Soda shop teenagers Don Sullivan (as Reg), Jay Hawk (as Morrie), and Mitzie Albertson (as Julie) discuss waterskiing and horseback riding. Hay-brained Mr. Hawk decides to go riding with girlfriend Nan Green (as Dotty) while the others join Paul Pepper (as Skip) and Brianne Murphy (as Pam) for water sports. The four boaters wind up stranded on a mysterious island. There, the waterskiing couples lose their boat, and are held captive by glamour-gowned doctor Katherine Victor (as Myra) - she wants to turn the teenagers into zombies!

Jerry Warren's "Teenage Zombies" is a very poorly produced, sometimes fun film. The storyline is silly, but easy to understand. Communists want to turn the United States into a bunch of zombies. They might have considered letting nature take its course (but, then, there wouldn't be a movie). An ensemble cast, led by Sullivan, plays the material very well, considering the script's obvious idiocy. Hawk does a surprisingly good job as "Morrie". And, Ms. Victor is a hilariously hospitable hostess, offering soda pop to her potential zombies.

*** Teenage Zombies (1959) Jerry Warren ~ Don Sullivan, Katherine Victor, Jay Hawk


An obvious attempt at cashing in on the success of I Was a Teenage Werewolf and even I Was a Teenage Frankenstein, Teenage Zombies is a complete disaster. It makes those other two movies look like masterworks in comparison. The problem  well there's really too many to mention, but at the top of the list is the lack of anything remotely interesting in the plot. What a nothing movie! I'm having trouble thinking of a movie that bored me quite as much as Teenage Zombies with its nothingness. Dull doesn't begin to describe it. The 70-something minute runtime was the longest hour and ten minutes I believe I've ever spent in my life. The title may evoke images of teenagers being turned into mindless zombies, but that never happens. Instead we see naturally mindless teenagers walking around an island, driving a boat, and trying to carry on conversations. Exciting, huh? The teens do run into a band of Communist types bent on world domination, but if this sad group of teens is able to take them down, they really never posed much of a threat. If the movie wasn't bad enough already, with about ten minutes to go and out of nowhere, the director decided to throw a gorilla into the proceedings. What was that all about? A desperation move that fails epically. And then there's the ludicrously bad acting, the often inappropriate music, the strange silent pauses at every turn, and the poor sets. No matter how you slice it, Teenage Zombies is one badly made, dull as dishwater movie.


Throughout this movie, I kept thinking that TEENAGE ZOMBIES deserved a score of 2. Then, as the film neared the end, it crossed over the border to the land of truly dreadful films--making it to the hallowed pantheon of truly horrible films, such as PLAN 9 or THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN. Yes, folks...it's THAT bad!

The film begins with four teenagers going to an island that they just noticed was off the coast. Yes, apparently although they lived there in town their whole lives, they never knew that it was right off the coast. Well, when they arrive, they find the place is infested with zombies (though because the budget was so low, you only see one--late in the film they inform you that the place is infested with them). In addition, there's an evil scientist who is apparently responsible for turning people into zombies as some sort of Commie plot. This portion, by the way, is the BEST part of the film! When the four don't return, their two friends who didn't come along go to the police for help. However, the sheriff who is assisting the two is actually one of the mob and brings the two irksome teens to the hideout. There the six teens are about to become zombies until they have the world's lamest fight scenes in history. They grapple on the floor with the baddies like a group of toddlers fighting over a toy--it's that bad. And, when the teens actually take away the baddies' guns, they DON'T shoot them--even when the crooks once again attack them. At this point, despite having guns, the teens roll around on the floor again with the crooks for a while. Perhaps the boys just liked the "funny feeling" they felt when they wrestled with men....who knows.

By the end, the evil sheriff and one of the baddies is dead AND a guy in a gorilla suit runs amok on the island as the teens take the two remaining baddies back to the cops. The film ends with the kids all having a good wholesome American laugh.

Overall, the acting is as bad as it gets, the nighttime scenes were shot in broad daylight, the fight scenes were just dreadful and, incidentally, there really were no teenage zombies. Well, to be precise, they did turn two teen girls into zombies and turned them back to normal about 30 seconds later. And, as I said above, they could only spring for one zombie and guy in a $9 gorilla suit. It's sad,...very, very sad.

If you are a fan of bad films, then it's well worth seeing. Otherwise, it's all very painful and dreary.


Pretty darn bad. Bad enough for some laughs. At the malt shop a decision must be made; does a group of teens go horseback riding or skiing? Or maybe become zombies...no not yet. Most of the group pack up for a picnic on a remote island not even on the map. What happened to the skiing? The kids go exploring the island and find the home of a 'dragon lady'-like scientist(Katherine Victor) that welcomes the teen visitors; now she will have more subjects for her experimentation with a secret formula chemical that will turn them into zombies. She seems to be in cahoots with a couple of thick headed spies as well as the local sheriff(Mike Concannon). The couple that went horseback riding stumble into a rescue attempt. By the way, there is a gorilla roaming the island. Not only is there some very bad acting; there is some horrid excuse for rock & roll music. Cast members include: Don Sullivan, Brianne Murphy, Paul Pepper and Mitzie Albertson.


Jerry Warren strikes again, here is a plot so stupid (an island 30 miles from the mainland that everybody has forgotten!) acting is non existent, not as if the actors(?) are requested to act anyway. But stick it through just to see the climatic fist fight in the mad scientist's lab.


With this, his third foray into the much maligned horror genre, Jerry Warren solidified his reputation as *the* avaunt-guarde director of the 1950s. Here Warren straddles the line between "auteur" and "metteur", masterfully reconceptualizing the themes of Don Siegel's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (released the previous year) through a pair of interlocking mise-en-scenes.

As usual, Warren's startlingly surrealist imagery leaves many questions unanswered. What are we to make of the cop in the picture frame? What are we to make of the struggle between the post-feminist Dr. Myra and the pre-feminist Pam? Is the role of the kids a metaphorical subversion of the prevalent Cold War attitudes of the time? Well, no.

This is just another ultra-cheapo Jerry Warren special. Bad acting, bad direction, bad cinematography, bad dialogue - in other words, the usual. For bad movie fans and manic depressives only.


Outrageous teen/horror movie about a bunch of young people kidnapped by this gang of spies led by a Dr. Myra and her obedient zombie slave Ivan on an island off the US coast.

Dr. Myra is working on this serum together with her two hoods Wrof & Brandt to put into the US water system and make everyone in America become a mindless zombie. This will make it possible for the country that she's working for an unnamed Eastern European power, the Soviet Union?, to take over the USA without firing a shot.These four teenagers who end up on the island Reg Skip Pam & Julie and are quickly captured by Ivan and put in a cage to be experimented on by Dr. Myra.

The teenagers friends Morrie and Dotty go to the island looking for them but are told by Dr. Myra that there's no one there but later go to the local sheriff for help. The sheriff turns out to be working with Dr. Myra and her gang but when he and Morrie & Dotty arrive at the island he has a change of heart.

The sheriff supplied Dr. Myra with drunks and criminals from his jail house and felt that innocent teenagers being used in Dr. Myra's insane ventures are a little too much and refuses to work with her and her hoods thus getting a bullet in his chest from Wrof killing him. Meanwhile the two girls Pam & Julie are exposed to the serum/gas and lose their brain-power and become zombies.

Rag and Skip together with Morrie and Dotty break into Dr. Myra's lab and force her to gave the girls and antidote to give them back their minds after having Dr. Myra lose her with the same gas she used on the girls. It's then that a fight breaks out between the teenagers and Dr. Myra and her two hoods Worf & Brandt as well as Ivan with the monkey/gorilla, one of Dr. Myra's failed experiments, breaking out of the cage killing Brandt as everyone runs for their lives to the boat by the beach to escape.

Having it out on the boat the teenagers overpower Dr. Myra and Worf and take them prisoner to the police and US military authorities on shore thus saving the USA from a covert takeover by a hostile power; as for Ivan he completely disappeared right off the radar screen.


Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. Those are just a few of the words that describe TEENAGE ZOMBIES. One of the worst bad movies I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. However, as others have pointed out, the fistfight near the end is worth suffering through the rest of the film for. I have rarely laughed so hard. Too bad there are no decent prints of this film (the DVD transfer is awful), because the bots and Joel would have done it proud.

Did I mention this was BAD?


The film was started post HAHK(even the title was HUM AAPKE HAI SANAM that time) and it took 8 years to complete

When the promo was shown i was shocked considering SRK and Salman haven't shared screenspace since KARAN ARJUN and suddenly a film with them and Madz comes

The movie is regressive, outdated and could be better in 90's

The back story of Madz- Salman is so cringeworthy even there is too much sermonising

But there is one plus point and that is SRK in this film, well normally he overdoes his scenes here he is in full control and plays his role with a straight face and brings a lot of fun in the movie

Sadly the film never manages to sustain the tempo and we have tripe like GALE MEIN LAAL TIE.etc

Also it's funny to see the appearances of actors Salman suddenly in 1 scene looks straight out of JUDWAA days with his medium sized hair and with his overacting but lively acting and then he comes to 2001 days where he looks dead The dubbing too is inconsistent and also his acting which goes from amateurish and then to dead acting SRK too suddenly has short hair, long hair and also his looks keep changing and so his dubbing and acting Madz too, in 1 scene she has brown hair and then the ponytailed black hair look

The film also has the late Laxmikant Berde who wasn't much seen in 2002 Also we see Atul Agnihotri who was rejected post 1998 i feel and was just seen as an extra

Direction by KS Abdiyamaan is outdated though good in parts Music is okay, most songs sound old Cinematography is inconsistent

Acting SRK though looks inconsistent yet he delivers a wonderful performance and rarely hams which is a relief Madz is as usual, she does a good job but her role is too regressive Salman khan is inconsistent, at times lively and at times dead below average overall Laxmikant Berde is okay Alok Nath is okay in a small role Atul Agnihotri is a reject and he annoys


I waited for too long for this movie to be released. This movie was a dud, disappointing and quite bad. The sets are terrible and choreography is pathetic. The movie not only looks outdated, but the story is old news. I know that this story was started eight years ago but they should have shelved it. Despite taking eight years to make, it was hilarious looking at the actors' different appearances. Shahrukh Khan is the only true performer out of the three main leads, but his character is a little far fetched hence resulting him in overacting in a scene or two. Madhuri Dixit was not bad, but certainly nothing to talk about especially after her performance in Lajja. Her character practically cries and smiles and says annoying dialogues trying to be sensuous. Salman Khan was disinterested. Shahrukh Khan was giving him an advantage in many scenes, but Salman Khan didn't try (though nobody can blame him). The saving grace of this movie was Aishwarya Rai. She is only in the movie for seven minutes, but with her beauty and monologue, we know why she is one of the top actresses today. The rest of the characters get on your nerves or are wasted. The songs weren't bad, but in the film they sure were. They cut out the best song, Khoye Khoye Din Hai (Lost Lost Days) and they left us with the title song which doesn't flow well with the movie. Sab Kuch Bhula Diya (Forgot Everything) fits the film best, but it was boring. Aa Gaya Aa Gaya (I Came, I Came), a nice song, and Gale Mein Laal Tayi, a naughty number, needed to be cut due to horrible picturization. Somebody needs tell Madhuri wearing sparkly clothes with a large stomach is not good (and outdated). Also there was nothing interesting about the stage shows . Dil Tod Aaya (I Broke the Heart) fits the film pretty nicely otherwise Salman Khan completely ruined the song with his singing and choreography. This movie is bad and deserves to be forgotten. If you want to watch a good movie from these actors watch: for Shahrukh: Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham; for Madhuri: Lajja; for Salman: Chori Chori Chupke Chupke; for Aishwarya: Hamara Dil Aapke Paas Hai.


After sitting through this pathetic excuse for a film , when the plane actually landed , I was fully expecting to hear the sound of clicking , as the passengers push a large safety bar up in front of them , as some young , teenage boy shouts "please dad , can I go on it again?"

Now , I realise that it was based on an actual incident , which i'm sure was terrifying for the real people involved , but almost everything about this film was pure shambles. The only saving grace was the fly by shots of the plane with it's roof ripped off.

I'm sorry , but I actually found it more of a comedy than whatever it was supposed to be. The young boy passenger eating cookies gets a gold star (and another cookie) for being the only one to spot that enormous rip in the ceiling. The fearless stewardess who's been pinned to the floor for ages , takes time out to show everyone her tropical talent for windsurfing , as she stands upright in the middle of the isle whilst clinging to the chairs , at several hundred miles an hour. Then she suddenly remembers what she's there for , and continues to overact by throwing herself about like a mad woman. The overall acting is about as wooden as a lump of driftwood. Most of the passengers look catatonic , like they've been hit in the back with a dumb-dumb bullet.

The whole set looks like it was borrowed from the Wallyworld amusement park. The make-up is terrible. Just about everyone looks like they've either been barbecued or on the sunbed for too long. The budget must have been about $10 for this appalling flick , and about $9.50 of that was probably spent on hotdogs.

Even the famous cheesy 'Airplane' flashbacks are included , right down to the fighter plane scene with the instructor's words ringing in the pilot's ears. Almost at the end of the ride , two of the passengers decide to offer their piloting and medical services. Why didn't they offer them before? Maybe they fell asleep after watching a certain in-flight movie. At least the medic attempts to help , but why does the pilot then retract his offer of assistance? The unknown government official jumping on the plane at the last moment after it lands , and ordering everyone to leave was pure class. He then decides it was all a mistake and disappears into oblivion. Who was he , where did he go , does anyone care?

This film is about as enjoyable as the last in-flight meal I had.

Do yourself a favour. Upgrade to first class and watch a better film.


Raj Kapoor is supposed to be the ultimate showman of Bollywood. He does some justice to this image by choosing spectacular locales along with some great music and photography.

However, there is nothing new this movie offers. It's an unconvincing love story set right at the foot of Himalayas, between a rich guy and a poor girl. How they meet, get separated and finally get united in the end forms the core of the story.

Most of the Indians would remember this movie as the first one, at least the first blockbuster, where the heroine openly bares her breasts. (Such exposure is not very common in Indian movies.)

Apart from that dubious distinction, there is not much else.

The music is a blast and worth listening to. Give the movie itself a skip.


Typical bollywood love story. Girl meets guy, meet the parents, there's trouble, a bad patch, the struggle, the heroism and then a happy ending, oh and not to forget the dancing and singing.

The nudity side of things was simple and did'n'y need to be in the film. there are certain situations where you can understand why it is needed but in this case they could have done the standard skin tight sari's and clothes and still got away with it.

Nudity in films is not a big issue these days...well, in Hollywood, but bollywood, film makers need to be abit careful on their target audience. the younger generation would have an open mind and will be more susceptible to this but the older and the majority of the target audience for bollwood films would not be.

I personally don't mind the nudity. :)


In 'The Promise' Cecilia Cheung plays Qingcheng, an orphan girl trying to survive. While on a battlefield, she tries to find scraps of food from the dead soldiers to bring back to her sick mother. While trying to escape the son of one of the generals, Qingcheng runs into the goddess Manshen (Hong Chen). Manshen informs Qingcheng that her mother is dead and strikes a deal with her. From this day forth Qingcheng will always live in luxury, but every man she falls in love with she will eventually lose. Qingcheng agrees to the bargain.

This movie is a combination of 'Hero' and 'Bulletproof Monk'. This is another Chinese legend epic that really fails as a movie. The moral of the story is hard to follow and takes forever to get its point across. On the plus side, it is a very visually stunning movie. It better be since it is the most expensive film in Chinese history with a budget of $35 million.

If you like 'Hero' and 'House of Flying Daggers', you might like this. Else, don't go see it.


A few years ago, when I was sitting in a bus on my trip from Taipei to Kaohsiung (for those who do not live in Taiwan, it's a 5-hour trip), I turned on the LCD screen in front of me (Yes, that's right, some buses in Taiwan have LCD screens and movies for passengers to chose during the trip) and chose "The Promise" on the select screen. I watched it for 15 minutes, went back to the movie select menu, chose "Norbit" instead, finished "Norbit" and fell asleep.

IT TOOK ME 2 MONTHS, OVER 14 TIMES TO FINALLY FINISHING "THE PROMISE".

Why? Because EVERYTHING in "The Promise" hurts. Deep inside my soul, I cried in agony for the quality of this movie.

I know some people in IMDb liked this movie. I'm not here to debate how wrong they are. I'm just here to say how "The Promise" made me felt.

First, let's take a look at the story. It's been a few years, and I've seen re-runs of "The Promise" on televisions for a couple of times. Yet, I still don't understand what this movie is trying to tell me.

To clear things out, I have to confess that I am a fan of MST3K. I had my share of bad movies. I even watched "The Island of Dr. Moreau" in the theater. However, I still don't have a clue what "The Promise" is about.

The story of this movie makes me feel that the director, Kaige Chen, is trying to tell you five stories in ONE SINGLE MOVIE. And the bad thing is, he can't tell even ONE story well enough for me so I can understand at all.

As for the acting... I don't know, I really don't know what to say. I can tell that this movie was starred by some really talented actors/actress, yet they were all hampered by the incompetence of the director.

To be honest, I envy for those who loved this movie and weren't native Chinese speakers. They don't have to endure what I've been through. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

It hurts my eardrums every time when I hear those ridiculous lines. Really. Oh yeah, did I mentioned that two of the main actors in this movie didn't even speak Chinese? (They are Korean and Japanese) SO, what do we have here now? A bunch of actors/actress speaking ridiculous lines in a cheesy way? Have you ever played Resident Evil on Playstation? I'd say that voice acting in Resident Evil is better than those in "The Promise", and it's not the actor/actress's fault.

I can go on and on and on and on for EVERYTHING I hate in this movie to no end. Yet, it soon occurs to me: OH MY GOD! THIS IS IT! "The Promise" is THE milestone for Chinese movie industry! Finally there's a movie can be as bad as "Battlefield Earth" or "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (OK, maybe not that bad) in Chinese. I think this is a major breakthrough for Chinese-speaking people like me.

Yes, for me, "The Promise" can be viewed as movies as "Water World", "Superman IV", or even "Manos: The Hands of Fate". And YES, "The Promise" is a bad movie. It sucks in every aspect. But I feel pleased to see this movie. Because "The Promise" showed that China now have the potential to shoot expensive, flat-out, meaningless, BAD movies like this one.


If you're looking for a really misbegotten enterprise, you need to check out Chen Keige's The Promise, possibly the only Asian film that can make you feel sorry for Harvey Weinstein, who pre-brought the film before realising that he'd made a BIG mistake on seeing the end result. It's hard not to think that all that bad karma from cutting Asian films to ribbons finally caught up with him with this one. I should have known what to expect when I saw Etchie Stroh's name as one of the producers.

It's not a total loss, but it is a helluva mess just on a technical level, boasting probably the worst CGI effects in a big budget film. Some of them look just one step up from animatics or late 80s arcade games, while the opening stampede plays like a Road-Runner cartoon crossed with an early Neolithic cave painting. But then the sound mixing is sometimes equally awkward, leaving you with the impression that the film was rushed into completion in the hopes of scoring some Oscar nominations that they didn't quite manage to finish any it. Of course, it is just possible that everyone concerned saw what a totally bonkers movie this is and decided to sneak home early from work each day.

It's not fair to describe it as Asia's Alexander, because although often horribly executed, there was a governing intelligence behind that. By contrast, this seems more of a cynical attempt to capture a slice of the international market Zhang Yimou and Ang Lee cornered with a fantasy epic cum fairytale. Unfortunately, despite a promising initial premise and mostly game performances, Kaige really isn't suited to this kind of material and seems to be throwing in elements simply because they worked in other people's hit movies. There ARE a few good moments - the wall of time flashback, the ending - but most of it is just so bizarrely wrong that you just go on watching to see what comes up next. I think rescuing the heroine from her giant gilded birdcage, wrapping her in feathers and then running with her flying like a kite on a string probably takes the WTF? award , but the bull run comes a close second.


The trailers, the posters, the casting, all looked promising. Sadly, the storyline is one heck of a convoluted one, and I hate to use the word, but absurd is what The Promise is.

This is a fantasy picture as promoted, and true enough, it is, so much that you have to leave your brains at the door. In trying to sound intelligent, the plot fumbles and ended up really unconvincing. It's all style and little substance. To associate this with martial arts films is to insult the genre, and one shouldn't even mention this film nor compare it to Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It's time filmmakers wake up to the idea that CTHD is a one-off that cannot be replicated. Do not try to go one up by having characters fly faster, higher, harder. Or run so fast they can break the space-time continuum and time travel. Science fiction this is not.

Yet, you cannot fault the cinematography, which seemed beautiful, until a closer scrutiny makes it so obvious that it's CGI created. Think Storm Rider's special effects in the creation of its world, there is no improvement in the refinement of graphics in The Promise after so many years. Does this mean that only the West can come up with believable CGI worlds for audiences? Plot loopholes are abound, and you can drive a horde of running bulls right through it. You also get the usual villain driven soliloquy at the finale explaining his grudge he unbelievably held for so long (and the lengths he goes to settle it), and some homosexual undertones in one of the minor characters too. Hip? Guess not. What fails in plot delivery is having drag on what is obvious to the audience (but not to a character) for too long. In fact, almost the entire length of the movie. It wearies the audience, and insults the audience's intelligence.

So what's this movie about? It's a love triangle of sorts, between a Princess (Cecilia Cheung), a General of the Crimson Army (Japan's Hiroyuki Sanada), and his slave Kunlun (Korea's Jang Dong Gun). Playing the chief villain is Nicholas Tse, whose pretty boy looks probably made his character less threatening. Destiny is the running theme of the movie, where each character is destined for certain goals and events, and one in which is set in stone. Cursed by a fairy when young, the Princess is not to find true love, until impossible conditions are met. And the General too is foretold the elements leading to his impending death. What started off plotwise, as promising, degenerated into a web of blah which I wince at by just recalling it.

Are there any saving graces in the movie? Yes, but they are few. Look out for the fights involving Nicholas Tse, where I thought his use of the fan as a lethal boomerang was a marvel to watch. Cecilia Cheung also lit up the screen, but not for her acting nor the character's development though. The editing of a love scene too was uncalled for to get a PG rating, so that more audiences could fill the theatres. I reckon the word of mouth for this film will unsettle that. Hiroyuki Sanada and Jang Dong Gun, I guess, tried their best with the flimsily weak storyline to deliver their lines in Mandarin. Better that way too, with the rubbish I hope they don't understand.

If there is any movie which failed to live up to its hype, this movie is it, miserably. I'm sad to say that this is easily one of the worst films of the year. One more thing, they should have subtitled the opening titles explaining the background of the movie too, if they want to target non-mandarin speaking audiences. Slip-shoddy, careless start to a Chen Kaige disappointment.


Coming from a Chinese background, there's a lot more wrong with the movie from a Chinese perspective than an American's view of the movie. This movie is terrible. Chen Kaige, a renowned director in China that has created numerous wonderful films, has gone off the deep end with this one. Yes, this film is certainly one of the most artistic of its time. However, that's about all it has going for it. The cast of characters, fairly well known in Asia, was a poor choice for a Mandarin film. The Mandarin spoken by Hiroyuki Sanada is utterly HORRIBLE (strongly resemblant of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"). I have a strong background in Mandarin, and I couldn't understand 75% of anything that came out of his mouth. Even my natively Chinese parents could barely understand his dialogue. The dialogue would have probably been much better delivered had it been in Japanese with Chinese subtitles. That brings me to the point of the plot, which is so confusing it hurts your brain, and not in a good way(as in Saw, Saw II). It would take at least 5 viewings of this film to understand the plot, and if someone actually bothered to submit themselves to such torture, they would realize that the plot was virtually inexistent and thin in the first place. Watch Zhang Yimou's works, such as "Hero" if you want to get your Wu Xia fix. Or, if you are dying for a new film, try another of Zhang Yimou's works, "Riding Alone For Thousands of Miles". But don't watch this unless you want to come out with a death wish or you've been toking up. Sure colors are pretty, but they'll fade with time.


Everything goes terribly wrong in this steaming pile of garbage. I could hardly believe this was by the same director of "The Emperor and the Assassin".

The CGI was awful. The palace looked like it was from an 80's movie like "Tron". The running scenes looked like a car driving scene from the 50's where you have a glaringly obvious fake background in the rear window.

The editing was horrible as well. Jump-cuts have a certain role in the visual language of movies, whether indicating frantic behavior (the elevator scene in "Revolver"), showing something happening over time (somebody waiting in a room), or even cutting to the beat of the music (the intro to "Scratch", the intro to "Boiler Room"). There are so many places in "The Promise" where jump cuts are thrown in for no rhyme or reason. People are talking, and then all of the sudden it cuts, and cuts, and cuts in the middle of their dialogue, like someone keeps accidentally hitting the fast-forward button. It's almost like the crew didn't get enough film coverage, decided to get sloppy in the editing room, and said, "Eh, they won't notice." Well, I sure noticed, and it was so disorienting I felt like vomiting. Even Michael "ADHD" Bay's movies have better editing than this.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I have never seen so many fade-cuts in one movie in my life. Practically every scene faded to black after 30 seconds, like the movie was a compilation of TV commercials or something. This totally killed any kind of flow the movie hadn't already destroyed.

Finally, many other comments have indicated the frustratingly illogical script. People do stupid things for no reason at all. I'm not even talking about movie logic, where you can temporarily suspend your belief. "Why is the girl running up the stairs instead of out the front door to get away from the killer?" OK, so that's typical movie logic, which you can easily explain away with "Well, she is terrified so she doesn't immediately think of that particular escape route. Anyway, the killer is chasing her up the stairs, so it makes sense." In "The Promise", you have things like an army sending several hundred slaves into a canyon to get trampled to death by buffaloes. Why? Does having them get trampled somehow help the army? Does it give them some sort of tactical advantage? No. In fact, why would the enemy even send buffaloes through a canyon in the first place when the entire good guys army is safely positioned on the ridges of the mountain? The answer, of course, is that the director said "Hey, know what would be cool?! A scene with stampeding buffaloes trampling people to death! YEAH!!" Then there are scenes over and over again where someone says, "OK you can go now. WAIT! You cannot go. OK, you can go now. WAIT! You cannot go. OK, you can go now..." I can safely say that best part of "The Promise" is when the credits roll, because you know it is finally over.


I am Chinese myself and this film is just embarrassing. A film that relies so heavily on special effects, and yet the effects look like something that was made in the early 90's. One scene that stood out was the scene where the girl is flying as a kite for no apparent reason but to show how beautiful the film is, and sadly they failed at that attempt. It showed how terrible and flawed the effects are. Tell me you didn't laugh when the guy is speed crawling/running through the 10000 bulls. The sets look like sets literally. There's no authenticity and what, when, and where is this story supposed to be taken place? A fairytale land? It looks half cartoon and half live action most of the time. The acting was laughable.

Performance done by Nicholas Tse was unintentionally funny. Do we really need an evil villain that speaks like a gay man and yet is pseudo-straight that wants to have sex with a woman? He acted like he was in another movie, and perhaps it might be better if he just go on and make a movie of his own. Cecilia Cheung, all I remember from the film is her infamous line- "Do you want to see what's underneath?" One dimensional character that is supposed to gain our sympathy and yet she failed to engage the audience to sympathize with her. I am not going to go into the other characters, the guys in the black feather cape is terrible as well.

This film is basically scenes slapped together hoping to pass as art, but most of the "artistic" scenes turned out to be hilariously funny. A film with no substance trying to trick western viewers, but people are smarter than they think


Cool calculus - this was my first feeling when I saw this very disappointing Chinese film. Chen Kaige was years ago a good director, but now he wanted to beat the attractions of Ang Lee's "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and Zhang Yimous "Hero". No chance at all... One of the wonders happens in this picture en-route all five minutes could be need by this complete failed spectacle itself. This noticed seemingly the owner of the US-rights and cut 25 minutes out of this movie. So it takes more speed, but this act of castration makes this poor martial-arts-entertainment not better. Don't waste your time, there is no suspense, no atmosphere, no dramatic and no convincing action at all. I give ** out of ten stars.


This film is hybridized by other culture.It's colorful,but it's insipid.This film is international commodity.Maybe the producer just want to get money from Korea and Japan by using Korean and Japanese in the movie.I'm a Chinese.I found it very stupid to listen to two foreigner conversing by using their stiff Chinese.The director want to express some ideas,but I think he chose a wrong method.These kind of film just look like a copy of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.Maybe using anther way to express his idea will be impressible.In my opinion,unadorned movie is more cordial,and it is a good way to express Chinese culture.


as people knows,the public praise is very bad but box office is so high in china.it face an embarrassed situation,one side is ice,another is fire.

as concerned as me,i take this movie Mo Gik as nothing,or just a steamed bread.one world,one steamed bread,just like the 2008 Olympic saying.Kai-Ge Chen is really not god,but he took him as,and even had been cheated by others(yes,the media and audience took him as god before,but it's more like a sneer,make him can't speak out human's word.).He thought the audience can't understand his movie immediately, of course,he is god,how can we poor human can really understand the thought of god.So,Kai-Ge,just stay on your paradise with your flower armature and noble blood,don't get down,on the ground,or less,you have to face sputa.

recently,i hear of the comment has rebounded.promise me can doubt it conspiratorial like an inclemency commenter, i just can think those one who make it rebound are employed by production crew.if goddess man(Chen hong,Kai-Ge's wife)know it,she will say again:"what's on earth the bad man's heart,it is equal to murder my baby,why Chinese always fight with Chinese."but i think,you should thank all kind Chinese, especially the kindness of film bureau and movie theater,it is them who can give you so good feature period and in this feature,no other movies can compete with mo Gik,they even don't have chance to compete for they(Naria,King gang) can't be featured in your own time.


Well I don't know how to put it exactly, I had a very high expectation on this movie before it came out, mostly because all those excellent ones made by Chen Kaige before. To be frankly, I used to think that he was the no.1 guy in Chinese film production, I can still recall those tear-shedding moments that he gave me through his unique and humane perspectives and works. Nevertheless, I do not know exactly what went wrong with him this time, it turns out this movie is such a joke, there is hardly any fresh ideas, floppy plot, childish lines and totally irrelated actings, not mention the lame KungFu action part and hillbilly costumes...all in all it is more than just a big disappointment, and the last thing you wanna see is the whole Chinese film industry would follow his footsteps backwards. Although as a Chinese it has been very hard for me to criticize Chinese movies, I can not hold what I truly wanna say it is a big failure and setback!


Te acting is good i have to say... But my god, it is slow, and the script is so pretentious. And too too too much of the kid's speech problem come on. It made me want to slap him like 20 times!! Anyway what sort of film is it? It's pushing too much the witty comedy genre in vogue. Tired of this kind of stuff. Please make intelligent comedies but because they are intelligent. It seems that the point of this was to prove how many fancy words they can write. It is like the characters of Dawson's creek. Mixed with the wonder years, the girl name is even Ginny like Winnie. And what about the stereotypes like the funny intrusive Asian people and the pervert Indian.


You know how there are stories that are adversity to triumph, unstable to stable, confused to knowing. This is not a happy story, i sat through all the frustrating bits in the movies, putting my shirt over my head whenever he tried to debate with his enormous stutter, thinking its okay, because I'm gonna see some scenes at the end where he has finally lost his stutter. I didn't.

Maybe i had the wrong idea when i watched this movie, i was convinced from start till perhaps the last scene, that i was going to see an inspiring transformation, where i would no longer feel sorry for the kid, and that marred my view on the film. All i could think about during the whole film is not what this kid was talking about, what he was thinking about, but how he was speaking. Its like a movie where the main character looks like a bunyip, all you can think about is this main character looks like a bunyip, and not really what he/she is saying. I was convinced the inevitable transformation was going to be in his speaking patterns so i wasn't particularly interested in his views on love, because I'm sorry, i don't mean to be offensive to anybody but having a speech impediment as BAD as that, is something i couldn't bear to hear for the rest of my life, you have to try and do something about it. I thought thats what this movie was about! Look I'm sure what the kid was saying was important, and meaningful, but i was looking for more blunt changes that were imperative to me saying at the end of the movie, wow that was good. The stutter was a vehicle to portray a message about love when i went through the whole movie thinking it was the opposite, that all the references to love would make him lose his stutter. Not a horrible movie, but after i finished watching it, i felt horrible, Im a bit tired of movie producers thinking 'it will be more meaningful if we deprive the movie of a happy ending'. To be honest, i don't need happy endings, but what i do need is some light. At the end of 'Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind' i was left thinking, despite its lack of a cliché happy ending, that the main characters were not doomed because of it, that they could bounce back from the issues in the movie. I felt at the end of 'Rocket Science' that the kid was never going to get rid of his stutter, and when did his last debate and he turned to the judges and said 'Im killing it right?' that he was in fact, not killing it, he sucked, you can't debate in a musical tone, there was no growth there.

Was it that hard to put a happy ending in!?!


A movie can get no more boring than this. It's a movie about a little, annoying twit with a stutter who gets to help a girl out on the debate team. The boy is Hal (Reece Thompson, just annoying as hell in this.) The girl is Ginny (Anna Kendrick, also pretty bad in this.) Together they form an annoying, stupid predictable relationship. The only mild laugh was from Jonah Hill as a student who sits next to Ben at the library. The movie is a mess from start to finish. It's another annoying, extremely predictable teen comedy in which a no one gets to be a someone. There is no real plot, the characters feel too forced, and scripted, and the jokes are just depressing. I can't really say I was disappointed by this film- I knew nothing of it, although I regularly do like D'Agosto. I feel like I should have never seen it. It's 98 minutes of my life I'll never get back. It's such an annoying film. The main problem with the film is that the film presents itself with a main character I just wanted to shut up. It's a movie of such tedium and annoyance that I have to say it's one of the worst film I've seen in a long, long time.


Bad writing, bad acting, the worst being from the lead character played by Nicholas D'Agosto. He plays an oddball geeky kid with a stutter and couldn't even nail the that.

This is one of those films that tries to take place in that upper crust world of the middle class where surrealism is abundant in everyone's life and it's as though every mundane occurrence in their daily lives is like something in a movie but they just weren't pulling it off. It's not quite the feel of The Royal Tenenbaums but it's not a far cry from it. Nothing makes any sense or has any connection, the romance is probably the least sensible element of the story which is sad considering this is supposed to be an offbeat romance coming of age type of film.

Bottom line is, the entertainment value just isn't there and the lead was cast with an actor that can't act. The dialog is attempting to be smart, witty and quaint but fails miserably. This is nothing more than a recycled concept and while the execution delivers the effect desired, the writing just isn't competent or the least bit artistic.

Why they chose such a horrible actor for the lead is beyond me but as usual, I chalk that up to the mafia that is Hollywood where friends cast friends or cast their cousin's kid or the producer casts their own kid etc. He wasn't competent in 75% of his scenes and a complete failure in regards to delivering a believable stutter. The IMDb ratings for this film have been doctored.

I guess maybe some people liked it because it was a train wreck. It certainly wasn't funny, it certainly wasn't smart, it certainly wasn't artistic and it certainly wasn't well written. There genuinely no redeeming qualities to this film and I am in awe that it was actually green lighted. It's as though the lead actor wrote it and his writing is even worse than his performance. A love story needs to at least make sense and be connected. I suppose the writer thought trying to make things weird would be interpreted as creative and smart but it's not. The Korean bf and son are a prime example of this. Just what the hell were these film makers thinking???


This time around high school angst hands us a lad whose additional teen burden is indeed a heavy one, severe stuttering. So, of course a school yummy convinces him that he's a PERFECT candidate to join the school's debating team. Rip off on another film I viewed about an illiterate teen who entered the national spelling bee. But that's another story.

It has been said the film departs, does not thereafter go where one expects. My take finds it a sadly predictable film that proceeded to take me on a lack luster, unwelcome and irritating journey. Acting? Yes, fine, so fine I found myself screaming at the screen in vain attempts to help our hero render to verbal completion.

Yes, our hero yearns for love and strives gallantly to find it. While many see it quite differently I saw it as: Strive, crash and burn, strive, crash and burn, strive, crash....HI DAD...THE END...(the antidote: I'm off to see Juno again).


A very disappointing feature indeed, Rocket Science suffers from virtually all the symptoms of AIFD (American Indie Film Disease). From the deeply unlikeable and endlessly flawed characters to the overly arch dialogue to the overly busy soundtrack of 'cool music', it hits on all cylinders. The badly developed plot makes no sense (why would any top ranked debater choose a complete loser to be their partner?), and the film is poorly structured and about twenty minutes (far) too long. As a former high school debater, I can't really argue with the depiction of the activity, but there's so little actual debating in the film that it hardly matters. Director Jeffrey Blitz would have been far better served by sticking to the documentary format--quirky comedy drama just ain't his thing.


I found 'Rocket Science' the way I've found several wonderful little indie films that nobody seems to know about: the sale bin at Blockbuster.

Now I know why there were so many copies in there.

The cast is chock-full of actors ranging from competent to spectacular; the script is fairly reeking of obnoxious characters with stereotypical indie-style quirks.

Exception: the character of Hal is generally a good kid with a lot of heart and was played well by Reece Thompson. Now riddle me this: What directorial or writing mistake was it to give the kid such a severe stutter that rarely, if ever, improved temporarily? The stutter was endearing at first, then pitiful, then it just got annoying near the end of the movie when it finally dawns on the audience that Nicholas D'Agosto's character doesn't actually help him conquer it.

The movie starts out pretty okay. It's not an overdone concept at all, and there are so many things a writer could do with a stuttering teenager on the debate team. Unfortunately, said teenager doesn't conquer anything, doesn't learn much, and ends up getting his heart broken by a soulless, motor-mouthed chick who "ferreted" him for no apparent reason other than to humiliate him.

An oft-overlooked strong point of the movie, however, is the cinematography. So many rancid indie films are shot with shaky-cam or heavy shadows to emphasize the realism; Rocket Science makes unbelievable use of white light to the point of it being blinding, especially in the school scenes. The hallways look like they're glowing--an interesting contrast to the darkness of, say, the janitor's closet and Hal's house. I commend the artistry of whoever was behind those visuals; I'm impressed.

But frankly: the combination of inane writing, random awkward silences, and annoying music forces me to turn it off about a third of the way through now. This is my third time watching it; the first two times I made it to the end and was highly disappointed both times. I regret throwing away the Blockbuster receipt, since now I have no hope of returning this little slice of pointlessness. Sorry.


I watched out for this film to come to my local cinema and was unable to see it when it arrived so was even more excited about watching it on the DVD... but it failed on many levels to excite me, the characters failed to excite, there were far to many sub plots and the stuttering just got on my nerves! it took me 3 attempts to finally finish this movie and i was not excited at all, the film certainly deserve to eat pizza, nothing more than that.... I don't believe this film has any chance of winning any Oscars, and it def was not a highlight of the year for me, id advise anyone watching this movie, to be prepared for dragged out scenes, and at some points in the movie, unwatchable acting. Enjoy.... I scored the Movie 4/10, its only savour was some good directing scenes.


What is the point to this movie? It just seem like pointless torture that goes on and on and on. The character has little to no development. Making a movie about a kid who just gets his ass kicked from the beginning to end is pointless. The kid's struggle is not inspirational nor thought provoking. Why am I watching movie about a kid who couldn't do anything and is unable to rise above it. It doesn't even try to tell the audience maybe from all this, something came out of it years and years from now. No, just end with his loser for dad knocking over trash can again. I have never taken the time to write movie reviews. This movie is so bad and so frustrating that I just had to do it. It is so awful that the director should never be allowed to touch another camera again.


I haven't bothered to read all of the other comments but I'm sure it must have been stated before -- this is a completely mediocre comedy that is simply yet another attempt by Hollywood to ride on the coattails of much better films like "Rushmore" and "Napoleon Dynamite." Whereas those films had one or two quirky characters, the hack director of this film decided to up the ante and make ALL but one or two characters "quirky." Was this an attempt to quadruple the laughs? If so, he failed miserably.

I was thinking about a great teenage comedy film from the late '70s/early'80s - "My Bodyguard" which carried a similar theme of a young, loser kid trying to find his place in the world. That film not only appeared a million times more real but it also limited the "quirky" quotient to one character -- Ruth Gordon.

C'mon Hollywood, stop cannibalizing yourself. Let's see something new...


This film had a lot going for it: it has good pacing, it looks great, Mary Pickford looks great half the time, and it was superficially a perfect vehicle for her. She plays dual roles in this adaptation of William Locke's novel--both the crippled, rich and beautiful Stella Maris and the abused, ugly orphan Unity Blake--the two central characters. Both are in love with the same man (Conway Tearle). The double exposure effects for when Pickford meets Pickford on screen are seamless. Another technical novelty in the film is its final shot, which was probably a crane shot, as zoom-outs weren't in use at the time, as far as I know. Additionally, art director Wilfred Buckland, a notable pioneer in the field, highlights the contrasts between Stella and Unity with the polar surroundings and designs they inhabit.

Here, Pickford demonstrates her versatility, and her double turn is certainly a highlight of her career. The problems with 'Stella Maris' are in its story--the heart of the movie, if one doesn't consider it merely an opportunity to photograph Pickford in different lightings. There are minor faults, such as the goofy dog analogy, but I can overlook them. And, the film begins rather well as a typical melodrama with a double tragedy. Unity's misfortunes are obvious; she is ugly and poor and is beaten severely by the cruel, alcoholic wife of the ideal man both Unity and Stella adore. Stella's life also turns out to be a tragedy in the making; she eventually discovers that those she loves have created a world of illusion for her and that reality is not a fairytale. A happy ending in itself with only one tragedy resulting is not necessarily a problem, either, but it is here.

The film concludes with an intertitle stating "all's right with the world," never mind that Unity has committed a pointless murder and suicide for Stella and the supposed prince, who apparently has never heard of the concept of a divorce, to live happily ever after. And, why does Unity murder his wife? The wife only told the truth to Stella, only met her once, which was because Stella came to her. It's a completely senseless tragedy. Furthermore, starving families still exist (although Stella's mother does well to encourage ignoring that), wars continue and isolated tragedies like Unity's go unabated, yet the intertitle states "all's right with the world." It turns out, that Stella has only moved from one fairytale to another--she is still oblivious, and the film itself, it seems, is a fairytale just as bogus as the one Stella was originally led to believe.

This is very disappointing work for Frances Marion, who is one of the first important screenwriters in film history. She managed to become, really, the author of Pickford's films; she even directed one of them ('The Love Light' (1921)). In the end, 'Stella Maris' is a poorly conceived, contrived, self-contradictory mess with screwy morals; it is a lurid soap opera.


This has all the feeling of a 1980s disaster movie with its big name all star cast . Alas British audiences will be distracted by the opening sequence where a cruel Nazi is played by the legendary Leonard Rossiter . These type of casting choices can sometimes ruin a movie and iut's not helped by having cameos by megastars like Orson Welles and James Mason in blink and you'll miss them roles . That said the cast do seem more interested in giving good performances rather than enjoying themselves which isn't always the case with movies with a large cast of big names . Special mention should go to Paul Koslo was very prolific in 1970s B movies and who appeared in some utterly pathetic movies in the 80s and 90s , while the always excellent Johnathan Pryce shows us what he can do in an early role . Max Von Sydow as Captain Schroeder gives the best performance in the movie

All the cast do their best but it's really the script that is at fault . I did mention Von Sydow's acting performance as Schroeder , but you often feel his character is written as a litery point illustrating party member = bad , non party member = good , this point feels too forced and unsubtle . Remember it's when people become indifferent that bad things happen , not when they join a political party . I don't want to mention this but Erwin Rommel was a member of the Nazi party and he was the most respected German general by the allies because of his code of chilvary while many Wermacht non party members committed war crimes every bit as brutal as their SS counterparts so don't be fooled that everything is as black and white as seen here , as the caption at the end shows Schroeder himself was questioned about crimes against humanity after the war

There's a couple of other flaws with the script . Aaron Pozner is shown being beaten to a pulp by some SA brownshirts in 1939 which is strange considering the SA were liquidated by Hitler in 1934 and lets be blunt in saying that the movie is at least half an hour too long . This is often a problem with a great number of movies featuring anti semitism 1933-45 in that by showing us mans inhumanity to man they often feel the need to labour the point home of the cruelty of the regime and the victims fear when in fact less would been more . It could also be that this is always not a very good subject to base a movie around especially when there's documentaries like THE WORLD AT WAR that shows the very real horrors of what the Nazis did to their victims


One of the greatest casts ever assembled help this, otherwise turgid, melodrama to chug along for over two and a half hours, (three, if you are unlucky enough to catch the US video version), but they still can't manage to lift it above the level of a second rate television movie. All the more disappointing considering the plot has all the ingredients of good drama and is based on a true story.

In 1939 a ship load of 937 German Jews set sail from Hamburg to Cuba only to be refused entry. It is a tragedy of epic proportions reduced to something of a travesty by a lack-lustre script and a mediocre director out of his depth, (Stuart Rosenberg; "Cool Hand Luke" was a fluke). The cast rise above the material whenever they can. Some, such as Julie Harris, James Mason and Wendy Hiller, don't have enough to do. Others excel. Max Von Sydow seems incapable of giving a bad performance and Oskar Werner, virtually reprising his role in "Ship of Fools", is superb as always. Orson Welles pops up as a corrupt and corpulent official and steals every scene he's in. Faye Dunaway pouts and Lee Grant's histrionics won her an Oscar nomination. There is also an awful lot of shouting and screaming.


Stanley Kramer's "Ship of Fools" was an entertaining story of a congeries of disparate characters aboard a German cruise ship in the 1930s. It must have been a success because this negligible film is a shameless and bathetic rip off. This time, the entire ship's passenger list is Jewish and they suffer crisis after crisis. The fact that German Jews in 1939 were actually suffering those crises makes this blatantly commercial attempt at exploitation a cheapening of the historical experience.

It really IS a rip off. I mean, that's not rhetoric. Oskar Werner plays a doctor in both movies. Jose Ferrer is cheerfully villainous in both. There is a liaison between a member of the crew and a desperate passenger in both. There is a costume party in both. There's the familiar rabid Nazi commisar whose job is to keep an eye on party loyalty among the crew. It reminds me of the way cars are remodeled year by year, a bit of new chrome here, a set of new tail lights there, all in an attempt to cash in on novelty.

Nice cast, though. Not just expensive Hollywood actors -- in fact, no leading stars at all -- but a lot of competent supporting players, some of whom have made careers out of gracing the screen for a few moments with superb performances. Orson Welles is on hand, as are Max von Sydow, Malcolm MacDowell, Lee Grant, and the endless list of recognizable faces that these kinds of films require. The budget must have been sizable. Faye Dunaway appears in a costume that looks like a copy of John Singer Sargent's Madame X. Add a black choker. The wardrobe is emblematic of the whole enterprise. Copy something and then add a few disguising touches.

But it's still tragedy played for lower middle-brows who will weep generous tears as the director manipulates their sentimentality and rakes in the shekels. The director is Stuart Rosenberg. I can't imagine how he managed to turn out a magnificent movie like "Cool Hand Luke." This stuff is all in your face.

I don't like propaganda movies in general regardless of their source region. They don't really convert anyone or change already existing sentiments. Most attitudes follow the usual bell-shaped curve, with the overwhelming majority of people occupying the middle part -- ignorant or indifferent or genuinely moderate -- with a few extremists at either end. But I suspect that movies like this, carrying the heavy burden of an "important" social message, will reach respondents that form a rarer U-shaped curve. Those who are already sympathetic to the message will applaud it. Those who aren't, will dismiss it bitterly as the kind of propaganda they've come to expect from Hollywood. So, if it isn't going to improve our souls, what is its purpose, aside from commercial success? A rite of intensification for those of us who agree with its message. The people who made the movie know which side the angels are on, and so do we. It allows us to despise those who don't. I'm afraid movies like this generate as much hatred as empathy.

I'd watch "Ship of Fools" again any time, but not this. It shows nothing that we didn't know or guess before. The fact that it resembles a genuine historical incident is irrelevant. I don't mean to seem, well, carried away but I do wish there had been some understatement here. I suppose it would be too much to ask for a little poetry too.


(Possible spoilers)

I've just watched this film for the first time. On dvd in a nice widescreen presentation, oh dear i wasted my money on this one. The problem with this film is that there are so many great actors involved that they only get a small amount of screen time each, making it very hard for the audience to really care what happens. This is a shame as the story is a noble one. Also this film is one of the most boring to sit through, as nothing really happens, even in the last few minutes. Only a brief scene with Faye Dunaway in black leather knee length boots piqued my interest, an inappropriate scene for such a film, but much needed, wow what a beautiful woman. The whole film feels flat, from the direction to the non-existent pacing, at no time is there any sense of tension or intrigue, atmosphere or excitement. The dialogue should have been far stronger for a film of this kind, with real emotions firing off aboard the ship. Instead there is a general feeling of going through the motions with little regard for any prospective audience. No one is bad, but as i say no single actor except for maybe Max Von Sydow has enough onscreen time to develop their respective character beyond more than an outline. At best you'll be playing ActorSpotting and thinking about having too much of a good thing for too little time. My score 4 / 10


I rented this movie just after it had come out on video. I knew it wasn't going to be a HotDog-ish movie, but I was still expecting something fun. I'm not even going to comment on my beefs as a skier. But as a movie in general, it was the most depressing piece of c**p ever! It just kept getting worse and worse, and the ending didn't even come close balancing off all that had happened. When it was over, I felt like my dog had just died.

I think this movie just tried to be too many things that just didn't fit together - trying to make HotDog into a chickflick while still being cool is just plain impossible.


Aspen Extreme falls into the rare class of movies that gets worse with every scene. Literally, the first scene of this movie is the best one and it just falls off a cliff from there. Be warned though, that first scene really isn't very good. The dialogue and plot are poor. The acting belongs on the lifetime channel. If this movie is what extreme skiers do, then I'll stick to my day job. This looks to be good material for a 'bad movie' night with the guys, but its bad is boring. Also, how in the world can two skiers from 'hills' in Michigan be pro skiers on terrain they have never skied before arriving to try out to be ski instructors. I'm not an expert skier, but I know the hills here in Arizona are more extreme than those in Michigan.


As far as skiing movies go Aspen Extreme is one of the worst I've seen. It's dull, disjointed and focuses on snow too much. The symbolism is outdated and the drug references are vulgar. However Monica Olivares is fantastic. Whenever she is on screen it lights up, her dialogue is delivered to perfection and her comic timing is immaculate. I have never been so moved by an actress so young (9). When she delivers THOSE lines i can't hold back the tears. It's a shame this is her only movie, i heard she gave up her career because she found Hollywood corrupt and moved to Bristol, England to be a lawyer(!!!). The film industry is all the poorer for it.


The DVD sleeve's synopsis offers a good preview: "A wealthy gentleman hosts a dinner party where he is going to reveal the heir to his fortune, in front of the thirteen guests attending the dinner. Unfortunately, only twelve people show up for dinner and the host dies before he can reveal the heir's identity. Years later, the host's daughter returns to her long boarded-up family home to discover someone is killing off the dinner guests, making everyone wonder who will be the next victim."

In the opening scene, Ginger Rogers (as Marie Morgan and Lela)'s recollections introduce the "guests", and reveal something critical about the plot. Ms. Rogers and Lyle Talbot (as Phil Winston) make the cast look promising; but, the real attractions are James Eagles (as Harold "Bud" Morgan) and Eddie Phillips (as Thor Jensen), due to the matter-of-fact way their likely relationship is depicted. This, and the "you told me to tail her" joke, near the end, are better than this otherwise dreary version of a done-to-death plot.

**** The Thirteenth Guest (8/9/32) Albert Ray ~ Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, J. Farrell MacDonald, James Eagles


SPOILER WARNING!!!

While this film has some good moments and strong performances from Samuel Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones (and a disappointing one from Ben Kingsley), I couldn't help but remember the "Chewbacca Defence" from South Park while watching the courtroom scenes: "This makes no sense!".

A marine colonel claims he gave the order to fire on a crowd, killing 83 people and wounding more than 100, ALL of whom were supposedly firing at his people with sub-machine guns and pistols - yet NOBODY else saw these weapons, not even the other marines who were returning fire (except, possibly, the three who died). Supposedly, none of them saw the weapons even AFTER the crowd was mown down.

The Yemenis then supposedly came in and removed every weapon, every spent cartridge, and - and this is REALLY ridiculous - every bullet and bullet-hole (the defence lawyer is told that all the shots came from snipers with rifles, and photographs a few bullet holes, but finds nothing to contradict this, throwing grave doubt on the colonel's judgement that the crowd was more dangerous than the snipers).

A videotape (destroyed by the National Security Advisor) shows the crowd shooting, but not one slug from any of those weapons is ever discovered. Were they all firing blanks? And why would the NSA and the ambassador (whose life was saved by the colonel) rather see a war hero executed than an aging ambassador lose his job and the Yemeni government embarrassed? (Maybe if it was Saudi Arabia, or Iraq in the 1980s, but Yemen?)

The court-martial then decides to believe that a videotape that they haven't seen, the existence of which can not be proven, vindicates their officer. Despite the glaring lack of any evidence to support his story and a mass that contradicts it, they acquit him. To believe this, you have to believe that the military will believe EVERYTHING they're told by one of their own, or protect them from the consequences even if they don't. The NSA and the ambassador are then blamed (okay, that's believeable if there was a change of government in between. They're political appointees, after all).

If this had been told RASHOMON style, without us seeing the videotape (or if the tape had been inconclusive), we could choose who to believe. Or if Jones's character had uncovered ANY evidence that supported the colonel's story or contradicted the official version, rather than making it a matter of faith. Instead, it's impossible to believe the film at all.


SPOILERS COMING UP: DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW IF YOU'RE INTENDING TO SEE THIS MOVIE

New to UK satellite television's Box Office pay-to-view channel, this movie comes with a cautionary warning from the channel that 'in view of recent events', viewers may find 'certain scenes upsetting'. Well yes. Almost all of 'em, in fact. But they're upsetting less on account of any contemporary resonance that might echo in the wake of 9/11 -- truth to tell, there isn't any such resonance, anyway -- and rather more because of the realisation that one has coughed up £3 25p in order to view a movie with so little idea of the rules of engagement where audiences are concerned that writer and director ought to get back (or possibly,enroll) in the nearest neighbourhood film school as soon as possible.

The plot is downright daft, the characterisation awful, and the script, dire. Jackson's military hero is self evidently anything but, and Jones's about-to-retire-in-two-weeks-lawyer straight from a cupboard in central casting (the shelf below the about-to-retire-in-two-weeks detective).

For Jones in particular, the about-to-retire bit is inadvertently cruel: in the preliminary 1968 flashback shot he already looks as though he was born with the century, his noble visage defeating all of Friedkin's technical wizardry -- i.e., getting the actor to wear an oversize hat to cover most of his face -- to assert otherwise.

When it isn't daft, it's risible: a couple of weeks after being machine-gunned and having one of her legs amputated, the six-year-old victim is out of hospital and miraculously adept with her crutches (whilst other victims of the same blood bath still lay in their hospital beds with the same bullet holes and blood stains).

An evil National Security Adviser (well yes, he would have to be evil, wouldn't he?) steals a video tape that wouldn't have excused Jackson's behaviour anyway, even though the film plainly thinks so.

Lawyer and hero have a Wayne/McGaglan-style fight after the lawyer realises how indefensible his client truly is, and then having rolled around smashing each other up and the studio set, bond together in macho male laughter. Appealing? Right. Nothing like having a laugh with a mass murderer to cement an audience's sympathy.

And so it goes on: incredbility piled on incredibility, the film with neither a moral core nor even a moral fix on its cardboard characters.

Someone, somewhere though, evidently thought audiences would be engaged by this dross and leave their brains behind: an excruciatingly awful end credit sequence actually has the temerity to chronicle the post-film fate of the movie's characters -- National Security adviser arrested, Ambassador arrested, military hero acquitted of all charges --as if for one moment anyone could ever believe them to approximate to real people.

Unfortunately, the only reality of Rules of Engagement is its utter awfulness. Amidst so much gunfire and blood letting, the loudest sound is of Friedkin shooting himself in the foot.


Rules of Engagement fits comfortably into that genre of military film in which the motivations inherant in the human character are subverted for the motivates of the The United States Marines. Assinine personal decisions can just be tossed off as being part of The Code. Unlike A Few Good Men, still the best of its kind, Rules of Engagement falls flat because even as none of the character actions make sense, nothing is surprising either, and that is the biggest sin of all.

This is all unfortunate, since Rules of Engagement was made by a lot of people who should know better. Or who at least once knew better. The recent rerelease of The Exorcist and a repeat viewing of The French Connection contrasted with this film can only lead viewer to a simple conclusion: At one point William Friedkin was a master of his craft, knowing how to tell a compelling story with a unique visual style. He can't do that anymore. It's shocking just how dull the early scenes in Vietnam and Yemen feel. There's no tension and at a certain point you just want the characters to move on. Friedkin isn't helped by the fact that usually reliable cinematographer William Fraker (a five-time Oscar nominee) has given the film a murky look, often mislighting actors, unless the purpose was to make everybody look bruised.

When all is said and done, only Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are given fully developed characters. Even though they're often forced to say stupid things (Out of nowhere Jackson has an overly expositional insult about Jones's alcoholism, a problem that hadn't been mentioned previously and was never relevant afterwards), these actors are always reliable. The film's other interesting performance come from Guy Pearce, whose American accent is frequently preposterous, but unlike LA Confidential (where Pearce gave a fuller overall performance), the accent remains mostly consistant throughout.

The film's other actors are stranded without resolutions for their characters. Ben Kingsley and Anne Archer, as the weak Yemeni ambassador and his wife, are left stranded. Ditto Bruce Greenwood (so consistantly excellent as wounded heroes in Atom Egoyan films, and so badly wasted as one dimensional heavies in American movies), whose narrative arc involving a videotape is woefully without payoff.

In the end, Rules of the Game offers nothing new, and nothing surprising. The solid acting by the leads fits into this rubric of normality, but as does the absolute apathy the film produces.

I give it a 4/10.


Typical American movie; defends the American political games system. Horrible 3D surround sound with people shouting behind your back. Too much details of the spilled blood when bullets hit the poor soldiers in Vietnam. i wished the movie was over sooner.


I have just witnessed the William Friedkin (The Exorcist, The French Connection) film Rules of Engagement. I went in expecting a generic "studio-film" that would seem so "blah" and have nothing memorable or of great value in it. I was hoping I would be proven wrong. Unfortunately I wasn't.

Rules of Engagement starts off relatively strong, although I was confused because I came into the theatre about 3 minutes late. The opening action scene, as well as the action scenes in Yemen, are all wonderfully done by Friedkin, which should be expected from the director of The French Connection. At the conclusion of the opening action scene, we begin the actual story of the film. I don't want to give to much away but let's just say that the film has to do with Samuel L. Jackson being indicted for slaughtering many innocents who are protesting against the American Embassy in Yemen. This sets into action the courtroom drama that basically is the remainder of the film. It's unfortunate the film turned out the way it did, but it should be expected. There really isn't too much promise behind the idea. It had already been done many, many times before, and much better (A Few Good Men by Reiner comes to mind).

I think that while there were alot of things that took away from my enjoyment of Rules of Engagement, there were a couple of plusses. First of all, as I mentioned earlier, the action scenes in the film were excellently constructed. They captured the intensity and insanity of the situations as well as any other war movie has, the only exception Saving Private Ryan. Unfortunately there aren't too many of those scenes in this film, which may have upped the entertainment factor in my mind. The other thing is that the screenplay by Stephen Gaghan isn't that bad at all, although it definitely lacks in character development. I mean there is nothing that is great about it, but it isn't offensively bad like many of the other commercialized, mass-audience films like these are (i.e. Double Jeopardy is the most recent example. That brings me to the final reason I didn't give this film a complete zero. The film at least tries to be entertaining and be a crowd-pleaser. Now that didn't work with me, but it works with the general audience, which makes sense. There isn't anything offensively bad, so therefore I can't give it that low of a grade.

Now onto the bad things about Rules of Engagement. First of all I have to say how disappointing every one of the performances in this film are! I don't think there is one memorable performance out of all of them. Tommy Lee Jones (Colonel Hayes Hodges) plays the same role he has played in the last 4 films he has been in, but he also shows the only intensity in the whole film. Samuel L. Jackson (Colonel Terry Childers) lacks every amount of intensity that he brings with him in every other film, plus he is barely in the film itself. Guy Pearce (Major Mark Biggs), so good in LA Confidential, gave my favorite performance, which isn't saying much, as the ferocious prosecution. Bruce Greenwood (William Sokal) gives the exact same performance he did in Double Jeopardy, which isn't a good performance to begin with. Philip Baker Hall, Blair Underwood and Anne Archer, all capable actors/actresses, barely register because of the 5 minutes allotted to each of them in varying roles. Ben Kingsley is also disappointing in the small amount of screen time given to him, he basically appears to be a back-stabbing enigma, very hard to figure out. While it isn't all the actors fault that their performances turn out the way they do, they aren't horrible performances. It has a little more to do with the screenplays worst flaw, which is the lack of any character development. All the characters seem to have one note and keep on that note the whole film. The other problem I had with this movie was the direction by William Friedkin. He still seems to be stuck in the 1970's school of directing on this film, with very old school camera zooms and over indulgent scenes, like the scene in which Jones walks through Yemen and the over-long opening of the Yemen riot scene. The editing by Augie Hess, is just downright awful in scenes, most evident in a scene where Jones is being chased by the Yemenians and then ends up in a bathroom somewhere. Just very sub-par effort on the most-part for many who are involved.

I guess while I was watching this movie I didn't know how to view it. At first I trying looking at it as a serious drama/thriller held in the ranks of many of the other courtroom classic dramas. As the film progressesed, I just sat back and tried to soak it all in, but I wasn't really entertained. I would say that this film would be best seen on VHS or DVD or even on a Premium Channel such as HBO, but it isn't bad enough to skip it entirely.

My Rating : 4/10


	I beg some casting director to put Samuel L. Jackson into a role where he doesn't have to be a bad-ass. It seems like every movie he makes has some speech where he takes his "Pulp Fiction" character with him.

	It's not because he's a bad actor. On the contrary, he plays bad-ass better than anyone else in Hollywood.

	It's just getting old.

	Jackson's performance in "Rules of Engagement" is not the only thing that's old, however. Government cover-ups and high drama court scenes also lace this film, and they do so in the most predictable manner.

	Jackson plays a marine officer who is charged with murder after ordering his troops to fire into a crowd of civilians outside the U.S. embassy in Yemen. He asks his longtime marine buddy (Tommy Lee Jones) to represent him.

	This movie could have made an extremely intelligent war film. The pictures of the crowd after being massacred are terribly frightening, and audience members actually start to question their loyalty to Jackson's character. Such mixed feelings are refreshingly similar to those envoked from "Three Kings."

	In fact, the entire first half of the movie has extremely well shot war scenes, plus surround sound used as effectively as it has ever been used.

	Then predictibility sets in.

	The audience becomes convinced that Jackson's character should be a hero, not a criminal. Jones' character delivers an emotional closing argument. The final scene of the movie shows captions of what happened to all of the characters in the movie.

	What was so appealing about "Erin Brockovich" was that, despite being a movie about a court case, there was not one scene from inside the court. There's no such luck in "Rules of Engagement."

	Plus, why do fictional movies insist on making epilogues? If a movie is based on a true story, it makes sense because the viewer is curious about where the characters are now. However, in "Rules of Engagement," some of the most compelling plot developments occur in the epilogue. It becomes a cop-out piece of cinema and is unfair to the viewer.

	Despite all of its negatives, "Rules of Engagement" certainly has its moments. Jackson and Jones have a surprising amount of chemistry - much more than one would think considering their careers. Plus, those who enjoy fake courtroom drama would probably enjoy the cliches carried through in this film.

	For the most part, however, "Rules of Engagement" is what most people find annoying about big-production Hollywood dramas - big name actors, but overwhelming predictibility.


This movie which was good in action lacked in the court room scenes. Throughout the movie I was waiting for something to grip me and hold me to my seat, but then there was nothing. It left me with the question, "That's it?". The first thing I thought of was when Tommy Lee Jones's character went to the American Embassy and he saw the holes in the wall on the outside of the building. Why couldn't he determine the angle at which the bullets were fired from. There were holes where the bullets did penetrate, so there would have been something to give him hard proof that there were at least some shots that came from the ground. As for the court room scene, I was supprised at the verdict, because there was so little evidence to even help the defense.


Its funny that movies coming out of Hollywood don't take the time to get familiar with standard military practices before making a movie taking place within the miliary. The same problem occured in that John Travolta movie last year. If a person is shot with a .45 or a .40 or even a 9 mm pistol with the barrel of the pistol touching the person's forehead, there will be more than just a hole in the victim's head. These are little things I know but each of these little things makes for an takes away from the story. The biography given at the end of the movie gives the pretense that this was a true story. I don't think I ever heard anything like this taking place. If it did, I am fairly certain that US relations with Mideastern countries involved would not be as relatively peaceful as they are. I can't say I enjoyed it. It was very slow and didn't have the tense moments of A Few Good Men. It also didn't have any humor to speak of. Something that SLJ and TLJ do fairly well. This movie could have needed some humorous times. I can't recommend it and I am a fan of both SLJ and TLJ.


I was really surprised just how bad this movie was. I find Abhishek Bachchan rather charming and Aishwarya is obviously divine, so I expected quite an entertainment. Unfortunately I only got bored. The story is rather regular but lacks of charm and character.

The only sensible moment is when Raj fells for Namrata, cause who would not fell for Ash? Her beauty covers for her lack of acting skills (or at least an idea of how to make Namrata interesting) perfectly, unfortunately Abhishek is not that successful. There are a few rather embarrassingly long close-ups of him making some ridiculously 'serious' face. And was it only me or did he put on some weight?

The actions of characters make no sense. When she says she's not going to be with him, it comes out of nowhere. When she says she loves him - it's even more out of place.

The worst part of the film is the relationship between Namrata and her husband. She knows she hates the guy, she knows she is a modern woman not caring about tradition yet she lets him treat herself as if she's his belonging for an entire day. And when the guy finally agrees to leave her alone - well the ending is just horribly stupid. Why did he do this then? Nothing has changed between the moment he's sure to stay and when he decides to leave. It seems to be some bizarre BollyDeusExMachina... ;)

The comedy parts (the other family, the teacher and the bird guy) are too bad to comment on them. They just come out of nowhere and do not add any qualities to the film.

Aishwarya wears some rather ugly clothes all the time which is even worse considering the fact that she plays a designer...

And what's up with the synopsis in the middle? I'd get it if it was of the entire relationship between Namrata and Raj but it's like showing be the same 15 minutes of the movie twice. Rather irritating.

The only good things are two songs: 'Mujhe tum chupke chupke' and 'Kuch naa kaho'. Unfortunately they are ruined by truly stupid choreography. So if you decide to watch this movie do not look at the screen during those two songs - only this'll allow you to appreciate them.

oh! And do not take me wrong: I gave the movie 3 not 1 just because Ash is there.


When you watch a film like Kuch Naa Kaho, you are reminded that when it comes to cowardice, Bollywood artists are pretty much on the top. They have the business acumen and the creative ability to make films which are pleasing to the discerning viewer as well as the cash registers. But they lack the conviction to go with what their gut says. They lack the conviction to make cinema. But somewhere along the way, they have developed enough technical skills to make glossy 3-hour commercials with intermittent jingles.

They will spend so much of their energy on scouting locations, hiring casting coups, marketing the film to the distributors, selling music rights, selling television rights, recording the 7-8 jingles (mostly it is their length that qualifies them as songs), color-coordinating the costumes and production designs, creating hoardings and posters and teasers... but the script and the characters are of no importance. You can make films to please the box-office that don't completely massacre your intelligence as well and still have the final product (that's what they seem to call it, because they don't make films anymore ) be intrinsically Bollywoodish.

Aishwariya Rai is a living example of the depth of human-like behaviour expected from "Bollywood heroines". She has flawless complexion, dancing skills and color coordination skills. And just like your pet dog, she can smile, cry, be silent and get all cutesy, on cue. But when it comes to character portrayal, she wouldn't know where to begin because neither her nor the script are interested in it.

According to the Bollywood Bible, God created man, and then he recreated a better version and then another and another till he perfected man. And then, since God was not the only perfect entity (man joining him in that elite club) anymore, they both got together and created woman. Man gave the design specifications and God having the technical knowhow, adhered to them - Man argued that he would have to live with the women so he should have his way. Abhishek Bachan's character in the movie is one such man. He just can't do no wrong - and also he can right all the wrongs done by Ash's character. Abhishek Bachan is an actor with tremendous potential - which is evident even from the limited scope his films have given him to perform, so far. But either he doesn't want to choose better scripts or perhaps they are not coming his way yet. Hopefully we will see him show us what he is capable of before his streak of commercial duds sinks him into oblivion.

Rohan Sippy, son of Ramesh Sippy, has inherited the father's name but not his knack for filmmaking. But then Sippy Sr. had Salim-Javed as writers. Hopefully in future he will have the at least the guts to do something more refreshing and entertaining.

Oh by the way, script seems to have been created on the sets which Sharmishtha Roy picked up on her way to the shoot from one of the Chopra or Johar films. The cinematography has been taken from a template derived from the DDLJ, KKHH and KKKG stable. And the talented composers Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy have given their worst soundtrack to date I believe. Well at least it blends in with the rest of the dismal elements of the film.

If want to watch a romantic comedy, watch Chupke Se instead. 4/10.


This film ran at least an hour longer than it should have and contained too many dead-end threads that should have been left on the cutting room floor. It was horribly sickly and cheesy and conventional and I am giving it 2 points because it managed to keep me watching till the end despite my almost reaching for the OFF button on a number of occasions.

The worst thing about this film however was the pathetic attempts by the Coca Cola company to inveigle itself via a series of WAY TOO visible product placements. I found it disturbing and horrifyingly sickening given the status of the multinational in India since the disdain it has shown for the people of Kerala.


Jesus Christ!! what a rotten movie. Of course I started watching it not expecting more than a predictably bad movie(aren't most bollywood movies, nowadays?!?). But this surpassed all my expectations. Come on Abhishek I know your dad is famous but that should not be the only reason for being in the movies. When they put you in front of a camera you are expected to emote not regurgitate your stupid lines with a dumb struck face.

Admittedly Ash is no better but at least she is divinely beautiful that we can completely forgive all her transgressions. The same unfortunately cannot be said about Aby B as he seems to have inherited all the wrong genes from his progenitors.

The script is horrible and apart from Satish Shah the acting was horribly cruel to the people watching. Some bearable songs(note: I have stretched my definition of bearable for this case).

rating: -*(minus should be allowed.. as I would like my money back and some, for the torture doled out to me)

Run far away or watch Glitter/Gigli instead, unless you are an Ash fan or an Abhishek B fan (god have mercy on your sense of preference)


Well, it said a rating of 1 meant "awful" and that's a pretty good adjective, but I'm giving it a 2 out of pity. These are nice people who are clearly not above telling their friends to spam this board, since the only two negative posts got modded down to the bottom of the list. So I figure if I'm lucky, I can at least make it to third from the bottom.

Tivo put three of these episodes on my box before I watched any of them. The first one was bad, so I unsubscribed, and then the other two just sat there for a month. Then I watched one and it was so not funny I wanted to watch the last one I had out of the same fascination that makes you slow down to see if there's any gore at the accident that has made you sit in traffic for an hour.

I want my hour back. Move along, there is nothing to see here. How bad was it? Bad enough to motivate me to come figure out some way to retaliate. Bad enough to make me get my arse off my couch, come into my home office, find the damn show on IMDb, REGISTER with the website, and spew out this little love note.

And the other people are actors too, in spite of what the show and the fake posts here are claiming. A real guy expecting to have dinner with a "mystery celebrity" would just come right out and say, "Umm, who are you?"


Everyone I know loves this film and I decided that it was time I saw what is considered a classic of horror. I was pretty let down. The plot is barely being held together by anything. The movie suggests causes for the events in the house left and right and quickly discards them. The actual events started off being subtle, but then we are quickly thrown head first into an array of crazy events that feel like they were there to cover up the many plot holes and show off ILM's command of the effects. The acting is mediocre and the effects, while impressive, feel out of place. I personally did not find the movie to be scary at all. So, why is it that everyone loves it so much? Maybe we just feel like we have to because its a "classic". I know that initially after the credits started rolling, I thought to myself, "did I miss something? That wasn't even that good."


This film is not without merits - but it certainly is no classic. It's aged badly, the characterisation is poor, and there are at least a dozen things about it that really grate, e.g.; the fact that the whole film is an excuse to use special effects; the fact that everyone blindly accepts the existence of ghosts and attributes any strange happenings to them without considering any other explanation; the cheesy horror clichés; the annoyingly sickly suburban family; the odd moral of the tale (treat those corpses with respect or else!); the American-dream-gone-wrong theme which doesn't quite work (given the fact that this is a 10 on the daft scale); and, last but not least, the fact that one of the paranormal investigators is scared half to death by the crawling meat scene; and yet ten minutes ago, he was happily documenting dozens of levitating objects flying around a bedroom.

That said, the special effects are quite good for the time, and the acting does it's best with such a daft story. At this point, you may be thinking; "this guy just doesn't like the genre". Not true; but in my opinion, effective, truly scary horror is created by the maxim "less is more" - not the more is more approach that Spielberg has employed successfully in other films, and less well here. A disappointment; go watch Ring instead for truly creepy television antics.

One last thing; it's appalling this got a PG in the US. One particularly disgusting scene involving peeling flesh is clearly unsuitable for kids, and I can imagine this giving young children nightmares, as hokey as it is. I suggest your kids should be at least twelve before you watch this with them.


I hated this movie, I saw it at sundance and was surprised on how stupid it was, the story is about this poor British women and her fatherless family and how she meets a old friend from high-school/college and decides to go out with him. wow that alone makes this story sad, then to make it better she goes dressed as a hooker and well what do you know she ends up being to poor to afford dinner for her kids and gets them a cola, wow. Then at the end she starts to have sex with this guy as the kids are watching. What kind of mother is this? I mean I didn't buy this actor at all I found it stupid just plain stupid I've seen better work out of student work. Then there was a wasp that the baby son eats, this wasp is a CGI Flat load of garbage i didn't buy that the thing was real and it pulled me out of the all ready sad movie. Aside from the story, poor CGI, and cheap feel of the movie I'm sure there must have been some gem in there.


My title refers to how this viewer's intelligence felt after watching the show. What a yucky, lowest common denominator mess. The concept is pretty crappy to begin and it feels likes a rudderless, directionless ship from start to finish (I didn't actually get through the last commercial break because my trusty remote put its foot down).

I like giving new shows a chance and especially comedy ones, but between this one and keys to the hiv, there just isn't much out there worth paying attention to. Hopefully this show will not get renewed so they can fit in another half hour of Daily Show. Heck, I would take Daily Shows from the late 90s over this unfunny prattle.

Awful show.


It's not a reality show and it's not scripted sitcom comedy, it is kind of made up on the spot but with real people and scripted parts but whatever it is supposed to be it's not the one thing it should be, it's not funny.

the comedy network has had a lot of failures recently (popculture, keys to the vip, girls will be girls, jeff ltd, etc.) but i had hopes for this show.

the big problems are the only known names in the show are the guests and they aren't funny, they are football players or newscasters etc. the cast all over act to the point where it makes me angry, why is the fat guy acting sooo hard to come off as mentally challenged or slow? why is the main girl character so bitchy? mainly who are these people and why should i be interested in watching them drive somewhere in a van and try to make somebody better at comedy? if you're going to have people giving comedy advice shouldn't they be real comedy experts and not a bunch of no name Toronto pardon the harsh term but nobodies? can't you get jeremy hotz or mike wilmot or anybody with real comedy chops to do a show? if not that just goes to show how low comedy network has let itself go.

the jokes are lame the written parts are poorly written and the improv parts remind me of college kids hamming it up for the camera to get attention, because they know they're funny because their friends told them so.

this show is so lame, not the worst in comedy network history but right up there, or right down there, whatever.

1 out of 10 and i wish i could give other comedy network shows less than 1 but the IMDb.com system won't let me give zero.


I came here to complain but from the look of it almost everyone hates this show. I watched it and swore I would not again but go outvoted and made to watch it again at my friend's place. They ended up apologizing for making me sit through it again. It is so bad watching untalented "comedians" try to be funny when they so obviously are not. It is hard to say how something so totally empty of any laughs is on the comedy network. I am sick of such bad Canadian shows. I'll just watch the U.S. shows now instead. I love Canada but I can't stand watching any more of these atrocious shows. I wouldn't mind a pretend documentary show if it was real at all but this show is so poorly written and performed that it should never have been put on television. What were they even thinking with this one?


Never before have I seen such an annoying bunch of clods in a TV show before as are on this show Punched Up but I guess I should not be surprised considering the other TV shows that have been produced by this 'how-can-they-still-be-this-incompetent?' network, like Popcultured and Girls Will Be Girls.

Basically the cast of over-acting 'look how funny and loud I am' unknown Toronto comedians scream and yell over each other for half an hour while they pretend to help improve someone's life with their fantastic advice and most of all their so-unfunny-it-hurts comedy.

The stories and 'real live guests' are all so scripted and fake that it is hard to believe all of it is so completely unfunny, when you are making it all up and control everything how can none of it be funny? The only good thing on this show is the animation which is average but at least not terrible like the rest of the show.


I almost forgot about this show and I really wish I had completely forgotten about it because Punched Up was horrible! I hope that they destroyed/erased/burned/buried the tapes of this show because it was so awful I can't even believe it. Who at the comedy channel puts these shows on TV? Whoever is making these important decisions needs to have their head examined and should have been fired a long time ago, unless they have been firing people in which case look at your hiring process because you keep hiring people who don't know how to pick a good TV show and obviously do not have a single idea of what is funny. I gave up on this channel a long time ago but still see pieces of shows when I flip by and they are all terrible except for the reruns which they can't really take credit for. Punched Up had people pretending to do a "reality" show and helping out "real" people with their problems, but the main problem was that the show was not at all funny.