Remember back in the late 80's there were thesestr8video films about underground fight-clubs that only the rich and powerful had access to and Lorenzo-Lamas had to go under-cover to expose. Now with every neighborhood having a garage fight-club or back-yard wrestling league they seem outdated. Well between Courtney Cox's show dirt and TMZ this movie is sadly outdated and horribly tame. It advertises itself as a look inside the secret drug and cocaine fueled world of Hollywood's blonde haired bronze skinned chosen ones. Who make million dollars deals all-day and go clubbing all-night and .Start-off cocaine fueled sex doesn't happen on grammas' old king sized bed. It happens in club bathrooms, fancy restaurants kitchen floors parking lots pools and limos. And it involves a lot more Oral sex. As for the clubbing they go to one club as I remember and they didn't even get into the VIPs room. It s was the main club floor that's it. Characters are introduced by some named older actor playing their handler and screaming at them about their life of excess and how they're going to get themselves in trouble. Thanks mom. One character is chewed out for having sex with a 15 yoa. The show Dirt had an action adventure star caught on a "To catch a predator" type under-cover sting. This movie was supposed to take you inside the secret world tell you something you didn't know. Hell I know more about the secret world of Hollywood VIP's than this writer and director. And there was no suspense or sense of adventure. No-one caught a beating or a dick they didn't want because of a drug debt. Nothing happened nothing happened. Except Mickey Rourke turned in another fine sleazy performance.


I'm so amazed that the actors that starred in this movie did not seem to have any comprehension of what a bad move they were making. I consider the top 5 billed actors to be good to very good, but not in this movie. There was no meaningful story so I guess I can blame the writers. The way the movie was pieced together makes me want to blame the editors. Considering how poor the actor's performances were (who I know are not bad actors), makes me want to blame the director.

One of the other IMDb reviewer described it as a "Big steaming pile of crap". After watching the movie, I now realize that he might have been understating how bad it is.

If you would like to see some very unappealing gratuitous nudity, and you have a brain the size of a pea, then you might like this movie.


Please give me a break. You have the opportunity of a decent sound track, a good cast, and you come out with this drivel. The film makers must, if not be ashamed of themselves ,must wonder what they were thinking of. My head hurts after this. Watch at your own peril.I can not repeat that this movie must not be seen by anyone at all, not ever please.

There are parts which would entice self harm it was that bad.There was

one really good scene when the boy runs away,run run with him. No it is really that tiresome that I feel the need to fill 10 lines of please don't watch this garbage.I really do not usually moan about a film but this needs to be stopped.


Bret Easton Ellis' novel is turned into a good looking but utterly pointless film (much like his novels). Ellis' work was documenting the 1980's rich and beautiful (and wannabe rich and beautiful) in a series of books that revealed how empty and vapid it all was. Here it's more of the same as the death of one person sends tremors through the people who knew and pretended to love him. The film looks fantastic. Every shot is perfectly composed like a perfume ad. Its eye candy of the highest order and the sort of thing you'd like to use to show off an HD TV. The plot is sex and drugs and bad behavior as the interrelated stories spin out and the various people who you probably would never want to deal with in real life try to get by as their utterly empty lives play out. I'm not sure if we're supposed to take these people seriously or laugh at them. Certainly there seems to be little connection to reality as characters who look more like an idealized idea of Hollywood in the 80's talk about their petty lives and unremarkable tragedies. I was amazed at times that this many empty people could be in one room with out it imploding into a black hole. None of it seemed real, and having lived through the decade I can pretty say people only looked like this in retouched advertisements. The real problem here is that unless you're rich and vapid nothing in this film has no bearing on anyone's lives. Having read some of Ellis' early work I was always struck by how his writing never had any connection to most people's lives. Its nice to be young and beautiful and rich, but the lives are so unconnected to anything in my life that I never cared what happened. In this film, as in his books, I was always of the opinion that if everyone suddenly died and we were just left with empty rooms there would be no difference in what was going on. Its sound and fury signifying nothing. If you want a good looking, well acted but utterly meaningless movie give it a try. Actually if you want to see the best part of the film, watch the accident that opens the film then turn it off because it never gets better than that.


This is the sorriest piece of garbage, that I've ever watched, and it should be trashed, because it is nothing but trash.. A waste of film on a bunch of apparently no-talent bums who wallow in the filth of their own minds. The movie promotes drug dealing bisexual liaisons (male and female), pedophile no talent rock stars, sadistic homosexuals that want to use and abuse (kill?) a kidnapped 9 year old boy. Incidentally the kid was kidnapped (in the movie) by what was once a talented actor - though he was always weird.. The "main" character is just a horny old jerk that can't figure out what he wants to be, his wife plays her usual whinyass loser role, their son is just.... Aw hell, this movie is so bad that it does not deserve a lot of words... IT SUCKS should suffice.


OK, other than the few positive reviews on here (it's amazing that the producer could even talk his family members to get on here and write a positive review of this piece of dung), I agree with most of the things already said.

Let me first say that I tend to enjoy movies that go off the beaten path - even if they are depressing and dark. I was drawn in by the cast, and the fact that it was the same author as Less Than Zero - which I thought was a very good film. This film, however, had "less than zero" redeeming qualities. As other reviews have mentioned, there is no story, no point, and absolutely NO REASON TO LIKE EVEN ONE OF THE CHARACTERS. Even the usually dependable actors seemed to mail it in for this effort, the script was horrible, and the cinematography went overboard trying to be "cool." Each one of the intertwining "stories" was repulsive and vile. (Kidnapping a 8yr old boy and keeping him in a bathtub to sell to some "bad guys"? C'mon). Shock for shock's sake is empty and vapid - which pretty much sums up this movie. I found myself hoping that all the stories converged on the same locale, and all the characters died in a fiery blaze.

Don't waste a couple of hours of your life that you'll never get back.


Fabio Testi (Four of the Apocalypse, Revolver) plays the aptly named character of Fabio, an undercover cop who's on assignment to bust a group of drug peddlers in this lesser Enzo G. Castellari directed film. I make the aforementioned statement comparably to the director's other films off course, as this one is still quite watchable in it's own right. Testi is always watchable, but this one just isn't one of my favorite films in the 'italian crime' genre. It came off, to me anyway, as a tad dated and more then a tad more cartoonish.

My Grade: C-

Eye Candy: Patrizia Webley gets topless; Sherry Buchanan shows off boobs & bush


It's not that I would mind a good movie about relationships. But to be good it has to tell me something about human nature that I haven't seen or thought about. Or tells it to me in a fashion that shows an interesting twist or point of view about the subject; be it love or illness or death or friendship or what have you that moves humans. But this movie just has nothing to say about any of this, except that it does happen. Nowhere are we given any reason as to why people act the way they do. The characters are portrayed over a pretty long period of their lives, which take some quite big turns. Not only are we not given their motives for the paths they take, but it also seems that the characters themselves don't really reflect on what happens. It just does and did. That's life. Oh well, let's move on to the next scene.


I watched this one only for a single reason: Claire Forlani. She is so beautiful that I can't express it with words (and I couldn't in German as well, so it's not a genuine language problem).

In this movie, she is married to a writer and his best friend somehow falls in love with her - well, seeing her in her full beauty makes this biggest of loyalty breaches understandable in my book.

But the director seems to see the act of cheating as the ultimate sin. I don't want to spoil too much here, not that there would be too much to spoil anyway, but I really felt that the moral index finger of the film makers was too much to swallow. Okay, it's nothing a friend should do to cheat on his best friend with his wife - but hey, feelings sometimes make us do things that are not really clever, but still that's what feelings are there for in a way... and since it always takes two persons to cheat on a third one, I really could not understand what this movie wanted to express in the end.

Drama? Yes. Romance? A little. Relevance? None at all. That is except for watching Claire Forlani looking like an angel - again.


Not only is the story of two brothers who love the same woman extremely boring, it is also very reactionary: the film basically sez that women ruin men's lives, it also sez "thou shalt not go to bed with your brother's wife"... certainly, a good piece of advice, but sit two hours in the cinema just to hear that? .... it's like the moralistic ending of _Cruel intentions_ blown up into a whole movie! beware! why do some film makers like Robert Zemeckis (_Contact_)or Smith and Stark fail to realize that the audience consists of intelligent human beings?


For me, this bar scene is the most enjoyable moment of the movie. Otherwise be ready for 90 minutes of boring dialogs, sad locations, strange frames and an empty story.

Even though all the cast is pretty good and the plot appealing (a drama of cheating between longtime friends), unfortunately, they are helpless to save the movie.

What you see is actually characters talking about their past, with dialogs beginning with "Do you remember" or "Whats's going on". OK, the two friends are so closed since childhood that this past means a lot in their adult life.

But, a movie is by nature visual, catching what happens in front of the camera. When there are only abusive close ups of endless speeches, you don't got anything.

It would have been a better choice to shoot all those past stories instead of hearing them.

In conclusion, movies have their rules. Don't apply them and the audience will leave.


The Pixies are a real phenomenon in the history of rock. While they were young in the 80s and beginning of the 90s they did not enjoy too much success, and it can be said that their legend and influence started to build only at the moment when they split. Twelve years later, in 2004 they decided to get back together after a series of individual failures that seemed to bring all of them on the brink of personal and financial bankruptcy. The film tells very little about their first period of activity and focuses on Act 2 of their career.

It is not that it tells too much we do not know from the music of the group. The Pixies are great musicians, decent human being and poor communicators. We do not learn from the documentary too much about the sources of their music, we do not understand why despite the success of their second career and despite of them writing music for their individual careers there was and there is no new album since they reunited. We learn something about their personal lives, but frankly speaking what we hear is not interesting or revealing. Music remains the best part of this film.


The film loudQUIETloud fails to be an effective documentary for several reasons. The first failure is that the filmmaker does nothing to justify the making of this documentarythe film is so devoid of background information or historical context that, for someone without extensive prior knowledge of the Pixies, there is nothing to suggest that the Pixies are important or interesting enough to merit documenting their comeback. The filmmaker makes the audacious claim that the Pixies are among the most influential bands of all-time, and maybe they arebut the film does nothing to prove this or show how or why they are influential. The opening quote from Nirvana's Kurt Cobain is the only time in the film where we are given a sense of the Pixies' impact on modern pop music. Where are the interviews with music historians, music critics, or other musicians that would validate and define the Pixies' influence? Where are the excerpts from Rolling Stone articles about the Pixiesduring their heyday, their breakup, their absence, and their reunion? Surely if the Pixies were indeed 'one of the most influential bands of all-time,' then these secondary sources would be overflowing with information that the filmmaker could have used to place in the Pixies in the context of modern music for viewers who aren't already familiar. Yet there is not ONE secondary source interview, not one article quotedthe film consists entirely of interviews with band members, live concert footage, and interviews with the band's family and fans. In this way, loudQUIETloud feels like little more than a puff piece, a made-for-the-fans DVD of the tour released by the band itself. If you are looking for live concert footage of the Pixies, loudQUIETloud does just fine. If you are interested in a thought-provoking, intelligent documentary, loudQUIETloud falls flat on its face. I knew almost nothing about the Pixies before watching loudQUIETloud, and now having seen it, I still feel as though I know nothing about them. Why did the Pixies breakup? The documentary cites 'creative differences and tension,' a generic answer that could probably be used for hundreds of bands. Why did the Pixies get back together? The documentary cites money and 'it just feeling right' as the reasons for the reunionagain, these reasons are painfully dull and provide none of the insight that is the purpose of a good documentary. What is the title's significance? Other than my own inference that loudQUIETloud refers to the band's path from popularity to obscurity and back to popularity, I am given no other clues as to what the title is meant to mean. Most importantly, the film fails to answer the question of why the Pixies were significant and influential, and left me angry and frustrated that I had spent 90 minutes on what, from my perspective, might as well have been some random garage band.

For the hardcore Pixies fan, loudQUIETloud may be sufferable since it gives viewers ample face-time with the band members themselves. However, for those who don't particularly know or care about the Pixies already, loudQUIETloud is among the most hopelessly ineffective documentaries I have ever seen.


OK, this isn't a good film by any stretch of the imagination but you don't really get it for that do you? I bought it just to see Raven de la Croix as I remember seeing this when a youngster and her being this incredible figure of white on a horse (white star is her character name).

The plot and FX are laughable but the music was surprisingly better than expected almost sounding like the works of John Carpenter.

Unfortunately the film is only a 15 so there's no real sex but the image of Raven in some kind of very short, dream state when she has a snake draped round her neck is mind bendingly erotic and worthy of the purchase price.


This is a fairly average film, with some suspense and some humour. Eric Stoltz, who is very talented, is not given enough to do. Lori Loughlin is very good. James Spader plays almost certainly the most evil character of his screen career. Also the blondest - he resembles the love child of Dennis Hopper and Marilyn Monroe. That is a simile, not a rumour!

I would have given this 5 points, but I am deducting 5 points for the execution of the chicken. There was nothing in the credits to imply that this scene was faked.

I am, however, replacing one and a half points because at least the film makes the link that people who are gratuitously cruel to animals are likely to harm other humans. I replace a further one and a half because the heroine fights back.


I loved Mortal Kombat 2. And when I picked this game up I immediatly disliked it. It's got a totaly different feel to it. I often find the expression if it aint broke dont fix it a good way to explain this one. I suppose I don't wanna spoil it but all i can say is rent before buy.


I watched this movie accidentally and I wish I had saved my Euros. You see very good-looking people, enjoying their lives fully, stereotypically named (Adam & Eva), a newly remodeled house that looks like it had been in use for months at least... The problems in this movie are no real problems, everything is easy and at the end we choose between some paradisiacal island and an idyllic home. This movie looked like one of those 'Better living at home' magazines to me. Everything is sooo very pleasant and tasteful.

Daniel Auteuil seems to be the only one who realizes he is totally out of place, but he can't find a way out from the set. Don't watch this, unless you need some ideas for how to decorate your home or where to go for vacation.


This documentary explicitly details how Metallica went from being one of the greatest bands of all time, to a hollow parody of itself. Having a 50-something therapist constantly with the band, helping them explore their feelings, all on a documentary for all to see, showed how much of a slave these guys have become to their mortgage payments. I used to have tons of respect for James Hetfield, only to hear him whine for two hours about separation anxiety, fear of abandonment, and getting his feelings hurt by his band mates. That is not metal my friend, nor is any of your recent music.

The scene with Lars and Dave Mustaine made me want to cut my wrists. I was just waiting for them to burst into tears and start making out.

This documentary perfectly exhibits why we idolize people and bands like Led Zepplin, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, etc, who stopped producing material for public consumption long before they became completely IRRELAVENT.

As far as the film itself, it does a great job of detailing where the band members are in their lives, and what they went through in making such a horrible album, but is about as useful and entertaining to watch as those surgery shows on TV

Now, I'm going to go listen to Kill 'Em All a few times to try and get my soul back.


In 1991, after a career spanning four albums and the death of one of history's most talented bassists, Metallica released an album that sold tens of millions of copies worldwide and made them household names. And over the next couple of years, the cult of Metallica became so feverish it was literally impossible to escape mention or playback of the band. And that was when the first cracks in the band's image as a band of the people, only out there to provide alternatives, appeared. After saturating the market with live albums, videos, and merchandise, Metallica reached the point I am sure the members liked to kid themselves they would not. In other words, they began to repel audiences through mere mention. And with their material becoming progressively more poppy, more formulaic, not to mention more predictable, one sees the point at which they should have given up the ghost was now at least thirteen years in the past. Former fans used to urge them to retire while they had a shred of dignity left. It is now too late for that.

An aspect of the anti-MP3 tirades from Lars that fans or former fans do not often mention is that Lars is scared out of his mind of the Internet and MP3. Not because of the possibility of theft of his music (this, from a band that gained much of its initial notoriety through tape-trading). Rather, it is because MP3 to a large extent levels the playing field in terms of exposure. It is now just as easy for bands signed to labels that do not have million-dollar warchests to saturate the listener with to reach a new audience. And as anyone familiar with the black or doom metal undergrounds can tell you, those bands utterly destroy any claim to uniqueness the band has. Speedy, blinding drum patterns with integrated guitar progression? Morbid Angel or Kataklysm do it far better. And the more I emphasise that Therion have had choirs and orchestras as an integral component of their material since before Metallica's post-black-album crisis of how to revive suddenly ailing record sales, the better.

So when one sits down to view Some Kind Of Monster with those facts in mind, it only further exposes what a bunch of ignorant, spoiled children Metallica really are. Some say that everything the band had in terms of potential or soul died with Cliff Burton, and while it took a while for this to become apparent, I can only agree. If Burton were alive today, he would be shaking his head in disbelief at what burgeois babies his former bandmates have turned into. Fortunately, Burton's successor, a man I had thought of as a poseur going by the name of Jason Newsted, wins back audience respect by showing enough disbelief for both himself and Burton. Whilst I would be the first to protest that there are many problems a hundred million dollars cannot cure, the willingness of the band to rub their possession of such money in the face of their audience says a lot about the true nature of their problems. Not only that, but the fact that their problems are entirely voluntary while people with problems of an involuntary nature who barely have enough to eat, leave alone make a film about the matter...

Well, to put it bluntly, this is not just a slap in the face to fans, former or otherwise. This same bunch of children is sitting here and giving an entire world the finger. Their propensity to blame everyone but themselves for their misfortunes, regardless of their merit, only highlights the problem. Were I able, I would strap James and Lars into seats and force them to watch people comment on this documentary. Perhaps then they might understand that their declining sales have nothing to do with piracy, MP3 trading, or even bootlegging. The party with the most responsibility for the fact that the party is now over stares them in the face every day when they look in a mirror. What makes it even more sad is that even admitting this to themselves and changing the manner in which they conduct themselves accordingly will not fix things anymore. They have literally soiled their nest so badly that they could go to another planet and they would still be that talentless band who were given everything and chose to rub it in everyone's faces.

Does this mean the documentary is entirely worthless? Well, no, there are moments in which outside observers quietly spin the affair into something real, which is where most of the comedy is derived from. As James, Lars, and to a lesser extent Kirk all make themselves look like bigger and bigger idiots, it is people like Dave Mustaine or Torben Ulrich who come off looking the best. The former because he shows us that just because you have a number one single and multi-platinum album does not mean you are more successful. The latter because he speaks the mind of every truly musical person on the planet when Lars plays him the track the band is thinking of opening the new album with, by telling Lars quite plainly that he would throw it in the trash, never to be heard again. The problem with the latter scene being that it has come about fourteen years too late. For reasons like this, one could view Some Kind Of Monster as a kind of black comedy. It is funny to laugh at a pack of yuppie idiots who have no idea what is going on. But it is also sad to think of what they could have been.

Some Kind Of Monster is a one out of ten film. The band doubtless intended it to be brilliant, but I doubt they meant to accomplish that by being this stupid.


The tale of "Heidi" is such a groaner that it manages to defeat any little, bright-eyed young actress who stars in it, yet they keep trying. Here, it's Shirley Temple's turn at the waterworks playing a spunky young orphan living with her kindly grandpa in a Swiss village, kidnapped by a scheming relative and taken off to live with a rich, unpleasant brood in Germany. Was there ever a more contemptible or manipulative kids' story than this? Treacly hokum is mixed with melodramatic hysteria, with enough story contrivances to fill up several pictures. Kids seem to get caught up in it; adults may go a little batty. *1/2 from ****


Wow. What can one say? Boorman went from Deliverance to this? Okay, in addition to being completely hilarious, this is also the most pretentious movie ever made, (aside from The Matrix Reloaded). Good thing Burstyn sat out for this turkey. Please tell me that I didn't see James Earl Jones in a big locust suit. Please tell me that I didn't see Oscar Winner Louise Fletcher being groped by a matted Linda Blair stand in and moaning (I am not making this up) in such a way that would make Ron Jeremy take notice. And what in the name of all things good and holy is a "Synchronizer" and what does it have to do with anything at all? Why is Africa made of fiber-glass? Why is Richard Burton made of stone? Oh, God. They couldn't have made this worse if they had scripted it so. Oh, wait...they did. Well, for all its faults at least it's not a desperate attempt by a major studio to milk whatever money they can out of a pre-existing hit by combining a-list actors, and a controversial visualist director, with a hastily prepared screenplay that shares little of the spirit and intelligence of its predecessor, producing a boring, although often laughably pious bastardization of something far, far greater. Oh wait....it is. If you're a fan of bad movies, you have reached Zen here. If you're a fan of the original Exorcist, run, just run and don't look back. Run with your arms flailing into the night as the preview audiences surely did in 1977.


Do I recommend seeing the Exorcist II? You bet I do! It's so ridiculously bad, you're sure to enjoy yourself. You will laugh out loud at the hypnotism scene. Your sides will hurt at the priest's attempts to put out a fire with a crutch. And was Richard Burton possessed by William Shatner for this movie? One of the best bad movies ever. Someday they'll make a movie about this movie, I'm sure of it. The director didn't like the original Exorcist! Who hires a director for a sequel when he disliked the original? And this was the most expensive movie produced by Warner Bros. at the time? Where did it all go?


I'm always more curious to see the movies that are unanimously panned by critics and audiences alike, because half of the time I end up finding out that these movies aren't that bad. "The Exorcist II" is not one of those movies. It really is 180 degrees from its suspenseful predecessor. I've read reviews from critics that hated Richard Burton's performance, saying that he was awfully over-the-top. I actually feel that Burton's performance is one of the film's strong points. Despite the goofy plot, he maintains a straight face. And after reading that he was drunk during part of the shoot, it's pretty impressive that he can deliver such a convincing performance. The rest of the cast is good as well. Linda Blair looks cute as a button. But at nearly two hours, the movie goes on way too long. What else can I say? This movie is just plain dull! I stopped following the plot after a while, not because it got too complicated, but because I didn't care anymore. Let's just say that I just finished watching the movie a couple days ago, and it's already on sale on Amazon.com. That alone shows you how much I appreciate this movie. (3 out of 10)


This movie, in its attempt to be clever, ends up being just plain ignorant. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the original, and as fantastic as was the original, this detestable sequel is just that bad.

Four years later, what does she remember? Apparently, what she does ~not~ remember are those acting lessons. I highly suggest that you watch the Exorcist, the director's cut; skip this one, and move right on to Exorcist 3.

You won't even be able to tell you've left part 2 out of the cycle, that's how insignificant it is. It's really THE worst sequel to any franchise, even considering Batman Forever and Pet Semetery 2. Just watch Exorcist: the Beginning, Exorcist 1, and Exorcist 3. You won't even miss Exorcist 2.

EDIT: I have to say that with the addition of the two prequels, this installment makes MUCH more sense now. It does now have a place in the run and should be viewed by franchise fans as a more necessary chapter of the Exorcist story. I'd give it a 6.4/10, now.

It rates a 1.1/10 from...

the Fiend :.


Good grief! Why was this one made? The first Exorcist movie was sheer cinema magic. The second was a waste of money and talent. This movie is what gives sequels a bad name. It was not so much the acting that was below standard - I don't think anyone could have made such a muddled script look good. This looked like it was written by a committee of accountants. (Nothing personal against accountants, I am one. I also know I have no business writing a script.) Richard Burton was one of the best actors of his generation. If you based his career on this movie, you would have thought him a hack. He might have needed the cash and therefore just slept his way through this. I recommend avoiding this unless you have a thing for pain. Linda Blair went on to a career that seemingly matched the quality of this movie. Yes, this movie is scary, but not in a good way. It is scary they actually released this.


Blasphemy! That's all that can be said about this film! This shouldn't even be considered a sequel to the Exorcist as they are two completely different films that have completely different directions. T

he only thing they share is Linda Blair (who I don't mind saying has 'grown up' a little more in this one! BOINGGG!) who reprises her character of Regan McNeil.

And what's the deal with that brain synchronisation machine? Who thought of that? James Earl Jones lends his powerful presence to the proceedings but doesn't really do anything. Avoid if you want a horror movie, I don't know what it is, but it ain't horror!


Oh dear. This really is a sad indictment of the franchise film. I suppose it was inevitable, even unsuccessful films get sequels these days, particularly those of the horror genre. The only real good thing to come out of this was to spur William Peter Blatty into helming what would become the third Exorcist film. Despite the films best intentions, it makes little sense in relation to the original classic. The Exorcist II contains a few interesting scenes and shots but ultimately relies on the none too impressive climax to engage the viewer. The pace and direction is often slow and disjointed and I must confess to laughing out loud at a couple of unintentionally humorous passages of dialogue.

I might say for Exorcist devotees only, but then anybody who truly appreciates the original will want to steer clear of this sequel. For morbid curiosity only.


O.K., I'm going to admit. I rented this movie looking for scares. But I will admit it was a good drama. But mostly I got bored. When I thought there was a scary scene coming, and there was nothing, I was like "huh?". A lot of confusing scenes. I think they should of left the original scene with Father Merrin being found dead in the Exorcist, and left it up to the audience what happened. Unless they're brain dead. I was curious why they didn't have some other of the original actors in this. Besides Linda Blair. I mean the first movie made a big success. My theory is that when they read the script they couldn't help but fall asleep. I'm sorry, but a sequel to one of the most shocking movie of all time, is supposed to have some kind of scare.

2/10


Bad, bad, bad. I don't know what these film-makers were thinking! Bringing back Linda Blair to reprise her role as Regan couldn't save this. Bringing back Kitty Winn as a tougher Sharon couldn't save this. The Georgetown house and infamous staircase couldn't save this. So, let's bring in Richard Burton and Louise Fletcher. We'll make Burton a priest and Fletcher's character a mother figure for Regan. Why not? She's the closest resemblance to Ellen Burstyn we're going to get. I am not even going to go into the whole locust idiocy. Let's just say that the producers must have used every locust in the free world to film this movie. Bad script, bad acting, cheesy special effects and a horrific (not in the good way) ending make this one of the worst films ever made in the history of Hollywood movies. On the plus side, Max von Sydow is the only watchable player in the film. My rating: 2 out of 10


A tale told by an idiot etc... Boorman, who at times shows some genius (The General) seemed more interested in cashing in on the franchise than adding to it. It's hard to believe they made a third Exorcist (a surprising success, all things considered.) Von Sydow was wasted. The only bright spot is Linda Blair, whose porn career is prefigured by her outrageous chest, scanty attire, and acting skills.


This movie is a real turkey. While almost nothing happens, R. Burton looks scared from the beginning until the end. The girl who plays Regan is miscast (I wouldn't rely on her to save the world), the "new age" message is absolutely laughable and the whole movie is as pretentious and empty as one of Nicholas Roeg's. One has to be VERY IMPRESSIONABLE to like (or even be scared by) this one.


I wonder... What could have made Linda Blair accept this stupid role in this sucky film? Did she want to mock at the original Exorcist? Really, this movie is so bad it makes you angry! We never get to realize why Regan is in danger, the priest's aim during the whole film is rather incomprehensible and all the "synchronizer" scenes with the light bulbs going rapidly in and out are so annoying! In fact, this film should be called "Exorcist II:The synchronizer"! On top of this, there are some of the stupidest lines that could ever be heard in a thriller and a feeling that the director wanted to fit in any wacky idea that came to his head in order to "scare" us.

However, we have to acknowledge a couple of good scenes, especially the last one, the beautiful Africa shots and (although inappropriate at times) Morricone's soundtrack.

4


"The Exorcist" is one of my top five films of all time. Imagine my horror and dismay as I watched this stench-laden sequel. Awful dialogue and a horrible storyline kill the movie. Quality-wise this movie isn't in the same solar system with its predecessor or the REAL sequel to "The Exorcist," the underrated "Exorcist III." Shun this movie unless you're looking for laughs.


[SPOILER ALERT]

A Catholic priest who doesn't even blink trying to take the devil of a South American girl's body, who suddenly burns herself. An extremely modern psychic clinic in the '70s. A machine which makes Linda Blair go back to her past memories for no plausible reason. A possessed Linda Blair from the past trying to kill Louise Fletcher by taking her heart or something. An African boy from the past full of grasshoppers and possessed. A sleepwalking Linda Blair trying to jump from her building. That 'alive statue' who is said to be a priest going on a trip to a stereotypical African tribe, where he finds James Earl Jones, who is the chief of a tribe, or a leopard, or a doctor. He gives the priest a ridiculous theory involving grasshoppers and possession. Linda Blair going back to Georgetown, following the priest, who is hypnotized by that machine. There she finds many grasshoppers and a possessed Linda Blair (yes! two!), while her old house is on fire because of a car crash involving Louise Fletcher. Well, that's just an idea of what "Exorcist II: The Heretic" has to offer.

Is it a bad movie? Yes, it is. Not just bad, but disgusting, with a terrible brown cinematography and awful performances. Linda Blair, who did a great job in the first "Exorcist", is just annoying here. Not to talk about the actor who plays the priest... And the story is just implausible, with a screenplay full of holes. It's a 'sea of holes', in fact. In addition, it often loses its point.

"Exorcist II" was a huge disappointment for me, specially because "The Exorcist" is one of my favorite films. It was intelligent, scary, memorable and impressing. This sequel has its lone qualities, but they are very small. The movie is nothing but a big dumb mess. But if you are a masochist... That's another story...

4/10


OK, so the movie wasn't exactly the scariest movie ever. Well It wasn't scary at all. But atleast it gives some sort of explanation for the demon that posses Regan. In my opinion this movie is more of a well... documentary or saga about what Regan goes through after the whole ordeal with the demon we now know was Pazuzu. So if you don't try to think of it as a horror story it isn't that bad and atleast it gives you some sort of closure to whatever it is that happened to Regan in the first place. I enjoyed this movie unlike most other viewers and I look forward to seeing what the new exorcist coming out in 2000 will be like.


I don't know why we need this movie as a sequel for the excellent first Exorcist. There is nothing to do with the first Exorcist. This movie is all about "Locusts", so what? What is the matter with locusts? It's just too intentional to try to make connection with locusts. When you see the first one, you will realize there is nothing related to the first one in this movie. When I saw a flying locust in the Regan's room, I just smirked. Get the first one and just think there are no sequels for the Exorcist. Save your money for something else.


Normally I enjoy movies like "The Silver Chalice"(Paul Newman's first feature), in which actors I usually enjoy show that they, too, can be in movies that stink. This movie was different. For a while it was fun to watch Richard Burton recite idiotic dialogue in a stupid plot line, and do it badly. About half way through, the "enjoyment" started to wear off, and it began to hurt badly to watch someone be SO bad. I had to force myself to watch the entire movie, and even the uplifting ending (the "good" locust/human triumphs over the "bad" locust/human) could not save this movie.


I think this movie is bad, I think it´s really bad. =) The first Exorcist was a masterpiece, but this... don´t see it!

I vote 1 of 10 on this one!


I actually thought this movie would be at least worth watching considering what I've read about it here on IMDb. I couldn't have been more wrong and now I'm 100% sure of that the people giving this piece of garbage high votes are friends and family of the filmmakers.

I've seen plenty of bad horror movies but at least they had something appealing in them, they weren't ALL bad, but this movies is. There isn't one single thing about this movie that is good. For starters the script is absolutely terrible and the actors are just as bad if not even worse. The plot is ridiculous just as the special effects (that consist of nothing more than blood splashing on walls etc).

Also it's so full of clichés; we have the drug dealing goth girl, the black girl (who finishes every sentence with "giiiirl"), we have the sweet all American girl and finally we have the star of the movie who is a troubled about-to-go-crazy girl. I still can't understand why these four totally different girls would go on a road trip together, none the less know each other.

Someone here compared this movie to Twin Peaks. Pfffft!! I say. That's friggin blasphemy! Twin Peaks is a true masterpiece, full of disturbing dark secrets and mystery. This movie has absolutely NONE of that. The only mystery is how the hell this movie got released.

I suggest you stay as far away from this piece of crap as possible.


Four completely unlikable characters played by four of the worst actresses ever seen, a script that moves along at a pace that would make a snail look like Wilma Rudolph, pointless and goofy religious "symbolism," awful lighting and cinematography... all add up to the biggest waste of time you will ever know. The only reason for sitting through this amateur self-indulgence is the hope that finally, at long last, the screenwriter will have an idea and something will happen (and, hopefully, some of these horrible people will get slaughtered!). We should pray for financial ruin to befall whoever financed this ridiculous twaddle so that these people can never make another film ever again. If you're expecting this to be one of those films that's so awful it's great, no such luck. Just plain awful. Period. But, at this point, the friends and family members of the filmmakers have managed to get the votes up to 8 stars. Don't be fooled; it's only a matter of time before real audiences start wasting their time and money on this catastrophe and registering real votes.


In California, Maria (Andrew Mia) has awful nightmares with and visions of her sister that committed suicide one year ago. Her roommate Chris (Heidi Androl) invites Maria to travel with her and her friends Tanya (Kathryn Taylor) and Rose (KellyDawn Malloy) on vacation to her uncle's house in Saguaro, Arizona, to relax. When the group arrives in the house, they immediately go to a night-club to have fun and chase some local guys for sex; however, the evil El Charro (Andrew Bryniarski) is seeking Maria killing her friends with his machete.

The slasher "The Curse of El Charro" is a gore mess. The characters in general are unpleasant and I do not understand how the four girls could take a road trip together: Maria is a deranged woman; Tanya is an amoral slut; Rose is a lesbian drug dealer; only Chris seems to be an average person. The screenplay is awful, and in the beginning, Maria is confessing her nightmares to a priest that seems to know something about her fate. Then, a group of young women from California that seems to be in a permanent heat goes to a desert place in the middle of nowhere to drink booze, use drugs and have sex with hillbilly strangers, in a totally weird and unusual situation. The creepy El Charro kills every character with his machete without any further explanation. The conclusion seems to indicate that the insane Maria actually killed her friends, but it not clear. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "A Maldição de el Charro" ("The Curse of El Charro")


El Charro opens up in a fairly interesting way, leading me to believe it was some sort of religious supernatural thriller. However these themes are pushed aside, and not really developed. Later the group of friends run into a creepy Sheriff, who escorts them to bar, filled with assorted weirdos, including a wheel chair bound death metal rocker, suffering from some kind of mental handicap. At this point I'm thinking the film is going to become a Devil's Rejects, or Texas Chainsaw Massacre insane family type of film. No again, they simply leave the bar, and the Sheriff, and his wacky pals are never developed beyond that. Seriously, the writer or somebody has really messed up here, the film is a jumbled mess, and I can't begin to imagine where they went wrong. The film doesn't know what it wants to be, one minute it's going for the intense dramatic angle with a girl coping with the suicide of her sister, the next it features snore inducing stereotypes trying to party, and get laid. Finally by the end, it decides to go the slasher route, but it's far to late. I rate this a two, because I know some of the actors' are better then the material, and there are a couple decent kill scenes in the end, though nothing special. For those of you wondering, there is a brief lesbian shower scene with Tabitha Stevens, but it lasts all of three seconds, and you don't see much of anything. On a side note, Lemmy what were you thinking? You have to stick with Troma man, you were great in Tromeo And Juliet, but this garbage is beneath you.


I have watched some of the worsts wastes of film in my time but this is by far the very worst. Too bad the director and producer weren't among the victims so that we could have been spared this travesty to film making. The movie made absolutely no sense. The sound director didn't appear to know what they were doing. This movie was definitely done on the cheap since the lighting and the sound both were sub-standard, considering that the actors and actresses were all unknowns there should have been more than ample money to hire people to properly do the sound and lighting. The next time that the investors decide to invest in a movie I hope they remember how pitiful this one was and decide against it.


Had the filmmakers not tried to introduce a bit of artistic license into the film, I'd simply write it off as a sub-par slasher flick. But the lame effort put forward by this crew gives dilettantes a good name.

The only positive thing one could say about this film is that the production values aren't horrid. That script though...my lord. Would it have hurt the filmmakers (as much as I was by viewing this junk) to invest even an hour thinking of something mildly original. Renting a film like this, I really don't expect much, but I did expect something.

If you're thinking of watching this tripe, do yourself a favor - attack your brain with a fifth of tequila or something similar before settling into this garbage. Must pass...


I just briefly checked the ratings here on IMDb on this movie before i rented it. I thought that it was kind of worth watching so i decided to give it a try. It didn't take very long before i realised that i should have stayed away from this movie. I would say this movie is one of the 10, if not 5, worst movies i have ever seen in my entire life! There is so much bad things i could mention about this movie... the acting, the script, the effects etc... I am sick of all relatives to the group that made this film, who comes here and votes 10 stars and say its a great masterpiece better then Twin Peaks with breaking music. If you can find this movie for sale for 1 cent, then maybe, just maybe i would recommend it for you if you are in need of a DVD-cover. Otherwise my best suggestion is for you to keep as far away from this movie as possible. Discrase that it even got released.


When I saw El Charro, the first thought that popped on my mind was that this movie should be named "The Curse of What Could Have Been". That is, if the scenario actually made sense. The movie begins with Maria, a rather annoying girl mourning the suicide of her sister (and by the way, we never do find out what made Lucia kill herself), going on a small vacation with four "friends". Incidentally, the friends are four archetypes, such as the good old American Beauty (the only one who cares about Maria, apparently), a hip hop star wannabe and a goth pinup would be. Curiously enough, the last two get along fairly well and seem to enjoy the same kind of music. How that is possible, one can only wonder. How do you we get to the juicy parts? After a lot of patience. The script is unbelievably slow and 3/4 of the movie seem to serve as filler. This was especially noticeable in the bar scene. The girls, after having a brush with the law (avoided because the driver takes the mutter into her own mouth, er, hands), decide to stop in a bar and drink before continuing their ride. Sounds only natural, correct? That is exactly what we would do if we were on a trip between states, escorted by police in a bar. The bar, operated by a fundamentalist American with bad taste in music, seems to be patronized by a weird mix of hillbillies and psychos. When the girls want to leave (understandably so), the police officer makes them sit down because they will "miss the show". The movie then proceeds to show us a goth guy in a suit screeching in an old microphone lyrics that apparently should tune us in the movie, because they are relevant to the heroine's situation. ...Ok guys, you've stumped me. The patrons, BY DEFINITION, should rise as one and get that idiot of the stage, for one. He is completely irrelevant to the movie. He is filler. The whole scene is filler, as every clue that is revealed is just not important enough to justify this travesty. Even though it is true that the actresses don't act in this to save their lives, the truth is that they are given almost no space to even try. The characters are flat and two-dimensional, trapped in their own delusional worlds. No growing for the heroine during the length of the movie. She doesn't, say, come to terms with her sister's suicide. She doesn't even save herself. An angel with fake wings and a tattoo does it for her. This is a shame, because this movie does have a couple of nice scenes (when the crew doesn't go wild with the camera, that is). An old time movie sequence in the middle of the movie gives the story away in a much more interesting way that the heroine would ever be able to. The music at the approaching of El Charro is rather good. El Charro himself, although dumber than Jason the Hockey Mask Boy, has a couple of nice scenes and a certain presence. It's not his fault he's not given enough space to actually DO something beyond slash like there's no tomorrow. and why slash, anyway? Why not just a gun? What is the justification behind this? There is none. The script in this is just terrible, plain and simple. The actors are uninspired. When closing in, El Charro looks like a black metal fan with bad, bad corpse painting on (Immortal would kick his ass). The pace is slow, the sex scenes not really that interesting (and that WAS a shame), and the deaths find the viewers completely supporting of the ghost. I would have done it too, El Charro. It's OK.


The Curse of El Charro is about a girl who sees visions about her sister's suicide. Apparently Charro is punishment for the girl's family for something her ancestors did. It wasn't easily discernible because the film was not that interesting to watch. She goes on a trip with some back stabbing friends, and everyone is attacked by El Charro. Her persistent dreams give away the film. The characters have no redeeming qualities and there is nothing that gives this film any reason to be viewed other than it is there to be watched. Some of the cinematography is interesting, but the film flips around between flashback, Charro, and the star. If you're looking for some mindless slashing, this film is for you.


First off, I didn't LOVE THIS MOVIE. I was bored out of my mind.

SPOILERS

Did anyone else think that the movie was leading up to the roommate being involved somehow in the whole El Charro thing. Here's some suspicious things:

1. Forces lead to go on vacation with 2 people who despise her. That should be relaxing. 2. Takes her out to the desert where El Charro dwells. 3. Goes to her uncle's house with religious statues and altars all over the place. Totally normal, and of course the uncle is never seen (perhaps the religious items were taken from the director's home) 4. Shoves any type of pill down her good friend's throat, even going so far as to trust the evil goth girl, who spits on the ground she walks on, for sleeping pills 5. Low angle shot of roommate looking down at suffering friend smiling and saying "That's what friends are for." 6. Disappears completely for about a third of the final act (When she shows up again she was just showing some dude the house, for 115 hours!) 7. Suddenly changes from good girl to bar tramp, ready to get it on on the hood of a car in front of the house in a clearly lit area. Certainly she'd have to know everyone is dead to do that. 8. Killed off screen (for the life of me I couldn't understand why she was screaming since she was clearly hiding some nefarious, evil pact with the creature)

Probably, to answer my own question, she was just a poorly conceived character like the rest of the cast (these people make the cast of The Squid and the Whale seem like Leave it to Beaver. What a bunch of you-know-what-holes). I think this is an example of a the main creative forces (if you wanna call em that) behind the project dumbing themselves down to work in such a shoddy genre. They sat on their pedestals and knew they were only making a lousy horror movie, so don't get worried about anything, those horror idiots will eat up anything. Well, I'll make an agreement, stay out of my genre, and I'll stay out of pretentious student films.

P.S. Sorry about writing in CAPS earlier, I just thought it might be funny if the director saw that and got excited, then was let down when he read the rest. Revenge is a dish best served cold.


Look; I don't understand how any one could have thought this was worth the time to produce or direct, and the money that goes along with that. It's unbelievable that a film made in the 21st century could be this elementary visually. I cannot find one good thing about this movie, and I did try. The acting is terrible (like a group of college students were pulled out of class, handed the script, and told to do their best), the script is very weak, and the characters do not relate to one another at all. To be honest; I think you could give a group of high school students (each in the bottom 5% of their class) $200, a camera, two gallons of red corn syrup, and a three days to work, and they would put together a better horror flick that this.


Quentin Tarentino and Robert Rodriguez tried (I'd say, with mixed success) to honor the history of grindhouse movies -- low budget movies shot with gonzo velocities and lots of cleavers & cleavage.

What Tarentino and Rodriguez tried to celebrate from their mink-lined, gold-plated director chairs, these guys did all by their loathsome lonesome, and cranked out El Charro. A masterpiece? No - not by a long shot. But, you know, it does have all the hallmarks of grindhouse: barely comprehensible plotting, bizarre riffs from the periphery, cars on desert highways, bad dialog, bad cops, bad bars, some nonsense about curses, babbling priests, buckets of blood, a couple hundred f-bombs, and (duh) topless women.

If you're looking for El Charro to introduce you to next round of cinematic genius, you'll be sorely disappointed. But, if you've been hankering for some drive-in quality, B-movie slasher junk -- then why the hell not?

(The soundtrack kind of kicks a--, by the way).


Watching this movie is like watching a car crash in reverse. It begins as a blurred, direction-less, and confused mass of visions and concludes with the climax and falling action occurring in a ten minute span. It's an hour and fifteen minutes of sex and drugs, until the director remembers that it's a horror movie and kills almost everyone in a ten minute span. To give a basic plot summary, a group of young women driving through the desert are stalked by a killer "ghost," who is really just a really tall guy in a poncho. The most frustrating thing about this movie is that you don't care for the characters, in any way at all. They aren't likable enough to make you want them to pull through, but aren't annoying enough to pray for a painful death. All except one particularly foul-mouthed girl, who is thankfully given minimal screen time and an extra bloody death, but I digress. Three of our four heroines seem to have double parked outside the studio, as they indulge in sex, drugs, and advanced stupidity as if they want to die as quickly as possible. Our fourth leading lady is plagued by constant violent visions and confusing flashbacks, including a memorable(for all the wrong reasons) flashback which takes the style of a Charlie Chaplin film, but without any humor or quality. Our evil ghost, channeling the spirit of Michael Myers, walks around in pure silence, the only problem being he is TOO slow and it takes an hour for him to get any serious killing in. Since our villain is traveling with all the speed of molasses in January, the director fills in time with enough bong hits to make Cheech and Chong envious. By the time El Charro actually begins his work, it's a good bet that you'll either be asleep or, in my case, toughing it out because you don't like leaving things unfinished. Either way, you won't see much.


When I saw this movie, it struck me as more of a comedy with a horror ending hence the reason why I rated it a 4. If rated from the perspective of a horror, I give it a really generous 3. Most of the movie will make you laugh if you watch it without the expectation of it being a horror. The acting seems to be spitefully lame which adds to it's comedic effect. You need to be naive or really young to enjoy this as a horror. If you're looking for a good scare, THIS IS NOT THE MOVIE FOR YOU!!! If you're into cheesy horror films because you're bored and you need a good laugh, this would give Troll 2 serious competition. You'll laugh at the fact that someone made this movie and labeled it a horror.


OK, I love seeing Danny Trejo in films. I didn't actually see him in this one, as he was the voice of El Charro. El Carro (Andrew Bryniarski) was too busy swinging a machete to speak, I guess.

Maria is a neurotic mess whose sister committed suicide and is being stalked by El Charro because of some wrong done by an ancestor. She joins her friend Christina (Heidi Androl) and two other girls on a trip to Arizona. Good that they had Tanya (Kathryn Taylor, Miss Kansas USA) along to handle the cop when they got a speeding ticket.

Best performance in the film was definitely KellyDawn Malloy as a goth chick who did a shower duet with Tabitha Stevens.

Great looking slasher, but the appearance of Archangel Michael and the ending left a lot to be desired, as did the rednecks the girls hooked up with.


How does this movie even get to stores? If you are thinking about buying this movie, don't! I wouldn't even rent it. The only value in watching the movie is that it is quite funny, unintentionally, at times just because it is so horrible. I would expect this quality from maybe a high school film class, but I consider it a horrible injustice that it has made it onto the shelves of a movie rental store. So once again if you want to laugh at the bad acting, weak plot, horrible makeup, and cheesy effects then by all means watch this movie. But if you value your time, you might want to stay away from this one. I want my hour and a half back!


I can't stand to start a movie and not finish, even if its bad, but this movie is agonizing to watch! The acting is horrible, the characters implausible, the actresses are extremely annoying, and the plot is cliché and simplistic. Even the usually redeeming quality of partial nudity is negated by the fact that the girls are ugly. I enjoy a little cheese and a funny B movie, but this movie is worthless even for that. I got the DVD free and its about as valuable as an AOL CD. This movie isn't worth writing a review about, I do so only to warn you. I'd rather eat a turd than watch such a pitiful attempt at cinema. The fake blood isn't even the right color, its pink. What really ruins it is the ridiculous casting and character design, they had no idea what they were doing. The music is worse than bands that open for other bands at clubs with no cover charge.


This film is boring garbage. But instead of doing a well-worded review, I'll just...

What I learned from this movie:

- Policemen get very lonely in the desert. - Rednecks love pretend-crippled rock stars. - If you wanna get away and the car won't star, it's scary. And totally not cliché. - There's a silent film studio that specializes in personal exposition infomercials. - If your sister kills herself, it's because your grand-grandma wouldn't marry that guy in the desert. - A guy standing at the very rim of the road counts as a road blockade. - Lyndsay Martin: newest inductee in the All-Time Acting Hall of Shame. - "He is coming for you!" WAAAAAGH! Works also in Spanish.

El Charro's makeup isn't too bad, too. Seen worse. 3/10. The End.


Damn this movie sucked, never in my lifetime have I been so angry and disappointed after wasting my time watching this piece of junk! It contains nothing but bad acting and a lot of awful effects! There is no plot at all in this movie and the things that the characters experience does not hang together at all. I cannot believe that anyone would rate this movie higher than rating it as awful (must be some kind of "sympathy act" if you choose to anyway). I seriously do not wish for anybody to waste money nor time on this movie.

Damn this movie sucked, never in my lifetime have I been so angry and disappointed after wasting my time watching this piece of junk! It contains nothing but bad acting and a lot of awful effects! There is no plot at all in this movie and the things that the characters experience does not hang together at all. I cannot believe that anyone would rate this movie higher than rating it as awful (must be some kind of "sympathy act" if you choose to anyway). I seriously do not wish for anybody to waste money nor time on this movie.


Well, I fully agree on the script being absolute crap. Who ever wrote that must have had an IQ of less than 2. The acting was also not impressive but whoever expected it to be was out of their mind. This is not the kind of thing where you would expect Academy performances, so who cares about that?

I honestly believe that whoever compared this film to Twin Peaks was definitely high on crack or crank or something. Whatever it is, please give me some. I cannot fathom how there could be any comparison to something as brilliant as twin peaks to this. It's like comparing A Clockwork Orange to Napoleon Dynamite. Anyhow, I thought that it could be worse.... Than again, I was anticipating the worst. I did like the artsy bits like the beginning and the back story.

P.S. The blonde kid singing that song with the dead pigeon was pitiful!!!


It took me quite some time to find out there are negative reviews for this film - I thought I might be on my own with my opinion.

It does start off in a rather amusing fashion, the first seven minutes (which also include the starting credits) promise a funny spoof in the tradition of ZAZ films like "The Naked Gun". But then the realisation hit me that there is a major difference between ZAZ films and "Der Wixxer": In a ZAZ film much of the slapstick will happen in the background, something which does not necessarily have to be noticed the first time you watch the film but which is funny nevertheless. If Leslie Nielsen falls down some stairs the focus will stay on his partner who does not notice what's happening - the spectator can laugh at the slapstick without being drawn away from the main scene. With "Der Wixxer" you have similar hilarious elements being pushed right in your face - instead of rounding off a funny scene these elements get stretched (very thin) to become scenes of their own.

*** Mild Spoiler *** For example a butler looking like Hitler dancing to David Hasselhoff's "Looking for Freedom" acts as a brilliant intermission from the Chief Inspector's verbal brawl with the main suspect. But to show him dancing for more than 30 seconds takes the fun out off the idea and makes it tedious to watch. Peter Griffin in "Family Guy" can pull off a stunt like this - unfortunately it did not work in "Der Wixxer" *** End of Mild Spoiler ***

To sum it up I can only say: some genuinely funny ideas - but unfortunately not enough for a really funny film.


Do you have an "Uncle Joe" who always tells very dated and unfunny jokes and laughs a lot about them? Think of a meeting of a dozen of "Uncle Joes" ... Wouldn't you rather be anywhere else? I bet you would. I've been there, I've seen the movie "Der Wixxer", and it's been torture. The movie starts with a warning itself, with a scene featuring Anke Engelke, and therefore with something that's far worse than just bad acting. It will already make you feel sorry for everyone involved in this project. If you'd ignore this warning - you shouldn't! - you'd see a parody of the Edgar Wallace series, very low budget - well: cheap - German crime movies from the early 60ies that still get some admiration for their tackiness and camp value. Would anybody care to see a parody of "Plan Nine From Outer Space"? They've thrown in some jokes in the antique "Zucker"-style, references to the German TV, even an especially pointless one to "Silence of the lambs". There are lots of jokes, but they are all of the "Uncle Joe" variety.

The sad thing about this is that some of the actors have shown real talent and humor in German comedy shows. Must have been the writers and directors fault then. Oliver Kalkofe, whose impression of an actor playing an inspector is simply ridiculous, has his own TV show, in which he's doing parodies on remarkably inane TV moments. Sometimes it's very clever and extremely funny, sometimes he's just insulting those involved as "stupid" and "brainless". Those people will love this movie, where Kalkofe doesn't only play the leading role, but has also co-written the script. Whatever they've done, this is worse. It's not unintentionally funny, but unintentionally unfunny.


that movie is full of outdated jokes, which we know from films like naked gun, top secret and the like, just worse. there's not really a storyline, at least not a plot which makes u want to follow the movie with interest.

it's a ridiculous heap of scenes, which is boring from the beginning to the end and it's not like i don't appreciate that kind of joke. more than 10 years ago i laughed my butts off at naked gun, but now this film couldn't cope a bit with it and it's not at all original. in a nutshell: don't bother! another piece of junk in the German movie scene.


Clearly not a movie for everybody. Seeing the number of positive reviews this film gets, it nearly feels like a duty to add a negative review to the few already posted, as a warning to potential viewers.

It was just painful to sit through the entire movie. And I like silly comedies, I like "nonsense". I can find redeeming qualities in a movie if it is at least vaguely entertaining or if it makes me laugh out loud a few times. In a word, I'd be a good audience for this type of film, if only it had something good in it, anything. But this was just plain horrible. "I want those 80 minutes of my life back!"TM

I did laugh a few times, but it was really not enough to justify the time invested in watching this. Go rent a "Naked Gun" flick or something by the Monty Pythons ("Hitler in England", for example) instead. Even a Ben Stiller comedy would be better.


I entered the cinema with very mixed expectations. I'm an avid Oliver Kalkofe fan because of his satirical "Kalkofe's Mattscheibe" TV show but I feared that he and his partners would not be able to deliver a good movie nor live up to the expectations of the fans.

A shame that I was right.

The stylish intro of "Der Wixxer" was quite good, so I still kept my fingers crossed for the movie, but the movie degraded from minute to minute. Most of the jokes weren't hilarious at all - they were rather washed out, old and often simply not funny. The acting of most of the characters was mostly bad: Oliver Kalkofe's strong side obviously is NOT acting, Oliver Welke's (who I like as person) performance was terrible, Bastian Pastewka wasn't too funny nor convincing also. The best acting performance in my opinion was by Lars Rudolph who played Smeerlab and revived Klaus Kinski in his typical Edgar Wallace style. Adding to my negative expression were the references to Matrix and Silence of the Lambs - which I have seen in dozens of comedy movies before. Not helpful was in my opinion also to include "favorite characters" of the former TV shows of the cast like the roses selling pakistani. And yes - I could have done without the musical scene also.

*** spoiler warning ***

A nice touch though were the various German references (though the will probably be obsolete in a few years) and especially the inclusion of Kalkofe's long time opponent Achim Mentzel as the original "Der Wixxer".

My conclusion is that it's obviously not sufficient to team up with other funny guys and come up with a topic (here: German Edgar Wallace movies) which has not been covered before. Movie is apparently a more difficult business than that. Especially when watching a parody movie I expect a hilarious firework of jokes without any pauses and not some small firecrackers burning down once in a while.

For a 15 minutes TV sketch the idea and the jokes may have been sufficient but not for a silver screen movie - I have the feeling that they wasted quite a bit of potential here.


I had heard about the movie from my local newspaper and the critique was "a nice movie to watch with friends after work". This is exactly what we did.

After about 3 minutes I regretted watching wasting time and money on these 90 minutes of absolutely horrible "stuff". This was the first movie I was inclined to leave since "Hoffa" (I fell asleep in that one).

None of the characters are funny, the plot is terribly weak and way to easy to follow, the "east German" is horrible - I've heard better on B-Radio Shows and references to Matrix and Silence of the Lambs are futile attempts to make the movie funny.

The Butler Adolph Hatler, a weak impersonation of Hitler is funny the first time he shows up... and that's that.

Don't waste your time on this.


Aw Jeez, everyone here in germany tries to convince me that this pile of awfulness is actually a funny German comedy. Its definitely not. I had already a bad feeling about this affair,when I watched the crappy trailer. From the BAD "Matrix"-Parody in the intro-animation to the Alfons Hatler-Character (possibly the worst impersonator of the Fuehrer since the original), its just terrible.

When I watched the movie, it was clear very soon, that I had seen the best scenes already in the trailer. D'oh ! I understand,that Bastian Pastewka and Oliver Kalkhofe tried to make this movie in true "so bad,its good"-fashion, but its just "so bad, eliminate everyone involved.".

oh yeah,one final note to the "artists": East-German Accents are not funny. Ten years ago,maybe, but now ? Shame on you. (and your parents). ;-)


Jeff Ltd is only limited in its own ability to make its viewers laugh or pay attention.

This show is one of the worst travesties ever put on the air.

Even by comedy network standards it is pretty much garbage and whoever put it on TV should be immediately fired.

The main character is annoying and not likable but also doesn't serve to make anyone laugh even once, it is just not a funny show or funny main character. The other characters also are not funny in the least.

Also the guy playing the main Jeff character can't act worth garbage so that's another reason to cancel this travesty.

Jeff Ltd is total garbage that could only make the worst and least intelligent people laugh.


Jeff Ltd is a pathetic show on every level.

It's a comedy that isn't funny first of all. The acting is terrible, the scripts/stories are terrible, the directing and producing in fact the production as a whole is terrible.

None of the characters are likable and that is okay because you can have a comedy show with unlikeable people but the characters aren't funny either. The acting is the big downfall with this show.

I hope it gets taken off the airwaves soon because Jeff Lts is pathetically bad.

1/10


I've watched several episodes of Jeff Ltd., because it can take time for a new series to find its rhythm. Honestly, though, this show started out bad and just got worse.

On the plus side, the look of the show is very slick and professional, but that's not necessarily an asset to comedy anyway. But overall, the characters are dull, passionless, and the tone is too cool and cynical to let any of its lowbrow humour work. It's very hard to imagine a group of TV professionals sitting in a room watching this show and saying, yep, that's funny, that works. Because it really, really doesn't.


Unfortunately I can remember this show. Jeff Ltd. was a terrible show with above all a terrible performance by the lead character that is what I remember most of all about this show. The plots all involved him trying to trick people into giving him money or trying to trick women into sleeping with him or usually both of those things, all he did was con people and it always backfired because he was very bad at it and thought he was a lot smarter than everyone else when he wasn't. The ideas were only half baked and none of the jokes were funny because the performances were so bad and it was just badly written, you could see exactly where everything was going. I am glad this bad show was booted off the airwaves.


I think it's sad that a previously entertaining show like South Park (yes, I did like the show) has to resort to wasting two episodes having the characters engage in a battle claiming that another cartoon show isn't funny. All they did was give a one hour long commercial for Family Guy. Are they jealous that Family Guy has such a huge following? Beyond that, South Park has really taken a downhill turn since pretty much the end of season 5. Since then it's been sadly one good episode every two seasons. There was one good episode in season 8 (AWESOM-O) and the World of Warcraft episode in season 10 was hands down one of the funniest things I've ever seen. The only problem is that they rely too much on "pushing the buttons" of everyone that they can't be funny without resorting to racism, sexism, or vulgarity. A shame. They claim that Family Guy is nothing but interchangeable jokes. This is true, and guess what? It works! Family Guy is the far superior show to South Park today.


This is really stupid to make people laugh without respecting other's religion....... This is unrespectable show... Muslims aren't like this They live in SAND houses!!!!!!!!!! how dumb, come on people... i can't see this is a funny show at all, i even watched a million little fibers episode and it was not funny at all... they didn't respect Oprah's character and they made fun of her, i just wonder why we laugh to something while other's cry when they watch it... u know y i cried simply because media shows Americans and the whole world another face of Islam...a face they created especially for them. this in not our religion, our religion is much higher and spiritual that makes your soul to fly into another world... it's a pure religion leads your life to perfection, and if you don't believe me, please just turn the TV off and go on, order books taking about our religion, let yourself judge not others judge for you


"Changing Lanes" starts with a collision between two cars during the New York morning rush hour. Neither driver is injured, and neither car sustains serious damage. Yet this seemingly-trivial happening sets in motion a chain of events that will lead to both men committing several crimes, up to and including attempted murder.

The two drivers are, by coincidence, both on their way to Court hearings. One is Gavin Banek, an ambitious young lawyer with a top New York law firm, who is acting in an important case involving the administration of a charity set up under the will of one of the firm's clients. The other is Doyle Gipson, a divorced father on his way to a hearing concerning the custody of his two sons. As a result of the collision, Gipson arrives late for the hearing only to find that the judge, impatient with waiting for him, has awarded custody to his ex-wife, meaning that she is now free to take them to Oregon where she intends to live.

Things also go badly for Banek at his hearing. Upon arrival at Court he finds that he is missing a vital document and realises that he must have accidentally left it with Gipson while the two were exchanging names and addresses. The judge gives him until the end of the day to file the document with the Court. When Banek traces Gipson, however, and asks him to return the document, Gipson, still angry about the collision and about the outcome of his own court case, refuses. Banek thereupon hires a computer expert to hack into Gipson's computer records and tamper with his credit record, effectively making him bankrupt. He then contacts Gipson again, informs him what he has done, and tells him that he will restore Gipson's credit rating in exchange for the missing document. This leads, in effect, to a declaration of all-out war between the two, each trying to outdo the other in bad behaviour, culminating in Gipson trying to kill Banek by sabotaging his car.

This film might have been better if it had been made as a black comedy, but the film-makers chose instead to make it as a serious human drama. James Berardinelli described it as a statement of how external influences can cause an otherwise decent human being to do things that are despicable. It does not really work as such, largely because the two protagonists (and most of the other characters as well) are so unlikeable. Despite his attempt to kill Banek, we can perhaps regard Samuel L. Jackson's Gipson as being as much sinned against as sinning. He is, after all, subject to severe provocation, not only from Banek, but also from his ex-wife Valerie and from a bureaucratic court system that seems unwilling to make allowances in his favour, and he does have at least one redeeming characteristic in that he is a devoted father to his sons. It must be said, however, that many of his problems are self-inflicted. (He is, for example, a recovering alcoholic, and it was his drinking, and drink-fuelled violence, which led to the breakdown of his marriage). Perhaps the best evaluation of his character comes from his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor: "You know, booze isn't really your drug of choice anyway. You're addicted to chaos".

It is, however, more difficult to regard Ben Affleck's Banek as an "otherwise decent human being". Banek works for the sort of law firm which has, to say the very least, a relaxed attitude to legal ethics. Although he is not mired in outright criminality quite as deeply as some of his colleagues, especially the senior partner Stephen Delano, who also happens to be his wife's father, Banek's moral standards are nevertheless low. In an attempt at self-justification Delano asks rhetorically "At the end of the day, I do more good than harm. What other standard have I got?" This self-assessment, however, is not borne out by the plot; the film shows us a good deal of the harm that Delano has done and no evidence that he has ever done any good. Apart from a contrived and implausible ending, there is no evidence that Banek has ever done any more good than his father-in-law. When Banek is forced to confess to his colleagues that the vital document has gone missing, Delano's solution is to manufacture a replacement by combining the donor's signature from another document with a photocopy. Banek objects to such forgery on ethical grounds, even though his own behaviour towards Gipson is just as illegal and could be regarded as even more immoral.

Affleck seems to have a talent for picking the wrong films (see also "Reindeer Games", "Pearl Harbor", "200 Cigarettes" and several others). If he adds any more to his collection of turkeys he will be able to corner the Christmas market. Although it garnered some critical acclaim, for me "Changing Lanes" falls firmly in the turkey category. It struck me less as a study of two otherwise decent men under pressure than an entirely predictable account of what might happen when an alcoholic chaos addict meets a shyster lawyer. The result is neither edifying nor enlightening. 4/10


Shame about this movie. Good cast, and decent acting, but it's a see-through plot that feels completely forced. Too many scenes are "Hollywoodized," where the characters stumble into coincidences that simply just would not happen. And several holes in logic are required to make this movie run. Samuel Jackson's character goes into a loan office/bank and picks up a computer monitor in one scene, throwing it into the window of the office. Not only is he then allowed to leave the office without being stopped by the security guard/police, but they never seem to look for him either. Which is not to mention the assault he puts on two white guys at a bar earlier in the movie, again not getting pursued at all.

 The movie is too simplistic, trying to comment on a situational phenomenon while forcing its way through a plot that would be interesting if it seemed less contrived. The plot hinges on too many forced and improbable coincidences.


I felt like I was...stuck in traffic. Hard to sit through. As much as you

are not supposed to like Ben Affleck's character, his acting is flat

too. His character has not depth and either does his performance.

Hmm, which came first...chicken or egg here? The story idea is

great, but it does not clip along at a good pace like a story taking

place in a day like this one should to feel right. I could not sit

through this movie. I left almost at the predictable end and got a

latte.


Okay, let's face it, this movie is trite. I was expecting a much better film, never mind better cinematography. But it's slow, tired and worn. The trailer was a better film than the movie... it moved, it had action and it left you wanting more.

The story starts off slowly, and never seems to really reach the speed you wish it would attain. The idea is good, the day in the life of two men who meet in a traffic accident and everything goes downhill after that, but the execution is severly lacking.

I don't know if it's the fact that the director treats us to so many shots where we see the back of someone's head as a shadow covering half the screen, or trucks rolling by in the forefront of the picture as scenes whiz by. Or maybe it's the unrealistic idea that a man who is trying to prove that he's a good father would stoop so low.

The acting is well done, but the characters that they play are one-dimensional and predictable. You aren't going to see much suspense here.


The Edinburgh Festival deserves a film. It is a strange occasion in a great city, and huge numbers of people around the world have experienced it. It brings its own array of bizarre characters and situations, mixing them with the locals, and then takes them away again just as quickly, until next year when some of them come back for more. If that's not a recipe for some interesting comedy/drama, I don't know what is.

Unfortunately this film fails to hit the mark. It is structured quite well, and I liked the idea of following one venue through the course of its day. The overall atmosphere of the city is well-caught too, on the whole, and people who know Edinburgh in August will recognise it.

But its main flaw is lack of empathy. There are quite a lot of characters, some of whom are quite funny, but very few of whom are particularly likable and attractive. Those who are likable often lack authenticity, and everyone suffers from a lack of depth. The episodic plot is also patchy - some of the events that befall certain characters have nothing at all to do with the Edinburgh Festival and seem almost to have been put in as time-fillers.

To be fair, there are some funny moments and quite a few good lines. But put it this way: If it's on TV and not costing you anything, then by all means watch it. However, I paid £3 to rent it, and by the end I felt it wasn't really worth the money.


I would agree with another reviewer that this film treads the line between humour and pathos - but I would qualify it by saying that the film rarely strays either side of the line - making it far less funny than a film about comedians could be, and far less dramatically satisfying than it could have been had it focused on one of the more dramatic story lines which litter it's plot.

Despite a talented cast the film flounders with it's scatter-shot narrative, cacophonous music, utterly gratuitous sexual content, and often childish characterisation.

There are some laughs to be had, but they are few and far between and the movie's downbeat ending (with a broken marriage, several failed relationships and the suicide of a central character) feels at odds with it's attempts at jaunty humour.

The Edinburgh festival is definitely an event worth visiting, but this film fails even to capture the genial, colourful atmosphere of the city during the festival period.

A terrible disappointment, and a squandered opportunity.


I'm at a loss to understand the high star rating (6.3 at last count) that this film has gathered - possibly explained by the IMDb star system being manipulated by cast and crew. This is unquestionably the worst British film I've ever seen (and not in a "so bad it's good" way - it's bad, I mean Gigli bad.) The script is weak, the characters are caricatures, the pace snail-like. Good actors are fed into the maw of the mincing machine of this abominable script like world war one infantry into the teeth of German machine guns. Every time you think their talent may rise above the direction and script it tears another chunk out of their performances and leaves them flailing.

How can a film about one of the most joyful and entertaining events in the world be so joyless and unentertaining. Its arch, self-knowing attempt to weave together the "brittle" world of comedy, the "agony" of paedophile priests, the "emptiness" of wealth and motherhood, the "pure joy" of performance FAILS SO DISMALLY THAT I WANT BACK THE TWO HOURS OF MY LIFE THAT I WASTED ON THIS RUBBISH.

Be careful - this review may make you want to watch the film - it shouldn't - spend the time more productively (I'm sure your toenails need clipping). It commits the worst sin of any film (especialiy about Edinburgh). It's boring.


I really wanted to like this film. A great cast of talented comedians such as Lyndsey Marshal, Stuart Milligan, Daniela Nardini, Stephen Mangan from Green Wing, Richard Ayoade and Chris O'Dowd from the IT crowd, Amelia Bullmore from Alan Partridge, Raquel Cassidy and Tom Goodman-Hill from The Worst Week of My Life, Duncan Duff given a preposterously short and weird part, Matthew Holness from The Office and Meredith MacNeill from Man Stroke Woman. So much talent here, and so badly wasted.

The plot is neither interesting nor funny; the script is boring beyond belief, with the few jokes thrown in being totally lame. Plus the random inclusion of disgusting and/or completely unnecessary scenes such as a priest going after a young boy, Stephen Mangan's genitalia, one of the Irish comedians being f*sted while holding some puppets, you get what I mean. It is just strange. Take it from me just don't bother, I began watching it, thought, yeah not so good but maybe it will pick up, no, an hour in, nothing happens, still no sign of any plot, comedy, I then did something more interesting like watch someone else watch paint dry.


I have to admit that I don't know how "Festival" ended. I gave up on it after just over half an hour. My wife gave up on it during the opening credits, which are accompanied by the most grating music ever used in cinema. Imagine the baying of a brazen pack of hell-hounds and up the volume to 11. You're still not even close to how nasty it sounds.

Writer/director Annie Griffin is responsible for one of my favourite TV series, "The Book Group", a funny and often moving tale of an odd bunch of literary fans, also set in Edinburgh. Unfortunately, she's dropped the ball pretty badly with "Festival". Concentrating on a 3rd series of "The Book Group" would have been a much better idea, Annie.

Despite a talented cast (including many fine comic actors) the film falls into a ditch thanks to the clichéd script and stereotypical characters. Having been introduced to The Unlikeable Star, The Feisty Journalist, The Rude and Unhelpful Stage Manager, The Uptight PA, The Insecure Comedian and a host of similar mini-grotesques, I found that I had no interest in what happened to any of them. 'What is the point of watching people who are either deeply unsympathetic or as wet as a water meadow if you're not being paid to do so?' I asked myself. When I also realised that I hadn't laughed once in 30 minutes, I concluded that it was time to turn the TV off.

Nasty lottery-funded rubbish. If you watch this all the way through and hate it, don't say that I didn't warn you.


This has to be the worst film of the year. Possibly of any year. (Doubly insulting that it's set in my home town.) What was it supposed to be? Satire? Social commentary? A series of badly written sketches with no discernible story? How anyone can watch this codswallop and not find themselves screaming at the screen is beyond me. And to watch some decent actors struggle with this appalling script was agony.

I have to assume it was some sort of tax dodge for the Scottish film industry. No one with any understanding and/or experience of film-making would surely sanction such utter tripe for creative reasons.

And the director wins a Scottish BAFTA? Who decided that? The same people who funded it perchance? It's no wonder no-one outside of Glasgow takes the 'Scottish Film Industry' seriously if this is perceived to be some sort of pinnacle. The only sensible thing would be to have a bonfire with all existing prints on Calton Hill beside Edinburgh's original disgrace.

Update#1 : I've just read that this unspeakable piece of rubbish also won a British Comedy award beating The Incredibles and Sideways. I think a steward's enquiry is required. Update #2: I've since spoken to a couple of people who were involved in this production and they both reported that "no-one seemed to know what they were doing, and boy does it show. The film made a mere £82,230 at the UK box office (I pray it wasn't released abroad) Great return on the £700K the UK Film Council wasted on it. It's no wonder they're desperately trying to recoup their investment via DVD sales and rental. Makes you proud to be British, doesn't it? Update three (not that I'm obsessed). The comments of D_G below are interesting. I'm inferring that we in the vast majority (and not just on this site) who thought this film had all the artistic merit of raw sewage have somehow missed the point? It's apparently too much to ask of an alleged black comedy to have some er, comedy in it. And the argument that it must be good because Book Club was doesn't wash either. If anything this debacle of a film has shown up Griffin's remarkable paucity of talent. Get real.


I really wanted to like this film for a couple of reasons 1. Annie Griifin did a fine job with the Book Club and 2. It's British. Sadly neither reason proved strong enough for me to be able to overlook Festival's many flaws.

I can only guess that Griffin's original aim was to write a movie where comedy and tragedy were so closely linked that it was difficult to see where one ended and the other began and what better backdrop that the Edinburgh Festival which every year attracts acts from all four corners of the world, who come to entertain and supposedly change their lives? Definitely a strong starting point for a funny, touching and thought provoking movie, unfortunately this ain't it.

For one thing we are asked to focus on far too many characters, assorted comics, bizarre actors and various hangers on who each have a story to tell but no time in which to tell it. As a result they never become anything other than one dimensional characters and unpleasant ones at that. Who is Faith, the actress behind the one woman show about Dorothy Wordsworth? Why has she chosen to do this? Why has she brought it to Edinburgh, what is she hoping to achieve? We never find out. Is Brother Mark a real priest. Why does Petra put up with Sean? Is she in love with his or just too apathetic to do anything else with her life? What's with the Canadian trio whose show touches the audience but who are presented to us as buffoons. And what about the depressed mother who abandons her child in what is presented to us as some sort of happy and romantic love story. Ditto the Perrier Awards which seem to be tacked on as an afterthought or just an excuse to introduce a bunch of stereotypical arty journalists spewing line upon line of bitchy clichés. Lots of questions but no answers and as a result the film added up to little more than an unholy mess.

And then the sex scenes. One commentator actually applauded these graphic and let's be honest gratuitous scenes decalring them to be "real" Well maybe he has been fisted many times on the floor of a puppet shop by a bald punk, I would hazard a guess and say that many of us have not. Guess that means movies like 'Deepthroat' should be regarded as social documentaries rather than porno junk.

I could go on to talk about the nonsensical punch up at the end but what would be the point? Suffice it to say that if this is the way that the UK Film Council is spending it's money then it's no wonder British film industry is in such dire straits.


I'm a movie buff and watch movies all the way through even if they aren't that good just to see the complete story. Festival was recently screened on Channel 4's new free movie channel (Film 4 UK) I'm a fan of Stephen Mangan from watching Green Wing so I thought I'd record it and watch it later - I erased the movie from my DVD recorder half way through it was that bad and struggled to make it that far! The story (if you can call it that) is bland, the characters are bland (with the exception of Chris O'Dowd's who plays a good part) Mangan's character is completely unlikeable and totally unfunny considering he is supposed to be playing a successful comedian.

And yes, there is that infamous scene where Mangan displays a (prosthitic) erection, which is shocking and can only have been included for shock value as it doesn't provide any laughs at all.

You have probably gathered that I didn't like this movie much, and you would be correct. I don't know if it improved in the second half as it got deleted after an hour..

This is not a great example of British film making, so if you happen to chance upon it while flicking through the channels - you have been warned!


One of the dullest, most poorly written film I have ever seen, give it a miss.

I've never looked forward to the credits of a film with more excitement.

That's all there is to say about this, but I will keep writing because I have to submit 10 lines of text for my review to be accepted.

I wouldn't have bothered because the film doesn't merit it, but I want to try and stop anyone else wasting their evening watching it like I did, so I'll keep on until I make the 10 lines needed. Actually this review is already much more interesting than the film.


The Edinburgh Festival would seem to be an excellent theme for a film, with so much going on in a vibrant, photogenic city. This film, however proves this not to be such a good idea. It is a real mess, it has no focus, instead following several different story lines with no depth or conviction. The characters are ill-conceived and two dimensional, the stories poorly written and clichéd. All this is particularly disappointing giving this is the same writer/director (Annie Griffin) who made the brilliant TV series 'the Book Group'. The whole film has the feeling that was a rushed affair. Potential viewers would be best advised to avoid this film, instead saving the money towards a trip to Edinburgh to visit the festival for real - a far more rewarding experience.


A film about grotesques. Couldn't believe that any of them were real people - or based on real people. So there was no sympathy towards any of them. They were cartoon characters. There was no intelligence. No humanity. No warmth. No real life in it - or them. It was all desperately dreary. Walked out of the cinema after the group session to select the contenders for the Comedy Award. I know it was supposed to be a satire on the types who get on such committees but it was so lacking in any bite it was just depressing. Setting up wooden targets to knock them down. Who cares? A real disappointment. Has put me off ever going anywhere near the Edinburgh Festival. They should sue for misrepresentation..


I saw this at a preview and it is complete and utter tripe. If I hear one more critic praise this 'film' for 'its depth of characterisation' I will eat my own head. Not good, not good at all. I can say however, that Edinburgh looks fabulous, but then it always does. The story lines are predictable, clichéd, and very dull - throw in a priest/actor with serious misgivings about his vocation, a couple of likely lad Irish comedians, a bit of gratuitous homosexual sex, a ditsy blonde with useless jokes, and a weedy leading lady trying to 'act' and you have a recipe for an absolute turkey. This is one I won't be returning to for the leftovers... it should have left in a car park it certainly doesn't deserve your hard-earned cash. I'm just glad I didn't pay to see it.


If you like horrible, campy movies,

you might like "Kill Squad".

But the real problem is we were serious when we made it. oops. I never made a penny on this movie. I guess that's o.k. Most of you were very kind in your comments Thank you for that. Your nice people. Someone mentioned that they bought the movie on Ebay for 6 cents. That was still too much to pay.I hope you never have the depressed shock to shoot a movie and have your voice looped without your permission or notice.There's nothing like the feeling of being laughed at by movie goers in Norway. Jeff Risk


Pitiful. Desperately boring. I've seen this movie the same day I watched the 5th Element. The story is just unbelievable. Example : Delon and Belmondo do not know each other, but when they take their weapons for the gunfight (in an arsenal worthy of Saddam Hussein in his best days), they joke about an hypothetic "good old time" when they obviously have met... Another example : everyone knows that a latex ball (you know, the kind your dog likes to bite) is the perfect tool to steal a Mercedes or a BMW : just push it hardly, it's magic, forget the keys !!! I could have talked about the "hidden daughter" that comes back after years, but it has been used and reused so many times... I was even surprised to learn that Leconte had been unimaginative enough to use it again ! As an advertiser, he knows his job. But this movie convinces me he should stop spoiling film... Turning to Belmondo and Delon, they are lost for action movies. And Paradis... well, she was a rebellious teenager in "Noces blanches". And she looks quite the same in "1 chance sur 2". Perhaps she'll dare to act as something else one day... who knows, maybe as an actress !