The worst kind of film is not one with bad acting, or bad direction, since these can be campy and unintentionally funny. The worst kind of film is not a style over substance summer blockbuster, since these at least provide a temporary cheap thrill. The worst kind of film is a film with competent acting and directing, but with NOTHING of interest going on. Jacques Rivette's "Va Savoir (Who Knows?)" is one such film, running at two-and-a-half hours, without any real purpose or entertainment value for the first two hours (!).

	Perhaps the reason a film such as "Va Savoir" is so disappointing is because it is so well done. There are no problems with the direction (director Jacques Rivette being a true veteran, has been making films for around 50 years); it is neither distractingly experimental, falsely grandeur, or frustratingly inept. The acting is up to par with that in an American romantic comedy, and is edged slightly higher due to the flawless bilingual dialogue of leads such as Jeanne Balibar (Camille) and Sergio Castillitto (Ugo), who are involved in an Italian theatre production. The characters have somewhat normal (normal for the type of film anyway) relations with each other, including past lover, current seducer, and half-brother with hints of incest. "Crazy" characters such as Pierre (Jacques Bonnaffé) and Arthur (Bruno Todeschini) seem genuinely off-kilter, under the influence of mortal pleasures (Pierre by the love of his ex Camille, and Arthur by the money he gets from selling stolen goods, such as priceless manuscripts "borrowed" from his dead father's library). Sounds like an interesting cast of character to spend some time with, right?

	Sadly, absolutely nothing happens in the film until around the two-hour mark. At this point, all of the film's memorable moments, which the rest of the film spent carefully (too carefully) trickling out one drop at a time, begin to flow uncontrollably. Suddenly the film's much-touted "farce" status becomes realized and obvious, with a series of odd events, some of which, indeed, mock "traditional romance themes" (e.g. a duel for the love of Camille is a drinking contest atop a scaffold). Are these moments enough to make up for the rest of the film? Not really. The period up until then is wasted through over-drawn character development (which does little but establish every character as pretentious and confused, traits that are almost expected to some degree in romantic comedies) and many scenes of the play produced ("Come tu Mi Vuo", an Italian play that, from the excerpts presented alone, is already a better farce of romance in general than the film, but has no specific connection to the characters other than their participation in it). The first two hours of the film are a great displeasure to sit through, being dialogue-heavy with characters that are still "normal" in their actions and dialogue. As a final assurance that the time spent watching this was in vain, every character remains within the same relationships they were in at the beginning of the movie, shrugging off the previous sub-plot romances and character development.

	The problem I have with American romantic comedies is their saccharine and non-unique nature. I rented this seeking redemption for the genre in a stereotype of "artsy" European films and film-makers as being able to revitalize a seemingly forever-tired genre. As much as I hate maudlin American romantic comedies with boring characters that never stand out, at least these are generally an hour or so shorter than an "artsy" maudlin European romantic comedy with boring characters that become interesting at the midnight hour. I shudder at the thought that this is one of director Jacques Rivette's shorter films.


Great dialogue if you're learning French, but there is little other reason to watch this movie. Characters had no motivation for their actions, the plot was all but nonexistent.


One could consider this film like a cinematic whole-wheat pancake. Your film comes topped with butter, syrup, and all the fruits you can think of (the characters of the film). When it is presented originally Va Savoir looks tantalizingly delicious, but after ten minutes of eating you realize that you finished and still hungry. You realize that this mound of goodness was nothing more than fluffy cooked dough that will ultimately make you fat, lazy, and sleepy. While it may give you a high at first, the darkness of the inevitable 'sugar-low' is fast approaching and causing you to grab your stomach in disgust. Also, it was a flop. Perhaps that was a bit overboard, but I really wanted to explain this film in a way that was a bit more entertaining than the film itself. To put it bluntly, this film was like watching the grass grow in your back yard in anticipation of having to mow it again. It was slow, not very colorful, and a pain to sit through. When it finally gets too long, it hurts too much to do it again, but you know it must be done. That feeling is exactly how I felt about the film Va Savoir.

This is a devoutly character based film. To make a deeply rooted character based film to work, you must first have exciting characters that you know your audience is going to want to follow. Sadly, this was not the case in this film. From the opening scene (where the subtitles were not working on my DVD) all the way till the final moments of the film, we have to follow four of the dullest characters in cinematic history. Cammille is our pilot, following an emotion and feeling that is never quite developed in the story and therefore never quite developed in her. Her mannerisms and reactions to situations made me feel as if she was a bit on the loony side. Perhaps it was the way that Jeanne Balibar chose to play her, but there was nothing making me believe that Cammille was a very strong character. Her actions throughout the film prove that much, but what are her motives and reasonings? That is never explained or developed, yet there was three hours to do it. Strange. This goes the same for Sonia, who I also never really fully grasped onto. She seemed to be in love, but at the same time enjoying moments with Arthur. Her need to rearrange made me think that her and Cammille had similar personalities (loony), which is what made them become friends near the end. Yet, again, it was never explained. We, the audience, were forced to follow a lot of assumptions in this film, and whenever we felt that we fully understood and connected with a character, Rivette would pull us further away. It was as if he never really wanted us to fully understand them, but still accept them. That didn't brood well with me.

Couple this with random intermissions of the play that these performers are putting on for the Parisians only helps to confuse the audience. I couldn't tell if Cammille was actually acting in the play or just walking through the lines. Half the time it looked as if it bothered her to be there. There was no emotion or excitement when she was on stage prompting me to question whether she was this 'infamous' actress that they claimed her to be. I have seen several foreign films in my lifetime, but this one takes the cake as possibly the longest passenger car to Dullsville. I had trouble understanding the play that was happening throughout the film, thus causing me to care less about the characters. The final thirty minutes of this movie are actually fun. The scenes where Pierre and Ugo decide to duel are hysterical. I actually watched this scene over again because I enjoyed it so much. The connections made at the end tied the film up nicely, but still left too many questions unanswered.

Overall, I was lost in this film. If you ever pick up this film and you see a blonde-hair, blue-eyes 26-year old wandering through the scenes, it is I just trying to understand this film. I can't figure it out, I can understand most Lynch, Gilliam, and others of the 'jigsaw puzzle' genre, but this was just beyond my control. The characters seemed drab and never fully comfortable in their roles, and those that were jumped between emotions like playing leapfrog in kindergarten. The stories were connected well, but it didn't make any difference if the characters (the glue of the stories) didn't hold them together. In your eyes, and in your DVD player, you can see where this film just falls apart. If you are looking for a stronger emotional powerhouse film where characters work with their characters and push the envelope even further, I would check out Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia. This film reminded me of Magnolia except bad.

I don't suggest anyone wasting their three hours on this film, but who am I except a lost guy in this film.

Again, if found, please return!

Grade: * out of *****


I think this is a typical French author movie (read: pleases only its author :) where part of the audience will walk out, part will stay totally annoyed, and some will love it thinking it's of the greatest insight, overall not generating much revenue.

Plot: A small troupe of Franco-Italian actors present a new theater piece in Paris, with moderate success. Off scene, we follow the lead French actress and the Italian director who are married. She hooks up with her ex, he searches for a manuscript and the story develops from there...

There is no plot per say, but rather a microcosm of people floating in a fish tank: it's a study of characters. I guess the movie is about relationships and 'love'. A few things annoyed me, there are quite a few actors who act really bad (ie they act as if at a theater, with voice intonation and expression of feelings totally off). There is some sort of mini action going on, but nothing leads to anything. There is a few spots where the action is absurd (characters attach to each other artificially act or find things or change behavior the same way). The end is totally stupid (IMHO) because the state of some of the characters is unfinished.

The few things I liked are the women attraction: the younger one is very attractive, the actress and dancer are too, though it's partly because of their awkward detached personalities. I've been told the guys are unremarkable, sorry ladies :)

Overall it might have been OK as a simple theater piece but as a movie it's quite boring and condescendent.


The cover of the box said it was a comedy. NOT ONE funny moment, I assure you. Bad acting, especially the main brunette girl who is unfortunately also extremely uninteresting to look at. Static indoor shots of people standing and talking to each other. (Only one good exterior shot, on the Seine.) You can practically hear the director shouting action at the top of each shot, it looks so stagey.

I had no idea the French and American sensibilities could be so far afield of each other. Did French audiences really laugh at this.


this is dreadful. the dialogue is sophomoric. but it's in French so critics love it.

Rent 'A Taste of Others' if you want to see a good French romantic comedy.


The reviews had been ravissants. A man in his seventies makes a short film (under fifteen hours) in the French language, a man who was the vrais thing in France and a totem among cinephiles...so we went, as we are Francophiles (and have seen hundreds of French films here and abroad in the last decade) and are ever hopeful (despite towers tumbling, poison powder letters, and Jacques Chirac still in power)that the human imagination and a film budget will lift us. Can I please briefly say that the highlight of this exposition was the vintage Mercedes that had been (so we learned after the show) driven in reverse by an aged Lady from somewhere on the southern coastal region of California, over a barrier, shearing shrubs, and landing inches from the facade of the Edwards cinema which ran the film? Gasoline spilling, the fire department on their way, et cetera. May I? Thank you. As to the film, a 16th century play in contemporary skins. A nice derriere moving from the camera. A blonde with more bum than part, a male lead who was wonderful but could not rise above the silliness. J'adore les films francais. Mais il arrive un point... Silly and about two and a half hours from previews to end, hers excluded.


I saw this in the theater when it was released (getting truly rave reviews in New York newspapers) and was baffled by this extra-slow version of La Ronde or of one of Woody Allen's many comic movies (but with two quite physically unattractive lead characters).

I put my lack of enthusiastic response down to my ignorance of Heidegger's philosophy, of the particular Pirandello play they used throughout, and of most of Goldoni. (I'd merely known of Heidegger's sympathy for the Nazis, read Six Characters in Search of an Author, and seen Mistress of the Inn with the marvelous Tovah Feldshuh).

I thought that if I knew Heidegger's philosophy better (perhaps some dictum about an inverse proportionality between beauty and truth?), had read more of Pirandello (or at least the play of which we keep seeing excerpts) and had a more comprehensive knowledge of Goldoni - then I would understand the point of this movie. I though this was a movie that I would just have to say was "over my head" - the laughs must come from the clever juxtapositions between various things written by these three men and what I was seeing.

But in the four years since I saw the movie in a theater, I've read no more from those three men. But I also came to the realization that most people I have encountered DON'T know much of Heidegger's philosophy, haven't read more than "Six Characters" by Pirandello, and few seem to have seen even a single play by Goldoni.

And few of the people who express enjoyment of the movie on this site seem to do so based upon the relationship of these authors' texts to what is happening on the screen. So, perhaps there was something about this movie that even in my state of comparative ignorance, I simply missed. So I rented it again.

I now doubt that I missed much - and think the movie simply fails on all levels.

Romantic comedies really need appealing characters - this has only one -played by the lovely Helene de Fouguerolles. She's probably the least significant of the three female characters - and somehow fails to wind up with the man - in fact bizarrely, she is the one whom NONE of the men find worthwhile to pursue! This is true perversity.

The lead female character is a sadly ugly woman of no discernible charm or grace, given no witty lines and only ugly behavior (fidelity to her boyfriend, chaste behavior, even the necessity to be pleasant to other human beings around one - mean nothing to this wretch and the fact that she's nervous/annoyed/irritated through most of the film is hugely unappealing).

The second lead is more physically attractive but her attraction to the two men in her life is mystifying and her past is despicable (as is her desire to continue the to keep the ill-gotten gains from that past).

The three men are idiots.

The furnishings are nice - including the sets in the play within the play, the references to Goldoni, Pirandello and Heidegger obviously intrigued me when I first saw it, but the only reason to see this film is the appeal of the enthusiastic, vivacious, lovely, gracious Helene de Fougerolles - and it's not enough to watch this slow-moving unfunny dud.

For those interested in the subject, watch almost any other about several couples - from La Ronde to Husbands and Wives, from Everybody Says I Love You to Libeled Lady. They're all vastly superior - with characters one might like and actors whose looks don't make you wince.


absurdly overrated vehicle for Marin county anorexics, of interest

only to older men charmed by, but largely excluded from, the

pretentions of the privileged young. also, of course, to historians of

the lesser directors of the old new wave.

the mannered failure of the principal actress to - well - act is

insupportable, and the annoyance is not decreased by a sense

that the director doesnt particularly care, in fact might prefer it that

way. the looseness of his direction is only pointed by the

conspicuousness of passages in which actual actors rebel, and

introduce verve.

in short, a film for the voyeur.


This film has pretensions of being an art film. I am a believer that art should delight and entertain as a result of its excellence. The reality of "Va Savoir" is that it delivers an absolutely dreadful movie, badly made with insipid performances. VERRRRRY boring and overly long. This movie is not a pleasure to watch, which disqualifies it as art, in my view.

In an brazen attempt to grab the viewer's interest, the makers of the movie inserted a shower scene with Jeanne Balibar followed by a flash of her muffy, around the middle of the film. The shower scene doesn't clarify or advance the plot. Plus Ms. Balibar's scrawny body is the wrong subject for this desperate attempt at commercialism. When gratuitous nudity fails to redeem a movie for me, then there's something definitely wrong.

My French isn't fluent, so I must watch French films in subtitles. I still enjoy following the French soundtrack and evaluating the quality of the English translation. The subtitling of "Va Savoir" is generally good, using the best colloquial English equivalent to the French. Some of the rawer French is slightly sanitized, however. Unfortunately, the soundtrack for the subtitled version I saw was muffled and indistinct. I prefer subtitled foreign films to dubbed movies to hear the expression of the actors delivering their lines. The soundtrack of the version I watched was so bad that I couldn't connect with what the actors were trying to convey. Or perhaps there wasn't anything to convey.

The Italian play didn't add to any understanding of the film. These scenes could have done with some heavy editing and perhaps something coherent could have emerged. Jeanne Balibar's Italian sounded synthetic, monotonous and wooden to me. I don't know Italian stage conventions but Sergio Castellitto was quite expressive in the play. In fact, to see how to show expression in one's second language, one need look no further than Sergio Castellitto's performance in the French language. As a final comment, I've had enough of the genre of actors portraying actors. To me, that's not a stretch. It's not just the French that bore me with this kind of story. Hollywood and the TV Networks fall into the trap of displaying their own tiny little world. When an actor or actress does working class and does it realistically, then that's art. Check out "Frankie and Johnny", "Tampopo" or "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" for the best of the working poor on film.


This is the sort of crap film that gave foreign films in the US a bad reputation: Excessive intellectuality, shortage of action, repetition of themes ad nauseam, interminable navel-gazing, etc. For a high-school student's project, this would be acceptable, but for a professional filmmaker, it is a total disappointment. Since all the viewer can do is stare at endless, static presentations of the same actors, it might at least be fun if they were highly attractive. Alas, they are not. Jeanne Balibar is moderately attractive, as is Bruno Todeschini. (Balibar does take her shirt off at one point, but her tits are hardly something to get excited over). The rest of the cast would better be unseen. Let me emphasize that this piece of tedium is 2.5 HOURS LONG. There's barely enough material here for 60 minutes worth of movie.


All you need to do is listen to the dreadful theme song at the end of the movie to realize what a complete, moronic, hack job this movie was. Free isn't enough. Someone pay me for the time this movie consumed!!

Cartoonish military stereotypes vs. Cartoonish small town stereotypes. Poor Brian Keith seemed to really want to do something with his role, but with this script that was just about impossible. I will give him an A for his effort, though wasted it was.


Ok, so when I voted I gave it a low score, but that was cause Terror of Tiny Town has very little cinematic merit. But put all that aside and wind your sense of humour down a couple of notches and this movie is a "rootin, tootin, shootin" good time. I mean come on! They walk UNDER the saloon door! They ride ponies! It takes two midgets to play the bass! The bartender can't seem to chug his beer without outbursts of laughter! Plus- midgets fighting- funny! Add to that the fact that not a single one of the midgets can act and you've got 63 minutes of fun! Ok, so I realize that this movie is so politically incorrect that "little people" everywhere are either laughing themselves to death or up in arms. But that shouldn't stop us from enjoying an entirely midget western with multiple ear shattering musical numbers and the barest traces of a plot. But like I said before- midgets-Funny!


Of course, this film is legendary. The first, and as far as I can tell / hope the last, all-midget musical western. Anyone who is extremely p.c. will be obviously outraged by the concept and the film. And of course, many cult film fans will want to see it for being one of the most exploitive films there is. However, its really not too exciting.

The problem is that once the novelty of the film wears off it becomes quite dull. It's hilarious and jaw-dropping at first, making you wonder how the filmmakers got away with this. Midgets ride Shetland ponies and rope calves, and walk UNDER those swinging barroom doors. They sing in voices that are extremely annoying and shrill. As far as acting goes, well, you can guess the amount of skill that went into this production. With the possible exception of the legendary Billy Curtis, the "actors" seem to be sleepwalking through the whole thing reading off cue cards. Of course, no one watches these films for technical skill, but even on camp merits it isn't great. The film is fun and funny for a while, but becomes incredibly tedious by the end.

Cult / exploitation film fans may want to rent this film or buy it for their collection if only for the sheer shock value of it. However, its over-hyped in the extreme. If you are interested in 30s exploitation cinema, I'd recommend both "Maniac" and "Reefer Madness" over this one. Quite simply, it creeks really badly. (3/10)


This movie is a cult classic. The main reason it is a classic, of course, is that the cast is made up entirely of little people (or midgets, as they were referred to back in the 1930's, when this movie was made.)

I can only imagine some bigwigs in Hollywood sitting around the boardroom table, and someone saying, "Hey...let's make a western musical with an all midget cast!" and everyone chiming in and saying, "Yeah, that's a great idea!". I mean, what were they thinking? Now let me start off by saying I have nothing at all against little people. But the premise for this movie is pretty bizarre. Was it meant to be serious, or taken as a joke? It is exploitation of the midget actors, making fun of them, or was it meant to be a serious attempt at a western musical, just starring little people? These questions go mainly unanswered.

I think the actors performed with all seriousness in their roles, even though it seems to me that the script was poking fun at them, having them ride miniature ponies (which is hilarious to see) and having them walk under normal size barroom doors and the like.

Other than the cast being made up entirely of little people, there is nothing to distinguish this movie from the hundreds of other westerns made during the 1930's...low budget, cheap sets, terrible acting and atrocious songs (The song, "The Wedding of Jack and Jill", is unintentionally a howler). I think everyone should see this movie at least once. It happens to be a part of a 20 movie DVD compilation put out by Mill Creek Entertainment entitled "Cult Classics". It has the notorious movies "Reefer Madness", "Cocaine Fiends", "Sex Mad" and "Terror of Tiny Town", as well as many others included in the set. Most of these movies are exploitation films of the thirties and they are a gas to watch.


One wonders who thought this would be a great idea--a western done straight with all midgets. Plot-wise this is like any other B western--two neighboring ranchers suspect each other of rustling their cattle. The Hero (that's how he's billed in the cast--Billy Curtis) of one ranch falls in love with the Girl (Yvonne Moray) of the other ranch! And the Villain (Little Billy) tries to frame the Hero.

The plot is as old as the hills and every single Western cliché is firmly in place. Also there are songs! The movie opens with the entire town singing a nauseating song about how happy they are! There's there's a saloon vamp (Nita Krebs) who squeaks out a few more (and very badly too). The acting is truly horrendous and (cinematically speaking) this movie is worthless. After the initial novelty of the midgets wears off this is pretty lame stuff. Still it moves quick and is only about an hour long. Also there are some good action scenes--if you can get past the midgets riding ponies instead of horses! I give this a 3 because it does have its moments and you have to admire the fact that the whole movie is played straight.


Reading the postings here it does appear that one will either hate this offering as insulting and/or laughable or come to appreciate it as something quite unique.

Admittedly the dialog and much of its delivery is B movie tedious, yet examining other scripts and performances of the time we find that this is rather standard fare. The acting could certainly have been much more refined (Billy Rhodes, the villain, looked uncomfortable through most of the film), but I have traveled all through the United States, seen plays and musicals put on by more trained actors that were so much worse than this. Some version of this script could have easily found its way into Roy Rogers weekly show.

The worst part, for me, was the second musical number in the saloon; sung by Johnnie Fern as Diamond Dolly. I had seen it as a separate clip long before seeing the entire movie - feel free to fast forward here - it is truly embarrassing.

Charles Becker as Otto the cook, is a joy to watch.

Bill Platt as Jim 'Tex' Preston, was the senior of this group and had been performing for several decades before being well cast as the wealthy loving uncle.

Billy Curtis as the hero Buck Lawson, cuts quite a dashing figure (all be it on a pony), especially during the stagecoach chase; which is dangerous for even a larger stunt man.

Two things I found distasteful. First, Yvonne Moray as Nancy Preston running under the desk out of the jail. Second, the swinging doors at the saloon. The top of the doors were placed at the usual height for the period, but length had been reduced (obviously on purpose) to half. These are insults to both the viewer and the players.

Not the most horrible thing on screen. I will watch "The Terror of Tiny Town" rather than that audio-visual vomit, "Moulin Rouge!" (2001), any time. What ever your personal opinion of this film please allow that everyone should see it at least once. The greatest question here may not be "who thought that this movie would be a good idea?", but, "why is there a penguin in a barber shop of the old west?"


Since adding the Encore Western Channel to my cable TV lineup I've been overdosing on that particular genre, so I thought I'd take a break to check out a four disc, twenty movie DVD package I picked up from Mill Creek Entertainment. It's called 'Cult Classics', and the title that immediately called out to me was "Terror Of Tiny Town". Wouldn't you know it, the darn thing turned out to be a midget Western. No, not a short feature, but a movie with an all midget cast! It came out the same year as another novelty Western featuring an all Black cast called "Two Gun Man From Harlem".

The principle is pretty much the same here. Take your standard 'B' oater, pit your white hat hero against a dastardly villain, and populate it with nothing but midget actors. What's sort of cool in the story is the early misdirection which seems to implicate Tex Preston (Billy Platt) as a cattle rustler before it's revealed there's a third party villain working the Preston's against the Lawson's. Bat Haines (Little Billy Rhodes) is as nasty a villain as you'll find in any John Wayne, Roy Rogers or Durango Kid picture, even to the tune of keeping the local sheriff in his pocket.

The hero of the piece, Buck Lawson is played by Billy Curtis in his very first film role. Obviously he caught someone's eye to recommend casting him as the mayor of Munchkin Land in 1939's "Wizard of Oz", from there going on to a rather prodigious movie career. Western fans will note the resemblance between the young Curtis in 'Tiny Town' and the sixty four year old actor who was made mayor of Lago by The Stranger in "High Plains Drifter". To his credit, Curtis did his best to stay away from roles that denigrated little people, and did a creditable job here.

Still, it's hard watching the picture not to crack up every now and then over inadvertently funny scenes like the midget cowboys riding on their Shetland ponies, or walking into a saloon under the swinging door. The movie opted to drift back and forth between a normal adult size world and a miniature one to achieve different effects; the scene I thought was exceptional was the one that played out with the runaway stagecoach built to little people scale. Some of the goofier scenes involved pint size singers whose voices were obviously dubbed.

"The Terror of Tiny Town" won't make anyone's best films list, but you know, it really shouldn't be on anyone's worst list either. Take it with a grain of salt and you'll probably be entertained. A couple questions need answering though. Why was that penguin in the middle of the movie? And if a regular cowboy fires a six-shooter, does a midget use a three-shooter?


Not surprisingly, when you put an all-midget cast in a "B" western, you get a "B" western starring midgets. There is a novelty appeal, which tapers off during the running time. It's like watching the "Little Rascals" all grown up (and guzzling beer). More lasting is watching the cast humorously maneuver around the not-so-tiny "Tiny Town". Although built smaller scale to make average western stars look bigger, the town is still way too big for little people. Handsome Billy Curtis (as Buck Lawson) makes a fine hero. He and pretty Yvonne Moray (as Nancy Preston) are a cute couple. Dastardly "Little Billy'" Rhodes puts up a good fight. Nita Krebs plays a sultry saloon singer, and Charles Becker amusingly tosses his cook's cap into the pot. Still, it's a cheap production.

**** The Terror of Tiny Town (12/1/38) Sam Newfield ~ Billy Curtis, Yvonne Moray, 'Little Billy' Rhodes


1st watched 2/12/2007 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Sam Newfield): Complex story, but hammy-acting and silly songs make this major attempt to bring to the screen a serious story with midgets(or should I say the "vertically-challenged") a failure. The story revolves around the bad guy in town named Bat Haines, who is fooling everybody and plotting two families against each other by stealing each other's calves and then setting it up so that each one blames the other. He even has the sheriff eating out of his hand and bully's everyone else to see things his way. If you haven't guessed yet, he is "the Terror of Tiny Town." Enter the hero, the young son of the Lawson clan, who tries to fix things and stirs up a little romeo & juliet style romance on the side with a niece in the other family. Well, as you can guess, all things work out in the end and we get to hear one of the silly songs(there are about 4 songs in the movie and all are pretty silly) to close out the movie. This actually was a grand attempt to make a Hollywood picture with only the little ones but the mediocre acting stands out, sadly.


I do enjoy watching some of the movies that have been voted worst ever. Plan nine from outer space, attack of the killer tomatoes, and all those late fifty's horror flicks. If you can get around the idea of how small people were exploited in many thirty flicks this movie has some enjoyable moments. The horses are small but the guns look pretty big. The cook is interesting. It is a great movie to watch with the right people so that you can moan and groan together over the cheesy situations and classic predictable plot. I caught the flick on TV and I am not sure how easily this movie is to rent, although I know it is on DVD.


Plentiful comments...such that my initial inclination was, simply, to rate it and be otherwise silent. Then I noticed that there were no RECENT reviews. So, THAT became my excuse to sound off. Not that I have anything NEW to add: Everyone else is correct. I was just hoping (but not EXPECTING) that time might change one's opinion. It didn't. What we have here is your usual, less-than-mediocre, 30s western, made UNusual by the fact that the entire cast is midgets. (Is that a politically-correct description these days?) THAT should give it a higher (no pun intended) mark, right? Not true. The acting is so poor (the dialogue is so amateurishly delivered); the music is so patronizing; the plot is so small (again, NPI); that this is undeniably sub-par. Buck is our hero, from one of two families warring against themselves, each thinking that the other is rustling their herd. Buck "connects" with a gal in the enemy clan, and, eventually, they learn that a THIRD group is benefitting from the rivalry. The prologue asks that the audience takes this seriously. I tried. Maybe it's my own prejudice. But I was unable to dismiss the stature of the actors amid much of the non-dwarfed surroundings: There is a point when a saloon singer is obscured by a bannister as she descends a staircase. Also...the voices are distractingly childlike, although I know that they can't help that. Next...so many songs begin to seem unnecessarily-intolerable (like a talent show); and, in one case, unrealistically-dubbed. After the abundant comic relief, the second adjective to come to my mind was "unfortunate". Despite all of this, however, you should watch this film, if only to say that you have. Even BUY it (if the price is reasonable), 'cause others are gonna want to see it, too - it's that much of a curiosity piece. Hopefully, though, most - if not all - of these tiny thespians a year later were able to say that they had a little (not another pun) part in the much worthier Wizard of Oz; not The Terror of Tiny Town.


....that a movie with an all midget cast could be so incredibly boring. I knew it was a late 30's western-musical, probably the most boring genre mankind has created, but I figured this would be balanced by the fact that it had an all-midget cast. The problem was that this film was *supposed* to be a comedy...this meant plenty of unfunny sight gags and slapstick. At the same time it tried to be a serious drama, but the sound was so bad that I could just barely make out what the actors were saying. This didn't have a whole lot of impact on my ability to understand the plot, since the plot was very ripe. Everything in it I had seen before, albeit with full size actors. Ordinarily I would have been amused by the grade school level acting and campy plot, but overall I found the film to be just too incompetent to be enjoyable. It was like watching a grade school play with midgets in the place of children...I think this film would be more appealing and amusing with an all child cast rather than an all midget one. Anyways, there are a few comedic scenes, such as the aforementioned midgets going under hitching posts, riding Shetland ponies and stagecoaches pulled by ponies, etc.


Wow, did I just have a crazy last 24 hours! In the space of only a day, I have managed to see two of the fifty films listed in "The Fifty Worst Films Of All Time" by Harry Medved (a classic book that is now, unfortunately, out of print). After first seeing the very bellicose VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, I just finished watching THE TERROR OF TINY TOWN--purported to be the only all-midget Western ever made. With such a claim, it's no wonder that bad film lovers like myself are drawn to this insanely offensive film! I mean, think about it...audiences across America were expected to watch and laugh at a film whose sole "humorous" element was that the actors were midgets!! Well, despite being a very bad and offensive film, in a way it was still oddly fun when it wasn't being creepy. In a "Bevis and Butthead" sort of way, I suppose most people might smile when they first see the diminutive actors and actresses riding tiny ponies and acting like "normal" Western actors--though this enjoyment is a bit unsettling when you think about it! What was worse than this, though, was one of several musical numbers which was sung by a cabaret singer in a bar. This scantily clad wench sang about "making love with me" and seeing this tiny woman singing such a suggestive song made me feel a bit uneasy...no, now that I think about it, it made me queasy. Also, while the other songs weren't sleazy like this one, they did seem to portray the actors and actresses as happy little children. Again, this sure was disturbing!

The plot was in many ways much like an old Gene Autrey film but with midgets. Some of them, like the lead Billy Curtis, were actually pretty good actors and could ride their ponies well. I was particularly amazed at Curtis' horsemanship when he stopped the runaway midget stage coach. But, many of the actors looked as if they were ready to fall off their ponies and others could barely deliver their lines. Oddly, about half of the midgets spoke with German accents!

So here's the final verdict. Is it bad enough to make the bottom 50 of films? Probably not--as there must be at least 50 films worse than this. But this is STILL hardly a glowing endorsement!! No, it's still deserving only of 1 star and perhaps, if you are a bad film fan, it's worth a look. Otherwise, watch this mess at your own peril.


This movie is not worth watching as even a curiosity. Seriously, it's not humorous, it's not shocking, it's not guilty pleasure, it's boring! If you're really curious, are bored on a stormy Saturday afternoon, go ahead, but only if it's free. If you want bad but fun, stick with Ed Wood.


There may be worse movies. Yes, indeed, there may be worse movies. That doesn't mean I want to see them, or be near them or even hear of them. You can have your director's ouevre, your Ed Wood, your own particular claim that a particular movie is the Worst Movie Ever Made. I don't really care.

When it comes to High Concept Pictures, this ranks up there with Jules White's "Dogville" series, in which inoffensive puppies are stuffed into costumes, wired into position and then made to stand around, urinating on themselves, after which voices are dubbed into a satire of "the Face on the Bar Room Floor"; or "The Three Fatties" series: If they laugh at fat comics, and they laugh at at movie teams, then how about a movie team of three men who tip the scale at 300 pounds each? Yeah, that's High Concept!

Well, the High Concept here was to cross the Singing Western -- itself a slightly bizarre idea with the idea of an All Midget movie. They'll love it! At least, the producer did. The midgets were cheap, the script available for pennies -- mostly endless repetition of "He wants to be the biggest man in the county!" and the songs... well, they ain't Gershwin.

Has to be seen to be believed, and even then you won't.


I'm a sucker for midget movies. When I heard about this all midget western I had to run out and rent it. Don't make the same mistake! This movie is TERRIBLE. Who would think that a movie with such a ridiculous premise could be so boring. I can sit through just about anything, but this film is unwatchable. The 100% midget gag wears pretty thin after the first couple of minutes. The sound quality (on the copy I rented) was the worst I have ever heard. The only reason to watch this movie is to impress your buddies at parties with your knowledge of the obscure or bizzare. I recommend watching the first two minutes and then fast forwarding through the rest. Better yet, just skip the movie entirely and TELL people you've seen it. They won't know the difference and you won't be missing anything. If you want to see a movie with a heavy accent on midgets, do yourself a favor and go watch "Time Bandits" instead.


What can one say about a movie like this?I feel like I've been in a pillowfight,where all of the pillows were soaked in Ether.I can't believe anyone thought that this would be a good idea.Apparently some of those guys in Hollywood,drank too much wood alcohol during prohibition.I still can't believe I saw this.OK,imagine this,if you will:A Roy Roger's style western,complete with its stupid translucent plot line,extremely lame acting,pathetic special effects(assuming there are any),lousy stunts,silly slapstick comic relief,and horrific,lunatic singing.Now,shrink all of the characters down to 1/3 their normal size.And,Viola' you have,the Terror of Tinytown.Sort of a Roy Rogers on acid,if you will(or if you won't).Although, in all honesty, when I first saw the "cowboys" riding around on shetland ponies,I nearly busted a gut laughing so hard.But, other than that,its pretty much a waste of time.


Shirley's dad doesn't have the money to bet on a horse race so he puts up his daughter as collateral! Furthermore, nobody finds this particularly alarming. Shirley takes being abandoned by her father and living with seedy strangers pretty casually. It's supposed to be a charming comedy based on a Damon Runyan story, but the plot is not only boring but rather disturbing, and it's hardly worth a chuckle. Fortunately for both Menjou and Bickford, they would survive this and go on to make some fine films. Sadly, Dell, who plays the love interest of both Menjou and Bickford, died in an auto accident only a week after the film was released at age 19.


First of all, let me tell you I'm not a stranger to movies of the 30's. I love films of that era, I admire Katharine Hepburn and I truly consider Cary Grant as one of the greatest actors ever. These facts are the reasons why I was really interested in watching this movie, however these same facts don't give me the permission to excuse and admire every movie of the 30's I watch and find average (or in this case way below average!)

SPOILERS BELOW! Let's start from the script. What kind of a story is this? It seems to me that after the 3 leading characters are being introduced to us, the writers had absolutely no idea as to there the plot should turn to. So they try hard to write down whatever comes to their mind in a desperate effort to create a standard 80 minute long feature.

Some examples: 1) What is the reason why Sylvia cut her hair short and becomes Sylvester? Because her father tells her it is much easier for the authorities to trace an old man with a girl than if he was with a boy. So, what does she do? She cuts her hair...and every problem is solved, even if this means they are able to make it to another country with no papers of Sylvia as Sylvestro. A hair cut was enough.

2)How about Jimmy Monkley? He creates all the mess at the harbor just because he is carrying diamonds on his heels. As if there was a chance that when he opened his suitcase the diamonds would come out of his shoe. What about his second encounter with the Scarletts? He reveals them his secret takes out of his pocket a very large bundle of money and buys them out. And then, 5 minutes later, when they are in London, he is completely broke and so are they.

3) The affair between Henry Scarlett and Maudie. Without any clue, we suddenly watch Henry dreaming and yelling out Maudie's name as if he were her "beau", and when he wakes we suddenly realize by the way he is treating her, that he really is her boy. Completely ridiculous. We never saw not even one hint that something was going on between them until that dream sequence. And it is even more ridiculous considering the fact that Maude is slightly older than his daughter, who is a witness of all this the whole time.

4) Maude's disappearance. Maude didn't fit in the story. That was obvious. But making her disappear on a rainy night, without a further explanation on her whereabouts, is stupid.

5) Henry's death. Henry was a terribly written character. So as the plot evolved something had to be done with him. in order to give Scarlett the chance to end happily the story. So what do we do? We through him off a cliff, Scarlett mourns desperately (about 5 seconds) and 3 minutes later she is all full of nerve and joy chasing Cary Grant.

6) How about the Russian girl? We get convinced she loves desperately the painter, yet at the end of the movie she uses him only as an argument to persuade Jimmy on going to Paris. And how the hell did Sylvia come to the conclusion that she tried to kill herself by drowning? Did you notice anything I didn't? Just because she couldn't swim?

7)The painter (Michael Fane) is equally funny (in a bad way) as a character. He gave Sylvia his car cause he couldn't drive with a hurt finger? Lord have mercy! He loved the Russian girl, yet in 5 days he forgot her and came to be deeply in love with Sylvia dressed as a boy?

I could go on forever, but I've made my point. As I watched the movie more and more I had the idea that no one from the creative team really knew what they wanted to do. The characters are made from paper, their feelings and sentiments are completely absent (did Jimmy ever love Sylvia? One moment it seems so, 2 minutes later he runs away with the Russian girl), the dialogue is terrible (I recall the scene where Sylvester becomes Sylvia again and pays a visit to the painter and it gives me the creeps.) Never before have I seen such a terrible conversation. Remember guys, it's 1935 we're talking about, not 1925. The age of the movie is no excuse, 2 years later "The Awful Truth" would be filmed.. A final word about the direction. George Cukor has always been a great director, one of the best artists of his era. However, he also seems to be swept by the total stupidity of his material. At the final scene, the train stops exactly 1 second after the painter pulls the emergency break. And as if this weren't enough during this whole sequence, the outside background from the windows remains the same, as if no one from the crew ever noticed or cared for the fact that it was obvious the train was never moving.

I apologize for the size of the comment and I also apologize if some of you fellow lovers of the movies of the 30's find this comment embarrassing or disturbing..but this is truly my view on "Sylvia Scarlett". Thank you for your time.


Legendary flop from director George Cuckor and stars Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Edmund Gwenn concerns a young woman from Paris and her wily con-artist father taking it on the lam from police, eventually hitching up with a traveling vaudeville show with the girl disguised as a boy. Good-looking production based on Compton Mac Kenzie's book, but strident and shrill. Cuckor fails to modulate the scenes in a way that would endear these characters to the audience, and the resulting fiasco seems like an overly-quirky inside joke. Hepburn survives it with her sense of humor intact, but Grant is especially poor as a Cockney chap who gets involved with the sneaky twosome. A meandering, confounding misfire. *1/2 from ****


This film should have been a lot better, but so often the writing was filled with holes, the acting (especially with Ms. Hepburn and Mr. Gwen) overdone and excellent actors wasted (in the case of Cary Grant). While it is still watchable, this isn't exactly a glowing endorsement.

The film begins in France where Edmund Gwen informs his daughter (Hepburn) he's being sought by the police for embezzlement. So, they sneak away to Britain--with Hepburn dressed as a young man to divert suspicion. While not the most convincing boy, this was believable enough. However, there was really no discernible reason for her to continue being a boy during the rest of the film. Inexplicably, she stayed in costume until she later fell in love with a Bohemian artist.

On the trip to Britain, Hepburn and Gwen fall in with con-man Grant. And, despite it appearing that the film would be about their criminal gang, all the sudden they abandoned their evil ways and started traveling about the countryside performing little song and dance shows. Why? I have no idea--especially since they don't appear to have much talent.

Also during this time, Gwen gets married to a lady and spends much of the rest of his screen time overacting and pretty much making a fool of himself. Some of this was deliberate, but most of it was just lousy acting. And, when he wasn't blubbering and acting foolish, Hepburn was doing much the same! Grant, while not overacting, was pretty much a cipher--giving an amazingly muted and uninspiring performance. He was there, but that's really about it! The only decent scenes in the film occurred when Sylvia fell in love with the artist. Their scenes together might have been the basis for a good movie--too bad everything leading up to it was so sub-par. Overall, this is a slightly worse than average film but I expected so much more with the talent involved. Ms. Hepburn was a good actress, but better parts were still a few years ahead.


With all the talented people involved in this production, I don't know how it could've gone so terribly wrong. But it did.

There are many ludicrous aspects to the plot, and other reviewers were right in saying that the pacing is very choppy, with no clear indication of how much time has elapsed between events. I was irritated by the story, which is incredibly contrived and melodramatic. First, there's no real reason for Sylvia to start dressing like a boy - oh sure, the authorities will be less likely to spot her father if he's travelling with a "son". Riiight. But doesn't the old man have to provide identification when he crosses the border? Wouldn't they detain him then anyway? And wouldn't it make more sense for *him* to change his appearance/identity?

Sylvia sacrifices much in order to protect & help her father, including giving him the money her dead mother left her - not that he really appreciates the gesture - just takes it and resumes ordering her around. This guy is so unlikable and WEAK. He lets his kid take care of him and doesn't do a damn thing for her. Throughout the film we see him making bad decisions, and never really taking responsibility - and then the final cop-out (which I won't reveal). Somehow we're meant to sympathize (since Sylvia does), but it's impossible to feel sorry for a silly fool's grand gesture over a cheap floozy who's not attractive or interesting enough to inspire such passion in the first place. It's incomprehensible. Sylvia's character development also suffers, as it's difficult to understand why she loves her father so much when he never cared about *her* welfare. I guess we're supposed to accept the simplistic declaration that her character is Good and Pure of Heart. The true motivations of other characters, like Monkley (Cary Grant), are also fuzzy and unexplained.

Can the acting rise above such bad writing? Not really. Edmund Gwenn is fine as the father, but no fun to watch. Cary Grant does a good job (with little screen time and a role that's shallow, as written) playing a shady Cockney thief - very different from his typical cultured sophisticate role! But I don't think Katharine Hepburn did very well with her dual role. Honestly, she didn't seem terribly convincing as a girl, *or* as a boy! As the latter, she whoops and hollers and runs around, but to me, this makes her seem like a hyperactive child (of either sex), rather than specifically *male*. Ditto at the start of the film when she's still a girl - she's more demure and softspoken, but the high pitch of her voice mostly succeeds in conveying YOUTH, moreso than GENDER. Hepburn's physical acting is also rather superficial - dainty steps as a female (almost a parody of a girl's movements), and galloping leaps as a male. There's no subtlety.

When I hear that a movie flopped at the box office, like "Sylvia Scarlett" did, I want to support it, because I naturally root for the underdog (and besides, so many crappy movies are box office hits). I also thought this film might be ahead of it's time and have something smart to say about gender roles. Well, I found myself disappointed. "Sylvia Scarlett" is NOT an underrated gem. Sometimes, a flop is just a flop. And some films are better off forgotten.


I don't think I laughed once in this so-called comedy, that was phony from the start, with Katharine Hepburn's and Dennie Moore's bad accents, and the switch from con artists, running out of bad things to do, suddenly deciding to form a theatrical troupe. Out of the blue we see them in a bus-like conveyance with the name of their troupe painted on the sides. And Hepburn's disguise as a boy fools everyone in the film, but no one in the audience. The acting was pretty bad too, with Edmund Gwenn poorly acting drunk, angry and jealous - he's too calm and too articulate; Brian Aherne seemed to act too effeminate. The only actor who shined was Cary Grant, but I can't imagine anyone really liking this film in any case.


I'm a Cary Grant fan, and a Hepburn fan, and this film was a chore of 95 minutes to get through. Maybe the worst picture Grant and Hepburn have on their filmographies. Contrived, fake, talky, addled, unfocused, unbelievable, and annoying pretty much sum it up.

Grant was of course born and raised in England until his early teens but his cockney accent here drops in and out worse than Kevin Costner's in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. And he plays an unlikable cad too which just doesn't work for Cary Grant. None of the characters in this are likable in the least. And the film deviates badly between comedy and tragic melodrama.

And some of the scenes are just unbelievable. Grant and Hepburn find Edmund Gwenn dead on the rocks, and after a moment of mournful reflection just leave him there and go about their business? Then moments later Brian Aherne's girlfriend is drowning in the surf and is rescued by Hepburn and Edmund Gwenn's body is not seen or mentioned again.

But none are more unbelievable than Hepburn playing a boy. She's not convincing whatsoever and so often physically gives you a creepy Michael Jackson vibe.

This is one of the very worst films of the 30's.


Don (The Dragon) Wilson, Cynthia Rothrock, Sam J. Jones, Richard Norton, Chris Penn and James Russo are ultimately wasted in this failed cop drama which finds Wilson as a disgraced cop who ends up switching alliances to a mobster (Played well by Penn) after Wilson is out of work due to a mission that went awry and cost the life of one of his teammates. Redemption proves that Don Wilson is no longer the fierce martial artist that ruled the low budget martial arts scene in the Bloodfist movies, in fact Wilson has softened his approach and has tried to use his typically wooden presence to make the stretch as a corrupt cop. Wilson is somewhat effective in his performance although he ends up being too sympathetic and the movie needs an actor who isn't so goody-goody. Chris Penn and James Russo bring credibility to their performances and come off rather likable. The problem is that Penn and Russo have such little screen time that the movie has no impact outside of their sequences. Richard Norton, Cynthia Rothrock and Sam J. Jones are completely wasted in roles that could have been populated with wallpaper for all the affect they have. Plus there is hardly any martial arts fireworks one would expect from such an ensemble. Indeed one questions the approach taken with Redemption, since it aims for a police drama like Cop Land but ends up more like a hack version of clichés that repeat over and over again. The action sequences which would normally bail out the movie, are unexciting and stilted. Also the movie has a deadly dull subplot involving Wilson and a high class call girl which just consistently slows the movie down, movies like Redemption need first of all fleshed out characters and lots of screen time for the important characters to the plot, however because the movie treats the main story like an afterthought the movie fails on its own ambitions and satisfies no one in the process.

*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)


Given the glowing reviews for this movie, I am surprised at how much I disliked it. The movie has more than its share of glaring plot holes some reviewers warn against examining all plot elements too closely. This is an indulgence I will (reluctantly) respect since the movie, in my opinion, has a much more serious and grating problem.

What I found off-putting about the movie is that, except for Diane Venora's brief role as Bryan Brown's girlfriend, there is not a sympathetic character to be found anywhere. Brown's characterthe heart of the story after all-- starts off a likable "everyman." but becomes increasingly less so as the story proceeds until he devolves into a cold-blooded killer, indifferent to the carnage he is creating around him- not every federal agent has to die-- and corrupt, too. In the van chase scene, he is oblivious to the public menace he is causing in using his f/x tricks. (This could have been mitigated with a single line of dialog or a look of concern; but, never mind.) I wanted to like Martha Gehman's character as Brown's assistant, but she lost me with her gleeful "I wish I could have seen the look on his face" when she tricked the pursuing detective into thinking he had run over a woman. Finally, the transformation of Brian Dennehy's character into just another corrupt cop left me with a distinct sour taste at the end of the movie. After everything is said and done, for Brown and Dennehy it's all about the money. Even Schwarzenegger was never this cynical in his movies. The last thing that bothered me is that I always presumed movie special effects were to keep the actors safe. Since here they are used to kill, it seems like a betrayal of their purpose.

On the positive side, I had no problems with the casting or acting. Maybe things improved in f/x 2. I can only hope.


This film was made by the crown prince of gore and schlock, Hershell Gordon Lewis. It begins with some young people at a party. All of the sudden, one of the 'untamed youth' begins smashing things--at which point they all join in with the fun. What makes it rather strange is that some of them have knives and even hatchets!! Where did they hide them and what sort of folks bring hatchets?! This opening scene lasts about three times longer than it should and could have used a strong editing. Then, the credits roll along with some of the most nasal and annoying music I've heard in years. Tary Rebanar's voice is high-pitched and annoying enough to raise the dead!! Sadly, strains from his god-awful warbling came and went throughout the film.

Once the movie begins, you'll most likely notice how bad the sound is--like it's being filmed with a super 8mm movie camera. As for the acting, everyone seems to over-emote--even the band, whose guitarist and bass player appear to be having grand mal seizures. Really...you need to see them bouncing about to believe it. I am sure the king of subtle, Lewis, instructed them on the finer points of acting and style.

What follows are some poorly choreographed fights (I truly think Lewis just yelled out "okay, start breaking things" and let them wing it) and MORE destruction of rooms full of cheap furniture. And, like the first time, it seems to go on forever. You'd think these 'youth gone wild' would have gotten bored with this after a while, and so they do. For kicks, then, they fry a guy's hand on the stove, burn newspapers that sit right in front of the camera and smash apart a baby carriage. I especially loved the shot of the baby sitting in a trashcan--just looking at the punks as they did their thing. It was dumb but also kind of funny. Sadly, however, the film didn't stop there. It kept showing more and more and more of the same sort of thing--these kids beating up and humiliating adults time and time again. It really got old very quickly and just looked like padding and made up the bulk of the film. Acting and plot just didn't seem that important. Yet I was also left to wonder how they could do this so many times in broad daylight and yet the cops STILL couldn't figure out who these young whippersnappers were!!! And, considering how loud and obnoxious and noticeable the crazed kids were, you almost thought the cops in the film should have been played by Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder.

Finally, to break the monotony of the same old attacks again and again, a group of four nice girls are invited to one of the gang's parties and are drugged and raped. But, instead of this signaling a move to more serious crimes, in the next scene the gang literally goes out and beats up little children playing baseball. I know it was supposed to be shocking but I just thought the whole thing was incredibly silly. And, once again, the scene seemed to go on way too long. However, even though it's a horrible scene, just get a load of that old lady as she watches the attack! I loved her expressions--the type that make Edith Massey seem like a brilliant thespian.

Unfortunately, in addition to the old lady being a horrible actress, she also misidentifies who caused the problems--saying that an innocent kid was at fault for attacking an entire gang. And, the brain-addled police seem to think this is reasonable and arrest the boy. They ignore another more credible witness and don't even bother talking to the little kids! Hmm...it seems the police aren't really blind--just really, really stupid! In the following scene, by the way, you learn what else the vicious gang likes to do for fun. They play bumper pool!!! So, as the gang play, the innocent guy who was just arrested comes into the room full of these clean-cut looking thugs and threatens them!!! What part of stupid didn't this guy understand?! He has just shown that he's dumb enough to join this town's police force. Yet, oddly, we see no beat-down--just the gang enjoying six packs of everyone's favorite beverage, Carling Black Label (could they have perhaps been a sponsor!?). What happened to the dumb guy who just threatened to kill them (and without a gun or tank or even backup to help)?! What follows instead is a rape scene that showed a lot more than I'd assumed they could get away with back in 1968.

However, apparently the gang didn't forget about the dumb guy and you see them about to exact their revenge. In the very next scene, his girlfriend calls the cops to report the threatening phone calls she got and they respond that there's nothing they can do(?). I think the Keystone Kops would have been an improvement over the police in this goofy town. What follows are more sexual assaults and mayhem until finally, finally the gang is finally stopped in a weird scene where a bike just explodes for no reason.

This film, with a few exceptions here and there, managed to make gang violence rather boring. Too many scenes should have been shortened, there were too many attacks and not enough story. All in all, the violence just got old and dull very quickly and the story never made sense as people cannot be THAT dumb! While this is a terrible film in almost every way, for Hershell Gordon Lewis this is NOT among his worst films. No, for that you might want to try MONSTER A GO-GO and THIS STUFF'LL KILL YA. Believe it or not, however, Lewis did make one low-budget films that didn't completely suck--the surprisingly good TWO THOUSAND MANIACS. This proves that if you try hard enough, you're bound to get lucky once.


"Just for the Hell of It" isn't exactly the cinematic masterpiece Herschell Gordon Lewis will be remembered for. Lewis made himself immortal among horror/cult cinema fanatics as "The Godfather of Gore"; a nickname he earned because he was the first one to direct horror movies where blood, guts and gore literally burst from the screen. Movies like "Blood Feast", "Two-Thousand Maniacs", "The Gore Gore Girls" and "The Gruesome Twosome" truly represent HG Lewis' repertoire and lifework, whereas "Just for the Hell of it" is merely just a rapidly produced and nonchalantly elaborated story to cash in on the contemporary popular trend of juvenile delinquency thrillers. There's no actual story and particularly the first full hour of the film feels like a compilation episode of "America's Funniest Home Videos: The Bad Kids Edition". It's basically just a series of amateurishly edited together clips showing a gang of youthful thugs pulling pranks and committing petty crimes in their area. At first their pranks are quite pitiable and laughable (wetting people with a garden hose, smearing pies in a salesgirl's face) but they gradually turn into harsh crimes and near the end of the film they even turned to gang-rape and murder. The gang members refer to themselves as "Destruction Inc" which is quite the apt name since they surely like to break all kinds of stuff, varying from people's mailboxes, living rooms, snack bars, boats and even baby-carriages. The "plot" only just starts to unfold itself after an hour into the film, when a courageous boy stands up against the vicious gang but then gets falsely accused, threatened and targeted for vengeance. Moral of the story: look the other way when violence is being committed near you! "Just for the Hell of it" is an okay film if you're into cheap and extremely low-budgeted 60's exploitation, but it definitely contains too many overlong sequences of padding and repetitiveness. It's just plain boring to watch a bunch of people demolish all the furniture in one and the same room for five whole minutes. The acting performances are below par, as to be expected from this type of poverty row film production, but it's nevertheless quite funny how these "juvenile" delinquents are depicted by actors and actresses who're all at least in their late twenties. The gangs' last crime on the beach and particularly the denouement form the undeniable highlights of "Just for the Hell of it" because these sequences are shocking and vile, and the use of make-up effects in these scenes finally state clear that you're watching a H.G Lewis' flick! The theme song is also very exhilarating and catchy, so I'll give an extra point for that as well.


I rented this film on DVD, as part of a double feature. Netflix packages lots of their classic films, on DVD this way. In addition to the feature films, the DVD also included some extra film clips. Some of the extras were fun to watch, especially the old Drive-in Intermission clips. They sure brought back fond memories, of trips to the Drive-in during my childhood days.

Just For The Hell Of It, was little more than a melodramatic yarn about violent, delinquent teens. This film stood-out from others of it's kind, by portraying the teen violence as particularly vicious. There was even a scene where a toddler was snatched from it's carriage, and put in a garbage can, by one of the teens. The incredible mayhem that these teens indulge in, is way beyond youthful hijinks.

It's obvious that the producers of this movie, were trying to shock the sensibilities of the older generation in the 60s. Seems like back then, the under-30 crowd were forever keeping their elders bewildered. But very few young people, were actually as brutal back then, as they're portrayed to be in this movie. So the premise of the film, really stretches the bounds of credibility. This movie doesn't even work as a campy film. It's just too grisly, and lacks any real element of humor at all. Only those who like gory slasher films, might enjoy this movie.


Oh, those terrible kids. I was their age at the time of this film and I am ashamed that this is the best example of juvenile delinquency Lewis can muster.

"Terrorizing" old ladies by burning newspapers in her yard and spraying her with a hose? This is terrible. Give them the chair. Taking a cane from a blind man and crutches from an injured old man. Oh how horrible! Putting a toddler in a trash can while they wreck the stroller. Big men! These were just wimps. tearing up a newspaper. Oh, come on.

There were some rapes (not that you would see anything), and ultimately a murder, they were scum, but so is this picture.


What possesses someone to make such a f**ked up piece of crap? I LOVE bad movies, but I have truly seen hell on film & this is it. This gets my worst rating. Tormenting blind people & babies, beating up little kids, breaking into women's homes & raping them, oh that's real entertainment! Even worse than the fact the film was made is that Something Wierd just put it out on a double feature DVD. I don't get it.


If you haven't read the novella on which this piece of garbage was based, do yourself a favour - read it and don't bother wasting your time with this pile of manure movie. There have been so many changes to the original short story that it is almost unrecognisable. Yes, the most basic and essential elements of the story are still there, but only the bones. The meat of the story, that which gives it it's real punch, is more or less totally missing, but that is what gives the story its bite. In the original, the hero is a much older man and we can sympathise with his bad back, his dodgy knees, his blistered palms and the derision of his road-crew workmates as he searches for revenge for his murdered wife. In the original, Dolan is a real godfather-type gangster figure, sharp-suited and silver-haired, who thinks himself invincible and impregnable. To change these characters into younger, sleeker versions makes a mockery of the poignant heart of the story.

Read the book. Don't watch this. It's rubbish.


This is really hard for me to do,as Christian Slater is my favourite actor,but this movie was,well terrible.

As well as being a Slater fan,i also like Stephen King,but this really disappoints,It starts off with Jimmy Dolan killing a couple of immigrant's,as he is a trafficker and burying them alive in the Nevada desert,whilst being watched by a school teacher played by Emmanuele Vaugier(check spelling),so Dolan order's her death,she is put into protective custody along with her partner,Wes Bentley,she ends up dead and Bentley goes on the hunt for revenge,he has numerous opportunities but fails to take them,the same being said for Slater,who also has the opportunity to get rid of Bentley,but makes a mistake by not doing so.

I only gave it a 3 because Slaters performance was good enough,but i'm sorry to all Wes Bentley fans,as i get angry when people slag Slater,but this guy really can't act,the last 10 minutes of the film,he gets a pass from me,but up until then,he is like a lump of wood,again,i apologise for being negative about him,but in this movie,he deserves it.

I beg you not to watch this,even if your a Slater fan.


I do not want to get into too much detail about this movie, as it does not deserve that much time, however I do want to say this; THIS MOVIE SUCKS! Personally, I like Christian Slater and Wes Bentley but nothing could save this movie from the dreadful screen adaptation and directing. The movies first 30 minutes were so bad that I would not even give it the honor of having B movie status and the rest was so poorly acted due to the directing that you just wanted to shut the thing off. This movie will never make it to the big screen in the US, nor will most foreign markets entertain such horribly bad film making. The story was written by Stephen King and is a decent short story but about revenge but the only revenge should be on the audience wanting an hour and a half of their life back. (Important: Some movies are bad because the actors are bad, in this case the actors are bad because of the directing and not due to lack of skill.)


yes slater played in very bad things, but the very bad thing is this movie. probably the worst flick straight to DVD I've seen in awhile. bad script, bad acting and bad directing. i don't recommend this summer failure not even to my worst enemy. i give him three stars for my favorite actor, Christian slater, who can do best, i know that. I'm going to read the novel so i can see if Stephen king really gone stupid or what? the man that wrote the shining, shaw shank redemption, misery is now stuck in a horrible flick like Dolan's Cadillac? i don't think so, maybe the novel it's far way better than this very bad film...by points, i can say some causes for this failure: 1. the script it's very lame 2. the characters are so poor and their background lacks in every aspect 3. the casting it's also uninspired 4. Wes Bentley 5. the directing looks like the work of a blind man, not Stevie wonder, cause he's a genius...


10 lines? this is going to be tough this is cheap rubbish boring predictable not worth going out of your way to watch skip it you will not regret not watching this movie i persevered till the death like i always do no excitement at all who cares! you don't give a **** what happens anyone in this AVOID!10 lines? this is going to be tough this is cheap rubbish boring predictable not worth going out of your way to watch skip it you will not regret not watching this movie i persevered till the death like i always do no excitement at all who cares! you don't give a **** what happens anyone in this AVOID!10 lines? this is going to be tough this is cheap rubbish boring predictable not worth going out of your way to watch skip it you will not regret not watching this movie i persevered till the death like i always do no excitement at all who cares! you don't give a **** what happens anyone in this AVOID!


After the Big Fat Greek wedding (that I liked), this was awful... got the feeling that the Greek tourist agency paid a lot to 'force' them to make this movie..... resulting in this uninspired 'movie'..... in fact I would not call this a real movie.... it's more a far too long commercial for Greece...... but it's worse than that because you get a strange impression of the country and I can't imagine that the Greek tourist agency had this intention... what a waste of time an energy....... I was expecting a feel-good movie of the BFG-Wedding caliber....... maybe that was the reason that this was disappointing.... after the BFGW which was simply very good this could only be worse


Sometimes, as in the case of actress/writer Nia Vardalos, it pays to have good friends such as Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson. They were instrumental in backing her projects, that paid big, as was the case with "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", which the actress wrote and starred in 2002. Alas, not having any doubts about her hidden talents, her latest film will not add anything to her resume.

"My Life in Ruins", directed by Daniel Petrie, is a movie full of clichés. Written for the screen by Mike Reiss, who has worked a lot on television. This film is a rehash of other movies that capitalized on being travelogues where the action is placed as an after thought. Usually, the plot involves different characters from different walks of life, sharing some moments in a bus, a train, or a jet liner, where the scenery is more important than what is happening within the film.

We are grateful we watched the film on a flight and didn't have to pay. This film is full of stereotypes with a minimum amount of laughs. Curiously, some of the exteriors that appear in the film are actually of sunny Spain instead of the Greek locations one assumed were used.


It is a romantic comedy that is not that funny and not that romantic.

The romantic couple never interacted that much early in the movie to dislike each other or to later fall in love. The secondary characters were generally obnoxious, which was the writers intent, but I never grew to like them. A dysfunctional family that stayed dysfunctional to the end. And two horny divorcées would not end up with Richard Dryfuss. There is nothing endearing about an old lady that steals constantly. It makes American's look bad. The premise that the owner of the company would make some of her customers miserable on purpose did not make sense. I just tolerated the movie because it was snowing.


This is a really horrible movie, it's too bad, it's awful. It's a senseless combination of racist and sexist clichés, along with stupid touristic stereotypes and silly, dated puns (the jokes are so crude, so banal, that it's impossible even to have a good laugh) that can only disgust. I wonder why this film was a box office hit in Greece, where I live, since it is such a terrible, anachronistic insult to the country and its people. The direction is mediocre, the actors are worse and the plot is pure trash. It is so ridiculous, so irrelevant to the actual problems of this country, it is a movie that I'd rather forget. Nia Vardalos' "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" was a pleasant comedy, nothing special but at least there were some successful puns and originality. This film works on the same pattern without any imagination, without any respect to the viewer and, furthermore, it's very long and boring.


OK, I admit that I only made it through the first half hour. After that, i could not take this anymore so I had to shut it off. It was that bad. Bottom line here is that if you want to see bad puns about being an American or Australian in Europe...this is the movie for you. If not, the best thing that you can do is run for cover. I am WAY tired of people making films that bash America and Americans and then send them over here to make money. Also...somebody in this movie should have had her big fat Greek wedding and then hung it up. Hey lady...you are Greek we all know it...and we are over it. Move on! Bottom line for all of you is that this movie is not going to make the grade.


First off, Nia needs to lay off so much makeup. That's mostly what I was noticing, and our TV is not that big. With the new HD and digital technology no amount of makeup is going to erase the fact that you are not 25 anymore. Move on. That aside, this has to be one of the most disappointing movies ever. The premise is okay and some parts were not too bad: Over-qualified fish out of water story, and "girl" meets the man of her dreams, but there were so many clichés and stereotyping I was cringing within minutes. Was any of that really necessary? Or the fact that within 4 days a group of strangers becomes a family. That can happen, but the sudden turn-around of a few of the characters was not believable. And the sub-plots were contrived. I knew immediately that Dreyfuss had lost his wife, and I even got the plot that he would not only be the one who makes our heroine See the Day, but will have some minor disaster strike him. Please. This could have been SO much more.


The clichés come fast and furious in this superficial 2009 comedy that fails to deliver anything close to wit or insight beyond the level of a Hallmark greeting card. In what amounts to be a sitcom remake of 1969's "If It's Tuesday, It Must Be Belgium", a farce that depicted the whirlwind antics of an American tour group in Europe, this film is even more dependent on stock characters and situations that appear transported from an Eisenhower-era story. Seven years after her unexpected success with "My Big, Fat Greek Wedding", star Nia Vardalos looks slimmer and more glamorous than she did in her debut, yet she portrays almost the same self-defeating character as Georgia, a history professor who came to Greece to teach but ends up leading tourists around its ancient ruins. Disappointed with the cards life has dealt to her, she is uptight about her job much to the consternation of her group who want only to have fun rather than an education on ancient Greece.

Directed by Donald Petrie ("Miss Congeniality") and written by Mike Reiss (episodes of "The Simpsons") in an extremely slapdash fashion, the story focuses on how Georgia has lost her passion for life (called "kefi" in Greek) and how it takes the motley tour group and her attraction to a studly bus driver named Poupi to rediscover it. Vardalos is a likable presence, but her screen persona is getting redundant as her depiction of an everywoman becomes less credible with her every appearance. Richard Dreyfuss is really slumming here as an avuncular Jewish widow named Irv who acts as Georgia's wizened counselor in love and life. Yet, his Oscar-winning chops at least make his stereotype less offensive and brain-draining than the other actors, in particular, Harland Williams and Rachel Dratch as a mouthy American couple. As Poupi, hunky Greek actor Alexis Georgoulis looks initially like Grizzly Adams, but love transforms him into smoldering eye candy as the movie progresses, which is really the whole point of his role. Rita Wilson shows up in a sentimental cameo as Irv's deceased wife since she and husband Tom Hanks served as executive producers (same as they did with "My Big, Fat Greek Wedding").

With cinematography by frequent Pedro Almodóvar collaborator José Luis Alcaine, the Greek locations are refreshing, even though the environs around Valencia, Spain, apparently doubled for much of the country. The 2009 DVD oddly offers three separate commentary tracks from Vardalos, Petrie and Reiss. Vardalos' track is charming but marred by long pauses since she seems to miss someone prompting her to speak, while Petrie's is understandably more technical in nature. Surprisingly, the most entertaining commentary is provided by Reiss, a genuine comedy writer who convinces us that the story is based on his real-life experiences as part of a tour group. There are twelve minutes worth of deleted and alternate scenes, including an excisable alternate ending, and a comic three-minute featurette, "Everybody Loves Poupi", that Petrie created by re-editing some of the footage. Even though Vardalos is not at the helm this time (unlike the far more execrable "I Hate Valentine's Day" released a month later), I have a feeling that she has more talent than this movie allows her to display.


Georgia (Nia Vardalos) is an American living in Greece and working as a tour guide. She hates her job, thinks all tourists are idiots, and is sick of Greece, too. But on her next four-day trip everything will change for the better, thanks to the quirky members of her tour and her moody bus driver.

This movie had so much potential but is really terrible. It's neither funny nor romantic and the dopey cast is always blocking our view of beautiful Greece. The plot is a lackluster rip-off of the very funny "If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium" but lacks its charm and good script. Vardalos' self-deprecating character that was so witty in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" is just tedious here, making her transformation at the end ridiculously far-fetched. The tourists are have corny one-dimensional personalities and are uniformly over-the-top. Veteran actor Richard Dreyfuss plays the stereotypical saintly old man who turns Georgia's life around by urging her to find her "spirit." I was fascinated that he looked so much like Eli Wallach but he was such a know-it-all that I couldn't stand him. Rachel Dratch is also extremely grating as a fellow passenger on the Bus of Fools and there's nothing appealing about Alexis Georgoulis who plays the object of Georgia's affection. The plot is so predictable, it's insulting.

Stick with "If It's Tuesday" for a genuinely funny look at the trials of the guided bus tour. I gave the movie two stars for the lovely scenery.


I was not expecting this film to be great art, but this was dreadful.It was really the worst film I have seen in a long time. The plot was entirely predictable and very tired and the acting was really poor - hammy and crude. It also appeared to lose its nerve part way through and introduced much darker notes which were completely out of place in what was a farce. Yes, it had the very occasional laughs, but very few indeed. We went to see it partly because we had just returned from a delightful holiday in Greece and wanted to be reminded of happy experiences. Well, we did see some familiar and spectacular ancient sites and scenery, but that was all. Do not waste your time on this.


Well actually you couldn't fix the movie, even if you tried. Even Richard Dreyfuss, who almost saves this mess, can't help it. He is the only revelation here. And with his appearance here and (especially) on "W", he seems to be back! I can only hope so, because he hasn't lost his touch and I haven't looked into the reasons why he suddenly disappeared from the big screen.

I could go on and on, about Richard D., which would be a fun thing. But I have to write about this movie too. On the one hand, I'm happy when I read a review, where the user states, he wants to visit Greece after watching the movie. Fact is though, that Ms. Vardalos can't act, even if her life depended on it. It sounds harsh and I don't like saying that, but even as she is from Greece and lives in a foreign country like myself (me being in Germany), it just is the Truth.

There are two moments in the movie, where she's being told that she's not funny. The voices of reason, one might think, but she still tries and fails. Every character in this is so cliché, it hurts (physically)! The jokes are so bad and predictable (flowers, elevator, bed, T-Shirt, bus etc. etc.), that every viewing should come with some pain pills ... Sleeping pills won't be necessary, unless you really have a sleeping disorder, you will be able to sleep through once the pain stops....

Don't even get me started on morality issues, on career choices and other things that get vandalized here. But I have to admit that I almost envy the people who watched this and enjoyed it ... I seriously can't tell you how they did it? Maybe it was their first "romantic comedy". It's strange giving this movie those "attributes" ... but then again that's the disguise it does wear and tries to tick off every box there is ... but that doesn't really help ... not at all!


one of the worst flicks ever made for TV. her acting is atrocious. she is a real creep. watching this mess is like having a tooth pulled without Novocaine. why this ever was put on DVD is beyond me. this horror should have sunk in the swamp waste along with the leeches and snakes. i blew a buck on this mess and trashed it promptly. what a waste of a buck. fields is one person that cannot act. her looks are a retina burning eyesore. why indeed would carradine even think of acting along with her. he was the only redeeming feature in the whole movie. the story line was weak; the plot , silly and the VHS tape it was taken from was a horror in itself. wish i could take all the copies that exit and destroy them. what a blessing for the world!


This is the third and final film in Baum's personally produced Oz trilogy of 1914. The three pictures are all essentially the same childishness, with magic, a journey and animal costumes. The camera-work and pacing is static and primitive even by 1914 standards while the performers are quite the opposite, both of which can get annoying and boring. We get poor framing, from a generally stationary position, and the shots linger on much longer than they should, while the performers, except for the literally cold-hearted princess, are in constant motion, mostly broadly gesticulating and doing some knockabout nonsense. Most of it has nothing to do with anything imaginative or with adventure, and I don't see how it could be humorous to anyone but a child. There is some trick photography, but nothing new; in fact, these tricks (superimpositions, stop substitutions, a fish tank between characters and the camera to represent being under the sea, a tilted camera to make them appear to be going up and down stream) had been in use for near a decade or more even by then. At least, the makers of this Oz trilogy put some care and energy, albeit a nauseating excess of it, in front of the camera although not behind it.

I wonder how popular these films were, although, apparently, they weren't popular enough because Baum's production company was short lived. There doesn't seem to have been many movies back then which were so specifically targeted at children. The industry at the time, which was even before 'The Birth of a Nation' (1915), was still struggling even to attract middle and upper class women to theatres. Times have certainly changed.


I cannot believe that anyone could have payed money to see this movie. The repulsive acting from everyone (including Mme. Rene) was unbelievably horrible. First of all, the movie was rated PG but really should have been rated NC-17 because of the wardrobe malfunctions in the scene where Isabelle Lorca is sitting with her mother and stepfather in the dining room table and storms off. Maybe these producers didn't even have enough money to buy their characters bras, but then couldn't she have gotten a non-see-through shirt? It was absolutely disgusting. The whole movie, the obvious horse changes, the obvious terrible stunt changes, and the strange song made the movie impossible to watch. After seeing this sucker, my friends and I decided to make fun of it, which is really the only purpose that this movie could have possibly been made for. Also the actors looked like they had been chosen off the street. Lucas Mitchell and Stephanie Ward were positively the most ugly people who could have been in this movie. Talk about a small budget. I feel so bad for Mikey Rooney because he was in this terrible (I don't know if you could even call it a movie) movie. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE unless you have a garbage can near you to throw up in.


And I've seen some bad ones. Aside from the dialog being hokey, the plot being full of holes, the acting was stiff and unreal... I don't even know where to start. I was particularly amused at the fact that the main 'stallion' was portrayed by at least 4 different horses that were not even the same color (watchers can thrill to the feeling of the magical color changing horse!) Yes, the base color was always white, but did they really think we were dumb enough to mistake a 17+ hand warmblood dark dapple grey, a cremello pony (who I believe was a mare) a fleabitten grey horse, and a cream horse as all the same animal??? And the cut scenes were horrible. Were they supposed to show tension? action? I was confused as they showed several different horses and riders, all supposedly the same horse! The riders were wearing different color clothes! The main girl couldn't ride, her 'trainer' couldn't ride, and I'm almost ashamed of Mickey Rooney for being in this stinker! He must have needed the money badly. Avoid this one. If you want to see an uplifting horse movie, go rent Sylvester.


I give this movie a 4 of ten and I'm being pretty generous. This was done to capitalize on the success of the Black Stallion movies and series with Mickey Rooney. Unfortunately its just not very good. Isabel Lorca is gorgeous girl but she couldn't act her way out of a paper sack! Rooney is OK, but he plot is really poorly thought out. Very little of this movie feels real, it feels like play someone was staging on Saturday afternoon. The most believable moments are between Stephanie (Lorca) and her boyfriend on the bus! Even the climax feels contrived and manipulative. If your'e looking for a decent family flick for a rainy afternoon, you could do worse, but not by much.

Oddly rated "pg" for some profanity and adult situations that seem rather at odds with the rest of the film.


Probably the worst movie I've ever seen, and, having seen many movies from all different times and genres, this is a big insult. First of all, Isabel Lorca's incredibly bad French accent makes it very hard to understand what she is saying, and terrible performances by all of the actors. Also, the editing is the worst in the world. There are about 500 obvious switches of the horse, from albinos, to Arabians, dapple grays, etc. Plus, what was with the song? "You're the Lightning in my eyes, you lift me up, you bring me high!!" Also, the stunt doubles that they got were very bad. She looked like her neck was snapping back, especially when she was jumping for Mme. Rene. Also, the plot with her stepfather was completely ridiculous, as was her going blind, since both those plots went absolutely NOWHERE!!! It was as though someone got to lazy too shoot the rest of the movie. Plus, Lucas Mitchell was very ugly. Just a note. Mickey Rooney must have been in a very bad place to do this movie. DO NOT SEE IT! Unless you want to mock it, like me and my friends, in which case go right ahead, and rent it for a long time, since you'll want to watch it over and over again, you'll be laughing so hard at it! And I will agree with auwhite that it was indeed very disturbing when, let's just say, certain aspects of her wardrobe were missing, and that part of her body was sticking right out in front of the camera. (GROSS!)


Since roughly half the voters gave this a 10, I wonder why none of them cared to comment on the film. Question to those 10ers - If this is a 10, what do you give Douglas Fairbanks' "The Iron Mask" or his "The Three Musketeers"? 20's? What gives?

To all those not familiar with Silent Films - do NOT let this ranking fool you into believing that this is among the better Silents and lead you into dismissing this Genre! "Sunrise"(1927) has one of the most amazing tracking shot. "Der letzter Mann" aka "The Last Laugh" (1924) is an incisive glimpse into human character as is "Greed" (1924). Remember most of Chaplin's films were silent!

Also, I noted that more than half of those commenting (me included) rated this well below the median. Take a peek at the voting breakdown and notice the "bell curve". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where 300 "extra" votes went.

As a period love story, this may be worth watching. To the 10ers - you should take in "Love Story" (1970).


Car Wash seems to have been an idea for a hit soundtrack first, the movie was an after-thought. The story concerns a bunch of different characters who work at an LA car wash. The problem is there are way too many characters. By the time you can finally remember all of their names, the movie is over. And, unfortunately, most of the "comic" situations they encounter aren't at all funny. Richard Pryor appears in a glorified cameo but his comic talents aren't used at all. Only the final scene of the film in which Lonnie tries to stop Abdula from robbing the shop had me interested. Otherwise the film is as cluttered and messy as dead flies on a windshield.


This is just an awful movie. Really, there is no substance and if there is a plot it is well hidden. It is rated as a comedy but I failed to find any funny parts. If your kids bring home bad marks on their report cards, they should be made to watch this film as punishment.

mz4392


Nothing in film upsets me more than a dumbed-down, cheesed-up remake of a truly great work of art.

I cannot understand what would possess anyone to commit such an atrocity, and I cannot recommend that anyone waste their time on this piece of trash when they could instead be watching the original, "Wings of Desire" (1987), and its sequel. The remake may employ better-known actors, but it adds nothing of merit while stripping away most of the original's emotional depth.

Had I not first seen the vastly superior original, I might have enjoyed this movie enough to sit through more than the first half and give it 4/10 stars.


Wim Wender's spectacular "Wings of Desire" was made into an unintentional parody by Brad Silberling. As his second film, he had the extremely difficult task of making an exceptionally well received German film into a palatable form for American audiences. Well, he blew it. Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan were not properly cast. Making her a cardio-thoracic surgeon (a heart doctor) is totally assinine and to be exceptionally beautiful on top of that? Yeah, right. What was Silberling thinking? Lord only knows but I have to say. Forget this one. It is a clunker beyond belief.


I've watched "Wings of Desire" and "Faraway, so close" two or three times -yes, I LOVE those movies. In my opinion, "City of Angels" is a bad copy of "Wings...", a bad copy between the obvious and the disrespectful.

First, the acting -all you have to do to be an angel is lift your eyebrows (as Nick Cage enjoys doing the whole movie). He wanders through the film looking as if he's about to cry; he's no angel, just a good-looking guy trying to play the innocent-and-loving character. Meg Ryan -well, why bother? She's the standard actress for this kind of romantic journeys -maybe because she always performs the same way.

Then, the photography. No spoiler here: remember when Cage and his angelical companion Cassiel, standing on a skyscraper, mention the beauty of the view -which we are carried to see; and there, all over the screen, stands this awfully big Marlboro ad. Oh, how lovely! Also, those unavoidable pieces of every simplistic romance movie: the "character ponders it over" with its score of incidental music, and the "great slow-mo" moment of ecstasy.

And last, the plot. Plenty of cliches ("love conquers all", "the wages of sin is death", "the materialistic who starts to believe again"...), absolutely predictable, flat characters, clumsy lines. Love is far more complex than this -and so is death.

Looking at this picture I ask: why is it that nobody thinks of re-writing "Romeo and Juliet" or repainting Van Gogh's "The sunflowers", but everybody thinks it right to remake "Psycho" or "Wings of Desire"?

Look for the best-seller: "How to spoil a classic: The Movie!"


... right, a weak film with a weak plot. I love "Der Himmel über Berlin" (Wings of Desire) but I always felt that the plot was very weak compared to the emotions and the art in the film. I thought, City of Angels might have improved on the plot aspect so I was intrigued to see what they came up with. Well, they did improve on the plot but in the mean time they managed to get rid of everything that touched me in "Wings".

The nice little stories of the humans they are watching and also the dialogs between Cassiel and Seth were completely dumbed down. The former angel who tells Seth to become human is some kind of gluttonous hedonist and stuffs Ben&Jerry's inside of him instead of enjoying a simple cup of coffee. And I almost burst out laughing when Seth said "red... COLOR" after he became human even though the whole film was shot in color and nothing hinted that he couldn't see colors.

I'll stop lamenting now! Go, see the original and NOT for the plot!


** spoilers** Yikes.. what a piece of mush. Elevating the original event that much more aloft. Good old Nick's got that sad eye look on his face and Ryan acts like a dingbat here. Gives me the chills.

And the angels stands on top like statues or batman on top of the towers.

this reminds me that almost (85-90%) every modern (post 70's) Hollywood film have a very similar style in pacing and editing. It's as if the director/editor came from the same school. The story and the characters moves along like a bell curve to the 3 revolving doors ending : tame, lame or happy.

I had this at 6/10 .. but what was I thinking. Go see the original.