A Children's Story... That is the best explanation that I can produce for this movie. It does not make sense. The plot is inconsistent. The actions of the protagonists and antagonists do not make sense. The story is mildly charming, but not particularly dramatic. And, children acting childish are major characters. OK, so it is a children's story.

I remember when children's stories had a logical progression of the story line. Maybe that is the fault of my Western linear thinking, brought up short by Mel Gibson's Australian background.

I cannot explain what bothers me with the movie without describing the plot. Capt Dan is in love with a woman. Before he can work up the nerve to ask her to marry him, she gets knocked into a coma. Doctors give her no chance of ever waking up. Capt. Dan can't face the prospect of going through life without her, so he asks his friend--who happens to be running a suspended animation experimental project so secret that not even his own bosses know what he is doing--to put him under for a year (or whenever his love awakes). While he is out, things happen, his capsule gets misplaced, and, before we know it, 53 years have gone by.

Thermos should make such a dewar as the capsule that held Capt. Dan. It kept him cold without external power for half a century. Tragically, no one recorded the date that those mischievous kids opened his capsule. Oddly, he managed to thaw out on his own and live to tell about it.

OK, so he wakes up without aging, 53 years later. He meets up with a nurse. It's a good thing she is a nurse because... actually, for no particular reason. Sure, there is an escape sequence set up in the hospital, but she could just as easily have been a janitor for it. Maybe that would have improved the drama, who knows? Love could have bloomed between Capt Dan and Nurse Cooper; that would have been logical. After all, here is a young man with no one else, and those two have hit it off just fine together. But, then comes the discovery Capt. Dan's true love actually recovered from her coma and is still alive! Now, obviously, Helen has aged 53 years, while Capt. Dan hasn't. A viewer might think that with the title of this movie, that Capt. Dan doesn't age. Wrong! It turns out that Capt. Dan's aging is irreversible... a word the author apparently mistakes for inevitable. After all, no one was attempting to reverse anyone's aging; they were simply delaying it. Never mind; Capt. Dan ages all 53 years within a few days. Mother Nature will not be cheated, even if theater-goers are. On the bright side, at least Helen can act her age, instead of traipsing around with some handsome young man.

End of story.

What, you were expecting more? Like, a point, maybe?


Mel Gibson could have thought twice before starring in this unoriginal, schmaltzy film that brings nothing new to the table and fiddles badly with sci-fi. However, the film does have its moments, very few, but that make this movie average.

'Forever Young' really isn't good because it's too unbelievable. Why would a project that charismatic be forgotten? Why would the brother not tell him that his lover was alive? Why does the aging get that bad only towards the end of the film? It's so inaccurate that it even frustrates at times. But keep it in mind if you feel particularly in need of love.

WATCH FOR THE MOMENT - When the two kids play around with the freezing machine, fidgeting with the buttons, and suddenly, it opens to reveal Gibson...


Mel Gibson plays a military test pilot who agrees to become the subject of a cryogenic experiment after the love of his life ends up in an 'irreversable' coma in 1939. Well, the experiment is completely forgotten about and he remains in the deep freeze until he is set free by some kids trespassing in an army warehouse. Mel awakens to find a different world, and, needless to say, love. What do you get when you mix a big star like Gibson with a sappy script and a mediocre director like Steve Minor: A sappy and contrived film. Boy, is it sappy. Boy, is it contrived. This is practically a convention of unwarranted coincidences, unresolved situations and unanswered implications. The film stirs to life on occasion, but it never manages to amount to much.


If you really want to make history boring, I advise you to see this epic 1949 flop.

I imagine this misery was originally in black and white. Attempting to colorize it completely destroyed the texture.

Fred March is the title role is totally colorless here as well as the writing.

When the ships are at sea, the writing is so monotonous and it's only mid-September 1492. You can actually start rooting for October 12th to come. When it finally does, Columbus encounters new world people who are as dull as the picture is.

When he talks about a hanging, he brings in the name Haman. Were the writers suspicious that Columbus was really Jewish? At least, they could have played up that angle to make the film more exciting.

His enemies in Spain never relented and Columbus was charged with thievery and ineptness and was brought back in shackles in a scene similar to Charlton Heston's Moses coming in to the kingdom in shackles when it was discovered that he was the deliverer.

Angry, that Ferdinand and Isabella have decided to keep him in Spain, he angrily retorts: "My name will be long remembered long after they're both dead!" He walks off and the film mercifully ends.

1492 also marked the inquisition of the Jews from Spain. We should have also inquired why this abominable film was ever made.


... this movie was lacking a great script and the touch of realism. The dialogue was muddled & confusing, and trying really hard to be philosophical and touching, but unfortunately, missed it completely. I often got frustrated and screamed, "what?!"... it was quirky and unrealistic. Sometimes the quirkiness adds to the charm of the movie (like Being John Malkovich), here it felt really fake. Like it was trying to match Sideways from a Mexican American point of view.

Here's my other problem with it. The realism of having a tall, skinny, light-skinned Mexican woman with no boyfriend and a wonderfully behaved kid working as a live-in housekeeper just seems like a male fantasy trying to play reality. I mean, how realistic is that? The acting was average at best, but a really poor performance by the daughter of Adam Sandler's character (sometimes you can see her trying to cover up a smile while getting angry).

While I tried to like this movie and the story definitely had a lot of potential, there were major problems and this one had a snore factor. Some things could have been explored more, like the dad's relationship with the kids (you rarely saw how they bonded) and the stupid dog thing could have been cut. Well, it could be worth a look/see if it's on cable, but save your rental fee or $20.


for dragging me to this estrogen-drowned disaster of a movie. Truly, this is one of the top three worst films I've ever seen. I am convinced that Adam Sandler must have been blackmailed somehow for him to appear in this dreck.

Begin with the oh-so-heartwrenching story of a single mother forced to flee her native land in search of a better future for her daughter. Of course, the daughter will end up attending Princeton and her entrance essay is the premise of the storytelling in this movie. Shaking your head in bewilderment? It gets better (worse, actually).

The dysfunctional family that the mother finds work with is possessed of a shrew of a father (the soft, unimposing and backbone-free Sandler) who is dominated by his overacting, speed freak-like, obsessive wife (Leoni), and round it out with a live-in, late-stage alcoholic mother-in-law (who of course, acts as a moral compass thanks to the wisdom gained by decades of squandering her life in a booze-soaked haze. Please!) and a few damaged, totally unbelievable kids. Viola, enough ammo for "drama" to make any menopausal woman salivate in anticipation of the impending deluge of emotional excess that comes with such movies.

The problem is, there is not one scene in the movie where the characters earn your empathy. If there was ever a point where the viewer was meant to wonder what was going to happen next, or what course of action a character might take, I missed it. I believe it would be impossible to find a point in the movie that was not spelled out and spoon-fed to the viewer in the most plain and predictable terms.

Another problem I have with this picture is the off-target promotion it received. It is not a comedy. I don't know what it is in terms of genre. Suicide-accelerant maybe? Since there are so many who love this movie, I'm sure that my review won't stop you if you want to see it. However, if your wife/girlfriend suggests you watch this movie, I urge you to spare yourself the agony you are sure to endure if you sit through this one. I warned you.


This movie will get its share of awful votes. Some will be disappointed Adam Sandler fans. This is not your normal Adam Sandler! A few will be disappointed in the way over the top performance of Tea Leone.

My problem is with the writers. This is the least entertaining screenplay I have ever seen. It may be making a bunch of social statements but I do not find them entertaining. Worst of all every improbable piece of every slowly developing story line just never plays out to any reasonable conclusion. I found my self so dis-satisfied that after the movie stops (it has no ending per se, it just stops), I walk out trying to write my own fairale stopend to Spanglish, a comdram I could have done without! I got it - illegal immigrant gets Bachelor's from Princeton, Master's from Yale and PhD from Harvard, becomes President of the US. She changes law so that Sandler's character can marry her mother while still married to his own wife.

This movie should be rated D for Dumbest Sandler effort to date.


I was extremely disappointed in the latest offering from the wonderful writer and director James Brooks. It is difficult to believe or like ANY of the adult characters. First, poor Tea Leoni is the most hideous, narcissistic mother seen on film since the 1930's. Her husband is a wuss of monumental proportions and this couple, supposedly together since high school, communicate in nothing but Westside L.A. feel good code: They need their "space;" they "validate" feelings. It's as if they've spent their entire marriage in aroma therapy and self-esteem building classes.

The gorgeous, thin Mexican maid -- and trust me, none of them look like her in Beverly Hills -- wears two hundred dollar blouses she could never afford and presents us with a portrait of almost saint like devotion to her only child. Then in the end, she refuses to allow the child to continue her education on scholarship at a private school. We are supposed to believe that this daughter went on to a public school I guess, on the other side of L.A. and ended up applying to Princeton? Puh-leese! Did anyone involved with this production visit a public school in L.A. recently? I attended one 30 years ago and my mother still teaches in the school system, which is now about 90% Hispanic and/or African American. The schools today are disaster areas with metal detectors, under-performing warehouses for the children of the poor that do not prepare their students for state college, much less the Ivy League.

There were some great one liners and the two young girls who played the daughters are both excellent actresses, but all in all, this was a real mess -- and a miss by Brooks. It can't hold a candle to "Terms of Endearment" or even an old episode of Mary Tyler Moore.


I can forgive a lot of flaws in a movie, but whew, this one was bad. I can't think of worse casting than Sandler. Everybody else was great (well, Cloris Leachman took the drunk-mom cliché about as far as it would go), but Sandler's presence here ruined it. "50 First Dates" worked a lot better for him -- the semi-goofy guy who manages to charm the lady by virtue of his imperfection. Here, he's trying to be a charming saint of a married chef, "doing the best he can," not having any idea of how attractive he is to a woman. The only problem is, he's NOT attractive. I felt no chemistry between Flor and John. The whole concept of one culture finding a common ground just gets lost here. This is mainly because Sandler is so completely inarticulate, it's very hard to believe that a woman who's barely learned English can understand anything he says. Two devices that repeat themselves over and over here are 1-Sandler suddenly shouting out something in the middle of a conversation, which either scares Flor or amuses her, and 2-Sandler yelling "Whoa, wait-wait-wait..." every time a conversation is about to reach its merciful conclusion and the other person is trying to walk away gracefully.

Leoni does a good job with Deborah, but still, her character is so two-dimensional. We get no sense of why she's so dysfunctional. Meredith Baxter-Birney did a much better job in a Lifetime TV movie about a bulimic. I think someone must have watched that movie and tried to model Leoni's character after it.

I would have liked to see more of Flor's side of town, to give it added depth. It seems as if very little thought went into any aspect of this film -- casting, screen writing, direction, anything. For me, it's nada.


I had moderately high expectations for this movie. I am Spanish, and since Paz Vega has rapidly become in the last few years one of my country's most popular actresses, I couldn't help but wish that her jump to Hollywood would be successful. Also, the name of James L. Brooks suggested quality. This is a man who doesn't make films often, his fame being grounded mostly on his TV shows, so when he does, one tends to believe it's because he really has something to say.

Sadly, the result of my expectation has been crushing disappointment, for this film fails at so many levels that I couldn't find anything to keep me interested. Brooks's direction, for example, seemed to me amazingly clumsy and lacking in rhythm. Often you had the impression that the camera lingered too long on the actors, and they didn't know what to say, what to do or even where to stand. Sandler, again surprisingly, was the only one to exercise restraint in his performance, in between Leoni's and Vega's terrible overacting; both of them exaggerated their gestures so much you would think they were in a children's play by adults (Actually, it seemed to me the children in the movie were acting much better than them, especially Steele, who plays Sandler's daughter with disarming charm). Then again, good acting is not easy to achieve with a script this terrible: The dialog felt sometimes so fake that you could see them make efforts to sound half believable; the characters were hardly developed or made almost cartoonish (Deb, Tea Leoni's psychotic bundle of nerves of a wife would be the prime example); the situations often didn't make sense (Flor's attitude of fear and disdain towards Deb is completely beyond reason, even to the point of bigotry. Deb may be a neurotic, but Flor has good reason to be very grateful to her); subplots branched out in several directions but never really went anywhere; and the big plot, the development of the romantic spark between the protagonists, felt rushed and unrealistic and I simply could not believe a word of it. I just managed to bear the movie as it got worse and worse and was thankful when it ended, which is when I realized that it didn't just feel long to me; it's also that the thing is way too long!

Thumbs down to Brooks then, and better luck to Paz next time, I hope this mistake doesn't stop her rise to stardom.


I admired James L. Brooks before watching this film. Now, I'm thinking that he'd better retire before his reputation is injured any further. This film was pure syrupy, formulaic hogwash - with tons of bad acting thrown in for good measure. Tea Leoni had me covering my ears to avoid hearing her screeching voice. The scene with the orgasm was so bad I almost suffered convulsions. Adam Sandler was surprisingly the least repulsive member of the cast (How many times has that happened?). You can figure out where the plot is going in about two minutes. If you go, stay for those two minutes, then make a beeline for the exits!!! You've now been warned - Avoid this film at all costs!!!


i had to see this movie today.Gosh,the screenplay must have been created by barney..so silly situations and a Tea leoni trying to emulate a scream queen from a z-movie(let's say...superstition,that's a good example!!!)Adam Sandler with this goofy hairdo that makes him looks like Fat Albert(i think that eight crazy nights is better than this crap fest)and paz Vega...baby,you are gorgeous in these photos from the Spanish edition of GQ,but in this movie,you acted like La India Maria...i think i'm going to faint,i can't support remembering this poor attempt of a movie.The latinoamericans are not so silly and booby faced,do you know?


What an utter disappointment. From James L. Brooks, the man who made "Terms of Endearment", "Broadcast News", "As Good As It Gets" and of course, "The Mary Tyler Moore Show", comes a dramedy that has two separate agendas that the filmmaker seems intent on integrating regardless of the resulting contrivances. The first is to show the plight of Mexican immigrants in their effort to realize economic betterment while concurrently maintaining their cultural identity. This part is worthy of screen treatment. The second is to show the underbelly of the liberal mindset and the seemingly rampant dysfunctional state of the family unit among the L.A. social elite. This part has been seriously misjudged.

Let me tackle the problematic second part first. In an overly sincere mode, Adam Sandler portrays John Clasky, the hottest chef in a city where culinary celebrities are at the top of the heap. His professional life seems to be modeled after master chef Thomas Keller, who was exalted in the same way by food critics when he opened his "French Laundry" restaurant in Yountville (which is indeed fantastic). In fact, Keller appears in a pertinent extra on the making of the ideal late night sandwich, which includes the recipe as well. The challenge in accepting Sandler's performance is not his attempt to be taken seriously as Oscar-bait, but rather his apparently limited ability to convey the complexity underneath what seems to be the perfect man - understanding, compassionate (though too passive at key moments of conflict), a loving father. At this stage in his career, especially with his idiosyncratic tics (slurring his words, constant stooping, stumbling about), Sandler is simply not yet substantive enough an actor to pull off such a multi-dimensional role.

But the real problem is the way Brooks conceives John's wife Deborah as a character. Téa Leoni has the unfortunate task of playing the aerobicized fishwife from hell, a former go-getter who was downsized out of her career as a commercial designer. Now Deborah is a horrifying mother who chokes the self-esteem out of her daughter (as much as it is inferred her mother did to her) and shamelessly pilfers the affections of her maid's daughter. She's a therapy-driven narcissist whose competitive impulses get in the way of any good intentions, and she's always apologizing for her actions, which Brooks hopes will endear her to us. It just doesn't work because Leoni, despite her obvious talent and beauty, is not likable enough for us to care - Deborah is among the most exhausting, disreputable characters I have seen in a movie in ages (and that includes Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling in the documentary, "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room"). The combination of Sandler and Leoni nearly torpedoes the movie completely.

This leaves us with the movie's first agenda item, the fearful assimilation of immigrant Latinos. Brooks has found a luminous actress in Paz Vega, a Penelope Cruz look-alike (imagine the Almodóvar possibilities in their joint casting), as Flor, the woman who escapes Mexico with her daughter to eventually find work as the Clasky maid. Vega injects a nice quality into Flor that is at once unselfish and proud, as Flor exhibits true backbone to her employers. The character, however, is idealized at the expense of presenting a figure as complex as the Claskys, especially as the story veers into the inevitable though not terribly credible attraction that develops between Flor and John. In fact, her innate nobility provides the framework for the story as it is essentially a flashback described by her daughter Cristina in what must have been the world's longest application essay to Princeton. In the end, we are expected to believe that Flor is too virtuous to have any personal desires, though there is still something resolutely selfish about pulling her daughter out of the scholarship-funded private school.

Shelbie Bruce is excellent as the adolescent Cristina, especially as she cross-translates John's and Flor's argument and in a moment of unfiltered anger near the end. Sarah Steele is equally fine as the Clasky's overweight daughter Bernie, alternating between smart-mouth comments and palpable sadness. And finally in a good role again, Cloris Leachman displays her considerable skill in playing Deborah's alcoholic though self-aware mother, Evelyn, who tosses the best line to her daughter: "Your low self-esteem is simple common sense, dear." I only wish her character was fleshed out more to provide a better counterbalance to her awful daughter. Brooks should be commended for his high-mindedness here but docked for his hubris in having us accept these characters. The DVD has lots of extras, including enthusiastic audio commentary from Brooks with his editors Richard Marks and Tia Nolan and the addition of twelve deleted scenes again with the same trio providing comments. There is the brief Keller clip I mentioned, as well as an HBO First Look featurette that actually got me more excited about the movie than watching the movie itself.


Google for Jack and Jennifer clips (and Steve and Kayla) and you will come across a goldmine of clips that will tell you the entire story of the Johnson family - from Steve's arrival onto the show to Jack and Jennifer's first wedding.

And, oh my, if there isn't a boatload of pain, heartache... from Joy garrett's achingly wonderful portrayal of Jo Johnson, to Steve Nichols and Matt Ashford playing long-lost-brothers with so much history of pain between them.

Matt Ashford is one of the best actors out there, and Steve Nichols is incredible too. Watching the two interact has always been a treat.

Ken Corday let go of an incredible amount of potential for amazing storytelling when he decided that "Jack" had to leave with "Jennifer".

Days today is all about the couples. The only time people interact with others is to whine about their significant other, or plot to steal someone elses significant other.

There is no more warm and loving family or friend interaction for the sake of it, and that is the glue that holds the show together.

I'm saddened to see that a show that I watched from 1965-1992 and then started watching again when Steve and Matt and Mary Beth returned is still going to be so terrible.

It's not too late for NBC to fix this, but I'm guessing these pleas will fall on deaf ears.


Acting? Not so hot, in fact quite poor. If you like Hollywood, you wont notice this. For the record, 'Mousehole' is pronounced locally as 'Mousall', not 'muzzle'. Accents were poor. Go to Cornwall if you don't believe me. Lots of continuity errors. Did I say the acting was poor? Over-acting, melodramatic stuff. Poorly made. How can all these reviews here like this movie? Lousy script too - did I watch the same movie? This thing is pretty much unwatchable - are you folks on prozac? This was like a bad silent movie. The melodramatic music/scenes in the early stages left us in no doubt as to the outcome. Not enough dialogue.

Lots wrong with this movie. Sorry.


To think that a entire army failed and one geeky man could destroy my home country seems insulting to hear and impossible. After all who is this Reb Brown guy and i am sure that Amercanski is not really Russian for American added to that some of the most awkward one liners in the history of world cinema. The boy is also a stereotypical Vietnamese peasant. I would like to see more Vietamese cinema like (literal translation) Du Xing's lama. The only people who would enjoy this insulting mess is patriotic American idiot who believe America won in the Vietnamese war (i myself am Vietnamese and didn't support the war)

Watch out for the paddy field scene, my dad was one of the extras.


Utter tripe, but worth viewing for:

1) The fight scene between the Russian officer and Strike Commando near the end - particularly the head clash after running at each other head on from 20 ft.

2) The Russian officer managing to utter his final word: "Amerikanskiiiii!!!" despite having already have had his head blown off by a grenade rammed in his mouth!

See it!


Shameless, yes, but STRIKE COMMANDO works as a beyond-insipid "unstoppable warrior with a vendetta" vehicle for the incomparably bad Reb Brown. Brown is so bad as "Michael Ransom" that he actually makes the movie more enjoyable; factor in Bruno Mattei's typically doltish direction, and you've got a movie that may make your brain stem separate from your skull. Thing is, you might enjoy it! I found myself laughing through most of it; perhaps it's best enjoyed at that level, or ignored altogether. Give Mattei credit, though--he had the cajones to make a sequel, as well. That's some cheek!


Awful! Just saw it and could not understand the concept of the movie. Reading the comments posted almost makes me feel as if I do not understand cinema.

The storyline is implausible, the humor crass, satire entirely lost; I wonder what was Meyer thinking when he made the movie! And what was the ending all about!?? I fail to see any symbolism or any metaphor. It is plain lunacy in a movie on display. The hero keeps on running and running and running .......

If the movie was only meant to show the assets of the female characters, a la porn flick, it would have passed muster.

Only redeeming feature - Shari Eubanks has some memorable moments and she is beautiful! Please do not waste your time and money. Will never venture for another weird world of Russ Meyers!


my least favorite of all the Meyer films, and although I do like Napier, Supervixens and also Cherry, Harry, And Raquel are the 2 Meyer films I've seen that I really don't like much. And granted, a bad Meyer film still has a lot going for it. First off, the great cinematography and the boobs,.....however, too often there's a little too much of a cartoon-like vibe that doesn't mix well with the nasty violence. The bath-tub kill scene was a bit out of touch with the rest of the film. Some of the dialog/acting is just awful, too and the main male lead didn't work for me. I'd a rather Napier played him since Napier's role was mainly at the beginning and then the end as the crazed cop. The reason why Faster Pussycat remains Meyer's best-known film is because the females are the main characters. In Supervixens, they're almost an afterthought.

A lot of the music is goofy, too, a common thing in Meyer films that often give it a cheap dated feel in 2007. But to contradict myself, in a lot of his films, the music is dated in a way that totally works.

Rent Faster Pussycat, Vixen, Up!, Mudhoney, or BVD instead!!!!!


Referring back to the previous comment - I sure have a sense of humor, and a quirky one at that, (love monty python, super troopers, shaun of the dead, etc) but this has to be the worst movie ever! No wonder its on pay TV at 2am. It is even hard to tell what genre this is, and the murder scenes are just so wrong. Not to mention the bad effects, acting, fashion and hair dos. Also, since I am German, I didn't really appreciate the use of a nazi propaganda song from world war II. I would add something positive but I just cannot find anything to say. Sorry, but unfortunately I have to say this one is definitely not worth watching.


In between the sexy VIXEN and the sexy and hilarious BENEATH THE VALLEY OF THE ULTRAVIXENS, Russ Meyer made this horrendous piece of cinematic crap. The women in it are pretty, to be sure, but they're also totally unlikeable. Even Clint, the hero, generates no sympathy in the least. There are two things that I DID enjoy about this: One is the performance of Charles Napier as the slimy, despicable Harry Sledge. Truly one of the best villains to grace the silver screen. The other good thing is the scenes involving Stu Lancaster and the incomparable Uschi Digart as a married farm couple who take Clint in after he is mugged. Watching Uschi be . . . well, Uschi . . . almost make it worth sitting through the surrounding nastiness. There is also the appearance of fellow Chicagoan Anne Marie (Eufala Roop from ULTRAVIXENS) that is all too brief.


Words like "vile" and "reprehensible" don't even begin to express my contempt for this movie. Russ Meyer is just a filmmaker with a quirky sense of humor and a fetish for big breasts, right? Well he's also got a mean misogynistic or maybe just plain misanthropic streak in him from what I can tell. Despite all the busty women this film is not the least bit sexy. It is, however, definitely obscene.

In interviews Meyer has put down hardcore pornography but I've seen scores of porn flicks and not a ONE of them has anything in them as disgusting (and disturbing) as the brutal stomping and electrocution a young woman receives in this movie. Anyone who argues this is fantasy violence has some pretty sick fantasies. This was made during an "anything goes" era, the 1970's, but I have to wonder what the participants really thought of this twisted vision. It should be avoided at all costs by anyone with a sense of humanity.


adam sandler is probably my worst actor of all time, the only good film he's ever been in is air heads when he wasn't popular. i don't hate this film because i was a young teen when this came out and did find it pretty funny but never thought it was good. adam sandler should do something else besides acting, maybe a tea boy ha ha. i'm sorry adam but you ain't fooling me with your silly acting. he's just trying to copy jim carrey in which jim carrey isn't so great in his silly performances either. i would recommend this film to people who just want to chill out and watch a film with no thoughts put into it. other than that just leave this film on the shelfs at the shops ........3/10.......j.d seaton


I can't believe that movie was made and worse that so many people actually saw it. I didn't think there could be a worse adam sandler movie than there already are but Waterboy took the cake. Mostly I am ashamed that someone actually took credit for writing the screenplay.


Adam Sandler... geez. The simple fact that he makes money off garbage like this (everything else of his is just like this) and guys like Steve Martin and Bill Murray--who on their worst day beat out anything Sandler on his most inspired day--struggle with their films for the simple fact they make funny films with a concept, or you might even have to think a bit about the humor. Fans of Sandler are the same folks that let MTV dictate their lives and consider the Teletubbies "cool" just because it's hip to like what toddlers go for. Someone explain that fad to me: teens and people in their early 20's liking preschooler fare.

Just like Farley and Spade, Sandler left SNL, where he actually was funny, and succumbed to making easy-laugh bile on film. The only SNL'er that left for the big screen and actually has continually made the most of it is Mike Myers. So far, out of his four films in which he was the star, each of them have truly been hysterical.

Most Sandler fans are the type of people that would say, "If you don't like Adam Sandler films, you need to drink s'more." Exactly, because that's what it'll take to actually stomach one minute of any of his films.


I am appalled by all the good reviews that my fellow USIMDB users have given this terrible, terrible movie. Completely unoriginal, ineptly acted and directed, and incredibly unfunny. I find it fascinating that people like you prefer brainless schlock like "The Waterboy" to an amazing piece of filmmaking such as "Saving Private Ryan." It just boggles my mind how people have no taste. Some people need their art spoon fed to them. If you honestly thought this movie was good, then God help us all.


Geez, Adam Sandler can be really funny, but when he bombs, he really bombs. Waterboy wasn't funny at all, whereas Happy Gilmore was hilarious. Too bad. Adam better get his act in gear, because after The Wedding Singer (ugh) I had hoped to see him return to good form. Maybe next time...


There's no doubt that The Waterboy will be a hit. It wasn't with me though. It's not that I don't like Sandler. It's just that I found him annoying in Billy Madison and a little annoying in Happy Gilmore. This movie shows Sandlers' truly annoying side.

If you're going to see The Waterboy because of the physical hits don't bother. I didn't see ONE hit in the movie that they didn't show on TV. I would recommend the movie to kids under 12 (Or adults who are waterpeople).


Adam Sandler returns to his true comedic form - making people laugh at stupid jokes, sight gags, etc. However, he is locked in his character as a moronic waterboy that hardly ever can break through to Sandler's true hilarious ability. Since Sandler was co-writer of this movie, he relies on the supporting cast to deliver his sense of humor. No one can be Sandler but Sandler. His humor is unique and genius - yet the cast doesn't deliver - Cathy Bates is terrible, Fairuza Balk is OK. The only standouts are The Fonz and the Cross-Eyed football player. A good rental.


One of the worst peaces of cinematic drab I have seen in a long while.. I'm glad I didn't watch this little ditty in a cinema, because then I would be forced to walk out (which I hate doing).. What I hate the most about this movie is it's awkward pace - It's a mess, a collage of fast paced scenes mixed with slow motion shots. The dialogue is not even close to believable. The CGI, is OK, that's the only thing in the movie I don't hate, but it's far from a redeeming factor - I feel like this heap of a movie was created for the sole purpose that some guys can hone their special effect skills. It's full of shallow symbolism, overinflated to the absurd... The script is bad, the acting is worse, but the direction is a bottomless void of fail. I must note that this movie was so bad that I just had to register here, and vent my anger/disgust/whatever.


Well I've just returned from the cinema after watching this movie. I have dual thoughts about it. First the camera and the acting are stunning for a Serbian movie, we(Serbs) have reach a Hollywood production level. But the weak part of a movie is screenplay or a plot. First a women tribe is chaotic, there is no matriarch in the village, and two female protagonists are quite independent for Serbian women from that ages. The love concept is based on nothing, and male characters lacks personality. There is that vineyard, that the girls go to, that has a planted mine field.Why do they go to that vineyard? To die...(It was called Mineyard in the movie)If they died there, the village wouldn't get any grapes at all, and few of them get out alive. The concept of the vineyard is quite illogical. As I said before, love concept is illogical also, as they madly fall in love in some guys that they have just seen. I compared it to a movie called The Wickerman, where the matriarch tribe girls abandon theirs feelings for the tribe's sake. In this movie that isn't a case. The girls are quite careless for the rest of the tribe and want those two men for themselves. Male characters are quite feeble, and annoying. Trey are made like they are from an other world, not realizing a current situation. They are certainly not the model of men two fell in love at the first site. My final word would be:"At the beginning of the movie you are on zero point, at the end of the movie you are on the zero point. Nothing changes, everyone is miserable as in the beginning". Also they categorized this movie as a comedy. THIS IS NOT A COMEDY, it's a drama with an elements of horror.


First of all I'm personally left'ish, so I was not completely bulletproof to the message in "The Take"

What annoys me about this movie comes in two categories: 1) Form 2) Content

1) Form is "relatively" unimportant as it is a documentary. Never the less I found it annoying with all those shots of statues against a red sky with sad background music. Also the intro was extremely long and dragged on forever. I felt like screaming "Get on with it!!! What are those poor workers doing now?!?!" as the zillion'th shot of abandoned factory halls rolled across the silver screen. And the speak (Argentina's fall from grace + hubris + neo liberal heresy) was to theatrical for my taste. Finally the constant repetitions of a few key messages (with variations) gave a kind of TV-commercial-feeling which didn't help the film's credibility.

2) I found it disturbing that the film was very vague about the "hardcore" economic angle. Especially when the political angle was so clear. This gives an aura of "things not being told because they don't fit into Lewis&Klein's view of the world". I don't know if that is the truth, but i was the feeling I was left with at the end of the film.

All in all not a very good film. It lacks as a documentary (simply too many loose claims that were never proved). As a political statement my notion is that it "preach to the believers" e.g. it targets those who agree on the agenda and confirms their opinion. On the upside though, it does try to set a positive agenda in contrast to for instance Michael Moore's eternal gloom. But they lack Moore's sharp irony and satire which at least would have made this picture entertaining.

The central problem about this movie is this: "Is it a documentary or is it a political statement?"

I rate it 4/10 as it wasn't a total disaster as a political statement (though a bit boring and quite predictable) but neither was it good journalist/documentarist craftsmanship


This movie claims, that the situation it presents the viewers with could occur anywhere in the world and that the takeover of closed factories by their workers is a recipe against the negative effect of world wide globalization.

The first assertion is clearly wrong. Argentina is a specific place with a specific history. Its industry was created to serve the home market. Peron's and later the Peronist's power base were the industrial workers whose unions were brought into line with strong arm tactics. Industry has always been a highly politicized affair in that country, it was protected from international competition for a very long time. Therefore nobody invested in the renewal of machinery, in the 1980s they still produced the Ford Falcon model of the 1950s (maybe they still do?). Pepole could always be sure that the export of agricultural produce would support an industry which was neither very productive nor competitive. I think oil producing Venezuela and Iran are in a similar position today (in the way politics, economics and ideologies are mixed together). President Menem  incidentally a Peronist brought to power as the champion of the little man  lifted the protective shield and brought to light the frailty of the legal as well as the economical and social system of Argentina. No wonder many businesses collapsed, leaving huge debts behind.

It defies belief that the adversaries of globalization just think that by putting the lid back on, returning to a protected market, everything will be well. This would neither create fairer conditions nor would it secure more equality or welfare for the future.

For the second assertion the movie surprises with a disconcerting lack of proof. Very little is explained. How do these enterprises pay for raw materials? Where are their markets? How do they find customers? Do they make a profit? Most of these questions are not even addressed although they are essential if the model" should work. And as much as one can understand the outrage of seeing people willing to work being forced from their place of employment, there are some legal issues which should have been considered. If I understood it right, the workers took the bankrupt factories lock, stock and barrel, leaving the accumulated debts  to who? Mustn't there be some losers around somewhere? Isn't this part of the time-honed Argentine tradition of eating the cake before having it? I regret to say that I found this movie overly romantic and simplistic. It fails to deliver what it promises to do at the outset.


As nice, simple, and uplifting as this movie is. There is one big problem. And I am not talking about the complete lack of explanations and important information left out of the movie. I'm talking about the fact that it is made by Naomi Klein, a hack! Her stupid "No Logo" bullshit only translates to other areas of media, now in the form of this Mocumentary. Let's just think here, what is the other option to Globalization? Oh ya, Nationalism! Oops I almost forgot about that, how important it is and how easily it leads everyone down the path of the dark side. It brought us great men like Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Yay for them, but it's just too bad all those people had to die. You die-hard leftist morons are living a Utopic dream which can only be realized in Thomas Moore's book! Utopia literally means "no place" or "no where" and it is safe to say that you guys are always heading in that direction. But I do not doubt that you are making progress in that endeavor. Klein and Lewis are hypocrites. Just look at the places Klein lives in; She has houses in some of the most expensive places in the world. Look at the value of her place in Toronto! These people are like shepherd's of thought, they say "Do as I say, not as I do." Why? To make money and in particular to take yours! They are simply different vessels of the Capitalist thought that is within everyone, and as long you love and support them they will continue to make millions off of the ignorant. People like Klein and Lewis deserve nothing more than the inside of a prison cell with a single copy of the Communist Manifesto to keep them company and to remind them of where it gets people.


The little dudes taking on the big dudes. We all like to see it, and we love to see them win.

The problem with this documentary is not so much the content but the lack of it. The story of Argentina is told by the film makers, and by the factory workers. Great, but they are not really experts, are they? An academic would have been far more credible. Unfortunately the film makers were loyal to ideas close to their hearts, and they should have been loyal to the truth, wherever that lies, I'm not sure as the film was partisan, to the point of cartoon. Unfortunately i left the cinema thinking it only told me half the story, and as such I couldn't trust it.

Facts were replaced with chants. There was one scene of a riot which tried to make the rioters out to be heroes and the police out to be violent oppressors (rather than people doing a pretty fundamental and difficult job already without having a bunch of people throwing bricks at them)which didn't wash well with me, and the difficult issue of the workers taking a bunch of very expensive equipment was never really explored. Was it intended that those who paid for it would be compensated, or was it to be donated to them in the interests of trying to keep a business running? One of many questions never answered.

The world isn't black and white. This documentary made it out to be just that, and as such, insults an audience which knows better


If you come into this short thinking, "Hey, that girl looks like Lilo," you aren't wrong. This short is pure Disney through and through, which has its good sides and its bad sides, but definitely gives off a very brand-name feel.

The story is a Hans Christian Anderson tale about a pauper girl who finds brief comfort in the matches she's trying to sell until the cold eventually wins and takes her life away--not before, however, she so escapes into her imagination to find comfort, warmth, and love. This is a very good story, and in fact is done very well by the animators. It also shows that even though Disney is making shorts again, they're still sentimental fluff on topics the maker's don't really know that much about.

Sure, it's sweet, but it's also impersonal. All the power this short has is really in the filmmaker's use of tropes like the cute homeless girl and the magic warm Christmas tree to tug at our heartstrings, but the film makes no attempt to really give any sense of objective to the works. It's meant to make us feel sad, not make us think or understand. It's sweet, but it lacks substance. In other words, it's typical later Disney, through and through.

I do give it a few props merely for the fact that it's not CGI. The Oscar nominated short films this year were dominantly CGI, and will probably be more so as time goes on, so it's good to see that one particular company is maintaining a different form. Unfortunately, that company is also infamous for their sugar-coated reality and sentimentality, so they've managed to keep that as well.

--PolarisDiB


If you like the original "Slapshot," good acting and a good plot, rent anything else other than this travesty of film-making. However, if you do enjoy bad VD jokes, monotone Steven Baldwin acting and a storyline a kindergartner could poke holes into, then by all means rent "Slapshot 2: Breaking the Ice." Seriously, the only good thing about this film was seeing the original Hanson Brothers reprise their roles, which was not nearly enough to save it. A life-size cardboard cutout of Paul Newman has more acting talent than Steven Baldwin. And I'm being generous. Only if you have a severely morbid sense of curiosity would I suggest you watch this film.


The script for Slap Shot 2-Breaking the Ice should have been thoroughly reviewed over and over with a fine-tooth comb before they started filming. It was up against the awesome classic original and the writers and producers knew very well that fans of the original Slap Shot were just thirsting for a really funny and good follow up if one was going to be made at all. A control group of viewers who saw the original back in 1977 at the theater should have been consulted (Me, for one.) I'm only giving this movie a generous 3 stars out of 10, one for each of the Hanson Brothers. They deserved better than this. The message of hockey becoming too antiseptic and "entertainment" instead of sport was lost in the mess. I did NOT like the "hockey chick" thing with Jessica Steen playing the new female coach, and she had the personality of a doorstop. Stephen Baldwin must have come very cheap, but doesn't do the worst job. The skating sequences were all blurry and slow-mo cheesy, and NOT using Johnstown, PA, instead of Vancouver, B.C. for the shooting location was more than sad. By the way, didn't the team move to Minnesota at the end of the original Slap Shot??? They could have written something hilariously funny into the second one about the Hanson Brothers going home to Minnesota. (Note to readers: Steve Carlson and Jeff Carlson were born and raised in Virginia, Minnesota. Dave Hanson was born in Wisconsin.) If the writers and producers of the original "Slap Shot" want to brainstorm for another truly funny and more accurate sequel, they should consult with fans for ideas. ($100 dollar bills raining from the sky will happen first before another sequel ever does thanks to this one.) The bottom line is that moviegoers want more of the Hanson Brothers and old-time hockey than this. It would also increase the bottom line $$$, especially if it would have a theatrical release, and not be released straight-to-video (kiss of death.)


This movie was beyond awful. It is ironic... The original SLAP SHOT was , in my opinion , the best sports movie of all time. This lame piece of garbage is the worst. The Hanson Brothers were fantastic in the first movie and they clearly did this movie for a paycheck. Can not say I blame them, easy money is easy money. The movie went nowhere. The plot was unrealistic and just a boring , depressing movie. The Hansons who were likable goons transformed to boring businessmen and that is criminal. That youthful exuberance was gone . This movie made no social commentary as the original had done. This makes all the ROCKY Sequels look like Shakespare. What can I say , a very unfunny flick, uninteresting flick, with lousy actors. The smartest thing Paul Newman ever did was turn down reprising his 'Reggie Dunlop' character from the original .


I'm a huge fan of the first movie. And watch it every chance i get on cable. And had no idea there was a sequel till i saw it on AMC recently. I said to myself, what the heck. I'll give it a lookover. I noticed from the IMDb profile that they got the original Hanson brothers to play there roles. And they really look the same. I didn't recognize no one else from the original. Baldwin and the rest of this cast are terrible. There's nothing funny or even interesting here. Its a terrible movie in every way and form. And Stephen Balwin as the captain? You could of cast Pauly Shore and make it more believable. If there was going to be a sequel it should of been done right after the original. Maybe have them moving to Florida like the Newman made up in the first movie. When was this in the theater if at all? I keep up on new movies, whether in the theater or made for cable. This one must be thee old- straight to video cat.


Decided to watch AMC and found this film and decided to give it a try and see what I was in for in regards to entertainment. There was a great deal of humor and Steven Baldwin,(Sean Linden),"In My Sleep",'06, made very little effort in his acting to convince me that he even enjoyed making this film. Sean played a has-been hockey player who liked the wild life and decided to get in on a deal offered to him and his team as a comedy hockey team. Added to the action in the film was, Jessica Steen,(Jessie Dage),"Homefront",'91, a gal who was the granddaughter to a very famous hockey player from the past. The film was very boring and never seemed to end and made absolutely no common sense at all.


This was a HUGE waste of time and $$$$$. What a discrace to the original. This is now my all time worst movie !! I don't think that this will be topped for some time. I should have known better, this movie didn't even make it to the theatres. It is no wonder Paul Newman doesn't appear in it, he probably could sense that it was pure GARBAGE !!


Slap Shot 2 could have been a whole lot better, the original blows this away, but too bad Stephen Baldwin wasn't around for the original he is the only player that fits in this film. Gary Busey looked like he was about the croak, but he was perfect for his part. Slap Shot 2 wasn't awful, but could have so much better. I myself wasn't a big fan of the hockey chick thing, but whatever draws people to this wasted effort.


Please please please tell me what's the point of this movie? Why make a sequel if you aren't going to be original? The plot and the jokes are pretty much recycled from the first movie. The first movie was good, it was a cult classic.

The french translation of the first movie was a masterpiece. I still say that the french translated version of the first is better then the original English version (both are good in their own ways)

Here tho we get a bad attempt from the dubbing company to recapture the magic of the original french translation but all we get is a badly translated movie.

If you want my opinion this movie belongs in the trash can along with other bad sequels.


This movie is a travesty. As far as sequels go, I thought Blues Brothers 2000 was bad in a 'way too little way too late' kinda way. But, holy sh*t, this was bad. First, it has nothing to offer hockey fans. The film was made by people who don't know anything about hockey. Take the horrible coach characters. The figure skating guy is unbelievable as a coach and totally unfunny as a queer. He ruins the 'hockeyness' of the film. Second, this is a very bad film and should be stricken from the memory of anyone who enjoyed the original "Slapshot" or any hockey loving Canadian. Yes, Canadian, Americans couldn't tell the difference between hockey and disco dancing with all those goofy red and blue streaks all over the place on Fox. This is likely why this movie sucked so hard...it was made by Americans. Man I would rather watch the other American Hockey travesties like the idiotic chimp plays hockey film "Most Valuable Primate" or even Emelio-chimp in "D2: The Mighty Ducks" (yuck!) or even those boring bumholes in "Mystery, Alaska" than this frozen turd. This movie sucks the frozen poop out of a dead Eskimo.


I didn't have high expectations of this "straight to DVD" release, filmed in Vancouver and featuring the Hansons, but no other talent from the original, impeccable "Slap Shot". I rented it, made my way through it and shook my head at the lack of wit, the lack of atmosphere (the original made you feel you were living in a down-at-heel steeltown) and the homophobia/sexism. The "F" word is bandied about liberally, but it wasn't an organic part of the script, just an add-on to gain an R rating. The Hansons are clearly trying to keep their careers going, despite being rather long in the tooth. Don't talk to me about Baldwin's performance, either. This feels like a TV movie with some swearing and T&A glued on.


The film opens with a song called "Love Stinks", that should be retitled "This Film Stinks", because it does, from director Robert Iscove (She's All That). Basically Ryan Walker and Jennifer Burrows met each other as youngsters on a plane, and seven years, they encounter each other again in UC Berkeley high school. Jennifer (Meet Joe Black's Claire Forlani) is quick, witty, ironic, literary and independent, and Ryan (I Know What You Did Last Summer's Freddie Prinze Jr.) is deliberate, literal, serious and studying structural engineering. They become best friends, consoling each other over break-ups, and Ryan shares his plans, Ryan's roommate Hunter/Steve (American Pie's Jason Biggs) is surprised they aren't getting together. Jennifer is going to Italy after graduation, and surprisingly they spend a night together, after which she skitters away saying they should just be friends, and he is withdrawing also. In the end though, very predictable, Ryan and Jennifer end up on the Italy plane together, and they do accept they love each other, while Hunter (in a small subplot) finds his perfect girl with Jennifer's friend Amy (Final Destination's Amanda Detmer). Also starring The Blair Witch Project's Heather Donahue as Megan and American Pie's Alyson Hannigan as Betty. Prinze Jr. is too good looking to be a nerd with glasses, Forlani is the wrong person for the character, and Biggs with his weird coloured hair is just too much like Jim with a tiny bit of Stifler added, and what was with that extra scene in the credits where he farts with some models?! Hardly funny and too predictable, it just doesn't have the same spark as something like American Pie. Pretty poor!


I'm watching this movie RIGHT NOW and have absolutely NO need to finish it. I already know it's another predictable piece of cinematic junk in the now regrettably classic formula of commenting on the state of modern dating via terrible comedy. There are elements in this late-teen comedy that owe debt to movies like 'There's Something About Mary' and 'Chasing Amy' and countless other better variations on the same theme. Why, you may ask, am I watching it at all? My wife has it on, and her tolerance for clunky comedies is much higher than mine. The only reason I even give it a 2 is because I like Prinze and Forlani...who are both dreadful in this poorly scripted, ineptly directed clunker. Enjoy.


I figured this would be a lot like She's all that and i was right. Instead of having the title Boys and Girls it should have been He's all that! Ryan grew up planning his whole life perfectly even though he was a geek through out high school, dated a fellow geek played by Alyson Hannigan and yet for some strange reason the most popular girl in his school Jennifer always seemed to be around him all the time. Even so they end up going to the same uni and that's where they become friends, but as Jennifer can pick any guy she still continues not to be satisfied and where Ryan was concerned he seemed like the perfect guy she could talk to since he wasn't interested in getting involved with anyone there were no problems between them. Their friends believe they are somewhat in love with each other and soon things get out of hand causing their perfect friendship to be in trouble since both are not after the same thing... It's a typical boy meets girl, girl meets boy, they hate each other but under the circumstances they find a reason to be friends and so on. I think Freddie is great looking guy so for his fans yes this is a good watch, but if there is another movie on the shelf that you would also like to see, get that one first this can wait. Out of 10 I would give this a 3 only because Freddie looks so cute in a goatee!


I have walked out of very few films in my lifetime. I would have gladly added this film to the list. However, my wife liked the scenery of the SF Bay Area, perhaps the film's sole redeeming value if you can get past the geographic implausibilities (which I couldn't.) A waste of time and Jason Biggs' talent.


A rather uninspired film about the relationship between Ryan (Freddie Prinze, Jr.) and Jennifer (Claire Forlani) who meet as children sitting beside each other on an airplane and develop an inseparable bond.

The movie is pleasant enough, but completely predictable and unoriginal. Is there anyone who could start to watch this without knowing from the opening scene that these two were going to end up in love? The movie largely revolves around their denials of the feelings they have for each other and their attempts to develop other relationships, only to be drawn back together. It's OK, and there are a handful of humourous scenes, largely involving their friends Steve and Amy (Jason Biggs and Amanda Detmer) - who have problems of their own to deal with - but frankly I wouldn't go out of my way to see it.

4/10


I couldn't sit through this. The dialogue between Prinze and Forlani was brutal. I didn't make it to the end so I will give this a 3. I'm sure if I kept watching it could have become a rare 1. No adult could possibly enjoy this. I guess if you're a teen you may find this cute. I was physically attracted to Forlani before this role. Her lines were so annoying that I have seriously lost all of my attraction. That takes a lot my friends. PAINFUL!!!


Further proof that Freddie Prinze has no right to put down 'Actor' on his resume. This movie has a half-decent cast that are unable to do anything with this awful script. Sometimes you can watch a comedy with a predictable story but still enjoy it because its funny. This one is predictable and incredibly unfunny. Prinze, of course is a write-off but Claire Forlani, Jason Biggs and Amanda Detmer are usually solid actors. Forlani looks embarrassed to be there, Biggs can't pull off the lovable loser he aced in the American Pie series and Detmer comes off whiny and pathetic.

I don't know why Prinze gets any roles but he definitely deserved this one. If you see this movie in the video store, walk on by.


"Boys and Girls" is total teenage date movie waste-of-seven-bucks garbage. Hollywood makes these movies because they know that they're trash but the opening sales will cover the cost of the production and still make a small profit. There was no feasable reason why this movie would be made. Did someone say "hey, we need a movie that has attractive stars but let's not add depth, good plot, good dialogue or interesting funny parts"?

Well, maybe someone did say that, because that's what they got. At least in "When Harry Met Sally" you felt there might be some small tiny chance that the two main characters wouldn't get together at the end. Here's the spoiler, because I have to identify it: once you see the first ten minutes you know how the film will end. The film just plays with you and wastes your time, delaying the inevitable. A lot of romance movies are like that, but this one doesn't have any good qualities, except maybe Jason Biggs, who really wasted his time on this.

Take my advice. Never see this film.


Went to the movie expecting a funny comedy and was disappointed. Where the movie set up a scene where a joke was expected, what was offered was weak and flat. The whole movie had a been there, done that feel with no real saving graces except the female lead, she was good.

The rest of the actors were okay, but nothing special. This was the first movie in a long time that I was sorry I went to. The script seemed to need another once over and a lot of the scenes should have been done again.

The best part was the fact that all of the students in Berkley went into San Francisco for fun and frolic.

The best and one of the few funny parts came at the very end and had nothing to do with the story.

The whole movie had a "John Hughes" 1985 feel to it which may explain the "Sixteen Candles" and "Breakfast Club" posters which pop up in the movie. This film is more like them than "American Pie", but not as good as the 1980's films.


One word - horrible. Don't waste your money, spend it on something else. This movie is dry, boring and even with Jason Biggs, it can't be saved. Very very poor script, the acting was as good as it could have been, with this pathetic script. Too bad maybe next time. At least they had nice scenery of San Francisco. Very predictable.


As hopeful as I was for the film, the script was very poor. None of the major plot points came organically from the characters, rather from coincidence. Some might argue that "fate" brings these lovers together, unfortunately there is no "B" story to make this theory work. Had Jason Biggs had a "B" story plot line to perform, this film would have been a great deal more fun.

Perhaps if there was a separate subplot for Mr. Prince and Ms. Forlani, the film might have more depth. Ms. Forlani and Mr. Prince attempt to save this work from being completely cliche with some reasonable performances, however the dynamic this script provides them is weak storytelling. These characters repeatedly meet in a series of scenes that "magically" bring them together. The only problem is, there's no magic. Just the same scene recycled over and over again; The same two characters not taking any major action. This causes the audience to be fifteen steps ahead of the plot, and bored out of their mind. Perhaps younger "Boys and Girls" will find this film amusing.

On a positive note, the club scene is cool, the soundtrack is great, and the film is well cast. It just has a bad script.

Granted, this is The Drews' second major project. Perhaps with experience we will see improvements in their writing abilities. The great poet Rilke suggested that the young should not write romance because their lack of life experience will not allow them to write anything but the cliche. Ce la vie.


Jason Biggs, is definitely an emerging star, and he was hilarious! but this movie was horrible. Prinze Jr may be beloved by the women, but to me being a guy, he was nothing special. This had little plot, and was your standard romantic comedy, with an EXTREMELY predictable triumphant "get back together" in the end... So.. to sum this up, if you are a guy, do NOT waste your time with this movie.

Also, the preview/trailer for this movie, had Jason Biggs and the 4 chicks when they say "have you ever been with 4 women before?" this was clearly to get guys to watch the movie... BUT this part was not even in the film....


Freddie Prinze Jr. serves up yet another 20-something romantic comedy. Is it just me or do you get the feeling we have been there and done that? Freddie Prinze Jr. stars as undergrad Ryan who seems to keep running into sexually confused Jennifer (Claire Forlani) every times he turns around. Ryan slowly starts to become Jennifer's friend and as in all romantic comedies it always leads to more. I had many problems with `Boys and Girls'. Why do friendships in movies always lead to sex and eventually a break-up? I didn't believe for a moment that Prinze and Forlani actually had more than friend feelings. Why couldn't they be the 20-something version of `When Harry Met Sally'. Is the lesson here if we can't be happy with someone lets be miserable together? Their dialogue was drab and bland. Where was the humor that usually happens when the sexes start talking? My savior in this film was the very dense character played by American Pie's Jason Biggs. This guy was hilarious in so many ways. And if you plan on seeing this film you have to watch the credits at the end because the biggest gut laugh is there. Isn't it strange they placed it in the credits? I would have found some place in the film to put this scene.

I guess my belief in that we can find originality in the `romantic comedy' makes me want to see better films than `Boys and Girls'. Will we see originality in this genre soon? I have faith that this summer's `Loser' starring Jason Biggs and Mena Suvari will be a lot better than this. (2 of 5) So Says the Soothsayer.


Where should I start? this is probably the question when the people wrote the script. The story just goes nowhere. After the 'so called' comedy "Down to you", Freddie Prince Jr. tortures us with another uninspired, boring, "I have to watch it through the ending just to bash it on IMDb"-Type movie, it's just terrible.

It rips off the cult film "When Harry met Sally". The two truly bad actors meet each other several times through the years and discuss every topic from A like relationships to Z like relationships. Nothing else happens in this movie and it's just painfully boring to watch Freddie Prince Jr. and Claire Forlani getting philosophical on each other. The directors actually thought this was entertaining and... funny. The comedy aspect is nowhere to be found. So they hired another terrible actor called Jason Biggs, you might heard of him, no what I'm talking about? Of course you heard of him, these days bad actors are more famous than good actors. He gets even more idiotic than in American Pie and leads to me shaking my head due to his clown behavior because I know there are many people who think that he's funny. Maybe I just haven't kept with the time and it's the new humor that I don't get, even though I'm only 20 years old.

It's very predictable how this movie ends, like all the other teen movies, so that the little girls can sleep well at night.

I suggest that you ignore this movie at all costs.


This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. Literally. It was a romantic comedy, but unlike most, had no twist. Sort of like 'When Harry met Sally', which I thought was overrated, but at least had charismatic stars. I think the fact that I saw this movie when I was about fourteen, at the height of my FPJ crush and still didn't like it, really says something. I can't imagine what I would think if I saw it now. The acting wasn't stellar, since the material sucked so much. Even Jason Biggs and Alyson Hannigan couldn't save it, although JB was funny. Claire Forlani was okay, but forgettable, and Freddie, well, he was his usual self. Apparently the guy can act when given good material (He was in Kenneth Lonergan's 'This is our Youth' in the West End), but unfortunately none of his movies so far have been able to evidence that. The guy seems to have about four expressions: bewildered, dumfounded, just plain dumb, and something resembling constipation. At least he's pretty though, right?


Boys And Girls is the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. it was horrible! I saw it in the movie theaters (don't ask why???)and i couldnt even sit through it. I can't point out one positive thing about it. for anyone who likes this movie (if there is anyone). dont get offended. BUT THIS MOVIE IS PATHETIC!


"Jurm" is a film which is supposed to be a thriller, without actually being one. The film is very easy to predict, and lacks of suspense. Even though the film begins promising, it completely fails and falls in level afterwards. Vikram Bhatt is not able to maintain the suspense through out the film. The main problem with "Jurm" is that it has absolutely nothing new to offer. What you see has been seen several times before. On the top of that the chemistry between the actors is miserable as well. This is one of the few films where even Bobby Deol isn't able to play his part with conviction. Lara Dutta proves that being beautiful and sexy doesn't necessarily mean that you can act. Thank you! Gul Panag hasn't got much to do in the film. Milind Soman plays extremely artificially, and falls flat in front of Bobby Deol, in spite the fact that he is not playing well either. It is truly sad to see an actor of Ashish Vidyarthi's calibre to choose such a low level film, where he doesn't get the chance to play even 10% of what he is capable of.

"Jurm" is a terrible film with terrible acting and has nothing new to offer. This one doesn't even qualify as being a time-pass movie.


The dull, gray story of a Dutch girl(with no accent, mind you)who gets lost in the jungles of Bachman's floral..err..Tanzania. She is found and taken in by the most multi-ethnic 'native tribe' that I've ever seen, including a woman who looks like she put on too much bronzer before she went on set. These people seem to think that she's some kind of 'White Goddess', which is weird since they call the two meaty, wooden white guys who appear to rescue her white devils. These dopes crash in the jungle while looking for this girl, because there's a reward for finding her. One of them, a psychotic with a stupid pencil moustache, pulls out a gun and starts shooting. He kills one of the warriors, and is promptly condemned to death. Which he deserves, but that wouldn't further the plot, would it?

Not that much does. There are long, dry conversations and some tepid flirting between the Goddess and the less looney of the two men, although he manages to patronize her like crazy. Actually, she had managed to hold off the tribe doing her in by keeping up the white goddess front for over six years, plus she learned their language and kept a witch doctor at bay. Sounds like a pretty strong, smart girl, which is why Chunky McWhitey's smug condescension is even more annoying.

They finally all run away together, although why they didn't leave the psycho Snidely Whiplash wannabee behind is beyond me. He eventually tries to kill both of them, and gets stabbed by a warrior after he kills yet another of the tribesmen by 'accident'. The two protagonists get in the plane and fly away, and the woman makes dreamy comments about how when she gets back to civilization she immediately wants to buy a hat. A hat!? Gimme a break, lady!


Wow, you'd think that even B movies would at least TRY to get the facts straight. There were quite a few things wrong with this one, but here were the most annoying for me:

1. Our heroes looking at African animals from the air with binoculars, yet when we are shown the "binocular" view, it's taken from ground level.

2. Massive airplane cockpit. 1940's airplane cockpits were incredibly cramped arrangements that were crammed with instruments, yet the cockpit shown here was massive, with not a dial, switch or gauge to be seen. Convenient for filming perhaps, but completely unreal.

3. Indigenous species. The padding in this film included stock footage of the animals seen on the ground in Africa. These included a cougar and an orangutan, neither of which are native to Africa.

4. When the English "Jungle Goddess" of the title was in Africa, she taught a local African woman broken English. Yet when the woman spoke the broken English, it was with a Mexican accent. Riddle me that one, Batman!

This one was pretty bad all the way through, with two thoroughly unlikeable and annoying male leads. And at just an hour long it still had 15 minutes of padding. If you've only got 45 minutes worth of script, you don't have enough of a story to even make a movie, so why try?


Thats about the only point of interest of this turkey. To be honest, I've only seen the MST3K version, but it is still easy to deduce that this is a total clunker, with horrendous use of stock footage, dialouge that can induce a grand mal seizure, cheap, CHEAP cardboard back drops, and terrible acting all make this movie, one to avoid. Although, I do recommend watching the MST3K version.


Beyond being a bad, terribly dull movie, I have a bigger problem with Jungle Goddess  racism. I'm not sure why it bothers me so much in this movie when I can let it go in movies with similar racial incidents like any of the Tarzan movies, but it really bothered me here. The characters (an by this I mean the white characters) attitudes toward the shooting of an innocent native is so nonchalant. It's no big deal to any of them. You kill a human being and then have the nerve to feel you're being wronged by the other members of his tribe because they want and expect retribution  it's something my 21st Century sensibilities cannot comprehend. And it's not just the "bad" guy. The "good" characters have the same "no big deal" attitude. I honestly think it bothered me so much in Jungle Goddess because the movie is so bad there's nothing to take the edge of these scenes. The racial attitudes of the 1940s were given the opportunity to stand front and center and show just how repulsive they really were.

Okay, off the soapbox for a bit. As I say, Jungle Goddess is Dull with a capital "D". None of the three main actors (George Reeves, Wanda McKay, and Ralph Byrd) seems capable of displaying any of the realistic emotions you might expect from someone lost in the jungle. In fact, McKay plays it much like a little girl going to a tea party. It's completely unbelievable. Speaking of unbelievable, the sets are some of the worst I've seen. You can find more realistic looking plastic plants at the local Wal Mart. And the stock footage scenes of animals don't help at all. It's all too obvious that the characters are no where near the animals. Add it up  cheap sets, dull script, and uninspired acting make for one very bad movie.


What century was this film made in? The racial attitudes in this snooze-fest are unbelievable. Yeah sure. Any self-respecting black tribe in Africa will bow down at the first white person who walks along. Ridiculous.

There's very little plot here: Pilots look for girl, find her, try to escape. The end. For the life of me, I don't know why this film was made. There's absolutely no point, and it would fail as an action/adeventure film because there's so little action (and some pathetic insertions of stock footage).

I would expect better from the two lead actors.


"A Dirty Shame" is a John Waters film about a prudish, uptight mid-western woman who, after having concussion in a motor vehicle accident, becomes a raving sex addict.

Although I'm a bit of a John Waters fan - "A Dirty Shame" was a pretty big shame and a disappointment.

I guess society and comedy has moved on a bit from drag queens eating doggie-do (see Pink Flamingos). Shows and films like South Park, Wonder Showzen and Team America seem to push the envelope in terms of bad taste comedy. "A Dirty Shame" just seems to fall a little short of that "pushing the envelope in bad taste" name.

Most of the sexual discussion feels not quite as raunchy as "Sex in the City" or even "Jerry Springer"!! Most things about this movie feels a little on the amateurish side - the acting, the cinematography, the script... However - one plus was the Selma Blair character - although it sort of felt it was a little underused.

Overall - A Dirty Shame was a big disappointment. John Waters appears not to be pushing that "bad taste" envelope anymore. Perhaps he needs to return to more kitsch mainstream territory (a la Hairspray).


Here comes "A Dirty Shame", John Waters' last hooliganism. It must be said: Waters is more a product of a specific time than a good cinema director. He was in the right place at the right moment to scandalize the so puritan American society of the 70's with movies such as "Pink Flmingos" or "Female Trouble" (most of them played by the unclassifiable Divine and a huge cast of freaks and outsiders). Disrespect, ugliness, a look worthy of the "do it yourself" punk slogan... A few movies that, in their own context, were so valuable, they broke taboos, they spit in the face of that society because the future was coming.

Well, now the future has come, and Waters left behind the amateur ways in order to make some brilliant pieces ("Cry Baby", "Serial Mom") that were more in the Hollywood style, much more according to the mainstream ways. With "A Dirty Shame" John seems to want to go back to his origins, to scandalize deep America's rednecks, the friends of the Rifle Association, the Mormons... In order to achieve that he's written a rather coarse story about an epidemic of sex-addiction somewhere in middle America, sort of a spicy version of the "Invasion of the Body snatchers". Rough humor, and a few laughing.

Main attractions? Well, we got the MTV-boy Johnny Knoxville and Tracey Ullman that were born to make comedies, and the exquisite taste of Mr. Waters for the music: "S Dirty Shame" has a soundtrack full of fantastic 50's music. In short: maybe with some wallpaper, a camera on the shoulder, and going 30 years back in time this product would make any sense. But we're in 2005, and the man who shot Divine eating canine feces has just made his worst film ever. Let's see if the next time John Waters does it better (I really hope so).

*My rate: 2.5/10


I want to clear something up right away before all the fans start clicking "no."

I am a Waters fan. "Pink Flamingos", "Female Trouble" great B movie cult classics, even Water's himself making cameos here and there ("Seed of Chucky" etc.) So I don't want to be misunderstood as one of those people who just doesn't like anything he does.

Blair, Knoxville and Ullman's families should all be instructed to love them less after starring in this dreck.

Not only is the movie not on par with the usual atmosphere of Water's past classics, it's just downright stupid, and not even in a turn-your-brain off amusing sort of way. People get knocked in the head and are all of a sudden sex fiends....and not only that, soon the whole town is walking around with head injuries and trying to hump anyone that moves.....(sigh).

Blair sleep walks campily through this film as a stripper with nightmarishly huge boobs and little else. Why she, after proving that she had obvious talent in other roles, ever agreed to this is beyond me. I can appreciate well known actresses wanting to do a "cult" or "B" movie because of love for a character or franchise (ie: Bridget Fonda's cameo in "Army of Darkness.") But not after reading this script and saying "Let me get this straight, I talk about how good promiscuity is and having huge knockers, and pole dance through the entire thing?" "Where do I sign?!"

Ullman was a shocker. Was she hard up for cash? She should stick with the skit shows. Knoxville, well, i'm not real surprised at, it seems to fall into the category of everything else he'd been in up to the time this came out. (He's probably suffered enough head injuries from his "Jackass" days to explain his participation.) Although he's subsequently had some significant and decent roles, go figure.

I wish there was more I could tell you about the plot, but there's not. Some group tries to redeem the sexually deviant, only to in the end become them themselves. Great. I was actually angry for wasting my time and rental fee on this trash.

I know Waters is known for controversial, trashy movies, but the difference between this and his others is that they're fun. My advice, skip this and dig into your collection for the "Divine" era.


Really, I thought that I had seen it all when I saw movies like "Freddy Got Fingered", "The Nutty Professor 2" and all those teenage comedies full of toilet humor and humor about other bodily functions. But nothing could prepare me for what I was going to see in this movie. Boundaries are to be broken, but sometimes it can go too far, even for me. And how do you know when it is all getting too much for the normal, even liberal, thinking person? Well, when you go to the cinema, find 2/3 of the seats empty and, before the movie is half, see more than half of the viewers leave the room before the movie has ended...

Talking about the story will not take very long, because there just isn't much of a story to be found in this movie. In an ordinary conservative town, the sex-addicts are taking over and Sylvia Stickles, a grumpy, repressed middle-aged woman who hates sex, doesn't like it a bit. She already has problems enough with keeping her husband away from her and keeping her daughter Caprice locked in her room. Caprice is an exhibitionist go-go dancer who goes by the name Ursula Udders and who is very popular by bikers. But when Sylvia is hit on the head during an accident and suffers from a concussion, she all a sudden turns into a sex-addict herself. The sexy tow-truck driver Ray-Ray Perkins rushes to her aid and Sylvia soon realizes that he is no ordinary service man, but a sexual healer...

If you are already offended by a naked breast in a movie, than you certainly shouldn't watch this one, because it will probably give you a heart attack from the first minutes on. This movie has only one theme and that is sex, sex and some more sex. Sex with all its variations and weird fascinations and incredibly weird characters. Or would you call a girl that goes by the name Ursula Udders and who has bigger breasts than you will ever have seen in your life, normal? She makes Lolo Ferrari look like a chest-less young girl (for those who are interested, Ferrari was an 'actress' who was only (in)famous for her really gigantic breasts). The same for other characters like Fat F*ck Frank, Papa and Mama Bear (fat and hairy gay men), a policeman who likes to behave like a baby, someone who has a dirt fetish,... you really can't think of anything that isn't in the movie...

Of course I already had an idea of what to expect. When you know that Johnny Knoxville plays an 'important' role in this movie, you just know that you can't expect much quality. But the quality of this movie was even lower than I could ever expect. In my opinion there is only one good thing about it: it kicks so incredibly hard against the shins of conservative America that I doubt they will ever be able to walk again. I'm not saying that I liked the movie, but it was all too obvious that this movie was made to shock the puritans and I don't think they could have done a 'better' job than with this movie. That's also the only reason why I don't give this movie a 1/10 but a 4/10.


Having not seen many John waters films I certainly can't call myself an avid follower of his movies. One thing I can say is that having seen this one I won't be rushing to see any of his other films. A dirty shame tried to be funny and I got the feeling it was trying to make a point on peoples views on sex but I just didn't find it funny. I wasn't particularly offended by anything in the film although I can imagine some people would be. I'm sure there will be many John waters fans who will love this movie and think it's hilarious. I will just remember to avoid ever watching this very trashy unfunny film again. If John waters was aiming to be trashy he got it spot on. If he was intending it to be funny he missed the target completely.


Oh dear. ADS is just not that funny. And it could easily be... and I shudder to know what the budget was given the CGI content vs the $130,000 cinema gross (which may have come from only being screened in Baltimore)...... As with CECIL BE DEMENTED here is a hilarious idea that just becomes ragged and frantic in order to justify the production..... I am sure any of the leading cast earned more than the entire cinema gross in just one pay packet. This might have been funny in 1979 but in the era of JACKASS and American PIE #5 or mainstream porncomedies in cinemas ADS needs to be actually funny instead of well known stars being rude. I love CRYBABY and HAIRSPRAY because they are kind in their exposure of the unloved winning, whereas ADS is just a waste of stars saying "vagina". What a ghastly silly waste of your time. If John Waters wants to still be subversive in 2007 why not make an ironic Gen X comedy film called 'A CLOCKWORK CHUCKY"... or FERRIS BUELLER'S UNEMPLOYED ......think about it.... hmmmmm?


Over-the-top sex farce by John Waters is funny throughout the first half of the movie but loses the story and just uses sex pranks and disgusting stuff to fill up the last half. I expect to be offended when I see a Waters movie but the story has to be complete for any movie to be recommended by me and this one wasn't. The story is basically about a sexually repressed woman, played by Tracey Ullman, who gets an accidental concussion that turns her into a sex addict. She finds out that there are others and they are led by a character named Ray Ray(a sexual healer) played by Johnny Knoxville of Jackass fame. They lay in religious parallels like Ullman's character being the 12th apostle who's is supposed to bring them a new sex act to bring them to a glorious climax. Other religious stuff like putting down the 12 step program didn't set well with me. She gets knocked on the head again and brought back to her normal("neuter") self and this happens to other characters as well but then she gets brought back by another knock which is kind of strange. The group break up a sex addicts anonymous meeting and take over and this is where I kind of stopped liking the movie. They pretty much take over the area at this point and can't be stopped. Waters then throws in everything imaginable and it stops being funny. Definitely this is a revealing movie, but a little too over-the-top for my tastes. It's a dirty shame because if the story didn't fall apart it would have been a funny and worth-while movie experience despite it's many vulgarities.


I'd never heard of this movie which I watched last night purely on the basis of Chris Isaak's being in it. When it was over, and I had gathered my jaw off the floor, what I believed I'd seen was a wrongheaded attempt at a John Waters movie, without any of the wit or skill. Imagine my surprise to discover this IS a John Waters movie. Where to start? The blank-eyed performances? The screwed-up dualism? The awful editing and pacing? The banal innuendo? The heartless sexual politics? Maybe you need to be American and to have suffered the crazy US religious right to really get this movie - to the rest of us, it feels like someone crossing the street to pee on a Madonna statue... Therapeutic for them but a bit embarrassing if you're with them. The worst thing is, it's almost put me off Chris Isaak for going anywhere near a script this bad. I'll never be able to watch Wicked Game in the same light!


John Waters early work (until Polyester) made me a huge fan of his craziness. I usually adore his cast of freaky characters, his hyperbolic dialogues, his great music selection and his DIY attitude. Sure, in the eighties, he goes a little more mainstream, but that was OK, I guess. Ironically, his worst period is his comeback to his "bad taste" roots. Cecil B. Demented was painful and this one, A Dirty Shame, is plain stupid. So campy, I stopped the DVD many times, and until now, I still haven't finished watchin' it!!! A comedy too trash to please the usual family-comedy fans, and too dumb and childish to interest the others. It got enough ingredients to made a good film, but there's way too much cheese. Come on! Penis-shaped trees getting erected? CGI-squirrels having sex? Skip.


Everyone who took part in this movie should be ashamed.Even actors who I actually like have totally collapsed before my eyes.Seeking any deep meaning and symbolism in this movie is just absurd.It completely lacks any originality.Istead there is some kind of redneckish humour in which there can't be any allegory - it is what it is - incredibly flat and superficial.I love sex jokes but they should at least be funny,not just a line of dirty words and gross images of horny old people.I voted with one star just because there is no option to vote with half or less,but this movie doesn't deserve even that much (well,maybe for the music,but that is quite merciful).Seriously,one of the worst movies ever made.


Overall, I did not not like this movie. It is my fifth John Waters Movie and I am usually a big fan. Hairspray is my favorite movie of all time. I also loved Serial Mom and Pecker. I did not like this movie or Cry Baby.

I gave it a four out of ten, because it had some funny scenes and I did enjoy some of the characters and performances; however, I did not like the story at all.

I felt that the story tried to mesh together some of the themes from Serial Mom and Pecker, without success. I enjoyed the Kathleen Turner character in Serial Mom better than the Tracey Ulman Character in this movie. Also, I enjoyed Pecker's older sister more than Selma Blair's character (the huge boobs were a great touch though). I couldn't figure out who was supposed to be the protagonist in this movie. The only character that I liked was Chris Isaac's - maybe they should have had him be more of the focus of the movie, in the way that Pecker had the central role in that movie (and the only normal one).


when I read about this movie it sounded like it might be a little gem like Orgazmo (by Trey Parker). So I checked out the DVD. Unfortunately I found it to be embarrassingly bad. It started off pretty lame but left some hope for improvement at first. But I hoped in vain... Tracey Ullman hammed it up pretty badly, probably to make clear that nobody should take her role seriously. This gets quite annoying after a while. The plot gets dumber and dumber and after about half an hour my endurance was spent. I am aware that tastes are VERY different, but in my opinion this is one of the worst movies I have (partly) seen in a long time.


Unfunny and shockingly unshocking, John Waters has done better. I watched the NC-17 version and really, despite a lot of sexual dialogue, it's hard to see it being deserving of that dreaded rating. Now Pink Flamingos, that was a deserving film! But that's another review altogether! The plot of A Dirty Shame is mostly pointless and drifts into the realm of absurdity, making whatever Waters was trying to say become worthless and forgettable. That all said, there were a few positive things; ugly Tracey Ullman was amusing as the lead and the gargantuan prosthetic boobies that Selma Blair wore were realistic and well made. Wellthey were.


The one good thing about this show is that it's short. In Norway, we don't have commercials, so in between "Grey's Anatomy" and "King of Queens" one only has to be insulted for about 20 minutes.

I loved Julia Louis Dreyfus in "Seinfield". Her character was zany and unique while her vulnerability was easy to relate to. Plus the writing was fabulous. Anyone who can relate to Christine in this new show, however, must be prepubescent.

Basically, the show is cliché and childish, consisting of "jokes" nearly as dated as "I love Lucy". It may have worked in the 60's with an actress (Lucille Ball) in a class of her own, but in the year 2006 "The New Adventures of Old Christine" is a pretty scary concept when one considers that it made it onto the most influential media format (TV) around the world. Who are these people that are deemed responsible for making television shows of such low caliber? This show could have been called "A New Sitcom with Old Jokes." I feel sorry for the actress.


This show is without a doubt the worst and driest sitcom I've seen in years. Of the episodes I've waited through to actually watch something good, I only laughed or snickered like once or twice of which none of them were from Christine. The only time I laugh is when Matt is making fun of his ridiculous sister or someone else is saying how lame she truly is.

And to make matters worse, with Christine's new season hysterical shows like Rules of Engagement and Big Bang Theory are on the chopping block to bring her back.

So to make a long story short, Christine is just plain pathetic. I'd give her no stars if I could but I guess one will have to do.


I only wish someone could explain to me why anyone saw fit to build a decently written situation comedy around as loathsome (on virtually every level) a character as "Old Christine" (Julia Louis Drufus - OK, the writers - pushing her "edgily oblivious" persona from the old Seinfeld show to new levels of self centered repulsiveness).

A genuinely first rate supporting cast has been assembled around her from the always charming Clark Gregg as her long suffering ex husband, Richard Campbell, to Hamish Linklater as her refreshingly laid-back brother/nanny Matthew and even the fresh faced Trevor Gagnon as her (thus far dramatically unchallenged) son Ritchie Campbell (destined for a lifetime of therapy with this horror of a "mother"). IMDb doesn't see fit to list . . . , Christine's best friend and business partner - and the only actual life-like woman in the show - among the lead characters and more's the pity. She almost saves it from being an unalloyed half hour exercise in unfunny misogyny and the only nearly unwatchable entrant in an otherwise first rate Monday night comedy lineup on CBS.

The old Seinfeld crew slowly piled up the dysfunctional quirks for most of the run of the show so that we got to LIKE the characters before their "quirks" became psychopathic. The final episode somewhat ridiculously relegated them to a jail cell which few fans could honestly lament, but we stayed to the end because of that deep well of affection and identification we had built up before they went off the deep end (well, the *supporting* Kramer was always pretty much there, but we were only given him in relatively small doses).

"Christine" has been something like a female Kramer, embodying the worst nightmares of any acquaintance we've ever had from the very first episode. Whatever masochism allows "fans" to laugh at her in the same "at least my friends and I are not THAT bad" - or worse, though it's difficult to believe - "see, I'm *normal*" mode many looked at Archie Bunker with through the years of ALL IN THE FAMILY escapes me.

As a life long (if liberal) Republican, I suppose "red state" right wingers want to believe Christine is what moderates and liberals are *really* like (in their Rush Limbaugh/Pat Buchanan dreams). To that extent, the show isn't just unfunny, it's actively offensive - but then, no one ever said conservatives could be funny. To the extent this ...CHRISTINE remains on the CBS schedule, it may be the first commercially successful right wing attempt at "satire." More's the pity.


What are these people thinking? The writing for this show is totally lame. I really like Julia Louis-Dreyfus and I cannot believe that she can even say the lines written for her part without regurgitation spewing from her lips. I have watched every episode and I have been giving the show the benefit of the doubt thinking that maybe it will get better. Nope. This show will never last with writing this bad. I felt this way from the first episode. Friends of mine say the same thing. America loves Julia Louis-Dreyfus. American television is filled with silly shows. Some of those those shows are funny because they are so silly. Look at "The Family Guy". That show is filled with jokes and lines that really have nothing to do with anything in the show. That works because the jokes are so far away from what is really happening. But with "Christine" the jokes are just insipid. We are not as dumb as the writers and producers of this show think.


It would be nice if a comedy show were actually scheduled in this time slot! This show is pathetic and far from funny. You spend more time being embarrassed for the heroine than on any other emotion (well - maybe irritation). If all else fails, just thru in a "big boob" joke? If this was supposed to appeal to the 17 - 20 age group, it may be doing fine. Many have been divorced and found the way, this shows writers and lead have no clue -funny or otherwise. On the plus side, the little boy is cute and the uncle IS funny. The ex-husband and new girlfriend are played by well known master comics, able to carry the show on their own,