I'd definitely rather clean the cat box than see this again.

By my definition of horror, i.e. not unrelenting gore, this was a disappointment. In fact, the first time that I tried to watch it, the two guys in the room revolted within the first 15 minutes and refused to watch any more.

Foolishly, I decided to rent it again and watch it alone. Yes, there is a twist and it is a surprise. Otherwise, from the opening scenes, this film is relentlessly nasty, gory, and really not very interesting--I fast forwarded through most of it so that I did not have to hear (or watch) the screaming. So, unless it is a free rental and/or you get off on human-on-human violence, expect to pay a rental fee to see the beginning and then fast forward through to the surprise ending.


1. Trailers and impression from commercials

The movie trailers have given the impression that this is an action movie, with lots of battles fought with swords and spears in addition to dramatic spoken scenes. This have appealed to people that especially enjoy action movies. Those people are greatly disappointed when they after a first introduction action scene, are turned back to calm scenes in the description of the Arn's childhood and youth. I asked myself several times why the makers of this move haven't been so honest and told what kind of movie that this actually is: a historical drama that happens to include some battles? Then the movie would have appealed to the right kind of people: those who like to be seduced by the drama of dialogs and calm scenes. At the cinema I was sitting next to some teenagers that obviously was waiting for the great battles, and while waiting they were talking and "play fight" with each other. They were in addition totally unable to understand the impact of Christianity at that time and were lacking background knowledge of the historical events (just the word "Tempelridder"/"Knight Templar" made them laugh!). My point is that they had been fooled to see this movie instead of some other "Lord of the rings"-like movie.

2. The motion picture

The three books by Jan Guillou about Arn Magnusson are so extremely brilliant in construction of the story and in the build-up of the sentences. The only actions that had to be taken to make these books to a movie-success would simply be to translate the books into a manuscript! This would have given a brilliant drama movie with lots of conspiracies, political plots and a description of the forces that was between the rivaling families (as described in the first book). Unfortunately this movie never reaches an acceptable quality as a drama movie, nor as an action movie, but falls in between as unsuccessful in both genres! The life of Arn and the events in Sweden is told so swiftly and with so little depth that it is impossible to get familiar with the characters and to develop feelings for them. Do people that haven't read the book even get the chance to really understand the drama that happened at this time? Even Arn is described in few details, and it is impossible to understand his deep religiosity (trusting that everything that happens to him is God's will) and respect for all living creatures he developed during the years in the monastery. Instead, Arn is as a grown-up presented with an anxious and frightened look during the whole screenplay in Sweden. I am really sorry that the actor didn't get the chance to get deeper into his character. How would the audience be interested in the rest of the movie, if the feelings for Arn, Cecilia and the other persons are missing? (While reading the book, I even got feelings for Arn's horse! And that tells very much about the greatness of the books, and not about myself as a reader.)

The motion picture is stuffed with to many cliché scenes (children playing and running, Cecilia's joyful dancing in the garden, the free horse riding in the woods, love scenes) in addition to the motion of the camera itself: focusing on something exterior (the sky, tree tops, building etc.) and then slide into the center to capture the people.

3. Music

I am a person that is very fond of classical music, and have also interest in orchestral music in movies. Some music found in movies really has great quality and originality. However, I cannot give the same statement for the music in this movie. The music is too simple and flat! The clichés are so obvious and annoying: all joyful scenes are accorded to "beautiful" music of strings and woodwind. It really made me sick! And the few action scenes are accompanied by brass instruments and complete orchestra in a typical manner. Sorry, but this movie will not give you a great music experience.

Nevertheless, I should remark that I previously have read Guillou's books with great enthusiasm. My similar great disappointment of this first movie is thus inevitably coloring my comment posted here.


"Arn: The Knight Templar" is the most expensive film ever in Scandinavia. Once you've seen the film's 139 minutes however, you sit back with a feeling of having seen it all before.

In the Middle Ages our hero and main character Arn is born in the Swedish highlands, where different clans are fighting each other. He is raised in a monastery where he is taught to master the sword as well as the Latin language. Arn returns to his hometown as an adult, only to fall in love with the beautiful Cecilia. But of course this love turns out to be impossible. Cecilia gets pregnant outside marriage and as punishment she is sentenced to live in a monastery for 20 years. Meanwhile, Arn is sent to the Holy Land to defend Jerusalem in the name of Christ. Sounds familiar?

There is absolutely nothing new under the sun in "Arn". You are simply left with a feeling of having seen it all before. Especially as our main characters' love scenes in the forest bear a remarkable resemblance to those of Mel Gibson's Braveheart. Of course, one can't expect something new and revolutionary every time one goes to the cinema. However, with a budget of over 200 million Danish crowns one goes to the cinema with an expectation of quality. And those expectations are not met.

Nevertheless, some of the money has been spent properly. The film is visually very beautiful. The film's final battle, in which we follow our sweat-dripping hero fighting in the burning desert of the Holy Land, is by Scandinavian standards extremely beautiful - but in comparison with Hollywood just extremely mediocre.

"Arn", which is an adaptation of Swedish author Jan Guillou's novel, is simply not a very good film. In particular the first half hour drags itself along, and you just don't have a clue about what kind of film you're watching. The film's opening sequence is actually quite good and points towards the fact that it's an adventure film, while the following boring half an hour points towards the love drama. This film tries so hard to be it all that it becomes a walking cliché (especially the scene in which Cecilia hands Arn her necklace is so incredibly cheesy, it hurts). All in all, it's sad that so much money has been spent only to have the audience leaving the cinema with a deja-vu-feeling, the thought "haven't I seen this before?".


I had expected something between a mediocre to average entertainment experience from this movie. Even so, it turned out to be a huge disappointment.

Starting with the narration in the beginning of the movie - as many point out, it's style is wholly inappropriate. The voice and intonation lacks gravity and seriousness, and makes you wonder whether this is a children's' movie, or perhaps a cheap nature documentary.

The child directing is poor (and/or the child casting). Several of these scenes have been edited to try to hide acting mistakes, and then dubbed, but mismatching dialog and mouth movements can clearly be discerned. Example: the scene where the two boys hold and talk about a bird.

After that, it quickly becomes obvious that two complex novels have been squeezed into a single movie. Although it's full of well-known actors, they don't get many lines, and there is no character development. No inner motivations or inner conflicts seem to exist and there's no evolution of any characters' personality and beliefs over time - although there is plenty of that in the books. Those deeper motivations are part of what makes these novels interesting, as a picture of beliefs and dogmas in Swedish nobility, medieval church, and the conflicting peoples and orders present in the holy land in this period! Instead, the characters appear rather simple-minded, and longer dialog has been substituted with cheap gestures and editing that tries to fit in too much story points into too few minutes. Example: The wooden sword that Arn just happens to hold in his hand for a second as his mother is submitted to the monastery (so simplistic, and totally out of line with his character's development in the book). Example: Arn steps in, on "impulse" and wholly unexplained, for his father at the judicial conflict.

Towards the second half of the movie I was at least hoping for well-done battles in the holy land. This turned out to be almost laughable however. Since the movie makers were unable to make any overview takes on the battle the director tries to compensate with closeups of Arn and Saladin, trying to give the impression that they're looking at each other - trying to make it a profound personal connection between foes that grudgingly respect each other. But since the conclusion that there are only a dozen or two soldier extras around them, and an overview shot would have revealed the pathetic size of the battle scene, it just ruins the scene more: If you can't make a scene feel naturally epic, don't try to fake it with a cliché! Given the extraordinary "squeeze" of story material into the 2+ hours of the movie, it's a total mystery that the movie makers insert irrelevant subplots such as the prestige conflict between Arn and a fellow officer in the Templar order. As it is portrayed, that conflict adds nothing to character depth and has no impact on the plot whatsoever.

Oh I almost forgot the score. There's constant music throughout the movie. It's never turned off. It's not *bad*, but it's not overly good either. And did I mention it's never turned off? It made me think of reality-TV-shows where they play dramatic music throughout the whole episode in an attempt to infuse drama where there is precious little of it. But since this movie has - at least on paper - much more substance than that, it ends up being quite distracting and it indicates the level of confidence the director and producer had in their dramatic capability.

It all boils down to that this is a strong story that can almost tell itself, if the movie makers would have just let it do so. But instead they needlessly overreach in style, substance and amount of plot points, and I left the theater feeling two things I haven't experienced after a movie in years: Palpable relief it was over, and wanting my money back.


I expected a lot from this film, being one of the most ambitious Swedish films ever with tons of local media coverage and a genre I enjoy, but I was disappointed. It looks great and big (at least parts of it), but something is wrong with the acting or the direction (or maybe the script) because you never really get drawn into the story and you don't really care about the characters.

Stellan Skarsgård is great (as usual) but it is a very small part, Vincent Perez is OK, I liked Morgan Alling in his role, but both Joakim Nätterqvist and Sofia Helin are really weak.

I looked so much forward to this film when it came out (had read the books), but was very disappointed. Did not expect much for the sequel, and it really was not worth much either.


Time to realize movie makers, you can't film books satisfactorily! (Lord Of The Rings is the exception that confirms the law)

There is just too much depth, too much! But no... you need to squeeze out a movie of minimal standards with ten(or less) dialog lines per character mixed in with a ludicrous pretty-boy model that makes sad faces that'll is ensured to make all the teenage girls faint. Meanwhile, as I saw these meaningless scenes unfold, I tried not to fall asleep from movies love story.(I don't need to spoil it, you already know how it goes...What did you expect? Originality? Please...)

It is just a movie without ideas, which is fine if you want First Blood or Transformers, but this is Jan Guillou work of art for Christ's sakes! The novels were all about religion! About the conflict between different religion, views of life and most importantly: When does religion lose its wisdom and becomes fanaticism and why do men use religion as a cover for their own goals?

None of those facts are brought up in the movie, so this review is technically no spoiler. That is the level of lousiness in this movie.

The only thing they pulled off was the friendship between the two Cecilias, and that's just a side-story in the book. That's it!

Well, its only excuse is that it's a Swedsih movie, which is a terrible excuse.

Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing and idiotic battle sequences. Avoid this thing (I refuse to call it a movie any longer) like the characters in it would have avoided the Black Plague. I recommend Kingdom Of Heaven if you need a good Crusade Movie. Action AND ideas! What about that.

To finish now, this is THE most pointless feature in the history of historical, epic(not!), adventure cinema, and I've seen Alexander.


Sorry, I dozed off for a minute just *thinking* about this one. Which is hardly surprising, since my girlfriend and I literally dozed off watching the video last night-- and have no desire to try revivifying "Arn" again this evening.

There are some commendable production values on display here from time to time, and perhaps these are significantly augmented during in-theatre presentations. But no venue is capable of injecting nuance, breadth or development generally into the opaque characters who march through this thing, most especially the hero.

In short, the endless, sententious and overblown "Arn" comes across like an epic dreadfully in need of an attack by the Monty Python company. Otherwise, bring a pillow.


I was expecting a great movie hearing all the good comments it got from my friends. However I was utterly disappointed last night when I saw it.

The title of the movie suggests that the movie is about a knight templar with the name Arn. Funnily though, you won't get to know mr Arn at all! Or any of the other emotionless characters in this film.

I'm not sure what the director thought about when he made this movie, but I guess he thought that he could make about 100 scenes with people saying 2-3 lines, then another 100 scenes of scenery. Cut them together like a zip-lock and then let the audience do the rest.


I don't know whats worse. Putting an explanatory voice over in a films beginning or writing a dialogue that sounds like that actors are appearing in a serious Bergman-isch stage play. I think I have to go with the first. VO's may serve a purpose but more often it makes you feel like the film makers think your a complete idiot.

This film is, as you might already know, based on the work of Jan Guilliou, well-known Swedish writer. The three novels about Arn and his adventures has been compressed down to two films. This leads to some cinematic problems, as always when you do this. Arn - Tempelriddaren is high paced and the scenes are short and leaves you with few moments to think. Take my word for it, you will be better off with the novels, which are, not amazing, but quite good. But I would, personally, recommend the writer's contemporary work.

Swedish films depicting the dark ages or such historic times live dangerously close to being really cheezy. Those of you that have seen The Brothers Lionheart (1977) or Three Suns (2004) know exactly what I mean. 'Lionheart' is storywise really good, but other than that very cheezy. 'Suns' are actually so bad I won't even comment on that one.

Considering Arn - Tempelriddaren (and it's sequel) is the most expensive Swedish film production ever you could understand the producers nervousness about pushing the envelope. The movie depicts several religious themes, most clearly the violent clash between Christianity and Islam but also the clash between domestic Swedish Christianity and the medieval swedes. It could be depicted so much more darker and realistic, now it becomes a little Mickey Mouse Club. A little too much politically correct and edge-less. Even if I don't like it, this move is quite understandable considering the many, many contributors and their different agendas.

Heads up, though. The fighting and the battle scenes are ironically one of the best things I've seen on Swedish film. It's gritty and fast paced and bloody. Also, the scenographic, props and wardrobe division deserves a gold medal because thats beautiful work! The movie leaves much to wish for from its sequel but if you like well done fighting scenes and don't care much for story or acting - then, my friend, giddyupp!


This movie's only redeeming features are the moments when you cant help laughing out loud at the overblown clichés. Such as when Arn is sad and riding through the rain. Or when Cecila is happy and starts to dance. Or every time Joakim Netterkvist makes his "sad puppy" face, or whenever the dramatic string orchestra starts playing. On the plus side this happens a lot.

On the minus side, the rest of the time it just hurts to watch it. You feel sorry for everyone involved, especially those who paid for it. Everybody, the actors, the director, the editor, seems to be nervous working on such a big budget project (the most expensive Swedish film ever) and scared to make mistakes, and this total lack of confidence shines through everywhere.

Impossible though it seems, this actually makes the books look good in comparison. Hell, it makes Kingdom of Heaven seem good. And that is quite an achievement.


I didn't have great expectations, so it isn't that ruining the experience for me, but Arn - Tempelriddaren failed to engage me in any case. I haven't read the Guillou-book, but the story seemed so simplified that I fear the book is the same. Let's hope not.

The best thing is the photography and the scenery. This is good, and believable.

The worst thing is that the film is extremely slow, even for persons enjoying slow films. The film is trying some times to be witty, but mostly fails.

The main actors are not very believable, but are too caricatured. They are impossible to like, except perhaps a couple of the older supporting roles. Even Arn as a kid is not charming. Maybe he is supposed to be a bit stupid, growing wise. The trouble is that Arn never grows to look wise, not even bearded in the holy land.

All the women in the film seems to have scarred upper lips (maby something they had a 1000 years ago (?!?) and the films love scenes are unbelievable childish.

I'm afraid to say that this film was a great disappointment. I give it a 2 out of 10 as it would give some romantic story readers good value. If you're looking for action, look elsewhere, or actually anywhere else.


Don't see this movie, not even for free, the "action" scenes in this movie last for about 2 minutes, and i says that over half the budget was spent there.. So what do you get.. its not even close to Bravehart, some scenes in Bravehart you could see people just stand and swing a sword in the background, its the same here, but its the main characters who do it... sigh.. Thers a "love story" in this movie too, following that one is more painful then jumping from a cliff just to see the end of the day. Im gonna write something positive, It was so boring so I actually fell asleep the last 30 minutes. Sweden have some good actors, Stellan Skarsård, Max Vond Sydow, Peter Stormare and Dolph Lundgren, I think Sweden should be proud of those people, cause this movie just make Sweden look bad in front of the world.


First of all Jan Guillou is a fantastic writer. But even so, I have not read his "Arn"-series books. As I have great love and respect for Guillou, I had high expectations for this movie. Also, a good friend of mine (student in university reading history) had read and recommended this book strongly. Perhaps the director couldn't catch the atmosphere in the book, because the movie was a huge disappointment. So I will go very hard on this MOVIE and not on the book so please make the difference.

Arn , movie, tells us the tale of Arn, born in 1150, in the north of Europe, in what would later become today's Sweden. The movie is basically separated in three parts; (1) Rise of Sweden, meaning the rivals and fights for land and kingdom, (2) Arns own tale, (3) a romantic. I don't want to tell more than that about the movie, but now on the trailers you see a lot of wars in Jerusalem, but that is only very short time of this 2.31 hour long movie .

ACTING/LINES The actors were way too aware of that this was a Swedish blockbuster, and when they played their rolls, one could see an All to relaxed (not living into their characters) actors. Acting was so poor, I sometimes wondered; if this WAS a middle age movie. They were saying their lines as a person living in Stockholm would do in 2007, which was just really lame, there was no attempt to change the accent I believe, made the quality poor. In some parts, they didn't even use old Swedish words! I mean I can't believe that the Swedish language/accent hasn't change since 1150-2007 The lines was empty and when the accents was so poor, this equaled in very low performance, and I sometimes felt that I was watching Swedish Big Brother I think this is because Swedish actors has not yet understood that acting is with whole body, eye moves, body-language, etc, not just standing there like a jukebox and saying your lines one after other. The kids acting was horrible, I was dying every time they said their empty lines, with no feeling, just saying it as instructed! I mean, compare little girl Briony Tallis in Atonement, her majestic way of acting, taking the crowd, filling up the scenes whether to make us like her, hate her, moving us from different moods by her acting, those well-formed lines she so realistically with so much emotions said. If you find her too old for comparative purpose, then one could compare to Jake Lloyd, little Anakin skywalker (SW E1). In Arn, those kids didn't even have many scenes to play and most of their scenes where just the same, and lines so easy compared to Jakes, whom was the one character we've waited for since 1977! The only good actors in Arn was the old nun, Mother Rikissa, she was "good" but not Perfect as the actors should have been in this movie! Also Saladin, Father Henry, Brother Guilbert, and the Bishop passed, all other sucked so bad I was about to leave the cinema and take a rape-shower. Worst acting I found, Cecilia Algottsdotter (and her sister in the movie), I have no words. Arn himself is right behind They could simply not let us feel those really important scenes of creating a character, make us love, hate, or mystic feelings.

CUTTING/CAMERA (story telling) What were those stupid layering other scenes about (picture over picture)!? I mean, when you're supposed to create a flashback, you want to do it good, like "I am Legend". Even the TV-series LOST makes better and more intense flashbacks. And most times this layering of flags etc just explains the movie watcher as Stupid! I mean in one scene, Mother Rikissa says "we are Sverkar" and BAM a layer over her face with their flag, what is the meaning?! Who made that on Photoshop?! I will come to that later! The cutting was poor, a lot of scenes didn't make sense at all, we were pushed all too suddenly from one place to another and we didn't even get an explanation why Arns riding (I even heard this guy is actually good at riding) was really bad, the horse was so beautiful and powerful, but Arns carriage/attitude made it look so STUPID, I mean a cool horse riding scenes have we all seen, is it so hard?! In Elizabeth the golden age, when they ride their horses, one catches that freedom, speed, carriage/attitude I am talking about. "Let them come with armies of hell! They shall not pass!" Elizabeth shouts with furious anger! Cool quotes as these can also be found (in Elizabeth  not Arn! Not one single line is memorable quote!) I didn't even like Elizabeth the golden age!

ATMOSPHERE/MUSIC Now, some movies have characteristic music, Godfather, Star Wars, Lord of the rings, every movie you read now you've heard the music and felt that atmosphere within you, didn't you? Forget that on Arn. The music is really poor, no atmosphere at all, no tension or bravery  there is nothing. And I mean, this is the type of movie where you could create amazing music to create different moods!

ENVIRONMENT Well, This was the only positive part of the movie, beautiful places, great houses, roads, weapons and clothes, all that was really good.

So my conclusion is. They have tried to push three books in one movie and therefore the cutting, building up characters, story, conflicts and lines has failed brutally. After watching this movie you will see: bad actors, no good lines, extremely bad cutting (read Bad story telling) and no good music. Simply no atmosphere, no creation of different moods etc and isn't that what a movie is suppose to do? I rate Arn 1 Awful. "Kingdom of Heaven" still is winner in this genre.


From the mind of Swedens best selling author, Jan Guillou comes the tale of young Arn, a nobleman's son brought up in a monastery, and later charged to do penance as a knight in the holy land. The acting can at times best be described as sketchy, and the pace is slow for a supposed action movie. The sound score is a never ending string and choir act that doesn't add much for me, I just sat there wondering when all the racket would end. At some points I pondered leaving the cinema, but like a car wreck it's hard to stop watching, that is probably the strength of the movie,it's not bad enough to drive you out of the cinema. All in all a mediocre book made in to a abysmal movie.


Director Sidney Lumet is no hack - his resume includes classics such as "The Pawnbroker," "Serpico," "Dog Day Afternoon," and "Network." But every artist is entitled to the occasional misstep, and at least "A Stranger Among Us" is more an interesting failure than the outright disaster "The Wiz" was.

Lumet is dealing with a number of problems here, first and foremost among them a meandering script that can't quite decide what its main storyline should be. Ostensibly a crime drama centering on the murder of a merchant in Manhattan's diamond district (the stretch of 47th Street between 5th and 6th Avenues), it persists in wandering off in two other directions - Brooklyn's Hassidim community and its age-old traditions, and the threat of forbidden love between one of its members and the detective assigned to the case. While the scenes involving the religious rituals and customs add nothing to the plot, they at least are interesting and informative about a culture foreign to most viewers. Less compelling are those moments involving Ariel and Emily of the NYPD, since their interest in each other strains credulity, not only because their backgrounds make it unlikely, but due to the lack of any chemistry between Eric Thal and Melanie Griffith.

Griffith is Lumet's other major problem here. No doubt she was cast because at the time she was still Hollywood's flavor-of-the-month, but we are asked to suspend disbelief and accept her not only as a New York police officer, but as one who would be selected to go undercover and infiltrate the Jewish community and live with them as one of their own. Dying her blonde locks brown does nothing to make Griffith less the "shiksa" (Gentile woman) than she obviously is, and it's unlikely anyone in Crown Heights would have mistaken her for anything but. Yet - oddly enough - although plainly she's out of her element, the fish-out-of-water aspects of the story just don't work.

By the time whodunit is revealed, you may not care who was responsible for the nearly-forgotten crime lost in a jumble of sub-plots - but give it a moment or two of thought and you'll wonder how the victim's body could have been hidden where it was by the person implausibly identified as the killer. It's a plot twist that just isn't quite - forgive the pun - kosher.

The actors cast as the elder Jews and the atmosphere in which they live and worship add an air of authenticity that's missing from any of the scenes involving police procedures. Lee Richardson is impressive as the rebbe who, despite his misgivings, must welcome the street-smart female cop into his home. John Pankow, Mia Sara, and Jamey Sheridan do well in their small supporting roles, and James Gandolfini makes an appearance as a thug in a foreshadowing of his career as Tony Soprano, but Eric Thal is saddled with the almost impossible task of making us believe he would forsake his strong religious beliefs and dedication to Kabbalah for the hard-talking, gun-toting Griffith.

Despite its many flaws, "A Stranger Among Us" is one of those films that makes a long flight, rainy day, or dateless Friday night easier to endure. As a Lumet credit, it's a far cry from "Serpico," but a hell of a lot better than "The Wiz."


(SPOILERS) Earlier reviewers have focused on this film as a rip-off of 'Witness.' But let's take it on its own terms.

A Chasidic diamond dealer, Yaakov Klausman, is reported missing. A cynical, assertive NYC cop, Emily (Melanie Griffith), is assigned to investigate. Right away it's annoying: The 'Jewish' scenes are filmed in deep, reverential browns, through diffusion filters that make candles glow as in some Christian epic. The 'Gentile' scenes have flat, harsh blues and yellows. Emily's freewheeling, liberated attitude startles the Chasidim, who are portrayed as gentle, profound, contemplative and unworldly. In fact, whatever Chasidim are like among themselves, with non-Chasidim they can be notoriously brash, abrasive, rejecting, withdrawn, suspicious, and clannish. Emily sees a bloodstain on the drop ceiling in the diamond store that everyone else has conveniently missed. Oops! There is Yaakov's corpse, crammed into the crawl space. (I guess Chasidic corpses don't start to smell after a couple of days like the rest of us.) Emily then decides she must live among the Chasidim to learn about their community, to prevent further murders, because the murder looked like an inside job, a possibility considered unthinkable by the Jews. Both the Chasidim and her bosses readily accept this implausible idea because it's the only way to advance the plot. The Rebbe (the patriarch and leader of this Chasidic community) and his two adopted adult children take Emily into their home and view her in a generous, accepting light. Oops again: These are Chasidim, who would be most likely to view her with utter disdain. There are several conversations between Emily that provide necessary exposition, in which the Rebbe comes across as a kindly, understanding old man. In fact, he would be more likely not to speak to her at all because she is a woman not related to him! And Emily's boss doesn't seem too bright to accept her plan so uncritically and also to form a small team to back her up!

The film then takes Emily on a voyage of discovery of Chasidism. There are wonderful images of Chasidic life, but again, it stretches credulity to think that an outsider would be permitted to see them, even if she is an undercover cop working on a murder. This part feels like weeks, but surprise, it's only a few days. Emily makes friends with the Rebbe's daughter Leah, played by (the very Italian) Mia Sara (obviously owing to the scarcity of Jewish actresses in America). Of course, romance rears its head in the person of Leah's brother Ariel, played by Eric Thal. Griffith is eight years older than Thal and looks it, which is distracting. Emily and Ariel are powerfully attracted to one another, but never for a moment is their attraction believable, either as characters or actors. Ariel was Yaakov's best friend, a brilliant scholar who is being groomed as the Rebbe's successor, and also the future bridegroom in a just-arranged marriage to the daughter of a rabbi in Paris. Emily's reacts with incredible naiveté about arranged marriages. No one is that ignorant. She also meets Mara (Tracy Pollan), Yaakov's fiancée, who tells Emily about her (Mara's) sordid past and how Yaakov found her, took her in, and later proposed to her. Here are two more implausibles: That Yaakov would do this at all with an outsider, and that Emily is transformed by her exposure to the Chasidim into a more reserved, more profound soul in a matter of days.

In the daytime, Emily works undercover in the diamond store where Yaakov was murdered. Suspicion falls on two stereotypical Italian mobsters from the Baldessari family (one is James Gandolfini with hair). They show up a few days after Emily goes undercover and try to force a protection racket on the store. The Jews are given a week to decide. Of course, it's all been caught on film and tape. When the mobsters come back, they are arrested for extortion and conspiracy; and when one of Yaakov's diamond bags is discovered in Baldessari's coat, for suspicion of murder. The mobsters make a break for it, a violent chase sequence ensues, and Emily single-handedly takes them out. Just before he dies, Baldessari tells Emily that they didn't kill Yaakov. Emily's cover is blown after the very public chase, and the case is supposedly closed. But, in a too-neat little scene, Emily realizes that the only plausible suspect is Mara. She is correct, the climactic confrontation ensues, and Ariel winds up shooting Mara to save Leah's life. (Right.) As an anticlimax, we meet Ariel's betrothed, played by the 24-year-old Rena Sofer. We are distracted by her beauty and then distracted from that by her ludicrously bogus French accent.

Reviewers of 'Witness,' which with this film is most often contrasted, have pointed out the numerous goofs in that film, details that make those familiar with Pennsylvania Dutch culture howl. Same here: While this film contains fascinating, evocative scenes of Chasidic life that most people would never see in person, it is an inferior film that is full of improbable plot elements, cultural blunders, characters who are mostly mere sketches, and mostly pedestrian cinematography. As a Jew, Sidney Lumet should have been more sensitive to how badly this script trampled on accuracy in the name of cinema. We expect better from the director who gave us Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Network and Prince of the City.


Melanie Griffith is horribly miscast and would fool not one Hacedic Jew in Crown Heights with her undercover role. Tracy Pollan deserves a special Golden Turkey for the single worst supporting performance in a pivotal role in a drama. She single-handedly ruins any credibility the film might have ever had. The "oh-now-I'm really-beginning -to-appreciate-the-beauty-of-the Hacedic-culture scenes" are forced and contrived, especially the big family meal. John Pankow delivers the movie's most interesting performance in a thankless role.


Yet another from the jokily hypothetical: Have you ever been watching Witness and thought, This film would be so much better if Harrison Ford was a ditzy blonde with no concept of respect, restraint or modesty? Plus, why can't they be Jews? That whole 'no technology' thing is SOOO boring." Well, I wasn't that big a fan of Witness, but it's a masterpiece compared to the awkward and frequently blisteringly stupid A Stranger Among Us. Here, the aforementioned ditzy blonde is cop Melanie Griffith, who we are introduced to in an early scene where a crime is committed, so she whips out her standard-issue and busts a cap in his ass. She gets scolded for this, but it's no skin of her back, as she's got bigger fish to try: She's gonna move in with some Hasidic Jews after she suspects someone close in the murder of one of their own (in a corpse reveal scene so hilariously obvious I think my 8-year-old niece could have found it).

Melanie Griffith is among the dumbest, most obnoxious characters I've seen in some time. I think we're supposed to find her some sort of charming 'free spirit', but really, she's closer to "incredibly rude and uncouth". Being possibly the most unbelievable law enforcement professional in film history, she is not only trigger-happy and scantily-dressed, but curses in front of Jewish elders and continually hits on most of the Hasidic men in her, chief among them reasonable and calm Ariel (Eric Thal). Not to mention the most ridiculous facts that in-between being liberally foul-mouthed, her dialogue about more pressing matters is stilted and verbose in the most cringeworthy sense, and her climactic speech that ties up every loose end in some gloriously vast leaps of logic.

As we find out more about her and more about the Hasidic people she is supposed to be entering a living arrangement with, the more and more reasonable they look despite the film's insistences, filmic style and musical cues instructing us that these are simplistic, ignorant people set in their simplistic, ignorant ways, and aren't they cute. For example, I understand that women being viable members of the workforce is a wonderful thing for equality, but not every woman wants to be a working woman, and the fact that both Griffith and the film seemingly recoil in abject horror at the very thought of woman-as-housewife speaks to the film's baffling ignorance.

As mentioned, Griffith is stunningly terrible, as is the script. The rest of the cast isn't given much more to do. Thal is appropriately stoic throughout most of the film, but that skill betrays him when his big emotional scene comes and he proves himself not up to the task. Tracy Pollan plays the suspicious stepdaughter to Lee Richardson, and James Gandolfini, Chris Latta and Jake Weber her 'old friends' from back 'round the way. None of them makes much of an impact, and the only person to even garner a passing grade is the adorable Mia Sara (y'know, Ferris's girlfriend), who somehow manages to maintain a beauty, intelligence, and gentle grace despite the film's apparent contempt for her lifestyle.

I am now twenty-three films through my epic Sidney Lumet quest, and I can honestly say I have absolutely no grasp on Lumet as a director. It seems inconceivable that the same man that produced Twelve Angry Men, Network, Dog Day Afternoon, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, Murder on th Orient Express and Fail-Safe could produce something like A Stranger Among Us. I understand that every producer of art and media can sometimes make missteps, but this production is so flawed from its very core and goes about its business in such an offensively patronizing manner that I am unable to even fathom what he could possibly have been thinking.

This film is commonly sighted as one of Lumet's failures, along with the following year's Guilty as Sin. But at least that mess had a trashy charm about it (It stars Don Johnson and Rebecca De Mornay for chrissake!) This has no such thing. It's nearly an hour and a half shorter than Long Day's Journey Into Night, so it certainly won't wrestle away the title of Worst Lumet Film, but this colossal, fundamental misstep depresses me with how close it comes.

{Grade: 3.75 (C-/D+) / #31 (of 31) of 1992}


Great Director Sidney Lumet has brought many great police dramas to life over the years. Such as the marvelous 'Serpico' With Al Pacino. 'Prince of the City' 'Q & A' among many others. But even he can't overcome the poor performance of his sadly misplaced leading lady in the already flawed 'A Stranger Among Us'. The problems begin with the film's prosaic title. Already 'A Stranger Among Us' seems trite and contrived. Perhaps sticking with the UK moniker 'Close to Eden' wouldn't have sounded as much like the title of a Lifetime movie. Griffith strikes out as a police woman who goes undercover in New York's Hissidic Jewish community to solve the disappearance of a young jewelry shop keeper whom she ultimately discovers murdered..From one of the opening scenes when Griffith asserts her character as a tough talking, trigger happy cowboy, or girl in this instance, we know the plot is headed for ridicule. Griffith never seems to leave terrible enough alone as she comes up with a new, in your face, slogan for almost every new scene and situation. Then things really take a turn for the absurd when one of the young potential Rabbis turns out to be disguised hunk Eric Thal. And grows even more ludicrous when Griffith, with the help of one the young Hissidic girls ( Mia Sara ) gets a total Jewish makeover to go undercover as one of their own. Her dyed blonde locks now toned down to a still teased, yet slightly more modest black. As she sets out to solve the crime, the relationship between her and Thal's persona Ariel seems as out of place as the police women herself. For one thing, Griffath, who looks like she's lived the hard party life she has, looks way too old for Thal, as she does for all her leading men. And where did she get and why does she employ that God forsaken Marilyn Monroe accent? Eventually the forbidden romance comes to a head, as we suffer through formulated scenes where Thal and Griffith lament the differences between their worlds. And you sense that Griffith just needs a chance to wrap her legs around the religious student for him to flush the whole faith down the toilet. In Griffith's defense it is a difficult premise to make work and I can't think of one actress who could have pulled it off convincingly. Thal tries to play it straight as the fledgling rabbi but has only his costume to work with.The whole thing plays out like kind of a reverse version of the Harrison Ford film 'Witness' Only the plot is much less imaginative and the romance can not find any foothold here. In the end Lumet didn't have no where near as much to work with as he did in most of his other films. And any hope of anyone taking any of this nonsense seriously wast lost on the incompetence of Griffith.. No doubt Lumet was forced to cast her based on the success of box office hits like 'Working Girl'. The poor old man must have been tearing his hair out. anyway, the shock ending isn't much of a shock, and you've probably already turned the channel by then. This one is definitely not kosher. Miss it. 4 out of a possible 10 T.H.


It goes without saying that this film is a total "Witness" ripoff, except now the tough-guy cop is a woman (Griffith) and the religious setting is within the Hasidic Jewish community instead of the Amish. Oh yeah, and the difference in acting (i.e. "Witness"= superb, "Stranger"stinko).

The first scene shows Emily Eden (Griffith)and her partner in front of a club, reminiscing about their "rock" days, and how bad they are. They're apparently waiting for some thugs to walk into the bar to arrest them. Once the said thugs arrive, they follow them at about six feet behind, yelling about "back-up", and apparently the thugs are so dense, they don't hear them and bolt. Eden's partner ends up getting knifed as he cuffs the guy while winking at her (saucy!), and ends up half comatose in ER. 10 minutes into the movie, you begin to envy him.

This movie was poorly written, directed and acted. We cannot buy Griffith as a tough talking rebel cop with that Betty Boop voice of hers, and it's easy to see why "Stranger Among Us" is one of the top 10 "butt of movie jokes" films of all time.


I can't believe I just spent the better part of two hours watching this movie. Melanie Griffith is completely wrong for this part, although I can't think of anyone that would be good in this story. This movie is simply terrible. Terrible acting, terrible story, just terrible. I wanted to turn it off after about 30 minutes, but I was a glutton for punishment. I felt I had to sit through it to the end to find out what happened. I wish now that I had just turned it off. There is nothing believable about what happens. It is a poor man's version of "Witness." There is no chemistry at all between the lead characters. I thought Melanie Griffith was horrible in "Working Girl" but she was even worse in this movie. I was torn between laughing at how bad it was and complete astonishment that it was actually released in theaters. Don't waste your time.


This movie would be a stinker whomever played lead. Would take a change of half the cast and a major rewrite to make this come close to a passable.

Too much focus on tidbits about this cult, not enough focus on characters and a story. - And the strange undercover thing. Cant see her getting police funding for that.

"Swear you wont tell anyone" - "we are not allowed to swear" "we can promise" what policeman would ask people to swear not to blow their cover ? Just makes it look even more like another silly buildup to another tidbit "fact" about this cult.

If you want facts about kabbalah/Judaism you should probably read a book or something. If you want to see drama/crime look elsewhere too.

I rate this movie somewhere below mediocre and boring. 4/10


I am a huge fan of Jackie Chan. I have and loved his autobiography, along with a good deal of his American movies. I love the cartoon. I started to watch it just cause it had him in it. I will watch anything of his and it's really, really hard to get me to not like it... Well they must have worked exceedingly hard. The movie is dubbed in English horribly, and is so incredibly, unbearably tedious I stopped watching it and tried to lay there and fall asleep instead. At a half hour I was thinking oh come on it has to be at least half over! but no I rummaged around till I found the case... IT'S OVER 2 HOURS LONG! I didn't have high expectations for it... I was just thinking something to watch when I was bored and a little like the pacifier in terms of comedies with a baby... but with baby-napping... So I got Rush Hour 3 which I loved and this. Don't waste your time watching it... There is no funny at all at least when I gave up at 45 minutes into it... Everyone's life sucks, main characters are: Jerk Of The Year, Jackie as Loser Gambler, Blind Dude with insane depressed wife... No part of it is happy... I really want to go return it just cause I hate giving 20 bucks for that crappy of a movie. Like it sucked so bad I still can't believe it. I don't know why Jackie would have done this rush hour 3 came out on DVD at like the same time so it's not like for the work or for the money... And you know Rush Hour 3 had to pay well and it's not like if he wanted to do more movies he couldn't. It's just incomprehensible why when he needs no padding in his career he would subject anyone to this drivel. In short, MOVIE SUCKS DON'T BUY! I definitely won't blindly trust Jackie to give me a good movie anymore that's for sure... If you have an option between watching paint dry/staring at an already painted wall or watching this the wall wins by a landslide.


After regaining some of the ground he lost in Hollywood with his last couple of Hong Kong films, Jackie Chan takes a big step backwards with the overlong Rob-B-Hood, a downmarket three bad men and a baby romp that offers limp gay jokes, comic relief mental illness, family bonding and child endangerment for all the family. There is one fairly good action sequence at the halfway point as well as a neat stunt that sees him jumping down a building via the air conditioning units, but you definitely get the feeling that Chan's no longer pushing himself but is just doing what he knows he can still do while Yuen Biao is mostly wasted in a nothing bit part. He's made worse, but that's hardly a recommendation.


I really wanted to give it a positive rate as I really like Jackie Chen, but unfortunately, after watching it I can't, if being objective..

The plot is weak, none of the characters are genuinely developed into real depth, and many of them just make you wonder where the heck is his/her place in the whole plot!?? The storyline is always being dragged and the fight scenes feel so redundant, I kept saying "please, please just use a gun to skip these!"

I give Rob-B-Hood two more stars one for the lovely baby(he may be the most vivid character in this movie), one for the respectable dedication by Jackie(the overall failure should not be blamed on him). I'll be expecting Jackie Chen's next performance, and I'll also try to avoid the production from others in the crew..


A prime example of a poor film. Ignoring the story we are left with a film that lacks energy and drive. The characters are flat and lifeless and you are left hoping they all die. Rutger Hauer turns in a rare poor performance, was he ill at the time? He does not even do his own sword fight yet we know he is capable as seen in Blind Fury in fact he doesn't move much at all. Impossible to believe that someone put up money for the Tv series after seeing this, yet surely this is the first time that a TV show is better than the film that inspired it.


But who would have known that in 1992? There are enough comic moments to make this show worth watching but not more that twice. I would have thought that it would be a little funnier but the jokes made about Valley girls or girls in general not only ring false, but are almost trite.


When a film that's had such a bad press as "Buffy" still manages to disappoint you, that's one bad film. For much of its running time it manages to be no worse than mediocre - a sort of sub-"Clueless" (which, to be fair, it predates by three years), with Kristy Swanson doing well enough as a sub-Alicia Silverstone. It also has much the same agenda as "Clueless" of taking a gentle poke at affluent society's rigid class system and wafer-thin "caring about the environment" values. Presumably Joss Whedon's script originally had rather more in this direction; it seems to be set up that Buffy and her class are vampires too, but nothing is done with this idea.

"Clueless" had the advantage of a plot by Jane Austen. As soon as "Buffy"'s plot starts, things rapidly collapse. Disaster is staved off for a while by Swanson's energy, Donald Sutherland's ability to keep a straight face, and Paul Reuben's touching conviction that he's in a funny film. But never has Rutger Hauer's natural screen presence been so totally neutralized by poor direction, unfocused character design and a story that's not only increasingly incomprehensible but not even worth trying to follow. Again, there is an idea here: Whedon seems to want to posit a sort of eternal attraction between vampires and those who slay them, so that being the slayer according to the traditional rules simply confirms and strengthens the vampires' power. But it all goes for nothing.

The fact that the themes and characters are so far removed from that of the spin-off series means that the movie doesn't actually suffer from comparisons with it. It just suffers from being rubbish. Kudos to Fox for being talked into taking on this botched project for a remarkable series, and, for that matter, for suggesting Sarah Michelle Gellar should play Buffy rather than Cordelia. Execs get a bad press, let's give them a moment's appreciation.


Yes I remember going to a country drive-in to see this movie. Vampire Slayer.So what if it was school holidays. I was not going to miss this. Well sad to say it was a crummy C-Grade. 3/10 ..Years later we got a second installment .Well just as before I had to see it.Groan..I didn't expect the "sequel" to be any different (but wait what a difference time makes ) low and behold my current favorite TV serial was born. I am glad some-one saw promise in this old C-Grade movie.Cause I never would have!


I'm a huge, make that HUGE fan of the TV show, so I had always wanted to see the movie that started it all. What a let-down. It's as if Joss Whedon was using the movie as a practice session. The dialogue was mediocre at best, effects were non-existent, and the characters weren't developed at all. Not to mention it was anti-climatic. I realize it was low-budget, but man, it was low. I'm actually surprised that they decided to even give it a second chance as a TV show. It's not like any character from the TV show was in the movie, except for Buffy, of course.

Joss Whedon certainly got it all right with the TV show (if it weren't for the title, so outdated now), but I'd keep happy thoughts about the TV show, and skip the movie altogether.


want to get ill on apple cider. The movie itself is pleasantly entertaining, but the ending! Gak! Bette Davis gives it all up for Bob Montgomery! Why? He's sexy, yes, but where's he been for three years and what is he offering her? It was depressing to see her standing there nodding while holding the suitcases. It's the chauvinistic Production Code in full force. I think Mick LaSalle in Complicated Women described actress Kay Francis playing a scene that called for giving up one's career for a man as a "soul death." How right! In a pre-Code, Davis would have simply said, "Well, look me up when you're next in town and we'll hit the hay. Meanwhile, I have a magazine to edit!" (By the way, was anyone else as horrified as me to see Norma Shearer throw over suave Montgomery for dorkus supreme Neil Hamilton (the Comissioner from TV's Batman series, for cripes sake) in "Strangers May Kiss"? That aside though, a cute little film with lots of comedy with Davis and Montgomery interacting with the small-town Indiana family whose wedding they have come to cover for a women's magazine. The old man and his outdoor cider jug and Mary Wickes are among the highlights. Watch if you can ignore the silly ending.


Fitfully amusing for the cast, especially the supporting characters, but the dated material is done in by a weak script. The Davis-Montgomery relationship is core of the film. The chemistry shows promise at the outset, but has really evaporated by the film's end. Davis is watchable, although her performance is variable; Montgomery gets more annoying as things progress and is particularly done in by the strained plotline. Here is an actor who has more mannerisms than Bette Davis (and they don't serve the picture as well). The ending probably annoyed audiences even back in 1948--it certainly doesn't play well in 2003! One wonders what went through Bette Davis's mind during the final scene, considering that this movie was made at time when she was having her famous contract feuds with the Warner Brothers. Was Jack Warner getting back at her?


When one says that an actor is good in every film they are in, no film personifies this more than Bretaigne Windust's 1948 film "June Bride" in which Bette Davis and Robert Montgomery star as former lovers and boss/subordinate. Davis plays Linda Gilman, a no-nonsense editor of a Home and Life type magazine in New York. Robert Montgomery is Carey Jackson, her new writer and former lover. Three years ago the two were almost ready to get married when he got cold feet and walked out on her. Through zany mishaps he ends up working for her three years later, and the two have not lost their attraction to one another. Linda packs up her staff for Indiana to do a cover story for their June issue, covering a wedding in small-town Midwest, U.S.A. Once there, they have to completely transform the house and the people in it, because they do not meet the cosmopolitan standards of these New Yorkers. Along the way, Carey decides to mix things up a bit when he discovers that the bride is marrying the brother of her ex-fiancée, and her sister is actually in love with the groom-to-be. (Get all that?) Complicating things is the fact that Linda and Carey are falling all over each other, rekindling their romance, which is getting in the way of the task at hand.

"June Bride" is supposed to be a madcap comedy, but it's just a boring mess. As stated before, there are some actors that are good in every film, and Bette Davis is one of those actors. Her performance was excellent, but the film that she was forced to work in was just plain bad, and her persona in the film hints that she knows it. Robert Montgomery, who is all slapstick in the film without a hint of charm, has absolutely no chemistry with Davis, which leads to a very flat film. The story was dumb, and not charming in the least. Really, the only interesting thing about the film is the director's first name. There's actually not a lot more to say about the film, except that it's too bad that "June Bride" wasn't better, because it was rare for a couple of reasons: It was one of the few Bette Davis comedies and it was one of the few Bette Davis films I had not yet seen. Unfortunately it probably should have stayed that way. 4/10.

--Shelly


I can't agree with previous comments raving about BETTE DAVIS and her, in my opinion, failed technique with comedy, nor ROBERT MONTGOMERY's lusterless and coy performance as the sort of cocky and arrogant snob he usually played in romantic comedies dealing with the battle of the sexes. He's at his least appealing here.

Gloomy looking Bette looks as if she'd rather smack him than kiss him and gives a very dour performance, heavy with sarcasm (too heavy for comedy). And Montgomery looks as though he despises not only the fact that she is a career woman--but a woman he can't possibly think of as a mate. Put the two of them together in a trite, weak script that is supposed to be a "light as air comedy" and you get messy results.

Bette is supposed to be planning the next issue of her magazine around a June wedding and using a typical family for the June issue. She's smartly dressed and coiffed but still has that matronly appearance that makes her unsuitable for what is supposed to be a light romantic comedy. Nor does she play the part in a lighthearted way. None of it is anything more than a waste of time. Even the supporting cast has trouble making anything out of a script that settles for a sexist ending to resolve the bad situation between Bette and Bob.

FAY BAINTER tries hard, as do BETTY LINLEY, TOM TULLY and others, but it's a hopeless mess, unfunny and irritatingly performed by the star duo so that one becomes impatient for that supposedly happy ending in which the two stars stop fighting long enough to exchange loving glances.

You'd think that after the whopping that WINTER MEETING took from the critics, Bette would refuse to work with stage director Bretaigne Windust again. Well, it's another loser. She's too heavy-handed with the comedy aspects and Robert Montgomery is no help, insufferable as her co-star.


Despite some humorous banter and a decent supporting cast, I can't really recommend this movie. The leads aren't very likable and I didn't particularly care if they got together in the end. I certainly didn't like the *way* they got together, with Bette Davis giving up her career to be the supportive wife & luggage-carrier for world-traveler Robert Montgomery.

It's depressing to see films like this where strong, intelligent women are brought down so low, forced to beg the men who wronged *them* to take them back. Of course it's always the woman who has to change *her* ways, and turn off her brain. Ugh. Even the minor female characters are regretful spinsters, emphasizing this film's awful message - that all women really want to get married, and having a career is a poor substitute.

By the way, I took an instant dislike to Montgomery when I first saw him in "Mr. And Mrs. Smith", and his performance in "June Bride" did nothing to alter my opinion. Did he *always* play a smug, sexist jerk who thinks he's God's gift to women (despite looking like a friggin' frog)? So irritating to watch.


I decided to dust this one off and give it another watch. I don't know if that was a good thing. DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR is the quintessential one-sided, "We're good, they're bad" action film. Not since John Wayne's THE GREEN BERETS (1968) have I seen a film so amazingly biased.

The scariest thing about DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR is the film's politics. The film is so glaringly jingoistic that it landed itself on the "Worst List" of the book "Reed Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People." While set in the fictional country of Jemal, it is quite obvious who these guys fighting Israel are supposed to be. And who the good guys are. While discussing the complex problems in the Middle East, Ellie asks Burns, "Are you the kind of person who knows what is exactly right and what is wrong?" "Yes," replies Burns before he tells her "don't get us mad." DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR is the kind of film where multiple bad guys can't hit the hero (granted his underlings do die for the cause) with machine guns, but he can blow them up with a rocket launcher while driving a car. Where a "by the book" bureaucrat finds out the hard way (via car bomb) how "savage" these people really are. I think The Phantom of the Movies summed it up best in his review when he said, "it may well be the best 1943 war movie made in 1987." It would be funny, if it weren't so darn frightening.

Actually, there is a bit of fun to be had with DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR. Director Leonard, a veteran stuntman, crafts some nice car chases with a rather nice car stunt at the film's end. The film definitely holds its own against its contemporaries such as THE DELTA FORCE (1986) in that regard. Dryer, with visions of Eastwood in HEARTBREAK RIDGE (1986) dancing in his head, is amazingly bland as the tough as nails Marine. Watching him drag around here, it is hard to believe he carried a TV series for so many seasons. You can tell he was hoping for a cross over opportunity into theatrical features, but failed miserably. But there is something inherently funny in his featureless performance. Finally, fans of "what in the world" moments should also keep an eye out for the scene where Brian Keith, being photographed by terrorists, gives them the fingerwith his ring finger!


About the kindest think I could possibly say about this movie, is that it is funnier than 'Commando.' Starring Fred 'Where the hell did my career go' Dryer as a Marine who lives by his own rules.(clever huh?) After the killing of all his buddies, and the kidnapping of his gruff but loveable Colonel, Yep... you guessed it, he goes on a one man rescue mission (against orders naturally) to rescue the Colonel, and to kill as many non-english speaking persons as possible. Laughably cliched from start to finish. Whoever wrote this should have their crayons taken away.


I have seen this movie in about 1988 or 1989. Typical 1980's bullshit. Apparently one tried to get some success out of a plot very similar to "The Delta Force", another patriotic piece of propaganda. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Arab terrorists at all, but the typical black and white portraiture of demonic Arabs and oh so heroic Americans is too silly. Well, the typical audience in the Reagan area probably liked it. Unfortunately those 1980's "The-American-Heroes-go-in-and-smash-those-Arab-bastards"-flicks got some timeliness in recent years and might even find some new audience that wows on it.


Fred Dryer stars as a gung ho marine who rounds up the troops and conducts a rescue mission in response to the U.S government's underwhelming response to his commanding officer's(Brian Keith) abduction. Of course it is the Arabs who are behind it and basically this is jingoism at it's most hideously lame. The movie has an interesting cast (Brian Keith, Joanna Pacula, Paul Winfield and Sasha Mitchell) but all of these counterparts are mainly wasted in favor of Fred Dryer's charisma-less performance which consists of grunting and looking deeply ticked off. The movie seems to live in a timeless vortex where repetition rules the day. Everything about the movie is tired and clichéd but the details are so groan inducingly lame and so absurd you just keep rolling your eyes in disdain. All of this would be enjoyable had Death Before Dishonor contained some punch in the action sequences but unfortunately these one sided action sequences feature a three digit body count on one side, while only one good guy dies. At this type of ratio, it is no wonder the movie went into obscurity.

* out of 4-(Bad)


This was typical of the one-sided, unintentionally funny, and jingoistic action movies that came out during the Reagan Administration, and as such, clearly shows its age.

See Edward Zwick's "The Siege" instead.


Frankie Avalon and Annette Funicello co-produced this nostalgic romp about two swingin' teen lovers from the 1960's now married and middle-aged, coping with the passing of time (not good material for a comedy) and the problems of their own punk kids. It has guest spots and musical numbers galore, but unlike the themes in "Grease", for instance, this doesn't have the impact or widespread appeal to be wildly successful; it just doesn't work. The film has a very weak script, which certainly was no help to the director. The scenes don't build any momentum, and the nostalgia in seeing Avalon and Funicello together again is a little bit painful (where's all the chemistry? All they do here is bicker). A lot of people put their time and talent into this picture, but it doesn't soar, doesn't spark fond memories. It's a wash-out. *1/2 from ****


The only thing in this movie that is the least bit entertaining is the kid (Demian Slade) who keeps telling his parents how dumb they are. And he is completely right! This movie is painfully boring. The "humor", if you would call it that, is stupid even for a cheesy 80's movie. Unless you are a diehard fan of Frankie & Annette, avoid!


Starting out like one of the Hollywood Star caricature cartoons like 'The Coo-Coo Nut Grove' or 'Hollywood Steps Out', 'Slick Hare' quickly distinguishes itself by injecting Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny in amongst the other famous faces. These cartoons are mostly recommended for movie buffs who will still recognise the stars being parodied (here they include the Marx Brothers, Carmen Miranda, Ray Milland, Frank Sinatra and Humphrey Bogart) but 'Slick Hare' offers a chase between Bugs and Elmer for anyone not interested in celebrity spotting. The combination of these two elements doesn't really work that well, the caricature routines slowing down the action whenever it threatens to get going (culminating in a tedious, overlong dance routine from Carmen Miranda and Bugs). A further problem is that the central chase is quite uninspired, with only a scene in which Bugs orders pies and then puts them in Elmer's face really standing out. Bugs also seems excessively brash and obnoxious in this cartoon, from his loud "Am I the first to arrive" routine at the beginning of the cartoon to his frenzied cat-calling at the end. All in all, 'Slick Hare' is a lumpy and jarring experiment gone wrong.


I've seen a solid handful of the Gemser 'Emmanuelle' films by this point, and I've had this one laying around for years-so I figured I'd finally give it a shot (even though it's an 'Emmanuelle' film in name only). Glad I watched it during a bout of insomnia-as it was just what I needed to put me to sleep.

A junkie has a boating accident which leaves him on a semi-deserted island whose only inhabitants are an old man and his two children-one of which is super-smoker Laura Gemser. Of course the junkie falls for Gemser and her pops doesn't like it. Neither does the brother cuz he was getting tail off her til the junkie came along and cock-blocked him. A bunch of boring stuff happens and Gemser walks around with her tits out a lot...

This snoozer plays out like a sluggish mix of THE BLUE LAGOON and that Tom Hanks movie where he talks to the volley-ball. As others have stated, Gemser, and the well- shot island locale are the only reasons at all to watch this film-but even her tits and some pretty beach scenes aren't reason enough to try to stay awake through this one. Recommended only to Gemser completists-and even then I'd just recommend re- watching EMMANUELLE IN America. Not a horrible film if you're in the mood for am extremely tame soft-core romance-but being that I don't have a vagina-it's pretty rare that I'm ever in the mood for such a film. 4/10


Emmanuelle on Taboo Island has absolutely nothing to do with the Emanuelle series - it's just another attempt to pass a Laura Gemser film off as an Emanuelle film in order to sell it. I've got no problem with this in theory and indeed some of the 'fake' Emanuelle films (fake rip-offs of rip-offs could only be made in Italy) are very good - but that is not the case here, as Emmanuelle on Taboo Island is really very boring. The plot takes the familiar idea of a man being washed up on a desert island. He turns up on an island (presumably called 'Taboo Island') and soon falls in love with a native, played by Laura Gemser; but this doesn't go down too well with the girl's family. There's really nothing to recommend this film for - even the fact that Gemser spends most of the film naked isn't a good reason to see it. The plot is very boring and no attempt is made to spice things up, which is a shame for the audience. It all basically just drones on - we are not even given any reason to care for the characters - until we reach the ending, which really couldn't come soon enough. This film might be of interest to hardcore Laura Gemser fans; but everyone else had best stay clear of it.


While the film did a good job of showing that these guys never matured beyond 14 year old punks, I had absolutely no sympathy for their characters. They all got what they deserved, with the exception of their Irish cousin.


Denis Leary and Colm Meaney headline the cast of Monument Ave. but the deadly combination was boring storyline and not one single character that the viewer could care about. Leary is a gambling cokehead car thief and works for Meaney's Irish crime boss. He is surround by friends and relatives that are equally as stupid and ignorant as he is, and he is sleeping with Meaney's girlfriend. When Meaney has one cousin killed and later another the story is played that Leary is torn between the code of silence and family loyalty. I didn't see any conflict at all. He made a decision and did it, but there wasn't any conflicting emotions. This movie looks great when adverstised on the back of its box, but it was deathly awful having to watch it.


"Pardon Us" was the first full-length film featuring the comedy duo of Laurel and Hardy. It was short by present day standards, running for just under an hour at 56 minutes. It was released in 1931 as the infamous prohibition era was coming to its end. It was the era of Chicago gangsters and hoodlums, it was the era of Al Capone, it was the era of the electric chair, it was the era of the speakeasy, it was the era of the bootlegger, it was the era of illegal alcohol production, it was the era of prisons. So against this background our happy pair of laughable chaps find themselves in prison for trying to sell their home made brew to a friendly LA cop! However there is no real story running through the film, it is no more than a series of separate sketches loosely tacked together with prison life as a common theme. Many of the prison scenes of riots and shoot-outs are in fact left over footage from an earlier film, "The Big House". Maybe MGM felt they were on a winner with something that was in the public's eye - lawlessness, crime and corruption. However it does not seem to have worked, for laughs are few and far between. The best supporting star is Walter Long who plays an extremely tough and much feared prisoner "The Tiger". Apart from one sketch involving the daughter of the Prison Governor there is no female character in the film, perhaps she should have been more prominent. Stan and Ollie's old stalwart James Finlayson appears in just one sketch in which he plays an idiosyncratic teacher in front of a class of prisoners. There are a few mild laughs here but one is immediately reminded of the famous British comedian Will Hay who as Headmaster of St.Michaels school had perfected virtually the same act around 1920; as both he and Laurel had worked for Fred Karno, it is possible that Finlayson was introduced to this act by Laurel. Surprisingly, Hardy comes over very well in one scene as a singer, he had a good baritone voice, not something we normally associate with him. Overall "Pardon Us" is very out dated so it must be regarded as a nostalgic work that has not aged well; so much so that the MGM credit has been removed from the start of the film. If you are a Stan and Ollie fan watch it by all means but for others, watch something else instead.


John Carpenter hit big with: Big Trouble in Little China, Escape from New York, Assault on Precinct 13 and, of course, Halloween. So, when i saw the trailer 'John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars' on TV, i was so excited to see the film. In my mind, i was thinking about the action, horror and thrilling stuff. But i am SO MUCH disappointed about this movie! The cast aren't the better but not the most awful too. Also the story missed some big thrill, missed a sense and the end wasn't a surprise! Too much of flashback, some stupid scenes and they still have a lot of ammunition!

John Carpenter messed up on this film. But i don't give up with him! He'll come back with a huge film and i will be in theater to enjoy. Well, i hope...

John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars: 4/10.


Why any film company would choose to publicise the fact that their product is courtesy of the man whose most notable recent achievement was Escape From LA is a bit of a mystery Unlike that though, while a long way short of being a good film, Ghosts is surprisingly fun. Set in a future where Mars has been colonised, a team of police officers led by Pam Grier and Natasha Henstridge are sent to a mining post to escort public enemy James 'Desolation' Williams (Ice Cube) back for trial. On arrival however, they find the place deserted and a lot of dead bodies - and the remaining former inhabitants turned into mindless painted killers. To say this falls short of good is possibly a little misleading. To clarify, it's awful. It's not giving too much away to say that the cause of the human's strange behaviour is in fact an airborne virus which infects people, then leaves the host for another when that person dies. Realising this early on in the film, do our intrepid heroes come up with some cunning scheme to entrap them and the virus? Don't be silly - they grab the biggest, heaviest artillery in sight and blow every virus-carrier they come across into pulp. Both Grier and Clea Duvall are wasted in their parts, while Jason Statham's cop role is so hammed up it's embarrassing. The flashback structure means that you know exactly who survives at the end, so there's no suspense. Mr Cube, taking a step away from the acting of Three Kings, seems to have scripted a lot of his own dialogue in righteous gangsta speak, but his portrayal of a hardened criminal doesn't really work because, put simply, he looks like a big teddy bear. Nevertheless, the plentiful action sequences are well done, and it's this that lifts the whole thing into the 'so bad, it's good' bracket. So much so that the review audience laughed all the way through and applauded at the end. It's so entertainingly terrible, it's almost worth more praise.


Lets face it, carpenter lost the touch somewhere along the line. I mean, Im as big a fan of his good work (Prince of Darkness, In the Mouth of Madness, The Thing, Village of the Damned, Big Trouble in Little China, Escape from NY, Vampires) as anyone. All those films got good to great actors, great scripts and are fresh in direction and keeping the suspense. Ghosts of Mars on the other hand cannot be directed by the same guy, its just not possible. The cast is horrendous, I have seen better acting in porn. The direction is slow, inefficient and has dozens of cardinal mistakes and the cutting is equally sad. The actors move like actors and not professional cops, the streewise attitudes are sooo bad and the fighting is worse than my grandmas. Even the makeup sucks, the bodyparts look just like what they are, plastic. Its supposed to be 2179 or something, but they use 70's walkie talkies and "have to go fetch" each other all the time instead of having efficient comms. It just ruins ALL of the movie. Its not even B, its C or even worse.

I was actually squirming while watchin it repeating "no no no"... And finally just had to end its misery after the first hour. I just couldn't stand it. It just couldn't keep my interest up.

Me and my friends would have made a more interesting and compelling movie with a handcam in a week.

Carpenter must have gone senile, because his movies have traditionally been some of the best around. So dont pick this one up, go get one of his good works instead (like one of the above mentioned). And he actually made good movies pretty recent. But Ghosts of Mars only value would be to show to aspiring film makes as an example of all the mistakes you do not want to make in shooting a movie.


It's really hard for me to rate this film. i didn't like it at all. Yet i still kept wanted to watch it.

Even though it's a true story, all of the characters were like stereotypes. The British guy, the french guy, etc. So the acting was terrible, especially by the girl who played Amber. Shane West was really annoying. If that's how Darby really was, then i am not missing out on not listening to their music. He seemed like a pretentious attention whore who tried standing out just to get attention. And it showed a few of his phases where he changed his way of dressing and being. He never seemed like an original guy so i have no idea why he was so loved. If it was the stage show, Iggy Pop did much more than Darby. But Shane West always had this cocky smirk on his face even when he was trying to look sad. He was great at crying though! The Bronx as Black Flag was cool.

The direction was pretty great. Except a few of the scenes you could tell were staged and didn't feel organic or real. Like when they were shooting up, they were in a conveniently lit spot just for them.

i grew up listening to punk bands but never The Germs. i didn't even know who they were until a friend mentioned them. So i'm not biased when it comes to them and am not a fan. The movie was a 'meh' for me. i definitely didn't like the music. This movie is more for fans than people interested in movies. If you want to see a good indie biopic, see Control about Ian Curtis of Joy Division.


This coulda been good but it was pretty awful. Bad acting by most of the cast, poor direction and the sound was crappy (although the crowd noises during the concert scenes sounded real). I am not a fan of the Germs and although I do respect what they tried to do but this seemed like a whole lot of nothing. If this was an accurate portrayal of Darby Crash I do not think he is deserving of a biopic that makes him out to be an original innovator. He was a Iggy Pop wannabe and then an Adam Ant poser. It was embarrassing; I could not wait for him to OD so the film would be over. The majority of the songs performed in concert were awful.

Hope one day someone does a good film about the West Coast Punk scene. Maybe a film about SST records and the bands who recorded for them would be good.


I was excited to see this title showing up on Netflix and I promptly rented it. I knew the movie was being made after reading some articles on various music related web sites that referenced it. I was always curious about Darby because I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's and I saw and read about him in many magazines I read at the time. I was an angst filled teenager in 1977 and I followed many of the punk bands that were born in the Los Angeles/San Francisco scene. I was also a skateboard freak at the time as were a lot of the punks.

I was never a big Germs fan thinking back. I had the album "The Decline Of Western Civilization" when it came out back then and I thought the Germs portion of the record was cool, but I was more of a Circle Jerks, Black Flag kind of guy. I respected the Germs contribution of course and I was amused by Darby's antics, but he always struck me as a Sid Vicious wannabe. I did the same thing. Sid was our hero, don't ask me why. Maybe it was because he was more the anti-hero.

Anyway, back to the movie. I have a lot of fond memories of the era and I thought this would be a nice trip down memory lane. I was mistaken. The actors were absolutely cartoonish to the point of laughable. The Darby actor was the only realistic character in the film to my mind, and that's being kind. The Claude Bessy was horrible and the Rodney Bingenheimer was atrocious. I mean Rodney is kinda weird anyway, but this portrayal made me groan OUT LOUD at how bad it was. Come to think of it, the whole movie sucked so much ass that I kept fighting the impulse to turn it off. Shameful and terrible film with the only good thing in the movie being some of the music.

If you want Germs info, read the books Lexicon Devil and We Got The Neutron Bomb and watch the Decline movie on Google.


I'm sorry but this movie is awful. Very surface, poorly made, badly acted- a major disappointment. Shane West is passable, but almost everyone else in the film is bad.

And the script- they have taken the seedy, turbulent life of Darby Crash and turned it into an after school special. Actually, after school specials were more interesting than this.

I am shocked that Pat Smear and the other surviving members of The Germs would have anything to do with this film. It makes them all seem one dimensional and uninteresting. Stick with Penelope Spheeris' great documentary THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION- it will have to do until a better Germs biopic comes along.


just saw the movie, and after viewing it i must say i found it to be utter garbage. What a typical Hollywood fluff piece. This film is a disgrace to the memory of Darby Crash and The Germs. If anyone wants a good insight into the Germs, please read the book, Lexicon Devil, The Fast Times and Short Life of Darby Crash. Shame on you Roger Grossman, Shame on you Michelle Baer Ghaffari for making this mockery of a film about the

greatest punk rocker, and greatest punk band there ever was.

To Shane West, stop living on the coat tails of the late Darby Crash. You are NOT Darby Crash, nor will you EVER be Darby Crash, so stop pretending to BE Darby Crash. Stick with acting. In my opinion, The Germs,(as a band), died when Darby died. For the remaining Germs to be out touring with Shane West as the singer is nothing short of appalling and disgraceful. RIP Darby, your true memory lives on in your music and in the hearts and minds of those that loved you.


Ia m trying g to watch the movie at the same time I am writing this comment. To be honest with all of you, I know there are man different kind of tastes but this sis simply too much for me.

Johnnie To is one of the greatest directors ever in this century, but with this movie he showed me at what kind of a level a good director has to drop down so you get at least good money income in theaters. How is it possible that the people are so dumb to go watch rubbish like that and wanted for example. And the worst case scenario is that the actors don't even seem to think about what kind of movie they are acting in.

Bad special effects, a plot with no sense at all, bad directions from Ka Fai and to and I think, the worst acting ever in a chines movie.

I really wish people start to change and to go to cinema to see some good and interesting movies so the directors with talents can go back to their former passion of doing a movie.


3 types of people in this world: 1st, try to explain this world, and got the good/right/bad/wrong answer. 2nd, not trying to explain this world, just live in it. The first type, we call them intellectuals, they use their intelligence and logic to explain this world, maybe they got a totally wrong answer, but at least they used the right way(reason) to explain it. The second type of people are common humans, are most of us, maybe they know their abilities, so they don't try to, or they just don't eager to explain it. AND... there is the third type of people, who have no much wisdom, but still wanna show their "wisdom" to others, try to explain the world with their stupid way... These kind of people made this movie: Running On Karma

I thought this is a Kung fu/Comedy. I was totally wrong, it's nothing, it gots no laughing( or got some cheap ones), no real actions, fake romance, and a lot of disgusting scenes(with only commercial purpose)... And, all of these are ok, i've seen too many movie got these elements, and i still enjoyed them. (I never expect too much on movies, any kind of cheap movies, if it has any kind of spark, i will still watch it to the end). But, Running on Karma, it got more than these...

The movie tried to tell you a truth about the world... a Buddhism concept: Karma. I really love to listen to a philosopher talking about it, but I really really hate to hear it from a crazy writer/director who knows nothing or little about it then filmed a movie tell their nonsense "idea" and "truth"... Please, show some respect to human intelligence, not only others, your own too!

Sorry, maybe i used too much bad words, but i think any modern educated human will feel what i felt when they watched this movie. Sick, disordered, stupid...

Worst movie this year.

1/10...


Running on Karma

I am once again disappointed by Johnnie To and Wai Ka Fai. What happened to the talent that shown so brightly in their macho cop and robber films? Perhaps, and it is an easy conclusion to reach, that is the only type of films they know how to make well.

The gimmick of this film was that Andy Lau wore a muscle suit. Except, other than its being a gimmick, it in fact served no purpose whatsoever in the film! Almost all the publicity for the film beforehand was based on this, and it is rather shocking to find that it was just that, and the ploy played no part in the film.

Where do I begin? The story, to start with, was so muddled that it left me wondering who gave the green light to its being released. I can see what the film was trying to say, about reincarnation, about the Bhuddist idea of karma, of planting the seeds of good and helping it germinate, about how that alone is no guarantee that things will turn out better. But the plot line was so confused (not confusing, but confused, though it was the former as well), the presentation so plain and directionless, that the entire experience left a sour taste in my mouth as I left the theatre.

I would not even bother to give a plot summary, since I do not recommend anyone see this anyway. There are other bad films one can waste his/her time with.

For all those who say this was a good, or even excellent film, I am glad for them. Blessed are those easily satisfied, though not understanding something (whether by its being truly complicated or merely by atrocious presentation) does not make it deep.


The day when Bobby Ewing died is a film about the origins of the green movement in Germany in the mid-eighties. A countryside hippie community founded in protest against a nuclear power plant is depicted as prototypical for the era - and this is the major problem of the film: All the stereotypes, memories etc. of the years gone by are packed into this film. Whether you actually liked or loathed the greens doesn't matter, there's something for everyone. What is not in this film, is actually a visible storyline or even script. In the beginning a mother and son arrive at the hippie community, apparently due to some problems earlier. The mother likes the new life, the son does not - why does not really become clear. In the end, its all different and the community's "chieftain" changed his mind also - again it is pretty unclear why... Was it all Chernobyl? Or because Bobby was dead? No one will ever know...


I saw this movie at the Daytona Beach Film Festival and I must say it was not a pleasant experience due to the quality of the projection and sound system. Nonetheless, the film needed quite a bit more work on its editing and script writing. I understand the Producers and Director had a very limited budget, but more effort could have been put into bringing this film to a conclusion. The ending seemed way overacted and not very suspenseful. Except for W. Morgan Sheppard, the acting was not much better either. Keep trying Mr. Clemente. You can use this film as a base towards improving on your next.


Viewed this at a film festival here in Daytona. Anyone who rated this higher than 5 stars were definitely involved in the making of the film. The fact that one of them was from Orlando should tell you something considering that is where the filmmaker is from. The lead role couldn't have been worse. I saw a comment say Zen Gessner was flawless....my god it was just terrible. Zen should never be allowed to have more than a line or two. In fact until this movie and since I don't think he has. The idea was good, but the acting and script were lacking. Avoid this unless you see it in a dollar bin at WalMart and even then you might want to pass.


The only thing that kept me watching was the hilarity. They must have gone to a mall and just signed up the first 10 people who said "yes" to the question:"Hey how'd you like to be in a movie"? The photography was glaring,too bright. The sound very unbalanced and the music did nothing except blare! The props all looked "new" in an "era" film. The guy who played the lead must have been told: "do your best Eastwood", he did, and it wasn't. And why did he constantly contort his mouth? The script had no continuity. There were scenes that had nothing to do with the, pardon the expression, plot. Most hilarious of all was the fight scene. The tag line for this movie says "In Peral Harbor, no one saw it coming. In Florida City, one man did". The writers missed the mark. The story was all over the place and never came together to make an ending to live up to the tag line. In legit film schools, it will become the best example of how to do EVERYTHING wrong when making a movie.


As a died-again Christian, I watched this movie to better learn how the challenging notions of God and religion had been presented in cinema over the years. What we have with 'The Rapture' is a story filled with quite a hook (promiscuous swingers), tragic twists, and gut- wrenching moments (anybody read 'Jude the Obscure'?), quite enough to get anyone watching. What we also get is a lopsided sermon on the hard-line lessons of the Bible, without much in the way of counterpoint.

Which warrants a warning to all non-believers: this movie will beat you over the head with the line 'Love God', along with other arbitrary notions of religion (e.g. "Mommy? Where's heaven?" "In the sky."). As such, sitting on my couch felt like being trapped in a cultish, Can I Get an Amen sort of rural church, with my mom holding my wrist down so I couldn't flee out the back door.

What this movie lacked, and which Mimi Rogers demonstrates so well in the final act, is the notion of faith in the face of overwhelming doubt. Instead of portraying Sharon as the insightful and thoughtful Christian, Tolkin asks her to embrace the ultimately doomed notion of blind faith. Ironically enough, that tends to be the quickest way to see the light--that of cold reason and reality.

To have painted Sharon as a more compelling traveler on the road to faith would have quickly turned this into a masterpiece. Instead, we are left only with a bold reafffirmation for those who already believe.


I think the unintended moral of this film may be, don't blame GOD for making stupid choices based upon erroneous assumptions. Otherwise, The Rapture is so confused in its depiction of Christianity as to render it's "message" irrelevent and greatly overpraised.

Anyone who thinks this movie somehow makes an "important" statement about so-called Christian Fundamentalism has apparently never heard of a straw man argument. These characters are purely fictional creations following the path of a contrived storyline. They espouse a cultish theology that is at best only superficially Christian. I have been a Christian for most of my life and read the Bible completely through several times. What was shown in this film was so far removed from Biblical Christianity that it left me wondering if Tolkin did this intentionally, trying to connect with the average person's hazy familiarity with Biblical prophecy, or was just too lazy to do any research. Regardless, it takes the sting out of any supposed message other than that Mimi Rogers' character needed counseling and should have chosen her spiritual leaders more wisely.

I am tempted to recommend that sincere Christians might think about watching this film just to see how we and our beliefs often look to others. I might even recommend viewing it alongside Robert Duvall's film The Apostle for contrast. I can credit Duvall that I felt like I had actually met some of the characters in his film, which is something I cannot say for The Rapture.


I recently viewed this film for the first time and found it to be intriguing if not especially satisfying. I apparently viewed this film from a somewhat different perspective than many other IMDb voters. I don't know the director's intent, but I felt the film exemplified the drawbacks and pitfalls of extreme positions and/or lifestyles. The central character, vividly portrayed by Mimi Rogers, leads a very loose lifestyle in the initial stages of the film and converts to an overly rigid lifestyle in the latter stages after becoming disenchanted and seemingly depressed with what was transpiring in her life. Viewers can judge for themselves whether one type of extremism is preferable to the other. In my opinion, many types of groups or cults (politically or religiously inspired) capitalize on people searching for a person or group who can dramatically change what they perceive as an unrewarding existence. This film may draw, intense positive or negative, response from people with extreme religious positions. Not placing myself at either end of that spectrum, I was deeply interested in the film but felt that it lost some of its impact and possibly a couple of rating points, over the final half hour of the presentation.

Mimi Rogers gives a strong performance in a film in which she is required to shoulder the burden. It's not that the other actors give sub-par performances. It's just that the film is so primarily structured around Mimi's character that she is required to carry the load and does so extremely well. In my opinion, an IMDb rating of between 3 and 8 would seem to fit this religiously provocative drama. I personally gave it a 4 out of 10 and would recommend it for viewers who are not offended by loose sexual lifestyles or exploring intense religious attitudes.


Some may find the cursory examination of Christian belief an over-riding message in this 1991 film by Michael Tolkin, but if one can put aside the discussions over whether god exists or not, it is an hysterical comedy, in that indie self-important message movie way. Starring Mimi Rogers as Sharon, in a film her ex-TC would have no doubt prevented her from doing back in their day, Rogers' character is the stereotypical information operator by day/swinger sin-sister by night. The extreme binary of her character makes for hysterical lines when she decides to convert to a cultish Christianity based on the notion of prophesy. With David Duchovny in an early semi-naked role as the firm, young, stud whom Rogers cavorts and later marries, and Will Patton as a sheriff who encounters the demented Sharon who has followed her faith into the wilderness, the male balance to this film is one of flesh and reason made secondary to literal interpretation of scripture in vacuous gestures of uncritical blind faith without rationale.

Frankly, other films have addressed questions of faith and belief in more sophisticated ways than the heavy-handed approach of The Rapture, and it is far more satisfying to compare those with this attempt. While Rogers is lauded for this performance, it is a complex character but the actress interpretation is shallow and so pulled back that it makes for an uneven and superficial read, however, I think this is more the fault of the director than the actress. On first viewing, I thought this film was intriguing, but after several viewings in the interim years, it becomes more laughable and comedic than worthy of intense reflection or serious attention.


This movie had the potential to present the Bible, at least in a neutral manner, but succeeds only in demeaning Christians and making them out to be crazy, or cultists. I do appreciate the message that God will accept anyone who repents, but I wish there had been more example of Christians who are not demented. The movie does have some redeeming qualities, but they tend to be lost in the general destructiveness of the material. Mimi Rogers gave a grand performance as did David Decovney, but I spent the entire movie wondering if it was coming from a Christian perspective, or if it was just an ill conceved thriller, and in the end that question was not answered. In the beginning, I looked beyond the Christian cliché', to the possibilities.


I should have walked out. It started bad and it never improved. The actors completely overplay their roles and the added smart alec isn't this fun cuts doesn't seem convincing. While the movie have a few good ideas they are consistently badly implemented and the timing and acting doesn't do it any favours.

I think you will have to be American or the long time owner of a mustache to laugh of this one... It is that special kind of no fun humor that only really appeals to yanks. You know where everything is so obvious and overstated that any fun that could have been is thoroughly eliminated by overstating every point of the joke.


It really sounds stupid, I mean, you buy the trade rights, you know it's been the greatest "telenovela" hit of all times, it's coming out fine  and then, "if it's not broken why fix it?" Good thing about this remake Jaime Camil and Angelica Vale (leading roles) are great, every thing else stinks. And if it wasn't bad enough that TELEVISA made "infomercials" and lousy political statements fit in to the show, now ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡THEY CHANGE THE STORY!!!!!!!! What made the original story be world wide phenomena is that it's flawlessly written, in this "ugly" remake they squeeze in a cute faced actor just to force the story to go on further, and yes of course, make some more $$$$$ while it lasts, doesn't matter if it comes down as out of character and totally unbelievable. How can dumb get dumber? I totally agree with the other comment, SHAME ON YOU TELEVISA.