When Peter Sellers died in 1980 he was planning on another Clouseau film. He probably hated the idea, although he was writing the script. Sellers knew that his signature role for all time would be the stumble-bum French Inspector, but he hated how it hid his performances in, say, DR. STRANGELOVE or BEING THERE from the memory of the public. For as other actors caught in repeat performances of the same part (think of Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes or Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates) have said, those repeat roles are just going through the same paces again and again, and don't help stretch the performers talents.

What is odd about TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER is that it is a posthumous resurrection of Sellers due to Blake Edwards, who should have known far better than to do this. Some dead actors have managed to reappear after they died in films, like Jean Harlow in SARATOGA, but usually they were shooting the film when they got sick and died. In TRAIL OF THE PINK PANTHER Edwards decided to use outtakes and some cut sequences to build up a plot for a new film.

Supposedly, for the third time in the series, the actual "Pink Panther", the stone that Claudia Cardinale was struggling to hold onto in the first film, is the center of a robbery - a successful one. Clousseau is sent to solve the robbery. But his plane apparently crashes into the sea. Is the great detective dead or not?

Joanne Lumley plays French television journalist Marie Jouvet. She is assigned to investigate the disappearance of Clousseau and who might be behind it. There are many potential characters: Chief Inspector Dreyfus (Herbert Lom, twitching again), the head of the French Mafia (Robert Loggia) - still struggling from their defeat by Clousseau in 1978, and even Sir Charles and now Lady Lytton (David Niven and Capuchine, reunited for this second film). Cato (Burt Kwouk) and Clousseau's old assistant Hercule Lajoy (Graham Stark) are interviewed. And the clips and outtakes are added in a sad attempt to give unity to the mess.

For it was a real mess.

Basically, Sellers was (in 1982) seemingly irreplaceable in the role. The public identified him with the French detective who mispronounced the English pronunciation of "monkey" as "minkey". The public watching the film could only consider it a curiosity at best. They might stretch it into an attempt at honoring a great comic actor. But they probably also thought it shabby, which it was. The other films preceding it had benefited from the energy of Sellers characterization (rather subtle one, by the way: people tend to forget that clumsy and arrogant as Clousseau was, he was a brilliant detective - listen to his conversation with Lajoy in a sequence from A SHOT IN THE DARK regarding the suspect Maria Gambrelli - we know Clousseau is in love with her, but he points out very sharply she had no motive for the murder she has been accused of). The sequences with Sellers at work had his energy, but the gaps appeared when Lumley or rest of the cast struggled with the vapid plot.

The actors are not doing badly. Best is Richard Mulligan as the elderly father of Clousseau (who would like to make time with the reporter), and Lom of course. Stark is an old scene stealing pro (look at his subsequent work in VICTOR/VICTORIA as a snide and suspicious waiter). Here he is Lajoy enjoying his retirement. He shares an easy sequence with Lumley (one wishes there was more to it). She is quite good too, but her role is confused by the script (her best sequence is not with Loggia - a sad lost opportunity by two good performers - but just before when she realizes her taxi driver is being forced to kidnap her). She also has a moment confronting Lom (who can't give a damn about finding Clousseau) where she mimics his twitching eye.

But why they trotted out Niven again is beyond me. He was within a year or so of his death, from Lou Gehrig's disease. He no longer had that wonderful gentleman's voice of his, so Rich Little was dubbing for him. You listen and you realize it is not Niven. That is just doubly sad.

It could have been different in two ways. In 1982 the roles of both Clousseau and Sir Charles Lytton were not totally sewed up by Sellers and Niven. A film called INSPECTOR CLOUSSEAU had been made in the middle 1960s starring Alan Arkin, who might have been available to attempt the role again. And in the early 1970s, the third Pink Panther film had resurrected Sir Charles and Lady Lytton with the jewel robber being played by Christopher Plummer. A bit of recasting would have been needed. If they had done it (presumably if the performers were available or when they were) more time might have been spent on the script. Sadly that was not the case here.

Edwards would make another "Pink Panther" film after this, which did less box office than this one did. Then, wisely, he went onto other projects. They never did find Jacques Clousseau in these last two films. The last two films were so terrible they did not deserve to merit the recovery of Insp. Clousseau. Now, aside from an occasional viewing on television both are forgotten (as is Arkin's one attempt at the role). However, Steve Martin took over the role a few years ago, with Kevin Klein taking over Lom's role as Dreyfus. Martin will shortly be seen in a sequel to his first "Pink Panther" film. Good luck to him - he has big shoes to fill.


Say this for the people who robbed Charlie Chaplin's grave - at least they didn't bring a camera along.

Blake Edwards on the other hand showed no such scruples when it came to the star of his Pink Panther franchise, Peter Sellers. Dead for two years, Sellers was put back into service with the help of outtakes from older Panther movies and new footage shot around the expired star. It's hard to make chicken salad from chicken feathers, but this film hardly tries, loosely connecting indifferent footage of Sellers playing Inspector Jacques Clouseau to later scenes involving the disappearances of the Pink Panther diamond and, eventually, Clouseau himself.

While Edwards claimed the point of this film was to honor Sellers' legacy, in fact he felt the same way of his dead star as Herbert Lom's Chief Inspector Dreyfus did of Clouseau, unable to refer to him in promotional interviews for this movie as anything other than "Sellers." The actual purpose of the film is twofold. First, he wanted to make a lot of money. Second, he wanted people to know who was behind the Panther franchise, a point made at the very start of the film when the name "Blake Edwards" fills the screen, before becoming "Blake Entertainment Edwards."

Maybe I sound down on Edwards; if Sellers had his way, there would have been a Pink Panther movie with a different director and the result probably would have been nearly as bad. But you have to wonder what, other than money and ego, could motivate a smart, funny guy like Edwards to make a film full of bad jokes and go-nowhere story lines.

Dreyfus tells his shrink about his pending breakdown from dealing with Clouseau. "You just lapsed into the lyrics of 'You Go To My Head'" the psychiatrist says.

"I did? I apologize!" "Never apologize for Cole Porter."

Later, as if to amplify this non-joke, the psychiatrist realizes the song isn't by Cole Porter. He identifies the song's true authors, and Dreyfus whimpers as he holds his hand to his head, about what who knows.

Eventually the fresher material, lame as it is, dries up, and Edwards and co-writer Geoffrey Edwards (Thanks, Dad!) recycle other Pink Panther movies. A fake nose from disguise dealer Auguste Balls is called "Wino And Roses," a play on a previous Edwards film also used as a joke in "Revenge Of The Pink Panther." Much of Sellers' discarded footage are built around the same idea of his starting a fire by lighting a pipe or cigar, but allowed to run together anyway just to keep Sellers in the film as long as possible.

But even with all that, Sellers' scenes run out with more than half the film to go, forcing Edwards to improvise, not at all well. Joanne Lumley, the future "Absolutely Fabulous" star, plays an intrepid TV reporter visiting Clouseau's old friends who wax rhapsodic about Clouseau and provide Edwards with the opportunity to even more shamefully pad his movie with actual clips from the older films, some running two minutes in length.

The chance to see the discarded footage is interesting, and one sequence in a British hotel where Clouseau has terrible luck answering the phone is amusing, but mostly it serves to show just how good a job Edwards and his editor Alan Jones did with "The Pink Panther Strikes Again," where the outtakes came from.

Another painful element of "Trail" is David Niven, his voice all but gone and dubbed by Rich Little, attempting to reprise his role as Sir Charles Lytton. At least Niven was alive at the time, and signed a contract to be in this film.

"He epitomized the 11th commandment" Niven/Little says of Clouseau. "Thou Shalt Not Give Up!" That's one commandment Edwards would have been better off breaking as far as this series was concerned.


This movie was quite disappointing. I sat down, ready to watch the last Peter Sellers Pink Panther, and got a retrospective with a throwaway plot pieced together from outtakes and non-Sellers moments introducing well-known clips. I should have stopped the tape when Somebody takes the Pink Panther without even tripping one alarm.

What starts out as a movie funny enough to watch, even if the plot seemed a little overdone, screeches to a halt as soon as Clouseau's plane vanishes. The closest anybody comes to trying to solve the mystery is the scene when the reporter is threatened by the mob boss. Otherwise, it's just a retrospective.

I was getting the feeling the movie wasn't going to move before David Niven's character (dubbed badly and most distractingly) made those comments about how the world needed men like Clouseau, etc, etc, indestructible... yawn. From there on, with the exception of Clouseau's youth flashbacks, the only great laughs came from clips pillaged from other movies.

This movie's comedy leans heavily on Dreyfus' new relapse, a subplot that was getting tired ever since they disintegrated him in "Strikes Back" Just when it seems that the movie is going to start moving again, it does. To the credits. Clouseau is not found, that is a mystery for the next movie to solve.

Peppered with characters I never thought or cared to see again, (Colonel Sharky, et al) the plot is shaky if even near-nonexistent. This documentary laughingly called a movie gets a four only for the top-notch job editing together cut scenes into enough plot to get the audience to stay for the other sixty minutes. Don't waste your time on this movie more than once.


Trail of the Pink Panther (1982) - On 24 July 1980, Mr. Peter Sellers had past away prior to making this film. Sellers' third wife, Lynne Frederick, won a $1.475 million lawsuit against the makers of this film. She said the film insulted the memory of her late husband - I must agree! Sure there were some nice clips that made me chuckle, but really Mr. Frank Waldman!  (The screenplay writer) Mr. Steve Martin is scheduled to continue the Pink Panther crusade in none other than "THE PINK PANTHER" opening on September 23, 2005. One must agree, no one can put on the long pants Sellers pranced around, fell down and got back up in quite as well. Although, seeing Martin take on many characters he does have a knack of making a character his own. Perhaps he'll add some witty element(s) Sellers had neglected or the times would not consent to. (Unlikely) Or, perhaps Martin will create a new character using a template Sellers had developed. (More Likely) Bottom-Line: Maybe it's just me, but when a world-renowned physical comedy actor passes away it is insulting to clip together a film intern creating a mockery of what Sellers believed so hole-hardily in - an original honest laugh. "E" for Effort at best Director Edwards  3/10


This film is made up of bits and pieces of film that they found on the cutting room floor, that didn't belong in their first movie, and don't belong in this one. Add to that the lack of any plot to hang the clips on, and this makes for more film that belongs on the cutting room floor.


Some movie executives deserve to burn in movie Hell for their actions. This is DEFINITELY the case with those who chose to make this film and the followup, THE CURSE OF THE PINK PANTHER. In THE CURSE, it's really just a movie clip film--with outtakes and clips from Peter Sellers' other Panther films. In the case of this film, it's bringing in a plucky female cop and having her interview all the living characters they could muster from the previous films and stitch that into a new movie! To make matters worse, David Niven (who starred in the very first Panther movie) is back despite the fact that he's almost dead! In fact, he was so weak and sickly that his voice needed to be dubbed! This is a sad and pathetic way to continue a series--just let it die, fellas!


I think this film is awful it was done when Peter Sellers already was dead.Maybe there are funny clips when Peter Sellers are in but I still don´t think that this film are a little bit funny.

RATING: 1/5


Rather than despairing about the loss of a comedic genius or the choices made by studios or Director Blake Edwards after his death, my review will focus on Trail of the Pink Panther's successful eulogy for the series and the great Peter Sellers. The film is clearly a tribute from its dedication - "To Peter, the one and only Inspector Clouseau" to its ambiguous and seemingly symbolic ending.

The Pink Panther has been stolen, and Clouseau (Sellers) is on his way to Lugash. Over the ocean, his plane disappears. Is Clouseau really gone or is this just another of his ingenious tricks and is he undercover in Lugash hunting the perpetrator. Chief Inspector Dreyfus (Lom)is at first overjoyed - he may finally be rid of Clouseau - but soon enough he begins to suspect that he will see his former colleague again, and his debilitating obsessions return. Meanwhile, a French reporter (Lumley) begins a series of investigative reports trying to get to the bottom of the Clouseau disappearance. She interviews Cato (Burt Kwouk) and many of Clouseau's enemies, colleagues and acquaintances.

Sellers appears in the film only in archive footage and scenes cut from previous films. The same is true for most of the other Panther veterans in the film, but several new Dreyfus scenes were added. The first half of the film, prior to Clouseau's disappearance, hang together well-enough - but it is very clear that we are seeing a film which has been loosely cobbled together from a collage of material. The second half, while more coherent and linearly plotted, lacks Peter Sellers - and - really - just isn't very funny.

Lom, Kwouk and Lumley turn in the best performances here, and after Clouseau's disappearance, Lom and Kwouk are really the only performers who occasionally create a laugh.

The absence of Peter Sellers is palpable in the second half of the film, and although the film clearly attempts to remain light-hearted and Pantheresque, this absence lends a sadness to Trail of the Pink Panther which makes it a much more successful eulogy than comedy. However, all considered, it is probably the least entertaining film in the Pink Panther canon.


As an avid Pink Panther freak, I have nothing but contempt for the Panthers made after the death of the 'master'.

This abomination not only uses outtakes but also used takes from Strikes Again and Return. Scenes we've seen before are thrust at us to pad out the running time.

There are reasons that scenes end up on the cutting room floor: They are crap or do not flow properly.

This is a disaster from start to finish. Herbert Lom is a good as ever but he really should have known better than to bother.

The fact that they tried again the following year with Curse Of The Pink Panther is beyond belief...The power of the dollar! Shocking.


I believe Blake Edwards intentions with this movie were noble. I'm sure it was meant as a tribute to Peter Sellers, who passed away in 1980, for playing Chief Insp. Jacques Clouseau so greatly in the previous more successful Pink Panther movies. It does this by using archive footage of Sellers in his role as Clouseau and by incorporating 'interviews' with people Clouseau encountered in the previous movies. This also means the return of David Niven, Robert Loggia, Harvey Korman, Graham Stark, Capucine, Burt Kwouk, André Maranne and of course Herbert Lom. Some of them only had appeared in the earliest of the Pink Panther movies and I felt that they appeared in this movie because they felt they owed it to Peter Sellers. I mean they really didn't needed to appear in this movie unless they really wanted to. After all David Niven was already seriously ill at the time and also died shortly after shooting.

Therefor this movie can perhaps be better seen as a special you would normally see on a DVD, that is paying tribute to a past away actor. However there were obviously no DVD's yet in 1982 and a TV special would perhaps had been too expensive and simplistic as a tribute. I'm sure Blake Edwards wanted to make something special for his good old friend and at the same time also use this movie as a set up for the next sequel "Curse of the Pink Panther", which was also shot at the same time as this movie and is therefor also featuring most of the same actors.

However big mistake that Blade Edwards made was that he tried to incorporate a story into this movie. This story however seen gets abandoned again early on into the movie, as if they ran out of good usable Peter Sellers archive footage.

Watching this old cut archive footage also often makes it obvious why it got cut from the original movies. Often the sequences go on for too long and are stretched out far too much, as if Sellers and his fellow actors and director were merely trying out some stuff to see what would work and what wouldn't and how far they could go with things. The comedy in those sequences also often doesn't work out as intended, which explains why they never made the final cut. It's also confusing to see some sequences that were obviously meant original for mainly "The Pink Panther Strikes Again" and "Revenge of the Pink Panther" incorporated into this movie as part of the story but however these different sequences obviously don't really connect with each other also because most of those sequences are basically the same, though less good, ones that got eventually used in those earlier mentioned movies.

But also the originally shot comical sequences for this movie don't really work out. Peter Sellers is simply missed too much in this movie. Blake Edwards tried but his attempts simply weren't good enough. He tried to make it work by putting also new characters into the movie, such as Clouseau's father.

A failed experimental attempt by Blake Edwards.

4/10


The unexpected and premature death of Peter Sellers at an early age of 54 robbed the world a comic genius in both radio and film and should have brought an abrupt end to any forthcoming Pink Panther film. Somehow it didn't stop director Blake Edwards from coming up with a hapless idea in making a series of posthumous flops, the first being the Trail of the Pink Panther that I comment about. This film with some clips featuring Peter Sellers were from deleted scenes together with a lame plot to suggested that the incompetent French detective Inspector Clouseau had disappeared in mysterious circumstances while Joanna Lumley played a journalist in search for an answer using as-filmed footages together with much of the Peter Sellers scenes actually coming from The Pink Panther Strikes Again. It just didn't work and not even the remaining two films that followed and they are only fit to end up in the cutting room bin but at what cost. In fact, I have recently seen some DVD issues of the complete Pink Panther set onto the domestic film market with some posthumous films added in but I would recommend anyone and even myself to avoid these somewhat cunning releases and buy the best ones individually at the lowest price. Also I wish the deleted Peter Sellers scenes were restored back to where they originally belonged.


My Take: Nothing more but guest stars and reused footage to substitute for laughs.

Peter Sellers has always been famous for comedy roles that would shape the ineptitude and clumsiness of comedians to come. It all started with "The Pink Panther", in 1962 and directed by Blake Edwards. His role their inspired sequels, with some even outdoing the original. Although Sellers had played other roles, his role as inept Inspector Closeau is one of his most memorable. The power of that role pushed director Blake Edwards to do another "Panther" film, a couple of years after Sellers' death. It was "Trail of the Pink Panther".

"Trail"'s story involves the robbery of the Pink Panther diamond in Lugash (once again), but that remains unsolved even after this film ends, for the real plot is the disappearance of clumsy Inspector Closeau. Wait a minute, how can Sellers play Closeau if he passed away a couple of years ago? Simple (for Edwards), throw in deleted and archive footage from other "Panther" films, place new footage from "Pink Panther" film returnees David Niven (dubbed, due to his voice lossage), Capucine, Burt Kwouk, Herbert Lom and others and poof! We have "Trail of the Pink Panther", all set and ready to be released.

Frankly, the film works on some bits because we love "The Pink Panther", and seeing those laughs again reminds us of them. But the entire film is a rather convoluted mess, mainly for the spliced in footage. What is the movie about really? Closeau or the Pink Panther? As if it mattered much. The film just lags a bit it recycles (literally) every laugh in the film.

What Edwards has done here is not a film, it's just a fast way to watch the entire "Panther" series. It should have been called "The "Pink Panther" series in 96 minutes." (with additional footage).

Rating: ** out of 5.


Oddly enough, this was the first Pink Panther film I ever saw. Thanks to its "flashback" scenes, I got interested in the PP series and eventually saw all the previous entries.

Although this film was clearly a bad idea from the beginning, the first half actually isn't too bad. I didn't realize, until it was pointed out, that all of Sellers' scenes were deleted (or reused) footage from previous films. I had thought (like some other people who've commented) that Sellers had actually filmed scenes for this movie but died before finishing; that's testimony that Edwards actually did a pretty good job of incorporating old footage into a new story.

Things start to go wrong when the Sellers footage runs out, at the moment Closeau's voice is dubbed in with the worst imitation imaginable. Soon almost all pretense of a plot is dropped. Now we get pointless interviews with past PP characters that comprise a tribute (often unbearably corny) to Closeau. He's discussed as if he's a movie character but the interviewees aren't; it all has nothing to do with how anyone would act if Closeau were real or any of the "plot" were actually happening. "Flashback" scenes are over-explained, and one in particular (involving Cato) comes so totally out of nowhere as to be confusing and disruptive. Finally, the scene with the "grape treaders" was totally unnecessary. (At least it was easily edited out for TV showings.)

Not everything's bad, though. Herbert Lom is the best thing about this movie; he holds it together as well as could be expected. Showing scenes from Closeau's early life was a good idea, even if it wasn't carried out well. The part with the dog guiding the old woman is original and funny. At the end plot points are left unresolved all over the place, but that's OK because we're being set up for a sequel.

One could say this movie shouldn't have been made. That's arguable, but it certainly could have been made better than it was.


'Trail of the Pink Panther' (1982) has gathered much talk about its lead star Peter Sellers, who died two years before the film was released. One might ask how is this possible. Simple, director Blake Edwards took footage from previous Pink Panther films along with new footage to make a story. One will also ask the question whether these deleted scenes can really last for 90 minutes, and they'll be right.

The film follows the story of when the famed diamond 'The Pink Panther' is stolen once again. Inspector Clouseau (Peter Sellers) is again called to solve the case, and at the same time driving Dreyfus (Herbert Lom) insane. But Clouseau plane goes missing. The film then shows a reporter (Joanna Lumley) talking to people who knew him best.

The first half which Sellers is in excels (even though one can easily tell that all his scenes are just deleted scenes), but once he's gone, every goes downhill. Joanna Lumley is god-awful, giving an annoying French accent. It also seems a bit pathetic to recycle old clips from previous films. However, David Niven and Herbert Lom help the film a bit.

While the film has many problems (actaully many), it's a good piece of Comedy, and also a nice tribute to the late great Peter Sellers.


The pink panther jewel again has been robbed and as suspect is also the famous thief named the Phantom(David Niven),botcher,bungling Inspector French Surete Jacques Clouseau is assigned to investigate it .But his plane is disappeared.His nemesis Chief Inspector Dreifus(Herbert Lom) jumps with joy.A journalist(Joanna Lumley) wants to look for him, she interviews various personages series (Burt Kwouk,Andre Maranne,Niven and Richard Mulligan as Clouseau's father)to make a television programme .

This is the last film with Peter Sellers who died during the filming and is constituted by a compilation of stock shots and outtakes from previous films added original reel.The combining old and new material is a little embarrassing and absurd.Thus appear images film as ¨Pink panther strikes again¨(again with Colin Blakely and Leonard Rossiter),¨revenge of the Pink panther¨,and struggles with Cato Fong(Burt Kwouk) what we have seen in previous films.The new filming realized evolves a costars cameo(Capucine,Niven,Graham Stark) of early Pink movies.Both shooting are linked with some hilarious and diverting moments but another ridiculous and disappointed. Opening and ending titles by Depatie and Friz Freling,they'll make the successful TV cartoon episodes.A always lively and catching music by the great Henry Mancini.This time writer,producer director Blake Edwards is limited the editing the former and some new footage and making a mediocre film. Rating : Below average.


This movie was not very funny, and it didn't work either. I'm a Pink Panther fan and like any devoted fan I try to watch every Panther movie, but this was not worth while. It started interestingly though, but Edwards used all his material with Sellers too soon and stretched the movie endlessly. NOTHING at all was funny after the first half. Before the first half were admittedly some funny parts, mostly left over material from "Strikes Again" (I thought the car lighter scene was funny and also the scene on the plane). The film could have worked if it were 60-70 minutes and on TV, but this film runs for more than 90 minutes! And even more so. It ends with the mystery unsolved (Whaaaaa!) This film can EASILY be trimmed of material since it is very loose already but I don't think it would be worth it. Edwards could have made SO much better out of what he had. Only recommended if you would like to see some extra scenes that are a little funny accompanied by their original films

3/10


What a shocking piece of money-grabbing trash this film is. There is no plot, no humour and plenty of people dipping their hands into the pool of money to be made by Mr.Sellers's death. If there was a score of zero available to me, I would have given that to this.


OK this is the 2nd appearance of The Pink Panther even though there were several other titles with that name it has nothing to do with it it was only in for a cameo where someone steals it and Cluesau is kidnapped (after the abomination of the first one I'm celebrating) and some journalist asks questions about Cluesau (Cluesau isn't in this one only in Archive Footage I know a complete ripoff even though so was the rest of the series) and they ask even Charles the real "Phantom" makes an appearance we see Clueseau's childhood and all this other crap which has nothing to do with anything if the journalist was really an author writing bio's about detectives who are so stupid it isn't funny (the only other thing in that category is FAMILY GUY) OK Clueseau isn't found. Oh we are all depressed *sarcasm*. seriously if I were to recommend any of the Pink Panther series which I am still trying to put my finger on why the #### anyone calls the series COMEDY (don't worry I get that a lot like with movies like Charlies Angels 2, Pirate Movie, Muriels Wedding (I am still ashamed I even watched it) (don't watch Full Throttle even if somebody pays you $100) well this movie is horrible not for anyone with intelligence (maybe from Cluesau to Clueless)


This message goes to all fans of The Pink Panther Series. Do not buy or even rent this horrible movie. I am a fan of pink panther films and when I finished the movie I was left crying and not they way the movie wants you to. I was sad that they ruined the series. I was sad because they killed Inspector. I mean, just because Peter Sellers died. I'm not saying that I'm not sad that he died it's just that I think that Peter Sellers would also not like this movie. The first part is very funny and original but by the time Inspetor Clouseau dies there is no comedy what so ever. Please fans do not watch this movie because it will ruin your idea of The Pink Panther for ever.


A pretty poor made-for-TV movie that was *the* pilot for the television show "T.J. Hooker" starring William Shatner. "You don't need to worry about wasting hours trying to figure out what T.J. stands for -- you all will know me as Sergeant."

The beginning of the movie is laughably bad. Shatner's Hooker is introduced to us as a mean, harsh military-style Sergeant getting ready to train his new "troops."

Hooker pretty much teaches his new cadets his own style of police force - the raw vengeance sort of deal. Then there's the introduction of a subplot that just becomes silly.

Quentin Tarantino referenced "T.J. Hooker" in his screenplay for "True Romance." It's a huge part of society. It's even been in "Showtime" with De Niro and Murphy.

Yet it all started because of a really poor made-for-TV movie. If I were the studio, I would never have picked up "T.J. Hooker" after seeing this travesty. I'm surprised anyone did.

2/5 stars.

- John Ulmer


This one hurt. And I'm usually a sucker for really bad Twister ripoffs made for cable. We've seen this plot before, twice. Estranged parent-child relationship, because said parent is too devoted to chasing that big storm. Parent is obsessed with storms because of a tragedy in their childhood. Parent predicts The Big One will hit right where estranged child lives. Child doesn't believe them. Child has has several tense emo moments with parent. Big tornado predictably hits, key characters survive, and everyone is happy. See "Devil Winds" and "Tornado Warning" for this by -the-numbers plot as well. Amusingly, they use global warming for an excuse to "move" Tornado Alley to the pacific northwest so they could shoot cheaply in Vancouver. As expected, the tornado effects are lackluster. The CGI crew just rendered the same tornado for every scene. I think what really got to me was the darkness of the movie. By that I do not mean a grim undertone to the story... but rather how literally dark the image was throughout. I spent a lot of time straining to make out various details like character faces and locales. The environment around a tornado can be very dark, but this was done throughout the movie. I can only recommend this to people who didn't think it could get any worse than Atomic Twister.


I'm a storm chaser, which means I'm usually avid for any sort of storm-disaster movie, no matter how stupid. But this one not only wasted the fifteen minutes I spent watching it, it's compelling me to waste yet more time writing this review. That's how strongly I feel about it.

In this day and age, with so many weather websites available, there's no excuse whatsoever for a writer not to go see what a tornado looks like on radar--clue: It's not a hurricane! And FYI, storms do not growl. Chasers and storm fans and TV watchers, oh my, do yourself a favor and rent Twister again instead.


The premise of this show is completely unrealistic. And it rips off other movies, such as "Twister" and really bad shows like "Night of the Twisters." Mimi Rogers basically plays the same character Helen Hunt played in "Twister"; someone who experienced a family death during a tornado when she was younger. Now she's obsessed with storms. But she has to prove "the big one" is coming.

Plus, the science is in no way based on fact. Tornado Alley CAN NOT "move" to Seattle. Where were the fact checkers for this show? But what should one expect - it IS "Lifetime" channel.

So watch something better. Like an old-fashioned test pattern.


A very fifty-something-looking Mimi Rogers cast as a thirty-something college prof is just the FIRST of many absurd incongruities that make this film hard to stomach. Much of the script and action are so completely inane that suspending disbelief enough to enjoy the story for its timely dramatic premise is just not do-able. For example, we cut in one scene to the lead (Mimi Rogers') character's teenaged daughter sitting forlornly in front of her school, which -- despite its rather formidable-looking concrete and steel construction -- has just been torn to shreds by a not particularly strong tornado. Even though mom arrived minutes after the tornado hit (and had to evade a police roadblock to do so) the daughter -- who had, by the way, ignored an earlier cellphone message from weather-guru mom warning of the impending twister -- tears a strip off mom, apparently for not being there with her while the school was being torn apart ("Where were you? I was here by myself! I was sooooo embarrassed!")


"Wow" is truly the only word to describe this movie, and not in a good way. First, the animation is clearly cheaply done and looks more like a fifteen minute show on cartoon network than a film. Leonard Nemoy does give his voice talents, however "Mountrouds" voice is horribly annoying, especially after about an hour of watching the film. The story is bad and extremely confusing, especially for youngsters. Also, the "educational" trip through time fails to mention all-hallows-eve, the real history of Halloween. Oh yeah, and I forgot about the redeeming message in this film --- I'm still trying to figure that out. Friendship maybe...hmm? All together a terrible movie for adults and children alike. Do yourself a favor and rent out a disney film. 2/10


Yeah... This one is most definitely Wonder Bread style of "we're number one, we're number one" USA flag-waving. Patriarchial "Morning in America" fluff .

This movie tries not to be mean and frightful during war-time. Unlike most of the WWII melodramas and action films that typically come from the west, it relies on the HallMark Greeting Card/Boys Life Magazine view of dark and light, and not The Shadow Knows pulp fear most of this era's wartime drama relies upon.

Too often, this film pulls what politicians through the ages (most embarrassingly right now ) in skirting issues with massaging its audience's ego to ensure no one questions any flaws in the image of any "greater good". A trick to get basically decent people to fall in step and accept or perform some horrible things all in the name of Homefront, Homeland, and the like.

I do understand when it was made and what was happening to the world. But I also understand these films were made in close partnership with our own propaganda offices in US Government. Even in a war that had to be fought in its time, this film's simplistic, condescending emotional symbolism, and manipulation, are exactly the smoke and mirrors that are used right now on this generation's "every person USA".

It tells it audience to be adults and stand up. But more often than not, it tells us (like ill- informed children) to lock in step. Not only in needed physical action to "fight the good fight", but also in our intellectual understanding of complex issues at home at around the world. Hmmm... Just like the current echo-machinery. Some things never change...in a country too enamored by celebrity, wealth, authority, and power... sigh.

And I agree with some about the plot. You know exactly what will happen to everyone in the very first 10 minutes of this film. You really do know everything that will happen.

Lastly, in it's well intentioned "understanding" of the Great Melting Pot, this film performs MAJOR racial/ethnic/sexual insults regularly. I thought I was going to puke during many scenes and lines that, however tamed down, were just quieter racial and sexual stereotyping, still echoing throughout America today, by either well meaning and mostly caucasian "moderate" liberals or conservatives.


Knowing the reputation this film has, I really wanted to like it. It has a great cast, a top-rank director, one of the best writers in American literature, and came out of the classiest studio in Hollywood. With all that going for it, I really should have liked this movie. I didn't.

The acting is first-rate, especially by Mickey Rooney. Even James Craig, who was a second- (or even third-) string Clark Gable at MGM, did a commendable job. It's very smoothly directed by Clarence Brown, it's beautifully photographed--it's just so damn hokey. I understand that it was a propaganda piece meant to lift up home-front morale during the war, and it has to be looked at in that light, but it dates so badly as to make it almost unwatchable. Maybe people acted that way in 1943 (or MGM wanted people to think so, anyway), but it has this unreal, almost Wizard-of-Oz quality to it so that you can't really identify with or relate to any of the characters. Rooney almost makes it work--it's probably one of the two or three best performances in his career--but the film's frankly unreal atmosphere finally defeats it.

I know people who get absolutely rhapsodic over this movie. I think that's because it evokes a Norman Rockwell period of American history that really didn't exist even during Rockwell's time. It's the way people would like things to have been, rather than the way they actually were. That may make for a nice Hallmark Christmas card, but it doesn't necessarily translate into a good movie, and unfortunately this one isn't. I wish I could have liked it more than I did, but it just didn't cut it.


The Human Comedy belongs in that sub-genre of sappy WWII propaganda films like The Best Years of Our Lives, Hail the Conquering Hero, and Mrs. Miniver. Unfortunately, it's much worse than any of those just mentioned.

No doubt, if it was 1943 and I had just lost a loved one to WWII, I would be more in tune with the bittersweet mood of this movie. That being said, it's still terrible. The world in this film is so ridiculously wholesome that it could be (and maybe is) one of the inspirations for Pleasantville. I forced myself to sit through every painstaking minute, because it won an Oscar for best screenplay. I suspect that it really won the Oscar for being a WWII movie in 1943.


Zandy's Bride is quite interesting because it deals with a theme that has become relevant again in the 21st century. It's about a mail order bride, and of course with the introduction of the Internet into the majority of modern homes, the idea shopping for a wife has once again reared its ugly head. Beyond the topicality, however, the film is a failure on most other counts.

Gene Hackman plays a rough and rugged pioneer living on a ranch in the middle of nowhere. He is waiting around for a mail order bride from Scandinavia, and when she arrives he mistreats her. It's not that he's a nasty man, more that he has lived a simple and uncomplicated life and he finds it hard to relate properly to another human being (especially of the opposite sex) after so many years of labouring away in such lonely surroundings.

The bride is played well by Liv Ullmann. The backdrop to the film is beautifully captured. Beyond the performances and the scenery, there's not much else to hold the attention. It's a boring film, critically hindered by the fact that it has too little to say and no notable plot to follow through to a logical conclusion. The unsuited pair meet, fall out a lot, and that's just about it. As much as I admire Hackman (worth watching in all his films... a real consummate actor), this one just isn't worth the effort. Skip it.


In 1995 Sean Patrick Flanery was 30 years old; too old for the part. A albino adolescent genius who would make Einstein and Hawking look like preschoolers is treated like a parolee. What kind of school counselor would send such a person on a camping trip with teenage hoodlums under the supervision of a gun-fetish, stump-jumping deputy. Telepathy and telekinesis take a back seat to the antics of redneck cops. Anyone, anywhere with this kind of power would have come to the attention of someone vastly more important than a "grey flannel suit" department of education bureaucrat. In the real world Powder would be kept at Area 51.


During the first 45 minutes I thought that this movie wouldn't be as bad as most other movie of this genre. But then I was proved wrong.


Granted, I saw it on TV, and it was no doubt butchered. (Why language gets recast in TV dubbing is beyond me when sitcoms now include some of the raunchiest allusions imaginable. But, of course, they never get right down into the gutter with George Carlin's "Seven Deadly Words." Heavens, say F***, S*** or C***, and you get bleeped, but describe the activity in puerile detail and we can't get enough. Go figure.)

But we would all have been better off if the entire movie were bleeped owing to the ridiculous screenplay this film foists upon us. The scenes were so predictable and the stereotypes so obvious that dialog wasn't necessary. Fill in the blanks. Your choice of words would have been every bit as convincing and emotionally uplifting as the nonsense many other reviewers here seem not only to ignore, but enjoy. A fatal flaw for this film as far as I'm concerned. I like Mary Steenburgen, and Lance Henricksen, and most of the rest of the cast were credible, too, given allowances for the mess they had to work with.

As for the child molestation business, and the claims of ripoff -- both irrelevant when this banal, derivative film sinks itself in its own morass of cliches.

I was led to expect more. I got much less. Go see any number of other films that do so much a better job of putting the outsider among us to reveal our prejudices and fears and irrational reactions to the unknown. Start with Tarzan, finish with Mighty Joe Young. Most will leave you more satisfied than Powder.


This is a kind of "morality play," featuring a young albino man who has superhuman intellect and psychic powers ostensibly due to his mother having been killed by lightning while he was still in utero. With his ability to read the thoughts and feelings of others, he guages adult social relationships and situations with piercing accuracy, and he's certainly not autistic as he expresses emotions strongly and appropriately. Nevertheless, when confronted by other supposed adolescent boys (they all appeared about 25), he can't even figure out when it's in his best interest to keep his mouth shut. None of the characters, including his, is developed very much. Also, the soundtrack was too loud and too cloying, like something from a 1940's radio soap opera. I found nothing in particular to recommend this one.


This movie is without a doubt, the most creepy thing I've ever seen. If you actually read between th lines you can see it's actually a pro child molestation film-which is to say the least disgusting. Sure it's well directed, but that idea kept running through my head the entire time I saw it. The scene where Jeff Goldblum says "since you've touched me...I've made better love than I have in years" really freaked me out. I'm not sure if anyone realized this, but the actor who played Powder was 30 and the girl who played his love interest was a teenager! YOu can't tell me that wasn't intentional. Based on it's merits as a film I decided not to give it a one, because it's not badly made. However it's truly disturbing that no one at the studio picked this out.


I cannot put into word how bad this film really is. It has the sappiest story line I have ever seen, the editing is horrible, and above all, Jeff Goldblum's performance is just beyond bad. He shows up every 20 min. or so and acts amazed, I know that is the only emotion he can act out but it does get annoying.

Anyone wanting to join a lawsuit I am filing against the makers of this "film" to compensate me for the cost of the rental and time lost feel free to e-mail me!!!


I didn't get this movie... There's too much usual stories and plots in this movie which make it standard movie.

Apart from that, the message is clear and plain, but then, the rumors about the director's sexual orientation which was connected to this movie somehow bothered me.

It's about dealing with anomality; sometimes you reject it, sometimes you proud about it, most of the times you're trying to hide it. And it's everybody's dreaming to end your anomality in a grande-explosion which amaze many people (mostly ones who hates you or your anomality).

But I can't get more than that.


Pretty Ghastly. I gave it a four cos there were some good effects. And Jeff Goldblum was in it.


Powder follows a well-established formula: outcast develops special powers, finds love, gets vengeance on his tormentors. Many good movies have been made on this theme. Powder is not one of them - after a promising beginning, it turns into one of the worst films I have ever seen. The film wallows in its victim mentality, and one emerges not with a sense of victory but of depression.

Rating: skip this one, see Phenomenon instead.


In 1978, when this movie was shot, I lived in East Lyme, CT and I was an extra for this movie (the big crowd at the railroad crossing, waiting for the train to come - I was paid $35, a fortune to a 14 year old in 1978). I got to meet Shatner at the New London Outlet Mall (yeah, I'm sure he remembers THAT), and my friend's father was the town cop who hauled the bad guy away in the police cruiser at the end of the movie.

The funny thing is that the continuity person let a detail slip through. The action was supposed to be taking place in California, yet the police cars all have Connecticut plates. Guess they were outsourcing.

I watched the movie when it came out (and again when it ran in reruns about a year later) and from what I remember it was typical shlocky '70s action-adventure stuff -- actors trying to either start a career or resurrect one, a suspenseful moment every fifteen minutes or so to allow the director to fade to black and go to commercial, horrid disco-inflected "Charlie's Angels"-ish soundtrack, etc. It was pretty bad, but I got to see myself on TV for a fraction of a second.

And now, when my kids are a little older, I can tell them their dad was in a TV movie with William Shatner, and they can say "A what with who?" And then they will go back to using nanotechnology to build robots that will automatically clean their rooms, do their homework, and stop their terminally uncool dad from ever mentioning the 70s again.


This was a fun film to see on TV reruns in the early 1980s, and to see it now would be fun simply to remind me of when I was a kid.

GREAT train scenes. The computer in the railroad offices that runs the whole railroad is as big as the room, yet today, a laptop could probably run the railroad.

It is quite filled with technical errors and the like, plus cheesy acting + dialog, but these things can be ignored. It is refreshing to see William Shatner as "NOT" Capt. Kirk or the Priceline guy.

See it.....if you can locate a copy. It's terrible, but you just might enjoy it. I did. I have given it a 3 out of 10, because it's a bad movie. But that does NOT mean that I don't recommend it....I do recommend it.

But to give it more than a "3", would be kidding you.

Find it, rent it/buy it/borrow it, and enjoy.


Lucille Ball (as Connie) is going to college. Her wealthy father is afraid she'll get into trouble, so he hires four football players to be her bodyguards. NOT a very bright man, obviously! The bodyguards are: Desi Arnaz (as Manuelito), Eddie Bracken (as Jojo), Richard Carlson (as Clint), and Hal LeRoy (as Al). Ann Miller and Frances Langford are around to dance and sing.

It's a fair musical, with an "Indian" subplot (Huh?), and budget problems. You should know that Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz are not paired up in (on-screen, anyway) this film (Ms. Ball is partnered with Mr. Carlson). This is a routinely presented film, with a few highlights. Unfortunately Mr. Le Roy and Ms. Miller do not have a real dance off/team-up together. Mr. Arnaz steals the show from his future wife with a charming performance - look for the scene where he plays "guess the lipstick"!

**** Too Many Girls (1940) George Abbott ~ Lucille Ball, Desi Arnaz, Ann Miller


RKO filed for bankruptcy in the mid-1930's and was on the verge of finally getting back on their feet financially by 1940. I suspect that someone from their cost accounting group wandered into the studio commissary in 1939 and found it full of under-contract actors and production staff goofing off and eating studio food. They rounded up this group, stuffed the whole bunch onto an unused sound stage (with a leftover southwestern set) and got them singing and dancing to songs from a Rogers and Hart Broadway show (which they had an option on but had deemed unworthy of feature film treatment).

The result was released as "Too Many Girls" (1940), financially practical because with almost everything already paid for (insert fixed cost here), the additional expense of actually producing something boiled down to a little electricity and some black and white film stock.

No good reason to track this one down, it's pretty witless as a comedy-with the miscasting making for funnier moments than anything else in the film. Everyone except Ann Miller is too old to be playing college students and they try to pass Hal Le Roy (one of Hollywood's most effeminate actors) off as a college football All-American. I generally like this kind of stuff and will sit through anything to watch Ann Miller; so if it totally turned me off it is unlikely to appeal to most viewers.

Mostly it is notable for what happened off camera as Lucy and Desi made their first connection.

Some of the musical numbers by Rodgers and Hart were bearable; "Heroes in the Fall" and "Pottawatomie". Trudy Erwin dubs Lucy's only song. Francis Langford does most of the other numbers.

Mildly wild heiress Connie Casey (Lucille Ball) returns from finishing school in Europe with an unusual request to attend her father's alma mater in New Mexico-Pottawatomie College. "You mean a lot to me, Pottawatomie. You hit the spot of me, Pottawatomie. I love Pottawatomie with all my anatomy. So every tot of me, that is begot of me, will go to Pot, Pot, Pottawatomie".

Lucy was almost 30 at the time and even with "extreme" soft focus and minimal close-ups can't remotely pass for 18.

Her father suspects that she has a boyfriend at the school and hires four Ivy League football stars to monitor the behavior of the new freshman. The four eventually end up playing for the school's hapless football team, which in a matter of a few days has changed its schedule to include games with big time programs like Nebraska, Columbia and Tennessee. There is a grand celebration at which the student body sings the following less-than-immortal lyrics: "You're a ham-better scram-Notre Dame, We'll make Williams wail, Army-you too Navy, Boo Hoo to Purdue, Georgia Tech day you'll dread-you're a wreck, Look at Brown turn blue, We'll make a bumpia out of Columbia, In a quota Minnesota's got to go, You'll see U of D, We'll have all the alphabet to shout out." (reviewers note: the U of D is the University of Detroit which was once a football power).

The scale of this thing is ultimately its undoing as Broadway ensembles of 15 are replaced with a cast of hundreds (remember all those people sitting in the RKO commissary drawing paychecks for doing nothing). On risqué Broadway the girls who are still virgins wear beanies; in the film they wear them to signify that they have never been kissed (it is amusing to watch these aging and jaded RKO starlets trying to pass for ultra-chaste teens).

There is a corny and unconvincing romance between Lucy and Richard Carlson; whose brand of wooden acting would eventually work to his advantage in 1950's science fiction films like "It Came From Outer Space".

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


One can not be but startled by the incredibly high reputation that Zeffirelli has in some quarters, where he is revered as an artist, an author, Visconti's heir, a consummate aesthete ,when the guy is so obviously much more banal--a buffoon, a hack, a charlatan, a bluffer, a hustler, a swindler. He began as a Viscontian minion, torchbearer as well as an able _toadie. His skills, abilities and deftness, real and admirable, are often spoiled, miserably wrecked by his hideous personality (and persona). I have seen a documentary about Zeffirelli, featuring interviews with him as wellthe man, with his evil, viscous, mean smile, has something sinister and eerie, corrupt and decadent (in a real life way), nasty and filthy, disturbing and deeply, severely, strikingly unpleasant. This is in accord with his career. In fact, he is like Demme, like R. Scott, like Scorsese, Mann, Shyamalan, Coppola, etc.where he is bad, he is horrendously so. Not an author, but a hack with occasional (significant) achievements. Some talk about him as if he has an art, a project, a continuityas if he is a Bergmanand not only occasional, almost random successes. Returning to the man, the public persona, he is, beyond the paranoid elements and megalomania, fascinatingly unsettling. He looks somewhat like a reptile, a mean, voracious ,shrewd one. (I liked the looks of Visconti, Antonioni, even the plebeian Fellini.) On a second viewing, I liked much and fined exquisite and pleasing his HAMLET.


What is the meaning of writing all of those imaginary events to ascribe them to the legendary singer's last stage ?, did they want to say how the artist's life is just a truth in illusionary frame ? Or that any artiest has only one timed opportunity to be creative and after its end there will be no more ingenuity ??!!, or that love can destroy an artiest utterly (her love story with Onassis) ?, or that any attempt to ruminate the lost youth is impossible (the relationship between the agent and the painter, Callas and the young actor) ? Is it about how sincere (Callas) was when she refused to complete the hoax and demanded to terminate the movie within the movie ? So being that sincere to reality why rather they didn't terminate (Callas Forever) itself already ??? Well.. The real question which buzzes in my head all the time and maybe I'll sleep better if I found its answer is WHY did they make this whole absurd movie in the first place ???, what kind of possible concept could be expressed through this story which never happened ?! I have no idea ! All what I'm having is just tons of confusion and even more tons of disgust not only because of me being that ignorant, but also because of me being that patient to stand all of this antipathetic movie till it ended !! I didn't hate it because it's not understandable...I hate it because it doesn't want to be understandable, and I've always thought that when you finish watching a movie then give it a lot of thinking to discover totally nothing about its own meaning or its special message, so this is the definition of a "Bad" movie ! long story short : I'm sorry to whom reads right now because you'll find nothing more than questions, and I'm sorry that you've watched it too as it's not Callas Forever it's Silliness Forever !


,,if the movie is placed in 1977, what the hell make a lot of 2000 cars and bikes? There is an Espace, a Smart.......Zeffirelli should be less self confident and don't think he is the best ever movie director. All the movie looks very "cheap", only Fanny ardant is very good IMHO


I have one question. What exactly did Maria Callas do to the people that made this film? Whatever it was, it must have been pretty bad for them to feel the need to get this horrible revenge. Horrible it is, all the way through.

I get the feeling this could turn into a cult classic. It's true that in parts, it's very very funny. Fanny Ardant plays ze great Kah Lass as a campy Gloria-Swanson-in-Sunset-Boulevard creation. She'll shriek at the drop of a hat and stamp around as if her life depended on it. Listen, don't get me wrong. I like Fanny Ardant. She's a very talented actress, as she has demonstrated in films such as Ridicule, Vivement dimanche!, 8 femmes... but here her performance is absolutely awful. Nostril-flaring, eye-widening, hissy-fitting horror.

Jeremy Irons doesn't have much to do as Callas's manager. Mainly he just follows Maria around, trying to convince her to do things, and then he has a "Oh, yes, don't forget I'm gay" scene every so often. Beautiful. And Joan Plowright is actually quite funny. You get the impression that she's always a beat away from rolling her eyes.

Listen, though. If you like Maria Callas, don't see this film. Please don't. It makes her out to be some sort of caricature, and it's actually quite insulting. If you don't mind either way, well, see it? Why not? It's diverting, at least. And if you get bored with the storyline, you can just pick out movie errors. My favourite: Callas out in her car, driving in endless circles...


... doesn't mean that you should.

And few films seem to exemplify that more than this one.

I gave it 1 star because:

1) there wasn't anything lower available to give it here other than 0 stars, and it ain't getting off that easy, and

2) I did enjoy some of the music in the movie (when it wasn't trying to sound 'comical' when the twin vampires were doing whatever the heck it is they're doing while the cameras were rolling... it sure wasn't anything funny, that's for sure.) So, I gave it 1 star for some of the music. It's still probably 1 star more than it deserved, though.

The lead actress is Louise Fletcher who went on to portray Kai Winn in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. I probably should go back and give it an extra star just for her... but that would probably cause people to think that I enjoyed this... thing... more than I didn't. And that would be the same as lying; and I don't want to be called a liar.

Vampire fans - If it was at all possible to drive a stake through the heart of a movie, I would gladly volunteer my services to do so in order to save the rest of you from ever stumbling across this rancid pile of guano.

Louise Fletcher fans - Watch something else which you will be able to enjoy her performing in, because this just ain't it.

In all, it was 90 minutes of my life which I shall never see again, and countless brain cells which I could've killed off with a good beer buzz, instead. I wish that I had a beer buzz right now; maybe it would help me forget this.

Okay, I don't see anything that qualifies as a spoiler in here, so I won't check-mark that box. It's impossible to spoil this movie any more than the director, writers and actors already did. In fact, this movie is so spoiled that it probably should be thrown out with the wilted lettuce and that expired milk carton in the fridge.

It's just... that... bad.


What a load! Regardless of how bad a movie is, when I write on of these user comments, I usually try to add a touch of humor or a joke here or there (how effective I am, I don't know). But with Mama Dracula I've decided to dispense with this little habit and cut to the chase as it were. Mama Dracula is quite simply dreadful. I don't know when I've been less entertained by a movie. Most of it comes off as amateur hour at its worst. The plot is an incomprehensible mess. The best I got out of it was that it involved the old Elizabeth Bathory story, a pair of utterly ridiculous twin vampires, a doctor who has developed synthetic blood, and the search for virgins. But it hardly mattered as Mama Dracula's plot is there only to set up one lame comedic bit after the next  most involving the twin vampires played by the Wajneberg brothers. Two un-funnier human beings I've not seen  unless, that is, you find humor in an hour and a half of mugging for the camera. And what in God's name was Louise Fletcher doing in this garbage? That Academy Award certainly paid dividends for her. I can only assume she was either trying to help out a friend, hard up for cash, or blackmailed into appearing in the movie. She literally looks embarrassed in almost every scene she has. The rest of the cast is abysmal and the less said the better. You know, I'm usually not one to say something like this, but man, that's 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Don't make the same mistake I did. Don't walk - run if you're ever faced with the prospect of watching Mama Dracula. You'll thank me later.


So, me and my friend went out to hire a video and we found this one. We read about it and it sounded really cool, they were bragging about how good the FX was and that it was really scary.

OK so we hired it and started watching... First i thought that the beginning was some kind of lame intro that someone had made in like 2 hours of work and that the movie should begin soon. But when i realized that this was in fact the movie and that it really was this ugly i almost laughed until i started to cry.

It looked like a bad intro for some game from 1993! I'm not kidding, this movie was uglier and the characters moved more unnatural than in any game release after Doom II. The story is about sleepy hollow and after the movie there were some additional footage from behind the scenes. I got really shocked when i saw that they called themselves experts and that they said something about how this movie should set the standards for the next coming 3d animated movies, NO WAY!

There have been much better 3d animated movies released YEARS ago! Even Eric Schwarz 2d animations from 1990 is much MUCH better than this!

So i warn you! don't hire this movie because it's a waste of time and a waste of money. The only good thing was that on the backside of the movie it said that it should be 1h30minutes... but it was like 50m only, and that was good, because i would not want to waste another 40m on that crap!


Sometimes i like to watch B-movies because its fun to see bad actors and bad effect just for fun.but....... I saw this movie Manny years ago when it come out, it whats a big CHOCK to me.

I Didn't know a movie can be so bad! and boring to watch.

The story is boring, its look like a bad game from 1984? It whats a painful to watch this. be care.

I cant believe some people voted +++ for this movie They must know some1 who made this crap movie.

So don't waste your time to see this crap. You never got it back. i hope this guys never made a film again.


Terrible film. Looks like a bad game or intro to a game, the people doesn't look alive. The new "Sleepy Hollow" is a much better choice. The story is not very good. The movie is stated to be 1.30 hours, but was somewhere like 55 minutes.


I didn't notice the use of footage from Renny Harlin's movie, but I did notice the use of footage from "Narrow Margin", specifically the shootout at the cabin in the woods. The guy in the helicopter is wearing a beige suit and cowboy boots. I could swear that I have also seen another movie that used this footage as well. The movie is extremely low budget and shows it. The acting and directing are all fairly unremarkable which is strange considering the talented cast. Perhaps this just points up the importance of a good script. No matter how talented the actor or the director is the story and dialog are uninteresting, so is the movie.


The story line might be interesting. But the acting is pretty awful. Not worth the renting money. It's surprising to see Roy Sheider in such an average movie. He's probably the only reason people would rent this movie. This movie is below average, I rated it 4 out of 10.


This is not only a bad movie, it is yet another scary symptom of a sick society being pandered to by an exploitive and irresponsible film industry. The plot is idiotic. As happens again and again, it is based on corrupt, all powerful government. There is endless gun play (in which nobody ever seems to hit anything)and repeated gore. There is a totally gratuitous lesbian sex scene which has absolutely no bearing on the plot. If things aren't being riddled with bullets or pushed out of windows, they're blown up in fiery explosions. Why are the Brits able to do some real nail-biters without resorting to this sort of blam-blam sensationalism. And the Americans wonder why they have a firearms problem... I am a great believer that you get what you pay for in bargain bin movies at Walmart. But I keep hoping. I paid a buck fifty for this one and would consider myself ripped off except that by replacing the erase tab, I can re-use the tape. Almost anything I record on it will be better than this vulgar, violent cinematic vomit!


I have lost count of the number of people to whom I have recommended the 1983 S.F.novel "Millenium",written by John Varley.Nineteen of the twenty chapters are named after classic time travel stories and the name of each is relevant to the context,which,on the face of it might seem like a contrivance,but if it is a contrivance it's one that works very well.It's not a quick read,neither is it a book to be taken on a plane as the plot revolves around air disasters in which there are no survivors(a surprising amount - worryingly). It's structure is quite complex and several of the scenes are recounted from two different viewpoints(a recurring complaint from reviewers). There are two prologues,the second one placed after the epilogue,so if you want a book to read on the beach keep on with Dan Brown. A favourite hobby -horse of mine is that comparisons between novels and filmed novels are pointless because the two media are completely antithetical.A novelist makes certain assumptions about the reader's intelligence and imagination,the filmmaker makes no such assumptions and lays everything out in front of the viewer whose only contribution to the cinema-going experience is to stay awake for the length of the picture.The movie "Millennium" makes even this small effort a chore. I wanted it to be good,I didn't want them to have screwed it up;sadly I was disappointed on both counts.It's a Bb run - of - the - mill hack job.I doubt if either of the leads gave much thought to their roles,about the best you could say was that they avoided bumping into the scenery.Mr Daniel J.Travanti never repeated his success as Lt Frank Furillo in "Hill St Blues" and is woefully miscast here.He should have sued his agent.There are extraneous scenes that do nothing to help the story(one involving the Air Crash Investigator hero Bill Smith as a child involved in a plane crash makes nonsense of the whole story) and all the subtlety of the novel is replaced by noise and flashy lighting. It's not even camp - well not intentionally.I fear it's makers took "Millennium" entirely seriously and snafu-ed it.


While "Millennium" is not quite as lousy as "Plan 9 From Outer Space," it's botch, underdeveloped and unfocused script is. A fascinating concept is jettisoned for a hackneyed, illogical, inconsistent love story. Perhaps the major mistake was to have so much of it take place in the future (though, I would genuinely miss the sensitive, ironic and witty performance of Robert Joy as Cheryl Ladd's personal robot), if it weren't. The handling of the contemporary story is much better, and I did appreciate the subtle humor in both settings.

SPOILER Just explaining the story is in itself a spoiler. Ladd's the head a crack team of female time travelers who pose as flight attendants on doomed flights in the past in order to abduct the passengers before the crashes. The future is a bleak, dying place. The human race is sterile and disintegrating from a harsh, polluted environment. Time travel is a dangerous business, and not just for the travelers. Any unguarded act can result in time paradoxes, which are felt as severe tremors in the future. Too large a paradox, and the entire human race of the future will be destroyed. Naturally, potential disaster occurs, when a device used to stun passengers before their abduction is accidentally left on two separate flights, one in 1963, the other in 1989. What is mind numbingly illogical is why the travelers did not return BEFORE the devices fell "into the wrong hands" and retrieve them? Instead, Ladd returns to the past in a failed attempt to seduce FAA investigator Kris Kristofferson and prevent him from discovering the device. The final stupidity occurs when Robert Joy tells Ladd she will have Kristofferson's child, after she has made it clear she is sterile. What follows is a pompous "Criswell-like" voice over that "this is not the end...this is the end of the beginning." Ed Wood couldn't have expressed it better.

Too bad, because there are several fine performances in "Millenium," including Joy, Kristofferson and several of the supporting players. Ladd does her best (which is pretty good), but is ultimately defeated by an underwritten, paradoxical characterization.

Production values are alternately handsome and cheesy. I'm not sure anything would have saved the script, but four or five more rewrites certainly would have helped.

I give "Millennium" a "4".


I was literally rolling in the aisles laughing ...and then crying... and then laughing again. It's so bad that it's good ...and then bad again and then finally...after a long, long time (a millennium at least)... maybe good...? It was the two worst movies I've ever seen. Whatever doesn't kill you will only make you stronger. Have no fear - it's horrible - but it wont kill you. It has left me asking several questions - 1)who put money into making this? (it didn't require much) 2)Do they still have a job? 3)If so...why? 4)What bank would lend them the money to finance it? 5) Why besmirch the King of Kensington...Why? Alright this was a total mess on every level - still, it was very, very funny and for that reason I think I could recommend it, caution: in the end you might feel a bit ashamed for laughing so hard at something that wasn't meant to be laughed at. I'm so ashamed of myself!


Out of all the awful movies I've seen in my life, this is the one I came closest to demanding my money back for. The time-travel sequence was excruciating enough the *first* time...


(Disclaimer-any memory holes I might be harboring). I was a huge sci-fi buff in the 70's and 80's. Varley hit the scene in the 70's as a stupendous short story writer. IMO, he changed sci-fi writing forever. Somehow I missed "Air Raid", but I did read the prescient *envinronmental* novel "Millennium" (1984), the novel he must have fleshed out from "Air Raid"? "Millennium", the novel, is very detailed, very original and sophisticated, and not much like the movie. I was very disappointed with the movie when I first saw it (but not as much as now) as there are few movies that come from true sci-fi writers (Hugo winners and the like) and I was really looking forward to it. This is not Star Wars territory.

Kristofferson was OK for Kristofferson back then, Cheryl Ladd lost her acting chops for 108 minutes and she was much older looking than recently ("Permanent Midnight"). I didn't say face-lift, did I? Daniel J. Travanti was good, of course, but barely in the movie. The Robot was tongue in cheek and probably the only redeeming quality. Basically, there is nothing in this movie but mistakes. The movie captured me when it started but when the first plane crashed, the movie crashed.

While I love Varley, his forte is short stories, some novels are moderate to great, but definitely not screenplays (although we don't know how tied his hands were and he only wrote one other screenplay - "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank", which I have not seen, but have read, yet another fantastic short story).

I try to find redeeming qualities even in bad movies, or try to see the B-movie-ness of them, but this one is just bad. Ed Wood bad. So I guess it is campy, but not even camp I enjoy. Go *read* some Varley. The short stories first, you will be blown away.

So, "Blade Runner" and "Minority Report" are still the gold standard. Both were written by the late, venerable Philip K. Dick, a predecessor and probably influencer of Varley - but he did not try to write the screenplays and had the great good fortune that Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg directed. It is a tragedy that a talent like Varley was so short changed on celluloid.


I saw this movie on opening day -- I was convinced by a fellow Science Fiction fanatic to see it. I still believe that it is the worst movie that I have seen (with an actual budget).

Every aspect of the movie was bad: the acting, the dialogue, the plot, the pacing, the special effects (don't blame the year...there were plenty of movies that came out in the same year that had decent effects), ...the list goes on. The theater I was in started full, but did not stay that way. I was actually stunned into staying - I couldn't believe it was so bad. When the movie started showing events from another character's point of view, I lost it. I thought, "Not only can you see through the plot, you get to see it twice!" I started laughing uncontrollably, eventually slipping out of my seat onto the floor. I didn't understand how the movie could have gotten any worse, but it had.

There are some who would say that you have to go into viewing this movie with an eye for camp. I would agree, except that this movie was marketed as, and had the tone of, a serious Sci-Fi flick. Also, if it wanted to be seen as camp, there should have been something that seemed intentionally humorous or at least intentionally awful (like a good 'B' movie). Barring that, if the movie had been unintentionally funny (like Battlefield Earth), I might have appreciated it a bit. As it was, it was dull, dry and painful to watch. The only entertainment I derived was from thinking about how bad it was.

I'm fine with time travel paradoxes, and can even overlook continuity issues; I was not confused at all by the plot. I just believe that this movie was uninspiringly bad.


After reading several pages of reviews of this movie I'm having one of those "Did I watch the same film as everyone else?" moments.

The story here is not at all complicated. Anyone with half a brain who has read any Science Fiction will be able follow it with ease. It's pretty standard cause, effect and unconsidered consequences stuff. What someone with half a brain who has read any SF will be asking themselves for most of the running time is, since these time travellers from the future have nifty stun guns able to gently render anyone unconscious at a touch of a button why, when presented with a situation where they have to prevent someone from being in a particular place at a particular time, don't they just stun the poor sod till it's safe for them for him to wake up?

Because, to misquote Alfred Hitchcock, "We wouldn't have a f***ing movie if we did." That's why.

The future scenes are hysterically bad. The robot (more Tin Man than C3PO) has to be one of the all time dreadful movie robots.

Apart from the basic premise of why the time travellers were coming back in the first place - which is pretty good SF notion. The only thing that did work for me were the repeated scenes where we saw the developing affair from different viewpoints. Things which seemed odd the first time round becoming obvious the second. I could have done with more of that and less of the Omigod! Everything is exploding! Let's reverse the polarity on the time vortex thingie and send everyone off into the future. You go! We Stay! We belong dead! Oh I'm having your baby! Hang on... I'm coming after all... How do we end this sodding movie? I dunno... Wait! I think I've got it... It's an SF movie with an under-resolved ending leading to a possible new hope for mankind... Of course! The sunrise cliché shot! (Hereinafter known as the 'THX1138 Moneyshot'). And just to add cream to the syrupy concoction, a voice-over promising us "this was not the end, or the beginning of the end, or indeed the end of the beginning, but the end of the beginning of the middle of something - or other..." I was too busy laughing to catch it exactly.

A pity. Buried under all the wrongness here is a pretty good movie screaming to get out. Why does Hollywood insist on buggering up well made classics like The Day The world Stood Still and Barberella? when there are dozens of films like this crying out to be remade - and, with just a bit of care, got right.


It is no secret that I like time-travel movies. However this one did not meet my liking, which is seeing people cope in a time not their ow. This was sci-fi, and I guess those who like that sort of thing might find it interesting. To me it was a major snooze fest and I keep looking for something else while I watched it. Too bad there was nothing else on.

Kris Kristofferson has never impressed me with his acting abilities. He always looks as if he is sleepwalking through a movie. He just doesn't show any real emotion. Cheryle Ladd was a major disappointment also. She just didn't do a thing for me.

Read a book instead.


This movie had potential. I love time travel. And the idea of a paradox has infinite possibilities for a script. I actually enjoyed the way the Back to the Future movies dealt with the concept.

However, from almost the first few minutes this movie is a bomb! The writing is terrible and the acting is bad. I can't believe the actors actually could keep a straight face while quoting their lines. And the make-up for the robot looked like something from 1969, not 1989.

The best part of the movie happens in the first 5 minutes. The plane crash must have used up most of their budget.

The only good thing I found was looking at Cheryl Ladd !!


I caught this "film" on HBO the other day, and I want those 90 minutes of my life back. The acting was painful to watch, and the plot was ridiculous. Humans from a thousand years in the future go back in time and kidnap those about to die in plane crashes in order to repopulate the planet. And they're not very good at it because they keep leaving things like "stunners" behind which makes them have to go back again to fix paradoxes. Way too convoluted, even for a sci-fi picture.

The only thing that kept me from rating this a 1 is my respect for Kris Kristofferson. I guess he just had some bills to pay so he took the first script someone showed him. 2/10


Starts out poorly, sort of like a below average TV movie about a plane crash. Drags on for about twenty minutes, and then the most incredible crew of drag queens, led by a terrible looking, punky Cheryl Ladd, invade the film with a coterie of the worst (somewhat) live actors, mechanical men and make up jobs the world has ever seen. Dialog is so horrible, that you literally cringe waiting for the next line. I literally became sick and had to turn it off because of the bad acting. Now I realize, none of us is getting younger, but what's the thing with Kristofferson's eyebrows? His acting is particularly wooden in this role, but Cheryl Ladd - good god, her performance (a la Pussy Galore in the film Goldfinger) would have stopped any other career cold. Strangely, the sets held up fairly well; the steaming turbines; the weirdly flat body bags, and so forth. But the cheap looking device that Cheryl and her tough pals are looking for - a device that supposed to turn this "time travel" joke of a story around - looks like a reject from a grade Z movie.

It's really like two movies in one, or one inside the other. Whatever. Watch for both of these film and avoid it.


The concept: Explore what possibilities of paradox exist if time travel to the past (or future) becomes reality. This is an exercise that has challenged the most respected minds humanity has produced from Einstein to Hawking - a concept captivating and eloquently delved by authors from Heinlein to C. S. Lewis - a vision brought to the silver screen in an accessible and engaging way by such movies as Back to the Future and Terminator.

The result: What should probably have been a complete Alan Smithee production.

There are a couple positive items of note - if you enjoy tongue-in-cheek, campy films that don't take themselves seriously, and give a passing glance at the hypothesis that gave it birth, you MIGHT try it. If you're sorry afterward, pick up a book that does the subject justice - some Heinlein (_Number of the Beast_ or _Time Enough for Love_) or the recent Crichton or Baxter releases (_Timeline_ and _Manifold: Time_ respectively). Another plus: the end of the movie, and of the pain.

There's just too many cons to cover fully - poor acting, vague direction, TOO low of a budget and special effects, terrible writing, unsatisfactory plot resolution, horrible redundancy... I saw the original release and was young enough to be embarrassed for the actors. When I caught a replay recently on TV, I struggled through it to make sure I was truly rating my "worst ever" fairly.

I was. 1/10.


If someone offers you the choice between seeing this movie and chewing your own foot off, do yourself a favor...ask for ketchup. The acting is atrocious and the special effects rank right up there with the old Buck Rogers TV show, especially the 'stunt man in a tin can' robots. It's a shame...the plot could've been intriguing. Unfortunately, the film's budget of approximately $2.98 killed a good idea.


I paid good money to see this back in 1989 at a first-run theatre! A friend talked me into it. I did NOT want to go shell out 5.00 for this. He said he'd pay me back if the movie sucked...so I (stupidly) agreed. Halfway through the film he handed me the 5.00 without saying a word. But there's two hours of my life gone for good! This film SUCKED!!!! Badly acted, written, directed, sub-par special effects...there's not one good thing to say about this. And seeing a large portion of the movie again through a different camera angle is inexcusable--I wanted to walk out at that point, but he wouldn't. He said "We've come this far..." Also he was driving me home so I had no choice. I have nothing against Cheryl or Kris but, really, didn't they read the script before they did the movie? Were they that hard up for money? AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This pathetic movie about a talking detective dog shows nothing but contempt of people in general and children in particular. The so-called special effects are mind-blowingly awful as is the whole tone of the film. Along with Forest Warrior with Chuck Norris and Il Professore with Bud Spencer this is the worst film I've ever had the misfortune to see. I give it a dead certain 1 out of 10.


Making a movie like this one should not be legal. With a cast completely devoid of talent and a story that prompts you to pinch yourself out of the nightmare this movie epitomizes the word terrible. Don't see it unless you find migraines endearing.


A talking, Scottish-accented police dog (though he won't speak to grown ups) and his British owner (what are they doing so far from home?) are on an isolated island somewhere off the coast of America staking out drug smugglers. After the copper is kidnapped by said rouges, the chatty canine is forced to team up with a chubby 10 year old lad and his sarcastic friend Emma to track down the baddies and launch a rescue mission. Trouble is, the only help available is the boy's eccentric (I would prefer to call him useless) inventor father and the two most inept law officials you'll ever meet (who also happen to be the only cops on the islands). Will they manage to save his life before the budget runs out?? Stay tuned..

Sherlock Bones is a terrible film all right, but it exudes a bizarre fascination more potent than almost any other bad film I've seen. Watching it is akin to seeing a bunch of toddlers attempt a revival of A Midsummer Night's Dream.. you know it's wrong but you can't pull yourself away because of what might happen next. For instance: everybody on this island goes around in golf carts. A running gag is that one of the two inept cops on the island (the fat guy, obviously) constantly has his foot run over by them. Ho Ho. This joke reaches a crescendo when a whole bunch of carts, all chained together, get nudged and end up rolling downhill, all passing over his foot one after another. The reason this part is so unbelievable is THE GUY JUST LETS THEM All SQUASH HIS FOOT WITHOUT MOVING IT AWAY. You'd think after the first one crushed it, he would at least withdraw his leg but NNOO that would ruin the joke! There's a fine line between dumb laughs and insulting the audience, and this scene crosses it.

What other little peculiar moments can I single out? How about the opening scene, when the overweight boy is on the ferry, finds a pet rat on the floor which everybody sees and as a direct result causes all of the passengers to puke over the side? (WHAT?) Or when the kids are trying to sneak past the moronic inventor, the girl has a fantastic idea of disguising his son as a female.. by slipping a two piece swimming costume on him (while neglecting to do anything about his appearance). On the technical side, I suppose I should mention the safety threads that stand out like a sore thumb when Sherlock is dragging the kid along the ground, and the three most obvious dummies ever which are supposed to be the bad guys as they're clinging on for dear life to a speeding ship. But all these pale in comparison to seeing the dog actually talk, as the mouth movements hardly match the words and sometimes you hear it speak when its jaws are firmly closed. Babe this ain't. As a final insult, said hound isn't even in half the movie, as he is conveniently injured or kidnapped for large chunks of it. Whassthematter, not got enough cash to smear dog food round Sherlock's lips Mr Producer Sir?

At just a touch under 90 minutes, you might think this would be an easy film for you to sit through with your kids. That's until you have to endure all the horrible music and endless slapstick, not to mention the terrible acting and the bargain basement effects. However, as a caveat, there are so many odd little idiosyncrasies that I've never seen in any film before or since it's got to be worth a look for sheer car crash value alone. They certainly don't make 'em like this any longer. Thank goodness for that.. 3/10


Sherlock Bones is the heartwarming tale of a small boy, his potentially dangerous father, his veterinarian love interest (who wears a lab coat in the one scene of her working, for the next three scenes, and then never again in the entire movie), her incredibly badly acted miscreant child, a talking dog, and an entire cast and crew of people who make a series of misjudged decisions after another.

Sherlock Bones is bad. Very, very bad. It is not the sort of bad of the Pearl Harbor breed of terribleness however, where one is left spinning in an ocean of the terrible wondering when the sheer horror will end. No, Sherlock Bones is the kind of hilarious bad that provokes the kind of laughter that physically stops you breathing at the inane stupidity of what you are watching. It is a special thing when two children and their talking dog buddy need to chase down someone, so the dog somehow transports itself into the driver's seat from where it declares, apparently without irony, "Get in! I'll drive!". The hilarity of this particular moment is only increased by the dog's neckerchief and eyepatch (yes, really) and 'Scottish' accent. When told he cannot drive the dog simply responds that he is forty-seven. The hilarity of this scene was so much that we repeatedly had to rewind it to soak in the sheer brilliance of this scene as tears streamed down my face.

In short: DO watch this movie IF you and a few friends want to watch a truly terrible movie in order to riff on an artifact of 1990s horror the likes of which has never been seen. DON'T watch this movie if you expect to in anyone enjoy it on an unironic level. ESPECIALLY DON'T show this movie to your kids if you don't want them to grow up to hate you.


I have never seen a children's movie that was so poorly acted. The 10 yr old's dad was someone who I would not have wanted to have custody of my child either. He was more than eccentric...The child actor was not very good either but that really seemed due to the script and dialog challenges he encountered. Also, the little girl's character was too terse for her age. The three dummies that they used in the boat scene who were supposedly hanging on for dear life at the end of the movie were so obviously dummies which really annoyed me. Also, there were no law enforcement officers who were actually any good at their jobs so I suppose the bad guys were going to just hang around like dummies (oun intended) forever!! Terrible. I would not recommend this movie even for the youngest of children.


i've been watching a lot of western-type indian movies recently, and ABCD has got to be the worst of them all. Although Bombay Boys was pretty stupid, and American Desi was just silly, they are much more polished than this movie. the number of inconsistencies in the movie are astounding. as the name name of the movie suggests, one would assume the characters are born in america. they're not. it is unclear at which point the children came to america, and it's even hard to tell from their accents. the choices of the main characters do not seem realistic, and their actions leave the audience with a bad taste in their mouths. if you choose to watch this film, take a pad and pen with you, so you can log all of the inconsistencies. it'll be fun.


Of late, a host of Indian-English movies has come up that either deal with problems of NRIs or attempt to present a saner version of Bollywood to the west. Their contents or execution may be debatable, but it is a giant leap by Bollywood towards the right direction.

American Born Confused Desi, or ABCD, is the story of an ageing, scheming, and suave mother Anju (Madhur Jaffrey) settled in USA. All she wants is to see her son Raj (Faran Tahir) and daughter Nina (Sheetal Seth) married and have kids. While Raj tries to fulfill her wish, Nina is the one who has taken to the wayward ways of the west. She is the ABCD who cannot choose between her mothers numerous proposals and her all-American beloved. Giving in to her mothers pleadings, Nina agrees to give an Indian Ashok (Aasif Mandvi) a chance and agrees to date him. However, she suspects that all Ashok wants is a green card and not her as a life partner.

Anju tries various matchmaking techniques but her offspring have ideas of their own that they ruthlessly pursue. Together, they must not only battle against American biases against them, they must also counter their own demons. This is director Krutin Patels maiden venture and there are various flaws in the story. The three main characters appear unrealistic and do not win sympathies. However, the sensitive issues raised in the movie turn it into an interesting watch. Like all its predecessors, ABCD also has some sizzling moments to entice international audiences towards it. The finale is somewhat predictable but sensitive and lifelike.

Overall, ABCD may not be in the league of great movies like Mississippi Masala and Immaculate Conception but it is a pleasant experience.


This film tries and fails to be a compelling account of the experiences of Indians growing up in the U.S. The perspective espoused here matches up nicely with the the view that many Indians hold of ABCDs: that all of them have forgotten their heritage and culture, that all the women are promiscuous, the men are conflicted yet also promiscuous, that all ABCDs hate their parents with a passion and seek to flout their moral standards at every opportunity, and that the women can be redeemed (temporarily at least)by having sex with a ridiculous, platitude-spouting FOB. The characterization of the main players is reduced to empty stereotype. Events that might have been moving are rendered flat and absent of feeling. Motives for actions are at best unclear. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the subject matter or has lived the experience will most likely be repulsed by this film. I haven't even mentioned the terrible acting or the incredibly bad dialogue. Watch "The Namesake" for a true-to-life version of the conflicts that are explored so unconvincingly here.


This movie is serious and it doesn't claim to solve the problems. But, movies are an experience to entertain, this is not entertainment. This is like watching my kid sister in one of her bad moments of life. There is not even a glimmer of hope anywhere.


Once you've seen the movie you have to stop and ask yourself something. What the hell was it? Was it a comedy? If so why wasn't it funny? Was it a drama? If that was the case where the hell did the plot go? Nothing is accomplished in this movie. Most movies either result in the end with something either being gained, or else something being lost. This movie didn't go anywhere: It started out with one screwed up sister, and a shady (but likeable) brother. It ended with a screwed up sister, and a shady (no-longer likeable) brother. Generally when an inconclusive ending is presented it is because the producers are leaving you something to play with or leaving room for a sequel. This left an inconclusive ending, but there's nothing to think about and there's no place for a sequel (Thank God). The movie started off strong, creating several conflicts and gradually weaving possibilities of a correlated ending. But it all went to waste because absolutely no avenue was taken by any of the characters that served to any major benefit or disbenefit (one or the other is important, as long as it keeps things moving). The dialogue was ridiculous, and the actors and actresses recite them as ridiculously. There is only one scene in the entire movie where the dialogue was deeper than a paper-cut, and that all went to waste too. Another occurence that gave rise to emotions (an unfortunate death) was completely wasted also. So basically, what did the producer (the same guy directed and wrote it, I wouldn't be surprised if his family did all the acting and the cooking and provided the ties) intend out of this? If he wanted to waste time atleast he could have cranked the humor up and made it fun, instead he made it depressing and astounding. I am not an Indian, or a Hindu, but I can easily imagine why people of both those categories would be brutally insulted by some of the scenes in this movie. What's sad about that is that the writer (also the producer and director, as I mentioned before) is Indian and Hindu also. If the dude wanted to violate Indian and Hindu customs he could have drawn conclusiveness and purpose to it, he didn't bother doing that so what can I say? I wasn't Confused until I actually saw this movie!


Nina is a girl who wants to forget her Indian heritage and embrace generic American life. She is quite rude to her mother, who only wants what is best for her, and Ashok, a nice Indian man tying to woo her. Nina certainly has a chip on her shoulder and comes across as a bitch and a slut. (I liked the part when she tells the Indian at the newsstand not to talk to her because she is of a higher caste. He later tells Ashok "She's been in this country too long. She's a whore, that's what happens to them.") Ashok digs into why she is so cold and resistant, but again she puts up a wall. Some scenes are moving, but are often glossed over, like a certain death and breakup. The film has no resolution, Nina gets her perfect white wedding and has learns nothing you would have expected her to. Her brother Raj, who seemingly has it all together, a good job, a loving fiancé, throws it all away and we don't exactly learn why. While the film is an interesting portrait the struggle of first-generation Americans, it is ultimately disappointing.


This film is abysmal. The plot revolves around an Indian family living in New Jersey and the problems each of them face in integrating their traditional Indian values with fast paced American culture.

This film is a complete void for me; I simply don't understand who this movie is aimed at. If it is aimed at first generation immigrants, then it would only scare them by preying on traditional fears of westernization. If it is for Indians who have grown up in America, it alienates them through portrayals of mindless sheep who simply follow a "white" mentality. If it is for an American population who want to understand the Indian mindset, then the complete lack of realism only serves to marginalize Indians with outdated images of false stereotypes.

There are some superb films that exist about Indians living outside India (e.g. East is East, Bhaji on the Beach), watch one of those. Please don't waste your time on this tripe.


As an Indian American who grew up in this country this is by far the worst piece of story telling I have ever seen. Not only was I offended by this man's (Krutin Patel grew up in India and has the audacity to tackle a subject matter which he knows nothing about) movie but was actually angry that someone actually thought the Indian American experience resembled anything like the story on the screen.

In my opinion what this is can be categorized as the FOB's (Fresh off the boat) view of what the Indian American experience is all about. It is pretty clear that the writing was done without any perspective of growing up in a cross cultural environment. Actually the fact that two kids grow up in the same house and one has an accent like he just stepped off the boat and the other sounds like the girl next door is pretty far fetched.