The picture of the evil eye on the box is not in the movie. The monster in the box is a worm puppet. Movie starts with slow motion close-up shootings, fills in with foul language, then throws in a couple sex scenes (including the puppet) and then shot the rest of the cast. If you can get this movie on buy one get one free night - DON'T. Go home and sort your sock drawer, it will be more interesting.


Okay, I'll say right off that I could possibly *SPOIL* the 'biggest' part of this...er...'film'. Well, if you can really *SPOIL* something this bad.

I consider 'The Item' the worst movie I ever saw in my life. Worse than 'Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey'. Worse than Vanilla Ice's 'Cool as Ice' (although ya'll gotta check that out to hear how he says 'horse'...that alone is worth the rental price).

Basically, a bunch of people pick up a box they're not allowed to open. What do they do? They open it. Inside is what appears to be a cross between the old children's toy (Glow-worms...you squeeze 'em, they light up and glow) and a moldy sock with some sort of nuclear waste poured all over it. That's it. Just this fluorescent worm-like thing that speaks in tongues and makes people kill themselves.

The irony of the whole thing is that without the cheesy sock, it could have been a good movie. The gore factor was pretty good (and when I rent horror, I want gore...unfortunately, I picked this from the 'bore' section). I could tolerate most of the acting. A couple of the characters obviously needed some psychiatric help, but that's not unusual.

But the sock. Unfortunately, due to the fluorescent sock, this movie sunk to the dregs, being rated, at best, with 0 stars out of 10.


When I saw the movie picture I thought it was something like Alien or maybe like Jurassic Park, but I found a movie that is completely dissapointing, with an high level of violence/gore unnecesary, a stupid end, a creature that is ridiculous, etc, etc. If I have to say something good about this movie is that it taught me when I have to safe my money instead to rent a stupid movie.


Believe me, I have seen some crap in my years as an avid horror fan. Bad doesn't even begin to describe this movie. Like watching paint dry. The characters are offensive stereo-types, namely the drag-queens. A total waste of an hour and a half, not to mention the 3 bucks renting it.


This is, quite simply, one of the worst horror films I've ever seen. I was so incredibly bored and the cover is so misleading. When I saw what it was that was actually inside the box I couldn't stop laughing. What kind of monster is that? I never knew someone could turn a part of the human anatomy into a monster until I saw this film.

The worst moment of the film had to have been at the end. That was one of the worst and stupidest endings I've ever seen. What the hell were they thinking!?

I didn't even bother to watch the movie all the way through. I was so bored and annoyed, that I fast forwarded through almost half of the film. I didn't feel like wasting any further of my time on it.

Stay away from this!


In working at a movie store i thought i had seen some bad horror movies(ala jeepers creepers, blair witch 2) but this one really takes the cake. In reading the summary i thought the item sounded really good horror/backstabbing flick. In the first five minutes alone i got a really bad feeling from it and started fast forward it. In doing that i saw more violence than necessary and a certain sex scene that has left me with nightmares for the last week. The supposed item is not even scary, in being more laughable than anything else.

Save yourself some money on this one.


SPOILERS and WARNING TO MAJOR MONSTER FANS

I read what this movie was about at the hollywood video store and it sounded like it was going to be one heck of a monster fest.I watch the first 20 minutes of it and I turned it off.I just couldn`t believe it.About a hundred F words,a gang dressed in drag and other very distgusting things.We still havn`t found out what the creature or monster was.We then played the and fast forwarded the this filthy film just to see the monster and it turns out to be a worm! A stupid looking puppett.And boy what a way to end it.We see this woman having sex with it!!! Like this is supose to be so dang great! Here I was expecting a hardcore moster fest and is all I got was a woman having fun with a stupid worm!If you really like stupid movies this rent this stupid Item.


The Item is a cheat. Bottom line. The packaging is high gloss, promising B creature fluff with a unique pulp fiction hybrid. Instead you get a poorly lit video shoot, a handful of actors who I felt sorry for (they're taking this very seriously and some have promise) slightly above student film quality production values, and a creature that is nothing more than a rubber hand puppet. Seriously. These are the facts folks - I frankly can't understand some of the other reviews of this film. It's not original, the script is horrible aside from a few clever lines, and to top it off, I'm painfully getting through the thing ('cause I paid 5.50 of the new release blockbuster wall)and suddenly the film makers throw their own music out the window and lift Philip Glass right off the Kundun sound track! Uncredited! Am I the only one who has noticed this? As a film maker myself, this is the ultimate in bad karma. With a whole lot of talented musicians out there this is simply inexcusable, not to mention unethical. It's sad, especially when I'm a giant supporter of independent film, but "The Item" is one movie that shouldn't belong on a video store shelf.


I had a chance to see "The Item" and was pleasantly surprised. This film combined the aspects of other Blockbuster films (like PULP FICTION) and the twist is that it does this while making fun of itself.

It was well acted, the lead actress was superb and her character was refreshing (think La Femme Nikita only brunette and Latina).

Entertaining aspects like Drag Queens doing martial arts in pumps are still making me laugh. In short this flick is KOOL.


Saw the Item on the Sundance movie channel, absolutely insane! The comments on this page crack me up. Practically a 50-50 split. The Item is most definitely a love it or hate it proposition of a movie. Even in my home, my girlfriend found the movie "all wrong" and my brother and I laughed our asses off! Too many so called "art films" take themselves too seriously. But the Item is never serious, always bashing cliches and playing with expectations. And while rough around the edges, this dark little ass kicker is always surprising. The Item is a sardonic and colorful freak-out. And that is its strength: you never know if the Item is kidding or not. It's a real strange brew: grim and comedic, beautiful in a low budget way, ridiculously brutal, and in the end... well, the end is so totally strange and sexual it's hard to classify.

 (SPOILER) There's a graphic sexual encounter between a beautiful Asian woman and a muppet/grub/creature thing (I can't be the only one brave enough to admit I was kind of turned-on!). I am not a big film geek. Hollywood movies are predictable and indie movies are pretentious. The Item is neither. It's like a carefully put together car crash, you wince, you can't stop looking, and you can't get it out of your head the next day. So I'm voting a lO for this punk-garage-band of a movie.


Just saw Goal 2 earlier today, opening day across the UK. I must say that it was a solid sequel to the first, which I enjoyed thoroughly. Anyone who liked the first Goal movie should enjoy this. It continues the story of Santiago who gets transferred to mega-team Real Madrid in the opening sequences and follows his new life in Spain. Massive paychecks and beautiful women begin to get to Santi's head and we see a darker, perhaps weaker side of our hero in this chapter. All the main characters from the first Goal have roles in the sequel as well as cameos by superstars like Zidane, Ronaldo, Raul and Beckham. Solid sequel that is recommended to all fans of the original! If you haven't seen Goal yet, you should catch that before seeing part 2.


Not a classic by any means, but at least, in comparison to the first one (Goal!), a more accomplished film.

The game scenes were not as contrived as in the first movie, hardly surprising since some of the clips were straight off real matches.

Becker did not look out of his depth in the company of the likes of Zidane, Roberto Carlos and David Beckham -- as long as he did not have the ball, that is. In a dressing room scene inside the Bernabeu, for instance, Becker's time on the ball in a jolly juggling scene was thankfully limited to one touch.

I guess it's too much to ask for an actor who had real football skills, and I guess that realization kept the cameras more focused on the 'real' football players in game situations. This added more to a sense of realism, as compared to the first movie when Becker was scene doing all sorts of fantastic things -- corny to a trained eye.

This movie's real merit comes from the way it handled the human element: Santi's head getting a tad too big from all the media attention and from being in the company of Real Madrid's galacticos; the lover's tiff with Roz, doubtless echoed in many a professional football player's life; and the surprise of finding he has a half-brother living in Spain along with the painful reunion with a long-lost Mother.

Dramatic without going overboard, and without losing touch with the primary plot that this is a professional footballer's story.


I have mixed feelings for this movie. I truly liked the original "Goal" mainly because I'm a huge soccer fan. Not that the sequel is a bad movie but in my opinion, it lacked of reality moments. Let me explain myself...

Sure, the movie is very well done because it has good acting, an interesting romantic plot, and tries to display the ups and downs of being a famous soccer player. The transfer negotiations and trainings were also a nice addition to help understand how it works. Also, it was great to see Real Madrid's starts in small cameos. So, "Goal 2" succeeds because it's a blockbuster movie and probably a favorite among young audiences. The events of the movie are truly over the top but it works. I really hope that Santiago's half brother plot will be important in the next "Goal"!

On the other side, I expected more interaction with Real player's. Also I expected more seriousness on the UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE sub-plot. I mean, it's the most important soccer event in the world after the FIFA WORLD CUP. The director and producer made it look like just another tournament. But on the bright side, I liked that some real matches were displayed with the occasional CGI help. Also, it isn't that easy to score in these kind of games! But oh well, I understand it's only a movie :)and a good one.

Watching Zidane (the last soccer genius) and Ronald wearing the Real Madrid outfit was great and powerful.

The direction and visuals are spectacular. The soccer matches looked great with the aid of CGI and brilliant cinematography. I expected more soccer related scenes though. Kuno Becker delivers a good performance again. I'm glad for him. Alessandro Nivola steals the show as Gavin Harris, overrated soccer superstar. Anna Friel looked mature but sexy as hell and delivered a good performance (love her accent). Stephen Dillane also delivers a fine performance as Santiago's former assistant. Rutger Hauer also delivers a good performance; he's always the man.

So give it a chance for "Goal 2" if you are a huge soccer fan. Otherwise, you might enjoy it for it's dramatic plot and romantic situations.

Hopefully, in "Goal 3" we will get to see Santiago leading Mèxico to win the FIFA WORLD CUP. That could only happen in a movie :(


What makes football great is that it is a game of opinions. It is obvious from reading some of the postings on here that some people have judged the film on whether or not they like David Beckham. Yes, he does appear in the film, but then so do a lot of the other players. Like it or not David Beckham is one of the most bankable stars in football, so it inevitable. Lets face it anyone from Arsenal (as one of the postings is from) is not going to be a Beckham fan. Anyway, as for the film, I think the makers of the film are so intent on steering the film away from the predictability of most sports films, ie player/team starts off badly, then ends up winning an hour and a half later (well you all know what happens) that it leaves out any real moments of drama or tension. What we have left is a bit of footballers soap opera. Saying that though, I thought it was good entertainment.


I found Goal 2 Living the Dream a wonderful sequel to Goal. A lot of people have bagged this film saying its too predictable. Hey its not an Oscar movie but hey do you want them all the time.

Goal 2 follows Santiago Munez through the next phase of his soccer career and all the same characters are back. I loved it.

The football scenes are awesome you really believe that the players are playing in front of huge crowds and the storyline is very engaging.

There is a lot of drama in this movie so its not all football scenes but this to me add to the worth of this film. I enjoyed every minute of it and got goose bumps as it really immerses you in the life of a multi million dollar footballer. I cant wait to see Goal 3


I have to say that, for a long time, I didn't even bother watching any of the two "Goal!" movies because of my bad experiences with a few other soccer movies I've seen in the past. However, last week I happened to stumble upon the first movie while it was shown on TV and I kinda liked it, giving it an IMDb rating of 8 out of 10 stars. Although it was definitely not an excellent movie, having a few plot holes and a quite predictable ending, it was still a surprisingly good soccer movie with an otherwise decent plot. Logically, I wanted to see the sequel and therefore decided to rent it on DVD a few days later.

However, the second "Goal!" movie was a huge disappointment. It was nothing but another below-average soccer movie with a boring and predictable plot. While the beginning was more or less promising, the rest of the movie was just a bunch of nonsense. It wasn't even about soccer anymore. Throughout the movie, the scenes of a soccer match would only occasionally appear on screen for a few minutes, while the rest was about disco clubs, parties, expensive cars, love affairs, family problems, paparazzi, filming of TV commercials... All in all, a bunch of more or less uninteresting situations already seen in numerous movies about famous musicians or film stars.

The ending was also as predictable as it gets, with the main character's new club, Real Madrid, winning the Champions League in a similar fashion as his previous club, Newcastle United, qualified for the Champions League in the first movie, coming back from 2-0 down to win the game 3-2 in the final few minutes. I rated this movie 3 out of 10 stars, but the rating could have easily been lower. It is undoubtedly one of the worst movies I've seen in the last few months. One more thing, it was quite unusual to see another sequel being announced at the end of such a terrible movie. I'm not sure if I'm going to give it a try, it surely can't be much better than this.


SPOILERS Straight to the point, just like many other sequels, this is a woeful film. Badly directed, filmed, acted, written and made, it is a disappointing follow on to what had been a remarkably enjoyable original.

Santiago Munez (Kuno Becker) has been transfered to Real Madrid, but when you are a rich, spoilt footballer with more money than sense, life doesn't always run smoothly.

From the opening minutes, the flaws with "Goal II" become apparent. Whilst the original specialised in it's simplicity and rags to riches story, this is more about the fall from grace and corruption of the individual.

This story, this path to destruction, is told in such a weak, badly written style that not only do we loose any sort of connection with our characters, but eventually we actually end up loathing the entire concept of the film. In our first outing, we cared about Munez, we cared about those around him, we cared about Newcastle. Yet here we are, one film on, and nobody really cares about that over hyped, over arrogant bunch in Madrid. The humble nature of football is removed, at times intentionally, at times accidentally, from the entire story and the audience is made to suffer.

Away from the plot, we also have to face up to the awful truth that the whole cinematography has been ruined too. To give the first film it's due, it really managed to capture the footballing atmosphere perfectly, and when it slotted fictional characters into the live action, there was a degree of realism about it. So why do we now have some shoddy, artificial, attempt where everything looks more like a version of Pro Evolution Soccer than real life? The brightness of the light as Rutger Hauer's Dutch coach of Madrid would look at Munez on the bench, the whole feel, it looks ridiculously artificial.

Also, the film feels like it has been sped up too. When on the pitch, our first film was filmed at a relatively human speed, yet here we have fast action shots which look absolutely insane. It just looks nasty, pure and simple.

There is a lot else wrong with this film. The acting, the soundtrack (the first featured a rather stunning selection of Oasis tracks for some reason), the concept. Yet I'm going to avoid going into any more detail. This is a film which promised so much, and has delivered so little. It'll be interesting to see the third film at the World Cup, but my expectations are not that high. Stick to the first film.


I couldn't wait for this to hit the big screen but to my disappointment, the film wasn't half as good as i had expected. After seeing the first i didn't know when the super subs dream was going to end, but at Real Madrid with superstars surrounding him, i thought i was in for a treat. But to my mistake, the storyline steers of course of the footballing world bringing in a twist of family life which was almost suddenly killed of by the stress of which football brings. Every little boy's dream is to play football at a professional level but this film gives us an inside view as to what goes on off the pitch and in my opinion doesn't have enough twists in the story. As i'm a football fanatic i loved the matches they played and the 3-2 comeback in the Champions League final was amazing but so predictable. Overall i feel the film was a failure but is still worth watching so that there is some hope that GOAL III can impress and revive the disappointment of GOAL II. Daniel Bryson


I was very excited about seeing Goal! 2 after Goal ! was a great movie.However as I learned that Santiago will play for Real Madrid my excitement faded. The film's plot contrary to other users comments is a very strong one,we see a dark side of our hero Santiago(as fame consumes him),we see the price of fame. One thing that I found stupid in the plot was the fact that Real end up winning the Champions League,in a very unrealistic game. However how the writers of this film managed to twist the plot was very clever.Like for example the fact that Michael Owen moved to Newcastle in exchange for Munez,was a very good twist. There were two things that annoyed me in this film. The fact that this film is one big advert for Adidas,now even in the first film there are a lot of Adidas related stuff,but in this film they push it. Another thing was how the matches were made.The actors were added into real matches digitally and the final product ended up so fake ! In total Goal! 2 is a film which movie buffs will find very fake,mixed audiences (like myself) will like and football fanatics will love.

7/10


This movie is extremely unrealistic and to say the least predictable. Santi seems to make every shot into a goal. And they are not just ordinary or good goals, they are amazing goals. I'm talking about volleys and bicycles, how often does that happen in the champions? And to the same guy? Sure, Zizou might pull it off, but to do it consistently? I think that if a movie is to be made about football, realism is quite important.

I do like how they integrate the many stars that real has. It seems that at times santi and gavin are really playing alongside henry, David, zizou, robbie, etc. But I do have to say... what the hell is Nick Cannon doing here? What? It's fine that they put him in a breakdance or basketball or detective movie. But football? I could not stop laughing when i saw him in the finals. Maybe he's got an important part in the third movie... I hope he does... because he seems extremely out of place in goal II.

I don't' know if there is a rule about the finals of the champions being played at home, but even if it's allowed, what a coincidence that the finals for that year was played in the Bernabeu. then there is the whole is - she - my - mother - and - why - did - you - not - tell - me - i -am - so - sad - and - confused issue paired with the i - kissed - another - girl - and - my - gf - is - mad - now - i - need - to - make - it - up - to - her issue... and he still manages to score game winning an game defining goals.

Now the plot was too foreseeable. as soon as that jordana girl shows up, it was pretty much spelled out that he was gonna have to apologize to his gf. and then the whole mother thing was also very predictable. it was expected that santi was going to get into trouble because of his mom. and last but not least, we all expected santi to be the best player in madrid. He makes all these improbable goals and who could actually be shocked with madrid coming back from 2-0 and beating the gunners all in a span of 6 minutes?

Oh... and why is santi and his mom speaking in Englsih? They start in Spanish.. but end in English? They might as well speak in Spanish since they already introduced Spanish throughout the whole film.


This movie is finally coming out it the US!!!!! I have been waiting for this movie forever. The first Goal movie was one of my favorite movies of all time. I love football(soccer) and after having to watch so many baseball movies I am happy to finally have a movie series about the sport that I like and play. It really is an inspiring story about believing in yourself and triumphing over adversity. The characters are developed nicely and the love story is even handled in a very good way and does not feel tacked on like it does in so many other sports movies.

Santiago comes from Los Angeles to Newcastle and then plays at the world famous Real Madrid. My favorite player David Beckham is in this movie too. We were not lucky enough for "Zidane a 21st Century portrait" to come out in the US so this is your only chance to see Zidane in film. Come on and support proper football in the US and see this movie!!!


i have to say i loved the first film of the GOAL! series, the sequel is also very good but not as good as the first.....

The film shows how all the fame and fortune of playing football for one of the worlds biggest clubs can get too your head, his girlfriend and he fallout and she goes back to England and even at the end we don't know where there relationship will go (although me and some of my friends agreed that they will get back together)

In the end David Beckham scores the winner for Real Madrid (With Munez and Harris getting the others) against Arsenal to win the Champions League Final 3-2!

This film was really good, but not as good as the first in my opinion, can't wait for the third one to come out!


There haven't been too many engaging football films. In fact, bar possibly Bend It Like Beckham and the recent art-house flick Zidane, there have been precisely nil.

Goal 2 is unlikely to add to that total, it being an update of last year's Goal in which Kuno Becker's Santiago Munez is awarded the chance of a lifetime albeit one that involves him abandoning his life in Los Angeles in order to pursue a career at Newcastle United rather than follow his father into the lawn maintenance business. He, you won't be too surprised to learn, succeeds  unlike pretty much every real player who has signed to the side in recent years.

So successful has he been that, when he rejoin him in Goal 2 - Live The Dream, he has turned his back on the underachieving Geordies and been snapped up by Real Madrid, where he joins up with guest stars David Beckham and Raul. And while neither have been signed up for their acting skills, the same could also be said of Rutger 'The Hitcher' Hauer, who plays Real Madrid manager Rudi Van Der Merwe with all the conviction and passion of a man who's long abandoned hope of a career in Hollywood.

On the strength of Goal 2, the chances of Becker having a long career are equally slight, sadly. Still, Becker's love interest Anna Friel is fine, while the action scenes are notably more impressive than anything in Escape To Victory, not to mention St James's Park.


Indeed this film did have it's entertaining elements, but that's because I'm a football fanatic. Indeed, I've just contradicted myself, but it just patronizes you at every football-based moment. Of course this at the end of the day is merely a sport film, so no plot is expected. The storyline-- well it goes with the cliché dilemma of whether he should go for love or sex appeal. In addition he randomly finds out about some secret family. Well this lack of originality can only rival Christopher Paolini. And to cap it all, they come back to win the champions league. A tantalizing twist which no-one saw. Period. That was sarcasm.

*** Oh, and the fictional player called T.J Harper-- that made me laugh-- not sure it was meant to.


What could be described as a milestone of football (soccer) movies, well, it had the worst sequel a movie can have.

Goal II: Living The Dream follows Santiago, but, this time, he transfers to Real Madrid. And now, I even wonder if it was the club owners who produced the film, because this is advertising as its best.

Raul, Ronaldo, Roberto Carlos, yeah go figure, all those stars happen to play themselves in the film. And why the hell do I care? Awful movie. At least Goal I had a fantastic an original story, nevermind adding that it was set on England, the birthplace of football.

As a movie, it is done as good as the first one. But the plot ruins it.


Point No 1:-Real Madrid Being Such A Foolish Club Can Never Find Talent's Like This...They Only Buy Players Who Already Have A Worldclass Reputation & Make Them Less Than Useless & Sell Them Point No 2:-Real Madrid Can Never Win The Champions League Again....For At least Another 3 to 4 Years...Their Fans Can Stop Dreaming..... Point No 3:-Real Madrid Fans Call Their Team The Club Of The Century Actually It Is The Joke Of The Century..... Point No 4:-They Are A Utter Piece Of Sh*t Have Many Things To Say But I Don't Want To Waste My Time On This...... .................... ..... ......... ....................... ....... .......... ..... .... ....................... ................................ .................. .......... ................. ............ ............ ..... .............


Not a 'great' film by any stretch of the imagination, but not nearly as bad as some of the 'football' experts would tell us in their reviews. I'm certainly no expert on 'the game' but this movie was thoroughly entertaining for anyone that can get over themselves and their knowledge of what the football world might be or is really like.

Sure, anyone in any profession or with any particular interest and knowledge of an area, field or profession can sit and pick holes and inaccuracies in a movie about such, but watching a film isn't necessarily about self-validation. This film achieves what it sets out to do, which is promote the game and the players in flashing neon lights and entertain the masses who might not necessarily be football fanatics.

The 'star' Santiago rejoins his 'wingman' Gavin Harris from the first film in a Top Gun style opportunity to foot it with the best of the best for the #1 club, surrounded by the best players. He seeks to force his way into the starting lineup but has plenty of competition. Naturally there are plenty of hiccups and setbacks along the way, including injuries and relationship problems, but they finally get their act together and both cover themselves in glory at the end.

There are no award winning performances I have to say, but the character 'Gavin Harris' is exactly that, a character, while I can't comment on Rutger Hauer's performance as coach, but he certainly looked the part.

GOAL II has plenty of glitz, glamour, flash cribs/cars, eye candy, sweaty bodies, 'football' action and a pumping soundtrack (all that and not an 'F' word or sex scene in sight). I recommend watching it on the biggest screen you can find with the loudest surround sound possible cranked up.

For me, it certainly does for European Footballers what 'Top Gun' did for Naval Aviators and I wouldn't have minded being either after seeing the films.


This is not a good Football movie (Yes I said Football because thats what its called, not soccer)Generally football movies aren't good because they truly fail to capture what is so great about the game. Also I watch the Cahmpions league and many of the games from the Spanish league and it doesn't work for me when you actually know what truly happened in those games, for example Madrid lost against Arsenal, and actually didn't get that far in champions that year. I agree with what many of you have said, the film is a HUGE Adidas commercial and the fact that when the movie came out, many of the players weren't in Real Madrid anymore. and Im sorry but Owen for Muñez is not a plot twist, that actually happened, the difference is that Owen was bought by Newcastle not switched.

The main problem with the movie is that if you are a true football fan you know that many of stunts pulled off in the movie could never be pulled off in real life and that is where the movie looses a lot of its credibility. The cameos of famous players were fantastic although I don't agree with the over exposure of Beckham but the other cameos are great. And trust me the third one is going to be bad the first one was not bad, the third one was bad and I truly hope the next one isn't worse than this one.


Don't expect to see a lot of football here cause there isn't. Its a drama. Has everything --- infidelity, high speed pursuit, sex,etc,etc, etc.

And yes it shows glimpses of some high class footballers like Beckham, Zidane, Raul, etc but thats about it.

The movie stresses more off field than on it. Football is the backdrop. The high life , the fast cars and the glamorous girls of sports industry are a big part of the flick . Well one does not expect the story of two long lost brothers in a sports film, but this one has that bit too!!.

I was not expecting more out of this after Goal and it does not even meet my humble expectations.


I watched the first movie when it released in the cinemas, and although it was highly unrealistic (all the chances he miraculously gets), I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought the movie mixed the highs with the lows believably.

There was decent acting, a good story, and as previously mentioned, although a bit far fetched, it made for good watching.

However goal 2 had me bored far before the end. It was just the most ridiculous story I have ever seen. From terrible high speed car chases to plain boring sequences, the movie just seemed like an assortment of hundreds of genres, with minimal football.

All in all I thought it had tremendous potential had it just stuck to a footballers troubles in his footballing world, rather than try to get stuck in a long boring drama.


I was expecting to be grossly disappointed by this sequel, after the first offering which blew me away ((being a Newcastle fan and all)) I was pleasantly surprised however at the ease at which the story flowed between Santiago's time at Newcastle, to his blossoming career at Real Madrid.

A real heartbreaking moment was when he allowed the money and dizzy heights of his new found fame go to his head, and pushed away the lovely Roz.

An upside however was Santiago finally finding his long lost mother and a stepbrother he never knew he had...

All in all, a rollicking good watch for all concerned.


The first Goal was a great movie that i believe every soccer fan should view. With my first beliefs this one could not catch up I stand corrected. This movie had just as much passion and love for the game and the characters as the other one. Great camera work, amazing/thrilling moments throughout all to form a great movie experience!!! Definitely worth the watch for any soccer fan. All characters are well presented, and the movies plot is not lost throughout as young Munez finds his way as a real first class soccer player. My favorite part of this movie is that all of my favorite players are seen as players who play with Munez.


Living the Dream? More like Living the Nightmare!

The first Goal movie brought plenty of cheers to football fans, who celebrated the coming of a decent movie about the beloved Beautiful Game. And it didn't disappoint, with a likable hero in Santiago Munez (Kuno Becker) in a rags to riches story, nifty footwork and camera-work, locales familiar to English Premier League fans, the seamless combination of real world match footage with fictional shots taken on match days, and access to seldom seen areas in and around the stadiums.

The story of Santiago continues in this UK-Spain-Germany production, with the stage moving from England to Spain (and to Germany of course for the World Cup). With the first movie centered on the domestic football league following Newcastle's season, the sequel brings us to the Spanish La Liga, and firmly the spotlight of matches put on Europe's Champions League games. It's a no-brainer that German involvement will be of course the World Cup which just ended last year, and given that this sequel is delayed, you'd still get to see Real Madrid's ex-galacticos like Roberto Carlos, Zinedine Zidane, David Beckham and Ronaldo, besides mainstayers like Iker Caillas and Raul Gonzalez, amongst others (see if you can spot McManaman!)

In a player swap deal with Michael Owen, we see Munez head to Real Madrid, in probably almost every footballer's dream to play for one of the biggest clubs in the world. And of course with hard nosed coach Rudi Van Der Merwe (Rutger Hauer) at the helm, our new recruit has to prove his worth before being handed some first team duties. But good friend and ex-Newcastle player Gavin Harris (Alessandro Nivola) is on hand at the club (reference the first movie shall we) to provide Munez some action, especially when Harris is running afoul with Rudi for his lost form.

The football sequences here are rather straightforward, and more of the same we saw in the first movie, save for some spectacular, probably CG-ed movies like the volleys, overhead kicks and diving headers. The number of matches being featured too is much less, as the story wanted to focus on our player's life outside of football.

You know, by putting all the press reports that you read day in day out of boozing, incessant partying, easy models who don't bat an eyelid looking to get between the sheets with the players, flashy sports cars, designer togs, mansions with numerous rooms, and the likes. Munez lives the dream in material wealth, although this starts to get into his head and takes a toil with his relationships, especially with girlfriend Roz (Anna Friel). There are numerous subplots put into Goal 2, but most times they are superficially touched upon for the sole purpose of covering the ground, and then forgotten conveniently, like the paparazzi photo- journalist, and various incidents on and off the pitch.

What I thought slowed the movie down further, was the injection of Munez's typical stepbrother brat from hell, and mother, who were conspicuously absent in the first movie, then reintroduced here just to amplify the moments that try to touch the heart (like in the first movie with the dad and grandmother), but one without which I feel would not make much of a difference. Couple this family reunion-reconciliation of sorts, together with his struggles with injury and attempts to shake off the "super-sub" tag, Munez has his hands full.

While the other real life players do not have much speaking lines (or none at all), you can't help but to feel both Kuno Becker and Alessandro Nivola being fish out of water in the Real Madrid dressing room, where either the charismatic players will undoubtedly get the audience attention with their antics or camaraderie which shines through, or clever editing and cinematography tells you that shots have been made with the clear exclusion of those players in some movie magic moments. The movie too seemed to like David Beckham, given plenty of scenes, befitting probably of his real last hurrah at the club before leaving them this summer.

And for Arsenal fans like myself, while it's a blast to see the team featured in this movie, and the likes of Jose Antonio Reyes (who incidentally played for Real Madrid few weeks ago and created then scored 2 crucial goals in their final league game to hand them the La Liga title), Robert Pires and a fictional TJ featured alongside our Captain Thierry Henry (don't leave!), the result is blasphemous as the last time we went head-on with Real, it was in the first knockout round 2 seasons ago where we triumphed 1-0.

So the scoreline at the end, well, it's actually living in the dream. Given that the ending is one of the technical worst that can happen, leading straight to the third installment, let's hope that the concluding chapter really does see the light of day. Not as polished as the first one with the novelty factor wearing off, but let's judge the series as a whole once the sequel screens. Excellent soundtrack once again, coupled with the usual product placement shots for Adidas.


There were no redeeming qualities to this sequel. The plot was poor, the dialogue awful and what was up with Kuno's accent? In the first movie he's got really no accent, he's an American. But in the second...he's got this poor accent through out the movie. The dialogue and plot were bad...but the cinematography were even worse! The editing was choppy, the football boring...there was no tension in the film...and because of how annoying Santiago has become you don't even want to root for him either.

Ironically, the best acting performances came from the footballers on the field, in the training scenes and in-game footage.

And who thought it was a good idea to have Nick Cannon be in this movie? And as an Englishman? For shame.

Acting: Terrible. Directing: Awful. Cinematography+ Editing: Atrocious Dialogue: Amateurish

And who thought it was smart to have the characters go in and out of Spanish...then randomly go back into English??

If you're going to bring Santiago and his mother together...why not try and make it mean something?

Worthless movie. Trust me, you should avoid this if at all possible. Move right to the third movie.


Not too many words can be wasted on this movie. I have already wasted 2 and half hours of my life. To cut the long story short, this movie is all about the high society indulgence and a really lame story. The story lifts off from where it's predecessor left - Munez gets into Real Madrid. He becomes a part of high society, thereby drifting off from his loved ones. He searches for his mother and his step brother plays, It's about how he ... heck, the story is so badly narrated that I am not able to write a summary.

Danny Cannon did a way better job in Goal! The Dream Begins than Jaume Collet-Serra who has absolutely destroyed what could have been a potentially brilliant drama.

That's it. I refuse to write anymore for this piece of garbage. Did I mention that I feel like kicking Jaume Collet-Serra into the goalpost.


I watched Goal 1 quite solely because I'm a Newcastle fan, and Alan Shearer has a cameo role. However, the movie highly exceeds my expectations for a football movie. I enjoyed almost everything, the emotions, the story progression, the camera angles, the pacing, the acting, blah blah blah. I always thought the story should have ended there.

Knowing there will be a trilogy, I already expected Goal 2 will not be as good as Goal 1. Moving to Real Madrid already tell us that the story WILL BE Santiago Munez being proud because of his fame and big money. Since I have already watched Goal 1, I though I should continue with Goal 2, but expecting it will not be as good, but not really bad.

If Goal 1 greatly exceeds my expectations, then Goal 2 will be the direct opposite. It turned out to be even lousier than expected. The story never really build up, useless extended footage on the pitch, lousy snow cgi, all the blame is put on Gavin Harris when Real did not score, when they have Ronaldo, Raul, Robinho, Baptista (that's already 4 strikers in 1 pitch at the same time), with super playmakers Beckham, Zidane, Graveson, etc. Then there's a out-of-nowhere long-lost mother and brother, going-nowhere Gavin Harris wine-story, terrible pacing, and maybe a whole lot more story mistakes and good director shouldn't have made.

I usually only go to the cinema when I think its a movie that has at least potential of being good, and this is the first time I came out of the cinema confirming I have just watched a lousy movie.

I just found out it is by a different director. If I were director of he first one I would be very sad.


I don't remember when i last laugh this much when i saw a movie (might have been when i saw the first goal movie) there are so many errors in this movie that it's impossible not to laugh at it. for an example they start of by showing the "El Classico" from 2006 then they jump straight to the summer (El Classico was in march or april) then they have the bar called Miguel Angel in madrid and Angel is a Barca Icon so the idea of having a bar in Madrid named after one of their arch rivals is not possible. Only see this movie if u want to laugh at errors and not to take it to serious because European football is nothing at all the way they put it in the movie (And the Champions League is not played like the superbowl playoff there are 2 games in the quarter, semi-finals so it's not enough to win just one game)


i think that film was a great film 2 watch. it shows u how u feel about the game and if u want 2 become a professional football wit love involved i just wanna no wen goal 3 is out because that has 2 be better because she is pregnant and who's the father i think we know its munez's baby.! and i reckon this has become a gr8 movie from goal because it means anything is possible so u don't have to have trails for teams you can just be spotted u never know in the years 2 come but i just cant wait until goal 3 comes out because thats just going to be fantastic so thanks for looking at my comment and hope 2 comment again soon about goal 3 this time thanks


I think that the movie was absolutely excellent! I think that it is even more than what I expected it to be, because it goes deeper than the first one. I appreciate a lot about the script the fact that it follows life's "precedure", so to speak: bad luck brings not one, but many misfortunes. I also think that it shows very well how it is extremely hard to maintain oneself on top once one gets there. The action sequences are meticulously combined with the dramatic and romantic moments, which maintain a certain rush of adrenaline. I definitely loved how the football matches were shot and the effects and the music was more than perfect! Sure there are some little exaggerations(some of the goal, some of the football stunts), but the shivers that one gets when seeing Raul, Beckam, Ronaldo, Thierry Henry, Zidane and other football stars giving their best on the pitch is worth every second of it. My recommendation is to watch it...and to feel it! Because football comes from the heart!


Problem with these 2 'Goal' football (yes Americans, the game is called FOOTBALL not soccer) movies is that they are blatantly ridiculous. And actually -a fact that no one seems to notice- there's a lot of interesting stuff going on in football's REAL LIFE -more interesting i'd say, then in these stupid 'goal'-movies where the hero goes from illegal immigrant to winning the champions league in approximately one (1) year. That's the level of a ten year old, i'd say, or as i may add, of an American audience that for some strange reason never seems to get bored by the same old storyline in a different movie. Let's throw in a car chase, let's throw in some kissing, let's throw in some celebs ,oh yeah, some unrealistic football action before we forget, and ready is our SOCCER movie. That's the biggest problem. Hollywood doing a football film will NEVER NEVER work. Any volunteers from other sides of the world?


Sometimes HBO will air the most random movies. I just watched "Paternity" again. I saw it back in the day and loved it then and now.

The story of a middle aged successful single bachelor who feels eomthing is missing in his life. He decides he wants a baby, but not a wife or girlfriend...just a baby. He hooks up with Maggie (Diangelo) who is a waitress who also plays the french horn saving for a trip to Paris. He offers her money to be the surrogate (not quite as common then as it is today) and she accepts. During the months that they are together while she's carrying the baby it's obvious to see that they are destined to fall in love, but while it may be predictable it is just very sweet.

Great chemistry between buddy and maggie (reynolds and diangelo).


One of the last great movies by a usually great actor (Burt of course). The movie is funny, has characters you love, and the usual feel good ending. I mean is there something wrong with that(in this day and age)?


Made during the `Glory Days' of the ABC Movie of the Week, when they were putting out some real quality TV-Movies (The Night Stalker; Dr. Cook's Garden; A Brand New Life; Congratulations, It's a Boy; Five Desperate Women), this one ranks with the best of them.

Chandler-esque detective yarn, great atmosphere, clever dialogue, and perfectly cast (particularly Michael Dunn, probably the greatest Little Person actor in Hollywood history).

Catch it if you can. A true gem.


We watch people boarding a bus, circa 1944/45/46. A man is seated in the back quietly, when a soldier sits down next to him. For what must represent at least an hour or two of traveling the soldier is just jabbering away, while the man next to him is...well trapped, hoping this clown will just move away, leave the bus, or shut up. Finally they are the last two on the bus when they reach a stop. The soldier says it's his stop, picks up his duffel bag, says good bye to the man, pulls out a gun with a silencer, and shoots him. He then pulls a large package out of the dead man's pocket, puts it into his duffel bag, and leaves the bus. And our movie of the week begins.

GOODNIGHT, MY LOVE was a valentine to the film noir of the 1940s and 1950s. Barbara Bain is the woman who goes to the private eye offices of Richard Boone. She is looking for her brother, who is missing. Soon it turns out this missing man is the "soldier" in the opening of the film. But the identity of the dead man is learned too - it is a courier carrying papers concerning the nightclub run by Vicor Buono. Boone's job is to find the missing man, but also to find out why the courier was hit. And there some people who appear not to want Boone to find any of this out.

But from the start the film is goofy. Boone's partner - one hesitates to call him his "Miles Archer" - is diminutive, but great actor Michael Dunn. Their firm is not doing so hot, which may explain Bain's hiring them. But soon Dunn's height shows it's usefulness. Somebody knocks at the firm's door, and Dunn goes to answer - and six bullets are pumped through the door's center (which would have killed a regular sized man answering, but happens to pass over a surprised Dunn's head). Unlike Bogart in MALTESE FALCON, Bain is no Mary Astor. In fact she remains consistently business-like regarding why she hired Boone (much to his dismay).

The obvious villain, of course, is Victor Buono as "Julius Limeway", a definite part in homage to the great Sidney Greenstreet. Buono is always seen at his nightclub, usually dining. He wears white tuxedos all the time. Dunn, getting fed up with Buono's sinister airs, lectures him before leaving that if he is going to wear white, he should not eat dishes with tomato sauce. Dunn and Boone leave the scene to Buono, last seen dipping his napkin into a water glass and rubbing his suit's lapel very heavily.

It was a different and welcome television movie, and one hopes it will show up again some time.


Richard Boone and Michael Dunn play a pair of world weary private detectives in this superb television movie of the week from 1972. They are down to their last nickel and wondering where their next meal is coming from. There is a knock at the door and in strolls Barbara Bain. "Would it be possible to hire you?" She inquires. It seems her husband to be, Gianni Russo, is missing and Bain wants to find out why. A quick cash advance and Boone and partner are on the job. They head for the missing groom's room where not two steps inside Boone's head is on the receiving end of a pistol butt. Once Boone has recovered, they pay a return visit to Miss Bain. While a simple case of finding a man is OK, a pistol whipping is not what they signed up for. They quit! Bain doubles their fee and back on the job the two go. A little digging and they find that Gianni is mixed up with a mobbed up club owner, Victor Buono. Buono pulls out all stops as he gives a great Sydney Greenstreet imitation. Someone has bumped off a mob courier and helped himself to a suitcase with $400,000. And it seems that Bain's missing beau is the prime suspect. The mob is not amused and has a contract out on Gianni. Boone and Dunn find that double cross on top of double cross is the order of the day with this bunch. Buono is short of cash due to some large gambling losses. He hires Gianni to bump off the courier with the suitcase and return it to him. Gianni instead takes the suitcase and goes into hiding. Every time Boone gets close to finding Gianni he finds himself on the wrong of various fists, boots and gun barrels. Boone is not amused. When the boys do find Gianni it is after he has taken a 6 story fall. Witnesses describe a woman who sounds a lot like Bain leaving the area just after her now ex's failed flight. Now it all comes clear to Boone. Bain was in on the scam with Gianni. Buono crosses the mob, Gianni crosses Buono, then Bain crosses Gianni. The only problem for Bain is that the suitcase was empty. Buono, assuming that he was going to get the suitcase back had given the mob courier an empty suitcase. When Gianni returned, Buono intended to dispose of him and use the cash to pay his gambling debts. Buono's perfect plan goes all to hell because of a dame. Soon Bain is added to the body count and the mob tumbles to Buono's play. He is next on the list for the long sleep. Boone and Dunne return to their office to wait for the next fool to walk in.

This is one great film! The dialogue is superb with the back and forth between Boone and Dunn being utterly priceless.

Directed by Peter Hyams whose work includes, Outland, Time Cop, Sudden Death , Narrow Margin, (the remake) and the strange P.I. film Peeper.


I saw this movie when it first aired back in 1972 on ABC movie of the week and I'm trying to get a copy of it as I write this. Just about everyone in the cast is dead except for Barbara Bain. I was hoping it was going to get picked up as a show but like so many good pilots from that time period it fell by the waste side. If you haven't seen it, try to check it out. It's a well above average detective TV movie With a great cast. Back in the 70's There was a lot of movies being made about that time period. Even Robert Mitchum Played a Philip Marlow in 1974 in Farewell My Lovely. Tony Curtis did Lepkie and so on. I think when Re-runs of the untouchables surfaced it started a wave on that subject matter. To bad there not making more films like that now.


Back in the 1970s, some young directors really believed it was possible to make movies for television, rather than "TV movies" (one-episode 90 minute TV shows or the longer, even less cinematic soap opera 'miniseries'). The best known of these efforts was Spielberg's "Duel," but there were good films appearing now and again all the way up 'till about 1983, which saw the "Day After" phenomenon, following which Republicans put such pressure on TV producers, they never attempted anything risky on broadcast TV again.

This movie may very well be Peter Hyam's best. It certainly boasts the best later performance by Richard Boone as a washed-out detective and a knock-down performance by Michael Dunne as his side-kick. The camera-work, the pacing, the dialog, are all low-key, but need to be - this is an homage to the noir films of the forties, not a "Chinatown" attempt to resurrect them. Consequently there's a great deal of gentle humor here, but it never gets campy, and doesn't get in the way of a tight little mystery that is doomed to end badly for everyone - the detectives succeed in the end only because they live to be able to tell the tale (and are smart enough to know not to waste their breath telling it). There's a general feeling of 'life happens" pervading the film - as was also the case for the noir films toward the end of that genre as it faded after WWII. Despite the low-key approach, the film is highly memorable for its atmosphere and characterizations. I haven't seen it for years and I still think of seeing it with pleasure. Probably a lost film (although I suppose you can find anything on the internet), this could be well worth the research to rediscover.


This may have started out as a light-hearted take-off on 40's film noir but ends up being just as good if not better than any of those classic films. One of the greatest casts ever assembled for any movie! All but Barabara Bain are gone now and we should mourn their passing. Richard Boone, Michael Dunn make such a pair I wish this had been picked up as series. I doubt they could have maintained such quality on a weekly basis. The background music, photography, writing, acting are all excellent. The way they evoke the 1940's really puts you in the mood. The story is a bit predictable and you'll spot the bad guy at first glance but it's all fun. Great Movie!


Columbo often plays a kind of chess game with his opponents, but this time his adversary is an actual chess champion.

Emmett Clayton (Laurence Harvey, with echoes of his tormented character in "The Manchurian Candidate") has a nightmare before an important chess match, a nightmare the director helpfully visualizes for us as a giant fog-filled chess board, on which Clayton and his opponent are chess pieces. Clearly, he's worried about his match with Tomlin Dudek (Jack Kruschen, who looks a bit like Captain Kangaroo), a kindly old fat Russian. Later, the two meet, not coincidentally, in a French restaurant, where they begin using the salt and pepper shakers and other objects on the table as chess pieces. The game continues in Clayton's apartment  secretly, because both Dudek's doctor and his coach would throw fits if they knew the diabetic Russian was out late, eating rich foods with his opponent. Clayton loses the impromptu game and has a nervous fit, from which Dudek tries to calm him down.

Meanwhile, Columbo appears before there's even a murder: Dudek's coach had panicked and called the police when the champion didn't show up in his hotel room on time. So Columbo is aware of this man even before something serious happens.

The next day something does. Clayton decides he must murder Dudek before the match. He concocts a scheme that makes it look as if Dudek met with an untimely accident in the hotel's trash compactor. But our rumpled and seemingly disorganized Lt. Columbo is on the case.

Clayton makes for an interesting adversary. He refuses to play along with Columbo's pretense, forcing our resourceful detective into some quicksilver improvisation. Clayton won't pretend for a moment that Columbo is just interested in clearing a few things up, and he calls him on it immediately. He also won't stand for Columbo's usual forgetful routine. Wonderfully, he demonstrates his own superior memory in a way I'll leave for you to discover. Clayton is also nearly deaf, a handicap that has both unusual advantages and unexpected perils.

The script is not as quite as sure and deft as the great "Columbo" episodes, like "Murder by the Book" and "A Stitch in Crime." But it comes very close. I particularly loved the scene where Clayton plays chess with a series of fawning opponents as Columbo grills him. And then there's the ending, which is very satisfactory. This is a must-see for "Columbo" fans and good entertainment for anyone else.


A chess grandmaster (Emmett Clayton) becomes increasingly uncomfortable and anxious on the run-up to a chess match with a Soviet player (Tomlin Dudek) who has come out of retirement especially to play him. When the two meet on the evening before the match and Clayton suffers defeats in both a spontaneous game at a restaurant and a pre-arranged game at the hotel, he decides to take matters into his own hands...

The chess environment serves as a particularly appealing and suitably competitive back-drop to this episode for it facilitates an individualised battle of wits between Columbo and murderer.

Laurence Harvey (in one of his last performances) is remarkably superb as the multi-faceted Emmett Clayton, whose increasingly disturbing mental state is temporarily overcome by a remarkable assuredness to murder the only threat to his supremacy as a chess champion.

The plot is refreshingly original and well-thought-out and the script adds different dimensions to those found in the usual Columbo story, particularly as the murderer has to have two separate attempts at killing off his rival.

The whole episode is reasonably well-paced after it carefully sets up the necessary plot information/murder scenario as Columbo tries to unravel the real truth whilst at the same time undermine a very self-confident murderer.

The climax contains some of the best scenes: Columbo's harassment of the murderer with damning accusations whilst he tries to play numerous chess games at once; and then in the basement of the hotel as Columbo perpetrates a crafty plot to confirm his suspicions.

Two minor gripes:

(1) At two key moments Emmett Clayton is able to gain access to Tomlin Dudek's hotel room (once to pack his bag for him and the other time to tamper with his medicines). This happens all too easily: how does Clayton manage to time it when the cleaning lady is/has been in Dudek's room and how does he avoid being seen?

(2) Columbo can only perfectly test out his theory at the end when Clayton removes his hearing aid? How did he know he was going to do that?

These two gripes aside, this is a well above-average, strong addition to the series.


Featuring a cast that includes Laurence Harvey, veteran actor Jack Kruschen, and Lloyd Bochner, along with star Peter Falk, "The Most Dangerous Game" ranks as one of the TOP TEN Columbo installments. Harvey soars as a self-centered chess master whose ego won't let him be defeated by his arch-rival, Krushen as a Russian champion. Harvey, an actor that seemed always on the verge of stardom, plays his part with relish, especially in the last few exchanges between himself and Falk. The "denouement" is one of the few times when an "expletive" is heard in a "Columbo" installment.

Of course, the storyline reflects the Cold War thinking that permeated much of the world at the time, and it's a bit quaint to see the mistrust between American and Soviet bodyguards to both chess players.

An added bonus for the show is the intriguing camera-work and large props used in a dream sequence.


How could a man survive after being crushed by a trash compactor?

The hospital doctors, the police, and Columbo himself apparently didn't notice that, and didn't try to explain the reason why. Is that because the trash compactor stops automatically for security reasons? Yeah, got it! But...

Evidence comes too late, this time, for such an intelligent mind like yours, dear Columbo...

The hand-written Dudek's lines in Russian (and Clayton had luck Dudek didn't add something like "my darling" or "honey" eh eh): OK, Columbo can demonstrate where that ink comes from, but can't explain the content of such lines ... Was Dudek forced to write, or blackmailed? Did Clayton employ some trickery to convince his enemy to write those lines? Perhaps what lacks here, dear Lt. Columbo, is a little deeper insight into the romantic affair between Clayton and the Russian girl.

Apart from that, some very enjoyable scenes (Columbo's dog and the chess match in the restaurant above all): 7/10.


Laurence Harvey stars as a win at all costs chess champion in "The Most Dangerous Match," one of the original Columbo episodes. Harvey, number one at the game only because of the illness of the Russian champion (Jack Kruschen) the year before, panics when he plays a practice match with Kruschen and realizes that this year, he will lose his title. He then plots to get rid of his opponent, only to run afoul of the sloppy lieutenant on the case, Columbo.

Harvey is wonderful in the role, a perfect villain for Columbo because he is so opposite -- arrogant, beautifully spoken, and immaculately dressed. He's also brilliant, but he doesn't recognize brilliance in someone posing a greater threat to him than the deceased chess champion - Columbo. Very entertaining.


It is a delight to watch Laurence Harvey as a neurotic chess player, who schemes to murder the opponent he cannot defeat at the chessboard. This movie has wonderful pacing and several cliffhanger moments, as Harvey's plot several times seems on the point of failure or exposure, but he manages to beat the odds yet again. Columbo wages a skilful war of nerves against this high-strung genius, and the scene where he manages to rattle him enough to cause him to make a mistake while playing chess is one of the highlights of the movie, as Harvey looks down in disbelief at the board, where he has just allowed himself to be checkmated. The climax is almost as strong, and watching Laurence Harvey collapse completely as his scheme is exposed brings the movie to a satisfying finish. Highly recommended.


It's nice that the movie tries some new things for a change. For instance it introduces the Columbo character first into the movie before the murder has even occurred and he starts to investigate before they have even found a body. We don't even get to see how the crime unfolds fully at the beginning but there is a good reason for this as later becomes obvious. It also in a way is more or less a sequel to "Columbo: Étude in Black", of one year earlier. Normally a Columbo movie doesn't refer back to anything that happened in previous Columbo movies but this one does, with Lt. Columbo, his dog and Dr. Benson.

The movie also doesn't feature a lot of interaction between Lt. Columbo and his suspect, a formula normally used in a Columbo movie. This is an element that might disappoint some of the Columbo fans. At moments like this the Columbo character is normally at its best when he puts pressure on his suspect or tries to gain his trust by playing dumber than he of course obviously truly is.

The Columbo character himself also looks 'cleaner' than normal and is it me or is his trademark raincoat in a different color, or at least in some sequences it looks like it.

Of course different doesn't also mean better but in this particular case I didn't mind some of these changes, since the movie obviously still worked out and can be regarded as one that is on par with most of the other Columbo movies and even slightly better than just the average ones.

It's also thanks to the settings and acting that this movie worked out. As dull as it might sound but I like chess and movies featuring the game and world of chess always have a certain typical atmosphere over it, of certain high intellectuality and true gentlemen but at the same time, tension, suspicion and rivalry.

Peter Falk is in good form again as Columbo and it's one of his better acting jobs as the shabby police detective. It also helps the movie that it features Laurence Harvey as the movie it's prime suspect. He is in great form, in one of his very last screen roles before his death in 1973.

It's a fine written and directed movie. The story isn't the most clever or ingenious ones, at least not when being compared to the best and most memorable Columbo movies but it's a story that doesn't bore and still provides plenty of surprises and entertainment, even though this movie doesn't feature as much comical relief as was the case in some other Columbo movies, which in my opinion is a positive thing. The movie features a good build up, to a fine ending. The directing is mostly formulaic and by the book but also features some good dream like sequences and other more different elements that are consistent with the '70's and less standard way of making movies.

I like it as a sort of different Columbo movie.

8/10


Being a chess player myself, I really enjoyed this movie, probably more so than the average person. One of the funniest moments in the movie is when the grandmaster, who had murdered his Russian rival, is confronted (again) by Columbo during a chess simul (an event where a strong player plays matches against several players at once). He becomes so distracted that he gets checkmated by one of his opponents. But the really funny part of this is that you can actually see that the position on the board is the famous "Fool's Mate". Although not even a mediocre player would fall into this trap - much less a grandmaster, even when being annoyed - it really is a fitting position for the movie, for undoubtedly, any chess player who commits murder for fear of losing a chess match is a fool indeed!


Columbo's Most Dangerous Match is about chess. An unlikely subject or motive for murder in my opinion. The star is Manchurian Candidate's Lawrence Harvey who plays a deaf chess champion. He is terrified of losing and will do anything to maintain his status as world chess champion. His competitor is a Russian chess champion who unlike Lawrence Harvey's character is well-regarded and loved instead. He lures him into an unusual trap to prevent him from defeating. Columbo always knows how to work a prime suspect and does it by being fascinated in their work particularly chess. One of Columbo's trademarks is that he gets interested in the character's passion and in this one, it's chess. He finds it a hell of game with a lot to lose on each side. You have to know that it's kind of hard watching Columbo catch this one. You almost feel sorry for him and in that, Lawrence Harvey gives a memorable performance since his role in the Manchurian Candidate.


I wonder if, back when he was wowing audiences with great performances in films such as Cul-de-sac and The Flesh and the Fiends, Donald Pleasance ever thought he'd be starring in dross like this? Anyway, I have to say that I wasn't surprised to find that Specters is basically the film I thought it would be; namely, a poor Demons-style trashy eighties horror flick with little in the way of redeeming features. The plot is just common horror fare and features a bunch of researchers digging into places they shouldn't be digging and revealing a load of ancient catacombs that warn of impending doom. Naturally, the evil is unleashed. At the very least from this, I was expecting some decent gore; but all we actually get is cheesy crap which is matched by the trashy atmosphere and typically cheesy eighties soundtrack. The plot is a complete mess and I found it very easy to get bored. Donald Pleasance was obviously bored too, and that's not surprising considering the talent of the people he's working with; naturally, Specters features some awesomely terrible acting. It all boils down to a typically pointless ending and overall, this is one of the few films that is bettered by the lamentable 'Demons 2'!


Huh, what do you know! They do make horror movies in Italy that not appeal to me, after all! Well, actually I already knew that. The Italians were the undeniable masters when it comes to horror, especially during the seventies and eighties, but obviously all films couldn't be winners. Just like "Manhattan Baby" and "Zeder", which more or less revolve on similar themes, "Specters" is an incredibly incoherent and painfully tedious film. The basic premise holds a lot of potential, for sure, but director Marcello Avallone  as well as his three (!) fellow writers  didn't manage to turn it into a compelling script. Several of the story lines are underdeveloped, the film wastes far too much time on irrelevant sub plots and insignificant supportive characters, the evil's true nature remains a mystery even after the film has finished, the lead roles aren't convincing and the production incomprehensibly doesn't take full usage of the marvelous filming locations and scenery! Here they are shooting a film in one of the most beautiful cities in the world  underneath it as well as on the surface  but all we get to see are pitiable images of some lame ruins. Donald Pleasance, who regularly appeared in Spaghetti horror productions (see also the much better films "Phantom of Death" and Dario Argento's "Phenomena") is clearly aware of the film's inferior quality and thus doesn't even bother to give away a half-decent performance. There's something evil lurking under the city of Rome The acclaimed archaeologist Prof. Lasky and his crew have been searching for a 19 centuries old tomb for many months, but now it seems that the nearby subway construction works have finally exposed the entry. The discovery might not be such a triumph after all, as the occupant of the sarcophagus  a bizarre type of feline monster  is awakened and promptly goes on a rampage. Well, at least I think it goes on a rampage, because that's the point where the "Specters" really stops making sense. Many sequences, like the "Nightmare on Elm Street" similar suck-into-the-bed death scene, are played like they are hallucinations whereas other ones, like the head crushing sequence, are reality? There clearly is some sort of (spiritual?) link between the monster and one of the archaeologist's girlfriend (played by the former Miss Denmark Trine Michelsen who recently passed away as a result of bone cancer) but that story aspect is never at one point clarified. You'll get used to that, though, as there are many more. What's the deal with the blind tour guide in the catacombs? What inflicted the veto between Prof. Lasky and the exaggeratedly gay-behaving elderly antique dealer? Why does literally everybody in this film insist on having extended conversations with themselves? Why aren't the school couple from the beginning of the film ever mentioned anymore? Whatever, it's a really stupid and lackluster film; let's just keep it at that. As usual with the productions he was involved in, special effects wizard Sergio Stivaletti delivers the finest piece of work. The budget was clearly minimal, but he nevertheless still managed to provide some pretty cool and engrossing effects.


I saw this one back in the early 90's. I vaguely remember thinking it wasn't very good. But since there was a time when I first saw Fulci's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD and just dismissed it as B-movie rubbish (Hey now, don't give me that look -- what did I know back then?), I decided to give the Italian SPECTERS another try. Turns out I was right the first time: It's not very good.

Man, this movie had so much potential: Catacombs setting and ancient mythology about demonic mumbo-jumbo, some cool death scenes, Sergio Stivaletti doing the make-up and monster-FXs, Donald Pleasance, a sporadically present ominous drone-like soundtrack, obligatory sex-scene (boobies!) with the blond leading lady,... And the movie even has a cool title.

But it's a hot-damn friggin' total mess of a movie! Practically nothing makes the slightest bit of sense in this one. None of the cool ideas are properly worked out. People just shift from one location to another without explanation. Donald Pleasance had no business in this film, except for playing a tired, old professor mumbling about stuff that nobody's able to follow anyway. Even the frozen shock ending is totally torn from the loo (sorry, that's a Belgian expression in which "loo" is British English for "toilet").

I sighed immensely after this second viewing... This could have been great 80's horror stuff. Yet, it might still be considered a worthwhile one-time-only viewing. Mainly for the noteworthy elements I mentioned in my second paragraph. Plus there's a scene that resembles (ok, use the word rip-off if you desire so) another scene from ALIEN a lot (think: when Skerritt goes searching for the alien in the air-ducts, with someone watching his moves on a monitor). And Johnny Depp's death-scene in A NIGHTMARE ON ELMS STREET clearly served as a major influence (again: rip-off) for a similar (much briefer) scene in SPECTERS too.

SFXs maestro Sergio Stivaletti does manage to convince again, for the most part. The "head crushing"-scene was nice (though they cut away just a second too soon). There's a gooey corpse popping up at some point. The one death-scene that starts off in the wine-cellar was well crafted. And even his demonic creature at the end seemed nifty. Though that one was hard to tell, as we're merely offered a few glimpses on it.

So in a way, this is typical 80's Italian horror of the supernatural kind. But it's about three times more incoherent than what we're used to from these guys. Then again, if you've managed to sit through Fulci's lesser supernatural efforts (ex: MANHATTAN BABY), then you'll do just fine sitting through SPETTRI too.


Poor Donald Pleasence! He's been in a lot of really awful films, and this is one of the worst. He was known for putting in good performances even when handed a bad script, but in this disaster, he doesn't even try. In addition to the apathy of the cast, the scriptwriter obviously didn't care too much since this film makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There are fissures bursting open at random, men running around in Creature from the Black Lagoon costumes, a gratuitous song, a mysterious dagger, lots of tunnels, but no logic.


There is never any mention of a "specter" in this film. The creature we finally do see (other than Universal's Gill Man) is an ugly beast not unlike the She Creature. If it weren't for the ridiculous horror clichées, this film might have worked, as the set design is fascinating and some scenes are actually suspenseful, and the archaelogical dig is exciting. Unfortunately, a lot of it deals with stupid teenagers, gratuitous pop songs, sex, and topless scenes, and predictable junk make much of the film annoying. When wine bottles start spraying and catacombs are collapsing, it's interesting, but it has the cliché horror it's not really ending, no one survives by the main fornicating couple, and girls panicking from little mice. The blind man's beating heart getting ripped out is the ultimate in gratuity, since it lacks all the significance of Evan pulling out his own heart in Michele Soavi's _La Chiesa_. It could have been better than _Demoni_, but at least it's not worse, nor as disgusting.


Ah, chick flicks, gotta love them, their non-clever formula's and clichés are always a joy to watch. OK, I'm being a little mean, it's all good, we do have some good chick flicks and from the moment I saw Bride Wars, I thought it looked promising. Sure, there are a lot of great conclusions that you come to when you see what the movie is about, two best friends who are scheduled to marry the same day, from: they're best friends who can't compromise? They could technically sue the company that mixed their dates up or even get it fixed if that company wanted to stay in business. But I just kept thinking, this is a movie, it could be a funny one if I let go. We do need movies like that that just escape reality, so I rented it the other day and I really couldn't escape how silly and over the top this movie was.

Emma and Liv are best friends who have planned every detail of their weddings since they first witnessed a wedding at the Plaza Hotel. The two women get engaged. They then schedule their weddings with New York's most famous wedding planner, but due to a clerical error they're scheduled to have a wedding on the same day. A week of passive aggressive hostility passes before the two women make it clear that neither will compromise, especially after Liv tries to take advantage of Emma's passive nature and outrages Emma in the process. The women both attempt to sabotage the other's wedding, including Liv making Emma's tan turn bright orange, Emma tampering with Liv's hair dye to make it turn Liv's hair blue-white, Emma showing up to Liv's bachelorette party to out-dance her, and Emma secretly sending Liv chocolate and lollies to make her not fit into her dress. Oh when will the madness end? Gotta love women.

Now the movie does have some good laughs here and there, but they're mostly shown in the trailer. I think one of the reasons this movie disturbed me though was due to the fact that there are women like this, one's that are so beyond obsessed with their wedding they don't even realize they're getting married. Women are competitive creatures unfortunately, I'm a woman, so I know, and we go to great lengths to prove we're prettier, smarter, kinder, etc., etc., etc. I wish that women would take a step forward where this movie is just proving time and time again that we are stupid. Two best friends who should love and support each other are trying to destroy each other's weddings, I was wrong in trying to give this movie a fair chance, it's just wrong on so many levels, wither it's the morals or just the clichéd characters, I wouldn't recommend Bride Wars.

2/10


If you're looking for a comedy with weird plot twists and a sprinkling of humor, then you'll still be searching - Bride Wars excels at the former and sadly fails at the latter. It's not entirely silly sabotage and witless laughs as a few scenes and characters do stand out of the cliché wedding comedy crowd, but ultimately the tragic outcomes and easy clean-up of a far too messy situation will leave viewers wishing for a more comfortably predictable plot line.

Liv (Kate Hudson) and Emma (Anne Hathaway) have been best friends since childhood and both have always dreamed of a gorgeous June wedding at the luxurious Plaza Hotel. When both girls' boyfriends ask for their hands in marriage, Liv and Emma enlist the highly reputable wedding planner Marion St. Claire (Candice Bergen) to acquire their dream locale. Unfortunately a clerical error has their weddings set on the same day and thus begins a rivalry of increasingly ruthless sabotage as both girls refuse to reschedule their most important day.

No experimentation or originality can be seen in Bride Wars. Everything is terribly formulaic, from the music-narrated montages to the carefully patterned dialogue to the high points and low points for each of the heroines. When a half-expected love triangle forms, it is completely unnecessary and sorely mislaid - this is the kind of film where each event is better off contributing solely to comedy and every sad moment is best coated with ridiculous gags and off-the-wall mood-shifting resolutions. Touches of seriousness have no place in Bride Wars, which struggles so greatly with its adult dilemmas that the moments of humor feel forced - shoved into the cracks to even out the heartbreak most won't be feeling for these cookie-cutter characters.

If it wasn't bad enough that no individuality finds its way through all the girl-oriented giggling, hormonal wedding craze and subdued cat-fighting, the humor itself is oftentimes indecipherable from the drama. Sometimes it's funny to see these girls bitterly attack one another even if we're meant to sympathize, and other times it's disheartening when we're supposed to be laughing. Either way, so little of the film sparks interest or concern over two hopelessly contrived, generic best friends that it would be as wasteful to debate over them as it was to spoil two hours of valuable time watching the film. Hopefully even the target audience will realize the recycled, uninspired nature of Bride Wars.

- The Massie Twins


Martin Scorsese once famously said he does one movie for the studio and one for himself, and so do many other directors or actors (George Clooney admits he did Ocean's Thirteen because that way he could do Michael Clayton next). Although Anne Hathaway hasn't explicitly said she does that, one can assume it's the only rational explanation for a piece of anti-cinematic trash like Bride Wars. Shooting The Devil Wears Prada after Brokeback Mountain is one thing, tainting your Oscar-nominated legacy with this bunch of nonsense is another.

And yet it sounded like it could be a lot of fun, at least judging by the premise, which reverses the classic wedding stereotype: women are in it for the romance, guys are game because it's fun (that's what they make it look like in American comedies, anyway). This time around, the dudes are in it for the love, and the girls want to get married just to make a childhood dream come true. Apparently, if you're a woman and live in Manhattan, the ultimate dream of your life is to get married at the Plaza in June, so when best friends Liv (Kate Hudson with a Paris Hilton/Britney Spears haircut) and Emma (Hathaway) get asked the fundamental question by their beaus, they immediately try to book the right place and date. A mix-up occurs, and so they're both stuck with the same date, June 6th. Neither wants to postpone what's supposed to be the happiest day of their lives, therefore a full-on war is declared on both parts.

At this point, the real silliness kicks in: diet sabotage, tans gone awry and the occasional witty remark, like "Your wedding's gonna be huge, just like your ass at prom". What started as a potentially entertaining critique of materialism and shallowness is revealed to be a poorly executed farce, with a succession of lame jokes instead of a plot (then again, one of the screenwriters is best known for performing on Saturday Night Live, where the skits have no connection whatsoever, so that may be an explanation) and two atrocious caricatures instead of leading ladies.

In fairness, no one ever expected any true brilliance from Hudson, given the last really good movie she appeared in was Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous in 2000, but surely someone could have told Hathaway you just don't choose something this bland after working with Jonathan Demme (or Ang Lee, for that matter). Maybe she wanted to return to her comedic roots, but sadly there's nothing even remotely funny in Bride Wars, save for a few brief scenes featuring the reliable Candice Bergen. Everything else is just like Liv and Emma: obsessed with getting everything right, but ultimately too self-centered to get any sympathy from others.


Two best friends. Both living with their boyfriends, both waiting for them to pop -the- question they live their daily life. When one day they both end up proposed to the planning starts for two perfect weddings. Little do they know that human frailty is against them - and what starts as the perfect adventure soon turns into the most horrible nightmare imaginable. From there what once was the best possible friendship slowly turns into a terrible war.

A meager story at best, the above is the backing line of this film. It could have been enough if it had been worked out some better, but quite sadly this comedy fails to be funny and that is IMO one of the prime requisites of a comedy - making the audience laugh out loud a good number of times and keep them amused until after the ending credits.

This film fails to be funny. The two main characters and their actions are not entirely badly chosen - but the way they are acted out are just too much of a cliché or too clearly acted. There's also too little moments that could have worked out - there's far too many soft spots where the film just rolls on without anything happening.

The most positive effect of the film was the side role played by Kristen Johnson who turns every scene she appears in into a short lasting hilarious feast. It isn't enough to save the film though - it's still a piece of rubbish.

2 out of 10 bridal tragedies wasted


Honestly, how many angry bride movies can Hollywood come out with? I thought 27 Dresses had a pretty good plot, even though it was way way way predictable, the characters were likable and different. There were no strip club bachelor/bachelorette parties, no fights that left you hating both of the women in the movie, and some pretty good acting. However,in Bride Wars, Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway have reached a low point in their career, dreadfully overacting and dramatizing every little detail to the point of me losing interest. The three male leads were decent, but for the most part, left a lot to be desired. Their characters were somewhat shallow, possibly due to a predictable and weak screenplay and script. This reminded me too much of all the bride movies and over-hyped chick flicks of the past. When will Hollywood come out with another Notebook romance?


The romantic comedy is a type of film that relies on two obvious traits; the ability to make its audience laugh, and the ability to make that very same audience tear-up or at least feel some degree of warmth towards the central characters' love story. Bride Wars, which ostensibly at least, takes the form of your typical rom-com is an example of such that constantly tries to do the former -while constantly failing-, and only hints at the latter only in the background in order to advance plot. The result from this is a middling and sluggishly mundane feature that neither offers memorable characters or even a few cheap laughs. To be fair, there has to be something said for the fact that I am not exactly within the movie's target demographic. Yet judging by the reactions of those around me, I got the feeling that what I was experiencing wasn't exactly gender exclusive.

The story here, which revolves around two best gal-pals Liv (Kate Hudson) and Emma (Anne Hathaway) as they try to cope with their simultaneous weddings, is one that is likely to get a few chuckles from females, but less so with their male counterparts. Yes, this is somewhat expectant of a movie titled Bride Wars, but then again, if half of your audience are neglected to the sidelines then you're needlessly cutting yourself short. This stunted, polarising depiction of "every girl's biggest day" feels fitting to its source material, so women will enjoy this moreso than men, but not by much. You see, aside from the fact that Bride Wars wants nothing more than to cater to cheap gags and sappy melodrama fit to please the Legally Blonde crowd, there also remains blatant problems in just about everything else that fills the movie's first two acts. With little romance to back up the meagre plot, dull, dry characterisation coupled with non-existent chemistry between either the friends and their partners, or even themselves, the vast majority of Bride Wars turns ugly, rather quickly; the movie pushes that this cat fight between Hudson and Hathaway is meant to be fun and airy with plenty of laughs, but it's too transparent and formulated to even move beyond dry caricature.

It doesn't help at all that the majority of the performances from the main cast are border line negligible. Hudson and Hathaway, who are supposed to playing long-time best buddies who suddenly fall out over a petty dispute, are strangely forgettable, if not repelling. In all fairness, both hit the proverbial hammer on the head with their portrayals as stock-pile, cardboard cut-out typecasts befitting of the genre and only the genre, but this isn't exactly saying much. The remainder of the cast, who each have around ten minutes tops of total screen time are just as unremarkable, with Kristen Johnston giving the movie its only real favour and edge. So, what's worse than a romantic comedy with next to no compelling or memorable performances? Not much.

To be fair however, Bride Wars isn't really a romance at all. At least, that's what I hope director Gary Winick was trying to put across (somehow I get the feeling that I'm giving too much benefit of the doubt). If anything, the movie exists more as a mildly poignant example of companionship in the form of friends rather than romance. This tangent, which takes full form in the third act, for the most part surpasses the drudgery that comes beforehand, and establishes a touching, if slightly overly done sentimental climax. By all means, it's far too little, all too late, but I at least found myself moved by the movie's final statement, even if it was by means of extreme contrast. Yet had Winick went with this theme for the majority of his film, rather than save it for after all the silly, perfunctory cat fight scenes that in turn just about destroy all human shades within his characters, Bride Wars could have been a much more flowing, and relevant feature. Instead it exists simply as throwaway popcorn fodder for girls on a night out who have nothing better to do than to revisit the same old characters, wacky situations and sit-com dialogue typical of your average Will & Grace episode.

- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)


The movie tells a story of two childhood friends who had a dream of a perfect wedding ceremony in a Plaza Hotel. When the girls are already young and beautiful women and the day comes that they are both engaged, they start to plan their perfect wedding in Plaza. Thereby the are confronted with different problems and even try to ruin each others wedding.

"Bride Wars" doesn't really stand for movies I usually watch. Although I wanted to watch it, mainly because of Anne Hathaway. I was told she is a good actress and is playing quite good in that movie. Well I can partly agree with that. Her performance in "Bride Wars" was surely satisfactory, however I believe her role was not really challenging. For the rest, I have to confess that the story of the movie is quite poor. It is obvious that the idea of the movie is to show us how two childhood friends deal with their friendship when their most desired dream seems to come true. However this appears unrealistic in the movie. Two best friends who know each other for over twenty years wouldn't try to spoil each others lives. "Bride Wars" appears also not that funny as it probably should be. The jokes are even a bit dumb and absolutely not funny.

Summing up I think that "Bride Wars" is a motion picture made more for girls who also have bright thoughts about their wedding.


This is easily in the bottom 20 movies of all time for me. I was a captive audience member and would not have chosen it myself. I expected a lighthearted romantic comedy, which I can tolerate although that's not my favorite genre.

For starters, who in the world is the target demographic for this disaster? I would guess it's tweener girls, but I wouldn't want my daughters to see women acting petty and selfish. The two lead characters are awful people acting in cruel ways. I sort of like dark comedies, but this didn't play as a dark comedy, either.

The premise is horrible. The writing doesn't take it anywhere. The acting even wasn't all that great. There was nothing special about the direction.

This is a real dog. As I yelled to the groom in the movie, "Run away. Just run away!"


What makes me sad about Bride Wars is the fact that it's going to make a lot of money on its opening weekend, and probably double or triple that amount throughout its run. Why anyone would want to submit himself to an over-clichéd chick flick that looks and acts like something we've all seen a million times before - only worse - is beyond me. Still, awareness seems to be sky high, with many unwilling boyfriends/husbands destined to be dragged to their local theaters by their mates.

At a time where quality films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire are actually making a dent at the box-office, Bride Wars existence baffles me. The story follows two BFF (best friends forever) who decided to have a wedding in June at some fancy plaza when they were little girls. Years later, an unfortunate series of events ends in both the women - still BFF well into their twenties (like duh) - setting their wedding day on the exact same date. From here on out, it's war between the two stereotypical women (one control-freaked blonde, otherwise known as Kate Hudson; and one spineless brunette, known better as Anne Hathaway). Naturally, both ladies live in a perfect world where there's no economic depression and they can each spend an enormous amount of money on this unnecessary war of theirs.

Alas, instead of being a decent display of romantic comedy, Bride Wars becomes a shallow and degrading show that implies that with all the progress the feminist movement has made during the past century, women will always be emotional and helpless beings, forever interested in superficial matters. In a time when women aim to run for Presidency and lead social revolutions, this is a real depressing conclusion. Add this to the aforementioned fact that Bride Wars utilizes every cliché in the book, and you're better off watching one of the numerous Oscar hopefuls heading your way.

I gave it 4 out of 10.


Bride Wars is a romantic comedy about a classic American rite of passage: the battle between two best friends who, through circumstances far beyond their control, can only get married on the same day for some reason.

Let me just say that I have been excited to see this movie since before it was even announced. On opening night, I arrived at the theatre promptly at midnight in my bride costume. Sadly, I must report that I was among the few that actually took the extra step to dress up. Apparently, wearing costumes to opening night is a dying tradition in American culture, because if you're not getting in costume for Bride Wars, what are you holding out for? Your own wedding? Please. Nobody is going to see that.

As much as I wanted this film to be the next Dark Knight, there was an obvious plot hole that was impossible to overlook. Frankly, it ruins the entire movie. I was actually embarrassed to be wearing the bridal gown when the movie was over.

The dramatic conflict is created by the two best friends who want to get married on the same day. The question burning in the audience's collective mind is: why doesn't one bride simply kill the other?

If Hollywood and MTV have taught us anything (and they have taught us everything), it is that weddings are the single most important thing to any woman, ever. Weddings trump money, love, new shoes, children, and most of all, friendship. Weddings are the only thing that gives a woman meaning in her shallow, shoe-centric life.

In fact, I only know of one girl who would not murder her best friend if her friend was preventing her from having her wedding on a specific day (and that's only because she has no friends). Back me up on this, ladies.

I know what you're going to say: " Tom, I agree with everything you just said, but if one of the brides killed the other one, the movie would have been too short." Maybe you are right, Faceless-Reader-of-this-Blog. But at least it would have been real.

It would have been so easy for them to do it, too. A mail bomb, poison, hire a hit-man, poison-by-mail, or scissors to the back of the head while they were clipping wedding coupons.

Another solution would be for one of the brides to kill the other's groom (no groom = no marriage). The consequences of this would have created a deliciously dramatic situation, as it would leave a vengeful, fiancé-less woman, who would crash the other girl's wedding drunk, and right before the vows, telling everyone "You know what, she killed my fiancé? Whaddaya think about that?" Or she might pay a homeless man $20 to marry her, and continue with the wedding as planned, just out of spite.

You see, faithless readers, there is plenty of drama in reality. Hollywood has no need to insult us with such contrived endings, such as the two girls resolving their differences and becoming friends again in the end. No more, Hollywood! We want real! We demand the promised bloodshed that you have promised us!

1 out of 5 stars.

Read my reviews at http://guywhoreviewsmovies.blogspot.com/