I believe this is my first one-star rating for an IMDb comment entry, and the only reason I award it one star is that there is no zero star setting. I watched an extremely rare Greek made video of this film last fall and only now have found the stomach to discuss it: I gave up at about the fifty minute point, depressed, sickened and feeling used. This is a movie that had no artistic urgency behind it's making, it was just an attempt by some producers and distributors to cash in on a notorious XXX rape fantasy movie made under the same title, FORCED ENTRY. The plot for both is the same: Demented psychopathic retard working at a gas station uses the opportunity and in some cases house keys left behind by his female customers to rape, torture, and then murder them. Are we having fun yet?

I have never seen the original version. Rape fantasy movies are about as useful to me as a hemorrhaging spleen or perhaps the decomposing carcass of a camel. But from all accounts the 1974 porn version of FORCED ENTRY is one of the harshest, most uncompromising and gleefully evil movies ever made, working as a sort of a warped commentary on the post-Vietnam era violence obsessed culture which bred it's lunatic murderer. Even if offered the chance to partake I would decline, I do not need to see such things when stuff like the complete H.R. PUFFNSTUFF box set is available, or the bathroom needs cleaning. Life is short.

The XXX version at least stood for something and was an original idea taken to it's logical extreme; It is filth for sure, yet at least the filmmakers had the guts to get down there in the trenches with their viewers. By contrast, the 1975 MPAA R rated film is a dismal, depressing slog "livened up" by moments of suggestively sick violence involving things like the bondage rape & murder of a 15 year old girl who stops by the protagonist's filling station with a flat tire on her bike. The attack is not shown in detail but in a suggestive manner that is perhaps even more disturbing in that it allows the viewer to complete the images in their mind's eye. The retarded animal at the center of the story is a general walking disaster area, every attractive young woman who comes in contact with him ends up dead after being mauled & mutilated, and after about the fourth murder I simply decided I'd had enough. To this day I have no idea nor do I care as to how the movie resolved itself.

The problem is that the film does not have the interest to be true to it's own convictions, and uses the MPAA R certificate as an excuse to back off from showing exactly what it is that it's target audience of vicarious sex criminals are tuning in to see. It is more interested in selling tickets than being true to its own nature, an incredibly irresponsible approach since there are some who probably took the suggestions seriously. We already had the urban legend of the service station attendant who uses the trust put in him by his female customers to compromise them. It seems to me that what this movie serves to do is provide a sort of blueprint to how you go about bringing that fantasy to life, but does not have the balsam to show the necessary payoff to complete the circle and evoke the sheer revulsion that the XXX version reportedly does.

Frankly though, I have wasted too much time on this pathetic, stupid, meaningless and unredeemable movie. Cult DVD company Code Red is supposedly preparing a DVD release, and my question is, why? Who on earth do they think is interested in seeing this? aside from uninformed James Bond fans hoping to catch a glimpse of Tonya Roberts' tits, and the contingent of sick, dangerous perverts who get their jollies out of watching movies that show women suffering. If that's the best they can do for a demographic then they have missed the point of low budget cult horror with an erotic tinge: There are SO many clever, interesting and sick, demented little horror movies out there waiting to be discovered that there is no excuse for making this available aside from sheer greed. The notoriety of the title might ensure enough sales to earn back their production cost and make a few dollars, but it will do so at the expense of a lot of goodwill. Starting with mine.

1/10: Complete garbage, without any redeeming qualities at all and that includes the early performances by the A-list actresses snookered into making the film.


CURTAIN UP is a routine British comedy which fails to raise anything more than the slightest titter. I dread to think what the movie would be like without the considerable talents of Margaret Rutherford and Robert Morley in the leading roles, and even with them it's pretty dire 'entertainment'. The plot quickly becomes tiresome, a weekly repertory company is rehearsing a dreadfully written play, "Tarnished Gold". The producer, played with gusto by Robert Morley, quickly falls out with the play's authoress, the marvellously eccentric Margaret Rutherford, and after the first rehearsal he rips out 27 pages of the 30 page script. Adding to the 'fun' are the problems, tantrums and behind-the-scenes squabbles of the play's cast, which seriously hinder the rehearsals (and also the film). One of England's greatest post war character actors, Sam Kydd, makes a fleeting appearance at the finale, as an ambulance man. The only genuinely funny moment in 80 minutes is Morley's facial expression when Margaret Rutherford turns up and says "I've come to sit at your feet while my child is being born!"


Bad, Bad, Awful........It was the worst film I have ever seen. It was dragged on for about three hours and in the end you were given a question mark. Bad acting, awful music and dancing, and the story line was boring. I don't know why so many people gave it such a good rating, it baffles me. Other people's comments lead me to watch this awful movie. There are so many other good French movies, why waste your time with this one? Where to begin with the horror, the acting. The main character Louise looks like a bad Audrey Hepburn. In the beginning of the movie she has just come out of a coma and is said to be weak. Though that didn't stop her from fighting a guy who was attacking her bodyguard. Much of the story line seemed extremely fictional and confusing. One Instance of this is when her bodyguard somehow turns into her lover over night. Then there is Ida, a girl who was adopted as a child and is now longing to know where she comes from. Ida's story is the most confusing, because you're left wondering why the script writers put it in the movie. It is the shortest and has no significance in the movie. The last girl in the movie is Ninon, a trouble maker who finally tries to do right with Louise. Let's just say I didn't like the way she broke out in abstract dance where ever she went. It was bad from the beginning till the end, and from the script to the music.


The dance scenes were too long, the chansons didn't really match with the plot. The only cool scene was the deadly game with the mysterious club owner. Without the singing and dancing stuff it could be a wonderful movie about the story of the three women which are linked together in a special way.

After half of the time I was the only one left in the cinema watching the boring movie. Even my french flatmate didn't like the movie.

If you like to see a better (and typical) french movie then choose "La vie est une chanson".


I didn't like it at all, it seemed pointless and silly to me. Just having those two random musical numbers seemed daft rather than stylish. That "Cole Porter" song was horrible.

The subplot about the strange murder game just petered out, it didn't make any sense to me at all. There was also an strange moment when Nino and Louise suddenly were great pals, walking down the street arm in arm, having only met vaguely before that.

It could have been intriguing and fun, but I thought it was fake whimsical and boring.

It was the only thing with English subtitles here in Vientiane, but I wish I hadn't bothered.


Total utter crap! It isn't even unintentionally funny, like Independence Day. Only good thing is the special-effects in the end when the meteor strikes. Unfortunately that constitutes only about 3 minutes of the movie. The rest is just an seemingly endless stream of over-emotional "farewell, i love you"-scenes. One big tedious, cheesy soap opera about how heroic and unselfish (american) people are when facing certain annihilation. All accompanied by a never-ending symphonic orchestra. This is one of the most surprisingly crappy movies i have seen i my life. A good example on how you can't trust the ratings on this site


I saw this stinker on CBS the other night. Boring, terrible acting, bad writing. Silly effects. Morgan Freeman and Robert Duvall are the only bright spots. I don't care about the other people. Stop making these kinds of movies. It just appeals to some sort of silly emotionalism. A waste.


This "disaster" flick was just that: a disaster. It features too much talk and not enough actual "disaster" footage and too much profanity for a family to watch an action film. This reminded me of the old "Airport" films in which the life stories of the people took up most of the movie, not the airplane crash or near-crash. In this movie, it takes an hour and 45 minutes before the dreaded comet hits Earth. When it does, however, there are some awesome sights. The sound was great on the DVD and the picture very sharp.

Tea Leoni, the main character, an MSNBC reporter (this network must have funded the movie with all the publicity it got in here), is flat in her delivery. She speaks in a monotone most of the time. Pretty pathetic to have her in the lead when you also have actors the caliber of Morgan Freeman and Robert Duvall. Both of them are fine, as always. Also in the cast worth noting are pre-Lord Of The Rings star Elijah Wood and veterans Maximlian Schell and Vanessa Redgrave.


Tea Leoni is quite possibly the worst actress on the planet. She must be one heck of a person, because David Duchovny certainly didn't marry her for her potential as a mega-star. Her death was the high point of the film, we can only wish it had happened somewhere in the opening credits.

May the good Lord rescue Morgan Freeman from ever having to act with such poor co-stars again, the man deserves MUCH better than this.


I grew up with the Pokémon video games and TV show as well. I watched a lot of episodes, but after a while, I grew bored of it. The thing is, the TV series grew very monotonous and repetitive, always having Ash defeat Team Rocket just like he has several times before in every other episode.

I also noticed that as the series progressed, it tried to get more kid-friendly. I didn't really mind that, but it seems hypocritical when characters always go on about how fighting is wrong when they usually solve all their problems by fighting.

Another disappointment I had was how it did not have any likable characters. Most of them were just stock personalities, be it the rash protagonist or the spunky sidekick.

Now my opinion only is based off of the English dub, so I may be missing out on whatever Japanese viewers got, but I don't think there might be much of a difference between the two. I still like Pokémon, and I am a die-hard fan of the games, but the TV show didn't really get me that excited.

Besides, everyone knows the manga is much better.


The best thing I can say about this episode is that it introduces us to Jenny Calander, Giles' techno-pagan girlfriend. By season two, Jenny becomes an important and generally likable character, who's death drives the show in a dark, compelling direction. For now, Jenny is just the computer science teacher and who enjoys sparring with Giles. She likes computers, he likes books... a little conventional, but fun none the less. And it's nice to see Giles interacting with a grown up.

The rest of the episode, however, isn't very good. Being BTVS, even a bad episode has some interesting moments, but all in all this is one of the show's weaker efforts. It centers around Willow's online relationship with a demon-robot-thing who calls himself Malcolm and has infected the internet via an ancient book. To be fair, he does have a lovely speaking voice, but the ram horns are a bit much.

The episode is pretty dated, with computers repeatedly shown as mysterious and dangerous. (And since, I'm a technological idiot most of the time, who likes nothing better than to blame computers for everything that goes wrong in my life, you can trust me when I say this episode gets a little heavy handed.) I wish Angel had been around in this episode, as his computer ignorance and tendency to live in the past are often played for laughs over on "Angel." He'd add another computer-phobic element to the story. And its nice that Willow gets an episode, but she'll get far better ones than "I Robot...You Jane" in later seasons. If you're watching the show on DVD, you can probably skip this episode and not miss much.

My favorite part of the episode: Malcolm's changes to the world's computer system, from leaking FBI files, to embezzling funds from churches to fiddling with Sunnydale High's student book reports. "Nazi Germany was an example of a well ordered society... What?!?... I didn't write this."


This is a turgid melodrama, very loosely based on a Maugham story and designed to appeal to people during the Second World War. It's an odd movie in several ways. It wastes the huge talent of Gene Kelly, and does little more for the gifted Deanna Durbin. Deanna cries and sobs and looks hurt a lot, while otherwise amiable Kelly is forced to appear to be mean and insensitive. Two flashbacks tell the story, the second being set earlier in time than the first. The music throughout is a mess, becoming so loud at the corny and predictable ending that you want to shout at the screen. Several scenes in the film are just filler, including a symphonic orchestra scene that must have cost Universal a bundle. Gale Sondergaard was good, but then she was playing her usual villainous role.

In short, here is one to miss. In the following year, Durbin would shine in Can't Stop Singing, and Kelly would delight in Anchors Away. They both no doubt shuddered at war's end to think of Christmas Holiday.


While purchasing another Deanna Durbin movie on DVD at Amazon, I saw this title and it peaked my curiosity. I wondered why, with two such great stars as Gene Kelly and Deanna Durbin, I had never heard of this movie before. So I ordered it...I watched it....and now I know why I 've never heard of it before. It is terrible. It is the worst performance ever, in the careers of both Gene and Deanna. And, as other reviewers have said, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Christmas...nor is it a musical. Gene doesn't dance a single step, and the only time Deanna sings is when she is expressing undying passionate love for this vicious, psychopathic murderer she is married to.

In the opening scene, we are introduced to two military men having a conversation about the upcoming nuptials of one of them. We grow to like these two men, and I felt cheated, because one of them we never see again, and the other, the engaged one, merely serves for the rest of the movie as a body for Deanna to tell her story to. In this scene we learn that he is taking military leave to visit his fiancé, when he receives a "Dear John" letter saying she has married someone else. He is devastated, and plans to go back home anyway to confront her. Due to bad weather, the plan has to stop in New Orleans, where he meets Deanna in a sleazy night club. The proprietor is the enchanting Gladys George. Deanna tells him (and us) how she met Gene...they were sitting next to each other at a symphony concert. She was captivated by his shy, "aw shucks" demeanor. They married and moved in with his very strange mother, played by Gale Sondergard, who horror movie fans will know very well. Gene and Gale are the creepiest mother & son team since Sante and Kenneth Kimes.

The are blissfully married for 6 months. All of a sudden, he starts displaying signs of criminal behavior, and starts abusing Deanna...but still she stands by him! Before you know it, the police come looking for him, and he is on trial for murder. Deanna and Mom sit together in the courtroom, and when the guilty verdict is read, Mom turns to Deanna, slaps her in the face and declares her responsible for sonny going to jail. Needless to say, she kicks her out of the house.

Now Deanna has to find work, so she gets a job singing at Gladys George's sleazy nightclub. Eventually, Gene escapes from prison and hides out in the nightclub to kill Deanna, because he assumes since she's working there, that she must be sleeping with all the patrons. The unbelievable part of this plot, is that when she sees him hiding in the back room, she runs to him with open arms, ready to run off with him ! I really hate to make you watch this to find out the ending, but we're not allowed to give "spoilers"....

You know, I always believed that even the greatest of stars made some clinkers in their careers that we never see....and this film is proof!


Simply embarrassing. This "film," which is an introduction into the role-playing board game of the same name, has been a source of amusement for my old high school buddies and me for years. One of us owned the game, although we never played it, but stumbled across this dreck some years back. It is so awful, so ridiculous, that it just happens to be one of the funniest 30 minutes of your life. While trying to lay out the rules and regulations of said game, Dragonstrike gives you a cheesy story-line played out by cheesier actors in front of the cheesiest excuse for blue screen this side of the helicopter crash sequence in Sudden Death. However, Dragonstrike might just be so bad, that it's good. Some notable things to look for during you're "quest":

1. Deron McBee - Perhaps best known for his days on American Gladiators as Malibu, McBee turns in another muscle-head performance here as the Warrior. The running joke between my friends is that we believe they actually blue-screened McBee's teeth in order to make them as white as they appear in the film.

2. John Boyle (I) as the Dragonmaster - Some one should have fired this guy a long time ago. Hardly believable and hilariously laughable, the Dragonmaster is the Narrator of the whole ordeal. Watch for his "floating head," actually Boyle in a black turtle-neck against a black back-drop. Try not to laugh as he asks you to "kindly cast a 'pause' spell on your VCR."

3. "Smite" - Boyle gives us the crown jewel of Dragonstrike which, I am sure, once noticed will have you rolling. Toward the end of the film, the Dragonmaster goes into an embarrassing monologue about your adventures, during which he states, "...and the evil you will smite!" Look closely on the word "smite," and you will notice that it has been horribly dubbed over from the past tense of the word, "smote," that the Dragonmaster must have gotten wrong during shooting. Apparently the budget for Dragonstrike wasn't big enough for another take in this scene.


Once you see Lippert, you know you're in for a slab of cinematic torture.

Radar is your friend. It is responsible for everything good and sacred in society. No evil intentions can be hidden from the pervasive eyes of the almighty radar.

RADAR THIS!!!

Instead of a story, you get lots of black and white shots of guys standing around, inane conversations, bleak settings and even bleaker faces. You can't even tell the good guys from the baddies....oh wait, EVERYBODY was bad in this one. I knew my eyes were viewing this horrific monstrosity despite the periods of coma induced blackouts and the experience can be compared to vacationing on the sun without SPF 5,000,000. Why the pointless scenes of helicopters flying over open roads? I cannot recall one character from this poopiefest except for inappropriately named Blackie. Oh, remember that hilarious comedian guy, Sid Melton? Because I DON'T!! Instead, his attempts at humor left scarring impressions and hopes of his quick sniper death.

You see, this one just hurts...on so many levels. Nothing happens, there's no interesting story so the useless dialogue serves no purpose. This was only an hour long! I swear Father Time was yawning during this drivel. Even Mike and the bots reel from the effects of this one. Damn that Hypno Helio Static Stasis!


Very strange movie that deals with g-men obsessed with RADAR. As we all know, radar is a fantastic piece of technology, but the movie doesn't seem to really be about it. It's more about long-winded speeches about a robbery and nothing more. It's quite funny, but I don't think that's how the director originally intended it to be!


Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss is one of two sequels to 'A Christmas Story,' a timeless holiday cult classic. Jerry O'Connel plays a slightly older, much different looking Ralphie Parker and his failed attempt to rush into "manhood," by getting himself a respectable job which might jeopardize his attendance at the annual family vacation to Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss, which is basically a campground.

Ralphie, and his loyal friends, Schwartz and Flick, don't exactly go for the ideal job, moving heavy furniture around for a crummy boss that takes pride in yelling at his eager, idealistic new employees. The even less interesting subplot involves Ralphie's parents, who go looking for their family dog.

The story is not nearly as exciting as the first movie, probably because Ralphie Parker, fourteen-years old in this movie, has moved beyond the crisp imagination that he possessed as a grade school student in the first movie, which produced a film mostly from his childish perspective, and one that many could enjoy. Ralphie Parker in this story is just too old to entertain things from that childish, but imaginative perspective. If they wanted to entertain children, they should've used a younger character. Someone might've recognized this, as the sequel that follows it is about a second-grade Ralphie Parker in "My Summer Story."

The movie is not very interesting and is hardly funny. It is, as one viewer previously wrote, like something so real it's not even entertaining. And that's the problem with this movie. There is nothing in the story particularly catching, and the characters themselves are not as likeable as those of "A Christmas Story." Especially, Randy Parker, who is exceptionally whiny in this movie. Of the two sequels, "My Summer Story" was much better, though neither could ever be better than the first. "A Christmas Story" is a great classic.


The plot : a group of adorable animals have incredibly violent deaths . That's all . Wow ,I'm pretty sure than the creators of this show make lots of efforts to create something so sophisticated and complex like this . Now you can say "They aren't trying to make Shakespeare ,they just want to make something funny " And I would answer : I don't agree . Because ,this show isn't funny . You hear me : Isn't funny . The big deal with this show it's see the critters dying in disgusting ( and almost always in unrealistic and stupid ) ways. The characters don't have any personality or relevance .They just appear ,they walk .And they die . I didn't laugh any time with this retarded show . It's incredibly immature and repetitive . This is a cartoon that deserves nothing .


anyone who has a heart or a mind or a stomach won't enjoy these at all. The characters are small animals with the consistency of butter and they seem to just get laughs out of blood and gore. Some episodes are total junk, physically impossible, and utterly stupid. I am sorry to say some of my friends liked this, and as a result I just avoid them to stop the flow of bile coming to my mouth. If you want to watch something funny, you have Blackadder, Monty Python, the simpsons, blazing saddles, young Frankenstein, and fawlty towers. In any case you have a wide variety of movies and shows where you might even have to think to get the jokes.


We must live in a really sick and deranged world if this tripe ranks at 7,9 out of 10!! ...and then we wonder how on Earth something like the Columbine High School Massacre could happen? Well, that's one of the answers - teach a kid that violence is fun and decapitations of cutesy cartoon characters are actually quite cool and wait for the results. Mentally challenged animals with their limbs chopped off, impaled ad nausea, their heads rolling around garnished with blood splattering all over - wheew, isn't that just great? Bloody mess and violence galore without any substance - that's what this show is all about.

I guess all the fans who enjoy watching this crap are also into snuff flicks and consider the complete collections of the Al Qaeda hostage beheadings in full length a must.


Horrible. Like nature and living? This is not it. Don't watch it. It is like the most terrible thing nearly anyone has seen. Boy, I am never going to go on the website again. If it's rated U or something...that is stupid. 18 is the proper rating. If it's not rated at all, they should rate it because children would just think, "ooh, I MUST see that because I LOVE nature." Believe me, this has nothing to do with nature. This is all just one big joke about little, cute, cuddly creatures dying in many horrible ways. Awful nature. Very strong bloody violence. Cute little beasts. I hated every single one of them, so don't even THINK about wanting to watch it...unless, of course, you like blood & guts.


I don't understand why so many like "Happy Tree Friends". I watched 4 episodes of it, and I had more than enough. It's simply a sick series. And it's supposed to be funny. Do the makers really expect that people would laugh at this? Well, unfortunately the makers were right, because there are a lot of people that like it. A lot of my friends even like it, but I simply found it awful. I really can't understand what is funny about this series. Apparently there are many people that dó like it... what I would like to know, is whý these people like it. I'm gonna ask some of my friends why they like it so much. Because I really don't understand why anyone would enjoy this crap.


You know, although I love the Lady Chablis a very great deal (when I'm not busy hating her for wearing tailored skirt suits so much better than I do), you know something is dreadfully wrong with a movie when it has Kevin Spacey and Jude Law in the cast, and Chablis is the one whose performance everybody remembers.

It is impossible to pour enough vitriol on the "acting" of John Cusack in the ostensible lead, although others have given it a brave try. His character is alleged to be from New York, but talks nothing like a New Yorker, and worse, is bemused by everything. (This does make it convenient for Cusack, who thus has to wear only one facial expression for most of the movie.) He is first bemused by a man walking an invisible dog -- when in the streets of his character's alleged hometown, people hold conversations with entire invisible people daily -- by the guy in the diner (pretty "fly" for a white guy), and then by the concept that a zillionaire, especially in the South, would keep loaded weapons in the house. Then, he completely misses the Lady's reference to her hormone shots, and thus gets to be bemused by her revelation, with which his line, "She's a he?", bludgeons us over the head. I have been to New York, and I can tell you that no true New Yorker would be even MILDLY startled that somebody born into a male-sexed body can make an attractive and convincing female. (Technical note: Chablis isn't pre-op, she's non-op. The book makes it quite clear that although her sex and gender don't match, she has no desire to undergo expensive, risky, and painful sex reassignment surgery.) When Cusack discovers his book in Spacey's library, you're not so much surprised that Spacey owns the book as you are surprised that Cusack's halfwit character could write an entire book all by himself.

So, let's see. What stereotypes and clichés do we have, in just the first hour?

1. Southerners, when not merely eccentric, are outright freakish. (However, unlike Boo Radley or Karl Childers from "Sling Blade," the guy who commits the murder can at least keep up a veneer of non-freakdom.)

2. Fat black women, when not feeding hordes of white people, are practicing voodoo.

3. All trans gendered women are entertainers, and have potty mouths. (Sorry, Chablis. This one is at least in part your fault.)

4. Anybody from north of the Mason-Dixon Line is going to be completely stunned to discover that Southerners can be eccentric and freakish; apparently they've never had to sit through any movies like this one.

I can't go on. You shouldn't, either. You should read the book, which actually treats all of its characters as fully human, and doesn't labor under the necessity of casting the director's daughter. I will admit, however, that had I not done so, I wouldn't have come on here and read the unintentionally hilarious review by the gentleman who complains that the cast and crew are full of liberals (in a Hollywood movie? Shocking!) who seek to "normalize" homosexuality (call me crazy, but I don't think Spacey's character is ever intended to be seen as the most normal guy on the planet), and then rants on in the next paragraph about how the movie lacks "climax," and therefore he's "frustrated" and "unfulfilled." Any Freudian implications in this are left as an exercise for the reader.


Eastwood should never have been able to get his hands on the movie rights. The book is completely true. I am from Savannah. Eastwood even changed some of the people completely, for example Mandy is actually nothing like Eastwood's daughter in the movie. The real Mandy, (whom I know personally), was involved with Joe Odom and never had a romance with John Berendt (Kelso in the movie). I think Eastwood wanted to give his daughter a movie role so he just cast her without even thinking or caring about the real story. He didn't correctly portray many of the people in the book. Almost the entire trial scene in the movie was untrue. Like I said, Eastwood should have never gotten his hands on the movie rights. If you want the true story, read the book and burn the movie. My rating of this film is a 0.


This movie is one word CONFUSING. At the end your like what the huh? In the beginning your like what the?.... This "voodoo" woman character who looks like whoopi goldberg having a really bad hair day and the role she plays is unclear. She plays a voodoo priestess who speaks with the dead on a regular basis. She influences John Cusak the main character a journalist from NYC and Kevin Spacey a nouveau riche from Savannah. The story essentially doesn't really need her or her scenes to make sense. The movie revolves around the shooting of a local bad boy/ pretty boy Jude Law in the estate of Kevin Spacey. Kevin Spacey is accused and the story takes off from there. The titled has nothing to do with the essence of the movie, neither does the bizarre ending or that voodoo woman.I love Clint Eastwood but... stick to acting honey! The only thing thats good about this movie is the all star cast, some funny moments and a glimpse at the beauty of the South. 3/10 Ouch!


The book wasn't perfect but could have, in the hands of a skillful screenwriter, been transformed into a terrific movie. After all, this was a real, true-life courtroom drama set in an exotic American locale, with many colorful personalities to weave around the main tale. But the writer of this mess was no weaver, inexplicably adding his own new characters and events and gutting the drama of the crime and its subsequent legal and social effects. He didn't think it even worth mentioning, much less emphasizing, that Mr. Williams was subjected to FOUR trials, finally achieving an acquittal not in Savannah, where the case and the players were notorious, but upon a change of venue to Augusta, where no one cared. What a wonderful film this could have been about Savannah culture and society in general, and Mr. Williams in particular, as played out against the backdrop of the Georgia legal system. Even as a travelogue, it doesn't work, since not enough of Savannah is shown and described. A total bomb, in my humble opinion, but I gave it a 2 for effort.


The bestseller "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" was a non-fiction book and though it dealt with a true life murder case, it was shelved in the travel section in many bookstores. Indeed, if you read the book, you'd be way past page 100 before any reference to the murder appears. The killing of Danny Hansford by Jim Williams was used largely as a pretext by author John Berendt as an excuse to pen an affectionate travelogue about the city of Savannah, Georgia; it's largely a leisurely tour of the city and a genteel introduction to many of the city's quirkier citizens.

Clint Eastwood's movie version of MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL is only about the murder, more or less, with most of the colorful characters edited out or reduced to crude jokes. And for all the location filming that Eastwood did in Savannah, he could just as easily have shot the entire film on the Universal backlot. Devoid of local color or a quixotic taste for the off beat and amusing, MIDNIGHT ends up playing as though it were an uninspired pilot for an unsold TV series. Berendt's book just begged to be translated to the big screen by someone unconventional like Robert Altman, someone with the knack for and an interest in ensemble dramas and a slightly skewed vision of the world -- not someone conventional, albeit talented, like Eastwood. The book's charm was in its varied vignettes and casual observations about a city straddling two mindsets: clinging to the decorum of the antebellum past while thriving in the pulsating, diverse present. The problem is that in stripping the story down to the basics of the murder trial, it becomes obvious that the trial isn't all that interesting in the first place.

After a quarrel, wealthy antiques dealer Williams kills his young male lover (played by Jude Law and now renamed Billy Carl Hanson) and claims it is self defense. Killing is one thing, but the well-to-do of the city are aghast at just how uncouth Williams' behavior appears to be as the ensuing trial brings to light Savannah's hush-hush gay subculture. Though in Eastwood's hands it is less straight versus gay than rich versus poor; as Williams lies and manipulates to get away with murder, there is more than a hint of plantation owner entitlement in the way he justifies his behavior throughout. The problem is, that as played with his usual unctuous arrogance, Kevin Spacey never makes Williams either likable or remarkable. What made the case notable was that the ordeal was stretched out over several years and four lengthy trials that highlighted Williams' cunning nature and taxed the patience of even the most benevolent of Savannah's citizens, all of which the filmmakers condense into one trial and a handful of cliché courtroom moments.

What Eastwood retains beyond the truncated murder trail is limited in its effectiveness. The book's element of voodoo is present, but done with little sense of mysticism. Minerva, the voodoo priestess played Irma P. Hall, comes off as little more than a crazy old lady stereotype and her midnight visit to the said garden (a cemetery) lacks the power to either give one the creeps or even cause nervous laughter. A huge chunk of the movie is surrendered to "The Lady Chablis," a secondary character in the book and the trial. I suppose Eastwood found it positively shocking to have a black drag queen traipsing around amongst the normal citizens, but in the film the character is less a jolt than a bore. Despite being played by the real person, Lady Chablis (a.k.a. Chablis Deveau, a.k.a. Benjamin Edward Knox) seems woefully miscast and seems more tacky than eccentric or outrageous.

The worse part of the film is its rather blunt homophobia. Having sidestepped the major point of the book -- the gentle weirdness of the characters -- to focus on the trial, the film then tries to make a gay story seem as straight as possible. The Williams murder trial made public an open secret, that a gay world existed behind the facades of the southern mansions and it was discreetly apparent, quietly tolerated, yet never, never discussed. When a prominent citizen kills his male lover, that sort of don't-ask-don't-tell etiquette is difficult to maintain. The filmmakers deal with the gay issues, but someone (Eastwood, screenwriter John Lee Hancock, the studio?) clearly did not want to make a gay film. Thus homosexuality is treated more like a dirty little scandal rather than a naughty little secret; something to be held at arm's length or viewed as a rude little joke, like Lady Chablis. For instance, the gay author of the book, John Berendt, is played by John Cusack as "John Kelso," and the film makes a point of letting us know he is definitely heterosexual and drives home the point by giving him a female romantic interest not in the book (and played curiously enough by Clint's own daughter, Alison Eastwood). Such cinematic bearding is standard issue for the skin-deep liberalism that Hollywood so righteously embraces.

Other than being eager to exploit a pre-sold bestseller, it is hard to figure just why this film was made at all. The true crime element has been fictionalized, it's gay themes sanitized, the quirky characters marginalized and the town itself homogenized into banality. Neither good or evil, a story about a time and a place and a people ends up being a movie about nothing in particular and no one of any interest.


The book was amazing. If you know the history, you'll know that Berendt wrote the book initially as a travel guide, wound up getting to know the Savannah natives, then, oops--one of them is indicted for murder.

The transfer to film was painful. Romance was added that didn't need to take place, characters sat on the jury that would have NEVER gotten past a competent DA who could object, and several trials were condensed into one.

And, it's never a good sign when The Lady Chablis is WAY too old to play herself. She was supposed to be in her twenties when the story takes place. She looked every bit the 40's she was at the time of filming, and I have to say that she came across less funny than she did when I envisioned her character in my mind while reading the book.

If you love the movie--great. If you've read the book, you'll hate it.


One of the most slow-paced and boring movies I have ever seen. We kept watching it, waiting for something to happen. The movie kept going on and on, so I shut it off. It got to the point where I didn't want to give the movie the satisfaction of sitting through till the end. It made me crazy. The Lady Chablis character seemed reptilian and how she was portrayed as an object of desire was absurd. The film was a study in pedestrian pacing, stereotypical southern mannerisms and dialog, and a sense that the film lost its way midway through. Wasted performances by Jude Law and Kevin Spacey. John Cusak seemed blander than sodium free chicken broth. Clint Eastwood's daughter couldn't carry her role off and competes with Sophia Copola of Godfather III for the unbridled nepotism award.


Yep- the point of the movie disappears in its identity trouble, which arrives quite soon- Murder thriller? Courtroom drama? Whimsical comedy/quirky southern character study? None, it tries to juggle them all and holds not enough quality of any for me to care about this film, and, man - it just drags on and on...

And what's the point of any movie to introduce potentially interesting supporting characters if they don't develop, hold no relevance or vibrance to the main story at all? The voodoo woman, the fly-man, Chablis the drag queen, and especially the bar-singing florist girl... They're just a passing gallery, and Eastwood could've scraped off half without affecting the story one bit (I haven't read the book, but maybe they're more crucial there.)! Less conventional visuals and camera-work might have helped this lame substance... but, no. Top cast indeed, but it ignites few sparks, except for Lady Chablis. The best bit is the courtroom part.

Disappointing? With such talent- You bet. 3 out of 10 from ozjeppe


This is undoubtedly one of the worst films I have ever seen! It's also one of very few that I actually walked out on before it ended. Very disappointing considering the cast and director, but the story is long and slow and the film seemed like it would never end. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY on this piece of crap!


I found it so confusing and just utterly disappointing. Do something else with your time. Read the book because that truly is a masterpiece. I guess I was just really upset that the movie is a total farce and that it distorts the book and makes the characters seem really week and oblivious to their lifestyles.


Clint Eastwood ruined this film. By adding a storyline (with his real-life daughter) he deluded the charm of the great book on which it was based. Gone was the fascination of the city of Savannah and its inhabitants. Jude Law, a fabulous actor, is totally wasted in a part that was so small, I didn't even realize it was him until the closing credits. Read the book and forget the movie.


This movie is one of the WORST movies I've had the misfortune to watch in a long time. The acting is cheezy and the characters are cliché, irritating and randomly killed off throughout the movie. The only thing worse than the actors posing with tears in their eyes is the mushy male-bonding moments. The director needed to CUT half this movie, just to make it bearable. Lots of sand, riding across the sand, people passing out in the sand, and dying. In the sand. They never really explain the legend behind the title, nor does the movie actually involve the tower, except in a very deux ex machina way. Horribly planned and filmed. Bad technical codes. At one point a guy is poisoned and shot but still kills a fort full of men and then carries a girl across the desert without water. And he's one of the more better-rounded characters. Before he DIES!! The plot-line wanders uncontrollably, and it is LONG! Before getting to the end, you want to kill the sappy main characters and then kill yourself just to end the misery!! Unbelievably unrealistic and painful. So sad it's almost funny, but never, never again. Just walk away. Fast. Don't say you weren't warned.


Peter Weller (RoboCop) is in this movie... well, we all have to work to pay our bills.

The movie is just not even what I'd charitably call a 'B' movie... it is tortuously drawn out... not well written, not Hollywood-made (and if you value 'indies' above Hollywood, then this is still even below Hollywood-made)... simply sub-par. I picked this up as a rental hoping it would be an Indiana Jones (or something) knock-off... I wish it could have been.

Lots of camera work where it simply lingers too long on the actor... the (bad) dialog is done, overdone, burnt offering done... just not well done.

The 'wonder' and awe is not there... even though you're led up to the wall and bashed into it at the end. I don't want to quit watching very many movies in the middle (or beginning)... but I would have, if someone else didn't insist on fast forwarding through parts to see the end.

It needs to be re-edited just to hope it could be a 'B' movie... I really don't think it can be. Lionsgate included previews of other movies that you could tell were just as far off the mark for video entertainment... a line of excruciating time killers. I didn't really expect this kind of quality still existed... not in the U.S. at least?

In comparison, "Sahara" is a blockbuster... at least Sahara made a professional effort... and I don't mean effects/explosions. I mean a script that could be spoken and not in silent era dramatics.

Ooh, simple-minded story, ear-painful dialog... even bad fight scenes. Sorry, I'd watch "Titus", twice, before this. It's punishment.


I picked up this movie with a friend because the front cover made it look like it would be pretty good...I never realized how deceiving a movie cover could be.

This was truly the worst movie I have ever seen.

It is painfully long, and the only reason I kept watching is because I was waiting for this guy to die, but after legitimately being killed off 5 times: he's poisoned (all of his men die from this poison may I add) yet somehow he has enough energy to walk back through the desert (dehydration), fly a plane, which is later shot down and crashes (miraculously he doesn't get shot/survives the crash), then somehow through all that carries his wife through the desert to safety (she was dying of dehydration/maybe a gunshot at this point) and when she is safe he finally dies, but by then the movie was basically over.

The acting is horrible, the dialog was terrible, and most scenes are in the desert. The characters are not very likable, and did I mention that it is painfully long??

My friend and I started drinking through half the film, and even that didn't improve it!

It would have been more entertaining to light my money on fire and watch it burn.

And the end was worse than anything. The revelation of who the firstborn were was so anticlimactic! I hated this movie.

Now my movie standard has changed-when I see a bad movie, the least I can say for it is "Well...it wasn't as bad as Tower of the Firstborn".


When I see a movie has an IV in its title and I've never heard of the other three, I have a pretty good idea what I'm in for. Mmmmmmmm cheese, a huge heaping pile of Canadian cheese in fact.

Firstly I was attracted by its supposed genre, horror. Since I haven't had a good scare in a while I figured it should at least give me a jolt. No jolt was had. Okay, it wasn't at all scary, maybe an explosion or two, it does after all take place on a military base. No explosions to be seen. Alright, maybe it will be saved by a strong script and good acting. Oh no my friends, horrible script, and the most over the top acting I've seen to date and Michael Ironside wasn't even in it. So what does it have? What cinematic fruits does it bare? Naked moonlight walks to the showers, and hilariously bad lightning effects.

This is the most homo erotic movie to come out of Canada since Strange Brew. Long extended shower scenes with close ups on abs, naked finger painting of fellow cadets, and nary a woman to be seen. Oh, and Greco roman wrestling. Seriously this one shower scene made no sense. One of the cadets hears a disturbance and goes to check it out, takes a slow walk to the shower in just his tightly issue whiteys, like a very very slow walk for some reason, like John Wayne styles. Anyway, he goes to check it out, nothing of course. So, he decides well, I'm a little ripe, shower time for me. Okay longest, gayest shower scene ever. He hears the noise again, gets out of the shower, does same "Duke" Saunter back to his room, and finds nothing. So, since his shower was cut short, he returns to it, and begins to wash his abs once again, by this time I was quite flustered but enough about that, back to the movie. So, after he finishes showering he gets out and the scary lightning gets him. Oh, the horror (no exclamation point.)

Look, if you're a closet homosexual, which of coarse is okay by all means, and you want to stay in that nice safe closet and never let on but you need some cinematic accompaniment to your release then Brotherhood IV is the movie for you. If you want to watch a good old fashion scary movie, then my friend stay away and save yourself the confusing life shattering erections, I mean plot horrible plot.


David Decotau is a competent director. He has directed numerous Full Moon pictures like Puppet Master and Shrieker under pseudonyms. Those were both good films. However, his homosexuality seems to be his main motive for directing these days, and young buff guys in their boxer briefs seem to be his major visual reference. This is all fine and well, but he disguises these films as teen horror movies, not unlike Scream, and packages them the same. A typical straight male is not going to enjoy this type of movie, unless he is hiding something! I am getting sick of Mr. Decotau's films. They are polluting movie shelves and, quite frankly...gay or not, are really bad movies. This man ran out of steam long before Full Moon ran out of business. He must be stopped!


This show is just not funny, and this is not just from the perspective of a straight male, but also from the perspective of someone who enjoys good humor, whether it be from a straight or gay person. This humor is not funny, and is actually too gay for it's own good. That may sound homophobic, but it isn't, and it will later be elaborated on.

In a Saturday Night Live/Madtv like sketch show, we are treated to may sketches featuring an all gay and lesbian cast. And to make matters even better, every sketch has something gay in it, making this show one of the gayest shows on television (this is not meant in a negative way, but instead a factual way).

Saturday Night Live has, for the most part, an all straight cast. The sketches can vary greatly, and every sketch isn't about a person being straight. With this show, every sketch is about guys being attracted to guys, or men in drag, or lesbian women. It's understood that this is a sketch show catering to homosexuals, but why must every sketch be about someone being gay. It's extremely repetitive. It would be like if every sketch on Madtv was about guys hitting on girls or trying to get with girls. This would be fine for one sketch, but there needs to be more. It's fine to have an all gay cast, but when every sketch relies on them acting gay for it's humor, there's a problem with the writing. On top of that, the performers just aren't very funny, adding to the dismalness of this show.

Unfunny actors with repetitive material adds up to a pretty horrible sketch show.

My rating: BOMB out of ****. 30 mins. TV14DLS


This show plays to the lowest common denominator. Pretty much every punchline is a predictable stereotype about gays and lesbians. I'm not sure who told Amenda Bearse that a mullet, in and of itself, is high comedy. Or that a really queenie guy fawning over Madonna constitutes a comedy sketch, but the woman needs a reality check. THis is junk, pure and simple. Believe it or not, gay people like me find all sorts of things funny and interesting and witty...it doesn't always have to be about homosexuality or, well, *sexuality*, at all. How about a show with talented, funny, smart performers? Just being gay is not enough to make someone entertaining.


This Long Beach thriller should have been a nice noir outing, atmospheric and exciting, instead it's a lousy melodrama; it has a nice cast (DeNiro, Dzundza again as a sidekick, DeNiro's movie exwife Maggie), a great title, and nothing else. De Niro looked rather bored and blasé. As I knew not what 'city by the see' stands for, I imagined a small town atmospheric noir thriller.

CatonJones will not raise above the level of his own BASIC INSTINCT 2 and THE JACKALstarvehicles, essentially derivative and exploitative; only that CITY BY THE SEA is below those, and yet another wasting of a De Niro performance (--though CatonJones is not alone to blameas De Niro himself looks rather uncooperative--). CatonJones' flicks essentially lack kick, gusto and excitement, and this De Niro vehicle is worse than usual. Other than 'Maggie', a movie with ugly actors.

De Niro's ex-wife Maggie (some Patti LuPone) is quite hot in the MILF class, you can see her tits in her first scene, when her son comes home at night. Otherwise, other than Maggie's tits, the flick is completely disappointing, it has no atmosphere, and the noir is not an anaerobic genre, De Niro's acting seems again to be on autopilot, something happened to this guy, he looks wholly disabused and unappealingand only think at the stallion he was in the '70s . It's not about age, but about losing brio and direction.

Dzundza is quite uninspired in his supporting part, too. CITY BY THE SEA recalled me Verhoeven not only because of CatonJones' BI installment, but also because of Dzundza, much better as Douglas' sidekick; Verhoeven knows how to do exploitation, CatonJones doesn't.


Don't waste your time. I Love DeNiro and McDormand and mere words cannot express my disappointment with their performances. This movie is one dimensional and without any substance. DeNiro fans should look elsewhere.


City by the Sea is so full of bad 70's cop tv show melodrama it was might distract the audience from De Niro's disappointing performance or the insanely cliche setups, for a few minutes anyway. With plot holes big enough to drive a formation of tanks through I really wonder if De Niro even read the script.


For the first part of this film, I regretted having missed some of the cool decrepit sites depicted in the movie when I was in the Long Beach area years ago. Then I realized that I had stepped into another Hollywood Twilight Zone. For those who sat through the credits after being numbed out by this tedious film about father-son abandonment-guilt deja vu all over again and again and again, it was revealed that the film was shot in Asbury Park. That would have been okay if the DeNiro character did not lament the deterioration of "Long Beach". If the area is a "Slum by the Sea", give credit where it is due. That nitpick aside, the film deserves the oblivion into which it will fall.


Ho Ho Ho, what a load of crap this film turns out to be. Watching this with my family I came up with the line "I'm looking for Joey Nova" as a running joke throughout the movie. Say it with that deep Italian, New York accent and you'll understand the attraction as a central theme in the film.

Rob De Niro plays a aging cop looking for Joey Nova (James Franco), a young junkie with an terribly predictable connection to the cop. The moment De Niro reveals the connection, I felt so sad that he was asked to utter such a pathetic script. Watch De Niro's expression closely when he has to say the unutterably bad line.

My family, including my brother who is a massive fan of De Niro (and why not when the guy has a string of truly awesome and unrepeatable characterisations from his early career) came to the conclusion that in America, you can always buy talent, but you can't make them (only make them fake them) drink from the putrid stream served up by Hollywood as "cinema".

Only for those who like to bang their head against a wall.

I'd give it 0 out of 5.


My mistake was actually inviting a friend to see this film. I was so embarrased that I wanted to leave after only 30 minutes. This has got to be the worst film of the year. The main source of problems comes from the script and you can tell that from the opening scene in the boardwalk coffee shop. And what's with calling the main bad guy Snake and another bad guy Spyder...? This reeked of first-time filmmaker/film-school reject.

We actually watched the whole film and got to witness a truly mediocre performance by DeNiro. Especially his ending breakdown/crying scene in the wharehouse...where's the director to guide the actor. Once again Franchise proves again that they can make a terrible film in just about any country and with any filmmaker. At least this junk was made in the US and brought money to the New York economy.


I just got back from this movie and I had to let people know...this is the worst film I have seen in a long time. The "acting" (if you can call it that), especially by DeNiro and McDormand is flat. The dialog is such a joke that the audience broke into laughter at one of most "dramatic" moments (during the scene in DeNiro's apartment with his new-found grandchild), DeNiro plays his character as one who seemingly has the intelligence of cotton ball. I could go on, but this movie doesn't deserve that much time. If ever there was a case for a refund at a theater, "City by the Sea" would be on the top of the evidence list.


Not a bad film as American cops and robbers cinema goes. But I am puzzled why so many US films focus on the toilet bowl of their society, burned out ghettos and amoral, worthless, usually unshaven characters. There is nobody in this movie to like. I know nothing about Long Beach NY but this film certainly triggers no desire on my part to visit there. Isn't that the reason communities lobby for filmmakers to shoot movies. I get a kick out of visiting places I have seen on film (or seeing films shot in places I have been.) Long Beach looks about as desirable as downtown Detroit. (And they never shoot movies there.) I found the whole thing depressing when it could have been inspiring. I generously gave it a four.


If this movie was early in Robert DeNiro's acting career, nobody would know who he is today. Nobody in this movie seemed to have any acting skills beyond the characters you see in college films. At parts where the movie was supposed to be serious, it turned into a comedy for me because I was laughing so hard at how bad the movie was. I especially liked how deniro and his partner (police officers) were approaching a red right during a conversation, and in the next cut were driving down the road somewhere else. I also liked how deniro's character, a cop, let a stranger into his house, didn't search her, turned his back on her, and let her take a few bucks ("I only a couple dollars. I won't steal your money and never come back!") without him watching. I also wish I had a woman as understanding as joey nova's girlfriend. Joey, "I killed somebody" Gina (in a calm tone), "Oh, honey, why did you do that?" And how understanding Michele (deniro's girlfriend) was. Deniro, "My dad's a baby killer, I haven't called you in a while, I lied that I do have a kid, oh and a grandson, oh and did I mention I'm a wife beater?" Michelle (in a calm tone), "Hmmm. You should have told me this before." As she then proceeds to twirl his hair in her hand. If you count the number of times the movie uses a dissolve between scenes, it will be more than the number of people that actually watched this movie. The movie jumps around, has no flow, and seems as if the director didn't what scene to use next. At no point in the movie was I curious to find out what was going to happen next. Save time by not watching this movie.


"city by the sea" purports to use long beach, long island as this powerful metaphor/backdrop for its story of crime, loss, and spiritual devastation. long beach is portrayed as a pathetic, once grand, now completely burned out ruin of a resort, with drugged-out losers and detritus scrambling about the broken down boardwalk. hello?!

well, the truth is they actually shot the movie somewhere in new jersey, because the real long beach is not in any way the place they describe. had any of the creative team ever even visited it before? it's a lively, raffish, increasingly upscale, and pleasant beach town on long island. while not exactly the hamptons, it's a cheerful and appealing location, and to make a new york area crime film with such a basically false premise (even part of its title) is simply outrageous. i'm not from there, but the long beach city council should sue. not just for defamation of character, but also for being associated with such a second rate piece of hackwork.

every second of this film strikes a false note. every moment seems borrowed from other, more successful films of this genre, and there isn't a single aspect of the tale - not a plot revelation, a character turn, or an emotional beat - that doesn't seem painfully familiar.

the film reached its logic-nadir when a dead body is thrown into the ocean on long beach, and shortly thereafter (hours?), it washes up on the shore of the east river of manhattan. that drew yelps of laughter from the new york audience i saw the movie with.

you can't make a gritty new york thriller and get all the facts wrong.


I really stepped into this one expecting something from De Niro and McDormand (and a 6.3 here), but I was sadly disappointed.

The (multiple) parallel story lines just irritated me. I considered them an affront to the viewer. I got tired of the heavy handed approach early on, I guess, but it still kept on coming.

I didn't feel any depth to the characters whatsoever. I still struggled to stay on, but this was only to see a hammed speech by De Niro. The ending results left me guessing quite a bit, but not in a good way and this only irritated me further. I'll not reveal anything, but who funded this bowser? I'll give a point to McDormand and Forsythe, both of whom I like and did reasonably well despite the terrible script and swiss cheese story. De Niro does not live up to his capabilities, he seems to be on auto-pilot here. He hand picked James Franco to play Joey, but I was left wondering why.

Blech. See something else. I want that 108 minutes back. - 2 of 10


I was disappointed with many aspects of a Star is Born. The restored version of the film is more than an hour too long. There are so many drawn out scenes and musical numbers that any tension between the characters is completely dissipated by the time we come to the tragic ending. The two great scenes -- Judy Garland's night club performance of the Man that Got Away and her song and dance routine in her living room using a lamp shade as a Chinese hat -- don't make up for all of the other overly long and unnecessary (as far as the plot or the character development is concerned) musical numbers. This is a showcase for Garland's considerable musical talents, it is not a well scripted movie. It's ashame because James Mason is terrific in his scenes.


For a film that was low budget and lacking on adventure, it did get by, but just barely. This film was aimed at the truly hardcore Indiana Jones fan. Harrison Ford could not be brought on due to his cost, so this had to suffice.

The acting was rather weak, although it was not painful, to watch. Filled with short conversations and glimpses into the Younger version of Jones, we watch Jones as he goes looking for the Peacock's Eye. After globe-trotting and finding different things, Jones ends his adventure.

Jones fails to find the eye near the end, but instead gets another clue about its whereabouts. It comes off as a mini-series, where you have to watch the next film to find out what happens.

Overall, its a sub-par film with run-of-the-mill acting. But, what did you expect? "C-"


First of all, I have to tell I mainly watched this movie because the special effects was told to be made by the FX group and the poster was very promising about them. I've seen the uncut version. And if the uncut version is that terrible that it was, how terrible could the "cut" version be? It's not a horror movie, though it's full of gory scenes, and it's not a horror comedy, 'cause there's nothing funny in it. I supposed to see a movie where Virus (with Dustin Hoffman) and the melting scene of senator Kelly from the x-men are combined. Or something like that. But there was nothing like this in the whole movie. From the idea of the three stage (hallucination, organ failure, body melt) a far far better movie could be made by a talent director. I only gave three stars to the three stage, but I only recommend this if you think the gore makes a horror movie. And more gore you can see the better the movie is. But if you think that really good horror movies are like "The Thing", "Alien" or "Prophecy (1979)", avoid!


yet turned out to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Whew! This movie was so dreadful...jeez...I mean, this film was crap. There was absolutely zero creativity! All this movie needed was a couple creative moments, and bam, this film woulda been okay. Male nudity, terrible acting, awful music...oy. The few highlights of this movie are mainly its ability to make me laugh. Terrible movies always have a place in my heart, especially horror movies. I really tried to give this one a chance. I'll watch it again I guess sometime. I bought it from my video store for 3 bucks, after I saw it a few years back. It's basically something i use to torture people whose favorite movies are "Good Will Hunting" and "Armageddon." Overall: D-


This is by far the WORST film ever made..... It makes me a little embarrassed to be an Australian. On my 'TOP 10 WORST MOVIES' list,there this film will be, sitting proudly on top. Not only is the acting fifth rate, the special FX crap, and the script a sespool of junk, the direction is absolute garbage! I dont know if anyone knows this, but there are a few actors in this film who are rather big in Australian TV. Lisa McCune..... Harold from Neighbours....... this movie gave me an extremely low opinion of these people that they will never be able to win back. All Australian films aren't this bad, I promise you. Instead of this &%$, check out Moulin Rouge, The Dish, Chopper, Romper Stomper, Dead Calm.....or even Looking For Alibrandi(if desperate). I know i had to, to remind myself ...... IT AINT ALL AS BAD AS THAT!!!!


This is a film about a corporation which, for no apparent reason, is testing a body-enhancing drug on the local 'Ramsey Street' like yocals in an Australian community.

A man drinking bleach in the opening 5 minutes?!?!?!?! This was gonna be one bizarre schlock horror experience from the off. A severe lack of storyline and any continuity really reminded us all of why Australia is not a name readily heard when discussing great movie moments.

I realise this is low budget but could they not have at least found a body builder who didn't sound like a chipmunk?! Even with Ian Smith (Harold from Neighbours) having a pivotal(!) role as a doctor involved in the trials this film is one big joke from start to finish. Even the video cover has a picture of him with his left ear cut off when it's his right that gets cut off in the film!

This nearly overtakes Twin Dragons as the worst film ever! A resounding 1 out of 10.


Body Melt is basically what it appears to be; just a big pile of gore. Australia isn't a nation instantly recognised for a lot of hit horror films (despite one or two successes), and this one really shows why - as aside from all the blood and guts, there is nothing at all to recommend it for; and anyone that doesn't watch horror films purely for gore won't even have that small pittance to fall back on. Body Melt is a more modern example of the 'melt movie' - a worthless type of film kicked off by the worthless James Muro flick 'Street Trash' towards the end of the eighties. I can't say I've seen too many of these sorts of movies, and this one isn't even as good as the earlier eighties film. The plot is similar to Street Trash, as it follows the unoriginal idea (also seen in Larry Cohen's "The Stuff") of a new product disrupting people's bodily functions. The product in this film comes from a health farm and is known as 'Verbatim'. The film starts with a sequence that sees a horribly mutilated man crash his car after his body begins to melt. After that, we see other people melting...

The film only runs for about seventy five minutes (not including closing credits), and the vast majority of that is filler. It would seem that every time director Philip Brophy doesn't know where to go, another person melts. It didn't come as a surprise to me, therefore, that the film is based on a series of short stories - as that's exactly what it feels like. The gore actually isn't bad, as despite being cheap it does have a cheerful feel to it; and the film goes further than most would dare, as offending body parts include penises, placentas and over-sized tongues developing a mind of their own. The way that they are used doesn't inspire the imagination, however, and that is a shame as this film could actually have been quite scary if done correctly. The only recognisable person in the cast is Ian Smith, who many will immediately identify as 'Harold' from the Aussie soap 'Neighbours'. It's not surprising that there's no other 'names' as this production is unprofessional and lacklustre, and if I were an actor with a good reputation; I wouldn't have gone anywhere near it. This film might delight fans of mindless gore; but most of us are better off elsewhere.


This movie was one of Australia's 'attempts' at making a horror movie, Peter Jackson-style, but instead turned out a turkey that went straight-to-video.

The plot, (if you could call it that) is simple. A company manufacturing a 'health' drink in powder form decide to distribute it amongst a group of residents living in a cul-de-sac. Little do they know that anyone who consumes the 'health' drink end up mutating and dying in revolting ways that try to be humorous, but instead makes the audience groan in disbelief. This movie treads in the 'been-there-done-that' territory.

All the 'characters' are as usual, Aussie stereotypes played way over the top by renowned Australian TV stars, such as Lisa McCune (of "Blue Healers"). One ridiculous storyline has a pair of young men ending up on a farm as captives by a group of mutated hicks. We even get to see the horny guy trying to hit on the big ugly sister which is really revolting.

The deaths themselves are quite ludicrous. One woman has her tongue swell up she chokes to death. Another woman gives birth to a mutant baby that crawls around the room like one of the 'face-huggers' from the Aliens series. One man's face literally 'melts' off. All of this is either supposed to make you laugh or cringe. Instead, you will find yourself rolling your eyes at how incredibly foolish you were to either rent this movie or watch it on Cable.

Give this movie a miss - there's nothing here to root for.


...well, as 'Body Melt' indicates - pretty darn bad.

I never expected a good movie when I rented it. In fact that's the whole reason I did rent it. After all, as is reiterated numerous times in 'Vanilla Sky' - "the sweet is never as sweet without the sour."

But I should have chosen a less sour movie than this to heighten my experience of the sweet.

Sometimes you just have to sit back and wonder why anyone would ever make a movie like this. The plot is ridiculously simple and rather dull. The characters are instantly forgettable. In fact, the only thing saving 'Body Melt' from a score of 1 by me is the ludicrous death scenes. Not very creative offhand, but in how many movies can you see a woman's head literally melt into nothing?

Rating: 2/10, but only because of the mildly amusing deaths


First Stage: Hallucinations Second Stage: Organ Failure Third Stage: Body Melt It's a sunny day in suburbia. Suddenly, a hideously deformed, dying man disrupts the peace when he crashes his car into Pebbles Court, the better part of Homesville. He's the victim if an experimental drug marketed as the dietary supplement Vimuville, which has apparently malfunctioned. He has arrived too late to warn the population of Homesville not to try the pill dropped in their mailbox by a respectable pharmaceutical company. Unfortunately, the folks of Homesville are suckers for freebies and start deforming, mutating, exploding, and otherwise experiencing sudden and very gruesome deaths. A local health spa becomes the nerve center for this horrific outbreak as the film spirals down a catastrophic path that has been compared to John Carpenter's 1995 film "In The Mouth of Madness". Full of shocking surprises, imaginative photography, and layered with gore, Body Melt offers horrific entertainment as lustful teenagers. Old ladies, health staff, and respectable families go through the merciless deteriorating torture


This was the worst movie I have ever scene. Talk about a knock out cover though. That is probably where all the money went. I mean this is the most horrible movie I have watched. Save your time and money don't see this movie. It's gross too. ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!! Not only is this weird and bizarre but the whole female male thing gave me the creeps. This movie also had very bad acting and non-realistic characters. The characters didn't stick to how they were written to be. I would not let anyone see this movie except in the exception of a foe. In that case I would promote it. Not only is the cover good but the back description is false. They say that the whole town ends up exploding. But it does not really happen. The End of the world sort of movie. But really, really, really bad.


Cooper's Welcome to My Nightmare album was a classic, and his supporting tour was amazing, yet the video documenting that tour is downright awful. As interesting as the tour might have been, the video and audio quality on the tape are so horrible that viewers will have a hard time deciding which song is playing and figuring out if the colorful frogman running around on stage is Alice Cooper, a dancer or a band member. As provocative as the video may be, considering it was one of his most entertaining tours ever, fans should be advised that Welcome to My Nightmare is a complete waste of money and is not even worth attempting to watch. If only the concert had been filmed with higher quality equipment, it just might have been his best video release yet.


One huge discovery every week, one week the wheel of something, the other the Holy Grail, a couples weeks some ancient lost civilization artifact in Antarctica all that combined with heavily action scenes that seemed to have been taken from Power Rangers plus bad acting, this show sucked a lot.

I use all my strengh to see 7 episode, only because I downloaded all 13 episodes at once, but it was so bad that I couldn't see the rest, this show tried to be a lot of things, science, fantasy, sci-fi, history, action, comedy and drama, unfortunately, it was mediocre in all, the only thing this show manages to be is a waste of time.

PS: It was pathetically funny to see the characters make some position before and after all the roundhouse kicks they made many times against their 'oh-so-powerful enemies', that bothered them everywhere, except in their 'base', funny to see how their enemies knew even their thoughts but not the location of Zond's batcave.


As I was watching the show I started thinking:" What is the target audience?" It was just so stupid that even kids wouldn't get anything from it. Bananaman is made extremely cheap, it's boring as hell, and full of stupid jokes that are just so stupid that I can't even describe it. And on top of that, almost all of the "funny" elements are ripped straight off old Disney cartoons. 3 points come from the fact that usually when something is really bad, it makes it just a little funny as it is. Well, bananaman is almost below that, and it deserves credit for it.

I feel sorry for the people who are behind this disaster, it must have been a career killer.


Appalling because a student film had won the Academy Award for best live-action short. My fellow film students and I were hopeful when we watched it.

Appalling because it is so bad. As cornball as it gets. It's competently made (you don't question the technical aspects of the film), but it's utterly charmless, bland, and unfunny. It's like watching bad television. It thinks it's a lot better than it is. So, apparently, does the AMPAS.

Maybe I shouldn't be at all surprised that it won an Oscar. Winning one these days seems to be more of an insult than a compliment.


The idea was great, I grant you that, it always was. From "Faust" to "It's A Wonderful Life" The what if, the second chance, the realization and all the rest. So, can anyone explain to me why the new moronic turns of this perennial tale. The Jerry Springer sensibility that corrodes, diminishes and ultimate destroys what it should have been a lovely movie is what I took with me as I rushed out of the theater. I think that we should all know by now that technical wizardry is not nearly enough and that audiences are smarter than what the smart ass marketing experts seem to think. Is this movie making money? I don't know but I don't think so not even with a million copy opening week end. How sad really. How sad.


I am completely shocked at the extremely high rating that this movie received. Expecting it to be pretty good, with some decent humour. I think i might have laughed once throughout the entire movie. However, I not very fond of any movie Adam Sanlder does, so i wasn't too surprised at the poor quality. The movie started out alright, the concept was okay, but then it just began to get much much worse. They should not have had the part where he starts losing control of the remote (basically the whole movie), and when you learn that Christopher Walken's character is really death, I lost all hope. That's where it got seemingly as ridiculous as it could get. Unfortunately, they decided to throw in him dying, and then waking up. WAKING UP? That really is the worst way to end a movie ever. It just means that the writers didn't want the audience leaving depressed so they tell you it never really happened. Lovely. Overall, i give this movie 3 out of 10 for boring me to death and not giving it a proper ending.


i guess it was time for Adam sandler to try a heart-warming family comedy. i really didn't want to see this, because i end up hating almost anything Adam sandler does. he always seems to be doing the "waterboy" voice, even when he isn't trying to. i gave him some slack because i enjoyed "punch-drunk love", a movie where he actually seemed to stretch a bit as an actor and try to make you forget for a few moments that it's him on screen. well, back to the same old garbage here. he surrounds himself with an excellent supporting cast (including Christopher walken, Kate beckinsale and even Jennifer Connelly), but to no avail. it's a story about a busy family man given a "universal" remote that allows him to access all parts of his life, including fast-forwarding through the parts he doesn't like (and accessing the commentary track, done by James earl Jones). of course, it spirals out of control. It's an interesting premise. with a different actor, one more capable of pulling the audience in, it would have been spot-on. instead, with him, it came off as syrupy, trite and heavy-handed, eliciting no audience empathy at all. to me, sandler seems to have a smirking, sleepwalking quality to his performances, like we're both in on some joke. i never bought him as a father, a husband or an architect. boo!


This movie presents itself as a sweet family comedy with futuristic premise. This drivel encompasses every cliché in the family comedy repertoire, the writers did not even bother to recycle the lines!

Despite Adam Sandler's best efforts to make it palatable, the overused jokes, the stereotyped characters that could have been easily replaced by cardboard cutouts, and the cheap humour do more then murder the movie, they bury it 60 feet under as well.

This movie, in my humble opinion, should be watched in the same manner the lead character views his life, with the finger firmly on the Fast Forward button. It is a shame to waste one's time on watching this, it could be better spent on shoveling manure, the end impression is the same.


I'm not exaggerating when I say that after the first half of this movie, the whole film was a big letdown. The movie took a decidedly dark turn, especially when Christopher Walken revealed himself as the Angel of Death. I mean, c'mon! You go from farting in David Hasselhoff's face to this dramatic turn. It just didn't fit.

Plus, you could tell in the second half of the movie that the writers tried desperately to throw in funny parts during the really dramatic scenes to remind the viewers that this was a comedy. But the funny parts really just collapsed under the weight of the heavy drama.

I'm a really big fan of Adam Sandler, but this movie didn't do it for me the way his earlier films did. Sandler's really funny in comedies like "Happy Gilmore" and "The Waterboy". He can also do drama really well, as the underrated "Punch Drunk Love" and "Spanglish" showed. However, the movie makers tried to mix the two in this movie, and it really didn't work.

What upset me even more was the cop-out ending when Adam Sandler wakes up in Bed, Bath & Beyond realizing the whole experience was a dream. Did this ending remind anyone of the awful Elijah Wood vehicle, "North"? That's exactly how that movie ended, and I was astounded an Adam Sandler movie would stoop to end that way.

Additionally, his troubled times come when he fast forwards through waiting for his promotion after months of working on a project. The whole time I was sitting in the movie theater, I was thinking, "Why didn't he just push 'pause' and do a majority of the work? That would have made a whole lot more sense, not to mention given him more time." He said he didn't have enough time to do things, so why did he want to fast forward?

Well, it's complicated, but I think the movie could have been much better in a lot of ways. For one, it was advertised as a comedy and it should have stayed that way throughout. There should have been a few dramatic points to make the film at least a little bit legitimate, but when it got heavily dramatic, that's when the film really jumped the shark.

Oh, and one other thing. Kate Beckensale is a decent actress, but she doesn't look like a woman who has had two kids. That's all.


Adam Sandler movies aren't quite as funny as they used to be. Billy Madison was by far the funniest, and it's been downhill since then, with The Longest Yard being his worst comedy yet. At the same time, Sandler has been involving himself in many more serious projects, such as Punch-Drunk Love and Spanglish. Click could be said to be a combination of the two, half a tragedy and half an immature fantasy comedy. It is this dual personality that is the main fault of Click, because it simply exists at two opposite poles.

The main premise of Click is something that everyone has probably thought of at one time or another. What if you could have a remote control that controlled events around you? Would you use to help others or to exercise all of your guilty pleasures in your darkest dreams? Would you give yourself a clean slate and start from page one? Would you use it for trial-and-error, trying something and if it doesn't work feeling free to rewind?

Click never delves too deeply into the psychology behind being your own God, because it is more obsessed with making it a personal tale rather than make the main character a metaphor for the audience to relate to. The movie follows Michael Newman (Sandler), a man with a beautiful wife (Beckinsale), two young children and the hope of soon making partner in an architectural firm, which has caused him to work insane hours and ignore his family. He doesn't have time for the regular things, such as taking his kids camping or making love to his wife.

As the straw that breaks the camel's back, he is having problems with the excessive number of remotes in his home which apparently control everything from light fixtures to the refrigerator. He goes out searching for a universal remote, finding only Bed, Bath and Beyond to be open. He ventures into the Beyond section and finds Morty (Walken), who gives him a top-of-the-line non-returnable remote for free, citing that sometimes good guys need a break. He leaves it up to Michael to find out that the remote controls his entire universe, allowing him to pause, fast-forward, chapter select, hear commentary, etc.

As you would expect from any Sandler movie, it starts out with him abusing his powers for personal benefit or for fun. He gives himself a tan using the tint, he revisits old childhood memories and he torments the child next door. He also uses it to skip past hard work periods or dinner with his parents (Winkler & Kavner), which leaves him as a near-zombie in autopilot. Some of what happens is fairly funny, just because we all know we'd love to do the same thing if given the chance, or because we manage to revel in Michael's joy with his new toy as he makes everyone speak Spanish or has James Earl Jones narrate his life. More often than not, it is about as crude as you'd expect from a Sandler movie, which bodes pretty bad, hitting lows such as dogs (yes, plural) humping a stuffed toy duck or Sandler farting into the face of his boss (Hasselhoff).

The movie does a quick 180 halfway through, turning into a tragedy as the remote automatically skips years at a time based on what he previously skipped. Basically, this means that he has spent most of his life on auto-pilot, and we see his life fall apart basically. As a tragedy, it works well, having a couple strong emotional moments near the end as he tries to stop his life from self-destructing.

The problem that exists is that Click is possibly the most bipolar movie I have ever seen. The first half is the Sandler brand of immature fart jokes, while the second half is a tragedy that seems perfect for date movies. To find an audience who would appreciate both the tear-jerking drama and the dog-humping humour would be quite a task. The fact that Click could have worked going in either direction adds insult to injury, as we potentially could have had two good movies with distinctly different moods, but the same subject matter. Instead, we have an amalgamation of the two approaches, and it is far too jumbled to be effective.

From an acting perspective, Sandler is surprisingly strong, though nothing that would gain him much more respect after turning in good performances in Punch Drunk Love and Spanglish. The rest of the cast is mostly forgettable, aside from a terrifically sleazy David Hasselhoff. Beckinsale is definitely strong, though it is far from career defining work. Even Christopher Walken, one of my personal favourite actors, is wasted, having a couple good lines here and there but more or less floating through the movie.

On a side note, the aging is done incredibly well on all characters, considering the movie spans more than twenty years. It isn't hard to mistake Sandler for a sixty year old near the end of the cycle, though the same effect isn't as noticeable on Beckinsale or Astin. Seeing an eighty-year old Henry Winkler proves to be one of the movie's more heartbreaking visuals.

There may be some gold hidden deep with Click, a movie that could have easily been much more. As it stands, it is likely to repulse just as much as it attracts. There is no way that a movie can be both a tragedy and have someone fart in David Hasselhoff's face. There was definitely potential for a movie about one of the most common fantasies in life, but few of the possibilities were realized. Maybe in a few years, the concept can be revisited with either a fully comic or fully dramatic attitude, or at least a more subtle blend of the two. The bipolarity of the movie essentially cancels out the audiences, making Click a movie for almost no one.

46%


So here we have an Adam Sandler drama parading around as an Adam Sandler comedy. That's all fair and well right? Well it would be, if Adam Sandler was a dramatic actor.

By now, you most likely know what this film is about. If you don't, Adam Sandler, an overworking father, is given a universal remote by a man named Morty (Christopher Walken) who seemingly works in the back of a Bed, Bath, & Beyond. However, this is no normal remote. No, this universal remote can actually control Sandler's universe. This means muting rants given by his wife Donna (a stunning Kate Beckinsale) and fast-forwarding through showers and sex. Soon, though, Sandler discovers that the remote may actually be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Here is the main problem with Click. It was sold as a comedy. Well it isn't funny. And the dramatic element? It isn't very well done. Sandler just doesn't have the chops to pull off an about face half way through the film. He doesn't make the character of Michael sympathetic enough. So when it comes time to sympathize with him, we can't.

Maybe it's just me. It seemed that half the audience I saw this with was sobbing through the last half hour. Maybe I'm too critical. Or, on the other hand, maybe the audience was not very discerning.

Whatever the case, Click didn't work for me. I didn't like Sandler. I didn't like the comedic or dramatic elements. In fact, the only things saving this were Kate Beckinsale, who I would watch sit in a chair for 90 minutes and Christopher Walken, who always turns in a fair performance.

4/10: Your time could be better spent in another film.


I used to genuinely enjoy watching Adam Sandler films. He was a funny guy, and his movies showcased this talent of his off rather well. But I would imagine, after hitting a high with Big Daddy, either the quality of the films started to wear off, or Sandler just got too big for his britches. With the exception of Punch Drunk Love (an entirely different kind of role altogether) and to a lesser extent, Spanglish, I have yet to see Sandler actually pull off a massively hilarious or worthwhile comedy ever since. And Click sadly, is not exception.

Sandler plays Michael Newman, a family man obsessed with work to the point that he has next to no time to spend with his family. Not quite understanding the remotes in his house, Michael sets out one evening to get a universal remote to help him better function with the electronics in his house. But upon meeting Morty (Christopher Walken) in the 'Way Beyond' section of Bed, Bath and Beyond (that would have been clever about ten years ago), he receives much more than just a universal remote. With just a click of a button, Michael can rewind, fast-forward or skip out on certain moments in his life. But things can only go so good for so long.

Simply put, Click is one of the worst excuses for a comedy/drama that I have ever seen. Not once does the film even remotely attempt to bring anything new to the tired and overused idea at work within the film, and never once does it even attempt to revel in the genre that it belongs in. The movie just plays out at break-neck speed, beginning and ending without much in-between. And when moments of comedy come up, they speed by and either hit the mark or miss it entirely (the latter happens a whole lot more often than the former). And when moments of drama come up, they are either eluded to as still being subtly funny, or just come off as plainly amateur. The actors within the film are clearly better trained than the material, but despite this, it still acts as a barrier limiting their every move.

And no one is held back more than Sandler himself. He just does not seem to know what he is doing here, or how he should be doing it. Should he be acting like a goof, and just creating laughs for the audience at every turn? Or should he actually be a genuinely affected individual, who is slowly seeing the dramatic consequences of his every action, and is ultimately being destroyed by it? He just does not seem to understand at any point during the film, and of the mere moments where he shows a brief glimpse of the actor that was born in Punch Drunk Love, they still do not seem to cut it. He just comes off as being annoying for the most part, and when he is acting with his puppy dog-style "Woe is me!" look, he just comes off as being useless. It is almost as if he does not even bother trying anymore to create something that will genuinely affect people. If he thinks the adolescent attempt at tear-inducing drama that takes place in final act of the film was actually something worthwhile, I think he needs to start getting some better career advice.

What is even more sad is the staple of actors the film has at its disposal, who are all criminally underused. Kate Beckinsale plays Sandler's wife, and all she basically gets to do is get naughty with him, or argue with him. She may be credited second only to Sandler, but she gets such a tiny amount of screen time that you wonder why the filmmakers even bothered getting a name actor, and not just some random good looking extra. Henry Winkler and David Hasselhoff, both wonderful character actors (even if a lot of their best stuff is mere parodies of their most famous roles), are basically used as stepping stones for Sandler jokes that do nothing for the movie. The entire scene where he pauses his life and beats up Hasselhoff is not funny. It borders on being delusionally ridiculous. They do get a few funny lines, but are nothing but mere cardboard cut-outs for the most part.

Walken is the one who fares the greatest of anyone, but only by mere chance. He plays Morty as the usual kooky/crazy Walken stereotype, and it only works because it is funnier than almost anything Sandler can throw at the audience. I found myself pining for more Walken, just because everything else was so ridiculously unfunny. Even at his worst, Walken still succeeds in being better than everything in the entirety of the movie.

The only thing that can even match him is some of the interesting make-up that appears in the last half of the movie. Not so much Sandler dressed up as a fat guy (especially not during the horrendously CGI-friendly "wake-up" scene), but the aging done to the likes of Winkler, Beckinsale, Sean Astin and Julie Kavner. I thought it would look silly, but it was actually well done, and clearly was well thought out and applied in its creation. It actually makes these moments seem better than they actually are, just because of how professionally done they look. It was a treat to see the wonders of some of these scenes, and really begged the question of whether the movie could have actually been better if it was as well thought out as the make-up.

It pains me to know Sandler actually made people genuinely cry with some of the material in this film. I felt like crying yes, but only because of how atrocious the things going on on-screen were. I can only hope that there are a few more Punch Drunk Loves coming from Sandler, and no more disasters like this.

2/10.


I think we all know that every movie, whether it's comedy, drama or otherwise puts our main character through some challenges and awkward messes. It's basic storytelling. So it's no spoiler to note that this film does just that. My problem is, it just goes to far with it and spends waaay to much time there, over a third of the film, about 40 minutes and then cleans it all up in less than 10. Maybe it wasn't so much the length of ACT2 to place the blame as it is the fact that it has zero elements of comedy. It is way to serious, uncomfortable, scary and sad. This film should have never been made with this script. Act 2 needed serious work and any college kid would have certainly received a poor grade with it in a scriptwriting class. It really annoys me when big stars get away with making junk just because of the weight their name carries.


The fact that I keep going to Sadler's films is the victory of advertising over experience -well the fact that my ticket was free helped too. If you didn't like his previous films or if you don't generally like having your intelligence insulted don't go.

The same crude jokes, the same life affirming naive clichés, the same incredibly unlikable main character, the same predictable ending.

I generally like Kate Beckinsale and Christopher Walken but here they don't worth wasting 2 hours of your life.

Take the film's message without having to watch it: do not waste your time, seize the day, saviour any moment, do something better with your evening: clean your house, wash your car, talk with your family, don't go and watch a film that you have already watched in thousands of different and better versions.


You go into an Adam Sandker movie expecting a funny movie and to laugh a lot. However in this movie it will make you cry more than laugh. The only one thing good I can say about this movie is it has a GREAT moral. Other than that i can't find one positive thing about the movie. I cried for two third of the movie. And unless of course you want to pay to cry you should not see this movie. Don't buy the funny commercials they're just showing the beginning of the movie and whats going on and not the end of the movie. I will make this promise though if you don't cry at the movie you will most definitely find this movie upsetting and sad and you may most likely cry. That i will promise you. But hey whatever you can go see it if you want to but don't say you weren't warned


The idea of the movie was good; the message (that we all waste our life at meaningless jobs rather than doing something we'd really like) made a lot of sense to me. However, the movie ruined it on so many levels. First of all, Adam Sandler can't act at all. And the part when he becomes fat is not believable at all.

Second, most of the jokes in the movie are obvious and are not that funny. Why did they have to include that stupid fart joke? The jokes about Sandler's sex life did not add anything to the plot either.

I give it 3, and not 1, just for the jokes with the neighborhood boy, which were really funny. Too bad all but one of them were in the very beginning of the movie.


Sure, it's a fine melodrama, but I expected more comedy. I know that this movie really deals more with morals, but we already got the message halfway through the film. Now don't get me wrong, all the performances by Adam Sandler, Kate Bekinsale, Christopher Walkin, David Hasselhoff, et al are wonderful, but this movie just wasn't what I expected it all to be. I was hoping that Adam's character's journey would be more of a funny try to pull everything together. There was too much sadness in this movie, and even you get confused as to what had happened in the fast-forwarded time. Early on, the comedy was right on key, but after that, drama took over, and very limited humor occurred from there on out. Overall, "Click," while it is a very nice piece of work, just doesn't click for me.


Despite the title, this isn't a horror film at all; the werewolf elements are only introduced three-quarters of the way in  which are, in any case, merely suggested through the lead character's hallucinations  but these obviously constitute the film's highlight (though rugged, pasty-faced star and co-director Chesebro isn't exactly Lon Chaney Jr.); still, the transformation-by-transfusion is an interesting concept, one which I don't think has been done in subsequent films. However, while the forest locations are certainly nice, the unexciting main narrative involving rival logging companies and the unavoidable love triangle really drown the interest; a subplot involves a villainous moonshiner who's a dead ringer for Walter Brennan  and, for the record, there's even an interminable "Jazz Age" party sequence towards the beginning! The soundtrack accompanying the print I watched features a classical piece which was also used  to much greater effect  in Luis Bunuel's L'AGE D'OR (1930).