Carry On and On The Buses were poles apart. But then I hadn't seen Carry On Behind, which makes "Buses" seem the height of sophistication.

Opening with a cheesy cartoon of animated bottoms, the meaningless title ("Camping" had already been done six years earlier) is illustrated in the most literal way. The direction and timing of the jokes are so off it's untrue. In fact, I'd guessed every single joke before I'd even seen the film - that's how predictable they are. Occasional lines get a laugh, such as a scene where Windsor Davies's beach ball lands on a bonfire. "Me ball's burning!" he cries, obviously a cue for a cheap testicle-related pun. However, the uninspired "Well don't stand so close to the fire!" is made amusing by the delivery of the very funny Peter Butterworth.

Generally, though, none of the actors do well, with even the usually hilarious Kenneth Williams struggling with the feeble script. Bernard Bresslaw also flounders with a film that has a "comedy whistle" sound effect as he sits on a cactus (twice). Rarely has visual humour been so witlessly contrived. Windsor Davies (so-so) and Jack Douglas (desperately unfunny) are on a fishing holiday, leading to much lame innuendo around the words "tackle" and "flies".

Williams is an archaeological Professor, teamed with Elke Sommer as Professor Vooshka. A pidgin English-speaking "foreigner" who seems to be a prerequisite for cheap 70s comedies, the character exists only to mistakenly say such phrases as "having it off" and "making oats". The only time this dated stereotype produces a laugh is when she exclaims to Windsor Davies that an injured Ken is "bleeding terrible." "Never mind his qualifications," Davies replies, "is he hurt badly?" Yes, that's one of the better ones.

The thing about great comedy is that it arises naturally out of the situation. This is not great comedy. How two grown men and women could get embarrassed from the implications of "stuffing" being on a menu is beyond me. Davies and Douglas are middle-aged schoolboys, waiting between the pauses until someone says the word "bit" so they can fall into helpless laughter once more. It's this relentless scraping for the lowest common denominator of laughs that drags Behind down into the depths.

The female cast is even worse, and the movie sorely misses a Sid James or a Barbara Windsor. Joan Sims is wasted in an underwritten role, and its non-star heavy status gives the impression of a pared-down production. The small setting also concedes the lack of ambition present. It's entries like this that give Carry On its poor reputation in some circles. If you learn that a subplot involves a large hungry dog and a Minor bird that swears and says "show us yer knickers" then you'll see the level of the "humour". Mixed showers, falling into cesspits, lousy incidental music, it's all truly, terribly unfunny.

Where the 60s had seen the series try out constant experiments (Carry On Spying, not very funny but innovative) and expand its scope (Cowboy, Screaming, Khyber), the 70s saw it happy to rest on its laurels. While the last three movies of the 60s were a step down from Khyber, they generally held the era in good stead. Things weren't so bad to begin with, with the first entry of a new decade the fairly standard Up The Jungle. While at times messy and underdeveloped, it's possibly the rudest Carry On, with bestiality making an incongruous appearance during its lunchtime screenings. Loving was underrated, and descended into slapstick homage, while Convenience was also an amusing exploration of the coarseness of the series. However, Henry was a one-joke movie, Abroad had potential squandered and Matron (qv) was possibly the weakest of the overrated medical excursions. Girls was also overlooked, however, and Dick earned its reputation as "the last decent Carry On movie". Post-Behind, England was a laugh vacuum, though the rumours of Emmannuelle being pornographic are, of course, a myth. The other rumour - that it's abysmal - is, sadly, completely true. Though then again, the warning signs should show when it opens with a theme song by Kenny Lynch. Lance Peters's script seems to be a formula of what people think a Carry On is about, rather than a film in its own right, while the overlong scenes and flat direction justify why this one killed the series off. After this low point, it was down to woeful 90s revival Columbus to hammer the final nail in the coffin.

At date of writing a new Carry On for the 21st century is being planned - Carry On London. Will it be able to reverse the downward slope that began right here, with Carry On Behind, the first truly bad entry in the series?


Comedy GOLD. I don't want to give any false notions by assigning a higher rating because this movie is truly bad. But it's bad in a good way! A few Dare-You-Not-To-Laugh moments: 1) When the guy in the pig mask shows up. 2) When the female lead does her little dance in front our hero while he works out. 3) The fight in the parking garage where the hero takes out a whole group of guys with what looks like a plastic broom handle.

Rest assured there are plenty more moments of unintentional hilarity, but these you must discover for yourself. The only thing more hilarious is the fact that there is apparently a sequel. I'll have to track that one down. Bad movie fans rejoice!


I picked up this movie on DVD as it was 99p in 99p stores in Norwich. I watched it with my brother and it truly is crap. The acting is bad by everyone. The lead is played by an "actor" who looks like Stephen Hendry. (He's a Snooker World Champion for all the Americans). Any film that is cheap and Australian is bad. The woman looks like some cheap hooker they picked up off the street and the bad guy is definitely a pimp! I loved those men in masks! Damn I would not be scared if they were after me! Seriously though they do belong in a circus. The martial arts are OKish but you know "Jason Blade" (sorry that name makes me laugh) is going to win the fights. I keep this movie as it is a reminder that TV can be bad... sometimes. Watch this movie just to laugh. The clichéd baddies and the poorly delivered lines cheer me up every time I'm down. Bad.


"Day of the Panther" begins with a young blonde chick taking on several masked thugs at an abandoned building (in a sequence that would have worked better if it wasn't intercut with other events happening elsewhere - a mistake that the director repeats at the end of the movie). She fights quite well, but she gets killed off (bummer!), and her partner, Jason Blade (Edward John Stazak) takes charge from then on. This guy has zero charisma, but I have to give credit where credit is due: when it comes to the martial arts he knows what he is doing, his execution is fast and smooth. The story is totally formulaic, and the cinematography has a cheap, overexposed look, as if the film stock was left out in the sun too long. (*1/2)


I've had the chance to see this movie yesterday in Paris before I leave. From the trailer, I thought it's worth seeing as it looks like a good thriller/horror film. But I was so disappointed. The story line is somehow predictable. It lacks originality and you can easily compare it to a masterpiece of cinema (i'm not gonna mention the name, but i'm pretty sure you'll guess it). As for the cast, I think they were over-acting here and there, maybe due to the weak script and the empty moments where they look like not knowing what to fill the scene with. But hey, not everything is bad, you'll enjoy some good cinematography in some scenes, specially in the beginning. Unfortunately, i think it's a missed opportunity and as we say in french: Dommage, c'est raté!


I sometimes like to watch a "classic" that I have never seen before.

I was fully expecting to see a great film, based on the Oscars and the actors. What I received was a reminder that Oscars are given primarily for bold moves in the film industry (now no longer bold) and acting has come a long way since the 50s.

I don't normally "bash" on the classics, but I certainly did not get half of what I was expecting. Here are some painful points:

- All of the actors and actresses seemed very rigid, like they were trying to hit some sort of queue mark -- save Sidney at moments and the gentleman that saved them from the mob. - Sidney's singing was very annoying (I knew that he was trying to show his defiance, but it was so annoying and without feeling it diminished the point).

- Everyone was quick to light up a cancer-stick. We're drowned, beat up, dogs on our tail - but hey, lets act cool right now and make it a point to have a puff or two before we say some really deep lines to each other.

- Guy with dogs seriously overacted - I've never seen anyone try to pet a dog so fast and hard. He was harder on the dogs than the hunt was.

- Sheriff was totally unbelievable. Would pause at odd times and I had to wonder if I had ever met anyone so lethargic before.

- Cara Wiliams had the best part of all - play a mother that throws her kid away while throwing herself at some con that walks into your house. - duh.

Here are some good points:

- Seeing a much younger Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier was kinda neat.

- The racial animosity/tolerance thing. I can imagine that, for its time, this was a very bold move. While both overdone and underdone at times, it still serves us a reminder that people are people and we should try and forget the stereotypes we create. -- (it was this that got me to the end of the movie).

- You will better appreciate films being created today even the two stars :)


A case when husband is short and common, ordinary person and wife is tall, model-type, is bound to create confusions and complexes. An interesting premise indeed as today's audience is ready to accept such unconventional subjects but what a pity that neither the idea is developed properly, nor the subject is explored well. This is second feature film of editor turned director Chandan Arora. The film shows lot of promise when it begins but such a thin storyline is not backed by powerful script that requires interesting incidents and characters. Dialogues are too ordinary. The performances of all three lead actors are good but that cannot save the film from becoming a very routine, dull exercise which moves with a snail-pace and follows a common, predictable path with not enough humor or those slice-of-life fine, touching moments to hold audience interest for long. The film we see from point of view of a husband but that also gets lost somewhere. When husband starts suspecting wife the whole premise becomes narrow as this is been done to death in past. Another problem here is characterization, as wife comes across so sugar-sweet and near perfect and husband the innocent, angel type-both very one-dimensional. One plus point of this film is that aspect of a middle class life of Lucknow city is covered well. Another plus is that common box-office ingredients are thankfully avoided here. I wish Makers in general, should understand the fact that when such uncommon themes are chosen, more effort and homework is required in presenting a new angle as well as packing it with interesting elements.


The first hour of this movie was very entertaining, even if it did offer up the normal clichés of the day. It featured good suspense and a likable hero played by Wesley Snipes. I was really enjoying this, but - yes, but - the film goes right down the tubes in the last 40 minutes. The last 20 minutes will really have you cringing.

Not only does the story get convoluted, it loses all credibility. A murder at the White House and no FBI? That's just one of many loopholes. We wind up getting the same tired military-and U.S. government-are-the-bad guys bias that we've seen upteen times in the past 40 years. Hey, the film is entertaining but if you have a brain, you might have problems with this story.

By the way, any film that includes post-MASH Alan Alda or pre-9/11 Dennis Miller is usually pretty bad. We get both in this film.

The ending is so ludicrous, such an insult to anyone's intelligence, that is has to offend anyone, regardless of their political persuasion. This is one of the few films that ends so poorly that both Liberals and Conservatives would agree.

In fact, most people agreed that this film was great for the first half, horrible in the second and was filled with too many clichés that ruined a movie which good have been a good one. Another clue to what you have here is that this was directed by the same guy who did "Halloween 4" and "Free Willy 2."


Two girls are about to enter some kind of sorority organization (which includes two other girls and their bfs.). First they undergo a little spanking , then they do some push-ups with a cream all over their bras. After 15 mins or so of that i started thinking that the title "Butchered" doesn't really fit in here. After fast-forwarding those scenes, the movie changes its direction a little bit. The third and the last test the girls have to do ,to join the club is to spend the night in an abandoned house. They didn't expect that the club members prepared another surprise for them. And the club members didn't expect a house' owner - a deformed maniac with a butcher's knife to prepare a big and bloody surprise for them all...

For its budget, "Butchered" has good special effects (director Joe Castro is a make-up artist) , and some decent gore. Though its not as realistic as for example Olaf Ittenbach's gore in "Premutos" and "Burning Moon" , but pretty solid. The directing is not very good , and is shot with a home camera. The movie is also very dark - bad lights i guess. I don't have to talk about the acting...there is none.

Our maniac is a female by the way ! That was sort of a fresh idea. She is deformed, has big ugly teeth and wears white mask. Oh yeah , i almost forgot about the butcher's knife. She turns out to be nearly twice stronger than those two guys from the club. Music is boring , and starts to annoy after 15-20 minutes.

Verdict : Boring gore fest. Annoying Music , stupid acting. Even first 15 mins of the movie don't save it. Once again , they've had a good idea , and totally spoiled it.


The best sequence in "Butchered" occurs early on, when two girls are spanked with paddles by two other girls and then are forced to do "squishy" push-ups (you'll see what that means), as part of a sorority initiation. I must admit I found all of this quite a turn-on. But when the action moves on to the "haunted" house, the film offers nothing but derivative plotting, overacting, screaming, wandering around, watery blood and fake/exaggerated gore. I will give it * out of 4 for the effort; it's obvious that the people who made it do love horror flicks (they even included a double homage to "Halloween" and "Psycho" at the start). That doesn't mean they had enough talent to make one though!


Well, the story is nothing new here: two girls wish to join a sorority and are asked as their final pledge initiation test to stay in a house known to be haunted(after licking sandals with chocolate sauce and being spanked with a big paddle labeled Daddy). The girls who are testing them and their boyfriends go to the house later that evening to scare them. Trouble of course comes to all when a girl, with an inhuman build and deformed body, starts terrorizing all of them(plus the obligatory pizza guy and a homeless man). Butchered is a bad picture all the way: with actors with virtually no range, hokey special effects, crude plot devices shown on film such as vomiting, a grade z budget, and a story that has been done in some form or fashion many, many times. But the makers of this film weren't trying to do anything else but show a lot of bloodletting, smashed heads and faces, eye gouging, knife cuts and slashes, and the typical devices used in a film of this ilk. We also get a "ghost" with braces. I'm not a gore-hound by any means, but if seeing plastic heads repeatedly slashed at is your thing, then you will be in for a treat. None of the characters are compelling, the plot is threadbare, and there is virtually no humour. Usually a film like this makes fun of itself in some way. What does it have going for it? All of the female cast, except Rebecca and the redheaded ghost with the braces, are very easy on the eyes. Susan Smythe in particular is an eyeful. Only one of the female thespians disrobes so don't expect too much in that area either. The other big plus is that the film lasts only 76 minutes. And as a final plus, I can say that for a bad film, Butchered is at the very least watchable. I didn't have to fast-forward, but rest assured I will not invest another 76 minutes to ever see it again.


This one really is as cheapo as they come! The motivation to make it in the first place clearly comes from someone finding a big abandoned house in which to shoot the majority of this very unscary piece or rubbish. The only parts worth exposing your mind to are the 'blood and gore' moments, or 'rubber and watery ketchup' as they should be known. I have never seen pin-headed latex dummies take such a butchering as in this film. The lanky killer dispatches her victims in a variety of ludicrous ways, from snapped arms to hacked-up heads. The thing is that it's all so rubbery and unconvincing that hysterical laughter is often the response, providing much need respite from the dreadful 'plot'. Utter nonsense but worth a watch purely for the manner and delivery of each kill.


Thank you! t.v. cable cheap channels that have the courage to air this direct to video horror cheese flicks! When there's nothing to do at midnight on the week, these flicks air and believe me it's a pleasure for me to watch as I'm a lover of the low budget.

"Butchered" follows the same plot as in "HellNight", "The Initiation", and many more slasher flicks from the early 80's. The problem is that this flick from the year 2003 doesn't offers anything you haven't seen.

The "killer" kind of reminds me of the Garth Manion monsters from "HellNight" but not as near as scary. Ugh. This is a flick to booth from the trash can!.

The flick has cheap gore effects, scares, and a dull direction even for a direct to video mess! Watch it if you're like me, a hardcore fan of low budget horror flicks.


For a low budget movie I guess you can say that it...no, can't even say anything good about this film. Sorry, I tried. From the start to the finish this film had no signs of a script, direction, talent,...the works. If you like cheesy horror films that follow the same mass produced guideline over and over again, then this is your flick. But if you're looking for some entertainment value...something that will peak your interest for at least 2 minutes, then you definitely need to stay away from this one.

Not only are the dialogue and direction horrible, but the actors...if they possess any talent...aren't allowed to show it due to a lack of any kind of organization. The story seems to go everywhere, but take us nowhere. Certain scenes drag on for what seems like hours at a time. And the movie finale leaves you with more of sense of "Thank God it's over", then "Wow, I can't believe she made it." For the most part, the producers should have reinvested their money into another project in stead of giving us this one. It's 76 minutes that you'll never get back. (30 if you fast forward like I did).


This movie is mildly entertaining but there are a ridiculous amount of loop holes. In fact, there are so many that it becomes distracting while viewing the film. This is quite disappointing because the idea of the film has so much more potential, although it is an idea that has remarkable similarities to about 20 other zombie type flicks. First i'll start off with what i liked, then i will continue with a list of loopholes and other points that ruin this movie.

-The lab scene at the beginning is a decent introduction. I like this explanation of where the virus came from considering real life viruses such as AIDs supposedly came from chimps. I also found it a much more believable reason for a apocalypse type virus than in other movies, at least the virus didn't come in an asteroid or something. I found "Dawn of the Dead" to be quite similar to this movie in so many ways but in "Dawn of the Dead", they don't give you an explanation of where the virus came from. I also liked how there is a little more to the story than just fighting off zombies. Actually, most of the movie doesn't even involve fighting off zombies, most of it is them just talking (which makes the movie kind of boring at times).

*Now for the parts that make this movie horrible* -So he wakes up in the hospital and is the only one there? For one, why would there not be other patients who couldn't leave such as the disabled, secondly, if the hospital was evacuated, why would they just leave him there.

-If there was no one there to fill his feeding tubes and stuff, why wouldn't he have died in his sleep -If there is no power in the city, why is the grocery store all lit up inside, especially if there is no one to continue running the power plants.

-So your telling me that with a disaster such as an exodus from Britian, that there were no riots or panicking and nobody tried raiding stores. The food is perfectly stacked and nothing seems to be missing in the grocery store. I would think at least somebody would have gone in there to grab some supplies.

-If these infected people are so vicious and all they do is blood lust, then why do they not attack each other. That makes absolutely no sense.

-How come the infected are never seen unless the characters are vulnerable? They always show up in hordes yet while looking over the city, you never see them wandering in the streets. At least in "Dawn of the Dead" there were masses of zombies everywhere, which made sense if the population was supposed to be infected.

-Apparently a rickety piece of junk taxi can drive like a monster truck over wrecked cars in the tunnel. Why does that make sense? And all they get is a flat.

-Considering the city is supposed to be abandoned besides those who are infected, you would think there would be a lot more parked cars, wrecked cars, and other common city street objects.

-So if the infected are supposed to be vicious and killing machines, then why are there no corpses on the streets? Besides the loft in the church, there were a total of like 10 corpses in the whole movie.

-If the infected kill because they have "rage" and not for eating the people, then what do they eat to survive. You never see them eating anyone, so you'd think that after 28 days of not eating anything, they would have died. If they don't eat their victims, what are they eating since the grocery stores are intact.

-When they are filling up with gas, i find it very curious that even though they know not to go anywhere alone, Jim decides to go wandering into a dark shack by himself for absolutely no reason. Big surprise that there's an infected person in there...

-So these military guys have this secure base set up and apparently nobody but they survived the move from the previous base. At the barricade there were parked cars and stuff implying that there were civilians that came yet there are none with the leftover military men.

-You think that trained military men would be able able to find a slightly more secure place to make a base. If they planned on surviving there for a long time, i think it would make sense to find a place more easily defend-able.

-This is what really doesn't make sense: If these military guys have the radios to send out a strong broadcast, then why would they not be able to pick up transmissions from other countries that are not infected? -If there are other countries that are not infected, then why would none of them be concerned with finding survivors in Britain. If they do this at the end by flying over the country side with a jet, then why would the military guys never see a plane that would give them hope that the rest of the world is OK.

-Apparently a scrawny bike carrier can undermine 8 or 9 trained military personnel. He somehow gets back onto the property unnoticed (which nobody has been able to do yet), then he sneaks around the property like some sort of ninja, then moves throughout the house without running into any of the military guys or any of the infected military guys. Why is he so skilled all of a sudden.

That about covers all the loopholes i can think of. I'm sure there are many more but that just goes to show how ridiculous this movie is. I'm normally not so picky about movies but this one just bugs me.


I first saw this film at a test screening about 6 months ago. I decided not to post a review then, as I assumed that there was no way the film would be released as it was, considering the reaction of the test audience. However, it was.

The trailer actually makes the film appear to be quite promising. The audience is promised a tale of virus-ravaged UK, and one man's ordeal to survive. Upon seeing the film, the ordeal is suffered by the audience, who thankfully only have just short of two hours to get through.

The film does indeed begin with a virus being let loose upon the good citizens of Great Britain. After the brief set up, we join Jim (Murphy), a bicycle courier who was locked in a hospital room during the initial 28 days, waking from a coma. After the much publicised scenes of Jim staggering around a deserted London, he hooks up with love interest Selena, and a father and daughter. The quintuplet then embark upon a mostly tedious journey to Manchester, where Major West (Ecclestone) resides over a military base.

The problems with this film are numerous. The script is abysmal, and is not helped along by the performances of the leads. The dull lines are droned out by Murphy in a whinge-like monotone, whilst the usually excellent Christopher Ecclestone delivers his lines like he's in the school play. Thankfully, single-father Frank (Brendan Gleeson) is performed thoughtfully and with warmth. It is a great credit to Gleeson that he turns in such a performance when given such a disgraceful script.

The film is also not helped by the story. It is so ludicrous in places that Jim could have hopped on the London bus at the beginning of the film and driven it through many of the holes. For a capital that has been ravaged by a virus, and evacuated, there is remarkably little evidence left behind. Where are all the vehicles? Why have the shops not been looted?

**********SPOILER PARAGRAPH**************** To top the lot, we are expected to believe that an entire army unit has a) managed to do what apparently only four other people have achieved by staying alive, and b) have gone mad. Have they gone mad because of the virus? No. They've just gone mad. That's it. **********END OF SPOILER*******************

The film looks cheap. Not in a stylish, atmospheric way - it just looks cheap. To give credit where it's due, the zombie attack scenes are reasonably effective. They are powerful and violent enough to ramp up the tension, but this only contrasts to make the rest of the film feel even lamer.

Perhaps the must heinous crime this film commits is that it is excruciatingly boring. A number of people at the test screening actually got up and left. Considering test screenings are free, that goes some way towards explaining just how dull the film is.

I think I've made my point. Two minutes of genuinely scary zombie attacks do not constitute a sufficient payoff for sitting through what is, in summary, a very poor, dull, cheap-looking, boring film. Avoid like the Rage virus - if you go in to this film, it will feel like you're leaving it 28 days later.


Though the film had started with a good idea, there seemed to be no plot among all the running about and blood spattering. Also just when you think everything will be ok, it takes a new twist - everything then doesn't seem to make any sense at all.. and you just leave the cinema muttering "what was that all about". Would not recommend it


Waris Hussein is a talented director but not someone I would pick to helm a quirky, romantic comedy-drama. Hussein's films, such as this one or "The Possession of Joel Delaney", clearly pinpoint the stamp he likes to leave: peculiar plot structures, depressed or otherwise forlorn characters, bleak and muted surroundings. In "Quackser Fortune" (how's that for a title?), Gene Wilder works in Dublin scooping up horse droppings from the carriages to sell for fertilizer; he eventually meets ever-kooky Margot Kidder, who is sort of a displaced hippie. I saw this in 1975 when it played a double-bill with "The Other Side Of The Mountain"; it came on second and proceeded to empty out the theater. I was glad I stayed to watch because it's so very unusual. However, it is such an oddity that even when A&E's Biography did an hour on Margot Kidder's career, it wasn't even mentioned. ** from ****


Match 1) Spike Dudley and the Dudleys Vs. Rey Mysterio, Paul London and Kidman. I found this match pretty long and boring. Not really giving two s#!+s about any of the wrestlers (excluding Mysterio of course) didn't help matters. As bland and boring as it was, it wasn't the worst of this pay per view. The Dudleys won but does anyone care? 3/10. They plays clips from Monday night Raw on how the next match/ love feud came about. Match 2) Matt Hardy Vs. Kane for Lita's pregnant hand in marriage with Kane's baby. Kane ceased being cool when he lost his mask and the dropped the hideously scarred face plot line, so I really wasn't looking forward to this match that much. Kane wins after an amazing choke slam, the only notable thing of the match. This causes Lita to run away 3/10. John Cena interrupts an interview with Randy Orton. Man I hate Cena. Match 3) Booker T Vs. wigger John Cena. After a lousy match, Cena wins 2/10.Theo Long and Eric Bischoff talk. Match 4) Batista Vs. Chris Jericho Vs. Edge in a Triple Theat Matchin a good match, then again it might have only looked good because of the lameness that came bore. 4/10. A promo for "Hard Knocks: the Chris Benoit Story" is shown. Match 5) Eddie Guerro Vs. Kurt Angle Good Ole' Kurt rarely disappoints in his matches and this one was no exception. Both are very capable technical wrestlers and it shows. Angle wins in one of the few bright spots of this PPV. 8/10. Clips of the events leading up to the next event are shown Match 6) Triple H beats Eugene in an alright match. Not really a Eugene fan. 5/10. Match 7) Diva Dodgeball. God the horror, the horror. Worse then a women's match (if such a thing is even possible) Simply horrid 0/10. Match 8) Undertaker Vs. JBL, after a good lengthy match JBL wins via disqualification, but Undertaker isn't done pummeling JBL yet. 8.5/10. Paramedics tend to JBL and cart him away. Commercial for Wrestlemania 21. Match 9) Randy Orton Vs. Chris Beniot. I like Orton's Motorhead theme song. Orton wins in a pretty tight match, becoming the World Champion. not the best match, but in the top 3 of the night 8/10

My Overall Grade:C-

DVD Extras: 11 Summerslam Promos; Behind the scenes of said promos; 3 clips from the Sunday Night Heat before the PPV; Evolution reacting to Orton's Victory; Eddie Guerrero consoling Benoit after his match; The Diva contestants being interviewed; and Trailers for the Gamecube game "Day of Reckoning", "Cheating Death, Stealing Life: the Eddie Guerrero Story", & "Vengence 2004"


Most of this film shows the late Jeffrey Strouth, in the back seat of a car, talking and talking and talking and talking about his many unusual experiences. Either he has a huge, exaggeration-inflated imagination, or, he's one of those folks who is extremely often effected by planned and co-incidental timing, resulting in his involvement in a plethora of rare occurrences. In any event, I don't dispute the interestingness of his tales. But I sure did get tired of his banter: a style which others have characterized as queenish and effeminate. Sorry if I'm dwelling too much on delivery and not enough on substance. I'm not bothered by fingernails screeching on a chalkboard; but Jeffrey's rambling really turned me off - to the extent that I was unable to fully concentrate on the dialogue. Therefore, it's MY expectation that, in this case, the book must certainly be better than the movie.


The terrible script completely destroys this film. That's a shame, because I'm a huge fan of Bogart and Bacall. The film has first person camera work which is excellent, and the supporting cast is fantastic. However, Bogey's character acts like a total moron, leaving his fingerprints on every crime scene he finds himself at, and crime scenes follow him like a a five year old follows an ice cream truck. There is one phony plot contrivance after another. Bacall's character would have to be insane to believe that Bogey's character is innocent -- every time he goes to see someone, they die! He always has an explanation, and it always sounds false.

In short, the awful script destroys what is, in every other way, an excellent film.


I found this one a disappointment on just about every level. The Bacall-Bogart relationship in the film is just too odd to ever get comfortable with ... oh yeah, she's always secretly thought he was innocent and oh yeah, she just happens to be driving in the area that day, and on and on and on. The look of absolute love she has on her face in every closeup just comes from nowhere. And as others have noted, the coincidences in this film are too many to list, it's almost the only thing the story is based on. Every character seems to have Moorehead's number, but no one does anything about it ... and the way she meets her maker is just too crazy to believe.

Helpful tip for people driving near prisons ... don't ever pick up hitchers, especially when sirens are wailing! I really like noir, and I really like Bogart, but this film did zippo for me. My wife (who cares not much for either)was thoroughly unimpressed. Gimme the Big Sleep with all its inconsistencies anyday.


A con named Vincent (Bogart) breaks out of prison to be befriended by a woman (Bacall) who sympathizes with his case which was akin to her father's. He gets a new face and tries to discover who really killed his wife and then his best friend. This is a rather tedious, unoriginal movie, with none of the snappy, quick dialogue that films of this era often display. It's slow-paced - lingering on humdrum scenes, repeating unimportant information such as Vincent's doctor's advice - and fairly predictable, even unintentionally comic (the silly anesthesia scene). The first half of the movie, we don't see Vincent; instead we see the action from his eyes. Perhaps that was interesting then, but I felt it added nothing to the movie. Morehead, as the dead wife's shewish friend (this is one of those movies where the good guys act predictably good, and the villains act only nasty) chews the scenery something awful in her confrontation scene with Bogie. Good acting by Bogie and Bacall, plus some scenes with a delightfully bullying thug, help save the film from being a total waste. 4/10.


No surprise that some nice white boy decided to cash-in on the bollywood phenom and what a trite mess he makes of it. Enough saccharine to make your teeth peel and enough sub-standard filmmaking to make you reach for your movie mantra and pray forgiveness for those who know not what they do. Pretty girl with nice song does not a movie make. Story? Let see... Boy meets girl. Girl from strict asian background. Boy not. It must be love. Everybody dance. Annoying & ludicrous twaddle.

The only solace is I didnt pay to watch this. I give my deepest sympathy to those who did and were conned by a fancy poster and promise of magic realism.


Really bad attempt by British to make a Bollywood movie. The dancing is awful. I can dance way better!! (and I'm not much.) The acting is bad which could be the directing. There was an actor in it that I know is great. He had just a small part. Remember the guy who played Al Swerengen from HBO's Deadwood? I know he can do much better than this.

Can't tell you just how much I hated it. Waste of time. THIS IS NOT A BOLLYWOOD MOVIE!!! Not even close. Just because they found Indian people in England and put them on screen doesn't make it Bollywood. Wow. They want me to do 10 lines of telling you just how crappy this movie is!!!!


This is a bad movie. Everything is wrong with it. Just, everything.

Technically the director constantly "crosses the directorial line" and the cinematography is often not carefully composed and the scenes are poorly light.

The dialogue is terrible. Its as if the script was written by a student. Because the dialogue is so terrible, the performances are just as bad. The two leads have no chemistry. And the plot, apparently based on a Shakesperean play, is ridiculous in a modern setting.

That said, I did like the premise of the film. The film is a satire of Bollywood films, which in itself is an interesting ideas, but unfortunately it is not executed well.


Wow. This movie was HORRIBLE. There was a song after every 5 minutes. This movie unfortunately stereotypes way too much! Terrible plot and BORING. The lead actress is attractive, but needs to work on her acting. As an Indian, I am tired of us being portrayed as the bad characters in movies. Keeping our culture intact is very important to many and should not be portrayed as something bad. The heavy British accents are also hard to get used to. This movie had nothing positive to send to the viewer.

I rented this at the local Blockbuster and am glad that I did not see in it a theatre or I would have left early.


There are actually some good reasons, why a person should take the risk of going totally insane by watching this show. The breasts are nice, even though some of them aren't that real, but they usually come in pairs, which is good. Watching the beach on your screen is also a very relaxing experience, as it is an ideal place for just taking it easy and not worrying too much about getting eaten by a rubber shark. It's always good to remember, that David Hasselhoff is a god. Not the god, but a god. It's not so much about his acting skills, since there are none, but his chesthair does a lot of talking. Also, there's no KITT hanging out in this series, which is good, since Mr Hasselhoff told in an interview, that he always thought KITT was gay. Naturally that might make him to look like an idiot, but considering the other statements he has made lately, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

In a nutshell, this is the kind of show, that is totally harmless to people. It gives us a lot to stare at and a lot to laugh at, which is something many intentionally humoristic shows really don't give us. I have to say, it's no wonder that Borat fell in love with Pamela Anderson. I enjoy watching the show. No, it's not a great show, actually it's quite horrible, but I enjoy watching it. It's basically like a B-movie stretched to last for a decade.


I'm sure a lot of people enjoyed this movie and there's nothing wrong with that. But this-tik-tac-everybody's-in-on-it flick just didn't make much sense and partly due to that, it makes for a very disappointing pastime.

They tried, boy did they try... The over styled acting was annoying (Paul Giamatti leading the bunch) and almost made it a b-movie. But that's where the dialog came in to finish the job. Not to mention the soundtrack which was a blunt rip off.

This is one of those con-movies which in the end could have had God in on it to save the day. It is such an amazingly bad story that they had to use close to 20 plot twists to try to fool the audience that it would hold up. What a mess

Actually, the only thing that made the plot work was Andy Garcia being in on the scheme, like we didn't suspect that coming. The fact that they had to compare the cleverness of their scheme to complicated chess gaming to convince the viewer, made it painfully obvious that it really wasn't.

Confidence could have been an OK-movie if it just didn't try so damn hard to be what oceans11 was. It's exactly like Dustin Hoffman said: 'sometimes style can get u killed' Apparently, it can kill a movie too

4/10


Everyone probably thought they had seen the last of the caper movies when Sinatra et al. made the original Oceans 11 forty years ago. Not so, as this film inter alia is abundant proof of its re-emergence. The Brit Gangster revival cycle initiated by "Lock, Stock and two smoking barrels" seems to have cross germinated with the "Oceans Eleven" remake and spawned a genetically modified caper for the 21st. century of which this film is but one of many.

Normally my John Bull heart would swell with pride as Pinewood influences Hollywood but not so in this case. Guy Ritchie's shtick does not travel and this film just does not quite work on a number of levels.

I have described this film as a caper but I think the director has tried to make something more than a simple caper movie. However there are problems with this approach. First of all it seems he cannot decide what tone it should take. Is it ironic or parodic or a comic book adventure, a pastiche or a spoof? No one can tell. The director probably feels that the film dances nimbly between all these categories artfully evading any pigeon hole. However as a humble viewer I just felt it was a mishmash that lacked the courage of its convictions to set out its stall in any particular category. It did not convince as an example of irony or a comic book adventure or an exercise in cool.

I think someone defined a caper movie as one in which the people making the film had more fun making it than the audience had watching it In that case the film falls straight in the middle of the caper bracket. the film is too slick and too knowing. These are common afflictions in contemporary films which you would probably overlook if the film was good enough in other respects. Although this film has redeeming features they do not compensate for these shortcomings.

It has some great character actors in the cast who give good performances Giametti, Guzman, Garcia in fact everyone except the two main actors portraying the central couple Edward Burns and Rachel Weisz. The character played by Burns is supposed to be the hub around which the whole film revolves but I am afraid in this case the axle is broken. Burns cannot carry the film and is constantly outshone by the actors that surround him. I get the impression that he is supposed to be the old-fashioned straight (in the old sense) lead whose looks offset all the ugly character actors. However he radiates zero menace or malevolence or evil or anything that might make him believable in the role. "Things to do in Denver when you're dead" survived without a good looking bland central character so why does this film need one. Maybe the guy is "box office" as I believe they say, but I have never heard of him so how exactly did he add to the film.

And so on to the vexed subject of Rachel Weisz's performance. It amazes me that Americans tolerate my fellow nationals doing lame non-specific non-regional faltering American accents. She came across as a Helena Bonham Carter for the 2000s. If this had been done by Merchant Ivory then she might have fitted right in but it wasn't and she didn't.

I don't want to spoil the plot for anyone but a couple of the set ups for con tricks were just poor. I will mention one episode which is not intrinsic to the plot where a rich customer in a jewellery shop gets reeled in. It is a popular misconception in films that rich people are stupid dupes who are easily parted from their money. This is lazy plotting. Rich people are usually not rich by accident unless they are lottery winners of course. They are rich because they know how to get money and then how to hold on to it. Is it really that easy to part them from their money? A lot of con artists doing time might suggest otherwise.

My final issue with the film is the first ten minutes which are as wooden as any episode of "Murder she wrote". Is this a stylistic device or are the first ten minutes of the film just really badly made. The jury is out.


Damn you Quenten Tarantino! You have inspired too many of these hackneyed caper movies. First of all, it would be nice if some of these screenwriters had experience that went beyond just having watched other movies dealing with cons. It would be nice if directors could come up with some original scenes, instead of slow-mow shots of the crew walking down the street. It would be nice if Edward Burns could learn to act. HOWEVER, what would be really nice, is if people would proof-read these lame scripts and realize how truly lame they are. I mean, this is the worst dialog and story I have seen in a long time. I mean, the actors must have known this was crap as it was being filmed. The story is a rehashed tale. A group of grifters pulls off a con on someone big. So, they have to pull another con to make it right. Sound familiar? So they must have the eccentric bad guys. The witty crew members. The tacked on love angle. The blah blah blah. * out of ****.


What a great and seasoned cast that was assembled for this "sting/grifter" wannabe. Didn't any of them read the script? This was confusing and boring with a poor payoff at the end. The sound track was pretty cool. Check out the two music videos on the DVD.


What more need be said? The actors seemed trapped in same-old, same-old heist; they've fallen and they can't get up. Go see something good again, like "Spanish Prisoner." About the most you can say for this is that it's no worse than "The Good Thief."


Confidence is a poor attempt at making a Snatch/Ocean's 11-style movie. The movie is extremely boring, then at the end the movie explains how they were able to pull it off, when it was blatantly obvious the entire time. Avoid this movie.


One can't help thinking director Foley is a director without much in the way of confidence himself . A sure sign of someone knowing they lack confidence in day to day life is for them to disguise this by putting up a loud front thereby hiding whatever inadequacies they feel they may have . Perhaps the director feels the world may have something against him because he once directed the long forgotten Madonna star vehicle WHO'S THAT GIRL ? Possibly I don't know , but he directs CONFIDENCE in an entirely fast paced way , rather like " MTV Meets The Coen Brothers " which may give audience members a potential headache

Despite the directing which comes across as garish and shallow we're left with a movie that is let down by the script and one can't help thinking the screenplay is what caused the director to look for Scorsese's CASINO for inspiration . No one can dispute the dialogue is foul mouthed , perhaps too much so but are the characters , situations and dialogue quirky or is everything unconvincing ? Considering I only gave this movie four out of ten it's not too difficult to understand what I thought of it . One of the worst movies that has starred Hoffman


In short: I have to say it was on of the most boring films I've ever seen. The plot tried to look amazing and flawless, but it was just over-combined. Rachel Weisz is damn beautiful and also skilled in acting, but most of the film is killed by absolutely expressionless Burns. Hoffman's role seemed purposeless to me. I like Andy Garcia and he didn't disappoint. The creators just failed to give it some spirit, something that would keep your eyes open through boring dialogs. The best thing in the movie the song Clocks in ending credits.

Well, if I hadn't looked forward for this flick so much, maybe I would give it a higher rating. Slow, boring, surprise-less Ocean Two. No way.