The turgid screen adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's 1973 masterpiece A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC is probably in the top five of worst adaptations of Broadway musical to the motion picture screen. The musical, based on the Ingmar Bergman film SMILES OF SUMMER NIGHT, follows the revolving lives of three couples who clearly at the beginning are mismatched and how they end up being with their soulmates by the end of the film. Elizabeth Taylor, looking fat and tired, sleepwalks her way through the film and enough has been said about her singing so I won't even go there. Director Hal Prince did have the sense to hire Len Cariou and Laurence Guittard to repeat their stage roles Freidrich and the Count, who both think they are in love with Desiree, but even these two charismatic actors come off as stilted. Lesley Ann-Downe is a lovely woman but she just looked way too old to be playing Freidrich's young wife, Anne, who in the original script, was 18. The only completely satisfying performance in the film is by Diana Rigg as the Countess, who brings so much more to the role than the screenplay allows and also surprisingly gives the film its loveliest musical moment with her rendition of "Every Day a Little Death." Speaking of music, I found it interesting that Prince felt the need to completely overhaul one of the most beautiful musical scores ever written for the stage. Hermione Gingold's role as Desiree's mother is reduced to a glorified cameo since they chose to cut her song, "Liasons". The Count also has a gorgeous solo in the show called "In Praise of Women" which was also cut. The song "The Glamorous Life" was rethought and became a solo for Desiree's daughter, Fredrika, charmingly played by Chloe Franks. They also cut "The Miller's Son" a powerhouse of a song sung by Petra, the maid. I could go on ad nauseum about what's wrong with this movie, but that would be pointless. I just cannot fathom how Hal Prince so horrifically screwed up the screen version of a musical HE directed on Broadway. In an eggshell, the only reason to see this film is if you live for Diana Rigg.


Based on Ingmar Bergman's film SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT, this musical film adapted by its Broadway creators Hugh Wheeler (screenplay), Stephen Sondheim (Music and Lyrics) and Harold Prince (director), concerns three mismatched couples.

Actress Desiree Armfeldt (Elizabeth Taylor), is seeing Count Mittelheim (Laurence Guittard) who is married to Charlotte Mittelheim (a delicious scene stealing performance from Diana Rigg). Frederick Egerman (Len Cariou), Deseiree's past lover, is married to the still-virginal Anne (Lesley-Anne Down), who is half his age. Frederick's son Erick (Christopher Guard) is hopelessly in love with his stepmother Anne (who is actually only a year younger than he.)

Petra (Lesley Dunlop); Frederick and Anne's maid, Madame Armfeldt (Hermione Gingold); Desiree's mother, and Frederika (Chloe Franks); Desiree's daughter - round out the action which occurs in town and culminates during a hectic "Weekend in the Country" at Madame Armfeldt's sprawling manor.

Forget what you've heard or read about the film. Yes, it is flawed in context to the Broadway original, but considering it was made when film musicals were all but dead in Hollywood, it is amazing that it even exists. The score is still just as witty and romantic and features a wonderful new version of THE GLAMOROUS LIFE written specifically for the film. The cast, many of them reprising their original stage roles, is uniformly superb! And despite all the nasty comments, Elizabeth Taylor is quite charming as Desiree (especially in the duet YOU MUST MEET MY WIFE with Cariou.) Sondheim even added a new verse or two for the marvelous song EVERY DAY A LITTLE DEATH.

If you get a chance - see this film anyway that you can as it may just steal your heart.


I love this Sondheim masterpiece and having seen what Sondheim considers the finest staging ever (New York City Opera) live and on video many times over, the movie still has significant virtues. It was widely panned and dismissed as if all the film critics secretly met and took a vote to hate it together. Yes, some songs have been cut and some themes (most sadly, Mme. Armfeldt's) basically eliminated. But there are still some truly definitive performances and beautifully mounted scenes. And Elizabeth Taylor is far from terrible in her part. Unfortunately the current film on video is in terrible deterioration. This film deserves to be preserved as a rare film adaptation in Sondheim library. Remember the horrible film versions of Funny Thing Happened..., South Pacific and other great Broadway musicals that received poor screen adaptations. Taken in context of how seldom movie versions successfully transfer to the screen, A Little Night Music is not great but is certainly good, and far better than many other movie musicals that seem to be held in higher esteem than they deserve.


A Little Night Music was one of the most sophisticated and stylish stage musicals ever written. It was inspired by an Ingmar Bergman film and played on Broadway in 1973, winning six Tony Awards including Best Musical. When it was decided to make a film version, the original creative team (Stephen Sondheim, Hugh Wheeler and director Harold Prince) decided to alter their work. They shifted the setting from Sweden to Austria, which eliminated the aspect of a sun-lit evening ("perpetual sunset is rather an unsettling thing"). Also eliminated was the important Quintet, who provided a Greek chorus effect, commenting on the action with the songs "Remember?", "Perpetual Anticipation" and the "Night Waltz". I could understand their elimination, but when it came to the remainder of the score, gone was Carl-Magnus' solo "In Praise of Women", Madame Armfeldt's biting and nostalgic "Liaisons", and Petra's poignant "The Miller's Son". A new solo version of "The Glamorous Life" was written, there were new lyrics for "A Weekend in the Country". Elizabeth Taylor, dramatically, makes a good Desiree, but vocally, she makes Broadway original Glynis Johns look like Lily Pons. Bright spots in the film include Len Cariou, Laurence Guittard and the magnificent Hermione Gingold, reprising their original stage roles. Basically, the reconception did not work for the story. This musical is best seen on stage. If it was transferred correctly, this could have been one of the classics of film, but its best to steer clear of this and listen to the marvelous original Broadway cast recording.


I remember when I first saw this in a movie theater. It was a bad print, and the film obviously had broken in a couple of places, as the song "IF" started mid-sentence. The VHS tape, while probably not perfect, has the virtue of being unbroken. I have not yet seen the recent DVD release, but I probably will purchase it.

Diana Rigg and Chloe Franks are the best reasons to see the film, but the others really aren't as awful as some people make them out to be. A good friend of mine was on the set in Vienna, and he told me dozens of horror stories about the filming, one of which was that it was cold and rainy during the scenes in the Vienna Woods, so Elizabeth Taylor caught a bronchial infection which stubbornly hung on during the rest of the filming, as she was not able to get the rest she needed. The company financing the film absolutely insisted that it not run over 120 minutes. Thus, some numbers were cut in the editing process.

It's a shame that we can't have an edition that includes the songs that ended up on the cutting room floor. It's by no means perfect, but it's a lot better than the film musicals of "Mame" and "Man of La Mancha," in my opinion.


There are only about four or five good reasons why anyone should want to watch this film. If you are not a fan of bad movies, the number is immediately reduced to one (MAYBE two). The most important reason for watching this movie is to see the performance of Dame Diana Rigg. She is absolutely flawless, and she is certainly a breath of fresh air in a film that is often quite stagnant and misguided. Some of the wit from the original stage version shows through, thank God, but director Harold Prince simply did not know how to transfer his work to film. (It didn't help, of course, that A Little Night Music was his first film.) If you're interested in seeing Harold Prince's film work, a better choice would be Something For Everyone.

Elizabeth Taylor clearly had no idea what she was doing for most of the film, and everyone else was decent enough, but nothing to shout about. This wasn't even a so-bad-it's-good movie. It was painfully mediocre. If you want to see an example of why Sondheim's musicals have mostly not made it to the screen or you want to see Ms. Taylor in one of her less-than- stellar moments, then by all means, watch this film. However, if neither of those reasons interest you and you find yourself stuck in a situation in which you must watch this film, focus on Diana Rigg as Charlotte Mittelheim. She is fabulous!!


Okay, so lots of people thought this stunk because Elizabeth Taylor couldn't sing, it missed the magic of stage presence and it is not really good movie material. It is however an opportunity to see an interpretation of the performances of the broadway stage who originated some of the characters as interpreted by the stage version's director. It is a very good story of romance, duty and innocence. Sondheim's lyrics are wonderful, Diana Rigg is delightful and overall the quality of the show is more than acceptable.


I was so excited to see a film adaptation of A Little Night Music, but grew suspicious when I saw that Elizabeth Taylor is in it. Don't get me wrong, I love Elizabeth, but a musical actress she is definitely not. I tried to watch this disastrous movie and then just decided to skip to "Send in the Clowns" which about an hour and 45 minutes into the picture. I thought that, at least, would redeem it. Elizabeth sings this in the absolute worst version (bar none) that I have ever heard.

Please don't waste your money on buying or renting this film. It was worse than the film version of A Chorus Line and, up until now, I thought that was the worst adaptation of a musical.

I am so very disappointed.


A misguided film adaptation of the 1973 Broadway smash, and indirectly a remake of Ingmar Bergman's Smiles of a Summer Night. What should have been a small, character-driven musical gets swallowed up in elaborate sets and costumes, and sadly much of Stephen Sondheim's score was cut. The stage play and Bergman film were set in Sweden; for tax purposes the movie was filmed in Vienna, thus losing Sweden's "perpetual sunset" which served as the story's sexual metaphor. Harold Prince expertly directed the stage version, but he's simply all wrong here; Stanley Donen or Herbert Ross would have been better behind the camera.

In 1990 PBS telecast the New York City Opera's production of Night Music (starring Sally Ann Howes and George Lee Andrews) as part of its "Live from Lincoln Center" series. That production captured this musical's wit, sensuality and lyricism. A pity it's not available on DVD.


I found this at my lending library. I've always wanted to see it being a fan of the three leading actresses and the songs from the play.

While Elizabeth Taylor really tries with her role she doesn't quite get there and any scenes with Diana Rigg she may as well not try because Rigg steals the entire show as the strong willed Charlotte.

Lesley Anne Down is a good choice and while she was dubbed she still gives it her all. Her rendition of Everyday A Little Death with Rigg is superb and i rewind that scene many times.

The male cast members are pathetic and you can tell they are from the stage because they act dreadfully.

See this if you are a fan of the actresses, especially Diana Rigg. Pity it flopped this could of really done something for her film career!


Could it be they wanted it to be this bad so they could somehow cash in on it ala Mel Brooks' "The Producers"? It's the only reason I can think of for this great big stinking road apple of a disaster to exist.

Absolutely the worst filming of a great musical ever. Wouldn't you think a red light would have gone on somewhere when they started talking about Elizabeth Taylor (whom I love) as Desiree? Wouldn't someone have said "Can we talk this over, please"? All the more unfortunate because there is precious little of Sondheim's work that has been preserved.

What a shame.


The first atrocity made by director Prince, whom should know better, was casting Elizabeth Taylor in the part originated by Glynnis Johns. E. T. is a total fish out of water in this film. Filming the stage play would have been infinitely superior to this garbage. Only Hermoine Gingold offers some bright moments.


What a misguided translation of what was on stage an absolute jewel. Watching this mess, one wonders what anyone ever saw in the orginal stage production. Utterly charmless, even if it is all in three/four time.


I have no idea what the point of this film is. Its like a poor 1950's space film done in the late 1960's early 1970's. Its starts off in one direction and then heads off into another.

The plot has a spy discovering the Chinese have a device which may very well destroy the earth by causing an atomic chain reaction inside the earth. Meanwhile a space mission to Venus is being prepared. Suddenly half the crew is replaced with women and the rocket is launched ahead of schedule. Once in space the crew watches as the deice destroys the earth, Stranded in space the crew has to decide what to do next.

Very dated, even by 1972 standards, and very silly (The spy gets into a top secret center by throwing a cat over a wall and I won't talk about the press conference) I'm not sure if I'm suppose to be laughing or taking this very seriously. Clearly its another the commies are out to get us film released about the time that Nixon was going to China. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have a point, or at least an ending since the picture sort of stops with a conclusion out of left field. Simply put its a mess.

Intriguing enough, in a bad movie sort of way, to keep me watching to the end I arrived there with a great deal of disappointment that that was all. It doesn't add up to much in any real sort of a way. Actually the film sort of spirals out of control after the Earth is destroyed.

Worth a look for bad movie lovers and those wanting a movie they can laugh at while debating the sanity of the film makers. All others stay away.


I bought the video because the plot sounded like an adaptation of a great mid-1960s comic book I own, one of my prized possessions. Alas, I was wrong. This movie is SO bad, it's quite funny!

Where can I start? The movie begins with an Oriental cold-war/espionage plot, followed by a military end-of-the-world scenario (with Casey Kasem as a Mission Control Capcom!), then becomes a battle-of-the-sexes-in-outer-space flick, finally ending with a bizarre philosophical encounter with a superior alien intelligence.

The special effects are laughable--Barcaloungers or La-Z-Boys are used for crew couches in the spaceship; two entirely different craft (a V-2 -like rocket and a circular space station) are supposed to be exterior views of the SAME spaceship; and the Apollo CSM serves as a Russian interplanetary craft with a quite-spacious interior.

Character development is not much better. One of the main male leads, supposedly one of the astronaut corps' finest, becomes a sex maniac the minute he leaves Earth orbit.

Highly recommended for all who love bad movies!


I am so puzzled by this movie. It had a really promising beginning, an interesting premise, and some fairly intelligent dialog in the pre-launch portion of the movie. A pretty somber, realistic "pall" falls over the space headquarters as wailing sirens accompany public address announcements about a sped-up launch countdown. A last minute crew switch puts some female astronaunts on board, (look out...major spoiler) in case the earth is suddenly destroyed by a recently discovered Chinese doomsday device. The goal of the crew change is to alter the purpose of the flight from one of exploration to one of...propagation...a Noah's ark, giving the human race a shot at surviving on another planet. Once the crew is on board, though, the movie switches gears completely, turning into a stupid 70s battle of the sexes, in a ridiculous set with garish lightning. The movie recovers some of its sanity for fifteen minutes or so when the crew's more admirable members show their willingness to sacrifice themselves to save the others, by leaving the craft in a spacewalk to fix a jammed device, seconds before the segment the two heroes were on was jettisoned. I started to have real hope the movie was going to redeem itself. But then, it's as though the makers of the movie just totally ran out of script, money, and inspiration, and the flick completely dies; just marking time with inane dialog and absolutely no developments for what seems like an eternity. It wraps up with a completely meaningless intervention by unseen "aliens" who send the humans off on some sort of journey across the universe. I have never, ever seen a movie deteriorate as badly as this one does. But I'll give it a 3, for the sake of the first segment, which, if the movie had continued as strongly, would have been made it a decent flick. As it is, it's a total, total disappointment.


All right, first thing I have to get off my chest is that I don't understand exactly what the Chinese are supposed to get out of destroying the entire Earth with their doomsday machine. To quote Dr. Strangelove, "The purpose of a doomsday device is to tell the world you have a doomsday device!! WHY DID YOU KEEP IT A SECRET ?!?!?!" It's not like the Chinese actually present a list of demands, or anything, before they blow up the world...it takes a super secret "Mission Impossible" spy mission to discover that the machine exists.Chairman Mao was never about blowing Red China up...it was always his intent to simply steam roll over the West with numbers and the power of Marxism, and allow China (and Communism) to achieve its glorious (and inevitable, in Commie eyes) destiny.

2nd, if you're going to go to all the trouble of getting your key spy people into the DM facility, couldn't you maybe have them try to sabotage the thing once they discover it? Instead they just take some pictures and run home, heedless of the fact that the entire facility seems to have only 3 staff people in it, and the spies killed the 2nd and 3rd ones.

I realize I am asking for waaaay too much for a simple, cheaply made SF clunker. But plot holes like this are woven into the very fabric of bad SF movies that will consign the genre to mediocrity for as long as people remember bad movies like this.

The movie does have a few decent moments, mostly thanks to the cast. (That's why three stars instead of one). Bobby Van does pretty good low-key comedy relief and (later on) modest heroics. The oldest crew member (Wilcoxson) is dignified and likable in his role as the senior scientist/statesmen type. Mala Powers is in here, as is Ruta Lee, and sometimes they can almost manage a reading of a line that redeems the material. The scene where the launch site is put under martial law and the launch sequence is sped up is pretty good - there's a nice sense of strain, worry and foreboding.

But as for the rest of it - sheesh. The movie can't decide which of two very different models is the actual space ship. The astronauts endure the strain and trauma of take off in what are very obviously easy chair recliners.The battle of the sexes that is the real reason for for movie plays out like the most ham handed soap opera you ever saw on daytime TV. The "end of the world" special effects include stock footage that implies that the astronauts POV suddenly switched to ground level on the planet- sights (and POV) that they couldn't possibly have seen. The plot brings up half baked science that wouldn't pass muster in the 7th grade, including a roll down curtain that supposedly blocks out bad radiation in the capsule, selective gravity, the idea that 3 couples are supposed to restart the human race on a planet that we knew even in 1970 was not habitable. And the last 10-15 minutes (apparently filmed years after the main portion of the movie, with an entirely different cast of actors) is the worst patch job I have ever seen - and I'm including the codas from "Time Of the Apes" and "The Devil Has Seven Faces" in that list.

"Doomsday Machine" is painfully bad. Fortunately, it's so bad that watching it becomes an exercise in self-amusement, (except for the last 10 minutes, which are excruciatingly dull). Watch at your own risk.


The communist Chinese develop the gumball technology of doom, who's detonation force will "rupture the faults of the earth's surface and setup a chain reaction of explosions when the earth's tension is broken." For the lay person, this means that the Earth will be destroyed. The US response is to replace half of the all-male crew of Project Astra, who's goal was a mission to Venus for a 2 year trip, with a female crew. Instead of the planned mission, they become humanity's Adam & Eve/Noah's Ark insurance policy. Will humanity survive?

There are two distinct movies here. The first part is a genuine attempt at a low budget science fiction narrative with a message (albeit derived & unoriginal) in the nature of Ikarie XB1. That movie dies suddenly somewhere over Venus. You are probably asking yourself how will you know when that is? Trust me, you'll know. It is when the second movie starts, all with different faceless-actors in a dark room doing stuff. This leads into stills & voice-over narrative. Fin.

In the end all you remember is that a lot of painful, pointless dialog occurred, with female astronauts walking around a rocket in their pink robes. And then it all ends in a whimpering blaze (yes I know this is oxymoronic, but it is how I felt). You are not quite sure if anything ended, except the life span of several of your neurons. ad astra per alia porci.

-Celluloid Rehab


"An upcoming space mission to Venus becomes even more vital after a startling secret is revealed. Foreign agents have revealed a secret plot by the Chinese where they have manufactured the ultimate weapon, capable of destroying everything on the surface of the planet. The mission to our sister planet now becomes a fight for the survival of the human race, as the crew must try to save the Earth from destruction," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Apparently, the "Red" Chinese are preparing to attack the NATO Allies, with nuclear weaponry. So, a 1975 manned (and womanned) space mission to the planet Venus takes on added meaning; if the Earth is destroyed in a nuclear war, the only human survivors may be those people traveling to Venus. These men and women learn they will be playing "Adam" and "Eve" -- except for Henry Wilcoxon (as Dr. Perry), who is portrayed as too old for sex, at age 61 (when this was filmed).

There are very few redeeming qualities in "The Doomsday Machine". You will get to see Ruta Lee (as Marion) slap Bobby Van (as Danny) once. You could watch to see how performers like Grant Williams (as Kurt Mason) and Mala Powers (as Georgianna Bronski) handle their unenviable assignment. You might want to admire James Craig (as Haines)'s admirable physique, during his shirtless scene. Or, you could observe how space flight affects ladies' hairstyles. Casey Kasem and Mike Farrell have cameos.


A fine "B" movie cast is wasted by using awful production values in a project that likely ran out of money before it was finished. The tacked-on ending without a doubt uses different actors than the on-screen talent (Grant Williams, Mala Powers, Denny Miller, Bobby Van). Probably the WORST special effect is the destruction of the earth. "The Doomsday Machine" gets a "3" from me because it was at least always coherent. It's sad whatever happened during production prevented the movie from being filmed as intended. I feel especially bad for Grant Williams, a fine actor, who was likely blacklisted because of his sexual preferences, not to mention a well publicized feud with Jack Webb, then director of production for Universal. Better William be remembered for "The Shrinking Man" and "Hawaiian Eye" than this crap. Ditto, Mala Powers for "The Time Travelers".


I put together my Top Ten Worst Movie List some time ago, and find that it's going to be difficult for newcomers to bump any of those titles for the privilege. But "Doomsday Machine" looks like a definite contender, to the extent of making even "The Beast of Yucca Flats" look pretty good by comparison. I've read most of the other reviews on this board to know that I'm not alone on this, in fact it's pretty much an entirely one sided view that this groaner sets the standard for space junk in a vacuum.

Interestingly, the only other place I've ever heard the word 'azimuth' was in another sci-fi space turkey, and wouldn't you know it, it popped up here in an early conversation aboard the Astra. Keep your eye on the clock that records the elapsed time following blast off, you'll note that it goes, 2:58, 2:59, and then 2:60 instead of 3:00, which makes perfect sense considering all the other goofy stuff that was going on.

Like the selection of astronauts for the mission. Wouldn't you think that the men selected for this flight would have been among the most highly disciplined and talented that NASA had to offer? So how does a guy like Major Mason (Grant Williams) go from seasoned professional to a raving sex maniac? Not a whole lot of thought was put into this.

No sense belaboring the point, this was one sad effort in the name of science and cinema. While I'm trying to make up my mind about that aforementioned Worst List, I'll have to reconsider another flick with the same destination. Up till now, I thought "First Spaceship on Venus" had a lock on interplanetary travesties, but now I know better.


Here we go again. Another patch-em-up job with abandoned footage being taken up years later and edited together with new footage in a sadly misguided attempt at making a saleable project out of leftover film scraps. As usual, it doesn't work out, just like "They Saved Hitler's Brain," or "Hell's Bloody Devils," two notorious re-edited clunkers.

We start out with the "new" footage from 1972. Two spies (ours) in China (they are Chinese Americans I guess) find a "Doomsday Machine" that the Chinese have made to destroy the entire Earth. Why they would do this is never explained, but I guess every movie has to have a bad guy, and the Chinese were in the news in 1972 with Nixon visiting them for the first time.

This footage lasts about 10 minutes or so. Then we cut to the 1967 footage. Easy to tell the difference between this and 1972 footage: different fashions, different hair, the women wear mini-dresses and giant bubble hair-dos, and everyone's driving cars from 1964, which look pretty new. We're at some type of NASA facility, where a crew is to be launched on a mission to Venus.

After a laughable press conference (where the general takes a phone call and talks about classified information right in the middle of the room), half of the crew are substituted with women. The male astronauts don't like it, and we get a bunch of Battle-of-the-Sexes dialog that would have been dated even by the 1972 release of this turkey. (Hey, this would make a great double bill with "Space Probe Taurus," which has a lot of the same dialog!)

Pretty soon the real plot is revealed: the six astronauts are Earth's last chance to repopulate the human race on another planet. The Earth is destroyed soon enough, which eventually leads to existential crisis amongst the astronauts, more bad dialog, a hilariously bad spaceship set with psychedelic lighting, and an ending clearly cobbled together from leftover footage and voiceovers by "omnipotent aliens."

Wonder what the original ending of this mess was supposed to be? A crazy cast here, with Bobby Van and Ruta Lee (who I know better as game show panelists from the 1970's on Match Game), Casey Kasem as a control room operator, and a brief bit from MASH's Mike Farrell as a reporter. I should also mention the special non-effects by Bad Film legend David L. Hewitt, also a director of such legendarily horrific outings as "The Mighty Gorga," "Journey To The Center of Time" and "The Tormentors."

It gets a 3 for the entertainment value of its horrible attempts at serious science fiction scenarios on a laughably low budget. If only the pace was quicker and SOMETHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED during the last half of the film I would have been prepared to give it a higher rating. At least the title is appropriate: don't doom yourself to wasting 72 minutes of your life watching this mess. (Another public domain title, this flick is available from different companies for $1, or in a cheap 20 film multipack called "Strange Tales," from Mill Creek Entertainment, which is where I got it from. That set me back 6 bucks...)


the doomsday machine is a hunk of space junk,i believe it was filmed in 1968 and shelved till 1972.the cast is noteworthy but wasted,grant Williams(incredible shrinking man)Casey kasum(American top ten DJ) Mala powers,bobby van(navy vs the night monsters)James Craig(the cyclops)and mike Farrell(m*a*s*h*)as a reporter.the Chinese invent a doomsday device and well you know the rest.its a really bad premise and the special fx look hokey.its bottom of the barrel science fiction thats not even so bad its good.if you need a cure for insomnia then by all means watch the doomed doomsday machine.Elvira hosted this film on VHS/DVD too bad mst3k isn't still on they would have a field day with this.1 out of 10.


Pieced together in 1972, THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE (although most prints exclude THE at the beginning of the title) is the worst movie I have ever viewed. If you looked only at the cast and crew however, that would come as somewhat of a surprise. Grant Williams, Lee Sholem, James Craig and many other members of the production were very reliable in their better years, which brings me to the conclusion that many needed (or accepted) their roles in this modest film "for the money".

This would account for the bad acting and careless execution of a story that had been seen so many times before even when the film was began in 1967. This involves, with a Commie-apocalypse twist worked in, what happens when a crew of astronauts discover their mission to Venus was actually an attempt to advance the human race beyond an impending nuclear apocalypse (which is unbelievable even with the most infinite amount of suspension of disbelief).

And so for the next hour the audience is bludgeoned with droning melodrama and incongruous stock footage until a conclusion that will shock you with its utter stupidity and inexplicable nature.

What makes the film somewhat of a guilty pleasure is to see how it scrapes the bottom of the barrel in terms of production values, offers no provocative politics and little human conflict in a situation that requires huge amounts and frames all of its action in a static manner. This film shows the viewer explicitly everything that can go wrong in making a movie, and provides the some of the most laughable dialogue and scenes one may ever see.

Grouped most accurately with other tiny-budget commercial independents of the 70s like CRY BLOOD, APACHE and THE REVENGE OF DR.X, the film wastes the talents of its once-great principals and the time of anyone who sees it--I can't even see many of those who love terrible cinema enjoying this--and makes one wince in sheer boredom that there must be something interesting in the film.

For all of the 80-odd minutes spent watching this one, there really isn't. See it at your own risk.


The motley coed crew of a spaceflight to Venus are forced to fend for themselves and determine the future of mankind after the Earth gets destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. The flat, fumbling direction by Harry Hope and Lee Sholem, Stuart J. Byrne's tediously talky and uneventful script, the dull performances and the slower than two aged turtles walking uphill pace suck all the fun and vitality out of this excruciatingly leaden science fiction clunker. The Hall of Shame Faded Name cast makes for pretty sad viewing: former Tarzan Denny Miller as a stern, no-nonsense colonel, Grant ("The Monolith Monsters") Williams as the lecherous jerk captain, veteran TV actress Mala Powers as a feisty Russian astronaut, song and dance man Bobby Van as an obnoxious hipster, Henry Wilcoxon as a crusty old-timer, Top Forty radio disc jockey Casey Kasem as a Mission Control announcer, and future "M.A.S.H." TV series regular Mike Farrell as a TV reporter. Stanley Cortez's ratty photography, the terrible tin-eared dialogue ("He's not really a fink; he just acts like one"), the droning, monotonously rattling stock film library score, David L. Hewitt's crummy (substantially less than) special effects, and the groan-inducing surprise twist ending add extra abject insult to already appalling injury. A total turkey.


I't's unfortunate that the destruction of earth is the only thing that can get rid of Casey Kasem. Aside from that, why did all the actors in the first few minutes of the film look like low budget 70's porn stars? If only they had killed off the two garbage characters early in the story, or just not had them in the first place, I can see a potentially good movie there. Instead they spent most of the movie on emotional dross, produced largely by the whiny nut case and her would- be rapist. The instant those two died the movie improved immensely; the characters started acting normal, an engrossing plot began to form, and just as it was about to get really interesting one of the ships disappeared and the movie ended!! What kind of filmmaker would do such a thing? It's so cruel; to torture the audience so long, give them the hope of being entertained, and then snatch it viciously from them! How depraved.


I'm glad for other comments concerning the putting together of unmatched pieces in this film. It is almost non-sensical because of it. Had I thought there was some sort of order, I would have wondered who the incompetent was who hatched this. As it is, it is simply using pieces that were probably rather expensive to make a poor man's "2001: A Space Odyssey." The ridiculous interactions among the crew, the whole point of even going on the voyage, the spy stuff with the Chinese at the beginning. The silly inclusion of a group of women added at the last minute, make for a total mess. We are left out of any sort of coherent flow and so the thing falls dead in its tracks. It reminds me of the stuff the school cooks used to make out of all the bad food that was left over from a week of hot lunches.


Providence, Rhode Island, and in particular its neighbourhood of the title, serves as but one among many interesting personalities in this well-wrought feature film debut of its director/scriptor Michael Corrente. Completed in less than one month and having a sparse budget, the skillfully edited work benefits from a forcefully driven narrative that includes several parallel plot strings. Five Italian-American friends share the major portion of the scenario, with brothers Ralphie (Nicholas Turturro) and Nicky (Anthony DeSando) having their close relationship jeopardized by the latter's romantic involvement with a Brown University co-ed. At the same time, their cousin Bobby (Jason Andrews) finds himself dangerously in debt and when collection time nears, Ralphie agrees to help him raise the needed cash through an ingenious and illicit scheme. Based upon an early single act play by Corrente, later expanded to a full-length piece, "Ledge Street", this production displays a strong motif dealing with the difficulty of overcoming class distinctions. Shot with black and white stock, appropriate for its mise-en-scène, the picture was slated by its distributor, Trimark, for colourization to make it palatable for movie theatre audiences, but Corrente did not back away from his chiaroscuro vision and it remained as his perception dictated, although he permitted colour processing (under his oversight) for its video release, it therefore owning an odd distinction of being the only modern U.S. black and white film that had colour added for home consumption. The interlaced lives of the principal characters are strongly portrayed by the cast, Turturro nabbing acting honours with a passionate and layered performance, with only the female lead, in her initial feature, failing to convince in her rôle. Cinematographer Richard Crudo obviously is a creative partner here of Corrente, and there is a great deal of originality within his compositions, while he is able to make something fresh with use of closeups. A feeling is generated that the Federal Hill district has its distinctive persona, and incisive dialogue binds a viewer's attention to Ralphie and Nicky's widely variable states of mind in a film that carves a niche for its cinematic métier and for its director.


Being from Rhode Island and working on Federal Hill, I feel that this movie truly captured the essence of the Italian American young adult in it's day and age. Believe me, the characters are soooooo close to home.. Corrente really was able to portray the "spacone" better than a lot of other directors were able to do.. Definitely watch this movie.... and if your from Rhode Island and haven't seen it yet.... rent it.. buy it.. watch it.. get some haven brothers and watch it.... I had a lot of laughs watching these guys run around the state to places that I can relate to... everything from food spots to night clubs.. I love the scene when Nicky cooks for his girlfriend.. really funny.. it reminds me of myself..


Good movie about a group of Italian American twentysomethings centering around two Nicky and Ralph and their criminal ways and relationships. The story is kind of borrowing from MEAN STREETS but it has its own little twists. Pretty good movie I recommend to fans of GOODFELLAS and MEANSTREETS.


If you have any interest whatsoever in lesbian lives as they really have been and still are lived this is THE documentary to see.

No doubt that we have to salute those women who "dared" to show their faces on screen in this documentary; it's not anything we are used to at least not outside the North America.

Even though the woman portraited are, of course, living in North America it is still a fabulous documentary, actually quite breathtaking in all its "naturalness".

Also spiced with a bit of "filmic erotica" I feel is it a necessity to watch for any lesbian woman.

Bravo to those who came up with the idea and bravo for the woman who dared all along!


I love watching movies, and often times, I ignore documentaries, because I feel they're too dry. You see, they try to educate you or inform you, and I want to be entertained. Well, this did all three! I was fascinated with the women's personal stories, and would often compare theirs to my own. It was insightful to here about life back then, dispelling others into thinking that it's some sort of trend (tsk, tsk!) or some other backwards idea. If you want to get cozy with a bowl of popcorn and lend your ear to some tales of long ago, if you're straight and disbelieve that older lesbians existed, if you want to rid yourself of ignorance to find out more than "what lesbians do in bed", if you want to see fiction mixed gracefully with true life stories, watch this. You may have met one of these fascinating women and not known it. I was at a bookstore, and I heard a familiar voice behind me, thinking it was someone I knew. I peaked behind me, and there stood the Native woman who appeared in it. I was excited, but did nothing about it. If I wasn't so shy, I might have thanked her for sharing her story and for being an inspiration to the younger generation who heard it.


I am viewing: Forbidden Love, now on LOGO- NYC, still NO captions!!! in 2006!!! sorry- but this is my story:

When I first saw this ground-breaking film- truly outstanding among the early documentaries- (possibly the first depiction) of: lesbian (hidden) history & culture, I enjoyed it immensely, but I had difficulty understanding any speech in the film, because I am deaf- I rely on captions! It's hard to believe that an up-dated newer (closed caption) version is not now being shown on LOGO! At the same time, as I write, I am amazed how well "Forbidden Love" remains one of the best- if not the best- documentary on: Forbidden Love: The Unashamed Stories of Lesbian Lives.


I saw this when it was released and never forgot it, most of my friends also remember it clearly! It is a wonderful glimpse into the lives of lesbians in the 50s, in many ways different from now - the hidden=ness and secrecy, the butch femme culture - and in many ways so the same - who was going out with who, when, how they fell in love, broke up, wove their lives and made family of their friendships.

Highly recommend it as an uplifting piece of Lesbian History, and a vision of what we younger lesbians may look like as we age. DELIGHTFUL!


I caught this documentary back in a repertory theatre back in 1992. I haven't seen it since but I never forgot it. It's basically talks with lesbian writers who talk about writing and having published books about lesbian lovers. Also they talk about what it was like in lesbian bars back then.

Some people may think that this will only appeal to a limited audience (i.e. gay and lesbian) but I saw it with a straight friend and he was fascinated. The talks are lively and fun--there's no despair or negativity. One writer speaks openly about fighting with publishers to have her books have happy endings! Interspered is a sequence in which two women meet in a bar (no dialogue), go to one of their houses and has sex. I have no problem with that, but the sequence seems way too explicit for this. Still this is an excellent documentary about a subject that is never covered. How about one with gay male writers?


A frightening look at a once thriving neighborhood which becomes the subject of decay.

Veteran pros Lee Strasberg and Ruth Gordon are a married couple who live in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn and are literally terrorized by the gangs there.

It was nice to see the wonderful Lillian Roth attempting a comeback in this film. As a tenant in an apartment building in Brighton, this film marked Miss Roth's return to the screen following a 44 year absence. She is effective though her part is brief. While her good looks faded with the years, she still had that pretty smile and I thought that at one part she would break into a medley of her former songs.

Strasberg's inner world is falling apart just like the neighborhood. Stricken with cancer, Gordon dies literally in his arms.

The ending is totally unrealistic. Could a man like an elderly Strasberg overpower one of these gang members? Come on now. Nonetheless, for nostalgia buffs, the film is worth seeing.


Stephen Verona co-wrote and directed this story about an elderly married couple living in a decaying New York neighborhood near Coney Island who refuse to relocate despite escalating crime and racial tensions. Low-budget film from I.T.C. doesn't have an exploitation gimmick (on the level of, say, "Death Wish") to lean on, therefore it didn't reach many audiences. Both Lee Strasberg and Ruth Gordon do first-rate work, but the glumness of the concept and Verona's need for his slim plot to come full circle to make a point results in a very depressing experience. Janet Leigh has a smaller role as the couple's daughter, and her eagerness with this dramatic material is heightened by Verona's unsubtle handling (it isn't one of her better performances). The picture stays in the mind through a few pointed scenes and images, but "Boardwalk" is too static to make a greater impact. *1/2 from ****


The acting was great, one of the best films I've seen, and a true emotional roller coaster of a ride...a neat little twist at the end. The film can be very shocking in places, but what's so good is that it contains no special effects, just purely great acting and direction.


Vigilante thriller its not, like the synopsis reads and the front of the video case might suggest with the imagery though the scene does occur. "Boardwalk" is a well-intended (despite the racial flare and direct moralizing) and at times moving feature thanks hugely by the exceptional performances of seasoned actors Lee Strasberg and Ruth Gordon. The two were simply charming whenever together. Watching the once happy elderly couple, now battling family issues/ health problems (which is the main drama driving the story where there are numerously scattered human interest subplots), but also the changing neighbourhood of Coney Island as young jive talking hoons run wild (which populates mainly the beginning and ending but still feels secondary) is engagingly passionate in its ups and downs. The heartache only grows, where it comes away with a swelteringly damaging climax and the closing shot is particularly haunting in its forced predicament. The suspense is only minor, but it's always compelling. The evocative script is thoughtfully laid out in its exploration of the effects / shake down these central characters find themselves in, as they're stripped to the bone and demoralized, living in a community filled with fear, but still they won't back down and succumb to the turmoil (be it the gangs or their dwindling business). Its love, survival and violence rolled into one. Amongst the sombre air, is still quite a sunny vibe of hope led by the acting. In support roles are agreeable turns by Janet Leigh, Joe Silver, Eddie Barth, Merwin Goldsmith and Kim Delgado. The authentic location work helps cement a realistic edge, while the pacing is rather measured and rather low-scale in its escalating confrontations and violence (which is tamely staged, but gut wrenching since you're thrown right into the acts).


This movie is plain, simple, fun. It doesn't leave you breathless with suspense, or on the edge of your seat with your heart pounding. But for those who don't enjoy all the smut, violence, and potty mouth movies we've been inundated with in the past several years, its a winner. Dabney Coleman plays the part well. First, he is soon to retire from police work, and understandably doesn't want to risk his neck and lose it just before he retires. However, this all changes when he is told he has just a short time to live. Wanting nothing more than to leave his family some security, he begins his unsuccessful quest to get himself killed on the job, only to find out its harder than he thought it would be. This is a movie that does not require anyone to swim through the gray area of a controversial issue. It's just plain entertaining.


I found this to be a very entertaining comedy-suspense film with some wild action.

Until the movie "Ronin" came out in the late '90s, the car-chase scene in this movie was the best I had ever seen on film. It still may be the best - you have to see it to believe it!

Basically, this is simply a dark humor film in which a cop, "Burt Simpson" (Coleman) deals with real - or imaginary - imminent death.

Thinking he's dying, he takes ridiculous chances, actually hoping he gets killed so his kid gets insurance. Of course, he survives....and how he does is hilarious. Beware, though: this is not family viewing with the high amount of profanity.

This movie needs to be out on DVD!


Let me start out by repeating what has been stated before, it is very much Dabney Coleman who single handedly saves this film from mediocrity. He is truly an actor to pay attention to whenever he utters anything in his films, no matter what it is he's saying, you care. He's a decent, morally strong gentleman, and that's rare, folks.

Here, he plays laid back and up-tight police detective Burt Simpson, only days away from retiring. He's paranoid about taking risks and doing anything to risk being killed. When he goes to the doctor for a routine examination, a complication arises that leads him to believe he only has about 2 or 3 weeks to live. Then, as he's getting his final affairs in order, he finds out that his wife (Terry Garr) and young son can only collect on his insurance if he gets killed in the line of duty.

He hasn't got much time to waste, so Burt requests double duty in the worst part of the city, much to the dismay of his wiseass partner Ernie (pitch-perfectly played by Matt Frewer) who doesn't know what the hell is going on with his partner. Burt spends the next few days acting like a supercop, trying desperately to get killed by any means necessary! The show stopper, hands down, is an extended car chase through Seattle with Burt in relentless hot pursuit of another car carrying a couple of real scumbags. Burt comes after them with the determination of Robocop, and what ensues is the fastest, funniest and most frantic car chase ever captured on film! Indeed, when it's all over, their is nothing left of Burt's car but four wheels, a steering column, the engine and a seat! And of course, Burt himself with only a few minor scratches, why? Because he neglected to un-buckle his seat belt! DOAH!! Now, this isn't to say that the film is all fun and games, their are a few very poignant scenes with Burt that might bring a tear to your eye, especially the confessions he makes to his estranged wife about how he feels about her. Another is a scene in a convenience store where a man has taken hostages, Burt strolls in wearing only his boxer shorts and t-shirt and proceeds to have a truly moving heart to heart chat with the disturbed gunman.

Deftly mixing action, humor, drama and a serious message about taking stock in one's life before it's to late, Short Time delivers. It's a simple little film that got no attention, but in my experience, those often are the one's that stay with you. See it.

And BTW, where the hell is this film on DVD!?


This is truly one of the funniest movies, I've seen. I used to watch it several times a week. I highly recommend this one if you like offbeat comedies. One of the funniest things was something I didn't even notice the first three times I saw it...What you ask? The names of the main characters...Burt and Ernie. That's right folks, the two cops are named after two of your favorite childhood friends. ENJOY!!


Dabney Coleman plays a cop getting into his "short time" just before retirement. Knowing what we do about police movies, we understand why he's careful and plays it safe. During a routine blood test, he finds out he has a terminal disease and his insurance will only pay out to his estranged wife and son if he dies in the line of duty. From that setup, we get a marvelous performance by Coleman. Matt Frewer as his new partner is wonderful as well. Everyone gives a solid performance here, even Coleman's unmarked cruiser in a amazing chase sequence. If you happen to see this one coming up on TV, give it a try. I think you'll like it.


All I can say is WOW! This movie has it all. There is action, comedy, drama, suspense. I have never seen a movie combine all elements as well as this one. I've seen about 10,000 movies in my life and this one rates in the top 5. It is that great! Chow Yun Fat is brilliant and certainly would have deserved an Oscar if this film had a proper US release. His comic genius is present in all aspects of his character. The supporting cast does a fine job, but he is the God of Actors and not just the God of Gamblers. The direction is superb as well. The timing, the camera angles and the music make this movie an absolute pleasure to watch. I just finished watching the DVD and will order the remainder of the series as soon as I'm finished typing here. WATCH THIS FILM!


Under appreciated as an actor in the west, Chow Yun Fat shows his incredible versatility as a performer in this Hong Kong comedy/drama.

Chow stars as Ko Chun a gifted gambler with an almost supernatural gift for gaming, hence his exalted title. Ko Chun is suave and sophisticated, master of his gaming, monetarily successful and confident in his abilities. This makes him enemies among not only opponents, but as it turns out, his allies.

Having narrowly escaped an assassination attempt, Ko Chun unwittingly walks into a trap set by Knife, a young gambler wannabe who hankers after a big score. Knife meant to teach someone else a lesson by sabotaging a trail near his home,instead, Ko Chun is the victim. Finding the head injured gambler, Knife and his family take him in and nurse him back to health, not realizing who has literally tumbled into their lives.

Ko Chun awakens from his trauma with no memory and regressed to a childlike demeanor. He's an appealing manchild with an insatiable hunger for a particular brand of chocolate (one carry-over from his former life), and as Knife and Co. find out, a talent for gambling. Knife and his crew make good use of their new friend's abilities--becoming upwardly mobile thanks to "Chocolate"--the nickname they bestow upon him, knowing no other.

Chow Yun Fat has never been more endearing and charming as the brain injured "Chocolate". Chow makes believable and incredibly touching this dramatic transformation from genius to idiot savant. Viewers may find themselves wishing to protect Chocolate from a world he no longer understands and which is by turns baffling and inhospitable. Knife and his crew come to love and protect their friend, mortgaging all they have to provide him with a surgery that might restore his sensibilities.

Their Chocolate-aided success brings unwanted attention, which leads to pursuit, kidnapping, ransom and gunplay. Further trauma to poor Chocolate follows which leads to a showdown that highlights the God of Gamblers uncanny ability to win, even when opponents cheat and "friends" betray. While Chow Yun Fat's impressive talent and charisma are at the heart and soul of this film, the supporting players are excellent, especially Andy Lau and Joey Wong.

A must see and a must own for any Chow Yun Fat fan! In DVD versions of this film the subtitle problems noted in other reviews can be overcome by using the zoom feature on the remote. By slightly shrinking the image and adjusting it upward on the screen, the English subtitles will be perfectly visible and readable 99% of the time. Note:The DVD version of the film is edited, with several original scenes cut that track the ascendency of Knife and Co., and one pretty major plot point that would clarify the denouement at the film's end. VCD versions which are unedited can be sometimes found, but the subtitle problem reasserts itself--VCDs cannot be adjusted to compensate for the problem. But for anyone who has seen the DVD and has the general plot and dialogue down, the search for the unedited VCD version is worthwhile.


No, not much is missing at all. The movie has great actors performing great all around whether it is comedy or action. The action wasn't much emphasized as in rather friendship, but when the action does kick in, it brings you to the same level as John Woo's bullet exchange, and heck, even Dragon (the bodyguard) knows some kick ass moves when he fights.

I did not expect much of this movie at first knowing it wasn't john woo who directed it, but after just the first 5 min i was totally into the movie and had forgotten who directed the movie, because it was equally great, and i couldn't ask for more

get this movie! i can't wait til i get my hands on it's sequels


This movie once again demonstrates Hong Kong cinema at its best. At the helm of the movie, Chow Yun Fat demonstrates magnificent acting skills as he is able to act in all types of characters, from being a man trapped in a child-like state, to ultimately being the "God of Gamblers". Andy Lau also gives a very note-worthy performance, as Chow Yun Fats sidekick (even though this is a much younger Andy Lau). The movie itself was pretty good, although I would have preferred if the movie was entirely serious instead of putting comic relief in the middle. Regardless buy this movie, it is a must for people who enjoy Hong Kong cinema!!


God of Gamblers is a bit of a hybrid of different genres. There`s intense drama, lively comedy and ultraviolent action. Chow Yun-Fat is God of Gamblers. Because of an accident, his mental state is reduced to the level of a child, but he has not lost his gamblegift(nor his hunger for chocolate). The people responsible for the accident(they didn`t mean to by the way) soon discover the unusual gift of their "patient", and begin to take advantage of it. Chow Yun-Fat gets a chance to prove his great acting abilities, without so much use of a gun(he also uses a gun, but rather rarely).

God of Gamblers has intense drama and a rather nice soundtrack(if a little bizarre at times). The comedy part is also all right, but a Western audience might find quite a few of the jokes a little TOO chinese for their liking. Overall though, God Of Gamblers is a quite tasty hongkong-movie that every fan should see. 8,5/10


It's rare that you see a movie that's so cheap yet so cool. How do you define 'cool'? What makes a guy 'cool'? If you would like to know the answers to these questions, there's one person you can ask, Chow Yun Fat (Yun-Fat Chow). He basically defines cool in this movie. However, that's not the only kind of character he plays in this film. Try and think of the coolest person you know. Now, try and imagine someone really childish. Now imagine both as one person. Sound like a difficult role for an actor to play? After you see the acting in this film, it won't look difficult at all. If you didn't think much about Chow Yun Fat before this movie, I can almost guarantee you will after seeing it. He is clearly a brilliant actor.

There's really no point to have a really good actor if you can't even have a good story. Luckily though, God of Gamblers succeeds in this aspect as well. I don't really want to say anything, as the plot is kind of weird at parts, but if you just follow along with it, you should pleasantly enjoy it. The characters are all performed fairly well, and are enjoyable to watch. There is also a great sense of humour to this film, which may seem weird at times, but always funny.

The directing is well done and the music is absolutely awesome, and fits the film perfectly. This movie also has what could be considered as one of the greatest endings of all time. This movie is brilliantly executed and I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys watching movies.


If you like action movies, this film is for you. If you like gentle comedy, this film is also for you. If you've only seen Chow Yun-Fat playing suave, "hard boiled" killers this film is *definitely* one you should see. Breathtaking action sequences pepper a sweet plot about the triumph of innocence over arrogance and the power of love and friendship.

Plus you get to see Chow Yun-Fat walking around with Mickey Mouse balloons.

5 stars out of 5. One of my favorite HK comedies.


Okay so I didn't understand a word of the movie, but thank god for subtitles!

Summary: Ko Chun is the master, the god of gambling, no one can beat him at card games and dices. He is hired by a guy to take his place on a high-stake gambling circuit only Ko Chun ends up having an accident by a couple who had set up a trap for somebody else. They take him in and take care of him, but when he wakes up he has no memory of who he is except that he has a fondness for chocolate and starts behaving like a little child! Great movie, brilliant performance by Chow Yun-Fat as Ko Chun, I rate this movie 10/10!


Cruel World has taken years to release, with about a dozen supposed release dates and practically zero updates on when the movie was going to release. I was excited for the film, but because of the lack of updates - I just expected this movie to be released "one day". It had good reviews from screenings, and was even released in Australia...so I don't know why they took so long to release this amusing slasher flick! I loved this!

The movie opens with a great appearance from Jaime Pressly, who has an encounter with Edward Furlong in her home, after something she did to him on a Reality-TV show they were both on. After some brutal results, Edward takes over her mansion and holds a Reality-TV show of his own with his psychotic brother, as the unlucky contestants realize (as Furlong quotes) "If you get voted of this show, you get voted off for good!". I loved this flick, it was really cool and really entertaining to watch.

Cruel World is a slasher film you don't take seriously at all, because it is a movie that is pure, slasher fun with a lot of humor involved. I mean, when was the last time you saw an Asian female being chased by a maniac...only to pee on him and do martial arts kicks? This movie has some funny humor like this spread throughout the film. I wouldn't say it's a Horror-Comedy actually, or a spoof. I'd just say it's a fun movie you don't take seriously!

The acting was really good, and Jaime Pressly stood out in her role in the movie. Edward Furlong looked like he was having fun as a psycho, and had some funny one-liners as he provides commentary for us over the contestants. All of the other cast were great too, and I liked their characters...even if some of them were stereotypes. The movie has a high body count too, and entertaining death scenes. They handled the Reality-TV show aspect quite well actually, and even though it was rather straight-forward, it was still good.

Overall, Cruel World was definitely worth the wait. I have no idea what took so long for this movie to get released, as it really is a fun slasher film to watch. It has some really good acting, cool death scenes, humor and more. Recommended!

7/10


I found that this movie had a very original storyline. A little bit of 'Real World' mixed with 'I Know What You Did Last Summer'. This was an Indie movie at best. It seemed more surreal when it came to the 'cruel' scenes of murder, as far as acting. Everyone's acting was exactly how anyone would react in the situations they were put through. Especially, when it came to the meet and greet sessions pool side. Edward Furlong plays a great villain in my book. The Asian girl kicked ass fighting for her life. Thats the way to do it. If I was put in that situation and I knew martial arts I would use it too. The action was well placed, and the music kept you thinking, "Uh oh, somethings getting ready to go down." Whats best about this movie is that the music didn't overtake the dialogue and action in this film. I recommend this movie for all Indie film buffs. Watch and Enjoy!


I'm one of those people who try very hard to see the good in everything, even movies, and this film "Cruel World" deserves far more credit than it seems to get, as it is actually rather good. Part of the reason people seem to think it is terrible may be because, whether intentionally or not, the film sets about mocking Reality Television (which is a major part of the film), so while you may watch the film and think that it is rubbish, perhaps that is what the creators want you to think.

The premise of the film is an interesting one. A jilted loser, Philip Markham (Edward Furlong) of a bachelorette-style reality show seeks revenge on the woman who turned him down (Jaime Pressley), by killing her and her hot husband (who doesn't appear to be credited unfortunately), then starts his own reality show, where one by one the contestants are killed off - usually by Markham's dimwitted brother, Claude, leaving only the "final girl" (Laura Ramsey). The reality show is presumably fake, that much is not revealed, but it is similar to "Big Brother" in which the nine contestants are all in a confined house and are made to do tasks which determine who gets "sent home".

The contestants are certainly a varied group of people, and most have distinct personalities, which is nice to see. Laura Ramsey plays the "final girl" Jenny, and though she is nice, as per usual in many horror movies (horror is one of several genres that are merged in this film), she is rather bland. However, it would seem that Laura Ramsey is off to a nice start in her acting career. Andrew Keegan, in yet another obscure film, plays the "hero", Bobby, and does so with his usual gusto. The lovely Nicole Bilderbeck as Mikko puts up the best fight in her death scene, but her role is relatively small, which is a shame, as for someone who made their debut in the smash hit "Clueless" she hasn't really had as big a career as the others, (she was great in "Bring It On"), but as usual she gives a terrific performance.

Sanoe Lake makes her first on screen appearance since "Blue Crush", though one might wonder why she bothered, as she gets nothing to do. Brian Geraghty is terrific as the hot Southern boy Colin, who surprisingly shows the most humanity in the film, especially when placed in a "kill or be killed" situation. Joel Michaely on the other hand plays the terribly annoying gay Jack, who you cannot wait to get "voted off". As far as Edward Furlong goes, playing the villain, he does eccentric well. Daniel Franzese however sure is a step down from his role in "Mean Girls". And as for the lovely Jaime Pressley, she adds a touch of sophistication to the film, and as usual gives a terrific performance.

Even if you don't believe that the film is smarter than it sets out to be, at least enjoy some near-mindless fun for 90 minutes.


I saw this at Screamfest where it was playing as the opening night movie. Having not heard anything about it before, I was surprised by how cool it was. Totally unpredictable from start to finish. The crowd went crazy from laughing, to gasping, to yelling at the screen. I told some friends about it who are way into Ed Furlong. He was awesome. Scary fun. A total trip. Let's face it, reality television is totally played out. I recommend it for anyone who loves to hate reality TV! I'm a girl, but have to admit that Jaime Pressly looked hot ;) I'm trying to find out who did the music at the end, because it sounded like someone famous. No spoilers, but the ending made me wonder if they're gonna do part two.


Edward Furlong reaches critical mass in this roll, which is buttered with gargantuan heaviness. Though the story is famished for what anyone might term logical structure, Mr. Furlong seems hungry to chew his way through every scene. Some might think he's becoming too big for such movies, squeezing into them like 5-pounds of marbled pork in a two-pound sausage casing. But I think he's a dollop of awesome; a soupçon of superb; and the thick, calorie-laden icing on what might otherwise be a rather slender cinematic cake. It doesn't matter that the director seems to have "written" this while shooting it, nor that the film runs out without any explicable ending. It has the enormous talent of Edward Furlong, who feasts on the meager dramatic opportunities as if they were a banquet.


Disposable twenty-somethings, each a stereotypical self-absorbed kid with designs on winning a cool million on this reality show which is a cross between Survivor and Real World, find themselves in quite the dilemma:the producer of the show they represent is a deranged sicko, his psychopathy a result of his dismissal on a "Bachellorette" type of reality show, using his equally nutty brother, who hangs on his every command, to carry out a massacre, because you see once a contestant is eliminated or "voted off", they really are ELIMINATED.

The film's sole novelty is seeing Edward Furlong as the nutcase producer, who opens the film stalking Jaime Pressly(..I guess she was friends with the director or something, stopping by because she owed him a favor, I guess), successful in getting revenge for how she duped him in front of millions of viewers for another. Furlong sits in this room, watching monitors placed throughout the mansion and it's grounds, his voice barking orders and teases to the contestants, before and after they discover what happens once you are a loser.

The games become more and more clever and violent as times goes by(..not enough to satisfy, however), the remaining survivors trying to form a plan to escape their unfortunate predicament. The cast chosen are all attractive, with athletic, toned bodies, their attitudes and mores appropriate for each stock character, represented by the actors / actresses without a hint of depth..they are designed specifically one-dimensional, representing the hunky bad boy, hick cowboy, Latina chick with an attitude, gay and slightly chubby goofball, shy Asian girl with martial arts skills, black intellectual(..his dialogue, particularly when he speaks "scholarly" is as artificial as it gets), hot beach bunny who comes from money and is easy to seduce, etc.

Don't worry, the film also provides the viewer with the token blonde "final girl" in Laura Ramsey(..one of the new horror "it girls", having starred in such recent flicks as "The Covenant", "Venom", and "The Ruins") so that all the slasher guidelines are fulfilled. The violence is tame(..the usual beheading, followed by the head roll down a hill, an arm taken off, finger hacked away, all presented in such a way that look completely underwhelming) and I think one can tell that most of the money went to Furlong instead of proper make-up effects trumping our desire to see these characters die in a properly horrible manner. We aren't even given any nudity as I guess these girls were too prudish to bother flashing us some skin for burdening ourselves through this crap. The film's goal is obvious..a black comic parody on reality programming, and using the slasher template as a means to kill off these greedy partyers who enjoy the lavish location before terror descends upon them. Furlong is often remarking to himself, inside his "headquarters" regarding what his future victims discuss with themselves, and his character, devilish grin intact, peeps on the sexual(..and bathroom) activities of the females. The reactions of the characters as they are terrorized might amuse, since I'm sure many of us have fantasized, in times past, the demise of these immature reality show types who back-stab and bemoan each other for financial gain or if just for the hell of it. Susan Ward is your eye candy for the movie, the sex pot who gets a little "off the top" when she attempts to escape from the grounds. A constant is near-escapes and how Furlong, time and again, prevails to stop them in the nick of time. Daniel Franzese is Furlong's unstable, mentally handicapped and easily manipulative brother Claude. Another movie pointing out poor Furlong's faltering career.


If you like terror, blood and sex, then here's a shocker to sink your teeth into. Cruel World kicked ass. I recently purchased this DVD at Best Buy and i loved every minute of it. It had a killer cast to die for. Im a huge fan of Edward Furlong and he was at his menacing best. Picture hot college students including Susan Ward (The In Crowd), Laura Ramsey (Venom and The Covenant) and Sanoe Lake (Blue Crush) and six other gorgeous co-eds, pitted against the diabolical Edward Furlong in one of the most gruesome slasher films today. This movie really rocked! It's like Saw meets Fear Factor. I strongly urge anyone who comes across this film to check it out. Its definitely a party movie and reality TV at its best!


I gave this movie a 1 out of 10, only because 0 is not an option. First up, it's an attempt to cash in on the popularity of reality television. Just like Series 7: The Contenders - which is brilliant, or House of Nine - which was still pretty good, you get a reality TV show based on people having to kill each other to win. Except this movie is crap. It relies too heavily on flashes of gore - which, to be honest, are not much - especially to justify the claims of sadistic gore - and little on any actual thought process. I'm not gonna go into details and post any spoilers - watching the movie itself will spoil any self respect you might have. All I will say is that Ed Furlong was ridiculous in Terminator 2; he was a complete douche bag in American History X - which means that he can only really go up. Except, he filmed this movie and established a new low for himself.


This movie was thrown together without any attention to story line.

It was a sorry excuse for cinema with no surprises and no excuse to be made in the first place.

The slashing and thrashing scenes were dreadfully predictable and this movie is void of any merit. It was an independent effort that should not have been made.

I liked the premise of making fun of reality shows but in turn, the movie gave us less cinema and drama than most reality shows in the first place.

Somehow it achieved the best promotion for reality TV I've ever seen.

Mike Wagner


What can i say positive about this movie? Absolutely nothing. Acting was completely crap, storyline was completely crap. The only good acting probably came from Edward Furlong which was slightly believable as a psychopath, but other than that this movie was the biggest waste of 90 mins I've ever seen. It is violent, though nothing u wouldn't have already seen watching The Devils Rejects, which beats this movie by very far. SPOILER: Some of the violence in this movie was actually laughable, in a sick kinda way, when the blonde cowboy kid runs towards the fence, gets electrocuted and ends up flying right off it, looked almost comical. Agree with me you may not, but one things for sure, this movie absolutely sucked.


Dear movie-goers, How I wish somebody had warned me not to watch this movie... That's why I'm trying to do the same for you. DON'T watch it. It's sooo bad you won't believe, without even being bad enough for you to laugh at it. It's really a movie that insults any possible gray-cell you have. I watched it at a Movie Festival in Portugal, FANTASPORTO, a Festival specialized in horror-sci-fi-alternative movies, therefore you could be expecting almost anything from the selection of movies. But this one is just a plain teenage slashing movie, and just so that you won't think that my appreciation of the movie is due to my general taste in movies, I can tell you that compared to any "I know what you did last Summer", or "Halloween", or such, those movies are works of pure cinematic art compared to "Cruel World". I'm sorry if I'm not being very clear about why I didn't like it, but I wouldn't know where to start: could it be because there is not a drop of originality whatever? No plot? Because the actors suck? Because the director has no idea of the difference between a movie and a cucumber salad? Or maybe the totally misplaced soundtrack? I don't know... Edward Furlong, what happened to you?


Whitesnake singer David Coverdale has received more than his share of criticism over the years for letting his band be a revolving door platform for talented musicians who come in for an album/tour, then ride off into the sunset only to be replaced on the next tour. Well I dare say that anyone who sees this performance by the 2004 Whitesnake lineup live in London will be thankful that Coverdale hand-picked this group for the tour and DVD. Lead Guitarist Doug Aldrich (fresh from his stint with Dio) shines on every riff and solo, combining technical skill with real heart and soul. Reb Beach (formerly of Winger) takes a back seat to Aldrich while capably handling the rhythm guitar duties here. Tommy Aldridge returns to remind us that he's still an 8-armed octopus on the drums, truly the master of the double-bass kick...and Coverdale himself can still go from a whisper to a scream with all the power, soul and technical accuracy you remember from 1987. He works harder than ever to prove that, at the age of 53, he's still one of hard rock's most dynamic front-men. The video and audio quality are superb here...a must see for any Whitesnake fan, Coverdale fan, Rock fan!


Hands down, this is my favorite concert DVD out of the many I have watched. I would say the best, but "best" is such a subjective term. This features, of course, David Coverdale as a prime example of sounding at least as good as he ever has, and quite possibly better. As for the rest of Whitesnake, I don't think he has ever assembled a better supporting cast. It has been previously been noted, quite accurately, that Doug Aldrich is given the lion's share of solos in this lineup. But Reb Beach definitely has his moments, and his brilliance does shine through more than once. Tommy Aldridge is a king in my book. What a drummer! I also think Marco Mendoza is the absolute best bass player around, at least in the style of bass he plays. I give this a 10 out of 10.

However if it were possible I would deduct about 3/10 for the omission of 2 songs. I can't begin to understand why "Slow N' Easy' and "Slide It In" were left off of this. Truth be told, I could go the rest of my life without ever hearing "Bad Boys" again. The same can be said for "Take Me With You", although they worked that one up really well. But if you take those two away, you definitely have room for two more songs that I find indispensable. Yet these glaring omissions can't take away how marvelous this performance was. As a bonus, when you purchase this DVD, you get a bonus CD with about half of the show on it. I don't possess the words to describe how much i recommend this. I give this a 9.7 GOD bless David Coverdale!!!!


Whitesnake fans have been begging for a new DVD from this timeless group of musicians and front man David Coverdale, and as promised, this DVD delivered! I would highly recommend watching the documentary and musician interviews as a preview of the energy that is to come. The energy that comes across on the opening selection, "Burn" sets the stage for the entire experience, which is what this DVD is-- an "experience." The set list of Mr. Coverale's favorites, gives an intimate look at the relationship he maintains with his life-long, loyal fans, as well as crowd shots of a new generation of young people obviously smitten and drawn in to this amazing singer, whose vocal range has been amazingly well-preserved throughout time. Despite the reported final copies that were reportedly faulty in final mixing and color switching back and forth between color and B&W, it does not interfere with the total concert experience, which is what Mr. Coverdale has stated publicly was his own personal objective for the project. His desire for the DVD was to take 100's of hours of footage and capture the performance of an intimate live evening with Whitesnake. Tommy Aldridge is simply, to me, the absolute best drummer in hard rock. His drum solo had him beating out 20 minute drum solos with his bare hands, as DC leaves the stage for his mandatory "neck massages." The numerous positive feedback, as well as high overseas rankings put this DVD as a contender in comparison to any rock band out there. I would highly recommend it to any die-hard rock enthusiast!


This is an excellent representation of a Whitesnake concert. The one and only time I have seen Whitesnake live was New Year's Eve 1981 but this really brings back great memories.

Only David Coverdale remains in the band from those heady days of my youth but, nonetheless, these guys still put on a show. If you ever get the chance to see Whitesnake live, I suggest you take - you will not regret it.

My only complaint is that the powers that be decided to erase the sparse amounts of foul language and replace it with ... nothing! C'mon guys - I can't see too many 13 year olds rushing out to buy this. We're all (probably) adults! Leave it in there as part of the actual concert! DAVE


I have one comment about this DVD: DO NOT BUY IT!!!!! This DVD is censored - multiple instances of the F word being muted out - and no true fan of any music genre (especially rock) should support censorship in any form.

Despite everything good about this DVD (and everything else about this DVD is phenomenal - everything a music DVD should be) we should not be supporting censorship. If there had been a version with an explicit lyrics sticker and another one marked as "edited for content" I would be okay with this - but to censor it outright with no notification to the consumer is outrageous behavior that cannot be tolerated.

I have already personally sent multiple emails to the band, the studio, the production company, the retailer where I purchased this DVD, and even the band's PR firm urging them to issue a public apology to fans and offer an uncensored version to those of us who wish to have one. I urge you to do the same.


This is truly one of the most intriguingly rich documentaries I have ever seen illuminated on the screen. I was fortunate enough to catch it at The Seattle Film festival a couple of years ago and have been looking for the DVD ever since. Where might this be? I know it received several awards and can't imagine why it has not been released yet._THIS IS A GEM NOT TO BE LOST!!! "Strange Fruit" very masterfully combines History, Biography, and Jazz Music. It starts with the simple premise of a song, "Strange Fruit", which Bronx-born school teacher-Abel Merepol wrote the lyrics for and jazz diva Billie Holliday later made famous. Although there was some conflict about whom should have rightfully received credit for this song "back in the day" (I will not reveal too much),-the fact that the writer was Jewish and the singer African American helps us to understand the sensitivity of the lyrics themselves as the story unfolds a rich -if previously unspoken-tapestry of the American Soul- revealed to us via one of the greatest of all American contributions-jazz music!!! This documentary is a powerful acknowledgment of the people and history that gave us this legacy and to whom we owe much recognition. I think the viewer will find themselves glued to their seat as the behind-the-scenes story of the 30's and 40's New York Jazz scene/its venues unfolds with the music. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS ON DVD!!! Any info out there on a planned DVD release?


A few months ago, I saw "Strange Fruit" for the first time. It was so haunting, both the song and the film, that I couldn't get it out of my mind! I've recorded the documentary and am looking for a CD that contains the song. I definitely recommend seeing this film.


While the draw for many would be Billie Holiday's interpretation of this famous song, it is the background stories that make this film so engaging.

This film peels away the popular veneer from the song Billie Holiday once claimed she wrote, revealing many intriguing layers. Not only do we delve into the racism that bore this song, but also the interactions between racism, the early labor movement, McCarthyism, and popular culture. Everywhere this documentary's journey takes us, there are the fearful reactionaries meeting the creative and hopeful artists and activists... All of it brilliantly, patiently intertwined and paced by the filmmaker. So patiently executed in fact, I was led into a mid-film, historically surprising plot twist without a clue it was coming.

Yet, with all this depth and craft, the documentary remains very easy to watch.


I only wanted to see this documentary for one reason: to watch Ms. Holiday perform the title song. The song's extremely sad, bitter lyrics are legendary, but I'd heard for years that it had been given something of a dramatic, almost eccentric, interpretation by Ms. Holiday herself. I'd assumed that if there was a surviving recording of it, it was in some B-level motion picture or newsreel. And here's the big surprise of the documentary: when we finally see Holiday, it is not on film, but on live television. A surviving b/w reel-to-reel videotape of a 1958 (or 1959) BBC broadcast shows Ms. Holiday- beautiful, regal, but somewhat melancholy (with hair severely pulled back and in a glittering dress)- stylishly reciting with piano accompaniment for 3 minutes of what must be the earliest surviving videotape ever recorded-- and just a scant 5 months before her death. It's like two phenomena were jelled into one performance: modern television technology and an artist very much at the end of her own life. Blew me out of the water!!


"Southern trees bear a strange fruit/Blood on the leaves and blood at the root."Strange Fruit.A poem written by a Jewish high school teacher Abel Meeropol.A song made famous by Billie Holiday.Abel wrote it after he saw a photo depicting the lynching of a black man in the south.Something so beautiful came out of such a tragic event.Shivers go down your spine when you hear Billie Holiday perform it.Your eyes get wet.You ask yourself why and yet you get no answer.How could something like that happen such a short time ago? And just because you're black.Joel Katz' documentary from 2002 is very touching, very moving movie about one stain in American history.There are Abel's sons, Michael and Robby, talking about the song, about their father.Pete Seeger sings a piece of the song and plays with his guitar.Again your eyes get wet.Amiri Baraka, Don Byron, Abbey Wilson and Cassandra Wilson are also talking there.This movie makes you mad, it makes you sad.There is a stain you can't clean. "Here is a strange and bitter crop."


This movie has no physical violence, but it's truly scary. Chad is evil. He hurts others' feelings for the pleasure of showing himself that he can. He has an explanation for his cruelty, but that's just to draw Howard in to play his game. Without that explanation, he'd still find reasons to be cruel, because his pleasure comes from seeing others in pain. Worse, he can get away with his cruelty, because he is charming, charismatic, and effectively manipulative in his dealings with people. Except in the central plot, he manages to hurt people without taking the blame, by making his victims blame themselves.

Howard is both a victim and a willing participant in Chad's evil plot. Without people like him, people like Chad are much less able to hurt others. But people who are too weak to stand in the way of bad people are fairly common. Even those weak enough to be drawn into the plots of bad people are common enough. Even a person strong enough to foil Chad's plot could only have done so if he had known about it, and Chad knew not to trust his plans with such a person. Howard had a chance to be the hero, but he was too weak and became another villain.

The central victim, Christine, started out suspicious, but was drawn in by Chad's skillful manipulation, and to some extent Howard's real interest in her. Chad was also good at choosing a victim who would fall for the plot, just as he chose an accomplice effectively. Other victims had other weaknesses that Chad found ways of exploiting, like the man whose speech he mocked in a way that made that victim feel like he himself was to blame.

Most people have never met a serial killer, but many have met people like Chad, who enjoy hurting others. The fact that Chad is an example of a more familiar type of evil makes him much scarier. He's more chilling because he doesn't have a clear reason for his badness -- he just enjoys being cruel. What is scarier than an evil that one can imagine falling victim to in everyday life?


Neil Labute's In the Company of Men is an amazing motion picture, one of the best films of 1997 and a shocking indictment of the ego-driven corporate world in which we live. On the surface, the film, expertly written by Neil Labute in his first feature effort, seems to be a cruel tale of misogyny. Lurking beneath the surface, however, is the film's true message, one which depicts the business world as a battle of survival of the fittest, a harsh world where men sacrifice their integrity and compassion in favor of oneupsmanship and greed.

Fed up with their failures with members of the opposite sex, two co-workers, Chad (Aaron Eckhart) and Howard (Matt Malloy) decide to play a cruel prank on an unsuspecting female victim. They will both date her, and then after a six-week period, they will dump her, a plan they've devised after years of being tormented and unlucky with women. They eventually choose their prey, a deaf typist named Christine (Stacy Edwards) and begin their quest, asking her for dates, sending her flowers, and sharing intimate moments. All this seems like a pleasant surprise to Christine after years of no dating--but, of course, she doesn't know the plan the men have hatched.

I don't want to reveal too much more about the plot than this. I will say that the film has two climactic scenes, one expected and the other inevitable in retrospect. The first climax makes the movie a success, the second makes the film great--only then do we see Labute's true intent.

Labute's cast of no-names is uniformly excellent. Eckhart, who has since become a Labute staple, delivers a fascinating performance as a truly despicable character, the smooth and fast-talking Chad. Matt Malloy is excellent as Howard, the "weaker" of the two men, and Edwards is great as the hapless deaf typist, presenting her character as likable, intelligent, and sensitive, not just a stereotypical handicapped woman. But the real star of the film is Labute's script. Judging by this, and his three more recent films (Your Friends and Neighbors, Nurse Betty, and Possession--all quality films), Labute is a writer-director to monitor for years to come.

A noteworthy comment about In the Company of Men is that it has been marketed as a comedy. Those of you expecting slapstick humor and romantic charms might be better served seeing another movie. In the Company of Men is NOT comedy. There are elements of black humor, especially one particularly depraved scene involving one of the men and an office intern. However, In the Company of Men is more tragic than comic, a look into the tarnished male psyche brought on by years of corporate stress and paranoia. I couldn't help but think of David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross, another film about corporate greed in today's world when I was watching this one. However, while Glengarry plays as more of a character-driven mystery and morality play, In the Company of Men is much more insidious, and it offers no solutions in the end. In fact, the final shot of the film is, in my mind, one of the most memorable in modern cinema. Just who exactly has the upper hand?....

9/10


When I first heard about this movie my main motivation for seeing it was related to the controversy that surrounded it. I had heard all sorts of things said about what a misogynistic piece of garbage this was, but not afraid of a few negative reviews I went and saw it.

It's hard to say what impressed me most about this movie. I thought the performances were excellent, the dialogue was sharp and inciteful and the story intense. Aaron Eckhart's narcissistic, callous performance was amazing.

I cannot understand how this movie is misogynistic in any way whatsoever, as the characters are so hideous there is no way known you could empathise with them or consider their behaviour as anything other than abhorrent. I thought that the snapshot of the corporate male dominated workplace was fantastic and the picture it painted of testosterone charged males excellent.

The ending was amazing and I recall leaving the cinema and not being able to speak for a full 10 minutes.

See this movie.

9/10.


The film begins with two men in an airport lounge, both discussing how they recently broke-up with their girlfriends. The first man is named Chad (played by Aaron Eckhart). He is seemingly cordial to talk to but behind the smiling facade lies a loathsome, callous, spiteful fellow - one who is ruthless without showing any sign of remorse - in fact, he seems to derive great pleasure and pride from inflicting anguish on others, especially women. The other man is Howard (Mike Mallory), Chad's colleague at work and also a former member of the same college as Chad. Howard is a quieter chap, and seems to just go along with Chad's comments.

The two men have just arrived in a new town on a six week stay regarding their office work. Chad suggests that they date the same woman for the duration of the six week stay then dump her. Howard eventually agrees. The woman they pick is Christine (Stacy Edwards), a deaf woman who works in their office block. Chad thinks Christine is the perfect victim, with her being deaf, and mocks her distorted speech to Howard, and refers to her as a 'freak'. The two men start to date Christine, but problems start to arise when Howard bumps into them both in a restaurant. The film displays the start of each of the six weeks with a title and a burst of chaotic music. There are a few memorable scenes towards the conclusion of the film. The film focuses on the dog-eat-dog materialistic corporate world, and some of the envious and vindictive people that exist within it. I don't want to reveal any more, but I recommend you see this troubling film.


This is a riveting movie, but also an unexpected one. I didn't see this until it came out on video, and I had heard a lot about it of course, but luckily I was in the dark on the twist LaBute throws in at the end. Most people got that this was a study of male-female relationships from a wildly off-kilter view, and that was powerfully done. But I think most people missed this is also about the workplace, specifically the Alpha Male in the workplace, and how he got that way. Is it any wonder that Chad and Howard decide to make a game of their seduction of Katherine when it's clear they've had to plan their whole careers as if they were competing in a game of some kind?

I think I agree with an interview I saw with LaBute where he said he thought Howard was actually the more despicable character, because Chad is only in it for the game, where Howard starts to take those feelings seriously. Nevertheless, Eckhart's performance makes Chad one of the most chilling characters I've ever seen in movies. Where a lot of movie villains "indicate" to let you know they're just acting (which does work when it's done right), Eckhart gives away nothing, so you never know what he's thinking, even if he tells you what he's thinking. I hope he goes on to bigger things.


When I rented this film I had heard a lot of good things about it. I also heard that it was a comedy. It was in the comedy section. It was promoted as a comedy. IT WAS NOT A COMEDY! This is a very serious film that is sometimes very difficult to watch. Moreover, the ending is very depressing. Eckhart plays the biggest jerk in the history of film. A good movie that you will probably not enjoy watching.


Most people I know who saw this movie thought that Chad was a total jerk; that Howard was a total sap (who got cajoled by Chad into being a half-baked jerk); and that Christine was the "victim" here. I disagree.

Chad and Howard were deliberately playing a 'game' (albeit a nasty and mean one) to strike back at the opposite sex for what they perceived to be inter-personal injustices perpetrated against them by the female gender. In doing this both Chad and Howard pursue Christine, despite her handicap, but whereas Chad continues the ruse until the bitter end, Howard actually does let his better sense of humanity prevail and falls in love, for real, with Christine.

But Christine chooses Chad over Howard, clearly because Chad was more cute and charming in her eyes. By contrast, she more than once breaks Howard's heart before anyone has a chance to break hers.

So, I would argue that HOWARD, not Christine, is the real victim here: he is set-up and manipulated by Chad, whom he reluctantly plays along with from the very onset, and has his true emotions trounced by Christine, whose vanity leans her toward Chad, who is heartlessly playing a cruel joke on her all along.

The movie is an excellent social commentary and is impeccably cast and brilliantly acted, all the way through. The real victim here, though, IMHO, is basic human decency.