Just to make it clear: yes, I think that this film tells an important story but am I the only one who had the feeling that this film is mostly about it's director? There are so many scenes where we just see him sitting, standing or filming somewhere and ... well, he also likes to be filmed without a T-Shirt. Specially the whole sequence about him in hospital and that he might loose his leg. It pretty much seems like a chance to expand the whole film to feature film lenght and be seen even more on screen (without a T-Shirt). Much seemed to be staged or shot separately and then cut together. My opinion: important content but way too much Rob Stewart in it.


I have heard nothing but great praises about this movie. Since I also love documentaries and animals, I set out to see it with great enthusiasm. The movie started off quite well, so I figured I was in for a treat. There were beautiful underwater shots, and it seemed like a legitimate documentary, although the narrator's lack of commentary skills, and low audio quality were foreshadowing bad things to come. I have seen enough documentaries to know to take every one of them with a grain of salt. The problem with documentaries is that (while they should be presenting facts objectively) they are all created to serve one purpose in mind: to convince the viewers of the author's ideas/ideals/point of view. In the case of Sharkwater the ideas and ideals of the author were at the level of an elementary school student. His 'scientific' reasoning makes perfect sense if you are either 6 years old, or are completely brain-dead. Don't get me wrong, I am all for saving this planet, and I agree, eradicating animal species one after another is unacceptable. However, a marine biology themed movie made by a complete amateur without any scientific training is probably going to do more damage to the cause than good. Introduce a complete hack of a Greenpeace activist as a 'subject matter expert', and some shameless self-promotion tactics in a pathetic attempt to be recognized as a hero, and you have a complete disaster. These guys filmed themselves sinking fishing vessels in international waters, armed with the argument that out there no one has authority over them, claiming themselves to be heroes for enforcing local laws. Get it? They were enforcing local laws outside of the country's borders. Needless to say, they were also outraged for being arrested by authorities for attempted murder. I guess, enforcing local laws in international waters has made them forget about the existence of international laws... no matter where you are, attacking other people, and trying to sink their boats (even if they are engaged in illegal poaching) is attempted murder. There is also a completely unnecessary section about the author being attacked by flesh-eating disease. Apparently the doctors had to amputate his leg. Then he made some phone calls to his relatives, assuring them that he had things under control, and that everything was going to be fine. All this with astounding confidence from a person who's about to have his leg amputated. Then guess what happened? He was tougher than the flesh-eating disease! He defied all odds against him, saving his own leg, ripping out the IV tube from his arm, and and then immediately rushing off to the very country that had an arrest warrant against him for attempted murder, just because his cause for saving the sharks was more important than his health, leg or life in prison... For these reasons I found this movie extremely pathetic. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people that loved this movie... however, now that I think about it, they all had the IQ of a tadpole...


A really awful documentary on the reasons for the declining shark population is spoiled by the director's love affair with himself. There is very little good footage of sharks but every scene has the director in it, suntanned and showing off his spiffy new haircut.

I watched this because of the high rating on IMDb; shortly after it started I realized that all those good reviews were no doubt done by him. There is no one else on Earth, with the possible exception of his mother, who could think this is a decent documentary.

The film is riddled with bad science, questionable facts and exaggeration. You'll hear all about the "Shark Fin Mafia" while watching the director "bravely" ram a small fishing boat with a much larger ship. And why do these self-proclaimed shark saviors need a shotgun on board for "shark protection"? I'm on board with the idea that the oceans are over fished and sharks are being decimated for their fins, and that it should be stopped. The self-obsessed way that they go about it is what makes this a lousy documentary. This director is doing more harm to the environmental cause than help; by being so completely self-centered and using a ridiculous degree of exaggeration in every scene, he makes other environmentalists look foolish by association.

This is a missed opportunity to show the world how badly overfishing and finning are destroying the environment.


The first half hour of the movie serves as a broad introduction to the theme of "sharks". The footage is really nice and the narrative gets the job done.

Then the movie becomes much more political with the intention to change the common view of sharks as a lurking predator that is out to get us. The following explanation is good but the statistics that we are shown are ridiculous. It really isn't important to compare shark attacks with car accidents or whatever  I don't think that we basically will feel more safe to go swimming in an area with sharks if we know that more people die from drugs than from shark attacks. Really! I think that the director should have consulted someone with more flair for journalism when he decided to make this movie political.

Then we enter the battle against the illegal fishing that is going on in order to get the fins from the sharks to shark fin soup. The theme is very relevant but again I think that director Rob Stewart should have stayed focused on what he is good at; portraying sharks underwater. I once heard how post-modernism influences the way an academic paper should be made; instead of giving the conclusion, show your observation and let the viewer (or reader) conclude for himself. I would have been more engaged if the movie had been produced accordingly. The way it was made left out any room for reflection; Everything was served "overcooked" and very easily digested. On top of that you sometimes didn't know what you were being served because the narrative didn't always give a well-rounded description of what was going on

Why did this movie get such a high rating on IMDb? I think  and this is entirely my own thought - that people, because of the importance of the theme, thinks that this movie needs to be seen by so many as possible.

Regards Simon


This movie should be re-edited, get a new narrator, and get more solid facts with more respected biologists like Canada's, David Suzuki. Why didn't they get Doctor Suzuki to narrate? He is well know and respected world wide and fully supports animal rights. He may have even donated his time, if they approached him, but I don't think he would agree with most of the movies ethics or lack of. I really want to know, "What did Dr. David Suzuki think of this movie?" I fully understand that there is a serious issue regarding to people killing off sharks.. I believe that they should be left alone like any other animal unless they provide some sort of medical cure, but they do not as far as I know. This movie tries to jump on the "Environmental Band Wagon". It was poor done and reminds me of one of my students handing in a book report for a book they had skimmed the night before. It is very vague and amateurish. Not to mention the lack of ethics on their part. They would rather ram another vessel and risk killing human beings, to save a few sharks. They didn't have any backing from any government to do so. This is why they were being arrested and charged for several counts of attempt of murder. If you see a dog being beaten on the street and decide that it is appropriate to beat the dog owner with a baseball bat.you will be arrested and you will be charged with either aggravated assault or attempt of murder.

Another thing that bothered me was when the photographer had to be hospitalized because he had a "Flesh Eating Disease", they didn't show the his leg and to movie makers that would have been the "Money Shot". So why didn't they show his leg? I think that this drama was invented to given the narrator more depth and to prove that he was risking his life to save the sharks. In fact, he did very little to save the sharks. The Canadian Movie Production Company "Sharkwater Productions" deserves most of the credit The photographer took photos and film footage and that was about it.

Oh yeswe did get to see him swim around in a skin tight bathing suite for the last have hour of the movie.What was that all about? Where they going for the female/gay demographic?


This film is ostensibly about the overfishing of sharks and what that may mean for shark populations and marine ecology, but within the first few minutes of the film you realize that "Sharkwater" is largely about writer/director/producer Rob Stewart and how heroic and unique he fancies himself to be. One of the first sequences is a long shot of a bronzed, shirtless Stewart strolling along a tropical beach, fresh from a snorkel, while the narrator (Stewart, naturally) describes how he's always loved sharks, always been fascinated by them, blah blah blah.

Now, there's nothing wrong with liking sharks. I was a passionate elasmophile as a kid, and I cultivated that interest through a biology degree, a shark research internship, and various fisheries-related jobs both in the U.S. and abroad. In the age of Cousteau, "Jaws", National Geographic, and the Discovery Channel, there have been tens of thousands of shark fanatics, and indeed there has been a sea change in popular opinion about sharks. The evidence of this is everywhere, despite the mainstream media's steadfast insistence on maintaining the more sensational and macabre elements of shark attack news coverage. But somehow Stewart has convinced himself that his interest in sharks, his efforts to conserve them, and his perspective on shark mythology are unique and profound whereas most people (except for Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd staff) are ineffectual morons still clinging to myths of sharks as vicious maneaters. This is both wildly ignorant of the last twenty years of shark biology and conservation efforts, and insulting to the many people around the world who are more experienced and knowledgeable than Stewart.

What's more repellent than Stewart's delusional lone-savior persona (reminiscent of Timothy Treadwell in Werner Herzog's "Grizzly Man") is that he felt the need to insert himself into his film to such a stunningly narcissistic degree. The climax of "Sharkwater" comes when Stewart is laid up in a Central American hospital with what he describes as a life-threatening case of staph infection, or "flesh-eating disease." We see him lying in bed--I'm guessing it's a reenactment, as he's wearing a clean orange polo shirt, not a hospital gown--phoning his mother to assure her that everything's going to be okay. He's looking grim and bummed out, but he's still tanned, well-coiffed, and is obviously thinking about the camera that's on him. What happens next? Stewart literally wills his infection away so he can go back to Costa Rica, back to Cocos Island where the film began, to help his beloved cartilaginous friends. I'm not kidding. And neither is Stewart. His love for sharks simply defeats the bacterial infection that had threatened his life and limb.

Okay, I thought. Surely there's got to be some good reason for Stewart to be going back to Costa Rica, where he's wanted by the police for his involvement in Sea Shepherd's altercation with a fishing boat illegally fishing for sharks. Surely it must be vital to the narrative of this film for him to will away (!) a bacterial infection that supposedly was going to claim his left leg. Surely he's going to firebomb the illegal shark-fin processing plant or sink the shark-finning fleet, and that'll justify all the effort. I mean, there's gotta be some kind of payoff... Right?

Nope. The reason Stewart has to get back to Cocos is...to go for a swim with sharks. In a Speedo. I'm not kidding. The final sequence shows our hero freediving (he lowers his heart rate to 40bpm so that the sharks will not be afraid of him) in a banana sling with some sharks. Why was this so important? Who knows. Stewart seems to think that simply communing with sharks (which in an earlier scene includes grabbing hold of one and lovingly stroking its flank) is helpful to their cause. Again, this kind of behavior is eerily familiar if you've seen "Grizzly Man" in which Tim Treadwell says "I love you, I love you, I love you" to several indifferent bears. And there's plenty of pedestrian talk about the "balance" in the seas, and how sharks have been "gods for 400 million years," with ludicrous design-oriented language about how sharks have shaped the evolution of the seas. This is high school level stuff.

I'll give Stewart some credit--hence the rating of 2 rather than 1--because he assembles some compellingly gruesome footage of shark finning (and beheading and gutting) to drive home the point of finning's barbaric, wasteful nature. There's also some pretty HD footage of whales, turtles, sharks and other charismatic marine megafauna, but nothing we haven't seen before in "Blue Planet" or other productions. But even the lush scenery is spoiled. Several times, Stewart actually turns his camera around underwater so we can see him, as though his presence amongst the sea's inhabitants is itself vital to the "balance in the seas" that he longs to preserve or reestablish.

"Sharkwater" could've been an objective, hard-hitting exposé of the shark finning industry and an investigation into the complicity of corrupt government. Instead it's an accidental study in self-aggrandizement and amateur science.


Here's a documentary about sharks, their place in the ecosystem, the brutal trade in shark fins, which is destroying the population of these creatures, some of the world's oldest, and about the efforts of those who try to protect the sharks (and make themselves famous in the process).

It gets off to a pretty good start, with some amazing footage of sharks and interesting facts (I'd like to hope those are facts) about sharks. The bits about mating hammerheads in equatorial waters are especially impressive, as are those of the director holding and stroking a 7-8' shark. The film starts doing a pretty good job showing the gentler, lighter side of sharks (which ARE truly amazing creatures).

Then Sharkwater makes a strong case for protection of sharks (with very compelling shots of the gruesome shark finning trade), and immediately goes on to destroy this case with unbelievable statements and shifting the focus to a shark protection group (a radical version of Greenpeace with guerrilla tactics). Keeping the director of the film and Canadian leader of this group in the limelight for what felt like three-quarters of the film made the whole thing seem a shameless vanity project for them.

Let me cite a few examples of what I thought was pretty offensive intellectually. In one scene the filmmakers say that sharks protect the ocean's capacity for generating oxygen. There may be logic to that, but a little further explanation of how sharks cycle back into the oceanic ecosystem would be great, since it's not immediately clear how creatures at the top of the oceanic food chain help those at the bottom (phytoplankton) create oxygen. Leaving any explanation out altogether makes this statement very unconvincing - and actually, most explanations of little facts just like this would make Sharkwater much more interesting and its message much more compelling.

Also, film makers keep calling shark-finning a trillion-dollar industry (I think I heard that phrase at least a dozen times). I mean, come on, how many trillion-dollar industries are there altogether? There's oil, and maybe some mining would come close, and maybe retail trade, and commercial fishing as a whole and that's probably it. The rest of industries would be down in the billions. It's pointless exaggerations like that that undermine the credibility of the best causes. They only make other argumentation so much less credible.

Then the film proceeds to tell the story of a noble struggle of the good guys, and stays at it for most of its running time. Ooooh, and don't they love being in front of the camera, strutting around, talking, nursing their wounds (of uncertain origin - was it a tiny shark bite, after all?), scraping with police and courts in distant lands! They're after the shark-killers, overfishing sharks in equatorial Pacific for their fins, brutally slicing off the fins and often discarding the bodies (which makes me wonder how some of that footage was made, were the filmmakers actually aboard one of those boats, filming the definning process, without bothering to intervene?).

Their methods? I am sorry, but ripping the sides of long-line fishing boats with a metal rod they called a "can-opener" or illegally confiscating fishing gear feels to me too much like piracy, of a very real and violent kind (nothing like you'd see in Disney or P2P networks). I am sure the international maritime law has a few things to say about that. Yes, something has to be done to attract attention to the plight of sharks and to stop, but I'm not sure these methods are acceptable even for a good cause.

This cause is further compromised by one-sided presentation. Something slightly more balanced would make the case for shark protection so much stronger.

To recap, the film has some good things in it (underwater shoots and shark facts) which is not enough to redeem the careless reasoning, self-aggrandizement and self-promotion of the filmmakers, and (to put it very mildly) questionable methods they use to stop the killing of sharks. Disgusting, really.


I saw this film at the Santa Barbara Film Festival a few weeks ago, and I'm sorry to report that it's just awful. Prior to the screening, the director explained to the audience that it was "based on a local legend in his own backyard", and because he seemed like a nice guy I really wanted to enjoy it. Sadly, there was basically nothing to enjoy :( The film is just plain dull, that's its main problem. Ages go by with literally nothing important happening, and the film is EXTREMELY repetitive. There are endless scenes of the characters tossing and turning while having bad dreams, and the movie completely fails to create an atmosphere of dread. Combine that with horrendous acting from the two children and a totally absurd, contrived ending, and you have a movie that would be better off going straight to video. This is the kind of film that would garner less than a 15% rating on Rotton Tomatoes, and anyone saying positive things about it prior to release is probably a studio plant.

"The Legend of Lucy Keyes" isn't entertaining, and it's just not scary either. At least not unless your idea of scary is two actors running around aimlessly in the woods for 15 minutes yelling "Lucy?" "Lucy??" "Lucy!?" a hundred million billion times.

P.S. WTF are clam bellies?


I have just saw this movie on a cable reprise, home alone, and it seems that I have to talk about the movie. There is nobody home and I ended up writing to IMDb...

For almost one hour nothing seems to happen in the movie. Sometimes it seems that the writers are not sure about the story they are trying to tell. Bad acting from the children, confuse plot, a mess.

The script makes no sense. The secondary plots are uninteresting and unconvincing. And I am sure there I spent too many time listening to people calling out for Lucy, present or past Lucy. Endless. Useless.

The ending is absurd. And I would like to ask to the bad guys in the movie (or the script writer) why in hell they and their ancestors managed to keep a letter of the author confessing the crime AND the original map of the land, for 250 years. Just in case a ghost may need it?


The Legend of Lucy Keyes: I was really stupid thinking this one could rock stars. The movie is not bad, but sincerely it does not expand into nothing original nor outstanding.

A city family moves into a rural zone where it lies a secret and a supernatural tale: An haunting folk story where a ghost of a woman wanders thru the woods at night trying to find her lost daughter 250 years ago.

The acting is decent and the story is somewhat cool but the running of the film goes towards mediocrity and uncreativeness due to a lack of positive sets to make the audience captive and thrilled in the seat.

If you're trying to watch a real horror movie don't go this way and avoid the party-hunting that sets off to find little Lucy Keyes...


Possible Spoilers ahead.

I like ghost films; I find them more frightening than horror films as I, like most people, have had supernatural experiences and do not have to suspend disbelief too much as I must with horror films.

Sadly, I was disappointed with this one and had to force myself to watch it until the end (doing the ironing helped!).

The story of Lucy Keyes, as related in the film, is a nice bit of local folklore but it is not even remotely frightening. Consequently, the film is not frightening becausewhere is the menace coming from? Some people would hear the ghost of the 18th century mother calling Lucy! Lucy! during the night, and the 21st century mother, whilst taking a break from her repetitive tossing & turning, once caught a glimpse of her ghost; but nothing was done with this glimpse nor did it develop the film at all. The ghosts were almost incidental apart from the next door neighbour using smelly devices to keep the ghost away. Finding a hidden mural is an old and effective device, however, the director did nothing with the mural that was found under the wallpaper; it should have revealed a clue or added to the story, rather than merely remaining as background scenery in the room or an occasional talking point.

This film is a catalogue of wasted opportunities to add suspense and a sense of mounting fright. Instead the viewer is treated to almost 90 interminable minutes of the ethics of wind turbines and a boringly unstable mother having the same dream over and over while doing some research on the side and eventually wandering through the woods at night calling Lucy! Lucy! in imitation of the mother of Lucy Keyes! I understand that both mothers had a dead child and the modern mother could empathise with the ghost mother, and that she would be afraid that her own Lucy would also disappear. Unfortunately, she just came across as paranoid with a constant snappy attitude towards her husband.

So, to sum up; nothing interesting happens for 90 minutes and there is not one single scare or suspenseful moment in the entire film!!!!

Incidentally, the crypt appeared to have dry-stone walls; dry-stone walls do not remain intact for 200 years without maintenance, so I think Lucy's remains would have been found at least 150 years earlier!


John Stimpson's, The Legend of Lucy Keyes (2006), is a below average script gone wrong. As I sat in the theater, two things kept crossing my mind: Is this really the same Julie Deply I know from Blue (1993); followed by: has it been 93 minutes yet? Legend is about a middle-class family of city dwellers that have just moved to a New England country-side home in support of a windmill project being constructed by husband and father, Guy Cooley (Justin Theroux). Strange vibes exist from day one when not-so-friendly-neighbor/pig farmer Jonas Dodd (Mark Boone Junior) refuses to say hello to Guy, creating an uneasy tension?, later resulting in many weird unexplained scenes, including a bloody pigs head on a stick during a casual walk through the woods.

Meanwhile, Wife Jeanne Cooley (Julie Delpy) is constantly waking up in the middle of the night, hearing voices disguised as wind coming from the woods. Intertwined with her night terrors are flashbacks of her youngest daughter, who is now deceased, being struck by a car (we learn this information through dropped ice cream cones and screeching tires). The only point to establishing a dead daughter as a character is to reinforce the mothers need to keep her surviving children alive, as if we sympathize with the mom: "Jeanne has already lost one daughter, it would be a shame for her to lose another." No kidding.

It gets worse.

Through a town meeting filled with some of the most awkward dialog ever filmed, the superstitious ramblings of Gretchen Caswell (Jamie Donnelly) who is described as a "funny looking lady with white hair", inform us that "Martha's Land", where the windmills are being built, is haunted by a 250 year old ghost Martha (Rachel Harker), who is still involved in a never ending search for her abducted/murdered daughter Lucy Keyes.

Parallels between Jeanne Cooley and the Martha ghost begin to unfold (...basically their daughters have the same name...) which is shown in a flashback, yes another one, using the combined knowledge of the we-know-you're-in-danger-but-why-would-we-inform-you townspeople. The flashback depicts a 250 years old scene of "alive" Martha ringing a dinner bell to attract Lucy's attention, followed by Jeanne repeating the scene in present time. (Note the exquisite dialogue: "I got you a gift. You've always wanted a dinner bell") The inevitable disappearance of Lucy is delayed for what seems like hours. Finally, the Martha ghost (this is a ghost story, right?) appears and flies through a little crack in Lucy's window, but instead of grabbing Lucy as any childless mother ghost would, just stands still and allows the scary music to play. Eventually, Lucy goes missing and a search party is formed, just like it was 250 years ago and the cycle repeats itself (although no murders of Native Americans take place this time). The difference is, almost by some sort of psychic premonition (which would have made more sense than the way the scene actually played out), Jeanne and Guy find their daughter and finally the madness is over.

If my review seems all over the place, that simply means I succeeded in conveying the story.

But maybe I am being too harsh. There were a couple redeeming qualities of the film, and I must give credit where it is due. First off, I walked out of the theater much more appreciative of what a good movie actually looks like, and maybe the best part of all: it happened to be a free screening.


This film is the rock bottom of awful. If I heard one more character calling "Lucy" I was going to be sick. The plot line is thin as is the script. The actors did the best they could with a terrible script. It was so predictable. Scary? I'll say only one scene in the entire film got my attention for a split second. For shock value they threw in a quick eye blinking scene of dead, mutilated pigs. Same old, same old, a kid so stupid she wanders around in the middle of the night with a flashlight, doors that won't open no matter how long the guy on the outside says open the door. This film just wasted more than an hour of my time.


I've never written an IMDb review before, but at the insistence of director John Stimpson I will tell the world my feelings.

This is quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Stimpson's lack of choices make for a confused genre film that doesn't know if it wants to be a murder mystery, ghost story or horror film. Combining these three fields weigh the film down causing it to stumble over its own shoddy progression.

The acting is undeniably sophomoric even from the veterans that populate the screen. They careen through the film as if making a TV movie of the week. The frequent chuckles I heard from the surrounding audience makes me feel as if I'm not alone in my thinking. There is way to much running through the woods screaming. At one point I was hoping Robert Stack would emerge and ask for any information to the where-abouts of Lucy Keyes.

The direction is stilted and stiff. The use of hand held is meant to loosen up and flow with the characters, but feels instead like a contrived way of convincing the audience that the film is tense. Stimpson's film feels like oh so many movies I've watched by 15 year-olds, self- important and lackluster.

The script is amateur in every way; from the Cray paper thin plot to the use of swear words. Robert Towne spoke of his film the Last Detail's use of vulgarity as a substitute for action. Here, Lucy Keyes uses swearing as a substitute for naturalism. Stimpson believes that if the parents cut loose and let an F-Bomb fly they'll be more human and believable. Instead, each curse reminds me that I'm watching the most pedestrian of film-making.

As something that wants to be a ghost story, horror film and murder mystery the film lacks any scares other than cheap "jump" scares. The lack of atmosphere in the supposed tense portions of the film makes for a laughable movie. It also diffuses the overall tone making the film feel muddled and unfocused. How anyone could find this film scary is beyond my understanding. The Nickelodeon television series Are You Afraid of The Dark is much scarier and has no use for severed pigs heads.

Technically the film is just above competent. The photography is nothing special, I believe this is because Stimpson made no choices in preproduction so as to color correct it later. This leaves the photographic images flat and undynamic. Nighttime is blue, daytime warm. The editing is uninspired. Its mostly an offender of the editor's "band-aid" using dissolves and fades to black in an over abundance. The crude use of these fades to black feels more like an area for a commercial break, unfortunately none came. I could've used even the most terrible of commercials to break my boredom with this film.

What does one do with a film like this? Television? I wouldn't force this on even the most unassuming Lifetime Television watcher. The castration of dignity Lifetime would do to a film like this may be fitting, but even that audience would be pained watching this film. DVD? Maybe, but what's the point? Lucy Keyes should prepare for a long shelf life.


It is never a good sign when the audience laughs at a film's most dramatic moments - and it happened several times during the screening that I attended of this film.

While the film is based on a genuine local legend, the director's strict adherence "this is exactly how it happened" sometimes detracts from the story, since he seems unable to resist stuffing _Lucy Keyes_ with every possible detail of the legend and the current happenings in the town, regardless of whether or not it contributes to the plot. This leads to a lot of loose ends that are never satisfactorily tied together. Overacting, inconsistent tone and shoddy character development plague this film. There are so many plot points that are introduced as big moments but then never play out to any significance that I left the theater extremely irritated by _Lucy Keyes_.


I hate those movie reviews that really hang it heavy on the movie in question, but after just spending the last 100 minutes of my life watching The Legend of Lucy Keyes, I can't help but think I've been seriously ripped off and am about to do some serious hanging!

Compared on the DVD cover to the magnificent Nicole Kidman flick "The Others", The Legend of Lucy Keyes is nothing but a poor B grade movie that's borrowed a little bit from this film and a little bit from that film - see the barn in "The Ring" and the Indians in "The Missing".

The special effects in "Lucy" are appalling. Seriously, Ghost Busters has better special effects in comparison to today's standards which should have made the spook in "Lucy" much more believable. And what's with all the open windows - it's late autumn in this movie and bedroom windows are left open just a little to add to the supposed mood with flowing curtains and blowing tree branches.

But the big questions is this - what on earth is Julie Delpy (Before Sunset) doing in a movie like this? After the 2004 mini series remake of Frankenstein she should have known better than to sign on for this one! The Legend of Lucy Keyes may very well be just the thing for some movie goers, and good luck to 'em. To each their own. But after a very brief promising few minutes at the start, for me, this movie just became more and more predictable and ridiculous.


I couldn't stand but 30 minutes of this swill. Lame, utterly stupid jokes used in the most idiotic instances: third grade dialogue with a kindergarten story. Who wrote this crap? Even Sandra looked like hell, positively fat. Putrid!


With all due respect for Mr. Leary's capabilities as a comedian, this movie illustrates quite vividly that he is not an actor Hollywood has too much respect for. This movie is really, really stupid, and even Leary himself has admitted to being embarrassed about it. Bullock is on autopilot and all other characters are blatantly uninteresting. Only worth 3 points due to Leary's fishing-scene, that allows him to do what he is best at, comedy, and a rare performance by Yaphet Kotto. If you have no idea who Leary or Kotto is and thought "since Bullock is in it, it must be OK", you would be TERRIBLY wrong!!!


This film is the rightful butt of every bad-movie joke ever told. One of the worst and weakest of all films, it fails in ways beyond comprehension. Few movies have been any less funny or less emotionally involving for an unfortunate audience. At least with, say, Showgirls or Wild Wild West, you have something so bad it's funny. Two If By Sea does not have so lucky an audience. It's the worst kind of bad film, one that doesn't even have the decency to be humorously bad, so profoundly bad you can laugh at it. It is far, far worse. This movie makes Mortal Kombat Annihilation look like L.A. Confidential. I'm certain that watching Two If By Sea is considered torture in some parts of the world.


Bullock fans will be greatly disappointed, wonder why she accepted such a stupid part. Generally the presence of Yaphet Kotto in a film is enough to spark my interest; prior to seeing this film, Bullock had also begun to have that sort of status for me. She is excellent two or three films, but hasn't done much since "Speed" which really merits attention. My brother, who is in the film trade in Hollywood, told me Bullock had fired her manager or agent, after drawing lots of attention for a few successful roles. Apparently this agent was the one who selected roles for Bullock which best brought her charm to the screen. Maybe she felt too stereotyped as "America's Sweetheart" or the next "Audrey Hepburn" -- I don't know. But her business sense, her apparent lack of concern about being given poor roles or stupid and disgusting lines in them, especially in this movie -- have completely destroyed my interest in almost all recent films she's been in. Kotto provides the only light here, in my estimation, and a fine light, too -- but his role comes too late and his presence in too limited to save this junk bucket.


Although the Sony Studios designated it as a sequel to director Kevin Bray's 2004 theatrical feature "Walking Tall" with Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson, "The Confidence Man" director Tripp Reed's "Walking Tall: The Payback" (2007) with Kevin Sorbo qualifies as only an 'in name' sequel.

Sorbo plays a former U.S. Marine, Nick Prescott, who trains horses for living, while the Rock played Chris Vaughn. Furthermore, "Walking Tall" took place in Kitsap County, Washington, whereas "Walking Tall: The Payback" occurs in Boone County, Texas, not far from Dallas. Sorbo's Nick totes around a big stick once for a couple of the minutes in the middle of the movie. Instead, he prefers a riot shotgun with a lever action grip to a big stick. Indeed, he uses a pool cue in the bar fight, but he never wields a club either like the Rock or much earlier as Joe Don Baker and Bo Svenson did in the previous theatrical releases.

On the other hand, "Walking Tall: The Payback" explores corrupt in a small town. The screenplay by Steven Seagal collaborator Joe Halpin and newcomer Brian Strasmann borrows from Sergio Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West," because the primary villain, Harvey Morris (A.J. Buckley) is trying to buy up land before a new highway is built through the town, and he isn't particular about how he acquires the real estate. He walks into a hardware store with his henchmen and they smash up the owner's arm and promise him more rough stuff if he doesn't bow to their wishes. The opening scene shows one of Harvey's thugs pumping gas out of the storage tank when the owner appears with gun in hand and threatens to kill the henchmen. They tangle, the henchman shoots him and the gas station owner lives long enough to touch off an explosion that wipes out everything. Later, the villains assault a city councilman on his tractor in his crop field and torch the tractor. When a waitress warns our heroes that the villains intend to force the city council to appoint an interim sheriff, the villains close in on her trailer and gang rape her. "This will put a smile on your face," they chuckle as they bend her own her sofa and sodomize her. Despite its' R-rating, the filmmakers shy away from nudity of any kind. The same is true for the violence. You see little blood and nobody is squibbed so that bloody explosions erupt when they are shot or wounded.

Despite Kevin Sorbo's brawny presence, A.J. Buckley's slimy villain, and its solid production values, "Walking Tall: The Payback" is a derivative, far-fetched, superficial thriller with no surprises except its narrative lack of closure. The heroes take the primary villains to task, but they ignore the larger villains that lurk in Dallas and churn up most of the conflict between the hero and the villains. One might think that the producers would have taken up where "Walking Tall: The Payback" left off in the sequel "Walking Tall: Lone Justice," but Andrew Stevens and director Tripp Reed explore other areas. "Walking Tall: Lone Justice" updates the main characters from the first one without probing into the treacherous sidewinders that provided support to the villains. There is one good bar fight early on in "Walking Tall: The Payback" that passes muster, and Kevin Sorbo's hero uses a horse to good advantage in the final showdown, but this movie lacks clout. Tripp doesn't do anything revolutionary, and the best that can be said about "Walking Tall: The Payback" is that it clocks in at 88 minutes. Some of the dialogue is catchy. For example, the villain confronts the hero: "There can only be one big dog, everybody else, they just sniff" while the hero challenges the villain: "Are you all bark and no bite?"

Our hero, Nick Prescott, has a low opinion of the law and the justice system. We learn that his wife died when an inebriated driver ran into her and killed her. Says Nick, "Justice is about two things: power and money. With them you can just about get away with anything." Nick and his father Sheriff Charlie Prescott haven't seen each other since his wife's death because Nick felt that his father didn't press the case hard enough. The drunk driver got off with a fine and community service. According to Nick, "the system is broken." He shrugs when his father tells him that he going to see the FBI in Dallas to find a way to bring down Harvey Morris and his Dixie mafia. "You really think that you can make a difference?"

Later, Harvey and his henchmen catch Charlie on the highway, wreck his car, flip it and kill him. At the funeral, Harvey drinks a beer from afar and watches the ceremony. This aggravates Nick so much so that his father's deputy Hap catches Nick taking a shotgun from the rifle rack. Hap tosses him a badge and assures him that as a deputy he has more leeway. Nick starts his own campaign against Harvey. A few days later, the FBI agent, who told Charlie that the felons had not broken any Federal laws, arrives and looks into matters. It seems that Charlie took a revolver that he recovered from the gas station after it blew up and gave it to Detective Pete Michaels of the Dallas PD to run a ballistics test on it. The higher powers behind Harvey in Dallas bribe Pete to send the report to Harvey and this is what prompts Harvey to kill Charlie.

"Walking Tall: The Payback" is a synthetic, redneck thriller with enough action to keep you watching while you shake your head at the things that the citizens let the villains get away with in this 94 minute melodrama. Women should be forewarned that Kevin Sorbo keeps his clothes on the entire time.


The opening scenes gave hope... but those hopes were soon diminished. The explosion at the gas station made you believe that this would be packed with the action expected to carry such a lame script. It also appeared that there were multiple crews working on the set because there was a clear difference in the film quality between scenes. Some were very clear and framed well while others were 'over cranked' and too soft. Shooting night for day is so obvious and such a bad idea that it distracted from the scene many times. A.J. Buckley is the only reason to sit through this disaster. He was awesome! Sorbos stunt double for the horse riding scene was so obviously shorter and fatter with a terrible wig on that it made me laugh. The final scene was nice...lot's of really good explosions and good action but that wasn't enough to make you not regret wasting a coupon on this rental.


I really liked the first of the new Walking Tall movies starring The Rock. That meant I had some expectations for this one, even though a guy I had never heard of before, Kevin Sorbo, had taken over the lead. I was very disappointed. I don't think it was Sorbo's fault, really. The problem was a total lack of action. The little action it had, wasn't anywhere near good. The movie was simply BOOOOOOORING, moreso than 95 % of the other action movies out there. I just don't get how they managed to destroy such a promising and entertaining franchise like this. I have absolutely no rush in watching the third movie after this kind of crap.


A woodenly acted unnecessary remake of a remake of a much MUCH better film, This Kevin Serbo helmed straight to DVD action film sees fit to throw every available cliché at the audience apparently in order to pummel them into submission. Sorbo plays Nick, a sheriff returning home looking for vengeance after some local thug kills his father. Why this is billed as Walking Tall 2, I haven't a clue as it has nothing to do with The Rock film and even less to do with the classic original '70's trilogy. To make matters worse the acting's more wooden then Buford Pusser's fabled 2 by 4. A sequel was shot back-to-back with this one and I can say with all confidence that i'll definitely be skipping that likely travesty. Even a huge Sorbo fan such as myself does have his limits.

My Grade: D


the film was so grainy it looked like a print from 1974...there were 3 action scenes in the movie totaling about 6 minutes...you rent these movies to see ass-kicking not a dreadful story about the death of small-town America. The reason the Rock can carry movies is because he has a personality...he is this big guy with vulnerability. he can actually act and he certainly is believable as an ass-kicker. Sorbo was horrible...he may be big but he has no presence..he couldn't scare Pauly Shore. They actually made Walking Tall 3...my God, at least Seagal would be worth watching... hit the roids Sorbo, you blow. Next time at least get a villain who weighs more than 150 pounds and increase the budget to 50 grand.


Pathetic... Wearing the flag of Texas on their pathetic ''sheriff/deputy sheriff' shirts was a disgrace to not only Texas, but to the law enforcement community (The laws of the state of Texas/U.S.A. prevent all of the actions portrayed in the movie from happening... then again, it IS only a movie... but it went beyond the line).

During (and after) watching the movie, I was much appalled by the Hollywood stereotype of Texans (we talk like hicks, rednecks, trailer trash, uneducated idiots)....

I know Texas law, I was a deputy sheriff in the state of Texas.... The movie throws all of that out the window to make the impression that Texans are 'hillbillies' and uneducated trailer trash.

The movie itself had no real storyline in it and seemed very hollow, and even if The Rock was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating any at all.

On on positive note (the only positive note for the movie), 1 person stands up to the 'bad' people...


I saw an advanced screening of this movie and it definitely isn't as good as the first one with The Rock (Dwayne Johnson). The first one was a really good movie. Johnny Knoxville made the movie funny and the villain was very cool and a good actor. Not to mention The Rock, just about anything he's in is a good movie. I didn't think the sequel was going to be good but I figured it would at least be a little interesting because it's the sequel to an awesome movie. But I was disappointed. It's very boring, hardly any action, the acting definitely isn't the best, and it's really country. It's just like a long episode of Chuck Norris except, I've seen episodes of Chuck Norris that are more interesting than this movie. I wouldn't pay more than five dollars for this movie. maybe ten but i would recommend renting it before you buy it. I watched this movie out of curiosity, because i liked the first one. If you liked the first one too, then you'll be disappointed with this one and it has nothing to do with the first one so I wouldn't buy this movie if I were you unless you find it on the clearance or sales rack.


**SPOILERS** Outlandishly complicated film-noir thriller that has the wife of some big time L.A gangster blackmailed by both her lover and his girlfriend as well as this Texas private investigator who doubles as a womens lingerie salesman at a local, exclusively for the rich and famous, upscale yuppie department store.

You can never get a handle to what exactly big time city mobsters wife Lucinda, Susan Blakely, sees in her boyfriend Scott, Dale Midkiff, since he's about as far away from her in lifestyles and interests as the distances that the North & South Poles are from each other. Lucinda is living the life of luxury and sure as hell wouldn't want to give it up for this oily and sweet talking Romeo who masquerades around as some big shot businessman Using his girlfriend Charlene, Beth Toussaint, to double as his personal secretary Scott has Lucinda think that he's a big success by always never being able to answer the phone, when she calls him. Scott is always Trying to impress Lucinda in thinking he's always involved in some big stock deal or corporate merger. Lucinda is not stupid and can easily find out by just checking where the phone number belongs to, the bottom of the barrel Astor Hotel, that the heel is putting her on in order to fleece her out of a couple of hundred thousand dollars and then , with Charlene, check out of town like the two did a number of times to impressionable old but rich widows.

It also turns out that this private detective, or private dick, named Norm, Mark Davis, is also on to what both Scott and Charlene are up to in their blackmailing Lucinda and is in turn blackmailing them in the fact that their wanted for robbing a rich Texas woman out of her life-savings. During all this Lucinda's mobster husband Gene, John Saxon,is busy getting arms and heads broken in his dealing with some very uncooperative home builders and union leaders It seems like Gene couldn't care less what Lucinda is doing behind his back as long as it doesn't interfere with his business practices.

Norm starts to put the squeeze on the two blackmailing sleaze balls by first planting a bomb in their car, thats not powerful enough to kill them, just to get their attention and then somehow gets involved with Lucinda. Lucinda got so sick of being shaken down and was now ready to tell her husband the truth about her and Scott, in making her think that her lover, that very blackmailing creep Scott,is in trouble in that her husband found out about him and her and is going to have him rubbed out.

Feeling that the best way to go with this, about to fall flat on it's face, shake down scheme is by playing on Lucinda's unnatural and even insane love for Scott. Norm while having a lunch rendezvous with Scott has the surprised and now ex-blackmailer, with Norm now taking over the job, get the living hell beaten out of him in full view, in Norm needing witnesses to make it look good, of some two dozen customers at a local Japanese restaurant with him being one of the persons who does the beating. Scott battered and bruised tells Lucinda that if she doesn't give the persons who worked him over the money, $100,000.00, the next time he won't be so lucky.

Lucinda not willing to part with the cash so fast and knowing form personal experience that it won't be the last time she'll hear from the blackmailers has one of her husbands hit-men, some creepy-looking guy with a beard and dark glasses named Albert, knock off the guys, including Norm, who beat Scott up.

The movie then really goes off the deep end of reality when we then see Gene and the man for all seasons-like Norm, who we were just lead on to believe was killed, in a restaurant looking at a number of hot photos of his wife and Scott in bed together giving us the impression that Gene knew all about Lucindas cheating on him and that Norm was really working for him right from the start!

There's so many false deaths in "Blackmail" where we're lead to at first believe that the person, like Norm, that was killed can suddenly and without any explanation what so ever just magically comes back to life that you start to wonder to yourself if even your alive or dead by the time the movie is over. The film leads up to this unbelievable conclusion with Lucinda and Scott as well as her husband Gene and, the just who the hell is he working for anyway, private eye Norm ending up either dead or just faking it that it. This all makes you think if those involved with the movie ever bothered to even read the script and then seeing how ridicules it is would have just walk off the set and not come back unless major changes were made.


A noir-ish attempt with a betrayal-and-treason plot that seems straight out of a Jim Thompson novel. Unfortunately, the directing is below average, unable to create any atmosphere of feeling. Somebody like John Dahl or Stephen Frears would have been better suited.


If you are at all curious about seeing this movie, I shall do you a big favor and convey the entire movie in just two sentences.

Woman A is married but cheating with Man A, who blackmails her in cooperation with Woman B. Man B then blackmails Man A and Woman B.

Don't worry, I didnt spoil the ending for you - because there isn't one.

All in all an agonizing way to kill 2 hours.

Two words: "Body Armour". BLEH!


Instead of creating an interesting in-depth documentary on the PMRC hearings the brains down at VH1 thought a made-for-tv comedy would be more interesting. Unfortunatly this ill conceived movie comes off as cartoonish, insulting and one-sided. The characterization is pretty ridiculous too, all the rock stars come off looking like lunatics and all the PMRC women come off looking like fascist whores!

On the plus side, the actors were all fairly convincing in their roles, with the exception of Dee Snider who cant even convincingly play himself.

Skip it! Hopefully a real documentary on the PMRC hearings will come along.


I was excited to they're going to make a movie about heavy metal violence but I did not enjoy this movie at all, while it was slightly a bit enjoyable, overall I was highly dissapointed in it, I wish that they would focus more on the metal bands than the government.

1/10, the only reason why I give it a 1 instead of a 0 is cause it had some slightly enjoyable parts.


This is a difficult film to review as it's really the first of it's type. Using only computer graphics, it attempts to create real looking and believable characters in a futuristic Anime setting. Unlike 'Toy Story' and it's followers, this movie isn't trying to look like a cartoon, but like a live action film with human actors.

Considering it from this point of view, it's a stunning achievement. At times I found myself forgetting I was watching computer graphics - it really is that well done. The level of detail in the faces and the character movement is especially impressive, although at times it didn't feel quite right (on a few rare occasions it looked quite bad.)

If we look at the film aside from the technical achievement, it doesn't fare as well. The plot is very Japanese influenced which is a good thing. We're saturated by American movies and it's refreshing to see something off beat. Unfortunately it feels watered down, as if it's Japanese origins have been diluted by American influence. As a result it ends up being neither Japanese Anime or American Sci-Fi Action - I would have liked it to have been a bit more way out, a bit more daring.

Like the plot, the acting is weak. Facial expressions are extremely important in conveying feelings and the technology isn't quite there. The voice acting was good but it's difficult to empathise with the characters.

I'd talk about the sets and costumes etc - but there weren't any right?

Overall, this isn't a film I'd recommend to everyone. If you're interested in computer graphics, Anime or Sci-Fi - give it a try.


Being a huge fan of the game series, this was bar none the biggest let down of the year.

Well, there isn't much that needs to be said about this film that hasn't been, except perhaps for: please, please, those of you who aren't into video games, do *not* judge the series by this movie. This movie gives the entire series a bad name.

Maybe the most useful way to stress this point is by giving a few, hopefully non-spoiling examples of how this movies fails to live up to the standards set by the video games. I had honestly thought this was the movie that was going to change the way people looked at video games movies (has there been a good one), but the wait continues. Anyway:

1) Characters -- Some of the most memorable characters I've ever encountered have been from Final Fantasy games. Vivi (FFIX) was a classic black mage, one of the most memory characters I've ever seen. Barret and Aries . . . how could I forget them? And not to mention the main characters, Squall, Zidane, Cloude, Cecil . . . all very deep, intricate characters, with mystery and compassion. I grew to relate to these characters a great deal.

In the movie, apart from Aki, perhaps, there are nothing but cliched characters, who only fit a general description of a character rather than a true character. We have the wisecracker, the big black guy who likes guns (reminded me of Barret actually), the woman who's more like a man, and a villain who was just there for the sake of having a villain.

2) Story -- The games are classic fantasy. They take you into another world and let you look around. Gaia (the life-force of the planet) is a common theme. Most of the stories revolve around somehow saving the life of the planet, although you don't usually realize that until a ways into the story. The stories build slowly and gradually the impact of the main character becomes more drastic.

In the film, it felt like it was trying to prove that this fantasy was actually *our* reality (i.e. setting it on Earth, preaching about Gaia, etc.). Fantasy doesn't work that way -- you need to allow the viewer, reader, or player, to suspend their disbelief. I mean, who didn't cringe when they tried to explain away the force in "The Phantom Menace"? I just doesn't work if you try to explain it.

The pacing wasn't too bad in this film -- it started slow and mysterious and worked towards something more important -- but it gets bogged down by some ridiculous explanation and debate scenes.

3) Villain -- The games have, bar none, the best villains ever. I don't care what any of you say, with the exception of FVIII, those are the best villains ever. Mysterious, evil, powerful, manipulative. Kafka, Sephiroth, Kuja -- all very, very memorable.

Um . . . in the movie there was a sort-of villain, one who was so obviously there only for the sake of having a villain that we can only shake our heads. He had no motivation, no personality, no intrigue or apparent history. . . he was just there. I've forgotten his name already.

Anyway, please, don't just the games on the movie.

Matty J


The technology is impressive, but not yet to the level necessary to express the emotions a good actor can. Simplistic plot with little character development make this a movie best watched on an afternoon one would like to waste in a little escapism.


The visual arts are amazing. The precise attention to detail is remarkable and worthy of a gander. I cannot underscore the fluid realism pervasive throughout the film. Unfortunately, I could not relay the plot if my life depended on it. I am a college graduate from a major university and I had no idea what was going on for most of the movie. Needless to say, my thirteen year-old nephew was sorely disappointed when he could not follow what was going on! I thought this movie would be perfect for kids; it wasn't. I suppose the audience was supposed to have foreknowledge of the game and its cosmology, since there was little explanation given to the rules that framed the events and sequences before us. Without an appreciation for the working reality presented, even the best visual effects cannot carry a film. It ended up rather redundant and slow, to me. My nephew nearly fell asleep and never again mentioned the movie after we left, after days of anticipation.


'The Situation' is not only an Iraqi but a Middle-Eastern expression. In Israel as well when we want to describe the political complications or the effects of terror and war that always seem close if they are not present we talk about 'the situation'.

'The Situation' is one of the first movies about the Iraq war and is not a bad one, but not a good one either. It combines the story of a reporter trying to find her way and tell the truth about Iraq with thriller elements and with a romantic story. The best parts are in rendering the hopeless situation the Iraqis live in, the permanent fear, violence and corruption that dominates their lives. The worst is however the one-sided view of the situation. While the focus is on the Iraqis and the usage of Arabic and the good acting makes this side of the story credible, it is the American who look almost all uni-dimensional, incompetent at best and unreasonably violent at worst, without any apparent motivation.

I am sure more films about this tragic war will follow. Better films also.


Is everyone blind, or just afraid that they missed a nuance that would appear obvious to the learned? ; Rest assured you did not - this movie missed the mark completely. No, Japanese pants are not different; Yes, the love scene was horrid; No, you don't die jumping only 4 feet with ARMS EXTENDED in ANY swimming hole; Yes, the background music was interesting for about 30 seconds and then quickly became unbearable. Yes, this movie is embarrassingly(unintentionally) racist. This movie was just a mistake - period.

Oh, and is it just me or was anyone else completely unmoved by the "tragic" turn of events? There was no emotion or love in any of they're scenes together, in fact, Collette has more emotional energy in the scenes by herself afterward(odd)?!


I do not see how people could give this movie such credit. PLEASE! The only part of this movie that caught my attention was the "stuck in the outback" scene and thats it! The affair is utterly shallow and boring. And the death is also very uninteresting.

And as others have posted... The last act I was about to shut the television off. It was honestly 30 minutes of the same music, that was honestly a jackhammer to the head.

All in all, this movie was completely dull and unengaging. 7.0 is ridiculous, I wonder what these other reviewers are thinking.

-psilo


For the love of all things sacred how on earth did this movie get 7 stars. More like minus 7 stars!!! If this is one of the pivotal movies in Australian cinema (Along with Somersault and Look Both Ways, which made me want to eat my own legs) then i will cry. Cry a golden tear. Please, Make it stop.

Can someone please point out to me where they hid the plot in this hienous film??? I've looked! but i cant seem to find any hint of interesting story.....

Aussie girl meets uptight Japanese business man. They don't know what they are saying to each other. They don't know each other. Then they have sex. they are soooooooo obviously in complete love! cant you see that they are soulmates???(no? neither did i) then they are like "we are so happy together.....then he dies, oh no, then she tries to get his slippery and slimy corpse back into the car for like half an hour. then he gets sent home and she looks at the plane for about 5 hours and cries. Hilarity ensues.

that should be the blurb on the DVD case. It was not emotionally draining as i was told, it was funny. Me and my cold, black heart laughed because it was so very very excruciatingly stupid. HA HA HA.

And excuse me, buti think Toni Collette should quit while shes ahead........please.........quit........toni?


***The comment may contain spoilers*** The idea of adventure in outback and the cast sounds interesting to me. the more time has passed by, the more i felt boring.

I have seen it once, and i was not convinced by such weak story, perhaps no plot at all, so i gave it another shot, and this time i'm convinced that i have wasted totally 4 hours with nothing more than a big disappointment.

The main flaw of such crappy film is that, Sandy and Hiro should have never met each other this way in the first place!! A rich Japanese so-called businessman, who can afford a classy Leica camera, he just can't afford a team of professional traveling guides to show him around, particularly in outback. Does the Japanese really look that naive? i'm simply not buying this.

If the director gives the green light to go this way, fine i just move on to see what chemistry can possible exist between these businessman and geologist. Well, They are stuck in the middle of the desert. It's predictable but hey, what the heck, i might get something interesting between these two people. for the next 20 minutes i just see someone is digging, and a few lines coming from someone's mouth, then followed by goodnight sleep. Sorry I couldn't see any plot here, not to mention there is any chemistry I can smell,,, Someone please tell me what's the deal with the pants in the sex scene. If the director cares the least to explain why, at least someone who gives 10 stars should.

Sooner or later I will ask myself, what exactly are these two people, who are willing to put their life in danger again, doing in this no-man's land? If you expect an explanation for this, don't. Because the director was so concentrated to shoot the beautiful landscape in outback. (Perhaps it was meant to be a documentary film, but somewhere along the line it turns out to be a drama/ romantic movies, that might be the missing plot,,,) The death of Hiro is just ridiculous and hardly to believe. From the way Hiro jumps to the water, breaking his arms would be the worst scenario. I thought he was making fun of Sandy by playing dead, but it won't happen because there is no plot remember. And the dragging body, i just admire how great the director is good at killing time, unfortunately my time.

I can't imagine how a wife could be soo cool for losing a husband and a father of two children. May be i'm not that sophisticated to understand it. And again I hear the familiar soundtrack. If you are the one who have trouble of sleeping, you shouldn't miss this mind taking scene of airport.

If i ever watched it again, I would edit the film with nothing left but the shot of Toni, and call it Sandy story.


I may be one of only few Japanese who watched this film (as it apparently was not released in Japan and I got to know of this film in Europe). I have to say that the stereotyped description of the Japanese character is outrageous to the extent of humiliation. Those who produced this film should have been left behind the age of globalization. And the music, which many people are commenting on here, is not typical Japanese. Instead it is a well-respected traditional Okinawan song, which reminds most Japanese people of the tropical islands of Okinawa, away from mainland Japan. The way that the song is used in this film bothers me a lot given the noted value of this song. (The Okinawans would be offended more than I am.) As for other people's comments on shallow relationship, weak personalities, insufficient explanations, poor scenario, etc., I cannot agree more. Third-class entertainment movies for exclusive domestic consumption exist in any country, and I thought this was just one of them, but what shocked me most was that this film had even been awarded in Australia! Oh, please, I have seen some better Australian films before...


I am Australian, I'll just clear that up first. But I have to say the majority of Australian films are terrible and this is one of them. (spoilers ahead - so if you are crazy and want to see this movie, don't read on).

Three words: I hated it. This movie dragged and nothing really happened. The only thing it had going for it was the scenery. There had to be a lot of scenery because there was no script and no real plot. But this is the plot I could put together: Japanese businessman comes to Australia, for some reason that noone knows and we never find out. He gets taken into the desert by an Australian geologist, and she also has no idea who this guy is or what he's doing here. They end up sleeping together and this apparently makes him a better husband to his wife at home...hmmm, I don't understand that one. Then he dies so she takes the dead body across the desert in the back of her 4WD until she can find a morgue. The last half hour or so of the movie is Toni Collette crying. She has nothing else to do because there is no script. It's not really her fault. She did the best she could with what she was given. The scene where she was trying unsuccessfully to put the guy's dead body in the back of the car bordered on comical.

My adivse, give it a miss. I don't know how anyone could like it.


When I heard the title "Japanese Story", I though there might be something really aesthetic or unique about this movie and was expecting something with artistic value. But in my opinion, this turned out to be nothing more than a mediocre movie.

Almost everything in it from title to climax falls short of expectation. All it has shown successfully is the vastness and beauty of Australia and the difference in behaviour of Japanese and Australians. Collette has delivered a decent performance. I wouldn't call it excellent as there wasn't much in movie for someone to take it further and I don't expect anyone else to do better. I can't find any tellable story in the movie and if at all there is one, it is more Australian than Japanese.

The only novel thing in the movie is the sudden shock it generates in the viewers when the Japanese guy dies unexpectedly. His death is unique because the movie never fully explained the use of the character before killing it. It wasn't like someone getting killed in some shootout or by a vehicle accident. That character just dies awkwardly after diving into a shallow pond head first while the story was a positive note. It certainly looked like the death was meant to give a sudden jerk to the viewers. After the death, everyone does their part of mourning and the movie ends right there. Frankly, I failed to understand the message it tried to deliver, except for the fact that life is short.

This is rated 7/10 by IMDb users and I think that is a gross overrating. A rating of 7 is pretty decent by IMDb standards and this movie doesn't deserve that.


I actually don't know why I watched the whole thing. It's very serious and awkward. Especially the sex scene when the woman takes off her clothes, then puts HIS pants on? I'm not sure what was going on here, but I just couldn't get into it. Someone said it was a lot like the Painted Veil, and yes, maybe so except for the fact that I liked the Painted Veil. There's little music. And the whole movie was just bad and poorly put together... it doesn't seem very cohesive to me. It didn't make sense.... after they do it while she wears his pants, she asks to get her things back from his room. So she carries her bra, in her hands, out in the open, back to her car. I've been stuck in the desert before too and everyone knows you put rocks or sticks or something hard underneath the tires... they just clowned around. BAD movie. Bad. Bad. Bad.


Great cinematography and quality acting.

There is potentially a moving, evocative story here, but the director fails to tell it.

The characters motivations are left to the viewers imagination. The viewer must create a back story for the characters, there is none. If the director is explaining their actions, she is far and away the most subtle person ever. We know nothing of the characters in the beginning of the movie and the director does nothing to develop them.

A character piece requires insight into the characters. I honestly assumed that I had mistakenly started the movie several chapters into the movie, missing the character definition. I wanted to like the movie, and did get drawn in (mainly due to the cinematography and acting), but was highly disappointed.


I am not only a resident of L.A., but I also work in the music and film business, and I rented this movie to see some of the Australian landscape and the story sounded interesting.

I have to say... it's on my list of movies that tried very hard to be something great and failed miserably.

First of all, sure some of the scenic shots are nice, but if that was all I wanted, I'd turn on the Discovery Channel. The storyline and plot were weak, the characters were boring, and I didn't believe in their relationship for more than a few minutes.

Furthermore, and WORST of all, I was very confused how he died simply diving into a body of water, and was really irritated that they didn't explain that in the movie. It was only after I did some research on-line and read other reviews, that someone said it's dangerous to dive head first into a "billabong." Okay, like I even knew what a "billabong" was, and I'm a former Mensa candidate.

So... poor writing.

The acting was very good, I'll give you that, but even great acting couldn't have saved this movie. As the old saying goes... it's a couple hours of my life I won't get back. ;-)


I watched this thinking it would be a great journey. Rave reviews, awards, life changing, etc ...

Good God. This was one of the most awful, insufferable Australian movies I have ever seen. And I *am* Australian. I don't like to dis movies made in my home country, but this movie most certainly deserves a damn good thrashing. Mindbogginlingly stereotypical, annoying and boring as watching sh!t fester. Good thing I didn't have to pay money as well to see it (Borrowed a friend's video). I'm glad to see by other reviews I'm not the only one who despised it, annoyed that my time and intelligence were so sorely insulted. Toni Collette's atrocious overacting (nothing personal though), especially in the unconvincing grief scenes did nothing to help this lamo movie, in fact made it worse and I only watched it to see if it got better. Needn't've bothered. The first part of it was boring as hell, then the second half was just plain God damn depressing. I was hoping to learn more about the outback and more about Australian geology and have more scenes with Toni's character's work (she was supposed to be a geologist), rather than this annoying yuppie chick, having major league hissy fits and non-stop winging.

And the movie was just *starting* to get good, he was just starting to loosen up and enjoy himself and then he dies ... and it goes even more downhill from there than when it started - hard to believe but true.

I was hoping for a sensual, spiritual and moving journey through the outback, not some b!tchy angsty crap that thinks it's good because it's got people screaming in it and call it acting. The "death scene" did not even seem convincing, at first I thought the guy was playing and going to pop up and scare her or something. It did not seem the water was that shallow where he dived - and with arms outstretched? If he was hurt the worst that would have happened is he would have broken an arm or wrist. What a cop out just to kill him off and get out of writing anything more intelligent or insightful. Who gets paid to write these idiotic movies (and gets them produced) when there are literally *millions* of good writers out there who struggle their guts out to get their stuff out there to knocked back at every turn? Very disappointed. This "Story" could have been great with more of a journey, more soul, feeling and more about the outback and what *real* Australian geologists do... As we Aussies say: "Bugger." Waste of time, talent and videotape.

The only good thing of this movie was the beautiful outback scenery, the wonder and the danger, and two cultures learning each others differences - other than that it was overrated melodramatic, pathetic hype. Actually, I spent more quality time updating my webpage whilst watching this over-rated boof-brained, sad attempt of what could have been a wonderful story.

Want to see a brilliant Aussie movie with non stop action, feeling, and a sense of awe and wonder - watch "Gabriel" Made only four years later with much less money and a lot more soul - literally. I found "Gabriel's Story" much more convincing, heartwarming and awakening.


Oh well. Talk about trying to be "Walkabout" and "Hiroshima Mon Amour" and completely failing. Sure, the script must have been good reading, so you would think with the right director and the right film crew this would turn out to be OK, but no, this is what you call poorly executed and poorly conceived. I do understand what it was trying to say, but I just think that the whole of the first half should've been done with much more attention to the detail of the characters' feelings and dug deeper into their emotions further. I think the director has good intentions but did not quite deliver on this part. The film should've been called "Australian Story" to make more sense of the lopsided and biased view of what the Aussies perceive to be the strange cultural behaviour of the Japanese - after all, the whole film depends upon a Western view of the woman looking at this strange man from the Far East who seem to have no cause or reason to be wandering about the Outback other than the fact that he can. Whether the last third of the film explains his reasons for being there or not, the film should've focused much more on what she needs, what she is experiencing and should've explained a lot more of her backstory of who she is as an Aussie geologist, rather than let them both be strangely stranded "tourists" who are seeking for some sort of direction from the plot!!! The performances were stilted and without much heart, Collette looked like she was just sort of skimming through all of her scenes and dialogue as if she was rather not bothered about being in this film. Tsunashima did his best to behave like the Japanese caricature that the filmmaker wanted, and of course same goes for the wife and the whole setup in the last third of the film. At the end, I wandered why they bothered to make this film at all, as it probably reads much better than it does as a film. Perhaps if another, more accomplished artist's hands had got hold of it, the film would've turned out to be an interesting film in character study, but the photography is bland, the music is typically "American Beauty" ripped and tinny, and the direction and editing are completely unimaginative. They could've done so much with some truly spaced-out scenes of desperation in the dessert, but somehow everything is conveniently moved along and that only leaves the viewer scratching their heads wandering why they bothered at all. The film tries to drive some meaning into the reasons for these two to be out there in the wild for emptiness in significance of their own lives, but the cultural complications are brushed aside because the filmmakers do not quite get why there is any of that sort of experience in the first place for these characters who should not have had any need to spend any time out there at all. For Collette's character to give in to his demands so easily after having said her piece about not going out there, and then to complain about what he did to them out there, and then not to explain why she even has this job and what it really means - might have been a much more interesting film if the Japanese guy had to find his own way around, and had met a strange woman in the desert with whom he plays, instead of having this geologist lead the way. Poor poor effort.


The self-absorption of today's independent film industry continues with Japanese Story. So many comment-givers cited this film's departure from convention as a reason for loving it so much. Well, in my opinion, it follows convention with great fealty -- the independent film twist on love stories. You begin two people who at first don't like each other, but then grow close, but never quite fall in love. Generally, the feel is that of a romantic comedy. Then, two-thirds way into the movie, everything suddenly takes a bizarre twist. In Lost In Translation, it is Bill Murray's affair with the otherwise anonymous band singer despite refusing overtures from Scarlett Johanssen. In The Shape Of Things and Kissing Jessica Stein, one of the partners had another agenda from the start. In Chasing Amy, it's that Ben Affleck is an obsessive jerk.

In Japanese story, a playful Toni Colette yells out "Last One In Is a rotten egg, then jumps in the water", her Japanese friend pursues her, jumps into the water, and promptly has a fatal accident. The last 35 minutes are about the mechanics she endures and the guilt and grief she feels about making arrangements for the friend's wife that she had just had an affair with to pick up the body and bring it back to Japan. That's 35 of the most dragged-out minutes in film history detailing every trivial aspect involved in getting a dead body back to Queensland, then her interaction with fellow co-workers, family, and necessary outsiders.

This is also typical of the pretentiousness of today's independent films. Showing the mundane and seemingly inconsequential becomes the focus and is seen as genius because any hack director can have a plot written, then tell a story. After all, it takes a great independent Director to have complete disdain for storytelling in favor of glorifying either something bizarre or something mundane.


I am a Japanese. It can be fun for me to see how Japanese still are portrayed stereotypically in the movies from the west. Because it's like gazing at a mirror which people living in a insular country like Japan lack and no matter how exaggerated or bad or untrue the stereotype may seem for the first glance, there is still something that holds true in it, something that reminds of part of self that we've been succeeding at hiding from ourselves.

Yes. That did until I came across the death scene in this movie.

I watched this movie in Sydney with my Japanese roommate. At this death scene we laughed our guts out. I almost cried. It's definitely the funniest death scene I've ever seen.

And then the corpse remains on the screen for about 20 minutes. Or it just felt so. Superb acting.

This movie had to resort to death of the main character and presented it quite unconvincingly. That's it. Piece of crap.


There are many great films out there with exciting, tragic, deep, sappy, or perfect love stories. Rent all of them before getting to this one. The movie mostly plods until the last 30 minutes at which time it sinks like a rock due to plot, acting, and most of all direction. Without spoiling anything, the female lead (Toni Collette) behaves during these final scenes in a truly inexplicable manner, given the movies climax. And in the climax scene Collette does nothing sensibly and instead panics and acts out in a manner that is really uncomfortable and embarrassing to watch. Once the film peaks these last 30 minutes could be condensed easily into about 7, and one is left to think that perhaps they didn't shoot enough good footage to get to the end of the story. The edits thus become extremely long, the emotions excessive and repetitive, and the plot simply becomes either irritating or unbelievable. This film should be about the characters transformation through their love for each other, but in the end there is exactly nothing that changes in either of them, except that we completely lose empathy for Collette's character at the moment we should be weeping with her. There seems to be some attempt -- purposeful or accidental -- to make "Lost in Translation" here. That is a great film and I suggest you watch it two or three times before renting Japanese Story. Maybe you won't have to.


This is basically a German takeoff on a Sherlock Holmes story. Now, if told in a competent way, Sherlock Holmes-inspired tales can be entertaining, even if of secondary heritage. But this abomination is FOUR HOURS LONG! Every shot and every scene is presented in excruciating slow motion. In addition, all of the themes are telegraphed so ineptly that generally you don't need the scene at all, because you already know exactly what will take place before it starts.

Except for hardcore students of German cinema, who are known to love this film, this is unbearably EXCRUCIATING to all of us that are not in a German film class. I'd rather be at the dentist, especially since my dentist, unlike Dr. Mabuse, is a nice guy.

Yes, the exterior street scenes are often very good German Expressionist set creations, but this turgid piece of molasses is not worth seeing just to see a few artistic sets.


There's nobody to root for, or even care about, in Ed Holzman's would-be erotic thriller. Dominick (Bobby Johnston) runs a "private social club" that's really a front for an international prostitution and blackmail operation. Suzanne (Maria Ford) owns a clientless ad agency; a "friend," Nick (Scott Carson) suggests Dominick as a potential client. Dominick and Suzanne proceed to do their best to outwit each other in a series of sexual games.

With both of the principals more or less equally amoral, the only possible fun in this movie is watching them go at each other. But Holzman's leisurely pacing throughout, and characters that never go beyond skin deep, spoil the fun. Dawson is wasted as Dominick's personal assistant, Mona. The one character who has a shred of decency is Suzanne's assistant, Tracy (Stephanee LaFleur), but she's clueless and powerless--not much more than a spectator.

Holzman has done better work than this. The sex scenes even start to get tedious halfway through the film.


I Like To Play Games Too is another offering from the Eros label, part of the Playboy empire. Although this film has pretensions to being a sequel to the original ILTPG, the film is set in an advertising agency and the leading character is called Suzanne, this film is an entirely different animal.

Suzanne (Maria Ford) with her assistant Tracy (Stephanee LaFleur) runs her own successful ad agency. As part of her business dealings, she also likes to play sex games with her male clients, always beating them at their own game and dumping them when she wants. However, her latest client Dominick (Bobby Johnston) is a whole different kettle of fish, always managing to stay one jump ahead. Suzanne is having none of it and the stakes are raised. As in films of this type, there is a twist in the tale and we find out how Dominick plays the game.

This should have been my type of film. There is a plot, nudity and varying sex action but I could work up little enthusiasm for this film. The problem was the laboured dialogue delivery and the general impression that the actors were acting for the camera rather than being real characters with the camera as the invisible voyeur. The only saving grace was Stephanee LaFleur who made a decent try at being the concerned assistant. There was nudity aplenty but this did not, in my opinion compensate for the shortcomings. 2 stars.


Mediocre "erotic" thriller. Mildly amusing concept, with a few twist and turns. Stephanie LeFleur is probably the best this movie has to offer in the way of attractive women. The plot kinda meanders on between soft-porn scenes, but there's more than you usually find.


What a shame... when you have a child actor who is capable of stealing every scene, why not feature him in more scenes? Why not only pick vehicles that'll showcase the incredible talent the kid has? What a riot Spencer Breslin is but unfortunately this movie did not do very well in showing that or showing enough of it. No, the movie wasn't totally about him but golly gee whiz, it shoulda been cause he out-acted and was funnier than anyone else in this movie. Through the first third or so Kid Breslin wasn't really funny much at all. The relationship shown between the brothers was bordering on creepy and was really UnAmerican for the most part... 99% of siblings of that age difference in America just do not act like that. As the movie progresses Spencer's character changes and is pushed out of the spotlight. For the final third of the movie when he's back he's much better, funnier and it is a delight to watch him. He's so funny and for that reason alone I'd recommend this movie and see it again myself. Couple downfalls - the actor who played the dad was not an American. Since this was filmed in New Zealand they used a lot of local actors and the dad was one... and he tried to do an American accent and half the time failed to execute it perfectly. Really an embarrassment. What's interesting is the actresses who played the mom and the blonde girlfriend, along with the dude who played dad, were on, at one time, `Shortland Street' - the most popular soap opera in New Zealand. But in this movie only the dad, to me, clearly appeared to be acting American... he just couldn't pull off a U.S. accent in all his speaking scenes. Terrible. Also very UnAmerican in this movie was the high school band all dressed up in spiffy suits... looked very out of place for what appeared to be a public high school... actually, it did appear to be in place for a high school in New Zealand. AHHHHHHHH.... friggin' producers just can't get it together to film more American movies in America where they should be filmed to give Americans jobs. No, instead they have to go thousands of miles away where actors are cheaper and production is cheaper. And in going that far you have potential to have little things out of place such as what's happened here. But those things didn't mess with the movie too much and what is basic, the story we have in this movie, isn't too bad. I enjoyed it. Wasn't outstanding and I thought it was kinda similar to `Wish Upon a Star' which is seen on The Disney Channel. A.J. Trauth was pretty darn good but for the life of me I couldn't understand why his character would rather be a freak skater instead of the high school football team's quarterback with the hottest cheerleader in school for his girlfriend!??! Beyond me, truly beyond me! Overall this movie's worth it for Spencer Breslin but that's about it. It flows well, it's interesting and it's very family friendly but it's nothing that's very memorable. My grade for this: C


Our favorite looney tune is cruising somewhere on the pacific ocean, finally hitting some beautiful peaceful island... until a Japanese soldier comes up and they have a fight, first on the ground, then up in the air. Bugs gives him some heavy bomb (at least that's what I think it was) so the crazy Japanese guy falls down. Bugs: 'Happy landing'!

Then he takes on a sumo wrestler and in the end serves grenade-filled icecreams to, as he puts it, 'Japs, hundreds of them!'.

As you probably understand, this is propaganda and nothing else. Some would call it racist or whatever but you probably have to consider the time it was made in. There are better propaganda movies though as this is just a bit of a silly one...

4/10.


Found this one during a routine late-night channel-surf. I spied, with my one good eye...

Billy Zane: being held at gun-point, while some thong-clad Brian Bosworth clone orders him to remove his pants and then chases him around the dining room table. "Bart" keeps informing Billy Zane that he plans on making a woman out of him <wink-wink> ...if ya' know what I mean. And you expect me to change the channel?

You know how you just *have* to watch "BeastMaster" when it comes on, even tho' you know you shouldn't? Well that's the deal with "Blood & Concrete: A Love Story" (full titles here folks!) It's odddly compelling, not unlike "Baywatch", the movie "Showgirls" or string-cheese. Having said that... I have no idea what it was supposed to be about. For no reason I can succesfully elocute, this movie reminded of "Vamp", which also seemingly took place in a strange hybrid of Los Angeles via Manhattan Meat Packing District. So there..I've just compared this movie to "Vamp". That pretty much says it all.

I have graciously rated this schlock-fest a '4':

-1 point for the smouldering indie-flicker James LeGros

-1 point for the gay Boss Hogg drug-dealer who we get to see on the crapper

-1 point for Billy Zane's 'House of Style' eyebrows & mostly believeable hairpiece

& -1 point for a Brian Bosworth-clone who spends all his screen time running around in tight, white, nothing-to-the-imagination jeans... while he informs every male character of exactly where he intends to hide the pickle.


"Blood and Concrete" is a lame little low budget comedy about a small time hoodlum (Zane) who hooks up with a neurotic babe (Beals) and then learns they have something more in common than mutual admiration...specifically a drug called "Libido". Playing out like something contrived by a bunch of drunken college students, this flick invents wacky characters and then has them pop up as necessary to sustain it as it dogs its way through its meager plot. Although the film does have a few funny moments and a hint of a creative edge, it is a sub-B flick which wears out early on and most will not find it worth the time.


D.A.R.Y.L. blows the big one, if you know what I mean! This movie attempted at what Spielberg's Artificial Intelligence achieved. You can chalk this one up as an absolute cheeseball. I almost gave up on it after the nauseating Ballgame scenes, but I became a little more interested when the plot picked up after Daryl is taken away by the government scientists. Stick around for a pretty decent cop chase but I doubt you'll make it that far!


I cannot believe that Marissa is dead... The OC cannot be the same without Marissa! The Fab 4 are the main of the show, and Ryan and Marissa the most incredible couple on television I have seen... I just don't get why they killed Marissa. I heard that is was because of Mischa Barton, that she wanna leave the show and make some movies. But yesterday I read an interview with Josh, the creator, and he said that it was not Mischa who wanna leave, that they just killed of Marissa because of all the bad things who happens to her : that was the only solution. BUT I DISAGREE! It's not the solution!!! Please bring Marissa back in a coma! No Marissa, No OC!!!! I'm a biggest fan, and It won't be the same without her... Ryan & Marissa 4ever!!!!


What hurt my rating in this movie was that friend said "It was the scariest, most suspenseful film I've ever seen!" Well, I didn't find this to be the tense thriller she said.....or even close. Since I expected more, I was disappointed.

The only interesting character was the villain, "Carter Hayes," played nicely by Michael Keaton. The problem was he wasn't shown that much in the film. This movie needed more scenes with him in it, and less of the two other major characters: "Drake Goodman." (Matthew Modine) and "Patty Palmer" (Melanie Griffith).

This starts off promising, as if it's going to be very suspenseful. Maybe it was Modine's unlikable character that turned me. Whatever it didn't have the impact I was expecting. Overall: disappointing.


I've seen bad movies, and I thought I saw the worst in "Air Marshall," and couldn't imagine a movie worse. Boy was I wrong. "Pacific Heights" is totally absurd and frustrating. I stopped this movie after the police paid a visit. I tell you, if this is California law, I never want to move to California. I've watched enough People's Court to know nothing in this movie makes sense. Yes, it was against the law for him to shut off power and heat; that much is true. The officer said, "Whether he has a lease or not, he's still a tenant." Absurd. If there is no lease, he is trespassing. He has a right to change the locks? Who owns the building? The tenant? He doesn't own the place. He's renting the apartment. The landlord has a right to enter the apartment in case of an emergency or to do repairs or any number of reasons since he owns the building. Changing the locks is illegal. Drake has a right to start eviction proceedings. No rent has been paid. Keaton admits there was a problem with the money. Go to Small Claims Court. You don't have to mess with attorneys. There's landlord/tenant court, go through evictions. And the potential tenants' comments about refusing to authorize a credit check is enough to make my skin crawl. "It's not necessary, " he says, "My credit is good." I'd say, "Well, then there's nothing for you to worry about." I've seen enough episodes of "Cops" that you don't know who you'll meet, and I don't think anyone truly believes that no one ever lies. This movie really insults my intelligence. This is the biggest piece of crap I've ever seen. Avoid this movie at all costs.


I don't usually give away the plot when reviewing movies, but the storyline of 'Pacific Heights' is so ludicrous that one cannot discuss the film properly without considering its absurdities. Its lead characters are a young couple who acquire a squatter, bad news because they need to rent the basement he is occupying in order to pay their own mortgage. Moreover, the guy is a bit creepy, and soon it appears his aim is not just to live rent free but also to provoke his landlords into legally punishable actions against him, and maybe even to con his way to gaining possession of their entire house. As in all movies of this sort, the villain's ability to destroy the heroes' lives is dependent on his almost supernatural ability to predict their behaviour, and his willingness to endure pain to achieve his goals; the film's execution is unsubtle and the every plot development is heavily signposted; but up to this point, it still holds up as a routine but serviceable thriller. Then things get really bad. The tenant finally vanishes, but not before stealing all the fixtures and fittings (why he does so, and why, if he'd planned to do this, had he bothered to set up all the potential lawsuits he hereby abandons, no-one ever explains). The police finally accept he is crook, but believe they have no way of catching him. So the female hero immediately chases after him herself, her only lead stupidly helps her without meaning to, and she successfully tracks him down within 24 hours. In real life, she would now phone the cops; in Hollywood, she might kill him. In this film, she chooses instead to play a schoolgirl prank on him (now there's a smart thing to do to a psychopath!), and needless to say, he comes back for a laughably violent showdown (fought with D.I.Y. equipment) which ends when he happens to falls onto some conveniently waiting iron spikes. To call such nonsense drivel is to pay it a compliment.

As for the cast, Michael Keaton is enigmatically menacing as the tenant, but Matthew Modine and Melanie Griffith are largely (I think unintentionally) irritating as the couple he targets as his victims. As for director John Schlesinger, he has made a number of interesting movies; but boy, is this not one of them.


Michael Keaton's performance in Pacific Heights is interesting, but the film practically makes no sense. I didn't care about the characters that Matthew Modine and Melanie Griffith portrayed, and I think the direction was pretty lame. Only worth watching if you would like to see Michael Keaton in a strange role.


Don't be one of them. Don't be one of the stupid people. Don't rent or buy or watch this film. I suppose there are worse films, but very few spring to mind.

The entire premise assumes you were born yesterday and remain ignorant of human behavior or common sense. I'd go on about the plot or the performances, but it's just one contrivance after another that leaves the viewer frustrated and angry at the characters (ALL of them) not to mention the director.

By the end you don't care who lives or dies, as long as it ENDS.

There are a lot of ways to spend your time. Don't waste it here!